NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller arrested, judge orders must carry photos of victims at all times.
Jan, 2007.
Posted on 06/28/2006 10:07:01 PM PDT by suspects
Well said!!!! BTTT!@
BTTT
Brilliant.
What the New York Times has done is more than just a dispute over journalistic ethics. It's sick. It's reprehensible. If the folks at the Times were in their right mind, they never would have done it.
Liberalism is a mental illness. It's one of the most virulent forms of fanaticism. Far more dangerous than Fundamentalist Islam and not just because they're indigenous.
The cause of fanaticism and why it's dangerous.The fanatic has an elitist view of himself. He holds a firm belief that he is in some way special and has something that others, not like him, do not. Because of this basic self-view any disagreement with the elitist or any resistance to their actions causes anger. This "supreme" view of himself is an excuse for justifying his anger and thus justifying any act from deception to murder against those who disagree or refuse to comply with it. He is comfortable with hatred, revenge, lying or any gross deception in defense of his special "superior" position acted out against those (the "others") who do resist or refuse to validate his view.
It is impossible to reason or negotiate with someone who holds the POV that they are morally and/or ethically superior by virtue of a superior self-image. Everything you do to accommodate their "concerns" (demands), short of complete capitulation, will be discounted due to your "inherent" inferiority. Any resistance to this, anything other than complete submission, becomes self-evident proof of their "superiority." The elitist POV presupposes the rationale of rightness and righteousness as inherent to themselves by virtue of their self-superior self-image not as a measure of the quality of their actions or their resulting consequences. That becomes the basis of their personal beliefs and can be supported by an ideology or philosophy they choose to identify with but the doctrine itself may or may not, loosely or strictly, support their view. That is of secondary or even tertiary importance. Of course the opposite is true for the "non-elites" in the fanatic's mindset. You can never be right if you're not one of the "righteous."
It should be obvious why a fanatic is dangerous. Any and all negative or evil acts can be justified on the basis of any disassociation with the personal identity of the fanatic. The intent and motivations of an "outsider" are irrelevant no matter how positive. The results of an outsider's actions are irrelevant no matter how accommodating or constructive. The non-elites are always wrong because they won't submit to the fanatic's view.
The world is full of fanatics of every kind and they can base their superior self-view on any pretext that they feel works for them. Some belong to large groups of "like-minded" fanatics, some belong to a group that is not in itself fanatical but lends itself to the fanatics needs and some are individuals who cling to the delusion that they alone are special.
In today's world the United States in particular and western civilization in general is under a concerted assault from two separate groups of fanatic elitists. Fundamentalist Muslims and leftists. The Islamo-nazis and the Marxists. Both leftists and Islamo-fascists hold a firm belief that they are special and have something that "rednecks" and infidels don't have. With leftists it is "intellect" and "social sophistication" and with Islamo-nazis it's a "call from Allah," a "holy annointing."
Both groups are manifestations of a mass psychological disorder of fanatic elitism. Both are extremely unstable and are neither founded upon nor affected by sound logic or reason. Convinced of their own "inherent" superiority they will both press their respective agendas as far as they can without regard for the consequences to themselves or to others. In both cases the blame for all of their actions will "logically" fall on the shoulders of "the others," the outsider. Negative consequences of their actions simply become another tool for self-vindication.
The fanatic elitist mindset is the same as the mindset of the rabid dog. It is the mindset of "us-and-them" on an absolute scale. Nothing else has a valid existence for them except for their personal perception of things. Nothing else can; their POV cannot be affected by outside influence by it's design. It is a paradigm that holds that anything contrary to it is self-negated. Change can only occur from within and this means a change in the "prime directive." Change requires the abdication of their most basic self-view, the view that they are special and unique in a superior way. A view that all reasonable people must either completely reject or submit to. Those are the only choices the fanatic leaves to "the others."
TigersEye - 7/27/05
Management might change, but career bureaucrats can still subvert, and there are holdovers out there from the Clintons and the Carter era.
Usually, these folks can put their political differences aside and just do their jobs, but of late 'Bush hate' has become a phenomenon unprecedented, save the vitriol the Left had for Nixon.
Of course, this fits in with the Vietnam Era antiwar jihad, Nixon hate, redux we have been seeing, too.
NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller arrested, judge orders must carry photos of victims at all times.
Jan, 2007.
Rush had a couple of parodies of NY Times commercials advertising for terrorists to subscribe- the Jihad Journal- Perfect description.
So a few reporters and editors are in jail. How will that make the terrorists forget the information they already received from the Times? How will it make them desist from trying to kill us? All it will do is give the ACLU lawyers something to occupy their time.
I could understand the Times doing this if its management thought that only Midwesterners and Southerners, people far away, would be affected. But the first bomb to go off is going to be in New York. The Times' staff and management will be among the first to get hit. What they're doing is suicidal.
Boycotting NYT wouldn't do any good. Far to many leftist are supporting NYT. Especially the big money folks.
So what about publishing the names, addresses and phone numbers of NY Times executives and reporters?
Don't we have a right to know?
So what about publishing the names, addresses and phone numbers of NY Times executives and reporters?
Good start. Then we can continue with all their tax returns for the last 7 years. In order to keep them "honest", we have the right to know where their money comes from, down to the last dinar. We can publish each credit card history, cell phone record, every group they ever joined, every "medicine" they ever took...........
After all, we are the public and it is our right to know.
There is a shadow govt. working AGAINST our country and the Bush admin.....they are COUP PLOTTERS. Mary McCarthy is a part of the coup-plotters...just to name one.
A boycott of their SPONSORS (and let them KNOW you are boycotting them) will make them feel a little PINCH.
Excellent analysis!
As for this comment, I'd like to see this happen now:
...angry, crowbar-carrying New Yorkers would have turned the Times building into an urban renewal project.
Why not just boycott the the Times...
&&
Better yet, contact their advertisers. The Gray Liar must be toppled!
Excellent analysis here.
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.