New Treasures: Front Lines by Michael Grant
Michael Grant is the author of over 150 books, many co-written with his wife Katherine. He’s the New York Times bestselling author of Gone and Messenger of Fear. His latest novel, Front Lines, is a daring alternate history that imagines World War II with female soldiers fighting on the front lines. Publishers Weekly calls it “A gripping and heart-wrenching tale,” and bestselling author Elizabeth Wein says it’s “a magnificent alternate history that feels so real and right and true it seems impossible that it wasn’t.”
World War II, 1942. A court decision makes women subject to the draft and eligible for service. The unproven American army is going up against the greatest fighting force ever assembled, the armed forces of Nazi Germany.
Three girls sign up to fight. Rio Richlin, Frangie Marr, and Rainy Schulterman are average girls, girls with dreams and aspirations, at the start of their lives, at the start of their loves. Each has her own reasons for volunteering: Rio fights to honor her sister; Frangie needs money for her family; Rainy wants to kill Germans. For the first time they leave behind their homes and families—to go to war.
These three daring young women will play their parts in the war to defeat evil and save the human race. As the fate of the world hangs in the balance, they will discover the roles that define them on the front lines. They will fight the greatest war the world has ever known.
Front Lines was published by Katherine Tegen Books on January 26, 2016. It is 576 pages, priced at $18.99 in hardcover and $11.99 for the digital version. It is the first installment of a new series.
This makes me wonder what Max the Riveter is doing back at home for the war effort.
According to Wikipedia:
There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.
“Alternate” history? Really?
Sorry, guess it was the last sentence of the blurb that really “ground my gears”:
“They will fight the greatest war the world has ever known.”
In case you still smoke that crack, please read “IBM and the Holocaust” and “War Against the Weak” by Robert Black.
It becomes frightfully clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a good number of elite Americans, obsessed with ridding the world of “inferior” humans, had quite a bit to do with backing Hitler, and his”final solution.”
…kinda takes the fun and neato romance right out of it, and replaces it with Cthulhuesque horror :-/
> This makes me wonder what Max the Riveter is doing back at home for the war effort.
> There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war…
> “Alternate” history? Really?
Quite right. Many westerners tend to overlook the huge contribution the Soviet Union made to winning the war. When I first moved to the US, I was startled to learn that many Americans my age seemed to think the US won WWII virtually single-handed (with a little help from Britain). That’s starting to change, but there’s still a long way to go.
But as far as American women on the front lines… yeah, I stand by my assertion that it’s “alternate history.”
> It becomes frightfully clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a good number of elite Americans, obsessed with ridding the
> world of “inferior” humans, had quite a bit to do with backing Hitler, and his”final solution.”
Again, absolutely true. I’m not familiar with War Against the Weak, but IBM and the Holocaust is a chilling book.
But (again, speaking as a Canadian), I don’t think America gets enough credit for the speed in which the strong pre-war support for Nazi ideology in the US was quickly repudiated — stamped out, really — during and after the war. Perhaps a war was the only thing that could have eradicated it the way it did. If WWII hadn’t occurred, it’s very likely Nazi ideology could have lingered in the US well into the 50s, 60s, 70s… and maybe even today.
Well put John,
I don’t disagree with thing you’ve said… It’s the possible intersections of “fantasy” and “reality” that frighten me:
The worlds of “fantasy” are riddled with “gladiators” gustily scarfing down bolts of meat after victorious “death” matches. Good clean “atmosphere” by the writers… Except that Roman gladiators likely rarely killed each other (far too expensive, though they killed plenty of other people 😉 AND, a two minute perusal of Wikipedia also informs that Roman gladiators ate a strict vegetarian diet. Ignorance may be bliss, just don’t let me find out the American Beef Counsel is paying any author advances 😉
But now we’re talking war, and we’re romanticizing “war,” and this book comes out JUST when America is considering letting women closer and closer to the front lines of what is truly humanitty’s oldest, and most horrifying “profession.”
I submit that WW2 was a horror that need not have occurred, Vietnam was a horror that need not have occurred, Iraq was certainly a horror that need not have occurred…
What if this book actually “inspires” future American women to join the front lines of the next horror that need not occur?
Therein lies true horror, says I :-/
@AWAbooks—It is true that the Soviets used women in the war but I think it shows how much the Communists viewed the war as a life or death struggle and how desperate they were. I don’t see where your ire comes from. The book seems to be an alternate history where the gender roles are inverted. Maybe in this one the Communists employ men to form the divisions needed against the Feminazi menace. Maybe they will have male pilots and snipers or maybe they will just make sure the males only have cooking, cleaning, and nursing details. Think of the Chippendales USO tour with Barbara Stanwick and (of course Bob Hope isn’t beef cake enough) Tyrone Powers in short gym trunks (eww—maybe not). Use your imagination. Think of the wall flower USO dances and all the guys who get paid to dance with the GIs one last time before they ship off to war. Its rather touching don’t you think?
As for Gladiators being vegans….well, I have to say that I’ve met only two vegans who weren’t militant jerks….so you may have a point that vegan makes one violent. I think the truth of it is more along the lines of the times. Meat was for the rich, in fact, cattle was more of a sign of wealth than coin in that time. You wouldn’t waste a lot of meat on a slave and so yeah, they probably ate oats and beans and such to stem their hunger and make it last the day. Sorry I can’t picture Brocolius Maximus or Cibus Minimus gladiators passing over some meat for delicious carrots. As a slave, you ate what was served.
As for the American elite and hoping to run up the numbers to make the Holocaust….you have to keep in mind that the heart of Nazis in America came from the colleges just like all the other bad ideas. I’m not surprised that many of the elites would harbor anti Semitic attitudes. In fact, the idea of Nazi eugenics from came from American colleges. That shouldn’t be a shocker considering how liberal colleges have always been.
And John, yes I like that you make a good point about how fast America stomped out the Nazi movement. I also agree to some degree with you about America thinking that it was pivotal in WW2 at the expense of the contributions of the Allies and the Soviet Union. America’s role was still large. I don’t see what is wrong with showing national pride though.
The IBM and the Holocaust book is scary. Where you saw people keeping records like in the Netherlands the chances of Jews escaping were minimal. Most did not escape. To think if a Nazi were to take control now with computers that would make those used back then look like junk toys is very scary. No one will get out of those jaws.
I think that is what is so chilling about why those on the left are so ruthless about wiping out free speech.
Sorry, but I must politely disagree with many of your assertions.Most vegans I know are decidedly progressive, and largely nonviolent; Im a “Quaker at heart.”
And along those lines, as I said, many of our recent military forays have been sadly pointless… no need romantcizing women’s participation.
Word choice is important. The Soviets didn’t “use” women, women demanded to fight (however sad that is).
The Eugenics movement in America was fomented completely by America’s wealthy elite, liberal college kids had nothing to do with it. To give you some idea of how well the elite have covered their tracks, and pulled the wool over your eyes, Eugenics programs in America sterilized 60,000 American citizens against their will… that we KNOW of. Very nice to dream that “Nazism” was stamped out so quickly, but in fact Eugenicists were busy sterilizing Americans well into the 1960s.
Read War Against the Weak and IBM and the Holocaust. Once you do, hopefully you’ll see that liberal college kids and vegans have never been “the problem.” On the contrary…
I never said that the Eugenics movement was fomented by liberal college kids. I agree with you that the faculty embraced it. Still, how many left wing Nazi whackos were produced by their teaching?
I have read War Against the Weak and IBM and the Holocaust. I agree with many of the theories that they advance. I also disagree with some of their premises. Again, you obfuscate.
I guess we’ve met different vegan populations. Most vegans I’ve met were trolls. Most of them that I met feel that their vegan-hood is not only a moral CHOICE for them but a mandatory “choice” for you. Eat all the veggies you want is my motto but you can stow your salad if you want to force it on me. I eat meat.
If word choice is your most important issue with what I said let me define what I mean by “use”. I mean it in the military sense that is to employ it into the battlefield.
Also I would love for you to expand on how you would have avoided WW2.
“But now we’re talking war, and we’re romanticizing “war,” and this book comes out JUST when America is considering letting women closer and closer to the front lines of what is truly humanitty’s oldest, and most horrifying “profession.””
Uh….you know reading about this is optional. You could avoid reading or even thinking about it at any time. I’m still not certain why you are planting your flag here and virtue signaling like a Fourth of July (pardon the militant pun) because the books seems to be an interesting view of gender reversal. Mankind has fought war from the dawn of our race and it is a part of who we are. Peace is the exception. Thousands of years of history has made the male gender the primary war maker. It isn’t that women have been absent in war but their role has been small. This book offers a different perspective. I think it is ambitious and it piques my curiosity. Besides, you don’t know for certain if they are “romanticizing” war as this may be a story of a fool’s journey, a Man (Woman) From La Mancha, or a Saving Private Ryan-ette. You sound like you are unhappy that war exists and that it is a part of mankind’s history. You are not alone, still, it does no good to wish it away, rewrite history, or pretend that it doesn’t exist. I think War Against The Weak spells that out. I suggest that you reread parts of it. Remember that the idea started pre World War One. By the time it is in colleges and such Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) is making policy that reflects Eugenics. World War Two is still a generation away. See what I mean? It seems to me the only thing that has ever stopped radical left wing ideas cold—ie Nazism and Communism—has been fire for fire–that is violence. Peaceful talk to warlike aggression ends up poorly historically. I’d say that World War Two was not only avoidable but it was necessary. War is hell but the romanticism you loathe is what gets the men to gin up the nerve to face the dragon. Someone has to face the dragon…as there isn’t enough Beowulfs to go around. So romanticizing war might be bad but the other option is to jerk some average Joe vegan off the street and put a rifle in his hand and force him to fight the dragon. Because someone is going to have to fight the dragon. Isn’t it better to get some poor schlep who thinks that defending one’s family, country, and civilization is a good thing rather than some schlep that doesn’t want to fight and wants to get someone else to fight for him while he talks peace? I think the romanticism is a win-win deal. Me, I was one of the schleps that fell in for the romance. Yeah I was young dumb and stupid but I don’t regret it a bit. I’m thinking that a vegan doesn’t have a chance talking me down out of a steak dinner no more than a pacifist has a chance of talking down someone who is intent on committing violence. That has just been my life experience. How about you?
Oh and for the record, the Soviets employed a lot of conscripts on the battlefield too. I’m not a big fan of women on the battlefield but if I had my choice between a woman with a gun who volunteered or a guy who had to be forced to fight for his country—-I’ll take the chick with the gun who wants to be there any day of the week. Attitude is king and I don’t like wasting ammo shooting deserters.
I grew up in a Philadelphia ghetto, saw my first man shot to death when I was seven, first man stabbed to death when I was nine. At sixteen I was attacked by someone with a knife and almost killed him. I’m an excellent shot, though I don’t believe in it. At 50 I can swim a mile, bike 50 and run 12, non-stop. Bet I’ll live longer, and healthier, than you 🙂
Your attribution of Nazism to “left-wing” ideology is reality-skewed. Nazism is an offshoot of fascism, most decidedly “right-wing.” The fact that you either don’t know this, or can’t accept / understand this, makes this exchange pointless. You’re outmatched.
I marched against Iraq before it began. I was right, and it sounds like you weren’t…period.
But my concern with the book is pointed and valid: If the book inspires just one American female to join the front lines of America’s next “Iraq,” is that something the author should feel good about?
First off, you need to check your Nazi definition. Nazi is short for National Socialism. Nazis are socialists. In fact in Nazi Germany they were considered “right wing” where in fact to the right of the Nazi would be the US Democratic party. In Germany’s view the Democrats would be extreme right wing. I ask you—which presidential candidate considers himself a socialist? Bernie Sanders (the self proclaimed socialist) or Donald Trump? I’d say that when it comes to Nazis you don’t know what the hell you are talking about and that ignorance underscores more about your knee jerk politics than it does your actual knowledge of history. You are the one who is reality skewed.
I’ll give you Merriam-Webster’s definition of socialist. noun 1. A person who advocates or practices socialism. synonyms: left wing, progressive, labor, anti-corporate
Definition of Nazi: noun historical 1. A member of the National Socialist Workers Party
Set Game and Match
“I grew up in a Philadelphia ghetto, saw my first man shot to death when I was seven,…..blah blah blah…almost killed him—blah blah blah. I’m an excellent shot, though I don’t believe in it.”
Well, no offense but considering the company I’ve kept in the military pardon me if I’m not impressed.
“At 50 I can swim a mile, bike 50 and run 12, non-stop. Bet I’ll live longer, and healthier, than you :-)”
Okay, no sure why your chest is so puffy and you have to bellow around like a walrus but okay. I get it, you’re a Chuck Norris in bicycle pants, a true bad ass and I should be quaking in my boots and praying that your overblown humanity will not suddenly vaporize and put you in into a killing frenzy, which you of course don’t believe in, and break my neck–almost or completely, I’m not sure which. Whatever dude. My grandpa has an oxygen tank and mask if you need it. All that bloviating must get tiring on a lesser man which of course you are not.
“But my concern with the book is pointed and valid: If the book inspires just one American female to join the front lines of America’s next “Iraq,” is that something the author should feel good about”
Dude, I mean, Mr. Norris sir, I think your concern is ridiculous. I’ve actually recruited women into the military. As a gender, and pardon me for stereotyping, it has been my experience that they are much more decisive than men. If a woman wants to join up they are going to join up no matter what your grandfatherly concerns may be. I can also tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of the female sailors and marines that I have met are not wilting flowers. I know in your day the women fainted left and right over such trivial things as cursing like they do in an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel but these girls today are made of sterner stuff. They listen better than their male counterparts in training and they are pretty good shots. I still would prefer that they were not in combat but to be honest, when the heat is on you it has been my experience that you could care less who the hell is helping give you covering fire. I don’t care if they were a Tyrion Lannister with a flaming gay vegan fetish. When they provide fire support you are grateful for it. Trust me on that one. And I didn’t want to be involved in Iraq but I didn’t have much choice. I fought. That is what warriors do. What made it hard were dumbass liberals who did everything they could to circumvent what you were doing.
“I marched against Iraq before it began. I was right, and it sounds like you weren’t…period.”
I would have marched against it too if I would have been allowed to. But, that isn’t what happened and we went to war. Right, wrong, willing, or not, that is the history and there ain’t nothing you and I could do about it. You can cry about the mess or you can do something about it. What you do, like so many liberals is you think that every swinging richard in the military WANTED a war. What you don’t get is that the vast vast majority don’t want to go to war but if we have to then lets go in all the way and not liberal half ass.
Also, as a side note. You seem hyper sensitive and very angry. You aren’t perchance a vegan? Not that I hate vegetables or that I demand that anyone must eat meat. You might want to try jerky or a sausage biscuit. It might make you happier and lower your hypertension that you seem to barely have under control.
“At 50 I can swim a mile, bike 50 and run 12, non-stop.”
That is very impressive. You are like a Bruce Jenner or Caitlyn Jenner or whatever he or she is. You may indeed outlive me. Again, I never questioned your masculinity or your abilities, just your judgement and facts. I have no idea why you feel the need to show me your manly credentials. Remember that exchanging or debating ideas is not a personal attack on your manhood.
Sorry, but you’re self-educated and poorly so. Nazism is an off-shoot of Fascism, which is clearly RIGHT-WING. Look up Fascism, one of the first synonyms you’ll see is Nazism. That you don’t know or understand this is sad, and a little frightening.
Pre-WW2 “liberals” didn’t support Fascism or Nazism. In fact, some of then shipped themselves off to fight against it in Franco’s Spain. …You probably don’t know anything about this either.
While you’re at it, read up on one of the the greatest U.S. Marines, Smedley Butler, and his fight against American Fascism during this era.
And sorry, you lose on the Caitlin Jenner pipe dream as well: Four kids, two girls and two boys.
Science tells us we essentially have three brains: A “stem,” which is our “lizard” brai, a mid, or mammal brain, and the top, uniquely human brain. Our human brain allows complex thought. Consider the New Testament: Jesus not only looks out for the weak and the poor, but he is clearly NON-violent. Clearly.
So I ask you, “Ape,” which brain do you want to think with?
Ape — We’ve had this discussion before, and I don’t want to go over all that ground again. National Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism, and the only ones who stubbornly cling to that idea are a strange subset of American conservatives looking for ammo against socialism. You’re welcome to think whatever you like, and I certainly won’t expect you to change your thinking to humor me, but this really isn’t the place to go over all that again.
Anthony — I agree with you 100%, but Wild Ape is dead right that your tone is getting dangerously close to insulting. Rein it in a little, please.
Thank you both.
I’ve deleted your comment, since you continue to use my website to argue an idea that has been extensively discredited elsewhere.
I’m happy to hear your thoughts on how Nazism = socialism. But as I hope I’ve made abundantly clear, not on my website.
“Science tells us we essentially have three brains: A “stem,” which is our “lizard” brai, a mid, or mammal brain, and the top, uniquely human brain. Our human brain allows complex thought.”
Junk science and psuedo psychology tells us this. Real science like biology understands that all parts of the brain work in tandem, not separately. Unless you are a control freak psychologist who want to reward goodthink and punish badthink by forcing choices of lizard/mammal/human. Of course no body wants to be a lizard….right? We want to be peaceful humans….right?
“So I ask you, “Ape,” which brain do you want to think with?”
I use the part of my brain that recognizes when I’m being talked down to. I also use the brain that tells me when someone is trying to cleverly insult me.
“Consider the New Testament: Jesus not only looks out for the weak and the poor, but he is clearly NON-violent. Clearly.”
What this has to do with anything, I don’t know. How did Jesus enter into this discussion. I thought we were talking about how you think that a FICTIONAL book might create badthink for women readers and have them rush off to do badthings. Instead of the New Testament maybe you should read this:
This article is about women who were sex slaves and how they are now fighting against ISIS.
“What if this book actually “inspires” future American women to join the front lines of the next horror that need not occur?”
It probably won’t. Above is the link to the real world what drives women into combat. It happens when they are sick of their circumstances and refuse to go extinct just like the Soviet women did in WW2. The vast vast majority of women that I have met have a firm grip on reality and can separate a fictional world from a real one. You need not come to their rescue.
“Sorry, but you’re self-educated and poorly so.”
Yeah, well I have less reading comprehension issues than you do Bubba. Maybe you should take a second gander at that book War On The Weak and re-read those chapters you skimmed over. I think you will find your pre-WW2 connection there as well as your connection to college campuses.
“pe-WW2 “liberals” didn’t support Fascism or Nazism. In fact, some of then shipped themselves off to fight against it in Franco’s Spain. …You probably don’t know anything about this either.”
There my ape brain is going again. It recognizes mockery and it sniffs out defensive weakness. Your insults have no effect on me because they aren’t true but I know you have doubts about yourself. No one is questioning your masculinity but you. Your hyper defensiveness is telling.
“While you’re at it, read up on one of the the greatest U.S. Marines, Smedley Butler, and his fight against American Fascism during this era.”
I’m not your errand boy (powder monkey). I don’t have to look up that Butler said the same thing that Eisenhower did about the Industrial Military Complex. You are obfuscating. You have yet to fulfill your premise that you could prevent WW2. You’ve got nothing. You are just bloviating.
“And sorry, you lose on the Caitlin Jenner pipe dream as well: Four kids, two girls and two boys.”
Actually Bruce Jenner was a gold medal winner of the triathalon which is considered the greatest athletic achievement in the world. I’m referencing that but you mentally went defensive towards your insecurities.
It doesn’t matter if your the manliest man on the planet or a dweeb who lives with mom on the internet. Your premise still stinks.
“But my concern with the book is pointed and valid: If the book inspires just one American female to join the front lines of America’s next “Iraq,” is that something the author should feel good about?”
Prove this as saliently as you boast.
“I submit that WW2 was a horror that need not have occurred, Vietnam was a horror that need not have occurred, Iraq was certainly a horror that need not have occurred… ”
“So I ask you, “Ape,” which brain do you want to think with?”
“The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”
Start here, Neo:
“National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/) or Naziism (/ˈnɑːtsi.ɪzəm/), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state as well as other far-right groups. Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism developed out of the influences of Pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement, and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after German defeat in World War I.” -Wikipedia
If you can accept that, you may choose a pill:
“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
Sadly, my suspicion is you won’t get past the definition of Nazism, and will opt for the blue pill.
Bon chance 🙂
Bwahahaha! You use Wikipedia as a source? Are you a [censored for badspeak]. How do we know that you didn’t write in the definition yourself? Even so, you evidence kinda underscores exactly what I was saying. Your definition takes a Germanic perspective of the history and not an American one which was my point entirely. As I said before, you are the one with the reading comprehension problem.
Look John has set his foot down on this so I can’t respond to you the Nazi thing okay? We have to respect that this is his sandbox and not ours. Let’s stick to the important stuff and not the minutae.
I’m still waiting to hear how WW2 was preventable and your premise about saving women from a fictional story to keep them from fighting in Iraq. Or did you take the red pill on those issues? Remember, you are the one implying that I am the one with the tiny brain. Flex that manly mental muscle of yours and impress me by backing your arguments.
*sigh* As I thought, blue pill.
Good luck to you, I’m sure tomorrow you’ll wake up right as rain 🙂
Sounds to me like you used the blue/red pill as a suppository for where your hold out your arguments that you can’t back. Don’t worry man, the train is fine.
If this book gets the hissy fits from the left like it has here with Anthony think I will buy it. The character Rainy sounds like my kind of squaddie.
Okay, if you want to discuss origins of WW2, lets begin with what you’ve already read:
What drew Edwin Black into writing IBM and the Halocaust? He relates one specific incident… What did he see, where did he see it?
Who was the Person of Interest (POI) in IBM and the Holocaust?
What did POI do that would be considered illegal?
When did it become illegal?
From what two principal locations did POI conduct this activity?
From what locations were Nazi activities conducted that were so particularly harrowing?
What was the primary activity the Nazis carried out, with IBM’s aid, that would have been difficult to duplicate with that level of efficiency?
What did Edwin Black consider doing to IBM? Did he follow through with it? Why or why not?
You’ve read the book. I haven’t read it in quite a few years, I don’t have it in front of me, but these questions aren’t hard. If you’ve read it, as you claim, its a cake walk.
So let me feel the fiber of your fabric, and we’ll take it from there 🙂
Bonus Round: In War Against the Weak, there were dozens of notable Americans that believed in Eugenics, but there was one notable “tycoon” who funded a interesting “facility” in Germany, where quite a notable Nazi “got his start”… Who was the tycoon? If you don’t recall his name, I’ll forgive, but how did he make his fortune? And WHO was the notable Nazi?
Again, I don’t have the book in front of me, haven’t read it in… at least five years, but this isn’t very hard. You’ve read it, asyou say.
…by the way, which “theories” of Black’s, in particular, do you take issue with?
“Okay, if you want to discuss origins of WW2, lets begin with what you’ve already read:”
You mean like YOUR premise that says: “I submit that WW2 was a horror that need not have occurred, Vietnam was a horror that need not have occurred, Iraq was certainly a horror that need not have occurred…”
I’m not sure what kind of blue/red pill you are smoking. YOU were the one that brought this up therefore YOU have the BURDEN OF PROOF. I’m not supposed to be the one who is supposed to carry your water for YOUR point. Duh. You may think I’m stupid but I’m not THAT stupid. From my perspective that statement is pure hubris.
“You’ve read the book. I haven’t read it in quite a few years, I don’t have it in front of me, but these questions aren’t hard. If you’ve read it, as you claim, its a cake walk.”
Wake up your human brain and get the mammal brain out of the hotseat. What am I? Your therapist? What this shows me is you are used to people jumping at your command, never questioning your authority, people suck up to you. Well, I don’t and that makes you kinda pouty. You don’t even speak to me as if we are remotely equal so don’t be coi. I think you are upset that your rebuff has no effect on me. Perhaps you are surprised that I don’t jump back into line. This shows me why you cannot hold, nor are you interested in an HONEST debate. Professors and activists don’t like to be challenged but like to hold “debates” where the deck is stacked. Asking questions is taking control. Answering them is a debate. So before I answer you dozen questions to gather information for your argument you should be courteous enough to answer mine and make good on your original premise—or back down like a man. No harm no foul. The men I traffic with don’t double down when they are wrong. We recognize that we are human and I suspect this IBM thing hits close to home with you. Perhaps in your ire you over spoke. Again, that is not a weakness in my view. It adds to your credibility. I’ll give you a for instance:
I said earlier that liberals embraced Nazism. That isn’t completely true. The vast majority of liberals rejected Nazism and Communism. A few in the labor unions and college professors did embrace it. It wasn’t widespread so it was easily squashed. You see. A concession. I felt no pain when I reset my poorly executed argument because it was wrong. Of course this opens the door for you to make hay over it but…..hey…
“So let me feel the fiber of your fabric, and we’ll take it from there “
Oh really? You mean that you HAVEN’T prejudged what I’m about to say? You must really think that I must be the most gullible chimp on the planet. I’ll be honest, I think I know exactly what you are going to say and I can predict how it will all go down. My money is on that you will not favor a single thing I say. But I’ll do my best to put the kabuki smiley face that you plan to be fair.
“…by the way, which “theories” of Black’s, in particular, do you take issue with?”
Now that you mention it, and to be perfectly HONEST, I can’t think of any. I’ve had only one other discussion about this book with someone and what I didn’t like was their conclusion was that America is the worst nation on the planet in the history of the world. I think I had more objections to her world beliefs than with anything that Black wrote. She believed that war never solves a thing and that pacifism is the only real choice that we have. She wanted to blame America first for anything and everything wrong in the world. You two seem to have a lot in common and that is probably why I worded it that way. I’m guarded.
What I got out of the book was that progressives are not confined to one political party. Progressive thinking is that mindset that wants to control every aspect of our lives because the progressive thinks that they are better, smarter, and more suited to rule the world. Ford, Sanger, Bell, and those mentioned in the book are monstrous in my view.
The book made me look at George Soros and Zuckerberg in a totally different light. They have a lot in common with Ford as they seek to shape the world to suit them and silence, and crush any opposition.
I also look at General Electric and IBM and Bayer asperin in a new way too. Hitler had help. It chills me to the bone to think of what Hitler could have accomplished if he had a better computer. He could have predicted who was a Jew, a communist, or his opposition much more effectively. I don’t think anyone will escape the next holocaust with the machines we have now. Perhaps Jews won’t be targeted, maybe this time it will be the right wingers whom they exterminate. That doesn’t sound like it would bother you much Anthony.
I also look at technology and how divisive it can be. Take for instance Twitter and Facebook which are taking partisan sides and are backing governments with their software. That to me is scary. It is doubly scary when you see how immature and deceitful Zuckerberg can be. I swear he is a sociopath. I don’t want him anywhere near the seat of power. Think of Ford or those other monsters with that kind of power, think about what they would have done.
I think the last thing I took from the book was that the world has always been filled with powerful evil people. I don’t think that will ever change. My Nordic values tell me that you have to stand up to them. I respect you for that at least Anthony. I don’t see you bowing your neck for IBM.