The American departure from the insane Paris climate treaty has made the behavior of many extreme leftists extraordinary. After Donald Trump was accused of being a servant of Russia – in the absence of a glimpse of evidence – our EU overlords kindly informed us that the U.S. is no longer a good friend and we the Europeans are obliged to befriend China, India, and Russia instead.



Just imagine it, after a long time when Trump was demonized for the possibility that he could have met a Russian citizen in a coffee shop sometime in his life, the likes of Juncker instantly jump into bed and sleep with all the King Kings, Ping Pongs, Ivaňuškas, Natašas, and Bollywoods in it.



Also, Willie Soon sent me a story



The USA, created by int'l community in Treaty of Paris in 1783, betrays int'l community by withdrawing from #parisclimateagreement today — Joyce E. Chaplin (@JoyceChaplin1) June 1, 2017

which I find rather incredible. It's all about this tweet:Well, Ms Joyce Chaplin isn't just an extreme leftist. She's been also hired by Harvard University as an expert in the early American history, probably because she doesn't even know when the U.S. was created. Cruz has mocked her, The Weekly Standard has mocked her, The American Thinker did it as well, and she deserves some words from me, too. Well, when it comes to the history – and the very basic mechanisms that make the human society operate – she is just an absolute and hopeless crackpot. First of all, as every intelligent kid knows, the United States of America were born in 1776, not in 1783. Well, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, a negative anniversary of the discovery of the Higgs boson. That's also the date when I left the U.S. 5 years before the Higgs boson discovery – it's because the Americans were more afraid of a terrorist attack on the Independence Day so brave Czechs like me had to pick the remaining air tickets for that day. She shouldn't have been allowed to complete the high school if she can't give the correct answer to this rudimentary question.But it gets worse: the number isn't the most serious mistake.The U.S. wasn't guaranteed to survive in 1776 but now in 2017, it still seems that the U.S. did survive since 1776. Because it's the surviving country on that territory, it's this country whose documents held. The Declaration of Independence was never abolished by those who actually controlled the political power on that territory since 1776 and this document says that the U.S. was created in 1776. It follows that it was created in 1776.There were conflicts whose goal was to defend the new country, the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Well, up to 1776, it was fought by colonists who wanted the independence. Since 1776, because of the official document, this war was fought by the United States of America, a new country with the ambition to survive – which ultimately succeeded to do so. The history is written by the winners and the winners wrote the declaration and reminded us that it has been valid since 1776.The year 1783 was just the end of this war thanks to the Treaty of Paris . It's something completely different than the creation of the United States of America.In the Treaty of Paris, America and Britain were the only countries that signed it. Great Britain simply acknowledged that it had lost the control on the ground – after a defeat at Yorktown in Virginia (where the French fought on the winning side), as the experts know. It made no sense for Great Britain to oppose the desires of the Americans any longer. So Great Britain accepted the independence of the U.S., tried to secure the border between the U.S. and the British territories (basically Eastern Canada), and they tried to settle possible disputes about fishing, debts, individual real estate ownership. Prisoners of wars were exchanged, Britain expected to share a permanent access to the Mississippi River, Americans could no longer grab new territories, and ratification was ordered within 6 months.Well, I am afraid that the U.S. has violated some of the rules since that time but it's not primarily my problem.But the other thing that's spectacular about Chaplin's tweet is the claim that it was the "international community" that established the U.S. in 1783. Which community? It was simply a peace between two sides, the Great Britain and the new United States of America. A bilateral treaty. And by the way, it was only effective from May 1784 after the ratification so even if one accepted all her wrong assumptions, the right date would be 1784.Aside from this treaty the Peace of Paris was established, too. France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic (a funny name: the Netherlands was reverted from a republic to a kingdom later, just to make you sure that it's possible to go in this unusual direction) which have solved some disputes among the countries in both Americas.But the addition of the French, Spaniards, and Dutchmen had little to do with the U.S. per se. And even if you included them among the "creators of the U.S.", it was just five countries, not the "international community". My magnificent and large homeland, namely the Austrian Empire ;-), wasn't participating. Neither was Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Ottoman Empire, Portugal, states in Italy, Sweden, Denmark-Norway, and indeed, all the fragmented German states, among many others, not to mention everyone else outside Europe.So the international community? What the hell are you talking about? There was no international community in the sense of the U.N. back in 1783. Moreover, during the revolutionary war, the Netherlands, Spain, and even France were largely standing on the British side. They had to support the Treaty of Paris basically because they were defeated by the U.S. as well! It's that simple. It was the force and effective management of the war – and easier access to the relevant territories – that made the independent Americans win.Now, the next point in the tweet that managed to compress so much breathtaking stupidity into 140 characters is that the U.S. should be grateful to the "international community" that created the U.S. in 1783. OK, so let's assume that the U.S. was created in 1783, even though it wasn't, that there existed the international community, even though there was none, and that the U.S. was created by this international community, although it wasn't. Should it be repaying the debt? Well, not at all. Just read the damn 1783 treaties. There is nothing about some extra debt that the U.S. should repay 250 years from now, especially not some "debt" involving carbon indulgences that some psychopaths start to talk about in the late 20th century. If you wanted such CO2 and similar commitments from George Washington, Mr Chaplin, you should have been born in the mid 18th century. Well, believe me, they would have dealt with you more assertively than we do today.So the idea that the U.S. should be repaying this debt to the "international community" is totally indefensible by a single sentence in any document, any law, or even habits.OK, assume that the U.S. was created in 1783; by the international community; and it should feel obliged to repay the debt. What does it mean? Well, there's no reason why the Paris climate act should be unanimous and it isn't. There are countries that have ratified it and countries (like Czechia) that haven't. Even if the first group is currently a majority, it cannot be called the international community. The countries that haven't ratified the climate treaty belong to the international community as well. And once it leaves, the U.S. will simply be one of those. Also, there's no link between the non-existent 1783 international community and the CO2 hysteria. 1783 was some 40+ years before Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect and 205 years before it became to be abused politically. So why would someone link the (non-existent but let's ignore it) 1783 international community with the CO2-fearing would-be international community today? They have nothing to do with each other. There is absolutely no sense in which the present one might be considered a successor of the old one. Such a link exists neither intuitively, morally, nor legally because "the international community" defined across centuries isn't a real person or entity with any rights and commitments.The big picture as well as virtually every detail that the likes of Joyce Chaplin tell you about things like that is insanely wrong. They distort the year in which the world's only superpower was born, who created it, why, who signed the treaties, whom he supported, and on top of all these lies and stupidities, they interpret this alternative history as some debt that the U.S. should repay 250 years in the form of its support for some stupid ritual that got popular in some countries.People like Chaplin are so far from anything that could be considered a reasonable opinion that it seems impossible to intelligently debate such people. What sensible people have to try to do is to make sure that stupid mammals of this kind don't affect the mankind's affairs. The fact that this lady would be allowed to enter the campus of Harvard University without an owner is totally incredible (I am not even sure whether I would have been allowed to point such trivial fact out while I was Harvard faculty) and if you add that she may be hired as faculty or even faculty boasting the expertise in the early American history, well... I am speechless.P.S.: As some texts mention, Chaplin tried to respond to Cruz. In an aggressive yet indefensible way. She also wrote that no country is created without a recognition by others. First, it's not really true. Second, the recognition didn't begin in 1783. Morocco started in 1777 and France has recognized it since 1778. Some recognized the U.S. much later – 1783 is the date for the Great Britain – but because of such irrelevant paperwork involving other countries in the (non-existent) international community, you just can't deny that the U.S. already existed and functioned. The laws of physics operate locally and the U.S. simply worked. The opinion of the international community was not only irrelevant but in 1783, it was also undefined or unknowable. Her whole way of thinking about events, their causes, political power, legitimacy, and everything else is just completely wrong.