Evolution Is Like Pork

My thoughts on the occasion of Earth Day and the March for Science.

Why does everybody know that Jews do not eat pork, and why does anybody care?  It seems to be a big deal.  It did not used to be a big deal.  Pork was not a big deal among the Jews in that the pig was not singled out, among all other ritually unclean animals, as being uniquely unclean.  The pig, not specifically named and along with other animals, merely falls into that category of animals with a split hoof that do not chew their cud.  That's it.

There is nothing special about the pig, except that for the long centuries that Jews lived among their Christian hosts in central and eastern Europe, pork was the chief distinction in the dietary habits of Christians and Jews.  And people tend to notice differences, no matter how small, no matter how meaningless.  And such differences, the less meaningful the better, are frequently the focal points of bigotry and violence.

So now, let's think for a moment about the debate over teaching evolution in the schools.  Why do we do it?  Is it because evolution is true and important?  I doubt it.  Taxation is true and important, and vastly more relevant to the lives of most Americans, but we don't teach that.  Think of it this way, would an auto mechanic be better at his work because he was taught the theory of evolution?  A tax accountant?  A lawyer?  Not even physicists and electrical engineers would be better at their work for knowing about evolution.

Pretty much nobody needs to know the theory of evolution, except biologists.  So educators are making an awful big deal of a subject that is irrelevant to most people.  They talk about the teaching of evolution as if every public school child is a budding research geneticist.  This is preposterous, and it requires some thought.

One of the main arguments for the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools is that American citizens should know something about the principles of science.  I agree with that, but that is an argument for a general science curriculum, not for evolution.  Not even for biology.  Not only does biology not need to be part of a general science curriculum, but if you are teaching biology, evolution should not be part of the biology classroom.

The study of biology does not begin with evolution.  Rather, you have to explore a lot of elementary biology before you have any hope of making sense of evolution.  This is quite like the teaching of the theory of relativity in physics.  Physics does not begin with relativity.  Rather, you have a lot of work to do in physics before you can hope to understand relativity.

Absent a good scientific foundation in physics, relativity is just catechism.  And, absent a good scientific foundation in biology, evolution is just catechism.  So here is the position in which we find ourselves.  Educators insist on teaching a subject that is

(a) unnecessary for their stated aim (conveying the principles of scientific thinking),
(b) irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Americans, and
(c) in the wrong place in the curriculum if you do insist on teaching biology;

And they are hysterical about this.  If we do not teach evolution in the schools, they say, we would descend into medievalism.  Hardly, so what is really going on, here?  Since the teaching of the theory of evolution does not make sense on its own terms, I feel free to speculate.

I believe that evolution is a central issue in the debate over public education because it is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists.  In other words, there is nothing in Christian doctrine that conflicts with, say, the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or quantum mechanics.  Christians do not object to factoring polynomials or to the double-angle formula in trigonometry.  Christians have no problem with any part of the general curriculum, and with no part of the science curriculum---except the theory of evolution, a theory that is wholly irrelevant to everybody except that minuscule fraction of the world population that is occupied with research in biology.

I should add that the people who care about the theory of evolution least of all, and understand it least of all, are the Leftist educators who so shrilly insist upon it.  If Leftists actually understood the theory of evolution we would never hear that race is a social construct, and we would never, ever hear that gender is a social construct.

Clearly, the theory of evolution is important to the Leftists not for the science of it, but because it is a central part of their war on Christianity in particular, and on Judeo-Christian civilization in general.  The theory of evolution is the chief distinction between Christians and socialists in just the way pork was the chief distinction between Christians and Jews in Medieval Europe.  And, just as pork was the focus of anti-Jewish bigotry in Medieval Europe, the theory of evolution is the focus of anti-Christian bigotry in 21st century America.

And that is how evolution is like pork.

The Chemical Weapons of Bashar al Assad

We read in the NY Times that the Obamarrhoids are starting to think that maybe, just maybe, they were deluded in thinking that Barack Obama sweet talked chemical weapons out of the hands of Bashar al Assad.  Let's think about this.

Bashar al Assad did not decide one day to attack "his" people.  Possibly, the initial unrest in 2011 was agitation for civil rights, but that unrest was quickly appropriated by Sunni fighters and converted into a jihad against the Alawites.

Bashar al Assad is the leader of the Alawites.  Contrary to popular belief in the West, Alawites are not a denomination of Shia Islam.  They may have started that way in the 9th century, but their syncretistic faith, that includes a strong resemblance to the triune god of the Christians, puts them beyond the pale in the eyes of mainstream Islam.

Depending on their mood, Muslims view Alawites either as heretics or apostates.  Either quality is perilous for the Alawites.  Historically the Alawites were severly oppressed and very poor.  Only by the machinations of the colonial French did the Alawites become a military elite and, after colonialism, a ruling elite.  And that is intolerable to the Muslims.

If al Assad loses the fight, there will be a genocide of the Alawites, that is why he will do anything to win.  There is no atrocity he will not commit.  He will fight to the death.  He will make a pact with the Devil, if he has to.  Making deals with Russians and Iranians was a no brainer for him.

Into this grisly scenario enters Barack H. Obama with a fetish for chemical weapons.  Barack wanted al Assad to give up one important weapon in exchange for...what?  Was Barack going to send in the Marines to protect the Alawites?  Was he going to give aerial support (as the Russians ultimately did)?  Was there going to be an endless stream of military supplies and financial support?  What, exactly, was Barack offering, beyond words on paper?

Bashar al Assad was bargaining for the salvation of his people, and the unserious Barack Obama was talking shit.  And today, the Obamarrhoids are scratching their...heads...and starting to think that maybe, just maybe, that deal they thought they had with al Assad did not go quite like they thought it went.

It is hard to fathom just what kind of a nitwit you would have to be to think that Bashar al Assad would gamble the safety of his people on the empty assurances of a transparent poseur.  This is what I thought in 2014 when the oafish John Kerry said, "...we struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out", and today the NY Times admits it.

The Paradox of Socialism

For a long time, I had been contemplating a long essay on the paradox of socialism.  And then, it came to me.

Like the Laws of Thermodynamics, capitalism is difficult to understand but it is always true and you can see it working.

Like the idea of the flat earth, socialism is easy to understand but it is not true and you can see it failing.

Over and over, people choose that which is easy to understand and they reject the plain evidence of their "lying eyes".

Socialism is a testament to the power of propaganda and ideology over reality.

The real mystery is how a market-based liberal democracy arose in the first place.  That it lasted this long is astonishing.  How much longer?  I am not optimistic.  It's not even that capitalists are bad at propaganda while socialists are very good at it.  Capitalists aren't even fighting the propaganda war.  They seem to think that only facts and logic are required.

They could not be more wrong.

The New York Times to The Defense

This is how the "New York Times" runs interference for communism.  Hugo Chavez was not a "leftist populist", whatever that is.  He was a plain vanilla, garden variety communist, like Bernie Sanders.

Chavez admired the murderer Che Guevara, he believed "the military should act in the interests of the working classes when the ruling classes were perceived as corrupt" (the ruling classes are always "perceived" corrupt, unless they are communists), and he founded the "Fifth Republic Movement" political party which merged with the "United Socialist Party of Venezuela", which Chavez also led.  Hugo Chavez was friends with Fidel Castro and other communists in Latin America, and he despised Augusto Pinochet and the United States.

Finally, consider what Chavez actually did while in power.  He nationalized "key" industries and created "participatory democratic Communal Councils".  Oh, what's that?  Participatory democratic Communal Councils are soviets.  Soviets, or workers councils, are just good, old fashion Trotskyism.

Honestly, you really don't have to go through the weeds of socialist theory, and the historical record on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela.  All you have to know is that Venezuela, one of the world's largest exporters of oil, suffers from chronic shortages of gasoline and electric power, in addition to shortages of all other kinds, like food and medicine.  Shortages are the hallmark of socialism.  Socialism fabricates shortages.

Of course, other political economies can suffer shortages from time to time.  Shortages can arise naturally from floods, droughts, earthquakes, pestilence, or whatever "acts of god".  There was, for example, the famous Irish potato famine, caused by the potato blight.  Only socialist countries manufacture shortages.

For example, between 1958 and 1962, about 50 MILLION Chinese STARVED TO DEATH in the greatest MAN MADE famine known to history.  No drought, no flood, no earthquake, no pestilence, no infestations, nothing.  They died of socialism.  Starting in the late 19th century, colonial Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa.  Robert Mugabe transformed post-colonial Rhodesia into communist Zimbabwe and turned a "breadbasket into a basket case".  One could go on.  And on, and on, and on.

Socialism manufactures shortages from the large and consequential, like shortages of food and medicines, to the sort of minor shortages that just grind down your will to live, like shortages of fresh fruit, toilet paper, sugar, soap, etc.

Any time you hear of shortages, absent some "act of god" the most reasonable assumption is that socialism is at work.  For a domestic example, there was no housing shortage in New York City or any other major American city, until price controls were imposed on rents.  Today, New Yorkers have the pleasure of paying inflated prices for inferior housing, if they can find housing.  This is the inevitable result of price controls, a standard socialist practice.

When Hugo Chavez assumed power in 1999, I predicted shortages.  Of course, I did not know exactly when or exactly how, but I knew shortages were coming.  And so it is.  Venezuela was no paradise before Hugo Chavez, and the people were desperate to improve their lives.  Too bad for them, they got communism, instead.

The New York Times knows all this.  So, why do they try to misdirect their readers ("Oh, look!  A leftist populist!")?  Because, dear reader, they are communists.  They will misdirect you on Venezuela and they will misdirect you on Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and on any other person and on any other subject to further the cause of the Revolution.

For the New York Times as for every communist revolutionary, "The issue is never the issue.  The issue is always the Revolution."