X marks rise of ecofascism



The author below, far Left Australian Jew, Antony Loewenstein (Lionstone), is allegedly reviewing a book called "Fascists among us"  by Leftist Jeff Sparrow. Sparrow does the usual leftist trick of deploring anger among conservatives while totally ignoring the vastly greater anger among  Leftists.  

Huge Leftist outpourings of hate at Donald Trump are fine but any negative utterance from conservatives about Obama are unmistakeable indicators of a deeply disturbed personalty likely to explode into violence at any minute.  Leftist anger of course is completely safe and non-violent.  Somebody should tell Rand Paul about that

That gross double standard tells us where the deeply disturbed personalities really are

Sparrow makes mention of global warming as an issue among conservatives and notes, correctly, that Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch shooter, was something of a Greenie.  He shared the Greenie wish to reduce greatly the human population.

Both Sparrow and Lowenstein busily make a muckle out of a mickle.  They draw vast generalizations from the actions of one man, Brenton Tarrant.  They somehow see in him a representation of all anger among conservatives -- and Lowenstein in particular sees Tarrant as representing a vast body of racists who are also Greenies -- "ecofascists" as he calls them.


The Lionstone himself

It is absolutely true that Tarrant was a Greenie as well as a racist but where are the others like him? Lowenstein does not say.  Nationalists of any sort normally despise Greenies.  So clearly, Greenie racists must be pretty rare or at least very publicity-shy. Tarrant looks like a shag on a rock, quite the reverse of what Lionstone thinks.

It is also absolutely true that there are a lot of antisemitic attacks going on at the moment,  particularly in Jewish neighborhoods of NYC.  But the NYC attacks are mainly the work of blacks -- who are hardly white nationalists.  They and Tarrant would seem to be very different phenomena.  Yet Lowenstein  tries to treat all antisemites as if they are versions of Tarrant.

So in the end Lowenstein has nothing to say about ecofascism.  He just throws around a lot of conventional Leftist talking points about Donald Trump and other Leftist bugaboos.

There is however much that he COULD say about ecofascism. Environmentalism is intrinsically Fascist.  Greenies all want to dictate to us and control us and if that is not Fascism, what would be?

There was of course a very prominent case of ecofascism in history: Adolf Hitler.  He was a very keen Greenie and also a Fascist.  What he was not was conservative.  He was an extreme socialist.  Tarrant was pretty mixed up so he did have some socialist ideas but the people who Lowenstein demonizes -- conservatives -- are in a completely different ballpark.  With his steady unwinding of Obama-era regulations, Trump is in fact an anti-Fascist


Before an attempted massacre at a German synagogue in September, the alleged shooter broadcast an anti-Semitic manifesto online. The man, who killed two people on Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish day of the year, said, "I think the Holocaust never happened", adding that, "feminism is the cause of decline in birthrates in the West". He concluded: "The root of all these problems is the Jew."

The racism, misogyny and hate were familiar to anybody who delves into the far-right swamp, an easy-to-access world where memes, trolling and twisted irony are encouraged. From far-right vigilante groups openly patrolling German towns to supporters of US President Donald Trump creating fake videos showing him massacring journalists and critics, incitement to violence is in-creasingly part of the mainstream conversation.

These trends existed long before the internet but the web has accelerated the ability for like-minded individuals to meet, organise and strategise how to attack the designated enemies of our time: Muslims, liberal Jews, liberals in general and pro-immigration politicians.

Today it may be these groups but it will soon leap to the transgender community, Hindus, Buddhists or any other targeted minority.

It's no wonder, according to the Anti-Defamation League, that far-right extremists pose the greatest threat to our way of life in the last decade, far exceeding Islamists and left-wing radicals.

Ignore the likes of New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and others who argue that left-wing anti-Semitism is just as dangerous as right-wing hate because many on the left push for Palestinian rights, oppose Israeli occupation policies or are anti-Zionist.

The facts simply don't support this thesis. Journalist, author and broadcaster Jeff Sparrow makes the compelling case in this short book that in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, when 51 Muslim worshippers were killed by a far-right Australian extremist on March 15, ignoring the killer's manifesto is emotionally comforting but politically unwise.

He calls the murderer Person X, never naming him, because, this killing phenomenon represents a "strategy for fascist terrorism, one that seeks to incite angry young men to conduct rage massacres, not to achieve any specific ends so much as to destabilise liberal democracies. This plan will not bring fascism to power. It will, however, result in more deaths".

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of 20th-century history may be surprised to find that fascism is again on the rise. As Sparrow eloquently explains, Nazi Germany and its epic crimes turned fascism into a profoundly unpopular ideology for many decades after the Second World War. And yet it was sitting largely dormant just waiting for a new host.

The September 11, 2001 terror attacks were the spark that kicked off the last decades' transformation into a fertile ground for hatred of Islam. As Person X explains in his manifesto, and Sparrow rightly shows that it's a profound mistake to simply dismiss it as the ravings of a lunatic, high Muslim birthrates pose what the killer views as an existential threat to Western civilisation, essentially breeding out white Christians.

This view is routinely spread in many centre-right and mainstream media outlets, showing how common this fear has become (as well as being weaponised for political ends such as ending or hugely curtailing Muslim immigration).

Sparrow constantly aims to remind readers that Islamophobia is the latest face of what used to be irrational Jew hatred. He focuses on the idea being "Eurabia", the supposed globalist plot to "Islamise" Europe. It's a nonsensical ideology.

Sparrow writes: "Had such a mad notion as 'Eurabia' centred on a 'Jewish plot', its proponents would, rightfully, have been shunned." Person X begins his manifesto like this: "It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates."

Muslims are so routinely demonised and attacked in the Western media and public since 9/11 that Person X explains that the decision to target them was simply tactical. "They (Muslims) are the most despised group of invaders in the West (and so) attacking them receives the greatest level of support."

The strength of this book is that it makes us uncomfortable
about forces seemingly beyond our control in the current political climate. Who would seriously look at the latest crop of leading politicians in the US, UK, Australia or other Western nations and find them willing, knowledgeable or able to both denounce the fascist threat and know how to enact policies that would reduce its potency?

The dangers rise while they offer thoughts and prayers. Perhaps the most prescient section of Sparrow's book is his examination of Person X's ecofascism. It's a mistake to presume that the far right denies or ignores the realities of the climate crisis. In fact, Person X is very attuned to what he believes must be done. "Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment."

Sparrow explains that, "in theory, ecofascism celebrates 'forests, lakes, mountains and meadows'; in practice, it demands the murder of leftists and ethnic minorities."

The most brutal fascist "solution" to ecological collapse is that only the strong will survive, leaving the weak to suffer and die.

Not addressing rising sea levels, rising temperatures and surging bushfires is a sure way to ensure that ecofascism will grow in appeal. Fascists Among Us is a powerful warning that many would prefer to ignore. The normalisation of alt-right talking points, from immigration to imperial wars, means that online hate will increasingly thrust itself into the public consciousness in the form of bloody retribution. Too few of our citizenry have any idea how to stop it.

From the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" Review of Dec. 29th





Pseudo-science gets its just desserts

Years of scares now being stopped.  The NYT below thinks it is a bad thing but if you replace "science" below with "pseudoscience you will get a better picture of what it going on

WASHINGTON — In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.

Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.

But the erosion of science reaches well beyond the environment and climate: In San Francisco, a study of the effects of chemicals on pregnant women has stalled after federal funding abruptly ended. In Washington, D.C., a scientific committee that provided expertise in defending against invasive insects has been disbanded. In Kansas City, Mo., the hasty relocation of two agricultural agencies that fund crop science and study the economics of farming has led to an exodus of employees and delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in research.

“The disregard for expertise in the federal government is worse than it’s ever been,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which has tracked more than 200 reports of Trump administration efforts to restrict or misuse science since 2017. “It’s pervasive.”

Hundreds of scientists, many of whom say they are dismayed at seeing their work undone, are departing.

Among them is Matthew Davis, a biologist whose research on the health risks of mercury to children underpinned the first rules cutting mercury emissions from coal power plants. But last year, with a new baby of his own, he was asked to help support a rollback of those same rules. “I am now part of defending this darker, dirtier future,” he said.

This year, after a decade at the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Davis left.

“Regulations come and go, but the thinning out of scientific capacity in the government will take a long time to get back,” said Joel Clement, a former top climate- policy expert at the Interior Department who quit in 2017 after being reassigned to a job collecting oil and gas royalties. He is now at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

Mr. Trump has consistently said that government regulations have stifled businesses and thwarted some of the administration’s core goals, such as increasing fossil-fuel production. Many of the starkest confrontations with federal scientists have involved issues like environmental oversight and energy extraction — areas where industry groups have argued that regulators have gone too far.

“Businesses are finally being freed of Washington’s overreach, and the American economy is flourishing as a result,” a White House statement said last year. Asked about the role of science in policymaking, officials from the White House declined to comment on the record.

The administration’s efforts to cut certain research projects also reflect a longstanding conservative position that some scientific work can be performed cost-effectively by the private sector, and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to foot the bill. “Eliminating wasteful spending, some of which has nothing to do with studying the science at all, is smart management, not an attack on science,” two analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote in 2017 of the administration’s proposals to cut various climate change and clean energy programs.

Industry groups have expressed support for some of the moves, including a contentious E.P.A. proposal to put new constraints on the use of scientific studies in the name of transparency. The American Chemistry Council, a chemical trade group, praised the proposal by saying, “The goal of providing more transparency in government and using the best available science in the regulatory process should be ideals we all embrace.”

In some cases, the administration’s efforts to roll back government science have been thwarted. Each year, Mr. Trump has proposed sweeping budget cuts at a variety of federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. But Congress has the final say over budget levels and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have rejected the cuts.

For instance, in supporting funding for the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, recently said, “it allows us to take advantage of the United States’ secret weapon, our extraordinary capacity for basic research.”

As a result, many science programs continue to thrive, including space exploration at NASA and medical research at the National Institutes of Health, where the budget has increased more than 12 percent since Mr. Trump took office and where researchers continue to make advances in areas like molecular biology and genetics.

Nevertheless, in other areas, the administration has managed to chip away at federal science.

At the E.P.A., for instance, staffing has fallen to its lowest levels in at least a decade. More than two-thirds of respondents to a survey of federal scientists across 16 agencies said that hiring freezes and departures made it harder to conduct scientific work. And in June, the White House ordered agencies to cut by one-third the number of federal advisory boards that provide technical advice.

The White House said it aimed to eliminate committees that were no longer necessary. Panels cut so far had focused on issues including invasive species and electric grid innovation.

At a time when the United States is pulling back from world leadership in other areas like human rights or diplomatic accords, experts warn that the retreat from science is no less significant. Many of the achievements of the past century that helped make the United States an envied global power, including gains in life expectancy, lowered air pollution and increased farm productivity are the result of the kinds of government research now under pressure.

“When we decapitate the government’s ability to use science in a professional way, that increases the risk that we start making bad decisions, that we start missing new public health risks,” said Wendy E. Wagner, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the use of science by policymakers.

Skirmishes over the use of science in making policy occur in all administrations: Industries routinely push back against health studies that could justify stricter pollution rules, for example. And scientists often gripe about inadequate budgets for their work. But many experts say that current efforts to challenge research findings go well beyond what has been done previously.

In an article published in the journal Science last year, Ms. Wagner wrote that some of the Trump administration’s moves, like a policy to restrict certain academics from the E.P.A.’s Science Advisory Board or the proposal to limit the types of research that can be considered by environmental regulators, “mark a sharp departure with the past.” Rather than isolated battles between political officials and career experts, she said, these moves are an attempt to legally constrain how federal agencies use science in the first place.

Some clashes with scientists have sparked public backlash, as when Trump officials pressured the nation’s weather forecasting agency to support the president’s erroneous assertion this year that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.

But others have garnered little notice despite their significance.

This year, for instance, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, received a “cease and desist” letter from supervisors after testifying to Congress about the risks that global warming posed to national parks.

“I saw it as attempted intimidation,” said Dr. Gonzalez, who added that he was speaking in his capacity as an associate adjunct professor at the University California, Berkeley, a position he also holds. “It’s interference with science and hinders our work.”

Cutting Scientific Programs

Even though Congress hasn’t gone along with Mr. Trump’s proposals for budget cuts at scientific agencies, the administration has still found ways to advance its goals.

One strategy: eliminate individual research projects not explicitly protected by Congress.

For example, just months after Mr. Trump’s election, the Commerce Department disbanded a 15-person scientific committee that had explored how to make National Climate Assessments, the congressionally mandated studies of the risks of climate change, more useful to local officials. It also closed its Office of the Chief Economist, which for decades had conducted wide-ranging research on topics like the economic effects of natural disasters. Similarly, the Interior Department has withdrawn funding for its Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 22 regional research centers that tackled issues like habitat loss and wildfire management. While California and Alaska used state money to keep their centers open, 16 of 22 remain in limbo.

A Commerce Department official said the climate committee it discontinued had not produced a report, and highlighted other efforts to promote science, such as a major upgrade of the nation’s weather models.

An Interior Department official said the agency’s decisions “are solely based on the facts and grounded in the law,” and that the agency would continue to pursue other partnerships to advance conservation science.

Research that potentially posed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s promise to expand fossil-fuel production was halted, too. In 2017, Interior officials canceled a $1 million study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the health risks of “mountaintop removal” coal mining.

Mountaintop removal is as dramatic as it sounds — a hillside is blasted with explosives and the remains are excavated — but the health consequences still aren’t fully understood. The process can kick up coal dust and send heavy metals into waterways, and studies have suggested links to health problems like kidney disease and birth defects.

“The industry was pushing back on these studies,” said Joseph Pizarchik, an Obama-era mining regulator who commissioned the now-defunct study. “We didn’t know what the answer would be,” he said, “but we needed to know: Was the government permitting coal mining that was poisoning people, or not?”

While coal mining has declined in recent years, satellite data shows that at least 60 square miles in Appalachia have been newly mined since 2016. “The study is still as important today as it was five years ago,” Mr. Pizarchik said.

The Cost of Lost Research

The cuts can add up to significant research setbacks.

For years, the E.P.A. and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences had jointly funded 13 children’s health centers nationwide that studied, among other things, the effects of pollution on children’s development. This year, the E.P.A. ended its funding.

At the University of California, San Francisco, one such center has been studying how industrial chemicals such as flame retardants in furniture could affect placenta and fetal development. Key aspects of the research have stopped.

“The longer we go without funding, the harder it is to start that research back up,” said Tracey Woodruff, who directs the center.

In a statement, the E.P.A. said it anticipated future opportunities to fund children’s health research.

At the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced in June he would relocate two key research agencies to Kansas City from Washington: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, a scientific agency that funds university research on topics like how to breed cattle and corn that can better tolerate drought conditions, and the Economic Research Service, whose economists produce studies for policymakers on farming trends, trade and rural America.

Nearly 600 employees had less than four months to decide whether to uproot and move. Most couldn’t or wouldn’t, and two-thirds of those facing transfer left their jobs.

In August, Mr. Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, appeared to celebrate the departures.

“It’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker,” he said in videotaped remarks at a Republican Party gala in South Carolina. “But by simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,’ and they quit. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”

The White House declined to comment on Mr. Mulvaney’s speech.

The exodus has led to upheaval.

At the Economic Research Service, dozens of planned studies into topics like dairy industry consolidation and pesticide use have been delayed or disrupted. “You can name any topic in agriculture and we’ve lost an expert,” said Laura Dodson, an economist and acting vice president of the union representing agency employees.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture manages $1.7 billion in grants that fund research on issues like food safety or techniques that help farmers improve their productivity. The staff loss, employees say, has held up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, such as planned research into pests and diseases afflicting grapes, sweet potatoes and fruit trees.

Mr. Perdue said the moves would save money and put the offices closer to farmers. “We did not undertake these relocations lightly,” he said in a statement. A Department of Agriculture official added that both agencies were pushing to continue their work, but acknowledged that some grants could be delayed by months.

SOURCE





On the road to Apocalypse Soon with Greta Thunberg and her disciples

GERARD HENDERSON writes from Australia

Since the world, according to Greta Thunberg and her disciples, faces extinction it came as no surprise that this year there was a certain madness in the air — especially among those who regard themselves as progressive.

After all, when the end of the world seemed (relatively) nigh it was no surprise that hyperbole, exaggeration, hypocrisy, wish fulfilment, false prophecy and a lack of self-awareness, along with double standards, prevailed in the land as we headed towards Apocalypse Soon — month after month.

* January: The year begins with Nine Entertainment newspapers’ Peter FitzSimons criticising footballers who engage in look-at-me behaviour after scoring a goal. This from a middle-aged man who wears a red bandana on his head.

Nine’s David Crowe predicts that if former Liberal Julia Banks wins Flinders in the federal election “it will be an earthquake for the Liberals”. She finishes third.

The New Daily’s Quentin Dempster suggests that Sky News’ Chris Kenny “probably gets his instructions telepathically” from Rupert Murdoch.

* February: The Saturday Paper’s Paul Bongiorno tweets he admires “the ABC’s policy to put different voices and accents on air”. He adds: “I wish the reporter they sent to NZ spoke English; her accent is incomprehensible.” In fact, the journalist concerned speaks impeccable English with an understandable Scottish accent.

From Singapore, Alex Turnbull states that the lesson of “the internal war over coal in the Coalition is that the sooner the Qld LNP splits the better” since “you can pander to central cuspy Qld One Nation voters or form government but not both”. See May.

* March: Nine newspapers’ Peter Hartcher writes a series of articles on what he regards as the current predicament facing the Liberal Party. Hartcher is of the view that only the likes of Malcolm Turnbull should lead the Liberals.

But he expresses disappointment that his man did not perform in accordance with expectations. Hartcher seeks advice from political psychologist James Walter, who convinces him that Turnbull sold his soul to Lucifer in a modern day “Faustian bargain” to hang on as party leader by appeasing conservatives.

The fact is Turnbull lost the support of his colleagues, who did not include Lucifer. By the way, in January Walter foresaw a “wholesale collapse” of the Liberal Party “appears to be inevitable”.

* April: La Trobe University emeritus professor Judith Brett opines that “not since 1943 has the non-Labor side of national politics entered an election campaign in such poor shape” and predicts “it could well be heading for another low point”.

Bongiorno concurs, maintaining the Liberal Party’s “credibility is in tatters due to the fact that the person leading it is not Malcolm Turnbull but it is Scott Morrison”.

Former Liberal leader (and constant Liberal Party antagonist) John Hewson declares the Coalition “is facing electoral defeat”.

Lawyer Michael Bradley ad­vises Crikey readers that Rugby Australia has “every right” to say Israel Folau’s behaviour “cannot be accepted”. See December.

* May: On the eve of the election, ABC 7.30 political editor Laura Tingle predicts that Labor will win and laughs at the suggestion the Coalition might prevail.

Guardian Australia’s Kath­arine Murphy writes that Morrison’s vulnerability as an “empty vessel” is “becoming as obvious as the nose on Morrison’s face”.

The Age’s Tony Wright decrees that “the Liberal edifice is toppling”. Needless to say, this trio remain “experts” after the Coali­tion’s victory and live to make more false predictions.

Nine newspapers’ cartoonist Kathy Wilcox laments that “morons outnumber the thinking people at election time”. The ABC’s Andrew Probyn blames opinion polls, but not commentators like him, for misleading the electorate.

* June: In The Australian Financial Review Geoff Kitney rationalises the election result by asserting that “Australian voters didn’t really choose” Morrison. In a novel interpretation, Kitney reckons “many” electors voted for the Coalition because they thought Labor would win. Really.

Mike Carlton boasts: “I feel this delicious lightness of Being. A heady draught of Liberation! Freedom! It is like Paris, August 1944.”

You see, your man Carlton said he had just cancelled his subscription to The Australian — an act he equated with the D-Day landings.

* July: Garrulous visiting British political operative Alastair Campbell dominates discussion on the ABC’s Q&A program. In the process he equates Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler — as if the victims of Nazism only had to put up with excessive tweeting.

FitzSimons suggests Boris Johnson cannot promise “strong political leadership”. Nine newspapers’ Tony Walker compares Johnson’s “shambolic personal life” with that of the “outstanding” Lord Palmerston, apparently unaware of the latter’s personal life as a womaniser on steroids.

* August: Waleed Aly, who is a presenter on Network Ten’s The Project as well as on ABC Radio National, complains in his Nine newspaper column that Johnson “has suspended Parliament in the name of the people!”

The exclamation mark is intended to underline the allegation that the move was somehow undemocratic. But parliament in Britain resumed and Johnson led the Conservatives to a clear election victory in December. Nine newspapers lead with a story that “the Chinese economy is in danger of hurtling towards a hard landing that could threaten more than half a million Australian jobs”. A prophecy that remains unfulfilled, so far at least.

* September: Malcolm Farr tells ABC Insiders viewers Cronulla, in Morrison’s electorate, will be under water in 50 to 100 years — a prediction that exceeds the most alarmist eco-catastrophists.

Zali Steggall, the independent MP for Warringah, which is close to the sea, says she cannot afford an electric car and calls on the government to subsidise such vehicles to allow her to replace her Nissan Pathfinder.

ABC presenter Matt Bevan sneers at the Prime Minister’s successful trip to the US as the “box factory visit”.

* October: In The Australian Financial Review, the normally considered Martin Wolf expresses the view that it is a measure of how far Britain has fallen that Johnson in 2019 “often sounds rather like” Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels in 1933.

Then Nine newspapers runs an article by economist Paul Krugman predicting Trump may preside over a slump — without mentioning he falsely predicted a recession in Trump’s first year in office. ABC journalist Osman Faruqi discovers rampant racism in Andrew Rule welcoming the fact an Australian-born horse won the Melbourne Cup.

* November: Retired ABC journalist Kerry O’Brien lectures an admiring audience at the Walkley Awards that Australia is on “an unacceptable step down on the road to authoritarianism” and that “authoritarianism unchecked can lead to fascism”. But not, apparently, to communism.

In Guardian Australia, Van Badham confesses she consigned her University of Wollongong Anarchist Collective T-shirt to “the dustbin of history” following a realisation that “organic extrapolitical entities” cannot “govern themselves democratically”. This wisdom came following a “wild internet barney” in the anarchist collective at Rose Bay on Sydney Harbour.

* December: Guardian editor Lenore Taylor condemns the Prime Minister for alleged “woefully inadequate climate policy” without mentioning she recently put her large Canberra house, which has a woefully inadequate energy rating, on the market.

FitzSimons dismisses the Folau settlement without realising Folau received a big payout from Rugby Australia plus two apologies.

Paula Matthewson bags Morrison for not doing “something” about the bushfires. This is the same Matthewson who dismissed the futility of Tony Abbott for fighting fires when he was prime minister in 2013. The Saturday Paper’s Eric Jensen concludes the year with this soothsaying: “Scott Morrison marks Captain Cook anniversary by taking career ending trip to Hawaii.” In Nine newspapers, Mark Mordue warns “our dead future is here”. Enough said.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************