Thursday, July 31, 2003


I have set out at length here (or here) the historical evidence in favour of the view that Leftism is intrinsically authoritarian and that the political authoritarianism of the 20th century was overwhelmingly Leftist in origin. Does that mean that there is no Rightist authoritarianism? Of course not. Conservatism is intrinsically suspicious of government power, authority and control but there are nonetheless some conservatives who want to use government authority for their own ends -- with some Christian conservatives in particular often attempting to impose Christian practices (Sabbath observance etc.) on everyone else.

Most psychologists, however, tell exactly the opposite story. They are wedded to the view that authoritarianism is intrinsically Rightist. But can they prove it? As the literature surveyed by the Berkeley group shows, they have spent over 50 years trying to do so. Amusingly, however, all their attempts have foundered on their inability to find any way of detecting authoritarianism among conservatives. For decades they relied on the California ‘F’ questionnaire (invented by the Marxist Adorno and his colleagues) to provide an index of authoritarianism but the evidence that the ‘F’ questionnaire does NOT provide an index of authoritarianism eventually became so overwhelming (Altemeyer, 1981; Ray, 1990) that it has now generally been abandoned. Instead, research in recent years has focused on the Altemeyer RWA questionnaire. The RWA stand for Right Wing Authoritarianism. Yet Altemeyer himself (1988, p. 239) baldly states that Right Wing Authoritarians as detected by his questionnaire, “show little preference in general for any political party”! Get it? What he is reporting is that people who show up as Rightist according to his RWA questionnaire turn out to be just as likely to vote Leftist as Rightist! So this last best hope of the conservative-bashers is not in fact an index of ANYTHING Rightist. How can people be Rightist if they vote for Leftist parties? What a circus! And THAT is the sort of psychology your taxpayer dollars are paying for.

(See also here).

(1950) The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper
ALTEMEYER, R. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University Manitoba Press.
ALTEMEYER, R. (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding Right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
RAY, J.J. (1990) The old-fashioned personality. Human Relations, 43, 997-1015.


Joke! Joke! (I hope): "Federal and local prosecutors will take to the airwaves Friday to try to make neighborhoods safer by convincing criminals that using guns carries a far higher personal cost -- a long, no-parole federal prison term -- than they might realize.

"State governors and legislators believe that ... their governments are now 'doing more with less.' The evidence, however, suggests just the opposite: States are doing less with more. The cost of state and local government services is rising along with spending in such a manner that inflation-adjusted state services are declining, but the states and localities are absorbing an increasing portion of our total output."

A Democrat view of “Green” voters that I rather like: “Older, white, left bourgeoisie, tenured and cocooned in the carapace of self-righteous satisfaction”. He is just peeved because they siphon off Democrat votes of course. He is only being jaundiced, however, in saying that Greenies have no influence. In fact, BOTH major parties pander to them. It takes a Leftist not to see that.

This article points out how overwhelming the Asian, Indian and Jewish presence is at the top of America’s scientific and engineering research tree and asks why. The politically motivated dumbing down of American education would seem to be one answer. Education in India and China still has standards and the USA imports the results of that. Pity about bright American kids, though.

There is a good sendup by Michelle Malkin of the “reparations” shakedown here

There is a good short article on Daniel Pipes here which points out that far from being an Islamophobe, he makes a sharp distinction between moderate Islam and the Islamic extremists -- which is why a lot of Islamic organizers hate him.

The French sure get a big serve in Front Page.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated: "New York City's tough gun- control laws did not prevent the City Hall shooting, [legislator Richard H.] Black said. 'Firearms regulations disarm the decent citizen,' he said." How much evidence does the anti-gun lobby need before they realize that it is only the crooks that they are helping?

Dextroblog is another conservative who is pretty disgruntled about the way government keeps growing even under GOP administrations.

Carnival of the Vanities is up again here

The Wicked one definitely has the best jokes. See particularly his post of 28th.

I put online yesterday one of the two academic papers of mine that were cited by the Berkeley group. How they can think that such a tendency as mental rigidity or intolerance of ambiguity exists after reading the vast array of evidence that I marshall there against such an idea escapes me. See here or here.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Wednesday, July 30, 2003


A unicorn is something that we can describe but which does not exist. There are a lot of unicorns in psychology. And they really come out to play when psychologists are trying to disparage conservatives. Quite a lot of people noted with some puzzlement the “intolerant of ambiguity” description in the Berkeley study of conservatives. And quite a lot of people -- including the Berkeley authors themselves -- got the point that intolerance of ambiguity may not always be a bad thing. When a scientist tries to find some order in a body of data, is he not trying to reduce its ambiguity and give what is there a clearer meaning? After all, the basic scientific principle known as Occam's razor is a very strong statement of preference for the simplest possible conceptual world.

Nonethless the Berkeley intent clearly is to say that intolerace of ambiguity is generally a bad thing and that it is characteristic of conservatives. Allegedly, conservatives need to pretend that everything is cut and dried and simple even when it is not. Conservatives are allegedly simple souls who cannot deal with the complexity of the real world so have to oversimplify their understanding of it. They rush for simple formulas to describe things which in fact are complex.

Conservatives will of course recognize this as exactly what they see in Leftists -- and accusing others of your own faults is of course an old trick. What after all could be a greater and crasser oversimplification than the basic Leftist slogan of “All men are equal” -- when all men are in fact quite clearly different in various ways. So who is right? Is it Leftists or Rightists who are the great oversimplifiers? The answer clearly is: It depends on the circumstances. Leftists are often highly intelligent people much given to hairsplitting argument so while they do undoubtedly sometimes greatly oversimplify, it is not something that they HAVE to do or always do.

And that is what the research data shows: Intolerance of ambiguity is multidimensional and situational. It is NOT a trait or a consistent tendency. And that of course falsifies the customary claim by psychologists that it IS a trait or consistent tendency of conservatives. The trait concerned is a unicorn. It does not exist.

A listing of research findings supporting the view that there is no consistency in intolerance of ambiguity can be found here -- particularly under the heading Multidimensionality.

I will however mention briefly here just one of the crucial findings: The questionnaire psychologists most usually rely on as a measure of intolerance of ambiguity is the one compiled by Budner. Yet the questions in the Budner questionnaire correlate hardly at all with one another! The very measure usually relied on to detect intolerance of ambiguity itself shows that there is no such general tendency! I pointed that out in one of the two papers of mine that the Berkeley authors DID cite but they appear to have given little heed to such an inconvenient fact. They would have excluded all studies using the Budner and similar measures from their data-set if they had. Clearly, their need to disparage conservatives swamped all other considerations -- truth and logic included. One might even describe the Berkeley work as intolerant of ambiguity!


Paul Gigot has just got back from Iraq and reports of Iraqis that “The majority aren't worried that we'll stay too long; they're petrified we'll leave too soon.”

Andrew Bolt points out how totally and arrogantly Leftist Australia’s ABC (equivalent of America’s PBS) is -- despite their denials.

Commiewatch is an interesting site run by a former U.S. Communist. If wackiness amuses you, this is a “Don’t miss”.

There is an amusing bit of Canada-bashing by a Canadian here. It is hard to disagree with his conclusion: “How on earth could a country as pathetic as Canada possibly have a foreign policy? It makes perfect sense that the rest of the world pays no attention to us. We do not deserve to be listened to.” I myself think that Canada’s lack of cojones goes back to when they started putting Frogs in charge of the place in order to keep Quebec happy.

Two quotes that the U.S. Supreme Court obviously does not agree with: "Haven't we learned, at this point, that judging and hiring and admitting and promoting on the basis of skin color is, in fact, divisive and destructive? (And un-American?)" -- Jay Nordlinger. And: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sadly This is hardly news: “AS MUCH as £70 billion is being wasted by the UK Government every year because of inefficiency in the public services, a new independent study suggests. A report by economists at the European Central Bank (ECB) concludes that hundreds of billions of pounds could be saved in Europe each year if the EU public sector raised its game and became as efficient as that of the US or Japan.”

Let’s hope he’s right: “Mr. Costa sees ousting Gov. Davis as merely the first step in a systemic reform of this huge state's politics. And there's evidence for his assertion that the movement is not entirely the work of the Republican right, as many elected Democrats claim, even though one wealthy conservative congressman certainly accelerated the process."

A genuine people's hero: "With government spending up to $2.2 trillion a year, there's more room than ever for waste, fraud, and abuse. Three cheers, then, for Representative Jim Nussle, who as Chairman of the House Budget Committee has launched a war to expose the rotten or unnecessary parts of the federal government."

The latest upload of one of my academic articles is another thorn in the side of psychologists who attempt to disparage conservatives. Two of the most widely- used questionnaires when psychologists are endeavouring to show conservatives as a bad lot are the Rokeach “D” questionnaire and the Adorno “F” questionnaire. If you say “Agree” to all statements in either you are allegedly shown to be a raging Fascist. In fact, however, when they are answering questionnaires lots of people agree with almost anything that sounds remotely plausible at the time. Far from being raging Fascists, they could in fact be simply agreeable, apathetic, unconcerned or careless people. In their wisdom, many psychologists discount such possibilities. They seem to think that everything people say in answering questionnaires is deep and meaningful! Hilarious! My paper here (or here) shows how unsafe and misleading it is to do that.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Tuesday, July 29, 2003


John Jost, leading author of the Berkeley study, has emailed me his reply to Prof. Lindgren’s post showing that conservatives in the community at large are happier than Leftists. A little birdie tells me that Prof. Lindgren now has a blockbuster demolition of the whole Berkeley study in the offing. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, one of my correspondents expresses well a point that I have often made over the years in my comments about the research on which psychologists base their “knowledge” of conservatism:

Here's a point that most of the critics of the study haven't even mentioned. Take a look at the studies on which this meta analysis is based: The overwhelming majority consist of analyses of college students in the US and other countries. Now I have nothing against college students, I was one once myself many eons ago, but is there anyone in the entire world, other than idiotic psychology professors, who believes that you can understand the essence of a political philosophy or the values and beliefs of the the members of a political philosophy by quizzing college students?

I have just posted here (or here) an article I had published over 30 years ago about the main measure of conservatism relied on by the Berkeley authors. My research showed that the questionnaire concerned was basically inapplicable to general population groups. In other words, what psychologists call conservatism among their students is different from conservatism in the community at large. Yet another finding that the Berkeley group “overlooked”!


Gerry Jackson, principal author of Brookes News, is a very bright boy, with an in-depth knowledge of both history and economics. I have just received from him the following email about the German economy in the Nazi era:

It is not generally known that the basic difference between the Nazi and Soviet economies was merely one of form. The Nazi economy was a centrally planned one in which private ownership was nominal. For the sake of economic planning the Nazis dissolved all corporations whose capital was less than $US40,000. A minimum of $US200,000 was required to form a new corporation. This policy eliminated about 20 per cent of German businesses. Compulsory cartels were formed, labour was strictly controlled and four-year economic plans implemented.

Capitalists were transformed into Betriebsfuehrer, that is managers who received their instructions from the Reichswirtschaftsministerium (Nazi equivalent of Gosplan), which set prices, including wage rates, interest rates, dividends and rates of return. It told the Betriebsfuehrer what what to produce and how much, from whom to buy and sell to and on what terms.

It was these arrangements that gave the superficial impression that a market structure was still operating when in fact it was the Party that exercised complete control over the economy, just as in the Soviet Union. The principal difference, apart from appearance, was that the Nazis were smarter at this game than the Soviets.

There is another point. Not only did the Nazis keep businessmen in place they also did not concern themselves with their ideology. So long as these businessmen did not oppose the party they were comparatively safe. Under the Soviet regime party loyalty and class backgrounds were vital ingredients in the economic structure.

Yes. Hitler quite explicitly saw that businessmen were best qualified to run Germany’s industries so made sure they did while the Soviets executed all the “capitalists” could find and gave the job to bureaucrats instead!

I don’t agree with everything Gerry says however. His attacks in Brookes News on such great communicators as Tim Blair and Miranda Devine are in my view absurd. But here is some of the good stuff in the latest Brookes News:

Australian journalists pan US victory and predict disaster. You can always count on a columnist from the Sydney Morning Herald, aka The Saddam Times, to distort conditions in post-war Iraq and malign the magnificent achievement that eliminated one of the planet's most vicious regimes. This time it was Anne Summers stupidly claiming that Iraq was another Vietnam.
Exposing media lies about Bush, uranium and WMDs. Once the evidence is considered, it is clear that much of the media are lying since they have been harping on this trivial issue, deliberately drawing the wrong conclusions, ignoring the enormous amount of relevant evidence about Saddam's regime, treating the oppressed citizens of Iraq with contempt, and denigrating the righteousness of the life-saving actions of the USA and her allies.
For China, there is liberty in capitalism. What Harry Wu described was not a mutation of capitalism or a marriage of capitalist methods with the political imperatives of the Beijing regime but Fascism. Yet Fascism can no more resist the power of the market than communism. The result is always the same. Either the state gives way or grinding poverty overtakes the people.

Details here


There is a lot of sad news in the world but today’s saddest news for me is undoubtedly the death of Bob Hope. A lot of people thought him shallow but I thought he was a great human being and I am very sorry to see him go. I suppose the jealous Leftists will now immediately begin to blacken his name.

There is a fascinating editorial in USA Today about the present Congressional struggle to pass a prescription drug benefit addition to Medicare. It points out that the last such attempt under the Reagan administration was such a disaster that it had to be repealed.

What a lot of rubbish! Israel’s protective wall against terrorists is being compared to the Berlin Wall. The Berlin Wall was to keep people in. Israel’s wall is to keep people out!

The Indonesians want to execute an Imam over the Bali bombing. There should be a lot more Imams and Mullahs and Ayatollahs facing the same fate in my view.

Useful Fools looks like he has landed a big one out there in Arizona. He has some comments on his site from a German lawyer who knows Joschka Fischer (Germany’s thuggish Foreign Minister) personally. The comments are however simply a rave about how “arrogant” America is. Pretty rich coming from a German! If Americans are arrogant what are Germans? When did Americans claim to be the master race?

Writing on his other blog, China Hand gives the BBC a big spray over their continuing smugness about Iraq.

Chris Brand has just had published a swingeing attack on another social “science” -- social anthropology -- here


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Monday, July 28, 2003


I received the following email from a reader:

“Yesterday, at Barnes and Noble Books, sipping my Starbucks, I tried to walk my leftie friend through the similarities between the USSR, which he concedes was Leftist, and Fascism. I listed the reliance on a police state, the use of slave labor, that the party is the state, that they're both totalitarian, that in both systems the individual is squashed, etc, etc, and still, he insisted that because ownership of the means of production is in private hands Fascism is conservative. I list commonalities that normal folks would shudder at, and he slurs conservatism.”

I replied

“I think you should ask your Leftie friend if Sweden is conservative. Leftists usually love Sweden but the means of production are in private hands there. But your friend is correct -- the Soviets were slightly more Leftist than the Nazis because the Soviets used bureaucrats to run industry -- but that just shows that the Soviets were a stupider type of Leftist.”

And here is One thing that the Left will never tell you:

"In Germany, it was first during World War I and its aftermath and later under the Third Reich in the 1930s when the welfare state experienced its greatest expansions. Under the national-socialist regime, in particular, the appeal to "social justice" and the expansion of the social security and protection systems flourished together with the build up of the warfare state."

And there is an interesting review of what made Stalin’s Russia tick here Excerpt:

“The moral degradation of the Stalinist elite was crucial to Stalin's power, especially in the post-war years (1945-53) when his own anti-Semitism was allowed free rein, leading to a wave of arrests and expulsions from the major cities, and when much of Soviet policy was resolved at drunken dinners in his private rooms.”

Andrew Bolt stirred up a bit of a storm
when he pointed out that the world’s first prominent Greenie politician was none other than Herr A. Hitler of Germany. Odd that Greens are still big in German politics! And again as part of the Left too. Andrew replies to his critics here


Another social scientist has bagged the Berkeley study of conservatism. He is a political scientist rather than a psychologist and hopes that the Psychological Bulletin (in which the Berkeley study was published) is a low-rating journal among psychologists. I have sad news for him. It is just about the top journal in terms of prestige among psychologists.

Brian Carnell has an excellent post on the Berkeley “study”, which points out, among other things, that Frank Sulloway, one of the authors of the study, is the same guy who wrote a book arguing that *birth order* is the single most significant driving force in human history, and that the French Revolution is best explained by the birth order of people in the various groups that came to power during the various stages of the revolution!


I have just posted here (or here) another of my academic publications. I report a survey designed to find out whether a feeling of alienation from society is usually associated with Leftism in the population at large. Perhaps surprisingly, it is not. Many alienated people vote conservative and have conservative views. So it is not feeling lost and hopeless that makes a Leftist. Ordinary conservative voters can feel pretty alienated too -- by unresponsive and demanding big government and by political correctness, for instance. Leftists in power are their own worst enemies.

I have of course long argued that ego needs -- hunger for fame and for power over others -- drive most Leftists. And that is a hunger that can probably never be assuaged. Even the “limousine liberals” who already have a lot of power, influence and recognition still want more. After all, from Marx onward, the Leftist agitators and revolutionaries have always been overwhelmingly bourgeois. And the ordinary people who vote for the Leftists generally just hope for more goodies from someone else’s pocket.

An amusing viewpoint: Castro thinks the EU is in the pocket of the USA. He must be the only person in the world who thinks so. But Leftists are never much bothered by reality, of course.

There is an article here that gives the lie to the popular Leftist myth that Fidel Castro is kind to blacks. Afro-Cubans have been prominent in opposing him.

"moderate" Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas was responsible for the Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes. Such a nice guy and such a big improvement on Arafat!

Useful Fools has a great counterblast to the myth that the USA has a high crime-rate.

There is a post on PC Watch about multiculturalism as a religion.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Sunday, July 27, 2003


As far as I can tell, there is only one psychologist who has replied to my criticisms of the Berkeley study of conservatism. And what an amusing job he does of it! He says that the rejection by Political Psychology of my paper on Leftist authoritarianism "really got him angry". How does he know it got me angry? What proof does he have? He has none at all. But proof is of course irrelevant to Leftists. They KNOW. They think that their simplistic theories tell them all that they need to know about the world and see the seeking of facts as an inconvenience. In actual fact, I was rather pleased by the rejection. I saw it as a useful illustration of the closed-mindedness of contemporary academic psychologists! And publication on paper is a trivial matter in the era of the internet anyway.

My critic's own closed-mindedness is shown by the fact that he seems to consider that only an acceptance of existing authority can make you authoritarian. That Leftists oppose existing authorities only in the hope of replacing them by much more powerful authorities (e.g. replacing the authority of the democratic State by the vastly greater authority of the totalitarian State) is not apparently authoritarian in his book.

I could go on to fisk him at length but I doubt that there is much point in it. So I will mention just one more point. The claims about the "dogmatism" of conservatives in the Berkeley paper rely almost entirely on Milton Rokeach’s "D" questionnaire. I pointed out, however, that this questionnaire offers a most dubious index of dogmatism. In reply, my critic simply says that the "D" questionnaire is "doing fine". Any proof of that? No. You are expected to take his word for it: Very authoritarian. Let me therefore spell out what he thinks "doing fine" amounts to:

If people agree with a statement but also agree with its opposite, what does that tell you about the statement concerned? Does it not tell you that the statement concerned is so vague and ambiguous as to be essentially meaningless? Yet the "D" questionnaire consists entirely of such statements! Agreeing with a set of vague and ambiguous statements makes you dogmatic? I would have thought it made you tolerant and agreeable! Rokeach and the Berkeley group have clearly got the whole thing back to front. Conservatives DO tend to agree with statements in the "D" questionnaire but I don't think that shows them as being dogmatic. I think it shows quite the opposite. It shows how easygoing they are. So you see what sort of "science" we are dealing with in this affair. It is not even in the same ballcourt as science.

For some other examples of the absurdities that pass for science among psychologists see here or here or here

I have noted previously how rich it is for Leftist psychologists to accuse conservatives of "motivated" (unrealistic) and simplistic thinking when a major complaint that conservatives have always had about Leftists is their refusal to acknowledge anything that did not suit them -- such as the Soviet horrors. For those interested in a fuller demonstration of how simplistic ("intolerant of ambiguity") most academic psychologists themselves are, my article here spells it all out in academic terms.


Arlene Peck has some details of the vicious child-murdering terrorists that Israel is being pressed to release from jail at the moment.

Big Gold Dog has a theory that the difference between liberals and conservatives all goes back to the invention of beer! I think he's onto something there.

The Australian government has refused to sign the Kyoto treaty but still seems to have been buffaloed by the totally unsubstantiated claim that carbon dioxide is harmful. So they are talking about putting in place some anti-carbon dioxide measures. Fortunately, however, business is giving them a hard time over it and the plan may not go ahead.

At least the Oz government has now approved the growing of one genetically-modified crop.

What private business could afford to do this? "New South Wales taxpayers are paying a record $17.4 million a year in wages for 292 public servants who have lost their formal positions but remain on the payroll as so-called displaced officers."

Good to see that India is doing well -- with 8% growth forecast.

Wow! Nice to hear some knowledge of history: "Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, said he didn't believe President Clinton should make a public apology for America's role in the slave trade. He said tribal chiefs bore more responsibility for slavery than European and American slave traders."

The Wicked one has a list of some very funny Country & Western song titles.

I have just put online here (or here) one of my academic papers that reports some survey findings about punitiveness. Leftists are of course soft on crime and one of their ways of justifying this is to accuse the more "punitive" conservatives of all sorts of ill motives. Punitive people are said to be bad eggs in all sorts of ways. My research showed that none of the accusations are true. Punitiveness towards criminals is in fact normal. It is Leftists who are deviant.

Another recent academic upload here (or here) looks at attitudes to conventional authority (police, teachers, the law, the Army). I found that, in Britain, working class people tend to think highly of such authorities. It is rather disconcerting for visitors to Britain to discover how highly the British regard their police but it is an even bigger suprise to discover that the workers particularly are prone to admiration of such authorities. There is no such effect in Australia.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Saturday, July 26, 2003


More on the Berkeley study: I have for some time noted that what Leftists accuse conservatives of (such as “authoritarianism”, ” intolerance of ambiguity” and simplistic thinking generally), is precisely what characterizes Leftists themselves. The very people who accuse conservatives of oversimplification (In the Berkeley jargon: “lack of integrative complexity”) are themselves proud of their “elegant and unifying explanations” that ignore half the data!

Such acusations are what Freud called “projection” -- you see in your opponents the very weaknesses that are most prominent in yourself. Freud saw the process as mostly unconscious but it could be conscious too -- you think that by shouting loudly about a particular fault in others, people might not notice the same fault in you. Even Christ knew of the phenomenon: “Why beholdest thou the mote in thy brother’s eye but considerest not the beam that is thine own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). I have recently received an insightful email from Eleanor Spreitzer that also notes this phenomenon:

Liberals have no sense of humor at all.

They have the emotional maturity of 14 year old Junior High School Students.

The very little humor they attempt relies on ridicule and mocking of someone's looks or "intelligence". I truly believe the Liberal knows how truly inferior he (the Liberal) is, and uses his mockery in a feeble attempt to trick himself into pretending he (the Liberal) is correct and not inferior.

They are masters at accusing Conservatives of doing the very thing the Liberal is doing. Which proves the Liberal knows the action the Liberal is taking is destructive and harmful to our Country. Now we need a very smart Psychiatrist to explain why they do it.

My theory is Liberals are scared to death of "making it on their own" and want bigger and bigger Daddy government to take care of them. Since they are too chicken to admit they want help - they pretend they are only interested in the "little people - the forgotten ones -etc."

What a crock. They only want to help themselves to bigger and bigger government jobs - with financial security for themselves and their own children.

Elite Liberals are the ones that MUST keep the "little people" undereducated and poor and ignorant in order to keep the huge base they need for these government jobs. Absolute proof of this is the fact that the Elite Liberals send their children to the best private schools and insist the poor keep sending their kids to inferior government schools. The Elite Liberals' children are also going to need a huge base of undereducated, poor, ignorant people in order to keep their future big paying Daddy Government Jobs.

And they call Conservatives MEAN SPIRITED. I'm a conservative and I want every child in this country to have the same education the Kennedy Children have; the same education Chelsea Clinton had. I want all children to grow up and be well educated so they can have interesting and profitable lives. Is this Mean Spirited??? NO!

The Elite Liberal wants to keep poor undereducated children in failing schools - so as to keep a permanent base for this enormous Welfare Mess the Elite Liberal must have for himself and his children to survive.

Who’s Mean Spirited? Who calls whom Mean Spirited?

The one (the Elite Liberal) who is truly Mean Spirited calls the one who is not Mean Spirited (the Conservative) - Mean Spirited.

As I said many words above - Liberals are Masters of accusing Conservatives of doing and being the very thing that the Liberals is and is doing.

Elite Liberals are beyond being "Mean Spirited" - they are truly evil. Only an evil person would want to tear down a great country like ours - that so many young men and women have died for - just to make big government jobs for themselves.


One of my Midwestern correspondents also sent me a rather good fisking of the Berkeley “study”. Excerpts:

“Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.”

Stack the deck on what you put into a meta-analysis, and see what comes out.

“The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said. “

Is this an example of resistance to change? … “Millions of California drivers will see their fee increase, On average, from $76 a year to $234, beginning in 90 days” (I was just griping about having to pay $47.50 for my truck. while my car is only $45.)

“Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form.”

That’s a damnable insult to the man who ended the cold war. If you visit, you might be surprised to find out that they rate FDR as closer to Hitler and Stalin.

“The result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. “

Any time I see terms such as “elegant and unifying…” the red flags go up. And just what would be the alternative to “motivated cognition?” Unmotivated cognition = daydreaming?

“As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said,”

As opposed to the liberals’ penchant for trying to impose a mediocracy on the US?

“being intolerant of ambiguity,”

Midwesterners would say “Call a spade a spade…”

“high on the need for closure, “

Midwesterners would say “Shit or get off the pot…”

“might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty,"

Midwesterners actually think these characteristics are IMPORTANT.


THIS is what we have to fear if Leftists ever gain unlimited power anywhere again. It’s horrible reading but you should read it. No wonder Leftists are trying to control the teaching of history.

Keith Windschuttle outlines here the late 19th century policy of 'protection' conducted by a previous generation of 'do-gooders' who sought to confine Australian blacks in reserves and missions -- a policy that the do-gooders of today condemn as “apartheid” and which has now been abolished. But it was NOT conservatives who wanted to isolate blacks -- it was the do-gooders -- the precursors of the Leftists of today -- who wanted to deprive blacks of their liberties.

China Hand has a couple of good posts up at the moment. He has an amusing tale of his stage debut in a Chinese bar and some interesting pictures of a bridge to nowhere that shows the Chinese authorities are not as dictatorial as we might think.

The Wicked one says that GWB is a centrist, not a conservative.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Friday, July 25, 2003


Well, the blogsphere can certainly be an efficient means of communication. When this Berkeley nonsense about the psychology of conservatism came out, one blogger picked it up same day, other bloggers quickly followed on and a blogger friend drew it to my attention on the next day. I happen to have expert knowledge of the "research" on which the nonsense was based so I blogged on it immediately and -- with the help of an Instapundit link -- 12 hours or so later there were lots of links to my post on other blogs. People who had no prior awareness of me or my expertise in the area had my knowledge at their disposal in a matter of hours. Pretty good!


Prof. James Lindgren, Director of the Demography of Diversity Project at Northwestern University, was one of those who saw my post and he emailed me with some more information that upsets the conclusions of the Berkeley group. He notes that the Berkeley group (led by Jost) missed out on some very basic survey data which show that conservatives are much more likely to be happy than are Leftists. He writes:

The Jost article claims that conservatives are angry and fearful and it builds on a literature that claims that conservatives are unhappy. I find this strange, given the decades of superb data showing the opposite. In the NORC General Social Survey (a standard social science database, second only to the U.S. Census in use by U.S. sociologists), the GSS asks the standard survey question about happiness in general. In the 1998-2002 GSS, extreme conservatives are much more likely to report being "very happy" than extreme liberals--47.1% to 31.6%. Earlier years show a similar pattern.

This conservative happiness carries over into most other aspects of life as well. Conservatives usually report being happier in their jobs than liberals. In the 2002 GSS, for example 65.2% of extreme conservatives report being "very satisfied" with their jobs in general, while only 50% of extreme liberals report being very satisfied. When the question is broadened to satisfaction with job or housework, a similar pattern obtains. In the 1998-2002 GSS, 61.0% of extreme conservatives reported being very satisfied, compared to 53.6% of extreme liberals.

As to finances, in the 1998-2002 GSS 34% of extreme conservatives report being satisfied with their finances compared to 26.4% of extreme liberals. More extreme liberals (34.5%) than extreme conservatives (25.8%) report being "not at all satisfied" with their finances.

Conservatives usually tend to report less marital unhappiness than liberals. In the 1998-2002 GSS, 5.1% of those who report being "slightly liberal" say that they are "not too happy" in their marriages, compared to 0.9% of those who are "slightly conservative." Ordinary liberals (3.7%) and extreme liberals (8.9%) also differ from ordinary conservatives (2.4%) and extreme conservatives (4.1%) in the levels of reported marital unhappiness. Indeed, in the 1998 GSS, 18.2% of extreme liberals reported that their marriages were "not too happy," while only 1.6% of extreme conservatives reported marital unhappiness.

Earlier General Social Surveys found that conservatives were more satisfied with their health, their friendships, their family life, and the city or place they live--all in all, a remarkably consistent picture.

Another claim in the Jost paper is that conservativism is driven by anger and fear. Again, their claims conflict with some of the highest quality data available. In the 1996 GSS, questions were asked about anger and fearfulness. Extreme conservatives were much less likely to report being mad at someone every day in the last week--7.3% to 24.2% for extreme liberals. Extreme conservatives were also less likely to report being fearful in the last week--32.5% to 56.3% for extreme liberals. In other words, a staggering one-quarter of extreme liberals report being mad at someone EVERY DAY and most extreme liberals report being fearful at least once a week.

I am surprised that the Jost group was not aware of the very strong and remarkably consistent data that conservatives report being happier than liberals about their lives in general, their jobs, their finances, their health, their friendships, their family life, and where they live. Nor does the Jost group deal with the less extensive data suggesting that conservatives are less fearful and less angry than liberals. I will have to look into more of the studies that Jost cites to see why these fairly obvious patterns are missed. I wonder whether Jost relied too much on studies that either used unrepresentative samples (such as undergraduates) or used biased questions or indices -- asking about issues on which conservatives tend to be unhappy but not about issues on which liberals tend to be unhappy. In either event, the Jost group seems to have missed decades of very high quality survey data that undercut their thesis.

There is not much left of the Berkeley claims after that! I wrote back noting that the Berkeley group led by Jost had missed out LOTS of data that did not suit them. In fact I have just put online here (or here) one of the articles they ignored. The article points out in pretty plain terms the circular reasoning and lack of proper scientific caution behind one of the attempts to show that conservatives are "rigid" and "intolerant of ambiguity". The article has been in university libraries for years and academic psychology has very good indexing services so there is no excuse for the article being "overlooked".

There was also a Leftist article some years ago which claimed that conservatives are generally unhappy. I replied to it here. The Jost group missed that too!


A nice story here about a U.S. female soldier in Iraq. A top Iraqi general could not believe he was captured by a young woman. Those Arabs had better learn not to mess with American women! American women even terrify lots of American men!

Wow! It looks like Japan is willing to help out in Iraq.

At last! Canada has awakened from its slumbers. They are now telling the Iranians that they have been VERY NAUGHTY!

The South African government says that it is “racist” for white-owned newspapers to pursue allegations of corruption against black politicians. When will the world get totally sick of black misdeeds being covered up by the “racism” slur?

The Wicked one asks whether America is disappearing and thinks that there is not much conservatism in the GOP at the moment.

I have just uploaded another one of my academic articles here (or here). In it I again look at some very dubious "research" that was in the academic psychology literature and show that its conclusions were essentially fraudulent. Taking any academic conclusions on faith is very foolish. You have to look at what other academics say about the subject as well.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Thursday, July 24, 2003


For those who have broadband or a lot of patience, there is a link to the whole article here in the form of a huge PDF.

For a start, let me translate the jargon: That conservatives have “motivated social cognition” means that conservatives only see what they want to see. That is really rich coming from the Left when we consider how huge numbers of Western Leftists refused for decades to give any heed to all the reports of the horrors of Stalin’s Russia. THEY undoubtedly had huge talent for seeing only what they wanted to see.

Probably the biggest failing of the article is its historical naivety. Because the authors appear to know nothing of the history of conservative political thought, they accept the old Leftist stereotype that conservatism is essentially opposition to change. That conservatives have historically seen themselves as being primarily champions of individual rights and opponents of big government, they give no heed to at all. One has to surmise that none of the authors has ever even talked to a conservative. If they had, they would have discovered quick-smart that there is HEAPS about the society in which we live that conservatives would like to change. Leftists and Rightist undoubtedy want different changes, but both would want to see lots of changes nonetheless. Attitude to change is simply a red-herring drawn across the trail by Leftists. It has NOTHING to do with who is a conservative today.

This ignorance and naivety on the part of the authors does however lead them into some hilarious pitfalls. Even they have to acknowledge that Communist countries have been ferocious enemies of change in their own societies. So what do they conclude from that? Do they think that they might have got it wrong in seeing opposition to change as so central? No way! They rigidly cling on to their stereotype. So rigid are they in their thinking about the matter that they are forced to conclude that Stalin and Castro are conservatives! If Stalin and Castro are not Leftists, black might as well be white! So they go on to say that the Soviets and their ilk are essentially the same as Reagan, Limbaugh and their ilk. People at opposite ends of the ideological spectum are all the same according to these galoots! No wonder the Wall St Journal thought that the whole article might be a spoof rather than an attempt at a serious study!

That their own cognition is motivated to ignore things that do not suit them is seen in their bland assertion that the old Marxist work by Adorno that they heavily rely on has withstood the test of time despite the huge number of criticisms that have been made of it. HOW and WHY it has withstood the test of time they do not spell out. They certainly make no attempt to show what is wrong with all those criticisms. They seem to believe that we should just take their word for it. Very authoritarian!

But perhaps the best indication of how “motivated” their own cognitions are is the fact that they cite only two of the more than one hundred articles I have had published on the subject. I am clearly one of the major authors (if not THE major author in terms of number of articles in print) in the field that they purport to survey, but they ignore 98% of what I have to say. That sure is a fine way to come to a balanced and scientifically reputable conclusion, don’t you think? With selective reading as severe as that, you could prove anything about anything.


9/11: will Congress blame the FBI & CIA instead of itself and the IPS?: After the World Trade Centre atrocity people immediately wanted to know what the FBI had been doing. What they did not know was that under the influence of Marxist think tank Congress had virtually paralysed the FBI and the CIA.

Defending cartels against the Trades Practices Act: Australia's Trades Practices Act is under review by the Government. Unfortunately those reviewing the Act seem to be totally blind to the fallacious economic reasoning that upon which the Act is based. Why is this so?

Taxing animal flatulence -- a government stink tax: The concept of a Flatulence tax is preposterous -- there are simply too many arguments and inconsistencies that repudiate the whole theory of greenhouse gas emissions. There has been virtually no questioning in the media of the veracity of the premises behind the Kyoto Protocol .

A green zealot v free trade: Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of The Australia institute, seems to have been getting quite a bit of favourable publicity of late. Nonetheless, there are some who are disturbed by his institute's extreme views and its open contempt for the material and social aspirations of ordinary people.

Bush targeted by leftist 'intelligence professionals': A group calling itself the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has demanded that Cheney resign over the issue of Saddam's WMDs. Now who or what is VIPS? This is a question that many have been asking. The answer is simple. It is a front for the notorious Marxist-Leninist Washington-based IPS (Institute for Policy Studies).

The 1968 and the '90s boom: The extent to which media commentators are ignorant of economic history, let alone basic economics, is genuinely staggering. We got a good look at this ignorance when the 1990s boom was compared to the 1960s boom.

Our lying media and Castro: Examples of how the press cover for Fidel Castro by spiking stories and twisting the news.

Details here


The latest amazing example of Left-leaning doublethink by a political psychologist is here. Writing about modern Eastern Europe in Political Psychology of June 2003, Hilde Weiss says that the "new right" in Europe is “a "modernized" brand of fascism in which neoliberal ideology, instead of anticapitalist resentments, is combined with traditional value patterns.” So to oppose big government (neoliberalism) is Fascist?? Tell that to the founder of Fascism, Mussolini. Mussolini tried his best to subject EVERYTHING in Italy to his control! What the ignorant Ms Weiss is describing is simply normal conservatism, not Fascism.

She also notes without making much of the implications that “anticapitalist feelings are strongly correlated with nationalism and ethnic intolerance”. Get it? The racists are on the Left! How awkward!

(Don't anybody tell her that Hitler was a socialist too!)

Some psychologists at Berkeley have just done a big rehash job on the last 50 years of conservative-bashing in the psychology literature. The rehash seems to have attracted a bit of attention in the blogosphere (e.g. here and here and here and here) so I guess I should point out a few things that people might not generally be aware of. Since I have had many articles on the psychology of conservatism published in the academic journals, I might be considered a relevant expert.

For a start, there is nothing new in it. It is the same old refrain that the Marxist Adorno and his collaborators said in their 1950 book: “The authoritarian personality”. Yet that book must have some sort of record for the amount of criticism it has attracted. In the first half of his 1981 book Right-wing authoritarianism Bob Altemeyer summarized the criticism that had been made of it in the psychological literature up to about 1973 and concluded that the Adorno work just could not prove what it purported to prove. Altemeyer, however, then went on to do some research of his own that was in some ways even more ludicrous.

The latest Berkeley rehash is remarkable for its quantity versus quality approach. They seem to agree with the dictum of Dr. Goebbels that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will believe it. In the Berkeley case the fact that almost all psychologists have been saying the same thing about conservatives seems to be taken as good proof that what they are saying is correct. A survey taken in Galileo’s day would have concluded with equal vehemence that the earth is flat. The Berkeley group seem to have given little or no weight to the fact that psychologists are overwhelmingly Leftist and so lean over backwards to find fault with conservatives. In other words, a survey of biased “science” has just produced more biased “science”!

What would have been much more productive would have been to look at the criticisms that have been made of the orthodoxy. Let me take just one example. The Berkeley group say that one of the five characteristics of conservatives is “Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity”. This is a straight rehash of the old 1950 Marxist nonsense and ignores heaps of evidence that such general traits as intolerance of ambiguity and psychological rigidity simply do not exist. People who are rigid about one thing will probably not be rigid about other things. My paper here sets out the evidence for that at some length. And much the same goes for dogmatism. Maybe there are people who are in fact generally dogmatic but psychologists have not yet succeeded in finding a way to pick them out. Milton Rokeach in 1960 wrote a book that purported to offer a way of picking out dogmatic people but there is now plenty of evidence that the questionnaire he used for that purpose simply does not work. It is an “invalid scale” in psychometrician’s jargon.

So the Berkeley findings can best be summarized in terms of an old computer saying: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

For those who would like to see some of the data that the Berkeley results do not take into account, I list below some of my academic journal articles on the question. The best counterblast of all, however, is probably my article here which (Surprise, Surprise!) the most relevant psychology journal refused to print! Isn’t that a good way to get consensus? Just refuse to print anything that does not suit your biases! No wonder the Berkeley group found great unanimity in the the publications they surveyed!

Listed below are just those of my relevant publications that are available online. Most of the relevant articles are still only available from university libraries. More compehensive listings of relevant articles can be found here and here.


Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? Human Relations, 29, 307-325.

Ray, J.J. (1979) Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism? "Australian Journal of Psychology 31, 9-14.

Ray, J.J. (1979) Authoritarianism in Australia, England and Scotland. Journal of Social Psychology 108, 271-272.

Ray, J.J. (1979) The authoritarian as measured by a personality scale Solid citizen or misfit? J. Clinical Psychology 35, 744-746.

Ray, J.J. (1979) Is the Dogmatism scale irreversible? South African Journal of Psychology 9, 104-107.

Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism in California 30 years later -- with some cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 9-17.

Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarian tolerance. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 303-304.

Ray, J.J. (1980) Authoritarianism and hostility. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 307-308.

Ray, J.J. (1984) Political radicals as sensation seekers. J. Social Psychology 122, 293-294.

Ray, J.J. (1984). Half of all racists are Left-wing. Political Psychology, 5, 227-236.

Ray, J.J. (1987) Conservatism and attitude to love: An empirical rebuttal of Eisler & Loye. Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 731-732.

Ray, J.J. (1989) The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific. Personality & Individual Differences, 10, 331-336.

Ray, J.J. (1990) Book Review: Enemies of freedom by R. Altemeyer. Australian Journal of Psychology, 42, 87-111.

Ray, J.J. (1990) Racism, conservatism and social class in Australia: With German, Californian and South African comparisons. Personality & Individual Differences, 11, 187-189.

Ray, J.J. (1990) The old-fashioned personality. Human Relations, 43, 997-1015.

Ray, J.J. (1990) Letter to the editor about Duckitt's theory. Political Psychology, 11, 629-632.

Ray, J.J. (1991) Are conservatives despairing? Rejoinder to Petersen & Wilkinson. Personality & Individual Differences, 12(5), 501.

Ray, J.J. (1991) Authoritarianism is a dodo: Comment on Scheepers, Felling & Peters. European Sociological Review, 7, 73-75.

Ray, J.J. (1998) On not seeing what you do not want to see: Meloen, Van Der Linden & De Witte on authoritarianism. Political Psychology, Vol. 19, Issue 4, 659-661.

Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1982) Conservatism, attitude to abortion and Maccoby's biophilia. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 143-144.

Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1990) Does attitude to authority exist? Personality & Individual Differences, 11, 765-769.

Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1987) Neoconservatism, mental health and attitude to death. Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 277-279.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Wednesday, July 23, 2003


We all know that feminists think that a woman can do everything a man can do -- and that is probably broadly true. Many feminists take that thinking much further, however. They claim that women who see themselves as fitting into both male and female roles -- as lesbians generally would -- are in fact much healthier psychologically for it. Being androgynous is said to be much better for you mentally than being classically female or classically male.

And there has been much research in the psychological literature that appears to support that theory. When I first had a look at the research concerned, however, it seemed to be very sloppily done -- designed to reach a given conclusion rather than being conducted with proper scientific care. I therefore designed a survey of my own (in conjunction with a female colleague) that would look at the issue in a more careful way. I have just uploaded the resultant paper here (or here). What I found were in fact quite strong correlations -- but they were the exact opposite of the feminist claim. Androgynes turned out to be much more likely to be maladjusted than others. And since my research was much more generalizable and carefully controlled than anything that went before it, one would think that my paper would be an essential reference in any further discussion of the topic.

The paper was published in a widely circulated academic journal nearly 20 years ago now and Google reveals not one reference to it in any academic journal. Funny that! If you reach conclusions that go against Leftist orthodoxy, you might as well not exist in the social sciences, no matter how good your work is. You may begin to see why I resigned from my tenured teaching job at a major Australian university 20 years ago. It took me a while but in the end I did get sick of banging my head on a brick wall.


Whoopee! Saddam’s sons are dead. It couldn’t have happened to bigger bastards. It should take the steam out of the remaining Baathist thugs too.

For all its air of Leftist holiness, The New York Times is as “greedy” as it gets: “The Gray Lady is a greedy leech, siphoning off millions of dollars in state taxpayer subsidies for private real estate development disguised as a public good. Now, the company stands to benefit from a federal tax-exempt bond program intended to help businesses devastated by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

An interesting comment on the introduction of free public schooling to America: "Supporters expected poor immigrants to rush to free public schools, but they didn't ... they were already in good schools, and many immigrants had come to the U.S. to avoid such intrusive, controlling government. When New York City offered free schools, attendance didn't increase. Even poor immigrant families valued education enough to pay for what they wanted."

A NAACP double standard? Hard line on South Africa, yet 'no comment' on oppression of blacks in Cuba. Nelson Mandela seems to suffer from the same problem. But Mandela also recently accused GWB of planning a 'holocaust' so maybe we should take his advanced years into account.

"I used to consider white liberals who praise Fidel Castro to be the most despicable people imaginable. That’s probably because I have to deal with these people on a regular basis. I call them Starbuck’s Socialists. You know the type. They spend about ten dollars a day to have other people make their coffee while they read the $20 deluxe edition of The Communist Manifesto at Barnes and Noble. ... But now I’ve changed my mind. I’ve decided that black liberals who praise Fidel Castro are just as repugnant."

This site has a link to an online petition signed by 17,000 (Yes, 17,000) scientists opposed to the Global Warming hysteria

This site says that it was labour-saving household appliances such as microwave ovens, not Gloria Steinem and the feminists, that ushered women into the workplace and “liberated” them.

Diversity has become a power game, a way not to break down arbitrary divisions but create new ones and, inevitably, a new set of group entitlements and therefore group resentments.

Nobody seems to support legal shark John Banzhaf's theory that fast food is addictive. Now we know why. The scientific research on the supposedly addictive nature of food, with which Banzhaf merrily threatens restaurants, was misrepresented. So say the scientists themselves.

Paddy McGuinness relates a great leftist “compassion” joke. It's a rework of the good Samaritan story. The beat up victim is lying beside the road, and the Leftist Samaritan says 'who did this you? ..he really needs my help' Margaret Thatcher had another variation on the Good Samaritan story. "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he only had good intentions. He had money as well."

How the wheel turns: "Extreme-right and neo-Nazi groups in France have formed an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim alliance on the internet with extremist Jewish groups, a report published yesterday said. Since the French far right is known for its visceral anti-Semitism, the alliance has puzzled and disturbed anti-racism campaigners and mainstream Jewish organisations." Good to see that even the fruitcakes are now identifying the real enemy of civilization.

Rafe Champion has just sent out an interesting email about the recent history of economic rationality in Australia. See here

The Wicked one has another story -- a true story -- about Leftist “compassion”. Apparently one of the founders of socialism poisoned people willy nilly!


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Tuesday, July 22, 2003


The Left are fond of pointing out that it was Republican President Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower who popularized the term “Military Industrial Complex”. The Left promptly made this entity one of their chief bogeymen. The members of the complex were the conspirators who REALLY controlled U.S. policy according to the Left. Ike’s farewell speech makes it clear, however, that Ike himself did not see things remotely that way. Ike didn't blame the Military Industrial Complex for the Cold War. He laid the blame on Communism: "a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method." Ike also felt the Military Industrial Complex was necessary and thought that its influence might be "sought or unsought." For 60s leftists, "unsought" power for the Military Industrial Complex was inconceivable.


Bin Laden and his ilk say that the only law they respect is Islamic law, yet many moderate islamic lawyers accuse Al-Qaeda of committing the Islamic crime of "hirabah" -- which translates roughly as “terrorism”. This article stresses that the Islamic fundamentalists are in fact no more than an extreme sect of Islam who are totally perverting what Mohammed meant by “jihad”. I don’t think that is much comfort, however. The Islamic law punishments for hirabah include life imprisonment, amputation and crucifixion but I doubt if we will ever see an example of THOSE Islamic laws being put into practice. Bin Laden and Co. seem to be wildly popular in the Arab world in fact. I get the impression that Arabs are about as true to the Koran as Anglicans are true to the Bible.


For those who think that the facts matter: “You won't hear about this from Greenpeace but a UK government report has found genetically modified crops pose a "very low" risk to human health, according to an independent scientific review panel.”

The murderous ignorance of the Greenies is set out on this scientific site. Quotes: "Somewhere on the Earth, on average every 12 seconds, a child dies of DDT-preventable malaria. The United States National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved 500 million lives before it was banned." Speaking of mosquito-borne malaria, Albert Schweitzer said: “"How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us.. . . but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us." The Greenies snatched that ray of hope away.

Like many conservatives, I have nothing against any individual homosexual personally and think that what homosexuals do with their own bodies is their business -- but I do nonethless oppose any homosexual influence on children. A slightly complex attitude like that is however too complex for many Leftists -- who rely on simple and invariably false sterotypes for their understanding of the world. Dr Laura, however, gave one of them a good lesson in real-world complexity.

Realism among one group of Australian blacks: “A major indigenous community has lobbied John Howard to stay on indefinitely as Prime Minister, dismissing the left of politics as "clueless" and calling for a new alliance between Aborigines and conservatives”.

This is the best account I have so far seen of Israel’s wall to keep out the Palestinian terrorists. The Leftists are doing their best to find fault with it but it is the only hope of stopping the bombings as far as I can see. Everything else has been tried many times.

A rare display of brains by the politically-correct British police: “Greater Manchester's top policeman, Michael Todd, believes the use of speed cameras leads to many law-abiding citizens developing an anti-police sentiment. So the northern region's Chief Constable has redeployed 200 officers from traffic duty to tackling burglars, robbers and sex offenders.”

“With its aim of making— or remaking— cities on a human scale, the New Urbanism movement is winning adherents across a wide spectrum of political sympathies. But, as Public Policy Manager Phillip De Vous points out, the New Urbanism may be a ripe target for hijacking by anti-growth, anti-sprawl advocates..”

Australia’s waterside workers (dockers, longshoremen) had a big defeat a few years ago when both business and government got tough on their overmanning practices and cut the wharf workforce drastically. PP McGuinness notes that the reforms, portrayed as a return to Dickensian days by Leftist theology, can now be clearly shown to have benefited both the workers and the country as a whole.

The first opinion poll in Iraq post-war: "We started by asking the basic question: was the war against Saddam’s regime right or wrong? Fifty per cent said ‘right’, while just 27 per cent said ‘wrong’"... "By almost three-to-one, Baghdadians expect life to be better (43 per cent) rather than worse (16 per cent) in one year’s time than it was before the war.”

Anti-globos say that globalization and growth is not narrowing the gap between rich and poor countries. What they don't look at is longevity. Our globalized world is helping poor people to live much longer. If lifespan is not a good index of personal welfare, it would be hard to say what is.

There is an appalling story on PC Watch about animal cruelty by blacks. And the authorities refuse to stop or punish it.

The Wicked one has another horror story about the oppressive and irrational antics of power-mad “child welfare” bureaucrats.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Monday, July 21, 2003


Leftist 'human rights activists' in Britain and the USA are busily campaigning at the moment for the release of captured Al-Qaeda fighters from U.S. military custody. The people they want released were captured fighting for a terrorist organisation that acted as a kind of “SS" for Afghanistan’s Taliban -- which itself was a dictatorship that rejected all notions of human rights for the Afghan people they oppressed. Nice to see whose side these Western “humanitarian” campaigners are on. Would they campaign for former members of Hitler’s “SS” to be treated nicely too? If not, why not?

In any case, if the Al-Qaeda thugs are ever to be let out of Guantanamo Bay and put on trial, natural justice would seem to require that they are tried in Afghanistan by the people they oppressed. That should be fun!

And in fact, from early on, the Afghans thought Bin Laden and his fellow Arabs were scum -- as this 1998 report of a 1989 meeting with Bin Laden in Afghanistan notes: "The Afghans accepted the Arabi not because of their fighting ability but because of their lavish funding for pay-offs and weapons. During the war against the communist Kabul regime, many Afghans expressed horror at the ruthless nature of the Arabi who tended to kill their victims, notably prisoners, by slashing their throats. Also, I witnessed numerous captured female women and children from communist villages being transported by Arabs across the Pakistani border. According to Afghan sources and human rights groups, they were shipped to the Middle East as slaves. This human trafficking was well known to the Pakistani government and US intelligence."

But Arab slaving -- of both blacks and whites -- has been going on for many centuries of course. As it says here: “Slaves were the luxury goods the Islamic world seemed unable to wean itself off .... Like horses and gold, slaves conferred status, and the most opulent households had thousands”.


Get this: “Carbon dioxide concentration was more than 10 times higher than current levels during the Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago”. So if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming -- as the Greenies claim -- how come it was super-high during an ICE AGE? See also here for the real explanation of earth’s temperature fluctuations.

Andrew Bolt has an excellent column in which he points out that Hitler’s Nazis were pioneers of the “Greenie” movement -- believe it or not.

Does Free Trade lead to a 'race to the bottom' as multinationals shift production to countries with the worst environmental records? Anti-globos say yes, but the figures say no.

This article points out that hydrogen fuels are no magic solution for pollution problems as hydrogen needs to be produced somehow. Nonetheless hydrogen fuel does have some advantages. But if we are to use them as a way to move away from 'fossil fuels', nuclear power will need to be used to generate hydrogen fuel. How awful that would be for the Greenie ignoramuses!

It looks like the World Meteorological Organisation thinks that joining the Greenie panic merchants is worth their while. They reported that extreme weather events occur every year somewhere in the globe, “but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing". But then one of their own directors admitted that the apparent greater frequency of such events probably just reflected better reporting of such events in today’s world. What frauds they are! They must be desperate for funding. Panics generate funding.


Fancy that bastard Idi Amin living to 80 -- unlike 200,000 of his victims. Guess who is sheltering him? The Saudis! Great humanitarians sure can recognize one-another.

At Last: The BBC is on the defensive over its role in the suicide of British arms expert, David Kelly.

What fun! Now it is pizza that prevents cancer. I have always just ignored the food nannies. Everybody should. Human beings are omnivores. Our bodies are built to handle all sorts of food without harm.

China’s economy is roaring ahead. Good news for Australia. They buy heaps of our stuff.

The religion of peace again: “Iran's supreme leader has inaugurated a new ballistic missile that brings Israel within range of the Islamic republic.”

Mark Steyn is to the point in discussing Leftist criticism of GWB over Saddam’s possible purchase or uranium for bomb-making: "Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq..."

Arlene Peck says that Arabs treat their women worse than they treat farm animals.

China Hand has an interesting post about the health system in China.

My academic article just uploaded points out that “delay of gratification” is a significant topic for economists, sociologists and psychologists but that most of the reasearch literature on the topic is totally unscientifically based. See here (post of 20th) or here. I pointed out the fallacious nature of the research concerned in a widely-circulated psychology journal nearly 20 years ago but nothing seems to have changed to this day.


Comments? Email me here or here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


Sunday, July 20, 2003


With a schism among American Anglicans over homosexual bishops now likely, the following email from an Australian reader seems pertinent:

“The homosexual lobby, at least the 'gay left', aren't satisfied with mere tolerance and equal rights -- i.e. people should free to do what they want in their own homes, provided they don't disturb the neighbours... They want to force 'acceptance' on the rest of the community. And are extremely intolerant of those who just don't want to offer acceptance.. up to and including the use of legal sanctions. If homosexuals want to be ministers or priests or bishops, why don't they start their own church? New churches start up all the time.

The issue is probably not the homosexuals as such, most of whom just want to do their own thing without being hassled, but their self appointed leaders, spokesmen and non-homosexual Leftie guardians, who are really just fishing for causes. THEY are fixated on the US civil rights movement, which they see as a holy crusade and shining example to be emulated.

The Australian Left laud JFK and LBJ for their civil rights reforms, but not our own conservative Prime Minister R.G. Menzies, who did far more for black rights than the Left’s Gough Whitlam did. Gough admittedly started the big spending but the key legal rights reforms were done under conservative Prime Ministers R.G. Menzies and Harold Holt. Leftists see the civil rights model as a one-size-fits-all-model that applies to all minority groups everywhere with a real or imagined grievance. That the civil rights movement may have made a few fundamental mistakes -- e.g. going for affirmative action; allying itself with the welfare lobby rather than fostering economic independence; and its campaigns against private discrimination (formerly known as the freedom of association) -- is not recognised or even debated.”



"See, if you put a number on the value of skin color to benefit a minority, you’re discriminating based on race -- a violation of the 'equal protection of the laws.' But if you wink and nod and pick a lesser-qualified student with a favored skin color over someone with better qualifications and you say that doing so will reach an undefinable 'critical mass' of minority students, well, you’re apparently not discriminating."

"Not only does the practice of affirmative action ultimately neither help minority nor non-minority students, but it undermines the efficacy of our Constitution while belittling the progress of historically mistreated minorities by allowing the same ill that was used against them -- racism -- to be used against others."

Good to see the NAACP being blasted for hate speech and racism by other blacks.

Amusing: The recent affirmative action decision by the U.S. Supreme Court could lead to black enrollments falling -- as Hispanics take the places blacks presently get through racial preferences.