Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

« Older Entries

All the senses we do not have

December 12, 2025

This started as an Appendix to an essay I am writing. However it has grown to stand as a post in its own right. It will now be a citation rather than an Appendix in the essay which I hope to complete soon. “Gods are a matter of epistemology rather than theology”. Cognition, including human cognition, emerges from the interactions between a brain, the senses it has access to and the body they are all housed in. A cognition’s view of the world is as much enabled by its available senses as it is blinkered by the same senses. Senses available to any species are unique to that species’ physiology and the brain which interprests the signals generated. The signals from a spider’s eyes or from a dog’s nose are meaningles and cannot be interpreted by a human brain. Furthermore even within a species each individual cognition has unique features. The experiences of a cognition may be similar to that of another individual of the same species but cannot be truly shared. We have no examples of telepathy in any species. My qualia of experiencing red or pain cannot be shared by any other human – but may be similar to the experiences of others. However a spider’s qualia of experiencing the same red with its eight eyes is something else again.

Introduction

Evolution has no aims, plans, or intended outcomes. It is simply the cumulative result of differential survival and reproduction. Traits persist when organisms carrying them leave more descendants than those without them. Sometimes that happens because a trait spares its bearer from an early death; sometimes it happens because the trait leads to more mating opportunities, or because it helps relatives survive, or simply because there is no better alternative available in the genetic lottery.

The popular idea that evolution “selects” for superior or well-designed features is mostly rhetoric. Natural selection does not favour excellence; it favours whatever works well enough under the conditions at hand. What results in any organism, including humans, is not an optimal design but a set of compromises shaped by history, constraint, and chance. When people speak of evolutionary perfection or elegant fit, they are mistaking local adequacy for intentional design. These traits succeeded because, in a given environment, they did not lose in the competition to leave offspring.

The senses that living organisms possess are no different. Each sensory system that exists today is not the best possible way to perceive the world, but merely one that proved sufficient, in a particular lineage and habitat, to avoid being outcompeted. Evolution leaves us only what has survived, with those traits that were good enough for the conditions of the moment. It contains no foresight, no preparation for what comes next, and any sense of direction we read into it is something we impose after the fact.

Senses Animals Have That Humans Do Not

While humans rely primarily on the five traditional senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch), plus others like balance (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), and body awareness (proprioception), the living things on earth have evolved many “extra” senses that we do not possess.

  • Magnetoception (Magnetic Field Sense): The ability to detect the Earth’s magnetic field and use it for orientation and navigation. This is found in a wide variety of animals, including migratory birds, sea turtles, sharks, and even honey bees. They use this as an internal compass for long-distance travel.
  • Electroreception (Electric Field Sense): The capacity to sense weak electrical fields generated by other living creatures’ muscle contractions and heartbeats. Sharks and rays use specialized organs called the ampullae of Lorenzini for hunting in murky water, and the platypus uses electroreception in its bill.
  • Infrared (IR) Sensing/Vision (Thermoreception): The ability to sense heat radiation, allowing an animal to “see” the body heat of warm-blooded prey, even in complete darkness. Pit vipers (like rattlesnakes) and pythons have specialized pit organs that detect infrared radiation.
  • Echolocation: A biological sonar system used by bats, dolphins, and toothed whales to navigate and hunt. They emit high-frequency sound pulses and listen to the echoes to create a detailed mental map of their environment.
  • Ultraviolet (UV) Vision: The ability to see light in the ultraviolet spectrum, which is invisible to most humans. Many insects (like bees), birds, and fish use UV vision for finding nectar, recognizing mates, or spotting prey.
  • Polarized Light Detection: The ability to perceive the polarization patterns of light. This is used by many insects (for navigation using the sky) and mantis shrimp (which have the most complex eyes known, seeing forms of polarized light we cannot comprehend) for navigation and communication.
  • Seismic/Vibrational Sensitivity: The ability to detect subtle vibrations traveling through the ground or water over great distances. Elephants use their feet to sense ground tremors, and many snakes and insects use this to detect predators or prey.
  • Ultrasonic and Infrasonic Hearing: Many animals can hear frequencies far outside the human range of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Bats and moths use ultrasound (above 20,000 Hz), while elephants and some whales communicate using infrasound (below 20 Hz).

Senses: Could there be more?

Our current understanding of sensory biology is itself limited by our own human perception. We tend to define a sense based on some physical parameter that can be and is converted into a signal that can then be interpreted by a specialised brain which has evolved together with the sensory organs. If there is some parameter or subtle information in our surroundings that no living thing known to us has evolved to be able to detect, or one that is so subtle and complex that it doesn’t clearly map to a known physical stimulus, we would not even recognize it as a “sense” at all.

  • Subtle Chemical Gradients: While we have smell, some organisms (like bacteria or fungi) may sense complex, long-range chemical fields in ways that defy our simple notions of “smell” or “taste.”
  • Quantum Senses: Some research suggests that the magnetic sense in birds may rely on quantum entanglement within specific proteins. If true, this hints at perception mechanisms on a quantum scale that are difficult for us to even conceptualize fully.
  • Predictive or Internal Senses: Plants, which react to light, gravity, touch, and chemical signals, display complex “behavior” without a nervous system. While we classify these as existing senses, their internal “awareness” of time, nutrient deficiency, or potential nearby threats might constitute forms of interoception or time-perception that function in a fundamentally different way than any human feeling.

Our “awareness” of a sense is often based on the technology we invent to imitate it (like a magnetic compass for magnetoception). It is highly likely that life on Earth has evolved to be able to detect some environmental information in ways that remain outside the scope of our imagination or our measurement tools. We can speculate on senses that could exist in principle but which have no value on earth and therefore have never evolved. Let us take a “sense” to be a structured mapping from external regularities into neural states. Many regularities exist which life-forms on Earth have apparently had no motive or incentive to detect or track.

  • Neutrino detection. Neutrinos pass through a light-year of lead without stopping. Biological tissue could never detect them reliably. Could it be of value to some alien cognition. What would such detection change in a world view?
  • Sense of gravitational gradients at fine spatial scales. Gravity is too weak at the biological scale. A living creature would need to be built of very dense matter to reliably distinguish micro-variations in gravitational fields. But we cannot see any value of this to any conceivable form of life.
  • Hyperspectral gamma-ray “vision”. Gamma rays obliterate earthly biological tissue. A system to detect them without dying would require materials and chemistry alien to Earth. The energy levels are simply incompatible with organic molecules.
  • Direct dark-matter detection. Dark matter barely interacts with baryonic matter. Evolution cannot select traits for a signal that never reaches biology. But could there be alien biology and alien cognition which made use of such detection. Who knows?
  • Time-structure sensing at quantum-coherence timescales. A species that can detect changes occurring over femtoseconds or attoseconds is conceptually possible, but organic molecules are far too slow and thermally noisy. Evolution selects for what biochemistry can sustainbut we cannot know what we cannot know.
  • Sensing vacuum fluctuations (zero-point energy). We are almost entering into nonsense territory but then my nonsense may be basic knowledge to an unimaginable alien.
  • Direct perception of spacetime curvature (not gravity but curvature gradients). Living tissue cannot detect curvature directly. Only masses and accelerations reveal it.

Our reality is that as our knowledge grows so does the perimeter to the unknown grow. We can never know all the senses we do not have.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Evolution, Science | Leave a Comment »

The Skeptical Case against the UN Declaration of Human Rights / 3

August 5, 2025

“The Skeptical Case against the UN Declaration of Human Rights / 3” follows on from my previous essays:

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

Background

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948. Since then the number of instances of man’s inhumanity to man has increased by more than a factor of 3 and at greater than the rate of population growth  (2.5 billion in 1948 to c. 8 billion today). The Declaration has neither reduced suffering nor improved human behaviour. In fact, it has not even addressed human behaviour let alone human conflict. Data from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) shows that violations of international humanitarian and human rights law have risen in absolute terms, outpacing global population growth. and regional instability. 

Introduction

The modern concept of universal human rights is often presented as an intrinsic truth, an unassailable moral foundation upon which justice, equality, and dignity rest. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is considered a cornerstone of this ideology, purportedly designed to protect individuals from oppression and injustice. However, upon closer examination, it is apparent that the notion of human rights is a political fiction rather than an objective reality. It is not derived from natural law, nor is it an empirically observable phenomenon. Besides, natural law itself is just a fiction. Instead, its primary function is for moral posturing. It also serves as a strategic tool that sustains particular social, political, and economic structures. The UDHR, while symbolically powerful, lacks true enforcement and primarily functions as a mechanism for political justification, moral posturing, and bureaucratic self-preservation.

Here I try to articulate the philosophical inadequacy of human rights justifications, the inherent contradictions in their supposed universality, and my conclusion that the true function of the UDHR is for moral and sanctimonious posturing rather than an effective means of improving human behavior. The bottom line is that the UDHR has not done any good (reduced suffering or improved behaviour) and has done harm by justifying the concept of privileges which do not have to be earned. It is not fit for purpose.

The Philosophical Justification for Human Rights: A Fictional Construct

Human rights are often presented as pre-existing entitlements inherent to all individuals, regardless of circumstances or behavior. This idea suggests that every human being is owed certain protections and freedoms simply by virtue of existence. However, a fundamental flaw in this reasoning is that all human experiences, including the recognition or denial of rights, are entirely dependent on the behavior of others. Rights that are “realised” or “enjoyed” are always due to the magnanimity of those who have the power to spoil the party not, in fact, spoiling the party. The concept of rights existing independently of behaviour, ensured either by human enforcement or granted by those with the power to deny the right, is an abstraction rather than an observable reality. Neither the universe nor nature has any interest in this invented concept. The universe does not owe anybody anything. Real human behaviour has no interest in and pays little heed to this fantasy either. Actions taken by humans are always in response to existing imperatives for the human who is acting and not – except incidentally – for the fulfilling of the human rights of others. No burglar or murderer (or IS fanatic or Hamas imbecile) ever refrained from nefarious activities to respect the supposed rights of others. Human behaviour – the actions we actually take – are governed by the imperatives physically prevailing in our minds and bodies at the moment of action. I suggest that an imagined, artificial concept of the “rights” of others is never a significant factor either for action or for preventing action.

Several philosophical justifications have been proposed to support the existence of human rights, but none withstand critical scrutiny. The Kantian perspective, which argues that humans are ends in themselves and deserve dignity, relies on an assumption rather than an empirical foundation. The empirical evidence is, in fact, that the assumption is false. There is no objective reason why human dignity should be treated as an absolute, nor does nature provide any evidence that such dignity is an inherent property of existence. Dignity is not an attribute that carries any value in the natural world. From the slums of the world, to its war torn regions and from children dying of famine in Sudan to the homeless drug addicts of Los Angeles, the idea of inherent human dignity collapses when exposed to the realities of human existence. The utilitarian justification, which claims that human rights create stable and prosperous societies, also fails to prove its intrinsic validity; rather, it only suggests that they may be useful under certain conditions. Moreover, contractual justifications, such as those proposed by John Rawls, assert that rights arise from a hypothetical social contract. But this merely describes a proposed social convention rather than any truth or moral compulsion.

Ultimately, human rights are experienced as a result  – a consequence – of received behaviour. When enjoyed, they are experienced only because they were not violated by someone who could but didn’t. They are not objective or universal principles but merely received experience resulting from the behaviour of others, which itself is a consequence of happenstance. This reality contradicts the popular narrative that rights are universal, unearned entitlements independent of actual, individual behavior. If an individual’s experience of rights depends entirely on the recognition and actions of others, then what is commonly called a “right” is, in practice, a privilege granted by those who choose not to use their capability to ensure or their power to deny it. No child is born with any rights except those privileges afforded by its surrounding society. The blatant lie – and not just a fiction – is that children are born “equal in rights and dignity”. Compared to reality, this aspires at best to being utter rubbish. The “right” of a child to be nurtured is at the behavioural whim of the adult humans exercising power and control over the child. The “right” to property is a privilege granted by those with the power to permit, protect or deny such ownership. The “right” to not be killed is a privilege granted by those having the power to protect or the ability and the inclination to kill. The right to speak freely lasts only as long as those who can, choose not to suppress it. Incidentally, there is no country in the world which does not constrain free speech to be allowed speech. “Free speech” is distinguished by its non-existence anywhere in the world. The imaginary right of free speech has now led to the equally fanciful rights to not be offended or insulted. Good grief! No living thing has, in fact, any “right” to life. The right to live has no force when confronted by a drunken driver or an act of gross incompetence or negligence or natural catastrophes. This right to life has no practical value when life is threatened. The stark reality is that any individual enjoys the received experience of human “rights” only as long as someone else’s behaviour does not prevent it.

A lawyer friend once asked me whether it was my position that a child did not have the right not to be tortured? The answer is that the question is fatally flawed. Such a right – like every other human right – is just a fiction. The question is flawed because the realisation of any “right” (or entitlement or privilege) is itself fictional and lies in a fictional future. Not being tortured is a result of the behaviour and / or non-behaviour of others. This result is a received privilege granted to children by those in positions of power over them. Most children are protected by the adults around them provided, of course, they have a desire to protect them. The “rights” of the children are as nothing compared to the desires of the surrounding adults who have the ability to implement their desires. The reality that so many children are, in fact, mistreated and tortured is because their persecutors declined to grant them the privilege of not being tortured. Furthermore it is the actions of their persecutors which lead  – by omission or by commission – to them being tortured. In practice, having any such “right” is of no value, either for children who are not tortured or for those so unfortunate as to be subjected to vile and cruel behaviour.

Unearned rights are imaginary and they come without any cost or demand on qualifying behaviour. It is inevitable that they have zero practical value when that supposed right is under threat. A so-called right is enjoyed or violated only as a consequence of someone else’s behaviour (including lack of behaviour). The actions involved are driven by what is important for that someone else. The reality is that even every perpetrator of an atrocity has imperatives which drive his behaviour and his actions. The fictional human rights of others – declared or not – are never included among the imperatives governing his actions. They are, in fact, irrelevant to his actions. No robber or murderer or torturer ever refrained from his imperatives for the sake of someone else’s human rights. The fatal flaw in the invented concept of human rights is that real human behaviour is not considered. It is taken to be irrelevant and improvement of actual behaviour is not directly addressed at all. Real human behaviour contradicts the imaginary concept of universal, unearned rights.

The invention of  the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The 1948 UDHR does not explicitly state any measurable objectives such as the reduction of human suffering or the improvement of human behavior. Instead, it tries to be normative. It ends up as a religious text, a moral and aspirational document, setting out principles that define the ideal treatment of individuals by states and societies as seen by guilt-ridden European eyes. By any measure the behaviour of humans towards other humans has not changed very much since WWII (or as it would seem, since we became modern humans). Human conflict and violence and suffering, even adjusted for population, has not declined since WWII. It has, in fact, increased in total volume. The UN Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not linked to any mechanism that enforces its values globally. It’s success is often claimed in principle, but rarely demonstrated in impact. If the world is no less cruel, and probably crueler, after 75 years of pious global rights declarations, what exactly have these declarations achieved?

The UDHR, drafted in the aftermath of World War II, is widely regarded as a historic achievement in the pursuit of justice and equality. However, its origins and functions suggest that it was created primarily to serve political and strategic interests rather than to protect individuals from oppression. One of its primary functions was to rehabilitate the moral standing of Western nations after the atrocities of the 20th century. The Holocaust was – let us not forget – inflicted by Europeans mainly on Europeans. These are the same Europeans whose descendants claimed, and still claim, superior morals and values and civilization to the rest of the world today. The atrocities committed were not just considered allowable but they were also taken, at that time, to be desirable by the standards and values held by some of those same Europeans. To “eradicate the dregs of humanity” was considered the right thing to do in many countries. Coercive eugenics was considered moral by many in Europe. Genocide of such second-rate beings was considered scientifically sound in Europe. The Danes with their Greenlanders, the Swedes and Norwegians with their Sami are cases in point. The Swedish Institute of Race Biology was set up in the 20s and was both the inspiration and the collaborator for the German development of Racial Hygiene theories. This was not some fanatic view. It was part of the mainstream thinking in Europe at the time.

European colonisation was taken as proof of the superiority of the “European race”. The British, for whatever excuses they may make now, were the ones who, knowingly and by omission, allowed 3 – 4 million Indians to die in the Bengal Famine and demonstrated their conviction that native lives had a lower value. The atrocities by France and Belgium and Britain in their colonies in Asia and Africa were no great advertisement for their fine, sanctimonious words at the UN. The concept of “Untermensch” was not held only by the Germans then, and is far from extinct even today. Modern Europeans today commonly still believe the Roma are an inferior race, no matter what their laws may say. The virtue signaling of atonement for past sins, rather than any great surge of humanitarianism, was a key driver of the UN Declaration. Dark skinned peoples are still “Untermensch” in Eastern Europe. The continued bondage of Africans in the Middle East is still slavery in all but name. (But let us not be naive. Race is real and “racism” is alive in every country in todays Asia).

The Holocaust wasn’t some alien invasion. It was Europeans slaughtering certain other Europeans, a homegrown nightmare fueled by ideology, economic collapse, and centuries of tribal hatreds. The UDHR emerged from its ashes, drafted by an unholy coalition of victors and survivors, but its creation wasn’t pure altruism. Western nations, squirming to excuse their own complicity, which had manifested through the 20s and 30s as the wide support for national socialism, appeasement, colonial brutality, of eugenics and of looking aside, needed a moral reset. Hitler had had supporters in every European country (and across the Americas). The UDHR was a way to whitewash themselves and polish their image. A way to say, “We’re the good guys now,” while distancing themselves from the evils of the Soviets and communism. It was less about protecting individuals and more about stabilizing a world order where the West could whitewash reality and claim ethical superiority. Its lofty, sanctimonious words didn’t stop the Cold War’s proxy slaughters or decolonisation’s bloodbaths.

The Holocaust, colonial exploitation, and “war crimes” committed by European powers (victors and vanquished alike) was a massive threat to their assumed moral superiority. By establishing, and being seen to espouse, a “universal” doctrine of rights, Western leaders sought to reshape their global image and provide an ideological – but entirely fictional – justification for their continued dominance. It was sanctimonious, self-righteous and patronising. It was the European elitist’s idea of a catechism for the less enlightened world to follow blindly. After 75+ years of the UDHR, could a Holocaust happen again in Europe? Of course it could. Of course it can. Looking at Kosovo, of course it did! Wherever conflict is now taking place, whether in Gaza or Ukraine or in the Yemen or the Sudan, observing the human rights of the enemy are of no great consequence in the strategic planning of either side.

The UDHR is a pious declaration rather than a legally binding treaty, which means that nations can violate its principles without facing direct consequences. It has been repeatedly violated since the day it was written by its own authors and signatories; in Algeria (by France), in Africa and Asia by the UK, in Vietnam (by the U.S.), in Latin America and in Iraq, Syria, China, Russia and Myanmar. Countries that routinely engage in torture, mass surveillance, political repression, and genocide frequently sign human rights agreements while simultaneously disregarding their content. Ultimately behaviour is by individuals. That a loose promise by a government of a country could bind all of its people, who it does not necessarily represent, is pie in the sky. Claiming universality of values, which patently does not exist, devalues the Declaration as being delusional. The lack of enforcement renders the declaration largely symbolic, exposing the contradiction between its universal claims and its practical impotence.

The Failure of the UDHR

Despite its elevated status in international discourse, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is entirely made up and has no sound philosophical foundations. It is not observed anywhere in the natural world and lacks empirical validation as a force for reducing human suffering or curbing atrocity. Much of the legislation introduced in countries under the “Human Rights” label could have been better introduced in more appropriate local forms. I question the normative power claimed for the UDHR. I can find no way to measure, and no evidence of, the reduction of suffering or the improvement of human behaviour or the reduction of man’s inhumanity to man since the 1948 declaration. The data suggest that rights discourse has had no measurable preventative effect at all. Instead, violations remain persistent, and have only increased in severity and scale. We find that events of humans doing harm to other humans have more than kept pace with the population growth. According to the UN’s own Human Rights Violations Index and data from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), global violations have increased in absolute terms since 1948. So the bottom line is that the incidence of suffering events have increased by about a factor 3 since 1948. In 2024, the UN verified 41,370 grave violations against children in conflict zones (a 25% increase year-on-year), including 22,495 children killed, wounded, recruited, or denied aid (docs.un.org, theguardian.com). Though it only goes back some 30 years, there has never been a year where this metric has declined. The number of individual complaints lodged with the UN Human Rights Committee has reached an all‑time high, and censorship, repression, and legal harassment are more systematic than ever (universal-rights.org, ohchr.org).

Simultaneously, the human rights industry has grown unchecked. Estimates suggest over 48,000 full-time “professionals” are directly engaged globally in rights-related work, expanding at an annual rate of 5%. Including the ICC and international courts the annual budget is around $4 – 5 billion USD per year. This industry relies on crises, where its own survival depends on the perceiving of problems (real or imagined), and the illusion of progress rather than real change. If human rights issues were truly being resolved, many of these institutions would no longer be needed. They should be working towards their own irrelevance. If human rights were improving the industry ought to be shrinking – not growing at 5% per year. Success is measured not by any measure of reduction of suffering or of improving behaviour, but by how much is spent on themselves and in ensuring an increased budget for the next year. With no performance-based metric by which this sector can evaluate its own effectiveness, it measures only what it spends and the number of declarations, treaties, and reports it produces. Its expansion resembles bureaucratic self-interest more than social remedy.

Philosophically, the foundation of “universal rights” has long been contested. Jeremy Bentham dismissed natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts,” rejecting their grounding outside positive law. I take the view that law is made by society, each for, and suited to, itself. It must be grounded locally. Bottom up, not top down. Universal law as I have written about earlier is a mirage. Alasdair MacIntyre also observed that invoking rights “is like invoking witches or unicorns”, a secular invocation of metaphysical constructs without demonstrable existence (After Virtue, 1981). Historically, human rights interventions have always failed, and sometimes spectacularly, under the weight of political selectivity and cultural prejudices. Whether Rwanda or Darfur or Syria or Myanmar or Yemen, moral posturing, rather than any conflict resolution is the primary objective.

What value, then, does the UDHR have?

  • It does not constrain, since non-state actors and authoritarian regimes and even individuals  routinely ignore it without consequence.
  • It does not protect, and the areas where violations are worst (Sudan, Syria, Gaza, Yemen) are just those areas where the UDHR is devoid of respect and effectiveness.
  • It does not deter and there is no rational mechanism by which the UDHR can have any impact on the resorting to violence, the outbreak of war or the committing of mass atrocities (intentionally or not).
  • It is not universal, is seen to be skewed in its values and often rejected or ignored whenever inconvenient by cultural and political parties

The function of this industry is not, it would seem, to eliminate human rights violations, nor to reduce suffering or improve human behaviour, but to create a controlled narrative that manages public perception. By providing the illusion of accountability and reform, the human rights industry serves primarily as a panacea.

To reduce suffering or to change behaviour?

There is a glaring gap between the lofty tone of the UDHR and the reality of human behavior. The declaration does not describe how rights will be enforced. It assumes that widespread recognition of rights will somehow influence behavior. It is a hope, not a mechanism. It contains no theory of human psychology or motivation. So while the spirit of the UDHR implies a desire to reduce suffering and encourage more humane behavior, it lacks both strategy and realism in achieving that.

People are led to believe that the world is moving toward justice and equality, even as human suffering, war, and exploitation continue unabated. Human behaviour changes only when humans perceive that to change is of greater benefit than not changing. The reality is that even when actions cause collateral harm, no one refrains from his (or her) chosen actions for the purpose of respecting the imaginary rights of those who may be harmed. They may refrain for fear of punishment or retaliation or because they chose to do something else, but never for the sake of respecting imaginary rights. It is the idea of being entitled to unearned privileges which is fundamentally unsound – even sick. It is, in fact, where entitlement culture and its ills begin. If human behaviour is to be addressed it can only be done locally not with futile, pious, universal declarations. Human values are local not global. The value of human life varies from local society to local society. The drivers of human action are local, not some pious, universal fiction. Changing behaviour can only begin locally – in accordance with local values and mores.

The envelope of possible human behaviour is set by our genes and probably has not changed in 50,000 years. The quantity of bad behaviour at any given time is just the rate of bad behaviour multiplied by population. The rate of bad behaviour for dense, industrialised urban environments is no doubt different to that for hunter-gatherers. But it has been fairly constant for at least the last 5,000 years since the earliest legal codes were framed to control behaviour in societies. Even the codes of Ur-Nammu (2,100 BCE) or Hammurabi (1,750 BCE) reflect societies dealing with murder, theft, cruelty, sexual misconduct, and violence. They dealt with precisely the same behaviour that modern codes try to address. Codes of law (and law enforcement arrangements) have been used for at least 5,000 years to manage existing societies, but they have not changed the fundamentals of human behaviour at all. The crime and punishment needs for the functioning of a society rarely have any impact on fundamental human behaviour. We should note that a Code of Law and legal systems are governance tools, not human reprogramming mechanisms. They do not remove the ability or the impulse to do harm. They merely deter some with punishment, redirect some through social conditioning, and repress others with institutional force. Codes of Law constrain some unwanted behaviour and help societies to function but they do not change human behaviour. They do not even try to. Human nature itself does not evolve on civilizational timeframes.

More perniciously, the UDHR has helped cultivate a culture of entitlement divorced from merit, responsibility, or behaviour. By declaring rights as universal and unearned, it has promoted the dangerous fiction that dignity, security, and privilege are birthrights requiring no reciprocal obligation. “Being born equal in rights and dignity” is so blatant a falsehood that it puts the sincerity of the document authors in doubt. This moral dilution has eroded the foundations of duty, effort, and earned respect that once underpinned functioning societies. The bases of civic behaviour (duty, responsibility, … ) have been badly undermined.

Rather than preventing oppression, the human rights framework often provides the form, the illusion, of improvement without having any substance. This psychological function of human rights discourse benefits those in power by fostering passivity and compliance. The UDHR is used to provide a perception of actions as a means of sedating societies not for reducing suffering or improving behaviour.

Conclusion

The fiction of universal human rights is maintained not because it reflects reality but because it serves political, bureaucratic, and ideological functions. The UDHR was crafted as a tool for Western moral rehabilitation after World War II, but its lack of enforcement has rendered it a symbolic rather than a document for actions. Human rights are invoked selectively, as a political tool rather than for achieving actual improvement. Furthermore, the human rights industry sustains itself by perpetuating crises rather than resolving them, and the narrative of inevitable progress pacifies individuals rather than inspiring real change.

Since the UDHR was framed, human behaviour has not changed one iota in consequence. Human suffering has increased largely in line with population increase, but where the rate of doing harm to others has been either unaffected or made slightly worse by the declarations. Certainly the declarations have not reduced the rate of humans doing harm to humans. The bottom line is that the UDHR does not reduce suffering and it does not even address human behaviour. The UDHR, in real conditions of war, insurgency, or factional conflict is little more than a legal fiction and a moral “comfort blanket”. It survives in courtrooms, classrooms, and NGOs, but disappears from battlefields, street protests, from all large crowds and assemblies and any refugee camps.

The question, then, is not whether human rights exist in any real sense (they do not), but rather, who benefits from the perpetuation of the human rights illusion? Certainly suffering is not reduced and human behaviour is unaddressed. The primary beneficiary of the human rights industry, it seems to me, is the human rights industry.

In the long run human behaviour will change only along with local societies as they develop and will reflect the imperatives of those local societies. The global picture only emerges as a consequence as a summation of local changes. Behaviour and behavioural change cannot be imposed top down. It can only happen from the bottom up because it lies ultimately with individuals.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy, Politics, UN | Comments Off on The Skeptical Case against the UN Declaration of Human Rights / 3

Has Harvard been hiding illegals as employees?

July 30, 2025

Of course Columbia, Harvard and the other Ivy League and Californian woke-nests of disease have been the centres for the creation, release and spread of the the woke “freaks and monsters” viruses. Some of these viruses are now meeting resistance and even being destroyed though eradication is a long way away. I have no doubt that Harvard has been one of the centres (especially in their “humanities” faculties) promoting the spread of the US depravity sickness. Whether just battering the viperous, poisonous vectors over the head will control the sickness remains to be seen. It may be necessary to use more sophisticated and drastic measures to get the vectors to self-destruct. Flame throwers perhaps.

In any event the Harvard battle with Trump and his administration provides me with some entertainment. Columbia has settled (about $200 million). Ultimately the deals will be done. Every deal Trump makes starts with an outrageous demand and he later backs off to a settlement position. But the fundamental rule of any deal anywhere is always to be first with the outrageous demand. The more you dare to ask for the more you get is Dealmaking 101. I note that the initially outrageous Trump tariff deals are all getting done – bilaterally. And all better deals than the status quo was for the US.

I thought Harvard’s DEI selections of President and other posts was not just perverse, it was depraved. (It has always amused me that diversity of political opinion is always anathema to DEI). The manner in which Harvard (and not only Harvard) allowed antisemitic factions and Islamic terrorist supporters to take prominent, protected academic positions, and even take over whole departments, was disgraceful and cowardly. The battles with the Trump administration are going to take a while. In the latest news Harvard has apparently given in to providing some information to government about their employees. These are the I-9 forms which are mandatory for any employee anywhere. That Harvard was not providing this government required form, back to the government, can only mean that they are/were knowingly hiding illegal immigrants as employees.

Harvard Crimson: 

Harvard will turn over I-9 forms for nearly all employees in response to an inquiry by the Department of Homeland Security, the University’s human resources office wrote in an email to current and recent employees on Tuesday afternoon.

The University will not immediately turn over information on students who are currently or were recently employed in roles open only to students. Harvard is evaluating whether those records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, according to the Tuesday email.

An I-9 form is a federal document used to verify a person’s authorization to work in the United States. All employers must complete and retain an I-9 for every employee, who are required to attest to their citizenship or immigration status and provide supporting documentation. …..

Under federal regulations, the DHS may conduct I-9 form inspections and require U.S. employers to make them available for inspection. The July 8 notice of inspection gave Harvard three days to turn over the requested information. …..

……   And on Wednesday last week, the State Department launched a separate investigation into Harvard’s participation in the Exchange Visitor Program, which permits the University to sponsor J-1 visas for international instructors, researchers, and some students.

But Harvard is far from the only institution that has faced I-9 inspections as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The Trump administration has used I-9 audits to exact multimillion-dollar fines from companies that employed unauthorized workers.

The I-9 form, officially called the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, is a U.S. federal form used by employers to verify the identity and legal authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States. The purpose is to ensure that all employees (citizens and non-citizens) are legally allowed to work in the U.S. This is part of the requirements under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Section 1 – Employee Information and Attestation
Completed by the employee no later than the first day of employment and Includes: Full name, Other names used (if any), Address, Date of birth, Social Security number (mandatory if the employer uses E-Verify), Email address and phone number (optional), Citizenship/immigration status.

The employee must sign and date this section to attest the accuracy and truthfulness of the information.

Section 2 – Employer Review and Verification
Completed by the employer within 3 business days of the employee’s start date. This section includes Document title(s), Issuing authority, Document number(s), Expiration date(s), 

The employer must physically examine original documents from the employee to verify: Identity (e.g., driver’s license), employment authorization (e.g., Social Security card, permanent resident card, U.S. passport). Documents are categorized into three lists:

  • List A: Documents that prove both identity and work authorization (e.g., U.S. passport)
  • List B: Documents that prove identity only (e.g., driver’s license)
  • List C: Documents that prove work authorization only (e.g., Social Security card)

The employer attests (with signature and date) that they have reviewed the documents and believe them to be genuine.

Section 3 – Reverification and Rehires
Used only when 

  • An employee’s work authorization has expired
  • An employee is rehired within 3 years of the original I-9

Retention Requirements:
Employers must retain the completed I-9 for: 3 years after the date of hire, or 1 year after the date employment ends—whichever is later. 

They must be made available for inspection by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or Department of Labor (DOL).

The I-9 is a government required form for the government and if Harvard has not been providing the information it can only be for nefarious purposes. 

My guess would be about $500 million, the death of DEI and the culling of the sociology departments of infectious “animals”, is the price Harvard will have to pay to settle. And, of course, they will settle.

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic misconduct, Behaviour, Corruption | Comments Off on Has Harvard been hiding illegals as employees?

The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

April 16, 2025
This is the second in the essay series which began with

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

 
The Fallacy of Universalism

The 20th century’s obsession with universalism – the notion that humanity can be bound by shared values, laws, or moral standards – was a profound misstep, rooted in shaky philosophical foundations and doomed by practical realities. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 to global institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Criminal Court (ICC), universalism promised a unified moral order to transcend cultural and national divides. Yet this pursuit was not just misguided; it was built on false premises that ignored the inherent diversity of humans and their societies. Far from fostering harmony, universalism sought to suppress the biological and social variety that ensures humanity’s resilience and vitality. Driven partly by European guilt after World War II and cloaked in virtue-signaling, it misunderstood human nature and curbed the freedoms it claimed to champion. This post argues that universalism lacks any coherent philosophical grounding – relying on fictions like Natural Law – and fails practically by imposing unworkable frameworks that stifle diversity’s strength. Societies thrive when free to forge their own values, provided they do no harm to others, rendering universalism both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Shaky Foundations

Universalism’s most glaring flaw is its lack of a sound philosophical basis. Proponents often invoke Natural Law – the idea that universal moral truths are inherent in human nature or discoverable through reason – as a cornerstone. This concept, tracing back to thinkers like Aquinas and Locke, assumes a shared essence that dictates right and wrong across all societies. Yet Natural Law is a fiction, a construct that crumbles under scrutiny. As argued in my earlier post, it presupposes a uniformity of human values that history and anthropology disprove. If moral truths were truly universal, why do societies differ so starkly on fundamental questions – life, justice, freedom? The Aztec practice of human sacrifice was as rational to them as modern human rights are to the West; both reflect context, not eternal truths. Natural Law’s claim to universality ignores that reason itself is shaped by culture, environment, and survival needs, yielding no singular moral code.

The contradiction is evident in universalism’s own failures. If values like “do not kill” were innate, as Natural Law suggests, atrocities like the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust would not have mobilized thousands of perpetrators acting with conviction. That thousands of Islamic fundamentalists believe that killing infidels is the right and proper thing to do makes a mockery of ideas of universal morality. Universalist institutions like the ICC assert that crimes such as genocide “shock the conscience of humanity,” implying a shared moral compass. Yet the very occurrence of these acts – often justified as cultural or political imperatives – exposes the absence of such a compass. All the most heinous, inhuman acts in the world – as considered by some – are all committed by other humans who have quite different values. Values are not universal; they are contingent, forged in the crucible of specific societies. To claim otherwise is to project one’s own biases as truth, a philosophical sleight-of-hand that Natural Law enables but cannot sustain.

Other philosophical defenses of universalism fare no better. Kant’s categorical imperative – act only according to maxims you would have as universal law – assumes a rational consensus that doesn’t exist. Societies prioritize different ends: Japan values collective harmony, while the US exalts individual liberty. Neither can universalize its maxim without negating the other. Human rights, another universalist pillar, rest on the same shaky ground. The UDHR’s assertion of inalienable rights – life, equality – sounds noble but lacks grounding in any objective reality. Rights are not discovered; they are invented, reflecting the priorities of their creators (post-war Western elites). When Saudi Arabia or China rejects aspects of the UDHR, they’re not defying reason but asserting their own rational frameworks. Universalism’s philosophical poverty lies in its refusal to admit this pluralism, insisting instead on a unity that suppresses the diversity of human thought.

Over the past three centuries, universalism has masked control as moral duty. Colonial powers invoked civilization to plunder India and Africa, erasing diverse traditions under a universalist banner. The ICC’s African focus continues this, imposing Western justice while sparing Western crimes, proving universalism’s selectivity. Such interventions violate the principle of ‘do no harm,’ curbing societies’ freedom to differ unless they tangibly harm others.

This suppression is not just academic – it’s a curb on freedom. Diversity in values allows societies to experiment, adapt, and thrive in unique ways. Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness metric defies Western materialism yet fosters stability. Indigenous Australian kinship laws prioritize community over individualism, sustaining cultures for millennia. Forcing these societies to align with a universal standard – whether Natural Law or human rights – erases their agency, imposing conformity under the guise of morality. Philosophically, universalism fails because it denies the reality of human variation, mistaking difference for defect.

Why Universalism

The 20th-century love affair with universalism was more emotional than philosophical, driven by European guilt after World War II. The Holocaust, colonial atrocities, and global wars left Europe’s moral credibility in tatters. Once-proud imperial powers faced a reckoning, with their Enlightenment ideals exposed as hollow, by gas chambers, induced famines and bombed cities. The UDHR, drafted under UN auspices, was less a global consensus than a European attempt to reclaim moral ground. Its language – steeped in Western liberalism – framed rights as universal truths, ignoring dissenting voices from post-colonial or non-Western states. Ratification was pushed as necessary evidence of a country being part of the new civilised world order. Countries like India or Saudi Arabia ratified it with caveats, revealing the myth of unity. This virtue-signaling extended to institutions like the UN and ICC, which promised a new world order while sidestepping Europe’s complicity in creating the old one.

Universalism’s roots lie in ancient dreams of unity – Stoic cosmopolitanism, Christian salvation – but these were aspirational, not coercive. The Enlightenment and colonial eras turned universalism into a tool of control, with Natural Law as a flimsy excuse. But these fictions fail to bridge the diversity of human values.

This guilt-driven push was not about understanding humanity but about control by retaking the moral high ground. By proclaiming universal values, Europe (and later the West) sought to redefine the global moral landscape in its image. The ICC’s focus on African states – over 80% of its cases – while sparing Western actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, echoes colonial “civilizing” missions. Universalism became a tool to judge and intervene, not to unite. Its philosophical weakness – lacking a basis beyond Western dogma – made it ripe for such misuse, cloaking power in moral rhetoric.

Universalism is unworkable

Beyond its philosophical flaws, universalism fails practically by imposing frameworks that ignore the diversity of human societies. The complexity of aligning multiple nations under one standard grows exponentially with each participant, as vetoes and competing interests stall progress. The UN Security Council exemplifies this: a single veto from the US, France, the UK, Russia or China can paralyze action, as seen in Syria’s decade-long crisis. The WTO’s Doha Round, launched in 2001, remains deadlocked after 24 years, with 164 members unable to reconcile their priorities. The ICC’s record is equally dismal – 10 convictions in over two decades, none involving major powers like the US or India, who opt out entirely. These failures stem from a simple truth: the more diverse the players, the harder it is to find, let alone enforce, a universal rule.

Contrast this with bilateral agreements, which are exponentially simpler. A nation negotiates with one partner at a time, tailoring terms to mutual benefit without navigating a global gauntlet. Since the 1990s, bilateral trade deals have surged – over 300 globally by 2025 – while multilateral talks languish. The USMCA replaced NAFTA precisely because three nations could align faster than 34 under earlier pan-American proposals. Even security pacts, like India-Japan defense agreements, thrive on bilateral trust, not universal ideals. The math is clear: for “N” countries, managing “N-1” bilateral relationships is far less chaotic than wrestling with “N!” (N factorial) potential interactions in a multilateral arena. Like Rome’s Pax Romana, modern universalism falters when imposed, breeding resistance not unity. Bilateral cooperation, rooted in mutual respect, proves more viable

Universalism’s practical flaw is its denial of sovereignty. Societies function best when free to set their own rules, as long as they do no harm to others. Iceland’s secular egalitarianism and Saudi Arabia’s religious conservatism coexist peacefully because neither imposes its values across borders. When harm occurs—say, overfishing causing dwindling fish stocks, bilateral and/or multilateral cooperation among the parties involved can address it far better than by demanding ideological conformity. Universalist institutions, by contrast, breed resentment by judging internal practices. The UN’s human rights sanctions on Iran or the ICC’s warrants against African leaders provoke defiance, not compliance, as societies reject external moralizing.

The Strength of Difference

Individuals being different is humanity’s greatest asset, biologically and socially. Genetically, variation ensures survival (of the species though not of the unfit individual), allowing species adaptation to environmental shifts – a too narrow genetic spread would go extinct. Socially, this diversity manifests in the myriad ways societies organize themselves. The Maasai’s nomadic communalism sustains them in arid lands, while Singapore’s meritocratic discipline drives its prosperity. These systems, often at odds with universalist ideals, prove that cohesion requires no global standard. The “do no harm” principle respects this, allowing societies to be “unusual” so long as they avoid cross-border damage. When Japan’s whaling sparks debate, the issue is ecological impact, not moral offense. This approach fosters peace through mutual restraint, not forced unity.

Universalism’s attempt to erase the “we/them” dichotomy is both futile and destructive. Group identity – cultural, national – fuels cohesion and innovation. The “brotherhood of man” sounds noble but ignores that brotherhood privileges some over others. To eliminate “we/them” is to strip societies of their freedom to differ, demanding a homogeneity that negates diversity’s strength. The backlash – rising nationalism, skepticism of global bodies – reflects a reclaiming of this freedom.

Conclusion: Beyond Universalism

The 20th-century chase for universalism was a flawed response to a troubled era, rooted in European guilt and philosophical fiction. Natural Law and its offspring – human rights, global justice – lack grounding in the reality of human diversity. Practically, universalism’s complex frameworks collapse under the weight of competing sovereignties, while bilateral solutions prove nimbler and more respectful of difference. Societies thrive when free to forge their own paths, bound only by the duty to do no harm. Humanity’s strength lies not in sameness but in variation – genetic, cultural, ideological. By embracing this, we can foster a world of cooperation without conformity, where diversity, not universalism, ensures our resilience and freedom.

In order of difficulty in organising any field of activity, national is simpler than bilateral which is, in turn, simpler than multi-lateral and international –  in that sequence. It seems the world was bitten by the international bug during the 20th century, but has now realised it has gone too far and is now gingerly drawing back because international bodies have largely proven ineffective, bureaucratic, or politically manipulated.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Law, Philosophy | Comments Off on The Fallacy of Universalism / 2

The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

March 19, 2025

For many years I have struggled with finding the words to express my instinctive feelings against attempts to apply “universal” principles across all humans and which suppress human individuality. I have often tried  – usually without much success – to explain my dislike for concepts such as universal morality, Natural law, universal rights, unearned rights as entitlements and entitlements independent of behaviour. I am coming to the conclusion that my objections to, and dislike of, these concepts are essentially philosophical. Explanations of my objections need, I think, to be couched in philosophical terms.

I try to address these (again) in this series of essays.

Natural Law is often presented as a foundational principle governing human morality, law, and rights, claiming to be a universal standard of justice inherent in human nature. However, a closer examination reveals that Natural Law is not an empirical reality but a constructed ideological tool. It emerges only when different societies with distinct laws interact, and its purpose has historically been to justify the imposition of one society’s norms over another. The absence of empirical evidence for Natural Law, combined with its theological underpinnings and political motivations, renders it an unconvincing framework for understanding human morality and governance. Instead, morality is best understood as an emergent property of individual human values, varying across cultures, historical periods, and personal experiences. Here I try to explore the philosophical, historical, and empirical reasons why Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept and why morality must be recognized as subjective rather than universal.

The Absence of Empirical Evidence for Natural Law

If Natural Law were a genuine feature of human existence, we would expect to observe universal moral principles across all societies and cultures. However, anthropological and historical research reveals no such universality. While there are commonalities in human behavior – such as cooperation and conflict resolution – these vary significantly in their expression. For example, concepts of justice, property, and individual rights differ widely between societies. The idea that certain rights are inherent to all human beings is not supported by empirical observation but rather by ideological assertions.

Human history is filled with examples of societies that have organized themselves around vastly different moral and legal systems. From the caste-based hierarchy of ancient India to the communal property arrangements of indigenous tribes, moral codes are deeply context-dependent. Even within the same society, moral norms evolve over time, reflecting changes in economic conditions, technological advancements, and cultural shifts. This variability directly contradicts the claim that a singular, natural moral order governs human behavior.

The lack of empirical confirmation for Natural Law relegates it to the realm of metaphysical speculation. If Natural Law cannot be observed or tested, then it is indistinguishable from theological doctrine. It becomes a belief system rather than a demonstrable reality, making it no different from religious faith. This reliance on unprovable assertions undermines its credibility as a foundation for legal or moral theory.

Natural Law as a Tool of Domination

Natural Law does not emerge in isolated societies but only when different societies with conflicting rules interact. Historically, it has been invoked to justify the imposition of one society’s rules over another, often under the guise of a higher moral authority. Colonialism, religious expansion, and political domination have frequently relied on claims of Natural Law to legitimize conquest and control.

For instance, European colonial powers used the rhetoric of Natural Law to justify the subjugation of indigenous populations. They framed their legal and moral systems as “civilized” and based on universal principles, while dismissing native customs as inferior or unnatural. This ideological framework provided moral cover for coercion, exploitation, and cultural erasure. Of course religious institutions across the world have been quick to confer the halo of Natural Law on their own dogma. Religious institutions from have often used Natural Law arguments to enforce moral conformity, punishing deviations from dogmatic norms under the pretense of upholding their universal truths.

Natural Law’s historical role as an instrument of domination raises serious ethical concerns. If its primary function has been to serve the interests of those in power, then its legitimacy as a moral guide is highly suspect. Rather than being an impartial standard of justice, it appears to be a rhetorical device used to consolidate control over others.

The Fallacy of Universal Morality

The assumption that a universal morality exists contradicts the reality of human individuality. Every human being is genetically unique, behaves in distinct ways, and forms personal values based on their own experiences. Given this diversity, it is absurd to claim that a single moral code applies equally to all people. What is “good” for one person may be harmful or undesirable for another. What is “good” for me here and now is certain to be “bad” for some one of the other 8 billion people alive.

The idea of universal morality is, at best, an abstraction with no real-world grounding. At worst, it is an imbecilic construct used to justify coercion. The imposition of a supposedly universal moral order disregards the fact that morality is fundamentally a product of individual cognition. Each person’s moral framework emerges from their subjective values, which they use to navigate life’s complexities. The attempt to enforce a single moral standard on diverse populations is not only impractical but also a form of ideological tyranny.

Furthermore, moral codes are often shaped by historical circumstances rather than any intrinsic natural order. Concepts of justice, equality, and rights have changed dramatically over time, reflecting societal needs rather than adherence to some eternal truth. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable in many civilizations, and its eventual abolition was not the result of a discovery of Natural Law but of shifting economic and political forces. The same can be said for religious freedoms or freedom of expression and numerous other moral issues. This historical fluidity further undermines the idea that moral principles are fixed or inherent.

The Political Function of Universal Morality

If morality is not universal but instead emerges from subjective values, why does the myth of Natural Law persist? The answer lies in its political utility. The concept of a universal moral order provides a convenient justification for those in power to enforce their will on others. By claiming that certain moral rules are “self-evident” or “natural,” political and religious leaders can sidestep debate and impose their norms without question.

Universal morality is, in effect, a political construct. It serves as a tool for suppressing dissent and legitimizing authority. Governments, religious institutions, and international bodies all invoke the language of universal morality to assert control over populations. For example, international human rights laws claim to be based on fundamental moral principles, yet they often reflect the political interests of dominant nations. The selective enforcement of these laws—where powerful countries violate them with impunity while weaker nations face harsh penalties—reveals their true function as mechanisms of control rather than genuine moral imperatives.

By recognizing morality as inherently subjective, we expose the coercive nature of universal moral claims. A society that acknowledges the diversity of moral perspectives is better equipped to foster genuine dialogue and coexistence. Instead of imposing artificial moral absolutes, ethical and legal systems should be constructed with an understanding of human individuality and the necessity of negotiated social agreements.

Conclusion

Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept because it lacks empirical evidence, serves as a tool of domination, and falsely assumes a universal morality that does not exist. The historical and political record demonstrates that claims to Natural Law have been used primarily to justify coercion and control, rather than to uncover any genuine moral truth. Morality, rather than being an objective reality, emerges from individual values and experiences. Recognizing this subjectivity allows for a more honest and flexible approach to ethical and legal systems, one that respects human diversity rather than imposing ideological uniformity.

By rejecting Natural Law, we free ourselves from the illusion of universal morality and open the door to a more nuanced understanding of ethics—one that acknowledges the complexities of human existence rather than imposing rigid, arbitrary norms. The path to justice and social harmony lies not in fabricated moral absolutes but in the recognition of individual agency and the negotiated agreements that allow diverse societies to coexist.

Natural Law is, in fact, nothing more than a political invention for use as a tool for oppression.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy | Comments Off on The Skeptical Case Against Natural Law / 1

I’m quite optimistic about a Trump Presidency

January 23, 2025

Let’s be clear about one thing. In my opinion Kamala Harris was just a DEI hire. She was fundamentally incompetent but selected and appointed to demonstrate diversity, equity and inclusion as VP. Apart from her remarkable ability to generate meaningless word salad about anything (and everything), she had no redeeming characteristics which would have allowed her to be of value as President – either for the US or for the world. Even as a token woman she would have been a disaster. (I listened to her talk about the LA fires yesterday and it was an embarrassment).

So my reaction to the results of the US Presidential election was first of immense relief that the world would avoid four miserable, wishy washy years of Biden being followed by an even worse four years of Harris. I am not sufficiently opposed to, or disturbed by, Donald Trump as a person or his behaviour to object to him as President. I think he is pompous and crude and vulgar but he has felt the pulse of the working people of the country much more than any one among the Democrats. He is also the appropriate, abrasive personality needed at this time to clean-up after years of mess. A Ronald Reagan would have been far too laid back and would not have suited the needs of the times. The effete Democrats and their intellectual pretensions bring to mind a degenerate Berlin of the late 20s or even the degenerate and dissolute Western Roman Empire before it fell. I am constantly amazed at how closed and petty the minds of “learned liberals” are. I now associate arrogance and nasty intolerance with the Liberal label. Trump, for all his petty faults, does know how to make a deal and he has a gut feeling for the right political direction for the country. He understands, I think, that it is making real things which others want, which is what lies at the core of a country’s prosperity. I think he has an intuitive understanding of what a deal really is. He knows in his bones – even if he does not articulate it very well – that a deal in a conflict situation always involves the minimisation of the total pain. It is only deals made in times of peace and growth where the art of the deal is looking for a maximisation of the total joy. Win/win does not apply to conflict situations. So, I was quite pleased at the election results.

The US – and the world which follows the lead of the US – desperately needs much more than just a course correction. It needs a sharp change of direction away from the elitism of the self proclaimed intelligentsia and the insidious woke virus which has been corrupting and eating away at the body politic. I was not, and am not, even mildly sympathetic to the promotion of sanctimonious wokery, the glorification of freaks, the canonisation of pretend victimhood and the stifling of entrepreneurship. So, I was first enormously relieved to see Harris lose, but I am an optimist at bottom and was also quite pleased to see Trump win.

Unlike many, I am quite hopeful that under a Trump Presidency, there is a much greater probability for resolutions of conflict in the world, for a stimulation of global economic growth, and above all for eradicating the wokery disease now endemic in the US and which has spread across the globe. More bilateralism and less internationalism is badly needed. At least 5 of the UN’s 15 specialist agencies ought to be scrapped. (The EU also needs much dismantling but Trump can only affect this indirectly). A Trump Presidency is needed I believe not only for a change of course in the US, but also for the change that needs to follow in the rest of the world. Europe and Canada and parts of S America and Asia also desperately need to correct course. Mucking out the  stables of “social academia” globally is not going to be easy or quick. Under the vacillations of Obama and the utter incompetence of Biden, the Mid East conflagration had become inevitable. Under EU arrogance and Biden’s support of NATO and EU expansion, the Russia / Ukraine conflagration became inevitable. (That Biden was senile and not responsible for what was done in his name for the last 2-3 years is moot).

The cease-fire in Gaza may not last very long but it is a start. It is pretty impressive that it got put in place before he had even assumed office. Biden and his now-pardoned-guilty team got nowhere since the Hamas atrocities of October 7th. The first rule of negotiation I was taught when seeking funding for contract research, and later when I worked in sales, was that the first bid or offer you make should be outrageously positioned to shift the playing field towards you. It is also the first rule when going into an arbitration. Make your claim as extreme as possible. Every arbitrator – of necessity – seeks the middle ground. Now even before he assumed office, Trump started his outrageous positioning. Ultra-woke Trudeau came running and then resigned. Greenland is already on the table even if indignant Danish voices are being heard. Denmark has not done very much for Greenlanders over the years and is no longer the principal in the discussion. It is the Greenlanders who now suddenly find that their citizenship is carrying a growing value tag. Greenlanders are calculating what their windfall could be worth, whether as a part of Denmark or of the US or of both! And so also with the Panama Canal. One outrageous statement by Trump has changed the playing field and even the game being played. In fact some of Trump’s protagonists thought they were playing basketball are now scrambling as they find that Trump has started by playing soccer. I see that on his first day as President the Indian government assured the US that some 18,000 Indians illegally in the US would be taken back by India. Trump has already put BRICS on notice that putting forward alternative currencies to displace the US Dollar would be frowned upon. The BRICS countries are now back-tracking on some of their rhetoric. What were effective threats from foreign countries for Biden are seen as provocations to be avoided with Trump. And so it goes. Trump 2.0 is quite a different beast to Trump 1.0.

The size and inefficiencies of governments around the world have kept on increasing for the last 70 years (not least due to the examples set by international agencies). In a little way, Argentina recently started demonstrating that many government civil servants are really not necessary at all. Trump and his DOGE ar likely to take it very much further. I only hope that some of the good housekeeping gets exported to the profligate and bloated bureaucracy that is the EU. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency “has vowed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 50 percent, reduce federal spending by US$1 trillion over the next four years, and re-engineer the function of government by providing real-time budget tracking to the US public”. We shall see.

And of course common sense needs to return to immigration and the misuse of applications for “asylum”. The self-righteous sanctimony of the liberal left has to be stopped and the high priests of the religion of multiculturalism need to be defrocked – in public.

Mercator: 

…. Much to the chagrin of his critics, Trump’s mass deportation plan is remarkably popular — not just among his supporters, but American voters generally, and Hispanics in particular. And Trump already appears to be living up to his pledges — with the controversial CBP One app shut down, a suite of Biden executive orders rescinded, a border emergency declared, and the Laken Riley Act about to be signed into law. …..

Nevertheless, if the contrast between Trump’s first and second presidential portraits is any indication, Trump 2.0 emerges energised, defiant, sharper to the strategies of his adversaries, and determined to complete the mission he was sent to accomplish in Washington.

I am looking to see the Ukraine/ Russia conflict be resolved, not to anybody’s liking, and not perhaps in 100 days, but with the lowest total pain, in around 12 – 18 months. I have no doubt that a workable solution is going to include ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia and some form of restraints on NATO expansion. I look to a focus on growth and an abandonment of virtue signalling – especially by industry. Companies need to get back to providing the best product and abandon advertising how woke they are. I have no objection to an America First policy by Trump’s government. That is actually the duty of any national government in any country. Their primary obligation is to take care of their own citizens first.

Maybe my optimism will be unfounded.

But I think not. The legacy of both Bushes and of Obama look fairly lacklustre in hindsight. Obama’s foreign policy was a disaster and he was particularly bad in many domestic areas. (I was very taken with Obama to begin with, but it didn’t last. He was a nice guy, like Jimmy Carter, but ….). It could be that Trump’s Presidency may turn out to be the next most successful after Reagan.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on I’m quite optimistic about a Trump Presidency

Pronoun delusions: If you need to give me “your pronouns” ……

January 20, 2025

If you need to give me “your pronouns”:

  1. You are insecure at best and mentally ill at worst,
  2. You are cognitively disadvantaged and do not know what you are,
  3. You believe you will not be perceived as you wish to be perceived,
  4. You are either male or female but wish to be perceived as what you are not,
  5. There are no other genders no matter what delusion you are suffering from,
  6. I have no use for any of your desired pronouns,
  7. If I communicate directly with you I shall use “I” and “You”,
  8. If I refer to you it will be as “he” or “she” depending upon how I perceive you,
  9. How I perceive you (how you are perceived by me) is a consequence of your appearance and your behaviour and not on your desires,
  10. You can pretend to be whatever you wish to be, and your skill determines if my perception matches your pretense,
  11. How I perceive you (how you are perceived by me) is your responsibility, not mine,
  12. Your identity is fixed at conception when your DNA is established which remains unchanged during your lifetime,
  13. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment or therapy can change your DNA,
  14. Your identity cannot be chosen by you nor is it subject to change.

If you need to give me your pronouns you are insecure at best and mentally ill at worst. And it serves no purpose.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Pronoun delusions: If you need to give me “your pronouns” ……

And he’s not even in office yet ……

January 16, 2025

Unlike many of my friends and acquaintances (and not to mention my religiously liberal relatives), I have rather high expectations of a Trump Presidency. The reversal of some of the obscene wokery that has spread around the world has started. Whether the world can be inoculated against the woke virus remains to be seen. I was expecting the Middle East to get quieter and the NATO expansion to be curbed. I expected some solution – no matter how unpleasant – of the Russia/ Ukraine – NATO-EU conflict. I am expecting a new growth surge to break the EU engendered economic slumber that currently prevails. I am expecting / hoping for a rollback of some of the intellectual prostitution and multilateral excesses that have become globally endemic.

Well, we shall see. He will not take office till Monday, but the signs are promising

HT:

Israel and Hamas have agreed to pause the devastating war in the Gaza Strip that was going on since October 7, 2023.

Netanyahu also called Trump to thank him.

The US State Department on Wednesday said the involvement of President-elect Donald Trump’s team was critical in getting the truce deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza over the line.

President-elect Donald Trump was in the centre of news after Israel, Hamas deal.(AP)

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also thanked Donald Trump and his team for working with the Joe Biden administration and said it was important that they were on the table.

“When it comes to the involvement of President-Elect Trump’s team, it has been absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line. It’s been critical because obviously, as I stand here today, this administration’s term in office will expire in five days…We, of course, thank the Trump team for working with us on this cease-fire agreement. We think it’s important that they were at the table,” he said in a press conference after the deal was announced.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on And he’s not even in office yet ……

The UK grooming gangs have been active for at least 40 years

January 5, 2025

I am surprised at the denial we see now. The UK Pakistani-British grooming gangs have been active for over 40 years. The scandal has even made it past the Wikipedia political correctness police.

Wikipedia:

The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal consists of the organised child sexual abuse of girls that occurred in the town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, Northern England, from the late 1980s until 2013[9] and the failure of local authorities to act on reports of the abuse throughout most of that period.[10] Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials and warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007, has since described it as the “biggest child protection scandal in UK history”,[11] with one report estimating that 1,400 girls, primarily from care home backgrounds, were abused by “grooming gangs” between 1997 and 2013.[9] Evidence of the abuse was first noted in the early 1990s, when care home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers.[12] From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five British-Pakistani men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12–16.[13]

In the first half of the 80s I used to travel regularly to the Grimethorpe/Doncaster/ Bradford area and recall first hearing vague pub gossip about gangs exploiting young girls who were in care by creating and feeding their drug habits. But it was just gossip then. It was at a time when it was taboo to say anything negative about the immigrant community. Truth be damned. It was only in the 90s that some few journalists began writing about this. Council politicians, social workers, policemen and the politically correct fraternity did not just turn a blind eye. The girls were mainly “white trash” and “in care” after all. They actively protected the perpetrators and demonised the victims. The current groomers are not new immigrants with a culture gap. They are second-generation, but brought up in their multiculturally allowed grooming culture.

So why the hand-wringing and surprise now.

I told you so.

I wrote this post almost 11 years ago:

A “society” – to be a society – can be multi-ethnic but not multicultural

A “culture” is both the glue that binds any society of humans and lubricates the interactions within that society. It applies as well to a family or an association or a sports club or a company or a geographic area (say a country). The culture of any sub-society – a sub-culture – must be subordinated to that of the larger society it is  – or wants to be – part of.

Of course one can have – if one wishes – many different cultures within different sub-societies in a single geographic area. But if these sub-cultures are not subordinated to a larger culture then the sub-societies cannot – because it becomes a fatal contradiction – make up any larger society. Multiculturalism dooms that geographical area to inevitably be a splintered and fractured “greater” society – if at all.

The politically correct “multiculturalism” followed in Europe in recent times has effectively preserved and maintained each ethnic group in its own cultural silo and – inanely – made a virtue out of preventing the evolution of any overriding, common culture. This has been the fundamental, “do-gooding” blunder of the socialist/liberal “democrats” all through Europe. Creating a society of the future with a common culture as the glue has been sacrificed in a quest for some imagined God of Many Cultures. For an immigrant – anywhere – how could it be more important to keep the language of his past rather than to learn the language of his future? The “do-gooders” have prioritised living in the past to creating and living in a new future.

Hence Rotherham and Bradford or Kreuzberg or Rosengård or Les Bosquets,

Multi-ethnic communities particularly need both a glue and a lubricating medium. And that has to be an overriding common – new – culture and not some mish-mash, immiscible collection of sub-cultures – each within its own silo, insulated and held separate from all others.

  1. Multi-ethnic societies are inevitable around the world.
  2. A single society has a single culture.
  3. To have many cultures in one area – which are not subordinated to a larger culture (values) – is to exclude a single society.
  4. Promoting multiculturalism is to promote the fracturing of that area into many immiscible (inevitably ethnic) societies.

Multi-ethnicity – especially – requires a mono-culture to be a society at all.

Multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is separatism and serves to ensure that a single society will never be established.

and again 8 years ago ..

“Multiculturalism” always gives fractured and segregated societies

It seems obvious. Multi-ethnic societies, even with well -developed sub-cultures, work very well under an over-riding common culture. In fact the over-riding common culture is dynamic and takes on parts of the various sub-cultures. But societies with parallel cultures with no over-riding common culture can only give a fractured society. It  prevents any common culture developing and inevitably gives ethnic segregation. For over 5 decades, these parallel cultures have been promoted by the liberal, social-democratic, do-gooding, misguided elite of Europe.

It is not at all surprising that the cities of Europe now have segregated and have no-go ghettos which consider themselves outside of the main society and not subject to the rules and behaviour expected in that society.

Well, I did tell you so.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, UK | Comments Off on The UK grooming gangs have been active for at least 40 years

No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award

January 4, 2025

DEI programs are part of the wokery delusion. By definition a “DEI hire” would not have been appointed to any position or received any award without having received unfair favour – to the detriment of somebody else being discriminated against. No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award.

Claudine Gay is one of the more famous woke/DEI catastrophes. She would never have been appointed to be President of Harvard if she had not been black and female. She was neither best qualified nor most competent for the job. But she was black and she was female. The insidiousness of cancerous DEI programs is that I now assume – as the default assessment – that any black person in a high position in US academia must probably have been a DEI hire. Almost every university has its token employees and some in very high positions. I was listening to a black Dean from Columbia recently and my automatic assumption was that this was  a “DEI hire”. The Dean said nothing sufficiently insightful to change my mind during the 4 minute interview. I have written him off in my mind as a “DEI hire” but, for all I know, the Dean may actually have been quite competent and deserving of the appointment. 

Too late. DEI has struck. The label is permanent. 

I find most DEI / affirmative action / reservation schemes fundamentally flawed and unjust. By definition a “DEI hire” would not have been appointed to any position or received any award without having received unfair favour – to the detriment of somebody else being discriminated against. No “DEI Hire” can ever be the “best choice” for any position or award. No matter how qualified, the beneficiaries of such schemes will always carry the stigma of not having been the “best” for the position (whether job or student place). There is no doubt that in the US, competence has suffered as a consequence of affirmative action and DEI. The reservation system and its distorted benefits in India has helped perpetuate the caste system. So much so that the reservation system is institutionalized and corrupted. In Europe the decline in competence of public service TV employees is on continuous display with program presenters and coordinators lacking in basic competences but fulfilling some “inclusivity” or “diversity” wish. In countries with quotas for women directors, competent women are unfortunately being painted with the quota brush. The New Zealand Navy has prioritized diversity over the sinkability of its ships. It was recently apparent that the US Secret Service has also decreased its capability to protect its charges by giving priority to diversity in hiring. A small person holding up her hands, apparently to protect a very tall person, was one of the more ludicrous images that persist.

These schemes are not far short of stupid. Reverse discrimination involves actions against the innocent to favour the currently disadvantaged to try and compensate for criminal discrimination by other people to other victims. They are all inherently unjust schemes with a remarkable lack of common sense.

I try to list the failings of such schemes (mainly as practiced in the US and Europe).

  • Tokenism: DEI programs are often just a facade to appear inclusive. That ethnically diverse work places provide benefits is a religious woke belief but there is no evidence that it is so.
  • Reverse Discrimination: DEI initiatives always lead to reverse discrimination, where qualified individuals from majority groups are overlooked in favor of less-qualified candidates from underrepresented groups. This has inevitably caused resentment and emphasized the stupidity of such schemes.
  • Lack of Measurable Results: The effectiveness of DEI programs is unproven due to the impossibility of measuring their impact on organizational performance. Diversity and inclusion only bring political benefits to the program organizers, but benefits to the organization cannot be quantified.
  • Focus on Diversity Over Inclusion: DEI programs often prioritize diversity in terms of demographics (race, gender, etc.) but neglect the importance of the primary purpose of any workplace – which is to do some specified work.
  • Administrative Burden: DEI initiatives are extremely time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring significant administrative effort to implement and maintain. This are a significant burden on organizations, especially smaller ones with no quantifiable benefits.
  • Stereotyping: DEI initiatives lead to stereotyping and perpetuating of such stereotyping.

It is often sanctimoniously claimed that DEI is “about creating a workplace where everyone feels valued, respected, and has equal opportunities to succeed”. What they conveniently forget is that a workplace is for doing work. Getting the work done is the objective not the practicing of religious rituals.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries