Item Scientific communism
“I Survived Communism — Are You Ready For Your Turn?”
By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer
“It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality — 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’; ideology is.
We are reminded, too. About that spurious 97%, this peer-reviewed (and therefore guaranteed in its purity) paper. What interests us is not global warming, but the shrieking method of control, always signaled by the shouting of “there is no debate!” The shouting is necessary, because, of course, there are things not subject to debate that nobody would shout about. These are awfully few in number: for instance, we need not debate the person who says aloud and in earnest “I cannot speak”.
It’s the shouting that indicates the subject which must not be debated rests at best on tenuous grounds, or at worst that it is known to be false but politically desirable. If global warming were not political, nobody except for a handful of unknown scientists would care, say, about eddies in the Pacific. But that it is, we must all care and we must not disagree with the chain that connects any event to global-warming-of-doom, even if that chain is obviously forged of wet crepe paper.
An official inspected the church thoroughly, stopped in front of the pulpit, and pointed to one of the Ten Commandments displayed on the wall. “This must be removed,” he said. After hearing such comment, the government officials immediately wiped off the Commandment.
People from the church strongly opposed the removal of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” commandment.
We don’t know if this act was state policy or the results of zealousness on the part of the party official. In any case, the instincts of this petty bureaucrat are sound. The religion of man has a jealous god, and it will admit of no higher authority than Reason.
Ireland’s health minister plans to introduce legislation making organ donation in the republic automatic.
“It is my goal to make organ donation the norm in Ireland when people pass away in circumstances in which donation is a possibility,” said Simon Harris, who aggressively and ultimately successfully campaigned for the legalization of abortion in Ireland.
The proposed legislation will allow people to forgo organ donation only if they opt out in advance. If family members don’t want a dead relative’s organs harvested, they will be able to stop it from occurring, according to DublinLive.
“While this has taken a lot longer than anticipated, I will bring forward proposals to ensure 2019 is the year we introduce an opt-out organ donation register,” said Harris. “I hope the introduction of an opt-out system encourages people to discuss their wishes with loved ones.”
As utilitarianism and neo-paganism replaces Christianity, the more the future will resemble Logan’s Run. You may not be ready to die, but, seriously, you’re not really contributing much to society in the shape you’re in, and this younger person sure could use your liver. Why not act altruistically and renew?
By presumption, the British state owns your body, not you. And they have the right to take and do what they like with what is theirs. They generously allow you to opt out. For now.
Well that didn’t take long. Legislation to impose exclusion zones to prevent obstruction and harassment is due this month. It must be progressed. #ItsTime #SheDecides
This is a tweet from the Executive Director of Amnesty International. He presents as evidence for “exclusion zones” to a this fellow says, an organization that once fought against locking people up for dissension now advocates locking people up for dissension.
This is no surprise. What struck me was O’Gorman’s phrase “It must be progressed.” This is as good a candidate as any for a slogan all on the left might embrace.