SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Trouble With Anger

ADAM KIRSCH FEBRUARY 17, 2011

The Trouble With Anger

BY ADAM KIRSCH

In the brief national soul-searching that followed the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, many observers, including President Obama, reflected on the troubling excess of anger and moral indignation in our political discourse—the kind of indignation that turns opponents into enemies, and campaigns into crusades. Yet, even as responsible figures on the right and the left in America are urging their fellow-citizens (in Roger Ailes’s surprising words) to “tone it down,” the best-selling book in France is a pamphlet titled Indignez-vous!—roughly, Get Angry! This tract, about 15 pages long and priced at 3 euros, has sold close to one million copies since October.

The American press has not paid much attention to Indignez-vous!. But British newspapers have been fascinated by the human-interest elements of the book’s success. For one thing, the book’s 93-year-old author is a genuine hero. As a member of the French Resistance, Stephane Hessel parachuted into occupied France, was captured by the Nazis, and spent time in Buchenwald before escaping. After the war, he became a diplomat, serving on the commission that produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

His biography is central both to the success of Indignez-vous! and to what has so far received much less attention: its actual argument. The book is explicitly designed as the deathbed charge of a World War II hero to today’s youth, urging them to cast off their feckless indifference and reclaim the righteous indignation of the Resistance. “I want all of you, each one of you, to have your grounds for indignation,” Hessel writes. “It is precious. When you get outraged the way I was outraged by Nazism, you become militant, strong, and engaged.”

It might seem hard to object to Hessel’s message, which, on one level, is as platitudinous as a high-school graduation speech: care about the world you live in, fight injustice, cherish non-violence (“I am convinced that the future belongs to non-violence, to the reconciliation of different cultures”). Yet there is actually something quite troubling about the huge popularity of Indignez-vous! and about the political use it makes of the Resistance legacy. For what defined the years 1940 to1944 in France was, precisely, the absence of politics: a country under foreign occupation is deprived of the opportunity, and the responsibility, of self-government. This is a source of humiliation and suffering, but it can also, to those brave people who continue to engage in public life, be a source of exhilarating clarity. Especially when the occupier is as unmistakably evil as Nazi Germany, and especially when the resister is half-Jewish, like Hessel, the compromises and uncertainties of ordinary politics are abolished. “Resisting, for us, meant refusing to accept German occupation and defeat. It was relatively simple,” Hessel recalls.

And what could be more natural than wanting to carry this simplicity and urgency into the realm of ordinary politics, where everything is so maddeningly complicated and drawn-out? “We are determined to replace politics with morality,” Camus wrote in an editorial in Combat, the Resistance newspaper, on September 4, 1944. “That is what we call a revolution.” Yet, within days of the Liberation—as you can see dramatically in the remarkable volume Camus at Combat: Writing 1944-1947—the Resistance’s exemption from politics began to crumble, as the compromises involved in actual governing returned.

If it was impossible to replace politics with righteous anger in 1944, it is surely all the more impossible in 2011. In fact, when Hessel tries to make “get angry” into a political platform, the results range from incoherent to sinister. For the attractive thing about anger is also the dangerous thing about it: It turns consensus, the basis of democratic politics, into a vice. All of France’s problems today, Hessel explains, can be attributed to the rich: “the power of money … has never been so large, insolent, and egotistical, with its servants even in the highest spheres of the State.” These are the same kinds of malefactors, he says, who were responsible for the defeat of 1940 and the rise of Vichy: “When I try to understand the origins of fascism, why were invaded by it and by Vichy, I tell myself that the rich, with their egotism, were terribly afraid of the Bolshevik Revolution.”

It follows from this equation that any attempt to cut back the French welfare state, such as Nicholas Sarkozy has been making with limited success, is the moral equivalent of Vichy. One of Hessel’s examples of the virtuous indignation he is calling for is the French teachers’ strike in 2008: The teachers who rebelled against proposed budget cuts “decided that these reforms departed too far from the ideal of the republican school, were too much at the service of a society of money.” Yet Hessel does not say anything at all about the content of the reform, which was extremely moderate—to shed 8,000 teaching jobs through attrition, by not replacing 50 percent of retiring teachers. Nor does he say anything about the motivation for it—to balance the French budget in line with European Union requirements, and to respond to falling class sizes. In other words, Hessel’s indignation does not allow for consideration of the trade-offs involved in every ordinary political decision. This kind of thinking, which makes every reform a conspiracy and every strike a defense of the Republic, explains why—as the education minister complained at the time—there were 33 French education strikes between 2000 and 2008.

 

It comes as something of a surprise when Hessel turns from his denunciation of Sarkozy’s policies on education and immigration to announce that “today, my primary indignation concerns Palestine, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank.” But then, somehow, it is not a surprise at all. If indignation is a license for automatic, self-gratifying judgment, then the Israel-Palestine conflict is the European left’s favorite supplier of indignation. Hessel focuses on Israel’s incursion into Gaza in 2009, the so-called “Operation Cast Lead,” which was very bloody, and certainly deserves the intense scrutiny it has received. But to solve the insoluble conflict will require exactly that kind of mutual consideration, that balancing of the needs and fears of both sides, that Hessel’s indignation is designed to prevent.

In its place, he gives us a sentimental, and actually quite condescending, eulogy of the Palestinians of Gaza: “their patriotism, their love of the sea and the beaches, their constant preoccupation with the well-being of their countless, cheerful children.” (The very same words could be said of the Jews of Tel Aviv.) And, because indignation sees all the right on one side and all the wrong on the other, Hessel is totally unable to bring his professed non-violent principles to bear on Palestinian extremism and Palestinian terrorism: “Obviously, I think that terrorism is unacceptable, but…” “Does Hamas benefit from launching rockets on the town of Sderot? The answer is no. It does not serve their cause, but…” For the Israelis, of course, there is no extenuating “mais,” only the senseless insinuation of a reverse Holocaust: “For Jews to be able to perpetrate their own war crimes is unacceptable.”

Hessel concludes his pamphlet by calling the first decade of the twenty-first century “a period of retreat,” mainly because of George W. Bush. The mass murder of Americans on September 11 is mentioned as a cause of this American “retreat,” but it is clearly less worthy of indignation than Bush’s election and the invasion of Iraq. And not worthy of indignation at all, apparently, are Vladimir Putin’s strangulation of Russian democracy, or China’s continuing communist dictatorship, or genocide in Darfur, or endless wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo—all features of the last decade that might seem to deserve a share of Hessel’s censure. Indeed, one might even say that those tyrants and genocidaires are much more the inheritors of what Hessel calls “fascist barbarism” than the French Ministry of Education.

Hessel blames the paralysis of the Third Republic on the selfishness of the rich. But surely another important cause was the debasement of its political discourse, its rhetoric of treason and subversion—in short, its toxic level of indignation. “Get angry” is not a political motto. It is an anti-political motto. And it may be that it is this legacy, rather than the noble legacy of the Resistance, that Indignez-vous! is actually transmitting to its millions of frightened readers.

 

Adam Kirsch is a senior editor for The New Republic.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 80 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

80 comments

Got anything to say about the relentless calls of the American right, in all its parts, for anger and indignation?

- roidubouloi

February 17, 2011 at 1:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another nut who regards the newly minted Palestinians out of the Arab refugees that Arab states that created them refuse to absorb to this day. Israel absorbed all the more numerous Jews fleeing for their life from Arab states. No one remember appropriately this little detail. Israel is always ready for peace as soon as a Saddat comes forward. None came forth ever since his assassination for making peace with Israel. Go ahead use "The Palestinians" as an excuse for anything. We can see the hypocrisy with eyes closed. Nothing about Darfur, the Kuril Islands, Tibet... Only The Palestinians, the West Bank! By the way, both were invented in the 60's when Jordan lost it's land grab of Judea and Samaria. Those are the names that are real for millennia.

- Poupic

February 17, 2011 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Got anything to say about the relentless calls of the American right, in all its parts, for anger and indignation?" Why is this relevant here?

- arnon

February 17, 2011 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stephane Hessel is writing in the tradition of French anti-government diatribes that were common in the 1930’s and were usually directed against Jews. These were written all too often by “pacifists” like the novelist Celine who accused Jews of “wanting to start a war against Hitler.” (See the book “Cultural Life in Nazi Occupied Paris” by Alan Riding) That he is in his 90’s and has a storied history that includes fighting with De Gaulle doesn’t change that. The downside of people living into advanced old age while still holding on to political power is that they are unable to look at contemporary political events through contemporary eyes.

- arnon

February 17, 2011 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Got anything to say about the relentless calls of the American right, in all its parts, for anger and indignation." Thank you, roidubouloi. The Right Wing Extremists (RWE) reach more people in one day in the USA than all the copies of the 15-page pamphlet in France in one year.

- LawrenceGulotta

February 17, 2011 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stephane Hessel belongs among the ranks of those whose god died when the Soviet Union finally imploded and all the satellite Soviet republics ran to join the ranks of Western liberal capitalist democracies. I have little patience left for those like Hessel who despise the flawed societies of the West in the name of something greater, nobler, and more just--that unfortunately doesn't exist. Having exhausted the possibilities of finding a better world with Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II or the Sandinistas, they are finally reduced to championing the Palestinians as their "noble savages" at the price of turning a blind eye to their treachery, guile and uncompromising bloodlust. Pathetic old man.

- willjames77

February 17, 2011 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Says arnon, "Got anything to say about the relentless calls of the American right, in all its parts, for anger and indignation?" Why is this relevant here?" See Gulotta above. If you don't understand, well then, you don't understand. More words will not enlighten you.

- roidubouloi

February 17, 2011 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The idiot roidubouloi garbled up purposely me thinks the points made above. I know what Gulorra is getting at, but that still doesn't tell me what the right wing diatribes in this country has to do with Hessel's screed.

- arnon

February 17, 2011 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't usually like to comment on these things but because this article was emailed to me in my "subscriber's" update, it seems necessary to point out that going from the fact that Hessel blames the rise of the Vichy regime in France on the wealthy and their fear of Bolshevik revolution, to the suggestion that Hessel morally equates any modern-day attempt to cut back the French welfare state with Vichy, is a pretty outrageous leap in logic on the part of the author of this article. I haven't read Hessel's pamphlet but am sufficiently comfortable with this topic to question whether that isn't a rather appalling extrapolation to make about Hessel's argument and extreme words to put in his mouth in order to advance the "political" agenda of this short review?

- ezerofsky

February 17, 2011 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kirsh may very well be right in the narrow sense but it is at the expense of a larger truth, namely that anger and which side are you on? are notable in their absence with today's political class of all stripes, who have no larger vision beyond petty technocratic tinkering justified in monochromal gray bureaucratese . The alternative to the sway of simplistic passion is not uninspiring compromise and inertia but passion that both engages and acknowledges complexity in social life. At least Hessel's book has more going for it than the French bestseller a few years before, the nihilistic and vacuous "The Coming Insurrection."

- cansv

February 17, 2011 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The perfect asshole arnon is simply too stupid to be here. Time and again he fails to comprehend the simplest of distinctions and then becomes belligerent in his embarrassment. Ok you ninny. At the risk of boring those who have their wits about them, I shall explain it to you in excruciating detail. You still won't get it, because you are too stupid, but at least then it shall be clear to all that you have no excuse. The author of this review is descrying anger and indignation as a political tactic. That is distinct from taking issue with the particular political ideas advocated by Hessel. One can take issue with the tactic, one can take issue with the man's positions, one can do both. However, the nature of the argument as to the tactics advocated and their effect on political discourse is rather different than an argument about the substance of Hessel's positions. Insofar as the author is objecting to the call for anger and indignation as a political tactic, it is perfectly appropriate to ask why he confines his argument to Hessel. Hessel is calling upon the left to adopt a tone and political voice that is already the bread and butter of the right. Curiously, he fails even to mention this. He attacks Hessel for advocating something that is far from the reality on the left while completely ignoring the fact that the right is ostentatiously consumed with anger and indication. One must wonder what is the meaning of this omission. Might the author have an agenda of his own quite distinct from his ostensible criticism? He might indeed. Can arnon get his head out of his ass long enough to understand even such simple distinctions? I rather doubt it. He is as proud as proud can be of his ignorance and his stupidity. He has every good reason as he displays an abundance of both. Go home, putz. You are way out of your league at TNR.

- roidubouloi

February 17, 2011 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"anger and indignation" not "indication."

- roidubouloi

February 17, 2011 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Stephane Hessel belongs among the ranks of those whose god died when the Soviet Union finally imploded and all the satellite Soviet republics ran to join the ranks of Western liberal capitalist democracies..." Sounds right to me, William James.

- arnon

February 18, 2011 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not a particularly revealing "review". Kirsch is content to rail against the "excess of anger and moral indignation he sees in the US and, based on Hessel's book, in France. The obvious, and much more important, question is WHY? What is behind the upsurge in anger, etc? Why waste our time with this mini-bio of Hessel? His book and its evident popularity are symptoms of larger issues. For Kirsch, a dangerous, animal-like force called "indignation" is the problem. Well, newsflash, Adam--anger and other human emotions are driven by human interaction with the world and other human beings. Mass anger has causes. If want to write something useful--rather than a scary bedtime story for the kiddies, why don't you examine the underlying causes and ponder what might be done to mitigate them? "All of France’s problems today, Hessel explains, can be attributed to the rich: 'the power of money … has never been so large, insolent, and egotistical, with its servants even in the highest spheres of the State.'” Well, I'll have to take your word that Hessel attributed "all of France's problems" to the rich. But do you disagree with his contention that money and its practitioners have never been so powerful, arrogant, and demanding? I don't.

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 18, 2011 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“For Kirsch, a dangerous, animal-like force called "indignation" is the problem. Well, newsflash, Adam--anger and other human emotions are driven by human interaction with the world and other human beings.” This misses the point of Kirsch’s review. Among other things Kirsch in his review of Hessel’s pamphlet says: “Hessel’s indignation does not allow for consideration of the trade-offs involved in every ordinary political decision.” His point is that anger and indignation are a-political emotions. This is something that people on the left used to take for granted. Anger has always been an emotion that extremists have exploited as the “Tea Party” movement shows in this country. Anger eschews compromise and denies the validity of views held by their opponents.

- arnon

February 18, 2011 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Anger eschews compromise and denies the validity of views held by their opponents." Anger is such an emotion that makes people stupid. When people are angry, they stop thinking rationally at which point their minds are very vulnerable to being invaded and colonized by propaganda ploys. Anger is not a value. It is an emotion that once unleashed in masses can be extremely dangerous. Lynchings are done by anger. For a (self-perceived) moral agent like Hessel to try and whip up anger should, as per definition, discredit him from being allowed to take any leading role in influencing people. A similar call for anger written by Le Penn would have been received with utter scepticism and scorn. The fact that it comes from a former Resistance fighter seems to immunize him from the charge of preaching antisemitic sentiment and considerations. _________________ BTW, roi is well positioned to preach about "the tactics [of anger]advocated and their effect on political discourse". He knows a thing or two about deploying such tactics: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/79401/obamas-foreign-policy-needs-reset "What Obama was most unprepared for is the reality that the enemies of America are not just the Iranians, Moslem terrorists, the Chinese, and such, but the entire American right." "Every last one of them is an enemy of the United States of America, happy intentionally to damage the nation for the purpose of unseating Obama, happy to side with our enemies and make our problems, such as unemployment, worse for the purpose of unseating Obama, even willing to declare that the purpose of power in the hands of the Republican party is not to address the problems of the nation but to unseat Obama. And what they will do for personal greed is unspeakable. They are enemies. We are in a life and death struggle with them for the future of our nation, or whether it even has much of a future. Traitors, scoundrels, liars and thieves one and all." roi is decrying the author's attack on Hessel for advocating something that he, roi, ostentatiously consumed with anger, is completely sympathetic to. No wonder roi resorts to an angry response. Someone might notice that he might have an agenda of his own, quite distinct from his ostensible criticism.

- noga1

February 18, 2011 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is an apolitical emotion? I'm not familiar with the concept. Of course, emotion can be directed at the non-political, but the POLITICAL will always be suffused with emotion. How could one ever separate anger or any emotion FROM the political arena? Politics is about competition for and the division of power and its benefits among a population. Competition inevitably breeds winners and losers on both an absolute and relative basis. This pattern of human interaction inevitably generates anger. If the political anger is merely that of isolated individuals, it will will have little impact on the system. If the anger is sufficiently widespread, "there will be blood." Anger is perhaps the MOST political of emotions, which an effective political system will diffuse. Otherwise how, as you point out, could it be the subject of political manipulation? People are rarely angry just to be angry. You may or may not feel the bases of their anger are justified, but they certainly exist--that's undeniable. So, if Hessel's point is, as you say, the apolitical nature of anger, then he has no point at all--and that's my point. If your point is that political anger can be dangerous, then I am in agreement. But the real issue, then, is to identify its sources and and take action--either in support of its goals, to eliminate its causes, or to frustrate its objectives--not simply to bewail the "excess of indignation."

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 18, 2011 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“What is an apolitical emotion? I'm not familiar with the concept. Of course, emotion can be directed at the non-political, but the POLITICAL will always be suffused with emotion.” I never claimed that the obverse is true. It was Kirsch who argued that anger is a-political. That in part is what the article was about. Take it up with him. I agree with Kirsch because anger is often unfocused and can motivate one only sporadically, one can’t sustain anger over the long haul as it often becomes unfocused and diminishes over time. For meaningful political action to take place you need planning; you need to enter the realm of the rational.

- arnon

February 18, 2011 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, in the final paragraph of my comment, I meant Kirsch's point, not "Hessel's point".

- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old

February 18, 2011 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see RoiDuBavure remains the same old coprophagic bully.

- TNR.Reader

February 18, 2011 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fuck off tnr.reader. You remain the same self-important jerk you always were. The day assholes like you and arnon learn how to conduct yourselves civilly it will no longer be necessary to abuse you. But that isn't going to happen because your manifest incapacities leave you no psychological alternative. As for you, nova, thank you for quoting me here yet again. The longer political events in the world unfold, the more those very words ring true. What you and the rest of the fascist right most desire is to have the tactics that Hessel advocates to yourselves because they are the essential fuel of your vicious and incessant propaganda. Regardless of his opinions, what Hessel advocates is that the left must also adopt anger and indignation. In this, he is correct, because lies such as yours cannot be fought successfully with mere reason. This of course is precisely what Kirsch fears, that the left may, through conscious appeal to anger and indignation, become as mobilized as the right. And that might spell the end of the apartheid to which you cling and attempt to justify by the existence of anti-semitism. Hence you fear it too. Speking of which, How's the home life, noga? Still yearning to replace your husband with a gay man? Making any progress?

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 1:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does Jew-hatred make you angry, noga? All the evidence, not least that you are utterly consumed by it as the only important social and political fact in thevworld, suggests that it does. Are you thus rendered stupid, vulnerable to propaganda, or do you except your own totally consuming anger as somehow different? It seems that you do, because you consider yourself justified. Anger and indignation are both your weapon and your shield. Hence your devout wish to deny them to anyone who considers the behavior you advocate and defend to be unacceptable. What farce. Were Hessel the worst anti-Semite on the planet, his observation that anger and indignation cannot be allowed to be the exclusive privilege of the right would be perfectly correct. And we will not see the likes of you abandoning them whenever they serbe your purposes.

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 2:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Speking of which, How's the home life, noga? Still yearning to replace your husband with a gay man? Making any progress?" Why are you so bothered by my theory, roi? Your strange jeers only prove my point: that anger, especially.. err... impotent rage... makes people stupid. And dangerous, when given any power. Stupid and dangerous. Dangerous because of their stupidity. Semi professional politicians ought to strive to be less stupid if they wish to be taken seriously.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 6:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I adore your theory that marriage between heterosexual women and homosexual men is the ideal, noga. I call it to mind because it makes clear even to those who are vulnerable to your particular brand of propaganda that, whatever rhetorical raiment you adopt on a given day, you are still profoundly disturbed, an inmate in the asylum who has stolen a lab coat and is pretending to be one of the staff. But you haven't answered the question, noga. How is it that, uniquely, your own all consuming anger does not render you stupid? Or is it not just as I suggested that what you and Kirsch wish somehow to achieve is to continue a state of affairs in which anger and indignation are the monopoly of the right? They are dangerous alright, and being wielded by the enemies of liberalism, science, and common decency against the rest of us. Time for the targetable this reactionary assault to get angry and indignant, very angry and indignant. You have leave to be rendered as stupid by your white hot anger as you like. Do you think that for someone with crackpot social theories such as yours it would make a difference?

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Time for the targets of this reactionary assault to get angry and indignant . . .

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think readers of these comments can draw their own conclusions as to who is rendered stupid by their anger.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just re-read your post and had a great laugh. You are so self-unaware that you fail to observe the irony of someone who advocates marriage between heterosexual women and homosexual men talking about impotence in that very context. You see, noga, this is precisely what your fantasy betrays, a longing for escape into a world in which men, evidently your enemies, are impotent but no stigma attaches to you as a result. In relation to each other, homosexual men may still be potent, but in a fantasized marriage with you, they are as eunuchs rendered safely impotent yet still useful. It is the perfect psychological foil for this political discussion where you, Kirsch, and others of your ilk express nothing so much as the desire that the left remain impotent in the face of the raging and resurgent forcesnof reaction.

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Still evading the incoherence of your own point, I see. You are a true delight, noga. In a few sentences you managed to lay bare the hypocrisy of Kirsch with your own, a feat that might otherwise have required an essay.

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Just re-read your post and had a great laugh" So you went back to re-read my post, did you? And you keep harking back in outraged disbelief to my theory (about straight women marrying gay men), I would say, obsessively. Then you unleash a stream of personal invective and fulmination of barely controlled wrath. I'm flattered. To be thus sought out and hated by such a clever and knowledgeable poster as you think you are. Can't remember another time when I have been important enough for this to happen to me.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sure that for you this is a highpoint in an otherwise bleak existence, noga. You make that quite clear by constantly soliciting my attention. Disbelief? Oh no, I quite accept that you accurately report your fantasies. Outrage? Over what? Why would I be troubled in the least by your perverse sexual fantasy life? I find it terribly amusing and a wonderful indication of how thoroughly wacked out you are.

- roidubouloi

February 19, 2011 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I find it terribly amusing " But that's just the problem, roi. Even though you say you are amused, your comments to me do not reflect a state of amusement. Only rage. And as I said, rage makes people stupid.

- noga1

February 19, 2011 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1, most sane people, whether or not they agree with you, realize that roidubouloi is just an angry dude with nothing better to do that go after individual posters with whom he disagrees. The worst thing you can do is engage the goon in dispassionate discussion. Haters are never dispassionate, they are never fair, and seldom sane.

- arnon

February 20, 2011 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You have a unique ability, noga, to attract to you all of the stupidest assholes who show up here. No sooner does a new one arrive, in this case arnon, then they become your defenders. How can we account for this? I think it is because the lot of you suffer from the identical dementia. You are incompetent in argument, in your frustration you resort to epithets and ad hominem, and then, when I respond to you in kind, you whimper and blubber that you are being victimized. You all have exactly the same psychotic ideation in which you are incapable of observing your own behavior or accepting responsibility for it. I know what I am doing. You and your little coterie of admirers, now including arnon, never seem to. You, arnon, are a putz of the first magnitude. I don't need to "go after" other posters with whom I disagree because I am perfectly capable, as you are not, of deploying coherent argument. In case you haven't noticed, the first exchange of ad hominem between you and me is your reference to me as an "idiot" or "idiotic." For no reason at all other than your frustration at your own inability to sustain a point. It doesn't much matter to me whether you engage in this sort of behavior as I have no problem ripping you several new assholes to go along with the great big asshole that is your fine self. I am happy to be civil, just as happy to have the opportunity, with a clear conscience, to lacerate dunces like you who seem to think they enjoy some unique privilege to engage in this behavior without themselves becoming targets of it. No such luck for you, you pathetic boob. As noga will be happy to explain to you (after what must be a couple of years now at least), I never run out of either energy for the battle or vitriol to heap upon fools such as you. I promise not to be dispassionate, fair or sane in my treatment of you. I do guarantee to humiliate you thoroughly and make it obvious to everyone here that you are every bit as stupid as I claim you are. What do you say, asshole? Shall we go a few hundred rounds and see who gets tired first?

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2011 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You have a unique ability, noga, to attract to you all of the stupidest assholes who show up here. No sooner does a new one arrive, in this case arnon, then they become your defenders. How can we account for this? I think it is because the lot of you suffer from the identical dementia. " Wrong, roi. Arnon is not my defender. He has attacked my positions in the past. You wouldn't know about it, of course. "As noga will be happy to explain to you (after what must be a couple of years now at least), I never run out of either energy for the battle or vitriol to heap upon fools such as you." Yes, arnon, roi is right. He our very own energizer bunny. There is, however, a method in his madness. He is cringingly polite and solicitous towards posters who are not Jewish and demonize Israel. Even if those posters are not as anti-Israeli as would please him, he knows how to restrain his bile when he converses with them. There is something thoroughly pathetic about his desperate need to be loved by such posters. Funny thing is, I notice that even those whose favours he curries, put some distance between him and them. Every once in a while someone will throw him a bone which give a boost to his invective levels. You are of course correct that "The worst thing you can do is engage the goon in dispassionate discussion". I'm sure everyone has noticed by now that roi did not read the article. He couldn't have. He thinks that Hessel's message can be summed up in the following statement: "his observation that anger and indignation cannot be allowed to be the exclusive privilege of the right would be perfectly correct." Where does it say it? And why is roi imagining that this is the gist of the article discussed here? ________________ Wait now for an avalanche of roi's wrath. BTW, don't his comments to me that involve sexual innuendos constitute sexual harassment? "Verbal gender harassment refers to offensive sexual messages aimed towards a victim that are initiated by a harasser. Such offensive messages include gender-humiliating comments, rape threats, and sexual remarks which are unwelcome, and are neither invited nor consensual. Verbal harassment can be either passive or active depending on whether the harasser targets a specific victim (active) or targets potential receivers (passive)." It is obvious that nothing, absolutely nothing, is too base for roi not to be used in his political crusade.

- noga1

February 20, 2011 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"es, arnon, roi is right. He our very own energizer bunny. There is, however, a method in his madness. He is cringingly polite and solicitous towards posters who are not Jewish and demonize Israel." This is typical of bullies, noga1, they cringe before people they consider their superiors. "es, arnon, roi is right. He our very own energizer bunny. There is, however, a method in his madness. He is cringingly polite and solicitous towards posters who are not Jewish and demonize Israel." This is typical of bullies, noga1, they cringe before people they consider their superiors. roidubouloi is an idiot and a pathetic loser who believes his own bombastic nonsense.

- arnon

February 20, 2011 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi I should add has never posted anything that can be remotely considered thoughtful much less brilliant. He is a genius in his own mind, the mind of an idiot.

- arnon

February 20, 2011 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am polite to everyone who is polite. But I love to sweep the floor with dreck like you and arnon, noga, who always resort to personal attack when your consuming hatred and anger outrun your ability to think, which takes hardly any time at all. In particular, your obsession with me is nothing if not bizarre. I never comment about YOU to make a point, as you are banal and I wouldn't want to waste my own time. Only to respond to your invective. But there is nothing that I can post without you immediately attempting to make me the subject rather than whatever is being discussed. Isn't that strange? Are you completely unable to see how sick that is? And your sickness is such that, while engaging in this behavior, you imagine yourself to be a civilized human being. I also see that, despite the departure of the late, demented Martin Peretz, you haven't lost your touch. Typical of your Goebbels-y smears is this business about my solicitude toward posters who "are not Jewish and demonize Israel." I'll happily cop to politeness, even cringing politeness and solicitude. But just who are these "non-Jewish posters who demonize Israel?" Who here demonizes Israel other than a couple of posters, like smacechearn, who haven't been seen or heard of in months? The problem is not that there are all these posters who demonize Israel for me to be polite to. There are barely any such and they seldom last long here. No, it is rather that anyone who objects to Israel's appalling violations of the human rights of Palestinians and the corruption and dishonesty of its rightist government is therefore characterized by you as "demonizing Israel" and then subjected to a horrifying stream of abuse at your hands. Actually, it hardly takes much in the way of criticism to excite your goonish reflexes. You think that because crimes have been committed against Jews, that because there really are Jew-haters in the world, that you are justified in being as execrable as they are. And you go at it with relish. If you were representative of Israel and the Jews, noga, who could not fail to be anti-Semitic? Who could fail to detest us if you were typical? As for sexual harrassment, the public sexual fantasies were yours, noga. I didn't invent them or attach them to you. Nor have I mis-characterized them. You offered them up here and I cannot imagine any reason why we should then be forbidden from discussing them or what they imply for your disordered thought. It isn't their sexual nature that makes them of interest, noga, but the window they offer into your bizarre ideation and how that sheds light on your viciousness and obsessiveness. There is good reason why you were so aptly named, and not by me, "the gargoyle of the Spine." As for your little suck-up, arnon, he is such a pathetic little excuse for a thug, nowhere near in your league, I actually find it hard to get very worked up about him. While he richly deserves any abuse one might send in his direction, he is so vapid, there is so little there of any kind, I find myself uninspired. Oh well. Maybe tomorrow. Come to think of it though, while you are busy accusing me of cringing solicitude and such, don't you find it a bit funny that we have here, in arnon, quoting you, exactly the cringing, licking, and fawning that you wish to ascribe to me? Not only do you attract assholes like flies to honey, noga, but assholes who display your own stunning lack of self-awareness. Here he is licking and fawning over you while quoting you on that very subject! One can easily get lost in all the self-references.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2011 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"as for sexual harrassment, the public sexual fantasies were yours, noga. I didn't invent them or attach them to you. Nor have I mis-characterized them. You offered them up here and I cannot imagine any reason why we should then be forbidden from discussing them or what they imply for your disordered thought. It isn't their sexual nature that makes them of interest, noga, but the window they offer into your bizarre ideation and how that sheds light on your viciousness and obsessiveness. There is good reason why you were so aptly named, and not by me, "the gargoyle of the Spine." Let's see your courage match these defiant words. Why don't you quote and link to those "public sexual fantasies" that you claim I made on these boards. If you fail to produce them, then you will be known for the liar, slanderer and sexual harasser that you are.

- noga1

February 20, 2011 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, don't be ridiculous, noga. Surely you are not denying your rumination on these boards about the superiority of marriage between heterosexual women and homosexual men. Right above, you didn't deny it. Rather, you insisted that I was enraged by it (rather than amused). Suddenly you deny even having said such a thing? Whereas you are an obsessive whack-job who maintains meticulous records of the things that I write (something you have also acknowledged) so that you can quote me (as you constantly do), I don't keep track of the things you say, noga. You are not that interesting. I have no doubt, however, that you have the exact link to the aforesaid ruminations of your own. So, do the world a favor and quote them in their entirety here again (as I have had to quote my own statements in their entirety when in the past you have butchered them to reflect the words you want to place in my mouth). Then all can judge whether I have mischaracterized them. If you don't, why then, I expect that I will track them down eventually. And then we will all know that you are the liar and slanderer you are as well as an incessant, obsessive, psychotic claimant to imagined victimhood. What you really are, noga, is a stalker. As I pointed out above, I cannot post here, at least not any thought that you disagree with, without you endeavoring to make me personally the subject rather than whatever is the subject under discussion. I don't do that. I do not doubt that you would have no compunction inventing a rape charge if it served your sick compulsion to destroy people whose ideas you hate. Thank god we are here only in cyber-space.

- roidubouloi

February 20, 2011 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did start to search. Haven't gotten there yet. But I did stumble into this appropriate bit in response to you: "04/11/2010 - 10:57pm EDT | icarusr . . . Second, I have not responded to your uncalled-for personal assault, and I will not indulge your mania for false martyrdom. You're beginning to sound even more unhinged than normal. I strongly suggest you take your whine back to the Spine." Le plus ça change, non?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 12:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, we don't really have to go back to the primal quote, as all the evidence is right here: 02/19/2011 - 6:56am EDT | noga1 "Speaking of which, How's the home life, noga? Still yearning to replace your husband with a gay man? Making any progress?" Why are you so bothered by my theory, roi? Your strange jeers only prove my point: that anger, especially.. err... impotent rage... makes people stupid. And dangerous, when given any power. . . . 02/19/2011 - 10:06am EDT | roidubouloi I adore your theory that marriage between heterosexual women and homosexual men is the ideal, noga. I call it to mind because it makes clear even to those who are vulnerable to your particular brand of propaganda that, whatever rhetorical raiment you adopt on a given day, you are still profoundly disturbed, an inmate in the asylum who has stolen a lab coat and is pretending to be one of the staff. 02/19/2011 - 10:25am EDT | roidubouloi Just re-read your post and had a great laugh. You are so self-unaware that you fail to observe the irony of someone who advocates marriage between heterosexual women and homosexual men talking about impotence in that very context. You see, noga, this is precisely what your fantasy betrays, a longing for escape into a world in which men, evidently your enemies, are impotent but no stigma attaches to you as a result. In relation to each other, homosexual men may still be potent, but in a fantasized marriage with you, they are as eunuchs rendered safely impotent yet still useful. It is the perfect psychological foil for this political discussion where you, Kirsch, and others of your ilk express nothing so much as the desire that the left remain impotent in the face of the raging and resurgent forces of reaction. 02/19/2011 - 3:44pm EDT | noga1 "Just re-read your post and had a great laugh" So you went back to re-read my post, did you? And you keep harking back in outraged disbelief to my theory (about straight women marrying gay men), I would say, obsessively. Then you unleash a stream of personal invective and fulmination of barely controlled wrath. I'm flattered. . . . ________________ After all that, we finally get this: 02/20/2011 - 5:56pm EDT | noga1 . . . BTW, don't his comments to me that involve sexual innuendos constitute sexual harassment? "Verbal gender harassment refers to offensive sexual messages aimed towards a victim that are initiated by a harasser. Such offensive messages include gender-humiliating comments, rape threats, and sexual remarks which are unwelcome, and are neither invited nor consensual. Verbal harassment can be either passive or active depending on whether the harasser targets a specific victim (active) or targets potential receivers (passive)." 02/20/2011 - 10:29pm EDT | roidubouloi . . . As for sexual harrassment, the public sexual fantasies were yours, noga. I didn't invent them or attach them to you. Nor have I mis-characterized them. You offered them up here and I cannot imagine any reason why we should then be forbidden from discussing them or what they imply for your disordered thought. It isn't their sexual nature that makes them of interest, noga, but the window they offer into your bizarre ideation and how that sheds light on your viciousness and obsessiveness. There is good reason why you were so aptly named, and not by me, "the gargoyle of the Spine." ______________________ And so, noga, after all of that, you now want to claim that you did not in fact ruminate aloud here about the superiority of marriage between gay men and straight women? You have already impeached yourself thoroughly, and there are no "innuendos," as you characterize them, of any kind. My interpretation of the meaning of your theory is quite explicit and, far from being baseless, is thoroughly grounded in your own words. "An innuendo is a baseless invention of thoughts or ideas. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. An innuendo is, according to the Advanced Oxford Learner's Dictionary, "an indirect remark about somebody's body, usually suggesting something bad, mean or rude; the use of remarks like this: innuendoes about her private life or The song is full of sexual innuendo." The word is often used to express disapproval. In the context of defamation law, an innuendo is the meaning born by the form of words complained of. The term sexual innuendo has acquired a specific meaning, namely that of a "risque" double entendre by playing on a possibly sexual interpretation of an otherwise innocent uttering." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innuendo ______________________ But do find the original and share, won't you?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames, have you any evidence -- I mean, something other than a right-wing smear -- that would support your implication that the Sandinista government in Nicaragua can justly be included in your bestiary of Stalin, Pol Pot, or even Castro? To the best of my knowledge, the Sandinistas engaged in no mass executions, nationalized only that property that belonged to the Batista family (which was a heck of a lot), permitted other political parties and newspapers to exist, and gave up power upon losing the elections in 1988, eight years after they had taken power in the 1979 revolution. I don't get it.

- ironyroad

February 21, 2011 at 1:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, I take it you cannot produce a quote and a link. Instead you resort to repeating your own perjurious allegations as proof. That won't do. Therefore, you expose yourself as a liar and a sexual harasser. But do keep looking.

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 6:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh my, noga. Have you been misled? Notice, I did not say in may last post that I couldn't find the link. I had already found it. What I said is that there is no need for it as all the evidence necessary can be found right here in this thread. That gave me the opportunity to quote you in sufficient detail to make plain that you cannot now claim to have forgotten your own words. By then inviting you to set the record straight, I also gave you the opportunity to retreat from your deliberate lie. Instead, you decided to repeat it, with emphasis. In that manner, we have conclusively negated either lapse of memory or inadvertence on your part. We know for certain that you are indeed a liar and will knowingly, deliberately makes false accusations if you believe that you can gain thereby and that you have not been caught out. Both have long been obvious to me, but it is kind of you to furnish as such convincing proof. So, here it is, the quote and the link: 11/25/2010 - 1:46pm EDT | noga1 . . . "(Remind me sometime to tell you what my theory for an ideal marriage is. It involves gay men marrying straight women.)" http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/79401/obamas-foreign-policy-needs-reset#comments ______________________ As icarus said nearly a year ago, you need to "take your whine back to the Spine." Your particular vileness may have found lots of company there, but it is not the custom in the rest of TNR. You are indeed "the gargoyle of the Spine." But there is no tomb or asylum for you to adorn out here in the light. Here you are a ghoul. True, the Spine is, mercifully, gone, but Peretz promises to post now and again. When he does, you can rise from your crypt and give us another dose of the good old, execrable noga. There is, however, a chance for you to redeem yourself now. Why don't you explain in detail your theory of the ideal marriage, between a gay man and a straight woman? I'm sure it would be very entertaining, and it is the perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate that my interpretation, above, is wrong. If you are worried that there may no longer be enough of a readership on this thread to make it worth your while, don't be. I can smell your little ass-licker, arnon, lurking around here somewhere, and I solemnly promise to quote you at every opportunity. So, go ahead. Make our day. I myself am fairly breathless with anticipation.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, roi. I wanted that link but was too lazy to search for it myself. It was a fun conversation with icarus and ironyroad until you showed up. You keep referencing icarus from a year ago when you know full well that he and I buried the hatchet sometime after Yom Kippur, He even gave me a great recipe for the glorious Persian rice dish, by way of sealing the deal :) You are not trying to stir things up between him and me, do you? That would be very unsuitable in such a man of peace and principles such as you are. The thread you linked to is a proof that what you describe as sexual fantasies is nothing of the sort. Even in light of the quotes you so helpfully provided, your remarks here constitute cyberspace sexual harassment by the employment of lurid sexual innuendos about a person's private life. Perhaps you need to look up what "sexual fantasy" means. Wiki has an entry on the term which might do you good. To sum, this entire conversation, from your side, is evidence that anger makes you stupid.

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's not even a good effort, noga. But, I suppose, since you have been caught out dead to rights as a liar and smear artist, the best you can do is put on a brave face and pretend that you were just too lazy to find your own link. You may be right about one thing, however. Perhaps your fantasy about the ideal marriage, between a gay man and a straight woman should not be characterized as a "sexual fantasy" but as a "lack of sex" fantasy. Withal, since the terms of the discussion were quite explicit, I don't think anyone can have been misled. As for your rapprochement with icarus, it is not his personal feelings that carry weight here, whatever they may be, but his words in response to you that carry weight: "Second, I have not responded to your uncalled-for personal assault, and I will not indulge your mania for false martyrdom. You're beginning to sound even more unhinged than normal. I strongly suggest you take your whine back to the Spine." They remain just as apt today as they were a year ago. Your fantasy that you are being sexually harassed is yet another example, there are many, of "your mania for false martyrdom." Obviously, you enjoy this sort of thing. You are ever disgusting, noga. And as far as I can tell, you always will be. There aren't sufficient mental health resources in all of Canada to rescue a lost soul such as you. And, you are now officially toasted to a crisp. Pleasure, as always. Have a nice day.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What people say about you Roidubouloi is right. You are is a self deluded mad hound. Do you think you know more about constitutional law than Jeffrey Rosen? You probably do and that makes you a joke. Go take your anger somewhere else, assholde.

- Newly84

February 21, 2011 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You seem to have stumbled into the wrong thread, newly. Don't you want the article by Jeffrey Rosen about the Tucson shootings and wikileaks? Even though you appear confused about just where you are, I would comment about what you purport to know just for the sake of entertaining myself at your expense. But you don't purport to know anything at all, and there is no evidence that you do. Hence, there is no basis. Thank you anyway for sharing your highly original observations.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". But, I suppose, since you have been caught out dead to rights as a liar and smear artist, " What lie would that be, roi? And how have I smeared you?

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't matter what the idiot RD ejaculates, Newly, I don't pay attention to anything he says. The wonder is that people like NOga who are more intelligent than RD should get into arguments with that angry oaf.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The wonder is that people like NOga who are more intelligent than RD should get into arguments with that angry oaf." arnon: Talking to roi offers all the pleasure and enlightenment of chewing sawdust with no water around to ease the torture. But it keeps him busy and away from threads where real discussions take place. I also like to see how far he can go in his vulgarity and denial of reality, rationality and common sense. So far he has shown that for him there is no final frontier. If he weren't so repelling, I might find it in me to have some pity for him.

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are too ridiculous, noga. You accuse me of falsely attributing to you words that you know perfectly well you had written and that I had characterized, from memory, perfectly accurately. Then you carry on at length, ad nauseum, that if I cannot produce the link to the original, it proves that I am a liar, etc., etc. When, of course, the link is produced, then you say you were just too lazy to look it up yourself. Sick, sick, sick. If you don't like the inferences I draw from your summary of your theory, why give us its details and show the world how wrong I am. But don't claim falsely that I have invented and wrongly attached to you words you know full well you wrote. You don't even know any longer what is and is not a lie. That's how far gone you are. Happy for you, your little ass-licker, arnon, has returned again, noisily insisting that he pays no attention to what I say about him while, plainly, he hangs on every word. Arnon, you moron, the way you ignore someone is by ignoring them, which in your case I would welcome heartily. Not by constantly declaring that you are ignoring them. Might you be even stupider than you appear to be? That would be some achievement.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good luck dealing with the mad idiot, Noga. Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no final frontier for you, noga. You are so thoroughly vile that the only limit on what I would say to you or about you is what I can think up, and that still wouldn't plumb the depths of your depravity. Yet, sick stalker that you are, you always solicit more. I did not know there really existed people as utterly degraded and masochistic as you. Now I know. It is frightening to contemplate and, as I have said before, I am grateful that you can only stalk in cyberspace.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here comes the little ass-licker again with this priceless morsel: "Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot." Nope, arnon, you could not possibly be any stupider. Here you are declaring that, by your own actions, your own compulsive need to insult "posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid," you are in fact "an idiot." And you don't even notice! No one could possibly make this stuff up. It is too incredible.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's a fine explanation, arnon. I like it. And the very reason why I am going to just keep kicking your sorry ass. You picked a fight with the wrong guy and now you can never escape. I get to toy with you, calling attention to your inanities, forever. But, arnon, you keep insisting that the only way to deal with me is to ignore me, and then you keep coming back for more. I don't have to go looking for you to smack you around. You are always right there begging for it. What sort of degraded masochist are you? Another noga? That would explain all of your licking and fawning over her, wouldn't it?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's a fine explanation, arnon. I like it. And the very reason why I am going to just keep kicking your sorry ass. You picked a fight with the wrong guy and now you can never escape. I get to toy with you, calling attention to your inanities, forever. But, arnon, you keep insisting that the only way to deal with me is to ignore me, and then you keep coming back for more. I don't have to go looking for you to smack you around. You are always right there begging for it. What sort of degraded masochist are you? Another noga? That would explain all of your licking and fawning over her, wouldn't it?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi is emotionally disturbed. This is the only explanation for his obsessions with me.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot." _____________________ So what's up, arnon? Are you in truth an idiot as you declare yourself to be? Otherwise, how is it that someone with your firm convictions about proper behavior manages, without provocation, to resort to insults? I mean, I understand that NOW you would like to portray yourself as my innocent victim. But, dude, you've got a problem. This is the internet, man. You are PUBLISHED. Anyone can scroll right up here: "02/17/2011 - 9:39pm EDT | arnon The idiot roidubouloi garbled up purposely me thinks the points made above." and discover you resorting to insults without any provocation at all. Not only are you published doing this, but there is no way for you to expunge the evidence. It is here for all to see, kind of like until TNR goes out of business, and maybe not even then. Uh oh! Come to think of it, this is not just some one off accident either. Here you are over on the Jeffrey Rosen thread doing the exact same thing, again without provocation: 02/19/2011 - 4:36pm EDT | arnon This is beginning to look like a pattern, man. I think you're stuck. You've explained for the readership what it is that makes one an "idiot," and it turns out the idiot is you! Look, I'm perfectly willing to accept this at face value, that you are precisely the idiot you proclaim yourself to be. But fairness dictates that we give you a chance to offer up some alternative explanation. So, arnon, now that you've been outed, what would you like to say to the audience?

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh well. I guess the fun is over. Thanks, arnon, for a very enjoyable day. I look forward to the next such opportunity and I have not the slightest doubt that, as you have taught us, "02/21/2011 - 1:59pm EDT | arnon Anyone who doesn't understand that using insults instead of avoiding posters he doesn't like or thinks are stupid, is an idiot." the opportunity will not be long in coming.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The obsessive roidubouloi is too far gone to know that he proves me right each time he posts. He is too stupid to know that no one reads this discussion thread anymore. I'll leave it to himself. Let him insult the empty space.

- arnon

February 21, 2011 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Oh well. I guess the fun is over. " What a wretched existence you lead, roi, if this is fun for you.

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look! Someone does still read this discussion thread, both arnon and noga. Gee, who would have thought? Yes, I confess, noga. Kicking the crap out of dung like you and arnon is fun. I'm really good at it, it needs to be done, and it is a service to the world. If no one disciplines vermin such as the two of you, what would the world come to? You would be left free to browbeat and intimidate other people who don't have the stomach or the tools to deal with your pestilential selves.

- roidubouloi

February 21, 2011 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: In case you are still checking out this thread, remember we talked about Ian McEwan and Jane Austen? Well, here is from the man himself, in his acceptance speech of the Jerusalem Prize: " In Swift and Defoe, individuals were morally tested, and their societies satirised or judged by means of journeys that were fantastical or based on real accounts; in Richardson we had perhaps the first sustained, fine-grained account of individual consciousness; in Fielding, individuals were granted panoptic visions of a society in the spirit of a benign and inclusive comedy; finally, the crowning glory - in Jane Austen, the fate[s] of individuals were delivered though a new mode of narration, handed down to succeeding generations of novelists - free indirect style, which allowed an objective third person account to merge with a subjective colouring - a technique that permitted the character, the individual in the novel, more room to grow." http://www.ianmcewan.com/bib/articles/jerusalemprize.html

- noga1

February 21, 2011 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alas! It seems there is to be no Jane Austen discussion this day as salve for the wounded.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Selfishness must always be forgiven you know, because there is no hope of a cure." Jane Austen

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How perfectly inapt. But, it's Austen, so relevance is irrelevant.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi trying to understand Austen... There is a saying in Hebrew: Can a donkey be trusted to discern the pleasure in eating fruit salads?

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thinking about you and Austen brings something else to mind, noga. Something about "pearls before swine," as I recall. Would that be the English equivalent of that fine Hebrew saying do you suppose?

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you prefer to be regarded as swine rather than a donkey, I wouldn't quibble with you.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But, noga, can you not read? I was referring to YOU as the swine. See where it says, "thinking about you and Austen?" The "you" in that phrase means you. Regardless of your preference, it is how I regard you, as swine -- perpetually in the muck and lacking the self-respect of a human being. You might be the greatest Austen scholar in the history of the world. It wouldn't matter a bit. You would still be you. None of the luster of Austen rubs off on you by association, no matter how passionate.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In case it wasn't clear, the "pearls" are meant to represent Austen.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yawn.

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was trying to keep away from this thread, Noga. But you invited me over here. Here!! Now I wander, in a daze, through a kind of virtual WW1 trench-warfare battle of attrition. Roid has quite forgotten what the war was about, but just pounds away with increasingly worn-down artillery in a futile attempt to break through a stalemate his own tactics have brought about. As Rowan Atkinson says in the WW1 Blackadder series -- "Ah yes, the Battle of the Somme. Another failed attempt by General Haig to move his office furniture three feet to the left." I was impressed by McEwan's talk -- he didn't duck the awkward stuff. But I can't remember what we were saying before. I think McEwan at his best does some remarkable things with the narrative voice (not his only talent). I'm thinking of what I'd regard as his two best novels Black Dogs and The Innocent.

- ironyroad

February 22, 2011 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah Blackadder. Another one of my son's favourite comedies. He keeps quoting to me this snippet: Captain Blackadder: Do you mean How did the war start?... the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war. ______________ Yes. I too liked McEwan's honesty and straightforwardness. Israelis can take criticism on the chin if they know it is done by someone who loves them. ___________ I was saying how much his irony and wit reminded me of Jane Austen and you said that you thought that if Austen wrote today, it would read like McEwan's style, or something like that. I'll have to read "The Innocent". Is it as tough to read as Black Dogs?

- noga1

February 22, 2011 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, that's what I was vaguely thinking of, somewhere in the memory banks. As far as The Innocent goes, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "tough." It's a more straightforward narrative than Black Dogs (it's more or less a love story within a spy story based on real history) but there is one absolutely horrific, grisly event that changes the character of the novel about half-way through. Black Dogs isn't as harrowing, for me at least.

- ironyroad

February 22, 2011 at 9:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israelis can take criticism on the chin if they know it is done by someone who loves them." They don't have that luxury. Almost no one does. International relations are not love and marriage and analogizing them to one another -- or to Jane Austen's observations of English gentry for that matter -- quickly leads to self-deception and confusion. ___________________ I do appreciate the strategic advice, irony, but you are mistaken. My political mentor taught me long ago that most of these contests, the overwhelming majority, are fought to a draw and that that is usually the best that one can hope for. I accept that. Indeed, a battle such as this one is essentially lost, in the sense of hope for a positive outcome, the moment it has begun. What is possible to achieve, at least with sane people, is enough wariness so that they learn to stay away. Some of the practitioners of ideological bullying are gone, most of the rest have learned prudent avoidance. I fully expect that the latest entrants into the lists will do the same. The exception that proves the rule is noga, because she is a true psychotic, a diseased mind, debased, unscrupulous, and masochistic. Not easy to deter a masochist. I fully expect that, as long as we are both here, noga will continue to stalk me and attempt to twist every thread in which we both participate (which almost certainly means that Israel is the direct or indirect subject) so that I become the subject rather than whatever is the subject. And in return, I will be bludgeoning her in every way that words and my imagination will permit (be it old artillery or new and regardless of whether the desk moves three feet or not at all). From time to time, she inspires imitators, but they usually tire. When they realize that I do not in fact pursue them or abuse them without direct provocation, they generally refrain. Noga is unique. What ought to give all of these people pause is that, although there are some firefights elsewhere on TNR, overwhelmingly these battles occur in threads related to Israel. Is this because there are a lot of anti-Semites visiting these blogs? I see absolutely no evidence of that. We have had a couple of far left academics who might be so characterized, but in general there is very little here that could be legitimately characterized as anti-Semitic. If anti-Semitism is not the reason, then what? I think it rather obvious that it is the self-appointed defenders of Israel who display an astonishing belligerence on her behalf. They level withering criticism at the United States, Obama, pretty much anything they like, but criticism of Israel and its government or parties ignites their hostility. Apparently it is because Israel, uniquely, must be criticized only with love. There is really no other possible explanation for the exceptionally vitriolic character of threads about Israel. If they are the friends of Israel they claim to be, they should consider for Israel's sake what they are doing. It is clear, to me at least, that there are people reading here who seldom, if ever, comment. You can tell because, every so often, one of them will make a comment and it is apparent that, although they have long been silent, they have been following along. I don't think the tetchy hostility wins friends or admirers for Israel or the Jewish people. It contributes its small measure to Israeli isolation. Hence, for all their self-professed love, they do Israel no favor.

- roidubouloi

February 22, 2011 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As Dr. Abbott said in the Fawlty Towers' "The Psychiatrist" episode: " There's enough material there for an entire conference. "

- noga1

February 23, 2011 at 7:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close