At that time in Europe the new developments and the high rises were quite rare and things seemed pretty much as they had always been. It's hard to imagine that it has changed so much. Sad.
Posted on 04/25/2009 5:39:01 PM PDT by WesternCulture
For decades following WWII, any discussion regarding Germany was bound to deteriorate into a discussion of Nazism and Hitler.
If I post something here on this great site about, say, the Swedish National Ice Hockey Team, that thread will sooner or later end up in a discussion about Malmö and how the Muzzies have taken over large parts of Sweden as well as other places in Europe.
As a Swede/European, I don't mind.
Eurabia is reality and I'm convinced Americans who accuse us Europeans of being naive do so not out of malice or hatred towards Europe, but out of genuine concern.
Having visited Rosengård, Malmö (a part of Malmö that often is confused with the entire city itself) recently, I can't say my impression is that of Malmö being entirely overrun by Muslims.
However, native middle class Swedes seem to be moving out of inner Malmö to the suburbs, while people of a Middle East/North African origin are moving in, both from the Muslim World directly and from residential areas in other parts of Sweden that are not "Muslim enough" from their religious point of view.
If this development continues, Malmö will soon become more segregated from an ethnic, a religious as well as an economic perspective than any other city in Western Europe.
Already by today, Inner Malmö hosts the very same conflicts that are found in the Middle East; the battle between Jews and Muslims, the struggle between different Muslim groups and the strife between the Iranians who yearn for democracy and those who wish Iran to remain a medieval nation.
SWEDISH Malmö:
Nice houses in Suburban Malmö, a perfect Volvo middle class paradise;
http://www2.bjurfors.se/beskrivning.aspx?OBJGUID=3KVIG7JK2B863GII&OBJTYPE=CMVilla
http://www2.bjurfors.se/beskrivning.aspx?OBJGUID=3I5419P241E0R8A8&OBJTYPE=CMVilla
http://www2.bjurfors.se/beskrivning.aspx?OBJGUID=3KVQDDRT0FFHTP11&OBJTYPE=CMVilla
One of the around 60(!) marinas where middle class residents of Metropolitan Malmö (and the appr 400 000 inhabitants of Scania/Skåne that live outside of Metro Malmö) usually park their yachts:
http://www.archipelago.nu/SKARGARD/SVENSKA/SKANE/limhamn.jpeg
(Scania, the Swedish region where Malmö is located, is indeed a yacht owner’s as well as a Volvo owner’s paradise, the rest of Scandinavia is very much the same)
These folks are well off from a European perspective, but not from a Scandinavian point of view.
Some dream of a Victorian mansion on the English countryside, a French château or a luxurious house in Malibu. Personally, my ideal is to live like rich people in Scania do.
I could never afford to buy a home like this, but apparently, some of us Swedes have managed to, despite the yoke of Swedish income taxes (which in fact are moderate, it is our VAT that the world envies):
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_%C3%B6ver_slott_och_herres%C3%A4ten_i_Sk%C3%A5ne
If that seemed like some silly Swedish Socialist bragging over the wealth of his nation on the Internet, I’ll make it up to you by presenting a rather contrasting side of Malmö and Scandinavia in general:
MUSLIM Malmö:
The horror of Rosengård, Malmö:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAM2iNO0_E
Fox News reporting from Malmö:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0NzG3B-CTQ
I willingly admit we, as a nation, despite our economic resources and high levels of education, have failed disastrously.
Why do we let this havoc continue year after year?
One day, I hope all Scandinavians will become aware you can’t take people from the least civilized parts of the world, put them on Scandinavian soil and expect them to instantly function well in the richest, most advanced part of Western Civilization.
Amen and wish us good luck!
Check out the Trolleholms slott place. I could settle in nicely there.
At that time in Europe the new developments and the high rises were quite rare and things seemed pretty much as they had always been. It's hard to imagine that it has changed so much. Sad.
A Fairy Tale
Once upon a time, long, long ago, there was a land of freedom, peace, and plenty, and everyone the world over wanted to go there to live, adapting themselves to the realities of their new homeland. They wanted to become peaceful and prosperous and enlightened, just like the people who created this wonderful new land.
Then, the Dark Lord, seeing the success of this new land, placed a curse upon it, so that now people from war-torn, third world sh*t holes want to go there and bring with them and maintain their violence, their ignorance, and their benighted customs, and even impose them upon their new land.
And the residents of this new land, being basically kindhearted, and having forgotten the horrible failings of the old lands their forefathers had left behind them, encouraged these new arrivals, smilingly calling this lunacy “Multiculturalism.”
Then the new land crashed and burned and fell apart.
The End
“...I’m convinced Americans who accuse us Europeans of being naive do so not out of malice or hatred towards Europe, but out of genuine concern.”
Concern? Uhm...genuine “horror” is more like it.
We’ve had a multi-ethnic melting pot here in North America for nearly four centuries. I myself am English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, German, Austrian, Spanish, Italian-Swiss, and Cherokee Indian.
There are still places in the U.S.A. where languages other than Enlish predominate, and not just the better-known examples of Spanish and Asian languages. Russian, German, Polish - many farming communities established by these emigrant groups over a century ago formed their own cliques early on and did not mingle with outsiders until the third generation was born in the U.S.A.
Two world wars, the proliferation of railways, radio and television communication - changed all that isolation and eventually resulted in what peoples from outside might perceive as an “American Culture”. But in reality there isn’t such a “culture”, and the newcomers from Mexico and Islamic nations are causing problems as they are very, very resistant to the concept of a democratic republic unified by belief in a Constitution of laws which respects differences between peoples.
Whether it is Mexicans or Muslims, they seem to feel their way of doing things is better and the rest of us can just get out of their way!
“One day, I hope all Scandinavianscivilized nations will become aware you can’t take people from the least civilized parts of the world of Islam...”
When these countries realize it, it will be waaaay too late.
- I was born in 1969, but I perfectly understand what you mean.
While Europe of today, in several ways, is a better place in which to live than it was in the early 1950s, something valuable seems to be eternally lost.
On the other hand, I experience Europeans everywhere around the continent are becoming increasingly dissatisfied (to say the least) with our politicians’ lenient attitudes to Islamism, immigration and all sorts of crimes related to Third World Immigration.
If it's Racist and intolerant to wish Europe to remain Christian, prosperous and civilized, I'm most definitely extremely Racist and intolerant.
Just like hundreds of millions of other Europeans.
“Check out the Trolleholms slott place. I could settle in nicely there.”
- If you ever do so, I hope you’ll find enough of storage facility there for your guns (read what you’d written on your homepage).
Regards from Gothenburg, Sweden!
That ended the Kalmar Union. The new Swedish King then had to replace the dead nobles, and did so by importing smart guys, rich guys, and powerful guys with their own entourage.
Not too long afterwards (as history goes) Sweden whuthed everybody in the North, then in Central Europe, etc.
Only thing I found out about his demands on these new nobles was that they attend the state Lutheran church (even though he himself liked a high mass).
Seems like that should be a modern standard for Sweden ~ if someone immigrates there they have to go to the state church. If they don't like that, they can go somewhere else.
“Then the new land crashed and burned and fell apart.”
- Are you seriously suggesting we Scandinavians ought to spend a little more on deporting Muslims and a little less on building even more of IKEA marinas?
Actually, my little parable was about the United States; however, if the shoe fits...
Arm yourselves. When the **** hits the fan, and it will, the people who got you into this will not be there to help; they’ll be kicking it at some vacation resort. The only place close to you which has the kinds of firepower you need at the kinds of prices you need is Russia; on the web, that looks like http://rusarm.ru/ or http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/weapon.shtml.
Usually though, self-destructive behavior rewards us with at least a short-term gain, a pleasure to seduce us into courting the long term pain. Even the heroine addict obtains relief with his next fix even though that fix sentences him to an even crueler withdrawal.
One is compelled to ask, what do the people of Sweden gain from the behavior which so patently is causing the destruction of their society? What exactly is the behavior? The introduction of foreigners who are alien in race, religion, culture, and language. Surely the Swedes have learned by now that this practice is threatening to the very existence of their way of life, not to mention their democracy. Why do they persist in admitting such aliens into their midst? They must be getting some sort of short-term gain to induce them to court their own destruction.
Indeed they are. It is exactly the same emotional release experienced by tens of millions of our neighbors when they voted to elect the first black American president. By the act of practicing multiculturalism in the polling booth, liberals and well-meaning independents were able to feel free of racism, superior to conservatives who did not share their view of the Messiah-ship of Obama and who were therefore racists. They gained the psychological flood of feelings of well-being from an act of self-righteousness. They felt superior.
Indeed, if one thinks about the reaction of Jeanene Garafalo and of Bill Mahrer to the tea parties, which was to accuse the protesters of racism without the faintest hint of factual support, one can see the psychology in action. The problem for us conservatives is that the American liberal and well-meaning independents is as impervious to the evidence before his eyes of the self-destruction resulting from his behavior, as is the Swede.
It is a problem for conservatives because it means that liberals are in a lockbox which is emotional, not logical, and therefore immune to logic. The issue is really irrelevant because as soon as a liberal position is assailed with the evidence of our own eyes, liberals invoke racism and the emotion of the issue shuts down logic as it shuts down debate. That is one reason why Tip O'Neill had it wrong, all politics in America is not local, it is racial. Ultimately, it means that liberals and well-meaning independents are simply incapable of addressing many many issues. It also means that conservatives will lose elections.
The result is that America and Sweden are condemned to many, many Malmös of the soul as well as of geography.
The Swedes actually have quite an efficient army, not to mention two periods of history, the Viking era and the 17th century, in which they raided across or conquered much of Europe.
The problem is not one of competence or firepower, it is one of will, and therefore much harder to solve. One can buy or build weapons. Where do you go to get the will to defend your society?
Regarding “Evil King Kristian of Denmark”:
He’s known as “Kristian the Tyrant” in Sweden while the Danes themselves simply call him Christian II or Christian 2.
I certainly do not hate the Danes, but Swedes and Danes have a long history of bitter conflict.
This might interest you in case you don’t know the whole story already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Bloodbath
Concerning the end of the Kalmar Union:
My opinion is the Kalmar Union ended very much because Sweden’s geopolitical interests at that time were directed eastwards (wishing to establish a Baltic Sea empire), while Denmark’s ambition was to expand southwards. Denmark waged war on Holstein, something that angered Sweden a lot as this aggression did harm to trade that was vital to Swedish interests.
“Only thing I found out about his demands on these new nobles was that they attend the state Lutheran church (even though he himself liked a high mass).”
- I’m not an expert, but that makes sense to me. Gustav Vasa probably had a
“Seems like that should be a modern standard for Sweden ~ if someone immigrates there they have to go to the state church. If they don’t like that, they can go somewhere else.”
- Couldn’t agree more.
Thoughtful, perceptive post. And it illuminates the conservatives' central political problem.
As you point out, a conservative will never win an argument with a committed liberal. Once they can't reconcile their emotions with logic, they shut down. We've all experienced this phenomenon with friends and family.
Nor will we ever mount a convincing ideological argument for the vast middle, because a.) they don't want to hear it and b.) they aren't paying attention anyway.
In our current circumstance, about the only way to defeat the liberals is let them destroy themselves -- which they are full capable of doing. Eventually, they'll overreach, strangling themselves in corruption and incompetence -- bringing down the wrath of the feckless moderate.
We can count on them to do that. Problem is, all the damage they will do in the meantime...
“Actually, my little parable was about the United States”
- OK, I didn’t realize that. Guess I should’ve read your post more carefully. My apologies..
Anyhow, I believe both Europe and USA today face the same kind of challenge; namely that of being led by politicians who don’t know what to do about the reality of a veritable army of invasion from the underdeveloped part of the world “ad portas”.
There are Muslims who believe in democracy and wish to live in a more or less Western way of life, just like there are Mexicans who would make model American citizens. But my impression is that for every “good” Mexican or Muslim, we get two or three bad eggs.
This development can not continue and neither ordinary Americans or common Europeans are Racists for saying “no thanks” to Multiculturalism.
A Muslim who wants to live a Western life is not a Muslim, he is at best a Westerner who comes from a Muslim ethnicity. Someone who believes in the Quran MUST, as a religious duty, strive to impose Islam upon the whole world.
You are right, we are in a box. We see the peril looming over us as clearly as did Churchill but the world sees us as Chicken Little. We are helpless under current conditions to control events. If the Obama juggernaut of socialism rolls over America it might very well never be undone. As the left overreaches and destroys itself, it will, as you say, destroy us. And we will be lucky if the legacy of Obama is only socialism of the European model, it could very likely include tyranny as well.
Will there be a recovery?
History shows us that the Socialist's answer to failed socialism is always more socialism. Rarely does history raise up such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and rarely does socialism get thrown off the backs of suffering humanity as it was in the wake of the efforts of these two great people. History shows us but the pattern is more socialism to compensate for failed socialism and more and more tyranny.
- I get your point, but I believe all of us who are aware of the actual threat of Islam should distinguish between Muslims like the Turkish (peacekeeping) NATO troops in Afghanistan and the Talibans themselves.
There is a good reason why to this;
If we describe reality solely in terms of Muslim/Non-Muslim unaware Westerners addicted to PC media will never pay any attention to people like you and I.
In short; Moderate/Westernized Muslims are NOT harmless Muslims, but there is a point in distinguishing between them and fanatical Islamofascists.
“History shows us that the Socialist’s answer to failed socialism is always more socialism. Rarely does history raise up such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher”
- From a Swedish perspective:
I wouldn’t say any post war Scandinavian politician have been of the same caliber as Thatcher or Reagan, but for 20 years or so the Scandinavian countries have, evidently, been moving away from the kind of Socialism we believed in some decades ago.
There’s much work left to be done, yes, but still it’s hard to argue with the fact that few people in my part of the world believe in Socialism.
Our taxes are high, but what we’re taxing heavily is private consumption, not the profits of our successful businesses.
In any case, the idea behind our fiscal system is definitely not to replace individual economic initiatives by government control over the market.
In other words, the leftist impulse to play God is to control mankind in every dimension of his life and economic life is only one facet of life which the Leftist is compelled by his ego to control.
Thank you for pointing out that some progress has been made against the total control of the economic life of the Scandinavian. I noticed that your reply focused entirely on the economic aspects of European socialism. I live in Germany and I'm concerned about liberty. I hold no brief for the Scientologists, but I think the Germans have taken entirely the wrong lesson from their experience during the "Hitler Zeit." They make the "cult" illegal to protect society; they put Holocaust deniers in jail to protect history; they outlaw the Nazi party; criminalize Biblical Christianity's objection to homosexuality (in Sweden) to preserve tolerance; they jail homeschoolers so that every child is properly homogenized. In every instance, there is a socialist solution rather than a reliance on individual liberty.
Even the idea that the state should tax consumption is a fundamental assault on liberty. The God player in charge says that he knows better how the consumer's money should be spent. When a consumer buys an item he is voting with his currency. When the state takes away his currency it is stealing his votes. When a state justifies its tax on consumption purely as a means of funding limited government, rather than as a means of controlling behavior, on that day will socialism be at bay.
Today we learn in America and that Obama is going to ratify the treaty on the rights of children which will park American sovereignty with the United Nations and deny parents their customary rights and responsibilities to bring up their children.
I've been saying that the problem for lovers of liberty is not whether they are American or Scandinavian but whether they are conservative or leftist.
“A conservative doth not live by tax cuts alone.”
- Very true.
Conservatism isn’t mainly about tax cuts. Conservatism is, basically, about preserving social/cultural institutions that ought to be considered as time honored and productive.
The most productive and time honored asset of mankind is the human intellect itself.
The leading civilization here on Earth is also the only one that fully has understood this; the Western one.
Interestingly enough, the most insightful analysis of human nature ever performed evolves from the opinion that the Muslims/Arabs have failed to understand true human nature:
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Mirandola/
The same inability is displayed by Socialists.
I will take a look at your reference after I get some sleep. I am only posting because I woke up at 4 a.m. and it is now 6 a.m. Are you up early or up late?
“Are you up early or up late?”
- Both actually.
Seriously, I am in fact extremely over-sensitive to Caffeine. No joke. Earlier this day, I felt a bit sleepy and decided to cure myself with two strong espressos as there was this TV program I wanted to watch.
Good night and please don’t forget to study what Mirandola wrote some hundred years ago. Those Renaissance Florentines weren’t all happy fools with a certain weakness for fancy, colorful paintings..
This was a public service, or, at least it served this public, and a great illustration of the difference between tolerance and "embracing," or assimilation vs. slow-motion invasion.
I think the nations of Europe ought to seriously consider becoming illegal aliens here in the U.S.
“Whether it is Mexicans or Muslims, they seem to feel their way of doing things is better and the rest of us can just get out of their way!”
- To begin with, they probably are unable of understanding what a societal concept like that of USA or Sweden is all about.
Their ignorance isn’t entirely a fault of their own, their priests/imams and also their politicians bear a greater deal of responsibility in many ways than they do themselves.
These religious and political leaders are, at least fairly, educated individuals who keep other human beings in the dark.
However, an even worse crime is committed by the Western politicians who deliberately open up the floodgates of mass immigration.
We Westerners live well and most of us wish to aid others on this planet who do not, but believing we are doing ANYONE a favor by accepting unrestricted mass immigration from countries like Somalia equals unrestricted insanity.
- Glad to having assisted you in finding out more about the situation over here.
It's impossible to deny that Rosengård, Malmö is a highly dysfunctional neighborhood. Even Socialists in my country admit Sweden have failed immensely in the field of immigration policy.
On the other hand, I guess it shows from my post that I get trifle annoyed by the phenomena of Fox News coming here and confusing Malmö (650 000 inhabitants in the metro area) with Rosengård (a residential area of 20 000 inhabitants). This world renowned media company especially does so in the case of unemployment statistics. If their figures were to be correct (one quarter Muslims, 90% of them unemployed), it would mean the unemployment rate of Malmö was 20% back then, in the Malmoite reality existing outside the world of journalism it was actually around 5% at that time, and it was way lower if one would chose to the include the nice middle class ‘burbs of the city.
But all the same, I sincerely wish to thank all Americans here on FreeRepublic and elsewhere who are trying to make us Europeans wake up. We are in need of such an alarm call.
Islamofascism will not triumph.
Discussion over. Time to quote Churchill;
“Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength!”
The days are short, but the years are long.
“This development can not continue and neither ordinary Americans or common Europeans are Racists for saying “no thanks” to Multiculturalism.”
The fact is, the West is committing cultural and social suicide, and simply doesn’t have the force of will to stave off the inevitable fall. IMHO, it’s really all over.
So, I wonder... Given that socialism is a demonstrably failed system, which of the following applies?
1. Socialism is promoted by well-meaning leaders with good, though mistaken, intentions.
2. Socialism is employed as a means to an end -- power -- by malevolent forces.
The answer, I suspect, is probably both. Western Europe would appear to subscribe to the first motivation, creating a benign socialism that is on a slow glide path to inevitable failure. Who knows what will emerge from its failure?
Latin American socialism, on the other hand, is clearly an exercise of the latter sort. As were the Russian and German varieties -- who can assert that Stalin and Hitler were ever guided by "good intentions"? Socialism of this type seems to inevitably end in bloody revolution.
How shall we class Obama's socialism?
Since socialists are God players with the human capacity to rationalize, they always find someplace else to put the blame for failed socialism. A shorthand way to put this is that socialists believe that socialism has failed only because the wrong socialists were in charge. A God player knows how to remedy that.
How to categorize Obama's socialism? Is it of the European kind or is it more pernicious? I'm inclined to think it is more pernicious because he has demonstrated a disposition to give human rights short shrift especially if they would frustrate his personal ambition. The degree to which Obama becomes a tyrant depends I suppose as much on opportunity as on motive. I would be inclined to side with the apostle Paul in an evaluation of Obama's ability to withstand evil temptation. To play armchair psychologist, there is a very good chance that this individual has a very big chip on his shoulder conditioned by rejection by his father and his mother and his inability, half white and half black, to find his place in the world at least until he got Harvard.
Let me bounce a question back at you, whose socialism is in play? Obama's or Soros'?
“...believing we are doing ANYONE a favor by accepting unrestricted mass immigration...equals unrestricted insanity.”
Agreed, with all my heart.
The U.S.A. had a restricted policy in the first half of the 20th century. It gave immigrants a chance to assimilate and become comfortable with their new nation. Some never did, and many left, to return to their home country. That system worked well in comparison to what we have now. Our immigration laws are ignored here, and an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens do not want new, more lenient immigration laws, but the ones we do have now enforced properly.
Clearly, it is both.
Obama's socialism is real and obvious, borne of a lifetime of associations with radicals. I would also posit, as you say you suspect, that it is of the pernicious variety. HIS socialism is a heartfelt means to the express end of "playing God", as you put it. A very apt description, given all the grievances he (and his wife) are nursing.
The Obamas are where they are in order to "fix America" -- and restore that socialist shibboleth, "social justice".
But they are also where they are only because Obama shares Soros' vision. At least Soros thinks he does. He has bought and paid for the entire Democrat Party leadership in pursuit of this vision.
The fundamental character of Soros, I believe, is not his quirky socialism -- but his rampant atheism and consequent amorality. Whereas Obama might view himself as "playing God", Soros is utterly godless.
Perhaps the final act of the drama will see them turn on each other. Obama is certainly capable of getting "too big for his britches" and challenging his benefactor. Then, we will see what Soros has -- besides a flawed vision and a mountain of money. When he bought the Democrats, did he buy an insurance policy, too?
Whatever, regardless of our conservative efforts, this episode in our history probably isn't going to end well. The ensuing carnage is likely to be more than political.
I think you describe Soros very well. He comes across as a bloodless mechanic who would cheerfully autopsy his own mother. His godlessness is scary because he is actually waging a war for atheism.
I too of wondered how long it will take Soros and Obama to have a falling out. When Hillary accepted the job of Secretary of State I was baffled as many other posters about why she would do so and I attempted to explain it on pedestrian grounds that she would be only one voice among a hundred in the Senate but of the whole world is your stage as Secretary of State etc. but recently I have been wondering about another scenario: perhaps the deal was brokered by Soros.
Recall that Obama made a pilgrimage to Soros to kiss ring just before he announced his intention to run. Soros then signaled his approval by making public a maximum contribution. Up until that time, it had appeared that Hillary was Soros' anointed. Much of Soros' team had been drawn from the ranks of the Clinton camp. I think one can draw a straight line from the Frankfurt school through George Soros to Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton, and obviously, Barak Obama. But as between Hillary and Obama, clearly Obama had the closer and more committed affiliation to the Alinsky school. This was undoubtedly very compelling to George Soros.
Since before the election of 2004, Soros had been co-opting the Democrat party. This is a case where following the money really tells the story. I understand that Soros no longer has to buy the Democrat party because by virtue of the 527s and the 501(c)3s Soros now in effect rakes in all the Democrat money. He has leveraged his own money until he now virtually controls the bulk of the money used to buy elections.
If that is the case, it would explain why Hillary might take the secretaryship of state. She realizes that the real play domestically is between Soros and Obama. The Congress has become a sock puppet and she would be simply shut out. She might have been given a certain brief by Soros to conduct foreign policy.
Again without citation or citing support, I think Barak's flip-flop on the prosecution of lawyers and principles of the interrogation matter can be traced to a phone call from Soros to Obama. If that is the case-and I say again I do not have any support, just a recollection of having read it-it would illustrate the degree of control Soros has on this administration.
One could look at the recent appointment of Rosa Brooks to the Pentagon not as an apparatchik there to spy for Obama, but as a Soros' commissar. How many commissars are peppered throughout the administration to report to Soros?
If Soros has only a fraction of the power, mostly from the purse and not entirely his own which I suspect he might have, it would explain why Obama will have no resistance from his own party. Congress knows what happened to Joe Lieberman and few think they will have as many lives as he did. Soros can withhold funds, fund primary challengers, and hurl move on.org at any maverick Democrat. This would go a long way to explaining why there is no sane voice rising up among the Democrats in Congress speaking out against this mindless spending.
Soros might have something on Obama. Obama might realize that Soros has enough agents planted within his administration that he could cause real damage in the event of an open breach.
I have been pondering these things for some time and have not posted on them for fear of seeming a tinfoil conspiracy nut. But your responses to my teaser were so on the money that I can no longer hold back. I just finished listening to Face the Nation and it is apparent that those of us on Free Republic either get it or we are utterly insane because we could not be more light years removed from the general consensus of the establishment which is coming over the Sunday talk shows. I mean this quite seriously. I am constitutionally allergic to conspiracy theories. My whole life, my whole exposure to human nature, my study of history, all confirm that Occam's razor is the sanest approach. And yet I find myself deporting from this commonsense approach and venturing into very dark places. I say only in my own defense that I go where logic takes me.
I also observed Soros changing horses in mid-stream -- from Hillary to Obama -- and wondered why. Did he sense a better chance of winning...or a more kindred spirit?
In any event, it is clear that our entire federal government apparatus is now either a.) under the control of what amounts to a hostile power or b.) ineffectual...but pompous and self-absorbed nonetheless.
There is an emerging conflict between Washington and America. And it isn't really political, so much as it is institutional: Us vs Them.
One might characterize our immediate future as a mystery: Will William Ayers Win After All?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.