Source: Bigstock

A new report just released by the U.K.’s Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has recommended England immediately bans the smacking of children in its entirety—bad news for those deviants like me who pursue the practice as a part-time hobby, just for the fun of it. Whilst I and the other members of my local underground child-abuse club disagree profoundly with the proposal, I would nonetheless grudgingly admit there are plausible arguments on both sides of this particular debate…or so I had naively thought.

Previously, I had presumed the idea of smacking kids with the back of your hand/a wet fish/the nearest sledgehammer was primarily a moral or practical matter, the key questions being “Is it right?,” “Does it work?,” and “Is it highly enjoyable?” Now, however, I am grateful to discover the issue is actually a wholly “scientific” matter.

According to the Royal College, as paraphrased approvingly in top lefty rag The Guardian, “hundreds of studies” have somehow now “proved” that “the damage [to infants] from being smacked could [not “will,” then?] include poorer cognitive development, a higher risk of dropping out of school, increased aggression and perpetrating violence and antisocial behavior as adults.”

This conundrum now kindly having been reclaimed forever from the murky, indeterminate worlds of morality, ideology, and practicality, the report felt itself free to demand that, come this year’s looming U.K. General Election, “All political parties should include a commitment to [ban smacking] in their election manifestos.” The public should not so much as be given a choice when it comes to questions of science, you see, for science is at all times infallible, objective, and incontestable.

According to Bess Herbert, Advocacy Specialist at some stupid softy gay pressure group called End Corporal Punishment, “The science on physical punishment of children is now settled.” Ah, so the science is “settled,” then! Wherever have we heard that one before…?

Hippocratic Oafs
Today’s leftists have cottoned on to the fact that, in an increasingly secularized and politically divided Western world, science is for many people now the final objective reliable authority left to believe in. The very word itself now functions to millions of voters much as the word “magic” once did to their equally credulous ancestors in millennia gone by.

It’s not only banning the smacking of children: It’s also mass immigration. We all now have to accept its continued eternal future existence as a mere inescapable fact of life, like plague, famine, and death—the science says so, it’s an “inevitable” result of global warming. As the planet warms, some special natural reaction automatically attracts Eritreans toward your nearest welfare-check kiosk like iron filings to a magnet.

If that’s so, how come the science appears to suggest it’s only “inevitable” that the heat-threatened Africans will continue heading toward lands gullible enough to let them all in, like the U.S. and U.K., and not into those more sensible nations who simply stand firm and tell them all to sit tight, fry, and die back home, like Hungary and Japan?

And don’t forget that sweltering summer of 2020 when cities all around the developed world really did burn due to the widespread presence of imported African migrants in them. (A quick thought: As their “Global South” homelands also tend to be very hot, maybe the true cause of global warming is actually the excessive regional environmental presence of black people, not of CO₂ after all?)

During this fevered period, the left’s own precious BLM rallies, unlike all other known public gatherings in the Age of Covid-19, were deemed acceptable on “public health grounds” by various oh-so-impartial “WHITE COATS FOR BLACK LIVES” medics on the laughable pseudo-epidemiological grounds that “racism is also a public health crisis.” So is Race-Marxism, so let’s put all the rioting black bastards down right now; just imagine the reaction to any right-wing doctors who had come out with that particular equally pseudoscientific line back at the time.

Science Friction
As the Democratic Party is no longer especially democratic in nature, they should go the whole hog and rechristen themselves the “Science Party” instead, using that simple seven-letter word as the justification for imposing every last single one of their increasingly absurd and damaging policies upon an awestruck, largely scientifically illiterate (and consequently highly obedient) populace with no more need for any further “unnecessary” debate.

Even better, the Republicans could likewise henceforth be forcibly renamed the “Anti-Science Party” to put wavering voters off them even further, which in effect is what the compliant liberal media have already done to them anyway as regards any rebellious GOP politicians’ Net Zero skepticism or reasonable doubts about trans “medicine.”

With the presidential election coming up in November, you can expect to hear a lot more of this kind of rhetoric as the vote approaches ever closer. An early volley just appeared in the NYT, an op-ed by novelist Stephen Markley, who boasts he spent twelve long years writing a climate-change sci-fi story, The Deluge—Tolstoy didn’t spend as long writing Anna Karenina and War and Peace combined.

Markley warned that, whilst all the top profs agree the planet is doomed unless we pull down every last power plant and convert them into giant hamster wheels tomorrow, quack alchemists like Donald Trump are dangerously dissenting in their assessments of the matter, the Orange One having in the past called global warming a “hoax” and predicted instead that “It’ll start getting cooler, you watch.”

As a result, argues Markley, “the stakes of the climate crisis render the cliché of ‘This is the most important election of our lifetimes’ increasingly true because every four years those stakes climb precipitously alongside the toppling records of a radically new climate regime.” To parse, that roughly means as follows: “If Donald Trump wins in November ’24, then THE SCIENCE tells us that HUMANITY WILL DIE FOREVER, so he MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED to do so.”

Unscientific Americans
Well, Mr. Markley is a novelist, not a scientist, and has no professional obligation not to be partisan. But what about actual scientists themselves? Surely they shouldn’t see fit to wade into the arena of subjective political debate on a corporate, group collective level? They already have.

Prior to the last 2020 election, Scientific American, the country’s leading science periodical after Lysenkoism Monthly and Vaginal Healing Crystal News, endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in its entire then-175 years of history—Joe Biden, who was offering “fact-based plans” to ensure America enjoyed a “more prosperous and more equitable future,” unlike Donald Trump, whom “the evidence and the science” demonstrated conclusively was a total drooling retard who had taken advice on epidemiology from “physicians who believe in aliens.”

According to Scientific American, Biden “comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy-making.” Well, at least disease and climate change actually are scientific issues, I suppose. But what about the following reason listed by the editors for supporting him? “His plans include increased salaries for childcare workers and construction of new facilities for children because the inability to afford quality care keeps workers out of the economy and places enormous strains on families.”

How is massively expanding childcare on the taxpayer dime a scientific matter? Because families having “enormous strains” placed upon them is now suddenly a “public health” issue, allegedly, just like racism during coronavirus and the evil spanking of British toddlers today. If placing “enormous strains” upon families is objectively, scientifically bad, then how come Creepy Uncle Joe has spent the past four years relentlessly (and distinctly pseudoscientifically) trying to turn their kids tranny?

Scientific American was not alone in its laboratory-proven endorsement of Biden and repudiation of Trump, though. The New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, and, in a joint open letter, no fewer than 81 past U.S. Nobel Laureates all followed suit like literate lemmings. You can expect to see them do the same again later this year, I hereby “scientifically” predict, as November rolls around.

Going Against Nature
But, if they do repeat their actions, what will be the results of such proselytizing? Amusingly, a complex, data-driven, statistical paper (summary for humans here) published last year in the impeccably peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behaviour purported to prove the ultimate results of Nature’s open endorsement of Joe Biden were as follows:

(1) To erode public trust in the journal Nature.

(2) To erode public trust in science in general.

(3) To erode public trust in the truth of favored left-wing scientific shibboleths like climate change and vaccines being utterly infallible.

(4) To make no difference whatsoever to the votes of undecided citizens.

(5) To therefore presumably make it more likely that the side Nature’s editors want to win the election will in fact lose it.

(6) To make the editors of Nature look like a bunch of self-defeating, absolute, solid-gold, planetary-level dickheads.

In a subsequent editorial, Nature took sober account of this paper’s findings…then basically just ignored and dismissed them, like flies to wanton boys. But how come? Surely, given the highly reliable, peer-reviewed source where this data first appeared—its author even had a Chinese-sounding name, so its math must have been correct—it should have been logically impossible for the editors to ignore. After all, it was the science, wasn’t it?

What a bunch of hypocrites. Imagine growing up to be as badly behaved as this. Someone should really have hit them all a bit more often when they were children.