Please be aware that the LSA website hosted at York University is in final redesign, with content migration to the PSR platform (i.e. the platform you are visiting right now). We are testing (inhouse / local only) the new site functionality, links hierarchy, residual external links that were embedded in the York University site, general access to migrated LSA data, etc. Ideally, no one will have to fix their existing links or browser bookmarks during the transition and within the immediately following months. An update is coming as soon as core testing is done.

The LSA International Conference 'Women, Gender and Intersectionality in the Lusophone World'
concluded on 02 July 2022 in Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal

• the conference site resides now in a long-run vault, links intact, on the PSR system, as data relevant to professional profiles and development (i.e. scholarly meetings, record of academic participation)  • at present, the vault contents cover 2021-Spring 2022 (two conferences, one on-line -- 2021-2022, one in the Azores, Portugal [Summer 2022]) • further conferences will also be archived, all-links (maintained as long as third-party-site & page links can technically be kept alive) • 

After the Conference ... Publication of Articles (an Invitation that the PSR and Baywolf Press Currently Extend to Participants of both the Previous LSA 2021-2022 Online Conference and the Hybrid-format Azores 2022 Conference) (access through the blue embedded target/arrow link within this headline).

The PSR / Baywolf Press are running two topical Calls for Papers (our Standing General Call for Papers, 2022-2023-2024 continues, of course). The two topical calls have been posted at various venues. For a Portuguese version, in the usual rich context of announcements by other journals, institutions, and programs, consult the excellent and indispensable Plataforma 9.


(A) Mutual Regards I: The World through Lusophone Eyes and Portuguese-speakers through the Eyes of Others -- The Era of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars (some chronologically prior pilot studies -- which logically would not fit the announced timeframe at all, because they pre-date the later eighteenth century -- are being featured in the Summer 2022 issue of the PSR (30 [1]), as a project 'pilot'). We are considering a variety of interesting possibilities and propositions, and we have therefore agreed to a substantial extension of the original deadlines, especially given the spontaneous and agreed-upon morphing of PSR 30 (1) (2022) into an "Editors' Cut" round anniversary issue. We aim to accommodate all our peer reviewed authors, and managing our annual space wisely, across scheduled issues, Edited Volumes, and Monographs, is going to further that goal.


(B) Mutual Regards II: The World through Lusophone Eyes and Portuguese-speakers through the Eyes of Others -- The First World War Era (including the October Revolution and its Immediate Post-1918 Ideological Sequels). We are considering a variety of interesting possibilities and propositions, and we have therefore agreed to a substantial extension of the original deadlines, especially given the spontaneous and agreed-upon morphing of PSR 30 (1) (2022) into an "Editors' Cut" round anniversary issue. We aim to accommodate all our peer reviewed authors, and managing our annual space wisely, in scheduled issues, Edited Volumes, and Monographs, is going to further that goal.

The PSR and Baywolf Press are fully operational (on-line) (under 'COVID rules')* (explanation here ), for:

• handling of manuscripts (articles, books, research data), with peer review • full-service development of periodicals and books • we operate in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and French, and also offer a venue for Lusophone-related material in other languages (German, Italian, the Scandinavian and Slavic zone, Finno-Ugric zone, and more) • la revue PSR et Éditions Baywolf offrent une palette de services en langue française: examen par des pairs, appui rédactionnel pour monographies, anthologies d'essais, recueils d'études savantes • in all research and publishing matters authors and contributors are invited to contact us on-line.

We support The 4 D's Framework -- Doubt, Dissent, Debate against Dogma -- if Humanity is to have any kind of viable long-term future of any sort, it is imperative to (a) defend the right to dissent and (b) also defend the right to challenge critically and to disprove meticulously and with utter precision all scientific and scholarly and political data or concepts that readily crumble upon any exposure to sober and independent tests. 'Semantic' 指鹿為馬 -- zhi lu wei ma is useless and self-defeating. It is ephemeral baka (バカ, ばか), baka-mono (馬鹿者) , 馬鹿 (whether one consults the Unbo Irohashū [運歩色葉集] or the 源氏物語 [Genji monogatari] [c. 1100s] or goes back to 207 BCE and earlier still -- 馬鹿者 simply is just 馬鹿者: always the same totalitarian 'word-salad disguise for ulterior [political / ideological] purposes [and a purported exertion of raw power rooted in an enforced acceptance of overt nonsense]').Freedom of speech is a crystal-clear existential and intellectual requirement, whether one agrees with any given research or argument, or disagrees. This is an issue of what is pragmatic. If one needs to 'enforce' one's vocabulary and ideology through utterly obtuse punishment and censorship and repression, because one is so paroxysmally afraid of any dissenting data or analysis, then one has already lost -- not only the battle but the entire campaign and much, much more. Repression is the all-time classic hallmark of a paroxysmal 'loser'. How many times, exactly, have you heard in private communications, lately, that opponents of your side's, union's, group's, etc., policy and 'platform' are "cancer," "incredibly dangerous," "unsafe," and to be "eradicated'? They are "Patient Zero"? "Take them out"? "Destroy them"? With every single so-called (ha-ha) 'social platform' -- Twitter, Tik-Tok, "YuckYuck", "Muck-Muck", DuckDuck, DockDock, MockMock (the last few are sheer satire), whatever, applauding wildly, with 100,000+ 'likes'? In full official 'compliance' with decreed DuckDuck-DockDock so-called utterly farcical 'Community Standards'? All right. A real 'winner' is in fact utterly calm, focused, practical, balanced, if necessary 'ice cold', meticulous, professional way beyond any 'professional' so-called 'requirements' (please, gauge that against the Idiocracy verbal frenzy just described). A 'winner' is truly and genuinely and earnestly interested at all times in whatever opponents have to say and why, because (a) it is vital to comprehend an opponent, any opponent, in all minute intricacy, in minute-to-minute real-time, and (b) the decodable 'signal' offers an opportunity to hone and refine data and arguments constantly. If one (i) listens to a single sound-stream only and exclusively, (ii) deliberately ignores what 'deemed' opponents say or are actually doing (in real-time/space, informationally, technologically, R&D, etc.), and (iii) thinks that 'deplatforming'--'censoring'--'ignoring'--'shouting down'--'banning' opponents is going to win anything 'real' at all (not to speak of tangible-space battles or campaigns), then, simply, we do not even want to comment. We actually do not need to comment. Just, NO. Futile. There is no use or purpose in such commenting. The utter pragmatic and materialist defeat of anyone who hovers in such a dreamworld is 100% assured. One can 'narrate' whatever one wants. Literally, whatever. It does not make any material difference, with respect to any material outcome, of any consequence. For a real 'winner', an ideological matrix is not 'sacrosanct' by any stretch of the imagination : historically, sociologically, it has only been thus for fervid ideo-cults, with all the abundantly documented socio-verbal-symbolical-cultural attributes of pre-programmed self-destructive pan-social mind-absolutisms [Synanon, Rev. Jim Jones, and any other plethorous number of those, religious or non-'religious', all the way back to the minus 000s [that is, BCE]). Those who cannot, will not rationally delink (e.g. ditch Synanon, etc.), because of ossified 'commitment' to vociferous template - and slogan-driven ideologies, have already lost all capacity to re-balance (Aikido) -- ironically, they have denied that option to themselves, by fiat or fervidity. Now, Aikido is literally based on exploiting such template-driven fiat and fervidity. No even remotely half-sane strategist would therefore adopt the societally required fiat and fervidity. Those namely are a 100% assured way of condemning one's side to self-inflicted stagnation, pathetic 'correct terminology' obfuscation, and ultimate devastating defeat. Why? Because the only permitted options -- punitively so -- are 'closing the ranks', 'standing' so that one could easily be thrown off balance, 'one-two, one-two' blinkered static defense, utterly predictable 'prefab' responses, and an oblivious deployment of 'law' and enforcement. Pure 指鹿為馬 -- censorship, surveillance, tracking, tracing, repression, the Police State, laughable 'discourse management', 'reality-hashing', one-Party 'Forever' rule, 'regulated speech' and 'regulated' State-subservient research, plus nauseatingly rigged court-martials for dissenters, 'ideological re-education', and rigid raison d’État Boards or Commissions pretending to 'decide' which part of any research or body of Human knowledge might be 'deemed' 'political' and might thus be designated on ideological grounds (rarely if at all factual) as 'harmful and misleading "political" communication'. The champions of zhi lu wei ma 'commitment' will always answer any questions with the same words as they did many times before: "I am just following orders" or “That’s a question above my paygrade ...” "I do not have any communications to read to you today". Is that the "banality of evil"? Yes, it is, without any conceivable shadow of doubt. We of course do not criticize such lofty and 'safety-promoting' 'values'. History will decide. It is doing so already. Punitive attempts to impose one's world-view signal one thing only -- that world-view can no longer be defended either logically or pragmatically. In fact, is not worth defending, regardless of what 'subsidy'- and 'handout'-hungry Court Mummers might claim. At such a juncture, paroxysmal persistence (doubling-down, tripling-down, whatever-ing-down) may of course become the most effective (very brief) means by which utter failure can be concealed. Alert and nimble manoeuvre would be called for, but the proponents are no longer in any way capable of such 'freedom of manoeuvre' -- they can only scream, ban, shriek, arrest, issue edicts, govern by 'emergency power', dismiss those who do not agree 100%, indict, 'impeach', accuse falsely, censor, silence, rig votes, rig evidence, imprison, coerce, and 'punish'. 'Point-and-shriek'. One really cannot have any pragmatically praticable 'common set of "facts" ' "imposed" through fines, arrests, raids, truncheons, deprivation of work and property, social 'shaming', snooping, neighbour-to-neighbour denunciations, and anonymous watch-'agents' (familiars, 'snitch-swines', 'fact-checkers', semantic 'experts of orthodoxy', 'inoculators against wrong-thinking', 24/7/365 behavioural monitors). It will NEVER, EVER be 'common' or 'shared'. Sinibaldo Fieschi (Pope Innocent IV) made that awful mistake in 1243-1254 (LONG time ago). The Church (among innumerable others, the USSR included) tried all of this -- the whole and entirely obscene panoply -- earlier on : the bureaucratic machinery was called The Inquisition (the KGB, the NKVD, the StaSi, the Persian Immortals, the VB, the whatever-two-or-three-or-four-letter mindless acronym and utterly worthless and rotten and co-opted and corrupt bureaucratic Alphabet 'field-soup' one may come up with). There seems to be a lack of historical knowledge, somewhere, in all this, and a devastatingly destructive absence of any historical awareness. Typically, the insignificant 'Emperors' of the Late Roman Empire behaved exactly thus. And their functionaries. And the Senators of whatever was left of so-called 'Rome'. One does not have to be any 'fan' of Rome or such to perceive the nature of the systemic farce: Romulus Augustulus. What began with a whoop of courage ended with only a paroxysmal whine of pathetic comedy and utter defeat.

Walk away me' boys
Walk away me' boys
And by morning we'll be free ...
        ("What's Left Of The Flag" -- Flogging Molly)

Diffrent readers might prefer different similes -- and different songs and tunes -- but in the end it always is the same. The playlet has played on smaller or bigger stages before, no matter how positions and stances might seem to array when context is absent or ignored, as in the famous counterpoint headlock between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Yes, it did come to a head dramatically, as we all know -- July 1965, 'Bedford College', University of London, International Colloquium on the Philosophy of Science. Whoops of courage ended with whines of comedy. Neither presenter finished his paper on time. Popper refused to share equal poster-space with Kuhn. The latter then even refused to physically appear on stage with the Popperian Jagdish Hattiangadi, and it was John Watkins who had to pick up Hattiangadi's notes and read them instead. No one had to be 'cancel cultured' off stage -- everyone was busy cancelling themselves! A sort of "Comrades purging Comrades from the Party." And Kuhn, typically cited as champion of 'heretics' and an iconic decipherer of 'Scientific Revolutions' fully deserved, on many counts (not most, merely many), the drubbing he received from Paul Feyerabend (despite Kuhn's subtle 'subtext' that 'normal science' both shields scientists from interference and may be stagnationist and counterproductive -- of course, these are not mutually exclusive) :

"The recipe [for a successful science], according to [Kuhn and his followers], is to restrict criticism, to reduce the number of comprehensive theories to one, and to create a normal science that has only this one theory as its paradigm. Students must be prevented from speculating along different lines and the more restless colleagues must be made to conform and ‘to do serious work’… Is it his intention to provide a historico-scientific justification for the ever growing need to identify with some group?" (Paul Feyerabend) (Note: this would make a frightening mass of current scholars and scientists 100% vested-interest Kuhnians, with any sort of deemed Popperianism being considered an indictable 'crime' -- 'misinformation', 'disinformation', 'fake-news', etc. This brings us to "... behaviours we can turn on or off as needed." No, Prof. M*****, you cannot and you NEVER will be able to accomplish that. Sorry to say so, the humanoid biological clock is against any even remote chance of you actually witnessing an Apotheosis of the ''turn-on' / 'turn-off' Centralist Control Project. And, no, individuals with cutting-edge but 'inconvenient' research cannot just be declared "... no longer relevant in today's workplace ..." That tells one more about the so-called 'workplace' and about those who purport to 'run' it than about the intrinsic and even extreme long-term value of those declared to be 'no longer relevant'.)

"The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed. How can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer" (Hannah Arendt)

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles” (Richard Feynman) and ... we would add, no government or court of law (or even worse, a mere Censorship board or some sort of Chief Internet Censor -- almost inevitably a political 'appointee' compromised by corruption and partisanship and massive conflicts of interest) has any genuine topic-specific competence to decide whether a given piece of research or scholarship is 'valid' or 'invalid' -- only actual practicing scientists and scholars are the ones who possess demonstrable relevant qualifications.

Therefore, we support • principled freedom of thought and freedom of speech and other expression • freedom of data acquisition, processing, research, and Planet-wide uncensored communication • freedom of religion (for ALL faiths) • the right to inherent self-determination of the private person • freedom of fully independent perception (i.e. core freedom of 'world-view' -- the right to reject top-down ideological 'content modification', 'perceptual hashing', and State censorship) • freedom from all political or ideological or existential compulsion to 'retract' impeccably-grounded research conclusions merely to obey mandatory dogma • freedom of the press • uncensored public and general access to as well as open, candid, and entirely unlimited scrutiny of all official and 'public service' data • honest and tamper-proof permanent preservation of all original Human 'data of record' on 'core' Planet Earth as well as on any future Solar System stations • free traffic in all raw scientific data of record, making it difficult to alter ('adjust') data through 'hashing' and / or through official (State, Party) 'mandates' • yes, just like exponentially increasing numbers of other 'free' analysts, we fully comprehend and are engaged in documenting in 'real-time' the processes by which varied authoritarian and would-be authoritarian regimes frame / (re)frame 'reality' according to their dominant political discourse, which they do because their continued political / electoral survival and successful political 'rent-seeking' depend on such reality-adjustment • the currently near-Universal spectacle of governments staking their entire economic bases and the lives of billions on scholarly 'identity politics' (in the sense of Feyerabend's "ever growing need to identify with some group") and on scholarship elevated to ideology (walking in the disastrous steps of Lysenkoism) is extremely perilous and may bring about a rapid extermination of Humanity • if interested, read our statement on core intellectual freedoms.

BELFORT: Para ser presidente de estado ... só é necessário uma qualidade: a de saber preparar o buffet.

TODOS: Hein? Como?

BELFORT: Porque sendo a campanha das candidaturas uma noite de contradanças, os vencedores só têm uma preocupação política administrativa: avançar na ceia ...

(João do Rio, Teatro de João do Rio, 436) Immortally realist lines!