Absolute Bafflement

When I post on this blog, I usually have an opinion – a point of view that I think deserves at least to be considered. I am a very opinionated cove. Tonight I am simply baffled. I am not going shed any opinions; but I’m going to share my bafflement with you. A few opinions may creep in. [Otras notas vao entrar; mas a base e uma so.]

What does the Islamic world think it’s up to? Really?

The Islamic world hates Israel; hates the Jews. I think I know why – but this posting is about what I don’t know.

The Islamic world is backward. It has not had a new idea in 14 centuries. The Arab world (Islam’s heartland) is not interested in ideas at all. Spain translates more foreign texts into Spanish in one year than the Arab world has translated into Arabic in a millennium. That is sad. Ideas are (or should be) international. Brilliant novelties, such as the alphabet, the wheel and zero, for example, have cross cultural relevance. Catastrophic ideas, regrettably, like socialism, get taken up by cultures as diverse as Cuba and Cambodia. Fortunately, socialism has imploded and is now only to be found in western universities.

In economic terms, the Arab world is a basket case. Without oil, all the Arab economies amount to less than the Nokia company of Finland. The tiny state of Israel is a powerhouse of innovation and creativity – and is, woman for woman, just about the most successful military machine on earth. The Arabs have been attacking it fruitlessly for half a century. The Arabs hate Israel but will probably collude with it if and when it takes action against Iran.

Islam is stultifying. Some of its apologists demonstrate this. Anjem Choudary thinks that Islam comes from God. That is why we should adopt it. On his say so. Or Mohammed’s. Oh, right? The Koran (transmitted to the world by Mohammed) says that M is the ideal role model for humanity. Anjem, you are as winsome (word of the year) as Mohammed.

So, back to my problem. What do they think they are up to? They have grievances aplenty. Kuffars and Jews invade their lands, allegedly. The west is decadent and corrupt but they immigrate into Denmark, Sweden and Canada by the tens of thousands. In their benighted homelands they slaughter each other by the tens of thousands. What do they think they are up to?

Sunnis and Shiites divided still, not doctrinally but over who should have succeeded the prophet in six hundred and something, kill each other in numbers that make non-Muslim killings of Muslims almost derisory. When will they come to their senses? What do they think they are up to?

Islam is mostly about hatred. The three central texts (the Koran, the Sunna [Mohammed’s biography] and the Hadith) are more about unbelievers than about theology or moral exhortation.

Almost any moral teacher will tell you about the corrosiveness of hatred. It even prevents you from competing with those you hate.

A depressing hate sermon: Hatred

Abiotic Hydro-carbons

We talk about ‘fossil fuels’. This is a question begging term. It simply assumes that oil and natural gas (and coal, for that matter) are the products of heat and pressure on fossilised plants and animals. If this is so, it stands to reason that, because a finite quantity of plant and animal material has existed, we will eventually run out.

I think that this is problematical from several points of view. Firstly, is this what geologists actually believe? If it were true, it seems to me, the price of fossil fuels (as I shall now cease to call them) ought to be rising steeply. As it happens, the price of energy fluctuates and is presently at a low.

The estimates of recoverable reserves of these hydro-carbons go up and up. Maybe this contributes to low prices. If we discovered a huge deposit of, say, copper ore, we would expect the price of copper to fall.

The second problem is that hydro-carbons are not only to be found earthside. Astronomers tell us that methane and other hydro-carbons are detectable in the makeup of comets. Did they originate from biological material? I don’t think so.

What is more, oil deposits have been discovered at tremendous depths – tens of thousands of feet below the earth’s surface. Did pre-historic plants and animals burrow down before dying?

Serious scientists in Russia and The Ukraine (as well as Thomas Gold of pulsar fame) have another theory. Hydro-carbons, they say, are constantly being formed in the earth’s mantle. Experiments have demonstrated that they can be formed in the laboratory and in the absence of biological material. We know that decomposing biological matter can result in the production of hydro-carbons but we also know that that is not the only way to produce them.

Another piece of evidence supportive of the abiotic theory is that some ‘exhausted’ oil wells have been observed to have been replenished.

Energy companies (aka Big Oil) etc certainly would have an incentive to persuade us that the supply of hydro-carbons is limited. But what if it is not?

The Greens worry about CO₂, produced when hydro-carbons are combusted. That is an argument for another day. What Greens do not typically do is to rejoice that fracking produces fuels that emit less carbon and other ‘pollutants’.

I am not certain that the abiotic theory accounts for all or most of the fuel we get from the ground. I am certain that it should be better known and that a serious debate should take place. If it is indeed true, then we should rejoice. The possibility of virtually limitless energy bodes very well for developing nations, whose women and children suffer serious respiratory diseases from burning wood and animal dung.

Thinking about Politics

You have got to start with Ethics, with Morality, with Right and Wrong. Conservatives (for the most part) understand this. Conservatives (again, for the most part) source their moral principles from the past. The Ancient Jews and the Greeks understood Justice to be the foundation of Morality. Every action must be judged by the standard of Justice - treating our fellows as they deserve to be treated. We have obligations; our fellows likewise. We have been talking about it since the time of Socrates. Who has contributed a new principle since Moses or Socrates? Progressives have undermined the concept of Justice by tacking ‘social’ to it.

‘Social Justice’ is a term to be abhorred and execrated. It always and everywhere means ‘what I approve of’, often ‘what suits me’. Believe in Social Justice and you will soon be marching for abortion and lesser evils, such as mansion taxes and progressive taxation.

Most of us in the West never notice how unjust progressive taxation is – almost by definition. If you have a flat rate of income tax (let’s say 10%), if Andy earns £10,000 a year, he pays £1,000 in tax and Barry (on £100,000 a year) pays £10,000 in tax. Both have an incentive to work harder – each knows that if he earns an extra £1, he will pay £0.10p more. Justice means treating people equally. It’s that simple.

It is bad enough when the taxes pay for policemen and courts. Such things are necessary in a fallen world. Libertarian thinkers have pointed out that state provision of policemen and courts is not, by any means, the only way of providing for them.

Progressive taxation means that Barry gets clobbered disproportionately for policemen and courts (from which he may benefit). ‘Disproportionately’ is surely a synonym for ‘unjustly’.

The welfare state (laudable though its inventors’ intentions may have been) means that Barry gets clobbered for programmes that only benefit Andy and those lower than Andy on the income scale. It is unjust for me to mug Barry on Andy’s behalf. Acquiescing in state mugging cannot make it just!

We are not animals. Morality does not apply to animals – the cheetah who chokes a gazelle to death commits no murder. Murder is an exclusively human phenomenon. So are fraud, extortion and robbery. Materialists, who deny that there is any meaningful discontinuity between animals and humans, are surely legitimising fraud, extortion and robbery.

I have got to admit that Atheists, Materialists and Progressives are not (by definition) of one ilk. There are some theistic progressives. But the overlap is considerable.

Am I saying that Progressives (and Socialists) are incoherent in their thinking? Absolutely! Sometime in the centuries since Socrates they have magicked out of thin air a new Morality. We have, in this very century, ‘moralists’ whose summum malum is inequality of income. They do not do so by metaphysical argument but by manifestly defective ‘data’. They have as little credibility as one who would declare that inequality of prettiness is the summum malum.

Politics is these days very largely about income distribution. The millionaire Obama seems to care about it. He has not had a coherent idea since kindergarten.

Politics is about Justice. Justice is not “wouldn’t it be nice if…”

Progressives agree that Politics is about Ethics. They don’t have a coherent theory of Ethics. That is why their political programmes are disastrous.

Progressives believe themselves to occupy the moral high ground: let’s do what we can to help the disadvantaged. Their policies (as well as being unjust) have failed repeatedly. They dispossess the productive and reward unproductiveness.

Answer me this: Assuming that Hard Work, Self-Sufficiency, Creativity and Technical Innovation are Good Things and that Idleness and Dependency are not, should our political institutions and programmes reward the former and punish the latter? The question answers itself.

There is another question: If I have more (perhaps much more) than I need, should I volunteer to help my neighbour who is indigent – especially if he is indigent through no fault of his own? The question answers itself.

Recipes

This worked even better than I expected. It is endlessly flexible. I did it with minced beef; but 

without the meat, it could accompany any meal.

Minced Beef and Vegetable Crumble

Dice and fry onions, garlic, courgettes and aubergines. Stir in one can of chopped tomatoes. Pour into an oven-proof dish. Fry minced beef and add to the vegetables. Add a generous amount of chopped fresh herbs and season. Stir. Make the topping by combining plenty of grated cheese with an equal volume of oatmeal and a splash of oil. Cover the meat and vegetables with the cheese mixture. Press it down and bake in a hottish oven for about an hour. Ten cooks could make ten versions – all delicious.

While I am it, here is my Barbecue Chicken recipe. This is really rather good.

Chop lots of garlic and lots of fresh ginger and as many chillies as you like. Mix together with about a cup of soy sauce and about a half a cup of balsamic vinegar. A splash of red wine doesn’t hurt. Marinate chicken thighs (skin on) in the mixture for an hour at least. Barbecue the chicken, turning it regularly and basting it with the marinade. A potato salad goes very well with this. Boil diced potatoes and cool. Add chopped celery, spring onions and crispy bacon. Dress generously with mayonnaise.

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!