Monday, March 29, 2004


There is a very clear-sighted article on the Gefen blog about how Leftists abuse talk of human rights. One quote: "One could say that the entire world Left is suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance on this issue. They can extoll peace and yet defend Saddam Hussein. They can love human rights and acclaim Arafat. They can decry racism and revel in the basest anti-semitism, sometimes in the same breath. Their desire for an absolutism of justice has resulted in an embrace of righteous murder". The author is wrong to call it "cognitive dissonance" however. "Cognitive dissonance" means you feel uncomfortable about the inconsistencies -- but inconsistencies have never bothered Leftists. They are psychopathic -- they have no moral anchors. Under the guise of "Postmodernism" they often tell us that in fact.

For any of my readers who have any interest in the social sciences, there is a fabulous article here about the "Militant Tendency" Trotskyist group that was very influential in the British Labour Party in the 1980s. The author specializes in the study of cults and shows that "Militant" is a good example of one. The reader who drew my attention to the article commented: "One sees a lot of this same behavior by the Greenies also -- the Messianic sense of mission, the closed frame of reference, and the looming apocalypse that only they can avert." The article is at the moment up on a Marxist site but also appeared in an academic journal. The author advises me that a revised version of the paper is also to be found in his book with Tim Wohlforth - On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, ME Sharpe, 2000.

Prof J.E. Haynes explains why Leftists routinely ignore the inconvenient reality of how destructive and inhumane Leftist policies always have turned out to be: "Psychologically, they do not see what you see. They see the present and the past through a special lens. What is overwhelmingly clear to them is an imagined future collectivist utopia where antagonisms of class and race have been eliminated, the economic and social inequalities that have driven people to crime have been removed, poverty does not exist and social justice reigns, world brotherhood has replaced war and international strife, and an economy planned by people like them has produced economic abundance without pollution or waste. Coupled with this vision of the future is loathing of the real present which falls woefully short of these goals and hatred for anyone or anything that stands in the way of their illusion of the radiant future". I would be less charitable than that. Some Leftists may be like that but many if not most are not idealists at all -- just people who are pretending to be -- in order to boost their own ego by appearing "different", "caring", "wise" etc. Their ego matters to them far more than mere facts.

"Harvard scholar Samuel P. Huntington has not even published his new book on the cultural threat of mass Third World immigration, but already the Open Borders onslaught on book and author has begun.... What's interesting about the attacks is not only that they precede the appearance of the actual book but seek more to discredit Mr. Huntington himself- as a nut, a "nativist," a fount of "hate and suspicion"-by name-calling.... The tactics of smear almost always tell us that the smear's target has offered facts and arguments that can't be answered on their merits-and the only way to answer them at all is to attack the person who brings them up in the first place."

The Bell Curve by Murray & Herrnstein was also attacked in a similarly unscholarly way. Murray comments: "I do not know how to explain the extraordinary discrepancy between what The Bell Curve actually says about race and what most commentators have said that the book says, except as the result of some sort of psychological projection onto our text. Other factors are at work as well. Michael Novak (who has written favorably about The Bell Curve) and Thomas Sowell (who has his criticisms of the book) have pointed out in similar terms that the Left has invested everything in a few core beliefs about society as the cause of problems, government as the solution, and the manipulability of the environment for reaching the goal of equality. For the Left, as Novak puts it, The Bell Curve's "message cannot be true, because much more is at stake than a particular set of arguments from psychological science. A this-worldly eschatological hope is at stake. The sin attributed to Herrnstein and Murray is theological: they destroy hope".

Australian academic Leftists don't care about the truth either: "Claims of plagiarism against Keith Windschuttle reveal the desperation of his critics. Windschuttle's book, launched last Monday at the Tattersalls Club, has already had an extraordinary impact in the academic world. It refutes the "black armband" view of Australian history and seeks to overturn the concept of white guilt and black victimhood which have become embedded in the national psyche. It told how Australia's academic historians have "failed their public responsibility to tell the truth", said Claudio Veliz... The book has already forced admissions from three high-profile purveyors of "black armband" history."

In case you have not seen it already Ron Rosenbaum's 2002 article on the moral imbecility of the Left ("Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee") is also worth reading.

Slate reports that we know next to nothing about the effects of gay parenting on children. So let's experiment on a generation to find out! No "precautionary principle" there. Under the precautionary principle Green/Left politicians say that the alleged unknowns of genetically modified crops make them too risky to even experiment with, so modifying tried and tested social systems is surely at least as risky. Where's the hysteria? Once again we see that a so-called "principle" is just a tool to cause disruption, not something sincerely believed. It will never be used against disruption of society.


No comments: