Tuesday, October 22, 2002


There has been quite a flurry of discussion on the blogs over the last few days over what motivates people to become Leftists. Jim Ryan of Philosoblog claims that Leftists are envious failures (my paraphrase) while others claim that Leftism looks prettier and sexier (again my paraphrase). There can of course be many reasons for people joining such a broad church as Leftism but I still like my explanation better -- that most Leftists are motivated by ego needs -- a strong need for power and self-aggrandisement.



I have just had an interesting email from an academic reader in Finland:

�One thing that came to my mind is the question of the feminist personality. To me, it seems evident that hardcore feminists exhibit much frustration, bitterness and the like. Maybe it is a major factor explaining the phenomenon. As this is a question related to your area of interest and expertise, I want to ask you whether you are aware of any research on the subject, or perhaps have some ideas on the question yourself�.

His query is a bit outside my field, although I have had one research paper published which tested (and found wanting) a major feminist theory. Anybody else have any ideas?

Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1984) �The great androgyny myth: Sex roles and mental health in the community at large.� Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 237-246.



Religious US conservative, Patrick Buchanan knows his history. He uses it to support the isolationist views that were once common among US conservatives before the world became a global village. He points out (as I have done in today�s �Front Page� online magazine) that Mussolini was initially anti-Nazi and blames the Western Allies for Mussolini�s going over to Hitler�s side eventually. He omits to mention that Hitler would probably have been a lot better off if Mussolini had stayed neutral. Mussolini�s alliance with Germany gave Germany so many additional problems that it is probably the best thing that Mussolini could have done for the Allied cause!

But Buchanan�s conclusion -- that Britain and the USA should have stayed out of the war with Hitler -- I have to disagree with. England could not afford to let Hitler grab the whole of Europe unopposed. Once Hitler had wrapped up Europe, the world would have been his oyster.



Opinion Journal was fabulous yesterday (21st). I don�t want anyone to miss this paragraph:

�For the Norwegian Nobel Committee, as The Weekly Standard points out, it's all about oil. Norway is the world's No. 3 oil exporter, and "Norway's non-oil economy slipped into recession in the second quarter of this year," so Oslo has a strong interest in preventing a decline in oil prices--which would be the result of a successful invasion of Iraq. The director of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate is Gunnar Berge, who is also the head of the Nobel Committee and the man who said Jimmy Carter's Peace Prize was meant as "a kick in the leg" to President Bush�.



It had to happen. Again according to Opinion Journal, some Leftist apologists for the Islamofascists have now said that the Bali bombing was the work of the US government:

�Up at Berkeley, meanwhile, they've got another theory. The Daily Californian reports that "members of a panel" at a "campus round-table discussion" said that "the United States may have had an active role in carrying out last week's bombing of an international nightclub." Among those floating the America-did-it theory are Jeffrey Hadler, a Berkeley professor of South and Southeast Asian studies and Sylvia Tiwon, a "Professor of Indonesian."

It is time we stopped listening to all the crap and started doing some bombing of our own. Sometimes reason does not work. Then you need a big stick.


Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.

No comments: