On 2008-05-19 03:08 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> On May 19, 10:37 am, 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]
>
>> 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
Fair 'nuff. Never settled in one place for very long when I was a kid,
so no youth organisations.
> - from which I was expelled (fair dinkum) more than half a century
> ago - something to do with not liking community singing.
Come on, admit it, you just can't sing. ;)
>>>> 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 take 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?
*cough* yeah.
Was pretty much fun, actually. I like it when people are having
"uncivilised" discussions. They tend to be more honest then.
>>>> 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.
Worth my time? If yes: how so? and: pray post a link.
>>> 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 that. 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.
Well, yes, I gathered he despises faggots. But that's not the point.
Look at what he said in this thread. He said homo***uality itself was a
threat to the socialist cause. That's much wider an issue than his
personal views on ***ual behaviour (which I accept as the personal views
he is entitled to). He hasn't addressed any of the objections I made.
Instead he goes on about this "conspiratorializers" == faggots stuff,
underpinned with some quack psychology.
If, as he said, homo***uality itself is a threat to the very socialist
cause, then doesn't it follow that a homo***ual socialist does NOT
belong in a socialist organisation?
> 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.
That attitude of Healy's seems disgusting and spineless to me, and
utterly objectionable. To put it with Lenin:
> Lenin was in a different position. He had just arrived from his
> refuge, after spending three and a half months cut off from real,
> practical direction. One thing coincided with the other, and this
> only added to my desire to retire behind the scenes for a while.
> Lenin would not hear of it, however. He insisted that I take over the
> commissariat of the interior, saying that the most im****tant task at
> the moment was to fight off a counter-revolution. I objected, and
> brought up, among other arguments, the question of nationality. Was
> it worth while to put into our enemies’ hands such an additional
> weapon as my Jewish origin?
>
> *Lenin almost lost his temper*. “We are having a great international
> revolution. Of what im****tance are such trifles ?” A good-humored
> bickering began. “No doubt the revolution is great,” I answered, “but
> there are still a good many fools left.” “*But surely we don’t keep
> step with the fools* ?”
-- Trotsky, "My life", 1930, p. 267 (courtesy of MIA)
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
