Saturday, August 16, 2003


Anti-Schwarzenegger liberals are playing politics with the holocaust but another blogger has used some of my points about the Leftist nature of Nazism to answer the Leftist attacks on Arnold’s father. That should confuse ‘em -- if they listen.

Matt Welch at Reason has an interesting summary of the immigration policy splits in the California election. Interestingly Big Arnie formerly was an advocate of Prop 187. This was voted in by the California voters and then blocked by legal appeals. Prop 187 was a 1994 popularly initiated referendum that barred illegal immigrants from access to state provided public services and welfare. See here. The willingness of the Left to oppose and block a popularly supported amendment shows how much they love democracy.

The Christian Right may be peeved that Arnie is no morals crusader but I suspect that his attitudes in that regard are what is needed to win in California.


Robert Kagan points out that the threats GWB identified which the Left describe as “lying” were all noted by Chirac, Gore and Clinton at different times too. How odd that they escape criticism for it! Clinton, for instance insisted before 9/11 that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." The liar!

Francis Fukuyama asks whether the 'missing' WMDs represent U.S. government lies or proper U.S. government caution.

Robert Novak says WMD evidence will be released soon

Thomas Sowell says "so what" if WMDs are never found. Intelligence has always been an art, not a science


John Moore has snared another Leftist who does not let the facts get in the way of his argument. He agrees with the findings of the Berkeley study of conservatism because:

“Adorno proved all this in the late 1940's with ex-Nazi party members. And don't give me that bull that Fascism is really different from Conservatism. Name a single significant German conservative party or individual which did not enthusiastically endorse Hitler.”

The facts are that Adorno did NOT study ex-Nazis. He mostly studied normal Californians undergoing college education. Former German Nazi leaders WERE studied by others and they were NOT of the “new anthropological type” described by Adorno. They were all different types. And German monarchists were among the victims in the Nazis’ “Night of the Long Knives” but both the orthodox socialists (SPD -- Gerhardt Schroeder's party) and the Communists voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag on various important occasions. I could go on ....


Just when you thought it was safe to drink the water, fluoride conspiracy theories are back, from the left!

Daniel Pipes reports on Newsweek vs the Koran!

An interesting comment on Prime Minister John Howard's foreign policy: Sophisticated alliance management in Australia's interests. Hardly the the "all the way with LBJ" position the Left accuses him of.

It looks like there is good economic news breaking out all over the world at the moment. Should be good for reducing unemployment and supporting the bull run on shares. All the retired people -- including me -- who own company shares will be particularly looking forward to the latter.

It looks like Saudi Arabia is finally doing its bit in the war on terror.

The latest Tourbus newsletter says that the State motto of California is: “The land of fruits and nuts”. Naughty!

A new blogger has got some amusing “definitions” of liberalism.

Chris Brand has not posted much lately so I have put it all up here. He says that whiter blacks are brighter and that testosterone is good for creativity.

My latest academic upload here (or here) looks at the Leftist claim that conservatives are particularly dogmatic. My survey showed -- surprise, surprise -- that Leftist and Rightist voters in the community at large were equally likely to be dogmatic.


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, August 15, 2003


“As if the unprecedented effort to recall California Governor Gray Davis isn't enough excitement for one special election, the campaign promises some racial fireworks as well. Sharing ballot space on October 7 with Mr. Davis's would-be successors will be Proposition 54, also known as the Racial Privacy Initiative. The measure prohibits state and local government entities from collecting and using racial data. ...The main proponent of Prop. 54 is Ward Connerly.... Mr. Connerly has said the goal of his current initiative is to get the state government 'out of the racial classification business' and move us one step closer to a colorblind government. The backers of Prop. 54, he says, 'seek a California that is free from government racism and race-conscious decision making.' That sounds like a core American aspiration, or at least it was until racial preferences became a political industry. ... Down the path of the Supreme Court's recent Michigan decision lies a nation divided by race, not united in common principle. Prop. 54's success would be a fitting rebuke to the Supreme Court (all the more potent because it would come from the nation's largest and most racially diverse state) and a public reaffirmation of the Constitution's colorblind commitment to equal protection under the law."

From the Wall St. Journal via The Federalist


Being blind to race, colour and creed is good public policy but being blind to illegality certainly is not. A reader writes concerning the way California is being overwhelmed by illegal immigration:

“Brenda Walker, in a review of Victor Davis Hanson's MEXIFORNIA takes the author to task for not wearing his more well known hat as a military historian. Will California truly become Mexifornia by a successful non-military invasion? Will Americans continue to flee the increasingly alien state for somewhere that is still recognizable as their country? California's U.S.-born population actually declined by 1.5 million people in last decade while the overall population increased by over four million.This crisis calls out for an analysis from a military expert-which Hanson strangely fails to provide. The critical reviewer (Brenda Walker) has elsewhere highlighted that multiculturalism is a women's issue, but not in the sense that most left wing feminists would be prepared to recognise.”


I recently received a rather combative email from a Leftist lady named Julie. I was completely objective in my initial reply but when she persisted with her combative approach I gave her a bit of her own medicine. I reproduce the exchange below. Her initial comment was about my post of July 27th. in which I described a Leftist attack on me as “pathetic”.

Julie: A little defensive, are we?? I was never one to be convinced by name-calling!
JR: Attacks have to be defended and I think I showed why I saw the comments as pathetic.
Julie: Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I think I would be much more convinced of your argument without the defensive, combative rhetoric. Oh well, what can be expected from a conservative! Thanks though, amusing as always.
JR: Amusing that you cannot address the content of my argument -- only the style. But what can one expect of a Leftist?
Julie: Exactly what you can expect from a Leftist, you are correct! I'm not interested in engaging in simplistic, black and white arguments with you, particularly ones that consist of name-calling. I'm flattered that you are interested in my opinion, but choose to decline your invitation for combative mud-slinging. Reply not necessary
JR: A little defensive, are we?? I was never one to be convinced by name-calling!
Julie: LOL! You're pretty funny for a conservative! Like a little parrot, how sweet. You wanna cracker? Hahahahahaha!
JR: What a simplistic black and white response!
Julie: I'm done with you.
JR: Hoist with her own petard!

Note that she accuses ME of being combative! Typical Leftist projection -- seeing their own faults in others.


The teacher’s unions all hate it but there have been many studies over the years showing that smaller class sizes do not improve education. The latest is here

Useful Fools thinks that Baghdad blogger Salam Pax is a whiner and a baby.

A good comment here on the Leftist perversion of history that is now taught in many schools.

Interesting to see that anti-racketeering laws are now being used by private individuals to help stop illegal immigration into the U.S.

The Wicked one is very critical of U.S. farm policy.

My latest academic upload here (or here) looks at the causes of racism and the constant Leftist finger-pointing at conservatives as being the ones to blame -- which is pretty rich considering that the greatest racist of all time was a socialist. What I found in two general population surveys in England and Scotland was, of course, that racial dislikes were equally common among Leftist and Rightist voters. Everybody is most comfortable with their own group.


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, August 14, 2003


There is a very confused article here by a Leftist about Australia’s small number of conservative “think tanks”. It thoroughly mixes up conservatives, neoconservatives and libertarians. I think Greg Lindsay of the CIS would be amazed to hear that he is a neocon. Neocons are reformed Leftists who still have an interventionist streak in them whereas Greg has always been primarily a libertarian. I should know. I was one of the donors who helped Greg set up the CIS in the first place. And I was not a “rich businessman” at the time. I was a junior university teacher.

The article does its best to make the organizations concerned sound sinister -- all political lamebrains love “conspiracy” theories -- but there is only one secret to their influence -- they present the facts in a thoroughly scholarly way. And when you do that to a reasonable person, the facts speak for themselves. Log on here and judge for yourself.

There is a reasonably factual account of what neoconservatives are from a Leftist source here -- Though his idea that the Christian Right are antisemitic is bizarre. U.S. Christians would be second only to Jews as supporters of Israel.

A more up-to-date version of what neoconservatism consists of is given by someone who is himself known as a neoconserative here. By either definition it is doubtful that we have any neoconservatives to speak of in Australia. We just have conservatives and Leftists -- though both our major political parties are very centrist. Both parties have however been responsible for a fair bit of deregulation and privatization so the centre of politics these days is far to the Right of what it once was.


Michael Tremoglie writes: “Governor Howard Dean of Vermont routinely accuses President Bush of lying. However, if anyone seems to have a problem with candor, it is Governor Dean of Vermont.....” More here.

Schwarzenegger and Buffett together -- truth IS stranger than fiction. He could well be a winner with brains like that on his side.

“Critics of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” have suggested that it represents a radical departure in U.S. foreign policy: that our nearly unilateral and pre-emptive ("first strike") use of military force to topple sovereign nation's government... was revolutionary. But was it? This policy has been reinforced in presidential National Security Statements for decades. [e.g.] “We act in alliance or partnership when others share our interest, but unilaterally when compelling national interests so demand." -- William Jefferson Clinton. 2000 National Security Statement.” More here.

A Belgian court has just done something useful! They jailed an Albanian gangster for 8 years -- but only after he had smuggled 12,000 illegal immigrants into Britain!

The roots of the housing shortage: "Besides laws designed to halt 'overdevelopment,' the government reduces the supply of housing and drives up its cost in a number of other ways. Wetlands regulations often require extensive environmental studies before building is allowed to begin, and they completely prevent building on many otherwise viable sites. Licensing requirements restrict the supply of contractors, raising the cost of hiring them."

The new Puritans: "Jacobson's list of soda hazards nicely illustrates the hyperbolic approach to health advice favored by [The Center for Science in the Public Interest], which the microbiologist turned food activist co- founded in 1971 after working for Ralph Nader. Today the D.C.-based CSPI is one of the country's most influential nanny groups, with an annual budget of $15 million and some 800,000 newsletter subscribers. It has the ability to grab headlines, kill sales of products it doesn't like, and shape regulatory policy. The group is also emblematic of a troubling cultural trend whose motto might be, 'If it feels good, don't do it.'"

"In the interest of battling automobile-created air pollution, environmentalists call for more public transportation -- more buses and commuter trains and the higher taxes needed to fund them -- to get people out of their cars. Granting, for the sake of discussion, that air quality is as poor as environmentalists say it is, is public transportation really the answer?"

Protectionism may temporarily prop up inefficient industries and businesses but ultimately market forces will prevail, with the protected industry generally ending up worse off than before -- as the U.S. copper-mining industry found out to its cost.

Carnival of the Vanities is up again -- bigger than ever this time.

The Wicked one thinks that marriage should be deregulated.

My latest academic upload here (or here) should have horrified and amazed most political psychologists when it was first published. In typically Leftist fashion, however, they simply ignored something that did not suit their preconceptions. The favourite stick to beat conservatives with among psychologists is the claim that conservatives are “authoritarian” as measured by the California 'F' scale. What I show in this article is that, among the general population, highly idealistic Leftists are just as likely as conservatives to get high scores on the ‘F’ scale! Psychologists, of course, do not normally examine what happens out there in the general population. They confine their “research” to what their own students dutifully say! What a laugh!


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, August 13, 2003


A California reader writes of a local newspaper called Change Links which appears to be affiliated with the local University school of journalism: "One article really caught my eye. It said Iraqi Concentration Camps. It basically says that the U.S. was making Iraqi concentration camps, which is obviously false. Also, in July's issue of that newspaper, there were two articles on the back, the bottom one defending the regime of Hugo Chavez, even though Chavez is purporsely changing the Constitution of Venezeula, so he can stay in power even longer, and a defence of Fidel Castro's Cuba on the top.

In the current issue, there was an article by Howard Zinn: Saying that it was bad for America to invade Iraq and that Communist regimes are great (why doesn't he live in one of those himself?). This is a Leftist newspaper, disguised as a "Progressive" newspaper, which I find comes nowhere near to what a progressive is. The way I see it, it's nothing but a Pro-Communist group."


There is some really elegant physical science summarized here by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv which shows that most of our global temperature change over the centuries, millennia and millions of years is caused by cosmic ray fluctuations from the big wide universe outside our solar system.

Some other links on the research concerned are here and here and here and here

So IF -- and it is a big "If" -- there has been any overall climate change this century the probablity is that the cause is totally beyond our control.

Co-author of the original study referred to in the summary was geologist
Jan Veizer. Veizer has previously run into some political flak from the Greenhouse lobby and media which is discussed here: "I never said CO2 was not a greenhouse gas," he says. "But there is this one political dogma: CO2 equals global warming equals climate change equals disaster. Now, the further you go along this equation, the iffier it is scientifically. But the moment you step away from the dogma you are excommunicated. You are undermining the environmental agenda." In fact, Veizer has no problem with the environmental agenda, which stems from a desire to reduce the amount of pollution produced by our industrial civilization. However, he points out that many people confuse this goal with reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent global warming. He makes no apologies for challenging the science behind that agenda.

And as another scientist summarizes it:

"The White House must educate the public and its own federal bureaucracy about certain climate facts, as endorsed by top scientists:
* The best available data, from weather satellites and weather balloons, do not detect any appreciable atmospheric warming. Nor did the 20th century show unusually high temperatures.
* Theoretical computer models that predict climate catastrophes have never been validated and therefore should not be relied on for policy.
* Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income.
* The Kyoto Protocol with its energy-rationing schemes is not only hugely expensive but also completely ineffective in influencing climate change. As Mr. Bush correctly stated during his campaign and since - Kyoto is "fatally flawed."


This article of 12th by Dennis Prager scores some good goals: "Many liberal positions have been wreaking havoc on America and the world. How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions? There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and narcissism. At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.... The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism..." Definitely worth reading the whole thing.

What arrogant elitist bastards! "A scientific panel recommended against smallpox vaccinations for the general public"

Someone should ask them why so many Canadians go to the U.S. for their medical treatment: "More than 7,000 doctors, including two former surgeons general, called for universal health insurance for the United States on Tuesday, saying it would not only be more fair, but would be cheaper and more efficient than the current patchwork system"

Some Leftist hypocrite writes of Iraq's "New Tyranny": "Now sex and drugs are freely available on the street, writes Paul McGeough in Baghdad." How Awful!

Do ideas have consequences? The Bali terrorists' lawyers are actually quoting from Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" as evidence for the defence. That Moore is a chronic liar and twister of the truth obviously needs to be publicized as much as possible. But there are so many Leftist lies ....

This list of best and worst books still holds up well.

After 9/11, dissent was "stifled," claimed the academic left. Nonsense, says Jean Bethke Elshtain. It was any reasoned religious support for the Iraq war that was marginalized... What actually has been stifled is any analysis of the religious motivations of the enemy.

The Wicked one has a couple of posts about what the new EU constitution says and what it looks set to do to Britain.


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, August 12, 2003


When the Berkeley study of conservatism first appeared, I noted how rich it was for Leftists to accuse others of being simplistic in their thinking. A good example of Leftist simplistic thinking is given here: "Creating better living standards for the poor is not as easy as passing minimum wage laws that may actually lead to fewer work opportunities, for instance. Such laws are simple-minded."

And, right on cue, we see this in yesterday's Los Angeles Times: ""What price are we, as Americans, willing to put on human worth, on safety, decent medical care and hope? If a minimum-wage increase isn't passed, Congress will have decided that $5.15 an hour is that price_a number that should bring shame to anyone who truly cares about those barely existing below the poverty line," writes Douglas MacKinnon. As FEE asks in response: "If government can really raise wages, why not set the minimum to $75,000 a year?" All that high minimum wages do, of course, is to destroy jobs and create unemployment for the poor. But that old, old lesson is still too complicated for our Leftist brainboxes.


Further to my recent posts on eugenics, I should note that Steven Levitt's work suggests that the old Leftist eugenics program of reducing the birth rate (via abortion) among the "lower classes" was not totally misconceived. Levitt's findings seem to show that making voluntary abortion available to poorer mothers reduces the crime rate years later. He is at pains of course to indicate that his empirical findings are not an endorsement of either eugenics or abortion. Slate featured a 3 day correspondence between him and Steve Sailer dealing with the issue.

Given the traditional conservative regard for individual liberty, it seems to me that the only eugenics programs that conservatives could justify would be voluntary ones -- such as the large material incentives to reproduce that the Singapore government offers to highly educated Singaporean women. Christian conservatives, however, tend to regard all reproduction as God-given so would oppose even voluntary eugenic programs that limited reproduction -- such as the Woodhil Foundation programs that pay crack-addicted mothers to undertake contraception.

Leftists, however, oppose the Woodhill programs because they are voluntary and privately-funded. They like such matters to be in the hands of the State (i.e. under their control).

And the problem of a self-perpetuating and substantially criminal underclass does not need to be addressed by eugenics. It can be addressed by addressing its major causes -- such as the over-generous welfare system that the Leftists have created in their hunger for praise.

I have mentioned previously that the famous peacenik and anti-nuclear campaigner Bertrand Russell was a keen advocate of State-enforced eugenics. A reader has written in with more rather surprising information about the 3rd Earl Russell. I have posted it here (or here) under the heading: "Peacenik Bertie -- The authoritarian eugenicist". One rather wonders what Earl Russell would have done if he had been in control of Germany in the 1930s. Perhaps history would not have changed much.


FEE points out that many conservatives fear that the Iraq invasion is making America into an empire -- which conservatives of course oppose. I really cannot understand that fear at all. Is there anyone in America who does not want American troops out of that rathole as soon as possible?

A good article here on the old folly of protectionism: "When New Jersey lawmakers learned last fall that the company managing the state's child-welfare office had moved its call center to India, they were outraged. Within weeks, the state Senate passed a bill requiring all workers for government contractors to be U.S. citizens."

There's a lot of truth in the top comic of August 11 on American Realpolitik.

Disgraceful. Australia's University of Newcastle is still covering up their greedy abuse of academic standards. These arrogant bureaucrats are responsible to no-one and they know it.

Making the Canadians eat crow! "Prime Minister Jean Chretien was urged on Monday to lead talks with U.S. officials to try to get a ban on imports of Canadian cattle lifted" They are very quick to take any nutty health scare seriously but don’t like it when the USA does it.

A useful short review of the North Korean horror is to be found here

Leftist crooks fattening themselves at the public trough really are disgusting. It's their "compassion", you see. What racketeers!

Walter Williams points out that South African style race-classification boards are the inevitable result of any race spoils system -- such as the U. Michigan admission system recently endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Either that or widespread racial fraud with almost anybody claiming "minority" status.

And to show what a good psychologist I am I have just put up an optical illusion that applies to men only. See towards the the bottom of my picture page


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, August 11, 2003 seem to be having big troubles at the moment so I could be rendered unable to post here at any time. So keep an eye on my mirror sites if my daily post here does not appear around the usual time.

The recent call by Australia's Prime Minister to consider reinstatement of the death penalty for serious crime has of course enlivened debate on the issue here in Australia. An Australian reader writes:

Michael Duffy also notes that elite and media attitudes to capital punishment differ markedly from popular opinion.

Back in 1975 Isaac Ehrlich published a pioneer study "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment -- A Question of Life and Death" that highlighted the crime prevention benefits of capital punishment. His paper is online here (PDF).

Ehrlich's views have been summarised in more digestible form by Slate columnist Steven Landsburg: "Increase the number of executions by 1 percent (which amounts to increasing the severity of the average punishment) and (again to a very rough approximation) the murder rate falls by about half a percent."

Landsburg is at pains to point out that Ehrlich sees increasing the probability of convictions as the best deterrent against crime: "That's not to say that punishments don't matter. Executions may be a less-effective deterrent than convictions, but they are nevertheless an extremely powerful deterrent; according to Ehrlich's numbers, one additional execution ...could well have prevented over 20 murders."

On a similar theme economist Steven Levitt, a rising star in the economics world, has provided a statistical model that reinforces the common sense belief that hiring more police reduces crime, something a large chunk of our intellectual class dispute: "Each additional police officer is estimated to eliminate eight to ten serious crimes. Existing estimates of the costs of crime suggest that the social benefit of reduced crime is approximately $100,000 per officer per year, implying that the current number of police is below the optimal level." See here.

When it comes to capital punishment, of course the perspective of economists and social scientists is different from that of theologians and priests. This evangelical Christian site says:

" punishment (was) never specifically removed or replaced in the Bible. While some would argue that the New Testament ethic replaces the Old Testament ethic, there is no instance in which a replacement ethic is introduced. As we have already seen, Jesus and the disciples never disturb the Old Testament standard of capital punishment. The Apostle Paul teaches that we are to live by grace with one another, but also teaches that we are to obey human government that bears the sword. Capital punishment is taught in both the Old Testament and the New Testament."

So of course most Australian churches oppose it!”

As I have long made clear (PDF), I personally oppose the death penalty purely because I think our police are too crooked for us to have enough confidence in a guilty verdict. Most Australian States seem to have police in jail at the moment as a result of corruption convictions and some notorious cases of police fabrication of evidence appear never to have been punished (e.g. the Mannix case - PDF).



Australian protectionist shoots himself in the head. A socialist ideologue resorts to abuse and gross misrepresentations to defend his protectionist ideology.
The Bush strategy that beat bin Laden and destroyed Saddam. The Democrats, i.e., the Copperhead Party, and their media friends are deliberately undermining the Bush strategy that destroyed the Taliban, bin Laden and the vile Saddam, by trying to turn the American people against the war. Their actions border on treason.
Phillip Adams and the moral bankruptcy of the left. Phillip Adams pathological attacks on Prime Minister Howard, particularly over the toppling of Saddam, serve to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy and utter hypocrisy of the left.

Details here


The Australian intellectualoids at work: “A taxpayer-funded website encourages young Australian-Palestinians to become virtual rock throwers in a mockery of Middle East violence. Players can write messages of hate on a website "rock" and watch as a young man loads it into a slingshot before firing it into the distance. The website heads a list of controversial projects bankrolled by the Australia Council for the Arts.”

Hopeful: “Under pressure from economic problems, internal violence and the United States' success in toppling Saddam Hussein in neighbouring Iraq, Saudi Arabia is embarking on a series of reforms that many Saudis hope will lead to the most sweeping political change since the kingdom's founding.... “

John Moore has promised us more posts about the hijinks of the US politically correct brigade on PC Watch. He also follows up on my comments about the revived Zero Population Growth crowd.

China Hand reports on the chaotic graduation ceremonies at the college where he teaches. Apparently such ceremonies go down very well in China. He also has a post under the heading: “China’s farmers are on the move”.

The Wicked one has got some good funnies up at the moment.

My latest academic upload here (or here) is an attempt to find out if there are any particular psychological characteristics of environmentalists. The survey was however of the general population rather than of committed Greenies and since almost everyone thinks that a nice clean environment is a good thing, there was little to characterize those who were pro-environment. It was however found that people who were strongly in favour of environmental protection also tended to be strongly in favour of consumer protection.


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, August 10, 2003


My post about Hitler’s eugenics making him simply a typical Leftist of his times has energized one reader to comment as follows:

“You are right to point out the socialist roots of eugenics. Bertrand Russell was a true believer in the eugenic State and even saw socialised medicine as a key step in imposing State planning over procreation. In a letter to his first wife, feminist Alys Pearsall Smith, about socialism and “the woman question,” for example, he writes:

"Thee might observe incidentally that if the state paid for child-bearing it might and ought to require a medical certificate that the parents were such as to give a reasonable result of a healthy child — this would afford a very good inducement to some sort of care for the race, and gradually as public opinion became educated by the law, it might react on the law and make that more stringent, until one got to some state of things in which there would be a little genuine care for the race, instead of the present haphazard higgledy-piggledy ways."

(Quoted from here)

The few critics of eugenics in the early 20th century were mainly conservatives and Christians like G.K. Chesterton who saw eugenic planning as just another arm of the wider campaign to impose a "scientific" socialist planning. In fact Chesterton subtitled his anti-eugenics tract "Eugenics and Other Evils" as: "An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State".

Modern commentators usually emphasise the "racist" (or more accurately "racialist") dimensions of the eugenics program and manage to wholly white out the socialist element. This is an example, not only of our intellectual class's pro-socialist bias, but of anachronistic thinking, projecting current attitudes back through time.

In the early part of the century socialists had no qualms about racialist thinking as anyone who reads Karl Marx no doubt knows. Of course this kind of thinking was commonplace then, however the marriage of socialism and racialism certainly gave birth to Nazism, probably the most violent and virulent form of racialism ever experienced. Most current critics of Nazism only blame one of it's parents!

The racialist thinking of the eugenic socialists was quite "scientific" and progressive in it's day, much as 'global warming' is seen as scientific and progressive today. At that time "group selection" models of evolution were dominant, and it was quite common to see "race" as the group being selected. It was really only in the 1960s that these models of evolution were really overturned.

Thankfully the obvious evils of Nazism forced many socialists to rethink their racialism, unfortunately leaving their loving faith in State supremacy and social engineering firmly intact. That Stalin's State equalled or exceeded Hitler in violence under the cloak of international brotherhood was frankly ignored. In fact many on the left have now commenced a new crusade in the name of anti-racism and multiculturalism. However laudable these goals, the implementation often bulldozes individual rights and autonomy, just as the old eugenicist planners did.

Many of the eugenics true believers continued on postwar moving into campaigns for legalised abortion, planned parenthood and population control. In fact some conservative critics have highlighted the racist roots of much of the liberal pro-abortion movement.

In the scientific world it is not impossible to imagine a swing back to group selectionism. Many "sensitive" commentators attack neo-Darwinism and individual selectionism as "reductionist" and thus bad. And the old idea of race is certainly not scientifically dead. The real question is, if these scientific concepts revive, will the socialists return to their old habits? And will the supporters of individual freedom be strong enough to stop them?”

And eugenics of a sort IS back on the Left: The Zero Population Growth nutters are back with their “people are pollution” attitudes! Only this time they want to HALVE our population! And it does seem to be the old gang from the 1960’s again -- including Paul Ehrlich (if ever a surname was a misnomer that is: “ehrlich” is German for “honest”). The abject failure of their earlier prophecies -- e.g. that we would all be doomed by the 1970s -- has not dampened them down a bit. As “Spiked” points out in reply however, “Rising living standards and rising populations go hand-in-hand.” But the doomsters ignore history, of course. They even ignore the present! The world’s population has never been so large -- and prosperity worldwide has never been so great. Even India and China are forging ahead now that they have unleashed capitalism.


An excellent story here about what reality did to a far-Left Jew. It is sad that it needs reality as harsh as that to dislodge the simplistic prejudices of Leftists.

In response to my post yesterday about the warning labels that the State of California is sticking on almost everything, Matthew Cowie asks when they are going to start putting warning labels on vegetables too? As we know, even “organic” vegetables contain lots of carcinogens! And that Califoria air must be pretty carcinogenic too -- with all its pollution -- so maybe we will see warnings on their tourist brochures soon?

We’ve got to ban swimming pools!. In the U.S., three times more children drown per year in domestic swimming pools than die from gun use. And if we look at the number of guns there are in the U.S. versus the number of pools there are, the pools are 100 times more deadly. How can the do-gooders wriggle out of that one? (Answer: They won’t try. They are not interested in logic -- only in inflating their own egos).

The July 23rd post here (or here) has a good send-up of how important “diversity” is.

A good treatment here of the controversy over GWB’s truthful comment that there was some evidence Saddam had obtained uranium from Niger.

Article on how badly the war on terrorism is going in SE Asia.


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.