The Failure of Scientism – Part 2 – Gender Delusion

By Dr K. Now.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

It is the power of higher-order critical thinking and evidence-based research that advances skills, knowledge and a nation’s potential. Listening to, watching or reading any form of information advances knowledge. This process should also include misinformation, disinformation, propaganda or even ideological gibberish. This type of broad reading and study is part of the scientific method of research. It is the scientific method which is the most powerful method of study humanity has ever achieved. Furthermore, it is the scientific method that develops and advances rational evidence-based problem solving higher-order and critical thinking capacities. All of which then advances research potential, sophisticated analysis, knowledge and skills. It is this process which then develops a complex and highly sophisticated brain, mind and intellect; none of which can or will ever be achieved through censorship. 

GENDER IS A CONSTRUCT. BIOLOGY IS AN IMMUTABLE UNIVERSAL TRUTH

Opinions and constructs

In terms of opinions and constructs, it is profoundly important to note that a construct derives its name from the fact that – a construct – is not anything more than a mental construction. As such, a construct is no more than a thought, that brings into existence a descriptor referred to as an opinion, which provides the means to bring into existence a descriptive construct.

 

Definitions

All robust universal dictionaries concur that opinions are no more than a general subjective point of view, i.e., a personal sentiment or a feeling; which is not based on fact or knowledge. The fact of the matter is that gender is not (and it has never been, and it cannot ever be) a universal biological truth. Gender is a construct. That means gender fits into the category of a concocted descriptor, and, as such, what that axiomatically means is that the word gender is nothing more than a mental opinion, or a descriptor of convenience.

 

The utterance of the construct gender cannot change the universal laws of biology

Therefore, in absolute universal terms, what that means is that the word and construct gender can never be a universal biological truth. As such, the construct gender cannot change the universal laws of biology, nor can the utterance of the word ‘gender’ change the universal laws of biology.

 

Male chromosome pairing

Universally, ever since humans have existed, when a human male is born, he will have a genetic XY chromosome pairing. As such, in terms genome and sex, this male will, in universal biological terms always be a male. If, for example, this XY chromosome male was to ever have a finger, hand, arm, toe, foot, tonsils, appendix or even their genitals surgically removed; this male will still be a biological male, a genetic male, and this male will continue to have the pairing of his male-based XY chromosomes.

 

Female chromosome pairing

This same universal and biological genome-based principle, of course, and immutably, also applies to the female sex. When a female is born, she will have an XX chromosome genetic pairing. As such this female will (universally, biologically and genetically) be the sex of a female. Any surgical procedure that takes place, cannot and will never change the biological XX female chromosome pairing. And no amount of ideological shouting or any deceitful politically motivated gender-based utterances, or any social bullying or ideological ‘word-play’ manipulations, will ever change these laws of physics and/or biology.

 

No amount of force of any kind can change universal truths

Importantly and profoundly, nor can any forced experimental application of hormones (into the body), change this immutable XX chromosome (female) or XY chromosome (male) genetic pairing. 

 

Denying universal truths cannot change a universal truth

Denying these universal human laws and biological truths, as history informs, brings with its catastrophic biological and social outcomes. History also unambiguously cautions and informs that any society or organisation (political or private) that allows, supports, initiates or forces anyone (irrespective of policies, laws or even orders from superiors), to engage in immoral forced actions (against any individual or collective), these actions will be declared as being illegal. That is because it has been internationally declared, in an international court of law, that moral actions supersede all laws, conventions, directives or what may even be considered as being orders by superiors, which of course can take place in many different forms, which includes publications of policies and books.

Provided a moral choice was possible

In 1945, as World War II was nearing its inevitable conclusion the Allies suspected that a Superior Orders defense might be employed by the Axis forces. As a result of this insightful moral assumption, the Allies brought into existence and legally issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). This ruling unambiguously declared that following or undertaking an immoral order (which in fact makes the order unlawful) cannot be used as a defense.

As a result of this London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, ruling, it was then declared that this ruling would be placed under the directive and title of: Nuremberg Principle IV. This Principle declared that the “defense of superior orders” is not a defense for war crimes. In terms of definition and declaration Nuremberg Principle IV presents the following:

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. [The key words here of course are: “provided a moral choice in fact was possible.”]

 

As such this recognition must be addressed in accordance with international law, that was set down in an international court, that followed the directive of Nuremberg Principle IV. Anything less undermines all of the universal principles that were set down in accordance with Nuremberg Principle IV. All of which led to advancing universal truths, which became the guiding principles in the development of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Failure of Scientism – Part 1 – Green Ideology is Deceptive

By The Moderator

Western politicians and scientists seem to be under the spell of Scientism – the subjective bias of applying science to confirm personal beliefs and cultural policies. This article is a compilation of case studies providing substantial evidence demonstrating that scientists are only seeking evidence that confirm their pre-existing biases instead of describing reality as it actually exists.

CASE STUDY 1: Refusing to Accept Substantial Contrary Evidence

Dear greenies, imagine being so intellectually cooked you’re angry to find out the world isn’t actually going to end
Instead of welcoming a report finding no statistical evidence for a global climate emergency, doomsayers are instead screaming bloody murder about a perceived media conspiracy.

Authored by Gemma Tognini
Gemma Tognini
SkyNews.com.au Contributor and Corporate Affairs Specialist

In case you missed it, there was some terrific news that broke over the weekend.

Really good, in fact.

Results of an international study, delivered by leading scientists from the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics in conjunction with the prestigious University of Milan, found no statistical, data-linked evidence of any kind that the earth (and we earthlings) are in the grips of a climate emergency.

None. Let me repeat that. Nothing to see here, move along.

The Australian’s Graham Lloyd says a new paper has found that it is “not possible” to detect a climate emergency. “They don’t say there isn’t an increase in temperature, they don’t say that it will never be the case,” he said. “But as things stand, it is not possible to see that footprint there.”

The study provided a long-term analysis of a range of extreme weather events such as heat, drought, floods, hurricanes and fires and found no clear positive trends.

This is good news – great news even!

You’d think this would be something to celebrate.  You’d think this would be news sharing.

What I saw instead, was a bizarre reaction from many (most, on my observation at least) were of the political left and or Greens, whose response was rage.

Rage that an esteemed scientist would dare to find the earth is in fact in very good health and we are not hurtling towards oblivion.

No wonder these folk get called climate doomsayers.  No wonder it looks and sounds like a cult.

Instead of talking about how fabulous that there isn’t any statistical or other evidence of a climate crisis, they scream about media conspiracies.

Imagine being so intellectually cooked that you’re angry the world isn’t going to end.

To me, the findings of this study come as no surprise.

For half a century, there have been predictions of a looming climate-related disaster.

For half a century, they have failed to materialise (another thing to celebrate, but that’s just me).

Here’s a quick snapshot of some of the best.

In 1970, the Boston Globe ran predictions of a global ice age that would consume us all by the year 2000.

In 2008, Good Morning America ran stories predicting most of New York City would be under water by 2015 due to rising sea levels.

And don’t forget 2000, when the UK’s Independent ran on a story that claimed British children would never see snow again within a few short years.

And of course, the various predictions of Prof. Tim Flannery, including but not limited to telling us back in 2007 that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.

If you reacted to the results of this Italian study with anything other than happiness then may I kindly suggest seeking professional help. 

Importantly, the study’s authors aren’t saying we can just sit back and enjoy our existing energy sources without further revision.

But what they are saying is that it needs to be done in context.

Imagine that, a sensible response that won’t plunge the country further into an energy crisis.

The EU didn’t just miraculously decide that gas and nuclear are renewables for fun.

Have a look at what’s going on in Britain, Italy, Germany and other parts of the EU.

Those in the Senate who are high fiving themselves over the Albanese government’s legislated climate targets, the Teal Brigade and yes, the Greens.

Best heed the bell that’s been tolled here.

They may be basking in the afterglow right now but it doesn’t take much to go from hero to villain – especially when Australian families will be looking for someone to blame.

Source: https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/dear-greenies-imagine-being-so-intellectually-cooked-youre-angry-to-find-out-the-world-isnt-actually-going-to-end/news-story/b9db7996e2afe55d3a5248d51c138393

CASE STUDY 2: Denigrating Opponents of the Status Quo

A psychological study analysing 390 climate change sceptics denigrates them for confused thinking and diagnoses them with “denialism”. Contrary to expectations, the study revealed that sceptics were more likely to have higher analytical skills than the general public. Instead of further research into why this was so, it was generally conceded that sceptics were unaware of climate modelling projections.

CASE STUDY 3: Unnecessary Sacrifice and Societal Change

Green Ideology, supported by biased, narrow minded Scientism, will seek to transform society no matter the personal or financial cost.

UK may ‘go back to pre-industrial revolution’ times as energy crisis worsens

Brexit movement leader Nigel Farage says former UK prime minister Boris Johnson was the “high priest of net zero” during his time – even as the former leader lashed out at energy policy.

“What nuclear power gives you is baseload but for us to build a major new nuclear facility in Suffolk on the east coast of England – which is what Boris was doing on that day – it’ll be at least 12 years before that’s in production,” he told Sky News host Chris Kenny.

“By that time, we may well have economically have gone back to pre the Industrial Revolution because we won’t have any hot water, we won’t have any computers.”

Source: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/uk-may-go-back-to-preindustrial-revolution-times-as-energy-crisis-worsens/video/1fc3021ba9a13ec0b59a8635aa5d6f82

Europe’s energy crisis has ‘just been getting worse’

Sky News host Chris Kenny says Europe’s energy crisis has been worsening as the world mourns Queen Elizabeth II.

“Crippling power bills are forcing manufacturers to close their doors for a couple of days each week, standing down staff,” he said.

Mr Kenny said parts of Germany have banned hot showers at gyms and swimming pools as well as portable air conditioners and heaters and Paris has resorted to turning off the Eiffel Tower’s lights early.

“And in Britain, millions of businesses will have their power bills capped for six months, to help them stay afloat,” he said.

“Boris Johnson, in one of his final speeches as PM, hit the nail on the head, identifying nuclear as the solution, while calling out weak poltictions for dropping the ball.”

Source: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/europes-eneergy-crisis-has-just-been-getting-worse/video/8d8b27fbaa8869a45d4b7726db2e1539

CASE STUDY 4: Inconsistencies in Confirmed Public Information

Statistics are easily confirmed and denied to suit the political necessities of a particular time period. For instance, carbon dioxide forms 0.04% of the atmosphere. 97% is produced naturally while 3% was produced by humans. Of this 3% produced, a small nation such as Australia contributes only 1.3% out of all of the CO2 produced by humans, which is negligible. Facts are ethereal and modelling changes to suit cultural and political bias. Sea levels have not changed over the previous 70 years, as has been confirmed by historic records and photographs.