Pelican

Our thoughts are in alignment here. What really annoys me (apart from Sellick's amazing knack for being the most published author on OLO) is that he is so easy to refute. The arrogance with which he treats others reveals more about the "virtue" of his particular religion and, in fact, religion in general, when he treats people with such utter condescension.

Meanwhile Godwin's Law has (yet again) descended to reign over this particular thread - 'heaven help us.'

Cheers

Fractelle,
I have been publishing a monthly article in OLO since August 2002 and I will continue as long as OLO keeps accepting my pieces. If I annoy you so much why to you read me? You call me arrogant but I only express an opinion that is counter to the prevailing view. I am amused why you all get so upset with me. However, I can assure me that I am read widely by people who find my contributions a breath of fresh air. These are the readers that do not contribute to the comments section. My despair about this section is that it reminds me more and more of a graduate seminar in which no one has read the material and there is so little to engage with. I do scan the comments for something meaty to get hold of and I respond if I do. But it is necessary for someone to at least meet me half way with a genuine question instead of the facile stuff that is printed here. I will not respond to sarcasm, abuse, gross ignorance, why should I?

Nice piece of defensive work, Sells.

An object lesson in the art of "up yours".

But there is a smidge of dissembling there too, isn't there?

>>You call me arrogant but I only express an opinion that is counter to the prevailing view.<<

The arrogance - as you should well know by now, given the volumes that have been written on the subject over the years - has nothing to do with the contrariness of your views.

It is the sneering swipes that you make, without the slightest attempt at properly analysing or assessing your target-du-jour, at the beliefs and ethics of others.

>>However, I can assure me that I am read widely by people who find my contributions a breath of fresh air.<<

As you can see, although you express some surprise at the fact, you are also "read widely" by people who think your contributions closer to the stench of rotting fish.

This illuminates another aspect of your character, which is to pretend as far as possible, that these latter have absolutely nothing of value to offer. You do admit that you "scan the comments for something meaty to get hold of", but - as you will be the first to admit - your perception of "meat", is simply an opinion offered by another academic, who has read the same books as you.

As I have mentioned before, I always make an attempt to read your pieces, as they provide an insight into a mind that, as a lifelong non-academic, I find totally fascinating.

Your views are so far removed from my own, as to have the potential to be from a distant planet. They are also so rock-solidly fixed in the idea that there are actually "answers" (and that you are privy to these), that I can only watch with fascination. In my world, there are far more questions than answers. And each new "answer" only gives rise to further questions.

I look forward to your next offering, with pencil sharpened, and the sneer detector switched to "oh goody, it's Sells again" mode.

Sells

Your defence is nothing more than I would expect from a bully. When asked to stop hurting (insulting) people, you claim you are just doing it for the betterment of all, next you'll claim it hurts you more than those you castigate.

As for the comment about your continued success at publication; this was more a comment for the Editor at OLO, when articles such as yours; from such an extreme religious position are regularly given public airing, I have to wonder why. There are many sincerely religious people who can write with compassion and tolerance for people, where are those articles?

pericles and fractelle nailed it.

>> I do scan the comments for something meaty to get hold of and I respond if I do.

this is a bald-faced lie. sellick is simply a dishonest, divisive, arrogant, insulting, self-aggrandizing two-bit preacher.

Hi Daviy,

Mussolini, said “Fascism is a religious conception in which man is immanent relation to a higher order, an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership in a spiritual society”. Here, the masses, via their own ignoble selves, are incapable of rising above their selfishness and will not achieve high destiny.

Fascist government does not exist for the People. Instead, individuals exist for the unity of the State. Sociologically, Fascism is opposed to Liberalism. Liberalism, unlike Fascism, holds self-evident the worth of popular government and engendering individualism: Progress is the product of emancipated individuals exercising their freedoms while securing egalitarian human rights.

Fascism maintains there are great thinkers, behind whom the masses find unification against threats to the spiritual society. The word, “Fascism” is derived from the Latin, “fascio,” meaning to group. In Roman history rods tied to a battle-axe represented strength and the authority.

The unity of the State directed state under stewardship of the Leader (Fuehrer) develops the myth of the State. Mussolini, states, having created the abstraction of the myth of the State; “it is not necessary that it shall be a reality. It is a reality by the fact that it is a goad, that it is hope, that it is faith, that it is courage”.

The Fascist State is “willed” into being by the great leaders and, the destiny of the masses is to, physically and emotionally share in the unity, provided under the leadership of the geniuses, whom guide history.

Germany and Japan were agrarian societies, entering the twentieth century. Thorstein Veblen saw the too rapid industrialisation of agrarian economies problematic. Veblen pretty much foresaw what happened in WWII, circa 1915. Agrarian societies were industrialised and militarised, before their people were liberalised. At the same time, the industrialists backing the Fascists did not want a Marxian style or similar class struggle.

Cheers,

Oliver