Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Science Shows Sex Is Binary, Not a Spectrum

 GENDER REASSIGNMENT HAS LIMITS (SOURCE: independent.co.uk)


In October 2018 a leading US Newspaper well known for its leftist bias, The New York Times ran an article by Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology (who should thereforer know better) at Brown University, arguing that biological sex is not binary. The piece joined a long succession of outraged media criticizism of the recent Department of Health and Human Services’ recently leaked memo, which proposed legally defining sex as either male or female, and also triggered the usual social media shitstorm from liberals and snowflakes claiming that our sex is defined by 'feelings'; and not by biology.

From a scientific perspective, the HHS’s definition is absolutely correct. Biological sex refers to whether we are female or male, based on our anatomy and reproductive functions. The concept of sex is, by definition, binary.

Fausto-Sterling’s piece points to the existence of intersex people as evidence that this isn’t the case. Certainly, research has shown that as many as 1 percent of the population may have some intersex characteristics, intersex being a medical condition denoting that an individual possesses anatomy characteristic of both sexes, such as a combination of vulvar and testicular tissue. Statistically speaking, even if this is correct, (the proven number with interesex characteristics is far lower so that one per cent figure is based on estimates of the number of undiagnosed cases,) it means that the vast majority of us fall into one category of sex or the other.

We are therefore faced with a question of whether a statistically rare occurrence should be considered typical. An common analogy used to illustrate this is the fact that most of us have 10 fingers. There exist individuals who possess fewer or more than 10 digits on their hands, but this hasn’t called for a re-conceptualization of how many fingers a human being has.

Fausto-Sterling makes a big thing of how, earlier this month, one of the far left's favourite hate figures, Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, banned gender studies programs. Orban is regularly referred to as “far-right” by the academic community and mainstream print and broadcast media for stating that the government “[does] not consider it acceptable ... to talk about socially constructed genders rather than biological sexes.” Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen additionally pointed out that gender studies “has no business in universities” due to being “an ideology, not a science.”

Most people will agree that is a down to earth, common - sense approach, and nothing at all to do with the far right ideologies of tyrants.

Indeed, gender—whether we subjectively feel male or female—is biological, not a social construct and to argue it is flies in the face of well established scientific knowledge. Ironically the supporters of gender studies tend to be the same people who scream "DENIER" when anybody questions the very dodgy science that supports the Climate Change hysteroa. An extremely large and consistent body of scientific research has shown that gender is the result of prenatal hormone exposure, even in the case of intersex individuals, as opposed to adults and society imposing gendered norms on unsuspecting children from the moment they leave the womb.

After describing “the process of gender socialization,” the piece goes on to say that “[f]etal hormones also affect brain development.” How would it be possible for hormones to affect the developing brain in utero, but not the expression of this brain development, which manifests as sex-typed differences in interests, personality, and behavior when the child is born? Such pseudo science is total bollocks.

The piece also references the work of psychologist John Money, which contradicts Fausto-Sterling’s very thesis. Not only have Money’s ideas pertaining to gender identity been widely discredited, but they also demonstrate how gender is biological. Many have surely heard of the unfortunate case of David Reimer, a Canadian man whom Money surgically reassigned as female after Reimer lost his penis in a botched circumcision as a child. Money believed that Reimer could be successfully socialized to live life as a girl.

Upon reaching puberty, however, Reimer rejected his brainwashing (no other word for it,) and chose to live as a male. Tragically took his own life at the age of 38 having become a profoundly unhappy person due to the wxperiences inflicted on him in childhood by well meaning, but ideologically driven academics. Reimer’s case conforms the innateness of gender—that one’s sense of being male or female is not learned or a question of choice but is embedded.

It isn’t necessary to redefine “sex” in order to facilitate the acceptance of people who are different. Pushing for social change for the sake of change, as advocates of cultural marxism do, only leads to misguided policies and unnecessary confusion for the public.

Going beyond Fausto-Sterling’s twaddle and the propaganda of the Gay BLT political actvists, this argument has been extended to include the transgender community, with its proponents contending that transgender people defy male and female categorization, and offer proof that sex and gender are a spectrum. But the true meaning of the term “transgender” means that a person identifies more as the opposite sex than their birth sex, which still operates within a framework of sex being binary. There have, throughout history, been men who live as women and women who live as men.
 
We can, and should, advocate for the rights of intersex people and those who do not fit typical gender norms, while at the same time acknowledging these scientific truths. And for those small number who genuinely have physical characteristics of both sexes, medical science is now able to go some way at least towards eliminating confusion.

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

The Deception Of Data Scientists Exposed

As you know readers I am one of life's sceptics, not a miserable curmudgeonly doubter as some terminally optimistic types might expect a sceptic to be, but someone who questions everything, particularly if it sounds like hype. And like most people who had the benefit of the Renaissance Education model, I have a built in bullshit detector.

One thing that has regularly been setting off my bullshit detector recently is 'Data Science.'

WTF. Gathering, collating and presenting information (aka data when it is 'given' to a computer - the old Latin classes coming in handy again there,) is the age old skill of the clerk. It has nothing to do with science, which these days is the most abused word in the English language.

Data Science is often linked with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, two phrases that are only loosely defined because we only have a very sketchy understanding of how intelligence originates, and machines cannot learn in the way a human (or an animal,) learns, they can only perform programmed operations.

As I had a major deadline to meet this week I haven't done much by way of new writing, but here's an interesting take on AI and machine learning I came across today.

Machine learning — Is the emperor wearing clothes?

A behind-the-scenes look at how machine learning works

by
Go to the profile of Cassie Kozyrkov
Cassie Kozyrkov
 
Machine learning uses patterns in data to label things. Sounds magical? The core concepts are actually embarrassingly simple. I say “embarrassingly” because if someone made you think it’s mystical, they should be embarrassed. Here, let me fix that for you.
The core concepts are embarrassingly simple.
Our thing-labeling example will involve classifying wine as yummy or not-so-yummy and we’ll keep all the ideas simple enough to enjoy alongside a glass of wine… or three. If wine is not your cup of tea, here’s an alcohol-free version of the same text.

How does it work? - read more:

 

Tuesday, 28 August 2018

Brexit Deal Or No Deal?


As the politicians continue to blether to no effect about the terms on which Britain will trade with the EU after Brexit, and mainstream media, owned by global corporations except for the BBC which is technically ownedf by the nation but is managed and staffed by LEFT WING CUNTS, continue to bad mouth anyone wo was part of the LEAVE campaign, or has confessed to voting to leave, a question that is being asked in pubs and bars all over the land goes sometjing like this: Why isn't the European Union asking the UK for a good trading deal when they need the UK’s billions in imports as much as the UK needs theirs?

The concept of the EU as a whole is the elephant in the room here. While the original Common Market, and its subsequent names, The European Economic Community and The European Community were sold to voters as a free trade and economic cooperation group for west European nations, the underlying concept was for "ever closer union" towards a federal European superstate, with the sovereignty of member states surrendered to a central bureaucracy, reducing ancient nations like England, Scotland, Denmark, France, Spain and Portugal to the status of semi autonomous provinces.

The EU is currently comprised of 28 sovereign states (27 from next April) ranging from Germany with the fourth largest economy in the world and a population of eighty five million to little Malta and Luxembourg which are each home to less than a million people. Each has its own priorities. For any decision to be made all 28 (in the form of the Council of Ministers) need to be in agreement. On top of that there is the European Commission (EC) - the EU civil service, except they actually have a say and the European Parliament who like to think they have a say.

In reality the EC makes decisions, the Council of Ministers refines it the EP rubber stamps it. The fly in the ointment for federalists is that any member state can veto any proposal it's political leader (i.e. representative on the council of ministers deems not in the interests of their country.

With the differing electoral cycles changing the political complexion of the different sovereign states’ governments, and with anti EU feeling gaining ground in many member states it is very difficult to achieve a consensus on anything. Some areas of policy are covered by majority voting and those areas move a little faster.

A good example of this is CETA, the Comprehensive Economic And Trade Agreement, a trading agreement with Japan, often incorectly referred to as a 'free trade' agreement as it set out in over a thousand pages the rules and regulations which would apply to trades between EU and Japanese companies as well as tariffs and export limits on certain categories of goods. It was negotiated, agreed, signed and to all intents and purposes a done deal. Then Italy had a General Election and their Government changed. The new Italian Government do not think CETA is a good deal for Italy and have said they will not ratify it.

So, even though all 28 governments agreed it, and 9 have ratified it, it now looks dead in the water. The trade negotiators can re-engage and re-negotiate a deal, but it would be open to another government scuppering the revised agreement.

As I see it, this has been the problem with the EU since the turn of the century when the single currency (The Euro) was introduced. It is too big and is unable to make big decisions in a reasonable timeframe. The natural limit of the EU was probably reached in 1995 when Austria, Sweden and Finland were admitted. At that point it could be said that roughly the area west of a line drawn from the southernmost shore of the baltic to the northernmost tip of The Adriatic was the EU. And those nations have a lot in common culturally and economically.

We could go into the whole ‘Federal European Superstate’ debate but I have dealth with that elsewhere (HERE, HERE and HERE). While I am against the UK being part of a federal European superstate, I think it its either that or the collapse of the EU. Only when German workers are wiling to fund Greek unemployment benefits and healthcare will the EU really work well.
Back to the question:

The EU negotiating stance, which is basically that the UK must continue to accept EU authority in all matters of policy and law, is basically all they can agree upon in the timescale. To deviate from that would lead to a deal that they could not get ratified by all 27 remaining EU nations after Brexit. Here lies the problem. Germany, France, Italy & Spain want to continue to export their cars to the UK, Eastern European Governments want their citizens to be able to live and work freely in the UK. France wants to export wine and cheese to the UK, the Netherlands wants to sell us tulips and beer and Denmark wants us to keep buying its bacon. But France do not want unrestricted imports of British beef & lamb, Germany does not want unlimited exports of engineering products and textiles and so on and so forth. And they'd all like to get their hands on a slice of our trade in financial and management services.

There is no way such a deal could have been done in 2 years, it's unlikely one could ever be done. I doubt that the 21 month implementation period recently suggested would be enough time to achieve anything significant.

In my opinion (which has not wavered since I voted to leave,) I voted to leave) the UK will spend a substantial time on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms, which are not really very different to the terms EU member states trade on now, while trade agreements with individual member states are negotiated and as the EU disintegrates. During that time we can be outward-looking negotiating agreements with countries that are able to make decisions in a timely manner.

If we leave the EU without agreement on March 29th, 2019 I would put money on there being trade agreements in place with the other major economies long before the EU.


Brexit Will Not Make UK More Exposed to Attacks, Says Former Counter-Terrorism Chief
As the UK still reels from last week's sucidebomb attack which killed 22 people and left over 100 injured after a pop concert in Manchester, the former counter-terrorism chief of London's Metropolitan Police has said Brexit will not weaken the UK’s security measures or make the country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Quitaly? Will Italy follow Britain out of the EU?
With a referendum in Italy, ostensibly on constitutional reforms but perceived as a referendum on the leadership of the ruling elite, looming in November and the anti - globalisation, pro sovereignty Five Star Party growing in popularity all the time. Should the constitutional changes be voted down, and the against campaign is showing a comfortable lead in opinion polls at the moment, it will put a Quitaly in-out referendum, similar to the so called Brexit vote that kick off the process of Britain leaving the European Union, at the top of the agenda.
Threat Of Major Scandal Prompted Early Election Move – UKIP
Leaders of the (UKIP) have made astonishing claim that Prime Minister Teresa May’s calling an early General Election was done to pre-empt a series of by-elections that could be called following alleged electoral fraud. Accusing the Conservative government of “putting party before country”, UKIP appeared to suggest the scandal and ensuing disqualification of MPs could rob the government of its slender majority.
Nigel Farage Swipes Back At Irrational, Screeching, Crazy Clinton
US Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton launched a hysterical, irrational attack, filled with half truths and blatant lies, against the most prominent figure in the campaign to get Britain out of the EU (Brexit), UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, during a speech at a rally today. Mrs Clinton, responding to Farage's address to a large and enthusiastic audience at a Donald Trump rally, may have been rattled at the prospect of having such a hihly effective campaigner in the rival camp ...
Rebellion Against EU Authoritarianism Escalates As 8th Member Nation Threatens Referendum
Brussels went too far, they crossed the line in moving from an economic union to a political pan - European political empire. In the end it was a race as to which member state would quit first, Britain, Natherlands, Denmark or Italy. In the event it is Britain.
Is Brexit A Harbinger Of Doom For The 'Experts' The Brexit vote, the decision by a democratic majority in Britain to leave the European Union has sent shockwaves around the world. Not only does the EU now face a tsunami of departures, the usurpation of democracy by 'experts' ( technocrats ) has been challenged and exposed as a sham.
BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
Unless the testicularly deficient politicians stand up for their nations he only thing that will halt the European Union's push beyond Europe's geographical borders to incorporate Asian, middle eastern and north African nations is war. Power is addictive and the bean counters of Brussels have ambitions far beyond Europe.

The Hypocrisy and Snobbery Of The Remain Campaign And The Antidote
When I had to defriend a Facebook contact because she was arguing in favour of the EU, it was not simply because I support Brexit that I had become pissed of with her, it was the snobbish and condescending way she dismissed supporters of LEAVE and their case. People are entitled to their opinion on the European Union, but they should check the 'facts' they post in support of their arguments.
The Labour Case For Brexit by Kate Hoey M.P.
After my short intro is a savage indictment by Brexit supporting Labour MP Kate Hoey of the way the Labour Party has abandoned the working class and is now trying to betray the party's proud heritage and its roots in the industrial areas by taking Britain into an undemocratic, corporate controlled, capitalist friendly, elite dominated globalist control freak project.
Dutch Referendum This Week Shows why We Should Leave The EU.
Few of you were aware probably that there is an EU referendum vote in The Netherlands this week. As usual with anything negative about the EU barely a word has been printed in the topic in mainstream media and the silence from our notionally unbiased national broadcaster The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been deafening.
French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism
Europeans want us British to lead them out of Europe. Don't be fooled by project fear, the European Union (aka the Euronazi Federal Superstate) is falling apart. There will not be chaos if we leave, there will be chaos if we stay.
Head Of European Institute: Brexit ‘Better’ For Everyone
Brexit would be the best result of Britain’s in / out referendum for both Britain and the EU i a Belgian professor who heads up the European Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) has said.
Johnson’s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. It’s time to be brave
OK, I know a lot of you think Boris is most accurately described by a word many people find offensive, but he’s put together a very good argument here on why we must leave the EU. Published in part here under ‘fair use’ terms and conditions, in the public interest ...
Cameron’s EU Package: Not A Deal But A Few Turns In The Spin Machine As we and almost everybody else predicted, David Cameron's deal to improve Britain's relationship with the EU is worthless. It changes nmothing, and can be vetoed once we have voted to stay in.
Cameron Plays Deal Or No Deal In Europe
David Cameron, who was apparently up all night trying to make other European leaders understand why his country needs a better deal in order to poersuade the prople it is a good idea stay in the EU. Unless Cameron gets what will enable him to sell the idea of surrendering national sovereignty to a Federal European Superstate ruled by a committee of unelected bureaucrats in to the British public he will not campaign for the UK to remain in the bloc

Wednesday, 24 January 2018

France leads celebrity pushback against '#MeToo'

In the months since allegations of sexual abuse against US movie mogul Harvey Weinstein first emerged, Hollywood stars have been falling over themselves to condemn him, other 'ladies men' in the industry and express their support to those who claimed to be victims of sexual predators. The witch hunt has spread beyond Hollywood first to politics, then business and now the hysteria has reached such levels all men are being condemned. The unanimity of the response has been and astounding example of what the french call Le pensée unique, the single idea. At the Golden Globe awards last Sunday, an entire galaxy of stars came out wearing black in solidarity with victims and those who resisted the demands for conformity were subjected to the obligatory hate campaign.

This week veteran French actresses and 1960s / 70s sex symbol Catherine Deneuve, took a different view.
Deneuve was the most high-profile of 100 prominent French female celebrities who signed an open letter criticising the #MeToo social-media campaign, and related drives to expose sexual harassment in France and elsewhere.

The Hollywood and mainstream media campaigns, the Le Monde letter said, had gone beyond exposing individual perpetrators, and had unleashed a torrent of "hatred against men and sex". Add to that the usual noise from London's metropoilitan leftie screechers who, supported by the usual suspects, The Labour Party, Unite Against Fascism, The Anti - Nazi League, the Gay BLTs and the tesicularly deficient progressive wing of the Conservative Party responded with their own Pavolian hatefest. The people can be relied on to unfailingly respond to the trigger signals.
"Puritanism" was running rampant "like in the good old days of witchcraft", the French feminists argued, stating that the freedom of men to pester was "essential to sexual freedom".

Around the world - but mainly among the liberal elites of east and west coast USA, the shock of dropping jaws striking the ground registered two point five on the Richter scale and a tsunami of outrage swamped social media. In France itself there were some strong reactions - both for and against - but the response was not front-page news and most people simply gave a gallic shrug and said "Qu'importe".
Those different reactions say a lot about the different ways feminist view the world in the Anglosphere and Southern Europe France and the US. "It's hard to imagine a US movie star not being comprehensively pilloried" for signing such a letter, says Emily Yoffe, contributing editor for The Atlantic magazine. And that is a key point; the Politically Correct Thought Police who patrol the internet might get their knickers in a twist and start raging about diversity when someone complains about immigrant refusing to integrate but there are many aspects of diversity followers of the pensée unique are just not willing to tolerate.

The French women are not the first to break ranks from the politically correct consensus.
In an interview for Business Insider, Matt Damon, star of the highly successful Bourne franchise  drew plenty of virulent ctiticism for expressing quite mild concerns about the conduct of the #MeToo movement. He said that the majority of men in Hollywood were not involved in sexual misconduct but this is not not gaining attention.
"We're in this watershed moment, and it's great, but I think one thing that's not being talked about is... the preponderance of men I've worked with who don't do this kind of thing," he said during an interview while promoting his new film Downsizing.

Many social media users condemned the actor for suggesting not being a sexual predator was an accomplishment although that is a ridiculous distortion of what he meant.
It is not the first time Damon has commented on sexual abuse following rape allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein. Last week in an interview with ABC News Damon said groping and rape were two different things and shouldn't be treated the same.
"There's a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right?" Damon told ABC'S 'Popcorn' with Peter Travers "Both of those behaviours need to be confronted and eradicated, without question, but they shouldn't be conflated, right?"

Criticizing the politically correct zealotry of the #MeToo campaign may be taboo in the USA and Britain, so why can such views as are expressed in the letter to Le Monde accepted with so little fuss in France? One reason, according to Anastasia Colosimo, a political commentator who lectures in Sciences Politique in Paris, is author of "Les bûchers de la liberté," (The butchers of Liberty) and is an enduring influence in France of 1960s-type feminists, steeped in the free-wheeling ethos of the time.
"A key aspect of the struggle of the 1960s was the need to remove any guilt attached to feminine sexuality," she says. "Women openly said they had the same craving for sex as men."

The signatories of the letter also include writer Catherine Millet, 69, best-known for a 2002 memoir detailing her sexual history in graphic detail. Among the others are Catherine Robbe-Grillet, the author of sadomasochistic stories, and Brigitte Lahaie, a 1970s porn star turned talk-show host.
These older feminists see the drive against harassment, which gathered steam in 1990s America, as a threat to the sexual revolution their generation has achieved. They accept the need to fight rape and workplace harassment. But in their view, says Ms Colosimo, activists who put such dangers at the heart of the modern feminist struggle promote a view of women "as victims and helpless objects of male desire rather than free agents".
This contrasts with the Anglosphere where the feminist movement has been completely hijacked by ugly, hairy - arsed, man - hating lezzas who are prepared to condemn Harvey Weinstein although he has not yet been convicted of anything, but simultaneously defend Muslims who rape and sexually exploit white girls, "because Multiculturalism."

The pushback is not just in France however, ridiculous claims from the gaggle of squawkers in Hollywood and other sectors of the celebrity circus have alienated more level headed commentators. Novelist Margaret Atwood has criticized #MeToo, from a different angle, her provocative article is published in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper. The lifelong feminist is singing, if not quite from the same songsheet, certainy from the same songbook as she complains that a broken legal system which permits media witch hunts rather than ensuring due process is observed, thus negating the legal rights of those against whom allegations have been made but as yet no charges have been laid.

We saw a similar trend in Britain after the crimes of DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Savile were exposed in 2013 after a police investigation into evidence of his prolific sexual abuse of under age and vulnerable people had been in progress for some months. While rumours had circulated about Savile's behaviour for years, as was the case with Harvey Weinstein, those who should have acted closed ranks to protect Savile because his carefully constructed public image made him a cash cow for their media companies and charities.
As soon as the Savile story gained traction , though he was safe from legal action having died in 2011, multitudes of attention seekers started to make #MeToo style allegations against male celebrities most of which were not supported by any evidence at all. And as in the latest outburst of politically correct madness names of the accused were made pubic before any legal process was initiated. The legal rights of those accused have been ignored by the very people who usually scream most loudly about "rights".

American novelist Lionel Shriver, is also sceptical about the motivations of those jumping on the #meToo bandwagon. Unanimity in Hollywood, she suggests, is result of risking ostracism by going off-message: "Given the nature of social movements these days, if you have reservations you keep your mouth shut."In the social media age, Shriver adds, "You have one position that's acceptable and everyone piles on to it. If you express a dissenting opinion, you're going to get slaughtered."
This has not deterred Shriver, who fully supports the Deneuve line and regards #MeToo as a "witch-hunt". "We're losing the distinction between serious sexual assault and even rape and putting a hand on a knee," she says. "It's as if someone finding you attractive is an insult. I beg to differ: I'm complimented if someone is attracted to me. The only question is: am I allowed to say no?"

Last year another major French actress, Fanny Ardant - born in 1949 - went so far as to say that the campaign against sex pests was redolent of fascism. Fascism is an accusation that has been levelled at the forces of politically correct authoritarianism in other contexts too, and with good cause.

Tuesday, 28 November 2017

How Can The 'Left' Talk Of Equality When They Don't Tolerate Diversity Of Opinion

One of the first things I learned at my Grandfather's knee, as it were, was the importance of free speech and of exposure to different ides and shades of opinion. Grandad had been a member of the Labour party before World War One and had lived through the class wars in the early decades of the twentieth century. My Dad was a Labour man too, until as a newspaper reporter, he learned things about socialism that shocked him.

What dad had discovered was that some time after the 1918 Representationn Of The People Act was passed by the national government under David Lloyd George, which extended voting rights to all men and to women over 30, thus paving the way for the working class vote to enable The Labour Party to compete with The Conservatives and eclipse The Liberal Party, certain elitists, aristocrats, wealthy business people and academics feared their elite social class would lose its grip on power. Led by The Fabian Society these new upper class leaders of the party that claimed it was a grass roots working class movement had only contempt for the working classes, whom they regarded as inferior beings.

George Orwell exposed this soon after it had happened, in the second half of his polemical book The Road To Wigan Pier. Orwell had been commissioned to write a study of the terrible working and living conditions endured by the working classes in British industrial towns. What the wealthy, elitist members of 'The Left Book' club, which commissioned the study, hoped Orwell would produce was an argument for paternalistic socialism, with a government of enlightened, socialist elitists presiding like the Patrician caste of ancient Rome over the ignorant, stupid, ineducable, almost bestial lower orders.

What Orwell did produce was indeed a study of working class life, but he found among them intelligence, sensitivity and a rough edged kind of nobility in the way they endured the privations of life. In the second part of the book however, Orwell wrote an exposé of the patronising, condescending, self righteous attitudes of these wealthy, virtue signalling socialists. And he was probably the first to identify one of the most despicable traits of these people, their inability to tolerate anybody disagreeing with their utopian vision or pointing out the very obvious flaws in their ideas for solving social problems.

This was no trivial matter, just as it was becoming clear that both Germany's National Socialists and Russia's Communists were monstrously tyrannical regimes under which the working classes were as badly off as they had been under the old monarchies, Orwell had revealed that the Fabian socialists rather liked both, particularly Hitler's policy of eugenics. So long as those born to rule continued to rule and those born to toil were kept in their place, The Fabian's idea of Utopia stood.

I became a member of The Liberal Party in the early 1960s, at the time The Liberals in parliament were a tiny remnant of the once great party, but at local level they were much stronger. Though the party had become more collectivist and less libertarian than the party of 1918, it was still possible as a liberal to hold and express an unorthodox opinion. The same was true of Labour, but free speech was a privilege extended only to older members. Among the younger ones hatred of anyone opposed to "the agenda" was starting to become de rigeur.

The left, traditionally the political position of individual freedom, personal development and self - determination has since then continued on its path to authoritarianism.

It is very revealing to observe how opinionated Labour supporters women who dare to stray from the party line are treated by 'new' Left in Britain today? Just fine, provided one stays on message. Dare to dissent and the mask of diversity and benevolence, over which the Left claims to have a monopoly, slips.

The latest name to be added to the list of people in the Labour Party who have fallen foul of Fabian authoritarian for expressing an unsanctioned view is German born M.P. Gisela Stuart, who, it was reported last week, was allegedly reminded that she “had another country to go to” by former press officer to Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell. Her crime: daring to campaign for Brexit (Mr Campbell called the story “truth mangling”).

First, can you imagine the furore had anyone said that to Jamaican born Diane Abbot with regard to her racist, black supremacist view of white people in Britain? Secondly, it has been established beyond doubt by the attitude of the EU bureaucracy to Brexit negotiations and by the performance of the UK economy since the Brexit vote that is was the Remain campaign, supported by Campbell and his crony Blair, that mangled the truth in their campaign. Thirdly, recent events in Europe have demonstrated that the intention of the E.U. was to create a bureaucratic dictatorship that would swallow all member states into a single European superstate.

What adds to the insult is the suspicion that if any Conservative or Liberal Democrat behaved towards dissenters like that, they would risk their career – but that the Left gets away with so much by invoking a philosophical “get out of jail free” card, they are the party of diversity and multiculturalism.

Incredibly, the now suspended Labour MP Jared O’Mara actually said as much a little while ago, when he refused to resign over his own derogatory comments but suggested that had such bile been uttered by a Tory MP, the situation would have been different because Conservatism doesn’t foster “equality and egalitarianism”. Eventually, and reluctantly it must be said, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was forced by public pressure to act.

What breathtaking arrogance! What stunning hypocrisy! What is the source of this benefit of the doubt the Left is prepared to allow itself but not its opponents? What gives socialists the right to demand that they be held to a lower standard than those to which it holds its opponents? What credibility can this veneer of egalitarianism and tolerance have if its prozelytizers consistently fail to practise what they preach, behave in an increasingly elitist manner and yet continue to take the support of their historic working class constituencies for granted?

The Left’s obsession with the quasi - religious dogma of diversity and equality of race and sex has reduced these important matters to a lazy box-ticking exercise, which a huge section of the population now holds in contempt, ultimately harming the cause of the very groups it claims to be supporting.

If the Left truly values diversity, it must celebrate dissent. People must have the right to oppose same sex marriage, affirmative action hiring policies, academic uplifts for minorities and the promotion of transgenderism in schools. When differing opinions can be houted down and earn those who express them threats of violence, the echo chamber may well sound harmonious, but the while the voices bouncing the walls repeat the same ideas, a dangerous anger is simmering silently on the back burner.

RELATED POSTS

The Genocide Of Ideas
Interviewed on UK Television the director and former Monty Python Flying Circus member Terry Gilliam said he did not like anything among the recent output from Hollywood. "I don't know what they are about," he complained, "there is a car chase, a few fights, a threat to civilisation and the hero saves the world." Continuing to critique the formulaic Hollywood blockbuster genre Gilliam said films, books and plays ought to be about ideas.

Multi-Cultural England: Are You Feeling The Progressive Diversity That's Enriching Your Life Visit some parts of most British cities with large immigrant populations and you will be hard pressed to recognize it, certainly my granparents would struggle to recognize the towns they knew. Appeasement of foreigners has destroyed the character of our communities but as usual the political left advise solving the problem by doing over again the things that caused it.

US Soldiers Forced To Sit Through P C 'White Privilege Presentation. Not Happy Bunnies
The U.S. Army is investigating an unauthorized diversity training presentation on “white privilege” shown to hundreds of Georgia soldiers, USA Today reported, citing an Army spokeswoman. The Equal Opportunity training presentation was shown to about 400 soldiers of the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon on Thursday, according to Captain Lindsay Roman.

Ten Truths You Can't Tell In Britain Without Being Accused Of Racism.
So Trevor Phillips. former head of the race relations commission tries to initiate a sensible discussion of race relation in Britain today with some very fair and balanced talking points. Immediately left wing extremist writer Dan Hodges screeches that anyone (including Trevor Phillips) who expresses an opinion the left do not agree with is a racist bigot. There is no point trying to talk to the left, maybe we should just dump them all on one of our antarctic territories

Once We Respected Red Cross Because The Did Good Work. Now They Promote Politically Correct Tyranny.
The cancer of politically correct thinking has spread throughout British public life. Probably the most perfect illustration of how out of touch the new elite, the Meritocracy (who only merit a kick up the arse) have become with the lives of ordinary people is the politicisation of the institutions of government, local government, education, the law and now even the charity sector. Read what happened to a charity worker who dared to have his own opinion on a gay rights issue

Millie Tant, Tatchell's Transphobia and Germain Greer's Big Hairy Smelly Vagina
The well of hypocrisy from which the left, champions of freedom, democracy, equality and free speech in their own estimation, draw their dishonest, self rightoeus views on the world is bottomless, it will never run dry. How else could it have continued to flow during this latest two-faced display of authoritarianism from the lovers of all minoities even when those minoritites hate each other. It is the multual hatred of minorities however that is fragmenting the left.

Labour Elite Thinks Northerners Are Thick - I Told You So
A strong feeling is starting to emerge that whatever the Labour leadeship does, the party is not going to win May's election. In spite of the unpopularity of the Conservative led coalition, the idea is taking hold that Labour is no longer the party of the working class, instead they represent professionals and academics and are thus an elitist movement.

Rape Horror In Swedish Muslim Ghetto
A story we found on a Danish television news channel relate to a particularly horrific sexual assault that took place on 19 June near. A group of Muslim men gang-raped the girl while one, who has not been identified, put a gun to her face and threatened to kill her if she did not stop screaming.

The Left Are So Hopeless They Can't Even Sneer Properly
Yesterday's by election in the Kent constituency of Rochester and Strood produced the expected victory for UKIP, the expected humiliation for the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties. The Biggest disaster however was a Labour own goal own scored by Labour's Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry

Red Cross To Be Renamed Red Swastika?


The Red Cross is getting some well deserved stick after sacking 71 year old Brian Barkley, a volunteer for over twenty years. His crime was to have an opinion that differed from the politically correct dogma espoused by the self righteous, self interested left wing troughers who line their pockets via generous expenses and salaries for running the charity.

Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn
New Extremism Disruption Orders proposed in The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2015 General Election would class secularists or evangelical Christians alongside Islamic state or Boko Haram, campaigners claim.

Tony Benn's inheritance tax dodge - another leftie hyocrite exposed
Remember the patron saint of loony lefties, Saint Anthony of Wedgewood - Benn, previously known as Viscount Stansgate? Agreeable sort of bloke, pip smokers, great speaker, utterly daft opinions as one would expect from an aristocrat who is so deluded he thinks he understands the working class?


Without free speech and freedom to access information via a free press there can be no democracy. And without democracy there can be no liberty and no human rights. A very dangerous and worrying trend has been gathering momentum for some time, not just in third world tyrannies and former communist bloc one party states but in Europea and north Americsa. It has now entered a new dimension. Political and business leaders around the world are blatantly calling for the censorship on reporting and discussing news in terms that are 'unhelpful' to their aims and ambitions along with further restrictions on free speech.

Another EU Wannabe Declares War On Free Speech A very dangerous and worrying trend, which has been gathering momentum for some time, has entered a new dimension in recent weeks. Political and business leaders around the world are blatantly calling for the censorship on reporting and discussing news in terms that are 'unhelpful' to their aims and ambitions along with further restrictions on free speech.

South Yorkshire Police Commissioner Shaun Wright Finally Resigns Over Rotherham Child Abuse Scandal The man who bears most responsibility for failure to investigate the Rotherham child abuse scandal has finally resigned after three weeks of excuses and evasions. Police Commissioner Wright has been under pressure ever since a report by Prof Alexis Jay (see below) revealed a huge level of child abuse in the South Yourkshire town of Rotherham. The organised sex crime rings had been operating for ...

Officials have lost track of 50,000 illegal immigrants
The Daily Telegraph reports that the government's Borders Agency have lost track of 50,000 illegal immigrants who have been ordered to leave the country and then simply allowed to disappear into the ether rather than being put on a boat / plane / piece of driftwood.

Rotherham - Bad New For The Nation But It Gets Better And Better For The Kippers
All week I have been seeing blogs and comments written by lefties proclaiming idiotically that Douglas Carswell's defection to UKIP was the beginning of the end, that the UKIP bubble had burst and so on. Pretty much what they were saying in the days after UKIP had trounced the mainstream parties in the European Parliament elections.

The British Jihad, Islamism And The Curse Of Multiculturalism.
As the world recoils in horror at images posted on the internet of an American journalist being cruelly and brutally beheaded by an (allegedly) British terrorist fighting for the extremists of the Islamic State in northern Iraq, we ask is the left wing folly of multiculturalism coming home to roost.

Is It Lack Of Diversity That Makes Lefties Stupid?
Quite a while ago now I wrote a post titled "Is It Lack Of Diversity That Drives Left wing Hate?" It contained these lines: There's an old joke; Q: "Why do teenagers only listen to other teenagers?" A: "Because they're stupid." - Q: "Why are teenagers stupid?" A: Because they only listen to other teenagers." Substitute leftie, liberal, radical or progressive for teenager and that just about sums up the political 'left'

Shock; horror. Human Barbie Doll has her own opinions
The human Barbie girl Valeria Lukyanova has become something of an online phenomenon and is regarded as a sex symbol by many young men of the kind who have more computers than friends. Personally I find her apearance bizarre and about as sexually alluring as cold porridge. Still each to there own, where would we be without diversity of opinion.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be Bollocks


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/03/01/peer-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-as-large-amounts-of-research-shown-to-be-false/

All branches of the Sciences are today, plagued by corruption, self interest and bullying. Yet, more often than not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud — an issue that few journalists have been willing to address — are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?” We know of course that what passes for the peer review process is in fact 'pal' review, cronyism has gone in in the academic world for a long time. A certain amount is tolerable of course, where things really started to run out of control was when research institutions started to get more money from corporate sources than from private donations, bursaries and philanthropic foundations. As everybody who has worked in a corporate business environment is aware, "there's no such thing as a free lunch."
**************
Although good science should always be reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous, causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously if it doesn’t have  it, particularly when that information counters long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing, education, and more.
Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that we are being lied to about the products and medicines we use on a daily basis.
If you’re one who commonly points to the “peer-reviewed” label, then you should know that there are many researchers and insiders who have been creating awareness about the problem with this label for years.


Who Says So? And From What Fields?

  • Climate Science
Many people have spoken up against the corporatization and politicization of science. For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail, “mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” He claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually being influenced by political views.” (source)

Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up about the politicization of climate science. (source)

The Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.
Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.
Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data — something that plagues all fields of science today.

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False


  • Climate Science
Many people have spoken up against the corporatization and politicization of science. For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail, “mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” He claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually being influenced by political views.” (source)
Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up about the politicization of climate science. (source)
The Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.

Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data — something that plagues all fields of science today.
  • Medical Science/Health Science/Food
In the case of medicine, a lot of information has emerged showing just how much corruption really goes on. The Editors-in-Chiefs of several major medical journals have been quite blunt, with perhaps one of the best examples coming from Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, who says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source)

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, has said that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”  (source)

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which subsequently became the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). (source)

Here is another great quote:

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal  (source)

As you can see, this has been a problem for quite some time.

****


  • GMOs
One of the best examples of political influence over scientific publication comes from an episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize on rats over a 90 day period. They reported no ill effects on the rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference: Their study lasted over a year rather than a mere three months. Researchers found instances of severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, alongside the development of large tumours and mortality among the treatment groups. The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe last year [2014]), like Environmental Sciences Europe. This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many countries in Europe have  banned the growing of genetically modified crops. Many also have bans and/or severe restrictions on importing GM products, citing health and environmental concerns.
This fact was also made clear by WikiLeaks documents:
Resistance to the advent of genetically modified foods has been pronounced across Europe. The continent features some of the strictest regulations governing the use and cultivation of GMO products, and public skepticism about biotech goods is quite high – a fact not lost on American diplomats. In a lengthy report dating from late 2007 , a cable issued by the State Department outlined its “Biotechnology Outreach Strategy, ‘which, among other things, recognized the European Union’s ‘negative views on biology’ and committed as a national priority to limiting them (O7STATE160639).
Initial attention paid to the State Department’s part in pushing industrial manufactures on its allies obscured the even bigger role it played in assuring a place for genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) in a region that largely wanted nothing to do with them. The American campaign promoting biotech products was a worldwide effort. In all, some 1,000 documents from the Cablegate cache address this effort, a significant number of which originate in Europe. U.S. diplomats on the continent gave considerable attention to insuring the interests of American biotech firms in Europe – Whether through “education” programs, government lobbying, or outright coercion – as well as stripping down European Union regulations designed to act as a bugger against them. Available cables published by WikiLeaks suggest that the United States invests considerable time, effort, and expense in its operations on behalf of the American biotech firms.

Read more about it from The WikiLeaks Files: The World According To U.S. Empire.
In 1996, Steven M. Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.

He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit that provides details of his experience. He has also released the documents on his website, showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws in the FDA’s policy.

  • Pharmaceutical Drugs
There are a number of examples to choose from here, but antidepressants make the top of the list. Irving Kirsch, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, published a study pointing out how “analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.” (source)

Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said: “We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.” (source)

Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.” He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct.

Below is a brief video of him elaborating on this problem:
  • Vaccines
Vaccines are getting more attention now than ever before. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), recently announced a $100,000 challenge aimed at putting an end to the inclusion of mercury, a neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally.

It’s offered to anybody, including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies. This will be difficult, as hundreds of studies (that were also present at the press conference in print form) show it is absolutely unsafe, and can significantly increase the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders.

You can read more about this here.

Multiple cases of vaccine fraud have been uncovered, but this is something you might not know given the fact that the mainstream media completely ignores these facts, and vaccines are heavily marketed.

For example, Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, as well as a medical investigator, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. (source)

But perhaps one of the biggest revelations in medical history, also unfortunately ignored by mainstream media, came only a couple of years ago and is still making noise, as it should.

Dr. William Thompson, a longtime senior CDC scientist, published some of the most commonly cited pro-vaccine studies, which showed that there was absolutely no link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Thompson, et al. 2007, Price, et al. 2010Destefano, et al. 2004). However, Dr. Thompson recently admitted that it was the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is completely ashamed” of what he did. He was complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

A  study with revised information and no data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr. Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since been retracted, around the same time this controversy arose.

You can read the full study here, although, unsurprisingly, it has since been retracted.

Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker: I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies  the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.” (source)
he had to invoke whistleblower protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said that, for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.

Final Thoughts

As you can see, scientific fraud is a big problem across the board, and this article has only provided a few examples. The problem is not just with GMOs and vaccines — it affects cosmetics, food, cleaning supplies, and so much more. How have so many products, which cause so much harm, been approved by the agencies that are tasked to protect us?

There are so many books on this topic, but they don’t get the attention they deserve, since the major mainstream media shareholders are identical to those of the entire health industry. Why would they bash their own products on their own national television networks?

The power of corporate America has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. If you’re wondering what we can do about it, well, I believe the first step is awareness. There is still a plethora of information that the general public is completely unaware of, but if we backtrack to a decade ago, information that used to be considered a conspiracy is now simply fact. A great example is the corporate takeover of science, as discussed in this article, but another one could be the Snowden Leaks on mass surveillance, or 9/11. Studies are now being published by physicists and engineers regarding that event.

Awareness makes it harder for the elite to manipulate us. Once we become aware of something, we can stop it. For example, look at Genetically Modified Foods and the pesticides that go with them. As soon as the masses became aware of their dangers, they began to change their shopping habits. Now, most countries around the world have completely banned these foods.

It’s difficult to accept that there are unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how we are being harmed and change our shopping habits — hurting their bottom line — that they change their tactics.  On the other hand, it’s encouraging to know that once we do come together for a common goal, anything can be accomplished, and we actually do have the potential and power to change our world.