Saturday, October 8, 2016
Saturday Night Radio Drama - Amy Conroy - I (Heart) Alice (Heart) I
Drama On One team up with HotForTheatre to present 'I (Heart) Alice (Heart) I' by Amy Conroy, winner of the Fishamble New Writing Award at the Absolut Fringe 2010. Recorded with a studio audience and starring Amy Conroy and Clare Barrett, the play depicts Alice and Alice who are coming out… finally. This documentary piece is an unflinching and astonishingly personal love story that spans six decades. Two exceptional, opinionated women were spotted winking at each other in Crumlin Shopping Centre. Now they’re in a show ... reluctantly. 'I (Heart) Alice (Heart) I' explores the monumental journey of a most unlikely couple. Written and Directed by Amy Conroy. Producer: Kevin Brew
Cast: Amy Conroy and Clare Barrett
Hate Mail
I have no idea what Simples is lying about, the "quote" is nothing I recall saying. I don't even know what movie he's babbling about. Though it does show that Simps is fine with the right kind of pedophile. That would be one like Gore Vidal a decadent, dead writer who will soon join those forgotten second and third tier writers of the recent past who managed to pass themselves off as an important writer by managing their publicity. Something Simps could only dream about achieving in his own, um.... career as a scribbler. Only he couldn't manage it.
So he makes up something for me to have said.
And that's even with me having pointed out Gore Vidal having said that he didn't care for Israel as he Jew baited the Podhortezes in The Nation.
With the likes of Simps it doesn't matter what someone does, it matters who they are as they do it and whether or not they're held in high regard in what passes as the literary class in New York City. Or, at least what he can fathom as a literary class.
So he makes up something for me to have said.
And that's even with me having pointed out Gore Vidal having said that he didn't care for Israel as he Jew baited the Podhortezes in The Nation.
With the likes of Simps it doesn't matter what someone does, it matters who they are as they do it and whether or not they're held in high regard in what passes as the literary class in New York City. Or, at least what he can fathom as a literary class.
Must Be The Allergy Meds....
but I've realized I've developed a new pet peeve that is driving me up the wall, Youtubes that start out with someone saying, "Hi, guys" or "Hey, guys" or some variation of that make me feel like going e-postal.
From An Interview With Shirley Chisholm May 7,2002
Her prediction that within 25 years that the United States would elect a woman as president could come true this year. Her discussion of her experience in the House of Representatives and as a presidential candidate in 1972 are worth considering, especially in light of what Hillary Clinton has had to go through and put up with.
You should listen to her talking, especially, about how she dealt with the white, racist men she encountered and, even more so, her relationship with George Wallace. It's hard to imagine that the country wouldn't have been a far different and far better place if she had been elected that year. If you wanted to choose an anti-Trump, she would have been it. Here is what she said led her to run:
I had gone to the Congress as the first black person to be elected to Congress and I had gone on a number of speaking engagements through the country, and there was a fantastic
development for me as an individual, and people were encouraging me, you should run. You should run because you're a woman – we've never had a woman president. You're black – we've never had a black person for president. You speak Spanish. You have a lot of things…. And you have a knowledge of the issues. Run! And that's what motivated me.
I hope in her inaugural address a President Hillary Clinton would remember to mention her.
Update: Sorry for the html problem with the quote. I can't figure out what's wrong with it.
Something To Remember The Next Time You Hear A Hideous, Fat, Scummy White Man Mock A Woman On Her Looks
I get a lot of cracks about my hair, mostly from men who don’t have any. Ann Richards
No more double-standard.
No more double-standard.
Anyone of the alleged left who isn't supporting Hillary Clinton's election this month has discredited themselves and should not be trusted in the future.
Julian Assange and his Wikileaks are obviously carrying water for the Donald Trump campaign, it is very possibly doing so in concert with the spies of the Putin regime in Russia. As RMJ has pointed out they have obviously been stealing the contents of the e-mail accounts of figures in the Hillary Clinton campaign to be released whenever there is a seriously awful revelation about Donald Trump to try to get him elected president of the United States. The adulation on the left for Julian Assange and his spies has been revealing of the real nature of that left, illogical at best, corruptly duplicitous and reflexively hating the United States all through. This whole thing, from the advent of Wikileaks to the adulation of Edward Snowden and his Assange, Glenn Greenwald is saturated and dripping with hypocrisy. Just why it's OK when they and their sources do far more than the NSA has been accused of doing, I have yet to have explained. Now that it's rather obvious that a foreign and despotic government is involved in their ratfucking of American democracy, any "left" that supports or tolerates their presence deserves to finally wither and blow away.
I wonder how much what Snowden dumped into the lap of both the Chinese and Russian governments may have been a help to them in these efforts. He is reported to have taken so much stuff with him, so many documents, that it is impossible for him to have known what he was handing over to them. I have always wondered why it hasn't occurred to the Greenwalds, the Laura Poitrases, now that Hollywood has decided to make Snowden and the rest into a constructed myth, Oliver Stone, that their hero, their ticket to stardom and relevance in show biz, didn't likely turn over huge amounts of information on private people, average citizens, and Chinese and Russian dissidents. Not that I really think any of them would care about those people. This thing has been a chance for some rather sleazy people to profit themselves and to gain the mindless adulation of the lefty media which has so thoroughly discredited itself that it is probably farther from influencing events and elections than it has ever been in my life time, never mind yours.
We need a real left and I doubt it's going to come from the kind of people who have deputed themselves to constitute "the left". I wouldn't trust anyone to be part of it who haven't seen through Julian Assange and Wikileaks, Snowden and Greenwald or the lefty media that is still trying to sandbag the only woman between us and a president trump. This is the year such guys have entirely discredited themselves. They are a dead weight any real left with any real aspirations to gain office and do good have to put down. Unless we do that, we won't go anywhere.
The reflexive anti-Americanism of the alleged American left is an inheritance from the Marxists, anarchists and others who were, in reality, as opposed to democracy as any oligarchs. There was, from the start, a huge measure of intellectual snobbery involved in those movements, certainly by the time Lenin became the main world figure of that "left" many of its main figures and certainly it's scribbling class were thorough snobs who adopted Lenin's Vanguardist ideas, seeing themselves as the most developed and capable vehicle of the world revolution they dreamed up out of their theoretical politics. That attitude echoes in the phony left that is what most people mean when they talk about "the left". The reputation for snobbery among them is not going to dissolve because it is true.
It is no shock that such a left would despise the most liberal political figures that American democracy have managed to produce, if there is one thing that can be said for those who can get elected, they haven't done it through disdain for and disrespect of what the American people will accept. And it is rather incredible that as the American democracy has, actually, produced progress, progress that is endangered by Republican-fascism, the very people who did that are widely despised on that "left". More incredible, still, is the respect that those who have even openly supported actual dictators, even those with blood on there hands, even those who amassed body counts in the Nazi class of crimes as they have despised American politicians who have not done those things. There is hardly a magazine of the left which didn't feature such content and some which still do. Just yesterday I read a defense of Vladimir Putin in one of them. That taste for dictators elsewhere is matched by a disdain of Hillary Clinton, someone who, if we are lucky enough to elect her, will certainly not rule as a despot, murdering journalists, murdering political opponents, resistant to getting entrapped in foreign wars.
Let me put it plainly, in October 2016, Hillary Clinton is the most liberal person who American politics has produced as a presidential candidate. If she is elected she will very likely govern to the left of Barack Obama - unlike him, she has absolutely no illusions that Republicans are going to support her policies and unlike him she has no need for their love, something that thwarted Obama's first two years in office and led to his crippling weakness. In any real terms, Hillary Clinton is the real American left, the left that can gain office and change things in a direction pointed in a better direction. The alternatives we have before us are as serious as any ever presented to the American voters. It is literally the difference between a candidate who has the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, the Progressive Caucus and a candidate who has the support of neo-Nazis, the David Dukes, the white supremacists and Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump is in hock to Russian Oligarchs and who knows who else who will expect to benefit from his presidency. Anyone of the alleged left who isn't supporting Hillary Clinton's election this month has discredited themselves and should not be trusted, not today, not into the future. The real left must dump them.
I wonder how much what Snowden dumped into the lap of both the Chinese and Russian governments may have been a help to them in these efforts. He is reported to have taken so much stuff with him, so many documents, that it is impossible for him to have known what he was handing over to them. I have always wondered why it hasn't occurred to the Greenwalds, the Laura Poitrases, now that Hollywood has decided to make Snowden and the rest into a constructed myth, Oliver Stone, that their hero, their ticket to stardom and relevance in show biz, didn't likely turn over huge amounts of information on private people, average citizens, and Chinese and Russian dissidents. Not that I really think any of them would care about those people. This thing has been a chance for some rather sleazy people to profit themselves and to gain the mindless adulation of the lefty media which has so thoroughly discredited itself that it is probably farther from influencing events and elections than it has ever been in my life time, never mind yours.
We need a real left and I doubt it's going to come from the kind of people who have deputed themselves to constitute "the left". I wouldn't trust anyone to be part of it who haven't seen through Julian Assange and Wikileaks, Snowden and Greenwald or the lefty media that is still trying to sandbag the only woman between us and a president trump. This is the year such guys have entirely discredited themselves. They are a dead weight any real left with any real aspirations to gain office and do good have to put down. Unless we do that, we won't go anywhere.
The reflexive anti-Americanism of the alleged American left is an inheritance from the Marxists, anarchists and others who were, in reality, as opposed to democracy as any oligarchs. There was, from the start, a huge measure of intellectual snobbery involved in those movements, certainly by the time Lenin became the main world figure of that "left" many of its main figures and certainly it's scribbling class were thorough snobs who adopted Lenin's Vanguardist ideas, seeing themselves as the most developed and capable vehicle of the world revolution they dreamed up out of their theoretical politics. That attitude echoes in the phony left that is what most people mean when they talk about "the left". The reputation for snobbery among them is not going to dissolve because it is true.
It is no shock that such a left would despise the most liberal political figures that American democracy have managed to produce, if there is one thing that can be said for those who can get elected, they haven't done it through disdain for and disrespect of what the American people will accept. And it is rather incredible that as the American democracy has, actually, produced progress, progress that is endangered by Republican-fascism, the very people who did that are widely despised on that "left". More incredible, still, is the respect that those who have even openly supported actual dictators, even those with blood on there hands, even those who amassed body counts in the Nazi class of crimes as they have despised American politicians who have not done those things. There is hardly a magazine of the left which didn't feature such content and some which still do. Just yesterday I read a defense of Vladimir Putin in one of them. That taste for dictators elsewhere is matched by a disdain of Hillary Clinton, someone who, if we are lucky enough to elect her, will certainly not rule as a despot, murdering journalists, murdering political opponents, resistant to getting entrapped in foreign wars.
Let me put it plainly, in October 2016, Hillary Clinton is the most liberal person who American politics has produced as a presidential candidate. If she is elected she will very likely govern to the left of Barack Obama - unlike him, she has absolutely no illusions that Republicans are going to support her policies and unlike him she has no need for their love, something that thwarted Obama's first two years in office and led to his crippling weakness. In any real terms, Hillary Clinton is the real American left, the left that can gain office and change things in a direction pointed in a better direction. The alternatives we have before us are as serious as any ever presented to the American voters. It is literally the difference between a candidate who has the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, the Progressive Caucus and a candidate who has the support of neo-Nazis, the David Dukes, the white supremacists and Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump is in hock to Russian Oligarchs and who knows who else who will expect to benefit from his presidency. Anyone of the alleged left who isn't supporting Hillary Clinton's election this month has discredited themselves and should not be trusted, not today, not into the future. The real left must dump them.
Friday, October 7, 2016
"The rest of the world, which allowed the things recorded here to happen, should put the obligation to weep before the right to laugh."
Feuilleton: a part of a newspaper or magazine devoted to material designed to entertain the general reader
The performance of this play, which according to terrestrial measurement of time would encompass about ten evenings, is intended for a theatre on Mars. Theatre-goers of this world would not be able to bear it. For it is blood of their blood; the content is the narrative of those years, unreal, unthinkable, accessible to no waking sense or memory, only preserved in bloody dreams, when operetta characters played out the tragedy of mankind. The action, leading to a hundred scenes and hells, is impossible, fractured, hero-less. The humour is merely the self-reproach of a witness who has not gone mad at the thought of surviving these times with his mind intact. But except for those who reveal their share in this shame to posterity, nobody has any right to that humour. The rest of the world, which allowed the things recorded here to happen, should put the obligation to weep before the right to laugh.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the real satirist Karl Kraus and why he makes the two-bit clowns who get called "satirists" now-a-days look like two-bit clowns, here's a website that takes on the huge project of presenting a translation of his enormous play, The Last Days of Mankind. As it points out, the entire work was not until very recently all available in translation and was often presented in watered down excerpts made congenial instead of meaningful. There is so much in the play that is, if anything, far more relevant to an America trained by the decadence and corruption of television, hate-talk radio, pop culture where entertainment that sells has entirely swamped fact and reality. Kraus rather exactly predicted what happens when that kind of thing replaces reality. From his Preface to the play.
The most improbable deeds reported here actually took place; I only painted what was done. The most implausible conversations in this play were spoken verbatim; the shrillest inventions are quotations. Propositions, whose folly is indelibly registered on the ear, swell into the music of life. A document is a character; reports rise up as living forms while the living die as editorials; the feuilleton gains a mouth and delivers its own monologue; clichés stand on two legs – some men are left with only one. Cadences rattle and rage through these times, crescendoing into a hymn to the unholiest acts.
The America that produced the Donald Trump candidacy, a mere eight years after George W. Bush and the catalog of horrors and crimes his time in office committed, is the world in which Trump's TV show, The Apprentice, is denominated as being "reality TV." That a population which has had the phony, constructed, fiction of television presented as "reality" is in the gravest danger of choosing him as its leader is proof of the power of the media to produce, not democracy, but a depraved, demented, dangerous and deadly demagogue. That is what Donald Trump promises to be, not covertly, but as a promise. Donald Trump is what it happening here looks like. The Donald Trump phenomenon is, absolutely, the kind of thing that Karl Kraus warned would be the result of the press being as irresponsible as ours is. From top to bottom the cynical, self-serving, press presented in The Last Days of Mankind is what we've got. When The People have been corrupted, democracy doesn't mean that people make choices that are for the common good, they are a manipulated tool of TV promoted millionaires and billionaires.
As I've mentioned so often, what presents itself as the cream of our free press, the lefty magazines and such electronic venues as Democracy Now and The Young Turks have been as irresponsible this year but with their own twist on it. Some of them are still encouraging people who can be gulled into voting for Jill Stein. Having been brought up on the reverence for journalism that I was propagandized into, believing in by the media and the cult of the romanticized First Amendment, both created and promoted by the media industry, it took me a long time to see through it. Karl Kraus was a journalist who saw how corrupt it can be, how corrupting it can be at first hand. It isn't any great shock to realize that he wouldn't be as much promoted by the media as the far less biting, far more facile and far more easily dismissed Bertolt Brecht. And both of them are buried by the media attention given to the chief executive of The Apprentice.
The performance of this play, which according to terrestrial measurement of time would encompass about ten evenings, is intended for a theatre on Mars. Theatre-goers of this world would not be able to bear it. For it is blood of their blood; the content is the narrative of those years, unreal, unthinkable, accessible to no waking sense or memory, only preserved in bloody dreams, when operetta characters played out the tragedy of mankind. The action, leading to a hundred scenes and hells, is impossible, fractured, hero-less. The humour is merely the self-reproach of a witness who has not gone mad at the thought of surviving these times with his mind intact. But except for those who reveal their share in this shame to posterity, nobody has any right to that humour. The rest of the world, which allowed the things recorded here to happen, should put the obligation to weep before the right to laugh.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the real satirist Karl Kraus and why he makes the two-bit clowns who get called "satirists" now-a-days look like two-bit clowns, here's a website that takes on the huge project of presenting a translation of his enormous play, The Last Days of Mankind. As it points out, the entire work was not until very recently all available in translation and was often presented in watered down excerpts made congenial instead of meaningful. There is so much in the play that is, if anything, far more relevant to an America trained by the decadence and corruption of television, hate-talk radio, pop culture where entertainment that sells has entirely swamped fact and reality. Kraus rather exactly predicted what happens when that kind of thing replaces reality. From his Preface to the play.
The most improbable deeds reported here actually took place; I only painted what was done. The most implausible conversations in this play were spoken verbatim; the shrillest inventions are quotations. Propositions, whose folly is indelibly registered on the ear, swell into the music of life. A document is a character; reports rise up as living forms while the living die as editorials; the feuilleton gains a mouth and delivers its own monologue; clichés stand on two legs – some men are left with only one. Cadences rattle and rage through these times, crescendoing into a hymn to the unholiest acts.
The America that produced the Donald Trump candidacy, a mere eight years after George W. Bush and the catalog of horrors and crimes his time in office committed, is the world in which Trump's TV show, The Apprentice, is denominated as being "reality TV." That a population which has had the phony, constructed, fiction of television presented as "reality" is in the gravest danger of choosing him as its leader is proof of the power of the media to produce, not democracy, but a depraved, demented, dangerous and deadly demagogue. That is what Donald Trump promises to be, not covertly, but as a promise. Donald Trump is what it happening here looks like. The Donald Trump phenomenon is, absolutely, the kind of thing that Karl Kraus warned would be the result of the press being as irresponsible as ours is. From top to bottom the cynical, self-serving, press presented in The Last Days of Mankind is what we've got. When The People have been corrupted, democracy doesn't mean that people make choices that are for the common good, they are a manipulated tool of TV promoted millionaires and billionaires.
As I've mentioned so often, what presents itself as the cream of our free press, the lefty magazines and such electronic venues as Democracy Now and The Young Turks have been as irresponsible this year but with their own twist on it. Some of them are still encouraging people who can be gulled into voting for Jill Stein. Having been brought up on the reverence for journalism that I was propagandized into, believing in by the media and the cult of the romanticized First Amendment, both created and promoted by the media industry, it took me a long time to see through it. Karl Kraus was a journalist who saw how corrupt it can be, how corrupting it can be at first hand. It isn't any great shock to realize that he wouldn't be as much promoted by the media as the far less biting, far more facile and far more easily dismissed Bertolt Brecht. And both of them are buried by the media attention given to the chief executive of The Apprentice.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Maine's Kind of Hideous Lying Deranged Bigoted Ugly Fat White Scum Spewer Chief Executive Could Soon Be Yours
You really know what's interesting, Samantha Bee's analysis of how it happened here is way more sophisticated and realistic than the lefty magazine idiocy that is trying to cause it to happen everywhere. I would really love to see In These Times fold up almost as much as I'd like to see FOX, Breitbart, NPR.... fold up. They're really not that much different when it comes to real results.
Update: Why "fat"? Because after last week's fat shaming of a normal sized woman by Trump and his posse of fat white crypto-fascist men I'm going to not pass up an opportunity to point out that they are glutenous tubs, themselves.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Goner - The Thought Criminal Posts A Movie
At least three of the people involved in the series of radio dramas, "Bailey's Way," which I've posted a few Saturdays are involved in this movie, Esther Perves Smith does some of the writing and other stuff, Grant Linneberg and David LeReaney appear in it. All of them based in Alberta, Canada. I liked it. Apparently some other people from Maine did too. Here's the writer and director, Kelly Zombor pitching it at the tiny film festival held in Lewiston-Auburn.
The Worst Wing
Just out of curiosity, I sampled several pages of my "Spam" file and, based on that, I can announce that easily 97% of the comments I never published were submitted by Steve Simels. Since it's his habit of posting the stuff I won't post at Duncan's it's clear I've got higher standards than the guy who milks Baby Blue while going through the motions of being an important and influential blogger. He was real big - well, for a blogger - back c. 2005. Rumor was that they had a walk on with no lines on The West Wing who was he. Or that was the rumor. Or maybe Sorkin just wanted to add some c. 2004 relevance to show how hip he was with the kids. The West Wing broadcast its last episode more than a decade ago. About the time Duncan stopped going through more than the motions. Maybe he figured he'd arrived and didn't have to do any more work.
I can't tell you how annoying I found that show the several times I was subjected to it. All of those smarty pants talking and walking fast in largely incomprehensible voices. And, really, a New Hampshire yankee, ex-governor who was a liberal Roman Catholic? Back then? Well, it was a fantasy, after all.
Update: Oh, yeah, and those decent, principled Republicans, you'll remember how plentiful those were during the just past Democratic administration. I remember so well that the official decent Republican, after holding some of the most ridiculous of the Clinton era "scandal" hearings, Jim Leech, being asked by Barney Frank, What's a nice guy like you doing in a party like that? Only a nice guy wouldn't be in it.
I can't tell you how annoying I found that show the several times I was subjected to it. All of those smarty pants talking and walking fast in largely incomprehensible voices. And, really, a New Hampshire yankee, ex-governor who was a liberal Roman Catholic? Back then? Well, it was a fantasy, after all.
Update: Oh, yeah, and those decent, principled Republicans, you'll remember how plentiful those were during the just past Democratic administration. I remember so well that the official decent Republican, after holding some of the most ridiculous of the Clinton era "scandal" hearings, Jim Leech, being asked by Barney Frank, What's a nice guy like you doing in a party like that? Only a nice guy wouldn't be in it.
Stupy, stop being so stupid.
Update: I know it's more than your tag team buddies at Duncan's playpen for the drooling senescent can fathom, but when you have to elide what something refers to, you're just being stupid and making no point about what was said. I think Skepsy is leaking and the leach field is saturated.
Update: I know it's more than your tag team buddies at Duncan's playpen for the drooling senescent can fathom, but when you have to elide what something refers to, you're just being stupid and making no point about what was said. I think Skepsy is leaking and the leach field is saturated.
Wendy Waldman, Back by Fall
I was looking at the fruitless apple trees just now, a result of the man-made global warming that the Republicans and Libertarians figure we should just accept because the sun is going to go red giant sometime in the far distant future and this song came to mind.
I don't think Wendy Waldman ever got her due as a songwriter and performer. Neither does Hosea, these days. I wish someone asked Mike Pence about that during last night's abomination of an excuse for a debate.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
TRIO Soleil au SUNSET - Lendépendans
Franck Nicolas, trumpet
Nelson Veras, guitar
Sonny Troupé, drums
And, something I posted before, Gamme Zayan, with Nicolas playing flugelhorn.
I wonder if the CD I forgot to order is still available.
Invective Echoing From The Distant Past
Wow, you read that old post on Brecht and what a pile of B.S. his theories of theater were. It's my experience that once you've seen through Brecht, his stuff becomes a lot less watchable. That's especially true of the stuff without Kurt Weill's music. The one discussed with music by Hans Eisler is, as stated, a lot like Springtime for Hitler, only real.
There is a rule of thumb I've developed that someone who fled the United States for the GDR (there should definitely be quotation marks around the "D") even in the 1950s wasn't especially interested in democracy.
Marxism, lest anyone not understand, was never a democratic ideology, it is far closer to fascism than it is to democracy. In its body count amassed in virtually every place where it was given a test of time proves it's far closer to Nazism. I think it would be fair to say that any real, serious about it, Marxist would have to be anti-democracy. That's certainly how it worked in real life.
Read the one I like the best from that whole string of posts, you don't mention it.
There is a rule of thumb I've developed that someone who fled the United States for the GDR (there should definitely be quotation marks around the "D") even in the 1950s wasn't especially interested in democracy.
Marxism, lest anyone not understand, was never a democratic ideology, it is far closer to fascism than it is to democracy. In its body count amassed in virtually every place where it was given a test of time proves it's far closer to Nazism. I think it would be fair to say that any real, serious about it, Marxist would have to be anti-democracy. That's certainly how it worked in real life.
Read the one I like the best from that whole string of posts, you don't mention it.
Oh, Yeah, Reading My Hate Mail Made Me Forget This
One of the most annoying and condescending and sheer lazy-assed things they do in America's alleged journalism is replacing "man on the street" type interviews with ignorant people for more difficult, more risky and more expensive reporting of fact. It is condescending and the inevitable assumption is that the ignoramuses they choose are representatives of the great, ignorant, always assumed to be conservative, common consensus. Of course, if they stuck to reporting fact instead of this kind of crap, the American People would be far less ignorant and bigoted than the journalist-class of folk would ever want to believe us to be able to be.
I don't know how National Public Radio ever got away with this but what they do on Morning Edition by way of that reached a new low with the dopey woman Steve Inskeep consulted on her ignorant, ill informed and obviously stupid support of Donald Trump and her clear hostility to Hillary Clinton. NPR has already distinguished itself as being among the worst venues covering the presidential election this year but this interview and, I'll bet you anything, the promised post-VP "debate" interview to see if she changed her mind listening to it (yeah, right) is even stupider.
If I met Steve Inskeep right now, I don't think I could keep myself from socking him in the mush.
I don't know how National Public Radio ever got away with this but what they do on Morning Edition by way of that reached a new low with the dopey woman Steve Inskeep consulted on her ignorant, ill informed and obviously stupid support of Donald Trump and her clear hostility to Hillary Clinton. NPR has already distinguished itself as being among the worst venues covering the presidential election this year but this interview and, I'll bet you anything, the promised post-VP "debate" interview to see if she changed her mind listening to it (yeah, right) is even stupider.
If I met Steve Inskeep right now, I don't think I could keep myself from socking him in the mush.
Second Hand Knows
You don't know how much I'd like to research and investigate the blog atheist attempt to either debunk the central role that Copernicus had in the Gregorian calendar reform or to, otherwise, turn the Catholic priest whose heliocentric model of the universe was, in fact, supported by Catholic bishops, cardinals and popes before Galileo got into trouble with the last humanist pope over it to use in atheist invective. I would turn it into a post about how atheists have twisted, made-up and lied about history to dupe superficial people who will buy their tripe - many of them having all levels of academic degrees as well as those without them. But, as I said yesterday, I'm busy.
I am even too pressed to make fun of Stultified Steve and the stupid statement he posted here yesterday.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is the seldom mentioned though ubiquitous anger of atheists about religion. I mean the fact that an enormous amount of academic and even so-called scientific life revolves around the hostility of atheists towards people who believe in God and the idea of God. The longer I've looked into the phenomenon of atheism, the clearer it has become that a real, primitive and all consuming hatred of God is central to so much of what gets scribbled and babbled as serious academic discourse. And, as important as the hatred of God is, there is also the certainly known but unarticulated knowledge among others who either want to advance in respectable academia or, at least, be unbullied by the atheists in academia and popular media, who just go along with it, creating the popular pseudo-history and pseudo-erudition that the popular levels of "knowledge" most often heard consist of. A lot of that might also be sheer laziness, not bothering to look at the primary material and thinking about it - it's not always as clear cut in the primary literature as the same material digested (and often distorted)* in the secondary literature and tertiary and more remote junk - much of which also enters into the intro and jurno levels of discourse. Of course most of what gets into the brainy side of Hollywood production relies mostly on the third and fourth hand junk.
But, that will have to wait.
* It's so much easier to read what Max Weber said than to read the primary material, but it's even easier to just repeat what someone said about what Max Weber said. And for Max Weber you can substitute hundreds of other creators of the secondary level, official erudition.
Instant Update: I have got to remember not to use this browser to write posts, I can't figure out how it screws up the font that gets produced.
Update: Stupy thinks that "Marvel movies" amount to academic discourse. See what I mean about him not even trying. Not that his good buddies at Duncan's, um. "Brain trust" care. Maybe someday I'll point out how among our most conceited class of college grads a stupid, content free wise guy piece of snark passes as wisdom. Though, come to think of it, Dorothy Parker already said something like that. That stuff gets old, if you're lucky. If not, you stay in perpetual jr. high.
I am even too pressed to make fun of Stultified Steve and the stupid statement he posted here yesterday.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is the seldom mentioned though ubiquitous anger of atheists about religion. I mean the fact that an enormous amount of academic and even so-called scientific life revolves around the hostility of atheists towards people who believe in God and the idea of God. The longer I've looked into the phenomenon of atheism, the clearer it has become that a real, primitive and all consuming hatred of God is central to so much of what gets scribbled and babbled as serious academic discourse. And, as important as the hatred of God is, there is also the certainly known but unarticulated knowledge among others who either want to advance in respectable academia or, at least, be unbullied by the atheists in academia and popular media, who just go along with it, creating the popular pseudo-history and pseudo-erudition that the popular levels of "knowledge" most often heard consist of. A lot of that might also be sheer laziness, not bothering to look at the primary material and thinking about it - it's not always as clear cut in the primary literature as the same material digested (and often distorted)* in the secondary literature and tertiary and more remote junk - much of which also enters into the intro and jurno levels of discourse. Of course most of what gets into the brainy side of Hollywood production relies mostly on the third and fourth hand junk.
But, that will have to wait.
* It's so much easier to read what Max Weber said than to read the primary material, but it's even easier to just repeat what someone said about what Max Weber said. And for Max Weber you can substitute hundreds of other creators of the secondary level, official erudition.
Instant Update: I have got to remember not to use this browser to write posts, I can't figure out how it screws up the font that gets produced.
Update: Stupy thinks that "Marvel movies" amount to academic discourse. See what I mean about him not even trying. Not that his good buddies at Duncan's, um. "Brain trust" care. Maybe someday I'll point out how among our most conceited class of college grads a stupid, content free wise guy piece of snark passes as wisdom. Though, come to think of it, Dorothy Parker already said something like that. That stuff gets old, if you're lucky. If not, you stay in perpetual jr. high.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Gone Working
I've gotten some paid work that has to be completed on a deadline. Actual musical work. I know, people actually paying for music. Go figure. I hope to be done in a few days. I will try to write something later today. Until then:
Revealing The Atheists' Theology For What It Really Is An Alternative Religion
The evolutionary psychologists and others have turned natural selection into the magical creative force in biology and, in some hard cases such as Daniel Dennett, into a universal force to explain everything. That is beyond dispute. At least it is if you think out the real meaning of what they're saying to its conclusion.
Since they inevitably depend on the major modification of Darwin's major idea by gluing it to Mendelian genetics, done in the 1930s, and with DNA being identified in the 50s of the last century, and especially since H. D. Hamilton, E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins published their ideas, when they talk about "natural selection" they're really talking about DNA. The same, when they say "evolution".
And I think it is with Hamilton and Dawkins that it's necessary to begin to talk about their turning the object, "DNA", into a creator god. as they attributed to it far vaster magical, creative potency than more careful geneticists I'm aware of ever did. Today, when you hear or read the words "DNA" "genetics" "natural selection" or even, and most damaging of all to science, "evolution" most of the time it is to the magical creator god to which is attributed the most enormous powers of creation. In the claims that all of our behavior is, ultimately, the creation of this deified "DNA", is literally the claim that we are made in its image, that it is the origin of our entire being.
And, as I've noted, in the hands of Daniel Dennett, its creative powers are claimed to extend far outside of mere biology but to all of nature, which is why he entitled what is certainly his most famous book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. In that title, he merely restates the claims made for Darwinism by Ernst Haeckel, who was more honest about his motives, when he said that in Darwinism was the final triumph of materialist monism. When I talk about materialist monism, I am merely using the right term for what they're talking about, without the typical slippery avoidance of it. And in that I think lies the real motive of the entire effort of the entirely slippery and, I think quite naive and wrongheaded effort.
Think about what their apotheosized version of "DNA" is claimed to do by them and its powers rival those of the creator gods of classical paganism. In their presentation it creates us, quite literally, it imbues us with all of our capabilities and faults, it determines our fate, it even controls our thoughts and actions. It causes our crimes, it is the source of our virtues and even, in that line of thought, is the real and quite selfish motive that is the real explanation of our most noble acts of self-sacrifice, transforming that into a service for that, their most selfish of all gods which only cares about its own survival. If you think that is a grotesque exaggeration, consider that the major proponent of the idea, Richard Dawkins, famously said:
“Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators?
They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.
They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
What I have said, which is held to be outlandish and ridiculous is merely to restate the claims of these people, letting the cat out of the bag, revealing what it is that they're doing. They're inventing a fantasy version of DNA as a god* substitute, providing Haeckel's magical force, the thing that led to claims of God being dead, with a physical form. Since their religion is a materialist one, of course their god would have to have a physical form. As I've already mentioned before, when Dennett tried to remove the force, natural selection, from its physical form he unwittingly made it logically impossible, natural selection requiring the inheritance of discrete entities to avoid everything being turned into a chaotic and homogeneous soup, perhaps what would happen if some of those famous finely tuned constants were slightly different and the basic physical structures that gave rise to our bodies and our putative intelligence were made impossible in the universe. Though I think there really is no way to know all of the ramifications of such universes or even if they are an actual possibility in reality, our only knowledge of something we use that term for comes from this actual universe we inhabit and know.
What I wrote in the past few days was misidentified as a claim of a proof for the existence of God, which it wasn't. I have never been in the business of trying to provide a proof of the existence of God, I don't think such a "proof" is available to us, the impossibility of defining, of delimiting the meaning of the immaterial God I believe in would definitively make such a proof impossible. You can only prove things which are defined and delimited. To ask to prove of the God I believe in would make even less sense than a quest to prove that reality is real, since you would have to do so within the reality you are trying to prove. The attempt of materialists to debunk the reality of consciousness in service to their material gods runs into a quite similar problem as their attempts rather convincingly demonstrate the reality of the thing they are using to enforce their will on reality. Their effort disproves the case they are making by debunking the reality of what they are using to make their arguments. Now THAT is something worth pointing out, which is what I have been doing.
* Dawkins is sophisticated enough, though most of his fellow neo-atheists are not, in that he realizes that the creation of one godly "DNA" is insufficient as there is on one molecule that is DNA. But he does create the largest of all pantheons in his attribution of powers to DNA, warring gods which are engaged in competing and killing each other off, using us and our macroscopic scale to determine the winners. Though I think even he can't turn such entities into more than limited deities in that they are dependent on the physical environment. As I indicated their gods are henotheistic, with potency within a certain locus of influence, other gods having sway in other regions. I've mentioned other gods of those efforts, "quantum gravity" "quantum vacuum" and, in an earlier post, what might be the current and reigning and likely all-time(s) champion creator god, "probability" with which these atheists have made, not only immaterial, enormous brains, but a stupendous number of imaginary universes, created out of nothing else. As they really do talk about such imaginary, unevidenced things, and use them in argument - something they mock religious folk for doing I think it's only fair that we be allowed to take them as serious about it and to make logical observations about just what they're doing. Atheists have their own theology in which they talk about such stuff, only they're touchy about admitting that's what it is. I'm more interested in the logical consequences and the proper identification of what they're doing than in the anger caused by pointing those out. As the widespread and naive belief in such things as evolutionary psychology is a major danger to liberalism and democracy, I think it's important for a political blogger to address it. The claims of evolutionary psychologists are used to attack everything from gender and ethnic equality to economic justice. David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan love such things for a reason, after all.
Since they inevitably depend on the major modification of Darwin's major idea by gluing it to Mendelian genetics, done in the 1930s, and with DNA being identified in the 50s of the last century, and especially since H. D. Hamilton, E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins published their ideas, when they talk about "natural selection" they're really talking about DNA. The same, when they say "evolution".
And I think it is with Hamilton and Dawkins that it's necessary to begin to talk about their turning the object, "DNA", into a creator god. as they attributed to it far vaster magical, creative potency than more careful geneticists I'm aware of ever did. Today, when you hear or read the words "DNA" "genetics" "natural selection" or even, and most damaging of all to science, "evolution" most of the time it is to the magical creator god to which is attributed the most enormous powers of creation. In the claims that all of our behavior is, ultimately, the creation of this deified "DNA", is literally the claim that we are made in its image, that it is the origin of our entire being.
And, as I've noted, in the hands of Daniel Dennett, its creative powers are claimed to extend far outside of mere biology but to all of nature, which is why he entitled what is certainly his most famous book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. In that title, he merely restates the claims made for Darwinism by Ernst Haeckel, who was more honest about his motives, when he said that in Darwinism was the final triumph of materialist monism. When I talk about materialist monism, I am merely using the right term for what they're talking about, without the typical slippery avoidance of it. And in that I think lies the real motive of the entire effort of the entirely slippery and, I think quite naive and wrongheaded effort.
Think about what their apotheosized version of "DNA" is claimed to do by them and its powers rival those of the creator gods of classical paganism. In their presentation it creates us, quite literally, it imbues us with all of our capabilities and faults, it determines our fate, it even controls our thoughts and actions. It causes our crimes, it is the source of our virtues and even, in that line of thought, is the real and quite selfish motive that is the real explanation of our most noble acts of self-sacrifice, transforming that into a service for that, their most selfish of all gods which only cares about its own survival. If you think that is a grotesque exaggeration, consider that the major proponent of the idea, Richard Dawkins, famously said:
“Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators?
They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.
They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
What I have said, which is held to be outlandish and ridiculous is merely to restate the claims of these people, letting the cat out of the bag, revealing what it is that they're doing. They're inventing a fantasy version of DNA as a god* substitute, providing Haeckel's magical force, the thing that led to claims of God being dead, with a physical form. Since their religion is a materialist one, of course their god would have to have a physical form. As I've already mentioned before, when Dennett tried to remove the force, natural selection, from its physical form he unwittingly made it logically impossible, natural selection requiring the inheritance of discrete entities to avoid everything being turned into a chaotic and homogeneous soup, perhaps what would happen if some of those famous finely tuned constants were slightly different and the basic physical structures that gave rise to our bodies and our putative intelligence were made impossible in the universe. Though I think there really is no way to know all of the ramifications of such universes or even if they are an actual possibility in reality, our only knowledge of something we use that term for comes from this actual universe we inhabit and know.
What I wrote in the past few days was misidentified as a claim of a proof for the existence of God, which it wasn't. I have never been in the business of trying to provide a proof of the existence of God, I don't think such a "proof" is available to us, the impossibility of defining, of delimiting the meaning of the immaterial God I believe in would definitively make such a proof impossible. You can only prove things which are defined and delimited. To ask to prove of the God I believe in would make even less sense than a quest to prove that reality is real, since you would have to do so within the reality you are trying to prove. The attempt of materialists to debunk the reality of consciousness in service to their material gods runs into a quite similar problem as their attempts rather convincingly demonstrate the reality of the thing they are using to enforce their will on reality. Their effort disproves the case they are making by debunking the reality of what they are using to make their arguments. Now THAT is something worth pointing out, which is what I have been doing.
* Dawkins is sophisticated enough, though most of his fellow neo-atheists are not, in that he realizes that the creation of one godly "DNA" is insufficient as there is on one molecule that is DNA. But he does create the largest of all pantheons in his attribution of powers to DNA, warring gods which are engaged in competing and killing each other off, using us and our macroscopic scale to determine the winners. Though I think even he can't turn such entities into more than limited deities in that they are dependent on the physical environment. As I indicated their gods are henotheistic, with potency within a certain locus of influence, other gods having sway in other regions. I've mentioned other gods of those efforts, "quantum gravity" "quantum vacuum" and, in an earlier post, what might be the current and reigning and likely all-time(s) champion creator god, "probability" with which these atheists have made, not only immaterial, enormous brains, but a stupendous number of imaginary universes, created out of nothing else. As they really do talk about such imaginary, unevidenced things, and use them in argument - something they mock religious folk for doing I think it's only fair that we be allowed to take them as serious about it and to make logical observations about just what they're doing. Atheists have their own theology in which they talk about such stuff, only they're touchy about admitting that's what it is. I'm more interested in the logical consequences and the proper identification of what they're doing than in the anger caused by pointing those out. As the widespread and naive belief in such things as evolutionary psychology is a major danger to liberalism and democracy, I think it's important for a political blogger to address it. The claims of evolutionary psychologists are used to attack everything from gender and ethnic equality to economic justice. David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan love such things for a reason, after all.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Dusan Bogdanovic - Unconscious in Brazil
Unfortunately, the guitarist isn't listed so I don't know who they are.
This reminds me a lot of Conlon Nancarrow's player piano studies, especially some of the early ones. Reading the score while listening, it's even clearer how innovative Bogdanovic's music is for the instrument. Looking at a video of someone playing an excerpt can be a little disorienting as it sounds like more than one person should be playing the music, the two lines, the ostinato and the melody above it, are so independent, and that's just a simple description, there are implications of two upper voices at times.
Hate Mail - More On Lies From Duncan's Blog
According to Steve Simels, I've said things I've never said and never would say. You wonder how he got through years of playing journalist without having learned the first thing about accurate reporting. Only if you have to wonder about that you haven't noticed that American journalism has been a cesspool for the entire period he was supposedly a journalist.
Update: If I'd never witnessed the phenomenon of reductionist stupidity I'd certainly be familiar with it it after years of seeing it practiced by Simps and the reduced rump of the Eschatonians. If they were a band they'd be The Discontinued Models.
Update 2: Simps is just throwing out any old thing, basically the same strategy as Trump making wild accusations. It's no fun when he won't even try and I won't do this unless I'm having fun.
Update: If I'd never witnessed the phenomenon of reductionist stupidity I'd certainly be familiar with it it after years of seeing it practiced by Simps and the reduced rump of the Eschatonians. If they were a band they'd be The Discontinued Models.
Update 2: Simps is just throwing out any old thing, basically the same strategy as Trump making wild accusations. It's no fun when he won't even try and I won't do this unless I'm having fun.
Arthur Berger - Trio for Guitar, Violin and Piano
David Starobin, guitar
Gilbert Kalish, piano
Joel Smirnoff, violin
OK, I'll Explain
I was extremely busy most of yesterday so I didn't have time to write anything, then, right before my bedtime someone informed me that Simps and Freki were at it, as ususal, at Duncan Black's blog, lying about me.
The thing started with one of the dreary, cooky cutter atheists at Duncan's, when "tacitus voltare" posted snark about some insane nuttery about changes in DNA caused by being born again, or something. Steve Simels started by speculating that I'd believe something like that.
Which proves one thing, he has, literally, not understood anything I've ever said about biology and especially my skepticism about the mania for making up stories centered on genes to explain stuff, what a group of prominent evolutionary biologists and geneticists, many of them atheists, ridicule as "Just-so stories". I started being skeptical of that nonsense as soon as I first read about it, back in the early 1970s, having noticed that there was no observational support for such story telling. The wacky stuff that TV snarked about is far closer to the make-it-up as science that E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett do than to anything I'd call science. So, it's clear that the person who trolls me the most hasn't got a clue as to what I have said in numerous posts, many of which he has ignorantly snarked about, himself.
The thing started with one of the dreary, cooky cutter atheists at Duncan's, when "tacitus voltare" posted snark about some insane nuttery about changes in DNA caused by being born again, or something. Steve Simels started by speculating that I'd believe something like that.
Which proves one thing, he has, literally, not understood anything I've ever said about biology and especially my skepticism about the mania for making up stories centered on genes to explain stuff, what a group of prominent evolutionary biologists and geneticists, many of them atheists, ridicule as "Just-so stories". I started being skeptical of that nonsense as soon as I first read about it, back in the early 1970s, having noticed that there was no observational support for such story telling. The wacky stuff that TV snarked about is far closer to the make-it-up as science that E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett do than to anything I'd call science. So, it's clear that the person who trolls me the most hasn't got a clue as to what I have said in numerous posts, many of which he has ignorantly snarked about, himself.
Then, after a gal who I had heard Duncan had banned, chicago dyke, said something typically clueless and, typically centered on herself and rather simple mindedly anti-religious. It was then that Simels said,
Nah, it's much simpler. He has appalling musical taste and he's an anti-semite shithead.
Considering this all began with an Eschaton regular who has taken the name of one of the most vicious of classical antisemites, one who I have quoted from, at length, to demonstrate his antisemitism and whose utility to Nazi antisemitism and Germanic supremacy I have also posted about, in response to previous idiocy from the Eschatonians, Simels' accusation of antisemitism in this context is just more evidence that he is a post-literate idiot whose functional reading capabilities would probably get him assigned to a remedial reading class in the fifth grade. As I said, last night, I will depend on those who actually can read and do read what I write to judge whether or not I'm an antisemite, not someone who brings out that accusation on the many occasions he's got nutthin'.
What is really funny about that is that the entire content of the post where Simps said it consists of Duncan Black saying,
I got nothin'
Duncan Black long ago gave up trying to say something. I'll have to take him at his word that his blog is about him having "nothin'". And neither do a significant part of his regulars. There are hardly any others who comment there, these days. The regulars are as suspicious of outsiders as the regulars at Harry Hope's Bar (see the link in last night's post on this topic).
As to my taste in music, well, Simps spent his working life championing the white-boy copy-cats of music and musical styles originating in superior Black American artists and what developed out of various white guys who graduated from bubble gum to psychogenic drugs and alcohol. His career in repeating the common received commercial POV as provided by publicists and regurgitated from the spewing of pop music scribblers from bigger venues doesn't provide him with the authority to make me worry about his dislike for more demanding music which surpasses his attention span.
I suppose since it bridges Simels libelous statement and "Freki's" accusation that I'm a misogynist that I should mention someone who I've never noticed before, "Big Buck" agreed with Simels. As to whether or not "Big Buck" has ever read a word I have ever written, I doubt it.
Considering that it is "Big Buck" who supports Simps, it is rather funny that his rival for champion liar at Eschaton, "Freki" aka "JR" accused me of being a misogynist. I would like to point out that for a few years I wrote at the feminist blog of one of Duncan Black's regulars who certainly knows I'm not a misogynist. In the last few days I made a comment on her blog which was "liked" by another of Duncan's regulars.
Again, I will rely on those who actually read what I write to decide if I'm a misogynist, which leaves out most of the Eschatonians who don't even read what Duncan Black used to, occasionally, write for his blog. I will say, again, that it was at his blog that I developed an insight into the debilitating effects of atheism on honesty, how when someone doesn't believe in sin their inhibitions to lie can't be expected to be enhanced. I'm sure there are atheists who have a highly developed distaste for lying but they don't seem to have remained at his blog where telling the truth is a sometimes thing.
You know, there is one thing Duncan Black should hope for, that I never win a big lottery because I might just want to test a Supreme Court ruling if I had the money to finance a challenge to it. I'd love to get rid of some of their stupider permissions to lie granted by the out of touch Olympians on the Supreme Court. Those are a proven danger to democracy.
Update: I should add, considering Simps and Freki's taste in music, praising some of the foremost of misogynists in pop music and styles which have proven useful to today's most vicious antismites, the irony abounds. But only if you have a clue which means they're safe from the irony they generate.
Update: Stupy has made a comment that is so stupid, so simplistic, so idiotic and clueless about Wagner, a composer whose music I a. loathe and b. which I've written about loathing that I'd be tempted to go into it, again but which I doubt he could a. understand or b. read, so I'm not tempted to get an easy post at his further expense.
Eschatonians love to believe they are a "Brain Trust" when they're more like a symptom of personality disorder.
For the record, to ignore the role that Wagner played in late 19th century German antisemitism and glorification of Germanic paganism, all of which was useful in bringing about the intellectual milieu in which Nazism developed, is idiotic and clueless. So I'm not surprised he went there.
Update: I should add, considering Simps and Freki's taste in music, praising some of the foremost of misogynists in pop music and styles which have proven useful to today's most vicious antismites, the irony abounds. But only if you have a clue which means they're safe from the irony they generate.
Update: Stupy has made a comment that is so stupid, so simplistic, so idiotic and clueless about Wagner, a composer whose music I a. loathe and b. which I've written about loathing that I'd be tempted to go into it, again but which I doubt he could a. understand or b. read, so I'm not tempted to get an easy post at his further expense.
Eschatonians love to believe they are a "Brain Trust" when they're more like a symptom of personality disorder.
For the record, to ignore the role that Wagner played in late 19th century German antisemitism and glorification of Germanic paganism, all of which was useful in bringing about the intellectual milieu in which Nazism developed, is idiotic and clueless. So I'm not surprised he went there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)