Glorious news, comrades!

Some of you may have shown moderate to severe despair after noting the absence of any significant "wall funding" in your country's new "Omnibus MoneyholeSpending Bill". We now have ultra-scientific proof to show that these fears are unnecessary. Without any doubt, the White House was advised by these same outstanding scientists.


Published online 3/25/2018 in "International Korrekt Sociology".

Usefulness of walls: a disproven myth

Authors: Comrade Minitrue (1), Don Pablo (2), Abu-Nazir al Amrikkani (3)

(1) Beet Kollektive (2) MS13 academy (3) University of Tora Bora

Introduction:

Many fringe groups have asked for the building of a wall on the Mexico-USA border in recent years. The korrekt scientific kommunity has struggled to disprove all the crazy notions about the ability of walls to stop anything.

Material and methods:

In collaboration with the university of Tijuana, our research team built a series of sturdy houses with completely waterproof walls in a remote mountainous region on the USA mainland. Since the study only applies to walls, no roofs were attached to the edifices. Researchers placed a bucket inside each of these buildings.

After exactly 7 days the buckets were collected and the amount of water inside them was measured by up-to-date scientific methods. One bucket was lost because the building in which it had been placed was transformed into a meth lab and our collecting researcher was shot dead. Another bucket was emptied by thirsty illegals crossing the border.

Results:

A vast majority of buckets (180%) contained water (mostly without any urine contamination). To avoid triggering number-sensitive young people, we will not give any exact amounts concerning the samples studied. The data was analysed using Soroskalk, a Korrekt statistical software package, showing almost no inter-sample variability and decent reliability indices.

Discussion:

These sturdy, impregnated concrete walls were unable to prevent water seeping into the buckets inside the buildings. Moreover, other research by Pelosi, Schumer et al. has shown that buckets placed under bridges remained mostly dry. We can only conclude that the building of walls is completely unnecessary and should be superseded by the building of ever more bridges.

Conflicts of interest:

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The study was funded by korrektified-only super scientific organisations without any bias, like Black Lives Matter, Soros Inc. and two Mexican Gulf cartels.

Minitrue wrote:Discussion: These sturdy, impregnated concrete walls were unable to prevent water seeping into the buckets inside the buildings. Moreover, other research by Pelosi, Schumer et al. has shown that buckets placed under bridges remained mostly dry. We can only conclude that the building of walls is completely unnecessary and should be superceded by the building of ever more bridges.

Bridges kill, comrades. Also, bridges kill comrades.

Comrade Minitrue,

I see no mention of control groups in your study. Consider seeking additional funding for this purpose. Completing a series of supplementary control studies will provide analysts with time to consider additional research. I suggest two more control groups of buildings using your initial study as the paradigm. Add an identical, second control bucket outside each structure, and use the inclusive Metric rather than expansionist Imperial units when recording final test results. Let us know how things work out.

CC, BS

Captain Craptek wrote:Comrade Minitrue,

I suggest two more control groups of buildings using your initial study as the paradigm.

CC, BS

Thank you for the equal suggestion comrade. We dispensed with control groups because it reminded us of toxic white male "scientific method". We went more for a fluid, ethno-feminist approach. The volume inside the buckets was measured with the help of local community shamans of the cult of Gaia, who were able to (reproducibly?) tell us how many "water spirits" we could find in each and every bucket.

.
.
Oh. Then,...never mind.

We should simply alter all the signage displayed at the Southern border to say "Now Entering Canada".

This will prevent further illegal incursions over the border

Minitrue wrote:Discussion:These sturdy, impregnated concrete walls were unable to prevent water seeping into the buckets inside the buildings.

This is sexist. It suggests that had the walls not been pregnant, i.e., female-identified, they would have been able to prevent the seepage. Note, too, the mocking reference to the pregnant walls' water breaking -- not to mention the condescending use of the passive voice to suggest that the walls were non-agents, merely passive recipients of the impregnation. Shame! Who, pray tell, impregnated these walls, and was there written consent beforehand? We need a new study to study the study. I will selflessly accept the grants for it.

RedDiaperette wrote:

Minitrue wrote:Discussion:These sturdy, impregnated concrete walls were unable to prevent water seeping into the buckets inside the buildings.

This is sexist. It suggests that had the walls not been pregnant, i.e., female-identified, they would have been able to prevent the seepage. Note, too, the mocking reference to the pregnant walls' water breaking -- not to mention the condescending use of the passive voice to suggest that the walls were non-agents, merely passive recipients of the impregnation. Shame! Who, pray tell, impregnated these walls, and was there written consent beforehand? We need a new study to study the study. I will selflessly accept the grants for it.

By Lenin's beard, you're on to something. Most of the walls were white, to boot... We will need a loooooot of taxpayer's money to study this.

I highly commend you, Comrade Minitrue, for your Korreckt application of the Scientific Method.

Why, your research methods sound almost like our glorious Global Warming research at the State Science Institute!

I am going to recommend you for a medal.

RedDiaperette wrote:

Minitrue wrote:Discussion:These sturdy, impregnated concrete walls were unable to prevent water seeping into the buckets inside the buildings.

This is sexist. It suggests that had the walls not been pregnant, i.e., female-identified, they would have been able to prevent the seepage. Note, too, the mocking reference to the pregnant walls' water breaking -- not to mention the condescending use of the passive voice to suggest that the walls were non-agents, merely passive recipients of the impregnation. Shame! Who, pray tell, impregnated these walls, and was there written consent beforehand? We need a new study to study the study. I will selflessly accept the grants for it.

Dear Komrade RD,

I am afraid, yea even in spite of your shining green eyes, and your cute hat of cleverly linked chain-mail, that I must denounce you...

How dare you assume that, just because these walls are female-identifying, they can be pregnant! Not all womyn-wylls have vaginas, as you should know, and such hate-speech is triggering to those who do not! Only cis-womyn-wylls do--and then, not even some of them after a certain age...... But no matter! Before any more research can be done these wylls must be surveyed so that all identities can be matched to appropriate plumbing--or vice-versa--and a safe and extensive and violently enforced speech code be created. Just as a precaution, I should probably denounce myself in advance. Oh yes, and Komrade Minitrue, too, for, though your later assumptions were hateful and insensitive, your denouncement was good and true, as all denouncements must be.

Please keep the sand-box tidy... I need a safe-space to play with my tractors.