Senátorku Němcovou, pana Lukačoviče a pana Černého jste uvedl jako příklady lidí, kteří mají, podle vás, větší práva než vy. Z čeho tak usuzujete?

Výroky, které jsem zmínil, tedy výroky o zdegenerovaných etnikách, genotypu sviní, či o etnikách, která ctěný autor považuje za zvířata, která se lidem podobají, jsou výroky, které byly zveřejněny na twitterových účtech paní Němcové a pana Lukačoviče, pan Černý pak svoji tezi uvedl v rozhovoru pro iDnes. A protože za uvedené výroky nebyli potrestáni ani oni, ani ti, kteří, v reakci na uvedené výroky veřejně uvedli své vlastní teorie podobného typu, tak mi nezbývá než soudit, že pro tyto občany zákony platí jinak než pro mě, což ostatně potvrdil i Ústavní soud. Jak už jsem uvedl: v textech, za které jsem byl odsouzen, se nic takto expresivního a ani fakticky obdobného neobjevuje.

Alexandr Mitrofanov
@AlexandrMitrofa
K četným soucitným, ale neinformovaným spoluobčanům:
Chápu vaši snahu vidět ve většinovém obyvatelstvu v Rusku (podotýkám v Rusku, netýká se Rusů venku) své bratry a sestry, kteří jen šlápli vedle a může se to napravit.
Ne.
Je to jiná civilizace. Je barbarská. Chce vás zničit.

„V gigantickém nelidském Rusku nebude pokus o demokracii nikdy úspěšný. Je to pro ně cizí slovo. Sto let se z ruské společnosti násilím vyndávaly její lepší části a to poslední lepší, co v ní zbylo, teď prchá. Tihle lidé pak mohou fungovat jinak, ale až poté, co ten jed z krve dostanou,“ říká novinář Alexandr Mitrofanov, který se narodil v Sovětském svazu.

Pavel Novotný
@PavelNovotnak
Ta Buča se se mnou táhne celý den a potáhne už furt. Nesnesu jakékoli utrpení dítěte. Člověk bojuje proti předsudkům, ale sám se v jednom definitivně utvrdil.

Rusko by mělo být zničeno. Bezohledně zničeno. Nebudou jiní. Nikdy se nezmění. Není to Putinem. Mají to v sobě. Sorry.

Alexandr Mitrofanov, komentátor Práva, nás na Twitteru blahosklonně poučil, že pokud chceme vidět v Rusech a Ruskách lidi, tak se pleteme. Rusko je prý barbarská civilizace, která nás chce zničit. Jisté je, že pokud nás Putinova válka donutí uvažovat o lidech žijících jinde jako o barbarech, pak nás ve výsledku skutečně zničí.

Některé se snaží o solidní analýzu, jiné se nechávají hněvem unášet až k označování Rusů za zvířata.

Majitel Seznamu Ivo Lukačovič tak na Twitteru píše: „To nejsou lidé. To jsou zvířecí hordy z Asie. Lidem se akorát podobají, když je obléknete do ruských vojenských uniforem.“ Komentátor Alexandr Mitrofanov na stejnou adresu následně přidává, že „nepokládá za lidi bytosti, v nichž zjevně převažují zvířecí prvky.“ Starosta Pavel Novotný v návaznosti na dění v Buči tweetuje, že by Rusko mělo být „bezohledně zničeno,“ protože to, co se děje, není Putinem a nikdy se to nezmění, protože to Rusové „mají v sobě.“

Zloba vůči agresorovi je pochopitelná, dehumanizace lidí na základě národnosti však patří spíš do repertoáru režimů, jako je ten Putinův.

...

V zajetí školního atlasu
Plošnou dehumanizaci na základě genetiky, národnosti, barvy nebo jazyka už naštěstí považujeme za nepřípustnou. Zároveň se tu ale vynořuje staronový trend: kde dřív zněly prosté předsudky, objevuje se o něco vědečtěji znějící geografický determinismus. Určující úlohu v chování obyvatelstva podle něj místo třeba genů hrají geografické podmínky konkrétní země.

Právě o geografický determinismus se opírá komentátor Hospodářských novin Petr Honzejk ve svém nedělním textu „Zanechte všech nadějí, Rusko nikdy jiné nebude. Je to zákon geografie.“ Volně se v něm odkazuje na knihu Pomsta geografie amerického spisovatele Roberta D. Kaplana.

Problém geografického determinismu je v tom, že jím lze i bez velkého přemýšlení a bez studia událostí vysvětlit cokoli. Člověk do něj může stejně jako například do rasové teorie vložit libovolné předsudky a tvářit se u toho, že se neopustil hranice vědeckosti. Honzejk takto například o geografický determinismus opřel hned titulní tezi – ať se bude kdokoli jakkoli snažit, Rusko vždy zůstane stejné.

Ve svém textu cituje i historika Patricka Marche, podle kterého Rusové mají „podřízenou povahu“ vinou toho, že jim „tatarské jařmo“ před pěti stovkami let vštípilo toleranci k tyranii a lhostejnost k obětem. Život obecně má v Rusku proto podle Honzejka nízkou cenu, stejně jako individuální svoboda – což v jeho argumentaci vyplývá z dvousetletého období tatarské nadvlády pět set let nazpátek. Důsledkem je prý bezohlednost ruské armády a jen omezená ochota Rusů protestovat proti válce v sousední zemi.

Jinde v textu se zase dočteme, že trvalým rysem Rusů je krutost, kterou způsobilo chladné podnebí. V něm podle Honzejka můžeme hledat příčinu ruského bombardování škol a nemocnic. Honzejk už nevysvětluje, proč mají ve stejně chladné Skandinávii nebo Kanadě lidské životy i individuální rozhodování cenu naopak nebývale vysokou.


Ještě před sto lety by se řeklo, že tyto vlastnosti Rusům vštípilo mísení slovanských a tatarských genů. Tento postoj, který se už dávno ukázal jako nevědecký, je už díkybohu nepřípustný i v českých médiích. Používat s úplně stejným výsledkem geografii nicméně stále můžeme, protože zatím nebyla dostatečně diskreditována silou podobnou hitlerovskému Německu.

Můžeme si jen přát, aby s dřívějším či pozdějším pádem Putinova režimu padl i tento způsob vysvětlování charakteristik lidí a států. Proč právě s Putinovým režimem? Právě ten má totiž přístupy založené na geografickém determinismu v oblibě. Jako součást geopolitiky jej používá například ultrakonzervativní ideolog Alexandr Dugin, vojenští velitelé jako Valerij Gerasimov a zaznívá i přímo z úst Vladimira Putina.

..

Děsivá svědectví vypovídají o tom, že ruští vojáci umisťují děti na tanky, aby chránily jejich vozidla při přesunu.

Ukrajina obvinila Rusko, že při přeskupování svých sil používá děti jako "lidské štíty".

...

Ukrajinská generální prokuratura dává dohromady spis se svědectvími o tom, že Rusové při ústupu z okolí ukrajinského hlavního města a dalších míst využívají místní děti k tomu, aby se vyhnuli palbě.

Kočárky s nemluvňaty byly údajně umístěny před tanky ve vesnici Nový Bykiv, poblíž obklíčeného města Černihiv, 160 km severně od Kyjeva.

Dále říkají svědci, že v řadě ohnisek konfliktu po celé zemi byly děti brány jako rukojmí, aby se zajistilo, že místní obyvatelé nepředají ukrajinským silám souřadnice pohybu nepřítele.

"Případy využívání dětí jako lidských štítů jsou zaznamenány v Sumské, Kyjevské, Černihovské a Záporožské oblasti [regionu]," uvedla ukrajinská ombudsmanka pro lidská práva Ljudmila Denisová.

Plukovník Oleksandr Motuzyanyk, mluvčí ukrajinského ministerstva obrany, uvedl, že případy vyšetřuje ukrajinská generální prokuratura. Uvedl, že: "Nepřátelé používají ukrajinské děti jako živý štít při přesunu svých konvojů, při přesunu svých vozidel.

"Ruští vojáci používali ukrajinské děti jako rukojmí, dávají je na svá nákladní auta. Dělají to, aby ochránili svá vozidla při přesunu.

Russian troops are using Ukrainian children as human shields when relocating their military convoys.
That’s according to the Directorate General of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Ukrinform reports.

"There are many cases where the invaders use Ukrainian children as a human shield. According to locals in the village of Novy Bykiv (Chernihiv Region), Russian soldiers took local children hostage and put them in their trucks. The purpose of these actions is to ensure safety for a military convoy during relocation," the statement reads.

In addition, according to intelligence, the enemy uses children as hostages – to ensure that locals will not give out the coordinates of relocations to Ukrainian defenders.

Cases of children being used as cover have been recorded in Sumy, Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Zaporizhia regions.

John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand psychologist, sexologist and author known for his research into sexual identity and biology of gender. He was controversial for his conduct towards vulnerable patients.[citation needed] He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.[1][2] He spent a considerable amount of his career in the United States.

A 1997 academic study criticized Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer.[3]

Money's writing has been translated into many languages and includes around 2,000 articles, books, chapters and reviews. He received around 65 honors, awards and degrees in his lifetime.[1] He was also a patron of many famous New Zealand artists, such as Rita Angus and Theo Schoon.[4]

...

During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially known for his views that gender was learned rather than innate. However, it was later revealed that his most famous case of David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer, was fundamentally flawed.[23] In 1966, a botched circumcision left eight-month-old Reimer without a penis. Money persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest. At the age of 22 months, Reimer underwent an orchiectomy, in which his testicles were surgically removed. He was reassigned to be raised as female and his name changed from Bruce to Brenda. Money further recommended hormone treatment, to which the parents agreed. Money then recommended a surgical procedure to create an artificial vagina, which the parents refused. Money published a number of papers reporting the reassignment as successful.

During subsequent appointments with Reimer and Reimer's twin brother Brian, Money forced the two to rehearse sexual acts, with David playing the bottom role as his brother "[pressed] his crotch against" David's buttocks. Money also forced the two children to strip for "genital inspections", occasionally taking photos. Money justified these criminal acts by claiming that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".[24]

For several years, Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development and using this case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. Notes by a former student at Money's laboratory state that, during the yearly follow-up visits, Reimer's parents routinely lied to staff about the success of the procedure.[failed verification] When Money learned about this, he continued to misrepresent the results as a success for decades. By the time this was discovered, the idea of a purely socially constructed gender identity and infant Intersex medical interventions became accepted medical and sociological standard.[25]

At 14 years old and in extreme psychological agony, Reimer was finally told the truth by his parents. He chose to begin calling himself David, and he underwent surgical procedures to revert the female bodily modifications.[26]

David Reimer's case came to international attention in 1997 when he told his story to Milton Diamond, an academic sexologist, who persuaded Reimer to allow him to report the outcome in order to dissuade physicians from treating other infants similarly.[27] Soon after, Reimer went public with his story, and John Colapinto published a widely disseminated and influential account in Rolling Stone magazine in December 1997.[28] This was later expanded into The New York Times best-selling biography As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl (2000),[29] in which Colapinto described how—contrary to Money's reports—when living as Brenda, Reimer did not identify as a girl. He was ostracized and bullied by peers (who dubbed him "cavewoman"),[30][31] and neither frilly dresses[32] nor female hormones made him feel female.

On 1 July 2002, Brian was found dead from an overdose of antidepressants. On 4 May 2004, after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and marital troubles,[33] David committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Reimer's parents have stated that Money's methodology was responsible for the deaths of both of their sons.[34]

Money argued that media response to Diamond's exposé was due to right-wing media bias and "the antifeminist movement." He said his detractors believed "masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen".[35] However, intersex activists also criticized Money, stating that the unreported failure had led to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy.[36] Privately, Money was mortified by the case, colleagues said, and as a rule did not discuss it.[37]

...
The early 2000s saw a renewed interest in Kinsey. In 2003 Theatre of NOTE produced the Steve Morgan Haskell play titled Fucking Wasps which followed Kinsey's life from childhood until death. Matt Sesow's paintings adorned the theater along with David Bickford playing piano live. Written and directed by Steve Morgan Haskell, Fucking Wasps received many accolades, including a Playwriting of the Year nomination from Backstage West. Premiering in 2003, the musical Dr. Sex focuses on the relationship between Kinsey, his wife, and their shared lover Wally Matthews (based on Clyde Martin). The play had a score by Larry Bortniker, a book by Bortniker and Sally Deering, and won seven Jeff Awards. It was produced off-Broadway in 2005. The 2004 biographical film Kinsey, written and directed by Bill Condon, stars Liam Neeson as the scientist and Laura Linney as his wife. In 2004 T. Coraghessan Boyle's novel about Kinsey, The Inner Circle, was published. The following year, PBS produced the documentary Kinsey in cooperation with the Kinsey Institute, which allowed access to many of its files. Mr. Sex, a BBC radio play by Steve Coombes concerning Kinsey and his work, won the 2005 Imison Award.[59]

In 2012, Kinsey was inducted into the Legacy Walk in Chicago, an outdoor public display which celebrates LGBT history and people.[60]

In June 2019, Kinsey was one of the inaugural fifty American "pioneers, trailblazers, and heroes" inducted on the National LGBTQ Wall of Honor within the Stonewall National Monument (SNM) in New York City's Stonewall Inn.[61][62] The SNM is the first U.S. national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history,[63] and the wall's unveiling was timed to take place during the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots.[64]

A Georgia monument that drew curious visitors and was derided by a gubernatorial candidate as satanic was destroyed Wednesday after authorities said someone detonated an explosive device at the site.

The Georgia Guidestones, a granite monument adorned with a message about the conservation of humanity, was demolished for safety reasons after the 4 a.m. explosion in Elbert County, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said in a statement.

The agency released surveillance video showing the explosion and a silver sedan leaving the scene shortly after the detonation.

No motive has been identified and the agency has only said that “unknown individuals” detonated the device.

The monument — dubbed “America’s Stonehenge” — stood at 19 feet and contained a 10-part message in 12 languages, according to the tourism site Explore Georgia.

Image: Law enforcement officials walk around the damaged Georgia Guidestones monument near Elberton, Ga., on July 6, 2022.
Law enforcement officials walk around the damaged Georgia Guidestones monument near Elberton, Ga., on July 6, 2022.Rose Scoggins / The Elberton Star via AP
Christopher Kubas, executive vice president of the Elberton Granite Association, which helped maintain the site, said that it drew more than 20,000 visitors annually, NBC affiliate WYFF of Greenville, South Carolina, reported.

The message called for keeping the earth's population under 500 million "in perpetual balance with nature," a "living new language" and to "guide reproduction wisely," among other things, according to the Elbert County Chamber of Commerce.

An account of the site's origins on the chamber's website says that it was funded by an anonymous "small group of loyal Americans who believe in God" and lived outside of Georgia.

The group wanted to leave a message for future generations, according to the account.

Speaking Wednesday, Kubas said that some found the message offensive and that the monument had previously been spray painted, WYFF reported.

A former gubernatorial candidate, Republican Kandiss Taylor, had pledged to turn the monument "to dust" were she to have been elected. Taylor placed third in the state's May 24 primary after winning 3.4 percent of the vote.

In a video Wednesday, she said she believed God had struck down the monument, which she referred to in a tweet as "Satanic Guidestones."

"Until I see a video that shows me anything but what looked like lightning or the hand of God moving on a situation, I'm going to believe it was God," she said. "If it was vandalism, then there's cameras everywhere."

“Those people should be brought to justice,” she said, adding that she didn’t support demolishing the structure via means “outside of our legal system.”

The monument was located in Elbert County, in the northeastern part of Georgia across the Savannah River from South Carolina.

For safety reasons, the structure has been "completely demolished," the GBI said.

Sometimes we must choose the least evil within an array of evils.

...

In recent years similar cloning has been achieved with certain animals, including some verte-brates. In theory a human being could be reproduced in like fashion.

...

In these delicate areas of moral judgment humanity must rely on the collective conscience of our race. No single individual or group should impose its position on others until a consensus has been developed from the best informed and most compas-sionate spokesmen from all groups.

...

Reproduction is no longer exclusively a personal matter. Society must have a voice and some power of direction in regulating this vital function. The desires of human couples are very important, but they must not neglect a consideration of society at large. The general welfare of this and future genera-tions must be given increasing consideration as we develop plans for rational guidance of our procreation. No person should be brought into the world unwanted and unneeded. No child should be conceived through carelessness. If each life is to have value, every conception must be part of an ordered plan of two parents who are aware of their responsi-bilities to that child and to society. It is vitally important that each national government have a considered "Population Policy." The need is urgent and should take precedence over other problems, even those relating to national defense. Population control is a global prob-lem. The actions of one nation have far reaching effects on others. Overcrowding human beings in conditions of squalor and ignorance is dehumanising. It is an evil which must not be tolerated. Each nation must consider the present and future availability of all resources required for its long continuing survival. With proper allowances for the interchange of commodities that are overabundant in some areas and scarce in others, rational esti-mates must be made of the optimum population which can be sustained by those resources on a perpetual time scale. Each nation must make this determination for its own people. It may give assistance to its neighbors as it chooses and as its assistance is requested. But in the final analysis each nation must determine its own population goals and must formulate plans that will achieve them. No nation, having regulated its own population, should be expected to burden its citizens with the unwanted surplus of improvident neighbors. Nations with optimum populations can provide comfort and education for their own citizens and can give assistance to others. They can be good world citizens. Nations which are overcrowded and poverty stricken are problems for the entire world community.

...

Repro-duction will become fully controllable through humane and rational means. Failure to utilize those means may ultimately be the greatest evil of all.

...

We can deal with the problem by devising a formal code of social behavior, and enforcing it with effective legal and economic supports. Children and adults must be made aware of the obligations as well as the benefits of citizenship. Irresponsible parenting must not be tolerated or encouraged.

...

Humanity has successfully applied practical genetic princi-ples in developing domesticated plants and animals. It is now within our power to begin the domestication of our own species in a parallel fashion.

...

Docility, loyalty, and other desired qualities have been selec-tively augmented by human intervention and control over the breeding patterns of "man's best friend," the dog. We could one day achieve comparable but much more important modifi-cations in our own nature if we were to begin a conscious and sustained effort to direct our own genetics.

...

Nations which fail to guide childbearing and child rearing will not only suffer the effects of overpopulation, they will also be represented in the world of tomorrow by citizens of sub-optimal capabilities.
...

But national languages may also be divisive, and can permit islands of misunderstanding to develop and grow into sources of major difficulty.

...

We suggest that scholars throughout the world begin now to establish new bases upon which later generations can develop a totally new universal language for men and machines. It will be adapted to our speech mechanisms and to the language faculties and patterns impressed in our nervous systems. Its spoken and printed forms will be capable of accurate inter-change by electromechanical means.

...

When the central cluster of the Georgia Guidestones was completed our small sponsoring group was disbanded, leaving the monument in the safekeeping of the people of Elbert Coun-ty, Georgia. If the inscriptions are dimmed by wind and sun and time we ask you to cut them deeper. If the stones should fall, or be scattered by people of little understanding, we ask you to raise them up again.

...

We should consider making the right to vote conditional. We might, for example, impose certain educational requirements. In a society which provides tax-paid educational opportunities for everyone, we should require proof of understanding of our government and its history and problems as a prerequisite for voting. It would undoubtedly improve the quality of government if voters were required to pass a simple test covering the structure of our government, our history, and our general economic system. Our citizens must now pass a comparable examination to qualify for driving on our streets and highways.

...

Mark Twain once suggested that our voting system should be modified to permit additional votes for selected citizens, based upon objective qualifications. These might include age, military service, and other indicators of civic responsibility. It would be reasonable to require evidence of economic pro-ductivity as a qualification for voting. Citizens who long remain on public relief rolls, performing no services to compensate for their financial support by the taxpayers, should not vote.

He linked his evolutionary ethics to the social agenda of eugenics: it meant approval for family allowances to encourage professional middle classes to have children of (hopefully) good eugenic quality, and the elimination of mental defect by reproductive controls.37 He explained that eugenicists should avoid a “holocaust” of the unfit by segregating mental defectives to prevent their reproduction.38 The economic and social system had to be altered to advance the reproduction of “the most successful stocks” particularly of the professional classes.39 Huxley advocated the ideas of eugenics as a sacred ideal and of “racial hope”, so that religion would advance his ideals of social evolution.

Huxley was always at pains to differentiate his views of eugenics from Nazism.
...

After the war, Huxley advocated that science should be a means of social reconstruction. He supported through UNESCO an observer at the Nuremberg Medical Trial (a role taken by his protégé the neuro-physiologist John Thompson).27 But his stance towards Nazi biologists became indulgent as can be seen in his support of Konrad Lorenz. At Unesco Huxley had uneasy relations with both British and US officialdom. From Huxley’s perspective, state officials were part of the problem of unscientifically minded vested interests, while government officials in turn suspected Huxley of leftish leanings.28 An interview at the US State Department raised the issue whether UNESCO aimed to make “the scientists as dictators of political policy”.29 But the Soviet attack on genetics meant Huxley became a scourge of Stalinist biology.30 Huxley aligned with those like the pharmacologist Henry Dale supporting a revival of German science, and engaged strenuously on behalf of the ethologist Lorenz.31

...

Not only was Huxley a pivotal figure in 1950s reproductive biology in the UK, but he also preached the application of biology to medicine. He called medicine “death control”, seeing it as the inverse of birth control, which he prioritised. Innes Pearce wrote to Huxley of her hopes to turn the Pioneer Health Centre at Peckham (the holistic “Peckham Experiment”) into a national laboratory for the pursuit of human biology. The idea was to develop the core question of “what is health” in biological and experimental terms.32

As the first Director-General of Unesco from 1946 to 1948 Huxley outlined a biologically based philosophy.33 He can be interpreted as part of a wave of visionary experts who took command of the new United Nations organisations after the Second World War (as the nutritionist John Boyd Orr in the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Ludwik Rajchman in conceiving of Unicef, and John Holmes in the UN Human Rights Division), before these organisations felt the controlling chill of cold war power politics.34 In his key manifesto, “Unesco: its Purpose and Philosophy” of 1946, he advocated a “scientific world humanism” based on evolutionary biology. He saw culture as a higher stage of evolution, supplanting natural selection in human societies. He argued for quality over quantity as regards the world’s population, and that human population size should be planned and controlled. At the same time he called for animal conservation. He even maintained that Unesco should begin to examine “the eugenic problem”, while recognising that a radical eugenic policy was at the time unrealistic in terms of public attitudes.