THE LEFT WERE ONCE MORE CONSERVATIVE

I pointed out at some length a week ago that the further back you go in history the more "Rightist" Leftists appear to have been. Below are some excerpts from a recent essay on the history of the British Labour Party that bear that out. Leftists will use for their own aggrandisement whatever attitudes they see as popular at the time -- from revolution for an angry and much put-upon Russian working class in 1917 to mere sound-good crisis management for the calm and practical British -- though both may be against the long-term best interests of the people concerned. If you think long-term, you are a conservative.

"Patrick Diamond, editor of the recent book New Labour's Old Roots, argues that the germ of New Labour existed from the start. There has been a strong pragmatic streak in the Labour Party, with a succession of modernisers who, like Blair, freely adapted their politics to the needs of the times. The Labour Party was never a hotbed of theoretical analysis, preferring instead those British values of practical application and common sense.

There weren't many hotheaded radicals among Labour's old leadership, most of whom preferred a go-slow, God-fearing version of 'socialism'. 'Socialism.is an excellently conceived and resolute effort to Christianise government and society', judged Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald, during the party's radical, formative years in the early twentieth century

Even Clement Attlee's 1945-51 reputedly Labourist 'golden age' was pretty prosaic at heart, playing the primary role of restoring profitability in the British economy. Attlee maintained rations, introduced wage restraint in 1948, sent troops to break strikes and imprison militants, and devalued the pound in 1949. ....

When it came to foreign policy, Labour ministers were at least as gung-ho in defending British interests as were the Tories. The recent speeches made by Labour members in parliament about the party's long-standing anti-war tradition have little basis in fact. Attlee was in power in 1945 when Britain's ally America dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima, and he ordered the development of the British bomb without consulting the cabinet, never mind parliament....

(I have corrected the author's spelling of "Attlee" above. She gave it as "Atlee")

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

ELSEWHERE

Surprise, Surprise! I said from the beginning that the "Hobbits" were just pygmies: "Indonesian scientists have found a community of Pygmy people on the eastern island of Flores, near a village where Australian scientists discovered a dwarf-sized skeleton last year and declared it a new human species, a newspaper says. The latest discovery will likely raise more controversy over the finding of homo floresiensis, claimed by Australian scientists Mike Morwood and Peter Brown in September last year. They dubbed the new species "hobbits". Kompas Daily reported yesterday that the Pygmy community had been found during an April expedition in the village of Rampapasa, about 1km from the village of Liang Bua where the "hobbits" were found. The newspaper quoted Koeshardjono, a biologist who discovered the Pygmy village, as saying that 77 families had been found living in the village. Eighty per cent of the Rampapasa villagers were of small stature, with most male adults under 145cm and female adults about 135cm". (A few more details here)

There is a type of deadpan Jewish humour that I really love and Arlene Peck is a very Jewish lady so I enjoyed this snippet from the unexpurgated version of her latest column (which I have just posted here): "Today, we are lazy and without a clue about the subjects that make a real difference. I remember when I lived in Israel and the men there, unlike most of the ones I meet here who are gay, married or dead… sometimes all three, were sexual beings. If they woke up at three in the morning, it was to make love. Today, they’ll get up at 3:00 A.M. to watch a Lakers game". The thought of someone being at once gay, married and dead really cracked me up.

Methodists consult everything but the Bible: "A Methodist court Friday reinstated a gay minister who had been defrocked for declaring to her congregation that she was in a relationship with another woman. The United Methodist Church appeals panel voted 8 to 1 to set aside the December decision by another church court to oust Irene "Beth" Stroud for violating the denomination's ban on "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" clergy. The panel said the ban was "null and void" because the church procedures were not followed when it was adopted."

Franklin Delano Mussolini "So, taking a few pages from Mussolini's fascist reforms in Italy, Roosevelt began to group American industries into cartels. These cartels, called Code Authorities, operated under government supervision and had immense authority. They could set quality, prices, and output quantities for the industry. Lower-priced competition was effectively outlawed. This program's failings are too many to elaborate on here, but John Flynn's book The Roosevelt Myth would be a good start for someone wanting more on this topic. In brief, the cartelization scheme was economic nonsense. ... "Mercifully, this program (run as the National Recovery Administration) was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935.... What Roosevelt had created, Mr. Flynn brilliantly foresaw in 1948, was "that kind of state-supported economic system that will continue to devour a little at a time the private system until it disappears altogether." In a word: fascism (an economic term the appropriateness of which is in no way refuted by the absence of goose-steeping storm troopers in the streets)"

The socialist who admitted he was wrong: "Robert Heilbroner, the bestselling writer of economics, died early this month at the age of 85. He and John Kenneth Galbraith may well have sold more economics books than all other economists combined. Alas, their talents lay more in the writing than the economics. Heilbroner was an outspoken socialist... He was not entirely impervious to new evidence, however. In 1989, he famously wrote in The New Yorker: "Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won... Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism." .... Alas, in that same article he went on to say that while socialism might not in fact produce the goods, we would still need to reject capitalism on the grounds of...let's see...I've got it-environmental degradation..... On the big issue of capitalism vs. socialism, though, he did continue his rueful acknowledgment of error. In 1992, he explained the facts of life to Dissent readers: "Capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure.... He also noted then that "democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist."

There is an unusual retrospective on the Vietnam war Here that points out important gains for the USA from the Vietnam war. The second biggest lot of criminals (after the Communists) in that war was the U.S. "peace" movement that harried the U.S. Congress into cutting off all support for the South -- thus ensuring a Communist victory. Hundreds of thousands who had fought bravely for their liberty lost their lives as a result.

There is a rather awful story up on Strange Justice at the moment about government child abuse in New York City.

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS I note that even Karl Marx's kindly father thought Karl was a bad egg.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

MORE FUN WITH THE ANGRY LEFT:

I noted yesterday on LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS how Liberal Avenger has put up another of his fact-free streams of abuse -- this time in response to a critical article by Debbie Schlussel about Marla Ruzicka, the Leftist "martyr" recently killed by the Islamic nutjobs in Iraq. The avenging one has also added a link to the bottom of his post recommending an article by Raimondo which he recommends as a good "fisking" of the Schlussel article. Here are some choice comments from early on in the Raimondo article:

"Yeah, Debbie, Marla was a real blonde – unlike your haggish self. And she was young – again, unlike yourself, in spite of the few pounds of makeup you slosh on your tired old forty-if-you're-a-day face. But recognizing the roots (if you'll pardon the expression) of Schlussel's schadenfreude would require a "reality check" on Debbie Dye-job's part, which is not about to happen. Apart from outright envy, however, what exactly is Schlussel's beef?".

With irrelevant ad hominem garbage like that masquerading as an argument I certainly felt no need to read any further at that point. Coming from someone as messed-up as Raimondo, however, the hate-speech did not at all surprise me.

I have not myself taken any interest in the life and times of Ms Ruzicka but from the extensive and detailed information provided by Debbie Schlussel, I suspect that, far from being a martyr, she was just another self-promoting bigmouth hiding behind a front of "compassion" in the usual Leftist way. There is a picture of her on Raimondo's site which could almost have been designed to portray a self-promoting bigmouth.

Update

The Avenger wrote to me in response to the above and asked how I could condemn what he and Raimondo said when I also came to derogatory conclusions about Ruzicka and Raimondo -- which is a fair question. I replied: "I have no difficulties at all with derisive judgments about people. I make them about Leftists all the time. It is abuse AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR facts and argument that leaves me cold -- and which I deride. In the case of both Raimondo and Ruzicka, I linked to fact-filled articles to give the sources of information on which I based my conclusions."

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

"BLACK CULTURE" REVISITED

On Wednesday I posted a brief critique of Thomas Sowell's theory about black culture being responsible for black under-achievement. Yesterday I put up two further comments on the subject by Steve Sailer and Star Parker. A reader has however reminded me of what is probably the most important factor:

"Sailer's comment that today's behavior is "an African thing" is just as much of a "stretch" as Sowell's saying it was a "Redneck thing". Neither has had serious influence for over 200 years. Blacks were long past the "Redneck thing" and the "African Thing" at the time our "welfare state" began. Their behavior is an "American thing", brought on by welfare state".

In fact, that comment reminded me of an earlier post harking back to something that most Americans have probably now forgotten: That characteristic black behaviour in America was up until around 50 years ago roughly the opposite of what it is now. See here. So where was the "African" and "cracker" culture then? Did it have opposite results then to what it has now? My correspondent is clearly right: Objective circumstances (to use a Marxist term!) matter most and current self-destructive African behaviour is not the result of ANY long-standing culture but rather the result of the perverse incentives that American Leftists have created with indiscriminate welfare policies, affirmative action, anti-American education, racial quotas on policing and the promotion of a "victim" mentality among minorities generally. And I think it is clear that even the influence of genetics pales into insignificance compared with the effect of the positive and negative incentive systems that society sets up for people.

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

ELSEWHERE

Unbelievable self-deception and reality-denial. Just listen to what Elizabeth Edwards, wife of the recent Democrat vice-Presidential nominee, has to say about free speech and compare it with the constant attacks on anything conservative that occur almost daily on Left-dominated American university and college campuses: "Democrats are simply good and decent people. And good and decent people want everyone to do well -- those who agree with them and those who do not. We fight for the right of voices with which we disagree to speak out, for the right of people to say things we don't believe to be true, even for the right to be malicious and mean-spirited." Just look at today's post on EDUCATION WATCH for starters.

Dennis Prager has compiled a list of "liberal" opinions of the sort that commonly appear in America's mainstream newspapers and suggests that few Americans would agree with most of them. They are pretty absurd when spelt out and I think he is right that they are very much minority views. I wouldn't mind designing a survey to test out properly how popular they really are if anybody living in the USA feels like helping me with that. I live just a bit too far away to do it all myself. People willing to go doorknocking or able to pay others to do so would be what I would need.

Canadian ignoramuses: The CBC has recently broadcast a programme comparing neo-conservative philosopher Leo Strauss with the Islamic fundamentalist Sayyid Qutb -- a very stretched comparison indeed. They could make a much better case for saying that Islam and Judaism have a lot in common but that would have no propaganda value, of course.

Islamic "scholar" convicted of urging holy war on US: "An Islamic scholar who prosecutors said enjoyed 'rock star' status among a group of young Muslim men in Virginia was convicted Tuesday of exhorting his followers in the days after Sept. 11 to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops. The convictions against Ali al-Timimi, 41, carry a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison without parole. But the judge left open the possibility that she will toss out some of the counts. The jury reached its verdict after seven days of deliberations and convicted al-Timimi of all 10 counts."

Leftist antisemitism in Britain: "Although egalitarian, cosmopolitan, and internationalist principles are common to all variants of socialist doctrine, these have not immunised the Left from antisemitism.... The shift from the politics of class to the politics of identity has meant that the Left's main imperative has been to express solidarity and seek out alliances with those groups opposed to the dominance of the United States. In this worldview, America is regarded as the main foe. Any concerns about the political ideas and affiliations of such groups have been subordinated to the larger goal of anti-Americanism. A wide range of organisations have, therefore, been branded as worthy of support, from Latin American populists like the Frente Sandinista (FSLN) in Nicaragua to Arab nationalists, of both conservative and radical hues, in Syria, Iraq, Libya and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). In recent years, this comradeship has been extended by large sections of the Left to the Islamist movements and their followers in Europe. As the old Arab proverb would have it, 'My Enemy's Enemy is My Friend.' The contemporary alliance between the western Left and nationalist and religious radicals in the Middle East is of special concern here. Arab and Muslim radicals have always denied that Israel, uniquely among the states in the international system, has the right to exist. That position is shared by a large proportion of western Leftists."

Jonah Goldberg takes a good swipe at the "Iraq as Vietnam" kneejerk that is so common on the Left.

There is a very pointed article here by a professor of criminology showing the extensive similarities between Leftists and juvenile delinquents.

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS we see that Engels advocated war between Germany and France.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

ANTISEMITIC BRITISH LEFTISTS

In the universities, of course

Below is a letter sent on Thursday to Sally Hunt, the secretary general of the AUT, the UK teachers' union, by Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi, The Middle East Centre, St Antony's College, Oxford University (emanuele.ottolenghi@sant.ox.ac.uk):

"Regarding the AUT recent decision to boycott Haifa University and Bar Ilan University in Israel, I am shocked to learn that, in addition to a call for boycott, the AUT is ready to offer a waiver to scholars on condition that they publicly state their willingness to conform to the political orthodoxy espoused by the academics who sponsored your motion.

Oaths of political loyalty do not belong to academia. They belong to illiberal minds and repressive regimes.

Based on this, the AUT's definition of academic freedom is the freedom to agree with its views only.

Given the circumstances, I wish to express in no uncertain terms my unconditional and undivided solidarity with both universities and their faculties. I know many people, both at Haifa University and at Bar Ilan University, of different political persuasion and from different walks of life. The diversity of those faculties reflects the authentic spirit of academia. The AUT invitation to boycott them betrays that spirit because it advocates a uniformity of views, under pain of boycott.

In solidarity with my colleagues and as a symbolic gesture to defend the spirit of a free academia, I wish to be added to the boycott blacklist. Please include me. I hope that other colleagues of all political persuasions will join me."

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

FROM BROOKES NEWS

US economy, deficits, taxes and Democrats: The truth about Clinton's tax hike, interest rates and deficits
The anti-Catholic Professor Quiggin gets blasted for sliming Pope Benedict XVI: Leftwing Professor John Quiggin, who called Pope Benedict XVI an "arsehole", is taken to task for his anti-Catholicism. We can be sure of one thing when it comes to Quiggin - he'll never call the sadistic Castro an "arsehole"
"Bay of Pigs, 40 years After" conference, Fidel Castro and the lying media : Forty years after the Bay of Pigs mainstream journalists are still shamelessly lying for the murderous Fidel Castro
Social security: Dreaming the impossible dream: Is Tom Friedman so selfish that he wants to retain 30 cents out of every dollar at the expense of the "world peace" Republicans are working for?
US economy, tax cuts and Paul Krugman's Keynesian ideology: That Krugman is unable to comprehend the consequences if his own economic nostrums doesn't say much for his critical faculties, though he is never short of criticism when it comes to Republicans

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

ELSEWHERE

Steve Sailer too has some skeptical comments about Sowell's view that black culture is "redneck": "Yet, when we talk of "redneck culture" today, such as country music and Nashville, we are largely talking of Scotch-Irish culture. And the Scotch-Irish generally stayed away from the blacks. They went to the Appalachian and Ozark highlands where disease was less of a problem for Europeans than in the lowland South. Moreover, the Scotch-Irish disliked having to compete with slave labor and tobacco and cotton slave plantations were uneconomical in the highlands. Today, the state with the least educated whites is the prototypical hillbilly state of West Virginia, which had so few slaveowners that it seceded from Virginia and joined the Union during the Civil War. Other Scotch-Irish redneck states like Tennessee and Oklahoma have limited black populations, too..... Of course, the least-discussed cultural influence on African-Americans is also the most obvious: Africa.... Perhaps the biggest social problem of African-Americans, as reflected in the very high illegitimacy rate, is that the culture they brought with them from Africa is one of low paternal investment. America's dominant culture had largely succeeded in inculcating monogamy and bring-home-the-bacon norms in blacks by about 1960, when it suddenly lost its self-confidence and began funding, via AFDC, the traditional African tendency toward mothers supporting their children without much support from their fathers....."

Star Parker on black disadvantage: "The National Urban League recently released its "State of Black America" report for 2005.... Few will be surprised to learn that blacks earn less, own less, are unemployed more, live shorter lives, attend worse schools and are more likely to be convicted of a crime and be sent to prison. How, according to the League, should blacks handle this deficit in equality they continue to experience? .... The report lists 10 "prescriptions" for change. Eight of them are government programs. Of the other two, one suggests blacks should tithe and volunteer more, and the other admonishes blacks to "focus on savings, investing and estate planning." .... There is barely a hint in the League report that black problems might have anything to do with things other than politics. Here are some gaps between white and black America that the study does not see relevant to report: 48 percent of black families vs. 82 percent of white families are headed by married couples; 43 percent of black families vs. 13 percent of white families are headed by a woman with no spouse; Black women are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion; 70 percent of black babies vs. 23 percent of white babies are born to unwed mothers; Whereas blacks represent 13 percent of the U.S. population, they account for more than 50 percent of new AIDS cases. The gaps that the National Urban League reports are gaps in symptoms and results. These gaps show the causes"

Sowell on judges: "The future of the legal and political system of this country may be on the line when two judicial nominees that the Democrats refused to let the Senate vote on in the last Congress are being again submitted for a vote.... This is not about two people being nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters' votes mean less and less as time goes by, when judges take more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of "interpreting" laws. Judges who decide cases on the basis of the plain meaning of the words in the laws -- like Justices Brown and Owen -- may be what most of the public want but such judges are anathema to liberals. The courts are the last hope for enacting the liberal agenda because liberals cannot get enough votes to control Congress or most state legislatures. Unelected judges can cut the voters out of the loop and decree liberal dogma as the law of the land.... An independent judiciary does not mean judges independent of the law. Nor is the rule of judges the same as the rule of law. Too often it is the rule of lawlessness from the bench."

The furious cries of the American Left about perfectly legal and routine conservative appointments to the Supreme Court ring very hollow when one rembembers that the great hero of the American Left -- FDR -- tried to do far worse: "FDR's revolutionary New Deal plan encountered two big problems: The Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. When cases challenging the NIRA and the AAA reached the Supreme Court, it held both laws in violation of the Constitution. During Roosevelt's first term, the Court ruled that other parts of his radical economic scheme were unconstitutional as well. Elected by a landslide in 1936, Roosevelt did not intend to let those "nine old men" on the Supreme Court interfere with his transformation of American life.... he came up with a shortcut plan designed to circumvent the constitutional-amendment process and the Supreme Court decisions against his New Deal.... FDR's plan requested Congress to permit the president to appoint an additional Supreme Court justice for every justice over 70 years of age, thereby expanding the size of the Court. By enabling him to appoint new justices who were committed to his economic philosophy, Roosevelt figured that the newly aligned Court would start voting in his favor. Despite his enormous popularity, the American people, to their everlasting credit, rose up in arms against Roosevelt's "court-packing scheme" and, as a result, the Congress failed to enact it. Americans didn't like their president tampering with their constitutional order."

And as Reliapundit says: "Powerline has done a great job of exposing a major MSM flip-flop about the utility/advisability of the FILIBUSTER. Viking pundit adds a link to another NYT whopper. And Powerline gets a Senator. Michelle Malkin has a list of other folks who conveniently change their values when it suits their narrow partisan aims. Bottom-line: Filibusters are NOT protected by - or even mentioned in the Constitution, and they were once scorned by the Left. The Left cannot get away with lying about this."

Carnival of the Vanities is up again with its usual big range of select reading.

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS we see that Engels welcomed world war.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE REVIEWED IN A MAINSTREAM PSYCHOLOGY JOURNAL

Academic news report below from Chris Brand:

"Licensed scholarly warfare broke out in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law (vi 05), (full articles here) over whether psychological race differences (especially in intelligence) are substantially heritable. Race realists Arthur Jensen, Phil Rushton and Linda Gottfredson fought their corner excellently, conveniently reviewing the literature (cf. the Cambridge debate (i 97) and adding some useful points (e.g. that skin lightness is linked to IQ among South Africa's Blacks - which it is not among America's Blacks, where lighter skins often came about from historical Black female matings with White farmhands during the days of slavery). The hereditarians were opposed by such as Robert Sternberg (sometimes said by me to believe in 666 types of intelligence - Behav.Res.&Therapy, 1992) and Richard E. Nisbett (reviewed by me in Heredity, 2003) who claimed among other things medium-term boosts on non-IQ tests from Headstart-type programmes involving 8 hours intervention daily! Overall, the race realists had a coherent message with copious evidence and the environmentalists had the scraps - they remained respectively the `stompers' and `stompees' as amusingly caricatured by Professor Earl `Buzz' Hunt (Brand, Person.&Indiv.Diffs, 1999). Occidental Quarterly reckoned the 60-page Rushton & Jensen article might prove as much of a landmark as Jensen's classic 1969 Harvard Educational Review article, `How much can we boost IQ and educational attainment.' The race-realist argument was summarized in News-Medical Net, 26 iv."

The articles Chris summarizes above are not notable for being published in an academic journal. Almost all of the research in this field has been first published in academic journals. It is however of some note to find such articles in a journal of the American Psychological Association. The APA is distinctly Left-leaning and their journals are the most prestigious and authoritative ones ones in psychology. Logical Meme has a bit more on the Rushton & Jensen paper. He also has a short roundup of the medical research that has found race differences.

There is another academic report here (PDF) of similar interest. One of the authors in this case is a Nobel prizewinner! Working from a very comprehensive body of data, the authors found that average racial differences in adult income are almost entirely predictable from childhood differences in IQ. They also found that, from early childhood on, black males have other disadvantages (less self-control, less tendency to plan ahead etc) and that those differences also influence income in later life. The third finding is that although blacks and Hispanics share similar environmental disadvantages in childhood, Hispanics tend to rise above that whereas blacks do not -- showing again that the source of black disadvantage is not environmental. There are fuller discussions of the report concerned here and here

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

ELSEWHERE

There is a short comment here on "Downfall", the recent German film about Hitler, that is more realistic than most and which rightly points to the way the German people followed Hitler as the thing in most need of explanation. The writer, like most modern writers about Nazism, seems to see the whole thing as a great mystery. Yet if you read Mein Kampf, it is not the slightest mystery at all. Mein Kampf is essentially a love-song to the German people. Hitler was the ultimate practitioner of that great Leftist deception -- the claim that he "cared" for his people. And his nationalism -- his propaganda about how great Germans were -- powerfully reinforced that. So Germans followed Hitler because they loved him and because they thought he was right. And they loved him because they thought he loved them. It could hardly be simpler but nobody dares mention love in conjunction with Nazism, of course, so everybody pretends that there is some great mystery about it all. See here for more details.

USA Today publishes an attack on Democrat filibustering: "While minority rights are a significant Senate tradition, the Constitution itself, through the "advice and consent" clause, clearly mandates confirmation of judges by simple majority once every voice has been heard. The filibuster is not enshrined among the Constitution's system of checks and balances. Judicial filibusters of majority-supported nominees have never been part of the Senate's tradition. In the past two decades, even with the stakes at their highest, Democrats did not filibuster Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. Yet in the 108th Congress, Democrats filibustered 10 of 34 appellate court nominees."

Crazy rules finally defied "A federal air marshal sued Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials to block government rules that prevent him from speaking out about possible security lapses. The federal complaint, filed Thursday in Riverside by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, claims the rules infringe on Frank Terreri's free speech rights. Terreri, 38, wants to blow the whistle on policies he believes threaten aviation security, lawyers said. Among his concerns are visible flight check-in procedures and a formal dress code that could compromise marshals' undercover status, and news stories approved by federal administrators about training and tactics..... The discipline came after strong criticism about agency policies by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, whose air marshal unit is headed by Terreri. The organization, whose members include about 1,400 marshals, has called for the resignation of air marshal service director Thomas Quinn."

Libertarians, Leftists and paleocons are all fond of asserting that the 9/11 events were caused by American "interventionism" abroad. Clifford May has an astringent comment on that: "That's an astonishing conclusion. The atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian. How, before 9/11, did Washington intervene in Egypt's affairs -- except to give Egypt billions of dollars, re-supply its military, and turn a blind eye to President Hosni Mubarak's repression of dissidents? Atta followed orders from Osama bin Laden, a Saudi. For more than fifty years, American "interventionism" in Saudi Arabia consisted of paying the kingdom astronomical sums in oil revenue, granting Saudis unprecedented privileges (for example, empowering Wahhabis to vet Muslim chaplains for our military and our prisons) and, in 1990, sending American soldiers, at the request of the Saudis, to protect them from being invaded by Saddam Hussein. Or maybe Buchanan was thinking about our intervention in Somalia - the only goal of which was to feed starving people. Or our intervention in Afghanistan to support guerrillas fighting the Soviet invader. We also intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo - to save Muslims from further devastation at the hands of their Christian neighbors".

Dutch to put mutts in iron containers: "Government and opposition MPs are teaming up in a joint plan to house anti-social tenants in special iron huts to reduce city disputes and prevent people from being forced onto the street. The plan from the Christian Democrat CDA, Liberal VVD and opposition Labour PvdA is focused at troublesome tenants who have long been a nuisance factor. Instead of being evicted, they will be given a 'last chance residence', newspaper 'De Telegraaf' reported on Monday. Christian Democrat MP Mirjam Sterk wants to prevent tenants who disturb their neighbourhood ending up on the street.... The party will submit a legislative proposal to Parliament allowing the relocation of anti-social neighbours to container homes in a specifically designated and remote area of a city. It is considered likely the extra strong homes will be specially built -- probably out of metal or shipping containers -- to withstand vandalism".

There is a good article here about "Joh", a great Queensland conservative.

Jennifer Marohasy has a very good demolition of Leftist Australian blogger John Quiggin. I have had words with Quiggin myself in the past. See here and here

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS shows that Marx saw Germany's future wars as race-based. Funny that Hitler had the same idea!

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

SOUTHERN CULTURE AND BLACK UNDER-ACHIEVEMENT

The person whose writings I quote most often on this blog is Thomas Sowell. I think he is spot-on most of the time. His theory of black under-achievement is however one with which I must respectfully disagree. He says that blacks do poorly because they have absorbed "cracker" culture and that holds them back. Why? Because "cracker" culture is bombastic and anti-intellectual. His thesis would seem to require that White Southerners in general do as poorly as black Southerners on IQ tests and other achievement criteria but he offers no evidence for that dubious proposition. There are certainly SOME poor whites who do as poorly as blacks on educational and other criteria but that proves nothing. It is averages across whole groups that we have to look at if we are to explain group phenomena. See also here.

There are other reasons why Sowell's thesis does not stand up. An obvious one is that, as Sowell himself notes, "cracker" culture originates from the rural parts of British Isles, particularly from the Scotch-Irish population (see here and here). But who were the Scotch-Irish? They were Scots (mostly farmers) who had moved to Northern Ireland under the encouragement of Protestant English rulers. They were given Irish land by the English because of English dislike for native Irish rebelliousness. And their descendants still form a majority in Northern Ireland to this day. But, like all the Irish, many of them became dissatisfied with life in Ireland and moved to the United States, where they mostly ended up in the rural South, where their rural skills could be gainfully employed. So they were a Scottish people of a particularly enterprising sort -- they had first emigrated to Ireland and then again to America. And they took their fundamentalist Protestant religion with them.

But what is the one thing that we know about Scottish culture? What is the legendary preoccupation of the Scots (aside from whisky)? It is of course education. Scots are an education-worshipping people. So the idea that ANY Scottish culture features a dislike of learning and education is absurd. If "crackers" are intellectually backward, it is not because of any anti-intellectual cultural inheritance. Yet it does seem to be true that the intellectual achievements of American "crackers" have always been low. So how come? Easy. It is simply the rural effect. One of the most reliable generalizations in IQ research is that rural residents test out much dumber that their urban counterparts. Perhaps the most striking example of that is the fact that Afrikaners (white South Africans of mainly Dutch ancestry) score poorly on IQ tests. Yet their parent population in the Netherlands performs perfectly creditably. Lynn & Vanhanen have many of the figures on IQ averages worldwide, subsequently much extended in their book.

So how come? How come rural dwellers score poorly on IQ? Do Afrikaners and "crackers" score poorly because they are immigrants? Are they the dregs and rejects of their parent populations? If anything we would expect the reverse. People who have enough vision to look beyond their accustomed local horizons and set off across the seas in search of personal betterment ought surely to be a bit brighter than the norm. So emigration should surely select for slightly HIGHER IQ, not lower IQ. An interesting case in point is Australia. Up until quite recently, the Australian population has always been almost entirely comprised of people whose ancestry is in Europe or the British Isles. Almost all Australians are the descendants of immigrants, including some who came out as convicts and many who came from very poor parts of Europe, such as Ireland, Scotland, Greece and Southern Italy. The Irish component is particularly large. So what is the average Australian IQ? It has always been virtually identical to the average British or white American IQ. So it would seem in the Australian case that there has been a balance achieved between an immigrant effect leading to a slightly higher IQ and an adverse effect on IQ due to many immigrants coming from unpromising original backgrounds. In fact, it is mainly from regional areas of the British Isles that the Australian population originates so Australia might be held to constitute one big "cracker" culture. There is certainly a strong and unashamed celebration of working-class culture and origins among many Australians. Yet the evidence is clear that Australians have no need to view themselves as inferior to anybody -- and they don't.

So if it is not an immigrant effect we see holding rural populations back, why are rural populations generally a bit backward intellectually? It is presumably because of another well-known influence on IQ. IQ is only about two thirds genetic. And a major non-genetic influence is stimulation. A highly stimulating environment in early childhood leads to higher adult IQ. And, delightful though the country can be, it is just not as stimulating as the bustle of the big city. So after one or two generations growing up in the big city, people who were once mainly rural (as in the case of American blacks) should have lost the rural handicap. Yet there is no sign of the black IQ average converging on the white norm in any area where both racial groups can be found. Even where black and white parents are of similar social background, their children tend to diverge markedly in the usual direction -- as Ogbu found.

Similarly, we would expect that Southern whites who move to the North or to large Southern cities should rapidly lose any disadvantage associated with coming from a rural culture and background -- and I don't think I have to point to the many successful white Southerners in America today to show that that does happen. Similarly prominent blacks are however very few and, as Sowell points out, most of them are recent immigrants to America rather than being the descendants of slaves. So while a TEMPORARY disadvantage associated with rural origins is perfectly reasonable, to say that a lasting disadvantage accrues from that source is very tendentious.

This whole topic is a very big one with a huge history of disputation behind it so I make no claim to have covered it fully in this brief post -- and I have not even covered all of Sowell's points fully -- but I think I have outlined some reasons why "cracker" culture is a weak reed to lean on in explaining the vast black/white gap in intellectual achievement. For more background, readers might find this article interesting.

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

ELSEWHERE

Harvard grows up: "In a showdown of the sexes on Friday, Johnstone Professor of Psychology Steven Pinker and Professor of Psychology Elizabeth Spelke debated whether innate differences lead to the underrepresentation of tenured women in math and the sciences. In front of a packed Science Center B crowd, they analyzed the data behind University President Lawrence H. Summers' controversial January comments on women in science. Pinker, whom Summers recruited to Harvard last year, cited evidence arguing that male superiority in skills like mental object rotation and problem solving provides a biological basis for the argument that men are more talented at math and science. Spelke countered, acknowledging the existence of differences between men and women, but arguing that the reason "women are as scarce as hen's teeth" in academia is due to discrimination".

I have just transferred Chris Brand's latest thoughts to here He has some interesting data about males and females being psychologically different right from birth.

MJ paranoia at work?: "The pro-marijuana lobby and much of the media have been silent about the fact that the killer student in Red Lake, Minnesota, Jeff Weise, was a pothead, and that scientific studies link marijuana to mental illness"

Marathon Pundit has a petition that you can sign in support of Prof. Klocek, who dared to speak the truth about Islam at De Paul university.

I have just added an update to my post of a few days ago about Thomas Friedman, Matt Taibbi and Leftist rage.

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS shows that Marx thought that the French deserved a thrashing from the Germans. And again, of course, Hitler carried it out.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

TUESDAY ROUNDUP

I am doing a shorter form of my "roundup" today:

On Dissecting Leftism I explain why the Left of yesteryear seem so much more rightist than they do today.

On Political Correctness Watch I note that human protandry -- where girls spontaneously turn into boys at puberty -- is a comprehensive disproof of the feminist claim that sex-roles are "socially constructed"

On Education Watch I note a report showing that seating students in rows works best for learning

On Socialized Medicine I report the "Dr Death" horror in an Australian public hospital

On Leftists as Elitists I note a union organizer who deplores the haughtiness of the modern Left

On MarxWords I note that Engels equated "niggers" with animals

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

SOME EXCELLENT CONSERVATIVE THOUGHTS FROM THE POPE

As a libertarian and an atheist, there is much that I disagree with in the Pope's teachings but I like the thoughts excerpted below:

"The state is not the whole of human existence and does not embrace the whole of human hope. Men and women and their hopes extend beyond the thing that is the state and beyond the sphere of political activity. This does not only apply to a state that is Babylon but to any and every state. The state is not the totality: that takes the load off the politician's shoulders and at the same time opens up for him or her the path of rational politics. The Roman state was false and anti-Christian precisely because it wanted to be the totality of human capacity. In that way it claimed what it could not achieve; and in that way it distorted and diminished men and women. Through the totalitarian lie it became demonic and tyrannical. Getting rid of the totality of the state has demythologized the state and thereby liberated men and women as well as politicians and politics.

But when Christian faith, faith in man's greater hope, decays and falls away, then the myth of the divine state rises up once again.... The mythical hope of a do-it-yourself paradise can only drive people into fear from which there is no escape; fear of the collapse of their promises and of the greater void lurks behind it; fear of their own power and its cruelty. So the first service that Christian faith performs for politics is that it liberates men and women from the irrationality of the political myths that are the real threat of our time.

It is of course always difficult to adopt the sober approach that does what is possible and does not cry enthusiastically after the impossible; the voice of reason is not as loud as the cry of unreason. The cry for the large-scale has the whiff of morality; in contrast limiting oneself to what is possible seems to be renouncing the passion of morality and adopting the pragmatism of the faint-hearted. But in truth political morality consists precisely of resisting the seductive temptation of the big words by which humanity and its opportunities are gambled away. It is not the adventurous moralism that wants itself to do God's work that is moral, but the honesty that accepts the standards of man and in them does the work of man. It is not refusal to compromise but compromise that in political things is the true morality".

More here

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

ELSEWHERE

Domestic terrorism is overwhelmingly Leftist: "Immediately after Timothy McVeigh was arrested for blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on a beautiful April morning 10 years ago, the media were atwitter with the talk of "right-wing militias" and the threat they posed to the republic. McVeigh, unapologetic, defiant, and awash in hatred for the government, was presented as the poster boy of the government-hating, gun-loving, right-wing nuts. And we were told ad nauseam that McVeigh was the product of conservative talk radio and irresponsible Republican politicians who talked about revolution. It was all the fault of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. (Rarely mentioned was the real motivator of McVeigh's actions: Janet Reno's attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. But I digress.)... In the decade since the Oklahoma City bombing, the media have remained interested in the right-wing crazies, but have almost entirely ignored the left-wing ones -- those committing most of the terrorist acts inside the United States. Left-wing terrorist groups have been responsible for almost all of the recent domestic terrorism. The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism maintains a terrorism database. According to its files, as the Baltimore Sun reported on Sunday, fully 22 of the 25 terrorist attacks inside the United States since 2003 are believed to have been the work of environmental extremists. This is not a recent development. Left-wing terrorists have always been the major terrorist threat in the United States"

Mississippi throws down the gauntlet: "A new Mississippi law allows displays of the Ten Commandments, "In God We Trust" and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in public buildings. Governor Haley Barbour, who already has a Ten Commandments display in his Capitol office, signed the bill without a public ceremony. The Mississippi American Civil Liberties Union is awaiting a U-S Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on public property before deciding whether to challenge the state law. In 2001, Mississippi passed a law that required "In God We Trust" to be posted in every public classroom, cafeteria and gym. Last fall, Mississippi approved a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage".

The usual bad consequences of government regulation: "A new European Union regulation is forcing airlines to pay passengers if a flight is delayed. Just delayed. Not as a matter of agreement between customer and vendor but as a matter of law. A single flight delay can now cost an airline hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, delays usually have causes, including safety-related causes. So this regulation punishes airlines for safeguarding passengers. You can predict what the consequences will be. Recently a British Airways plane was in the news after its pilot decided to fly across the Atlantic with a busted engine. Otherwise the airline would have had to pay over the $280,000 to compensate the passengers."

What "liberals" want in the constitution: "The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences--thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections. And how will the Constitution be changed? Through a constitutional convention, or a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures? Of course not. The whole problem, from the liberal perspective, is that they can't get democratically elected bodies to enact their agenda. As one of the Yale conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?" The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation."

Leftist backpedalling: "American idealism, backed with force and conviction - not soft power, multilateralism, Europeans, or the U.N. - ended the rule of the Taliban, and of Saddam Hussein. The often-lonely vision of George W. Bush ushered in elected governments in their places, and inspired the disenfranchised elsewhere to begin agitating for change. Those in Lebanon know that it was an American president, not Kofi Annan or Gerhard Schroeder, who both shares their aspirations and is willing to stand up to their oppressors. Among the critics of the first George W. Bush administration - and especially among the architects of the feeble U.S. response to terrorism in the 1990s - the present reality must be either denied or spun. The former is impossible when Arab radicals themselves credit Bush with being a catalyst for reform. That leaves the latter alternative of spin as the only recourse: Bush erred by going alone and is now changing to our point of view and thus basking in the world's appreciation."

PETA loses: "A leading animal-rights group has lost its court fight to pull the California milk industry's popular "Happy Cows" television spots over accusations of false advertising. The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to review an appeal brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which sued to stop the national advertising campaign featuring the talking, laid-back cows and their tag line, "Great Cheese Comes From Happy Cows. Happy Cows Come From California." ..... The "Happy Cows" ads, part of a five-year-old, $33 million campaign, became a huge hit in California and helped push the state's cheese industry to first in the nation, said Nancy Fletcher, spokeswoman for the California Milk Advisory Board. "This appears to be another loss for PETA in their campaign against the California milk industry," Ms. Fletcher said. "The highest priority of our dairy farmers is the health and comfort of their cows. They take great pride in how well they treat their cows."

Drunkablog (who seems to blog from Denver) thinks that Australian bloggers do a particularly good job. I completely agree!

Melbourne blogger Matter of Opinion has quite a bit up about Anzac day.

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS a war against Russia is said to be good for Germany. I always wondered where Hitler got that idea!

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

ANZAC DAY

Today is Anzac Day in Australia -- our only genuine national day -- when we remember with both great sadness and gratefulness all those legions of young Australians who have died in our many wars to keep ourselves and others free.


TWO UPDATES

I have reproduced here one account of the central ceremony of Anzac day -- the Dawn service. It conveys something of the emotional power of the occasion, under even adverse circumstances.

I have put up on my RECIPE BLOG a recipe for Anzac cookies.

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

THE LEFT: YESTERDAY AND TODAY

It is now a very common cry among older American "liberals" to say that the Democratic party has moved away from them (e.g. here). The Democrats of today are (rightly) seen as very different from the Democrats of (say) the Truman or JFK eras. By the same token, to younger American "liberals" Truman and JFK seem hopelessly reactionary and conservative. If they had been anyone other than Democrat notables they would be branded as "Fascists". The great similarities between the foreign policies of Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, JFK and GWB can usually be greeted by contemporary Democrats only with averted eyes.

Fortunately for the peace of mind of the Left, they usually know practically no history. If they were capable of going back further they would find that the problem in fact gets worse the further back you go. In the era before World War II, "progressives" were very fascist indeed. The two great heroes of the prewar American Left that contemporary Leftists still know something about are FDR and Woodrow Wilson. FDR did his best to socialize the entire American economy as part of his "New Deal" and Woody is regarded as the father of the League of Nations, predecessor of the United Nations. Yet FDR was an admirer of Mussolini, whom he referred to as "that admirable Italian gentleman" and Woody was a good ol' Southern boy who promptly cut back on the rights of blacks as soon as he became President and wrote at length about the distinctive qualities of Aryans (Yes: Aryans, the same guys Hitler idealized). I have documented all that (and more) here (or here).

And when you go right back to the writings of Marx and Engels themselves you find in them virulent antisemitism, Germans viewed as a superior race, contempt for "niggers", belief in eugenics, support for black slavery, support for British rule over India, belief in war as a purifying force and just about everything else that the modern-day Left regards as anathema. Again I document that at great length elsewhere

So how come? Why has the Left done such a huge about-face over time and why were the Leftists of yesteryear so "Fascist"? It couldn't be simpler. It is just another case of the general rule that Leftists really believe in nothing at all. They only believe in themselves and in their entitlement to power. So they just use whatever thinking is popular at the time and stretch it to absurd lengths in order to make themselves seem holier than the next guy. The racial and eugenic theories that Marx, Engels, Hitler and the prewar American Left believed in were accepted throughout society as wise and insightful right up to World War II so Leftists were their most energetic and extreme advocates. As soon as Hitler's deeds discredited such theories, however, the Left reversed gears immediately, easily and without a qualm.

As a noted historian of the British Conservative Party points out, however, conservatives by contrast are by temperament compromisers and pragmatists, people who are cautious and distrustful of grand theories in general -- so they have always seen small (but only small) amounts of truth in most theories. Most of the world's common beliefs and intellectual fashions of the last several centuries have had some reality behind them and conservatives have always been able -- and continue to be able -- to see and acknowledge those bits of reality -- without at the same time being so incautious as to think that reality can be reduced to a few simple formulas or rules.

As they have always done, for instance, conservatives do think that race exists and that some differences between races are real and important (such as the black crime-rate) but they have never drawn from that the sweeping inferences that Leftists such as Marx, Engels and Hitler did -- that there are superior races which have a right to kick out or exterminate inferior races. Even at the height of the British Empire in the 19th century, when conservatives were as racist as they have ever been, far from trying to exterminate or kick out Jews the British Conservative Party actually made a flamboyant Jew (Disraeli) their Prime Minister! A more extreme contrast with the gas ovens could hardly be imagined! Conservatives have always been able to recognize the reality of race without at the same time wanting to persecute other races. Murders of millions by Stalin and tens of thousands by Castro are still to this day greeted with indulgence by the Left of American politics whereas in the "racist" days of the old British Empire the killing of a couple of score of Indians at Amritsar by a British General (Dyer) led to a huge outcry in Britain that eventually saw the General cashiered for his pains.

So that in the end is how the Left get away with blaming the political Right for the deeds of Hitler. What Hitler preached was in his day mainstream Leftism and almost everything he said could also be found in the writings of Marx & Engels but Leftists today have done such an about-face that what Hitler preached is now not readily recognizable as Leftism. And since some of the things that Hitler advocated to an extreme -- such as national independence and patriotism -- are part (but only a part) of normal human motives, conservatives continue to see some virtue in them and are not reluctant to say so. So the claim that Hitler was a Rightist is an easy accusation to get away with. Conservatives still recognize the small elements of truth that Hitler took to outrageous extremes, while Leftists deny all reality that does not suit their propaganda needs of the moment. That conservatives have never extended any of their ideas to support deliberate mass murder -- as Leftists have done on many occasions from Lenin on -- is conveniently overlooked.

An obvious comment on the above that Leftists might want to make is that if modern Leftism is so different from pre-war Leftism, then pre-war Leftists such as Hitler cannot really have been Leftists. But most of what Hitler spouted was straight from Marx & Engels (see here) so if Hitler was not a Leftist then neither were Marx & Engels -- and if Marx & Engels were not Leftists, then who would be? This still of course leaves untouched the common modern claim that "liberals" are not Leftists. But since both Communists and "liberals" have the same avowed goal -- government-enforced equality -- that is a very hollow claim indeed. At the height of the Cold War, it was common for American "liberals" to defend Communists as being just "liberals in a hurry". I agree with that. And I particularly agree with its logical corollary: That "liberals" are just slowed-down Communists.

(A short version of this post appeared on Blogger News yesterday)

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

ELSEWHERE

No doubt there will be huge Leftist demonstrations about this: "Iran's Revolutionary Guards executed a number of teenage demonstrators in the streets of Ahwaz, southern Iran, according to eye-witnesses. Residents reported that Revolutionary Guards arrested demonstrators in the city streets and gunned them down to terrorise the local people and end a weeklong anti-government uprising that has spread throughout the oil-rich Khuzestan Province. Helicopters were also seen opening fire on demonstrators. A 5-year-old boy was killed when he was run over by a Revolutionary Guards' armoured personnel carrier, eye-witnesses said".

The making of a Pope: "For all Pope Benedict XVI's decades as a Vatican insider, it may have been the crucible of a university town swept by student radicalism in the late 1960's that definitively shaped the man who now leads the Roman Catholic Church. During his Bavarian childhood under the Nazis, Joseph Ratzinger became convinced that the moral authority based in Catholic teachings was the sole reliable bulwark against human barbarism, according to friends, associates, and his biographer, John L. Allen Jr. But while his deep reading and thinking in theology, philosophy, and history were fundamental to development as a theologian, it was the protests of student radicals at Tuebingen University - in which he saw an echo of the Nazi totalitarianism he loathed - that seem to have pushed him definitively toward deep conservatism and insistence on unquestioned obedience to the authority of Rome."

On both the Left and Right of politics there are extremes that regard almost the whole world as being against them. But while there are still plenty of moderate conservatives who are tolerant enough to embrace a centrist like George Bush as one of their own, almost none of the Leftists who are prominent in politics these days could be described as moderate. To them George Bush is the Devil incarnate no matter how moderate and compromising his positions on most matters are. So when you get to the MOST extreme Leftists you really are in a never-never land. Jeffrey Blankfort, for instance regards even Noam Chomsky as a dangerous centrist and a friend of Israel, of all things. Read him yourself if you don't believe me. Batty old Noam's occasional concessions to reality are held mightily against him.

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS Marx supports the general view of his day that war is a purifying force.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

MORE MEDICAL NOTES

At last! "Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the cot deaths expert who gave evidence at a string of criminal cases which resulted in mothers being jailed, faces charges of serious professional misconduct. The paediatrician was a key witness in the cases of women wrongly accused of killing their children including Sally Clark. He will appear before the General Medical Council (GMC) in June accused of serious professional misconduct. Prof Meadow gave evidence in the trials of Trupti Patel, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony as well as Mrs Clark. All denied murdering their children and were eventually vindicated."

African AIDS isn't spread by vaginal sex either: "Ninety-nine percent of AIDS and HIV cases in Africa come from sexual transmission, virtually all heterosexual. So says the World Health Organization, with other agencies toeing the line. Massive condom airdrops accompanied by a persuasive propaganda campaign would practically make the epidemic vanish overnight. Or would it? A determined renegade group of three scientists has fought for years - with little success - to get out the message that no more than a third of HIV transmission in Africa is from sexual intercourse and most of that is anal. By ignoring the real vectors, they say, we're sacrificing literally millions of people.... The chief reason it's so hard to spread HIV vaginally is that, as biopsies of vaginal and cervical tissue show, the virus is unable to penetrate or infect healthy vaginal or cervical tissue. Various sexually transmitted diseases facilitate vaginal HIV infection, but even those appear to increase the risk only slightly..... "

Circumcision and African AIDS: "At the heart of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, there is a deadly mystery that has puzzled scientists for years. There are groups of people who are four times less likely to get HIV than other people, sometimes living just yards away, across a single valley - people with apparently similar behaviour and lifestyle. Scientists realised that if they could understand why these people are so much less vulnerable to the HIV virus, it might lead to an answer that could save millions of lives. And after 15 years of detective work it turns out there may be a remarkably simple answer: the high risk areas for HIV coincide with tribes who are uncircumcised. In Africa, it seems a man is much more likely to get HIV if he is uncircumcised".

Male homosexuals have partly female brains: "Gay men employ the same strategies for navigating as women - using landmarks to find their way around - a new study suggests. But they also use the strategies typically used by straight men, such as using compass directions and distances.... "Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic," explains Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist who led the study at the University of East London, UK. "It's not simply that lesbians have men's brains and gay men have women's brains." The stereotype that women are relatively poor map readers is borne out by a reasonable bulk of scientific literature, notes Rahman. "Men, particularly, excel at spatial navigation." The new study might help researchers understand how cognitive differences and sexual orientation develop in the womb, he says."

Richard Irving reports in The Times on plans by Epitan to market the drug Melanotan to supply a sun-tan without the need for harmful exposure to bright sunlight, or recourse to tanning salons whose regular use may carry risks. It works by encouraging the body to produce Melanin in its brown-black form which helps block out the sun’s harmful effects: "The drug will initially be available in injection form at a cost of about 105 pounds. The jab takes about a week to work and lasts for between 60 to 90 days". It sounds like a way to acquire the good-looking tan, but without the health risks. Ah, but there's more: "Originally developed by scientists from the University of Arizona, Melanotan could have two other potentially lucrative uses. The first is that in sufficient quantities it appears to suppress the appetite; the second is that it appears to ease erectile dysfunction". The major problem with what appears to be a significant advancement in lifestyle choices is that it all seems too good to be true! (Post lifted from the Adam Smith blog)

There is a pretty worrying article from a few years back here which strongly suggests that somebody does not want antidotes or vaccines against biological weapons developed. The fact that we have heard no more of the matter since suggests that it is only the fear of Mecca being nuked that protects the USA at the moment.

I put up a report on POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH yesterday that should be central to any discussion of feminism -- if facts were relevant to feminism, that is.

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

ELSEWHERE

Dubious survey finds discrimination: "Despite metro Boston's increasing diversity, 80 percent of African-Americans and roughly half of Hispanics polled recently said that racial discrimination remains a somewhat serious or very serious problem that can cost jobs or promotions and make others feel unwelcome at sporting events and shopping centers. More than half of African-Americans and almost four of 10 Latinos said they face day-to-day discrimination at least a few times a month -- for instance, by being treated with less respect, offered worse service or called names." [But they didn't ask how many whites felt discriminated against for various reasons -- such as being fat, female or old. And given Affirmative Action, maybe whites felt MORE discriminated against overall]

There must never be another Waco: "The events at Waco have contributed to the disdain of federal abuse of power like nothing since the Boston Massacre back in 1770. (By comparison, the British killed 5 Americans in that assault.) ... Evidence was conveniently lost. Videotapes of the events revealed duplicity, arrogance, and blood-lust on behalf of the federal agencies involved. At the end of the hearings, the questions remained unanswered, and no one within the government was held accountable. Those Davidians who survived the raid were tried for murder. A jury found them innocent, but no charges were ever brought against any federal agents. Whatever one thinks of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, they had committed no capital crimes. Neither could the charges of child abuse, illegal weapons, or illegal drug activity (charges that were used by the feds to justify their ghastly attack) be substantiated."

Lying British Labour party: "The Government is misleading the public on the true level of crime in Britain by instructing police forces not to record many offences, while simultaneously logging crimes in which nobody is convicted or even taken to court as "detected". This week the Government will release its latest quarterly figures for recorded crime in England and Wales, the last such release before the general election. But regardless of whether they show an overall fall or rise, they will give a highly distorted picture".

Oil-for-food investigators resign: "Two senior investigators with the committee probing corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have resigned in protest, saying they believe a report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the secretary-general, a panel member confirmed Wednesday. The investigators felt the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, played down findings critical of Annan when it released an interim report in late March related to his son, said Mark Pieth, one of three leaders of the committee."

In my latest quote on MARXWORDS Engels makes clear how extremely derogatory is his view of "niggers"

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

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

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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

IN MEMORIAM: Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen (1911 - 2005)

I think all my Australian readers will know who "Joh" was but I would be surprised if any of my American readers do. Joh was for nearly 20 years Premier of my home State of Queensland. An Australian Premier is much more powerful than an American State Governor because he controls both the legislature and the administration. Australia seems to get on perfectly well without the American docrine of the separation of powers and, in a famous remark, Joh once revealed that he did not even know what the separation of powers referred to.

Joh led the National Party -- of which I was a member -- and was pro-business to a fault. As a result, Queensland saw an unprecedented rise in prosperity under his rule. During his time in office, Brisbane (the Queensland State capital) seemed to make the national news as often as Canberra (the national capital) because of Joh's total disregard for all Leftist pieties. In 1974, he gained a remarkable 59% of the popular vote. He was a great Queenslander and I miss him.

There are obits of him here and here. I have a previous comment on him here

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