Just as many self-proclaimed humanitarian, enlightened, peace and Earth loving individuals cloak their tyrannically intolerant positions in the "liberal" garb, there are corresponding impostors sporting the "conservative" label who are more than suspect about their true nature. Having finally gotten around to hearing Mike Savage's rantings over a period of some hours on at least three diferent occasions, I have become a bit suspicious about the sincerity and most importantly the motivation of this individual as well.

It would be too much of a chore in trying to define either of the terms "liberal" or "conservative" in order to arrive at some universally agreed upon sacrosanct definition. It would also be impossible. Individuals tend to be either primarily "liberal" or "conservative" on specific issues, and even this as may be fashionably accepted at any given time. The social human need to belong to a group purportedly sharing common views most likely originated through an effort to merely physically survive, but with time philosophically evolved into a need to be reassured of one's less empirically based belief systems. Immortality, as an example, is an empirically abstract concept, reinforced mostly by associating with other individuals who clutch the same bogus map giving directions on how to get there. It is all a treasure hunt of sorts, engaged in mostly as a result of the driving need of many humans to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the lower animals.

Digressing no further, finding enough agreement on a determined number of key points creates, shall we say, "teams." What competitions these "teams" are willing to engage in, and how the final outcome is to be determined is in turn defined by the specifics of a given locus and its tempora et mores. The fact that at least one present "team," and that is the extreme Islamic one, is apparently bent on the total anhilation of all others, does raise considerable cause for concern and may well rank as the main issue of the day. Positioning oneself along liberal and conservative lines on this, an issue of total survival, is actually idiotic. How does being a right-to-lifer, a fiscal conservative, a strict (judicial) constructionist, etc. or any of its opposite counterparts have anything to do with how one stands on the issue of defending ones life and way of life from homicidal Jihad?

I deemed this introduction necessary because of the fields of academic endeavor Mr. Savage sports his advanced degrees in. It has been an attempt on my part to orient the discourse in terms his background should make him at least familiar with if not competent in. I have been critical in the past of other "degreed" gentlemen such as Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan, who nothwithstanding the fact that they usually express opinions I mostly agree with, manage to occasionaly bounce into them from such indefensible depths as to invalidate their over-all credibility. Mr. Savage reached out enough times from said base bases in those few hours I listened to him, to place him at the top of my list in this respect. What seem to be the main problem all the aforementioned gentlemen share?

In dealing with their more strident and irrational opponents they benefit quite frequently from the ignorance of the former. This readily allows them to gain such an upper hand that they will often smother them with a smorgasbord of facts that often contain some real clunkers. Bluntly none of these gentlemen impress me as being meticulous about historical accuracy. We will concentrate on Mr. Savage/Weiner.

The apparent historical distortion of his own nomenclature may be harmless enough. Archibald Leach found it advantageous to be better known as Cary Grant. This was thought to give some sort of advantage or leg up in the entertainment field. Pappalardo a boxing icon, decided to become Willie Pep and this was probably due to a combination of shortening a difficult name and becoming more acceptable to the Anglo-Saxon establishment. Woody Allen may have decided that the name Allen Konigsberg sounded just a bit too German Bundist for post WWI US and he decided on that appellate as opposed to say, Ira Shinglestein though that would played well in the Catskillls. Allen also has a passable Anglo-Saxon association. No harm done. What motivated Mr. Savage/Weiner to play with his name does not really interest me. I claim to be neither his shrink nor his Father Confessor. His absolute fawning over Anglo-Saxon Protestant "culture" however does.

The fact that Mr. S/W sees the Islamic threat to Western Civilization is quite supportable and has my full agreement. His definition of the overall culture being attacked, at least in America, as being almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon Protestant is however historically ignorant and smacks of a puzzling bias.(As a side note I wish to state that Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has my greater respect in spite of considerable disagreement, because of his sound historical foundation and perspective.)

Mr. S/W is apparently satisfied with capitalizing on the obvious historical ignorance of many of his admirers to counterbalance the historical ignorance of many of his detractors. This maybe a good way to maintain a listener base, but usually not one of the best quality. Also, as I will detail later, one that one can only hope WILL NEVER TAKE POWER IN AMERICA.

How one can refer to Western Civilization and more or less ignore both the contribution of Rome and the Renaissance is beyond me. Understanding Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic is undeniably linked to understanding the advantages of the Anglo/American headstart in the Industrial Revolution and how capitalism may have managed to make the U.S. the superpower that it is today, but it also created one of the weakest, not the strongest links, in our present struggle as a civilization. Our dependence on oil is a prime example. Coal and iron used to be coregents of industrial pre-eminenece and were found primarily in those countries that benefited from them. Oil on the other hand is mainly within the confines of nations that have NEVER for practical purposes fully entered the Industrial Revolution. They benefit from the money it brings, what it can buy, and this unfortunately means the Jihad as well. Rewarding the family of a martyr with $25,000 shows some progress in the capitalist direction, wouldn't you say S/W?

The Founding Fathers strove to model the newly emerging nation on their understanding and as an adaptation of the early Roman Republic. They added references to God as a moral principle and because of their own ethnic origins it was primarily an Anglo-Saxon Protestant God. On the other hand, the separation of Church and State safeguarded the new Republic from the potential tyrannies of an official state religion. There wished there to be no Cromwells, roundhats, or Pilgrim governments to screw up the issue of liberty. Keep in mind the overall make-up of relatively nutty and dangerous groups such as those of Waco, Guyana, earlier the KKK, or presently the Aryan Brotherhood. Their membership is not even primarily Teutonic. Do I have to spell out to S/W what mainly characterizes their adherents?

The growing popularity of the term Islamo-Fascism is not in itself harmful, and though validated primariy by simplistic name-calling associated with WWII, as long as it awakens the sleeping potential victims to the danger of Islamic imperialism, it can be seen as a good thing. S/W takes credit for it and I am not the one to rain on his parade, no matter how self-serving. But please, try to be just a bit more responsible when spouting "facts" in supporting your case Herr Savage.

It was a nice crescendo as he enumerated Portugal, Spain, Croatia, and various other countries that could be identified as Fascist in some way prior or during WWII, but Belgium was NOT one of them.

It was a nice tirade when he enumerated all the Third World countries that contributed waves of recent immigrants eager to come over and benefit from "Anglo-Saxon Protestant" values while hating them and trying to destroy them, but Argentina is NOT one of them. I doubt that he knows very many Argentinans residing in this country legally, or illegally. The only Argentinan of any consequence I have heard of who may have taken an Anti-American stance is Che Guevara and a lot of people still mistakenly think he was Cuban.

The entire Anglo-Saxon admiration thing smacks so much of blatant pandering. Why the Anglo-Saxon tradition is not even recognized to be as prominent in the motherland by United Kingdom historians as S/W would have us believe it is in the United States. Except for some crude body-painting and later weird language spellings, the Romans, Danes and Normans had a greater influence on the English culture then the Savage favorites.

Until 1971, 1900 years after Roman conquest, the British still used the symbol "d" for denarius in referring to their penny. To this day their major unit, the pound is symbolized by an "L" for libra. Richard the Lion Hearted spoke almost exclusively French and spent very little time in England. George III from whom the American colonists won their independence I believe spoke only German. The whole Arthurian legend as we came to know it is a French courtesan creation. What Anglo-Saxon culture is S/W talking about? The English language is related as it is named to the "Angles" but its vocabulary, especially when it comes to abstract, legal, philosophical or for that matter any aspects of "modern civilization" hardly ever is. (Only five words or so in the entire preceding sentence may be called Anglo-Saxon in origin.)

Unfortunately, some of us listeners are not as ignorant as S/W would like us to be and we cannot fully ignore his many errors. I previously stated that it was to be hoped that those listeners who accepted his diatribes hook, line and sinker WOULD NEVER TAKE POWER IN AMERICA. Here's why.

Mr. S/W speaks of Fascist precedents, so I will speak of another kind. There was one other individual who created some confusion with his name. There was one other cultural champion who set forth standards as ideals he himself hardly met. There was one other orator who relied on impetuous agreeement to overcome closer inspection of his premises and their validity. It was the true savage that ultimately gave Fascism its present bad name and whose blind followers would give today's Jihadists a run for the money. His name was Hitler and his followers were called Nazis. MAY THEY NEVER TAKE POWER IN AMERICA.

Like the literary Dr. Frankenstein I suspect that Mr. Savage/ Weiner would also end up being destroyed by his own creation. Liberal or conservatives is not what the choice is about and the choice between Islamic Nazism and Anglo-Saxon Nazism may be no choice at all.