Communism in the world of science

The word science derives from the Latin word meaning knowledge.  Aristotle famously defined law as reason free from passion, and so it ought to be with science.

Sadly we often find nowadays that the world of science is dominated by people who take the opposite point of view, even though they might be unwilling to admit it.

It is reported that the emininent scientist James Watson plans to sell the Nobel prize he was awarded in 1962.  Scientific discoveries are often made over many years by more than one scientist, and Nobel prizes reflect this.  Thus Watson was one of three scientists who shared the prize for discovering the nature of DNA.

He then went on to cause controversy many years later, and I quote from The Daily Mail:

In an interview with The Sunday Times Magazine on 14 October 2007, Dr Watson was quoted as saying he is 'gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whereas all the testing says not really'.

He said he hoped everyone was equal, but added: 'People who have to deal with black employees find this not true.'

The views were also included in a book, published that week, in which he wrote that 'there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically'.

He said: 'Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.'

Four days later, the scientist was banned from speaking at London's Science Museum.

If Watson is wrong about race and average intelligence, then maybe his detractors could explain why he is wrong, instead of treating him like a pariah - but of course we cannot expect reasonable behaviour from communists.

While I do have some sympathy with Watson, it is fair to point out that the world of science is full of unfairness.  In 2003, the Nobel prize for medicine was awarded to two scientists who had assisted in the development of magnetic resonance imaging.  Controversially however, the scientist who had the biggest impact on the development of MRI - Raymond Damadian - was excluded.

Did James Watson protest at this injustice?  Maybe he did.

It has often been claimed that Damadian was denied the Nobel prize because he does not believe in evolution.  By contrast, Watson does believe in evolution.  Unfortunately for him, he dares to take it seriously.

Related previous posts include:
Black violence: a black woman speaks out

See also my essay on the Western Spring site.

The demonisation of two women

Two women, both known for their support of the Labour Party, have been demonised in the press and elsewhere in the past couple of weeks.

Emily Thornberry MP resigned from the shadow cabinet after she tweeted a photo of a house in Strood, Kent, during the recent by-election campaign.  The house was adorned with St George's cross flags, and had a white van parked outside.  Many people claimed the photo was intended to be disrespectful, and maybe it was, but so far as I am aware there is no clear evidence that it was intended to be anything other than an innocent tweet.

Nevertheless Ed Miliband was among those who expressed disapproval, and she resigned.  So far as I am aware, the only media figure who has even hinted that her tweet might not have been disrespectful is Peter Hitchens.

As I write, The Daily Mail has published two comments which condemn cookery writer Jack Monroe for remarks she made about David Cameron and his disabled son (who passed away in 2009).  The first is by Sarah Vine, the wife of an evil government minister; the other is by Richard Littlejohn.

I will not condone what Monroe said about the Prime Minister, but neither do I condone the way she has been treated in the press.

Vine makes an issue about Monroe having a child outside wedlock, and then giving up her job to raise him on benefits.  She never married her son's father, but instead realised that she is a lesbian.  Vine comments that:

Fact is, there are lots of young women like her out there who long to start a family. But, because they are responsible individuals who think hard about the consequences of their actions and know that they can’t expect someone else to pick up the tab, they don’t. Why should Monroe know the joy of motherhood when they don’t?

I am curious.  Is Vine arguing that women should not lose their virginity until they are financially secure?  She doesn't say.  It is a fact however that no contraception is totally effective.  I do not know whether Monroe became pregnant by accident or design, but I do know that a lot of women in this country - whether or not they are married - have abortions rather than proceed with an unplanned pregnancy.

I do not know if Monroe has ever had an abortion, but I do know that she continued with one pregnancy.  Does Sarah Vine condone the wanton destruction of innocent human life which is perpetrated in Britain's abortion clinics?  Her husband serves in a government which does.

By contrast, Littlejohn seems to have a problem with Monroe expecting poor people to eat kale pesto pasta.  Has he tried it?  I haven't, and so will reserve judgement.

He also accuses the left of dancing on the graves of Ivan Cameron and Margaret Thatcher.  No one, so far as I am aware, has expressed pleasure at the death of Ivan Cameron.  As for Margaret Thatcher, I wonder if Littlejohn would have felt pleasure at her demise if he had suffered as millions of ordinary people did during her reign of incompetence.

The truth is that Richard Littlejohn is as much an obnoxious lefty as Monroe, and the same is probably true of Sarah Vine.  The one small difference is that Monroe is young, and may mature with the passing years.

I would be interested to see either Littlejohn or Vine say something positive about any political party which wants to close our borders to further immigration.  If they will not, then perhaps they could explain why not.

The establishment has nothing but contempt for anyone who is opposed to immigration.  Some establishment figures will try to pretend otherwise from time to time, but I for one am not fooled.

Related previous posts include:
The Daily Express must try harder
Our fellow-travelling national press
Pompous claptrap from Tory veterans

The story of a private toll road

There has been a lot of coverage in the national press this year about a private toll road at Kelston in Somerset.

The story began in February of this year, when a section of the A431 had to be closed owing to damage caused by a landslip.  The necessary repair work was not initially scheduled to be completed before Christmas, which prompted a local businessman to rent a nearby field from a farmer, and build his own road to bypass the closed section of the A431.

The Kelston Toll Road took ten days to build, and was soon open to anyone wanting to pay £2 for the privilege of not having to take a lengthy detour.  It looked likely that the road would eventually make a profit, but it is now reported that the council has found the money to complete the repairs five weeks earlier than planned, and the toll road is expected to close before it can show any profit.  It is however expected to break even.

While the businessman behind the toll road has received a lot of praise, he has also attracted a lot of negative comment from people who accuse him of trying to profit from a bad situation for motorists.

My first comment is that many people in Britain vote in elections for politicians who would rather spend money on such things as illegal wars and EU membership than on road maintenance.  If Britain were run by decent politicians, then maybe the A431 could have been repaired within days of the cracks first appearing.

Second, I wonder whether or not the local council ever thought about renting a field and creating a road to bypass the closed section of road.  Had they done so, then the entire bill could have been met from tax revenues, without any need to impose a toll on anyone.

Third, while I admire Mike Watts for building the toll road, it is fair to point out that many business ventures are motivated as much by a sense of community spirit as by a  desire to make a profit.  Likewise, many business ventures end up making a loss, whereas Mr Watts currently expects to break even and thereby make no loss at all.

Update: it has since been reported that Mr Watts did in fact make a loss.

Independent praises immigration

The Independent newspaper has published on its website a list of ten supposed benefits of immigration to this country.  I will not list all of them, but I will open with the comment that it would be surprising if Britain did not benefit at all from immigration.  Nevertheless we are allowed to ask whether or not the benefits of immigration outweigh the negatives.

One of the supposed benefits is Marxism, which is akin to a sick joke.  How many millions of people around the world have died as victims of communism?  Another supposed benefit is a truly atrocious building called the ArcelorMittal Orbit.

Also on the list is the contribution that foreign nurses have made to the NHS, but The Independent does not explain why Britain has proved unable to train a sufficient number of nurses within our frontiers.  (Maybe because we are too busy training people in such vital subjects as sociology and media studies.)  The Independent also fails to explain how Britain can justify stealing talent from impoverished countries.

The list does not include Sir Charles Hallé, who founded both an orchestra and a college in Manchester.  In spite of his achievements, I cannot deny that he came to Britain as an entirely bogus asylum seeker.

It also appears that of all the immigrants who have come to this country in the past two hundred years, the ones who have proven the most beneficial - such as Alec Issigonis and Sir Charles Hallé - have been white.

I merely observe the fact.

Should we demonise the holiday pay ruling?

A recent ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal may prove expensive for many employers.  The ruling is that holiday pay should reflect regular overtime in addition to the contracted hours of work.

On the one hand, this ruling is based on EU law, and so any employers who fear the consequences are free to reflect upon the fact that  this ruling would never have materialised if successive Labour and Tory governments had not taken this country further and further along the road of surrender to EU imperialism.

Nevertheless the EU is not always wrong, and this is a ruling which can benefit a lot of working people.  As for those employers who are worried by the financial impact, maybe they should try blaming someone other than their own workers for their financial misfortunes.

Companies pay tax on their profits and on their payrolls.  These taxes are used to meet the cost of the billions of pounds the British government squanders each year on such frivolities as EU membership.

Maybe British employers should blame Tory and Labour misrule for their financial misfortunes before they blame a legal ruling which benefits the common man.