It wasn't long after Obama's victory that liberals began trying on patriotism like an old ill-fitting coat, admiring themselves in the mirror, and even denouncing conservatives as unamerican (yes it happened). Caught in the afterglow of their win, basking in the radiance of their man addressing the country, beaming down from the carefully arranged set pieces and choreographed events, guzzling the myth like hopeandchangey brew-- they could almost believe that the great clock of history had wound back to the Kennedy Administration. Before the Vietnam War or the shot in Memphis that killed Martin Luther King. That golden moment between FDR and LBJ, only briefly broken by McCarthyism and Ike, when hating your country hadn't yet become the mandatory liberal position. When it was still possible to look up admiringly at the flag and be a liberal, even if Phil Ochs and the SDS might mock them for it. When America to them was still the hope of the world, not the shame of the world.
More than anything else, the rise of Obama offered them that. A return to loving their country and being loved by it. Of course some things would have to go. Many things. But there could be a reconciliation of some kind. A new unity after the 'nightmare years' of the Bush Administration when the local Borders could never keep enough Bushisms books in stock, for reasons that they were sure had something to do with the Patriot Act, and their European friends didn't like them anymore. The new golden moment was here. Obama was the new JFK. And this time he wouldn't be shot and no one would have to be drafted to go to Vietnam. Altamont would end peacefully. Jimmy Hendrix would never die. Neither would Jim Morrison. All the culture clashes and racial hatreds would be reconciled. And all the national traumas would be healed again.
But despite what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thought, there is no 'Reset Button' on history. You don't need one. History naturally repeats itself because history is nothing more than people following patterns. Liberals who talk about being traumatized by the America of the sixties and the seventies, and the death of their dream of the Age of Aquarius, have never understood that they created their own traumas. And manufactured their own history. Their 'traumas' were created by their own cultural war against America. A cultural war that did tremendous damage to America as a whole. But even more damage to them.
Vietnam was the work of two Democratic Senators with no executive experience, who promised the country that a new age was coming. The JFK assassination was the act of a misfit turned radical socialist who ate up all the paranoia being dispensed by the left, and decided to jump the gun on the revolution. All the overdoses and assassinations were spawned by the cultural chaos that the counterculture itself had unleashed. An anarchy that rebounded on itself in murder and suicide. And of course the great legacy of drug abuse and insanity, by counterculture figures who had made their living celebrating both, until it killed them.
The moral of the story is that the left destroys itself. At the beginning of the 20th century, Moscow was swarming with every breed of socialist, radical, anarchist and leftist. A generation later they were all dead or rotting in gulags waiting for Stalin to die. It wasn't the right that it did to them. It was the left devouring itself. Ideological factions forming alliances against each other. Declaring zero tolerance for minor deviations. Denouncing each other and staging executions. By the time they were done, there was no more 'left' left in the Soviet Union. Only illiterate thugs mouthing party slogans that they couldn't understand. Eventually those thugs, like Khrushchev and Brezhnev, became the leaders of the Soviet Union and destroyed it from within. And today there are far more leftists to be found in Germany, than in Russia. Because even the Nazis didn't wipe out the left nearly as thoroughly as the Motherland of Socialism did.
The left always destroys itself. Every time it takes power, it unleashes the seeds of its own destruction. And the same greater thinkers who can write entire treatises on the perfect society, and have hair-pulling eye-gouging fights over the precise definition of working class, can no more run a country, than they can run a farmhouse. They are moralists by nature, bureaucrats by inclination and tyrants by inevitability. On paper they scribble governments of theories, but when they are forced to govern people, they no sooner encounter a setback than they reach for the whip. People are naturally governed by consensus. But the left cannot even find consensus within its own ranks.
Had the left been able to unite, Hitler would have never come to power. And if it cannot find consensus within its own ranks, how can it possibly govern by the consensus of a population with diverse views and needs? It can't. It tries to force them to comply with its theories and when they don't, it declares an economic war against the rich, a cultural war against the bourgeoisie and the morals of the working class, it denounces its own parents, burns the flag and announces that if it doesn't win the next election, it's moving to Canada. We've gone through this farce many times before. And it all ends with the country in worse shape than ever and elderly leftists waxing nostalgic for the radical days of their youth, when they protested whichever war was happening, smoked illegal substances and practiced spiritualism.
Not long after Obama had set down his laurel crown, the radical left set off denouncing him for not getting everything they wanted done right away. They weren't listened to at first. They never are. But there's money in them that radical hills. The Michael Moores of the country know that if they stick to their guns, sooner or later mainstream liberals will become embittered and disappointed, and admit they were right. And now that the elections of 2010 are over and done with. And Obama has to govern with the Republicans, their hour has come round at last. Now they can condemn every bipartisan compromise as treason. Embrace Assange. Rant about robot drones bombing poor innocent terrorists from the sky. Now they can tear down what Soros' billions built for them.
The great ignorant failure of the left is that it never learns from history. It improves its tactics, but never its worldview. It learns how to get elected, but not how to govern. When its black and white view of the world and the country has to be leavened by a touch of gray, it retreats in a huff and sticks to its principles. Those principles being that they are completely right. Everyone else is completely wrong. And the rest of the country is a bunch of FOX News brainwashed doodooheads for not seeing it their way. Then when the next messiah comes along, the next JFK wannabe looking gravely at the camera, and with just that right combination of hopefulness and seriousness, invoking some great dream or another, they'll swoon and rush right out to faint at his speeches. But when the smelling salts of bipartisanship and practical governance are waved under their noses, they leap up and abandoning their newfound patriotism, begin burning the flag again.
And so history repeats itself. Again. And again. And each time the left is certain that this time they will get it right. But how can they get it right, when they're the problem? For all their cleverness at theory, they're hopelessly stupid about practice. And as good as they are at staging elections as theater and governing through bureaucracy, they're terrible at dealing with people and keeping the books straight. There's no better formula for disaster than that.
Now the left has cast off its briefly worn flag, thrown away the pins and banners, and gone to war against their country again. The embrace of Assange marks the moral irrelevancy of liberals. Not just their willingness to suddenly defend a rapist and demean his victims. Anyone who remembers what actually went on behind the doors of the Clinton White House, knows that isn't new. But their sabotage of their own government's soft power strategy.
Wikileaks is not sabotaging the hard front line of warfighting with its release of confidential diplomatic cables, but the soft power that liberals promised would prove to be a more effective and respectable method of fighting terrorism. Much as Michael Moore or Naomi Wolf may posture, what they are actually doing is destroying the very approach that liberals sold as an alternative to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is no longer Cindy Sheehan crying on cue for the cameras or newscaster gravely intoning the latest death count, while showing background footage of an anti-war rally. This is exactly what liberals accused Cheney and Rove of in the Plame Affair... but on a vast and epic scale. On such a vast scale that if you imagine Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson as a single fingernail, then the Wikileaks diplomatic cable release is the entire population of the Houston metropolitan area.
Wikileaks has helped the right, because the diplomatic cable leak mainly hurts liberals. It undermines the diplomatic corps. It sabotages the Obama Administration's efforts at building international relations. It makes the case for a War with Iran. It mainly leaks things that the liberal side of the foreign policy aisle wanted to keep secret.
Michael Moore can put on his clown suit and pretend that he's fighting Sarah Palin on Twitter. But he's not. He's fighting the Obama Administration. So is every liberal Assange supporter. And why? Why sabotage the man they were on their knees for, in the winter of another year. To answer that question is to understand why the left destroys itself again and again. Why lemmings dash off cliffs and socialists murder each other over the placement of a comma in a policy statement on the role of the peasantry in agrarian socialism. Ideology is theory, not reality. Theory promotes radicalism, because the radical position can never be disproven in theory, only in practice. The easiest way to build a cult of personality within a community where radicalism equates to integrity is to take the most radical position possible. And the most radical position possible is always the one that is the most Anti-American. And the most Anti-European. And Anti-Israeli.
Drunk on theory, the left either seizes enough power to manage tyranny, or defeated slinks away while its more moderate figures hammer out a slightly less dysfunctional system whose only virtue is that it will completely collapse in 20 years, instead of 20 minutes. And the drunken theoreticians on the left assail them from the sidelines for selling out the movement, the working class and the revolution. In a democracy, the theoreticians get book deals. In a tyranny, they get the Gulag. The system collapses either way and the cycle begins again. At least until the barbarian hordes overrun the entire civilization. And then the clock gets reset to zero.
The War on Terror is the hamhanded attempt by our civilization to keep the barbarian hordes back a little. Like most such historical attempts, it's incompetent and futile. But the left is busy hammering holes in what few walls we have managed to put up. Sabotaging even our meager efforts to extend the life of our civilization by another decade or two. "Let it all burn," they cry. "A better world will come in its place." But this time it will not be Gulags for them. There is no snow in Arabia. Only dunes. And the always waiting headman's axe.
But despite what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thought, there is no 'Reset Button' on history. You don't need one. History naturally repeats itself because history is nothing more than people following patterns. Liberals who talk about being traumatized by the America of the sixties and the seventies, and the death of their dream of the Age of Aquarius, have never understood that they created their own traumas. And manufactured their own history. Their 'traumas' were created by their own cultural war against America. A cultural war that did tremendous damage to America as a whole. But even more damage to them.
Vietnam was the work of two Democratic Senators with no executive experience, who promised the country that a new age was coming. The JFK assassination was the act of a misfit turned radical socialist who ate up all the paranoia being dispensed by the left, and decided to jump the gun on the revolution. All the overdoses and assassinations were spawned by the cultural chaos that the counterculture itself had unleashed. An anarchy that rebounded on itself in murder and suicide. And of course the great legacy of drug abuse and insanity, by counterculture figures who had made their living celebrating both, until it killed them.
The moral of the story is that the left destroys itself. At the beginning of the 20th century, Moscow was swarming with every breed of socialist, radical, anarchist and leftist. A generation later they were all dead or rotting in gulags waiting for Stalin to die. It wasn't the right that it did to them. It was the left devouring itself. Ideological factions forming alliances against each other. Declaring zero tolerance for minor deviations. Denouncing each other and staging executions. By the time they were done, there was no more 'left' left in the Soviet Union. Only illiterate thugs mouthing party slogans that they couldn't understand. Eventually those thugs, like Khrushchev and Brezhnev, became the leaders of the Soviet Union and destroyed it from within. And today there are far more leftists to be found in Germany, than in Russia. Because even the Nazis didn't wipe out the left nearly as thoroughly as the Motherland of Socialism did.
The left always destroys itself. Every time it takes power, it unleashes the seeds of its own destruction. And the same greater thinkers who can write entire treatises on the perfect society, and have hair-pulling eye-gouging fights over the precise definition of working class, can no more run a country, than they can run a farmhouse. They are moralists by nature, bureaucrats by inclination and tyrants by inevitability. On paper they scribble governments of theories, but when they are forced to govern people, they no sooner encounter a setback than they reach for the whip. People are naturally governed by consensus. But the left cannot even find consensus within its own ranks.
Had the left been able to unite, Hitler would have never come to power. And if it cannot find consensus within its own ranks, how can it possibly govern by the consensus of a population with diverse views and needs? It can't. It tries to force them to comply with its theories and when they don't, it declares an economic war against the rich, a cultural war against the bourgeoisie and the morals of the working class, it denounces its own parents, burns the flag and announces that if it doesn't win the next election, it's moving to Canada. We've gone through this farce many times before. And it all ends with the country in worse shape than ever and elderly leftists waxing nostalgic for the radical days of their youth, when they protested whichever war was happening, smoked illegal substances and practiced spiritualism.
The great ignorant failure of the left is that it never learns from history. It improves its tactics, but never its worldview. It learns how to get elected, but not how to govern. When its black and white view of the world and the country has to be leavened by a touch of gray, it retreats in a huff and sticks to its principles. Those principles being that they are completely right. Everyone else is completely wrong. And the rest of the country is a bunch of FOX News brainwashed doodooheads for not seeing it their way. Then when the next messiah comes along, the next JFK wannabe looking gravely at the camera, and with just that right combination of hopefulness and seriousness, invoking some great dream or another, they'll swoon and rush right out to faint at his speeches. But when the smelling salts of bipartisanship and practical governance are waved under their noses, they leap up and abandoning their newfound patriotism, begin burning the flag again.
And so history repeats itself. Again. And again. And each time the left is certain that this time they will get it right. But how can they get it right, when they're the problem? For all their cleverness at theory, they're hopelessly stupid about practice. And as good as they are at staging elections as theater and governing through bureaucracy, they're terrible at dealing with people and keeping the books straight. There's no better formula for disaster than that.
Now the left has cast off its briefly worn flag, thrown away the pins and banners, and gone to war against their country again. The embrace of Assange marks the moral irrelevancy of liberals. Not just their willingness to suddenly defend a rapist and demean his victims. Anyone who remembers what actually went on behind the doors of the Clinton White House, knows that isn't new. But their sabotage of their own government's soft power strategy.
Wikileaks is not sabotaging the hard front line of warfighting with its release of confidential diplomatic cables, but the soft power that liberals promised would prove to be a more effective and respectable method of fighting terrorism. Much as Michael Moore or Naomi Wolf may posture, what they are actually doing is destroying the very approach that liberals sold as an alternative to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is no longer Cindy Sheehan crying on cue for the cameras or newscaster gravely intoning the latest death count, while showing background footage of an anti-war rally. This is exactly what liberals accused Cheney and Rove of in the Plame Affair... but on a vast and epic scale. On such a vast scale that if you imagine Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson as a single fingernail, then the Wikileaks diplomatic cable release is the entire population of the Houston metropolitan area.
Wikileaks has helped the right, because the diplomatic cable leak mainly hurts liberals. It undermines the diplomatic corps. It sabotages the Obama Administration's efforts at building international relations. It makes the case for a War with Iran. It mainly leaks things that the liberal side of the foreign policy aisle wanted to keep secret.
Drunk on theory, the left either seizes enough power to manage tyranny, or defeated slinks away while its more moderate figures hammer out a slightly less dysfunctional system whose only virtue is that it will completely collapse in 20 years, instead of 20 minutes. And the drunken theoreticians on the left assail them from the sidelines for selling out the movement, the working class and the revolution. In a democracy, the theoreticians get book deals. In a tyranny, they get the Gulag. The system collapses either way and the cycle begins again. At least until the barbarian hordes overrun the entire civilization. And then the clock gets reset to zero.
The War on Terror is the hamhanded attempt by our civilization to keep the barbarian hordes back a little. Like most such historical attempts, it's incompetent and futile. But the left is busy hammering holes in what few walls we have managed to put up. Sabotaging even our meager efforts to extend the life of our civilization by another decade or two. "Let it all burn," they cry. "A better world will come in its place." But this time it will not be Gulags for them. There is no snow in Arabia. Only dunes. And the always waiting headman's axe.
Comments
they eat their own.
ReplyDeleteYou are an incredibly good writer. Also interesting to visit your blog.
ReplyDeleteAlways come to the Sutlan for your daily shot of kicking liberals
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to go somewhere for daily affirmations extolling the virtues of conservatives, you should go ...
... where?
A very good blog again this time. One small note however, the right does only marginally better because when it has the power it might not meddle to an extent of the lefties in making the lives of individuals to fit their ideal but by often by excessivly favouring big business too much it also tramples the wants of the citizens. Government systems world wide due to our prolific multiplication have become almost impossible to handle with any consideration for the individual in either left or right wing rule.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I've not quarrel with your thesis here, but the Left must be doing something right (ha!) because they keep getting elected, they keep making THEMSELVES lots of money, they keep winning on various gravy trains, and they never seem to be at a loss in pursuing their own poisonous agendas, which always include massive amounts of govt. for them, and huge propaganda antiJewish campaigns, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo while i agree with you, exactly how does one fight against people like these and win? Without having to let their spewing energy ruin a country first, that is!
Doodooheads!
ReplyDeleteThat was, by far, the best use of that word I have ever seen, and what an excellent way to spark a laugh in the midst of such a serious topic.
This criminal - Assange, may be sabotaging the leftist regimes, but I find him, and his methods, absolutely detestable either way.
Providing secret documents to wikileaks should be considered an act of treason - equal with transmitting sensitive data to an enemy.
Hopefully Obama will be the straw that broke the camel's back and Conservatives will beat liberals.
ReplyDeletePhenomenal post, take a bow!
ReplyDeleteThe self-annihilation of the left means what if our civilization crumbles and scant resources remain?
They take the gloves off - I mean *really* take the gloves off.
To mindRider I would suggest that much of what the "right" does isn't right at all, they're just ruling slightly more to the right then the left.
Hence they get the plaudits from conservative voters when attacked by the left in addition to maintaining a river of pork that would make the Amazon blush.
Daniel
ReplyDeleteTBS certainly has more than a fair point. In the UK where I live the left is so successful that it now has TOTAL control not just of the entire main stream media, but the whole of main stream politics. The entire political and social agenda has been set by years of leftist domination. The result is that 'Conservative' PM David Cameron behaves with each passing day increasingly like a classic Marxist (you will probably know he has dismantled the UK's defence capability, you may not know he forced all members of his Cabinet to read Cass Sunstein and Saul Alinksy). And the headline story of increased student fees cannot disguise the fact that the Conservative/LibDem Coalition is the most left-wing government in British history. And what can we look forward to if they are booted out? A Labour Party government now under the leadership of an undisputed Socialist Ed Milliband. Any person who dares make a public utterance that questions the accepted leftist agenda is labelled as a fascist.
The concept that there could even be a Fox News in the UK is laughable. Just mentioning to somebody that you have watched it on cable is sufficient to guarantee you will become a social outcast. Indeed, in the UK if you even dare to suggest in public that Obama is not the greatest living human being you will soon find yourself without any friends.
How are things going to change when the political choices are:
Conservatives: now a quasi Marxist Party
LibDems: simply and eccentric Socialist Party
Labour Party (the supposed 'Party of the Left, which under Blair actually exhibited some genuine non-leftist behaviour but has now swung to a radical Socialist agenda).
The current right in America does want government to interfere in people's lives (impose fundamentalist Christianity, its own pork, corporate bailouts...) just in different ways than the left.
ReplyDeleteBush/Cheney types don't trust the common folk anymore than the radical leftists.
Not sure where the left gets the silly idea that the right wants to impose Christianity on everyone. We really couldn't care less about your spiritual lives. God gave us free will -- use yours as you wish. In the end, we all die alone.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever read the Bible? There's nothing in there about cutting off the heads of infidels! It says to love the sinner. Jesus ate with lepers; we live with the radical left.
Here's what we DO want to do -- we want to get you busybody, pie-in-the-sky theoreticians out of our lives and our children's lives. We want to keep our money, thank you -- we'll give to the poor in our own way, and you are welcome, tho' not likely, to do the same.
Use your head instead of following the stereotype of the "ooooh, scary," "fundamentalist" Christian who wants a Bible in every classroom and a cross around every neck. Geesh, are you ever brainwashed (and you don't come off as very bright when you pull that "ooh, the Christians are out to get me" BS)
HowEVAH, there is a group of people out to get you, and you know as well as we do who they are. Hint: they'll start by killing all the gays and keeping women home behind blacked-in windows. Get it? 'Cos if you don't, you're going to pull us all down with you, and then you WILL have some angry Christians on your @ss.
What in the world does "loving" lepers have to do with anything.
ReplyDeleteSince when are lepers worthy of death by head removal anyway? Why use them as an example?
Come on, it does not fit at all.
The Catholic church got pretty "fundamental" about converting everyone on earth or else too.
Excellent analysis of leftist cannibalism, thank you for providing another terrific and thoughtful piece.
ReplyDeleteLemon,
ReplyDeleteYour reference to the Catholic church does not fit. After all we have "fundamentalist" Christianity as a result of the abuses of the Catholic church. (I know, I know, someone out there is going to point out that Martin Luther was anti-semitic. So I'll save you the trouble and mention it myself. All I can say is that he was dead wrong on that issue). I, myself trace my ancestry back to French protestants (Huguenots) who escaped persecution and settled in the U.S. Anonymous was simply pointing out to the previous poster that Christians aren't looking to establish a Christian state where all the women are barefoot and pregnant and unable to leave their homes. The point about the lepers was not that they were deserving of death, but that Jesus was willing to associate with the most reviled of human beings. Now I'm not writing this in an attempt to promote Christianity on this thread. The previous poster who made the idiotic statement about the right wanting to impose Christianity with their own pork and bailouts opened up this can of worms. Puh-lease! I realize this comment is way off topic, but I want to support what the anonymous poster said.
I don't mean to criticize you Lemon. I read (and enjoy) your blog whenever I remember to hit the link on Daniel's blog. I just wanted to point out that I did not think your reference to the Catholic church was fair.
Thanks,
Debra
Interesting. My statement was focused on the present right wing who do want government to interfere in people's lives, but people got fixated on one example - fundamentalist Christianity, a particular type of Christianity - more than the others and brought up straw men arguments.
ReplyDelete"Christians" are not out to get me. I never said that. You do realize there are plenty of Christians who are not on the political right. There are independent Christians, and the Christian left.
Once again my statement was about the current right and their own use of government interfering in people's lives and their own distrust of the common folk, not about Christianity per se.
Anon, it is not true that "fundamentalist" Christianity has anything to do with a confrontation with the Catholic Church. The "born again" movement and other revivalist movements in the US have nothing whatsoever to do with confronting the Catholic Church as we saw in Europe. You mention Martin Luther and even Martin Luther was not a good Protestant in the history of the struggle of Europe to shake off the death grip that the Catholic Church has on it. The only way that Martin Luther distinguishes himself in the history of Protestantism is the fact that he managed to stay alive when so many others faded into history because they were burned at the stake. Martin Luther was a fanatical priest who couldn't reconcile his experience when he went to Rome. There is considerable evidence that Martin Luther's antisemitism is what kept him alive. There is a part of his trial where he was interviewed off the trial record. I guess that it was there that Martin was interviewed regarding his feeling about Jews and he must have reassured them with his antisemitism. Embracing the lies taught by the Catholic Church against the Jews was and is really that fundamental to Catholicism, just as it is to Islam.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "born again" movement and other revivalist movements in the US were, in fact, Catholic franchises. I suspect that many of the non-Catholic sects that were early settlers in North America were also similar Catholic franchises in England. I believe they were a part of the war being waged against the Protestant crown in England on the streets and among the people of England and Great Britain. The Catholic Church has a long history of social engineering and foment in order to advance its own interest and undermine Christian resistance to it. I think that the presence of Muslim populations in traditionally Protestant countries like the US and Europe are a Catholic conspiracy. I might even go so far as to imagine that Islam itself is a Catholic conspiracy, inculcated in the pagan populations of the middle east as a part of its war against the Jews and Jewish belief.
If there is such thing as "conservatives versus liberals", then it is worth wondering exactly what "conservatives" are to represent besides being just anti-liberal. And it appears that the best that many can come up with here is that conservatives are Christians. Which has got to be a pretty weak foundation for any body of thought seeking to deal with the world's problems and our own in the US when so many in the world share our problems and are not Christian. And even more importantly, you have to come to terms with exactly what you mean by "Christain" when there are at least three different varieties, Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic, Protestant meaning neither Orthodox or Catholic in this case.
Debra, I get what you are saying. I am very familiar with Huguenots and their trials and tribulations. They were good people.
ReplyDeleteThis is getting a little complicated but to the first anonymous poster...You said that the "right" in America wants to interfere in people's lives and impose "fundamentalist Christianity with their own pork and bailouts." How else was anyone supposed to interpret a comment like that? I've known a lot of so-called fundamentalist Christians. Their main concern has always been to keep the popular culture from interferring with their lives and with the raising of their children. That was the main reason for the rise in the Christian school movement in the late 70s and early 80s. Whenever Christians who take their faith seriously attempt to get involved in politics they always get accused of trying to interfere in people's lives.
ReplyDeleteTo Paul: You're right that not all fundamentalist Christianity has to do with a confrontation with the Catholic church. Martin Luther's contribution to Protestantism was a faith vs. works religious view. The Catholic church's teaching was a works based religion. The indulgences that the church was selling (especially to the wealthier who could afford to buy their way into heaven) was one of the abuses (not to mention the persecution of "heretics") that brought about the reformation. Not all non-Catholic denominations have their roots in the reformation, however most evangelicals identify with that point in history where Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door (can't tell you right now the name of the church. Sadly I'm not up on my history at the moment). Where did you get the idea that the "born-again" movement was a Catholic franchise? You kinda lost me with your whole Catholic conspiracy notions. Especially when you said that the presence of the Muslims in European countries is a Catholic conspiracy. That sounds very similar to "blame the Jews" conspiracy theories. And by the way, if any Catholics are reading this I don't mean any offense in mentioning the abuses of the Catholic church. I have no problems with the modern day church.
And finally to Lemon: I hope my comments to you didn't come off as harsh in any way. I have a great deal of respect for what you and Daniel do with this blog and with yours. Keep up the great work. I'm very proud of my Huguenot heritage and you're right they were good people. My grandparents 8 times removed are mentioned in a history text from S.C. that says they were industrious people who were a great asset to this country.
Debra
Post a Comment