One reader's rave

"Thanks for the newspaper with your book review. I can’t tell you how impressed I am with this terrific piece of writing. It is beautiful, complex, scholarly. Only sorry Mr. Freire cannot read it!" -- Ailene

Cassie Jaye, the day before I met her at the _Red Pill_ world premiere

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Energizing!

This evening I completed the Scriptwriting Summer Intensive course offered by Scribe Video Center. Even though it's become apparent that putting my project in its finished form will take a lot more work that I'd anticipated, I'm feeling intellectually engaged and excited, not intimidated.


This is doubtless thanks to the fact that the instructor was supportive, giving personal attention to each student, and so were my classmates. And she'll be available for further consultations as I continue working on my project.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

A Desiderata of Rationality

This essay is chock full of quotables.



Twelve Virtues of Rationality

The first virtue is curiosity. A burning itch to know is higher than a solemn vow to pursue truth. To feel the burning itch of curiosity requires both that you be ignorant, and that you desire to relinquish your ignorance. If in your heart you believe you already know, or if in your heart you do not wish to know, then your questioning will be purposeless and your skills without direction. Curiosity seeks to annihilate itself; there is no curiosity that does not want an answer. The glory of glorious mystery is to be solved, after which it ceases to be mystery. Be wary of those who speak of being open-minded and modestly confess their ignorance. There is a time to confess your ignorance and a time to relinquish your ignorance.

The second virtue is relinquishment. P. C. Hodgell said: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” Do not flinch from experiences that might destroy your beliefs. The thought you cannot think controls you more than thoughts you speak aloud. Submit yourself to ordeals and test yourself in fire. Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is hot, and it is cool, the Way opposes your fear. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is cool, and it is hot, the Way opposes your calm. Evaluate your beliefs first and then arrive at your emotions. Let yourself say: “If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool.” Beware lest you become attached to beliefs you may not want.

The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter the winds of evidence are blowing against you. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy. If you regard evidence as a constraint and seek to free yourself, you sell yourself into the chains of your whims. For you cannot make a true map of a city by sitting in your bedroom with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper according to impulse. You must walk through the city and draw lines on paper that correspond to what you see. If, seeing the city unclearly, you think that you can shift a line just a little to the right, just a little to the left, according to your caprice, this is just the same mistake.

The fourth virtue is evenness. One who wishes to believe says, “Does the evidence permit me to believe?” One who wishes to disbelieve asks, “Does the evidence force me to believe?” Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: “But it is good to be skeptical.” If you attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data, then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider. If you first write at the bottom of a sheet of paper, “And therefore, the sky is green!”, it does not matter what arguments you write above it afterward; the conclusion is already written, and it is already correct or already wrong. To be clever in argument is not rationality but rationalization. Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for something other than defeating itself. Listen to hypotheses as they plead their cases before you, but remember that you are not a hypothesis, you are the judge. Therefore do not seek to argue for one side or another, for if you knew your destination, you would already be there.

The fifth virtue is argument. Those who wish to fail must first prevent their friends from helping them. Those who smile wisely and say: “I will not argue” remove themselves from help, and withdraw from the communal effort. In argument strive for exact honesty, for the sake of others and also yourself: The part of yourself that distorts what you say to others also distorts your own thoughts. Do not believe you do others a favor if you accept their arguments; the favor is to you. Do not think that fairness to all sides means balancing yourself evenly between positions; truth is not handed out in equal portions before the start of a debate. You cannot move forward on factual questions by fighting with fists or insults. Seek a test that lets reality judge between you.

The sixth virtue is empiricism. The roots of knowledge are in observation and its fruit is prediction. What tree grows without roots? What tree nourishes us without fruit? If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? One says, “Yes it does, for it makes vibrations in the air.” Another says, “No it does not, for there is no auditory processing in any brain.” Though they argue, one saying “Yes”, and one saying “No”, the two do not anticipate any different experience of the forest. Do not ask which beliefs to profess, but which experiences to anticipate. Always know which difference of experience you argue about. Do not let the argument wander and become about something else, such as someone’s virtue as a rationalist. Jerry Cleaver said: “What does you in is not failure to apply some high-level, intricate, complicated technique. It’s overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the ball.” Do not be blinded by words. When words are subtracted, anticipation remains.

The seventh virtue is simplicity. Antoine de Saint-ExupĂ©ry said: “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Simplicity is virtuous in belief, design, planning, and justification. When you profess a huge belief with many details, each additional detail is another chance for the belief to be wrong. Each specification adds to your burden; if you can lighten your burden you must do so. There is no straw that lacks the power to break your back. Of artifacts it is said: The most reliable gear is the one that is designed out of the machine. Of plans: A tangled web breaks. A chain of a thousand links will arrive at a correct conclusion if every step is correct, but if one step is wrong it may carry you anywhere. In mathematics a mountain of good deeds cannot atone for a single sin. Therefore, be careful on every step.

The eighth virtue is humility. To be humble is to take specific actions in anticipation of your own errors. To confess your fallibility and then do nothing about it is not humble; it is boasting of your modesty. Who are most humble? Those who most skillfully prepare for the deepest and most catastrophic errors in their own beliefs and plans. Because this world contains many whose grasp of rationality is abysmal, beginning students of rationality win arguments and acquire an exaggerated view of their own abilities. But it is useless to be superior: Life is not graded on a curve. The best physicist in ancient Greece could not calculate the path of a falling apple. There is no guarantee that adequacy is possible given your hardest effort; therefore spare no thought for whether others are doing worse. If you compare yourself to others you will not see the biases that all humans share. To be human is to make ten thousand errors. No one in this world achieves perfection.

The ninth virtue is perfectionism. The more errors you correct in yourself, the more you notice. As your mind becomes more silent, you hear more noise. When you notice an error in yourself, this signals your readiness to seek advancement to the next level. If you tolerate the error rather than correcting it, you will not advance to the next level and you will not gain the skill to notice new errors. In every art, if you do not seek perfection you will halt before taking your first steps. If perfection is impossible that is no excuse for not trying. Hold yourself to the highest standard you can imagine, and look for one still higher. Do not be content with the answer that is almost right; seek one that is exactly right.

The tenth virtue is precision. One comes and says: The quantity is between 1 and 100. Another says: the quantity is between 40 and 50. If the quantity is 42 they are both correct, but the second prediction was more useful and exposed itself to a stricter test. What is true of one apple may not be true of another apple; thus more can be said about a single apple than about all the apples in the world. The narrowest statements slice deepest, the cutting edge of the blade. As with the map, so too with the art of mapmaking: The Way is a precise Art. Do not walk to the truth, but dance. On each and every step of that dance your foot comes down in exactly the right spot. Each piece of evidence shifts your beliefs by exactly the right amount, neither more nor less. What is exactly the right amount? To calculate this you must study probability theory. Even if you cannot do the math, knowing that the math exists tells you that the dance step is precise and has no room in it for your whims.

The eleventh virtue is scholarship. Study many sciences and absorb their power as your own. Each field that you consume makes you larger. If you swallow enough sciences the gaps between them will diminish and your knowledge will become a unified whole. If you are gluttonous you will become vaster than mountains. It is especially important to eat math and science which impinges upon rationality: Evolutionary psychology, heuristics and biases, social psychology, probability theory, decision theory. But these cannot be the only fields you study. The Art must have a purpose other than itself, or it collapses into infinite recursion.

Before these eleven virtues is a virtue which is nameless.

Miyamoto Musashi wrote, in The Book of Five Rings:

“The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy’s cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. More than anything, you must be thinking of carrying your movement through to cutting him.”

Every step of your reasoning must cut through to the correct answer in the same movement. More than anything, you must think of carrying your map through to reflecting the territory.

If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest that you acted with propriety.

How can you improve your conception of rationality? Not by saying to yourself, “It is my duty to be rational.” By this you only enshrine your mistaken conception. Perhaps your conception of rationality is that it is rational to believe the words of the Great Teacher, and the Great Teacher says, “The sky is green,” and you look up at the sky and see blue. If you think: “It may look like the sky is blue, but rationality is to believe the words of the Great Teacher,” you lose a chance to discover your mistake.

Do not ask whether it is “the Way” to do this or that. Ask whether the sky is blue or green. If you speak overmuch of the Way you will not attain it.

You may try to name the highest principle with names such as “the map that reflects the territory” or “experience of success and failure” or “Bayesian decision theory”. But perhaps you describe incorrectly the nameless virtue. How will you discover your mistake? Not by comparing your description to itself, but by comparing it to that which you did not name.

If for many years you practice the techniques and submit yourself to strict constraints, it may be that you will glimpse the center. Then you will see how all techniques are one technique, and you will move correctly without feeling constrained. Musashi wrote: “When you appreciate the power of nature, knowing the rhythm of any situation, you will be able to hit the enemy naturally and strike naturally. All this is the Way of the Void.”

These then are twelve virtues of rationality:

Curiosity, relinquishment, lightness, evenness, argument, empiricism, simplicity, humility, perfectionism, precision, scholarship, and the void.

Digg Del.icio.us Stumble Reddit
This document is ©2006 by Eliezer Yudkowsky and free under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License for copying and distribution, so long as the work is attributed and the text is unaltered.

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Inadvertent Truth of the Day

"Personally, I believe that both democrats and republicans are needed to create a compromised democracy." -- Isabella Pacinelli


Sometimes a nonstandard usage conveys a truth that wasn't intended.

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Puerile "Satire"

https://trends.gab.com/item/5f10ded3012d34523d5d0acf



Thursday, July 09, 2020

The lesson urged on conservatives here applies to progressives too, as I've discussed previously (https://stripey7.blogspot.com/2018/08/getting-real-about-scotus.html): you can't reliably predict how justices will decide cases. And even when you get a "win," it's not a durable win if it's based on a tortured interpretation of the law. Real progress on social issues requires winning in the court of public opinion, as reflected ultimately in legislation; trying to get by on litigation alone evokes reactance on the part of the unconvinced majority, creating a needless obstacle to progress. Indeed, I think this is one of the biggest reasons for the culture wars which have played such a major role in retarding the development of working-class consciousness in the US.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s2jf3RHtTyw

Saturday, July 04, 2020

The First Amendment: It's Not Just for Conservatives

Val Wilde has posted an article on the Patheos Friendly Atheist blog titled "Wedding Photographer Sues For 'Artistic Freedom' to Deny Service to Gay Couples." Like many others, her habit of viewing everything through an identitarian lens prevents her grasping the First Amendment issues involved. I try to explain them in my comment, copied below.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/07/03/wedding-photographer-sues-for-artistic-freedom-to-deny-service-to-gay-couples/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361

Okay, so imagine I'm a photographer and I advertise that I do photographs of graduation ceremonies, including graduations from recovery programs. Now a young man comes to me and says, "I've almost completed this program my pastor recommended to me. In ten days I'll be graduating reparative therapy, freed from homosexuality through Christ, and I'd like to hire you to photograph the ceremony!"

I would feel absolutely entitled to say, "Sorry, you'll have to find someone else. I believe it's a dangerous delusion to think you can change your sexual orientation, and I'm not going to create art promoting the idea that you can."

Now suppose this man sues me, claiming I've discriminated against him based on his identity as a born-again Christian, since I'm willing to take graduation pictures for other people. I defend myself by saying I'm not discriminating against him, I'm discriminating against an idea I don't believe in. After all, I'm perfectly willing to photograph his graduation from other kinds of programs; and if a relative of his asked to commission me to photograph his "ex-gay" ceremony, I'd still refuse, even if the relative isn't born-again herself. So it's the idea I'm discriminating against, not the person.

In defending myself in this way, I'm asserting my First Amendment right to freedom from compelled speech, just as the photographer in this case is (even if he prefers to use the language of religious liberty).

To see this argument presented with more legal precision, read what the First Amendment Lawyers Association had to say about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-tsac-first-amendment-lawyers-association.pdf

Friday, July 03, 2020

My Most Interesting Lies

Someone on Quora asked, "What was your most convincing lie?" Here's the answer I gave (at https://www.quora.com/Whats-your-most-convincing-lie/answer/Eric-Hamell?prompt_topic_bio=1):

Strictly speaking, any lie that is believed is 100% convincing, so all successful lies are equally convincing. So the more interesting question would be, what's the lie I've told that's most impressive for having been believed?

Two stand out. In 2002, I decided to volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement, which tries to help Palestinians survive the effects of occupation by providing nonviolent accompaniment as nationals of powerful states. It was suggested that when volunteers arrived in Israel, they should say they're tourists.  But since I'd never been interested in tourism, I doubted I'd be convincing if I said that.

To avoid raising suspicion, I had decided to bring only non-political reading matter on the trip. It so happened two books I'd purchased recently were on the subject of alleged paranormal phenomena, so I chose them to bring along. Prompted by something my landlord said when I told him this, I also made this my cover story: I had come to the country to do paranormal investigations.

I dressed the part by wearing every suitable button in my possession: Mr. Spock, Men in Black II, and The SETI League. While on the shuttle from the plane to Tel Aviv Airport, a young Israeli told me he agreed with my button. I asked which one and he said, "All of them." I smiled.

When I arrived in the building, sure enough I was approached and asked if I could answer a few questions. So I was taken into a room where two airport police asked me about my plans. It seemed like ten minutes but perhaps only felt that way because I was tense. I made sure to put the book I'd just started reading on a filing cabinet near my seat, with the binding facing the two men. I relished the irony of the title in this context: The Trickster and the Paranormal.

I clearly made them comfortable. Toward the end one of them asked if I could bend spoons. We both laughed as I said, "No, I thought that was what your people did!"

The other time was in 2010, when I was invited to attend a Meetup group's book discussion of Ayn Rand's novella _Anthem_. I'd joined this group online when all I knew was that it described itself as a philosophy club. I had subsequently figured out it was actually an arm of an Internet-based anarcho-capitalist cult called Freedomain Radio, whose leader is known for always trying to persuade followers that their families of origin are "toxic" and should be cut off ("de-FOOed").

Years earlier I'd taken an intellectual interest in Rand's ideas and had read some of her works, including _Anthem_. More recently I'd taken an interest in the ideas of Robert Jay Lifton, considered foundational for the cultic studies field, and it occurred to me that the society depicted in the book illustrates several parts of Lifton's eight-point description of ideological totalism. So I re-read it and composed a review of the book in these terms to present at the meeting. I made enough copies for all who'd RSVPed, plus one for myself to refer to during the discussion.

More than the number who'd RSVPed showed up, however. It was a good thing I'd held on to one copy of the review, because I recognized (from her name and picture on the group's Meetup page) one of those who arrived later as the daughter of one of the de-FOOed parents with whom I was acquainted. She was eager to learn "how to tell who's mind-controlled," and I eagerly gave her the review.

I didn't tell any actual lies at this meeting, but many half-truths. For instance, I truthfully related to Emily how I'd been involved in a socialist political cult in my adolescence. I just didn't mention the part about my still being a socialist. As the conversation splintered and drifted away from the book, it became increasingly indistinguishable from others I'd taken part in, like my atheist Meetup group, and my tension lessened as fitting in became less calculated.

Some months later I learned this local branch of the cult had been discontinued by its organizer. I couldn't tell whether my intervention had contributed to this development, but I like to think it may have, by providing the members with some psycho-education in a context where they weren't defensive since it didn't appear to be aimed at their group. On one subsequent occasion Emily very briefly dropped in on a monthly local meeting of the International Cultic Studies Association (where I'd met the de-FOOed parents) with a bunch of her friends to say hello to her mother; there was no indication whether she recognized me sitting at the same table.

Metro's Mystery Mongering

Wednesday's issue of Metro featured an interview with Giorgio Tsoukalos, described as "the leading expert and co-executive producer of the television series 'Ancient Aliens.'" I've written the following letter in response:

"I am dismayed by your uncritical interview with mystery monger Giorgio Tsoukalos in Wednesday's edition. The only reason he sees mysteries is that he doesn't bother to do any actual research, only reading books by other mystery mongers before visiting places.

"Concerning various ancient structures, he says 'many people do not know how they were built,' but as noted in the Wikipedia article on Puma Punku, 'Current understanding of this complex is limited due to its age, the lack of a written record, and the current deteriorated state of the structures due to treasure hunting, looting, stone mining for building stone and railroad ballast, and natural weathering.' In other words, if there's any mystery about these sites, it's the  result of human misdeeds, not alien intervention. And if 'you don't make sense of anything' when you visit them, it's only because, like Tsoukalos, you haven't bothered to learn what the real researchers -- scientists -- have already figured out.

"His lack of intellectual seriousness is revealed when he calls the Big Dipper 'a constellation that can hardly ever be seen.' Excuse me, but I've seen it countless times; it's one of the easiest ones to see. And he claims that various 'mysterious' sites are 'millions of kilometers apart.' A million kilometers is more than twice the distance from the Earth to the Moon, so enough said about that.

"Fundamentally, this kind of credulousness reflects a lack of faith in humanity and a childish wish for someone bigger to do things for us. That's the kind of attitude we have to overcome, if we as a species are to overcome the crises we face today."

The point about how the "ancient astronauts" quasi-religion is at odds with humanism was made to me by my father when, as an adolescent, I enthusiastically told him about what I'd read in Erich von Daniken's _Chariots of the Gods?_. I was initially put off by his reaction but later realized the truth of it.

Saturday, June 27, 2020


Wednesday of last week, having been at a couple in-person protests before deciding not to do any more, I got myself tested for COVID-19. A couple days ago my doctor called to tell me the result was negative.

Sunday, June 21, 2020

This Fathers' Day, Give More Than a Tie

For Fathers' Day, please watch this video and then consider supporting the launch of a Canadian Center for Men and Families in Vancouver! Introducing CCMF Vancouver https://youtu.be/L4jt2QMujr4 via @YouTube

Saturday, June 20, 2020

A Foolish Thing to Do, and a Wrong-Headed One Too


Krystal Ball: "Relying on the courts as the sole focus of your political project is a very foolish thing to do." Progressives, take heed! . https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1SJSBHip780&t=608s . It's not just that justices won't reliably vote the way you expect them to. It's that they shouldn't do so, and it's undemocratic to try to rig the courts so that they will. And that sort of mischief has major knock-on effects: it can be held largely responsible for the escalation of the US culture wars of recent decades, because nothing gets people riled up more than the sense that their democratic choices have been nullified by unelected judges acting as legislators. That polarization has in turn played a big role in retarding the development of working-class consciousness by keeping people distracted with cultural issues. . At the ultimate root of this politicization of the courts is our archaic first-past-the-post voting system, which pushes people into just two parties, each of which inevitably sees judicial appointments as an issue it can campaign and win elections on. I don't think it's coincidental we don't hear about comparable levels of political polarization or complaints about judicial activism in the countries of continental Europe, which all employ some variety of proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections.

Tuesday, June 09, 2020

Self-Improvement vs. Social Improvement -- or Self-Improvement FOR Social Improvement?


Coleman Hughes asks, "Is it racist to observe that whites are more likely to drive drunk than blacks are?"

Communicative impotence isn't the Right's only problem here, however. The more fundamental one is its hostility, not only to clientelist non-solutions, but also to universalist real solutions of either a reformist social-democratic or a revolutionary socialist variety. The greatest value of constructive behavioral advice is that it not only helps people to do better within the present system, but helps them build capacity for organizing to replace it with something qualitatively better.

https://quillette.com/2018/07/19/black-american-culture-and-the-racial-wealth-gap/

Saturday, June 06, 2020

Media Misinformation, Police Union Edition


Mark Twain famously said, "A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is lacing its boots on." Here's one of those cases.

A union decides it won't provide legal services for its members, but rather than let the public know this it defames them.

Thanks to the YouTube channel Political World for bringing this story to my attention.

EXCLUSIVE: Two Buffalo Police ERT members say resignation was not in solidarity with suspended officers
 
https://remarkboard.com/m/exclusive-two-buffalo-police-ert-members-say-resignation/1eppt3powikaz

Friday, June 05, 2020

Media McCarthyism

 1. Exclude elite-disapproved information and views from a country's elite-owned, state source-dependent major media.

2. Now creative a threat narrative by labeling the only news source with comparable resources that offers alternative information "foreign state media."

3. Use the threat narrative to discount the alternative information as "foreign propaganda." Presto!

This is how McCarthyism works.

https://www.rt.com/usa/490860-yahoo-correspondent-ruptly-livestream

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Thank You, Comissioner Schmidt!

I just voted thanks to the hard work of a public servant who clearly knows the meaning of constituent service.

The City Commissioners' office had mailed me a ballot on May 1, but it never arrived. I'd repeatedly tried to contact them about it but, until a couple days ago, I hadn't reached anyone who could help me.

Then I got a text from Joanne Beer with Philly for Bernie checking on whether I'd voted yet, and I explained my situation to her. She gave me a different number from those I'd tried up to that point.

The first time I tried it I was promised a follow-up from someone who had just come in but never actually called back. When I tried again later, I got their voice mail, from which I learned it was Republican City Commissioner Al Schmidt's office. I've met him a couple times.

This time, however, I did get a call back Friday evening, from Commissioner Schmidt himself. He said he could come by where I live today and give me an emergency ballot to go fill out in private someplace nearby, then seal and give back to him.

I started to get anxious as five o'clock came and I hadn't heard from him. He informed me his operations had been greatly hampered by effects of the rioting last night. But he arrived at about 6:40 with my ballot.

Except for the state house offices, I'd already had a chance to see who and what was on the ballot so I didn't need to ponder much as I was actually filling it out on a bench outside my residence. Since I saw no challenger to stinker Josh Shapiro, I wrote in my friend Chris Votey for state Attorney General.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Quote of the Day

From Caitlin Johnstone:

"Spend less energy concerning yourself with which individuals are good or bad and more on what information and ideas are true and helpful."

Wiser words were never said!

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/05/30/twitter-censorship-and-other-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix

Saturday, May 23, 2020

The Conspiracy Myth

This essay offers an interesting meta view on the importance of avoiding self-imposed milieu control in assessing mainstream vs. alternative narratives. I saw it in the latest OpEd News.

The Conspiracy Myth

Show Up (Virtually) for This Courageous Journalist!

What follows was posted on Facebook by Free Julian Assange. I've applied to attend the virtual hearing 10 June and I encourage everyone who cares about civil liberties, human rights, and government accountability to do likewise. Follow the link below to see images of some of the text being discussed..

craigmurray [dot] org [dot] uk [slash] archives [slash] 2020[slash] 05 [slash] authoritarianism-is-shoddy [slash] ?fbclid=IwAR1Vg3L-YguuWYInotyaU6bUSbF_TkZTzl7Sz7K6nby6JDXbM6xCf5uGVYQ
.
  Craig Murray  Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist
.
Authoritarianism is Shoddy
.
 Well, it is really happening. It is something of a shock to see yourself listed as a criminal for writing the truth. I have a tiny extra glimpse now into the way my friend Julian has been feeling.
.
  Three appeal court judges even at the procedural hearing – though not unheard of, that is not normal. The state is sparing no resources on this; in a sense I am flattered.   There will be no jury at the eventual trial, and this worries me. Not least because the indictment (called a “petition”) contains within itself evidence that this process is a stitch up.
.
Please help me here, and read paras 49 to 56 of the indictment after reading this explanation.  Para 49 of the indictment is an utter garble. It states that I sent a twitter message beginning “It is respectfully submitted…”.   I sent no such twitter message. Para 50 is missing. This is not a misnumbering, para 50 really is missing. I assume my twitter message, intended to be quoted at para 49, and whatever led in to the Crown’s argument beginning “it is respectively submitted” were in the missing section.  At para 53 the same thing happens again. It explicitly states that I published another tweet starting: “it is respectfully submitted that”.  I published no such tweet. Again the indictment does not give the actual text of the tweet complained of, even though it claims to do so. This time two paragraphs are clearly missing, and again this is not just a misnumbering, because of the missing material. It jumps from 53 to 56.  In short, the indictment from paras 49 to 56 is an inoperable jumble, with three paras missing from two different locations and which does not even contain – though it states it does – the very tweets which form part of the alleged offence with which I am charged.
.
 You may argue this does not matter, and clerical errors are easily corrected. But that is to miss the point. I used to prepare official documents in my 20 year diplomatic career, from ministerial replies to members of the public to fully fledged international treaties.   A Diplomatic Note to a foreign government, which has a legal status, might be the best comparator from my work to this indictment or petition. I always scrupulously proof read every one I sent before signing. It is unthinkable that a Diplomatic Note would be sent containing not one but a series of major, material errors.  Is this document any less solemn? It is an indictment on which they are attempting to brand me a criminal and potentially send me to prison for up to two years. It is signed by Alex Prentice, Depute Advocate General on behalf of the Lord Advocate, and by the senior judge, Lord Turnbull.   But one thing is abundantly clear. Neither Alex Prentice nor Lord Turnbull can have carefully read through the document before they signed it. I do not believe for one moment that they would knowingly sign off a document containing such major errors. The judge, in particular, is meant to weigh carefully the matter to see if there really is a case to answer before he signs the Crown’s “petition”. But, I say it again, plainly Lord Turnbull has not actually read through it; or he would never have signed this garbled mess.
.
 I am advised that it may be “contempt of court” for me to point out that Lord Turnbull signed this without reading it. But when a law makes it illegal to point out a blindingly obvious fact, then the law is an ass.   If Lord Turnbull does not wish to be criticised, he should try doing his job properly and actually paying attention to what he signs.
.
  Contempt is the right word. I have a great deal of contempt for anybody who would send me such a portentous legal document rotten through with utterly careless error which would have been spotted by even a cursory reading of the document.  They did not read it. The judge who approved it did not read it.   Neither of them bothered to read the indictment or petition because it had already been decided to “get” Craig Murray and it therefore did not matter what the document actually said. The content of the charges is immaterial to them. Otherwise, they would have read them before signing. There can only be two reasons for that failure. The first is incompetence. The second is corruption. In a sense, it does not matter which it is in this case.   A state which is turning to authoritarianism to crush dissent does not need to be very careful about matters of process.
.
  The failure of both Prentice and Turnbull to read before signing is not important for the mistakes in the document, which can be remedied by a new document. It is important because of the clear indication of attitude. This prosecution is abuse of process, a clear Article Six violation under the European Convention on Human Rights.   A series of facts make this abundantly plain. The abuse of process lies in this combined with the extraordinary selectivity in prosecuting me, when others who can be objectively proven to have much more effectively produced “jigsaw identification” are not prosecuted. There is a very clear political motivation behind the selection of who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.  When you put together the facts that there is overwhelming evidence that mainstream media journalists were more guilty of “jigsaw identification” than I, that systematic police action is being taken to harass only supporters of Alex Salmond, and that they don’t even care what the indictment to be used against me actually says, the overall picture becomes very, very clear.  Authoritarianism doesn’t have to worry about mistakes in the indictment, because it can just smash you in the face with the jackboot. That is what is happening here.  My own view is that they were so keen to “get” Craig Murray they just signed without any proper scrutiny whatsoever. I don’t see any other conclusion. Do you?  They do not have the excuse that this is routine. Major prosecutions for contempt in Scotland are extremely rare – the last one was Aamer Anwar about a decade ago (it failed).  So why could the state be so keen to prosecute Craig Murray, that is doesn’t even care what is in the indictment, or even if it is drawn up with the most basic level of competence? Well, I refer you to this excellent letter setting out the fact that the state is only acting against those who defended the innocent Alex Salmond, even though his detractors were much more in contempt of court. And I refer you to the Panelbase opinion poll which showed that very substantially more people who know the identities of the accusers, learnt them from the mainstream media.   I remain clear that I identified nobody. If I had wanted to, I would have done so openly. I have never been noted for cowardice.
.
 The other accusation, that I wrote articles stating that the prosecution of Alex Salmond was a fit-up, is something I state again here. It is a proper exercise of my freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Actually, you don’t have to go past the very first sentence of the indictment to understand what is happening here. It reads “On 23 January 2019, Alexander Elliott Anderson Salmond was arrested by police officers in relation to a number of incidents that had taken place in Scotland.” 
.
 “That had taken place”. Not “alleged to have taken place”. “That had taken place”. And Prentice wrote this, and Turnbull signed it off, after the acquittal.  After independent witnesses gave eye witness accounts that several of the incidents had not taken place at all. After it was demonstrated in court that the accuser of the most serious offence was not even present when she claimed the offence took place.  After the jury threw out the pile of ordure that the very same Alex Prentice as prosecuting counsel presented to them.   “That had taken place”. No, most of the incidents had not taken place at all, and none in the form alleged.   Right at the start, this wording gives away the motivation. The conspirators have still not psychologically processed the fact their attack on Alex Salmond was foiled by the jury. The Crown is now coming at Mark Hirst and at me in an effort to get some kind of victory from this massive waste of public resources. The conspirators seek to assuage their massive humiliation in the failure of a prosecution that stank and quite obviously ought never to have been brought.  I am not going to pipe down under this abuse of process and attack on freedom of speech. On the contrary, this will be a reasoned, forceful and very public resistance.
.
  TWO WAYS YOU CAN HELP  The hearing on 10 June is supposed to be public, but it will be virtual because of coronavirus. While it is a case management hearing, I shall nevertheless be grateful if you are able to “attend” virtually, as I am very keen indeed that I am not stitched up out of the public eye. Please send an email requesting access to the virtual hearing on 10 June to judicialcomms@scotcourts.gov.uk. I am very keen as many people do this as possible. Journalists please in addition copy in communications@scotcourts.gov.uk for accreditation.   Secondly, many people come to this blog through social media and I am currently suffering a very high level of suppression, on Facebook and especially on Twitter. Rather than just retweet and share any soical media post that brought you here, (which may appear on the face to have worked but the dissemination will be suppressed), I would be very grateful if you could also write your own new posting and put a link. If you have your own blog or access to one, a commendation of this post with a link would be very welcome, even if it is not your normal policy. And finally of course, the entire post is free as always to copy, republish and translate as you wish.
.
 ——————————————
.
  Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.  Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.  Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:  Recurring Donations  Paypal address for one-off donations: [censored by Blogger on the spurious grounds that contact information for Craig Murray provided by Murray himself is "Personal and confidential"]





Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Joe Biden Faces a Novel Accusation

Actually not a novel but a memoir. A passage in the memoir of Tara Reade's late father, published in 1998, is remarkably similar to what she now says Joe Biden did to her.
https://www.powells.com/book/-9781452009551

Note: this post is corrected from an earlier version in which, following others, I described the book as a novel.