Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00105)

Bill Meredith wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Theo Paijmans" <th.paijmans@wxs.nl>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: What Is Happening In America?
>
> > Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> >
> > > leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> > > > What Is Happening In America? By Eliot Weinberger
> > >
> > > Translation by Bart Lidofsky
> >
> > "What Bart Lidofsky actually knew but was afraid to consider"
> > an essay in doublespeak by Theo Paijmans
>
> What Theo should have known but was afraid to find out.

What Bill hoped for but knew wasn't quite true

> > > > This article, one of the best short analyses of the Bush
> > > > administration's policies, was first published by "Vorwarts," Germany
> > >
> > > Translation: He published it in a country that is working very hard to
> > > undermine America's influence.
> >
> > What Bart actually is saying: contrary to democracy, you will not
> criticise America
> > in any way. Hermann Goering's words spring to mind: 'who is not for us, is
> against
> > us.'
>
> What Theo is saying here is that one should criticize America with or
> without a sound rational basis. America is the great evil and as such no
> criticism can be unfounded or untrue.

What Bill here is saying that even if criticism has a basis in sound
rationality, one should not - nor ever - criticize America, thus putting out of
order one of the basic tenets that made America great in the first place:
freedom of speech. By alleging that Theo must loathe America (where Theo
deifinitely does not) and caricaturising Theo's viewpoint (changing it from
Theo's "no democratic nation on earth should be above criticism of its
democratic citizens" to "America surely is evil and any criticism no matter how
absurd, is legitimate", an unfounded conclusion since of course, it cannot be
found in Theo's writing.

> > > > exceptions have been Thatcher and Reagan, but even their programs of
> > > > dismantling systems of social welfare seem, in retrospect, mild
> > > > compared to what is happening in the United States under George
> > > > Bush-- or more exactly, the ruling junta that tells Bush what to do
> > > > and say.
> > >
> > > Translation: I don't like the results of the last election.
> >
> > There were no results of that election enforced, else Gore would have been
> in the
> > WHite House. The election clearly was a simple coup d'etat. That Bush
> clearly is
> > steered by those behind the screens, is a logical conclusion of the way
> the power
> > structure in America is conctructed.
>
> All the lawful results of the election were enforced. If not, why are the
> democrats not pursuing the matter legally? Or illegally for that matter? In
> this country the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of disagreement. Had
> the Supreme Court installed Gore in the White House, Theo would be singing a
> different tune no doubt.

While Bill begins strongly by raising a valid point, on closer examination Bill
here presents a paradoxical statement, used to confuse the issue and cloud the
readers judgment. For in effect the suspension of the proper democratic,
electoral processes teleported Bush in the White House. Citing the lack of
response of those processes - since they were suspended - and their aftermath as
a sure sign of legitimacy of the Bush procedure is, by reasoning, paradoxal.

> > > > It is unquestionably the most radical government in modern American
> > > > history, one whose ideology and actions have become so pervasive, and
> > > > are so unquestionably mirrored by the mass media here, that the
> > > > population seems to have forgotten what "normal" is.
> > >
> > > Translation: I don't agree with his policies.
> >
> > Meaning: here we skirt the issue by cleverly avoiding discussion over
> content and
> > focussing on form. Note: Bart offers no rebuttal of the claims of the
> author.
>
> The author offered no evidence to support his absurd claims. Why should
> Bart be the only one required to offer evidence? Can one say willy-nilly
> whatever one is pleased to hear without any evidence? Yes they can. Theo
> is doing just that.

Here Bill too injects the "two wrongs make a right" axiom, legitimising Bart's
lack of evidence since the author offered no evidence as well. In civilised
jurisprudence a person is innocent, the proof rests with the accusing party.
Theo's text is an analysis and not a claim; hence no evidence is needed, other
than that found in the analysis.

> > > > Church and State George Bush is the first unelected President of the
> > > > United States, installed by a right-wing Supreme Court in a kind of
> > > > judicial coup d'etat.
> > >
> > > Translation: I am so far to the left that I even consider the three
> > > liberal members of the Supreme Court to be right wing (all the
> > > conservatives, all the moderates, and one of the liberals voted in
> > > Bush's favor). Also, I disagree with the founding fathers, and believe
> > > that the electoral college should not be valid.
> >
> > Bart's 'Translation' in this case means 'interpretation', with the effect
> in mind to
> > discredit the writer and issue some good ol' propaganda. Obviously one
> cannot find a
> > single reference in this part of the author's article about his political
> beliefs
> > ('so far to the left'), his ideas on the founding fathers or the electoral
> college,
> > because they are not there. It recalls one of Stalin's show trials with
> mocked up
> > charges.
>
> This article is completely about the author's political beliefs. So is
> Bart's response. and HELLO, so are Theo's and mine as well. The
> difference, I contend, is that Bart and I know this and Theo and the
> original author do not.

Here Bill uses the tried and tested tactic of humiliating his opponent by
calling him "stupid".

> > > > He is the first to actively subvert one of the pillars of American
> > > > democracy: the separation of church and state. There are now daily
> > > > prayer meetings and Bible study groups in every branch of the
> > > > government, and religious organizations are being given funds to take
> > > > over educational and welfare programs that have always been the
> > > > domain of the state.
> > >
> > > Translation: I love to tell half-truths and out-and-out lies if
> it fits
> > > my agenda.
> >
> > Again the same tactics: Bart's 'Translation' is in reality a crude form of
> > propaganda and the discrediting of the use of free speech: noewhere does
> Bart offer
> > any proof as to his allegations that the author is lying, that the author
> is telling
> > half truth, that the author has a hidden agenda. In jurisprudence this
> tactic is
> > called 'slander'.
>
> The author offers no evidence (much less proof) that his statements are
> anything more than his own personal political beliefs. Beliefs are like
> assholes: Everybody has at least one. To pretend that what you believe is
> somehow Truth is the great illusion.

Here Bill in effect states that it is okay to slander a person if one does not
agree with his political beliefs.

> > > > Bush is the first president to invoke the specific "Jesus Christ"
> > > > rather than an ecumenical "God," and he has surrounded himself with
> > > > evangelical Christians, including his Attorney General, who attends a
> > > > church where he talks in tongues.
> > >
> > > Translation: I disagree with the U.S. Constitution, and believe
> there
> > > SHOULD be a religious test for serving public office. Just make sure
> > > it's MY version of religion.
> >
> > Again Bart repeats the by now worn method of demonising the author, with
> whom he
> > clearly disagrees. That again, he offers no evidence to actually
> demonstrate that
> > his 'translation' is in fact a correct *interpretation*, only unveils his
> method
> > even more.
>
> Again, Theo offers no evidence to corroborate the evidence offered by the
> original author. No wait. There was no original evidence - only belief.

Here Bill again states that it is alright to slander a person and accuse him of
all kinds of things, if one does not agree with his belief system.

> I could go on if I had time, but the point should be clear by now to all but
> the most obstinate critics.

Here Bill rallies for support with the crude tactic of in effect saying:
"listen, if you don't see it my way, you are not the smart thinking, sharp
critical person that I thought you are, but dumb and blind. I lend you my
respect, if you agree that I am right.

>
> Bill
>

Theo