Wednesday, January 05, 2022



Guards stood aside while Epstein was killed -- but they skate

When America was experiencing more fierce cultural division than it had in at least a generation, one issue united us all in the summer of 2019.

Right, left, black, white, gay, straight, Christian, atheist, far-left radical, alt-right contrarian, millions came together with a single voice to cynically and cheekily declare, all over the internet, in cable news appearances and epic photobombs that perhaps Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.

I have a lovely cross-stitch of the phrase in my possession today. Not even kidding.

Of course, suicide was and remains the official cause of death for the notorious billionaire pedophile, whose links to Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump alike made him an enticing addition to headlines written for those across the political spectrum and well into its fringes.

take our poll - story continues below
Are Democrat Lawmakers using Omicron to lock Americans down before Mid-Term elections?
It is for this reason that many suspect the mysterious circumstances of his all-too-convenient death on the night of Aug. 10, 2019, as he awaited trial for child sex trafficking indicate that suicide may not, in fact, have been the cause of his demise.

This is also now why it is incredibly compelling to learn that the guards who were supposed to be watching him the night he supposedly hanged himself in his cell are no longer facing prison time themselves after a deferred prosecution agreement which included their full cooperation with the investigation into Epstein’s death.

Federal prosecutors asked a guard on Thursday to drop charges against Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, the guards who admitted to falsifying records to cover for their failure to conduct routine checks on their high-profile charge.

They were accused of sleeping and shopping on the internet instead of performing their duties.

Noel and Thomas complied with the deferred prosecution agreement they had reached with the state in May, during which they completed 100 hours of community service and cooperated with the probe into Epstein’s death.

This comes as Epstein’s longtime associate and ex-girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was found guilty of luring and grooming underage girls into their social orbit for Epstein and occasionally herself to sexually abuse.

The pair have been long accused of such sordid sex trafficking schemes as well as hosting hedonistic parties and getaways to Epstein’s various properties for their rich and powerful associates to also allegedly partake in underage sexual abuse.

Epstein has been linked to the likes of Clinton, Trump, Prince Andrew of the U.K. and Bill Gates, although it is only our 45th president who has not been accused of abusing an underage girl in his former associate’s company, and he once even banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after the latter tried to solicit prostitution from an underage girl at the resort.

Of course, it was nonetheless this link to the name of Trump that captured attention in 2019 following Epstein’s arrest and subsequent death. Considering it happened in a federal facility while Trump was still serving as president, this made for all the more widespread speculation that there was something fishy about the death of this high-profile federal prisoner.

Thus, why the “Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” refrain became so popular. Whether it was the Clinton Deep State or the oft-demonized Trump administration that facilitated or even carried out a hit on Epstein, the thinking generally went, most Americans seemed to agree that there was something shady about the whole thing and that powerful people likely only wanted Epstein dead, but had the means to make it quietly happen.

I can’t possibly say if that is why these guards are no longer facing prison time.

I can say, however, that the fact that they’re not most certainly doesn’t ease the appearance of a cover-up.

There have been red flags all over the place from the get-go. While the New York Medical Examiner determined Epstein died by suicide, renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden begged to differ, saying that he’d never seen the kind of fracture that occurred in Epstein’s neck in another hanging suicide case across his 50-year career.

While in prison, Epstein told prison psychologists that he’d never kill himself and that (rather ironically for his preferred lifestyle) his religion didn’t allow it.

While a former cellmate of his said earlier this month that Epstein appeared “depressed” and “suicidal” just days before he died, this same cellmate said previously that the infamous inmate didn’t, in fact, come off as suicidal to him at all.

Clearly, it is not wildly unfounded to suggest that questions remain unanswered.

If these two prison guards aren’t guilty of the conditions that led to Epstein’s death … then who is?

******************************************

How fake science is infiltrating scientific journals

In 2015, molecular oncologist Jennifer Byrne was surprised to discover during a scan of the academic literature that five papers had been written about a gene she had originally identified, but did not find particularly interesting.

“Looking at these papers, I thought they were really similar, they had some mistakes in them and they had some stuff that didn’t make sense at all,” she said. As she dug deeper, it dawned on her that the papers might have been produced by a third-party working for profit.

“Part of me still feels awful thinking about it because it’s such an unpleasant thing when you’ve spent years in a laboratory and taking two to 10 years to publish stuff, and making stuff up is so easy,” Professor Byrne said. “That’s what scares the life out of me.”

The more she investigated, the more clear it became that a cottage industry in academic fraud was infecting the literature. In 2017, she uncovered 48 similarly suspicious papers and brought them to the attention of the journals, resulting in several retractions, but the response from the publishing industry was varied, she said.

“A lot of journals don’t really want to know,” she said. “They don’t really want to go and rifle through hundreds of papers in their archives that are generated by paper mills.”

More recently, she and a French collaborator developed a software tool that identified 712 papers from a total of more than 11,700 which contain wrongly identified sequences that suggest they were produced in a paper mill. Her research is due to be published in Life Science Alliance.

Even if the research was published in low-impact journals, it still had the potential to derail legitimate cancer research, and anybody who tried to build on it would be wasting time and grant money, she said. She has also suggested that journals could flag errors while articles were under investigation, so people did not continue to rely on their findings during that time.

Publishers and researchers have reported an extraordinary proliferation in junk science over the last decade, which has infiltrated even the most esteemed journals. Many bear the hallmarks of having been produced in a paper mill: submitted by authors at Chinese hospitals with similar templates or structures. Paper mills operate several models, including selling data (which may be fake), supplying entire manuscripts or selling authorship slots on manuscripts that have been accepted for publication.

The Sydney Morning Herald has learned of suicides among graduate students in China when they heard that their research might be questioned by authorities. Many universities have made publication a condition of students earning their masters or doctorates, and it is an open secret that the students fudge the data. The universities reap money from the research grants they earn. The teachers get their names on the papers as contributing authors, which helps them to seek promotions.

International biotechnology consultant Glenn Begley, who has been campaigning for more meaningful links between academia and industry, said research fraud was a story of perverse incentives. He wants researchers to be banned from producing more than two or three papers per year, to ensure the focus remained on quality rather than quantity.

“The real incentive is for researchers to get their papers published and it doesn’t have to be right so long as it’s published,” Dr Begley said. He recently told the vice-chancellor of a leading Australian university of his frustration with the narrative that Australia was “punching above its weight” in terms of research outcomes. “It’s outrageous,” Mr Begley told the vice-chancellor. “It’s not true.”

“Yes,” the vice-chancellor replied. “I use that phrase with politicians all the time. They love it.”

According to one publishing industry insider, editors are operating with an element of wishful thinking. This major publishing house employee, whose contract prevented him from speaking publicly, said when his journal started receiving a torrent of applications from Chinese researchers around 2014, the staff assumed that their efforts to tap into the Chinese market had borne fruit. They later realised that many of the papers were fraudulent and acted, but he was aware of other editors who turned a blind eye.

“Obviously there’s so much money in China and the journals have their shareholders to answer to, and they are very careful not to tread on Chinese toes because of the political sensitivity,” he said. “There’s a lot more they could do to sort the good from the bad because there is good science going on in China, but it’s all getting a bad name because of what some Chinese people have worked out — that there’s a market here for a business.”

Last month, SAGE journals retracted 212 articles that had clear evidence of peer review or submission manipulation, and subjected a further 318 papers to expressions of concern notices. The Royal Society of Chemistry announced last year that 68 papers had been retracted from its journal RSC Advances because of “systematic production of falsified research”.

To indicate the upswing in cases, German clinical researchers reported last week that in their analysis of osteosarcoma papers, just five were retracted before the millennium and 95 thereafter, with 83 of them from a single, unnamed country in Asia. University of Munster Professor Stefan Bielack, who published the study in Cancer Horizons, said some open access journals charged academics US$1500 to $2000 to publish their work, so they were more interested in publishing lots of papers than their scientific validity.

“There is a systematic problem and in some countries people might have the wrong incentives,” Professor Bielack said. “I think the journals have a major role. They all need to be more rigorous.”

The problem is not confined to China, but it has accompanied a dramatic growth in research output from that country, with the number of papers more than tripling over the last decade.

In 2017, responding to a fake peer review scandal that resulted in the retraction of 107 papers from a Springer Nature journal, the Chinese government cracked down and created penalties for research fraud. Universities stopped making research output a condition of graduation or the number of articles a condition of promotion.

But those familiar with the industry say the publication culture has prevailed because universities still compete for research funding and rankings. The number of research papers produced in China has more than tripled over the last decade, with dramatic growth over the past two years. The Chinese government’s investigation of the 107 papers found only 11 per cent were produced by paper mills, with the remainder produced in universities.

Until last year, University of NSW offered its academics a $500 bonus if they were the lead author in a prestige publication and $10,000 if they were the corresponding author of a paper published in Nature or Science. The system, which was designed to reward quality over quantity, was discontinued due to financial constraints.

But others have questioned whether the quality of a paper can be measured by the journal in which it is published, and an open access movement has sprung up in opposition to the scientific publishing industry, arguing that research paid for by taxpayers should be freely available to all.

Alecia Carter, an Australian biological anthropologist at University College London, said the emphasis on getting published in a high-impact journal rewarded sensational results over integrity, positive results over negative results and novel findings over building the evidence base. Researchers might inflate effect sizes or omit conflicting evidence because it muddied the overall story they were trying to tell.

“We as scientists know all these things that are wrong with the way the system is set up, but we still play the game,” Dr Carter said. “We’re all chasing the same thing.”

Dr Carter boycotts luxury journals, publishes as much as possible in open access journals and reports negative results, though this has come at a cost to her career. She was once asked at a job interview why she would bother reporting results that were not interesting.

“I said, ‘If it’s interesting enough to do the research then we should publish the results’.”

She did not get the job.

***********************************

It isn’t racist to believe in genetic differences

In November 1978 a woman approached the world’s leading expert on ants, told him he was wet and proceeded to pour a jug of water over his head.

The occasion was a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the head belonged to Edward O Wilson, who was about to deliver a lecture on sociobiology, a field in which he was a pioneer. But the attack was not only on him. It was an attack on truth, on freedom of thought and on scientific endeavour. And the attack isn’t over yet. There remains work to do resisting it.

Last month EO Wilson died, and the world lost one of its leading scientists. The professor had started by studying fire ants and his knowledge of ants was peerless. But he had broadened as he had aged and had begun to consider human beings. Humans are animals too, after all, so our social organisation, our behaviour, our hierarchies, our urges will, to some extent at least, be the product of our biology.

This, the foundation stone of sociobiology, seems an unremarkable observation, but it provoked a remarkable reaction. Marxists and radicals, well represented in American universities, saw it not as a scientific hypothesis but as a political attack. Their argument was that human behaviour was overwhelmingly the product of social and economic organisation. Humans were, in essence, a blank slate, one very much like another. If Wilson was right, then this idea was wrong. If Wilson was right, societies were going to be harder to change. If Wilson was right, people might not come out equal even with all the social engineering in the world. So Wilson simply couldn’t be allowed to be right.

The weapon of choice in the battle to take down sociobiology was the accusation of racism. Wasn’t Wilson arguing that the problems faced by African-Americans were a result of their biological inferiority? And didn’t he belong to the same intellectual tradition as the eugenicists and the Nazis, obsessed with breeding the “perfect” human?

At his lectures people chanted “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide”. Posters called him “the right-wing prophet of patriarchy” and encouraged people to bring “noisemakers” to his talks.

It is tempting to dismiss all this as juvenile student nonsense. The logical flaws in the arguments against him are glaring enough to be funny. It is absurd to argue that biological differences justify discrimination or, worse still, eugenics. And this would be ridiculous even if it were the case that Wilson was suggesting there were differences in abilities or character between races. But he absolutely was not.

Indeed one of the most useful results of studying the genetic and evolutionary basis of human behaviour has been that it has shown that the Nazis and other racists are wrong. And Wilson was quite clear about that. But unfortunately the accusation that Wilson was a racist was not made only by students. It was made by other academics seeking to protect unconvincing leftist ideas about social organisation. And it is still being made. A couple of days after Wilson’s death, Scientific American published an article by a University of California associate professor, reviving the charge of “racist ideas”.

It was an astonishingly muddled article whose vague arguments slip out of one’s hands every time one tries to grasp hold of them. Its appearance owed more to intellectual and political fashion than to rigour.

There are three reasons to rebut this challenge firmly. The first is that it is our duty to W.ilson, a very great scientist. His contribution to the understanding of animal behaviour – of ants, of humans, of all nature – has been profound and it would be both cowardly and a tragedy to allow his reputation to be attacked when he is no longer here to defend himself against a baseless charge.

The second and even more important reason is that Wilson was achingly, obviously right. How likely is it that human beings are the one species whose capacities and behaviour aren’t largely influenced by biology? If every other animal’s behaviour demands an evolutionary explanation, how can it possibly be that ours does not?

And the more knowledge advances, the clearer it is that individual behaviour and capacity varies because our genes vary. Alcoholism, obesity, academic performance, they are all strongly influenced by our genetic differences. Many of our abilities are heritable.

If we ignore this we are making social policy impossibly hard. As the egalitarian and geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden argues in her recent book The Genetic Lottery: “Genetic differences between us matter for our lives. They cause differences in things we care about. Building a commitment to egalitarianism on our genetic uniformity is building a house on sand.”

We don’t have to live with the outcome of genetic disadvantages. That would be like saying that although I’m short-sighted I shouldn’t be allowed glasses. But we do have to recognise genetic differences, or we end up denying glasses on the grounds that short-sightedness is the fault of capitalism and we need to nationalise the water industry first.

The idea that discovering natural difference in capacity is somehow right-wing is deeply puzzling. The truth doesn’t have a wing, it’s just the truth. But it’s not just that. There is a randomness to genetic inheritance, just as there is in economic inheritance. With the latter it is left-wing to observe this randomness and argue that we should help the disadvantaged poor. Why would people on the left not wish to even acknowledge the randomness of genetic inheritance? It is perverse.

The argument that genetic differences make society harder to change is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing one. It is what you decide to do about it that is either left or right-wing.

Yet Harden has found that merely asserting something that is clearly correct – that there are genetic differences and they matter – has brought accusations by leftist academics that she is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. And it has been harder to win grants and positions.

Which is the third reason for defending Wilson and the study of sociobiology. Scientific methods and the search for truth matter. The accusation that sociobiology is racist rarely rises above the level of saying that as the Nazis were interested in genetics, genetics must be Nazi. It’s a bit like attacking Linda McCartney’s soya-based sausages on the ground that Hitler was a vegetarian.

As we develop our capacity to study our genes we are going to learn more about human nature. We must be allowed to talk about that, even if the things we discover unsettle political activists and the orthodoxy they have adopted. We must defend good science against bad politics.

If the controversy over EO Wilson teaches us that, than the great scientist will have rendered us one final service.

****************************************

The Big Lie & The Elastic Truth: How To Invent A Coup

As we approach the anniversary of the Jan. 6 “insurrection,” the unspoken truth is that Donald Trump had nothing to gain and everything to lose by the violent assault on the Capitol that day. The only chance of keeping Trump in the White House was not by invading the Capitol, but by keeping it secure while our representatives debated the validity of the election using the entirely constitutional process taking place inside the halls of Congress.

The electoral votes of at least five states were being challenged — not in a coup, but in a lawful manner also used by Democrats in earlier elections, following the procedures mandated by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Republican senators and House members had lined up to make the case to the public and their fellow constitutional officers that something was rotten in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, and that the election was therefore tainted. But the violence outside resulted in a sharply truncated debate inside that was virtually ignored, if not outright mocked or shamed, by the mainstream media. The riot instantly doomed any chance Trump had of prevailing in his argument that the election was stolen.

So ask yourself who benefited from the supposed coup at the Capitol. Not Trump. Not the Republicans who had put themselves on the line to support him with evidence of voting irregularities in several states. Cui bono? Who benefits? None other than the very Democrats who for the last year have worked tirelessly to discredit Trump and to find some way to disqualify him from being elected president again in 2024.

The latest claim is that Trump had criminally “obstructed an official proceeding of Congress” by encouraging his supporters to “Stop the Steal.” This is an absurd claim on several fronts.

First of all, Trump’s belief that the election was stolen is protected by his First Amendment right of free speech. So is his right to use the courts and Congress to seek redress of his grievances. There is no evidence he had advance knowledge of the riot or planned it in any way. As noted, the particular proceeding of Congress in question was the only hope Trump had of remaining in office beyond Jan. 20, 2021.

Moreover, the argument that Trump “allowed” the riot to take place because he did not send National Guard troops to intervene is wrong on both the facts and the logic of the case. As I showed in my last column, Trump did in fact request 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed, but his request was ignored by the Pentagon, the speaker of the House, the Capitol Police and the mayor of Washington, D.C. Even more importantly, if Trump had used the power of the presidency to order a military presence at the Capitol, then the Democrats would have gotten exactly what they wanted — the appearance of a coup ordered by a reckless, out-of-control authoritarian who was trying to bend Congress to his will. In other words, Trump could not win that day no matter what he did. The violence made victory impossible.

But to argue, as Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi do, that Trump didn’t have a right to contest the election is to replace the rule of law with the rule of intimidation. The Democrats and their partners in the media have used all their assembled might to coerce Trump and his allies into silence. His only crime is that he won’t shut up about the election being stolen. Nor for that matter is he the only one who thinks that the election was fraudulent. Millions of us independently reached the same conclusion. If any of those supporters had turned to violence at the Capitol, they should be appropriately tried, convicted and punished for their misdeeds, but that’s not on Trump any more than it is on the rest of us who encouraged our fellow citizens to work to prevent the installation of Joe Biden as president as long as doubts persisted about his legitimacy.

But the Jan. 6 committee and its supporters don’t care about logic or facts. They trotted out text messages from Trump supporters condemning the violence and said that meant Trump himself must have supported the violence. They showed messages that indicated Trump had a strategy to try to prove to Congress and then to the Supreme Court that his rights had been violated, and they said that proved “the Big Coup.”

Goodness, they really didn’t need to wait this long if that’s all it takes to prove a coup! They could have just read Trump’s speech from the morning of Jan. 6. He never hid the fact that he thought he had been cheated out of victory, nor did he ever pretend he would go gentle into that good night the way Democrats hoped he would. But they already knew all that. In fact, they impeached him over the same speech and failed to convict him. If they tried to convict him on the same charges again, under any guise, they would have violated the intent of the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy. Not that they care.

One last point: In general, the liberal elites appear to be incapable of recognizing that every argument has two sides. They honestly believe that whatever the Democratic leadership says is true, and whatever Donald Trump or his supporters say is false. Although this condition existed prior to the 2020 election, it was exaggerated afterwards to the point where we no longer have the expectation of honest debate. And that, contrary to the claims of politicians like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney, is the real danger to democracy.

When half the people are considered by the other half to be malignant, prevaricating miscreants, there is no hope for true democracy — rule by the people. The best you can expect is demi-democracy, rule of the people by half of the people. That may be the hope of the liberals, but they should be careful what they wish for. Despite their frantic attacks on the Deplorables, it is not yet certain who will prevail in the war they have unleashed. Not a war of weapons, but a war of words and a war of ideas.

On the Democrat side, there are threats and intimidation, warning American citizens not to step out of line. Wear your mask. Get your shot. Turn in your gun. Do what we tell you, and keep your head down. You’ll be fine if you obey.

On the other side, there is a rising chorus of voices, moms and dads, black and white, free-thinkers all, who ask for the right to raise their children as they see fit, insist on medical autonomy, expect elections to be fair, and don’t bow before authority unless it is legitimately wielded.

The choice of two diametrically opposed futures has not been so clear since the Civil War, and Democrats — just as they did in that great conflict — seem intent once again on proving the truth of Lincoln’s dictum that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

*************************************************

JK Rowling has a spectacular list of achievements to her name but her courage in defying the cancel-mob is her crowning glory

By DAN WOOTTON

Let me start by emphatically stating that JK Rowling and I have never been friends or even allies. I haven't read a word of Harry Potter and a column I wrote in 2018 criticising her for being a Hollywood hypocrite over the #MeToo movement resulted in my lengthy court battle with Johnny Depp.

The column - headlined by my former newspaper on its website as, 'Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' to cast wife beater Johnny Depp in film? - posed a number of questions to the Potter creator, including: 'You admitted last year there were 'legitimate questions' about Depp's casting. What were these and how did you overcome them?'

In fact, at one point Rowling even threatened to sue me too.

She seemed mad that I had suggested re-casting Depp in the movies was 'the only decision that would show she's a woman of true character and principle, even when her famous friends are involved'.

But I held my nerve – aware the facts were on my side – and the very rich Scottish author eventually relented, with a few tough words from her over-paid lawyer thrown my way.

Depp didn't relent, as you may remember, losing the court case after his ex-wife Amber Heard agreed to give evidence for me, documenting his appalling record of physical abuse and mental torture.

Both Amber and I offered to meet with Rowling separately to explain what we knew about Depp's behaviour, but she rebuffed our attempts to reach out.

It was obvious to me that her close friendship with Depp – an actor who she idolised – had overshadowed principle on this issue, disappointing for someone who is undoubtedly an advocate for female victims of abuse, given she is one herself.

Following Depp's court humiliation, a chastened Rowling was finally forced to remove the actor from her Fantastic Beasts film franchise, which she should have done in the first place.

Despite that somewhat chequered history, I have become convinced these past two years that Rowling is one of our greatest Britons – and that verdict has nothing to do with child wizards in round spectacles.

Rather, it's because Rowling has been prepared to give up virtually everything she previously prized – including being a pin-up for the entertainment establishment – to stand up for the rights of women everywhere, with a nuanced but supportive view of the trans community that just so happens to go against the liberal orthodoxy.

In the cruel process of cancellation, she has learnt first-hand just how hypocritical Hollywood can be; virtually every showbiz industry figure has turned its back on one of its previously most popular figures to protect themselves from the social media hate mob.

Even Harry Potter film franchise stars like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, who all would have been no-marks without her, don't want to be associated anymore.

Rowling was left out of the new HBO Max reunion and saw her name axed from her own trailer for the next Fantastic Beasts instalment.

And today the MailOnline has revealed she's been cancelled by an Essex secondary school that specialises in performing arts.

Boswells School in Chelmsford axed Rowling as the namesake for one of its houses because of her 'comments and viewpoints surrounding trans people' following 'requests from students and staff'.

In a newsletter, the school added: 'Her views on this issue do not align with our school policy and school beliefs – a place where people are free to be.'

But one parent quite rightly fumed: 'This is censorship – JK Rowling is a good example of achievement through adversity. Not everyone thought she should go, a lot of schools seem to be doing the same thing at the moment sadly.'

The house has been re-named after the Olympic athletics champion Dame Kelly Holmes.

Which is ironic in itself, given that Holmes has also been criticised for supporting a campaign in 2019 that said sportswomen were at a clear disadvantage against trans competitors – another common sense position that has been weaponised by trans activists.

I imagine it's only a matter of time before Holmes is axed too and replaced by Eddie Izzard.

So what are these heinous views that have made Rowling persona non grata in polite society?

Well, she openly mocked a June 2020 article that described women as 'people who menstruate'.

Quite simply, she believes in biological sex.

Just like the scientist Robert Winston who received hate mail for stating the fact that, 'you cannot change your sex, your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body'.

Rowling also believes in the need for women to be protected from men in certain spaces like toilets and changing rooms.

So why will you have seen so many people online refer to her as transphobic?

Because they are intellectually dishonest.

In fact, Rowling has been clear to stress 'trans lives matter' and 'trans rights are human rights.'

She recently clarified her position further by writing: 'Small but important point: I've never said there are only two genders. There are innumerable gender identities.

'The question at the heart of this debate is whether sex or gender identity should form the basis of decisions on safeguarding, provision of services, sporting categories and other areas where women and girls currently have legal rights and protections.

'Using the words 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably obscures the central issue of this debate.'

But here's the reality in all of this: JK Rowling is one of the first human beings on the planet to beat society's current obsession with cancel culture.

Now that she's no longer a member of the liberal establishment, quaffing champagne at posh events with elite multimillionaires, she's become a crusader for everyday women and should be taken very seriously by those in power.

These numerous bids to cancel her are only enhancing her position as a champion for females around the world.

She is adored and revered by ordinary folk who are roundly ignoring the various bids to silence her.

Hilariously, the far-left extremists at The Guardian newspaper removed an online form asking readers to nominate their '2021 Person of the Year' after an overwhelming number submitted Rowling.

When they revealed the list of 13 winners, they had to awkwardly explain: 'In a sign of the ongoing debate over gender issues, many readers also nominated the author JK Rowling.'

Rowling's platform is big enough to render her uncancellable. She has 14 million followers on Twitter alone, where she selectively shares her so-called controversial views, which are actually just common sense.

I think it's possible that in many decades time when her epitaph is written Rowling will be remembered for far more than being the author behind the best-selling book series of alltime.

She will go down as a truly modern feminist who fought back against those trying to destroy the hard-fought rights of woman adult human females to live freely and be protected.

I'm more than happy to forget her blind spot over Johnny Depp because she's become an unquestionable force behind fact-based feminism to protect the rights of women.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: