Backpedalling of the Beclowned

Last week, Beck was all, like, the science on DDT is 'not a sturdy cornerstone of scientific truth but rather an elaborate tissue of exaggerations and lies.'

This week, Beck is all 'Where did I say that DDT is harmless?'. He's also muttering something about bald eagles, and denies having been shown any links to scientific research, despite being directed to links on this blog, to those at Lambert and Darrell, and to those of his friends at Pure Poison. As Tobias Ziegler noted on the latter blog, all of this could have been ascertained with about 5 minutes googling. Beck must have been too busy googling the latest on Jeremy Sear's grooming habits.

Beclowning Continues

My recent post looking briefly at J. F. Beck's article on DDT and Carson seems to have gotten Beck a little upset.

To recap, Beck claimed that 'In making her case against DDT Carson constructs not a sturdy cornerstone of scientific truth but rather an elaborate tissue of exaggerations and lies.'

Unfortunately for Beck, he attempts to make his case by citing two passages from Carson that don't actually have anything to do with DDT. He then goes to claim that 'no amount of DDT can cause leukemia or any other form of cancer to develop in a matter of months, if ever', and that if DDT is toxic, it is not 'acutely' so. He calls to his aid one researcher named Ames, who apparently says that 'a single cup of coffee contains more potential natural carcinogens than a human will consume of potentially carcinogenic synthetic pesticide residues in a year'.

Beck was called on this stupidity, and began backpedalling and qualifying his inane comments. He also accuses me of stupidity and relies on ad hom arguments to make his clumsy points.

Beck's obfuscation notwithstanding, the facts are clear. Beck has repeatedly lied in order to misrepresent Carson, in order for he followers to be able to demonise an environmentalist.

DDT has been linked, repeatedly, with a range of medical conditions, including forms of cancer. Evidence for this can be found in the links and comments for the previous post, all of which have been duly ignored by Beck. Over time, governments around the world have decided that the costs of DDT outweigh the benefits. (It may comfort Beck to know that its use is allowed in North Korea). The benefits are themselves over-rated, given that insects can be become resistant to the pesticide. Furthermore, concerns about DDT arose long before Carson ever wrote her book, as can be seen from this article from 1945. The article on Marxist-controlled Wikipedia has plenty of detail on the dangers and problems associated with DDT. Like his US-based namesake on Fox, Beck will no doubt prefer conspiracy theorists and smear tactics to anything like evidence.

The Ames Test, whilst legitimate, has been implicated in secret testing by tobacco companies, and is not the 'bullshit' that Beck claims. (Quiggin has links regarding other connections between DDT and Big Tobacco).

Beck tries a bait-and-switch with some irrelevant trivia about Bendiocrab. He then claims that 'No chemical insecticide is without risk – it's a matter of weighing the risks against the benefits'. It's nice for Beck to say this, but nowhere does he explain that DDT has been repeatedly shown to pose many risks. Instead, he lies and dissembles, like many of his fellow 'conservatives' on this issue, in order to smear Carson and environmentalists more generally. As I indicated earlier, it's evident that these people couldn't care less how many people in developed countries develop medical conditions through massive exposure of DDT. All that matters is scoring a cheap political point.

Finally, and bizarrely, Beck invoked one Tim Blair in his little tirade. I can't imagine why, unless, perhaps, like his comrade, Beck has been so intellectually out-gunned that he's feeling immeasurably hurt.


UPDATE:

It turns out that Bendi... was misspelt. Beck, true to form, has been big on smear and name-calling in his responses to my posting, but very light on when it comes to actual argument. He doesn't seem to realise the extent of his backpedalling.


Beck in Quadrant:

[A] single cup of coffee contains more potential natural carcinogens than a human will consume of potentially carcinogenic synthetic pesticide residues in a year.


Beck now:

I didn't say "that a splash of ddt is safer than a morning coffee", and neither did Bruce Ames. Ames' point is that the danger to human health from pesticide residues in food is overstated.

Pathetic. Stay tuned.

Beck Beclowned

J. F. Beck, a keen stalker observer of the left, with a penchant for attacking minor publications, gets himself printed in a minor publication. (Well, not actually printed, as Quadrant probably couldn't spare the ink).

In any case, it seems that early environmentalist Rachel Carson was, like all her Green comrades, responsible for malaria deaths, and exhibited a Luddite fear of chemicals. (According to Beck, coffee is worse for you than pesticide).

Or maybe not.

A response to AWH

Brett at AWH has a particularly stupid post here, indicating that all differences between right and left are reducible to economics. Further, Brett claims that anarchism is 'extreme right'. Because I'm banned at AWH, and because my attempts at sockpuppeting under various Russian monikers were unsuccessful, I'll include my brief response here:

If economics is the sole means by which you establish a person's politics, you end up with all kinds of stupidity, as you see in this post. Britain's economy under Churchill had an enormous amount of planning, particularly during WWII. Churchill even nationalised the banks, so by your logic, he is therefore a leftist. Ditto Dubya. Reagen greatly increased state control over the economy by means of regulating labour. He must be a lefty too.

Meanwhile, the most noted anarchists in history - Proudhon, Kropotkin, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, Chomsky - are all firmly on the left.

I presume this post was just another pathetic attempt to claim Hitler was a lefty. Attempt failed.

Damn these guys are stupid.

Lies and the Lying Liars who Lie Them

Here are a couple of examples of self-declared conservative Christians peddling sleaze and grossly dishonest propaganda.

Over at AWH, the Crusading Rodent has the scoop on 'Hussein Obama', citing Obama's 'own words', allegedly taken from his book, Audacity of Hope. The quotes include these:

"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Incriminating quotes for rabid rightist who are fearful of blacks and Muslims, no? Except it turns out that these quotes are totally fabricated. This fact was pointed out to Mr Rodent, who not only did not retract any of the post, but kept up the pretence over at his own private blog, where his half-wit readers accept this chain email as gospel. A quick google search tells us that rightist fruitcakes the world over are peddling the above smears as factual. Pathetic.

The same goes for the serial liars over at TMS, who are trying to get us to take seriously the idea that a takeover by union thugs is imminent. Oh, those bad old days (1980s and '90s) of union activism:

That was an age when arrogant young union officials would storm into a job site, kick up a floor board and declare a job site closed.

Much better when arrogant old employers had carte blanche with respect to their employers, eh? We see more lies in this post, even ones that have been pointed out on TMS previously:

Kevin Rudd is a Chavez-loving socialist.

The link providing the 'reference' doesn't work, so I guess we'll never know if this ever-so plausible statement is true.

(He once named Chavez as his mentor).
Really? That'd be news to most people, Rudd included.

Unions are natural communists who hate business and the dynamic market.
No, unions require business and markets, otherwise their members would be out of a job. Actual communists (such as Lenin) frequently criticised trade unionism as a completely inadequate response to the crises of capitalism.

They almost destroyed us back in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
So the unions were to blame for the recession 'we had to have'? Forget macroeconomics or the global market, and blame the ACTU...

In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected.
None of which has anything directly to do with the 'regulation' of economic life.

He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050.
Er, Kyoto happened several months ago.

His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils.
Socialists! Uberbureaucracies! I'm feeling faint!

Kevin Rudd is no ‘Mr Innocent’. Don’t be fooled. He is the whitewashed figurehead of an evil socialist regime with the big heavies sitting on his cabinet waiting to do all the dirty work for him and the party.
Take that, Kevin Josip Il Rudd! Thou art now vanquished, o apparatchiks, Politburo denizens, and purveyors of the dreaded gulag!

Liars. Though I had to chuckle when I read what one poor deluded commenter had to say in response:
many believe rudd is a socialist, despite his efforts to distance himself from the communist party.

Which communist party? Russia's? Nepal's? The Freemason and Illuminati Party?

Maybe this one:

Smackdown, one lunatic at a time

Since the phony war on terror, we've heard plenty of nutters and propagandists invoke the ghost of WWII to justify otherwise indefensible policy by the US. But WWII rhetoric I mean the constant references to 'appeasement', or to 'Islamofascism', intended to conflate to radically different historical situations. In any case, it's nice to see one such winged monkey humiliated for such stupidity:

As revisionist as communism

Bolt has plumbed new depths of ignorance today with an attempt to draw parallels between the Federal ALP's new 'alcopop' tax, and Soviet Russia. Apparently, since the tax was introduced, there has been a 'surge' in thefts of the alcopops, leading Bolt to deduce that the ALP policy 'not only fails to stop the boozers, but drives some into thievery.'

Clearly, there are many reasons to be sceptical about a tax curbing a purported binge-drinking epidemic. That aside, however, Bolt has done a remarkable volte-face here for a vulgar Tory, and has gone so far as to attribute criminal behaviour to social conditions. Gone is the moralising rhetoric of 'responsibility', favoured by Bolt and other hacks and shock jocks. Apparently, social conditions and government policy are to blame for crime when this is ideologically convenient.

Let's see how long it takes for Bolt to back-pedal from this position in a future post. I cannot recall Bolt ever displaying such 'understanding' when it comes to the property crimes of Aboriginals, for instance. When drug users feel compelled to steal to support their habit, does anybody seriously expect the likes of Bolt to attribute this to the government policies that keep such drugs illegal (and expensive)?

Finally, in a kind of inverse-Godwin piece of stupidity, Bolt invokes the spectre of Soviet Russia to dramatise his hypocritical observations. This might have been well and good if it didn't directly undermine Bolt's point, and betray his profound ignorance of some basic facts.

Since the fall of communism (1991), consumption of alcohol by Russian men has tripled, making Russians the highest drinkers of spirits in the world. Since Putin was in power, and capitalism was embraced, the rising cost of vodka in Russia has led some impoverished citizens to resort to cleaning fluids, and other dangerous alcoholic material. Since the Iron Curtain was lifted, alcoholism is the primary reason why the life-expectancy for the average Russian male has dropped to just 58 years.

The lesson of all this is to get your lackeys to acquaint you with some basic logical and historical facts before launching into overblown, melodramatic comparisons.

The Politics of Imbecility in Blogging

I thought this would be a good time to lay to rest the ongoing dispute between myself and Hall, at least on this blog. No doubt a veteran cyber-stalker like himself will continue his vendetta, but I don't intend to waste any space on my blog on low-lifes like him.

As a final laugh, I thought it would be amusing to take a brief look at his attempt at a kind of 'not guilty' plea, with respect to his own actions. It can be found on his blog of shame here. Rather than issue a mea culpa for his most recent acts of stalking, as well as his newest attack blogs, Hall continues to drive his Noddy Car down the road of no return.

Hall points out that there are many different bloggers in the world - 'All are to be found when you brose the blogs that are out there'. He tries to persuade us that, for ethical reasons, those who blog under their own name have more 'gravitas' than those who use a pseudonym:

Put simply If an author is willing to affix their name to their opinion they have to be honest and truthful because there are penalties if they are not.

Hall omits any mention of the fact that, being unemployed (and possibly unemployable), there are precisely no consequences for him to be hosting the most virulent bigots on his site, or using his time stalking other bloggers. This is not the case for those with employers. Hall himself knows that vulnerable position that working bloggers face, which is precisely why he has tried (or threatened) to contact the employers of at least three bloggers with whom he disagrees.

Hall then drivels on for a bit about the evils of anonymous bloggers with different political beliefs to his own. Disagreement, and legitimate mockery are rebaptised as 'character assassination' in Hall's deluded dramaturgy. So what's a deranged blogger with wounded pride to do?

A blogger, who writes in their own name, who has been the subject of such behaviour, has no real recourse unless they can discover the identity of their attackers.

A blogger could always respond to the mockery with counter-mockery, or construct decent sentences (and better yet, arguments) in retaliation. Since, for Hall, these are not options, stalking and 'outing' is the only 'real recourse'.

Hall complains that slander and libel laws are not enforced on the blogosphere, but is unable to cite a single instance of where these laws might ever have applied to him. Different political opinions, and spirited criticism are not, after all, illegal. Hall continues to attempt to justify his profound contempt for others' privacy and, by extension, free speech:

Write about politics, religion or current events and you have to be just as ruthless as the anonymous attackers that will inevitably take you on and you have to find a currency that they will respect.

In Hallworld, this currency involves bribing individuals for information that may lead to the 'outing' of an enemy blogger. How very ethical of our respected conservative. He continues:

Once their name is known they will have to carry the chains that they have forged and those chains will clank about their person forever. Then again there are individuals who genuinely realise the error of their ways and take a real shot at redemption I for one am happy to forgive those that admit their error and apologise to those that they have wronged.

Hall himself has never once apologised for his own 'errors', and they are many, and great. These include 'outing' a blogger in 2006 who had made no personal attacks against him. This 'outing' extended to Hall spamming random blogs with his perceived enemy's details. By his own standards, redemption is a long, long distance away for Hall.

Rather helpfully, Hall has compiled a list of rules that he thinks all bloggers should follow, pseudonymous or not:

1. Always write about others as if you were known to them, even if you are using a pseudonym .

For Hall, this includes telling another blogger that he should have a 'hot shot' (i.e. overdose on heroin).

2. Be generous to those you debate with in blogs and respect the blog owner as if you are a guest in their home.

This includes telling a blogger with depression that he is just a 'sad lefty', at his own site, no less.

3. Always remember that the persons you are talking to are real people even if they have the most bizarre pseudonyms they can be offended and hurt by things that are said about them, just as much as you can be hurt.

Hall has created fake blogs under his enemies' pseudonyms, and tried to smear them with such charming labels as 'stinking pieces of shit' and 'lesbian nazis'. Then there is this piece of brilliance:

If you do have a dispute with a fellow blogger, in the first instance try to settle your differences privately via email (if they have one available) because once your dispute is being played out in public all sorts of malicious non-entities will try to butt into the argument often making a settlement all but impossible. But if that fails, be happy to walk away. There are millions of bloggers out there and you can’t expect a warm reception from all of them.

This is possibly the funniest thing Hall has ever written, and this from a man who once said that 'This is a woeful idea , mainly because UHT milk always tastes so bad. Not it is impossible to drink this stuff bad, but burnt and very processed bad'.

Firstly, Hall has spammed various left-leaning bloggers with unsolicited emails, and has invariably published any responses on one of his 78 blogs.

Secondly, Hall is yet to walk away from a single major dispute. He still writes regularly about people he agreed to leave alone, and who have long-since forgotten his demented blog of shame.

Clearly, Hall knows what the 'right thing' is when it comes to internet etiquette. It is just as evident that Hall himself refuses to abide by this etiquette, as he continues to be the saddest, creepiest and most deluded blogger in Australia. Hoisted by his own petard, Hall is, by his own criteria, the most contemptible of hypocrites. Not that this is news to anyone sufficiently unfortunate to have read his semi-literate drivel.

In the spirit of bloggerly goodwill, however, I am very happy to recommend Hall to a suitable psychiatric service in his area and cease to mock him again, upon production of an apology, a withdrawal of his hate-blogs, and verification of his bona fides. He lives to stalk, so I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE: I don't know who wrote this, but here is another view on the matter. Oh where oh where is Mr Bourbon?

Why Wingnuts and Philosophy Don't Mix...

I know I should resist the temptation to see how the other half lives (or mouth-breathes, as it were). But some habits are hard to break, and I've relapsed from time to time.

I tried, at least, not to make these relapses public. To that end, I resisted the urge to ridicule this 'world government' conspiracy theory, of the sort embraced by anti-Semitic bigots and cranks:

The same crowd also believe that 'reptilian bloodlines' rule the world. I figured that the authors of this stuff couldn't possibly believe in all of it.

My resolve was then sorely tested when I saw this post claiming that intellectuals were more or less part of a treasonous alliance between Marxism and Islam. It's nutty, and the author doesn't forward a shred of evidence to support his ridiculous claims, but it's not vastly different to the drivel peddled by more skilled propagandists.

I even bit my tongue when I saw this shameless attempt to besmirch an apparent detractor of Winston Churchill, a great hero to some conservatives. Naturally, the post doesn't deal with some of the many factual criticisms that one might extend to Churchill. This is the same Churchill, Nobel Laureate, who gave us such pearls of wisdom as:

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good… and it would spread a lively terror…”

And:

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place."

Unsurprisingly, he championed Zionism, as opposed to 'the schemes of the International Jews' (i.e. Bolshevism). He was not altogether unsympathetic to fascism, either. To quote a comrade blogger, who supplied the above references:

Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world", showing "a way to combat subversive forces". Even Hitler received some Churchillian approbation: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

All this I passed by, politely as it were, thinking it unworthy to bring facts to bear against deranged wingnuts. Being stupid, ignorant, or plain delusional is not a moral flaw, however irritating (or unintentionally hilarious) the consequences.

Dishonesty, on the other hand, is a different matter, so I simply couldn't resist this woefully inaccurate, and thoroughly mendacious attack on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (whose name, incidentally, is misspelled for most of the post).

The author claims that Nietzsche was 'Hitler's hero'. Whilst Hitler read and admired Nietzsche (Nietzsche's sister had edited a posthumous volume of his writings, removing references that condemned Germany's rising anti-Semitism) Hitler had plenty of 'heroes'. Among them were Schopenhauer, for instance, and plenty of other perfectly respectable and bourgeois figures within the West's literary, musical and artistic canon.

Hitler's 'philosophy', if it could even be called as much, does not resemble Nietzsche's in any significant respect. There are innumerable passages in Nietzsche's work that condemn 'mob rule', that condemn German (and other) nationalism, that oppose anti-Semitism, and that attack politics of all stripes: conservative, liberal, and radical. It is perfectly clear that our wingnut author here hasn't read a page of Nietzsche, still less understood any of his philosophy, when she blathers:

The views of Hitler, and his idol, Neitzsche, could be seen as a revealing forerunner for today’s globalizing, centralizing European government as a whole. Neitzsche espoused some views which could come straight out of any Rhodes school or Common Purpose training camp.

Actually, 'globalisation' is the fruit of neoliberal capitalism, and it's difficult to see Nietzsche rallying to its cause. Anybody with even a passing familiarity with Nietzsche's views would know he wouldn't waste his spittle on a 'Rhodes school' or 'Common Purpose training camp'.

So why do we see this wilfully dishonest attempt to smear mad Freddy, rather than to come to terms with his philosophy? So that the author can reach this equally disingenuous conclusion about Hitler:

Adolf was, in actuality, an internationalist and a globalist.

Really? Nothing about Hitler's invasion of other European nations, or persecution of Jews, Gypsies, and communists demonstrated an 'internationalist' perspective. The author concludes:

Neitzsche has been the darling of the Left for decades now. In the current age of globalism and internationalism, is there going to be a surge in Nazism whether overt or tacit? I would say, the surge has already started.

Nietzsche has been the 'darling' of a lot of people, from all sides of politics, and with no discernible political views at all. In many respects (and I am not a technical philosopher), I would have thought Nietzsche's influence was starting to wane. The Nietzschean impetus behind 'deconstruction' (Derrida) or the unravelling of power and discourse (Foucault) is decades-old now, and many of the more prominent Continental philosophers are not Nietzschean in the least. So when our good author warns us of a 'surge', once can only assume she is referring to a growth is crude propaganda, wilful ignorance, and deliberate and blatant lying.

This song is political...

I don't know much about art...

But I know what I like:





Image courtesy of this guy.

Non molto bene...

Sadly, Silvio Berlusconi is set to once again become PM of Italy, with what is called his 'centre-right coalition' coming first in the recent election. For those who don't know, Berlusconi is the country's wealthiest man, and he controls much of the nation's media.

Part of Berlusconi's coalition consisted of the Northern League and the People of Freedom, some of whose members openly declare their fascist leanings. (See, fascism belongs to the right after all). Whilst trade unionism and, indeed, communism remain potent political forces in Italy, Berlusconi continues to denigrate left-leaning voters. Recently, Francesco Totti (nemesis of the Socceroos), who has supported a left-leaning mayor in Rome was derided as 'not all there'.

In that vein, and in sympathy with Italians everywhere, here are some Berlusconi pearlers (taken from here):

At a rally during the 2006 election campaign:

"Read The Black Book of Communism and you will discover that in the China of Mao, they did not eat children, but had them boiled to fertilise the fields."

To German MEP Martin Schulz, at start of Italy's EU presidency in July 2003:

"I know that in Italy there is a man producing a film on Nazi concentration camps - I shall put you forward for the role of Kapo (guard chosen from among the prisoners) - you would be perfect."

On Mussolini:

"Mussolini never killed anyone. Mussolini used to send people on vacation in internal exile."

On his alleged conflict of interest as prime minister and one of Italy's biggest tycoons, with major media holdings:

"If I, taking care of everyone's interests, also take care of my own, you can't talk about a conflict of interest."

On a proposal to base an EU food standards agency in Finland, rather than the Italian city of Parma:

"Parma is synonymous with good cuisine. The Finns don't even know what prosciutto is. I cannot accept this."

On himself:

"The best political leader in Europe and in the world."

"There is no-one on the world stage who can compete with me."

Lies or Stupidity?

The tinfoil Rightists of the blogosphere frequently complain about 'left wing bias' in Universities. Supposing this bias to exist - is it any wonder, given the cretinism and dissembling that our Rightard friends exhibit when trying to argue a point?

The example, in this case, is a piece of 'research' by Joan Martin, on behalf of the proto-fascist British National Party, known for their criminal violence, anti-Semitism, and other niceties.

Naturally, this garbage is not only lapped up by the usual credulous bigots, but is then, without shame, passed off as gospel truth. It's not clear to me how this research, an attempted critique of Marxist influence on society, could be taken seriously by anybody, much less grown adults. Are the brazen liars, or merely drooling half-wits? Let's have a look at some of the rotten fruits of this research, and see:

A WORLD COUP d’ ETAT IS PLANNED TO BRING ABOUT WORLD GOVERNMENT
The time-line explained:
KARL MARX.1818-1883
Marx was a German Jew with radical views.

At least they got that bit right.

In 1842 he became a member of the Hegelians an anti-religious, radical group with Satanic interests.

And thus the blithering idiocy begins. Hegel was actually conservative in almost all of his opinions, and was an advocate of Protestantism. He also exhibited the typical conservative subservience to traditional authority figures. Neither Hegel, nor any of his followers whose names are known to history, have any demonstrable link to 'Satanic interests'.
Furthermore, following Hegel's death, there tended to be two groups of students influences by him: the Right Hegelians (conservatives, obviously) and the 'Young' (Left) Hegelians. Marx, in his early days, was associated by the latter. What they took from Hegel was not conservative opinion on Church and State, etc, but rather, Hegel's dialectical method of philosophy. Perhaps this is superfluous, since I see no evidence that our resident rightards have read a page of Marx or Hegel.

In 1843 he left Germany and went to Paris where he met Engels who helped him financially.
In 1845 he was expelled from Paris.
In 1848 went to live in Brussels were he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
In 1849 Marx moved to London and lived there for the rest of his life.

Back on track, but hardly an exposé.

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO INCLUDES.
The Abolition of Private Property
The Abolition of the Family.
The Abolition of Countries and Nationalities.
The Abolition of all Religions, morality and Religious Liberty, this shows the Hegelians Idealism.
The Abolition of Freedom of conscience. In a Democracy people believe in the freedom to choose.
The word Communist covers anyone who aspires to World Government.
Marxism works towards achieving World Government and World Dictatorship.

The Manifesto includes a few other things, too, such as calls for universal education, and the abolition of child labour. You can see why the free marketeers would oppose it. Fundamentally, however, Marx and Engels used this text to argue in favour of a stateless and classless society, not a 'world dictatorship'. At the time of the Manifesto, only one nation in Continental Europe was a democracy (France), and even that brutalised its citizens, and even that only became democratic through revolutionary force.
Of course, the Manifesto has nothing to do with the abolition of religion or 'freedom of conscience', though Marx did point out the unholy alliances formed between religious powerbrokers and earthly rulers. Still less did this text have anything to do with 'Hegelian idealism', since Marx considered himself to be the precise opposite of an 'idealist' (i.e. he was a 'materialist'). The strident internationalism of the Manifesto cannot be understated, and it is on this point, as on many others, that Marxism is the precise opposite of fascism/Nazism, despite the dissembling of Rightards.

In any case, there is no excuse for the constant black propaganda against Marx, when all of his works are readily available for free.

Marx and his friends Engles and Balunin (sic) received their ideas from Moses Hess the founder of the German Social Democrat Party. Moses Hess taught that to gain a World State it could only be brought about by a revolution using class and racial hatred. He said race struggle is primary, class struggle is secondary.”
Mikhail Balunin said “That what ever the name or label of those who aspire to world government they must be prepared to awake the devil in people and stir their passions for them to act.” Passion as with football hooligans, vandals and various peace groups and the race groups.

Or perhaps 'passion' as seen by today's bigots, such as the BNP, or the Cronulla rioters, or some of our rightard bloggers.
Notably, no attempt is made to cite a single instance of 'racial hatred' by Marx, let alone demonstrate that is was 'primary' in his struggle. For what it's worth, Marx was influenced by Hess only in the relatively early days of his career, and he later disagreed with much of his work. In any case, Hess was a proto-Zionist, and therefore hardly an enemy of the rightards (must bring on the Rapture!).

Marx wrote three requirements for those who wished to join the fight for World Government.
1 To read the Communist and Revolutionary teachings of Marx and associates and work accordingly.
2 To work to destabilise nations both morally and financially.
3 To work to gain political control of the MONEY supply and the ASSETS of each Nation and put them BEYOND the REACH and CONTROL of each Government by ensuring that nations become INTER-DEPENDANT on each other for FOOD, MACHINERY and through LOANS.

Marx didn't actually set up a school or club of 'Marxists'. Naturally, one would expect anybody calling themselves Marxist to have read at least some of his works, just as we would with a Freudian, Newtonian, or whatever.
Point 2 is most interesting - it allows our conspiracy-minded tinfoilers the opportunity to interpret any perceived 'instability', new fad, crisis, or change in the wind as a MARXIST PLOY FOR WORLD DOMINATION!!!

Marx also said, “Steps should be taken to provide a master race to produce Leaders and Dictators”

Did he now? This slanderous claim is rather easily proven false. Significantly, the scum who produced this libel did not bother to attribute the quote, perhaps knowing that their half-witted audience would devour it anyway.

Based on this inauspicious beginnings, the rightards purport to demonstrate that a Marxist world government is about to take over any day now:

Capitalism was infiltrated and attacked from within in order to destroy its reputation and Hollywood was implemented to break down the image of the man who financially supports his family and to help create the romantic image of the ‘activist’ (who, when stripped of this fallacious image, is nothing more than an instrument to destroy what we had).
As globalist Marxists reach the zenith of their power, we small band of resisters face the prospect of seeing the true face of this beast unleash its vengeance upon us. It will have its day, the Bible predicts this. But that day will be cut short. We will need to be salt and light to this planet while we can. When we are gone, there will be nothing left.

How embarrassing. This is real fish-in-a-barrel stuff, and easily dismissed. Woe unto the next generation of half-educated youngsters, who may be so unfortunate as to take the above claims seriously, or to think that Hitler was really a socialist, or that Hillary Clinton is a communist and Obama a fascist. The ideas of Marx are there to be discussed and debated, but I can't see any attempt to do that in the above passage, which is being circulated as holy writ by our holy fools. As long as such flagrant smear tactics and peddling of untruths passes for Rightist 'research', we can expect, much to the chagrin of bigots, that genuine scholarship and academia will remain firmly outside of their grasp. But what can one expect from clowns whose highest philosophical achievement is (snicker) reading Ayn Rand?

Birds of a Feather...

Is anyone actually surprised that, ahem, 'conservative' blogger, the Crusading Rodent, is linking to erm, 'white nationalist' groups? When will we see a shout-out for Stormfront? Or a post claiming that the KKK were simply misunderstood?

Imbecile Watch

Oh dear.

Those of you who thought the Cold War was over may not have noticed that some of the footsoldiers are still down in the bunkers, fighting for liberty, justice, and hotdogs.

To that end, I give you idiot of the week, 'La Russophobe'.

There are plenty of reasons why we might be concerned about contemporary Russia, not the least of which is the conduct of the recently re-elected authoritarian, 'oligarchic' Government. There is also the rise of the radical right, and concomitant bigotry directed towards blacks, Jews, gays, and Asians. There is the oppression of Chechnya, and there is also significant poverty.

Any of these things, along with several others, no doubt, would be pretty good grist for the mill for a Russia-watching blogger, with an eye on Putin and politics.

Sadly, La Russophobe goes further. She divides the world into 'Russophobes' (those, like herself, who oppose the Rooskies) and 'Russophiles' (everybody else, particularly Russians themselves). This black-and-whitism should give you a bit of a sense of the sort of George W style of 'logic' this blog contains.

The author explains the raison d'etre of her charming blog:

Don't forget: The main reason La Russophobe hates Russians is because they
are destroying themselves, in particular their innocent children...If Russians
want to shut La Russophobe up, all they have to do is stop failing.

Here the author uses the old Lovejoy rationale - Won't somebody think of the children!
Russia isn't the only country with a few problems at the moment. In fact, given the many conflicts occurring around the world at present, I doubt Russia is the first nation that comes to mind when it comes to people 'failing' their 'innocent children'. I mean, the US, for instance, has over two million people in prison, and this would seem to be a pretty harsh indictment of the ills of its society. But no, our anti-Tartar friend only 'hates' the Rooskies.

She also attempts to debunk several supposed myths about Russia, such as the following:

MYTH: Boris Yeltsin was loved by the ignorant West but hated by
Russians.

REALITY: When Yeltsin told Russians to vote for Putin, they did so
without hesitation.

Actually, Yeltsin was more beloved of the West than the Russians themselves, and is possibly the only person in human history too drunk to get into Ireland. After his corruption and incompetence, Putin's accession is almost understandable.

MYTH: Russia tried capitalism and it failed.

REALITY: Russia has never
been governed by anyone other than a king or a person raised under Communism. It
has certainly never been governed by a capitalist.

I think we need to ask some questions here of our authors' take on 'reality'. Last I heard, Putin and his cronies weren't exactly Marxists, and still less are they hippie commune types.

MYTH: Russia is the land of great literature and science.

REALITY: America,
famous as a land of hillbilly morons, has far more Nobel prizes for science and
literature than Russia.

Actually, both countries have their share of backwoods types. In any case, it's a rare treat to read a blogger with such fine taste in the arts. It's about time those hacks like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were put in their place, so we can catch another episode of Girls of the Playboy Mansion.

MYTH: Russians are brave, and have shown it struggling against winter
and invaders.

REALITY: Russians are extraordinary cowards, and have shown it in
consistently refusing to oppose their own government. Russians fought foreign
invaders because the were more afraid of their own government than those
invaders, and because of their latent hatred of foreigners. Russians live with
the climate because they have no choice.

Venturing into the land of the truly unhinged, the author now seems to be forgetting those extraordinary cowards like Lenin and the Bolsheviks who, rightly or wrongly, stood up to Tzarist rule, or the millions who perished in WWII.

We shouldn't be surprised that, despite being a good candidate for an emergency psychiatric admission, this blogger is quoted with much approval on the right-wing blogosphere.

It's been a while since we've had such a stellar nominee for Idiot of the Week, and in the case of La Russophobe, the moniker is thoroughly deserved. Come on down and accept your padded cell!

Don't you hate it when...

At a time when the radical right of Russia are beating people senseless for the heinous crimes of being homosexual, Jewish, or 'foreign', that the country, and its leader, Vladimir Putin, are accused of being 'leftist'?

The 2007 election result must have addled a few brains. I'm just waiting on confirmation that Bill O'Reilly is a communist.

She's Confused...

I'm referring here to a staffer of George Newhouse, the ALP's candidate for Wentworth in the election this Saturday.

Her name is Rose Jackson (daughter of former ABC presenter, Liz), and she had the audacity to make the following faux pas:

In an email addressed "Dear activists", Ms Jackson wrote to an internet education discussion forum last year: "I oppose Zionism because it calls for the creation of a Jewish state, and I think all governments should be secular.

'No Jewish, Islamic, Christian states anywhere in the world, just good, robust,
secular democracies,' she said. 'By speaking out on behalf of the Palestinians
and Lebanese people, we can give voice to those that some governments and media
would wish to silence...I'm just opposed to theocracy. I certainly support the
right of Israel to exist, but not as a Jewish state.' (source)

Naturally, those great defenders of freedom and democracy (the usual suspects, I mean) have fallen over themselves, using Jackson's comments to demonstrate that all who criticise the Israeli government, or Zionism, are incurable anti-Semites, and inevitably of left-leaning persuasion.

At one level, these critics of Israel's critics have a point. Jackson's characterisation of Israel as a 'theocracy' is confused, a point that Jackson herself later conceded.

The main objection to Jackson's comment, however, was not her mis-characterisation of Israel's Government - such slip-ups occur routinely, on all sides of politics. Rather, her detractors were outraged that she had the temerity to criticise the Israeli Government.

To clarify how the 'logic' goes - Palestinians are all either terrorists or supporters of terror. Terror is here used by the anti-Palestinian crowd to refer to attacks on civilians. Given that Palestinians can be more or less equated, wholesale, with terror, Israel's targeted assassinations can be understood as 'self-defence'. Collective punishment of the Palestinians is entirely appropriate - after all, they never learn in any case. Sure, the IDF feels free to kill with impunity, to execute without a trial - but special circumstances warrant special pleading. Sure, many more Palestinian civilians have been killed than Israeli - but these are 'accidents' (as if, after bombing or opening fire on civilians, IDF troops say 'Oops, my bad' when inspecting the aftermath). Sure, Israel may control almost every aspect of Palestinian life, and may have integrated Palestinian land and resources into their own economy, but hey - the Israelis won it fair and square.

This is more or less how the story goes, is it not? Supposed leftists who take issue with this narrative do not, as far as I can tell, endorse attacks on civilians, or support the Islamists' theocratic fetish, or deny that self-defence is a legitimate right. Nonetheless, these points are almost never granted.

Curiously, the Israelis themselves are not so squeamish when it comes to acknowledging that occupation may not be a barrel of laughs after all. Hardened Likudniks are ready to admit that the occupation is a nasty (though necessary) business - anti-Palestinians in the West are not willing to concede even this much.

As you can see, any criticism of the Israeli government, no matter how qualified, is liable to be 'rebutted' with accusations of anti-Semitism. After all, these charges against Israel have no basis in fact.

So never mind the ex-Israeli soldier who, writing of his experiences in the West Bank earlier this week, said:

[S]till the expansion continues, and still the stranglehold on the
Palestinians persists. While the Israeli public stays silent, while their taxes
swell the government's coffers, they are tacitly aiding and abetting slow
torture on a national scale. On top of the sporadic killing that the occupation
inevitably causes, the killing of an entire people's hopes and dreams takes
place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. (source)

Perhaps he is one of those called 'self-hating' by the anti-Palestinians.

We should also ignore the death of a Palestinian teenager earlier this week:

Palestinian medical sources said nineteen-year-old Muhammad Al-Najjar was
riddled with 13 bullets.Eyewitnesses said Al-Najjar was standing in the door of
his house when Israeli soldiers disguised in civilian clothes approached him and
shot him without provocation. (source)

We should remain silent about the Palestinian children who are denied medical treatment by the State of Israel, according to well known Communist rag Ha'aretz - after all, 10-year old cancer patients are a threat to national security. And we should the alleged IDF storming of a refugee camp, shortly after Tony Blair visited it on a 'peace' mission. After all, any mention of such things would make you 'nasty and extreme', according to the blogosphere's least pernicious and most respected conservative commentator.

For the Health-Conscious...

Somewhere in the aphorisms of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche tells us that mockery, among other things, is a sign of good health.

With that in mind, I'd like to take a brief look at a blog I discovered, courtesy of this charming American 50-something.

The blog in question appears to be an unofficial fan site in honour of Republican Presidential candidate, Sam Brownback. Unfortunately, the blog does not appear to be ironic or satirical.

Of note is this particular blog entry, containing a clip of a relatively tame French music video, accompanied by the moderate heading - 'Why France is our Enemy'.

Being partly disposed to Francophilic tendencies myself, I though I'd peruse just why France is to be deemed an enemy of the USA, especially on the basis of a single music video:

This is the pinnacle of French culture- a debauched and depraved
temptress cavorting about for the tittilation of the vilest and most sinful
instincts within us.

Methinks he doth protest too much. And I'm sure the French themselves might argue that they have other cultural highlights than obscure music videos.

Until the French language and culture are exterminated, our culture and
our way of life will weaken under their relentless attack. France is our true
enemy. We must never forget this, nor can we forgive them for weakening our
culture and values enough that Al Qaeda could find a way to attack
us.

Despite the professed Christian leanings of the blog, one wonders if its author was under the influence of mind-altering drugs at the time of wondering, in light of the profound distortion of causality at play here. One also wonders whether the authors drug-induced paranoia has led him to dream up a cartoonish amalgam of striped-shirt wearing, accordion-playing, cheese-eating surrender terrorists.

Nonetheless, in the comments, astute and even-handed readers respond to the authors' call for genocide:

Sweet Jesus! I have never seen such a blatant attempt to push the gay
life style down mainstream societies’ throat than this video. It makes my blood
run cold thinking of the number of young men who despoiled themselves watching
this brunette cavort about in a tight dress and take their first step on the
road to drag queen hell. If this is what passes for entertainment over their
France well no wonder they don’t have the stones join us in the war for Freedom
against the Iraqis. This move is a blade out to slice off the manhood of any guy
who watches it.

Ah, not only are the terrorists French, they're also gay...

The author responds to readers' concerns (in bold):

“That video is one of the most depraved things I have ever seen in my
entire life. Why did you show us that, Sisyphus?”
I’m sorry, Marcia. I felt
it was important that we should know what we’re up against- harlots and
temptresses.
“Without French culture we would not have Les Miserables, The
Three Musketeers, Monet, Manet, Notre Dame etc etc.”
You call that culture?
Flush it all down the toilet and give me a decent movie like The Passion any
day.
“Why is this video so troubling? The girl doesn’t reveal anything; aside
from the short cut at the legs, even the costume is fairly conservative. She’s
just singing.”
And undulating her body in a lewd and suggestive manner. It’s
a criminal offense in most jurisdictions of America.
“Now look at Madonna:
for her entire career her specific goal was to push the buttons of traditional
values and spit at the boundaries she saw imposed on women. And she was
American! If you penalize the French on this one, look at home for more
disturbing “troubles”.”
Madonna never would’ve gotten away with that if not
for centuries of French culture leading up to it.

By my way of thinking, even The Passion is surely too lewd, containing as it does well-known Euro-hussy Monica Bellucci. Give me Charlton Heston anytime...

And on it goes. Read the whole thing if you've got time, and feel a need for a good laugh. Elsewhere on the blog, the author calls for the US to overthrow its erstwhile ally, Turkey.

Of course, we in Australia have our share of RWDB freaks, known by a range of traditional terms. We have Fred Nile and the Australia First Party in politics, Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtson in the media, and Tim Blair and Iain Hall on the intertubes.

Still, it's nice to know that things could be even worse.

Stupidity

'A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.' (Bertrand Russell)

'Almost half of Australian women aged 18-41 were sexually abused as a child.
Research shows a staggering 45 per cent of women were abused as children by family members, friends or strangers.Abuse ranged from non-contact behaviour -- such as indecent exposure or being forced to watch pornography -- through to rape.' (Herald Sun, 9/10/2007, reporting on Griffith University research)

Examples of Stupidity.

The Source:

'I’m always horrified by the abuse of children. But I must say that almost every Australian woman has been abused by dodgy statistics. ' (Andrew Bolt)

Responses to Andrew Dolt:
'Griffith is a strange place.
It is also a hotbed for Wahabism in Australia. Taxpayer funded, of course.' (Village Idiot)

'That is an enormous spectrum of ‘abuse’ and implys that almost every second woman I pass on the street has been ‘sexually abused’.
So before this ‘statistic’ moves into the vernacular as they invariably do - think belief in AGW - let’s see the individual breakdown of these statistical elements otherwise it’s sensationalist nonsense.
Again, kind of like AGW. ' (Inbred Retard)

'Griffith has provided a mecca for Far Left academics and student since established.Unfortunately some escape to mainstream education and positions of power within anti-development groups and Government quangos.
Just read some of the blogs originating from Griffith academics and you will get the message.' (McCarthyite Degenerate Checking Under Bed for Reds)

'Rubbish. Pure unadulterated rubbish! I grew up in a big family with a huge extended family and no one has ever been abused, or has done any abusing. Of course, in making that statement, I leave out all our childhood fights and spats. I well remeber when we were kids the girls gave as good as they got! According to the study and your statement, I should at least know someone, or even know of someone who has been abused, or has been an abuser. Sadly for you, that is not the case.' (Self-appointed & Cretinous Representative of all Mankind).

'Man is arrogant in proportion to his ignorance.' (Edward Bulwer-Lytton)

The Stalker (starring Iain Hall)

Serial cyber-stalker Iain Hall has begun sending me unsolicited emails in response to a comment I wrote on Grodscorp. After a couple of these emails, consisting of Iain's semi-literate rants about his 'troll', I pointed out to him his hypocrisy, by suggesting that he linked to some blogs that are hate-sites by any definition. The clowns at A Wanker's Haven, in particular, come to mind. Hall has used these correspondences as fodder for his latest post.

Hall basically tries 2 lines of argument. One, he suggests that I cannot criticise the bigotry of AWH, as apparently I support jihad. Secondly, in his emails, Hall repeatedly tries to claim that his detractors have 'threatened' him, and that his own stalking is/was entirely innocuous.

Firstly, it's uncontroversial to all but the most frothing at the mouth proto-fascists that AWH is an extremist hate-site. Others have pointed out some evidence for his, as have I. To put this in context, I have written a number of posts examining the rise of the radical right in the West, and discussed how the consequences of this rise are generally trivialised by the MSM, whilst Muslims (and gays, and um, Democrats voters) continue to demonised. I've also discussed the violent consequences of this ideology, in Cronulla, and elsewhere.

Our resident retard has, for some time now, given his uncritical support for this hate-site, saying that AWH's authors 'are courageous enough to stand up for our western society and tradition, which they vigorously and cheerfully defend.' The only tradition for which AWH stands is that involving brownshirts and jackboots, but naturally, this niceties escape Hall. To that end, back in July, after being the subject of many Hall posts, I wrote:

I've added Hallwatch to my
blog roll, something that will no doubt anger the subject of the said blog, Iain
Hall. Iain has a history of dubious online behaviour (which, in fairness,
appears to have improved somewhat of late), and Hallwatch functions as a kind of
psychoanalytic 'return of the repressed', making public all the stuff the Iain
disavows. Iain has often attempted to 'fisk', as he puts it, the present writer,
though his critiques don't go beyond cliches, slogans, and patronising ad
hominem attacks about my presumed age and political beliefs. All of this is
something I take with good humour. Perhaps Iain is even correct in believing his
right-wing mediocrity is a virtue; after all, it appears to be practiced in
company. And this company is the primary reason for my adding Hallwatch to my
blogroll. For as long as Iain gives support and links to those who agitate for genocide
and fascism, it is essential that his online 'conscience' be given a voice
on cyberspace. (July 2007)

These points were reiterated by me in my emailed responses to Hall, who has repeatedly badgered me about my 'support' for Hallwatch. Hall not only denies that AWH are proto-fascist in any respect, he accuses me of 'supporting jihad'. He repeated this claim via email, and I therefore challenged him to provide a shred of evidence for his assertions. His only 'evidence' has come today, when he has posted a quote of mine saying that we can 'readily explicate acts of terror' in countries that are occupied or at war. In this regard, I mentioned not only jihadists, but also the Tamil Tigers, and the Shining Path. Again, this statement is fairly uncontroversial, irrespective of your political persuasion, and it doesn't contain any endorsement of terrorism. Of course, we have not come to expect literacy from Hall.

Hall's rubbishy 'argument' in today's post doesn't contain anything other than a few non-sequiters, demands that I condemn jihad, and other garbage, presented in mangled syntax and backwoods dialect.

Secondly, in his various emails, Hall has exonerated himself for his long history of internet stalking. When challenged on his behaviour with Anonymous Lefty, and his name calling and threats to the employment of Mikey, for instance, Hall says:

I have brokered some sort of accommodation with the both Jeremy Sear and
Mikey Capital, I have made some rather big concessions in the process...There is
however one thing that you should realise about our learned friend and that is
that he did not start out posting as "Anonymous Lefty” His first blog was called
"Melbourne lefty" and he was not so precious about posting either his personal
details nor his own photo (which is how I got it from a google cache). It was
only after he was indiscrete about things that were going on in the law firm he
then worked for that he was forced, by him employer, to delete his
"Melbourne lefty blog" low and behold he then started his current blog with a
post begging for discretion from some of his blogging mates and tried to claim
anonymity.

Oh. Well that's not stalking then, is it...Hall also claims to have Anon Lefty's personal address, and considers himself a good sport for not having disclosed it.

Hall also defended his other flame-wars, in his typical chromosome-deficient prose:

You see what really started the fight was Sear coming over to my newly
created blog and demanding that I delete a piece I had written called
“being Anonymous” (in my archive) where I pointed out that we all leave clues
about our identity when we write on the net. This was inspired by an exchange
between Sear and another commenter about Andrew bolt knowing whom he was and
suggesting all kinds of grandiose conspiracies that Bolt would have needed to
find out who Sear is. Had he politely requested my discretion I would have been
happy to oblige but I have never taken to bully boy tactics and that was where
it all started.

Bully boy tactics? This accusation coming from Hall? He does not stop there folks:

You know what I have no guilt at all about the way that I have fought my
corner in the last couple of years but in reference to Mikey he himself
constantly refers to his obesity to his other health issues and at no time did I
ever threaten to inform his employer about his blogging in contravention to his
employment contract, but I did opine that such action would be possible. And do
you know why? Of course you don’t but you are willing to condemn me for it none
the less. So what you cite as facts are actually nowhere near as definitive as
you think.

That Hall has 'no guilt at all' does not, of course, make him 'innocent'. He continues:

Like wise my flame war with Everett is more nuanced than he would have
you believe, more to do with his objecting to my refering to his writing as
"stogey" than the matters that he claims and as for his harping on about
“Monster truck” what a crock that is (the full text of the correspondence is in
my archive) Everett likes to promote himself as some sort of science Guru but do
you know that he is just a student, and an undergraduate at that?

Perhaps if Hall became more student-like, he might give his readers a coherent sentence on occasion.

I won't continue with Hall's other emails; they go on an on. Suffice to say, Hall also accuses me of being Islamic, and of being 'ethically inconsistent' in opposing proto-fascism. Such slurs from the likes of him amount to a compliment, if anything.

I don't intend to waste further blogspace with this narcissistic half-wit. His own statements invite both condemnation (his unwavering support for the bigotry of AWH) and mockery (his inept attempts at blogging, stalking, and blogstalking). I see no cardinal sin in Hallwatch issuing a few broadsides. In any case, Hall's behaviour has become so notorious as to be the subject of an Encyclopaedia article, outlining his antics.

After all this unpleasantness, I'll leave readers with one of BB's satirical songs about Hall (to the tune of 'Candle in the Wind'), in which I find strange echoes of my own sentiments:

Goodbye Iain Hall

Thank fuck we don't know you at all

Or you might have got us sacked

Or even stalked us all

You crawled out of the woodwork

And you created a million blogs

All filled with piss and vinegar

Then again you had no job
And it seemed to us you live your life

Like a condom full of wind

Never knowing when to fuck up

So much shit to spin

We don't want to know you

You're a wanker mate

Your candles burned out, now fuck off

Forever would be great

UPDATE:

The intertubes have plenty of evidence of Iain; Hall's unhealthy obsessions:

http://thespinzine.squarespace.com/journal/2006/9/14/sex-and-the-blogosphere.html

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/dentist_drilled/#111481

http://industrialdollhouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/im-cute-buy-me-something.html#c114360614911298691

http://mrpetehasachat.blogspot.com/2007/01/another-one-down.html

If I could be bothered with more Googling, I'm sure I could find plenty more about Hall's pathetic attempts to 'out' other bloggers, and his laughable efforts to fill the intertubes with bile against ideological opponents.