Re: How low can you sink? [WAS: Re: HAARP: High Frequency Active

On May 18, 5:25=A0pm, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:38=A0am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > How can Holmes's stance be categorized as anything but the most
> > loathsomesly cringing suck up to bourgeois respectability and
> > intellectual cowardice?
>
> > srd
>
> Befitting of one who inhabits the modern dumbed down pro-globalist
> imperialist "universities". They are the main makers and defenders of
> the ideas for modern imperialism.

It seems clear to me now what Holmes's prickliness is about. (But what
seems clear isn't always true.) I don't think he is the prissy, effete
verbal do-gooder that he appears to be. His impulse, for example, to
bow out without further discussion as soon as the homo***ual issue
arose again doesn't square well with the PC moralizer, who would make
a much more visible issue of his disapprobation. It looks to me like a
much more straightforward matter of professional self-preservation.
That's his business, except when he misrepresents his motives and
tries to rally others behind his cowardice.

Unless one is a tenured professor, life as an academic at a major
liberal institution like U.C Berkeley is apt to become very difficult
for one involved in "unseemly" discussion. Anything that fails to
sup****t the gay movement will be equated with "gay ba****ng." whether
from right or left. Holmes is afraid he will be labelled a nazi, not a
communist. Thus the reference to apst atrocities. Internet activity
has become the achilles heel of the rebellious intellectual wage slave
like Holmes. Holmes must guard against any appearance of impropriety
in such discussion, at the risk of his livelihood. Again, my only
principled objection is his deceipt concerning his real motives and
the sanctimoniousness that clothes it.

On a matter in another post, I am not particularly conservative in
social matters. I have *****sed many homo***uals in clinical practice
and have become an observer of their dynamics in everyday life. I
think they are invariably unreliable and treacherous. I haven't had
any bad personal experiences, nor did I form this opinion until after
years of observation without this preconception. (I thought
homo***uality was a disorder, it is true, but not a character
disorder. I had no prior belief concerning the deep corruption of the
homo***ual character. If my position is radically wrong, it is then no
doubt bigoted, because my generalizations are based on personal
observation and inference.

srd



'
p
>
> Holmes "knows" a lot but feels very little about socialism.