Peter B., yes, that’s a good overview of the old Roman fasces. The issue, however, was a definition of “fascist,” in the political sense that came into existence only in the twentieth century. If the criterion is use of the fasces as a symbol, as far as I know only the Italian followers of Il Duce, did that, so only they would be fascists. But of course the word is used and abused much more widely than that. My point was that the academic specialists in the relevant parts of polisci have not been able to provide a generally accepted definition; so when Vlad P. and his minions say that if Latvians want citizens of their country to speak Latvians, or if Estonians move a statue, it means that fascism is reviving in those countries, we may know it is nonsense, but we don’t have a standard definition of fascism on the basis of which we could refute him. I am no fan of KU, but, liking clear criteria, I avoid calling him a fascist because it will be misunderstood by the uniformed and misused by the malicious.

And I must say that those of us who condemn his seizure of power, cult of personality, and bungling of the crisis of 1939-1940 need also to allow that he played an important role as a founding father of the country and democratic leader before the coup, and that he died as something of a martyr, so the picture is not as black or white as his either admirers and at least some of his detractors believe. Roberts is too determined to air the evils of the dictatorship to acknowledge that *some* of the reasons why he still has so many admirers are valid.

The new history of Latvia claims that “The May 15th régime was the most authoritarian in the Baltics and possibly in all of Eastern Europe.” Really? Compared with Antonescu? Compared with Pavelić? The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. I’m pleased to see the whitewash coming off, but let’s not get carried away.

Bruno, Peteris was *not* inconsistent in maintaining that he was an alarmist and that he concealed Soviet crimes; he was an alarmist in exaggerating the danger in 1934--no one else was about to seize power and abrogate the constitution--and he did indeed censor news of Stalin’s crimes, including the murder of thousands of Latvians resident in the USSR. One can discuss how consistent KU’s actions were, but there is no inconsistency in describing them accurately.

And, Peter B., I still want much more specificity and detail about the political prisoners under KU. (I have met several of them myself many years ago, but never got to discuss the issue with them, and they are now deceased.) My impression is just what you say--several hundred, mostly for short periods. But I also know that some were imprisoned for three years, and I would like to have facts and figures, not generalities.

Stephen

Sveiki Stephen!

Would you be so kind as to explain to me (very briefly), why in your view, Ulmanis “responded incompetently to the Soviet takeover?” I’m sure there are many treatises about this, right here on LOL, but alas, I just don’t have the time to delve into all this material at the moment.  I tend to lean toward what Peteris Vecrumba wrote, “Latvians staying in their place saved the Latvian for another day.” I’m not trying to be argumentative, in fact, I ask, because I value your opinion.

Nevertheless, I confess, I have a difficult time believing that Ulmanis was such a blackheart, as some have painted him to be, that he was BAD for Latvia.  My mother and her family, who are from Latgale and would be considered a “minority” lived very well under Ulmanis; my grandfather was a “dzelzcelnieks”, their house, education of the children were provided for by the government and he was even a social democrat,something which my grandmother chided him about.  His brothers were alloted land to work their farms along with much needed equipment. 

My father, on the other hand, was from Vidzeme, coincidentally, his father a “dzelzcelnieks” and like so many other trimdenieki I knew had the highest regard for Ulmanis; I wish he, my dad, were still around and I could discuss these things with him.  He was pretty tough to beat in any kind of debate.  Like my grandma always said about him, “Peteritim, gaisa galva”.  Guess, that’s not much to go on, not much substance to present any kind of argument--that my daddy was a nice guy and he told me so...........

I find this whole aspect about Ulmanis, how all these Latvians revered him very interesting and one of these days I’d like to spend more time reading up on the subject.  When I mentioned that he had been a dictator to my husband in passing, he was absolutely shocked!!  Funny, that I don’t quite see it that way...guess, I must be tainted or something.

Irena

About…

It is also undeniable that Ulmanis failed. Latvia was crushed and ceased to exist for 50 years.

When all the rest of Europe and the Baltics had also descended into nationalist authoritarianism (widely seen as acknowledging the failure of democratic institutions), when the Soviets already had nearly twice as many soldiers in Latvia as the size of the Latvian army--and that was before the invasion--I really think you are barking up the completely wrong tree here.

Had Ulmanis suggested Latvians all fight to the death it’s quite likely most of us having this discussion here wouldn’t be alive. Consider that.

P.S. I’m sorry, but considering Stalin printed up Baltic S.S.R. maps in 1939, considering that the Soviet Union had already forced the hand of France and Britain (Stalin suggested they establish Baltic bases to protect against Hitler) into demonstrating they would not send their armies and navies into the Baltics, the suggestion that Ulmanis through some divine personal competence could have kept Latvia from being invaded cannot be taken seriously.

Irena - 17 May 2007 06:21 PM

Sveiki Stephen!

Would you be so kind as to explain to me (very briefly), why in your view, Ulmanis “responded incompetently to the Soviet takeover?” I’m sure there are many treatises about this, right here on LOL, but alas, I just don’t have the time to delve into all this material at the moment.  I tend to lean toward what Peteris Vecrumba wrote, “Latvians staying in their place saved the Latvian for another day.” I’m not trying to be argumentative, in fact, I ask, because I value your opinion.

**Briefly, it was discussed even right here in this thread, if you read the messages! But let me just say here that the “incompetence” I referred to is *not* that he did not order the army to fight the USSR. It is rather that he took no steps to leave a formal record that what was happening was not a voluntary incorporation but an occupation. Had he done so much as formally to protest the Soviet takeover, it would be a bit harder for those lovely people in the Kremlin to continue to claim that Latvia joined the USSR voluntarily, that the Soviet government was legitimate, and all that sort of excrement.

Nevertheless, I confess, I have a difficult time believing that Ulmanis was such a blackheart, as some have painted him to be, that he was BAD for Latvia.  My mother and her family, who are from Latgale and would be considered a “minority” lived very well under Ulmanis; my grandfather was a “dzelzcelnieks”, their house, education of the children were provided for by the government and he was even a social democrat, something which my grandmother chided him about.  His brothers were alloted land to work their farms along with much needed equipment. 

**Yes, many people remember the six years as good years. Latvia was comparatively prosperous at a time when the world was trying to recover from the great depression. As Pēteris pointed out, the recovery cannot be attributed to the May coup, because it had already begun; but it did continue fairly well. The essential issue is whether there was any need to abrogate the constitution. The concentration camp, if that is the proper name for it, was no Buchenwald or Magadan, which is what most people think of when they hear the word. The forced labor program I have so far been entirely unable even to verify, let alone find any description of it, but certainly there was nothing of the sort described at http://vip.latnet.lv/lpra/vidnere.htm. But was there any need for anything of this sort, however mild? Was there any need to imprison Bruno Kalniņš for three years?

My father, on the other hand, was from Vidzeme, coincidentally, his father a “dzelzcelnieks” and like so many other trimdenieki I knew had the highest regard for Ulmanis; I wish he, my dad, were still around and I could discuss these things with him.  He was pretty tough to beat in any kind of debate.  Like my grandma always said about him, “Peteritim, gaisa galva”.  Guess, that’s not much to go on, not much substance to present any kind of argument--that my daddy was a nice guy and he told me so...........

**But he must have had reasons for his position, and it is proper that you respect him and his views. It’s only a pity that you cannot now ask him about it.

I find this whole aspect about Ulmanis, how all these Latvians revered him very interesting and one of these days I’d like to spend more time reading up on the subject.  When I mentioned that he had been a dictator to my husband in passing, he was absolutely shocked!!  Funny, that I don’t quite see it that way...guess, I must be tainted or something.

**But, by golly, he *was* a dictator, and that is the problem. It’s all very well to say that as dictators go, he was pretty mild--but the point is not to have a dictator. And KU did have a rather ridiculous personality cult. One aspect of Russian culture that is not a good thing to emulate is enthusiasm for the vozhd. And if, after the coup and the new policies, he had moved toward a restoration of constitutional rights and a elected legislature, it would be easier to justify his role, but he did no such thing. Not everyone has such good memories; the Livonians did not flourish under his rule, for example. (I wish Americans were more aware of the police state introduced by Woodrow Wilson during WWI. I regard this as a period of kauns un negods in American history.)

**It’s hard to give a truly balanced account, but important to do so; on the one hand, trimdies, especially, have whitewashed the six years; on the other, as I see with my misled Russian friends, Moscow is putting out horror stories about the “fascist dictator” that the unwary will read and come away thinking that there were six years of Gestapo-style jack-boot horror (that’s why I found the initial communication by Roberts not entirely satisfactory). As a dictator, KU was pretty mild stuff--but how much better if he had not chosen to be a dictator, or even if he had gradually moved back toward the prescriptions of the constitution!

Stephen

vecrumba - 17 May 2007 07:19 PM

P.S. I’m sorry, but considering Stalin printed up Baltic S.S.R. maps in 1939, considering that the Soviet Union had already forced the hand of France and Britain (Stalin suggested they establish Baltic bases to protect against Hitler) into demonstrating they would not send their armies and navies into the Baltics, the suggestion that Ulmanis through some divine personal competence could have kept Latvia from being invaded cannot be taken seriously.

I suggest you reread what I wrote. I’ll highlight a part just in case:
“Whether or not a “democratic” government would have made a difference is again debatable. “
Nowhere did I write that I blame Ulmanis for the fall of Latvia. Merely pointing out that if you believe Ulmanis deserves divine stature then I think that he better be able to accomplish divine deeds.

Andrejs

Actually, about that whole “Had he done so much as formally to protest the Soviet takeover, it would be a bit harder for those lovely people in the Kremlin to continue to claim that Latvia joined the USSR voluntarily, that the Soviet government was legitimate, and all that sort of excrement.”

Ulmanis did protest… I remember seeing a copy somewhere of a letter dispatched to Stalin (in Russian). And do you think it would make one iota of difference in Soviet/Russian claims? According to the Soviets/Russians, he was a bloodletting fascist bourgeousie pig overthrown by the will of the people.

Despite Russian generals insisting you can’t occupy what belongs to you (!), and the Duma passing resolutions reminding Latvia it joined the USSR legally according to international law, there’s nothing behind it. For example, I’ve been slogging it out on Wikipedia with all the occupation deniers and there is no one yet who has produced anything substantive that cannot be readily refuted.

The bigger problem is the portrayal of the Ulmanis regime as fascist. If you check the history of Jews in Latvia in Wikipedia, based on an encyclopedia of Judaica, it says it right there, fascist (by clear implication = Nazi) Latvian government.

I have no issue with Ulmanis’ regime being authoritarian. In the context of the times, that’s not even a value judgement. But “dictator”? That would imply absolute sole authority which was not the case. “Fascist?” Hardly.

I would respectfully suggest we stop shooting ourselves in our vital organs and worry a bit more about combating Russian rhetoric. Or perhaps I’m the only one who worries about Russia painting the Baltics as fascist Nazi havens--three nations of peoples all complicit in the Holocaust? (And denounced as such by a sign in the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.) I am not an alarmist by nature, but arguing over Ulmanis is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns--and it’s getting consumed faster by the moment.

vecrumba - 17 May 2007 09:16 PM

Actually, about that whole “Had he done so much as formally to protest the Soviet takeover, it would be a bit harder for those lovely people in the Kremlin to continue to claim that Latvia joined the USSR voluntarily, that the Soviet government was legitimate, and all that sort of excrement.”

Ulmanis did protest… I remember seeing a copy somewhere of a letter dispatched to Stalin (in Russian). And do you think it would make one iota of difference in Soviet/Russian claims? According to the Soviets/Russians, he was a bloodletting fascist bourgeousie pig overthrown by the will of the people.

**Pēteris C. has already provided the necessary citations, but I will repeat them here:

**"Stranga says that Ulmanis’ ‘decision not to offer even diplomatic protest was without doubt wrong and deserves severe criticism.’ “

**And: “Mūsu zemē kopš šī rīta ienāk padomju kaŗaspēks. Tas notiek ar valdības ziņu un piekrišanu, kas savukārt izriet no pastāvošām draudzīgām attiecībām starp Latviju un Padomju Savienību. Es tādēļ vēlos, ka arī mūsu zemes iedzīvotāji ienākošās kaŗaspēka daļas uzlūko ar draudzību…
http://www.historia.lv/alfabets/L/la/okupac/prese/1940.06.17.ulmanis.htm “

**This was the public statement. Is that how Vanya should have been received? One does not have to subscribe to an illusion that KU could have beaten the Soviets back militarily, or that he could have sweet-talked Stalin into changing his mind, to find this proclamation an embarrassment.

Despite Russian generals insisting you can’t occupy what belongs to you (!), and the Duma passing resolutions reminding Latvia it joined the USSR legally according to international law, there’s nothing behind it. For example, I’ve been slogging it out on Wikipedia with all the occupation deniers and there is no one yet who has produced anything substantive that cannot be readily refuted.

**Of course it’s all a load of horseshit. You know it, I know it, everyone on this list knows it. It’s horseshit even if the Vadonis issued a proclamation that gives every appearance of inviting people to believe it. But was issuing such a proclamation the best thing to do?

The bigger problem is the portrayal of the Ulmanis regime as fascist. If you check the history of Jews in Latvia in Wikipedia, based on an encyclopedia of Judaica, it says it right there, fascist (by clear implication = Nazi) Latvian government.

**I have already expressed my disagreement with the “fascist” tag. I think it’s undeniable that KU in part imitated Mussolini. But there is no accepted criterion for how much imitation is necessary before one gets his fascist credentials, and, hell, he imitated Franklin Delano Roosevelt too. I don’t think it gets us any forwarder to apply the fascist label.

I have no issue with Ulmanis’ regime being authoritarian. In the context of the times, that’s not even a value judgement. But “dictator”? That would imply absolute sole authority which was not the case. “Fascist?” Hardly.

**My dictionary (which, like me, originated during the six years of KU’s rule) defines “dictator” as “One who dictates; specif., one who exercises, or in whom is vested, supreme authority in a state, usually in an emergency.” I am inclined to think that a person who can override the constitution, arbitrarily keep a leader of an opposing political party behind bars for three years, &c;., qualifies as a dictator. Did not the Vadonis exercise supreme authority? If you don’t think so, how much *more* authority do you think he would have needed to become a real dictator?

I would respectfully suggest we stop shooting ourselves in our vital organs and worry a bit more about combating Russian rhetoric. Or perhaps I’m the only one who worries about Russia painting the Baltics as fascist Nazi havens--three nations of peoples all complicit in the Holocaust? (And denounced as such by a sign in the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.) I am not an alarmist by nature, but arguing over Ulmanis is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns--and it’s getting consumed faster by the moment.

**If you look at my previous posts in this thread, you will see I essentially agree with you. KU is no threat to Latvian democracy now, and Vlad the Vozhd is.  I don’t regard KU with the loathing expressed by Roberts, but I don’t think it gets us anywhere or helps to refute the krievi to continue the totally uncritical attitude that prevailed in the trimda. I have been engaged in exposing the current Russian propaganda locally for a couple of years now. Like you, I think “authoritarian” is the least unsatisfactory adjective to describe the Ulmanis regime. It was not totalitarian, and I think “fascist” is misleading, although undeniably there were some fascist trappings. I think it is utterly bizarre for Russians to make much of the undemocratic rule of KU, when one considers who was in power in the USSR at that time. But I can’t see how exposing the hokey claims of subsersive plots to seize power, put forth by Ulmanis and Balodis as the justificatio for their seizing power, is objectionable.
**It is parallel to the work now proceeding in establishing the history of the Holocaust in Latvia. The false picture originating in the mind of Hitler himself and perpetuated by the Soviets and their successors will be overcome by just the sort of work that is being done now--including a thorough airing of the collaboration of some Latvians with the Nazis in the genocide. *Only* by doing this will it be possible to overcome the self-serving propaganda that has been circulated for decades by the two totalitarianisms. *Only* by being forthright and clear about the wrongs of the Ulmanis era will we be able to establish definitively the utter injustice of the three occupations.

Stephen

well, I did write that I would stay ringside - and I know that I’m going to regret sticking my neck out, not for the first or the last time....

Certainly in my 54 years of observing Latvians, they do seem to have a strong penchant for autocratic rulers, but whether that arose from Ulmanis’ time, I don’t know. For sure, I heard many trimdie Latvians (especially those from rural backgrounds) speak highly of those golden(?) years.

I would tend to think that most Latvians (and most people) like stability.

But, as stability can be a tricky beast to manage in true democracies, there lies the rub, or one of the rubs, so to speak. Somehow, one needs to walk that fine line, between having 25 year plans managed along totalitarian lines by a ruthless dictator and the complete opposite of governments changing hands too often, so that it is then difficult to make firm plans about almost anything.

I guess I’m biased, but I tend to think that we have some pretty good, stable, democratic governmental models in Australia and Victoria, but the Premiers and Prime Ministers who verged towards the autocratic/dictatorial/fascist here were certainly well supported, nay, even applauded and encouraged by many Latvians.

I guess that might go some way towards explaining my black sheep status in the Latvian community, because I abhor anti Democratic ways.

Quite interesting, though, that one of the key anti Ulmanis posters on this thread was (is?) a keen apologist for Ronnie Ray-Gun, Tricky Dicky and Quackwatch, as well as anti F.D.R. and anti Democrat.

But then, life is often like that....just curiouser and curiouser. Although, to be fair, perhaps I am just confusing this chap with someone else who was on LOL years ago....similar name, very touchy about Randy Newman songs, if I recall. But at least a fan of Arlo Guthrie, so that’s a brownie point.

Or perhaps people just change and mature as the years go by, like good wines.

i.g.s.

Thank you, Peter-vecrumba.

I agree with most everything Stephen has written (and thanks for sparing me the need to explain what Bruno saw as an inconsistency!). Re “most authoritarian”—I believe this regards the structure alone, not crimes perpetrated. The mechanics, as Andrejs said. Re Antonescu—you mean King Carol; Antonescu didn’t “take the reins” until 1940. Again, the point is that Latvia didn’t even have a rubber-stamp legislature, and all political parties were banned (including, technically, his own).

Pēters: But “dictator”? Yes, dictator. His main biographer, Dunsdorfs, who is not an “Ulmanis-hater” by any stretch of the imagination, uses “dictator” in the subtitle of his monumental biography. There were no checks and balances on Ulmanis’ rule, which, as Stephen will know from the most recent history, can best be described technically in German, as Einmanherrschaft. How did he not have absolute sole authority, Pēter? Sorry, but to me this is like claiming that the Moustachioed One deferred to the Politburo.

“Jūs mani dēvējat par vadoni, tad es teikšu - kas ir vadonis. Vadonis ir persona, kas visu redz, zina, dara un rīkojas pēc savas sirdsapziņas. Jābūt pateicīgiem ne tikai tiem, ko vadonis izceļ vai paaugstina, bet arī tiem, kas tiek degradēti, jo vadonis to vislabāk saprot, ka bez stingras disciplīnas un paklausības no vadoņa nevar gaidīt, nedz prasīt radošu, paliekošu rīcību.”—Ulmanis

Remember to be grateful next time you’re degraded!

Again, not that I would compare the Vadonis to the Moustachioed One—I don’t do that, and I try to be careful with the term “Fascism,” too. We all know it’s a loaded term, especially twisted because of its Soviet/Russian meaning (basically, Balt = Fascist, in usage). The thing is, though, that many a word we’re compelled to use is similarly loaded—“nationalist,” for instance, is not exactly a term of endearment to most.

As for any word, then, context matters. In the article at Wikipedia that Stephen mentions, it’s out of place (but, then, that article skips over a few things the size of planets...). King Carol’s National Renaissance Front gave rise to the concept of “operetta fascism” --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Renaissance_Front

Ulmanis was not so silly—but he was silly, and it still shocks me that so many people who seem to have some familiarity with our history can’t see that. I mean, some folks I know who detest politics and history because of how the subjects were taught under the Soviets, reading from specimens of Ulmanis’ personality cult lit, literally roll on the floor laughing. Even the fine poet Virza makes a total ass of himself in his hagiography—May 15th is described, in detail, as a sunrise.

Re his earlier career—no, Bruno, I don’t deny that Ulmanis and Latvia were inseparable 1918-1940, and I’m sorry that I minimized his singular and massive contribution to the Republic (again, context—forgive me, but the regurgitation of what is essentially Ulmanist prop pisses me off). Even his earlier career has its detractors, though, and sometimes they make sense. One of my favorite political works is Cielēns’ three-volume memoirs. One of the best deals on the ‘Net, by the way, and I urge everyone to download them --

http://eraksti.delfi.lv/index.php?autors=Cielçns+Fçlikss

But here we get into the murk of what a nation is and what a nation needs. What is a “benevolent dictator”? Was the operetta really necessary? What’s the balance of accounts? These things are as much about philosophy as they are of history, vai nē? If someone destroys the democracy he helped to create (and in my opinion it is helped, not created), should we not question his devotion to democracy in the first place (or, rather, the quality of his devotion)?

More murk—why did democracy fail, if it failed? Again the Peniķis—what does it mean “to be ready for democracy”? Some of the vēsmas in this very forum tell me that some people don’t see much value in the very concept of democracy, at root.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Paldies Stephen, for the clarification, for your input!  At first I did think that perhaps you were referring to the “illusion” that KU could have beaten the Soviets back militarily.” It’s been a lively debate and I’ve enjoyed reading all the contributors’ posts.

Ivar S~ As for Latvians having a “strong penchant for autocratic rulers”, no doubt our long legacy of being lorded over througout history has left its mark.  I am of the opinion, however (and I hope this isn’t taken out of context, with people seeeeething.....), that most of us are looking for leaders, even in a democracy, someone to look up to and guide us in the right direction, whether we admit to or are consciously aware of this or not.

I too, just couldn’t sit back on the sidelines any longer, probably against my better judgement, since I seem to be one of the few females left here on LOL, an ol’ gal, at that!  These heated debates that Latvians have, so often remind of what my mother once told me about her father and his brothers when they would get together on rare occasions, since travel in Latvia in those days was more difficult, family get to gethers less infrequent.  How they would sit in one room hour upon hour, for days arguing about politics, pounding on the table, shouting, ( each brother belonged to a different party, was of a different political persusasion), the decibel level reaching such volumes that my poor grandmother would start to become really upset.  Then, when it came time for all of them to leave, they would all embrace one another and cry.

I guess I don’t QUITE expect that here on LOL, but it’s good to see people not harboring grudges.  I had thought, hoped that you and Roberts made peace with one another a while back.

Visu labu,

Irena

Pēteri, yes, I see the point about “most authoritarian” in structure. Perhaps, though, this only means that KU was more of a WYSIWYG dictator--less pseudo-democratic window dressing. I find it a fine line to walk--KU’s coup was not justified, and his persistence in rejecting any return to constitutional norms make Latvia a target for criticism from malicious sources, quite needlessly. At the same time, when I find on several web sites a time line including “15 May 1934--Karlis Ulmanis proclaims himself the fascist dictator of Latvia,” I feel a need to rise to the defence of the Vadonis. The average Anglo will read this entry and form a mental picture of KU marching into the saeima with some sort of praetorian guard and announcing in a stentorian voice: “I am the Fascist Dictator of Latvia. Salute me with a raised arm or or it’s the salt mines for you!"--and then the delegates tremble and salute with a “Heil Ulmanis!” while any dissenter are taken out and shot. What nonsense!

Irena, I learned the technique from Slavs in Pennsylvania. I have to cool it a bit here in Oregon. Years ago, I got into an argument in a tavern out here with a Croat from Pittsburgh who was working as a bouncer--one BIG guy. We were debating the ethnic geography of Yugoslavia (not yet Former Yugoslavia). So he was saying in a loud voice, “You’re full of sh*t!” and I was calling him, in an equally loud voice, a damn dumb Hunkie, and we were both enjoying ourselves and buying each other beer. The next time I went into that tavern, the Oregonian barmaid asked if wasn’t afraid to get into a fight with someone as big as that.

I don’t have to agree with Roberts on all he says to appreciate his posts. Same with Juris Ž and his remarkably well informed posts. I’m a great admirer of Pēteris C’s and Vecrumba’s blogs; I can’t agree with both all the time (it would be impossible: they don’t agree with one another all the time). And that’s a good thing. Alasdair McIntyre correctly states that a living tradition necessarily includes debates about the tradition itself. (We even have an Orthodox joke to the same effect.) It seems to me that in most respects this forum has improved over the years. (Remember the days of Natalia?) I do wish we had a few more women participating, but I admire the contributions of those who do. Having a debate about this sort of topic without hard feelings is good for all.

Stephen

Liels paldies, Stephen. My father was into hard talk, too, and like me he sometimes lost his temper—but I completely agree that vociferous debate is valuable, even if it gets heated.

Would you like a nice poison bonbon of unbelievably vile propaganda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFhrKHnLKWY

The maker of this had the gall to ask me for an interview this afternoon, to be included in the full version of his “documentary.” I declined, since I’m sure that whatever I said would be abused.

Vysu lobu,
/P

WHOOOAH!!!!  How perverse!

I need to take a shower....

Pierre