In the first link below we read that:
A lengthy and detailed letter from OSC attorney James McVay, dated August 5, 2005, and addressed to Sternberg, summarizes the government’s findings, [with respect to an investigation into the Darwinian Herd trying to trample him for publishing a paper on ID] based largely on e-mail traffic among top Smithsonian scientists.
...we read there:
A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, “I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space.” (All quotations from e-mails given here are taken from the OSC’s letter to Sternberg.) Another expresses frustration that a good pretext for dismissing him had so far not been identified: “As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong,... the sole reason to terminate his appt seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w/NMNH, let me know and I’ll send him a letter stating so.” One manager huffed, “Well, if you ask me, a face-to-face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual is in order.” The same e-mail indicated that a manager had been compiling trivial offenses by Sternberg that could be cited in telling him to get out. Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg’s library records. He “has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library).”
[...]
From an e-mail from Smithsonian authorities attacking Sternberg and Christian America:
Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches, but now it looks like these people are coming out and invading our schools, biology classes, museums and now our professional journals. These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world. Depressing. Oh, if we only still had Steve Gould to lead the counter-attack.
[...]
An e-mail by a NMNH scientist that was sent to your [Sternberg’s] supervisor sums up the sentiment of the e-mails, as it relates to this issue. It reads, “The whole situation sounds like a pain in the…neck. Hopefully, the ID folks will get distracted with something else soon. After spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt, I have learned how to carefully phrase things in order to avoid the least amount of negative repercussions for the kids. And I have heard many amazing things!! The most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part…”
These are the people controlling access to knowledge these days. It's getting difficult. It is hard being a Policeman of Knowledge now, as the old way of controlling networks from the top down does not seem to be working very well for them. You may wonder from their texts how their minds come to be so ignorant and just plain stooopid. It would take too long to go into but note the typical textual degeneracy in this example: "These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world."
For to the Leftist mind those who believe in a textual principle such as: "Blessed are the peacemakers..." are somehow the same as those who believe a textual principle such as: "When you battle the infidel, cut off their heads." Because well, they can both be called "fundamentalists" based on belief in textual principles. That's not the real reason that the Leftist mind tries to merge them but going deeper into the Leftist mind would be a tangent into its type of neurosis, that place where stereotypes and a limited mind's vain attempt at a lack of all types lurks.
So instead, note its apparent type of argument here: "They seem the same to my mind because both are fundies...or somethin'. I have a little blurred image in my mind of it, so I know it by my imagination! Fundies, I say!" It seems that such a mind doesn't even understand itself and the self-evident truths that are evident in its Self. Essentially the Leftist mind often hasn't even thought about what it is saying conceptually, as its mind comes to be all in its imagination. At the lowest levels it is reduced to mewlings and murmurings of its own feelings and nothing more.
At a higher level there are attempts to engage in logic, argument or assertion:
"There is no such thing as essence." --Richard Dawkins cf. (The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution :308)
Do you see what he means about that? Too bad there is no such thing as meaning if he is unwilling to admit to the Right enough to be right, so essentially he cannot really mean anything about a proper marriage between the Left and the Right. That's a typical problem for Leftists/"liberals".
(They probably will not want to be called Leftists or "liberal." They tend to want to blur away or condemn a recognition of their own type too.)
No comments:
Post a Comment