September 15, 2015
Studies show that the majority of people on the planet believe that The Guardian is an Onion-style satire paper published by Nazis to mock SJWism.
It is easy to understand why people believe this when you see headlines such as “Send aliens modern messages of Earth’s equality and diversity, say scientists.”
Recently, The Guardian published more than one article about how Holocaust survivors were transferring the suffering onto their children and grandchildren, possibly through breast milk or maybe through DNA.
I wrote about this, twice.
Now, to my great surprise, The Guardian, in an apparent attempt to pretend to be a real newspaper rather than a satirical hoax run by Jew-hating Nazis, has basically published a retraction of these claims about the intergenerational transmission of holo-suffering in the form of a critique of the alleged research that prompted these claims.
The article, entitled “Why I’m sceptical about the idea of genetically inherited trauma,” is written by Professor Ewan Birney, who is Director of the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute, based in Cambridgeshire UK.
Let’s have a look.
Recently, the Guardian published a story based on a scientific paper that claimed the stress experienced by Holocaust survivors somehow was detectable in their children through a process known as epigenetics.
Yep. They actually did that.
More than once, in fact.
People think you’re joking when you tell them – I literally have to pull out my phone and show them the articles.
To be clear, the specific article Birney is responding to is this one: “Study of Holocaust survivors finds trauma passed on to children’s genes.”
The paper was riddled with flaws: the scientists studied blood, which is a mixture of cell types, meaning there are any number of causes for the changes reported. The scientists only looked at a tiny subset of genes. They had an absurdly small sample size of 32 people, a tiny eight-person control group, who didn’t really look like good controls, and produced a contorted argument for why their data supported their original hypothesis. The paper probably shouldn’t have made it through to the scientific literature, and it certainly shouldn’t have made it to your Saturday breakfast reading. I don’t believe it and I’ll outline some reasons why below.
Yes. This is generally referred to as “an intensified Jewing.”
The paper was clearly part of a conspiracy to commit extortion, as the alleged findings are being used by groups demanding money be given to Jews.
The scientific paper and newspaper story point to a rising interest in epigenetics. This is a seductive but rather slippery word that has come to mean a variety of things in relation to how molecular structures close to DNA work, in particular modification of DNA bases by methylation. It is certainly exciting, and has become a leading mechanism to explain how the environment communicates with our genes. But it’s also easy to oversimplify, and has been set up by some people as an inaccurate alternative to genetics.
I think everyone who has studied the concept, even casually, can agree with all of this.
Coined before the discovery of DNA as the source of genetic information, the word “epigenetics” is now used in two way. Firstly, it can mean the ways in which modification or packaging of DNA results in the transmission of information within a group of cells. This is a well-established, evidence-based theory. However the second usage refers to the ways in which the modification or packaging of DNA might result in the transmission of information from one generation of people to the next, a theory for which there is not currently much evidence and which is therefore not well-established.
It isn’t exactly a “conspiracy theory,” but it is borderline.
Anyway, even if this theory does play out – and I am personally very interested in seeing if it does, it is a fascinating concept – the study was still a bunch of Jew gibberish designed to justify everything from weapons shipments to Israel to mass Moslem immigration into Europe.
No joke – one of the activist groups using the research is saying that because the suffering of the Holocaust is tranfered through generations, Europe needs to open its borders. Seriously, I’m not joking around here. The group is called “Never Again Ever!” – look at their website (this is also written about in my earlier articles, linked above).
Though very interesting reading for a layman interested in the present state of epigenetic theory, for our purposes here we’ll skip some of the more technical parts of the article, and get to the parts about the lying Jews.
Oh but wait.
The article doesn’t actually do that.
Well, not in so many words.
This is how the piece closes:
This excitement about the unquestionable impact of our genes on rare disease, cancer and the ability to pin down many aspects of human life – from disease to behaviour – to molecular machines doesn’t mean genetics rules us. Indeed,for the vast majority of our lives, we make decisions that can have profound effects on ourselves and other people through changing our environment – diet, smoking, exercise etc. This is true on an individual and societal level, and it’s true for changes that have both good and bad effects.
We don’t need to challenge genetics – with epigenetics or anything else – to assert our control. Self-determination is not at odds with the genetic discoveries being made today. You are truly far more than your genes – your DNA is not your destiny.
An assertion that human beings are responsible for their own lives in an article about how Jews falsified data for the purpose of claiming they are not responsible for their own lives.
This man is no Joseph Gobbels, but nonetheless, I applaud his bravery.
— Andrew Anglin (@stormer9k) September 15, 2015
And – though I never in my life thought I would say these words – I applaud The Guardian for printing this piece.
— Andrew Anglin (@stormer9k) September 15, 2015