something’s rotten in the state of denmark

i really don’t know how the danes can claim they’re the happiest people in the world year after year, when the place must STINK to high heaven thanks to how very rotten the place has apparently become.

in an unbelievably nightmarish case of déjà vu, professor helmuth nyborg has been watsoned for crimethink. again. in happy, happy denmark.

professor nyborg has come under fire for a paper which he published in 2012, The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian Selection. (no, i haven’t read it.) dr. james thompson has the details here on his blog: Helmuth Nyborg gets Watson’d (see also My letter to Scientific Dishonesty Minister).

in short what has happened this time is that three girlie men — and they must be girlie men, because real men — real scientists — would’ve just submitted a rebuttal paper to Personality and Individual Difference, the journal in question here — but, noooo — these three girlie men, these three harpies, complained to a committee about professor nyborg’s paper.

see? girlie men.

professors jens mammen, jens kvorning, and morten kjeldgaard took it upon themselves to complain to the danish ministry of love’s science, innovation and higher education’s danish committees on scientific dishonesty (dcsd) about what they viewed as problems with nyborg’s paper. these included accusations of plagiarism. there were, if i understand it correctly, six original charges. the dcsd has found professor nyborg guilty of two of them. you can read the decision and the entire case here [pdf] — if you read danish. a reader at dr. thompson’s blog has given a brief synopsis of the decision.

most amazingly: “Denne afgørelse kan ikke påklages til anden administrativ myndighed, jf. § 34 i lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1064 af 6. september 2010 om forskningsrådgivning m.v.”

google translation: This decision can not be appealed to any other administrative authority under § 34 of Act No. 1064 of 6 September 2010 on research consultancy, etc.”

wtf, denmark?!

these danish committees on scientific dishonesty have a colorful history. from wikipedia:

“Previously obscure, the DCSD became embroiled in controversy after its January 2003 decision that the 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg was ‘clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice’, due to the author’s systematically biased choice of data, and objectively was scientifically irredeemable, but Lomborg himself could not be subjectively convicted of intentional or gross negligence. Lomborg had argued in his book that claims by environmentalists about global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, and other matters are not scientifically substantiated. The DCSD further held that because of Lomborg’s lack of scientific expertise, he had not shown intentional or gross negligence, and acquitted him of the accusations of scientific dishonesty.

“In February 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint with the Ministry, and in December 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD’s handling of the investigation in the case had been improper, and remitted it for re-examination. In March 2004, the DCSD stated that since its finding had been to acquit Lomborg of the charges of scientific dishonesty (although they had criticized his biased selection of data), there was no basis to re-open the investigation, and dismissed the case.

“The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD’s methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.” (see also nature.)

ah ha! i see. so the dcsd is the place to go in denmark if you want to whine about some politically incorrect research/opinions and hope to scupper the career of whomever the crimethinker happens to be. gotcha.

from that wikipedia article, we learn that professor mammen, one of the whiners to the dcsd this time, was formerly a member of this board of inquisitors the dcsd, but he resigned in a huff the last time professor nyborg was brought before the committee to recant…er…i mean, defend himself:

“The DCSD was involved in another controversy investigating a paper on sex and intelligence authored by Helmuth Nyborg. After the DCSD cleared Nyborg of the charges of scientific misconduct, two Aarhus University professors, Lise Togeby and Jens Mammen resigned from their positions in the DCSD, citing that the DCSD operated from too narrow of a framework.”

maybe they were disappointed that they couldn’t test whether or not professor nyborg would float.

we’ve recently been discussing on the blog here authoritarian personality types and behaviors — including left-wing authoritarianism which van hiel, et al., found in the populace in flemish belgium, but only in extreme left-wing parties like the communist and stalinist(!) parties of that country. i think that, perhaps, we may be seeing an example of left-wing authoritarianism in action in this case.

van hiel, et al., only looked at willingness to use violence and willingness to submit to a strong leader as characteristics of left-wing authoritarianism, and i’m certainly not accusing any of these men of being willing to use physical violence against anybody (there’s no evidence at all for that) — however they do seem willing to go to some extreme measures to shut nyborg up. rather than simply provide evidence that his conclusions are wrong, which is what a scientist ought to do, they attack him in the danish media (apparently) and drag him repeatedly before ridiculous committees. in other words, they have been trying to destroy his reputation and his career, rather than to engage with his arguments.

all of this sounds extreme to me — left-wing authoritarian, in fact. and — surprise, surprise! — one of these three fellows, professor mammen, was actually a member of a communist party in denmark for fourteen years (1974-1988) [in danish]. not that there’s anything wrong with that! he’s perfectly entitled to belong to any party he wants. but a communist party, according to van hiel, et al., is exactly where we should expect to find left-wing authoritarians in western europe.

professor kjeldgaard has also acted in some extreme ways wrt professor nyborg. he, in fact, keeps an entire blog/website devoted to tracking nyborg. yeah. weird. google translation:

“The most advanced eugenics (eugenics) advocacy in Denmark is Emeritus Professor Helmuth Nyborg, a former employee at the Department of Psychology, University of Aarhus.

“Eugenik.dk dedicated to documenting the international network of eugenicists, their scientific tinkering, and the so-called ‘Nyborg case’ a case of scientific misconduct raised by Aarhus University against Helmuth Nyborg in 2002.”

again, he’s perfectly entitled to be weird like this imho, but it does come off as rather…stalker-ish. (why not just write rebuttal articles??)

i am tired of these watsonings, richwinings, derbyshearings, and nyborgizations. GROW UP PEOPLE!! act like academics engaged in the search for facts and the truth for a change!

someone over at dr. thompson’s blog quoted steven pinker on the last time professor nyborg was watsoned. i think i’ll quote him, too:

“I am writing to protest the shocking and disgraceful treatment of Dr. Helmuth Nyborg following publication of his report on possible gender differences in average IQ scores. Dr. Nyborg may be mistaken, but the issue he is addressing is a factual one, and can only be evaluated by an open examination of the evidence. To ‘investigate’ him, shut down his research, or otherwise harass him because his findings are politically incorrect is unworthy of an institution dedicated to the understanding of reality. It is reminiscent of the persecution of Galileo, the crippling of Soviet science and agriculture under Lysenko, and the attempt of the American religious right wing to inhibit the teaching of evolution in the schools.

“No one has the right to legislate the truth. It can only be discovered by free inquiry, and that includes investigations that may make people uncomfortable. This is the foundation of liberal society, and it is threatened by attempts to interfere with Dr. Nyborg and his research. If he is incorrect, that will be established by a community of scholars who examine his evidence and arguments and criticize them in open forums of debate, not by the exercise of force to prevent him from pursuing his research. These are the tactics of a police state, and bring shame on any institution that uses them.”

hear, hear!

update: see also – Danish Government Tries to Censor Science it Doesn’t Like by helmuth nyborg @american renaissance (thanks, elijah!).

previously: “to disbelieve in witchcraft is the greatest of heresies”

(note: comments do not require an email. girlie men.)

50 Comments

  1. (1) Doubt its a case of left-wing authoritarianism per se. The PC consensus in Europe and for the most part in the US is bipartisan. The complainers could well be neoliberals for all we know.

    (2) Another thought that popped into my head is that although communitarian-family places might be inherently more disposed to leftist totalitarianism, as is Todd’s and your thesis, there was also a lot of internal disgruntlement and opposition to it. In places like Denmark or Sweden, should something like Stalinism appear and survive for a few years, the totalitarianism there would probably become far more “perfect” than anything seen in the old socialist bloc.

    Reply

  2. @anatoly – “Doubt its a case of left-wing authoritarianism per se. The PC consensus in Europe and for the most part in the US is bipartisan. The complainers could well be neoliberals for all we know.”

    i was really just talking about this guy mammen. he’s a very good candidate for being a left-wing authoritarian having been in denmark’s communist party for 14 years!

    Reply

  3. @anatoly – “In places like Denmark or Sweden, should something like Stalinism appear and survive for a few years, the totalitarianism there would probably become far more ‘perfect’ than anything seen in the old socialist bloc.”

    i’d put money on that, too. far, far more conformist in scandinavia/ germanic countries than eastern europe!

    Reply

  4. i was really just talking about this guy mammen. he’s a very good candidate for being a left-wing authoritarian having been in denmark’s communist party for 14 years!

    The foibles of reading overly quickly. Missed that part!

    Reply

  5. i am tired of these watsonings, richwinings, derbyshearings, and nyborgizations. GROW UP PEOPLE!! act like academics engaged in the search for facts and the truth for a change!

    Yeah. And what does the left get out of its dishonesty and disregard for the truth? Just money, power and the chance to grind its enemies into the dirt.

    Trying to shame people who are shameless won’t work. English had to borrow the word and concept “chutzpah” from another language. This is a struggle about HBD in more ways than one.

    Free speech and its chief enemies

    Reply

  6. Mommy! Doctor Nyborg is saying mean stuff I don’t like and he’s hurting my feelings! Put him in the corner!

    ~S

    Reply

  7. (edited for space & privacy:) Dear so & so’s
    Personality & Individual Differences is a peer-reviewed journal. Science has no need of a superfluous higher court (which may contain members with a conflict of interest). The latter is how people were found guilty of witchcraft…

    …familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s research on the potential for bad science if certain hypotheses are taboo? one wonders if the court is even familiar with Occam’s Razor.

    …left academia in part because of the chilling climate created by the liberal field’s zeal to enforce beliefs on others – did not have the heart for such a fray as Dr. Nyborg finds himself in.

    Psychology needs all the science it can get – it does not benefit from interference with its process. Science works best, as Dr. Haidt points out, when all hypotheses are allowed to be considered. ciao/cheers/etc.
    L’homme n’est pas ni ange ni bête, et le malheur veut que qui veut faire l’ange fait la bête – Pascal

    Reply

  8. What are the practical consequences of being convicted by the DCSD? Which is the penalty that cannot be appealed?

    Reply

  9. @see no evol – “Trying to shame people who are shameless won’t work.”

    these people care about reputation — that’s why they go after the reputations of their “enemies.”

    they care deeply what the rest of the world thinks about them and lack integrity. if (when) the reigning ideology of the day shifts, they will be at the head of the stampeding herd trying to keep their positions as “leaders.”

    mock them. mock them ’til they cry like the little girls that they are. (spineless cowards!)

    Reply

  10. @jayman – “About how they treated Nyborg’s there’s really only one thing to say…”

    heh! (^_^) exactly.

    @jayman – “…start at 1:51 if it doesn’t on its own.”

    actually, the whole thing is pretty funny. (~_^)

    @jayman – “About the term ‘Watsoning’, does anyone know who coined it?”

    i dunno! was it steve sailer? i really don’t know.

    i know it was john derbyshire who coined “derbyshorn” about himself. since that seems to be past tense to me, i’ve been assuming that the present tense is “to derbyshear” (“derbyshearing”). don’t know if i’ve got that right or not. (~_^)

    Reply

  11. @sisyphean – “Mommy! Doctor Nyborg is saying mean stuff I don’t like and he’s hurting my feelings!”

    heh! (^_^) exACTly! (^_^)

    Reply

  12. @panjoomby – “The latter is how people were found guilty of witchcraft…

    “Science works best, as Dr. Haidt points out, when all hypotheses are allowed to be considered.”

    excellent!!

    Reply

  13. @vasilis – “What are the practical consequences of being convicted by the DCSD?”

    haven’t the faintest. you could always check the dcsd’s website to find out. i believe that i linked to it in the post.

    the most important consequence, though, is that these idiots can now go to the press/media with this ministry’s decision in hand and work further towards ruining dr. nyborg’s reputation.

    ’cause if you destroy a person’s reputation, who will listen to him? (the sheeple are stoooopid like that.)

    never mind that they haven’t addressed the science at all.

    Reply

  14. Hmm. All because of a paper by an obscure academic titled, “The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian Selection.” It sort of makes you want to read the paper, doesn’t it? Are you sure Nyborg didn’t hire those guys?

    Reply

  15. @luke – “It sort of makes you want to read the paper, doesn’t it? Are you sure Nyborg didn’t hire those guys?”

    heh! (^_^) maybe! (~_^)

    Reply

  16. “maybe they were disappointed that they couldn’t test whether or not professor nyborg would float”–Gotta admit, that made us all laugh for five minutes.

    Denmark is not just a bit medieval–it’s also progressive, in that it is trying to harness university faculty research for economic development. I find it shocking that Danish academics are not allowed to choose their own research topics–they must follow the suggestions of university administrators, who are following the suggestions of elected officials, who are of a quality not so different from elected officials in the US and Canada.

    Reply

  17. Jayman asks, “About the term “Watsoning”, does anyone know who coined it?” I believe I may have used the verb “to Watson” in the past tense (“Watsoned”) back when it was happening. But after what happened to Summers it came so trippingly off my tongue I can’t imagine that I was the first.

    Reply

  18. Having looked over that Nyborg paper I see that his conclusions are based on a projection of present trends 50 years into the future. So I would call it less science and more of a warning.

    Reply

  19. Having read Nyborg’s paper, it is obvious that it does not follow the standard scientific research format and its thesis cannot be repeated and verified. It is more in the realm of speculation and futurology. His projections of scenarios where the ethnic Danes are a minority in their country are highly speculative. It may happen, but Nybord has not demonstrated it scientifically. And then, some unsupported or debatable assertions like the hereditary nature of democratic or antidemocratic tendencies, and of authoritarian religions, are political. Objectively, the paper works as anti-immigration propaganda, which is perfectly legitimate but no science. Nyborg makes a bad service to Prof. Lynn’s discoveries. BTW, the chick’s ad homine attack on his opponents is exactly what should not be done in any defense of Prof. Nyborg’s work.

    Reply

  20. @jaim jota – “the chick’s ad homine attack on his opponents is exactly what should not be done in any defense of Prof. Nyborg’s work.”

    i didn’t make an ad hominem attack on anyone.

    an ad hominem attack would mean that i was trying to dismiss their argument by criticizing their persons somehow. i didn’t do that.

    i didn’t say — nor did i mean — that mammen et al.’s claim that nyborg’s conclusions/scientific work is wrong is incorrect.

    what i said — and what i meant — is that their (lame) tactic of disputing nyborg’s work by going to some government ministry is stupid — and harmful (see pinker’s statement). they are stupid — and wimpy — for doing so. and someone needs to tell them that.

    they should man up and write and publish a paper showing nyborg to be wrong. it’s what scientists do.

    Reply

  21. @mike – “Here is the offending paper.”

    thanks! (^_^)

    myself…i probably won’t be reading it anytime soon. iq/intelligence research not my main interest. plus, i don’t feel that i have to read it to have an opinion on this “danish committees on scientific dishonesty” business.

    it’s a stupid and a bad idea. full stop. scientific debates should be fought out in the world of science (journals, conferences, websites/blogs of scientists [not this one]), NOT in the press or in some nanny state committee.

    bad idea. very, very bad idea.

    Reply

  22. On 28 October 2013 DCSD found me guilty of scientific misconduct, and requested that the Decay paper be withdrawn from the international scientific literature–with no options for appeal.

    Not clear what the consequences are, if any, if this is not complied with?

    There’s a lot of talk about acquitting and convicting here but it doesn’t seem apparent that there are in fact any consequences. Are academic authorities in Denmark legally bound by these decisions or something?

    If the Danes want some neutral body to investigate claims of scientific bias and publish on it, I don’t really see a huge problem with this. Seems perhaps bureaucratic, but that is the choice of their society, and maybe it allows serious scientists to spend more time on their actual work than buggering about writing retractions.

    It’s up to the international scientific journals to take such recommendations on a case by case basis.

    If they published Nyborg’s work in the first place, the case would have to persuasive for them to reverse their decision, given this would be highly damaging to their credibility. And I doubt this is likely.

    It’s not like Denmark is going to throw sanctions or reduce foreign aid to countries that don’t comply or anything. Even the USA(!) wouldn’t do anything as insane as that.

    I don’t really have much sympathy for whining that decisions made by committees that have essentially legal force, and which journals are not obliged to comply with, ruin “reputation”. Scientists are surely not idiots who will simply take anything as the word of god simply because it has the word committee attached (or why are they even scientists?).

    Jaim Jota seems fairly spot on about Nyborg’s actual work.

    Reply

  23. these people care about reputation…

    Yes. And at present, one’s reputation depends on not being a bad person who believes that race exists and is important.

    they care deeply what the rest of the world thinks about them and lack integrity. if (when) the reigning ideology of the day shifts, they will be at the head of the stampeding herd trying to keep their positions as “leaders.”

    So the reigning ideology is the important thing and the reigning ideology was created and is now run by shameless people — the ones who gave the world “chutzpah”. They’re not interested in truth, they’re interested in power. It’s given them a tremendous advantage, particularly when they use their power to demonize and marginalize everyone who points out how they behave.

    Reply

  24. The article by Paul Gottfried, linked by See No Evol, is one of the best (ie succinct and informative) that I have read.

    It is worth being reminded that the problem is, first and foremost, ideological.

    And ideology means discourse, which means language, which means soundbites, buzz words, labels, brands and memes.

    The ‘guilt’ meme seems to have run out of steam, perhaps because it is too abstract.

    The ‘ad hominem’ meme seems to be gaining ground – there’s a video-clip knocking about of a Slovakian Minister telling a very senior Eurocrat to stick to the topic being discussed – but do the majority of the electorate really understand this meme?

    The ‘authoritarian’ meme has also been launched, here as much as anywhere, but again, it seems to be a relatively intellectually-sophisticated type of meme.

    The ‘democratic’ meme seems to have been launched in Europe, and is far easier to comprehend. But many of the majority may not be seeking, primarily for religious reasons, a democratic outcome.

    Another meme is the ‘humanitarian’ meme. An open borders policy is possibly the least humanitarian economic policy option available at this time. Surely most migrants do not wish to migrate, nor especially to live in the Anglosphere or Old Europe. Rather, they would simply like to be able to feed their children as they perceive Anglos and Euros are able to. But I have yet to hear a conservative explain how controlled borders combined with effective investment of human and financial capital represents the true path to humanitarianism.

    Another meme that could be launched is the ‘consistency’ meme. Because why, if the Liberal Consensus wishes to honour all cultures, is the import of products made from endangered wild animals illegal? Are these artifacts not the proud manifestations of fascinating ancient cultures?

    Lastly, I suggest that there is a meme to be found in ‘colour and diversity’. It occurred to me recently, as I witnessed an autumn of breathtaking beauty in the UK, that the European tribes would have been well camouflaged in deciduous forests. Every hue of yellow, red, orange, green, blue, brown and black, that can be seen in the trees, the earth and the rivers can also be found somewhere in European hair or eye colour. Not only are there 9 discrete eye colours but also every shade between, sometimes in multiple combinations and sometimes changing in different lights. And apparently the European brown eye colour is not dominant in the way that the African and Asian brown eye colour is. Does the world really want to lose this incredible diversity provided by only ?% of the global population?

    Apologies if the above is off-topic. Poor Denmark.

    Reply

  25. Chick: If Nyborg’s publication was a standard scientific research paper, then a scientific refutation may have been appropiate. But it is not. It is futurology, projecting very recent trends far into the uncertain future. These speculations have their place but not in science.

    May be I dont get the cultural context of your calling Nyborg opponents “girlie men” but I assume, in my barrio it would be ranked one step below of “Hijo de Puta”.

    Reply

    1. @Jaim Jota:

      “If Nyborg’s publication was a standard scientific research paper, then a scientific refutation may have been appropiate. But it is not. It is futurology, projecting very recent trends far into the uncertain future. These speculations have their place but not in science.”

      The conclusions are what they are. It is up to the reader to take them for what they are worth. The process through which Nyborg went to make them is science, and debating their accuracy also takes science to accomplish. That’s the way science works, and should always work.

      If we are going to call papers that come to inaccurate conclusions “not science”, then 95% of scientific papers, especially in the human sciences, would need to be thrown out. Uncovering previous errors is part and parcel to science.

      For the record, and take this however ironically as you would, if this were my blog, that would be your last warning before being put on moderation/banned if you kept this up… ;)

      Reply

  26. If he had read my comments, JayMan would know that I dont argue that Nyborg’s paper “came to inaccurate conclusions”. I say that it would have been more straightforward to write: “Look people, if the immigration of retard level Q people to Denmark continues as now, in fifty years Denmark will be a total mess. Here are my estimates, now refute me.” And putting in doubt the manliness of Nyborg’s opponents instead of their lack of ethics, is …. well, unexpected coming from a British lady.

    Reply

  27. @jaim jota – “And putting in doubt the manliness of Nyborg’s opponents instead of their lack of ethics, is …. well, unexpected coming from a British lady.”

    i’m not british.

    look. if you bothered to follow the links that i offered in the post, you’d know from professor nyborg that this instance of him being brought before this governmental committee is just one more event out of YEARS of bullying tactics from these guys (and, presumably, other leftist academics). they brought him before this committee before, they regularly bully him at the university, and they CONSTANTLY attack him in the danish media in very vicious ways.

    these people are behaving like political activists, NOT scientists. they’re behaving in ungentlemenly like ways, they’re behaving like spoilt children, they’re behaving like jerks.

    i don’t normally go around making fun of people. it’s not my usual behavior. i don’t like doing it. but these guys — and their ilk — they deserve it.

    we need to do more of it. MUCH, more of it.

    Reply

  28. @matt – “Not clear what the consequences are, if any, if this is not complied with…? Are academic authorities in Denmark legally bound by these decisions or something?”

    do i have to do everything myself here? apparently, i do.

    well, i’m not gonna. i provided a link to the dcsd website in the post — feel free to click through to it to find out what the consequences from that committee are.

    @matt – “Scientists are surely not idiots who will simply take anything as the word of god simply because it has the word committee attached…?”

    we’re not talking about other scientists here. we’re talking about these particular academics — the ones who brought the complaint — now bringing this government ministry’s decision TO THE PRESS. to the public. in an effort to further ruin nyborg’s reputation.

    also, i don’t know where you’ve been for the last couple of decades, but these are exactly the sorts of tactics that have been used against all sorts of politically incorrect research all over the western world, including the u.s. no, we don’t have any governmental committee like the danes (yet), but it’s all whispers to departmental heads or accusations in public (via the press). people get watsoned! WATSON GOT WATSONED!

    this is unacceptable. this is not how science ought to be done.

    like pinker said the last time ’round:

    “No one has the right to legislate the truth. It can only be discovered by free inquiry, and that includes investigations that may make people uncomfortable. This is the foundation of liberal society, and it is threatened by attempts to interfere with Dr. Nyborg and his research. If he is incorrect, that will be established by a community of scholars who examine his evidence and arguments and criticize them in open forums of debate, not by the exercise of force to prevent him from pursuing his research. These are the tactics of a police state, and bring shame on any institution that uses them.”

    Reply

  29. @jaim jota – “May be I dont get the cultural context of your calling Nyborg opponents “girlie men” but I assume, in my barrio it would be ranked one step below of ‘Hijo de Puta’.”

    google is your friend: girlie men.

    girlie men is a lot kinder and gentler, and much less vulgar, than son of a whore. it just means effeminate men.

    Reply

  30. @jaim jota – “If Nyborg’s publication was a standard scientific research paper….”

    it is a standard scientific research paper. it was published in a recognized, standard scientific journal, presumably with peer review, so that is that.

    and, while your opinions on nyborg’s paper are interesting, they’re really not relevant here, because your complaints are NOT the same as the complaints of the girlie men who brought the issue to this governmental committee.

    again, if you bothered to follow the links in my post, you’d know that there were (i believe) six original complaints, two of which were upheld by this committee. the accusations included plagiarism and not having referenced something correctly (i didn’t quite understand that, to be honest — something about the reference in the footnote not matching some numbers in the paper, which nyborg had adjusted in some way — that was dealt with in the journal by an addendum, if i understand what happened correctly — it was something that the reviewers were not bothered by anyway).

    i don’t know what all of the accusations were — the memorandum from the committee is in danish (also linked to in the post) — but it’s my impression that all of them had to do with technical details like this, which are of course important — but none of them have to do with nyborg’s main argument. so, while that might be interesting to discuss, it wasn’t the issue brought before the committee. as far as i know.

    Reply

  31. @see no evol – “Yes. And at present, one’s reputation depends on not being a bad person who believes that race exists and is important.”

    yes. and we need to do something to change that.

    mock them. shame them. show ordinary people who have swallowed the politically correct ideology without a thought that it’s OK to ridicule these idiots for what they are — idiots!

    THE EMPEROR’S NOT WEARING ANY CLOTHES!!

    Reply

  32. @bnkate – “The article by Paul Gottfried, linked by See No Evol, is one of the best (ie succinct and informative) that I have read.”

    yeah, that was really good. paul gottfried is really excellent. (thanks, see no evol!)

    @bnkate – “And ideology means discourse, which means language, which means soundbites, buzz words, labels, brands and memes.”

    i’ve gotten in the mood these days for some good ol’ fashioned mockery! (which is totally out of my character, like i said, so i’m new to this. (~_^) ) been spending too much time over at chateau heartiste. (~_^) but i think he’s on to something.

    @bnkate – “Another meme is the ‘humanitarian’ meme. An open borders policy is possibly the least humanitarian economic policy option available at this time. Surely most migrants do not wish to migrate, nor especially to live in the Anglosphere or Old Europe. Rather, they would simply like to be able to feed their children as they perceive Anglos and Euros are able to. But I have yet to hear a conservative explain how controlled borders combined with effective investment of human and financial capital represents the true path to humanitarianism.”

    i like this one. brain drain applies here — taking all the well-educated doctors and nurses and engineers from the third world. how is that helping the third world? that’s not humanitarian at all.

    Reply

  33. “They (the Danes) have the highest level of private debt in the world… but they’re very good at putting their hands over their ears and going la-la-la,”

    Evidently this applies to other things, as well.

    Reply

  34. Re: Jaim Jota Having read Nyborg’s paper, it is obvious that it does not follow the standard scientific research format and its thesis cannot be repeated and verified. It is more in the realm of speculation and futurology

    What about the hundreds of papers speculating about global warming? From reading around on it, I think they are onto something. But much of it is very speculative. And they too are predicting far into the future. And are unable to carry out experiments. Why is that allowed but not Nyborg?

    Dreadful stuff from the nation of the great physicist Niels Bohr.

    Reply

  35. yeah, that was really good. paul gottfried is really excellent. (thanks, see no evol!)

    Glad you and bnkate found it interesting. I don’t like this subject, but unfortunately it’s important. Try these too:

    Controlling. Bullying. Censoring. Refusing to submit to the rule of law. Demanding Canada import foreign ideas of censorship. Excusing — or even celebrating — the corruption and abuses in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If I weren’t a Jew, I’m afraid Burny would turn me into an anti-Semite. Nobody likes a bully telling you he wants to take away your freedom. And that bully says he speaks for all Jews. If Burny didn’t exist, Stormfront would have to make him up.

    The Canadian Jewish Congress is embarrassing the Jews

    “Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”

    Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism

    Reply

  36. I look forward to Europeans and “White Americans” being demographically replaced by various other peoples.

    Also using girly as an insult while being a woman LOLLLLL stronk powerfur manly woman.

    Reply

  37. thanx 4 linx, See No Evol – it’s interesting that these days some of the best links date back a few years, and it’s interesting to see what people were commenting at the time.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s