The Revolution Is
So, the first non-white, the first non-American, and the most extreme leftist ever has been elected President.
What did you expect?
After all, the established forces of “American” society have been promoting the glory of the non-white and the foreign for two generations now. The educational system has cut off most of the rising generation from what used to be America, and from Western civilization. America is the land that invented advertising and public relations. Our political discourse now consists entirely of image and its management. It began with Teddy Roosevelt and was perfected with television and Jack Kennedy. Obama’s election merely registers a final triumph of affirmative action and the final mutation of the citizen into the TV-watching shopper.
Somehow, I don't think this is what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Or the men of Omaha Beach. The American experiment in liberty and self-government was founded on the understanding that the state, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. For the new American electorate the state is the beloved Nanny who keeps us safe and warm and binds up our scrapes and bruises. Socialism? You get Wall Street approved "socialism" with either party.
This election is not so much the triumph of a bad economic system as of something much worse—Cultural Marxism. Socialism is merely a disease of the purse. Cultural Marxism is a disease of the soul from which there is no recovery. Part of the ruling class can still be rallied to put brakes on the progress of socialism, but the entire ruling class, long before this election, had already crawled on all fours to render submission and gold to the destroyers of culture. Imagine how different the election and our future would be if the Republicans had had the courage and intelligence to represent real America rather than pretend to. The main predictable accomplishment of the Barack Hussein Obama administration will be the institutionalisation of the aggressive Cultural Marxism that already dominates the schools and media.
This is what happens when people put more value on their purses than on their honour, confuse personal profit with patriotism, and lose knowledge of the past and ability to take account of the future. America made its choice at Appomattox and the rest is merely interlude before the last act, in which the republican dream of the Fathers is dismembered for good.
On the upside, seldom does evil get such a well-deserved reward in this world as has been administered to the Republican Party. Restores one's faith in the essential soundness of the universe.
Entries(RSS)
George Ajjan,
Let us stretch that definition a bit to encompass "bourgeois West," and Messrs. Brimelow and Trifkovic fit in just fine. Mr. Brimelow at the least is American down to his DNA--he just lives here instead of England--and otherwise the contrast between them and Mr. Obama is abundantly clear.
How about Europe can have Obama and we take Brimelow and Trifkovic? That is, or was, the most gracious characteristic of the Anglosphere: the ability to absorb others willing to accept its traditions of Christian faith, the rule of law, and free enterprise. Obama stands for post-modern values of secularism, civil law, and socialism. He is part of the alien elite that has sprung up on our coasts and gained the levers of power.
"I’ll bet the little frat-boy yuppies at National Review are weeping and wailing. And at Commentary they are probably on the phone to Tel Aviv, desperately asking for new orders."
I doubt it. That bunch voted for Obama anyway. Their coup has been successful.
Brock,
Obama's roots are in Hawaii first and foremost, then Columbia, Harvard, and South Side Chicago. All American soil, all populated almost exclusively by American citizens. Growing up he spent four years in Indonesia, fourteen in Hawaii, zero in Kenya. He had nearly zero contact with his Kenyan relatives and father, none of whom played a role in raising him. His mother was your garden-variety liberal baby-boomer, his grandparents mildly eccentric white Americans.
Obama is an American.
Since Ted Kennedy passed his ‘immigration reform’ bill in the ’60s, the population has increased from 200 to 300 million. During that time I watched the country change from something I recognized to something I no longer comprehend. Obama, I fear, is only the beginning as the third world invasion continues and minorities become majorities. I wonder: why has someone not named a sewage plant after Ted Kennedy?
WC,
There are plenty of people born on American soil who can call themselves citizens but don't speak English and could not state the first principle of American constitutional governance. Obama is a bit further up the scale as a secularist social democrat, which may be the new American reality but it is not something organic to America. Furthermore, he strongly self-identifies with his Kenyan father rather than with his WASP mother or maternal grandparents.
Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln, , or for that matter Truman and Eisenhower, would not have regarded Obama as an American.
I think SternRepublicanVirtue makes an important point. Political engagement by true conservatives is absolutely necessary now.
As far as I'm concerned, the situation is hopeful. I haven't lost my faith in the American people. There were no riots, no beatings, no sneering demonstrations of superiority by Democrats on Tuesday night. There was nothing but genuine happiness on the faces of the crowd gathered in Chicago. People know that change must come to this country, but many people are misguided. The Americans voted for the wrong man, for the right reasons.
Paleos have ceded important ground through their lack of engagement. The country may yet turn in our direction (Yes we can!), but not if we refuse to put the mesage out their in a loving way. We need a deeply passionate, profound, convicted, intellectual leader who can tap into the same good nature and libidinous hopefulness that Barack Obama is currently exploiting. We have Bishop Sheen and John Paul II to prove that such figures exist; why can't we find another one?
Perhaps the thing I find most interesting about this is that according to the Exit Polls, people who identified their religion as "Jewish" voted 78-21 for Obama. This being a staggering 57 point victory that was even greater than his 52 point victory among those with no religion at all.
Is it that none of us remembered to tell them?
Oh well, I suppose I should conclude with some poetry:
The final motion of their arm
The final motion of their arm
Was to stab us in the back for one last time
I won't lift so much as a finger
I won't lift so much as one finger
To save that altar
That altar upon which so much has been sacrificed
Perhaps everything that was of value in the world
To save it from the taste of salt water.
I only hope the old Jew lover
I only hope the old Scoop Jackson lover
I only hope the old Media lover
I hope only
That he lives long enough to see how utterly wrong he was.
And do not let Lieberman caucus with the Democrats
O Obama!
Do not let Lieberman caucus with the Democrats
O Obama!
Thy purpose is not yet fulfilled.
I come late to this wake, but Dr Wilson, what do you mean by "cultural Marxism"?
I understand it's a term of oppobrium, and grant that Obama is in many ways a man of the left.
I could impose a lot of meanings on the term (Frankfurt School, multiculturalism, reliance on identities other than class as the engine of revolution, for starters), but I'd like to know what <u)you mean by the term.
To me, BHO seems a social democrat with a black power admixture . Not good, but will he do more for socialism than W. just did, while we blinked?
I suppose I should not be surprised by the fear driven nonsense that I am hearing from a few, Lord knows we have had enough fear shoved down our throats for the last eight years, we should all be accustomed to that overwhelming feeling of panic...but people please remember we are all Americans, and we have come through the darkest days I can remember, we are here as witnesses to this transformation of our nation, to one of tolerance and respect, FINALLY! I maintain it is NOT unpatriotic to have voted for Barack Obama, it does not make me an atheist or a terrorist. I live in the Bible belt of this land and have been accused of everything from a communist to a radical castrating female...Hello...I am an Amercian...I was born here....grew up saying the pledge of allegiance and singing the National Anthem at the top of my lungs...I am also a Christian and my ancestors date back to the formation of our democracy...but because I am not a black man I don't have to prove ANY of that to anyone...I am a white woman so the assumption is I'm one of the good guys...well folks...I believe with all of my heart that Barack Obama is one of the good guys and the past eight years has been an era of outlaws with complete disregard for our civil rights...I thank God that Bush is out and Obama will be leading our nation into the light once again!
GOM #59. Your definition covers the ground well. Besides, I thought I was the Grumpy Old Man.
Senor and Mr. Wilson,
Maybe we're talking past one another, but I'd argue strongly that an American is nothing more and nothing less than an American citizen, with no regard for creed, color, etc. When you're in, you're in. And once you are in, there is no second-class citizenry. Which of course is why we must be very careful about who we let in.
I'm unclear just why Jefferson, Lincoln, Truman and Eisenhower would not consider Obama an American, once they were told he was a natural born citizen. If he's not an American, why is he allowed to vote?
And Senor, there are many American citizens who DO speak English (and nothing else), and still could not "state the first principle of American constitutional governance." They're Amerians too. Crazy ones, but still American. People like Angela Davis, Rap Brown, Cynthia McKinney, Bill Kristol...
Could someone please interpret what the following news article means? Since newspaper stories are written at a second-grade reading level, it is sometimes a bit difficult understanding what a journalist is getting at, in the same way that following an episode of the Teletubbies could be confusing.
From the opening two paragraphs of a frontpage USA Today article from yesterday celebrating Obama's "historic victory" (shown verbatim):
IN CONGRESS, A DEMOCRATIC WAVE
Economic concerns fuel a 'turning point' in politics
by Susan Day
WASHINGTON - America's election of an African American as president wasn't the only breakthrough Tuesday night.
By defeating Republican John McCain in GOP-leaning Ohio and Virginia - capital of the Confederacy and a state that hasn't backed a Democrat for president in four decades - Barack Obama was reshaping the electoral map that has defined American politics for a generation.
---------
Putting aside her error in naming the State of Virginia as the capital of the Confederacy rather than the City of Richmond, what does that have to do with John McCain or the fact that a Democrat hasn't won their in four decades? Is she suggesting that the Confederacy only ended 40 years ago?
And they wonder why nobody reads newspapers anymore.
MAP@54 wrote: "I wonder: why has someone not named a sewage plant after Ted Kennedy?"
Naming a sewage plant after a sewage plant is illogical.
Stern Republican Virtue,
I wholeheartedly agree with your post @47. What we really need is an European Nationalist style party that is very professional, agressive, and knows how to effectively educate the populace along with mastering the art of good packaging/propaganda in drumming up support. The fact is that we truly do not have an oppostion party in this country, and the "wannabes"(Constitutions Party, Libertarians, Greens, etc) are too disjointed or infiltrated to be effective. The Greens are too progressive and really not needed as the Dems and RINO Republicans are close to what they are. The Libertarians have been painted as whackjobs as they have let in some real whackjobs as candidates(witches, warlocks, new agers, etc) in the past. Also they had Barr take over the Party, and did a great job at dividing and conquering the party as he really is a neocon agent. THe Constitution Party is the best one of the group, but it too was infiltrated somewhat and divided as necon Alan Keyes divided the party and although he lost the party nomination, got on the ballot for it in CA, as the Constitution Party is very decentralized. In fact, here in Michigan it is still on the ballot under its old name The US Taxpayer's Party. A highly organized, disciplined party is needed if there really is going to be any hope of turning back this Marxist rampage that is about to be unleashed on us.
We could set up a new Cabinet post for the "Department of American-ness", in which a team of politically appointed bureaucrats will oversee the establishment of a national ID card that scores the citizen, as well as the past 3 generations of his family on both sides, on how "American" they are, including projections of how they would have been viewed by Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Truman, and Eisenhower.
According to the score and the level of determined "American-ness", the card would contain secret electronic data to inform local and state authorities as to which portions of the Bill of Rights should be extended to that individual.
Going to work at 6:00 a.m., I heard the comments of one Douglas Wilder, the former black governor of Virginia. The reporter mentioned that he is now mayor of Richmond in which mayors once put up statutes to Confederate generals.
I suppose that the public is supposed to interpret that as "progress," a "new sensitivity," "a proof that the New Left brings tolerance"!
@67 Robert
Monument Ave. is worth a look especially the latest addition -- Arthur Ashe. The older statues are generals on horseback, the sort of thing poeple ignore as they go about their business. But there's no missing the famous Richmond athlete who died of AIDS bashing little crumb-crunchers about the head and shoulders with a tennis racquet! A truly hideous sculpture, I guess the joke is on the reverse-racists after all.
GOM @ 59
In my quest for a degree in Germanistik, I was subjected both in America and in Germany to the ideological machinations of the disciples of Herbert Marcuse. In fact, I twice head Marcuse speak: once in the U.S. and once in Germany.
I had never heard of Barack Obama until I heard his televised speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Then, four years ago, between the lines of that speech, I heard the subtle echoes of Herbert Marcuse.
As I have listened to some of Obama's speeches across the past two years, that voice has become more pronounced.
I also know that the disciples and disciples' disciples of Herbert Marcuse sit across the U.S. in universities, not-for-profit foundations, and in government positions. I have not forgotten that among the black power advocates is one Angela Davis, a real disciple of Herbert Marcuse.
Two days after the election, I have McCain-voting conservatives telling me that Obama, despite their misgivings, is their President and they will support him. They add that the realities of Washington will reign any ambitions which he might have in. Then they add, contradictory, that Obama will reign in the excesses of a "radical Democratic Congress."
They simply do not realize the cultural shift which has been made manifest by this election and who Obama really is.
"Two days after the election, I have McCain-voting conservatives telling me that Obama, despite their misgivings, is their President and they will support him."
My god.
Support him in what way?
I do think Obama should be supported vis a vis the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. After all, if we can't be a European country, why in the hell should those white gentile hating backstabbers get to keep being a Jewish country?
If a Black can become President of the United States, why can't a Palestinian be the Prime Minister of Israel?
Look me in the face, you worthless vermin infecting the Middle East, and tell me how you can support a Black American President, while stopping short of letting the Palestinians have any sort of real power.
But where else could a white non-liberal support Obama without selling out?
We still have 44 Senators outside of the Obama party, and if we put enough pressure on them (I mean REAL pressure, something in intensity if not ugliness like the anti-Zionists of the DailyKos puts on Democrats ALL THE TIME), we can quite easily stop 95% what Obama wants to do in terms of domestic policy.
So long as Obama has what Joe the Plumber wisely called “Patriotism to Democracy”, the damage from a Obama presidency will only come if we are weak-kneed enough to disengage from the political process.
And if it so happens that Joe the Plumber was being naïve about Obama?
Well, let’s just say there are still some pitchforks lying around from 1996.
"Where are the women on these posts. They are so important, as part of todays politics?"
I think maybe they were scared off by Thomas Fleming's idiotic refusal to admit that Elizabeth I was a great leader of the English People.
I honestly don't know if Fleming is an Inquisition loving Catholic who laments that Elizabeth deprived that people of so charming an institution; or if it's that he is incapable of seeing any female as a good leader.
The thing is that even the men of Elizabeth's time, who without irony referred to her as belonging to the weaker sex, admitted that she was a great leader and formidable opponent who put her nation first.
In fact, she put her nation first to such an extent that her opponents had to concentrate on base personal attacks and convoluted religious arguments that though she made her people better off in this world, they'd be worse off in the next as they burned in hell for not being Catholics.
Will someone with a spark of wisdom answer the ridiculous claims made by Mr. Ajjan, Ms. Darlys, and White Cornerback?? It is so easy to dissect and rebuke personal beliefs and philosophies which are rooted in globalism and cultural Marxism, but what the heck, I've got the time.
Mr. Ajjan, we Chronicles posters do not want any type of federal government intervention which is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, not for determining the extra qualifications needed to run for the office of President of the U.S., or anything else.
We simply lament the state of affairs that the American "nation" is in these days. We find it sad and especially unbelievable that the party apparatchiks, delegates, superdelegates, and voters in this country have ceased to make the distinctions and judgments FOR THEMSELVES, regarding their candidate's identity as a real and authentic American. A government committee isn't needed to do that - not 100 years ago, not now, not ever! Our forefathers simply assumed that each and every American citizen made these distinctions him/herself, and that they would continue to.
White Cornerback, come back to this website when you become educated about America's history, its heritage, and its traditions. Then you might realize that possessing a legal document declaring one an American citizen does NOT make one an AMERICAN. Anyone can wave a piece of paper in the air and claim they are American because it says so, but our forefathers, upon observing their different language, customs, and loyalties, would have known the opposite.
P.S. The people you mentioned forfeited their identities as Americans long ago. Their allegiances to Marxist and Trotskyite ideologies disqualifies them immediately.
Ms. Darlys,
Your comments are unintelligent, ignorant, and meaningless. I will retract that comment immediately if you can show me that the United States are, collectively, a nation. First, you must know the definition of a nation before you can rise to this occasion. Next, use the important documents from America's Founding era, such as the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, to show me that our government is a democracy. You will first find out that it is not. I'll leave the rest up to you. As for your love affair with the ideas of civil rights and absolutely equal treatment and opportunities under the law for minorities and women as there are for white Anglo-Saxon American men, you only need to open your eyes to break free from that spell. The traditional family has become an endangered species. Black or Hispanic Americans will proudly tell you today, if you ask them, that their interests, as minorities, are at odds with those of white Americans. Is that different now, Ms. Darlys, now that Mr. Obama has been elected?? He did say he was going to bring us all together and unite us under one common set of goals as a nation. Did things change back on Tuesday? Oh, let me guess, he has to be in power for a few months before St. Barack really starts changing things.
Brock, I think you missed the "wink" at the end of my post (to make the sarcasm of the ridiculous proposal more obvious than I already thought it was).
Brock,
I'm a regular and often sympathetic reader of Chronicles (and American Renaissance!). I understand the need to preserve the white, protestant, Christian European roots of this Republic, and I support ideologies and specific policies that protect the common values that spring from these roots. I'm talking here immigration policy, education policies promoting assimliation that we had 75-100 years ago, and a ruthless intellectual assault on the rootless secular universalist consensus that dominates our elite institutions. If I was an Austrian, I'd probably have voted for Haider; if I was a Brit, probably the BNP.
But despite our roots, we are not Europe. And there is a difference between a country dominated by white Christian European peoples and values and a white Christian nation. The latter of which I would argue we never have been. In 1830, there were 319,000 free black citizens. In 1865, there were millions.
If you or Mr. Wilson want to say that certain ideas are unamerican, I'd say fine, and I'd probably agree with you on specifics. If you'e saying that individual citizens who hold these pernicious ideas are not Americans, or that citizens of particular races or ethnicities are not Americans, then I would ask you why our founders took pains not to provide for such a test in the Constitution nor in any of the early statutes. Just why did the founders not see fit to prohibit athiests, freed blacks, or the children of immigrants from voting or holding office?
Another thing, off topic, but germane. Has a constitutional amendment ever been proposed that would prohibit dual citizenship? I might support it. Certainly, it is shocking that the new white house chief of staff actually enlisted in the military of another nation only 18 years ago.
" Black or Hispanic Americans will proudly tell you today, if you ask them, that their interests, as minorities, are at odds with those of white Americans. "
Cultural Marxism is the cyanide of the soul. That's why.
White Cornerback@74
"Just why did the founders not see fit to prohibit atheists, freed blacks, or the children of immigrants from voting or holding office?"
For the very same reason that they didn't pass enactments about radio transmissions or computer technology. No one among the eighteenth-century Founding Fathers, in his most nightmarish dreams, could have foreseen a nation where the very foundations of Western cultural and biological identity would be overtly attacked and systematically denigrated by the apparatus of government and the educational institutions.
The Founding Fathers may have been children of the Enlightenment. Some were of Whiggish temperament. Some of them were Freemasons. Some of them were Deists. Ok, fine--that sort of stuff happened to be in the air during that revolutionary time. Lots of people get swept up by the Zeitgeist.
But none of them were cultural degenerates or race-traitors. And none of them could have imagined that the nation they were founding would turn into the freak-show that we have today.
Bobby:
I severely doubt that many women read Chronicles. Most women endorse abortion on demand, "choice", free-love, and no-fault divorce. Chronicles upholds the family. Why, then would most women read it?
If family was thought to be sacred, you might find female readers.
Brock:
I think you're right to say that being American is more than holding a passport. For instance, giving suffrage to naturalized citizens is questionable. Although they might renounce their former citizenship and swear allegiance to the United States, they will be shaped by the traditions and culture of their natal land. They will be shaped by the ideologies and thoughts of their homeland, which will be influenced either from their own upbringing in the natal land or the influence of their parents. I think it would be prudent to give suffrage to the children of naturalized citizens.
I think the states were right to restrict suffrage at the founding.
I also think we should bring back property requirements for suffrage too, but hey, that's a lot to ask for.
"I severely doubt that many women read Chronicles. Most women endorse abortion on demand, “choice”, free-love, and no-fault divorce. Chronicles upholds the family. Why, then would most women read it?"
Even if that were true, it wouldn't make Thomas Fleming's mindless slander against Queen Elizabeth any less disgusting and wrong.
And in any event, a September 3rd Gallup poll put American Women 50% "pro-choice" vs. 43% "pro-life".
43% is a lot of women, and you are trying dismiss them and their existence out of hand.
May God damn you.
And do you have any evidence whatsoever that women are more likely to support no-fault divorce and free love than men are?
Go ahead and only talk about what's wrong with women, while ignoring the far greater horrors inflicted on our culture by men.
It shows what side you are really on.
Bob Johnson:
While Thomas Fleming's diatribe may be disturbing, does it really represent the Chronicles "Canon"?
I concede that I was over-zealous in categorizing female readership by using broad general terms like "most" and "many".
I don't understand how I'm annihilating these pro-life women by saying they are unlikely to read Chronicles. Supposing all pro-life women read Chronicles, what percentage of these women would understand or enjoy commentaries on Xenophon? I'm sure it's a small percentage of men as well.
I would also like to point out that a vast majority of the commentators bear traditionally male names and some evocative of Roman names. Perhaps this reflects upon the readers? Or perhaps female readers do not comment?
And no, I don't trump either gender as superior. I prefer to attack ideas.
Do you refer to "men" as the male gender or "men" in the classical sense? Frankly, using the term in the classical sense, we've done it to ourselves.
Few would deny that the feminist movement helped destroy the family. Women ask for divorces more frequently then men. I don't think men really adore the idea of free love since it erodes at their sense of honour.
No, we're living in a not-fully realized Plato's Republic.
LMarja,
>While Thomas Fleming’s diatribe may be disturbing, does it really represent the Chronicles “Canon”?I concede that I was over-zealous in categorizing female readership by using broad general terms like “most” and “many”.I would also like to point out that a vast majority of the commentators bear traditionally male names and some evocative of Roman names.Perhaps this reflects upon the readers? Or perhaps female readers do not comment?"And no, I don’t trump either gender as superior. I prefer to attack ideas.Few would deny that the feminist movement helped destroy the family.Women ask for divorces more frequently then men.I don’t think men really adore the idea of free love since it erodes at their sense of honour.No, we’re living in a not-fully realized Plato’s Republic.<
Not if I can help it.
The most important question in this thread seems, to me, to be the issue of whether to start a new party or reform the GOP. I think there's no question that the latter is the only possibility. Anything else is political suicide. Split the vote, and the Left will be in power forever, and the country really will become Marxist.
Canada offers an instructive example. As the traditionally Right party, the "Progressive Conservatives" (sic - the schizophrenia was present even in the name) drifter further to the left, a new, more genuinely conservative part was created. This new party, the Alliance, slowly gathered support, and split the Right vote more or less down the middle, leaving the Liberals in power for decades. Decades.
Only when the Alliance and the old Progressive Conservatives merged into one party were they finally able to regain power, after decades in the wilderness.
The good news is this newly-merged party (now simply called "Conservative") is somewhat more Right than the old PCs were. The bad news is that the Liberals were able to shift the country very far to the Left in the years that they were in power, basically unopposed. And the damage that they have done likely cannot be undone.
I absolutely agree with all of the criticisms of the GOP, particularly its contemptible subservience to Israel. But there is simply no choice. No matter how thoroughly it must be changed, victory can only come through that a transformation of the GOP into a more genuinely traditional-conservative party. Establishing a new party to the point that it can supplant the Republicans is an epochal project - and would only leave the Left unfettered.
Changing the GOP - fantastically difficult.
Creating a new viable party in time to stem the Left - impossible
Bob Johnson
And what exactly do you propose to stop?
#74 and other commentators on "non-American," Founding Fathers, etc. Just as historical observation. The first Congress of the United States defined a citizen as "a free white person born or naturalised in the United States." This was the rule for three-quarters of a century. Of course, the founders also clearly understood a point lost in modern confusion: citizenship and the right to vote are different things.
LMarja,
>I severely doubt that many women read Chronicles. Most women endorse abortion on demand, “choice”, free-love, and no-fault divorce. Chronicles upholds the family. Why, then would most women read it?<
You seem to be supposing that Chronicles is read more by men than women, and that this is because men are more likely to have these conservative virtues that you admire.
But where is your evidence that women are any more likely to endorse...
1. Abortion on demand.
2. "Choice".
3. Free-Love.
4. No-Fault Divorce.
...than men are?
In reality, the only across the board gap in voting patterns vis a vis the social issues you describe is between Married People (both men and women) and Single People (both men and women).
Ann Coulter has been good enough to point this out on national television, so I honestly don't know why you wouldn't know about it.
Re: #86 Mr.Johnson's reply to LMarja:
This woman does read Chronicles, especially Dr. Wilson's articles, and am totally against abortion, "choice" (if by that you mean acceptance of sodomy...maybe you don't), free-love, and divorce. These are no-brainers if you read God's word and agree with Him. Even if you don't, they are destroyers of family, state and country.
Good Eileen,
Because I don't access to stats specific to this magazine/website, I had to resort to more general arguments against the sophistry of LMarja.