brainpanhandler wrote:Bad hugh. He's also pretty good at disappearing when thoughtful questions from skeptics are put to him. Makes it seem like he's really only interested in a one way dialogue. For instance, Barracuda can probably wait forever and Hugh is not going to answer his questions about the OP. And BTW, the OP is easily one of the weakest arguments I've seen Hugh make. It's on a par with his most hairbrained ideas. I certainly understand the occasional accusations of disinfo, but I still think they ought to be policed in the same manner. Frankly, I too wish Hugh would just stay the hell out of threads like: Abduction account…from over 300 years ago? I guess he just doesn't understand that the authoritarian tone with which he writes is irritating and stifles discussion.
Brainpanhandler, as much as I enjoy Hugh's ideas, I have no interest in optioning my availability for a CIA-coated folie à plusieurs regarding the interpretation of either literary works or larger cultural issues. I have my own brand of madness to fall back upon in these matters, and my delusions are too developed and involved to be significantly altered by a new adherance to the musings of our resident psuedo-iconoclast and tunnel-visionary. My accusations of disinformation, mis-information, or simply lack of information stand in this case, though. It's hard to imagine a worse target of Hugh's invective of being a fascist enabler than Dahl, a man who was literally fighting for his life against the German war machine during the darkest hours of Britain's struggle against Hitler, and had become an air ace flying Hawker Hurricanes versus the Luftwaffe before the U.S. had even entered hostilities.

Not that this is the perfect resume for anti-war activism, but if you espouse fighting fascists, one very direct and forthright way to do it in those days (1940-41) was behind the stick of a single-seat fighter aircraft over the European countryside.
Now it's easy to imagine any number of readers following along with this discussion, reading in two separate threads Hugh's assertion that Dahl was a fascist, and blandly nodding their assent, as it appears that many readers do, judging by the kindly words spoken in Hugh's behalf by any number of his small cadre of supporters, defenders and sychophants. And some of those persons may have never read or even heard of Sometime Never (the first book published in America about the possibility of nuclear war) or Fantastic Mr. Fox - the book, not the movie - which is another of Dahl's many humorous tales of a fight against mean and terrible forces being won by clever and underestimated small creatures. In which case, a great injustice has been done, not just to Dahl's reputation amongst those of us who choose to champion Hugh, but also by those who might accept his notion regarding Dahl, and pass this misbegotten judgement on to others by dint of conversation or attitude. And for that, and Hugh's great and obviously embarrassed silence when challenged on it, a rousing Bronx cheer and a great big hale and hearty "Fuck You!" is definitely in order, and sincerely called for. Call it what you will, Hugh has a responsibility here, which he has thrust upon himself after 8000 posts, to hold to a certain standard of assininity which doesn't simply lead his readers astray due to laziness, lying, or feigning lassitude. The "fight against fascism" on this particular forum is ill-served by such tactics. I'm not even going to get into what I think of his various disintegrated theories disguised as facts and dressed up in the frilly panties of scientific nomenclature.
I do think it's interesting that none of us know what Hugh's political affiliations are beyond "anti-fascist"; that he can tell us he's too tired to answer questions because of his six hour speaking engagement at a political fundraiser, and it's sort of glossed over by the class; and that there are all kinds of groups who espouse antifascism that you or I might not willingly link arms with. I like to know whose flag I'm waving.