Silver-level article

Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Conservapedia:Insight)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trus me
Conservlogo late april.png
In-depth analysis
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.

The question under consideration is: what is Andy Schlafly's greatest insight? To answer that question, let's properly define the term insight from the perspective of Conservapedia.

An insight is when you just make up some random pseudo-explanatory conjecture about something. For example, a writer could say

"Criminals drive cars. And Barack Obama has a car. Therefore, it's an interesting insight to note that Barack Obama shares many traits with the criminal mind".

The fascinating thing about "insights" is that they are incontestable — there can be no evidence[1] provided against an "insight".[2][3]

There are a few things one can do with an "insight" - you can publish it to your blog, you can use it as the foundation of a much larger, more complex theoryimg, or you can just slap a price tag on it and build it for $27 million.

The very nature of an "insights" as coming from somewhere above makes it impossible to back away from it, even in the face of logic and/or overwhelming evidence against the underlying observations.

For your amusement, we have prepared a shortlist of his insights below, with backgrounds and relevant quotes.

Autumn foliage disproves evolution[edit]

Insight: Beautiful autumn foliage lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.

Background: Andy added this itemimg to one of his pet articles, "Counterexamples to Evolution"img. After being heckled by users on the talk page, Andy excreted his explanation directly onto the dinner table for all to see: autumn foliage is beautiful, but said beauty has no use to the trees, and could not have possibly arisen by chance alone. Therefore Goddidit.

Choice quotes:

Andy: The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.[4]

Andy: No, PatWills, autumn foliage is beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.[5]

Andy: As to beauty, more people agree that autumn foliage is beautiful than agree that 2+2=4. If you agree the latter is absolute, so is the former.[6]

Andy: On beauty, the subject was God's creation and Philip was adamant that its beauty (specifically autumn foliage) is in the eye's the beholder. It isn't; it's objectively beautiful, and it is a liberal/atheistic position to deny it.[6]

Best of the public[edit]

Insight: The "best of the public" is better than a group of experts.

Background: This is arguably Andy's magnum opus. Andy has a long history of not liking experts, because they have a habit of saying things which are counter to the alternate reality in which he lives. In an attempt to discredit his detractors, he spouted this phrase, and then went on to develop it into a full-blown insightimg. Most people would consider an expert to be the best of the public, but in this case, it appears "public" means unqualified laymen, such as himself, and the criteria for identifying the "best" among them remain suspiciously undefined. When Andy likes someone that most people would consider an expert, he twists the definition so that the person is no longer an expert but "the best of the public." In trying to apply his insight to the entire world, Andy began generating a list of examples of the "best of the public," ranging from the Olympic Games to Conservapedia itself.

This insight is actually just a perversion of the concept of the wisdom of the crowd (or expertise without credential), with a huge pile of stupid thrown on top of it. The twisting of the concept of what is "best" to conform to whatever he likes, as well as his attributing the titles of "public" versus "expert" haphazardly (the US Olympic basketball "Dream Team" was "the public"; The Beatles, who generally lacked formal musical training, were "experts") makes his distinctions meaningless. Likewise, some actual good examples of this phenomenon he rejects for not fitting his worldview, such as Einstein, and even Wikipedia (which he decided was an example of "the worst of the public").[7]

Choice quotes:

Andy: The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a Conservapedia-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.[8]

(This quote is particularly noteworthy as Gary Kasparov did once play the "best of the public" using computers and won. However, it is uncertain whether the four advising chess masters and 50,000 players all followed a "Conservapedia-like" process, as there is no clear definition what this means in the context of a chess game. It can also be assumed that a significant number were liberals and therefore doomed to failure. They probably voted for Obama as well, the bastards.)

Andy: In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is more precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.[9]

Andy: Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.[10]

Andy: The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.[11]

The Bible foretold modern science[edit]

Insight: Modern principles of science were foretold in the Bible.

Background: Now one of Conservapedia's flagship articles, Biblical scientific foreknowledge was created by others but soon adopted by a wide-eyed Andy, whose determination to prove the inerrancy of the Bible has seen it become an unwieldy list of complete rubbish. With each square peg of a Bible passage that Andy forces through the round hole of a scientific principle, the pegs get squarer and the holes get rounder.

Choice quotes:

Andy: The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. John 2:9 states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.[12]

Andy: Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

  • "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." Genesis 1:2.
  • The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: Matthew 13:24-30. [13]

Andy: The only miracle described in all four Gospels is the multiplication of loaves and fish by Jesus, thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called Banach-Tarski Paradox proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object. [14]

Andy: Wikipedia omits an entry on Biblical scientific foreknowledge, and instead ignores the foreknowledge with a pathetically abbreviated section entitled "History and advocacy" under "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts."[15]

Andy: The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from Adam, which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."[2] This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists been more openminded about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives. [16]

Black holes are a liberal conspiracy[edit]

Insight: Liberals are pushing the idea of black holes. It is possible that doing so discourages people from reading the Bible.(???)

Background: Relativity again. Andy claims that black holes are unfalsifiable (a claim which, when repeated by a user months later, got that user banned for "obvious parody"). "If tests existed that might falsify General Relativity, then in the nearly 100 years since its proposal we would have seen many of them." *cough* *cough* Anyway, professors teaching physics (who "are the most liberal group in the world"), science magazines and the New York Times are all going on about black holes. Thus, black holes must be part of the liberal agenda.

Choice quotes:

Andy: There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way.[17]

Andy: I asked you a simple question, "if promoting black holes cause people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?" Not only do you refuse to answer, you rant on and on. Please, please open your mind, for your sake.[18]

Conservative insights increase at a geometric rate[edit]

Insight: Conservative insights increase at a geometric rate over time, hence, societies become steadily more conservative. There's no real way to put this in simpler, more understandable terms, because it's just bollocks at every conceivable level.

Background: After starting his bewildering "Best New Conservative Words"img project, Andy began applying statistical analysis to his findings, resulting in a rapid downward spiral of insanity to finally land at one of the most bizarre "insights" ever to grace Conservapedia. This project simply defies all kinds of sense - first, Andy takes a word and decides whether it's a liberal word or a conservative word. Andy then finds out when each word in the "conservative" pile was first used in the English language according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Andy then groups the words by century, tabulates the numbers, and has an epiphany: the numbers are increasing at a geometric rate! Andy reinforces his conclusion by selectively adding more words to the project, but only if they conform to this geometric rate. Never before have so many utter failures of logic and common sense been strung together so eloquently into one, seamless brainfart - a brainfart that eventually budded off and became its own article: "Conservapedia's Law"img. This is arguably Andy's most cherished insight and pet project, as he's uncharacteristically kept developing the list for quite some time now. This insight also became the topic of a rare semi-open debate at Conservapedia, and even though Andy's theory and methodology were completely discredited, he's still happily adding layer after layer of crap new words.

Choice quotes:

Andy: The implications of Conservapedia's Law are striking. Over the long term, politics and culture cannot withstand the more powerful forces of logic and language. Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative regardless of the best efforts of liberals.[19]

Andy: More than 150 terms in Essay:Best New Conservatives Words demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications. I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind. Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.[20]

Andy: I'd guess it's been a geometric growth in conservatism since Jesus. Before that, logic and the Old Testament would have helped, but evil was at work too. Right before the Great Flood it was pretty bleak; afterward, things were in good shape at least initially.[21]

Feudalism: Not all bad[edit]

Insight: Feudal society had its advantages.

Background: This insight cropped up in Andy's "World History" lectures. In writing Lecture Fiveimg, which covers the Middle Ages, Andy started a chapter on "Feudalism in Western Europe," which somehow went in the direction of identifying the good points. Andy seems to have realised/decided that a feudal society would have positive results for some of his pet issues, like home-schooling. It is quite possible that Andy fancies himself a Lord of the Manor in feudal times; in some ways Conservapedia resembles a fiefdom.

Choice quotes:

Andy: On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare. This was a free enterprise approach to the military, whereby each lord developed his own army.[22]

Andy: The roots of our free enterprise economic system of private property are in feudalism. The impact goes beyond private property. The entire concept of "customer service" and "the customer is always right" can be traced to the chivalry developed under feudalism.[23]

Andy: Feudalism had much that many people miss today. For example, people worked close to home, and there was no commuting or traveling to a job. No one was "laid off" by a big company then and left without work.[23]

To prove that Andy can shoe-horn any of his pet peeves into any argument, he goes on to speak about the possibility of gun control during feudal times.

Andy: Note that gun control would have been impossible under feudalism, because there was no centralized government - workers on the manors had their own weapons. [24]

George Orwell was a secret conservative[edit]

Insight: George Orwell was a conservative and merely pretended to be a socialist in order to introduce conservative concepts from within.

Background: Andy has, on occasion, shown admiration for Orwell, mostly for one particular quote: "All issues are political issues." This phrase echoes Andy's worldview perfectly, provided that it is kept strictly out of context (a fact which Andy is oblivious to). After taking a shine to the phrase, he made Orwell his personal hero and decided that he must be a conservative (and not a democratic socialist, which Orwell identified himself as), because Andy only likes conservatives. This has led to one of the most absurd strings of rationalizations Andy has ever embarked upon.

Choice quotes:

Andy: It is suspected that he kept his public image in order to retain his influential position as a columnist for its leading publication, the Tribune. Moreover, his support of democratic socialism was based on conservative reasons: he thought it would produce a wealthier society. [25]

Andy: Sounds like the guy [a physics professor who teaches general relativity] has learned how to pretend to support the theory of relativity as required by liberals, while actually contradicting it in his own work. George Orwell would do likewise, pretending to still be a socialist while writing conservative articles. Liberals don't care much about substance anyway, as long as they feel important. [26]

The greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers[edit]

Insight: Most - if not all - of the greatest achievements of human history have been made by teenagers.[27]

Background: This insight resurfaces from time to time, especially when Andrew Schlafly gets impressed by his home-schooled students. It eventually culminated in an articleimg, in which Andy lists teenage achievements by age. Among them is the virgin Mary.

Although a thorough analysis is hardly necessary to see what's wrong with Andy's bullshit hypothesis, one is available here.

Choice quotes:

Andy: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students.[28]

Andy: Obviously if someone produced a work before becoming a teenager it proves the same point. [29]

Andy: Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious ... I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" [of a fossil] as a great achievement ... It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.[30]

Andy: The individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also. [31]

This claim has been thoroughly debunked here.

The invisible hand of marriage[edit]

Insight: The invisible hand of marriage is an unseen force of productivity that results from the marriage of a man and woman.

Background: This concept is analogous to the invisible hand of the free market, and is, somehow, more influential. According to Andy's essay on the subjectimg, "Self-interest and greed are not the primary driving forces of the invisible hand [of the free market], but marriage is." So somehow, marriage is what drives capitalism and economic productivity. But not, as the article notes, same-sex marriage. In the 'References' section he boasts that "[t]his concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia", showing that he hasn't a clue of how a citation or an encyclopedia is supposed to work.

Choice quotes:

Andy: Just as the economy is worse off without the invisible hand identified by Adam Smith, nearly everyone is worse off when they lose the benefit of the invisible hand of marriage. Anxiety, depression, addiction and other unproductive activity begin to dominate the person who rejects or ignores the invisible hand of marriage.[32]

Andy: Same-sex couples cannot produce children, and the average lifespan of one partner is equal to the other, so there is no expected future beyond one's life to work for.[33]

Jesus invented comedy[edit]

Insight: Comedy did not exist before Christianity.

Background: Out of the blue one cold February morning, Andy added this item to his list of "Greatest Mysteries of World History" essay: "Did humor exist prior to Christianity?"img There is no indication of where this one came from. It might have emerged spontaneously from the murky depths of a (possibly) alcohol-befuddled psyche, or it might have its origins in some conversation Andy had, in which he accidentally said something phenomenally stupid and then defended it to the death to save face, culminating in this insight. Naturally, after adding this item to the article, other users came out of the woodwork in droves to ask him about it and cite Greek comedy, among other examples of pre-Christian humour. Andy then went on to redefine "humour."

Choice quotes:

Andy: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.[34]

Andy: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.[35]

Andy: [...] much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous." There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.[36]

Jesus disproves Einstein[edit]

Insight: Jesus healed a man instantaneously, therefore "action at a distance" is real, and the Theory of Relativity is wrong.

Background: This is just one item in a long list of "Counterexamples to Relativity"img, but it is by far the dumbest. Andy's on-going tirade against relativity seems to be a result of his delusion that scientific relativity and moral relativism (something most conservatives superficially reject but do in practice hold as a view anyway) are somehow equivalent, and if one is accepted, both must be accepted. His determination to trash relativity has spilled out many more truly amazing nuggets, chief among them the idea that black holes were "invented to sell magazines" (see above).

Choice quotes:

Andy: In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity. But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is action at a distance in the Bible.[37]

Andy: When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.[38]

Um, radiated heat IS infrared light?

Andy: Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would Isaac Newton and most great scientists. As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs.[39]

Obama's lack of dancing proves he's a Muslim[edit]

Insight: Obama doesn't appear to dance much in public. Sharia law prohibits dancing. Therefore, Obama is a Muslim.

Background: One cannot help but wonder if there's some subtle racism behind this one: black people are well-known dancers and if Obama (a black guy) isn't dancing it must be because he's Muslim. Except, Andy even points out a "highly staged politically correct dance" with Ellen Degeneres (if by "politically correct" Schlafly meant tame, well, Obama is married and he's not Degeneres' type). Later still, a poster provides two more examples of Obama dancing, but of course this only strengthens Andy's thesis. And never mind that Obama's been known to eat pork.

Choice quotes:

Andy: Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is Barack Obama rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic sharia disfavors dancing.[40]

[after someone links a video to Obama dancing in Puerto Rico]

Andy: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.[41]

Because a certain film won an Oscar, Palin won't get the GOP nomination[edit]

Insight: Because the "conservative" film The King's Speech defeated the "liberal" Social Network at the Oscars, Sarah Palin, who is "one of the biggest Facebook users", won't be the Republican nominee for president.

Background: It all started in January 2011, with a main page post by Andy claiming that "Liberals are stunned that the conservative movie The King's Speech defeated the movie promoting the liberal Facebook for top movie of the year," after the former won the Producers' Guild Award for best picture.[42]

Now the only reason that Andy could have leapt on TKS as being conservative, is that he really doesn't like Facebook, describing it as "the gossip site that lowers academic performance and breaks up marriages."[43] It's more likely that nobody would accept his friend requests, so he left in a huff. It's also worth mentioning that several current and former high-ranking sysops have Facebook profiles, including Ed Poor, Karajou, DeanS, Geo.plrd and Jinx hi Jinx!. However, in Andy's black-and-white world, if something (anything!) beats something he perceives to be liberal, it must be conservative.

Roll on the Oscars, and as everybody who hadn't been in a coma for the last year knew, The King's Speech cleaned up the major awards. This prompted one of Andy's weirder musings on the main page:

Does the triumph of The King's Speech over Facebook at the Oscars suggest that Sarah Palin, one of its biggest users, won't be the Republican nominee for president?[44]

He went on to elaborate in cp:Presidential Election 2012, highlighting as a negative under Palin's nomination chances, "Relies heavily on Facebook, but it was crushed by The King's Speech at the Oscars - an omen, perhaps?"[45]

As far as Andy's insights go, this has to be one of the more bizarre ones, as he links the reaction of a small panel of judges to a certain film, to the political ambitions of somebody who just happens to use the media in question. Despite Andy's gloating, The Social Network was by no means an unsuccesful film: it took in almost 100 million dollars domestically[46], got rave reviews from critics[47] and won no less than three Oscars. And that's not even considering the massive popularity of the actual website, just a movie about it. However, given that Palin has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination,[48] it's quite likely that this is one insight that will be bang on the mark... for totally different reasons.

Choice quotes:

Andy: Folks, we often see denials of politics by visitors here, but George Orwell put it best: "All issues are political issues." The King's Speech is far more conservative than the movie about the gossip website. Liberals promoted the Facebook movie ad nauseum but even liberal Hollywood couldn't stomach it. Yes, even the liberals in Hollywood can get fed up with the Left, and picked something on the Right this time. You won't find much bragging about The King's Speech in the lamestream media the day after. The USA Today website doesn't it mention its name on its top screen.[49]

"Christian" is a secularized form of "Christ"[edit]

Background: Andy had been on a "secularization of language" kick for a few months, with a hilarious article on the subject. In May of 2011, he doubled down on the crazy when he decided that "flooding" was a secularized version of the "biblical" word "flood", and went all-in when he decided "Christian" was a secular form of "Christ" despite their obviously different meanings. Additionally, he fails to acknowledge numerous times in which floods were materials other than water, such as tar, mud, and even molasses.

Choice quotes:

Andy: I welcome other attempts to explain it. Atheistic newspapers do not prefer "storming" to "storm", but they do prefer "flooding" or "flood-waters" to "flood". I bet newspapers also prefer "Christian" to "Christ"

Andy: Right. I don't even think early Christians called themselves "Christian". Most church names (e.g., "Church of Christ") don't use that term either. It's a diluted term preferred more by atheists.

Ditto for the secularization of the term "flood", which is obviously reminiscent of the Great Flood. "Flood-waters" is a particularly silly secularization - does anyone think it might be anything other than water in natural disasters? [50]

Liberals are against phonics because Democrats rely heavily on illiterate voters at the polls[edit]

Insight: Liberals prefer the "whole language" method to phonics because it ensures students never learn to read, and are therefore much more likely to vote for Democrats.

Background: teaching children to read using phonics has been part of the culture wars for decades, with conservatives supporting phonics, apparently believing that without it people will go through their adult lives with no idea what sound a "D" makes. Andy, like with all conservative causes, jumped on this bandwagon with both feet, penning his essay Mystery:Why is Phonics Taught in the UK but not the US? Apparently unaware that illiterate adults are quite rare in the United States (as opposed to functional illiteracy, which is more common but a different issue) and are certainly among the demographics least likely to vote, Andy nevertheless believes they make up a substantial percentage of the Democratic party's constituents, who want to make sure few Americans can read.

Estimated illiteracy rates vary greatly in the U.S., with somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% to 3% actually illiterate, with a much higher number (estimated from 14% to 23%) having very poor reading comprehension skills. The latter would seem to have little to do with phonics, as the subjects can read the words (which is what phonics teaches) but not fully comprehend what they mean when put together. Andy could not cite any statistics that either of these groups vote Democratic more often in elections.

Choice quotes:

Andy: "...a struggling Democratic Party relies heavily on support from illiterate voters to win. The teachers' union is overwhelmingly Democratic, and they have a strong political incentive not to increase literacy."[51]

Atheists hate underdogs[edit]

Insight: Atheists are almost incapable of supporting underdogs, as it runs contrary to everything atheists believe.

Background: This one appeared out of nowhere, with the hypothesis emerging from the (utterly made up) result. Andy decided, based on absolutely no evidence, that atheists did not root for the (3 point underdog) Giants in Super Bowl XLVI. When asked to back this up, he doubled down on the crazy and made up a list of why atheists cannot like the underdog. Included was the assertion that atheist Joseph Stalin "probably did not like underdogs". At no point did he ever cite any source indicating any of it was true (which is hardly surprising). Atheistic Brits, in particular cannot root for an underdog.

Choice quotes

Andy: "John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary" [52]

Andy: "In Britain, where atheism dominates, people dislike underdogs and tend to root for the contestant who is favored to win. The opposite is true in the Christian United States, where the underdogs have traditionally been the favorites of the people. However, as the liberal media in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval. Why do atheists dislike underdogs?"[53]

Andy: "One obvious reason is that atheism is about control. Stalin, a famous atheist in the 20th century, probably did not like underdogs. Underdogs threaten the status quo and the worldview of atheists. Upset victories are unsettling to people like Stalin."[54]

Fidel Castro is dead and has been replaced by a body double[edit]

Insight: Fidel Castro has been dead since 2006 and all appearances of Castro since have been staged by body doubles

Background: Andy has long suspected that the Cuban Communist leader, Fidel Castro, died in 2006. When in early 2012 the Pope visited Cuba and had a much published and talked about audience with the ailing Castro, Andy (who cannot ever be wrong) declared that Castro had in fact been replaced by a body double. After studying media photos of the meeting Andy noted differences between the Castro of the past and this new impostor which have slipped past everyone, including the Pope, his entourage, Hugo Chavez, the President of Brazil, the entire population of Cuba and the media. Andy, with a few photos at his disposal, has exposed the truth, noting differences in the lookalike's beard and height among other things[55].

Choice quotes

Andy: "[a] publicity stunt by Cuba was predictable; obviously the Pope has no expertise in recognizing who is (was) Fidel Castro" [56]

Andy: "If you display a photo of a man a half-foot shorter than Clint Eastwood with a differently shaped nose, and lacking in other facial features, as the Miami Herald just published with respect to the alleged Fidel Castro, then that would disprove it. Surely you're not claiming that photo identification is impossible" [57]

Fidel Castro actually passed away on November 25, 2016. On November 27, 2016, the following appeared on Mainpageright:

Andy: "The Trump effect, again: Cuba suddenly admits that Fidel Castro is dead, because the Obama Administration needed to tell Trump that in a briefing. The backlash among Cubans in Florida against the communists is intense. [7]" [58]


  6. 6.0 6.1 This appeared on Andy's talk page, which has since been vaped.
  15. Andy moaning about Wikipedia again.img
  21. In response to a comment asking about the fortunes of conservatism throughout history; screenshot of the exchange.
  23. 23.0 23.1
  24. How gun control would have been impossible under feudalismimg
  25. [1]img
  26. Another_interesting_linkimg
  42. Andy's entry on the "conservative" movie defeating the "liberal" movie.img
  43. [ Facebook = the gossip site that lowers academic performance and breaks up marriages/ref>}} {{quotebox|Andy: The individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also. ]
  44. You read it hear first folksimg
  45. The update to Palin's chances of nominationimg
  46. Box Office Mojo: The Social Network
  47. Rotten Tomatoes: The Social Network
  48. Intrade odds for Palin's nomination
  49. Andy's talk page wisdom.img
  50. [2]img
  51. [3]img
  52. [4]img
  56. [5]img
  57. [6]img
  58. Conservapedia's "Template:Mainpageright", revision as of 00:42, 27 November 2016.img This was reported on What is going on at CP?