Political Correctness Has Replaced Christianity As the Religion of the West

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Communist religion of political correctness has replaced Christianity as the principal religion of the United States and its vassals and tributaries. To understand what this transition means, one needs to understand what constitutes a religion. A religion is not, essentially, a belief in God, or gods, the spirits of ancestors, or other supernatural entities; neither is it an organization, whether state-backed, for example the Russian Orthodox Church, or supranational, for example the Roman Catholic Church; nor is it a matter of ritual, prayer, worship, sacrifice, or fasting. Rather, the essential feature of any religion is a code of conduct applicable to every member of society.

The existence of a shared set of ethical beliefs is essential to any society, for without it there is no basis upon which to engage with strangers in social, business or other relations. But not all ethical codes are equivalent in their consequences. Far from it, as the impact of Political Correctness in the West clearly shows.

The precepts of political correctness are the antithesis of those of Christianity. In the matter of sexual morality, for example, Christianity condemns masturbation, fornication, adultery, contraception, abortion and no-fault divorce, all of which are accepted or positively encouraged under the code of Political Correctness. Contrary to the impact of Political Correctness, the Christian code, which derives directly from that of the Jews, strengthens family ties, promotes population growth, and thus encourage people to "go forth and multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth." This the European peoples once did with enthusiasm, establishing populous colonies in the Americas and elsewhere.

But then the Europeans began to backslide. God, they discovered, does not exist. The story about Jesus they realized was only a myth, so why not enjoy sex without the costs of child birth and child-rearing. And if there is no God in Heaven to punish selfishness, why not ditch the wife at 45 and take on a twenty-something cutie? Or if you cannot afford the alimony, at least have something on the side.

The result? A collapse in Western birthrates to little more than half the replacement rate in much of Europe. But no prob., lots of poor folk from the Third World are ready to take the place of the missing children of the West. Thing is though, many of these immigrants are God-fearing fundamentalist Christians from Africa or Moslems from Africa, the Middle-East and Asia, from which fact it requires little intelligence to anticipate how this will end. It will end with the destruction of both the people and the culture of Europe and their replacement by people from elsewhere who have a more viable religious code.

But to object to the PC-induced self-genocide of the West is Vorboten because, according to the PC code, the Judeo-Christian belief in perpetuating one's own people is — yeah — racist.

Still, folks are bound to wonder, what's driving this program of racial and cultural self-genocide and why?

An important factor is that the PC code appeals strongly to individual selfishness. It allows and even encourages every one of the seven deadly sins: not only lust, but gluttony (Noticed how many fat people there are in America and Europe? Though the PC code says we mustn't call them fat. It's not that they regularly pig-out on grease-filled hamburgers, fudge sundaes, Coke and Snickers bars, but that they are unfortunate sufferers of the disease of obesity; or simply that they are circumferentially challenged.); avarice (Ain't everyone just obsessed about money); anger (Haven't you noticed how the politically correct love to hate, especially white people, aka, racists, religious people, whether Christians or Muslims, and in particular, religious people who attempt to uphold the Christian or Muslim teachings on homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc., etc.); envy and pride (Without which the advertising-driven Western economies would come to a virtual standstill.); and last but not least, sloth (Why should people work? "Each according to his need" as the Commies demanded, or "Share de wealf" as the rioters from London to Baltimore declare, with general support from President Obama and every other liberal).

But it is not just the innate selfishness of humanity that drives adoption of the PC religion: the push comes from the top, from the political class, the media, Hollywood, the publishing industry, the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Suggest that mixing men and women in the laboratory can be a distraction from the research in progress and the President of the Royal Society itself will trash your reputation as will the Provost of University College London and the President of the European Research Council.

So who's directing the people at the top: the university presidents, the school principals the police chiefs and bureau heads? The answer, as in all other matters that affect its interests, is the Money Power. It is the plutocratic elite, the people who control the mega-banks and giant international corporations that control both the media and the "elected", i.e, bought and paid-for, politicians.

So what's their purpose? To destroy the people, obviously, for reasons that are not difficult to understand. In the 19th century and early twentieth century the proletariat was, for the elite, a necessary evil: they worked the industrial machine and they provided the cannon fodder in wars of mass mobilization. But today they are needed for neither purpose in anything like their present numbers. Jobs in manufacturing, commerce, transportation and communication are being automated out of existence, leaving the need only for a small number of engineers and technicians to build and maintain the robotic systems. War, likewise, has become a high-tech business to be managed by a diminishing number of highly trained, full-time professional soldiers.

Political Correctness is thus a means to get rid of most of the people. Then the resources so uselessly consumed by the masses — land for cheap ugly houses, investments in highways for pointless shopping trips and recreational travel, hideous shopping malls for the vending of mostly useless junk, airports to take the swarming masses to the beaches the rich intend to privatize — will revert to the control of the elite at minimal cost. Then the surviving few will enjoy a much less crowded world, where a deracinated, mongrelized proletariat of a few hundred million people lacking any sense of national identity and without any stupid Western tradition of individual liberty will serve the elite with appropriate deference and in appropriate obscurity.

The takeover is to occur as in the demoralized and decadent post-Soviet states under the rule of corrupt agents of the Money Power such as Yeltsin in Russia, or Yanukovytch and Poroshenko in Ukraine, or in the West such as the Blairs, Clintons and Bushes.

But, hey, those damnable Russians have got their Orthodox Church back, and the Russian Orthodox church seeks to ban abortion. Already the bastards have stopped the collapse in Russia's population, and now that dastardly Putin runt is bestowing honors upon parents of large families. And the teaming masses of China are finding Jesus too. So who knows, the rule of PC in the West may have to be reconsidered.

Related:

Canspeccy: Atheists for Christ

TV.RU: Russians Think the EU Is a Moral Sewer. Child Molesters on the Evening News

David Hodges: The People vs. the Commie Barack Hussein Obama

Sam Rohrer, American Pastors Network: America and the West: Leaders of Moral Depravity

Michael Snyder: 11 Signs That America Has Already Gone Down The Toilet

Alexander Dugin: End of the 20th Century – The End of the Epoch of Modernity

Brandon Smith:The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960's. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.

Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

Fred Reed: Googled, Gobbled, and Throttled: The Road to Samizdat

News Forge: More than 200,000 Germans formally left the Catholic Church in 2014, accelerating the downward trend in the Catholic proportion of the country’s population

Mish: Former US Democrat Presidential Candidate Calls for Internment Camps for "Disloyal" Americans

The Saker: How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire

Britain's Crackpot, (and Murderous) Commies Still Thrive

Britain's post-war Labour Governments prior to that headed by the NeoCon, Tony Blair, set out to turn Britain Communist, albeit by democratic means. As related by WikiPedia:

The 1945-50 Attlee government nationalized about 20% of the economy, including coal, railways, road transport, the Bank of England, civil aviation, cable and wireless, electricity and gas, and steel. However there was no money for investment to modernize these industries... The Attlee government greatly expanded the welfare state, with the Family Allowances Act (1945) and especially the National Health Service Act of 1946, which nationalized the hospitals and provided for free universal medical care. The National Insurance Act of 1946 provided sickness and unemployment benefits for adults, plus retirement pensions. The National Assistance Act of 1948 provided a safety net for anyone not otherwise covered. 

Although elements of this program have endured and are widely considered to have been beneficial, the consequences of many aspects of this program of economic socialization were counterproductive. Nationalization of the railways and road transport resulted in astonishing inefficiency and corruption, including massive pilferage of freight on both road and rail.

To cover the costs of social programs, marginal tax rates of 80% plus, 90% plus and, briefly, under Labour Chancellor of the Exchequor Roy Jenkins, in excess of 100%, prevailed. Such disincentives to enterprise combined with widespread Trotskyite trades union leadership destroyed a large part of British industry, including the British motor manufacturing companies, the sole survivor being the Morgan company, which to this day, hand-builds a few hundred wood-framed sports cars each year.

The comprehensive welfare system inspired by past Labour administrations, has today created an underclass continually expanded through mass legal and illegal immigration that is not only disinclined to work, but indignantly denies that it has any responsibility to work, while riotously demanding that the government "share de wealf."

But faith in the idea, or at least promotion of the delusion, that wealth for the masses can be conjured by fiat if only sufficiently stern Communist measures are taken, is exemplified by a piece of tripe from former UK ambassodor, Craig Murray, writing about the fascists sympathies of some members of the British aristocracy (a sympathy shared, though not mentioned by Murray, by a good many members of the middle and working classes).

Their vast wealth and massive land ownership [of the aristocracy] contrasted with the horrific poverty and malnutrition of the 1930’s, led the aristocracy to fear a very real prospect of being stood against a wall and shot. Fascism appeared to offer social amelioration for the workers with continued privilege for the aristocrats. ...

The implication intended, it seems, is that aristocratic ownership of land somehow imposed poverty and malnutrition on ordinary people. However, farmland owned by the aristocracy was, obviously, farmed; the produce being made available for general consumption through the usual commercial channels. And this was not, in the 1930's, a profitable business for the aristocracy since British agriculture was unprotected from foreign competition and many aristocratic landowners were driven into bankruptcy.

That the aristocracy feared "the very real prospect of being stood against a wall and shot"was not altogether unreasonable in view of the fact that shooting landowners is one of the first things revolutionary Communist governments tend to do. That being the case, it was natural for the British aristocracy of the 30's to prefer Fascism to Communism, especially as, according to Murray, Fascism was thought to offer "social amelioration for the workers."

But that the British aristocracy avoided the fate of the Romanovs is evidently a matter for regret to Murray, who not only applauds the defeat of British fascism (has it really been defeated?), but regrets that Britain never  became a Communist tyranny with the unfortunate result that "We never did get round to shooting the aristocrats."

Loathed and Despised By All and Sundry, Donald Trump Who Leads in the Race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Must Be Saying Something Right

Check Google or Bing news for Donald Trump and you will find that in the mainstream media, for every positive story, there are a dozen belaboring Trump as a liar, a buffoon, a racist, or all of the above.

The mainstream news media, owned by a handful of giant corporations, are the voice of the money power. So what is it they find not to like about Donald Trump?

First, Trump demands vigorous action to stem the tide of illegal immigration to the US. But as George H. W. Bush observed decades ago, Latino immigrants "solve the servant problem." More generally, mass uncontrolled immigration is what is driving wages down, a most desirable consequence since, as David Ricardo long ago explained, "Wages plus profits, together, are always the same." Or for the sake of absolute clarity: lower wages mean higher profits, which explains the growing income divergence between the 1% and particularly the ).0001% and the 99%.

Second, Trump condemns offshoring of jobs to Mexico, China and the rest of the low-wage, low workplace safety, low environmental regulation world because it robs Americans of jobs and thus of income and hence accounts for the current 19 to 20% real unemployment in America, the 50 million Americans on food stamps and America's declining GDP despite a rising population, while the nations to which jobs are being off-shored have economies growing at unprecedented rates of six to 12%.

Third, Trump wants to end the Bush/Clinton plan for more wars for American empire, or rather for a global empire ruled by the oligarchs, a policy that would cut heavily into the profits of the Military-Industrial Complex.

There is a further problem with Trump. He actually means what he says, and that is obvious from the fact that Trump, unlike the big banks and other globalized corporations such as GM, IBM, Monsanto, Pfizer, Merck, etc., etc., has made his money selling stuff, mainly real estate and real estate services, to ordinary Americans. Thus, only rising prosperity among ordinary Americans, not mass unemployment and welfare dependence, will add to Trump's bottom line.

So Trump is committed to the defeat of the New World Order, in accordance with which the Western nation states, including the USA, are to be trashed in the interests of the money power, which seeks global rule via bureaucratic international organizations such as the UN, the World Trade Organization, and NATO, all of which can be controlled by undemocratic means, i.e., arm-twisting, bribery, blackmail and, if necessary, the occasional assassination.

As a populist, Trump's the real deal. Unfortunately, although rich, he's not rich enough to take control of a significant portion of the mainstream media, which, in the hands of its globalist controllers, will drag his name in the mud and trample on it until even most hard-pressed and exploited Americans will be convinced that he's a liar, a buffoon and a racist, or in other words a scoundrel interloper among the legitimate agents of plutocracy, the Bush's the Clinton's and any other accomplished liars who can be reliably bought. And if character assassination doesn't work, a bullet will do the job just as well, as already threatened (and here).

Related: 

Irish Savant: Donald Trump: 'you know you're over the target when the flak starts flying

Ron Unz: John McCain: When "Tokyo Rose" Ran for President

FoxNews: Des Moines Register calls on Trump to drop out of 2016 raceHe's ahead in the polls, for God's sake. He'd just better quit, nothing else will stop him.

Unz Review: McCain and the POW Cover-Up

U-Tube: John Mccain Exposed By Vietnam Vets And Pow's

GS: 88 Percent Agree With Trump! John McCain Betrayed His Supporters, Our Veterans And The Country

USAToday: Trump slams critics

John McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing amnesty. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than Arizona’s.

Zero Hedge: The GOP's Biggest Nightmare: Trump Dominates Fox News Poll

PuffHo: Trump not a serious candidate

PR: FED: Immigration flood taking jobs from American teens

WRH: Krauthammer: Talking about Trump is 'a complete waste of time'

Scotch Nats at Westminster Meddle in English Affairs in Desperate Attempt to Distract Attention from Their Complete Irrelevance

From the Daily Mail:

The SNP is to launch an explosive bid to interfere in English affairs for the first time.
MPs from Nicola Sturgeon's party have been ordered to engage with business leaders and communities in towns and cities to discuss local issues which may have no relevance to Scotland.

The contentious 'outreach plan' comes after the party ripped up its rule book and announced earlier this week it would oppose proposed changes to the fox hunting ban in England and Wales.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson claimed that he now wants to capitalise on the 'good will' towards the Scottish Nationalists south of the Border.

They might as well just collect their paychecks, expense their shopping trips to London and otherwise save their breath.

Alternatively, they should cross the floor and join one of the unionist parties.

Damn Fool Atheists

Atheists pride themselves on their rationality. Most claim that God has been debunked by science and, in particular, by Darwin's theory of evolution. There is no need for a creator, they say, mankind was not created, humanity simply emerged from the slime by the process of natural selection among random variants of earlier life forms.

And if you ask these rationalists where the primeval slime came from they tell you it arose through the chemical and physical processes that in the course of billions of years shaped the earth, its climate and oceans.

And if you ask them where the earth came from they tell you it arose through evolutionary processes in the galaxy, involving star formation and supernova explosions and stellar nucleosynthesis and other events occurring over the 14 billion years since the birth of the universe in the Big Bang.

And if you ask them who set off the Big Bang, they tell you it was the result of a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum.

And if you ask them who created the vacuum and who wrote the rules that caused this Mother-of-All quantum fluctuations to occur in said vacuum they tell you, um, well, we've not yet worked that out, but obviously it wasn't a being in the form of a man with a gray beard, who set the thing going solely for the purpose of creating Planet Earth and its residents amazingly evolved in the image of the Creator.

So the atheist boasting of their scientific rationality and their evolutionism can tell you nothing whatever about the ultimate origins of the World or, therefore, of humanity. Or as Stephen Hawking wrote in a moment of candor about the physicists' Holy Grail, "the theory of everything," we don't know what it is "that breathes fire into the equations" or why "the universe goes to all the bother of existing."

Which means that for all their scientism, the atheists have no more idea than anyone else about why the universe, or hence humanity, exists. In reality, therefore, the position of the atheists is simply this: they reject as meaningless and worthless rubbish the Bible, the Koran and the Gitas and other Holy writings of the World's religious faiths because they are not founded on science, which as we've just established, has nothing to say about the creation of the world.

But there's no reason for intellectual conceit in rejecting the truth of the Holy books. Obviously, as a literal account of the origin of the World, Genesis is bunk. Equally, as the portrait of an omniscient and benevolent creator, the Old Testament fails totally. On any objective reading of the Bible, Yahweh is a vain, ignorant, sadistic racist. But so what? Who's claiming the Bible represents historical truth, or the morality of America's new religion of Political Correctness? Well some ignorant people exploited by television evangelists may believe the former, and some crackpot liberal Christians, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, may try to believe the latter. But any half educated person or reasonable intelligence knows that Holy scripture is neither history nor an old fashioned version of political correctness. Rather, it is a collection of myths, rules of conduct, songs, poetry and words of wisdom that promote group survival and facilitate collaboration among strangers within a faith community. The great religions embody the codes of conduct that created the moral framework within which the World's great civilizations have survived over the course of the last several thousand years.

But atheists, apparently, cannot tolerate the telling of myths, or they hate moral rules, or they have no ear for poetry, or they loath to hear words of wisdom from a former time. More seriously, they fail to grasp, or they seek to deny, that religious narratives are neither historical nor scientific, but simply part of a vital mechanism of social organization. Anti-religious atheism is thus based on the failure to understand two fundamental features of human society; namely, the universality of religious belief, and the necessity of religion as the basis of a society-wide ethical code upon which the prosperity and the survival of a human community depends.

The universality of religion arises from the human propensity to endow moral rules with great emotional significance. This propensity is undoubtedly the result of Darwinian selection. Groups unable to uphold a system of moral rules were wiped out by better adapted groups, which is to say groups more susceptible to religious faith. By exploiting the human susceptibility to religious faith and the moral rules that religion embodies, the institutions of religion imbue all members of a society with the same moral values. It is the sharing of a moral code that ensures social cohesion and provides a basis for collaboration among strangers, rather than merely among immediate relatives and acquaintances as in the pre-civilizational mode of human existence. The importance of myths, music, poetry, prayer, fasting, etc. is that they add to the emotional significance of the moral code that the faith imbues.

In their contribution to the well-being of society, not all religions are equal. Many have failed, their adherents destroyed or converted to other faiths by groups with better religious institutions. Moreover, there is nothing universal about the myths and rituals of religion. God is not necessary to religion as the Communists demonstrated following the Russian revolution. Instead, as in Ancient Rome, people may be expected to worship an all powerful human ruler, a Caligula, a Stalin, or an Obama. In general, however, godless religions serve their adherents poorly. Rome under the divine-emperors became decadent and fell to the barbarians; Communism became decadent and fell to the Americans; and today, the American empire and its vassal states, which in accordance with the godless and supposedly rational religion of Political Correctness are committed to the destruction of their own peoples and cultures through the suppression of reproduction of the native population, the mass killing of the unborn, combined with the promotion of immigration of more fertile aliens of a different race and religion, are both decadent and apparently on the brink of implosion.

So, of course, God, as portrayed in Holy scripture of this or that religious faith, does not exist. But the myth of God the lawgiver still exists for the majority of the World’s population. Moreover it will be those of the more robust, god-fearing religious faiths who will inherit the earth, not the damn fool atheists and their brainwashed politically correct followers who take pride in destroying the religious faith of their own community.

Trump with Bill O'Reilly, Farage on Greece

VIDEO: Full, Unedited Donald Trump Speech From Phoenix — Saturday, July 11, 2015

RELATED: 

Political Insider: Hillary Calls Trump a Racist: Trump Delivers Crushing Response

Failing candidate Hillary Clinton, who is desperately trying to hold on to her lead in the democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, is knowingly putting out lies about my stance on illegal immigration. I said “Mexico is sending”— I’m not knocking immigration or immigrants, but rather am very critical of the country of Mexico for sending us people that they don’t want. Likewise I am very critical of illegal immigration and the tremendous problems including crime, which it causes.

She is desperate, she is sad, and she is obviously very nervous when she has to revert to issues that have already been settled given the absolute accuracy of my statement. She speaks about “my tone” and that’s the problem with our country’s leaders. They are more worried about tone than results! It’s not about being nice— it’s about being competent.

Hillary should spend more time producing her illegally hidden emails and less time trying to obfuscate a statement by me that is totally clear and obviously very much accepted by the public as true. I am honored, however, that she is attacking me, instead of Jeb Bush. Obviously she knows that JEB is no longer her real competition. The last person she wants to face is Donald Trump.

Investment Watch: Was Trump Right? Fact Check: 276 ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Let 8,145 Illegal Offenders Free In Just 8 Months, Releases Rapists And Murderers…Hungary Seems To Have The Right Idea By Building Anti-Migrant Fence

Professor Kevin McDonald: How it Could Happen: The Candidacy of Donald Trump

CanSpeccy (in 2011): Will Donald Trump Trump the New World Order?

Greece: Democracy Versus Disaster Capitalism

The dupes or mouthpieces of scumbag capitalists, the mega banks, and their political agents, having failed to intimidate the Greeks into voting yes for austerity, are now saying that the referendum no means nothing other than perhaps a trivial lessening of the punishment to be imposed on the Greeks by their creditors. In particular, it is asserted that whatever the ultimate arrangements, those work-shy, tax-evading, early retiring Greeks will have to work much harder and longer for less, while paying more tax and selling off state assets for cents on the Euro to capitalist predators such as George Soros. 

Thing is though, there's no way short of war that Greece can be made to repay it's sovereign debt, which now totals 180% of GDP. So if the Greek government keeps its nerve, the question will prove to be not about the terms imposed on Greece by the disaster capitalists, but the terms imposed on the disaster capitalists by Greece. 

And how that question is resolved has no bearing on the other question critical to Greece's economic health, namely, whether Greece retains the Euro or restores its own currency. For reasons we spelled out elsewhere, the Euro is highly toxic to the slower growing European economies, which are forced by the overvalued Euro — relative to their productivity — to tolerate unnaturally high unemployment, and low investment, while at the same time it is highly advantageous to Germany and other faster growing economies which enjoy as a result of the undervalued Euro — relative to their productivity — the benefits of abnormally low unemployment and high investment. 

The problem of Greek debt and its resolution is brilliantly stated by French economist, Tomas Picketty in an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit: "Germany Has Never Repaid Its Debts; It Has No Standing To Lecture Other Nations".

The time for the creditors to slash Greek debt and for Greece to exit the Euro is now.

Related: 

WUFS: Planned US Coup in Greece?

Ukraine Update: Killing and Maiming Ethnic Russians for Stephen Harper and the Oligarchs

BBC: Ukraine crisis: Rally in Kiev urges war on eastern rebels

Protesters in Kiev calling on the government to declare war on the rebels in eastern Ukraine. And screw the Minsk Agreement.
That's the spirit lads. Stephen Harper will be proud of you.

And via The Saker: You Think the Ukraine Is Independent. Think Again

And How One Ukrainian Woman Views the War on Ethnic Russians (Via Deep Resource). Viktoria Shilova is a member of the Dnipropetrovsk City council.

EMBASSY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, OTTAWA: Canada's Anti-Russian Sanctions: Just Vote-Fishing by Harper

Canada has imposed new sanctions on Russia, chiefly it seems, because contrary to Mr. Harper's expressed wish, Mr. Putin (domestic approval rating: 89%) hasn't stepped down as Russia's President.

Click For Larger Image

The sanctions prompted a contemptuous response from the Russian Embassy in Ottawa (see facsimile at left), which described them as of a "purely domestic nature," motivated by "vote-fishing".

 In response to the new Canadian sanctions, Russia will develop further retaliatory economic measures against Canada and may also up the military pressure on Canada's Northern border, where, so the CBC reports, interception of Russian military probes is already imposing "a very severe strain for Canada’s modest fighter fleet of 77 F-18s, which has to cover extraordinary distances to provide full protection when Russians come snooping. It’s an expensive and draining effort."

On the economic front, the Russian response to Canadian sanctions have already cost Canadian farmers, fishermen and manufacturers hundreds of millions in lost exports of pork and other meats, seafood, milk and dairy products, fruit, vegetables and farm machinery, while Bombardier's $3.4 billion joint venture to assemble passenger aircraft in Russia is now on indefinite hold.

But if a few billion in lost sales sways enough Canadians of Ukrainian extraction to vote for the Tories, Stephen Harper will not doubt consider the price worth it. Heck, it's not costing Harper anything.

See Also: 

Russia-Insider: Stagnant Canada Should Reconsider Trade With Russia

Russia-Insider: Canada sanctions on Russian philosopher. LOL

Canadian Press: Jason Kenney Dismisses Concerns About Canada Training Ukraine's Nazified Azov Battalion. (Yeah, what's a few Nazis among friends.)

Tim Hunt, the Kind, Unworldly Nobel-Prize-Winner, Brought Down By a Report of Disputed Veracity By a Twittering, Anglophobic, Black-Privileged, Resumé-padding, Lecturer in Journalism and the Lies of Professor Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London, a Man Unable to Acknowledge an Error of Judgment, and Under the Sway of the Odious Morality of a Stuffed Corpse

I think the title says it all, but for those who want details and references, here they are:

1. Tim Hunt, the Kind Unworldly Nobel prize Winner

During a BBC discussion, Prof. Dame Valerie Beral, director of Oxford University's Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford said:

he's a very kind and very eccentric, unworldly sort of man ... One thing you cannot say about Tim Hunt is that he is ``sexist.`` (Full Interview)

2. Brought Down By a Report of Disputed Veracity

The Times: Hunt’s ‘chauvinist’ speech praised as warm and funny
Sir Tim Hunt’s now infamous comments at a meal for women science journalists were not met by uncomfortable silence but were instead praised for being “warm and funny”, according to a leaked European Commission report.

An official who accompanied the Nobel prize-winning scientist on his visit to South Korea said that despite accounts at the time, which led to Sir Tim being forced to resign from several academic posts, his audience was not obviously offended by his comments about the ``trouble with girls`` in science.

3. Twittering

The Twitter posting of Connie St. Louis that set off a firestorm over remarks made by Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, while proposing a before-dinner toast at a conference for science journalists in Korea.

  4.

4. Anglophobic

"Why are the British so embarrassing abroad?"

You meant to stereotype just the white British abroad, eh Connie, not the members of the trendy settler community, surely.

5. Black-Privileged

Breitbart: Is the Media Silent on Tim Hunt Accuser Connie St. Louis's lies because of her "Black Provilege'?

6. Resumé Padding

Daily Mail: Lecturer who first accused 'sexist' Nobel Prize professor keeps her job despite the Mail revealing her dubious claims about her career (but has been told to 'update' her CV)

7. Lies of  Professor Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London

Professor Arthur argued that he accepted the resignation ‘in good faith on the basis that it was his personal choice as the honourable thing to do’.

Which is a lie if Tim Hunt's wife, Mary Collins, is to be believed. She has stated that Tim Hunt was induced to resign by a bullying phone call to her in which "she was told by a senior UCL figure – understood to be Dean of Life Sciences Geraint Rees – that he ‘should resign or be sacked’."

8. Professor Michael Arthur,  a Man Unable to Acknowledge an Error of Judgment

In an article for the university’s website on ‘women in science’, Professor Arthur said: 

‘equality, diversity... were very important to the university.

The implication being that Tim Hunt is against equality and diversity in the university. This was the assumption that justified bullying Tim Hunt's wife to persuade Tim Hunt to resign his honorary, i.e., unpaid, position at University College London. But where is the evidence? Professor Arthur simply assumes it, and in doing so reiterates, by implication, what appears to be a libel. A libel, or a lie, which by implication, he then repeats:

‘It was for this very reason that Sir Tim’s remarks struck such a discordant note. Our ambition is to create a working environment in which women feel supported and valued at work.’

Then Professor Arthur made this remarkable admission: 

‘Our view is reversing that decision would send entirely the wrong signal’

Exactly. The "wrong signal" being that Professor Arthur's initial judgment in this matter was premature and unsound. In order not to "send the wrong signal" Professor Arthur has chosen to adhere to this premature and unsound judgment in the face of mounting evidence of its injustice.

9. Professor Arthur, A Man Under the Sway of the Odious Morality of a Stuffed Corpse

The stuffed corpse in question being that of Jeremy Bentham, which is kept at University College and is, so it has been claimed, wheeled out from time to time to sit at the head of the table at college council meetings.

The odious morality cited by Professor Arthur as justification for trashing Tim Hunt's reputation is Jeremy Bentham's "happiness principle" often referred to as utilitarianism, or as Professor Arthur describes it:

‘...the greatest good for the greatest number’ [which is] very important to the university.

In practical terms, this is the notion that if conducting cruel and lethal experiment on an innocent child would result in the cure of cancer for millions, then such experiments would be morally justified.

From this principle we can infer that, in Professor Arthur's mind, the crucifixion of Tim Hunt based on the misinterpretation of his remarks — if not their outright falsification — is fully justified if it benefits women in science.

It's the morality of the terrorist: shoot up a bunch of innocents on a Tunisian beach to advance the noble goals of the Islamic State, or blow up the Twin Towers as a pretext for the next war for oil, the plutocracy and the New World Order.

Now is the time for University College to send Bentham's corpse to the incinerator, and to find a new Provost who will speak for traditional European Christian values, not the New World Order narrative on equality and diversity and the trashing of white European males.

10. Then there's the dishonorable role of the Royal Society in the humiliation of Tim Hunt. But, as a snappy headline, my title was already too long. And anyhow I wrote about those bozos here.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: The Ugly Interior of Jeremy Bentham's Head

CanSpeccy: Britain's Peeping State: Bureaucrats At the Washroom Keyhole

Tim Hunt: What the Royal Society Said — Does Anyone Know What the Royal Society Is Talking About? Does the Royal Society Know What's It's Talking About?

Here' what Tim Hunt said while proposing a toast at a conference of science journalists in Korea:

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously. I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.

In response, here's what the Royal Society posted on the Web on June 9:

The Royal Society has acted to distance itself from reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt FRS about women in science made during an event at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Korea. The Royal Society believes ...

Fancy that, a society with beliefs. But what does it mean: that the members of the Royal Society are unanimous in their belief about a trivial passing event and that the Royal Society somehow knows this without polling its members. Or is it that the Royal Society contends that whatever it decrees as the belief of the Society must then be adopted as a matter of faith by all of its members?

But more importantly, if the Royal Society believed it must publicly distance itself from one of its members, aka fellows, should it not have said why? Well, apparently, the Society thinks not. What's more, the Society evidently felt free to rub salt into the wound, since on June 11 it posted this on the Web:

Sir Tim Hunt’s recent comments relating to women in science have no place in science. The Royal Society believes that too many talented individuals do not fulfill their scientific potential because of issues such as gender discrimination and the Society is committed to helping to put this right. ...

But as with the June 9 statement, no justification is offered for this direct denunciation of Professor Hunt. So we still don't know what the Royal Society is talking about. What we have is mere innuendo. According to the Society's statement, Professor Hunt's comments in Korea entail "issues" such as gender discrimination.

But when people talk about "issues" it is advisable to sniff the air for the scent of bovine excrement. By directly following a reference to Professor Hunt's comments in Korea by the statement of another one of the Societies "beliefs," the Society created the impression that Professor Hunt's remarks militate against "talented individuals" not fulfilling their scientific potential "because of issues such as gender discrimination" blah, blah, blah.

Of course the implied connection has no logical validity whatever, which makes one wonder just how clever these Fellows of the Royal Society really are. And incidentally, doesn't the term "Fellow of the Royal Society" constitute an issue of gender discrimination. I mean shouldn't it be GGRS (Guys and Gals of the Royal Society). Jus' sayin'.

Anyhow, it seems clear that the Royal Society has libeled Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS (or GGRS), Nobel Laureate, both directly and indirectly in its published pronouncements. Perhaps the Royal Society reached its beliefs about Professor Hunt's remarks while under a misapprehension about what he had said or about the context in which his remarks were made. But it is clear now that the Royal Society's statements about Professor Hunt are entirely unwarranted and unjust, and that it is, therefore, time for the Royal Society to make a public apology.

Related:

Daily Mail: A very flawed accuser: Investigation into the academic who hounded a Nobel Prize winning scientist out of his job reveals troubling questions about her testimony

Justice Scalia’s Dissent From the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

Scalia called attention to: “this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Source

The Humiliation of Tim Hunt: Why Did He Apologise?

If when the twits began to twitter that he'd made a sexist remark, Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, had issued a vice-presidential "Go fuck yourself," that would have been the end to the witch hunt, i.e., the hunt by feminist witches. Instead he apologized, admitting that he'd gone mad, which to those in pursuit was like blood in the water to a shark.

Meantime, Hunt's confession was all that the bureaucratic enforcers of political correctness needed to instigate immediate punitive action. The Royal Society, headed by Sir Paul Nurse, who shared with Tim Hunt the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, immediately "distanced" itself from the hapless Hunt, while University College London (Vice-Chancellor Professor Michael Arthur) booted Hunt from his unpaid faculty position within hours, as did the European Research Council (President: Professor Jean-Pierre Bourguignon).

That none of these organizations, each headed by a distinguished scientist, found it necessary either to justify its action or to provide Professor Hunt an opportunity to speak for himself is an aspect of the Hunt affair that deserves critical consideration. Here though, our concern is solely with this question: why did Hunt bring disaster upon his own head by making an unwarranted and, indeed, idiotic confession of guilt?

The answer, it seems, can only be that Hunt, is himself a feminist, which is to say a supporter of everything PC who automatically caves to any feminist demand whatever.

Which raises the further question, why would someone of undoubted intelligence adopt such a foolish view? And to that, I suggest, the answer is simply that Hunt accepts the liberal-left PC ideology that is almost universally held in academia. Most likely Hunt assimilated this view back in the 70's and has never given it a moment's serious thought since, first because he has a mind very narrowly focused on scientific work, and second because when 85-90% of your academic colleagues, including the administrative bureaucracy, are liberal leftist feminists, being a liberal-leftist feminist is the most comfortable position to take.

Why most academics are liberal-leftist advocates of feminism, diversity, aka the ethnic cleansing of the European peoples through suppression of reproduction plus mass immigration, etc., etc., is not entirely clear to me, although it is, obviously, highly compatible with the libertinism of many male academics working closely with nubile feminist students, such as was, for example, Mary Collins, Hunt's graduate student who became his second wife.

Perhaps the humiliation of Tim Hunt will prompt a few academics to re-examine their commitment to the liberal-leftist ideology that nurtures the politically correct world view. But don't bet on it. Education is a key component of the modern state's brainwashing apparatus. Academics play a critical role in in this apparatus: they teach the teachers who indoctrinate the children. Defection from the official line will always incur a substantial penalty.

Related: 

RamZPaul: Tim Hunt — that is NOT funny!

Irish Savant: Stand up and fight

Dumb Ideas From Academia, No. 23: How Computer Technology Will Enable Brain to Brain Communication

Ian Morris, a Stanford-based ex-Brit, has produced another long and tedious work of current history  (see reviews here), consistent with the US imperialist narrative, which is to say that war is good, and we need more of it.

Having been stung by an earlier work by Morris, I naturally refrained from purchasing his latest screed, but I glanced through it at the bookstore, committing the following passage to my capacious memory before returning the volume to the shelf upside down (a convenient method of book review):

But when we turn from soothsaying to what is actually happening in laboratories, we discover — perhaps unsurprisingly — that while no one can predict the detailed results, the broad trend does keep moving toward the computerization of everything. I touched on some of this science in my book Why the West Rules — for Now, so here I can be brief, but I do want to note a couple of remarkable advances in what neuroscientists call brain-to-brain interfacing. (In plain English, telepathy, over the Internet) made since that book appeared in 2010. 

See what I meant about tedious? We don't have merely what is happening in laboratories, we have what is actually happening. The claim that we cannot predict the future of scientific discovery in detail, hardly needs prefacing with the words perhaps unsurprisingly, and the assumption that we must have read the author's previous incredibly long and tedious book seems rash, since anyone susceptible to the pain of extreme boredom who had read the previous book is unlikely to be reading the present one. But at least, here, Morris promises to be brief, which is encouraging, so let us continue, at least briefly:

The first requirement for merging minds through machines is machines that can read the electrical signals inside out skulls ...

Etc. Yeah, well, some people no doubt hope to recreate the Borg empire on Earth, everyone to have a thingy stuck in their head to assure unresisting assimilation. But the mind meld that we are familiar with from Star Trek, with or without the Borg snorkel, is not new. It's as old as the hills. About a hundred thousand years old, anyhow, since that's how long humans have used language with which, not only to talk, but to think. See, that's the essence of the mind meld. Creating the same thought in your head as in mine. So if I say, "shit, this book by Morris is a bore," what you'll hear is "shit, this book by Morris is a bore."

But there's more to verbal communication than that. If you live in town and like to walk, or if you commute by public transport, you must overhear the conversations of other walkers or commuters, and one thing that you will thus be aware of is that not only do people use speech to convey verbal thoughts, but they express emotion in tones of voice and in patterns of verbal emphasis. Moreover, although these characteristics of speech vary from place to place, within any local group they become highly standardized, as is particularly obvious among young people who have been socialized almost entirely by other children, plus TV and Hollywood (which is why one rather despairs of the next generation). We can be confident, therefore, that when certain tones of expression and patterns of emphasis are used, they have essentially the same emotional significance for both speaker and hearer.

So, contrary to this idea that "the broad trend does keep moving toward the computerization of everything," you don't need a computer for brain-to-brain communication unless you are communicating remotely, in which case you do need a computer, but only as an input device activated via a keyboard, microphone or camera. So actually, Professor Morris seems to be about a hundred thousand years behind the times. True there are some forms of thought that are not so easily verbalized, but humanity managed to develop the Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with nothing beside words, including some special math terminology, as a means of communication, so it remains open to question whether there would be any gain in communication effectiveness from wiring people's brains together. The downside, though, is obvious: the NSA would tap your thoughts and then decide, by means of a computer algorithm, probably,  whether to set you up for a drone attack next week.

"Métissage, It's An Obligation" — NON

Related:

CanSpeccy: The Treason of Nicolas Sarkozy: "Métissage" - It's An Obligation!

Cambrian Dissenters: Cameron's U-Turn On Immigrants But Where Can He Put Them All?

Cambrian Dissenters: Michelle Obama's London Visit Was A Calculated Insult

MIT Meteorology Prof, Science Magazine and the Pope Concur: The Reality of Human Caused Climate Change Is an Article of Religious Faith

First there was an article by MIT meteorology professor emeritus, Richard Lindzen, asserting that  global warming alarmism is a religious cult.

Second, there was a long letter in Science magazine, the chief publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, asserting that the warnings of “science” about the risk of catastrophic global warming should be accepted by the public as a matter of faith.

Third, there was the Pope's encyclical "saying" so the CBC tells us, that "the crisis [of climate change] is man-made and must be fixed".

So there you have it: belief in human caused climate change is an article of faith endorsed by all and sundry, from MIT Prof., Richard Lindzen, to Science Mag. and the Pope.

To be fair, though, not all Catholics (or even all scientists, one hopes), believe that the climate change debate can be resolved other than on the basis of  the evidence. The point is nicely made in this post on the Catholic Answers blog:

Whether the Earth is getting warmer and the degree to which we may be responsible for that are matters of science, not faith. They stand or fall by the scientific evidence, which is why the pope appeals to scientific studies.

If good science supports manmade global warming, that gives Catholics (and everyone else) reason to believe it. If good science opposes manmade global warming, that gives everyone reason to disbelieve it.

Furthermore, since the results of science are always provisional and open to revision—with the “scientific orthodoxy” of one generation frequently replaced in the next generation—people on both sides of the question should hold their views with proper reserve and openness to revising them.

This is thus a subject on which there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics and among people in general.

Pretty weird, though, innit, having to go to a Catholic blog to get a reasonable statement of what constitutes a rational view of the climate science debate.

And there is this pertinent comment by Jack Spring on the above mentioned blog post:

Catholics believe the Pope speaks infallibly when he makes a proclamation ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. There is much within this encyclical which is not, strictly speaking, a matter of faith and morals. Indeed, the Pope takes the position of the UN in accepting as true conclusions about climate science which are still very much in dispute.

Which is to say, the Pope, on climate change, ain't infallible, he's just catapulting the propaganda. Likewise, Science magazine.

Putin, Putin, Everyone Put the Boot In

The effectiveness of US propaganda depends on the fact that it is wall to wall. On the fringes are Wacko bloggers like former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, a self-hating Englishman who claims that the Russian economy will soon be smaller than that of Spain, or was it Portugal, or perhaps Estonia.

The Canadian take: And the evidence is?

Then there are the news mags. Der Spiegel, for example, with its front cover damning Putin for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (with the words "Stoppt Putin jetzt!" over images of the victims of the crash) without, as it turns out, any evidence whatever. And there's the Economist, edited by the loony Russophobe, Edward Lucas, who in a recent public forum tried to convince an astounded audience that Russia is less of a geopolitical player than Estonia (pop. 1 million) (at 42 minutes in). Plus Canada's dental waiting room fixture, Macleans, which simply calls Putin a mass murderer. If you're gonna abuse someone, no point in beating about the bush, obviously.

And by no means of least importance, the daily coverage by the MSM reassuring the booboisie on a daily basis that Russia is basically finished: is not a threat at all, really, however much she is insulted, threatened, or taunted, notwithstanding the seven thousand nukes and a new ICBM in production. Indeed we can look forward to seeing Russia again open to looting by the Western multinationals as in the good old Yeltsin days. The only obstacle is that little runt Putin, the New Hitler, to be disposed of like, you know, how we disposed of those other New Hitlers, Saddam and Gaddhafi.

Yesterday's (Toronto) Globe and Mail, the self-proclaimed Canadian National Newspaper, provides a nice example of this low key propaganda under the Business Page headline: "Putin's oil worries are far from over". Russia, the article states, desperately needs high oil prices to lift its energy-fuelled economy out of recession, blah, blah, blah. Funny thing, though, the article says nothing about Harper's oil worries being "far from over", yet Canada exports more oil per capita than Russia and like Russia has seen a sharp devaluation of its currency since last year's slump in the price of oil. Moreover, whereas Russia is a low-cost oil producer, Canada's tar sands oil is the costliest to produce of any oil on the planet, with the result that, with the recent slump in price, the oil majors have slashed tens of billions from planned tar sands development, and have fired tens of thousands of Canadian workers.

Meantime Russia's oil industry continues to expand, with Rosneft and BP reaching agreement just the other day to proceed with development of the one-billion barrel Taas-Yuriakh field in Eastern Siberia. And why not. The Russians managed to pump almost ten million barrels a day in 2001 when oil was at $20, so they're not likely feeling unbearable pain with a sharply devalued ruble and oil at $60.

But however stupid the propaganda, it works. Most Canadians think Harper is right to insult Putin whenever the chance arises, to send Canadian fighter jets to pose a menace to Russia's Western border, and to send military aid and military personnel to train Kiev's Russophobic Nazis, under the direction of US gauleiters such as Tony Blair and  Mikhail Saakashvili.

Related: 

RT: Bloomberg's Coverage of St. Petersburg Econ Forum Was Embarrassing. Here Are the Highlights

The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry. Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate 

What was sexist about the recent comments by Tim Hunt concerning his experience of women in the laboratory?

Nothing.

He was not advocating discrimination. He was not advocating rape. What he said about men and women working in the laboratory was a statement of a sociological fact. It was also a statement of an autobiographical fact; namely, that Hunt divorced his first wife to marry his graduate student.

As for what he said about women crying when they are criticized, that was an unduly broad generalization, but based upon fact. Some women do cry when criticized, a reality that militates against effective discipline in an environment where strict discipline is essential to the success of a challenging enterprise.

So no, contrary to the "sympathetic" public commentary, the feminists did not go too far. They went where they had no business whatever. They mugged an innocent person too politically naive to defend himself.

And the punishment was not too severe, because it was totally unwarranted.

The wonderful elaborations and complexities of Western society were built on the efforts of a few otherworldly geniuses: artists, priests, scientists, inventors, soldiers, sailors and others rare individuals.

Such people are different from you and I: they devote their lives to a vocation. Such people tend to be of childlike simplicity in matters unrelated to their work. They are not savvy in the ways of politics or the games of political correctness.

A society that fails to honor the implicit social contract with such people; a contract that promises honor and protection to those who devote their lives to a calling, can expect to have no great men or women. Moreover it cannot expect to endure as an independent society, since lacking great men it will lack the scientific and technological resources necessary for its own defense, whether against external enemies or internal corruption.

The Hunt affair confirms what much else suggests, that European civilization is in the final stages of disintegration. As yet, not a single important person, for example, the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, the Vice Chancellor of University College London, Professor Michael Arthur, or the President of the European Research Council, Professor Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, has offered an apology to Professor Hunt for the insult he has received at the hands of the institution with which they are associated.

Not one great public figure has yet to speak in Professor Hunt's honor. From the British government, we have this from Minister Nick Morgan:  "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all." Good God, that's a direct quote from the 1950's Disney cartoon, Bambi. It's Thumper, the rabbit: "If you can't say sumffink nice,  don't say nuffink at all."

And the Minister was directing her rebuke, not at the idiots who have torn down an icon of the scientific establishment, but at the victim himself.

Every summer Brits flock to the Royal Albert Hall to attend the eight-week series of Promenade Concerts, which end with a rendering of Edward Elgar's famous Rule Brittania, with the audience wildly singing that anthem to British greatness, an anthem that ends with the words:

And Briton's never, never, never shall be slaves.

Sadly, the Brits are now unwitting, and therefore absolute, slaves to a Quisling government that speaks in the voice of Micky Mouse; a government that is intent on the genocide of the British people through the Kalergi program of mass immigration, multiculturalism and the suppression of dissent by K-to-middle-age brainwashing in the guise of education; brainwashing that turns out morons who thrill to the spectacle of a distinguished old white European male being tormented by sadistic exponents of political correctness, while the society from which these dupes are sprung undergoes rapid annihilation as a racial and cultural entity.

Related:

CanSpeccy: The Humiliation of Tim Hunt: Why Did He Apologise?

CanSpeccy: Tim Hunt, the Kind, Unworldly Nobel-Prize-Winner, Brought Down By a Report of Disputed Veracity By a Twittering, Anglophobic, Black-Privileged, Resumé-padding, Lecturer in Journalism and the Lies of Professor Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London, a Man Unable to Acknowledge an Error of Judgment, and Under the Sway of the Odious Morality of a Stuffed Corpse
ITV: Net long-term migration to UK hits 318,000

Would Conchita Wurst Sound As Sweet By Any Other Name?

A conch is the shell of a mollusc or shell fish. The Bivalvia, known in previous centuries as the Lamellibranchiata and Pelecypoda," comprise, so Wikipedia informs,  "a class of marine and freshwater molluscs that have laterally compressed bodies enclosed by a shell consisting of two hinged parts. They have no head."

Well never mind about the head or lack thereof, just think about the shell, the two hinged parts spread wide and viewed from the outside. What do you see? Well, to some, what they see is reminiscent of the vulva, the external female genital organs of a mammal, in particular the labia majora located on either side of the vagina. No surprise, therefore, to learn from the Urban Dictionary that in Spanish, "conch" is slang for "cunt" and "conchita" means "little cunt."

Which naturally draws attention to the last name of the European song contest winner of our title, namely, "Wurst." As most readers will know, a wurst is a German or Austrian sausage, so few will be surprised to learn from the Urban Dictionary that "wurst" is also a slang term for penis. Hence my question: would the judges of the European song contest have been so enthused by the performance of the man with tits, or is a it a woman with a beard and penis, had he/she been introduced not as the pleasant sounding — to the English speaker's ear — Conchita Wurst, but as the rather less charming, Little Cunt Penis, or some variant of the same? Just asking.

It's Not Professor Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, Who's Sexist, But the PC Idiots Who Say He Is

On 9 June 2015, Tim Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, Korea, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"

His remarks included the following:

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.

The next day, according to Wikipedia, "numerous media outlets reported the story and criticized Hunt's remarks as sexist." 

So what's sexism? Here's Wikipedia's description of Hunt's alleged crime: 

Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism affects both men and women, but primarily women. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another. Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.

So where's the discrimination in Professor Hunt's remarks? Where's the incitement to rape?

Obviously, you have to be a total idiot or a contemptible liar to say that Professor Hunt's 37 words were sexist.

Hunt merely stated something about the sociology of a research lab. If you do a regular thirty-five-hour-a-week job, taking your yearly vacation allowance, a few sick days, maybe some flex days, etc., it is nevertheless likely that at some time in your career you will have taken a more than purely professional interest in one or other of the more attractive people of the opposite sex with whom you worked.

Well such a work environment as you are probably familiar with is nothing like that of a high-powered research lab. There you're likely to find people work twelve-hour days and seven-day weeks, and who will pull an all-nighter if that's what the experiment demands. There you will find people who have taken no holiday in years. And these are people trying to solve a real puzzle: they will likely be engaged in an unending conversation with co-workers, students, and technicians: how to tackle the problem experimentally, the innumerable technical snags and glitches whatever the approach, the evaluation of the data, the public presentation of the findings, the rebuttal of criticism, etc.

Now decide whether what Professor Hunt said makes sense, whether in fact, he was merely stating the obvious. Where men and women engage together in such intense effort as productive research requires, sexual tensions are inevitable and and can be powerfully disruptive. There's nothing discriminatory in saying that.

But what about the last bit: "and when you criticize them, they cry."

First, is it true or not? Here's what my wife, with over forty years of administrative experience, from running a high-powered research lab to editing journals to university administration told me: when a woman asks me for an evaluation of her performance "I ask whether they really want a candid appraisal or if that will make them cry."

So what's discriminatory about noting that female psychology, or is it physiology, can militate against effective discipline? Nothing, obviously.

So how is one to characterize the response of the Royal Society, which "acted to distance itself from the reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt."

Here's what they said:

The Royal Society believes that in order to achieve everything that it can, science needs to make the best use of the research capabilities of the entire population. Too many talented individuals do not fulfil their scientific potential because of issues such as gender and the Society is committed to helping to put this right. Sir Tim Hunt was speaking as an individual and his reported comments in no way reflect the views of the Royal Society.

Does that have anything to do with what Professor Hunt said, or what? Well actually nothing at all. But they're distancing themselves from Professor Hunt, anyhow.

Professor Hunt expressed no objection whatever to the employment of women in science, which is hardly suprising since his wife is a distinguished scientist whose graduate studies he supervised.

But the irrelevantly offensive stupidity of the Royal Society's "distancing" of itself from one of its most distinguished members was nothing compared to the actions of University College London, where Hunt held an honorary, that is to say unpaid, position. They got him to resign by bullying his wife, Professor Mary Collins who, speaking with the Guardian, said:

I was told by a senior that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked – though I was told it would be treated as a low-key affair. Tim duly emailed his resignation when he got home. The university promptly announced his resignation on its website and started tweeting that they had got rid of him. Essentially, they had hung both of us out to dry. They certainly did not treat it as a low-key affair. I got no warning about the announcement and no offer of help, even though I have worked there for nearly 20 years. It has done me lasting damage. 

How is one to characterize people who act so despicably? Morons? Arse holes? Nazis? Well, actually, I think "Sexists" is the right term. What we are seeing in the triumph of political correctness over sanity and decency is the rise of something like the mentality of ancient Rome, where people were thrown to the lions for the amusement of the masses.

Here we have a case of a distinguished, old, white guy being publicly humiliated for no better reason than that he is a distinguished, old, white guy, i.e., exactly the sort of successful, racially unmixed, hard-working, responsible person most hated by the mis-educated, multi-culturalized, self-hating British moronocracy. And the elite at the Royal Society, the University of London, and the folks at the European Research Council, who also fired Hunt, are right behind the mob: a mob of sexist, racist, anti-intellectualist British yahoos.

But then where are the Brits? To judge by some press reports, the Brits seem to have been entirely ethnically cleansed:

A greeting for Michelle Obama during a visit to a London school. Source Daily Mail. Nice-looking kids. But they're NOT ENGLISH.