The Jacobin impulse

By Lorenzo

What makes the decent Left decent is not that it is Left, but what it shares with decent folk who are not of the Left. Failure to grasp that leaves one claiming that any person of the Left is morally and intellectually superior to any person of the “Right”: so Pol Pot is morally and intellectually superior to, say, Winston Churchill–which is repellent nonsense.

The problem with folk such as Pol Pot, Mao ZedongJoseph StalinKim il Sung and their ilk is not that they are not of the Left–for any such claim is nonsense on stilts–but that they are too intensively Left. That is, they partake of things which make the Left, Left but do so in unrestrained ways. They are, for example, not less committed to the ideal of material equality than other members of the Left, but more so. (No matter how profoundly self-defeating any commitment to as complete as possible material equality through state action is.) They are not less committed to the notion that the Left is where one finds moral purity and social-political understanding, but more so. They are not less committed to doing what it takes to achieve the goals of the Left, but more so.

Men of the Left.

Of course, admitting that the problem with such folk is that they are too intensively Left can be very uncongenial, for it says that not only is being of the Left not an automatic ticked to moral and intellectual superiority but that there are potentially deeply problematic things within what makes being Left, Left. That much of the appeal of being Left is a sense of moral and intellectual virtue is fairly obvious–the tendency to personal abuse in response to critiques of the Left, the insistence that one cannot critique the Left unless one makes it clear “the Right” is worse, etc are pretty good markers that a sense of superior identity is being affronted in critiques of the Left. (And the greater the fear that there is something to the critique, the more resort to exorcising emotion in response.)

It does not help that Left-and-Right is a problematic dichotomy. There is, in a (very broad) sense, the Left, because an overt commitment to equality (albeit variously conceived and to varying degrees of intensity) is a unifying value of the Left. There is no such unifying value on “the” Right, which includes folk who emphasise very different values, conceptions of people and politics. No amount of narrowing intensification of the politics of, say, Milton Friedman will get you to the politics of Adolf Hitler.

Where the Left goes seriously wrong is when it gives into the Jacobin impulse. The terms “Left” and “Right” arose in the French Revolution, that transforming accident of history, which also gave us the original Jacobins and set in motion the Jacobin impulse.

Make something worse — add Robespierre
The Jacobin impulse is to take the moral purpose and social understanding of one’s project to be so complete and all-encompassing, that no divergence from it is to be permitted and no restraint in action needs to be entertained. It is total politics–both in the ambit of its social reach and the means it is willing to employ. Adding the Jacobin impulse to any political project makes it (much) worse.

Robespierre — showed folk the make-it-much-worse way.

Thus, adding the Jacobin impulse to nationalism gives us Fascism. Adding the Jacobin impulse to Aryan racism gives us Nazism. And adding the Jacobin impulse to socialism gives us Leninism and its cognates. (As Lenin himself explained.)

The Jacobin impulse arose out of the very origins of the Left and is the most tempting to folk of the Left. Merely adding in the Jacobin impulse does not, however, make one of the Left–attempts to claim that Fascism and Nazism are “really” Left-wing movements are too tedious for words. Both movements may have appropriated their approach to the ambit and actions of politics from the Left, but their projects were not projects of the Left. There were (and are) left-nationalism and left-racism, but both nationalism and racism had long since escaped into very non-Left forms by the time Mussolini and Hitler were adapting Lenin’s political methods to their particular political projects.

Thus the realities of the Great War convinced Mussolini that the collectivism of nation was more powerful than the collectivism of class. But that moved him from the hard Left to the “third way” of Fascism, turning Mussolini-the-socialist into Mussolini-the-creator-of-Fascism.

The editor of Avanti, man of the Left. (Later, not so much.)

Nevertheless, the notion that one’s moral and political understanding is so correct, one’s goals so virtuous, and what has been created by the past so flawed, that any means can be employed to pursue them; that there is no nook or cranny of social life that should not be subject to the liberating project’s transforming touch; that is a temptation that speaks most naturally and most profoundly to people on the Left. Which is why the Jacobin impulse arose out of the origins of the Left.

But the Jacobin impulse makes any project it is added to worse, because no one has anything seriously approaching that complete a level of moral purity and social understanding. Nor is any project, or its practitioners, immune to the corruptions of power–so to seek total power is to end up totally corrupt. While to commit to unrestrained means is to commit to unrestrained evil, as the core of morality is restraint in one’s actions towards others.

Hence the Jacobin impulse is to be fought in all its forms. Even the petulant and petty Jacobinism of the US campus dis-invitation tendency. What is specifically wrong with such dis-invitations I will leave to Prof. Stephen Carter of Yale University to say much more humorously and effectively than I can.

30 Comments

  1. Posted May 22, 2014 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Heh, a neologism you may enjoy: Prumbots – Professional Umbrage & Offense takers.

    Coined today in this blog post re: Jo-Ann Miller “concentration camp” scandal.

  2. Posted May 22, 2014 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Oh, my dear poor old Lorenzo …

    I’ve been reading lately about Luther’s youthful tolerant, enlightened and empathetic attitudes towards Jews and his at first slow then rapid slide into rabid race-baiting anti-semitism as the Grim Reaper drew closer. You’re clearly going through exactly the same geriatric process right now with respect to your rather silly left-baiting. Your last two posts have clearly been written in the same spirit as Luther’s notoriously senile text On The Jews And Their Lies.

    Obviously if it wasn’t for your fondness for other men’s bottoms, you’d join the legion of rheumy old white men who piss as far as their dodgy prostates will permit at Australia’s leading centre-right urinal, Catallaxy.

    There is no simple essence of the Left nor is there any simple essence of the Right. A moderate social democrat and a moderate classical liberal share far more in common, such as a respect for democracy, the rule of law, commitment to a mixed economy and at least some common ground with respect to individual freedoms than those who we categorise as extreme Left and extreme Right. This may be boring but it is also a self-evident truth.

    But apart from that I agree with everything you’ve said 😉

  3. kvd
    Posted May 23, 2014 at 4:26 am | Permalink

    Isn’t it all just tribalism – be it politics or sport or art or anything, really – mixed with today’s increased availability of a public soapbox? Lorenzo and Mel both seem to see an ‘agreeable middle’ but decry the extremities. If I am reading them correctly, then I agree with that.

    I can’t see much difference in the complete belief of “rightness” exhibited by warriors such as Glen Beck or supporters of Collingwood, or various feminist commentators, or proponents of DOMA or anti-abortionists or Edward Snowdon.

    But – as Bob Ellis is wont to say after some outrageous claim or other – perhaps you disagree 🙂

  4. HetroJim
    Posted May 23, 2014 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    to claim that Fascism and Nazism are “really” Left-wing movements are too tedious for words.

    Lorenzo, how does one move to the right on the political spectrum finally ending up with fascism and nazism? The more right you paddle the more one moves towards libertarianism and finally anarchy.

    Nazism and fascism are part of the left. To suggest it’s tedious suggesting this, is laughable.

  5. Scand
    Posted May 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    “I denounce the assassins of the people to you and you respond, ‘let them act as they will.’ In such a system, all is against society; all favors the grain merchants.”

    “the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people’s enemies by terror.”

    Maximilien de Robespierre (a Jacobin)

    Clearly, not a fan of capitalism though a big fan of interventionism and the guillotine. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. Where all socialists have since ended up intellectually be they Communists, Fascists, Communitarians or Social Democrats.

  6. Herding cats
    Posted May 25, 2014 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Confucus say : eagle with one weak wing fly in circles.

    Nah,he didn’t – just made that up. interesting concept though.

  7. Ross
    Posted May 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    This left/right artificial argument is utter nonsense designed to keep the masses in conflict while the elites make a fortune.

    When private central banks can create money from nothing to equal growth + inflation, we are their debt slaves and nothing will change.

  8. HetroJim
    Posted May 27, 2014 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Define what you mean by effective governance and avoid the cheap verbal tricks like in your past two comments.

    America has a weaker Federal system than Australia. I fail to see why you’re confusingly bringing in foreign policy and overseas entanglements into the discussion.

    Limited Liability may have started off being a privileged structure, but it isn’t now. The only persons not allowed to own a company are people with specific criminal records, otherwise it’s open slather.

    Let me repeat that limited liability is a mechanism whereby people can only lose what they own as the capital in an entity. Privilege has nothing to do with it, you whacko.

    People can choose not to deal with a limited liability entity. Furthermore the name of the entity must state its limited liability.

    You don’t seem to have much of an understanding of modern business practices, otherwise you wouldn’t be spouting errant nonsense on a screen.

    This sounds like Hayekian junk.

    You sound like a whackjob.

  9. Posted May 27, 2014 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Hetro Jim,

    since you lack even the rudimentary level of intelligence needed to reply to a comment on the correct thread, continuing our discussion would be unfructuous. Kisses and hugs.

  10. HetroJim
    Posted May 27, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I can’t understand why this opinion board allows a whacko to post here. Anyone who puts forward the argument that ltd liability is some great privilege is a whacko who doesn’t deserve to comment.

  11. Posted May 27, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    A quick google search brings up thousands of papers and articles written by economists and economic historians that describe limited liability as a privilege. Even the most cursory examination of the historical arguments for and against limited liability acknowledge the privilege.

    Even the Economist, which opposed limited liability during those grand debates in the mid 1980s, recognises the privilege in various articles such as this.

    The Oxford dictionary defines privilege as:

    a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

    As limited liability is an immunity available only to a particular group- the LLC, it is obviously a privilege.

  12. Posted May 27, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Oops. Should be:

    Even the Economist, which opposed limited liability during those grand debates in the mid 1800s not 1980s.

  13. kvd
    Posted May 27, 2014 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Just to confuse the issue, I think this Cato article is worth a read, for anyone who thinks the issues are black and white simplistic.

  14. Posted May 27, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] Your neologism has some merit. As to the linked post, if Ms Miller had had the historical literacy to note that concentration camps were originally designed by the British as part of their anti-Boer strategy (something the Nazis were deliberately alluding to in their own labelling) she might have scored some points.

    [email protected] There does not seem to be any actual content to your comment, apart from some venting. Regarding your historical allusion to Luther’s Jew-hatred, it followed the same pattern as Mohammed’s–both told the Jews they had found the “completion” of their religion and both went off the deep end when the Jews declined to agree.

    [email protected] Overblown certainty does, indeed, have no specific ideological affinities.

    [email protected] Your comment implies a single political axis. My point was that such does not exist: even less on “the Right” than it does on the Left, since there is no linking political principle that unites “the Right”.

    [email protected] Actually, plenty of socialists have not ended up in any such place.

    [email protected] Well, there is a reason democracies wonder back and forth from centre-left to centre-right. They both have their virtues and vices.

    [email protected] (1) There are no private central banks left. (The Federal Reserve is a bit private-tinged, but that is the most you can say.) (2) You may not have noticed, but the Australian economy has ticked along nicely, largely because the central bank has mostly got monetary policy right. (3) Lots of folk that the left/right distinction very seriously: suggests there might be something to it.

    [email protected] Wrong thread.

    [email protected] We allow you to post here.

    [email protected] Roderick Long is too Rothbardian for my tastes, but some of his points are well taken.

  15. HetroJim
    Posted May 28, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    As limited liability is an immunity available only to a particular group- the LLC, it is obviously a privilege.

    You appear to have great difficulty with comprehension as well as having a problem understanding what you argue,

    My last comment described LL as not being a great privilege in the modern era. There is no reason to bring up any historical context of LL because it’s irrelevant. It may be interesting to read debates of the 1880’s about LL, but it has nothing to do with our discussion.

    I raised the issue of LL is because you tried to argue earlier LL carries some great privilege to present day users. As this is available to almost anyone in this country you’re acting like a dog barking at its own reflection. There’s nothing there! You initial argument is specious and ought to stop now before you’re shown to be an even bigger buffoon.

    [email protected] Your comment implies a single political axis. My point was that such does not exist: even less on “the Right” than it does on the Left, since there is no linking political principle that unites “the Right”.

    I don’t understand why you’re making this irrelevant comment. You that when people (accurately) suggest that fascism and Nazism belong on the left you find it ‘tedious’.There are numerous points of agreement between the left spectrum and the two isms. I hope I don’t have to list some of them for you.

    Stop attributing something I didn’t say. I never “implied” anything about a “political axis”. I used the term spectrum. You even argued that one cannot in anyway stretch Milton Friedman’s beliefs and turn them into any of the isms (including communism). Friedman is to the far right of the spectrum being mainstream libertarian.

    Hitler and Mussolini were from the Left. Anyone suggesting otherwise is being more than tedious. They are being wilfully silly or dishonest.

  16. Posted May 28, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    HJ:

    Your lack of honesty, education and intelligence makes you an unworthy opponent. Why are you wasting our time?

  17. HetroJim
    Posted May 29, 2014 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I was expecting exactly that type of response. No substance, just abuse.

    What you need to do now is face up to the fact that all the bluster you raised about LL was errant nonsense and admit wrong.

  18. Posted June 1, 2014 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] Take a reactionary throne-and-altar monarchist (say de Maistre), a prudential Whig (Burke), a moderate libertarian (Milton Friedman), a conservative Christian evangelist (say Rick Santorum): try and find what links them apart from being “not Left”.

    Spectrum and axis are not notably different concepts in this context.

    Hitler was never part of the Left. He started out as a political agent of the Reichswehr, then became involved in a political Party funded by the Thule Society and constantly worked right wing networks and connections.

    Yes, violent collectivisms have things in common. Yes, Hitler adopted Lenin’s techniques and operational approach to politics. (Hence his apparent belief that ex-communists made good Nazis.) But his project was never part of the Left in any serious sense. It was too explicitly anti-democratic, inegalitarian and openly atavistic.

    Both he and Mussolini used “third way” rhetoric: both to distinguish themselves from the Left but also to try and poach some of its support.

  19. Posted June 2, 2014 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    HJ @17:

    Oh you brain-dead moron. Hundreds of scholarly paper abstracts available at your fingertips via Google discuss the privilege of limited liability. See for example From Privilege to Right: Themes in the Emergence of Limited Liability.

    Your inferior intellect is the problem here.

  20. HetroJim
    Posted June 3, 2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    “Mel”

    Your link is historical research and doesn’t say what you think it does with respect present day LL. As I’ve mentioned before, the history of LL maybe interesting but irrelevant. Let’s hope it sinks in this time but I’m not holding my breath.

    You need to calm down and increase the lithium dosage.

    L

    The present day leftwing has a great deal in common with fascism. Collectivist ideologies share the same DNA.

    Santorum and Friedman would share some ideas in the same way the ALP and the far left greens share ideas.

  21. Posted June 4, 2014 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    HJ,

    Stop spanking the monkey. Even the Economist recognises LL is a privilege:

    Incorporation with limited liability is a privilege. It should not include anonymity

    Lorenzo, could you set your boy straight on this?

    HJ, you moron, conservatism is the major grouping on the right wing of politics with the libertarians and classical liberals being much smaller.

    Conservatism very easily morphs into despotism. This article today details a Catholic death camp in Ireland where thousands of children were abused and starved and at least 800 of them were simply dumped in a septic tank after they died. This is a crime of the Right, not the Left.

    In Germany all the politicians on the right, including the classical liberals, conservatives and the Catholics voted for the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. Only the Social Democrats opposed it.

    In Australia it was the Liberal-National Coalition that used the race power in the Constitution to impose the Intervention on indigenous Australians.

  22. HetroJim
    Posted June 5, 2014 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    HJ,

    Stop spanking the monkey. Even the Economist recognises LL is a privilege:

    So now you’re changing the goal posts, whacko.The previous link didn’t say what you thought it did and undaunted you’re now presenting me with another call to authority- This time, the Economist.

    You have been describing LL as some great privilege that is some way creates an unlevel playing field, but it’s been explained to you it’s not as great a privilege as you seem to believe because creating these entities isn’t costly. It also affords people the ability to limit the amount of money they wish to risk on any venture. As people understand the risks involved dealing with an LL you were over dramatizing this privilege.

    Conservatism very easily morphs into despotism.

    Oh yes, for sure. Classic liberals, libertarians and Christian Democrats have killed on a massive scale riveling leftist luminaries such as Lenin, Mao and Stalin.

    This article today details a Catholic death camp in Ireland where thousands of children were abused and starved and at least 800 of them were simply dumped in a septic tank after they died. This is a crime of the Right, not the Left.

    So you know the political persuasion of those who committed these atrocities? You know how they voted and who they supported?

    Also, I’m not sure which story, you’re referring to. Is it this one?

    Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals
    The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html

    Someone like you, I’m sure, would think at least the babies were carbon neutral and an excellent fuel source.

    In Germany all the politicians on the right, including the classical liberals, conservatives and the Catholics voted for the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. Only the Social Democrats opposed it.

    More fools they. As for the Social Democrats opposing the Nazis, no one has ever heard of leftist parties hating each other intensely. It would be a novel experience. Sarc.

    In Australia it was the Liberal-National Coalition that used the race power in the Constitution to impose the Intervention on indigenous Australians.

    The Coalition has meddling centre left tendencies?Of course they don’t. Who would believe such a thing. Sarc.

    Nazis and Fascist are leftists. It doesn’t mean much you find them much more odious than their communist brothers. Different rooms of the same house.

    Now go take your pills. You’re not even a 1/10 as smart as you believe, you abusive lithium addict.

  23. Posted June 6, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Wow, Homo Jim, you really are the human equivalent of dog shit on the footpath, being both dumb and smelly.

    Limited liability is a privilege granted by the State.

    The right side of politics includes conservatives who can be “statists” and despots with a Jacobin impulse.

    The right side of politics is at its best when it has some group to demonise and hate- single mums, scientists, the disabled, the Jews, the unemployed etc…

    That is all.

  24. HetroJim
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    The lithium isn’t working?

    Wow, Homo Jim, you really are the human equivalent of dog shit on the footpath, being both dumb and smelly.

    No one could be as bad as you, Lithium addict.

    Let’s summarize:

    You’ve confused the importance of this so-called privilege by being unable to contextualize LL in history to present day activities.

    You offer totally inappropriate links that are irrelevant present day.

    You’ve decided to compound your buffoonery by now wanting to discuss where fascism lies on the political spectrum. What a clown.

    Limited liability is a privilege granted by the State.

    Yes it is, but so what? If a person isn’t a criminal and of sound mind he or she is easily able to protection through LL for as little as a few hundred dollars. This is hardly a privilege you were making a song and dance over you goat.

    LL privilege is generally open to all. The reason you’re doing a song and dance routine about this is that you’ve been caught out making ludicrous statements.

    The right side of politics includes conservatives who can be “statists” and despots with a Jacobin impulse.

    Then they are longer conservatives, as Jocobins are clearly leftist in ideology. Hilter was rightwing? Certainly seems that way. as he said so himself:

    We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

    (Speech of May 1, 1927.)

    Yep, it sure seems that way. He loved economic laize faire. He couldn’t spend a second of his time without thinking about which regulations to eliminate next.

    The right side of politics is at its best when it has some group to demonise and hate- single mums, scientists, the disabled, the Jews, the unemployed etc…

    Hate single mums? Why would they? I think you’re confusing emotions and feelings. It’s pretty hard to hate someone if you don’t know her. You’re confusing disliking the idea that our wallets are being rifled to help support someone’s bastard spawn.

    Scientists? Why hate scientists? Perhaps you’re referring to Greenpeace attacking the CSIRO’s experimental crops a couple of years ago.

    Jews?

    The BDS program and banning Israeli academics from Western universities has been a rightwing plot has it?

    Unemployed?

    It’s not hard to find a job. You seem to be hanging around blogs all day, looking to pick fights. You ought to try and find work, although I very much doubt anyone would employ you.

  25. kvd
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    [email protected] you have misunderstood the perfectly mild, perfectly stated, very simple comment Mel made about ‘privilege’ as it applies to limited liability companies.

    “Let’s summarize”.

    No, let’s not. Let’s instead just drop it.

  26. HetroJim
    Posted June 10, 2014 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    KVD

    Take an afternoon nap. “Mel” has been doing a song and dance routine suggesting LL is the greatest privilege since royals had the right to bed any woman of their choice.

    When the uneducated lithium addict was shown present day LL isn’ much of a privilege he meandered into irrelevancy by dredging up the history of LL and linking to irrelevant articles and research.

    I didn’t make an error at all as I’ve never doubted it’s a small privilege. What I’ve been saying is that it’s no great shakes. Something you even agreed with.

    This was the comment from the lithium addict which started it all?

    Note how the climate change denial crowd manage to pass on their costs to the taxpayer using the limited liability company structure, which must surely be the mother of all legally enshrined symbols of privilege and entitlement.

    KVD, at least try not to compete with “Mel” for the award of being the dullest person at this comment site.

  27. kvd
    Posted June 11, 2014 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    HJ you seem fixated upon the ability to incorporate; this is not the ‘privilege’ being referred to in this discussion.

    For instance, take the time to search out for yourself the extent of corporate collapses just in the building industry. Here’s a small sample from the NSW Collins Enquiry notes:

    “Kell and Rigby Ceases Trading – Reports” (9 February 2012) on the website of the Herald Sun
    ; Bridget Carter, “St. Hillier’s Construction Arm Fails to Secure $150 m, Goes into Administration”
    (16 May 2012) on the website of The Australian; “Thousands of Jobs at Risk as Hastie Goes Under”
    (29 May 2012) on the website of the ABC; Reed
    Constructions. Media Release. 18 June 2012; Simon Johanson,“Building Firm in $230m Collapse” (26 October 2012) on the website of the
    Sydney Morning Herald;

    In my own geographic area I could note four or five not insignificant home construction companies which have gone into receivership in the past ten years, leaving many subbies holding the can for work completed, but all unsecured.

    Now, not all the creditors of those firms would have been unincorporated subcontractors, and who knows how many of those themselves were thereby forced into bankruptcy? The point is that your assertion that these days anybody can incorporate, so “it’s no great shakes” completely ignores the significant continuing ‘privilege’ attaching to incorporation.

    Anyway, ’nuff said. I agree with Mel, and I sense it is a waste of time pursuing the matter any further.

  28. HetroJim
    Posted June 11, 2014 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    KVD

    You’re agreeing with lithium addict when you earlier agreed with me? How gay.

    Listen carefully, people are aware or should be aware they are dealing with LL entities. So they are taking a risk and life isn’t riskless.
    And you’re agreeing with what LA referred to as the “mother” of all privileges?

    Lastly you brought up a couple of corporate failures which is absurd anecdotal evidence.

    Now go take a nap.

  29. kvd
    Posted June 11, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Oh dear.

    HJ if you are incapable of holding in your head two seemingly contradictory comments – (i) that llcs were/are good developments for the harnessing of capital; (ii) that they can be abused – then I can’t help you any further.

    To illustrate, I invited you to check out the stats for corporate failures in just one industry. You have chosen not to, so I can’t help you any further.

    “How gay”: what that even mean? I just accept that there are many facets to any discussion – and I lose nothing by maintaining an open mind; by accepting validity where I see it; by rejecting nonsense when I encounter it. If you can’t see that, then again, I can’t help you.

    And I sense a pattern emerging 🙂

  30. HetroJim
    Posted June 12, 2014 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    KVD

    You’ve misunderstood the meaning of contradictory, as it doesn’t mean what you think it does. There is nothing illogical/ contradictory in holding both views. Furthermore you also don’t seem to understand the discussion that’s taken place.

    Let me repeat, perhaps for the 20th time, all this back and forth grew legs when Lithium Addict made the ridiculous assertion LL is the “mother” of all privileges. At one time, early on, you agreed this is a silly assertion, but now you’ve gone into reverse gear and support LA.

    It just isn’t the mother of all privileges in the present day.

    You’re quite correct that I didn’t review your links, as there was no need to. It would have been redundant and a waste of time, seeing it’s obvious there are numerous corporate failures, just as there are personal bankruptcies.

    I’d really like you to explain why you first agreed with me, but subsequently decided to share the lithium with LA and siding as well as with him that LL is the “mother” if all privileges.

    You don’t appear to be open minded. You come across is an unstable fool who requires late morning and afternoon naps.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*