Category: Jews

The Corruption of American Science

On the scientific method and the corruption of the American scientific enterprise.

I’ve written before on how the late Dr. Harpending defined science in this video; focus in on around the 8:00-9:15 time marks.  Harpending – who was absolutely correct there – was of course talking about the Popperian (*) epistemology – the “scientific method” many of us leaned in school and which many scientists pay superficial lip service to.  That is, come up with a hypothesis, and then try to DISPROVE it, and whatever idea can withstand repeated attempts at falsification is – for the time being, and for the time being only – believed to the extent of “this is the best available hypothesis we have now, but we are prepared to dispose of it if the data say otherwise, at which point a new hypothesis needs to be devised and tested.”  The Kuhnian (**) epistemology, in contrast, considers the scientific enterprise as being subjective, affected by the worldviews and underlying biases of scientists themselves.  In this approach to science, paradigms exist, and scientists attempt to make the data fit into the paradigm, into their already existing preconception.  They attempt to PROVE, rather than disprove, their hypotheses.  Over time, a sort of cognitive dissonance develops, in that trying to fit square pegs into round holes, real data into faulty hypotheses, becomes untenable; then the old paradigm collapses and a new one emerges – the so-called paradigm shift.

Observing how science is actually performed supports Kuhn’s observations and criticisms; in reality, Harpending is being too generous, or naive, in his implication that most scientists are objectively skeptical.  He mentions “true believers” and also “global warming” – isn’t it true that the vast majority of scientists support the idea of anthropomorphic global warming and become hysterical over any criticism about it (***)?

In a sense, we can say that Popper was being prescriptive rather than descriptive; Kuhn the opposite.  Popper was telling us how things should be done; Kuhn how they are actually done.  Although both Popper and Kuhn were Jewish, one could view the more objective Popperian approach as more Western, and thus be tempted to blame the current emphasis on Kunhianism on the influence of Jews and Asians in science.  Truth be told though, White Gentiles are often Kuhnian of their own initiative, and there have always been scientific Kuhnians among Whites even before the Jew-Asian influx.  It is human nature to become enamored by, and defensive of, one’s own hypotheses and theories, to promote one’s ideas, and it is good for career advancement to do so as well.  

A perfect example of Kuhnian science veering into pseudoscience is HBD; have you ever seen an HBDer critically examine, and attempt to falsify, their pet theories?  Or do they hysterically defend failed hypotheses and attempt to shoehorn data where it simply doesn’t fit?  The Lynn-Rushton school is the “poster-boy” for this: the paradigm of IQ-GDP-racial/ethnic differences in intelligence,“estimating” IQ from nationally reported knowledge tests, brain size vs. penis size, r vs. k selection applied to everything from bad weather to the price of milk (a useful concept over-interpreted), etc. – when have any of these guys ever admitted even the remotest possibility of being wrong about anything?

So, I cannot honestly blame Jews and Asians for the Kuhnian approach to science that is extant everywhere, although they certainly enthusiastically practice it themselves.

Where Jews and Asians have corrupted (American) science is through three major mechanisms.  First, we have ethnic nepotism, which is actually more of an issue with Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, than with Jews (who do practice it, but whose career-mongering often conflicts with a degree of collectivist ethnocentrism less pronounced than Asians, so Jews in science sometimes engage in bitter and hateful feuds against each other).  With respect to hiring, grant reviewing, and paper reviewing, Asians in particular favor their own (and will, when necessary, equally disfavor outgroup competitors).  Whites of course reject and eschew ethnic nepotism for themselves; in fact, quite the opposite – I observe that many Whites in science favor Asians over their fellow Whites.  The net result of this is the dispossession of White Americans from the American scientific enterprise, a situation amplified by the fact that the alien influx depresses wages, lowers prestige, and creates hostile environments foreign to the native White ethny.  The ethnic nepotism, corrosive as it is to merit-based advancement, also makes fraud and mediocrity more prevalent, and thus inhibits genuine scientific and technical advancement.

The second mechanism of corruption is the Jew-Asian promotion of rampant “careerism” in science – the idea that shameless self-promotion, rent-seeking behavior, and shallow career metrics should trump genuine scientific and technical advancement.  To be fair, careerism has always been present, giant egos among tops scientists have always been present, the desire for advancement, fame, and money has always been present.  But Jews and Asians – led by the Jews but amplified by Asian ethnic nepotism and anti-Faustian Asian greedy materialism – have made an entire entrenched culture out of this.  It’s all about grant money, getting papers published in “big journals,” prestige and status – and the actual science, the actual integrity of the science, and the actual contribution to human progress, be damned.  It’s all shallow and incremental “gains” (taking intellectual risks is frowned upon; why take genuine scientific risks when the entire purpose of careerism is to ensure a safe and steady stream of money and promotion, with prestige built upon an edifice of quantity over quality, shameless self-promotion of incremental progress, and ethnic horn-blowing to trumpet mediocrity as the equivalent of fundamental discoveries?).  In careerism, grants and papers are not means to an end (funding important science and them disseminating the knowledge thus created) but ends in themselves, or, perhaps, means to selfish ends. “Grantsmanship” is a euphemism for Semitic-Asiatic flim-flam, “suggesting reviewers” for papers is a euphemism for ethnic nepotism, and no one really cares for the scientific enterprise as a vehicle for the Faustian urge to overcome, as a means to ascend, as a path to human progress.  You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and the ethnoracial types swarming into American science today come from backgrounds foreign to the entire Faustian impulse.


The third mechanism?  That’s the one that the “movement” talks most about, and which is primarily the responsibility of Jews: the politicalization of science to distort fact, confuse interpretation, and obfuscate reality, in order to promote a leftist (and usually anti-White) agenda.  The “work” of Gould and Lewontin are typical examples of this genre.  Much has been written on this particular subject, so I need not dwell on it further here.


Well, I could actually extend this and cite a fourth mechanism as well, which is related to the second mechanism discussed above.  Jewish/Asian science is inherently anti-Faustian, not surprising coming from ethnies outside of the Western High Culture.  Thus, the Jewish/Asian-influenced American scientific enterprise stresses small, incremental, and “safe” projects, and essentially scorns “high risk/high reward” projects that could, if successful, lead to real conceptual breakthroughs.  Also, American science has become overly descriptive and insufficiently “interventionist” (prescriptive).  For example, a typical successfully funded grant in, say, the field of biomedicine would feature an incremental and narrow project, drilling into (already studied) minute (and almost irrelevant) details on the mechanisms of some disease – description, as opposed to, say, a novel gene therapy approach to actively address the disease by targeting the mechanisms – intervention/prescription.  Further, and a perfect example of anti-Faustianism, there is a knee-jerk reaction of calling extremely revolutionary ideas “impossible” – this would be prevalent, for example, in the realm of physics, energy research, space travel/propulsion, cosmology, etc.  There’s always an inward, navel-gazing, small-minded, “can’t do” attitude with Jewish/Asian-influenced science.  Finally, “who/whom” is emphasized, and not only for ethnic nepotism.  A mediocre idea by a “rock star” scientist is given precedence over a cutting edge idea by a relative unknown. “Appeal to authority” wins every time.

Thus, the corruption of science.

Notes:

*Popper was a despicable Jew, whose “paradox of intolerance” writings were the archetype of disgusting self-contradictory Orwellian Semitic flim-flam, and his overall political philosophy was anti-“Aryan.” Nevertheless, his views on science were fundamentally sound, although one can always quibble about details, for example, his defense of the Jew Einstein against the European Bohr, re: quantum mechanics (by Popper’s own scientific method, Bohr’s views on the subject have been repeatedly validated, and Einstein’s views refuted).

**Kuhn being another Jew.  It’s disturbing that we had two racial/cultural aliens defining and debating the structure of Western science; is this perhaps another focal point of corruption?

***I’m not expressing an opinion here, one way or the other, about “man-made global warming,” but rather casting doubt about mainstream scientific objectivity on the subject.  However, one must say at this point that there are some facts that have been so reliably and reproducibly verified, and have so strongly resisted falsification, that we can more or less accept their veracity (while always, in theory, being willing to change with new data).  It would be silly to label as a “true believer” someone who accepts that the Earth is (more or less) spherical and not flat.  The reality of biological differences between ethnies, including genetic differences, is of a similar nature.  Being skeptical is one thing, ignoring nature is another.

Advertisements

Der Movement in Der News: 10/21/17

It’s…Der Movement.

Consider this comment from a prominent Alt Right leader:

Spencer in Friberg [sic] are in a pickle here, because anything negative they say about Jorjani immediately raises the question: “Then why did you associate with him?”

Just substitute Johnson and Brimelow for Spencer and Friberg, and substitute Hermansson for Jorjani, and the statement has the same validity.

I’m not taking sides here.  A pox on BOTH your houses.

If you wonder why the “movement” rank-and-file supports failed leadership and enables an affirmative action policy, then consider what that rank-and-file consists of. Der Movement marches on.

Outsourcing panhandling:

Greg asked me to pen this week’s fundraiser update to bring a fresh voice and perspective.

This is an interesting, useful, and truthful analysis.

But we should turn the tables here.  Revenge and domination – really, revenge, since as separatists we don’t want to dominate others – can be motivating impulses for our side as well.  I remember an incident from my analog activism days; an older activist was explaining to a group of us younger fellows why he was an activist.  I paraphrase from memory:

Save the White race?  That bunch of losers?  The White race, today, is nothing.  Nothing.  I’m interested in REVENGE – revenge against the Jews and the others who are responsible for making Whites – MY race – into the losers that they are.

At the time, I thought this fellow – who was an “extremist” even among us racial nationalists – was a nutcase; today, two decades later, I have to admit that fellow was basically right, and we more moderate Nutzis were wrong.  It seems I’m getting more extreme with age, which goes against the mainstream paradigm.

I understand that “negative” comments like revenge go against the “oh, we really love everyone” meme that “movement” leaders have been trying to peddle to the mainstream.  But, hey, maybe the “youth culture” of the Alt Right would be more amenable to harder-edged memes.  Sure, the hard edge is not for the masses, but for the rest of us?  Why not?  But a hard edge doesn’t mean stupid ‘acting out” as described in the Florida link above.  It means instead highly disciplined behavior to overturn the System.  Winning is the ultimate revenge,

Der Movement: 10/13/17

Der Movement roundup.

Fascinating how Der Movement is obsessed with Evola (I’m unimpressed with his work myself; as a scientific empiricist, I find Evola’s  writings the worst form of subjective gibbering nonsense), yet are, in general, filled with a loathing and contemptuous disdain for the people from whence Evola sprang.  It’s ironic, as I suspect that Evola’s “spiritual race” stupidity was a sort of “memetic allergic response” to those sorts of attitudes.

Buchanan is more right than he knows.  Man on white horse syndrome, style over substance, betrayal, talk of amnesty – a heir indeed!

It seems unlikely that Marantz will offer either a retraction or offer sufficiently credible supporting evidence for his assertion.  Further, as I have previously asserted, anyone who uses the term “White supremacist” to describe White nationalists is being intellectually dishonest. MacDonald is not the only one who has a potential justification for a libel suit – Enoch has as well, if he can demonstrate that his views are nationalist and not supremacist.

I also find Marantz’s reply to MacDonald fascinating. When leftists contact Far Right leaders, digging around for more information for future “hit pieces,” it’s almost as if they are writing off of the same script; they all sound exactly the same: cheerful insouciance, bright-eyed innocence, insults couched in ostensibly friendly language, and, always, “I really want to know you better, I’m so very much genuinely interested in hearing your side.”  Emphasis added:

Hi Prof. MacDonald, as you’ll see in the piece, I bought your book and have read much of it, and I don’t think I characterized it unfairly. I have also read your many replies to your critics, here (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/tooby&pinker.htm …) and elsewhere, and I understand your rejoinders (that Pinker never finished the book, that Tooby takes too narrow a view of genetic variation and adaptation, etc.)—and yet I don’t think it’s unfair to say that CofC was roundly debunked by mainstream social scientists. First, I think it’s fair to say that Pinker debunked the book even though he didn’t finish reading it. Whether it’s fair to debunk a set of arguments without engaging with them fully is another matter, but it is what he did, as did many others, not limited to Tooby. Of course, as you know, on your site you tend to emphasize the positive reviews of your book (by Derbyshire, Gottfried, etc.) but there are, of course, many negative ones as well, many of which are by mainstream social scientists (Jefferson Singer, John Hartung, etc). Again, not all of these took the form of published papers, but they were “debunkings” nonetheless. Your work is obviously influential in certain circles, and I would love to talk to you about it sometime—I am genuinely interested in it, and I think you’d find me a fair interview—but it’s just a fact that the mainstream has largely rejected your arguments. Moreover, it’s a fact I’ve seen you acknowledge (and complain about) fairly often…

In any case, MacDonald’s work on the Jews has NOT been “debunked.”  It has merely been criticized.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with that criticism (I disagree) is one thing, it’s another to falsely claim that this criticism has been so definitive (and unanswerable) so as to constitute “debunking.”  This all shows what a sorry state media writing has fallen to – it’s all political propaganda, without substantive, objectively useful, content.

More Silk Road News

More anti-Silkism.

More over-sensitive Asians.  Colored is as colored does.

Realities of Jews and China and the Chinese threat to the White race (emphasis added):

…to demonstrate the vicious, dangerous and ruthless nature of today’s China and its determination to spare no means in order to realize its dream for global dominance and to bring the White western people to its collective knees in the process…while China is actively and vigorously employing the “subversive divide and conquer strategy” among other crafty means on its adversaries, those at the receiving end of the Chinese stratagems are actually not awakened enough to the scenario and certainly not repaying China with the same means, at least far inadequately. On the contrary, China has been consistently favored and shielded and subsidized by the Jew directed Western political and economic establishment on the both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Of course, the Silkers say we need to grovel to Chinese power, let the Chinese colonize White lands, and have Chinese girls with guns enforcing the borders of the West.  Madness, sheer madness.

Here’s another wonderfully productive and patriotic “British Asian” helping the UK be more “resilient,” don’t you know.   Cue the Silkers posting pictures of anime figures proudly standing by the Union Jack.  All hail dat dere British civic nationalism!  Just stay out of the doctor’s office…

Ethnic Cartels vs. Rugged Individualism

Those ethnic cartels.

So much for libertarianism, “rugged individualism,” and the “I got mine Jack” mentality.  No, you don’t have yours, Jews and Asians have it.

And, yes, the same applies in the science field, with Chinese and South Asian Indians being far worse than Jews, engaging in the most ruthless ethnic nepotism with respect to grant awards and publications.

 
Remember the mantra of Asian cogelites: ethnic nepotism for me but not for thee.

Chutzpah On Display

Alt Wrong comments thread.

Read the Jewish comments left here.

An absolutely horrid people, hypocrisy personified, inherently hostile to, and destructive toward, White racial interests.

But, hey, they are HuWhite Men of the West, so it’s all OK!

Political EGI VII: Orban’s Speech

Analyzing excerpts from an Orban speech.

I’ve been critical of Orban, but with his continued farstreaming and Jobbik’s continued mainstreaming, Orban may now represent the “far right” of Hungarian politics.  In addition, while I am dissatisfied with the more “implicit” aspects of Orban’s rhetoric, we must understand the limitations – de jure and de facto – for open, free speech in Europe, and the constraints that an elected political leader in the EU has in speaking the truth. Nevertheless, let us take a critical look at Orban’s public utterances.

There are three areas in which it is not enough to support processes, but in which we need a shift in scale, and the move to a fast track. One area is demography, in which we haven’t even reached a break-even point. It is some improvement that for married couples – or male-female couples in general – the fertility indicator expressing the nation’s demographic situation has risen from 1.2 to 1.44 children per couple, and this is promising, but 1.44 is still very far from 2. In order to feel safe demographically, the average statistical ratio of children to Hungarian couples should be 2.1. In practice this is hard to implement, but this is the average figure we should have. Until we reach that point, Hungarians must be seen as an endangered species demographically; and the people – but the Government above all – should understand the imperative which is implicit in this…

Obviously, any appeal to increasing native birthrates has a fundamental underlying foundation of genetic interests.  Using the term “endangered species” to describe any White group borders on ethnic/racial nationalism and is wholly a biological argument.  That may be as close as Orban currently believes he can approach the problem from the genetic standpoint.

…If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.

Culture is of course important, but secondary to ultimate, genetic, biological interests.  Even better phrased: the biological and the cultural are intertwined and influence each other.

However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition. The alteration of a country’s ethnic makeup amounts to an alteration of its cultural identity. A strong country can never afford to do something like that – unless some global catastrophe forces it to do so.

Yes, very good.  But – and this is crucial – a change in a country’s ethnic makeup should constitute a problem – indeed, THE problem – itself, and not just because it affects “cultural identity.”  Here, Orban places culture as the ultimate interests, and the ethnic makeup as a proximate concern that affects the ultimate one; whereas it should be the other way around. If it was somehow possible to preserve a Hungarian cultural identity even with population replacement – would that be alright to the likes of Orban?  The reply would be that such a situation would be impossible, but that’s not the point.  It is a thought experiment to explore, identify, and define priorities. Ethnicity or culture?  

Note I have no problem in invoking culture to defend ethnic genetic interests, nor do I lack understanding of the complexities that come with European speech laws and various other de jure and de facto restrictions.  But with Orban cutting so close to the edge here, one has to note the possibility that he sincerely places culture first, and is not only speaking this way out of necessity (which would obviously be more acceptable).

Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe? 

That’s the ultimate existential question.  It is good that Orban is mentioning specific ethnic groups as the rightful inhabitants of specific nations – asking WHO will live in Europe. That is an EGI-loaded question.

This is a historical question which we must face up to today. As regards the specific situation – and this is quite telling about the world that we live in today – there’s no concrete, reliable information on the percentages of traditional indigenous Christians and the incoming Muslim communities living in Europe’s individual countries. In practice it is forbidden to gather information like this. And the data which is gathered is not adequate for us to predict what the future holds for us, as migrants, immigrants, are not evenly distributed throughout the different age groups. So the general figures say little about what awaits us. We should focus most on people under the age of 15, and also those between 15 and 45. From those figures we can project, we can calculate, what the situation will be like in each country in, say, 2050.

Looking ahead, unlike most politicians.  When you farstream, you are forced in that direction; conversely, when you mainstream, you are forced away from that direction. 

Naturally, when considering the whole issue of who will live in Europe, one could argue that this problem will be solved by successful integration. 

No, that’s exactly what we should NOT argue.  It doesn’t matter if aliens “integrate” – or, better yet, we do not want them and their alien genes to integrate.  We do not want them in our nations, carrying their alien genes, unintegrated either.  We do not want them at all.

The reality, however, is that we’re not aware of any examples of successful integration. It’s obvious that migration is not the answer to economic problems and labour shortages.

That’s true even if integration were to be successful.  “Economic problems and labor shortages” are not an excuse for genocidal race replacement.  The natives do not prosper by a “strong economy” when they are replaced by other peoples.  The Alt Right has correctly pointed out the Establishment hypocrisy: on the one hand, we must “save the environment” by having less children; on the other hand, we must import immigrants because Europeans don’t have enough children to “support the economy.”

Interestingly, people in Europe are least concerned about migrants taking their jobs. This probably reflects some form of personal experience.

If proximate concerns like that can motivate a defense of ethnic interests, fine, but of course the problem is much deeper than personal experience and personal grievance about job opportunities.

I can believe there are desperate situations, just like a castaway on the ocean finally giving in to the urge to drink seawater: it’s water, but it doesn’t quench one’s thirst, and only adds to the problem. This is more or less the situation in which those who want to cure their economic ills with immigrants will find themselves. In countering arguments for successful integration, we must also point out that if people with diverging goals find themselves in the same system or country, it won’t lead to integration, but to chaos. It’s obvious that the culture of migrants contrasts dramatically with European culture. Opposing ideologies and values cannot be simultaneously upheld, as they are mutually exclusive. To give you the most obvious example, the European people think it desirable for men and women to be equal, while for the Muslim community this idea is unacceptable, as in their culture the relationship between men and women is seen in terms of a hierarchical order. These two concepts cannot be upheld at the same time. It’s only a question of time before one or the other prevails.

Again, if these proximate concerns motivate ethnic defense, fine, but it obscures the question. If these migrants were 100% on board with current liberal European values, if they were seamlessly integrating, would race replacement – genocide – be alright then? We should be thankful they are not integrating well, that the experience for Europeans is painful enough to motivate ethnic defense. As Salter has written, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does.  How about talking about European ethnic-racial existence, rather than just culture?  I understand the practical implications for speech in Europe, but one could invoke the language of kin and family here.

Of course one could also argue that communities coming to us from different cultures can be re-educated. But we must see – and Bishop Tőkés also spoke about this – that now the Muslim communities coming to Europe see their own culture, their own faith, their own lifestyles and their own principles as stronger and more valuable than ours. So, whether we like it or not, in terms of respect for life, optimism, commitment, the subordination of individual interests and ideals, today Muslim communities are stronger than Christian communities. Why would anyone want to adopt a culture that appears to be weaker than their own strong culture? They won’t, and they never will! Therefore re-education and integration based on re-education cannot succeed.

Again, it is better that it does not succeed.  Stop talking only in terms of culture for godssakes.  There is room for rhetorical maneuver here, using careful language.  Why should Europeans be race replaced, regardless of “culture and integration?”

…there is a Soros plan. It comprises four points. He wrote it down himself, the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of the plan. The plan says that every year hundreds of thousands migrants – and, if possible, a million – should be brought into the territory of the European Union from the Muslim world. The second point is that upon arrival every one of them should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints. The author of the plan would gladly finance this – but that is secondary, although it’s something that’s worth pondering. However, it’s not this, it’s not the business profit that’s the essence of the proposal, but the fact that in this way it’s possible to maintain a continuous influx. So those who want at least a million migrants to come in every year must maintain this mechanism – which in European political terminology is called a “pull factor” – so that they continue to come. And if they distribute them and everyone receives a sum – which is, in fact, higher than the Hungarian annual average wage – there won’t be a problem with reduced flow. The third point in the Soros plan is that the migrants arriving on the continent will have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism.

Soros is of course a “HuWhite man of the West,” right?

A shrewd speaker should approach Universalist, faux-rationalist liberal Europeans and make the argument:

1. Universalism means that all peoples should have the same rights and should be cared for the same

2. You Universalists assert that genocide is wrong and you champion indigenous rights

3. Therefore, you must oppose European genocide – even auto-genocide – and champion the rights of indigenous Europeans

Of course, the Left, and much of the lemming-like masses, would reject such an overt argument, but that would force them to admit an irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, anti-European worldview.