Douglas Murray

He is gay, he is an atheist and he is one of my heroes.

Who is more articulate than DM? Ben Shapiro? Jay Richards? Jonah Goldberg? Arthur Brooks? George Will?

It so happens that I have more American heroes than British. The proliferation of ‘conservative’ think tanks in the USA may account for this. DM is a Brit and is much in demand across the Atlantic. Pat Condell too.

Murray is associated with two think tanks: The Centre for Social Cohesion and The Henry Jackson Society.

Here is a fairly representative video clip.

Islamophilia

Antibiotics – Ignorant Musings

Q: How many people owe (or have owed) their lives to antibiotics?

A: Countless millions – perhaps billions.

We should really be asking about person/years. A person who was injected with penicillin in the 1940s may be dead now but may well have enjoyed many years of post-infection life. What is more, they may have borne/begotten offspring of which the same is true.

An example: Gordon was wounded in WWII. Gangrene set in. It was defeated with penicillin (plus 40 person/years or more). He had four children who were saved from death by penicillin or its successors (from pneumonia or whatever). If each one lived (on average) an additional 30 years (as a result of treatment with penicillin), we are already talking 160 p/y. Perhaps some of them might have fought off the infection on their own. But then some of them might have had offspring whose lives were likewise saved by teramycin or its successors.

My enchanting granddaughter, Clara, is the product of 2 parents, 4 grandparents and 8 great grandparents, every one of which might have been carried off by infection, but for antibiotics, in the more than half-century since Alexander Fleming’s great discovery. The very thought leaves me tremulous. [Lord, Jesus Christ, make Your face to shine upon AF.] Multiply precious Clara by the many millions of babies born this year. The number is staggering!

Antibiotics have served us very well. But there are problems. There are now populations of disease causing bacteria which cannot be destroyed with antibiotics: C-Dif and MRSA, for example. Ebola is a different case – viruses cannot be killed with antibiotics.

It may be that doctors prescribe antibiotics too readily. It may be that patients do not use their medications as responsibly as they should.

Whatever, the orthodox (Darwinian) explanation is that bacteria mutate (viruses too, allegedly). I have a problem with this and I know I am not on a secure footing here. Please keep peppered moths in mind here – and bear with me. I will read your comments respectfully.

Is fortuitous mutation the explanation? How do bacteria know how to produce antibiotic resistant offspring? Pace Rupert Sheldrake, who may have a better explanation, I hazard the following. Let us reverse the scenario. Let us think of a human population invaded by a disease (instead of a bacterial population attacked by an antibiotic), the plague, for example. When it struck, some people, with natural immunity, survived – and so did their offspring. Europe was not wiped out by the plague. Europe survived.

A population of bacteria is stricken by antibiotic chemicals; some individual bugs, with natural immunity, survive.

Scenario 1) There are not enough survivors to kill the patient. Her own immune system sees them off.

Scenario 2) The survivors are numerous and potent enough to make the patient sick and/or infectious. She may survive but if she infects another person, he is now hosting a population of resistant bugs. No mutation is required but his doctors cannot treat him with the same antibiotic chemical because only resistant bugs were passed on to him.

Digression: Peppered Moths. One of the arguments in the Origin [sic] of Species featured peppered moths. Entomologists had observed that with the advent of industrial pollution, which darkened the trunks of trees, only dark coloured moths were to be found, whereas earlier the observed moths of this species had been light coloured. Darwin surmised (he was a clever bloke) that Natural Selection had turned light coloured moths into dark coloured moths. The trouble is: there had always been both light and dark moths. Pollution favoured the dark coloured ones – they were camouflaged against dark trunks and predatory birds couldn’t see them. With decreased pollution, following Clean Air legislation, the light coloured moths predominated because now they were the ones with camouflage – a perfect case of micro-evolution. Jonathan Wells cites Peppered Moths in his Icons of Evolution.

What about the future? Will the clever microbiologists at Big Pharma continue to stay ahead of the bugs? Or will the next breakthrough involve beefing up our immune systems? Are the clever microbiologists on the case already? I hope so. I am already worrying about Clara’s offspring.

Bastards vs Fools

Me? I'm a bastard – and proud of it. Let’s be a tiny bit more nuanced. In modern English ‘bastard’ means a ruthless, self-seeking individual. It used to mean someone whose parents were not married – that is to say, typically, someone who was brought up without a father. Girls brought up by their mothers had a role model. Hence, a bastard is/was a boy without an appropriate male role model. Of course, not all male role models were (or are) wholesome. But we noticed, we English speakers, that not having one at all was not a favourable prognostication.

In political terms, it is safe to say that those who believe that all of us should (for the most part and where possible) take responsibility for ourselves are characterised by the other lot (statists) as bastards – ruthless and self-seeking. There is no logic whatsoever to this accusation – none. The contrary is true: people who take responsibility for themselves are vastly happier than those who live lives of protected dependence. A Progressive who works hard to support his family is happier than people living in protected dependence. In his life he is wise and beneficent. In his opinions he is not. Tom Woods claimed the prize for being the one millionth person to point out that progressive policies harm those that they are intended to benefit. So, I am (approximately) the 1,111,111th. Alas, no prize.

Arthur Brook and Charles Murray (both of the AEI) have proved this. AB talks about ‘earned success’ as being the infallible route to happiness. CM laments the fact that successful middle and upper class Americans do not preach what they practise. They defer gratification, they educate themselves and their children, they work hard, they marry and stay married. Typically, they worship. Moreover, they are just about the most generous people in the world when it comes to charitable donations and to involvement in their communities. If they vote Democrat, they betray all their best values. If they vote Republican, they are ‘bastards’ because Republicans ‘do not care about the poor and disadvantaged’.

The following thought experiment is instructive. Given that hard work, honesty and thrift are virtues (and good for society), what sort of system is most likely to inculcate them? Free Markets or Socialism? Given that idleness and selfishness are vices (and bad for society), what sort of system is most likely to inculcate them? Free Markets or Socialism? This is the no-brainer of no-brainers.

Do I need to point out that acting in your own self-interest is not selfishness? It is not selfish to wash your hands when you have had a crap. All day, every day you act in what you perceive to be your own self-interest. You must examine your own conscience. Did you act dishonestly or cruelly?

When we spend money in our own interest, we benefit others, perforce. When we invest money, we benefit others, perforce.

Most bastards (in our technical sense) are conscious that they do not, as individuals, give or do as much as they could or should. The fools are content to leave it up to the state. They are fools because the state (nearly) always gets it wrong. The state frequently takes from the poor to give to the rich, as in bank bail-outs and foreign aid. Thus, the intentions of the fools (in our technical sense) are frustrated.

Bastards, give more! Do more! (Imperative mood). Fools, give up your folly.

The UK government, apparently, proposes to give all income tax payers a breakdown of how the money stolen taken from them is spent. The largest proportion is on ‘benefits’. I bet that this will represent the gross amount taken. It will not separate the actual money going to the recipients from the amounts required to collect the take and to disburse the take. This is a discrepancy I have never seen or heard referred to in the media. The discrepancy goes to bureaucrats, who thereby have an incentive to vote accordingly.

I was about to post this when I noticed that I neglected to address a ‘fool’ objection. Fools subscribe to the zero sum fallacy. They ‘think’ that that if A earns more, B must earn less. This is simply not true. Why have we become steadily richer since the eighteenth century? We have become richer because of innovation, private property, the rule of law and the division of labour. This has happened since 1970 to a degree never before seen. Globalisation and free markets have since that year reduced the number of humans living in absolute poverty by EIGHTY PERCENT. Do you care about your fellow men AT ALL?

Stop being a fool – join the bastards!

Obama – Almost Certainly the Worst President Ever

I have followed the US mid-term elections and am hugely relieved that ‘my’ team won. There are certainly some drongos among the Republicans; but all the Democrats are drongos. Look what happens to American cities when Democrats are in control. Detroit is a fine example. Compare that with what happens when a state (eg Texas) elects a Republican governor.

Republicans now control the House and the Senate. Three fifths of all governors are Republicans. Obama is going to be the lamest of lame ducks – he may, however, manage to do a deal of harm in the next two years. He has done a lot in the last six.

BHO was dealt a bad hand when he succeeded W. He played it disastrously, as I thought he would. This was a man with no achievements to his name before taking office – and they gave him a Nobel Prize almost before he had finished organising his sock drawer!

He was brought up by and among radical leftists and progressives. He has learnt nothing since. He was a ‘community organiser’, in other words one whose objective was to sow resentment and division.

Americans elected him because he was black. White Americans were expiating their guilt over slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings and other shameful stuff. Most Brits are totally unaware that Jim Crow and the KKK were Democratic phenomena – remember George Wallace (Governor of Arkansas); remember him opposing the desegregation of schools)? It was Lincoln (a Republican) who issued the emancipation proclamation – though I am not going to start hyperventilating over Lincoln. Black Americans (mostly) voted tribally. Oh dear!

Progressive policies, the New Deal and the Great Society in particular, had a catastrophic effect on the black American family. In the early twentieth century black American families were very stable; now they are almost an endangered species. In the early twentieth century black employment rates compared well with that of whites.

Obama continued stupid (and wicked) policies, like quantitative easing – which failed. He was responsible for boondoggles like Solyndra (remember that – half a billion dollars to a ‘sustainable’ energy company that promptly failed). The debt, already mounting under W, sky-rocketed to SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS and counting. Unemployment has virtually flat-lined under Obama. His supine attitude to Islam has made the USA both despised and hated around the world. Obamacare has been a total fiasco. It was ‘sold’ on the basis of outright, bare-faced lies.

Two suggestions for improving healthcare while lowering the cost:

·         Allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines. It is insane that they are prohibited from doing so.

·         Allow competition from wound-stitchers and bone-setters and other low tech healers – a radical (common-sensical) idea that could be extended.

In spite of Obama, shale oil extraction (aka fracking) has conferred on America (and the world) cheaper energy, the life blood of an economy. Obama and his crew have, so far, blocked the XL pipeline from Canada, a policy so incandescently stupid as to defy belief.

A stupid, wicked failure in everything he has done or attempted to do – and soooo narcissistic!

There are thousands of black men and women who would have done a better job than Barry Soteiro. Herman Cain, for a start. There is one who may enter the 2016 race – Benjamin Carson. Whoever enters the race would be well advised to listen to the advice of two colossal black intellects: Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.

There are good men, and possibly women, among the potential Republican nominees for 2016. It is time to start hoping and praying that the best will be selected and that he/she will be elected.

Why do I care so much? Well, for me America is an idea as much as a country. Obama declared that he wanted ‘fundamentally to transform’ America. He has been too successful, God help us!

Pat Condell

Pat is an indefatigable maker of YouTube videos. He is very articulate and has one or two hobby horses. A man should have a hobby horse (or two)!

Here are some of mine:

·         Catholicism rocks.

·         Socialism sucks.

·         Islam is a bad plan for Humanity.

·         Free markets are the only mechanism for creating wealth and improving life for the poor.

·         Democracy is dangerous without a moral electorate.

·         Climate Change (man-made) is a crock.

·         Abortion is an unambiguous evil.

How many hobby horses am I allowed? My decision!

I like Pat very much and have watched dozens of his videos. Unsurprisingly, the ones I like most are the ones that reinforce my own prejudices – I may soon post a defence of prejudice. He is very rude about Islam, though not about Muslims in general.

He hates religion – and here I have to part from him. I believe that bad religion is very bad, just as bad science is very bad. I think that I can tell the difference. Pat doesn't differentiate. He stands up bravely for ‘western’ values without acknowledging that they owe their existence largely to Christianity. The history of the Church is not without blemishes but, in my not-very-humble view, you do not have to be an outsider to critique the Church’s historical failings. The best critiques of evil deeds committed by Christians come from Christian theology.

Digression: I should hate to be understood to be saying that ‘modern’ Christianity is good, whereas Christians in the past did wicked things. Christians in the past did do wicked things. For example, the conquistadors treated the peoples of South America abominably. They were roundly condemned by Spanish Scholastics. Another example, from our own day: some who call themselves Christians practise abortion; the Catholic Church has a simple ruling on abortion: it is wicked.

Pat Condell was, I think, brought up as a Catholic. Like many ex-Catholic atheists he has a particular animus against Catholicism. So, I am taken aback when he attacks Catholic beliefs. A couple of instances will do: he maintains (like Dawkins and Mark Twain) that Faith (one of the three theological virtues) means ‘believing what you know ain’t true’. I want to ask him, ‘Is that what you thought when you were a Catholic?’ It certainly isn’t what I believe. He seems to believe that Christians wish to impose Christianity upon everybody else. Free Will is foundational to Christianity. Coercion is contrary to Christian belief.

I am much more lenient on him for his representation of Islam. Here he seems much fairer than he is to Christianity. He opposes Islam, yes. But the Islam he opposes is the Islam that Muslims themselves espouse. We frequently see Muslims carrying placards rejecting Democracy and Freedom. We never see Catholics doing the equivalent: demanding the beheading of those who are unbaptized. David Wood and Robert Spencer are better informed about the Koran, Mohammed, the Hadith and Shari’ah than Pat Condell is (than I am). They too dislike Islam and use Islamic sources to reveal what they dislike. Pat opposes paper-and-ink Islamic texts and flesh-and-blood Muslims but his Christian targets are straw men.

The Church is shrinking in the West, though growing in Africa and Asia. America without Christianity is a grim thought; but there have been countless revivals in the past – not that I expect to embrace all revivalists.

I will include a couple of links to PC’s videos, chosen more or less at random.

Pat Condell on Christianity

Pat Condell Anti-Islam

The Emperor’s New Clothes

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. Wilfred Trotter, 1941

My fascination with Rupert Sheldrake has led me to a preoccupation with Maverick Science in general.

The first thing to say is that being a maverick does not make you right. Nevertheless, so many mavericks have been vindicated in the past that knee-jerk rejection should not be our first reaction when we are confronted with ideas that go against the grain of orthodoxy.

I have my own list of orthodoxies to be challenged: HIV/AIDS, Global Warming and Peak Oil, to mention but three.

The website below references many ideas that were rejected… until they became mainstream.

One of my heroes is Thomas Gold, twice excommunicated and twice vindicated. He may be vindicated yet again on abiotic oil.

The worst orthodoxies are not particular ideas: phlogiston was a theory (now rejected), not a world view. The worst are mind-sets, for example, Materialism: the idea that matter and energy are the only reality. Materialism (sometimes called Naturalism) seems to me stultifying, both scientifically and morally.

I once read a science fiction story in which a group of scientists wanted to provoke research into anti-gravity. They invented a crazy outsider and faked a movie of his anti-gravity device, which they leaked to the science community. The crazy outsider was alleged to have died in the course of his ‘experiments’. The clues they planted about this guy included his library of occult and weird books. They succeeded. Once they had made a fraudulent but convincing case for anti-gravity, real science was persuaded to take it seriously – and their ‘dupes’ came up with a real anti-gravity device. The fiction had liberated them.

Maverick Science

Sheldrake Again

Cousin Geoff sent me a link to an article in The Independent. The gist was that Pope Francis was more friendly to ‘science’ than his predecessor. No, I had not read it; but it comes as no surprise. Least surprising was the jejune quality of the reporting.

The Big Bang Theory in Cosmology was first propounded by Georges Le Maître - a Catholic priest. The theory is, in my view, fully compatible with Catholic theology, which is not literalist and never has been.

As for 'Evolution', it has a number of different meanings:

1) Change over time - or History, as some of us prefer to call it. Once there were no life forms; then there were. Once there were dinosaurs; then there weren't.

2) Limited common ancestry: Lions and tigers are apparently related to each other, more so than to butterflies and frogs.

3) Universal common ancestry: My cells contain DNA so do the cells in a banana. This fact contains the suggestion that I am related to bananas.

4) Selection: both artificial and natural. The former clearly has happened; look at the amazing variety of dogs. The latter is decidedly credible, particularly with respect to micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is more problematic.

5) A gradual unfolding of an inherent design. This idea treats species rather like individuals: an acorn becomes an oak tree; primitive life forms give rise to more sophisticated life forms. Darwin specifically rejected the idea, which was common before 1859.

6) The inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism). This is absolute heresy to neo-Darwinians. However, some research does seem to lend credence to the possibility. Sheldrake is friendly to the idea.

7) Random Mutation + Natural Selection, aka The Blind Watchmaker Thesis. This specifically denies that purpose plays any part in evolution; even though purpose appears to be manifest in every organ and every cell. What are your kidneys for?

An orthodox Catholic can accept any of these meanings of 'evolution' EXCEPT THE LAST without doing violence to the fundamental doctrines of the Church (Creation, Fall, Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Redemption). I don't think The Holy Father is embracing The Blind Watchmaker Thesis.

Neo-Darwinism has nothing to say about The Origin of Life - it cannot, by definition. We are all in the dark.

Science and Christianity have never been at war. The Church did not accept Galileo's theory because the evidence was not there. Stellar parallax could not be observed with the instruments of the time. We can observe it now. GG was recklessly confrontational. He comes out of the story as badly as the Church - perhaps worse. The Church did not forbid him from proposing his theory, only from declaring it to be a fact. After all, Copernicus was never censored.

Sheldrake is a scientist. He opposes what some have called 'Scientism'. He deplores the popularly accepted belief that 'Science' understands essentially how the world works and is only working on the details. He points out that research gets more and more expensive but that the returns are diminishing. My next blog post will contain two links to Sheldrake. You should, in the meantime, Google 'morphic resonance'.

Sheldrake 1

Sheldrake 2