|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 19, 2018 21:11:46 GMT
Young Ireland, the funny thing is, I also get flak from people on the Catholic right for not being uncompromising enough in that direction. At least, I've got a lot of it on social media. I don't really believe in stigmatizing ideas or movements. I think you have to take all ideas on their merits, and try to see the good and bad in them. Then that is evidence of a much more serious problem, and it needs to be stamped out wherever it appears.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 19, 2018 21:20:45 GMT
I think we are very far from 1932, in terms of historical situation. The Nazis were one moment in history. We can't keep compulsively measuring everything against that one yardstick. There are many evils in many different directions and living a life haunted by the echo of jackboots...well, it's got us into the situation we are in now.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 19, 2018 21:29:24 GMT
I think we are very far from 1932, in terms of historical situation. The Nazis were one moment in history. We can't keep compulsively measuring everything against that one yardstick. There are many evils in many different directions and living a life haunted by the echo of jackboots...well, it's got us into the situation we are in now. I think that many people would disagree with you there...
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 19, 2018 21:32:22 GMT
By the way, anyone who wants to know my stance on the Alt Right should read the opening post of this thread, where I took considerable pains to articulate it. Honestly, I think eighty-five per cent of people who read this forum would probably find little to object to in it. Young Ireland, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote this blog post-- I was in fact thinking of some elements of the Catholic right-- but I think it applies to anyone who goes in for purity tests, guilt by association and shibboleths. I'm only posting it to hopefully explain why I think it's essential to remain open to different arguments and points of view. irishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-die-hard-mentality.html
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 19, 2018 21:49:23 GMT
By the way, anyone who wants to know my stance on the Alt Right should read the opening post of this thread, where I took considerable pains to articulate it. Honestly, I think eighty-five per cent of people who read this forum would probably find little to object to in it. Young Ireland, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote this blog post-- I was in fact thinking of some elements of the Catholic right-- but I think it applies to anyone who goes in for purity tests, guilt by association and shibboleths. I'm only posting it to hopefully explain why I think it's essential to remain open to different arguments and points of view. irishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-die-hard-mentality.htmlThe problem with that is that it assumes that said views are not evil in themselves. Would you for example be OK with someone being "open" to killing off unborn children simply because of a disability? Or with the notion that slavery was not that bad because the antebellum Northern working classes were not much better off? Or with the idea that Jews are parasites who need to be excised to protect the master race? Of course you wouldn't. Some views are evil in themselves and should never be tolerated in the public square, and Catholic teaching actually reflects this. See this from Leo XIII: "We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known."
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 20, 2018 7:36:23 GMT
By the way, anyone who wants to know my stance on the Alt Right should read the opening post of this thread, where I took considerable pains to articulate it. Honestly, I think eighty-five per cent of people who read this forum would probably find little to object to in it. Young Ireland, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote this blog post-- I was in fact thinking of some elements of the Catholic right-- but I think it applies to anyone who goes in for purity tests, guilt by association and shibboleths. I'm only posting it to hopefully explain why I think it's essential to remain open to different arguments and points of view. irishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-die-hard-mentality.htmlThe problem with that is that it assumes that said views are not evil in themselves. Would you for example be OK with someone being "open" to killing off unborn children simply because of a disability? Or with the notion that slavery was not that bad because the antebellum Northern working classes were not much better off? Or with the idea that Jews are parasites who need to be excised to protect the master race? Of course you wouldn't. Some views are evil in themselves and should never be tolerated in the public square, and Catholic teaching actually reflects this. See this from Leo XIII: "We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known." Do you seriously think "the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race" includes PC? Much of what the Alt Right is saying is unsayable but shouldn't really be controversial. For instance, the argument that races are always going to have a group loyalty. This isn't even a normative claim, it's just an observation about human nature, but it has really become unsayable. And yet we all know about "white flight", and none of us really has a difficulty discussing market share or voting trends in terms of race. And, as I have said repeatedly, it's not even the racial aspect of the Alt Right's agenda, but rather the strength of their opposition to PC across many different fronts, which I admire. As regarding your claim that I am being rash in having anything good to say about the Alt Right, I stand over what I have actually written and trust in people's judgement and fairness. I think you should have a look at your own attitude, Young Ireland. You are always calling for people to be banned, for this attitude to be "stamped out", for that philosophy to be eliminated, etc. It's a bit authoritarian, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 20, 2018 9:35:57 GMT
Although to be honest, I've never had much of a problem with the censorship of books in post-independence Ireland. So what I would have to say is: I'm not really against some views being considered outside the pale-- for instance, gross sexual immorality or disrespect to religion.
I just can't add the mad sensitivities about race and ethnicity which have crept into public discourse in the last thirty or forty years to this list. You can all that special pleading if you like. I just call it discernment.
And even when it comes to "outside the pale", there are many meanings to that phrase. Banning a book is one thing, but the intrusiveness and rabidity of PC is another. I've never heard you, Young Ireland, actually complain umprompted about PC, or anti-white racism in the media and academe-- your detestation of racism is rather selective. I've never heard you complain about Black Lives Matter, Antifa or deplatforming of university speakers. You don't raise your voice when a term like "ladies and gentleman" is banned from London Underground announcements, or when toy stores announce a gender neutral policy, or when universities promote transexualism and gender ideology. And yet you obsess about the most microscopic far-right fringe movements. I suggest your view of these issues is lacking balance. And, to be frankly, a bit too easy. Justin Barrett is a very easy target indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 20, 2018 10:52:58 GMT
The problem with that is that it assumes that said views are not evil in themselves. Would you for example be OK with someone being "open" to killing off unborn children simply because of a disability? Or with the notion that slavery was not that bad because the antebellum Northern working classes were not much better off? Or with the idea that Jews are parasites who need to be excised to protect the master race? Of course you wouldn't. Some views are evil in themselves and should never be tolerated in the public square, and Catholic teaching actually reflects this. See this from Leo XIII: "We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known." Do you seriously think "the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race" includes PC? Much of what the Alt Right is saying is unsayable but shouldn't really be controversial. For instance, the argument that races are always going to have a group loyalty. This isn't even a normative claim, it's just an observation about human nature, but it has really become unsayable. And yet we all know about "white flight", and none of us really has a difficulty discussing market share or voting trends in terms of race. And, as I have said repeatedly, it's not even the racial aspect of the Alt Right's agenda, but rather the strength of their opposition to PC across many different fronts, which I admire. As regarding your claim that I am being rash in having anything good to say about the Alt Right, I stand over what I have actually written and trust in people's judgement and fairness. I think you should have a look at your own attitude, Young Ireland. You are always calling for people to be banned, for this attitude to be "stamped out", for that philosophy to be eliminated, etc. It's a bit authoritarian, isn't it? Of course not, but it does include basic Christian charity, which the alt-right frequently violates. Don't you think that saying the there are racial differences in IQ's (which is a mainstream view in those circles) is uncontroversial? There is also a difference in neutral analysis of trends and manipulating those trends to claims that certain groups of people are inferior. Also, focusing on their opposition to PC misses the point. They oppose PC BECAUSE it is an obstacle to propagating their views, nothing more. If they get their hands on power, they will simply impose their own version of PC. I stand by my assumption that you are being rash, because nothing other than short-sightedness could justify acquiescing with such groups. If people think I am authoritarian because I believe what people almost universally believed up to two years ago, namely that it is not only foolish but immoral to treat people who call for mass murder (torpedoing migrant ships), minimise the Holocaust, and treat women as mere objects as allies, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 20, 2018 11:05:43 GMT
Do you seriously think "the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race" includes PC? Much of what the Alt Right is saying is unsayable but shouldn't really be controversial. For instance, the argument that races are always going to have a group loyalty. This isn't even a normative claim, it's just an observation about human nature, but it has really become unsayable. And yet we all know about "white flight", and none of us really has a difficulty discussing market share or voting trends in terms of race. And, as I have said repeatedly, it's not even the racial aspect of the Alt Right's agenda, but rather the strength of their opposition to PC across many different fronts, which I admire. As regarding your claim that I am being rash in having anything good to say about the Alt Right, I stand over what I have actually written and trust in people's judgement and fairness. I think you should have a look at your own attitude, Young Ireland. You are always calling for people to be banned, for this attitude to be "stamped out", for that philosophy to be eliminated, etc. It's a bit authoritarian, isn't it? Of course not, but it does include basic Christian charity, which the alt-right frequently violates. Don't you think that saying the there are racial differences in IQ's (which is a mainstream view in those circles) is uncontroversial? There is also a difference in neutral analysis of trends and manipulating those trends to claims that certain groups of people are inferior. Also, focusing on their opposition to PC misses the point. They oppose PC BECAUSE it is an obstacle to propagating their views, nothing more. If they get their hands on power, they will simply impose their own version of PC. I stand by my assumption that you are being rash, because nothing other than short-sightedness could justify acquiescing with such groups. If people think I am authoritarian because I believe what people almost universally believed up to two years ago, namely that it is not only foolish but immoral to treat people who call for mass murder (torpedoing migrant ships), minimise the Holocaust, and treat women as mere objects as allies, then so be it. Well, I think anyone who looks at even a few random Alt Right videos will see that you are sensationalizing-- not to mention the many other figures who are incorrectly called Alt Right, but are usually included under the term. You could take the extremes of any school of thought and call for it to be suppressed, and indeed, we are very used to this tactic being used against Catholicism and Christianity. I've never heard any Alt Right figure call for women to be treated as objects, by the way. You are not only saying this or that position is immoral-- you are arguing that your highly selective view of immorality should determine who should be listened to or even allowed to speak! There isn't the slightest chance the Alt Right will ever get power. Let's live in reality. The most they can do is move the Overton window. They may have played a role in bringing Donald Trump to power-- I think you will agree, he is hardly Alt Right.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 20, 2018 11:06:55 GMT
Saying there is (innate) racial differences in IQ is certainly controversial, but why should such an argument be suppressed? Only if you believe IQ determines somebody's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 20, 2018 11:06:56 GMT
Although to be honest, I've never had much of a problem with the censorship of books in post-independence Ireland. So what I would have to say is: I'm not really against some views being considered outside the pale-- for instance, gross sexual immorality or disrespect to religion. I just can't add the mad sensitivities about race and ethnicity which have crept into public discourse in the last thirty or forty years to this list. You can all that special pleading if you like. I just call it discernment. And even when it comes to "outside the pale", there are many meanings to that phrase. Banning a book is one thing, but the intrusiveness and rabidity of PC is another. I've never heard you, Young Ireland, actually complain umprompted about PC, or anti-white racism in the media and academe-- your detestation of racism is rather selective. I've never heard you complain about Black Lives Matter, Antifa or deplatforming of university speakers. You don't raise your voice when a term like "ladies and gentleman" is banned from London Underground announcements, or when toy stores announce a gender neutral policy, or when universities promote transexualism and gender ideology. And yet you obsess about the most microscopic far-right fringe movements. I suggest your view of these issues is lacking balance. And, to be frankly, a bit too easy. Justin Barrett is a very easy target indeed. Well, at least you're honest. As for your last paragraph, I have said nothing about anti-white racism because that problem (aside from the Nation of Islam) is virtually non-existent in the Western world. In contrast, while I do not agree with BLM's social liberalism and do not support them because of this, there is indeed a serious problem with unarmed black men being shot by police and it is wrong to try and minimise this or gloss over it. As for Antifa, given that I am not a communist, I have no time for them whatsoever. Deplatforming of university speakers is another matter. It depends on the type of views being propagated. In principle there is nothing wrong with no platforming, but it is clearly being abused at present to suppress dissenting views in general, even in cases where there is no question of extremism being promoted. As for the "ladies and gentlemen" thing, I have had more important things to do, like working in the pro-life movement, than be focusing in on something that is ultimately insignificant in the relative scale of things. I have also been quite vocal on what I think of gender theory (i.e. transgenderism is a mental illness and that its sufferers are being done a disservice by being given the illusion that their imagination is indeed correct.). In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and all the things you said above cannot excuse allying with the alt-right.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 20, 2018 11:14:09 GMT
Although to be honest, I've never had much of a problem with the censorship of books in post-independence Ireland. So what I would have to say is: I'm not really against some views being considered outside the pale-- for instance, gross sexual immorality or disrespect to religion. I just can't add the mad sensitivities about race and ethnicity which have crept into public discourse in the last thirty or forty years to this list. You can all that special pleading if you like. I just call it discernment. And even when it comes to "outside the pale", there are many meanings to that phrase. Banning a book is one thing, but the intrusiveness and rabidity of PC is another. I've never heard you, Young Ireland, actually complain umprompted about PC, or anti-white racism in the media and academe-- your detestation of racism is rather selective. I've never heard you complain about Black Lives Matter, Antifa or deplatforming of university speakers. You don't raise your voice when a term like "ladies and gentleman" is banned from London Underground announcements, or when toy stores announce a gender neutral policy, or when universities promote transexualism and gender ideology. And yet you obsess about the most microscopic far-right fringe movements. I suggest your view of these issues is lacking balance. And, to be frankly, a bit too easy. Justin Barrett is a very easy target indeed. Well, at least you're honest. As for your last paragraph, I have said nothing about anti-white racism because that problem (aside from the Nation of Islam) is virtually non-existent in the Western world. In contrast, while I do not agree with BLM's social liberalism and do not support them because of this, there is indeed a serious problem with unarmed black men being shot by police and it is wrong to try and minimise this or gloss over it. As for Antifa, given that I am not a communist, I have no time for them whatsoever. Deplatforming of university speakers is another matter. It depends on the type of views being propagated. In principle there is nothing wrong with no platforming, but it is clearly being abused at present to suppress dissenting views in general, even in cases where there is no question of extremism being promoted. As for the "ladies and gentlemen" thing, I have had more important things to do, like working in the pro-life movement, than be focusing in on something that is ultimately insignificant in the relative scale of things. I have also been quite vocal on what I think of gender theory (i.e. transgenderism is a mental illness and that its sufferers are being done a disservice by being given the illusion that their imagination is indeed correct.). In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and all the things you said above cannot excuse allying with the alt-right. You persistently accuse me of "allying" with the Alt Right, and yet I have done no such thing, and have been very careful NOT to do so. If you think taking an argument on its merits is "allying" with it, well, I don't know what to say.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 20, 2018 11:19:32 GMT
Although to be honest, I've never had much of a problem with the censorship of books in post-independence Ireland. So what I would have to say is: I'm not really against some views being considered outside the pale-- for instance, gross sexual immorality or disrespect to religion. I just can't add the mad sensitivities about race and ethnicity which have crept into public discourse in the last thirty or forty years to this list. You can all that special pleading if you like. I just call it discernment. And even when it comes to "outside the pale", there are many meanings to that phrase. Banning a book is one thing, but the intrusiveness and rabidity of PC is another. I've never heard you, Young Ireland, actually complain umprompted about PC, or anti-white racism in the media and academe-- your detestation of racism is rather selective. I've never heard you complain about Black Lives Matter, Antifa or deplatforming of university speakers. You don't raise your voice when a term like "ladies and gentleman" is banned from London Underground announcements, or when toy stores announce a gender neutral policy, or when universities promote transexualism and gender ideology. And yet you obsess about the most microscopic far-right fringe movements. I suggest your view of these issues is lacking balance. And, to be frankly, a bit too easy. Justin Barrett is a very easy target indeed. Well, at least you're honest. As for your last paragraph, I have said nothing about anti-white racism because that problem (aside from the Nation of Islam) is virtually non-existent in the Western world. In contrast, while I do not agree with BLM's social liberalism and do not support them because of this, there is indeed a serious problem with unarmed black men being shot by police and it is wrong to try and minimise this or gloss over it. As for Antifa, given that I am not a communist, I have no time for them whatsoever. Deplatforming of university speakers is another matter. It depends on the type of views being propagated. In principle there is nothing wrong with no platforming, but it is clearly being abused at present to suppress dissenting views in general, even in cases where there is no question of extremism being promoted. As for the "ladies and gentlemen" thing, I have had more important things to do, like working in the pro-life movement, than be focusing in on something that is ultimately insignificant in the relative scale of things. I have also been quite vocal on what I think of gender theory (i.e. transgenderism is a mental illness and that its sufferers are being done a disservice by being given the illusion that their imagination is indeed correct.). In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and all the things you said above cannot excuse allying with the alt-right. Yes, you are very willing to say transgenderism is a mental illness-- behind an alias and an avatar. I think you would do well to stop fretting about Vladimir Putin and the ghost of Adolf Hitler, and start worrying about real forces impinging on our freedoms and lives today, right now, here.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 20, 2018 11:21:13 GMT
Well, at least you're honest. As for your last paragraph, I have said nothing about anti-white racism because that problem (aside from the Nation of Islam) is virtually non-existent in the Western world. In contrast, while I do not agree with BLM's social liberalism and do not support them because of this, there is indeed a serious problem with unarmed black men being shot by police and it is wrong to try and minimise this or gloss over it. As for Antifa, given that I am not a communist, I have no time for them whatsoever. Deplatforming of university speakers is another matter. It depends on the type of views being propagated. In principle there is nothing wrong with no platforming, but it is clearly being abused at present to suppress dissenting views in general, even in cases where there is no question of extremism being promoted. As for the "ladies and gentlemen" thing, I have had more important things to do, like working in the pro-life movement, than be focusing in on something that is ultimately insignificant in the relative scale of things. I have also been quite vocal on what I think of gender theory (i.e. transgenderism is a mental illness and that its sufferers are being done a disservice by being given the illusion that their imagination is indeed correct.). In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and all the things you said above cannot excuse allying with the alt-right. You persistently accuse me of "allying" with the Alt Right, and yet I have done no such thing, and have been very careful NOT to do so. If you think taking an argument on its merits is "allying" with it, well, I don't know what to say. I accuse you of allying with the alt-right on the grounds that you refer to them as "shock troops", that they keep the Overton window open, that you accuse anyone who warns against having anything to do with them, like Jonathon van Maren (who cannot simply be dismissed as a social justice warrior), of being "cowards". If you don't want to ally with them, then why are you referring to them approvingly?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Aug 20, 2018 11:22:53 GMT
Well, at least you're honest. As for your last paragraph, I have said nothing about anti-white racism because that problem (aside from the Nation of Islam) is virtually non-existent in the Western world. In contrast, while I do not agree with BLM's social liberalism and do not support them because of this, there is indeed a serious problem with unarmed black men being shot by police and it is wrong to try and minimise this or gloss over it. As for Antifa, given that I am not a communist, I have no time for them whatsoever. Deplatforming of university speakers is another matter. It depends on the type of views being propagated. In principle there is nothing wrong with no platforming, but it is clearly being abused at present to suppress dissenting views in general, even in cases where there is no question of extremism being promoted. As for the "ladies and gentlemen" thing, I have had more important things to do, like working in the pro-life movement, than be focusing in on something that is ultimately insignificant in the relative scale of things. I have also been quite vocal on what I think of gender theory (i.e. transgenderism is a mental illness and that its sufferers are being done a disservice by being given the illusion that their imagination is indeed correct.). In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and all the things you said above cannot excuse allying with the alt-right. Yes, you are very willing to say transgenderism is a mental illness-- behind an alias and an avatar. I think you would do well to stop fretting about Vladimir Putin and the ghost of Adolf Hitler, and start worrying about real forces impinging on our freedoms and lives today, right now, here. Actually, I have said so publicly, and will say it again, so your jeering is misdirected.
|
|