Land And Water U.S.A.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

ASK! First

ASK! First

Assess Source Knowledge First

A guide for elected officials and government agencies when presented with a bill proposal:

(1)    By what standard do you make your claim?

(2)    Is your appeal based on solid scientific evidence?

(3)    Is your appeal based on anti-science or using a veneer of science?

(4)    Who will be financially enriched from your appeal? Please identify.
(5)    Explain fully why you believe we should allocate taxpayer dollars to your cause.

(6)    Define your goals; short and long range.

(7)    Define how your claim will impact our rights to pursue our own values, wealth, family or anything meaningful to us?

The following is mandatory:

a)      Compensation fund available for any entity that may be harmed by your action.

b)      Full disclosure of your funding, budget and related corporations.

c)       Taxpayer reimbursement -should your claim be found frivolous.
b)    Provide authorship of all your data.

Saturday, March 26, 2016


By Jim Beers

Here is a late March 2016 picture from Wyoming that you'll probably never see or hear of again. Why? Because wolves don’t do such things?

    “We had 18 elk slaughtered by wolves on our elk winter feeding grounds in one night this week. 16 were calves that were not eaten at all. Killed and left for dead. The others were two pregnant cow elk. The wolves ripped the fetuses from the elk most likely from signs while they were still alive, to later die. Again they did not eat the cows. This makes nearly 70 elk slaughtered by wolves on our elk winter feeding grounds alone this winter. That doesn't include any elk or other wildlife in the area surrounding these feeding grounds.”
   The Cover-Up of Wolves and What They DO!
          Elk, like Minnesota moose, are disappearing due to global warming and ticks and definitely not wolf predation.
-       It is a Myth (like the time Kermit the Frog yelled, “it’s a Myth, Myth” and Miss Piggy comes on stage saying, “Yeth, Yeth”) that wolves eradicate game animals and hunting.
-       Protecting livestock like sheep and cattle from wolves means simply exerting a Little Effort like 24/27 shepherds and guard dogs and electric fences and fladry and noise makers and taste aversion and tank traps (I just made that one up) –none of which work more than temporarily.
-       Wolves are good for “the ecosystem” (which is whatever you want to make of “it” from the ecosystem in your yard to the North American Continent).
-       Wolves are wonderful to hear howling, it is a sign of “wilderness”.  (Please note, everywhere wolves now occur in the Lower 48 States, coyotes were or are present.  Coyotes once howled and yipped in the evenings but in the presence of wolves they quickly learn to remain silent because when wolves hear them they zero in on them and kill them at every opportunity.)
All of the above are lies believed by an urban general public that: A.) Does not live with nor is not affected by wolves, B.) Feels guilty about European settlement of North America or the presence of plants and animals not present here before 1492 when Columbus set foot on a Caribbean beach, or C.) Desires to eliminate all human use or ownership of animals from hunting and animal husbandry to animal control and the right to bear arms.
Organizations that raise millions from such folks will do whatever they must to keep reporting of and especially such pictures of wolf carnage from being published or circulated.
Federal politicians that passed the unjust laws that began the wolf introductions and protections do not want such publicity to unmask the perfidy of what they have done.
Current federal politicians that ignore this issue and refuse to give any more than lip service (tsk, tsk, etc.) to solving what their predecessors wrought do not want such publicity about their ongoing cowardly betrayal of rural Americans.
Federal bureaucrats utilizing the wolf carnage and the un-Constitutional laws that give them powers superior to states and the Constitution simply lie, shrug and blame others like a professional boxer jokingly “sparring” with amateurs.  The increased power and salary and retirement this gives them; makes them ruthless in suppressing photos and reporting about such carnage.
State bureaucrats, likewise bob and weave with a “me-too” alibi that mimics their federal “partners” malarkey about “wolves never”, “wolves always”, “global warming”, phony “counts”, etc.  Like the drivers of the “getaway car” they are complicit up to their ears in the whole scam for their own benefit camouflaged as “ecosystem beneficence”.
The media (TV News, Newspapers, Documentaries, Magazines, etc.) have all bought in to the kindly wolf myths for reasons as diverse as; “it sells”, “we get money to do so”, “our staffs are all urban ideologues”, “our political ideology/Party supports this for votes”, to “our teachers filled our heads with so much mush in school that we are incapable of seeing the truth of the matter.”
A few facts you won’t hear elsewhere:

     Wolves frequently kill wintering deer or elk in large numbers without eating them just like a pack of domestic dogs that get loose will kill chickens or sheep they encounter for what we mistakenly call “fun” but is in reality the same thing Indians did when they drove buffalo over cliffs in numbers far exceeding what they could or ever eat or otherwise utilize.
-       A couple of years ago on the Wyoming/Idaho border a wolf pack killed a hundred and some sheep for “fun” one dark night.
-       Wolves have destroyed Minnesota moose hunting by depleting Minnesota moose.
-       Wolves have all but destroyed the once 20,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd just as they are doing to moose, elk and deer in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and will do in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Texas if the federal government forces them into those states.
-       It is not at all uncommon that wolves hamstring (tear the tendons in the rear legs thus causing the animal to collapse helplessly) pregnant elk, moose, cows, ewes, does, etc. with developed fetuses and then immediately while the adult female lives to begin tearing out the anal area to make a big enough hole to pull out and devour the fetus and then leave the cow, doe, ewe, etc. to die a horrible, lingering and painful (for all you animal rights/wolf advocates) death.
-       As big game goes in the West, so goes ranching and rural communities.
-       Wolves are spreading down through Illinois and Indiana and Missouri to infest Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee from which they are expected to “hook up with” (to coin a modern expression) government wolves and coyotes and dogs (making puppies along the way) in the Carolinas and in Oklahoma and Texas rolling Eastward from New Mexico.
The same things are happening in Europe.  As Europeans do their minuets with Islamic terrorists, wolves are all over now for the first time in a few hundred years and they are increasing in numbers and densities.  Formerly efficient use of suburban/rural forage by sheep and shepherds has been and is being violently and terminally (?) ended as wolf predation, mostly unarmed shepherds, and insane wolf protections combines to kill thousands of sheep annually and put many shepherds “on the dole”.  Rural life is, as in US “wolf country”, less profitable and more dangerous for unarmed citizens, children and the elderly. 
When the Lufthansa pilot flew his airplane into the Alps, one of the policemen guarding the site for several days opined, “Our biggest worry was ALL THE WOLVES scavenging the site and consuming human body parts!”  Ask yourself; where else have you heard or will you hear any of this?

Thursday, March 24, 2016


Grazing Rights are Property Rights

Learn About Your Rights on Grazing Allotments

When:           Friday, April 22, 2016, 1:30-5:00 p.m.

Where:          Black Oak Casino

                     The Conference Room

                     19400  Tuolumne Road North

                     Tuolumne, CA 95379

You’re invited to attend this important meeting to learn about water, grazing and ingress/egress rights as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court on USFS/BLM grazing allotments.  Know your rights, know the law and act within them.  Understand the difference between a permit and an allotment.  Please make every effort to attend.

Dr. Angus McIntosh, has over 16 years of federal service working throughout the Western States primarily for the United States Forest Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service as a Range Conservationist and Rangeland Management Specialist.  Now he is a sought after consultant on private property rights policy issues, having conducted over 60 seminars and workshops on valuation of property rights in Western states on federal land/split-estate ranches.

Dr. McIntosh has a Bachelor’s degree in Animal Science from Bringham Young University, a Master’s degree in Range Science from Colorado State University and a Doctorate in Range Science and Agricultural Economics from New Mexico State University.

He has received numerous awards and recognition from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Coalition of Arizona & New Mexico Counties, the National Federal Lands Conference, the Society for Range Management, the Phelps-Dodge Mining Company, and the State of Wyoming Department of Agriculture for his work in range management, surface mining-reclamation, and property rights research and education.

Dr. McIntosh is admitted as an Expert Witness in the Federal Courts and has given expert testimony and reports in the Federal District Courts of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and the United States Court of Federal Claims.  He has given testimony before the State Legislatures of Arizona, New Mexico, Montana and Nevada on Water Rights, Range Management and Federal Regulatory Impacts on Property Rights.

Contact:  Tim Erickson 719-469-1525 or Lynne Sanguinetti Day 209-559-6644

Saturday, March 19, 2016


Banning fossil fuel benefits

Does their abysmal grasp of energy and economics make Hillary and Bernie unfit to govern?

By Paul Driessen

“Natural gas is a good, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously intoned. (Psssst. Ms. Nancy, natural gas is a fossil fuel.)

“If I thought there was any evidence that drilling could save people money, I would consider it. But it won’t,” President Obama said in 2008. “We can’t drill our way out of the problem” of high energy prices and disappearing supplies, he still insisted two years later. How shocked he must be now.

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing – aka, fracking – has unleashed a gusher of oil and natural gas, sent oil prices plunging $100 a barrel since 2008, dropped US oil imports to their lowest level in 45 years, and saved American families tens of billions of dollars annually in lower energy costs.

But if price and “peak oil” rationales fail, there is always “dangerous manmade global warming” to justify carbon-based energy and fracking bans, and renewable energy mandates and subsidies.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton contend that climate change is an “existential threat” to people and planet. Senator Sanders says bluntly, “I do not support fracking.” He also wants legislation that would keep America’s abundant oil, gas and coal “in the ground.”

Mrs. Clinton opposes all fossil fuel energy extraction on federal lands. She rejects fracking if “any locality or state is against it,” any methane is released or water contaminated, or companies don’t reveal “exactly what chemicals they are using.” Under her watch, there won’t be “many places in America where fracking will continue.” She will “stop fossil fuels” and ensure 50% renewable energy by 2030.

One senses that these folks inhabit a parallel universe, cling like limpets to anti-hydrocarbon  ideologies, or perhaps embody Mark Twain’s admonition that “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you’re a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

One also senses that as president the two Democrat candidates will continue Mr. Obama’s imperial practices. If Congress resists their policy initiatives, they will simply issue more Executive Branch diktats, and ignore their impacts on jobs and the economy, the absence of evidence that fracking harms human health or water quality, the reality that renewable energy “alternatives” also cause serious problems – and scientists’ continuing inability to separate human from natural influences on climate and weather events and trends that are essentially the same as during the twentieth century.

Officially, 7.8 million Americans are still unemployed. But add the long-term unemployed, those who looked for a job once in the past year but not in recent weeks, and those who are working involuntarily in low-pay, part-time positions – and the total swells to 16.8 million. Over 46 million are on food stamps.

The federal debt hit $19 trillion in February and is projected to reach $23 trillion by 2020. In FY2015, the US Treasury collected $3.2 trillion in taxes and other revenues, but spent $3.7 trillion. Profligate state and local spending has swollen these deficits by tens of billions more, for the same reason: politicians are in cahoots with unions, crony capitalist rent seekers, and assorted grievance, victim and welfare groups.

Mountains of federal regulations cost businesses and families $1.9 trillion annually – half of our national budget. They drag down investment, job creation and tax revenues. State and local rules add more pain.

To borrow the Greens and Democrats’ favorite term, this is unsustainable.

Oil, gas and coal account for 82% of all US energy and 68% of all US electricity generation – reliably and affordably. Producing this abundant energy also generates positive cash-flow: fossil fuel bonuses, rents and royalties from federal lands totaled $126 billion between 2003 and 2013; corporate and personal taxes resulting from the jobs and activities powered by that energy added tens of billions more.

Wind, solar and biofuel programs, by contrast, are black holes for hard-earned taxpayer subsidies – and rarely work unless consumers are required to use that energy, and pay premium prices for doing so.

Even getting to 50% “carbon-free” energy fifteen years from now will require: vastly more subsidies and mandates; turning entire forests into fuel; blanketing croplands and habitats with enormous biofuel plantations, wind farms and solar installations; and killing millions of birds, bats and other wildlife in the process. However, biomass and biofuels are also carbon-based and also release carbon dioxide – and their energy per volume is paltry, their energy efficiency deplorable, compared to hydrocarbons.

A renewable energy future means scenic, wild and agricultural lands become industrial zones and high voltage transmission corridors – feeding urban centers where people will have lower living standards.  

Environmentalists used to tell poor countries they could never have the lifestyles of people in developed nations, as it wouldn’t be sustainable. Now they say our living standards are unsustainable and aren’t fair to the world’s poor. Therefore, their lives should be improved a little via wind, solar and biofuel energy, while ours are knocked down a peg via climate and sustainability regulations (except for ruling elites).

Environmentalists and other liberals are also hardwired to be incapable of acknowledging the countless health, welfare and technological blessings that creative free enterprise capitalism has bestowed on humanity – or to recognize the dearth of innovation by repressive socialist regimes.

Liberals like to say Republicans want to control what you do in your bedroom. But Democrats want to control everything you do outside your bedroom – but for the noble, exalted purpose of changing genetically coded human behavior, to Save the Planet for future generations. That means unelected Earth Guardians must control the lives, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and life spans of commoners and peasants, especially in “flyover country.”

Fossil fuel and fracking bans are part of that “fundamental transformation.” They will force us to use less oil and gas, but they also mean we will import more petroleum from Saudi Arabia and Iran, though not from Canada via the Keystone pipeline. Energy prices will again climb into the stratosphere, more jobs will disappear, manufacturing will shrivel, and royalty and tax revenues will evaporate.

The billionaire bounties that Hillary, Bernie and their supporters also need to pay for all the free college, ObamaCare, renewable energy subsidies, income redistribution and other “entitlements” will likewise be devoured quickly, while millions more people end up on welfare and unemployment rolls. The bills will simply be forwarded to our children and grandchildren.

Meanwhile, despite any US bans, other countries will continue using fossil fuels to create jobs and grow their economies. So total atmospheric CO2 and greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise.

Of course, “climate deniers” and other members of The Resistance will have to be dealt with. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse will pave the way on that. In the process, as Obama and Clinton mentor Saul Alinsky put it in his Rules for Radicals, the ruling elites will pick, freeze, personalize and polarize their targets. They will repeat their allegations and maintain their pressure until all resistance crumbles. Facts will be irrelevant. Power and perceptions will rule.

Blue collar, middle class and minority families feel they are fighting for their very survival, against policies and regulations that profoundly impair their jobs, incomes and futures. Indeed, the governing classes are actively harming the very people they claim to care the most about – and actually killing people in the world’s poorest nations, by denying them access to energy and other modern technologies.

That’s why Trump, Cruz, Carson and other “outsider” candidates have resonates. People are fed up.

Perhaps it’s time to borrow a page from Alinsky – Rule Four, to be precise – and make “the enemy,” the ruling elites, live up to their own rules. Watching them scream and squeal would be most entertaining.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.


Masters of disguise
Green’ evangelicals disguise anti-life policies as pro-life, perpetuating suffering and death
E. Calvin Beisner, Janice Shaw Crouse and Austin Ruse

The evangelical “creation care” movement professes to be pro-life and, for the most part, rightly so. But some creation care advocates give reason to wonder.
Case in point: the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) recently launched a “Pro-Life Clean Energy Campaign,” promising to “organize half a million pro-life Christians to participate” in efforts to curb pollution by demanding a switch from fossil fuels to wind and solar. It calls this campaign “pro-life” and says it will “free our children from pollution all across America with 100% clean electricity from renewable resources by 2030.”
Even if it were true that pollution from generating electricity from fossil fuels endangers children—and modern pollution control technologies and actual emission levels make this assertion questionable—the reasoning is ethically fallacious.
The Bible makes a stark and fundamental distinction between intentional and accidental killing. When God instructed Israel to provide “cities of refuge” in the Promised Land, He said:
If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past—as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to [a city of refuge] and live, lest the avenger of blood … strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past. …
But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. [Deuteronomy 19:4–6, 11–12]
Most legal systems today incorporate this fundamental ethical distinction, as by distinguishing accidental killing from negligent deaths, and intentional but not premeditated from premeditated homicide. They typically inflict no criminal penalty on the first and graduated penalties on the rest.
Some American evangelicals fail to make this distinction today. That failure weakens the pro-life movement and their pro-life arguments.
Like most ethics professors, when Dr. Beisner taught ethics in seminary, he made sure his students understood that proper ethical judgment considers carefully both the intent and the outcome of our acts. EEN’s campaign ignores that distinction and twists the facts about the outcomes.
The campaign morally equates fossil fuel electricity generation with abortion. However, the ethical differences between abortion and pollution are glaring.
First, the intent differs. In abortion, the intent is to kill a baby. In energy production, the intent is to provide energy that people need to sustain life and health. Any pollution that is a byproduct of energy production is an unintended risk—like the risk of an axe head flying off while cutting wood.
Second, the factual outcomes differ. In abortion, the outcome of every “successful abortion” is a dead baby. In energy production, the outcome of the energy produced is enhanced human health, living standards, and life spans. The effect of any pollution byproducts may be a slight reduction in some people’s health—but certainly not enough to outweigh the intended beneficial outcome. By contrast, the result of denying people access to affordable electricity is often to reduce their living standards, health, and life spans.
The term “pro-life” was coined in the 1970s to designate those who sought to restrict abortion. That has been its primary meaning ever since. To apply it to efforts to reduce the relatively small risks from pollution from electricity energy generation in the United States is to cheapen the term.
Moreover, EEN’s campaign does more than cheapen the term. Expanding on efforts that it began four years ago with its “Mercury and the Unborn” campaign, EEN’s current campaign continues the organization’s practice of disseminating erroneous information about pollution.
EEN’s previous campaign claimed that mercury from power plant emissions put 1 in 6 American infants at risk of “devastating … permanent brain damage.” In reality, the number exposed to enough mercury to have detectable effects was closer to 1 in 1,000; the risk was a delay in neurological development so slight as to be detectable only by trained specialists; and even that risk disappears in most children by age seven. In no case does it exceed about a half-point reduction in IQ, a difference common in identical twins raised in the same household. Further, less than 5% of mercury in US air comes from power plants.
Ironically, implementing EEN’s demand for “100% clean electricity from renewable resources by 2030” would likely impair human health or even kill more people than the pollution it prevented. By raising the cost of electricity, the mercury regulations alone are calculated to cost about 2,500 to 4,250 deaths per year. Getting 100% of our electricity from “renewable sources” (basically wind and solar) would cost multiples more. (The US Supreme Court ultimately struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury regulation, for these and other reasons, but EPA had already implemented it.)
Nonetheless, by morally equating the risks from power plant emissions with abortion, EEN justified applauding members of Congress who supported EPA’s proposed mercury regulation as “sensitive to pro-life concerns”—and chastening members who opposed it as not “sensitive to pro-life concerns.”
Whom did EEN applaud? Among the 13 members named, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin (both D-MI) both had 100% pro-abortion voting records  in the 110th Congress (2007–2008), and Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both R-ME) and David Pryor (D-AR) all had 78% pro-abortion voting records. Only two of the 13, Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) and Cong. Bob Latta (R-OH), had 100% pro-life voting records.
By broadening the definition of “pro-life” as it does, EEN obscures its meaning. By describing people with 100% pro-abortion voting records as “pro-life” solely because of their environmental views, EEN divides the pro-life movement, extols suspect health claims, and ignores the benefits of fossil fuels.
As a result, EEN makes it more difficult to identify and elect truly pro-life people to office, and thereby postpones or prevents victory in the long struggle to end the intentional slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies every year in the United States (over 52 million since the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973).
Further, by presenting its environmental concerns as “pro-life,” EEN draws activists away from truly pro-life work into environmental causes tightly tied to the population control movement, which promotes abortion all around the world. It also delays bringing reliable, affordable electricity to billions who do not yet enjoy its wondrous benefits, and thus prolongs their poverty, disease, and premature deaths. These consequences are now so obvious and undeniable that promoting anti-fossil fuel policies in poor nations amounts to reckless disregard for human suffering and death—hardly a pro-life position.
Four years ago, more than 30 pro-life leaders signed a statement repudiating EEN’s deceptive mercury campaign. Now concerned citizens can join many more in signing a new statement condemning EEN’s deceptive “Pro-Life Clean Energy Campaign” for the same reasons.
By all means, let us be good stewards of God’s creation. Let us seek ways to reduce risks posed by pollution, while still providing the abundant, affordable, dependable energy that is indispensable to lifting entire societies out of abject poverty and enabling them to enjoy the health and living standards we do.
And in seeking to reduce relatively small and unintentional risks, let us not undermine the efforts of truly pro-life people to end the killing of millions of babies here and abroad every year.
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Janice Shaw Crouse is an author, columnist, and commentator, and Chairman of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Austin Ruse is President of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Progressivism is Hostile to Humanism

Progressivism is Hostile to Humanism

by Patrick Frank (March 2016)

Abstract: Ethical Humanism honors the individual and is the basis of classical liberalism, modern libertarianism. Progressives advertise their program as humanely compassionate, asserting compatibility with Humanism. However, Progressives allied themselves to every single totalitarian state of the 20th century, including Nazi Germany. They have moralized mass murder on the grounds of utopian necessity. Progressive intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have falsified history and assassinated character to compose politically expedient morality tales. Progressivism's social justice has censored speech and its educational justice has produced uneducated children and a nation-wide scandal of cheating teachers. Progressive law imposes secular purity, and its economic justice is enforced egalitarianism. These programs are no more than disguised attacks on individual freedom, the eradication of which is primary and necessary to Progressive communal ideology. Its polemics lubricate the slide into tyranny by making unfreedom seem normal and desirable. The belief that Progressivism is compatible with Humanism is a conceptual aberration that grants a soothing delusion of personal virtue while enabling a murderous ideology. Progressivism is mortally hostile to Humanism.
In recent issues of Free Inquiry magazine, Ms. Greta Christina argued that atheism necessarily entails “social justice.” [1, 2] She defined “social justice” in terms of high-minded goals that only a greedy autocratic bigot could reject: “an end to extreme poverty, political disempowerment, government corruption, gross inequality in economic opportunity, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and so on.
But if no one except a money-grubbing brute could possibly object to these goals, then what’s the point of linking them specifically to atheists? The point is to color the Humanist context of Free Inquiry with the politics of Ms. Christina. “Social justice” is a code-word for the progressivist program. Ms. Christina wants to equate Progressivism with Humanism. I will argue they are mortally opposed. What follows is not a critique of Ms. Christina’s values, but to illustrate a widespread ethical mindlessness that leads well-meaning people to pave the way into totalitarianism.
Enlightenment Humanism is the philosophical outcome of the inherent right to personal freedom. [3, 4] Corliss Lamont provides perhaps the most accessible definition of Humanism as, “a human-centered theory of life.” [5] It is informed by inquiry “into the major branches of the natural sciences, such as chemistry, astronomy, and biology, and likewise of the social sciences, such as history, economics, and politics.” Humanism requires free thought. It is open to new knowledge, accepts reasoned debate, and is prescriptively modest in the face of ignorance. Humanism necessarily honors the individual and abjures ideology.
In direct contrast Progressivism represents the anti-Enlightenment, insisting the community is supreme over the individual. [6] The central principle of Progressivism is that individuals do not have rights, but are privileged from their adherence to shared social goals. [7] The good society follows from a consensus communal morality made immanent through law. Subjection of the individual to common social goals is a progressive value that persists right up to the present through a century of tumultuous history. [7-12] To oppose the prescribed common social goals is to risk ostracism and, in an organized polity, to invite judicial attention. The principled contradiction with Humanism could not be greater.
As a corporate social-political philosophy, the progressivist vehicle for reform is necessarily government action. Plainly stated, social beneficence is produced by legislated doctrinal imposition. In the US, the early 20th century progressive movement pushed for harm reduction such as women’s suffrage, child labor laws, and the right to strike. The capacity to even recognize these goals as ethically worthy requires the humane political philosophy of the Enlightenment. [4] Therefore, the force of early progressive social arguments was carried by the same humanistic philosophy that undergirds the US Constitution. [13] Progressives called for Americans to live up to their principles.
However, things changed. Frustrated by democratic inefficiency, the Progressive program adopted centralized power as the road to social goodness. [14] Modern Progressivism is no longer about removing specific harms, but about legislating social, economic, and environmental justice. [15] No humanist accepts injustice, but words can be slippery. Progressivism says that equality, democracy, and justice are best achieved by communal regulation and ownership. [8-10, 16]
Progressive societies decide their normative morality by reference to axiomatic communal ideals. In contrast, a rational individualistic society finds normative morality by open debate and negotiation. Individualistic Humanism therefore represents a mortal challenge to Progressivism. They cannot coexist.
The evolutionary drive to self-preservation makes every organism (including plants [17]) viscerally individual; everything recognizes its own life and fights to defend it against all others. [18] Innate self-defense coupled with self-consciousness makes humans constitutive individuals. We value our own opinions above others, and revise them only reluctantly. Self-valuation is therefore the ethical ground-substance of individual human beings. Willing cooperation among individuals is the defining trait of human societies, [19] making practical humanism apparently inherent.
The Progressive counter-offensive against our innate individualism cleverly focuses on economics. The Progressive charge is that economic individualism nurtures greed, corrupts societies and people, rapes resources, is inexorably imperialistic, and produces endless violent conflict. [20-22] In their words, “Injustice and repression are inherent in capitalism, and evil policies are structural and systematic, not accidental and episodic.” [20] To eliminate capitalism, therefore, is to eliminate evil. This demonology has no factual basis, but nevertheless has become the ideological outlook of modern Progressivism.
Both Humanism and capitalism require and reward individual initiative. [23] The Progressive claim that economic and social justice require the destruction of capitalism, necessarily requires the destruction of individualism. Individualism is the target. Capitalism is the stalking-horse.
Progressives look to government intervention to cure the brutal individuals produced by capitalist societies. “Social justice,” means social and economic equality imposed by a government of progressive moralists; leveling social inequities through control of industry, employment, wealth, and, if recent history is any guide, speech.[24, 25] It ends individual and civic freedom. Progressivism has become the vehicle of the radical left in a free society and, couched in soothing banalities like “social justice,” strictly subordinates the individual to a moralizing communalism. [10, 26] Astute readers will notice that legislated communalism is indistinguishable from tyranny of the majority -- the dark side implicit in progressivist notions of equality and justice.
Capitalism as original sin leads to a useful analogy between Progressivism and religious creationism. Creationist dishonesty is well-documented. [27-30] And creationism is not just a radical Christian phenomenon. Harun Yahya’s Islam-inspired tracts are a monument to deceit. [31-33] (Ironically, secular progressives have become creationist bed-fellows. [34, 35]) Absolutist believers yearn for a Manichaeist world because without evil black hats, white-hat-ism has no cachet. So, religious ideology entails a corrosive morality that invents and then demonizes enemies. The polarization stokes inner certainty, provides satisfying slanders, and usefully coerces and inflames the partisan faithful.
Completing the analogy, the Progressive faithful are rallied to belief by their own secular priesthood, such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, who use the same tried-and-true play-book. In 1979, NY Times correspondent Paul Robinson called Mr. Chomsky “arguably the most important intellectual alive today,” [36] and many still defend that grant. [37] However, Mr. Chomsky’s work evidences a program of character assassination. [24, 38, 39] His targets are perfectly depicted capitalist heavies as seen through the lens of Progressive ideology: irremediably imperialistic, racist, hard-hearted, and callous to suffering and death.
Two examples suffice to illustrate the manufacture of calumny. [40] On page 31 of “The Washington Connection and Third-World Fascism,” Mr. Chomsky imputed USIA official John Mecklin to be a racist, writing that Mr. Mecklin derided the Vietnamese as having the mentality of mumbling six-year olds and a vocabulary of a few hundred words. [41]
But to look up the quote is to find Mr. Mecklin agonizing over the harsh life that illiteracy has imposed on Vietnamese peasants. He wrote that illiteracy is "human degradation" and denies the Vietnamese their "birthright access to thousands of years of human civilization." He anguishes about the difficulty of transmitting even simple concepts such as that it is unhygienic to urinate down the well or that mosquitoes bring malaria and so should be killed. [42] Mr. Mecklin everywhere expressed compassionate sympathy for Vietnamese and nowhere expressed a racist disdain. Mr. Chomsky defamed a good man but manufactured the capitalist bogeyman to charm his receptive audience.
Second example: in “Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs,” Mr. Chomsky turned his guns on Mr. George Shultz, then US Secretary of State. According to Mr. Chomsky, “[W]hen the World Court was considering Nicaragua’s charges against the US[,] Secretary of State George Shultz derided those who advocate 'utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation.'” [43]
The quote is from Mr. Shultz’ 1986 Landon Address at Kansas State University. His full thought ended this way, “...while ignoring the power element of the equation – even when faced with a Communist regime whose essence is a monopoly of power and the forcible repression of all opposition.” The bolded section is missing from Mr. Chomsky's rendering. The vile murderous history of Communism was well known by 1986, [44-47] making Mr. Shultz' qualified ending accurate and very reasonable. But Mr. Chomsky truncated his words, and then falsely construed Mr. Shultz to be an international scofflaw and a political brute. Mr. Chomsky is a professional linguist. His rephrasings in these two examples cannot be accidental. [40]
Mr. Howard Zinn apparently followed the same programmatic vein by constructing defamatory tales in his A People’s History of the United States. [48] Mr. Zinn purported that there was no important distinction between Nazi fascism and Anglo-American democratic principles, that African Americans were largely hostile or indifferent toward helping the American effort during World War II, and that the American use of atomic weapons against Japan was mass murder driven by cynical Cold War calculations.
However, each charge is evidently a studied misrepresentation. [49-52] On assessing the case, historian Sam Wineburg observed, “The form of reasoning that Zinn relies on here is known as asking "yes-type" questions[, which] send the historian into the past armed with a wish list. Because a hallmark of modernity is to save everything ..., those who ask yes-type questions always end up getting what they want.” He points out that, “the data the historian omits must not be essential to the understanding of the data included.” Given his studied omissions, Mr. Zinn apparently chose to mislead.
The rationale for his choices is disclosed in a 1994 interview with Ms. Barbara Miner. Mr. Zinn said that, “Objectivity [in History] is neither possible nor desirable.” [53] His reasoning was that prejudicial factology is acceptable because historians choose the facts they like anyway, and in any case objectivity itself is undesirable if one wishes to “have an effect on the world.” Evidently for Mr. Zinn, professional integrity combines the adolescent ethic ‘they all do it, so I can too’ with the slightly more mature and ever seductive, ‘ends justify means.’ [24] Progressive historians should speciously misconstrue the past in order to tendentiously misinform the present.
Most relevant to our subject, Ms. Miner then asked, “How can a Progressive teacher promote a radical perspective within a bureaucratic, conservative institution?” Progressivism apparently instructs the teacher to be a political propagandist. Rather than correct this view, Mr. Zinn answered sympathetically.
This all reveals a congruence of mentality between the creationists and the progressives: falsehood in service to ideology. Willful blindness, cherry-picked data, or outright lies, the conclusion-mongering of Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Zinn (and of Edward Said [54]), display all the best banalities of the creationist intellectual, and Ms. Miner of the creationist teacher.
Apparently Ms. Miner’s progressive “radical perspective” for education is rooted in the, “Neo-marxist, Marxist, critical theory, radical democracy, foucauldian, post-structuralist, pragmatist, and anarchist traditions.” [55] This attractive philosophy of childhood education is the modern decoction of a long-standing recipe for Progressive social engineering, [56] increasingly applied in public schools over the last 40 years. [57, 58] It exactly analogizes the creationist program of propagandized education, but has been far more successful and far more corrosive. Progressive educational justice requires strict social promotion of student cohorts, which has necessitated abandoning academic standards and prerequisites. This is the osmotic pressure behind the huge high-school cheating scandal lately emergent in Atlanta, Georgia. [59]
No matter what one thinks of it, subject-matter testing has revealed that educational justice produces scholastic bankruptcy. [58] To conceal this, teachers have been coerced to falsify test results. [60] An Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigative team found a nation-wide plague of falsified scores. [61] Their map of suspect school districts is available (; 1.4 MB pdf), and it’s scary. One teacher reported that, 'The cheating had been going on so long. We considered it part of our jobs.' [62]
In larger perspective, the 20th century proved the progressive left vastly more lethal than the authoritarian right, [63] more widely seductive, [64-66] and thus more dangerous. Progressives in free societies indulged an uncritical love affair with the most repressive regimes of the 20th century, most notably Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, and Castro’s Cuba, because they believed the cause was good. [65, 67] This cause is social justice and the utopian “new man”: communal, selfless, and altruistic rather than individualistic, selfish, and cruel. [26, 68]
In this cause, progressive radicals embraced Maoism despite that Mao Zedong supervised the murder of millions during his Cultural Revolution, [69, 70] following the millions killed through his collectivizations and Great Leap Forward. [46] Chè Guevara in poses of élan still adorn the walls and T-shirts of progressive affects, [71, 72] despite that he was Castro’s hatchet-man and a pathological enthusiast of political murder. [73-75]
When Stéphane Courtois and his co-authors detailed the crimes and criminals of Communism, [44] progressive intellectuals rounded on them for bringing a good cause into disrepute. [76, 77] When the American Communist Party was finally revealed to be a creature of the USSR, and American communists as aggressive spies rather than victims, [78] progressive intellectuals and writers equivocated and danced to re-sanitize the program of treachery. [79, 80] These all are examples of what Mark Lilla called, “the chorus for tyranny (emphasis added); those intellectuals who write apologetics for tyranny while living in freedom. [66]
Sincere progressives portray “social justice” as a desirable end. What’s wrong with that? Well, what’s wrong with “religious justice” as a desirable social end? The problem is the premeditated means: governmental power. Religious justice in power has invariably meant moralizing dictatorial law. In a free society, advocating reorganization around religious justice is just a self-delusional masquerade for the doctrinaire believer. It is a diversional romance that distracts advocates from their dream of power; allowing them to feel personally righteous while promoting tyranny. Every single religious polity has been intolerant and murderous. Religious justice means enslavement to an ideal of equal piety; enslavement of adults through ecclesiastical terror and of children through traumatizing indoctrination.
Like religion, Progressivism is sentiment plus doctrine. [10, 26] Social justice in power has invariably meant moralizing dictatorial law. The 20th century progressive love affair with moralizing totalitarianisms shows that social justice is the familiar romantic coverlet of self-deluding believers. It obscures the progressives' banal dream of power while allowing them to feel virtuous. In Progressivism, as in religion, sincerity feels like truth, righteousness prescribes intolerance, and the doctrinaire ideologue invariably discovers the doctrinal criminal.
Were progressives to gain power, can anyone doubt a social justice of enforced communal morality, social quotas, and thought-crimes? Every single such state has been unjust, pitiless, and murderous. Social justice means enslavement to an ideal of equal outcomes; enslavement of adults through civil terror and of children though traumatizing indoctrination.
In a free society, a social Progressive is to secular moralizing totalitarianism as a liberal Christian or a moderate Muslim (wherever he is [81]) is to religious moralizing totalitarianism. Their adherence normalizes and perpetuates a logic of intolerance, their sentimentalized language makes it look pretty, and their incessant pressure lubricates its descent into tyranny.
Humanism can not countenance replacing thought with sentiment. It is immiscible with defamations, dishonesty, and communal repression. Individual freedom is its bedrock. By its own allegiances and apologetics, Progressivism is the self-proven mortal foe of Humanism. Communalist ideology cannot coexist with individual freedom. Utopianism cannot tolerate pragmatic mindfulness.
Pace Ms. Christina, the fantasy of being both a Progressive and a Humanist is a categorical self-contradiction. As a schizoid pathology it allows Progressives to feel personally virtuous while making unfreedom seem normal and desirable. "Social justice" is merely the innocent-seeming code-word enabling their invariably and inevitably murderous ideology.

[1]        Christina, G., "Why Atheism Demands Social Justice,". Free Inquiry, 2012. 32(3): p. 12.
[2]        Christina, G., "Why Social Justice Is Essential for Atheism," Free Inquiry, 2014. 34(2).
[3]        Cassirer, E., The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, Trans. F.C.A. Koelln and J.P. Pettegrove. 1968, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
[4]        Kors, A.C., "The Enlightenment, Naturalism, and the Secularization of Values,". Free Inquiry, 2012. 32(3): p. 24-33.
[5]        Lamont, C., The Philosophy of Humanism 8th Edition, Revised ed. 1997 (1949) [Last accessed:  21 December 2013; Available from:
[6]        Sternhell, Z., The Anti-enlightenment Tradition, Trans. D. Maisel. 2009, New Haven: Yale University. 544.
[7]        Rodden, K.A., Review: The Lost Promise of Progressivism by Eldon J. Eisenach. Oklahoma Politics, 1995. 4 p. 83-86.
[8]        Rodgers, D.T., "In Search of Progressivism" in The Promise of American History: Progress and Prospects, S.I. Kutler and S.N. Katz eds, 1982,  Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD, pp. 113-132.
[9]        Alperovitz, G., "The old socialist idea and the new century," Peace Review, 1997. 9(1): p. 41-47.
[10]      Fonte, J., Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Ideological War Within the West. Orbis, 2002. 46(3): p. 449-467.
[11]      Sunstein, C.R., "The New Progressivism," Stanford Law & Policy Review, 2006. 17 p. 197-232.
[12]      Jarvik, L., NGOs: A "New Class" in International Relations. Orbis, 2007. 51(2): p. 217-238.
[13]      Sedler, R.A., "Freedom of Speech: The United States versus the Rest of the World," Michigan State Law Review Research Paper No. 07-21, 2006. p. 377-385.
[14]      Goldberg, J., Liberal Fascism. 2007, New York: Broadway Books.
[15]      Conniff, R. and M. Rothschild. "The Progressive Magazine: History and Mission,"  2013 [Last accessed: 14 September 2013]; Available from:
[16]      Karl, R., et al., "A Relentlessly Productive Venue": Interview with Senior Editor, Tani Barlow. positions, 2012. 20(1): p. 345-372.
[17]      Aerts, R., "Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and plant-soil feedbacks," Journal of Experimental Botany, 1999. 50(330): p. 29-37.
[18]      Connell, J.H., "On the Prevalence and Relative Importance of Interspecific Competition: Evidence from Field Experiments," The American Naturalist, 1983. 122(5): p. 661-696.
[19]      Nowak, M.A., "Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation," Science. 2006. 314(5805): p. 1560-1563.
[20]      Holsti, O.R., "The Study of International Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows: Theories of the Radical Right and the Radical Left," The American Political Science Review, 1974. 68(1): p. 217-242.
[21]      Batur, P., "Heart of Violence: Global Racism, War, and Genocide," in Handbook of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations, H. Vera and J.R. Feagin eds, 2007, Springer Science: New York, NY, pp. 441-454.
[22]      Cremin, C., "The Social Logic of Late Capitalism: Guilt Fetishism and the Culture of Crisis Industry,". Cultural Sociology, 2012. 6(1): p. 45-60.
[23]      Appleby, J., The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism. 2010, New York and London: W. W. Norton.
[24]      Silber, J.R., "Poisoning the Well of Academe," Encounter, 1974. XLIII(2): p. 30-43.
[25]      Kors, A.C., "On the Sadness of Higher Education," The New Criterion. 2008. p. 9-15.
[26]      Sternberg, E., Purifying the World: What the New Radical Ideology Stands For. Orbis, 2010. 54(1): p. 61-86.
[27]      Scott, E.C., "Antievolutionism, scientific creationism, and physical anthropology," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1987. 30(S8): p. 21-39.
[28]      Arthur, J., "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?" Skeptic, 1996. 4(4): p. 88-93.
[29]      Pigliucci, M., Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism and the Nature of Science. 2002, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
[30]      Forrest, B., "It's Déjà Vu All Over Again: The Intelligent Design Movement's Recycling of Creationist Strategies," Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2010. 3(2): p. 170-182.
[31]      Edis, T., Cloning, "Creationism in Turkey," NCSE Reports, 1999. 19(6): p. 30-35.
[32]      Riexinger, M., "The Islamic Creationism of Harun Yahya," ISIM Newsletter, 2002. 11 p. 5.
[33]      Hameed, S., "Bracing for Islamic Creationism," Science, 2008. 322(5908): p. 1637-1638.
[34]      Cartmill, M., "Oppressed by evolution," Discover, 1998. 19(3): p. 78-83.
[35]      Moore, R., "Here Come the Secular Creationists," The American Biology Teacher, 2000. 62(1): p. 2-3.
[36]      Robinson, P., "Review of Chomsky's Language and Responsibility," The New York Times Book Review 1979, February 25,  p. 3&37: New York
[37]      Glass, C., "My hero: Noam Chomsky," The Guardian 2013 [Last accessed:  7 September 2013]; 15 March:[Available from:
[38]      Morris, S., "Chomsky on US Foreign Policy," Harvard International Review, 1981. 3(4): p. 3 (9pp).
[39]      Windschuttle, K., "The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky," The New Criterion, 2003. 21(9): p. 4-13.
[40]      Frank, P. and C. Adams, "These examples are only two of many calumnious fabrications found on source-checking Mr. Chomsky's work across 35 years," at the Stanford University library. 2013.
[41]      Chomsky, N. and E. Herman, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism. 1999, Boston, MA: South End Press (cf. p. 31).
[42]      Mecklin, J., Mission in Torment: An Intimate Account of the U.S. Role in Vietnam. 1965, Garden City, NY: Doubleday (cf. pp. 74-94).
[43]      Chomsky, N., Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. 2000, Cambridge, MA: South End Press (cf. Ch. 1, pp. 3-4).
[44]      Panné, J.-L., et al., The Black Book of Communism, ed. M. Kramer, Trans. M. Kramer and J. Murphy. 1999, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
[45]      Gellately, R., Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. 2007, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
[46]      Dikötter, F., Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962. 2010, New York, NY: Walker & Company.
[47]      Satter, D., It Was a Long Time Ago, and It Never Happened Anyway: Russia and the Communist Past. 2012, New Haven and London, CT: Yale University.
[48]      Wineburg, S., "Undue Certainty: Where Howard Zinn's A People's History Falls Short," American Educator, 2012. 36(4): p. 27-34.
[49]      Handlin, O., Arawaks. The American Scholar, 1980. 49(4): p. 546-550.
[50]      Kazin, M., "Howard Zinn's History Lessons," Dissent, 2004. Spring
[51]      Maddox, R.J., ed. Hiroshima in History: the myths of revisionism. 2007, University of Missouri: Columbia, MI.
[52]      Sewall, G.T., The Howard Zinn Show. Academic Questions, 2012. 25(2): p. 209-217.
[53]      Zinn, H., "Why Students Should Study History," Rethinking Our Classrooms: Teaching for Equity and Justice, B. Bigelo, et al. eds, 1994,  Rethinking Schools: Milwaukee, MI, pp. 235.
[54]      Warraq, I., Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism. 2007, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
[55]      Saltman, K.J., "Putting the Public Back in Public Schooling: Public Schools Beyond the Corporate Model," DePaul J. Soc. Just., 2009-2010. 3(1): p. 9-40.
[56]      Judd, C.H., "The Training of Teachers for a Progressive Educational Program," The Elementary School Journal, 1931. 31(8): p. 576-584.
[57]      Trout, P.A., "Disengaged students and the decline of academic standards," Academic Questions, 1997. 10(2): p. 46-56.
[58]      Rumph, R., et al., "The Shame of American Education Redux," Behavior and Social Issues, 2007. 16(1): p. 27-41.
[59]      Jonsson, P. "America's biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta," Christian Science Monitor  2011 [Last accessed: 7 April 2013; Available from:
[60]      Toppo, G., "Schools flunked inquiries into suspicious scores in 2011: Investigators found evidence of tampering," USA Today 2011, December 30, 2011 Friday, News p. 6A.
[61]      Riley, K. "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Unprecedented Investigation Finds Questionable Standardized Test Results Nationwide,"  2013 [Last accessed: 16 September 2013]; Available from:
[62]      Winerip, M., "Ex-Schools Chief in Atlanta Is Indicted in Testing Scandal," The New York Times, 2013, 13 March,  p. A1: New York
[63]      Rummel, R.J., Death by Government. 7th ed. 2009, New Brunswick: Transaction; see also,
[64]      Gross, P.R. and N. Levitt, Higher Superstition: the academic left and its quarrels with science. 1994, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University.
[65]      Hollander, P., Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society 4th ed. 1998, New Brunswick: Transactions.
[66]      Lilla, M., The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics. 2001, New York, NY: The New York Review of Books.
[67]      Tismaneanu, V., "Communism and the human condition: Reflections on the Black Book of Communism," Human Rights Review, 2001. 2(2): p. 125-134.
[68]      Chen, T.H., The New Socialist Man. Comparative Education Review, 1969. 13(1): p. 88-95.
[69]      Lipset, S.M. and P.G. Altbach, "Student Politics and Higher Education in the United States," Comparative Education Review, 1966. 10(2): p. 320-349.
[70]      Elbaum, R.M., Revolution in the Air: Sixties radicals turn to Lenin, Mao, and Che. Haymarket Series, ed. M. Davis and M. Sprinker. 2002, London: Verso.
[71]      Dorfman, A., "CHE GUEVARA: The Guerrilla," Time Magazine, 1999. 153(3): p. 210-212.
[72]      Saravanan, V.H., "Legend of a photograph—Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara from Revolutionary to Pop Icon," Indian Folklife, 2007. 25 p. 23-24.
[73]      Mora, L.O. and B.A.G. Santamarina, "Che Guevara: The Antihero," New England Journal of Medicine, 1969. 281(23): p. 1289-1291.
[74]      Llosa, A.V., "The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand," The New Republic, 2005. 233(11-18 July): p. 25-30.
[75]      Werlau, M.C., "Ché Guevara's Forgotten Victims," Cuba Archive  2009 [Last accessed:  5 October 2013]; Available from:
[76]      Astier, H., "Worse than Hitler?" Times Literary Supplement, 2000. 01 September(5083): p. 23-24.
[77]      Revel, J.F., Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, Trans. D.V.C. Cammell. 2000, New York, NY: Encounter Books.
[78]      Haynes, J.E. and H. Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. 1999, New Haven: Yale Nota Bene.
[79]      Haynes, J.E. and H. Klehr, In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage. 2003, San Francisco: Encounter Books.
[80]      Klehr, H., "Distorting the past," Academic Questions, 2004. 17(3): p. 15-20.
[81]      Schmidt, J.R., The Unraveling: Pakistan in the age of jihad. 2011, New York, NY: Picador; Schmidt assessed Pakistan as a secularized Islamic society, but goes on to describe how the "tolerant Barelvi clergy" violently opposed reforming Pakistan's "draconian blasphemy law." (p. 213-214).

Patrick Frank is on the scientific staff of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC, Stanford University. Apart from professional work, he has published critical assessments of the intelligent design myth, the science is philosophy myth, the noble savage myth, and the human-caused global warming myth.

To comment on this article, please click here.
To help New English Review continue to publish thought provoking articles such as this, please click here.


Blog Archive