Saturday, February 18, 2017

My today's list of Trump PROS AND CONS

I get a lot of heat for seeing positive signs in Trump. But I do. It's what I honestly see. I may be totally wrong. If his actual acts contradict the positive indicators after we have had time to see statistics, then I will certainly admit my error.

Why does Trump-hate have to be a religion that we all follow? (I reserve the emotions of love and hate for the people I know personally.)

I like Trump's consistent spoken messages about:

1. Wanting to get along with the emerging powers Russia and China. (link)
2. Wanting to move away from regime-change wars and globalist interventions (except to negotiate new deals to advantage the domestic economy). I like that he wants other countries to pay for NATO, because that will weaken NATO, etc.
3. Letting go of (accepting the resignation of) his anti-Iran maniac. (Trump keeps saying nonsense about Iran but hopefully reality will prevent an actual military intervention.)
4. Trashing of the CO2 nonsense and the drive for a carbon economy for the globalists. (link)
5. Constant and correct criticism of the corporate media.
6. Intention to economically and infrastructure enable the inner cities, to solve the social ills, he says. (However, this may well be just a scam...? link)
7. Disregard for political correctness. Much needed in the spiraling madness of "words that wound".
8. The fact that Washington DC hates him and all these insiders work against him.

I worry about:

a. His possible approach to Syria and Iran. But I think reality will prevent military escalation.
b. His treatment of Mexican immigration (and will it actually be worst than what Obama was doing? link).
c. What his dealings with Israel will actually be. (link)
d. His apparent lack of respect for international law! (torture, assassinations, whistle-blowers, economic sanctions, etc.) (and will it actually be worst than what Obama has done?)

But he has not actually done much yet. And good that his stupid blanket travel ban against 7 countries has been reversed by the courts.

Amnesty International has discredited itself more than usual with its Syria propaganda

How easy is it for the US regime to buy out parts of Amnesty International for use in its war propaganda against Syria? 
Answer: This easy! 

Amnesty International has the resources to send crews of young workers into Ottawa (Canada) neighbourhoods for door-to-door propaganda just prior to putting out its sham "report".

Amnesty International exploits the good will of ordinary concerned citizen, in order to support US-regime war campaigns.

( From 2015, very thorough:

Monday, January 30, 2017

Causes of Quebec mosque terrorism

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

My blame list for the Quebec mosque terrorism, in order of importance:

  1. The increasingly unjust and authoritarian enforced class hierarchy in Canada, which attacks all in all of us: our very minds, families, communities, cultures, personalities, freedoms of expression, privacy, independence... using all the state institutions of education, media, law, enforcement, surveillance, health... (We become maintained zombies without independent thought or feeling.)
  2. Together with Canada's vicious foreign policy of global exploitation and war aggression, aligned with US dominance-imposition mass crimes and military threats in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Eurasia...
  3. Specifically, the Quebec state and corporate media (prominently including Radio Canada CBC) campaigns that constantly and heinously vilify Muslim cultural and political independence that is rightly critical of the Quebec state, as exemplified by the unending barrage against Adil Charkaoui [1].
  4. The Canadian state use of "Security Certificates" that destroys Muslim families and communities across the country, and that serves the state's political and propaganda agendas without any societal benefit. (And the associated "security" assault-campaigns against Muslim communities.)


[1] See my analysis of this example of many: Denis G. Rancourt, "Vicious media mobbing of Adil Charkaoui, in Quebec", Veterans Today, 2015-04-20.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Brutal reality about the immigration-policy motives of dominant states

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

I'm going to express this controversial generalization.

The omnipresent propaganda of immigration is just that: propaganda. Immigration is virtually always solely to benefit the host country. It is never an act of charity, except incidentally for its propaganda value. Family reunification included.

Immigration reception by aggressor nations is a mechanism to recruit collaborators in geopolitical campaigns in some cases, economic policy in others, and an aggression by theft of human resources in still others. In addition, immigration loss is generally harmful to the attacked country, and as such can be a weapon of war. 

The question should not be how to "help" with immigration, which is a deceptive question, but rather how to stop covert and overt military and economic aggression led by the "free world", and how to actually help populations in the regions where they are devastated by both foreign regime-change designs and brutal globalist-led economic exploitation.

Impulsive Trump/Obama policies [1], therefore, if applied as actual bans, are harmful to the USA and will not last or even mostly not be implemented. Such is the cruel reality of empire dominance. Trump is a master manipulator of public sentiment but he will soon settle down regarding immigration.


[1] See the excellent analysis: Seth J. Frantzan, "Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you", January 28, 2017.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Socio-Political Analysis of the Racism Charge against Outing of Racism

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

(This article was first published on Dissident Voice.)

When one is critical of the human-rights violations of the state of Israel, there follows a vehement charge of “antisemitism”. When one supports institutional measures to counter systemic racism, there follows a charge of “reverse racism”. And when a white person is critical of a black person’s apparent support for systemic racism, there again follows a charge of “racism”.

In all these examples, a charge of racism is levied in response to words used to criticize actual physical racism occurring on a spectrum from outright violations of personal safety to exclusion from status and resources.

The reason that such fallacious responses have sting is because there is a strong cultural taboo that racist language is as nefarious as violent physical racism itself. In present middle-class Western society, there is a pathological extreme intolerance against any expression that has cognitive similarity to racist expression.

The said taboo is not as present in the working-class because the economically stressed classes live a high degree of physical and status discrimination themselves. This discrimination is a higher priority to them than identity-tied system-ideology maintenance via personal investments in language policing.

The said taboo is poison because it precludes needed frank discussions and arguments about actual physical racism and hierarchical dominance. It also contributes to creating a class divide between those manipulated to adopt the identity politics of language purity and those who have less to gain from self-censorship and who “fucking need to speak”.

Thus, the taboo against racist and racist-sounding language is of great utility in enforcing an excessively totalitarian social hierarchy. Therefore, the said taboo is systemically promoted and enforced by major institutional instruments, including universities and the legal system.

In a healthy democratic society, free discussion between individuals and classes reigns and shapes a sustainable distribution of power and status. In a defective society, totalitarian encroachment is enabled by class divisions and by suppression of free expression. And there can be runaway encroachment when there are feedback pathologies such as when criticism of racism itself is reflexively tainted with the stigma of racism, or when social-media comments lead to terminations of employment, and so on. Excessive and widespread correctness policing is a recipe for disaster.

In that limited sense, the Trump and Brexit phenomena may well be expressions of natural societal repair mechanisms against runaway totalitarianism, rather than causal factors towards “fascism”. The said phenomena may be “indicators” of totalitarian encroachment by being indicators of responses against totalitarian encroachment (loss of democracy, globalization).

If so, the more the establishment bosses attempt to impose and leverage class-based containment against free expression and free political participation, the greater the danger of large future negative consequences for society as a whole.

Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. Read other articles by Denis at Dissident Voice.

Monday, December 26, 2016

Beware Anti-“Pseudo-Science” Agitation

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

I was asked to write this short article to be published in the January newsletter of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS): see SAFS Newsletter, Number 75, January 2017, pages 8-10.  A longer version of the article, with references, will be published in a 2017 SAFS conference proceeding.

If we accept an operational definition of “pseudo-science” as whatever any critic of so-called “pseudo-science” probably means, then vehement criticisms of the said “pseudo-sciences” are generally made for one of four reasons:
  1. To invalidate unworthy ideas, as part of the normal course of science itself — a classic example is the 1989 case of “cold fusion” and its fallout, in the field of condensed matter physics and chemistry
  2. To celebrate and maintain the middle-class belief that modern society is based on scientific knowledge; to fight against idolatry in the realm of ideas; to participate in improving public discourse and consciousness
  3. To provide false legitimacy for problematic areas of establishment science that survive owing to systemic financial and professional interests — the preeminent example being establishment medicine (see below)
  4. To attack a legitimate criticism of a dominant scientific position (collateral attack by appeal to authority or “consensus”, using denigration)

Thus, the full array of motives for engaging in the sport of “pseudo-science” bashing spans a spectrum from good scientific practice to ordinary social behaviour in structured society to support for organized fraud to outright base competition that is incompatible with the science ideal. Here, I outline the last three reasons, as follows. A longer version of this article, with references, will be published elsewhere.

Popular support for establishment science as state religion

Given the epidemic lack of understanding of science concepts, it is not surprizing that there is a wide array of beliefs that are at odds with the school lessons about science, including: astrology, “intelligent design”, “free energy”, “orgone”, “creation biology”, and homeopathy.

Realistically, virtually all citizens are entirely unable to critically evaluate what we take as being scientific truth, regarding public policy and regulatory questions. Thus, “public education” means state propaganda. We are reduced to “scientists have concluded” or “there is a scientific consensus that” and so on.

Systemically, from an operational perspective, establishment science is a state religion. It is not anchored in empirical evidence that can be evaluated by the non-expert individual using reason and intellectual discernment. It frames and supports the established order. It provides legitimacy to government programs. It purports to appease our deepest quests for meaning, and supplies a creationist mythology (cosmology, string theory, and so on). Its high priests are venerated and occupy top ranks in the class hierarchy.

Ordinary well-educated citizens have invested in many beliefs delivered by establishment science, and have integrated these beliefs into their personal identities. It is therefore natural that middle-class and professional-class individuals have a learned and reflexive impulse to attack “pseudo-science”. These attacks can be individual or can coalesce via the animal behavioural collective phenomenon known as mobbing.

Legitimacy for problematic areas of establishment science

A stunning example is the organized barrage of criticism and legislation against “alternative medicine” that is largely benign and harmless, intended to imply that establishment medicine — said to be scientifically sound — is the only trustworthy system for repairing individual health.

The problem here is that establishment medicine is anything but shaped by objectively evaluated empirical evidence, and anything but scientifically sound. The eminent medical researcher Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that “most published research findings are false”.

In North America, between 6% and 8% of citizens will be killed by medical errors of all types. In just one area of establishment medicine, Professor Dr. Peter C. G√łtzsche has come to the point of flatly concluding that long term use of psychiatric drugs cause more harm than good. In his words, based on a decade of research: “Psychiatric drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world, as I show below. Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal. ... Overstated benefits and understated deaths ...”

Attacking legitimate criticisms of establishment positions

Climate science has major domestic and geopolitical implications. It is routine to attack critics as immoral or crazy, and for influential actors and groups to seek legal instruments of intimidation and enforcement. The Wikipedia list of “pseudo-sciences” includes “climate change denial”.

This is a remarkable inclusion because several high-profile establishment climate scientists expressly reject the so-called “consensus”, including: Judy Curry (Georgia Institute of Technology), Richard Lindzen (MIT), Hendrik Tennekes (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute), Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), Craig D. Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), and many others. Furthermore, detailed studies contradict claims that industrial-era CO2 has had a causal effect on climate and extreme-weather events.


Agitation against “pseudo-science” has two illegitimate interrelated societal mechanisms: Institutionally, it is propaganda (by word and by action) intended to legitimize and impose establishment science. Individually, it serves to preserve the identity-tied personal investment in belief of the teachings of establishment science.

For those of us who cling to the ideal of the university, a review of anti-“pseudo-science” agitation should lead us to support a strict meaning of academic freedom, which does not admit institutional suppression or containment of any chosen research direction and expression. We must trust that actual freedoms of research and expression lead to the best that society can be, through the discourse that arises, whatever that discourse will be.

Denis Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and writes social theory articles. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, and a regular contributor to Dissident Voice.