Sep 19, 2016

Crisis: "Liberalism", Washington Post, "Narcissism"(?), (Neo-)Fascism, Pro Hillary
Sections                                                                                     crisis index

The Courtiers and the Tyrants
2. WashPost Makes History: First Paper to Call for
     Prosecution of Its Own Source 

3. How Narcissism Hurts Us All
“We Are Adopting Principles of Fascism”
Why You Really Must Get Behind Hillary, Now

This is a Nederlog of Monday, September 19, 2016.

A. This is a crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is a fine article by Chris Hedges (I have some criticisms, but they are mostly terminological); item 2 is about Glenn Greenwald on The Washington Post; item 3 is an example of how journalists abuse terminology (sorry: there are few real narcissists, even if Donald Trump is one, and nearly everything Kali Holliway attributes to "narcissism" is much better attributed to egoism, greed, conformism, stupidity and more); item 4 is a quite interesting very long interview with an ex-military man who is now a lawyer and who does see that the USA is rapidly moving towards what I call neofascism (and he gives some good reasons, but I do not pretend that my selections are representative: it is too long for that); and item 5 is by Robert Reich who - once again - explains why people who are not rightists should vote for Clinton (even if - as I say - she is a bad choice: the alternative is both mad, evil and much worse).

B. In case you visit my Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need to click twice to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for me, but it is possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my computer.

In any case, I am now (again) updating the opening of my site with the last day it was updated. (And I am sorry if you have to click several times to see the last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was.)

1. The Courtiers and the Tyrants

The first item
today is by Chris Hedges on Truthdig:

This starts as follows:

Thomas Frank’s marvelous scorched-earth assault on the Democratic Party and professional elites in his book “Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” has one fatal flaw. Frank blames the liberal class, rather than the corporations that have seized control of the centers of power, for our descent into political dysfunction and neofeudalism.
I think that is mostly quite correct, but it does require an understanding of the term "liberal" that is given in the following quotation:
Yes, self-identified liberals such as the Clintons and Barack Obama speak in the language of liberalism while selling out the poor, the working class and the middle class to global corporate interests. But they are not, at least according to the classical definition, liberals. They are neoliberals. They serve the dictates of neoliberalism—austerity, deindustrialization, anti-unionism, endless war and globalization—to empower and enrich themselves and the party. The actual liberal class—the segment of the Democratic Party that once acted as a safety valve to ameliorate through reform the grievances and injustices within our capitalist democracy and that had within its ranks politicians such as George McGovern, Gaylord Nelson, Warren Magnuson and Frank Church and New Deal Democrats such as Franklin D. Roosevelt—no longer exists.
That is (a bit more precisely): I agree such politicians hardly exist anymore, (well: except for Bernie Sanders, indeed) although there still are some - Chomsky? Hedges himself? - who are in quite a few ways liberals like McGovern or Church. (Or that is what I think.)

But mostly Chris Hedges is right: If there are any real liberals left in the USA (and I think there are a few), then their ideas and values are not popular, and
most are academics, who are rarely in the news, basically because they are discriminated, like Chomsky.

Then there is this, which I also mostly agree with (and I have opposed corrupt quasi-"leftist" academics since 1977, in Holland):
The Democratic and the professional elites whom Frank excoriates are, as he points out, morally bankrupt, but they are only one piece of the vast, fake democracy that characterizes our system of “inverted totalitarianism.” The problem is not only liberals who are not liberal; it is also conservatives, once identified with small government, the rule of law and fiscal responsibility, who are not conservative. It is a court system that has abandoned justice and rather than defend constitutional rights has steadily stripped them from us through judicial fiat. It is a Congress that does not legislate but instead permits lobbyists and corporations to write legislation. It is a press, desperate for advertising dollars and often owned by large corporations, that does not practice journalism. It is academics, commentators and public intellectuals, often paid by corporate think tanks, who function as shameless cheerleaders for the neoliberal and imperial establishment and mock the concept of independent and critical thought.
Yes, indeed: First, there are liberals and "liberals", conservatives and "conservatives", and probably also, in each case, two kinds of neoliberals and neo-conservatives.

And second, at least the government, the Senate and the House are all vastly corrupted by lobbyists and by money, while the courts in good part ceased to function as real courts should, and the same is true of much of the press.

And third, Hedges is quite right about the academics (with some very few exceptions): They make a lot of money by serving as "
shameless cheerleaders for the neoliberal and imperial establishment".

Next, there is this on the "
near-total continuity" between Obama's government
(as regards wars, as regards mass surveillance, as regards finances and banks) and Bush's preceding government:
During Barack Obama’s administration there has been near-total continuity with the administration of George W. Bush, especially regarding mass surveillance, endless war and the failure to regulate Wall Street. This is because the mechanisms of corporate power embodied in the deep state do not change with election cycles.
In fact, I would say that THE "mechanism of corporate power" is corruption.
I suppose - but do not know - that Hedges agrees.

And there is this about what is happening now, has been happening since Reagan, and will continue to happen until it is radically stopped:

Our political elites, Republican and Democrat, were shaped, funded and largely selected by corporate power in what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a coup d’état in slow motion. Nothing will change until corporate power itself is dismantled.
I mostly agree. Perhaps a few things will change (Democratic governors seem
less bad and less mad than Republican ones, for example), but then again I agree that it all happens within the framework and against the background of corporate power - that also has won nearly all the fights it was involved in,
for it succeeded in deregulating nearly all laws that protected both the ordinary people and the American economy.

There is this on Lewis Powell, and I agree with Hedges that he is THE man who alerted the corporations and who prepared "
the corporate coup" that took place since Reagan: deregulation after deregulation of good laws, and their replacement by extremely bad laws that only protect and favor the rich:
Lewis Powell, then the general counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in August 1971 wrote a memo called “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” It became the blueprint for the corporate coup. Powell would later be appointed to the Supreme Court. Corporations, as Powell urged, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the assault, backing candidates, creating the Business Roundtable, funding The Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Accuracy in Academia. The memo argued that corporations must marginalize or silence those who in “the college campus, the pulpit, the media, and the intellectual and literary journals” were hostile to corporate interests.
Well, the corporations mostly succeeded, and are now introducinh their own form of neofascism by way of the TTP, the TTIP, the TISA and the CETA, all of which have two dominant ends: (i) the introduction of a totally new "legal" system (ii) that outlaws the former legal systems and replaces them by the rule of the multi-national corporations.

As for decent legislation, there is this by Ralph Nader:
“There hasn’t been a single major piece of legislation advancing the health, safety and economic rights of the American people since 1974, arguably since 1976,” Nader told me. “That’s the effect of money in politics. That’s the effect of a totally subservient strategy by the liberals.”
I believe him (though I don't know American political history by far as well as he does).

Here is Nader on Bill Clinton, and again I think Ralph Nader is right:

“[Bill] Clinton was an enemy of environmental, consumer, and worker issues,” Nader said. “He broke the modest welfare system for single moms. He sold out to the agribusiness companies. He allowed huge mergers in a bill he signed for the communications and the media giants, all in 1986, and this was quite apart from bombing Iraq illegally, killing civilians. He never opposed a swollen military budget that was unauditable.

“If you can smile and have the right rhetoric—Reagan did that, too—you get away with it,” Nader said. “… All you’ve got to do in politics is say the right thing, even though your whole record is contrary, and you’re on your way.”

Yes, although the second paragraph - which I think is basically correct - also has a lot to do with the fundamental stupidity or ignorance of very many American voters. (I am sorry, but that is the case.)

Then there is this on the current elites:

Out of this rot and corruption, as it always does, arose a class of privileged elites who wallow in self-adulation and will do anything to further their personal self-advancement. Thomas Frank, who is a gifted writer and reporter, peers into the hermetic and exclusive world of the professional Democratic power elite—the vacations in Martha’s Vineyard, the hipster innovation districts for budding tech entrepreneurs in cities such as Boston, the Ivy League pedigrees, the open disdain for the working class and the blind faith in a functioning meritocracy. The elites believe they are privileged, Frank writes correctly, because they are convinced they are the smartest, most creative, most talented and hardest working. They cap this grotesque narcissism, he points out, with a facade of goodness and virtue. They turn their elitism into a morality play.

Yes, although I think much of that - actual meritocracy, beliefs that the elites are the smartest and hardest working - seems to be as old as the existence of elites (which already were there in 500 BC, e.g. in Athens).

There is also this on the elites:

The problem is not the liberal elites. The problem is the elites. They serve the same ideology. They work in the same financial institutions, hedge funds and foundations, including the Council on Foreign Relations, where government officials often are parked when they are out of power. They belong to the same clubs.

In fact (a logical point): If there are no liberals, there certainly are no liberal elites. But apart from that I agree, and I add that the fluid that keeps the elites the elites are- these days, at least, for most who are in the elites but not quite rich - financial corruptions of many kinds.

Next, another logical point, concerning this bit:

Noam Chomsky has amply elucidated the role of liberals in a capitalist democracy. The liberal class is used to discredit radicals, like Chomsky, and radical movements. It carries out reforms, which are often later revoked, when capitalism extracts too much blood or when it breaks down as it did in the 1930s.

My point is (again) that Hedges wrote in the beginning of his article that "The actual liberal class (...) no longer exists". If that is so, we need other terms for what does exist (such as well-paid academic elites who nearly all support
the goverment and the rich) than "liberals" (without quotes).

Here is the end:

Politics is a game of fear. And if you lose the capacity to make the power elites afraid, you become their plaything. This, in the simplest terms, is what has happened to us.

I agree, except that politics is a game of power (that if successful very often inspires fear) that the rich mostly won over the past 35 years, essentially by corrupting most of the politicians.

2. WashPost Makes History: First Paper to Call for Prosecution of Its Own Source (After Accepting Pulitzer)

The second item is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:

Three of the four media outlets that received and published large numbers of secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden — The Guardian, the New York Times, and The Intercept –– have called for the U.S. government to allow the NSA whistleblower to return to the U.S. with no charges. That’s the normal course for a news organization, which owes its sources duties of protection, and which — by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them — implicitly declares the source’s information to be in the public interest.

But not the Washington PostIn the face of a growing ACLU and Amnesty-led campaign to secure a pardon for Snowden, timed to this weekend’s release of the Oliver Stone biopic “Snowden,” the Post editorial page today not only argued in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden — the paper’s own source — stand trial on espionage charges or, as a “second-best solution,” accept “a measure of criminal responsibility for his excesses and the U.S. government offers a measure of leniency.”

In doing so, the Washington Post has achieved an ignominious feat in U.S. media history: the first-ever paper to explicitly editorialize for the criminal prosecution of its own source — one on whose back the paper won and eagerly accepted a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. But even more staggering than this act of journalistic treachery against the paper’s own source are the claims made to justify it.

I say! It indeed sounds neither noble nor thankful, and I suppose Glenn Greenwald is right in saying that the Washington Post "has achieved an ignominious feat in U.S. media history: the first-ever paper to explicitly editorialize for the criminal prosecution of its own source".

Then again, one possible explanation that Greenwald doesn't mention (and I am guessing) is that the Washington Post was sold between August and October of 2013 (after its first publications on Snowden) to multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos (who owns a mere 66.7 billion dollars, and is the world's third richest man [1]).

But as I said, I don't know. There is a lot more in Greenwald's article that I skip. It ends as follows:

But what makes today’s Washington Post editorial so remarkable, such a tour de force, is that the editors are literally calling for the criminal prosecution of one of the most important sources in their own newspaper’s history. Having basked in the glory of awards and accolades, and benefited from untold millions of clicks, the editorial page editors of the Post now want to see the source who enabled all of that be put in an American cage and branded a felon. That is warped beyond anything that can be described.

Actually - while I can understand Glenn Greenwald's anger very well - I think it is a bit too strong to say that this behavior "is warped beyond anything that can be described".

But it does sound pretty sick and the article is recommended.

3. How Narcissism Hurts Us All

The third item is by Kali Holloway on AlterNet:

This starts as follows - and while I have not found out what Kali Holloway studied, this psychologist finds it very difficult to believe that she studied psychology, and here is the reason why:

There’s no official equation that adds up human behaviors to equal a clinical diagnosis of narcissism. But if there were, taking 6,000 selfies over the course of a four-day vacation, as Kim Kardashian recently did, just might qualify. This would seem over the top were we not talking about someone who released a collection of 300 selfies in a 2015 book titled, of course, Selfish. If this is the Age of Narcissism (or more gravely, the narcissism epidemic), as so many sources have dubbed it, the selfie is our most representative medium and Kim Kardashian is the celebrity we deserve.

No, that is just baloney or confusion, and this is neither "the age of narcissim" nor is there a "narcissism epidemic": That is all nonsense.

What is true or at least what might be true, is that this is the age of egoism, the age of greed, the age of conformism, the age of cowardice, the age of stupidity, the age of self-imposed blindness, or the age of moral degeneracy.

But not the age of narcissism, for the simple reason that narcissism is a relatively rare kind of psychopathology.

I completely agree - as a psychologist, also - with the thesis that Donald Trump is a grandiose narcissist, and - therefore, though probably not only therefore - is both definitely mad (with a pathology that is very difficult to cure) and a great danger as the commander in chief of atomic weapons, but the fact that as crazy a person as Trump is one of the two presidential candidates does not mean at all that his form of psychopathology suddenly fot "normal" or "epidemic". That is pure baloney.

There is considerably more about "narcissism" - that in nearly every case should have been substituted by one of the terms I mentioned: egoism, greed,  conformism, cowardice, stupidity, self-imposed blindness, moral degeneracy, and perhaps more, but once again: No. Narcissism is probably considerably less abnormal among CEOs, but since very few people get to be CEOs this does not at all imply an epidemy of narcissism.

Then again, Kali Holloway is quite right that Donald Trump is a grandiose narcisssist:

Among its most damaging byproducts is "Apprentice" star Donald Trump, the thin-skinned, race-baiting, misogynist pathological liar this close to being the next president of the United States, whom psychologist Ben Michaelis called a “textbook narcissistic personality disorder” and Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner labeled “remarkably narcissistic." Psychologist George Simon told Vanity Fair that Trump is, “so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics. Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”
I fear that is all true enough. Then again, this is not:
But a fair number of us might also rack up higher than expected numbers. The truth is, we’re all a little bit narcissistic (...)
Again no: "we" are not "all a little bit narcissistic", for the same reason as we are not "all a little bit a billionaire", nor "all a little bit of an Olympic winner". It's plain baloney: A real narcissist, as Donald Trump undoubtedly is, is a fairly rare occasion of a fairly serious pathology.

And again, what Kali Holloway seems to confuse are a fairly rare form of psychopathology, and far more common forms that are far better indicated
by terms like 
egoism, greed,  conformism, cowardice, stupidity, self-imposed blindness, moral degeneracy, and perhaps more.

4. “We Are Adopting Principles of Fascism”

The fourth item is by Philip Weiss on Consortiumnews ansd originally on

This has a subtitle that is worth quoting:

Retired Army JAG Major Todd Pierce explains how his perspective on U.S. foreign policy and politics has changed as he watched the nation’s slide into “perpetual war,” (..)

Also, this is the second part of a quite long interview with Todd Pierce (who is an interesting and intelligent man) that is far too long and too complicated to
get excerpted properly in Nederlog.

Then again, I like Todd Pierce's opinions, and indeed do so for several reasons that are probably not very common:

He is intelligent; he knows quite a few resources I know as well (and that few people really have read, though Pierce and I did); he was not originally a leftist (Leftist, "Leftist" or "leftist"); he served in war; and he got at a later age a degree in law, and he serves as the lawyer of a man who is in Guantánamo.

This is from the beginning:

Todd Pierce: I’m trying to preserve the freedom I’ve had. I see a genuine threat to it. And I see it from people whom I know. The people in this Veteran intelligence group I’m in [Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity] includes the four NSA whistleblowers, Kirk Wiebe, Bill Binney, Ed Loomis, and Thomas Drake. Binney has got to be one of the smartest people in the world, I don’t think that’s an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest people at the NSA.

PW: You’ve met him?

TP: Yes. And he agrees with me fully. Because he’s seen the NSA. We’re a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what it really means, and that ultimately is, ultra-militarism and authoritarianism combined with an expansionist foreign policy. And that’s us—what you can see us becoming.

I mostly agree, and Pierce also reasoned as I did (possibly in part because my grandfather was murdered in a Nazi concentration camp, while my father survived over three years and nine months of Nazi concentration camps, both
being committed for resisting the Nazis), but I am a little more refined on terminology than Pierce may be:

I think what we are seeing is the birth of neofascism, which is "ultra- militarism and authoritarianism combined with an expansionist foreign policy" that in turn is directed by the CEOs of multi-national corporations (banks, silicon valley etc.), who also finance it to a considerable extent and
pocketed nearly all the financial gains made during the last 35 years.

But with that precisification, I agree. Here is more:

PW: What do you mean?

TP: We’re selective. Bill Binney and these guys were all arrested at gunpoint by the FBI. They were able for a number of ways–including Bill Binney being quite smart and turning the tables and showing that the government was making things up– they were able to get out of it. The other person is Diane Roark, who was in charge of oversight of the NSA for the congressional intelligence staff. They’ve got the capabilities to spy on everybody and collect every bit of data that we share, and they’re doing it, (..)
Yes, that is quite right. Then again, that is itself no reason to speak of fascism, as Philip Weiss points out:

PW: Binney has a reason to say fascist, being at the point of the lance. He was atypical. Lefties pointed at certain events in the ‘80s and said fascism. You remember them saying that?

TP: Yes, absolutely. You could point to those things, and you could say it was proto-fascism. There’s authoritarianism; what Nixon was doing and later Reagan were all elements of it. But I think it took an event like 9/11 to bring it to greater fruition. So the seed of it was there then and it could easily have evolved into things we have now, because we know of things that Nixon was saying. But it didn’t get to the point we’re at today. Reagan never said– his Department of Justice didn’t go into court and say, “Yeah I can kill an American citizen,” in the case of the Sandinistas. But they did do so in the Obama administration, and I was in the court when they did.
Actually, "fascism" is first of all not an analytical term of politics, but is simply a term of abuse, that was extremely widely used by the Left, the "Left", the left and the "left" (they all exist, and are quite different!) since the second half of the 1960ies.

Very many people who were not fascists in any sense (like myself) have been abused by their -
Leftish, "Leftish", leftish or "leftish" political opponents as if they were fascists, which was rarely true.

Then again, Pierce has a point in the last quoted paragraph: American citizens have been murdered by the American military. Here is some more on Nazism and Nuremberg (<- Wikipedia) (the trials, in the second half of the 1940ies):
PW: At Nuremberg they hanged propagandists.

TP: [Julius] Streicher, yes. But he went beyond propaganda, too. I forget the details, but I have read his case. But you can make the argument that he went beyond propaganda. I think it included incitement to aggressive war and a few other things like that. Of course we wage aggressive war, but we present it as we have good intentions, unlike the Germans. Raymond Aron talks about that: How good intentions are used to justify all sorts of war crimes.
Yes indeed, and Pierce is right. Also, I like his mentioning Raymond Aron (<- Wikipedia): He was a very clever Frenchman who was a successful sociologist and political philosopher, who wrote many books, some of which I've read that were quite good (notably "The Opium of the Intellectuals" (<- Wikipedia)).

There is this on the present presidential candidates:

TP: And what if Donald Trump gets elected, what’s going to restrain him? This article in the Washington Post pointed out, really nothing. That’s not because of him, but because of the way the office of the presidency has accumulated power in the last 50 years.

PW: That goes for Hillary Clinton, too?

TP: Absolutely. Hillary Clinton was part of the administration that argued that they could kill American citizens purely on the president’s say so.
And here is another reason (for me, at least) to like Pierce: He knows both Jacob Talmon (<- Wikipedia) and his book "The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy" (<- Wikipedia), which is simply very good, and he also seems to have read Edward Bernays' (<- Wikipedia) horrific set of lies about propaganda (in his book called "Propaganda"):
TP: I haven’t looked at this stuff for so long. But Jacob Talmon was an Israeli political scientist, who wrote a book on the origins of totalitarian democracy in 1952. He was addressing the Eastern European countries under the influence of the Soviet Union, which were democratic in name only. And if you tie that in to Edward Bernays’s argument– you have to have propaganda to direct the people in the right direction. Fascism’s founding principle is how to manipulate the masses. So propaganda was always central to fascism.

Totalitarian democracy allows for the form of democracy, but it requires the fascist principle that all the people must be driven to the same ideas. And of course militaristic and authoritarian because you can’t have dissenters in a fascist state, or not too strong of a dissident movement.

Yes indeed. There is a whole lot more in this interview, which is recommended and (in case you are interested) there is also the (also long) first part of the interview with Todd Pierce.

5. Why You Really Must Get Behind Hillary, Now

The fifth and last item today is by Robert Reich on his site:

This starts as follows:

Can we have a word? I continue to hear from many of you who say you won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because, you claim, (1) she’s no better than Donald Trump, or (2) even if she’s better, she’s still corrupt, and you refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” or (3) you don’t want to reward the Democratic Party for corrupt primaries that gave the nomination to Hillary instead of Bernie Sanders.

These three positions (of what I consider to be mostly leftists or "leftists", who are a quite different breed from my Leftist parents and grandparents, I am not sorry to say [2]) indeed seem quite common at the moment.

Here are Reich's argument against each of these:

(1) Anyone who equates Donald Trump with Hillary Clinton hasn’t been paying attention. Trump is a dangerous, bigoted, narcissistic megalomaniac with fascist tendencies who could wreak huge damage on America and the world. Hillary isn’t perfect but she’s able and experienced. There is simply no comparison.

(2) Even if you see Hillary Clinton as the “lesser of two evils,” the greater of two evils in this case (if you see the choice in these terms) is seriously evil. You’ve probably had occasion in the past to vote for someone who doesn’t meet your ideals, when the alternative is someone who falls much further from those ideals. This doesn’t mean you’ve sold out or compromised your principles. You’ve just been realistic and practical. Realism and practicality are critically important now.

(3) I understand your frustration with the Democratic Party, and your reluctance to “reward” it for its bias against Bernie in the primaries. But anything you do that increases the odds of a Trump presidency isn’t just penalizing the Democratic Party; it’s jeopardizing our future and that of our children and their children.
I agree with each argument, though I am quite willing to strenghten the first by agreeing that Hillary Clinton is quite bad - but then again I agree with Reich that she is not by far as bad as Donald Trump, and besides: she is not mad, while he is.

Reich ends as follows:
There are just over 7 weeks until Election Day. My request to those of you who still don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton: Please reconsider. It is no exaggeration to say the fate of the nation and the world are at stake.

I quite agree and this is a recommended article.

[1] Here is - once again - the main reason why mayor Van Thijn of Amsterdam (who let me be terrorized and gassed by illegal drugsdealers that he had given (utterly illegal) "personal permission" to deal in illegal drugs from the bottom floor of the house where I lived) is a fraud who now for 26 years even acknowledged receipt of my letters and mails to him (which were handed to his personal doorman by me):

Each year (since 1988) the very much protected illegal Dutch drugsdealers turn over (all in all, according to the only parliamentary report ever published on it) some 50 billion euros (which amounts to the riches of Bezos).

I do not know how much of that yearly sum (meanwhile over a trillion dollars) the Dutch politicians, judges, or Van Thijn pocketed, but I find it personally quite incredible to assume that 28 years of illegal drugsdealing in illegal drugs, all fully (but completely illegally) "personally permitted" by mayors, district attorneys, judges etc. and not summing to well over a trillion dollars were 28 years illegally permitted without receiving one cent.

It may be that I am not as moral as some Dutchmen, but I find that indeed
completely incredible.

(But no: In Holland the degree of corruption exploited by the illegal drugsdealers will never be investigated or resolved: There is far too much to loose to do that.)

[2] I did so yesterday (in this footnote, thay you should consider if you believe yourself to be "a leftist"), and in fact 3 out of 4 of the groups that are
styled "leftist" these days are - in my very rich experience of real leftists - not leftists at all.

       home - index - summaries - mail