CNews 20December09

Leah is teh cute.

  — jgm () (URL) - 21 December '09 - 15:08

You are teh correct.



BTW: Notice that air of near-sanity about PB? I personally attribute it to the complete and utter absence of teh bat-shit crazy.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 21 December '09 - 18:58

Here maybe, but none of us knows what goes on in your fancy bathrooms!

  — jgm () (URL) - 22 December '09 - 14:33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHn7Twt8w8

Watson vs. Churchill

  — topte - 26 December '09 - 21:07

Watson vs. Churchill? Or is it Churchill vs. Watson? Anyway, it seems to be one fake Indian castigating another over the need for truth and honesty. There is such a bizarre quality to the whole thing as to be undeniable.

Bear Clan? Riiiight.

  — Fred - 27 December '09 - 12:43

Watson and Churchill are both fake Indians and extremist nutjobs. The difference between them is that Watson possesses physical courage and puts his balls on the line out on the ocean. Churchill is all mouth.

  — Noj - 27 December '09 - 15:08

The Modern Language Association's assembly was unable to vote on their support for Ward Churchill due to lack of a quorum. It seems that less than the required 80 members needed to comprise a quorum for the transaction of business remained in the room when the matter finally came up for a vote. It seems that something like six hours of hot air was expended on various topics at the MLA. Of course we all know that Chief Lies-A-Lot and his defenders are gas-bags and intellectual light-weights. I don't know if the lack of a quorum for the pro-Churchill vote indicates that some semblance of intellectual content may be taking hold among MLA members, or their butts got numb from the chairs in the convention hotel. My personal surmise would be the latter.

  — Orson Buggeigh - 30 December '09 - 11:08

The meeting was five hours old by the time they got to Chutchology, so yeah, sorebuttitis was probably a factor. They considered a non-binding vote in the absence of the quorum, but they couldn't even raise a pro-Chutch consensus from the sixty-odd Iron Tushes left in the hall.

  — Noj - 30 December '09 - 14:49

No question. What a bunch of freaks.

  — jgm () (URL) - 30 December '09 - 14:51

That last comment of mine was to OB, of course.

  — jgm () (URL) - 30 December '09 - 14:54

Noj: I bring you greeting from your [alleged] evil twin brother (me). I don't want to dispute you, must less to seem to defend Wart, but you have called him an "extremist," but since he hides his true politics, calling him an extremist needs more substantiation, unless you refer to his buddies over at Soldier of Fortune, his anti-semite buddy Dave "Hillbilly" Hill, maybe his late-friend ultra-Zionist friend, Mr. Rosen, the one who belonged to Magen Yehuda, the affiliate of the JDL. Wart keeps some strange company, but if you call him extremist because of what he says or writes, that implies he means what he says, i.e., that he is honest about his views. Wart is honest about anything!?! Since you doubt his physical courage, please note that 2 pages of his military record indicate a Viet Service Medal w/2 Bronze Stars and a Republic of Vietnam Cross w/unit citation. Since those pages were obtained via the FOIA, they are about the only pieces of paper on Wart that he has not phonied up. Of course when he has a target in the sites hundreds of yards away, I am not sure how much courage than takes, and since he is a bully who uses proxies to do his dirty work, uses letters and phones calls to make his threats, but has never lifted a hand against anyone but women, maybe you're right - he's a coward. But "nutjob"? Naw, he is not delusional, so maybe a better word is "warped," twisted," "stunted," or "pathological." Sources in his home town tells tales about him and his pappy, so maybe that is why he never talks about his pappy, 'cept 'bout his mammy, auntie, and grammy, and if the details were known 'bout Wart's treatment by his pappy, we'd have an explanation for the pathology. You are right, though, his is all mouth.

  — Ernesto Vigil (URL) - 01 January '10 - 20:03

Quit arguing with yourself, Noj. But "warped," "twisted," "stunted" (and stented) etc., work for me.

  — jgm () (URL) - 02 January '10 - 15:08

Wait, why do you get to be the evil twin? I thought I was the evil one. Anyway, interesting points. Laird Wilcox defines political "extremism" not as an ideology, but as a style. It involves ad hominem, paranoia, conspiracy theories, and the like.





I haven't heard the Elmwood papy stories, but I have long though that Wardo probably has serious daddy issues. He seems to be engaged in a lifelong adolescent rebellion against authority. He's sublimated his patricidal urges onto Uncle Sam. I suspect it has something to do with the way he found out as a teenager that he was adopted, and that this is behind the Indian imposture.

  — Noj - 03 January '10 - 15:01

Here's Laird Wilcox on extremists:

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

Wilcox is not the final word on the subject, but if you buy his definition of extremism, then Churchill could well be his poster boy.

  — Noj - 03 January '10 - 16:37

Interesting stuff, Noj. A couple of Wilcox's points seem a bit thin, but overall, I think he paints a pretty good picture of extremists, and one that certainly resonates with my perception of The Perfesser's acts and utterances. But the question remains: Does Wart fit the template, or is he simply taking advantage of the template in others? (and now that I ask the question, I wonder if those alternatives are mutually exclusive)

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 04 January '10 - 09:27

Very Hoffernian, Noj. Unfortunately, I succumb to one of those points: Wart and his little pals ARE evil. Whether they believe what they say is ultimately beside the point, tho it's a question I've often tried to figure out. No luck, of course. JWP probably has it right: it's both lying and belief. Or rather, lying for belief.

  — jgm () (URL) - 04 January '10 - 16:06

BTW, given the prevalence of groupthink in, um, groups we don't like (for good reason), what are the susceptibilities of us ragtag rebels for the same problem?

  — jgm () (URL) - 04 January '10 - 16:17

We'd better have another round of insults to stave that off.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 04 January '10 - 17:38

jgm: It's possible Wilcox fleshes out some of those "thin" assertions contained on that page Noj pointed to; Hoffer certainly spent a lot more ink defining the individual components of his theories.



Gen'r'l: Not gonna sink to that level, cheesedick.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 04 January '10 - 21:37

I read the Wilcox material and it is succinct, well-stated. Now let's keep in mind that Wart has 2 degrees in Communications, and some murky work involving media tasks in Vietnam. Let's keep in mind his protracted career to phony up an identity and bogus activism in the 1970s, his media management skills, and his use of the media, his use of sock puppets like Russ Means and "Colorado AIM," and we see Wart is proficient at what he does. What does he do? If we take the things listed by Wilcox we can compare them to the defintions for propaganda ["black," "gray," and "white"] and see that they match up. In fact, the OSS did a study of Hitler's personal propaganda m.o. It was held secret until the 1950s and then published. The author and title escape me at the moment, but those who find the item will recognize the modus operandi of a prominent Boulder, uh, "personality." In fact, if y'all want to torture yourselves, plow through Wart's awkward and pompous jargon in his "books" to root out every reference to "propaganda." Wart knows all the definitions and permutations [Gee, I wonder why?], but he hides how and why he has that expertise, and it goes far beyond his BA and MA. Oh, by the way, has anyone tracked down Wart's assertions that the Springfield, Ill., FBI office targeted him for "neutralization"? Yes, old Wart was purportedly the target of TWO personal COINTELPROs, and if you don't believe me, just read what he wrote. See, this was when he allegedly was with the Weather Underground, circa 1969-70, which was before he "joined" AIM circa 1971-75 [depending on which version he choses to tell], and then.... oh, but I am getting ahead of myself and also going on tangents. So sorry. My bad [as they currently say].

  — ernesto vigil (URL) - 05 January '10 - 11:14

I'm sure each of you knows more about Churchill than I. I didn't think it was all that complex. Churchill is nothing more than a con man. He seems to delight in getting the goods without doing the work. It's a game and he loves winning without following the rules. Getting people to believe a lie is a big score. Beyond what it can do for him, I doubt he cares about any cause. Manipulation is the goal. He's smart enough to push the right buttons to get what he wants which includes money and adulation. Is there really more to it?

  — Laurie - 05 January '10 - 23:52

Probably not, Laurie.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 06 January '10 - 22:53

So L, you think it was completely a shuck on his part? No belief in what he was saying at all? Actually, while I sort of agree, I also think he does believe. The capacity for the human mind to fool itself, and to use that foolishness for its own ends, is unlimited.



Also, there were the little college chicks, at least before he got too old and ugly for anyone but Truthforce. Does anyone doubt he was picking them off two at a time when he could?

  — jgm () (URL) - 07 January '10 - 16:24

Perhaps he was not so inclined.*





*NTTAWWT

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 07 January '10 - 21:07

Ward knows it's all a con, and takes whatever satisfaction his disturbed psyche is capable of taking in this deception. However, his imposture is also his entire identity. While Churchill despises humanity for taking his imposture seriously, he also despises himself for being nothing more than a fraud. He attempts to convince himself of the truth of his position, all the while knowing that his truth is corrupt. It's a complex duality, and he must be a seriously troubled individual to have lived this for so many decades.

  — Noj - 08 January '10 - 15:44

PS: My long distance diagnosis is Pseudologia Fantastica.

  — Noj - 08 January '10 - 15:46

"While Churchill despises humanity for taking his imposture seriously..."



I've seen this in action. Once exposed, the con man "blames" the believer for being so stupid, instead of accepting responsibility for lying.

  — Laurie - 09 January '10 - 12:27

Noj, I don't know why you keep up the farce that you and EV are different people. Even a cursory look at your writings reveals the exact same stylistic and grammatical tics.



Oh wait, I'm talking about Charley Arthur and Wart. Never mind.

  — Truth-telling halfwit () (URL) - 10 January '10 - 14:06

It's my belief that all the people who comment here are in fact The Perfesser.



Including me.



Fuck.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 10 January '10 - 14:23

My stylistic fleas and grammatical heartworms are between me and my vet.

  — Noj - 10 January '10 - 16:45

But are you getting enough cheese?

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 10 January '10 - 20:07

A lack of cheese killed my grandfather, you bastard.



At least, that was his story. Every day for 15 years.

  — Wm T Sherman () - 10 January '10 - 21:18

JWP: Guess this is our "I am Spartacus" moment.

  — Truth-telling halfwit () (URL) - 13 January '10 - 13:47

But wait! I AM Spartacus.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 13 January '10 - 16:57

I AM NOT SPARTACUS! I'm just an innocent bystander.

  — Laurie - 13 January '10 - 20:07

You are so Spartacus.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 14 January '10 - 14:41

And not that innocent, either. I hear.

  — Truth-telling halfwit () (URL) - 15 January '10 - 16:12

Pictures of what?

  — Wm T Sherman () - 16 January '10 - 14:30

Pics of a 20 lb blob of fat? Yuck.

  — Noj - 16 January '10 - 18:08

Can't wait, Grant.



That can't really be Grant, can it? If it is, you, Crowell, are (the somewhat doughy) Spartacus!

And to quote another movie, Jackie Brown (S. Jackson to R. DeNiro): What happened to you, man?

  — Truth-telling halfwit () (URL) - 16 January '10 - 19:33

Oops, sock off, as the say at AoS.

  — jgm () (URL) - 16 January '10 - 19:34

I thought I'd check in on Chief Whitey Fake-Em-Good. So, he's been quiet lately? Who will smash American hegemony if not Fatty McCommiefugg? Who?!!

  — Emerson - 19 January '10 - 16:56

So you've had something of an epiphany, eh, Grant? Hope the one where you realize you can't spell or express yourself understandably comes soon. Followed shortly thereafter by the one where you realize nobody here gives a shit about you one way or the other.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 20 January '10 - 10:24

I'm outside every day, Grant. Haven't seen you around. But then, I live up here because it requires effort and will to get here, and that tends to screen out the human detritus.

  — jwpaine () (URL) - 21 January '10 - 08:10

Grant: “Oh yeah, 203 lbs, and 12 percent body fat …”

And that means what? 12% looks a doughy.

  — Fred - 21 January '10 - 15:33

Here is a good debate between Noam Chomsky and Hannah Arendt http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

  — Magda - 21 January '10 - 20:59

Grant: "Google my name to learn the rest." What are you, selling Amway now? No, wait, it must be that diet-crap program Marie Osmond pushes. I'll bet your eyebrows are as weird as hers too.

  — jgm () (URL) - 22 January '10 - 17:15

Wait, do my sense betray me? Grant and James at odds? Were they joined only by emnity to Ward?



Abel and Cain reincarnated?

  — Gillie () - 25 January '10 - 17:50

No trackbacks:

Trackback link: