Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Democracy, Authoritarianism, War

14 Comments

three_famous_tools_of_war

What connects democracy, authoritarianism, and war? The jews of course.

Is America Still Safe for Democracy? by Robert Mickey, Steven Levitsky, and Lucan Ahmad Way, Foreign Affairs, 17 April 2017:

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States—a man who has praised dictators, encouraged violence among supporters, threatened to jail his rival, and labeled the mainstream media as “the enemy”—has raised fears that the United States may be heading toward authoritarianism.

It was only in the early 1970s—once the civil rights movement and the federal government managed to stamp out authoritarianism in southern states—that the country truly became democratic. Yet this process also helped divide Congress, realigning voters along racial lines and pushing the Republican Party further to the right. The resulting polarization both facilitated Trump’s rise and left democratic institutions more vulnerable to his autocratic behavior.

The safeguards of democracy may not come from the quarters one might expect. American society’s purported commitment to democracy is no guarantee against backsliding; nor are constitutional checks and balances, the bureaucracy, or the free press. Ultimately, it may be Trump’s ability to mobilize public support—limited if his administration performs poorly, but far greater in the event of a war or a major terrorist attack—that will determine American democracy’s fate.

The bulk of this particlar article is behind a paywall, but similar concerns are elaborated in an article published a few months earlier.

Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, The New York Times, 16 December 2016:

Donald J. Trump’s election has raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: Is our democracy in danger?

The clearest warning sign is the ascent of anti-democratic politicians into mainstream politics. Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe, the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

Mr. Trump tests positive. In the campaign, he encouraged violence among supporters; pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton; threatened legal action against unfriendly media; and suggested that he might not accept the election results.

This anti-democratic behavior has continued since the election. With the false claim that he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Like a pickup basketball game without a referee, democracies work best when unwritten rules of the game, known and respected by all players, ensure a minimum of civility and cooperation. Norms serve as the soft guardrails of democracy, preventing political competition from spiraling into a chaotic, no-holds-barred conflict.

Among the unwritten rules that have sustained American democracy are partisan self-restraint and fair play.

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Trump is a serial norm-breaker. There are signs that Mr. Trump seeks to diminish the news media’s traditional role by using Twitter, video messages and public rallies to circumvent the White House press corps and communicate directly with voters — taking a page out of the playbook of populist leaders like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey.

An even more basic norm under threat today is the idea of legitimate opposition. In a democracy, partisan rivals must fully accept one another’s right to exist, to compete and to govern. Democrats and Republicans may disagree intensely, but they must view one another as loyal Americans and accept that the other side will occasionally win elections and lead the country. Without such mutual acceptance, democracy is imperiled. Governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism.

The risk we face, then, is not merely a president with illiberal proclivities — it is the election of such a president when the guardrails protecting American democracy are no longer as secure.

What we see in these two articles is a good example of what the jewed media and academia refer to as “us versus them thinking” and “the politics of fear”, and routinely project entirely onto us, their White enemy. This particular message is aimed not at the masses but at their peers and allies in the jewed elite. The message is that )))public support((( for )))authoritarianism((( threatens (((democracy))).

This characteristically jewy hissing aimed at psychopathologizing White socio-political behavior traces back at least as far as Freud. The most prominent examples are Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality, Hofstader’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies.

The jewed elite speak to each other in code because they are aware their rule is illegitimate, based not on law or popular support but on double-talk. As “whites” they decry privilege, as jews they decry oppression, and do both at the same time from inside the biggest social institutions, the most powerful corporations, and all the branches of government. This fraud can fly only so long as jews recognize a racial-political line between themselves and Whites, and Whites do not.

The jewed elite is nervous because many Whites already implicitly recognize what’s going on – the most obvious sign of which is the unpopularity of the jewsmedia and its narrative. The jews have long been warning that Trump is violating their norms, for example by breaking the main “unwritten rule” of anti-populist judeo-liberal democracy: Thou shalt not say what White voters want to hear.

And it’s no wonder that the jewsmedia is unpopular with Whites. What we see in this instance is the usual jewsmedia expression of fear and loathing directed not so much toward Trump as toward the White supporters he misleads and misrepresents. Between December and April Trump reneged on the campaign promises which most appealed to Whites, swamping his administration with jews and globalist bankers who promptly convinced him to teach )))the world((( a lesson by hurling 59 Hebrew Hammers worth of (((democracy))) at )))authoritarian((( Syria. And though Trump shifted gears, the terms and tone of the disingenuous jewsmedia narrative have not.

The most “basic norm” the jews sense is “under threat today” is their most fundamental fakery, their crypsis. They can’t do what they do under scrutiny. It is only the conflation of jews with Whites which enabled an increasingly jewed elite, increasingly hostile to Whites, to slither into power in the first place. And their perverse con is only becoming more obvious amid the now daily hysterical screeching that “neo-nazi” “White supremacist” “anti-semites” are in the White House.

These “safeguards” and “guardrails” jews refer to were constructed at the behest of jews, for the benefit of jews, the purpose being to keep the jews safe from the Whites they have insinuated themselves among and have fed upon with impunity. They’re talking about what comes next, now that it appears these devices are failing.

War is the jews’ harvest and their 23 skidoo. Not the end-game, just another essential stage in their lifecycle. After years of relentless organizing and lobbying, constantly crying about )))authoritarianism((( from the biggest megaphones their fake money can buy, all aimed at orchestrating yet another Purim-fest from which they profit BIGLY. Before the war even starts they’ve already pinned all the blame on someone else, and before the war is even over they’ll have laid the foundation for the next.

Whites must see this cycle to end it, and the jews don’t want this cycle to end, thus don’t want Whites to see. Like Wilson and FDR before him, Trump is betraying his White supporters. War looms again. After more than a century the reason remains the same: To keep the world safe for the jews.

Blog

Worshipping the Tribe Who Seeks To Destroy You

14 Comments

happy_holidayssssss

First, let’s listen to a jew explain what Passover means to the jews. “We can’t let them win”: Passover is more than a holiday — it’s a call to arms against oppression:

Passover is more than just a holiday. It’s a call to arms. I have realized and maybe you did, too, even before the election laid bare the fight we would face, that above all else Passover is the story of a successful uprising against tyranny. It is a story dripping with hope, one that inherently looks to the future — a story we need this year in America more than ever.

As a people, we Jews have historically led the resistance against intolerance and persecution, from championing the civil rights movement to standing up against authoritarianism in all its guises. We have always sought a better world, not only for ourselves but also our children. This Passover we must come together, urgently, to sit among friends and family and listen to the unprecedented story of a profound resistance. We must remember that we have faced dark times before — in Egypt, in Spain, in Auschwitz — and that we have outlasted them. We will outlast these dark, turbulent times as well, not just because we continue to stand on the right side of history, but also because, as targets of hate and survivors of it, we know exactly what’s at stake if we fail.

This is a concise, precise formulation of the jew narrative. It clearly indicates the jew-centric origin of the most powerful weaponized buzzterms used against Whites today – “intolerance”, “persecution”, “civil rights”, “authoritarianism”, “seeking a better life for ourselves and our family” – and connects it directly to the long string of hosts jews have previously infiltrated, exploited, and ultimately exterminated.

Jew holidays are nothing more and nothing less than a regular opportunity for “the jewish people” to remind each other of their conspiracy against everyone else, and to celebrate the tremendous advantage their jew-righteous jew-justifying jew-first mindset gives them in that fight.

Now listen to how the jews’ narrative is distorted and misinterpreted by the jews’ most powerful servant and millions of his witless Christian supporters. President Trump Easter Holiday Message To The Nation:

This week, jewish families across our country, and around the world, celebrate Passover and retell the story of God’s deliverance of the jewish people. The story of the Exodus is a story of freedom. It is the story of an incredible people who were liberated from oppression and raised up the face of humankind.

Down through the centuries, the jewish people have lived through one persecution after another–and yet, they persevered and thrived and uplifted the world beyond measure. And now, the state of Israel stands as a monument to their faith and endurance.

The jews’ hostile particularist us-versus-them narrative has been transformed into an Animal Farmish jews-are-the-best-of-us form.

Whereas jews see Whites (Christian or not) as alien enemies whose mere existence amounts to oppression, Whites misinterpret jews not only as friends but as moral superiors who have been unjustly persecuted. Whereas the view jews share with each other emboldens and empowers them, the delusions jews encourage among their hosts confuse, demoralize, and ultimately destroy them.

During his selection campaign, the kikeservative-in-chief often reminded his supporters of the dangers of such destructive behavior by recounting the ancient European parables of The Trojan Horse and The Snake. And as usual for dire warnings about “pathological altruism”, the fatal conceit of Trump’s enraptured audience was that he was talking about somebody else’s error.

Blog

Intrigue in Trump’s Palace

32 Comments

palace_intrigue

The big news last week was Trump’s abrupt decision to bomb Assad. Around that story swirled rumors of an internal conflict between factions led by Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, a conflict the Bannon faction has evidently lost.

Most jewsmedia reports described the Kushner/Bannon conflict in anodyne code, typically describing the opposing sides as globalists and nationalists. What’s notable about the following three accounts is how they explicitly describe the jew versus White nature of the conflict, making plain a key aspect of the story that is otherwise buried between the lines in the many more mundane accounts. Moreover, the jews writing these more explicit accounts clearly see the Kushner/Bannon conflict as part of a much larger and ongoing conflict.

Josh Marshall got out in front early on with Inside the Emerging Trumpian Alt-Right Snuff Novel, trying to jewsplain how the anti-jew reaction he was anticipating had actually somehow started it all:

But can we miss that the man who gave coherence and verve to Trump’s campaign against the ‘globalists’ and unrooted cosmopolitan elites is about to be booted by the President’s Jewish tycoon son-in-law and a group of bankers (yes, Jewish bankers) from Goldman Sachs?

All on his own he drew around himself that coterie of “alt-right” white nationalists and neo-Nazis who will likely be his greatest and most lethal contribution to the American political scene. But it was only with Bannon’s arrival that Trump took on the much more coherent and consistent language of Europe-derived rightist nationalism, anti-“globalism” and the thinly covert language of anti-Semitism.

It was pure Bannon, remember, who was behind the speech that became this notorious anti-Semitic closing ad, released on November 5th, 2016.

And yet here we are and let’s not shy away from it. All accounts suggest that Bannon has fallen from grace and will soon be fired by the President. His ouster comes as the loser in a battle with a group of Jewish Goldman Sachs (Cohn, Mnuchin) bankers and the tall, dapper and yet nebbishy Jewish legacy real estate tycoon Jared Kushner. (I’m Jewish. I can say all of this.) It all reads like the kind of alt-right morality play one of Bannon’s deplorables might have written in some grand alt-right dystopic novel. Even the non-Jews are veritable auslanders: A key new player is Dina Powell (born Dina Habib), an Egyptian immigrant (albeit a Copt) who was herself a banker at Goldman Sachs in addition to being a Republican policy insider.

Nor is any of this lost on the Bannonites. We keep hearing that in the harum-scarum of the Trump White House the crowd around Kushner is referred to as the “New York Democrats” or various similar formulations. As an older Jewish friend (who reminds me he’s been asked his whole life whether he’s from New York even though he’s from a different part of the country and has never lived in the city) told me yesterday, this language is not accidental. It’s a reference to their being Jews.

Trump connected to his base not through lifestyle but through the experience of disrespect, grievance and the desire for revenge. He ran a campaign which more and more literally and explicitly demonized (especially under Bannon’s late guidance) the ‘globalist’ machinations of Goldman Sachs. Yet, increasingly, he has built an administration run by Goldman Sachs bankers. Of course, it’s Goldman Sachs bankers and Jared Kushner and protectionist ‘economic nationalist’ xenophobes and racists. It’s an interesting combination. They’ve even imported period piece Eastern European racist nationalists to be part of the fun – see, Sebastian Gorka.

But let’s stipulate now that if the ‘alt-right’ wanted to write a betrayal narrative that touched all the ideological erogenous zones on that fetid body of thought they could scarcely have come up with material more charged, melodramatic and grand.

Of course, jews like Marshall screeched that Trump’s campaign video was “packed with anti-Semitic dog whistles, anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Semitic vocabulary” exactly because they perceive international finance and Goldman Sachs in particular as a big fat example of jewing. Rather than even try to deny such conspicuous jewing, jews instead compound it, and in a characteristically jewy way, by blithely psychopathologizing and demonizing any non-jew who dares to notice.

As usual for dog whistling, Trump’s campaign rhetoric has proven entirely disingenuous. Before his inauguration, still promising to “drain the swamp”, Trump was instead swamping his administration with jews, Goldman Sachs alumni, and jew Goldman Sachs alumni.

The ADL’s account of the Kushner/Bannon clash, Explosive Growth of Hateful Memes and Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Against Jared Kushner, couching it as a reality-inverting White conspiracy against jews:

This campaign of anti-Semitism has been driven by white supremacists and anti-Semites and has all the hallmarks of classic Jewish conspiracy theories. The narratives include accusations that Jews in the Trump Administration are trying to start a war to advance the interests of Israel. They contend that Trump has abandoned his “America First” policy, which the alt right supported, because he is being manipulated by Kushner and other Jewish advisors.

The anti-Semitic social media campaign, which features hashtags on Twitter such as #firekushner, #kushneratwar, #kushnerswar, appears to have begun on April 5 with a few tweets describing the administration’s actions as a betrayal alongside the #firekushner hashtag.

Again, the jew view is that the problem always starts with the reaction to jewing, no matter how unconscious or disorganized or impotent, it never starts with jewing, no matter how conscious or organized or powerful. This attitude is really just a corollary of the more basic premise that jew = good and non-jew (and especially White) = evil.

A third account from Brian Beutler, senior editor at Jew Republic, cites and synthesizes these other two accounts to produce the jewiest take of all. The main point of Trump Would Fail Even Worse With Kushner’s Centrism is that Trump is a tool not of the jews but of his White supporters:

Bannon may be deluded about many things, but one thing he does not misapprehend is the extent to which the white ethnonationalist politics he and his boss practice have no crossover appeal.

Trump can’t un-run the campaign he just ran. Politicians often make too much of poisoned wells to rationalize counterproductive obstruction, but poison was the quintessence of Trump’s appeal. Even the popular aspects of his populism were cloaked in the language of revenge—of empowering his people at the expense of political aliens, like immigrants and minorities, who had overtaken them. There is no undoing the impression, widespread among Trump’s foes, that anything he supports must be regressive.

Which is just to say, Kushner wants Trump to chart a new course that leads to a substantive dead end for at least another 19 months. Bannon’s path, at least, preserves the hope of keeping his base consolidated through the legislative ebb. He can deregulate, scapegoat, and unburden law enforcement to turn his Herrenvolk fantasy into reality—all while keeping congressional investigators at bay.

There’s no real logical rebuttal to this, except to point to three months of chaos and humiliation as indicative of the futility of continuing to do things Bannon’s way.

Just as jews loudly screeching “anti-semitism” is a sure sign of jew malfeasance, the consistent reflexive visceral jew hostility toward Whites is a sure sign jews aren’t White.

Many accounts make a similar attempt to attribute Bannon’s downfall and Kushner’s rise to the thwarted travel bans and failed attempt to replace Obamacare. The logical rebuttal is to point out that organized jewry was calling for war on Syria years before Trump, Kushner, or Bannon were in the White House. Likewise, jew knives were out for Bannon months before any internal conflict or legislative failure could be used as a pretext. Beside that, the travel bans were just as much Stephen Miller’s brainchild and healthcare was Gary Cohn’s.

Needless to say the jewsmedia will never give Kushner, Miller, Cohn, Mnuchin, or any other member of the tribe the Alinsky treatment. Though McCarthy and Nixon still loom like Trump-Hitler phantasms in the minds of jews, their jew aides, Roy Cohn and Henry Kissinger, are either ignored or celebrated. The same is and will continue to be the rule for Trump’s jews.

My take on the Kushner/Bannon conflict is that it reflects a clash between the two main jewhadi factions backing Trump. The faster, please open-borders perpetual worldwide “war on terror” neoconish faction is prevailing over the upstart “war on ISLAMIC terror” counter-jihadi kids and their economic “JUDEO-Christian” non-nationalism. Wall and ban rhetoric may have helped Trump get elected, and he may return to it in 2020, but in the meantime he doesn’t need to pretend to believe it.

The two factions which have most vehemently opposed Trump – the left-posing jews driven more by an all-consuming hatred for Whites and the right-posing #NeverTrump neocons driven more by an all-consuming love for the jew state – view the phoney nationalism of Trump’s counter-jihad faction as worse than unnecessary. Letting Whites think they can criticize or exclude anyone but other Whites is dangerous for the jews. They have their jew state and feel no pressing need to concede anything like it to anyone, especially not obsequious kikeservatives. As the three takes above indicate, the jews who oppose Trump see Whites as the primary enemy, not the mooselimbs and certainly not bankers.

It was evident from the very beginning of Trump’s campaign that, like most politicians, he understood very well what Whites are desperate to hear. Unlike most politicians Trump was more willing to say those things, even though it meant violating jew taboos. But it was also evident that Trump never intended to do anything “racist”, i.e. anything that might truly benefit Whites, much less check jew power. The fact is that neither Trump nor Bannon nor Gorka nor anyone else in the current administration has ever said anything positive about Whites as Whites or anything negative about jews as jews. Quite the opposite. They all basically agree with their jew tormentors that “nazis” are the real problem.

When the anti-White jewsmedia screeches that Trump is somehow promoting “White supremacism” or “anti-semitism” what they’re really doing is “the reverse”. They’re white-washing jews and their jewing. And in that process they’re making it clear who is waging war upon whom.

Blog

Fake Gassing News Triggers Fake American Hitler to Bomb Fake Syrian Hitler, Jewsmedia Cackles

23 Comments

cuck

After Trump’s Syria Air Strikes, Alt-Right Is Not Alright, Eric Levitz, NYMag.com, 7 April 2017:

Donald Trump’s rebrand of American conservatism was largely aesthetic. The mogul was far from the first Republican to dress up the one percent’s agenda in populist garb; or to pin blame for the middle class’s decline on a conspiracy between rootless elites and an undeserving minority; or to shore up a fragile sense of national esteem and identity by defining it against an evil, foreign other.

Like most pop-culture phenoms, Trump added a few idiosyncratic touches to a tried-and-true formula, and, thus, generated a sound both reassuringly familiar and thrillingly new. Specifically, the candidate traded the party’s decades-old racial dog whistles for foghorns, while revitalizing the genre of right-wing demagoguery by borrowing flourishes from the domains of professional wrestling and reality television.

Still, Trump’s innovations weren’t entirely stylistic. Nor were they all merely amplifications of inherited themes. His anti-trade diatribes were genuinely new for a Republican nominee, at least for the past half-century. And, occasionally, he directed his populist fury past the bureaucrats and cultural elites whom Nixon so reviled, and up to the owners of capital (albeit, strictly the “international,” implicitly Jewish sort).

Over 18 months of campaigning, the geriatric demagogue maintained a consistent line on very few things. But the hypocritical horrors of humanitarian intervention was one of them. The Trump doctrine on the Middle East was, in many respects, evil, impractical, and illegal. But it offered coherence, and a cathartic acknowledgement of the oft-ignored trauma of Iraq: If we drop bombs over there, let’s do it to kill terrorists and their families, or to confiscate natural resources, but not to save a bunch of Muslims from a secular dictator who kills jihadists.

Of course, this posture was not Trump’s own invention. It was broadly similar to the brand of isolationism preached by Pat Buchanan and the long-marginalized, paleoconservative wing of the Republican Party. Which made Trump’s primary victory its own kind of regime change: The foreign-policy elite was the one segment of the GOP coalition to abandon its standard-bearer in large numbers and loud tones. When Trump won anyway, the neo-paleocons (a.k.a. the alt-right) collected the keys to the kingdom.

Or so they thought.

Trump loves a conspiracy theory. Now his allies in the fringe media say he’s falling for one in Syria, Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, 7 April 2017:

Before the U.S. strikes even hit, an alternative take on Tuesday’s horrific chemical attack — widely attributed to the Syrian government — had begun to spread across the Internet. It was a “false flag,” the theory went, designed to trick Trump into intervening more forcefully in the Syrian war. Those spreading the theory were often closely linked to the “alt-right,” a small, far right movement whose members are known for espousing racist, anti-Semitic and sexist points of view.

Any other president at any other time might have barely noticed the “false flag” narrative — Trump, like his predecessors, has at his disposal an entire intelligence community that can offer expertise and context. He doesn’t need to listen to obscure online voices if he doesn’t want to.

However, growing distrust of the media has allowed wild theories to enter mainstream discussion in recent years. Throughout his campaign and in the early stages of his presidency, Trump has shown himself willing to court this distrust and look to the fringes of debate.

The U.S. president loved to court the fringes. But now, after pursuing military action against the Syrian regime, the conspiracy-loving U.S. president finds himself in a new and perhaps odd position: He is viewed as a dupe, conned by a conspiracy, by many who share his worldview.

(((Yair Rosenberg))): “You’re never going to guess who many on the far-right and far-left are blaming for the Syria strike. OK, you totally will.”

(((Yair Rosenberg))): “Anti-Semites are basically the world’s worst detectives: they always know who is behind a crime but somehow never manage to prevent it”

Ironically these accounts shine more light on the critical role played by jews than the supposedly “anti-semitic” alt-jew figures they mock.

Blog

A Shift in Revulsion

26 Comments

mixed_up

The revulsion at race mixing was transformed into revulsion directed at “nazis”, because jews.

Science. 1973 Nov 23;182(4114):790-6.

Geneticists and the biology of race crossing.

Provine WB.

Abstract

Geneticists in England and the United States clearly reversed their published remarks on the effects of race crossing between 1930 and 1950. The reversal occurred in two steps. First came the change in the 1930’s from a condemnation of wide race crosses to an agnostic view. The second change, from the agnostic view to the belief that wide race crosses were at worst biologically harmless, took place during and shortly after World War II. The entire reversal occurred in the light of little new compelling data from studies of actual human race crosses. The lack of new data is unsurprising. Few geneticists wished to initiate experiments that took three human generations to complete. And controlled race crosses are hard to arrange, even with government grants. What might be more surprising was the willingness of geneticists to make such positive statements about race crossing when they had so little reliable genetic evidence. I interviewed or wrote to ten prominent geneticists who worked on human genetics between 1930 and 1950. Not one believed that new evidence on race crossing was the primary reason why geneticists changed their minds about the effects of race crossing. One plausible explanation, that the rise of “population thinking” (44) caused geneticists to change their minds, does not fit the evidence. Castle was no more of a “population” thinker than East, yet they differed radically in their conclusions about race crossing. What, then, did cause geneticists to change their minds? Most important was the revulsion of educated people in the United States and England to Nazi race doctrines and their use in justifying extermination of Jews. Few geneticists wanted to argue, as had the Nazis, that biology showed race crossing was harmful. Instead, having witnessed the horrible toll, geneticists naturally wanted to argue that biology showed race crossing was at worst harmless. No racist nation could misuse that conclusion. And geneticists did revise their biology to fit their feelings of revulsion. Geneticists’ ideas about the related question of hereditary mental differences between races is perhaps undergoing a similar development to that seen earlier in their ideas about race crossing. In 1951, judging from the response to the Unesco second statement on race and comments in genetics literature, most geneticists agreed with Muller that races probably differed in significant average mental traits. By 1969, when Arthur Jensen advocated this view in his controversial article (45), most geneticists who spoke publicly on the issue had adopted an agnostic position. Knowledge of hereditary racial differences in IQ had scarcely changed since 1951, but society had changed considerably in racial attitudes. It will be interesting to see if during the next several decades geneticists will argue, on the basis of little additional evidence, that hereditary mental differences between races do not exist. I am not condemning geneticists because social and political factors have influenced their scientific conclusions about race crossing and race differences. It is necessary and natural that changing social attitudes will influence areas of biology where little is known and the conclusions are possibly socially explosive. The real danger is not that biology changes with society, but that the public expects biology to provide the objective truth apart from social influences. Geneticists and the public should realize that the science of genetics is often closely intertwined with social attitudes and political considerations.

PMID: 4583525