On May 19, 10:37=A0am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On 2008-05-19 02:06 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> > On May 19, 8:43 am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-18 21:09 +0100, Tom Checksmix allegedly wrote:
> >>> From the apst archives - who and what the comrades are:
> >>> [snip VERY long post]
> >> Well, you surely had that ready.
>
> >> It certainly was jolly interesting and for parts of it a good laugh.
> >> Some of the stuff I assume was quoted from SRD actually made rather
goo=
d
> >> sense to me. But nevermind.
>
> >> So SRD spoke of "butt****ers". So ****ing what. I too used the term
> >> "faggots", essentially because I despise political correctness and
> >> consider that a greater threat than hypothetical anti-homo***ual
> >> witch-hunts. Certainly wouldn't have *****sed the situation thusly
fift=
y
> >> years ago.
>
> > Got it in one again DF. To his eternal credit, Diamond has been the
> > guardian against PC on apst for a long time now - he knows that if
> > that pox so beloved of the "Far Left" gets hold here (anywhere)and
> > sets the bounds for discussion - enquiry is gone and the MOST
> > ****INGLY BORING backslapping sets in. The price - no new knowledge -
> > just falsification about a very complex world that becomes nastier and
> > nastier each day.
>
> >> But anyway. So, SRD doesn't like "butt****ers". Again: so what. He
may
> >> have good or bad reasons for that attitude, possibly traumatic
> >> experiences or whatever. And while this may influence the healthiness
o=
f
> >> personal relation****ps any of us might have with him, the point is
that=
> >> the purpose of APST isn't to make friends. It's not a place to hold
> >> hands and sing songs around the camp-fire. His personal views, while
> >> there's no reason to ban them from utterance, don't amount to
political=
> >> arguments. If someone can't tell the difference between the two, then
h=
e
> >> should rather blame himself than SRD.
>
> > Don't like community singing eh? Too much post Hitler youth groups?
>
> Eeh? Do they hold hands? :D
>
> But seriously, do you imply I took part in neo-nazi youth groups? That's
> unwarranted, not very kind, and untrue.
> I did however get to know
> modern-flower-power-spineless-wannabe-hippie-bourgeois-whiners back when
> I was young. What shall I say... they're not really bad of heart, but I
> kind of didn't get along with them.
No way - meant as and meant to be taken as a kind of joke. Having
remembered that you said you were educated in Germany, I thought that
they were the German version of the wretched Boy Scouts - from which I
was expelled (fair dinkum) more than half a century ago - something to
do with not liking community singing.
> >> Since I started the current dispute, I feel I ought to try my best to
> >> rectify the course it seems to have taken. I do disagree with SRD's
tak=
e
> >> on homo***uals, and I have exposed my position elsewhere in this
thread=
..
> >> But that wasn't what I objected to in my comment above.
> >> What I objected to was his take that homo***uals represented a
_threat_=
> >> to socialism itself, something it ought to be "protected from" (even
> >> that phrasing "protect from" felt rather awkward). My first reaction
> >> was that that's preposterous. Having read some of what "Tom
Checksmix"
> >> posted (I must admit I lost interest around half of it),
You read THAT much?
> >> I still think
> >> it's preposterous, but I suppose I understand better what he meant --
> >> viz. that homo***ual "interest groups" used the socialist movement
for
> >> their own agenda, or something like that.
Have you read the correspondence (saved for publication) but deleted
from the Moscow Foreign Languages Select Correspondence. It is
available on MIA.
> >> I still think it's preposterous, because even if his allegations were
> >> true, it still would be wrong to focus this on homo***uals. ***uality
> >> ought to be free and unrestricted, whether it be for men, women,
> >> homo***uals, hetero***uals or, most crucial of all, children. But
> >> there's no justification to distinguish further than that. Once it is
> >> free, it has to be private, meaning that people can live their
***ualit=
y
> >> however they want. There is no reason to promote the ***ual rights of
> >> homo***uals separately from those of women, for instance. Freedom for
> >> all, indiscriminately, period.
> >> If any group presses for action that goes against that basic goal,
then=
,
> >> surely, it must be opposed. But it is nonsense (and admittedly sounds
> >> very much like pure bigotry) to aim to "cleanse" socialism from
> >> homo***uality, just because the actions of some homo***uals or
> >> homo***ual "interest groups" were detrimental to the socialist cause.
> >> This would imply that all homo***uals, to the very last of them, were
> >> incapable of any other behaviour.
>
> > I'll leave the science of homo***uality to the experts. One thing I do
> > know is that some leftist groups seriously overemphasise the
> > im****tance of homo***ual "rights", linking it up to each and every
> > question. That's disgusting - unwarranted, narcissistic (?) and
> > definitely a cultural barrier to communicating with working class
> > people - and I would suggest DESIGNED as such - and associated with a
> > real petty bourgeois hatred of the "racist", "homophobic" (****, what
> > a word) working class.
>
> Yeah, probably along the same lines as the political correctness you
> addressed earlier. What a fearsome weapon for the rulers! Rule is all
> about divide et impera, down to the individuals. Quelling unrest is all
> about prohibiting horizontal communication among the oppressed. What a
> great weapon for that purpose if you can restrain discussion to some
> sandboxed areas... you don't haven have to prohibit the discussion
> /itself/. Terrifying.
>
> > But what an individual does in bed with a consenting adult human being
> > is his own business - if a socialist he belongs, if he so choses, in a
> > socialist organisation.
>
> Exactly. Yet it seems that according to SRD, homo***uality invalidates
tha=
t.
> DF.
No - somewhere in that mad mans nightmare (how's that for PC?) posted
by Tom Checksmix srd has a position a bit like mine on that, I
think.If not...well he's not alone. Gerry Healy would not allow
homo***uals into positions where their homo***uality could compromise
the movement. In the meantime he was ****ing every young comrade,
comrades wives... he could get his hands on. And that was the least of
his sins. My reading of Diamond in that department is that he has
pretty conservative views on personal ***ual behaviour. OK again.
In areas of "high security" it is pretty standard for the capitalist
state to demand, on punishment of dismissal, that homo***uals declare
their homo***uality - so as to avoid opening people up to blackmail
and compromising "secrets". Gerry Healy's rationale mirrored that
thinking.
|
