- Thread starter
- #21
What you posted is largely based on the 2007 Jonah Goldberg "The Secret History..." whose roots come from the 1960's of Horowitz's thesis of liberal fascism, which is not the same as the traditional definitions of fascism to start with. Hence, your thesis is distorted on multiple levels. First by Horowitz, next by Goldberg's interpretations, and again by you.
As always, everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented....so you can actually learn from same.
...and distorted, taken out of context and cut a pasted to promote your spin.
The usual tap-dance....clearly everything I posted is 100% accurate, correct and true, or you might have been able to find anything.....anything.....not so.
Especially this part: You're a lying low-life dirt-eating gutter snipe.
Goldberg is one of those common commentator/pundit talking TV heads who publishes a book with the word "History" in it [but has no real credentials as a historian and as a non-historian and professionally recognized historian does not have to follow the standard of a recognized historian. That means detailed confirmation of sources and peer review for accuracy.
The OP has a pattern of using non-acceptable sources. Non-acceptable means her sources would be deemed as unacceptable for submission in a college level paper or thesis.
The OP should spend more time searching for genuine sources and data and less time attacking those who criticize her.
Why would you come back, still unable to find a single thing that I've posted that isn't 100% true, accurate, and correct?
Once again you've helped prove that my posts are the gold standard.
And, of course, that you are a know-nothing cur.