From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:s4IGh.6043$jx3.4439@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...   
   > ROBBIE wrote:   
   >> "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   >> news:N_DGh.5465$P47.1404@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...   
   >>> ROBBIE wrote:   
   >>>> 'For Mrs. Woolf, the man in uniform is inherently evil, whether the   
   >>>> uniform be that of the SS or the Great Western Railway, of the Gestapo   
   >>>> or the Metropolitan Police. There is no difference; it all leads to the   
   >>>> same calamity. Oddly enough, the one comparison that Mrs. Woolf does   
   >>>> not make is that between the Nazis' book-burning and her own proposal   
   >>>> to burn down colleges with libraries, replacing the old books with new   
   >>>> ones. The Nazis, too, were all in favor of new books. Had they ever   
   >>>> occupied Britain, she would have found common cause with them, since to   
   >>>> her the culture and intellectual freedom that the eminent peace-loving   
   >>>> lawyer wants her to protect are "rather abstract goddesses."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A person who believed that all the established institutions of her own   
   >>>> country were tyrannical, as tyrannical as those of the worst tyrannies   
   >>>> ever established in the history of the world, and who believed that all   
   >>>> loyalty to country or to anything other than one's own inner freedom   
   >>>> was false, that all uniforms were equally evil and therefore that there   
   >>>> was nothing to choose between them, that war on all occasions was a   
   >>>> manifestation of male psychopathology and the desire to dominate   
   >>>> brought about by competitive education, and that therefore there could   
   >>>> be no such thing as a just war, would have made a wonderful   
   >>>> collaborator, ready with every sophistical excuse to hand. She was most   
   >>>> unlikely to be a furious defender of her country against the foreign   
   >>>> invader: Mrs. Woolf believed she had nothing to defend, her life as the   
   >>>> daughter of an educated man being already so intolerable. When in 1936   
   >>>> a British Member of Parliament, Sir E. F. Fletcher, "urged the House of   
   >>>> Commons to stand up to dictators," Mrs. Woolf saw not the desire to   
   >>>> oppose radical evil but only "a desire for dominance," exactly   
   >>>> analogous in her opinion (and here I can hardly refrain from pointing   
   >>>> out that I am rendering the literal truth of what she wrote) to the   
   >>>> demand of a husband, whose wife appeared in a Bristol court at the same   
   >>>> time as Fletcher made his speech, applying for financial support after   
   >>>> she left him because he had insisted that she address him as Sir and   
   >>>> obey his every command without delay. It was not even Hitler, nota   
   >>>> bene, who was analogous in Mrs. Woolf's mind to the domineering   
   >>>> husband, but the man who proposed to stand up to Hitler.'   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_oh_to_be.html   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Play Sweet Virginia by the Rolling Stones afterwards.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ROBBIE   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> Mr. Dalrymple was never told to get off the grass of one of his nation's   
   >>> leading institutions merely for being female.   
   >>>   
   >>> /M   
   >>   
   >> That hardly refutes anything Mr Dalrymple says in his article.   
   >>   
   >> ROBBIE   
   >   
   > It explains why she found the established institutions of her own country   
   > to be tyrannical.   
   >   
   > /M   
      
    Did you actually read it?   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)