Tagged: constitutional law

Law 31: Aurangzeb’s Ghost

January 2023

Cram Jihad

UP [Uttar Pradesh] Boy Kills Self Over Study Pressure | Another Life Lost In Kota.” (Mirror Now, YouTube) [Kota is known as India’s “cram city,” where “students from across the country pay steep fees to be tutored for elite-college admissions exams.”]

Given the Tunisha Sharma precedent (see “Breakup as abetment to suicide” in Law 28), I assume someone’s got to be arrested. As breaking up with one’s girlfriend can be construed as abetment to suicide absent any clue of mens rea, most certainly academic pressure is “cram jihad.” Find the culprits and act; do not wait for your BJP MLA to scold you.

BJP MLA: “If this is cram jihad, justice shall be done!”


Marital Rape or the Offense of Sex Denial?

The notion of marital rape is a scam designed to destroy the institution of marriage. Marriage duty is a thing, and these duties include sex. A woman who does not want sex with her husband should file for divorce. If something must be criminalized at all, it should be denial of sex to one’s legitimate spouse, because it is fairer overall to criminalize a denial of rights than one’s getting their due.

In case so-called “rape” applies to acts of torture on occasion of sex, then said crime is torture, battery; a new crime of marital rape is not needed at all. And if the wife does not accept acts that a court would perhaps be reluctant to characterize as torture, she should file for divorce. As soon as she makes her wish to divorce known, sex without her consent could be deemed a crime. This is no “marital” rape yet because the marital duty would be suspended during the divorce procedure.


The Indian Supreme Court is set on canceling the so-called “Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)” about rape, which decriminalizes marital rape: “Sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his wife, the wife not being under 15 year of age is not rape.”

The first part of this short essay (paragraphs 1 & 2) tells you about my position on the Supreme Court’s intentions. I now would like to comment on this “Exception 2.” The mention of the wife’s age is strange because: “Marriage for men below the age of 21 years and women below 18 years is a punishable offence under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.” Even if Exception 2 mentioned the wife’s age as “being under 18,” rather than 15, that still would be strange, as it makes no sense to hypothesize a situation where the wife is under 18 because if the wife is under 18, then, given the 2006 Act, marriage is void; it is no marriage at all but rather a criminal offense, and there cannot be a “marital” rape where there is no marriage in the first place.


Aurangzeb’s Ghost

Police Files Case Against 8 People for Dancing with [17th-century Mughal King] Aurangzeb’s Photo in Maharashtra.” (Times Now, YouTube)

What is their crime? I mean, “dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo” may be an obvious crime but what is it? I’m a foreigner.

Answer from a YouTube user: “Aurangzeb killed and forcefully converted many Hindus and demolished thousands of temples. This was done by all kinds of Muslim rulers actually, but celebrating and chanting slogans [praises of a man] who destroyed India, it is obvious good people with sentiments and non-Muslims will get hurt. This is the same as if one were celebrating and dancing with the picture of Osama Bin Laden, who killed thousands of Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers, and expecting Americans not to feel bad about this.”

So, the crime of dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo is incitement to terrorism (even though Aurangzeb lived more than three hundred years ago)? American law does not care about people’s feelings being hurt by this kind of political speech, because the law promotes free speech and the free flow of ideas. “Because of the First Amendment, incitement to terrorism or other forms of crime and unlawful violence is constitutionally protected free speech, unless it can be proven that the speech is ‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action’ and ‘is likely to incite or produce such action’.” (Wikipedia: Incitement to Terrorism) People dancing with Bin Laden’s photo in the U.S. would not be arrested or summoned, and tried, even if angry mobs wanted to lynch these people, in which case they would get police protection.

Media: There is no offence in a saffron bikini, India guarantees freedom of speech. Media: FIR [“first information report” by police] against 8 for dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo. [For an explanation of saffron bikini, see Law 29: “Saffron Bikini.”]

Year in, year out, in all museums and galleries of world capitals, there are permanent and temporary exhibits on Mughal art, Mughal miniatures, Mughal civilization, Mughal history…, but here “FIR against 8 for dancing with Aurangzeb’s photo.”

Aurangzeb Alamgir


Ahead of the 2024 General Election, Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned the BJP workers against making irrelevant remarks against movies as it hampers the development agenda of the party.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 18)

Avoid remarks on Raj Kundra porn case and Bollywood filth as if the party’s finances depended on it!

Remarks on lowbrow movies are necessary.


Pioneering Menstrual Leave in Communist Kerala

Pioneering Move by the Kerala Government | Menstrual Leave for College Students Announced.” (Mirror Now, YouTube)

One fails to see the point of a leave for students unless there are the same kind of truancy rules for students as for school children. In Europe, university students are free to attend the lessons or not; their presence is expected only in case of assignments. If students think they can pass exams without attending lessons, the choice is left to their own appreciation. Therefore, a leave would not make any sense there. This is not the workplace. But a menstrual leave at the workplace, which would allow women to be on paid leave about one day per month (one day out of twenty days), while their male colleagues must keep working, would have, in reaction, consequences you don’t want to imagine.

Menstrual leave for university students means there are truancy rules at Kerala universities same as for school children. Where students are free to attend lessons or not (absent individual assignments), a leave is meaningless, for you don’t need a leave where to show up is up to you. This tells you all you need to know about Communism in Kerala and its “pioneering” measures. Either they’re all children or their measures are window-dressing. Try the same at the workplace and we’ll see how frivolously shifting greater workload on men’s shoulders will be welcome.


Harmeet Dhillon, a prominent Indian-American attorney, has claimed attacks by her fellow Republican party leaders over her religion. Dhillon, who is running for Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman, has alleged that she is facing bigoted attacks because of her Sikh faith.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube)

As she says in the tweets presented in the video, she received “threats” by donors that they would stop donating if she adopted this or that line of conduct. Strange as it may seem, such kinds of threats by donors are supposedly illegal in the U.S., so a donor is supposed to give money to a candidate without knowing what the candidate’s choices will be once elected. The law was designed to prevent corruption, but what sense does it make? It’s as if a donor were blindfolded and threw a cheque in the air and the candidate on which the cheque falls could pocket it. No, people donate because they wish this or that policy, and the American anticorruption law is absurd.

As to Dhillon’s religion, as more and more GOP candidates define themselves as upholders of Christian values, you bet they find the idea of a Sikh chairperson a little odd. She can cry about discrimination but party members chose who they want as chair, and if they don’t want a Sikh woman, and even don’t conceal they don’t want her because she is a Sikh (or a woman or both), to the best of my knowledge there is no civil rights recourse open to her because the GOP is a private organization, like a club, and same as the law does not compel you to invite Sikhs at your wedding party, which is private, it does not compel you to have a Sikh chair if you don’t want a person as chair because she is a Sikh. She nonetheless has the right to complain about discrimination before the public opinion.


According to the film The Gandhi Murder, 2019, by Karim Traïdia and Pankaj Sehgal, British and Indian police knew there was a plan to assassinate Gandhi but decided not to prevent it, that is, they are complicit in the assassination.


Entrapped by the Commission for Women

A day after S. M., the chief of the Delhi Commission for Women, alleged that she was harassed and dragged by a drunk driver, a video of the incident shows her confronting the man, who has been arrested. S. M. has alleged that when she tried to stop the driver, her arm was trapped in the car window [she apparently tried to grab the keys in the car] and she was dragged 15 metres.” (NDTV, YouTube, Jan 20)

This “inspection,” as the DCM chief calls it (“We keep doing inspections but this one was different, I decided to stand alone on Delhi streets. I wanted to understand what a woman goes through.”), looks like entrapment to me. This is a police job, as kerb-crawling is illegal: Is she a police officer? Even if she were, I disapprove of entrapment and many judges disapprove of it too. With these kinds of “inspections,” you prepare the police state where police entrap poor men from the lower class by promising them crores of rupees and providing them with guns and bombs, and then arrest them for terrorism for saying “yes” (when, in fact, the man only wanted to swindle them and go away with the money 🤑). I disapprove of the Commission for Women’s methods. And of S. M.’s trying to grab the driver’s keys.

Sorry but if this man is condemned there is something wrong with India. He is an altruist. Imagine you contrive a completely unnatural situation, a lone woman on the roadside in the dead of night pretending she’s waiting for her relatives to pick her up but they are not coming. The man stops his car, asking, out of human benevolence, if she needs a lift. She says she is waiting for her relatives to pick her up, so he leaves. Then, he drives by again, say fifteen minutes later. The woman is still there. Shame on her relatives to let her wait alone in the dead of night! He offers to give her a lift again because he sees that her relatives are not responding, are not reliable on this occasion (he doesn’t know it is a made-up story). She then starts to scold him and tries to grab his keys. Who in the world would not think she is a psycho and he must flee? Normally, when police start to act rough, they must shout “You’re under arrest!”, so that people realize what is happening; here I think she started acting rough without disclosing her identity and the driver thought he was assaulted.

Sorry but when you see helpless people, it is human instinct to try to help if one can, and we all know it is not safe for a woman to stand alone in the dead of night.

Entrapment is morally wrong

Entrapment contrives unreal situations where lawful citizens are pushed by police toward acceptance of crime. The official swindlers can easily persuade you to commit a crime because they are not afraid of consequences, as they are the ones whom criminals are supposed to fear in real situations. If we were criminals designing a crime, all of us would have doubts about outcome, risks, consequences, the worth of it, even moral pangs, and at any time one or several of us may desist. When police officers entrap a man, however, they have none of these doubts: therefore, they can be persuasive as no criminal can.

The entrapped man is persuaded that crime is riskless and the reward assured, his moral balance is impaired. Police are making him willing to act, sweep all his scruples away, on the notion that the deterrent effect of the law is nonexistent. Whereas we all agree that legal deterrence plays a major role in public order, police arrest a man whom they made believe in his invulnerability. This is the old tale of Gyges’s ring in Plato: Would you act the same if you possessed a ring granting you the power of invisibility? Turns out the ring does not exist, and police were spinning a tale; the only guilt of the man they arrest is his gullibility.

The salient point about entrapment is the superpower of persuasion held by law enforcement officers as comedians, actors, a power which no criminal can have because they all stake their own lives. I am not talking about covert agents in criminal organizations, who risk their lives if uncovered; entrapment is something different. With entrapment, agents have no greater stake than the success or failure of the operation, while the “victim” of their theatrical acting wants to think in real-life terms but is presented with a picture of reality that he would never accept had a police department not intended to alter his perception, and the more incredible the lies (they can give the illusion of invulnerability because they have the state behind them, with bottomless sources of cash and arms) the more impressive they must be.


The next day, Jan 21, the story took a new spin as some BJP members, finding that the driver was an AAP member, perhaps even AAP worker, claimed the incident was staged. (The two main political forces in Delhi currently are Hindutva BJP and Woke AAP.)


Just a week after China and Bhutan held a meeting and decided to push forward boundary negotiations, India’s Foreign Secretary V. M. Kwatra made a two-day visit to the Buddhist kingdom.” (NDTV, YouTube, Jan 20)

The King of Bhutan is ready to be Dictator of India at the invitation of RSS-BJP, a Buddhist party that renounced the caste system following the teachings of Gautama Buddha.


Criminal v. Enemy

US designates Russian Wagner mercenary force a crime organization.” (Al Jazeera English, YouTube, Jan 21)

They are defiling the language of justice by applying it to their discriminatory politics. If Wagner is a criminal organization, by the same token Blackwater (now Constellis) is a criminal organization, but as their politics is against Wagner and not against the underpinnings of the organization, which would allow a regime to criminalize Wagner and other such organizations, they are not telling the law but defiling it.

Someone, willing to establish distinctions, calls my attention on the fact that the Wagner group recruits members among prison inmates, contrary to Blackwater. This person thus believes the Wagner Group can be called a criminal organization and Blackwater otherwise. To be quite frank, he or she seems to have recanted this point of view, as the message only appears in my notifications, not on the public thread. Of course, the recruitment is completely immaterial, and the remark amusing at best, by showing how hasty reasoning (convicted recruits = criminal organization) can lead one astray. As the army itself is not infrequently a possible form of alternative punishment for convicted criminals (boot camps), the remark is even more futile. And if using the workforce of convicted criminals were itself criminal, the whole penitentiary system of the U.S. would be.

Absent a serious ground distinguishing the Wagner Group from other mercenary organizations, to label it a “criminal organization” is a misuse of law. The move shows the limits of proxy war. If America wants to act against the Wagner Group, it should declare it an enemy organization. An enemy is someone who, although they use the same means as us, acts contrary to our interests. Declaring Wagner a criminal rather than an enemy organization is contemptible on two grounds: 1) it allows U.S. to pretend staying out of the war; 2) it calls criminal an enemy, that is, someone using the same means as America (Blackwater). Again, if Wagner is criminal, Blackwater is criminal, and law enforcement that goes against one criminal and not against the other although both commit the same crime, is discriminatory.


US Secretary of State Antony Blinken raised alarm over Beijing’s intentions over Taipei and said China is ‘no longer comfortable’ with status quo on Taiwan.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 22)

The U.S. is not comfortable with the status quo, as they went from “U.S. pledges support for one-China principle” to “Taiwan is a sovereign state” in November 2020. The one-China principle was the status quo, but the U.S. denounced it. This 2020 shift was an incredibly hostile move toward China. – America is the status quo breaker, but they are spinning a yarn where China is the status quo breaker. This is undignified.

Philo 35 : La tragédie truculente


Les chatouilles de la passion :
Balzac ou la tragédie truculente

Wer sich von Idealen trennen kann, ist alsbald geheilt und zählt hinfort zu den ‚Gesunden‘. – Aber in dem ist von Stund an auch der Geist todt und aus ihm redet nichts mehr als der besinnungslose Wille.“ (Julius Bahnsen)

Il est temps de se demander si l’œuvre de Balzac, avec les quatre-vingt-quinze livres de la Comédie humaine et le reste, n’est pas de la littérature de gare. La Peau de chagrin, roman incohérent et diffus, et son premier grand succès, s’ouvre sur la description d’un jeune homme qui va se suicider parce que : « il n’était qu’un homme de talent sans protecteurs, sans amis, sans paillasse, sans tambour, un véritable zéro social, inutile à l’État, qui n’en avait aucun souci ». Plus tard, ce jeune homme raconte son histoire et l’on apprend alors que la véritable cause de sa volonté morbide était en fait un amour malheureux. Sans cela, tout montre qu’il aurait pu continuer de vivre d’un travail de nègre qui l’occupait, en espérant par ailleurs pouvoir lancer sous son propre nom une œuvre philosophique à laquelle il travaillait depuis plusieurs années. Rien à voir, donc, avec « l’homme de talent sans protecteurs etc. » réduit à la ruine irrémédiable. Cette négligence dans le travail de cohérence des parties, typique des productions abondantes de la littérature de gare écrites à la chaîne, est plus grave dans cet exemple que dans le fait, plus ridicule en soi, que l’inscription de la peau de chagrin et dont Balzac va jusqu’à nous donner la typographie arabe soit dite être le sanskrit d’un brahmane de l’Inde. Plus grave car dans ce dernier cas la négligence ne porte que sur un détail d’érudition tandis que dans le premier elle porte sur le travail de composition lui-même, l’auteur ayant, sans raison discernable, entraîné son lecteur sur une fausse voie. Une voie qu’il n’a pas suivie car il n’entendait pas en réalité traiter le sujet de l’homme de talent sans protecteurs et sans amis mais celui de l’amoureux transi. Plus précisément, Balzac cherchait à traiter les deux en même temps mais il n’a pu le faire en produisant un récit cohérent et donc intéressant.

Poursuivons. L’homme de talent « sans amis » est finalement diverti de sa route fatale vers la Seine par des amis, justement, qui le cherchaient pour lui apprendre la bonne nouvelle de sa nomination à la tête d’un journal. En outre, le « zéro social » avait beaucoup fait parler de lui dans les cercles mondains, par sa proximité avec la salonnière très en vue dont il était un favori mais qui devait finalement le pousser au suicide. Voilà pour la cohérence de composition d’une œuvre truculente en même temps que tragique, les deux mêlés non pas, comme dans les véritables chefs-d’œuvre, de façon à renforcer le tragique par le contraste de personnages secondaires, mais dans la ratatouille d’un esprit inapte au tragique, aveugle. La face à la fois poupine et porcine du jeune Balzac, avec un double menton à vingt ans et quelques (cf. le portrait ci-dessous), pourra difficilement infirmer ce jugement d’un point de vue caractérologique.

Pour ce qui est du style, je crois qu’« une étreinte aussi forte que leur amour » suffit à en rendre compte. Quand Balzac veut décrire quelque chose de très intense, c’est le mot « chatouilles » qui lui vient sous la plume, ce qui n’étonnera guère de la part d’un romancier « physiologiste ». Quant à la pensée, « [j]’ai un sérail imaginaire où je possède toutes les femmes que je n’ai pas eues » : c’est ainsi que l’antiquaire miraculeux décrit sa grande sagesse. À ce compte, il est fort peu d’hommes qui soient dépourvus de sagesse car sans doute en trouve-t-on fort peu qui manquent entièrement de ce genre d’imagination.

Il est temps de se poser la question, si nous voulons tenir notre place dans la littérature mondiale. Pour une personne qui se destinerait à l’écriture, l’exemple de Balzac n’est ni meilleur ni moins bon que Gaston Lagaffe. Il peut certes arriver qu’en prenant des modèles supérieurs à nos capacités on ne parvienne à rien de bon, d’authentique, de durable : la question est de savoir dans quelle mesure un Français a les moyens de choisir d’autres modèles qu’un Balzac. C’est le véritable problème, qui n’est pas le goût du public français, lequel peut très bien, on le sait, lire et goûter des auteurs étrangers supérieurs.

“Honoré de Balzac d’après un tableau de Louis Boulanger.” (Page Wkpd La Comédie humaine)


Ce n’est pas parce qu’un enfant aime peindre que c’est un fou dont la peinture est la thérapie.


Je trouve qu’il n’y a pas assez d’amendements déposés sur les textes de loi au Parlement.


Il paraît que les autorités chinoises considèrent que l’Occident est entré dans une phase terminale de déclin. C’est réconfortant de savoir qu’on n’est pas tout seul.


Mathématiques et Politique :
Quelques apories d’Alain Badiou

Selon Alain Badiou, dans son Éloge des mathématiques (2015), si l’on ne connaît pas les mathématiques contemporaines, et particulièrement si l’on ne connaît pas « certains théorèmes des années soixante-dix et quatre-vingt », on ne saurait parler de l’infini car on en a « une compréhension pauvre et fausse ». Nous croyons quant à nous que c’est la conception qui décrit par là même comme pauvre et fausse la discussion de l’infini chez les grands philosophes qui doit être pauvre et fausse, et qu’une telle affirmation est de la suffisance. Puisque Kant, puisque Leibniz, puisque Descartes n’ont pas connu ces théorèmes de nos années soixante-dix et quatre-vingt, la critique porte forcément sur eux également (même si Badiou ne paraît pas s’en rendre compte, aveuglé par la suffisance), or nous trouvons leur compréhension de l’infini suffisamment pertinente quand d’étroits esprits spécialisés, plus récents, en conduisent d’aucuns à de tels contes.

Du reste, la suite du petit livre (d’entretiens) de Badiou ne vérifie pas son affirmation en discutant l’infini de manière bien originale, du moins y est-t-il question tantôt de l’infini dans ce qu’il a de plus classique et tantôt de bizarreries restant indiscutées, telles que « toute une hiérarchie d’infinis de plus en plus puissants ». L’idée d’infini puissant n’a certainement aucun avenir philosophique, quoi que disent les théorèmes.


Dans le même livre, la démonstration de l’inexistence de Dieu se fonde sur la logique classique (« ce qui précisément est contradictoire » : cf. la citation complète ci-dessous) et n’est donc nullement suffisante de la part d’un philosophe qui prétend faire usage de la « logique paracohérente », « qui s’accommode des contradictions », dans sa pensée et son œuvre. Il faut en effet qu’il montre de surcroît que la logique paracohérente ne s’accommode pas de la contradiction qu’il prétend trouver dans l’existence de Dieu. Cette démonstration manquant, l’existence de Dieu peut être contradictoire et cependant possible, paraît-il, comme une de ces contradictions dont s’accommode la logique paracohérente. Il faut par conséquent montrer que l’usage de cette logique est autre chose qu’une facilité grossière qui permet d’un côté de maintenir des propositions que l’on tient pour vraies en dépit de la logique classique mais d’un autre côté serait sans emploi quand la logique classique permet d’écarter ce que l’on tient pour faux.

« [O]n démontre en effet – très jolie et très simple démonstration – qu’il ne peut exister un ensemble de tous les ensembles. Mais il est alors impossible, si le multiple axiomatisé est la forme immanente de l’être en tant qu’être, qu’il existe un être tel que tout être soit en lui, car ce devrait être un multiple de tous les multiples, ce qui précisément est contradictoire. » (Éloge des mathématiques, IV)


Badiou parle de « l’aristocratie » des mathématiques, car « les mathématiques ont pris un tour inaccessible ». Qu’en est-il de l’aristocratie des éclairagistes de théâtre ? Nous prenons cet exemple non point parce que, dans la grande tradition française du philosophe vaudevilliste, Badiou a écrit pour le théâtre, mais parce qu’Antonin Artaud a parlé de cette spécialité de manière inspirée. Pour qui n’est pas éclairagiste, la technique est inaccessible, du moins en l’état de la formation de cette personne. Si celle-ci consacrait suffisamment de temps à l’une ou l’autre technique, les mathématiques et l’éclairage théâtral, la technique lui deviendrait accessible, en fonction de ses capacités. Par conséquent, lorsqu’on parle d’aristocratie des mathématiques, on ne les a pas encore distinguées de n’importe quelle autre spécialité du savoir ; et ce n’est pas tant à la philosophie de montrer que tel domaine spécialisé de connaissances a philosophiquement de l’importance qu’aux spécialistes eux-mêmes d’établir en quoi leur spécialité peut présenter de l’intérêt en dehors des questions techniques de son domaine circonscrit (ce dont ils sont généralement incapables, de manière convaincante).

Lorsque Badiou prétend trouver un intérêt des mathématiques, ou même seulement de la formation mathématique, en politique, il se fourvoie complètement, et ce sans doute moins encore par méconnaissance du politique que des mathématiques, qu’il connaît plus en praticien qu’en philosophe. Badiou croit en effet que la rigueur de la démonstration mathématique permet à l’esprit formé par elle d’éviter les écueils du débat public, le vague des notions, le symbolisme douteux, les pièges de la rhétorique, que les mathématiques sont l’instrument d’un « accord absolu » possible en politique. Or les problèmes mathématiques sont fondés sur des définitions : « soit a, ceci… ; soit b, cela… » mais aucun objet de ce monde n’est susceptible d’une définition au sens mathématique, dans la mesure où ces objets sont des objets d’expérience et non des objets de l’intuition pure a priori.

Même les objets de la physique sont seulement des schémas du monde de notre expérience. Quand, dans ses expérimentations, un physicien laisse rouler une bille sur une pente pour en mesurer la vitesse, il crée un schéma du réel dans lequel le frottement de la pente et la résistance de l’air sont plus ou moins négligeables, et la formule résultant de ses mesures est un résultat correct à l’intérieur de l’imprécision considérée, à savoir que le frottement et la résistance du milieu ne modifient le résultat qu’au niveau de la fraction de seconde et que le physicien utilise, dans son expérimentation, un chronomètre dont la seconde est l’unité. On voit donc qu’un accord absolu sur les mesures du dispositif schématique n’empêcherait nullement que la transposition de ces mesures à des dispositifs où les frottements et la résistance prendraient de l’ampleur conduise à fausser les prédictions. L’accord absolu de la méthode expérimentale n’a qu’une valeur relative dans l’expérience (l’empirie) : il faut la corréler à l’ensemble des autres expérimentations (sur les frottements, la résistance du milieu, etc.) qui peuvent, dans l’empirie, influer sur le phénomène. Ces développements sur la physique montrent que même les problèmes de physique ne se laissent pas définir au sens mathématique, comme des objets isolés : les objets de l’empirie ne sont pas connus a priori mais comme des ensembles de qualités et de relations dont on n’utilise que des schémas. Les prédictions rendues possibles par les mesures physiques ne sont valables que pour un ensemble de conditions particulières : plus les conditions réelles s’éloignent des conditions du schématisme, moins les prédictions peuvent être fiables.

Si l’on conçoit, à présent, la politique comme une simple physique sociale, nos remarques précédentes s’appliquent encore : on traiterait les problèmes sociaux selon le schématisme propre aux sciences. La critique de l’anthropologie comme détrimentale à l’homme, comme objectification illégitime du sujet pensant, n’est guère soutenable pour ceux qui, dans le même temps, conçoivent la politique comme une physique.

Mais en politique, la notion mathématique d’« accord absolu » au terme d’une démonstration est encore moins pertinente, car ce serait un accord absolu sur ce que veulent les gens, et cette volition ne dépend pas de façon absolue d’une démonstration. Une démonstration de ce que doivent vouloir les gens, appelons-le le bien commun, ne peut avoir qu’un faible effet sur les volitions particulières. Même en accordant que les gens doivent vouloir le bien commun, et même en s’accordant en outre sur ce qu’est ce bien commun, une démonstration ne modifie pas fondamentalement la volition dans un sens ou dans l’autre ; la contrainte de la loi s’impose. Ainsi, même si la démonstration avait en politique un effet contraignant sur l’admission, il est certain qu’au contraire des mathématiques, où l’admission est le fin mot de l’histoire (l’accord intellectuel absolu conclut le problème), cet accord absolu resterait lettre morte quant à son objet politique à défaut d’une contrainte spécifique sur les conduites particulières, la loi.

De sorte que les mathématiques ne peuvent avoir aucune efficacité privilégiée en politique par rapport à toute autre forme de discipline intellectuelle. Au contraire, l’habitude d’employer ses facultés sur des objets a priori plutôt que sur des objets de l’expérience empirique, par exemple dans l’étude du droit, prédispose bien moins l’esprit au traitement des problèmes politiques.



Shortcomings of the First Amendment

1/ Free speech easement of the public space derives from a power able to discretionarily favor some speech and repress other;

2/ Legislatures keep voting speech-averse statutes knowing their judicial evisceration will take time and therefore the statutes have the deterrent effects the legislatures desire.


American historian Alfred Whitney Griswold is quoted saying “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost.” Of course, it means that books won’t burn as a result of state action without judicial redress, but the imprecision of the utterance sounds ominous, as if it meant or could mean “you have no right to burn books.” As far as state action is concerned, there is no difference between book burning and censorship, if not that a state (or state church or state single party) that would burn books but fail to prohibit its selling, owning, etc., would be a better place for speech than a state censoring books. But as far as people are concerned, book burning doesn’t make much sense unless it is done in the public space but then, if I burned books on the street, I would be arrested by the police so soon as they can get their hands on me saying I am a public danger, jeopardizing others’ safety – regardless of my speech rights. There is a special issue here that, even with the best will to procure easements for speech in public space, must thwart private attempts to use that mightily demonstrative form of expression, namely book burning. In France, some years ago, some workers in the field of theatrical arts burned in public copies of a book written by a member of the government. Some media were shocked as it reminded them of Nuremberg and the Nazis, although the demonstrators were private persons acting on their own initiative and no public official endorsed with state power; but the real issue is that the protestors probably impugned municipal decrees or some other local public space regulation, which probably the cameras only prevented from being actioned by the authorities.

What some scholars call free speech easements of the public space smacks of arbitrariness. When some march, the judge “eases,” that is, she prevents existing regulations from being actioned, but if others, the formers’ opponents marched, she would let the regulations apply with full force. Easement conveys the idea of suspension of laws and regulations, so the ultimate rule is not the law itself but the decision to apply or suspend it. This is rule of law by name only.

All marches for civil rights in the sixties were made possible by judges who imposed the suspension of public space regulations. The judges decided that the marches had to take place in spite of the regulations. Had people wanted to oppose civil rights through marches of their own and had judges not adopted a strictly equal stance for these, such marches would have been stopped by police for breach of public space regulation. The crux of the matter is that when judges pronounce easement for one cause, the same judges cannot pronounce the same for the opposite cause because the easement is based on a reasoning that the one cause, say promotion of civil rights, deserves free speech protection over public space regulation and therefore the opposite cause deserves it not, because otherwise public space regulations as such would be void (at least anyone invoking the First Amendment could have them suspended, that is, public space regulation would yield to free speech protection in every conceivable instance).


While Supreme Court’s decision NAACP v. Clairborne Hardware (1982) makes it clear that boycott is protected free speech, a host of states passed anti-BDS bills nevertheless, which must be eviscerated presently one after the other, in a long, tedious, seemingly endless process, like cutting off the Hydra’s heads. Therefore, First Amendment law itself protects censorship.

First Amendment law protects censorship because it is not effectual at protecting speech at all, as one sees that case law cannot prevent the most blatant disregard by legislatures. Legislatures pass bills with all the deterrent effects intended on speech for the whole duration of the judicial review, knowing the latter’s result well beforehand and preparing their next version of the same bill in the meantime. What are the legal checks on legislatures passing bills they know are unconstitutional? I want to stress the word legal in “legal checks” because, as far as public debate, that is, other democratic checks are concerned, when one reads essays expatiating on “Israel boycott is not free speech” (Reuters, Jan 10, 2019) while Claiborne Hardware has been extant for decades, it makes one sick; obviously, Reuters is no check here. (The only reason why Israel boycott could, de jure, not be free speech is that Israel boycott is no boycott, which is absurd.) One cannot compel private individuals or entities to talk without disregarding the content of the law, but there should exist a mechanism that prevents legislatures from passing unconstitutional bills, as in some European countries where constitutional review takes place before the law becomes law.


Democrats “champion the cause of free speech” abroad, but in their country they push for hate speech laws and other exceptions to free speech.


Religion or Psychotherapy

Westernization is the cause of all mental illnesses. Western psychotherapy is not the solution but part and parcel of the problem. Of course, we are talking of “functional” illnesses, that is, those with no organic cause. Upon organic illnesses psychotherapy has no effect whatsoever, and on functional illnesses anything would work the same as psychotherapy, or even no treatment at all would work the same, sometimes the illness recedes, sometimes not, there is no proof that any psychotherapy works better than no psychotherapy, scholars have demonstrated it (Eysenck, etc.). It is a dirty business. The very idea of reaching to a psychotherapist shows disregard for spiritual guidance and a willingness to live according to Western standards rather than the tradition.

Stop calling everything psychotherapy. Not because a kid wants to paint is he a lunatic and painting his therapy.

In the West, everything is therapy because they’re all insane.

In the West, you don’t ask someone: What’s your occupation? you ask: What’s your therapy?

In the West, they are so insane that, when they see a masterpiece, they exclaim: Such good therapy!

In the West, food is so expensive because it is not only food but also therapy.

In the West, love is a therapy.

In the West, in case of trouble, they ask: What went wrong with the therapy?

In the West, there is no good and evil, only good therapies and bad therapies.