KRUGMAN ON INEQUALITY

I have noticed a few mentions of the latest NYT rant by Leftist economist Paul Krugman but have yet to see much in the way of a reply -- so I thought I might point out a few things. He is pushing the old Leftist wheelbarrow that inequality is once again on the rise in the United States. �The rich are getting richer ..... � You know the tune! Anyway, to quote:

�Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That's about a 10 percent increase over 29 years -- progress, but not much. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers

and

�the top 10 percent contains a lot of people whom we would still consider middle class, but they weren't the big winners. Most of the gains in the share of the top 10 percent of taxpayers over the past 30 years were actually gains to the top 1 percent

So that is his beef. The average American is gradually getting richer -- not poorer -- but the corporate top dogs are really getting obscene. And he is of course right. As a company shareholder myself, I think that something has gone wrong when those who run companies can pay themselves whatever they like out of company funds without shareholders having any effective say in it. But corporate governance in the USA is acknowledged by all and sundry to be in a mess and the collapses at Enron etc have exposed that for all to see. And the first steps are now being taken to make CEOs more accountable. Nobody needed Krugman to tell us that there is a problem there that needs fixing.

But Krugman sees it all as a deep problem in American society -- which it clearly is not. It is a problem like many others but a problem-free society has yet to be invented. And a problem affecting only 1% of society is surely the sort of problem all governments would like to have. Mass poverty, for instance, would be a much harder problem -- and by far a more common problem worldwide.

I will leave a major dissection of his rant to people who have better access to current economic statistics than I do but I cannot resist also noting the superficiality of his argument about Sweden. He thinks Sweden is a much better place than the USA, of course. He admits that the average Swede produces 16% less of goods and services per hour worked than the average American does but then goes on to say that this is only an average and that people at the bottom end of the income scale in Sweden actually do a lot better than people at the bottom end of the income scale in the USA.

Of course they do! The whole reason people find the comparison between Sweden and the USA interesting is that huge slabs of the Swedish national income are diverted out of the pockets of those who earn it and into government coffers. Much of that income gets eaten up feeding bureaucrats of course but the whole rationale of the exercise is to equalize incomes no matter what a person does -- and that does happen on a much much larger scale in Sweden than it does in the USA. So Krugman is really telling us only what we already knew. Incomes are more equal in Sweden not because the sub-rich earn more but because they are given more out of everybody else�s pocket. The real issue -- what effect does this destruction of incentives have on national productivity -- he glides over. But that 16% difference suggests the answer. The Swedish system just does produce a much smaller pie to share out.

Krugman also makes much of life-expectancy statistics. He says that Swedes have a life expectancy three years longer than Americans, for instance. But what that has to do with economics he does not tell us. So maybe Americans die younger through eating more junk-food. But if so, that is their free choice. It is, however, unlikely to mean that they are less well-off -- as Krugman implies.


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

LEFTIST RELIANCE ON LIES

I have never quite managed to get used to the way many Leftists seem to be completely uninterested in the truth. Stalin�s old Soviet production statistics are of course the classic example of Leftist lies but chronic misrepresentation was also confirmed by the revelations made possible in Russia by former President Gorbachev's policy of "Glasnost". From what has been revealed, there can surely now be no doubt that for most of last century the Soviet system literally floated on a sea of lies. This was so extreme that even the maps produced by official Soviet cartographers were fraudulent. Even an accurate Moscow street map was unavailable! And note that the great cartographical capacity that U.S. spy satellites have had for many years renders any explanation of this in terms of defence considerations quite laughable. And note that this attachment to lies is not confined to the Soviet bloc and China. I myself remember well the pre-Khrushchev times when most Western Leftists dismissed accounts of Stalin's mass murders as "inventions of the capitalist press". There are none so blind as those who will not see.

A more subtle form of dishonesty is the great absurdity of the policies that Leftists have often advocated. Policies such as rent-control and nationalization of industry have a superficial attraction that guaranteed that they would be widely tried but who could honestly advocate them once it is apparent how badly they work? Certainly not a person who had the welfare of the people at heart. Such policies have only ever delivered poverty and housing shortages. Why have Leftists advocated such nostrums for so long?

If their motives were benevolent, it would make no sense to advocate so much misery. If their real motives were, on the other hand, a need for power and a desire to concentrate in the hands of their clique extensive power over the lives of others it makes very great sense indeed.

And the famous Leftist call for abolition of wealth and income differentials would surely lead one to expect that Leftists would reject materalistic ambition in their own lives. But it is not so. Although Leftists seem to decry the scramble for private material possessions (conservatism is smeared as "the politics of greed"), they themselves on the personal level seem to be just as keen for the scramble as anyone else. There has been a lot of research reported in the literature of academic psychology on the subject of achievement motivation but the various measures of materialistic achievement motivation have been shown to have negligible correlation with Leftism -- where a high negative correlation might on theory have been expected (Ray, 1981; Ray & Najman, 1988). In other words, in their own lives Leftists are just about as apt as Rightists to seek personal material gain. Once again the Leftist emerges as being hypocritical and as not honest about his/her real motives and values.

And we do not really need psychological research to see what the motivations of Leftists are actually like in their daily lives. Johnson (1988), himself a former prominent Leftist, explored at length the actual lives of various prominent Leftist intellectuals -- including Karl Marx himself. He found that while such intellectuals claimed to love humanity, their actual deeds in their own lives and their detailed exhortations to their followers suggested a loathing of and contempt for their fellow man. For them it was no joke that "I love humanity. It is just people I can't stand".
Dishonesty of various kinds just seems to be inherent in Leftism.

References:
Johnson, P. (1988) Intellectuals. London: Weidenfeld
Ray, J.J. (1981) The politics of achievement motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 137-138.
Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1988) Capitalism and compassion: A test of Milbrath's environmental theory. Personality & Individual Differences, 9, 431-433.


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


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

ISRAEL

I normally say little on this blog about the terrible plight of Israel (they suffer regularly from what we Australians have just suffered once) because I feel that many others say it better than I could. But amid the growing Leftist hatred of Israel and her people I feel I have to speak up. So, as my contribution, I reproduce below a brief report of a recent speech by Haim Divon -- the Israeli ambassador to Canada. Thanks to Israpundit for the report. And by the way, I am myself of WASP background, not a Jew.

"Every day, an Israeli meets and confronts a very hostile environment," he said.
Israel has tried "everything" to live peacefully with Palestinians, Divon said, but nothing has worked, and that is why they have turned to reprisal attacks on refugee camps to counter suicide bombers.

"If there's another way, tell us about it," he said.

"No one is holding (Palestinian chairman Yasser) Arafat accountable. I think Israel is the only country in the world where there are mortar and missile attacks daily. Where else in the world would you tolerate such attacks from neighbours?"

Divon said that until the "Iraq issue" is solved, there won't be a major breakthrough between Israel and Palestine, and charged Iraq has been funding Arafat. "No one wants to live in such a crazy situation. The international community shouldn't be so soft on Arafat," he said.

Divon said there are so many Palestinians living in refugee camps because the Palestinian government wants to use them "to better bash Israel." He said that since the Second World War, there have been 50 million refugees and most have been resettled, "except the Palestinians."


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

HITLER IN A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

Hmmm.... I am having a lot of trouble convincing Jiri that Hitler was a Leftist. I have just received a long email from him once again pointing out the many nationalist elements in Hitler's appeal and pointing out how widely he diverged from the various Marxist movements of Europe. My reply to him is of course that Hitler was BOTH a nationalist AND a socialist -- as the full name of his political party (The National Socialist German Worker's Party) implies. I have expanded my argument on how it is that Leftism and nationalism are far from incompatible in my forthcoming article on Mussolini and, for convenience, I reproduce that section of my forthcoming paper here.

And I might add that, although many modern-day US Democrats often seem to be anti-American, the situation is rather different in Australia and Britain. Both the major Leftist parties there (the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party) are perfectly patriotic parties which express pride in their national traditions and achievements. Nobody seems to have convinced them that you cannot be both Leftist and nationalist. That is of course not remotely to claim that either of the parties concerned is a Nazi party. What Hitler advocated and practiced was clearly more extremely nationalist than any major Anglo-Saxon political party would advocate today.

I think, however, that the real stumbling block for Jiri is that he has a very European perspective on what constitutes Leftism whereas I have a very Anglo-Saxon one. To Jiri you have to be some sort of Marxist to be a Leftist and Hitler was very clearly opposed to any form of Marxism so cannot have been a Leftist. I write for the Anglosphere, however, and in my experience the vast majority of the Left (i.e. the US Democrats, The Australian Labor Party, the British Labour Party) have always rejected Marxism so it seems crystal clear to me that you can be a Leftist without accepting Marxist doctrines. So Hitler's contempt for Marxism, far from convincing me that he was a non-Leftist, actually convinces me that he was a perfectly conventional Leftist! The Nazi Party was what would in many parts of the world be called a "Labor" party (not a Communist party).

And the moderate Leftists of Germany in Hitler's own day saw that too. The Sozialistische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) who, like the US Democrats, the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party, had always been the principal political representatives of the Labor unions, on several important occasions voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag (German Parliament).


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

OTHER BLOGS

Many of my fellow bloggers have a very long list of other blogs down the Left-hand side of their pages. Lists giving links to over 100 other blogs are common. This is very useful in many ways but seeing that so many others are doing it, I thought I might risk being a bit different and instead list only the blogs that I myself am reading regularly at the moment. Being a gentleman of leisure, I read quite a few. My plan is to update the list every week or so. The idea is that people who like my blog will be given an idea of where they might find other writing that they might like. My list is of course only a personal preference and is not meant to reflect on the many other good conservative blogs that I am not following regularly at the moment:


Australia:
Dr Bunyip
James Morrow
Scott Wickstein
Slattery
Alex Robson.
Gareth Parker
Jason Soon
Tim Blair
TANSTAAFL
Ken Parish
Alan McCallum
Bizarre Science

New Zealand:
NZ Pundit
Silent Running

Israel:
IsraPundit
Not A Fish

UK:
Cinderella Bloggerfeller
England's Sword
Steven Chapman
Conservative Commentary

Samizdata
Oxblog -- Americans at Oxford U.

USA:
Sabertooth Journal
Light of Reason
Pejman Pundit
Dr Weevil
Clayton Cramer
Common-sense and Wonder
Rightwing news
Judd Brothers
Vodka Pundit
Instapundit
Rottweiler
Daniel Drezner
ParaPundit

Canada:
Enter Stage Right

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

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

MUSSOLINI: ANOTHER LEFTIST DICTATOR

Good news! I have just heard from David Horowitz that he intends to publish my article on the parallels between modern-day Leftism and Mussolini�s prewar Italian Fascism. It should come out some time early next week in Front Page Magazine. I put the first draft up here some time ago but the final version is about twice as long.

It is no wonder people get confused about Mussolini. He was a pretty curious character even for a Leftie. One thing that I rather relate to is that he was a terrible dresser. He was very fond of spats and would even wear spats with evening dress. I don�t suppose many people these days even know what spats are. Mussolini liked them because they kept his ankles warm. When the King summoned him and asked him to form a government he arrived wearing his Fascist uniform plus a bowler hat on his head and spats around his ankles. Even he must have realized that his getup was probably a bit odd for calling on the King so he excused himself by saying, �I have just come from the front�. In fact he had just come from his office! He was so obviously full of bull that it actually endeared him to a lot of people. And the Fascist way of dealing with political opponents was almost laughable when compared with Hitler�s piano wire and Stalin�s Gulags. What the Italian Fascists used to do was to grab their political enemies and make them drink a big dose of Castor oil! Again, I suppose that many people these days do not know what Castor oil was generally used for. It is a potent bowel opener.

And would you believe? Mussolini was even ahead of the Greenies. He put Italy onto gasohol (industrial alcohol mixed with petroleum products to make motor fuel) around 70 years ago! In most of the Western world we are only now seeing that.

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

While we are having a laugh, let�s be a bit politically incorrect as well:


IT MUST BE GREAT TO BE A MAN, BECAUSE ........

Your ass is never a factor in a job interview.
Your orgasms are real - always.
Your last name stays put.
You never feel compelled to stop a friend from getting laid.
A razor never comes near your pubic area.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can be president.
You can wear a thin, white tee-shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
You don't give a hoot if someone notices your new haircut.
If you retain water, it's in a canteen.
Porn movies are designed with you in mind.
You can open all your own jars.
You never have to drive to another gas station because this one's restroom is too icky.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress $5,000; tux rental $100.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood, ALL the damn time.
Phone conversations are over within 60 seconds.
A week-long vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can leave the motel bed unmade.
You can kill your own food.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you to something, he or she can still be your friend. Your underwear is $5.95 for a three-pack.
You can quietly enjoy a car ride when not driving.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You can quietly watch a game with your buddy for hours without ever thinking: "He must be mad at me."
You can drop by to see a friend without having to bring a little gift.
If another guy shows up at the party in the same outfit you just might become lifelong friends.
You're not expected to know the names of more than five colors.
You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You don't have to shave below your neck.
You can get a dime or your keys in 3 seconds.
You can get out of bed and be out the door in 5 minutes.
One wallet and one pair of shoes, one color, all seasons.
You can do your nails with a pocketknife.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a moustache.
Christmas shopping can be accomplished for 20 relatives, on December 24th, in 45 minutes.

Inspired by the above, I mentioned to a lady I know how lucky men were that they only have to remember about five colours whereas women have to remember about 100. Her reply was good: "We don't have to remember them. We KNOW them!"

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

BE A BLOGGER

Want to be a blogger? Dave of SABERTOOTHJOURNAL is looking for helpers to add content when he is too busy. He is looking for other people able to write from a free-market perspective. Email him on sabertoothjournal@yahoo.com if you are interested. He has a good site going there so it would be an easy way into blogging.

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

GOVERNMENT CHILD ABUSE

Thank goodness for Britain�s House of Lords!
Unbelievable but true: The British government passed a law through the House of Commons permitting homosexual couples to adopt children! Talk about neglecting children in the name of political (read: Leftist) correctness! The good old House of Lords blocked the bill however. We can only hope it stays blocked. Thanks to Conservative Commentary for the report.

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

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

MODERATES

An interesting email from Ed Ziegs:

"I hope that one day you might consider including "moderates" in your ongoing thesis. Moderates to me are like "tits on a boar hog". They are there but timidly go about their busisness of making friends on both sides and betraying both sides and just getting in the way. I detest moderates. They refuse take a stand on anything. They tell you, "There are two things I never talk about with friends and relations and they are politics and religion." Imagine, two of the most important issues in life and they won't discuss them except with strangers and I would bet they don't even then. Everything is a grey area to them. Name the great moderates in history. Neville Chamberlain is the first that comes to mind. It does however, take a great deal to find them because they never accomplish anything. I don't think that God likes moderates either -- Read Revelation 3:15 and 16"

The Revelations reference is pretty vivid:

"I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth"

Ed might also have added another scriptural reference:

He that is not with me is against me: And he that gathereth not with me scattereth" (Luke 11:23).

I understand Ed's feelings but wonder if moderates might not be the price we pay for our good old Anglo-Saxon tradition of seeing compromise as being the best solution to many problems. Most of the troubles in the world seem to me to exist precisely because most people in the world do NOT have the maturity to compromise. They all just want to win. But where you have winners you also have losers and so resentments can go on forever. Northern Ireland would seem to be a case in point. If only they were less Celtic and more Anglo-Saxon there .....

And what a difference it would make if the Palestinians were prepared to compromise! Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered them a huge compromise a little while ago but Arafat turned it down flat. So now the Palestinians just exist. You couldn�t call it life under the PA. More fools them. They must live in a totally unreal world if they think the Israelis will just go away one day. I would not like to have the problem of dealing with such numbskulls as the Palestinians appear to be. If the Israelis bombed the Palestinian population centres massively every time they bombed the Israelis, that would not only be just (�An eye for an eye ....) but it might also be the only thing that would get through their thick skulls.

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

RELIGION IN POLITICS

Richard Cook takes issue with my observation that a true follower of Christ would do as Christ did and keep out of the politics of his day:

� If you take a stance on an issue (treatment of the poor, hypocrisy of the elites, etc.) it will be impossible for you to stay out of politics any more than it was for Jesus. While Jesus did not politic as we understand the term (electioneering, issue statments and the like), he did not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, thereby introducing himself into the politics of that era in the Jewish community.

What he gave us is an example in courage, even to the point of death. Part of preparing for salvation is telling the truth fearlessly and setting the example for others, both believer and not, in love. What is preparing for salvation? It is what Jesus said - love the Lord your God with your heart, soul and mind, and, loving your neighbor (all you are in the world with) as yourself. I think your last two sentences are grievous. Why would one withdraw from the world when you are commanded to act as a beacon of Christ - why hide your light under a bushel basket? It is better to let all men and women see the light of Christ reflected in the way you live your life. Scripture is not on their side in withdrawing from the world. Scripture sets its hand against them. You cannot withdraw from the world and win people to Christ. There is simply a preponderence of evidence that Christ intended us to live in the world, but, not be of the world, not conformed to its values�.

I have some sympathy with this sort of thinking. It seems obvious that if you treat your fellow man kindly as part of your highroad to Christ�s Kingdom of Heaven you will also want to support political policies that are kindly towards your fellow man. But note here that what Christ said was to give your OWN possessions to the poor -- not to give OTHER PEOPLE�S possessions to the poor. So Catholic �Liberation theology� -- which preaches the latter course -- is simply bad theology. And the Holy Father (who is in general no great friend of capitalism) has proclaimed that too, of course.

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

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

Three great quotes via the �Fed�:

THE CARTER PEACE PRIZE

"There is an ex-President who not only sought peace but who achieved peace, who reduced the threat of nuclear annihilation dramatically and liberated tens of millions of people from dictatorship. His name is Ronald Reagan�.

COMEDIANS COMMENT ON CLINTON

Bill Clinton spoke Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center about his recent trip to Africa. He said Africa is home to 70 percent of the world's AIDS cases. Most business travelers just check the weather forecast before they go someplace.

Today is Bill and Hillary's 27th wedding anniversary!
27 years ago tonight Bill cheated on Hillary for the first time.


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


NAZIS VERSUS �REDS�

When I point out how far to the Left most of Hitler�s policies were, a strong reaction I get from many who know something of history is to say that Hitler cannot have been a Leftist because of the great hatred that existed at the time between the Nazis and the �Reds�. One such challenger has been Jiri -- to whom I am greatly indebted for a lively and erudite correspondence about the politics of the interwar years. One of Jiri�s observations seems to me a very good one indeed:

I am surprised that you have not seized on Hitler's anti-semitism as a
proof that he was a socialist. So widespread had been anti-semitism among the
Leftists in Europe that Lenin himself denounced it as "the socialism of the
stupid man"

My reply to Jiri and others was of course that there is no hatred like fraternal hatred and that hatreds between different Leftist groupings have existed from the French revolution onwards. That does not make any of the rival groups less Leftist however. And the ice-pick in the head that Trotsky got courtesy of Stalin shows vividly that even among the Bolsheviks themselves there were great rivalries and hatreds. Did that make any of them less Bolshevik, less Marxist, less Communist? No doubt the protagonists concerned would argue that it did but from anyone else�s point of view they were all Leftists at least.

Nonetheless there still seems to persist in some minds the view that two groups as antagonistic as the Nazis and the Communists just cannot have been ideological blood-brothers. Let me therefore try this little quiz: Who was it who at one stage dismissed Hitler as a "barbarian, a criminal and a pederast"? Was it Stalin? Was it some other Communist? Was it Winston Churchill? Was it some other conservative? Was it one of the Social Democrats? No. It was none other than Benito Mussolini, the Fascist leader who later became Hitler�s ally in World War II. And if any two leaders were ideological blood-brothers those two were. So I am afraid that antagonism between Hitler and others proves nothing. If anything, the antagonism between Hitler and other socialists is proof of what a typical socialist Hitler was.

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

CATHOLIC LEFTISM REVISITED

I have just received the following counterblast to the email I published yesterday about Catholic Leftism:

� Christianity is a monarchy with Christ the King. It does not promote individuality in terms of doctrine, scripture or history. Why then should the Catholic Church? If Catholicism promotes statism, why did John Paul II fight the Commies so hard? The writer is comparing apples to oranges. If you want to talk religion, if the Catholic Church promotes Statism then Protestantism promotes chaos. Who interpetes scripture for the Protestants? At least with the Catholics its the Church and the Magisterium. With the Protestants it�s �Do your own thing�.

I must say that, as far as I can see, Christ was most emphatic in his lifetime that he was not concerned with the politics of his day but rather with preparation for the afterlife. I have quoted some of the scripture concerned here. Surely those who really follow him would also keep out of politics and concentrate on salvation. Some extreme Protestant sects (e.g. Jehovah�s Witnesses) do in fact withdraw as far as they can from the affairs of the secular world. I think they have scripture on their side in doing so.


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

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

CATHOLIC LEFTISM

Some interesting thoughts sent to me by Ed Mick of Revealed Truth. As I send my son to a Catholic school, I suspect that I am a bit more sympathetic to the Church of Rome than Ed is but he does have some very good points:

I read with interest your comments on the intermingling of Catholicism and socialism. While I certainly agree that you've hit on something as far as the confusion between theological and secular imperatives, I wonder if there isn't something else at work.

The structure and theology of the Catholic church seem to me to provide fertile ground for statism. Not so much by direct extrapolation from theological doctrine to economic doctrine, though, as by laying an epistemilogical and social foundation for statism's ready acceptance.

Consider the contrast between the Catholic view of Truth and the Protestant view. The Catholic view is that Truth is revealed by scripture in part; but also by the writings, interpretations and rulings of church fathers. On top of this, the Priest is a necessary intercessor between the deity and the individual. Add a universally understood symbology that provides for countless other intercessors and obligatory rituals, and you have a flock that's well accustomed to communitarian trappings and philosophy.

The essence of Protestant duty is to get onesself right with the Almighty. Denominational doctrine might well specify how one should go about doing that - but with rare exceptions the church itself isn't a necessary instrument for salvation. The Protestant imperative is intensely personal. Have faith. Honestly believe that Jesus is the son of God. And only you and the Almighty know whether you have fulfilled your part of the bargain. Its fairly obvious, on the other hand, whether or not you've performed all of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

Finally, we have the uniquely Catholic notion that one's earthly works plays a role in determining one's disposition in the hereafter. Add this to doctrinal fealty to an earthly administrative infrastructure and you have a group of people well disposed to arguments that: a) they are morally obliged to sacrifice for the good of their fellows, b) there is a group of select individuals who have the wisdom to know what the nature of that sacrifice should be, and c) that group of select individuals are appropriately empowered with enforcement mechanisms to ensure that "the good" is done.

Thy Will Be Done. On Earth. By the Church or the State. What's the difference?


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


When Political Correctness Collides With Political Correctness:

The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) is demanding that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) tear down a billboard showing a picture of a fat Elvis Presley captioned, "Don't Be Cruel To Your Heart and Body," an apparent implication that eating meat makes one fat.

NAAFA says the billboard is a "cheap and mean-spirited publicity stunt, which works at the expense of fat people." And that PETA should "show respect for people as they show for animals."

PETA says they will not respond because NAAFA's concerns are "not legitimate" and accepting fat is a disservice to society.

Source
Thanks to Jerry Lerman for that one!

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


I now have a rather large number of internet sites so it occurs to me that I should do a complete list of them so that anyone who likes this blog can read further if they wish:

My big monograph on the psychology and sociology of Leftism
A much briefer, academic presentation of the core contentions of the monograph:
Leftism in the churches:
Racism among Leftists:
My original presentation of a theory of Leftism:
A follow-up paper on the psychology of Leftism:
The first draft of my article on the roots of Leftism to be found in Mussolini�s Fascism:
The site for my academic papers up to the year 2000:

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

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

BALI -- LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

After the recent Bali atrocity, I would not want to be a travel agent selling tickets to Islamic countries. Given the enormous scope that the courts have recently given to tort law in both Australia and the USA, any future victim of terrorism in such countries might very well succeed in a negligence claim against the travel agent who sold him the ticket to get there. I would stop selling all tickets to Islamic countries right now in their position. That could be good for other tourist destinations -- Australia has some nice tropical beaches too. What has Bali got that Broome, Cairns or Surfer�s Paradise do not?


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

FOR A LAUGH

I think we need some cheering up today so here is the British Press at its best:


Irish police are being handicapped in a search for a stolen van,
because they cannot issue a description. It's a special branch vehicle,
and they don't want the public to know what it looks like.
(The Guardian)

Police reveal that a woman arrested for shoplifting had a whole salami
in her knickers. When asked why, she said it was because she was missing
her Italian boyfriend. (Reuters via The Manchester Evenings News)

After being charged �20 for a �10 overdraft, 30 year old Michael Howard
of Leeds changed his name by deed poll to Yorkshire Bank PLC Are Fascist
Bastards. The bank has now asked him to close his account, and Mr.
Bastards has asked them to repay the 69p balance, by cheque, made out in
his new name. (The Guardian)

Would the congregation please note that the bowl at the back of the
church labelled 'for the sick' is for monetary donations only.
(Churchtown Parish Magazine)

6.10pm: Pride and Prejudice. Mr. Bennett's estranged cousin, Mr.Collins,
writes to announce his imminent visit to Longbourne - the house he will
inherit on Mr.Bennett's death. Mrs. Bennett rallies the residents to
stop him setting up a minicab service. (Hampstead and Highgate Express)

There must, for instance, be something very strange in a man who, if
left alone in a room with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on. (Glasgow
Evening News)

A young girl who was blown out to sea on a set of inflatable teeth was
rescued by a man on an inflatable lobster. A coastguard spokesman
commented, "this sort of thing is all too common". (The Times)

At the height of the gale, the harbourmaster radioed a coastguard on the
spot and asked him to estimate the wind speed. He replied that he was
sorry, but he didn't have a gauge. However, if it was any help, the wind
had just blown his Land Rover off the cliff. (Aberdeen Evening Express)

Mrs Irene Graham of Thorpe Avenue, Boscombe, delighted the audience with
her reminiscence of the German prisoner of war who was sent each week to
do her garden. He was repatriated at the end of 1945, she recalled.
"He'd always seemed a nice friendly chap, but when the crocuses came up
in the middle of our lawn in February 1946, they spelt out Heil Hitler".
(Bournemouth Evening Echo)

Commenting on a complaint from a Mr.Arthur Purdey about a large gas
bill, a spokesman for North West gas said "We agree it was rather high
for the time of year. It's possible Mr.Purdey has been charged for the
gas used up during the explosion that blew his house to pieces."
(Bangkok Post)

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

LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM

David Horowitz has expressed an interest in taking a new article from me under the above heading for his Front Page Magazine. The idea is to compare modern-day Leftism with Mussolini�s original Fascist regime in prewar Italy. There are some striking parallels. I have put up a very preliminary version of the paper here and would be grateful for any comments on it. Both suggestions and criticisms are equally welcome. My past papers in Front Page have benefited greatly from comments from my many correspondents so I hope that will happen again.

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


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

HomePage

LEFTIST ANTISEMITISM

The very considerable upsurge of antisemitism (sometimes thinly disguised as anti-Zionism) among US Leftists in recent times -- particularly on university campuses -- seems amazing and incomprehensible to many. How can people who have been beating the anti-racist drum so loudly and for so long suddenly turn into the very thing that they have always opposed? How can ferocious Leftists suddenly start advocating something that was until recently the preserve of the extreme Right? Why do many Leftists (including that great hater, Noam Chomsky) now seem to think that it is OK to have Jews being blown up left, right and centre but wrong to attack a murderous dictator such as Saddam Hussein? Can these be the same people who have been proclaiming their �compassion� for so long?

The mystery will be no mystery at all to anyone who has been following this blog or my recent writings elsewhere. As I have argued at some length previously, anti-racism has never been a deepseated or historic Leftist cause and was adopted by Leftists after World War II mainly as a means of gaining kudos. Hitler�s enormous racist excesses had made any suggestion of racism obnoxious -- and Leftists always like to masquerade as the good guys for as long as possible.

And Hitler was a Leftist too. Even those who know of the Leftist themes in Hitler�s election campaigns often say, however, that he was not a real Leftist because he was also a vehement nationalist. They seem to think that nationalism can only be Rightist. But that shows no knowledge of Leftist history generally.

From the days of Marx onward, there were innumerable �splits� in the extreme Leftist movement but two of the most significant occurred immediately after the Bolshevik revolution --- when in Russia the Bolsheviks themselves split into Leninists and Trotskyites and when in Italy Benito Mussolini left Italy�s major Marxist party to found his own �People�s� movement called the �Fasci Italiana di combattimento� (�Italian bands of combat�), later abbreviated as �Fascists�. So from its earliest days Leftism had a big split over the issue of nationalism. It split between the Internationists (e.g. Trotskyists) and the nationalists (e.g. Fascists) with Lenin having a foot in both camps. So any idea that a nationalist cannot be a Leftist is pure fiction and, as I have shown at length elsewhere (e.g. here), Hitler was most certainly both a nationalist and a Leftist.

So the antisemitism of modern days Leftists is nothing new. When the greatest antisemite of all time was a Leftist, why should we be surprised at Leftist antisemitism today? There have ALWAYS been Leftist racists and even Marx himself was an antisemite (again see here). Conservatives can of course be racist too but see my post of October 10th. below on that.


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


CANADA

To those interested in economics, the comparison between the US and Canada is always interesting: Two very similar populations with very different institutional arrangements. The US economy is much more free-market while Canada is much more welfarist and highly regulated. So how have the two been doing? A Bank of Montreal study shows that from 1988 to 1997, the GDP per head grew each year in the USA at more than TWICE the rate of the Canadian figure. Canadian unemployment is also now much higher. Of particular interest, the same study also showed that it was not the productivity of the Canadian workforce that was at fault but rather the broader economic setting. Enough said.

For a discussion and much more data on the subject, see under �Land of Confusion� here. An excerpt follows:

Randall is speaking here of the "gaps" I described in August. Enumerated briefly, they include a gap in marginal tax rates, a gap in personal disposable income (and overall GDP per capita), a gap in labour productivity, a gap in unemployment, and a gap in the stability of the currency. Basically, between the U.S. and Canada, there's a "gap" in any indicator of economic health or standard of living you can conceive. Randall adds a new gap to this list--namely, a gap in the regulatory cost of financial services.

The October 12th post on Parapundit also takes up the cudgels, pointing out that the average useful income of a Canadian is now only about three quarters of what the average American gets. An excerpt:

The raw facts, as outlined by Andrew Sharpe of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards? Canada's per capita GDP is 84.7 per cent of the U.S. level. Personal income is 78.6 per cent. Personal disposable income (that is, after taxes) is 70.4 per cent. All of these gaps widened from 1980 until the last year or so.

And, as only an Australian would, I might point out that the Canada/US discrepancy is despite the much higher proportion of low-earning blacks and Hispanics in the USA.

No doubt Mark Kleiman and his ilk will again want to claim that life in Canada is still so much NICER! A safe claim: It all depends on how you define "nice".

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

KRUGMAN

Noted US economist accused conservative debater Ann Coulter of a �flat lie� in her recent book about Leftist bias in the media. See the October 12th. post here to see Krugman demolished in turn.

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

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

HITLER THE LEFTIST

Even among people who think they know their history, it almost always causes a doubletake when I point out the historical evidence which shows that Hitler was a rather extreme Leftist rather than a Rightist. And my recent article to that effect has caused some skeptical emails to flow my way. I thought therefore that it might be interesting to reproduce what one of my better informed correspondents said -- together with my reply. He actually sent me two emails, one after he had come across my blog and another after he had started to read my recent article:

�Regarding your brief notation of the differences between Nazis and British Conservatives, on Oct 10: I do not disagree with the substance of your remarks, but the Nazis most emphatically were not Leftists. The Communists were their sworn blood enemy, and most hierarchical leaders within the Party were so conservative it was painful. That isn't to say Hitler didn't swipe a page or two from Lenin's playbook -- as a matter of fact Hitler really didn't have very many original ideas on revolution or government.

Well, I do take some of this back. The phrase �Beefsteak Nazi� -- �brown on the outside, red on the inside� existed to explain party members who swapped sides, but were far from committed National Socialists. A lot of these members were WW1 veterans who were 'professional' revolutionaries, not really caring where their action came from, just so long as they got to fight. Many, if not most, were purged from the Party before or during �Die Nacht der Langen Messern�

And the second email:

�Your complete article gives several compelling reasons to consider the Nazis just to the right of the Communists. I want to reread it again more carefully when I have the time to actually digest it, and compare it to what I do know of that time. Thanks for the light. I may see something I hadn't really considered before�.


And my reply:

�You are of course right that there was a considerable range of opinion among the Nazis -- as there was among the Bolsheviks -- but Hitler definitely CAMPAIGNED as a Leftist and friend of the worker. The real contest was between Leftists who were nationalists (Mussolini & Hitler) and the rest who were not. And that went right back to very early times. As you know, Mussolini was an intimate of Lenin -- and Fascism is only slightly later than Bolshevism. And that is why they hated one-another -- just as Communists and Trotskyists hate one-another to this day. There is no rivalry more bitter than sibling rivalry.

Have a look at my paper on Hitler here�.

I might also have added that Hitler considered Mussolini to be his teacher and that Mussolini (the founder of Fascism) was a Marxist ideologue who considered (as Trotskyites would also argue) that it was Lenin who strayed off the path of true Marxism.

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

HUMAN NATURE

A good thought from an interesting but dubious attempt by Marek Kohn to show Leftists that they could find support for their cause by accepting the idea of an inherited human nature:

Inequality was implicit in the formula for Communism: From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs.

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

IRAQ AND THE LEFT


Some excellent thoughts from Random Jottings:

I've encountered various �anti-invasion of Iraq� arguments lately, and taken swipes at some of them, such as the previous post. But what's starting to keep me awake at night is the question of why. Why exactly are so many so opposed? Why does this one square on the chessboard seem to have an invisible field that repels so many people?.

Because it really feels like there is some unseen something going on. Why do seemingly decent, thoughtful kind-hearted people, as they approach that square, suddenly find the need to pen 99 coldly logical reasons why going there would surely turn out badly? Why are they so cold?

It would be one thing if they first felt tender-hearted towards the horrible suffering of Iraq, and then later began to have qualms about the wisdom of an invasion. But that doesn't appear to be what's happening. It looks to me like a lot of people, mostly on the left, made an instant and visceral decision to oppose an invasion, and only afterwards began to scrape up actual arguments to support this.

And these are the very people who like to label themselves as the good-guys; progressives, anti-fascists, liberals. It's weird.

I've been tending to blame reflexive anti-Americanism, or a political desire not to yield advantages to Republicans; but now I think there's more going on than that. I'm thinking that when people approach that square and suddenly have a vision "of the whole Middle-East being de-stabilized," it is really their own world-view that they sense is in danger of dissolving.

I think it's a world-view in which Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, leftists, whatever; cast themselves as heros. Vanquishing Fascism ... Opposing the Vietnam War ... Heros of the Civil Rights Movement ... champions of the oppressed and the underdog. The Party of the People.

The problem is that, while this world-view may seem solid to them, somewhere deep inside they know they are on shaky ground. Historically, they've swept a lot of inconvenient facts under the carpet, and deep down they know it. And in the world today, a lot more has to be ignored to keep their world-view intact.


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

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

CARTER


Practically every conservative blogger around is saying at the moment what they think of the pathetic Jimmy Carter getting the Nobel Peace Prize so let me say it in Australian: The Nobel peace prize committee have always been a mob of galahs. One glance at some of the past recipients confirms that -- Arafat etc.

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


PERVERTED LAW

I feel that I should add my voice to Slattery�s in protesting about this crazy recent case where a lone Vietnamese shopkeeper in Victoria took on with a stick two men who were trying to rob his shop. The SHOPKEEPER got fined $2,000! I would have given him a medal. New South Wales Premier Bob Carr has promised laws to stop that sort of nonsense in his State. It is about time people put pressure on Victorian Premier Steve Bracks to do the same.

At least Australians are not as badly off as the British. Over there they put you in jail for defending your premises against intruders! Perhaps I should migrate to the Lone Star State. They seem to be one of the last bastions of sanity left around.

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

HATE CRIMES

A good quote from Common-sense and Wonder about �Hate� crimes:

I have personally never understood why it is worse to kill someone because they're gay or black than it is to kill someone because you wanted the $12.50 they had in their wallet. It adds a never ending and unnecessary complexity to the law, the natural result of politicians reacting to every news event with new legislation. I remember calls for special penalties for assault committed against teachers after some horrific school violence somewhere. It seems a direct violation of the principles of equal-treatment under the law when we start creating special victim classes


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

LEFTISTS HATE BEAUTY

Dr. David Yeagley writes a blog that is mainly concerned with issues of interest to American Indians (as distinct from Indian Americans!) so it is of limited interest to others. David is however a very bright boy (a fellow �Front Page� author!) and does lots of other good essays as well. His piece about how anti-discrimination ideology is now being stretched to abolish the concept of �beauty� (!!) is well worth a read.

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

THREE QUOTES I liked from last night�s reading of other blogs:

John Quiggin, Professor of Economics at A.N.U. bears a striking resemblance to Ned Kelly. John, who recently signed a pro-Kyoto petition, lives in Canberra, which has not warmed since measurements began in 1939. from Aaron Oakley.

John Pilger is a total slime ball from Gareth Parker.

And a saddening one: Every Hispanic, and all but four Black members of Congress, voted NAY on approving the use of America's military might against Iraq from The Curmudgeon.


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

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

CONSERVATIVES WANT PEACE TOO

Leftist peaceniks in the Vietnam era often justified their opposition to that war by promoting the fantasy that they were the only ones who could see the evils of war and accused anyone who supported any military action of being a �warmonger�. Leftists are doing the same thing today as they oppose action to deal with the threat from the vicious Saddam Hussein. They totally ignore the fact that there is another large grouping in the community who are also most emphatic about the undesirability of war -- i.e. war-veterans (or �ex-Diggers� in Australian parlance). And war-veterans are also both overwhelmingly conservative and in favour of military strength.

Pejman, in his Wednesday October 9th. post, similarly pointed out that "warbloggers" and members of the military today are not "pro-war". Supporting pre-emptive action against modern-day Hitlers such as Saddam does not mean that you like war at all. You can hate war and still see it as necessary. I was myself a very minor member of the Australian Army Psychology Corps in the Vietnam era (which I allude to in my October 7 post) and all the members of the military that I have met have at most expressed an interest in adventure but never any bloodthirstiness. Conservatives are as keen on peace as anyone else. It is just that they are more realistic about what is needed to attain and preserve it.

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

LEFTIST SUPPORT FOR BRUTALITY

Also of relevance to current Leftist posturing over the brutal Saddam Hussein regime is their past support for vast brutalities. As Cathy Young puts it in �Reason� magazine:

The Left's reluctance to acknowledge that Communism wasn't just a failure but an evil is due to more than stubbornness. Such an acknowledgment would amount to (1) validating a view of the West, Communism's Cold War adversary, as good (albeit imperfect), and (2) admitting that the Left spent much of the 20th century cozying up to mass murderers and therefore has precious little moral authority to criticize the West today. And that's very relevant to present-day global conflicts.


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


GREENIE FANTASIES

The environment is one of those �motherhood� issues -- we are all in favour of nice green scenery and against pollution etc. The politically active �Greenies� however often exploit this with all sorts of wild claims about things that they say might harm the environment. I generally do not write refutations of such claims as they are generally so irrational as to make even Leftists look like Socrates by comparison. Some of our scientists do however sometimes take the shovel to the wilder Greenie claims. John Daly is especially good on �Greenhouse� issues and Aaron Oakley is good on Greenie nonsense generally. So do have a look at their sites sometime soon.

NZPundit is even bolder. He takes on the looniness of both the Lefties AND the Greens. From the abuses he describes, New Zealand needs him.

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

A good quote from my email:

If I call for special programs and handouts for Aborigines, I am a progressive.
If I call for all Australians to be treated equally, I am "racist". The mind boggles!.

**************
Other good conservative links I have not mentioned for a while:

Tim Blair (Australia)
Scott Wickstein (Australia)
Dr Bunyip (Australia)
Aussie philosopher
Slattery (Aussie larrikin)
Libertarian Aussie economist.
Silent Running -- (NZ)
A New Yorker in Australia
An Englishman in the USA
Oxblog -- Americans at Oxford Univ.
A conservative Labour-voting Brit!
Steven Chapman - UK
UK Conservative
Samizdata -- UK Libertarian
US Libertarian
"Courageous" about race -- USA
Common-sense and Wonder - USA
Rightwing news -- USA
Judd Brothers -- USA
The King of the Blogs -- USA
Science for conservatives -- USA
The Politburo -- USA
Jeff Wolfe -- USA:
Dr Weevil -- A US Latin teacher
Rottweiler - USA
Sabertooth -- USA
Volokhs -- USA
�Cinderella� -- Good on French lunacy and history


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


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

DISRAELI

As a keen student of 19th century history, I have always taken an interest in the career of Benjamin Disraeli so I had a definite lapse in failing to mention him in my comparison of Nazi racism and the racism of the British during the 19th century. Both the Nazis and the British thought that they were a superior race and both had antisemitic laws but, where the Leftist Nazis massacred Jews wholesale, the British Conservative party actually made a Jew (Disraeli) their Prime Minister! It would be hard to think of a clearer example of the difference between Leftist racism and Conservative racism.

Some will of course quibble that the Disraeli family �converted� from Jewry to Anglicanism when Benjamin was aged 13 but that was just a legal convenience and was almost universally regarded as such. The very surname of the family (D�Israeli) continued to proclaim their origins. Under Hitler, of course, the entire family would have been exterminated without hesitation. Comfortable British conservatives, by contrast, were satisfied by a formality, recognized Benjamin�s brilliance and made him a Lord. Rather nicer, don�t you think?

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

REVISION

I have now put up a slightly revised and expanded version of my �Leftist Racism� paper at: http://leftrace.blogspot.com which incorporates mention of Disraeli. If you want to refer anyone to the paper, therefore, the revised version should work slightly better.

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

READER COMMENT

Below is one of the �Comments� offered on the Front Page website by a reader of my �Leftist Racism� article:

This is one of the best studies on the subject of leftist racism I have ever read, but by no means the only one. One of the earliest was the book "The Amateur Democrat" by James Q. Wilson which detailed the not always so subtle use of underlying racism by left-liberal Democrat insurgents during the 1950s and early 1960s. It was from many of these neighborhoods shown in the study, particularly the West Side of Manhattan that so many white liberals fled when the first of the liberal favored minorities moved in. Some additional details for Mr. Ray:

1. A few years ago the History Channel showed a week long documentary on Hitler (All Hitler All The Time) made by Joachim Fest, a German documentary maker. It is interesting that the first time Hitler was ever on a motion picture it was as a pallbearer at Kurt Eisner's funeral--Herr Eisner being the revolutionary Communist Minister President of Bavaria after World War I. He was wearing an unadorned red armband. From communism to Nazism was as easy for him as it was for his favorite judge, Roland Freisler.

2. The term "Limousine Liberal" was not coined by Spiro Agnew, Republican, but by Mario Procacino, Democrat in 1969 after they would not support him against their fellow Limousine liberal racist John Lindsay.

3. White Flight--White Democrats are the first to flee a neighborhood when minorities they don't like move in. This happened on the West side of Manhattan and in the South Bronx as well as in the "close-in" suburbs today. Is it any wonder that Algore droped his "suburban spral" issue like a hot potato. He'd be depriving his own voters of places to escape liberal Democratic Party policies.

4. Robert KKK Byrd made anti-black speeches in the House of Representatives at the height of World War II.

5. George Wallace WON Democrat primaries for president in Michigan (1972), North Carolina, Florida (1976) and came close in Maryland and Wisconsin in 1964.


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

My critic at "Hot Buttered Death" has responded that what he objects to is my "attempt" to smear Leftists by associating them with Hitler. He is certainly a strange student of history. It was Hitler himself who associated himself with Leftism!! Let me coin a phrase: "The truth is not a smear"


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

LEFTIST RACISM

My full article on Leftist racism appeared yesterday in Front Page Magazine.

Here is the concluding paragraph:

So if we compare the Leftist racism of Hitler and the racism of the very conservative British, what is the obvious conclusion? The conclusion is that feelings of racial, national or group superiority are natural, normal and healthy and can as easily lead to benevolent outcomes as evil ones. It is only racists who harbour hate in their heart generally who are to be feared.

Sound wrongheaded? Read the full article to see why it is not.


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

ERRATA

It is all too common that books and articles appear with minor errors or omissions in them and there were two in my �Leftist Racism� paper. I failed to give details of two references I cited. The details of the LaPiere reference are as follows:

La Piere, R. (1934) Attitudes and actions. �Social Forces� 13, 230-237

I also referred to an article by Brunton in which he pointed out that the allegedly Rightist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and the allegedly Rightist French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen were in fact largely Leftist in what they advocated. Brunton�s article can be found here.

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

Interesting comment from Larry Leonard of Oregon Magazine:

I agree with the principle that all men are racists, as long as the concept is broadened to "all men fear the stranger's ways, and skin color is just one of the ways a stranger is identified."

For most of the time Man has existed on Earth, strangers represented danger in one form or another -- to established beliefs, to property, to family, to one's own life. To a large degree that condition still holds sway on the planet. Ask a Tutsi or a Hutu. (And they're the same color!)

That is why the founding fathers of America should be considered demigods. The government they created was founded on the rights of the individual. No other government in history had done that. Even the Greek democracy and Roman Republic, for all their merits, lacked that, which is why they never proceeded to the dissolution of the institution of slavery.

And a note from a Scotswoman who was a nurse with the British occupation forces in postwar Germany:

I am delighted that you say that there are benefits from the class superiority of the British. Having spend two years in Germany with the upper-class Brits I experienced nothing but good companionship and acceptance despite my Scottish accent. Only when marriage with one of them came up was my class (or in his case lack of family money) a barrier. I loved them.
And I guess noblesse oblige was a positive in some cases even when my grandmother and mother were servants, though only my Aunt Mary experienced
anything like caring from a master/mistress.


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

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

�HOT BUTTERED DEATH�
The above is the strange name of a site run by an anonymous Sydney blogger. The name would seem to suggest a need for attention at any price. He has just made some abusive remarks about the few short extracts from my forthcoming paper on Leftist racism that I posted on 6th.

Delving among the abuse, his central point seems to be that Hitler was not a Leftist because when he came to power he proceeded to evaluate human beings �according to ethnic heritage and religion�. That bald assertion completely prejudges the question at issue (whether Leftists can be racists) so is hardly a contribution to rational debate but let me make what I can of it anyway. He seems to think that Hitler may have started out as a Leftist but abandoned that later on and became a racist instead.

The buttery one seems to overlook that Hitler evaluated human beings �according to ethnic heritage and religion� from the beginning of his political career. He was antisemitic from very early on -- even before the foundation of the Nazi party -- not just when he came to power. So Hitler�s antisemitism was CONTEMPORANEOUS with his very socialistic utterance that I quoted, not a predecessor of it -- as the buttery one seems to believe. The buttery one also seems to believe that Hitler must have abandoned his socialism when he came to power. That too is false. The Kraft durch Freude movement and the pervasive Nazi supervision of German industry are just two examples to the contrary. So Hitler was ALWAYS (i.e. throughout his political career) both a Leftist and a racist. The political party he led (The National Socialist German Worker�s Party) was a Labor party throughout its short history. I think the buttery one would find a study of history more advantageous than abuse. I wonder if he will read my full paper on the subject when it appears? Probably not.

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

The buttery one is however historically sophisticated when compared to a spokesman for the US Democratic party who recently attributed current German opposition to war with Iraq to "historic German pacifism." I kid you not.

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

I am occasionally amazed at how little Spanish most Americans seem to know. One would think that the vast number of Hispanics among them combined with the rich cultural heritage of Spain would make Spanish the usual second language in their schools -- the way French was once almost automatically offered in British schools.

I have never studied Spanish in my life (my matriculation languages were the major languages of classical music -- German and Italian) but I was amazed that the writers and editors of my favourite US newspaper -- the Wall St Journal -- let by without comment a mistranslation of "Nuestra Senora de Buena Esperanza". It was obvious even to me that �esperanza� meant �hope�, not �peace�.

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

Dr. Alex Robson, one of Australia�s small band of libertarians, has been wondering lately if anybody reads his blog. So have a look and see what you think. He is an economist at the Australian National University so he does a good job of Fisking Leftist economic illiteracy. He is also good on the Kyoto/Greenhouse nonsense. He probably thinks nobody reads him because he does not put his email address on his blog but it is:
alex.robson@anu.edu.au if you want to send him some encouragement.


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

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

IRAQ, VIETNAM AND THE 60S

I have said next to nothing on the Iraq issue so far because the many conservative US bloggers do it so well but I notice that the Rottweiler has had a go at a Leftist critic who claims that President Bush should know from Vietnam that Iraq will just be a disaster for the US if it goes in.

As an oldie who actually volunteered for service in Vietnam in the 60s (but missed out on getting a slot owing to the many others in the Australian Army who wanted to go), I get a bit peeved about the nonsense that is spoken about Vietnam. The event that broke the will of President Johnson to win in Vietnam was the �Tet� offensive by combined North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces. But that event was in fact a huge military victory for the US. Even when caught by surprise, the US and Australian forces massacred their attackers with only light casualties of their own by comparison. What lost the war was the peacenik element in the US who made virtually ANY US casualties unacceptable. So the US threw in the towel after that and moved out. The US military effort was defeated not by Left-wing Vietnamese but by Left-wing Americans -- and so the South Vietnamese were left to the tender mercies of the Communists. So Vietnam is NO reason to think that an attack on Iraq will be unsuccessful in its aims.

And why was there such a big antiwar movement on the home front in the Vietnam era? Because of conscription. Both the USA and Australia had military conscription in those days. And all those 60s college and university students did not want to get shot at so joined up with the extreme Left to protect their own skin. As soon as both Australia and the USA abolished conscription, attendance at radical rallies and demonstrations dropped to a fraction of what it had been. The only demonstrators that remained were the usual �rent-a-crowd� exhibitionists who demonstrate about anything and everything in the hope that it might get their picture in the paper. And putting up with those loons is just one of the everyday prices of democracy.

Interestingly, what US armed intervention did not achieve, US culture did. The Vietnamese Communists may have resisted US bombs etc but they could not resist Coca Cola. And the �Doi moi� reforms long ago put the whole of Vietnam onto the capitalist path. So America did win in the end. It will win in Iraq too.

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

FOX-HUNTING

Because so many of his policies are conservative, British Prime Minister Tony Blair occasionally has to throw a sop to the Leftists of his Labour party to keep them happy. Once such sop was to cut the voting rights of the herediary peers in the House of Lords and now he has banned hunting to hounds. The ostensible reason for the ban is that hunting is cruel but the real reason is of course that fox-hunting is usually seen in Britain (rather erroneously) as an upper-class sport -- and hating the �Toffs� is a great British Labour Party tradition.

Australian anthropologist, Ron Brunton wrote an excellent summary of the issue recently and endorsed the words of the Prince of Wales to the effect that if fox-hunting had been beloved of blacks and gays it would have been warmly approved of instead of being banned.

What neither the Prince nor Brunton have noted is that this is no theory. It is literally true in Australia. In Australia, blacks are even allowed to hunt animals from PROTECTED species if that is part of their �traditional� customs! The hypocrisy that Leftist hatreds engender really is breathtaking sometimes: Black cruelty is good; White cruelty is bad. Shades of Orwell!

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

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

Let me start with a little joke from a feminist friend of mine. I am no feminist but I thought it was a good one anyway:

GINGER ROGERS DID EVERYTHING FRED ASTAIRE DID, BUT SHE DID IT BACKWARDS AND IN HIGH HEELS

OK
Now to get serious again:



LEFTIST RACISM

I have just heard from David Horowitz that he will be publishing another paper from me in Front Page -- in addition to the one on the churches that appeared on Friday. The title of the next paper is �Leftist racism� and it covers a lot of ground (particularly in the psychology section) that I have not previously touched on in my online writings. Anyway, until the full paper comes out, I thought I might give here a few short excerpts from the history section of the paper:

And how about another direct quote from Hitler himself?

�We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions�
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by John Toland, Adolf Hitler, 1977, p. 306)

Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century. He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all.


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


Only a few fragments of the history of Leftist racism have been given here but in any case a typical Leftist response to what has been shown would be: �So what? History is history. It has no relevance to Leftism today.� There are many possible answers to that but any claim that modern-day Leftism is somehow different, that it is not and cannot be racist is of course being given the lie right now with the upsurge of Leftist antisemitism as a response to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And some Leftists who are active and prominent in Left-wing politics right now also have a history of anti-black racism. Senator Robert Byrd, for instance, is such a favourite among US Democrats that he even serves as Chairman of the US Senate --- yet in his 20s he was an active and vocal member of the Ku Klux Klan! You can hardly get more racist than that. So Leftist racism is no mere historical curiosity. Even prominent modern-day Leftists are perfectly capable of it.


***********


And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the �60s was the 1958 book �The Affluent Society� by influential �liberal� Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith -- in which he fulminated about what he saw as our �Private affluence and public squalour�. But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: 'Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz' (Common use before private use).

LEFTISM IN THE CHURCHES

Pleasing! David Horowitz has just published my article called �Leftism and the Post-Religious Churches� in his Front Page magazine. Since he gets 3 million page hits a month that should end up sending a few more readers to this blog. I have had a request (gladly granted) to reproduce the article on a Greek Orthodox website too!


A similar article to mine can be found on the site of fellow blogger �Bad Eagle�. It�s a good read and briefer too! Its author, Dr David Yeagley, is proudly of �Red Indian� descent.

My article has produced quite a flurry of comments from Front Page readers and my own religious attitudes and loyalties have been the target of various erroneous assumptions and accusations. So for the record let me say that I am an atheist of long standing with a wildly evangelical Protestant early history who sends his son to a Catholic school and still finds inspiration in the Gospel of St Matthew. Beat that!

One comment from a reader that I really liked:
One thing I have noticed is how the Left really worships secularism and simply co-opts religious doctrine. Think how the Left "ex-communicates" anyone who doesn't follow the party line or refuses to kneel in obeisance to their "litany".

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

JOKE (From one of my correspondents):

Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there really is a dog?


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

FAITH IN GOVERNMENT

Interesting thoughts from one of my correspondents:
1. If all men were really equal that would rule out most government as we know it.
2. Confidence in government is based on faith: we have to have faith that the politicians and bureaucrats know better, and are more wise, enlightened, and educated than the rest of us.


**********

LYNCHING BLACKS

The amazing facts department:
So we all know that those wicked old US Southerners of the �Jim Crow� era used to go around lynching any blacks who got �uppity� don�t we? The history of the matter is amazingly different. Lynching was a primitive way of dealing with crime and during the period concerned there were not only 3,445 blacks lynched but also 1,297 whites lynched! That�s the history of it. Only 72% of lynchings were of blacks, which is about the proportion of all crimes committed by US blacks today. Lynching actually seems to have been FAIR! That�s one for Southerners to shoot back at their Northern critics! �To kill a mockingbird� is a great and famous novel but it should not be relied on as history.

SUICIDES AND CONSERVATISM

Britain�s Leftist �Guardian� newspaper has just had a good chortle over the claim that the suicide rate in Britain and Australia is higher during periods when Conservatives are in government. They imply that conservatism is so bad for your mental health that it can make you suicide.

Shades of that old 1950s Marxist nonsense by Adorno and friends (still popular among psychologists) to the effect that conservatives have diseased �authoritarian� personalities! If you cannot beat conservatives in rational debate what could be better than a good old �ad hominem� response that says your opponent�s arguments are wrong simply because he personally is a bad lot? One might as well argue that all dog-owners are evil because Hitler loved dogs.

The statistics are of course shonky. The British study actually RULED OUT the period of the (Conservative) Heath government when suicide was low -- on the laughable grounds that Britain got natural gas about then and that made it too hard for many people to commit suicide. And even with that big fudge the pattern was still far from clear. As Katherine Mangu-Ward puts it in the �Daily Standard� of 30th September, 2002:

�Though the averages are higher for conservative administrations, when one looks at administrations individually, there are numerous exceptions to the supposed trend. For example, in addition to Heath, the suicide rate under Churchill was likewise low, while during Callaghan's Labour administration it was quite high�

Other standard points could and should be made -- such as the old truth that correlation does not prove causation -- but the real clincher that nobody seems to have mentioned yet is the time-period when suicides are usually lowest. Guess when that is? When the nation is at WAR! So that means that low suicides rates are necessarily good??? So we need more wars??? All suicides are truly tragic but like everything else there are swings and roundabouts. Clearly there is NO automatic inference we can draw about people�s overall wellbeing from suicide rates. Certainly, any claim that a low suicide rate indicates good times for the nation is laughable. On the other hand, if anybody wants to extend �Guardian� type logic to saying that being ruled by a Leftist government is about as good for you as having your country attacked by a foreign power, who am I to argue?


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


Speaking of �The Guardian�, the No. 1 Fisker of �The Guardian� is one of my favourite bloggers. He is also very unusual in keeping us up to date with the weird world of the French media (only for strong stomachs).


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


(Under the new heading: �ABORTION�)

Abortion is a difficult issue for conservatives. They seem to be fairly evenly divided about it. But Leftists are not. Leftists almost all seem to favour abortion. Why?

The key to understanding that is simple. When Leftists get into absolute power -- as they often did in the 20th Century -- we soon see what their �compassion� really adds up to. From Stalin to Pol Pot, Leftists showed that they do not care about human life at all. They murdered millions. So what are a few unborn babies to them? A mere bagatelle!

Rightists are divided because they are the only ones who genuinely care and it is a situation of conflict between the rights of the child and the rights of the mother.

I myself think it is patently obvious that abortion is murder. A baby that would survive if born premature is destroyed by an abortionist and we are told that no crime has been committed! Absurd.

But my libertarian instincts also tell me that coercion is not the way to stop abortion. I leave coercion to the Leftists. Paying mothers to have the baby would work a lot better. Good old capitalism again! A payment of (say) $10,000 to all mothers who produce a healthy baby should do the trick. And with the now catastrophically low birthrates in most of the developed world we probably need such an incentive scheme for all mothers anyway.

So conservatives should be helping to support and encourage reluctant mothers rather than threaten them with the law -- perhaps even setting up special, discreet, resort-style homes for them during their pregnancy.

ALL NEGATIVE?

This blog is obviously open to the accusation that it is all negative: All I do is endeavour to strip Leftism naked without saying anything much about the conservative alternative. That is largely true. Most conservative bloggers are highly negative, in fact. With the universities, the media and the bureaucracy so chock-full of Leftists, there is a lot that needs attacking. There are heaps of conservative bloggers, however, and some spend more time than others setting out a conservative position. See my Sabertooth friend in California, the Swordsman of England, Australian Scott Wickstein and my pugnacious New Zealander friend, as just some instances. And for wry humour there is always the Bunyip. I do however on some occasions myself attempt to define and promote conservatism -- as you will see at the end of my paper here. I also once -- in 1974 -- wrote a whole big book defining and promoting the conservative viewpoint in ways accessible to both my fellow academics and to the general public. It was called �Conservatism as heresy� and may still be findable through Ebay or the like.

One other interesting attempt I have seen at looking at what it common to the various brands of conservatism is here at the new website of Australian Whig philosopher, Rafe Champion. Careful, though: Philosophy needs readers with time to mull things over!


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


BLACK SELF-ESTEEM

A few bloggers have recently noted with some satisfaction the �discovery� by the NY Times that self-esteem is not the psychological 8th wonder of the world that California in particular thought it was. The NY Times reports rightly that high-self esteem can in fact be associated with a whole range of anti-social behaviours. I myself argued against the self-esteem gospel some time ago (See towards the end of my paper here).

One little known aspect of the self-esteem research NOT mentioned in the NY Times is that US blacks generally are found to have high self-esteem. This finding is actually a big deal -- as it undercuts one of the pillars of Leftist support for the abomination known as �affirmative action� (i.e. anti-white racism). The big argument was that Africans suffer a psychological �burden� because of their slave origins so need measures to boost their self-esteem and get them to achieve. Now that it has long been clear that their self esteem does NOT need boosting, we can no doubt expect a withdrawal of Leftist support for affirmative action can we? Not flaming likely!

The whole argument was an utter nonsense from the start anyway. Like many Australians, I am a WHITE person whose ancestors came to my country chained up in the holds of ships. I am descended from two British convicts who were transported to Australia for minor crimes. I even know the names of the ships they came in. But did that impose an awful psychological burden on me? I think you can guess the answer. And I suppose that several millennia of persecution imposes a terrible psychological burden on Jews and makes THEM unable to achieve too??? But Leftists never do care about evidence or logic!


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

AIR HIJACKS

Libertarian Eric Raymond can certainly think outside the box. His solution to airline hijackings is not only to arm the pilots (now happening) but to arm the passengers as well! It may not be as silly as it sounds. Anybody who pulled a gun or any other weapon in an airliner would certainly end up very dead very rapidly under such a system.

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

IRAQ

Anybody who thinks that President Bush has any choice over Iraq needs to step into Prof. Volokh�s time-machine.

HAPPINESS AND ECONOMISTS

Economists seem to have discovered only recently the academic psychology literature on happiness -- and it seems to have caused a bit of soul-searching among them. The research shows, of course, that money does not buy you happiness. �So why are we designing policies with the aim of giving everyone higher incomes if that will not make them any happier?�, some economists are now asking. The simple answer: �Because almost everybody WANTS higher incomes� does not seem to have occurred to all of them yet.

They seem to think that if money will not necessarily make you happy they should go on strike in their efforts to get more of it to you. But satisfaction, comfort, convenience, leisure options, security etc are not the same as happiness. The thing that most influences how happy you are is probably your relationships with others. Given satisfaction with your relationships, you will probably remain roughly as happy through a wide range of incomes. But you will still want more of the things that money can buy if you can get them. So you will still say �Yes, please� to the possibility of more money.

There have been some breathtaking non-sequiturs among economists over the matter. Some note that a big thing that causes UNhappiness is unemployment. And they conclude from this that maybe we should stop all economic reform because economic reform may give most of us more money but it also tends to cause some short-run unemployment. But this is pusillanimous. Would it not be much more logical to deduce that we should in fact make a major attack on ALL unemployment? Given the high levels of our unemployment, surely the obvious conclusion is that we do indeed need BIG reform.

And one technically easy reform that would reduce unemployment rapidly would be to cut the legal minimum wage by (say) 25%. That would make many of the chronically unemployable worth employing again. And motivating the unemployed to seek work is needed too. Cutting (say) 20% off what the government gives them would be a big help there. They did that in New Zealand not too long ago under Roger Douglas so why not elsewhere? More courageous thinking needed!


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

SWEDEN AGAIN

Mark Kleiman has posted quite a clever counterblast to my post about Sweden but I won�t bore people by Fisking it. The topic is a bit done to death by now. I cannot resist noting however that all the countries which Kleiman mentions as poorer than Sweden have suffered heavily from even worse socialism than Sweden. Sweden is a high tax and high �welfare� place but they have always left it to businessmen to run their businesses -- unlike most of the rest of Europe. That is why the comparison between the USA and Sweden is so interesting: Two highly capitalist economies of long standing that differ mainly in the different proportion of the national income that they divert into �welfare� expenditure. No prizes for guessing which one has forged ahead.

Kleiman also glides over the point that once you start trying to measure wellbeing instead of productivity you run into pluses as well as minuses. Swedes, for instance, have more leisure but also have to spend a considerably higher proportion of their income just to keep warm. All of which goes to show that economists who claim to be able to measure wellbeing simply reveal their politics. They should stick to the dollars and cents.

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

BLOGGER BRAINS

Prof. John Quiggin (an economist at the ANU) and I recently had an email discussion of the idea put up by him and Ken Parish to the effect that there are �Right-brain� and �Left-brain� bloggers. I argued that he was mistaking a sociological phenomenon for a psychological one. He said he would put the debate up on the net for the delectation of all and I see from Google that he has now done so. I cannot see where he has given out the link to it, however, so here it is:

For the first two items below I am much indebted to discussions with a fellow blogger:

(Under the heading: �LEFTIST INFLUENCE IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH�)

So the main motivation behind Catholic socialism would seem to be the wish of the church to curry favour with the often poor members of its congregations but some attempt to treat Christ�s counsel about the surest path to the afterlife (e.g. �Go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven� -- Matthew 19:21) as if it were also advice about how to run the affairs of the secular world is also of course involved -- materially assisted by the fact that theologians seldom seem to be very literate in economics.

So in many countries this does sometimes result in people hearing from Catholic pulpits condemnations of the �greed� of capitalism. Yet is it not greed to demand something that you did not earn? Is it not greed to use the coercive power of the government to take from others? Is it not greed to use the coercive power of unions to receive an unfair wage, often at the expense of other less-unionized workers? Is it not greed to demand that church members pay you a certain percentage of their wages? So the second-rate theology that fails even to ask such questions results in many Catholics worldwide hearing from their priests a message that is in some ways not very distinct from the message of Marxist revolutionaries.


***********

(Under the heading: �THE CHURCH�)

Also at work when Leftists praise primitive religions is of course the normal Leftist hatred of modern Western civilization in general and of the USA in particular. Anything non-Western or non-Christian is therefore welcomed and praised. And the common Red/Green pretence that primitive practices were more �in harmony with nature� is something of a joke. Primitive peoples constantly used fire to clear land and trap game and this constant fire-load on the environment did of course greatly change the landscape and its resident species from what they �naturally� once were. Primitive man probably changed the landscape nearly as much as modern man did, in fact. Only very high rainfall forests would have been unaffected by fire. And the desertification of large areas on the margins of the Sahara is the work of primitive sheep and goat herders in quite recent times.

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

An interesting thought recycled from Jeff Wolfe:


�WHY IRAQ? - I've been thinking about why we are about to attack Iraq, and not the real enemy, Saudi Arabia.
Most of the debate has been focused on the first part of that question, so I decided to look at the second part a bit. I pulled out a map to see how I might execute a war against Saud-controlled Arabia if I were the general in charge. It wouldn't be easy. Once you no longer count Saudi Arabia as a friend, the U.S. doesn't have very many friends left in the region. Israel and Kuwait are too small (and Israel is unsuitable in any event for obvious reasons), and Turkey and Afghanistan are too far away.
If we need somewhere from which to base an attack on Saud-controlled Arabia, and none of our current bases are suitable, where do we turn? Going back to the map, we see that the best situated country is probably... Iraq�