as i think you did some blunders here and you did not understand that, anyhow this seems like a profitless enterprise to me.
http://funnycatvideos.us

Odd, I posted the foregoing in a different thread.  Oh, well, one’s as good as another.

Assange does not seem to think of himself as an anarchist, but merely someone inhibiting particular actions and configurations of the government which he finds repugnant.  He could be coming from any of a variety of ideological contexts.  In my opinion, he would be an anarchist if he took his ideas to their logical conclusion, so in calling him an anarchist I may be ‘going beyond the text’ and projecting my own beliefs on him.

Nothing said in the current excitement has suggested that he has a unique, detailed model of a better social order in mind.  If he does, I haven’t heard about it yet.

Aye, the Holy Rat.

I guess you are determined to come to this proggie site and call the proggies bad names.  This seems like a profitless enterprise to me, but I won’t detain you any further.

QUOTE (of an avatar being… a holy rat?):

“I doubt if most people who call themselves progressives think that”

[with “that” being that it’s always been the purpose of progressives to ensure that the least possible progress occurs]
______________

With their evident purpose for existing being to perpetually progress the obstruction of progress, that may imply that “that” must be the conscious motive and intent of “progressive” individuals. But it’s not necessary to have any motive or intent — or even be conscious — for them to serve the establishment’s purpose that they do in fact serve… to nurture systemic rot that should be removed.

A cancer cell doesn’t intend to exterminate itself along with it’s host… but it will naturally do so through its metastasized numbers. It’s in the nature of progressives to societally serve the same purpose that cancer biologically does.

Progressives ever insidiously exterminate progress because it’s what they naturally do. No critical thinking ability nor consciousness is required of progressives, for them to continually succeed in serving as the systemic cancer that is their function within this sociopathic society.

David J. Cyr, December 5 at 1:24 pm:

‘... It’s always been the purpose of progressives to ensure that the least possible progress occurs. They are what most effectively counters revolution… or any real change needed. ...’

I doubt if most people who call themselves progressives think that.  In my experience, everyone professes motives which are at once noble and reasonable.  Therefore, it is a great deal of work to impugn their motives.  It might be far more effective to show that their methods of realizing their visions are not bringing about the results they claim to desire—which seems pretty obvious—and to suggest others.

QUOTE (reviewer quoting G.K. Chesterton):

“the business of the Progressives is to go on making mistakes.”
____________

The “mistakes” that the Progressives did and “progressives” do today make are not mistakes.

It’s always been the purpose of progressives to ensure that the least possible progress occurs. They are what most effectively counters revolution… or any real change needed.

Progressives maintain injustice through protective reforms that incrementally improve upon the effectiveness of the unjust.

A “reformer” alters the Problem’s appearance to save the system from the Solution.

steveinalaska,

Thank you so very much for pointing out my blunder. And my abject apologies Garry Wills.

Arouete,

Garry Wills is a very different and far superior sort of person than George
Will.

Well, it’s been a long time since I read Orthodoxy, which was given to me in my teenage years perhaps to cure my already evident and offensive skepticism.  I remember being shocked at its specious reasoning.  I was willing to cut the author some slack, too, given that supporting the enormous weird paraphernalia of Roman Catholic theology, with which I was already somewhat familiar, had to be heavy lifting.  Unfortunately at this long remove I cannot cite chapter and verse, or I surely would.  I won’t attempt to read it again, but maybe I’ll try to hunt up Wills’s observations.  If Gödel could be a Platonist, maybe Wills could be a Chestertonian.  It’s an odd world.

Saying something contrary to fact is not lying unless the sayer knows that what he says is contrary to fact.

Oh you want specific lies? Ok. here ya go. George Will (Washington Post) is appropriately included amongst Salon.com’s 30 Biggest Media Hacks.  It is for good reason that Alex Pareen has called him, “The bow-tied pundit [who is] is as slimy and amoral as a spitball” and whose “repeat offenses” are “dishonesty [and] feints toward “reasonableness” while remaining doctrinaire Republican…”.

Will proved himself a shameless propagandist rather lacking in intellectual integrity when he argued that widespread scientific agreement existed at the time that the world faced potentially catastrophic COOLING.  No kidding. He was not arguing facts but what most experts knew was a complete myth.  It was the misrepresenting of scientific consensus as a means to achieve a nefarious end: falsely misrepresent ‘facts’ and deceive the arbiter purely for political purpose.

In dropping their respectable name as authority Will further fabricated the official consensus of The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) which is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming. In chiding Will on his playing fast and loose with the facts Chris Mooney of the Post wrote,

“Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists – following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It’s also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be—now more than ever.”     

This requires us to recognize real conclusions of fact and distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation. Great, so he criticizes Bush on Iraq and trashes Palin. He also lied about climate change, just because lying about it is, as Pareen wrote, what Republicans are supposed to do, and instead of removing Will from their stable of columnists—or even correcting his columns—the Washington Post just publishes other columns pointing out that Will lied, thus presenting the reader with “both sides” of the issue.

WHEN WILL WAS ON POLITICAL TALK SHOWS…IT SEEMED THE OTHER COMMENTERS WOULD
TALK OVER HIM OR CUT HIM OFF..IT WAS IRRITATING BECAUSE I WANTED TO HEAR HIS VIEW..I
THINK THEY WERE LESS SECURE THAN HE..

Wills lies?  Any specific lies you would care to mention?

I am surprised to hear that Wills wrote a book about a sophist like Chesterton.  If there is one thing Wills has never been (in any of his writings that I have read, anyway) it is a sophist.  As for ‘conservative’, I don’t know if he should be dropped in any of the larger ideological bags.  He seems to actually try to perceive things, think about them, and communicate his thoughts, rather than grind out ideological sausage, which makes him different from most of the authors of his epoch.

I hope that this fine article about Garry Wills by Barra was in some sense published by truthdig to atone for the terribly misinformed review of “Bomb Power” which appeared in truthdig earlier this year by one Jeremy Bernstein.  Wonderfully sympathetic and well-deserved column.

“Outside Looking In” is a delightful memoir by Wills- a “change of pace” so to speak, -and well-worth reading; I recommend it highly