Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00101)

----- 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.

>
> > > 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.



>
> > > 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.

>
> > > 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.




>
> > > 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.



>
> > > 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.

>
> > > 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.

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



Bill