Saturday, January 26, 2013




Lance Armstrong

American Hero Brought Down 
by Jealousy and Hypocrisy 

Drug dependent product of vice,
or victim of a vendetta?

FROM THE ARTICLE: The culture spawned by Leftist Iconoclasts in the Enemedia is absolutely BOUND and DETERMINED to discredit, dishonor, demean and if possible destroy ALL our heroes and icons –– especially if they happen WHITE AMERICAN MALES or men of Anglo-Celtic or Teutonic stock.

Please let's not turn Lance Armstrong into the Richard 
Nixon of the Sports World –– i.e. Everybody's Favorite Punching Bag.

Exhibitions of self-righteous contempt don't reflect well on those who utter them.

Ducky made an assessment the other day that for once was bang on.

"If you follow cycling, you know it was full of doping. The major riders were all juiced."

That's right, so in a very real sense every participant was competing on a "level playing field." Lance was just better than all the others –– remarkably so. The French hated him, because he was not French –– and he consistently beat them at their own game. The other cyclists were insanely jealous of him and lusted in their hearts to bring him down at all costs.


"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones."

How well our friend Will understood human nature! 

It's obvious only drug dependence could
produce a physique like this, right?


I know one thing: There is no amount of "dope" that could possibly turn ME into a world champion in ANY sport –– and not YOU either.

The next thing you know the militant iconoclasts and “revisionists” will go after People Who Eat Red Meat –– or Liver –– or too many carbohydrates.
Most don't appear to see it, but this entire brouhaha is just another symptom of the vicious ICONOCLASM and INTERNECINE WAFARE that characterize the age in which we live.

The culture spawned by the leftist iconoclasts in the enemedia is absolutely BOUND and DETERMINED to discredit, dishonor, demean and if possible destroy ALL our heroes and icons –– especially if they happen WHITE AMERICAN MALES or men of Anglo-Celtic or Teutonic stock.

It's part of a determined, well-organized campaign of longstanding designed to spread doubt and confusion, undermine our belief in ourselves, weaken our morale and render us ripe for dictatorship. –– Oh yes it is!

I don't blame Lance Armstrong one jot or tittle for cynically "cashing in" at this point by “confessing" to Oprah. GEESH! He knew he was "ruined" anyway no matter what he said or did. SO, realizing he couldn't possibly BEAT them and having no taste for martyrdom –– like most smart people –– he JOINED them.

That's how the oppositionists who set out to bring him down operate. "Their" methodology has been devised by evil geniuses, who know how to gain ascendancy by exploiting the worst aspects of human nature.
"They" set traps, and almost invariably "we" fall into them. That "we" have been made to feel "righteous" in so doing is one of biggest horse laughs in history.

"What fools we mortals be!

Portrait of a dope fiend?


~ FreeThinke

88 comments:

Thersites said...

Awww. Now I almost feel sorry for him...

Just I almost feel sorry for all those juiced baseball players NOT getting into the Hall of Fame. :(

But have no fear. Biogenetics will soon be the answer to ALL our "sports" problems! :)

FreeThinke said...

It's not Lance Armstrong I feel sorry for, Thersites, it is US.

Aren't you sick and tired of a small-minded, iconoclastic, pseudo-righteous, nit-picking, spiteful, vengeance-prone, scandal-addicted GOTCHA culture?

And the way so many of our supposedly "conservative" friends and allies JUMP with such eagerness on any bandwagon rolled out by the enemedia as a distraction from the real issues we ought to examine with a sober, watchful eye frankly sickens me.

Thersites said...

I agree with Zizek and attribute their duplicity to the Post-Modern shift from the former dominance of the "Discourse of the Master" to that of the dominance of the "Discourse of the University" out of Lacan's four discourses.

The Republicans (and Democrats) former "Master", capital, has been substantially strengthened through the "corporate" organizational structure, but is growing ever more silent as it "steps behind the curtain" and allows its' university sponsored "society of control" experts to become ever more pervasive.

Now why do I say this? It's from your use of the word "watchful eye"... for the "eye" is only directed towards those who might threaten the "university" system and/or its' corporate master. The "eye" destroys the hysterics and their analysts. It destroys their "heroes" and/or "potential heroes". And to ensure its' own victory, it simply changes the rules of the game.

Thersites said...

For Lance Armstrong was a "symbol" of "Living Strong".

We can't have that.

FreeThinke said...

I'm glad you understand, Thersites. Most emphatically do not. They get caught up in the minutiae of moralizing in order to enjoy the illusions that they are somehow "superior" to this great champion.

We set iconic figures on "pedestals," but always with the not-so-secret hope in mind that we will soon find "justification" for knocking them down and trampling them into the dust.

We love to turn our heroes into our victims.

Ducky's here said...

"... and if possible destroy ALL our heroes and icons –– especially if they happen WHITE AMERICAN MALES or men of Anglo-Celtic or Teutonic stock."
=================
Tell it to Barry Bonds.
The white supremacy doesn't look good on you, FT.

Thersites said...

Schadenfreude.

Yet since we are all little "liars" and "perverts" who break the rules in small ways, justifying these, our little moral "lapses" that add to our store of pleasures, we are all susceptible to complete destruction and social ostracism the moment one of the all-pervasive "watchers" in the panopticon catches us.

The master only turns a "blind eye" to our infractions when it is in his best interest and/or convenient for him to do so.

So we either become "hysterical neurotics" out of guilt from these little cheats, or "perverts" and "cynics" like Armstrong who cheat "willfully".

Of course, cheat and get away with it long enough, and the jealous masters turn on their "active eye".

Thersites said...

Now sing me another song Hermes. Argus wants to go back to sleep, for now.

Thersites said...

I find it hilarious that Ducky fancies himself the Democrat's "gadfly" when it comes to race... for when it comes to actual racism, we all know whence their sense of "moral superiority" originates.

Thersites said...

...the "magic Negro" who turns a blind eye to ALL their present and former racial transgressions.

Thersites said...

Right, duckman?

jez said...

Give sportsmen carte blanch to dope, and you condemn every competitor to resort to doping, and all those attendant risks.

Dope in cycling has reduced since its peak in the 70s. It'd be good to reduce it further.

-FJ said...

I'm afraid it's all ousia phanera in sport, today. They may "profess" ousia aphanes, but who can vide cor meum OR tuum?

Always On Watch said...

For the sake of young people, I do wish that Armstrong hadn't been an idol with feet of clay.

Back in 1925, when Babe Ruth caught venereal disease, the information wasn't revealed precisely because Baseball didn't want his promiscuous behavior to be emulated by young people. So, Baseball sidelined Ruth with "the big belly ache."

From THIS SOURCE:

...Legend says that Ruth’s primary ailment was acute indigestion, caused by consuming too many hot dogs, soda pop and beer on the train ride between Knoxville and Asheville. As mentioned earlier, Ruth had been feeling under the weather for several weeks prior to his incidents in Asheville and New York. To the press, doctors described Ruth’s condition at various times as “the flu,” “indigestion” and “intestinal abscess.” Yet those close to the situation, including Yankees general manager Ed Barrow, said privately that it was a bad case of venereal disease....

Babe Ruth was also a big boozer. Incredible, really, that he didn't kill himself off at a very young age.

My father, who was hanging around Griffith Stadium at the time, said that everybody in Baseball knew the truth. Certainly, Baseball didn't want any negative public relations. But, beyond that, Baseball, particularly the New York Yankees, at that time was genuinely geared toward the importance of good role models for young people.

Now, as for the current mess with Lance Armstrong, well, I see the "news stories" about him and his drugging as distractions. Bread and circuses.

Always On Watch said...

More about Babe Ruth, complete with copies of some of the newspapers at the time.

Always On Watch said...

FT,

We set iconic figures on "pedestals," but always with the not-so-secret hope in mind that we will soon find "justification" for knocking them down and trampling them into the dust.

We love to turn our heroes into our victims.


Agreed.

Has this not been true since ancient times? I'm thinking of Hercules, for one.

Divine Theatre said...

Oh, Freethinke!
You are so right! I have been "debating" politics on Facebook. Where do I begin? Suffice it to say that there are currently three pages on Facebook whose topic is...me. Yes, me. They have posted my husband's work phone number, along with his payroll from a few years back, posted pornographic photos with my face digitally added. Somehow they did a background check and posted everything they could find about me. Why? Because I dared to state my opinion on the HHS mandate. Somehow, their attempt to humiliate me means they won the debate? Nonetheless, I closed my Facebook account.

Andie

-FJ said...

They destroyed Hercules by making him (and by proxy those who claimed descendance, the Spartans/ Heracleids) into a gluttonous fool in Athenian Greek comedies. In actuality, his labours were performed as acts of "atonement" for having killed his wife and children after being driven "insane" by Hera.

-FJ said...

...and I find what they did to Andie , while not surprising, despicable.

-FJ said...

...and so people "wonder" why I maintain so many "different" avatars and web personalities.

*shakes head*

-FJ said...

fyi, Andie... when I used to blog under my "real" name, I got "hacked". I no longer do so.

Jack Camwell said...

I'm a bit baffled, FT. Your argument is that he shouldn't be punished because he was targetted for cheating better than all the other cheaters?

This has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarian conspiracy. It's not a smear campaign. He actually tested POSITIVE for doping.

If you put yourself out there and try to be a hero or an inspiration to others, then you best be the genuine article. The false heroes are tools of totalitarianism.

There is nothing dictatorial about seeking the truth. What people hate more than anything is feeling like they've been duped. Most of the time, people will simply ignore the facts so they don't have to feel so cheated for being hornswaggled, but in cases like these the evidence is incontrovertable.

-FJ said...

Now THAT was the voice of an future "hysteric", if EVER there was one. ;)

Kill the kids and go insane if you must, Jack.

-FJ said...

...and least THAT way, you can be an "honest" hero.

-FJ said...

...or like Achilles, a dead one.

-FJ said...

Antigone or Medea... which do YOU favour, Jack?

Divine Theatre said...

Jack,

I'd like to direct your attention to Barack's Peace Prize...
That is all...

FreeThinke said...

Jack, you are undoubtedly an earnest, sincere, well-meaning young man, but BOY do you have LOT to learn about the world and the way it works!

You've classified yourself as "a Post-Modern person," isn't that right?

I'm sorry, because I like you and don't mean to sound insolent, but if that's true, it's nothing to boast about. The "post-Modern" mentality, if I understand it correctly, is a clear indication that Western Civilization is moribund -- a terrible tragedy for the world -- an indication we are living at the dawn of a New Age of Darkness.

The literalistic, legalistic approach to learning is strictly ONE-DIMENSIONAL.

The "facts," even when neatly assembled in serried ranks and put on display, rarely get at the TRUTH.

The TRUTH demands vivid imagination, and keen insight to be understood, because almost invariably it lives quietly beneath the surface, shrouded in mystery, full of subtlety, and always rooted in compassion.

FreeThinke said...

Thersites, or was it FJ? Your comment on "changing the rules" as a means of to maintaining or regaining advantage stands out to me as particularly astute.

-FJ said...

Which would you prefer, FT?

The Gordion Knot is difficult to untie... especially as Ariadne keeps adding new turns to it.

And Jack, Ajax, Son of Telemon cannot but "go insane" in a competition against Oddyseus. For Athena (knowledge) works for the "trickster" in Power, and always will favour Odysseus.

-FJ said...

...just as Hermes always delivers his message from Zeus.

FreeThinke said...

Andie,

I am so very sorry you were subjected to that sort of treatment, but also not surprised. I have avoided Facebook like the plague, and will continue to do so. I've been uneasy with the concept since it arrived. Glad I was smart for a change, and trusted my instincts.

I think you may appreciate this poem -- a great favorite of mine -- as much or more than I do.


Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness --
’Tis the Majority
In this, as all, prevail --
Assent -- and you are sane --
Demur -- you’re straightway dangerous --
And handled with a Chain --


~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)


It has been my experience as a longtime observer of The Human Condition that the moment someone produces something unusual -- particularly if it's unusually fine, especially beautiful, noticeably clever, or shows a high degree of expertise -- it's apt to make that person an object of suspicion, resentment, ridicule and scorn.

If the person in question refuses to accept this negative verdict meekly, remains unapologetic and show signs that he, she or it intends to continue in that objectionable vein, h, she, or it is apr to suffer ostracism or outright persecution -- and in older or more primitive societies -- even torture and execution by the most gruesome means imaginable.

-FJ said...

btw - Who in the international bicycle racing community has been "punished" for allowing doping to go on for so long as a problem unrecognized? And would the fame and acclaim and attention given the Tour d'France have been so "profitable" w/o an Armstrong...

Just wondrin'.

FreeThinke said...

Well, FJ, though I'm sure you will find the comparison odious, the fate that has befallen Lance Armstrong is almost identical to that which befell Oscar Wilde.

He was, of course, denounced, tried for "buggery" in an officially-sanctioned version of a Kangaroo Court, shamed, humiliated, vilified mercilessly, jailed, bankrupted, driven into exile and hounded literally to death by "witnesses," who remained unpunished and apparently unharmed in way though they were equally guilty of the same offense for which poor Oscar was virtually crucified.

Now, undoubtedly, some thick-witted individual casually scanning these pages will leap to the erroneous conclusion that Lance Armstrong must be an ardent sodomite in addition to all the other dreadful things he's been said to have done.

Please, when you noise it abroad, don't say you heard it here first, because you didn't.

-FJ said...

Perhaps Wilde would have been better off had he exercised discretion, instead of bold effrontery...

Just sayin'...

jez said...

The world would have been better off had we not decided to persecute Wilde over private matters.

-FJ said...

Apparently Armstrong could have learned a lesson from Wilde...

...In January 2004, Le Monde quoted Pound as saying that "the public knows that the riders in the Tour de France and the others are doping." This prompted a strongly worded rebuke from Lance Armstrong, who called Pound's comments "careless and unacceptable."[7] Pound said he was surprised by the personal nature of Armstrong's response because he had never mentioned the cyclist by name.

Around the same time, scientists at a French lab were using frozen urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France to find a new way of detecting erythropoietin (EPO), an oxygen-boosting agent. The samples did not have names attached to them, only numbers, and were provided for research purposes only. But an article in the August 23, 2005 edition of L'Équipe reported finding documentation linking the numbers with the riders, with the findings from the research with samples linked to Armstrong, claiming that six of his 15 samples showed traces of EPO. Pound told the media that there was "now an onus on Lance Armstrong and the others to explain how it is EPO got into their systems."[8]

The Union Cycliste Internationale launched an enquiry, led by lawyer Emile Vrijman, former head of the Netherlands’ antidoping agency (and later defense lawyer of athletes accused of doping). In his 132-page report,[9] leaked to the media on May 31, 2006, Vrijman said no proper records were kept of the samples and that there had been no chain of custody and no process to ensure that the samples had not been spiked with banned substances at the laboratory. The report was highly critical of WADA and Pound, concluding that they had specifically targeted Armstrong and the UCI. The report also called for an investigation to "focus on the communications between Dick Pound and the media" and recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against any athletes.

In response, Pound dismissed the Vrijman report as “so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”[10] WADA released an official statement, criticising the Vrijman report as biased, ill-informed, speculative, and "fallacious in many aspects."[11]

On June 9, 2006, Armstrong sent an eight-page letter to Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, demanding that action be taken against Pound. He wrote that Pound was guilty of “reprehensible and indefensible” behaviour and "must be suspended or expelled from the Olympic movement." In February 2007, the IOC ethics committee recommended that Pound exercise greater prudence in his public pronouncements. It declined to move toward removing Pound as an IOC member, and found it had no jurisdiction over WADA. In response, Pound said he was accountable to WADA, not to the IOC.

-FJ said...

They say that Nemesis punishes Hubris... I suppose now we understand "why".

-FJ said...

...more on Pound

His allegations of widespread doping in professional bicycle racing at times brought WADA into fierce public conflict with the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). Pound's term as WADA president ended at the end of 2007; he chose not to run for another term.

Waylon said...

Lance Armstrong would have been smarter to take a lower key approach to defending himself from the charges. I don't agree it was a witch hunt either. By aggressively asserting his innocence even to the point of suing for defamation those that accused him of doping ... and winning damages against them ... makes him look worse than a shallow hypocrite, IMO.

His defense that "everybody did it" doesn't hold water as a defense either. He knew within his soul he was a liar, a fraud and a cheat. He looks worse now that he admits it than he would have by keeping his mouth shut and letting the charges abate, as they would have over time.

Waylon said...

... Oscar Wilde.

He was, of course, denounced, tried for "buggery" in an officially-sanctioned version of a Kangaroo Court, shamed, humiliated, vilified mercilessly, jailed, bankrupted, driven into exile and hounded literally to death by "witnesses," who remained unpunished and apparently unharmed in way though they were equally guilty of the same offense for which poor Oscar was virtually crucified."

Here's a question for you: Why wasn't that buggering old Fabian, Lord John Maynard Keynes, treated the same way? Was it strictly politics at play, or something more sinister.

Keynes said to his "friends", that the next century would belong to them. Looks like he was right in more ways than one.

FreeThinke said...

Face it, if Armstrong had been black or French none of this would have ever come to light.

FreeThinke said...

If all they had were unverified, carelessly stored, unverifiable urine samples, there is no "proof" that Lance took these drugs. He's been convicted on hearsay evidence by a bunch of equally-guilty, insanely-jealous, probably-Francophilic, colleagues, and officials who were plainly "out to get him."

As I said before, if you or I -- or any other average Joe -- took these substances, it would not make us champion athletes.

The man had ADVANCED CANCER for CHRIST's SAKE! He deserves every good thing he bravely went out and got -- and a whole lot more besides.

I flat out HATE the GOTCHA mentality that spawns this kind of thing.

He RODE the goddam BIKES. No one did it FOR him.

FreeThinke said...

Waylon, your question about Keynes is appropriate. Why indeed? Of course I agree with Jez on the question of Oscar Wilde. The nature and specific details of private relationships between or among consenting adults should NEVER be subject to legislation and NEVER discussed in print. PERIOD!

Thersites said...

Proof that Lance Armstrong had a sense of humor.

FreeThinke said...

This what your link produced Therites:

Juan Pelota Café uses locally roasted fair-trade beans for a great cup of coffee, as well as cold brews and speciality drinks.

May I ask what has to do with Lance Armstrong's alleged sense of humor? I did not see his name mentioned anywhere.

What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

Les Carpenter III

You are right in every aspect FT. Gifted and trained athletes all doing the same thing to gain the edge. It is how they make their money. In some cases millions are at stake. I don't advocate doping or the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs. I can however understand why elite athletes in all sports have used and continue to use them.

Just had this discussion yesterday with my Kinesiolgy and Sport and Exercice Physiology teacher who also worked as a trainer for a professional hockey team. He shares your views.

FreeThinke said...

I understand the reference to Nemesis, Thersites.

The Bible puts it much more simply, but it's the same thing:

"Pride goeth before a fall."

Speedy G said...

Lance owns the cafe... Juan Pelota... One Ball.

Ducky's here said...

Waylon, Keynes didn't flaunt it and scare the horses.

Waylon said...

I know this is supposed to be about Lance Armstrong, but since you brought up Oscar Wilde and "persecution" ...

"At the height of his fame and success, while his masterpiece, The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), was still on stage in London, Wilde had the Marquess of Queensberry, the father of his lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, prosecuted for libel, a charge carrying a penalty of up to two years in prison. The trial unearthed evidence that caused Wilde to drop his charges and led to his own arrest and trial for gross indecency with other men. After two more trials he was convicted and imprisoned for two years' hard labour. In 1897, in prison, he wrote De Profundis which was published in 1905, a long letter which discusses his spiritual journey through his trials, forming a dark counterpoint to his earlier philosophy of pleasure. Upon his release he left immediately for France, never to return to Ireland or Britain. There he wrote his last work, The Ballad of Reading Gaol (1898), a long poem commemorating the harsh rhythms of prison life. He died destitute in Paris at the age of forty-six."
-------

And the gentleman behind his "persecution", the Ninth Marquess of Queensbury ...

"Queensberry's lawyers, headed by barrister Edward Carson, portrayed Wilde as a vicious older man who seduced innocent young boys into a life of degenerate homosexuality. Wilde dropped the libel case when Queensberry's lawyers informed the court that they intended to call several male prostitutes as witnesses to testify that they had had sex with Wilde. According to the Libel Act 1843, proving the truth of the accusation and a public interest in its exposure was a defence against a libel charge, and Wilde's lawyers concluded that the prostitutes' testimony was likely to do that. Queensberry won a counterclaim against Wilde for the considerable expenses he had incurred on lawyers and private detectives in organising his defence. Wilde was left bankrupt; his assets were seized and sold at auction to pay the claim."


Now maybe today there is a subtle link to somebody that had an influence on Oscar Wilde, (John Ruskin an influential lecturer who influenced the thinking of a long line of people such as Cecil Rhodes and even Harry Truman).

Maybe you can call upon your UK correspondent to track down some leads and links to this interesting possible crime of the millennium.

Some things may not be what they seem it appears.

Waylon said...

Ducky, he may not have scared the horses but the buggering old pederast certainly scared the young boys.

Don't give him a pass because he was a Fabian pederast, a first cousin to your beloved Bolsheviks.

Waylon said...

Ducky, her's a nice little link to enlighten yourself about John Maynard Keynes. Right from your won back yard, so to speak...

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch04.html

Waylon said...

More on Fabianism, Wilde and GBS ...

"The Keynesian circle did not originate the idea of an entrenched academic and intellectual depravity. As early as 1874 Oscar Wilde set the fashion in college circles of what was described then as, “the effeminate pose of casting scorn on manly sports, wearing his hair long, decorating his room with peacock’s feathers, lilies, sunflowers,” and walking around in velvet knickers with a singer flower in his hand. From Oxford University the fashion spread to Cambridge and then to other British universities. The movement took on a leftist tinge and the charge was made that “the cult spread among certain sections of society to such an extent that languishing attitudes, ‘too-too’ costumes and ‘aestheticism’ generally became a recognized pose.”(39)

It created such public revulsion that it prompted Gilbert and Sullivan to ridicule the practice into oblivion through their satirical operetta, Patience in 1881.

Wilde entered into close collaboration with Bernard Shaw in writing of critical reviews and gained notoriety as a leftist—with his 1891 essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” Shaw made strenous efforts to get the Fabian socialists to print this work and have it widely distributed.(40)

In 1895 the famous trial and conviction of Oscar Wilde took place. The shocking disclosures of Wilde’s sexual depravities, perpetrated on young boys, resulted in his being imprisoned as a sexual degenerate. This made him a martyr among the leftist academics and literary elite to this day. Bernard Shaw boasted that it was he, “and the Rev. Stewart Headlam, a fellow Fabian Socialist, who had gone bail for Wilde. . . .”(41) Attempts have been made to refurbish Wilde’s reputation with claims of his subsequent reformation and his receiving of the last sacraments of the Catholic Church and being buried in consecrated ground."

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html

FreeThinke said...

I knew just about all of that, Waylon, but I am not one of those "conservatives" who indulges in morbid preoccupation with with other peoples' sex lives.

Being a leftist in the late nineteenth century consisted primarily of a series of intellectual exercises among highly-intelligent, well-meaning members of the privileged class and distinguished artists and academicians.

I believe most of them had no idea they were playing with fire, and honestly believed they might be doing good. Their behavior was decorous, their discourse politely phrased and showed no penchant for violent upheaval. Like most true intellectuals they were interested in trying on experimental concepts to see if they might provide workable solutions to perceived problems.

The tone changed considerably, the atmosphere changed and the behavior of leftists became increasingly perverted, degrading, demented and demonic after a certain tribe, which must remain nameless, took up with a vengeance and decided to wage war against Western Christian Civilization sing wit, wile, guile, artificially generated guilt feelings, seductive blandishments to the young, the alienated, the malcontents, the ill and those easily persuaded to see themselves as deprived.

Once the tribe became involved, the gloves were taken off, and we've been treated to loud, crass, vulgar, forceful, incredibly persistent rabble-rousing demonstrations consisting of endless complaints, accusations, and insulting "analysis" that presumed to tell "us" what was wrong with "us" and precisely what "we" ought to to "fix" ourselves,and the constant threat of violent insurrection.

I am morally certain this was motivated by centuries of pent up resentment that expressed itself in terms of sheer spite falsely presented as "piety." Armed to the teeth with the rhetoric of righteous indignation and a natural tendency toward rudely aggressive behavior the MARXIAN left -- completely different from the FABIANS in style, and avidly disposed towards fomenting upheaval by any means fair or foul -- brought an infuriatingly obnoxiousness tone into what-had-been polite-if-daring discussions of "new ideas" among a few of the more imaginative, conscience-stricken members of the upper class eager to find meaning, purpose, and probably a dash or two of excitement in their tedious, stilted, choreographed existence.

In my opinion a lot of this introduced some healthy, decently motivated thoughts and elements of rejuvenation into stratified society that was beginning to die of stagnation.

Apparently, you feel intense animosity towards members of the better-known literary, artistic and intellectual avant garde that emerged quite naturally about 125 years ago.

That is your privilege. We've already discussed our feelings about Shaw, and have no need to go through all of that over again.

We have much in common, Waylon, but also many differences. I have always been able to enjoy great works of art, music and literature on their own terms without having my judgment clouded in any way by disapproval of the religious, philosophical, political, domestic and sexual proclivities of the artists and writers involved.

Ducky's here said...

Waylon, once you claim Keynes was first cousin to the Bolsheviks it's check out time.

Utter fringe right wing nonsense.

FreeThinke said...

Oscar Wilde was a literary genius. He may have been homosexual and given to a bizarre outré manner of dress and interior decoration, but he was not a pederast.

Lord Alfred Douglas was hardly a child, nor was he an innocent victim of treachery.

I agree that since Wilde was vulnerable, it was probably foolish of him to try to attack The Marquis of Queensbury (the title has a comic-ironic ring to it given the peculiar circumstances we're discussing), but then it has long been said, "The best defense is a good attack."

Wilde was simply out-gunned.

I think the parallels between the case of Oscar Wilde and Lance Armstrong's current situation should be patently obvious.

Neither has really much to do either with sex or illicit drug use. What both were REALLY about was VENGEANCE motivated by sheer spite.

In the case of Alfred Douglas, any psychologist worth his salt would tell you the father could not bear to face his own responsibility and possible culpability in having sired and raised a gay son, so the father projected his grief, shame and rage onto Oscar Wilde making the playwright the scapegoat the Marquis' own inadequacies and feelings of frustration.

I truly believe the French have bitter animosity towards Lance Armstrong for consistently beating them at their own game, and Lance's colleagues have been insanely jealous of him because of his charisma, immense success, and manifest superiority.

Professional jealousy is a well-own phenomenon. It has spawned -- and doubtless will continue to spawn -- much evil in many fields -- most of them far less glamorous than world-class athletic competitions.

Each of these cases is a travesty in my never humble opinion.

FreeThinke said...

Canardo, it's check out time for you -- GO TO BED!

And please stop affecting a tone of superiority. None of us buys your act.

I know you're a lot better than the person you pretend to be, so STOP PRETENDING.

You're allowed to be wrong here as much as you like. Just stop being so goddam snotty about it.

GOOD NIGHT!

Always On Watch said...

FJ,
Good point about Nemesis, IMO.

As Shakespeare would have put it, every hero has his fatal flaw.

Always On Watch said...

FT,
Do you think that Oscar Wilde's novel The Picture of Dorian Gray was autobiographical?

Speedy G said...

I have only three words to describe Oscar Wilde...

Achilles on Skyros

FreeThinke said...

Here are some questions for you, Speedy:


Where does History end and Myth begin -- and vice versa?

Are they not inextricably intertwined?.

After all, we only know what we've been told -- or might there be something more to it than that?

Where DOES knowledge come from anyway

Can we really KNOW anything for certain?

Methinks we're only kidding ourselves much, if not most, of the time.

"LIFE IS A MYSTERY TO BE LIVED - NOT A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED!"

Speedy G said...

When the story was MYne, it was My"the". Then the master took over, then it became HIS"story".

I suspect that we can only "know" that with which we have the strngth to say "no" to. Only when we can sacrifice that part of us which binds us to our masters, can we "know".

FreeThinke said...

AOW, I think Dorian Gray is an entertaining allegory -- Oscar's way of trying to explain our dichotomous nature.

Polarity or duality exists in each of us, and causes constant tension. Without it we wouldn't be alive, BUT unless we strive constantly to maintain the delicate balance between the two extremes, we are in danger of going mad, becoming evil or stifling our creative potential.

It may be semi-autobiographical, but not in any literal sense, I'm reasonably sure.

I don't know whether or not I would have liked Oscar, if I'd had the chance to ow him personally, but in many of his writings -- particularly The Canterville Ghost and The Giant's Garden -- he reveals a tender wisdom and sweetness his scandalous reputation has kept hidden.

The libretto for the opera Salome, which Oscar first wrote in French as a play, is in my view another thinly-disguised allegory about the nature of lust and the terrible things it can do if not intelligently tempered with self-control acquired through wisdom. Most want to see Salome as "a revolting display of depravity."

I've always found it infinitely touching, myself. So did Richard Strauss, or couldn't possibly have written the musical score he produced.

Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, also part allegory, is another extraordinarily touching exploration of the dark side of human nature on many levels.

I actually abandoned a fifty-year friendship over Sweeney Todd. My former friend was so censorious, pompously puffed up with indignation at the very mention of the work he refused to allow me even to ATTEMPT to explain it to him.

That and several other demonstrations of cold-hearted contempt and intolerance for things he could not understand were so repellent to me that one day I came to the shocking realization that, despite our having been acquainted for more than fifty years, this guy had NEVER BEEN my friend, had NEVER KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, or CARED FOR ME -- AT ALL.

The experience was downright Kafka-esque.

Waylon said...

I am not one of those "conservatives" who indulges in morbid preoccupation with with other peoples' sex lives.

-------

Personally, FT, I'm pretty much a laissez faire conservative but I draw the line at sexual molestation of children. Oscar Wilde and Keyens appear to be exactly as I stated: Buggering Pederasts.

Convicted child molester should do hard time in prison for their depravity. And I'm laissez faire and Darwinian enough to advocate they serve their time with the general prison population ... since child molesters are the most hated of all the prison population, their "mates" would surely provide the appropriate punishment.

Waylon said...

FT, the image described in the link I provided above describes somebody whose outlandish behaviour would have fit right in with the hippie generation of the 1960's. I thought you prided yourself in seeing the depravity represented in the behavior extolled in the 1960's. Why can't you see it in the original hippie, Oscar Wilde?

FreeThinke said...

No "hippy" ever WROTE like Oscar Wilde, believe me.

Waylon said...

"Keynes’ sexual partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He further explained, privately, that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.”(13) This is a classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind. This was written in 1929 when it was already in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are reaping the whirlwind of student disorders where drug addiction and homosexuality rule the day.

Keynes and his fellow voluptuaries made numerous excursions to the resorts ringing the Mediterranean, where little boys were sold by their parents to bordellos catering to homosexual appetites.(14)

The practice of crudely castrating small boys (where most died from infection or shock) to provide effeminized children for the edification of depraved visitors is a well-authenticated historical fact.(15) Boys from the ages of seven up to twelve were subjected to sadistic carnal abuse. Since in almost every instance these children were sold into sexual slavery by desperately poor parents who were steeped in ignorance and superstition, it sheds an insight into the hypocrisy of Fabians like Keynes, who aimed propaganda shafts at private enterprise in England and America because it did not guarantee full employment. He and his fellow leftist reformers however, had no compunction in exploiting human degradation and misery in Tunis, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt and Constantinople (Istanbul). These served as convenient spawning grounds for the establishment of enclosed brothels filled with children, who were compelled to satisfy the unnatural lusts of high-born English socialists.(16)

Keynes always ready to guide others freely advised his fellow debauchees to go to Tunis, “where ‘bed and boy’ were also not expensive.”(17)"

From the above link ...

Waylon said...

"Keynes, like other homosexuals, had a fascination for the male ballet dancers. He and the rest of the Bloomsbury deviates were particularly taken up with the Diaghilev Ballet. The Diaghilev publicity manager in the United States explained, “—business managers loved dancers; men and women of all ranks consorted with men and women of varying degrees of masculinity and femininity; husbands fell in love with other husbands or their wives.” He characterized them as behaving, “like inmates of a rabbit hutch, constantly darting about, pulled by intrigue or sex.”(28) Diaghilev, himself, was reputed to be a homosexual.

One of the enigmas of modern history is the role of Lydia Lopokova, the premiere ballerina of the Diaghilev troupe. Before she became the wife of J.M. Keynes her romantic career had curious left-wing overtones. Shortly before the Russian revolution Lopokova was engaged to Heywood Broun, a New York newspaperman and a socialist. Broun was conspiring with those Russian emigres in the United States who later appear in Moscow as prime movers of the Bolshevik Revolution.(29) Lydia suddenly decided to marry a member of the Diaghilev entourage who was a strange shriveled dwarflike person by the name of Barocchi. His movements have been covered in mystery to this day.

Right after the Bolshevik Revolution with the Red and White armies locked in a death struggle for the control of Russia there was thrown together an international espionage network, by Lenin, for the purpose of detecting the plans of the White Army leadership. A group of Cossack officers appeared at the Diaghilev performances in London in 1918. Lopokova dissappeared with the chief Cossack general for several weeks. She returned to the ballet after the general headed back to Russia at the end of his leave of absence.

In 1925 Lydia Lopokova consented to be Keynes’ wife. On their honeymoon they visited her relatives in Soviet Russia. This puzzled experts on bolshevism since former nationals were strictly forbidden to visit their kin unless they were partisans of the communist cause. It was even more of a surprise in the case of Keynes since foreigners were severly restricted in their movements in Russia. The Keynes’ visited Lydia’s relatives again in 1928 when the Red Terror was even more intense and non-communist Soviet residents were in mortal fear of even speaking to foreigners."

What say you now, Ducky? I thought you considered a Harvard reference to be the gold standard in the realm of ideas ...

FreeThinke said...

As far as "child molestation" is concerned, most of it is poppycock. I doubt very very much if Oscar was ever involved with children.

Mae West said it with wry humor:

"Honey, If you're big enough, you're old enough." ;-)

I could tell you stories about the way children -- and I mean pre-pubescent children -- have approached me -- completely unsolicited -- that might cause your fingernails to turn black and drop off.

A great deal depends on what they've been exposed to, of course, but as a rule, "children" are ANYTHING BUT "innocent." If truth be known most of them are horrifying little savages in much need of taming.

jez said...

Freethinke's questions are in large part concerned with the difference between a primary and a secondary source.

FreeThinke said...

"Freethinke's questions are in large part concerned with the difference between a primary and a secondary source."

Yes, and I believe myself capable of spotting tendentious, agenda-driven writing, whether it be in sources of news and information, in fiction, non-fiction, cinema, theater, pop-music, advertising, textbooks, even television shows supposedly devoted to Nature, the joys of House and Garden and Cooking -- and especially the scandals the enemedia chooses to spotlight as opposed to those they choose to ignore.

The covert intent behind a recital of facts carefully selected to create a particular impression often tells you more than the "facts," themselves.

The concept has been popularly encapsulated in the modern proverb:

You learn more about Peter from what he says about Paul, than you learn about Paul.

And then, of course, "People generally see what they want-- or have been conditioned to expect to see." That is the added, often unacknowledged, problem in getting at the Truth.

When all is said and done, however, most people are not interested in Truth at all. What they seek most often is confirmation of their prejudices.

Anonymous said...

FT, you called Ann Dunham, President Obama’s mother a whore. And a Lunatic, Commie, Bitch!
In the past you've called President Obama a Marxist, Communist, a Socialist, and every derogatory name under the sun. You come to our Liberals blogs and spread your Republican bull-shit all over the place and now we have these others screw-balls coming here doing the same. You even dedicated a week of post about liberals!
I have been in many controversial political discussions on many blogs in the past but I have never seen any Teabagger Morons as blatantly ignorant and disgusting as you and the people who follow you such as Lisa and that degenerate radical jerk
You have sunk to a condition below that which is normal even for republicans. It seems that conservatives like you and the people you pal around with on those vicious blogs have all kinds of derogatory names for liberals, Socialist, Communists, Fascist, Nazi, and so on.
When us Liberals disagree with some one we are civil, I have never seen anyone on here call you a moron or an idiot, or a commie, or call George Bush Mother a “Whore” .You are the one who gets negative whenever anyone says anything you might disagree with.
You F@#$%@ idiot.

FreeThinke said...

I certainly did call Stanley Ann Dunham a lunatic, Communist bitch, Anonymous, though I don't remember specifically calling her a "whore."

I was absolutely right in so doing, because that's EXACTLY what she was -- Barack's irresponsible, self-indulgent mother was brought up to despise the United States of America and to do everything possible to thwart our country's best interests.

That made her exactly the type of person we DON'T need in these United States -- particularly in positions of influence.

It's perfectly fine with me if you want to be unconventional. I'm extremely unconventional, myself, but I draw the line at disloyalty to our country, subversive activity and traitorous ambitions.

I occasionally post at Progressive Eruptions, because I happen to like Ms. Shaw, even though she and I are polar opposites when it comes to politics. I have never been crass or impolite there, though I am treated to nothing but insults and gratuitous derogation -- not from Ms Shaw -- but from her compatriots.

What I say here and at other pointedly conservative-libertarian sites is not anyone's business but mine. I'm extremely tolerant of those who disagree with me here, but please keep these prominently posted instructions in mind should visit here again:

We welcome altercation
But without vituperation.
If you're here just for sensation
Please find a new location.


I'm leaving your spiteful, childishly vulgar, defamatory little post on the board, because it is a SUPERB example of everything I have come to detest about internet communication. It's a perfectly splendid exhibition of how one ought NOT to behave when visiting someone else's blog.



Waylon said...

"Sugar Keynes" a catchy little ditty dedicated to our pall Ducky ...

"In 1939, a comrade of Keynes and Strachey named Bertrand Russell came to America to push their obscenitarian socialism and was (he says in his Autobiography) legally charged as “lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber.” His aborted object had been to permeate the College of the City of New York with the corruption of the British Fabians. Immediately, John Dewey and other American Fabians organized to cry that “Academic Freedom” was under attack. The National Education Association (NEA) and the whole Leftist educational complex began to percolate pervasive degeneracies as being “Liberal” and “progressive.”

Or how we got where we are today.


http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/keynes.htm

Waylon said...

More words straight from John Maynard Keynes and exposure of the crime of the millennium:

"However, Keynes privately was quite insistent that he was a red. During December 1917, Keynes wrote to his mother,

My Christmas thoughts are that a further prolongation of the war, with the turn things have taken, probably means the disappearance of the social order we have known hitherto. With some regrets I think I am on the whole not sorry. The abolition of the rich will be rather a comfort and serve them right anyhow. What frightens me more is the prospect of general impoverishment. In another year’s time we shall have forfeited the claim we had staked out in the New World and in exchange this country will be mortgaged to America. Well, the only course open to me is to be bouyantly bolshevik; and as I lie in bed in the morning I reflect with a good deal of satisfaction that, because our rulers are as incompetent as they are mad and wicked, one particular era of a particular kind of a civilization is very nearly over.(12)

The following year Keynes reiterated to his mother about “being a Bolshevik.” In September 1918 Keynes wrote confidentially,

My most amusing job just lately has been to invent a new currency for Russia. Dudley Ward and I have been spending a great deal of time on the details, as we have had to design the notes, get them printed, choose the personnel, answer conundrums and do the whole thing from top to toe. We hope to have the plan launched on the world in two or three weeks’ time.(13)

The plan to refashion Keynes as a capitalist authority who would play the role of ‘admitting’ the dastardly deeds of his ‘class’ was not confined to the socialists in England. The Bolsheviks pursued the same line. In 1919 Nicolai Lenin issued a wildly enthusiastic panegyric on Keynes book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. He declared, “Nowhere has the Versailles Treaty been described so well as in the book by Keynes.”(14) The fat was in the fire and Keynes’ pro-bolshevism was in danger of being publicly established. Keynes as a covert leftist partisan posing as a defender of capitalism was in jeopardy.

Lenin later manipulated one of his adroit propaganda side-steps by quoting Keynes and utilizing his material and at the same time damning him as, “a ruthless opponent of Bolshevism.” This saved Keynes for the role as an anti-bolshevik figure among influential circles in Great Britain. It was a brilliant deception and indicated a skillful close-order drill in left-wing political cover-up. Lenin, of course, was well apprised of Keynes bolshevik sympathies. The red cells at Cambridge University were in close contact with the Fabians and a full dossier on Keynes was available to the Soviet leaders.

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch10.html




FreeThinke said...

Well, Waylon, you certainly demolished Canardo’s childish barbed assertion that you belonged in La la Land -- or wherever -- for trying to link Keyes with Bolshevism.


These sentences stood out:


”The abolition of the rich will be rather a comfort and serve them right anyhow. What frightens me more is the prospect of general impoverishment.”


”Keynes was a covert leftist partisan posing as a defender of capitalism was in jeopardy.


I do object, however, to the promotion of what-I-am-morally-certain is a false correlation between homosexuality and the fiscal insanity Keynes was able to “sell” to far too many key figures -- including most of the members of FDR’s “Brain Trust.”


We must remember that this far back Communism may have been looked upon with weather eye among the knowing members of the upper class, but it was just another “interesting theory” that looked as though it might hold great promise, because “social problems” did in fact exist and many thoughtful decent people felt something ought to be done to alleviate conditions among the wretchedly poor.


One of my cousins, now dead, was a college student at New York University in the 1930’s. She actually joined the Communist party ofr a few years. The family was horrified, of course, but there was nothing they could do about it. Fortunately her flirtation with Marx was short-lived. She married a respectable mid-level executive in her late twenties, and became one of the dullest, stuffiest, most priggish suburban matrons you could imagine -- a full 180º turn.


Remember, the leftists we know and loath today cynically EXPLOIT every excuse they can think of -- or think up -- as a ploy to foment confusion, hysteria, wrath and rebellion. In the 1920’s and 30’s their motives were less belligerent and more genuinely idealistic.


Is there any evidence that Keynes, and the rest of that misguided crowd knew about the barbaric disposal of Czar Nicolas and his family and the rest of the barbaric atrocities that characterized the 1917 Revolution?


Somehow I doubt it. The capacity for self-delusion is infinite among starry-eyed idealists and intellectuals who have live insulated lives, have little contact with reality, and on average think entirely too well of themselves.


FreeThinke said...

This incredible string of adjectives sounds too much like self-parody. He MUST have been joking.

'Bertrand Russell came to America to push their obscenitarian socialism and was (he says in his Autobiography) legally charged as “lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber.”'

Sounds like a patter song from Gilbert & Sullivan.

Too funny!

Whatever else he may have been Lord Russell really WAS a great mathematician, and apparently broke new ground in the field.

Looking For Answers said...

The Democratic party, throughout it's entire existence, has lied to us all. They have especially lied the minorities, the blacks, the elderly, the Hispanics., urbanites, farmers, and the women-- saying, "We have the solutions to your problems. Just keep voting for us." Just have “Hope for a Change”.
Still the problems exist, they even grow and get worse, only because of the need to have continual power over people's lives, to be an ever growing, integral part of everything we do.
They disregard traditions, which have held dearly for centuries of time, and introduce "Hope and Change", without a clue in Whom Hope rests, or saying why Change is necessary.
Hollywood liberals feed us excrement and call it 'entertainment', then tell us all how to live, because morally bereft misery loves company.
When actually, The Democratic party doesn’t care one iota about the middle class. How can anyone have faith that these dolts? We went to the brink with Obama on so many issues his first term. And our Congress, all of them, let us down. I’m not holding out any hope for ‘lame duckness.’ This president gets what he wants; he always has. I will never vote for another Democratic ever again, even so called progressive wing will come out and say , I won’t vote for this particular bill, only to cave when the vote comes up .It ain’t nothing but a kubucki show. I am done pushing for, backing up, defending and donating my time and or money to the Democrat Party. I have no more cheeks to slap. If the Republicans take over the Senate in 2014, I feel it at this point I won’t be any worse off than I am under the Democrats. People aren't buying Obama's Hopey Changey bologna anymore, I am finished being fooled by that fraud Obama. I don´t believe anything that Obama or Hillary say, not one single word.
We are all seeing the "Change" that Obama promised us, the "Change" to Socialism.

FreeThinke said...

That's all well and good, Looking for Answers, but what does it have to do with the motivations that underlie the pillorying of the great American athletic hero, Lance Armstrong?

Please, in the future, when you visit here again, would you at least try to pay lip service to the topic of posts on which you comment? It would be a great help if you did.

Thanks.

jez said...

I wondered what was so brutal about the disposal of the Tzar. Then I read this sentence from wikipedia:

"Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga, and Maria survived the first hail of bullets; the sisters were wearing over 1.3 kilograms of diamonds and precious gems sewn into their clothing, which provided some initial protection from the bullets and bayonets."

which sums up both sides for me: the Tzar's corruption and the terrible response.

Make no mistake though, if you support capital punishment in any way the Tzar most certainly deserved it. A fair and open trial would've been most welcome though, even in a foregone case like this.

-FJ said...

if you support capital punishment in any way the Tzar most certainly deserved it.

Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga, and Maria were not the Czar.

Waylon said...

Interesting observation about Czar Nicholas, and at one time I thought that was one thing the Bolsheviks did right. I've since revised that and not because I know the whole story because I don't. There is definitely more to the story than what is commonly related in the media and current history.

We could start by recognizing that the rulers of England, Germany and Russia were all from a single family. Odd that one branch of the family was completely wiped out through collusion of the other two warring branches of the family, no? Maybe there were powers behind the throne that were stronger and more brutal than those wearing the crowns.

FreeThinke said...

Your last post was much more revealing than you could possibly know, Jez.

Things are even worse than I had imagined.

jez said...

It's my fault for writing such a terse comment, but if you take another look at it perhaps you can tease out my description of the murder of the Tsar's children as being terribly brutal.

Or maybe you are disturbed by my objection to the girls' kilograms of diamonds etc.? Bear in mind these jewels were all taxed from a population of grindingly poor peasants. What would have been merely a tasteless display had it been earned, in this case is in fact a significant crime.

Waylon said...

Since Bolshevism was imposed on the Russian people by powers from outside the country, who could blame the Russian people for wanting justice imposed on the ideological descendants of those who brought Bolshevism to Russia originally.

Here's something to consider in understanding the cold blooded murder of the Romanovs that Jez needs to understand ...

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=644

jez said...

christ almighty, warn someone before they might naively follow a link like that, would you? I may never be really clean again.

I still think that Nicholas II could have been legitimately tried and executed for his involvement in the Pogroms alone.

Anonymous said...

Good God, FT! It's even worse than you thought. It's not what they're thinking, of course. It's what they've been taught. Whoever would have thought that civilization would be killed off not on the battlefield but in the classroom?


------------> Katharine Heartburn