Science: it’s not rocket science (and climate change is not science)

Here’s a quote from the column that runs down the right side of this blog:

One of the great commandments of science is, “Mistrust arguments from authority.” … Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else

The author is noted populariser of science – but also a real scientist – Carl Sagan.

What can he possibly be getting at? Let’s try another famous scientist: Einstein. In 1905 he’d proposed his Theory of Relativity, and worked on it until 1916 (the year of the Somme, which made communications tricky), and it immediately had a huge impact, with British scientists, notably Eddington, who publicised it through the Physical Society in London.

Here’s where the key point is. Despite the acclaim he was receiving, Einstein refused to accept it until the theory had been verified by empirical observation. Which makes sense, no? Here is the extract from Paul Johnson’s essential history of the 2Oth century, Modern Times:

einstein3
*

einstein1919Which is where Eddington came in, setting off to the coast of West Africa to photograph a solar eclipse, with all the vagaries of the weather. It worked. He proved two of the three tests were correct, and the third, related to the phenomenon of red shift, was confirmed in 1923 by the astronomers of Mount Wilson observatory. Four years earlier though, Einstein had received a huge amount of publicity following Eddington’s trip, which he disavowed, until all of the empirical observations had been made and had proven his theory.

So what’s my point?

I think it’s best made by a youthful Karl Popper, then at Vienna University, who ended up knighted and a doyen of British academia at the LSE and elsewhere, only dying in 1994. He knew Einstein personally. Here he is:

einstein1
*

None of this is remotely controversial. It demonstrates well two key requirements of real scientific endeavour:

  1. The role of observable, verifiable data in proving – or disproving – a theory
  2. Humility

Of course, point 1 is routinely abused with a cornucopia of computer modelling (the most easily abused of all the techniques), surrogate endpoints and allowing one’s politics, emotions and beliefs to play with whatever data you’ve got.

Point 2 is a rare quality in humans (me included).

In medicine there are quite a few examples. For instance, death from a pulmonary embolus after a hip replacement is self-evidently a bad outcome. it’s also very rare, despite the huge number of joint replacements performed. It is ‘prevented’ by the routine use of chemical agents which reduce the body’s capacity to clot blood. As you might imagine, an undesirable consequence of this is bleeding – from the wound, the gut etc – which can lead to all sorts of problems. The ‘cure’ might lead to other serious complications. It does, in practice, to a degree.

So why do we use these drugs? Well, they actually don’t reduce the risk of fatal pulmonary embolus. They may not even reduce the risk of a symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. They do, in relatively small studies, reduce the risk of clots in the leg visible on some sort of sophisticated imaging. That is the basis of the ‘big pharma’ marketing that everyone buys into, for fear of being sued. Yes, fear and loathing stalk the NHS too.

A surrogate endpoint like that (a leg clot visible on an ultrasound scan, whether or not it’s symptomatic), with no definite link to fatal pulmonary embolus, is bad science, yet it’s out there.

None of us is immune to such dodgy data. Einstein’s ‘purity’ is getting rarer in medicine, and it’s very rare in another area of Big Science: climatology as it relates to ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW).

I won’t rehearse all the very justified arguments as to why #climatechange is chock full of bad science and histrionics, I’d rather show good scientific papers, which helpfully debunk a lot of the propaganda.  So here you are, courtesy of the much-attacked James Delingpole. These are from the recent literature, and the usual climate change mob are not enamoured of them:

  1. The alleged ‘pause’ in AGW that the computer models mysteriously allow for is actually more than a pause. The warmists tend to ignore the well recognised El Nino phenomenon. Astronomical influences and empirical observations tend to point away from the AGW claims. Read it here.cc3
  2. Flooding in the USA and Europe is a random event with no relation to alleged        AGW/’extreme weather’ etc etc. Or as they put it “The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone”. Read it here.cc1
  3. The confident predictions of a global 1.5 degrees C temperature rise by 2022, upon which most of the hype, whining, government virtue signalling and overreaction is predicated, cannot possibly happen by all the postulated mechanisms. It’s really not going to happen. And these researchers are far from being AGW sceptics. Read it here. And if it seems a bit abstruse, here’s Delingpole’s very neat summary.cc2

…and if that wasn’t enough, despite the utterly pathetic attention seeking underwater cabinet meeting by the Maldives government in 2009, sea levels are dropping, much to NASA’s disappointment. Of course, if the Maldives’ dismal excuses for politicians meant what they said, they wouldn’t be building 5 new airports, to add to the 11 they already have.

Ibrahim Didi
Sad!

I won’t even mention the news that the much maligned Great Barrier Reef is in fact doing just fine, despite predictions of doom. Or that the now disappearing Independent newspaper’s famous  news story from the year 2000, that snow would ‘soon be a thing of the past’, has been quietly erased from their website – but not from others (read it here). Who’dathunkit?

Note that the above references that I have provided are refutations of the AGW hysteria and associated hype, not mere denials. The Warmists’ favoured meme of Deniers v Scientists just took a big hit.

It’s all a scam. I could live with the propaganda, it’s the abuse of  the scientific process that I can’t stomach (plus the outrageous expense). I’ve written on this before. The wise doctor and writer Michael Crichton had these guys sussed.

By a strange quirk, where this post began, with Einstein insisting on observational proof of his Theory of Relativity, has been repeated in this last couple of weeks, about 100 years later. The news was rightly full of the observation of gravitational waves – predicted by Einstein – following the remote collision of two neutron stars.  Hard observational data, not a computer simulation.

As Lord Rutherford, splitter of the atom said, with some truth: if your experiment needs statistics**, you should have done a better experiment.   

cc5.jpg
I feel fine, thanks

 

**to update this, I would add ‘and computer simulation’

 

Advertisements

Most people are normal (AKA politics today)

Harvey Weinstein Hosts a Private Dinner and Screening of "Bobby" for Senators Obama and SchumerGiven numerous news ledes, most recently Theresa May’s ludicrous claims about racism – which indicate she leads a pretty closeted existence  – here is a nice summary of what it is to be a normal citizen in the UK today:

        chancers4  To be a normal  UK citizen is to constantly be scolded, to be lectured, to be treated as a morally bankrupt simpleton in need of the guidance and direction provided by an urban elite ruling class notable for its empty academic credentials, its track record of incompetence, and its idolization of people who erotically abuse the foliage.

chancers3If we are to have betters, is it so wrong for us to demand that they actually be better? Superiors should be distinguished by their superiority – if you presume to take charge shouldn’t you demonstrate tactical, technical, and moral mastery? So what has our ruling class mastered lately? What is the skill set that sets the smart set apart?

chancers1
…still a classic

As you may have twigged from the foliage reference, this otherwise accurate take is actually from the US, by the impeccably grounded Kurt Schlichter.

What did we do to deserve these people? As Kurt correctly goes on to point out:

Where are the elite’s achievements? Our betters have been running things and yet they are the ones crying loudest about how awful things are. It’s another scam, of course. Things are awful, but not for them

Thank God things are slowly changing.

The SNP: decline and fall (15 and a half)

I  think this should wait till the Nats’  less than enticing conference in Glasgow is finished, next week. There’s a bit to talk about, not least their ahistorical and opportunistic alliance with the reckless and mad Puigdemont (and the more reasonable Catalan separatists).

They’re still on the way down though. Read Stephen Daisley in the meantime, here.

salmstur
…we were happy once

Surgery will always be a matter of life and death

I’ve nothing against him personally, but when I’m urged to read Atul Gawande’s books about aspects of surgical practice, particularly outwith the technical skills, I wonder what makes him such an expert. Here’s the evidence:

Qualified in Medicine at Harvard in 1995 aged 30

Master of Public Health degree in 1999, then 6 years of residency training in surgery – ie. junior doctor acquiring experience – till 2003.

He spent quite a bit of time from the late 80’s involved in writing magazine articles and working in Democratic politics.

His first book, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, came out in 2002, when he was still a junior doctor in training, far from the finished product. The next one Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, was released 5 years later. I assume he’d been busy in clinical practice for this time, with possibly some of the previously noted extracurricular activities getting in the way occasionally.

w-eugene-smith-dr-ernest-ceriani-following-the-loss-of-a-mother-and-child-during-childbirth-1948
…still a role model

An NHS consultant surgeon, 5 years in, working in a busy hospital is, in my view still very much on the learning curve. ‘Surgical maturity’, I would say, is at least 10 years in. Some people never get there.

Gawande’s Wiki entry implies that from about 2009 onwards he was doing more and more non-surgical things, fair enough, he seems an interested and accomplished fellow, but I feel very strongly that the way you get better in medicine is, I’m afraid, long hours, year in year out, in the wards, the theatres and the clinics. It’s a lifelong thing, even if – as I do – one has plenty of other interests.

One of the classic scenarios in the NHS is the consultant who having got to the top – as it was perceived in the old days – realises that he or she wants to get out. Often ‘management’ and ‘governance’ are the dubious beneficiaries of their career move, which amazingly usually involves telling working clinicians what to do. Not that I’m accusing Gawande of that, but some individuals closer to home, certainly.

Anyway, this preamble is to praise the benefits of long, hard won clinical experience, especially of the surgical kind. There is a significant difference between prescribing a drug – which could do harm – and opening someone up with a knife, which is intrinsically harmful before it gets better, even if everything goes well.

Is there a plausible alternative to working the hours? I think not. Don’t get me started on the world of ‘simulated surgery‘.

All of which brings me to a fascinating interview with both Stephen Westaby (69), heart surgeon and Henry Marsh (67), neurosurgeon. Both have a public profile, both have performed thousands and thousands of challenging high end operations, for the NHS. With respect to the aforementioned competition, these are the guys that I want to hear from. They’ve also written books for the general public, as it happens.

There are numerous gems in the interview, here’s some tasters:

HM:  We have this very complex relationship with patients. It’s not one of straightforward altruism at all; it’s a very difficult relationship. You have to be both hard and soft at the same time. You certainly don’t want to be empathetic. If empathy means you actually feel what your patients are going through, actually . . . you can’t do it.

…the problem is you could spend the entire national income on healthcare and everybody still dies — there is 100 per cent mortality — so you have to decide somehow where to set your artificial floor on that bottomless pit.

…[When he was PM] David Cameron made this speech about we must have “zero harm” in the NHS, which struck me as the most incredibly stupid thing to say because it suggests that when anything goes wrong, therefore somebody’s to blame. The whole point about medicine is it often goes wrong. The decision whether to operate or not, to recommend an operation or not, is all about probabilities, and these are very subjective, difficult judgments. Everything we do is in the face of uncertainty and a lot of the time patients come to harm. It doesn’t necessarily mean that anybody’s at fault. So I thought that was a very, very naive and rather silly thing to say.

SW:  The job is difficult enough without having the press and everybody else on your back. A British heart surgeon had the idea when he became the medical director of the NHS that surgeons’ death rates should be published and available for the newspapers. Let me ask you: which surgeons would have the highest death rates, the worst ones or the best ones? The best surgeons attract the worst patients like a magnet. So if you want to make your best surgeons defensive, you start counting the bodies and putting it into the public arena. My particular branch of the profession is now risk-averse. Fewer heart surgeons want to come to Britain to do heart surgery and the British especially don’t want to do heart surgery. They’re long operations, you can end up operating all night, every day of the week, and it’s taxing and it’s rotten when people die. It’s totally rotten to have to go out of an operating theatre and tell a couple of young parents that their baby’s just died on the operating table. It’s misery. None of us lose patients because we’re careless or don’t care. So I’ve seen my profession wrecked, I’m afraid.

HM:  Forty years ago, the power structure in hospitals in this country was very simple. There was a senior doctor, a senior nurse and one manager, and basically the hospitals are run more or less by the senior doctors, for better or for worse. Now you have a whole series of competing pyramids. The management, the doctors, the nurses — more or less autonomous now — the other paramedics and physios and people like that, so there’s a real sense of nobody being in charge. I would go to work in the morning and I wouldn’t know what I was going to do that day because it all depends. Is there a bed? Is there an intensive-care unit bed? Is there a bed on the high-dependency unit? You have to negotiate with each of these individual power structures, it’s deeply chaotic

…Another example is that, after the Stafford scandal [over nursing care] and the Francis inquiry [into it], the General Medical Council wrote to all the doctors saying that when a mistake is made you must apologise and then it said that this is usually the duty of the senior clinician; in other words, whoever makes the mistake, muggins here has to go and say sorry. And then thirdly it added that for an apology to be meaningful, it must be genuine. If the GMC can’t see there’s a problem here — if an apology is compulsory, how can you force it to be genuine? Well, the answer is that it is genuine if the senior doctors have a sense of authority, if they feel they’re trusted and then they do feel responsible for what happens in their department.

Just superb, and not calculated or self-serving, simply real world experience of something very important. Westaby’s line “The best surgeons attract the worst patients like a magnet” is very very true.

I’ll give him the final word:

 

The future of the NHS, AKA “stopping doing some things”

ab1
…he has a point

Nearly 70 years ago,  the declared bases of the NHS, were the much-quoted three founding principles, courtesy of Aneurin Bevan, a remarkable politician:

  • that it meet the needs of everyone
  • that it be free at the point of delivery
  • that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay

This nice summary from the NHS’ 60th birthday in the BMJ provides the narrative:

The three principles stand up well. American patients admitted as emergencies often can’t believe how good things can be in a quality NHS unit. It’s true though that maintaining such quality without financial incentives/disincentives (unlike most developed countries) is getting harder to do.

Did we need to add to these three principles? I don’t think so, but in the time honoured manner of bored self important managers and clinicians drifting away from the frontline, we have. Try this, from a big cheese Welsh NHS seminar in 2011:

Universal access, based on need
Comprehensiveness, within available resources
Services free at the point of delivery
A shared responsibility for health between the people of
Wales and the NHS
A service that values people
Getting the best from the resources available
A need to ensure health is reflected in all policies
Minimising the effects of disadvantage on access and outcome
A high quality service that maximises patient safety
Patient and public accountability
Achieving continuous performance improvement across all
dimensions of healthcare

I’ve italicised the ones that I would call mission creep – they’re not strictly NHS issues – and also the ones that are platitudinous and glaringly obvious. I’ve put in bold the bits with which I agree, but nobody really means, as ‘within available resources’ in practice means rationing. I have yet to hear a sensible debate on real rationing of NHS services, which means stopping doing some things. The Scottish NHS goes on about ‘realistic medicine’, but despite lots of hype, it remains somewhat undefined in terms of stopping doing some things.

Principle 6 in the now seven principles of the NHS spelt out in the NHS Constitution, also from 2011, alludes to this:

nhs6

Which actually is worth spelling out. It’s the only way to keep the NHS viable. And what that means is….stopping doing some things. There are plenty of things that would have appalled Bevan and his colleagues, had he realised that’s what the NHS smorgasbord would end up providing. I have my particular favourites, you may too, and I include in my unpublished list quite a few of the elective procedures offered by my own specialty.

Bevan was following on from the flawed intellectual William Beveridge, who had a slightly broader remit looking at the role of the postwar state in more general terms:  “five giants on the road to reconstruction” that needed to be slayed: want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness.

Beveridge was on to something then and now.

None of this is new of course, but my suggestion is that these admirable and clear principles have been abused by the sprawling megacity of the welfare state of 2017, the most loved component of which is the NHS.

For the record, I’ve worked in the NHS for decades, I don’t do private work. What we badly need, as taxpayers, patients, healthcare workers, rational human beings etc, is to restructure what the NHS does (which means stopping doing some things). It’s not hard in principle. Here’s the order of priorities:

  1. Lifesaving emergency treatment
  2. Pragmatic management of life-threatening conditions, mainly cancer
  3. Rapid access General Practice that includes real out of hours care
  4. Elective procedures that work – so stop doing things that don’t have proven benefit of adequate clinical significance. That’s actually quite a lot of things that currently go unquestioned.
  5. Appropriate public health/screening. So more colonoscopies, fewer stupid campaigns against booze (just to be topical).
  6. Better end of life care

There are lots of other areas of neglect – for example the adult physical handicapped – but many of these are primarily social care issues, and I would like to see that separated from the NHS conceptually and financially, whilst accepting that the much neglected interface between the two is very important.

Where Beveridge, Bevan and the modern welfare state collide is in at least two areas. Firstly, it would have been impossible for them to foresee the exponential expansion of high quality, effective but costly medical interventions. The human race got good at this very quickly. Affordability became difficult within a few decades of  the 1948 landmark.

Secondly, note Beveridge’s specific mention of ‘idleness’, which is effectively a codeword for what is loosely referred to as the Benefits Culture. Guardianistas don’t tend to focus on it. It is equally unaffordable in its current iteration. I’m not going to explore it, but interested readers will find illuminating references to it throughout the works of a master medical chronicler of these two centuries, Theodore Dalrymple (1, 2). Anyone with their eyes open in the developed world, particularly the UK, will know what I mean. As would Beveridge.

It’s fascinating to learn from the acerbic and erudite Geoffrey Wheatcroft something that may seem minor, but isn’t: Beveridge detested the expression “welfare state”.

wb1
…another zinger

 

 

The SNP: decline and fall (15)

Things are ticking over nicely. Three little gems:

48. Unfunny ex MP Eck could be going on tour

What is it about the bullying despotic politically inclined type that makes them want to go on stage? Eck is possibly following in the footsteps of gruesome thug Alastair Campbell (1, 2), in selling his tedious schtick for cash and adulation once the political spotlight has begun to fade.  German journalist Matthias Matussek, reviewing Campbell’s nonsense thirteen years ago said: He provided a strange white noise, two hours long. Sounds about right for Eck. What could go wrong?

49. Well this could..

Eck continues (see 47) to damn his successor with faint praise, knowing exactly what the headlines will say.

DISLOYALECK
…with friends like these…

 

50.  More seriously though. Money.

There is now a more open, and less adulatory mood in parts of the Scottish media when it comes to following whatever the SNP party line is this week.  Former Salmond adviser, Alex Bell, transformed himself into a sharp and knowledgeable critic of Salmond and the Nats some time ago. Here he is this week:

There are days when Nicola Sturgeon must wish Alex Salmond gone. Not for the sexist gags or the disloyalty to her (though how he would have hated that in return). It is the legacy which leaves her trapped between hard numbers and soft promises, destined to disappoint the nation…

….But she is never free of the legacy, the memory of her political mentor, as Salmond is built into every atom of the modern SNP. She can no more be free than start a new party – a thought that must have crossed her mind in darker moments. Her dilemma is when the annual round of economic figures (GERS) come out showing a big gap between what Scotland earns and what it spends within the UK.

If she admits the truth, that Scottish spending would have to be different to the UK budget, she exposes Salmond’s trickery. If she defends it, she holds the movement back from seeing the truth and facing questions about spending priorities and tax increases…

….Most of all, she has wrestled with the SNP belief that Scotland can afford what it wants because Salmond told them so. Whether Salmond ever believed this, I can’t tell. But it seems unlikely as the man isn’t stupid.

The numbers are the numbers – and they show that UK spending attached to Scotland is greater than Scotland could afford if it was detached. Salmond was smart enough to realise that admitting this would end up irritating voters so he never did. And because of what Salmond spun and the SNP believed, the party are based on an illusionist trick – that anything is affordable.

Painful stuff  for true believers, although evident to sentient thinking punters for years. If you want to know what those GERS actually show in their cold, uncomfortable detail, then visit the indispensable @kevverage over at Chokkablog.

Scottish National Party Hold Their Annual Conference
…keep him where you can see him Nicola…

 

 

 

 

The SNP: decline and fall (14)

This is brief, because not much needs to be said, so complete is the SNP’s descent from the commanding heights (or whatever) of arrogant Holyrood hegemony, to the current state of bickering, embarrassed, low energy, intellectually barren bewilderment.  It didn’t take long.

So….

45. Alex Salmond kindly provides further proof that he is an unfunny, unrefined bully

Otherwise known as his Fringe show. If Eck  seriously thought that his opening ‘joke’ was actually funny, he has a problem. Given his longstanding propensity to marvel at his own wit,  one doubts he has much insight.  His doubling down insult was actually even worse, via an unnamed spokesman, suggesting that Scottish Labour  – lead by lesbian Kezia Dugdale  – were just miffed as they didn’t get a mention. Classy as always. His successor, Ms Sturgeon, struggled to support him, which may well be the start of a trend (see 47, below).

46. Scottish Nationalist Party leader belatedly regrets the word ‘nationalist’.

Possibly feeling shifty after the confected media/VIP overreaction to Trump’s press conference, Ms Sturgeon, also at the Edinburgh shindig, was put on the spot by Turkish writer Elif Shafak. Nicola claimed, wholly unconvincingly, given the last few years: “If I could turn the clock back . . . to the establishment of my party, and choose its name all over again, I wouldn’t choose the name it’s got just now.”

Really? Tell the zoomers that. Amusingly, whatever you think of them, neither Trump nor Farage ran on ‘Nationalist’ tickets. Unlike Le Pen and Hitler. Perhaps Nicola has finally seen the light.

47. Unemployment is a terrible thing.

It can open the door to bad behaviour and causing trouble, to fill all that empty time. Sacked (by the voters) former MP and ex newspaper columnist Alex Salmond is spending his days hanging round Edinburgh street corners, telling tall stories and claiming it was better when he was in charge. It’s already started (1, 2). One almost feels sorry for Nicola Sturgeon.

Alex Salmond Makes His Last Keynote Speech At The SNP Conference
..worse. Siamese. twins. ever…

The SNP: decline and fall (13)

The wind has rather gone out of the sails of the whole SNP schtick. Those heady days of 2014 (up to 18th September that year) seem like last century.

So it seems a bit harsh to continue to point out their failings. However, I’m up for it.

39. The upper chamber beckons…

Here’s a Twitter snapshot series:

snpa1

snpa2

Yup, the Daily Record has mysteriously floated the idea of unemployed Eck hitting the House of Lords – where The Knife has personally sipped at the finest subsidised booze in the kingdom – followed quickly by the Scotsman doing the same thing. Funny that. It’s almost as if Eck is regretting his rash promise about rocks and the sun (his usual), to which the True Believers of the SNP still cling. Don’t hold your breath. Eck’s perceptively brilliant finger-on-the-pulse style of leadership is sorely missed.

40. Indyref is not very popular

Not just amongst us plebeian voters, some of the sharper knives in the SNP box have begun to have doubts. Isn’t that verboten, under party rules? Not sure if the message is getting through though. That kind of authoritarian bullying has real world consequences.

snpf1
…this is actually all true…

41. Experienced hacks are taking the mick

Admittedly @JournoStephen and @davidtorrance have never been SNP flavour of the month, they’re not sycophantic enough, but this piece by the former is a gem of Holyrood observation:

Why, she demanded to know, genuine frustration in her voice, wasn’t Labour praising her achievements? Cruelly, Kezia Dugdale’s group broke into sarcastic applause and cheering. The SNP leader was baffled by it all. You would be too if you got your news from The National and had rules against internal party dissent that make the Chinese Communist politburo look like a model of open debate.

….and Twitter remains invaluable:

snpd1

snpe1

snpdoomed1

…watch the development from the last tweet. Gerald Warner is always precise:

So, a few little local difficulties, then, for the poor man’s Angela Merkel. At least she still has the consolation of being the highest paid politician in Britain, which suggests that, among the political class, remuneration is in inverse proportion to ability.

42. They’re still not good at running things

See what I mean?

snpg1

…and when they do mess up, the UK bails them out.

43. There’s a problem with Labour…

Gordon Brown ruined his own party partly by taking the Scots for granted, and amusingly if  predictably, the Nats are copying him. Corbyn is now going for them. Corbyn of all people – Mr Free Stuff versus the party of Free Stuff. And if you read wise owl @euanmccolm, they don’t know what to do about it.

44. The Fringe beckons…

Salmond promises to talk about his relationship with Trump at this year’s Fringe. Heavily redacted, no doubt

—————————————————————————————————————————-

As I often point out, none of this is about a problem with Scotland as such. It’s all about a problem with the SNP  – who for the most part are bullying, limited, rabble rousing, unimaginative power freaks. They almost never make a legitimate case for independence based on sovereignty, with all the risks honestly explained.

They never will.

what-is-molten-rock_e9b070f7-d7ef-45b5-abac-240b4c3fbf29
…molten rock, in case Eck’s not seen it before…

Where did it all go wrong? (AKA politics today)

That faintly nauseous feeling engendered by numerous politicians of various tribes, with the high points exemplified by the twin peaks of Blair and Obama in their hubristic primes. Yup, it’s got a name now, which I hadn’t quite twigged before.

Progressivism.

It’s one of those bland words/phrases – think liberalism, neconservatism, social justice – which gets knocked about in the media and the political arena, often without people pausing to consider what it means.

Well here’s the ideal definition:

Progressivism was imported from Europe and would result in a radical break from America’s heritage. In fact it is best described as an elitist-driven counterrevolution to the American Revolution, in which the sovereignty of the individual, natural law, natural rights, and the civil society — built on a foundation of thousands of years of enlightened thinking and human experience — would be drastically altered and even abandoned for an ideological agenda broadly characterized as “historical progress.”

Progressivism is the idea of the inevitability of historical progress and the perfectibility of man — and his self-realization — through the national community or collective… progressivism’s emphasis on material egalitarianism and societal engineering, and its insistence on concentrated, centralized administrative rule, lead inescapably to varying degrees of autocratic governance.

Yup, we can all recognise that, whether we like it or not. I’m a ‘not’. It’s the opposite of true democracy, subsidiarity, respect for others, charitable endeavour etc. A surefire way of stifling altruism and enterprise, of crushing freedom of thought and speech. It’s neither specifically Left nor Right. It is a horrible amorphous blob of state control. It has ravaged the UK (especially Scotland), parts of Europe and is trying to take over the USA.

The author of the above is populist (and popular) Jewish intellectual, Mark Levin.

There is a lot of bullshit about when it comes to describing ideologies, political philosophy, the roles of the state and the individual, all that stuff – but I reckon the above description is a keeper. It always helps to know your enemy.

Stalin poses ad demagod WW2 Propaganda Poster
Raise your hand if you support progressivism!

 

 

 

The SNP: decline and fall (12)

SNP1
The sad brow of Kevin McKenna

 

38.  Things aren’t going too well over in Hyndland and Bute Square. If you’ve sampled any of the earlier blog posts on this topic, you’ll realise that I am neither a fan of the SNP, nor a believer that they will get their alleged goal of independence. I know it’s a minority view and possibly wrong, but even Nat knuckleheads are probably happier with the current happy state of perpetual whining whilst not having to worry about where the cash comes from, than actually having to govern responsibly.

That said, it must be bad when a True Believer like Kevin McKenna over at the Glasgow Herald has lost faith.

I would quote the whole article, but I can’t be fagged to pay them any money (paywall) or even sign up for a freebie. The first two paragraphs seem to suffice. A bitchy pop at Ruth Davidson, presumably followed by a discussion of  ‘the cowed pygmies of the SNP’. A phrase that I could get used to:

THIS ought to have been a time of hope for the SNP government and those in the wider Scottish independence movement. Instead, where there ought to have been optimism and a renewed sense of purpose there is now doubt.Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, will continue to proclaim her leading role in sowing the seeds of uncertainty among the Yes movement but she is deluding herself if she seriously believes this to be the case. Her party’s success in securing 13 seats at the General Election has been built on fear and loathing of others.

There is a reason why she is desperate to avoid a second referendum on Scottish independence: her party, devoid of anything resembling a policy, has gorged itself on Scotland’s constitutional uncertainty. Once this has been settled one way or another she knows her party will retreat to the margins of Scottish public life.

Oh dear.

JS75999976

                              Nationalist solidarity with the working classes ahoy!