Quadrant follows the fashion of much of the rest of the right in Australia in making war on science. It has promoted Creationism, HIV/AIDS denial, the DDT ban myth and, of course, global warming denial. But ever since new editor Keith Windschuttle took over earlier this year, Quadrant has cranked the attacks on climate science up to 11. Harry Clarke reports:
Recent issues of Quadrant contain a number of 'denialist' views on climate change issues that will leave those concerned with the implications of climate change troubled. Quadrant could analogously act as an outlet for the flat earth society and the outcome of supporting such a similar sustained attack on scientific logic would make no more sense than supporting climate change denialists without offering anything in the way of the majority accepted-science contrary view.
The most recent article by Bob Carter follows efforts by Ray Evans (here and here) and papers by Ian McFadyen (here) and William Kininmonth (here). All are attempts to debunk the global warming hypothesis as phoney science. None of the Quadrant contributions provide a mainstream contribution to recent climate change debates and indeed the minority views of these denialists are not set in the context of the broader debate.
Clarke explains what is wrong with the articles, as does Robert Merkel. I already did the Kininmonth piece, while Gary Sauer-Thompson addressed the very silly article from Ian McFadyen. (McFadyen reckons that climate science is a religion. No, really.)
That's not the half of it. Clarke listed five articles, but there were two more (not on line) in March and June by Ray Evans (yet again) and Sev Sternhell respectively. And it seems that the latest fad at Quadrant is to include ritual denunciations of mainstream climate science in articles about other things. For instance, Michael Warby's pompous book review of Liberal Fascism:
That the overlap between the modern progressivist Left and fascism has increased is true: anti-globalisation, identity politics and deep green environmentalism are all forms of anti-Enlightenment romanticism, as is much anti-commercialism. Adding to the overlap is hostility to a Jewish entity (Israel). Their self-righteous parading of morally heroic purposes has affinities with the Will glorification of Fascism. There is much of Gleichschaltung in the progressivist Left's constant treatment of dissent against its premises as malignancy, including rednecks-have-no-speech-rights jurisprudence. Particularly in the global warming panic, with the patent desire to forge a Volksgemeinschaft from decarbonisation.
Kevin Donnelley on education policy (Quadrant June 2008):
It should also be noted that many non-government schools have long since adopted some of the more fashionable excesses of the PC movement, including "sorry days", affirmative action for women and programs related to environmental awareness and the supposed dangers of global warming.
A play review by Michael Connor:
Yet Williamson's leftism has changed since the 1960s, for he has joined the climate change cult. He lashes Andrew Bolt not just for criticising a play by Hannie Rayson, in which a Peter Costello-based character kills a refugee, but also because he is "the last writer in the world to deny that global warming is a reality". Wrong again. The climatology zealotry (though he does not seem to realise that the words of the hymn have changed, it's no longer "global warming" but "climate change") is linked to old-fashioned anti-capitalism.
A grumpy old man shtick by Michael Galak:
I still do not like Lenin. I still don't like komsomoltsy, red or green, who peddle ideological crap and expect me to burn with enthusiasm when I hear it.
Keith Windschuttle himself does at least address the science, even though he gets it wrong:
The sea level rises predicted by Gore and Manne depend upon the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland suddenly disappearing, a scenario deriving more from Hollywood than science. Even the doomsters on the UN IPCC scientific panel observe comparatively tiny sea level rises.
Global mean sea level has been rising. From 1961 to 2003 the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 mm plus or minus 0.5 mm per year. For the twentieth century the average rate was 1.7 mm plus or minus 0.5 mm per year ... For the period 1993 to 2003, for which the observing system was much better, the contributions from thermal expansion (1.6 mm plus or minus 0.5 mm per year) and loss of mass from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets together give 2.8 mm plus or minus 0.7 mm per year.
-- UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Report, 2007, Chapter Five, 'Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level', p 387
Hence, if the IPCC's worst-case observations remain the same, by 2095 world sea level will have risen by between 18.3 cm and 30.4 cm. At this rate, it will take between 1741 years and 2902 years for the sea to rise 20 feet.
But the IPCC thinks that sea-level rise may well accelerate. It is misleading to describe the current rate as a "worst-case".
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The French have used the GRACE satellites to show that rises are now 3.3 mm per year. 80% of which is from glacial/land ice melt.
The other point is that sea based ice sheets around Greenland and the Antarctic are collapsing. This makes it easier for the land based ice to deposit into the seas, thus increasing the rate of sea level rises.
eg. the ice behind the Larson C ice shelf has the potential to raise sea levels by a foot.
> Their self-righteous parading of morally heroic purposes has affinities with the Will glorification of Fascism.
Civil activism is the Triumph des Willens of Liberal Fascism.
> affirmative action for women
And affirmative action for women is the Eva Braun of Liberal Fascism.
This is the magazine, that printed not one, but two diatribes against the metric system a couple of years ago, based on the fact that the metric measurements were hard to understand and that imperial measurements were natural. The grumpy old man writing the article had obviously never talked to anyone under 40. I gave up on Quadrant around that time, despite some often interesting articles, the wingnuttery, the constant level of spite (especially from Paddy McGuinness) and the incompetent graphic design made it far from worth its cover price or the effort to winnow the wheat from the chaff.
That they have descended into climate change denial is hardly surprising.
The grumpy old man writing the article had obviously never talked to anyone under 40.
The element that comprises the set of all Quadrant writers.
I think you will find that it is a war on pseudoscience that Quadrant and grumpy old men are engaged in.
As for Harry the economist, his frequent use of perjoratives, while asking commentators not to write them in their posts, is hypocritical since the use of term denier is meant to be associated with holocaust denial.
So I find it amusing that a Keynesian economist and a computer programmer believe they understand the scientific method - they don't.
Louis, you are in denial.
In common parlance, "denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
You may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference)."
The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind (don't take it personally Louis) because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality."
It appears people of your ilk want to associate denial with the holocaust ... that is your choice.
Then again, maybe Louis should take it personally ...
"Denial of denial: This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors.
Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behavior.
This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion."
Louis, your delusional ... seek help.
> the use of term denier is meant to be associated with holocaust denial.
The word "denial" is the Sütterlin of Liberal Fascism.
> So I find it amusing that a Keynesian economist and a computer programmer believe they understand the scientific method
Keynesian economics is the "50 Scientists Against Einstein" of Liberal Fascism.
Computer programmers are the Sicherheitspolizei of Liberal Fascism.
Louis Hissink is the Harry Truman of Liberal Fascism.
And Antoine Lavoisier was the Nostradamus of Liberal Fascism.
...Quadrant is not at war with science. Science is a bystander and can't participate. Quadrant can, and can point out doubt. Elimination of doubt is what science is all about. But hey, isn't this a science blog ?
>Quadrant is not at war with science. Science is a bystander >and can't participate. Quadrant can, and can point out doubt. >Elimination of doubt is what science is all about. But hey, >isn't this a science blog ?
I thought that you eliminated scientific doubt by challenging the science in question with alternative scientific theories/research/experiment etc. by other scientists?
As a consequence it is the magazine that is the bystander in the scientific process. The magazine can question the science, but can hardly be a participant unless the magazine does its own research and submits it to peer review.
> Quadrant [...] can point out doubt.
This is doubt:
> That the overlap between the modern progressivist Left and fascism has increased is true
This is doubt:
> some of the more fashionable excesses of the PC movement, including "sorry days", affirmative action for women
This is doubt:
> I find it amusing that a Keynesian economist and a computer programmer believe they understand the scientific method - they don't.
Rabid diatribes against all things liberal and semi-liberal are ... the Iwo Jima battle of Liberal Fascism.
Well, to be fair, Paddy McGuinness published a helluva lot of material by yours truly. I got along well with Paddy, found him an excellent editor, couldn't quite understand why he kept the company he did in his later years, since he was an atheistic libertarian at heart. I kind of drifted away from writing for Quadrant not out of any quarrel with its editorship at the time but more out having other publication priorities and, to be honest, a vague sense, given the irate reactions from readers, of casting pearls before swine. It got boring after a while dealing with some of the religiose (I use the term advisedly) wingnuts who liked to reply to me (and I'm not referring here to the reasonably sensible Bishop Tom Frame who responded a couple of times; he was fine).
I'd probably still send stuff now and then if Paddy were still with us; he was a complex man, and I have to say that I, personally, was always treated well by him.
...Quadrant challenges orthodox positions, and by doing so stimulates debate. This is the classic role of the agent provocateur. Contemporary social comment is built around this paradigm. Elitist arrogance has to therefore validate its existence and justify its authority. Everyone benefits from this debate...only the marginalised and insecure challenge this process.
I have published an article in Quadrant and, like Russell Blackford, found Paddy to be an interesting man. I also enjoy reading a lot of the material there and have subscribed on and off for about 20 years. It is a major source of conservative opinion in this country and valuable for that reason alone.
My view of the denialist literature published there is that it advances views that are contradicted by evidence. Moreover, these denialist views are repeated - despite being rejected by critics - without comment on the claimed rejections.
Louis I think the term 'denialist' is preferable to 'skeptic' since we should all be skeptical of science and constantly reassess in the light of new evidence. But denial seems to describe the attitude of the Quadrant writers since they entirely ignore the body of evidence that has been assembled and simply accuse those putting forward this evidence of promulgating 'pseudoscience'.
...the debate is really about orthodoxy and the distortions that have taken already taken place. To his great credit Windschuttle has challenged revisionist views of racist oppression, and continues to assert realism over pseudo-science where ever he finds it. The larrakin Aussie battler is being watched in NZ...and so far he's still at the crease...
Folks unfamiliar with the work of Louis Hissink might like to [read this](http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/).
> Elitist arrogance
Peer review is the Beer Hall Putsch of Liberal Fascism.
Louis Hissink.
Four years ago Eli asked this of you at the link that Tim gives at #16:
Eli asked without receiving a response on the thread. Do you care to finally answer the question here, for the sake of completeness? Bonus points if you can incorporate homopolar motors and the electric universe into your answer.
ayrdale said:
> ...Quadrant challenges orthodox positions, and by doing so >stimulates debate. This is the classic role of the agent >provocateur. Contemporary social comment is built around this >paradigm. Elitist arrogance has to therefore validate its >existence and justify its authority. Everyone benefits from >this debate...only the marginalised and insecure challenge >this process.
But the debate leads no where if there is no alternative scientific explanation. In other words the debate is pointless in solving issues that can only be solved by science and people taking action.
"Quadrant challenges orthodox positions, and by doing so stimulates debate. This is the classic role of the agent provocateur. Contemporary social comment is built around this paradigm" - arydale
I thought Quadrant was the redoubt of real science bravely battling for the "elimination of doubt"?
Now it's just social comment. At least this is nearer the truth. Challenging the orthodoxy isn't scientific unless there are objective grounds to do so. Challenging for the sake of making a challenge is just contrarianism.
Though this does open up many more feilds of endevour for the fine scientific minds at Quadrant; flat earth, spontaneous generation of life, bad air theory of disease, witches. Just to eliminate the doubt, of course.
Quadrant: Bringing the Dark Ages into the 21stC.
or
Quadrant: Pre-Enlightenment Thinking for the Post-Modernist.
I'm waiting to hear about someone saying evolution is anti-Enlightenment.
Russell at #12, hc at #14.
Keith Windschuttle is the current editor of Quadrant - you talk of this latest tripe from Q as though it's all Paddy's doing. It's not, he's ... ummm, dead.
Read up on Windbag, he's an historian that denies the atrocities perpetuated on indigenous Australians in early white settlement. If he can deny that, he can deny anything ... not least climate change.
In my view, Quadrant under Windbag is just that, all hot air with, unfortunately, no real substance now.
Tim,
On the topic of the 'DDT ban myth'.
For many years my uncle represented UNEP when working on aid programs in Africa and also served as a special rapporteur for the UN. He has direct, first hand knowledge of how the UN ban on DDT was implemented and the politics behind it.
You really should keep an open mind on this one and talk to people who worked in the field before peddling your 'myth' story, as it wrecks whatever credibility you might have on other topics.
I liked Quadrant during the Cold War, when I was a teenager rioting against Leftist orthodoxy at uni. But it seems to have lost its way since then.
First appointing a Soft Leftist (Robert Manne!) as editor. Then Paddy McGuinness who was nice in person but cantankerous in print. Now Windschuttle has a platform to promote his pet peeves.
The Right is in serious intellectual trouble at home and abroad. Mostly because its most recent raison d'etre seems to have been the negation of Leftist errors, which have been somewhat corrected along the Third Way.
Once upon a time - after the depredations of the New Left during the sixties - the New Right was in the intellectual vanguard of re-constructed social science:
- neo-liberal economists eg Friedman
- neo-conservative sociologists eg Murray
- neo-realist geo-politicals eg Morgenthau
- neo-Darwinian biologists eg EO Wilson
But now most of the New Left has grown up and gotten abit older and wiser. In no small measure because smarting from New Right criticisms. The aging New Left still spouts fashionable politically correct nonsense on anything to do with multicultural diversity or sub-perversity. But its otherwise sane.
However most of the New Right have regressed into some sort of infantile ideological disorder. This is perhaps because its positive program appeals to populist xenophobic fear and elitist plutocratic greed. Useful, but not necessarily the most wholesome, human emotions.
The Right needs to appeal to the better angels of mankinds nature if it wants to make political progress. That does not involve sticking a thumb into the eye of science. I've been stuck on Emerging New Technologies ever since building a model of Apollo 11. Anyone got a better suggestion?
Jack at #24
All this left/right, right/wrong?, new/old?, neo-this/that, up/down, east/west, you/me, etc confounds and confuses the issue of dealing with clmate change.
Unfortunately, power and control groups want to politicise the science based on ideological and economic perspective and will use whatever resources at their disposal (including the egos of the likes of Bob Carter and Ray Evans) to misrepresent and distort the science.
I wouldn't mind so much if Quadrant gave equal representation to the other POV, but they don't. This tells me they are not as objective as they claim to be, and have an agenda of subverting the science for their own vested interests ... which is not the search for truth.
> power and control groups want to politicise the science based on ideological and economic perspective
...and then turn around to accuse others of doing that.
Which is OK because... environmentalism is the Anschluss Ãsterreichs of Liberal Fascism.
On his blog, [Jack Lacton wrote](http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-un-moral-malnourishment-in-m…):
>Is there a more hypocritical, ineffective, biased and corrupt major institution in the world than the United Nations?
And now your supposed authority on DDT is a UN official? Make up your mind, Jack.
DavidK | November 22, 2008 9:12 PM
>Jack at #24. All this left/right, right/wrong?, new/old?, neo-this/that, up/down, east/west, you/me, etc confounds and confuses the issue of dealing with climate change.
>Unfortunately, power and control groups want to politicise the science based on ideological and economic perspective and will use whatever resources at their disposal (including the egos of the likes of Bob Carter and Ray Evans) to misrepresent and distort the science.
>I wouldn't mind so much if Quadrant gave equal representation to the other POV, but they don't. This tells me they are not as objective as they claim to be, and have an agenda of subverting the science for their own vested interests ... which is not the search for truth.
But that is my point, admittedly not fully elaborated. The Right has become more or less corrupted by a generation in power, after its victories over the Left in the Cold War and Class War. One cannot expect good sense to come from the Right side of politics on the Climate Wars.
The Right is now more interested in protecting the interests of the high-status ("to politicise the science based on ideological and economic perspective") rather than in conservation of good values. (Which is what a naive conservative might hope for.) It is only playing a spoiling role in the Climate Wars, whilst its carbon-intensive backers try to clean up [poor pun] whilst the going is good.
Whats left of the intellectually respectable Right needs to reform itself into something that offers a positive program. I suggest technological progressivism as this kind of thing appeals to the high-status, who are the core supporters of the Right. Also, technological constructivism will obviously have a complementary role to ecological conservatism in tackling climate change.
Webmaster, could you please drop the blockquote tags two pars down to properly close the quote inserted at the head of # 28 Posted by: jack strocchi | November 23, 2008 2:02 AM? Much obliged.
*[OK, done. BTW it's much easier to quote using markdown and just put a greater than symbol at the start of each quoted para. Tim]*
OMG DavidK, you've completely missed my point. I was commenting on the general anti-Quadrant commentary here and saying - I'll spell it out more precisely - that to be fair to Quadrant it published a lot of my (hard-nosed scientific rationalist) material during the period 1998-2004 under the editorship of Paddy McGuinness, who was (I repeat) a good editor and treated me well. Far from blaming Paddy for whatever faults the magazine currently shows, I actually praised him.
I really can't understand how my earlier post could have been interpreted as an attack on Paddy McGuinness, who did in fact die tragically last year (a fact that I was well aware of and feel sad about, since I considered him a friend despite many differences in our political views). But, anyway, I hope it's clearer now.
Actually, I'll correct myself on one thing: Paddy actually died in January this year. But of course he'd stepped down as editor of Quadrant before that.
#27: Tim, you haven't thought about that very hard have you? I am aware, via my uncle, of how astonishingly corrupt the UN really is, how its agenda has long been hijacked by anti-progress interest groups and how it enables real hardship to continue. When I talk to his colleagues they tell the same stories so it's hardly one man's view. All of them believe that the best UN work is done by UNICEF but that the cost of that program is so high that it should be done by a NGO.
I hope that one day the real DDT ban story will be told by the mainstream media and the United Nations will enforce its own Charter.
> you haven't thought about that very hard have you? I am aware, via my uncle,
If Tim Lambert had thought harder about the DDT issue, he'd have been able to channel the awareness of Jack Lacton's uncle. Also, if Jack Lacton's uncle says it, then it must be true. Ergo, channeling the awareness of Jack Lacton's uncle equals channeling the truth.
Because Jack Lacton's uncle is ... the General Charles de Gaulle of Liberal Fascism.
>All this left/right, right/wrong?, new/old?, neo-this/that, up/down, east/west, you/me, etc confounds and confuses the issue of dealing with clmate change.
>Unfortunately, power and control groups want to politicise the science based on ideological and economic perspective and will use whatever resources at their disposal (including the egos of the likes of Bob Carter and Ray Evans) to misrepresent and distort the science.
Environmental issues today have little do to with left or right politics. Because the mainstream public are getting involved in the issues, as a result any past political bias that may have been there is being watered down considerably.
This of course is how it should be, the issues have an impact on us all and how it is dealt with is an issue for both the left and right.
Environmental politics must carve its own path through left/right ideas and choose what is suitable to do the job in hand.
The Left support the excluded low-status.
The Right support the established high-status.
Ecology is a natural Left wing issue because ecological damage hurts the low-status most. This includes animals, plants and people living on desert islands.
The Right wing do not care so much about ecology because they tend to live in areas that will not be much harmed by climate change. Or because they make their living out of carbon.
Ecology is also about conservatism since it is about maintaining identity of ecological identities. (Constructivism is about altering identity.)
This argument proves, assuming acceptance of axioms, that one can be Left wing and conservative.
Yes, it's true I worked for the UNEP and can testify to the UNs complete success in being ineffectual, as my fine young nephew correctly describes, in banning DDT. We can only be thankful that's it ineffectualness was not less, or even more poor people would have died from malaria.
> This argument proves, assuming acceptance of axioms, that one can be Left wing and conservative.
And that matters... how?
Not that those who keep thinking in terms of Left-Right-Left-Right will ever get it, but the simple fact is that there are real people out there who are faced with real problems, and what matters is whether such and such a measure will solve the problem, not whether Obama is a SOCIALIST!!! or a REDISTRIBUTIST!!! or some other "-ist".
Then again, Deng Xiaoping's "black cat or white cat if it catches mice it's good cat" remark is -- without a doubt -- the "Fourteen Words" of Liberal Fascism.
>The Right wing do not care so much about ecology because they tend to live in areas that will not be much harmed by climate change. Or because they make their living out of carbon.
really?
Then I guess all those rich nutters buying big mansions on Palm Island in Dubai almost on top of the sea will not have a sea level problem?
The 'right' are probably going to be just as much affected, purely because some of the radical parts ignore the warnings or because their personality is such that they want to plow ahead and not bother about the consequences.
Of course on the other hand they might also be cynical and accept the warnings but publicly pretend to ignore them.
The left want to protect jobs. Here in the UK you have left wingers and right wingers wanting to bring coal back online for different reasons. You get the left wing getting all emotional about losing jobs in the car industry and advocating the use of more coal. The left have a vested interest in satisfying immediate human concerns as do the right. They just express it in different ways.
Yes, it's true I worked for the UNEP and can testify to the UNs complete success in being ineffectual, as my fine young nephew correctly describes, in banning DDT. We can only be thankful that's it ineffectualness was not less, or even more poor people would have died from malaria.
this is simply false and in complete contradiction to facts lined out by Tim over a very long time on this very blog.
it is in contradiction to most denialist positions as well, btw.
i just wished that the UN had been as effective in their handling of DDT, as the US was while fighting terrorism by attacking Iraq.
or their regulation of the financial sector...
Jack Lackton's 'uncle', huh?
Bugger the name dropping - provide some substantial, documentable evidence for your claim about the 'banning' of DDT. Otherwise you're no better than a figment of a denialist's imgination.
Dudes, don't let the snark pass over your heads so easily ...
C'mon, someone 'fess up to being "Uncle".
> the UNs complete success in being ineffectual [...] in banning DDT.
:-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B :-B
Yes, it's true I worked for the UNEP and can testify to the UNs complete success in being ineffectual
Shouldn't this sock puppet be named 'Jack Lacton's Clown'?
------------
Strocchi's assertion of
is incorrect wrt 'conservatism'.
Conservatism is not about maintaining identity. That is not part of the foundational ideation or realized principles. There is starting to be some initial empirical evidence regarding political orientation residing in brain patterns, and the findings do not bear out the b-quoted assertion. Lakoff begs to differ as well.
Best,
D
Dano:
Read the Uncle's words really, really carefully.
:-B :-B :-B :-B
> Lakoff begs to differ as well.
Obviously, Lakoff is the Eichmann of Liberal Fascism.
Bi-IJI, with all due respect, I think that joke is no longer as funny as it was the first time.
I think we should be more constructive in our approach to Quadrant. Let's start with a suggestion that they give Louis Hissink some column space to explain the Electric Universe with reference to Velikovsky, and then get Alan Siddons to explain how the sun is like a lightbulb with foil wrapped around it.
I always thought the Reich got the brunt of the alarmists and socialists. Their scientists determined that we live inside a hollow earth, that the universe is eternal ice, and that saucers and the other technology of the Vrill at ultima Thule will supercede eco-extremism.
We are only now catching up with them.
I'm deeply ashamed to admit that I am Jack Lacton's Uncle.
And that I worked for that hopelessly ineffectual agency, the UN, and was witness to its grand conspiracy to kill millions of poor people by banning DDT. A nefarious scheme which it conducted without no inconsiderable success.
Russell at #30, my bad. My whole point is that Quadrant is now under editorial control of a "denier" - see #6/7. This can't be good for open and honest debate.
Ayrdale at #15
You say "To his great credit Windschuttle has challenged revisionist views of racist oppression, and continues to assert realism over pseudo-science where ever he finds it."
Help me out here, please elaborate because it sounds like your saying Windschuttle is in denial as per #6/7 as well. Ergo, Windschuttle:
1. denies the history of aboriginal slaughter under white settlement and,
2. denies the overwhelming evidence of climate change
MacDonald's burgers are the steelwool scrubpads of Liberal Fascism
Does anyone get the feeling that Jack Lacton's Uncle may not actually be Jack Lacton's uncle?
It's amazing what this "internetz" can do, ain't it?
James Haughton:
> I think that joke is no longer as funny as it was the first time.
No joke this is, Mr. James Haughton. Very serious business it is indeed. But right you are, for more constructive we should become.
Well, I'll say we should constantly point out the evils of Liberal Fascism while complaining about how those Liberal Fascists are trying to make Nazi comparisons using the word "denier".
Ergo: MacDonald's burgers are the steelwool scrubpads of Liberal Fascism... CIVILITY!!! CIVILITY!!!
Hey Yoda. The reason why so many get confused: do you mean American "Liberal Fascism" or Australian "Liberal Fascism"? One is a contradiction in terms.
The former being left of right, the latter being right of left - or was that the former being left of centre and the latter being right of centre? Aaagggghhhhhhh!
Wouldn't it be nice if all the rights/lefts/ups/downs/and insideouts converged, respecting each other's differences to solve common problems? Just a thought.
Doh! - that solves everything! We'd all be centres ... like a great big donut hole. Mmmmm, ddooo...nuttts.
Jack Lacton posts:
Jack, there is no "UN ban on DDT."
True, but look how successful it was.
DavidK:
Well, Yoda's busy right now fighting Darth Lenin with his trusty lightsaber, but I think the idea is that Fascism and Nazism are actually on the extreme left -- just like Modern Liberalism itself!
After all, "There is no God!" is the "Gott mit uns" of-- well, you get the idea.
And I for one welcome Jack Lacton's Uncle. :)
OK Frank, are you equating President Elect Obama and Australia's Prime Minister Rudd as fascists/nazis?
Or, do you think either/both are more moderate, centre if you like?
Having answered that, where would you place George Dubya or Ozzie's ex PM, John dubya Howard?
B. Hussein O. is obviously a dyed-in-the-wool fascist because of his fascist middle name. And his bloodline.
Kevin Rudd is also a 100% fascist because he can speak Mandarin Chinese, which is a fascist language.
G. Dubya B. is obviously not fascist, because he has a folksy accent.
John Howard isn't fascist either -- I just know that.
And Al Gore? Al Gore is Leni Riefenstahl. Actually, so is James Hansen. And Michael Moore. They're all Leni Riefenstahl.
Bugger, and I thought Al Gore was fat.
Mmmmmm .... donuts.
Btw, what about Windschuttle, editor of Quadrant?
Argh! You keep asking questions! This is gotcha journalism!
Speaking of donuts: you can put a donut on a table and draw a swastika in the centre. This proves that donuts are fascist. Just like Al Gore the Fat.
I just like how it's a conspiracy that "global warming" has become "climate change". Well yes, but not in the way deniers think...
> Well yes, but not in the way deniers think...
Deniers... think? :)
And, this just in: Mark Hoofnagle is also a Liberal Fascist!
> If a doctor confronts an alcoholic about their denial of their alcoholism, they're not suggesting they hate Jewish people too. When a psychiatrist tells their patient they're in denial, that's hardly comparing them to the Nazis. When we say a public figure has issued a denial of some scandal, we're not suggesting they advocate a new holocaust.
Yes, it's true I worked for the UNEP and can testify to the UNs complete success in being ineffectual, as my fine young nephew correctly describes, in banning DDT. We can only be thankful that's it ineffectualness was not less, or even more poor people would have died from malaria.
Yes, it's true I worked for the UNEP and can testify to the UNs complete success in being ineffectual, as my fine young nephew correctly describes, in banning DDT. We can only be thankful that's it ineffectualness was not less, or even more poor people would have died from malaria.
Yes, it's true I worked for the UNEP and can testify to the UNs complete success in being ineffectual, as my fine young nephew correctly describes, in banning DDT. We can only be thankful that's it ineffectualness was not less, or even more poor people would have died from malaria.