Tagged: Wikileaks

TW19 De l’acte XIX à l’acte XXIV : Le portrait de Duchmol Gray

ACTE XIX (Suite)

Le référendum révocatoire (recall) est d’autant plus justifié en France que les mandats y sont tous dans la fourchette haute, c’est-à-dire particulièrement longs. Une vraie caste de potentats.

Par exemple, le mandat de député est de cinq ans. Comparez : Argentine deux ans, États-Unis deux ans, Australie trois ans, Mexique trois ans, Nouvelle-Zélande trois ans, Philippines trois ans… Dans quatre pays seulement les députés font plus de cinq ans, et quels pays, Centrafrique, Liberia, Sri Lanka, Yémen, des pays où les mandats sont de six ans.

Une Constitution démocratique ne devrait pas prévoir de mandats longs sans recall ou référendum révocatoire.

[La plupart des mandats de députés dans le monde durent quatre ou cinq ans ; la France n’est donc pas une anomalie mais elle fait partie des pays où le mandat de député est le plus long. Les autres mandats électifs y sont également longs : celui du président de la République est passé de sept à cinq ans, ceux des élus locaux, maires et autres, sont de six ans, sans oublier les sénateurs, dont le mandat de neuf ans avant la réforme de 2003, porté à six ans à cette date, était sans aucun doute le plus long mandat électif du monde…]

ACTE XX

Le moindre potentat local se croit permis d’interdire aux citoyens français de manifester dans le périmètre de sa ville, en claquant des doigts, et on nous dit que c’est « la loi ». Certains ont beaucoup de choses à apprendre sur ce qu’est une république. Outre que l’ordre d’interdiction de manifester à Nice [pendant l’acte XX] doit être déféré au juge administratif, c’est typiquement le genre de décision arbitraire qui appelle un référendum révocatoire local pour sortir un potentat.

*

L’injure sur Twitter. L’émetteur est dans le contexte psychologique d’une conversation à bâtons rompus (oral) mais l’effet pour le récepteur est celui d’une missive solennelle (écrit). Le droit n’est pas adapté.

*

Des politiciens au ras du plancher

Les peines plancher se veulent, et c’est un comble, une ingérence du législatif dans le judiciaire mais en fait elles ne sont rien car c’est la même chose que le minimum de peine légal déjà existant, que le juge ignore quand il retient des circonstances atténuantes.

L’ingérence n’est pas dans le fait de prononcer un minimum légal mais dans celui de vouloir empêcher le juge de retenir des circonstances atténuantes. Que les politiciens qui promettent à leurs électeurs crédules des peines plancher nous expliquent comment ils comptent les faire appliquer par le pouvoir judiciaire sans priver celui-ci de son pouvoir d’appréciation, ce qui serait inconstitutionnel.

*

Des policiers qui se déguisent en Gilets Jaunes (cf David Dufresne @davduf) pour interpeller peuvent aussi servir d’agents provocateurs, mais le juge n’apprécie guère ce genre de pratiques et s’il constate des provocations policières il peut disculper pour « contrainte irrésistible » les manifestants mis en cause, les poursuites cessent. Les indices de la présence d’agents provocateurs dans les manifestations de Gilets Jaunes se multipliant, j’appelle donc les avocats à faire appel dans les procès en cours aux précédents sur la contrainte irrésistible.

*

Si la réponse pénale au racisme consiste à prononcer des rappels à la loi pour les injures contre telle minorité et des peines de prison pour les injures contre telle autre, c’est du racisme. Faites voir un peu vos statistiques.

Comment ça, il n’y en a pas ?!

*

Is Maduro a harder authoritarian than leaders of Singapore, Taiwan and other such countries who credit their economic success to their governments’ ‘soft authoritarianism’. USA’s ‘antikomunismo’ (Juan José Arévalo) may well have prevented the emergence of ‘tigers’ in Latin America.

[Antikomunismo (with a k) is a concept designed by Guatemalan writer and statesman J.J. Arévalo to describe U.S. foreign policy in Latin American combating under the name of ‘Communism’ all kinds of left-leaning governments and movements, sometimes connected very remotely, if at all, with the Communist Bloc or Communist parties.]

*

En France un Gilet Jaune a été condamné à quatre mois de prison avec sursis pour avoir crié « Guillotine ! Guillotine ! » lors d’une rencontre inopinée entre un groupe de Gilets Jaunes et un député. La justice française considère qu’il a menacé de mort ce dernier. Donc ce Gilet Jaune a une guillotine chez lui et est prêt à l’utiliser contre le député ? Absurde. Pourtant, c’est ce qui ferait que ces paroles sont une « vraie menace ».

La jurisprudence de la « vraie menace » est américaine (true threat) et de bon sens. Le Gilet Jaune n’a proféré aucune menace réelle. Que le procureur indique que « le suspect a pris conscience lors de sa garde à vue de la portée de ses propos » est une dérision sinistre.

Le procureur dit aussi : « Nous avons la crainte que des personnes fragiles pourraient s’en prendre physiquement à des représentants de la Nation », à cause de « Guillotine ! », mais un citoyen, un homme libre n’a pas à se demander comment réagiront à ses paroles des « personnes fragiles » (des fous !).

Exiger de se demander comment un déséquilibré mental est susceptible de réagir à nos paroles avant de les prononcer, ce serait du plus grand comique si cela ne venait pas d’un magistrat capable de vous envoyer en prison.

Des personnes s’étant suicidées après avoir lu le Werther de Goethe, on chercha à le lui reprocher mais Goethe répondit qu’il n’était pas responsable des acte des personnes fragiles (ses mots étaient plus désobligeants que ça).

Un citoyen américain opposé à la conscription pour le Vietnam a pu dire sans être inquiété : « Si on me force à porter le fusil, ma première balle sera pour LBJ [Président Lyndon B. Johnson]. » Ce n’est pas une « vraie menace ». (Arrêt Watts v. United States, 1969) Voilà ce que j’appelle un pays libre.

Un autre citoyen américain, fonctionnaire, a pu dire sans être inquiété, c’est-à-dire sans pouvoir être légalement licencié pour ces propos, après la tentative d’assassinat contre le président Reagan : « La prochaine fois, j’espère qu’ils ne le rateront pas. » (Arrêt Rankin v. McPherson, 1987)

« Sans être inquiétés » dans le sens où, si des gens ont certes cherché à les faire punir pour ces paroles, la justice de leur pays les a défendus, dénonçant ainsi leurs accusateurs comme des scélérats et des ennemis de la liberté.

De même, en France, répondre à un policier est un outrage tandis que dans un pays libre (les États-Unis), « la Cour suprême annule la condamnation d’un homme qui avait lors d’une interpellation traité le policier de fils de pute et menacé de le tuer ». (Arrêt Gooding v. Wilson, 1972)

Par ailleurs, « la Cour suprême annule un arrêté municipal interdisant d’insulter des agents de police ». (Arrêt Lewis v. New Orleans, 1974)

Les paroles du procureur (« Nous avons la crainte que des personnes fragiles pourraient s’en prendre physiquement à des représentants de la Nation ») montrent que celui-ci sait que « Guillotine ! » n’était pas une menace mais y voit plutôt un risque d’incitation pour des « personnes fragiles », auxquelles le Gilet Jaune ne s’adressait même pas !

Le Gilet Jaune s’adressant à un député, il a été poursuivi pour menaces contre ce député et condamné à quatre mois de prison. Or le procureur dit en public que ce n’était pas une menace mais une incitation envers des « personnes fragiles », auxquelles le GJ ne s’adressait pas.

ACTE XXI

La France confrontée à une explosion du trafic de drogue (Le Figaro)

C’est bon pour la croissance puisque le trafic de drogue est maintenant comptabilisé dans le PIB. La lutte policière et judiciaire contre ce trafic nuit désormais à la croissance française.

*

Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples : « éliminer le colonialisme, le néocolonialisme, l’apartheid, le sionisme, les bases militaires étrangères d’agression et toutes formes de discrimination » (Préambule)

‘‘to eliminate colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, zionism and to dismantle aggressive foreign military bases and all forms of discrimination’’ (Preamble of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights)

*

Toujours pas de PMC (produits de marquage codés) ? « [Ces produits] persistent trois à quatre semaines sur la peau et même plusieurs mois sur les vêtements en dépit des lavages. » (L’Express)

À quand le PMC = luminol à vie sur la peau ? Lépreux fluo du XXIe siècle.

*

L’asile d’aliénés

Sur le plateau d’iTélé, Rama Yade dit que Macron n’aurait jamais été Président si un test d’« équilibre psychologique » avait été prévu avant sa nomination, et la journaliste, interloquée, l’appelle Marine Le Pen : « Vous êtes sérieuse, Marine Le Pen ? Vous dites qu’Emmanuel Macron est fou ? »

*

The advisable increase of consociationalism with the increase of multiculturalism in European countries implies among other things that Muslim populations have their own religious jurisdictions in domains to be determined with them.

*

Các dân tộc xích gần nhau đặng làm ra một trái Đất lớn hơn.
Les peuples se sont rapprochés pour faire une Terre plus grande.

Các dân tộc sẽ tạo lại con ngưòi đẹp hơn tất cả những thần thánh mà con người đã từng sinh ra.
Les peuples réinventeront l’homme plus beau que tous les dieux que l’homme a enfantés.

Cù Huy Cận (1919-2005), poète vietnamien 🇻🇳 (traduction Paul Schneider)

*

Chambre souveraine(ment imbécile)

i

Le Sénat invite le Gilets Jaune Éric Drouet puis, quand celui-ci arrive à sa porte, l’empêche d’entrer en s’excusant d’un risque de trouble à l’ordre public. Vous comprenez, maintenant, pourquoi on appelle le Sénat « la chambre du seigle et de la châtaigne » ?

Le Sénat a obéi aux ordres de qui ? (Mary G.)

Comment ? Le Sénat ne serait pas une chambre « souveraine » ?

Mais peut-être qu’ils ne savaient pas ce que c’est qu’un trouble à l’ordre public, ne l’ont appris par hasard qu’après avoir invité Éric Drouet et ne pouvaient donc pas comprendre le risque créé par leur invitation au moment où ils l’envoyaient à Éric ? Dans ce cas, on a une chambre souveraine qui vote les lois et à qui on doit rappeler ce qu’est un trouble à l’ordre public.

En repoussant Éric Drouet après l’avoir invité et en invoquant une excuse « bidon » pour son revirement, le Sénat a montré qu’il était une chambre souverainement imbécile.

ii

Pays monocaméraux d’Europe et leurs classements 2018 au Democracy Index (DI) et Human Freedom Index (HFI) (indiqués quand leurs résultats sont devant ceux de la France DI 29e/HFI 32e)

🇧🇬
🇨🇾 */30
🇭🇷
🇩🇰 5/6
🇪🇪 23/14
🇫🇮 8/10
🇬🇷
🇭🇺
🇱🇻 */23
🇱🇹 */20
🇱🇺 12/15
🇲🇹 18/19
🇵🇹 27/22
🇸🇰
🇸🇪 3/17

🇮🇸 2/27
🇳🇴 1/10

En résumé, les États monocaméraux sont majoritaires dans l’Union européenne (15 sur 27) et, dans l’ensemble, plus démocratiques et respectueux des libertés que la France bicamérale (seulement 5 États sur 15 font moins bien que la France sur les deux index).

Sénat pour quoi faire ? Une seconde chambre parlementaire a un sens dans un État fédéral pour représenter les États fédérés. Dans un État unitaire, ça n’a aucun intérêt. (Dans l’Union européenne, les États qui ne sont ni fédéraux ni monocaméraux sont, outre la France, l’Irlande, l’Italie, les Pays-Bas, la Pologne, la République tchèque, la Roumanie et la Slovénie, soit 8 sur 27. [On voit que je ne compte plus le Royaume-Uni parmi les pays de l’UE.])

Un Sénat ne sert donc à rien car 1/ la France n’est pas un État fédéral et 2/ le Sénat ne rend pas la France plus démocratique ni plus respectueuse des libertés que ses voisins monocaméraux. Sert juste à recycler de vieux barbons qui n’ont rien fait pour les libertés.

*

« Jojo, le gilet jaune » de l’académicienne Danièle Sallenave (sortie le 18/04). Sans aucun doute ce que j’ai lu de plus juste et sensible sur les Gilets Jaunes. (Alain Jean-Robert)

Un gilet jaune sur l’habit vert : Danièle Sallenave, l’académicienne des Gilets Jaunes.

*

Armes à ADN

Lors de l’Acte XVIII des Gilets Jaunes, des canons à eau et des gaz contenant des marqueurs d’ADN et des nanoparticules ont été utilisés contre les manifestants. (…) Ces ‘armes à ADN’ développées en Grande-Bretagne et largement utilisées en Israël … où des détenus palestiniens affirment avoir contracté divers types de cancers suite à leur marquage ADN ou l’usage d’autres techniques de contrôle impliquant des nanoparticules. (…) Le gouvernement français a reconnu avoir utilisé des marqueurs chimiques sur des manifestants à titre d’expérimentation lors des manifestations du 1er mai 2018. (strategika51)

Avant de dire que ma source est conspirationniste, lisez ceci : « il nous a semblé plus utile … de voir de quelle manière le ministre allait mettre en œuvre les nouvelles préconisations de maintien de l’ordre, les nouvelles techniques d’intervention, en termes de drones, de marquage ADN, de plus grande mobilité des forces de l’ordre… » (la présidente de la commission des lois de l’Assemblée nationale en réponse à la question d’un député sur une audition à venir du ministre de l’intérieur)

La présidente de la commission cite deux nouvelles techniques de maintien de l’ordre : les drones et le marquage ADN. Les drones, on les a vus à l’acte XXI. On peut penser que le marquage ADN a également été utilisé.

ACTE XXII

En toute logique, l’interdiction du port d’armes en France est inconstitutionnelle, du fait de l’article 5 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789 : « La loi n’a le droit de défendre [=interdire] que les actions nuisibles à la société. » Porter une arme n’est pas une action nuisible en soi.

Par exemple, les Sikhs doivent, selon leur religion, toujours porter un poignard nommé kirpan mais cela leur est interdit en France : le Sikh qui porte son kirpan y est arrêté par la police et condamné pour port d’arme illégal. Mais le kirpan n’est pas « nuisible à la société » !

Aux États-Unis, où les gens peuvent porter des armes, on ne connaît pas non plus la soumission de lèche-bottes qu’on exige des Français, peuple de moutons, devant la police et toutes autres bureaucraties. Cf « En France, répondre à un policier est un outrage. Dans un pays libre (les États-Unis), la Cour suprême a annulé un arrêté municipal interdisant d’insulter des agents de police (arrêt Lewis v. New Orleans, 1974). »

*

Le portrait de Duchmol Gray

Accusés de vol en réunion pour avoir décroché le portrait de Macron : « On risque quand même cinq ans de prison. » (France 3 Alsace)

Il n’y a pas vol quand on ne convoite pas l’objet pris et qu’on le tient à la disposition de la justice pour lui faire prendre la poussière à la Caisse des dépôts. Le culte de la personnalité, c’est du passé.

Sur Wkpd « Portrait officiel du Président », on peut lire : « L’affichage du portrait du président dans les mairies est une tradition républicaine et n’est en rien obligatoire. » Dans les mairies peut-être mais dans les commissariats de police ?

Et dans Libération : « Contrairement à l’idée reçue, l’affichage des portraits de présidents en mairie est une coutume, mais pas une obligation. » Et c’est quoi, l’idée reçue, dans les commissariats ? Vous avez honte ou quoi ?

Qu’a-t-on fait des millions de portraits de Hollande, Sarkozy, Chirac… une fois décrochés de leurs mairies, commissariats et tout le reste ? Qu’a-t-on fait de ces chefs-d’oeuvre immortels ?

*

A look at the various therapeutic applications of psychedelics and their modern history following their rediscovery by the Western world. (Beckley Foundation)

‘Therapeutic psychedelics’ is a contradiction in terms as therapeutics aims at floating individuals on mundane performance whereas psychedelics opens them to extramundane experience. U.S. Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 is thus a wiser approach to the question than academia’s.

As to peyote, “All US states except Idaho and Texas allow usage by non-native non-enrolled persons in the context of ceremonies of the Native American Church. Some states such as Arizona exempt any general bona fide religious activity or spiritual intent.” (Wkpd)

By their laws confining peyote use to natives enrolled in the Native American Church, Idaho and Texas discriminate against this Church because they deny it the right to proselytize through peyote experience. You can’t get the message through words.

*

« Les pays européens n’interdisent pas le peyotl, à l’exception de la Suisse et de la France. » (Wkpd « peyotl ») Eh oui, on ne peut pas avoir une « chambre du seigle et de la châtaigne » (Sénat) et légaliser le peyotl. Les rongeurs de châtaignes n’aiment pas les plantes exotiques.

*

Outrage à symboles

On ne plaisante pas chez les Frogs… « Le fait d’outrager l’hymne national ou le drapeau tricolore est puni de 7.500 euros d’amende. » Le Conseil constitutionnel a précisé que les sanctions ne s’appliquaient pas aux « propos tenus dans un cercle privé ». Trop aimable.

Le Conseil constitutionnel a précisé que ça ne s’appliquait pas aux outrages en « réunion privée », trop aimable, ni aux « oeuvres de l’esprit », comme si c’était à Javert ou à Tartaglia de dire quels tweets ont de l’esprit et quels tweets n’en ont pas.

Aux États-Unis, on peut brûler le Stars and Stripes à longueur de journée sans être inquiété par la justice. Si les Français connaissaient leurs lois, ils ne fanfaronneraient pas tant avec leur « patrie des droits de l’homme ».

Aux États-Unis, quand vous brûlez le Stars and Stripes, vous pouvez être inquiétés par des fous qui vous envoient des balles de pistolet chez vous ou passent des appels anonymes (ça s’est vu). Chez nous, quand vous brûlez le drapeau, vous êtes sûrs d’être inquiétés par la justice. Donc, chez nous, ce sont des fous qui écrivent la loi.

Quand tu ouvres le code et que tu lis les mots « outrage aux symboles », le doute s’empare de toi et tu regardes à nouveau la couverture pour voir si tu n’as pas pris les Mémoires d’un névropathe de Schreber par erreur dans la bibliothèque.

*

To all Notre-Dame gargoyles alive: My place is your place! #NotreDameFire

*

As U.S. charges against Julian Assange are based on the Espionage Act of 1917, I think they are doomed to failure, given the Supreme Courts’s precedent in Schenck v. United States (1919): “Does the Espionage Act violate the freedom of speech and the press guaranteed by the First Amendment? – No, not when applied to the suppression of speech that constitutes a ‘clear and present danger’ of evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (Essential Supreme Court Decisions, John R. Vile, 2018) The documents have been leaked: What about the ‘clear and present danger’? Has U.S. collapsed? 🤔 Had the leaks been a ‘clear and present danger,’ once fulfilled they would have had clear and present consequences, the lack of which hints at their having been no danger, hence at an erroneous construction by the executive. #Wikileaks

Furthermore, “the word ‘security’ [national security] is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” Supreme Court, New York Times Co v. United States (1971) (Pentagon Papers)

As to Julian Assange being a foreigner, “a petitioner’s status as an alien is not a categorical bar to habeas corpus relief” (“but the precise range of the writ is more difficult to determine“) Supreme Court, Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

*

Entre deux autoritarismes, il est naturel de préférer celui qu’on ne subit pas.

*

L’État français étant propriétaire de Notre-Dame de Paris, c’est à lui, donc au contribuable, qu’incombent les frais des travaux, sans violation de la loi de 1905 sur la séparation de l’Église et de l’État. Comprenne qui peut.

*

Il est venu le temps de dire merci aux riches ! (Éric Brunet, journaliste, à la suite de l’annonce de dons de quelques riches industriels français pour la reconstruction de Notre-Dame de Paris)

Chez les riches, on remercie quelqu’un quand on veut lui dire « casse-toi ». Exemple : « Éric s’est fait remercier comme une vieille chaussette. »

*

« Des informations politiques ignorées par les médias traditionnels ont souvent été divulguées par le biais de YouTube, ce qui a permis l’émergence d’un journalisme citoyen. » (Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, 2015)

En donnant le badge bleu [signalant une personnalité connue] à tout journaliste avec carte de presse à qui leur employeur achète des abonnés (followers), Twitter discrimine contre les « journalistes citoyens » reconnus par la CEDH et qui prennent le relais de « médias traditionnels » corrompus.

*

La France est tellement dans un esprit de dictature militariste autoritaire napoléo-gaullien que les médias français n’ont rien trouvé de mieux que d’appeler le Président des États-Unis « l’homme le plus puissant du monde », comme si la démocratie consistait à donner régulièrement les pleins pouvoirs à un homme. Ça décrit peut-être la pseudo-démocratie française mais pas la démocratie américaine. Médias les plus stupides du monde.

*

Moi, Simon, gaullien…

*

La première photographie supposée d’un trou noir est en fait une image de synthèse très fantaisiste. (strategika51)

Le jour où ils photographieront la densité « infinie » du centre d’un trou noir relativiste, ce sera le 32 du mois… 🤓

[Sur ce sujet, voir mes billets Kantism & Astronomy (x) et Singuliers Trous noirs (x).]

*

L’incendie de Notre-Dame n’est peut-être pas un « complot » mais l’État, propriétaire de la cathédrale et responsable de sa sécurité, a des comptes à rendre.

Lanceurs d’alerte, faites votre devoir. Toute personne qui aurait connaissance de faits de négligence dans la gestion de la sécurité de Notre-Dame de Paris est priée de le faire savoir.

Notre-Dame : une cellule psychologique activée pour les agents du ministère de la Culture. (BFMTV)

Sans blague ? J’y vois un instrument de pression : « Ne vous avisez pas de lancer des alertes sur ce que vous savez car vous le paieriez très cher. » Une cellule de pression psychologique pour éviter que les agents du ministère parlent…

ACTE XXIII

Pour moi c’est le samedi de trop. #Acte23 #ActeXXIII (@asibulle)

La patience en un tweet.

*

Il n’y a pas de « démocratie locale » en France car, s’il faut des immunités pour les élus de la nation en démocratie, il en faudrait pour les élus locaux en démocratie locale et, comme il n’y a pas les unes, il n’y a pas non plus l’autre.

*

#Pénal Accusatoire (UK, US) vs. Inquisitoire (France)

« La procédure [accusatoire], plus favorable à la défense de l’accusé, est évidemment moins propice à assurer la défense de l’ordre public. » (André Laingui, Histoire du droit pénal, 1993) Évidemment? Comme si l’ordre public n’était bien défendu qu’en France…

Non, la procédure inquisitoire, comme tout ce que la France doit au général Boney-Napoléon, c’est le moyen de maintenir la dictature sous les oripeaux de la démocratie, de broyer l’individualité par les appareils répressifs. Sans, évidemment, mieux défendre l’ordre public pour autant !

Étant donné que notre code naboléonien inspire plus ou moins directement le droit de nos voisins continentaux, il y a peu de choses à attendre d’une Union européenne sans le Royaume-Uni en termes de libertés individuelles. Et la lutte contre le terrorisme aidant…

*

Grosse indignation de la semaine : « Suicidez-vous ! »

i

Les suicides dans la police ne sont pas dus aux Gilets Jaunes ni à ce que ces derniers peuvent crier sous l’effet de la colère, mais à des causes tout autres que les porte-parole de la police dénonceraient s’ils représentaient vraiment leurs collègues.

Certains représentants de la police invités par les médias s’expriment sur les Gilets Jaunes, depuis le début de la crise, non comme porte-parole de leurs collègues mais comme porte-parole du gouvernement. Mais ce n’est pas pour ça que leurs collègues les ont élus !

[Je parle évidemment des représentants syndicaux et non des représentants hiérarchiques, dont il est normal d’attendre, je suppose, qu’ils soient porte-parole du gouvernement.]

ii

Grosse indignation de la semaine sur « Suicidez-vous ! » mais pas dans Le Canard enchaîné, qui publie un dessin : « Manifestants : Suicidez-vous ! CRS : Dernière sommation, à 3 on prend nos antidépresseurs… » Pourquoi personne ne s’indigne-t-il de ce dessin ?

Il s’agit d’un journal satirique. On ne peut pas en dire autant des Gilets Jaunes. (@metronome2)

Les journaux satiriques n’ont pas le monopole de la satire. Ce n’est pas parce que leurs opposants décrivent depuis le début les Gilets Jaunes comme des abrutis qu’on est obligé de les croire. De fait, le « Suicidez-vous ! » lancé par les Gilets Jaunes était très exactement de la satire et pas du tout une incitation au suicide, qualification qui ridiculiserait celui qui la mettrait en avant. On s’est bel et bien indigné dans les médias d’une expression satirique.

Pour retenir une provocation ou incitation au suicide, il faudrait considérer que les CRS sont dans l’ensemble fragiles psychologiquement… Et si une telle qualification était retenue, j’affirme que Le Canard enchaîné, sous couvert de son étiquette de journal satirique, a également fait de la provocation au suicide de CRS et policiers.

iii

Toute la semaine, les médias parlent des suicides parmi les forces de l’ordre. Le samedi, des manifestants qui font face aux forces de l’ordre leur crient, au milieu de tensions, « Suicidez-vous ! » (comme on pouvait s’y attendre, les Français étant un peuple spirituel et caustique). Ces manifestants ont donc clairement des intentions criminelles, selon les médias…

*

« Le terme ‘journaliste’ désigne toute personne physique ou morale pratiquant à titre régulier ou professionnel la collecte et la diffusion d’informations au public par l’intermédiaire de tout moyen de communication de masse ». Rec° R (2000) 7 du Comité des Ministres. » (via Guillaume Champeau)

Cette définition du Comité des Ministres (du Conseil de l’Europe), restrictive, est dépassée par la jurisprudence même de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme sur le « journalisme citoyen ». Vu la jurisprudence de la Cour EDH, non seulement Gaspard Glanz [journaliste indépendant non titulaire d’une carte de presse, arrêté pendant l’acte XXIII et placé en garde à vue pendant 48 heures] a évidemment le statut de « journaliste citoyen » mais le critère d’exercice « à titre régulier » du Comité, sans même parler de son « à titre professionnel », est caduc.

*

Juste un rappel : ce n’est pas le gouvernement qui décide qui est journaliste et qui ne l’est pas. Sinon la liberté de la presse ne vaudrait rien.

*

« La France voisine avec quelques autres pays pas spécialement réputés pour leur respect des droits de l’homme, dans le peloton de tête des pays du Conseil de l’Europe les plus condamnés [pour non-respect de l’article 10 de la CEDH relatif à la liberté d’expression]. » (Christophe Bigot, La liberté d’expression en Europe, 2018)

*

Fiché S par Benalla.

*

Tout le droit français relatif aux outrages envers « personnes dépositaires etc » est une violation de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme sur la nécessaire « plus grande tolérance » pour tous types de propos envers ces personnes afin que vive le débat démocratique.

La législation française de l’outrage, injure aggravée en fonction du destinataire, s’il représente l’autorité, est à l’exact opposé des vues de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, qui demande une « plus grande tolérance » là où la France prévoit depuis toujours une plus grande sévérité. Comment prétendre, en effet, à un fonctionnement démocratique normal quand les autorités s’immunisent de la critique (qui a le droit d’être virulente) et donc de la mise en cause de leur responsabilité en aggravant les peines pour les propos les visant ?

*

Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Powell)

That tells you why La France is a “shithole country.”

*

U.S. judge issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Texas’ anti-BDS law that bans state workers from boycotting Israel. The judge said political boycotts are protected speech. (BDS movement)

Of course! Where do these Texas legislators think they are? Do they think Texas is a state not of the U.S. federation (ranking 25th on Democracy Index 2018) but of the Mexican federation (ranking 71st)?

With federal court’s striking down Texas anti-BDS, pro-Israel oath law, this is the third state law of this kind that is judicially struck down after Arizona and Kansas. When will state legislatures understand what the First Amendment is?

*

It is impossible to concede that by the words freedom of the press the framers of the amendment intended to adopt merely the narrow view then reflected by the law of England that such freedom consisted only in immunity from previous censorship.” (Justice Sutherland) #FirstAmendment

I wrote an unpublished memo on free speech protection 1/ in France 2/ by European Court of Human Rights & 3/ in U.S. Indicting for both 1 and 2. Could the U.S. Supreme Court consider the proposal of setting up an appeal to the Court by European citizens?

Citizens from countries that are parties to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) should be entitled to claim the protection of free speech guaranteed by the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, as both these countries’ and U.S.’s Constitutions are mindful of UDHR and the U.S. Supreme Court precedents showing a more generous approach to the question they ipso facto disqualify other parties’ restrictions on free speech as illegitimate. The Court is better equipped to judge based on its own precedents, hence the proposed appeal procedure.

[Generous is probably not the right word as in free countries the Constitution is the supreme rule on which free citizens agree, but on the other hand liberal would tend to make the question understood in terms of one party or the other…]

ACTE XXIV

Les députés de tous partis répètent en boucle qu’ils sont « députés de la nation » et non de tel ou tel territoire. Cela rend le passage à la circonscription unique d’autant plus logique et évident. #unhommeunevoix

La France n’a pas signé la Convention-cadre pour la protection des minorités nationales (autochtones). C’est le seul pays du Conseil de l’Europe avec l’Andorre, Monaco et la Turquie. 😂😭

LI The Future of Media Illiteracy

Does the idea of too high a price to pay for achieving one’s biological goals make any sense? In Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, the main character Nora has achieved reproductive success, she has three kids and her husband has just become head of the bank so together they will bring up their kids in the best possible conditions. She nevertheless leaves house, husband, and children to work on her own because she does not want to fail her “duty to herself” any longer. Can a “duty to oneself” be jeopardized by the pursuit of biological goals?

According to biosociologist Brant Wenegrat, “motherhood in societies like ours does predict an increased risk of depressive disorders” (Illness and Power, 1995). Some scholarly confirmation of the playwright’s insight, then, as motherhood and parenting, i.e. biological success itself would lead to increased biological risk, in the shape of dysfunctional conditions for the children raised by a depressive mother. Or is it nonsense? This prediction is not confirmed in the book Darwinian Psychiatry (1998), by McGuire and Troisi, which states that male celibates are the most at risk of depression, precisely because of their biological failure (failed reproductive machines). Two opposite conclusions, then, from scholars of the same school of thought. For McGuire and Troisi women’s mental health is not as dependent on the success of biological reproduction as men’s, whereas for Wenegrat successful biological reproduction tends to affect negatively women’s mental health and not men’s.

Modern work, now, is not an evolved biological media for male competition (contrary to what evolutionary psychologists Tiger and Fox, 1971, claim), as for millenaries slavery was the rule and dominant males did not work (savanna-activity, i.e. hunter-gatherer environment of evolutionary adaptedness EEA-like hunting was aristocrats’ hobby throughout the world in the past of civilization). In this way, and, again, contrary to the views of some EP scholars, modern work goes against biological tendencies. If a duty to oneself exists and, if we take Nora’s example, opposes the mere pursuit of biological goals, then modern work may be the way to fulfill one’s duty to oneself instead of biological goals. Yet in evolutionary terms I see nothing that warrants nor could even possibly warrant this ‘literary’ conclusion.

*

Gustave Le Bon, in his Psychologie des foules, talks about women who throw acid at their lovers’ face as something frequent in his days. Today, the media talks about this, pointing the finger to men, mostly in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, throwing acid in order to oppress women because those men are Muslims. In fact, EP scholar David Buss also talks of Jamaican women doing the same with their female rivals nowadays. Yet talk about acid attacks these days, and you will find that people associate it with Muslim men. There is a Sherlock Holmes story by Conan Doyle about a woman throwing acid at her lover’s face too, to confirm Le Bon (The Adventure of the Illustrious Client).

*

Outline for a dystopian sci-fi novel. As a foreign body inside the societies where their communities live, the Lormocks have a perception of their own, the basic idea of which being that their community’s interest only partially overlaps with that of the host societies, which they seek to exploit. They are parasites. Neuroparasites. For a long time our knowledge of parasites was perfunctory; we knew lice and other pest that suction blood and weaken the body, and that’s about all. It took us decades to find out that rabies is a parasite that compels the dog host to bite in order to carry the parasite over to more hosts. Now we have a much broader picture of what parasites are doing: They control their host, sometimes they castrate it, sometimes they do not allow him to take food, they do as they please with their host. As the Lormocks achieve middleman-minority status due to their ingroup solidarity inside societies that they help make atomistic, they endeavor to control the channels of public expression, and of course they use these according to their community’s interest. Sycophancy toward the Lormocks, serving this foreign and parasitic body’s purposes, becomes a sine qua non of individual success –and fitness– in society.

*

Subliminal advertising: the elephant penis in the living room.

*

Since the July 2016 failed coup in Turkey, Erdogan has been conducting massive repression in the country. Thousands of civil servants are being sacked and their names published so they will never find jobs again in the country. Intellectuals are also targeted.

272 writers from all over the world have signed a petition against the judicial trials that will open against journalist Ahmet Altan and his brother, economist Mehmet Altan.

Both are accused by the government of having sent subliminal messages on TV about the impending coup. As far as I know, a world premiere! (Le Monde, Sep 21, 2016)

Turkey’s President Erdogan is thus giving support to my research. I am available as an expert at the trial.

*

Taco Subliminals

There where similar charges [of the use of subliminal techniques, (like the “rats” in “democrats” in U.S. 2000 campaign trail, if you remember] by Andrés Manuel López Obrador against the right-wing candidate Felipe Calderón in the Mexican presidential elections of 2006, in which the color scheme for a popular soft drink and its publicity mirrored those of Calderón’s party. Opponent saw the similarity as a sneaky way to circumvent campaign spending limits by a corporate supporter of Calderón.” (Charles R. Acland, Swift Viewing: The Popular Life of Subliminal Influence, 2011).

Acland’s aim is to debunk subliminals as just another “urban legend.” Faced with such incredulity, it is really heartening to find support from intellectuals like Eric McLuhan [see Index for Professor Eric McLuhan’s contributions]. The example above shows that the use of non-verbal persuasion techniques is part of the public debate now, as it should be in media-literate constituencies. Information society must not amount to mass manipulation by mass media but to media literacy of the public.

*

The Age of Empathy (2009) by primatologist Frans de Waal talks of an experiment by Swedish professor Ulf Dimberg : When people are shown visuals of angry faces they tend to frown and of happy faces they tend to smile, and this is true also when the faces are subliminal! De Waal says Dimberg’s results have been met with resistance…

Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed (2000), Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychological Science 11: 86-89.

*

Jacques Castonguay’s book La Psychologie au service du consommateur (1978), said by prefacer Nicolle Forget, the then chair of Canada consumers association, to put the limelight on subliminal advertising (« Il aura eu le mérite aussi de ramener dans l’actualité la question de la publicité subliminale »), is terribly disappointing. Albeit not in denial, Castonguay says Marshall McLuhan and Wilson Bryan Key’s views are “exaggerated,” so the topic is expedited in a couple of pages and he can devote the rest of his book to conveying the nauseating platitudes that business insiders wrote for the public.

*

Take Buddhism. Basically a personality cult (in the person of the Buddha).

*

The three following statements cannot be true taken together and studies show that 3/ is consistently true.

1/ The activity and development of the brain’s right hemisphere is not taken into account in IQ tests. (Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media: The New Science, 1988)

2/ Asians are right-hemisphere people. (Ibid.)

3/ Asians (Northern Asians) have the highest scores in IQ tests.

Well, they may be true taken together but only if Asians are superior to Westerners even in the skills that are not Asians’ best (left-hemisphere skills), that is, if Asians are superior in everything.

*

Laws of Media’s ascribing several contemporary art forms to the brain’s right hemisphere, such as atonal music, finds some resistance. These forms appear much too much intellectual (left hemisphere) to me – professors’ experiments rather than art proper. If atonality is an expression of acoustic space (p.52), yet our ears (as evolved) want no part in the business of atonality. “As evolved”: According to evolutionary biology, that is, not since the phonetic alphabet, but in the African savanna. Atonal music is an intellectual, abstract, left-hemisphere business: Left-hemisphere radicalism.

Same with relativity theory. Not that I know to which hemisphere it belongs; but I find it inconsistent with Kant’s transcendental idealism, that is, if time and space are a priori forms of our perception I don’t think it makes sense to say time-space can be distorted by massive objects.

Same with psychoanalysis. It has been exploded. Randy Thornhill, for instance, has concisely demonstrated that an Oedipus complex makes no evolutionary sense at all. “The Oedipus complex proposed by Freud would never have been given any credence if anyone had considered the evolutionary fate of a trait that produced such incestuous desires (Thornhill and Thornhill 1987). Because of the reduced viability of offspring produced by mating of close relatives, close inbreeding is selected against. Thus, Freud postulated as fundamental to human nature a trait that simply cannot exist as an evolved human psychological adaptation.” (Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape, 2000)

Same with Copenhagen interpretation. If the idea is that we should get rid of determinism in science, then it makes no sense, by definition. The uncertainty principle only tells us that our perceptual endowment allows us not to perceive all causes and determinations in nature – not that these causes and determinations do not exist in nature.

*

Electric telephone man

Electric man is discarnate (McLuhan). What about the man who is used to telling his friends: “I don’t use the phone anymore except for emails”?

He is both discarnate and dyslexic.

Email is discarnate nudism because electric man cannot conceal his dyslexia.

Yet we can. Electric man has by now invented the simplified writing system that Eric McLuhan envisioned for our dyslexic times. He has made it almost completely phonetic:

4 => for

2 => to

8 => -ate ex. contempl8

Same process in French: “c’est” becomes just “c” etc.

*

Some exploration of the fringe: Reverse Speech

i

First thing first, one interesting thing about Australian David Oates’s reverse speech theory is that it is debunked on Wkpd by the same sort of arguments that are used against subliminal perception, namely “pareidolia, the tendency of the human brain to perceive meaningful patterns in random noise.

According to this theory, the unconscious mind expresses itself backward in our utterances.

When reading about this, I was reminded of a video I saw a few months ago (now withdrawn). In that speech by Obama, the President at some point says: “Let me express, let me express my faith &c.” Playing the passage backward, the author of the video hears, and convincingly so, for “Let me express, let me express”: “Serve Satan, serve Satan.” A creepy commentary about the President’s faith.

The author says he could not reproduce the same effect when recording himself saying these words, which is confirmed by Oates. Our utterances, when played backward, do not pronounce the same even when we pronounce the same speech. That leads to the question of the origin of pronunciation differences (accents &c). Why do some people never lose their local accent even after living many years in the capital city when others lose it very fast in the same transplant conditions?

The theory is fascinating at any rate. For one thing, it could never be designed nor tested before the invention of audio recording.

But above all, if the unconscious can understand reverse speech (words pronounced backward, as stressed by Bill Key: cf W.B. Key at the 1995 Judas Priest trial), why could it not express itself backward as well? Key’s research helps buttress Oates’s contentions.

ii

Oates wanted to check the truth of evangelists’ assertions that rock music contains reverse satanic messages. He found some intentional reverse messages but also was led to the discovery that reverse speech can carry meaningful messages.

Using Jungian notions, he then says the word “Satan” occurs rather often in reverse speech because it’s embedded in the collective unconscious, and it serves to express negative feelings.

*

There is a school of thought that sees elaborate clothing as a way to conceal bodily imperfections and thus distort the choice of a mate. A few German racialists (Heinrich Pudor, Richard Ungewitter…) adopted such views, and nudism was considered sound and healthy in some Nazi circles (German Nazi nude photograph magazines are collector’s items today). Scanty clothing, in that view, such as that of contemporary American youth, boys and girls alike, would be close to that philosophy. In the absence of matrimonial intermediaries, who take a careful look at and check the physical condition of the future partners in arranged-marriage societies, people need to check by themselves. In free (as opposed to arranged)-marriage societies, nudism, or close substitutes, is in order.

*

Global Village’s Pizza Gate

(Posted as comment to a since then withdrawn YouTube video, Nov 2016)

The case is rather strong as here presented, however I don’t see ‘proof’ in the technical sense. Yet it definitely should be sufficient ground for the police to further investigate in that direction.

What is new about the so-called Pizza Gate is that it is a criminal investigation carried out by internauts. Being public, it can’t help being a smear campaign at the same time, and I guess this is the reason why several people involved in this new kind of investigation have been banned or shadowbanned on Twitter after the pizza parlor concerned asked Twitter to do something about it or be held accountable for the smear campaign.

Yet, as good ol’ Marshall McLuhan said, we have entered the ‘global village,’ meaning we really are back to village life. For one thing it means privacy will shrink to nothingness or almost nothing, like in a traditional village. It also means, from what I gather from public Pizza Gate investigation, that ‘villagers’ will take charge of law and order themselves. Remember these ‘investigators’ mainly work on the evidence brought to them – brought to everybody in the village – by WikiLeaks. Advancing a technicality according to which all evidence available in this way is void because the source is a ‘spy,’ a ‘traitor,’ a ‘renegade,’ whatever, as is common and perhaps sound practice in the traditional views of law courts, would seem extremely disconnected with the real world under the circumstances of the global village. And remember, these circumstances are here to stay.

*

The level of tax imposed on bachelors is indecent. I can’t even keep a mistress. One has to be a married man for that.

*

The beautiful people of adverts

Facial symmetry is more attractive than asymmetry and high-status people are more symmetric than poor people in general. Advertisers just pick attractive people (and usually airbrush the model according to systematic, technical rules): Turns out we associate these models with wealthy people.

Asymmetry can be due to adverse environmental conditions during development (deprivation) and betrays a less healthy phenotype –”wealth is health”– but the answer is not to torture our natural biases by trying to impose other, silly tastes on us, that would have us prefer crippled, perhaps sterile (in the case of obesity) persons.

Beauty is largely objective and a marker of health. Make all people healthier rather than trying, out of a misconceived sense of justice, to force unnatural tastes on people.

The beauty world of advertising systematically creates “supernormal stimuli” to which the real world can only be unequal. This is the true definition of the problem.

*

One result of behavioral science is that masturbation conditioning is particularly efficient. It even works with high psychotics – the least conditionable of all.

*

French journalists had once agreed they would make no news with politicians’ private lives. It shows they wanted no place for morality concerns in the public debate, which is an unjustified prerogative the journalists bestowed on themselves. This will not last, however. There have already been news on President Hollande’s affair with a B-rated actress a few years ago. They made news of it and the president’s popularity plummeted at once. Morality concerns ought not to be ignored.

*

McLuhanesque strolls

What’s the point of writing and publishing books, as literacy has ended? This thought brings me solace.

Also, in the literacy age, there was a public: It was made up by publishing houses and the press. Now the public has disappeared and thought is free.

Counter-culture is an ego trip now. Bad form. We’re the village.

The global village is already something real. Internet social networks are the village. The whole world on a “timeline” (Twitter jargon)! (English as single medium, all other languages due to be discarded?)

Thought becomes aphoristic: Think about the aphoristic-minded world of Twitter users whose every tweet cannot exceed 140 signs (280 now)! Literary heroes disappear. Academic scholars look awkward; the littlest rascal in the world can make fun of them and their ponderous knowledge in retweets as public as the original tweets. Journalists are corrected and insulted in front of their devoted readers. Comedians prove less funny than their followers. Actresses are less beautiful than their fans. Politicians receive sound advice from the administered herd.

We’ve all become sayers of sayings, each of us expresses the village wisdom. It’s tribal, deindividualized, exactly as predicted by McLuhan Marshall and Eric.

With the decline of the Gutenberg Galaxy, the written word is sheer lip service. It says whatever anybody wants to hear, upholds consensus. If the medium is the message, then the message is not even between the lines. It’s in quite another galaxy where literacy has no relevant use as such, only as distraction.

*

Libertarians defend personal liberty against the law but they seem to have nothing to say about personal liberty against mind control by big business, which has become a huge (muted) issue with the advent of scientific marketing. Against this control I see no other shield than the law, like Prohibition was a shield against the liquor industry’s endeavor to “break down sales resistance” by advertising and PR. The fake-news media opposed the Prohibition and contributed mightily to its inadequate enforcement (cf Upton Sinclair, The Wet Parade).

*

Mensa and GMAT

My correspondence from when I wanted to be a Mensa member without taking their tests.

Dear Sir or Madam, (to info@americanmensa.org)

On Mensa Website, qualifying score for the GMAT is “95% or above.”

At a second and last attempt after a crash course in 2004, I got 710 / 94%. My mother tongue is French and before taking my first GMAT test I only practiced English at school. Then, I took a second test after a few months in U.S.

Do you think that people having English as mother tongue are advantaged in the GMAT, or not at all? In case of a yes, shouldn’t the qualifying score for nonnative English speakers be adapted?

Given the time, and thus reflex, factor involved in the test, it seems English fluency (the test language) is important, which puts nonnative speakers at a disadvantage, although per se this fluency does not appear to be relevant to what Mensa membership is about. (July 5, 2017)

/

Hello,

Thank you for the email. Unfortunately, the only way we have to evaluate evidence that is sent in is based on the test publisher’s normative data. To be honest, I am not certain how the GMAC calculates the scores on the exam so I cannot speak to whether or not they make those kinds of allowances. We accept the 95th percentile on the exam based on the fact that their norms are somewhat skewed by the population that takes the exam. The population that attends graduate school is not necessarily a representation of the general population so we allow for more than just the typical top 2 percent.

(Timothy Brookes, Mensa manager for membership and admissions, July 7, 2017)

/

Thank you very much for your reply.

Do you estimate that top 5% of graduate students population is an inclusive or rather restrictive approximation of top 2% of general population?

According to one source,

Factors such as native vs non-native English speakers, US vs non-US, white vs non-white, etc – generally don’t affect one’s score too much. In terms of covariance analysis, the variation between these subgroups was always less than 1/4 standard deviation.

I think we know the variation goes against nonnative speakers. In case you’d estimate the 95th percentile is not large already, would you be willing to take this variation into account too?

Now, according to Lawrence Rudner, GMAC’s chief psychometrician,

Yes, the GMAT test is administered in English and is designed for programs that teach in English. But the required English skill level is much less than what students will need in the classroom. The exam requires just enough English to allow us to adequately and comprehensively assess Verbal reasoning, Quantitative reasoning and Integrated Reasoning skills.” (link)

That the test only requires “just enough English” doesn’t preclude a variation factor between native and nonnative speakers, due to mental reflexes ingrained in native vs nonnative speakers and more consequential in time-constrained tests than in classroom attendance. Such a variation may justify Mensa to accept a tolerance margin for its admissions based on GMAT scores in the case of nonnative speakers.

If the variation is not “too much,” “less than 1/4 standard deviation,” as I understand the phrasing it is not altogether negligible inside the scope considered (the above tolerance margin). (July 11, 2017)

/

Florent,

At this time, we do not take anything additional in to consideration for the GMAT. The 95th percentile score is the minimum we will accept. (Timothy Brookes, July 12)

/

Thank you, Timothy. I guess I’ll have to take the tests at Mensa France, then.

Yet I am curious how you get from “the population is somewhat skewed” to “2% translates into 5%”. Does the data support this? What does GMAC say about it? (July 12)

No more from Timothy. Let’s ask GMAC (Graduate Management Admission Council):

Dear Sir or Madam, (to customercare@gmac.com)

Mensa International is an “organization open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test.

People who score at the 95th percentile or higher on GMAT are, however, entitled to join in, and the reason is:

We accept the 95th percentile on the exam based on the fact that their norms are somewhat skewed by the population that takes the exam. The population that attends graduate school is not necessarily a representation of the general population so we allow for more than just the typical top 2 percent.” (Email from Timothy Brooks, manager of membership and admissions, Mensa USA)

According to your knowledge, does the data support this translation “98th=>95th”?

I took a GMAT test in 2004 and scored 710 / 94%. I asked Mensa if they took into consideration a tolerance margin for nonnative English speakers and they said they did not, so I have been asking them the exact same question as I am asking here, currently waiting for their answer. It is, however, my understanding that Mr Brooks’s phrasing above rather hints at a “guesstimate” on their part, a rule of thumb that should justify them to show some flexibility.

No answer. Between those who refuse considering a pinch of pliancy with their rule-of-thumb regulations and those who coldly disregard emails, talk of psychorigids!

*

Aristotle’s “prime mover” (as God) has been given the coup de grâce by Kant, with the latter’s antinomies, according to which it is beyond human reason to determine whether the world is finite or infinite, has begun or has been eternal. Each of both opposite conclusions on these two antinomies (there are four in the Critique of Pure Reason) is a contradiction in itself+. This being because our mental apparatus does not describe the thing-in-itself (which, presumably, could not have contradictions in itself without ceasing to exist). I find it a sound position to hold, with Kant, that no rational proof of God’s existence is to be expected in such conditions. The one proof would be the moral law, if it could be ascertained that it’s something true and not derived from the laws of nature (which, for Kant, is the case indeed, so in no way Kant can be called an atheist).

+Monotheisms answer one of these antinomies with a created world, and a prime mover, whereas Hinduism and Buddhism answer with an uncreated world, and both are convinced their position is rational.

*

There’s a passage in Uncle Tom’s Cabin where a ruthless slaveholder defends his practice and monstrous unconcern for the well-being of his slaves (his practice being to exploit them to the utmost, calculating that it would lead the slaves to death, and to new expense from buying slaves, after a few years and inscribing this computation as a mere data in his books) with the words: “This is a free country.

You may find the same kind of situation elsewhere. I once scorned the Jesuits of Paraguay because they made their wooden statues ‘speak’ to the Indians through clever contrivances, but it makes no doubt in my mind that their Socialist form of government with Indians was much more humanitarian than the lay encomiendas of the time. Yet the encomenderos defended their prerogatives as the heritage of communal liberties, while the Jesuits were, before the king turned against them, the arm of central monarchy. For a long time, in the Middle Ages, government authority and coercion were grounded by theologians on the original sin and the resulting wicked nature of man.

*

Contra EP (Evolutionary Psychology)

i

Several studies seeking to verify Devendra Singh’s result on a universal preference for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of .7 could not confirm it. One was carried out in Peru and another in Tanzania among hunter-gatherers, whom EP claim are behavioral copies of our Pleistocene ancestors (although behavior of different groups of contemporary hunter-gatherers can vary greatly on many essential counts).

ii

In Adapting Minds (2006), David Buller shows convincingly that most of the main EP studies are based on sloppy reading of the data. For instance, Daly and Wilson (The Truth about Cinderella, 1998) amalgamate physical and sexual abuse (!), yet obviously sexual abuse by a stepfather is no confirmation whatever of their view that stepparents tend to be hostile to stepchildren because the latter are only an evolutionary cost to them. Reading the data attentively in fact disproves their view. Buller presents the alternative hypothesis that marriage offers mating opportunities rather than paternity certainty; in such a case evolution would not have selected an averse feeling toward stepchildren, which Daly & Wilson’s data do not even show. Buller also says social workers have a bias against stepparents when they fill child death certificates. So the data D&W examined, mostly from social services, in fact is biased against stepparents, and even then these data do not show the overrepresentation of abusive stepparents D&W claim to have found. Most likely, now, their work has reinforced, if possible, the social workers’ bias, and I have done the same here on my blog, as I followed on D&W’s steps, taking their conclusions with no grain of salt.

I might as well let Buller talk.

On anecdotal evidence from infanticide among mammals:

the discussion of infanticide-as-adaptation turns to be nothing but a red herring in the end.Daly and Wilson state the record straight‘Human beings are not like langurs or lions,’ they inform us. ‘We know that sexually selected infanticide is not a human adaptation because men, unlike male langurs and lions, do not routinely, efficiently dispose of their predecessors’ young. … Child abuse must therefore be considered a non-adaptive or maladaptive byproduct of the evolved psyche’s functional organization, rather than an adaptation in its own right. … All told, we see little reason to imagine that the average reproductive benefits of killing stepchildren would ever have outweighed the average costs enough to select for specifically infanticidal inclinations.’” (p.411)

On mating as paternity opportunity:

if a male can secure paternity opportunities from a female by providing care to her children, even if those children are the offspring of another male, the male enhances his chances of having children of his own and thereby transmitting his genes to future generations. So, another male’s child can make a contribution to a male’s fitness via the opportunities for paternity provided by that child’s mother in exchange for parental care provided to the child. The possibility of such fitness payoffs, however, means that we should not expect male psychology to be so unconditionally averse to investing in unrelated children.” (p.390) (Paternal care is primarily a mating effort and second a parenting effort: p.393)

iii

One of Satoshi Kanazawa’s main claims, and all the other EPs (hippies?) with him, is that high-status men have more sex partners than low-status men. Yet Kinsey has shown the exact opposite in his famous, pioneering surveys. Something happened in the mean time?

In fact, all this BS about high-status males being like gorillas males in gorilla harems is an atrocious regression of Western scholarship. A few decades ago, Darwinians used to talk of the “fertility of the unfit” (that’s the title of a book). There’s a Darwinian contradiction in terms in such a phrase (fertility, of course, means high fertility here), wich a Darwinian could not fail to see and yet they (eugenicists) fully endorsed the paradox. They saw something to which EP boys, with their gorilla model, are blind. What they saw, and what solves the contradiction, is homogamy. Call it unfitness homogamy, if you like.

The EP view of “powerful and famous” males is based on primatology and misleading.

1/ From the longitudinal Stanford Marshmallow experiment, we know that children high on self-restraint have high status later in life. How does it square with having more sex partners than people low on self-restraint?

2/ Polygamy tends to be in the form of serial marriage (powerful and famous men tend to have as a matter of fact several spouses serially, but the number of their affairs is gossip and, as a matter of fact again, unknown). (A view held, among others, by Robert Wright.)

3/ Traditional types of philanderers now make the news as rapists, à la Harvey Weinstein.

4/ Even the highest rates of cuckoldry known (30% in some working-class compounds –number of children whose biological father is another man unbeknownst to the man at home) do not support the view that high-status males have greater access to females. In fact, all these 30% “bastards” may have been sired by working-class neighbors for all we know. Also, Buller relevantly points that in countries where dowry exists the fact that wealthy men have more wives hardly supports the idea that this is a female preference.

iv

The Fertility of the Unfit, 1903, by Dr. William Chapple (New Zealand)

First thing to take into account is the unprecedented fact of demographic transition. Unknown in nature, human populations have started declining as goods became more widely available (whereas in nature populations decline due to adverse environmental factors). This is seen as a confirmation of the moral restraint check on fertility posited by Malthus beside the two “natural” checks, vice and misery. Quotes:

A rapid and continuous decline in the birth-rate of Northern and Western Europe, in contravention of all known biological and economic laws, has filled demographists with amazement.

Whereas: “The tendency in the races of history has been to over-population, or to population beyond the food supply

The very qualities, therefore, that make the social unit a law-abiding and useful citizen, who could and should raise the best progeny for the State, also enable him to limit his family, or escape the responsibility of family life altogether; while, on the other hand, the very qualities which make a man a social burden, a criminal, a pauper, or a drunkard –improvidence and defective inhibition– ensure that his fertility will be unrestrained, except by the checks of biological law.

If moral restraint with the consequent limitations of families is the peculiar characteristic of the best people in the state, and the absence of this characteristic expressing itself in normal fertility is peculiar to the worst people of the state, the future of the race may be divined

Vice and misery are more active checks amongst the very poor, and abortion is practised to a very considerable extent, but the appalling fact remains, that the birth-rate of the unfit goes on undisturbed, while the introduction of higher checks amongst the normal classes has led to a marked decline.

&, as another way of phrasing the above: “The defectives are more fertile than any other classes because of the very defect that makes them a danger to society. The defective restraint that allows them to commit offences against person and property, also allows their provocative impulse unrestrained activity.

Please note that the phenomenon, also described as “rise of the Criminal,” predates mass immigration.

Chapple also alludes to homogamy among the unfit “which their circumstances necessitate.

Last but not least, Chapple discusses mechanical contraceptives and considers that the least invasive technique is tubo-ligature, far preferable than vasectomy, as the latter “unsexes” males, leading to atrophy of the testes and impotence after some years. Ironically, today it is vasectomy that is more widespread (1 Englishman out of 5 is vasectomized, mark you). I have no doubt these vasectomies are practised on law-abiding citizens, according to their own will, as a moral restraint check on their fertility.

A consequence of demographic transition may be that marriage as paternity opportunity is now weak and that abuse of stepchildren has increased as a result (not as evolutionary adaptation)! Stepparent violence, if it’d be the result of demographic transition (stepparenting two kids from another bed entails a significant probability that the stepfather will have no kid of his own in a society characterized by the demographic transition, whereas it would have been no obstacle to siring a lot of children in the past), would be neither the result of evolutionary ADAPTATION nor, as in Daly & Wilson, a BYPRODUCT of evolution, a so-called “spandrel.”