The Ghost of East Anglia Universities Past has surfaced again. One of Marxist academia's favourite analysts, after completing over fifty very thorough studies about how disgusting white people, normal people, and people who take care of themselves really are....finally comes clean. His entire life was finally turned into a Petri dish in a Great Research Project, called "I am better than you are because I am willing to lie to prove that I am better than you are. You are a carnivore, a skilled blue collar or professional white collar worker who actually thinks he is in charge of his own life and responsible for himself. I hate you. I am a socialist who wants to be part of the grey herd because I am ethically and evolutionarily better than you. Therefore I lie."
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS HAS GONE ON FOREVER!!!
READ THESE COMFORTABLE WORDS FROM ANOTHER (REAL) SOCIAL SCIENTIST ABOUT THE FRAUDULENT, PETER PANish INVENTIONS OF MARGARET MEAD:
(derived from Wikipedia) In 1999 Freeman published another book, The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research, including previously unavailable material.
The analyst (Freeman) attempts to explain, forgive, ascertain, and otherwise run interference for a poor innocent ball carrier on the football field of academia. Please be certain that you work through the last paragraph of the following material written in blue. Martin Orans's last sentence of that paragraph is the key statement, so please wade through to that point.
"Most anthropologists have since been highly critical of Freeman's arguments. A frequent criticism of Freeman is that he regularly misrepresented Mead's research and views. In a 2009 evaluation of the debate, anthropologist Paul Shankman concluded that:
Margaret Mead 1948
"There is now a large body of criticism of Freeman's work from a number of perspectives in which Mead, Samoa, and anthropology appear in a very different light than they do in Freeman's work. Indeed, the immense significance that Freeman gave his critique looks like "much ado about nothing" to many of his critics.
"In 1996 Martin Orans examined Mead's notes preserved at the Library of Congress, and credits her for leaving all of her recorded data available to the general public. Orans concludes that Freeman's basic criticisms, that Mead was duped by ceremonial virgin Fa'apua'a Fa'amu (who later swore to Freeman that she had played a joke on Mead) were false for several reasons: first, Mead was well aware of the forms and frequency of Samoan joking; second, she provided a careful account of the sexual restrictions on ceremonial virgins that correspond's to Fa'apua'a Fa'auma'a's account to Freeman, and third, that Mead's notes make clear that she had reached her conclusions about Samoan sexuality before meeting Fa'apua'a Fa'amu. He therefore concludes, contrary to Freeman, that Mead was never the victim of a hoax. As Orans points out Mead's data support several different conclusions, and that Mead's conclusions hinge on an interpretive, rather than positivist, approach to culture. Evaluating Mead's work in Samoa from a positivist stance, Martin Orans' assessment of the controversy was that Mead did not formulate her research agenda in scientific terms, and that "her work may properly be damned with the harshest scientific criticism of all, that it is 'not even wrong'". MEAD'S WORK MAY BE PROPERLY DAMNED WITH THE HARSHEST CRITICISM OF ALL, THAT IT IS NOT EVEN WRONG.'" Her work was accepted as absolute anthropological and sociological .925 sterling and beyond reproach. The "just the facts, please" Miss Hathaway to Banker Drysdale on the Beverly Hillbillies personality-type lectured throughout the United States about how the primitive Samoans were better, more moral, and just all around superior to the tightly wound American white race. She and Doctor Benjamin Spock were friends, and interfaced and interacted a great deal on various matters. Both those academic frauds were admired and followed by my poor mother, who always wanted to follow the lead of intellectuals. It was a real crusher when it was released in the news back in the early 1990s that COMING OF AGE IN SAMOA was a big bucket of bologna and bilge bricks. Doctor Spock and Doctor Seuss were both nutters, and, in our humble opinion.....dangerous to children and other living things.
Dr. Theodor Seuss Geisel
AND YOUR POINT IS, EL GRINGO VIEJO?
We have been, and continue to be, carpet bombed on a daily basis by "intellectual" frauds who have hootsy-tootsy Ivy League advanced degrees in Underwater Basketweaving who then set out to do "studies" that are flawed and/or purposefully faked in order to forward a pro-socialist agenda. East Anglia University Global warming, anybody? And literally hundreds of other surveys can be citied. El Gringo Viejo's admonitions emanate even into the conclusions about "the Hispanic vote"....which are based on very, very, very flawed data collection procedures. What seems to be reasonable in that issue , because it is now part of the "common knowledge" is neither reasonable nor correct, due to the nature of the collection of data as well as the difficulty in even identifying what a Latin voter might be. Almost all research conclusion in the social sciences being performed by major universities at this time should be held suspect as wholly fabricated or "guided" in their conclusions. We must remember the need for embryonic stem-cell research needing the "unused" preserved and frozen human embryos....when in fact other research had already established that a patient' s own stem cells would soon be convertible for implant purposes.
This is not to mention that according to Al Gore, the place where he bought his lovey-dovey nest on the California coast....in 2006.....had been under sea level since 1995 according to Al Gore's predictions made in 1990. Poor Al, all that ploughing with a team of mules on the rocky hillsides of Tennessee, planting that tobacco, must have addled his po'h brain in the Sun.