From "Maybe They’re Just Bad People/Not all Trump support is ideological." by Michelle Goldberg (NYT).
The phrase "literally or figuratively" makes more sense if you've read the previous paragraph which quotes from a 2011 book — "Life of the Party: A Political Press Tart Bares All" by Lisa Baron — which Goldberg disparages as "tawdry" and "shallow":
Lisa Baron was a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, hard-partying Jew who nonetheless made a career advancing the fortunes of the Christian right. She opened her book with an anecdote about performing oral sex on a future member of the George W. Bush administration during the 2000 primary, which, she wrote, “perfectly summed up my groupie-like relationship to politics at that time — I wanted it, I worshiped it, and I went for it.”ADDED: Is Goldberg saying that pure ideologues are better people? Does she say they are "easier to understand"? Not exactly. She posits a subcategory of people who are "interested in politics because of values and ideas" and says that for them it can be easier to understand other people who are interested in politics in the same way, which I think just means that ideologues can understand other ideologues. I don't know if that's true. It depends on what you mean by "understand." I would wonder what made that ideologue an ideologue. And what does it mean to be an ideologue? Are you devoid of pragmatism and any willingness to compromise? I doubt if anyone successful is a complete ideologue. And who are these people "who don’t have ideologies at all." Is that even possible? And what makes a piece of writing "tawdry" and "shallow"?
পোস্টগুলি
৯৩টি মন্তব্য:
“a quasi-fascist with delusions of grandeur”
I guess Goldberg didn’t watch Bannon at the Oxford Union. I’d say he’s an intellectual populist trying to do what he can to stop the corrupt and failed elites from wrecking society for the average person.
Genius at NYT doesn't realize that her conclusions apply at least as well (if not better) to Clinton followers.
I’ll buy their sincerity when they start attacking Hillary, our most power grubbing presidantial candidate ever.
Really? That's the analysis of Ivanka?
Ivanka is compelling but not a leftie. She must be stopped.
Goldberg is lazy. Most ideologues are.
The NY Times would be a more vibrant paper if Steve Bannon took over Goldberg’s column.
"Ivanka is compelling but not a leftie. She must be stopped."
Actually, she is pretty much a leftie. She just needs to be stopped because she and her husband are helping Trump to succeed, and because their presence makes it hard to give any weight to the accusations of anti-semitism made against Trump.
Steve Bannon, a quasi-fascist with delusions of grandeur, makes more sense to me than Anthony Scaramucci, a political cipher who likes to be on TV.
Well, she has managed to stuff him into her neat little pigeon hole. I looked in vain for a definition of quasi-Fascist.
I can’t wait for their analysis of Gillibrand’s motivations. I remember when she was a congressman from Upstate New York with a markedly different set of values she had adopted to get elected. Oh that’s right, not interesting. What about Manchin? He clearly doesn’t believe the stuff he says to get elected. Neither did Claire McCaskill. What are Bob Menendez’s motivations? Easy access to money and underage girls? Not of interest to readers of the New York Times.
It’s all about explaining to their readers that everybody who reads and writes that paper is super brainy. The New York Times is a dopamine merchant.
Most political columns in the New York Times are sort of analogous to those anti-Jewish propaganda drawings that the Nazis used to produce, except the targets are different,
I Googled Michelle Goldberg and quotes, and went to a site of her 'best' quotes, to see how she best defines herself and her thinking.
17 of 21 are explicitly about Trump, with another being a generic 'people who don't think like me are stupid'.
When you are a writer and the large majority of your best quotes are rather pedestrian rants about one man, it seems like maybe you are doing it wrong.
There is also a quote about the wonders of yoga.
Nothing about collecting teeth, however.
Although -- if I had to make the choice -- I would rather have a conversation with the guy who collects teeth than with Michelle Goldberg.
At least he's probably somewhat self-aware that he has an unhealthy fixation.
And listening to Goldberg would be like slowly having your teeth pulled.
I am Laslo.
Why would people reject the Democrats just because the Democrats have declared their economic situation hopeless?
“I don’t have a magic wand to bring back those jobs!” - Obama
Translation: “I don’t want to bring back those jobs because my wealthy donors are doing just fine, thank you very much."
“You can’t drill your way out of high grass prices!” - Obama
Translation: “My wealthy donors don’t want us to to lower gas prices, remember my energy secretary who advocated $10 a gallon gas?”
Maybe these people are just bad people...
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"
George Orwell 1947
So Steve Bannon is a "quasi-fascist"? It would sure be nice to know what the writer means by that.
They never tell us of course. If they did the punters might realize that progressism=fascism and fascism=progressivism.
You know who was a big admirer of Mussolini in the 20s and 30s? FDR.
The New Deal was an American adaptation of Italian Fascist ideology.
So Bannon (and Trump) are new deal fdr progressives? I don't think so.
John Henry
Goldberg brings into focus that the power games of political seduction are as much the norm as the power games of sexual seduction among the very rich and the bored. In scripture, the fame of Queen Jezebel was for her mastery of the skills of witchcraft and prostitution. Those two skills still practice politics very well.
And from the sexual antics of Charles II in the 1660s, to the fame of the American Jenny Churchill in the 1890s, sex has a celebrated history in Anglo Saxon politics. The British lusted well.And Ben Franklin was no slouch.
Then New York Times fights hammer and tongs to keep the discussion away from the real reason that people accept Donald Trump as POTUS. The Times simply doesn’t see fit to print that story. It would take bringing some diversity into their newsroom.
I think you're attributing a depth to Goldberg's thinking that isn't there. It's "educated" emotive babbling, no different in substance than that of the average soap opera woman. May as well try to parse a blancmange.
Hillary is such a big admirer of fascism that she dabbled in corporatism, the original definition about the body politic being like a human body, I remember Althouse blogging it, but can’t find it. She had a fascist friendly slogan “Stronger together” and to really make the affinity unmistakable, she advocated, as Secretary of State, an invasion of North Africa, then to absolutely drive the point home, she channels ancient Rome with her “We came! We saw! He died!” quote.
"I think you're attributing a depth to Goldberg's thinking that isn't there."
Are you talking to me?
For those wonderinf what Fascism is, Mussolini wrote a short book/long pamphlet explaining it in 1938.
The Doctrine of Fascism is very readable and is availabe via Ann's portal or for free at various sites around the web.
I challenge anyone to read it then tell me the difference between it and American progressivism.
John Henry
"
Goldberg has no game; as Laslo points out above.
Althouse can dice up her pathetic column before 7 AM.
I can’t name a single powerful and convincing Dem intellectual. They sure aren’t writing for the NYT or WaPo. Compare, Charles Krauthammer and Steve Bannon to Michelle Goldberg and Rachael Maddow.
Such partisan and sloppy, cliche ridden tripe. When she analyzes the Left's leadership I'll consider paying attention to what she writes. With 'quasi-fascist' she's saying there are grades of fascists? Last I checked there is a specific definition of fascism. One either is a believer and advocate of this ideology or one is not. Conclusion: as mentioned above, she deploys quasi-fascist as an insult. Insulting the conservative leadership seems to be the entire purpose of the piece.
And what makes a piece of writing "tawdry" and "shallow"?
That it was written by Michelle Goldberg.
Not to mention that Hillary’s thug arm of her party wears black when they go and bust up opposition rallies.
Goldberg seems convinced that Marxist feminism is a coherent moral system.
It's not. It's Marxism, the opposite of a moral system.
She's a very confused young woman. Marxist feminism does that to you.
I still haven’t figured out why Gail Collins has a column. What has she ever said of interest to anybody? They just employ people to listlessly mouth the wisdom that needs to be mouthed to keep down threats to the billionaire class that runs our media.
ideologues can understand other ideologues.
Goldberg is obviously not an ideologue.
Well, two things that make a piece of writing tawdry and shallow are Lisa Baron and Michelle Goldberg.
Are you talking to me?
Yes.
johnhenry100 said...So Steve Bannon is a "quasi-fascist"? It would sure be nice to know what the writer means by that.
A fascist, of course, is anyone who tells a hippie to do something they don't want to do.
"Quasi," like "neo," is a prefix meaning, roughly, "I don't know what I'm talking about but I want to sound intelligent. This will muddy the waters while making me sound thoughtful and measured."
Are you talking to me?
Now you've done it. The Professor's gonna go all Travis Bickle on your ass...
Goldberg has not figured out why we elected President Trump. She has no desire to educate herself. The article is just proof of these facts. People are motivated to actions by different factors. money, fame, acceptance, security, family...and forever expanding. President Trump knows this at an intuitive level(gut). The Goldbergs ingnore these simple truths at their own peril.
ohnhenry100 said...So Steve Bannon is a "quasi-fascist"? It would sure be nice to know what the writer means by that.
Quasimodo was taken.
@Tim in Vermont: The Gail Collins mystery will drive you mad. It makes no sense. I think she is a handler for David Brooks. Their podcast is a barrel of monkeys.
The Steve Bannon speech was . . . masterful. I was blown away by it, and him. He laid out the political zeitgeist, and his beliefs, with great power.
Then a bunch of dim bulb ideologues lined up to demand he apologize for Charlottesville.
A show biz person gets invited to the Correspondents' Dinner, and it goes to her head. Now she's a political observer and advisor, all-seeing and all-knowing. Isn't this how we got Trump? Maybe being the keynote speaker flattered her even more.
I would just say Trump is actually not ideological, and he probably doesn't entirely agree with Bannon's populism either. He thinks he recognizes something like competence--he has given big jobs to generals and Wall Street people, and he seems quite intimidated by congressional leaders of both parties who can actually get bills passed. He seems to admire virtues and skills that he doesn't necessarily possess himself. Trump is on the whole an impressive person with impressive accomplishments, who seems likely to disappoint some of his most ideological supporters. By the way, he has a great sense of humour. Who is Goldberg again?
Is she still around? Has she ever said anything intelligent?
Goldberg should receive exactly half of Jonathan Franzen's mail, that I suggested.
Then a bunch of dim bulb ideologues lined up to demand he apologize for Charlottesville.
Was it just me or were those students entirely unimpressive for their age and station?
Steve Bannon... makes more sense to me than Anthony Scaramucci, a political cipher who likes to be on TV.
I get this statement.
What is interesting is how often partisans claim not to get opposing politicians. It is easier to ascribe to them a Scaramucci persona. Obama was a political cipher. Trump was a political cipher.
Make an effort, opinionists! Crack the code!
And who are these people "who don’t have ideologies at all." Is that even possible?
Not among people who have developed political opinions. Among this group those who think they have no ideology have so internalized their ideology they don't recognize its existence. And some have such an intense ideology is branches out from ideas to people who interfere with implementing their ideas.
As here:
Consider all the energy spent trying to figure out Ivanka Trump’s true beliefs, when she’s shown that what she believes most is that she’s entitled to power and prestige."
There's no evidence Ivanka feels "entitled". It's also possible she feels grateful for her circumstance and tries to do the best she can given it. Or she accepts her birth circumstance as luck and gets on with her life. But the far left understands people they hate to feel entitled so the ideologue imprints that framework wherever it supports their ideology.
Also: Who writes these headlines?
It's an interesting opinion article. It exposes the hypocrisy of the author, and show how those unwilling to believe a huge amount of taxpayers hired Trump to clean house are delusional with their dislike of someone they don't even know.
Bannon even looks like Quasimodo.
Does that make Trump Claude Frollo?
In my experience, ideologues don't give a damn about what other people think. They're certainly not good listeners.
Who's up for a GoFundMe page to buy Ms. Goldberg a dictionary?
Michelle Goldberg is an actual prog/fascist with delusions.
It's too easy to throw the labels about without defining them. When you're pining for an argument it gives you latitude to disagree with anyone by altering the meaning of the label. It's a child's game. Some posters thrive on it.
Speaking of Charlottesville the trial of the man accused of causing heather heites death started monday.
Just jury selection so far but should be interesting to follow.
I'm sure Inga will keep us up to date.
More popcorn please.
John Henry
Back in the early 80's, after I completed basic training, I took a greyhound bus to my home town to visit my family. Since I was coming from basic, I was wearing my army uniform. I'm a skinny 18 yo wearing my country's uniform in a bus station. And some already aging hippy calls me a fascist. I'm walking through a bus station, minding my own business, and some asshole looks at me and says,, "fascist." You can imagine how much weight I give it when someone calls something fascist.
Twin Cities talk show host Joe Soucheray has an interesting formulation for politicians: “ Are you doing this to be important, or are you doing this to be useful? A good question, I think.
Goldberg pays lip service to the fact that opportunists populate DC regardless of which party is in power. But she doesn’t let it distract her from her main point: Orange man bad.
She’s fine with the slimy opportunists who worked for Obama. But if they work for Trump they are Evil.
Literally or figuratively, Michele Goldberg is a feckless ditz.
Ann throws out read meat for the "boys", and then hides behind her life's protector - the "OED". Script is getting predictable. Voyeurism , resentement, sniping or click baiting?
So, is Goldberg a mean girl invented by the NY Times as part of their ongoing narrative serialization?
@Rehajm: the Oxford Union students were terrifying. It was just "racist racist racist racist racist." And not well expressed -- there were demonstrations of emotionalism, self-referentiality, and a trait I'd call Blasey-Ford sippy-cup-ism, or making inappropriately childlike demands of the audience because one feels he or she has the right to ask for different rules because of some trauma or deficit.
Of course, when taken to the extreme, the latter results in the giant temper tantrum that was taking place outside the meeting room. Terrifying stuff.
Bannon is a naval officer, banker, venture capitalist, film maker, (I was made aware of the latter because of his palin project) that's a quadruple threat, he's also a committed catholic, scaramucci, might yell up a blue streak, but he's also a Harvard trained financier, who by the convoluted disclosure regulations, couldn't actually sell sky bridge capital,
Ann Althouse said...
"I think you're attributing a depth to Goldberg's thinking that isn't there."
Are you talking to me?
11/28/18, 6:54 AM
LOL!
"Who is Goldberg again?"
She's no Michelle Wolf.
compare that with steven rattner, another goldman exec, who fancies himself an action intellectual in the galbraith forrestal vein, natch he's stuck in the center square on morning joke, he paid 10 million dollars in fines, a pittance for the Square insurance
fraud,so he can pontificate from that glass artifice of bric a brac,
Bannon worked with the enterprising prince talal and Berlusconi, for his hedge fund, two brittle personalities, one thinks he should run the country, the other actually did, scaramucci didn't shock me re his choice of language, I'd read bonfire, (de palma deserves the fate that phoenix did to professor x, for that travesty as well as scarface, and that Iraq war snuff film) he managed to fire the unctuous spicer who was clearly out of his depth,
Do you think she even realizes that she is undermining the notion of an objective, non-partisan political media?
You know who was a big admirer of Mussolini in the 20s and 30s? FDR. The New Deal was an American adaptation of Italian Fascist ideology.
It's a little more complicated than that. Mussolini, and Stalin for that matter, had a lot of admirers in the 20s and 30s. Of course, most of those people didn't have to live under their rule, and relied on second- or third-hand information from less than objective parties. But after WW I and especially after the start of the Great Depression, many people came to believe that capitalism and individualism had largely failed, both economically and morally. That there needed to be more collective direction of things. More pulling together. Less selfishness.
A fascinating little book is Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. Well-written, too.
Every NYT intellectual starts with the moral inferiority of the enemy camp. The theory rains down from that cloud.
Goldberg was given the Pulitzer, for circulating the prog dog whistle christianist, that was previously only spoken by crazy andy, when she and sabrina erdely was attacking bachman, and palin, and any other speaker of truth, against the last administration,
Are Harvey Weinstein's politics in any way a reflection or extension of his sex life? Does Harvey's unstinting and generous support of Hillary tell us anything interesting about these two characters? What is it about NYT columnists that can cause them to examine so exhaustively the morals of Ivanka and Jared and ignore so willfully the morals of Hillary and Harvey?
the short answer is it pays the mortgage, not to ask inconvenient questions,
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/terrorist_lawfare_and_the_dallas_morning_news.html#.W_6Lg87mWGM.twitter
If I may flog another book ... Everyone knows that we often misrepresent our motivations. But our brain often misrepresents our motivations to our conscious self. Why? In the words of Robert Trivers, "We deceive ourselves the better to deceive others." Thus, much, including politics, is not what it seems.
Anyway, the book is The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life by Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson. I recommend it to Michelle Goldberg and anyone who is interested in hidden motives.
Has Michelle Goldberg ever left her office to write anything?
"when she’s shown that what she believes most is that she’s entitled to power and prestige"
That is Hillary Clinton you're talking about, right, Michelle?
Does Michelle Goldberg's NYT column satisfy her lust — literally or figuratively — for access to power, by allowing her to dress her opponents in whatever ideological garb she desires?
Do you like your quasi-fascistic clothes, Mr. Bannon?
As Hannah Arendt observed, banality is the common thread linking totalitarian evils. Michelle, like Eichmann, the Stasi and KGB and the warriors of the Maoist Cultural Revolution, never gets bored with being the person whose boot is on the face of humanity forever. Nothing is more disgusting to a real fascist than "quasi fascists" like Steve Bannon. Not seeing the irony is the whole premise of her career.
Consider all the energy spent trying to figure out Ivanka Trump’s true beliefs
Consider the lack of energy spent trying to figure out Hillary's.
"Maybe they're just bad people" is exactly how I feel about pretty much every Democrat politician I've seen in recent years. The Kavanaugh hearings just exposed them to a wider audience. There is not a single Democrat politician that I have a shred of respect for. Not one. Many of the Republicans are no bargain either, but in a choice between bad and worse, you go for the least bad option.
"what she believes most is that she’s entitled to power and prestige"
That is Hillary Clinton you're talking about, right, Michelle?
For Hillary, power and prestige are good—but what she's really all about is the money.
Thanks, Roger, I had not heard of the 3 new deals book. Just downloaded the Kindle sample.
In searching for it I also found this review from FEE. Downloaded it to read later ( Getpocket.com is a wonderful free service for saving stuff you may want to read later. Works across all devices including saving your place across all devices)
https://fee.org/articles/three-new-deals-reflections-on-roosevelts-america-mussolinis-italy-and-hitlers-germany-19331939/
John Henry
@Begley: "“a quasi-fascist with delusions of grandeur” I guess Goldberg didn’t watch Bannon at the Oxford Union. I’d say he’s an intellectual populist trying to do what he can to stop the corrupt and failed elites from wrecking society for the average person."
That's the kind of smear Bannon himself exposed as a lie. But the telling thing is that Bannon's obvious refutation, "fascism is state worship; I want the opposite," has no impact: the MSM smear with abandon. They have no standards, except to do what's necessary to win.
I call all my political foes "quasi-fascists". Life is simpler that way.
Internally, externally, and mutually consistent. Principles matter.
"Maybe they're just bad people"
Guilty as charged. It's a prerequisite acknowledgement to a happy life and a happier eternal life.
Some people are bad. Some people are wicked. Choose your poison.
In the weird world, our world, it's: Some people are bad. Some people are good. Some people are wicked. Some people are saints. Choose your poison.
Roger,
Just saw a recommendation for the Elephants book the other day at Marginal Revolution (an interesting econ blog for those unfamiliar)
Now with yours, I had to get the sample.
John Henry
I wonder how someone like Goldberg manages to do her job day after day. It would painful to me to have to write the same columns day after day the way she does. This applies to most columnists I can think of off the top of my head- there is almost no variety in any of it.
Honestly, if I had her job and performed it the way she does, I would be in danger of offing myself just from the tedium of it.
And what makes a piece of writing "tawdry" and "shallow"?
When it involves a Jewish girl who admits to enjoying sucking right-wing goyische cock to get close to power, as opposed to a good Jewish girl like Goldberg who knows that she should only suck Left-wing, preferably but not necessarily Jewish, cock to do so.
And, for God's sake, don't mention in public that you enjoyed it! What ya wanna do? Give the guys ideas?
(I guess I'm in a mean mood today. Michelle Goldberg will do that to me).
Clueless Michelle at it again. Ideology? Really? What, exactly, is Trump’s ideology? Secular progressives just don’t understand that opposing their ideology/obsession is not an ideology. It is a commitment.
I suppose that being committed to the Constitution as the foundation of our liberty could be characterized as an ideology. So when Democrat officials falsely swear “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ...”, they are resisting an ideology, or just lying?
Or maybe it’s ideological to object to the politicians confiscating my resources to buy votes or support from the recipients of governmental largesse.
How about believing that countries are defined by borders and laws are meant to be followed even by judges? Ideological? Maybe, but I tend to think of those things as related to self defense.
Forget it, Jake; it's NYT-town.
Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent (PC) or profitable (PP).
So she disapproves of amoral careerists lusting for power--yet (and correct me if I'm wrong) she's a "liberal" who wants to further the cause of statism? There's quite a disconnect there.
If Ivanka is entitled and privileged, doesn't that make Chelsea the same?
Questions Michelle Goldberg will never ask
As her breasts become less pointed, her opinions take up the slack.
She's really not saying any of that; you don't have to be so extreme. She's just saying that some people's egos and values are completely for sale. We should recognize such people for what they are. Ideologues may be stubborn and purists are morons but people with no values other than their vanity - who pretend to have values others care about nonetheless - are completely toxic and have no redeeming value whatsoever.
When it involves a Jewish girl who admits to enjoying sucking right-wing goyische cock to get close to power, as opposed to a good Jewish girl like Goldberg who knows that she should only suck Left-wing, preferably but not necessarily Jewish, cock to do so.
Goldberg's married and really doesn't come across as shallow and thoughtless as you seem to hope but if that comment's what helps you indulge your hate-fantasies best then go with it, man.
Clueless Michelle at it again. Ideology? Really? What, exactly, is Trump’s ideology?
Talk about clueless. Trump has no ideology save whatever gives his ego and the party in hock to it more power.
Secular progressives just don’t understand that opposing their ideology/obsession is not an ideology. It is a commitment.
Well two can play this stupid game. Opposing your own paranoid, rabid right-wing political reflexes is equally non-ideological and a commitment, then.
I suppose that being committed to the Constitution as the foundation of our liberty could be characterized as an ideology. So when Democrat officials falsely swear “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ...”, they are resisting an ideology, or just lying?
That a Trump supporter can say something so stupid just shows how bankrupt he and his party are. Check out Mr. Constitutional Commitment on the 1st amendment, 2nd, due process and just about everything else!
Take the guns first, go through due process second.
(The media) is the enemy of the people.
Yep. He's a true constitutionalist. A real lover of that bill of rights.
Now start working on whatever senile political delusion of yours you'll inflict upon us next.
"I wonder how someone like Goldberg manages to do her job day after day. It would painful to me to have to write the same columns day after day the way she does. This applies to most columnists I can think of off the top of my head- there is almost no variety in any of it.
Honestly, if I had her job and performed it the way she does, I would be in danger of offing myself just from the tedium of it."
A lot of boring jobs in this world. My father practiced a part of the law that would have bored me to tears in a couple years. He did it for almost half a century. But as a result of that, he probably had a more successful legal career than I did, who made some less than optimal career decisions along the way, much of it looking for more of a challenge. He had five boys to raise and send through college. We had two incomes to put one kid through. Maybe that was why he did it and I never did buckle down - because I never really had too. He was, of course, a member of the Greatest Generation. I was a member of the Me Generation, an early Baby Boomer. His generation was fighting real Fascists and real Nazis, at an age when mine was experimenting with drugs and protesting the Vietnam War.
One of the interesting side effect of living in a small town, versus living in a huge city, is that you see a lot more of the mentally challenged in the former. Maybe it is because it is a much safer environment. Some live in a group home, and work in the local thrift store. You see them on occasion coming in as a group to the grocery store. And then there is the guy who waters the plants in the hanging baskets along Main Street every day. Don't know what he does in the winter, because we are nice and warm among > 4 million people down in Phoenix, where you almost never see the mentally challenged. Statistically, you know there have to be a lot of them here. I just never see them.
Maybe it is a long way of saying that many of us rise to the level of challenge in our jobs that match our capabilities. Almost, maybe akin, to the Peter Principle. I got lucky, and had two mentally stimulating careers - first as a software designer, then as a patent attorney. Maybe she has risen to her level of non boredom (and incompetence). I couldn't do her job any more than you apparently could. But if she is happy doing it, then good for her.
So, even though trump supporters support hm because of his ideology, she is saying that is a lie, and they - or some of them - are just bad people?
Thus, since it can’t be determined Whois an ideologue and who is lying, just assume they are bad people. So, what’s new? Just jump to nazi racists, already. No matter how clever these word-spinners try to write, they are saying the same thing, over and over.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন