Down With The Sickness

It’s been a while since I spoke out against Natural News. Mainly because it gets really tedious smacking around the kind of stupid that Natural News posts, but in light of a patient who “didn’t think tetanus was all that dangerous” I feel that Natural News needs a really good smack and lo and behold, they have produced something worthy of being smacked around.

This isn’t from the infamous Mike Adams (The Health Ranger) but from PF Louis, and as usual, Natural News only hires people who are so smart that base human concepts such as truth, evidence and science do not apply to them. We often think that Natural News are the very craziest of the anti-vaccination lobby. But it isn’t. It’s actually an extremely common view primarily because anti-vaccine supporters usually are uneducated in medicine and chemistry and the website encourages the Dunning Kruger effect (A person’s incompetence is so profound that they are incapable of recognising the fact that they are incompetent) by appealing to the idea that doctors and nurses don’t know anything. So with that in mind let’s dig in.

The concept of vaccinating to immunize began in 1796, when British apothecary (pharmacist) Edward Jenner inserted cowpox pus under the skin of an eight year old boy. Jenner based his experiment on an unsubstantiated rumor that anyone who had experienced cowpox would be immune to smallpox.

They are wrong. By a factor of nearly 3000 years. Variolation is mentioned in vedic literature and was commented upon by various visitors to India. The practice is the usage of infective material from a smallpox scab to purposefully infect another person resulting in a smallpox infection of lower virulence and shorter duration and with little to no scarring. The latest accepted date for the practice is at 1500 BC. A full 3000 years prior to Jenner. And Edward Jenner was a physician. He was a Doctor, not an apothecary (It’s like a Health Ranger… Only Real).

This fact is rather amusing since Natural News purveys ayurvedic treatments and traditional chinese medical treatments. Variolation in China was mentioned in around 800 to 1000 AD and was infact brought to europe by Marco Polo and various silk road merchants who took up the practice themselves. Edward Jenner’s actual theory was based on this principle. It amuses me that one of the few things Ayurveda and Chinese medicine got right and Natural News promptly ignore it. The problem was that variolation has a 3% fatality rate. By comparison with modern medicine smallpox has a 30% fatality rate and smallpox was responsible for roughly a million deaths a year in Europe alone.

The rumour was not unsubstantiated. Edward Jenner actively sought out milkmaids who would have had the cowpox and checked as to their health status during smallpox outbreaks. They often were the ones who would treat smallpox sufferers because they would not get the disease. And Edward Jenner was not the first, but he was the one who categorically tested the principle. Benjamin Jesty tested the theory in the 1770s and Peter Plett in 1791. A few years before Dr. Jenner did his famous experiment. The credit goes to Jenner because he published his findings. Dr. Jenner was well aware of the variolation mechanism and infact used the same procedure and actively compared his data to variolation where he dropped the mortality rate even more as cow pox is inherently not as dangerous (There have been some dangerous cases, the modern smallpox vaccine is even safer than that). One of the major pieces of research that drove him to the answer was British Army Medical Corps Statistics.

Smallpox was a massive killer in the army due to the rapid and easy spread of the disease. However when comparing logistic teams, cavalry and infantry, the infantry suffered from more cases of smallpox than the cavalry (horse pox has a semi protective effect too) who had more cases than the logistic teams and artillery crews(Who would have to drive animals to feed the army often on oxen and so would have higher cases of cowpox). These individuals are all exposed to each other and at the time the british cavalier was not a member of royalty (but of middle and upper class) and so had the same diet as the rest of the men. If it was purely diet then the cavaliers would have had the least but it is the artillery and supply who show the least cases and they are usually drawn from the ranks of the poor.

Over the next couple of years, Jenner vaccinated others with cowpox to immunize them against smallpox. Without any actual proof of efficacy and safety, Jenner impressed King George III enough with a bogus immunization guarantee that he was awarded the equivalent of today’s $500,000.

So bogus that Smallpox is Extinct. Apparently a disease so lethal and widespread chose to go extinct coincidentally after vaccinations began. Wish more diseases were as friendly.

Thus, Jenner was the first medical professional to administer diseased matter as medication to a healthy person and receive a substantial financial award. He was also the first to constantly denounce vaccination detractors successfully. He was protecting both his ego and large public purse.

Yes, because people at the time genuinely believed that they may turn into cows and that smallpox was divine retribution for human sin and that this vaccine would ANGER God because it was averting suffering.

Oh and the vaccine protected the Royal Family of Spain ensuring it’s distribution in the Philippines (by I kid you not… A human chain of orphans), Macao, China and America. The vaccine was seen as utterly remarkable due to massive effect it had on mortality. Where once 30% of people died to a single disease now only 0.1 to 0.2% died. The act of sending the vaccine over to the colonies was regarded at the time as one of the greatest acts of human philanthropy. 

Many health professionals throughout the 19th Century knew that there had been several cases of smallpox among those with cowpox histories. Jenner’s premise was flawed.

All of those health professionals are dead wrong… and also dead. This is the 21st century and we know a lot more than them. In the 19th century they though 40 Km an hour was the limit of human velocity and women required medical masturbation to cure their hysteria… This is the 21st century where come the 10th of May I shall willingly encase myself in a metal tube with a hundred or so other people and hurtle myself through the skies on naught by physics and burning of dead monsters so as to take a holiday back in the UK. (Any Manchester Readers want to buy me a drink or atleast give me company when I buy my own drinks? Speak now!). The mere thought of doing that would have Jenner’s Naysayers in equal disbelief.

Jenner’s premise was that “People who get cowpox don’t seem to get smallpox” and his premise was right. We understand the mechanism. Antigens from cowpox are shared with smallpox so the smallpox infection is resisted by the antibodies to cowpox. This is basic science…

This was actually the beginning of a tradition that is carried on by today’s vaccinators. Come up with a bogus solution to prevent a disease, make a bundle of cash, and shut down reasonable arguments from those who know immunization by vaccination doesn’t work safely
or effectively.

A single dose of the MMR costs $3 (Around £2). The medication  to control the fever and thereby increase the chance of survival of a measles case is $12. I am no mathematician but I am sure $12 is bigger than $3. And this is without the pure social effect of the disease which is 2 weeks off school. Or the economic effect which is the loss of earnings of one parent over 2 weeks or usage of paid holidays in order to care for the child at the very least. Added to which there is the chance your child may need hospitalisation in a ward which may cost a few hundred dollars a day not to mention the doctor’s appointment for diagnosis which is another few hundred dollars. Oh and if your child gets encephalitis (a 1 in 120 chance) there is the costs of ICU care at around $1000 to $5000 a day. If your child survives without any sequelae then that’s fine. Measles can cause deafness (Hearing Aids. The mighty cochlear implant will not help) or mental retardation (the economic and social cost is enormous and can be in the millions over a lifetime). Finally there is the cost of a funeral since measles can kill.

The solution is not bogus. The body’s specific immune system is slow but powerful and specific. It functions by antigen recognition and complementary antibody production. A vaccine is a non virulent antigen which educates the body into producing antibodies so when the real pathogen shows up the body can easily fight it off.

There have been multiple tests in various groups of people across the world and the results are clear beyond any shadow of a doubt to any sane human. Vaccines work. The reasonable arguments come from the likes of Natural News who didn’t know Jenner was a physician and that Variolation was a practice in chinese and indian traditional medicine and outdates vaccination by 3000 years.

England’s incidents of smallpox after vaccination rose steadily from five percent in the beginning to 95% by 1895. There was even a serious epidemic around 1872, one year after smallpox vaccinations were decreed mandatory in the UK. The mortality rate among smallpox victims also shot up five fold around that time.

The problem when Natural News actually tries to use real dates is we can go and check up on them. And this is an argument bandied everywhere from Whale.to to every other anti-vaccine site that tries to play medical science.

The problem is most people who are anti-vax are AMERICAN or AUSTRALIAN. British law is rather alien to them. You may as well talk about the road to Mandalay. There are many vaccine acts in the UK. The first made variolation illegal and made vaccination FREE OF CHARGE (Yeah! FREE! That’s how we make profit!). They are discussing the act that made smallpox vaccination compulsary. I checked two other pro-vax sites and they all agree… That the UK made vaccination mandatory before this outbreak.

By Goddamn Time Travel. The Compulsary Vaccination modification to the Vaccine Law was made in 1873 in response to the 1871 to 1872 epidemic in the UK. A quick look at the death toll shows that in London alone 10,000 people died in this epidemic and roughly 35000 people died in the entire United Kingdom. By contrast? In the 1901 epidemic there were under 10,000 deaths in the entire UK. And at the period there was staunch opposition to the vaccination and the vaccination rate was far from 95% as many religious leaders believed that vaccination was unnaturally subverting the will of god and excommunicated any church members who were vaccinated.

Despite intelligent protests with obvious facts and figures disproving efficacy, and proving harm from toxic materials and viruses contained in vaccines that endanger natural immunity, the inoculation for immunization premise has been maintained.

So let’s get this straight
  1. Dr. Edward Jenner was a Doctor not a Apothecary or Pharmacologist
  2. Vaccination is a concept born out of Variolation which is the same practice only with a different organism. Vaccination refers to the Vaccinia organism while Variolation to the Variola (causative agent of smallpox). The term for a Measles Vaccine is technically Morbilliation. The principle is what we are discussing and the principle is actually part of traditional eastern medicine and dates back to between 5000 to 3000 years ago. 
  3. Vaccination doesn’t work, it’s just that Smallpox is very very polite and doesn’t want to infect us anymore.
  4. Compulsary Vaccination in 1973 caused a outbreak in smallpox in 1971.
  5. Vaccinations were so bad that the death toll post compulsary vaccination in an outbreak went from between 30,000 to 35,000 deaths to under 10,000. 
  6. Coverage of Vaccination was 95% despite the fact that there was a much stronger anti-vaccine lobby back then. Even the most proud estimates of the period estimate a vaccination rate of 50 to 60%. 

Clearly these intelligent protests with obvious facts and figures disproving efficiency and proving harm from toxins and viruses are of similar nature to this article which is a tapestry of misinformation and bullshit meant to.

Atleast it doesn’t do what the other anti-vax try to do by claiming that Smallpox has been reclassified to Eczema.

Protecting the industry against truth by attacking reasonable dissenters viciously has resulted in vaccine industry revenue of $17 billion annually today. This doesn’t include revenue from doctors’ visits for vaccinations and resulting ill health from them.

The pharmaceutical industry as a whole makes 500 billion dollars a year. If it wasn’t for the $17 billion of “Vaccine Profit” they would be making a lot lot more.

The vaccinators’ tactics of suppressing scientific data from concerned professionals has become more mafia like. Sincere medical professionals who register health concerns over vaccines are severely punished and slandered by the medical mafia owned mainstream media.

We own the media now? This news to me. And I don’t think you know what the Mafia does. For starters the Mafia breaks your legs if you talk shit about them and clearly Louis still can walk. And “Sincere Medical Professionals” includes Andrew “I Shilled for Anti-Vax and Fudged Research for Half a Million Quid” Wakefield and a variety of quacks who probably couldn’t explain how pathogens spread, how disease occurs and how immune systems function. 

A 2012 study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the San Rafael, CaliforniaKaiser Permanente Medical Center concluded that whooping cough occurs more among vaccinated children than children not vaccinated.

Dr. David Witt’s paper did not conclude that. It concluded that those who didn’t recieve the DPT booster shot at 3 years were more likely to fall ill despite being vaccinated at birth. 80% of cases came from groups that didn’t have a booster vaccine in 3 years. None of these cases came from the recently vaccinated. Let’s do some basic mathematics to demonstrate why Louis is so wrong shall we?

In a 1000 children, 3 will be unvaccinated in the USA. (Partially vaccinated children in the USA come under vaccinated categories even though they made up the bulk of the 80% of the cases as the study pointed out. Le
t’s accept them anyways. This is a crude example and still holds true).

Therefore the population of unvaccinated children is 0.3%. Yet they make up 20% of cases seen.
The massive number of vaccinated people means that majority of the cases will be from the vaccinated section and a more important value is not the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated patients but the RATE of infection in both demographics. This simple observation indicates that the rate is rather more hefty in the unvaccinated. If we actively break down into complete vaccination, partial and unvaccinated we will see a rise from complete to partial to unvaccinated in rate of cases.

In 2010, a mumps outbreak occurred among 1000 children in upper New Jersey and lower New York. Almost 80% of them had been vaccinated with the MMR (measles, mumps & rubella) vaccine.

Throughout the 1980s, official agencies reported several outbreaks of measles occurring among children who had been vaccinated in various locations including an Illinois junior high and high school, a Massachusetts high school, a region in France, and a rural area near Helisinki, Finland.

Both USA schools had well over 90% vaccinated against measles. The vaccinators claim a 90% vaccination rate among any specific populationguarantees herd immunity for that population. This bogus claim serves to create more revenue while blaming non-vaccinators for endangering humanity.

1. Vaccination is not 100% effective. Nothing in the world is 100% effective. I don’t see anti-vax claiming that seatbelts aren’t 100% effective so we shouldn’t wear them. The Measles aspect of MMR is 75 to 95% effective. So many people who were vaccinated can get the disease. It’s just harder to spread it around and so fewer people get the disease if they are vaccinated. Oh and nearly half the people who were infected came from the hassidic and orthodox jewish community have extremely low vaccination rates. Infact nearly all of them came from a single youth camp where the outbreak began and cut through the hassidic and orthodox communities due to the extremely crappy vaccinations levels.

2. The 1980 single vaccine proved to require booster doses as the vaccine’s efficacy was not total. Previously measles was so rife that exposure was constant and consistent so a single infection was sufficient to provide immunity since it kept getting topped up by exposure. The vaccine reduced the environmental viral load to the point where immunity could wane.

3. Measles has a 95% infection rate. The outbreaks were did not meet that criteria in the schools indicating that even a partial resistance provides protection..

Meanwhile, despite the fact that only five percent of vaccine adverse events get reported to the “voluntary” FDA’s vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), there are many serious adverse events recorded and many more that seep through the cracks to vaccine concerned internet sites.

Only 5%? It’s weird how many people in anti-vax seem to get vaccine related effects while those in India do not despite the usage of cheaper vaccines with more side effects. It amazes me that vaccines with reported side effect rates of 5 per million somehow produce 1 in 20 when anti-vax take reports. It also amazes me how many weird adverse effects are recorded with regards to vaccination. My personal favourite is epilepsy as a side effect to vaccination (Epilepsy rates go down in the vaccinated due to decreased chances of encephalitis and meningitis)

Thank goodness for the few MDs and others who dare speak out despite the danger it potentially puts them in. It’s up to us to learn from them and just say no to vaccinations.

Yes… It’s why tonight I shall dress up as a giant snake man in order to hunt down the most dangerous prey of all… Dr. Mercola

They are shilling for anti-vax. It amazes me that I am fully capable of buying (at profit to the manufacturer) medical grade multivitamins (often at doses much higher than those sold by these charlatans) for a rupee a tablet. I can buy 500 tablets for Rs. 500 (Less than £10) while these pillars of medical ethics sell their vitamins for £7 to (I kid you not) £60 for multivitamins.

Oh and that’s not the tip of the bullshit iceberg.

There is nothing wrong in making a profit. We all try and make one in order to live a comfortable lifestyle. There is however something intensely grotesque about flogging pills that probably you could make a profit on at $10 and flogging them at exorbitant rates while making people assume that human beings cannot survive without things that sound like they just fell out of a Marks and Spencers advert and probably cost as much as that.

Dear Melanie Phillips

Ah Melanie Phillips! The United Kingdom’s answer to the question “How can we beat the american right wing pundits at right wing dickery, racism and general ignorance”. In her latest offering she tries to take on atheism and secularism with a series of tried and tested strawmen.

It’s a ludicrous post/speech. There is no british war on religion. It’s a goddamn motherfucking theocracy where we actually have enshrined in our constitution a bunch of nonsensical bullshit about the Church of England. We just choose to not follow that bullshit because it is bullshit. Melanie Phillips would be weeping her eyes out of it was enforced because one of the PRIME enemies of the goddamn church were Jews. Lest we forget the Passion and the Four Stations of the Cross are not religious practices so much as a method of whipping up christians into a jew killing pogromic frenzy. Modern society has no place in our world for the likes of such dickery. There is no war between atheism and Richard Dawkins is not our high priest. The Church can go fuck itself rather than our children, the Church has lost all rights to being a moral body when it was complicit in the defence of paedophilia by actively subverting the goddamn laws. If there is any justice in the world every single priest and nun and worker who was involved in subverting the law to enable priests to escape justice should be jailed as paedophiles and for abetting. I don’t care about any heaven, let the rule of whatever gods you may worship hold true there but on my planet you follow the rules of mankind and the rules of mankind say “Child Fucking Is Bad”. And Melanie simply does not understand why we think the separation of church (and indeed every bloody faith) and state is vital to the functioning of society.

She claims that Christians are being discriminated against because they are not allowed to wear a crucifix a right they claim is similar to the hijab or the sikh bracelet and turban. They are not being prevented from wearing the Crucifix at work but are being told to not explicitly demonstrate their faith. It’s the same as the Sikhs surreptitiously wearing the Kirpan. The crucifix is a choice. Not one part of the bible says “Thou Shalt Wear Tiny Versions of A Torture Device In Precious Metals in Memory of My Son’s Sacrifice And His Teachings of Humility”. The fashion of wearing crosses is a relatively recent one and is not a requirement. While the Hijab is (sadly) one. The Turban of Sikhs is not a religious requirement but is a fashion choice. Sikhs grow their hair out. The turban is merely a method by which they control their hair either wearing it in the well known idea of a turban which is the dastar or in the type generally used by younger children called a Patka. If they do not wear this their hair is unruly. The arguments being made to defend the wearing of the crucifix is ridiculous since it is a fashion statement rather than one of necessity by faith.

Let’s just say that it’s lucky he was crucified before the Inquisition got their hands on him .

They aren’t being barred from adoption panels for their christianity, they are barred because they are homophobes. In the same way that the BNP aren’t barred from adoption panels because they shave their heads but because they are racists. The christianity of the individuals involved is only incidental. You cannot defend your right to be a bigot on a government service.

We aren’t but we do have a lot more scientists and people who believe in progress and freedom. There are “really stupid atheists too”. I can name medical luddite atheists from the Anti-Vaccine and Animal Liberation movements. I am sure there are plenty of atheists who do believe in bizzare conspiracy theories. However we do pack a rather larger number of skeptics and rationalists while by definition a person with a religion is making a completely irrational and non-skeptical decision to believe in magic. You probably won’t undo all the science we have achieved but you certainly will make it harder to do science because religious believers do not grasp what an unbiased look at the world is. Religious Scientists do Applied Theology, we do Science.

If you as an adult claimed to believe in the tooth fairy or that you still write letters to Santa Clause and sleep with a security blanket to keep away the Monster under your Bed then you aren’t cute you have serious psychiatric issues particularly in the fact that you believe in things like a child does. Why should we treat religion with reverence when we wouldn’t treat these beliefs with the sort of reverence that Melanie demands? At their core there is no difference between the ludicrous tale of Moroni or Xenu and the tales of Jesus or Shiva or Allah yet we are expected to respect them to varying amounts because of their age.

Melanie fails to understand what religion is defined as. We are not in a post biblical or post moral age. We are actually far far more moral than a 2000 year old religion written by a bunch of people who fuelled an empire through slavery and who maintained gladiators and animal bloodsports. Her assumption is that a lack of kowtowing to imaginary beings makes us immoral. It doesn’t. Crime has generally gone down year after year, people are generally more and more accepting year after year. No what she doesn’t like is the fact that Melanie’s beliefs are no longer moral. In particular is the fact that she supports a regime based on the mythical notion of prior ownership of a state based on religious/racial grounds which actively seeks to destroy another group of individuals who are kept without any irony in a fenced off area and discriminated against because of their faith and ethnicity. Oh and let’s just say that I don’t think Melanie Phillips will be releasing an “It Gets Better” video any time soon. Like every person who follows a rigidly proscribed set of rules that remain unchanged she has been met with a situation where her rules cannot cope and rather than declare the rules in need of change she has basically tried to call a Waaahmbulance in order for us to adhere to her rules in order make them more relevant.

Her understanding of secularism in this article is shocking. We don’t have any dogma in secularism or atheism. Atheism is based on a very very simple concept.

“I Do Not Know”. What we know is very very little. There is an entire universe of knowledge and we barely can understand our own planet! We have a long way to go as a species and there are far loftier heights that we can reach but as for now “I don’t know” is the most important phrase an atheist can know. We don’t know if there is or isn’t a god. No one does. There is no proof. As there is no proof we chose not to worship an entity that doesn’t have any proof of existence in the same way that Melanie doesn’t pray to Ganesh or Allah. Because they are things like the Santa and the Tooth Fairy to her.

There is faith in atheism. She is right on that. Atheism is based on the faith in humanity and social structure that isn’t based on collective faith in a myth. And there is an intense hypocrisy in utilising Hindu numerals and the decimal system while claiming that Judaism gave the world reason and science. It’s a shocking lie since I know for a fact that
Melanie Phillips was educated in the United Kingdom whose history classes specifically teach some Medieval and Roman History. It’s actually pretty safe to say that the rennaisance in Europe was driven by the plunder of the west and east and the intellectual knowledge gained from reading islamic literature. The rennaisance was a period where the boundaries of Judeo-Christian morality and control over the scientific intelligentsia was sorely tested and where the pragmatic creations of the scientific community over ruled church sensibilities and the reduction of faith encouraged growth.

And yes we proselytise. There is far more wonder in the universe than Melanie’s petty faith. Melanie’s idea of a god is so intensely childish that she cannot grasp how utterly small and insignificant we are. That same childish faith also makes her forget that despite our lack of significance in the grand scheme of things we are humans. We walked to the top of Everest to prove we could, we live on Antarctica to prove we can and we live in goddamn space to prove that we can. We touched the moon and we are even planning to touch Mars. In short? Our species is characterised by an insatiable appetite to do the seemingly impossible solely for the joy of education, experience and to say that we can. To borrow the idea from the Bard, There are more things in the heavens and on earth, Melanie than dreamt of in your tired faith. And all of these answers and wonders stems from someone out there saying the most important words in atheism and skepticism and indeed in human existence. I don’t know, but I am going to go find out. You can call that dogma if you wish but it’s not a bad thing to remember.

God has not been pronounced dead, god never existed. None of the gods we have created to explain the things that go bump in the night have ever existed. Religion is a man made ideology and the divine presence is only present to those who believe. The same religious euphoria that applies to the faithful applies to the faithful of a different kind. Ever sat in a stadium? With thousands of people around feeling the roar of the crowd vibrate through you in support of our modern gladiators of choice (Mine is football. I am a Manchester City fan). It doesn’t matter what the sport is as long as the crowd is present the spectacle will affect you by making you feel part of something bigger. And that is what religion is. It’s faith in something that makes you feel like you belong. And like in football, atheism is driven by dissent. We disagree on a lot of things. I think Penn Jillete’s Libertarian Atheism stance is terrible. It’s a horrid world driven by greed and monetary gain. There is no “Party Line” in atheism. And unlike the god of the hebrew bible, atheism hasn’t destroyed human civilisation for disobedience or encouraged you to rape people and own slaves. He doesn’t get bad press because he is “an authoritarian”, he gets it because he is a fantasy genocidal, slave owning rapist who you are encouraged to treat as a moral source.

No Really. I am blue.

I actually think the debate argument made by Richard Dawkins is a poor one. The origin of matter created by the spontaneous event of the big bang is something I am not familiar with. Neither the theories nor the evidence for them. It’s safe to say that I am ignorant on the topic. And I am extremely sure Melanie Phillips and Richard Dawkins are both equally as ignorant. We don’t know. If I ask a physicist, their answer is also “I don’t know, but I am going to go find out”. It’s not an excuse to make shit up. And religion LOVES to make shit up.

They know even less than we do about the origins of our universe. Admitting you don’t know how the universe was created isn’t a crime. Claiming you know how it was created when you have no proof is. I am sure Dawkins made no comments with regards to Panspermia and is one of the people who explicitly states that Panspermia does not answer any questions and is a poor hypothesis. And most importantly? Panspermia is not a theory it is a hypothesis with little to no evidence for it. Yet again someone religious fails to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Irrespective of who makes the goddamn claim, it is still a hypothesis and is unproven.

Oh and Francis Crick’s directed panspermia hypothesis was shot down by the more sensible RNA world hypothesis which states that RNA based life forms may have existed prior to DNA life forms. However work is still taking place on it. Like the creation of the universe? We do not know, but there are people who are working to find out. What we do know is that there are viruses that are RNA based and that RNA based life is possible.

And Melanie fails to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a fantasy. See the issue with this hypothesis is that it is stupid, inelegant and clunky. There is no observable evidence for this in much the same way that there is no observable evidence for her god. However there is a greater probability that intelligent aliens exist than magical space daddies. It’s actually a more valid hypothesis than “God Created The Universe” and that’s utterly hilarious since the craziest of theories to come out of Francis Crick is still less stupid than the idea of a god.

She continues the stupidity by claiming judaism (A faith that believes that the world was created 6000 years ago through biblical levels of incest) is the source of rationality. And that you cannot be rational if you don’t believe in the bible or the torah. Because fuck all the Hindus and Sikhs right? I may be an intolerant atheist but I am intolerant against all bullshit, not just bullshit I don’t personally believe in.

Melanie is wrong in her claims about Reason and Science. Her grasp of technology is so tarnished by faith that she cannot understand the simple wonder of something like the wheel or fire. There are civilisations older than Greece and there was technological development prior to them. Infact human evolution is so intrinsically linked to our technology that the technology we possess is part of us as a species and taking us apart from technology actually changes the context of our capacity to survive. We are in effect cyborgs. To Melanie a pointed stick or a sharpened rock is not technology. Animals can do that right? All our technology began as a pointed stick or a sharpened rock. Not from the greeks. The manufacture of stone tools (we cannot confirm wooden tools as they tend to rot away and bone tools are harder to explicitly identify) dates back to roughly 2.6 million years ago as seen by pebble struck tools present in Ethiopia. Modern human behaviour and tools began to be seen roughly 50000 to 40000 years ago. Unconsciously, the people who produced these stone tools were doing science producing improvements to tools and indeed finding new ways to improve them from the humble sharpened pebbles we began with and this making of tools drove our evolution. By contrast? Ancient Greece began at around the 8th century BC. Now don’t get me wrong, they did some amazing things which influenced western society but they aren’t the masters of science, not when humans have been doing sciencey things for 2.5 million years.

Not Science! Just Random Whacking Of Rocks!

Science did not grow from the idea that the universe is rational but that it can be explained by rational thought, experimentation and understanding of natural processes. It’s not a belief born out of Genesis which states that the goddamn world was created by a magic sky wizard. And Genesis is not revolutionary in claiming that the universe has a rational creator. Brahma is the creator in Hinduism and he is the very epitome of rational thought and he predates the Bible and Judaism by a fairly hefty amount particularly in his pre-vedic format. It’s an empirically wrong stament. As is her frankly nonsensical argument of linear time. Time is a measuring system used to sequence events. It’s one of the earliest concepts of humanity because it’s vital for planning (Like “When the Moon is Full we Meet Here” or “In hundred grognaks we jump those buffalo”). Seriously? How the fuck did the Romans or the Egyptians build Empires with no concept of time since they predate the bible?  

She continues with the assumption that the universe’s values are set by a divine thermostat rather than these values being innate to nature anyways. Gravity may just be something that functions like that without the need of any god being there. The problem is she assumes that the Laws of Nature indicate that there must be a Lawmaker because she assumes Mathematical Law is similar to Social Law.

These arguments that she makes simply are not reasonable. Well par for the course really considering she thinks Atheists worship Man. We don’t. We really have better things to do with our time than worship. We do however recognise that every single fucking achievement we have done as a species is built on the achievements of men rather than some mythical entity. The maze puzzles on trays in fast food places and on the backs of cereal boxes are not due to Daedalus and the Minotaur. Even religion is an idea created by man. It’s why there are so many of them and why the followers of religions are constantly getting into slapfights over whose imaginary being is the most real.

We brook no dissent and no argument because we crush your arguments with evidence. The fact remains that Melanie Phillips argument has absolutely no evidence for her stances and will probably never will. I will believe in her genitally mutilating sky wizard if she can prove his empirical existence. Otherwise he goes on the giant pile of gods who probably don’t exist. It’s impossible to argue from a position of fantasy versus evidence. You wouldn’t accept a child’s imaginary friend as a witness in a murder trial right? Yet somehow we are supposed to accept yours?

And to wail on environmentalism? The idea that resources are finite and demonstrably finite and that human activity affects the environment in a demonstrable fashion and that we should kind of take care of what we do to it so that it doesn’t ruin the environment? Yeah that’s not based on the fact that there is no God that’s based on the fact that if you don’t take care of the environment it will screw you over. I mean do we really need to show Melanie statistics about not dumping waste into our water systems, treating sewage and using cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy? How are these bad things? Scientism? Again? Oh I know why she doesn’t like that. We keep stomping heavily down on human ignorance and it’s really hard to believe in her god when she cannot claim that he will strike us all down with lightning and leprosy. Moral relativism? Well? Different people have different beliefs in what moral is. It’s how Melanie Phillips believes in a book where she can own slaves. She may be uncomfortable with it now and will possibly jump through a series of hoops to philosophically argue away the whole “slavery” bits in the Torah but frankly it’s moral relativism at it’s finest. Early jews lived in a society where slavery was acceptable for various social and economic reasons. Modern society acknowledges the universality of mankind and equality and therefore no human can be a slave to another. Moral Relativism between modern and ancient jews despite belonging to the same (Alleged) group of people. Multiculturalism is a political ideology where people are allowed to maintain their own cultures rather than forcing a single culture on all people. This results in the interaction of cultures often creating new ideas about old things. For examples? The Beatles later works are due to the interaction of western musical culture with eastern musical culture which created a unique sound. Neither of the two parent cultures were destroyed to create it but what happened was the culture of music changed. It’s a response to the idea that Melanie Phillips thinks I should trade in my culture for hers. Nearly every single argument against multiculturalism boils down to “I don’t like those darkies” and “Why won’t you tolerate my dickery”. The core of her argument against multiculturalism is heavily entrenched in racism. Egalitarianism? It’s the idea that every single person is fundementally equal. If atheism has indeed given us these lofty ideals and goals to achieve  then Melanie Phillips is arguing for a society that fucking sucks. It’s simple, Melanie argues against a cleaner environment, technology, a society made up of different people, a society where we understand different attitudes and one where we are fundementally equal in the eyes of the law. If these ideas undermind her belief or ethics then those beliefs aren’t very ethical to begin with.

Melanie Phillips then proceeds to unleash a smokescreen of bullshit in her use of Millernarianism. Her usage is incorrect. It’s a primarily judeo-christian belief that massive changes happens every 1000 years. Think the big fuss over the 2000 Millenium Bug. It is not the belief in the perfection of mankind and of life on earth. It’s absolutely shocking that Oxford doesn’t teach the correct usage of a dictionary or more likely that Phillips probably just thought it meant this and it was too difficult to fire up Google. And yes. What the fuck is wrong with improving the world? Melanie has the benefit of being born to a bunch of rich brits who could afford to send her to university. Why the fuck should she have that opportunity while Naresh, my eleven year old patient has an abscess on his foot the size of a tennis ball because he didn’t have shoes to wear. This stance of hers irritates me the most because I do think we can make the world a better place by our actions mainly because I do make the world a better place in a small way by my actions.

I seriously do not understand what her gripe with progress is? She sits in one of the most advanced and comfortable societies on earth whinging about progress while we still live in a world where people don’t have shoes and then claims that progress is bad? She is like a Disney Villain.

We don’t offer redemption, we offer a chance. We aren’t that many despite what Melanie thinks. we can differentiate between the different people responsible for different bullshit. Opression of Third World Nations occurs usually due to the nature of the free market and due to tribalism and faith. Despoilation of the Natural World? Usually Imperialism, Neocons and “Big Oil” (A term I don’t like. Oil is just a resource that we need. It’s pretty nasty stuff and it would be better if we had alternatives). Bigotry? (Well the Neocons are pretty good at that, religious right wingers and racists and misogynists also come to mind) war? (Neocons are again at the fore as are the Imperialists). We don’t blame Jews so much as blame Zionists who think Israel can do no wrong and that building
walls around groups of people based on their ethnicity and faith without any irony is rather bullshit. Yes, palestinians support terror groups but guess what? No one else is willing to step up to bat for them. Of course they are going to take their help.

Yes, you may have noticed I have pseudo-Godwinned the argument but I see this as no different from her ridiculous usage of Stalin and Mao. Stalin’s casualties were not caused by his atheism. There is no rule in atheism or humanism that states you should kill any dissenters. Infact we rather look down upon people who do that. Stalin was a totalitarian dictator whose paranoia meant he killed off any dissenters real or otherwise. Mao’s deaths were due to fighting a near bamboo spear guerilla war in a country ravaged by imperialism, WW2 against a Christian opponent whose casualties were merely added to Mao’s. Again Mao was driven by his ideology rather than his lack of faith in anything in particular. And if anything? Stalin and Mao were not environmentalists or “Darwinists”. Stalin was infact a Lysenkoist and considered “Darwinism” bourgiouse. Darwinism is merely the idea that humans have evolved from apes and I fail to see the connection with a superior plane of humanity. It merely means that I believe in biology. I think the problem Melanie has with evolution is that she thinks it will stop if she doesn’t believe in it like Fairies or Religion. She also doesn’t really know what a Gnostic is. Or what environmentalism entails.

There will always be ills in the world. Even in the safest of societies there are still murders. It won’t be a paradise but it will be damn close. It’s just that we are trying to make the world have a lot fewer of those ills. In the UK only 4 children die out of a thousand in the first year of life. It would be nice if fewer died… In India 70 die per 1000. It would be nice if only 4 died. Fewer ills is something the could all do with. And yes it’s great to live in a world without persecution, tyranny, violence and bigotry. We can never achieve a world free from all this because people like Melanie will always exist. There will always be bastards.

When anyone puts up a theory that religious people do not like, they attempt to dismiss it using the word “Scientism”. Scientism caricatures actual scientific development. To use it in this context is to demonstrate a fundemental inability to understand how the world functions. There are serious empirical methods to generate inferences and the procedures involved are aided by a vast array of tools that is ever improving. Science is the most authoritative method of explaining the function of the universe. Just because something is inexplicable today does not make in inexplicable in the future. Scientism doesn’t say that there is no place for religious belief, it is merely the universal application of scientific method and approach. Aesthetics do follow scientific principles, it’s madness to assume that they are random. It’s why we dress according to fashion, why we like colours to match or contrast. Love? Love is driven by three different neurological circuits which control Lust, Attraction and Attachment. They use specific neurotransmitters and are each vital in mate selection ranging from physical attraction, commitment to a mate and attachment to a mate over time. The evolutionary function is to provide a stable family group for our children who require a long period of care before they are capable of independance. An appreciation of beauty and aesthetics changes with culture, there is no single right way to appreciate beauty. A belief in right and wrong can be answered by science. We can empircally see the effects of the decisions made and use those effects to come to a conclusion about a course of action. It greatly amuses me that Melanie lives under the assumption that one cannot understand aesthetics and beauty or love because one is a scientist. That’s like saying that one cannot appreciate music if one is a musician.

And Melanie fails to understand how science works. Just because something cannot be answered right now by science doesn’t mean it works through magic. We don’t know how Quinine fights malaria. We think it’s by increasing fragility of RBCs causing lysis of sporozite infected RBC but we honestly don’t know. It doesn’t mean that Quinine is magic. Science can answer the question of ultimate purpose. You exist solely to pass on your DNA to the future generation. To ensure survival of the species. That’s our “Ultimate Grand Purpose”. However we as humans find that we can do other things along the way to add meaning to our lives. What meaning we add is entirely upto us for some it’s merely survival. For others it’s a lot more. But that’s the thing, no one can prove the existence of a god let alone Melanie’s. The argument she uses means she has to accept that Tlaloc (Aztec God of Rain and baby eating) and Shiva also exist since whatever argument she uses (Nope! She is not allowed to quote from the Torah otherwise I declare myself as the emperor of the universe based on a tablet of space platinum given to me by the Astral Lord Gullibilo. Send tribute)

The true aim of science has always been to change the world. Melanie has lived through the formation of the Internet. She has a website and she uses Twitter and thinks that science doesn’t change the world? The invention of the airplane changed the world as did nearly every invention before it. Some changed the world in bigger ways (Penicillin, Vaccines, Planes, Cars, The Nuke, Internet, Wheel, Fire) than others (Left Handed Can Openers). In Melanie’s ludicrous world we would be able to explain how the world worked without the technological benefits that come from the explanation. I have no idea how she expects scientific progress to occur without us utilising the benefits. I seriously don’t think she has any fucking clue that as we reveal more about how the world works we gain more things out of it. If her greatest fear is that science changes the world then she should just go live in a cave rather than post her ludicrous anti-science bullshit on the greatest human achievement that has occured (so far) in my life (The Internet).

Cultural Totalitarianism cannot be the rule by the subjective individual and the privatisation of morality. The very definition of it an oxymoron. Morality has not become privatised, it’s just that we don’t follow her bronze age morality anymore and she just wants to have a hissy fit about it. The laws and traditions rooted in Christianity in europe were for centuries used to hunt down Jews. Do we really want to allow christianity that right again? Instead we created a society so free of racism that idiots like Melanie Phillips can hanker for the good old days of pogroms. Oh well, I suppose she assumes that the first on the list would be those uppity muslims. And yes, any attempt to prioritise any culture or lifestyle over others is illegitimate IF there is no issue with those cultures and  the lifestyle is one of choice. Yes, I know Melanie is making quasi vague rumblings at Muslims and Homosexuals but frankly she doesn’t understand what a multicultural society is particular since she (as a Jew) assumes she would be at the top of the Old Order of Western Civilisation. Bear in mind that the USA during WW2, for all it’s flag waving about freedom still had places where Jews and Irish people couldn’t go (Oh yeah! And treated black people as less than human). Bear in mind that the UK treated my ancestors as slaves. The old order of western civilisation deserves to be dead and buried. The new order is way nicer. For starters it doesn’t hunt down Jews and I won’t get thrown off a train.

As for Lying for Jesus? Well let’s just say that she is Lying for Moses then. I clearly pointed out bits where she lied or misrepresented information here. So what does that make her? I must remind her of her commandments, it’s shocking how many of the children of
Abraham (Jews, Christians and Muslims) forget their commandments.

Oh Melanie! The only way you would be more of a martyr than this is if you were the second coming of Christ. The greatest injustice you probably feel in British Culture is the fact that we aren’t rounding up all the darkies and shipping them back to where they came from right? Or that you cannot hate on gays without suffering the consequences for your statements. And does she even understand the problem of saying that the eradication of Prejudice will cause more Injustice? I am well aware of what jews believe in on the basis of I was in love with one for a long time and my flat mate was jewish, but maybe Melanie is one of those Opposite Jews (OJs… not to be confused with Orange Jews which is a horrible beverage based pun).

Basically Melanie really wants to go back to the good old days where we follow the ethical code of the bible and therefore can torment gays till they die and forcibly convert people to christianity. Oh and where we don’t let women talk and hold manly jobs. Like writing for a newspaper…

Melanie Phillips shows and incredible shortsightedness and a complete lack of any education on world affairs. Yes of course the USA is responsible for Islamic Terrorism that lead to the events of the 11th of September. It is the CREATOR of Osama Bin Laden who lead Al-Qaeda. It created a heavily islamic Jihadi institution to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then upped sticks and left when the fighting was done. In a complete act of belligerence it angered  these individuals through continued support of Israel and the percieved trespass of the USA on Saudi soil which is considered Holy. So here is the thing… Do you think Al-Qaeda would exist if not for the fact the USA helped create it? The entire region is destabilised by this action. Many thousands of people have lost their lives due to this and all because the USA wanted to fight a proxy war against the Soviets. And my memory is awfully hazy but a lot more Iraqis and Afghans died than our boys. And Israel is responsible for it’s indiscriminate killing (Including the use of carpet munitions with time delay fuses and mines in fields and in urban areas) such as Cast Lead where in exchange for 13 casualties (4 of which were friendly fire) they butchered 1400 Palestinians and wounded 5000. Does that seem fair? For what? Rocket Attacks that killed less than 30 people over a whole 10 years? Why do you think Palestinians are fucking pissed off? Ask any american what they would do if you took their land? How many people in the NRA sprout the same words as the Palestinians. What anger you witness from Palestine is the impotent rage of a people who were betrayed by every fucking person in the world. The fault of the Israel Palestine conflict lies in so many Hands. It’s the UK’s fault for setting it up in the first place. It’s Nazi Germany’s fault for creating the Holocaust which made sure Jews felt that there was no place to return to in Europe. It’s the USA’s fault for blind faith in Israel. It’s The arab league’s fault for using Palestinians as political pawns. It’s Israel’s fault for learning everything and nothing from the Holocaust. It’s Palestine’s fault for falling to the lure of the only people to respond in their time of need and It’s the Islamic Militant’s fault for damaging the peace process just as much as it is the zionists like Melanie Phillips fault for encouraging Israel’s hawkish behaviour. The only actual solution we have really is that Israel recognises the borders of Palestine and dismantles it’s fences and begins to treat Palestine like a country rather than a ghetto.

It shows that I have a greater understanding of the issue in the formation of Israel than Melanie has and she is a goddamn zionist. Oh right! I forgot… Blind Faith = No grasp of reality. It certainly explains why she thinks Barack Obama won because America wanted to redeem itself of the original sins of slavery and racism rather than because he was far more competent than his opponents whose political party are a series of strawmen arguments, jesus freaks, homophobes and misogynists. Or why she thinks environmentalists want to redeem human existence, because last I heard they just want us to stop being so wasteful and polluting so much.

I feel Melanie hates the idea of a human utopia, mainly because it will make heaven pointless. She produces a barrage of strawmen using fancy words which don’t mean what she thinks they mean (or more likely considering she went to Oxford… she knows what they mean but hopes we don’t google it).

Melanie Phillips wouldn’t know religious extremism if I held a mirror in front of her and danced around saying “DO YOU GET THE HINT”. She even takes the time to take a kick at paganism (A hilariously tame attempt to recreate pre-biblical faith minus all the bad bits) which I assume she has learnt about from watching the Wicker Man. And she also lives under the assumption that skeptics and atheists do not combat the occult and parapsychology.

So to answer her final question? Why do I despise religion? Because when you fail to think rationally you end up accepting any garbage put in front of you. And I am sure Melanie would not appreciate me turning up to her Synagogue and demolishing the Torah’s veracity using my science. Why should I tolerate her trying to fuck with my biology? If she wants a stand up fight between her faith and my science I would be happy to give it to her, but I must point out that it tends to end poorly for the organisation that thinks a 2000 year old book is sufficient proof to play science with. And yes, religion puts nasty constraints on you. It makes you hate and treat women as second class citizens who are beholding to men. It makes women slaves in their own minds. It makes you hate gays. In Melanie’s case it makes her hate Muslims. It makes Muslims hate others. It makes Hindus hate muslims and it makes everyone forget the most important thing. That we are human beings. If you cut us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh?

People do really believe in all sorts of rubbish. The difference between me and Phillips? I am prepared to believe in a dozen impossible things before breakfast but I am willing to go try to make the impossible happen. It’s impossible to see a 150 patients by yourself. I atleast saw 52… In Melanie’s world I failed. In my world? I saw 52 patients who don’t think I failed. Melanie claims to have evidence? I wish to see it. Because so far it’s just strawman after strawman.

That’s right Melanie, I am calling you out. You claimed to have evidence for the existence of the penis mutilating god of Judaism and I would very much like to see it.

We Are The Worst Thing On Earth

Sometimes you have people who simply don’t get it. In this case it is Chaz Muth of the Catholic News Service who launches an attack on the Reason Rally and the values of secularism in the USA. And what he doesn’t get mirrors the official party line of the pope.
It’s a movement that concerns Catholic leaders worldwide, including Pope Benedict XVI.

Actually it is a movement that doesn’t concern catholic leaders. It’s not their problem and it’s not a problem. The Pope doesn’t actually have any power over people who don’t believe in his divine ability. He is just an old dude who doesn’t have sex who is in charge of a bunch of men dressed in black who go around people’s houses telling them what to do.

“Radical secularism” threatens the core values of American culture, the pope warned a group of U.S. bishops visiting the Vatican in January. He called on the church in the U.S., as well as politicians and other laypeople, to render “public moral witness” on crucial social issues.

One of the core american values is a separation of Church and State. It’s in the constitution. By law the church has and should NEVER have any say on what crucial social issues is. Because this is an organisation that thinks gynaecology is a bigger evil than child molestation. They have ceased to be a moral example. The pope’s picture is better suited to an article on hypocrisy rather than morality.

“The larger concern with secularism is that it damages people, and that it actually keeps people from being reasonable with one another,” said Chad C. Pecknold, assistant professor of systematic theology in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington.

I think Chad C. Pecknold needs to look up the spelling of Sectarianism.

“It creates a great level of intolerance for people of faith. I think secularism for Pope Benedict is a feature of this growing bifurcation between faith and reason,” he told Catholic News Service.

Yes. Yes it does. Catholics clearly had no qualms about not tolerating beliefs in the various parts of the world when they sent missionaries to convert people. It’s also good to see that people realise that Faith has nothing to do with Reason. Yes, secularism causes a bifurcation between faith and reason because non secular societies do not allow reason. In a faith based world it is acceptable to fuck children and get away with it if you are sufficiently sorry. In a faith based world it is acceptable to fly planes into buildings, burn women, rape, pillage and loot. It is a world without reason because reasonable people are not allowed to speak out against a world where belief in magic is more important than reality.

Why should we be tolerant of a group of people who explicitly believe in a myth? Why should we be tolerant of a group of people who explicitly do things that are clearly stupid? Why should we be tolerant of a group of people who believe in things that are clearly harmful? Why should our beliefs as atheists be disrespected but Catholic belief accepted as sacred? Oh right! Because of that whole hypocrite thing the Pope has going for him.

Pecknold, who also is the author of the 2010 book “Christianity and Politics: A Brief Guide to the History,” said secularism is a greater threat to humanity than to the Catholic Church because it could lead to great social unrest and fragmentation.

The forces of secularism in Africa are trying to educate people and stem the spread of a deadly disease. The forces of Catholics run around encouraging the kind of behaviour that spreads the deadly disease. There are 24 million HIV positive people in the world.

20 Million are in Africa. The Catholic Church is part of the problem. These 20 million people will die of their disease (At the moment. We may come up with a cure but I am sure the catholics will claim that we are fighting god’s will or something equally idiotic in the hope that they can spread more desperate misery). Something tells me that catholics also think that secularism fragments the world because it prevents catholics from behaving like the good old days when it was completely acceptable to torture someone till they turned Catholic. After all, if everyone was catholic they wouldn’t be fragmented anymore.

Vilification of Muslims in the United States following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania can be viewed as an example of secularists’ intolerance.

The majority of attacks on Muslims in the US following 9/11 were carried out by CHRISTIANS. Ann Coulter? Christian? Fox? Christian? Republican Party? Christian.

Oh and my intolerance of muslims boils down to it being a world view that cannot take criticism without wanting to kill someone. It’s a faith that oppresses women. It’s a faith that encourages ignorance. It’s a faith that encourages terrorism. These are not intolerant statements. These are facts. I accept that there are muslims who do not fit into this mould, but I understand that there are a lot who are part of the problem either by participation, being complicit or by clouding the water by not admitting that the faith has a problem and that it requires mordernisation.

In short? I understand what VALID criticism is. There is a difference between saying “I think the culture of Burkha and the mistreatment of women is bullshit” and “Muslims are sneaking Sharia Law into our schools! Heave a brick at them!”. Valid Criticism is obviously something the church cannot grasp because it is a theocratic institution. No criticism in those is ever valid.

Richard Dawkins, vice president of the British Humanist Association and author of the 2006 book “The God Delusion,” was quoted as saying religion is dangerous “because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others.”

It does. I know plenty of Christians who don’t care about what happens to their children. I know plenty who pray rather than seek medical help.

And one has to realise that Dawkins is pointing out that there are people “of faith” like the murderer of Dr. Tiller whose “crusader mentality” allowed him to commit an act of considerable evil. Or the same mentality encouraged in jihadi terrorists.

“These are all examples of an attempt to cause civil unrest, which I don’t think are sustainable,” he said. “It could actually lead to greater and greater social unrest, and could potentially give so much power to culture wars that we become an increasingly fragmented society.”

No. They are examples of a society where freedom of speech is protected. Remember this man is part of an organisation which fights against the right of two people who love each other to be married. This is a billion dollar multi-national organisation that demands the right to bully children until they kill themselves. The only reason he fears a culture war is because he is losing because superstition cannot match reason. Because we live in a world where reason is rising and superstition is not.

Naturally the society he wants should be run on catholic values. If we stated that we are solving this problem of “fragmentation” by adopt
ing Sharia Law he would throw a hissy fit and demand the secularisation of the nation too. When catholics discuss the evils of secularisation they clearly mean the evils that affect them and prevent them from creating a catholic society. They have no qualms about other faiths being oppressed.

The poll numbers revealing growing atheist numbers and events like the “Reason Rally” have theology scholars focusing on what they believe is driving the secularism movement.

I think theology scholar is an oxymoron. I know people who are Shakespeare scholars but I don’t see them claiming the veracity of Bottom the Donkey.

“The cultural conditions have become more conducive to atheism. We can see that in economic ways in that we are encouraged to think of ourselves as economic individuals,” Pecknold said.

Oh heaven forbid human beings are economically independant and are allowed to make their own choices! If humans didn’t depend on the church then we cannot make them think that the effort of humans is really the achievement of a mythological being.   

“We see that in the Tea Party, a libertarian approach to economic good in which economics is something that is merely representing my own self-interests,” he said. “That kind of radical individualism in economic terms or philosophical terms is itself kind of a practical atheism, in which you detach yourself from any sort of transcendent notion of the good, any sort of sense of a common good that you would participate in.

The tea party are idiots who would probably send their own children to work in the mines on a Sunday if they found out that child labour laws and weekend holidays were ideas brought about by communists. The Tea Party is a movement mainly driven by Christian libertarians who want zero government interference because they have no goddamn idea how the world works and assume that removing all rules makes society function smoothly rather than have one that implodes into Somalia. It’s a group driven by greed. Atheism is NOTHING like that.

The idea in atheism is that there is no god because there is no evidence of one. Just as Chaz Muth and Pecknold don’t believe in Krishna, the atheists doesn’t believe in Jehovah and Jesus. The inability to grasp this simple notion is astounding.

“A kind of view in which I can participate in something bigger than myself is kind of eroded from our economic practice as human beings.”

No. Atheists well and truly understand working something bigger than them. By definition a rally is an assembly of people who are working for something bigger than themselves. It’s typical catholic party line drivel. Atheism is evil because it actively stops catholic theological nonsense from being applied to everyone. The idea of secularism is completely lost on a group of people who don’t grasp that secularism means the ability to practice whatever religion (unless it actively harms people) free of interference. It means that muslims cannot declare that all catholics have to pay extra taxes. Or protestants declare that catholics should all convert or catholics declare that protestants all convert. It’s also a place where religious belief doesn’t get enshrined in law.

And that is what Catholic Party Liners hate so much about secularism. Because it prevents them from forcing other people to follow their rules.

As for me? I spent my day single handedly being as horrible as possible!


I spent my day being as evil as possible and providing healthcare in a rural environment. Instead of letting these people pray, I in my incredibly secular way encouraged them to come and seek medical aid instead of prayer.

So very evil! Bwahaha! First healthcare! Then their souls!

Hail to the King

Apparently the Catholic Church in the USA wants to raise awareness of freedom and wants to spend a fortnight trying to raise awareness and campaign for it. But I wanted to do a bit more poking around so I found the actual letter which the bishops wrote and I don’t think they know what freedom means.
Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

That doesn’t sound like freedom. That sounds like good old “I want to be free to impinge on other people’s freedom” which is catholic theology 101.

Conscientious Objection is only good if your conscience objects to things that are bad. The KKK are conscientious objecters against miscegenation. Their stance is not valid. The Men’s Rights Activists actively campaign against women due to faulty perceptions on feminism. Their stance is not valid.

We sadly have to live in a world where we respect people’s superstitions and treat them as equal to reality solely on the basis of their age. It’s a testament to human idiocy that we think a 2000 year old faith in a dead jewish carpenter has any meaning in today’s world where we walked on the moon and have done miracles far greater than Jesus. If your belief in ancient superstition produces a conscientious objection that is immoral, then it is well within our rights to treat you as immoral. The beliefs of many people involve Female Genital Mutilation, should we treat their beliefs as sacred or as superstitious nonsense that harms society as a whole? What about Sati? Child Sacrifice? Purdah and Hijab? Are these ideas that need to be supported or superstitions to be fought?

With this in mind let’s see what Freedoms we are impinging on?

HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services has received wide attention and has been met with our vigorous and united opposition. In an unprecedented way, the federal government will both force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching and purport to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty. These features of the “preventive services” mandate amount to an unjust law. As Archbishop-designate William Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, testified to Congress: “This is not a matter of whether contraception may beprohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.

The HHS mandate is a requirement that healthcare providers meet a basic standard of Gynaecological and Obstetric healthcare. That contraception, abortion and sterilisation are vital parts of Gynaecology and Obstetric healthcare and form a vital part of women’s rights in particular the right to control their own reproductive cycle and the rights of families as a whole to determine how many children they have as children are an economic burden mainly because we don’t live in the “good olde days” where we could just send our children to work in a factory or a mine. (Amusingly enough? It was the communists who created that law and campaigned for it. The tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto infact. Children to recieve free education and children to not work in factories. I joke that if Americans realise this they would stop their children from being educated and send them to work up chimneys if only out of spite.)

This law is not unjust so much as a basic requirement of medical services. The law from the government is very simple. Your Healthcare Service Provider Must Meet A Basic Standard. The Catholic Church REFUSES to meet a BASIC standard of healthcare and so does not make the cut. This is a law that applies to EVERYONE and what I see is a bunch of Celibate Men in Robes dictating what medicine a bunch of Non Celibate Women recieve based on the teachings of a 2000 year old book assembled by a bunch of Roman Bishops under Constantine rather than a bunch of Trained Medical Professionals With Years of Experience And a Scientific Understanding of Human Function and Physiology. You can pray to whatever gods there maybe for your unconquerable soul but you still pay a doctor to treat you rather than a priest. Why is it that a bunch of priests get to decide then what is healthcare and what isn’t?

It’s very simple. What the Church has an argument against is Gynaecology. The Vagina is Evil and Must Be Punished after all. If a insurance company or health provider didn’t offer you blood transfusions or organ donation then you would consider them to be goddamn quackery at the highest level.

There are said to be five pillars of medicine. The Catholic Church wishes to be a healthcare provider while only providing Medicine and Surgery while leaving out Social/Preventative Medicine, Obstetrics/Gynaecology and Compassion.

Christian students on campus.In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.

The California Hastings College of Law recognises the Catholic Law Students Association, it refuses to recognise the Christian Legal Society because the Christian Legal Society fails on two accounts to be a inclusive society. It discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.

For a student group to recieve public funds and official recognition, it must be open to all students regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, disability or sexual orientation. The Catholic Law Students Association meets these standards. Hell… The Muslim Law Students Association meets these standards (AKA A Gay Jewish Female to Male Transexual with no legs can go join the Muslim Law Students Association if he so chose to) but the Catholic Church wants what effectively is a hate group with
special laws to encourage hate.

Thou Shalt Not Tell a Lie, but Thou Can Tell Half The Truth.

Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.

Again… Because the government has set a basic standard of service and these organisations do not provide a service that meets basic standards. They have not driven any organisation out of business. They have merely stated that your organisations have a bunch of nonsensical rules which prevent children from recieving the best possible service in finding adoptive and foster parents. Because the Catholic Church lives in a magic world where Celibate Men in Robes are more normal than people who Love Each Other.

There are more children than permanent adoptions and the Church actively prevented people from adopting either because they didn’t have a certificate declaring them to be Husband and Wife (Because you automatically become a great parent because of the certificate!) or because they were gay. The government is completely right in denying these organisations money as per the separation of Church and State (since the overarching ideology in selecting placements is one of a primarily religious nature) and because it is a discriminatory organisation that prevents children from finding homes.

Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City enacted a rule that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and sixty other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for scores of other uses. While this would not frequently affect Catholic parishes, which generally own their own buildings, it would be devastating to many smaller congregations. It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers.

It is not discrimination against small church holdings so much as an important LAW in america about separation of Church and State. I understand this is difficult for Catholic Bishops to understand so to put it in a simple way “Render Unto Caesar”. The rules of man state that tax payer money cannot be used to promote religion. AKA You Cannot Utilise Public Property (A School) For Church Purposes. And it is embarassing that I as someone who is not american (I am a Limey) have a better grasp of the rules of America than American Bishops.

Neither the Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Watchtower, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists, Pagans or the Cult of Cthullu have any right to utilise the school for this purpose. It is not discrimination and the argument is frankly moronic to make.

Non Religious Groups By Defnition Are Not Religious And Therefore Exempt From The Separation of Church And State. At it’s heart this argument is a complaint that the American Government does not allow Catholics to spread their nonsense on public property. It boggles the mind that the Catholic Church cannot grasp this basic concept. You can run whatever you want in your churches or your homes. The schools are off limit.

Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Notwithstanding years of excellent performance by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require us to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not somehow lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. And yet a federal court in Massachusetts, turning religious liberty on its head, has since declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government somehow violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

The Catholic Church is not being disqualified again due to religious belief but because it refuses to provide basic healthcare. In addition many Catholic Humanitatrian Services are complicit in the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa. Giving them Money is not helping the HIV control efforts considering the church is still actively responsible for spreading superstition and lies about condoms in HIV ridden Africa.

The issue is that the Church and it’s organisations provide a shoddy service that can be obtained better by sponsoring any number of other charities. Religious institutions can be excluded from government contracts if they fail to meet the basic requirements of the contract which includes proper medical care for women (and men. The Church is against vasectomies too). Why should they pay the Church to produce an inferior service and reduce the choices of women who really need help.

If you don’t like abortions, if you don’t like condoms or the pill or the copper T, if you don’t like vasectomies or tubal ligations then don’t have one. No one is forcing the Pope to get the Snip. But what the Pope and his celibate flunkies are doing is forcing women to undergo a procedure (Delivery of Pregnancy) by producing an inferior service in the USA and expecting to get public funds to be shit at their job.

“In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them.”

I can only see one law that is unjust here. Being banned from ministering to illegal immigrants. That’s just a petty law enforced by people who think illegal immigrants are stealing american jobs because the average american really wants to go pick fruit all day for minimum wage. This is a petty law and a pointless one at that.

Coopting the words of Martin Luther King which was spoken during the fight against the American Apartheid where black people were treated as less than human is a callous disregard for history and indeed for the meaning. Using it to defend the right to discriminate against women and GLBT is mindbogglingly idiotic and an insult to the ideals that Martin Luther King stood for.

Freedom to spread hate and lies is not freedom. Freedom to deny women healthcare is not freedom.

Fear of A Black Planet

Racism in America is not dead. Trayvon Martin’s death is a catalogue of errors and poor thinking. What basically happened is a nice young man was gunned down because of the colour of his skin and the clothes he wore by George Zimmerman. What is being decided is whether George is guilty of any crime or not in doing so due to the sheer silliness of Stand Your Ground legislation that allows you to respond with deadly force using concealed weapons to perceived threats to life.

Had Trayvon Martin been white, the police would have (Probably) handled the case differently. George Zimmerman was a private citizen whose attempt at heroism fell flat on it’s face when he accidentally attacked an innocent bystander.

Trayvon allegedly ran. Trayvon allegedly attacked George. Maybe both. The Details are not clear. What is clear is that black people in the USA have had another Rodney King moment. Where they quickly realise that they aren’t being treated as equal due to their race and the clothes they wear. It’s a stark reminder of the kind of apartheid black people in the USA have had to rise out of. It’s the kind of reality that gave the world the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King and Public Enemy.

And so black people and families try and sit down with their kids to protect them. They have tried to blame something other than racism by blaming hoodies but clothes don’t make the criminal. Otherwise we should arrest people in business suits on sight for the kind of economic shenanigans that lead to our busted economies. Black people are trying to warn their kids that racist pricks will always exist and to not make themselves a target. 

It’s Okay! He is white!
I disagree with that stance but they fear for their children’s lives. They don’t want them to be out fighting the power and get shot over something as silly as a hoodie. They want them to be living a sensible life. They see their kids as the next Trayvon. They hope that the hoodie is the reason Trayvon was shot. Not because he was black. Being black isn’t something you have to apologise for (neither is being white but the ensuing post charts the incredible martyr syndrome from John Derbyshire in his article – The Talk: Non-Black Version)


And John Derbyshire SIMPLY does not get it why they fear that. This young man was not killed because he was wearing a hoodie. He was killed because he was black and wearing a hoodie. If he were Sikh wearing a kurta he may have been shot too for the fear that he may be a terrorist. If he were a muslim he may have been killed in the same way. Why? Because someone attacked him based on the colour of his skin and his outfit rather than his actions. That Trayvon’s Killer may walk based on a law that allows him to confront people on the suspicion of them being criminals and shoot them if he feels he is sufficiently threatened is a terrifying prospect to any person who is constantly in fear of being accused of being a criminal.

That parents are terrified that this could be a trend of attacks on their kids. So he gives his own fallacious and slimily racist “talk” because apparently he took offence to the fact that black people in the USA may be a tad annoyed that the police did not follow routine procedure involved in such a crime which probably wouldn’t have happened if the kid was white.

(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.
No. It can be used by anyone. I use the word Nigger. I know what it means. I don’t HAVE to say the N word. But because I know what it means I don’t CALL anyone it. However if I have to use it for example in an argument like this I will.

Calling Nigger the N word doesn’t change the fact that John Derbyshire cannot grasp why they are coopting it to mean something different to them. And Fuck You John Derbyshire. Coloured was used as a method to oppress anyone of colour. Not just black people. I am ethnically Indian. Do he know why they threw Mohandas Karamchand from a first class train compartment? Coloureds cannot travel in first class compartments. It’s only for white people. It shows appalling lack of historical knowledge if one thinks that “Coloured” is an anachronism and not something that is a word of hate. 


I had hair like him once
And from what it seems like his actual complaint is that people keep trying to find a less insulting term than defining an entire group of people solely by how much melanin they have in their skin.  
 (2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)
The “Average” doesn’t mean anything. African Americans are not African any more than John Derbyshire is English. They are for all intents and purposes Americans. Their culture is entirely american.

Mixed Race black people got treated as “black” by people. Because when you define an entire race by the colour of their skin then you start defining all people like that. Mixed race people who happened to have a black parent were quickly lumped with “black people” and black people were a lot more accepting of these people than white people were.

The term was not defined by African Americans.

(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.
You know if people stopped classifying people by their vague understanding of genetics perhaps we can progress as a species. The entire reason we are in this mess is because people like John Derbyshire seem to think race is important.

Maybe black people will see his kid as white. But you know what? People tend to recognise races by the most obvious characteristic. Colour of the Skin is black? Black person! Eyes have the extra fold? Asian! White? White guy!

(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.
Except as we shall see what John thinks is personal safety is kind of racist. 
(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner.
I understand that this is a snide attempt to point out that black people don’t win the Fields Medal for a reason that he goes into later.

Euclid and Erastothanes were doing mathematics when most white people were scrabbling around in pre-civilisation tribal societies. Clearly the issue is that mathematics is a heavily entrenched subject and people like David Blackwell have written on the topic.

When David Blackwell was a Professor at MIT he was detained alleged bank robbery. David Blackwell obtained a Mathematics Doctorate aged 22. He quit his first tenure when threatened…

By the KKK. When he was at the IAS he was prevented from attending lectures at Princeton as no “coloureds were allowed”. There are black mathematicians. They just don’t get very much credit because for a long time they were simply not given Fields Medals, or were not allowed to get the best education or were threatened by racist LARPers.

Hangs out in the woods dressed in a home made costume calling himself a Wizard while taking orders from a Dragon… That’s either Live Action Role Play or the KKK
(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.
Oh yes! Black people dance better and can dunk while white people don’t beat their kids! Black people walk like this while white people walk like that! Snake!!!

The differences are almost entirely cultural. Black people until recently formed an economic underclass and nearly every economic underclass in the world possesses a crab bucket mentality. The british underclass of white inner city kids is the same. Posh Bastard is a great insult, even amongst upper middle class kids who slouch around in jeans and hoodies with their hands tucked into the pockets and a surly drawl trying their very best to not be Posh Bastards. The Crab Bucket does not like you having ideas outside your station or trying to break the mould. It’s in every culture.

.
The traits are entirely nurture based as written in this article and the statistics quoted is appallingly bad.. 
(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.
Unlike all the white bullies, white corrupt politicians and white criminals out there. Socio-economic mobility is also kind of important and if you maintain an entire legion of poor black people artificially through apartheid, then you create a vast group of people who form a underclass. In Europe criminals are often white for this reason since they didn’t have big groups of black people to enslave creating a white lower class. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with their economic stability and opportunity. Lack of opportunity is what characterises this group of people. Crime grows out of poverty and desperation irrespective of your melanin.

Not that black people are natural super villains.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

No… Black people don’t hate white people. Maybe the older ones do but that’s because people treated them like animals and like they weren’t even human. All that hatred didn’t disappear when they got equal rights (on Paper Atleast).

And good grief! Is he seriously discussing black people like they were aliens?

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
No they are not. A youtube video means nothing about an entire group of people and frankly I can go pull out idiotic garbage from the Stormfront that makes white people look like a bunch of uneducated hate fuelled morons. It doesn’t mean anything apart from “Bastards Come In All Colours”.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

What Hollywood thinks Statistics can do
Oh! In which case black people should really stay the fuck away from white people because they are all genocidal monsters who have no qualms about shooting up people of colour…

Oh wait… Categorising people by the actions of statistics is just setting yourself up for consistent disappointment. This isn’t Gun kata where statistical probability lets you dodge bullets but the real world where people are made up of individuals. And individuals behave differently. The statistics quoted by John are criminally bad.

It is the application of statistics to a variety of biased sources comparing things that cannot be compared including mythical entities such as “aggression thresholds per race” which is extremely elegant stupidity.  

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

Heaven forbid you hang out with the darkies right! You may catch jungle fever from all their boogie woogie. You shouldn’t eat Chinese food either because it will make you all slitty eyed. And stay away from the brown people because everyone knows they are all dirty terrorists.

And never attend any charity event involving the NAACP…

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
Stay out of bad neighbourhoods. The colour of it doesn’t matter. If you walk around Moss Side in Manchester it’s not black people who are going to mug you. It’s white people.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
Oh tell me John! How do you know which days are black people more likely to be at amusement parks? Judging by the general ignorance and industrial grade racism I am guessing it’s “When there is a fried chicken and watermelon festival”.
.
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
Because when black people achieve critical mass they cause rap battles to break out and Public Enemy show up.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
But do so surreptitiously! We wouldn’t want people to think we were racists!
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
But say it’s because of the poor schools because you wouldn’t want people to think you are a racist.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
You should check his Birth Certificate because he may be one of those secret British Kenyan Muslims I keep hearing about who will bring down your nation for the Mahdi… Queen Elizabeth the II who is just Osama Bin Laden in disguise.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
You had better things to do and you are sure that someone will come along to help them out. People may think you are a decent human being and that’s just not cricket.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
Black people are like Reverse Tyrannosaurus Rexes. They cannot sense moving objects. Also they are better at dunking but worse at biting the spines out of a triceratops.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
IQ is a product of education. And IQ varies depending on situation. Even MENSA who pick members on the basis of IQ admit that and are rather sheepish about it. And IQ doesn’t really mean anything in real life. There are plenty of high IQ individuals who really don’t have the skills to survive in the real world and plenty of low IQ individuals who do. IQ is not the be all and end all of anything.

IQ is a product of nurture. My kids will be intelligent rugby players because I see the value of education and sport. I will do things to encourage both. Parents who don’t see the value of education do not encourage education in their children (same applies to sport).

And the link doesn’t make sense. The majority of reasons why people foreclose on mortagaes are health related costs and under the Bush administration there were drives to hand out mortgages to poor people (of whom, a lot are black due to the fact that Apartheid ended in the 70s and the USA had no actual uplift schemes to equal the centuries of caucasian dominance) and they foreclosed because people were encouraged to buy property they could not afford. White people who were better off didn’t foreclose as much per capita because they have more money.  

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.
The USA is not a pure meritocracy. It is a capitalist society. Money is what speaks. Socialism is a dirty word to the point that if we pointed out that compulsory education for children, weekends off and anti-child labour laws were socialist ideas, I am pretty sure Americans would send children up chimneys on Sundays as chimney sweeps.

Affirmative action is mainly to improve hiring practices because if we left it upto the John Derbyshires of the world they would never hire black people because “they clearly have inferior IQs”.  

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
No… No you won’t. Starting any sentence with “I am no racist, but..” and “I have friends from this ethnicity/race, I cannot possibly be a racist” is just vile. It’s utilising black people (and indeed any other group of people) as a shield. You may as well say “I cannot possibly be a racist! I love Indian/Mexican/Chinese food!”. We can tell when people are being fake and wanting to hang out with us because they are more interested in the colour of our skin than who we are. We aren’t goddamn pokemon.
Oh… Never mind
(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.
I refuse to believe that white people are as odious as this motherfucker. This is a man who thinks people hire people of colour because we are “nice to look at” or “we stop the accusation of racist” rather than “because we do our job well”. It’s bad enough that he is a racist without him trying to drag down other people with him.

I think we have conclusively proven how racist this man is. I will however leave you with this one… 
(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).
Oh yes! Go on! Compare black people to inanimate objects to be possessed by rich white people. That goes down so well with absolutely no historical baggage whatsoever. Maybe he would like to black up and sing “Dat Old Man River” for an encore to demonstrate his subtle grasp of racism.

Facebook

Facebook and I have had a little disagreement.

See… Facebook deleted my page and the page for the blog leaving me completely in the lurch. I lost all my friends and indeed the various readers I had with no recourse to protect this information. In short…

Thanks Jerks. So I have a direct letter to them.

Hey…

Your culture of transparancy does not protect people. I have repeatedly worked against the likes of Animal Liberation and am an Atheist who works with people who fall between the cracks such as drug users and prostitutes. Using my real name hurts the people I love because the people I criticise are industrial grade dicks who have no qualms about targetting innocent associates to tarnish the name and because those I criticise have a direct control over my future. I can simply be flunked out of University at the whims of those I criticise or because they don’t like the fact that I am not all that Indian or don’t believe in any gods or that I don’t like their corrupt behaviour. I don’t see why I should have to be a target to their nonsense. The best example is Animal Liberation attempted to target a friend of mine (Brian Sapient) whose Atheism United group I am part of and for whom I will be writing in the future.

Now I notice that your lovely little system allows individuals like Camille Marino to ACTIVELY place Death Threats on others (Including attempting to level threats at Brian). So let me get this straight. Me protecting my identity from the likes of her is illegal but her actively threatening people is not?

In addition you have disabled my blog page and removed me from various groups that I worked hard on. Thanks Facebook. Do you guys grasp the problem or not?

Not Everyone In the World Lives In a Place Where No One Judges Them Because of Who or What They Are. I Cannot Make the kind of comments and statements that I do IRL that I do on my blog as Avicenna Last.

You didn’t even give me a warning, you didn’t even give me a chance to set up a page. Do you guys even check what you delete or not?

Seriously? What the hell is wrong with you guys if you cannot grasp the basic reason why people want anonymity online?

Avicenna Last (A PSEUDONYM – You Know… One of those things people write under when they don’t want to use their real name because the association with it can cause issues)

I cannot give them what they want. A passport ID? For a facebook page? I may create a page for the website but I don’t think Avicenna Last will be on Facebook because I cannot post as myself.

For those who wish to follow me on facebook, Avicenna The Last is now up and running, but I am afraid I don’t think I can be as active as I normally am.

Avicenna Last

Rights of the Silent Majority – Sex Slavery and Prostitution

I agree with Taslima Nasrin. Sex slavery is something that has to be abolished. India is one of the places where sex slavery still occurs. Women are kidnapped from places like Nepal and Burma and traded as prostitutes. Their illegal status allows them to be kept under control. Many are lured into making such deals due to desperation.

However those are the most visible examples of sex slavery. In India 90% of women and children kidnapped and forced into sex slavery are local. Usually from rural villages to major cities with the promise of money or along caste lines.

But that’s the thing. India’s system of prostitution isn’t like the west. We cannot apply a blanket argument to it as a problem. Taslima herself is guilty of this. Every prostitute’s situation is different and without understanding. Another thing she is (IMHO) wrong about is calling all sex workers prostitutes. And even in the west, sex is work. How many people work in pornography? Is that not work? What about a professional Dominator/trix? What is a Kardashian or the Jordans of the world famous and rich for if not for sex?

A quick break down of prostitution… In India, there are approximately 20 million sex workers, with a 75:25 split of female to male workers. A lot of the male sex workers are “hijra” or eunuchs. Crude castration is done illegaly to create them. Some female sex workers are part of various systems of prostitutes such as Devdasi and the Bacharas or are part of ancient bonded labour systems such as Chakri. Many of these are banned but rather hard to enforce considering India’s size and the fact that there aren’t very many policemen and Indian Policemen are rather prone to corruption.

With that in mind let’s take a look at the points Taslima makes.


Lie1. Prostitution is an oldest profession.
Truth1. Prostitution is the oldest form of patriarchal oppression, not oldest profession.

Hm? Patriarchal oppression may be ingrained into us as behaviour which is seen in other great apes. The reasons why women go into prostitution vary. We can classify it as patriarchal oppression, but in India one of the weird things is that there are more female pimps than male ones.

A better look at this is that India for a long time was rather sexually liberal. Fucking around wasn’t a big deal back then. I am aware of Lucknavi poetry and it’s rather saucy and erotic lyrics and that’s coming from a muslim culture. The thing is India has adopted the same values of Victorian England, hence it’s massive prostitution population. In it’s rush to become a non-sexist society, sexism went in clearly the opposite manner.

Victorian values are basically the idea that the ideal woman is chaste, fair, and can do no wrong. That the thing that ruins her are those dirty horrid men. That such a woman is not wooed by dinner and dancing but with epic poems that sear the soul. And like Victorian England, prostitution skyrockets when you take this attitude to women.

Lie2. Prostitution is sexual freedom. /Prostitution is sex.
Truth2. Prostitution is sexual exploitation./ Prostition is not sex, it is sexual violence.

Not all prostitutes hate their job. Some do it willingly. One cannot compare a Californian Dominatrix in a sex dungeon to a nepalese slave girl in the Cages of Mumbai. Even within India there are a wide variety of sex workers ranging from the middle class Gigolos of Delhi who are everything you could want in a sex worker, to the frankly gruesome home made castratii of the hijra to the high class call girls to the brothel worker.

Classifying ALL of them under a single banner is not helpful. I am of the opinion that what two (or more) adults voluntarily do in the privacy of their own homes sexually is their business. But that’s the thing. Voluntarily is the important thing. If a woman/man wants to sell sex and if a man/woman wants to buy sex then why are we so bothered about it?

I am however bothered by women and men being forced into it and tarring all of them with the same brush which reduces effectiveness of arguments. If a person is voluntarily trading sex (roughly 15 to 20% of Indian Sex Trade Workers or ISTW are voluntarily in the business having coming into it of their own accord and tolerating no pimp or brothel worker) then why on earth should we interfere with that? Surely you are ruining someone’s personal choice.

Lie3. Legalizing prostitution gets rid of sex traffickers and pimps.
Truth3. Legalizing prostitution benefits sex traffickers, pimps,clients,sex industries.

Prostitution is legal in India. Pimping, Trafficking and Purchasing are not legal. The issue is that it’s nearly impossible to control such an industry. Legalising prostitution often means not going after the girls or their clients but instead providing a governmental control over the industry which stops pimps and sex trafficking.

Lie4. Men need sex therefore prostitution must exist. Prostitution is a natural form of human sexuality.
Truth4. The sex of prostitution is not “sex” for women in it. Most men who use women
in prostitution have other sexual partners.

Depends. Some women do enjoy it. Some women have written favourably about working in sex ranging from Dr. Brooke Magnanti to Nina Hartley. Men don’t need sex, men WANT sex, and prostitution is just a way of getting what one wants. Women want sex too and there is a small but gradually increasing trade in gigolos in areas such as Delhi and Mumbai’s middle class populations.

“It’s not sex if you pay for it”, is not a valid argument. Prostitution is a natural form of human sexuality BECAUSE it is so ubiquitous in nearly every society. Not every natural occurence in human history is a good thing.

And even men who don’t frequent prostitutes have multiple sexual partners. By Indian Standards of acceptability and admission, I would be regarded as a Lothario style figure.

Lie5. Women choose to enter prostitution.
Truth5. Prostitution is not an acceptable job for women. They are forced to enter prostitution. Prostitution is an abusive institution and women stay poor in prostitution.  It  is not a vocation choice, it is human rights abuse.

Here is where I completely and utterly disagree. Taslima is right about a lot of things but not this. Women and men do make the choice to be prostitutes. I am not saying that all prostitutes make this choice, but there are some. As stated earlier roughly 15 to 20% of ISTW joined by choice. The idea that it is not an acceptable job for a woman is a cultural product of Taslima’s upbringing. There are prostitutes everywhere. And guess what?

Every Goddamn Person treats prostitutes like this, including their Johns. The entire method of keeping prostitutes under control of their pimps is this. That their job isn’t acceptable. They cannot get proper healthcare because “it’s not an acceptable job”. They cannot ask a policeman for help because “it’s not an acceptable job”. Their kids don’t get treated well because mummy is a prostitute and “it’s not an acceptable job”.

When one works with them you are tarred with the same brush. And prostitution is a steadier job than others in India. Most of the non coerced ones or the slaves are above the poverty line due to the work they do. Wrenching
them away from their job actually just throws them back on the street.

These are a group of women whose skill pool is limited. Their choices are beg or prostitute. Prostitution is better than begging. Atleast that puts a roof over your head and rice in your child’s stomach. They cannot learn the skills they need to not be prostitutes because to this day Indians still treat women as second class citizens and don’t educate their daughters. And once they are in the job, no one is willing to teach them the skills they need to survive in the real world as independant women.

So actively pulling them out of prostitution may make you feel great but is it best for the woman in question? Who will feed her kids? Who will give her money? What will she do? The reason why anti-prostitution drives in India fail so badly is because they are firstly as judgemental about prostitution as Taslima is in her article and secondly because these drives do not answer these questions. They basically show up, bust all the pimps and the Johns and declare these women free and then go back home to slap themselves on the back.

Lie6. Legal prostitution protects women in prostitution.
Truth6. Legal prostitution does not protect women in prostitution from harm. All prostitution , legal or illegal, harm women.

Legalising prostitution DOES protect women in prostitution. It enables them to get the kind of help they need. It allows them to work in the open. Abuse occurs when no one can see it.

There are no pimps in legalised prostitution because pimping tends to be banned. These women get the kind of healthcare they need. They can get the proper sex education that they need to keep safe and they don’t have to hide within the lawless areas of India.

The harm to women is dependant on the nature of the sex work and the reasons for it. I know a dominatrix who is technically a sex worker and I don’t think she is harmed by her work.

Lie7. Social Stigma is most harmful aspect of prostitution
Truth7. Not social stigma, Harmful aspects are rape, beatings, physical abuse, psychological abuse, and other violence from clients and pimps.

Agree. These are major problems in prostitution and legalisation does cut down on it some what.

Lie8. Prostitution is deterrent to sex crimes.
Truth8. Prostitution is associated with increased rate of sex crimes.

Meh? I don’t think I have seen statistics to push my view in either direction. Rape occurs for a variety of reasons. Indian rape figures are rather low mainly due to horrifically poor report rates so it’s nearly impossible to give a real estimate.

I would say that they are related in the Indian model though. The girls who have little say and are basically “slaves” are prone to such crimes. The volunteers are not because they pick and choose their Johns more carefully.

But I am not sure about this.

Lie9. Legalization of prostitution is an entirely separate issue from human trafficking.
Truth9. Prostitution is the destination point for trafficking.

Not always. A lot of human trafficking in Western Europe for example is not for sex but for cheap workforces. Mexican human traffic is not sexual so much as economic and job motivated. In India? A lot of human traffic is with regards to labour forces particularly in the Middle East. So to tar everything with the same brush is again simplifying a complex problem.

And 90% of sex traffic in India is local.

Lie10. Legalized prostitution would control the sex industry.
Truth10. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution expands the sex industry

It does both. I subscribe to the Freakonomics view on this topic. The legitimisation of the sex industry will merely bring it out into the open making it less hidden.

However what determines the size of a prostitution economy is the availability of sex. In India roughly 2% of people are ISTW. By comparison? The UK has just 0.13% and the USA weighing in with 0.27%. Even in Germany where legalisation has occured the number is 0.42% and that’s because there is a burgeoning tourist sex industry there at places like the Reeperbahn. Holland has a number similar to Germany at 0.37% and again I assume it’s due to the tourist industry.

Sweden never had a large prostitution population to begin with. Prior to the law just 0.04% of Swedish people were in the sex trade. Why? Well it’s probably cultural and social pressures and variations that don’t encourage prostitution. The average swedish unemployed individual lives the kind of lifestyle most people in third world nations wish to have. There may actually be no pressing drive to trade sex for money. And I feel that the draconian stance on prostitution probably has driven it underground or into a pure internet/call out scheme.

If one asks the average indian about sex, you would assume that it’s filled with people who replicate by binary fission. But clearly there is a lot of sex going around otherwise there wouldn’t be a billion people. I am saying that the statistics from Sweden may be poor due to the same reason.

Again there are deeper social and economic issues. What applies to Sweden may not necessarily apply to India.

Lie11. Opposing prostitution means prostitutes would be arrested.
True11. We have to decriminalize poor prostituted women but arrest their predators: clients, pimps, traffickers.

Again… Not all clients are the horrible aggressive men we are so familiar with from fiction. Most are NORMAL PEOPLE. But yes. I agree that the pimps and traffickers need to be arrested.

I agree with Taslima on a few points, I just think she treats it as a simplistic issue when it is a really complex social issue that isn’t going to change by treating prostitution as the evilest thing in evil land. It’s going to change when we can genuinely provide the means for the uplift of these women and remove the profit in the trade. Smacking down pimps is like playing whack-a-mole. We can do it all day till the Holy Cows come home but ultimately what we really need to do is change the way we think about prostitution in India.

Bad Luck

I was supposed to write up a post on Vaccines and Autism and the resurgence of the Anti-Vax lobby but something came up.

Yesterday I was struck by a car while on my way back from the hospital. I have multiple lacerations and contusions, a dislocated shoulder, a sprained wrist and soft tissue damage to my knee that hasn’t been fully diagnosed yet. I was unable to update earlier due to the loss of my phone in this accident.

I shall probably resume posting when my wrist has healed but for now, I am going on Hiatus of proper posts for atleast a week or two.

Thanks to all my readers, and I will restart my posts after Easter (hopefully).