Tweet anthology March-May 18 English/Français
Scientific Papers on Subliminality (a selection)
“subliminal stimuli—because they are outside a human’s ability to perceive them—can have no effect on humans” (W. James Potter, Media Literacy, 2013)
“Mere exposure enhances positive evaluation, independent of stimulus recognition” A replication study in Japan and the U.S. by Keiko Ishii 2005
“Subliminally activating the concept of trust (vs. distrust) leads participants to judge a series of strangers as more (vs. less) trustworthy.” (Posten, Ockenfels & Mussweiler, Journal of Economic Psychology 2013)
“subliminally presented hint stimuli cause better solution performance and greater relaxation of constraints when actually solving the problem later” (Miyata, Otagiri, Suzuki)
“increasing perceptual fluency during mere exposure modulates autonomic nervous responses, such as pupil diameter, and eventually leads to preference.” (Pupil Response and the Subliminal Mere Exposure Effect [SMEE], Yoshimoto et al. 2014)
“negative emotion induced by unconscious stimuli (subliminal fear priming) enhances rejection of unfair offers” in the ultimatum game (Takagishi et al. 2016)
Subliminal Mere Exposure Effect & Preferences: “massed exposure has an instantaneous effect on likability, whereas accumulative exposure has a long-term persistence effect” (Japanese Journal of Psychology 2011)
“The results provide the first evidence for subliminal emotion-specific cognitive effects. They show that cognitive functions such as appraisals can be affected by subliminal emotional stimuli of the same valence.” (Zixu Yang & Eddie Wong 2016)
“Participants were instructed to rate how much they like images after being subliminally exposed to masked lexical prime words that exhibit positive, negative, & neutral connotations … The consistent results confirmed the overall priming effect on participants’ explicit ratings.” (Dhanya M. Mohan et al. 2016)
“The processes which allow novel information to shape subsequent decisions are generally thought to depend on consciousness … However, growing evidence indicates that the human unconscious can perform various high-level cognitive functions that might allow decision processes to benefit from subliminal messages (Ruch et al., Subliminal messages exert long-term effects on decision-making, Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2016)
“Two recent studies have found that subliminal visual cues can improve athletic performance, as well as, physical functioning in older individuals” (Subliminal cues impact motivation, endurance, and longevity, C. Bergland, Psychology Today 2014)
You vote for politicians but they don’t do what you want, they do what media wants and you don’t vote for media.
To United Black Books: I’ll buy any book by late President Idi Amin Dada, for instance his Middle East Crisis (1974). Your price will be mine.
Please take a look at this tweet (pic) by Afro-American Eric and the number of likes and retweets. I followed him. After this tweet he said he was shadowbanned, and it was true, then his account was shut down.
I would like to be sure freemasons do not use the state apparatus to oppose peaceful conversions to islam, because that would be a violation of the tenets of the secular state. That people convert to islam, in prison or elsewhere, is none of the secular state’s business.
Any opposition of the secular state to peaceful conversions to islam is illegal.
Mark Anthony Conditt, Austin Bomber, explained on Reddit how he made his bombs, and that his favorite authors are John Grisham and Tom Clancy: his inspiration for Austin bombings? Why not? Also, Conditt was reading the Bible when he went on rampage.
If you can bring legal charges against a Muslim cleric or intellectual for inciting terrorism, then be consistent and bring charges against novelists admired by Mark Conditt, like John Grisham, so a judge or jury can examine their writings carefully.
Books in the public domain won’t be what their authors made them any longer. For example, Austrian youth novel Hatshi Bratschis Luftballon by F.K. Ginzkey: “Dort gelangt er auf eine Insel, wo „Menschenfresser“ (bzw. in neueren Ausgaben Affen)…” “…alle Hinweise auf Türken in der Ausgabe von 1968 ersetzt.” wkpd (In a recent edition, instead of colored cannibals the character now meets apes, and all references to Turks have been removed.)
You have no right to rewrite the books of your culture. You’ve no right to rewrite a book and leave the author’s name on the cover. You’ve no right to make believe your writers and intellectuals were nice people when they were not.
Terrorism alarm in Rome. Authorities are looking for Mathlouthi Atef, a 42-year-old Tunisian national who might be willing to carry out an attack. The manhunt was launched after the Italian embassy in Tunisi received an anonymous letter. (ISPI Terrorism, March 25)
Ridiculous. Now they launch manhunt on receiving anonymous letters and even advertise it. Can they get any lower? [Read further for more remarks on anonymous denunciations.]
YouTube removes all sorts of contents and people from its platform, even content that is protected by the American Constitution. That makes of YouTube an illegal organization.
Un problème avec Twitter : tous les détritus à étiquette bleue y vont de leur larme de crocodile, pour des RT, quand un gendarme se fait tuer par un djihadiste, et du coup au hashtag #ArnaudBeltrame, zéro analyse, on est obligé de demander ce qui s’est passé à ceux qui regardent la télé. 😦
Stéphane Poussier, du parti Les Insoumis, condamné à un an de prison avec sursis et privé de droits civiques pour son tweet sur #ArnaudBeltrame. Une question aux soixante-huitards qui nous gouvernent : peut-on dire que les CRS sont des SS ?
Hier les CRS étaient des SS, aujourd’hui ils sont le rempart contre les SS islamofascistes et le SS Stéphane Poussier.
Après l’attaque de Trèbes, la jeunesse en colère manifeste dans la rue : « Fichés S : SS ! Fichés S : SS ! »
#ArnaudBeltrame He broke all rules, acted on impulse with no proper training for what he intended, was shot dead. End of story.
How can you break rules in a situation where no rule is left? (C. de Vaca)
Rules and procedures for hostage-taking situations involve elite corps with elite training. Do not ask countryside gendarmes what you ask the RAID or have them trained at the same level.
Si un cambriolage peut être qualifié d’antisémite, je vois mal comment un crime ou délit quelconque dont une personne juive serait victime peut, a contrario, ne pas être qualifié d’antisémite. Cela veut dire que, si la victime est supposée connue comme étant juive par l’auteur de l’acte, le caractère antisémite de l’acte est présumé de manière automatique et la circonstance aggravante retenue.
Alors que le caractère antisémite du meurtre de Mireille Knoll n’avait de prime abord rien d’évident (“Investigators say no apparent anti-Semitic motive”), on en vient à se poser la question du timing : est-ce que cela a été déclaré antisémite avant ou après la Marche blanche ? Que l’Assemblée nationale interrompe ses travaux dans ce contexte incertain (la justice délibérant sur le caractère antisémite de l’acte) et invite les députés à la Marche blanche, a un petit côté « grosse pression sur le pouvoir judiciaire ». Et la séparation des pouvoirs ? Mesdames et messieurs les députés, laissez la justice faire son travail, la démocratie vous en sera reconnaissante.
La Marseillaise ? Toute cette pub subliminale pour l’Olympique de Marseille, ça me rend malade.
To the Spokesman of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Zabihullah Mujahid (Talibans): I don’t know why but, from France, access to http://shahamat1.com is ok but access to http://alemarah-dari.com [both websites are run by the Talibans] isn’t allowed and I get a warning from the ministry of interior. Any idea what these idiots are doing?
If you have been aggrieved by YouTube, I’m not sure there’s anything you can do other than what Nasim Aghdam did [she went on a shooting rampage at YouTube’s headquarters in San Diego]. Just let me know.
One user assumes Nasim Aghdam went on rampage for the sake of the “2 cents” she was making from her YouTube videos, but others say her videos were viral so more likely it’s her livelihood she lost overnight, with no credible recourse against Google.
I don’t really know how making money on YouTube works but I fancy 1000s, 10.000s, 100.000s, millions of views will attract companies eager to advertise, so the prejudice to Nasim Aghdam may have been quite significant. I hope her relatives will sue YouTube/Google.
The prejudice she suffered from Google is on the record. The harm resulted from a unilateral breach of contract upon which terms Nasim Aghdam had made financial expectations.
That is #1. #2 is that YouTube discriminated against Nasim’s videos, and discriminating against customers is a breach of the law (Civil Rights Acts). As if being a private company allowed one to violate protected people’s rights… Pshaw!
“Elon Musk warns about the coming of an immortal dictator [an AI dictator].” Anybody with a boss bossing him every day of the week will hardly see what’s so wrong with a dictator.
[Attaque à la voiture bélier à Münster, le 7 avril] Je suis #munster (Le munster est un fromage qui pue)
#Münster Make no mistake: Europe will convert to islam peacefully. I hope freemasons won’t try to prevent it with violence because then they’ll have to be stopped. People are free to convert to islam. People’s motivations for converting (or not) is their own business provided there is no violence involved.
#Münster « Rien n’indique pour le moment qu’on ait affaire à des motivations islamistes » (Ministère) devient dans la bouche des journalistes « La piste islamiste écartée » (letelegramme/fr). Clairement, quand on maîtrise la langue française, la piste islamiste n’est pas écartée.
#Münster “The attacker is German and no refugee” (authorities). The refugees of today are the Germans of tomorrow.
If your idea of democracy is about electing scoundrels to boss civil servants, then you are smart. (I was told the same in civil service preparatory classes and wouldn’t believe it.)
This is how blockchain might solve the internet privacy problem.
Does blockchain solve the internet privacy problem by cancelling privacy or by making it impossible for governments to track criminals?
J’ai toujours pensé que le café du commerce avait plus de couilles que les médias.
Germany: 6 people detained over plot to carry attack during half marathon in Berlin have been released. (ESISC)
Clear indication that these individuals plotted no attack and that the elements the police used to detain them hardly qualified, such as anonymous denunciations.
France: All the suspects, detained on April 9 in connection to the Magnanville attack, liberated due to the lack of incriminating evidence. (ESISC)
So what was the “evidence” used to detain them in the first place?? Anonymous denunciations?
#Fulda [Attaque à l’arme blanche dans une boulangerie de Fulda, le 13 avril] The attacker used “stones and some sort of a truncheon” (nytimes/com) and was shot dead by police. Like, that was regular use of lethal force by police?
Germany: Reichsbürger committed more than 10,500 criminal offences between 2015 and 2017. (ESISC)
While jihadists only stab or vehicle-ram every other day, German neonazis have committed 3.500 criminal offences PER DAY these last 3 years and you had no idea! (Like, treading on protected lawns?) Governments really take us for pinheads.
[Émeutes urbaines à La Reynerie, Toulouse, après un contrôle policier sur une femme portant le voile islamique ayant mal tourné] #LaReynerie « Nous avons beaucoup trop de contrôles d’identité, avec de la vraie discrimination. » Emmanuel Macron, 2 mars 2017, pendant la campagne présidentielle. Un candidat devenu président dit qu’il y a de la « vraie discrimination » dans les contrôles d’identité, et les victimes de cette discrimination devraient rester sans réagir ? N’importe quoi.
Qu’attend Macron pour corriger la situation? À moins qu’il ne déclare avoir eu tort de tenir ces propos, tant qu’aucune mesure n’est prise les contrôles d’identité doivent être considérés comme illégaux car discriminatoires et donc contraires à la Déclaration des droits de l’homme.
Toute résistance à un contrôle d’identité est légitime et se justifie par les paroles du magistrat suprême de la République, le président Macron, que l’agent de police ni le juge ne saurait ignorer sans manquer à son devoir.
“Ask not what the jihad can do for you – ask what you can do for the jihad.” J.F.Kennedji
Evolutionary psychologists, after Jack London [several utterances in this direction in The People of the Abyss], say Europeans who migrated to America were a fitter breed than those who stayed “behind.” Ridiculous: They left Europe because here in Europe they were outbred in the struggle for life.
To a land of opportunities… If, say as workers, migrants to America could find no opportunities in Europe, it wasn’t that workers weren’t needed in Europe, mark you.
America’s industrial might depended on the same cause that is now seeing China rising: It was American workers scabbing on European workers (longer workdays, fewer vacations &c).
Evolutionary Psychology (EP) and Sociobiology hold, after Jack London, that the strong outbreed the weak. Yet from Western falling birth rates they fail to conclude to the weakness of the white race. Is it because most EP scholars are whites?
Twopence question. Given that the strong outbreed the weak, who are the strong: Christians or Muslims?
[Attaque à la voiture bélier à Toronto, le 23 avril ; Twitter buzzait de rumeurs sur la nature djihadiste supposée de l’attaque et donc en même temps d’appels à la tolérance] #TorontoAttack What if the solution wasn’t inclusiveness but islam? Think about it.
British “Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Head of the Diplomatic Service” visits Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar and then tweets he is glad to have visited the “mosque.” European elites in a nutshell.
Sexes being in the ratio of 1:1, in monogamous societies a voluntary celibate of one sex means an involuntary celibate or incel of the other sex, unless the number of voluntary celibates is equal for both sexes.
Deux jeunes femmes victimes d’une agression islamophobe : la police refuse la plainte et leur dit « arracher le voile, ça n’existe pas dans la loi française. » (Nacéra, 24 avril)
Les voies de fait, comme l’acte d’arracher une partie du vêtement de quelqu’un, sont condamnées en droit français.
Pas si le vêtement est interdit (avec un lien vers la circulaire du 2 mars 2011).
La circulaire du 2 mars 2011 [relative à la mise en œuvre de la loi du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public] concerne le voile intégral, et même une personne en contravention victime d’une voie de fait est fondée à porter plainte car le droit français n’admet pas le lynchage. De plus, une voie de fait motivée par le port du voile islamique comporte un facteur aggravant.
Citation de la circulaire : « Les tenues destinées à dissimuler le visage sont celles qui rendent impossible l’identification de la personne. Il n’est pas nécessaire, à cet effet, que le visage soit intégralement dissimulé. Sont notamment interdits, sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, le port de cagoules, de voiles intégraux (burqa, niqab…), de masques ou de tout autre accessoire ou vêtement ayant pour effet, pris isolément ou associé avec d’autres, de dissimuler le visage. »
Le voile islamique est certes mentionné dans la liste : il s’agit du voile intégral, et la liste donne deux noms de voile intégral. Ce qui signifie que le voile islamique non intégral ne fait pas partie de la liste.
La précision qu’il « n’est pas nécessaire…que le visage soit intégralement dissimulé » concerne des masques ne couvrant qu’une partie du visage, tels que dominos, loups…, qui rendent de fait l’identification de la personne impossible sans cependant couvrir tout le visage.
La liste n’est bien sûr pas exhaustive (« sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité ») car quelqu’un pourrait se mettre une boîte en carton autour de la tête et dire que la loi ne l’interdit pas, mais cela n’autorise pas à mettre dans cette liste le voile islamique non intégral.
Si la circulaire cite les cagoules, elle n’interdit pas les cagoules qui ne cachent pas le visage, pas plus que les chapeaux, qui recouvrent les cheveux (utiles pour identifier une personne), que les lunettes noires (qui cachent les yeux), ni de porter la barbe, de se maquiller, de changer de coupe de cheveux, etc.
La cagoule est donnée comme un exemple parmi d’autres de la définition. Une cagoule qui ne cache pas le visage ne correspondant pas à la définition, ce type de cagoule n’est pas concerné.
« Le Conseil d’État dit qu’un chef d’établissement peut recommander aux mères de ne pas porter le voile dans les sorties scolaires. Je recommande donc aux chefs d’établissement de recommander cela aux accompagnatrices. » (Ministre de l’éducation nationale)
Une recommandation n’étant pas une injonction, les accompagnatrices qui ne souhaitent pas ôter leur voile ne sont susceptibles d’aucune sanction en droit. Je leur recommande donc de garder leur voile si c’est ce qu’elles souhaitent.
Le Conseil d’Etat a dit quelque chose d’inutile et de futile, alors qu’il dénonce en général le « droit non normatif ». Une recommandation, en droit (normatif), ce n’est rien du tout. Le ministre a répété une chose inutile et futile, et en même temps blessante pour les Musulmans.
Selon moi, le droit dit que : si un chef d’établissement recommande à une femme de retirer son voile pour une sortie scolaire et celle-ci refuse, il n’a pas le droit de l’empêcher de participer à la sortie pour ce motif. S’il avait le droit, ce serait en effet plus qu’une « recommandation ».
Ce qu’il y a de 👎 dans la réponse du ministre, même si l’instrument juridique auquel il se réfère est dépourvu de caractère normatif, c’est qu’il veut intimider les femmes voilées, les décourager de participer à la vie de la collectivité, alors que le voile est légal. Les mères voilées ont le droit de participer à la vie de la collectivité et il est franchement 👎 que le ministre cherche à les décourager de le faire.
Si vous laissez faire, ils empêcheront les mères voilées de participer aux sorties scolaires, puis à ci puis à ça, puis à tout, puis ils diront : « On vous l’avait dit, les femmes musulmanes, c’est des fatmas qui ne sortent jamais de la maison. »
Today they wax indignant about fake news. Tomorrow they’ll tell you fake news is a necessary weapon in war (it’s already stated in their history books), and don’t you dare rectify fake news, it’s a betrayal of your country.
Try to write “melancholy Taiwan turtle swinging on a swing provoked a flock of dirty, mutant snapping tortoises” in Chinese and good luck: 憂鬱的臺灣烏龜蕩鞦韆尋釁幾羣骯髒變態囓齒鱷龞 Millions of pen strokes! (Traditional vs simplified Chinese writing) [The nonsensical sentence is a textbook example of the intricacy of traditional Chinese writing.]
To my Uyghur friends, next time they compel you to renounce Uyghur alphabet, tell them: “Melancholy Taiwan turtle swinging on a swing provoked a flock of dirty, mutant snapping tortoises.”
Le Canard enchaîné du 2 mai, n° 5088, écrit à propos du compte Twitter d’Al-Jazeera (français) une fausseté qui peut être facilement démontrée : « la notion de race [y est] utilisée comme critère fondamental dans la lecture du moindre événement » (P.1: AlJazeera se la joue cool) et lui reproche sa position anti-raciste. Bien sûr, ces journalistes ne sont pas racistes, vous diront-ils, ils sont même antiracistes ; c’est seulement qu’ils ne supportent pas les antiracistes musulmans.
[In reply to someone who made fun of a Filipino Jihadist with long, well-cared hair] Perhaps it is the reason the boy prefers Jihadist insurgency to the regular army: He can keep his long hair and cool looks. Whereas in the army he would be just another robot.
Un militaire ne peut appartenir à un syndicat, ne peut faire grève, ne peut participer à des élections ni se faire élire… Notre société a donc besoin d’esclaves ?
In modern societies, soldiers choose to enlist. They know what to expect. Slaves, on the other hand, don’t quite have the same level of choice. (C. de Vaca)
As they agree to live without basic rights, they are scabs who drag down the citizenry.
Un président des riches est toujours élu par les pauvres, car il faut une majorité pour être élu. J’emm… la démocratie.
Sur le site web du ministère français des affaires étrangères : « Tous les déplacements à Gaza sont formellement déconseillés. Les ressortissants français doivent être conscients qu’ils s’exposent à des risques particulièremt élevés (attentats, enlèvements ou bombardement israélien). » Attentats ? Enlèvements ?
Editorial du Monde, 18 février 2017 : « Si qualifier de ‘crime contre l’humanité’ ce chapitre de notre histoire [la colonisation] est maladroit, cela a permis d’engager la discussion sur une question sensible. »
Quel maladroit, ce Macron, ah la la!
Macron : « La colonisation fait partie de l’histoire française. C’est un crime, un crime contre l’humanité, c’est une vraie barbarie. Et ça fait partie de ce passé que nous devons regarder en face, en présentant nos excuses à l’égard de ceux envers lesquels nous avons commis ces gestes. »
Mais quel maladroit, ce Macron !
Discrimination pratiquée au sommet de l’État : « La secrétaire d’Etat M.S., en visite à Trappes, ne s’est pas arrêtée dans un café ‘tenu par des musulmans’ afin ‘d’éviter un incident’. »
[« En cause, selon Le Canard enchaîné, le préfet des Yvelines, Jean-Jacques Brot, qui a ‘invité prestement’ Marlène Shiappa à poursuivre son chemin ‘afin d’éviter un incident’. » (Valeurs actuelles en ligne, 10 mai) Le préfet discriminatoire doit être évidemment révoqué mais cela ne risque évidemment pas d’arriver puisque, par exemple, le journal Valeurs actuelles (les valeurs en question sont évidemment les valeurs boursières), là où je titre « Discrimination pratiquée au sommet de l’État », titre quant à lui : « M.S. persona non grata dans un café tenu par des musulmans. » Alors que personne n’a demandé leur avis aux tenanciers du café !… Quelques sources bien islamophobes sont allées jusqu’à dire que le café, tenu par Mme Zoulika Zehrdi, était « interdit aux femmes » !… Tout ça à cause d’un sale préfet.]
#WorkHard so you can have debts! “Thrift negates thrift.” (When people spare on minimum wage they lower the standard of living and thus depress wage levels) Jack London, one of those American classics Americans don’t know.
France: Close associate of Khamzat Azimov arrested in Strasbourg and transferred to DGSI headquarters. (ESISC)
Close associate to a lone wolf? or just a friend of his? Tomorrow, when they talk of having arrested the mastermind of the operation, know that it is his Alzheimer grandmother.
You don’t need a close associate to take a knife in your kitchen, go out and stab people. What was the close associate’s role in so intricate an operation?
France: 2 young women arrested in connection to Paris May 12 stabbing; another suspect indicted and imprisoned; investigation does not confirm the version of the lone wolf attack. (ESISC)
Summum of ridicule [or, rather, infamy]: A man stabs people on the street and is shot dead, and police imprison scores of people. These people didn’t hold the knife, didn’t shelter the attacker after the attack. Imprisoned for knowing a guilty man!
L’ami de Khamzat Azimov, Abdoul Hakim A., sera « lui aussi » jugé pour « assassinat et tentative d’assassinats en lien avec une entreprise terroriste » (lefigaro/fr) car on a trouvé une photo d’un drapeau de Daesh sur son ordinateur… Parodie de justice ! La France sur le chemin de la dictature policière et militaire. (Mais ne vous inquiétez pas : il y aura toujours des députés pour vous dire à la télé que la France est un pays libre. La place de député est trop bonne pour qu’on s’en passe, même en dictature. Ils ne servent déjà à rien.)
Connaître un assassin et télécharger de la propagande djihadiste n’a jamais été et ne sera jamais un « assassinat », sauf peut-être dans une dictature bien franchouillarde de chez nous à gerber.
Comme pour les politicards, un attentat=>une nouvelle loi sécuritaire, maintenant pour les flics, c’est un Tchétchène fait une attaque au couteau=>une ratonnade chez les Tchétchènes. Bravo, ça c’est des méthodes !
We’re told only 20% (1/5) of American Jews support American embassy move to Jerusalem and that Trump acts on behalf of Millenarists waiting for Armageddon. Yet Obama made the same promise and he wasn’t supported by Millenarists. So?
So Millenarists are straw men.
I see no future in Western countries for Christian Zionists who base their politics on Armageddon. Such pigeons.
Il me semble, mais c’est une hypothèse, que si j’étais un antisioniste notoire, j’aurais tendance à vouloir un chirurgien arabe plutôt qu’un chirurgien juif pour une opération délicate… Ce qui pourrait être interprété.
À qualifications égales, et même inégales jusqu’à une certaine limite, je prends le chirurgien arabe, dans le modèle mathématique : théorie des jeux, théorème n°14.
There’s just a lot of wrong in the world, but there is so much right. (Rose McGowan)
Scientists have found there are two and a half wrongs for every right in the world.
Quand un ministre ou député parle de « guerre contre le terrorisme », il viole la séparation des pouvoirs car il demande implicitement le dessaisissement du juge et l’application de la « justice » militaire.
#SantaFeHighSchool [shooting] 2-digit toll attained (10 dead). Dimitrios Pagourtzis, 17, kinda kept his cool, wasn’t even shot. [To be followed in TW13]
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 (3rd 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