Archive for the 'Live not by Lies' Category

What Price Loyalty Now?

November 4, 2007

Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder PC Hypothesis: As income rises:

  1. Loyalty in the face of PC assaults falls.
  2. The speed of discard increases.
  3. Due process to the accused falls.
  4. Proof required falls.
  5. The accusation is the proof.
  6. Truth is the offense to power.

Was Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder the first of these?

Recent Cases:

  1. James Watson Black Intelligence dropped by investment banker Cold Springs Harbor Lab board chairman Eduardo G. Mestre.
  2. Brussels Journal Paul Belien Discarded by high volume blog of Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs, LGF because of Vlaams Belang.
  3. Duane Dog the Bounty Hunter Chapman.
  4. Don Imus
  5. Duke Lacrosse Team

The lesson is we must all hang together, or we will all hang separately when we speak up. To live in fear of PC and not speak is not to live. We are dead already when they silence us.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974

The essay is dated Feb. 12, the day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany.

A universal spiritual death has already touched us all,

We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.

We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.

We would rather go with others to a certain death then say no when the destination is obvious.

And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action?

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

  • Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
  • Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
  • Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
  • Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
  • Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
  • Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
  • Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
  • Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
  • Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.

Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views,a dn don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general–let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

Paul Belien (1959) has a Law degree (specialisations in Social Security Law and European Law) and a doctorate in International Studies. He worked as a professional journalist in both Belgium and the Netherlands.
Paul Belien is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and of the Property and Freedom Society. He is an Adjunct Fellow of the Hudson Institute. Paul Belien was one of the nine “founding fathers” of the Flemish liberal party VLD in 1991-1992, but he did not join this party when it became obvious that its leader, Guy Verhofstadt, was steering it into a leftist and neutralist, rather than a hayekian/libertarian and Atlanticist direction. Paul Belien is married to Irish-born Dr. Alexandra Colen, a former lecturer in linguistics at the universities of Ghent and Antwerp, and an MP for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok since 1995.

Let us not forget that what is being done is not just rhetoric, it is intended to destroy a man, Paul Belien. It is intended to destroy a family. PC always asks us to abandon loyalty with the truth. What do we have left but our fear?

Good article and comment thread:

You can also post comments at Vanishing American’s forum.

The latest at LGF Charles Johnson

I hope that we can all move on from this and that Paul Belien and Charles Johnson can stop this fight and others can support both.  This is draft and preliminary.  Comments welcome.  These are hypotheses and speculation.  All other disclaimers apply.


Watson, God Does not Pay Speaking Fees

October 26, 2007

James Watson didn’t say this to the London Times, but he is living it. Albert Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” This was because he objected to Bohr’s interpretation of indeterminacy in measuring sub-systems in quantum mechanics.

We now have new information about what God does or doesn’t do and its relation to scientists. In Einstein’s time, the dispute was over what science is. In our time, its whether to say what it is. Cold Spring Harbor Lab’s trustees say don’t.

== “Live not by Lies”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn “live not by lies”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974

We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence.

Men’s median wages are the same in the US as in 1973. The article by Solzhenitsyn was published in 1974 in the Washington Post. See graph page 16 at link below. Women’s median wages are below men today so they make less than men did in 1973. In fact, women are still where men were in 1960. See their graph on page 16 too. Men and women’s median earnings have been falling for the last several years.

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

On September 6, 2007, Vanishing American quoted this in writing about conservatism and writing about race. This was before the Watson flap.

VA is writing about the “Race and Conservatism” piece by John Derbyshire:

Vanishing American says

There is a dire need for a true conservatism to assert itself in America. Without a genuine conservative party in our country, we simply have a Hobson’s choice: liberals or liberals-lite.

==Nature Editorial on Watson’s speaking truth for no fee

The following summarizes some of the criticism of the Nature editorial at the above posts. Nature says scientists have the right to speak out on controversial issues, just not Watson. Nature says that population groups differ in characteristics (e.g. IQ), not races. Nature says real scientists need to speak out on the differences in population groups, as opposed to false crack-pot pseudo scientists like Watson who speak of racial differences in IQ.

Nature 449, 948 (25 October 2007) | doi:10.1038/449948a; Published online 24 October 2007

Watson’s folly


Debate about sensitive scientific issues needs to be forthright but not crass.

So ‘Honest Jim’ Watson has finally fallen victim to his notorious propensity for making outrageous statements —

Maybe Nature is venting its personal feelings towards Watson?

Main Entry:
crass Listen to the pronunciation of crass
Latin crassus thick, gross
circa 1625

1 a: gross 6a; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination b: being beneath one’s dignity <crass concerns of daily life> c—used as a pejorative intensifier <crass flattery><crass propaganda>2: guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values <crass commercialism> <crass measures of success>

Crass commercialism? Would that be like pretending no racial differences in IQ to get speaking fees, donor money and avoid book tours being cancelled? Is that crass? Isn’t the reaction to Watson by donor recipients the intended meaning of the word crass?


Search Tim Russert speaking fees

Tim Russert Speaking fee from Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post:

But, according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which exclusively handles Russert’s speaking engagements, his standard speaking fee is $60,000 plus first class travel for two for west coast appearances, and $50,000 and first class travel for two for east coast locales — although, they say, private planes are strongly preferred.

===The same applies to Senators who vote for immigration.

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

—-Senators Vote their Stock Portfolios

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

More on journalists taking speaking fees to speak the other way on reality:

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:


Steve Sailer race iq

CSHL Trustees 

First part of list

Donald E. Axinn
Founder and Chairman, CEO, Donald E. Axinn Companies

Landon T. Clay
Chairman, East Hill Management Company, LLC

Kristina Perkin Davison
Partner, iEurope Capital LLC

Joseph T. Donohue
Managing Director, Gleacher Partners, LLC

Jacob Goldfield
J. Goldfield & Co.

Lola N. Grace
Officer: Vice Chairman
Managing Director, Sterling Grace Capital Management

Laurie J. Landeau, V.M.D.
General Manager, Listowel

Stephen M. Lessing
Managing Director, Lehman Brothers

Robert D. Lindsay
Officer: Vice Chairman
Co-Managing Partner, Goldberg Lindsay & Co.

Nancy Abeles Marks
Carl Marks & Co.

Eduardo G. Mestre
Officer: Chairman
Vice Chairman, Evercore Partners

Douglas P. Morris
Chairman & CEO, Universal Music Group

Jamie C. Nicholls
Forstmann Little & Co.

John C. Phelan
Managing Partner, MSD Capital, L.P.

Trustees of a science institute are supposed to uphold science, not their business ventures.  If a trustee acts against science, in order to benefit their personal company, then they may be liable for their actions?  Just a hypothesis.  Donors could sue the trustee to get their money back, because the trustees have acted against science, which is contrary to the representation to donors, i.e. that science would be upheld by trustees?

More links here:

%d bloggers like this: