Saturday, January 10, 2004


A reader has pointed me to a good background article on how polarized along religious lines American politics have become. We all know that there is a strong affinity in America between real Christians and the Republicans but the article also points out the survey evidence showing that the Democrats generally (and Democrat convention delegates in particular) are equally (and fervently) anti-religion [unless the religion is Islam, of course]. It also shows that the Leftist media consistently downplay the anti-religious nature of the Democrats. Just some excerpts:

"ANES results indicate that anti-fundamentalism appears disproportionately among secularists, the highly educated, particularly those living in big cities, and persons who strongly favor legalized abortion and gay rights, oppose prayer in schools, and who, ironically, "strongly agree" that one should be tolerant of persons whose moral standards are different from one's own .... over a quarter of Clinton's white supporters in 1992 said that they intensely disliked Christian fundamentalists... despite the reams of data documenting the alignment of secularists with the Democratic party and the countermovement of religious traditionalists into the Republican party, the media, particularly network news, has tended to emphasize only the latter phenomenon... What viewers do not hear about is the secularist vote, which has gone two to one in the Democratic direction in the past three presidential elections"

Why the Leftist media downplay the religion-hating among Democrats is a really easy question to answer: Religion is an almost universal human experience and atheists are never more than a small minority in any national population. Most people have SOME religious beliefs. So being totally and vocally anti-religion would be a big vote-loser.

But are Democrats really anti-religion? Are they not just anti-fundamentalist? The simple answer to that it that it is the fundamentalists who really are religious. To call your average Episcopalian religious would be a joke and even Catholicism is only a shadow of what it once was. But, aside from that, the article does give a lot of survey data showing that the influential core of the Democrats really are anti-religious in general. They are far more rejecting of religion than the American population at large. So why?

It is no mystery at all, really. Leftists are against ANYTHING that is "established" in the society they inhabit. They are always against the status quo, whatever that might be -- and America is a very religious country. To Leftists religion is a big, complacent target that they itch to tear down -- just as the Soviet Communists once did. Modern Leftism is just an attempt to achieve communist goals by stealth and attacking religion is an integral part of that. Leftists cannot stand any creed but their own -- with their own superior wisdom being the core of that creed.

It may be worth noting that Left/Right politics in Australia are NOT religiously polarized. Why? Because Australia is one of the world's most irreligious countries so religion is not a target big enough for the Left to aim at. By American rules, Australia should also therefore be frantically Leftist. It is anything but. It is also one of the world's most conservative countries with a government that is arguably more conservative than America's. It is less wishy-washy on free trade; It has STOPPED illegal immigration and -- despite Australia having had its own "9/11" in Bali -- has no special security legislation that threatens civil liberties. There have also been no notable expansions of the Australian welfare State for many years. And it is one of the few countries that DID help out in the invasion of Iraq.

So the U.S. situation is clearly the result of U.S. Leftists attacking Christianity out of their hatred of ordinary Americans. American Christians have been driven into the Republican party because only there do they find respect for themselves and their liberties.

After my post yesterday about Christianity and holiness, I received what I regard as a true Christian response from Father Mike Walsh of the Catholic Maryknoll Society. He emailed me: "God, I'm sure, doesn't mind your atheism. And neither do I. Keep up the good fight, and as to the whited sepulchres, keep giving it to them good and hard"


Democrat hypocrisy over tax: "Nowhere is this more striking than in the sudden scrambling of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who has advocated repealing all of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, including those for the middle class. Now, under heavy fire from his rivals, Dr. Dean is preparing a new tax plan that is widely expected to offer tax relief for the middle class"

More amazing hypocrisy: Free trade was supported by the Democrats as recently as Clinton -- but not now. They have no principles or guiding philosophy whatever -- but I guess the support many of them gave to a Fascist dictator (Saddam) showed us that for once and for all.

There is a very good article here on the worldwide upsurge of antisemitism in recent years.

Suzanne Fields has some examples of moronic intellectual-speak. Here's one: "Dr. Rowan Williams, who as the archbishop of Canterbury heads the established Anglican Church, demands that America show not righteous anger but sympathy for the men who murdered 3,000 of us on Sept. 11. We must recognize that these mass murderers who crashed into the Twin Towers "have serious moral goals" that Americans merely fail to appreciate. Since we can't judge what's in our best and moral interests, he says, we must let the United Nations do it for us"

Damian Thompson of the "Telegraph" says only stupid white men would believe Michael Moore

A good Winston Churchill saying: "We contend for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

An interesting blog from an American soldier serving in Iraq.

The Wicked one is back on the funnies -- with a list of top morons for 2003


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, January 09, 2004


Regular readers of this blog will be well-aware that I often write on matters to do with the churches. I even had a well received article in Front Page Magazine some time back that looked at why many mainstream churches are now Leftist. And readers will also have noted how derisively I speak of "liberal" Christians. I imagine however that some readers would want to ask what right an atheist (which I am) has to to pontificate on such matters. The simple answer is that it is my remote fundamentalist past still speaking. I still have great sympathy for my former fundamentalist brothers in arms despite no longer being one of them. And I share their view of what a "real" Christian is. All that aside, however, I do think that there is an important rational distinction to be made between those on the one hand who sincerely believe that Christ is their saviour and do their humble best to follow his teachings and those on the other hand who have no real convictions but simply use the churches for social, political or even financial purposes. And I will continue to refer to the former as "real" Christians and the rest as "pretend" Christians, "impostors" and "hypocrites" -- or, as Christ called the equivalent people in his day: "whited sepulchres" (Matthew 23:27): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchres which indeed appear beautiful outward but are within full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness". I will never be able to better that description.

I should, I guess, make clear that it is pretend belief, not unbelief or unorthodox belief that I am condemning. I have met holy people of all faiths and no faith -- from the Greek Orthodox Church to Jehovah's Witnesses. And in my view the holiest person I know is a geriatric nurse who works in a nursing home. When her lonelier patients finally become so ill that they are sent to hospital she goes of her own accord and in her own time to visit them in hospital. Such good-heartedness leaves me awestruck. She is, as it happens, a complete atheist who says that her strong Methodist background was never anything but a burden. She also is a habitual voter for the A.L.P. -- Australia's major Leftist party -- but like many supporters of that party (including its present Federal leader) she has strong conservative views on many subjects -- in her case including a complete derision for anything to do with governments.

And what I think all of that goes to show is the one thing Leftists hate to admit -- that life is far too complex to be reduced to their simple rules, formulas, slogans and theories.

And Ann Coulter has a very amusing article on the hypocrisy about religion of the current Democrat Presidential hopefuls. Some excerpts: "When they were fund-raising, the Democratic candidates for president all claimed to be Jewish.... To ease Democrats into the Jesus thing, the Democratic Leadership Council is holding briefings for Democratic candidates teaching them how to talk about religion. The participants were warned that millions of Americans worship a supreme being whose name is not Bill Clinton... The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God... "


Edward Feser has a powerful article on Tech Central Station about the ideal Democrat Presidential candidate. History is most awkward for the Left. I am more than pleased to see someone else saying what I have been saying for so long. For instance, Feser claims that the Left suffer from "projection" (seeing their own faults in others). I first made that claim in an academic journal in 1972 -- though I very much doubt that I was totally original in making that claim at that time.

Friedman in the NYT rightly says that the war with extremist Islam is World War III and rightly says that the Islamic nations themselves are needed to help us win it. How we get them to help is the question. Intimidating them is surely one part of the answer. The toppling of Saddam seems to have changed a lot of minds among Islamic rulers. The “carrot and stick” approach, in short.

A reader comments on my post yesterday about Hillary Clinton's racial stereotyping: "I think you (and possibly Hillary) missed the REAL MESSAGE of racial stereotyping of Indians. This is about as positive a statement of the work ethic of Indians as exists - these guys own and manage gas stations when those complaining of "lack of opportunity" buy the gas while the Indians sell it. This is the way it is for many Indians - they arrive dirt poor, work like hell, go to school, and end up OWNING the neighborhood - tha American dream at its best - and Hillary is really stereotyping them - as SMART" Yes. I have always said that Leftists do know what the racial differences are. They just won't normally admit to it.

The court case resulting from the police shooting of African immigrant Diallo has now been settled with a $3 million payout from NYC to his parents. The police concerned were exonerated as having acted out of a honest mistake but there was an understandable political furore over the event nonetheless. A reader comments: "Following Diallo's killing by police from the Street Crimes Unit, Mayor Bloomberg abandoned the unit in the interest of "eliminating police brutality" {Police brutality was eliminated - in fact, policing itself was eliminated.} Needless to say, since then, the murder rate has shyrocketed in this area - mostly Black. So these people have been sacrificed on the PC altar. Here are leftists praising themselves for the murder of large numbers of Blacks -- sacrificed for a "just cause".

I know I shouldn't gloat. I know. I know. But I cannot help feeling pleased with the excellent results of my own very conservative stockmarket investment strategy when I read about the results obtained by the Wall St high-flyers of just a few years ago that are described in part here. I got the sort of results that they wanted because I understood capitalism and they did not. Nasty of me.

Interested Participant has an excellent post on how millions of taxpayer and private dollars were spent on protecting an "endangered" species of mouse which has now been shown to be common in fact. But nobody in government is yet admitting that they were wrong, of course.

One of my readers whom I have quoted before here has now started her own blog -- primarily concerned with the idiocies of modern literary studies.

The Wicked one has recent posts saying that DDT is good for you and that there should be free trade in jobs.


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, January 08, 2004


A reader writes:

"Delighted to read the article on hormesis. Interestingly, it was a health physicist called Luckey who first revived this hormesis thesis over twenty years ago -- but somehow he got the silent treatment, just like Paracelsus. The radiation protection brigade are hardly going to expand their remit if they admit that a small dose of gamma rays is the best thing since sliced pan.

Here's a radiation hormesis site you might be interested in. See also here and here. The final paragraph of this essay says it all:

"In August 1985, a Conference on Radiation Hormesis in Oakland, California, recognized the reversal in concepts of radiation effects. Its Proceedings, published in the Health Physics journal in 1987, finally recognized that low dose radiation is not only good for you, it is essential to life. But how will Health Physicists now earn a living? ""


Kristof in the NYT does the usual performance for that rag of appearing fair and unbiased -- as long as you don't think too much. He clearly hates it that so many Americans are real Christians (as distinct from the pretend Christians who are so common among Episcopalians etc) and tries to excuse Howard Dean's lie about his Bible knowledge this way: "Anyone who cites Job as a New Testament book should be scolded not just for religious phoniness but also for appalling ignorance of Western civilization _ on a par with Mr. Bush's calling Greeks "Grecians." Dean made his gaffe after explicitly claiming to know the Bible well. So according to Kristof, poor grammar by GWB equates with an outright lie by a Democrat! But I guess that's the sort of senseless judgment that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold.

David Brooks has an amusing article in the NYT about the "neocon" conspiracy theories that are so popular even among the mainstream Left as an "explanation" of GWB's foreign policy. This "definition" gave me a chuckle: "con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish"". Some of the letter-writers to the NYT got very huffy about their antisemitism being described so blithely but you don't have to read many recent Leftist rants to know the truth behind what Brooks said.

GWB's latest proposals to give official recognition to illegal immigrants is clearly another abandonment of conservatism on his part. In practice, it is nothing more than a total abandonment of immigration controls. I am glad I live in a country with a real conservative government that controls illegal immigration effectively. One can only hope that GWB's proposal is a temporary political expedient like his steel tariffs and that he is secretly hoping that it will get overruled in Congress the way his steel tariff was overruled by the WTO.

A leading Democrat engages in public racial stereotyping. But she's a Democrat so that's OK. "New York Senator Hillary Clinton has felt obliged to apologise for making a joke about Indian independence hero Mahatma Gandhi having worked as a gas station manager in Saint Louis, Missouri"

Have I missed something? Where are all the protests against China from the Greenies and animal libbers? "Animal merchants watched aghast as government SARS fighters descended on China's largest wildlife market Wednesday and hauled off bagfuls of squirming civet cats for slaughter"

Christians in general, and evangelicals in particular, have been leaving the Democratic Party in droves. And why should they not, given how openly hostile the party of the left has become to every social issue embraced by Christians as well as the most trivial public expressions of Christianity? Were significant elements within the Democratic Party to have their way, every mention of Christmas would be banned, every Christian would be barred from public service and every homeschooler would be forcibly thrown to the lions of the public schools.

One impostor down: "Archbishop Peter Carnley has announced he will step down as the head of the Anglican Church in Australia early next year... Dr Carnley, 66, was a controversial choice for primate when he was elected by his peers four years ago because of his liberal views on gays, the ordination of women and his strong stand on Aboriginal land rights"

Opinion Journal draws attention to yet another instance of the constant Leftist claim that they are the smart ones and conservatives are dummies. Just have a look at my comments on the work of five prominent Leftist intellectuals in my field of academic expertise here and here and here and here and here and decide for yourself how smart they are. If those five are not enough, there's lots more here.

But one thing that DOES differentiate conservatives and Leftists is happiness. There is a long history of evidence showing that conservatives are happier. The latest is from Gallup: "Even when accounting for partisan differences in marital status and household income, Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats and independents to be very happy." Leftists are miserable sods, to put it plainly -- but you just have to hear their constant whining about everything in our society to know that.

Extremist Islam in America: "Just as a Florida Islamic conference was trying to recover from one media controversy, they were mired in another when Islamic speakers who have voiced support for suicide bombers and referred to Jews as "Jewish crackers," "apes" and "pigs" freely addressed the crowd and were warmly embraced by conference leaders. The speakers addressed the crowd just hours after Islamic leader Dr. Sayed M. Saeed assured media that those present represented "mainstream" Islam"

Carnival of the Vanities is up again with a heap of good links.


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, January 07, 2004


The welfare state versus the family: The Swedish experience: If the author's arguments are correct, the long term effect of the welfare state is the depopulation of the nation, the erosion of its tax base and possible influx of peoples from cultures where extended family and ethnic bonds are put before national bonds, thus undermining the 'social compact' that democratic welfare states rest on.

And as Sowell says: "These countries have also been importing large numbers of immigrants from other countries and other civilizations, people with values at cross purposes -- often dangerously so, as we learned last September 11th. Because these culturally different immigrants typically have a much higher fertility rate than the populations of the countries to which they are moving, the very composition of the Western world is changing in irreversible ways that threaten the survival of the existing culture.... the sheer magnitude of today's immigration into Western countries threatens to overwhelm any society's ability to absorb so many strangers and so many incompatible cultures. As just one example, the virtue of tolerance has been extended to cultures that are unabashedly intolerant. As Pat Buchanan says, try setting up a Christian church in Istanbul! Do we want to import people who are preaching hatred toward other American groups, such as the Jews, who are already here?

Steve Sailer looks at the statistics in more detail


Keith Burgess-Jackson has a great article out that presents in his usual breezy style the story of how he moved from being a Leftist to being a conservative. It is a very common move over a lifetime of course -- with Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan being the best-known examples -- and Keith does strongly associate the move with gaining increasing experience and understanding of life's realities. I liked this sentence: "The good news is that as long as one lives, one can be saved into conservatism". Keith is an atheist but obviously he uses evengelical language to describe what a big and beneficial change the move from Left to Right can be. As a lifelong conservative myself, I have never experienced that "conversion" -- I have had a lifetime of poking fun at Leftists instead. There are of course heaps of lifetime conservatives but you rarely hear from them. They are just happily getting on with their own lives and doing their best to dodge being bothered by all the busybodies and meddlers of the world. I myself have always spoken up (for the last 40 years) because I have always found Leftism to be so incredibly at variance with the facts -- and for some reason that has always bothered me greatly.

Incidentally, for the origin of the saying about heartless youth that Keith quotes at the beginning of his article, see under "Leftist Youth" here

Once again experience brings a move from Left to Right: "When I was growing up, the family dinner was a tradition. Above the clatter of plates, my parents discussed the world around us from their perspectives at either end of the great oak table. Together, we'd review the news of the day put into context by the events of yesterday, and always we'd think about tomorrow. Politics was a main course, and being a working-class family from Massachusetts, we were fed a healthy serving of Democratic Party principles. ... But I expect to break with that tradition. Come November, I'll be casting my vote for George Bush."


A Texas funeral for a fallen soldier. I was moved to tears. I hope you will be too. There is so little we can do to comfort bereaved families but on this occasion all that could be done was done. Leftist intellectuals may be indifferent to loss of human life but decent people are not.

A review of In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr: "Hard as it may be for outsiders to imagine, a lingering affection for communism remains part of American university life.... American leftists insisted for decades that Hiss was falsely condemned. When a mountain of evidence proved the case against him (and many others), the defenders began suggesting that maybe spying actually didn't matter.."

Australia has nothing remotely like the race problems of the USA but lots of parents (including myself) still send their children to private schools. And Government statistics expose the myth that private schools are for the rich. "A breakdown of parental income shows 9 per cent of Australia's 3.3 million students live in families where the average annual income is less than $20,800. Almost one in five of these students - about 50,000 children - go to a non-government school". People just like to have choices about how their children are educated. But the advocates of government education don't like that one bit.

Is "free" education and medical care too expensive? This excerpt from a National Review article (not online) by Stephen Moore (titled "Nice goin' Uncle Sam") suggests that it is: "According to Department of Labor consumer-price index (CPI) data, since the creation of Medicare in the mid 1960s the health-care component of the CPI has grown at roughly twice the rate of economy-wide inflation. But in the 15 years prior to Uncle Sam's taking on the role of health insurer, medical inflation grew at about the same rate as inflation in other sectors of the economy. There are only two industries in America today that suffer from rampant inflation: health care and education. In virtually all other sectors of the economy, prices are relatively stable, or even falling. So why do prices in these two industries gallop out of control? In both cases, government plays a domineering role."

Leftist meddling reaches a new height. In Britain you now need a licence to MEDITATE! If you don't believe it, Scott Burgess sums it up in The Daily Ablution.

What fun! "Genetic testing confirms that the cow diagnosed with the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was born in Canada"


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, January 06, 2004


The Greenies will hate this one: Because of a long-known effect called "hormesis", most poisons and pollutants (even radiation) are actually good for you in small amounts -- which is a nasty shock for the simplistic Greenie approach that wants "zero" of practically everything modern. Life is always more complex than the know-it-all theorists imagine. Hormesis is actually the theoretical basis of homeopathic medicine -- though all that homeopaths normally give you in their "medicines" is distilled water. Under the heading "Naughty Radiation" I first blogged on hormesis back in 2002. (Scroll down a little). See also here under "Nice Toxins".

The indefatigable Randall Parker at Future Pundit has a blockbuster post on global warming. He say that IF global warming exists, it is very difficult to know it and that programs to reduce soot and methane emissions would be much more effective and cheaper than the Kyoto nonsense in reducing global temperature. But here's the really awful bit for the Greenies: U.S. soot levels have already halved in recent years just as a result of normal technological progress, without governments doing a thing! And even worse, the big soot-production offenders are Third World countries! Randall will end up wearing cement boots if he is not careful! Speaking so much truth all at once could be dangerous!

Panic! The Earth's magnetic field is weakening! I wonder how long it will take the Greenies to blame the Bush administration for that? Judging by their record on ozone and global warming, any possibility that planetary events might be natural fluctuations is always dismissed.


The book on national differences in IQ by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (IQ and The Wealth of Nations) is finally getting a bit of media attention and their findings have also now been used academically (Voracek M. "National intelligence and suicide rate: an ecological study of 85 countries". Personality & Individual Differences, 2003, in press) so I thought I might add a small contribution to the discussion.

I have just uploaded to the web an article by Nathaniel Weyl which was written nearly 40 years ago and which is now very little known (though it is referred to here). It reports a large and comprehensive body of data on white Rhodesians -- as they then were. They were one of the most intelligent Caucasian populations ever -- now of course thoroughly dispersed and destroyed by the Mugabe regime. Weyl explains the selective pressures that produced such high IQs among whites in what is now Zimbabwe. Details here or here


How hilarious! Frontrunning U.S. Democrat Presidential candidate Howard Dean needs Bible-belt votes so claimed to know the Bible well -- then immediately proved his utter ignorance of it. GOP supporters should now have a new motto available to them: "Dean Lied"!

Antisemitism is alive and well on German Public Radio. History IS slowly repeating itself. Hitler was a German socialist too.

I tend to like Jews -- mainly because of their intelligence, I guess -- and every regular reader of this blog will be aware that no Gentile could be more pro-Israel than I am. But none of that means that I think Jews and Gentiles are the same. I think that there are some things that are typically (though not of course universally) Jewish. I came across an amusing example of it recently in my correspondence with the very Zionist Arlene Peck (whom I quote often). She asked me why I just quote her without adding any comment of my own. I said that she and I see eye to eye so there is nothing for me to add. Her reply? Essentially it was "Well, why don't you quote me more often, then?" I guess that sort of "never satisfied" response might annoy some Gentiles but I was still laughing about it half an hour later. People don't have to be exactly the same as you for you to like them. It would be a sad day for men and women if that were the case.

Why the Left hate Bush: "His fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he's mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them. They fear he's exiling them politically. On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage; but on another level, it's a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority"

Tim Blair has a dreadful story about how Leftist hate-speech against GWB led to actual deaths in Turkey. Not that deaths have ever bothered Leftists, though.

Bernard Chapin has a blog that espouses a lot of traditionalist values but is still very lively and full of fun. He is also exasperated with the foolish behaviour of women seeking a mate. He finds a lot of them so up themselves that he wonders why they bother. Women in their 30s and late 20s seem to be the main target of his ire. I myself ran a popular singles group for a couple of years once so I recognize the behaviour of which he speaks. It is just self-centredness as far as I can see and that is crippling to anyone -- male or female. And it is the self-centred ones who tend to get left on the shelf and so are the main frequenters of singles venues. Bernard's story about "Evil Chuck" is amusing. I used to have a much simpler line for the same purpose. I used to walk up and say (with a smile): "Can I join this meeting?" It always worked. I personally have no complaints about women at all. Women have been more than kind to me in my life.

The Wicked one thinks that Christians are too fearful of biotechnology.


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, January 05, 2004


As you will see from the link below, anti-Americanism is rife in France, particularly among the more intellectual strata of French society, and all sorts of batty things are eagerly believed there about Britain and America. I will never attend a dinner party in France but here are the some of the things that I would probably say if I did:

"Europe invented both Communism and Fascism and it took the Anglo-Saxons to rescue them from both -- so it is the Europeans who are the moral cripples, not the Anglo-Saxons"

"France originated both Communism and Fascism. The revolution led to Communism and Napoleon was the first Fascist. He ran a police State, he waged great wars of conquest. He preached the national glory of his country and all he achieved in the end was the death of millions of his people -- all of which is exactly what Hitler and Mussolini later did"

I would no doubt at some point be accused of ignorance of the profundities of French philosophy so I would say: "French philosophers think that creating confusion is clever. Anglo-Saxon philosophy aims to clarify things. Confusion is childish. Getting things clear is what you do as you grow up.

Wouldn't that be rude of me? But Australians are in general a blunt lot. I would probably get tossed out before I got my dinner, though.

French thinker Jean-Francois Revel says that French and other European anti-Americans are out of it mentally. Excerpt:

"Revel, for example, doubts that anti-Americanism seriously can be challenged by rational thought and a careful mustering of facts. Overwhelming the anti-Americans with reason, he believes, would be a formidable and perhaps impossible task "doomed to failure, since the disinformation in question is not the result of pardonable, correctable mistakes, but rather of a profound psychological need" ... "The mechanism of the Great Lie that fences in America on every front, and the rejection of everything that might refute it," Revel says, "evokes the equivalent lie that surrounded the Soviet Union ever since 1917 - not to the detriment, but to the advantage of the Communist empire. Here again, among those who fed from the idealized and falsified images of 'existing socialism,' a sort of mental flyswatter swiped away at facts that were too threateningly real."


"Americans give over two-and-a-half times more of their income to charity than do than Canadians." Just like Republicans in the USA when compared to Democrats. It's all explainable by the secret socialist motto: "We don't care so you have to".

Leftists fancy themselves as intellectuals but I have always said that they are only second-rate intellectuals and in my own field I have repeatedly shown that to be true. But this article about Marxist Terry Eagleton makes "second rate" look like a vast overestimate. The guy has gone from being a big defender of postmodernism to now saying it is all wrong but still calls himself a Marxist and is still treated worshipfully by other Leftists. How desperate can you get? They've got about as much intellectual rigor as a flea! It's not what you say but whom you hate that counts. But we read: "Nowadays Mr. Eagleton lives the life of an academic superstar" so I think that tells you all you need to know about Leftist intellectuals. They are just con-men but the mugs lap it up.

And another much more trivial case in point: The Annals of Improbable Research reports a study by a Prof. Trinkaus showing that 'modern kids don't smile when they see Santa'. Trinkaus admits that he does not know why they do not smile or if they ever did but still draws big conclusions about the evils of modern society from his "findings".

There is an amusing and very pro-Democrat article in the NYT which, despite all its biases, ends up admitting that the Democrats are mushy on national security and that they will lose votes over it. And the author didn't mind slipping in a few untruths to bolster his anti-Bush hatreds. For instance he says: "Zakaria noted that ''with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.''" I guess Australia and Poland don't exist to Democrat eyes. Both unhesitatingly sent troops to help depose Saddam and have supported American policy solidly. Poland is a European country as big as France and Australia is the only nation to have an entire continent to itself -- but we know how often large realities can be invisible to Leftists.

U.S. Army snipers in Iraq seem to be doing a good job of giving the terrorists a bit of their own back.

"The first of January will mark ten years of NAFTA [The North American Free Trade Agreement]. There is little doubt it has helped the United States and Canada, but how about Mexico? Foreign investment in Mexico has increased dramatically. It now stands at $12 billion a year, more than India receives. Exports have grown by a factor of three, up to $161 billion. Mexico's per capita income has risen 24%, to $4000 a year"

One of the Leftist historians whom Keith Windschuttle has attacked for "fabricating" Australian Aboriginal history -- the same one who defended herself by saying that historians make things up all the time (!) -- has another defence of herself here -- the core of which is that other "independent" historians have agreed with her account. What a laugh! There is only ONE "independent" historian of that subject in Australia -- Windschuttle! That Leftists stick together is extremely unsurprising but proves nothing. You have to look at the evidence itself and that is exactly what the wicked Windschuttle has done.

Conservative German blogger David Kaspar is having a good laugh (in English) over the fact that the European space probe sent to Mars failed but the American one worked.

The Wicked one has a post on how the Left still hate the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover and the amusing lies that they tell about him.


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, January 04, 2004


Keith Windschuttle points out how nonsensical are the Leftist claims about how wonderful primitive people were. Aside from the mythical Tasaday, they were usually extremely brutal and selfish in fact. Windschuttle reports for instance the "frequently murderous level of violence Tasmanian men heaped on their women" .

He notes that even historians who criticize him in fact confirm his account: "How violent, Clendinnen asks, were Aboriginal men toward their women? "Very", she answers. "What the newcomers saw as remarkable --what I would think would be remarkable anywhere --were the blows Australian men publicly, casually, dealt their women for trivial offences, and their ready resort to weapons. Their women were, literally, browbeaten."

And, as it happens, it still goes on today. I myself have had a fair bit to do with Australian Aborigines in my time and I have SEEN them treat their women in exactly the same way today. I have SEEN Aboriginal men casually knock their women across the room for such minor offences as interrupting them. There is absolutely no doubt that Windschuttle has got it right. And it is a work of art the way he demolishes his Leftist critics.



More from mathematician Brignell's Numberwatch site. He has a discussion of the work of AIDS/HIV skeptic Gordon Stewart -- whose predictions on the course of the AIDS epidemic seem to have been more accurate than those of the establishment:

"(In) 1989 Gordon Stewart wrote a paper challenging the official view that AIDs cases in the UK would reach tens of thousands by 1992. His paper remained unpublished during a four-year correspondence in which referees wrote comments such as "Why should I read a paper by someone who believes the earth is flat?" Stewart's paper, which was rejected by Nature, Science, the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, was proved to be correct to within a remarkable 10%. The "experts" were out by several orders of magnitude. The establishment ignored their shame and simply moved on.

The same process is now taking place with the Global Warming Myth. The reward for conforming is millions of dollars worth of grants. The penalty for dissenting is being relegated to a remote corner of the World Wide Web (among the cranks and pornographers), which is the last home of scholarship, as practised by such lone battlers as John Daly."


Charles Murtaugh has a fascinating post on the biological role of prions (the probable cause of “mad cow disease” or CJD). Apparently they have very important natural functions in the brain but, like everything else, can go awry sometimes -- a bit like cells going wrong and turning into cancer. So hundreds of unlucky people get CJD spontaneously every year and there is NOTHING that governments can do about it. So the logic is that America’s sole mad cow could have got it spontaneously too.... Hey! That would let those complacent Canadians off the hook! Clayton Cramer has a post suggesting that existing government research into the problem may be misdirected anyhow.

I have always liked the Poles and this article tells what a hero nation Poland is -- and it may even be the world's most pro-American nation. They know the importance of liberty from experience.

The is an amusing NYT article by David Brooks here that says that in the next election the GOP can no longer advocate reducing the size of government (because they don’t reduce it) so will have to advocate change. That proposal is of course meant to be provocative and one hopes that it is. It might help drive out the last remnants of the nonsensical claim that conservatives oppose change. Brooks is right. There is a whole heap of Democrat nonsense enshrined in U.S. law that badly needs changing. Abolishing the entire U.S. public school system and replacing it with vouchers would be one nice change. No alternative school system could be worse than the present one as far as I can see. No doubt it won’t happen but it gives you an idea of the scope for change that exists. And how about legislating for more “diversity” on campus by setting quotas that say the percentage of conservative professors on campus must mirror the percentage of conservatives in the community?

Britain: Shuffling the deckchairs on the "Titanic": "Downing Street advisers are pressing for the Government to take over direct funding of schools, which could spell the end of local education authorities. Two of Tony Blair's senior aides want him to 'nationalise' school spending, channelling money to headteachers and governors through a central agency that would 'cut out the middle man.'"

A little bit of conservatism in a big lot of socialism: "For advocates of consumer-driven health care, the most positive part of the new law has little to do with Medicare. It is the section that expands medical savings accounts, renamed Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Such accounts empower consumers by allowing them and their employers to choose higher-deductible insurance plans, with the savings from lower premiums going into tax-sheltered savings accounts that are the property of the consumer."

An Australian public broadcaster is running a Hanoi government (Communist) news program against the wishes of the local Vietnamese community. So much for their charter...

Australian blogger Esoterica is definitely interested in all the big questions. I like his post about obedience and the Left. I wonder if he knows about the Milgram experiment? Milgram showed that it is not only Germans who are prone to obey authority, no matter what.

The Wicked one has recent posts on the evils of inflation, labor unions and condoms.


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.