Rod Liddle

The political wisdom of people who don’t even know what a circle is

Just because they might wish a shape to be a circle, that does not make it so

2 January 2016

9:00 AM

2 January 2016

9:00 AM

Why are liberals morons? I’m sure that this question has rattled around your mind before, perhaps when watching one of those fair and balanced debates between three ill-dressed but very liberal women that Newsnight puts on every evening, hosted by Kirsty Wark. You hear them tiptoeing through the -nether regions of some important political issue, carefully sidestepping the nub of the matter, obfuscating, denying the patently obvious even when it is staring them right in their smug faces, jabbering ineffectually about nothing in essence. How can these silly mares be this way, you may have asked yourself. How can they navigate their way through life on such slender mental resources? And you may even have come to a sort of conclusion: they are stupid because they do not see the world as it really is, but only as they would wish it to be. They have no handle on reality. They are in a state of denial. That is why they are morons.

The rather cheering news is that this thesis of yours, if indeed it is your thesis, now seems to have been proven by science. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology recently carried out a test in which they asked people to identify a shape. The shape was what I would call an irregular ellipse, a sort of vaguely oval outline, except quite inconsistent in its circumference. The researchers discovered that people who said the shape was ‘a circle’ were more likely to be liberals. People who correctly identified the shape as definitely not a circle, but something else altogether, were more likely to be possessed of conservative political views. Still more pertinently, those who looked at this sort of splodge and said yep, it’s a circle, were more likely to be welcoming to immigrants and more inclined to be tolerant of filthy and aberrant and sinful and sociopathic lifestyles. (The Journal didn’t quite report it like that, but you get my drift.) Interestingly, the scientists did not draw the obvious conclusion from their fine research. They did not stoop to judge. So given their professional restraint, I will judge instead.

The first and most obvious point to make is that objectively, the shape was not a circle, nor anything very much like a circle — so the liberals were factually wrong. I think this makes them stupid. The second point is that these findings fit in precisely with the stuff I was talking about before — Kirsty Wark and the three liberal women who agree with each other about everything on Newsnight. Much like the Newsnight debate I mentioned previously in this column, immediately after the Paris atrocities, in which one woman announced that the cause was the racist nature of Paris and another talked about a theory that it had been carried out by rival drug gangs. This particular debate still makes me convulse with grim laughter when I think about it, the debate in which the words Muslim and Islam were not used at all, at any point — long after we’d all seen film footage of the murderers screaming ‘Allahu akbar!’ and so on. It is more of that liberal wishful thinking, the refusal to see the world as it is; a severe mental impairment, I would call it. You can imagine trying to put them right on this point, perhaps shaking them by the shoulders, your frustrated spittle glistening in their hair. No, ladies. The shape is not a circle. No matter how much you might wish it was a circle, it is still not actually a circle. It is a different shape entirely.

It is not generosity of spirit or -lateral thinking which leads liberals to say that something which isn’t a circle actually is a circle. It’s stupidity or self-delusion (and they are one and the same thing in the end).

This is the first time I have seen scientific research that proves that liberals are morons. Non-scientific evidence is all around us, of course. But it is nice to have the whole matter nailed down. There have been tendentious reports before which have attempted to prove the converse — that conservatives are stupid and liberals really clever. At the London School of Economics a researcher called Satoshi Kanazawa, suggested that liberals were smarter because they were ‘willing to espouse evolutionarily novel values’, i.e. those values that did not exist in our ancestral environment. But this is only Satoshi’s opinion and it proves nothing. It may well be that for mankind to progress we need useful idiots to espouse ‘evolutionarily novel values’ every now and then, even if 99 out of 100 of them lead us into a cul de sac of either evolutionary stasis or indeed grotesque depravity. One of them may take us forward: that’s not clever, that’s just the consequence of statistical chance. Not everything in the Guardian is wrong. Only almost all of it. Once every ten years or so they print something that might be useful to mankind, possibly by accident.

And then, in the USA, there was the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which reported that the average IQ of people who described themselves as ‘very liberal’ was 106. Whereas the average IQ of those who described themselves as ‘very conservative’ was just 95, which isn’t much more than a reasonably well-trained Doberman Pinscher. I’m prepared to believe this of people who describe themselves as ‘very conservative’. Being ‘very conservative’ is in itself a sort of paradox. But even here there is a problem, because the researchers discovered that while those smarties described themselves as ‘very liberal’, when push came to shove they actually were not. They did not trust the state to decide things for them, for a start.

So there we have it: a nice way to begin the year. Liberals think things that aren’t circles are circles. They are stupid. That is all ye need know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Benjamin Blair

    Rod Liddell is a weekly dose of sanity for which I am deeply grateful. But while I agree wholeheartedly with his use of the term “Liberal” to describe the loons we all abhor, it is a description they do not deserve for a Liberal of the Gladstone type would recoil in horror from being so described with its modern connotations. Gladstone would probably have prayed for their souls believing they were damned.

    • post_x_it

      It’s one of those stupid terms that can mean whatever you want it to mean. Isn’t the Liberal Party of Australia the party of Howard and Abbott (Tony, not Diane)?

    • Kandanada


      It has been nearly a month since the Spectator’s resident sayer-of-the-truth has popped a piece on t’ net.

      • Jonathan Tedd

        Rod is in the Sun every Thursday – he latest was terrific.

    • davidofkent

      Is Rod Liddell any relation of the writer Rod Liddle, whose article you may have just read?

      • Todd Unctious

        Spelling is not important , he is a Murdoch employee.

        • UKSteve

          Spelling is important if you want to be valued or taken seriously.

          You must’ve been educated at a Leftist school.

          • Todd Unctious

            I agree spelling is important. It is Rod who is of less value with his nasty,sneering disdain.

          • UKSteve

            No, it isn’t. he simply has ideas that are different to yours, hence your invective. For me, It’s people who are too lazy or stupid to convey their meagrely-processed thoughts into a universally accepted communication form – the English language.

      • UKSteve

        Maybe he’s related to this guy:

    • Icon2100

      Correct the label “Liberal” now means the exact opposite of what the word “Liberal” means.

  • Di Hemy

    Lovely! But could a Spectator editor please fix that last line, taking out the extra ‘need’? The line from Keats,as we all know, is:

    Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    • Kandanada

      It just proves what many of us already know: there is too much need.

  • polidorisghost

    I identified it as ” not a circle”, but my politics are all over the place.
    Some are liberal, some are conservative and a fair number of us are just confused.

  • rick hamilton

    Rod refers to liberals rather than Liberals so I assume he means all those of a generally leftie persuasion. This group covers a wide spectrum from knee-jerk Labour supporters who would vote for anything that breathes with a red rosette on it, to Guardian reading intellectuals who know exactly what sort of utopia we should all live in but have absolutely no idea how to achieve it. They also have zero common sense. They might be described as ‘Corbyns’.

    All we need to know is that socialism is a system of equal misery for all, dreamed of by Corbyns for other people to live in.

    Rod –
    Happy New Year 2016, the Year of the Monkey in the oriental calendar.

    • John Steadman

      “of a generally leftie persuasion” – you forgot to include at least two-thirds of the current Tory parliamantary party.

  • Maureen Fisher

    A BTL comment in response to an article by Jessica Valenti blaming the soft target of white males for the ills of women ( a typically liberal moronic posture) in the Guardian is worth a repost:

    “As throngs of mostly white male pundits bemoan PC and “victimhood
    culture”, they continue to be the demographic most likely to overreact
    when faced with changes they don’t like. ”

    White males, eh?

    The ten worst countries in the world for women’s rights and oppression:

    – Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Nepal, Sudan, Guatemala, Mali, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia

    The ten best countries in the world for women’s rights and equality:

    – Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Netherlands, France
    Those who really care about women’s rights know where to focus their efforts”

    • Paul Montgomery

      The fundamental contradiction of political correctness is that the oppressed groups (women, gays, minorities etc) only get access to the power structure in those countries that are run by the much despised white middle class males ( the only exception that I have found to this is post-apartheid South Africa – the ANC leaders obviously picked up our bad habits during their long years of exile in Europe).

      • LastmaninEurope

        I agree with your observation.
        The main character in Houellebecq’s Soumission sees the benefits of conversion as do I – no more Kirsty Wark and her three badly dressed interlocutors!

    • Richard Irvine

      And seven of the worst are Muslim countries and none of the best are Muslim countries. Need I write the logical conclusion?

      • Jugurtha

        No need mate. Clearly another case of islamophobic bias on the part of researchers and the white patriarchal media…so Mehdi Hassan assures me. The problem is your orientalist assumptions about what constitute women’s rights and equality. Some women just love being shut up in the house, wearing a sack and having no autonomy. This may surprise you but their husbands say so and who knows better than a bloke just what is that women really want.

        • David

          And if you say otherwise you’re a racist!

      • Hayekian

        That we should turn every Western European country into a muslim majority one in the next 50 years or so?

    • Callipygian

      If the United States isn’t on the list, it’s not a serious survey.

    • Сорокин

      And of course generalizing and talking rubbish about white males is not discriminatory and racist at all.

  • right1_left1

    I would take issue with your description of ‘liberals being morons’.
    The problem is with the attitudes liberalism has morphed into.
    Non judgemental, all things have equal value , hierarchy is necessarily unjust and a willful refusal to face facts that are deemed to be unpleasant.

    Traditional reforming liberalism did ‘good’ but too slowly.
    The modern version does ‘bad’ quite quickly.

  • Violin Sonata.

    When you frequent the white squares of logic, reasoning and common sense its quite
    difficult to understand those liberal morons who frequent the black squares of the illogical
    irrational and quite mad. Let alone explaining the theories of a circle and its infinite
    philosophical wisdom let alone political ‘ wisdom’ . Happy New Year, Rod and everyone.

    • polidorisghost

      Violin, It’s a map of the M25.

  • Robert the Devil

    My dictionary gives the current definition of a moron as a “very stupid person”, but adds that it was a term “formerly used to describe a person with a mild degree of mental handicap”, such definition “now considered obsolete and offensive”. I prefer the latter definition because it is not merely the refusal of liberals to accept reality, for reasons best known to themselves, but their often perceived inability to see it, even when it is staring them in the face, something which, to me at least, seems tantamount to their suffering from some sort of mental handicap or lunacy. Since moronic decisions have now become common among our ruling class and in our major institutions, most notably the judiciary, I have to conclude that we are now governed by lunatics. Thank you Rod, for another thought- provoking, excellent article. I absolutely agree with the sentiments expressed. A Happy New Year to you, and let’s have more of the same from you in 2016.

  • Bo’sun Higgs

    I am enjoying the way in which Rod has seized upon this piece from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology simply because it happens to accord with his views. Normally, of course, the Journal is precisely the type of publication which he would happily denounce as a hotbed of insane psychobabble penned by trendy leftwing “scientists”.

    And besides that, topologically speaking the shape in question is indistinguishable from a circle. Not that one would expect psychologists to know that. Or “tired and emotional” journalists either 😉

    • Mr Grumpy

      And only a rabid reactionary would attempt to undermine this superb argument by pointing out that the definition of a circle has nothing to do with topology.

    • polidorisghost

      “topologically speaking the shape in question is indistinguishable from a circle”
      What has topology got to do with it?

      A circle is topologically equivalent to an ellipse, but we have different words to describe circles and ellipses because they are different things.

      • BritishPatriot

        According to Wolfram, “a circle is topologically equivalent to an ellipse (into which
        it can be deformed by stretching)” so it looks like topology is not wholly irrelevant. Then again, I understand Wolfram is dangerously leftwing, so who can say??

        • whs1954

          If someone sat you, a layman, down in a room with a picture of the shape above and asked you what it was, would you say “It’s a circle… well, it’s topologically equivalent to a circle, therefore it is a circle”?

        • Chas Grant

          Oh, don’t give me topology. According to topology a coffee cup is identical to a doughnut! Socialistic claptrap!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Topology? Is that something to do with trimming a bush?

            Well, it’s close to a ring!

    • pearlsandoysters

      There’s a very clear definition of the circle that precludes this “typological stuff”. Strictly speaking, the shape in question might fall into category of “roughly rounded shapes”, but not a circle.

  • Mr Grumpy

    The shape is a circle as drawn by someone who should not be shamed for their inability to draw circles because actually it’s just as valid as any other kind of circle and who are you to dictate to us what a circle looks like, you crapdrawerophobe.

    • FrankS2

      Indeed, it’s a differently-shaped circle.

      • Callipygian

        Differently-abled, even. Who knows where you could go with such a circle? One could make an attractive swimming pool. Two of them could make for really trendy eyeglasses. Look for Rod Liddle’s new line of eccentric eyewear: ‘Circles of Fame’.

  • goneunderground

    Rod setting himself up for the year ahead, in fighting form and I particularly liked this deft little line…”How can they navigate their way through life on such slender mental resources?”

  • Jugurtha

    Clearly not a circle…it’s a blue and black dress.

  • Jugurtha

    On a related issue, I happened to catch a bit of bit of Charlie Brooker’s end of 2015 round up last night. I’m not a big fan of Brooker’s; he’s another pointless BBC liberal clone given to all the usual progressive pieties and to hyperbolic condemnation of any decision or policy which fails the Islington dinner party test…never actually offers an alternative of course, just lets the viewer know that it’d all be different if one of ‘us’ was in charge. Anyway, there was a bit where the head of the LSE’s gender studies unit was interviewed by some woman (who is actually genuinely hilarious) in a sort of Ali G faux innocent/ dumbass manner. If you get a chance, watch it. The woman being interviewed was priceless.

    • Shapster

      Thanks for that recommendation – just found it on iplayer. I was kind of disappointed – was expecting the gender studies chick to be a dangly- earringed frightful fat bird called Roz. Turned out she was a bit of a MILF. Well, GILF actually..

  • MikeF

    It is a closed but inconsistent shape – two words that I might use to describe much ‘liberal’ thinking. No wonder they regard it as something possessing attributes it does not possess.

  • Ivan Ewan

    A circle is a geometric shape made up of all points equidistant in X and Y coordinates from a central locus. Primary school stuff.

    This shape is a cartoon potato.

    • Paul Montgomery

      Beg to differ.
      The 11+ exam paper was not in mathematics but arithmetic.
      Geometry was definitely grammar school stuff.

      • Ivan Ewan

        Is that a fact? I never went to a grammar school, but I seem to recall covering elemental geometry before I was 15.

        • UKSteve

          I think he was referring to secondary education in general, i.e. post-11.

          I believe they call it “Year 6” now – how very Stalinist!

    • Сорокин

      Liberals don’t care about what they call “hard-science”, either if it’s geometry or biology or whatnot. It’s about the way they feel about things, so if they feel that it’s a circle, just accept it and don’t dare to argue or you will be labeled a fascist scumbag, a sulky silly arrogant man and whatever other unreasonable insult they can come up with.

    • pearlsandoysters

      The shape presented is not a circle, there’s no doubt about that. Yet, to my mind the test is not about political views at all, it’s about ability to have the right “recollection”, philosophically speaking. It’s about epistemology & reasoning.

  • Noa

    I enjoyed that one, Rod. Thank you.
    Welcome back
    And a happy new year to you and yours.


      “Welcome back”.
      The severe mental impairment fixed, we wishfully like to think?

      • Noa

        Let me wish you too, a happy new year and a steady dosage of the lithium you require.

        • EUROJESUS

          I guess that’s a noa then.
          Yuletide greetings to all pagan non-believers.

          • Noa

            As usual you object to being re-paid in kind; unsurprising with paganism your core.

          • EUROJESUS

            I object not, squire. Carry on seeking ‘truth’ outside of the commonly accepted, normative magalogue of British values which, for the older folk amongst us, nowadays appears to purport denying rather than believing.

          • Noa

            Let truth and evidence based objectivity be your guide, not blind belief.

          • EUROJESUS

            We had three hundred years of that, has it make the world a better place?

          • Noa

            Remind me, who was the last book burner again?

          • EUROJESUS

            I guess that’s another noa then.

  • Jennifer P

    I agree with much of the article, except its bit about the circle. It is indeed very much like the circles my children drew when they were 3 or 4 year old and learning about shapes. But it’s probably OK since many liberals behave like 3 or 4 year olds when they put their blind trust in government to determine right and wrong and to direct the affairs of people who once were free.

  • whs1954

    The potato shapes thinks it is a circle. The potato shape wishes it was a circle. The potato shape self-identifies as a circle.

    Therefore it is a circle and you must say “Hello, Mr/Ms/Mz Circle” when you meet it, otherwise you’re a fascist and beyond the pale of civilised people.

    • The Reincarnated Sausage

      But is it a LGBT circle?

    • anonuk

      Has it had reassignment surgery? Is it transitioning from a retangle?

  • Jonathan Tedd

    It’s the latest submission to the Committee to replace Rhodes Imagery?

  • Mhjames

    Rod Liddle is equally stupid with his endorsement of Cobynite policies like nationalisation.

    • UKSteve

      So anyone that doesn’t have views that you agree with are “stupid”?

      • CouchSlob

        Yep, that’s pretty much how it works round here

      • Mhjames

        No, but nationalisation is stupid, yes.

        • UKSteve

          Usually, and I saw enough of it in the 70’s to persuade me of that.

          But sometimes, I think it can work. The rail track and signalling infrastructure needs to be brought back in to public ownership ASAP, in my view. And maybe the utilities as well.

          But as for manufacturing, definitely not.

          • Mhjames

            Railtrack is already state-owned. Rod Liddle favours bringing bankrupt steel manufacturing into state ownership.

          • UKSteve

            Ah, thanks. I was under the impression that it was a dividend-paying share ownership. By any other name, it is in govt. ownership.

            I remember back in the mid 1970’s when BSC – British Steel Corporation (nationalised) was losing £1 million / day – back when £1 million was a serious lot of money. My company were buying steel from a massive stockholder in Holland, which – with extra carriage – was about 11% cheaper than UK.

            That foreign owners can’t make it pay here is absolutely tragic – our utility and labour costs are just way too high.

          • Mhjames

            I was ‘stupidly’ wrong about the name: it’s been ‘Network Rail’ since 2003. According to Wikipedia it is a ‘not for dividend’ company limited by guarantee with no shareholders which applies its income to its own purposes, and is officially known as a public sector body. The Conservatives have admitted that they botched the rail privatisation, and arguably the track should not have been separated from the train companies, since Network Rail has an incentive not to expand the track but to exploit its monopoly. As it is, the train companies mostly run local monopolies. Where within-region competition is allowed it seems to reduce fares. To my knowledge Rod Liddle is uninterested in these facts

          • Mr B J Mann

            Plus the steel would have been specified to have been produced at a couple of grades higher than required because production quality was so poor steel was being turned out at a couple of grades below that intended and had to be downgraded!!!

  • angst144

    Many from the liberal think tank commenting here ….daunting

  • Willie Green

    What a sadly silly & arrogant rant…

  • David Moran

    Saying things like “full circle” can be very uncircle like, or when you take a jog you often say you ran in a circle, it’s not a perfect circle. Obviously people who say it is a circle know full well it’s not a perfect circle. You come across as a very odd, inflexible and abusive individual.

    • Сорокин

      There is no such thing as a perfect circle. It’s either a circle or it’s not. And if you don’t know the definition of a circle, google it.

    • Mr Marginalia

      And you come across as a Moran.

      • Richard

        Breaker? What happened to the final “t”?

    • Geo

      You may talk about a “circular walk” in another context, but it is never implied that your route formed a circle. In this context, the subjects were asked what shape they were being shown. It wasn’t a circle.

      • Andrew Smith

        There is a difference in definition between “something circular” which means to go back on itself and “a circle”.

        • Geo

          That was ny point.

          • UKSteve

            Not really.

    • Icon2100

      I don’t think there’s such a thing as a perfect circle. It’s either a circle or it isn’t. There’s probably some mathematical definition including line of constant distance around a point or some such. Other lines can resemble a circle, so a route could be described as “circular” but they are not circles. The shape described by Rod is definitely not a circle, it’s just a line with no end.

  • Сорокин

    There was also another research which showed that liberals are much less scared than conservatives of things they should actually be scared of, like spiders and other real legit threats. So, evidently liberals have inhibited self-preservation instinct. Also, the research showed that liberals basically just want tend to concentrate on positive things and simply ignore if possible negative things, which, I believe, is a very dangerous thing to do. And isn’t it what they(liberals) do in real life?

    • Callipygian

      Is your spider comment a joke? Most spiders are no threat to humans at all. Like the one I photographed (see avatar) in the Smoky Mountains. Large, with a most impressive funnel-web covering an otherwise hideous fake plant on the porch of a chalet in the Smoky Mountains. I tend to keep my distance from wild animals (unless they need help, like turtles crossing the road) but that is more for their benefit than mine.

  • beenzrgud

    Yep, liberals are morons. We see evidence of it all the time when they refuse to accept the truth staring them in the face. Although they are indeed intellectually challenged it is not this fact by itself that I find most disturbing. A liberal may wish to cuddle a boa constrictor, just to show they’re not really dangerous at all, which doesn’t bother me at all. The problem is that most libeals are so convinced they know best that they want everyone else to cuddle a boa constrictor too. And even though a few people may get crushed along the way the liberals will insist that these are just unfortunate mistakes, and in no way disprove their theory that boa constrictors are perfectly safe to cuddle. You may think this example to be absurd, yet people are now routinely being killed by terrorists that we have been told over and over again don’t actually exist. Either that or that we should somehow happily accept the odd atrocity, you know, to prove that we really are a good sort of person.

    • WillH

      How true.

  • SP_UK

    The Guardian has managed to put its own spin on this: calling a non-circle a circle is a sign of “tolerance of deviance from the norm”, apparently.

    • Mr Marginalia

      That’s hilarious. No one makes a fool out of the left quite like the left itself.

    • J.L.W

      Got angry reading Guardian comments on that (I have no life apparently!)

      Of course it’s not an ‘f’n circle!

    • Fingers Lane

      Thank you so much for this link to The Guardian article on the same research!
      This is truly shocking!
      Is this really The Guardian website or just a hoax?!
      …Nope, they really are beyond self-parody.
      Surely the correct term for this kind of pathological self-delusion is not ‘liberal’ of ‘lefty’ or even – as I would normally argue – ‘progressive’ – but post-modernist?

  • rbw152

    I always wondered why not one of my liberal friends could tell me how a socialist economy works.

    Still, as long as your heart’s in the right place that’s not a problem is it?

    • Jannerman

      Well, it’s not a problem if you’re not in charge of the economy.

    • Fingers Lane

      This is a brilliant article and The Guardian link provided below by SP_UK is truly shocking.
      Still there is one big problem: the use of the word ‘liberal’.
      Rod Liddle writes ‘liberal’, which you associate with ‘socialist’.
      Yet, ‘liberal’ is not only something quite different from ‘socialist’ it is actually the _opposite_!
      Still, it is possible for both a liberal and a socialist to be ‘progressive’, which is what Rod Liddle _really_ means.
      Or look at it from another angle: Why is ‘liberal’ politics considered to be ‘left wing’, while ‘liberal economics’ is seen as ‘right wing’?
      What a mess!
      The likes of William Gladstone and John Stuart Mill must be spinning in their graves!

      • rbw152

        Well I thought he was using ‘liberal’ like Americans use the word i.e. those on the left. So-called because they espouse an anything-goes, ‘progressive’ sort of attitude which goes against the grain of conservatism.

        To be honest, I still think he means that and re-reading the article doesn’t change it for me much either. Espeically with phrases such as: “People who correctly identified the shape as definitely not a circle, but something else altogether, were more likely to be possessed of conservative political views”.

        However, I get your point and would love to know for sure (Rod?).

        If he is just talking about ‘liberals’ in the UK sense though I’m not really familiar with that description as a group I must admit. I class myself as ‘libertarian’, which I have always thought was a different thing. More like a ‘government get out of my face’ sort of attitude. And that is more in harmony with small-government conservatives of course.

        Still, it is a bit of a mess I agree.’

  • J.L.W

    I just want to make the point against some of the other comments here that that is not a circle and if anyone asked me if it was I would say, ‘no it is not a circle.’

    It isn’t even a blob. It’s just nothing.

    Maybe liberals don’t like to classify things negatively.

  • Sid Falco

    It’s not a circle but it’s what their nether regions will look like once their beloved immigrants are through with them.

  • Fingers Lane

    This is a brilliant article and The Guardian link provided below by SP_UK is truly shocking.

    Still there is one big problem: the use of the word ‘liberal’.

    Rod Liddle writes ‘liberal’, but what he really seems to mean is ‘progressive’.
    This is because both liberals and socialists get lumped together as ‘left wing’ against conservatives on the ‘right wing’.
    Yet liberals and socialists have quite different ideas about what kind of changes they want.

    Our political language has become so confused that ‘liberal’ social attitudes are considered to be ‘left wing’, while ‘liberal economics’ and ‘liberal interventionist’ foreign policy are seen as ‘right wing’?

    What a mess!

    The likes of William Gladstone and John Stuart Mill must be spinning in their graves!
    Or maybe true liberals will have to retreat back to the 18the century and start calling themselves Whigs again?!
    ‘The Spectator’ should be part of the solution here, not part of the problem: What would Addison and Steele think?!

    • Callipygian

      Right. I’M a liberal, in the sense that Locke and Lincoln would recognize. THEY are ‘progressives’, and the quotation marks are essential.

      • The Reincarnated Sausage

        Progress towards what?

        They never actually describe what it is they are “progressing” us towards

        Because if people know what kind of world these sociopaths are creating, there’d be violent revolution before breakfast

    • The Reincarnated Sausage

      Yep. totally agree

      Progressive socialists, Fabians and their ilk, have hijacked the word “liberal” and turned the classical liberal ideas of Gladstone into something completely different. They are very adept at this Fabian strategy of taking words and changing their meaning.

      The most obvious conclusion one draws about modern “liberals” is just how illiberal they are.

      They cannot bear the idea that there are still people out there who haven’t been brainwashed by the social, media and educational hegemony they hold over society.

      The scariest thing is, these people portray themselves as “centrists” and “moderates” but actually, Fabian socialism or progressive socialism was always a revolutionary theory designed to change society drastically. They just employ methods to destroy western civilization that happen slowly, over several decades, rather than the more confrontational methods employed by hard left socialists and fascists.

      In any event, it can’t be overstated how bloody dangerous these people are to our future liberty and prosperity. They will destroy our nation, our freedoms and everything we hold dear.

      • Clive

        Fabians are not revolutionaries. They are named after Quintus Fabius Maximus who adopted a policy of avoiding battle with Hannibal and defeating him by attrition instead.

        The whole idea is the gradual takeover of society by Socialism.

        • The Reincarnated Sausage

          They are still revolutionaries

          They just change society by stealth over an extended period of time

          I’m very familiar with the history of the Fabian Society

    • Andrew Smith

      Quite right, I think it’s the influence from America. Not sure who you refer to as Steele though. Ist it Daivid Steel? From what I’ve heard he was basically a bit of a pinko, not really a Liberal in your sense.

    • King Kibbutz

      A mess it is, and by no accident.
      As well, ‘progressive’ is used as a term to describe developments wholly devoid of the positive elements it should rightly denote.

  • grimm

    The question must be asked: why do these fools have so much influence on public life in the West? The liberals define our culture and have the last word in every field. They have proven to be an irresistible force. How do they get away with it?

    • Richard

      People are too weak to resist.

    • King Kibbutz

      As the song presciently put it, ‘So many men no-one needs’.
      The desperation to hang on to any paid position, has caused in everyone the fear of using the word ‘no’. All public service employees must now say yes to all directives, or they walk.
      It will get worse, only to be alleviated when the war kicks off.

    • Robert the Devil

      Not hard to understand how they get away with it. Britain has become an overcrowded, corrupt, consumer obsessed, politically correct, immigrant-infested cesspit, the bulk of whose inhabitants are either illiterate or semi-literate and, because of our poor education system which is controlled by liberals, have little understanding of their history and culture apart from what is presented to them in TV soap operas and celebrity chat shows; a people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. This is no longer the Great Britain some of us once knew; more appropriate to refer to it as the Great Banana Republic. In such a society, it is not surprising that the moronic ideas of the liberals have gained acceptance by many and, of course, the politicians have to pander to them because they need their votes.

  • Julie A.


  • dave

    So this study doesn’t really say anything to me about intelligence, rather ways of perceiving the world, since whether or not you call that shape a circle or not really depends on context. In a mathematical sense, of course it is not a circle, a circle has a fixed and specific definition which is hugely useful. However, if you told someone to draw a circle on a piece of paper and they came out with that shape, you would’t think that they had misunderstood your instruction, nor would you expect them to pull out a pocket compass to draw something that more closely resembles a mathematical circle, given that, you can kind of see how someone would call it a circle. What it does imply if far more interesting, i often wonder why equal intelligent people that I meet have such vastly different views and this seems to suggest to me that “liberals” as termed by this article tend to look far more at the broad context or abstract nature of things, where as conservatives prefer detail and specifics and accuracy.

    • you would’t think that they had misunderstood your instruction
      Unless they were in extremis or just out of surgery, yes, I would.

      I wrote a letter to a man by hand, once. (He was married, and so was I.) It was so physically hard to write that I could just about push the pen across the paper: it was not my normal hand. Everything has a context.

    • Andrew Smith

      Drawing a circle and identifying one are quite different activities. We are correct to be very forgiving of human failing in doing difficult things (drawing a circle by hand is not easy) and less so in doing easy things (differentiating between an elipse and a circle).

    • King Kibbutz

      Maybe conservatives just see the need to cut to the chase instead of fannying around?

    • pearlsandoysters

      That’s the trick, the shape is certainly not a circle, yet this very word is used as one of possible definitions, so there’s a slight deception from the very beginning. The circle is a geometrical shape, so there should be no doubt about the answer. In a slightly different vein, the shape presented resembles a baroque “pearl”, at least it brings to mind baroque fascination with “rough” shapes. To my mind, the test is not about political views, but about the general ability to think clearly.

  • Halo

    Well written for man who was born on the 1st April

  • “Factually wrong”? Hah! – To be accurate no shape displayed on a screen can be a circle as no computer screen has infinite resolution. A circle is an abstract. The definition of a squiggly line as a
    circle or not depends on context and just how precise we want to get. Extrapolating that people who judge it one way are morons is itself moronic.

    And “carefully sidestepping the nub of the matter, obfuscating, denying the patently obvious even when it is staring them right in their smug faces, jabbering ineffectually about nothing in essence”?
    That sums up this article. – Liddle you are a joke!

    • Doug

      “To be accurate no shape displayed on a screen can be a circle as no computer screen has infinite resolution.”

      That may be true of a raster display, but a vector display can draw a perfect circle.

    • UKSteve

      Your post is a joke.

      In order to be a circle, the radius would have to be exactly equal from the dead centre for the entire span of the figure – which cannot be, in that figure.

      Not a circle.

    • King Kibbutz

      Abstract or not, in the real world it’s definitely not a circle.
      Or would you not mind when Kwik-Fit bring the car back out with tyres looking like the ‘circle’ above?

      Or have I failed to pick up on an elevated level of irony in your post?

      • Elena Genuos

        It looks like what many people would draw as a circle in the real world.

        • King Kibbutz

          I’m no great shakes on the drawing board, but come on? Really?

          • Elena Genuos

            Some people don’t even get their line to join.

          • King Kibbutz

            The trick is to have the tongue out and firmly trapped.

        • Mr B J Mann

          You must live in a very “special” world!

          • Elena Genuos

            The real world.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, your very own special real world!

    • Elena Genuos

      Maybe that’s what the study found – self-identified liberals live in the real world where circles drawn by most people are quite rough, while conservatives live in an abstract world.

      • Mr B J Mann


        Typical self-identified liberal reply!!

        In the real world where circles drawn by most people are quite rough that doesn’t come anywhere near a rough circle.

        It doesn’t even come near to a rough ellipse!

        If it comes near to a rough anything it comes slightly close to a very rough polygon.

        Bot to the “liberal” mind, in their “accepting”, “non”-judgemental, “inclusive” abstract world anything can be anything it likes.

        Unless it’s to the “right” of (not so gullible as) them.

        Which is why the (Inter-)NHS is the best in the world, the public sector is paid less for more than the private, and their pensions aren’t gold plated, but they stil provide a wonderful public service, their projects are expertly managed and excellent value, shirkers deserve as much, if not more, than workers, white men are privileged, women underpaid and under valued, Islam is the RoP, all lifestyle choices are equally valid, all genders are the same………….

        While conservatives live in the real world where things have to eork or you die!

        • Elena Genuos

          In this article. Others show something more circular. But yes, what many people drawn by hand is more elliptical.

          Liberals are not non-judgemental. We believe firmly in being judgemental. Can’t have tolerance without it.

          No Abrahamic religions are peaceful if they insist on following their books without figuring out that some of it needs to go out the window.

          • Mr B J Mann

            An ellipse doesn’t have half a dozen corners and straight sides, however badly drawn.

            And, yes, you are intolerant and judgemental of those you disagree with, otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to “tolerate” what you agree with – ie force it down everybody else’s throat.

            You need to look up the meaning of “tolerate”!

  • npbinni

    So, this is why liberals find it so easy to accept that a man can win ‘Women of the Year’!

    • Mr Grumpy

      In all seriousness I think that’s probably correct.

  • Kevin T

    Clearly the shape in question identifies as a circle. It is a circle born into the wrong shape and it has transitioned into a circle. Rod Liddle is therefore committing hatecrime by mis-shaping it and denying its circlehood. I have reported this article to the Metropolitan Police.

    • UKSteve

      OMG! So you’re now saying it’s a trans-geometrical circle, i.e. was a circle but is now on it’s journey through self-realisation and throwing off form / shape stereotypes to become an ellipse? Or an oblate spheroid?

      Thank Goodness there is someone out there who defends LGBT issues (Length, Girth, Breadth, Trigonometry); we should see if it qualifies for funding, Especially as it’s….you know….. noir!

      • Tom Sykes

        I think that we should resist trying to put labels on to lines. Let the line itself decide.

        • moraywatson

          The axis of evil !

        • JohnB

          So much truth in such a little bit of mocking!

          • Tom Sykes

            Indeed. in fact is there such a thing as a straight line? If space and time are curved then surely even a simple line will be bent to a degree.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It might be bent, but you should accept its s-xuality!

    • mdj

      Absolutely: if it chooses to self-identify as a circle we should respect that personal decision.

  • Landphil

    Clearly the shape is transcircular.

    • Tom Sykes

      Sadly there is no mention of the lines colour.

  • logdon

    Come on! Anyone can tell its a circulary fluid circle.

  • King Kibbutz

    The immediate post-Paris massacre obfuscation is mirrored in BBC reports on the latest shooting in Tel Aviv.

    Their Mr Blobby on the scene described a sense of bewilderment and puzzlement as to the possible motives for someone taking an Uzi from a holdall and shooting randomly in a street full of Israelis.
    He had heard talk of it being part of a criminal disagreement. Or then again, it could have been someone with a grudge against ‘gaybars’ in the area.
    Later reports were augmented with the information that it may have been part of the ‘long-standing disagreement between Israel and the Palestinians’.

    Good old putrefying Auntie Beeb.

    • Kevin T

      As abhorrent as every terrorist attack is, there is at least some black humour to be found in the way the mainstream media does everything in its power to try and attribute it to anything – ANYTHING – but radical Islam.

      • King Kibbutz

        And this has brought us to the present stage at which any one of our European cities can – as witnessed at many new year celebrations – be brought to a shivering halt by ‘reliable tip-offs’. In effect, we now jump to the terrorist tune.

  • red2black

    ‘The Circle Line’.

  • Liberanos

    I’m rather afraid, Mr Liddle, that the mind-set you so clearly excoriate above, is very much alive within your own publication. My reference to the uniform of subjugation worn by muslim women, and its self-evident breaching of the sex-equality act, has been cast aside. By conferring equal status and respect on all cultures, no matter how distasteful, we have invited a monster into our home. Ignoring it is not the action I’d recommend.

  • disqus_QL05BqU79X

    Perhaps the shape pictured WAS a circle, but has been systematically oppressed in some way.

    To me, it looks like a potato: the main component sat between liberals’ ears.

    • Partridge

      ‘sat’? You mean ‘sitting’. Or do you mean Saturday? 🙂

      • disqus_QL05BqU79X

        Both. I stand by my Northern, working-class variant of the former and regarding the latter, the potato will assuredly be there for the other six days of the week.

  • Mongo

    Rod, the people you’re describing are Marxist-Leftist-champagne socialist fascists, who are faux liberals.

    true liberals (like me) would never apologise for, enable or excuse the Religion of Peace, and as a scientist I would never describe that shape as a circle

    • Hazakabammer

      You’re a libertarian then, not a liberal.

      • Alex Andrés

        which makes him conservative not progressive.

        • Mongo

          the word ‘progressive’ has been hijacked by socialists.

          it’s essentially meaningless since anybody, whatever their political leanings, will consider their views ‘progressive’

          • Badger

            Please, and with the utmost respect; not another thread about which ill-fitting political box you all want to put yourselves in. My desk and forehead might not survive it this time.

          • Physics grad

            progressive is the new branding for the socialists who used to call themselves fascist

      • Mongo

        both, in a way, if you draw the distinction between the economic-political spectrum and the socio-political spectrum

        there’s a discussion about this a little way down started by ‘Fingers Lane’ about the terminology. I often find it odd that people (especially Americans) conflate ‘Left’ and ‘Liberal’ when in many ways they’re opposite

      • Elena Genuos

        No, we’re liberals.

        • Mr B J Mann

          So you think smoking bans and gun controls are f a s cist?!

          • Eric Doll

            Yes; don’t you? Or do you wish to impose your sensitivities on other people?

          • Mr B J Mann

            They are F a s cist!

            Just ask Adolf!!!

    • Physics grad

      Liberal as a word has been culturally appropriated by Marxists. It no longer means classical liberalism.

      It is sad I know, but that is how Orwellian doublespeak works. So get used to calling yourself conservative or libertarian, and take note that other people who call themselves liberal are actually hard left socialists.

    • Derek Lambada

      Blame the ‘liberal’ democrats. They stole and misrepresented the word.

  • lindzen4pm

    Cut the f*cking apron strings Rod. Enough of the despite what I write I’ll still vote for them crapola. Time for 2016 to be truthful to yourself.

    • Mongo

      IIRC a little while back Rod said he would only be voting Tory or UKIP from here on

      • Elena Genuos

        So he’s planning to vote for morons completely out of touch with reality?

        • Mr B J Mann

          So you think it’s a perfect circle!!!

          • Elena Genuos

            Did they ask is whether it was a perfect circle?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Actually they asked what shape it was and “liberals” judged it to be a circe rather than what it more realistically was, a much less rough hexagon or a less rough square, rather than in incrdibly rough, slapdash, juvenile, extremely naive “circle”.

            Which explains why they see good in the worst things.

            They’re “Wired” that way.

            All we need to do now is figure out why they see bad in the best things!

  • Richard

    Who are we to impose our view of whether it is or is not a circle? Only fascist racists would do a thing like that!

  • Clive

    So Mr Liddle uses ‘sociopath’ (held between thumb & forefinger (T&F)).

    A word invented in 1930 to mean the same as ‘psychopath’.

    Why not use ‘psychopath’ ? To anglomorphise (to use an evolutionarily novel word) the etymology, psychopath means a person with a pathology in their psychology. Their mind is damaged – not brain, mind.

    Thus sociopath, modelled by its originator on ‘psychopath’, means someone with a ‘social pathology’.

    What is a ‘social pathology’ ? Does that mean your society is damaged ? So a sociopath is someone with a ‘damaged society’ (T&F). What is that ? Is it just his own ? How can an individual have their own society ?

    Then there is the usual use of the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) on Muslims.

    Of course the Paris shootings had something to do with Islam (STDWI) but not every Muslim is a nutter.

    Mr Liddle appears to embrace the notion that Muslims pay a huge amount of attention to their religious books and follow their every dictum, even though these are internally contradictory (pace abrogation). Christians don’t do that, why would Muslims.

    That is the FAE. Attributing internally developed causation to the actions of others whilst allowing your own to be dictated by circumstances. So you don’t read the Bible or understand the half of it if you do – but Muslims read the Quran and understand and follow every word.

    The obvious answer to that is, you didn’t mean every Muslim.

    So how many did you mean ?

    • Ipsidixit

      Perhaps he meant as many as are not openly denouncing their psychopathic coreligionists for committing their atrocities? Actually that does seem to be rather a lot of them doesn’t it?

      • Clive

        How many Irish Catholic people in the UK denounced the IRA ? Did we deport them ? Did anyone even suggest we deport them ?

        What are they supposed to do ? Should each Sunni Muslim write a special letter to a special post office box or something to express their dismay at a Muslim bombing ?

        It does not help that Islam is organisationally flat. There are no ‘bishops’ nor a ‘pope’. You could point to Ayatollahs but they are Shi’a, ISIS is their enemy. All sorts of Sunni Muslim scholars have condemned ISIS and Saudi Arabia has bombed them. It does not get a lot of coverage.

        • Ipsidixit

          Very many denounced them. The U.K. Armed forces have many RCs. I knew Irish RC who loathed the IRA. RCs informed the police about suspicions. All things that Mohammedans singularly fail in. The reference to bishops or a pope is spurious. Are you suggesting that UK passport holding Moslems are incapable of demonstrating against evil unless they have an imam in front of them?

          The so called denouncements you describe actually get a disproportionate amount of coverage and they are invariably couched in ways that disassociate Mohammedanism from the evil even though it is the motivation for it. E.g this is not real Islam. It is real Islam and you people need to own up to it.

    • Liberanos

      The next terrorist bomb, like the last, will be exploded by a devout muslim. Therefore, if one is searching for those upon whom suspicion must fall, it shouldn’t be impossibly difficult. It makes sense. You need to be devout to follow every imperative in the koran. And among those imperatives are countless verses setting out in exquisite detail the methods prescribed by allah of ridding the world of infidels.

      • Clive

        Although the next terrorist bomb (I assume you don’t mean Russian bombs which personally I think of as primarily bombing innocent people – like the FSA) will probably be exploded by a Muslim, it is not likely to be a devout Muslim.

        We have this image of Muslims becoming ‘radicalised’ which appears to have come to mean becoming ‘devout’. Did anyone think IRA volunteers were rabid upholders of the Marxist and ‘united Ireland’ agenda of the Provisional IRA ?

        The draw of terrorism is as much that it looks exciting and in the case of many Kurds who have joined ISIS, it pays more, than the alternatives. Do you want to go to the Job Centre and sign on or get an AK47 and look big ? The ISIS slave-shagging offer also looks good to these young men.
        A bricklayer got a $60 a month raise by trading his construction tools for a Kalashnikov and becoming a soldier for the Islamic State. Subsidies and other benefits appear to be part of the holy war’s allure for some….

        • Liberanos

          One can’t be more devout than killing and dying for one’s religion.

        • Derek Lambada

          No, the main reason many join ISIS is because its actions are very clearly inline with Islam and particularly the ‘perfect’ example of Muhammad.

          FYI the main difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christian acceptance of enlightenment values. While many Muslims also operate by these values, they are not Islamic values. The likes of ISIS label these people as hypocrites or heretics, they are correct to do so under Islamic teaching.

    • Paragon of Restraint

      What’s the old saying….. A sociopath is a person who sneaks up on you in the park and beats you to death with a baseball bat. A psychopath is a person who sneaks up on you in the park and beats you to death with a baseball bat while wearing a pink bunnysuit.

  • whomightyoube

    The shape is what someone would draw if they were asked to draw a circle and they were not very good. Is it a circle ? No. Is it an ellipse? No. If it is an irregular ellipse, then it could equally be an irregular circle.

    The greater incidence of left wing views in those who claim it is a circle could be explained by other means than suggesting any causality between the two. If there is no causality then the observation is of little use.

    I have left wing views and I say that it is not a circle, but then I have had an education in a subject that had a high level of mathematics. I dare say that it would be possible to get the author of this article to think that an ellipse with an infinitesimal eccentricity was a circle.

    • Liberanos

      As a pupil with a stunning lack of mathematical ability, I nevertheless seem to remember a circle being described as a fixed point equidistant from an infinite number of other points. This would seem to exclude the above drawing. On the other hand, I’m sure the realm of mathematics, always a mystery to me, is wide enough to include an accurate description of the work. Of course, were I to be informed that allah, among his other infallible proclamations, had deemed it a circle, then a circle it would be.

    • Ron Todd

      I was watching the news on the telly this morning. The presenters were boasting about how bud they were at doing basic sums. We would never hear presenters boasting about how bad they were at English or gender studies. I don’t think the average liberal cares enough about geometry to make a distinction between a proper circle and a generally curvy vaugly roundish sort of shape.

    • Physics grad

      The shape is what someone would draw if they were asked to draw a SQUARE and they were not very good. Is it a SQUARE? Or is it an irregular Square?

      Either way what is clear is that you are a lefty moron.

  • Xavier

    It’s an outline of Trump’s head, like when an artist begins a presidential portrait.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Thus spake Obamathustra: it shall henceforth and for all time be called Circulish

  • Mike Norris
  • StevieBoy1981

    How can one man be so based?

  • Elena Genuos

    “were more likely to be welcoming to immigrants”

    Wait, so the US really was once a country of liberals?

    “more inclined to be tolerant of filthy and aberrant and sinful and sociopathic lifestyles”

    I think we know Republicans and Tories can’t help their lifestyles.

  • Elena Genuos

    “researchers discovered that while those smarties described themselves as ‘very liberal’, when push came to shove they actually were not. They did not trust the state to decide things for them, for a start.”

    Sounds liberal to me. The state has proven it can’t be trusted with our liberty. That includes those states controlled by those who self-identify as conservative.

    • rtj1211

      What’s ‘liberal’ about ‘trusting the state to decide things for them’? Sounds very illiberal. It imposes the concept that one faceless body is in control, rather than people freely choosing between a group of contesting suppliers of solutions.

      Being liberal is trusting people to take charge of their own lives and, in the main, making wise choices. Of course some people won’t make wise choices, but as a liberal, you would rather most had the freedom to choose and a few made the wrong choices than all had no freedom to choose to protect the poor choosers from their own ignorance.

      Being liberal is not defining your own personal prejudices as the prejudices of all society. That’s what conservatives want to do. They IMPOSE their own solutions based usually on precedent, which makes the incredibly moronic assumption that someone in the past was wiser than you and society are now, so they actually took a decision and all you lot do nowadays is follow that decision, irrespective of whether its suitability has been overtaken or not by events. How moronic is that?

      Conservatives have a concept that either God or some ancient society had a unique insight on wisdom and forever more, everyone has solely an insight on moronics. As a result, every institution is set up to preserve society in some Roman/Christian/whatever state, which means it will fester and rot and, worse still, the innovators will be crushed by the Luddites.

      I can’t tell you how pathetic it is reading Conservatives saying that anyone who doesn’t gabble the Christian liturgies once a week is defective. That’s a book written two thousand years ago. The defective ones are those who think the world hasn’t evolved beyond that. Because it has.

      IVF, caesarian sections, sperm banks all make Christian dogma on procreation a nonsense.

      Weather satellites, radio telescopes, space probes exploring the solar system all make the rituals of star worship redundant. You don’t need to sacrifice animals and humans to appease the Gods any more, because you can start to understand the weather and the cosmos through science.

      The internet, social media etc makes hierarchical organisations and demagoguery luddite. There’s no hoarding of knowledge any more, everyone can get access to it all. So all the ancient conservative structures have passed their sell-by date. They are analogue world history. Digital new world reality is upon us. It’s really moronic if you refuse to accept that.

      Are you getting the picture that arguments making out conservatives to be the last bastion in moronic are cogent where innovation is concerned?

      Course not.

      You’re too moronic to entertain the possibility that your superior eugenics of conservative inter-breeding could have failed……..

      Just telling you the way you are……….

      • The_greyhound

        That’s quite a lot of joined up drivel. Did you make it up yourself, or copy it from your Ladybird book?

      • Elena Genuos

        OK, so to whom are you replying?

  • Stevie Mac

    Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist who had a blog at psychology today before he was dropped for espousing very unpolitically correct ideas. In light of this, his views on liberalism are surprising.

    • Rick Thorn

      “some notoriety online for racist and sexist views” … am I to infer that he had become rather too liberal when espousing the academia party line?

      Naughty chap. So un-pc of him.

      • Stevie Mac

        I’m not quite sure what you mean but he definitely did not espouse any academia party line. In fact, he was banned by the London School of Economics from publishing in peer reviewed journals for 12 months and 68 of his fellow evolutionary psychologist’s wrote an open letter denouncing his ‘bad science’. There were petitions on facebook and to have him fired. ‘too liberal’ is definitely not a phrase you would associate with Kanazawa.

  • Stevie Mac

    Rod, you need to edit the last sentence.

  • कृ

    Unless of course, they thought they were speaking about Topological Spheres 😛

  • Freddythreepwood

    It’s the inner tube from a bicycle tyre, so sometimes it’s a circle.

  • HJ777

    This article is nonsense because Little does not define what he means by ‘liberal’. He cites American studies but they use the term ‘liberal’ quite differently from the way we do here.

    In the US, the Republicans are generally more economically liberal but socially conservative. The Democrats are generally more socially liberal but prefer very non-liberal (verging on socialist) economic policies.

    Here, the term ‘liberal’ traditionally means people prefer less government involvement/intervention and fewer restrictions – let people do as they wish provided it doesn’t harm others, both economically and socially.

    • Robert Backus

      Well as an American, I can say your description as what each party believes is weird, tho premise is right. Here liberal both socially and economically means we want the government to do all, even wipe our butts. Conservative means less government. Economically, liberal means government control of health care- Obamacare, higher taxes etc. Not that those elected do what they promise, like having a conservative grow the government incredibly. Just reverse your last paragraph and you’ll get what a liberal means in the US- more government, less freedom.

  • Alison Houston

    Rod Liddle you were going to vote Labour in the the general election, for Ed Miliband’s tombstone of promises. Much as I agree with most of what you write, and you have got so much better in recnt years, and even started speaking plainly, like a Yorkshireman as I advised, I can’t help thinking of pots calling kettles black.

  • balayogi

    Liberal the most misused word

  • Mr Creosote

    In general, liberal women of the type you describe will, once they’ve made their minds up, argue black is white, in the face of all evidence to the contrary – square that circle!

  • cd

    Well Rod not quite so.

    Geometrically it is not equivalent to a circle and therefore cannot be – in terms of geometry – a circle. HOWEVER, topologically, the shape you’ve shown is equivalent to a circle.

    HOWEVER, this would suggest the liberals are well versed in both fields of mathematics – is this possible?

    Obviously I’m being pompous and facetious but I couldn’t help it. I’m sounding dangerously like a liberal.

    • Hamburger

      It is a closed line.

  • TrippingDwarves

    Circle or not, can it be squared?

  • The_greyhound

    Splendid, as ever. A happy New Year to our best writer.

    A liberal will generally check with other liberals to see whether something is a circle, or whether mass indecent assaults in Cologne are really a problem that can be discussed. Extreme conformism, and bitter hatred of anyone who rejects orthodoxy typify the modern liberal. Thus any observed phenomenon which appears to contradict established dogma is angrily rejected : that’s how liberals ignore 1400 children getting their lives ruined in Rotherham, while anyone trying to stop the abuse is savagely rounded upon.

    Funny people, liberals. And not in a nice way.

  • Mike E

    Spot on. The liberal-left, where all decisions, opinions and values are based 100% on emotion and close to zero on reason.

  • Elena Genuos

    You’ll note the author of this article conveniently fails to provide us with the text of the research, so we can evaluate it for ourselves.