My purpose in doing so was to provoke thought about the role of the Annointed Class in the United States--so-called bastion of free-wheeling freedom and thinking. (Anyone who has ever lived abroad knows this to be false. There are fewer things that can be debated in The Land Of The Free than in many places on earth--FreeRepublic notwithstanding.)
For example, do you remember when you first heard (from one of the Annointed) that the--now absolutely undeniable---"Gobal Economy" was , well, absolutely undeniable?You see what I mean?
A quotation from Milan Rai:
"..."We can no longer perceive the ideas that are shaping our thoughts, as the fish cannot perceive the sea."...
Are you at all nervous that no one on this thread gave any consideration to Dr. Lewis' history except a crackpotsource? Perhaps not, since the undeniable goal of modern conservatism seems to be to protect and defend the globalist status quo.
Are any of the facts in the crackpot article incorrect? Or simply unacceptaby sourced? The Annointed have much work to do in the world and will not brook being questioned as to their sources.
Perhaps that is why so few Americans bother themselves to do so.
Crackpots love to throw out indisputable facts and juxtapose them to arrive at crackpot conclusions.
This is how it works: The existence of satellites and my dog biting me yesterday are facts. If anyone disputes the crackpot's conclusion--that the satellites told my dog to bite me--he is asked, well, are any of my facts incorrect? Are they? Huh, huh?
Our lady of little sense does the same thing here: Lewis was unaccounted for during WW2 + Lewis is an authority on Islam = Lewis is the mastermind of all policy toward the Islamic world in the last 55 years. Hey, are you disputing my facts?
Well, actually, anyone who would call Lewis's The Emergence of Modern Turkey "an attack on Kemalism" or who thinks Lewis is an admirer of Osama Bin Laden is wrong on the facts. But the facts don't matter. Prove a crackpot wrong on the facts, and he'll run along and collect new and different facts which "prove" his original conclusion.
This is why it's impossible to argue with any crackpot, lucid or otherwise.
Why, such statements you make, Belle. As I said, I've observed you in the past to be reasonably rigorous in documenting your sources. I simply attempted to assist you in making your case - any objection in my post to the source was simply an objection to the apparent lack of a source. Surely no more than simple administrivia, I think.
Although you say you documented this post to which we are referring, I must admit that your citation was far too subtle for me. What can I say - if you'll direct me to said reference, I'll be more than happy to make all the appropriate mea culpas.
My purpose in doing so was to provoke thought about the role of the Annointed Class in the United States--so-called bastion of free-wheeling freedom and thinking.
Why, Belle, such things you say. Were this one of my logic classes, I might have to call you out for petitio principii in the first degree.
Are you at all nervous that no one on this thread gave any consideration to Dr. Lewis' history except a crackpotsource? Perhaps not, since the undeniable goal of modern conservatism seems to be to protect and defend the globalist status quo.
I wonder. I wonder if, perhaps, at least some on this thread, and lurking in the shadows, gave due consideration to Dr. Lewis's history, and simply failed to reach the "correct" conclusion. To eliminate that possibility seems somehow...arrogant, doesn't it? As satisfying as it is to decide that those who disagree are simply deluded, or not in full possession of all the facts, it's really not entirely intellectually honest, is it?
And to be naturally suspicious of radical change - that seems to me to be the very essence of conservatism, does it not?
Are any of the facts in the crackpot article incorrect? Or simply unacceptaby sourced? The Annointed have much work to do in the world and will not brook being questioned as to their sources.
Yes, I admit - I'm a sucker for those sources. It helps me to establish the factual accuracy of assertions made therein, true. But, of course, the really important thing the sources do is to allow me to make judgements about the interpretations contained within. And that's really the crux of all this, isn't it - differing interpretations?
I'm the sort of person who likes to know if my interlocutors are the sorts who tend to look at events and facts with an open mind about their interpretation, or whether they are the sorts who tend to cast about for evidence to support whatever theory it is they hold near and dear, retrofitting and force-fitting the facts into the theory whenever necessary, or dropping inconvenient facts when necessary, or inventing facts when necessary. Surely this is not unreasonable of me, is it?
Perhaps that is why so few Americans bother themselves to do so.
Which is exactly why it is important for you to be the bellest dame you possibly can be. Critical views are necessary, but they do not hold the field exclusively...