Alice Gregory Is Selective to Say the Least When It Comes to PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

In Alice Gregory's review of PSEUDOSCIENCE WARS by Michael D. Gordin

, she lists, in her cherry-picked way, some of the examples of pseudo-science in our age. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that a liberal-Zionist news magazine would name examples of right-wing abuses, it's still worth stating that neither side owns what goes by the name of pseudo-science.

In some ways, pseudo-science is a bigger problem on the right, in some ways a bigger problem on the left. On the right, there's the idiocy of Creationism and the mendacity that surrounds what goes by the name of Intelligent Design, which would have God as a Jewish computer programmer than a grand old man. When it comes to some issues, the Christian Right is just dead in the head. 

To be sure, there is the secular right that embraces Darwinism, but its views range from the empirical/factual observations to silly theorizing that European Jews are really of Khazarian origin. If Christian Rightists are pretty hopeless in the matter of science, some on the secular right get carried away on the role of race and biology in human behavior. One saving grace of Christian conservatives is their commitment to religion prevents them from speculating too freely about matters that can easily morph into pseudo-science. 

The preponderance of pseudo-science is a problem on what might be called the flaky left centered around various forms of New Age-ism. Such people are especially to be found in Northern California. They claim to be 'spiritual' than 'religious'.  In a positive way, it means they are free of religious dogmas and orthodoxies. In a negative way, it means they tend to confuse and conflate spiritual musings with 'scientific' theories of the mind, soul, diet, crystals, drugs, organic 'healing', and etc.  

Creationism and Intelligent Deign notwithstanding, Christian conservatives are more likely, in some ways, to keep religion as religion and science as science. Though some attempt to sneak religion into public schools, they insist on keeping secularism outside church doors. New Age 'freaks', on the other hand, don't see any borderline between science and spirituality. So, they read up on some fad diet, dip into Buddhism, and take some hallucinogenic drugs, and feel one with the cosmos. 

But overall, Christian Right's cultural and political influence is limited regionally to Southern states--and some rural localities in other parts--, and New Age flakes are mostly a danger to themselves, especially if they take up pseudo-scientific vegan diets. They don't have much power. 

The bigger problem is pseudo-science with the power to penetrate and persist throughout the culture with the protection and even the blessing of the controllers of our institutions. Gregory uses the example of Todd Akin, the Republican fool who said a woman cannot get pregnant during rape, but people like Akin are peripheral figures at best. The fact that most conservatives jeered, mocked, and denounced him proves that the Akinist theory of sexuality has no real following. And even Gregory notes this in her remark: 

"Akin’s prominent takedown was just one recent example of America rising up to fend off the scientifically deluded." 

No school teaches Akin's theory, and most other politicians don't wanna go anywhere near the subject. Besides, Akin is especially an idiot since so many rapes in America are interracial, involving black-on-white rape. Does Akin really wanna tell white female victims of black rape that they got pregnant because they enjoyed the sex? (To be sure, the 'prominent takedown' of Akin probably had as much to do with politics as with science. GOP wants women voters, and having someone like Akin as the face of the party--even if local--isn't the best way to go about it. It was one of those things that were not only scientifically dubious but politically dangerous.) 

If science is the search for truth, then its methodology doesn't apply only to hard sciences. Thus, there are social sciences and human sciences. In the field of social science, there's a great  deal of lies and falsehoods to be found on the 'left' as on the 'right'. But the problem is more serious on the 'left' because the most powerful institutions--media, academia, think tanks, government bureaucracies, activist groups, and etc.--are dominated by Jews, gays, and liberals.  

Consider the pseudo-scientific notion of 'homophobia'.  In the true scientific and clinical meaning of phobia, it's an extreme irrational fear of something harmless. So, a person with rabies, aka hydrophobia, freaks out when he looks at a bowl of water. Some people freak out at the sight of a snake--even small non-venomous one. Some flip out when they spot a little white mouse. Some break out in cold sweat in elevators. Some people run from even a small spider. 

Now, I suppose there could be rare instances of genuine homophobia in people who feel panicked in the presence of gays. But most negative feelings about homosexuals aren't phobic at all.  What do homo men do? They pump their sexual organs into the fecal holes of other men. In other words, they practice fecal penetration. Now, if we wanna be biologically factual and rational, we know evolution designed the anus for one purpose. It is connected to the large intestine that happens to fill with fecal material. And the fecal material exit through the anus. Anus is meant for defecation, not penetration. 

But homo men use the fecal hole for sexual gratification. To find this gross and disgusting is no phobia. It is a healthy, normal, and natural--and rational--reaction. But since it's also true that homo men are born that way, we can accommodate them by letting them find happiness through their 'gay' way. 

After all, new studies suggest that pedophiles are born naturally the way they are. This doesn't mean we should allow pedophilia, but we can at least understand why pedos feel the way they do. They may not be consciously acting evil but driven by natural desires resulting from the faulty roll of the genetic dice. 

Not everyone is born normal. Abnormality too is the product of nature. So, some kids are naturally born limbless, blind, deaf, retarded, or schizophrenic. Nature makes mistakes like everything/everyone else. Few people score perfect on the SAT. Gymnasts sometimes fall down. And genes sometimes don't mix properly. Since people with defects--physical, mental, sexual, etc--exist, the proper thing is to accommodate them. 

Even so, finding weird things weird and being turned off by them is not a phobia. If a child has born with a horribly defective face, it's natural for us to find it ugly. It's natural for people to not want to marry that person. And it's natural for intelligent people to prefer other intelligent people than unintelligent people. Dumb  people are born dumb, and it's not their fault, but most naturally born intelligent people avoid dumb people. Egalitarian feminists make a big deal of intelligence, but intelligence is the biggest dividing force in America. There's greater social division between intelligent women and dumb women than between men and women. Feminists complain about sexual inequality, and they celebrate the Intelligent Woman, but how many women are really intelligent? Maybe 10% are smart, and maybe 1% are really smart, and maybe 0.01% have it to rise to the top in any profession. What about all the women who work as maids, factory workers, lettuce pickers, waitresses, and etc.? Some may be less fortunate due to circumstances, but if we want to be scientifically honest, many women cannot rise any higher due to their naturally low IQs. 

Most well-educated elite Jews prefer other people of the same class, similar income, and comparable achievement. How many Jews who came out of Harvard and live the good life want to socialize with Mexican lettuce pickers?  Even when they are involved with issues of 'social justice', they'd rather write essays in fancy office buildings than actually rub shoulders with the 'salt of the earth'. But, that doesn't mean that rich, intelligent, and privileged Jews are Mexophobic, does it? And we know smart Jews have been cracking Dumb Polack Jokes for as long as we can remember. Does that make them Polophobic? Of course not. Finding something funny is not phobic. Otherwise, Marx Brothers and Larry David would be serious gentilophobes. 

But the pseudo-science of 'queer studies' and its social influence--largely aided and abetted by Jewish academic and media power--have gained such influence that 'homophobe' is anyone who makes a gay joke, laughs at a gay joke, finds fecal penetration to be gross, and sensibly dismisses 'gay marriage' as one of the most ridiculous ideas of all time. Marriage, after all, is rooted in biology and associated with morality. Since man and woman produce life, they should commit to one another to raise the life they create together. Thus, the fact of biology and the responsibility of morality are wedded together in the concept of marriage.

But what need for 'gay marriage'. For one thing, 'gay sex' or fecal penetration is gross--lovemaking where one man's penis is smeared with the fecal matter of the other man and where sperm is injected into a tunnel filled with fecal material--, so, why bestow our blessings on such a thing? If homos wanna indulge in fecal penetration, we should tolerate it. It would be foolish to have anti-sodomy laws. Even if fecal penetration is dangerous and unhealthy--rectal cancer risks is seven times higher for fecal penetrators--, it would be silly to have policemen go after men who might be buggering one another. I can understand the need to tolerate homo sex but why celebrate it? 

And if it should be celebrated simply because it's anti-normative, why don't powerful Jews in the media and academia push for Incest Pride, Incest Marriage or Same Family Marriage? Why no massive campaign to make people become aware of the insults, bullying, ostracism, ridicule, and physical abuse suffered by people tagged as 'sister fuckers', 'mother humpers', 'brother suckers', etc. And what if two gay brothers wanna marry one another? Wouldn't opposing such a thing be 'incestophobic' as well as 'homophobic'?  I mean in this world that is filled with so much hatred and violence, what is soooo wrong with a son loving his mother--granted that both are of consensual age? What is wrong with a 18 yr old granddaughter marrying her 65 yr old grandfather? I mean who are we to judge? If anything, instead of just tolerating incest, shouldn't we celebrate so that incestuous people can come out of the closet and live happy lives? 

Of course, I'm not making a case for 'incest marriage'.  I would resist the pro-incest campaign even if incest is associated with rainbow colors, blessed with celebrity endorsement, backed by powerful and rich Jews who control the media and academia, and etc.  Being turned off by incest is natural among  most people. It's not a phobia but a natural and healthy reaction. Most guys simply don't wanna do their own mothers, and most fathers and daughters don't wanna get it on. And most would be turned off by the idea. And they probably all heard and told hillbilly sister-brother jokes. None of this makes them 'incestophobic'. It just means they are normal and healthy. But if the idea of 'homophobia' is valid, why shouldn't 'incestophobia' be equally valid? 

Related to pseudo-science is the problem of pseudo-reality, though it might as well be called Jewdo-reality since Jews, in controlling the media and academia, pretty much control our view of reality.  Most of the news and information about the world comes through us filtered and shaped by Jews. And this is why the epidemic of black-on-white crime in America is never seen as such. If white people routinely attacked blacks, it would be called 'racism'. But when blacks attack whites, the Jewish media bosses have demanded that it be reported as 'unruly' 'teen' or 'youth' violence. Thus, the real reason for the racial violence continues to be overlooked. 

Contrary to liberal cliches, black racial violence isn't about poverty. It's not about starving blacks stealing to eat just to survive. It's about well-fed blacks randomly attacking whites, laughing about it, taking pictures of it, and sharing it with friends online. And most of the victims are not affluent whites but poor whites, poor Hispanics, and some non-rich Asians. But as long as rich liberal Jews live in their safe gentrified neighborhoods, what do they care? So, the pseudo-reality is maintained.  

But why is social reality the way it is? Why is Detroit in a blue state but avoided by white liberals? And if urban white/Jewish liberals love blacks so much, why have they engineered policies where entire blocks of cities become gentrified(turned more Jewish, white, Asian) and why were so many urban blacks relocated to small towns and the suburbs inhabited by working-class whites who fled from black violence and crime?

The real reason for the uneven levels of black on white crime is due to real racial differences. Blacks are more muscular, more powerful, and tougher. They are also more aggressive, and this is the result of 100,000s of evolution.  But we are not allowed to discuss this fact because of the pseudo-reality created by the liberal Jews(who privately know all about racial differences but keep mum about it because of its implications that might undermine Jewish power). Of course, blacks know they are tougher, which is why they so boldly attack whites and laugh about it. They love to mock the white male as a 'faggoty ass white boy'. This happens in schools, buses, and other public places. 

Anyone who dares to speak honestly about race is blacklisted, destroyed, ostracized, and removed from the 'polite society' of power and privilege. They are simply called 'racist', and they have no right to speak. Not only are they ruined but people who associate with them are also targeted; they are deemed to be 'guilty by association.'  The 'anti-racist' hysteria and crusade is many times more hysterical and extreme than the anti-communist crusade by McCarthy. Though McCarthyism has been called a witch hunt, McCarthy did go after many real communists. But most people who are called 'racist' are not bigots. If anything, 'racism' or race-ism should only mean race + ism = belief in race and racial differences. 

Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ, and that's why they are the most powerful people in America. Blacks are the  most muscular, and that is why most of the racial violence in America is black on white, black on brown, black on yellow, black on whatever. But we are not supposed to notice and why not? Because the Jewish-controlled media block out all the news and information of such things and because anyone who dares to challenge the grand liberal Jewish narrative is destroyed and ostracized. And if the likes of Elena Kagan can help it, such 'racists' or 'haters' will also be prosecuted as 'haters' and locked up, as is always the case in Europe. 

The New Republic is a magazine that pushes pseudo-reality when it comes to Middle East issues. Israel spies on America more than any other nation. There's compelling evidence that the Mossad knew about the looming 9/11 but didn't share information with Americans because a major terrorist attack on American soil would be good for Israel. Israel has violated every international law on nuclear weapons and possesses 300 illegal nukes while Iran has NONE, but Israel is showered with 3 billion in aid every year whereas Iran is being strangulated economically by Jewish-controlled US and UN.  Obama bombed the hell out of Libya in the name of saving innocent lives, but he didn't say a word about Israel's massive bombing of Gaza that left over a 1000 Gazan women and children dead. And New Republic, a supposedly liberal magazine, cheers on the Zionist state of Israel that still oppresses the Palestinian people. And Alice Gregory, the good liberal, writes for such a magazine. 

In other words, there's tons of bullshit on the Right but also on the Left.