Ignore the first five minutes about some union boss caught paying hookers with public funds, the rest is pretty interesting.
H/T to the good Sheik for this one
“The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.” -Marcus Aurelius
Ignore the first five minutes about some union boss caught paying hookers with public funds, the rest is pretty interesting.
H/T to the good Sheik for this one
By Hilmar Schmundt
Barry Kosmin is a different kind of market researcher. His data focuses on consumers targeted by companies like Lifechurch.tv or World Overcomers Christian Church TM. The sociologist analyzes church-affiliated commercial entities, from souvenir shops to television channels and worship services.
But the most significant target of Kosmin’s research is the consumer group most likely to shy away from such commercial products: secularists. “The non-religious, or Nones, hold the fastest-growing world view in the market,” says Kosmin. “In the past 20 years, their numbers in the United States have doubled to 15 percent.”
The director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in the US state of Connecticut, Kosmin is among the few researchers focused on the study of non-believers. This umbrella covers various groups including atheists, agnostics and humanists, as well as those who are simply indifferent to religion.
Secularists make up some 15 percent of the global population, or about 1 billion people. As a group, this puts them third in size behind Christians (2.3 billion) and Muslims (1.6 billion). Despite their large numbers, little is known about this group of people. Who are they? And if not religion, what do they believe in?
The book Human Accomplishment does not contain many female names. Has the author Charles Murray unfairly discriminated against women? I see little evidence of this. When reading the index for Western music I notice the absence of Hildegard von Bingen from the twelfth century, a German abbess and composer. She should perhaps have been included. Yet I also did not find the English composer and conductor Benjamin Britten, who was at least as prominent as her.

Marie Curie
Of women authors renowned for writing about issues relating to Feminism, the highest-ranking one in Western literature is Virginia Woolf, with an index-score of 12 out of 100. Mary Wollstonecraft who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) is not listed, but her daughter Mary Shelley, remembered for the Gothic novel Frankenstein (1818), is.

Mary Shelley
Outside of Feminism and women’s issues, female contributions to the field of philosophy are quite tiny. Simone de Beauvoir receives a modest listing for The Second Sex (1949), but only in literature, not in Western philosophy. She receives a lower score there than the English sisters Charlotte and Emily Brontë and significantly lower than Sappho of Lesbos, Jane Austen or Mary Ann Evans, also known as George Eliot. Since the book ends in 1950 it does not mention Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Ayn Rand, first published in 1957 in the USA, The Feminine Mystique, published by Betty Friedan in 1963, or Silent Spring (1962) by the American conservationist Rachel Carson, which helped inspire the environmental movement. Continue Reading →
When I was younger and struggling with the concepts of evolution as generally understood, one of the things that made it very hard for me to accept as a package was the issue of how a single celled creature could become a multi-celled creature by natural selection. That was answered to my satisfaction some years ago when I read about the Volvox, a colony animal that is an obvious intermediary between single celled and multi-celled animals well described in the superb book, ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins.
This however, is even more compelling evidence. Thanks to Fjordman for the link.

IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism, complete with division of labour between cells. This suggests that the evolutionary leap to multicellularity may be a surprisingly small hurdle.
Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life began, but the last time was about 200 million years ago, leaving few clues to the precise sequence of events. To understand the process better, William Ratcliff and colleagues at the University of Minnesota in St Paul set out to evolve multicellularity in a common unicellular lab organism, brewer’s yeast.
Their approach was simple: they grew the yeast in a liquid and once each day gently centrifuged each culture, inoculating the next batch with the yeast that settled out on the bottom of each tube. Just as large sand particles settle faster than tiny silt, groups of cells settle faster than single ones, so the team effectively selected for yeast that clumped together.
Sure enough, within 60 days – about 350 generations – every one of their 10 culture lines had evolved a clumped, “snowflake” form. Crucially, the snowflakes formed not from unrelated cells banding together but from cells that remained connected to one another after division, so that all the cells in a snowflake were genetically identical relatives. This relatedness provides the conditions necessary for individual cells to cooperate for the good of the whole snowflake.
“The key step in the evolution of multicellularity is a shift in the level of selection from unicells to groups. Once that occurs, you can consider the clumps to be primitive multicellular organisms,” says Ratcliff.
Please click over to New Scientist for the rest of this fascinating and important article.
As a post script, to any Catholic readers, they may be interested in this article, which is not the best one I have read on the unequivocal support the Vatican has for Darwin but it still makes the point.
Here are some excerpts from an interesting but sparsely attended debate on Islam and its treatment of non-Muslim minorities wherever it can.
When Geert Wilders came to Ottawa, a component of his message was that it is critical that we support the few brave politicians who dare speak on these matters.
Here at least we see there are some in the UK.
Thanks to the Baron for the link and he will tip his source on who picked the times for each of these clips. The whole debate can be seen online here at this UK government link.
Firefox users may have to click here:
Here are three great clips put together from the TV debate. THe original clips from YT I found much too quiet. So I boosted the volume and put them together. If the embed does not work for you, please click here to watch the video directly where it lives. Firefox users may have a problem seeing it here.
All positions have political consequences. All facts also have political consequences. One simply cannot recognize a fact without realizing that at some point, at some level, this will change something if the knowledge is applied. Perhaps the previous post today on DDT illustrates that best. Studies were faked to make DDT illegal and millions upon millions of people died of Malaria that simply would not have, had this pesticide continued to be in use. However the environmentalist left forced its global banning for its own reasons.
Now Dr. James Watson, one of the two discoverers of what might be the single most important discovery in all of the biological sciences of all time, DNA, had his talk shut down by anarchist demonstrators in Greece. (Thanks for the flag check A. Millar) because his discovery without question destroys the notion that in certain physical ways, not all people are equal.
We are now used to any political speech that is attempted being shut down by Muslims, leftists and so on, especially if it is Israel positive and if it is counter to the narrative. But now raw science. This is the sign that the embrace by civilization of barbarism has become a death grip.
First, the video of the attempted speech by Watson:
At last. Someone has enough humility to admit that the European empires were not the cause of the middle east’s woes.
I really like this guy. I hope Europe hasn’t moved far far past the point where voices like his are enough. Although it almost certainly has.
Thanks Nick Vandergragt
This has been an ongoing debate for a while about Khan, who holds a high position in various conservative organizations. I hadn’t posted any of the previous debates with him as frankly, they were not very good. This one is however.
And then there is always this important and now ancient document, but of critical importance. A speech he gave at a memorial service for Pim Fortyne.
This is a truly excellent piece of work by a man who I grow more and more to admire as one of the great intellectuals of the day. Douglas Murray appeared with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the IQ2 debate, ‘Is Islam a religion of peace’ and was excellent. But this piece is superb. If you read nothing else today, read this. Thank you Fred for sending it to me. This is nectar for a thirsty mind.
By Douglas Murray
What was your first reaction back in May when you heard of plans to build a mega-mosque near the site of the Twin Towers in New York? Did you assume it was a tasteless joke? Did your jaw drop? Or did you think: “What a good idea. No better place.”
My bet would be that most readers (including self-described liberal readers) had a touch more of the former reaction than the latter. Some people even said so at the time. A number of families of 9/11 victims spoke out against the building and for a few weeks the idea of a 13-storey mosque complex beside the World Trade Centre craters, due to cost £68 million yet with no known financial backer, seemed a dead duck.
So how was it that within a few months many of those same people, most notably the most loudly self-declared liberals, were not merely advocating the building of that same mosque but in many cases seemed eager to build it themselves, finally depicting its construction as the sine qua non of America’s survival? The distance between first and second instincts is always illuminating. But this one turns out to be more than usually so. Public debates in America tend to happen rougher, faster and more ferociously than they do in most of Europe. And so it was that a heated debate over one hot summer transformed a planning dispute into something far larger and more significant.
Daisy Khan: Wife of the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque has claimed to be a victim
It was at the beginning of August that the Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg stood with the Statue of Liberty in the background to make a major announcement. The planning regulations surrounding the former Burlington Coat Factory on 45-51 Park Place, had already met opposition at the community board advisory level. National polls suggested that a majority of Americans were opposed to the building of what was then called Cordoba House, a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. But Bloomberg thought differently. Surrounded by the requisite collective of religiously-attired figures, Bloomberg declared that restrictive planning laws of New York would not be allowed to stand in the way of the planned mosque. The debate was not about a planning application any longer. It was about something more, he declared. It was about America.
In his often teary-eyed speech, Bloomberg exercised the now decade-long tendency to believe that al-Qaeda meant whatever you want them to have meant when they destroyed the Twin Towers. Bloomberg declared: “Three thousand people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.” The issue, he said, was “as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime”. And it wasn’t a test he intended to fail. Expressing his support for the construction of the mosque, he said: “The community centre and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighbourhood and the entire city.”
President Barack Obama appeared to enter the debate on Bloomberg’s side when he raised the matter at a Muslim iftar (post-fast) dinner at the White House. “This is America,” he confirmed indignantly. The next day, he changed tack in the face of a popular uproar, and claimed that he had not in fact made the statement he appeared to have made, but had instead carefully avoided making any statements about the wisdom of building anything anywhere.
Despite Obama’s phantom U-turn, by the end of the summer the liberal consensus appeared to be with Bloomberg. After further negative opinion polls, Bloomberg declared that those opposed to the mosque “ought to be ashamed of themselves”, adding: “To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists.” Al-Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Centre and as a result it was now vital that America reply by building a mosque.
Other politicians were not as distrustful as Bloomberg was of popular sentiment. In mid-August, Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, said on air: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington…We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbour.” Gingrich’s intervention allowed mainstream politicians respectfully to oppose the construction. But by then another element of the debate had emerged. It was one which points to perhaps the largest difference between the European and American debate on this issue. Continue Reading →
Featuring the Thorazine poster boy, Norman Finkelstein and others. I am awaiting some links that should expose the agenda of Finkelstein more clearly for those who do not already know who he is. I will update this post when I get them.
For a great documentary on Islam, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, please click here for a well made German documentary on exactly that.
England is the first nation in the history of the world actively trying to become a third world toilet.