The New Fundamentalists

The New Fundamentalists.

It was David Hume who stated that we cannot derive an ‘Ought’ from an ‘Is’. This is a lesson the Left, Liberals and the rest of the Politically Correct Fascists like Steven Rose need to learn.

Just because the scientists like Steven Rose do not want science to discover genes for intelligence that differ amongst racial groups, the fact they appear to exist, and therefore that we ought to be undertaking scientific research to discover them, is more important to scientific progress, and truth, than his selfish desire that they ought not to exist and therefore ought not to be discovered.

If science was based on wishing away all unpalatable truths, then science would not exist and truth would be lies. The value of science is that it is valueless.

Its value is simply that it enables us to establish truth.

It is truth that is the value of science. If science rejects truth for dogma then we reject science itself and have entered a new Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance.

Science seeks only truth, it is not concerned with dogma or morality.

Truth exists because it is based on solely empirical evidence, it is free from superstition and delusion.

It is man who either uses, or abuses, the technology he derives from reason and science.

It is fools who reject science for dogma and illusions.

If the paradigm of scientific progress were handicapped by the selfish desires of scientists not to discover things because they don’t like them, then science would not exist and objective truth would not exist. Every scientist would regard their specific view on what ought to be as more important than what is. Truth would become hostage to the competitors in a competition of ‘oughts‘, instead of being built on the foundation of the single scientific ’Is’.

It is the ’Is’ that is the basis of all science, the ’ought’ is simply an ethical question. Science is the province of scientists, it is for philosophers to ponder oughts.

To confuse the two is the sign of a scientist who has confused science with philosophy and truth with desire.

Steven Rose and the anti-racist lobby assert that because genes for racial difference ought not to exist, according to their own personal wishes, then people like James Watson ought not to be allowed to conjecture, in the name of science, whether they do exist.

They also state that scientists should not be allowed to research racial differences and also that they should not receive funding if they want to. Those scientists that do undertake research into racial differences, discover them and publish them are vilified, accused of being racist and pressure put on their employers to sack them. This is the science of a totalitarian state.

Science based on political correctness is not science, it is self imposed scientific censorship.

Whilst liberals condemn censorship in the cinema, they demand it in the laboratory.

Whilst liberals support free speech in society, they condemn those scientists who dare do scientific research they do not agree with.

For Liberals ' Freedom ' is valued only for its utility as regards them and their dogma. If a freedom conflicts with their lies or dogma then the freedom must be destroyed - not the lie or the illusion.

On the issue of racial differences the Liberals have become the New Fundamentalists.

Along with the Islamist fundamentalists that assert the supremacy of Islam, the proponents of the Communist International, the Globalists of Capitalism, Christian fundamentalist Creationists and climate change proponents, each has confused faith with truth.

The Christians that assert Creationism instead of evolution, the proponents of Climate Change who assert the existence of man made warning based on slender scientific conjectures and not hard scientific facts and the Liberals that deny the existence of racial differences are all fundamentalists who seek to conflate truth with faith.

This is an absurd situation. The New Fundamentalists use the old Marxist-Leninist technique of the Terrorism of the Word to attack any heretics they disagree with. This is why those who question the 'science' of man made climate change are called 'Revisionists' thereby equating them with Holocaust Deniers.

If science ever discovers, whether by intent or accident, genes for intelligence that prove that a differential for intelligence exists based on inherited racial differences, then is Steven Rose saying such truth should not be revealed.

Is science casting truth into the flames of denial as once did religion ?

If science is not based solely on the search for truth then what is the value of science to Man ?

Have we not suffered enough under the yoke of faith and superstition.

Is not the value of truth that it frees us from the lies and illusions of those fools that would wish to be kept in chains and slaves to their lies.

Those who want to deny us truth are the true haters, for they hate liberty and truth itself.

To say that certain scientific truths are so unpalatable to some people that they ought to be suppressed or denied, is a debasement of science itself. It is to exist in illusion and error.

To restrict the right of scientists to undertake research, or debate potential scientific potentialities in public, on the basis that in nature their ’ought’ not be genes for intelligence that differ on the basis of race is to take the science out of science.

Truth is often unpalatable. So is science.

Often if conflicts with faith, dogma or an accepted scientific theory espoused by many learned fools.

The subjective desire for an specific ’Ought’ in science to exist is often conflicted by the reality of a specific ’Is’ that does exist.

For the pseudo-scientists to demand that truth be treated like a condemned prisoner, blindfolded, gagged, silenced and then sentenced to incineration in the fires of heresy is to transform our civilisation into tyranny.

The right of scientists to state what an ’is ’ is, is the basis of their fundamental right as a scientist.

For scientists to fear asserting what is, because they are afraid of being vilified for undermining an ought, is to replace the spirit of scientific inquiry with that of a fear of discovery and a new era of superstition. Science should exult when it discovers truth, not punish the truth seekers for discovering truth or speculating on a truth that challenges the existing scientific consenus or a prevailing liberal social dogma.

The aim of science is simply to discover truth to enable Man to take charge of his own development, not to create cells of lies for demagogues to keep us enchained within.

If scientists are to be judged by their peers not on the nature of new truths that they discover but on the basis of them not undermining an established ought, then lets not pretend that that is science.

The nature of Truth is that Truth is Nature.

Replacing truth based on nature with truth based on dogma is to replace science with faith.

To ask scientists to place an equivalence between an ‘ ought’ and an ‘is’ to take scientists, and science, out of the ream of fact and truth and into the realm of philosophy, ethics and morality. Science that seeks to place an equivalence between an ’ought’ and ’is’ is voodoo science. Waving a stick over a broken leg ought to fix it says the witchdoctor, but science says that it wont.

To the liberals that labour under the delusion of their asinine universal subjectivisms, such as moral and cultural relativism, science is also relativist. Iy must serve their will or it must be denied.

Fortunately antibiotics cure infections when incantations fail. That is the gift that science and truth has given us.

Healing is what happens when reality replaces delusion.

To relegate the status of an ’is’ to the status of an ’ought’ is to jeopardise the entire basis of the path of Western science and civilisation since the Enlightenment.

Though some like Steven Rose say Nature should not have created differentials in intelligence based on race, if it has the it has.

Conflating an ’ought’ with an ’is’ in order to try and hide this fact is to reject science itself.

Coming from a scientist one would expect more intellectual rigor and respect for science itself.