Leftist Takeover of Big Science Continues
We challenge you to find any science story that praises conservatives for anything. Big Science would rather praise communist China.
For those who are not convinced of the complete abdication of Big Science and Big Media to the anti-Trump Democrat Party, and to its comrades in socialist and radical leftist organizations, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Reminder: Our term “Big Science” does not refer to individual scientists who mostly do good work in their specialties. It refers to the institutions such as university department heads, journal editors, and lobbyists who presume to “speak for science.” They are unilaterally Democrat or even Marxist in bias. They have become an arm of the Democrat Party, constantly praising Obama when he was in office (while ignoring his anti-science policies). Trump now is their demon who cannot do anything right. Big Media is the propaganda arm for Big Science: always pro-Darwin, anti-creation, pro-abortion, and politically leftist.
The need for progressive national narratives (University of Chicago, via Phys.org). What on earth is this doing on a “science” website? This is a polemic for progressivism (a polite euphemism for leftism and socialism). Its framing commits the either-or fallacy of progressivism vs “authoritarian nationalist movements” (presumably MAGA). This piece gives a pulpit for Rogers M. Smith to advise better “narratives” for the Democrats. It came from a symposium called “Challenges Facing Democrats” where Smith presented. There is not even a pretense of balance in this political hit piece against conservatism that specifically attacks US President Donald Trump. Why did a Democrat get such a platform on Phys.org? Can anybody find a balancing piece by Republicans? Good luck in your search.
Wuhan coronavirus hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out (Science Magazine). Has the AAAS become another propaganda arm of the Chinese communists? It’s no secret that Donald Trump has accused China of launching the “China virus” on the world. He is not the only one; most conservatives have a huge distrust for any statements made by communists. Here, with only tidbits of critique, Jon Cohen lets one of China’s chief virologists defend her country against theses accusations. Is he unaware that communists encourage lying as a national defense policy?
Shi mentioned other factors that she says exonerate her lab. Their research meets strict biosafety rules, she said, and the lab is subject to periodic inspections “by a third-party institution authorized by the government.” Antibody tests have shown there is “zero infection” among institute staff or students with SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses. Shi said WIV has never been ordered to destroy any samples after the pandemic erupted.
Note to Jon: there is no “third-party institution” in a totalitarian dictatorship. Everyone works for the Chinese Ministry of Truth or gets liquidated. Whether or not the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, or was engineered there, is still a matter of debate, but one thing is clear: China shut down their own internal travel immediately, but permitted international travelers to carry the virus around the world. Why? The AAAS completely ignores that major issue, and appears to snuggle up to this Chinese woman who bashes Donald Trump.
“U.S. President Trump’s claim that SARS-CoV-2 was leaked from our institute totally contradicts the facts,” she added. “It jeopardizes and affects our academic work and personal life. He owes us an apology.”
Note 2 to Jon: If this is your example of an “In Depth” report on an issue of national and international concern, why did you not let Trump respond? Why did you not contact a single spokesperson for the executive branch or Congress of your own country for a response? Is this the AAAS, or the LAACP (Leftist Association for the Advancement of Chinese Propaganda)?
What to do with anti-maskers? Punishment has its place, but can also entrench resistance (The Conversation). CEH does not take an issue with wearing masks, and recommends it where appropriate for courtesy and safety. What’s alarming about this piece by two academics from RMIT University is that they portray anyone who doesn’t obey Big Government’s orders to wear masks as conspiracy theorists who must be punished! Their only worry is that punishing such disobedient citizens might backfire by entrenching their resistance. You’ll never guess what the authors appeal to for tips on how to increase compliance: well, maybe you will. It’s evolutionary game theory. If it works on capuchin monkeys, maybe it will work on human monkeys, too. We just unmasked their Yoda Complex.
New research finds crises such as COVID-19 pandemic threaten support for Title IX (University of Massachusetts Amherst, via Phys.org). Leftists are in the habit of assigning people to the groups “oppressors” and “oppressed”; this is another example. It bashes males in sports, and worries that females are losing ground in the battle for “equality” that was guaranteed by Title IX of the Civil Rights Bill. This article is replete with leftist lingo, e.g., “understandings of sex and gender at the intersections of race, sexuality, ability and class.” Conservatives do not talk that way. They prefer to evaluate people as individuals based on their performance, not group (see veteran, entrepreneur and presidential candidate Herman Cain, who died this week, express his story and views on this at Prager U).
‘It’s like we’re going back 30 years’: how the coronavirus is gutting diversity in science (Nature). The editors of Nature join the chorus for “fairness” and “inclusion” in this fake-panic piece about how the pandemic is resulting in “job losses during the pandemic might pose ‘disproportionate existential threats’ to researchers from under-represented groups, including women, people from minority ethnic backgrounds and those who are financially disadvantaged.”
Not a word here, mind you, about conservative entrepreneurs who have lost their livelihoods due to government shutdowns. Not a word here about victims of violence due to riots and looting by avowed Marxist radicals and anarchists. Can scientists just help solve this pandemic so that everyone can get back to work? Everyone is suffering. This is no time allege “disproportionate” pain in science labs, when many conservatives have lost everything. Big Science and Big Media could step up and help people who need help without being obsessed with their sex and skin color. We’re all human.
Women political leaders key to “more equal and caring societies” (King’s College London, via Phys.org). There’s hardly a person in modern society who would deny that qualified women should have equal access to political positions, and many do. In fact, during the Trump administration, more women are in Congress than ever before (USA Today). There’s also universal agreement that women bring important perspectives to the table. So what’s the beef with these eggheads at King’s College? Watch out for more leftist talking points in their statement: “Understanding the gendered nature of political leadership and decision-making is more important than ever as we collectively rebuild and hopefully move towards are [sic] more sustainable, resilient and inclusive future.” Gendered? Why not evaluate people as individuals based on their abilities? Inclusive? Who is excluding women these days? That is so 1930s. Let women step up and show their credentials; they will probably be given more preference than a man with equal qualifications. Leftists seem incapable of seeing people as individuals; they see the world through identity-tinted glasses as either oppressed members of a group or their oppressors. This is Marxist thinking.
My womb is my business (Science Magazine). The stories that a magazine chooses to emphasize reveal something about its bias. In this piece, Japanese postdoc applicant Wen-Jing Lin gets her 15 minutes to tell how offended she was by an interview question in Taiwan, “Do you plan to have children?” Yes, it might seem a bit personal, but let’s face it; women do have children, and that can have an impact on a job. Fathers also have children, and this fact might also make them face limitations if they are applying for work that requires a lot of travel. Ms Lin was so offended by this question, she let loose with a huge rant about discrimination, and the AAAS gave her the mike for it. Was it so hard to just answer the question with some relaxed diplomacy? How about, “Perhaps some day I would like to. For now, I believe my qualifications for this position are the only things that matter to us.” Diplomacy is a skill in life that is worth developing in men and women. Watch again how Herman Cain responded to a situation that he easily could have considered discriminatory.
Climate change and COVID-19: The denial playbook is the same (Earth Institute at Columbia University, via Phys.org). In leftist thinking (and all totalitarian worldviews), one is either a supporter or a denier of the consensus of experts. There is no debate, once the experts have spoken. Disagree, and you become a “denialist.” In this article, Phys.org gives leftist profs at Columbia a pulpit for condemning anyone who questions the experts on COVID-19 (who have changed their opinions repeatedly) as a “denier” like a “climate denier.” If you voted for Trump, this attack is for you:
In the United States, the Trump administration has responded to the COVID-19 crisis using tactics it honed in the climate arena: ignoring or burying relevant scientific information, pushing misinformation, and silencing scientists who warn us of the dangers. This pervasive “see no evil, hear no evil” approach has handicapped the U.S.’s ability to respond to both of these unfolding crises.
Do not listen to the president’s press briefings. Do not weigh the evidence. Just join the experts in the Two-Minute Hate against the deniers.
A rebranding of ‘freedom’? (University of Chicago, via Phys.org). This is a blatant communist propaganda piece for the Democrat Party, if not an Orwellian exercise in Newspeak a la 1984. Freedom is not free; freedom is slavery. War is peace. Get ready to be brainwashed out of your understanding of individual liberty guaranteed by America’s founding fathers. Utopia is coming.
According to recent Gallup polls, socialism is now more popular than capitalism among Democrats and young people, and support for “some form of socialism” among all Americans is at 43% (compared to 25% in 1942). Policies that went unmentioned or were declared out-of-bounds in elections four years ago—a federal jobs guarantee, single-payer health care, free college, massive tax hikes on the rich, and the Green New Deal—are commonplace in Democrats’ 2020 campaigns.
However, in “Freedom Now,” a new paper published by Alex Gourevitch and Corey Robin in Polity’s May Symposium on the Challenges Facing Democrats, there is still no clear, unifying idea behind this political shift. “One has not heard anything on the order of Franklin Roosevelt’s Commonwealth Club speech or Reagan’s story of the free market,” the authors write. If these policies are to have a chance of breaking through, they will need a grounding principle, or ideology name the enemy, organize the policies, orient the actions, state the destination, and provide the fuel for the movement.
Again, what on earth is this communist propaganda doing on a “science news” site? The authors want to “rebrand” the conservative notion of freedom and turn it into a pro-socialist, big-government slogan! A more blatant example of our headline, “Atheist leftist takeover of Big Science” could hardly be imagined.
Reclaiming “freedom” names the problem that an increasing number of people face today: systemic unfreedom in the neoliberal economy. By confronting that unfreedom, the left can do more than identify, in a coherent and cohesive way, the myriad problems that individuals are currently facing. The authors find the seeds of that idea in Bernie Sanders’s rhetoric about being “organizer in chief,” and in proposals from the Warren and Sanders camps that would strengthen workers’ right to strike and organize.
This is the 2020 restatement of Marx and Engels, “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to win!” And you’re reading it from Big Science and Big Media.
164 million victims of communism (9 Oct 2018) are weeping from the grave, “Stop! Don’t go down that road!”
Phys.org, Science Daily, EurekAlert and a few other science news amalgamators (9 July 2020) have a curious habit of always giving Democrats and leftists the microphone, but never treating conservative views respectfully. They don’t even pretend to engage in balanced reporting on controversial questions. One possible exception was favorable treatment of Jim Bridenstine, Trump’s NASA administrator, as he congratulated the NASA team upon the launch of the latest Mars rover this week. But that event had no political overtones. Can anybody find “science news” reported by a secular site that actually makes conservative views appear decent and respectable? We’re still looking.
Watch Candace Owens interview Dinesh D’Souza about the ideologies of socialism and communism. You’ll find it on Prager U, whose YouTube videos are being suppressed by Google. (The head of Google denied this week before Congress that there is any bias going on.) Ask yourself why Big Media is out to suppress conservative voices. Ask yourself why Big Science and its subsidiary, Big Science Media, censor all conservative voices and blatantly promote the most radical positions, as shown here. Subversion is a well-known tactic of leftist totalitarians. Conservatives value rational debate. Leftists are destroying this fundamental element of scientific reasoning. Conservatives are the real pro-science advocates.