We have discussed Orwell here yesterday, and then cited the Greenwald link. Very important. But I should note that as a blogger here for over a decade I have learned that the defense of the Darwin paradigm is closed-book Orwellian and we can bet our buffalo nickel the highly virtuous Mr. Greenwald will honor that Orwellian conspiracy of silence on Darwinism dissent twice before breakfast… To be sure, the conspiracy is so effective that most are victims of disinfo here, and sincerely think the paradigm is flawless, and darn to those dratted fundies who doubt it.
This situation is Orwellian, and my own case is illustrative:
This situation resembles the Stalinist brand in duration, over a decade, and many before that for others …the Stalin brand endured from 1925 to 1955…
and in suppression: a blog or book critiquing Darwinism, unless it is themed ‘Intelligent Design’ and cleared by the rightwing orgs like Discovery, is the victim of a conspiracy of silence from the science establishment: no comments, emails, pingbacks, hellos, contacts, or links. Nothing. The censorship is perfectly total. Look at the pub records of WHEE, DMR, and now LFM: the boycott is total. I link to Coyne’s blog and Discovery every days, now hundreds of times: they have NEVER linked back here, or allowed their readers to know of the links, deleting all pingbacks. Ordinary websurfers are afraid to comment here. The books I have written on Darwinism are banned from all university libraries, and yet, I am told by many the first WHEE is almost universally known by the professoriat which will NEVER correspond, discuss, or refer to the book. It is wellknown by many that this book makes toast of Darwinism, without the ID angle which wrecks the religious critics’ arguments.
Further the book has been the object of at least three scholarly texts trying indirectly to undermine its influence. Karen Armstrong on the Axial Age, Robert Bellah, two books, on the Axial Age, and a Kantian feitschrift on Kant’s essay on history, trying no doubt to damp out my suggestion that Kant couldn’t have been a Darwinist, and, for reasons that elude me, trying to foreclose on my historical interpretation of Kant. The latter is so short, harmless, and straightforward (one quote from the first paragraph of that essay) that I am absolutely at the paranoia on this issue. Baffling. I tried a completely open email exchnage with some of these Kant scholars. No response whatever. I find that eerie. Is it true that all the Kant scholars in academe are silent on the Darwin paradigm?
My work could be amateurish, I think not, but in that case most scholars will helpfully respond and communicate.
I could go on, and there are more such books. But more generally here is the Orwellian paradigm management of the evolution paradigm. This stretches across the whole of academia, and most profs are terrified of discussing the subject.
The exceptions are precisely those with budgets/lobbies to promote their views, e.g. the ID lobby groups. People with the resouces to get market share are the only ones who will be addressed, here with a really bad strategy, precisely the Orwellian style. Ironically these groups confuse the issue with a botched criticism of Darwinism, most of it from The issue here is the
This is clearly a completely Orwellian situation. So let’s see if Greenwald will take one step to break the Orwellian conspiracy here: some reference to the Darwin debate, dissent thereof, those who are tacitly censored, any reference at all to the issues, to me and my particular Orwellian regime, etc… How about a discussion of this situation at Intercept magazine. After all, can you afford to talk on Orwellian themes if you are part of such a conspiracy?
Link sent to:
I give Mr. Greenwald 48 hours to respond, and or if necessary a given time span for serious commentary…This is a waste of breath, and I am sure they are already laughing at Mr. Greenwald’s outfit…
The clock is ticking.