The US senate condemned, with a 99:0 vote, prestigious research in the American Psychological Association journal. The meta analysis showed that in cases of sexual “child abuse”, no damage can be found if no violence has been employed and the victim has at least average intelligence. Yes, even we are shocked, but we are committed to science, not to dogma. Bill Clinton condemned the “Bell Curve” (about racial differences in intelligence) without even reading it. There is strong Repression of research violating dogmas. Underage sex with post-puberty girls (and boys?) was widely legal 150 years ago.
Google searches can be frustrating. You get all the boring main stream media lies, and you have to dig deep to get interesting alternative politically incorrect site links.
Your frustration is over.
Try pig: Politically incorrect Google Search
Politisch inkorrekte Google Suche (pigs) at fluechtling.net/pigs )
You must try searches yourself to believe it. You will want to use this search instead of the normal Google Search.
Please help to improve the searches by posting blog rolls and link lists with politically incorrect sites, in English and in German. There is a lot more to add, especially in German.
If you search for "Blacks Lives Matter" you get this nice result
If you were to look at the normal boring Google Search, you would get this
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Politically Incorrect Google Search (PIG). Must try!” »
Politically Incorrect Google Search (PIG). Must try! » continues here »
Shocking questions. Should scientists refrain from studying topics for fear of PC (political correctness)? Is political correctness more important then finding the scientific truth about important issues of our modern life (crime, intelligence, scientific and economic progress, etc.).
Though we disagree with the idea of censorship, we thank Nature Magazine for bringing out the issue into the open.
This is much better then Canadian law, where even the discussion of censorship is censored by hate speech laws. See Canada
Probing the biological basis of certain traits ignites controversy. But some scientists choose to cross the red line anyway.
Erika Check Hayden
02 October 2013
Scientists cited or quoted include Steve Hsu, Geoffrey Miller, Christopher Chabris, Francis Galton, Robert Plomin, and Bruce Lahn.
And here is Nature’s tut-tutting editorial:
Behavioural geneticists must tread carefully to prevent their research being misinterpreted.
Here are the four questions in Nature’s poll.
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of intelligence?
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of race?
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of violence?
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of sexuality?