All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Friday, March 04, 2011
“This isn't England. You're Messing with Americans!”
From Roland Shirk at Jihad Watch:
I believe with all my heart that a spirit did indeed appear to Muhammad and inspire the Qur'an. I accept his account of how that spirit guided him to make its early suras amiable and uplifting, and then as his military power grew, ever darker and more intolerant. When I read how Muhammad sometimes showed some humane scruples—for instance, about stealing his stepson's wife—and the spirit urged him to go ahead and seize what he wanted... I believe that spirit was real. I think it is still with us, that Muhammad's private “bin Screwtape” still abides and watches over the mass movement he created.
Whenever we score a victory, he is enraged, and he afflicts us—where he can, by goading us into extreme statements or unjust actions that will discredit our cause with decent people. When we fall for that, when we lower ourselves to the level of our enemies, we do more than make some tactical mistake; we begin, I believe, to serve in some way the same spirit of hatred that inspired the Verse of the Sword. Even if we convince ourselves we are aiming that sword at Islam, in fact we are beginning to be mesmerized by it. Mirroring Islamic intolerance, and aiming it at Muslims, is at once a crime and a blunder. Let's remember that it wasn't the fanatically anti-German bigots of the Action Francaise who in fact formed the Resistance after 1940; members of that group disproportionately became instead collaborators.
Since most of us aren't actually prone to genuine hatred, the next tactic “bin Screwtape” tries is to grind us down with defeatism, to convince us that the struggle is unavailing, that the blindness of our fellow Westerners and the lazy, pleasure-loving short-sightedness of our society will never be a match for the disciplined, fertile fanatics whom he urges to enslave us. This too is a grave temptation. It pays to remember that anti-Communist hero Whittaker Chambers was wrong when he said he feared he had joined the losing side of history, that Moscow's fighting faith would prevail against the flaccid and hedonistic West. As early as 636, Abu Bakr warned the Persians he was attacking, “I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life.”
Let's resist the urge to romanticize such evil, and grant it a power it doesn't really have. Remember that the fatalistic, samurai culture of Japan that inspired the kamikazes was utterly crushed by the America of Benny Goodman, the Lindy-Hop, and Abbott and Costello. The Carthaginians, who sacrificed their infants to ask their gods for victory, were defeated by Roman family farmers who fought to defend their Republic. The power that evil seems to grant us is in the long run an illusion, like the "high" one gets from a hit of coke or a joyride in a stolen car. Reality has its revenge.
Yes, fecklessness and weakness, cowardice and short-sighted selfishness can doom a culture—and make it prey to neighbors with sharper teeth and more fertile wombs. But such a victory isn't inevitable. There are enough signs of life left yet in the West—and to prove my point I'd like to show you one.
The video below appeared in Salon under the hysterical headline: “This is What Anti-Muslim Hate Looks Like.”
The video depicts a patriotic rally held outside a fundraiser for the Islamic Circle of North America, which supports the imposition of sharia law in the U.S. The keynote speakers for the evening—supposedly meant to raise money for women's shelters—were Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. As the Orange County Register reported:
Wahhaj is an imam at a mosque in Brooklyn. A U.S. attorney named him and 169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.... Malik Ali is a Bay Area Islamic activist who spoke at 'Israeli Apartheid Week' at UC Irvine in 2010. There he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group.
The footage was shot by the local chapter of Hamas-linked CAIR—who were strongly motivated to find the ugliest images and most obnoxious quotes they could.... And this is the best they could do: A group of Americans peacefully gathered behind a barricade, chanting to the suited men and hijabed women who trooped into the event, “No sharia!” and “Go home!” Given that the event featured foreign-born supporters of terrorism and sharia law, these were not outrageous sentiments for Californians to express. Anything less would amount to servility.
I left a comment there, which I leave here as well:
There's a song in French that I barely recall, something along the lines of
"Everybody wants everyone to love them, But nobody, nobody loves everyone.
Everybody wants to be Marilyn Monroe, But nobody wants to be the audience."
Everybody wants to be the good guy, the one who does all the right things and who at the end of the day feels that he's a good person. Those are the ones who would say to others, don't do some bad thing, because if you do, then we too might look bad, and we are good, knowing so because we don't do the bad. Everyone wants to be a star, but no one wants to clean the toilets. There's little glamour or moral standing in the shitter. We all understand this. We all turn out heads and are thankful it's someone else's job to clean up after us, we being stars in our own moral universe. Who blames those who say, "Hush thyself, and say nothing when you see the toilet man."
Stars everywhere. A moral parade. Forget the clowns with shovels following behind them. Stars, a universe of stars. Everyone's a star. Well, except those few who are the cleaners. Spit. We wanna see moral Lady GaGa-s and be moral gaga-s too. Gaga stars each and every one. La la, ga ga.
That would be without the kissing, right? Just shut up and shut up.
I have some problem with the approach some are taking that there is a pristine leadership who must not be sullied by the antics of the plebes, lest it reflect badly on our betters. I'm not keen on this attitudinising. I might write the occasional response, but I don't much care about the tsk, tsking and the frowns and the wagging fingers and the threats of expulsion from the circle of the well-behaved.
This is not high-school, no matter what mind-set some bring to the world from their day jobs. Those have to live with the world of autonomous adults, whether they like them or not. But that's not going to stop the patronising and scolding. Those who patronise and scold will always do so simply because they are wrapped up in their own issues and don't have the sense that they are just folks like anyone else.
It occurred to me to criticize Roland Shirk's article in the same manner. However, I agree with his worldview in principle.
I do not think the crowd looked hateful in the least, nor do they appear to be a bunch of brainwashed haters of "the Other."
Instead, this appears to me to be a group of people who do not accept what the Make-Believe Media tells them at face value, and instead do some research on their own, coming to their own conclusions, some of them bright, some average, and some maybe a little short on smarts, but willing to stand up for what they believe in, America's Democratic Republic and it's Constitution.
We need more people like these people to stand up for America in exactly this way.
These Muslims want to get away with looking oppressed.
Impossible.
They are Sharia-supporting Jihad-lovers. They are evil. And, they ought to Go Home; "home" being whatever Sharia shithole they choose to live in, whether it be Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, or the UAE.
Fuck them. They can not have their Sharia, with it's calls to murder apostates and gays, here in the United States.
And for someone to say that that was "hate," when 97% of Egyptian women have had their genitals cut off, when millions of little girls are sold off into arranged marriages every year, when every week there is another mooslum terroist attack, I say fuck 'em!
I once had a mooslum tell me I was degrading myself for saying "fuck 'em" on another site. Funny that he didn't find his "religion" degrading. It is the epitomy of degrading.
I wonder, did Salon include the bit about the keynote speakers?
And the way that one bint walks through the crowd like she's so fucking brave! Yeah, easy to walk through an American crowd of protestors cause we're not going to kill you for it. They're disgusting, and they deserve more "hate" from us. In fact, I really hope the "hate" is just beginning! We have got to put our foot down, hard.
My complaint with the way things are developing among our own is that some seem to have acquired a proprietary attitude toward anti-jihad activities[ and this is coupled with what to me seems to be a school-marmish attitude toward those who stand outside the purview of the "masters" of this issue: that the "mature adults" must be obeyed and the "infantile" must behave according to the precepts and announcements of our betters. Hence, I witness, though I might be oversensitive to what I see as petty authoritarian personalities, petty authoritarian personalities demanding obedience and acceptable classroom behaviour.
For me, and long since past, school's out. This is the real world, and not some replay of _Father Knows Best_.
That some people are independent of the elite of the anti-jihad activities we all try to engage in is not sufficient reason to grant legitimacy to the outside opinions of such people. I like and admire and respect Robert Spencer, for example, but I wouldn't need him to tell me what more than what his expertise allows. When I'm watchin' my TV and a man comes on to tell me how white my shirts can be, well he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me, I don't even tune out: I have never tuned in. This is not one man's game that the rest of us have to play by one man's rules or be damned. And that applies to red-neck Christians who might embarrass the elite; it might embarrass the elite to see outsiders organise a demonstration in NYC. It might upset some to see individuals act in any number of ways that the elite can and will rightly see as offensive. It's neither here nor there what others, elite or no, feel, think, or say about any other person or group; and further, it is a sign of weakness to be bothered by the fear of stigma by association.
I hope the fair-minded reader won't assume that I am making any veiled negative reference to Spencer here. My point is that he is one of the better, and to my mind, the only worthwhile expert in this business, but that is where it begins and ends. I might have some high personal regard for Spencer, but I cannot allow that to affect my decisions regarding my efforts in this universal struggle against jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. This is not one man's profession, regardless of who, me, you, or anyone else. If Shirk doesn't like this or that group, his position as a writer at the mainpage is significant influence upon many a reader; but it is not enough to sway others. Shirk's opinions are worthy of consideration, as are those of any reasonable and intelligent man; and then one moves on independently. If Shirk, merely as an example, were to take offence at some variant of anti-jihad behaviour on the part of some others, he would be right and justified in complaining; and the rest of us would be equally right in shrugging off his complaints as his alone and not necessarily more, in spite of the prestige his opinions might receive due to his placement of them.
In other words, I listen, I read, I think, and I make up my own mind, as do others. Whether we agree or act in unison is of no interest to me. I can only assume that others will take as little interest in me and my doings as I do in theirs where we verge. I don't let Shirk's writings embarrass me; and I doubt Shirk is sleepless over mine. Regardless of the prattle, we are all our own people, like it or not.
Yep. And the more views and means that fight pisslam, the better.
Your comments bring to mind Ms. Geller, who I adore, telling people not to bring signs to the last demonstation for the GZ place of warship. She can say what she wants, but I am free to do what I want.
Fuck pisslam and mooslums who follow the rantings of a murdering, raping, pedophile.
I can understand that those who have some high status in the anti-jihad business won't appreciate interlopers and amateurs poking their dirty noses into the work of professionals. Who, really, would want to hold a demonstration and stand up and address the nation in front of the world's media only to find oneself facing a mob of supporters who are little better than, nay, who are, Trailer Trash? It's got to be embarrassing. The pros will want to be surrounded by beautiful people, if not those from Hollywood, at least those who carry officially designated signs. Or if that's too creepy, then no signs at all, lest the fools bring signs that are off message. We have to win hearts and minds, and thus we should all look our best and act politely and smile and put the good-looking folks in the front seats so the Left world will see how cool we are. It's a simple matter of reality. People want to identify with winners, not trailer trash and red-necks and people with stoopit placards.
But worse is the problem that there might be those who are those in the audience not just badly dressed. The worst is that there might be those who are, to put this gently, not nice people.
I'm relying on memory here, and the name that comes to mind is .
Étienne Lantier, in Zola's novel _Germinal_ is a local working class leader of a strike against the coal mine owners in late 19th century France. He's a "good guy." He has a casual relationship with a fat girl, which makes him look bad in the eyes of his comrades, so he dumps her and continues to pursue the real love of his life, Catherine, against his competitor, the nasty Chaval. But underneath all this, in the dark, as it were, lurks Souvarine. That's who the stars of this movement fear more than the ugly fat girls who show up in front of the cameras.
One might feel depressed that so many have shown up with their enthusiastic gap-toothed smiles and wearing blue slacks with brown shoes; but the terror is in in the sight of that Souverine on the side-lines.
Bellum omnium contra omnes.
All the best children dressed just so-- and there is that man. That is the real terror.
You are much too highbrow for me! But to cast Pamella Geller as the leader of the beautiful people is one juxtaposition I can't imagine. I respect the work she's doing, but "Catherine," she ain't. In fact, I've seen trailer trash prettier than her on a Sunday morning after a Saturday night.
Other than that, you lost me in your literary alusion.
Trailer trash, elite congnoscenti, but especially Souvarine, ... if he's on my side, I say: "let's get 'em!"
I think I was being obscure, and unnecessarily so, in making my point by literary illustration. I have a fair familiarity with French Literature that most French would envy. But that wouldn't help any of us in making my point. Mea culpa.
My point is that there are those people in most movements, ours being one, who will at any given time occupy some position within a continuum, that being the same continuum regardless of the movement's points and purposes across all times. This is true whether we're discussing the tableau of characters in a labour struggle in the latter half of the nineteenth century in France or the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century among Christians hammering out canonical texts and precepts. When people get together to act as members of a movement, there are only so many roles one can find to assume. In fact, it often enough doesn't even matter what kind of person one is (or was) when the movement calls for a person to act in an unfilled role. A timid man can find himself transformed into a hero. The times make the man, at least in times of need.
My point basically is that this game, (meant in a benign sense,) is composed of numerous people who-- have to-- act out age-old scenes required of humanness in "movement" situations, almost like Commedia dell Arte: genius. clown, hero, warrior, traitor, lover, and so on. One of those roles is "Wise Man." It happens, regardless of my disgust, by the very nature of the game. The wise man must, is compelled by the nature of things to, pontificate and scold and banish and pout and so on. So, too, there must be the dark character who lurks in the wings, seldom seen, but known as a character from whom one must expect some unexpected serious turn of events that will shock and probably harm. It is that character that Souverine plays in Zola's novel. In every drama of this movement sort there is the sinister figure lurking. It cannot be otherwise. The Human Comedy has its demands. For Father Zosima there must be a Grand Inquisitor. I'm not the author. I just play my small part in the greater game.
In Zola's novel, the hero, as it were, is a good man. He leads as well as he is able, and he compromises when he must, like any reasonable man. Passing the sense of what Zola wrote, my point is that the hero is just one more actor in a large play. I write to warn that no one person is the whole story. The wise man and the hero might think too much of their roles, and in the hubris come to grief.
This story is already written, and it's played innumerable times. We can't tell how it will turn out, not who will do this or that; but we can know that Humanness will triumph, and if we expect the worst of that we will not likely be disappointed. Someone will come from the wings and will bring down Hell on Earth. Anyone who thinks he or she or they can control the events of this play is altogether delusional. I'm writing here to suggest that those who think they control all events, or should, should instead come to terms with, in a harmonious interest, their Road Warriors. They won't, and such is the nature of the game. Souverine will come. I'm just sayin'. For the record.
12 comments:
I left a comment there, which I leave here as well:
There's a song in French that I barely recall, something along the lines of
"Everybody wants everyone to love them,
But nobody, nobody loves everyone.
Everybody wants to be Marilyn Monroe,
But nobody wants to be the audience."
Everybody wants to be the good guy, the one who does all the right things and who at the end of the day feels that he's a good person. Those are the ones who would say to others, don't do some bad thing, because if you do, then we too might look bad, and we are good, knowing so because we don't do the bad. Everyone wants to be a star, but no one wants to clean the toilets. There's little glamour or moral standing in the shitter. We all understand this. We all turn out heads and are thankful it's someone else's job to clean up after us, we being stars in our own moral universe. Who blames those who say, "Hush thyself, and say nothing when you see the toilet man."
Stars everywhere. A moral parade. Forget the clowns with shovels following behind them. Stars, a universe of stars. Everyone's a star. Well, except those few who are the cleaners. Spit. We wanna see moral Lady GaGa-s and be moral gaga-s too. Gaga stars each and every one. La la, ga ga.
Dag,
Are you trying to tell me we're caught up in a Bad Romance?
That would be without the kissing, right? Just shut up and shut up.
I have some problem with the approach some are taking that there is a pristine leadership who must not be sullied by the antics of the plebes, lest it reflect badly on our betters. I'm not keen on this attitudinising. I might write the occasional response, but I don't much care about the tsk, tsking and the frowns and the wagging fingers and the threats of expulsion from the circle of the well-behaved.
This is not high-school, no matter what mind-set some bring to the world from their day jobs. Those have to live with the world of autonomous adults, whether they like them or not. But that's not going to stop the patronising and scolding. Those who patronise and scold will always do so simply because they are wrapped up in their own issues and don't have the sense that they are just folks like anyone else.
It occurred to me to criticize Roland Shirk's article in the same manner. However, I agree with his worldview in principle.
I do not think the crowd looked hateful in the least, nor do they appear to be a bunch of brainwashed haters of "the Other."
Instead, this appears to me to be a group of people who do not accept what the Make-Believe Media tells them at face value, and instead do some research on their own, coming to their own conclusions, some of them bright, some average, and some maybe a little short on smarts, but willing to stand up for what they believe in, America's Democratic Republic and it's Constitution.
We need more people like these people to stand up for America in exactly this way.
These Muslims want to get away with looking oppressed.
Impossible.
They are Sharia-supporting Jihad-lovers. They are evil. And, they ought to Go Home; "home" being whatever Sharia shithole they choose to live in, whether it be Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, or the UAE.
Fuck them. They can not have their Sharia, with it's calls to murder apostates and gays, here in the United States.
Fuck 'em!!!
And for someone to say that that was "hate," when 97% of Egyptian women have had their genitals cut off, when millions of little girls are sold off into arranged marriages every year, when every week there is another mooslum terroist attack, I say fuck 'em!
I once had a mooslum tell me I was degrading myself for saying "fuck 'em" on another site. Funny that he didn't find his "religion" degrading. It is the epitomy of degrading.
I wonder, did Salon include the bit about the keynote speakers?
And the way that one bint walks through the crowd like she's so fucking brave! Yeah, easy to walk through an American crowd of protestors cause we're not going to kill you for it. They're disgusting, and they deserve more "hate" from us. In fact, I really hope the "hate" is just beginning! We have got to put our foot down, hard.
Fuck pisslam!
My complaint with the way things are developing among our own is that some seem to have acquired a proprietary attitude toward anti-jihad activities[ and this is coupled with what to me seems to be a school-marmish attitude toward those who stand outside the purview of the "masters" of this issue: that the "mature adults" must be obeyed and the "infantile" must behave according to the precepts and announcements of our betters. Hence, I witness, though I might be oversensitive to what I see as petty authoritarian personalities, petty authoritarian personalities demanding obedience and acceptable classroom behaviour.
For me, and long since past, school's out. This is the real world, and not some replay of _Father Knows Best_.
That some people are independent of the elite of the anti-jihad activities we all try to engage in is not sufficient reason to grant legitimacy to the outside opinions of such people. I like and admire and respect Robert Spencer, for example, but I wouldn't need him to tell me what more than what his expertise allows. When I'm watchin' my TV and a man comes on to tell me how white my shirts can be, well he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me, I don't even tune out: I have never tuned in. This is not one man's game that the rest of us have to play by one man's rules or be damned. And that applies to red-neck Christians who might embarrass the elite; it might embarrass the elite to see outsiders organise a demonstration in NYC. It might upset some to see individuals act in any number of ways that the elite can and will rightly see as offensive. It's neither here nor there what others, elite or no, feel, think, or say about any other person or group; and further, it is a sign of weakness to be bothered by the fear of stigma by association.
I hope the fair-minded reader won't assume that I am making any veiled negative reference to Spencer here. My point is that he is one of the better, and to my mind, the only worthwhile expert in this business, but that is where it begins and ends. I might have some high personal regard for Spencer, but I cannot allow that to affect my decisions regarding my efforts in this universal struggle against jihad and Left dhimmi fascism. This is not one man's profession, regardless of who, me, you, or anyone else. If Shirk doesn't like this or that group, his position as a writer at the mainpage is significant influence upon many a reader; but it is not enough to sway others. Shirk's opinions are worthy of consideration, as are those of any reasonable and intelligent man; and then one moves on independently. If Shirk, merely as an example, were to take offence at some variant of anti-jihad behaviour on the part of some others, he would be right and justified in complaining; and the rest of us would be equally right in shrugging off his complaints as his alone and not necessarily more, in spite of the prestige his opinions might receive due to his placement of them.
In other words, I listen, I read, I think, and I make up my own mind, as do others. Whether we agree or act in unison is of no interest to me. I can only assume that others will take as little interest in me and my doings as I do in theirs where we verge. I don't let Shirk's writings embarrass me; and I doubt Shirk is sleepless over mine. Regardless of the prattle, we are all our own people, like it or not.
Yep. And the more views and means that fight pisslam, the better.
Your comments bring to mind Ms. Geller, who I adore, telling people not to bring signs to the last demonstation for the GZ place of warship. She can say what she wants, but I am free to do what I want.
Fuck pisslam and mooslums who follow the rantings of a murdering, raping, pedophile.
I can understand that those who have some high status in the anti-jihad business won't appreciate interlopers and amateurs poking their dirty noses into the work of professionals. Who, really, would want to hold a demonstration and stand up and address the nation in front of the world's media only to find oneself facing a mob of supporters who are little better than, nay, who are, Trailer Trash? It's got to be embarrassing. The pros will want to be surrounded by beautiful people, if not those from Hollywood, at least those who carry officially designated signs. Or if that's too creepy, then no signs at all, lest the fools bring signs that are off message. We have to win hearts and minds, and thus we should all look our best and act politely and smile and put the good-looking folks in the front seats so the Left world will see how cool we are. It's a simple matter of reality. People want to identify with winners, not trailer trash and red-necks and people with stoopit placards.
But worse is the problem that there might be those who are those in the audience not just badly dressed. The worst is that there might be those who are, to put this gently, not nice people.
I'm relying on memory here, and the name that comes to mind is .
Étienne Lantier, in Zola's novel _Germinal_ is a local working class leader of a strike against the coal mine owners in late 19th century France. He's a "good guy." He has a casual relationship with a fat girl, which makes him look bad in the eyes of his comrades, so he dumps her and continues to pursue the real love of his life, Catherine, against his competitor, the nasty Chaval. But underneath all this, in the dark, as it were, lurks Souvarine. That's who the stars of this movement fear more than the ugly fat girls who show up in front of the cameras.
One might feel depressed that so many have shown up with their enthusiastic gap-toothed smiles and wearing blue slacks with brown shoes; but the terror is in in the sight of that Souverine on the side-lines.
Bellum omnium contra omnes.
All the best children dressed just so-- and there is that man. That is the real terror.
Dag,
You are much too highbrow for me! But to cast Pamella Geller as the leader of the beautiful people is one juxtaposition I can't imagine. I respect the work she's doing, but "Catherine," she ain't. In fact, I've seen trailer trash prettier than her on a Sunday morning after a Saturday night.
Other than that, you lost me in your literary alusion.
Trailer trash, elite congnoscenti, but especially Souvarine, ... if he's on my side, I say: "let's get 'em!"
I think I was being obscure, and unnecessarily so, in making my point by literary illustration. I have a fair familiarity with French Literature that most French would envy. But that wouldn't help any of us in making my point. Mea culpa.
My point is that there are those people in most movements, ours being one, who will at any given time occupy some position within a continuum, that being the same continuum regardless of the movement's points and purposes across all times. This is true whether we're discussing the tableau of characters in a labour struggle in the latter half of the nineteenth century in France or the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century among Christians hammering out canonical texts and precepts. When people get together to act as members of a movement, there are only so many roles one can find to assume. In fact, it often enough doesn't even matter what kind of person one is (or was) when the movement calls for a person to act in an unfilled role. A timid man can find himself transformed into a hero. The times make the man, at least in times of need.
My point basically is that this game, (meant in a benign sense,) is composed of numerous people who-- have to-- act out age-old scenes required of humanness in "movement" situations, almost like Commedia dell Arte: genius. clown, hero, warrior, traitor, lover, and so on. One of those roles is "Wise Man." It happens, regardless of my disgust, by the very nature of the game. The wise man must, is compelled by the nature of things to, pontificate and scold and banish and pout and so on. So, too, there must be the dark character who lurks in the wings, seldom seen, but known as a character from whom one must expect some unexpected serious turn of events that will shock and probably harm. It is that character that Souverine plays in Zola's novel. In every drama of this movement sort there is the sinister figure lurking. It cannot be otherwise. The Human Comedy has its demands. For Father Zosima there must be a Grand Inquisitor. I'm not the author. I just play my small part in the greater game.
In Zola's novel, the hero, as it were, is a good man. He leads as well as he is able, and he compromises when he must, like any reasonable man. Passing the sense of what Zola wrote, my point is that the hero is just one more actor in a large play. I write to warn that no one person is the whole story. The wise man and the hero might think too much of their roles, and in the hubris come to grief.
This story is already written, and it's played innumerable times. We can't tell how it will turn out, not who will do this or that; but we can know that Humanness will triumph, and if we expect the worst of that we will not likely be disappointed. Someone will come from the wings and will bring down Hell on Earth. Anyone who thinks he or she or they can control the events of this play is altogether delusional. I'm writing here to suggest that those who think they control all events, or should, should instead come to terms with, in a harmonious interest, their Road Warriors. They won't, and such is the nature of the game. Souverine will come. I'm just sayin'. For the record.
Dag,
I think your point can be neatly summarized by saying,
You want to be a leader of the people? Then lead the people, not some idealized version of the people.
Damn.
Post a Comment