Category: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS


How do you lead people to conclude that there’s only one truth, without showing them any real evidence? Answer: you keep them from all dissenting alternatives…

blindfold

I was listening to a BBC radio discussion on the subject of parasitism recently (1), the panel being a gathering of very learned and highly credentialed evolutionary scientists. One of the comments which stood out to me was from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. In the course of the discussion host Melvyn Bragg asked the Prof:

So you’re definitely saying that sometimes parasites can have a positive and good effect?

The answer:

Well the trouble is that words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in biology-it turns into “theology” then.

In Nick Fisher-ese, the answer was, Hey, lay off of that filthy religious language, and stay well away from that “God” thing: we’re talking “science” now, and the two things  are and must remain separate…

I disagree: God is the master-scientist. No God-no science. In fact, no God, no universe. Great scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton had no mind to censor their beliefs, and no reason to as they do now.

Don’t forget that according to honest evolutionary philosophy you are just another animal, no more important to the universe than a tape-worm, a tadpole, a tomato, a tree or a tic, and there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” in any absolute sense.

FISH

Picture Copyright © by Nick Fisher

We’re led to believe that scientists have disproved the existence of God-which is actually impossible-and instead they’ve scientifically shown that everything came into existence by itself and evolved all on its own. The truth is that scientists, including those who may quietly be questioning the politically correct view of origins and evolution, are all but forbidden to even suggest the possibility that there could be the remotest chance that there may just be something to that “God” thing.

Stephen Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, with a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, writes about a principle of evolutionary science in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” (2). “Methodological naturalism”, aka “methodological materialism” is a presumed rule of science, he says. It asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature…by reference to strictly material causes only:

“According to this principle, scientists may not invoke the activity of a mind or, as one philosopher of science puts it, any “creative intelligence”.

Evolutionary science intentionally dismisses the remotest suggestion of Creation and possibility of intelligent design. No researcher or professor who wants to keep his job or his funding can factor any hint of divinity or design into his work or his pronouncements. The most polite designation by evolutionists for these two views of science and anything like them, held by many fine scientists and scientifically trained individuals in the Creation and Intelligent Design movements, is that they are “unscientific”.

Evolutionists, who hold the political and legal upper hand in all areas of education and the media, intentionally bar the slightest hint of any evidence, opinion, interpretation or line of inquiry which points towards a designer or a creator. In other words, you-and your children, with the help of your tax money, are purposely kept from considering any alternative interpretation of science to the politically correct one which may lead you to conclude that there is a Designer, unless it’s a controlled exposure designed (!) to ridicule and belittle.

Meyer relates a now famous (or infamous) quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, laying out his own version of the “ban God” rule:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Over nineteen hundred years ago the apostle Peter described this blinkered attitude by saying that people are “willingly ignorant” (KJV): they “deliberately overlook” (ESV) the facts of creation…and the judgment to come (2 Peter 3:5-7).

NOTES

1: BBC Radio 4 “In Our Time”: “Parasitism”-broadcast January 26th 2017.

2: DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. See also the follow-up, “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” in which Meyer answers his critics.

As I washed more eggs off the back of my vehicle, one of which almost scored a direct hit on the “Make America Great Again” sticker, I mused the motive of the deliverer of those ovulatory projectiles. Was it tolerance? Was it peace? Was it brotherly love and inclusion? Hmm…

th

Just for the record, the vehicle is twenty-one years old and would cost more to sell than I could get for it. Perhaps I should just scramble it.

There’s some serious hatred of Trump in the US and distrust in some parts of the world. What has he actually done to deserve that? My contention is that he hasn’t done anything: the hatred is the result of a giant smear campaign, funded by wealthy socialists and globalists…

Theresa May lost her desired majority in the UK election. She also lost her opportunity to be a real man (er… woman) and to speak for millions of people who don’t want “fundamental change”: perhaps that’s why she didn’t get that majority. She’s one of the many millions who’ve been silenced by political correctness, who are afraid to say “boo” to a goose (or a chicken) lest-horror of horrors-they be labeled “hatemongers”, “bigots” and “racists”, and their vehicles be pelted with eggs by tolerant, loving, sophisticated world-citizens.

I know something about the Brits, having been one for almost all my life. Traditionally they’re tolerant and polite even when inside they don’t really like someone. And it’s that tolerance and politeness which stands to land them in a whole heap of trouble, rather like Chamberlain’s tolerance and politeness did in the forties. Brits are just so nice that they can’t even imagine that anyone would want to wage something like civilizational jihad against them. If they did know, and as long as those waging civilizational jihad against them did it politely, they really wouldn’t mind. In fact they would help…which is exactly what they are doing. It’s a case of the proverbial frog in the pot slowly coming to a boil without realizing it. Perhaps he’ll make frog tea…

tea

As I’ve said, I agree that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and honorable people who just want to get on with their lives like the rest of us. And that’s why Brits are content to accept them into their midst-by the millions. The problem is that a small minority of them take their ideology very seriously, as their founder did and as the Turks who almost succeeded in invading Western Europe did.  And I know from decades of interest in world affairs that in every single Islamic country of the world now there are extremists pushing the nominal on to greater commitment. They push by means of violence if necessary. Even in the more extremely dedicated Islamic nations the majority are forced continually to become more dedicated. The problem is not just a case of ISIS having a temper-tantrum outside their own confines.

Trump has dared to stick his neck out on this issue. But he’s absolutely not “anti-Muslim” as his enemies have attempted to convince us: his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and the Arab League was a roaring success:

However, like it or not, with the millions of law-abiding immigrants come more extremists and their ideology. And what do our other  world “leaders” in the West care? I’ll tell you what: they want us to “get used to it”. And why are those who hold the reigns of power, who have the potential to steer us into a reasonably safe future, choose instead to make platitudinous statements about us all pulling together and not changing our ways, while doing nothing but coming to clean up the mess when there’s a terrorist attack?

360px-8_-_AmStar_7

It’s because many of them now want us all to be “citizens of the world” rather than having our own national identity. Nationalism breeds war, they think, and preserves that awful Christian morality nonsense. They agree with Lennon’s line that if we could just do away with borders, all the people of the world will be kissing each other and blissfully saying goodbye to religion (except Islam, the religion of choice for socialists) forever.

Israel is one of the obstacles to a world-wide utopia, because Israelis persist in being Jewish and in living in their ancient capital. Trump supports the Jewish state, making him a giant obstacle to globalist ideals.

The push for globalism among the elites is gathering momentum and power. President Obama virtually wiped out US borders because of his views on this, and the Democrats were and still are fully behind him. So were their media people-those now doing everything in their power to remove Trump from office, no matter what it takes, and no matter how much they have to lie to do it. I say “elites” intentionally, because a large number of people, especially in the UK, have fallen for the belief that all the rich powerful people are nationalists and “extreme-right-wingers”. All Trump supporters are racist, rich and ignorant, they’ve been told, while all those kind, tolerant, inclusive socialists and liberals are just poor lowly types trying to scrape together a few pennies to help their fellow man get by.

Lower_Manhattan_from_Jersey_City_November_2014_panorama_3

No, it’s the big boys at the top who have all the money and all the power who are driving us on to a one-world, Babylon-esque society, mashing together differing cultures, inventing  man-made climate-change and the ludicrous notion that we can change the climate back by giving them more money, and calling anyone who dares to oppose them “hateful bigots”.

THE OTHER SOURCE OF OPPOSITION TO TRUMP

I say “other source”, but really the two are inextricably linked. Western globalists think that once they get everyone in the same boat we’ll all have the same views on morality: liberal views. I think they’ll find out that the Muslims have different plans.

There’s also an undeniable spiritual thread to the whole situation: more on that another time.

It was known early on in Trump’s campaign that he leaned towards Christian belief, and that he largely held to Christian morality in his proposed policies, as did a large number of his followers. He made it clear that he would oppose unnecessary abortion and Obama’s requirements that the rest of us pay for them (he has and is-see note 3) and that he would reverse President Obama’s rulings on transgender bathrooms: he has. Obama issued a decree stating that all public schools must allow kids to use whichever bathroom they wanted to use on any given day, according to which gender they felt like being (note 1). Where’s the respect for women, who overwhelmingly want privacy, in that? Trump reversed the ruling (thank you President Trump). President Obama did all he could to push for gay rights and gay marriage. He ordered the military to take part in gay pride celebrations (note 2).

Trump is an altogether different animal, as is his vice-president. It’s this stand on morality and his respect for established laws and the constitution which brought the full force of the news media, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and all their ultra-rich donors against him and his followers. We Trump supporters are “ignorant” because we don’t see the world their way, and because we didn’t go along with Obama’s and Hillary’s “fundamental change”, but they’re oh so sophisticated and intelligent! Sophisticated people want the rest of us to pay for babies to be aborted.

No, Trump didn’t introduce polarity to America, it was already here. It was here because far more people opposed Obama and Hillary’s “fundamental change” than the elites and their followers had hoped. Trump’s enemies were sure that their propaganda in universities and on TV had done its work.

It’s my opinion that if Obama had just held back on his pronouncements on transgender bathrooms, and if he had not tried so hard to eradicate the “radical Islamic terrorist” label, just enough people would have voted for Hillary to continue that fundamental change: I’m glad he didn’t.

Scrambled eggs, anyone?

NOTES

1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-administration-public-schools-transgender-students-access-bathrooms/story?id=39081956

2 https://patriotpost.us/alexander/13881

3 https://aclj.org/pro-life/shocking-planned-parenthood-annual-report-shows-abortions-taxpayer-funding-and-profits-soar-prenatal-services-and-cancer-screenings-plummet

 

 

 

I say leave the doors of Parliament open in London, and the doors of congress, and equivalent buildings in other western capitals, and offices of big media companies, and let’s have no lock downs…

Let’s make sure that politicians and mayors and wealthy political donors and “news” reporters don’t have armed guards or live in gated communities away from the rest of us. Let’s have a level playing field.

I say that not because I want MPs to be murdered, or congressmen or senators, or media people: I certainly don’t. But if they were as vulnerable as the rest of us to extreme violence, they might try somewhat harder to find genuine solutions to the problem of terrorism which the majority of them are essentially inviting into the West.

While the globalists, safe in their expensive and secure homes and communities work in multiple ways to mash people of totally opposite world-views and cultures together, the rest of us are supposed to “get used to the new normal”, and to “not be alarmed”. Right…don’t be alarmed that you might get sliced up-literally- by a mad-man with a knife while you’re walking down the street in a “free” country!

I agree that the vast  majority of Muslims are peaceable, and want to uphold the laws of the lands they live in, and I agree that the vast majority of them are honorable people. But think of this: if only one in ten thousand holds an extreme view of his belief system, and we allow hundreds of thousands…millions…more into our countries, we’re allowing many more extremists: people who will have the opportunity to murder those around them until the police arrive to clean up the mess.

They murder not just because they hate westerners, but to silence dissent to their views (that’s worked already with the PC crowd) and to goad other would-be peaceful worshippers into a more extreme experience.

Who in their right mind takes the attitude that a few deaths don’t matter because there are so many people in the country that the likelihood of being one of the murdered is slim? That’s probably what all the victims of recent terror attacks and their parents thought before the unthinkable happened to them.

How much do politicians really care about their people and their country…?

Are we in the United States living in a racist, fascist state? Is the new US government opposed to immigration?

Yesterday, April 18th, I became a citizen of the United States. Granted, I’m white: I’m not going to apologize for that. But of the twenty-three people taking part in the swearing-in ceremony I attended, thirteen countries were represented. The bulk of the immigrants were Hispanic, a few were African, and one was from Iraq, named Mohammed.

800px-Children_in_Namibia(1_cropped)

I relate this personal experience because I’m amazed at the number of people I’m coming across who have somehow been convinced that Donald Trump-the great Satan in their eyes-is putting a stop to all immigration.

Just this morning, as I told a few of my work-mates what happened to me yesterday, a young man from Korea joined the conversation, and told me that I’d gained citizenship just  in time, because, according to him, Trump is “…deporting all the immigrants”.

I replied that the only immigrants being deported are those who are illegal and who’ve committed a serious crime. The area I live in is heavily populated with Hispanics, and they are clearly under no threat whatsoever. The only immigrants Trump wanted to “ban”-temporarily-were from six Middle-Eastern countries known to harbor enemies of the West, and sworn to kill as many people as they can by stealth and cowardly surprise.

Those who are sowing such lies as the one I mentioned above are sowing hatred and discord. And while I don’t want to have to be another media-basher, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the mainstream media, who have no interest in reporting facts, but only in working to push the collective mind of the nation their way: the warped, false, hateful way.

With all  the fake news stories; the smears and lies; the threats of emigration; the false charges of racism, misogyny and xenophobia; the plethora of unproved accusations; the boycotts of Trump family products and Trump events; the protests and riots; the plans to impeach and the more-than-obscene language and rants hurled at the new president, it’s becoming clearer by the day to many of us just how “tolerant” and “loving” some of these liberal types really are.

Disagree if you want: it’s your right. Just don’t try preaching at the rest of us any more about tolerance, if you can’t do it yourself…

%d bloggers like this: