Saturday, 27 August 2011


I reproduce the comment I've just read verbatim for your edification...

Reduce carbon dioxide emissions from shipping by a billion tonnes a year? No problem.
Remove the diesel engines from the world's existing fleet and convert them into galleys.
Conscript everybody whose body mass index is too high to pull the oars. Two problems are thus solved in one stroke.

Julian Glazer, Westcliffe-on Sea, UK

So where did I read that? In the bloodvessel-bursting pages of the Daily Mail? In the heart-attack-inducing print of the Sun or the possibly carcinogenic words of the Grauniad? Some crazed hack-rag, surely?

The letter, for letter it was, not some unmoderated forum post, was selected for publication and printed on page 31 of issue no. 2827 of New Scientist.

New Scientist used to be about science. Now it simply pushes the socialist control agenda and approves of the hate and bile directed against anyone who does not fit the British Standard Human model devised by neo-eugenecists. Oh sure, there's still some interesting astronomy in there, sometimes there's some entomology but it's all just a cover for the fact that most of the magazine is a Stalinist mouthpiece now.

Everything is related to global warming. Everything. If there's a dust storm on Mars it's because you turned your kettle on. Salt. Fat. Smoking. Drink. All the made-up numbers and ridiculous studies are included with not a shred of critical thought involved at all. It fits The Agenda so it goes unquestioned. Call for Hitler-style punishments for those who don't conform and New Socialist will print it. Point out the insanity and you are a 'denier'. A heretic.

Scientists read this magazine. I, like most scientists, used to rely on it for understandable explanations of work that was far outside my own field. I can't rely on it now. I know they are printing lies and hate and so I can no longer rely on any article printed in there. Is it real or is it propaganda? If it's outside my own knowledge base I can't tell any more. This copy was the first I had bought in months and it'll be longer before I buy the next one. What's the point? It's a hate publication now. If you hate the Denormalised that's just fine with the editors.

I'm not obese, not even by the narrowing definitions of recent years designed to drum up business and new scare stories. I do like to smoke and drink and I don't want a bunch of pompous Borg telling me to conform. I like salt. I like crackling on pork. I am not going to live a dull life just to fit with some control freak's demands. You can shout about me 'costing the NHS money' even though I haven't and in fact the NHS has cost me a hell of a lot of tax money over my half-century of existence. You don't want me to use the NHS in the future? Then shut it down right now. Then it won't cost either of us anything, will it?

I have to wonder what the NHS is for since it doesn't want to treat sick people but instead wants to direct our lives in minute detail. I have to wonder what New Scientist is for if it is no longer interested in the two-way world of science but only in the one-way world of totalitarian control. Science is all about disagreement but New Scientist believes in the 'We are right because we say so' version of science put out by the BMA, ASH, the Church of Climatology and many others. Disagree and you are deemed worthless.

I am not obese but I will not stand by why the obese are derided as nothing more than oar-fodder. Why? I know there are those who make Mr. Blobby look like a swimwear model and who hate me because I smoke so why defend them? Why not let New Scientist's correspondents yoke them to an oil tanker's oars and let them puff away into the sunset?

Why? Because it's the same thing again. It's population-splitting. Not all chubbies are rabid, vicious antismokers. Not all smokers are slim. Not all smokers are drinkers and vice versa but read the letters and the comments and you'd believe that we are all disparate groups. We are not groups at all, we are individuals, and neither the NHS, the BMA nor New Scientist can cope with that. We must fit a pigeon-hole or they can't deal with us. So much for superior intellect.

Some people like cannabis. I don't but I don't care if someone else does. Some people don't eat pork, others don't eat beef. I eat anything but I am not interested in forcing the non-pork and non-beef eaters to comply. Some like to be vegetarian or vegan, and I have no problem with them not eating meat. Some people prefer to avoid alcohol and/or tobacco and that's fine with me.

All I ask is the same in return. I have never forced any of you to live like me. Just leave me alone.

Some people like to be larger than others, some like to be slimmer than others. Neither is any concern of mine. Nor is it any concern of anyone else. No concern of the NHS which we all pay for, including smokers, drinkers and the obese. No concern of the BMA or the WHO which nobody voted for and who therefore represent only their own bank accounts. Which, incidentally, you smoke/drink/fat haters are also paying for, as are we. Yes, we pay them to order us around but we have no means of telling them to stop. We all pay ASH too, did you know? They cost the taxpayer more than smokers ever could. Look at the numbers. The real ones.

So it's official. Letters demanding that fat people be put into slavery are approved and published in the name of global warming, in a mainstream science magazine. Aren't you delighted, Righteous? Aren't you polishing up those gas-chamber guard jackboots ready for the day your services are required? Won't be long now.

If you're a fat smoker-hater, sit down and think because you are one of us now. You are in here with the smokers and drinkers and all the rest of the Denormalised. Yes, it's your turn in the hatred chair.

'Science' has spoken.


Anonymous said...

I get a publication that a few years back was fair and even minded. Then they got rid of their entire editorial staff and brought in all new players. So now the thing has turned into a monthly rag promoting all the usual socialist agendas. And they wonder why membership is falling. Unfortunately one of my important credit cards comes through membership with them, so I can't get out of it (yet, though I am working on it). Now, I just take the thing and toss it in the recycle bin after ripping it in half each month. Rip and toss. That's all it's worth. Sounds like New Scientist has become the same.

Twenty_Rothmans said...

I used to take the Telegraph, but no longer. They did away with Simon Heffer, Craig Brown and Tom Utley, and replaced them with the hand-wringing Mary Riddell, the global warming alarmist Geoffrey Lean and the vacuous Bryony Gordon, who has absolutely smashing norks but little else going for her.

They can take their fishwrap, roll it up and transurethrally tickle their prostates with it. There are many reasons for buying it - Delingpole sometimes shows up as does Lord Tebbit. It's not good enough to justify the expenditure.

Thank Christ for the Spectator.

Stewart Cowan said...

I was informed yesterday by an 18 year-old that my aversion to halal meat is "racism".

I explained that Islam isn't a race, but was 'assured' that it is, and anyway, one of his friends confirmed it.

He then said that I need to see the local mental health services to find out why I think this way. He even kindly looked up the telephone number for me and wrote it down.

I find it unsettling that so many people are settling for this control freakery system to such an extent that if your thoughts or behaviour are not of the 'approved' nature, you are considered to have a mental illness.

This is how political dissidents can be rounded up - claim they are mental and a danger to themselves or others, then lock them away for years.

Angry Exile said...

Twenty-Rothmans, Heffer might be a good writer and have some good ideas about liberalised economics but have a look at what he's said about drug use sometime. For my money he's as big an authoritarian prick as any in government when it comes to people being free to do what they want to their own bodies.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

I have just stopped a regular donation to a certain charity for similar reasons. They sent me a glossy mag four times a year telling me how wonderful they are, what great things they are doing and how if only I send them more of my hard earned cash, they can do more. The pressure I felt in order to become worthy (in their eyes) was what did it finally. They've fallen so far away from their original ethos they are barely recognisable.

F***W*T TW****R said...

You're not the only one Underdog. This about Scientific American.

Zaphod said...

I grieve over my lost New Scientist. I don't work in Science, but it's important and fascinating.

The MSM could never be relied on to keep me informed, even in the good old days when they had journalists.

The heavyweight science journals are too specialised, and too in-depth for my purpose. I needed NS.

I still subscribe, in case anything important happens. But reading the thing is now infuriating, I can't trust it any more. They often mangled explanations of stuff I understand, but at least there was no control agenda before.

ps, Leggy, I don't comment here much, cos there's little to argue with. But I remain a dedicated reader here. Live long, prosper, keep banging on!

kitler said...

I bought a recent new scientist and got no further than the editorial, which yet again pushed the false dichotomy of evolution vs creationism (from a smug pro-evolution point obviously).

Just out of curiousity LI, have scientists ever created life in a lab through randomly combining amino protiens or whatever they say happened at the dawn of life?

Robert the Biker said...

You want my pies?
Come and take them!

Slamlander said...

Science et Vie -
Another one for the rubbish pile of what were once good science rags and now nothing more than propaganda leaflets writ large.

Zaphod said...

New Scientist can be forgiven, I'm sure, for not taking "creationism" seriously. There are plenty of other publications which deal with the supernatural and paranormal.

Alex Cull said...

Good post, Leg-iron. I used to be a New Scientist subscriber too, and one reason I stopped was the
relentless global warmism. By the way, on the subject of CO2 and the "obesity epidemic", here's a recent article that will probably make you annoyed. I know it made me very annoyed! Definitely in the FFS category.

Frank Davis said...

It's not even as if they've got the science right, as I set out in Eat For Victory last week. Making fat people exercise releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, because fat people store carbon just like trees.

But in the case of shipping, there can be little doubt that modern diesel engines are far more efficient in converting carbon fuel into useful work than any bunch of oarsmen. So the result will be that the inefficient oarsmen will end up expending far more energy (and CO2) to do the same amount of work as the diesel engines.

So it's not just a Nazi sentiment that has been published in the New Scientist, but also bad science.

Zaphod said...

That doesn't actually work. The oarsmen are running on "renewables", and just cycling CO2. The diesels are releasing it from very long-term storage, adding it to the present stock.

But the oarsmen, now being gainfully employed, (presumably they weren't before?), will now be more prolific consumers of (fossil-energy-based) goods and services?

Anyway, that oil is gonna get used, as fast as someone can pump it. We'll cope if there are any side-effects. There isn't actually an alternative. It will happen.

The whole scam is an excuse to practise controlling us.

John Pickworth said...

"... the magazine is a Stalinist mouthpiece now."

Ain't that the truth.

I first noticed the preachy editorials sneaking in during the HIV years... but now the 'right-on messages' are interwoven into the main articles.

Anonymous said...

the British Standard Human model

I was talking about this very idea on our Bolton Smoking Club blog only the other day. I called it "The Standard Human Being".

I was serious.

It seems to me that epidemiology was a worthy science when it was concerned with real disease epidemics. The famous one is Snow's (?) discovery of the source of the cholera epidemic in London in the 1800s (a particular water pump). Similar real science situations occurred with the discovery of the source of malaria.

The modern epidemiological studies of tobacco smoking and 'disease' are not remotely similar. They demand a group of 'standard human beings' as a control group. (This is not very accurate, but I am sure that people will understand what I mean)

Thus, the fact that more people who suffer from lung cancer are, or have been, smokers means that smoking is the cause of the lung cancer according to them. But.....what consideration is given to the fact that all human beings are different genetically? far as I can see. Therefore, there is a fundamental fault in the studies - and that is that Epidemiology assumes a 'Standard Human Being'.

It is possible to say that anyone who smokes is at risk of developing a lung cancer condition, but it is only possible to say that if you ignore genetic susceptibility and assume that there is a Standard Human Being - in which case, everyone is susceptible. But there is no such thing as a 'Standard Human Being'.

I ask this question:

Has there ever been a study of why certain people, who smoked heavily all their lives and died at the age of, say, 95, did NOT suffer from lung cancer? It is possible that some smokers are genetically inclined to be suscepible to lung cancer. It is also possible that some people are genetically inclined to get 'heart disease' and/or diabetes from eating too much.

Badly explained, I'm afraid, but the best I can do at this time of night!

smokervoter said...

Smashing norks. Norks? As in obese mammary glands? God, I love it. I foolishly used to presume that I understood and spoke English. What on earth is the etymology of this term?

opinions powered by