Defending Israel against Jewish detractors

by Steve Kramer
One of my readers asked for help in answering friends who have been “awakened” to anti-Zionism by Antony Lerman, who recently wrote, “The End of Liberal Zionism” (8/22/14) in The NY Times Sunday Review.

.

Lerman is a British writer who on the subjects of anti-Semitism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, multiculturalism, and the place of religion in society. From 2006 to early 2009, he was Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research think tank. Lerman has publicly advocated for pro-Arab/anti-Israel initiatives, often writing op-ed pieces in the notoriously anti-Zionist Guardian newspaper.

.

What is Liberal Zionism anyway? Wikipedia defines it as a strong trend in Israeli politics advocating free market principles, democracy and adherence to human rights. If that’s what it is, it doesn’t sound to me what Lerman described in his article. Let me say what I think Lerman is talking about. His “Liberal Zionist” is someone who may live in Israel but probably doesn’t. That person doesn’t want to get his or her hands dirty with the nitty-gritty aspects of life in Israel. Lerman’s Liberal Zionist lives comfortably in some other place, perhaps, Manhattan, Washington, D.C., or London.

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest for Free

Israel’s neighbors don’t even vaguely resemble Canada or Mexico, Scotland or France. Israel’s neighbors either want to destroy Israel or have a very frigid peace with it. Consequently, Israelis who expect the Arabs to be rational and reasonable are few and far between; their champion is Shimon Peres. The rest of us have learned that there is no significant peace movement among the Arabs. It exists, of course, but its impact is negligible.

.

From afar, it’s easy to be a “Zionist” of some stripe. The committed ones often make Aliyah or buy a second home here. Others donate money or fund Zionist projects. Still others, such as Lerman describes, undermine Israel, some purposefully and others unwittingly. Below I will try to counter some of Lerman’s contentions.

.

Antony Lerman: “‘Never do liberal Zionists feel more torn than when Israel is at war,’ wrote Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian’s opinion editor and a leading British Liberal Zionist, for ‘The New York Review of Books’ last month. He’s not alone. Columnists like Jonathan Chait, Roger Cohen and Thomas L. Friedman have all riffed in recent weeks on the theme that what Israel is doing can’t be reconciled with their humanism.”

.

Steve Kramer: It’s a shame about Thomas Friedman and others’ “humanism.” They don’t agree with Israel’s tactics in defending itself against thousands of mortars, rockets, and missiles. They probably think that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s battle strategy is too harsh. That’s ironic, because most Israelis have the opposite opinion and we are the ones on the receiving end of Hamas’ attacks. For some reason, Israelis object to our lives being turned upside down by the Arabs in Gaza, just because they want to replace Israel with a caliphate.

.

A.L.: “But it’s not just Gaza, and the latest episode of ‘shock and awe’ militarism. The romantic Zionist ideal, to which Jewish liberals — and I was one, once — subscribed for so many decades, has been tarnished by the reality of modern Israel. The [1] attacks on freedom of speech and human rights organizations in Israel, [2] the land-grabbing settler movement, [3] a growing strain of anti-Arab and anti-immigrant racism, [4] extremist politics, and a [5] powerful, intolerant religious right — this mixture has pushed liberal Zionism to the brink.”

.

S.K.: Ah, yes, the “reality of modern Israel.”

.

1. Freedom of speech/human rights: There is a cacophony of free speech in Israel, up to and including the Supreme Court allowing Muslim Members of Knesset (!) to praise an enemy of Israel during wartime. All Israelis are accorded human rights, regardless of race or religion. Israeli Muslims, for example, have more human rights in Israel than in any Arab country. They refuse to even consider giving up their Israeli citizenship to become citizens of “Palestine.”

.

2.  land-grabbing: the Arabs are occupying Judea and Samaria, more than the other way around. Jews certainly have no less right to live on the land than the Arabs, and by my reckoning, much more right. This is because borders are defined by the victors in nearly all existing states, including the United States and Britain.  Capsule history: (Putting aside all the religious and historical/legal arguments) Israel conquered Judea and Samaria during the defensive Six Day War of 1967. This is the land which the Arabs declared to be the “West Bank” only a few years after Transjordan conquered it during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. The Arabs (soon to be renamed Jordanians) ethnically cleansed all the Jewish residents at the start of their 19-year period of rule over Judea and Samaria.

.

3. racism: Unfortunately, racism exists throughout the world. It is no more prevalent in Israel than in the United States or Britain. In comparison to Muslim countries, which allow no Jewish residents (with a few small exceptions), Israel is a human rights paradise.

.

4. extremist politics: These also exist throughout the world. In Israel, however, there are no prominent and rapidly growing parties like the racist/xenophobic Jobbik in Hungary and Golden Dawn in Greece.

.

5. religious right: Yes, there are religious parties in Israel. They run the gamut from nationalist right to anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox. They are an example of Israel’s right of free speech.

.

A.L.: “J Street in America and Yachad in Britain, founded in 2008 and 2011 respectively, describe themselves as ‘pro-Israel and pro-peace’ and have attracted significant numbers of people who seek a more critical engagement with Israel.”

.

S.K.: Sorry to say, but J-Street undermines Israel. (I don’t know anything about Yachad.) Critical is one thing, but encouraging groups such as college Hillel chapters to be inclusive by promoting hate-spewing Palestinian speakers is helping turn impressionable college students against Israel.

.

A.L.: “I still understood its dream of Israel as a moral and just cause, but I judged it anachronistic. The only Zionism of any consequence today is xenophobic and exclusionary, a Jewish ethno-nationalism inspired by religious messianism. It is carrying out an open-ended project of national self-realization to be achieved through colonization and purification of the tribe.”

.

S.K.: Yes, Jews are a tribe, both a nation and a people, unlike any other people on earth. Israel is moral and just, but not perfect. Perhaps if Lerman were in charge of Israel, it wouldn’t be so “anachronistic” in trying to remain the State of the Jews. It could be more trendy by inviting the Arabs to be our friends. . Running a country is tough, just ask President Obama, who is probably in sync with Lerman’s post-Zionist views. (Post-Zionism: a set of critical positions that disparage Zionist ideals and the historical narratives and social and cultural representations that it produced.)

.

A.L.: “Since liberal Zionists can’t countenance anything but two states, this situation leaves them high and dry.”

.

S.K.: Two states will not work and it’s not the only option. In this region, where Muslims slaughter each other with regularity, only a naive person would cling to a failed paradigm. I don’t know exactly what the best solution is, but I recognize a “solution” has no chance to succeed, such as the two-state vision. With Israel sitting on less than a half per cent of so-called Arab land, to give land for peace is worse than fruitless, it’s a recipe for disaster. My view is that things will eventually settle down in Israel’s favor, because the Palestinian Arabs have proven themselves incapable of governing, let alone sharing, even a part of this tiny space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

.

If Lerner and the others doubt this, take a second look at the Gaza experiment, or just imagine if Israel had turned over the Golan Heights to the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, who has previously been called a “reformer” by Hillary Clinton and “generous” as well as a man of his word by John Kerry.

.

Antony Lerner and his ilk find it easy to criticize Israel from their comfortable arm chairs somewhere else. Israel is a vibrant democracy which invites all Jews to make it their home. Lerner can move here and say whatever he wants, without fear of imprisonment or worse. In fact, that’s what many like-minded critics do, as loyal Israeli resident-citizens.
August 31, 2014 | 154 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 154 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:

    “Rigid, inflexible thinking – Anyone with a different approach is seen as personally attacking the narcissist.”

    “So you DON’T personally attack me?”

    “No, I just truthfully call you on your BS and errors in theology and your faux moralism.”

    And YOU call me ‘delusional’???

    You need to re-read your posts, fella. (The archives LOUDLY confirm it is YOU who are delusional.)

    “About certain kinds of things, my observations are unfailingly correct…”

    “Proves my point that ‘you are a legend in your own mind’ a clear case of NPD!!!!”

    No, it ‘proves’ only that you are an easily excited jackass.

    However, if you really want to prove that I am NOT unfailingly correct about those certain things, it should be very easy for you to do:

    — Just show one instance in which I’ve been WRONG in that department.

    “I’ve said many times that they are not arrived at analytically; so how COULD they be said to be ‘mine’?”

    “Repeating BS many times does not make it any truer.”

    Right. Repeating ANYTHING does not, of itself, make it true OR untrue. Told that to BROSS, but he’s extraordinarily slow picking up on it.

    However, if you (or any other turkeys) keep characterizing my observations as ‘analysis,’ don’t expect me to sit silent when you do that. Qui tacet consentire.

    “I can say that I to am connected to the same source…”

    But you make no attempt at connection. All you care about is the position of rhetorical advantage.

    “… and I derive a different analytical conclusion.”

    If you were receptive to Him, you would NEVER conclude that your understanding was ‘analytical.’ One may take credit (quietly or openly) for the result of analysis. There is no way of taking credit for what is simply given you, quite unsolicited.

    ” So My ruach elhohi is different than yours or mine is real and yours is imaginary.”

    There is NO “mine and yours.” There’s only ONE ruach elohim, and it’s the same ruach elohim that was moving over the face of the waters when the earth was as yet formless and empty. The earth has changed plenty since then.

    — ruach elohim has not.

    “What is never wrong is not YoursTruly, but ruach elohim.”

    “Putting the blame on others is a sure sign of NPD!!!”

    “Blame”? — what’s blame got to do with it? This is about God. (Did you forget to take your meds again?)

  2. @ dove:

    You are correct but it’s more than Mr. Turnoff. The more he stubbornly supports the lie. It’s the lie that must be exposed and shown otherwise the lie remains at least in the minds of some. The truth may not always win but it’s still the truth.

    Then I must admit it’s satisfying destroying even in print an evil sick mind and soul. Bernard is better at that than I He is dispassionate and his mind better organized and focused than mine.

  3. You guys are going at it from the wrong angle. You don’t have to ‘prove’ that Paul was a liar. His character was so off the wall, mean spirited, unforgiving, anal, and stuffy – WHO CARES if he lied or not?? His own demeanor – Mr Paul the founder of christianity is so gawd awful that no Jew would EVER listen to him. Mr so called celibate (at least with females from what he says) is such a TURN OFF that I can’t understand why any rational person would actually take this guy seriously.

  4. dweller Said:

    Bernard Ross said:“where is the basis for concluding what my ‘hopes’ are? “
    Dweller said
    You’re easy to read,

    You confuse as always fact with your fictions, I asked for a basis not a rehash of your unsupported allegations. Lies and unsupported allegations are the substance of your posts.

  5. dweller Said:

    Not where you are concerned. No support is needed if you yourself acknowledge the envy in you.

    — Or are you so little self-aware that you actually need ‘support’ to decide to conclude whether you’re envious or not???

    whether or not I am envious has nothing to do with you telling lies and engaging in unsupported psychobabble. One of your red herrings to distract. You lied and you engage in unsupported psychobabble. C’mon, say its so 🙂

  6. dweller Said:

    The subject was the soundness of my observations, and whether they are “delusional.”

    the subject was not the “soundness of your observations” the subject was that you prove your unsupported allegations when attacking people with psychobabble and ……
    that you lied when changing my words to asking you to prove you are not delusional.
    You keep trying to change the words and the subject in an effort to avoid your lie and your unsupported psychobabble.

    I see that you avoid the fact of your lying about me asking you to prove you are not delusional, you put words in my mouth, you lied, I asked you to support your psychobabble, plain and simple.
    I am sure you will not deal with your lie and your unsupported psychobabble, you will keep squirming, keep changing the subject, keep referring to red herrings, keep obfuscating…keep deceiving….keep marketing.

  7. honeybee Said:

    Always handing out a little money !!!!!!!!!!!

    That’s what grandads are for. 😉 Just bought a new Sax for my oldest. Next he will want a new car, I told him to wait till he finishes the flight training. Young ones are easier and cheaper. Problem for modern grandparents is that the kids have everything already. Need to find niches to be materially relevant.

  8. yamit82 Said:

    if you remember our discussion on paul the liar and he said he found no evidence that paul lied and or was not truthful.

    I sure do, I remember some of the quotes, which you have posted again from time to time to remind him(he is forgetful)……
    but I think he referred to him as paul the marketer or paul the packager…….
    therefore in his mind, not a liar 😛

  9. dweller Said:

    You have NEVER come close to showing Paul to be a ‘liar.’

    I have and you know it. You are just in denial and a Liar to boot. “Marketing”, my ass!!!

    You’ve shown yourself to be an ignorant, bigoted buffoon with an axe to grind.

    Oh my! 🙂

  10. honeybee Said:

    Thought you would like that, nice for a man to have daughters. They always fuss over the ” ol’man”.

    Of course I like daughters and they fuss when I give them the chance. While they are all in Israel we don’t live close by so we get together 0nce every month or so and they are all quite busy. We make it a point to all come together on the main holidays and happy family occasions. I am the only surviving grandparent to my grandchildren so I occupy an elevated status. 🙂

  11. @ yamit82:

    “If he is shown to be wrong then he [dweller] couldn’t claim perfection just like if you remember our discussion on paul the liar and he said he found no evidence that paul lied and or was not truthful. I quoted for him a myriad of verses attributed to paul the liar and other apostles that contradicted his claim yet he ignored the evidence and refused to acknowledge the truth, that he was wrong and his paul was indeed a liar.”

    You have NEVER come close to showing Paul to be a ‘liar.’

    You’ve shown yourself to be an ignorant, bigoted buffoon with an axe to grind.

  12. @ bernard ross:

    “You don’t KNOW my ‘claims’ to be delusional, Bernard.”

    “Actually, I do know. In fact see that you are more delusional and in greater denial than I thought.”

    “You mistake ‘seeing’ for HOPING that I’m ‘delusional’ But if, in fact, you can ‘see’ that I’m delusional, then you should have no trouble offering examples (surely at least ONE) where a psychological observation of mine has turned out the least little bit wrong, thereby justifying your charge that I’m ‘delusional.’ — Let’s see it, smartass.”

    “wrong again, I have no hopes regarding your delusions.”

    “NOT wrong (let alone, ‘again’). What I SAID was, you hope that I AM delusional. (You can’t put words in my mouth, shmendrick; I always see you coming up the road before you arrive.)”

    “Of course, this statement is incorrect, a figment of your imagination.”

    If it IS incorrect, it sure-as-blazes didn’t come from from my imagination. I learned to separate from the clutter and wishful thinking of imagination long ago. But the statement is NOT incorrect; I stand by it foursquare.

    “where is the basis for concluding what my ‘hopes’ are? “

    You’re easy to read, Bernard (not your posts, they are usually a tangled web; but you personally, the person behind the posts, are easy to read). Told you: I can always see you coming up the road long before you arrive.

    “But if I am delusional, does this mean you are NOT eaten up with envy?”

    “Does it mean that I am eaten up with envy?”

    Already covered that subject, weasel, many times over the course of several years. Now it’s for YOU to tell us whether my assessment was correct or not. Should be very easy for you to answer.

    “I have simply made certain observations about YOU (among others). If my observations can be shown faulty, then your case is made…”

    “Sorry, your ‘observations’ are usually presented as facts but they remain as unsupported opinions and allegations until proven otherwise.”

    Not where you are concerned. No support is needed if you yourself acknowledge the envy in you.

    — Or are you so little self-aware that you actually need ‘support’ to decide to conclude whether you’re envious or not???

    “ARE you envious or aren’t you? — it’s an easy question, and nobody knows the answer better than you, Bernard.”

    “See, like I said, you revert to irrelevant obfuscation and red herrings when your ludicrous assertions cannot be supported.”

    It’s neither irrelevant nor obfuscatory, and hardly a ‘red herring.’ Quite the contrary, it’s very much to the point, and directly ON-point. The subject was the soundness of my observations, and whether they are “delusional.” You are in a position to help determine that. I made an observation about YOU specifically — and I think you know whether that particular observation is or isn’t accurate.

    So quit dancing around it and answer the question:
    Am I correct, or am I ‘deluded’ — in saying you harbor a great deal of enviousness?

  13. bernard ross Said:

    I am always amazed at the absurd gymnastics he will go through to avoid being caught out….like an ostrich with his head in the sand he thinks his garbage hides his pathos. its quite pathetic.

    If he is shown to be wrong then he couldn’t claim perfection just like if you remember our discussion on paul the liar and he said he found no evidence that paul lied and or was not truthful. I quoted for him a myriad of verses attributed to paul the liar and other apostles that contradicted his claim yet he ignored the evidence and refused to acknowledge the truth, that he was wrong and his paul was indeed a liar.

    It’s a long standard pattern and MO he uses and will argue to death any one who disagrees with his core stated belief dogmas. He can be creative in concocting what doesn’t exist and calls it thinking out of the box. He has it down to a science but probably has never come up against one who is doggedly focused as you. He is flaying around looking for an anchor and you have not let him find one, Cudos.

  14. yamit82 Said:

    Do you have Grandsons?
    odest going to airforce pilots course.

    Like his Grandfather

    yamit82 Said:

    That’s the reason I have 2 daughters….

    Thought you would like that, nice for a man to have daughters. They always fuss over the ” ol’man”.

  15. honeybee Said:

    Do you have Grandsons?

    2 grandsons and 3 granddaughters. youngest 9mos. odest going to airforce pilots course.

    I have also heard it said that men with higher levels of testosterone produce more daughters.

    That’s the reason I have 2 daughters…. 😉

  16. dweller Said:

    Bernard Ross said:
    “you knew full well that I did not ask you to prove you were ‘not delusional’ but to prove the myriad of psychological assertions and assumptions in the repeated analyses of others.”
    Dweller said:
    Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The one was tantamount to the other, and you knew it when you said it.

    this was the only sentence I could find in your mountain of intentionally obfuscating garbage which related to my allegation that you lied. Asking you to prove you are not delusional is quite far from asking you to support your psychological allegations wrt other posters. Pretending they are the same is merely a deceptive tactic proving your chronic lying.

    I chose your latest example, HoneyBee’s Promise,as the most recent out of many posts wherein you NEVER support your psychobabble allegations.

    You avoid admitting your lie and you avoid supporting even one of your endless psychological allegations in this same thread. A pattern of chronic deception.

  17. yamit82 Said:

    The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

    I am always amazed at the absurd gymnastics he will go through to avoid being caught out….like an ostrich with his head in the sand he thinks his garbage hides his pathos. its quite pathetic.

  18. dweller Said:

    @ bernard ross:

    “Lately he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not ‘delusional’ in my assessment of him. He’s never been able to show a single instance of me being wrong about somebody’s emotional & psychological makeup (including his own) — which would surely constitute the evidence that I am delusional (if I were).”

    “See, once again I prove, and you demonstrate, that your claim that you NEVER lie is untrue.”

    You ‘prove’ nothing of the sort.

    Your problem is that your standard of persuasion is not fact but DESIRE. You declare ‘proven’ what you want to believe.

    Desire is a superb motivator, animator, energizer.

    But she makes a piss-poor counselor, and a jaundiced judge.

    You will NEVER make an “admission against interest.”

    “you knew full well that I did not ask you to prove you were ‘not delusional’ but to prove the myriad of psychological assertions and assumptions in the repeated analyses of others.”

    Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The one was tantamount to the other, and you knew it when you said it.

    “You are indeed a most disingenous person”

    Sheer projection, and your above remark is glaring evidence of it.

    “…hence the significance of your absurd claims to NEVER telling lies or stories.”

    Haven’t told any on this site, and that’s a fact. You, on the other hand, tell them routinely (as you did above).

    “…and the Hamlet quote.”

    I was right about the Hamlet quote, and you were clearly wrong. When you’ve evidently never read (or seen) the play; when you do, you’ll see WHY you were wrong in your application of the line.

    More to the point, however:
    It is the height of absurdity to say that the mere repetition of an assertion proves its falsity. Repetition, of itself, constitutes no more evidence (let alone, ‘proof’) of the FALSITY of an assertion than it constitutes evidence of its TRUTH.

    “Start with proving your assertions in your most recent ‘analysis’ of HB’s promise.”

    I still have no idea what you’re referring to. You’ll have to specify. Either shit or get off the pot.

    “I am sure that you knew I was asking you to support your psychological assertions and not ask you to prove that you are ‘not delusional’…”

    In that case, prove that I am.

    “You not only tell lies, but you do it in a most wily, stealthy and deceptive manner, weaving your web of deceptions.”

    A most succinct self-description. Very concise for you, Bernard. (See what a little practice can do?)

    @ bernard ross:

    About certain kinds of things, my observations are unfailingly correct, but not because they are mine. Quite the contrary, I’ve said many times that they are not arrived at analytically; so how COULD they be said to be ‘mine’? — They are simply received. What is never wrong is not YoursTruly, but ruach elohim. If YOU listened to Him in these matters, then YOU wouldn’t ever be wrong either.

    “In other words, no support necessary because god told you…….”

    Not ‘told’ — SHOWED.

    “hence your claim to perfection……”

    His perfection, yes.

    “and your belief in your own infallibility…”

    In His faithfulness.

    “Did he also make you lie about what I asked you to prove?”

    I haven’t lied on this site, and I say you are a colossal liar.

    @ bernard ross:

    “you just can’t stand the fact that I‘m not afraid to say what I know.

    “…’Napoleon’ in room 103 at Bellevue said the same.”

    Of course. You heard him say it. You were his roommate.

    I searched and searched through this enormous mountain of obfuscating and irrelevant garbage and still could not find anything to rebut the fact that you lied when you said that I asked you to prove you were not delusional. I asked you, instead, to prove your psychological analyses of the posters here which is something entirely different. that was an intentional lie meant to avoid your supporting of your psychobabble. I asked you to support as an example your recent conversation with HB.

    Of course you knew that you lied in attributing a different question than what I actually asked. I knew at the outset that you would twist and turn, exactly as you just did, to avoid the truth that you lied.

    In this same thread you had a number of conversations with HB about the promise she made to her mother about an anti semitic act which they experienced. I asked you, as the most recent example of your psychobabble, to give evidence and support for the psychological evaluations you made of her experience. It is surprising that you memory is so short as you can go back and read the thread of your posts. Instead of supporting your psychobabble you pretended that I asked a different question.
    You are indeed Orwellian and a chronic liar.

  19. yamit82 Said:

    Reminds me I promised myself that if I ever had a son I would name him Doctor.

    In the South blacks often named their sons Sir, so whites would have to address them courteously. Do you have Grandsons? I have heard it said the Grandchildren more often resemble their Grandparents genetically then their Parents.
    I have also heard it said that men with higher levels of testosterone produce more daughters.

  20. @ honeybee:

    Color of pit bull eyes: Blue

    Have a neighbor with a pincher and they call him “Pit Bull”

    Reminds me I promised myself that if I ever had a son I would name him Doctor. Then no matter his future choices of endeavor he would always be called Doctor. A win win.

    Have 2 daughters so It never happened. 🙁

  21. dweller Said:

    “In other words, no support necessary because god told you…….”

    Not ‘told’ — SHOWED.

    In your context it a semantic equivalent or a distinction without a difference. The right side of your defective cerebellum supporting the left. NPD!!!

    The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

    A. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of:

    1. a grandiose sense of self-importance
    2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
    3. believes that he or she is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
    4. requires excessive admiration
    5. has a sense of entitlement, ie unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
    6. is interpersonally exploitative, ie takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
    7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
    8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
    9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

    Fragile self-esteem, a need for constant attention and admiration, fishing for compliments (often with great charm), an expectation of superior entitlement, expecting others to defer to them, and a lack of sensitivity especially when others do not react in the expected manner, are also hallmarks of the disorder.

    People with narcissistic personality disorder also have difficulty recognizing the needs and feelings of others, and are dismissive, contemptuous and impatient when others share or discuss their concerns or problems. They are also oblivious to the hurtfulness of their behaviour or remarks, show an emotional coldness and a lack of reciprocal interest, exhibit envy (especially when others are accorded recognition), have an arrogant, disdainful and patronizing attitude, and are quick to blame and criticise others when their needs and expectations are not met.

  22. @ bernard ross:

    “Lately he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not ‘delusional’ in my assessment of him. He’s never been able to show a single instance of me being wrong about somebody’s emotional & psychological makeup (including his own) — which would surely constitute the evidence that I am delusional (if I were).”

    “See, once again I prove, and you demonstrate, that your claim that you NEVER lie is untrue.”

    You ‘prove’ nothing of the sort.

    Your problem is that your standard of persuasion is not fact but DESIRE. You declare ‘proven’ what you want to believe.

    Desire is a superb motivator, animator, energizer.

    But she makes a piss-poor counselor, and a jaundiced judge.

    You will NEVER make an “admission against interest.”

    “you knew full well that I did not ask you to prove you were ‘not delusional’ but to prove the myriad of psychological assertions and assumptions in the repeated analyses of others.”

    Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The one was tantamount to the other, and you knew it when you said it.

    “You are indeed a most disingenous person”

    Sheer projection, and your above remark is glaring evidence of it.

    “…hence the significance of your absurd claims to NEVER telling lies or stories.”

    Haven’t told any on this site, and that’s a fact. You, on the other hand, tell them routinely (as you did above).

    “…and the Hamlet quote.”

    I was right about the Hamlet quote, and you were clearly wrong. When you’ve evidently never read (or seen) the play; when you do, you’ll see WHY you were wrong in your application of the line.

    More to the point, however:
    It is the height of absurdity to say that the mere repetition of an assertion proves its falsity. Repetition, of itself, constitutes no more evidence (let alone, ‘proof’) of the FALSITY of an assertion than it constitutes evidence of its TRUTH.

    “Start with proving your assertions in your most recent ‘analysis’ of HB’s promise.”

    I still have no idea what you’re referring to. You’ll have to specify. Either shit or get off the pot.

    “I am sure that you knew I was asking you to support your psychological assertions and not ask you to prove that you are ‘not delusional’…”

    In that case, prove that I am.

    “You not only tell lies, but you do it in a most wily, stealthy and deceptive manner, weaving your web of deceptions.”

    A most succinct self-description. Very concise for you, Bernard. (See what a little practice can do?)

    @ bernard ross:

    About certain kinds of things, my observations are unfailingly correct, but not because they are mine. Quite the contrary, I’ve said many times that they are not arrived at analytically; so how COULD they be said to be ‘mine’? — They are simply received. What is never wrong is not YoursTruly, but ruach elohim. If YOU listened to Him in these matters, then YOU wouldn’t ever be wrong either.

    “In other words, no support necessary because god told you…….”

    Not ‘told’ — SHOWED.

    “hence your claim to perfection……”

    His perfection, yes.

    “and your belief in your own infallibility…”

    In His faithfulness.

    “Did he also make you lie about what I asked you to prove?”

    I haven’t lied on this site, and I say you are a colossal liar.

    @ bernard ross:

    “you just can’t stand the fact that I‘m not afraid to say what I know.

    “…’Napoleon’ in room 103 at Bellevue said the same.”

    Of course. You heard him say it. You were his roommate.

  23. dweller Said:

    counterfeit,

    Someone who claims to get direct messages from his deity as a convincing argument that he is never wrong, is not counterfeit??? Shirley you jest or are a candidate for a straightjacket and a padded cell.

  24. dweller Said:

    Read the bold print.

    That’s proof?? I call it subjective delusional narcissistic opinion. Not proof of anything except you are full of it.

    You can do better dweller> I know you have it in you to defend your stupid inane inflated opinion of yourself but we/I am still not impressed or convinced. Stating opinion is opinion not proof; even if you type in BOLD!! 🙂

  25. @ honeybee:

    “I am NEVER seductive”

    “But,,, Oh how you would LOVE to be seduced. Sweetie”

    No, Twinkie. When a coin (like seduction) is counterfeit, you don’t reject just the head or just the tail.

    You reject the whole coin.

  26. @ yamit82:

    “I do believe you actually believe such hogwash about yourself….it’s called denial.”

    “What it’s called is self-confidence — not denial NOR hogwash. Nor do I make any apology for it. And you bet I believe it.

    But what offends you, Bernard, is not that I believe it

    — what offends you is that I have
    the balls to SAY it out loud. That’s what you find absolutely unforgivable.”

    “Prove it, Barbie!”

    Already did, Bozo. Read the bold print.

  27. bernard ross Said:

    dweller Said:

    Lately he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not ‘delusional’ in my assessment of him. He’s never been able to show a single instance of me being wrong about somebody’s emotional & psychological makeup (including his own) — which would surely constitute the evidence that I am delusional (if I were).
    Bernard ross Said:
    See, once again I prove, and you demonstrate, that your claim that you NEVER lie is untrue. you knew full well that I did not ask you to prove you were “not delusional” but to prove the myriad of psychological assertions and assumptions in the repeated analyses of others. You are indeed a most disingenous person, hence the significance of your absurd claims to NEVER telling lies or stories and the Hamlet quote describing your ludicrous behavior.

    Start with proving your assertions in your most recent “analysis” of HB’s promise. I am sure that you knew I was asking you to support your psychological assertions and not ask you to prove that you are “not delusional”. You not only tell lies, but you do it in a most wily, stealthy and deceptive manner, weaving your web of deceptions. Of course, perhaps you will call it “marketing” or some other similar fig leaf and red herring.

    “dweller Said:

    But instead he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not delusional. LMSS. Strictly Kafkaesque.
    Bernard Ross said:
    “liar, liar, pants on fire…

    You appear to have ignored my pointing out your lie 🙂

  28. dweller Said:

    There’s no way you would give credibility to my assertions, WITH OR WITHOUT support — and I told you why, above.

    Another baseless and unsupported opinion. since you never support your psychological allegations you have no way of knowing what I would give credibility towards. Certainly your consistent lack of presenting support renders your allegations incredulous. your credibility bears no relation to my agreement or disagreement with your allegations. They stand alone on their own merit and you NEVER present any support to lend them merit. you assume that your utterance is credibility enough but the opposite is true.
    dweller Said:

    Still waiting to see ONE instance of those “many non truths.” Cat got your tongue?

    I am still waiting for your reply to my pointing out your last lie where you said that I was asking you to prove that you were non delusional whereas I was asking you to support your psychobabble assertions and allegations. See how you avoided and ignored that one? Peek a boo , I see you.

    that was a deception, a lie…..cat got your tongue?

  29. dweller Said:

    I’ll bet you would’ve demanded that Joseph show his brothers the ‘scientific basis’ of his dreams.

    At last you appear to be equating your psychobabble analysis with your dreams.
    dweller Said:

    I’ll bet you would’ve refused to cross the Red Sea on dry land until the ‘scientific basis’ for the separation of the waters had first been explained.

    Watching the Red sea part would be the observance of a fact but listening to your psychobabble analysis demonstrates no facts, only unsupported opinions.
    dweller Said:

    You are a transparent LIAR.

    any factual support for your statment, or are you just once more expressing an unsupported opinion?
    dweller Said:

    Bernard Ross Said:“Put up or shut up”
    Dweller said:
    I have done that. I’ve said you are a bitter, envious old coot who heartily resents that other men were more successful in business than he.

    therefore your support and evidence for your statement is merely to add another unsupported opinion?
    Like I said:

    bernard ross Said:

    you’ve never been able to show a single instance of you being right about someones emotional and psychological makeup (including your own)

    dweller Said:

    Quite, quite the contrary. SCIENCE would hold that until you can show my observations to BE delusions, they remain, at worst, speculations — not ‘delusions.’

    So are you now saying that all your psychological comments analyzing other posters here are not facts but just your speculations? Even speculations should be accompanied by support and if they are speculations then you should not be wrapping them in a package purporting to be factual. Should we assume in the future that your psychological analyses of posters here are simply your unsupported speculations similar to someone guessing weight at a carnival or circus?

  30. dweller Said:

    YOU must prove my remarks to be ‘myths’ — then I’ll show you how those ‘myths’ are correct.

    Sorry, nice try. The onus is on you to prove the validity of your assertions. If you presented them as speculations they would not need to be proven but to be taken seriously should be supported. Your psychobabble analysis of others behaviors are ALWAYS unsupported and as such are merely your exhibitionist wanks, displaying less of a factual basis than my daily bowel movement.
    like I said:

    bernard ross Said:

    you’ve never been able to show a single instance of you being right about someones emotional and psychological makeup (including your own)

    that’s a pretty poor record of performance for even an amateur psychobabbler. I am still waiting for you to give support or evidence wrt all your long winded “psychological” conclusions in your recent “analysis” of Honeybee’s Promise. Without support all your comments are just meaningless dribbling, and have less credibility than cow pies and meadow muffins which at least can be seen to exist. Without support, there is nothing to distinguish your psychobabble rants from the raving of a delusional lunatic.

  31. dweller Said:

    What I SAID was, you hope that I AM delusional.

    Of course, this statement is incorrect, a figment of your imagination. where is the basis for concluding what my “hopes” are? Did god tell you that or did you just pluck it from your imagination and then present it as fact?

    dweller Said:

    But if I am delusional, does this mean you are NOT eaten up with envy?

    Does it mean that I am eaten up with envy?
    dweller Said:

    I have simply made certain observations about YOU (among others). If my observations can be shown faulty, then your case is made;

    Sorry, your “observations” are usually presented as facts but they remain as unsupported opinions and allegations until proven otherwise. There is no reason for anyone to prove anything about your unsupported allegations. Your observations have as much credibility as the wind breaking from my posterior.
    dweller Said:

    ARE you envious or aren’t you? — it’s an easy question, and nobody knows the answer better than you, Bernard.

    See, like I said, you revert to irrelevant obfuscation and red herrings when your ludicrous assertions cannot be supported.
    dweller Said:

    What I’d SAID at those times was that I’d never lied, thus far, on this board. And that’s a fact.

    when confronted with your lies you simply avoid, ignore them or cover them with fig leafs. In your mind they never occurred or they are not lies. you still have not dealt with my most recent demonstration that you lie.
    dweller Said:

    show me an instance in which I’ve been wrong, and I’ll freely cop to it.

    you are incapable of “copping” to being wrong. you have been shown many times, you simply deny each time that you are wrong.

  32. dweller Said:

    If you truly cannot see the difference — then you’re even duller-witted than I thought you were. (And that’s saying something.) He regularly copies the apparent style of an opponent. You obviously haven’t been paying attention

    You are kidding arn’t you. I read your post every night just before “tuckin up” , nothin but nothin, puts me sleep like your post. You ought to bottle them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sweetie

  33. Moderately long reply to Yamit about Democracy in moderation

    Max says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 9, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    yamit82 Said:

  34. yamit82 Said:

    I disagree with your premsie re: Tyranny and whose responsibility it is to oppose it. Democracy is extremely prone to subversion by demagogues and activists.

    Democracy and freedom are not synonymous per-se.

    The American system of democracy
    etc

    Don’t confuse dictators with authoritarian rulers. The Egyptian and Jordanian rulers respect law and cannot be likened to demagogues like Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. Singapore is autocratic and it seems the people are happy with their lot and situation. Russians chose Authoritarian Tyrants over democracy freely.

    Democracy is the only road to human growth and freedom. In totalitarian systems even those at the top or the palace guard loyalists are dysfunctional in that their model of repression is internalized. Totalitarian systems can only hijack the past they have no growth of their own – they will thrive by cannibalizing , cause much destruction then burn out. An ultimate totalitarian system will destroy the human race as Islamism or the Chi-coms or Techno-fascism is threatening to do. In fact all the totalitarian systems before they will burn out will aggress agaisnt their neighbors – Nazi Germany , Argentina , Modern Chain – they can only exist by a constant flow of feeding off others.
    Human evolution, growth ,art culture can only flourish under democracy.
    All those things you mentioned , I know and everyone knows – you are using them as excuses for defeatism. The point is to make it work not make it fail. A protective democracy can evolve that will safeguard against all the ills you mentioned.
    I am well aware democracy failed in Roman Times – not the idea of democracy but the attempt to implement it. Since then I think Western civilization has modeled itself on the victors of that time – the tyrants.
    That does not mean Democracy cannot succeed.
    We, for instance do not want to allow slavery or repression against women in our systems (though I know it still exists). We have the same obligation to those outside our borders as inside our borders as we are all human. We must either neutralize threats (kill them all is fine, if it helps us survive ) or liberate them. Do one or the other but don’t leave these systems functional. Democracies even those relatively safe and secure cannot be tolerant of totalitarian systems as they will always threaten the existence of Democracies as well as they demean us all as human. Allowing totalitarian systems to exist means to internalize that system and destructiveness in ourselves.Those systems are wellsprings of human cruelty and brutality. In the really long run, in the really big picture human civilization must evolve beyond this with a militant protective democracy. I’m well aware democracy is limited and losing out in North America to elitist techno-fascism. The system of the past – kingdom and empires still had some freedom but with technology – we are in danger of losing everything that is human becoming the human trapped in the machine.
    I am also well aware of the difference between totalitarian systems and those with relative democracy. I worked overseas in the former type of system for more than ten years. I am aware that most Westerners don’t understand these systems- nothing is the same – they have no internal models to understand what a loss of freedom truly means.
    ..
    The people if they have a chance and are truly free do not choose totalitarian rulers over freedom , they are tricked, bullied, lied to, propagandized and manipulated to do so and they always end up losing except for the palace guard – the circle of elite loyalists (such as American upper class Republicans) that keep the systems going. Even the guard loses – no one is safe. Democracies can evolve to overcome all these problems. Even when the palace guard “wins” what they win is only a particle of the true human heritage that all deserve and can be obtained for there is more than enough for all – this planet could easily be a paradise for all even at 20 billion. Totalitarian systems waste everything, they waste resources, they waste growth , they waste humanity.

    There is only one road forward – tho other road leads to oblivion, the world is now one place, people have to chose and they will get what they chose.
    ..
    For what do you wish to argue? For cruelty , for murder , for mass death, for poverty , for horrendous and unnecessary human suffering for putting the jackboot on the have-nots?

    Only you desire this from fear – because you don’t have the vision and courage to see a bright future for yourself and for everyone.
    Then your G_d will come to you when you are top dog and have ripped all the other dogs to shreds and asks you what you have done with the freedom of choice that has been given you? What have you achieved to be proud of?

  35. @ bernard ross:

    “I do believe you actually believe such hogwash about yourself….it’s called denial.

    “What it’s called is self-confidence — not denial NOR hogwash. Nor do I make any apology for it. And you bet I believe it.

    But what offends you, Bernard, is not that I believe it

    — what offends you is that I have the balls to SAY it out loud. That’s what you find absolutely unforgivable.”

    “On the contrary, I neither find your ludicrous superlatives offensive nor unforgivable;

    You are a transparent LIAR.

    ” I do find your gymnastics … amusing.”

    You are a coldly transparent LIAR.

    “No one takes you that seriously.”

    You don’t know enough someones to know what “no one” does or doesn’t take seriously.

    What you MEAN is, you wish no one WOULD take me seriously.

    “After all, you appear to be the worlds foremost psychoanalytic authority”

    “I’ve told you a dozen times if I’ve told you once: What I do is not ‘psychoanalysis.’ It isn’t an analytical process at all.
    In fact, it could better be termed “psychocatalysis” — and ANYBODY can learn to do it, just as I did.

    No need to relate to anybody as an ‘authority’ in the matter.”

    “why would you believe that your assurances would carry weight?”

    What have “assurances” got to do with it?

    — What have “assurances” got to do with ANYTHING? He who sees for himself doesn’t NEED assurances — from anybody.

    “You have YET to show a single instance of my personality ‘analyses’ being wrong. So you don’t know that my ‘claims of perfection’ are false or delusional, or otherwise wrong. All you really have to go on is your assumption that ‘nobody could be 100 percent correct about anything‘

    — well, that and your understandable HOPE that I’m wrong about you. . .”

    “It’s your job to prove that your ludicrous assertions are accurate. I daily hear ridiculous claims from deluded persons like yourself.”

    To someone lacking the interior wherewithal (like PresentCompany) to discern the appropriate distinctions between the real & the spurious, NO amount of ‘proof’ would suffice even if it WERE my ‘job’ to prove the accuracy of my assertions (which job it is most certainly not). So, what would be the point?”

    “the point would be giving credibility to your unsupported assertions.”

    There’s no way you would give credibility to my assertions, WITH OR WITHOUT support — and I told you why, above. You lack the wherewithal to make the necessary discernment; you’re crippled, Bernard, and clearly aren’t interested in LEARNING to walk either. Nothing I can do about that.

    “the fact that you believe wholeheartedly in your delusions means nothing in the world of science.”

    Quite, quite the contrary. SCIENCE would hold that until you can show my observations to BE delusions, they remain, at worst, speculations — not ‘delusions.’

    “I wasn’t discussing the play, I was discussing that you repeatedly and quite vociferously assert that you ALWAYS tell the truth and yet I have also repeatedly pointed out your lies, …….do you forget the many references to your ‘marketing’ like Paul?”

    The “many references” to Paul’s marketing were yours. I used the word “marketing” in that regard ONCE — and it was quite appropriate. “Marketing” or “packaging” is a perfectly honorable approach to dealing with strangers to impart new info to them. No reason to associate that with ‘lying.’ (Apparently that’s YOUR take on business, however. . . .)

    “when heard next to your many non truths.”

    Still waiting to see ONE instance of those “many non truths.”

    Cat got your tongue?

  36. @ yamit82:

    “Democracy is extremely prone to subversion by demagogues and activists. It is not incidental that in every ancient state which has practiced it, democracy led either to final military defeat, or was superseded by tyranny and monarchy. “

    Very interesting. Wonder what Obadiah Shoher has to say about the subject. Beginning, perhaps, with paragraph 12?

  37. @ bernard ross:

    “you must prove your myths are correct.”

    YOU must prove my remarks to be ‘myths’ — then I’ll show you how those ‘myths’ are correct.

    “when you analyze someone…”

    For the 16th time, I never ‘analyze’ ANYONE. You plainly don’t get it; can’t even CONCEIVE of what I’m talking about, can you?

    “…prove that your comments have any scientific basis.”

    I’ll bet you would’ve demanded that Joseph show his brothers the ‘scientific basis’ of his dreams.

    I’ll bet you would’ve refused to cross the Red Sea on dry land until the ‘scientific basis’ for the separation of the waters had first been explained. You’re funny, Bernard; too funny for words.

    “Put up or shut up”

    I have done that. I’ve said you are a bitter, envious old coot who heartily resents that other men were more successful in business than he.

    So now, it’s for YOU to put up or shut up. Is what I said true? — or is it not? No essay required, dude, and no multiple choice. Merely a “yes” or a “no” is all you need. What could be easier?

    “…everyone is tired of humoring your role as the site psychobabbler

    “Everyone”? — there are several dozens of people who frequent this site at any time, very few of them actually post; you sure-as-blazes do NOT speak for ‘everyone.’ Hell, you don’t even speak for all the posters; let alone, ‘everyone.’ So take that shmeggegge of yours, roll it up into a tight (or not-so-tight) cylinder, and sit on it — then rotate till your eyes roll up into your forehead.

    “And now you have competition as Max”

    Max is YOUR alter ego, not mine.

    You’ve never met anybody like me, bubbeleh. (I can freely guarantee that.) If you had, you wouldn’t be the person you are today

    — and that, because of YOU, not me. . . .

  38. @ bernard ross:

    “I have in fact repeatedly pointed out your pathologies in detail”

    Oh, really? — and, pray tell, what do you know about pathology?

    “I have no great need to awake you from your nightmare. “

    No indeed, you WISH that my observations REFLECTED a nightmare.

    Then you could write-off, in your mind, my comments about your enviousness.

    — So much easier than simply RELINQUISHING your envy itself. . . .

    “[I]t is INDEED unfailingly correct — and it isn’t about psychobabble. The language used is utterly irrelevant. . . . except to one whose vanity feels threatened by its accuracy. (Yourself, for instance.)”

    “Not the language, but rather your obsession…”

    “Nothing whatsoever ‘obsessive’ about what I do. The mere fact that I take to it readily & easily doesn’t make it ‘obsessive’ — any more than the fact that a peach tree readily produces peaches makes the peach tree ‘obsessive.’ You’ll have to do better than that.”

    “I so enjoy your answers…”

    Yes, Bernard, your ‘enjoyment’ is clearly, unmistakably evident. . . .

    ” anyone who reads your psychobabble can easily see it, your obsessive need to demonstrate your ‘knowledge,’ to be the guru, your assumption of grandiose knowledge and capabilities as if your were the prophet or messiah.”

    What anyone can see, boychik, is the degree and intensity to which you are threatened by what I’ve said. Told you, I have no ‘need’ (obsessive or otherwise) to be or do anything. A peach tree gives peaches, as that is its nature. A grape vine gives grapes, as that is its nature. I release what it is in my nature to see. No ‘need,’ and no effort either. I am the person that I am; it’s no more intricate than that.

    “… apparently you have never noticed these things about yourself, you are so focused on dispensing the blessings of your amazing faculties.”

    What I have noticed, Bernard, is that there are others on this site who go to ENORMOUSLY greater lengths than I could ever hope to, in order to dispense the ‘blessings of their amazing faculties’ in re other matters — and often far, FAR more stridently so. But they pose no threat to you. The difference is rather plainly the subject matter.

  39. @ bernard ross:

    “You don’t KNOW my ‘claims’ to be delusional, Bernard.”

    “Actually, I do know. In fact see that you are more delusional and in greater denial than I thought.”

    “You mistake ‘seeing’ for HOPING that I’m ‘delusional’ But if, in fact, you can ‘see’ that I’m delusional, then you should have no trouble offering examples (surely at least ONE) where a psychological observation of mine has turned out the least little bit wrong, thereby justifying your charge that I’m ‘delusional.

    — Let’s see it, smartass.”

    “wrong again, I have no hopes regarding your delusions.”

    NOT wrong (let alone, ‘again’). What I SAID was, you hope that I AM delusional. (You can’t put words in my mouth, shmendrick; I always see you coming up the road before you arrive.)

    But if I am delusional, does this mean you are NOT eaten up with envy?

    “I already told you, it is up to you to suport your ludicrous assertions, I have no responsibility to prove that a lunatic who asserts he is Napoleons is incorrect.”

    Apples & Oranges; false comparison. I make no claim to somebody else’s identity. I have simply made certain observations about YOU (among others). If my observations can be shown faulty, then your case is made; it’s that simple.

    ARE you envious or aren’t you? — it’s an easy question, and nobody knows the answer better than you, Bernard.

    “you are in perennial denial about your character and your delusions…”

    You seem to think you know my character rather well, Bernard, from these postings. Judging from the criteria you offer for me, maybe you should get certified as a shrink.

    “… to the point of making the most ridiculous statements.”

    Identify with particularity, please, the ‘ridiculousness’ in them.

    “when you say that you are always correct…”

    About certain KINDS of things (not everything), yes, I am always correct; that’s true.

    — If I’m not always correct about those things, show me an instance in which I’ve been wrong, and I’ll freely cop to it.

    “…when you say that you… never lie, etc.”

    Putting words in my mouth again, I see.

    What I’d SAID at those times was that I’d never lied, thus far, on this board. And that’s a fact.

  40. dweller Said:

    So you DON’T personally attack me?

    No, I just truthfully call you on your BS and errors in theology and your faux moralism.

    (guess I’m ‘delusional’)

    Well we do agree on some things.

    About certain kinds of things, my observations are unfailingly correct,

    Proves my point that “you are a legend in your own mind” a clear case of NPD!!!! Since there is no factual basis to your claim at least none you have presented in this forum.

    I’ve said many times that they are not arrived at analytically; so how COULD they be said to be ‘mine’?

    — They are simply received.

    What is never wrong is not YoursTruly, but ruach elohim.

    Repeating BS many times does not make it any truer.

    I can say that I to am connected to the same source and I derive a different analytical conclusion. So My ruach elhohi is different than yours or mine is real and yours is imaginary or your antenna is defective or you are just mentally deranged and not responsible or capable of deciphering messages received from OG!!!!

    What is never wrong is not YoursTruly, but ruach elohim.

    Putting the blame on others is a sure sign of NPD!!!

    If YOU listened to Him in these matters, then YOU wouldn’t ever be wrong either.

    It’s because I am connected, I know you are full of shit.

    You need to take this one up with BROSS. It’s he, not I, WHO is bucking for ‘proofs’ these days.

    Define “Bross”???

    Lately he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not ‘delusional’ in my assessment of him. He’s never been able to show a single instance of me being wrong about somebody’s emotional & psychological makeup (including his own) — which would surely constitute the evidence that I am delusional (if I were).

    But instead he wants me to ‘prove’ that I’m not delusional. LMSS. Strictly Kafkaesque.

    Can you supply written proof, like copies of say an email? Maybe a comment on facebook? So far we only have your word for it which is proof of your delusional state of mind. Your word and declarations are worth Bubkis.

    You are confused.

    Self-confident is not ‘arrogant.’

    Straightforward w/ an observation about oneself is not ‘boastful.’

    Uncluttered statement of fact is not ‘pretentious.’

    I don’t know where to begin because you are so delusional you couldn’t admit to the converse of each point you made but the converse of your opinion of yourself is what is true.

    Remember: “The Truth will set you Free” First be true to yourself which you apparently are not and until you are you are a lost soul sick pathetic excuse for a humanoid. You need help and it’s not your telepathic connection to your imagined ‘Harvey’.

    Bottom line here is that, lIke that other turkey I’ve been dealing with lately, you just can’t stand the fact that I‘m not afraid to say what I know.

    “Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know.”

    Take this to heart dweller:

    Rabbi Zusha used to say: “When I die and come before the heavenly court, if they ask me, ‘Zusha, why were you not Abraham?’ I’ll say that I didn’t have Abraham’s intellectual abilities. If they say, ‘Why were you not Moses?’ I’ll say I didn’t have Moses’ leadership abilities. For every such question, I’ll have an answer. But if they say, ‘Zusha, why were you not Zusha?’ for that, I’ll have no answer.”

    Just who’s the aggressor here — and whom, aggressed upon?

    Should I add Paranoia to your NPD????

  41. dweller Said:

    He’s never been able to show a single instance of me being wrong about somebody’s emotional & psychological makeup (including his own) —

    you’ve never been able to show a single instance of you being right about someones emotional and psychological makeup (including your own)

    Those who assert their opinions as facts need to do the proving, but I know that you already knew that…..I think its that “marketing” that Paul taught you.