NO! Nazis Merit No First Amendment Protections

                                                                                      
Neo-Nazi filth - such as these at Charlottesville-  do not merit first amendment protections given if they ever came to power they'd abolish them.

Walk down any city street in Frankfurt, Munich, Cologne or Bonn and you cannot help but notice there is robust free expression. Merely engaging German citizens of any of these burgs for a few minutes discloses it.   But one thing you will never hear is any defense of Nazi memes, nor will you see Nazi flags - unless you can locate a WW II museum. Indeed, even the effort to spread such toxic nonsense can earn the person a year or more in prison, and significant fines.

Have the Germans gone bonkers? Have they gone over the top? No, they merely learned from bloody, barbaric experience after 6 million Jews were dispatched in Hitler's death camps, and tens of millions perished in bloody fashion around the world - with over a million Germans who had to pay for Hitler's insanity. Germans learned enough from their history not to be so daft as to enable toxic memes and mind viruses under the pretentious baloney of "free speech".

In May, 1985, near Bielefeld, Germany, I met with two former Wehrmacht soldiers who themselves had resolutely refused to join the Nazi party. (About 5 percent did join to receive perks the others did not such as extra rations, clothes etc.)

In Teutoburger forest with Dieter, left, and Hans, right - along with our translator Reinhardt

The two former soldiers, Dieter and Hans, were part of a German choral group my wife Janice was then performing with. Anyway, we went to the Teutoburger Forest where one battle was fought near the end of the war.  When I asked Dieter and Hans about the Nazi influence in Germany they responded almost in unison:

"We learned to our lasting shame that the Nazis took advantage of our freedom principles (associated with then Nuremberg democracy) to put themselves in power and stay there long enough to destroy Germany and Europe. We now know much better!"

They were referring to how Hitler and his  Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei  or Nazi party used the democratic process itself to catapult Hitler into power and then used the mechanics of then Nuremberg government and the Reichstag to destroy all principles of free expression using the Enabling Act. See e.g. http://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839

THIS is specifically why the Nazi party, Nazi offshoots or Nazi spokesmen cannot be allowed the privilege of free speech or protections under the First Amendment. Why?  Because we already know from history (in 1930s Germany)  the template they would use against our democratic, constitutional edifice. Simply put, we can't take the chance that history will repeat, ever again.

But Americans, having never undergone what Germany did, simply don't get it. Even the brightest - like fellow members of Intertel, fail to grasp why the Germans are as tough on speech as they are. Back in November last year I cited the words of fellow member Steve Mason writing in an essay: 'Dangerous Ideas', (Integra, Nov.-Dec, .p. 18) :

"Here's a really Dangerous Idea: The Holocaust is a hoax. It must be a Dangerous Idea because simply repeating those five words will get you jailed in  more than a dozen countries, including: Belgium, France, Germany, Romania and Poland."

Mason then made an absurd parallel putting the "holocaust hoax" on the same "dangerous idea" level as the Apollo Moon landings hoax. In the latter case,  citing all kinds of nonsense "evidence", e.g. American flag "rippling" on an airless world, from idiot lunar landing hoax websites.

This analogy showed Mason lacked any balanced rational insight to compare these two. In effect, comparing the claim of hoax for an actually recorded historical genocide to a nonsense claim which is easily refuted by reference to lunar laser ranging experiments - only made possible by the fact laser reflectors were left on the lunar surface....by humans.

Mason appeared to regard both ideas as merely equally "goofy". He scribbled, in regard to the lunar landing deniers (p. 21):

"The last I heard no one was locking them up.  Being goofy isn't against the law, so what is it about questioning the death camps that creates such a stir?"

Totally missing the point of why a serious distinction must be made. The upshot of actual German history, as my German sister-in-law Krimhilde put it, is that even frivolous dismissal of the holocaust plays directly into the neo-fascist platforms, as we beheld in Munich back in 2013, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html

The Germans today take heed of George Santayana's famous words "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." They would rather err on the side of legal heavy handedness than regret it later when a future Fuhrer tries to duplicate the inhuman acts of the earlier one.  Impossible? Then read the Financial Times article below ('Ideas That Fed The Beast of Fascism Flourish Today') on how the same forces active in Europe in the 1930s are also present today:

https://www.ft.com/content/599fbbfc-a412-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

The nations that prosecute holocaust denial do so in order to impose a painful reminder that one cannot just lie about the past as a cynical way to sweep it under the rug to thereby better enable similar horrors in the future.  To put it another way: They already experienced the horrors once,  they have no intention to do so again! Thereby harsh laws punishing the denialists (who effectively diminish the holocaust)  are intended to send an uncompromising message: "You spread this crap - undermining the historical truth- at your own peril. We will not tolerate your lies here!"

The same goes for racial supremacy doctrines such as today's Neo-Nazis spout. They can't be allowed to gain any more of a foothold in a nation already riven by race. The Nazis especially can't be allowed a say - in a park, city town hall or anywhere - because we know they are now also about enacting policy with an ally in the White House. (WSJ, Aug, 17, p. A1)  The Nazis cited in the piece also made it clear they no longer aspire merely to more marches and rallies but policy changes.  These could include everything from limiting immigration, especially of Mexicans and Muslims, to building a border wall using taxpayer money, to fielding a new "security" arm similar to the Nazi Gestapo.

A recent WSJ interview ('The First Amendment Is For Nazis Too', Aug. 26-27, p. A11)  with legal academic  Richard A. Epstein saw him trying to argue that even Nazis deserve first amendment protections. This coming from a Jewish academic who appears to have unlearned or forgotten the lessons of history, period.   He argues in abstract jargon about the "solipsistic left" and "nonactionable offense" but has no clue what these terms really mean - say as they applied when the Hitlerites used their speech to take over Germany.

He expostulates:

"There are certain harms that are nonactionable and offense is one of them. If I say something that you find truly offensive, you may protest, you may speak - but what you may not do is to sue me in order to silence me, or to get compensation from me. Counter speech is the appropriate remedy under these circumstances, suppressing speech isn't"

Which I can agree with  in nearly all circumstances - but not all.  That includes holocaust denial as well as circulation of Nazi memes and mind viruses including the proposed extermination of all untermenschen (inferior humans) and also the open advocacy of policies that would terminate the very free speech those like Epstein argue for.   Those were the same policies advocated by Adolf Hitler, as evident in his Mein Kampf, as well as promulgated by current Nazis. In Germany these riff raff are sued, fined or locked up and that ought to be a standard applied here too,.

If an ideology (like Nazism)  ultimately seeks to destroy the very  'free speech' it currently claims to use (under the 1st amendment)  we are now in a meta-context.  This is exactly the meta-context Hitler and his bunch methodically employed in the early 1930s to convert Germany to a one-party state with NO subsequent free speech for anyone but the Fuhrer - and certain of his groupies - like Joseph Goebbels and Rudolph Hess.

As my German friend Reinhardt put it, if an ideology has as its ultimate goal the extirpation of the very speech it uses currently to spread hate, it cannot be allowed circulation. It then becomes no different from the smallpox virus - say released by insane people under the doctrine that "all living things or potential living things, like viruses, have the right to survive and compete for existence in our world". 

In his WSJ interview Epstein claims:

"Freedom of speech means that you have the right to use your own resources to advance your own causes. But it doesn't give you, in the name of free speech, the right to take somebody else's telephone, somebody's house or somebody's anything to use for your own purposes"

Thereby making the point that freedom of expression is "embedded in the much larger and comprehensive system of property rights".

And yet Epstein appears to forget, or never processes, that this is exactly what the German Nazis did to the Jews. First, they used the very free speech allotted them by Nuremberg democracy to get enough people to believe in them and vote for them in the 1932, 1933 elections.  (In the elections held in March, 1933, a record 88.8 % of the electorate turned out, and 39, 343, 331 votes were cast. The National Socialists received 17,277,328 or 43.9 percent, entitling them to 288 deputies in The Reichstag.) Then, once in total power- after Hitler became Chancellor -  they terminated all extant liberties and the laws on which the German parliament (Reichstag) was based. (Google 'Enabling Act')  Then, they seized all Jewish property - including businesses, homes and bank accounts. And finally - they dispatched those dispossessed Jews to concentration camps where they were exterminated as "untermenschen", e.g.

Scene outside of Mauthausen concentration camp photographed by Russian soldiers who liberated that camp in 1945

THIS is precisely why NO Nazi ideas or memes must ever be permitted the "oxygen" of free speech to spread, ever again. Like the smallpox virus it must be isolated and kept at bay with a zero tolerance policy. Epstein himself is a blatant fool for even remotely considering modern day followers of this bestial philosophy to air their toxins.

Epstein, vaunted legal guru that he is, is also totally wrong about Google's firing of James Damore, the right wing nitwit who posted a ten page memo trying to tie women's job performance to their biology and innate mental aptitude. He insists (ibid.):

"Google is basically massively intolerant.  Here was a guy a data analyst, wo was not even against diversity. He said he wasn't".

Disclosing a naivete on a par with awarding Nazis free speech.  In fact, any person with more than air between the ears reading Damore's memo saw exactly how opposed to diversity he was, no matter what he "said". (Hitler also "said" he'd lead his countrymen to a greater, more enriched future and 'Lebensraum'. How did that turn out?)

As for firing Damore, Google was perfectly entitled to do so. In the case of 'Waters v. Churchill' the Supreme court made clear that an employee's speech is not protected if the employer  believes the speech might interfere with the efficiency of the employer's operations.  Since it is clear that allowing Damore's presence (after his memo went viral) would definitely undermine Google's efficiency of operations, it was clear Google had to give this right wing troll the heave ho, all the Right's whining aside.

Let me add here, for completeness, that preventing Nazis  "oxygen" for their speechifying need not depend on the feds to achieve it. We've already  shown here in Colorado Springs how a simple boycott can persuade a major resort to ditch plans to provide these vermin a platform. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/08/colorado-springs-succeeds-in-barring.html

The beauty of the Springs boycott is that no one was really trying specifically to take away the "speech rights" of the Nazis and white supremacists, merely their platform, their venue. The could have chosen another one but up to now have decided not to.   This may be all the alert and aware citizen can do now to halt the spread of these virulent memes - but in the COS case, it was enough.

Of Dangerous Ideas - And 'Dumb And Dangerous Ideas' From Dr. Steve Mason

Dr. Steven Mason  (left)- unable to distinguish a dangerous idea from a dumb and dangerous idea. Right- Joseph Schmitz, holocaust denier appointed as Trump foreign policy advisor.

In his latest Integra essay 'Dangerous Ideas', (Nov.-Dec, .p. 18) , Dr. Steve Mason outdoes himself with pseudo intellectual nonsense with his endorsement of "dangerous ideas". This would be a terrific essay if only Dr. Steve had managed to discriminate between the truly dangerous, for example - natural selection - which is true, and the merely dumb and dangerous, e.g. holocaust denial.  But alas, he doesn't, instead almost frolicking in the sheer contrarian shock value of the latter.

Why is this important? Well, because too many of our fellow citizens know too little about the holocaust and WW II in general. This knowledge gap enables hucksters and propagandists to harvest their brains. One of whom is Joseph Schmitz, a recent foreign advisor named by Trump to his administration. Schmitz acquired infamy by proclaiming, in dismissing the holocaust, that:

“the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews.”

Leaving out that the Jews were not killed in ovens, but in large gas chambers, as at Auschwitz.  The ovens were used to incinerate the bodies afterwards but because of the mass of victims, the Nazis later went to mass graves. It became too difficult to cremate thousands of gassed bodies at one time. This is why Dr. Steve's remarks bear scrutiny in the context of  his "Dangerous Ideas" theme. Let's return to natural selection as a dangerous idea before going to Steve Mason's example of holocaust denial.

In the case of natural selection which Tufts professor Daniel Dennett covered in his book, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', we have a truly dangerous idea, the moreso because it is true. We learn of a 4 -step loop process that amounts to "a mindless algorithm that displays no intent, no design, no purpose, no goal, no deeper meaning. This simple algorithm has been running on Earth for four billion years to produce every living thing, and everything made by every living thing" . A purposeless, algorithmic process - the horror!

It is "dangerous" precisely because it undermines orthodoxy (in this case religious) but also because it has the benefit of being true in the scientific sense - meaning  has been validated a gazillion times.  Then Mason breaks down and blows it with this.  (Even wifey, when I showed her his reference, exclaimed: "What an idiot!"): Mason actually wrote:

"Here's a really Dangerous Idea: The Holocaust is a hoax. It must be a Dangerous Idea because simply repeating those five words will get you jailed in  more than a dozen countries, including: Belgium, France, Germany, Romania and Poland."

Mason then draws an absurd parallel putting the "holocaust hoax" on the same "dangerous idea" level as the Apollo Moon landings hoax. In the latter case,  citing all kinds of nonsense "evidence", e.g. American flag "rippling" on an airless world, from idiot lunar landing hoax websites.

This again shows Mason lacks any balanced rational insight to compare these two. In effect, comparing the claim of hoax for an actually recorded historical genocide to a nonsense claim which is easily refuted by reference to lunar laser ranging experiments - only made possible by the fact laser reflectors were left on the lunar surface....by humans.

Incomprehensibly, Mason appears to regard both ideas as equally "goofy". He scribbles, in regard the lunar landing deniers (p. 21):

"The last I heard no one was locking them up.  Being goofy isn't against the law, so what is it about questioning the death camps that creates such a stir?"

He then speculates it might be because "support for Israel will diminish"

But he's off base in his reasoning. As I showed before, Mason often makes erroneous conclusions in his assorted essays predicated on a solipsistic viewpoint. For example, in his June Port of Call effort he actually questioned whether global warming is real based on: "Clearly I don't know but then who does?" To which I pointed out that Mason is not a climate scientist - like Prof. Gunter Weller- so no surprise he wouldn't know, his specialist training is in psychology not climate science.

The same sort of skewed reasoning leads him to question death camp denial based on something like offending Israel. In fact, it is a dangerous idea because extreme right, pro -fascist parties (like Marine Le Pen's National Front) in France, actually exist in the here and now. Further, they are eager to invoke holocaust denial as an auxiliary means to advance their own justifications for existence and agendas. The upshot of actual German history, as my German sister-in-law Krimhilde put it, is that even frivolous dismissal of the holocaust plays directly into the neo-fascist platforms, as we beheld in Munich back in 2013, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html

Those "dozen nations" Mason cites, therefore,  do not want a repeat of history, in line with George Santayana's famous words "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." They would rather err on the side of legal heavy handedness than regret it later when a future Fuhrer tries to duplicate the inhuman acts of the earlier one.  Impossible? Then read the Financial Times article below ('Ideas That Fed The Beast of Fascism Flourish Today') on how the same forces active in Europe in the 1930s are also present today:

https://www.ft.com/content/599fbbfc-a412-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6


The nations that prosecute it, for Steve's information, do so in order to impose a painful reminder that one cannot just lie about the past as a cynical way to sweep it under the rug to thereby better enable similar horrors in the future.  To put it another way: They already experienced the horrors once,  they have no intention to do so again! Thereby harsh laws punishing the denialists (who effectively diminish the holocaust)  are intended to send an uncompromising message: "You spread this crap - undermining the historical truth- at your own peril. We will not tolerate your lies here!"

So Mason has his head and emphasis in the wrong place. Apart from those countries bearing far right parties eager to exploit holocaust denial they were also places whose citizens were packed  into box cars for transport to death camps (Treblinka,  Auschwitz,  Mauthausen etc.)  to be gassed and for which we possess actual visual and other recorded evidence that it happened, e.g. the scene below photographed outside of Mauthausen by Russian soldiers who liberated that camp in 1945:


This is emphatically not the stuff of droll essays in a high IQ journal, or invoking facetious word games.

Poland was among the worst affected nations, featuring the death camp Auschwitz, where over 1.6 million were slaughtered and Dr. Josef Mengele performed hideous experiments on children, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/auschwitz-commemoration-why-wasnt.html


Mason, by using a specious basis to compare dangerous ideas  (conflating goofy, stupid ones with serious ones) actually demeans and diminishes the import of the real ones, e.g.  the denial of the factual genocide of 6 million Jews.   Let us also  reference how he earlier chirps: "I should come clean and admit I like dangerous ideas!"  Evidently, both the dumbass and the serious dangerous, like holocaust denial.

Now, to be fair, Mason is not a stupid guy by any means. He can't be to have become a doctor in psychology or a member of Intertel. However, he does have a habit of becoming overly enchanted with his own peculiar, idiosyncratic ruminations. This solipsistic fascination leads him to wander off the rational reservation at times,  writing idiotic essays in Intertel's media.

Recall Mason is the same character who wrote several months ago (in the June Port of Call NL):

 "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"   This is actually a misrepresentation of his stance when what he really meant was "How can I believe anything when the science behind it changes?" And seen in this light, one wonders if Mason was ever a genuine scientist at all, because the very nature of the scientific enterprise is to mount new discoveries, via new findings obtained from ever more refined instruments and techniques. Hence the change from the old epicycles-based Ptolemaic solar system to the heliocentric one. Or, the change from Bohr's simple 'planetary' model atom to the wave model of Schrodinger, Born et al. Or the change from Newtonian gravitation to general relativity (though the former is still used for space trajectories, missions).

In the current essay, after ruminating on Darwin's dangerous idea,  he recycles  similar nonsense to that  he opined in the June PoC, writing (p. 19).:

"The world of science - if you wait long enough - is always wrong anyway!"

If he really, truly believes this codswallop I'd like him to explain to me how it is we can reliably use celestial mechanics to send space craft (like Curiosity Rover) to Mars, and the Horizons probe to Pluto.  If science is "always wrong" how can that be? Well, ok, maybe he's thinking 5 billion years in advance when orbits likely shift for a variety of reasons. But, in that case it isn't the (current) science that's wrong, it's the fact orbital elements would have changed.

Same thing with quantum theory, one of the most complete we have, which enables us to correctly predict the spectral line emissions of atoms as well as the working of solid state devices.

It seems clear based on these examples that Mason's glib takes on physical science disclose he really doesn't know much about it. I would bet he actually thinks that because Einstein's theory of gravity is used, Newtonian gravitation is wrong or passe.  If so, he'd  probably be amazed to learn that Newtonian gravitational theory is what enables our celestial mechanics to get space craft to Mars, the Moon, or Jupiter.

The point is that a real scientist - even a psychiatrist or psychologist- would know and understand science HAS to change for our understanding of the cosmos, nature to evolve. It is unscientific and naive to expect findings to remain static. At the same time, the true expert in science has to know that changes in a scientific discipline - like physics - don't necessarily mean the former theory is chucked. Again, look at Newtonian gravitational theory and Newton's laws of motion.  These still have applicability at macro-scale levels, and at speed much less than the velocity of light, c.

Other Mason examples in his essay are more clearly and rationally chosen, and articulated. For example, the dangerous idea that "religion is a WMD". (Though I would have phrased it as a "mind virus of mass destruction")  Another plausible choice is that "our system of government causes us to elect the worst candidates".  (Say like Donald Trump) To support that dangerous idea he cites evidence from evolutionary psychology, to wit, "groups work best only when they get behind a leader, to put him in that position".  This contrast with our money-graft  system where candidates aspiring to be leaders must incessantly beg for money and votes, so "are probably the least well qualified for command" - again from an evolutionary psychology standpoint.

These are "dangerous ideas" to be sure, like Darwin's natural selection, but based on a record of data, investigations and historical experience. They are worthy of consideration in an essay aimed at  people in the upper 1 percent of IQs, in other words. But holocaust denial and fake lunar landings are not in that same category. The first is indeed dangerous, and not merely as an idea.  The second is too stupid and easily disproven to be considered truly dangerous.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/69871/the-big-trump-media-story-bannon-and-a-crew-of-dangerous-propagandists-are-in-the-cockpit-of-national

Another Mockumentary: Holocaust Denial Blends With Creationist Codswallop

The news on salon.com that physicist Lawrence Krausse and former Star Trek actress Kate Mulgrew were integrated into an asinine  pseudo-science documentary, entitled ‘The Principle’ (what I call a mockumentary)  caught many people by surprise. Surprise that idiots are still peddling this geocentric bunkum – that the Sun revolves around the Earth and not vice versa, and also that a prominent Holocaust denier named Robert Sungenis was behind it.

 

Anyway , it has been reported to be narrated by “Star Trek” alum Kate Mulgrew. Now the actress, who played “Star Trek’s” Capt. Kathryn Janeway, has come out publicly on her Facebook  page to distance herself from the film. Ms. Mulgrew’s FB post stated:

 

“I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism.

 

More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew”

Her reference to Prof. Lawrence Krausse refers to the fact he also had somehow  been snagged into a pseudo-appearance on this travesty, along with several other scientists to appear in the trailer. Since being alerted of this perfidy Prof. Krauss wrote a response piece in Slate in which he lambasted geocentrism and stated that he did not know how the clips of him were obtained.  He wrote:

“Even after being inured to such things, I was surprised to learn of the premise of the film, until I learned that its producer also apparently questions the Holocaust. It is tempting to say that both claims are obscene nonsense, but I believe that does a disservice to the word nonsense.”

 

‘The Principle’ follows along  the typical moronic lines of approach displayed in piffle such as the work of Young Sun- Young Earth aficionado, Jason Lisle.  That is, ignore all the scientifically discounting  evidence in favor of ancient tracts – scribbled by semi-literate peasants and sheep herders.

Both the ‘Young Sun- Young Earth’ and geocentric perspectives are those of firm pseudo-scientific knuckle draggers in the creationist mold. Both are made up nonsense extracted from Genesis. However,  the geocentric bilge probably beats the former by a hair in terms of having the most bull pockey.  The reason is that anyone who’s been exposed to the most basic Newtonian mechanics (usually taken in high school physics – at least it used to be) would know that the primary and more massive object always  attracts the less massive with a greater force of attraction, according to Newton's law of gravitation.

 The force of attraction of a  large mass M for a less massive orbiting object, m , is equal to the centripetal force:

 
GMm/R² = m v²/R

Here m is the mass of the planet and R its distance, while M is the mass of the Sun.

 

Now the Earth’s mass is 6 x 10 ²⁴ kg and Sun’s mass M = 2 x 10 ³⁰ kg.

 The centripetal acceleration with which the Earth ‘falls’ toward the Sun’s center is then found by solving for a = v²/R  or:

a =   GM/R² =  

  (6.7 x 10 ^-11 Nm²/ kg ²) (2 x 10 ³⁰ kg )/  (1.5 x  10 ¹¹ m) ²  =

 

5.9 x  10 ^{- 3} ms^{- 2} 

Thus the unbalanced attractive force is on the side of the vastly more massive (by 330,000 times) Sun. Hence, like a massive (200 lb.) human swinging a much lighter child (50 lb.) around at the end of a rope, the Sun exerts the dominant central force. 

 Sungenis’ bunkum, then,  makes about as much sense as claiming that a fifty pound child can swing  a 200 pound adult around at the end of a rope and dictate the adult’s  circular motion. It is total irredeemable idiocy that only confirmed  idiots  and semi-educated fools could believe.

 It is unclear how much Ms. Mulgrew knew before she signed up, but it is possible she could have been told any old lies or story to get her onboard, including that it would be a “scientifically educational presentation like ‘Cosmos’” These sort of degenerates – like Holocaust deniers- will say anything to push their  crap onto the unsuspecting or enlist their support. As for Prof. Krauss and the other scientists, we know the copy and paste motif exists in video as well as in still images, so that Sungenis could have grabbed pieces of other presentations from anywhere (say PBS series) then spliced them into his grab bag of bollocks.

 

The cautionary tale in all of this is that we need people - especially celebrities and scientists-  to be wary and suspicious before they accept a role for any claimed "scientific" documentary. The knuckle draggers will stop at nothing to push their lies or recruit whoever they can to help push them.