Camille Paglia learns…
…the price of criticizing Obama even a little bit (see the comments section at the link for a sample of what I’m talking about).
The venom she’s receiving from the Left for having the audacity to mention that things have not gone all that swimmingly in the Obama administration so far—plus her jaw-dropping defense of Rush Limbaugh—is nothing new. You’re either with them or against them—and, as a commenter writes, it’s another example of the Left eating their own.
Renegade Paglia has become quite a tasty morsel, it seems, especially since she mounted a defense of (gasp!) Sarah Palin way back when. The attacks on Paglia are especially ironic, since she still labors under the illusion (delusion?) that none of the errors, missteps, and awkwardness of the new administration are actually Obama’s fault. Defending him, Paglia writes:
…free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons—his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes…
President Obama—in whom I still have great hope and confidence—has been ill-served by his advisors and staff.
But did that staff spring into life, full-grown, from Zeus’ head? Hardly. In case Paglia hasn’t noticed, Obama is not only the person who chose the staff, but its key players are old and trusted advisers from his days in Chicago politics.
Camille, girlfriend, please take a look and remember what the Presidency is all about:
[ADDENDUM: More Obama buck-passing.]
A wonderful parallel. Has any President inherited the can of worms that Truman did, which was compounded by Roosevelt’s isolation of him?
Obama would do well to now study and pattern his performance on Truman’s. Lincoln’s and Roosevelt’s mantles have not worn well on him.
Well, we knew that once the first lefty had the intestinal fortitude to come out, more would follow. We also knew they would be viciously attacked.
If there’s one thing the Salonistas can’t stand, it’s a feminist with the courage to come to his/her own conclusions, much less air them.
Oldflyer, I feel it’s not enough to pattern one’s performance after a Truman or Lincoln. If you’ve lived as long as the Chosen One has without gaining the insights and principles to lead with good character, you’re not going to get it by trying to mimic those who have gone before you.
Neo asks the right question in the end: Is the president a man of great character who
-just happened to keep his membership in a hate-mongering church,
-who associated with unrepentant domestic terrorists,
-and who has now placed in power those who are apparently incompetent in all but the politics of personal destruction?
Or is it an indication that he is far more flawed than the voters of the USA (United Sheeple of America) were willing to recognize?
What never ceases to amaze me is the level of vitriol the Left spews. The gutter language they use when attacking someone is beyond anything I’ve ever seen. Things can get a bit heated over here also with some name calling, but I’ve never seen anyone here, or on other conservative blogs call someone a c*nt.
Oh wait, I forgot that these are the same people who believe in feminism and consider such name calling of women degrading… now I’m really confused… /sarcasm.
In the addendum article says this bill “must signal the end of the old ways of doing business.” Well once again he said something that cannot be argued with – he has a new way of doing business – and it scares me to death
IS OBAMA AN AUTHORITARIAN?
thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/10/commentary/op-eds/doc49b6157af2d5c063034962.txt
Among psychologists, the word “authoritarian” has a meaning quite different from how that word is used elsewhere. And thereby hangs a tale.
In normal usage, the word is most used to describe people who boss others around – with government by dictatorship being the extreme case of authoritarianism. But psychologists use it to describe people whom one researcher summed up as “fearful toadies.” There is certainly no evidence that they boss anybody around.
How come? It originates from an attempt by a Marxist-led group of psychologists to square the circle. Theodor Wiesengrund (aka Theodor Adorno) and his leftist friends had a big problem immediately after World War II. Everybody was aware at that time that Hitler’s doctrines were simply a more aggressively-pursued version of what the American left of the day (the “Progressives”) had been preaching for over half a century. In the first half of the 20th century, the enthusiastic preachers of eugenics and racism were all on the left and Hitler had generally been in good odor among the prewar left. He did after all call his movement “National SOCIALISM.”
…….
where does Mr. Obama fit into that? Clearly, he is not a “fearful toadie,” so he is not an authoritarian in Wiesengrund’s sense. There are however things about him and his supporters that are interesting from a psychological viewpoint. There are a number of things which are alarming when taken together. Any one of the things that I am going to mention leads to no conclusions by itself. But when those things make a set (or a “syndrome” in medical parlance) conclusions tend to be suggested.
……
Mr. Obama gained power through a democratic election. So did Hitler. Enough people voted for him for him to win control of the German government.
Mr. Obama has support among his followers that verges on the hysterical. So did Hitler.
Obama supporters are predominant in the media. Hitler dominated the media of his day too.
Hitler wanted the government to control most things without entirely abolishing the private sector. Mr. Obama is trying to vastly expand the role of government too.
All that is just by way of introduction, however. The most troubling thing about Nazism is that it was psychopathic. It showed no awareness or right and wrong and no respect for truth versus falsehood. And that fits in perfectly with the modern leftist doctrine that “There is no such thing as right and wrong.” And Hitler did not just preach that. He carried it out.
It is perhaps early days to see what Mr. Obama’s ideas of right and wrong (if any) will add up to but we CAN see what his ideas of truth and falsehood are. Like clinical psychopaths, Mr. Obama is a fantasizer with no regard for the truth at all.
tried to edit it down and i left the important part out… sigh
He just makes things up as he goes along with no concern about the truth at all. But the silly thing about such fantasies, and the thing that brands them as psychopathic, is that they sound good only at the time. Subsequently they are easily found out as false and therefore tend to cause distrust of the speaker. The psychopath just floats along on a sea of fantasy until people eventually find him out and cut him off. (Psychopathy is defined in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, a diagnostic guide used to diagnose the disorder, as a personality characteristic demonstrated by glibness and superficial charm, cunningness and manipulation as well as pathological lying among others.) And I think there are already signs that Mr. Obama’s proposed solutions to America’s problems are fantasies too. The “stimulus” that did not stimulate seems likely not to be the last fantasy that does not work out in reality.
So Mr. Obama has a lot in common with the fascists of history, with his clear psychopathic tendencies being the most worrying. He is in that real-life sense an authoritarian.
Olderandwheezier, I assure you my comments were made with tongue in cheek.
It is indeed clear that he, Obama, has no personal foundation on which to stand; and therefore tries to pretend that he shares that of others.
Still, Truman would be a good example for him to follow. Humble but not overwhelmed, focused, principled and courageous. In fact Truman would not be a bad example for any President, in that I believe that he never thought that he was more important than the office. Having not sought the Presidency in the beginning, it may be that he viewed the office as a responsibility and not as a privilege.
If only the Fuehrer knew!
as such a person enters a place where REAL performance is critical, the cargo cult falseness comes out… (to average joes, this is the wizard of oz thing)…
however, they are power people… and they like to hurt others to feel it… and they do not see real skill and such as something real, they see it as another psychopath who is better at scaming. to a liar truth and falsehood are meaningless terms.
[if you study the cahanges they are making its the retro sociopath that predated organized culture, that is gaining a footing due to the large size of the population. in one of the book on the subject they interviewed inuit on the tupe. and when asked what did they do about them, the inuit said they would have an accident… but in a abnormal populations of good people who are not even aware of sociopathy beyond crimnality and extreems, dont even know waht to watch out for]
this is rule by psychopaths…
and it always goes bad… becasue they have no real skills, they are cargo cult parasites. and they do GREAT as long as they are in some whole system in which its easy to cheat… but let them rule, they arent even aware of what they are, and they fantasize what others thoughtfuly plan.
is it any wonder they love confucian type ideology? a social map to make the right decisions for a mental cripple who is cargo cult? a program to follow… to get it right…
the problem is that their map was made by the same cargo cult type as they are!! so it ignores reality and realities principals. becasue by explioting others, your exploiting their skills in these principals and you are saving over them the effort…
but when they take power, they try to apply this. it doesnt work.. then they get paranoid…that is as everyone starts to turn on them, they instead try to do what sociopaths do. make it everyone elses fault. in the book on sociopaths, the author interviewed a criminal sociopath… and that sociopath talked about murdering and torturing a woman/girl.. and the doc asked how he felt.. he said it wasnt a problem since the girl was stupid to go with him, and so everything that happend was her fault. he said he taught her and she learned before she died…
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Artfldgr: In one of your comments you quote someone who said that Hitler gained power through a Democratic election, and that enough people voted for him to for him to win control of the German government.
This is a common notion, but it is not true, although Hitler did come to power through legal means (see this.)
The actual story is one so dreadful and so dramatic that I’m surprised more people aren’t aware of it. Here is a summary of the events:
In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg’s 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.
However, the balance of power in the Reichstag was still unstable, lacking a majority party or coalition to rule the government. All too frequently, Hindenburg had to evoke the dictatorial powers available to him under Article 48 of the constitution to break up the political stalemate. In an attempt to resolve this crisis, he called for more elections. On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party. Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler Chancellor.
In another election on November 6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total to 196. And for the first time it looked as if the Nazi threat would fade. This was for several reasons. First, the Nazis’ violence and rhetoric had hardened opposition against Hitler, and it was becoming obvious that he would never achieve power democratically. Even worse, the Nazi party was running very low on money, and it could no longer afford to operate its expensive propaganda machine. Furthermore, the party was beginning to splinter and rebel under the stress of so many elections. Hitler discovered that Gregor Strasser, one of the Nazis’ highest officials, had been disloyal, attempting to negotiate power for himself behind Hitler’s back. The shock was so great that Hitler threatened to shoot himself.
But at the lowest ebb of the Nazis’ fortunes, the backroom deal presented itself as the solution to all their problems. Deal-making, intrigues and double-crosses had been going on for years now. Schleicher, who had managed to make himself the last German Chancellor before Hitler, would eventually say: “I stayed in power only 57 days, and on each of those days I was betrayed 57 times.” It’s not worth tracking the ins and outs of all these schemes, but the one that got Hitler into power is worth noting.
Hitler’s unexpected savior was Franz von Papen, one of the former Chancellors, a remarkably incompetent man who owed his political career to a personal friendship with Hindenburg. He had been thrown out of power by the much more capable Schleicher, who personally replaced him. To get even, Papen approached Hitler and offered to become “co-chancellors,” if only Hitler would join him in a coalition to overthrow Schleicher. Hitler responded that only he could be the head of government, while Papen’s supporters could be given important cabinet positions. The two reached a tentative agreement to pursue such an alliance, even though secretly they were planning to double-cross each other.
Meanwhile Schleicher was failing spectacularly in his attempts to form a coalition government, so Hindenburg forced his resignation. But by now, Hindenburg was exhausted by all the intrigue and crisis, and the prospect of civil war had moved the steely field marshal to tears. As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg’s son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.
On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor.
i know the story…
but he did get enough votes to be in the game…
and if he didnt or wouldnt have goten those votes, then he wouldnt have been able to aks for power and pull the reichstag.
jon jay has written more towards what you are saying… but in this article he was trying to be short rather than rehash it and be as long as me.
the key to make more sense of the differences is to read the laws and understand the odd rules that allowed him to make such a play.
perhaps the assumption made by seying he was elected is the big problem. it causes people to think that he had to win… but with hanging chads in the US, the point then makes a bit of sense.
winning by some odd count and such ratehr than an outright majority… or having multiple elections to get a majority, opens up to winning by other means than our assumptions.
the numbers you give are remarkably similar to the real numbers for obama… and the same demographics doing the voting…
reading your post, one should be able to see the similarities if not parallels to the sociopathic rule doing things through manipulative deals.
in truth, no one of this type is elected, even if they are elected.
because the people voting are not actually voting for him, but voting for a construct with a purpose.
there is actually a lot more to that story… but i thought we are trying to shorten my posts.. 🙂
whats missing up in that post is the people in the west in america who were part of it too..
however, after hitler did take the rulership.. he was liked a lot… like mussollini…
i think out of all this the scariest point isnt hitlers means to power… cause they will be similar, but always different… or that the people can be manipulated…
but that he didnt set out to create a dictatorship in the sense the common public thinks… that came later, a necessity brought upon by his actions and his mandate to goals.
no the scariest part is the time scale.
everyone here is talking about obama next election…
hitler as youi point out, became chancellor in 1933…
within the space of the two potential elections, how much time did he take and obama have?
1933 – 1945 span of hitler…
1939 -1945 span of the war
took only six years to make such drastic change and put everyone in a conflict that couldnt be backed out of…
thanks for the great refresher…
there is a great history on this in more detail, but i cant remember where..
one last parting point.. i think when they say that he was elected… they are really pointing out that the people were complicit in creating the situation, which in russia and china, and some others, was not the case.
Papers on AUTHORITARIANISM by J.J. Ray — Previously published and previously unpublished
jonjayray.tripod.com/auth.html
the more detailed and pretty durn good stuff on hitler is here.
The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin’s Communism. The very word “Nazi” is a German abbreviation for “National Socialist” (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler’s political party (translated) was “The National Socialist German Workers’ Party” (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-roots-of-fascism-american.html
oh.. and if you want to read one of the best things on the edenic history i would say go here.
This is a book about the utopians, what their visions entail, and how they try to make them real. Since by definition utopia cannot be made real, the utopians are on fools’ errands, in the same sense that traditional religious adherents are. Nonetheless, the history of their campaigns and programs is not just a sorrowful tale of futility but also one of very serious destruction. Explaining the appeal and various forms of human utopian aspiration is an involved and difficult enterprise, neither started nor finished by the book before you. But perhaps this contribution will be of some practical use to someone.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/eden/overview.html#metatop
its chockablock full of things in concentration… but like anything, one should know their history before gettig into long tracts by individuals.. (and even pros with a ideological saw).
i havent read it all.. but its real interesting.. and so far i can t point to much that is off… (so if someone gets farther than me, and sees somethign, please note it).
this is the point in the introduction that may make things a bit clearer too.
My purpose is simple, and I don’t pretend impartiality. This book is descriptive, not prescriptive, but by way of description and explanation I seek to guide the liberal-minded toward classical liberalism, and away from the utopianism that infests modern liberalism. This book should perhaps be viewed first as a warning to those who, like myself, envision radical progress in the human condition. In the minds of mere mortal men, the perfect all too easily becomes the enemy of the good.
We have likely already seen the high water marks of radical utopian socialism – in the West, 1933-1945, and in the East, 1949-1968. Now it is creeping, moderate socialism that presents the greatest threat to human prosperity and advancement, because the utopian aspirations (and attendant tendency toward totalitarianism) largely remain, concealed within.
It is chiefly on the Enlightenment that this history of utopianism pivots, and the view of the Enlightenment as (at least in part) more religious and less reasonable than advertised, is not new.
@Artflgdr
Even though I tend to agree that the concepts of Utopianism lead to authoritarianism, and I also acknowledge the leftist connection to Fascism and Nazism, I disagree with the proposition that Obama can accomplish what Hitler or Mussolini did to their economies and their governments.
I believe in American exceptionalism, and especially in the inherent nature of the separation of powers in our government. What the Democrats are trying to do by subverting language to suit their ends and by confusing the debate is to subvert the system so they can achieve progressive ideals.
I will agree with you that this is dangerous and very authoritarian. However, they lack the popular support or the brute force to create this authoritarian state by “hard power”. They need to pass legislation or browbeat people with words, what I call “soft power”, to get what they want. Republicans, Independents, and any other party need to prevent them from doing this by being smart; picking our battles, fighting them carefully, and beating cognitive dissonance and the endless stream of libel to get out the word about who we are.
I suggest you read Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg. His historical analysis is very accurate, and his comparisons between historical and current leftism is very prescient. He can be a little hysterical in his final chapters, but the analysis is still good.
“…he didn’t set out to create a dictatorship in the sense the common public thinks…”
Mein Kampf:99 “Democracy is a universal plague. It creates a monstrosity of filth and fire. Fate showed me how ridiculous a parliament is as an institution.” Mein Kampf:104 “The invention of democracy is a crying shame…. A majority can never replace the Man.” Mein Kampf:106 “The one true leader, provided by Fate, is to be placed in that position.” Mein Kampf:107 “The mass of people are not sufficiently developed to arrive at a political opinion by themselves and thus are not suited to select the leader.” Mein Kampf:113 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a great man to be discovered in an election.” Mein Kampf:116 “Democracy shuns sunlight. Only a Jew could praise such a dirty and false institution. Mein Kampf:117 “The word “fuhrer” (leader) has a very special connotation. Der Fuhrer is a man who gives expression to the divinity enshrined in his people. Der Fuhrer speaks as the Oracle or Messenger of his dreams. Der Fuhrer must have a feeling of certainty. He must not shrink from bloodshed or even war in pursuit of his goal. Der Fuhrer is the German Messiah whose kingdom is to last a thousand years. He is like Christ. He must allow Fate to dictate the course he is to pursue…. Any German who resists Der Fuhrer is a pariah, a blasphemer against Providence.”
By his own words, that’s exactly what Hitler set out to do.
Must be hard having to be corrected twice in one day, huh, Art?
i will work up from the bottom..
i did read liberal fascism.. and jonah is a very clever man… he figured out how to present the argument in a way that kept using psycological terms that disarm, and kept injecting certain, exceptions…
precisely so that those who are on the left who beleive in the exceptionalism myth, would not attack him… the way he wrote it was quite interesting and i found it more interesting than the historical content, which for me was very ho hum, and not very detailed… but then again, if it would have satisified me on those points, no one else would have read it.
I disagree with the proposition that Obama can accomplish what Hitler or Mussolini did to their economies and their governments.
well then you dont know the process… what would you have read that would reveal things in a way that you would know?
to quote pink floyd
So you think you can tell? heaven from hell. blue skies from pain…. you would be very surprised at how close a population is always skating on the edge of things… and how easy it is to make things flair…
I believe in American exceptionalism, and especially in the inherent nature of the separation of powers in our government.
thats nice. but belief never did make a strong wall.
its the exceptionalism with nihilism that does it.. and then the question is do you direct them to themselves or the outside other. we are directed to ourselves, while the rest of the world is being directed to the outside other.
so what is it we are all facing into and hating?
What the Democrats are trying to do by subverting language to suit their ends and by confusing the debate is to subvert the system so they can achieve progressive ideals.
for a person who tells me to read jonah, you sure dont know that progressive is a synonym for marxism, as is socialism, communism, feminism, black nationalism, nazism, fascism, bolshivism, menshivism, maoism, stalinism, and i can go on for a bit…
each name took over as other names got tainted. later each name represented the same thing in different wrappers… which is the core joke in monty pythons spam skit… that you can have any brand you want, but your always going to get marxism with it… thats the new world order..
I will agree with you that this is dangerous and very authoritarian. However, they lack the popular support or the brute force to create this authoritarian state by “hard power”.
as i said.. you dont understand the process..
EVERYONE thinks that a despot rises believing he is a despot… this isnt so… he would be seen as what he is then… he doesnt even know what he is… so the fantasy of the despot in movies ALWAYS skips over HOW. or havent you noticed…
they go from A – Z and whats in between is quite vague.. even the history channels things dont talk mechanics…
the way it works in as short as i can put it, as i have said before… is that YOU do it for him.
there is a heirarchy of belief here, and each level that is occupied has different points of participation.
you cant see how certain heirarchies can change that fast… and in other cases, you cant feel that they have already changed and you cant realize it.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
By his own words, that’s exactly what Hitler set out to do.
Must be hard having to be corrected twice in one day, huh, Art?
democracy is a horrible form of government.. which is why we are not a democracy… you would have to know how they used the terms… democracy was mob rule, and russia just got rid of the czars and erected a totalitarian state and called it a democracy of the people.
at this time, the system had aready impoverished everyone.. and they were mostly living subsistence… dirt roads and such…
hitler and mussolini both did not want a totalitarian state… they didnt want a democracy of the people.. they wanted a third way… a way between what they were told were the two extremes… which then the spectrum was different.. why? because then, the class system with royalty was dominant… so unlike today where one side would be anarcy, through locke liberalism, through socialism, fascism, nazism, then into communism… the final state that marxism takes (so they say).
so even marx wasnt talking about what we have now… the left and the right were dichotomies between royalty and other forms of state… not between socialism and capitalism..
what these blokes wanted to do, was overthrow the royal state, and then abolish capitalism, which is what was destroying the royal states and their hegemonic ability to dynasty.
by the time its gotten to us its all twisted up in so many ways that we find it hard to go back and read texts in the way that they meant things.
what you are bringing out is his messianic urges so that he could appeal to the religious man as the savior…
let me put it this way and it will be much clearer..
they all hope that when they take that podium after their games… that they world will love them. that by seizing power they are actually representing the people…
its when the people who are supposed to love them, turn on them, that things get really freaky.
you can read lots of texts of leaders and get the sense that they are despots if one goes by just the puffery… read patton.. no wonder he was so easy to paint as a nut…
this is why this speech doesnt alert us BEFORE the rise and problem… because they all speak in a high tone.. but the crucial difference is in how they act… read churchill… but a very different way of acting and purpose.. a very different sense of the means and ends..
i have read mein kampf, and one thing you can be sure about.. he thought everyone would just fall in line and think it was a great idea… and most were already ready by the prior events and the frankfurt school games (which is why hitler kicked them out.. they were lucky, if it was later, he would have used other means).
the key here is ambiguity and lying…
ambiguity hides malice, and lying shows the real character and the means they are willing to use.
while the world likes to say these people are nuts.. i am not so stupid… nuts dont get this far… and they dont get the help of so many other successful nuts either… being inscrutible is not a default conclusion of idiot or nuts… but thats what peopel do… and being inscrutible is like lying… its lying as to what your doing.
hitler set out to get power.. and wanted to use that power for what HE thought would be a better place… the key was that if he could have done it with nothing but speeches, he would have… but that was impossible… and as time passes, the falsness of seizing power becomes more prounounced… and so with plans incomplete, and the aformentioned willingness to accept the deaths, the misery and the rest of it that will come with making the new place… for such a change would be catostrophic.. they just cant tell that they are destroying when they think tha way…
if stalin really hated his people (a funny thing to say yes), he could have eradicated most of them. there really was no reason to stop… other than it wasnt productive…
these guys dont think normally.. they dont have a sense of empathy… surely there are decent people that may not like a certain group of religous or race grouped people… but most have empathy enough to not actually hate them, or think much about them other in passing.. and they certainly wouldnt exterminate them, beat them to death, or all of that…
but without empathy… being very smart… looking down on most… manipulative… with a messianic mandate to make it right (but having no idea how to do it other than their confucious book of rules and premises from which all knowlege stems)… a desire to be adulated..
paranoia sets in when literally the world is against you… and it all falls apart, and you want it to hold together..
what made hitler worse was all his early successes…
what makes obama worse is that his failures are seen by him to be successes…
Camille Paglia: A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change.
Another potential convert?
The reason why “liberals” want to mind other people’s lives is that they don’t have lives of their own. They need badly to get a life,instead of waiting for some Messiah to do it for them.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
Abraham Lincoln
None of this behavior is surprising to me, precisely because of my experience on the Left years ago. Sometimes at meetings, which occasionally I would go to (I was not particularly an activist type), I observed how the activist leader (who was himself an Israeli Jew and a member of the Communist Party) had his agenda and would let people have their say. But in the end he always got his way and once it was settled you had to do it his way or the highway.
Obama has some of the same qualities. So do his minions of socialist activists, in the media and in academia. They circle the wagons and they shoot the raiding parties. People on the inside who pick up on one of his “tells” or those of his people and get cold feet, God help them if they leave and then criticize.
Not directly related to my last point above, but illustrative of what they do to people who make them look bad: the affair involving Samuel “Joe” Wurtzelbacher. When that happened I was probably one of the few people in America who were not surprised at how efficiently deadly they were at character assassination. And it was done swiftly. His head was in his lap before he knew what had happened. But it did cause me to have a moment of fright thinking about what Americans were about to unleash on the nation on November 4th.
Pingback:Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » “The smirk stops here”….
Fred, I told my son before he headed off for university that he could think anything he liked; but if he marks himself as a conservative, he will always need to keep a lookout to the blindside for the cheap shot.
Oblio,
Furthermore, I already think our society is in a civil war already, only it has not evolved into guns and shooting yet. Let us pray it does not get to that point. But if it does, then do our duty and defend our principles, traditions, and foundational documents.
I’m not sure how to overcome the awesome hurdle and advantage the Left has in dominating education and media. Restoring balance there will take a long time, if it can be done at all. That worries me a lot.
I don’t know, Fred. I am, as usual, more hopeful than you are. If you know the moves and know what the look for, most Lefties aren’t really dangerous at all. Most of them are soft and intellectually flabby, or they wouldn’t be on the Left in the first place.
I admit, there are some Hard Guys, and you have to look out for some of the women, but if you know how to spot them, you can deal with them accordingly. They are only dangerous if you think they are something other than what they are; hence the need to spot “false flag” approaches.
It is essential, however, to act in a disciplined way and not to indulge in behavior that allows the Left to discredit you with personal attacks. Wild behavior and statements only hurts yourself and the team with people who evaluate positions according to how it makes them feel. Don’t allow your reputation to be taken hostage.
And if the balloon ever goes up, I’m coming to Rochester.
Is this neoneocon’s blog, or Artfldgr’s?
Don’t worry, davidt, neoneocon will reign in Artfldgr as the need arises. I happen to like some of the things he writes. They’re informative.
One of the best courses I ever took in college was Intro to Creative Writing and the grad assistant who taught the course assigned to us Strunk’s “The Elements of Style.” We learned how to use language efficiently and descriptively. Writing some essay well is time consuming and can be hard work. I never had to take freshman English because my SAT score exempted me from it.
Camille Paglia needs to take a journey into the history of ideas and arrive at a better understanding of the various currents that feed into today’s “progressivism.” I would also recommend reading literature that examines the psyche of the socialist and the revolutionary. One more valuable person to read: Alice Miller, Swiss psychoanalyst. From thence you would gain an understanding of the emotional landscape of someone like Barack Obama.
You won’t see a hint oft this ,but maybe our Messiah is basically a very stupid man. Well,not as stupid as Joe Biden.
Its old hat to her (being attacked from the left). I’m sure there are no suprises for her in any of this…
“By his own words, that’s exactly what Hitler set out to do.
Must be hard having to be corrected twice in one day, huh, Art?”
Hitler was expressing a hatred of a current political reality in Germany. He, in some sense like Obama, had only been an opposition party with a very vague look at where he thought to go (other than Jews are evil). As Art said, Hitler didn’t envision his Third Reich in specific terms – that came later. He was a true narcissist in that he thought of himself as the only one capable of leading Germany (and thus the world), but that doesn’t even imply what he later did.
Interestingly enough Obama has a similar type of book out, at least with respect to the idea of him being the only hope and salvation we have. However, past the narcissism and consolidation of power there is little else similar. The rest of his book more or less mirrors socialist/communist thought expressed in Das Kapital (though be assured, even though the ideas are identical it isn’t Marxist). Obama mirrors Lenin MUCH more strongly. Indeed when we look at their view of themselves, who they allowed to set policy (Trotsky for Lenin, Pelosi for Obama), and their goals they are actually eerily similar. The largest difference is that Lenin used violence to overthrow and was openly Marxists. But then in many leftist circles (even the soft ones) Lenin is considered one of the good guys.
For whatever reason the Left is really proud of that narcissism, they confuse it with “Leadership” – they have for a LONG time. I understand why they like the rest – they too speak mostly from Marxism whilst vehemently denying that they are.
Just a thought….
I remember hearing years ago of an occasion wherein Paglia and Limbaugh were at the same function.
Not only were they at the same function, but ended up – if I remember correctly – at the same table smoking cigars together and having a grand time!
The current attack of the left on Paglia leaves me wondering if the left considers her now to be less than pure, in the political sense, due to her ability on at least one occasion to actually speak with and enjoy a conversation with Limbaugh.
I also wonder if the left is suspicious of her motives in defending him, due to that friendly event between the two in the past.
Perhaps Paglia should be cut a little more slack by the middle/right? After all, given her intellectual abilities and apparent hardheadedness, the attacks from the left will likely only serve to move her farther from the truely far left and perhaps more towards the middle?
Theres like an unwritten rule among media leftist that Paglia regularly breaks. Never break stride with portraying conservatives as rich and uncaring brutes.
This contemporary pattern in lefty media is one day going to be looked back on with the same unintended entertainment value we get from the dead serious approach of shows like Reefer Madness.
The easily identifiable cadence of a 1940’s newsreel announcer has nothing on how this contrived conformity will one day entertain our descendants.
Scottie Says:
“Perhaps Paglia should be cut a little more slack by the middle/right?”
I read a couple of her books and always liked her / cut her slack… She’s been a free thinker forever and was always attacking mainstream feminism / bringing on the ire of the far left…
“As Art said, Hitler didn’t envision his Third Reich in specific terms – that came later.”
Has anyone here besides myself actually read Mein Kampf? Your statement above may have applied at the time of the Munich putsch, but Mein Kampf was the blueprint for everything that followed. The only “improvisation” were the means to the end, using the system to eventually destroy it. Once in power, it was implemented to the letter.
Mein Kampf:845 “Nazism must claim the right to force its principles on the whole and educate everyone about its ideas and thoughts without regard to previous boundaries.”
It wasn’t just about the Weimar Republic.
I disagree with the proposition that Obama can accomplish what Hitler or Mussolini did to their economies and their governments.
well then you dont know the process… what would you have read that would reveal things in a way that you would know?
The Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution….
I believe in American exceptionalism, and especially in the inherent nature of the separation of powers in our government.
thats nice. but belief never did make a strong wall.
That’s why we have a Second Amendment. An armed citizenry does make a strong wall. Just ask General Gage when he ran into a wall of minutemen at Concord.
Yup.
@Artfldgr
You misunderstand me. We’re playing on the same team. I’m asking you to temper your words.
I’ve read the book. I brought it up in the first place. Progressivism is dangerous, because in part it can lead to authoritarianism, particularly its emphasis on Utopia as an achievable result. However, I’m not equating it with fascism. It is merely the bud of an idea that if used in the right (or wrong) hands will lead to Italian-style fascism. But I don’t think the any official United States has the political will or popular support to create it, no matter how much they desire it. That’s what I’m saying.
I resent what Democrats have done to our country, and I resent what they plan on doing. But they can’t succeed as long as the democratic process prevails. This means that we conservatives and libertarians need to be on our toes. We can stop them. That is how I disagree with the analysis. In that way I do agree with the idea of “Liberal Fascism”, but it is wrong to equate liberal fascists with actual ones despite their ideological heritage.
Don’t shoot at your own team. Please don’t be condescending either as you have no way to gauge my education or my substance.
I’ve never read “Mein Kampf” because sometimes I cannot tolerate the ugly side of life. Reading the depressing rants of an evil, diseased mind is not something I want to do for awhile before I turn out the bedside lamp before I sleep.
“I’ve never read “Mein Kampf”..”
Fred, from earlier posts, you’ve obviously read the Qur’an and hadith. Mein Kampf is really nothing more than regurgitated Islam. Hitler was more articulate than Mohammed ( after all, Mohammed was illiterate ), but Mohammed taught Hitler everything he knew. Different times and circumstances, but same repetitive memes: submit, pay, obey, kill all those not like us ( especially Jews ), and one day we will rule all the world.
Oz, you shouldn’t complain about people being condescending. You are doing a fine job making your case, and your heart is in the right spot. Artfldgr shouldn’t have fisked you (Blue on Blue, Art).
“By his own words, that’s exactly what Hitler set out to do.
Must be hard having to be corrected twice in one day, huh, Art?”
dont mind it at all, without that i am a stagnated final product which has the changing ability of a rock.
unlike the people who accept the false argument of nurture nature (Which makes what you know infinitely important than what you are), i do not think i am a product of what i have found out.
if we are spreadsheets, what i know, does not change the spreadsheet and its underlying formuleas other than what it has embodied in that to change
for me, i would rather have my spreadsheet full of as much valid data and different perspectives i can get…
so rather than think there is a right bunch of answers for my spreadsheet and care what positions i take, as i care what they imply.. (ideology).
for me the right bunch of answers are absolutely imperical… they are the foundatiosn of my insight, ability, knowlege, and talents… why would i want to load my exquisite machine with false information so i can wander around under a false delusion of how the world is, functions, operates, and so forth?
isnt that kind of nurture really harmful?
nope… i dont care what the answers are or what they imply… i never have skin in that, i care as to what they actually mean and that they are correct imperically…
i constantly adjust, refigure, and never stop moving… unlike the average, who reach a level, figure they are done, stop learning, and then defend a false mental terriroty as if they are defined by it… and because they think they are, they are… they will declare that they are a leftist, a communist, a rightist, and do all that first.
when i only declare that i am a full rounded and constantly changing human being… left, right, and all those other things have no meaning for me other than they are tools to compel when force is not pragmatic to your ends.
this is how i can see so clearly… for a while i have been saying that all this is a genetic program on the sly… but alas… till someone respected taht they like says the samething, i am a nothing. a person to be discounted becasue i have not acheived celebrity status, the measure of all things empirical..
http://www.physorg.com/print156100530.html
Culture skews human evolution
and a comment i mailed to neo, and a few others (neo doesnt dialogue with me so no one get jealous).
This means that socialism is a genetic manipulation program.
In other words, if culture is part of evolution, and they are forcing the destruction of one culture for a conceive one, a sterile one that is poor replacing the richer organic one, they are in effect making changes to the human genome just as surely as they would if they use genetic manipulation!!!
And if one now can accept that, one should be able to see that the elites are splitting the species into two classes, the slave class too stupid to rise up, and the elite class… (Meanwhile none of this is necessary thanks to robotics and future potential).
That if a state insists on controlling outcomes, the state is guilty of human genetic manipulation — which technically is a crime against humanity.
Ergo, socialism, and humanism are ideological crimes against humanity in that they are guilty of manipulating culture, which in turn manipulates the human species genome, not just individuals.
This is no different than nazi genetic experiments… and is done with full knowledge of such an outcome.
It’s the SOFT version of genetic manipulation (as I said it was since its easy to work out the implications of manipulating a population towards some arbitrary ends). In where you carefully guide who will mate, who will not, whose babie lives who is more likely to die… but you don’t do it on an individual level like moonies and cults, you do it on a population level by using taxes to guide behavior, which then affects genetics.
Now you may see why science will be threatened… as it proves that their “scientific” policies are really horrors!!!
In other words seen through a valid light like this, all their choices as to whats better for man than the old culture, amounts to imposing a cultural mold on the population that over a long time will result in our genetic having to fit that mold to survive.
They are making new socialist man in genetic manipulation through experimenting on the people through social policies, and different social forces to create the movement of masses of people to their goals. Goals I may add that they do not themselves participate in… (the elite do not limit their children, do not give charity, do not abort, do collect wealth they say their pets shouldn’t have, and more).
but you cant see this if you start filling your spread sheet with crap data as a shortcut…
Lee,
you seem to have a problem in telling the differnce between goals and means… not saying your a leftist, but in a leftist world, that is the way that they think and others adopt it.
lets look carefully at your own words, and show waht you unconciously understand, but conciously reject.
“As Art said, Hitler didn’t envision his Third Reich in specific terms – that came later.”
Has anyone here besides myself actually read Mein Kampf?
yes i have read it… but i do understand the difference between a vague goal or a necessity stated and the means of carrying otu that goal are two different things. of course one person may only see one means, and so cant tell that the means and goals are differnt, or even not what theya re thinking. once they settle on a solution, they will doggedly hammer it rather than adjust it, this is the reason for the self esteem movment. to make it hard to move the mind after the teachers set the stone.
where if you were like me (which you dont believe) you would not care at all what the correct answer was, just that it was correct, THEN work from tehre.
Your statement above may have applied at the time of the Munich putsch, but Mein Kampf was the blueprint for everything that followed.
like the genome is a blueprint? in what way do you say its a blueprint. are there descriptions of how the state organizations will be structured with names for all the levels? where there specific instructions that at a certain point kristalnacht would happen?
did the blueprint tell you where to place a board and a nail specifically, as a blue print does?
or was it an overview? declaring the things that would have to be done, but not necessarily declaring how they would be done. the mission statement vs the actual mission.
The only “improvisation” were the means to the end, using the system to eventually destroy it. Once in power, it was implemented to the letter.
and here is what i was saying, you subconciously know what i am talking about, but you do a mental flip refusing to get your prior sentences logicallin in line with each new sentence.
like the habit obama has, the population finds this series of hanging facts in isolation to be the way to debate.
Mein Kampf:845 “Nazism must claim the right to force its principles on the whole and educate everyone about its ideas and thoughts without regard to previous boundaries.”
It wasn’t just about the Weimar Republic.
ok… well obama is doing the same thing with different means.
hitler said, it would be faster and easier now that we have all this power so fast (somethig that one cant plan on), lets use it… and so his means were ones of efficiency without empathy… as he didnt care what the reaction would be to the means.
ah… but what did the world and obama and the left learn from taht and from the same thing in stalin?
taht the people really do have the power, and that if your stupid enough to say “let them eat cake” they will revolt and do you in.
so everythign you do, has to be ambigous, and could have dual reason. that way, there is no way to remove it, or stop it, till everyone realizes that these thignsa amount to the same END.
so how does obama do it? tax manipulation, crisis management, and so forth…
you again, cant tell teh differnce between means and goals… so you cant see that hitler, stalin, mao, obama, et al. have the same goal, and all their work just amounts to an experiment to figure out which combinatino of means will unlock the door.
and your too dumb and too busy trying to make me a smarter person dumb like you so that i cant see the common goal int he different means.
so that i will accept what you were told, that higtler was on the right… but i cant do that… bcause to me all these means are nothigh, and its the goal that is important…
by the way, you learn this from the dead white guys you dignt get to read and discuss as a tapestry.
in this case, its the hyrda..
batteling the means does not kill the hydra.
battling the goals does.
so a war in iran and iraq that closes the transport ofmaterial, does kill the hydra… but discussions with all the heads does what?
see means, ends. two different things that go well together…
It wasn’t just about the Weimar Republic.
no… it was about the communists… since hitler and stalin were fightinv for the same people… weimar was out no matter what… it was the social democrats (menshiviks) that he was againt and fighting against… if he won those people then weimar would fall… so tacticaly speaking you dont know the movements…
again… form vs functino… image vs principals.
i dont accept your image, because i know how things function and what real empirical principals are in play…
not all of them… but a heck of a lot more than most.
That’s why we have a Second Amendment. An armed citizenry does make a strong wall. Just ask General Gage when he ran into a wall of minutemen at Concord.,/i>
and thats why they implemented lenins maxim that licensing and taxation would be how to remove guns from the population.
have you read that stuff, or were youout the day your teacher diktat to you?
@Artfldgr
You misunderstand me. We’re playing on the same team. I’m asking you to temper your words.
then i am most sorry… very sorry…
but at least some interesting commetnary came out. 🙂
However, I’m not equating it with fascism. It is merely the bud of an idea that if used in the right (or wrong) hands will lead to Italian-style fascism. But I don’t think the any official United States has the political will or popular support to create it, no matter how much they desire it. That’s what I’m saying.
could i be you have that opinion because you live in it and it was already created before you were born, and you hasvne leadned the terms and points that are valid so you could discern what your in?
the US is a fascsit state. it became one the first time it dipped into the public till to give money to some favored group over the group disfavored by the teft. since that abuse of power we have been technically fascist.
when the state taxes to control behavior, not get its fair share to do its job, then its a fascist state.
so the reason you think it cant happen here, is that there is nothing to happen.. nothing to change. just a lot more of the same you are used to and havent the knowlge to oppose.
i accept that your on the sme side.
but now you see (i hope) why stalin, hitler, mao, and otehrs marched people like me and fred into camps.
for when ther reality breaks and they realize they would come running to people like us to find out what to do… by removing us, they have no place to run to when they wake up. and its the removal of their rescuing cavalry that wakes them up!!!
Don’t shoot at your own team. Please don’t be condescending either as you have no way to gauge my education or my substance.
correct.. which is why i apologised immediately with not much in the way of mitigation or excuse.
lee,
Mein Kampf is really nothing more than regurgitated Islam.
lee you have it inverted…
hitler rewrote the korans to give them the slant he wanted. the originals he collected (like the raiders of the lost ark) were to remove the refrerences that would clear up the cahnge. (just as the US and GERMANY created new quatrains for nostradamus!!!)
in other words, the hateful rhetoric was added, and why you get this split in the religion… (beside the tactical convenicence of such).
the originals were thought to be destroyed when the museum they were stored in was bombed to oblivion. turns out they were found a few years ago, in teh basement of a home, as they were removed when the bombng started and no one knew that survived.
the issue now is i have heard nothign after that annoncemetn. as i would guess the realiease of such would be feared to cause a shizm that would create civil war among the islamics.
but hey, history be damned. right?
MICHAEL NOSTRADAMUS (1503-1566) Nostradamus is well known for writing “prophecies” in the form of four line poems called “quatrains”. Many legends have grown about Nostradamus which aren’t true, including his being a physician (there’s no record of it), his being Jewish (he only had one Jewish grandfather, and was in fact a second generation Roman Catholic) and discovering a cure for the plague from roses (it doesn’t actually work). Nostradmus made plenty of predications that haven’t panned out. He predicted a horrible fate for English Queen Elizabeth I in his almanacs, which never came to pass, and was probably written just to please the French nobility. A trick used by fortunetellers and psychics even today is to tell people what they want to hear. His reputation as an astrologer is exaggerated, and in fact, he could not actually cast horoscopes.
Many of his so called “prophecies” were really political commentaries and critiques about the Roman Catholic Church, and not predictions of the future. Fans of Nostradamus who don’t know this read anything they want into the quatrains, transforming them into “prophecies”. The antiquated form of the French language that Nostradamus’ quatrains are written in allow for a lot of wiggle room, too. Quatrain 51, supposedly a prediction about the fire of London of 1666, was actually a veiled protest against English Queen Mary’s persecution of English Protestants in 1555. This event happened in Nostradamus’ lifetime, and Quatrain 51 was first published in May 1555, a few months after the incident happened occurred. (The Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural by James Randi, pgs 160-164) Critics have noted that Nostradamus is good at predicting the past…and they may be right in more ways than one!
It’s a little known fact that Nostradmus’s son also tried his hand at predictions as well after the death of his father. According to Ripely’s Believe It Or Not, unlike his famous dad, “Nostradamus Jr.” didn’t have the knack for cloaking his predictions in poems without a specific date of fulfilment. Jr. was said to have botched every single prediction he ever made in fact, which is why he isn’t as widely known! Once he predicted a certain French town would burn down on a certain date. When it didn’t, determined to have one of his predictions come true, he tried to burn it down himself! An angry mob caught him in the act of arson, put out the fire in time before it spread, and even this prediction failed to materialize. When asked “Do you think we’re going to allow you to live after what you’ve done?” the defiant Nostradamus offspring replied “Yes”! The mob then immediately killed him. Even this very last prediction of Junior’s was a failure!
In the 20th Century, Nazi Propagandist Joseph Gobbels had booklets of Nostradamus’ “prophecies” printed up with interpretations that made the Nazis sound as though they would win WWII, and had them distributed all over Europe. Great Britain retaliated with it’s own Nostradamus predictions with the Allied Nations victorious, and distributed them over Europe as well. More than likely, neither set of fake predictions had any real impact on the war, one way or the other.
——-
Michele Nostradamus: His legend doesn’t live up to reality, and he was secretly a Lutheran!
similar was done with other religious texts.
the mullahs had control and it was easy once they were on board…
the issue remains that those originals predating these periods before modification have not come to light.
unlike for the actual christian bible, in which the qumran scrolls validate the level of tweaking.. (and it isnt much compared to otehrs)
Oz, you shouldn’t complain about people being condescending. You are doing a fine job making your case, and your heart is in the right spot. Artfldgr shouldn’t have fisked you (Blue on Blue, Art).
lee shouldnt make it personal.. which he does… and he likes to assert things that arent true…
usually i dont fisk, but when they make it personal as to ME, not the data, then i fisk them.
the smarter people usually learn not to attack ME, but attack my facts, and such, and everything is great.
attack me, and i wll hold a magnifying glass to your perfection… for when i find one who is perfect, i will then let him cast stones at me..
certain words and definitions are not absolute and their usage depends on the emotional state of the person using them.
if lee loved me, i would be erudite, but he hates the tall poppy, so i am arrogant.
if the secretary loves me, then we will go out on a date next week, if she doesnt, i will lose my job as the request is harrasment.
in both cases, the label changes not for the wearer, but for the one putting on the labels.
he dont make it personal, i will not fisk every point. debate my ideas, not attack me. attack me i do not become a whipping boy, i whup back like a big gorrilla who has lost tolerance for a younger gorrilla who has climbed all over him and screwed aroudn too far…
its a natural thing among primates.
Art,
Personal, moi? Actually, you remind me of a line from “Star Trek, The Wrath of Khan”:
“I’m laughing at the superior intellect.”
Was that whole tirade for me? Here’s another line from the same movie( hey, if you can quote Pink Floyd..): “..like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.”
Actually, these abyssmally long screeds you write remind me of something else someone once said:
Mein Kampf:706 “The great speaker senses the words that he needs to use in order to impassion his audience. If he errs he has the opportunity for correction. He can read his listeners’ expressions to see if they understand, and can repeat his message until he has convinced them of the correctness of what he has said.”
Mein Kampf:706 “The great speaker will repeat his message so often, with so many examples, he will overcome objections and refute them before they are even raised.”
So I see you have read Mein Kampf, and implement it.
“Oz, you shouldn’t complain about people being condescending. You are doing a fine job making your case, and your heart is in the right spot. Artfldgr shouldn’t have fisked you (Blue on Blue, Art).”
So your “big gorilla whipping tactics” (Baah…ha…ha…ha) aren’t just for little ol’ me, but anyone who even remotely questions whether you’re the “tall poppy” around here.
And you have a lot to learn about Islam and the Qur’an. I can’t claim infinite knowledge in this realm, either. But where exactly did you get all that “Hitler rewrote the Qur’an” bullshit? Cite your sources. ( must be from that .00001% of those who tested higher than you, which you’re not arrogant about, unless you are).
@Art
Actually, if you take the line that all Pigouvian taxes (taxes that influence behavior) lead to fascism, then it’s as Jonah Goldberg said; we are all fascists now. As are most economists apparently, since many of them favor Pigouvian taxes on things like energy and externalities. Charles Krauthammer must apparently be a fascist too, since he argued for a net-zero gas tax to change incentives for energy consumption. Changing behavior and incentives isn’t fascist, as long as it is not totalitarian.
When we start talking about wealth redistribution on the other hand, a thoroughly leftist and fascist modus operandi, then I am worried. We are drifting more from corporatism, our current model, towards Euro-Style socialism, a much stronger corporatist state.
I think we have a greater chance under Obama than under George Bush, regularly derided as a fascist goon, of adopting the “cult of personality” and the soft totalitarian mindset characteristic of fascist nations. But the fascism of old will not happen here. This is why Goldberg entitled his book “liberal fascism”, its a liberalized soft version of its big mean brother. Smiley face!
Concerning your notion on the Qu’ran, I think you need sources to back your claim. Also, Lee has done quite a bit of research into Islam and its components, so be prepared to face his knowledge.
In short, you need to be careful with your terms. I’m also sorry if I gave off the impression that I was attacking you. On review, I see no comment in my original post that would have engendered such a view on your part. Please show me if I offended you.
Good post, Oz. I think Artfldgr got you confused with Lee…let it go.
I think National Socialism in Germany most certainly was a modern version of what Muhammad pulled out of his ass in Medina (Yathrib) after he was kicked out of Mecca.
The only difference between National Socialism vs. the Communist Party in the Soviet Union: the Soviets were internationalists, while the Germans wanted socialism only for Germany.
National Socialism… Communism/Marxism… Islam… they all share a common trait: they are totalitarian cults that spread death, poverty, misery, and viciousness. It’s all about strong men who say they have a right to loot and murder.
People who cannot see this are missing a critical element of a fully functioning human being: a moral compass.
Guess we’re still waiting for Art to get his foot out his mouth. Since he can’t “put up” he’s decided to “shut up”. About time.
Ozymandius,
I know the story and where Art probably picked it up. It’s a twist on a twist of the real truth, but I’ll give him a few more days to come clean. I have a feeling he’s running from this one, because he knows he’s stepped in it this time.
many thanks for providing valuable info regarding the topic. I am a fan of the website. Keep up favorable job.