Hmmm...I sense you are pulling my leg, O Emperor...
Lessee. We started with "loony left." You defined the LL as "the modern day followers of DeSade and Rousseau and their modern descendants Marx, Darwin, Freud, and Margaret Mead. Lets throw in Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, and Madame Blavatsky while we're at it."
Now it appears your problem is less with the followers (who could possibly have distorted the views of those they follow), as it is with the Great Ones themselves, whom you now define as "frauds, quacks, and hoodlums."
I'll give you DeSade. He was one sick cookie, no doubt about it.
But not Rousseau, unless you toss Voltaire and all the French Encyclopedists out along with him. They too were "dismissive" of the institutions of the day. Voltaire's famous imprecation -- "Ecrasez l'infame!" -- was directed at the institution of the Church, as I recall. Anyway, Mr. Savonarola, if you're going to build a bonfire, build a big one!
Moving on....
Darwin. Fraud, quack, hoodlum -- or "left-wing loonie"? Hmmm. Is it that you reject the theory of evolution?
Margaret Sanger. Hmm..is it that you reject birth control?
Madame Blavatsky. A fraud, granted. But very much into souls.
Marx. Well, only a semi-quack. Where some things were concerned he was right on target. And he only thought you bourgeois were animals. <g>
Freud. No point in trying to defend him, because he was a professed atheist.
Mead. A goose. Let herself be conned by her informants. But so far as I know, did not consider people soulless animals.
Havelock Ellis. Nobody even reads him any more. Save your ammunition for bigger game. <g>
Not a hoodlum in the bunch, with the notable exception of De Sade.
I'm sure that with a little thought I could come up with some much better names for you to put on the Index.
|
