Scientific American writer fired over genetics/race article

[Jim Pennington]

Scientific American: Writer fired
after noting racial differences are genetic

Cults and science never did get along.

You'll never see a serious scientific discussion about the impact of thetans on New Guinea Pygmies nor an in-depth discussion from a secular perspective about the social construct of Nephite culture.

There is, however, one cult with influence so permeating that its rancor can even penetrate the innards of such astute periodicals of Psychology Today and Scientific American, then corrupt their previously pristine reputations for uncompromising credulity with the ugly cancer of politically correct nonsense.

That cult is cultural Marxism.

You'll recall psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa got pink-slipped when he published findings from a scientific study revealing that black women were considered less attractive than women from other racial groups. Psychology Today simply was unwilling to pay the price for swimming against the tsunami of criticism that accompanies truth-telling when it defies the cultural Marxist narrative.

Conservatives -- who play the race card defensively lest they be soiled with the racist label -- are equally corrupted by the influence of political correctness. Although their publications are not intended to publish scientific data, both National Review and The Heritage Foundation fired writers -- John Derbyshire and Jason Richwine respectively -- for making observations that were both astute and dead-on accurate, but flew in the face of cultural Marxism's myth making.

More recently is the demise of the relationship between Ashutosh Jogalekar and Scientific American.

Jogalekar's offense was to merely write a positive review of Nicholas Wade's, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.”

The tsunami of criticism washed the shores of Scientific American by way of social media. Those objecting to Jogalekar's opinion would not tolerate his intolerance and hated his hate. Publishers innately know that such waves of discontent quickly translate into loss of revenue from advertisers and subscribers. They further erode their business models with unjust accusations of incredulous reporting, a tainting strategy that leftism refers to as 'jamming.'

The outcome of the outcry is that Scientific American caved in to political correctness and postured itself with muteness when it comes to issues that would cause rancor among adherents to the secular religion of cultural Marxism.

For its part the predatory left seems satisfied. The left doesn't mind if you lie, nor do they fuss if you're mute. It simply doesn't want anyone telling the truth that contradicts its versions of thetans and Nephites.

Those manufactured myths that are so sacred to the left are (a) there are no innate racial disparities such as intelligence or behavior that can't be remedied by social tweaking and (b) history is replete with white privilege and racial abuse of non-whites.

Scientific American has chosen to compromise its credibility rather than be falsely accused of compromising its credibility. It's reputation remains intact, its character is corroded. Readers may continue to count on the magazine to objectively deliver in articles relating to common mutations that account for the bulk of autism risks, but can never be relied upon to deal honestly in regards to race and its relation to genetics.

The tragic end is that we live in a society that is convinced that the world is flat and neither Psychology Today, National Review, The Heritage Foundation, nor Scientific American are willing to risk their revenue flow or political capital to state otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... 12c1cd8d1e

http://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2014/07/s ... cDk5F.dpuf