The answer would seem to be "Yes". Personally, a small part of me thought maybe she's was engaging in some kind of broad long-term performance art, but
this interview with her for the Independent made me come to terms with the fact that she may just be, well, nuts.
It's actually very interesting to watch the way she twists things the reporter says around- it's straight out of the playbook.
So are there people who really, truly agree with what she says? That just boggles my mind.
Excerpts in the Extended section.
"[Liberals are] not only fascist where they live, they're expanding their fascism to the rest of America." Wouldn't this case be a constitutional issue (to do with the separation of church and state)? "That's what liberals say about everything, including sucking the brains out of little babies."
Before I can elaborate or finish my sentence, she's off again. "Oh no, you're right, a generalisation is so much worse than slaughtering 3,000 people." I'm not saying that, I say. "I can't go beyond that, an ethnic generalisation is worse than slaughter. That is the essence of liberalism, you really do believe that. You get a glass of wine in you and you spit it out. You heard it. Making an un-PC generalisation is worse than the attack of 9/11." I'm not saying that, I repeat. "Yes, you are, you just said it." Of course I don't think that, I start, before I'm cut off again. "Liar!"
The irony is that she claims to be above this kind of steamrolling. "The country is trapped in a political discourse that resembles professional wrestling," she has written. "Liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments." But her view of what constitutes an argument seems to be a distinctly one-sided affair. I try again: "Do you think I have any point at all about..." I begin, but she interrupts again. "No!" She doesn't even know what my point was.
