A primer on the hatred of climate skeptics – one woman saw the light and is no longer a leftist

In case you missed it, our friends at americanthinker.com had a fantastic column (which won’t load now due to internal server error, but is cached by Google, so I repeat it here) by Dr. Danusha V. Goska in 2014. She was a life-long leftist and wrote that she has abandoned that philosophy. Here, she gives her top ten reasons. It parallels many if the trials and tribulations climate skeptics suffer at the hands of [climate activists]. I highly recommend it, and I recommend sending it to every activist who calls you a “climate denier”. There may be hope yet for those who value spewing hate over rational debate. – Anthony

Dr. Danusha V. Goska

by Dr. Danusha V. Goska

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying “Eat the Rich.” To me it wasn’t a metaphor.

I voted Republican in the last presidential election.

Below are the top ten reasons I am no longer a leftist. This is not a rigorous comparison of theories. This list is idiosyncratic, impressionistic, and intuitive. It’s an accounting of the milestones on my herky-jerky journey.

10) Huffiness.

In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.

Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors’ meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!

Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said “Yes” or “No.”

Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.

I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. X.” Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.

Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists’ announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.

Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned.  His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.

Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can’t climb stairs.

I appreciate Professor X’s desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.

Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others’ pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this — “Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant.” But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one’s history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.

9) Selective Outrage

I was a graduate student. Female genital mutilation came up in class. I stated, without ornamentation, that it is wrong.

A fellow graduate student, one who was fully funded and is now a comfortably tenured professor, sneered at me. “You are so intolerant. Clitoredectomy is just another culture’s rite of passage. You Catholics have confirmation.”

When Mitt Romney was the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, he mentioned that, as Massachusetts governor, he proactively sought out female candidates for top jobs. He had, he said, “binders full of women.” He meant, of course, that he stored resumes of promising female job candidates in three-ring binders.

Op-ed pieces, Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon posts erupted in a feeding frenzy, savaging Romney and the Republican Party for their “war on women.”

I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I’m not saying that that outrage does not exist. I’m saying I never saw it.

The left’s selective outrage convinced me that much canonical, left-wing feminism is not so much support for women, as it is a protest against Western, heterosexual men. It’s an “I hate” phenomenon, rather than an “I love” phenomenon.

8.) It’s the thought that counts

My favorite bumper sticker in ultra-liberal Berkeley, California: “Think Globally; Screw up Locally.” In other words, “Love Humanity but Hate People.”

It was past midnight, back in the 1980s, in Kathmandu, Nepal. A group of Peace Corps volunteers were drinking moonshine at the Momo Cave. A pretty girl with long blond hair took out her guitar and sang these lyrics, which I remember by heart from that night:

“If you want your dream to be,

Build it slow and surely.

Small beginnings greater ends.

Heartfelt work grows purely.”

I just googled these lyrics, thirty years later, and discovered that they are Donovan’s San Damiano song, inspired by the life of St. Francis.

Listening to this song that night in the Momo Cave, I thought, that’s what we leftists do wrong. That’s what we’ve got to get right.

We focused so hard on our good intentions. Before our deployment overseas, Peace Corps vetted us for our idealism and “tolerance,” not for our competence or accomplishments. We all wanted to save the world. What depressingly little we did accomplish was often erased with the next drought, landslide, or insurrection.

Peace Corps did not focus on the “small beginnings” necessary to accomplish its grandiose goals. Schools rarely ran, girls and low caste children did not attend, and widespread corruption guaranteed that all students received passing grades. Those students who did learn had no jobs where they could apply their skills, and if they rose above their station, the hereditary big men would sabotage them. Thanks to cultural relativism, we were forbidden to object to rampant sexism or the caste system. “Only intolerant oppressors judge others’ cultures.”

I volunteered with the Sisters of Charity. For them, I pumped cold water from a well and washed lice out of homeless people’s clothing. The sisters did not want to save the world. Someone already had. The sisters focused on the small things, as their founder, Mother Teresa, advised, “Don’t look for big things, just do small things with great love.” Delousing homeless people’s clothing was one of my few concrete accomplishments.

Back in 1975, after Hillary Rodham had followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, she helped create the state’s first rape crisis hotline. She had her eye on the big picture. What was Hillary like in her one-on-one encounters?

Hillary served as the attorney to a 41-year-old, one of two men accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. The girl, a virgin before the assault, was in a coma for five days afterward. She was injured so badly she was told she’d never have children. In 2014, she is 52 years old, and she has never had children, nor has she married. She reports that she was afraid of men after the rape.

A taped interview with Clinton has recently emerged; on it Clinton makes clear that she thought her client was guilty, and she chuckles when reporting that she was able to set him free.  In a recent interview, the victim said that Hillary Clinton “took me through Hell” and “lied like a dog.” “I think she wants to be a role model… but I don’t think she’s a role model at all,” the woman said. “If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys.”

Hillary had her eye on the all-caps resume bullet point: FOUNDS RAPE HOTLINE.

Hillary’s chuckles when reminiscing about her legal victory suggest that, in her assessment, her contribution to the ruination of the life of a rape victim is of relatively negligible import.

7) Leftists hate my people.

I’m a working-class Bohunk. A hundred years ago, leftists loved us. We worked lousy jobs, company thugs shot us when we went on strike, and leftists saw our discontent as fuel for their fire.

Karl Marx promised the workers’ paradise through an inevitable revolution of the proletariat. The proletariat is an industrial working class — think blue-collar people working in mines, mills, and factories: exactly what immigrants like my parents were doing.

Polish-Americans participated significantly in a great victory, Flint, Michigan’s 1937 sit-down strike. Italian-Americans produced Sacco and Vanzetti. Gus Hall was a son of Finnish immigrants.

In the end, though, we didn’t show up for the Marxist happily ever after. We believed in God and we were often devout Catholics. Leftists wanted us to slough off our ethnic identities and join in the international proletarian brotherhood — “Workers of the world, unite!” But we clung to ethnic distinctiveness. Future generations lost their ancestral ties, but they didn’t adopt the IWW flag; they flew the stars and stripes. “Property is theft” is a communist motto, but no one is more house-proud than a first generation Pole who has escaped landless peasantry and secured his suburban nest.

Leftists felt that we jilted them at the altar. Leftists turned on us. This isn’t just ancient history. In 2004, What’s the Matter with Kansas? spent eighteen weeks on the bestseller lists. The premise of the book: working people are too stupid to know what’s good for them, and so they vote conservative when they should be voting left. In England, the book was titled, What’s the Matter with America?

We became the left’s boogeyman: Joe Six-pack, Joe Hardhat. Though we’d been in the U.S. for a few short decades when the demonization began, leftists, in the academy, in media, and in casual speech, blamed working-class ethnics for American crimes, including racism and the “imperialist” war in Vietnam. See films like The Deer Hunter. Watch Archie Bunker on “All in the Family.” Listen to a few of the Polack jokes that elitists pelted me with whenever I introduced myself at UC Berkeley.

Leftists freely label poor whites as “redneck,” “white trash,” “trailer trash,” and “hillbilly.” At the same time that leftists toss around these racist and classist slurs, they are so sanctimonious they forbid anyone to pronounce the N word when reading Mark Twain aloud. President Bill Clinton’s advisor James Carville succinctly summed up leftist contempt for poor whites in his memorable quote, “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

The left’s visceral hatred of poor whites overflowed like a broken sewer when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. It would be impossible, and disturbing, to attempt to identify the single most offensive comment that leftists lobbed at Palin. One can report that attacks on Palin were so egregious that leftists themselves publicly begged that they cease; after all, they gave the left a bad name. The Reclusive Leftist blogged in 2009 that it was a “major shock” to discover “the extent to which so many self-described liberals actually despise working people.” The Reclusive Leftist focuses on Vanity Fair journalist Henry Rollins. Rollins recommends that leftists “hate-fuck conservative women” and denounces Palin as a “small town hickoid” who can be bought off with a coupon to a meal at a chain restaurant.

Smearing us is not enough. Liberal policies sabotage us. Affirmative action benefits recipients by color, not by income. Even this limited focus fails. In his 2004 Yale University Press study, Thomas Sowell insists that affirmative action helps only wealthier African Americans. Poor blacks do not benefit. In 2009, Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford demonstrated that poor, white Christians are underrepresented on elite college campuses. Leftists add insult to injury. A blue-collar white kid, who feels lost and friendless on the alien terrain of a university campus, a campus he has to leave immediately after class so he can get to his fulltime job at MacDonald’s, must accept that he is a recipient of “white privilege” – if he wants to get good grades in mandatory classes on racism.

The left is still looking for its proletariat. It supports mass immigration for this reason. Harvard’s George Borjas, himself a Cuban immigrant, has been called “America’s leading immigration economist.” Borjas points out that mass immigration from Latin America has sabotaged America’s working poor.

It’s more than a little bit weird that leftists, who describe themselves as the voice of the worker, select workers as their hated other of choice, and targets of their failed social engineering.

6) I believe in God.

Read Marx and discover a mythology that is irreconcilable with any other narrative, including the Bible. Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a “dead Jew on a stick” or a “zombie” and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented “flying spaghetti monster.” You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.

5 & 4) Straw men and “In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.”

It astounds me now to reflect on it, but never, in all my years of leftist activism, did I ever hear anyone articulate accurately the position of anyone to our right. In fact, I did not even know those positions when I was a leftist.

“Truth is that which serves the party.” The capital-R revolution was such a good, it could eliminate all that was bad, that manipulating facts was not even a venial sin; it was a good. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. One of those eggs was objective truth.

Ron Kuby is a left-wing radio talk show host on New York’s WABC. He plays the straw man card hourly. If someone phones in to question affirmative action – shouldn’t such programs benefit recipients by income, rather than by skin color? – Kuby opens the fire hydrant. He is shrill. He is bombastic. He accuses the caller of being a member of the KKK. He paints graphic word pictures of the horrors of lynching and the death of Emmett Till and asks, “And yousupport that?”

Well of course THE CALLER did not support that, but it is easier to orchestrate a mob in a familiar rendition of righteous rage against a sensationalized straw man than it is to produce a reasoned argument against a reasonable opponent.

On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post‘s credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a “family friend” of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, “making stuff up.”

Milbank slanders anyone who might attempt analysis of jihad, a force that is currently cited in the murder of innocents — including Muslims — from Nigeria to the Philippines. The leftist strategy of slandering those who speak uncomfortable facts suppresses discourse and has a devastating impact on confrontations with truth in journalism and on college campuses.

2 & 3) It doesn’t work.  Other approaches work better.

I went to hear David Horowitz speak in 2004. My intention was to heckle him. Horowitz said something that interrupted my flow of thought. He pointed out that Camden, Paterson, and Newark had decades of Democratic leadership.

I grew up among “Greatest Generation” Americans who had helped build these cities. One older woman told me, “As soon as I got my weekly paycheck, I rushed to Main Ave in Paterson, and my entire paycheck ended up on my back, in a new outfit.” In the 1950s and 60s, my parents and my friends’ parents fled deadly violence in Newark and Paterson.

Within a few short decades, Paterson, Camden, and Newark devolved into unlivable slums, with shooting deaths, drug deals, and garbage-strewn streets. The pain that New Jerseyans express about these failed cities is our state’s open wound.

I live in Paterson. I teach its young. My students are hogtied by ignorance. I find myself speaking to young people born in the U.S. in a truncated pidgin I would use with a train station chai wallah in Calcutta.

Many of my students lack awareness of a lot more than vocabulary. They don’t know about believing in themselves, or stick-to-itiveness. They don’t realize that the people who exercise power over them have faced and overcome obstacles. I know they don’t know these things because they tell me. One student confessed that when she realized that one of her teachers had overcome setbacks it changed her own life.

My students do know — because they have been taught this — that America is run by all-powerful racists who will never let them win. My students know — because they have been drilled in this — that the only way they can get ahead is to locate and cultivate those few white liberals who will pity them and scatter crumbs on their supplicant, bowed heads and into their outstretched palms. My students have learned to focus on the worst thing that ever happened to them, assume that it happened because America is unjust, and to recite that story, dirge-like, to whomever is in charge, from the welfare board to college professors, and to await receipt of largesse.

As Shelby Steele so brilliantly points out in his book White Guilt, the star of the sob story my students tell in exchange for favors is very much not the black aid recipient. The star of this story, still, just as before the Civil Rights Movement that was meant to change who got to take the lead in American productions, was the white man. The generous white liberal still gets top billing.

In Dominque La Pierre’s 1985 novel City of Joy, a young American doctor, Max Loeb, confesses that serving the poor in a slum has changed his mind forever about what might actually improve their lot. “In a slum an exploiter is better than a Santa Claus… An exploiter forces you to react, whereas a Santa Claus demobilizes you.”

That one stray comment from David Horowitz, a man I regarded as the enemy, sparked the slow but steady realization that my ideals, the ideals I had lived by all my life, were poisoning my students and Paterson, my city.

After I realized that our approaches don’t work, I started reading about other approaches. I had another Aha! moment while listening to a two minute twenty-three second YouTube video of Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue’s castigation of greed. The only rational response to Friedman is “My God, he’s right.”

1) Hate.

If hate were the only reason, I’d stop being a leftist for this reason alone.

Almost twenty years ago, when I could not conceive of ever being anything but a leftist, I joined a left-wing online discussion forum.

Before that I’d had twenty years of face-to-face participation in leftist politics: marching, organizing, socializing.

In this online forum, suddenly my only contact with others was the words those others typed onto a screen. That limited and focused means of contact revealed something.

If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you’d quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.

One topic thread was entitled “What do you view as disgusting about modern America?” The thread was begun in 2002. Almost eight thousand posts later, the thread was still going strong in June, 2014.

Those posting messages in this left-wing forumpublicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn’t hold any anti-war rally, because you didn’t hate Obama.

I experienced powerful cognitive dissonance when I recognized the hate. The rightest of my right-wing acquaintances — I had no right-wing friends — expressed nothing like this. My right-wing acquaintances talked about loving: God, their family, their community. I’m not saying that the right-wingers I knew were better people; I don’t know that they were. I’m speaking here, merely, about language.

In 1995 I developed a crippling illness. I couldn’t work, lost my life savings, and traveled through three states, from surgery to surgery.

A left-wing friend, Pete, sent me emails raging against Republicans like George Bush, whom he referred to as “Bushitler.” The Republicans were to blame because they opposed socialized medicine. In fact it’s not at all certain that socialized medicine would have helped; the condition I had is not common and there was no guaranteed treatment.

I visited online discussion forums for others with the same affliction. One of my fellow sufferers, who identified himself as a successful corporate executive in New Jersey, publicly announced that the symptoms were so hideous, and his helpless slide into poverty was so much not what his wife had bargained for when she married him, that he planned to take his own life. He stopped posting after that announcement, though I responded to his post and requested a reply. It is possible that he committed suicide, exactly as he said he would — car exhaust in the garage. I suddenly realized that my “eat the rich” lapel button was a sin premised on a lie.

In any case, at the time I was diagnosed, Bush wasn’t president; Clinton was. And, as I pointed out to Pete, his unceasing and vehement expressions of hatred against Republicans did nothing for me.

I had a friend, a nun, Mary Montgomery, one of the Sisters of Providence, who took me out to lunch every six months or so, and gave me twenty-dollar Target gift cards on Christmas. Her gestures to support someone, rather than expressions of hate against someone — even though these gestures were miniscule and did nothing to restore me to health — meant a great deal to me.

Recently, I was trying to explain this aspect of why I stopped being a leftist to a left-wing friend, Julie. She replied, “No, I’m not an unpleasant person. I try to be nice to everybody.”

“Julie,” I said, “You are an active member of the Occupy Movement. You could spend your days teaching children to read, or visiting the elderly in nursing homes, or organizing cleanup crews in a garbage-strewn slum. You don’t. You spend your time protestingand trying to destroy something — capitalism.”

“Yes, but I’m very nice about it,” she insisted. “I always protest with a smile.”

Pete is now a Facebook friend and his feed overflows with the anger that I’m sure he assesses as righteous. He protests against homophobic Christians, American imperialists, and Monsanto. I don’t know if Pete ever donates to an organization he believes in, or a person suffering from a disease, or if he ever says comforting things to afflicted intimates. I know he hates.

I do have right-wing friends now and they do get angry and they do express that anger. But when I encounter unhinged, stratospheric vituperation, when I encounter detailed revenge fantasies in scatological and sadistic language, I know I’ve stumbled upon a left-wing website.

Given that the left prides itself on being the liberator of women, homosexuals, and on being “sex positive,” one of the weirder and most obvious aspects of left-wing hate is how often, and how virulently, it is expressed in terms that are misogynist, homophobic, and in the distinctive anti-sex voice of a sexually frustrated high-school misfit. Haters are aware enough of how uncool it would be to use a slur like “fag,” so they sprinkle their discourse with terms indicating anal rape like “butt hurt.” Leftists taunt right-wingers as “tea baggers.” The implication is that the target of their slur is either a woman or a gay man being orally penetrated by a man, and is, therefore, inferior, and despicable.

Misogynist speech has a long tradition on the left. In 1964, Stokely Carmichael said that the only position for women in the Civil Rights Movement was “prone.” Carmichael’s misogyny is all the more outrageous given the very real role of women like Rosa Parks, Viola Liuzzo, and Fannie Lou Hamer.

In 2012 atheist bloggers Jennifer McCreight and Natalie Reed exposed the degree to which misogyny dominates the New Atheist movement. McCreight quoted a prominent atheist’s reply to a woman critic. “I will make you a rape victim if you don’t fuck off… I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you fucking drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow… Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your asshole… I’m going to rape you with my fist.”

A high-profile example of leftist invective was delivered by MSNBC’s Martin Bashir in late 2013. Bashir said, on air and in a rehearsed performance, not as part of a moment’s loss of control, something so vile about Sarah Palin that I won’t repeat it here. Extreme as it is, Bashir’s comment is fairly representative of a good percentage of what I read on left-wing websites.

I could say as much about a truly frightening phenomenon, left-wing anti-Semitism, but I’ll leave the topic to others better qualified. I can say that when I first encountered it, at a PLO fundraising party in Marin County, I felt as if I had time-traveled to pre-war Berlin.

I needed to leave the left, I realized, when I decided that I wanted to spend time with people building, cultivating, and establishing, something that they loved.

Another related piece worth reading is by Dr. Tim Ball – A Climate Story That Must Be Told

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 5, 2017 10:00 am

Type / missing words between “hands of” and “I highly”
climate skeptics suffer at the hands of I highly recommend it,

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 12:57 pm

Hitler was Christian, and yes National Socialist Germany was a Christian nation.

Reply to  David
March 5, 2017 1:47 pm

Sorta. Hitler, as an Austrian, was raised Catholic, but was never observant as an adult. His party had elements that sponsored neo-pagan religion, and he personally put all German churches under the close control of his party apparatus. By some standards, Stalin was more of a Christian than Hitler, having studied (briefly) for the priesthood, and put the Orthodox under less control than the National Socialists.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 3:27 pm

From the Wiki;

“In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf, Hitler used the words “God”, “the Creator”, “Providence” and “the Lord”.[18][19][20][21] He outlines a nihilistic vision, describing human history as a constant racial struggle for supremacy.[22] He criticized the churches for not knowing the “racial problem” and declares himself in favour of separation of church and state.[23][24] Officially, the Nazi party endorsed what it termed “Positive Christianity” which removed the religion of its Jewish origins, set up Hitler as a messiah, and did not require the belief in the divinity of Christ.[25][26][23][27] In practice, Hitler’s regime oppressed the churches, and worked to reduce the impact of Christianity on society.[28]

Hitler was hesitant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons,[29] but generally permitted or encouraged his inner-circle of anti-church radicals such as Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann to carry out Nazi oppression of the churches.[30] His remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer,[31] and transcripts of Hitler’s private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler’s Table Talk, indicate anti-Christian beliefs …”

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 3:48 pm

Hitler was no Christian, David. He set out to destroy the Church, which wasn’t very far down his priority list from the Jews. For more help with your ignorance about Hitler’s “Christianity,” see here: https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Hitler-a-Christian.html

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 3:55 pm

Clearly no. Hitler and his follower had their own religion. But they deceived dumb Christians and used them. I can tell. I have heard enough from my conservative Christian ancestors – They considered him to be the Anti Christ.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 4:42 pm

Mods Please excuse my language but david you are a lying son of a bitch.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 4:50 pm

The story that Hitler was a Christian is a myth. It is true that Hitler was baptized. It is also true that he made overtures toward Christianity in order to appeal to Christians in Germany. However, his father was an atheist and he held atheist beliefs.

Almost as soon as he tossed out the Republic, he also tossed out his superficial deferment to Christian beliefs. Like Communists, he believe religion was a competitor to his own personality. One of his first acts was his “kirchenkampf” or church struggle. In this struggle, he took over much church property and arrested a number of church leaders. A clergy barracks was established at Dachau for these prisoners.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 5:41 pm

Amen, Climate Otter.

“H1t!er set up a very horrible ant1chr1st system disguised as a Christian church,” { }

His fellow N@z1s were only too happy to embrace their F u h rer as Germany’s mess1ah.


H1t!er’s propaganda minister Joseph G o e b be ls said, “Our F u h r er is the intermediary between his people and the throne of God. Everything the F u h r er utters is religion in the highest sense.”

…. H1t!er developed a 30-point plan for the new “National Re1ch Church,” which was even published by The New York Times in 1942. Among the rules:

— No pastors, chaplains or priests were allowed to speak in church…. only National Re1ch orators.
— All B1bles and pictures of saints were removed from the church altars and replaced with copies of Me!n K a m p f.
The cross was also removed and replaced with the sw@st!ka.
— One of the most controversial Re1ch Church rules involved the B1ble.
— Although H1t!er quoted scripture in many of his early speeches, he later referred to it as “a fairy story invented by the Jews,” and in 1942, the B1ble became a banned book in Germany.

“Ad o l f H1t!er …. had his own b1ble printed, 100,000 copies. There are some copies still around, but most of them were destroyed by people who realized what H1t!er had done.”

In H!t!er’s bible, all Hebrew words like hallelujah were removed. He also replaced the Ten Commandments with twelve of this own. Among them:

— Keep the blood pure and your honor holy.
— Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers.
— Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice.
— Honour your F u h rer and Master.

H1t!er also wrote his own version of The Lord’s Prayer, to be recited by the H1t!er Youth:

“Ad o l f H1t!er, you are our great F u h rer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Re1ch comes; thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice, and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end, even with our lives We praise thee; hail H1t!er F u h rer my F u h rer, given me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need; I thank you for my daily bread; be with me for a long time, do not leave me, F u h rer my F u h rer, my faith, my light – hail, my F u h rer.”

H1t!er had his own church, his own bible and even his own hymn, sung every day in German schools:

“A d o lf H1t!er is our savior, our hero. He is the noblest being in the whole wide world. For H1t!er, we live. For H1t!er, we die. Our H1t!er is our Lord, who rules a brave new world.”

Now that H!t1er had set up his own Re!ch religion, it was time to get rid of the competition. And while his persecution of the Jews was well- known, his “Final Solution” for Christians remained a secret for more than 60 years. ***


So where were Germany’s Christians in all this? Most of them were too frightened to protest, but a small remnant of Christians did stand up against the Re!ch Church. A group of 3,000 Protestants known as the “Confessing Church” openly defied H1t!er and paid the price.


Seven-hundred pastors from the Confessing Church were arrested. Many of them were murdered or sent to concentration camps. ***

(Source: http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/ — edited slightly by me for readability)

Note: I could cite MANY historical records and eyewitness testimony, e.g., Dietrich Bonhoefferl’s Letters from Prison and Anna Hirschmann’s book, Hansi, the Girl Who Loved {later retitled “Left”} the Swast1ka about her indoctrination and membership in the H1t!er Youth, to prove the above. This is not the place to do that.

What David wrote is pure ev1l. How disgusting that he bears the name of Israel’s finest king, the “man after God’s own heart.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 5:46 pm

Addendum to my comment refuting David (which is in moderation as of 5:41pm (I thought I dealt with every bad word! arrrrrgh))

For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus.

I. Timothy 2:5

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 11:09 pm

There is a difference between the majority of citizens belonging to a religion and the government “being” that religion. While Europe is traditionally a Christian continent, its various governments (past and present) are not necessarily “Christian”. This is true of any place and religion. There are countries that are frequently referred to as “Muslim” nations that are ruled by governments that are fairly neutral when it comes to religion, and others that are ruled by governments that incorporate theology into their laws. (Not getting into various interpretations of theology and the like, simply making the point that majority religion is not synonymous with government.)

Most governments are influenced by the religion(s) of the founders and/or majority of citizens, but the majority are not actually BASED in/on the religion.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2017 11:27 pm

A few quotes to show that Hitler was anything but a Christian:

One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.
— Adolf Hitler

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another 100 years, 200 years perhaps. There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.
— Adolf Hitler

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
— Adolf Hitler

When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.
— Adolf Hitler

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 6, 2017 12:39 am

David, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian. Adolf Hitler was not. It is pretty easy to tell the difference.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 6, 2017 2:01 am

Nazism didn’t have any roots in Christianity. Its origins lay in Germanic paganism and major non-religious German philosophers such as Hegel, Fichte, and Nietzsche. Their intellectual descendants brought the Nazis to power. From “Nietzsche and the Nazis”:


“These seven men [including Heidegger, Hauptmann, Schmitt, von den Bruke, and Spengler] are among the most intelligent and
powerful minds in Germany in the decade before the Nazis
came to power. They are leading figures in German intellectual
culture, spanning the arts, science, history, law, politics,
and philosophy. All of them, to one degree or another, supported
National Socialism.

I also want to suggest that the Nazi intellectuals and their followers thought of themselves as idealists and as crusaders for a noble cause. This may be even harder to accept. The National Socialists in the 1920s were passionate men and women who thought that the world was in a crisis and that a moral revolution was called for. They believed their ideas to be true, beautiful, noble, and the only hope for the world. Yes, Nazi ideology contained major elements of harshness, even brutality—but what if an important truth about the world is that it is harsh and brutal?

What if a culture’s brightest thinkers believe that democracy
is a historical blip? What if they come to believe that
the lesson of history is that what people need is structure and
strong leadership? What if they believe that history shows
that some cultures are obviously superior—superior in their
arts, their science and technology, and their religion? What if
they believe that history teaches that we live in a harsh world
of conflict and that in such a world strength and assertiveness
against one’s enemies are essential to survive? Or even more
strongly than that—that peace makes people soft and that it
is conflict and war that brings out the best in people, making
them tough, vigorous, and willing to fight for their ideals and if
necessary die for them?

I am suggesting that a set of ideals was primarily responsible
for the rise of Nazism. I think those ideals are extraordinarily
false and terribly destructive—but that is not how millions of
intelligent, educated, even in many cases well meaning
Germans saw them.”

Nazism was a rebellion AGAINST Christianity and roots of Western Civilization. History told the Nazis that democracy only lasted for a few centuries before failing in Greece and Rome (and now in the Weimar Republic). Martin Luther exposed the corruption in the Roman Catholic church and produced a century of religious warfare. Authoritarians from Charlemagne (aka Charles the Great) to the Kaisers had ruled the German people for a millennium.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 6, 2017 5:50 am

David merely affirms the points of the author. I would call him a caricature if he was being sarcastic, instead of honest.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 6, 2017 6:52 am

‘Hitler was Christian’

Somehow so typical left wing OT. Do you hate Christians? Leftism is about hate, not love.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 6, 2017 7:15 am

david repeats an annoying historically illiterate bit of bigotry in repeating the falsehood Hitler was Christian.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 6, 2017 8:19 am

According to those with no desire to understand.
Anyone who grew up in a nominally Christian country, is a Christian unless they publicly denounce Christianity.
Beyond that, any country that permits Christians to build churches is by definition a Christian country.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
March 5, 2017 2:21 pm

After reading that article, the first response comment is on grammar??!!! WTF?!

Reply to  Macha
March 6, 2017 8:19 am

It’s called crowdsourcing – hopefully @Anthony appreciates those humble readers helping to remove small blemishes. I have done this before on other blogs and websites, privately through email if possible, if in the comments I’ll add “Feel free to remove this comment once corrected”.

Reply to  Macha
March 6, 2017 9:35 am

Exactly, some people really can’t see the wood for the trees.

I found the article extremely moving and so much of it resonated with my own political coming of age.

george e. smith
Reply to  Macha
March 6, 2017 11:41 am

Speaking of Calcutta,

I didn’t see any mention of the exploding cooking stoves that apparently routinely burn some Indian wives to death in the kitchen.


Reply to  Macha
March 6, 2017 1:19 pm

I thought the same thing! This was a well written, thoughtful article of importance and the comments are first about grammar and secondly another debate about Hitler.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
March 5, 2017 6:44 pm

i didn’t read this because it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with climate.. not all climate skeptics are on the ‘right’ i see at the end there she says something about the PLO.. Israel is a racist aphartheid state, palestinains are denied equal rights, citizenship, freedom of movement and or confined to bantustans that together comprise less than 10% of the overall territory israel/palestine.. so what if they are ‘terrorists’? if you were faced with that kind of oppresion youd be a ‘terrorist’ too .. meanwhile the us supports ‘moderate syrian rebels’ against the seculat assad regime.. why not support palestinians terrorists then? because the US is dominated by zionists.

Reply to  sam
March 5, 2017 7:25 pm

sam … so, you didn’t bother to read it, but felt compelled to take the time to write a bigoted anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli screed, anyway! I think you would have greatly benefited from reading the article … several of the sections could be applied to yourself, especially #10.

Reply to  sam
March 5, 2017 9:06 pm


You might want to try the read. I know it looks hard, but I know you can…

10 – Huffiness
7 – Leftists hate my [poor] people
5 – Straw men
4 – breaking eggs to make an omelet
“Truth is that which serves the party.” The capital-R revolution was such a good, it could eliminate all that was bad, that manipulating facts was not even a venial sin; it was a good. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. One of those eggs was objective truth.
3 – It doesn’t work
2 – Other approaches work better
and 1 – Hate

If you can’t see the connection between the explanation of this list and the whole liberal approach to “climate science”, you really may be beyond help. just my impression…

Leonard Lane
Reply to  sam
March 5, 2017 9:10 pm

Sam, what a load of hate, prejudice, bigotry, and utter ignorance.
(Sorry Mods, had to be said after what he was allowed to say).

Leo Smith
Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 12:44 am

i didn’t read this because it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with climate

Correct, It doesn’t. But it has everything to do with climate science so called, which is the political manipulation of poor science into a tool to justify policy deployment.

The nature of the belief structures that enable the politics of climate change to flourish, are almost entirely of the Left.

Without the Left, AGW would be just another discounted discredited and refuted hypothesis.

Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 1:46 am

>>Israel is a racist aphartheid state, palestinains are denied equal rights,
>>citizenship, freedom of movement.

Israeli Palestinians have the same rights as as Jws. They have full freedom of movement, full voting rights, Palestinian parties in the Knesset, full freedom of speech, and live under a police and legal system that if fair and equally to all. That is why they keep their heads low, and say nothing, because they know they are a part of the best governmental system in the entire Middle East.

You seem to confuse Israeli Palestinians with the Palestinian states. Since these enclaves are governed by Palestinians, they are un-democratic hell-holes of unemployment, poverty, brutality, arbitrary punishment, oppression, misogyny, and burning hatred. And instead of improving their lot, they foster a persecution complex, blame everyone else for their misfortunes, promote a deep hatred of their neighbours, and throw 2000 rockets a year into Israel.

The Palestinian states could be a New Hong Kong, full of vibrant production and wealth. They could be the New Lebanon, which was the Switzerland of the East until Palestinians and Hezbolah took control and destroyed the entire region. But no, they prefer to the Palestinian States to emulate the New Mogadishu, the New Khabul, or the New Yemen, because that is what their culture creates, wherever it goes – lethargy, hatred, poverty, oppression, and regression into a Dark Age. But it is never their fault…..


Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 2:14 am


Politicians like Angela Mekel have forgotten the lessons of the past.

Lebanon was the Switzerland of the East – the richest, most multicultural, most liberal, most vibrant nation in the Near East. When the Palestinians were displaced from fighting in the Israeli wars of self-defense, Lebanon, being a good Christian nation took in hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians. Such a king gesture. But within 20 years thise same Palestinians had destroyed Lebanon in a civil war, and made it the poorest, most miserable region in the Middle East.

This is what Palestinians are good at doing. Think about it … what do they produce, bar poverty and misery? What do they export, bar terror and instability? What do you buy, with ‘made in Palestine’ on it? Under British rule the displaced Chinese of Hong Kong developed the richest region in the Chinas. Under self rule, the Palestinians have developed brutality and hatred into an artform.

The Israelies know the history of the region well, so is anyone suprised that they want to keep the Palestinians at arm’s length? Conversely, Angela Merkel is a typical lefty fantasist who knows nothing of history, and want to repeat the grave misfortunes of Lebanon in Germany. So I ask you – who has the right policy here, Israel or Germany…?


Incidentally, the Palestinians are not native to the region. The original Palestinians were the Peleset, and they came from Greece in the 13th century BC. They are cognate with the bibIical Philistines. Then the Arabs attacked and destroyed the region in the 7th century AD, and not only took the lands, but stole the name of the people too. So the Palestinains have the least claim to the region. The Dead Cities of Aleppo are a testament of the great wealth of the region, before the Arab ‘Palestinians’ destroyed the region – 800 towns and vilages around Aleppo all destroyed by the invading Arab armies if Muhummad.

And these majestic towns are still there today, you can still walk down their high streets and enter their magnificent churches some 1,200 years later – while the Arabs built their usual shanty towns in different locations for some reason. This is what Angela Merkel wants for Germany.


Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 2:49 am

teapartygeezer and Leonard Lane:

It is disappointing to find your vile posts in a thread about hate.

You could have disputed the opinions from sam. These were

if you were faced with that kind of oppresion (i.e. as suffered by Palestinians) youd be a ‘terrorist’ too


the us supports ‘moderate syrian rebels’ against the seculat assad regime.. why not support palestinians terrorists then?


the US is dominated by zionists

Each of those opinions is capable of being disputed, but you did not dispute them. Instead, you accused him of being

bigoted anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli

and providing a

load of hate, prejudice, bigotry, and utter ignorance

But sam gave no indication of any of those things.

sam supported the Palestinians: that is not – and cannot be – “anti-Semiticism” because the Palestinians are semites.

And it is not “anti-Israeli” to state facts about Israel. There are many racist states (e.g. Zimbabwe) but Israel has been the only Constitutionally racist state since the end of aphartheid South Africa.

It is not bigotry, and/or anti-Semiticism, and/or anti-Israeli and/or hate and/or utter ignorance to state undeniable facts.

In his introduction to the above article our host says i

There may be hope yet for those who value spewing hate over rational debate.

It is sad that you two have chosen to spew hate instead providing rational debate.


Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 3:00 am


I congratulate you on your attempt to have a rational debate with sam. However, your arguments are not very rational. For example, you build an entire argument on your assertion that

Incidentally, the Palestinians are not native to the region. …. Then the Arabs attacked and destroyed the region in the 7th century AD, and not only took the lands, but stole the name of the people too. So the Palestinains have the least claim to the region.

Really? People who have lived there since “the 7th century AD” have less claim to the region than people who have flooded in since the 1940s?

I hope that by making this post I have encouraged sam to answer you, so I leave it to sam to address your other opinions.


Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 5:12 am

>>Really? People who have lived there since “the 7th century AD”
>>have less claim to the region than people who have flooded in
>>since the 1940s?

If you knew anything about the region, Richard, you would know that Judaeo-Israel was the Israelite-Jwish homeland from around 1200 BC to AD 70, when they were all evicted by the Romans after the Jwsh revolt. And those who remained were evicted after the Bar Kochbar uprising against Rome in the 2nd century.

(Although I have some sympathy with the Romans, because the Jws refused to bow to Rome and were not good Romans. Now if you say the Romans had no right to take over Europe, then the Jwsh resistance should be praised. But if you think that greater Europe was much better off under enlightened Roman administration, then the Jws should be condemned. The absurdity of the Jwsh rebellion against Rome is perfectly summed up in the film ‘Life of Brian’.


And so the Jws became a stateless people who were kicked from pillar to post all around Europe for the next 1,800 years or so. Under the circumstsnces, it was only right and proper for them to be allowed to return to what was a barren and upopulated region at that time, in comparison to now.

The only bone of contention was a few displaced Palestinians. Bot none of the liberal media ever complain about the 500,000 Jws of who were brutaIIy kicked out of Iraaq at the same time, or the 300,000 Jws of North Africa who were similarly sIaughtered and displaced at the point of a gun. No, the media never complain about them, because Israel did the right thing and took in these communities. Conversely, the surrounding Muslim nations deliberately refused to take in any Palestinians, in the same way that Saudi Arabia is currently refusing to accept any displaced Syrians.

So the only people who will help displaced are Christian Europeans, while the Gulf States refuse to help their co-religionists. Why? Just as now, in the 1940s it was iin order to foster an international refugee situation in Israel, for political gain. In fact, Jordan bombed its 200,000 Palestinians back into the West Bank on Black September. Remember that? Where is the condemnation of Jordan, for ethnically cleansing all its Palestinians at the point of a gun and howitzer??

Our politicians and media need to brush up on their history, because without an understanding of the history of the region, every peace effort is doomed to failure.


Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 5:20 am

These are some of the Dead Cities of Aleppo, which were destroyed when the army of the warlord called King Muhammad invaded Syria (as he was known in Mesopotamia). They demonstrate the great wealth of the region, before the comming of the lethargy and mis-rule that is endemic within Islam.
comment image
comment image

Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 6:00 am

And another affirmation of the author’s article. It appears the left is incapable of not acting out the very points she raised.

Reply to  sam
March 6, 2017 8:22 am

sam, if you would take the time to learn the truth, as the person the author wrote about did, you will find out that your hate filled rant has nothing to do with reality.

Reply to  sam
March 7, 2017 1:00 am

You are correct.
Ignore the rubbish below.

March 5, 2017 10:09 am

The key is simple- leftists hate human reason, that thing engrained in man alone as “the image of God”.

Reply to  John_QPublic (@John_QPublic)
March 5, 2017 12:49 pm

I am not sure that is true,John_Qpublic,since hate can exist without reason being involved at all.

I am the “black sheep” of my family who left the Democrat party around 1992,as I was seeing hate become a common theme in my family,always lurking just under the surface,that would erupt in the blink of an eye. My family HATED Reagan,because they say he is too old or is too dumb or whatever. It was just hate is what it was. Never mind that it was Regan who helped end the Soviet Union and change the poor economic to a much better one. He had inherited a mess from Jimmy Carter and the 100% Democratic majority,fight the negative press and hostility. He ended up being a better President,despite his flaws,than Carter,Clinton,and Obama.

Trying to have a simple debate with ANY of my leftist family members, quickly disintegrates when I try to show the BASE information,such as the FBI crime stats,the Founding fathers own words on the second amendment (the two men who sponsored the second amendment especially),or the NOAA,IPCC and other similar organizations that doesn’t agree with them.

I have a brother who REFUSES to read the FBI report Exonerating Officer Wilson,still insist that Brown had his hands up (The FBI,The state of Missouri,Forensic and the Democrat Prosecutor all said that was false).I can’t respect him when he is that irrational,doesn’t debate honestly or stick with the topic. The same brother who REFUSES to accept the obvious self defense claims by Zimmerman when he shot the man who was beating his head in. I tried to show him the dispatchers report and Martins own words making it clear he went after Zimmerman,far from his apartment to the area near Zimmerman’s car.

In the end I say very little anymore, as they are too far gone in their hate and ideology. They have no room for doubt or respect.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 5, 2017 12:54 pm

That’s pretty much why I stopped discussing politics with most anyone, especially online.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 5, 2017 1:59 pm

Anyone with that kind of irrational hate I refuse to be around, family or not.
And I don’t regret it one bit.

Reply to  John_QPublic (@John_QPublic)
March 5, 2017 1:34 pm

Martin Bashir is back at the BBC once more, reporting on religious affairs.


I don’t want to tar everyone with the same brush but it has been my experience that the more strident left wingers are very tolerant of other people views, provide they coincide with their own.


Reply to  climatereason
March 5, 2017 11:36 pm

I have never understood how someone can say something so vile and still be employed, particularly in a highly visible position. Then again, he was targeting the “right” (no pun intended) victim: a woman who dared to be conservative.

The hate for Palin boggles my mind. If you disagree with her or do not like her, fine. But hate?

Fun fact: A relatively short time (within a year or two) before Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate, a prominent women’s magazine (leftist, natch) ran a small story about women in politics, and how they were showing how it should be done! One of the people profiled? Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Glowing terms. I think she might have even been listed first, though that could also be alphabetical order (state).

I was a bit surprised at the time that they were being so effusive about a Republican. They made up for it after the nomination with plenty of nastiness. One of many reasons I no longer read “women’s” magazines.

Reply to  climatereason
March 5, 2017 11:47 pm

Very true. The left claims to be accepting and tolerant of others, but they reserve the right to hate the “haters.” The problem is, they label everyone they dislike or disagree with as “haters.” And that allows them to feel good about hating them. It also makes them no different than any hate group that has ever existed because even the most vile hate groups in history only hated the people they disliked or disagreed with.

Reply to  climatereason
March 6, 2017 7:24 am

….Also very tolerant if the new pet favorite is going to help shut down their enemies. Even if that new pet will ultimately eat the fool who thinks they own the pet.

Reply to  climatereason
March 7, 2017 11:39 am

@AllyKat, your memory is good regarding Gov Sarah Palin. I also recall some articles speaking of her as a model for feminists gaining power in government. There was, I believe, even a cover picture on some magazine with a caption that implied something like: Coldest State, Hottest Governor. How utterly sad and tragic that she was to be savagely assaulted by the same feminist groups when she was chosen to stand as VP candidate. The vomit inducing vitriol of Martin Bashir was indeed so vile that he ought never to be heard of again, except the leftists have again given him a place of honor at BBC.

Reply to  John_QPublic (@John_QPublic)
March 5, 2017 5:32 pm

Fabulous Post. Per Ms. Goska’s #3 and #1- Jesus Christ is the greatest Revolutionary ever. In the caste-ridden society of the Roman Empire he dared to teach that every human being, rich or poor, black or white, slave or free, was valuable and worthy of love and respect because they were created in “the image of God”. That revolutionary idea eventually turned much of the world upside down, and still does it today.

Reply to  philohippous
March 5, 2017 9:59 pm

Jesus also elevated the individual, a potential member of God’s Kingdom, above the society the Roman Empire foisted on it’s subjects.

Obviously, such diametrically opposite views regarding individuals would cause extreme political conflict.

Beware of those, even today, who preach fondly of the collective rather than the individual.

Reply to  philohippous
March 5, 2017 10:02 pm

correction: it’s to its

Richie D
Reply to  John_QPublic (@John_QPublic)
March 6, 2017 5:33 am

Sorry but the “hate of human reason” is not monopolized by the Left — quite the contrary: National Socialism, a paragon of the sorts of “conservative” values so popular with some Republicans at the moment, was founded upon the Irrational. The Irrational appeals, fundamentally, to Fear of Others (xenophobia, homophobia, etc.).

Climate Science(tm) likewise appeals to fear (thermophobia?), which again is a hallmark of bogus.

The United States, you may remember, was founded upon the principles of the Enlightenment. Our freedoms did not flow from monarchism, the “conservative” values then; our freedoms flowed from blood shed by treasonous, armed Liberals who posited a Radical interpretation of the rights of Man.

Reply to  Richie D
March 6, 2017 6:10 am


I would draw your attention to Items 11-18, 21 & 22. National Socialism is merely a different flavor of socialism, and clearly left wing. Stalin was the one that tried to claim it was right wing, because it was not INTERNATIONAL socialism.

Reply to  Richie D
March 6, 2017 7:29 am

I have been conservative since 1979. And politically active, volunteering in campaigns. I have *never* met one conservative who was in the least bit similar to what you casually accuse conservatives of supporting. You lefties are the history rewriting, corrupt, bigoted hate mongers. You are just another lefty reactionary twit.

Reply to  Richie D
March 6, 2017 8:31 am

Richie demonstrates the author’s point perfectly.
First off ignorance, in that he incorrectly lists Nazi’s as being creatures of the right.
Secondly he compounds ignorance by declaring that anyone who disagrees with him on the subject of illegal immigration is a racist.
If you disagree with him on gay rights, you are a homophobe and so on.

The left feel free to hate anyone who disagrees with them because in their minds they are perfect and hence entitled.

BTW, if you really want to get a leftist going, threaten their supply of OPM. (Other People’s Money)

Michael 2
Reply to  Richie D
March 7, 2017 10:00 am

“Conservative” simply means to conserve; it says nothing about what exactly is being conserved. A political conservative, in my opinion, is one that conserves the values of this nation, whichever is “this”. For the United States in particular in means comprehension of the Bill of Rights.

March 5, 2017 10:13 am

Kind of late to the party but OK.

March 5, 2017 10:14 am

Danuta Goska reminds me of several family members. One grandfather was a “red diaper baby”, whose father ran for mayor of Rock Springs, Wyoming on the Socialist Labor Party ticket. Some second cousins on the other side of the family were Birchers, so I have long familiarity with various flavors of radical politics.
In my experience, one must draw a distinction between the True Believers, and the casual adherents, who never get beyond the level of fashion. Most of the actual power of the True Believers comes from the people who think it is cool to be a whatever, though.

Dr. Dave
March 5, 2017 10:20 am

I’m speechless…

Reply to  Dr. Dave
March 5, 2017 11:49 am

That’s a first! ;-))

Reply to  Dr. Dave
March 5, 2017 2:47 pm

Dr. Dave says, “I’m speechless….”

It really is so beautifully written that one can’t help but feel like a bumbling oaf for a few minutes after reading it.

I was really moved by this paragraph:
“Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists’ announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.”

I think what she will find is that this “attitude” or outlook is so deeply woven into the history books, that even people who claim to be fairly egalitarian still are basically ignorant of the extraordinary contributions of ordinary people to all of the great branches of knowledge–to the point of being a majority.

And also the “Labour” parties are a misnomer. They are filled with slick globalists who want to import foreign work forces and hire foreign companies to handle vital local services.

Reply to  Zeke
March 5, 2017 3:59 pm

Don’t underestimate John Q Public.

Ben Gunn
March 5, 2017 10:20 am

An excellent read, Thanks for this Anthony!!

Reply to  Ben Gunn
March 5, 2017 4:55 pm

Yes, a great article.! Actually a great journey.

March 5, 2017 10:23 am

My favorite bumper sticker I saw while attending Berkeley was:


Reply to  Max Photon
March 5, 2017 10:24 am

(… and this was in front of The Brick Hut — a lesbian cafe.)

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Max Photon
March 5, 2017 10:45 am

what were you doing at a lesbian cafe?

har de har

Reply to  Max Photon
March 5, 2017 5:12 pm

It was close to my place, and had awesome, man-sized servings.

Funny side note: one morning the owner brought our breakfast came just minutes after we ordered. I was impressed, and suggested the place be called Lickity Split. She was not amused.

mel ray
Reply to  Max Photon
March 5, 2017 6:58 pm

Was also known as the Dikey Diner by friends, associates and at least one ex-husband of the crew- accepted with varying measures of humor. Was a great eatery if one could handle the occasional blast of manhating. Thanks for the reminder of those days and times

Kathleen Manuel
March 5, 2017 10:27 am

Wow. Wow. The change for me started in 1991 with the global warming scam. Everything she says is true.

Bloke down the pub
March 5, 2017 10:30 am

Thank heaven that I’ve never been attracted to the political left, even though many of my friends have.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 5, 2017 1:12 pm

ditto! I was also around plenty of them being that I grew up in San Francisco.

March 5, 2017 10:31 am

Thank you for sharing Dr. Goska’s story.

March 5, 2017 10:32 am

Nice diatribe on the issues of anger and closed mindedness in politics, something applicable to life in general, with no direct relevance to climate issues. Gun rights, abortion, any hot button issue suffers from lack of civility on both sides. We already know this.

Reply to  Doug
March 5, 2017 2:51 pm

So you’re happy to be part of the left wing genocidal hate-fest as described by Dr Goska?

War is coming because of this.

Reply to  Doug
March 5, 2017 3:58 pm

No direct relevance to climate issues? I’ve BEEN to realclimate. I’ve seen the anger and close mindedness there, in quantities high enough to keep me from going back. Calling this post a diatribe reveals your own closed mindedness.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 5, 2017 4:43 pm

@jorge, + many !

Reply to  Doug
March 5, 2017 10:07 pm

The division on climate IS political, Doug. Nothing. But. Political.

Think of that for a moment–if everybody applied the scientific principle correctly, alarmism wouldn’t exist and $Billions could be saved.

It would become science again.

The left hates for the sake of hating, and must have division to justify their hate. It’s that simple.

Reply to  Doug
March 6, 2017 8:35 am

While there are definitely angry people on the right, the amount of vitriol you get from them is small compared to what the left considers standard fare.

March 5, 2017 10:35 am

My experience in a family with leftists and a church with leftists is a little different. They were outraged by female genital mutilation, the magazines that I saw some of them having mentioned female genital mutilation as among one of the things to be outraged about, and they believed in God.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 5, 2017 10:44 am

Also, the leftists I was familiar with were outraged with Sharia and laws based on Sharia in countries where that was the law, due to oppression of women which included an attitude that allowed rape to be prevalent and punishing rape victims.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 5, 2017 10:55 am

The most malevolent thought I ever had for dealing with Female Genital Mutilation in the US would be to sentence the practicioners to prison in the general population, and tell the other prisoners what they are in prison for.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 5, 2017 12:48 pm

outraged with Sharia
This conflict with the narrative of acceptance and tolerance of people that are different than you, especially if that person is of another race or religion.

FGM is widely practiced in the Muslim world, though few people in the West realize this. Men would not consider marrying a woman otherwise. It goes right to the heart of the culture. It is difficult for westerners to grasp, because it is so foreign to our thinking. The women would otherwise be seen as “unclean”, sort of like marrying the town trollop.

The practice likely got started in harems, or in general where men are permitted multiple wives, as a means of controlling female sexual response. Soft of like Castilian Spanish, when the king speaks with a lisp, everyone speaks with a lisp. When the Sultan has his harem “fixed”, the general population have their wives “fixed”. Over the years everyone has forgotten how it got started, and is now practiced as a matter of custom.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 5, 2017 9:57 pm

FGM is not maintained by men. It is insisted on by elderly women for their grandsons and sons. The idea that men are in favour of this is maintained by men-hating western women, for the most part.

It is marketed as a ‘domination’ thing with the re-sewing of the woman, by herself, as providing a ‘new virgin experience’ to the husband each time they have sex. Nearly everywhere, FGM is demanded by, conducted by, and performed on females. It is upheld by the older women who refuse to allow their sons to marry girls who are not so ‘treated’. If you want to stop it, you have to talk to the women.

In many cultures the men are young when married and have no say about whom they are to wed or what her ‘condition’ will be.

It is said that after a religious group in Ethiopia were raised without it, ‘no one would marry them’. It the refusals came not from men, but from their grandmothers and mothers who dominate the choice.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 6, 2017 6:17 am

Yet Male Genital Mutilation is widely practiced in the US, originally to stop young boys from masturbating (I can’t imagine why they thought that would work!)

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
March 11, 2017 5:47 pm

C. in Waterloo: As for FGM being done by older women onto younger women: This gets done in places where women instead of men are blamed for rape, and where rape is common. I have seen a description of the FGM process in one of these places and it sounds to me like it is done in mean spirit, with older women not wanting younger women to have capability of experiencing sexual pleasure in ways unmutilated women can. And that men feared women who had such ability to experience sexual pleasure because they might be less loyal to their husbands. But that was in places where men were free to have sex with women other than their wives, even rape them and blame them for being victims of them.

March 5, 2017 10:36 am

So what is it, ,I wonder, that allows someone like Dr. Danusha V. Goska to “see the light” while so many others never do.

Here is another leftist, appalled at the election of Trump, blaming the left for his win, for reasons familiar to all here that have nothing at all to do with Trump. But he does it with such passion it is worth a look. It is especially worth sharing with any of your leftist friends and any on-line name callers you encounter. Avoid, however if offended by F-bombs.

Reply to  thallstd
March 5, 2017 3:33 pm

Hope you realise that Jonathan Pye is satirical comedian whose routine is pretending to be an on-the-spot TV reporter pretending to engage in conversation via an ear-piece with his producer in the studio.

Reply to  Tony Hazzard
March 6, 2017 5:57 am

Thanks Tony. I didn’t realize that but it does explain why the camera man was there. In any case, he hits the nail so squarely on the head that if it was intended as satire, it was completely lost on me and those I’ve shared it with.

Reply to  thallstd
March 5, 2017 4:03 pm

That was very good. Crude, but as true a you can get. The leftists made Trump win.

Reply to  Jer0me
March 5, 2017 5:45 pm

From reading various bits and pieces of clues I think the Donald read the winds just right. The Left and Foolery didn’t even visit the swing states, thank God. And every where Bilary went she had to haul celebrities along to drag in a relatively few people to campaign events. Like every good salesman Trump believed in what he was saying and knew it was what many people, outside of his ardent supporters, wanted. I think he figured out after the first Republican debate that he could win and went right on doing the right stuff to win.

Every time someone on the left opened their mouths they converted another vote for Trump.

Reply to  thallstd
March 5, 2017 4:54 pm

These days those aren’t even F bombs anymore. The language that the left uses these days is more vile then ever before and a lot more threatening. Oh and for the guy’s sake I hope he didn’t have a heart attack but overall he hit it spot on.! Frankly I hope the left doesn’t listen I also wonder what he feels like 45 days after Trump got in because it sure looks like the left hasn’t listened to a word he said!

Reply to  asybot
March 5, 2017 10:14 pm

Why should they?

The Left (leaning heavily Marxist/Socialist Progressive these days) has no more intent on participating in the Constitutional Republic than do Middle Eastern nations bent on the total annihilation of Israel.

We have plenty of enemies to love.

Michael 2
Reply to  thallstd
March 7, 2017 10:21 am

“So what is it, ,I wonder, that allows someone like Dr. Danusha V. Goska to “see the light” while so many others never do.”

There’s three kinds of left: The elite (which IMO most leftists imagine themselves to be), the proletariat, and finally the occasional genuine article, someone who DOES charity not merely wish for it at government expense.

The most disruptive among the left is not the right, but the genuine article, the person who quietly makes the world a better place. It shames and makes guilty those who proclaim these virtues but do not possess them or practice them. Shame and guilt are powerful forces.

Ultimately it is all Malthusian anyway as she identifies. Competition for resources means that you must be deprecated in some way. As the internet is mostly just words (and YouTube videos) that becomes the weapon of choice. Since I cannot actually hurt you, or you me (sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me), what remains is to discourage you from trying. Thus bullying.

March 5, 2017 10:38 am

Well written.

John MacDonald
March 5, 2017 11:00 am

Wow! Well said.
I would like a caveat. That is, not all on the left fit the far left paradigm so well described here.
Perhaps we need a new scale…a leftist/rightist pH. Logarithmic might be appropriate to describe how things get out of control so quickly by some.
My expectation is that 80% or so of all folks fall around the mean. Unfortunately we disproportionately are subjected to the invective/ignorance of the 10% on each end of the curve.
I am pleased that most here are in the reasoning/polite middle.

Reply to  John MacDonald
March 5, 2017 1:21 pm

There is much pressure on the left to adhere to an entire ‘suite of beliefs’. Sort of like, ‘if you are pro-choice, then surely you are against climate change denial, the Second Amendment … ‘ You get the idea. My spouse once joined a city’s Status Of Women group, hoping to enjoy some conversation related to the status of women. Well ahem, that didn’t last long as the discussions were clearly around an entire ‘suite of beliefs’ …

Reply to  heysuess
March 5, 2017 3:46 pm

One must step lightly, or better, not step at all, to avoid an accusation of ‘elitism’. Kiss Of Death. Worse than ‘denier’.

Reply to  John MacDonald
March 5, 2017 3:22 pm

The Communists pose their views surreptitiously.
It is almost always hidden in ostracism, in embarrassment – the underlying message is: “Only the ignorant or malevolent believe that, so you should believe this.”

It is all about virtue and unvirtue. Good and bad. It is all simply a recreation of good and evil. It is all about copying God.

Now, after reading this essay, listen to any progressive message. It is all statements of belief from True Believers, or someone mimicking a statement from a True Believer.

This is why you cannot have a reasonable argument or intelligent discussion.

I believe there is a reasonable Democrat position / liberal position, but that has been hijacked.

Reply to  John MacDonald
March 5, 2017 4:38 pm

I disagree to an extent. First you must define left and right
I would put for the left -communism, socialism, feudalism, autocracy (including religious autocracy as with Islam), and dictatorship.
On the right I would put- democracy,freedom, free speech, capital ownership and individual rights.
I would suggest that there is a bell curve in each wing with an overlap straddling the dividing line between the wings. That overlap is in the range 30-50% of the total. I suggest that the peak or mean of the two bell curves moves from time to time so that more or less fall within each wing.
With Obama, the EU, voting in Canada, Australia, central and south America and even in Africa there was been a majority in the left wing side with an increase in the extremes of the left wing. Switzerland is the most democratic of countries with their direct democracy political system. But even, there as a result of some referenda, and parliamentary acts there has been a move towards the left.
Brexit, and the election of Trump are signs of a move away from the left towards a more normal status but the far left are fighting with all their tricks to retain or regain their power. Unfortunately, if democracy is not upheld dictatorship will be the result. That is where the EU is/was headed. Election of Clinton would lead to autocracy.

Michael 2
Reply to  cementafriend
March 7, 2017 10:43 am

Your alignment is sort of how it breaks out politically but identifying the fundamental is important and maybe not easy. I’ve been working on it for years.

I think ultimately it is simply whether you believe you are better off on your own or in a herd. If you believe yourself to be weak, you seek a herd to protect you. But the herd is dangerous at the edges so there is constant jockeying to push herd members to the edge to be eaten by predators. You can see this in blogs; leftists will turn on each other and attack each other with more vitriol than is the case when they routinely attack the right wing, or the most feared enemy of all, libertarians.

Power is life, power is security. So while seeking a herd, it is preferable to be the herdmaster, the shepherd, in charge of the herd and thus immune from this competition. You cannot be “voted out” if you own the herd. That is why so many People of the Left seek followers, on Twitter, Facebook or Huffington Post. More is better, more is safety and security. But people are not by nature docile herd animals and must be constantly prodded to remain in the herd. “Everything not compulsory is forbidden” (T.H. White in “Once and Future King”).

Libertarians ignore the herd except for the obvious nuisance of living too close to one. Since they don’t form groups, it is improper to treat them as a “group” other than for convenience of discussion. Some libertarians will become predators, others will become protectors, yet others become ice road truckers in Canada.

The right wing includes predators; lions and tigers and bears oh my! They form small alliances or none at all. This is why the language of the left is opposed to predators: Kings and Capitalists. And yet, how different is the elite of the left; the shepherds that subsist on the labors of the left? It is more honorable to be a proper Capitalist than a pretender; with the entrepreneur you know what you are getting and you know what you are giving. It’s a trade. With the pretender you have little idea what you are actually giving up, or getting, by being protected or having a noisy Social Justice Warrior complaining about Hugh Mungus in Seattle.

In the movie, “American Sniper”, the young Chris Kyle is taught the concept of sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Sheepdogs are likely to be libertarian; self-guided, principled, found in the vicinity of sheep but themselves neither sheep nor wolf. The context is that a fight had broken out at school and Chris Kyle intervened against a bully, the only circumstance his father would allow physical violence was in the protection of someone else.

March 5, 2017 11:04 am

It’s a pity she did’t wise up sooner. All those wasted years.

Reply to  fretslider
March 5, 2017 1:15 pm

Better late then never as the old saw goes.

Timo Soren
Reply to  fretslider
March 5, 2017 1:20 pm

Regret is a powerful word. Regret often initiates a change in a person and they end up achieving much more if not for the regret. This could be one of those moments where her regret may make her a voice for future reformed leftists and hence her years were not wasted, it may have created a greater person for it who will make a substantial dent on the future young and old.

I admire her for her courage and words, and putting it out there.

March 5, 2017 11:05 am

“It astounds me now to reflect on it, but never, in all my years of leftist activism, did I ever hear anyone articulate accurately the position of anyone to our right. In fact, I did not even know those positions when I was a leftist.”

I think this is very common for those on the Left. Why would you study your moral inferiors, they say.

Gunga Din
Reply to  TA
March 5, 2017 11:33 am

She mentioned Archie Bunker. I remember the show. The writers would have him express a conservative viewpoint but then give him a stupid reason for holding it.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2017 1:17 pm

Yes, Archie was always depicted as the misanthrope, a man clinging to a past that no longer held validity in the new world.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2017 2:40 pm

Then the Hippie son-in-law “Meathead” would quote a liberal or socialist author and they hit the applause lights.
Edith and Gloria were both portrayed as “ditzy, but good-hearted” and thoroughly liberated, though unsure of their new status.
Weird that I used to side with the hippy perspective, my heart was bigger than my brain at that stage.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2017 3:24 pm

Looking back on it, I see All in the Family, and MASH, and similar shows, as very influential on my young mind. This was the intent. TV and movies have intentionally moved us very far to the Left, while trying to seem totally innocent, just acting as if they are merely reflecting reality.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2017 4:10 pm

Last Dem, MASH was essentially hijacked by the guy who played Hawkeye. It was funny up to a point, but when he took over it became a sad ‘moral lesson’ evey episode. I have the whole lot, and get annoyed every time i watch it through and come to that series.

I suspect this is true of many series, although not as blatant.

BTW, US series, especially comedy, are very often moralistic. In the UK, they were much less so. I’m not sure now as I haven’t had a TV for nearly 30 years.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2017 4:59 pm

I could barely endure to watch the show, but Archie was my favorite character, even though I was as naïve politically as possible and held some lefty positions at the time. Archie simply made more sense in his basic views than Meathead or the ladies.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 6, 2017 12:12 am

One could argue that it was an extremely sexist show. Both main female characters were vaguely idiotic. Sweet, but generally written as stupid. How liberating. /sarc

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 6, 2017 4:48 am

“Looking back on it, I see All in the Family, and MASH, and similar shows, as very influential on my young mind. This was the intent. TV and movies have intentionally moved us very far to the Left, while trying to seem totally innocent, just acting as if they are merely reflecting reality.”

Yeah, I never could watch MASH because it was such blatant anti-war propaganda. It made me sick.

The Left has been putting out harmful leftwing propaganda through Hollywood and television for a very long time, and it takes its toll on people’s thought processes.

The Left has control of all the means of propaganda in the United States. In the last few years, conservatives are trying to slowly pry their grip off, and keep it off our future. It’s going to take a while, but things are looking up because we have a guy in the White House who can fight this fight, and is going to do so.

Reply to  TA
March 5, 2017 10:18 pm

MASH turns out to be Obama’s favorite sitcom*; that tells you a lot about the message MASH delivers.

(* And once I found that out, I quit watching MASH.)

Reply to  RockyRoad
March 6, 2017 6:18 am

The book was written by one of the surgeons. And the early years were reflective of the works of the author. But the latter years are just stupid.

Reply to  TA
March 6, 2017 8:41 am

I’ve seen several survey’s where self described leftist and self described rightists were asked to describe the positions held by the other side.
In every survey the right had much more accurate views of what the left believed.
In one way it’s pretty simple, if you are a rightist, you still get your news from left wing news, you get your education from left wing universities, etc.
For the left, it’s trivial, if you so want, to spend your entire life never hearing or talking to a rightist. If you get all your information from your left wing echo chamber, it’s easy to understand why it’s so distorted.

Michael 2
Reply to  MarkW
March 7, 2017 1:29 pm

The left is a “thing” to be, the right is simply whatever the left is not; hence, could be almost anything (other than groupthink, herd or hive). While I can describe the left well, and the author Dr. Goska does a marvelous job of it, I cannot describe the right. I can even describe libertarian to a certain extent; it isn’t a philosophy per se it is just that I choose for me and you choose for you. But WHAT I choose for me could be pretty much anything, same with you.

The most libertarian nation on Earth was Iceland when I was there; it is also socialistic. But they choose it and refresh that choosing regularly and tend to be very polite about it. In other words, socialist but not “LEFT”.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 5, 2017 11:08 am

It shows again that you should be very afraid of peoble who wants to save the world. The high goal make them blind for all the misery they cause.

March 5, 2017 11:20 am

This article needs to be posted on the front page of every newspaper on the continent.

Yeah, I know how that will go.

David S
March 5, 2017 11:23 am

An excellent article by Dr. Goska. I never really thought about the extent to which the left is motivated by hate, but it makes sense now. Anyway we all need to make sure we don’t become the haters.

Reply to  David S
March 5, 2017 1:28 pm

A little over a month ago I wrote a comment in which I expressed 1) how much left and green thinking people actually are supporters of this site and 2) my concern at the amount af left-bashing and green-bashing that I encountered here. While things have improved – Thanks Andy – I am still reluctant to encourage any of them to use this site as it at times is alienating and counter-productive.

thanks to the author for a courageous expression of her own journey

Reply to  les
March 5, 2017 1:47 pm


It seems to me that the site has become more vocal and right wing over the years and views are often expressed very forcefully. It has the effect of reducing interactions from those with different opinions a number of who, whether you agree with them or not, have something interesting to say

nick stokes is practically the only representative these days posting here with alternative views.

Mind you, opinions seem to be expressed much more forcefully these days on a number of climate web sites that support the warmist viewpoint and you would have to be a brave person to venture onto them

Are we witnessing the end of tolerance as people fire off rapid unconsidered responses on electronic media instead of thinking about them first?


Reply to  climatereason
March 5, 2017 3:10 pm

This is a microcosm of the country in general, and even perhaps of the western world. There is little room left in the middle. And the politization of climate ‘science’ has caused it to spill over into discussions where politics shouldn’t have any play.

In discussions outside of climate sites, if I even ask a question about the subject, I am immediately branded a “D*****” and a right-wing shill, and all discussion is shut down.

This is our world today.

Reply to  les
March 5, 2017 2:36 pm

Climate reason
Great comment, but no we are not entering a period of reduced debate. The comments on this site are very narrow and embedded. Belief systems are designed to entrap the mind.

An example is the carbon cycle diagrams of the IPCC. No proof, just a hand drawn picture and numbers that balance. Along comes the 30 sequential oco2 images that destroy that belief, and apart from myself not one soul on the face of the planet has discussed them, except myself. So called scientists included.

That is just one example an entrenched belief

How does real debate progress. It does not.

Reply to  les
March 5, 2017 3:28 pm

This site has tolerated some very good discussions of Christianity, and of population “control.”

The readers and commenters hold both positions in these two topics, and I have felt that the discussions have gone well.

Many who believe scientism or naturalism reject my Christian views outright, and are sure I must have no grasp of logic or science if I believe the Bible. I would suggest that the outright rejection of my belief system is a mistake along the lines of what this posted columnist says about liberals not knowing their opponents’ views.

Reply to  les
March 5, 2017 3:37 pm

Tonyb, a slightly different take. This climate ‘war’ has been going on for much longer than WW2. Lets postulate it started around Climategate in 2009. Now in war, there are three outcomes: winners, losers (surrender) and ‘armistice’ (Korea, which is just politically disguised winners and losers). The results are inevitably polarizing, and the debate ‘combat’ fields always narrow over ‘war time’. I find it unsurprising that fewer warmunists venture here; they know they would usually lose. Which means skeptics are winning the ‘war’. And since Deplorables voted in President Trump, literally not just figuratively. Regards.

John M. Ware
Reply to  les
March 5, 2017 5:04 pm

It used to be that, in order to enter one’s own views into the public debate, one wrote a letter–an actual, physical letter of paper and ink–and sent it to someone, or to a newspaper. One had to think long and hard before making the decision to send the letter. I think it was better that way. Most of my really incendiary letters never got sent, and even the moderate ones went through one or more closely-read revisions. I even had to consider my prospective audience, which can be a sobering experience. Nowadays, opinions get dashed off so quickly the writer has no chance to think. The tone of discourse suffers–not to mention the content.

Reply to  les
March 6, 2017 5:03 am

“I find it unsurprising that fewer warmunists venture here; they know they would usually lose. Which means skeptics are winning the ‘war’.”

I think that’s it. If CAGW promoters come on this website they will be abused by a few, but if they have any kind of argument, others will engage in their argument. Usually, they don’t have much of an argument. That is probably why they don’t come on here, as Rud says.

Reply to  David S
March 6, 2017 4:54 am

“Anyway we all need to make sure we don’t become the haters.”

That’s right. Fortunately, most conservatives are reasonable people. They think with their heads, not with their emotions. The left thinks with their emotions, which is why they act so outrageously when it comes to politics.

March 5, 2017 11:23 am

This is a great essay; one that everyone in the US should read. I do appreciate our host doing a re-post of this so that I got the opportunity to read it.

It is sad that the woman took so very long to wake up, but I am glad that she did. I realized the vile hatred of the left and the fact they think the ends justifies any means whatsoever a half century ago at the ripe old age of 17.

What has amazed me over the course of my life is that there have been so very many examples of socialism failing and destroying civilization — and yet the left can never acknowledge the many failures of their dreams.

One observer was writing about the total failure of the leftist welfare state to help the blacks in the US and he called it the “bigotry of low expectations”. I can not remember exactly who wrote that, but it may have been Dr. Thomas Sowell. I do know that he has pointed out that 100 years of slavery could not break the back of the black family but welfare did.

I don’t expect many to understand laissez faire or the fact that the free market gave us the industrial revolution, but surely even a leftist can see that governmental intervention always makes things worse. And brutal governmental intervention is the leftist’s goal.

Thanks for the post.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
March 5, 2017 11:26 am

(Hope this don’t turn up twice, doncha just love Windows)

The cruel, heartless and unthinking ‘games’ of children. Parents know how children can be.

Lord of the Flies, tribes, my gang is better than your gang, I can get away with such-a-such because someone bigger and stronger is looking after me.

e.g Obama signing away millions $$$ in the weeks before Mr trump took over, Peter Gleick, Phil ‘something wrong’ Jones, Gavin on TV, 10-10, Clinton & McCarthy and how-many-more secret emails, every breath Mann takes, Green ‘we’re only kidding’ Peace right now, endless over-use of the Frack word etc etc etc.
Petulance, tantrums, dummy throwing, imaginations of cleverness.
Just general all-round childishness.
Trouble is, it gets really scary and dangerous when supposed adults do it.

Or is that too simple?
Thought so.

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 11:29 am

philosophy. Here, she gives her top ten reasons. It parallels many [ if the trials ] -> of the trials and tribulations climate skeptics suffer.

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 5, 2017 11:31 am

It’s along list and it must have been quite a journey that the lady made. However, many of us have made that journey long time ago. In the place where I come from they say that if you’re 18 and not a socialist, then there’s something wrong with you, but if you’re 28 and still a socialist then there’s something even more wrong with you. For me the light came before I was 18 when Brezniev’s army boots trampled Dubcek’s reformers and the lefties’ apologetic reaction to it. I knew with total clarity that I did not want to have anything to do with ‘the left’ and held the whole ideology in utter contempt.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 5, 2017 5:55 pm

Good for you Ed. Many others followed the same path,.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 6, 2017 10:42 am

Ed Zuiderwijk:-

I took this journey very early on while still a student and wrote this on Pointman’s website:
“Back in the mid 60s when I was in college we, the students, were given the task of a debate about the future direction of the UK. We were all on the same side – at least I thought we all were – slightly left-of-centre view. I was ‘volunteered’ to take an opposing view. How fortuitous that was.
Given 2 days to prepare I started talking to various people in the town to get their ideas. I soon realized that what makes sense now I had never even thought of. I listened politely and found my views slowly changing. These people lived in the real world, worked, paid taxes etc. and I did none of these things. I was privileged to be where I was and it was a sobering experience.
Come the debate all was well and all smiles until I began putting the other view. Within moments there was a baying mob in front of me trying to shout me down with one boy stabbing his forefinger at me like a gun. It was like a wall of hate. Shocking experience which cured me forever of leftish ideas.
I went on to read Huxley’s Brave New World, Orwell’s 1984, Animal Farm and Homage to Catalonia. I am now an implacable enemy of Socialism.
I voted Brexit and would have voted Trump had I been American. Well done Americans!”

March 5, 2017 11:32 am

Humans reflect the image of God. His two prominent characteristics are justice and mercy. The leftists described here have let their God-given desire for justice, that is, the remediation and repair of the world’s ills, overrun any sense of mercy that may lurk in their souls. Mercy has apprehended the author of this piece and rescued her from the evil of a corrupted desire for justice. Welcome to the family, Danuska Goska.

Reply to  Gary
March 5, 2017 11:34 am

Thanks for that. I just figured out what ‘The Quality of Mercy’ means.

Steve Case
March 5, 2017 11:35 am

I had another Aha! moment while listening to a two minute twenty-three second YouTube video of Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue’s castigation of greed. The only rational response to Friedman is “My God, he’s right.”

Reply to  Steve Case
March 5, 2017 12:46 pm

I like to say it this way: Liberals believe people are greedy because they are capitalists; conservatives believe capitalists are greedy because they are people.

Gunga Din
Reply to  gregjxn
March 5, 2017 2:00 pm

The carrot is envy.
“You want what they have? Follow me.”

Reply to  gregjxn
March 5, 2017 4:00 pm

Yes, liberals (in the current sense) have elevated envy from a deadly sin to a virtue.

Reply to  gregjxn
March 5, 2017 5:05 pm

Can I just say, there is a difference between “Capitalism” and “Greed”. Think in terms of monopolistic or other predatory distortions of Capitalism.

Capitalism is the free and fair exchange of goods. Greed is manipulating Capitalism to your own benefit at the expense of society as a hole. For example, predatory pricing to drive out competition so that you can raise prices later or using government election donations to drive policies in favor of you over others.

We want to encourage free and fair competition — we want to discourage anti-competitive greed.

Reply to  gregjxn
March 6, 2017 8:52 am

Predatory pricing can only work when you have a government backing you.
The same goes for monopoly in general.

Reply to  gregjxn
March 6, 2017 12:54 pm

“Predatory pricing can only work when you have a government backing you.
The same goes for monopoly in general.”

These actions don’t always need a government backing you. A government can simply ignore the actions using a free market ideology of non-interference. However, most of the time, these actions are backed by judicious campaign contributions.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 5, 2017 10:46 pm

The left loves to castigate the “greed” of capitalists. As if wanting to keep what you have worked for is greed, but wanting to take what someone else has produced isn’t greed.

Leo Smith
Reply to  hanelyp
March 6, 2017 12:50 am

The left loves to castigate the “greed” of capitalists.

Its just jealousy.

Reply to  hanelyp
March 6, 2017 8:54 am

Others have proclaimed that socialism promotes “freedom”. And that could be true. When you are supplied with resources that were produced by others, you no longer have to worry about where your next meal will come from and you are “free” to concentrate on whatever interests you.
On the other hand, the slaves who’s work is being appropriated for the benefit of others aren’t free.

Steve Case
March 5, 2017 11:38 am

And I know leftists who use the “Dead Jew on a Stick” metaphor.

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
Reply to  Steve Case
March 5, 2017 1:10 pm

…a particularly ugly metaphor it is. It propels the UN’s resolutions on Israel.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 5, 2017 1:31 pm

The left worships Jews too — just the wrong one(s). Mary, Marx and Einstein. Subconsciously, Freud. (:

Reply to  Zeke
March 5, 2017 4:01 pm

I have no idea what you’re trying to say, Zeke. Maybe I don’t want to know.

Reply to  Zeke
March 5, 2017 5:08 pm

Yes sir, jorgekafkazar. What I said is unclear and clumsy. Sorry.

1. It is a response to the rude remark in the above comment about the crucifixion. You can tell because it is indented.

2. Jesus is a Jewish man who celebrated all of the Jewish holidays, including Hanukkah. His followers worship him. >>> I am connecting that to the overawed reverence (or worship) in progressive circles of the following Jewish historical figures: Marx, Einstein and Freud. In fact, Freud had to leave his professorship in German-annexed Austria before the war. I am just ribbing them because they are worshiping the wrong Jews!


Also notice the last remark in the article: “I could say as much about a truly frightening phenomenon, left-wing anti-Semitism, but I’ll leave the topic to others better qualified. I can say that when I first encountered it, at a PLO fundraising party in Marin County, I felt as if I had time-traveled to pre-war Berlin.” I find anti-Semitism, and the hatred of the state of Israel, to be irrational for Europeans and Americans because it is the only free and representative democracy in the whole area, and is a natural ally for us. Why does the left coincidentally share the trait of anti-Semitism with pre-war Berlin? Why is that?

Reply to  Zeke
March 5, 2017 10:34 pm

Nothing unusual about the Left hating Israel, Zeke–they hate the free and representative democracy known as the United States of America just as much.

Consequently, they’re consistent.

Reply to  Zeke
March 6, 2017 8:56 am

The left have always hated Jews, because Jews have been able to prosper despite being oppressed.
The left has always hated anyone who didn’t need government to become wealthy.

March 5, 2017 11:41 am

Slightly off topic: Is the purpose of education to teach you read and write and add and subtract, or to teach you to organize a boycott of Driscoll’s? There is a nice story http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2017/0223/This-man-has-created-a-different-kind-of-urban-school-for-students-of-color. A mother of a student says: “At this age, I’m not so worried that he understands phonics or can add or subtract. He won’t get this real education anywhere else.”

Dear mother, it is better to learn phonics and add and subtract early. If not, your child will continue this real education in jail.

Reply to  Curious George
March 5, 2017 1:15 pm

The Left does not educate, it indoctrinates. Clearly.

Reply to  Sheri
March 5, 2017 11:54 pm

Bad news time, so does the right and the center.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Sheri
March 6, 2017 12:58 am

Bad news time, so does the right and the center.

But not with political morality.

There is not such thing really as ‘The Right’ – not in the same way there is a Left.

The Right is largely a creation of the Left anyway. Its defined as ‘bad people who aren’t like us virtuous folk’

The left is a worldview based on conflict and hatred: I have nothing but admiration for the writer of this piece, not because she has suffered, but because she has not only understood, she has elucidated.

The Right is what the Left calls anyone whose worldview is NOT based on conflict and hatred.

Many years ago I was accused by an American Lefty of being a ‘Male Chauvinist Pig’

The next girlfriend but one was a rather intelligent – if someone damaged – friend. I asked her what she understood by the term….

“That’s what a woman calls a man when she isn’t getting her own way”.

Right is what you are when you dare disagree with the Left.

March 5, 2017 11:41 am

““He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.” Anselme Polycarpe Batbie (19th century academic jurist).” In this case, republicain (civic virtue and the common good) as distinct from Republican (economics and individualism).

With age and self awareness, broadening of one’s encounters and sources, one may achieve what Ms. Goska has achieved and shared. We are beneficiaries of her outspokenness and willingness to share the message of love, hopefully forgiveness, optimism, and see ourselves as contributing to the building of something better than what we had experienced.

The sun is shining. The wind is strong and a bit brisk. I think I’ll go for a walk now. I feel motivated.

Reply to  RiHo08
March 5, 2017 5:05 pm

I went and pruned some fruit trees ( with a smile on my face ) and it was snowing.!

Reply to  RiHo08
March 6, 2017 9:21 am

Polycarpe was right! An adult liberal, then is just a thirty year old who never grew up. Sounds about right to me.

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 11:51 am
March 5, 2017 11:57 am

A very illuminating tale. I think Dr Goska deserves enormous credit for her honesty and bravery particularly as she will, undoubtedly, be on the receiving end of a very vitriolic response from her former allies. That takes guts! It is easy to be churlish about her belated ‘Damascene conversion’, as some previous commenters have been, but her story is worthy of the widest circulation. If it helps turn only one person away from a very poisonous life narrative then she is to be commended. Thanks Anthony. And take care Dr Goska.

Dave Kelly
Reply to  Mack
March 5, 2017 4:17 pm

Here Here

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Mack
March 5, 2017 9:30 pm

Thank you Mack.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Mack
March 6, 2017 12:59 am

Hear Hear!

Oddbjørn Heinum
March 5, 2017 12:00 pm

Unfortunately I was unable to read all this personal confessing, but I wonder: do we have to be right-wingers to understand science? Folks, the crucial point is scientific attitude, not where we belong politically.

Reply to  Oddbjørn Heinum
March 5, 2017 1:53 pm

You don’t have to be a right-winger, I am a small “l” libertarian–unless one defines anyone not leftist as “right wing”.

Reply to  Oddbjørn Heinum
March 5, 2017 5:06 pm

Unable to read it? How unfortunate indeed. Is it a comprehension problem?

I only ask because either you lack comprehension or your question and comment are based on rather odd, illogical assumptions.

Reply to  Oddbjørn Heinum
March 5, 2017 10:38 pm

The Liberal Marxist/Socialist Progressives don’t use science in their understanding of climate, Odd…. to them, climate is a political cause that has become a religion (Godless, of course).

Leo Smith
Reply to  Oddbjørn Heinum
March 6, 2017 1:46 am

I wonder: do we have to be right-wingers to understand science?

A very acute question. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that in order to totally misunderstand it, one has to be of the Left.

Yesterday I wrote a long diatribe about Leftism. I concluded, along with this poster here, and with others like Roger Scruton, that Leftism is a surrogate religion . It is a faith based world-view that defines moral stricture and structures, and is vigorously proselytising. Religion for people who don’t believe in sky fairies, but do believe in humanity as a separate species from Nature.

Science destroyed religion. Because it worked better than magic spells so its precepts were mistakenly held to be more true.

Marx et al realised that if they could create a religion based on pseudo science, it might do well. It did.

And that is in the end perhaps the answer to your question. The world-view necessary to do real science is not the Marxist world-view. If you espouse the Marxist world view as just another (limited) world-view then you can do science, but if you espouse it as Truth – and that is where most of the Rank and file Left, position themselves, you cannot do science in the way its normally done. It must become a tool of political and social thought.

Leftism is about changing the world. That is its fundamental paradigm. Science that doesn’t change the world in the way Leftism says it needs to be changed is bad science.

So, no, you dont have to be on the right to do good science, but if you are really stuck on the Left, you cant do good science – not as we understand good science.

Good science that attempts to arrive at, if not the truth, at least a slightly better approximation, relies on data to test theories.

Leftism is about the fundamental concept that truth is relative to the individual and to his cultural and linguistic norms. Ergo there is no objective truth, there is only what we believe. And that is where Leftism begins and ends, with the superstitious belief in magic thought, that if we all together now stop believing in capitalism, sexism, racism and indeed climate change it will simply disappear. Of course by talking in those terms at all we empathise the very things we profess to want to rid ourselves of.

(An apocryphal tale. Nigel Farage, at an open meeting speaking on behalf of his party for European exit, is asked by a member of the audience ‘what he thinks about gay marriage. Sharp as whip he replies:”I get between 60 and 100 letters a week as a member of the European parliament and leader of UKIP, and not one to the best of my memory has ever raised the question, and so my answer to your question of ‘what do I think about homosexual marriage?’ is that actually I don’t. Think about it at all. Perhaps I should but my constituents are not it seems very concerned, and my job is to represent their views, isn’t it”).

Leftism is all about emphasising lots of things it professes to want to get rid of, this making them appear to be real, even when they are not. It is almost entirely negative.

Science is about dreaming up new relations, new concepts, but not to get rid of the thing identified, but to create a new relationship between things that not only informs, but ultimately has predictive power.

Leftism is about creating the need to solve problems, in order to justify political action. Science is about trying to create solutions. That’s useless in a political context. If the Left solved all the problems (and we have given them enough dreary tedious time to do it: As Cherie Blair, wife of Tony Blair, champion of the New Socialism, and the then leader of the Labour Party said when she unexpectedly became pregnant again ‘We had forgotten how tedious labour could be”. Quite.)

Leftism is an endless search to discover problems that it does not solve, in order to have a perpetual revolution that keeps perpetual revolutionaries in power forever.

That is antithetical to a science: Once science solves a problem we move on. There are always plenty more problems.

Perhaps that is the difference between science and the Left

For science there are always new problems – far too many – and its business is solving them (e.g. with climate change: solving it is really simple, even if you believe in AGW, Build nuclear power stations. They are predictable in cost and performance very very safe very low environmental impact and emit almost no CO2 at all. A build program similar to what de Gaulle did in France in the 70s would see massive reductions in CO2, and cheap electricity. Job done. Instead we have a leftist solution. Virtue signalling ‘renewable’ energy that is massively expensive, and neither reliably generates electricity nor actually results in any significant CO2 reduction).

For the left there are never enough problems, and the solving of them is not on the agenda. Only the endless virtue signalling attempts to solve them.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 6, 2017 9:28 am

Science has destroyed religion?
Not true by any stretch of the imagination.
I know that a lot of atheists like to make this claim, but when pressed, it’s pretty obvious that the atheists in question have no idea what religion is.
It’s like leftists who proclaim that they understand what rightists believe and then proceed to demolish these self generated strawmen.

Reply to  Oddbjørn Heinum
March 6, 2017 9:25 am

I don’t see where anyone has claimed that only right wingers can do science.

March 5, 2017 12:18 pm

Was it not Winston Churchill who said something like “if you aren’t left wing when you are young then you don’t have a heart; if you are still left wing when you are old then you don’t have a brain”.

March 5, 2017 12:21 pm

Sad that so many won’t see it who should.

You want a good look at the state of either left/right politics or climate views, go read through political and/or climate related posts over on Quora. At least there are some conservative voices balancing the liberal ones. Not so much the case on climate – it’s a one-note site.

March 5, 2017 12:24 pm

I grew up as an indoctrinated ‘red diaper baby’ in the fifties; both my parents were card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA. Every dinner-time was an anti-capitalist, pro-communist brain-washing session. All social justice activities (civil rights, early feminism, union organizing) were ancillary and subject to the cynical litmus test of whether such activity would further the communist cause. I spent my high-school and college years protesting everything from the Cuban blockade to the Vietnam war (NB: the anti-Vietnam war movement was engineered by young communists such as myself in order to defeat the U.S.and expand communist rule from North to South Vietnam;nothing else ). After college, and at the prompting of my parents, I spent 6 months touring the Soviet Union and eastern Europe (or the “Eastern Democracies” as they were euphemistically called). I returned to the U.S. a capitalist-loving conservative and never spoke to my parents about politics again; that was 45 years ago.

Reply to  MarcL
March 5, 2017 3:38 pm

MarcL – thanks – great story.

You and Emma Goldman both had an eye-opening tour. Her book, My Disillusionment in Russia,” is her story of touring Communist Russia in 1919 – wow! a snapshot of the fresh nation!

March 5, 2017 12:26 pm

“Hush now baby, baby, don’t you cry.
Mama’s gonna make all your nightmares come true.
Mama’s gonna put all her fears into you.
Mama’s gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She won’t let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama’s gonna keep baby cozy and warm.
Ooh baby, ooh baby, ooh baby,
Of course mama’s gonna help build the wall.”

(Pink Floyd, The Wall, “Mother”)

Maybe that last line should be:

“Of course, mama’s another liberal.”

March 5, 2017 12:27 pm

Very interesting. I considered myself a leftie (not a leftist because I never marched for anything!). Over time, since I started reading alternative media instead of the mainstream media, I have stopped being so. I haven’t got time to go into detail, but it was a process of finding out how much I was being lied to, and how these lies were being used to manipulate me and control me. What strikes me is how nasty and aggressive the leftist protesters are while the right-wing Trump supporters look like the sort of people I would invite round for a barbie.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  JMH
March 5, 2017 9:32 pm

Thanks JMH

M Courtney
March 5, 2017 12:32 pm

There is a political circle. The extreme left and extreme right act similarly. It should be expected that those on the extreme left would find Trump more acceptable than George W Bush.

The argument that makes most sense here is that the left hasn’t been entirely successful. But the places which vote left most often are the most challenged places in the first place. It’s not that simple. Here in the UK the NHS and the welfare state are not anti-poor.

The idea that being left-wing and Christian is impossible is obviously wrong. Many are, even the Pope.
The idea that being left-wing and Communist is impossible is arguably correct. But there’s left -wing and extremist.

The extremist right-wing groups are just as hate-filled as the extremist left. But they aren’t mainstream. They are hard to find. The writer of this piece was already in the other extreme.

An easy example to show that most aren’t crazy on either side is to go the Guardian website and look at the comments on a religion article. There will be atheists calling Jesus a zombie. And there will also be atheists telling the first lot to be more polite and stop embarrassing themselves. And that’s on the internet. No-one is accountable on the internet so no-one is on their best behaviour.

Finally, the implied argument that one political solution is moral and others are not is – again – a form of extremism.
It leads to fundamentalism instead of engagement.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 5, 2017 1:29 pm

I agree that the extreme Right is just as bad as the extreme left. The comment sections of right wing sites horrify me—these people threaten death and espouse hatred as much as any leftist. When one points it out, one is called a Leftist, called a liar if they say they voted Republican their whole lives, accused of living in Mom’s basement and then there’s the pelting with profanity if the first accusations don’t work. Extreme behavior is a result of the country having very poor education, very poor social skills, and a media that thrives on bad behavior and glorifies it. Bad behavior is the norm. Is the Left the cause of this? It seems to hold the most examples, especially since the Trump election, but the Right is by no means kind when you get to the extremes.

Some political solutions are more moral than others, unless you are saying Stalin and George Washington’s politics are equal. That would be the definition of insanity. However, I have long argued you cannot take a country like China and impose capitalism nor can you take America and impose socialism. It has to move in that direction slowly. Morally, unless one espouses that freedom is not a desirable trait, capitalism and democracy generally yield the most freedom. Socialism, unless voluntary and well orchastrated, has much less freedom. Socialism is most easily destroyed, as is seen in Europe today where invaders preyed on the “nicities” of the Europeans and the idea of “fairness”. Socialism lacks grounding in the reality that life is not fair and life can never be fair. All systems in the end fail at some point and people are forced into dictatorships or work their way out of dictatorships. Humans are simply incapable of following one form of government for more than a few centuries and even then, the form is constantly pushed around and moved in one direction or another.

Reply to  Sheri
March 6, 2017 9:33 am

Socialism is never voluntary. At least it isn’t for those who have to foot the bill for it.

Reply to  Sheri
March 6, 2017 3:08 pm

Please elaborate,…

“The comment sections of right wing sites horrify me”

Which “right wing sites” are you speaking about?



Michael 2
Reply to  Sheri
March 7, 2017 1:47 pm

Iceland is an excellent example of eyes-open, libertarian choosing socialism. Citizen participation in government is very high. I consider it impossible to export that experience to the United States or any nation that is not culturally homogenous, but it is possible in geographically and culturally isolated places.

Gunga Din
Reply to  M Courtney
March 5, 2017 2:10 pm

The extreme left and extreme right act similarly. It should be expected that those on the extreme left would find Trump more acceptable than George W Bush.

Didn’t you mean, “…left would not find Trump…”
The shenanigans going on here now by “extreme” left did not happen after GW won.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 5, 2017 4:12 pm

“There is a political circle. The extreme left and extreme right act similarly. It should be expected that those on the extreme left would find Trump more acceptable than George W Bush.”

Yes, yes. The Russian communists invented the notion of The Right (nazis) to try to dissociate their nice, humanitarian (ha-ha) brand of Socialism from the nasty National Socialist version. Left and right aren’t ends of a spectrum; they’re like beads on a bracelet–next door neighbors. The true spectrum is Big Government vs. Small Government.

Leo Smith
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 6, 2017 2:03 am

The true spectrum is Big Government vs. Small Government.

Give the man a banana!

In my book its a slightly different shade of that, its about where te power and authority, and also where the accountability realise.

Somehow the Left has become the main purveyor of the Big State principle that says that the central government is and should be responsible for everything that affects anyone’s life. Fascism – true fascism says more or less that governments should be small, utterly authoritarian and responsible to no one but themselves.

Libertarianism is the other option, The government should do the minimum necessary, with full accountability, to solve a problem at the most local level possible.

If you and your town dont like long haired hippies and you like wearing six-guns and stetsons, that’s your right, and you elect a sherriff to make it so and pass local laws.

Conversely if you really want a town consisting almost entirely of homosexuals, well just copy San Francisco. Its your neighborhood and its your choice. And unless its a federal matter, its no one else’s damn business.

Its not so much small state, as small central state. Because central state can’t make one size fits all legislation for everywhere that works effectively. Laws about dogs fouling pavements or burning wood in an open hearth maybe be relevant in NY city, but in rural Montana?

People work more effectively in smaller groups. Government should follow that, not try and change it. Its not about small government so much as devolved government. More local authority, less federal.

That way your kids can beat up the mayors kids and he gets the message

Reply to  M Courtney
March 6, 2017 5:49 am

“There is a political circle. The extreme left and extreme right act similarly.”

Just who do you consider to be the “extreme right”?

The Right I associate myself with believes in personal freedom, including free speech, free enterprise, having the smallest government possible that can get the job done, balanced budgets, and the rule of law.

Is there anything extreme in my positions? I think most of those on the Right have these very same postions.

Reply to  TA
March 6, 2017 9:41 am

People such as “alt-right” are despicable. However one thing I have noticed is that while those who call themselves “populists” have economic policies that are indistinguishable from the socialists. They want high taxes on the rich with the money to be spent on people like them. They want government to control just about everything so that nobody is permitted to do anything that they disagree with.
All they differ on is social policy.

Reply to  TA
March 7, 2017 7:12 am

“People such as “alt-right” are despicable.”

I think this “alt-right” tag is just a device the Left uses to try to tie extreme, violent groups such as anti-govenment militias and the Democrat-inspired KKK to the Republican Party. The Republican Party has nothing to do with such groups, but the Left calls them alt-right in order to associate them with Republicans.

It’s all more propaganda and distortions of reality.

Reply to  TA
March 7, 2017 4:46 pm

CPAC addressed the so-called alt-right: it is nothing but leftists who hate the Constitution and free markets, but who use the term alt-right to deceive the press.


Reply to  M Courtney
March 6, 2017 9:32 am

While many “challenged” places vote in left wing regimes, however one constant is that except for a brief surge while the wealth of the few is distributed to the masses, the end result is always a situation where the poor are worse off than before the revolution.
In other places where leftists have been voted into office, such as many cities, the decline is inevitable even if it isn’t as quick. The more Other People’s Money available, the longer socialism can last. But the end result is still always the same.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 6, 2017 9:31 pm

MCourtney – Yes.

The original article (and many commentators in here) hold an extreme binary view of the world.

It ain’t that simple, and the etremely righteous at either end of the scale are largely ignorant, stubborn and extremely indoctrinated. Some are violent. All are unreasonable.

And it is so obvious the real answer lies somewhere in between.

jayme sousa
March 5, 2017 12:32 pm

World Far Left Movements have three phases: 1) feudalism; 2) Capitalism and lastly 3) Communism. In order to achieve these goals, World Far Left Movement must: 1) decimate Religion; 2) disassemble education into one of “indoctrination: 3) Capitalism and Finances (from Ludwig von Mises into a modified John Maynard Keynes “one government for all,” ; 4) Governance – an exponentially “top-down, command-and-control” bloated Washington DC We The Elite People of Culture of Corruption laying out “book-line-and verse” of how an 1) individual (absent their GOD) lives their lives and 2) the sacred union of one man +one woman =siblings procreating and lastly: 3) community – the union of Families and Communities organized into one cohesive, viable unit. These are what World Far Left Movements have as their “bucket lists” of things to destroy. Pray. Amen. God Bless America and ALL Americans. Read a Bible. NKJV. “A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.” (Proverbs 29:11)

Reply to  jayme sousa
March 5, 2017 3:39 pm

Thanks, JS! That saves me a lot of typing! Well said!

Reply to  jayme sousa
March 5, 2017 4:14 pm

Very apposite, js.

Bill Illis
March 5, 2017 12:33 pm

In all human endeavours, there are things that work and there are things that don’t work.

Pursue what works and don’t pursue what doesn’t work. Experiment if you must to determine this, but once something has been proven to fail 100 times over, why pursue it further.

I’m sure you can find 100 examples of different things that this simple truth is demonstrated by. It covers the whole spectrum of human activities.

March 5, 2017 12:51 pm

Interesting story. The writer’s conversion involved a major epiphany. I never had anything like that; yet, I still walked all the way from the left to the right, without so much as lifting a foot.

I grew up in West Germany. When I first became aware of politics in the early 70s, Willy Brandt and then Helmut Schmidt were chancellors. Both belonged to the Social Democrats, the more left-leaning of the two large democratic parties. Brandt and Schmidt were genuinely trying to improve the lot of the working class. New schools, universities, and hospitals went up everywhere; education was free, and students from working class families received generous subsidies — which at the time the country could well afford, since industry was humming and unemployment was low.

In the way of foreign policy, Brandt and Schmidt adopted a more open realistic approach to dealing with East Germany and the Russians, which resulted in easier travel across the border — it became possible for us to visit our relatives in East Germany easily and frequently. The EU was expanded at a moderate pace; the former military dictatorships Spain, Portugal, and Greece were admitted, which helped them on their way to democratic future. At the same time, Schmidt paid a lot of attention to defence; the Bundeswehr was modernized and turned into the strongest force this side of iron curtain — save the U.S. army, of course.

Real environmental concerns were addressed; air became fit to breathe, and rivers fit to swim in again.

I liked those policies then and still do; I would still vote for each of them today. However, if I wanted something comparable today, I would not find it in any of the established parties. Sensible environmental stewardship has given way to CAGW hysteria, to which all major parties subscribe. The EU has become a bloated monster, and the Euro currency distorts and strangles economic development across the continent. The German army is a war museum on wheels. Candidates for political office are selected by gender and ethnicity, not actual ability and qualification. Out of the secretaries in Merkel’s cabinet of horrors, at the most two or three would have made the cut under Schmidt.

This “culture” has taken hold not only among the Social Democrats but across the political spectrum; indeed, the ostensibly “conservative” Christian Democrats have governed for most of the time since Schmidt’s abdication.

Across Europe, the only parties that do not subscribe to this collective insanity are the “populist”, “extreme right wing” ones. It is a startling realization that, as a Social Democrat sympathizer at heart, I would now have to vote “extreme right” in order make a statement and maybe get some semblance of sanity restored to the political process. So, I traversed the political spectrum without walking a step, simply by staying put, while the ground shifted under my feet.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
March 5, 2017 1:38 pm


Reply to  heysuess
March 5, 2017 2:28 pm


Reply to  Michael Palmer
March 5, 2017 4:17 pm

A perfect summation.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
March 6, 2017 9:36 pm

Very good summary of the state of things.

March 5, 2017 12:51 pm

One thing I noticed was that the two major protest movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet, had participants that acted in totally different fashion. I know of no instances of looting, trash, attempted rape or attacks by the Tea Party members but all of these actions were said to occur during the Occupy Wallstreet protest. The most I heard of at a Tea Party rally was someone claimed to have been spit on. Well, actually I did hear of one black man being beaten. He was handing out Tea Party literature and was beaten up by SEIU(Service Employees International Union) thugs, a leftist trade union.

Another example is the Pipeline protest that left so much garbage and filth in their camp that it was an ecological disaster in the making. And this from leftists concerned about the environment.

March 5, 2017 12:52 pm

In 2004, What’s the Matter with Kansas? spent eighteen weeks on the bestseller lists. The premise of the book: working people are too stupid to know what’s good for them, and so they vote conservative when they should be voting left.

The author, Thomas Frank, later wrote Listen Liberal in which he makes many of the same points made above by Danusha Goska. It outlines how the former party of the people has betrayed those very people. link

The people weren’t voting against their own interest when they voted Republican. Voting Democrat was no more in their interest. The Democrat party didn’t believe it could happen but the people were smart enough to realize that. At some point they became so disillusioned that they were willing to bring the whole system crashing down around their ears. link I see Donald Trump as our last good chance. If he blows it, we are in deep serious trouble.

The left has become seriously removed from reality. It is now mired somewhere between psychopathy and schizophrenia. Its denizens are literally not in their right minds. link

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Dr. Goska said in the above article.

Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2017 1:36 pm

While I agree that the left is seriously removed from reality, I don’t think rises to a mental illness. Human beings have a remarkable ability to ignore reality and always have. They believe the lie far faster than they believe the truth. Just how far one has to go to be considered mentally ill is a good question. I choose to go with those who have true delusions (see people not there, hear voices) and leave out the usual “I don’t want it to be that way so it isn’t” crowd.

Reply to  Sheri
March 5, 2017 2:36 pm

People with right brain damage exhibit many of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Our education system causes us to become over-reliant on left brain processes thus depriving ourselves of our built-in BS detector (our right brain).

McGilchrist argues that the left-brain helps us use our world, to achieve our ends, often at the expense of human happiness and our environment. But the left-brain is also expert at denying anything is wrong and or having made wrong decisions. Research has shown that people suffering a stroke in the right brain will often deny anything is wrong in their life. The left-brain is ever optimistic, even while it walks over a cliff. link

Iain McGilchrist goes a long way to explaining how the problems John Ralston Saul described in Voltaire’s Bastards developed. Given the extent and severity, I think it’s pathological.

The great schism between the principles of democracy and the practices of modern rational governments has brought about not only widespread public frustration and anger, but also a general contempt among the ruling elites for the citizenry. While they cooperate with the established representational systems of democracy, Saul says, they do not believe in the value of the public’s contribution. Nor do they believe in the existence of a public moral code. “This means that in dealing with the public, they find it easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator within each of us. That this often succeeds reinforces their contempt for a public apparently capable of nothing better.”

They love their theories way more than they respect reality. That’s crazy.

Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2017 6:16 am

” I see Donald Trump as our last good chance. If he blows it, we are in deep serious trouble.”

I think you are right. And we barely got Trump in Office by a small margin. We are *very* lucky. Let’s not allow this opportunity to slip away, although I expect Trump’s margin in the election will be much larger next time, if he is successful, which he will be.

I don’t think Trump is going to blow anything. I think the Left is going to do everything they can to cause Trump to fail, but I don’t think they can steamroll Trump like they have done Republicans in the past. As long as Trump hasn’t done anything illegal, and it doesn’t look like he has, because if he had, that would already have been made public, then Trump will ultimately defeat all the propaganda from the Left and the MSM, and the Left and the MSM’s credibility will suffer accordingly.

Trump said the Obama administration was wiretapping him before the election took place. The Left and the MSM are trying to make it out like this is not true, even though the New York Times and the Washington Post have both done stories months ago which said exactly that, that the Obama administration was wiretapping Trump.

The MSM claims there is no proof Trump was wiretapped, but when asked about that this morning, Kellyane Conway, Trump’s advisor, said Trump had access to information that noone else has. Trump isn’t a fool, although you wouldn’t know that listening to the MSM, and if Trump says Obama was wiretapping him, then Obama was wiretapping him, Watch and see.

I’m so excited that this has sparked a Congressional investigation. There’s no telling where this will go. The entire Obama administration needs to be investigated, including the IRS and all the other agencies that tried to intimidate and strongarm conservatives over the course of the Obama administration’s eight years. The Obama administration was and is a criminal enterprise that needs to be exposed.

Reply to  TA
March 6, 2017 9:48 am

Leaks have always been the case in DC, but the level and viciousness of the leaks over the last month has reached unprecedented levels.

Reply to  TA
March 6, 2017 5:56 pm

I have great respect for Obama, as I do for firearms, as I do for power tools, and as I do for snakes. Neither he nor anyone else in the White House will have had to directly order the wire tapping. There will be plausible deniability. LOL

Reply to  TA
March 7, 2017 7:25 am

According to Judge Napolitano, a Fox News legal expert, the FISA law specifically exempts the president from having to get a court order to wiretap someone.

In other words, the president can order anyone in the world wiretapped without asking anyone’s permission, including the FISA Court.

I don’t know if records of such presidential wiretap requests are kept or required. The judge didn’t address that issue.

Reply to  TA
March 7, 2017 10:17 am

Here’s a little followup from Judge Napolitano:


Judge Napolitano: Any President Can Wiretap Any American

“If he had wanted to, former President Barack Obama could have ordered a wiretap on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump — or on any American he wanted to, Judge Andrew Napolitano said Tuesday.

“If [President] Donald Trump wanted to, he could surveil anybody,” the Fox News senior judicial analyst told “Fox & Friends.”

“That’s directly in the FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) statute, which after laying out a lot of detailed procedures about what the NSA (National Security Agency) is supposed to do says literally, notwithstanding all of the above, the president of the United States may on his own, conduct surveillance or order surveillance of any person in the United States upon the filing of a certification with the attorney general, who of course works for the president.”

There have been many people commenting that it would have been illegal for Obama to listen to Trump’s phone calls from Trump Tower, and to the eventual president’s in-person conversations, but that’s not true, said Napolitano.

“In my view, it’s immoral and profoundly unconstitutional and utterly wrong but it’s lawful because Congress has said it is lawful,” said Napolitano. “This was power given to every president from Jimmy Carter up to and including Donald Trump.”

end excerpt

Oh Dear
Reply to  TA
March 8, 2017 5:41 am

“As long as Trump hasn’t done anything illegal”. That is going to be a sticky point. Trump is a sharp businessman, used to getting things done. If you dig hard enough, there will bound to be times when he would be found to have strayed over the line of legality.

Reply to  commieBob
March 6, 2017 9:46 am

In 2008, I stated that Romney was our last chance, and even he wasn’t a good one.
I fear that the left is too entrenched in the bureaucracy and that there are too many people who consider it their right to get a check from the government every month.

March 5, 2017 12:59 pm

Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein were far ahead of their time and were taking a not insignificant risk when, in 1949, the wrote “You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught” for their musical South Pacific. The lyrics which are still applicable today follow:

“You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!”

Reply to  RayG
March 5, 2017 1:39 pm

I disagree completely. Never did I have to tell a toddler to hate or fear, but only to be nice and not be afraid. Left to their own devices, humans are brutal. You may have to be taught to hate the relatives, but hatred and fear are what one starts out with. Love and courage have to be taught.

Reply to  Sheri
March 5, 2017 2:45 pm

I disagree with you on this. I’ve raised 6 toddlers, and taught hundreds of others, and you cannot label a child that young with the same emotions of hatred and fear as adults have. Toddlers (age 12-36 months) can appear to be “kind” and loving one moment and “afraid” or “mean” the next simply as a reaction to stimuli, because they are tired, or hungry, or self centered by default. They aren’t really emotionally mature enough to self actualize.

In other words, they can “share” candy out of mimicry, or compulsion, or trained response, or just because. We might see it and interpret it as a “kind” or “loving” act, but we have no idea if that child is FEELING love or a desire to BE kind or not. A toddler might hide behind their mothers skirt when a stranger is present out of shyness, curiosity, simple unfamiliarity, or because “Mommy” is the prefered individual of the moment. We cannot know that they are truly fearful or “hate” the stranger.

I have known open, friendly, well socialized toddlers, and clingy, whiney, not well socialized Toddlers. How they “act” in any given moment is not an indication of the type of person they are, or even will be later.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Sheri
March 5, 2017 10:30 pm


WRT: “I have known open, friendly, well socialized toddlers, and clingy, whiney, not well socialized Toddlers. How they “act” in any given moment is not an indication of the type of person they are, or even will be later.”

Compare the behavior of a group of first graders in the famous “Marshmallow Test” to their near-identical behavior as grown ups in “The Mature Marshmallow Test”:

Reply to  Sheri
March 6, 2017 6:51 am

“A toddler might hide behind their mothers skirt when a stranger is present out of shyness, curiosity, simple unfamiliarity, or because “Mommy” is the prefered individual of the moment. We cannot know that they are truly fearful or “hate” the stranger.”

I saw a video one time claiming that very young children were naturally suspicious of strangers.

They had a mother stand in an empty room, holding a baby about three months old, and then a stranger to the child would enter the room and walk over and stand next to the mother without saying a word, and they all just stood there silently. And you could see the baby slowly leaning away from the stranger, and this was repeated with several other babies.

I think this reaction is probably an instictive survival mechanism of humans. We are born to fear something that is not familiar. It is probably at the root of racism.

Mike Bromley the wannabe Kurd
March 5, 2017 1:05 pm

Astounding tale…and summary…hat’s off to you, Dr.Goska.

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 1:10 pm

“In 1995 I developed a crippling illness. I couldn’t work, lost my life savings, and traveled through three states, from surgery to surgery.”

So you never paid into unemployment insurance, workplace accident insurance, working disability insurance.

Never before contributed to the society of the unemployed, the workplace injured or the working disabilitated.

You have never ACTED ‘left’.

Of course that doesn’t pay.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 1:36 pm

It’s easy to be righteous Johann. I’m sure you are a well balanced individual with, I hope not, chips on both shoulders, but give her a break. It may, in your view, have taken her a long time to ‘see the light’ and she may not have contributed to the ‘system’ as you would have liked, but credit where it is due. She got there in the end! I thought that one of the things that set us apart on this side of the debate is honesty, decency, respect for opposing opinions (with a healthy dose of irony and humour), albeit we may believe them to be wrong, and a bit of humility. Snidey, hard hearted and sanctimonious comments do us no favours in the grand scheme of things.

Reply to  Mack
March 5, 2017 1:43 pm


Reply to  Mack
March 5, 2017 2:09 pm

Well said. Getting there is always good, no matter how long it takes.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mack
March 6, 2017 12:19 am

Mack, you surpass me.

I am just an average worker who wants to reside the next day.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 2:53 pm


Unemployment only lasts so long, and only pays a percentage of your former income. It also carries the requirement that you actively pursue employment. Someone with a crippling illness cannot do that. Someone recovering from surgery cannot do that.

If she wasn’t “injured” on a job site, doing her job, then she doesn’t qualify for workman’s comp. And even great insurance doesn’t cover everything.

So what is your point?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Aphan
March 5, 2017 3:39 pm

Aphan, when not living ‘left’ – why asking from others.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 3:35 pm

Aphan, my point is obviously not seen here.

Cheers – Hans

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 4:24 pm

Hans: I respectfully agree! 🙂

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 5:11 pm


Good…so it’s not just me then? 🙂

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 7:26 pm

Johann Wundersamer March 5, 2017 at 1:10 pm

“So you never paid into unemployment insurance, workplace accident insurance, working disability insurance.”

Johann, don’t be so sure.
Because of the HIV epidemic we learned a lot about our worker insurance system.
Yes you have insurance until you are sick. If you can no longer work, you no longer have a job, then no more insurance.

It happens all the time. In the place I worked a young women went in for carpel-tunnel surgery, something went wrong, they operated on the wrong arm and caused a bad infection. She was going to be out of work for a few months. A bean counting manager eliminated her job and renamed it a “temp” position. Cost savings, to help keep the companies health costs down. So suddenly she was without heath insurance which she had paid into like the rest of us.
To the companies credit that manager was retired.

When I had my medical (heart) problem, they kept me on and gave me make work until I could ease myself out. I was lucky, many learn the hard way.

Oh and yes the author of the above article worked and contributed, She mentioned that she lost her “savings”. Duh.


Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 5, 2017 11:52 pm

Mike, because of working with a fork lifter I’ve already developed a ‘carpal tunnel syndrome.’

When I went to the doctor she made an electric Flux measurement to both arms/hands. And told me ‘carpal tunnel syndrome’ relates 4 fingers of the hand – not the 5.th little one outside the respective hand.

So I knew it was my behavior in work / at home regarding arms / hands; change that ways and it’s going better.

Cheers – Hans

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 6, 2017 1:09 am

Johann Wundersamer March 5, 2017 at 11:52 pm

“Mike, because of working with a fork lifter”

Me I was a Toolmaker / Machinist.
Came out with all body parts.
Never had the problem myself.
The person I referred to was was an assembler. Of gas pistons.
Differs from person to person.
But then you skipped the whole issue. On how the poor women was dealt with.
This was personal to me. Some years earlier I was chair or the company Safety Committee. The first worker bee to hold it.

Repetitive motion is the single most destructive condition to afflict workers.

Glade yours was caught early.

My Heart issue was not work related.

Miss machining. Metal has a magic.


Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 6, 2017 6:56 am

“Yes you have insurance until you are sick. If you can no longer work, you no longer have a job, then no more insurance. ”

Let’s hope the Republicans fix this in the new health insurance law.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 6, 2017 9:53 am

TA, the solution is to allow health insurance to be fully deductible for individuals. At present a company can deduct the cost while you can’t. This makes it rational to let your employer buy your insurance for you.
Unfortunately this also means that your insurance is attached to your job and not to you.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 6, 2017 9:46 pm

Perhaps what the author and many in here are all are missing is the point that the system which limits health benefits to the injured worker is a product of right wing “big business, let the market sort it out” thinking.

Hardly the fault of the ‘left’.

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
March 7, 2017 7:37 am

Introducing the free market to the health care industry is the only way it is going to be salvaged. There are far too many monoplistic activities and unfair business practices, at least from the consumer’s point of view, such as different hospitals charging different prices for the same operation, or the same hospital charging different customers different prices for the same operation. Or the drug companies who are able to charge outrageous prices because they are not required to compete. And on and on.

Fortunately, this time, we are going to get a full, public airing of all these healthcare issues. Let’s hope we can all settle on a good plan when it is all over.

March 5, 2017 1:13 pm

Politically Correct Progressivism was her religion. The term “left” has no meaning.

She finally realized what her belief system was based on–hatred. Hatred of Normal-America.

The PC-Progressive Party (which uses the cover title “Democrat Party”) has an iron-clad list of beliefs. In order to be a member, one must subscribe to this belief system. One hundred percent. At least in public. Toe the Party line. Politically Correct–that’s what it means.

Here is a short list of the required elements of the PC-Prog (Democrat) belief system:

1. Normal-America is irredeemably racist. Blacks and other minorities live a life of constant harassment and hopeless repression by Normal-Americans.

2. Normal-America is virulently sexist. Women live lives of desperate hopelessness. They are forced by the patriarchy to accept social and professional roles that demean and diminish them. Normal-Americans aggressively try to restrict women’s rights to kill fetuses.

3. Normal-America is homophobic. Christian haters thump Bibles in their quest to locate, persecute, prosecute and lynch fun-loving homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, and bi-sexuals.

4. Normal-America is stunningly xenophobic. Normal-Americans loathe foreigners. Normal-American society rejects all foreigners and views them as vile, dirty, stinking beasts with unintelligible accents.

5. Normal-America is graspingly imperialist. Normal-Americans seek to conquer, destroy and subjugate peace-loving native cultures in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia. America is built on a legacy of imperialist destruction of Native American and Hispanic cultures.

6. Normal-America is greedily capitalist. The American economy destroys poor people with angry demands that they must work. The economy is systematically manipulated by the 1% in order to
subjugate the 99%. Capitalism rewards only the lucky few, while the masses suffer.

The American economy is boiling Gaia’s atmosphere–causing horrible things to happen.
These tenets are the core of the PC-Prog politics. The beliefs are nearly religious. To be a member, one must never contradict these tenets (in public, or in privately recorded conversations.)

The corollary to the tenets of PC-Progressivism is the “Action Requirement.”

It is simple: Normal-America must be changed.

This is it. That is the entire belief system, and the action plan of our political opponents.

Without understanding what it is that their system believes and requires, we have no hope of counter-acting their destruction of our country. Now you know. What will you do about it?


Reply to  Kent Clizbe
March 5, 2017 3:09 pm

YOU don’t get to determine which words have meaning to HER. You don’t get to tell her, or anyone else, what name or title or description they fall under simply because you said so. I know many Democrats that DO NOT believe many, or even all, of the things on your list and yet there they are…belonging to that party. No iron clad list in site.

It’s just as irrational, illogical, false, and biased to paint everyone in the Democratic party, or who labels themselves as “left” as identical, mindless robots as it is for people to paint all skeptics that way. Your “iron clad list” is your OPINION, not an established FACT.

She began her article distinguishing “how FAR left” she was for a reason. Because there are DEGREES of difference as well as individual differences. I will bust your chops even when you make broad sweeping generalizations about people I don’t agree with, just as much as I will people who do the same thing to me or those I agree with.

It’s just cognitive bias either way.

Reply to  Aphan
March 5, 2017 3:44 pm

Kent is correct.

I can have a differing opinion on any of these, and ruin Thanksgiving in my Democrat family.

They cannot tolerate an opposing view. Outside of their own circles, they are boors – they start throwing their self-righteous views around, and believe they are merely engaging in civic dialog.

Everyone else shuts up and changes the topic because they are, well, boors, and cannot see it. They might as well have terrible body odor, stinking up the place. but this is how democrats are, nowadays.

Reply to  Aphan
March 5, 2017 4:45 pm

I am still a registered democrat, and the description Kent gave is fairly accurate as to how the current Democrat Party come across to me and others. Sorry if you don’t see it but I am dismayed that the party has gone so far left and do not seem to represent the average worker anymore. The election of Trump clearly indicates so. I would like to see two viable parties to keep things on the best track for the country. The Democratic party needs to move to the center and abandon those concepts Kent mentioned.

Reply to  Aphan
March 5, 2017 5:56 pm

The last Democrat,

Kent says:
“The PC-Progressive Party (which uses the cover title “Democrat Party”) has an iron-clad list of beliefs. In order to be a member, one must subscribe to this belief system. One hundred percent. At least in public. Toe the Party line. Politically Correct–that’s what it means.”

In order to be a Democrat, one merely registers as one. There is no test. No one comes out with a clipboard and reads Kent’s list of beliefs and demands allegiance to the Iron Clad Beliefs. He’s using hyperbole and rhetoric to reach conclusions, not logic or facts.

I’m NOT saying I don’t see this behavior. I’m NOT saying that there are not progressives, or socialists or batcrap crazy, extreme leftists IN the Democratic party. I’m saying that unless you can offer proof that ALL DEMOCRATS DO indeed embrace all of those tenets, you are engaging in cognitive bias to declare it as if it was established fact.

Your family and his, and 200 or even 2,000 other Democrat families you might have personal experience with may indeed be exactly as he described. But I personally know many Democrats that are MUCH closer to the political middle than his descriptions.

It’s like painting ALL Tea Party members as Nazis, or white supremacists=illogical and false. Or all skeptics as “science deniers” or “flat earthers”. Anyone who has traveled and met different people, and who is logical and reasonable as a person, KNOWS such blanket classifications are either incorrect/without foundation, or designed to manipulate the weak minded for one reason or another.

Count the number of times he appeals to spite, appeals to ridicule, association fallacy etc. All are illogical.

Reply to  Aphan
March 5, 2017 7:03 pm


Thanks for your guidance. I’m sure it’s worth what I paid for it.

I’m not telling her anything. I’m providing the results of extensive research and analysis of the American political environment.

The hackneyed “left vs. right” political spectrum has literally no meaning in the USA today. What do you think “left” means? What do you think “right” means?

Was Obama “left”? Was Bush “right?” Give examples that support your contention.

The only political spectrum with any meaning today has Politically Correct Progressivism at one end, and Normal-American at the other.

This spectrum is operative now due to the introduction of the anti-Normal belief system, and concommitant holier-than-thou attitude, into the transmission belts of American culture around 1920.

In the last 90 years, the PC-Prog, anti-Normal-America belief system spread and grew, mostly underground. Around 1980, it emerged above-ground, and has spread even faster since then.

The lady in this article spells our clearly the belief system–America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, capitalist hellhole, and it must be changed.

The forces pushing for destruction of America’s capitalist economy because of their imaginary global warming are simply following directly the dictates of PC-Progs’ anti-capitalist tenent.

This cannot be termed Right vs Left.

It is the greatest country in the history of the world vs the destroyers.

Reply to  Aphan
March 5, 2017 7:13 pm


Sure, there may be registered Democrats who fail the PC-Prog belief test. There are Southerners today who are Democrats only because Lincoln was a Republican. But they are dying out fast.

Please point to one Democrat politician who fails even one point of the PC-Prog 6 point belief system test.

The “Blue Dog Democrats?” Long gone. They were all hounded out of the PC-Prog party decades ago. “Conservative Democrats?” Huh? There is no such thing.

Democrats are the PC-Prog Party of Hate-America-First. Their goal is to destroy American exceptionalism, and everything that made our country great.

PC-Progs are Hillary, Obama, Holder, Lynch, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Kerry, Sharpton, Pelosi, Schumer, Black-Lives-Matter, etc. etc. Look at the Democrat convention–pure hatred of Normal-America.

Wishing it weren’t so doesn’t make it go away.

Reply to  Aphan
March 6, 2017 7:00 am

“It’s like painting ALL Tea Party members as Nazis”

More properly it should be: “It’s like painting ANY Tea Party members as Nazis”

Reply to  Aphan
March 7, 2017 12:53 am

Certainly political correctness had gone off the rails.

But, as Kent himself says… there IS a spectrum in all of this.

And, some of this deserves a little rewording and an examination of the true situation.

The economy is systematically manipulated by the 1% in order to
..profit obscenely at the expense of the ….. the 99%. …. there’s probably a 50% in there who profit quite reasonably …..
Capitalism rewards a wide spectrum of society, …. but there is an underclass which… suffers.

… and this could be easily resolved by putting in measures to stop the big getting gigantic, and the gigantic becoming monsters…

There are now 40,000 corporations in the world whose activities cross national boundaries; these firms ply overseas markets through some 250,000 foreign affiliates.1 Yet, new calculations by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) indicate that the top 200 of these global firms account for an alarming and growing share of the world’s economic activity.

Two hundred giant corporations, most of them larger than many national economies, now control well over a quarter of the world’s economic activity. Philip Morris is larger than New Zealand, and it operates in 170 countries.2 Instead of creating an integrated global village, these firms are weaving webs of production, consumption, and finance that bring economic benefits to, at most, a third of the world’s people. Two-thirds of the world (the bottom 20 percent of the rich countries and the bot