On the current acceptability of actual science in our postmodern societal rules

 Academic paper on evolution flushed down the memory hole.

To understand the enormity of the importance of this article, I once again refer to the (probably soon to be illegal) excellent documentary, Dogs Decoded. Pay special attention to how the Soviet Union treated actual science, especially evolutionary biology, that contradicted Marxism’s axioms.

Especially the segment on Silver Fox bred in the barn for domesticity or aggression. This renegade experiment, while illegal in all ways in the Soviet Union has been invaluable ever since for real science in the understanding of certain attributes which we can loosely call, domestication. This article may be experiencing a less blunt force train of events than the Russian experiment on Silver Fox, but for the precise same reason our Russian evolutionary-biologist had to hide his intentions and methods from the government. But the subtle and frankly, pure Postmodernist way in which it was done is in fact far more effective in preventing the work from reaching academic circles.

The only thing it can use for potential exposure is the Streisand effect, which of course is why I link to it here. And the fact that it appears here, will be used as an excuse as to why they believed that this truth must not be known. And the great truth that is so scary?

Men and women are biologically different in general.

Here is an excellent video on this subject of the state of academia today:

Remember this moment from a James Damore discussion?

 

 

 

Important update added: Trudeau makes his most concerning comment yet on his form of governance

Please see this correction to the translation that was sent in today for this video above:

at 1:33   it is the journalist that says affirmatively  :  “… écouter aussi évidemment… ” 
the nuance here would be …” but evidently you will also have to listen to what those are saying, don’t you ? “
 
the “dont’ you ? “part is not expressed by words but by the intonation 
and to that trudeau answers “… oui , mais surveiller “
and  that would be   ” yes … but to monitor (them) ” 

If that isn’t clear, lets look at these clips to add mental context:

I think this is actually 2016…

Here is a popular Quebec TV host discussing this newest shove to Orwell out of Trudeau’s mouth:

A German Father: “I Am A ‘Concerned Citizen’. Go Ahead, Ridicule Me.”

Preface: “Concerned Citizen”, besorgter Bürger, is a recent, sarcastic pejorative for people who criticize the government’s “refugee” policies, implying that only losers would be concerned. Example: “I wonder if Germany can handle that many migrants” – “Haha, look at this concerned citizen!”

An original translation from Achse des Guten.

I am one of them. A concerned citizen. Now go ahead, ridicule me.

Thilo Schneider
I have a 19-year-old daughter. She is, in my opinion, a pretty and ambitious girl, funny and sensitive. Back then, 36 months ago, I did not care if she went to town or to a club, on her own or with a friend. I thought it was cool when she and her girlfriends took the train to visit other major German towns, maybe party. She is young, full of life, it is her bloody right to explore the world.

These times are over. I am worried. I have lost faith in the state protecting her and her girlfriends when I’m not there. I lost trust that the people she will meet will respect her dignity and her integrity. I am worried for her. I don’t want to constrain her, but I lose sleep when she’s not home. We did not read for her at bedtime, and we did not do math homework with her, so that some asshole from some weird country gropes her because, in his eyes, she is an “unbeliever slut” and “worthless”. And I don’t trust that anyone will help her if she is in duress. After all, she is “only” a “German”.

I am aware that there are also filthy pigs among those “who have been living here for a bit longer” [Merkel’s recent expression to avoid the word “Germans”], who can’t keep their hands off others, but in my opinion, this is not an argument to invite people in, sort of as a “compensation”, who have a — let’s say “conservative” — view of women, and where our state isn’t even interested in who they are, how old they are, and what they are up to.

I am sorry that she can’t grow up in the same free country that I grew up in. I am sorry that she can’t go to a swimming pool without taking care, without constantly being on the lookout for whether trouble is imminent, and without keeping “an arm’s length distance”. As if anyone whose entrance ticket I subsidize with my tax money would care. Thank you to those who opened the flood gates without examining who is coming in. I imagine that neither I, nor my children deserved this.

Perfect target for “the new arrivals”
My son was beaten up by Russians. Just because. Because they could. He did not fight back, to prevent worse. He was right. There is no point in resisting. Our children were not raised in, and for, violence. This makes them, when the state fails, perfect targets for the “new arrivals”. The “integration industry”, which battens itself at the public trough, does not even watch in indifference. They watch as appeasers, insulting and downplaying, spitting on the victims of the collateral damage of their protégés who allegedly “seek refuge”.

We spend Christmas behind concrete barriers, the controls at concerts are stricter than at the airport. And, yes: some districts with predominantly newly arrived inhabitants are now filthy and dirty and not a good place to live. Because it is the people living there who lack any consideration and respect for other people’s property, because they have completely different challenges and desires.

They have no obligation to the greater common good outside their own family and clan. And those zones are under the rule of the relevant clans. And they behave accordingly. They hate me, and the country that reached out to them when they were in need. They still like to take our monthly welfare cheques.

And I am getting older and wondering where I can find affordable living, where I won’t have to dwell under threat for life and limb. Yes, I am concerned. I am a concerned citizen. Now go ahead and ridicule me.

EU Seeks Methods To Implement New Level Of Censorship

An original translation from the blog of Vera Lengsfeld.

EU-Commission Plans The Final Solution To “Disinformation On The Internet”

Guest author Hanno Vollenweider

There are growing concerns in Brussels over the disinformation of the citizens over the internet. That is why an “expert group” of researchers, journalists and the representatives of platforms is meeting in Brussels, and will finally present suggestions for a final solution of avoiding disinformation on the internet to the EU commission.

„Since the election of Donald Trump as the president of the USA at the end of 2016, there are increasing worries in Europe that fake news on the internet might drastically manipulate public debate. The EU commission therefore wants to take measures against fake news, and, for this purpose, has summoned a group of experts from the sciences, and representatives of the media industry and platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter. This ‘High Level Group’ will submit suggestions for fighting fake news on the internet until summer, write Netzpolitik.org on their website about the plans of the Eurocrats. One does not need particular skills in reading between the lines to understand what this means: The electoral success of Trump was only possible because he had a large voting base who had lost their trust in mainstream media, and who were looking for “alternative” information on the web, far away from anti Trump campaigns. This must not happen in Europe! Just imagine how Eurocracy might end, if the people in Europe were no longer to listen to the soothing mainstream media.

In the German sphere, the so-called “alternative media” are on the march, while “long-established” magazines like Bild, Spiegel, Stern, Focus, etc., keep losing readers. The reason is simple: their unconditional courting of the Merkel regime.

So many of the positive news about the mass migration was such a brazen pack of lies that it was insulting to the readers’ intelligence. This is taking vengeance now, and will probably not be reversibly easily.

And exactly that is the reason why there now will be a political interference. What is particularly telling is that, no matter what the committee of experts will suggest to the EU commission in the end, we will never know, because it has been ordered from the highest place that all documents will remain secret.

There is a reason for that.

There are two suggestions at the moment:

– So-called “Fake News” will be outright banned, and the operators of social networks, servers, alternative websites and other platforms will be required by law to completely delete content. You can imagine who will define what is “fake news” and what is not.

– The competitors of the “Fake News”, in other words, mainstream media, will be made more visible, by
promoting the news that is, in the opinion of the EU, more credible. Additionally, the awareness of “Fake News” will have to be increased by training, for example in schools.

All this reeks of censorship, cooptation (Gleichschaltung) and reeducation, and should be fought sternly before it comes into effect.

Do not rely on politicians, become active! Send news from alternative media per email to friends, educate your friends and family about the possibilities to receive news outside the mainstream media! Beat the Eurocrats by warning as many people as possible about the “reeducation” through these so-called “educational measures”.

Translator’s note:
Read the original EU statement here. It is pretty clear where it is truly aiming:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/ansip/announcements/statement-vice-president-ansip-european-parliament-strasbourg-plenary-debate-hate-speech-populism_en

Hamed Abdel-Samad to Glamour Magazine: “Congratulations! The Self-Empowerment Of Political Islam Advances, With The Support Of The Left And Its Feminists!”

In a Facebook post today, Hamed Abdel-Samad slammed “Glamour” magazine for naming Linda Sarsour “woman of the year”.
Original translation of his post:

A woman in America has just been named Woman of the Year by Glamour magazine for organizing a march against Donald Trump last year.

The woman is called Linda Sarsour, she wants to introduce parts of Sharia law in America, and claims that the system in Saudi Arabia is more humane for women than the Western system.

Not only that. She massively attacked the human rights activist Ayan Hirsi-Ali because she had criticized Islam’s treatment of women. About Ali, Sarsour said,”I wish I could take her vagina away. Women like that don’t deserve to be women.”

Incidentally, Sarsour, who calls herself a feminist, was the initiator of the campaign “Headscarf means empowerment of women”, which has now also gained a foothold in Europe.

Congratulations, the self-empowerment of political Islam advances, with the friendly support of the left and its feminists!

The question is now: Why should one have compassion for a culture that no longer knows where it stands and that voluntarily gives itself up?

Glamour Magazine’s website

Translator’s note:
Upon visiting their website, we found that it doesn’t end there: Glamour Magazine also thought the “Hijab Barbie” deserves an award.

Because nothing is as empowering to little girls as teaching them they must hide their hair and bodies:

Glamour Magazine website

Denmark – Suggestion tabled for outright Censure in a proposed new anti-terror law

This is an original translation from Danish media by Liberty Dk.

Foreword by translator:

Apparently we Danes are to be legally blindfolded in the name of the war on terror.

In an article in today’s Danish daily newspaper MetroExpress, the following article can be found (see translation below).  Apparently the powers-that-be cannot tell the difference between people sharing information about what is really happening in the world vs. actually inciting and wanting to engage in terror…which of course, to a rational person, clearly is two different things entirely.  To this end they furthermore propose to use the Child Porn filter.

To sum it up…a person actively engaged in trying to warn the Western world about the numerous atrocities perpetrated in the name of Islam would, by law, be put in the very same box as either a terrorist or a person inciting to terror.

The press it seems would be getting a free pass in this regard.  We are apparently only to see those sanitized news blips the media chose for us to see.

Sadly, what is even more absurd is that, according to an on-going MetroExpress poll, most people agree.

Guess I’ll be going to the slammer!

From MX.Dx

SF wants to prohibit the sharing of terrorist videos

In a proposal which will be presented this week, the Socialist People’s Party (SF) will be tabling a suggestion which makes it illegal to share videos of terrorist attacks and beheadings.  In several terrorism cases in Denmark there has been found, on hard disks and smartphones, videos of Al Qaeda’s terror and IS beheadings.

“It must be explicitly forbidden to share these horrific videos. We will also want ISPs to censor incitement to terror.  To this end the idea the suggestion is that the child pornography filter can be taken into use so that it blocks access to sites with videos of executions and incitement to terror”, says the Chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Committee, Karina Lorentzen (SF), who, however, wants to make an exception for the press.

SF further proposes that the National Police Cyber ??Crime Center monitors the network and go after Danes who praise and incite terrorism.

The Child porn filter is a collaboration between telephone companies and police that stops people who want to go to pages with sexual images of children. The telecommunication industry would like to discuss the possibility of using this tool.

“Execution Videos are awful and disgusting, and I understand as such also the thoughts behind the proposal”, writes director Jacob Willer, stressing that it will require careful consideration, since it pretty much amounts to censorship.

Both the Danish People’s Party (DF) Group Chairman Peter Skaarup and the Consersvative supports SF’s proposal. It is a proposal that we can fully support, says the Conservatives Mai Mercado.

While Liberal Karsten Lauritzen believes that the law is already sufficient. “We just need the right to make some cases to see if it should be allowed to share these video’s”.

[Editor comment: At the end of World War II then Supreme Allied commander Eisenhower ordered that the Nazi atrocities be well documented in order that:

Eisenhower, upon finding the victims of the death camps, ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He wrote the following to General Marshall after visiting a German internment camp near Gotha, Germany:

The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda”.[21]

We should all make it our business to save and catalogue every video we can from the Islamic State in order that the horrors and rationale behind these horrors cannot be dismissed or denied.we do this although we  do not have to watch them all to spare our own psyches from damage. But it is a crime against history to prevent people from knowing the facts of this scale of barbarity and the motives for it. And I also affirm that knowing what Islam does to human beings and why damages them more than any 1 in a million deranged muslims that may join their cause

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog]

Gunmen kill 12 at Baghdad alcohol shops

France24:

An Iraqi alcohol shop owner inspects damage in his shop after it was bombed on May 16, 2006 in central Baghdad. Gunmen armed with silenced weapons shot dead 12 people at alcohol shops in the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, security and medical officials said.

An Iraqi alcohol shop owner inspects damage in his shop after it was bombed on May 16, 2006 in central Baghdad. Gunmen armed with silenced weapons shot dead 12 people at alcohol shops in the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, security and medical officials said.

AFP – Gunmen armed with silenced weapons shot dead 12 people at alcohol shops in the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, while four people died in other attacks, security and medical officials said.

The gunmen, who were travelling in four vehicles, restrained federal policemen at a checkpoint in the Zayouna area of Baghdad, an interior ministry official said.

They then shot dead 12 people in multiple adjoining alcohol shops nearby, the ministry official said.

A medical official confirmed the toll.

With alcohol forbidden by Islam, Baghdad liquor stores are an attractive target for fundamentalist groups, made more so because they are often staffed by religious minorities.

Click to continue:

This is one of my favorite shows on Iraq showing the sheer irrationality and violence of Islam. Well worth listening to. NPR from 2006

Egyptian police fire tear gas to quell crowds after Muslim girl quits town with Christian man

FOX News:

CAIRO –  An Egyptian security official and a priest say police fired tear gas and clashed with a stone-throwing mob of Muslims who had surrounded a Coptic Church in anger over an inter-faith romance.

The Muslim protesters accuse the church of helping to secret away 21-year-old Rana el-Shazli, believed to have converted to Christianity before fleeing her small town with a Coptic Christian man to Turkey.

The alleged romance ignited sectarian tension in Wasta, a rural town in Beni Suef province, about 95 kilometers (60 miles) south of Cairo. Clashes flared anew on Friday after weekly Muslim prayers.

For more than a month, Muslims have attacked churches over the incident and forced Christians to close their shops in the town.

Click to continue:

Lest anyone think that Islam is a kind or tolerant culture:

Thanks M for the video finds

French art project confuses Muslims.

To riot or not to riot. This is the question. Whether tis more effective to to make them suffer our slings and rocks of outrageous demands, or take arms against a sea of infidels at the risk they may actually oppose us.

(My most humble apologies to the Bard)

The future. Having an imam called for every public work of art to decide whether or not its riot worthy and offensive to Mustards.

The story in French is here

LIVE BLOGGING INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE IN OSCE, DEFENDING OUR BASIC FREEDOMS

The International Civil Liberties Alliance is participating in a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) held in Warsaw Poland. I will be placing here the feed from Europe News’ Facebook page. The introduction of the following document has been received and noted by the OSCE  chair heading the meeting.

NOTE: The feeds are below the fold

UPDATE: A brief round-up of the news coming from the conference. Christian and humanist groups stand up for human rights and free speech, an EU rep reaffirms commitment for the making of freedom of religion a priority- A rep from the Muslim forum for social cohesion erupts and says if the hate speech against Islam doesn’t stop, it threatens world piece.

HDIM.NGO/0240/12
1 October 2012

Warsaw October 1st
2012
Working session 10: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

On behalf of of International Civil Liberties Alliance, I would like to ask the following question: How can the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights appropriately help the Participating

States to make sure that their legislation concerning freedom of religion and belief is in compliance with the commitments of the OSCE and other international standards.
It is in the nature of OSCE and ODIHR to assist, advise, educate and remind Participating States democratic rules and compliance with human rights. OSCE and ODIHR can at present help in the prevention of serious political and societal drifts that have multiplied in our societies over the past few years. The concept of Human Rights, which is the fundamental basis of the observance of freedom of religion and belief, has been constantly distorted and deprived of sense by many international participants, some of them acting from within the OSCE.

Since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation created the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, commonly known as the Cairo Declaration, we have witnessed a distortion of the concepts of human rights and religious freedom. This declaration has created a new and secondary standard in human rights based on Sharia Law, which is entirely incompatible with OSCE’s human rights standards, inspired as they were by the declaration of 1948.
Sharia law is a system of religious and political regulations destructive of all the principles promoted through the OSCE, i.e. Democracy, Human Rights, Freedom of religion and belief etc…

Sharia Law has been defined by the European Court of Human Rights on February 2003, as “incompatible with democratic principles…”

Therefore, OSCE’s commitments and works done by its various departments are devoid of sense if all the partners, state-members, NGOs or other contributors are not using the same definition of Human Rights. A definition is required that clearly rejects any interpretation originating in the Cairo Declaration.

Recommendations:

The ODIHR could therefore greatly help participating States ensure that their legislation concerning freedom of religion and belief is and remains in compliance with their commitments by:

• Inducing state members to demand the abrogation of the Cairo Declaration, or at least to reject it, so as to prevent the duplicity of language that has appeared in the international agreements and within the OSCE.

• Inducing state members to join the Brussels Process launched by the International Civil
Liberties Alliance on July 9, 2012 in the European Parliament. The Brussels Process aims to assist governments and civil society in protecting civil liberties and freedoms, and more
specifically to defend the freedom of belief against attempts to implement Sharia regulations.

• Helping to create bi- or multilateral partnerships among OSCE members in order to optimize the implementation of the Brussels Process, to contribute to its growth and evolution and to the expansion of its field of application.

Continue Reading →