Julian Assange

Michael Grunwald and the Ideology That Dare Not Speak its Name

|

Who's got two thumbs & thinks Michael Bloomberg is dreamy? THIS guy! |||

Over at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf goes spelunking through the hair-raising archives of Time correspondent Michael Grunwald, and concludes that Grunwald's now-retracted Tweet of "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" fits perfectly with an ideology that is as consistent as it is under-acknowledged:

Grunwald seems to stand for whatever it is that he and the authorities think is best in a given instance, to hell with any procedural constants or absolute checks on power, like the Bill of Rights, getting in the way. Let's just be clear: that worldview has a lot of ideological assumptions baked into it, and is totally contrary to the system laid out in our written constitution, as well as the real world approach that we've followed successfully for decade after decade, with departures in times of war that we almost always came to regret. […]

[L]ike any radical ideologue, there are times when his ideology blinds him to reality. He is blind to the many instances in American history when government perpetrated terrible abuses, or else bizarrely thinks that powerful people abusing power is something that only happened in the past. It takes a profound disregard for the subjects of civil liberties, executive power, and their importance to write a 2013 article unironically titled, "Man of His Word: Obama Likely to Deliver on His Inaugural Promises (Again)." Little surprise that Grunwald thinks that New York's Michael Bloomberg, who shares his radical ideology, has been "an amazing mayor," even as he closes out his term trying to fingerprint poor people. […]

Seriously, you should read his whole Twitter archive. Amazing stuff. |||

I…presume that Grunwald…would be somewhat less of a radical ideologue if the excesses of his particular ideology were identified, examined and challenged half as much as conservatism or progressivism or libertarianism. But Grunwald's ideology has no established name, and isn't fleshed out nearly as well as its cousins—its adherents are often unaware that they are people with ideological streaks.

Some supporting materials from the Reason archive:

* "No Labels, and the Ideology of Post Ideology: Why you should reach for your wallet whenever people near power claim to be post-political problem solvers"

* "The Post-Ideological Pragmatism of Blowing People Up"

* "Bloomberg's Super PAC Supports Sensible Centrism—i.e., Whatever Bloomberg Happens to Believe"

* "The Cost of Doing Something: Declaiming the price of 'inaction' is a perennial argument for big government and bad law"

* "The Simpletons: David Brooks, Thomas L. Friedman, and the banal authoritarianism of do-something punditry"

* "The Lethal Center: The dangers of quick-fix consensus"

NEXT: Fort Hood Shooter Trial Drawing to a Close

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gee, I donno. “Thuggery” seems appropriate.

    1. I propose “Authoritarian Toady”. He’s a “receiver”, not a “giver”, so I think that fits.

      1. “But Grunwald’s ideology has no established name, and isn’t fleshed out nearly as well as its cousins — its adherents are often unaware that they are people with ideological streaks.”

        Yeah, I’d call him an authoritarian.
        No authoritarian starts out being disillusioned with authoritarianism–that has to come to them later.

        Other descriptive terms might include “useful idiot” or “Obama Personality Cult true believer”.

        He’ll be a cheerleader for authoritarianism right up until the Republicans retake the White House, or the powers that be march someone he knows and cares about up to the wall.

        …but they could violate an awful lot of everyday people’s rights before anybody gets marched up to a wall.

        1. I would call him a fascist. Fascism doesn’t have to include mass murder or antiSemitism. The essence of fascism is a totally commitment to the state and the nation above all else.

          1. Fucking fascist seems appropriate to me. The FF ideology.

          2. I don’t disagree that the fascists had a devotion to the state, but while they did so they also saw the state as in service to or the manifestation of a ‘volk.’

            1. They did in Germany. But not so much in Italy or Spain. Fascism has a lot of forms. But the common thread is the total commitment to the state and the use of terror and violence to achieve political ends.

              1. I thought Italian fascism had a ‘volk’ component, it was just no so narrowly racial. Mussolini wanted to re-create the glory of Rome and such.

                1. There is a nationalist component to fascism. But Grunwald is all about nationalism. He is calling on the US government to kill someone he concludes is an enemy of the people.

                  1. That is not quite nationalism. For example, imagine a Communist who sings the Internationale calling for the assassination of a Soviet dissident as an ‘enemy of the people.’

                    Nationalism would be something like what we call American Exceptionalism or ‘my country, right or wrong.’

                2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I….._racialism

                  -Italian Fascism is based upon Italian nationalism, and in particular seeks to complete what it considers as the incomplete project of Risorgimento by incorporating Italia Irredenta (“unredeemed Italy”) into the state of Italy.[1][10] The National Fascist Party (PNF) founded in 1921, declared that the party was to serve as “a revolutionary militia placed at the service of the nation. It follows a policy based on three principles: order, discipline, hierarchy”.[10]

                  It identifies modern Italy as the heir to the Roman Empire and Italy during the Renaissance, and promotes the cultural identity of Romanitas (“Roman-ness”).[10] Italian Fascism historically sought to forge a strong Italian Empire as a “Third Rome”, identifying ancient Rome as the “First Rome”, and Renaissance-era Italy as the “Second Rome”.[10] Italian Fascism has emulated ancient Rome, and Benito Mussolini in particular emulated ancient Roman leaders, such as Julius Caesar as a model for the Fascists’ rise to power, and Augustus as a model for empire-building.[11

                  1. As I said, there is a nationalism component to Fascism. And Grunwald has it. America as the great world defender against the terrorists certainly fits the bill.

                  2. Bo, you are hung up on nationalism or racialism as the key concept behind fascism, which is a common misconception on the left.

                    The key concept of fascism is devotion and subjugation to the state.

                    The culture of most countries include some degress of nationalims, it’s just a modern form of tribalism. But most societies, even most nationalists do not believe in total subjugation to the state.

                3. Nationalism != racisim

                  Nationalism is an inherent feature of Fascism, racism is not (although Fascism is a fertile breeding ground for racism)

              1. “Douchebagism.”

        2. Guys like this learn the important lesson of authoritarianism right about the time they realize their arrest was not a “mistake” and they’re likely to be next against the wall.

        3. “Obama Personality Cult true believer”.

          Yeah, somehow I’m not buying that Grunwald would be rooting for Assange to be killed if Mitt Romney was the president.

          This guy is nothing but another shrieking idiot piece of Obama’s toilet paper, just like 90% of his fellow journolists in the mainstream media.

    2. “Toadyism” might be the best description of his ideology. He worships the State, so anyone with principles is a potential enemy. ACLU, NRA, Planned Parenthood, Focus on the Family, etc. Anyone who has principles is by definition someone who holds some values which they consider to be of higher moral worth than what the State has proclaimed. Hence, principles are in and of themselves dangerous to a follower of Toadyism.

    3. There is a house a few doors down from Grunwald for rent at 1420 Lenox, in South Beach, for only a little over $5000 a month, if you want to be his neighbor.

      http://insomniaclibertarian.bl…..on-of.html

  2. But Grunwald’s ideology has no established name

    W/o reading his archive I’m guessing communitarianism (after Etzioni) isn’t too far off the mark. It is a hard authoritarian “centrism”.

  3. Der F?hrer setzt das Recht.

  4. But Grunwald’s ideology has no established name…

    Uhhh

    1. DON’T YOU TELL US WHAT IT’S CALLED, YOU SOMETHING THAT HAS NO NAME.

  5. I’m sure he’ll secure a nice cushy position in the Vanguard.

  6. Grunwald is actually an example of that insult that is hurled on this board too often. He is a statist. And by that his guiding ideology is that if the state says it, it must be true and if the state does it, it must be right. Since the state says Assange is a bad guy, then Grunwald can’t wait to write a defense of the state killing him. There is nothing nuanced or interesting about people like Grunwald. It is just a crude worship of power.

    1. Statism works as does authoritarianism.

    2. -Grunwald is actually an example of that insult that is hurled on this board too often. He is a statist.

      Well said. I think this succinctly and accurately captures his mindset.

    3. I dont think its hurled too often. Grunwald is just an extreme example of a statist.

      But its a spectrum. So hurling the name at someone who is at 70% instead of Grunwalds 100% isnt wrong.

      1. Hurling the name at anyone who disagrees with you on a particular issue, which is what happens on here near daily, deprives the term of its meaning.

        There is no 70% statist. It is like being a 70% virgin. To be a statist is to believe that something is right or wrong by virtue of the government’s opinion of it and that alone. It doesn’t mean “I support something the government has done” or “I think the government ought to have this particular power”, which is what the term is used to mean after some of the commentators on here get done going full Steve Smith on it.

        1. Meh.

          I think its like the capitalist/socialist spectrum.

          A true hardcore socialist believes that the state should control all means of production. But in reality, socialism comes in a spectrum. Socializing medicine is socialism, even if it only pushes things to 40% of the economy being socialized or something.

          Statism is similar.

        2. Hurling the name at anyone who disagrees with you on a particular issue, which is what happens on here near daily, deprives the term of its meaning.

          Goddamn Nazi!

  7. Authoritarianism comes to mind

    authoritarianism
    1. the habit of conduct, thought, and speech expressing total submission to rigid principles and rules.
    2. the principles and views of the rule maker

    1. speech expressing total submission to rigid principles and rules.

      you misspelled “principals”, but otherwise pretty spot on.

      1. but principles are principals. Or is it the other way around?

        /team derp

      2. “you misspelled “principals”, but otherwise pretty spot on.”

        Clever.

    2. -the habit of conduct, thought, and speech expressing total submission to rigid principles and rules

      But wouldn’t that cover a hyper-principled libertarian? Most Objectivists I know fit that definition.

  8. Tulpatarianism? Leave no boot unlicked…

    1. Bootlickeranarism.

      1. Lickabootarianism.

      2. Lickspittleism.

  9. Grunwald’s programming (I hesitate to call an ideology because I doubt he can rationally defend what he thinks) is already fleshed out:

    Everything for the state, nothing outside of the state, nothing against the state.

  10. The End Justifies The Means.

  11. So, Grunwald is Tony?

      1. Tony, like Grunwald, doesn’t pretend to be a libertarian.

      2. I am a self-admitted classic liberal as you are a conservative.

        Hayek is on my side – not yours. His disdain for conservatives pre-dated my own.

        1. How does Michael Grunwald score on the Buttplug Purity Index?

        2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weu-R_bgmU4

          CRISTFAG!!

          You are a fascist retard. Now get back in your hole.

        3. ” self-admitted classic liberal ”

          There’s a reason you’re the only one claiming that too.

      3. Damnit John, you had to speak it’s name and now it’s flinging shit again.

  12. That doesn’t mean that he’s a bad guy, or that he shouldn’t be a journalist

    Yes Connor it does. It means exactly that. And you are not doing yourself or your profession any favors pretending otherwise. The sad part about the whole article is Friederdorf’s elitism. If Grunwald were some guy on talk radio who went to community college, Friederdorf would happily call him a bad guy and demand the end of his career. But since Grunwald went to Harvard and worked for the Washington Post, two facts Friederdorf oddly finds relevant and mitigating enough to mention, Friederdorf has to go out of his way to say that Grunwald is not a bad guy and still is a reputable journalist. He went to the right school and worked for the right publications so he can’t be a bad guy. Just misguided.

    1. Friedersdorf is always a douchebag. Often that’s all he adds to what amounts to a complete rehash of someone else’s column.

      1. The entirety of the major media has a club mentality I can’t stand. Every single one of them is so busy smelling each other’s farts and commenting on how lovely they smell that are incapable of doing their jobs or being in any way subversive.

        1. I could abide that if they lived by a code of ethics that stopped them from doing the cheerleading for the government and/or their favoritist political party.

        2. You should read James O’Keefe’s book.

    2. Friedersdorf if the kind of person SIV is talking about when he starts blasting off about Cosmotarianism. Friedersdorf is a pretty smart guy that should be able to see progressivism for what it is and should also be able to understand that Grunwald’s brand of light fascism is incredibly dangerous to a free society. Despite this, he is unwilling to flat out blast progressives for their authoritarian impulses or to go after Grunwald the way he deserves to be gone after because Friedersdorf is in a left-wing industry and doesn’t have the balls to make waves.

      1. Yup. It is lack of balls and it is a cultural thing. As much as Friedersdorf finds Grunwald’s ideology repellent, Freidersdorf finds people outside of the Washington culture even more repellent. So Grunwald is just misguided. He is not a bad guy. Grunwald just wants the government to assassinate someone. It is not like he went to a state school or something.

        1. It’s almost certainly a lack of balls, but there’s at least a chance Conor tells himself that he’s doing more good on the inside than he would be if he went to war against these people.

          There are people who feel a need to at least address a Friedersdorf piece who feel no need to respond to, say, Gillespie.

          If you break ranks on the “Harvard guys are always credible” rule for even a moment, they cast you out and declare you Alex Jones. That’s the line Conor has to walk.

          1. Maybe. I don’t know him personally. So it is possible. But I doubt it. If you walk that line long enough, you will eventually start to believe it. Very few people can stay in a club for very long without thinking that yeah, it really is special. It is human nature.

          2. “If you break ranks on the “Harvard guys are always credible” rule for even a moment, they cast you out and declare you Alex Jones.”

            Who has this happened to? I’m just wondering, not questioning that it happened.

            1. I would think Alex Jones would be the obvious first example.

              1. He went to Harvard?

                1. Or, was he a “Harvard guys are always credible” guy who turned?

                  1. He was declared to be Alex Jones. Probably by his parents (unless its a stage name).

                    1. “He was declared to be Alex Jones.”

                      Oh, I get it, you’re trying to be clever, did he also “break ranks on the “Harvard guys are always credible” rule for even a moment”?

                      Did he ever hold that view?

                      Save the clever please.

    3. I am not familiar with Friederdorf’s work. Has he ever called for someone’s career to be ended?

      It seems like he is more in agreement with us here than in disagreement, it seems petty to roast him on a spit because as he takes down Grunwald’s statism he dares suggest he is not necessarily a bad person who should not be able to make a living.

      1. ” he dares suggest he is not necessarily a bad person who should not be able to make a living.”

        He doesn’t suggest that.

        Try again.

        1. -That doesn’t mean that he’s a bad guy, or that he shouldn’t be a journalist

          How do you interpret this statement?

          1. “How do you interpret this statement?”

            Properly, unlike you.

            For example, I don’t see any mention of his journalism as a business or source of income.

            Now, try again.

            1. You know what Bo, this is pointless.

              No one suggested he not be able to make a living. The sugeestion, and discussion, is whether he is qualified as a journalist.

              You are the only one even sniffing around the “he shouldn’t be able to make a living argument” that no one anywhere made.

              The argument is whether a person who is disingenuous and dishonest should be a journalist.

              Stop pretending you’re too stupid to see the distinction.

              1. “Stop pretending you’re too stupid to see the distinction.”

                So, stop posting here…ever?

                1. I’d take that, yes.

              2. Being a journalist is how Grunwald makes his living.

                1. First, that’s your assumption, second, it’s irrelevant.

                  He can make a living flpping burgers.

                  Again, your point fails.

                  1. And writing things is how he makes his living, stop pretending you’re too stupid to see the distinction.

                  2. That’s my assumption? The man is a journalist, no?

                    1. “That’s my assumption? ”

                      You have his tax returns?

                    2. No one’s saying he can’t write, or earn.

                      Point to one person saying that.

                    3. John put the comment I flagged at the head of his criticism of the author of the Atlantic piece. The comment said ‘that doesn’t mean that he is a bad person or that he shouldn’t be a journalist.’

                      My response was that we should not criticize someone when they are arguing against someone’s ideology but dare to suggest they are not bad guys or should lose their career.

                      You seem to be intent on arguing with me because you think you can show that Grunwald might have a career as a journalist or something, or if he lost it he could always flip burgers. With respect I can’t envision a larger missing of the point.

                    4. If it matters, I don’t get what there could possibly be an argument about; Grunwalk is a piece of shit, and people agree with him, who are also pieces of shit.

                      If they all died right now the world would be a better place.

                    5. “I don’t get what there could possibly be an argument about; ”

                      Friedersdorf saying “this guy is dishonest and disingenuous, but not a bad journalist”, which is being disagreed with by others.

                      For Bo, somehow this translates to “this guy has a job, on which he’s being critiqued” which for Bo is equivalent to “this guy should never be allowed to earn a living”.

                      I think, Bo doesn’t make much sense.

                    6. So, you don’t have anyone saying he shouldn’t be able to make a living.

                      Which is what I expected.

                      “. With respect I can’t envision a larger missing of the point.”

                      You don;t have to, just look at the post where you started this mess.

                    7. Let’s look at my original post.

                      I am not familiar with Friederdorf’s work. Has he ever called for someone’s career to be ended?

                      It seems like he is more in agreement with us here than in disagreement, it seems petty to roast him on a spit because as he takes down Grunwald’s statism he dares suggest he is not necessarily a bad person who should not be able to make a living.

                      This post essentially says ‘why jump on the author of the Atlantic piece when he rightly takes down Grunwald’s ideology? Just because he suggests that Grunwald, while disturbingly wrong, isn’t necessarily a bad guy or shouldn’t be a journalist?’

                      Notice too that my second sentence of that post certainly should have informed you as to what my ‘make a living’ was about.

                    8. So, you don’t have anyone saying he shouldn’t be able to make a living.

                      Which is what I expected.

                      “. With respect I can’t envision a larger missing of the point.”

                      You don;t have to, just look at the post where you started this mess.

                    9. Should I post my response twice as well? 🙂

                    10. I’d prefer you simply point to one person saying he can’t earn a living.

                2. So let him be a fry cook.

                  1. He should lose his career and be a fry cook because of a stupid tweet?

                    That is the kind of politically correct thinking rightly criticized around here when the left does it.

                    1. “He should lose his career and be a fry cook because of a stupid tweet?”

                      Who’s saying that?

                      Please point to one person besides you making the argument that he “should lose his career and be a fry cook because of a stupid tweet?

                    2. You are really flailing about in your effort to pick a nit here.

                      What do you think he, and you, were getting at when you suggested he should be a fry cook or flip burgers? Before this tweet were you walking around thinking ‘I really think Michael Grunwald should change his career from journalist to burger flipper!’

                      You are like those people calling for Paula Deen to lose her show and book deal because of a stupid comment.

                    3. I’ve asked you several times to point to the people making the arguments you’re attacking.

                      Do you ever plan to do that?

                    4. My point was in his losing his career as a journalist (Paula Deen can make a living flipping burgers in her critics minds too). I think that is pretty clear to anyone who reads my original post or my later explanation and walk through of that post for you.

                      What do you think Eitan @ 12:45 is getting at? And you @ 12:24 concede that this about whether he should keep his career as a journalist.

                    5. “My point was”

                      I don’t care.

                      I’ve asked you several times to point to the people making the arguments you’re attacking.

                      Do you ever plan to do that?

                    6. “And you @ 12:24 concede that this about whether he should keep his career as a journalist.”

                      Bullshit, I’ve never suggested anything of the kind.

                    7. -The argument is whether a person who is disingenuous and dishonest should be a journalist.

                      You, @ 12:24

                    8. Ah, but as we see downthread, you realized what you were wrong about in your reading of that post, and admitted it.

                      So, we’re buds now, have a great day!

                    9. Again, an argument about whether a person who is disingenuous and dishonest should be a journalist in no way implies that he ‘shouldn’t’ be.

                      You got caught in your trolling*, you really would be a happier person to just face it and go on to a happier day.

                      * In the course of this discussion you have whirled from nit picking on my ‘making a living’ by suggesting he could still flip burgers so no one is saying that. Then I reposted my original comment which clarifies I was talking about his career as a journalist. Then you whirled to the nit pick that, hey, we don’t know if he makes most of his money from journalism! Then you abandoned that to argue that no one was suggesting he not be a journalist at all (in suggesting he flip burgers or be a fry cook for example, just thinking of him supplementing his income of course!), everyone was just critiquing his journalism. That kind of flinging ‘stuff’ on the wall and pedanticism in the hope of keeping discussion going is the hallmark of trolling. I am only sorry I ‘fell for it.’

                      Have a blessed day.

                    10. “What do you think he, and you, were getting at when you suggested he should be a fry cook or flip burgers?”

                      That the argument “BUT THIS IS HIS CAREEEEERR!!!” is meaningless.

                    11. So those who wanted Paula Deen fired and have her book pulled were not doing anything meaningful because she could always make a living being a fry cook?

                      You have really contorted yourself in order to pick a nit with me here.

                    12. “So those who wanted Paula Deen fired ”

                      Have nothing to do with this.

                      I’ve asked you several times to point to the people making the arguments you’re attacking.

                      Do you ever plan to do that?

                    13. What fascinates me about this is that in all of your long winded replies, nowhere did you admit that no one has actually asked for his firing.

                      I can’t understand how you’re intellectually incapable of differing between a critique and a call for termination.

                    14. Ah, you are just trolling at this point since you have long conceded that ‘The argument is whether a person who is disingenuous and dishonest should be a journalist.’ (You @ 12:24 above).

                      So just as some people started an argument, sparked by a comment of hers, about whether someone as prejudiced as Paula Deen should be a TV host and book author here we have, as you concede, an argument, sparked by this tweet, whether someone as dishonest and disingenuous as Grunwald should be a journalist.

                    15. I’ve asked you several times to point to the people making the arguments you’re attacking.

                      Do you ever plan to do that?

                      I can’t understand how you’re intellectually incapable of differing between a critique and a call for termination.

                      “‘The argument is whether a person who is disingenuous and dishonest should be a journalist.’ ”

                      I’m glad you finally admit you were wrong in claiming people were calling for his termination, it’s not often people like you realize what you were misunderstanding and correct it.

                      Obviously, as you admit there, the argument was never about his career or his employment, but about critiquing his output as good or bad journalism.

                      It’s unusual that someone like you gains the insight necessary to admit you were totally and completely wrong.

                      Well done, I’m glad I could provide this teaching moment for you.

                    16. So suggestion and argument in the wake of his tweet about whether someone who is too disingenuous or dishonest ‘should be a journalist’ is not about his termination, but simply a critique. You were really talking about how he should take a time machine back into the past and rethink his career choice, not calling for his termination.

                      Is this a switch from angry to funny troll?

                    17. Or Riley Cooper.

      2. Why is where Grunwald went to school or where he has worked previously relevant to the discussion of this tweet? It is only relevant if you think that having that pedigree is somehow mitigating. And that to me is an incredibly elitist and wrong way to think.

        1. Perhaps he is saying ‘this man’s ideology is truly scary. Now I am not saying he is a bad man or journalist, he has certainly accomplished things in that field, but this is a scary and wrongheaded ideology.’

          That is my read of it, and it satisfies me. There is no need to personalize the political so much.

          1. A person with a bad ideology is a bad person.

            I dont know why its so hard to acknowledge that.

            1. I don’t believe that. That is the same personalization of the political that John rightly criticizes among the left in his post below.

              1. No it isnt.

                I agree with John below. He wrote it better than I did.

                There is a difference between a wrong ideology and crossing the line to a bad ideology (bad is the poor choice of word, but I was matching Connor). Evil ideology is better.

                When you go from wrong to evil, you are evil.

                1. I have seen people here call for people’s death because they disagree with them. Did they cross that line?

          2. Perhaps he is saying ‘this man’s ideology is truly scary. Now I am not saying he is a bad man or journalist, he has certainly accomplished things in that field, but this is a scary and wrongheaded ideology.’

            Sure, but accomplishing something in the field of journalism has nothing to do with whether or not you are a bad person. Friedersdorf using the fact that he has accomplished things in the field of journalism as some kind of mitigating factor is like Hollywood celebrities claiming that Roman Polanski should be forgiven because he’s a great director.

            The two things have nothing to do with one another. The only way anyone could claim they are related is if you somehow believe that being an accomplished journalist in and of itself carries some sort of moral weight, which is a ridiculous argument.

            1. He doesn’t imply it carries moral weight but rather weight in rather he qualifies to be a journalist.

              1. It doesn’t even carry weight in that! He’s worked for employers that are big names, therefore, no matter what he does, he is qualified to be a journalist.

                The man basically admitted he yearns to be used as a propagandist for state sanctioned murder. The fact that he’s worked for the fucking Post does not change the fact that he has stated that he is

                A) In no way objective

                B) Unwilling to look critically at the government and

                C) A gibbering authoritarian loon.

                He clearly lacks any of the decency, lack of bias, or critical thinking abilities that smug journalists are always assuring me that they possess. By the claims of journalists, someone like Grunwald is morally unfit to work in that field. Friedersdorf either needs to admit that or admit that all the holier than though claims of his fellow journalists are outright lies based on self-aggrandizement.

                1. Not all people who work in journalism are doing ‘objective, unbiased’ work or even aim to.

                  Getting and holding a job at a major newspaper is an indicator of accomplishment in the field of journalism, just as getting a job at a major law firm is an indicator of accomplishment in that field. Ask any journalism major if they would be excited to get a job offer from the Post. If they are, is it just the pay?

          3. Now I am not saying he is a bad man or journalist, he has certainly accomplished things in that field, but this is a scary and wrongheaded ideology.’

            Which is another way of saying “he went to Harvard and worked at the Post, so his believing otherwise horrible things doesn’t make him a bad person”. His accomplishments in the field or where he went to school don’t make him a better person or any less culpable for having such a loathsome ideology. Freisendorf thinks it does. And that is just elitist nonsense.

            1. Relax John,

              It’s not like Grunwalds a stinking rodeo clown that mocked the president.

            2. Relax John,

              It’s not like Grunwalds a stinking rodeo clown that mocked the president.

      3. it seems petty to roast him on a spit because as he takes down Grunwald’s statism he dares suggest he is not necessarily a bad person who should not be able to make a living.

        The man not only said that Assange should be droned, he said that he would then be happy to act like a good little propagandist and write a defense about it. That makes him a bad person.

        Add that to the pile of authoritarian nonsense Grunwald has written in the past and I’m not sure how anyone can claim he’s not a terrible person.

      4. I like Friedersdorf as an imperfect but good enough libertarian for The Atlantic, which is traditionally a journal for educated East Coasters. I think he soft peddles things to his audience more than most in the H&R commentariat would like, but his editors probably take plenty of flack as it is. Some people here probably don’t think he should tone things down to keep his job, but I’m pretty okay with it.

  13. its adherents are often unaware that they are people with ideological streaks.

    Do androids dream of electric sheep?

    1. “Do androids dream of electric sheep?”

      Do fish know they’re wet?

  14. And could Grunwald have a more smug look on his face in that picture? I am not sure even a supremely skilled actor or model could manage to look that smug.

    1. The smug IS pretty overwhelming. It practically wafts out of your screen.

      1. Backpfeifengesicht

    2. I see fear when I look at his face. He is always afraid that is why he loves the state. It thinks for him, protects him. The smug is a mask he hides behind. Fear is his true face.

  15. As someone currently sitting in a HIMARS rocket artillery exercise, I object to the drone assumption.

    1. Come on Redleg…its always about dronez with those people!

    1. Il vero liberta e un figlio di putana!

      1. There should be 2 Ts in puttana.

        1. Yes, I know. I make plenty of unforced spelling errors here in three languages, Mr. Grammar Gestapo.

          My apologies to all my brethren in the motherland.

          Italian are we?

  16. since I didn’t see an H&R post on this:

    Julian Assange speaking to college students about Matt Drudge, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and libertarianism:

    http://rt.com/usa/assange-ron-rand-paul-584/
    video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofnFbF_JO8

  17. Haven’t you libertarians heard? It’s a government of, by, and for the people! That means the government is us! How can government abuse power if government is us? It can’t! Because we are government! What else could government be if not us? You people vote, don’t you? That makes you part of government!

    Sheesh!

    Of, by and for the people! What’s so hard to understand?

    1. Of, by, and for, and to the people!

    2. OK sarc, you don’t have to prove to us that you are the master of Tony’s puppet.

  18. “Political tags?such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth?are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
    -Heinlein

    1. I guarantee you Grunwald wakes up every morning with the absolute certain knowledge that he is a wonderful person who cares and is out doing good every day.

      1. I’m sure a certain German who-shall-not-be-named did the same thing.

        1. Wagner?

        2. Absolutely many of them did. The Soviets most certainly did. The people who did the worst things in the 1930s, the ones who shot Kulaks for the crime of having a piece of bread when they were starving, did so with great joy thinking they were ushering in paradise.

        3. Claudia Schiffer?

        4. Colonel Klink?

        5. Dirk Nowitzki?

      2. “Nobody is the villain in their own story” –One of the Space Nazis in Iron Sunrise

        1. *cough*, [looks around, edges toward door]

        2. That movie was a riot.

        3. Confused with Iron Sky.

          1. Understandable. It was probably sold under the working title: “Space Nazis Must Die” as well.

  19. “The mental mistake that led to the tweet is present elsewhere in his work, and springs from his worldview.”

    It wasn’t about a mental mistake or his worldview. It’s a moral defect in his character–something people don’t like to talk about anymore. But when you take delight in other people’s suffering or the violation of other people’s rights, whatever else is included in the explanation for that, there’s also a basic moral defect at the bottom of it somewhere.

    “Don’t take my word for it. Prior to issuing his apology, Grunwald briefly stood behind his remark, explaining his thinking as follows: ‘Thanks for your input, Don’t Tread on Me crowd. Here’s a sense of why I disagree with you.'”

    He then links to his “Tread on Me” article, which is basically the case against libertarianism. Apparently, in Grunwald’s moral universe, being a libertarian justifies his wanting people like us killed.

    1. “It wasn’t about a mental mistake”

      As far as he’s concerned, the only mistake was publicly admitting he’s a thug.
      Being a thug is fine by him.

    2. If libertarians had their way and imposed liberty upon society, well that would be tyranny! Don’t you see? Libertarians actually think that the rich should be allowed to keep their riches! Can you believe it? Libertarians support inequality! They celebrate inequality! Inequality is tyranny of the rich! Libertarians want tyranny!

      1. Yeah, we’re demonized. And that’s almost extent of the ideology…

        Honestly, Progressivism can be summed up as the idea that in the name of progress, the government should force individuals to make sacrifices for the good of society as a whole.

        People who aren’t willing to make sacrifices of themselves or their rights are demonized. You support the Second Amendment despite the good of society as a whole, you’re demonized. If you oppose things like ObamaCare, which is all about using the government to force individual sacrifice, then you’re demonized.

        He’s a Progressive operative in the truest sense–he seems to think his contribution to society is in demonizing those who refuse to make the necessary sacrifices, especially of their rights.

        http://swampland.time.com/2013…..factories/

        1. the government should force individuals to make sacrifices for the good of society as a whole.

          And yet not a single one can give a decent example of what’s good for all of society.

    3. But when you take delight in other people’s suffering or the violation of other people’s rights, whatever else is included in the explanation for that, there’s also a basic moral defect at the bottom of it somewhere.

      I take delight in petard hoisting. The deeper the call to violate rights, the higher you get hoisted and Watch. Me. Not. Care.

  20. The Grunwaldians are basically people who have tramped obediently through years and years of schoolhouse indoctrination without ever stopping to ask, “Is that really true? Was Woodrow Wilson really a great President? Are water mains, or ROADZ, really things only suited to being provided as a government monopoly? Is there even such a thing as a ‘natural monopoly’? Why should some pretentious megalomaniac like Chuck Schumer tell me what I can drink, or when I should be allowed to begin drinking it?”

    They’re too fucking dumb and completely immune to any sort of self-awareness to be considered to have a “philosophy” in any meaningful sense.

    1. Unless you are a minority or a big money legacy, you don’t get into Harvard without the total and complete trust in everything any teacher ever told you. Whenever you see some white guy like Grunwald who went to Harvard without being a legacy, know that he is a total toady. If he wasn’t a toady, he would have gotten cross with some teacher somewhere and never had the grades to get in. It takes a life time of toadism and conformist striving to get into Harvard or other places like it.

    2. I think this his ideology is pretty common.

      A lot of it has to do with demonizing your opponents. I have no doubt that a lot of the Progressive, politically minded people of San Francisco would cheer on rounding up Christians and sending them to internment camps.

      It’s very close to what you see in people like Shrike and Tony. Their take on most any issue has little to do with the issue itself–and a lot to do with the people they hate.

      I think the idea of standing up for the rights of people they disagree with is laughable to them, and if they saw the government rounding up conservative Christians to be sent to camps, I don’t think they they’d protest at all. I think they’d laugh their asses off.

      It’s the same kind of thing with Grunwald. He doesn’t care about the rights of libertarians. I think he’d just as soon we were all rounded up.

      1. It comes from personalizing your politics. People like Grunwald get all of their personal sense of self worth from their politics. Once you do that, you are very likely to demonize your opponents because doing so makes you feel that much more right and important. If you are just one side of a reasonable political argument, how are you special? But if you are the forces of good fighting against evil, you are very important. So these people automatically believe that their political enemies are evil rather than being mistaken. This is why they constantly compare everything to the civil rights era. It was the last time in this country we had a clear cut political debate where one side really was evil.

        1. I think a lot of people who imagine themselves as atheists are still very religious people–much as you outlined there.

          Their thinking is very religious nature, about good and evil, etc., and they’re on a crusade against evil, etc…

          They’re still very religious in their thinking, it’s just that, like you said, they’ve substituted politics for religion.

          That’s why talking about Obama in religious terms with them is so apt. He’s just like a minister preachin’ to the choir. He scratches that old religious itch–even if it isn’t about God.

          1. Exactly. That old canard about the danger of people not believing in God is that they will believe anything is very true. People generally need meaning and want to feel connected to something larger. The abyss and existential anxiety are hard things to ignore.

          2. Human nature has not changed since people treated the pharaohs like gods. It hasn’t changed one bit. Ironic how those who call themselves progressive want to throw away thousands of years of progress and return to worshiping fellow men as gods.

            1. Certainly, Progressivism had its roots in Evangelical Christianity, and that sort of revival crusade, religious mentality still influences it today.

              http://tinyurl.com/lm4umv6

              1. I’ve always likened Regresivism to Humanism. They worship government of humans and they equate government with society. So it’s self-worship.

          3. Most Obama supporters that see him in religious terms are in my experience blacks. I imagine it is the strong racial pride they feel towards his accomplishment combined with the extreme prevalence of the ‘prophetic tradition’ in African-American culture and the dominant role of the black church in that culture that leads to that.

            1. Most Obama supporters that see him in religious terms are in my experience blacks.

              I was in a mostly white college in 2008. Trust me, religious worship of Barack Obama crossed all races.

            2. Um…that’s horseshit for a number of reasons, and some of them might involve me calling you names, and I don’t want to do that.

              But just for the record, if anything, religious people, especially those in the South, are less susceptible to Obama’s style of preaching than, say, the liberals of Massachusetts. …because people in the South grew up hearing that style of preaching every week in church.

              I remember when Obama did the keynote at the Democrat convention…

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0

              Lots of people acted like they’d never heard anybody speak like that before. But to people in the South it was pretty ho hum.

              1. Do you think Southern Blacks easily resisted Obama’s speeches?

                1. I think most people in the South have seen people preach better than Obama.

                  I know I’ve sat in small black churches in the South and have heard better than Obama.

                  If black people in this country disproportionately support Obama, I don’t think it’s because of his speeches.

                  I still think half the reason so many black people support the Democrats is because they consider the Republicans to be hostile to them and their interests.

                  And why, white, middle-class, swing voters support Obama is another question entirely.

        2. -It comes from personalizing your politics.

          -Once you do that, you are very likely to demonize your opponents

          How does this square with your criticism supra directed at the author because he suggests Grunwald is not a bad person?

          1. How does this square with your criticism supra directed at the author because he suggests Grunwald is not a bad person?

            Very easily. Just because not every political opponent is evil doesn’t mean there are no evil political opponents. Saying that everyone who disagrees with you is not just wrong but evil is just as bad as saying that no one ever could be. Whether one is in fact evil or just mistaken is a question of the facts about that particular person.

            If Grunwald just thought NSA spying were good or that Assange ought to be charged criminally, he would be mistaken. But in thinking that Assange should be killed, he crosses the line into evil.

            1. Did you feel the same way when Palin suggested something similar?

              1. -“Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”

                1. She never says she wants him killed. She said she wants him pursued, meaning they could capture and try him if they could. Grunwald wants him killed.

                  This is a good example of what I am talking about. Palin is wrong to conclude that Assange is an operative of Al Quada. But she at least gives a rational reason why she thinks he is and then offers the logical conclusion following from that. That makes her wrong, which doesn’t necessarily include killing him. The problem with Palin’s statement is that she is wrong about Assange being effectively a member of Al Quada. But if you believe that, nothing in that statement is unreasonable.

                  Grunwald in contrast does none of that. He just wants Assange killed because he embarrassed the government, not because he works for Al Quada or has declared himself to be an enemy, but because he embarrassed Obama. And he is not to be pursued or arrested or anything else. He is to be killed. That makes Grunwald evil instead of just wrong.

                  1. And I think Palin has had some kind words for Snowden.

                  2. With all due respect that is laughable. We don’t pursue and capture most al Qaida leaders, we kill them.

                    1. We don’t pursue and capture most al Qaida leaders, we kill them.

                      We don’t do much of that, either.

                    2. We don’t pursue and capture most al Qaida leaders, we kill them.

                      Not when they are hanging out in Europe. We have arrested lots of them. And last I looked GUITMO is still full of people. We don’t just kill them, especially in countries where they can be captured and where the government would object to droning them.

                    3. When we pursue al Qaida and Taliban we capture some and kill some, so when Palin said that she might have been talking about only capturing. Is that really the word-parsing defense you feel the need to make for Palin?

                    4. And beyond that, Grunwald doesn’t think Assange is an operative of Al Quada. He thinks Assange embarassed the government and is therefore fine with the government killing him.

                      Thinking Assange is an Al quada operative and thus subject to capture or maybe in extreme cases killing makes you mistaken.

                      Thinking Assange should be killed because he embarassed Obama makes you evil.

                      There is a big difference there.

                    5. How do you know what Grunwald’s motivation was for the tweet? If you are going to give Palin the benefit of the doubt without knowing whether she meant ‘capture or kill’ when she said ‘pursue’ then why not give it to Grunwald who if I recall correctly did not offer any justification?

                    6. If you are going to give Palin the benefit of the doubt

                      Why bother comparing one idiot to another? Why does this matter to anyone?

                    7. He’s the one defending her similar comments, not me. I think they both said loathsome things.

                    8. Are we seriously comparing Grunwald to Palin? Jesus Christ.

                      He’s a moral depraved statist. There’s no way around what he tweeted – far worse than anything Palin or Deen said.

                      The left will now scout the internet in hopes of finding a conservative equivalent to Grunwald’s comment.

                      And Limbaugh is the crazy one?

                      Right.

              2. You are seriously comparing using the word “reload” in the context of a political defeat to wanting to defend murder?

                Seriously?

                Even for you that’s pretty stupid.

                1. What in the world are you talking about? The ‘reload’ quote is entirely different and I did not point to it at all.

    3. Well put, Brooksie. This nails it. Only contempt is appropriate for people like Grunwald. They are obedient sheep who have only ever walked the statist line. They’ve never had an original thought, never experienced a moment of individuality. And they are stupid as the day is long.

    4. Well, he graduated from Harvard and worked at the WaPo for a decade, Brooksie! How dare you mention that raw intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with skeptical examination. Someone who taught at Harvard told him Wilson was great! Hell, one of his J-school profs at the H-Bomb probably used to work for Schumer.

    5. No relation to Mandy Grunwald I suppose? He’s certainly prettier.

  21. If those cops in Henderson, Nevada had knocked on Grunwald’s door and told him they needed his house as a commend post to stage a SWAT raid on a domestic disturbance call, he would have thanked them for their service to the nation, and happily GTFO.

    1. If the people in Henderson, who this happened to, supported the Second Amendment, then I suspect he’d think they got less than what they deserved.

      It’s all about looking at the victim. Watch the progressives on a breaking story, and they’re always waiting to find out the crucial information about the victim before they decide which side to jump on. The police commandeered someone’s house? That’s not enough information for them–you have to tell them more about the homeowner first.

    2. “Do you guys want a bj first or should I just leave?”

  22. Based just on the drone thing, and consulting the Wikipedia definition, I get this:

    “veneration of the state” – Yes – a person who *didn’t* venerate the state wouldn’t want the state to use killer robots against its enemies

    “a devotion to a strong leader” – Yes – if Obama has the power to drone people whom he doesn’t like, then he is pretty much a strong leader by definition.

    “an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism” – Yes – Sending military deathbots into other countries to kill your alleged enemies sounds sufficiently nationalistic and militaristic

    “views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation” – Yes – he stimulates himself to climax at the thought of a fellow human being killed in a military strike. As to imperialism, see below.

    “asserts that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations.” – Presumably, he doesn’t want lesser countries to send death-bots to the U.S. – it should be the preserve of great powers (like America) to attack small countries which shield “enemies” leaking embarrassing information. This certainly qualifies as displacing weaker nations, though to be fair Obama (his idol) doesn’t claim he wants to take lesser nations’ land and resources. He does want them to consume less energy, thereby endangering their economies, but this is out of humanitarianism, not greed, right?

    1. Grunwald is a fascist. He hits every aspect of it. Fascism doesn’t have to mean antiSemetic. It is the total commitment to the state and the use of terror by the state against its enemies. Grunwald wants to the government to kill Assange because he wants the government to murder and terrorize its enemies.

      1. We are government and government is us! So if someone is an enemy of the government, then they are an enemy of us! Why do you support your enemies?

      2. Yeah, what pushes it over the top for me is the whole “I can’t wait for this enemy of the people to be killed – oh, ohh, ohhhhh!!” thing.

        Even the neocons try to be more restrained – “we must realistically acknowledge that our Republic faces serious threats, yada yada, and if peaceful means won’t work, we are obliged to yada yada.” But at least they rarely spew jism all over their keyboard while writing such things.

        1. That was the odd part of it. He didn’t say “I think the government should and has the right to treat Assange as an enemy and thus would be justified in killing him”. He said he couldn’t wait to write a defense of such. To me that is a deeply strange way of thinking.

          1. Indeed, his comments were to the effect of ‘I want this enemy of the state to be killed emotionally, and if it happens I will later supply a rationale.’

            That kind of emotional attachment to the state is terrifying.

  23. Damn. The Nazi castle in Last Crusade is Castle Brunwald. eh. close enough.

  24. I can’t wait to have a party celebrating the jackboot that puts Grunwald’s face into the curb.

  25. Grunwald seems to stand for whatever it is that he and the authorities think is best in a given instance

    Hence the word “Authoritarian”

  26. OT: Something that has never happened in history before, according to Jezebel:

    http://investigations.nbcnews……-rape?lite

    1. She was nine years old at the time. I would imagine she had some people who did a lot of enabling of her lies who have a lot more to answer for morally than she does.

    2. Something that has never happened in history before, according to Jezebel

      Well, she was raped the moment she was born into a patriarchal society, so it is not like she cannot be excused for seeking vengeance.

      Right???

    3. Note what the prosecutor said. “The system” says he’s guilty, so he’s guilty. “The system” is never wrong. Actual innocence be damned.

    4. The prosecutor in that case only reinforces my belief that, periodically, prosecutors should be taken out back and shot, just as a warning to the rest.

    5. But you don’t realize what’s at stake! It’s the reputations of all those poor, downtrodden prosecutors that worked on the case.

      This is the type of shit that makes me hate DAs.

  27. Let’s just be clear: that worldview has a lot of ideological assumptions baked into it, and is totally contrary to the system laid out in our written constitution.

    Well, you know what they [leftists and neo-cons] say: The Constitution is not a “suicide pact.”

    Neither is my marriage contract, but that doesn’t mean I am allowed to cheat on her with impunity.

    1. And they are right. It is not a suicide pact. If the government can’t protect its citizens at a basic level, it is no good to anyone. But that doesn’t mean everything the government does in the name of protecting people is legal or justified. You need to get to the suicide part first. The document preventing an action that may at some time in the future prevent some vague attack, is hardly a suicide pact.

    2. See, my marriage is a suicide pact, as in certain events would certainly lead to my prompt disincorporation.

      1. I had an ex-girlfriend that used to subject me to unreasonable search and seizure, forced me to testify against myself, and inflicted cruel and unusual punishments.

      2. I grok where you are coming from, R C.

  28. Here’s a drone’s eye view of Grunwald’s house: http://insomniaclibertarian.bl…..on-of.html

    1. A block can be a big deal in South Miami.

  29. I like Friedersdorf as an imperfect but good enough libertarian for The Atlantic

    Se, also: Douthat, Ross.

    Now and then he gets to throw one over the plate.

    1. Douthat ever gets one right? Really?

  30. OT: hey, did you guys know that we should be living in a Keynesian utopia and all working 4 hour days, but we’re not because…evil Republicans, or something?

    Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It’s even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It’s as if they are being told “but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?”

    …Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.

    1. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.

      Yeah, that is totally why. Damn, that is the dumbest thing I have read in a very long time.

      1. John, in a long time? Shit, I come across garbage like that every 30 seconds or so. I mean, we have PB and Tony don’t we to keep the average up!

    2. the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary

      That’s hilarious. They paralyze London by picketing, shutting down the tube stations and refusing to allow their employers to hire anyone to replace them. Somehow their immaturity, stupidity, and laziness are all evidence of how important they are.

      1. This is the best part:

        I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless? Not long ago I got back in touch with a school friend who I hadn’t seen since I was 12. I was amazed to discover that in the interim, he had become first a poet, then the front man in an indie rock band. I’d heard some of his songs on the radio having no idea the singer was someone I actually knew. He was obviously brilliant, innovative, and his work had unquestionably brightened and improved the lives of people all over the world. Yet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he’d lost his contract, and plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, “taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school.” Now he’s a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.

        See, back when he was a “poet” in an unsuccesful band, he was really making a difference in the world, but now that he’s a lawyer raising a family, he obviously produces nothing of value for anybody.

        1. It would be far better if his wife grew to despise him and his daughter was raised in abject poverty so that the 20 people who really like his music would have their days brightened a bit.

        2. I don’t have much use for either the angst-ridden poet rockers or the corporate attorneys.

        3. Now you see why these people are socialists. They think the world owes them a living while they pursue their dreams. That is really all there is to it. They are just bums looking for a meal ticket.

        4. That reminds me of this.

          You spend all that time going to law school, getting a job, and raising a family, but act like you just fell into it to pay the bills. Malarkey.

          1. Since we’re getting into anecdotes, my brother has been in music pretty much for the last 20 years. He has his gigs but hardly enough income to raise a family on so he does it on weekends. He has a Bohemian lifestyle and has lucked out because he wife is a worker and lives in her mother’s duplex. My brother-in-law and I don’t get it, B=but hey, he’s happy and we’re told to behave about it.

            Contrast this to his buddy who left music years ago when he got tired of hanging around musicians “hoping to make it.” He didn’t want to live “pay check to pay check” he told me.

            He accepted we had a family to care for and went and got himself a job in producing radio shows and stuff like that. He’s happy too.

            So what’s the fucking writer’s point exactly?

    3. the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary government owned transportaion is a bad idea

    4. This idiot has obviously never been to southern Europe; it’s exactly the kind of Keynesian utopia he’s talking about. You know, bankrupt countries with over 20% unemployment and miserable populations.

  31. But Grunwald’s ideology has no established name,

    Not true, the established name is Fascism and Grunwald is an propagandist for it.

    and isn’t fleshed out nearly as well as its cousins

    Sure it is.

    Summarized by

    All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  32. Lots of people acted like they’d never heard anybody speak like that before. But to people in the South it was pretty ho hum.

    Run of the mill tent show revivalist blabber.

  33. But Grunwald’s ideology has no established name

    Fascist fits, but doesn’t quite capture the preening douchebaggery of Grunwald’s ouvre.

  34. Grunwald’s ideology has no established name

    Advocate for Tyranny?

    Tyrannicist?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.