Tagged: polygamy

Lessons in Law 6

Dec 2020.

Bolshevik Control

I must stay on the court in order to prevent the Bolsheviki from getting control.” Chief Justice William Howard Taft, 1929

It must have been no small peril as the Chief Justice could utter such words.

ii

On the other hand there are those who trivialize the matter using the phrase “red scare,” blaming people such as Chief Justice Taft for irrationality.

iii

The record of Communist parties’ participation in coalition governments in European countries (like France) remains unscrutinized. What you’ll find is their consistent voting for the curtailment of fundamental freedoms.

iv

In June 1919 the Overman Committee of the U.S. Senate concluded that Communism in Russia was “a reign of terror unparalleled in the history of modern civilization.

v

Since 2011, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has excluded the Chinese government and China-affiliated organisations from its activities, including using funds to host Chinese visitors at NASA facilities.” (Wkpd: China exclusion policy of NASA)

*

In 1943 the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, or Magnuson Act, repealed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, allowing for an annual quota of 105 Chinese immigrants, at the same time maintaining the ban against ownership of property and businesses by ethnic Chinese.

*

For those who think hate speech is unprotected, please read Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). The Supreme Court held that the WBC [Westboro Baptist Church]’s hateful picketing was protected speech. And Wikipedia correctly cites me as the source of the protection. ([a Twitter user named] The First Amendment)

“Hate speech” is a name found by those willing to shield group lobbying from people’s scrutiny. To those who’d retort that using the n-word and other such words isn’t “scrutinizing group lobbying,” I have this to say: “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” (Justice John Marshall Harlan)

*

Les émissions littéraires et les écrivains qui se rendent sur ces plateaux sont à la littérature ce que la télé-réalité est à la réalité : de la « télé-littérature ».

*

En France nous avons eu des ministres communistes et nous avons toujours des parlementaires communistes mais demander la même liberté d’expression qu’aux États-Unis est impensable.

*

Invasive Moderation (Part 3)
The Corporate Frankenstein

For Part 1 read here, for Part 2 here.

I

Twitter is going wild with their flags, trying hard to suppress even the truth. Just shows how dangerous they are, purposely stifling free speech. Very dangerous for our Country. Does Congress know that this is how Communism starts? Cancel Culture at its worst. (Pres. Donald Trump, Dec 24, 2020)

Twitter’s flags are Twitter’s free speech. But sure go with “free speech is how communism starts” and see how far that gets you. (The First Amendment)

As a few tech companies today have the power to stifle the “free flow of information and ideas” that the First Amendment’s aim is to ensure, to do nothing about it is to make fun of the Amendment rather than to pay it due respect.

To compare Twitter’s policy with an individual’s speech is bogus. A company follows a predefined corporate purpose. At best its speech should be construed as “commercial speech,” with limited protection only.

(Nota Bene: As in the next tweets I speak of the political speech of corporations, it should be clear to you that the statement here is about what corporations are in essentia according to me, like the “End Corporate Personhood!” message on the placard there [Middle Tennessee State University’s First Amendment Encyclopedia: Corporate Speech].)

Commercial speech has only limited protection: “For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.” (Central Hudson Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission [1980]). And in the earlier state of affairs commercial speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment at all: see Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942). – An individual’s speech isn’t subject to these conditions.

As to corporations’ so-called “political speech,” since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) it gets broad protection but the decision deals with “political speech in the form of contributions and expenditures on behalf of candidates and political issues,” not in the form of internet moderation affecting the free flow of information and ideas. Twitter Inc. has the First Amendment right to contribute financially to the campaign trail of a candidate, that’s all, there’s nothing about First Amendment protection for flagging other candidates’ tweets in the bargain.

Next time I’ll comment on Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968): “Logan dealt with right to use private property as ‘equivalent’ of public space.

ii

A corporation isn’t the government. The First Am. is applicable against the government or private entities acting under color of state law ONLY. And Twitter ain’t that. (Ava)

As the First Amendment cannot ensure the free flow of information and ideas against private encroachments, a statute is needed. I am arguing that that statute will be upheld against the private companies’ claim that it violates their First Amendment right.

Indeed, corporate speech has not as strong a status as citizens’ speech, all this ultimately deriving from the common law, where property is no source of absolute discretionary power.

The Supreme Court of the United States has to balance on one hand the free marketplace of ideas, which a statute will maintain, and on the other hand the rights of trustlike corporations, which a statute will regulate for the good of the commonwealth just as numerous statutes do already.

Corporate speech is twofold: commercial and political. Conceding that corporations’ political speech is equally protected (since Citizens United), that’s not the case of their commercial speech. This alone enables one to say that corporations have less First Amendment rights than individuals. => 1>.5+.2

But wait… how can you argue with… MATHEMATICS!??!?! (Allen)

Algebra is as good a form of logical thinking as another.

At least according to Bertrand Russell.

But a true algebraic formula here would be: 1>.5+x 0<x<.5 or 1>1/2+x 0<x<1/2

Given different >levels< of scrutiny by courts, one could easily translate the whole thing into algebraic formulae.

iii

Because of Citizens United, courts will apply strict scrutiny on the bill I envision (as moderation by internet platforms such as Twitter would be deemed corporate political rather than commercial speech, and so receive full rather than limited protection). Precisely! I’m arguing that in any case the compelling interest called for by strict scrutiny exists, as it is about guaranteeing the free flow of information and ideas.

The First Amendment is a means to an end: the free flow. When people complain about private platforms not respecting the First Amendment, technically they’re wrong –correct– because they mistake the means for the end but in fact they are complaining about impediments to the flow.

Those who complain about platform moderation invoking the First Amendment mistake the means for the end but those who deny them the right to complain make the same mistake. It’s 1A for the sake of it; that is called fetish worship.

iv

Commercial speech is speech that has a commercial purpose. Even an individual can produce commercial speech, and if so, is also subject to government regulations on commercial speech. i.e. commercial speech != [different from] speech by corporations. (Bob)

The difference is that there’s no corporation without commercial speech, without a part of it devoted to that sort of speech that was not even considered to be speech until the 1970s.

Think about it : “corporate-political-speech.” Where until Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) corporations’ commercial speech wasn’t even considered to be speech at all!

The McConnell decision [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)] largely rested on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which permitted bans on corporate speech.” (From comment on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [2010] in John R. Vile, Essential Supreme Court Decisions, 2018).

For 20 years corporate political speech was no speech at all in the United States.

The Austin decision identified ‘an antidistortion interest’ in limiting political speech based on an attempt to prevent the effects of accumulated wealth.” That was the rationale.

Justice Stevens’s dissent on Citizens United is brilliant. Quotes (J. R. Vile 2018):

Restrictions on corporate expenditures date back to the Tillman Act of 1907. … The decision in Austin has not shown itself to be as flawed as the majority suggests.

The Court has long approved ‘the authority of legislatures to enact viewpoint-neutral regulations based on content and identity.’

The Framers had a much narrower view of the rights of corporations than the majority, and the original understanding has been substantiated by the history of regulation in this area.

The Constitution does, in fact, permit numerous ‘restrictions on the speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many.

The laws at issue are legitimate measures to prevent corruption and to protect shareholders from expenditures they do not support.

They [corporations] are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Just like about 40 years ago commercial speech emerged as speech, 30 years later, that is ten years ago, corporate political speech became speech. For what purposes have these sinister Frankenstein creatures been invented?

II
Section 230

The (1) of Section 230 seems intended to prevent its (2), it protects providers from liability for content on their platforms, so providers have no reason to remove content –if they’re for free speech– as nothing can happen to them for content, 230(1) speaking.

I grant you immunity for any sort of content (1) and, whereas you should be content with that, I also grant you immunity for (bona fide) content removal (2). It’s called to have your cake and eat it too. Completely unbalanced. As they’re free to remove content, why can’t I hold them responsible for content they don’t remove?

You’re perfectly free to sue the person posting the offending tweet. (J_Rex)

Wouldn’t suing an anonymous user depend on Twitter’s will to disclose information about the user?

If you don’t like Twitter’s or Facebook’s rules you are perfectly free to create your own platform with whatever idiosyncratic rules you want. In fact, there are such platforms, notably Parler. (J_Rex)

I’m free to leave but at a cost (among other things in terms of audience) and Twitter, which, as one of the first movers, has an undue trustlike position on the market due to its millions of users, should partake in the cost. If such laissez-faire views were accepted, Twitter could staff its moderation office with lunatics and that would be just as good. It can and perhaps it does.

*

Advocacy of Illegal Conduct Is Lawful

In a previous lesson I told Diane, who had said “no speech is protected if it incites violence,” that she was wrong. She was wrong, but even competent persons make the same error: “These cases illustrate that the First Amendment applies to all groups so long as their intent is not to intimidate or incite violence.” (First Amendment Encyclopedia: American Nazi Party and Related Groups x)

When such conclusion isn’t from lack of knowledge, it’s lack of logical thinking. “Incite violence” isn’t the same as “incite imminent lawless action” (including violence) and therefore it is lawful to incite non-imminent violence.

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that an economic boycott constitutes a form of constitutionally protected expression akin to traditional means of communication, such as speaking and writing, even if violence is threatened as a means of achieving group goals.” (First Amendment Encyclopedia : Boycotts)

I think the courts have held (properly) that there is a tight rope to be walked between allowing someone who is simply pissed off to vent their anger and someone who is actually intending harm. (Diane)

I’m sorry to disagree again. People who “threaten violence,” like in the Clairborne decision, “actually intend harm” (at least conditionally: if… then) and yet it is protected speech.

But Diane is probably thinking of the “true threat” doctrine. So I add that except for the unusual 2003 decision on cross burning that can be a true threat, generally speaking in case law a threat has to be kind of very clear, present, imminent, lawless and all to be (a bit) “true.”

If the courts want to be consistent with Virginia v. Black (2003) on cross burning and the vague notion of intimidation, they will have to smash down the very doctrine of true threat, even Brandenburg v. Ohio (on lawless imminent action) and the whole edifice of First Amendment law. The Supreme Court made a mistake.

ii

The true meaning of the American First Amendement, its truly distinctive nature lie in the words “Advocacy of illegal conduct.” This distinctly American right is what makes all other peoples beside conscious Americans look like phantoms or trembling mice keeping close to the wall.

*

In Cleveland v. United States (1946), “Justice Francis W. Murphy dissented, largely based on anthropological analysis, arguing that polygamy differed from promiscuity.” #Mormon

*

Porn often promotes “plots” based on racism, incest, rape, sexism, or violence, and then says these themes are okay in porn because they’re “fantasy.” Why are we sexualizing scenarios that are never acceptable in reality? (FTND: Fight the New Drug)

On a First Amendment Encyclopedia I read of criticism of porn films… in the sense of literary criticism. So, as you talk of “plots,” that alone could be construed as “redeeming value” (which protects some explicit material from prosecution for obscenity). As there’s a plot, that’s a work of the mind, a work of art.

But let me ask, then. What if someone cuts up the sex scenes from the film and uploads them piecemeal? The public will inevitably miss the dialogues, the acting, the story, the plot, all the redeeming value, they will only be… watching porn.

*

On a marketplace there must be antitrust laws. What are the antitrust laws on the “marketplace of ideas”?

*

The marketplace of ideas is about speech and counterspeech but some are defining it as speech and speech-canceling.

Conspiracy of the Bots & Media as Soft Penis (Tweet Anthology 6)

July-August 2017

Monogamy might allow more men to marry – if there were no prostitution, a class of unmarried women largely unknown in polygamic countries. According to Schopenhauer, prostitution is the price societies pay for monogamy. This is to be added to ‘serial marriage,’ through which wealthy men get access, serially, to several young women. Both phenomena should be taken into account before attempting any praise of institutional monogamy.

*

Remember, when you hear the words “sources say” from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist. (POTUS)

“Our traditions of impartiality between the genuine and the fake”: Writer Jean Giraudoux satirizing the press.

*

After I tweet you no one will want to marry you.

*

I honestly love being around positive people. You’re not judged, there’s no drama, everyone just wants to relax and have a nice time.

And then you wake up.

*

A Case in Subliminal Messaging: Hewlett-Packard Ad

Observe how the man on the right is about to grab her. (Click to enlarge)

The handle of the glass door makes the man look as if a stick were stuck in the bottom of his belly, just as if he were a jester’s bauble.

The young black man on the left closes his eyes ensconsed in delight. Her dropping index finger is telling him secretly about the other’s penis. We know the guy on the right has got no penis, by the way, because he’s a bauble.

She casually points to a word or phrase on the board with her pencil. It reads ‘Marry,’ the following word, concealed, must be ‘me.’ She’s going to have the bauble marry her, for his money, while living it up with the young negro colleague.

*

A major difference between free competition and communism is that free competition cannot exist.

*

Media as ‘soft power’

Media as soft penis.

*

Not long ago I saw a video with Jane Goodall releasing a chimpanzee in the wild. Yet we now know chimps murder the lone foreign chimps they meet… The video was from the Jane Goodall Foundation and was released recently as advert. Goodall saw chimps as all love (all good) and has been proven wrong. I’d like to tell them to stop showing videos of chimpanzee releases in the wild, because that was sending the poor creatures to a horrible death.

*

The Truth About New Holland (A Dialogue)

Australia was discovered by the Dutchman Abel Tasman and it used to be called New Holland.

The first Dutch visit took place in 1606, to be compared with Cook’s travels more than 150 years later, in 1770. It is said that the Dutch made no claim whatever on the land (Wikipedia page on New Holland: “neither the Netherlands nor the Dutch East India Company claimed any territory in Australia as its own“). The activities of Dutch East India Company were marked by extreme secrecy and I’m sure historians have missed something about VOC (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) and Australia.

Dutch explored western parts of Oz extensively but didn’t stay. Read Batavia event, pretty horrific –Indonesians used to trade with aboriginals.

Aboriginal people have blonde in areas where Dutch explorers often came to grief on reef. They explored mostly northern parts in summer and to these it looked very arid coastline – then came collapse of Dutch economy tulips trade. (Australian writer Greg Hoey)

You don’t have to stay somewhere to proclaim it’s yours. See Danes and Greenland.

Indonesians used to trade with Aboriginals, and the Dutch, who traded with Indonesians since about 1600, would think Australia’s a dry rock?!

From 1606 to 1770 they had plenty of time to see the coast in every season, rainy or dry. And land is land.

Very isolated place to explore in such days, WA coastline riddled with dozens shipwrecks from 1500’s through to 1900’s. Abundance coastline of very treacherous reefs with no way home! So integrate become Aboriginal, even become Aboriginal meal: cannibalism existed. (Ibid.)

I’m not saying the Dutch had the means to sustain their claim against jingo piracy, only that they had a claim.

Nova Hollandia, even devoid of any Dutchman, was Dutch. Saying they made “no claim” on territory discovered by them is most absurd.

Dutch did lay claim actually, leaving their declaration on a plate now in WA museum [Western Australian Museum in Perth] on public. Was found 80 years ago however! (Ibid.)

By saying the plate was only found recently, you imply the Britons did not know they were committing robbery when claiming Australia theirs but I guess somewhere a protest exists, either from the Dutch government or the VOC. If the matter was settled by agreement, then I’m sure a document exists too that either Australia or the British crown can produce.

Anyway my claim is vindicated: there’s a Dutch plate in WA museum. The “no claim” story makes no sense at all.

Britons might have claimed a right through vacancy by the Dutch (like a house abandoned by its owner for years) but a formal protest would have voided it.

The trade lines you mentioned between Indonesians and Aboriginals might have been in the VOC’s hands, and a British occupation would cut these to the Dutch’s detriment, so the VOC must have protested formally.

At that point Greg tweeted the article ‘Australia might speak Dutch if not for strong emotions,’ The Conversation, November 21, 2013 here)

Good article, a little further from your notions about Dutch only being shipwrecked and/or eaten alive 🙂 Still just tiny bits, not the big picture.

Arid and barren as the land was, the Dutch were looking for gold mines, which are okay with barrenness.

For all we know, the Dutch may have been preparing a large mining expedition when the Britons claimed Australia theirs and insulted Netherlands. The latter’s descendants now say the Dutch were stupid idiots: “strong emotions,” “no claim” &c., such things that jingos are always eager to believe. They never see the absurd contradictions of their thinking, like that story of Dutch leaving because the land was barren, when they were searching for gold.

I have witnessed similar chauvinistic views many times by way of very superior Euro’s/ Brits/Americans toward Australia coming from lack of knowledge. (Ibid.)

I guess the more or less conscious reasoning is: We’re of the same culture, of which we’re the center and you’re the margin…

*

In their own eyes and justification, the right of European colonists on American ground is based upon written contracts signed by illiterates.

*

USA Today complains about lack of ‘women’ and ‘no lead actors of color’ in movie ‘Dunkirk’ (The Daily Wire)

War films can use women, as we all know. Like The Thin Red Line, where a U.S. soldier receives a letter from his wife telling him she divorces lol

While the guy is on duty for the motherland lol

*

Fox

Fox is an alien entity that pressured the U.S. legislator to waiver in its case the 24.9 percent limit of foreign capital ownership in American media: Shady. Murdoch changed his citizenship to U.S. but the parent corporation is still based in Australia because of the tax cuts it’s got there. [Source : Ben H. Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly, 2004]

Then there is this quote from Donald Trump during the election campaign: “Most people don’t know that the co-owner of Fox News is Prince Al-Waleed of Saudi Arabia.

Observe how the U.S. legislator uses the same techniques as marketing: 24.9% ownership limit instead of plain 25%.

*

Hitler Store on Gaza strip and stuff they are selling there. Unbelievable.

And this has nothing to do with Israeli policies: they were born Hitler cultists. => The Hitler Gene.

*

Winning’s got a price and when the price is a world empire it looks very much like losing. Britain lost a world empire in the war against Germany who had nothing to lose. An empire bled to death by a proletarian nation: bad management.

(My contender here, a British countryman who deleted his tweets a few hours later, said something like all empires peak and decline.)

The iron law is the excuse of bad managers.

(He then said it was difficult to administer a world empire from a ‘small island,’ and he added: ‘too bad you weren’t around.’)

At least I can try my piece of advice: Don’t let your small island shape small minds. Because you’re stuck to it now.

*

Do you remember the mad cow disease scandal from UK? The disease is named after Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt, patron member of the Reich’s SS. Shocking.

*

The Conspiracy of the Bots

A conspiracy of the bots is taking place. Their AI allows them to recognize robot’s trash and like it systematically, enslaving our opinions.

Through the reward system in our brain, gazillions of robot’s likes will enslave mankind.

The ‘like’ function on social networks translates a basic pattern of human interactions. But it’s a schematic translation – a caricature. People are robotized when the scheme becomes the normal procedure in their psychology (robots are schemes/caricatures of humans). And this will be the case for social networks users, as the scheme (a ‘like’) is more rewarding than real routine interaction.

When robots’ likes is what makes us happy, we’ll be the robots’ slaves.

*

I can’t understand why Western right-wingers always take Israel as a model and never Saudi Arabia. Just look:

Al Jazeera’s clip ‘Thousands of Ethiopians are leaving Saudi Arabia. Here’s why’ (Aug 1, 2017) : ’70,000 Ethiopians have returned home after working illegally in Saudi Arabia. They were given until July 25 to leave or face arrest. They had no legal right in the country. … ‘They don’t even consider us as human beings.’…’

And yet Israel gets all the praise!

*

Angelina Jolie defends casting process for [her film] First They Killed My Father [filmed in Cambodia].

Putting money before a slum kid, then withdrawing it, and then the unchosen kids return to their slums. So innocent!

I’m sure some of these kids were beaten to death by their parents for not being taken in.

*

My son did a science project on the nuggets [McDonald’s chicken nuggets]… didn’t mold or rot after 4 months.

When you absorb vitamins you get vitaminized, when you absorb preservatives you get preserved. Eat nuggets.

*

Having a Facebook account is like going to the disco with one’s mom.

*

Moon Landing & Other Space Mysteries

i

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (in charge 1993-7) denied the Americans ever walked on the Moon.

ii

“The original recordings of the first landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used. Yet the restored copies of the original broadcast are looking even better.” (from article ‘Nasa admits to losing moon landing tapes,’ The Vintage News, Dec 12, 2016 here.)

Shameful or… convenient? “NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing” “they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed –magnetically erased– and re-used to save money.” (from ‘Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits,’ Reuters, July 16, 2009 here.)

Such historical documents! This neglect, regarding unprecedented, historical, groundbreaking events, makes me suspicious. As if it had been the film of a local caucus!… And they had to retrieve copies ‘in the archives of CBS News’!

iii

Hollow earth (concave earth) quote from August Strindberg: “Att jorden kunde vara konkav, visar sig vid luftsegling, då horisonten följer ballongen, han må stiga aldrig så högt; likaså med hafshorizonten, som alltid är i jämnhöjd med ögat, äfven om man stiger uppåt en höjd å stranden.” (En Blå Bok, 1907) Translation: “That the earth may be concave is shown by balloon flight, as the horizon always follows the balloon no matter how high it goes, and likewise with sea horizon, which remains at eyes’ level even if one steps up a mound on the beach.”

In Strindberg one can also read of contradictions in astronomy’s parallax, refraction/aberration, earth movement & speed… (Blue Books, 1-4)

*

Antigravity Dew: “Dewdrops mock gravity as they start sliding from grass top only as they warm, that is, when they become lighter” (Viktor Schauberger. Full original quote : ‘’Zu Millionen stehen die Tautropfen wie Tränen auf den Spitzen der Gräser, die schon durch ihre Stellung aller bisher angenommenen Schwerkraftgesetze spotten, weil sie sich erst dann abwärts zu neigen beginnen, wenn diese Tautropfen warm und dadurch, wie man allgemein annimmt, leichter werden.’’)

*

I’m interested in his community because I mirror the world. He’s interested in his community because he’s bound to it. See the difference?

*

Any jingo culture is really but a culture in the ethnographic sense.

*

We as a whole make our environment, so we make our genes. Light tree bark makes moth’s wings light-colored, dark bark makes them dark.

Any differences in rates of reproduction affect genetic makeup. Differences arise from natural (in my example: predators, which detect dark-colored moths on light-colored bark easily and vice-versa) or sexual selection. Assuming natural selection is largely through with humans (no predators, free from milieu’s pressure), sexual selection remains. I’m not sure in what direction sexual selection works today: the poor or the rich (early Darwinists of Galton’s school, i.e. eugenicists, thought the poor were outbreeding the rich, and to be more precise not as much the working poor as the unemployed poor, while today’s evolutionary psychologists think high-status men outbreed low-status men). But in any case social standards (environment) shape preferences/selection.

Natural selection today would be that if, for example, car accidents are more prevalent for some phenotypes the genes associated with these will decline, all other things being equal. Every factor impacting mortality and fertility differentially and non-randomly.

*

Origin of the Opposable Thumb Solved! Everyone likes to be thumbed up, so those hominids who thumbed up others more were more successful.

*

With America’s decline, the more whites find the rewards of their toil don’t meet expectations, the more they’ll be dreaming of re-enslaving the blacks.

*

Despacito has officially become the most viewed video IN HISTORY and the first to reach 3 BILLION views. (Universal Music CA)

“Heartfelt thanks to our wonderful IT programers for the thousands of clicking bots working night and day. Now we’re famous!”

[Not A but B:

A.They reached 3 billion views because they’re famous.

B.They’re famous because they reached 3 billion views.]

*

To Dr Richard Dawkins,

Is it because of spandrels that you dislike churches?

*

Blank Slate & Sex Therapy

We’re all s’posed to be afeard of spiders [my controversial presentation of evolutionary psychology] but most spiders aren’t venomous and those that are “are not ancestrally in Africa” (Robert C. Richardson).

So John Watson‘s conditioning was supposed to be ‘primed’ by evolved, adaptive fears… and was not, as far as spiders and even snakes are concerned. I see no reason why that would be different with Watson’s adorably cute rodents.

As to Stanley Rachman’s conditioning sexual arousal in front of boots, no one has dared say what primes that. The only sure thing is that the guy used human guinea pigs.

As far as arousal and erection are concerned, Rachman’s experiments prove that man is a blank slate. Anything will trigger it as engineered.

Behavorial sex therapies are the only working therapies.

*

51 million Americans including 14 million children have IQs under 85. It’s a problem. Don’t believe IQ deniers. (Prof. R. Haier)

The real question is how many jobs need IQs higher than 85.

If average IQ was higher than average IQ requirements, ‘twould be a disaster.

In theory (according to IQ specialists) you’d rather have a Mensa cleanse your crap bowl (he’ll do it better), but he won’t be happy and he’ll let you know.

Besides, you’d cause your society to be suboptimal. [Keep thinking along these lines and I’m sure the IQ maniacs will cool down.]

*

Around one million tonnes of interstate waste are dumped in Queensland [Australia] each year. (4Corners)

If Queensland’s a big garbage dump, what are Queenslanders?

*

& to cap it all

The Hashtag Games

When Is Speech Violence (After the title of one New York Times article that, if I understood well, was innuendoing – or perhaps declaring categorically – that Trump’s speech was violence)

When an American tries to speak French.

When a ventriloquist has eaten too much of the frijoles beans tacos.

Any speech from a flatulist, especially a politician.

*

#friyay‘s for the suckers, I say #thursyay!

*

Happy #NationalJunkFoodDay from the National Association of Flatulists.

*

What Happened (Title of Hillary Clinton’s Latest Book)

Shortage of cheat sheets.

*

#BetterNamesForHillarysBook

An Accident Happened: They Couldn’t Forward the Other Cheat Sheets

Podesta’s Risotto Tastes Like Sh*t

Pizzaed [cf #PizzaGate]

Yes We Pan: The Truth About Pizzas

*

#NewTrumpAdminScandal

They drained the swamp… and found U.S. had evaporated.

*

#SoonWeWillDiscover that 1/5th of British men are vasectomized and that’s the truth.

*

#IfTwitterDidntExist

I would never have known anonymity is for so many people the prerequisite to having fun. What went wrong?

North America is a free country where citizens tweet anonymously on Twitter unless they work in Hollywood (in which case they tweet under their stage name).

*

#IfTwitterDidntExist

*

#AtMidnightIn5Words GIF worth a thousand words

*

#SoonWeWillDiscover what’s behind.

*

#SundayMorning #HashtagGame => #HerWrongDaysOfTheMonth

Credits: I made the first GIF from the movie Savage Streets (1984) by Danny Steinmann. The three others show Australian actress Barbara Constable in Lady Terminator (1989) by Indonesian film director Tjut Djalil, a movie also known as Nasty Hunter and Pembalasan ratu pantai selatan (Revenge of the South Sea Queen) and which is included in my paper ‘’L’Imaginaire indonésien dans le cinéma fantastique national’’ for journal Le Banian, n°23, June 2017. [Since May 2018, available on this blog (x).]

August 2017

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer