Open Letter to Ether Zone's Sartre:

Sartre: How utterly barren is your life, that you felt the need to write that inane, mean-spirited screed? It was "over-kill", a smear job, worthy of the political Left. But it was even worse than that, it was downright bizarre. My article, "The Heck With The Neocon Label" was subdued in comparison to your vitriolic response, "Carol Devine-Molin, You Are No Ronald Reagan". Well now its no holds barred.

Sartre, you're pompous and abusive! In effect, your attempt at a "gentlemanly" facade doesn't hold up to the light of day. Most regular readers only know what is espoused in your columns, but obviously don't have access to your emails that reflect much more of your inner psyche. (Although as a rule I don't reference private emails, here I'll make an exception since you were the one that opened up that pandora's box on the EZ Forum thread, in another attack upon me). Now they will know why I have good reason to be extremely wary of you.

Sartre, you're afraid of me, and the truth about you coming out. You consistently twist everything, and you are the one that is incredibly manipulative. And you have been tremendously ABUSIVE toward me, and probably other women as well. This is how I would characterize you, based on your emails and statements pursuant to Internet chat:

And the readership on the Internet should know why I was unwilling to engage in your Yahoo group, despite your cogent attempts to get me involved in that weird forum. Your emails demonstrate that you're eager to pummel and abuse women (especially Republican women, "true believers" as you even say in one of your emails), at least verbally, and that is an indication of an abusive person. And no one should be fooled by your concomitant attempts to charm and ingratiate, typical traits of those that maltreat. Here are quotes from your emails less than a few weeks ago, as you were making your case as to why I should participate:

**"I promise to conduct myself as a gentleman, when the blows beat some sense into your positions"

**"Just want to prepare you that the BATR Group has a tough time appealing to the "tender gender". Claire Wolfe and Wendy McElroy (who is a respected friend) didn't stay too long"

**"I would propose that I take up (the) cause from the male perspective and confront you and all other woman (sic) Republican ‘true believers'"

Sartre, I possess the emails, so don't even try to deny it. And your requests for "Sartre" to always be spelled in capps is another oddity, to say the least.

And here's a Sartre quote from "NeoCon Watch" on 11/4/02: "Ms C D-M deserves respect as a columnist, while her argument warrants destruction to the bowels of hell"

Gee, you can barely contain your aggression against me! And you actually think that I'm going to be lured into your lair to be unmercifully pummeled so that you get your cheap, sick thrills? Leave me alone!

By the way, "Mr. Psychology", your interpretation of codependency is a real stretch, by any standard – real gobbledegook. Codependency deals with enmeshed, dysfunctional interpersonal relationships -- these are the people who "enable" sickos like you, instead of confronting you for what you are. I'm familiar with both the codependency concept and the list that you cited, and I'm happy to report that it's not applicable to me. Gee, if I were a codependent type, I'd accept your garbage, I'd be an "enabler". But, no, I hold my ground and refuse to be demeaned, which is the antithesis of codependency. You don't realize that people understand what you are all about. And I sincerely hope that you get the clinical counseling that you need.

And why do I really get under your skin? Because you're a control freak, and I refuse to be controlled or pummeled by you. I smartly prefer to keep a safe distance. And here's more things that exasperate you, and drive your need to lash out at me:

• The Big GOP win, and I'm the quintessential Republican you'd like to thrash • My previous article, A Radicalized Ether Zone, where I took on the Hard Right • Your overall propensity to bully and abuse women • My refusal to accept the "Neocon" label that you want to hang on me, and beat me about the head with.

The ugly truth is that, in part, you're infuriated with me because I refused to accept the label that you insist on tagging me with – the "Neocon" epithet. Why? So that you, and the other Hard Right neanderthals can continue to assail me with it. Your ilk is obsessed with "Neocons", devoting entire websites to identifying "Neocons", and bashing "Neocons". And, surprise! Anyone that doesn't agree with you, Right, Left or Center, is now dubbed an evil "Neocon". Now how sick is that! But the truth is that Republicans particularly are the focus of your wrath. The "Neocon" tag is being used by both the Hard Right and the Left to stereotype and flail upon mainstream conservatives, which represents the majority of Republican Party members. I believe it would be accurate to say that there are relatively few Paleos that are still active within the GOP.

Sartre, regarding former President Ronald Reagan, whom you and many Paleos tend to lionize (as do I), its thoroughly ironic that Reagan is really the Big Daddy of the New Conservatives or the "Neocons" , as you are apt to call us. And, what you characterize as "Neoconservatism" is actually the norm for the Republican Party and has been so since Reagan. But we just refer to it as mainstream conservatism or conservatism, as we eschew this "Neo" prefix nonsense. Just remember, Reagan was a Democrat for years before switching parties, and he was very pro-Israel, as well. The later should really get your goat, given your strong anti-Israel sentiments, and reference to"dual passport holders in the foreign policy click". Moreover, Reagan and his team, either overtly or covertly, were involved in all types of global interventionism (Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Grenada, Libya, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.), something which Paleos abhor. Reagan was certainly an advocate of US supremacy, he upgraded and modernized a military that had been left in ruins by the Carter administration, and he loved the notion of supporting "freedom fighters" throughout the world. In fact, President George W. Bush's policy of "military strength and moral clarity" came directly from Ronald Reagan's overarching philosophy. All this "big military" and foreign interventionism is anathema to the Paleos, yet you claim Reagan for your own. Go figure! I stand by my entire article, including all my remarks regarding the Reagan agenda. And, yes, my political perspective has been very much molded by Ronald Reagan.

And your comment that I'm "deviant" because I support the GOP is totally laughable, and flies in the face of the fact that the GOP now represents the "majority party" in America. Let's quote you directly so that readers can readily evaluate your astonishing assertions. Sartre states: "Could it be that the codependency impairment requires you to accept the conclusions of the Warren Commission, as well? Or were you one of the investigators in Fort Marcy Park - Vince Foster would like to know . . . Intelligent, honest and sincere Americans have serious doubts in the wisdom of the policies that you support. That's why you are deviant, while maintaining your credentials as a mainstream Republican. The issue has always been - the GOP abandoned and betrays their traditional principles". Sartre, that's a totally lame insult, one that can be readily rebuffed. To be deviant, a person has to manifest ideas and behaviors that differ markedly from the norm. Being a Republican makes me as "American as apple pie", and dovetails quite nicely with widespread American views. Please come back from Hitler's Bunker and Cloud Cuckooland, when you decide to rejoin the human race.

Lastly, you're just a goon for management, and Bob Momenteller (Ether Zone's owner) really should get rid of you forthwith. But then again, you're his pal, and he's another whacko Paleo that craves the attack on so-called "Neocons".

To provide some context, here is the article by Sartre Carol is referring to and an earlier piece she wrote defending herself against the charge of neo-conservatism.

The forum posts are no longer available...

I hope links to Ether Zone articles aren't verbotten.

What? Anybody reads EtherZone? EtherZone was always fringe, and it gets fringier daily.

And Yahoo Groups? Nothing but a place where people with no life hang out, and Yahoo happily harvests their email addresses for spam.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

Dear Criminal #18: It's too bad about Ether Zone. It was actually a fun place to write for up until about seven months ago. But awful henchmen took over, and many writers left in utter disgust. And the writers should not be subjected to abuse by a mentally unbalanced man. Poor management style, and hypocrisy regarding free speech.

Well, I see Sartre - or Sutekh, as I've taken to calling him - is up to his new tricks.

His articles show up over at The American Partisan, too, and he pops into our forums to bait or duke it out with his former "Dueling Twin," James Hall, from time to time. He does indeed seem to be losing it, often slopping into total incomprehensibility in the middle or end of an argument.

FWIW I also got an invitation to his group, but after getting a little more well-informed as to what his politics were I decided it just wasn't for me. Now he says he hates me, always hated me and never read my columns at all - a blatant lie, since one of my earlier TAP ones is still up on one iteration of his BaTR page. Or maybe his memory's going potty...?

Who knows. It's a shame. When he's right he's very very right, but right or wrong he's obnoxious.

J

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.