Tagged: Saudi Arabia

Philo 29 : Rechtsphilosophische Grundlagen der Religionspolizei

FR-EN

Le journal Aujourd’hui en France du jeudi 29 septembre 2022 titre « Qui peut être derrière le ‘sabotage’ des gazoducs en mer Baltique ? » avec le sous-titre « (…) tous les regards se tournent vers la Russie, qui nie. L’UE promet ‘la réponse la plus ferme’. » Dans le corps de l’article, ceci : « Les États-Unis ont aussi nié toute implication, alors que Joe Biden avait laissé entendre en février que Washington ‘mettrait fin’ à Nord Stream 2 si Moscou intervenait en Ukraine. Mais l’insinuer est ‘ridicule’, a commenté ce mercredi la Maison-Blanche. Et la porte-parole du Conseil de sécurité nationale de prévenir : ‘Nous savons que la Russie fait de la désinformation, et elle le fait de nouveau ici.’ » Nous avons donc d’un côté la Russie, pour qui un gazoduc détruit représente une perte stratégique, et de l’autre les États-Unis qui avaient menacé de détruire le Nord Stream. Mais le sous-titre est « tous les regards se tournent vers la Russie ». C’est le problème : dans le contexte belliciste européen, l’évidence n’a plus aucune espèce de valeur. Dans toute enquête, celui qui a menacé d’un crime est le premier suspect quand le crime en question se produit : donc « tous les regards » sont forcément tournés vers les États-Unis. Cependant, comme nous sommes en opération spéciale contre la Russie, non, les regards ne se tournent pas vers les États-Unis mais vers la Russie. À la page suivante du même journal, interviewé le « consultant défense » Pierre S. explique l’intérêt pour la Russie de détruire le Nord Stream : envoyer « deux messages subliminaux ». On en est là.

*

Introduction to the Essence of Mutawa
oder Rechtsphilosophische Grundlagen der Religionspolizei

“Firemen confronted religious police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves required.”

This made the case against Saudi mutawa police and for their defanging. However, it is obvious that the mutawa officer’s decision in said case of emergency was incorrect and he must bear the blame, not the institution that he represents. Blaming a whole institution for one officer’s decision is unwarranted in every conceivable situation, so in fact the incident served to attack a policy rather than its enforcement: a devious line of argumentation.

It was an emergency but as a religion with martyrs Islam knows that not all emergencies allow for exemptions, so let us specify. The norm is covering one’s head in the public space. The girls escaping from the fire would be met and assisted by the fire patrol, which would cordon off the area; the area thus cordoned off, although outside the building and included in the public space, is for the sake of emergency under control of the fire patrol and withdrawn from the free public space momentarily. The presence of uncovered persons in this area during the fire patrol operations does not therefore violate a norm regarding the public space. And girls escaping from a fire cannot be deemed, when having their heads uncovered in such situation, to act out of disregard for the law. The mutawa officer’s appreciation of the situation in this case was blatantly incorrect, a statement of fact that has no bearing, however, on the institution and/or policy’s legitimacy.

ii

“Girls escaping from a fire cannot be deemed, when having their heads uncovered in such situation, to act out of disregard for the law.” I wrote this in order not to let one think that the issue is all about defining the public space, but it was begging the question as I was supposed to answer to “not all emergencies allow for exemptions.” The answer tended to show it was not a true exemption, in the case of girls escaping from a fire, as the area they reached was not, momentarily, public space. As to the other aspect of the discussion, assuming it was a true exemption, was it a justified one? In other words, was the mutawa officer right in demanding compliance with the law with a high probability of “martyrdom” involved? Indeed, the girls would have been shahidah for the sake of complying with modesty commands. One of the issues, there, is how probable martyrdom was: I do not have all the elements of the case to answer this question. God’s command sometimes requires that one must be willing to sacrifice one’s own life for upholding His command, for instance when martyrs were asked to sacrifice, even mere flies, to idols, they refused and knowingly paid their refusal with their lives. In other words, was the mutawa officer justified in demanding that the girls be subjected to a risk of martyrdom for upholding the command of the veil? If yes, was he justified in this only in the case of a small or miniscule risk or even in the case of perfect certainty or somewhere in between and then where? Or was he not justified because the exemption was a justified one? Exemptions must by necessity be strictly defined, both out of reverence for God and out of respect for His martyrs who sacrificed their lives instead of benefiting from exemptions. This is the crux of the issue and must be decided according to Islamic jurisprudence. My legal expertise ends here.

*

On the Accommodation of Minorities and Fairness

Discussing the depiction of American university departments of philosophy as “a sad and boring place, tragically deprived of the creativity, playfulness, and kinship of crip culture.”

Although I see what worth creativity is, I have doubts about the two other “qualities” here endorsed. Playfulness should be left at the door. At some point one has enough of playing, and as it is assumed one is playing during their leisure time, then when it comes to business it is also assumed one has had his share of playing already, for a while, and we now expect him to be stern. Otherwise, we might think she is playful in the amphitheater because she was stern in private and is in the habit of depriving her most intimate company of her delightful playfulness. If money comes from private companies, it is up to them to say whether they want playful academics on their paychecks, that is, they can ask for playfulness as academic duty for their money, if that is how they see the world (like a TV commercial, people dancing on the flimsiest occasion), but as far as public funds are concerned, how advisable is it to want that taxpayer’s money allow a few professors to daily revel in the playfulness of life? I guess the taxpayer would not allow this for too long (due to their alienation, most certainly). As to kinship, I have no idea where this leads to, only that it smacks of the same exclusiveness here decried, of nepotism and preferential treatment for one’s kind, lightyears away from traditional–and sound–academic ethics. Signed: A nonacademic philosopher.

ii

The kinship quality of crip culture seems to be an allusion to affirmative action but as a self-serving argument it then fails to convey per se the idea that non-members of this culture or institutions such as philosophy departments will, contrary to creativity and, disregarding my previous remarks, playfulness, benefit from greater inclusion of said members, except in the broad sense that all historically discriminated cultures would make society a better place for everyone through greater inclusion. Therefore, my remark that this kinship quality smacks of the same exclusiveness decried in the essay is of course discardable on the same grounds as opposition to affirmative action in general, namely, that countermajoritarian exclusiveness is not a problem as it is in fact the cure to majoritarian exclusiveness, a cure to be preferred upon formal neutrality because of structural “isms” that neutralize all attempts at neutrality. Still, in a list of specifically crip culture qualities, this is a misplaced qualification as it describes the culture based not on cripness but on discriminatedness.

As to playfulness, I realize it may be on the list as a correction to received ideas. The squares may have the notion that crips are not playful, therefore it is important to stress playfulness. It would mean, in other words, that crips are as playful as anybody, except professors of analytic philosophy, and the crux of the argument would be a call to replace anachronistically stern professors with professors more attuned to prevailing cultural codes characterized by playfulness. Not so much an improvement, then, the whole of society being considered, as the playful normalization of a stronghold of sternness.

NB. Qualities deriving from discriminatedness alone, or intrinsically, can be no argument for inclusion from the majoritarian point of view, because they are the qualities that may or even must vanish through inclusion. (Use of the word “squares” alludes to carefully nurtured marginal cultures whose aim is precisely to avoid inclusion and normalization for fear of losing certain distinct qualities.)

iii

Kinship, I am told, means in the context that crips “simply prefer each other’s company.”  How it is a quality in the sense of a universal maxim is not to understand from the standpoint of ones accustomed to hearing about minorities’ demands for inclusiveness. When nondisabled people, when the majority does little to include crips, their exclusiveness is described as a problem according to mass media and the political debate, so kinship is no universal value according to the very crip culture and militancy as defined by mass media and politics. It is “my” kinship, my minority’s kinship, that is good; “your” kinship is oppressive.

Why, in a world where kinship is of any value, should the majority have a duty to accommodate “others” rather than nurture their own kinship? It is an either-or matter. Either kinship is a value and the majority has the right to ignore minorities’ demands because it is its kinship versus theirs, and all kinships are of the same value as kinship is a value per se, or kinship is no value and then when crips defend their sense of kinship they should be left to revel in it inside their margin; the majority will not–should not–heed their demands for inclusion. We no longer accept privileges. When preferential treatments are institutionalized, the truth of this institutionalization is that the special treatment corrects (to any possible extent) an unfortunate situation. If there is no misfortune to correct, a preferential treatment, for instance quotas, is a privilege that, according to liberal worldviews, must be destroyed. The “philosophical” viewpoint that disability is a “tragedy” is not primarily philosophical but sociopolitical: Special measures for inclusion are for those who need them, that is, are in a sorry condition of want without them. It sounds like unabashed cheekiness when the ones accommodated through special treatment are telling those who accommodate them that they are the ones to pity. Maybe crips do not care about inclusion at all and it is a misunderstanding when one talks of a crip militancy for inclusion; this militancy would then be the result of political machines’ activity aimed at votes through creating an inclusion lobby out of nothing where there is only the will to be left alone among one’s kind, reveling in one’s kinship. Yet seemingly, even if the lobby were a machine’s ex nihilo scheme, many, perhaps most members of said kinship culture are conditioned by the plan: They want to be left alone and yet fully endorse the machine’s machinations and combinazioni. A form of hypocrisy.

“Normate culture,” as described, smacks a lot of middle class and suburbia. Yet nondisabled persons are not bound by such prescriptions, they can withdraw, they can ask to be left alone (even if there is a price to pay, it does not seem unreasonable to say it is a price everyone can afford). On the other hand, are crips free to withdraw from their own culture? If not, would it not be obvious that being a nondisabled person, from whom the normate culture is at most a relative prescription, is an ontologically better condition than being a crip, whose crip culture is a true Fatum of iron ineluctability? This the paper leaves unanswered, except that by extoling the crip culture it gives to think that withdrawal is no option. Yet it is the option that makes the difference.

Such fixation on the so-called normate culture betrays absorption. The scholars quoted at length for its description are evidently permeated by it, they find it in their lives, in their surroundings, in themselves; it is first and foremost a self-description. How many nondisabled persons will read this description of “their” life with a mere shrug of the shoulders? As a ballpark estimate I would say one fourth, because, as marriage and child-rearing are given as a central feature of this culture, and about one sixth to one fifth of people in any given population do not beget children–this figure is said by some to have been a constant over time–a rough guess is one fourth, considering the figure to be close to one fifth and subtracting crips and queer people. One nondisabled, straight person out of four simply does not fit in the nondisabled, straight culture as defined, and we only took one of the given criteria, so “exceptions” to the other criteria must also be considered, which is likely, all combined, to reduce the figures of “normalcy” to thin air and to make a joke of the definition. This scholarly work does not address a reality but a mere ghost, and the difference does not seem to occur to the scholars.

Same remark for what is said about queer people. The author fails to address one major part of the queer militancy as presented by mass media and politics and evidenced by surrogacy demands: Queer people want to raise families, to marry and live happily ever after.

It is the obvious consequence of the kinship quality of a culture, that it is normative. A kinship culture of cripness or queerness is as “normate” and ritualistic as any majoritarian one, as a first approach. On a second approach, it is even more normate if withdrawal is less an option, if there is less room for the possibility of withdrawal than in the case of a majoritarian normate culture.

Finally, I would like to stress a legal issue that does not exist in as severe a form in the United States because of First Amendment case law but is a sickening problem in Europe. European countries did not stop at decriminalizing homosexuality, they criminalize critic (“disparagement”) of homosexuality. From the point of view of freedom, the move, therefore, is of a quite dubious worth. Were drugs decriminalized, it would occur to no one to criminalize critic of drugs’ use. Representative associations of this and other minorities protected by group disparagement laws are invited, like true bounty hunters (which character, however and at the same time, European countries purport to have ruled out), to partake in the criminal process and may ask, as “moral persons,” financial damages. This, playful as they may be, really spoils the fun, I find.

iv

This is not to say that a “mere ghost,” as I called it, does not have some kind of existence. For instance, when, in office life, the life of organization women and men, one invites her colleagues to an afterwork office party to celebrate her last kid’s birth (and her return from parental leave), she is asking people to stay with her after work hours while her colleagues might just be tired after the long day and long to be home, especially if one has no plan to have children and is, after reading Peter Wessel Zapffe–nonqueer, nondisabled, anti-natalist Norwegian philosopher–anti-natalist, in which case he would question the celebration’s rationale itself. This person may find excuses on this and that occasion, but most certainly a systematic eschewing of afterwork events would bring him to his hierarchy’s attention, who would look askance at the attitude and perhaps translate it in managerial measures, with more or less obvious sanctions.

As to parental leave, the uncompensated increase of workload for the colleagues of the woman on leave is often measurable (yet often unmeasured). Her colleagues pay for a public natality policy and women’s inclusion policy. Admittedly, it is not too high a price in the U.S., nothing in comparison with Europe, which must be a feminist Eldorado for American gender scholars, I presume. To avoid making it look like too blunt and shocking a privilege for women in the workplace, European legislators have extended the parental leave to fathers (not on a par with women’s leave though, because of some obscure biopolitical reasons, this said tongue in cheek). Childless workers of both sexes pay the full price for women’s inclusion and natality policies, and that includes uncompensated increase of workload besides, of course, tax money.

For French women, the legislation is, for children 1-2, 16 weeks leave for each, for children 3+, 26 weeks, paid 405 euros per month, namely 89.03 euros per day to which applies a tax rate of 21 per cent. (I thought it was a percentage of the working income, by the way, and to be honest, this subsidy is a little comical, since the poverty line in the country is at 1,100 euros per month for a single person: an obvious slap in the face of single mothers, in case they do not pocket alimony too). For the father, the leave is of 25 working days, the amount of subsidy not a flat fee, unlike the mother’s, but a percentage of the three last paychecks, namely X divided by 91.25 for each day, so for 6,000 euros (income of 2,000 euros per month), 65.75 euros per day for 25 days, 1,643 euros in all.

In comparison, “There is no obligation for US employers to give paid maternity or parental leave to their workers. Instead, maternity leave is a matter left to each employer to decide upon. … However, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires that US employers (with 50 or more employees) to allow mothers and fathers to take unpaid time off (up to 12 weeks) for the purpose of pregnancy or child-rearing. They must hold the worker’s job and health insurance in place. There is no requirement to provide pay.” (Foothold America)

The comical nature of these “achievements” will hardly escape the reader. The maternity leave means living in abject poverty if the woman is not supported by a partner or someone else’s income or by alimony: either relinquishing income (“no requirement for the employer to provide pay”), in the US, or being paid thrice less than the poverty threshold, in France.

I wanted to stress that there was another aspect to the question, namely that fertile women who pocket maternity leaves during their career–and we saw that for a French woman who gave birth to, say, four kids, that means 84 weeks leave, 1.6 year,–demand nonetheless the same progression pattern in the organization’s hierarchy as those who worked those 84 weeks for the organization, in the name of–what?–women’s rights and the bubbling natality of the nation. I wanted to stress that but, seeing the true nature of the achievement that maternity leave is, namely a mere Mrs Jones’s achievement (who lives on Mr Jones’s income too), that would be a little futile.

One will say 16 weeks (for child 1 and child 2) is only 4 months, so it is only a question of saving money for these four little months (up to 3 months in US), like one saving before a sabbatical year, and then life goes on, with a new soul in this world. No doubt a single mother with law firm partner income can afford to singly raise on leave as many children as she wants. As has just been said, it is only a question of saving money. For subprime profile Charnesia LeBlanc, almost drowned already in consumer credit repayments, one may call her maternity leave the rope around her neck. She will not take it.

v

I said money for leaves is nothing in US in comparison to Europe (taking France as example) but this deserves further discussion. US legislation says, “There is no requirement to provide pay.” A simple war-of-the-classes reasoning leads to “Don’t count on it.” However, it must be assumed, as always, that it is only at one end of the spectrum that one doesn’t count on it, while at the other end some women probably get maternity leave packages that no French woman can dream of.

The federal state has provided “paid parental leave” (which has got its acronym: PPL) for its civil servants since 2020 (Federal Employee Paid Leave Act FEPLA of Dec 2019). Before that, “[s]ome individual US states and possessions, however, do provide for paid maternity benefits, including Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, New York and Puerto Rico.” (International Labor Organization, 1998)

Try as I might, and I tried hard enough, on official websites with memos and FAQs, I could not find a single clue on how much money the PPL is for its beneficiaries, to compare with French figures. Talk of transparency!

“This new benefit will likely improve the desirability of Federal employment … the Office of Personnel Management said” (Washington Post). It will do more than that, it will make of the US a bureaucratic state. In a country where, according to the same WashPo paper, only 21 percent of private sector employees are eligible to paid parental leaves, because for them the rule is that there is no requirement to provide pay, for bureaucrats paid leave is now an entitlement. Of course, this will achieve civil servants’ whole desolidarization from private sector employees. So much for feminist solidarity: Die, Charnesia, die on the altar of Mrs Jones’s PPL!

Not only is maternity leave creating a differential treatment between men and women or rather childless workers and fertile (or adopting) women in the workplace, but a pregnant woman’s workload is also adjusted before her leave. For instance, if there is night work, the pregnant woman will be dispensed from it; that means more night work for her colleagues. The rationale is that the pregnant woman is some kind of disabled person.

Disability in the workplace may be the nondisabled workers’ misfortune, I am sorry to put it so bluntly. When one organization has defined what some call a “theoretical workforce,” for instance in an administration, and that theoretic workforce has been defined for one department as, say, 20 people, they are not going to count a disabled worker one half or whatever fraction of a person in this workforce. The disabled worker is 1 out of 20, but his work is adjusted according to his or her disability, so for the same workload, with the same figure of 20, you must count yourself as lucky if no disabled person works in the same theoretic force in which you belong. This, obviously, does not consider those who are always happy with their workload, however bloated it becomes, and I am told this kind of people exist. – A simple solution would be to not count a disabled worker as a whole unit in the workforce, to adjust not only their work but also their weight accordingly in the theoretic workforce…

Back to pregnant women, those other disabled workers. One line of legitimation for such differential treatment is that everyone benefits from the system, the woman’s partner, the next woman to become pregnant, etc. Everyone who reproduces, that is. A blunt disregard for the others.

Sign in for an AI prayers package (Tweet Anthology 5)

May-July 2017

Biology

1

Gorillas hum and sing while they eat to say, “do not disturb” (Scientific American)

Just try for yourself singing while you chew. Is that why gorillas are vanishing? Choking themselves to death too many a time?

2

If intelligence is a factor in reproductive success, we’d expect the sex where success variation is greater to be more intelligent, as intelligent individuals then reproduce comparatively more there. Yet, as you [Milord Matt Ridley] state that women are as intelligent as men [Ridley’s point is that women are as intelligent as men though in their own different way], it means the sex that doesn’t need intelligence as much is as intelligent as the sex who needs it more. Which doesn’t make sense, evolutionarily speaking.

Yet do not daughters inherit their fathers’ intelligence? Let’s be straight: the biggest cavemen breeded more but their daughters weren’t as big as their boys.

If women are as intelligent as men, then intelligence has not been a factor in reproductive success.

Now, regardless of whether both sexes are equally intelligent or not today, Trivers-Willard effect will give an advantage to men in the future, in case the concept of meritocracy is accurate. [According to Trivers-Willard effect, high-status people have more male than female offspring; and the concept of meritocracy means a correlation between high status and intelligence.]

3

How the recessive trait blondism can be preferred in women and not disappear unless it gives an advantage to men too, is beyond understanding.

4

You [Dr Randolph Nesse] wrote that chewing gum might be medically prescribed some day in order to prevent the weakening of our jaws due to processed food. But what’s wrong with weak jaws if we are going to eat processed food anyway? On the contrary, maintaining strong jaws where they are not needed puts one at a disadvantage: cf cave animals, troglomorphy.

5

True altruism seen in chimpanzees, giving clues to evolution of human cooperation (TVOL This View of Life)

Altruistic chimps will soon be a threat to mankind.

From David S. Wilson, one gets it clear that individual altruism is the way a group becomes dominant among other groups.This is the reason why the Ancients saw no moral value in altruism; they were seeking ataraxy. Depending on scale, altruism is called nepotism, parochialism, nationalism, racism… Theoretical world-scale altruism would be… free competition. [See Tweet Anthology 4: Darwinian Altruism here]

6

Already before Darwin wrote, Schopenhauer explained how Kant’s philosophy was compatible with evolutionism (then Lamarckism). (The passages from Schopenhauer I am thinking of are from Parerga und Paralipomena, 1851: (*) original German quotes at the end of this post. Compare The Origin of Species, 1859.) Darwinian “revolution” is more like: You’re correct, Lamarck, but rather things happen this way, not that way. To be sure scholars acknowledge evolutionist works before Darwin, yet for some reason they seem to think those were in the creationist mold.

*

Freemasonry historically has been banned in authoritarian governments. (@KSigMason, reacting to my tweets in Tweet Anthology 4 here)

Secret societies have no place in transparent societies.

So you’re against the right to assemble? You’re against the right to privacy?

I’m for public personalities disclosing their membership in any society they belong to.

Unpleasant suspicions necessarily arise from the existence of secret societies, as from any lack of transparency; trust is undermined. In societies that allow free speech and freedom of opinion, every association is free to pursue its aims, so secrecy is all the more suspicious. Secrecy then conceals unsound practices, such as eviction of merit, prevailed upon by occult connections.

That’s an assumption. Secrecy = privacy, and is necessary for a free society.

In secular states Freemasonry has outlived its mission. If it wants to continue existing as a religious community, that must be aboveboard.

Freemasonry is a fraternity not a religious community. It has not outlived its mission.

As to authoritarianism, Masons have been consistent supporters of authoritarian Maximato regime in Mexico. Calles, the Jefe Maximo, was awarded a Masonic medal, according to opponent Vasconcelos, whose friends were decimated by the Maximo’s thugs. Source: José Vasconcelos’s memoirs, La flama. Los de arriba en la Revolución. Historia y Tragedia (1959).

*

“By way of the saloon I had escaped from the narrowness of women’s influence.” (John Barleycorn, Jack London)

In the absence of saloons, enforcing the purdah is necessary to emancipate man from the pettycoat.

*

I block all accounts the tweets of which Twitter promotes on my timeline. Exhilarating. Try it.

*

Jerry Perenchio had a big vision & a bigger heart – he always gave back. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

A billionaire always gives back. You give him the finger, he gives you hell.

*

They say there’s an “underclass” of “permanently unemployed” people not skilled enough for any job. Then they hire unskilled wetbacks.

*

Artificial Intelligence

1

Sometimes AI tweeting bots can be naughty and impersonate you without your being asked:

People who were impersonated by anti-net neutrality spammers blast FCC (Federal Communications Commission)

Let’s make it clear, however, that MOST tweeting bots tweet in the name of people who gave their consent – to get more followers &c.

Do the people contracting such services have a veto on what the bots post in their name? I assume they can always delete the tweets –unless that’s considered a breach of contract– but do they allow each bot’s tweet ex ante on their timeline?

Deleting ex post a bot-generated tweet may be defined from start a breach of contract, in fact, as not a few of these tweets are advertising.

According to an informatician friend, for the time being many AI bots are people in the Indian subcontinent paid a mouthful of rice…

2

Program your tweeting bot to send your AI prayers to Tehran Attack’s and future attacks’ victims. Follow to know more.

Sign in for an AI prayers package! Each time Twitter buzzes with terror attacks, we tweet your prayers for you. So you can keep playing golf! Don’t be like a silly politician. Enjoy the day and send your prayers.

Of course we hope our bots won’t tweet your prayers to yourself some day! LOL

3

When you’re dead your AI bot will keep tweeting. If you were dull enough, no one will see the difference. #Immortality

This at the date of today. If you die 30 years from now and you were dull, people will see a difference, as ALL your tweets will now be so brilliant.

4

Who’s afraid of the robo-journos? Since The Associated Press adopted automation technology to write its earnings reports, “far fewer errors.” LOL

Automation. Step 1 robo-journos. Step 2 robo-politicos. #cooltech

5

Unilever has been hiring employees using brain games and artificial intelligence & it’s a huge success. (Nige Willson) (Article here)

US Supreme Court has declared IQ testing for recruitment unconstitutional. “Brain games” sounds very much like IQ testing, doesn’t it?

Let me qualify: “Employment testing is legal as long as a professionally-developed employment test is administered according to the test developer’s intended use.” Therefore: no general IQ testing, regardless of the fact that some say it’s the one best predictor of work productivity.

Now if you look at what Unilever gets from “HR service provider” Pymetrics (“AI screening”), it looks like general testing, does it not?

Is this outsourced AI screening through brain games professionally-developed (by branch) and developed for specific positions (by job)? No, neither one nor the other.

6

Bots have a really low # of followers, like 10, long number strings in their handle and joined relatively recently.

What the bots want you to believe…

*

The right to resist tyranny does not exist where the right to carry guns exists not. As if there could be no tyranny because of the ballot! Disarmed people can’t have their vote respected in case of electoral fraud.

*

Is nasal spray permissible [during Ramadan fast]? Sheikh Assim Alhakeem: If it contains a substance that would go down your throat, this breaks your fasting.

That seems to make swallowing rather than eating the object of Ramadan fasting. What about swallowing an object, like a marble, by accident, then?

I am walking down the street, a gnat enters my mouth and I swallow it by accident. Does it break the fast?

*

COeds’ Valium FEllatios on FEstering undead #covfefe

*

Do you support BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions]? Why don’t you boycott Israeli news media, then? Using Israeli media to fight Israel? Eating oranges from Israel will bring you vitamin C to fight Israel too!

BDS supporters don’t boycott Israeli media – as if that weren’t the first thing to boycott.

*

Mexico knows of walls already! “Defendiéndose de los aztecas, los coras fabricaron unas trincheras de más de 9 kilómetros” (F. Santamaría, Diccionario de americanismos)

*

Alien Covenant

The hero team’s uniform includes a Japanese WW2 cap hat. Reminder: 111,000 American casualties (dead or missing) in the Pacific war.

The exterminated civilization had Buddha statues. Read: Buddhism is irrelevant.

The evil android is a fan of Wagner, whose music is boycotted in Israel. So everything’s all right, baby!

*

Vogue Arabia just made history by gracing us with Halima Aden, making her the first ever hijabi model on a Vogue cover!!!! Women of colour are rising. Women of modesty are rising. And will continue to flourish even in the westernised fashion world. Mark my words. (@plasticrouge)

Just when white people start realizing this kind of things is gross media sexploitation…

Just when white women start realizing there is no modesty in the fashion world… To think there is anything modest about this cover, one must be seriously disturbed. With his right hand the man’s directing a phallic object close to her mouth [a pocket mirror or makeup kit seen from the side]. Then there’s the phrase New Look: a well-known nudity magazine. [Picture removed Nov 2022,12, so ugly it was: to find it, google Halima Aden Vogue.]

*

In his penultimate album Michael Jackson sang the offensive phrase “jew me” (verb to jew) – then he was so ashamed of himself that he died.

*

The next Thomas Edison lives in India’s slums? (101 East Al Jazeera)

“The next Edison”? The correct phrase is “the next Einstein.” Okay? Be careful.

*

My read of the evidence is that more investment (time, money, effort, accountability) in education helps. (Erik Brynjolfsson)

Money investment may yield poorly. ‘International ratings on investment’ ratio shows that France is throwing her money away with good conscience.

*

‘’It seems likely that when many first encounter the Black-White IQ gap, they think it environmental in origin because Blacks have faced horrific oppression and discrimination. The high Jewish IQ, however, immediately casts doubt on this intuition (as do copious data, which we have and will discuss) because Jewish people have also faced appalling discrimination throughout much of 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (and well before, of course).’’ (Getting Voxed: Charles Murray, Ideology, and the Science of IQ, by by B Winegard and B Winegard with B Boutwell and TK Shackelford, published online, quillette.com, June 2, 2017 here)

Jews had a monopoly on money lending due to Christian interdict, whereas Blacks were slaves. Discrimination against the former did not include prohibition to acquire wealth, contrary to slavery in America – contrary to what was the lot of American slaves, and actually contrary to what was the lot of most European Christians under serfdom. So the environmental factor could well be cogent, once you look closely at what each “discrimination” entails.

*

#ThingsThatLeaveBritainReeling [After terror attacks in UK British Twitter users reacted with this hashtag to a newspaper article that used the phrase ‘’Britain left reeling’’ or something like that.]

When French boys come for linguistic courses and find the girls so easy the English boys can’t imagine.

When a British couple honeymoons in France and the woman tries to spot her deflorator in crowds.

*

Qatar for years positioned itself as a mediator of regional conflicts, now it is Qatar that is in need of mediation. (Kuwait & Oman may help) (Sultan Al-Qassemi)

The Clinton Foundation may help too. [See Tweet Anthology 1 here]

*

How anti-Chinese Berkeley students prevented Panda Express restaurant to open at their snobbish university: Berkeley students decry proposed Panda Express (SFGate, March 2009, article here)

*

Contemporary History. December 2012. When the journalist said the NEWS that day was HER OWN RAPE. Tahrir Square gang rapes (Egypt).

*

French small-business owners complain about Chinese businesses’ competition. Yet that’s free enterprise 101: Be a communautarist, you win.

*

Trump’s best ally against terrorism gives him the finger:

Saudi Arabia footballers ignore minute’s silence for London attack victims (The Guardian)

*

Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 aims at dismantling the greatest welfare state in the world; it will create a huge toil shock and thousands of terrorists. It overlooks the robots coming: Make it from oil rent to robot rent, don’t create a nasty toil shock. Vision 2030 wants to transform Saudis into Irish migrants to US: white slaves, downtrodden and fueled by whiskey.

*

What is dystopian to you is utopian to me. Rather robots ruling than those rich pigs and their politician minions.

*

Retweet if you want to restore death penalty for corrupt politicians.

*

Tired of Facebook? Try FaceBoko Haram.

*

Buy ISIS in Chains’ latest album Chainsaw the Miscreants.

*

Why ISIL rather than ISIS? Because Isis is also an Egyptian goddess and that creates noise for CIA bots’ searches.

Imagine the nightmare for CIA bots if Osama Bin Laden had been called David Smith or Pepito Garcia!

*

Commuters (London Subway), by Robert Doisneau Jr. #LondonBridge #artphotography

*

Burger King delivers in Britain. At the same time their French website says they don’t deliver here in France as their policy is to serve products in the best condition…

*

The economy has grown enormously in the past 35 years, but not everyone has shared in the prosperity. (Erik Brynjolfsson)

Even if everyone shares, it’s enough that some share more than others to make growth an aggravating factor. Cf ultimatum game.

With growth, even if everyone is better off in absolute numbers, those who benefit less are worse off in relative terms.

In a competitive system, opportunities depend on the relative terms.

Here you have the ultimate cause of the ultimatum game – of people refusing a net gain, seen as detrimental (consciously: insulting) to them.

*

Those who have read nothing are used to quoting Einstein.

*

Hillary Clinton used black prison labor: “Some of the black prisoners worked in their [the Clintons’] kitchen.”

She doesn’t even need the wetbacks. Except for their vote.

*

The Invisible Poor. Today the city poor is born in the city, not in the countryside; he dwindles in city environment chameleon-wise.

*

Given the taxes he pays, a bachelor can’t afford to keep a mistress. For that, one must be a married man.

*

Radical Muslims are serious about preventing cuckoldry, whereas Westerners are somnambulists.

*

Clones are not identical persons, yet they share the same genes. What do my genes have to do with me? Know thyself.

We need to clone more animals to study personality differences between individuals with identical sets of genes.

*

Wow what a blast from the past! I subscribed to Minitel when I lived in Paris 30 years ago – long before the internet. (Steve Gye)

Oh yeah memories, 3615 code Ulla, poster ads for “Minitel rose” (pink=porn Minitel) in every street and corner of France!

*

Remember how all the Hollywood stars used to stand up in public against apartheid South Africa? Silence in Hollywood re apartheid Israel…

Apartheid Boers used to say Israel was their model. Only they lacked Hollywood Boers, I guess.

*

#MyAlienAbductionStory

Very embarrassing and even painful: no restroom in the saucer.

*

By legalizing porn our legislators have given to entrepreneurs whom none of them would dare call honorable the opportunity to become our aristocracy.

*

Discrimination in Employment in Saudi Arabia (Saudi Gazette)

Don’t discriminate against robots for they’re the future.

*

It’s summer, scholars have stopped tweeting.

*

Once Dominant, the United States Finds Itself Isolated at G-20 (New York Times)

NYT mourns over USA’s dominance like funky jingos.

And yet Macron said he didn’t quite agree with Merkel’s de facto endorsement of Trump’s stand on climate. Le Parisien, 9 juillet 2017, I translate: “Personally I would have done no more than take note of American withdrawal.” Whereas Merkel agreed to mention America’s endeavor toward “cleaner use of fossil energies” = endorsement. Once dominant, the US stays dominant thanks to their Merkel stooge.

But wait, that makes perfect sense: Just look at coal’s share in German energy mix! US and Germany hand in hand to keep coal burning.

*

Be warned. After years of anonymity on the Web you’ll find out there are no credentials on your real name nor on the real you.

July 2017

(*) ‘’Im Grunde jedoch sind alle jene Vorgänge, welche Kosmogonie und Geologie (als lange vor dem Dasein irgendeines erkennenden Wesens geschehn) vorauszusetzen uns nötigen, selbst nur eine Übersetzung in die Sprache unsers anschauenden Intellekts aus dem ihm nicht faßlichen Wesen an sich der Dinge. Denn ein Dasein an sich selbst haben jene Vorgänge nie gehabt, sowenig als die jetzt gegenwärtigen; sondern der Regressus an der Hand der Prinzipien a priori aller möglichen Erfahrung leitet, einigen empirischen Datis folgend, zu ihnen hin: er selbst aber ist nur die Verkettung einer Reihe bloßer Phänomene, die keine unbedingte Existenz haben.’’ (Paralipomena, Kapitel 6: Zur Philosophie und Wissenschaft der Natur § 85)

‘’Die allem Leben auf der Erde vorhergegangenen geologischen Vorgänge sind in gar keinem Bewußtsein dagewesen: nicht im eigenen, weil sie keines haben; nicht in einem fremden, weil keines dawar. Also hatten sie aus Mangel an jedem Subjekt gar kein objektives Dasein, d.h. sie waren überhaupt nicht, oder was bedeutet dann noch ihr Dagewesensein? –  Es ist im Grunde ein bloß hypothetisches: nämlich wenn zu jenen Urzeiten ein Bewußtsein dagewesen wäre, so würden in demselben solche Vorgänge sich dargestellt haben; dahin leitet uns der Regressus der Erscheinungen: also lag es im Wesen des Dinges an sich, sich in solchen Vorgängen darzustellen.’’ (Ibid. § 85 note F)

‘’Wir haben aber diese Steigerung uns zu denken nicht als in einer einzigen Linie, sondern in mehreren nebeneinander aufsteigenden. So z.B. ist einmal aus dem Ei eines Fisches ein Ophidier, ein andermal aus dieses seinem ein Saurier, zugleich aber aus dem eines andern Fisches ein Batrachier, dann aber aus dieses seinem ein Chelonier hervorgegangen, aus dem eines dritten eine Cetacee, etwan ein Delphin, später wieder hat eine Cetacee ein Phoka geboren und endlich einmal eine Phoka der Walroß; und vielleicht ist aus dem Ei der Ente das Schnabeltier und aus dem eines Straußen irgendein größeres Säugetier entstanden. Überhaupt muß der Vorgang in vielen Ländern der Erde zugleich und in gegenseitiger Unabhängigkeit stattgefunden haben, überall jedoch in sogleich bestimmten deutlichen Stufen, deren jede eine feste, bleibende Spezies gab, nicht aber in allmäligen verwischten Übergängen; also nicht nach Analogie eines von der untern Oktave bis zur obersten allmälig steigenden, folglich heulenden Tones, sondern nach der einer in bestimmten Absätzen aufsteigenden Tonleiter. Wir wollen es uns nicht verhehlen, daß wir danach die ersten Menschen uns zu denken hätten als in Asien vom Pongo (dessen Junges Orang-Utan heißt) und in Afrika vom Schimpanse[n] geboren, wiewol nicht als Affen, sondern sogleich als Menschen. Merkwürdig ist es, daß diesen Ursprung sogar ein Buddhaistischer Mythos lehrt, der zu finden ist in Isaac Jakob Schmidts >Forschungen über die Mongolen und Tibeter< (S. 210-214), wie auch in Klaproths >Fragments Bouddhiques< im >Nouveau Journal Asiatique< (1831, mars), desgleichen in Köppens >Die Lamaische Hierarchie< (S. 45).’’ (Ibid. § 91)

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer

Enregistrer