At Camp Pain the Pigs Prepare
To Catapult More Mud
From Obama's Slimepit
At Romney and Ryan
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.
We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.
Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
The Obama Campaign is certainly playing dirty.ReplyDelete
IMO, the Romney Campaign is going to have to fight fire with fire to a certain extent.
I love that cartoon.ReplyDelete
Romney need a bunch more John Sununus out there.
Romney is smart enough not to sling the mud himself.
Yeah, they're doing it in Missouri after the Bagger candidate misspoke and said the only way a woman can get pregnant from a rape is if she enjoys it.ReplyDelete
Imagine criticizing such enlightenment.
I don't care what anyone else thinks, I still think that you are a BIGOT, just like most of the Teapublicans are. You may thank that you are an intellectual, but I think that you are just another member of the rightwing party of lies, hate, racism, bigotry.ReplyDelete
And thanks for showing everyone your hypocrisy.. Keep whining and posting your propaganda,
Not all "Teabaggers" agree with Akin. Not by a long shot.
You might want to be careful of stereotyping.
Well, you don't have to visit this site, do you?
Well AOW, we are down to quid pro quo.ReplyDelete
And after the birthers, Breitfart, and the minions calling Obama a Muslim socialist born in Kenya I can say with absolute certainty that the right wing must take a majority share of responsibility for putting the national dialog in the gutter.
The cartoon is a freaking joke.
A long searching look in the mirror, Canardo -- and you too, Mr, Miss, Mrs. of Ms. Anonymous -- whatever the case may be -- is likely to give you nightmares for weeks on end.ReplyDelete
I'm happy to leave your malodorous droppings in place, so others may see -- yet again -- how nasty, vicious, irresponsible,hypocritical -- and STUPID -- the left really is.
Like poor Eliza Doolittle before Professor Higgins got ahold of her, you and all your kind are prisoners of the gutter condemned by every syllable you utter.
Freethinke: you should re-read Pygmalion, including GBS's epilogue, and note well how imprisoned poor Eliza was after Higgins had finished with her.ReplyDelete
Your quacking went into the Twilight Zone with this statement:
The cartoon is a freaking joke.
It's a CARTOON! Sheesh.
the right wing must take a majority share of responsibility for putting the national dialog in the gutter
Majority share? C'mon.
A share, yes. But not to answer back is to wimp out.
I do visit DailyKos and other similar sites.
FYI: Ann Coulter comments on Akin.
The melodramatic post generated by Ms or Mr.anonymous is characteristic of a few people that I can think of from a shithole place known as "progressive eruptions" no doubt.. And our friend FT here should have a but more compassion for those born with illiteracy.ReplyDelete
The liberal ideology has worsened over the past 3 and a half years and degenerated into actual insanity.
I love it when people drop in, and tell me what I "should" or "should not" do.ReplyDelete
Once upon a time, when I was a little lad, that was considered rude.
Wouldn't it be more helpful, and less provocative, if we asked each other questions, instead of making magisterial pronouncements?
One of the many things that trouble me greatly is our seeming need to catch each other in error, and verbally beat each other about the head and shoulders whenever and wherever we find fault.
There is never any excuse for purely gratuitous invective, however, and in responding to that I can see no reason for adhering to the rules of etiquette.
My instinct is to jettison such remarks, but as I said above, they eloquently exhibit the character defects of their authors, so I let them stand.
FYI: Ann Coulter comments on Akin.
FYI: Reading (M)ann Coulter damages brain cells.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Thank you for telling us about Shaw's epilogue to Pygmalion. I have to admit I have never read the play, but am familiar with it only through the screen version with Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller as Higgins and Eliza. I understand, however, that Shaw, himself, wrote the adaptation for the screen, so I think it might be safe to assume the filmed version is authentic.
The exact nature of the relationship between Eliza and Professor Higgins seems ambiguous. Were they -- or were they not -- in love? Will they -- or will they not -- spend the rest of their lives together? We will ever know, because Shaw in the body of the play appears to leave the question open.
Cynics -- and socialists, naturally -- would want to assume that poor Eliza is left in a lamentable position where she is no longer acceptable to the society from which she was taken -- or to the one to which she has been introduced by Professor Higgins.
On the other hand romantics -- and most conservatives -- would much prefer to think the enlightened attitude so warmly, wisely, yet wryly expressed by Higgins' mother would prevail, and all involved would live happily ever after.
I am aware that Shaw, who was after all an Irishman, considered himself a Fabian socialist and held many views regarded as questionable at best and contemptible at worst by the right. However, the artist in him was so much greater than the polemicist that -- almost in spite of his political views -- Shaw, the great dramatist, never fails to provide brilliant, absorbing entertainment capable of being enjoyed on many levels.
I am curious, Jez, Is it your opinion that both Cockney and cultivated Oxford diction are equally acceptable forms of English, and that it might be wrong to make any attempt to change one's natural and habitual linguistic proclivities?
I remember your once accusing me of being "affected" in my use of the language. No. I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I am very much what I was born to be and a product of the schools I attended -- a background for which I thank God every day.
Noel Coward, Claude Rains, Cary Grant, and others less well known, I'm sure, were born into lower-class environments and grew up speaking cockney.
Sidney Poiter was born in Jamaica and grew up speaking Jamaican-style English [far superior by the way to the brand spoken by most Americans. I've been there, and was to delighted to hear a cab driver make beautiful and appropriate use of the subjunctive.]
At any rate, those famous gentlemen made a concerted effort to overcome the severe limitations imposed on them by their backgrounds, and succeeded admirably.
Do you think they ever would have gotten where they did, if they hadn't bothered to improve themselves and just remained "natural?"
More important do you believe it would have been a better world if their expertly acquired upper-class diction had not helped make them so attractive to audiences the wide world o'er?
As is my wont, since my mind is inclined to make free associations, I'm prompted to ask you another question:
Do you believe that savages are inherently as noble -- or possibly more noble -- than the British and the Europeans, and would, therefore, have been better off had contact with White Civilization never occurred?
Who by the way is "AKIN?"ReplyDelete
If we're going to make references to people, places or things not included in the initial post, wouldn't it be helpful if we defined them?
Not everyone is as well-versed in political minutiae as many of our readers -- especially me.
Now that I look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_(play)#Ending) I see that the ending of pygmalion was always contested, with the original producer tweaking it towards the sweeter ending that you identify as more romantic, prompting GBS to write the epilogue for subsequent print editions, to make certain there could be no doubt (though since vastly more people have seen my fair lady than have read his plays, it has hardly made any difference).ReplyDelete
It is, I'm sure, not an accident that we all long for Eliza and Henry to engage romantically. GBS dashes our hopes quite on purpose. Ain't he a stinker?
Inasmuch as cockney can impair clarity, it is inferior.ReplyDelete
The same complaint can be made against noises certain members of the upper classes make.
I have no complaints against a regionally or class identified voice as long as it is legible.
One of pygmalion's main points is the immobility of British society in the early 20th century, and the role of accent in policing that immobility. It is better not to use people's voices against them for this purpose.
Actors (particularly theater) are a special case, unusual demands are placed on their voices. Certainly the sonorous, rounded tones of a RADA-trained actor is unusually beautiful. I wouldn't demand that kind of quality, power and versatility from a civilian -- most people don't have to pretend to be someone else.
Cary Grant's accent is quite bizarre, isn't it? Nobody talks like that!
Actors speak much better than the British upper class. Maybe you haven't heard them. Certainly the trained voice is extra legible, making him more marketable audiences where English is a second language.
Shaw a stinker? Hardly!ReplyDelete
A curmudgeon yes, but more of an enigma than anything else. His private life must have been curious to say the least.
I suspect that like many great figures who became legends in their own time, Shaw was not above cultivating a public image artfully crafted to "keep 'em guessing."
Certainly no sentimentalist, he, however, the very fact that most of us do, indeed, long to see Eliza and 'enry 'iggins get together indicates that Shaw might not have been as immune to such desires as he wanted us to think.
Odd as it may seem, composers of significant music were often unaware of the myriad interpretative possibilities in the works they authored. This currently fashionable idea promoted by dry-veined musicologists that there is only one way to perform music "properly" -- as slavish an evocation of the composer's "intent" possible as indicated by the score and the "performance practice" of the period in which the piece was written -- puts performing artists in a metaphorical straitjacket.
I'm sure the situation is similar with literature, poetry, drama and pictorial art.
If this were not true, one "perfect" version of these things produced by a computer would give us all we needed in order to understand these things.
We may be in danger of thinking that, but so far, thank Heaven, we are still resisting the temptation.
Thank you for visiting, Jez.
"Do you believe that savages are inherently as noble -- or possibly more noble -- than the British and the Europeans, and would, therefore, have been better off had contact with White Civilization never occurred?"ReplyDelete
That's quite a biggy.
I know it's not your point, but "nobility" is derived from the kind of behavior expected from a Knight, so for a savage whose tribe has never experienced feudalism, it is an alien concept.
I make the point because it's an example of what the whole question is fraught with. There are many concepts which don't translate easily embedded in your question. I'm in no position to judge whether they're better off by tribal criteria, I don't know those criteria. I'm barely able to judge the nobility of European culture, let alone the nobility of exotic tribes as they were before we'd contacted them.
There are obvious advantages (technology, literacy, medicine) and disadvantages. European contact includes colonialism, which is still an input to many of today's problems. How would the former colonies have turned out differently if we'd established a trade relationship, like with India, rather than taken them over?
One reason why your question is so hard is that one of the west's definitive qualities is exploration, so contact was completely inevitable. We'd never have just ignored Africa indefinitely. Is there a way that contact could have been better handled? -- that's the more interesting question.
I love Western civilization, and I'd hate to be without it.
What do you think?
""performance practice" of the period in which the piece was written -- puts performing artists in a metaphorical straitjacket."ReplyDelete
True, but I'm rather intrigued by performances using period instruments. I've never managed it but I'd love to hear piano works in period tunings. Have you ever experienced such a thing?
Hello again, Jez.ReplyDelete
I think you might have meant to say "comprehensible" rather than "legible," am I correct?
Thank you for answering the questions.
Since I do not move in upper-class British circles, you're correct in thinking I don't know what their speech today might really be like. I have gotten my impressions from actors and other public figures.
Since I am a musician, the quality of sound emitted in human speech is very important to me. Most uncultivated forms of English everywhere are frankly hideous and innately irritating. I do believe that making an effort to eradicate a pronounced regional accent, and to rid one's speech of grotesque colloquialisms that may be hard to decipher is a desirable goal for educated people with worthy aims and ambitions. Studying elocution was once considered de rigeur. I regret the passing of that requirement.
Improving one's diction and learning how to modulate one's voice so as not to sound uncouth is not a matter of "pretending to be someone else" so much as it is making an effort to be the best person you can be.
It's a little like going to the opera in evening clothes as opposed to attending a performance in grime-laden bare feet and unbrushed teeth, stinking of three-day-old sweat, unwashed, uncombed hair, wearing tattered jeans and a grease-stained T-shirt.
I suppose the "modern," more "liberal" view would tell us the latter is fine and dandy as long as the filthy slob "truly appreciates the music." The liberal might then be inclined to add, "The snobby, rich, boring, stuffed shirts who go the opera more to be seen than to listen are probably far less knowledgeable and far more reprehensible than the grimy student who is honestly devoted to opera."
[Why do you suppose are the grotty ones always described as 'students?"]
Having experienced this exact scenario more than once in my long tenure as a subscriber to to New York's Metropolitan Opera, I can tell you being compelled to sit near an uncouth lout sprawling all over the place with pronounced BO and the kind of bad breath that comes from allowing rotting food to accumulate between the teeth for days on end is not conducive to the enjoyment of opera or any other theatrical entertainment. Such slovenly, inconsiderate behavior is an affront to human dignity.
Some may believe their primary duty is to "Art," and that nothing else really matters, but no one ought to be allowed to escape knowing that all of us have an implicit duty to be as attractive and pleasing to one another as possible when we attend any kind of public function.
That's not a matter of "vanity" or "affectation." It's more one of decency and consideration.
The parallel between cultivated speech and good grooming ought to be obvious.
To your last question, I answer a resounding "Yes!"ReplyDelete
I studied harpsichord with a teacher connected to the Juilliard school. I love the instrument and enjoyed performing early ensemble music with The Waverly Consort at New York University -- the Consort was a group of renowned experts in antique performance practice at one time.
I have yet to hear Beethoven's piano music performed on a Broadwood piano, or Chopin's on an Erard, but I'd love to have the experience.
The more we know, the better of we are. What I object to is the notion, which has become a new form of musical orthodoxy, that the only legitimate way to hear and appreciate this music would be on ancient instruments or exact replicas thereof.
I have played on a fortepiano. It reminded me of the weak spinets and hundred-year-old uprights decaying in Sunday School rooms I used for practice in my youth.
The sound was interesting, but it certainly limited my capacity to play expressively.
Must go. Duty calls! ;-)
Nice talking with you!
Sure, I wrote "legible" deliberately but "comprehensible" is what I literally meant.ReplyDelete
I meant to say that acting is pretending to be someone else.
Basic grooming is equivalent to my requirement for "legibility". Evening clothes is equivalent to your requirement for received pronunciation. The former is decent and considerate, the latter is vain and affected. It is ill-mannered to use clothing and accent to enforce exclusivity.
Wherever did you get your ideas, Jez?ReplyDelete
I think I might know, but I imagine you don't -- or wouldn't care to acknowledge it, if you did.
In your last post you just gave a stunning illustration of much that has gone wrong with civilized society in the past 45 or 50 years.
What a warped, and sadly degrading view you have been fed. It's downright perverse.
I'm so sorry you have swallowed and digested it to such extent that you are completely unaware of the toxic effect it has had on you -- and civilized society at large.
Tospy Turvy Land is what the influences brought to bear on your generation have made of this world.
Cole Porter saw it coming with remarkable accuracy, albeit whimsically stated, nearly eighty years ago:
The world's gone mad today
Good's bad today
Black's white today
Day's night today
Most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos ...
I doubt if I've ever been exposed to a clearer case of leftist indoctrination.
INCREDIBLE -- and incredibly SAD all at once.
By the way, I cannot understand your, apparently, deliberate misuse and misinterpretation of the word legible. Could it be part of the leftist-post-Modernist determination to turn the world upside down, shake it by the scruff of its neck, throw it down, and stomp on it just to prove how truly ugly, irrational and contemptible it really is?ReplyDelete
The inverse snobbery you show is morally equivalent to reverse racism in Negroes and the brash, hyper-critical, fiercely aggressive, super-achieving ways that Jews exhibit to "prove" how "inferior" gentiles -- and especially Christians -- really are.
I see your attitude as an irrational attempt to "prove" that two wrongs not only CAN but MUST make a right.
All those who've adopted the mentality you propound have proved is how insolent and wantonly destructive these inverted, anti-values are at root.
I don't mean this as an attack on you, personally, Jez. I am sorry you have been inoculated with the disease that is causing the West to commit suicide.
It's tragic, and whether you realize it or not, it has made of your life a dreary, self-righteous exercise in futility.
You might as well have been smothered during your formative years in a wet blanket soaked in chloroform.
This is not confined to liberals by the way. I've seen abundant examples of it coming from numerous self-styled proponents of the modern Conservatism.
How easily mankind falls prey to one set of crippling, noxiously oppressive philosophies after another!
I am in the habit of describing sounds as legible, it doesn't seem to be so great a metaphorical leap to me.ReplyDelete
The whole thing about accents and clothes is that the less one depends on others for happiness, the better off one is. If your happiness is contingent on everyone around you conforming to your preferred uniform and your preferred accent, don't be surprised if you aren't often happy.
To be clear, I'm not branding people who wear evening clothes and speak with received pronunciation. I speak with a fairly neutral RP myself. It's making those requirements of other people that's off-colour in my opinion. If that opinion makes my life futile in your view, I think that says more about your view than it does mine.
I'm sorry; I spoke too harshly, Jez. I admit I was stung by your assertion that I would prize high quality tastes, good diction, elegant attire, beautiful surroundings, polished modes of behavior and the effort to present oneself in as comely and attractive a manner possible as motivated by a desire "to enforce exclusivity." I find that claim outrageous.ReplyDelete
I try never to allow myself to take offense, but your assumptions and completely inaccurate assessment of my motivations and character did offend me.
My happiness depends solely on knowing I am doing the best I can to live well, love unstintingly, treat others as kindly and generously as possible, complete whatever projects may be occupying my time with a measure of distinction, take responsibility for myself, and to do whatever I can to learn and tell the truth as I have come to understand it when circumstances require it.
My understanding of liberals, leftists, progressives -- whatever the nom du jour may be at a given moment -- is their seeming inability to realize that the desire of someone like me has never been to look down on anyone, but rather to help them come up in the world and enjoy a higher standard of living.
I do not despise those less fortunate, and less educated than I. Many of these people are the salt of the earth, and have a special kind of beauty all their own. The handiest example I can think of at the moment is character of Dickon in The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgeson Burnett -- or Mammy in Gone with the Wind. The novels of Dickens are filled with such endearing characters. I appreciate what the working class does very much, and fully realize we could not have Civilization without them.
What I most strenuously object to is the prevalent notion that those of us who live well should come down off our high horses, get into the dirt, and act just like one of the folk, because our living "high on the hog," as it were, is apt to be interpreted as an insult to the poor and downtrodden -- or some sort of ritualized abuse indulged in solely to keep people down.
That may be true in some instances, but certainly not in my case, not that of any of my close friends and associates.
It's a complete misreading to interpret upper-class tastes and predilections with snobbery, and a profound insult to accuse those who have genuine interest in such things of "affectation."
Good and bad character -- and all shades in between - are freely distributed among all strata of society. Being well-to-do is not necessarily evil anymore than wretched poverty automatically confers sainthood on its victims.
Class warfare is a despicable thing -- a tool craftiiy designed by cynical mischief makers to give a cloak of respectability to envy, spite, malice, scorn, greed and vengefulness.
I don't accuse you of bad motives at all, Jez -- just poor methodology in your attempt to deal with societal ills.
Yes, AOW. I heard about it on the radio shortly after I posted my question.ReplyDelete
Another well-meaning fool in the GOP lousing up our chances to win the senate -- and possibly the presidency as well.
I know perfectly well what Akin thought he was saying -- and so does everyone else -- but you just don't SAY things like that if you hope to succeed in politics.
Once again The Evil Party regains or retains its lead over The Stupid Party -- and face it -- the GOP really IS stupid. John McCain, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and the choice of Mitt Romney over more dynamic candidates with passion and positive ideals proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
We're always running scared.
PS: Once again I am so sorry about the loss of your dear pussycat Dusti. - FT
"I try never to allow myself to take offense, but your assumptions and completely inaccurate assessment of my motivations and character did offend me."ReplyDelete
Sorry you were offended, but I think you misunderstood: speak and dress however you wish, but if you write people off because of their accent or their clothes, that is by definition snobbery. The definition holds in the inverse direction too.
Snobbery is the natural state of man, but civilization is all about overcoming our natural state, that is what the verb "to civilize" literally means.
"our living ... is apt to be interpreted as an insult to the poor and downtrodden"
Of course it isn't, but turning someone away from the opera (or complaining about being seated near him) because his waistcoat doesn't have a ticket pocket or his cummerbund doesn't match his cuffs, is.
This use of the word "affected" is not my choice, and now I think of it I don't agree that I ever accused you of it. I did once tell you that tasteful writers seek to avoid it. There may be a whiff of accusation there I admit, but the crime is of omission, not commission. You don't avoid the appearance of affectation, that's all. There are some cracking examples above. You can be genuinely offensive when you feel like it, but most of the time it's more endearing than anything else, like prince Philip or Boris Johnston.
As I replied to you over at my site this morning, losing Dusti this way shocked me. I saw it coming but not so soon! No time to get somebody over here to dig a grave, so I opted for the expensive version of cremation.
Whichever one of us (Mr. AOW or I) goes first, the ashes of two cats will likely be placed in that casket. Two cremains containers if our one heir predeceases either of us.
We have our beloved Honey Bunny's ashes; I had her, a Red Point Tabby Applehead Siamese, euthanized at age 19.5 in 1997 (kidney disease, hyperthyroidism, heart failure); a few months later, we got Dusti.
Honey Bunny (aka "Pooter" and "The Pood") was my heart cat. I swear that she had a soul! It was scary how human she was! Of course, every cat has its own winning ways. Dusti and Cameo -- two more of my heart cats. Sheba was Mr. AOW's heart cat -- along with Pooter, of course.
One part of Akin's statement that got to me was the part about pregnancy. Is this man such a fool as not to recognize that many women who are raped don't get pregnant because (1) so many women are already on the pill and (2) many times a D&C is performed at the hospital both to terminate any pregnancy and to prevent STD's?
Obviously, the man doesn't know a damn thing about rape!
Rather than argue the point any further please let me repeat what I said:ReplyDelete
"I can tell you being compelled to sit near an uncouth lout sprawling all over the place with pronounced BO and the kind of bad breath that comes from allowing rotting food to accumulate between the teeth for days on end is not conducive to the enjoyment of opera or any other theatrical entertainment. Such slovenly, inconsiderate behavior is an affront to human dignity.
"Some may believe their primary duty is to "Art," and that nothing else really matters, but no one ought to be allowed to escape knowing that all of us have an implicit duty to be as attractive and pleasing to one another as possible when we attend any kind of public function."
If you think what i said there is an example of "snobbery," there's no way I could ever hope to reach you.
Formulating, then doing everything possible to attain and maintain high standards is wholly desirable, while encouraging people to maintain their natural state of ignorance, sloth and barbarism is clearly not.
Once upon a time, it was fashionable to imitate one's "betters" -- a mentality that spawned a good deal of absurd, unintentionally comic behavior, and pathos as well no doubt. However, it also helped raise standards of living immeasurably -- at least here in the United States -- and did much to expand and improve the quality of trade.
Because of Cultural Marxism's determination to undermine the foundation of Western Civilization and unseat "The Rich," we now find the children of fine old families and those born into bastions of wealth and power doing everything they can to imitate the behavior of savages. A phenomenon I find appalling.
Please don't take me literally, as you so often seem to do. I am speaking broadly and figuratively, but since I have lived through this regrettable transition, and observed, firsthand, its destructive consequences, I feel qualified to hold that opinion.
Egalitarianism like colonialism is a two-edged sword. I think the benefits of the latter far outweigh the deficiencies of the former. However, if it had been up to me, I would have done everything possible to have discouraged exploration, avoided contact with the savage world, and encouraged optimal development of the home country from within its borders, instead.
Aggression of any kind is the absolute antithesis of The Golden Rule. Colonialism and slavery were byproducts of aggressive impulses. As such they deserved to die.
I'd assumed the tale you repeated was exaggerated, and I still think it must be. You even warn me against taking you literally. If that tale is intended as a neutral report, how was I to know? As I said last timeReplyDelete
"Basic grooming is equivalent to my requirement for "legibility". Evening clothes is equivalent to your requirement for received pronunciation."
A note of agreement on the basics, no?
"Formulating, then doing everything possible to attain and maintain high standards is wholly desirable"
Formulating is the difficult bit. You gloss over that, perhaps because you are a conservative, and you favour the traditional. Once you recognise how much less simple it is for many of us, you'll see how inappropriate and rude it is to impose your formulation on everyone else. I've got a good idea about who are my betters, and I'm sure you'd disagree with my selection.
Yes, Jez. You and I will always disagree on many things.ReplyDelete
You have been brainwashed by Cultural Marxists, whether you know it or not, and have , therefore, been rendered a militant "oppositionist," albeit a soft-spoken one.
I doubt if you have any idea how clearly you articulate a doctrinaire devotion to the secular religion of Cultural Marxism.
It's all right. I'm on my way out. I'll be eighty years old in eight more years, if I live that long. Then you'll have your Brave New World all to yourself.
I imagine Chartwell will be turned into a state run day care center for the illegitimate children of black and Pakistani immigrants and all memory of Winston and Clemmie's tenure there obliterated as soon as all of us are finally out of your way.
Good luck! You're going to need it.
"You and I will always disagree on many things."ReplyDelete
It looks that way doesn't it. Can you allow for the possibility that our disagreement is legitimate, and not necessarily the result of
"brainwash[ing] by Cultural Marxists"
Churchill's a good example. I expect he's one of the people you look up to and seek to emulate. While I of course recognise his many admirable qualities, I think large scale emulation of him would be disastrous. I do not want to be like Churchill, in almost any way.
Consider the times we've lived in, you have surely been exposed to far more propaganda in your lifetime than I have in mine. If one of us must be brainwashed (which I don't accept), it might plausibly be you.
We each live in a parallel universe.
I've been dispossessed.
I don't like it. Let's leave it at that.
As I said, I'm on my way out. Rejoice, and be glad.
I can't fight the mentality that militantly, unyieldingly insists up is down, west is east, white is black, wrong is right, perversion is virtue, virtue perversion, etc. The Frankfurters and Alinsky have won. God damn their souls.
What you hear from me and my kind are our death throes,
"I can't fight the mentality that militantly, unyieldingly insists"ReplyDelete
You insult me. I don't unyieldingly insist anything I can't prove. This is almost entirely restricted to uncontroversial facts about triangles.
You've just articulated the problem beautifully once again, Jez.ReplyDelete
You don't really know who or what you are -- or might become -- because in the fashion of these times you've permitted yourself to have no convictions about anything, except a gently adamant determination to have no convictions about anything.
Your statement regarding Winston Churchill was just another way of saying it.
I think you are probably a very decent chap, but you are so much a product of "The Ethos of the Present Age" it's all but impossible for us to relate happily to one another.
What is that ethos? If you want to avoid the term Cultural Marxism, it forces me to invent another, more descriptive one. "Postwar Pusillanimity" just popped into my mind, so let's use that for a bit.
To entertain the notion that all people, all nations, all cultures, all religions, all achievements, all lifestyles are of equal value is in fact NIHILISM.
Why is it Nihilism, and not the enlightened, advanced, ultra-humane sort of thing you've been snookered into believing it is?
Because once we stop allowing ourselves to develop discriminating tastes and predilections, we start to "melt, thaw, and resolve [ourselves] into a dew" -- a return to "The Primordial Soup" from which we are currently told we are supposed to have evolved.
SIlently, we lie like icebergs
_____ in a black and frozen sea
Moving endlessly to nowhere
_____ on waves of turmoil
We occasionally touch
_____ in a parody of intimacy
Only to crash together in rumbling torment
_____ to split, shatter, and destroy.
And when on rare, divine days
_____ a ray of warmth penetrates the chill damp --
We melt -- grateful -- yielding --
_____ only to slip back into the prison
__________ of the black and frozen sea --
Formless -- and without identity.
I follow the doctrine of fallibility. The reason that this is not nihilism is because I am capable of ascribing importance to even my tentatively held views.ReplyDelete
Two comments ago I was unyieldingly insisting all sorts of counterintuitive notions. Now I have no convictions. That was quick!
You seem determined to have the last word, so please be my guest.ReplyDelete
We run along parallel lines, you and I. As I've said in other ways at other times, you have taken on the role of "Refutationist" with a certain relish.
That automatically qualifies you as a practitioner of Cultural Marxism's Critical Theory. You don't have to believe that to make it true. Your denial that that is, indeed, what you are doing will provide proof enough of the contrary.
As of this moment, I am stepping off this particular Merry-Go-Round. If you'd like to think that means you have "bested" me, please go right ahead and think it.
I have better things to do with my time than to keep going around in circles. I'm in the final stages of renovating a house I've recently purchased as an investment -- and because I love to bring derelict properties back to life and put my personal stamp on them.
It involves a lot of work, a lot of expense, a considerable element of risk, and a lot of responsibility, but it has proved infinitely rewarding in the past -- made me a small-but-significant fortune in fact, -- and so I persist.
I do this more because I love it, than because of the potential profit involved, which may be why I've enjoyed considerable success.
I'll be renting it to man who has worked for me for eight years. He has proved himself to be an invaluable, eminently trustworthy aid. His young family needs a decent, pleasant place to live. I am thankful I have the ability to provide that at a considerably reduced rate.
My hope is that this project will work to our mutual benefit. The plan is to leave the house to him in my will without any encumbrances.
A novel idea, perhaps, but one I hope might help start a trend.
In my view Mutually Self-Serving Transactions are the best kind.
To hell with exploitation.
To hell with smarmy, snivelling forms of self-sacrifice that do little but destroy one's advantages and waste personal resources.
And may a measure of robust good cheer come your way, Jez.
The second paragraph of my previous comment was not intended to best you, but to invite clarification. I expect you mean something sensible, but I can't tell what it is.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete