Of Incompetence, Delusions Of Grandeur And Monomania
(Updated below)
"The marketing of personality is changing from a cottage to a growth industry (...) The trend coincides with a current journalistic emphasis, even in the respectables, on what is interesting, against what is important. (The important may make a comeback in news interest but at the moment lacks either the urgency of danger or the stimulus of hope.) Recognizing this shift, politicians constantly conduct polls about their image and resist too much identity with substance (...) Everywhere the cult of personality prevails (...) There is less of journalistic prying now, even though gossip and gossip columning are still around. Gossip flourishes particularly in Washington, where political hypocrisy still lends savor to misbehavior (...) Celebrityhood lives by publicity and must be ready to be "interesting" on cue (...) But an interest in people won't go away: it is as old as Plutarch, and apt to survive as long as humans do."
The preceding constitutes a collage of choice statements from an August 1978 Time Magazine piece, "America's own cult of personality" (with emphasis mine).
Thirty-minus-one years later, things have only gotten worse in this respect - in both the U.S.A. and Canada.
Indeed, we need only to scan through the offerings of the MSM on any given day to arrive at this conclusion. The same applies with the current offerings in entertainment (Reality TV shows, anyone?). The prevailing under currents of praises, needs and cries for a Unitary Leader, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the country, as well as the MSM's fixations with all things manly, confident, comforting and securing in candidates (some examples highlighted and discussed here, here, here, here and here), are likewise glaring symptoms of the terrible disease that is ailing our democratic societies.
However, allow me to dwell specifically upon the subject of the cult of political personalities, especially with regards as to what it can do to incompetent, would-be authoritarian Leaders.
The cult of political personalities has ever constituted a given fact of life in totalitarian regimes - Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, et al., the list goes on and on. Truth be told, these (and those currently in power still) are nothing more than modernized transpositions of the worship, reverence and unwavering following of all those Pharaohs, Kings, Tyrants, Emperors and Monarchs found throughout Humanity's history. Absolute authoritarianism requires that the Leader be loved, admired and cherished without question - because He is powerful, He is wise, His word is law, His vision is pure, and His rule is all that is good, just and true.
And, of course, because He has a mandate from the Gods/the Heavens/God ... or is a God Himself.
(A mandate from God ... where have I heard this before? Ah, yes - now I remember well - but I digress)
It goes without saying that Cult Leaders are typically afflicted by delusions of grandeur, seeing themselves as all wise and all visionary, brooking no questions of their self-righteousness, let alone suffering any dissenting opinions (something that they just can't understand). They can do no wrong and are always right. They do not make mistakes - rather, it is always the fault of others if the Leader's plans and directives go astray. The apparels of government must conform to the Leader's will, vision and purity of ideology - facts of reality notwithstanding. Laws be damned or be brushed aside, if they stand in the way of the Leader's obsessive march into history. All that matters to the Leader is his (perceived) infallibility and the total loyalty of others to himself and his vision - as well as his ego's need to be praised and flattered. In short, the Leader views himself as the only one worthy and capable of governing all by himself.
And of course, there are enemies everywhere - at least in the Leader's paranoid mind - and hence wars must be waged while secrecy is de rigueur. Total awareness and control are a must as well. Above all, the Leader must use the politics of fear and ignorance in order to keep the flock subdued and adoringly supportive of His decisive grandeur - of the idea that He is the Law.
But as history has often shown, political personality cults can collapse very quickly upon the disgrace, ousting or death of the Cult Leader. History has also shown us how a besieged Cult Leader can behave like when his hold onto power becomes tenuous:
1) He enters into an acute paranoid-driven "bunker mentality";
2) He becomes monomaniacal and resolute in his deluded belief that he is right;
3) He holds court only with his most fervent and loyal supporters;
and 4) His demands for support and loyalty become increasingly petty and specious.
All of these numerous characteristics and behaviors mentioned above constitute glaring examples of all Eight Principles of Incompetence in action.
Unfortunately, history has also shown us that a "besieged" Cult Leader will often resort to the Sixth Principle whenever he feels cornered enough.
And the problem is that all the tools required to do so are already on hand, namely the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Directive (“National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”), the Blocking of Property and Assets Presidential Directive, the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act (as well as the gutting of the Posse Comitatus Act), and the invocation of Martial Law - taking into account the policies of habeas corpus suspension, torture, indefinite detention and illegal eavesdropping already currently still being enacted.
Could there be indeed something in the works to trigger an authoritarian state? Will he, spurred on by his Regent, finally cross the Rubicon?
In 2000, an obvious incompetent was elected as President by the People (or lack thereof) - regardless of how he may have been "helped". Nevertheless, he was re-elected in 2004 - thanks again to the People.
Because of his incompetence, the seeming cult of personality that he has enjoyed (after 9-11) only fuled his deluded ego, therefter rendering him susceptible to increased delusions of grandeur - and once the majority of the People realized that he was indeed an emperor without clothes, the shock at being denied unfettered loyalty and adoration by a flock of unquestioning, submitted sheeps caused him to retreat further and further into monomania ... to the point whereby he now constitutes a frightening potential danger to the Republic.
Respect for authority and institutions is a requisite in democratic societies governed by the rule of Law. However, venerating said authority and institutions is anathema to the very basic principles of democracy.
What is holding the People back from ousting the Bush administration with impeachment? Is it misplaced blind respect for the office of the Presidency, or some lingerings from the Bush cult of personality? Or is it plain procrastination or, even worse, democratic cowardice? Or all of the above?
Only time, and history, will tell, I suppose ...
In closing, I could not end this commentary without leaving you good folks with a parting offering: I give you Living Colour - Cult of Personality, proving once again that a song can say it all (lyrics below the video screen).
Monomania (mon-o-ma-ni-a):
n.
1. Pathological obsession with one idea or subject.
2. Intent concentration on or exaggerated enthusiasm for a single subject or idea.
"The marketing of personality is changing from a cottage to a growth industry (...) The trend coincides with a current journalistic emphasis, even in the respectables, on what is interesting, against what is important. (The important may make a comeback in news interest but at the moment lacks either the urgency of danger or the stimulus of hope.) Recognizing this shift, politicians constantly conduct polls about their image and resist too much identity with substance (...) Everywhere the cult of personality prevails (...) There is less of journalistic prying now, even though gossip and gossip columning are still around. Gossip flourishes particularly in Washington, where political hypocrisy still lends savor to misbehavior (...) Celebrityhood lives by publicity and must be ready to be "interesting" on cue (...) But an interest in people won't go away: it is as old as Plutarch, and apt to survive as long as humans do."
The preceding constitutes a collage of choice statements from an August 1978 Time Magazine piece, "America's own cult of personality" (with emphasis mine).
Thirty-minus-one years later, things have only gotten worse in this respect - in both the U.S.A. and Canada.
Indeed, we need only to scan through the offerings of the MSM on any given day to arrive at this conclusion. The same applies with the current offerings in entertainment (Reality TV shows, anyone?). The prevailing under currents of praises, needs and cries for a Unitary Leader, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the country, as well as the MSM's fixations with all things manly, confident, comforting and securing in candidates (some examples highlighted and discussed here, here, here, here and here), are likewise glaring symptoms of the terrible disease that is ailing our democratic societies.
However, allow me to dwell specifically upon the subject of the cult of political personalities, especially with regards as to what it can do to incompetent, would-be authoritarian Leaders.
The cult of political personalities has ever constituted a given fact of life in totalitarian regimes - Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, et al., the list goes on and on. Truth be told, these (and those currently in power still) are nothing more than modernized transpositions of the worship, reverence and unwavering following of all those Pharaohs, Kings, Tyrants, Emperors and Monarchs found throughout Humanity's history. Absolute authoritarianism requires that the Leader be loved, admired and cherished without question - because He is powerful, He is wise, His word is law, His vision is pure, and His rule is all that is good, just and true.
And, of course, because He has a mandate from the Gods/the Heavens/God ... or is a God Himself.
(A mandate from God ... where have I heard this before? Ah, yes - now I remember well - but I digress)
It goes without saying that Cult Leaders are typically afflicted by delusions of grandeur, seeing themselves as all wise and all visionary, brooking no questions of their self-righteousness, let alone suffering any dissenting opinions (something that they just can't understand). They can do no wrong and are always right. They do not make mistakes - rather, it is always the fault of others if the Leader's plans and directives go astray. The apparels of government must conform to the Leader's will, vision and purity of ideology - facts of reality notwithstanding. Laws be damned or be brushed aside, if they stand in the way of the Leader's obsessive march into history. All that matters to the Leader is his (perceived) infallibility and the total loyalty of others to himself and his vision - as well as his ego's need to be praised and flattered. In short, the Leader views himself as the only one worthy and capable of governing all by himself.
And of course, there are enemies everywhere - at least in the Leader's paranoid mind - and hence wars must be waged while secrecy is de rigueur. Total awareness and control are a must as well. Above all, the Leader must use the politics of fear and ignorance in order to keep the flock subdued and adoringly supportive of His decisive grandeur - of the idea that He is the Law.
But as history has often shown, political personality cults can collapse very quickly upon the disgrace, ousting or death of the Cult Leader. History has also shown us how a besieged Cult Leader can behave like when his hold onto power becomes tenuous:
1) He enters into an acute paranoid-driven "bunker mentality";
2) He becomes monomaniacal and resolute in his deluded belief that he is right;
3) He holds court only with his most fervent and loyal supporters;
and 4) His demands for support and loyalty become increasingly petty and specious.
All of these numerous characteristics and behaviors mentioned above constitute glaring examples of all Eight Principles of Incompetence in action.
Unfortunately, history has also shown us that a "besieged" Cult Leader will often resort to the Sixth Principle whenever he feels cornered enough.
And the problem is that all the tools required to do so are already on hand, namely the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Directive (“National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”), the Blocking of Property and Assets Presidential Directive, the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act (as well as the gutting of the Posse Comitatus Act), and the invocation of Martial Law - taking into account the policies of habeas corpus suspension, torture, indefinite detention and illegal eavesdropping already currently still being enacted.
Could there be indeed something in the works to trigger an authoritarian state? Will he, spurred on by his Regent, finally cross the Rubicon?
In 2000, an obvious incompetent was elected as President by the People (or lack thereof) - regardless of how he may have been "helped". Nevertheless, he was re-elected in 2004 - thanks again to the People.
Because of his incompetence, the seeming cult of personality that he has enjoyed (after 9-11) only fuled his deluded ego, therefter rendering him susceptible to increased delusions of grandeur - and once the majority of the People realized that he was indeed an emperor without clothes, the shock at being denied unfettered loyalty and adoration by a flock of unquestioning, submitted sheeps caused him to retreat further and further into monomania ... to the point whereby he now constitutes a frightening potential danger to the Republic.
Respect for authority and institutions is a requisite in democratic societies governed by the rule of Law. However, venerating said authority and institutions is anathema to the very basic principles of democracy.
What is holding the People back from ousting the Bush administration with impeachment? Is it misplaced blind respect for the office of the Presidency, or some lingerings from the Bush cult of personality? Or is it plain procrastination or, even worse, democratic cowardice? Or all of the above?
Only time, and history, will tell, I suppose ...
In closing, I could not end this commentary without leaving you good folks with a parting offering: I give you Living Colour - Cult of Personality, proving once again that a song can say it all (lyrics below the video screen).
Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality.
I know your anger, I know your dreams,
I’ve been everything you want to be:
I’m the cult of personality.
Like Mussolini and Kennedy,
I’m the cult of personality.
Cult of personality, cult of personality.
Neon lights, a nobel prize,
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies.
You don’t have to follow me:
Only you can set me free.
I sell the things you need to be,
I’m the smiling face on your t.v.
I’m the cult of personality.
I exploit you still you love me,
I tell you one and one makes three.
I’m the cult of personality.
Like Joseph Stalin and Ghandi;
I’m the cult of personality.
Cult of personality, cult of personality.
Neon lights, a nobel prize,
When a leader speaks, that leader dies.
You don’t have to follow me:
Only you can set you free.
You gave me fortune, you gave me fame.
You gave me power in your God’s name.
I’m every person you need to be:
I’m the cult of personality.
Update: 07/24/2007 - TheBHC at Anything They Say also blogged on the same subject, albeit coming at it from a different angle and yet arriving at essentially the same conclusion: "The country has grown weary of their yapping, and they know it, which spells only one possible recourse: an actual terrorist attack, not the phony, trumped-up dummy plots we have seen to date. If something like that does happen, it is going to have the smell of Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio all over it. Outrageous? Of course. But how could we be surprised that any of these war criminals, whose lies have already led to several thousand American dead and untold numbers of Iraqis, would resist what must surely appear to be their only solution to failing political climate". 'Nuff said ...
(Cross-posted at DKos, at Progressive Historians, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)
Upon reading your post, it becomes abundantly clear who you're arguing is incompetent.
ReplyDeleteBut unfortunately for your argument, George W Bush has actually been anything but.
Naturally, some explanation is necessary:
George Bush came to office with a very specific agenda -- tax cuts for the rich, various pro-business measures (including the weakening of environmental policies), and the like.
Seven years into his presidency, three things have become immediately apparent: first, that Bush has actually been fairly effective in pursuing that agenda. However, secondly, that agenda has caused him to overlook some very important unexpected circumstances that came his way, and as a result, thirdly, was not good at dealing with any unexpected events (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the War in Iraq is a possibly more debatable example).
Now, the fair question to ask is this: does this reflect Bush's alleged incompetence, or does it merely reflect this single-mindedness in the pursuit of his agenda?
Personally, I consider the case to the latter, although I freely admit that his various job performances prior to becoming president do tend to support the incompetency theory.
Yet, the argument I would raise is this: as a politician, Bush has been very successful in his tasks of assembling coalitions of voters large enough to be elected and then fulfilling his agenda.
While he was clearly an incompetent oilman and CEO, Bush has proven to be marginally competent as the president. In another day and age, Bush would be probably be considered a fairly successful (if ordinary) president, at least comparably. Unfortunately for him, these are clearly extraordinary times, and he simply hasn't measured up in terms of adaptability.
...By the way, Mentarch, this is how a real intellectual comments on a blog post. You may want to take note of that.
From Primitive Minds: "It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into.
ReplyDeleteThey lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.
And this "end" is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies."
From the Eight Principles of Incompetence: "Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth; Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself; Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence."
Here's are typical comments from you, oh "real" intellectual that you are: "Well, given that Cynic has now been identified, if anyone from Canada physically assaults him... uh, her... you just go right ahead and let me know. (...) I agree that violence has its uses -- particularly in regards to morons who actuall use the word "turd" (...) All Canadian Cynic has to worry is...a well-dserved beating from a disapproving Waterloo local (quite frankly, such an experience would probably benefit his disposition; call me a brute if you will, but it's unfortunately true)."
Oh yes - I forgot this one: Sixth Principle of Incompetence - Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.
All I am noting here, Patrick, is that you are so starving for attention that you just can't help yourself at acting like an intellectual sloth-driven, incompetent adolescent.
Return to your feuille de chou that you call a blog and, when *and* if you will grow up and stop drinking all that nasty kool-aid, then you *may* come back here and contribute to the mature conversation that we are having here.
Have a nice day.
Hilarious. That is the most absolutely dim-witted, superficial and just plain dunderheaded analysis of the Bush administration that I’ve ever heard anywhere.
ReplyDeleteSorry stuff coming from a fatuous ass who claims to be an “intellectual” I must say. What the heck does the illiterate expression “…abundantly clear who you're arguing is incompetent” mean? And that’s in the first sentence!
I’m increasingly convinced that Patrick is aiming to be some sort of performance artist or something because he surely cannot be serious.
As usual, Red Tory, your expert glibness strikes at the very heart of the point! ;-)
ReplyDeleteI dare add that your recent post concerning his (non)rebuttal to you says all that need be said with regards to dear, little Patrick ... ;-)
From Primitive Minds: "It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into.
ReplyDeleteThey lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.
Dredging up a bit of gutter philosophy, eh? It's actually funny, because you're really only describing yourself. After all, let's take a look at some of your past comments:
This post is disingenuous at best, willfully mendacious at worst.
Yet, there is no single part of that post that was mendacious, in the sense that there is no single part of that post that is untrue, or lying.
But, in the typical mentality of an individual who likes to throw around words like "mendacious" or "specious" because most people don't use them so it must make me sound really smart, right?
Unfortunately for you, not so much this time.
After all, what part of the post were you trying to claim was a lie?
In fact, everything in the original post in question turs out to be verifiably true. So, was your accusation of the post being "mendacious" rooted in some concern regarding the truthfulness of the post, or was it merely an ad hominem attack (an attack on the individual, not the message, since you probably don't know what an ad hominem attack is).
And this "end" is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies.
From the Eight Principles of Incompetence: "Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth; Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself; Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence."
Here's are typical comments from you, oh "real" intellectual that you are: "Well, given that Cynic has now been identified, if anyone from Canada physically assaults him... uh, her... you just go right ahead and let me know. (...) I agree that violence has its uses -- particularly in regards to morons who actuall use the word "turd" (...) All Canadian Cynic has to worry is...a well-dserved beating from a disapproving Waterloo local (quite frankly, such an experience would probably benefit his disposition; call me a brute if you will, but it's unfortunately true)."
Let's talk for a moment about intellectual sloth: the use of the word "mendacious" in a situation where it does not apply (where all premises advanced are verifiably and factually true), let's look at your discussion of incompetence.
In your post, certain unnamed individuals (their identity is obvious) are denounced as incompetent. Yet instead of demonstrating or supporting your claims of the incompetence of the unnamed individuals, you refer to "personality cults" and quote song lyrics, none of which actually has to do with incompetence.
Yet because incompetence is referenced in the title of your piece, the idea of incompetence hovers throughout it. Yet, it is a premise that remains undefended. That is intellectually lazy and (I can tell you this as an actual published writer) just plain poor writing.
Oh yes - I forgot this one: Sixth Principle of Incompetence - Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.
All I am noting here, Patrick, is that you are so starving for attention that you just can't help yourself at acting like an intellectual sloth-driven, incompetent adolescent.
Return to your feuille de chou that you call a blog and, when *and* if you will grow up and stop drinking all that nasty kool-aid, then you *may* come back here and contribute to the mature conversation that we are having here.
Now, here's the rub. You denounce physical brutality. Yet you defend verbal brutality: in this case, the brutal comments directed toward Wanda Watkins.
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you approach this topic from this particular angle?
What is any less adolescent about telling a begrieved war mother to "fuck off" than to suggest that a good beating might cure the individual at question of their ill manner?
Violence is supposed to be socially unacceptable, correct? Now, how about telling the grieving mother of a fallen soldier to "fuck off" because you don't agree with her politics? Is that any more politically acceptable?
Consider that when you answer this question, you very much are answering a question about the kind of person you are. The temperment of the latter is no different than the temerment of the latter, except the latter all too often believes they will be able to attack their victim with impunity. Few people live under the pretences that they can walk into a fair fight without their opponent fighting back.
The hilarious thing, Mentarch, is this: where did this all start? Because you wanted to defend someone who launched such a vicious talk on a grieving mother. For political reasons. And you defend that.
What is the difference between us? That you condone verbal violence even when undeserved, while I condone phsyical violence when deserved. While I'm sure you'd desperately like to pretend otherwise, there is nothing in this difference that makes you a better person than I.
Frankly, I'm curious as to why neither one of you two can seem to refute anything that I brought up. Was Bush not successful in the pursuit of his agenda? Has he not been ill-prepared to meet unexpected challenges? Has he not been actually very successful as a politican, even despite the fact that one of his victories was demonstrably crooked, and other one possibly so?
And frankly, where does suggesting that Bush was successful in pursuing his agenda but not adaptive enough to be a great president qualify as "dunderheaded analysis of the Bush administration"? Actually, it would be closer to a very balanced and honest analysis of the Bush administration--more so than any analysis found here or at Red Tory's site.
Then again, this is the problem with "progressive historians". The idea of progressive history suggests the practice of the academic discipline of history in pursuit of a political cause. Yet this almost categorically requires the political manipulation of the work itself.
This, naturally, undermines the academic integrity of the work... not to mention the intellectual honesty.
Your particular criticisms off the opinion I have offered come across more like "it's stupid. 'Cuz I said so."
I would at this time challenge the both of you to prove whatever intellecual pedigree you lay claim to: try to disprove my opinion, or simply admit to me that you don't measure up.
The fact is that I know neither one of you measure up. But I do like to hear you say it.
Dear Patrick ...
ReplyDeleteDo take the time to actually read my posts (Primitive Minds, the Eight Principles of Incompetence, as well as my series on Intellectual Sloth). I understand if these may be difficult to fathom, let alone grasp, by your reactionary intellectual sloth-driven, adolescent mind - as you have just proven with your last comment.
In fact, I thank you for demonstrating all my points - but I digress.
What I meant to say is: I suppose one can't discuss or argue with a "real" intellectual such as you - after all, who but a "real" intellectual would title his blog "Nexus of Assholery"?
Your emotional "maturity", "deftness" at grasping the complex (and yet simple) and your "serious" composure clearly speak for themselves ...
Indeed ...
Now, I would appreciate that you cease your earnest and zealous dedication as a representative of "Trolls'R Us" and cordially invite you to stop bothering yourself with the "meager" and "unworthy" professor, scientist and researcher that I am - because obviously, such credentials could "never" measure up to your self-centered, egotistic delusions of grandeur.
Calling an "is" what it "is" constitutes nothing more than observing and acknowledging fact.
Something you are demonstratingly oblivious to ... sadly enough.
Have a nice day - and good bye, now.
(P.S. For the record: I expressed no opinion whatsoever concerning the latest fracas with Canadian Cynic, let alone "defend" him - once again, you keep proving your amazingly fact-challenged "superior" intellect for all to see ...)
I wouldn’t waste any time arguing with this buffoon. It’s a singularly unrewarding experience. A classic example of pig wrestling, if you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteRT: exactly - hence why I will not suffer him anymore.
ReplyDeleteHowever, wanna bet he's busy now photoshop-doctoring my photo in order to enhance one of his "genius" posts which he will unleash upon me, in a pathetic attempt at ridiculing me? ;-)
Mr. Ross is a textbook Chimpleton.
ReplyDeleteChimpletons have a wheel of talking points to repeat, since they are not capable of independent thought. They will go back to that wheel no matter how stupid the talking point looks in regards to the original assertion. I have no patience with them and would not have entertained this moron. You are far more patient than I am :)
As far as the moronic monkey goes, I do not believe that the instruments of enforcement will back him in a power grab. He's abused the Army and Marines, and he'd need them both. Not only has he abused the forces themselves, he's relentlessly persecuted the socioeconomic class that most soldiers and jarheads come from. I think it very likely that if Chimpy tries to declare martial law, it will end with him in a striped suit and chains-or worse. Military rebellions are seldom pretty affairs.
JR: I allowed little Patrick enough rope to hang himself publicly, before incinerating his intellectual carcass for good - figuratively speaking, fo course. Incompetents like him are oh, so predictable ... ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd as I commented on your post at Reconstitution - I hope you are right ... really! However, what happens once the military gets a hold of power?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePatrick - although your last comment illustrated *yet* again your utter intellectual sloth-driven, ignorant, fact-challenged and immature stupidity, I nonetheless deleted your comment ...
ReplyDelete... if only because examples of ill-mannered, adolescent-like, boorish and knowledge-challenged right-wing kool-aid junkies like you are a dime a dozen out there, in the blogosphere.
Now for the last time: go play the fact-challenged, ignoramus, adolescent faux bravado insult comic elsewhere.