More Adventures in Economics

Some light bedtime reading; two articles on economics:

The first, from Cato.org by Clifford F. Thies:

The paradox of thrift simply took Keynesian economics to its illogical conclusion. If governments should increase their spending during recessions, why should not households? If there were no principles of "sound finance" for public finance, from where would such principles come for family finance? Eat, drink and be merry, for in the long-run we are all dead.

The Keynesian revolution was about overthrowing the doctrines of balanced budgets and sound money, free international trade, and laissez-faire economics, and adopting instead the doctrines of deficit spending, inflation, and the managed economy. Adherence to the tried and true was to be replaced by trust in the new, self-confident generation of macroeconomists, who were not to be constrained by old-fashioned precepts, but who were to be free to do as they knew best.

The second by Robert P. Murphy of the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

The most central lesson of economic science—going back further than Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor at least to Mandeville's 1732 Fable of the Bees—is that in a system based on private property, private vices can actually be harnessed for the benefit of the public at large. Specifically, a market economy steers greedy businesspeople into staying up all night, thinking about how best to satisfy their customers.

Economics is good for the soul.

Cartoon from ShiaTV

h/t BlazingCatFur


this is priceless. Too many things to comment on so I'll just let it speak for itself.

Emma Samms: 50 today

28th August 2010



What a woman.

While I don't usually go in for "rule 5" blogging, Emma Samms' 50th birthday should not go unmarked.

Happy birthday, lady. You will always be in my Top 10

Fintan Lane is a Pussy

On Ireland's TV3, "peace activist" Fintan Lane complains of "full frontal violence" by the Israeli forces as he attempted to break the blockade of Gaza as a crew member on Challenger One, part of the Gaza flotilla. Being Irish he should have plenty experience of terrorism and violence on the island on which he and I were both born. But, clearly not, nor has he ever witnessed a Saturday night fight in Dublin or Cork:

"the violence was ferocious"

he said, as the Israelis confronted the activists as though they were "terrorists" (imagine!) or

"people they considered to be the enemy"

Gee, Fintard, where could they have got that idea, with you trying to break their blockade and all?

"I think the Israelis are capable of crossing any line"

he whined. This next one's a beaut:

"The Israelis don't like Hamas"

Gee, your knowledge of Middle Eastern politics is astounding.

MidEast Peace Talks About to Resume; Could Somebody Tell Indymedia?

From Breitbart:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is proposing twice-monthly meetings with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas after direct peace talks resume next week, a top Israeli official said on Friday.

Netanyahu has told several government ministers of his proposal, which has already been passed on to US officials ahead of next Thursday's talks relaunch in Washington, the official said.

The premier said that if the resumed negotiations are to be successful, it is "vital that they be conducted between leaders" and in the greatest possible secrecy, the official added.

On Thursday, Netanyahu began selecting a negotiating team to accompany him to Washington, his office said.

He is aiming to form a "small team that can carry out under his supervision speedy, serious and detailed talks," a statement said.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an ultra-nationalist who has talked down the prospects for the new negotiations, will not be part of the Israeli delegation, press reports said.

Lieberman's spokesman declined to comment.

Thursday's summit will be the first direct negotations between the two sides since the Palestinians broke off talks in December 2008 after Israel launched a devastating offensive against the Gaza Strip.

Late on Thursday, veteran US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross arrived in Israel for a final round of shuttle diplomacy ahead of next week's meeting, army radio said.

He will be seeking to narrow the differences between the two sides, in particular over the future of a partial Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, outside annexed Arab east Jerusalem, which is due to end on September 26.

Good news all round. However, despite having relented to my annoying behaviour and finally publishing (most of) my pro-Israel comments - although removing my name from the "latest comments" page - Indymedia.ie continues to publish anti-Israel material and encourage boycotts of Israeli-produced goods in a sinister echo of Nazi-era propaganda. Here are some I've been keeping track of:

One

Two

Three

Four

They are tolerating pro-Israel messages for now, but allow all kinds of anti-Israel and antisemitic racism, personal attacks on commenters and suggestions that pro-Israel (or even neutral) commenters are in the pay of Tel Aviv. Suggest, in jest, that others are in the employ of Tehran, and - poof! - deleted.

Nothing like honest and open "independent" debate!

Here's one (not mine) that, I suspect, won't last long...

BBC Panorama Redux

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The BBC Panorama programme (posted here) on the Mavi Marmara incident has attracted criticism for not being anti-Israel enough. It has inspired this "open letter to the BBC" from Irish peacetard Mairead Maguire.

Here 'tis , with my observations in red:

Bias and falsities in reportage of Mavi Marmara killings

TOn 16 August last, the BBC Panaroma team broadcasted a programme on the killing of 9 people on the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010. It turned out to be loaded with misrepresentation, lack of truth and bias. Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire who was on board the MV Rachel Corrie, part of the same flotilla as the Mavi Marmara, here demands a reply from the BBC Panorama team that falsified the evidence and biased it in favour of Israeli propaganda

2lst August, 2010

Open Letter to the Panorama BBC Team

Dear BBC Panorama Team

I write to you regarding your programme of 16th August, 2010, about the Freedom Flotilla and particularly the killings of unarmed civilians by Israeli Navy Seals on the ship MV "Mavi Marmara', on 3lst May, 2010.
[Israeli marine mammals are accused of killing unarmed civilians. Yes, Ms.Maguire, the Israel Navy doesn't have SEALs- that would be the US - they have Shayetet 13 instead.]

I have been campaigning for the rights of Palestinians for over ten years. I have visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories many times. [so what?]
I was part of the Freedom Flotilla in May on the MV 'Rachel Corrie', my third journey on a Free Gaza boat. I am deeply disappointed at the misrepresentation, lack of truth, and bias displayed by your programme.

This programme had an opportunity to inform and educate the public about the background to the flotilla, the motives of the passengers and crew on board the MV 'Mavi Marmara', who (like all of us on the boats trying to get to Gaza) were concerned for the suffering of the people of Gaza. [really? argument from good intentions doesn't hold water, lady. Speaking of motives, did you miss the part about some of the crew wanting to be martyrs?]

Over 650 people - from all faiths and none, - from over 40 countries, representing the human family [hahaha] and uniting in non-violent resistance to break a cruel siege [siege? that means a desire to conquer the territory, the opposite of Israel's intentions] (collective punishment is illegal under International Law [which is why food is being allowed through. And do you think the election of Hamas deserves no consequences whatsoever?]) to bring hope and support to the people of Gaza. Before leaving their various ports, as part of the undertaking, all passengers made pledges of nonviolence [really?], all people, and cargoes were searched, and all undertook to go in a spirit of peace to resist (as is our moral right and duty) the breaking of Human Rights and International Law by Israel through its siege of Gaza and occupation of Palestine.

This journey of courage and call for justice by people on board the MV 'Mavi Marmara' and the flotilla represented the conscience of the world. The boats carried no arms, and were no threat to Israel, but what they did carry were voices of dissent from every corner of the world, (including Jews) saying to Israel 'no more sieges, occupations, wars and threats of violence', we refuse to be silent in the face of your ethnic cleansing and persecution of the Palestinian people. [anything you want to say to Hamas? .. anything at all ...?]

Our motives were honourable, we did it for the children of Gaza, knowing that in the end, truth and justice will prevail.

Sadly, the Panorama programme did not see the true significance of this historic journey and missed an opportunity for the media to fulfil its responsibility to 'tell the truth and nothing but the truth'. They chose instead to try to demonize the passengers on the MV 'Mavi
Marmara' from the word go by trying to make them out as violent terrorists. They chose to collude with the Israeli propaganda of lies and manipulation of facts thus trying to turn the victims into aggressors. [sounds fair to me. I thought showing the one Muslim guy trying to save the wounded Israelis from the other angry crew members gave the programme a very good sense of balance, actually].

The fact that Israeli commandos started shooting from the zodiac assault boats and the helicopters from the word go was not stated. The audio and video footage used (provided by Israeli military intelligence) was proven to be doctored, and the IDF have admitted this.

Your programme showed audio containing what was purported to be anti-Semitic remarks issued over the radio by members on the flotilla, and you showed a clip of a percussion grenade exploding in one of the Israeli zodiac assault boats. These things never happened [how the fuck would you know? you were on a different boat]. There is so much commentary in this documentary that is inaccurate that it does a grave disservice to investigative journalism and the BBC.

But the real people hurt by this programme, are the families of the 9 unarmed passengers who were assassinated in this unprovoked, illegal, massacre by the Israeli navy seals. So too the more than 40 unarmed people who were injured on the illegal military assault in International waters,
whose only crime was to care about Gaza and its people. [spare me! do you actually believe this crap? I promise you the families are thrilled their loved one is up in Paradise right now. And leave the marine mammals out of it, please. You need to do some reading up on "International Waters" too.]

The programme failed totally to cover the real suffering of the Palestinian people, it failed totally to cover the fact that the mass kidnapping of 650 unarmed world citizens [world citizens??] and the high-jacking of 7 boats, was in International waters and it failed totally to ask the real questions of Israel 'why is this Port of Gaza - the only port in the Middle East to be a closed military zone (42 years) - not open for the people of Gaza and Palestine to travel
and trade with the world as is their human right? [why is it closed? if you need an answer to that, then there's no hope for you.]

Perhaps, the BBC Panorama will stop taking the propaganda of the Israeli Government (Jane Corbin travelling on Israeli Zodiacs embedded with Israeli military, hardly leads to objective report of facts). These same zodiacs which boarded all the flotilla ships (including the one I travelled on) kidnapped unarmed citizens, hijacked boats (an act of piracy), confiscated all possessions (which Israel still hold onto), forced all under military arms to go to Israel, detained all, violently assaulted many, imprisoned and repatriated foreigners – all an abuse of our human rights and most of which was not reported by BBC Panorama. [you got off lightly]

The role of the BBC is not to give credibility to the Israeli military but to report facts and allow the public to make up their own minds. By planting doubt in the minds of the public about the events on board the MV 'Mavi Marmara'. It has done a grave injustice and further injury to the
families of all those who were assassinated by Israeli Navy seals, on that terrible morning of 3lst May, 2010. [so you're upset that your biased views aren't being peddled the way you want them to be. suck it up.]

I would like to ask the BBC Panorama Team, 'what do you intend to do to redress the injustice you have done to the good names of all those who were killed, and injured, and their families on board the MV 'Mavi Marmara' on 3lst May, 2010?

I await your response.

Peace,

Mairead Maguire

Nobel Peace Laureate (www.peacepeople.com)

Tel: 0773 614 7713

*****
I have always wondered at the so-called "Peace Activists" who support the "rights" of the Palestinian people but not those of Israeli citizens. I would have thought that peace activists might at least want to pretend to be objective and neutral. After all, you don't see the Red Cross rushing into war zones draped in the colours of one of the warring factions, do you?

A Clash of Civilisations: Two Excellent Articles on theGround Zero Mosque

Two gems appeared today in the magical world of the interweb, and both are worth reading and digesting very carefully.

The first is by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, writing in the Wall Street Journal online, discussing Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations model:

The greatest advantage of Huntington's civilizational model of international relations is that it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. And it helps us to identify the internal conflicts within civilizations, particularly the historic rivalries between Arabs, Turks and Persians for leadership of the Islamic world.

The second is from African-American Muslim Abdur-Rahman Muhammad at PajamasMedia, who is not a fan of Imam Rauf or the Ground Zero Mosque:

The underlying problem in this bitter controversy is that Muslims in America suffer a deserved trust deficit, wherein they are seen as a foreign and dangerous element. Perhaps if the $100 million being spent on this mosque were used to build, say, a hospital, this perception would begin to change.

Moderate Muslims and "Team Islam"

Christopher Caldwell said that, while many European Muslims are not very religious they do, when push comes to shove, believe in Team Islam.

I have a friend in Cape Town who is a Muslim. She drinks, she takes drugs, she has sex with strangers and doesn't wear any head covering. She resists attempts by her father to send her (out of wedlock) child to Islamic school. I asked her if the kids learn to fly planes there and she laughed: in sum, a rather un-Islamic Muslim.

My weak joke led to a discussion of 9/11 and guess who she thinks was responsible?

That's right: Israel.

Death in the Med: BBC's Panorama Looks at the Mavi Marmara Incident

Courtesy of Voltaire's Ghost :

(after having been removed from several locations)

This controversial BBC documentary has inspired a flood of complaints from the anti-Israel lobby because it tells the truth about what happened on the Mavi Marmara and the truth is not favourable to Turkey, the "Free Gaza Movement" and the so-called "peace activists" who were in fact self-professed "martyrs."

The More and More I think About it....

.... the more I realise I have one very fundamental belief that underlies all others. And it is that, put as succinctly as possible, bad ideas lead to bad outcomes.

Hardly radical, is it?
Well, that's the point - but it seems surprisingly rare today in a world where poor social outcomes must be seen as the result of "oppression" by someone else, external factors that are in no way the result of the actions of those suffering "disadvantage". Likewise, "privilege" is viewed as an accident of history and in no way a result of positive ideas or hard work, or even the cultural adaptiveness of the group involved.

I think I've partly realised this while reading Thomas Sowell's book, Affirmative Action Around the World, which I'm about halfway through. It is truly eye-opening.

More on this later, after I mull it over.

Great article from The Propagandist:
The contrast beween the respective fates of Jewish and Palestinian refugees is stark indeed.

Why Are The Palestinians Still Refugees?

Lebanon's parliament recently passed a law allowing Palestinian refugees to work legally in Lebanon. As a refugee myself, this news makes me reflect on my own experience.

I am also a refugee from the Arab countries. But I am not a Palestinian. I am a Jewish refugee forced out of the land of my birth in Libya.

I know that Jewish refugees from the Arab countries were larger in numbers than the Palestinian refugees. Yet, we have been successfully integrated. So I ask the question: "Why do the Palestinians still remain in squalid refugee camps?"

My thoughts turn to those savage days when my family fled Libya in 1967. We narrowly escaped death at the hands of a bus driver who, instead of taking us to the airport, tried to burn us alive inside the bus.

I am one of nearly one million Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa who were forced to flee their ancestral homes in the last 60 years. I am now the voice of an Arab minority culture that has been ethnically cleansed.

Jews are amongst the oldest existing indigenous group in the region. We have lived throughout the Middle East and North Africa for millennia, since long before the Arab Muslim conquest in the 7th century. Not that this simple historical fact gets the attention of certain international journalists and activists who at times seem obsessed with delegitimizing the modern Israeli state.

For all our contributions and success, we encountered racism and oppression that ultimately forced us out.

Under Islamic “dhimmi” rules, Jews (and Christians) were often subjugated and persecuted. This carried on to the modern era. In the 20th century, synagogues were bombed, family members thrown in jail on trumped-up charges, and innocent people lynched or hanged before cheering crowds. Arab governments froze bank accounts and allowed Jews to leave with just one suitcase.

Though the circumstances of the exodus differed from country-to-country, the anguish of being uprooted from the only homeland we ever knew was the same. No memorial exists to commemorate these once vibrant communities in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, and beyond.

My community in Libya, once 38,000 strong, is now extinct. Our cultural heritage has been obliterated. In short, over 2500 years of history has vanished.

As we say in Arabic, Ma fdel shei—there is nothing left. I cannot even go back to Libya to visit my grandfather’s grave.

Nevertheless, the plight of the two refugee populations, Jews and Palestinians, is a study in contrasts when it comes to refugee resettlement.

Israel absorbed 600,000 Jewish refugees. Indeed, it became the largest and most successful refugee camp in the Middle East because it gave the Jews from the Arab Countries dignity and hope.

We were successfully integrated us in Israeli society. The Mizrahi Jews now comprise over half the population of Israel and hold top positions in Israeli society. Other refugees went to the U.S. and Europe. We rapidly integrated in our new host countries. These Jews have been integrated without any money or help from the United Nations even though the UN recognized us as "bona fide" refugees.

By contrast, the UN pours millions of dollars a year to UNWRA United Nations Work and Relief Agency to provide for the Palestinian refugees. This they have done for the past 59 years.

Except for Jordan most Arab countries to this day refuse to integrate Palestinian refugees into their own societies. It is shameful that Lebanon with a population of 400,000 Palestinian refugees keeps them in 12 refugee camps According to the BBC, "many have open sewers running through tight mazes of alleys. There are severe restrictions on repairs and improvements to the cheaply- built dwellings."

Why is it that the Palestinians continue to live in squalid refugee camps? Why do they remain a people homeless and on welfare for over 60 years, even under their own Palestinian Authority?

The Arab leadership sinned doubly by driving the Jews from their own homes in nine Arab countries and at the same time refusing hospitality and integration to their own Palestinian brothers who sought refuge in Arab countries.

Lebanon is no exception. It is almost inconceivable that Palestinians have been living in Lebanon for over 60 years and still are not afforded the most basic human and civil rights which most countries grant to refugees.

The Arab countries continue to perpetuate the misery of their Palestinian “brothers” for their own political ends, stoking the flames of Palestinian "victimhood". Religious fanatics exploit the refugees’ suffering and sow hatred against Jews, delivering willing suicide bombers to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Hate is a weapon of mass destruction. The same forces of hatred that turned me into a refugee and nearly burned me alive on a bus in the Libyan desert continue to deliver terror around the world: Bus bombings in Israel, 9/11 in the United States, hostages in Bombay are all the result of hate education in Madrassah schools.

The Palestinians who have made their homes in Western countries, have been successfully integrated, they have a life and they are contributing to their host societies and their children are not recruited by Hezbollah.

Lebanon should take a moral inventory of their own treatment of the Palestinians before they join the flottilla of food for their poor Palestinians in Gaza.

Lebanon continues to deny 400,000 Palestinian refugees the most basic rights, like the right to buy a home, or the right to become citizens of a country they have lived in for over 60 years. I say to their government: "Haram Alekem." Shame on you for discriminating against your own brothers and sisters.

Gina Bublil Waldman was born in Tripoli to a family that had lived in Libya for centuries. She is one of nearly a million Jews who were forced to flee their homes in Arab lands from 1948-1970. She has received the Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award and has given testimony to the UN Human Rights Council. She is the co-founder of JIMENA (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa), created to bear witness to the suffering of other Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

English Vicar Conducts Sham Marriages

Of course Nigerians are behind this scam, which is also carried out in Ireland and who know where else. Which is not to say others are not involved, and in this case all the guilty parties have been caught. One can only hope some deportations take place too....

From theToronto Sun:

A vicar was found guilty on Thursday of conducting hundreds of sham marriages between African nationals and cash-strapped eastern Europeans to allow illegal immigrants to gain residency in Britain.

Rev Alex Brown, 61, presided over 360 fake ceremonies over four years, including several cases in which participants canceled one wedding only to marry someone else a month or two later, and another in which a person was registered to marry two people on the same day.

Of the hundreds of people Brown married, 90 couples were registered as living in one road in the parish and in some cases several brides and grooms claimed to live in the same house, the Press Association reported.

Brown's co-defendant Vladymyr Buchak, 33, was also found guilty of conspiring to breach immigration laws by paying eastern Europeans up to 3,000 pounds ($4,700) to marry Africans, mainly from Nigeria, to allow them to obtain the documents they needed to live and work in Britain.

The court heard Buchak, a Ukrainian national who had himself been living illegally in Britain since at least 2004, was responsible for "cajoling and persuading" the eastern Europeans into the marriages of convenience, preying on migrant workers in the area who were desperate to earn money.

FORGOT PASSPORTS

Although Buchak was seen as the main organizer of the operation, prosecutor David Walbank said there was no doubt Brown must have been fully aware that the majority of the weddings he was conducting at the church were shams.

Giving evidence during the seven-week trial, Brown insisted he only ever married couples he was sure were getting married for the right reasons and exceptions would only be made if the bride-to-be was imminently expected to give birth.

But he admitted he occasionally forgot to check the passports of foreign nationals wanting to get married to make sure they had indefinite leave to remain in Britain.

He said he became suspicious of one or two couples, but only because of vast differences in age between the bride and groom.

The court heard Brown conducted a total of 383 marriages at his church in East Sussex, southeast England, over the period, a 30-fold increase on the 13 he had conducted over the previous four years.

Brown was arrested on June 30 last year following an investigation by police and the UK Border Agency.

During a search of his vicarage and the church at St Leonards-on-Sea, police found documents he had doctored, including the church's electoral roll plus a second, altered copy, which he had filled out to hide the dramatic increase in weddings over which he was presiding.

The jury at Lewes Crown Court is still deliberating on a third defendant, Nigerian-born Michael Adelasoye, 50, a specialist in immigration law who is accused of helping the African participants by advising them with their applications for residency once they were married.

Quisling Lives: Norway Goes Dhimmi

From JPost.com

In Norway, it is not the court system but the government itself which has become accomplice to Jihad. Norway's Minister of Education Kristin Halvorsen was recently photographed in front of a demonstration sign saying that the US and Israel are the real Axis of Evil. Her boss, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, expressed public support for two doctors who helped Hamas during the Cast Lead Operation. Those two doctors are the authors of an anti-Semitic book that has been praised by Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr StØre. Norway's State Secretary for Environment and International Development Ingrid Fiskaa has declared that the UN should bombard Israel.

The Intifada Handbook

For the efficient spreading of Zionhass throughout the world.

Here are some tips for foreign opponents of Israel:

1. Advocate a boycott of Israeli goods. But only boycott products like oranges and potatoes that you can obtain locally, not anything important like Intel microchips (developed in Israel), computer operating systems (like Windows XP and Vista) or any of the many advances in medicine that come from Israel. Why should you have to make sacrifices for your beliefs?

2. Always refer to your cause as "Free Gaza", giving the impression that the region lacks independence. Use the term freedom in the Orwellian sense, as in "freedom from Jews"; ignore the inconvenient fact that Gaza in not occupied by Israel, has its own government, and is as free as any medieval Islamic despotism can be. (i.e. not very).

3. Always refer to Jihadists as 'freedom fighters'. Remember, they are "desperate"; so desperate they will send their children to die for their cause. Their 'desperation' comes from Israeli oppression, not from their own religious beliefs.

4. Always refer to Israel and her supporters as Nazis. Once you do this, there'll be no need to listen to their opinions, which saves time and energy. What? Who said that? where?

5. Refer to foreign Jihadists as "peace activists". Peace, for radical Moslems, means lack of resistance to Islam, so in a way, they are activists for peace.

6. Remember that the backwardness of society in the Arab lands comes from their lack of self esteem, which is a result of the existence of the Zionist Nazi-State. Were it not for Israel, The middle east would be a utopia of womens', minority and gay rights, world-beating technological excellence, and economic supremacy.

7. The Palestinian people are an indigenous, colonised Native People, similar to American Indians and Aboriginal Australians. This must always be emphasised. Historical Arab and Islamic Imperialism must not be mentioned, as it only lasted for 1,300 years of human history. It was of course completely different from European colonialism and should not be compared in any way. And they only had a few slaves.

8. If it seems like Moslems hate you, it is because of your colonial and pro-American attitudes. Forgive them. You deserve it. Moslem opposition to Western colonialism stems from their deeply humanitarian and socialistic culture, and has nothing to do with its having put an end to Islamic colonialism.

9. Never let conversation focus on Israel's liberal democracy and its tolerance of minorities, gays, women and immigrants. Remember, an Islamic Palestine will be no less liberal, democratic and tolerant, so the argument is moot (see no.6 above).

10. Remember, your leftist credentials are not affected by your siding with one set of conservative nationalists against another set of conservative nationalists, because the side you support are less white than you are. This means that you are fighting for the rights of brown people and there's nothing un-leftist about that.


Greetings to readers and fans of BlazingCatFur, Square Mile Wife and The Daily Rasp !

Binks vs. the Libtards

see here for more

~ SAITH TEH BINKS– Please DONATE to the Kaffir Kanuck Coffee Club “Buy a Soldier a Coffee” Campaign …. (mooseandsquirrel.ca)

“Certainty of death? Small chance of success? What are we waiting for?”

~ Gimli, Son of Gloin ~

---

They’re Out To Get Us!

~ ITEM: Ideological, Politically Correct term of the day.

~ DO YOU BELIEVE that a secret army of Christers is going to take over your country? You may be a liberal utopitard. A liberal utopitard religionist, who believes– like certain militant Muslims do– that only infidels can do wrong.

Liberal utopitard actors pontificating? Good. Liberal utopitard bureaucrats, judges or whomever re-writing everything in sight to be more liberal? Hurray. Rich (conservative) people getting screwed over? Huzzah. Criminals getting more rights than victims or society? Au naturel! Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens? No duh. Rewrite history commie-style? You got it! . Baby seals good, unwanted human fetii bad. Too obvious. Western civ worst evil ever? Indeed.

The list is endless, but the mentality is the same. It is an theory-over-reality consequences-be-darned cruel ideology that betrays all, destroys all, excuses all, deconstructs and distorts all. This blind secular faith is the real reason the West is deeply under threat. It is the liberal utopitards who sympathize with Islamists seeking the enslavement of the West.

The older classical liberal tradition has been hijacked by the loonies, and what is now called conservative is to some extent the old liberals fighting against neo-Marxists and radicals in various guises and causes. Liberal utopitardism is a spiritual and intellectual deadly auto-immune disease, which requires a serious conversion to truth and love and reality, not a bunch of arguments and comedy and scoldings and pointing out utter contradictions of their irrational position. ~

Tony Judt and Social Democracy **UPDATED**

An article following the recent death of Tony Judt prompted some small investigation into the life and beliefs of a man I knew only by reputation and not by his writings. I can't help feeling, after reading the essay in question, entitled Ill Fares the Land, that my initial impression of him seems to have been correct.

Judt decries the modern obsession with materialism and "wealth creation", tracing its origins - surprisingly - to the 1980s (Thatcher bashing here we come) and the "cult of privatization". He offers that great rallying call of Western liberals, "the growing disparities of rich and poor" as evidence that "(s)omething is profoundly wrong with the way we live today".

Most of his essay though, is less of a systematic critique of "unregulated Capitalism" than it is a moral critique of the sort popular amongst Victorian liberals. He sets up a series of straw men to bayonet, and one hopes there is more substance to his more academic work. I suspect there is, but that does not mean one can't judge him by what he writes in this essay. After all, he did write it with the aggregate wisdom of his many years of writing and research.

He writes,

The little crash of 2008 was a reminder that unregulated capitalism is its own worst enemy: sooner or later it must fall prey to its own excesses and turn again to the state for rescue. But if we do no more than pick up the pieces and carry on as before, we can look forward to greater upheavals in years to come.

Which is the exact opposite of how opponents would describe the problem. Where is this "unregulated Capitalism"? Most commentators judge that government interference had a huge role to play in the crisis. Either he is not interested in what his opponents think, or he is deliberately misdiagnosing the problem. And he is right in his assessment, but not for the reasons he thinks; bailouts reward failure and discourage success, which is counter to the spirit of Capitalism. Many on the left are unwilling or unable to see this.

Judt uses classic "Third Way" language, criticising 'both left and right' and yearning for an 'alternative'. He rubbishes both:

On the left, Marxism was attractive to generations of young people if only because it offered a way to take one’s distance from the status quo. Much the same was true of classical conservatism: a well-grounded distaste for over-hasty change gave a home to those reluctant to abandon long-established routines. Today, neither left nor right can find their footing.

Marxists just want to annoy their parents, while Conservatives are just lazy. Nice. The problem with most Third Way rhetoric is that it's a useful cloak for a newer form of Leftism. Maybe that is unfair - rather, it ends up being a form of leftism despite claiming to seek a middle ground.

He accurately describes Classical Liberalism though, but without acknowledging that the word Liberal has undergone a change of meaning:

A liberal is someone who opposes interference in the affairs of others: who is tolerant of dissenting attitudes and unconventional behavior. Liberals have historically favored keeping other people out of our lives, leaving individuals the maximum space in which to live and flourish as they choose. In their extreme form, such attitudes are associated today with self-styled “libertarians,” but the term is largely redundant. Most genuine liberals remain disposed to leave other people alone.

He introduces Social Democracy thus:

Social democrats, on the other hand, are something of a hybrid. They share with liberals a commitment to cultural and religious tolerance. But in public policy social democrats believe in the possibility and virtue of collective action for the collective good.

Hm. I might have no trouble with the second part if I believed the first part. Are modern liberals committed to tolerance?

One of my goals is to suggest that government can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our liberties

The classic have-your-cake-and-eat-it scenario. In Europe, he says,

the welfare state is as popular as ever with its beneficiaries: nowhere in Europe is there a constituency for abolishing public health services, ending free or subsidized education, or reducing public provision of transport and other essential services.

It's being popular with its beneficiaries is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on the correctness of such a system. Which is odd because in his opening paragraph he is upset that

We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world?

Today, he writes,

there has been a partial awakening. To avert national bankruptcies and wholesale banking collapse, governments and central bankers have performed remarkable policy reversals, liberally dispersing public money in pursuit of economic stability and taking failed companies into public control without a second thought. A striking number of free-market economists, worshipers at the feet of Milton Friedman and his Chicago colleagues, have lined up to don sackcloth and ashes and swear allegiance to the memory of John Maynard Keynes.

Which he acknowledges is "but a tactical retreat", or, as I see it, sheer opportunism.

However, now he gets all Statist on us:

In short, the practical need for strong states and interventionist governments is beyond dispute.

Pardon me, buddy, but I hardly think you've argued that case.

The Way We Live Now

All around us, even in a recession, we see a level of individual wealth unequaled since the early years of the twentieth century. Conspicuous consumption of redundant consumer goods—houses, jewelry, cars, clothing, tech toys—has greatly expanded over the past generation. In the US, the UK, and a handful of other countries, financial transactions have largely displaced the production of goods or services as the source of private fortunes, distorting the value we place upon different kinds of economic activity. The wealthy, like the poor, have always been with us. But relative to everyone else, they are today wealthier and more conspicuous than at any time in living memory. Private privilege is easy to understand and describe. It is rather harder to convey the depths of public squalor into which we have fallen.

Again, this is a moral critique, not a systematic one. He does not say what is wrong with individuals having immense wealth (indeed few leftists do) other than suggesting it is somehow bad for 'society'. In the absence of any explanation we are left with little choice but to see this as either simple resentment, or as a quasi-religious moral judgment of the wealthy. In fact, the biggest fallacy of leftist analysis tends to be that there is some relationship between poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other. The big lie: you are rich because I am poor.

He continues,

To understand the depths to which we have fallen, we must first appreciate the scale of the changes that have overtaken us. From the late nineteenth century until the 1970s, the advanced societies of the West were all becoming less unequal. Thanks to progressive taxation, government subsidies for the poor, the provision of social services, and guarantees against acute misfortune, modern democracies were shedding extremes of wealth and poverty.

Becoming less unequal? really? and because of progressive taxation? This may be true, but large scale social welfare programmes are characteristic of the last forty years, not the century prior to the 1970s. Indeed, small scale forms of emergency relief as were available in the 1930s, say, would be acceptable to most Conservatives today, I would guess. It's what came after that we have a problem with. And progressive taxation? That's an admission that we tax the rich because it's "bad" for them to be too rich, and not because it helps the poor.

Although countries as far apart as New Zealand and Denmark, France and Brazil have expressed periodic interest in deregulation, none has matched Britain or the United States in their unwavering thirty-year commitment to the unraveling of decades of social legislation and economic oversight.

Really? Does anyone - anyone - believe that we have less social provision now than thirty years ago?

The poor stay poor. Economic disadvantage for the overwhelming majority translates into ill health, missed educational opportunity, and—increasingly—the familiar symptoms of depression: alcoholism, obesity, gambling, and minor criminality. The unemployed or underemployed lose such skills as they have acquired and become chronically superfluous to the economy. Anxiety and stress, not to mention illness and early death, frequently follow.

Anxiety and stress are not confined to the low paid. Far from it. And minor criminality as a "symptom of depression"? Hm.

Nobody thinks "inequality" is a good thing. But is it something that a government should be trying to even out? That is the question that divides left and right. Yet, Judt isn't asking it.

Even trust, the faith we have in our fellow citizens, corresponds negatively with differences in income: between 1983 and 2001, mistrustfulness increased markedly in the US, the UK, and Ireland—three countries in which the dogma of unregulated individual self-interest was most assiduously applied to public policy. In no other country was a comparable increase in mutual mistrust to be found.

Robert Putnam identified "multiculturalism" as the root cause of this, not income inequality. It is no coincidence that economically successful countries are targets for immigrants, which increases social tensions and thus "mistrustfulness". Judt does not explain why his theory would hold true. He provides several graphs and tables illustrating how the UK and the US perform related to selected other countries, but illustrating and explaining are not the same thing.

Here's the money statement:

Inequality is corrosive. It rots societies from within. The impact of material differences takes a while to show up: but in due course competition for status and goods increases; people feel a growing sense of superiority (or inferiority) based on their possessions; prejudice toward those on the lower rungs of the social ladder hardens; crime spikes and the pathologies of social disadvantage become ever more marked. The legacy of unregulated wealth creation is bitter indeed.

And, finally,

In a survey of English schoolboys taken in 1949, it was discovered that the more intelligent the boy the more likely he was to choose an interesting career at a reasonable wage over a job that would merely pay well. Today’s schoolchildren and college students can imagine little else but the search for a lucrative job.

How should we begin to make amends for raising a generation obsessed with the pursuit of material wealth and indifferent to so much else? Perhaps we might start by reminding ourselves and our children that it wasn’t always thus. Thinking “economistically,” as we have done now for thirty years, is not intrinsic to humans. There was a time when we ordered our lives differently.

Which is a valid critique, but it is a moral one. It is not a critique of Capitalism, merely an observation about how we might need to educate our children differently. And he's right about that - just not about the root causes of the problem.

***UPDATE****

And right on cue, NotPC is here to save the day: The book from which Judt's graphs are drawn, The Spirit Level, is reviewed and debunked here.

***Updated***

More shredding of the Spirit Level thesis here, here and here.

The authors reply to critics here.

Their reply shredded here.

Why I don't Live in Ireland (and may burn my passport)

Hate, hate and more hate, that's why.

Here's the chief hater himself, Raymond Deane, who holds the important-sounding title of Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) Cultural Boycott Officer.

The problem with this type of hatemongering is that it is not a boycott.

Boycotting means you don't buy certain products (or associate with certain people). It does not mean that you demand businesses stop dealing with certain suppliers or certain countries.

This list is going to be used as a stick to beat non-signatories in the artistic communities, and it is also going to be seen as a benchmark of liberalism to short that the signatories are conforming to the expectations of their peers. These are the "good" artists.

I'm fairly sure none of them would ever have been invited to perform whatever it is they do in Israel anyway. But it's a good way to kickstart any ailing careers .....

Exploring "Anon's Paradox"

Anon's Paradox - named for a commentator who is, paradoxically, named Anon. - is the process through which leftists support decidedly non-leftist, intolerant political and religious groups under the banner of 'multiculturalism' or, more broadly, "tolerance". It is also remarked upon by Mark Steyn and other Classical Liberal authors.

One group that represents this Paradox neatly is QuAIA (Queers Against Israeli Apartheid). QuAIA and other leftist groups have very deliberately and, almost universally, sided with one set of conservative, religious Nationalists over against another set. Which would be strange enough, were it not the case that the opposing set of Nationalists had, on aggregate, a lot more tolerance of gays and lesbians than do the favoured set.

There are several reasons for this, and an exploration may go some way to explaining the roots of Anon's Paradox (or may not). Firstly, it is clear that on a shallow level, supporters of Palestinian Nationalism are on the side of the underdog - a position that liberals love to be in. The Palestinians are, we are repeatedly told, facing tanks and planes with sticks and rocks - but we are rarely told why the Palestinians aren't allowed to have their own tanks and planes.

As liberals are not fans of tradition, it follows that they're not big into history either, for which reason it matters not that when the sandal was on the other foot in, say, 1948 and 1967, the world's tolerant were on the side of the Israelis. A lot has changed in the meantime, not least the Dhimmitude of large parts of Europe and the UN, but it's safe to suggest that now Israel is entrenched in its existence and has fought hard and won its freedom, leftists are now free from any ideological constraints to vilify and demonise her like they would any other capitalist state.

So will the scales tip again? If the Iranian army and the Turkish Navy begin circling, will the Left huddle together in support of the besieged Zionists? I would suggest not, in fact I suspect we'll hear a lot about 'just desserts', etc. But I hope it won't come to that point.

Another example of Anon's Paradox is the burqa ban issue. Even secularists like Richard Dawkins have come out against it, while the wonderful Ayaan Hirsi Ali has suggested that atheists like herself and Dawkins ought to join Christians in the struggle against Islamicisation. The burqa has already been banned in several countries (some of them nominally Islamic), but Britain won't do it. It would be un-British they say and, in a sense, they're right.

Banning items of clothing is something that liberal democratic nations do not do. Now, I know that the burqa is no more an 'item of clothing' than an AK-47 is 'some bits of wood and metal', but to the brainwashed dhimmis it is. The Islamists don't believe it either, but they're happy to taqqiya themselves along with it (it's amazing how tolerant and, well, British they've become?).

The tolerant British, like most Europeans, are losing this battle because they have no imagination. They simply cannot think of a way to fight Islam without seeming 'racist' and intolerant. And this concern concerns me too, actually. I don't want Britain to turn into a place that bans things, in the same way that, although I am a huge supporter of Geert Wilders, I don't want to actually see the Koran banned. But, I also don't want to tolerate the intolerable, and this is where the line must be drawn.

Defenders of the burqa often point to Christian nuns and say, well, you don't object to their habits, do you? Such a tactic implies that opposition to the burqa is anti-Islamic, specifically, and nothing to do with Western values. They are missing the point, however, that no woman is born a nun. Rather, she makes the rational (or irrational, depending on how you think of nuns) and free choice to become one and adopt her clothing, which is a symbol of her virginity, not of her second-class status. Monks wear similar clothing (although not covering their hair - but they do often have to shave their hair in a specific way).

Choice is the key here, and other burqa-defenders have framed the debate (or attempted to) in the language of choice, claiming that it is oppressive to stop a woman wearing whatever she wants. One could claim, and I have before, that we should then makes laws that protect women from being forced to wear certain clothing, placing the law on the side of the women and making the issue about coercion, not about Islam. This would be difficult to enforce, however, and even more so to decide in a Western court.

Anon's Paradox can be witnessed in the curious choice by many leftists to take the side of Islam over and against Western ideas of equality of women. I do admit the Left does appear to be divided on this, but their concern does seem to be making sure they aren't on the same side of the debate as "the racists". In fact, the main reaction from the Left has been precisely this, accusing lawmakers of "pandering" to the "extreme right wing". Which is nonsense, given that a majority of fairminded people hate the burqa and wish they didn't have to see women wearing it.

Even feminists have placed multicultish tolerance over and above the liberation of their Muslim sisters. Breathtaking. But not entirely unexpected, at least for those who follow such things. The key phrase, I believe, is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is also, as we formerly of the academic world would say, absolute bollocks (we watched a lot of Blackadder). But lefties do tend to bunch together with other groups who oppose what we might call Western civilisation, possibly under a theory reminiscent of the Irish volunteers who fought the 1916 uprising - that they would first get rid of the English and then turn on each other. They did, too.

Once white, male, Christian, Nationalistic Europe is defeated, lefties and Islamists can battle it out for supremacy.

(I can barely write that with a straight face. I'm imagining the Islamist hordes rushing headlong into battle while the gay regiment are still ironing their uniforms and the liberal academics are trying not to spill their mochaccinos. Actually, the Muslims might have a hard job conquering some of those feminists who have bigger balls than they do ...)

Anon's Paradox is nicely illustrated by the liberal who cannot see through his own prejudices and hatreds to ally with conservatives on any issue, choosing rather to stand by the Islamist. It's unfathomable. And yet, like all true paradoxes, it isn't. It's very, very real. It's hard to believe that only two generations ago, plumbers, clerks and mechanics were taking pot shots at Germans in the ruined streets of French towns. But I take heart when I realise too that maybe it would not take too much to bring that same kind of bravery and sacrifice back to our present generation if it were required. Holger Danske, after all, only sleeps.

So what can we do? Well, a new species of conservative must arise, of which Geert Wilders is an excellent example. He - or she - must be socially tolerant and speak the language of true Liberalism with intelligent and wit. He must be patriotic while understanding that blind tribalism nearly always leads to conflict with the wrong enemy, freedom-loving while understanding that freedom is not free, and he must strike at the heart of Anon's Paradox, revealing it to be a lie and a fraud.

And we must all regain enough imagination to prevent our values from being absorbed into the nonentity that is "multiculturalism".

Irish "Artists" Pledge to Boycott Israel

Just released from PACBI, a list of artistic scumbags who think boycotting Israel is okay. Now, Ireland is a very small place and I haven't heard of around 80% of these people. Some of them have Arab-y sounding names so one might not be too out of line to question their Irishness. I'm pleased to say I know some well-known Irish people and none of them are on this list. The only one on the list I've had the displeasure of meeting is the odious Conor Costick, an academic letch from Trinity College who happen to write a book which, it seems, makes him an "artist".

If it strikes one as odd that there are so many "artists" in Ireland it should be noted that in Ireland, artists pay no tax. Zip. Even when they have jobs. One hopes this concession will soon become a thing of the past.

Astrid Adler - Visual Artist, Musician, Mime artist

John Arden – Playwright, Novelist

Siobhán Armstrong - Musician

Derek Ball - Composer

Robert Ballagh - Visual Artist

(known for Republican murals in Belfast)

Margo Banks – Painter

Cormac Begley - Musician

Liam Bradley - Musician

Diarmuid Breatnach – Musician, Poet

Cormac Breatnach – Musician

Cecily Brennan – Artist

Ronan Browne – Musician

Conor Byrne - Musician

Roisin Byrne - Visual artist

Séamas Cain – Poet, performance artist

Moya Cannon – Poet

Liam Carson - Scríbhneoir

Clare Cashman – Visual artist

Rhona Clarke – Composer

Siobhán Cleary - Composer

Mickey Coleman - Singer/songwriter

Joe Comerford - Film-maker

Dorothy Cross – Sculptor

Charles Cullen – Visual artist

Michael Cullen - Painter

Cindy Cummings - Dance Artist

Sinéad Cusack - Actor

Margaretta Darcy – Author and playwright

John F Deane - Writer

Raymond Deane - Composer

Seamus Deane – Author

Renate DeBrun – Painter/printmaker (and a German)

Damien Dempsey - Singer

Tim Dennehy – Singer/Songwriter

Eoin Dillon - Ceoltóir

Keith Donald – Musician

Philip Donnery - Musician

Gráinne Dowling - Visual artist

Robert Doyle - Musician

Roger Doyle - Composer

Felim Egan - Visual artist

Martin A. Egan – Musician

Naisrín Elsafty - Singer

Róisín Elsafty – Singer

Elaine Feeney - Poet

Stephen Gardner – Composer

Anthony Glavin - Novelist and short story writer

Johnny Gogan – Film-maker

Carmel Gunning – Musician

Robbie Harris - Musician

Paul Hayes - Composer

Graham Henderson – Musician

Donogh Hennessy - Musician

Rita Ann Higgins – Poet

Michael Holohan - Composer

Andy Irvine – Musician

Ryan Johnson - Musician

Fergus Johnston - Composer

Fred Johnston – Poet

Trevor Joyce – Poet

Bernadette Kiely – Painter

Brian King – Sculptor

Vincent Kennedy - Composer

Trevor Knight - Music/Theatre

Conor Kostick - Novelist.

Gavin Kostick – Playwright

Dave Lordan - Poet

Donal Lunny – Musician

Pól MacAdaim – Singer/songwriter

Iarla Mac Aodha Bhuí - Scríbhneoir

Mickey MacConnell – Singer/Songwriter

Tony Mac Mahon – Musician

Lorcán Mac Mathúna - Singer

Brian Maguire - Visual artist

Alice Maher - Visual Artist

Brenda Malloy – Musician

Jimmy McCarthy - Singer/songwriter

Martin McElhinney - Musician

Joe McGowan - Author

Jackie McKenna - Sculptor

John McLachlan - Composer

Joleen McLaughlin (Henry) – Musician

Karen McLaughlin (Henry) – Musician

Lorna McLaughlin (Henry) - Musician

Tina Mc Laughlin- Singer/Songwriter

Eoin McLochlainn - Visual artist

John McSherry - Musician

Paul Meehan – Poet

Christy Moore - Musician

Thom Moore - Songwriter, writer/translator

Sharon (Shaz) Morgan – Musician, Photographer

Fiach Moriarty – Singer/Songwriter

Sami Moukkadem - Musician, film-maker, writer

Hassan Ould Muctar - Musician (who, according to his Facebook page, likes Sinn Fein, the EZLN, Noam Chomsky and Al-Jazeera)

Conor Mullan - Musician

Janet Mullarney – Visual artist

Gráinne Mulvey – Composer

Jimmy Murphy – Playwright

Niamh Ní Charra – Musician

Peadar Ó Ceannabháin - Singer

Saileog Ní Cheannabháin - Musician

Treasa Ní Cheannabháin – Singer

Áine Ní Chuaig – Musician

Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh – Musician/Singer

Pádraig Ó Baoill – Scríbhneoir

Niall Ó Callanáin - Musician

Eamonn O'Doherty - Architect, Sculptor

Méabh O Hare – Musician/Film-maker

Jane O'Leary – Composer

Brian Ó hUiginn - Musician

Donal O'Kelly – Playwright/Actor

Ciarán Ó Maonaigh - Ceoltóir

Seosamh O Neachtain – Dancer

Eoin O'Neill - Musician

Jerry O'Reilly – Singer

Peadar Ó Riada – Ceoltóir

Gregory Rosenstock - Writer

Pauline Scanlon - Singer

Rossa Ó Snodaigh - Ceoltóir

Paul O'Toole – Singer/Songwriter

Michael Quane – Sculptor

Bob Quinn - Visual artist/filmmaker

Jim Ricks - Visual Artist

Stephen Rothschild - Painter/printmaker.

Mary Russell - Author

Dermot Seymour - Painter

John W. Sexton – Poet.

Eileen Sheehan - Poet

Ronan Sheehan - Novelist

Michael Smith – Poet and translator

Hugh Travers - Writer

Caoimhín Vallely - Ceoltóir

Laura Vecchi - Painter/writer

John Wakeman – Poet

Hilary Wakeman - Author

Hazel Walker - Visual artist

William Wall - Author

Ronan Wilmot - Actor/Director

Steve Woods – Film-maker

Adam Wyeth - Poet

Liberal Fascism Lives! [updated]

I never cease to be surprised by the poor level of discourse emerging from modern academia. I've devoted my morning to the various reactions and accusations arising out of the publication of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which has turned out to be enlightening and highly entertaining at the same time.

It is most surprising of all to note how otherwise intelligent people simply don't 'get it'. The best discussion on the book comes from the History News Network, and features a variety of critics ranging from the eminent scholar Professor Robert Paxton of Columbia University to one of Goldberg's most vocal critics, David Neiwert. The whole thing is well worth reading, as are some of Goldberg's various responses to his critics, which can be found here, here and here.

In almost all cases, the criticisms merely serve to confirm the content and thrust of Goldberg's book. And some of the accusations are bizarre - apparently Goldberg is guilty of how his book has been received in Conservative circles, with pundits such as Glenn Beck now equating modern liberalism with fascism and Obama with Hitler.

What's interesting too is how un-academic are Paxton's and fellow historical Roger Griffin's critiques of Goldberg. Both descend quickly to taking cheap rhetorical shots and resort to empty jibes in what looks like a desperate attempt to discredit something that just might have merit. They are quick to point out Goldberg's lack of historical credentials, something academics - in my experience at least - hold far too great a stock in.

Certainly, there are rules for academic works, and ways and means of critique, debate and analysis, but simply having followed those to the point of obtaining a PhD does not unreservedly qualify one to be taken seriously at all times, not does not having done so exclude others from having something important and truthful to say. Indeed, this belief is the essence of that very liberalism that Goldberg sets as the target of his book, that dependence on self-appointed 'experts' to know what's best for mankind.

According to Griffin,

Genuine academics target truth, conceived as a complex, multifactorial, contested reality reconstructed through collaborative effort.

No they don't! They backstab and bully their way towards recognition, and achieve dominance in their fields by obliterating their opponents, just like in any other profession. I'm often confronted by people who demand to know my qualifications for arguing on certain subjects, and am asked whether or not I have a Degree. I always readily admit that I don't; I have two.

Griffin concludes:

"I rest my case, satisfied that I, at least, am trying to water the oak of liberal humanism and democracy through disinterested intellectual labour in the pursuit of historical truth"

Which is in revealing contradiction to his earlier claim that

"Goldberg’s book made me angry, and no doubt my review reflected that. But the anger is not partisan – it’s professional and ethical."

Righteous indignation. Canned anger. The very stuff of liberalism!

Griffin's "review" equates Goldberg's work, puzzlingly, with Holocaust denial, with its supposed "barely subliminal equation of Obama with Hitler". Griffin would be hard pushed to find where Goldberg makes that equation, but truth is not something that concerns Griffin when in mid-rant. Griffin's non-partisan, professional and ethical mask slips when he refers to tautology as "the con of the neo-Con".

Griffin's main criticism is that - largely thanks to his own work, of course - since 1991 there has in fact been an academic consensus as to what fascism is (which of course we must all now accept?), and what it is is

"a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism"

that

"produced various syntheses (including Nazism, though Sternhell denies this) of elements taken from left and right welded into a revolutionary assault on conservative or liberal or democratic society."

None of which is very helpful, given that liberals call Conservatives fascists all the time. I guess they didn't get the memo. That definition, in fact, is pretty much exactly what Goldberg says fascism is. But what he adds is a historical analysis that places the evolution of fascism on the left, arguing that fascism emerged not from the right but from the left, and from individuals such as Hitler and Mussolini who adapted their leftism to suit their own particular circumstances, the most important of which being that the 'proletariat' were less interested in a thing called the "working class" and more interested in a thing called "the nation".

This is not rocket science, which is exacly what most academics seems to want it to be. The horror with which liberal academics react when their own authoritative statements and definitions are not universally accepted only reinforce and vindicate every word that Goldberg has written. Griffin accused him of equating Fascism with the broader concept of Totalitarianism, but fails to observe that liberalism is unequivocably totalitarian in outlook.

Finally, given that Griffin describes Classical Liberalism as

"a profoundly anti-democratic force generally opposed to racial, social, and gender equality",

one can safely dismiss many of his arguments as drivel. Goldberg response to the essays, but then several more responses are made to his response, including Neiwert's undeserved second bite of the cherry which consists of a long whine about Goldberg being mean to him.

Goldberg's whingeing critics take him to task for paying little attention to Hitler's suppression of labour unions and Socialists and cite this as evidence that Hitler was not 'of the left'. Goldberg neatly replies,

"how did independent labor unions do under Stalin? Under Castro? Under Mao? Are those regimes not left-wing? Hitler sent Communists and rival socialists to concentration camps. This was evil, to be sure, but how was it right-wing? Stalin liquidated the Trotskyites (and 31 other flavors of socialists) too. Why is killing rival Communists and socialists right-wing when Hitler does it and not when Stalin does it?"

Goldberg has, by and large, deftly handled his critics, and the sheer volume of hate spewed in his direction ought to indicate that he has hit some raw nerve with those he attacks in Liberal Fascism. We still await a proper critique of his arguments.

***UPDATE***