The key to understanding the left: Overpopulation and Resource Scarcity

It’s Malthusianism. Ehrlichism. Suzuki-ism. Scarcity-ism. The belief that there are too many people on earth, and that there are a finite amount of resources on earth. Drill down into the thinking of most left-wing ideas and liberal behavior, and you’ll find this belief, pushed on the public in various forms throughout the culture and academia, is the foundation.

It’s the key to understanding why otherwise normal, well-educated, intelligent people you know, who personally live more-or-less right-of-center lives, accept Big Government as the answer: because population must be reduced, and resources must be rationed, and the only way to do that is with force from above, enforced by the barrel of a gun. It’s why they accept intrusions into the lives of others and themselves. It’s why they accept taxation as a social and punitive tool. It’s why they accept any fraud labeled “green”. It’s why they obsess over the “income gap”. It’s why they feel guilty over their material success. It’s why they feel resentment over those who gain even greater material success. It’s why they accept wealth-redistribution schemes which they fully understand leads to disincentive to work. It’s why they accept government health care death panels. It’s why they accept and defend human baby abortion. It’s why their heroes idolize Castro and Chavez, defend Saddam, clink champagne glasses with Kim Jung-Il, refuse to bomb Hitler’s gas chambers and human incinerators, and idolize the United Nations as it stands by and watches slaughters in Africa.

If conservatives want to have an impact in the fight for the political culture, this is ground zero: the fight against these two twisted notions (overpopulation and resource scarcity) that warp minds and hand all power to the left. Remove this ring the left uses to pull around the people by their noses, and the war can be won. Remove the foundation, and the edifice crumbles to the ground.

So from now on, remember the mantra at all times: there are not too many people on the earth, there are probably too few. There are not too few resources on the earth; mathematically, our resources approach infinity.

Proof #9487 that the abuse of Sarah Palin had nothing to do with Sarah Palin

Proof #9487 that the humiliation and degradation of Sarah Palin had nothing to do with Sarah Palin: The political opponents of Mitt Romney are now lying about what Ann Romney says, in order to humiliate and destroy a woman who has left the liberal plantation.

http://twitchy.com/2012/07/19/media-fail-so-ann-romney-never-said-you-people-after-all/

And Michele Bachmann:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78741.html

Of Menscheviks and Nimrods: Why the Left cannot co-exist with the Jews

A few months ago, I became Facebook friends with someone I call a Menschevik – a play on the old Soviet factional name “Menshevik” – which I define as a humanly decent person (a mensch), but a brainwashed leftist, who is animated by a bleeding heart on issues of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. rather than by the power and envy that animates the more hard-edged class-and-economy warriors. My Menschevik friend recently posted an Occupy Wall Street propaganda graphic that encourages hatred against Israel. The graphic ignores context, history, and decency, preying on ignorance and the goodwill of the Menschevik bleeding heart to make it appear that Israel is guilty of genocide.

Now, why would a good-hearted person, obsessed with issues of oppression and minority rights, fall for the demonization of history’s ultimate minority people, and history’s most oppressed religion? I guess it’s no surprise, given the trajectory of the world of academia and media these past 20 years. But it’s starting to clarify in my mind why even the most good-hearted and intelligent leftists are blinded to their intolerance of Judaism and a Jewish state.

A few years ago, I read Dennis Prager’s “Why the Jews?”, a book that defines what he proposed as (if I remember correctly), the six main reasons for Jew-hatred in the world. The most significant breakthrough he made in this book was identifying what is, to me, the ultimate reason why Jews have always been singled out for destruction by earthly despots and dictators – the nature of the Jewish religion itself. Jews are commanded to be a free people with individual dignity, rights, and responsibilities, committed to values and principles, not politics and tribalism. Dictators and despots, however, require unflinching loyalty and service to vanity and power. The Jewish religion mocks this idea, and encourages speaking truth to power and choosing death over submission.

Now, how does this apply to our big-hearted Menschevik? It goes to the nature of the left. The left at every level is anathema to true Jewish philosophy. For the true left-right spectrum is the spectrum between minimal earthly authority over the individual (far-right), to complete submission of individuals to earthly authority (far-left). The bone-crushing class-warfare leftists require submission to earthly authority in order to punish the rich and redistribute their wealth, while the Menschevik left requires submission in order to eliminate sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, religion, anger, hatred, etc, and to unify under John Lennon’s imaginary “Imagine” world of no religion, countries, or conflicts. Whether the motives are harsh, or come from misguided bleeding-heartedness, the fact is, all leftists require a conformity, unity, and submissiveness that Jews are commanded, by God, to never grant. So the only possible solutions to the left’s Jewish problem is: change the Jews, ban Judaism, or kill the Jews. We find a “change the Jews” movement alive and well today, as the left tries to co-opt the term “Tikkun Olam” to justify all measures of government intervention in private lives, and as it tries to eliminate our historical and moral claim to a homeland; we find “ban Judaism” in some form in every communist and Islamist government; and we find “kill the Jews” in the extreme-left fascist states like Nazi Germany and the Roman Empire.

Is there a solution? In short: no. As long as there has been humankind, there has been a left-wing, working to unify mankind by subsuming individual rights into the collective, in order to create heaven on earth and thus move God to a secondary or tertiary role on earth. The first leftist demagogue was Nimrod, the ancient king who rallied humanity to come together, “speak as one”, and build the Tower of Babel to claim equality with God. We all know how that turned out. And yet, the left never seems to learn. Every other Babel – from Hitler’s thousand-year Reich, to Marx’s history-ending communist revolution, to Rome’s Mare Nostrum, to Islam’s worldwide caliphate, to today’s European Union – has come crashing down to destruction.

And yet, the Jewish people and the Jewish religion live on. As long as the Jewish idea survives, the plans of the Nimrods will be thwarted. They know that, and we know that. Sadly, they will probably never stop trying to eliminate Judaism. Happily, the Jews, and those with a true Judeo-Christian mindset, will never submit. And this, my friends, is the overarching theme of the entire history of mankind.

Tim Pawlenty 2007: Listen to Visionaries like Jimmy Carter, ignore Global Warming Skeptics

I started this blog in February 2007, and many of my initial posts centered around the mountains of evidence emerging that the whole Global Warming/Climate Change movement was a complete fraud. In fact, the talk of March 2007 around the ‘net was UK Channel 4’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary, which exposed the faulty science behind the political watermelon movement. There was an attempt in 2006 to start a “Crunchy Con” movement, but that was a non-starter that fooled no one.

Fast-forward to May 2011, and we have a character named Tim Pawlenty, pretending to be the small-c conservative standard bearer for the Republicans in the 2012 Presidential Election campaign. Yet where was he in April 2007, when we already knew that the Global Warming emperor had no clothes? He was addressing the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) in Minneapolis, with this brief speech. Here is the full text of his remarks to the organization, found also in the .pdf minutes of the MCCAG found here.

Thank you everyone. You’re all busy and you’ve taken time to help us form a better environmental program for the state.

As Peter Drucker taught us, “The practices that got us here, won’t get us to the future. The best way to think about future is to go out and invent it.”

It looks like we should have listened to President Carter. He called us to action, and we should have listened. So we now have ourselves in a bit of a pickle. As is often the case, the people are way ahead of the politicians. We’re benefiting from their tailwind.

Other visionaries deserve credit too, many who may have been dismissed as goofy. They were right, not goofy. Energy and climate issues are intertwined. Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real. Please don’t let these voices discourage or distract you from your mission.

Our hope is at the end of your deliberations, you will have given us a plan for action. I’m proud of Minnesota’s longstanding attention to environmental issues, but here we need to raise the bar as others catch up. We want to be bold, dynamic. But we have to fashion steps. Our actions on climate can’t unravel the political consensus or the Minnesota economy. It must be done in a rational way.

Sometimes success has led to complacency. Sadly we have been complacent in thinking about energy and environment. But we’re reaching a tipping point, and we have to deal with it now. I’ll do my best to lead and advocate for your recommendations.

In summary: ‘Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech was right-on. Listen to the visionaries like him and Al Gore, and ignore those deniers who stand in the way of  big-government solutions to climate change. I believe the climate is at a tipping-point, and I’ll act as governor to do whatever you zealots recommend.’

T-Paw has tried to distance himself from enviro-pimping ways of the past. But his “mistake” wasn’t in, say, 1997, when he could have claimed to not have known any better. This was 2007, when the debunking was publicly available, and the red agenda of the green movement was well known. He was already Governor of a state, and was actively encouraging the greens to provide him a plan to implement! Later in 2007, he actually signed a state bill requiring a Minnesota task force to come up with recommendations on how to implement a cap-and-trade system. There’s no way to write this one off as a youthful indiscretion.

So the question is: Is Tim Pawlenty a naive fool, or another two-faced RINO? Either way: I cannot take his candidacy seriously. If you were pushing that stuff just four years ago, you have no business pretending to be a conservative.

Canada’s Share of Greece Bailout: $9 Billion

From CNBC today: it looks like the US taxpayer is on the hook for $50 Billion through the IMF for the recently-announced bailout of Greece. That’s based on America’s 17% quota on IMF funding. Canada’s IMF quota, according to this 2009 Canada IMF/World Bank primer, is 2.89%. That would leave the Canadian taxpayer on the hook for about US$8.6 Billion, or nearly $9 Billion Canadian monopoly bucks. $9 Billion to bail out the failed social welfare state of Greece, half a world away, with no chance of ever getting the money back.

Just thought you’d like to know – that’s $300 from the pocket of every man, woman and child in Canada.

UPDATE 5/14: Congressional Republicans have introduced a bill that will stop America’s $50 Billion IMF bailout. Will Canada’s Conservatives follow suit?

Barackolytes: Time to wake up, tax hikes are here

Barack Obama’s 2008 voting base can be broken down into three main groups: “The Grad School Left”, who understood perfectly who the man was and what the codes he was speaking meant; “Democrat Tribalists”, who have a pathological hatred of Republicans and would have voted for the remains of Michael Jackson if that is who the Democrat Party nominated; and “Barackolytes”, the dreamy-eyed celebrity-obsessed masses who ignored content, context, and all concepts of common sense, and essentially laid supine saying “Lie to me, sexy!”

The Barackolytes who believed this oft-repeated applause line last fall:

Should watch this and finally say, “the right was right – he is what they said he is”:

“The Great Abandoner” – Charles Adler on Michael Ignatieff and the End of the Coalition

When it comes to covering big-time political events, Winnipeg-based Charles Adler is every bit the equal to his talk radio peers in the US who command daily audiences in the millions (unfortunately, he’s not nearly as good on a day-to-day basis, but we take what we can get). Yesterday, he was at his best with this 12-minute monologue on Iggy, the Coalition, and the Conservative budget, titled “The Great Abandoner” (click on the arrow below to listen, and make sure you stick with it to the end – it gets better as it goes along). Tells you all you need to know about Michael Ignatieff, the new crown-prince-in-waiting of the Canadian media elite:

Read the text here at Fullcomment.com, and join the conversation!

Flaggman’s Radio Debut – The Dave Gordon Show, September 14, 2008

It was just an internet-only production that even the host would admit is listened to by very few. But I got a great kick out of appearing on The Dave Gordon Show the other night, engaging in a panel discussion with fellow Dennis Prager acolyte Dave and fellow blogger Edmund James on the upcoming Canadian election. You can listen to the show here; I enter the discussion around the 25-minute mark:

The Dave Gordon Radio Show, 09-14-2008

Dave was a gentleman and a scholar as host, and I’ll gladly join him for another blogger’s panel in the future (if he’ll have me). Support his show by listening live Sunday evenings at 8:00 on Toronto-based internet radio station Thatradio.com.

Frank Deford on Golf: Politically-Correct Enviro-Nonsense Infecting the World of Sports

The man generally known as the wise old genius of American sportswriting has joined the team – the politically-correct enviro-nonsense smear machine. Exposing himself as a self-hating liberal, Frank Deford’s latest NPR commentary, “Thirsty Golf Courses Need to Go Green“, explains that, because of global warming, golf courses are going to have to allow themselves to turn brown and ugly.

There’s nothing new here – it’s a rehash of left-wing tripe that would have us believe that such lies as “of course, we don’t have enough water anymore for all the people on the earth.” But what is truly annoying, as a lifelong sports fan, is that Deford insists on infecting the most innocent and American of all journalistic areas with this downer crap. And, he demonstrates how liberalism spreads its poison virally through venues like sportswriting and hollywood films. Here’s how the column concludes:

Golf Digest points out, for example, that an incredible 41 percent of golfers polled believe that global warming is a myth.

But among the 59 percent of the enlightened golfers, the problem is being addressed. Perhaps as many as 1,000 courses are using recycled or reclaimed water, and the United States Golf Association has made that mandatory for some areas of the Southwest. New grasses are being developed that require less moisture to thrive. Overseeding is being frowned upon. Courses are being returned more to their natural state, so grass will often have to lose some of its sheen.

You see, at the end of the day, for golf to go green and accommodate itself to the real world, it’s simply going to have to be much more brown.

So here’s the message to the average sports reader who is generally disengaged from political and scientific discourse: if you don’t accept the slippery, ever-shifting force-fed fear-mongering that the world is headed to catastrophe because of your selfish American bourgeoise ways, you are unenlightened. And you don’t live in the real world if you think golf courses should remain lush, green, and clean.

Say what you want about golf and golfers. I, for one, can’t understand where people get the time to take it up as a serious hobby. But there’s no proof that the world is running out of water, let alone being drained of it by golf courses. There’s also no proof that fresh water supplies are in peril in any way. But there is proof that self-hating liberals will eventually turn on everything beautiful, enjoyable, American, and middle-class.

So stop calling me unenlightened, kooks. Stop dismissing my skepticism of your hysteria as being outside the “real world”. And believe me when I tell you: this will be the most mocked and derided magazine cover in the history of sports when all is said and done, and you will feel very stupid for having taken it seriously:

Czech President Vaclav Klaus on reason, freedom, and the climate alarmists

The world leader with an underlying political philosophy closest to that of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper is Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. Both men are trained economists, influenced deeply by free market principles as articulated by Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Freeman, and others who understood that individual freedom cannot be sustained in a command-control economy.

Only one of these men has stood firm against the hysteria of the global warming/climate change enviro-extremists, and their champions of the left who tell us that the only solution is more national and international control over economies – and it ‘aint Harper. Vaclav Klaus never misses an opportunity to expose the Al Gore-led international-socialists-posing-as-green-activists for what they are, and summarized it brilliantly last week in his appearance at Washington’s National Press Club. You’ll find the full text of his remarks here on his web site. Some excerpts :

My thinking today is substantially influenced by the fact that I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature. To command “wind and rain” is one of the famous slogans I remember since my childhood. This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible. It formed my relatively very sharp views on the fragility and vulnerability of free society and gave me a special sensitivity to all kinds of factors which may endanger it.

I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him, (of something greater than his poor self), supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.

…

My deep frustration has been exponentially growing in recent years by witnessing the fact that almost everything has already been said, that all rational arguments have been used and that global warming alarmism is still marching on. It could be even true that “We are now at the stage where mere facts, reason, and truth are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda” (R. McKittrick, private correspondence).

…

The basic questions of the current climate change debate are sufficiently known and well-structured:

1) Do we live in an era of a statistically significant, non-accidental and noncyclical climate change?

2) If so, is it dominantly man-made?

3) If so, should such a moderate temperature increase bother us more than many other pressing problems we face and should it receive our extraordinary attention?

4) If we want to change the climate, can it be done? Are current attempts to do so the best allocation of our scarce resources?

My answer to all these questions is NO, but with a difference in emphasis. I don’t aspire to measure the global temperature, nor to estimate the importance of factors which make it. This is not the area of my comparative advantages. But to argue, as it’s done by many contemporary environmentalists, that these questions have already been answered with a consensual “yes” and that there is an unchallenged scientific consensus about this is unjustified. It is also morally and intellectually deceptive.