The scandal over scientists falsifying data to push the Green agenda made 2009 worth while. Some years back an Emory professors lost his tenured job for simply making up a book’s “facts” to show early Americans didn’t have guns.
It is now established that Franz Boas, now a hero to National Review, made up his information about immigrant traits in the US.
It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get caught doing this! Who in academia would have the slightest incentive to look into any study which backs a conclusion that people giving out grants and promotions want to be true?
It’s like the idea of a scandal in the press. “What did they know and when did they know it? is strictly for those outside the press. When that black reporter was rising like a rocket at the New York Times while making up his stories out of whole cloth, there was a long series of memos inside the Times debating what to do about it as he continued to manufacture his stuff.
No one expected anything else. Those were the kind of notes that would get a president impeached.
Obviously this sort of thing is not unusual, but anyone who said it happens a lot would be lynched by respectable conservatives.
Every day anybody who wants it on Capitol Hill gets a list of NSF grants. Senator Proxmire used that easy information to denounce grants for projects which sounded extreme. Naturally many he randomly denounced were enormously important to achievements of benefit worth a thousand times their cost.
Grants for research are hard to get. Those who give out the money watch them a LOT closer than Proxmire did. If you come to a conclusion those giving the grants like and it shows up in a documentary or in the press, you will get more of them. If you don’t toe the line, you’ve had it.
In Climategate those pushing the Green agenda said that all their information came from journals which have Holy Peer Review. But they also revised the definition of journals that have peer review. The respectable journals happened to be the ones not questioning the Greens.
The journals that lost respectability should have hired a respectable conservative to show them how to stay inside the line.
#1 by Dave on 12/29/2009 - 3:04 pm
MSM propaganda is primarily aimed at creating a false sense of confidence in the Establishment and inaccurate expectations for the future.
The Establishment pays a price for this, however.
Society is swept into the wilds because these activities are for the most part very successful.
But by sweeping society into the wilds, the Establishment loses control of the playbooks that rise there.
These playbooks drive outcomes the Establishment cannot control and cannot foresee.
#2 by shari on 12/29/2009 - 6:25 pm
Any life time careerist knows things they ought to be ashamed of,I think. Of course,everybody has somethings they should feel ashamed of, but careerists have made a whole career out of it. This cannot stand.
#3 by backbaygrouch4 on 12/30/2009 - 8:20 am
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Sir John Harington of Kelston, poet and courtier, c. 1600.
#4 by Simmons on 12/30/2009 - 10:55 am
The college campus works because it is subsidized greatly by society. Therefor the idiots who run the campus are caught in their own feedback loop.
So they gin up laughable theories, try to peddle them to the masses and lo and behold this effort runs into someone outside of their feedback loop, and that person has an internet connection.
In the first case they ran into Clayton Cramer a “Shotgun News” gadfly with an axe to grind against gun controllers. So he had his paper and the internet and soon the Prof was in full retreat.
Secondly the kid cult of AGW was fine as long as it stayed within its feedback loop. But when it left that and created financial losers such as the world’s largest oil and gas producer Russia, then some Russians leaked the mischief that exposed the cult to ridicule. The cult was scared and henceforth lost its confidence in the negotiations and could not sell out the Western countries as easily as they wanted.
All this longwinded hoo haa means is that we on the net can turn inside of the respectable wingman and get on the six of the libs and then hose them.
#5 by Dave on 12/30/2009 - 11:55 am
backbaygrouch,
Thank you for sowing the word “treason” into our blog.
It is such a good word.
May it succeed as the supreme guide to everything everyone does and thinks about.
My dream is for this word to come to rule everything and to dominate the world utterly.
What a sweet word it is. It cannot be said too frequently.
The word is true music to my ears. I want to hear its song forever and ever.
#6 by Frank on 12/30/2009 - 3:18 pm
Some comments from http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/12/30/avatar-and-anti-racism/#comments which BUGS folks might find interesting. Bold emphasis mine.
“There is nothing a White person can do to overcome the moral stain of being born with pale skin. Going native, marrying a non-White, joining the tribe, taking up arms against White oppressors … none of this is sufficient.
I find this highly refreshing. I’m pleased to see anti-racists finally laying the anti-White card on the table. White people need to realize that anti-racists hate them for who they are, not for what they do.”
—–
” It’s true anti-racists can’t be assuaged; they hate white people and that is why they are not anti-racist but instead anti-white, as evidenced not least by anti-white racist affirmative action policies.”
—–
“White people need to realize that anti-racists hate them for who they are, not for what they do.”
“Language is important. Whites need to realize that anti-racists hate us for who we are, not for what we do. Among the things some of us do, even if unconsciously, is talk about ourselves as “them”. Another is to avoid or shit on the word White, or the capitalization of it. None of that helps either.”
—–
Methinks somebody is listening to Bob & Horus!
#7 by Simmons on 12/31/2009 - 1:17 pm
Frank this could have been discovered years ago if only our PHDs had actually asked of the anti-whites what exactly they mean by the word “racism.” Instead as intellectuals are wont to do they use any excuse to wander off into their specialty even if it means using the other side’s rhetoric without even challenging it.
It took a layman by the name of Craig Bodecker to even breach the question, “What is racism?” Guess he outgrew his college education, most don’t.
Ask any lefty or respectable right that and it comes down to anti-white and only anti-white.
“Mr. Liberal define “racism” for us and tell us if you yourself fit that definition?” Now that is a start.