Animal "rights" activists appear to have firebombed the home of a molecular biologist in Santa Cruz. California. The terrorists are trying to force a halt to scientific research that involves death and discomfort for animals. Mary Anne Ostrom of the San Jose Mercury-News reports:
a well-known molecular biologist and his family, including two small children, were forced to escape a smoke-filled house using a second-story ladder after a firebomb was intentionally set, Santa Cruz police said. One family member sustained injuries requiring brief hospitalization, and police are calling the firebombing, which occurred shortly before 6 a.m., a case of attempted homicide.These thugs are trying to intimidate with deadly force those with whom they disagree. They are as much terrorists as al Qaeda, and deserve to be hunted down and punished just as ruthlessly.
About the same time, a car belonging to a researcher parked at an on-campus home was also firebombed, destroying the vehicle.
The violence occurred four days after a customer at Caffe Pergolesi, a downtown Santa Cruz coffeehouse, found fliers listing the names, home addresses, home phone numbers and photos of 13 UC-Santa Cruz science researchers and professors. Police believe unidentified animal rights activists created the fliers, which were made to appear as "wanted posters." They warned "Animal abusers everywhere beware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse."
The researcher at the University of California Santa Cruz will no doubt bear the scars of this potentially deadly assault for the rest of his life, as will his family.
I await the loud condemnation of animal protection groups like PETA, and from the left wing community in Santa Cruz. But I am not holding my breath. A new dark age beckons.
The racism of Marxism
Marxism is probably the most racist ideology to ever rear it's ugly head on the Earth. Although its adherents claims to be anti racists, their ideology is the epitome of racism. Consider it's founder Karl Marx. Marx was an evil white supremacist and anti Semite. Although such people would balk at that notion, claiming Marx was a Jew and go so far as to say the whole reason of his ideology to destroy the white race! The truth is that although Marx came from a Jewish background, he would be right at home with Hitler, David Duke and Richard Butler. Matter of fact, Hitler's National Socialists and the KKK base their ideology on none other than Karl Marx. Nazism is nothing more than an acronym for National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party. That's right. The white supremacists, Christian Identity, skinheads and Nation of Islam are real life socialists. In fact visit their hate sites and see for yourself. International Answer, Code Pink are sanitized versions of what a real socialist is.
Karl Marx did not go to any lengths to conceal his hatred towards non white races. In a letter to a competitor of his he wrote, "... it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger like." Engels was also a racist writing in 1887 concerning Marx's son in law, "Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district." He was the Representative of a district that had a zoo.
On Mexicans, Marx and Engels "Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?" They even write, "In America, we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States." Can you believe that!? We have Hispanic Marxists and their supporters in Southern California right now demanding secession, under the red banner and it's none other than Marx and Engels praising the conquest of former territory! Of course it wasn't theirs to begin with. More about that at a later time.
Racism as practiced by Marxism would eventually make it's ugly debut in the USSR under Josef Stalin. During the purges of the 1930's Some of Stalin's biggest targets other than poor peasant landowners called Kulaks, were ethnic minorities living in Russia such as Jews, Moslems, Mongolians and others. Those that survived found themselves impoverished and enslaved, some were sent away to Siberia. Take a look at pictures of the Kremlin during the Soviet hay days and see if you can find women and minorities in the Politburo. In China, racism was practiced against different races living in the nation. In addition to persecuting Tibetans, Christians and Falun Gong there is racism against blacks visiting and residing in the nation. the state tolerates and even promotes racism. And let's not forget about Germany, the most socialist and racist country that ever existed when Hitler and his National Socialist thugs ran things.
One of the reasons that racism is allowed to become prevalent in communist countries is because of a lack of diverse opinions and free speech that can counteract racism. In nations such as Socialist Germany, the USSR and China, the media, publishing, education were controlled by the government. Whenever this occurs or if these institutions are held in a few hands, then racism stands a good chance. Furthermore government steps in and suppresses liberty, critical thinking and free thought which ultimately gives racism the upper hand. In Europe where they have hate speech laws, it is illegal to speak out against minority religions such as Islam that preach hatred and antisemitism. Meanwhile outlaw groups can still publish and propagate their vicious and racist speech no matter what the law says. Europe does not enjoy the civil rights that we Americans enjoy.
Under a democratic and capitalist society, racism can still exist but does not enjoy many of the advantages it does under despotic systems of government such as Marxism. According to black economist Thomas Sewell wrote that under a free market economy, employers who are serious about running business are concerned about one color, green. Under the profit motive employers want employees that are skilled able and efficient. An employer who hires a lazy uneducated white man over a black man who is educated and experienced will regret it later on. That employee then moves on to one employer who will seize that opportunity and gain greater profit over the other. 9 times out of 10, the system works. When it doesn't, government steps in to prevent discrimination. As for hate speech, the propagation of media outlets and educational material made possible by the first amendment debases and refutes racism without costing liberty.
The Spoiled Children of Capitalism
In large measure our wealth isn't the product of capitalism, it is capitalism
By Jonah Goldberg
It's an old story. Loving parents provide a generous environment for their offspring. Kids are given not only ample food, clothing and shelter, but the emotional necessities as well: encouragement, discipline, self-reliance, the ability to work with others and on their own. And yet, in due course, the kids rebel. Some even say their parents never loved them, that they were unfair, indifferent, cruel. Often, such protests are sparked by parents' refusal to be even more generous. I want a car, demands the child. Work for it, insist the parents. Why do you hate me? asks the ingrate.
Of course, being an old story doesn't make it a universal one. But the dynamic is universally understood.
We've all witnessed the tendency to take a boon for granted. Being accustomed to a provision naturally leads the human heart to consider that provision an entitlement. Hence the not-infrequent lawsuits from prison inmates cruelly denied their rights to cable TV or apple brown betty for desert.
And so it goes, I think, with capitalism generally.
Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude.
People ask, "Why is there poverty in the world?" It's a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions. Likewise, in his civilizational infancy man was poor, in every sense. He lived in ignorance, filth, hunger, and pain, and he died very young, either by violence or disease.
The interesting question isn't "Why is there poverty?" It's "Why is there wealth?" Or: "Why is there prosperity here but not there?"
At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own.
For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was misery and alienation.
A recent World Bank study found that a nation's wealth resides in its "intangible capital" - its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. "Natural capital" (minerals, croplands, etc.) and "produced capital" (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet's wealth. In America, intangible capital - the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books - accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.
Any number of countries in Africa are vastly richer in baubles and soil than Switzerland. But they are poor because they are impoverished in what they value.
In large measure our wealth isn't the product of capitalism, it is capitalism.
And yet we hate it. Leaving religion out of it, no idea has given more to humanity. The average working-class person today is richer, in real terms, than the average prince or potentate of 300 years ago. His food is better, his life longer, his health better, his menu of entertainments vastly more diverse, his toilette infinitely more civilized. And yet we constantly hear how cruel capitalism is while this collectivism or that is more loving because, unlike capitalism, collectivism is about the group, not the individual.
These complaints grow loudest at times like this: when the loom of capitalism momentarily stutters in spinning its gold. Suddenly, the people ask: What have you done for me lately? Politicians croon about how we need to give in to Causes Larger than Ourselves and peck about like hungry chickens for a New Way to replace dying capitalism.
This is the patient leaping to embrace the disease and reject the cure. Recessions are fewer and weaker thanks in part to trade, yet whenever recessions appear on the horizon, politicians dive into their protectionist bunkers. Not surprising that this week we saw the demise of the Doha round of trade negotiations, and this campaign season we've heard the thunder of anti-trade rhetoric move ever closer.
This is the irony of capitalism. It is not zero-sum, but it feels like it is. Capitalism coordinates humanity toward peaceful, productive cooperation, but it feels alienating. Collectivism does the opposite, at least when dreamed up on paper. The communes and collectives imploded in inefficiency, drowned in blood. The kibbutz lives on only as a tourist attraction, a baseball fantasy camp for nostalgic socialists. Meanwhile, billions have ridden capitalism out of poverty.
And yet the children of capitalism still whine.
Cotton wool kids
Children are being denied adventurous play because their parents are nervous about exposing them to risk, a new survey suggests. The UK-wide poll, commissioned by Play England, found half of 7-12 year olds have been stopped from climbing trees. It also showed 21% of those surveyed had been banned from playing conkers, and 17% were not allowed to play chase.
The ICM poll interviewed 1,030 children and young people aged 7-16, and 1,031 adults during July 2007. Play England, which says it promotes free play opportunities, insists that parents "constantly wrapping children in cotton wool" can harm the children's development.
The poll found showed 51% of children aged 7-12 were not allowed to climb a tree without adult supervision, with 49% stopped from climbing trees altogether because it was considered too dangerous.
According to the research, 70% of adults had their biggest childhood adventures outdoors among trees, rivers and woods, compared with only 29% of children today. It found children's experiences of adventure are confined to designated areas such as playgrounds (56%), their homes (48%) or theme parks (44%).
Adrian Voce, director of Play England, which is part of the charity National Children's Bureau, said playing was "an essential part of growing up". "Adventurous play both challenges and excites children and helps instil critical life skills," he said. "Constantly wrapping children in cotton wool can leave them ill equipped to deal with stressful or challenging situations they might encounter later in life. "Children both need and want to push their boundaries in order to explore their limits and develop their abilities."
The survey was carried out to mark Playday, the annual celebration of children's right to play, which is co-ordinated by Play England.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.