The Wisdom of Lionell Griffith

I have a folder on my computer where I have saved a selection of quotes from a man I grew to greatly admire.  I haven’t had contact with him for several years now and I no longer recall where to find him.  I recently rediscovered this old folder on my computer, and am inspired to share his wisdom with the few who follow this blog.  The following is in no particular order.  There are whole essays, books, in almost every little thing he says.  I have separated each quote with a title, but the title doesn’t always do justice to the content:

Lionel G Griffith

On Intent

anon: “…if he is interested in understanding the climate…”

LG: “I suggest that we need to give up that fond hope. They DO understand but are more interested in their not so hidden agenda than in discovering and understanding the truth. The argument over AGW (aka climate change) has gone way past innocent error, past mere fraud for personal gain, into a full force attempt to take over and, as a consequence, destroy everything that is worthwhile and good.

I will say it again: they do not mean well. They mean to do great harm to anything that is even remotely related to man’s existence as a fully functional human being. Their intent is to return us to a state less than that of a chimpanzee.

Don’t look at their words. Simply look at their actions and the necessary consequences that will result. You will thereby see their purpose.”

On Debate

LG: “The 38 ways do not seek to discover or communicate the truth. They seek only to overpower another by any means necessary and win the argument. They show a preference for faking, trickery, and aggressive use of logical fallacies. Reason, reality, and logic exist within them in form only.

What is won by such a process? Nothing but the defeat of an inadequate and unprepared opponent. No value is gained. No truth is discovered or communicated. Nothing lasting comes out of it but a momentary excuse to be able to pretend that one is somehow superior to another. It is a second hand win of a con artist.

It should be easy to find that most of the 38 ways are used by the AGW Climate Change groupies. They do pretend science, pretend argument, pretend consensus, and echo each other endlessly. They approximate science in form only. There is more reality in a child’s making mud pies. At least the mud is real and the child learns the properties of mud by direct experience.

I suggest a better exercise would be to correlate the 38 ways to win an argument to the list of the 42 primary rhetorical fallacies at ( ). It would be an education in what not to do if you were actually seeking the truth and want to discover why the truth is true.”

On Temperature

anon: “…I really don’t like the article because it claims “statistics are not actually temperatures”. The problem is that ALL temperature measurements are averages,….”

LG:  “You are making an error of construction. You are assuming that since temperature is itself an average of sorts that it makes physical sense to sum temperatures and then divide by the number of temperatures. It does not.

Temperature is RELATED to the average of the kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in the substance measured but it is NOT a measure of kinetic energy itself. It does make physical sense to sum kinetic energies to find the total kinetic energy. If you were to sum the kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules of the globe, divide by the number of atoms/molecules, you could find the actual average kinetic energy. Then, if you could convert THAT average into temperature, you would actually have an “average” temperature. This is NOT what you do when you sum temperatures and then divide by the number of temperatures taken.

Consider that if I have two glasses of water each at 82 degrees F, if I “add” them to each other, I have water at 82 degrees F and not 164 degrees F. I have twice the kinetic energy BECAUSE I have twice the water with each half having half the kinetic energy. I do not have twice the temperature BECAUSE I have also have twice the atoms/molecules. Hence, a summation of temperatures does not make physical sense and computing Global Temperature by summing temperatures ALSO does not make physical sense.

Simply because an action feels like its OK to perform does not make it proper to perform. It actually must be proper to perform. The error is that averaging feels so right because many averages we use daily are quite proper averages. Yet, an average of temperatures has no meaning in reality without first averaging the kinetic energy of the particles at the points the temperatures were measured and computing the compound temperature from that.”

On Language

LG: “Vincent R. Gray, a climate consultant from New Zealand, writes on the corruption of language used to promote AGW/Climate Change alarm in The Triumph of Doublespeak dated November 2009. I find it illuminating but not all that surprising.

Its nothing new. Its simply becoming more obvious but is as malignant as ever. Corruption of language and thus of thought has been going on for a very long time. I wrote Humpty Dumpty had a great fall! in 1996 in which I present relevant quotes from as far back as 1876. With a bit more effort, one can trace the corruption of language and the resultant corruption of thought back many thousands of years. See any of the world’s major religions, popular philosophies, and governmental policies for instructive detail.

That our fearless/feckless/fraudulent leaders are using the current corruption of language to further their not so hidden agendas is to be expected. They are simply following a long and dishonorable tradition that stretches back to the time of the first hunting and gathering tribes.

Words matter. Fundamental words matter most. Make sure you get them right because your life depends upon it.”

On the Self-Defined

anon: “If we are as you say we are, why do you bother? What’s the point?”

LG: “I suspect the problem is that you cannot understand people who are SELF defined. We do not bow to the *sacred* other. We use our minds, our ability to observe, and our ability to think to determine what we know. Then, by that knowledge, we judge those who would be our *sacred* leaders who intend to be beyond question and doubt.

By our *sacred* leaders’ work product, we found them seriously lacking. By their own words, we find them fraudulent and in violation of the basic principles of logic and science. Some of us, my self included, find their behavior criminal, almost beyond measure. By their willingness to suborn the wholesale violation of human rights for a mere pittance of research grants or positions of power over others, they stand accused. They have no visible pretense of innocence beyond a gasping grasping “we meant well”.

You see, we look at actions and their consequences. When that does not match the words, we ignore the words as sound and fury signifying nothing. We know their intent was to crush us as they rob us blind. They did NOT mean us well.

Finally we have the travesty of you pretending to be a court jester trying to shock us into agreeing with you. You, who have not and cannot present ANY objective evidence that we are wrong and that the *sacred* “they” are right. You say you are transparent. I think you are confusing emptiness with transparency. Any actual content you may have once had, you have given it away on a Faustian Deal with false prophets. You thought you had an effortless win over reality. Think again. Reality has and will always have the last laugh.”

On the Crime

LG: “What kind of justice is possible for the crime of conspiring with the wannabe dictators of the world to steal the combined productive wealth of the developed world? Such a theft, if allowed to occur, can only result in a total collapse of the world’s economy and mass extinction of man. Most of us are alive today BECAUSE of modern technological civilization and would not know how to survive without it. After its all over, there might be a few miserable specimens of humans living in dank caves eating rats, cockroaches, and grass. The perpetrators of the greatest crime ever would have already expired with the words “I didn’t mean this to happen – I meant well”. No, they didn’t. They mean ill for mankind as is evidenced by their every corrupt word and action. Their words have been proven to have no real world significance.

In response to the obscenity of their actions, one is almost tempted to say “Hang em high and then give them a fair trial.” Perhaps they should be required to live out THEIR lives in dank caves eating rats, cockroaches, and grass. While the rest of us put on a huge barbecue and beer party to celebrate the end of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (aka Climate Change) fraud.”

On the Greenhouse Effect

LG:  “Words matter in that they are tools of thought as well as communication. If you wish to think about reality and communicate about reality, your words MUST refer to reality and not some mushy approximate “you know” kind of foggy internal intent.

Hence, I take Greenhouse Effect to MEAN Greenhouse Effect in ALL of its uses: realistic as well as metaphoric. The base reference IS the way a horticultural greenhouse functions. Any metaphorical use must have a substantial correspondence to that or its a misapplied term and leads to faulty thinking and communication.

See, read, and understand:

If you read and understand the reference I give above, you will see the functioning of the earth/atmosphere/sun system is vastly different from that of an actual greenhouse. An actual greenhouse maintains a higher temperature BECAUSE it prohibits convection with the outside atmosphere. There is NO such layer of glass or metaphorical glass to do the same outside of the greenhouse. This MEANS that the use of the Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gasses is a gross error in terminology.

Such usage is either the result of sloppiness in thought and communication or a willful intent to commit fraud. For example, the switch from AGW to Climate Change where Climate Change is redefined from simple variations in weather to Changes in Climate Caused by Man and in particular because of his use of fossil fuels. There is not even a metaphorical connection between the two uses and the later use is intended to support committing fraud and theft on a monumentally grand scale.

THIS is why I object to the use of the words “Greenhouse Effect” for anything other than an actual GREENHOUSE.”

On Relativism

LG:  “Keep in mind that postmodern philosophy assumes that truth is a social construct and that knowledge can only be established by consensus (see Kant for instructive detail). These basic assumptions lead to the conclusion that all one needs to do to eliminate an unpleasant/unacceptable fact is evade it. If it can’t be evaded, then change its name and talk about it in a different way. If that doesn’t work, then you accuse the person(s) who point out the unpleasant/unacceptable fact with being uncooperative and not a good team player – or worse. However, one must NEVER EVER address the unpleasant/unacceptable fact as it actually is and take it into account within any of your thinking or communications. Reality is to be what “they” say it is and your task is simply to accept what “they” say. What you perceive and think based upon what you experience cannot possibly be right simply because YOU perceived it and thought about it. You must always have it filtered through the perceptions and thoughts of the *sacred* other (eg. peer review). That this process has a problem of infinite regression is one of the more important unpleasant/unacceptable facts the post modern philosophy practitioner must evade. Hence, the observed reporting of ClimateGate.

ClimateGate was “covered” but not actually covered. Thereby banishing the unpleasant/unacceptable facts to the realm of the blanked out. The reporter was not given a direct order to misrepresent. He/She simply knew instinctively what to say and what not to say and was simply being a good postmodern philosophy practitioner.”

On Revolution

LG: “It took only 56 committed, informed, and capable men to found the United States. What they did held rather well for the better part of two centuries against enormous odds. It would take less than 10% of the population to turn this current demented situation on its head. It wouldn’t happen over night but it would happen.

Just as its possible to win the lottery, turning Robin is also possible. Just don’t bet the ranch on it. That is unless you want to lose the ranch.

Its extremely difficult to turn a second hand mind committed to the notion that only the sacred *other* can determine the truth. I refer you to the following article I wrote over a decade ago for more detail as to why ( ). One’s intellectual history has a profound impact upon what one can and cannot do with one’s mind.”

On Second-hand Minds

LG:  “A second hand mind cannot do anything but accept the word of its sources. It is incapable of forming an independent judgment based upon evidence it has personally evaluated. For it, evidence IS the word from its sacred sources. It is convinced that reality can be known only through the perception of others who know it only through the perception of others who ….. It is a recursive summation of zeros.

How does a second hand mind select its sources? Its sources tell it to select them. After all, it can’t select a source first hand based upon its own judgment. Someone else has to do the selection based upon someone else doing the selection ….. Giving us still another recursive summation of zeros.

Its zeros all the way up, down, and sideways.

Is it any wonder that the politicians love this stuff. It gives them a pretense of an excuse to grab the power they were wanting to grab all along but didn’t think they could get away with. We are watching the greatest power grab in the history of man based upon nothing but a zero. They think they are safe because who can fight a zero?”

On Sociopathy & Psychopathy

LG:  “All those people who think that maintaining biodiversity is a good thing, and all those people who think that spending 2% of world GDP to avoid a cost of 20% of world GDP is a sound investment are … sociopathic.

There is a strong relationship between the use of energy and GDP. The higher the GDP the higher the energy consumption. Mandating the cutting the use of energy by 50% to 80% “spends” far more than 2% of the world’s GDP. Also it is not clear that continuing the use of carbon based energy source will cost 20% of GDP. Quite the contrary, it will wildly add to the world’s GDP.

However, this is not the real issue. The world’s GDP is not yours or theirs to “spend”. It belongs to the people who created it. If “all those people” were thinking of spending ONLY their own personal GDP, I have no objection. However,to demand the the taking GDP of each of us by government force and spending it on their whims is demanding theft and that is sociopathic.

Since more than 95% of the species that ever existed are extinct and since we are still finding species that we did not know existed, the biodiversity crap is bogus technobable used to justify world wide theft of peoples lives. That too is sociopathic.

How about the biodiversity of free men making their own choices about their own independent lives? Oh we can’t have that, can we now? You and your ever so caring others have decided the sky is falling and such creatures are to be forced into extinction to “save the world”. THAT is not just sociopathic, that is psychotic.”

On the Data

LG:  “The primary issue is the nearly decade long absence of availability of data, method, criterion of selection, quantity, and quality of data. Their long absence gives support to the assertion that the scientific ethics of Briffa and those who used his data to push their AGW (stop the future) agenda is more than a little questionable. This makes ANY conclusion they present highly suspect.

An important secondary issue is that a larger set of unselected data gives a startlingly different result. A result that is much more in line with the massively accumulated lines of evidence that the current warming is nothing special, unique, or extreme.

The thing about science is that one must consider ALL the evidence and not just a cherry picked subset that happens to fulfill a desired end result. This is particularly important when the clearly stated motive of the advocates of AGW (aka climate change) panic is to terminate man’s ability to use inexpensive high quality and high intensity energy. Which, if implemented would terminate modern technological civilization and the lives of the vast majority of the people currently alive.”

On Self-Hating Liberals

anon:  “How can we call it science if it is hidden data?”

LG:  “Its easy when you hold that reality is a social construct and that words are references to subjective intentions derived from that social construct. All you have to do is get enough people saying the same things and it becomes “real”. Its the flower and fruit of post modern philosophy. Yes, its rotten to the core and will result in the total collapse of modern technological civilization. THAT is its purpose. It comes from the wish to free one’s self from reality and the responsibility for knowing it. The one who has that wish knows on some level he is not fit to be called human and thus hates the fact he IS human. He seeks to destroy that which he hates.

Reality doesn’t care which way you chose. Choose correctly and you thrive. Choose incorrectly and you die. There is no middle ground except that of the cannibalism of the productive for the sake of the wishful. Such a practice appears to work as long as there is other people’s wealth to steal and consume. When that runs out, its the end. Our current “leaders” are moving us rapidly to that end.”

On the Shadow

LG:  “They don’t care. Their goal is destruction of everything human by any means necessary. They seek a zero – non existence. Their words are nothing but a smoke screen to hide that fact from everyone including themselves.”

On the Political Elite

anon:  “How do we get our policy makers to understand this?”

LG:  “That’s just it, the political elite already do understand this. They have known this from the get go. They were never concerned about the facts or reality. There interest was, is, and always will be the total and complete takeover of the economies of the world and the total enslavement of the population of the earth. That smaller such actions (USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam in the past has caused the collapse of national and regional economies and the deaths of hundreds of millions is music to their ears. All their pretty words and speeches to the contrary are simply smoke and mirrors to hide their real motivation from you. They consciously and willfully intend the consequences of their actions.

The what, why, how, and who is obvious. It’s what to do about it that is the challenge. If history is any guide (it almost always is), it’s going to get very ugly before it gets any better.”

On Co-Existence

LG:  “They are at war with reality. They firmly believe that the purpose of consciousness is to create reality. Given that basic premise and the inevitable discovery it doesn’t work that way, they conclude that all they need to do is aggrandize sufficient power to force everyone to act that way. They believe this will make it so.

Force can crush both rocks and people but it can’t turn something into what it isn’t and can’t be. When they discover this, they conclude that they didn’t use enough force. The ultimate consequence of this cycle is total death and destruction – including of themselves – which was their goal from the start.

The rest of us believe the purpose of consciousness is to identify what is and can be. The use of force is for the re-arrangement of what is to make it what it can be so as to build value and to sustain our lives. We know we cannot win a battle against reality. We strive to understand reality and use that understanding to our advantage, and it works.

These two world views are mutually incompatible. There is no possible compromise that can bring about a peaceful co-existence. There is also no possible set of facts that will change their minds. That is unless and until they give up their basic premise that reality must obey their whims and their worship of force used in an attempt to make it so.”

On Mind

LG:  “Reality exists and is real. It ultimately cannot be faked no matter who desires to do so, no matter how much they want it to be faked, nor how much force they exert to cause it to be faked.

The human mind is what it is and it can function only according to what it is. Man cannot live as a mindless brute. He can live only if he has knowledge of how to live. He can acquire that knowledge only if conditions are such that he can make that knowledge his own. “The Real Matrix” attempts to substitute its own will, its own choice, its own knowledge by force, fraud, and stealth. This does not produce productive slaves. It produces creatures who survive only by accident if by that much. Ultimately, “The Real Matrix” will fail by its own stated standards.

I refer you to an essay I posted on my blog Intellectual Ammunition entitled The Source. This essay outlines a fundamental mental process by which modern technological civilization was created, maintained, and advanced. It is this process that the actions of “The Real Matrix’, top down central control, and the initiation of force make inoperative. It is this what grantees their ultimate failure.

The grand irony is that the wealth they steal becomes empty of value because their actions have destroyed the source of value: man’s mind. They will achieve only their own defeat. Our challenge is to stay out of the way and allow them to defeat themselves. They can do a lot of damage on the way out. We can rebuild. They can’t.

PS: ClimateGate is an example of the con men of “The Real Matrix” providing for their own destruction. They can’t help it. It is an inevitable consequence of their fundamental idea that reality can be faked and that they can get away with it. It simply can’t be done beyond the range of a momentary fantasy.”

On Reporting

LG: ““Global warming” is happening everywhere except where it isn’t. All you need to do is don’t report where it isn’t happening and its happening everywhere its been reported.

More exactly, all it takes for the AGW crowd to “prove” their theory is that it can be shown to be happening in at least one place even if it takes cherry picking and/or faking the data. I don’t know how they could be more fraudulent but I am sure they will find a way. They are very resourceful about everything except discovering and telling the truth.”

On Reason

anon:  “One thing that somewhat mystifies me, … how oversight of the “science” has been so weak….”

LG:  “I think it is obvious that science is not the goal. They are simply working to substantiate a preconceived conclusion. Their level of scientific ethics is such that the end justifies the means.

Why they are willing to sacrifice their reputation and sully the good name of science is the critical issue. It puts them into a pitched battle against reality. That battle cannot be won. Any gain will be short term only. The only long run outcome is they will lose and anyone who follows them will lose. I suggest that failure and destruction of everything that is good and life giving is in fact their goal.

You say that this does not make sense? Making sense presumes the use of reason. They use only the form but not the substance of reason. Peer review does not consist of an actual review. The consensus is not an actual consensus. The evidence is not actual evidence but only the output of a model that presumes what they are saying they are trying to prove. Reason and science have absolutely nothing to do with what they are doing.”

On the Approach

anon:  “That’s a poor approach….”

LG:  “I think you are presuming a level of honesty and honor that does not exist in the case of Robin It is not a poor approach after you have repeatedly and rationally demolished your opponent’s argument and he keeps coming back with the same old same old. His purpose is clearly NOT to discover the truth nor even to convince you of the truth. His purpose is to keep you otherwise occupied from educating the willing and taking effective action to promote proper policies.

In war, such an action is called “Fire and Motion”. You keep firing while you are moving to force your opponent to remain inactive and under cover. In football, its called “Running out the Clock” so your opponent has no chance to score points. In debate is called “Keeping your opponent off topic” so you appear to be controlling the debate. Its simply an action to stall any effective action on your opponents part so you can win by default.

There is a time that it is both proper and necessary to disengage and reconnect into a situation where you can be more effective in reaching your long term goals. There is no point in doing the pointless.”

On the Goals

anon:  “The UN has been an abysmal failure.”

LG:  “You are judging them by your standards of being technically competent, wealth productive, life giving, and freedom loving. Clearly, they fail on all of those grounds.

To discover the real goals, look at actions and consequences but not at pretty words and pictures. The UN exists, continues to receive a huge stream of unearned (aka stolen) wealth, and is filled with petty dictators, tyrants, murders, criminals, and other parasitical types held to be equal in moral stature to the US, UK,

Their goal is to consume wealth, destroy freedom, run the free world into the ground, and to implement a world government with them in charge. They are well on their way to achieving their goal with the current US and UK governments cooperating in their own demise. THIS is NOT failure. It is a very successful disaster in process.

As always, success or failure is very dependent upon the goal and not at all dependent upon the words used to describe it.”

On the Absurd

LG:  “It is not idiotic, it is absurd. It has a very clear purpose and, if implemented in full, the purpose will be achieved.

Fundamental principle:

When you see something that is absurd, don’t question the absurdity. Look at what it accomplishes. That will be its purpose.

What is the purpose of this particular absurdity?

The accomplishment will be the end result of a full implementation of their proposal and has nothing to do with the superficial and temporary results. Not money, not power and control, not submission of all to all. The end result will be the end of all higher life on earth and, in particular, human (i.e. rational) life. Their payoff will be the massive suffering they will have caused as life is extinguished. It is their dark substitute for a sense of self worth and efficacy for living on earth which they lack entirely.

They hate the good for being good so much, they would give their own lives to accomplish their goal. If you don’t believe this, check your and their premises. Then follow the logic to its objective base. Make your own conclusions. Then apply the same line of thinking to the cult of CAGW. Report back on your findings.”


I wish I had more, but that is it.  I think that the most important concept to take away is that the opposition is a true enemy: they do not mean well, they are not doing it by accident even though they think that they are doing something right, and they are doing it with full moronic murderous life & existence-denying intent.  It is well-past having made an honest mistake.  Their goal is the murder of mind, and if they can’t murder mind, then they will pervert it to the maximum extent possible.  An example of such perversion is climate science and its climate alarm and its greenhouse effect.

The problem with true souls who value existence, life, and power, is that we often naively assume that all others would value such value as well.  You have to get it through your head that there are entities out there, all around you, who seek death and destruction, who value the exact opposite of truth, logic, reason, and existence.  They actually despise it.  And they purposefully work to destroy it, all the while looking like they are perfectly real people…

There IS a global soul camera in operation, and anyone who is rationally enlightened can use it and can read its output.  Have YOU been identified as the damned?

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Wisdom of Lionell Griffith

  1. Bryan says:

    Yes Joseph, like you I would always pay special attention to LG’s posts.
    As I remember he was (and I hope still is) a regular over on Jo Novo site.
    I like him, think that the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper

    Click to access 0707.1161v4.pdf

    …..sunk the greenhouse theory and its advocates.
    I spent a lot of time over at SoD site defending the paper.
    I asked several times for SoD to point out any errors in the paper.
    He could not, so he invented things that G&T ( did not say) and attacked his own phantoms.
    Others said that G&T ”were far too smart to say anything wrong”.
    Some criticism!!!

  2. Alan Siddons says:

    “your words MUST refer to reality and not some mushy approximate ‘you know’ kind of foggy internal intent.”

    Griffith’s perspective on language reminds me of Confucius.

    “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”

  3. markstoval says:

    Absolutely wonderful stuff!

    This one is important and I have already shared it with others:
    LG: “Words matter in that they are tools of thought as well as communication. If you wish to think about reality and communicate about reality, your words MUST refer to reality and not some mushy approximate “you know” kind of foggy internal intent.

    So much of what is wrong with the modern world is that we do not honestly face reality and label reality for what it is. You can not solve problems by evading them!

    ~ Mark

  4. @Alan…yes, and isn’t what Confucius said exactly what they intend: to have something that forever remains undone (because you can never stop climate change, the morons), it is all morally deficient obviously, justice is perverted and abandoned, and the people are left confused.

    They FULLY intend these consequences of their actions. These “people” are an enemy, a true enemy.

  5. MS: “So much of what is wrong with the modern world is that we do not honestly face reality and label reality for what it is.”

    Yes…isn’t that precisely the problem. And if you tell people exactly what reality is, they’ll destroy you for it. Joke is on them, little do they know.

  6. Yes that is him Mark. Another good quote there:


    “Truth demonstrates and enables. Faith can only assert, force compliance, and disable. It is the difference between an engineer who makes things that work and a priesthood aligned with thugs enforcing their will with lies, distortions, clubs, swords, guns, bombs, etc….”

    Hasn’t been updated in quite some time.

  7. Yes Roland, it seems someone hijacked his old blog. Not surprisingly, someone with the name Mohammed. You all know that Saudi Arabia and Islam is basically behind much of this fraud.

  8. Everyone should read his short posts here:

    Thanks for the link Mark.

  9. Alan Siddons says:

    “It is the difference between an engineer who makes things that work and a priesthood aligned with thugs…”

    And that in turn reminds me of Thomas Sowell’s nifty understatement.

    “The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”

    How many such institutions can YOU name?

  10. It’s just amazing isn’t it. It’s the Left that wants to fight the weather and galactic prosseces, the Left who want everyone to convert to Islam, the Left who says they must pass bills SO THAT you can read them, the Left which created political correctness, the Left which wishes to destroy free speech and equality for women in its love of Islam, etc etc etc.

    The Left stands accused of hating life, reason, freedom, and the pursuit of truth. The liberal academic left. May they receive what they have sown!

  11. Iampeter says:

    Hey guys, just saw this thread now and wanted to point out that going by Lionell’s writings he is very likely an Objectivist. If you are interested in what that is and are looking for more writers who approach today’s issues with the same incisiveness as Lionell, I’d recommend the following links: – Home of the Ayn Rand Institute – An Objectivist journal covering today’s issues

  12. Pingback: G7 Leaders Wave Goodbye to the Mass of Humanity | Climate of Sophistry

  13. Reference says:

    Hi Joseph,
    I have done a quick search for A Rational Human on the Wayback Machine and found the following link to a save made in 2011:-
    Snapshot August 18 2011
    Some of the internal links work e.g. An Engineer Fights Back!
    A focused search of JoNova’s blog finds the following posts containing comments by Lionell Griffith

    Hope this helps.

  14. Reference says:

    Let’s try that again without embedded links.
    Hi Joseph,
    I have done a quick search for A Rational Human on the Wayback Machine and found the following link to a save made in 2011:-
    Snapshot August 18 2011
    Some of the internal links work e.g. An Engineer Fights Back!
    A focused search of JoNova’s blog finds the following posts containing comments by Lionell Griffith

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s