It's the shared hatred of the rest of us that unites Islamists and the Left.Tuesday, November 05, 2002
RED CROSS AND RACISM
Is nothing sacred? I always thought that the Red Cross was an impeccable humanitarian organization. I had no idea of its antisemitic bias but Arlene Peck lays it all out here. Please read it.
OK. I understand about the Red Cross in WWII. The Red Cross is headquartered in Switzerland and Switzerland had a very frightening neighbour at that time so Swiss pandering to Nazism could be understood. But they are still at it today! I will never again donate anything to the Red Cross.
********************
FOXHUNTING
I now have two articles on my �Other� website about the recent British ban on foxhunting: One written by an Australian and one written by an American! See here and here. My �other� website is where I post a few articles written by people other than myself that I would not like to see disappear from sight.
In my view, the British ban on foxhunting was just another example of hate-filled Leftism at work but the two articles I have posted have a broader perspective on it.
****************
SADDAM HUSSEIN AS A FASCIST
Saddam grew up as a cadre in the highly ideological and dogmatic Baath party structure. His speeches, from the time he entered government in 1968 until today, have had a consistent ideological, pseudo-intellectual character, even if in the past decade a layer of Islamist rhetoric has been added. From his first declarations to his last, he has always presented the Arabs as the master race, whose history and accomplishments are glorious. He has always had a mystical belief in self-purification through violence, the notion that the soul is elevated through warfare and killing.
And who created Saddam�s Baath Party? One Michel Aflaq:
MICHEL AFLAQ was born in Damascus in 1910, a Greek Orthodox Christian. He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party.
Excerpts from The Weekly Standard. And -- need we add? -- Saddam hates Jews too. Europe of the 1930s lives on in the Arab world. Except that Saddam himself says that Hitler was �too mild�!
Ever since World War II the Western Left have all claimed to regard Fascism and Nazism as evil incarnate yet they somehow do not want us to touch Saddam. How curious! It does rather support the point I have often made about the historical affinity between Fascism and modern Western Leftism. Is the Left rediscovering its old prewar enthusiasms (which included antisemitism)? Has the �dog returned to its vomit�, as the Bible puts it?
****************
THE LEFT�S �THIRD WAY�
In response to my post yesterday about the similarities between Roman Catholicism and Leftism, a correspondent pointed me to the idea that the Left�s �Third Way� (exemplified in Britain�s Tony Blair) is in fact an old Catholic idea stemming from the famous pro-labour encyclical �De rerum novarum� of Pope Leo XIII in 1891. There is an interesting link from a Leftist source about the history of it here.
Famous though it is, many people will not know what �De Rerum Novarum� says. It rejects Marxism but justifies intervention by the State on behalf of the workers and proposes that the best solution for working-class poverty would be some sort of combined action of the Church, the State, the employer and the employed. Such �corporatist� solutions were of course put faithfully into practice by various good Catholic sons -- such as Italy�s Benito Mussolini, Spain�s General Franco and Portugal�s Antonio Salazar.
Tony Blair is an Anglican so he is more moderate and democratic than Mussolini or Franco but he too rejects the old Marxist nostrum of having government run industry while at the same time still using the power of the State to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. So the British Left�s �Third way� and the current �American way� are now just about identical. Roman Catholicism is, after all, America�s biggest religious denomination. And a majority of them probably still vote Democrat.
******************
Comments? Email me: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new blog address.
***************
Monday, November 04, 2002
****************
INSIDE CHINA
China Hand has just put up an interesting portrait of the Chinese city where he lives. It sounds dynamic -- and very capitalist.
****************
INSIDE CHINA
China Hand has just put up an interesting portrait of the Chinese city where he lives. It sounds dynamic -- and very capitalist.
****************
HISTORIC GERMAN ORIGINS OF CONSERVATISM
It seems obvious that a distrust and dislike of big government is central to modern-day conservatism. So it is interesting that what modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are traces right back to the German invaders (Angles and Saxons) who overran Celtic Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the highly centralized Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it.
Tracing the traditional English dislike of unrestrained central power to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population might seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands?
The important thing here, however, is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Bismarck's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another.
And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates.
So only after Bismarck engineered the defeat of the French at Sedan in 1870 did most of Germany become unified -- with the Germans of the Austrian lands remaining independent even then. And to this day Germany has a Federal system very similar to that of their largely Germanic brethren in the United States, Canada and Australia -- a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.
In 1066, William of Normandy disrupted the traditional decentralized and competitive power structure of England to some degree but by the time of King John and Magna Carta it was back with a vengeance. And the ascendancy of Simon de Montfort not long after that also displayed the traditional English belief in the limited nature of central government power. Even in the reign of that great Tudor despot, Henry VIII, there were still in England great and powerful regional Lords and many less powerful but numerous local notables representing local interests that the King had to take great care with. Even Tudor central government power was highly contingent, far from absolute and much dependant on the popularity of the ruler among ordinary English people. And when the Stuarts, with their doctrine of "the divine right of Kings", ignored all that and tried to turn the English monarchy into something more like a centralized Oriental despotism, off came the head of the Stuart King.
PROTESTANTISM VERSUS CATHOLICISM
Luther has been mentioned as a beneficiary of Germanic power decentralization but Luther�s message received wide acclaim in Germany generally so it seems reasonable to say that German distrust of centralized power not only protected Protestantism but was was in fact a major cause of Protestantism. Because what is Protestantism after all if it is not a rejection of centralized religious authority? So in that sense, conservatism and Protestantism are twin children of Germanic suspicion of centralized powwer. Looking at it another way, we could say that conservatism is a political expression of religious Protestantism.
Further, where the Roman Catholic believes that the sacraments administered by a religious authority are essential for his ascent into heaven, the Protestant believes that he can negotiate his salvation with the Almighty directly. Catholicism fosters habits of submission to authority whereas Protestantism inculcates hardy independence. So acceptance of government authority over oneself should come as naturally to the Catholic as it is alien to the Protestant.
So German history could at a pinch be seen as a struggle between native decentralizing tendencies and Catholic centralizing tendencies --- with the German lands closest to Rome remaining Catholic and Imperial while the (Northern) German lands farthest from Rome remained independent, Protestant and decentralized. And the struggle the North had to resist the Imperial South was indeed a titanic one.
As some evidence that there is still something left of that difference, it might be noted that, in interwar Germany, the Protestant North was largely �Red� (revolutionary) whereas the Catholic South was largely Nazi -- i.e. more prepared to operate within the existing power structures and more prepared to accept the Church. Hitler did after all have a Catholic education.
So how do we account for the fact that �Christian Democratic� (i.e. Catholic) political parties seem generally to be the major conservative forces within modern European politics? And how indeed do we account for the fact that at least 50% of Germans are to this day Catholic?
A essential part of the answer is of course the counter-reformation -- a process that began in response to Luther and which restored the acceptabity of Catholicism to many Germans. This reform process within the Catholic church may have begun in response to Luther but has in fact been an ongoing process within the Catholic Church ever since --- with the relatively recent Vatican II ecumenical council being a particular highpoint of the process. So the Catholic church could only combat the power of Luther�s message by partially bending to it and thus becoming itself to a large degree Protestantized and weakened in authority. And the way a huge proportion of otherwise convinced Catholics now disregard the teachings of their church on such matters as contraception shows vividly that the authority of the Church is now in fact mostly an empty shell.
So in various guises Germanic Protestantism has won the day over Roman authority in the religious sphere just as Germanic conservatism has won the day over socialism in the political sphere. We now have Protestantized Catholics and �Thatcherized� socialists in much of the world.
Nonetheless, even in a weakened form, the Catholic church offers a model of �top down� social organization that must make it easier for Catholics to accept political arrangements of a �top down� sort. If you look up to the Pope as an essential part of your salvation in the spiritual sphere, to look up to the government as an essential agency in securing your material wellbeing is surely only a small step. So the fact that the vast majority of Europeans are still Catholic (even if the Catholicism is much watered down from what it was) should make Europeans more accepting of all-pervasive government than Anglo-Saxons would ever be. And so, of course, it has come to pass. In Bismarck, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Papadopoulos Europe has had authoritarianism in government on a scale unknown in the English-speaking world.
So how conservatism has evolved in the modern-day English-speaking world is rather different from how conservatism has evolved in Europe. Anglo-Saxon conservatism benefited greatly from Henry VIII, who made England almost totally Protestant. Protestants in Germany failed to achieve this dominance and so England has been better able to stay close to its Germanic and Protestant roots -- whereas European conservatism has never totally escaped Catholicism. European conservatism has therefore mostly lost its anti-centralization principles and conforms much more closely to the stereotyped image of conservatism as being merely a defence of traditional arrangements generally. This of course makes it a much weaker form of conservatism and the huge bureaucratization that now characterizes the European Union is vivid evidence of that. European conservatives have been much less effective as opponents of big government because opposition to big government is much less of a central position for them.
********************
Comments? Email me: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new blog address.
It seems obvious that a distrust and dislike of big government is central to modern-day conservatism. So it is interesting that what modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are traces right back to the German invaders (Angles and Saxons) who overran Celtic Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the highly centralized Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it.
Tracing the traditional English dislike of unrestrained central power to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population might seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands?
The important thing here, however, is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Bismarck's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another.
And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates.
So only after Bismarck engineered the defeat of the French at Sedan in 1870 did most of Germany become unified -- with the Germans of the Austrian lands remaining independent even then. And to this day Germany has a Federal system very similar to that of their largely Germanic brethren in the United States, Canada and Australia -- a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.
In 1066, William of Normandy disrupted the traditional decentralized and competitive power structure of England to some degree but by the time of King John and Magna Carta it was back with a vengeance. And the ascendancy of Simon de Montfort not long after that also displayed the traditional English belief in the limited nature of central government power. Even in the reign of that great Tudor despot, Henry VIII, there were still in England great and powerful regional Lords and many less powerful but numerous local notables representing local interests that the King had to take great care with. Even Tudor central government power was highly contingent, far from absolute and much dependant on the popularity of the ruler among ordinary English people. And when the Stuarts, with their doctrine of "the divine right of Kings", ignored all that and tried to turn the English monarchy into something more like a centralized Oriental despotism, off came the head of the Stuart King.
PROTESTANTISM VERSUS CATHOLICISM
Luther has been mentioned as a beneficiary of Germanic power decentralization but Luther�s message received wide acclaim in Germany generally so it seems reasonable to say that German distrust of centralized power not only protected Protestantism but was was in fact a major cause of Protestantism. Because what is Protestantism after all if it is not a rejection of centralized religious authority? So in that sense, conservatism and Protestantism are twin children of Germanic suspicion of centralized powwer. Looking at it another way, we could say that conservatism is a political expression of religious Protestantism.
Further, where the Roman Catholic believes that the sacraments administered by a religious authority are essential for his ascent into heaven, the Protestant believes that he can negotiate his salvation with the Almighty directly. Catholicism fosters habits of submission to authority whereas Protestantism inculcates hardy independence. So acceptance of government authority over oneself should come as naturally to the Catholic as it is alien to the Protestant.
So German history could at a pinch be seen as a struggle between native decentralizing tendencies and Catholic centralizing tendencies --- with the German lands closest to Rome remaining Catholic and Imperial while the (Northern) German lands farthest from Rome remained independent, Protestant and decentralized. And the struggle the North had to resist the Imperial South was indeed a titanic one.
As some evidence that there is still something left of that difference, it might be noted that, in interwar Germany, the Protestant North was largely �Red� (revolutionary) whereas the Catholic South was largely Nazi -- i.e. more prepared to operate within the existing power structures and more prepared to accept the Church. Hitler did after all have a Catholic education.
So how do we account for the fact that �Christian Democratic� (i.e. Catholic) political parties seem generally to be the major conservative forces within modern European politics? And how indeed do we account for the fact that at least 50% of Germans are to this day Catholic?
A essential part of the answer is of course the counter-reformation -- a process that began in response to Luther and which restored the acceptabity of Catholicism to many Germans. This reform process within the Catholic church may have begun in response to Luther but has in fact been an ongoing process within the Catholic Church ever since --- with the relatively recent Vatican II ecumenical council being a particular highpoint of the process. So the Catholic church could only combat the power of Luther�s message by partially bending to it and thus becoming itself to a large degree Protestantized and weakened in authority. And the way a huge proportion of otherwise convinced Catholics now disregard the teachings of their church on such matters as contraception shows vividly that the authority of the Church is now in fact mostly an empty shell.
So in various guises Germanic Protestantism has won the day over Roman authority in the religious sphere just as Germanic conservatism has won the day over socialism in the political sphere. We now have Protestantized Catholics and �Thatcherized� socialists in much of the world.
Nonetheless, even in a weakened form, the Catholic church offers a model of �top down� social organization that must make it easier for Catholics to accept political arrangements of a �top down� sort. If you look up to the Pope as an essential part of your salvation in the spiritual sphere, to look up to the government as an essential agency in securing your material wellbeing is surely only a small step. So the fact that the vast majority of Europeans are still Catholic (even if the Catholicism is much watered down from what it was) should make Europeans more accepting of all-pervasive government than Anglo-Saxons would ever be. And so, of course, it has come to pass. In Bismarck, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Papadopoulos Europe has had authoritarianism in government on a scale unknown in the English-speaking world.
So how conservatism has evolved in the modern-day English-speaking world is rather different from how conservatism has evolved in Europe. Anglo-Saxon conservatism benefited greatly from Henry VIII, who made England almost totally Protestant. Protestants in Germany failed to achieve this dominance and so England has been better able to stay close to its Germanic and Protestant roots -- whereas European conservatism has never totally escaped Catholicism. European conservatism has therefore mostly lost its anti-centralization principles and conforms much more closely to the stereotyped image of conservatism as being merely a defence of traditional arrangements generally. This of course makes it a much weaker form of conservatism and the huge bureaucratization that now characterizes the European Union is vivid evidence of that. European conservatives have been much less effective as opponents of big government because opposition to big government is much less of a central position for them.
********************
Comments? Email me: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new blog address.
Sunday, November 03, 2002
LEFTISM AS A CLUB OF VIRTUE
The above is the topic of an excellent article by Michael Warby that I have referred to in several of my online publications. In the past however, I have only referenced the dead-tree version of it: Very remiss of me. I have just heard from a frustrated reader who has been searching in vain for the online version so here is the link. A highly recommended read.
******************
BIASED REFERENCE WORKS
Another example of how all-pervasive the Leftist bias is in what we read in print:
The 17th edition of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is out, and this time the Gipper gets his due. When the 16th edition was published in 1992, conservatives were incensed that none of Ronald Reagan's great utterances were in it -- not even his famed exhortation at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate in 1987, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" At the time, editor Justin Kaplan -- a staunch Cambridge liberal -- conceded that the omissions weren't inadvertent: "I'm not going to disguise the fact that I despise Ronald Reagan," he said. Ten years later, Kaplan has had a change of heart -- not about Reagan, but about succumbing to his own ideological animus. "I admit I was carried away by prejudice," he told USA Today last week. "Mischievously, I did him dirt."
A rare admission but again one has to say: "Thank goodness for the internet".
Quote from Jeff Jacoby.
*********************
KRUGMAN TRUTH SQUAD
I have blogged a couple of times about economist-turned-propagandist Paul Krugman. Because he sounds unusually rational and factual for a Leftist, I felt that his diatribes deserved some reply. I will make no further such attempts, however. There is a blog here that makes a repeated point of dismantling Krugman�s specious arguments. I will leave the whole nasty job to them in the future.
************************
PC HORROR STORIES
Natalie Solent has a few stories about the horrors that political (i.e. Leftist) correctness can inflict on innocent people but this is the most frightening. Truth is absolutely no defence in the court of political correctness. It makes me glad that I am retired and therefore hard to victimize.
************************
NEW BLOG FROM CHINA
An old friend of mine has just started a new blog with a focus on China and economics. In his student days he became a Maoist but was one of that rarest of rare breeds -- he actually put his money where his mouth was and moved to China. He has now become persuaded of the virtues of free markets, however, and is lecturing in business studies at a Chinese university -- where he now gives his students a good dose of capitalist economic theory. I doubt that anyone could have made a longer journey from Left to Right than he has. His current observations are here. From what he tells me it is amazing how capitalistic China has become.
********************
PAINFUL JOURNEY
There is another blogger here who has made the journey from Left to Right -- though in her case more recently. And she is quite scathing about the double standards of some of her former �friends� on the Left.
*********************
OTHER BLOGS OF INTEREST
Thanks to a nudge in the right direction by The Bunyip (how likeminded can two bloggers be when they even use the same template!), I now have the usual all-purpose list of links down the side of my page but I thought it might still be useful for me to give my weekly update of what blogs I am at the moment following more or less regularly:
Australia:
Dr Bunyip
James Morrow
Slattery
Alex Robson.
Gareth Parker
TANSTAAFL
Ken Parish
Alan McCallum
Bizarre Science
Bovination
Jason Soon
Scott Wickstein
Gene Expression
New Zealand:
NZ Pundit
Silent Running
Israel:
IsraPundit
Not A Fish
UK:
Cinderella Bloggerfeller
England's Sword
Steven Chapman
Conservative Commentary.
Samizdata
USA:
Light of Reason
Pejman Pundit
Dr Weevil
Clayton Cramer
Common-sense and Wonder
Judd Brothers
Vodka Pundit
Instapundit
Rottweiler
ParaPundit
Philosoblog
Canada:
Enter Stage Right
Token Leftist:
Prof. Quiggin
******************
Comments? Email me: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new blog address.
******************
Saturday, November 02, 2002
EUROLAND
Gordon at NZ Pundit has a great link about the mess that Euroland is in. Britain has done well to stay out. Maybe Imperial Preferences should be revived! (Just kidding). But it does give the British Tories an issue they might be able to beat Tony Blair on. Self-interest is a powerful persuader.
**************
RACIAL DIFFERENCES
I think I owe Jason Soon a small correction. He has written to assure me that he does not at all go along with all of the views of his fellow bloggers at Gene Expression. He is much more dubious about the importance of genetics in explaining human differences generally. At least none of the group can be accused of being white supremacists: Of the team, Jason is of course East Asian, one is a Tamil, two are Bengalis, one is a Persian and one is Jewish.
******************
POSTMODERN ART
If anybody is still in any doubt about what postmodernism is, they should have a look at this and this. Both articles are quite brief and tell us what postmodern art is by way of some choice examples. Normal people would simply be be disgusted by it all. AND THAT IS THE POINT. Postmodern art aims to get attention at all costs. I have argued elsewhere at some length (here and here) that Leftists are basically unoriginal people who are desperate for attention and postmoderns are clearly an extreme example of that. They are people driven to desperation by having nothing to say or contribute yet also having a great longing for attention -- and in that situation any attention will do, even if all they manage to do is to disgust people.
Once again, thanks to Arthur Silber for suggesting the links.
Cameron Pritchard sums up the desperation of the modern Left well too.
***************
LEFTIST ANTHROPOLOGY
Given my career in the social sciences, the prevailing Leftist bias in the social sciences is no news to me. Leftists everywhere have a huge talent for distorting eveything to suit themselves and you can certainly rely on most psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists to find only what suits Leftist beliefs. Since that is probably less well-known to others than it is to me, however, I thought this example was worth a mention. The example also shows that Leftist bias in the social sciences has been with us for a long time. Excerpt:
PHILADELPHIA -- Nearly a century ago, Franz Boas, the man known as the founder of modern anthropology, launched a study of cranial measurements of 13,000 people and concluded that skull shapes are determined more by environment than by race. It was a powerfully influential finding, because at the time, skull size and shape were thought to be connected to intelligence.
Now, though, a new analysis suggests the distinguished anthropologist got it wrong: Race or, more properly, ethnicity is a bigger determinant than environment.
Whether Boas deliberately distorted his findings is not clear. But researchers think he may have had preconceived ideas about what the data should show. "It's pretty clear that Boas was in the forefront of racial equality and sex equality, and it's pretty clear that he was in the forefront of rejecting the ideas of racial typology and scientific racism that existed in the early century," University of Tennessee anthropology professor Richard Jantz said. "It wouldn't be hard to imagine that he had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to get out of this study, but I wouldn't want to say we know that's true."
Jantz also said that Boas was "seriously hamstrung because he couldn't analyze all that data with the resources available to him at the time." In Boas' day, the general view was that Europeans were the dominant race, an argument often based on brain size. For decades, scholars opposed to such notions have cited Boas' study of immigrants and their offspring.
Note that the guys Boas was trying to stymie were right after all. Bigger heads do tend to go with greater intelligence. See here.
Thanks to NZ Pundit for energizing me on this topic.
*********************
Comments? Email me: Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new address.
******************
Gordon at NZ Pundit has a great link about the mess that Euroland is in. Britain has done well to stay out. Maybe Imperial Preferences should be revived! (Just kidding). But it does give the British Tories an issue they might be able to beat Tony Blair on. Self-interest is a powerful persuader.
**************
RACIAL DIFFERENCES
I think I owe Jason Soon a small correction. He has written to assure me that he does not at all go along with all of the views of his fellow bloggers at Gene Expression. He is much more dubious about the importance of genetics in explaining human differences generally. At least none of the group can be accused of being white supremacists: Of the team, Jason is of course East Asian, one is a Tamil, two are Bengalis, one is a Persian and one is Jewish.
******************
POSTMODERN ART
If anybody is still in any doubt about what postmodernism is, they should have a look at this and this. Both articles are quite brief and tell us what postmodern art is by way of some choice examples. Normal people would simply be be disgusted by it all. AND THAT IS THE POINT. Postmodern art aims to get attention at all costs. I have argued elsewhere at some length (here and here) that Leftists are basically unoriginal people who are desperate for attention and postmoderns are clearly an extreme example of that. They are people driven to desperation by having nothing to say or contribute yet also having a great longing for attention -- and in that situation any attention will do, even if all they manage to do is to disgust people.
Once again, thanks to Arthur Silber for suggesting the links.
Cameron Pritchard sums up the desperation of the modern Left well too.
***************
LEFTIST ANTHROPOLOGY
Given my career in the social sciences, the prevailing Leftist bias in the social sciences is no news to me. Leftists everywhere have a huge talent for distorting eveything to suit themselves and you can certainly rely on most psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists to find only what suits Leftist beliefs. Since that is probably less well-known to others than it is to me, however, I thought this example was worth a mention. The example also shows that Leftist bias in the social sciences has been with us for a long time. Excerpt:
PHILADELPHIA -- Nearly a century ago, Franz Boas, the man known as the founder of modern anthropology, launched a study of cranial measurements of 13,000 people and concluded that skull shapes are determined more by environment than by race. It was a powerfully influential finding, because at the time, skull size and shape were thought to be connected to intelligence.
Now, though, a new analysis suggests the distinguished anthropologist got it wrong: Race or, more properly, ethnicity is a bigger determinant than environment.
Whether Boas deliberately distorted his findings is not clear. But researchers think he may have had preconceived ideas about what the data should show. "It's pretty clear that Boas was in the forefront of racial equality and sex equality, and it's pretty clear that he was in the forefront of rejecting the ideas of racial typology and scientific racism that existed in the early century," University of Tennessee anthropology professor Richard Jantz said. "It wouldn't be hard to imagine that he had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to get out of this study, but I wouldn't want to say we know that's true."
Jantz also said that Boas was "seriously hamstrung because he couldn't analyze all that data with the resources available to him at the time." In Boas' day, the general view was that Europeans were the dominant race, an argument often based on brain size. For decades, scholars opposed to such notions have cited Boas' study of immigrants and their offspring.
Note that the guys Boas was trying to stymie were right after all. Bigger heads do tend to go with greater intelligence. See here.
Thanks to NZ Pundit for energizing me on this topic.
*********************
Comments? Email me: Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
If there are no recent posts here, check my HomePage for a new address.
******************
Friday, November 01, 2002
RACE AND GENES
Wow! Jason Soon has just written to me to draw attention to his �other� blog -- one he shares with a group of writers. I must confess that Jason had always seemed a bit wishy-washy to me (though as �Catallaxy� he is on my list of links) but his �other� blog is full-on and pulls no punches about the truths of racial differences and genetics. Have a look.
******************
LINK CENTRAL
I also have to endorse Scott Wickstein�s description of �Bitchin� Monaro� as �link central� for Australian bloggers. I have never seen so many links. There�s at least a year�s reading for anyone there. If ever you are looking for somebody�s site you would have the best chance of finding the link you want there. There is also a huge list of links to what looks like all the world�s online media.
***************
FUKUYAMA�S �END�
I have always thought that Fukuyama�s �End of history� thesis was a good attention-grabber and not much else but a lot of sensible people seem to take him seriously. There is what I think is a well-balanced consideration of it all here.
*******************
THE �SNIPERS�
As usual, there are some more great excerpts on the latest issue of the �Fed�. My picks both have to do with the recently captured �snipers� (two blacks, one an illegal immigrant and another named Mohammed) who killed at random in the Washington D.C. area:
"Can you imagine if a profiler had tried to get on, even Fox News, let alone the other networks, and said, 'You know what, I suspect it's a Nation of Islam member and an illegal alien who are doing this killing.' They never would have let them on TV."
�I have never in my life seen a faster and bigger 180 on the death penalty than among white liberals in Virginia, Maryland, and the D.C. area."
******************
MORE ON FASCIST LEFTISM
As I mentioned yesterday, the Summary from my recent article in �Front Page�, which showed that modern-day Leftism consists largely of recycled Fascist ideas, was reprinted by Sylvia Finlayson in her corner of �Meridian�, a Mormon magazine. Sylvia has now kindly forwarded to me another response from her readers -- this time one from CB, a history enthusiast. Since CB puts the case rather well, I reproduce his words below:
Of course Mussolini's ideas were forerunners of modern Western Leftism -- he was a modern, Western Leftist! Italy is, after all, a Western country and Fascism is a very Leftist political-economic system. On a politically right-to-left scale, Fascism falls somewhere between "simple" socialism and full-bore Marxist-Leninism. But all are clearly Leftist!
The two most defining differences between Fascism and Communism are scope and ownership of the means of production. Marxism, the most extreme of the two, crows that the State must own all means of production (but only for the protection and good of the People). Also, Communism is globalist in its view: all peoples everywhere will (must) eventually see the wisdom in its philosophy and adopt its creed in order that everyone will have peace and prosperity.
Fascism, on the other hand, does not require State ownership of any aspect of the economy. But it will control by fiat the key sectors of the economy. And nationalism is a primary tool for Fascists to rally the people to its cause. Mussolini challenged Italians to regain the glory that was Rome's; Franco appealed to Spaniards' memories of the faded Catholic Majesty that was 16th century Spain; Hitler created a Third Reich, aping the Germanic Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne, and trading on a mythical race of supermen.
The labels became clouded when Italian, Spanish, and German Fascists went head-to-head with Russian-backed Communists after World War I. It was the Russian Communists who styled the Fascists as "right-wing". (From a Marxist point of view, Fascists are somewhat Right -- but just barely!) The Western Fascists of the last century fought the Russian communists not so much over differences in theory as tradition and culture. Certainly, Germany and Russia have warred for centuries. But, communism is foreign-based and dictated, while Fascism is usually home-grown. It may even be true that the rise of Fascism in these countries was precipitated by Russian-exported communism taking advantage of war-shattered economies and governments.
The Weimar Republic in 1920s Germany was so-named because it could not operate
from the traditional capital in Berlin. Berlin and other cities had been overtaken by Moscow-backed German communists, who declared them Soviet Socialist Republics. Mussolini, Franco, and (especially) Hitler wanted none of that!
It is also somewhat amusing to read that young Leftists go about protesting
(rioting) against globalization. The foremost proponents of globalization are, of course, dyed-in-the-wool Marxists! Where the two sides differ is just who will run the world: the capitalist West, or the communist East?
The fact that young idealists have no concept of what they aid and abet is testimony to the success of traditional Russian deception. This is a skill developed over many centuries and pre-dates Russian Marxism by a millenium. The "Big Lie" wasn't invented in Nazi Germany. It was adapted from the successes of Germany's Marxist neighbor to the East. And it still works today.
******************
SOME POLITICAL LAUGHS
As usual, Opinion Journal has some good laughs today but I wonder how many will get the one that ends: �Shouldn't the delegation include someone from Chad?�
*********************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Wow! Jason Soon has just written to me to draw attention to his �other� blog -- one he shares with a group of writers. I must confess that Jason had always seemed a bit wishy-washy to me (though as �Catallaxy� he is on my list of links) but his �other� blog is full-on and pulls no punches about the truths of racial differences and genetics. Have a look.
******************
LINK CENTRAL
I also have to endorse Scott Wickstein�s description of �Bitchin� Monaro� as �link central� for Australian bloggers. I have never seen so many links. There�s at least a year�s reading for anyone there. If ever you are looking for somebody�s site you would have the best chance of finding the link you want there. There is also a huge list of links to what looks like all the world�s online media.
***************
FUKUYAMA�S �END�
I have always thought that Fukuyama�s �End of history� thesis was a good attention-grabber and not much else but a lot of sensible people seem to take him seriously. There is what I think is a well-balanced consideration of it all here.
*******************
THE �SNIPERS�
As usual, there are some more great excerpts on the latest issue of the �Fed�. My picks both have to do with the recently captured �snipers� (two blacks, one an illegal immigrant and another named Mohammed) who killed at random in the Washington D.C. area:
"Can you imagine if a profiler had tried to get on, even Fox News, let alone the other networks, and said, 'You know what, I suspect it's a Nation of Islam member and an illegal alien who are doing this killing.' They never would have let them on TV."
�I have never in my life seen a faster and bigger 180 on the death penalty than among white liberals in Virginia, Maryland, and the D.C. area."
******************
MORE ON FASCIST LEFTISM
As I mentioned yesterday, the Summary from my recent article in �Front Page�, which showed that modern-day Leftism consists largely of recycled Fascist ideas, was reprinted by Sylvia Finlayson in her corner of �Meridian�, a Mormon magazine. Sylvia has now kindly forwarded to me another response from her readers -- this time one from CB, a history enthusiast. Since CB puts the case rather well, I reproduce his words below:
Of course Mussolini's ideas were forerunners of modern Western Leftism -- he was a modern, Western Leftist! Italy is, after all, a Western country and Fascism is a very Leftist political-economic system. On a politically right-to-left scale, Fascism falls somewhere between "simple" socialism and full-bore Marxist-Leninism. But all are clearly Leftist!
The two most defining differences between Fascism and Communism are scope and ownership of the means of production. Marxism, the most extreme of the two, crows that the State must own all means of production (but only for the protection and good of the People). Also, Communism is globalist in its view: all peoples everywhere will (must) eventually see the wisdom in its philosophy and adopt its creed in order that everyone will have peace and prosperity.
Fascism, on the other hand, does not require State ownership of any aspect of the economy. But it will control by fiat the key sectors of the economy. And nationalism is a primary tool for Fascists to rally the people to its cause. Mussolini challenged Italians to regain the glory that was Rome's; Franco appealed to Spaniards' memories of the faded Catholic Majesty that was 16th century Spain; Hitler created a Third Reich, aping the Germanic Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne, and trading on a mythical race of supermen.
The labels became clouded when Italian, Spanish, and German Fascists went head-to-head with Russian-backed Communists after World War I. It was the Russian Communists who styled the Fascists as "right-wing". (From a Marxist point of view, Fascists are somewhat Right -- but just barely!) The Western Fascists of the last century fought the Russian communists not so much over differences in theory as tradition and culture. Certainly, Germany and Russia have warred for centuries. But, communism is foreign-based and dictated, while Fascism is usually home-grown. It may even be true that the rise of Fascism in these countries was precipitated by Russian-exported communism taking advantage of war-shattered economies and governments.
The Weimar Republic in 1920s Germany was so-named because it could not operate
from the traditional capital in Berlin. Berlin and other cities had been overtaken by Moscow-backed German communists, who declared them Soviet Socialist Republics. Mussolini, Franco, and (especially) Hitler wanted none of that!
It is also somewhat amusing to read that young Leftists go about protesting
(rioting) against globalization. The foremost proponents of globalization are, of course, dyed-in-the-wool Marxists! Where the two sides differ is just who will run the world: the capitalist West, or the communist East?
The fact that young idealists have no concept of what they aid and abet is testimony to the success of traditional Russian deception. This is a skill developed over many centuries and pre-dates Russian Marxism by a millenium. The "Big Lie" wasn't invented in Nazi Germany. It was adapted from the successes of Germany's Marxist neighbor to the East. And it still works today.
******************
SOME POLITICAL LAUGHS
As usual, Opinion Journal has some good laughs today but I wonder how many will get the one that ends: �Shouldn't the delegation include someone from Chad?�
*********************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Thursday, October 31, 2002
NO POSTINGS?
IF there are no recent postings here it is because blogger.com has lost touch with blogspot again. Try here instead in that case. Sorry to be repetitious but all those who work with blogger.com know how unpredictable it can be. They have �lost� two of my sites so far already.
*******************
LEFTIST RAGE AT THE LIGHT
I have just received an interesting email from Shishir Yerramilli that tells us a lot about Leftists:
"I emailed your excellent, eloquent blog's link (i.e. http://psychleft.blogspot.com) to a Leftist Canadian friend of mine in his 40's (I'm in my early 20's) who, like me, lives in the U.S. His rants against the U.S, Bush are quite typical of those of his ideology, so I won't bore you with them. We were pretty good friends ... until today. He emailed a furious response comparing me to white trash (I'm a Hindu from India) and called me a degenerate idiot, unmotivated, a leech on this country etc., etc. This has exposed not just his unstable nature which is incapable of withstanding criticism (like most Leftists) but perhaps more to the potency of your views. The tone of the mail leaves no doubt that the chasm between us is final and was politically motivated. I would genuinely like to thank you for your blog. It cost me a friend but clearly one I didn't need. The experience was quite an eyeopener. I hate to just have friends who share my (conservative) views but I want to maintain friendships and not have them end in this ugly fashion. Just thought you'd be interested to know the impact of your blog :-)"
**********************
LIBERTARIAN BUMPER-STICKER
Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot, either!
Thanks to Chris Tame for that one.
******************
WELFARE THEORISTS
Leftists try to put it about that only they care about welfare measures for the more needy of our fellow-citizens (ignoring such great Rightist welfare innovators as Bismarck, Disraeli, Teddy Roosevelt etc). The truth is, of course, that conservatives are interested enough in welfare to deal with the issue in all its complexity rather than seeing welfare as being just ever-increasing handouts for anybody who wants a handout. The debate described here sums it all up rather nicely.
****************
LEFTIST TROGLODYTES
The Summary from my recent article in �Front Page�, which showed that modern-day Leftism consists largely of recycled Fascist ideas, was reprinted by the glamorous Sylvia Finlayson in her corner of �Meridian�, a Mormon magazine. It evoked a furious response from CC, one of her readers, which she forwarded to me. CC�s response is an amazing example of the troglodytic inability to learn anything that still seems to characterize many Leftists out there in the big wide world so I thought I might quote part of it. He objects to my claim that modern Leftism was prefigured by Mussolini by saying:
� Fascism nationalizes industry by giving ownership to the state, socialism nationalizes industries by giving ownership to the workers in that industry.�
So to him Leftism is socialism and socialism is unreconstructed Marxism. It was Russia�s Lenin who gave the ownership of all industry to the State so even Lenin would have been a Rightist to him! His version of Leftism exists only in his own mind. Curiously, by his definition, Mussolini was actually more Leftist than Lenin. The Russian workers had precious little say in the running of the Soviet industries in which they worked but Mussolini�s �corporations� did give the Italian workers some say.
******************
YOUNG HAWKS
Very interesting October 16th post from Jim Miller in case you missed it:
Young People and the Vietnam War: Andrew Sullivan makes a common error in his post on the Bali bombing, when he argues that young people were more likely to oppose the Vietnam war than older people. In fact, polls at the time showed that young people were "more supportive of the war than older people" [John E. Mueller, "War, Presidents and Public Opinion", p. 137]. Even more surprising to some, the more educated a person, the more likely they were to support the Vietnam war. There were similar patterns of support in World War II and the Korean War. The current tendency of young people to be more inclined to support a war with Iraq is consistent with the patterns in past wars, contrary to what Sullivan thinks.
*************************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
POSTMODERNISM EXPLAINED
An interview with Stephen Hicks seems to give a very clear exposition of what postmodernism is all about:
"The contradictions they [The postmodernists] embrace are so obvious: "All cultures are equal, but the West is uniquely evil. Values are subjective, but sexism and racism are really evil. Technology is bad, but it's unfair the West has more of it ...... [Post-modernists are] driven not by a desire to discover or advance truth but primarily by the desire to hurt the enemy. If all you want to do is destroy, it doesn't matter to you if the words you use contradict each other."
Good Leftist stuff.
Roger Scruton makes a similar point:
Hence, in Rorty, Derrida, and Foucault, we find a shared duplicity of purpose: On the one hand to undermine all claims to absolute truth and on the other hand to uphold the orthodoxies upon which their congregation depends. The very reasoning that sets out to destroy the ideas of objective truth and absolute value imposes political correctness as absolutely binding and cultural relativism as objectively true.
Good old-fashioned Leftist hypocrisy, in short.
Thanks to Arthur Silber and Peter Cuthbertson for suggesting the links.
*****************
SPOONERISMS
I am glad nobody fell into the trap of chiding me for saying �skinger of forn� in one of my recent posts. Though one lady who was the victim of a postmodern education did politely ask me what I meant by it. It is one of my favourite Spoonerisms. But I think the best Spoonerism is one attributed to the Rev. Spooner himself. He was dealing with a wayward student at Oxford and said:
�Sir, you have tasted three whole worms. You have hissed all my mystery lectures and been caught fighting a liar in the Quad. You will leave by the next town drain�.
For those unfamiliar with British railway history, the �down� train was the train to London.
*****************
ARTISTS AND THE LEFT
I must be thick. The following question seems to have stumped both Steve Sailer and Jason Soon. The quote is from Steve Sailer:
�I'm reviewing the new biopic "Frida," about the glamorous pair of Mexican painters Frida Kahlo and her husband Diego Rivera. They were wealthy, self-indulgent sensualists and dedicated Communists. Exactly what was it about Lenin and Stalin, who don't seem like fun people to party with, that so attracted hedonistic artists like Kahlo, Rivera, Picasso, and the like?�
To me the answer seems obvious. The artists concerned and Stalin were all big egos who hated conventional Western �bourgeois� society and thought they knew better. Where is the puzzle in that?
*******************
I must be thick. The following question seems to have stumped both Steve Sailer and Jason Soon. The quote is from Steve Sailer:
�I'm reviewing the new biopic "Frida," about the glamorous pair of Mexican painters Frida Kahlo and her husband Diego Rivera. They were wealthy, self-indulgent sensualists and dedicated Communists. Exactly what was it about Lenin and Stalin, who don't seem like fun people to party with, that so attracted hedonistic artists like Kahlo, Rivera, Picasso, and the like?�
To me the answer seems obvious. The artists concerned and Stalin were all big egos who hated conventional Western �bourgeois� society and thought they knew better. Where is the puzzle in that?
*******************
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
CENTRE PARTIES
There is a good article on �Slate� showing convincingly that the major political parties in a democracy both have to stay very close to the centre. This is particularly marked in Australia where the policy differences between the two major parties are so minute that even a dedicated anti-Leftist like myself would not see it as an important change if the Australian Labor Party won the next Federal election (though they won�t).
So where does that leave parties that proclaim themselves as centre parties? In a mess. Australia�s alleged centre party has just imploded because their desperate search for something different to say had driven them to the extreme Left -- which upset a lot of their members who really were centrists.
The really interesting implication of centrism, however, is that you can only get big change by moving the whole political agenda in one direction or the other. This happened very markedly after the implosion of the Soviet Union --- after which socialism went out the window worldwide and market-based economic arrangements (particularly privatization of former government-owned businesses) were brought in by parties of every political stripe from Britain to Bangladesh -- not even excepting �Communist� China.
This rightward shift in the economic management agenda has been enormously beneficial -- with world poverty now becoming steadily �Africanized� (i.e. with India and China both rapidly becoming more prosperous under their new, more capitalist arrangements, populations stuck in dire poverty are now very largely restricted to Africa).
So the job of conservative/libertarian ideologues like myself is now to try to expose the destructiveness of government activism in ALL spheres. If we can convince enough people of that, we will have moved the agenda in a way that the major political parties (whether Right-leaning ot Left-leaning) will have to follow.
***************
PRESIDENT BUSH AND SEXISM
I have often remarked that most Leftists seem to have absolutely no regard for the truth. So what is the Left now trying to imply about a President who has appointed a record number of women to senior positions in his administration? Yes. You guessed it: He is a sexist. Orrin Judd has the story in his post of 28th.
****************
DISAPPEARING GLACIERS
I normally leave Greenie debunking to Aaron Oakley but I cannot resist pointing people to this story. It deals with the recent scare that the glaciers of Kilimanjaro are disappearing because of global warming. It turns out that the receding of the glaciers concerned has actually SLOWED in recent decades!
*********************
KRUGMAN THE LIGHTWEIGHT
�Paul Krugman, ostensibly an economist, but actually a polemicist, although not a particularly good one. He writes in a puffed-up way about things he knows very little about, and he is a leading contender for lightweight columnist of the year. �
See here for more.
******************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
POSTMODERNISM
I am amazed that postmodernism in literary studies seems to have become a hot topic among Australian bloggers at the moment -- with Quiggin, Soon and others getting into it.
Postmodernism was not around when I was studying English at the University of Queensland in the �60s so I know it only secondhand but it does seem an awful lot of tosh to me. What I wonder, however, is whether or not it matters. Do literary studies matter?
Now before anyone points the skinger of forn at me over that question let me add that I myself have always been a pretty literary type: I read almost the entire Greek canon in my teens; I understand that I got the highest mark awarded for the poetry paper in English I -- out of about 1000 students; and I still know large slabs of Chaucer by heart -- in the original Middle English, of course.
But I have never seen my literary proclivities as any great virtue -- which is why I did not continue with literary studies but went into social science instead. To me literature is to be enjoyed not studied and if you do not enjoy it go and read The Phantom and good luck to you. The high moral tone of The Phantom would certainly leave most of French literature for dead, at least.
So the postmodernists would appear to be doing a good job of destroying literary studies but so what? Maybe I am on their side!! An amazing thought considering that postmodernism seems to have its origins on the extreme Left.
*****************
I am amazed that postmodernism in literary studies seems to have become a hot topic among Australian bloggers at the moment -- with Quiggin, Soon and others getting into it.
Postmodernism was not around when I was studying English at the University of Queensland in the �60s so I know it only secondhand but it does seem an awful lot of tosh to me. What I wonder, however, is whether or not it matters. Do literary studies matter?
Now before anyone points the skinger of forn at me over that question let me add that I myself have always been a pretty literary type: I read almost the entire Greek canon in my teens; I understand that I got the highest mark awarded for the poetry paper in English I -- out of about 1000 students; and I still know large slabs of Chaucer by heart -- in the original Middle English, of course.
But I have never seen my literary proclivities as any great virtue -- which is why I did not continue with literary studies but went into social science instead. To me literature is to be enjoyed not studied and if you do not enjoy it go and read The Phantom and good luck to you. The high moral tone of The Phantom would certainly leave most of French literature for dead, at least.
So the postmodernists would appear to be doing a good job of destroying literary studies but so what? Maybe I am on their side!! An amazing thought considering that postmodernism seems to have its origins on the extreme Left.
*****************
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
NO POSTINGS?
IF there are no recent postings here it is because blogger.com has lost touch with blogspot again. Try: here instead in that case.
*******************
COATHANGERS AGAIN!
The sequel to the hilarious coathanger story here
*******************
ILLEGAL ALIENS
It looks like the USA could learn a lot from Australia. There is a bill at present before Congress that would legalize millions of illegal immigrants -- people who have broken US law and should not be rewarded for it.
Australia locks such people up until they can be sent back to where they came from!
See: here
*********************
POST-MODERNISM
Joe Willingham has emailed me with the thought that "post-modernists" are Fascists in the Mussolini mould too:
"Postmodernists (pomos) claim that there is no objective truth, there is only interpretation, and that it all depends on who is in power. According to the pomos, we are so biased by our race, class, and gender that knowledge is impossible. The postmodernists allow freedom of speech only for those who share their leftist political views in issues like feminism, affirmative action, and free enterprise versus socialism. They hire and fire on the basis of ideology rather than scholarship, and they try to prevent speakers of whose views they're don't approve from appearing on campus.
The subjectivist epistemology, the idea that power and not reason is the key to the "construction of reality" - all that is classic fascism. It is no accident that one of the pomos' favorite philosophers is the German Nazi sympathizer Martin Heidegger. Nor is it an accident that anti-Semitism is becoming trendy in European and American leftist circles".
I do not think I have ever met a post-modernist so cannot say how right Joe is -- but I would welcome any emails on the subject. I certainly hear echoes of D'Annunzio (Mussolini's predecessor) in what Joe describes. Maybe Cinderella Bloggerfeller
will enlighten me. He seems to be the No. 1 expert on literary and cultural Leftism.
******************
RUSSIA�S PUTIN AND ISLAM
I am in total agreement with Bovination�s post on President Putin�s handling of the Chechen terrorists. And I love his conclusion: �Thank you Allah�
*****************
ROGER SAUSE ON �DEZIS�
Don�t miss my exclusive here on the latest thoughts of Roger Sause. He is the author of Left for Dead... A Digital Manifesto in which he brings his unusual perspective as a Los Angeles musician to bear on the Fascism of the modern-day Left.
******************
GOVERNMENT ILLITERACY
We all know how appalling governments can be most of the time but they are clearly getting worse and worse. I think it is indicative of the low level of care now being exercised by the Australian government bureaucracy that they do not even bother to get basic grammar right these days. The literature you get with your tax return forms from the Australian government this year includes a leaflet that offers in large letters on its front cover: �Get your tax back quick�. Yes, I am not making it up. There was no-one in a vast government bureaucracy that knew when to use �quick� and when to use �quickly�! We have government by ignoramuses. No doubt they were all educated in government schools too.
******************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
E. TIMOR NOT ISLAMIC
After the recent Bali bombing of mainly Australians, the BBC broadcast a video in which it is claimed that Bin Laden ordered an attack on Australians because:
"The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores . . . and they landed on East Timor which is part of the Islamic world,"
Nobody yet seems to have mentioned that most E. Timorese are Roman Catholics.
**************
After the recent Bali bombing of mainly Australians, the BBC broadcast a video in which it is claimed that Bin Laden ordered an attack on Australians because:
"The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores . . . and they landed on East Timor which is part of the Islamic world,"
Nobody yet seems to have mentioned that most E. Timorese are Roman Catholics.
**************
Monday, October 28, 2002
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE ANYONE?
Meadow Lake Hospital in Saskatoon, Canada: The hospital is being sued by a woman who says she was left completely alone in the delivery room with no one monitoring her or her baby as the baby came out and fell onto the floor. The baby was flown to another hospital for observation but luckily appears to be fine. And those kind socialists did not even give her an apology!
Source: http://tinyurl.com/2967
Thanks to Jerry Lerman for that one!
Meadow Lake Hospital in Saskatoon, Canada: The hospital is being sued by a woman who says she was left completely alone in the delivery room with no one monitoring her or her baby as the baby came out and fell onto the floor. The baby was flown to another hospital for observation but luckily appears to be fine. And those kind socialists did not even give her an apology!
Source: http://tinyurl.com/2967
Thanks to Jerry Lerman for that one!
BLOGSPOT WARNING:
Blogspot and Blogger.com are pretty erratic. Many of my fellow bloggers report that and I have not been immune either. I now have two blogspot sites that I am completely unable to access via Blogger. They just sit there with me being completely unable to add anything to them.
So if this site goes dead (i.e. there are no recent postings) I am probably still alive and posting elsewhere. Try: here instead. That is a site I usually use to put up longer quotes from other people but I will make it my main site if I have to. There is a good new posting there at the moment in which Roger Sause points out disturbing parallels between �moderate� Leftists of today and historical Nazism.
************************
KRUGMAN DEMOLISHED AGAIN
Paul Krugman may once have been a good economist but he is now a political loony -- as Orrin Judd demonstrates in his post of 26th.
*******************
LEFTIST STEREOTYPING
Some good sarcasm here about Leftist stereotypes of human motivation.
*******************
PINKER ON NATURE-NURTURE
Prof. Stephen Pinker has put up here a brief and very readable summary of the state of our scientific knowledge about how much of ourselves we owe to our genes. My behaviour geneticist friends have been telling me the answer to that for decades but the answer will still probably shock most people.
The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said: "A man's character is his fate." Pretty spot-on for such a long time ago.
******************
MOSCOW AFTERMATH
Rather a good speech by President Putin after the end of Moscow�s encounter with Islamic terrorism. Silent Running has the speech in his post of 27th.
********************
RADICAL FEMINISM
Cynical though I certainly am, I still find it hard to get used to the way those who claim to oppose discrimination so often practice it themselves. I find it quite breathtakingly hypocritical. The way those who fought to end discrimination against blacks now routinely practice discrimination against whites (�affirmative action�) is the most obvious instance of the phenomenon but feminists are not far behind. I am sure we all know of various instances where private clubs and organizations that were once �men only� were subjected to enormous pressure, legal and otherwise, to force them to abandon their exclusiveness. Yet where I live there is now a �women only� golf club that is allowed to continue on its merry way with only token protests and there are also large billboards up around the place advertising a �health club� which appears to have its main claim to fame the proud boast that �No Toms, Harrys or Dicks� are allowed there. Where are the street marches and demonstrations protesting against this blatant and contemptuous discrimination against men? There are none. Even a lady I know remarked on it and said: �I don�t know how they get away with it�. But get away with it they do. Equality before the law is obviously not even attempted where groups favoured by Leftists are concerned.
*****************
OSAMA IN HELL
On the lighter side:
One day in the future, Osama bin Laden has a heart attack and dies. He immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him. "I don't know what to do here," says the devil. "You are on my list, but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got a couple offolks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves."
Osama bin Laden thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty handed. Over and over and over. Such was his fate in hell. "No," Osama bin Laden said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer and I don't think I could do that all day long."
The devil led him to the next room. In it was Tony Blair with a sledge hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time. "No, I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day" commented Osama bin Laden.
The devil opened a third door. In it, Osama bin Laden saw Bill Clinton, lying on the floor with his arms staked over his head, and his legs staked in a spread eagle pose.
Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best. Osama bin Laden took this in disbelief and finally said,"Yeah, I can handle this."
The devil smiled and said "OK, Monica, you're free to go".
**********************
HATE MAIL
Hooray! I have just got my first hate-mail -- about my series of posts on race and IQ of course. It shows that I am doing my job of propagating unpopular truths. The emails concerned were simply hate-filled abuse plus an amusing mixture of "ad hominem" argument and a demonstration of not having read what I had written: Standard Leftist stuff. Facts and logic usually seem to be the last things that Leftists resort to when they want to get anyone to concur with them. Intimidation suits them a lot better. Stalin's heirs are among us. I am afraid that we will always have to do battle with the forces of unreason.
****************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Sunday, October 27, 2002
CHECHENS
After the outrage in Moscow I hope the Russians bomb Chechnya flat. They are quite likely to. And death seems to be the only language that Moslem thickos understand. I was once sympathetic to the demand for Chechen independence but no more. Their mass attack on innocents has shown the Chechens as the Moslem barbarians that they are and deserves as much mercy as they showed. My praise to the Russian special forces who took on an impossible job when the foul Muslim �martyrs� started killing prisoners.
***************
NICE CURMUDGEON!
Everybody likes compliments and The Curmudgeon has been most uncurmudgeonly in his kind comments of October 25th about me. It is much appreciated. And he includes another one of his amusing graphics too!
***************
PERON, FASCISM AND ANTISEMITISM
I was afraid that my post on Argentinian dictator Juan Peron might be greeted by a big yawn but it seems to have attracted some positive response so I thought I might mention a few more interesting facts.
The big suprise for many will probably be that Fascism is not intrinsically antisemitic. Like other Leftists, Fascists may or may not be antisemitic. Hitler�s Fascist regime was of course enormously antisemitic but one swallow does not make a summer. And the other swallows are interesting. As I have pointed out at length elsewhere, Italy�s Mussolini was not initially antisemitic until he was virtually forced into adopting some antisemitic measures by his alliance with Hitler -- and Italy was even then one of the safer places for Jews to be in World War II Europe.
And most people have probably forgotten that prewar Britain had a large Fascist movement too -- under Sir Oswald Mosley. And Sir Oswald initially used to EXPEL from the British Union of Fascists anybody who made antisemitic utterances! When his meetings came under constant attack from Jewish Leftists, however, he had something of a rethink. (Just parenthetically, it might be noted that although Sir Oswald was a great champion of the ordinary man, he was of such high social rank in the Britain of his day that the King actually came to his wedding -- limousine liberals eat your heart out!).
And Peron, too, was not systematically antisemitic, although Jews were subjected to some attacks under his rule. So Peron�s lack of interest in the �final solution� made him a typical Fascist rather than an atypical one.
And Peron�s Fascism does of course explain why so many former German Nazis found a safe haven in Argentina after World War II. Peron was simply helping out his old friends.
****************
CHICKENBLOGGERS
�Chickenblogger� is a term that Leftist bloggers often give to �Warbloggers� -- i.e. bloggers who support a pre-emptive attack on one of the world�s most dangerous rulers -- Saddam Hussein. What the Leftists are saying is pretty incoherent and is undoubtedly an example of one of the most disreputable forms of argument -- an ad hominem attack -- but it keeps getting trotted out. James Morrow has reported another example of it in his post of 21st. Insofar as the criticism has any content it seems to be saying that only those who are prepared to don a uniform and go to war themselves should be allowed to argue for war. A dubious assertion indeed! But anyway, I support a war on Saddam�s regime and I did join the Australian Army in the Vietnam era and did volunteer for duty in Vietnam so it looks like everybody should listen to me by Leftist standards. I am not holding my breath.
*****************
LEFTIST SIMPLICITY
Aaron Oakley has been pondering lately what it is that makes a Leftist. Below is an extract from a very insightful recent email from him:
"Picture this: Young idealistic person sees problem. Young idealistic person realises he/she can't fix said problem. Natural response? THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING! I used to be like this.
Leftism is a knee-jerk response to the problems of the world, and is based on the fallacy that we can bring about utopia through the dictatorial fiat of the state.
Part of the problem is that the arguments for free markets, limited government etc are complicated but correct. The Left have it easy. Their philosophies are simple but wrong. The public grasp simple ideas much more easily than complicated ones... "
****************
Sunday again and time to update the list of blogs I am following regularly at the moment:
Australia:
Dr Bunyip
James Morrow
Scott Wickstein
Slattery
Alex Robson.
Gareth Parker
Tim Blair
TANSTAAFL
Ken Parish
Alan McCallum
Bizarre Science
Bovination
New Zealand:
NZ Pundit
Silent Running
Israel:
IsraPundit
Not A Fish
UK:
Cinderella Bloggerfeller
England's Sword
Steven Chapman
Conservative Comment.
Samizdata
USA:
Light of Reason
Pejman Pundit
Dr Weevil
Clayton Cramer
Common-sense and Wonder
Judd Brothers
Vodka Pundit
Instapundit
Rottweiler
ParaPundit
Philosoblog
Canada:
Enter Stage Right
******************
And more sites:
******************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
After the outrage in Moscow I hope the Russians bomb Chechnya flat. They are quite likely to. And death seems to be the only language that Moslem thickos understand. I was once sympathetic to the demand for Chechen independence but no more. Their mass attack on innocents has shown the Chechens as the Moslem barbarians that they are and deserves as much mercy as they showed. My praise to the Russian special forces who took on an impossible job when the foul Muslim �martyrs� started killing prisoners.
***************
NICE CURMUDGEON!
Everybody likes compliments and The Curmudgeon has been most uncurmudgeonly in his kind comments of October 25th about me. It is much appreciated. And he includes another one of his amusing graphics too!
***************
PERON, FASCISM AND ANTISEMITISM
I was afraid that my post on Argentinian dictator Juan Peron might be greeted by a big yawn but it seems to have attracted some positive response so I thought I might mention a few more interesting facts.
The big suprise for many will probably be that Fascism is not intrinsically antisemitic. Like other Leftists, Fascists may or may not be antisemitic. Hitler�s Fascist regime was of course enormously antisemitic but one swallow does not make a summer. And the other swallows are interesting. As I have pointed out at length elsewhere, Italy�s Mussolini was not initially antisemitic until he was virtually forced into adopting some antisemitic measures by his alliance with Hitler -- and Italy was even then one of the safer places for Jews to be in World War II Europe.
And most people have probably forgotten that prewar Britain had a large Fascist movement too -- under Sir Oswald Mosley. And Sir Oswald initially used to EXPEL from the British Union of Fascists anybody who made antisemitic utterances! When his meetings came under constant attack from Jewish Leftists, however, he had something of a rethink. (Just parenthetically, it might be noted that although Sir Oswald was a great champion of the ordinary man, he was of such high social rank in the Britain of his day that the King actually came to his wedding -- limousine liberals eat your heart out!).
And Peron, too, was not systematically antisemitic, although Jews were subjected to some attacks under his rule. So Peron�s lack of interest in the �final solution� made him a typical Fascist rather than an atypical one.
And Peron�s Fascism does of course explain why so many former German Nazis found a safe haven in Argentina after World War II. Peron was simply helping out his old friends.
****************
CHICKENBLOGGERS
�Chickenblogger� is a term that Leftist bloggers often give to �Warbloggers� -- i.e. bloggers who support a pre-emptive attack on one of the world�s most dangerous rulers -- Saddam Hussein. What the Leftists are saying is pretty incoherent and is undoubtedly an example of one of the most disreputable forms of argument -- an ad hominem attack -- but it keeps getting trotted out. James Morrow has reported another example of it in his post of 21st. Insofar as the criticism has any content it seems to be saying that only those who are prepared to don a uniform and go to war themselves should be allowed to argue for war. A dubious assertion indeed! But anyway, I support a war on Saddam�s regime and I did join the Australian Army in the Vietnam era and did volunteer for duty in Vietnam so it looks like everybody should listen to me by Leftist standards. I am not holding my breath.
*****************
LEFTIST SIMPLICITY
Aaron Oakley has been pondering lately what it is that makes a Leftist. Below is an extract from a very insightful recent email from him:
"Picture this: Young idealistic person sees problem. Young idealistic person realises he/she can't fix said problem. Natural response? THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING! I used to be like this.
Leftism is a knee-jerk response to the problems of the world, and is based on the fallacy that we can bring about utopia through the dictatorial fiat of the state.
Part of the problem is that the arguments for free markets, limited government etc are complicated but correct. The Left have it easy. Their philosophies are simple but wrong. The public grasp simple ideas much more easily than complicated ones... "
****************
Sunday again and time to update the list of blogs I am following regularly at the moment:
Australia:
Dr Bunyip
James Morrow
Scott Wickstein
Slattery
Alex Robson.
Gareth Parker
Tim Blair
TANSTAAFL
Ken Parish
Alan McCallum
Bizarre Science
Bovination
New Zealand:
NZ Pundit
Silent Running
Israel:
IsraPundit
Not A Fish
UK:
Cinderella Bloggerfeller
England's Sword
Steven Chapman
Conservative Comment.
Samizdata
USA:
Light of Reason
Pejman Pundit
Dr Weevil
Clayton Cramer
Common-sense and Wonder
Judd Brothers
Vodka Pundit
Instapundit
Rottweiler
ParaPundit
Philosoblog
Canada:
Enter Stage Right
******************
And more sites:
|
******************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Saturday, October 26, 2002
THE PERON �PUZZLE� AND ARGENTINA
Hands up anyone who knows the song �Don�t cry for me, Argentina�!
All hands shoot up.
Andrew Lloyd Webber has done a great deal to make the whole world aware of Evita Peron. The man she married, Argentine dictator Juan Peron, is however much less well-known and most people would not be aware that historians and political commentators often describe him as what Latin Americans sometimes call a �Fenomeno� (paradox). The paradox or puzzle is that he first came to power in Argentina as part of a military coup, so should have been �Right-wing� -- yet he became the champion and hero of working class Argentines, and to this day the major Leftist political grouping in Argentina (the �Peronistas�) is named after him. How come?
Anybody who has been reading all that I have written recently about the strongly Leftist nature of both German Nazism and Italian Fascism will not be surprised. Both Nazism and Fascism won power largely through claiming to be the champions and glorifiers of the ordinary worker and both Nazism and Fascism are routinely described as �Right-wing� too. Peron was just another one of that bunch. Peron in fact soon got kicked out by his fellow participants in the military coup and finally gained power -- as did Hitler and Mussolini -- through primarily political means.
And that is only the beginning of the resemblance: The doctrines Peron preached (e.g. giving the workers and managers equal say in running industry) were almost exactly what Peron had learned from Mussolini when he lived in Italy for some years in the 1930s. Peronism is Fascism. Also like Hitler and Mussolini, Peron was a great patriot and nationalist who got the foreign business interests out of Argentina and tried to make Argentina independent of foreigners generally. With the able help of his wife Evita, Peron made the Argentine people feel special and persuaded them that he was on their side and would lead them to greatness. And they loved him for it!
The only major difference is that Peron was clever enough to stay neutral instead of joining Hitler�s war. Mussolini stayed neutral for a couple of years too but finally made the fatal mistake of joining in.
So what it all shows is what most modern-day Leftist intellectuals passionately deny: That you can be an extreme Leftist and an extreme nationalist too. And it shows something very troubling too: That the combination of Leftism and nationalism is POPULAR! The popularity of that combination is also shown in the way Germans fought to the end for Hitler. Perhaps we should be thankful that modern-day Leftists (who are often anything but patriotic) have not learned all that their Fascist brethren might have taught them.
So the only puzzle or paradox of Peronism is one that modern-day Leftist intellectuals have artificially created for themselves. They refuse to accept that you can be BOTH a Leftist and a nationalist so are basically just lost for words (or sensible words anyway) when confronted with great historical figures such as Peron who prove by their living example that you CAN be both.
And Peron was of course almost as bad for Argentina as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini were for the countries that they led down the extreme Leftist path. Before Peron came to power, Argentina was one of the world�s richest countries but Peron sent it broke and it has never recovered -- largely because, although Peron is dead, Peronism (Fascism) is still the strongest single force in Argentine politics.
***************
ANTI-GUN NUTS
I love this imaginary conversation pinched from Bovination. You will not want to believe it but it shows how opposition to private gun ownership is similar to racism. Now that is REALLY killing sacred cows!
The people in the dialogue are supposed to be discussing the recent tragedy at Monash University where a student from China used a handgun to kill two fellow-Chinese students:
Larry Leftie: One thing this incident proves is the need to ban guns.
Rudi Redneck: Rubbish it demonstrates the need to ban Asians.
LL: But Asians didn't cause this - guns did.
RR: An Asian did cause this.
LL: But if there were no guns this incident couldn't have happened.
RR: If there were no Asians this incident couldn't have happened.
LL: But you can't judge all Asians on the actions of a few.
RR: You can't judge all gun owners on the actions of a few.
LL: Even if you did ban Asians, gun deaths would still occur.
RR: Even if you banned guns, crimes would still occur.
LL: But guns are inherently evil.
RR: Why?
LL: Because they kill people.
RR: An Asian killed people on this occasion - does that make Asians inherently evil?
LL: Of course not - very few Asians kill people.
RR: Very few guns kill people.
LL: You don't agree with me, therefore you are evil!
RR: Leftie Loser!
LL: Redneck!
*********************
QUIGGIN ON GUNS
Because he is such a rare beast -- a Leftist who seems interested in the facts of the matter --- quite a few non-Leftists seem to read and comment on Prof. John Quiggin�s blog. I did so myself once before (on October 2nd). His latest idea is pretty wacko, though. He asks libertarians to give a principled defence of gun-ownership as if that were difficult. Firearms are not a big interest of mine (my brother writes enough on that for both of us) and I have never owned one but it seems to me that the basic tenet of libertarianism -- that you should be free to do what you please as long as you do not harm others --- makes the right to own guns automatic. It is only using them to harm others that is proscribed. Semi-libertarians like Jason Soon may twist themselves into knots to justify why they OPPOSE private gun ownership but a true libertarian just finds nothing to discuss in the issue. Conservatives, on the other hand, feel the need to justify gun ownership in various ways -- usually by saying that it does and should equalize their chances with the criminals -- so perhaps Quiggin has just picked his argument with the wrong people.
Or perhaps he has mislabelled what he wants. Maybe it is not a �principled� defence he wants but a pragmatic one. In that connection I rather like the old saying that �an armed society is a polite society�. But Quiggin does not want to hear arguments like that. He has defined his ground and intends to fight only on it. Very naughty of me not to argue with Quiggin in the way he wants me to. I suspect that we both know that Napoleon won at Austerlitz by being the one to choose the ground on which he would fight.
I suspect that Quiggin also feels that he has delivered a rhetorical masterstroke in asking if the right to gun ownership should extend to a right to possess heavy weapons (machine-guns, bazookas etc.). He obviously thinks that everybody would regard that as a nightmare scenario never to be permitted and hopes to show from that that ALL firearm possession is therefore bad. I have news for him: There are already plenty of heavy weapons in private hands in Australia and I have yet to hear of ONE of them being misused. So his supposed nightmare scenario is already here and it is no nightmare at all.
************
RACE AND IQ
I am pleased that my recent posting on the matter of race and IQ has not attracted any hate mail. The issue is super-sensitive and I spent a long time trying to get what I wanted to say just right before I posted it. But I do think that the truth of the matter has to be said -- even if some good people are regrettably upset by it.
One writer challenged me on whether IQ tests measure intelligence and the answer of course is that everybody defines intelligence in their own way. I know some people who think that owning a bull-terrier dog is highly intelliegent.
But if the concept of intelligence is not precise the concept of IQ is. IQ is general problem-solving ability. As Binet discovered over a century ago, it just happens that people who are good at solving one sort of problem tend to be good at solving all sorts of other problems -- and it is that ability which IQ tests measure.
******************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Friday, October 25, 2002
KRUGMAN DEMOLISHED
Last Monday, I pointed out some of the weaknesses in the argument by Leftist economist Paul Krugman to the effect that inequality was increasing. I also said that I would leave it to people with better access to the statistics to do a real job on Krugman. That has now been done.
***************
HOW LEFT IS LEFT?
One of the readers of my article about Fascism on �Front Page� made the interesting comment that, when we talk about whether Fascism is of the Right or the Left, we need to remember that there are many extreme Rightists who would regard more moderate conservatives as Leftists. So who really is a Leftist?
In answer, I think a major point is that the further Left we go, the more government intervention in people�s lives is demanded and practiced. All governments exercise power over people�s lives in one way or another but the more Leftist you are, the more pervasive and all-encompassing you will want that government meddling, influence and direction to be. And by that criterion, Mussolini and the Fascists were FAR to the Left.
Note, however, that the intrusiveness of government into our lives is now very well advanced worldwide. ALL modern governments are more interventionist than they were 100 years ago. The 20th century was broadly a century of ever-advancing Leftism and we live at the end of that process. Government meddling and regulation CAN be rolled back -- Reagan and Thatcher showed us that -- but so far we have seen only a small amount of such rolling back. And, for all the Reagan/Thatcher efforts, the Western world is now more regulated and bureaucratized than it ever has been in history. Part of this is the work of the �Greens� -- who have managed to get an utter torrent of fresh regulation unleashed upon us. At least, however, government is not yet all pervasive and all-powerful in the modern-day Western world -- the way it was in extreme Left regimes such as Stalin�s, Hitler�s, Mao�s and Mussolini�s.
Although all the authoritarian governments that were responsible for megadeaths in the 20th century were Leftist, it must be noted that not all authoritarian governments are Leftist. Most governments throughout human history have in fact been authoritarian. They were usually called Kings or Emperors. And they were all pretty ferocious with those who were a challenge to their power. And they often came to power via military means. But, with very few exceptions, nobody would ever call them Leftist. Why not? Because it is WHAT THEY DO with their power that makes them Leftist or not. If they are just happy to stay in power they are neither Right nor Left but simply historically normal. But if they want to use their power to transform the whole of society and vastly reorganize everyone�s lives, however, they are Leftist.
Such military-based governments still pop up in the modern world too. The regimes of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, for instance, had a security apparatus that ensured that they stayed in power regardless of what their people might want but, aside from that, they just let people get on with their lives as before and in fact resisted change of most kinds.
Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia were also undemocratic, military-based regimes that were unscrupulous in protecting their power but many of their other policies were more like Western conservative governments: They encouraged gradual and cautious change. They used their power to free up their economies --- thus extending the liberties of their citizens in important respects. Thus they were clearly not Leftists either.
Both the static Franco/Salazar type of regime and the progressive Pinochet/Suharto type of regime are often referred to as conservative but that simply reflects the fact that both opposed the large-scale forced reorganization of society that is associated with Leftism. Neither type of regime shows much respect for human rights or any other of the philosophies that characterize conservatives in the Western democracies.
As a libertarian, I deplore all government meddling in people�s everyday lives but one has to recognize that it is a matter of degree. And while all governments are tyrannical to some degree, Rightist governments are intrinsically less so. A Rightist philosophy does embody respect for the individual and his rights and choices. The mass murders of Stalin, Mao and all of the many other Communist regimes show us, however, how much respect for the individual is built into a Leftist philosophy. Once they obtain absolute power, Leftists have no respect for other people at all.
*********************
BELAFONTE THE STALINIST
Scratch a Leftist and you will find a Stalinist underneath. Harry Belafonte certainly is a Stalinist. See Ronald Radosh. It makes more understandable Belafonte�s jealous attacks on influential black conservatives. Odd that it is conservatives who have mostly put US blacks into positions of power! Leftists only TALK about �empowerment�. Leftist talk is cheap. It is the same in Australia. Our first black Senator (Neville Bonner) was put into the Senate by the conservative side of politics.
**************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Last Monday, I pointed out some of the weaknesses in the argument by Leftist economist Paul Krugman to the effect that inequality was increasing. I also said that I would leave it to people with better access to the statistics to do a real job on Krugman. That has now been done.
***************
HOW LEFT IS LEFT?
One of the readers of my article about Fascism on �Front Page� made the interesting comment that, when we talk about whether Fascism is of the Right or the Left, we need to remember that there are many extreme Rightists who would regard more moderate conservatives as Leftists. So who really is a Leftist?
In answer, I think a major point is that the further Left we go, the more government intervention in people�s lives is demanded and practiced. All governments exercise power over people�s lives in one way or another but the more Leftist you are, the more pervasive and all-encompassing you will want that government meddling, influence and direction to be. And by that criterion, Mussolini and the Fascists were FAR to the Left.
Note, however, that the intrusiveness of government into our lives is now very well advanced worldwide. ALL modern governments are more interventionist than they were 100 years ago. The 20th century was broadly a century of ever-advancing Leftism and we live at the end of that process. Government meddling and regulation CAN be rolled back -- Reagan and Thatcher showed us that -- but so far we have seen only a small amount of such rolling back. And, for all the Reagan/Thatcher efforts, the Western world is now more regulated and bureaucratized than it ever has been in history. Part of this is the work of the �Greens� -- who have managed to get an utter torrent of fresh regulation unleashed upon us. At least, however, government is not yet all pervasive and all-powerful in the modern-day Western world -- the way it was in extreme Left regimes such as Stalin�s, Hitler�s, Mao�s and Mussolini�s.
Although all the authoritarian governments that were responsible for megadeaths in the 20th century were Leftist, it must be noted that not all authoritarian governments are Leftist. Most governments throughout human history have in fact been authoritarian. They were usually called Kings or Emperors. And they were all pretty ferocious with those who were a challenge to their power. And they often came to power via military means. But, with very few exceptions, nobody would ever call them Leftist. Why not? Because it is WHAT THEY DO with their power that makes them Leftist or not. If they are just happy to stay in power they are neither Right nor Left but simply historically normal. But if they want to use their power to transform the whole of society and vastly reorganize everyone�s lives, however, they are Leftist.
Such military-based governments still pop up in the modern world too. The regimes of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, for instance, had a security apparatus that ensured that they stayed in power regardless of what their people might want but, aside from that, they just let people get on with their lives as before and in fact resisted change of most kinds.
Pinochet in Chile and Suharto in Indonesia were also undemocratic, military-based regimes that were unscrupulous in protecting their power but many of their other policies were more like Western conservative governments: They encouraged gradual and cautious change. They used their power to free up their economies --- thus extending the liberties of their citizens in important respects. Thus they were clearly not Leftists either.
Both the static Franco/Salazar type of regime and the progressive Pinochet/Suharto type of regime are often referred to as conservative but that simply reflects the fact that both opposed the large-scale forced reorganization of society that is associated with Leftism. Neither type of regime shows much respect for human rights or any other of the philosophies that characterize conservatives in the Western democracies.
As a libertarian, I deplore all government meddling in people�s everyday lives but one has to recognize that it is a matter of degree. And while all governments are tyrannical to some degree, Rightist governments are intrinsically less so. A Rightist philosophy does embody respect for the individual and his rights and choices. The mass murders of Stalin, Mao and all of the many other Communist regimes show us, however, how much respect for the individual is built into a Leftist philosophy. Once they obtain absolute power, Leftists have no respect for other people at all.
*********************
BELAFONTE THE STALINIST
Scratch a Leftist and you will find a Stalinist underneath. Harry Belafonte certainly is a Stalinist. See Ronald Radosh. It makes more understandable Belafonte�s jealous attacks on influential black conservatives. Odd that it is conservatives who have mostly put US blacks into positions of power! Leftists only TALK about �empowerment�. Leftist talk is cheap. It is the same in Australia. Our first black Senator (Neville Bonner) was put into the Senate by the conservative side of politics.
**************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Thursday, October 24, 2002
COATHANGERS
This is the best laugh I have had for a while -- in case you have not yet seen it elsewhere.
************
CHANGES IN IQ
As psychometrics is my academic specialty, I have always taken an interest in studies of IQ. And a recent debate on �Slate� brings it all back to mind. One of the most interesting things to have turned up in recent years is the �Flynn effect� -- named after Jim Flynn, who first noted it. What Flynn noted is that average IQ scores have been rising steadily over the last century. The young people of today seem to be much smarter than their grandparents.
How do we explain that? The participants in the �Slate� debate did not think that they could explain it but I think I can if I put my sociologist�s hat on (I also taught sociology for 12 years at a major Australian university):
I see the Flynn effect as just one example of the way modernization has improved various indexes of people�s physical health and wellbeing. People also now (for instance) live longer and grow taller than they did a century ago. And IQ is related to general physical functioning. If the body as a whole is working well, the brain should in general be working well too. The brain is after all just another part of the body. And the Terman & Oden (1947) �Genetic studies of genius� did show that high IQ children grew up to be taller, healthier, better adjusted etc.
But why has modernization improved many health and wellbeing indices? The obvious factor is improved medical care generally but two areas of medical care may be particularly important: Mass vaccination campaigns and improved perinatal care. Many illnesses can have a damaging effect on the brain as well on the rest of the body so preventing major illnesses through vaccination should be generally beneficial. And by improved perinatal care I mean better obstetric services (including a now very high rate of caesarians) and more advice and support for new mothers to enable them to look after their babies better. But better nutrition, more widespread hygiene practices, piped water, efficient sewerage systems, basic public health measures, more stimulation by way of modern entertainment media and more years spent in the educational system could also of course play a role. The infant brain is known to develop more complex connections when subjected to a high level of stimulation and there is much in the modern world that is far more stimulating than the village or small-town life of yesteryear.
Sadly for those who hate the idea of genetic influences, however, the IQ increases have not closed the usual big gap between average black and white IQ levels. Negroes have forged ahead but whites have forged ahead too.
References:
Ray, J.J. (1988) IQ gain as an outcome of improved obstetric practice. The Psychologist, 1, 498.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
******************
JEWISH IQ
I have recently had an interesting correspondence with Richard Lynn about Israeli IQ. He notes that Israelis of European origin (Ashkenazim) have an average IQ of about the European norm (100) whereas Israelis from the Arab lands (Sephardim) have the quite low average IQ of 88.
What does that say about Arab IQ? Seeing that those Jews who are racially mainly Arab ought to be at least no thicker than the parent Arab population, it suggests to me that Arabs in general are pretty thick. That would certainly go a long way towards explaining what I suggested (in my post of 18th October) was their stupid reaction to negotiation with Israel.
The other question is why the Israeli Ashkenazim are not well ABOVE the European norm. As Rushton summarizes the recent American data: �The average IQ for African Americans was found to be lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 115, respectively)�. So why do not Israeli Ashkenazis average 115 too? I am afraid that the obvious explanation is that it was mainly the foolish (idealistic?) Jews of European origin who have ended up in Israel. The smart ones are in New York.
Lynn points out, however, that the figure for Jews quoted by Rushton is based on limited sampling. Lynn believes that a figure of 108 is better substantiated. In statistician�s terms, however, 108 is still quite a high figure (around half a standard deviation above the mean).
********************
BLACK IQ
There is an impressively scholarly article here by Glayde Whitney summarizing the results of the Minnesota study of transracial adoption.
Researchers always find a huge gap (of about 15 IQ points) between the average IQ of American blacks and the average IQ of American whites -- and American Leftists always attribute this to the poor upbringing that black children receive (and since that is not very complimentary to black mothers they then blame black �culture� -- and that, of course, is the fault of whites!).
So the obvious experiment to test the Leftist theory is to have black children adopted into white families and see what happens. Will they grow up with IQs at the same average level as whites? If upbringing is the key, they should. Some well-intentioned whites actually did just such an adoption program on a fairly large scale in Minnesota in the 1970s. The result years later? There was still that same old black/white gap in IQ when the children concerned had grown up. The implication is, as so many other studies suggest, that it is the African gene pool that is responsible for the lower black IQs.
The only policy implication that I see as flowing from an acceptance of this in a decent society is that we may often have to treat some blacks as we do any other handicapped people -- kindly. On the other hand, a policy founded on the assumption that the differences do not exist -- as �Affimative action� is -- must in the circumstances be a cruel hoax that imposes unrealistic expectations on many blacks, discriminates unfairly against many individual whites and discredits the achievements of the many blacks who can achieve well under their own steam.
****************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
This is the best laugh I have had for a while -- in case you have not yet seen it elsewhere.
************
CHANGES IN IQ
As psychometrics is my academic specialty, I have always taken an interest in studies of IQ. And a recent debate on �Slate� brings it all back to mind. One of the most interesting things to have turned up in recent years is the �Flynn effect� -- named after Jim Flynn, who first noted it. What Flynn noted is that average IQ scores have been rising steadily over the last century. The young people of today seem to be much smarter than their grandparents.
How do we explain that? The participants in the �Slate� debate did not think that they could explain it but I think I can if I put my sociologist�s hat on (I also taught sociology for 12 years at a major Australian university):
I see the Flynn effect as just one example of the way modernization has improved various indexes of people�s physical health and wellbeing. People also now (for instance) live longer and grow taller than they did a century ago. And IQ is related to general physical functioning. If the body as a whole is working well, the brain should in general be working well too. The brain is after all just another part of the body. And the Terman & Oden (1947) �Genetic studies of genius� did show that high IQ children grew up to be taller, healthier, better adjusted etc.
But why has modernization improved many health and wellbeing indices? The obvious factor is improved medical care generally but two areas of medical care may be particularly important: Mass vaccination campaigns and improved perinatal care. Many illnesses can have a damaging effect on the brain as well on the rest of the body so preventing major illnesses through vaccination should be generally beneficial. And by improved perinatal care I mean better obstetric services (including a now very high rate of caesarians) and more advice and support for new mothers to enable them to look after their babies better. But better nutrition, more widespread hygiene practices, piped water, efficient sewerage systems, basic public health measures, more stimulation by way of modern entertainment media and more years spent in the educational system could also of course play a role. The infant brain is known to develop more complex connections when subjected to a high level of stimulation and there is much in the modern world that is far more stimulating than the village or small-town life of yesteryear.
Sadly for those who hate the idea of genetic influences, however, the IQ increases have not closed the usual big gap between average black and white IQ levels. Negroes have forged ahead but whites have forged ahead too.
References:
Ray, J.J. (1988) IQ gain as an outcome of improved obstetric practice. The Psychologist, 1, 498.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
******************
JEWISH IQ
I have recently had an interesting correspondence with Richard Lynn about Israeli IQ. He notes that Israelis of European origin (Ashkenazim) have an average IQ of about the European norm (100) whereas Israelis from the Arab lands (Sephardim) have the quite low average IQ of 88.
What does that say about Arab IQ? Seeing that those Jews who are racially mainly Arab ought to be at least no thicker than the parent Arab population, it suggests to me that Arabs in general are pretty thick. That would certainly go a long way towards explaining what I suggested (in my post of 18th October) was their stupid reaction to negotiation with Israel.
The other question is why the Israeli Ashkenazim are not well ABOVE the European norm. As Rushton summarizes the recent American data: �The average IQ for African Americans was found to be lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 115, respectively)�. So why do not Israeli Ashkenazis average 115 too? I am afraid that the obvious explanation is that it was mainly the foolish (idealistic?) Jews of European origin who have ended up in Israel. The smart ones are in New York.
Lynn points out, however, that the figure for Jews quoted by Rushton is based on limited sampling. Lynn believes that a figure of 108 is better substantiated. In statistician�s terms, however, 108 is still quite a high figure (around half a standard deviation above the mean).
********************
BLACK IQ
There is an impressively scholarly article here by Glayde Whitney summarizing the results of the Minnesota study of transracial adoption.
Researchers always find a huge gap (of about 15 IQ points) between the average IQ of American blacks and the average IQ of American whites -- and American Leftists always attribute this to the poor upbringing that black children receive (and since that is not very complimentary to black mothers they then blame black �culture� -- and that, of course, is the fault of whites!).
So the obvious experiment to test the Leftist theory is to have black children adopted into white families and see what happens. Will they grow up with IQs at the same average level as whites? If upbringing is the key, they should. Some well-intentioned whites actually did just such an adoption program on a fairly large scale in Minnesota in the 1970s. The result years later? There was still that same old black/white gap in IQ when the children concerned had grown up. The implication is, as so many other studies suggest, that it is the African gene pool that is responsible for the lower black IQs.
The only policy implication that I see as flowing from an acceptance of this in a decent society is that we may often have to treat some blacks as we do any other handicapped people -- kindly. On the other hand, a policy founded on the assumption that the differences do not exist -- as �Affimative action� is -- must in the circumstances be a cruel hoax that imposes unrealistic expectations on many blacks, discriminates unfairly against many individual whites and discredits the achievements of the many blacks who can achieve well under their own steam.
****************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
MORE ON MUSSSOLINI
My article showing that modern-day American Leftism is largely the same as Mussolini�s prewar Italian Fascism -- but minus Mussolini�s patriotism -- got top billing in yesterday�s �Front Page� online magazine.
One very telling point that I somehow omitted to include was that F.D. Roosevelt, found in Mussolini�s policies part of his inspiration for America�s semi-socialist �New Deal� and referred to Mussolini in 1933 as "That admirable Italian gentleman�.
Various people have reminded me that Ayn Rand too was outspoken in identifying the Leftist nature of Nazism and Fascism.
*****************
BRING ON THE UGLIES
Nature imitates art, as Oscar Wilde used to say. On various occasions (e.g. here and here) I have pointed out that categorizing and discriminating against people is something that we all do -- and asked mockingly if the Leftists who say that we should not categorize and discriminate also think that we should stop preferring beauty to ugliness (for instance). A very politically correct nutty professor from Norway has now taken me at my word and claimed that we should have more ugly people on TV!
**************
GLOBAL NON-WARMING
I normally do not comment on Greenie claims. They are generally just too crazy for me to bother with. Pandering to Greenies costs us a fortune, however, so when even the Left-leaning BBC is publicizing scientific findings showing that human activity is irrelevant to global temperature, I think I should do what I can to publicize it. Pity that human-caused global warming is taught as gospel in our schools! It would not be the first time that utter nonsense has been taught in schools though. For more of the science on global warming see Aaron Oakley.
*************
HOFFER
I have finally got around to reading a bit of the famous thesis, "The true believer" by Eric Hoffer. He attempts to analyse what is general to fanatical followers of any extreme movement, political or religious but he wrote it in 1951 so the primary model for such people in his mind was obviously Nazism. He saw true believers as in need of both excitement and direction from a powerful leader. He saw them as weak people who needed to belong. I think the need for excitement and belonging does apply to Leftists but I am very doubtful that they need direction from others. They are in fact a very fractious lot who are just as likely to murder one-another as anything else. If anybody would like to email me their ideas on the matter I would be interested.
***************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
My article showing that modern-day American Leftism is largely the same as Mussolini�s prewar Italian Fascism -- but minus Mussolini�s patriotism -- got top billing in yesterday�s �Front Page� online magazine.
One very telling point that I somehow omitted to include was that F.D. Roosevelt, found in Mussolini�s policies part of his inspiration for America�s semi-socialist �New Deal� and referred to Mussolini in 1933 as "That admirable Italian gentleman�.
Various people have reminded me that Ayn Rand too was outspoken in identifying the Leftist nature of Nazism and Fascism.
*****************
BRING ON THE UGLIES
Nature imitates art, as Oscar Wilde used to say. On various occasions (e.g. here and here) I have pointed out that categorizing and discriminating against people is something that we all do -- and asked mockingly if the Leftists who say that we should not categorize and discriminate also think that we should stop preferring beauty to ugliness (for instance). A very politically correct nutty professor from Norway has now taken me at my word and claimed that we should have more ugly people on TV!
**************
GLOBAL NON-WARMING
I normally do not comment on Greenie claims. They are generally just too crazy for me to bother with. Pandering to Greenies costs us a fortune, however, so when even the Left-leaning BBC is publicizing scientific findings showing that human activity is irrelevant to global temperature, I think I should do what I can to publicize it. Pity that human-caused global warming is taught as gospel in our schools! It would not be the first time that utter nonsense has been taught in schools though. For more of the science on global warming see Aaron Oakley.
*************
HOFFER
I have finally got around to reading a bit of the famous thesis, "The true believer" by Eric Hoffer. He attempts to analyse what is general to fanatical followers of any extreme movement, political or religious but he wrote it in 1951 so the primary model for such people in his mind was obviously Nazism. He saw true believers as in need of both excitement and direction from a powerful leader. He saw them as weak people who needed to belong. I think the need for excitement and belonging does apply to Leftists but I am very doubtful that they need direction from others. They are in fact a very fractious lot who are just as likely to murder one-another as anything else. If anybody would like to email me their ideas on the matter I would be interested.
***************
Comments? Email me:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
LEFTIST ENVY
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.
***************
FEMINAZIS
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?
Reference:
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.
**************
HITLER, MUSSOLINI AND WORLD WAR 2
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.
***************
IRAQ AND OIL
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�.
***************
BALI ATROCITY
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.
HomePage
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.
***************
FEMINAZIS
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?
Reference:
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.
**************
HITLER, MUSSOLINI AND WORLD WAR 2
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.
***************
IRAQ AND OIL
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�.
***************
BALI ATROCITY
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.
HomePage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Eugenio Pacelli, a righteous Gentile, a true man of God and a brilliant Pope
