Category: pseudoscience

SLC News, 4/17/18

More rightist news and commentary.

A decent video.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

Read this nonsense.

Left to its own devices, science tends ever downward.

Hmmm. What tends ever upward?  I know…gnostic esoteric traditionalism and theosophical scifi/fantasy!

The pyramids of Atlantis were built with psychokinesis!  The Titans are Marching! Ostara!  Ostara!  Kali Yuga!  Guenon!  The men who can’t tell time!  The Age of Tungsten!  HBD!  French Army Surgeon!  The Spectral!  The Spectral! 

The anti-scientific bent of the Right was, is, and remains, an embarrassment.

Yes, science is a tool and is not “on anyone’s side.”  That said, the totality of the current evidence derived from science does in fact strongly support the general viewpoint of White racialism (which is not the same as the specific viewpoints of Der Movement, Inc.).

Why then isn’t science being effectively utilized to support the Far Right position?

1. The Right traditionally (no pun intended) has been hostile to science, derived from reactionary/religious/traditionalist tendencies tied to Rightist thought, tendencies that frown upon the ability of science to trash long-established myths and traditions; the Right hates the transgressive ability of science to cut through established, fossilized memes and get to the facts of the matter. The Right is a socially hostile environment for scientists and the science-minded in general; the Right has been, and continues to be, hostile to empiricism and scientific materialism.  The Far Right has always been more interested in theosophical nonsense, esoteric fantasies, and pseudoscience (e.g., of the HBD or ethnic fetishist varieties) than in genuine hard science.

2. When scientists do (rarely) speak the truth, they get subject to social pricing from the System; there is a reason why “Watsoned” is a verb (originally coined by me and not Sailer).

So, the Left has a monopoly on the scientific enterprise, which they twist for political purposes, while the Right is left gibbering in a corner about Atlantis, Kali Yuga, and Ancient Egypt as a “Nordic Desert Empire.”

Who on the Far Right has a “hard science” background?  Yes, there are academics, but I’m talking about the core STEM fields, at the level of, say, MD or PhD or MD/PhD. Today, insofar as I know, only the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis.  In the past, Pierce.  I did know of one STEM college professor in the 90s who was a NA member, and there are possibly some today, but no one I know of who is active, even under a pseudonym.  This absence of STEM in the Far Right is more of an indictment of the Right than it is of STEM.  A “movement” that takes seriously the likes of Jorjani and Kemp, and rants about “the pyramids of Atlantis,” cannot reasonably expect to be an attractive destination for the science-minded. And regards science, I’m talking the authentic variety, not HBD pseudoscience (most of which is peddled by “social science” types anyway).

Speaking of HBD pseudoscience.

The fruits of HBD.

But if Indians aren’t the right choice for merit-based immigration, then who—Chinese? A Chinese friend of mine who recently visited Taiwan told me that Taiwanese are increasingly siding with Mainland China because they want to be on the side of a country growing in wealth and power. This person said trying to talk to them about human rights, freedom, and democracy was like trying to upload a new brain to a robot.
This friend agreed that the combination of an ancient culture and new wealth tends to give both Indians and Chinese an arrogant feeling of superiority—that they have nothing to learn from Americans about individual freedom and democracy. They are here to make money. They don’t want to assimilate and become real Americans.

Never forget: when all is said and done, and one looks at the core consequences of ideas, then HBD is simply a political movement to advantage Asians (including Jews) over Whites.  It is Asian Supremacism.

Donate to the Happy Penguins because of…VennerIs this a new low in tin cup panhandling?

Laugh at this (by the way, more Sailer real estate posting).

What kind of name is “Zasloff?”  

What kind of idiot thinks that Whites – Whites with children at any rate – will “integrate” “vibrant” areas for $10,000?  How about some of these Jewboys show the way?

Advertisements

In Der News, 4/15/18

Some news.

MACA: Make America Cucked Again.

Are the homoerotic fanboys off the Trump Train yet?

I’m sure cuck nagger Roissy will regale us with all sorts of evidence of how Trump is striking against the “Globohomo” regime, by doing such world historical activities such as spewing forth insulting tweets or “negging” an old French cradle-robbing hag. Are all you guys “tired of winning yet?”  More concern about the borders of Syria than the borders of America – did we elect John McAmnesty?

The Yeastbucket Tax

In a fundamental sense, these programs are equivalent to the cuckolding of all tax-paying men. Cuckolding is when a woman has a child by one man but convinces a second that it is his in order to deceptively gain access to his accumulated resources. Men with self-respect and dignity do not pay for the children of other men. Welfare programs are similar except deception is not required because the state acts as the coercive middle man who makes the cuckolding mandatory. It is also less obvious than the personal case because the costs are dispersed among all productive men and they generally never interact with the single mothers directly to see their money being wasted. This wealth, which would be better spent by productive men providing for their own biological children, is forcibly taken from them to pay for women who have made extremely poor personal decisions in their lives and produced children statistically much more likely to be involved in criminal and disorderly behavior. The increased criminality of children of single mothers is a large externality which costs a society a great deal in terms of increasing police and prison spending on top of the direct wealth transfer programs.
The recent introduction of the “affordable” health care act also acts as a wealth transfer from working-age men to women. Men go to the doctor and need medical care much less frequently than women. Before the new health care law, insurers were able to adjust prices based on gender to reflect actual costs. No more. Now men and women cannot be charged differently based on actual medical care use and single men are even required to pay for personal coverage which can only benefit women, such as maternity coverage. The result is that healthcare costs for young men have increased substantially more than for women of all ages. The average increase was 56% for men compared to 4% for women though in specific areas the average increase for young men has been as high as 200%.[vii]  Car insurance shows the opposite pattern where men are made to pay more due to their greater likelihood of getting into catastrophic crashes (women are more likely to have an accident, but those are usually minor). Unsurprisingly, there has been no attempt to enforce “equality” in this situation.

Listen to this. What was the ethnicity of Justice Frankfurter?  HuWhyte.

Brown vs. Board of Education: A Jewish-Negro alliance against White interests.  Curiously, greasy low–IQ Afrowops and hora-dancing Romanians were not players in that fiasco.

How Darwin differed from HBD.  The relevant parts are highlighted:

There is a contradiction between Darwin’s methodology and how he described it for public consumption. Darwin claimed that he proceeded “on true Baconian [inductive] principles and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale.” He also wrote, “How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!” The scientific method includes 2 episodes. The first consists of formulating hypotheses; the second consists of experimentally testing them. What differentiates science from other knowledge is the second episode: subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing by observing whether or not predictions derived from a hypothesis are the case in relevant observations and experiments. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is consistent with some but not other possible states of affairs not yet observed, so that it is subject to the possibility of falsification by reference to experience. Darwin occupies an exalted place in the history of Western thought, deservedly receiving credit for the theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, he laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. More important yet is that he discovered natural selection, the process that accounts for the adaptations of organisms and their complexity and diversification. Natural selection and other causal processes of evolution are investigated by formulating and testing hypotheses. Darwin advanced hypotheses in multiple fields, including geology, plant morphology and physiology, psychology, and evolution, and subjected them to severe empirical tests.

SLC News: Science Edition

Better: pseudoscience.

Why people with no background in science shouldn’t blithely assume they are qualified to embarrass themselves by rambling on subjects they so obviously do not understand.

And why Der Movement needs genuine scientists to do quality control on sweaty “movement” ramblings.

Hint: scientific “materialists” understand more about organism development that what is implied in this retarded essay.

Another hint: the fact that all facts are not yet known doesn’t mean you are free to invent whatever fantastic fantasies you wish.

Having said that, the essence of real science is open-mindedness, testing hypotheses – hypotheses that have real explanatory power.  I do not dismiss “morphogenetic field theory” out of hand.  Who knows?  It may be true.  But we need evidence, not “movement” solipsism.  And the need for such a theory has to be based on real gaps in existing theory, not imagined gaps that do not exist, or small gaps that are rapidly closing.

A last hint: interesting similarities between separated identical twins could well be genetics, random chance, and confirmation bias.  There are no doubt separated identical twins who lead completely different lives with no overlap – but we do not hear about those, as they are not interesting.

I’m not surprising that Der Movement finds someone like Sheldrake seriously.  If I recall correctly, this hasn’t been the first time his “work” has been brought up by some uninformed Type I idiot.

Let’s reverse the course, and have someone like me write long rambling essays about “traditionalism” and “theosophic philosophy” without knowing a damn thing of what I’m talking about.  I’m sure all the Trad-Nutizis wouldn’t like that at all.

Roissy weeps.

From VDARE:

Greg Cochran is doing a fundraiser at West Hunter to pay him to review “Who We Are” in depth.

That’s the sound of a tin cup being rattled around.

Disgusting. How about just reviewing the book for, like you know, nothing?  For free?

Better yet: Ignore it.  How many times do the same leftist lies on race have to be refuted again and again?  But if you are so motivated, go to it.  For free.

The Debate Challenge

I support the challenge.

Why don’t any of the great leaders of the Alt Right, Alt Wrong, etc. take up The Movement Critic on his debate challenge?  That would at least be an insightful contrast of viewpoints, as opposed to Beavis-and-Butthead sniggering or pompous “metapolitical” rambling.

As more evidence (as if you needed it) for the intellectual and moral vacuity of Der Movement, Inc. read this.  

Jorjani likes to speak elliptically, making wide and often demonstrably false academic claims. Some are absurd, like his belief that the pyramids in the lost city of Atlantis were built through collective psychokinesis…

If I had to pick one fundamental defining element of Der Movement, it would be bad judgment, which encompasses and explains all of the varied manifestations of “movement” problems.  If it wasn’t enough of a red flag that a person is a half-Iranian “Indo-Aryan” fetishist who identifies with his Iranian half, then promoting bizarre esoteric fantasies and genuine (as opposed to leftist designated) pseudoscience should have been the clincher.  Then again, remember that Der Movement accepts, with nary a moment of uncertainty, the “work” of Richard “make the data fit the hypothesis” Lynn, Phil “French Army Surgeon” Rushton and the Joe Pesci look-a-like Artie “Ancient Egypt was a Nordic Desert Empire” Kemp, so the support for Jorjani’s rambling is not surprising at all.

He needed to find a publisher for his book “Prometheus and Atlas,” so he Googled the term “archeofuturist,” which he thought was an original phrase that described his work. He found that an Arktos-published writer had beat him to the term, but he also realized that Arktos might be interested in publishing his book — and that’s what happened. The book was well-received in extremist circles. A review on the website of the white nationalist publishing house Counter Currents compares it to “Moby Dick,” and anoints Jorjani as the movement’s “‘pagan harpooner’ folded in the flag of Ahab.”

Jorjani’s work compared to Moby Dick?  Well, you can tear out pages from Prometheus and Atlas to use as bookmarks when you read Moby Dick, but the connection doesn’t extend past that, I fear.  Jorjani as a “pagan harpooner?” – yes, I guess it would be this one, no?

Der Movement needs people with hard science backgrounds (biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics) to do quality control on the flotsam and jetsam that spews forth from retarded “movement” discourse. And, no, there is no “scientific conspiracy” to “hide the truth” about “the spectral.”  There is instead a justifiable contempt toward the type of solipsism that exists in “movement” circles – “The Lathe of Heaven Syndrome” – in which people think things are true simply because they believe that they are true.

Real problems with science are discussed here.

Sweaty fantasies about “Atlantis” make the situation worse, not better.  We need to take the high ground, not fester in the fever swamps of “movement” lunacy.

Cheddar Man: More Anti-White Race Denying System Stupidity

Der Movement isn’t much better.

Read this.  As Madison Grant would say, that ancient Briton was “suspiciously swarthy.”

The first ancient Britons had black skin, dark curly hair and blue eyes, according to DNA tests.

The ‘extraordinary’ findings were made by cutting-edge genetic tests and facial reconstruction techniques carried out for the first time on the bones of ‘Cheddar Man’ who died 10,000 years ago.

The bones, found in Somerset’s Cheddar Gorge, are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain and scientists said they were surprised to discover that the earliest Briton would be considered ‘black’ if he lived today.

The research suggests the first inhabitants of the British isles developed white skin later on than previously thought.

Experts also revealed that Cheddar Man is directly related to 1 in 10 people living in the UK today.

The first ancient Britons had black skin, dark curly hair and blue eyes, DNA tests show. The findings were made by genetic tests carried out for the first time on the bones of ‘Cheddar Man’ who died 10,000 years ago. The bones are the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain

Let’s deal with the race denial in the article and the implied idea that “this ancient Briton looked ‘Black’ therefore why object to dark migrants into Britain.”

Assuming these data are correct, and further assuming that this sample is representative of the whole, and that there is an ancestral connection between the sample and modern Britons, what does it mean?  It means that the “high trust hunter gatherers” that Der Movement undergoes onanistic heavy breathing about had certain phenotypic traits not representative of modern Britons.  However, the ancestral connection means what?  Undoubtedly – and can we see THAT data please? – any analysis of genetic distance (or, better, genetic kinship) will demonstrate that this ancient Briton is genetically most similar to modern Europeans – particularly those European ethnies most strongly derived from hunter-gatherers (spontaneous “movement” orgasm at this point) – and not at all genetically similar to, say, sub-Saharan Africans.  


The ancient Briton was simply an old European with a few phenotypic traits different from what is found today. The overall ancestry, broadly defined, is similar to modern Europeans, but a few selected traits have changed, for whatever reasons (sexual selection? selective pressure from the environment as suggested in the article?) – So what?  As to where the altered alleles came from?  Mutation?  From the outside – those dastardly Neolithic farmers perhaps?  [Joke on Der Movement: were the Neolithic farmers more “White” in physical appearance than the hunter gatherers? Apparently so.].  It in no way invalidates race; simply, racial traits can change over time, and this also of course has no bearing at all on any justification for modern Britons accepting their genetic replacement by alien peoples. You know, humans are descended from Home erectus as well  – who looked quite different from non-Negro humans, and this means what?  Should Chinamen then accept race replacement by other races?  Did Ancient Chinese look exactly the same as their modern counterparts?  Why this constant search for ever more bizarre and relevant rationales for race replacement of indigenous Europeans – and for Europeans only?


Yes, I know, the time frames comparing Homo erectus and Mesolithic Britons are radically different but the principle is the same.  People today are what they are, they have ethnic interests today, genetic interests look forward not backward in time, and modern Britons have the right to self-preservation regardless of what their ancestors looked like.  

And again what about genetic similarity and kinship?  The idea propagated by the pseudoscientific frauds interviewed for this article is that the original Britons were generically completely unlike those of today – hogwash. There were obviously differences in alleles affecting certain aspects of phenotype.  And of course, there are going to be genetic changes in any population over 10,000 years.  But once again I ask this question: to which modern populations is Cheddar Man most closely related, genetically?  Is he, for example, closest to Nigerians?  Can we learn more about his overall autosomal genome rather than hearing System talking points for British race replacement?

Of course, on the other hand, all of this should bring some reflection on Der Movement and their Ultima Thule Ostara racial fantasies, and it should also bring reflection that we cannot depend on Der Movement narratives to understand what ancient indigenous European phenotypic traits were, where white skin came from, etc.

Born Neandertal

Biological realities.

Read here.  Neandertals were born, not ”made.”  

Neandertal and modern human adults differ in skeletal features of the cranium and postcranium, and it is clear that many of the cranial differences—although not all of them—are already present at the time of birth. We know less, however, about the developmental origins of the postcranial differences. Here, we address this deficiency with morphometric analyses of the postcrania of the two most complete Neandertal neonates—Mezmaiskaya 1 (from Russia) and Le Moustier 2 (from France)—and a recent human sample. We find that neonatal Neandertals already appear to possess the wide body, long pubis, and robust long bones of adult Neandertals. Taken together, current evidence indicates that skeletal differences between Neandertals and modern humans are largely established by the time of birth.

 

That’s interesting.  More relevant to issues of interest to this blog is the following from the same paper:

Adult European Americans and African Americans differ, on average, in the shapes of their long bones, with European Americans having thicker shafts and larger articulations relative to shaft length.

But, but, but…aren’t racial differences all “skin deep” – just about color – and that other than such trivialities, we are all “exactly the same?”  You mean, there are actual anatomical differences between the races (never mind the genetic gulf)?

Race denial is a farce.  Real racial science is caught between the laughable lies of the Left and the HBD pseudoscience and crazed ethnic fetishism of the Right.  Fighting the former doesn’t mean we have to accept the latter.  Both are wrong (but, admittedly, the former is more dangerous).

And speaking of the Left, and getting back to the main article, did anyone truly believe that extreme Neandertal robustness was somehow the result of lifestyle?  Is anti-genetic leftism so entrenched in science that it goes to that extreme of ludicrousness?   Were the Neandertals constructing makeshift barbells out of boulders and tree trunks and engaging in Ice Age powerlifting routines?  Granted, yes, I understand (unlike Der Movement) that things need to be demonstrated empirically, and not just assumed.  But still, one cannot pretend that a demonstration that Neandertal robustness was an inborn trait is any sort of grand discovery.  Only leftists would be surprised by this finding.

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.