Canceling biology

Richard Dawkins certainly never saw this coming. I warned him, and everyone, that post-Christianity is not compatible with science, indeed, that Christianity was not only necessary for scientody, but is arguably necessary for a functional scientistry as well. Now we’re learning that even the history of science is being canceled:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of ‘racist’ scientists as part of a guide to ‘decolonise’ its biology curriculum. 

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help ‘tackle racial injustice’ by ‘reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science’.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 ‘problematic’ scientific figures – including Darwin – whose views ‘influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data’. 

An explanation next to the 19th century naturalist’s name says that Darwin ‘believed that his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others’.

With the exception of James Watson, the list of problematic scientific figures reads like a who’s who of atheist heroes. Atheists have falsely claimed that science and Christianity are incompatible for decades, but what they’ve learned in just three short years is that it is science and social justice which are totally incapable of coexisting.

Ronald Fisher

Known for: Pioneered the application of statistical procedures to the design of scientific experiments. He was a Professor in the Eugenics department at University College London.

Sheffield’s view: He believed that races differed ‘in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development’.

One of his works, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, ‘endorses colonialism, white supremacy, and eugenics and discusses his belief in the higher and lower genetic value of people according to their race’.

Carl Linnaeus

Known for: Formalising the modern system of naming organisms

Sheffield’s view: He applied his system of classification to position human races, with white Europeans at the top, and black, indigenous, and other people of colour groups gradually descending his hierarchy.

James Watson 

Known for: Proposing the double helix structure of the DNA molecule with Francis Crick

Sheffield’s view: The 93-year-old has previously made outwardly racist public comments about the innate inequality of people from different races, particularly with regards to intelligence.

Thomas Henry Huxley 

Known for: Supporting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and proposing connections between development of organisms and their evolutionary histories.

Sheffield’s view: Huxley’s belief that ‘no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes, that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man’ was used as justification for segregation. 

Francis Galton

Known for: Coining the term ‘eugenics’, he was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences.

Sheffield’s view: He was obsessed with a eugenic ‘utopia’ in which the genetic elite were encouraged to breed, segregated from the sterilised underclass. It has been said that his work ‘invented racism’.

Karl Pearson

Known for: Pioneering work in mathematical statistics and creating a methodology to identify correlations.

Sheffield’s view: He believed strongly in racial segregation and that races other than his own were inferior. 

Alfred Russell Wallace

Known for: Co-developing the theory of natural selection and evolution with Charles Darwin, something Darwin is most often credited for.

Sheffield’s view: He carried out all of his field observations in a colonial environment. In a similar concept to the ‘Wallace line’ separating biological realms, he drew a boundary line between what he classified as different ethnic groups in the colonial Dutch East Indies.

Henry Walter Bates

Known for: Expeditions of the Amazon rainforests where his studies led him to propose the idea of mimicry in unrelated animal species. 

Sheffield’s view: Like Darwin and other explorers, he travelled and collected specimens from colonial South America and was a proponent of colonialism in the Amazon.

Julian Huxley

Known for: Supporting the theory of natural selection, he also worked for the Zoological Society of London and was the first director of UNESCO. His brother was the writer Aldous Huxley.

Sheffield’s view: He was a prominent figure in British Eugenics Society and believed that the lower classes were genetically inferior and should be prevented from reproducing and even sterilised.

JBS Haldane

Known for: Introducing the ‘primordial soup theory’, which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life.

Sheffield’s view: He published a book in 1924 describing the use of in vitro fertilisation for eugenics purposes. 

More useless than the French

 After 60 years of completely failing to defend America’s borders or protect the nation from invasion, a group of retired US military officers is… encouraging everyone to get involved in local and state politics.

More than 120 retired generals, admirals, and military officers signed a letter that warned that the United States is embroiled in an existential fight and called on “all citizens” to get involved in local and state politics.

“We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty,” stated the letter (pdf), which was signed by 124 former generals and admirals, released by “Flag Officers 4 America.”

The letter also posited that opposition to proposed bills and laws that would strengthen election initiatives has troublesome implications.

“Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such commonsense controls ‘racist’ in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections,” the letter added.

According to the Flag Officers 4 America website, it is a group of former military leaders who “pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,” who are “domestic” and “foreign.”

Of note, signatories of the letter include retired Army Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc—a Senate candidate in New Hampshire, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, and retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter—who was the deputy national security adviser for President Ronald Reagan.

“China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically, and technologically. We must impose more sanctions and restrictions to impede their world domination goal and protect America’s interests,” their letter also said.

OK, Boomers. The extent to which this letter completely misses the point and the problems is downright amusing. Civnattery and vooting harder will accomplish precisely nothing.

What a joke. With an officer class like this, no wonder the USA hasn’t been capable of defeating any foe bigger than Panama. 

Leaving Los Angeles

The Golden Age of the Golden State is long over:

California’s population fell by more than 182,000 last year, the first yearly loss ever recorded for the nation’s most populous state. The decline halted a growth streak dating to its founding in 1850 on the heels of a gold rush that prompted a flood of people to seek their fortune in the West.

The figures released Friday followed last week’s announcement from the U.S. Census Bureau that California would lose a congressional seat for the first time because it grew more slowly than other states over the past decade. Still, California’s population of just under 39.5 million and soon-to-be 52-member congressional delegation remain by far the largest.

California’s population has surged and slowed in the decades since its founding, with notable increases following World War II and the tech boom of the 1980s and ’90s that put Silicon Valley on the map.

In recent years, more people have left California for other states than have moved there, a trend Republicans say is a result of the state’s high taxes and progressive politics. The average sale price of a single-family home in California hit a record $758,990 in March, a 23.9{3549d4179a0cbfd35266a886b325f66920645bb4445f165578a9e086cbc22d08} increase from a year ago.

“The numbers don’t lie. People are leaving our state because it’s not affordable to live here,” tweeted Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and one of the Republican candidates hoping to unseat Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in this year’s expected recall election.

But the Newsom administration says California’s population decline is an outlier, blaming it on the coronavirus pandemic that turned everything upside down in 2020. In a normal year, California might have between 140,000 and 150,000 people move in from other countries. In 2020, it was just 29,000 people — a direct impact, state officials say, of the Trump administration halting new visas for much of the year.

It’s a good test for how magic the dirt of California is. I, for one, tend to suspect that no one will be wishing they could all be California girls in 2050.

The Free Speech fraud

 A former believer in free speech belatedly comes to realize that it was never anything more than an intellectual weapon designed to destabilize the Christian West by the Promethean intellectuals operating under the perverse banner of the Enlightenment.

The question is not, “Should we be absolutely free to speak?” The question is really, “Who should be the censors, and what should be censored?” We understand this intuitively, but the mantra of free speech propaganda often causes us to miss this.  

There are always blasphemy laws in any culture, even a libertine culture, where it is blasphemy to say, “That is immoral”, or “Maybe you should have self-control,” or, “Do you really need another cookie?”. We Christians and conservatives in the West fell into the trap of believing that neutrality could exist in a nation. That is, we thought a society based on a secular public sphere, allowing a freely expressed marketplace of ideas was possible. But this was always a lie, and this is why such a society didn’t last very long.

Really, those who sought to break the boundaries of what could and could not be said, were just using that as a means of usurping the Christian nature of the West, and taking power for themselves, so they could then enforce their version of blasphemy laws. Have you noticed how todays almost exclusively leftist cultural elite are not even slightly interested in encouraging the free market of ideas any more? They want no part of free speech. Why is this? Their goal of taking power has been achieved. There is no desire for the anti-establishment to let people freely continue to criticize the establishment, once they become the establishment. No, it actually becomes a threat to their systemic control.

This is not my opinion of what has happened, either, elements of society have been agitating for the disestablishment of the church for some time, and they have been utterly successful. Here in Australia, it is not uncommon to see the media go after politicians who are open in their Christian faith, even if their advocated policies are not all that Christian. The eminent historian and Medievalist, J B Bury, told us that progressives viewed free speech as a means of achieving this goal of destabilizing the Christian West.

First tradition had to be undermined, “It is only recently that men have been abandoning the belief that the welfare of a state depends on rigid stability and on the preservation of its traditions and institutions unchanged.” The process of dismantling tradition was encouraged by the effective and continued challenging of Western heritage, by the very elites who were supposed to preserve it. “DURING the last three hundred years reason has been slowly but steadily destroying Christian mythology and exposing the pretensions of supernatural revelation.”

This was not the dispassionate scientific process that it is often presented as being in the movies. Humanity did not just wake up one day in a state of “enlightenment” and determine based on scientific reason that all tradition must be rejected. It was guided in that direction, by ideologues and freedom of expression was the tool used to achieve this end. As Bury says, “…nothing should be left undone to impress upon the young that freedom of thought is an axiom of human progress.” By “human progress” Bury, and many other enlightenment thinkers really mean less Christian. Indeed, this is explicit in Bury’s A History of the Freedom of Thought, for example: “In this sense it might be said that ‘distrust thy father and mother’ is the first commandment with promise.” This is an explicitly anti-biblical command. This brings to mind Richard Dawkins misguided attempt to create a new 10 Commandments in his book The God Delusion, to replace the real ones.

These attempts to create new commandments are always foolish, because if mankind sees very little reason to follow God’s commands, why would he care about some enlightenment professors list?   

It is important to understand that freedom of expression was only ever a tool for the enlightenment anti-Church thought leaders, to replace the authority of the Church, with their own values and Dogma, and authority. Previous generations of enlightenment thinkers argued for, and even genuinely defended the principles of free speech. But once they had completely replaced the authority of scripture and the Church in guiding society, the doors began to close on anti-establishment sentiment, which Bury conceived as possible,

“It is by no means inconceivable that in lands where opinion is now free coercion might be introduced. If a revolutionary social movement prevailed, led by men inspired by faith in formulas (like the men of the French Revolution) and resolved to impose their creed, experience shows that coercion would almost inevitably be resorted to.”

Those who still champion free speech today are well-intentioned, but they are still well behind the curve, because they don’t understand how it is incompatible with Western civilization, or that it was only a phase in the decline to which Western societies can never be reasonably expected to return. Now that the intellectual infection has metastasized into full-blown convergence, either it will be cured or it will kill the infected victim.

When one considers that the primary goals of the Enlightenment were to a) legalize usury and b) legalize blasphemy, it should be readily apparent that there was something deeply evil behind it. This really shouldn’t have been that hard. When someone is offering you the promise of knowledge, you must always look for the snake.

The French military warns the government

It appears the active-duty military is very much inclined to back up the retired generals who warned the French globalists about the civil war their pro-immigration, pro-Muslim policies are creating:

A group of serving French soldiers have published a new open letter warning Emmanuel Macron that the ‘survival’ of France is at stake after the President made ‘concessions’ to Islamism. 

The letter published in the right-wing magazine Valeurs Actuelles late on Sunday echoes the tone of a similar letter printed in the same magazine last month which also warned a civil war was brewing and called for military action against ‘Islamists’.

French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin, a close ally of Macron, slammed the letter as a ‘crude maneouvre’ and accused its anonymous signatories of lacking ‘courage’.  

The previous letter, signed by 1,000 people including serving officers and some 20 semi-retired generals, warned of the ‘disintegration’ of France because of radical Islamic ‘hordes’ living in the suburbs.

The explosive letter sparked a furore in France, with Prime Minister Jean Castex called the letter an unacceptable interference while France’s top general vowed that those behind it would be punished for the ‘absolutely revolting’ letter.

It is not clear how many people are behind the current letter or what their ranks are – and their anonymity is likely to due to the backlash faced by the authors of the previous letter, with 18 officers who signed the letter facing disciplinary action.     

In contrast to the previous letter, it is also open to be signed by the public, with Valeurs Actuelles saying more than 93,000 had done so by Monday morning.

‘We are not talking about extending your mandates or conquering others. We are talking about the survival of our country, the survival of your country,’ said the letter, which was addressed to Macron and his cabinet.

The authors described themselves as active-duty soldiers from the younger generation of the military, a so-called ‘generation of fire’ that had seen active service.

‘They have offered up their lives to destroy the Islamism that you have made concessions to on our soil.’

The nations rise. Time is running out again on The Empire That Never Ended. Now you know why the politicians are so desperate to keep their lockdowns in place and prevent the wars that are rapidly approaching. It won’t take much of a spark to kick things off in any of over a dozen nations.

People tend to forget that the French military has been very active throughout Africa for decades. They’re small, but professional, and they’re not a joke. And they are very, very unhappy about the invasion of Paris by the African and Arab migrations. I’ve never been to South Africa, but the most apartheid-looking thing I’ve ever seen was in Paris, where a pair of French gendarmes carrying machine guns watched over dozens of Africans sprawling on the grass in Jardin Nelson Mandela. If you didn’t know better, you’d have thought they were prison guards.

When – not if – the generals begin to act, they will be greeted with rapturous support. Particularly by the young men, who hate the situation far more than Generation Xers can understand. All the We Are the World rhetoric as well as the concept of intrinsic white noblesse oblige are completely foreign Boomerspeak to them.

The younger, the more lethal

It was always obvious that the dangers of the not-vaccine were considerably greater to the Under-70 population than Coronachan itself. Indeed, it would be hard for anything to be less dangerous, as in the last 18 months, more children under 18 were killed by bicycles, swimming pools, and curtains than by the dread Covid-19 virus. But now an Israeli expert has analyzed the Israeli vaccination data and demonstrated that the risk/reward ratio of getting the Pfizer therapy is even greater for the Under-70 population than many vaccine skeptics anticipated:

Both data bodies (Tables 1 and 2 from the Ministry of Health and the data from Dagan et al in Figure 2) were initially presented as evidence favouring vaccination. However, straightforward analyses of these data highlight adverse effects. They confirm suspicions that vaccination fragilizes the immune system of the vaccinated, not only during the vaccination process, but even after full vaccination (in Table 1, the fully vaccinated die 15 times more than the unvaccinated). The raw data on which the Dagan et al publication from Clalit is based are unavailable. These data are required for transparent independent assessment of conclusions of a publication with such consequences. Current circumstances do not live up, even from far, to this basic standard requirement. Before continuing the massive vaccination project, these adverse effects must be examined and carefully evaluated vs positive effects. 

The results on increased vaccination-induced infection rates (3-fold) and death rates (around 20 times the COVID-death rate of the unvaccinated) presented above are serious reasons to suspect that a balanced cost-benefit would not be in favour of vaccination for any risk group.  Considering only COVID19-associated increased risks during the 5-week vaccination period, vaccine-induced protection would need to be absolute, which it is not, and last much longer than the 12 months projected until the next vaccine injection is required. Including in calculations unavailable precise data on vaccine-induced increased risks unrelated to COVID19 will necessarily increase the vaccine protection period required to compensate for all vaccine-associated deaths, probably beyond 2.5 years. 

Our calculations for younger age groups predict an even more extreme and dire situation. It is long known that vaccination is not cost-effective against organisms or viruses with highly mutable genomes. RNA viruses, coronaviruses and HIV included, have the most mutable known genomes. Note that vaccine-associated risks increase proportionally to the strength of the immune system, predicting that vaccination will greatly increase the very low COVID19 risks experienced by the younger population. Extrapolations two independent available datasets confirm this prediction. The precautionary principle is the first priority of those responsible for public health and its urgent application is required at this point, especially when the whole population of a country, including its youth,  is  at  stake….

Vaccination-associated mortality risks are expected at least 20 times greater below age 20 compared to the very low COVID19-associated risks for this age group enjoying the healthiest immune system.

To summarize, vaccinated people over the age of 60 have been observed to die 14.6x more often than their unvaccinated age-peers in the first two weeks after vaccination. This is a corollary, not a causal, relationship, but it is such a strong correlation that it heavily implies at least some degree of causality.

Morever, this adverse effect is likely to be magnified as the age of the population declines, because adverse effects tend to be strongest in those with healthy immune systems due to the nature of the therapy. Since young people die less often than old people, and since the vaccinations are significantly increasing the likelihood of death in the two weeks post-initial vaccination, the analysis concludes that an inordinate number of young people are going to die after being unnecessarily vaccinated.

At this point, there is absolutely no way anyone under 40 should even consider getting the vaccination, and considering the potential adverse effects on fertility, anyone attempting to push it on women under 40 should be arrested and prosecuted.

In not-at-all-unrelated news, 57 scientists and doctors have demanded an immediate end to the mass-vaccination campaigns:

In conclusion, in the context of the rushed emergency-use-authorization of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the current gaps in our understanding of their safety, the following questions must be raised:

  • Is it known whether cross-reactive antibodies from previous coronavirus infections or vaccine�206 induced antibodies may influence the risk of unintended pathogenesis following vaccination with COVID-19?
  • Has the specific risk of ADE, immunopathology, autoimmunity, and serious adverse reactions been clearly disclosed to vaccine recipients to meet the medical ethics standard of patient understanding for informed consent? If not, what are the reasons, and how could it be implemented?
  • What is the rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the elderly, children and frequent specific conditions?
  • What are the legal rights of patients if they are harmed by a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Who will cover the costs of medical treatment? If claims were to be settled with public money, has the public been made aware that the vaccine manufacturers have been granted immunity, and their responsibility to compensate those harmed by the vaccine has been transferred to the tax-payers?

In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers. This is the only way to bridge the current gap between scientific evidence and public health policy regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.

A Different Kind of War

Fred Rogers’s children’s ministry wasn’t exactly what one would call conventional, and he certainly didn’t win his war against the wicked medium of television. But he fought a much better fight, and fought it for far longer, than most Christians in these latter days of the latest iteration of The Empire That Never Ended. This is the 1998 article upon which the movie I mentioned on a recent Darkstream was based; it’s intriguing to see both how much the movie relied upon it and where the movie departed from it in the interests of drama:

Once upon a time, a long time ago, a man took off his jacket and put on a sweater. Then he took off his shoes and put on a pair of sneakers. His name was Fred Rogers. He was starting a television program, aimed at children, called Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. He had been on television before, but only as the voices and movements of puppets, on a program called The Children’s Corner. Now he was stepping in front of the camera as Mister Rogers, and he wanted to do things right, and whatever he did right, he wanted to repeat. And so, once upon a time, Fred Rogers took off his jacket and put on a sweater his mother had made him, a cardigan with a zipper. Then he took off his shoes and put on a pair of navy-blue canvas boating sneakers. He did the same thing the next day, and then the next…until he had done the same things, those things, 865 times, at the beginning of 865 television programs, over a span of thirty-one years. The first time I met Mister Rogers, he told me a story of how deeply his simple gestures had been felt, and received. He had just come back from visiting Koko, the gorilla who has learned—or who has been taught—American Sign Language. Koko watches television. Koko watches Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and when Mister Rogers, in his sweater and sneakers, entered the place where she lives, Koko immediately folded him in her long, black arms, as though he were a child, and then … “She took my shoes off, Tom,” Mister Rogers said….

The first time I called Mister Rogers on the telephone, I woke him up from his nap. He takes a nap every day in the late afternoon—just as he wakes up every morning at five-thirty to read and study and write and pray for the legions who have requested his prayers; just as he goes to bed at nine-thirty at night and sleeps eight hours without interruption. On this afternoon, the end of a hot, yellow day in New York City, he was very tired, and when I asked if I could go to his apartment and see him, he paused for a moment and said shyly, “Well, Tom, I’m in my bathrobe, if you don’t mind.” I told him I didn’t mind, and when, five minutes later, I took the elevator to his floor, well, sure enough, there was Mister Rogers, silver-haired, standing in the golden door at the end of the hallway and wearing eyeglasses and suede moccasins with rawhide laces and a flimsy old blue-and-yellow bathrobe that revealed whatever part of his skinny white calves his dark-blue dress socks didn’t hide. “Welcome, Tom,” he said with a slight bow, and bade me follow him inside, where he lay down—no, stretched out, as though he had known me all his life—on a couch upholstered with gold velveteen. He rested his head on a small pillow and kept his eyes closed while he explained that he had bought the apartment thirty years before for $11,000 and kept it for whenever he came to New York on business for the Neighborhood. 

I sat in an old armchair and looked around. The place was drab and dim, with the smell of stalled air and a stain of daguerreotype sunlight on its closed, slatted blinds, and Mister Rogers looked so at home in its gloomy familiarity that I thought he was going to fall back asleep when suddenly the phone rang, startling him. “Oh, hello, my dear,” he said when he picked it up, and then he said that he had a visitor, someone who wanted to learn more about the Neighborhood. “Would you like to speak to him?” he asked, and then handed me the phone. “It’s Joanne,” he said. I took the phone and spoke to a woman—his wife, the mother of his two sons—whose voice was hearty and almost whooping in its forthrightness and who spoke to me as though she had known me for a long time and was making the effort to keep up the acquaintance. When I handed him back the phone, he said, “Bye, my dear,” and hung up and curled on the couch like a cat, with his bare calves swirled underneath him and one of his hands gripping his ankle, so that he looked as languorous as an odalisque. There was an energy to him, however, a fearlessness, an unashamed insistence on intimacy, and though I tried to ask him questions about himself, he always turned the questions back on me, and when I finally got him to talk about the puppets that were the comfort of his lonely boyhood, he looked at me, his gray-blue eyes at once mild and steady, and asked,

“What about you, Tom? Did you have any special friends growing up?”

“Special friends?”

“Yes,” he said. “Maybe a puppet, or a special toy, or maybe just a stuffed animal you loved very much. Did you have a special friend like that, Tom?”

“Yes, Mister Rogers.”

“Did your special friend have a name, Tom?”

“Yes, Mister Rogers. His name was Old Rabbit.”

“Old Rabbit. Oh, and I’ll bet the two of you were together since he was a very young rabbit. Would you like to tell me about Old Rabbit, Tom?”

It’s not unusual that a child with a difficult experience growing up will transform that experience into strength, or even into something resembling a psychological superpower. But it’s very rare to see that sort of strength utilized in such a kind, positive, and focused manner.