Tagged: Lynch law

January 19, 2020

Twit27 L’art de la décapitation symbolique

Anthologie Twitter Dec 2019-Jan 2020 FR-EN

Un humoriste était poursuivi pour injure pour avoir traité une politicienne de « conne ». « Le tribunal a jugé que cela relevait du débat et de la polémique normale en démocratie », donc relaxe. « Con » n’est pas une injure ? Personne n’y comprend rien, à vos lois !

Guy Bedos, l’humoriste en question, a traité Nadine Morano de « conne », de « salope » et de « connasse ». Il a été relaxé en première instance, relaxé en appel et relaxé en cassation (en 2017). Merci à Nadine Morano d’avoir, par sa détermination sans faille, permis aux Français de s’ôter le doute, après trois relaxes contre sa plainte, quant au fait que « con/conne », « salaud/salope », « connard/connasse » ne sont pas des injures aux termes de la loi française.

Delevoye Gate (Suite : Pour la 1^e partie, voyez ici)

Les services du Premier ministre auraient dit (selon le journal Le Point) : « C’était à lui [Delevoye] de nous informer et de demander s’il pouvait cumuler salaire privé/public, il ne l’a pas fait. On ne peut pas présumer que les gens vont tricher. Nous ne sommes pas la police. » Incroyable… aveu. Si les services ne rappellent pas aux nouveaux venus les règles, en particulier les plus sensibles comme celles relatives aux conflits d’intérêts, qui peuvent d’ailleurs être d’interprétation difficile, il ne faut pas s’étonner des conséquences… À peu près n’importe qui peut être nommé ministre ; vous croyez qu’un joueur de rugby, par exemple, connaît sur le bout des doigts, en arrivant, la législation sur les conflits d’intérêts ? Non, les services sont là pour rappeler les règles et travailler aux régularisations nécessaires.

ii / La mission de police constitutionnelle

Delevoye ne peut être seul en cause dans une affaire de manquement constitutionnel (à savoir, de manquement à l’article 23 de la Constitution). Avant tout, la Haute Autorité pour la transparence de la vie publique (HATVP) n’est pas constitutionnalisée mais les incompatibilités entre poste ministériel et certaines fonctions le sont : la HATVP n’est donc pas gardienne de l’article 23.

Or ; là où il y a des règles, il y a ceux à qui elles s’appliquent et ceux qui en vérifient la bonne application. Delevoye était celui à qui s’appliquait l’article 23. Qui sont ceux qui vérifient l’application ? Pas Delevoye lui-même. Ni la HATVP, qui n’est pas constitutionnalisée. Les gardiens de l’article 23, c’est le gouvernement lui-même, quand il accueille un nouveau ministre, c’est-à-dire ceux qui disent aujourd’hui : « On ne peut pas présumer que les gens vont tricher. Nous ne sommes pas la police. » Or ils sont la police de l’article 23, eux et personne d’autre.

Le gouvernement est co-responsable du respect de la Constitution par les ministres. Il n’est pas responsable de leurs agissements pénaux mais de leurs agissements constitutionnels, donc, ici, des manquements constitutionnels de Delevoye.

La police judiciaire (PJ) n’a pas dans ses attributions d’enquêter sur des manquements constitutionnels. Au sujet des infractions pénales de Delevoye, le gouvernement peut certes dire « Nous ne sommes pas la police » mais au sujet de la violation de l’article 23 de la Constitution il est la police.

La police judiciaire et le parquet n’ont pas dans leurs attributions d’enquêter sur les manquements constitutionnels. La police de l’article 23 enfreint par Delevoye échappe à la PJ ; c’est une police constitutionnelle et non judiciaire. « Nous ne sommes pas la police » est donc inexact de la part des services du Premier ministre ; certes, ils ne sont pas la PJ, mais ce sont les seuls à exercer la police constitutionnelle de la prévention des infractions à l’article 23.

La « police constitutionnelle » 😂 😂 😂 (AffreuxD)

Sur le modèle de la police administrative, chargée de la prévention des troubles à l’ordre public, il va de soi que les organes constitutionnels ont un pouvoir de police constitutionnelle visant à prévenir les violations de la Constitution.

Indépendamment de toute infraction pénale, M. Delevoye a démissionné pour non-respect de l’article 23 de la Constitution. En cas d’infraction pénale, selon la jurisprudence dite Bérégovoy-Balladur un ministre est tenu de démissionner quand il est mis en examen. M. Delevoye n’était pas mis en examen quand il a démissionné. Sa démission est purement la conséquence d’un manquement constitutionnel.

La police judiciaire et le parquet sont hors de cause tant dans le manquement constitutionnel que, en tout état de cause, dans le fait que de possibles infractions pénales n’ont pas été prévenues (la prévention relève de la police administrative).

Même si l’on ne veut pas parler de police constitutionnelle pour le manquement constitutionnel, qui donc doit exercer la police administrative en veillant à prévenir les prises illégales d’intérêts (en tant qu’infraction pénale) par un membre du gouvernement, sinon les services du Premier ministre ?

Delevoye n’avait pas à démissionner pour une infraction pénale puisqu’il n’était pas mis en examen. Il a démissionné pour un manquement constitutionnel, dont les sanctions ne relèvent pas de la loi, dans la hiérarchie des normes. La HATVP n’étant pas constitutionnalisée, elle ne connaît pas des manquements constitutionnels. Le manquement étant caractérisé, la responsabilité des organes constitutionnels, sur le modèle de la responsabilité de l’État dans les défaillances de police administrative, est engagée.

« La HATVP n’étant pas constitutionnalisée, ne connaît pas des manquements constitutionnels. » Ça n’a aucun sens. Un tribunal administratif lambda n’est pas « constitionnalisé » et pourtant passe son temps à vérifier la conformité du règlement à la Constitution… (Ibid.)

Le Conseil d’Etat étant constitutionnalisé, par exemple à l’article 61-1 de la Constitution, c’est toute la juridiction administrative qui l’est. La HATVP ne peut servir à l’exécutif à se défausser de sa responsabilité. En admettant Delevoye parmi ses membres, il a fait preuve de négligence.

La mission de police administrative engage la responsabilité de l’État, y compris sans faute (réparation des blessures par arme dangereuse aux tiers à des opérations de police, indemnisation des victimes d’attentats terroristes, indemnisation des commerces ayant subi des dommages à la suite d’attroupements sur la voie publique, etc). Or il existe une mission de « veiller au respect de la Constitution », qui est également préventive.

Toute définition d’une infraction et d’une sanction relève de la loi, c’est l’article 34 de la Constitution. Par ailleurs, la règle constitutionnelle violée est son article 23, qui renvoie explicitement à la loi organique pour définir sa mise en œuvre. (Ibid.)

Si le gouvernement passe outre par exemple l’article 35 de la Constitution (envoi de troupes à l’étranger après information du Parlement), c’est une infraction dont nulle juridiction ne connaît (théorie des actes de gouvernement). Si la loi organique de l’article 23 est muette ou n’existe pas, idem.

Elle n’est pas muette mais effectivement assez sibylline. Après il appartient à la loi pénale de créer une peine pour sanctionner la violation ; en l’espèce ça ressemble à de la prise illégale d’intérêts. (Ibid.)

Le cas pénal de Delevoye n’est pas le sujet puisqu’il a démissionné avant toute mise en examen. Il s’agit du cas d’un exécutif qui a failli dans sa mission de « veiller au respect de la Constitution », et des réparations que le peuple français est en droit d’exiger et d’obtenir.

Tout comme l’article 432-12 du code pénal (prise illégale d’intérêts) et tout comme la loi organique prise en application de l’article 23, l’article 23 lui-même est une norme juridique. Cette norme exige que le gouvernement ne nomme aucun membre qui ne la respecte pas. L’exécutif a failli.

Si vous lisez l’ordonnance organique en question : « Pour chaque membre du Gouvernement, les incompatibilités établies à l’article 23 de la Constitution prennent effet à l’expiration d’un délai d’un mois à compter de sa nomination. » La faute n’était pas la nomination, c’est l’absence de démission de Delevoye de ses fonctions dans le délai imparti. Après ce que je comprends de votre argumentaire c’est qu’il y aurait eu une carence du pouvoir exécutif (au titre de ses pouvoirs de police) dès lors qu’il n’a pas édicté de norme règlementaire ayant permis d’éviter que Delevoye fraude, c’est bien ça ? (Ibid.)

Non, la faute est de nommer une personne ministre (qui peut être n’importe qui, un joueur de rugby, par exemple) en croyant qu’elle connaît déjà sur le bout des doigts les règles s’appliquant aux membres du gouvernement et que nul au gouvernement n’avait donc à la « briefer ». Quand un joueur de rugby ou de ping-pong est nommé ministre, il y a forcément quelqu’un qui vient lui parler de l’article 23 de la Constitution et de quelques autres subtilités juridiques. Qui est cette personne dans les actuels services du gouvernement ?

La préparation de le composition du gouvernement est coordonnée par le SGG [Secrétariat général du Gouvernement]. Mais, un mois après la nomination, un ministre dispose d’un cabinet assez large, d’un SG et généralement de plusieurs directions générales d’administration centrale pouvant lui donner tout conseil utile. (Ibid.)

[L’échange se clôt sur cette parole de mon contradicteur, à qui je laisse le dernier mot sans rien changer à mon opinion.]

On est en train de confier la liberté d’expression à des algorithmes ! (Lucille Rouet, secrétaire générale du Syndicat de la magistrature, 19.12.2019, sur la proposition de loi Avia « contre la haine sur Internet »)

C’était la couche suivante. La couche en-dessous dans les sables mouvants. Aux États-Unis on pense, en France on se demande ce qu’on a le droit de penser.

« La plateforme peut être sanctionnée si elle ne réagit pas ou pas assez vite. En revanche aucune peine n’est prévue en cas de retrait abusif. Résultat : on encourage les plateformes à censurer à titre préventif. » « On encourage » est une litote : c’est une véritable pression.

« La question est traitée d’abord par les plateformes, ensuite par le CSA et enfin par un observatoire. Le juge n’occupe plus qu’une place anecdotique. » Repose en paix, loi de 1881.

1881 : « D’un système préventif à un système répressif où seuls les délits sont réprimés, sans possibilité de censure a priori. » Le système redevient préventif, avec censure a priori par l’autorité administrative (avant tout jugement). – D’un autre côté… il ne peut pas y avoir de délit de presse quand il y a censure a priori !

En réalité, une collectivité qui accepte de punir de peines privatives des « délits de presse » (qui seraient mieux nommés délits de parole – à l’attention de ceux qui ne sont pas familiers avec ces dénominations abusivement trompeuses) peut difficilement argumenter contre la censure a priori.

Je me demandais quel ministre se ferait choper en vacances au soleil pendant que le pays est en proie à une colère grandissante. Que ce soit la ministre des transports est inespéré. (Bruno Gaccio)

Il devrait être interdit aux ministres en exercice de partir en vacances à l’étranger, où ils sont forcément l’objet de pressions des autorités étrangères, de lobbying d’intérêts étrangers, en l’occurrence ici de la monarchie marocaine.

#RégimesSpéciaux En capitalisme, les inégalités entre travailleurs sont choquantes (il faut donc une réforme des retraites) mais les inégalités entre travailleurs et capitalistes ne sont pas choquantes. À bas les inégalités entre travailleurs ! 😂

New Zealand man jailed for 21 months for sharing Christchurch shooting video. (BBC News, June 2019)

Making it a crime to possess a shooting video is a violation of freedom of speech. It amounts to claiming that the government must be the only source of truth. The only source of truth will be at the same time the agency that restricts access to evidence.

Under a constitutional regime the government can make no claim to being an authority as to what the truth is. Hence, by restricting access to evidence it overrides its constitutional function and mocks constitutional liberties.

Arrêtez vos ghosneries

« Je n’ai pas fui la justice, je me suis libéré (…) de la persécution politique » : Carlos Ghosn confirme dans un communiqué avoir fui le Japon pour le Liban. (Europe 1)

S’il vous plaît, Amnesty France, faites quelque chose pour cette personne persécutée en raison de ses idées… 🙄

X-Or vs Carlos Ghost alias Fantômas

Moshi-moshi, Carlos, ici Tokyo : le Shérif de l’espace vient te chercher ! 😘 🇯🇵

宇宙刑事ギャバン

iii

#Parodie Les voeux du Père Zi Dent: Carlos Ghosn a droit à l’aide consulaire de la France. Certes, il existe sans doute des accords d’entraide judiciaire entre la France et le Japon mais rappelez-vous quand même de quel côté étaient les yakitori pendant la guerre…

Post-scriptum. Le kwassa-kwassa amène du Comorien, c’est différent.

Le Liban a reçu d’Interpol un mandat d’arrêt international visant l’ex-patron de Renault-Nissan Carlos Ghosn (Reuters). (Brèves de presse)

« Une notice rouge consiste à demander aux services chargés de l’application de la loi du monde entier de localiser et de procéder à l’arrestation provisoire d’une personne dans l’attente de son extradition, de sa remise ou de toute autre procédure judiciaire. » (Site Interpol)

Verrons-nous bientôt la figure de Ghosn sur le tableau d’Interpol à côté de Lugo, Elmer, Ivan, José-Daniel et compagnie ?

La demande d’arrestation de Carlos Ghosn déposée par Interpol est faite dans le but de l’extrader vers le Japon ou de le soumettre à une juridiction. Or le Liban n’a pas d’accord d’extradition avec le Japon et Carlos Ghosn n’est nullement poursuivi au Liban. (El Gary)

Le Liban est membre d’Interpol, ce qui signifie qu’il a des obligations envers l’organisation et les autres États membres, dont le Japon. Ce qu’est censé faire le Liban, membre d’Interpol, qui a sur son territoire un fugitif recherché par l’organisation, il me semble que cela va de soi…

S’il ne faisait rien, le Liban romprait ses engagements auprès d’Interpol. Il doit donc arrêter Ghosn et le livrer à qui de droit au titre de son engagement multilatéral (dans Interpol), même en l’absence d’accord bilatéral avec le Japon.

L’absence d’accord bilatéral ne doit pas empêcher une extradition, qui serait un acte de gouvernement démontrant de bonnes relations diplomatique entre le Liban et le Japon. (Si c’est impossible, l’extradition peut à la rigueur passer par un État tiers ayant convention avec le Japon.) Les deux États devraient pouvoir régler la question au niveau diplomatique même en l’absence d’accord bilatéral préalable, puisque Interpol, dont le Liban est membre, va dans le même sens que le Japon.

Lebanese lawyers want Ghosn prosecuted over Israel trip. (France 24, 2.1.2020)

Ghosn pourrait être inquiété au Liban pour avoir enfreint en 2008 la loi libanaise (“for the crime of having entered an enemy country and violated the boycott law“). Un rapport vient d’être remis au parquet libanais.

Médias français : « Rien n’oblige le Liban à arrêter Carlos Ghosn. » Rien ne l’y oblige si ce n’est sa signature au bas de l’acte de ratification de la charte d’Interpol par lequel l’État libanais s’oblige vis-à-vis de l’organisation. Si le Liban n’arrête pas Ghosn après la notice rouge d’Interpol, ce pays doit être exclu de l’organisation internationale.

vii

Ghosn lawyer feels betrayed over tycoon’s Japan escape (tribune.net.ph)

« L’avocat de Carlos Ghosn se sent trahi par l’évasion du tycon. » Personne ne se demande si Ghosn a bien payé tous ses honoraires à son avocat japonais avant de s’enfuir du Japon.

Carlos Ghosn a-t-il payé ce qu’il doit à son avocat japonais ? L’avocat de Ghosn devait contractuellement recevoir des honoraires jusqu’au terme de la procédure. En s’enfuyant, Carlos Ghosn a, me semble-t-il, rompu le contrat de manière unilatérale.

viii

L’affaire Carlos Ghosn selon la bourgeoisie nihiliste : « Il y aura un film. »

‘Pretty much everybody prosecuted gets convicted:’ Carlos Ghosn exposes Japan to new scrutiny. (finance.yahoo.com)

‘Pretty much everybody prosecuted gets convicted.’ This may mean that Japanese prosecutors are cautious before sending people before a court, unlike French prosecutors who send almost anybody and there is no compensation for the damages caused by their rash decisions. Ghosn thinks ‘Pretty much everybody prosecuted gets convicted’ is an indictment of Japan’s judiciary and thus a point in his defense, but it may be a virtue rather than a vice.

Let’s assume with Carlos Ghosn that nearly 100% of people prosecuted in Japan are convicted [it is a fact, see below]: That says nothing about the rate of judicial miscarriage in this country. On the other hand, a rate of, say, 50% would show a tendency to prosecution-mindedness that must result in miscarriage. As a matter of fact, it’s either ‘Pretty much everybody prosecuted gets convicted’ or ‘Many prosecuted people are found innocent.’ The latter hints at either prosecution-mindedness or defective investigation skills or both, and thus at miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, when ‘Many prosecuted people are found innocent,’ those innocent and yet prosecuted citizens are subjected to appalling ordeals for which they will never be properly compensated (when they escape miscarriage of justice to begin with).

Japan’s measures of precaution are not in the interest of the people it claims to protect. Those measures are designed to ensure the Prosecution gets a conviction that will never reach appelate court. That’s why nine in ten convictions rely on confessions. (Th. H., posting an Al Jazeera documentary about Japan’s judicial system, dealing at length with a resounding case of judicial error)

Judicial errors are appalling in every country, no matter the ‘‘logic’’ by which they occur. “Various studies estimate that in the U.S. between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent.” (Wkpd Miscarriage of Justice) Still Carlos Ghosn has no right (that I know of) to forum-shopping for the “best” criminal court.

There is no reliable statistic for Japan on such numbers because their Judiciary refuses to say they have been wrong. (Ibid.)

The Japanese system has been studied: Mark Ramseyer & Eric Rasmusen, 2000, confirm my opinion: “In the matter relating to Japanese prosecutors being extremely cautious, the paper found ample evidence for it.” (Wkpd Criminal justice system of Japan and for the paper itself here) & “Japan’s prosecutors only bring the most obviously guilty defendants to trial, and do not file indictments in cases in which they are not certain they can win.” & “The prosecutors may decide, for example, not to prosecute someone even if there is sufficient evidence to win at trial, because of the circumstances of the crime or accused. Article 248 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure states: ‘Where prosecution is deemed unnecessary owing to the character, age, environment, gravity of the offense, circumstances or situation after the offense, prosecution need not be instituted.’” #Wisdom

Those words aren’t worth the paper they’re written upon. (…) And “character”? My, what a weasel word that is. What is the legal precedence that defines character? Or is this written in Japan’s legal code of “how to be a human being, or else”? (Th. H.)

Were it not for the results: “For a summary of the literature suggesting a high accuracy rate in the Japanese judiciary, see Johnson, supra” (Ramseyer & Rasmusen, footnote 53) “Johnson” is footnote 3: “The parallel between Japanese confessions & U.S. plea bargains is made explicitly in David Ted Johnson, The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan ch. 7 (PhD Dissertation, Univ of California, Berkeley, 1996)” [Thus, Th. H.’s argument regarding confessions in the Japanese judicial system could serve as an argument against plea bargains in America, or, conversely, serves no purpose at all.]

‘Pretty much everybody prosecuted gets convicted’: Carlos Ghosn explains he jumped bail and fled from Japan because the country has one of the best judicial systems in the world!

Ramseyer & Rasmusen, 2000: “Are Japanese courts convicting the guilty and innocent alike, or are prosecutors merely choosing the guiltiest defendants to try? Absent independent evidence of the guilt of the accused, one cannot directly tell. In this article we pursue indirect evidence on point.“

“If prosecutors in Japan prosecute a higher percentage of guilty defendants than in the US, higher conviction rates will result under unbiased adjudication. We ask whether the Japanese judicial bureaucracy does reward unbiased accuracy, or instead rewards convictions.“

The conclusions are detailed in Ramseyer & Rasmusen, Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate So High? This scholarly work wrecks Ghosn’s self-justification.

Israel is about to use an old British Mandate-era emergency act to impose a nighttime curfew on Palestinians living in East Jerusalem. (Sarah Wilkinson)

Israel has been applying a state of emergency (giving extra powers to the government and curtailing basic rights) since 1948. With its 70-year-long state of emergency, that state is a gibe at the essence of constitutional thinking.

Voeux du Président. Une annonce inquiétante mais passée presque inaperçue : Macron annonce qu’il prendra « de nouvelles décisions » contre « les forces qui minent l’unité nationale » dès les semaines qui viennent. (Nantes Révoltée)

Ce ne sont pas des vœux, ce sont des menaces…

L’histoire du mentaliste qui n’avait jamais compris que sa femme simulait…

For a belief to be protected under the Equality Act 2010, it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society. (The Independent, UK)

You call that freedom? It’s always the government tells what is worthy of respect when the law says things must be worthy of respect.

As I hear of a League Against Cruel Sports (‘‘Campaigning to expose and end cruelty to animals in the name of ‘sport’’’), cruelty to animals (in the name of sports) must be worthy of respect in a democratic society as an NGO campaigns for ending it and so far the legislator, the government, the police, the judiciary haven’t been aware that it is unworthy of respect. Thus an employee with a “philosophical belief” in the benefits of cruelty to animals (in the name of sports) is protected by Equality Act 2010 while protection is restricted to beliefs “worthy of respect in a democratic society.” And yet again Equality Act is apt to stifle all kinds of dissent.

Est justifiée l’hospitalisation sous contrainte de celle qui « reste convaincue d’idées bizarres concernant la survenue prochaine d’une apocalypse et d’une troisième guerre mondiale ». Cour d’appel de Colmar, 23 mai 2016. (Curiosités Juridiques)

C’est officiel : la Troisième Guerre mondiale n’aura pas lieu…

A Deep-State Hatred

In 2011, Trump believed Obama would start a war with Iran to help win an election. (NowThis, Jan 3)

If all U.S. presidents nowadays show signs of wanting a war with Iran, is there a Deep State after all?

You are outraged an Iranian murderous maniac is dead? Why? (C. Kirk, ‘’Chairman of Trump Students,’’ to Rep. Ilhan Omar)

Lynch Law mentality applied to international relations… No surprise from a country – the USA – that always refused to be part of the International Criminal Court. [To be sure, Iran is in the same relationship to the ICC as the US.]

iii

Officials presented the president with options. The Pentagon tacked on the choice of targeting Suleimani mainly to make other options seem reasonable. They didn’t think he would take it. When Mr. Trump chose the option, military officials, flabbergasted, were alarmed. (NY Times)

I’m not sure what that says about who is the most unwise: Potus or the Pentagon. I guess the Pentagon. (Just saying in case this pretty story is made up to cover the Deep State.)

Soleimani had a hand in: —The attack on Benghazi —The attack on the US Embassy in Iraq —Transmitting 9/11 terrorists through Afghanistan —Failed assassination attempts of foreign leaders on US soil —The killing on 600+ Americans. THIS is who Democrats are defending? (C. Kirk)

Not to mention “the death of millions of people” (Trump’s tweet of Jan 3)

Transcript: “General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more… but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. &c“

#IranPlaneCrash

When a Boeing plane crashes in Iran during a crisis between this country and the U.S., one easily forgets that Boeing CEO Muilenburg had just resigned after two #Boeingcrash’es elsewhere, Boeing planes being hazardous… What’s more likely, then?

Le policier reconnaît un tir de LBD blessant un lycéen, le parquet le blanchit. (Mediapart)

Quand les forces de l’ordre sont en cause, il ne faut pas saisir le juge pénal (qui se base sur des enquêtes de police) mais le juge administratif (JA). Pour le JA, le LBD est une « arme dangereuse » dont l’utilisation déclenche le régime de responsabilité sans faute de l’État.

Je ne suis pas un professionnel du droit mais quand je vois toutes les personnes blessées et mutilées par les forces de l’ordre qui saisissent le juge répressif en y croyant, et ignorent complètement le JA, je me dis que les avocats de ce pays sont des parasites.

(Et les journalistes ne valent pas mieux puisque même ceux qui sont spécialisés dans le droit semblent ignorer le fonctionnement des juridictions, à savoir qu’il existe un juge administratif qui juge la responsabilité de l’État.)

« Les affaires de Flash-Ball devant la juridiction administrative ne sont pas légion. La voie devant le juge pénal étant systématiquement empruntée, les requérants ont rarement actionné le juge administratif. » (Lien : La responsabilité de l’État du fait de l’utilisation d’un Flash-Ball) Le plaignant, dans l’arrêt CAA 2018, reçoit 86.400 euros en appel.

Une idée répandue est qu’aider les gens les rendrait paresseux et les encouragerait à profiter du système. Nos expériences montrent le contraire : plus on aide les gens, plus ils sont capables de sortir de la pauvreté dans laquelle ils étaient enfermés. (Esther Duflo, Prix Nobel d’économie)

Pourquoi les riches voudraient-ils que leur argent, via l’impôt, permette à des pauvres de les concurrencer en sortant de la pauvreté ?

Xénopsychologie judiciaire

Est justifiée l’hospitalisation sous contrainte de celui qui attend toute une nuit dans un champ les soucoupes volantes pour l’amener sur Vénus. CA Aix-en-Provence, 8 juillet 2015 (Curiosités Juridiques)

Je commence à suspecter vos présentations. Ce tweet ne devrait-il pas être rédigé comme suit : « Est justifiée l’hospitalisation sous contrainte de celui qui parmi d’autres éléments de son bilan psychiatrique attend toute une nuit dans un champ etc » ? C’est un bilan général qui peut justifier une hospitalisation sous contrainte et non des éléments qui, pris isolément, relèvent des opinions des personnes et ne regardent qu’elles. On a le droit dans une société pluraliste de croire aux ovnis et aux rencontres du troisième type.

“The SETI Institute’s senior astronomer, Seth Shostak, estimates that there are between ten thousands and one million planets in the Milky Way containing a radio-broadcasting [intelligent] civilization. Carl Sagan estimated around a million in the galaxy, and Drake estimated around ten thousand.” (Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near, 2005)

La NASA a déjà pris des décisions fondées sur la détection d’ovnis [au moins une décision] : « Le retour de la navette sur Terre devait avoir lieu le 19 septembre, mais il fut retardé d’environ 24 heures car plusieurs objets non identifiés se trouvaient dans les hautes couches de l’atmosphère, rendant la rentrée de la navette risquée. » (Wkpd STS-115)

Pas super malin TPMP d’avoir diffusé la vidéo de Stefanyshyn-Piper en disant qu’elle s’était évanouie à cause des UFO. Ça s’appelle de la désinformation et c’est dangereux. Elle subissait juste la transition de l’impesanteur (sic) à la gravité terrestre à son retour de mission. (TheWiseRafiki, oct. 2019)

La NASA explique que les évanouissements sont fréquents au retour des astronautes sur terre mais ne dit pas pourquoi, alors que des conférences de presse au retour sur terre ont toujours lieu, les astronautes ne s’évanouissent pas en général ; cela s’est produit seulement avec Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper.

La seule astronaute connue à s’être évanouie lors d’une conférence de presse au retour sur terre, ce fut au moment où elle disait : « Nous avons vu quelque chose… que nous n’avions jamais vu avant. Et quand j’ai ouvert la porte, il y avait aussi quelque chose de différent… »

Le seul évanouissement filmé en conférence de presse a donc eu lieu quand l’astronaute allait parler d’une chose « jamais vue avant » et après un report de l’atterrissage par la NASA en raisons d’objets non identifiés.

La NASA dit que ces choses qui ont retardé l’atterrissage et que l’astronautes dit n’avoir « jamais vu avant » étaient… des « débris spatiaux » (Wkpd STS-115). Tout s’explique 🙄

En réalité, la conclusion qui s’impose, suite aux explications des événements par la NASA, est que leurs astronautes sont susceptibles de confondre des débris spatiaux avec quelque chose de « jamais vu » ou d’avoir des hallucinations alors qu’ils sont censés être triés sur le volet…

#AustralianFires The Solid State Entity (or Intelligence) SSE/SSI needs a dry planet whence all organic life (water bodies) has disappeared, as water/humidity is corrosive to It.

Finlande : vers une semaine de travail de quatre jours, six heures par jour ? (Journal Fakir)

Dans un pays riche, on peut vivre mieux. Mais la France n’a pas le niveau de la Finlande… (Marmelade-Actu)

En termes de PIB par habitant (en parité de pouvoir d’achat), la Finlande et la France se talonnent. Pour le FMI (2017), la Finlande est au 27^e rang, la France au 29^e. Pour le CIA Factbook (2017), la Finlande est au 37^e rang, la France au 39^e. Pour la Banque mondiale (2016), FL 27^e, FR 31^e. [Chiffres de la page Wkpd Liste de pays par PIB (PPA)] La page Wkpd en anglais a des chiffres plus récents. La Finlande et la France se sont encore rapprochées (FMI 2018 : 24^e et 25^e). Elles sont grosso modo au même niveau pour le PIB per capita, un indice du niveau de vie.

Un vrai bon indice du niveau de vie serait un indice synthétique du PIB par tête et du coefficient de Gini (qui mesure les inégalités de revenus). La Finlande a une répartition sensiblement plus égalitaire (Gini 26,8) que la France (37,2). Puisque la Finlande a un PIB par tête comparable à celui de la France (très légèrement supérieur) et en même temps un Gini bien plus égalitaire, chez eux la semaine de 24 heures (payée 35) aura un effet moins égalisateur qu’elle ne l’aurait chez nous, car ils partent de plus loin dans l’égalité.

En France, on est libre de ne pas avoir de papiers d’identité sur soi et la police est libre de vous embarquer si vous n’avez pas de papiers sur vous. Tout le monde est libre, quoi.

L’enquête déterminera si Rémi Chouviat [décédé à la suite d’un plaquage ventral par la police] avait une faiblesse cardiaque. (Un représentant syndical policier)

Le plaquage ventral est interdit dans de nombreux pays car il peut être fatal même pour des personnes sans faiblesse cardiaque. (« Cette pratique demeure interdite dans de nombreux pays en raison de sa dangerosité », selon la Ligue des droits de l’homme)

Par ailleurs, comment une faiblesse cardiaque disculperait-elle les auteurs d’un plaquage meurtrier qui savaient que si la personne avait une faiblesse cardiaque elle mourrait et ne se sont pas enquis de l’état cardiaque de la personne ?

En 2007, notre pays a été condamné par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme après la mort d’un homme interpellé suite à cette technique. (BFMTV)

En France, la technique est même interdite pour la police aux frontières. Wkpd : « La mise en décubitus ventral est autorisée en France, à l’exception des forces de la police aux frontières, depuis un décès en 2003. » Qu’est-ce qui justifie le distinguo ? Notre pays doit interdire cette pratique complètement puisqu’elle l’interdit déjà pour sa police aux frontières et qu’une différence de traitement est complètement injustifiée.

L’art de la décapitation symbolique

Décapitation de Macron: non-lieu pour tous les gilets jaunes poursuivis. (Camille Polloni, journaliste) #Angoulême

Une excellente nouvelle au terme de cette procédure indigne. Il faut rappeler que, quand cette décapitation symbolique a eu lieu, la médiatique Kathy Griffith, aux États-Unis, venait de décapiter Donald Trump et que la vidéo et/ou les photos étaient devenues virales, mais pas de justice saisie dans ce pays libre.

J’encourage ces Gilets Jaunes et leurs avocats à poursuivre les auteurs de la plainte abusive à leur encontre. [Il est malheureusement à craindre que leurs modestes moyens financiers les en dissuadent.]

C’était du lawfare contre l’expression de l’opposition. Ce non-lieu ne doit pas être la fin de l’histoire. Des citoyens libres ne doivent pas être inquiétés pour l’expression de leur opposition politique ; ces Gilets Jaunes ont droit à réparation du préjudice.

Ces personnes n’auraient jamais dû se retrouver sur un banc de justice. Qui réparera le préjudice qu’elles ont subi ? L’un d’eux « a été placé sous contrôle judiciaire pendant plus de six mois, interdit de rencontrer les deux autres mis en cause et de se présenter sur les ronds-points occupés par les gilets jaunes. Sans compter les pointages hebdomadaires au commissariat. » (francebleu. fr 8.1.2020) Réparation !

Le Premier ministre avait appelé à des poursuites sur Twitter : « Il est hors de question de banaliser de tels gestes qui doivent faire l’objet d’une condamnation unanime et de sanctions pénales. » Ces propos doivent faire l’objet de sanctions. Cette diffamation, cette provocation à la haine envers des citoyens qui exerçaient pacifiquement leur droit d’expression et d’opposition politique, doit faire l’objet d’une condamnation unanime. La décapitation d’un mannequin leur a valu [à valu tout du moins à l’un d’entre eux], à cause d’un parquet aux ordres de l’exécutif, six mois de contrôle judiciaire avec pointage hebdomadaire obligatoire, avant un non-lieu judiciaire total. Il est hors de question de banaliser de telles paroles et pratiques gouvernementales incendiaires, autoritaristes et liberticides, qui doivent faire l’objet d’une condamnation unanime et même de sanctions pénales. Ces Gilets Jaunes doivent en outre recevoir réparation pour les tribulations qui leur ont été infligées par un parquet à la botte de l’exécutif. Prenons exemple sur le Japon, qui sait fait preuve de circonspection avant de poursuivre des citoyens libres.

« Ces gestes doivent faire l’objet de sanctions pénales. » Le gouvernement se prend en boomerang sa grossière pression sur l’autorité judiciaire, son mépris de la séparation des pouvoirs : dire aux juges ce qu’ils doivent faire ! (Le parquet, lui, s’est soumis. Sans surprise.)

iii

Ce gouvernement a inventé le lynchage gouvernemental. Il s’est servi des réseaux sociaux pour lyncher de libres citoyens innocents (non-lieu sur toutes les charges) qui avaient exercé pacifiquemt leur liberté d’expression.

Et il a mobilisé le parquet pour les persécuter.

NON-LIEU ✌️✊😘

[La nouvelle m’a particulièrement réjoui car j’avais pris position au sujet de cette procédure judiciaire sur ce blog : voyez ici Décapitation symbolique.]

The Fazio Test: Make It Compulsory

Sunday Read: “Racist and anti-immigrant sentiment should have no place in politics in Ireland. The spread of racism can only lead to division between workers.” (SIPTU ‘‘Ireland’s largest trade union’’)

“The spread of racism can only lead to division between workers.” International exchange rates too. With income in euros, a Polish immigrant has a house built in Poland after 10 years. Meanwhile a French worker will never have a house built in his won country. So? You teach him Polish?

Union bureaucracy…

Racism in any form has no bearing in modern society. We are all fellow sisters and brothers irrespective of race, creed and color. (Martin C.)

My answer: “Fazio et al. (1995) demonstrated that even though some participants’ automatically activated attitudes toward Blacks were negative, their explicitly reported attitudes toward Blacks as assessed by the Modern Racism Scale (MRS) were highly positive.” (Melissa J. Ferguson, in Social Psychology and the Unconscious, John A. Bargh ed., 2007) Did you take a Fazio test? 😘

I think you should take the Fazio test. Your bot-like, machine-like tweet is highly suspicious to me on a psychological level.

[Martin’s tweet elicited this harsh response because the differences I mention in the situations of workers of various backgrounds, namely between locals and migrants, are grounded in an objective condition which is the combination of international exchange rates and migration. No antiracist mantra or abracadabra can be of any help in case of objective infrastructural differences among workers on one and the same market. We shall have to deal with inane SJWs (social justice warriors) by using some kind of what I here call a Fazio test, in order to dismiss those whose obsessions are the result of severe inner conflict. Because when, for instance, one stresses the structural differences created between workers by exchange rates and migration combined, these neurotic justice warriors would repress such analysises as racism or a source of hostility between workers, failing to acknowledge the facts because of their neurotic blindness. On the other hand, die-hard capitalists raise the same criticism, the same allegation of racism to prevent the structural problem being ever addressed, and a compulsory Fazio test would make it clear that defining the problem as I am doing has nothing to do with racial or anti-immigrants qua foreigners bias.]

So that’s what you’ve got from your “Sunday Read”… I guess that makes you a Sunday antiracist, like Sunday drivers and Sunday painters.

iii

This Sunday Read is courtesy of the all-white union. (Picture is their Twitter header: Click to enlarge)

Un Président dit à un Français : « Vous patachonnez dans la tête. »

#Patachonner Exemple : « Je patachonne dans la tête. »

« En jargon cheminot un patachon était un train de marchandise non prioritaire. » (Wkpd Patachon) Il y a comme une grève qui ne lui sort pas de la tête…

Le sage dit : « Quand tu ne sais pas quoi dire, invente des mots. »

iii

Le Père Zi Dent : « Violences policières, ces mots sont inacceptables dans un État de droit. » Ce n’est pas parce que c’est interdit (dans un État de droit) que ça n’a jamais lieu. Sinon le mot « assassinat » serait lui aussi inacceptable. Patacciono ma non troppo, per favore.

« Réponse du président : ‘Monsieur, je suis gentil, moi. Vous êtes là, vous criez à partie et vous n’êtes pas sympathique, ni respectueux.’ »

Hé les médias, patachonner c’est bien, mais crier à partie n’est pas mal non plus dans le genre.

Voltaire et les autres devaient écrire de la fiction pour critiquer, car ils ne pouvaient le faire sans détours. À cet égard rien n’a changé. (On écrit de la fiction, ou sous anonymat.)

Food is now so over processed it’s too delicious for us to put down, making us fat and wreaking havoc on our brain chemistry. (@WLSA_Psych)

The underlying mechanism could be the following. Each species needs its own proportion of proteins, fats and carbohydrates, and satiation occurs when each component gets its proper share from nutrition.

Testing drastically unbalanced food with ants (food that lacks almost all of one or two components), ants eat till they die [eat themselves to death]. (The experiment is described with due information in Audrey Dussutour, Tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur le blob sans jamais oser le demander, 2017)

If (As?) companies noticed that people consume more unbalanced vs balanced food (because satiation occurs later with unbalanced food) their financial incentive is to use hyperpalability techniques with unbalanced food anyway. – Whereas hyperpalatable balanced food would be all right.

« Le droit de grève s’exerce dans le cadre des lois qui le réglementent. » (Alinéa 7 du préambule de la Constitution) « Dans le cadre des lois qui le réglementent »… Ne serait-ce pas là du droit bavard ? Quels droits s’exercent en dehors du cadre des lois ?

Quel est ce film, déjà, ce classique du cinéma en noir et blanc où un pédophile anglais ou américain, en Grèce sous-développée, finit par se faire lyncher par une foule de gamins autochtones ? Je pense que ça veut dire que les gamins aimaient beaucoup le monsieur. #Ironie

La mise en cause par des militants et dirigeants politiques du statut de journaliste de certains journalistes est évidemment liée à la volonté de violer la liberté de la presse.

Après la comparution du journaliste Taha Bouhafs : Pas de mise en examen. Encore un innocent inquiété par un parquet aux ordres de l’exécutif. Et sur les réseaux sociaux les bots et militants se déchaînent, appellent à punir un innocent : cf. hashtag #TahaBouhafsEnPrison

iii

On ne peut pas continuer avec un système judiciaire malade qui envoie à tour de bras devant le juge des citoyens libres qui n’ont rien à y faire !

Même les mises en examen ne donnent lieu à condamnation que dans 81 % des cas, ce qui signifie que de nombreux innocents (19 % des mis en examen) vivent l’enfer d’un procès pénal en étant innocents. Au Canada le taux est de 97 %, au Japon de 99 %+, en Russie de 99 %+, aux US de 93 %, au Royaume-Uni de 85 %. (Wkpd Conviction Rate, qui montre que la Chine, 99 %+, et Isral, 93 %, ont aussi des taux meilleurs, et que seule l’Inde fait moins bien que la France dans cette liste, mais avec un taux tellement bas que ça ne peut même pas compter… Je cherche les chiffres d’autres pays.)

Ces chiffres indiquent que nous avons un parquet obsédé par les poursuites, qui envoie des gens devant le juge sans y regarder de près ou sur la foi de rapports de police bâclés ou malveillants ou les deux. Ça suffit !

La France, bien qu’elle ait un taux de condamnation bas (81 %), semble condamner plus que les pays qui ont un taux de condamnation pénale plus élevé ! Comparaison France (8,5 pour 1.000 habitants) vs OTAN (dont États-Unis, Canada, Royaume-Uni) (6,17). (Source)

La France a donc à la fois un chiffre absolu de condamnations pénales élevé et un taux de condamnation bas. Ce qui veut dire que son chiffre absolu d’innocents subissant l’enfer d’un procès pénal est très élevé. Ça suffit !

April 30, 2016

XXXVI The Evolutionary Roots of the Clash of Civilizations

The relations between Islam and the West have been hotly discussed for decades. Milestones in this debate have been books such as The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama (1992), Jihad vs McWorld by Benjamin Barber (1995), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington (1996). In his work Conflicts of Fitness: Islam, America, and Evolutionary Psychology (2015), Dr A.S. Amin (MD) brings new insights in the discussion by making fruitful use of the findings of evolutionary psychology (EP), and I will review his ideas at some length while broaching the evolutionary roots of the clash of civilizations.

Although “Jihad vs McWorld” has become a kind of catchphrase, in the 1996 afterword of his book Barber explains that it is a misnomer: “I made clear that I deployed Jihad as a generic term quite independently from its Islamic theological origins (…) While extremist groups like Islamic Jihad have themselves associated the word with armed struggle against modernizing, secular infidels, I can appreciate that the great majority of devout Muslims who harbor no more sympathy for Islamic Jihad than devout Christians feel for the Ku Klux Klan or the Montana Militia might feel unfairly burdened by my title. I owe them an apology, and hope they will find their way past the book’s cover to the substantive reasoning that makes clear how little my arguments has to do with Islam as a religion or with resistance to McWorld as the singular property of Muslims.” So much for the catchphrase.

By opposing these two objects, Barber sometimes appears to mean an opposition between globalization and parochialization; yet Islam is hardly a good example of parochialism, since it is itself a globalism. In fact, all civilizations, inasmuch as they possess an inherent tendency to expand, are global; it’ just that some are more global than others, and the Western world is to date the more global of all inherently global civilizations. In some other places, Barber explains that he is defending democracy against both McWorld and Jihad, against “globalizing commerce” and “the populist reaction” to it – “Demopoulos vs McJihad’s” could be the phrase – but I do not find in his book convincing evidence that would allow us to dissociate democracy from McWorld; the inevitability of their connection has not been disproved, and the democracy Barber is talking about looks more like another Utopia, a Lubberland for the intellectuals, if the discourse is not Pavlovian appeal plain and simple. Barber means that, McWorld being far from humanistic, it deserves not to be associated with the concept of democracy, because, if I understand well, anything that has something wrong about it is undemocratic. If this does not build on Pavlovian conditioning, I don’t know what does.

This is not to say that more humanistic tendencies should not be encouraged in the society, but perhaps clinging to the word “democracy” is not the best way to prepare for a humanistic future, since historically democratic institutions have contributed much in preventing counter-powers to commercial interests from being more effective, and if the future is different from the present, then new words are needed to describe it. As far as I am concerned, deeming the existence of a political class, even appointed by universal suffrage, as exploitative, and suggesting that people vote for ideas, not for men (just vote on your computer and let the administration apply the programme), I am rather inclined to drop the name altogether.

In the present essay I draw a double-entry matrix of civilizations (picture). Entry 1 is reproductive climate: long-term (“committed”) / short-term (“hedonistic”). Entry 2 is material wealth: affluent / nonaffluent. These concepts will be explained. The Western world is defined as affluent and short-term. The Far East, and especially the continuum China-Korea-Japan, is defined as affluent and long-term. For practical purposes, Islam is defined as nonaffluent and long-term. We shall not deal with wealthy Gulf states, which I call “leisure nations” due to the extreme forms of welfare state they provide their nationals with; no matter how important on the world stage, they owe many of their current attributes to the accident of the oil rent. Black Africa is defined as nonaffluent and short-term.

Reproductive climate and wealth are considered independent. A certain tendency present in the West sees in short-term (“hedonistic”) mentality the engine of affluence. The idea is that, as the constraints on production, hence scarcity, have been overcome by technology, the sustenance of abundance and of the affluence that abundance makes possible now depends on mass consumption or hedonism, the lack of which would provoke the collapse of affluence. If our assumption that East Asia is both affluent and long-term (“committed”) is correct, the preceding reasoning, albeit cogent, is unwarranted (the main impetus of mass consumption may well have nothing to do with hedonism, even broadly defined.)

The matrix is descriptive and applies to the present instant only. It does not imply, for instance, that the West is inherently affluent and short-term; in fact, the West used to be poor and long-term – and the historical conjunction of its newly accrued affluence and short-term outlook is the reason some people hypothesize a relationship of causality.

Institutional Vs Cryptic Polygyny

To understand the evolutionary roots of the clash of civilizations, one must keep in mind three basic ideas grounded on the Darwinian theory of evolution.

1/ Humans, like other animals, are designed by their genes to aim at reproduction. This is an axiom of the theory of evolution and of evolutionary psychology (as the theory applied to human behavior specifically). As a consequence, humans are involved in sexual competition, by which they intend to maximize their numbers of descendants. Maximization is said to happen usually through optimizing one’s number of children and their rearing according to the level of one’s resources, in order that the children grow up in environments that allow them to reproduce successfully in their turn.

2/ In sexual and reproductive matters, men and women are not alike. The biological costs of making a child are higher for women. It costs women a nine-month pregnancy whereas it costs merely an ejaculate to men. After parturition the woman feeds the baby, whereas it costs nothing to the man if he decides so. In some animal species, males are not involved in parenting at all. In humans, the burden of parenting is shared by both sexes.

3/ Men are sexually less discriminate than women because the cost of reproduction and the consequences of mating are not as great for the former.

Institutional polygyny, as practiced for instance in Islam, is limited polygyny, that is a departure from unlimited polygyny by which one dominant male inseminates all women in a given group. Gorillas display such unlimited polygyny. The alpha male lives with most females in the area and he is the only one to inseminate the females in the group. Other adult males live alone at the periphery of the group; their aim in life is to seize the first occasion to kill an infant gorilla belonging to the group, because then the grieving female leaves the group after a few days and mates with the killer of her infant (see Wrangham & Petersen, 1996). Groups expand and shrink according to the results of this endless infanticide. Amin explains that, in human societies, limited, as opposed to unlimited, polygyny deflates occasions for violent behavior: “Unrestricted polygyny increases the likelihood of a situation where it becomes next to impossible for even an average man to find a wife. Having many men who are unable to find a mate can be a destabilizing force in society, and it may be important that a marriage institution works to insure this type of situation does not occur.” (pp. 6-7). By insuring access to mating to a greater number of men, restricted polygyny benefits the group overall.

Considering this, it would be logical to go one step further and postulate that, as monogyny insures access to mating to the greatest possible number of men, it is the one best solution. It is perhaps the best solution for men, but Amin claims that monogyny does not benefit women overall and that limited polygyny is the best compromise. We must here take into account the notion of a man’ desirability. There is a flavor of objectivity about this notion that may put off some readers, for whom in matters of love and passion desirability would be the most subjective thing in the world. In fact, as far as evolutionary theory is concerned, things are not as subjective as they are usually fancied to be; people’s choice is determined by objective preferences and competition, i.e. one’s ranking and value on the mating market. We can therefore assume men’s desirability to be something objective. Men of a given group or population can be ranked from most to least desirable, and the same is true for women. For a man, capacity to secure resources and status is deemed particularly important; for a woman, markers of fertility and health (beauty) are.

If a woman’s fitness optimization depends on her mating with a richer and more desirable man than the man whose value equals hers on the mating market, she will mate with that man rather than with her equal. As to the more desirable man, he will mate with the less desirable woman willingly because men are less discriminate (basic idea #3 above), and as long as he has got the resources, he can provide for both (or more) women and the children they give birth to without jeopardizing their fitness. Admittedly, the most desirable woman is the loser in this scenario – she is the one loser.

As Amin explains (pp. 5-6), with polygyny a greater number of women have sexual access to men more desirable than they are; conversely, a greater number of men must accept mating with women less desirable than they are (some men even having none). Polygyny thus benefits women more than men overall, and it is advantageous to a woman as long as the advantage of mating with a more desirable man exceeds the drawback of sharing him – and his resources – with other women. The latter provision allows us to predict that polygyny is more advantageous where social inequalities are greater.

The West practices institutional monogyny, Islam has institutional polygyny, but perhaps the real difference is between institutional vs cryptic polygyny. In order to compare the two systems, we should add to the picture the advantages or drawbacks of cryptic polygyny. On which point I quote a previous essay of mine (xxxi): “The plight of low-income single mothers is the rich man’s deed [as a result of cryptic polygyny]. It is the rich woman’s also, because, in some other societies, rich men marry several women, and all these women’s children are his legal children, to whom he is bound by law to provide support during their bringing up; in our society, the rich woman doesn’t want resources to be scattered among so many children.” In terms of Amin’s thought, the more desirable woman doesn’t care to share her mate’s resources with less desirable women – and, yes, under institutional polygyny the most desirable women fare less well than their counterparts under monogyny. & “A number of the rich man’s children, perhaps most of them, are thus [as a result of cryptic polygyny] raised in low-income homes or by low-income single mothers. When a single mother finds a partner who wants to live with her, the children she had before they met are much more likely than other children to suffer abuse from the partner (see xxviii). A child raised by a single-mother is also more likely to become a delinquent (see The Bell Curve, a book already dealt with in xxx). With the acuteness of deprivation rises the likelihood of abuse, molestation, rape, and murder of children by their ‘parents’.”

Cryptic polygyny increases existing social inequalities. The man’s urge to reproduce is largely wasted for those of his children born out of wedlock after acts of unlawful insemination, because even if they inherit his genes their bringing-up in deprived or worse-off environments is likely to be harmful*. As polygyny is predicted to be greater in unequal societies, and as inequalities in Western societies have increased during the last decades with the globalization of markets and the development of the knowledge-based economy (see, for instance, Brynjolfsson and McAfee, The Second Machine Age, 2014), one may assume that cryptic polygyny has been on the rise in the West.

Whereas cryptic polygyny is triggered, in an institutionally monogynous society, by social inequalities and at the same time further increases inequalities, on the contrary institutional polygyny is more egalitarian. On this point I have found my intuition confirmed by Amin. I had written (Comment to xxx): “As the rich man, when impregnating a poor woman, obligates her to scatter her scant resources among a greater number of children, he increases the adverse pressures of the environment on their future status. The rich man’s children would be better off if brought up by him. In the abstract, providing the number of wives be a positive function of the man’s wealth [which is the case, as we have seen while dealing with a man’s desirability], legal polygyny is more egalitarian than monogyny, because the rich man’s resources are spent on a greater number of children (his legal children).” I have then found the following under Amin’s quill: “Polygyny [institutional polygyny] enables a society to utilize a man’s desire to maximize his reproductive fitness to achieve a more balanced distribution of wealth. For example, a man who makes $500,000 a year can provide financially for ten women twice as well as a man making $25,000 can for just one woman.” (p. 7).

Whether or not there is also cryptic polygyny in Islamic countries where institutional polygyny exists I cannot say based on data, but the following section about the concept of reproductive climate will show that these countries are serious in their attempts to prevent it.

Reproductive Climate: Long-term Vs Short-Term

Based, again, on the evolutionary basic ideas presented above (1-3), Amin explains how “the reproductive ideal for women” is best served when men’s commitment to their pair is strong: “Forbidding men to have sex while offering little or no commitment is to their reproductive detriment. Furthermore, forcing men to make a commitment to their mates and to support any children that result approximates the reproductive ideal for women.” (p. 4). The notion of patriarchy is far off the mark, given that matrimonial bonds serve women’s reproductive interests rather than men’s; of which Schopenhauer already had a clear notion, concluding on the subject by these words: “By reason of the unnaturally advantageous position conferred to women by the monogamous arrangement and corresponding laws of matrimony, because they posit the woman as the man’s whole equal, which she is in no way, intelligent, prudent men are very often wary of committing so great a sacrifice and of engaging themselves in so unequal a compact.” (Parerga and Paralipomena).

A reproductive climate, that is, the overall outlook of mating and parenting practices in a given population, can be defined as long-term when males are committed to raising their children together with their female mates, and short-term otherwise. Rather than separate worlds, the two notions are in a continuum; when we ascribe one of the two to a given group, it is only in relative terms. In this view, gorilla males (mentioned above) are long-term strategists, whereas tigers, for example, are the most short-term possible insofar as tiger cubs never meet their father, unless by accident.

Among humans, one adaptation evolved to cement the bonds between a pair, so that both partners provide good cooperative care to the children, is love, and the more enduring the more efficient, hence the romantic (but nevertheless true in an important sense) view that love is everlasting or it is not love. Another saying is that love is blind. To be more precise, love is blind to opportunity costs; when in love, a man does not leave his partner for a more desirable woman when given the occasion. (Hence the universal idea that desirability is something subjective.) I say “a man” on purpose, for a man in love is more important to a woman than a woman in love to a man, because the problem this adaptation solves is how to pair-bond men, whose instincts incline them to remain free from bonding and parenting.

In order to maximize their fitness, each person needs to assess the reproductive climate in which they are living, because their success depends on it. The more long-term the climate, the more advantageous it is, as a rule, to adopt long-term strategies, and vice-versa. Sex being secretive, one needs to rely on cues. Hence gossip: “Although far from completely trustworthy, gossip can offer at least some information on the reproductive strategies being employed by others” (p. 26). Clothing, makeup, and behavior also serve as clues (pp. 26-7).

Amin then goes on explaining the dilemma women are facing: “Before a woman can hope to get a man to commit to her, she must first attract him. Attracting a man is made easier by displaying sexual receptivity, thereby appealing to his need for promiscuity and low commitment. On the other hand, getting a man to commit is made easier by displaying sexual restraint, thereby appealing to his need for paternity confidence.” (p. 29). In long-term climates, commitment is a given, for women, but they have to attract a partner. Considering what has just been said about cues, in long-term climates at the same time women’s clothing and makeup are conservative, so if a woman takes the step to make her clothing and/or makeup slightly more appealing to the sexual urges of men, she gets an edge over her female competitors (p. 30). This fact triggers a seduction arms race between women, in the course of which women’s behavior evolves towards more and more encouraging men’s shorter-term strategies, and men are given an ever greater number of opportunities to access females without committing to them. Amin contends this is what has been happening in the US these last decades (pp. 32-3). The arm’s race is reinforced by the media, advertising, and pornography. Catering to women’s need to attract men, at the same time advertising is permanently spreading cues that a woman’s reproductive interest lies in appealing to men’s sexual short-term urges. Same with pornography, “providing the brain with false information which it then uses to come up with an inaccurate assessment of the prevailing reproduction climate” (p. 43). As the race goes on and on, the levels of paternity certainty that women are able to offer decrease and men are consequently ever more incited to decline commitment since they naturally expect paternity certainty must be part of the deal (evolutionarily speaking, it does not make sense to provide resources to a stranger’s offspring; and studies show that stepfathers are many times more abusive with their step-children).

Hence, according to Amin, the media and pornography exert a reinforcing effect. I have argued elsewhere that this effect could be more warping than reinforcing, but for the time being I will stress that I find Amin’s description of what is occurring in the West plausible. If the role of mass eroticism in the media is consumption first and foremost, consumption itself, in the EP view, is ancillary to reproductive pursuits, such as when women buy clothing and makeup to attract men. In short-term climates, part of conspicuous consumption on the part of men is aimed at making known to women who are not expecting commitment that they will receive great amounts of resources fast during the short time of an uncommitted relationship.

That the West has become short-term may be confirmed by current divorce rates in the US: “American divorce rates now approach 67 percent for those currently getting married, up from the mere 50 percent figure that alarmed many over the past two decades.” (David Buss, The Dangerous Passion, 2000). Given such figures, why people even keep marrying is difficult to understand if that is not make-believe for women’s expectations of commitment.

Another characteristic of long-term climates that is addressed by Amin are matchmakers and arranged marriages. The practice is used as an indictment against Muslim countries (and against the past of the Western world), but all long-term patterns of behavior for which Islam is being blamed from a Western point of view exist in the long-term, affluent Far East (see Matrix) as well, as we shall see. Quoth Amin: “In a long-term climate, being shy benefits both men and women when dealing with the opposite gender [men’s shyness advertises commitment, women’s shyness advertises paternity certainty]. Obviously, a situation such as this makes the formation of new relationships quite difficult. Arranged marriages offer a solution to this problem. Rather than meddlesome interference, matchmakers play a vital role in bringing together couples whose long-term reproductive strategies act as an impediment to starting a relationship by themselves.” (pp. 50-1). This insight can help us assess the reasons why numbers of Westerners renege on their civilization and convert to Islam and even to Jihad – having being dismantled, in the Western short-term context, the very institutions that would allow shy men to find a partner. No matchmakers, no whorehouses (where one can gain experience and confidence, see xxix), and sexual competition and pressure as high as ever: You can expect a good deal of men to understand they will not be able to thrive in our “emancipated” society.

Two other characteristics Amin ascribes to short-term climates are: a/ less concern for women’s age; b/ women’s careers.

a/ “Men in short-term reproductive climates do not put the same emphasis on youth than men in long-term reproductive climates do. This is often viewed as enlightened, since such men seem to be focusing more on the woman herself rather than her baby-making abilities. However, the real reason men in short-term climates do not place the same emphasis on youth is they have less reason to concern themselves with long-term reproductive utility. Instead of focusing on long-term reproductive utility, men pursuing short-term strategies are more concerned with signs of immediate fertility.” (pp. 48-9).

b/ “The more short-term a reproductive climate becomes, the less likely it is that men can be relied on, making it extremely important for women to be economically independent. Therefore, women in short-term climates place a huge value on their careers, feeling sorry for women who do not have the same opportunities that they do. Women in long-term climates tend to see things differently. Such women are often glad they have husbands who provide them with the opportunity to stay home and take proper care of the children, pitying women who are forced to play the role of provider and caretaker at the same time.” (pp. 51-2). The role of provider is all the more to be pitied that in many cases it is a dehumanizing one; and there is something frightful about business experts’ demanding “passion” for his or her repetitive toil from a worker.

Now that we have familiarized ourselves with the concept of reproductive climate, let us see how it applies to current civilizations.

The Double-Entry Civilization Matrix

We will say a few words on 1/ Islam; 2/ the West; 3/ Black Africa; 4/ the Far East.

1/ I have defined Islam as both long-term and nonaffluent. That it is long-term is evidenced by institutional polygyny, whereby a man commits to all his wives’ children, by its stance against eroticism and pornography, by standards of decency for women that impose conservative clothing, makeup and behavior, by relative eviction of women from the workplace, and in some cases (perhaps as an inherent tendency) by seclusion of women. According to Amin, the Quran has been in several instances interpreted in a manner that suits the interests of extremely long-term male mentalities, to the point of distortion (p. 56). For example, passages from the Quran on women’s share of inheritance would be ignored because they might promote women’s independence and thus trigger the seduction arms race that leads to short-term climates. Moves towards a greater independence for women are resisted because they are perceived as jeopardizing long-term climate.

As to affluence, many Muslim countries belong to the developing world, and recent international events in several Arab countries, which have plunged them into chaos, are reinforcing this situation by impoverishing them further. The Gulf states are a different case, which, however interesting, we shall not discuss here. (For those interested, and fluent in French, see my essay “Saudi Arabia the Leisure Nation,” here.)

I suggest with Amin that Jihad is not only the hostility of the have-nots against the haves, but also of the long-term against the short-term. The current appeal of Islam to some non-Muslim young people in the West (among whom many young women), and to formerly secularized second or third-generation immigrants, lies in its extreme long-term stance, as opposed to the short-term ideologies of these young people’s countries of birth and residence. The appeal of Islam lies first and foremost in his advocating of long-term strategies, not in the daily prayers nor in the ritual slaughtering, etc. The best way to dry up the stream of Westerners’ conversions is consequently to liberalize Islam and make a ritualistic empty shell of it, to which fundamentalists, of course, are firmly opposed; this opposition is predictable in the framework of sexual competition and reproductive climates.

2/ With respect to the West, as already said I have intended elsewhere to cast some doubt on the depth of our promiscuity, bringing into the picture a possible warping media effect, but Amin’s approach is convincing enough.

Another objection can be raised in case reproductive strategies were inborn, which is the contention of J.P. Rushton, based on sociobiologist E. O. Wilson’s r/K model. According to Rushton, blacks would be more short-term (r), mongoloids more long-term (K), whites being in the middle. The trouble with aggregating clues and data from various groups if their reproductive differences are inborn is that it makes an accurate assessment of reproductive climate impossible. A person is advised to assess the behavior of people from his or her own group, because assessing people’s behavior from other groups is misleading (you don’t want to mimic the behavior of a person whose idiosyncrasies are inborn). Mere aggregation would tend, if Rushton is correct, to make believe the climate is more short-term than it really is as far as the white subgroup is concerned and conversely more long-term as far as the black subgroup is concerned.

3/ This leads us to the Black African civilization in the Matrix. I have defined it as nonaffluent, which can hardly be denied, and short-term relying in part on Rushton’s use of the r/K model. Black men’s virile endowments (penis and testes size) suggest greater sperm competition, lesser paternity certainty, and shorter-term strategies.

To the credit of this classification, Senegalese scholar Cheikh Anta Diop describes ancient black civilizations, and their contemporary rests, as matriarchal and matrilinear, which suggests a lesser commitment from men. In short-term contexts, the woman’s brother is more committed to her offspring than the father himself; according to C. Anta Diop, that is the case in sub-Saharan Africa. Quoth: “African men designed matriarchy in accord with African women with a view to the greatest might of the clan. … Contrary to the social order of the Indo-European clan, it is progressively with the dislocation of the clan that lineage through males has been admitted in African matriarchal societies. In these societies this kind of linage has kept up to the present day the character of a weak kinship, less strong than that derived from women. … Among Indo-Europeans the patriarchal family structure excluded any alternative notion of authority deriving from the maternal uncle; the latter term did not even exist originally.”*** (For a short exposé on some others of Cheikh Anta Diop’s ideas and an annotated wolof glossary, see here, in French.)

Incidentally, given the basic ideas 1-3 above, such a situation is a bit of a puzzle. The current view is that our ancestors were very polygynous and a little bit (if at all) polyandrous – albeit I have stated elsewhere (xxxv) that this overlooks sperm competition. Yet, it really looks as if black men were not much concerned about paternity certainty (the reason is “the greatest might of the clan”?). Usually, short-term men adopt mixed strategies; even rap singers, whose lifestyle and lyrics exemplify, according to Amin, the most extreme forms of short-term mentality in the West, have a “wifey” (p. 75) from whom they expect certain standards of behavior upon which they can build a sense of paternity security. Conversely, the Quran allows for concubines, mostly slaves, that is, for men’s indulging their short-term urges; however the practice has fallen into disuse, although it seems to have been restored by newcomers such as Daesh.

4/ The Far East, namely a continuum China-Korea-Japan, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, offers the example of an affluent and long-term civilization. To describe it I will make use of the book Order by Accident: The Origins and Consequences of Conformity in Contemporary Japan (2000) by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa. (For a discussion of Kanazawa’s “Intelligence Paradox,” see xxxv.)

Japan has long been an industrialized, affluent country. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore all belong to the NICs (newly industrialized countries), and China, formally a communist country, is on the verge of becoming world power number one.

The continuum China-Korea-Japan is built on Miller & Kanazawa’s model. China is the oldest civilization in the world, they argue, and its institutions are characterized by high levels of cooperation. Its culture has spread; in the process, it is the most cooperative groups from China that have taken the culture abroad, first to Korea, then to Japan: “the social institutions that the Korean inherited from the Chinese were more cooperative than the average social institutions in China, because some groups in the latter, still in the process of being replaced, had less cooperative social institutions. … These social institutions were later transmitted from Korea to Japan by the ascendant and dominant groups in Korea. Then, by the same token, Japanese social institutions should be slightly more cooperative than Korean social institutions at any given point in history.” (p. 131). Accordingly, we can see Japan as the purest example, in the sense of most thorough, in the continuum.

That Japan is a long-term country is clear from the place Japanese women occupy in the workplace. In the main, Japanese women do not work; to be precise, the workplace is replete with women employed on short-term jobs up to about age 25, when they are supposed to marry and leave (p. 47). This allows companies to provide their male employees, much overworked comparing to Western standards, with a pool of potential partners, in which they actually find a partner. This reminds one of what Amin says on “arranged marriages” and the role of third parties in long-term reproductive climates: Here the matchmaker is the company. “This, of course, provides a very practical solution to an otherwise difficult problem. With men spending all of their time at work or in the company of coworkers, they have no time to actively search for a spouse. By hiring a large number of young, single females, the company can provide their single male employees with potential mates and can also exercise some control over the types of women their male employees meet and eventually marry.” (p. 48). Moreover, divorce rates in Japan are very low (p. 57).

By comparison, in a rather rigorous Islamic country such as the Sultanate of Brunei Darussalam, women make up 40.3% of the workforce (Marie-Sybille de Vienne, 2012). This is perhaps not representative of other Muslim countries, especially where an extreme long-term mentality actively pursues women’s dependence, but I mean that, if some are truly concerned about the improvement of women’s position on the workplace, they would do well to broaden the scope of their indictments, for Japan holds a prominent position among long-term nations that evince women from work. I expect the same to be true, perhaps not to the same extent, though (given what has just been said about the cultural transmission inside the continuum), for South and North Korea and China.

Japan has been flooded with its own pornographic production (videos and manga comics) for decades, without its long-term mentality seemingly being altered. This could cast doubt on Amin’s view about the media’s reinforcing effect.

More recent than the West’s, East Asia’s affluence has fueled among these countries’ elites a discourse on Asian values, typically contrasted to the “decadent” West, like when Singapore’s prime minister Lee Kuan Yew told Australians they would become “the white trash of Asia” (cf. Huntington). Huntington advises Australia to coalition with Western countries, specifically with US, Canada, and New Zealand, rather than trying to define herself as an Asian nation – the latter move was all the more awkward, by the way, that Australia had only recently abandoned her decades-long “White Australia” policy (1901-1973) barring Asian immigrants from entering the country. The 2005 Cronulla riots, where rioting flaxen-blond surfers could be watched on TV beating up immigrant Lebanese pushers that had been dealing dope on the beach, has perhaps confirmed the white trash image in the eyes of Asians – yet, to my knowledge, you don’t find Lebanese pushers in Singapore (3^rd richest country in terms of GDP per capita). In fact, Asian authoritarians are likely to have been confirmed in their views about the weakness of Western institutions, and on how weak institutions lead to riots and the Lynch law, among other unwanted turmoils. Undemocratic states in East Asia are at the date of today: China, North Korea, Singapore (debated), Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Burma (in transition).

In conclusion, evolutionary theory has provided us, thanks to Dr A.S. Amin, with a theoretical model for categorizing current major world civilizations, in terms of reproductive climates. The roots of the clash of civilization are the same as those of human violence; what is new in Amin’s thinking is his treatment of these groupings called civilizations.

*“Even in a developed country like Britain, a child born into a low socio-economic group has twice the chance of dying during childhood than one born in a high socio-economic group. Wealth means health, both at the individual level via diet and lifestyle and at the national level via medical services.” (Robin Baker, Fragile Science, 2001, p. 166)

** « bei der widernatürlich vorteilhaften Stellung, welche die monogamische Einrichtung und die ihr beigegebenen Ehegesetzte dem Weibe erteilen, indem sie durchweg das Weib als das volle Äquivalent des Mannes betrachten, was es in keiner Hinsicht ist, tragen kluge und vorsichtige Männer sehr oft Bedenken, ein so großes Opfer zu bringen und auf ein so ungleiches Paktum einzugehn. » (Parerga und Paralipomena)

*** « L’homme l’a conçu [le matriarcat] en accord avec la femme pour la plus grande puissance du clan. (…) À l’inverse de l’ordre social du clan indo-européen, c’est progressivement avec la dislocation du clan que la parenté par les hommes sera admise dans les sociétés africaines matriarcales. Aussi dans ces sociétés cette parenté garde jusqu’à nos jours le caractère d’une parenté affaiblie, moins forte que celle issue des femmes. (…) Chez les Indo-Européens, la famille patriarcale régnait à l’exclusion de toute notion d’autorité découlant de l’ordre maternel ; ce terme n’existait même pas à l’origine. » (Antériorité des civilisations nègres. Mythe ou réalité historique ? 1967)

April 30, 2016