WV Did NOT Lie about the anti-Klan rally
Stephen Diamond
everyone from the Stalinist PLP to the state cap Cliffites to the
neo-fascist Kneisel:
> New Yorkers came out in their thousands on October 23 determined to make
> sure the KKK didn't ride in their city. They were mobilized by the call
> initiated by the Partisan Defense Committee, "All Out to Stop the KKK on
> October 23!" Hundreds of working people, students and others joined in
> distributing 175,000 of the PDC's mobilizing leaflet in workplaces, campuses
> and neighborhoods throughout the city.
The claim is that the SL took credit for the mobilizing efforts of its
opponents.
But, the article makes clear that 1) leftists of others shades mobilized
contingents--that is after all what the article is largely about; and 2)
the above quoted statement does NOT say the thousands were mobilized BY
the CALL of the PDC, but instead that they were mobilized by the call
INITIATED BY the PDC.
It seems clear that the PDC was the first to call for the demonstration.
Whether the PDC thereby initiated the call (or whether, on the other
hand, the other tendencies were just slower in responding, so that the
SL called for the demo BEFORE the others, but didn't initiate the demo,
because the other tendencies would have demonstrated regardless) is a
question both subtle and requiring the application of judgment, not the
recitation of facts.
Whether the SL was politically unfair to its opponents is one matter, a
matter I doubt we will resolve here, but it is a matter entirely
distinct from the charge that the SL misrepresented the FACTS. There is
nothing in the articles that suggests the SL was _directly_ responsible
for mobilizing most the demonstrators, and much that recognizes that
other tendencies brought contingents.
I have yet to see the SL caught in an outright lie.
Socialists should defend the SL against the slanders of the neo-fascist
Kneisel.
srd
Paul Kneisel
is invented, that Diamond simply attributes to opponents various views and
emotions without the slightest effort to document any of them.
This creation of reality is common to all cults. Indeed one can say that
cultism is impossible without such a delusional sense of grandiose
knowledge invisible to everybody else.
But we increasingly see how the Sparts and other cultists out of the
Trotskyist movement both attract the rightwing "fake leftists" and are
attracted to their own organizing.
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:05:12 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<steph...@mindspring.com>
Phillip Crenshaw
> Socialists should defend the SL against the slanders of the neo-fascist
> Kneisel.
>
> srd
Socialists should also defend the rights of immigrants as well as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people against the likes of the
neo-fascist Diamond.
-Phil Crenshaw
geoff collier
the particular lie that 8,000 were on the Spart rally. All I was saying that
shortly afterwards Spartacist supporters wrote about the issue as though
8,000 had attended their rally. Some sparts were still willing to defend
this claim this week. It's not a question of what one WV article says
geoff collier
"Stephen Diamond" <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:stephend15-353A7...@news.mindspring.com...
Paul Kneisel
dynamic going on with the cultists.
One might call it the "old switcheroo" whereby the cultists, when they get
into trouble, merely try to switch the issues that are ostensibly being
debated. Following some you can read that the dispute isn't really about
Spart defamations, it is about linguistic jokes. Elsewhere, the Sparts push
for a discussion of one article in their paper, get it, don't like it, and
then claim the whole discussion is about a different article. (With the
Scientologists the thing was called "double curving our replies" whereby
the journalist investigating the cult would be told that the cult welcomed
the investigation *of its critics.*)
This is the childishness we get from people who seriously believe they
should lead the world!
Stephen Diamond
Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct-nospam-or-fascism.net> wrote:
> It is interesting in Diamond's defense of fellow cultists that everything
> is invented, that Diamond simply attributes to opponents various views and
> emotions without the slightest effort to document any of them.
Note how Kneisel fails to document (i.e. do as much as point out) a
single instance in which I committed the mentioned sins. Printing a post
supposedly containing such mis-steps is not to prove the charge, which
requires pointing out instances with specificity. So, by the criteria
wield by the neofascist Kneisel, he is a cultist! And indeed he is,
although no one ELSE here is, besides Paris.
The mark of Kneisel's cultist mentality is the ease by which he
designates ALL of his (serious) opponents as cultists. The search for a
simple overarching principle is common to cults, and to the mentality
that spawns them.
Kneisel has a "theory" of the ICL's "cultism"; it is at least consistent
with this theory when he designates the ICL as "cultists." He has no
basis whatsoever for accusing me of cultism. Surely a precondition for
accusing someone of cultism is to name the cult. The neofascist
Kneisel's cult is the "internet anti-fascist" cult, which he apparently
created. What is my cult? The charge is absurd, and only proves
Kneisel's own cultic super-over-simplification of reality, something at
the core of cultic conduct.
srd
Stephen Diamond
Stephen Diamond <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The mark of Kneisel's cultist mentality is the ease by which he
> designates ALL of his (serious) opponents as cultists. The search for a
> simple overarching principle is common to cults, and to the mentality
> that spawns them.
Actually, the belief in a single-overarching principle is common to
cults. They _search_ for nothing.
srd
Stephen Diamond
"geoff collier" <ge...@northull.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> All I was saying that
> shortly afterwards Spartacist supporters wrote about the issue as though
> 8,000 had attended their rally.
Was this claim (or false implied assumption) made in WV?
srd
Stephen Diamond
kill...@yahoo.com (Phillip Crenshaw) wrote:
> Socialists should also defend the rights of immigrants as well as gay,
> lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people against the likes of the
> neo-fascist Diamond.
What horrors have I inflicted on you poor "gays," such that the
socialist movement must defend you from me?
srd
geoff collier
I'm sure it was made in their press but not necessarily in WV. It could have
been their British paper, Workers' Hammer, but I haven't got time to search.
Circumstantial evidence such as "I think the point at issue is that there
were 8,000 at the P.D.C.Spartacist rally which can not be disputed" suggests
that they must have said it somewhere.
geoff
Bert Byfield
> cults. They _search_ for nothing.
Actually, a “cult” is somebody else’s religion. In *Father Gregory*,
Rasputin walks by a Lutheran Church, thinking how tolerant his country is
to allow such an odd cult to practice there.
Bert Byfield
>> lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people against the likes of the
>> neo-fascist Diamond.
> What horrors have I inflicted on you poor "gays," such that the
> socialist movement must defend you from me?
You have failed to love them. You have failed to support their RIGHT to
marriage, have children, be loved by everyone, teach cub scouts about
*alternative lifestyles*, double all taxes to support a massive research
program into AIDS (etc), join the army and take showers with Rambo, so on
and so on. There is no limit. You have to loudly support all this stuff, or
the fags will keep screaming at you.
Phillip Crenshaw
> > Socialists should also defend the rights of immigrants as well as gay,
> > lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people against the likes of the
> > neo-fascist Diamond.
>
> What horrors have I inflicted on you poor "gays," such that the
> socialist movement must defend you from me?
>
> srd
I'll answer you after you explain what exactly you think you're
implying by putting the word "gays" in quotes.
-Phil Crenshaw
Paul Kneisel
spectrum be damned. The wild Spart claims have attracted interesting
supporters.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:28:01 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<steph...@mindspring.com>
Stephen Diamond
Bert Byfield <bbyf...@caravelabooks.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the belief in a single-overarching principle is common to
> > cults. They _search_ for nothing.
>
> Actually, a “cult” is somebody else’s religion.
Which is, by implication, the conclusion Freud came to in "The Future of
an Illusion."
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tolens. I don't recall who
said that.
But for you the equation exculpates cults (at least, _qua_ cults). For
me it implicates religion in general.
Just to make the distinction, so that the PC won't charge me with
blocking with you.
srd
Stephen Diamond
Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct-nospam-or-fascism.net> wrote:
But, could YOU not now stand accused of "republishing" _my_ material?
[To those who haven't read what is assumed above: the neofascist Kneisel
had attacked the Spart for having their material "republished" by
Byfield--"republication" being Kneisel's NewSpeak term for quoting
another post to respond, a term Kneisel will no doubt apply only when
convenient.]
srd
Bert Byfield
> implying by putting the word "gays" in quotes.
Fags are not really very happy and carefree. They are a grumpy lot. So
trashing the word "gay" to describe them is silly.
Guarnot
You've just described yourself.
Paul Kneisel
follows from anything to which he is ostensibly responding.
The magical thinking of the cults seems well illustrated. A post that does
not mention "republications" Diamond claims centers on an accusation of
"republishing." A post that does not mention Bert Byfield is supposedly
centered on Byfield. Then Diamond attributes these imaginary actions by
imaginary fascist opponents as an Orwellian action by the same imaginary
fascists.
It is still interesting to see how Trot cultists of a feather cling
together, no matter how much the two Trot cults blasted each other in the
past. The cultists around Robertson who attacked people like Diamond in the
cult around Healy remain mysteriously silent. The cult around Robertson who
earlier blasted the Healy cult for defaming opponents as cops and agents
remain silent when the the Healy cultist does the same thing today.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:12:55 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<steph...@mindspring.com>
Stephen Diamond
Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct-nospam-or-fascism.net> wrote:
> Even less-than-astute readers will note that nothing in Diamond's rants
> follows from anything to which he is ostensibly responding.
>
> The magical thinking of the cults seems well illustrated. A post that does
> not mention "republications" Diamond claims centers on an accusation of
> "republishing." A post that does not mention Bert Byfield is supposedly
> centered on Byfield.
I wasn't going to rummage through the old posts to prove what everyone
knows, that the neofascist Kneisel is a barefaced liar.
But in a posting by B. Ross Ashley the ridiculous comments of the
neofascist Kneisel are "republished."
____
Paul Kneisel wrote:
> title says it all. But the Sparts propensity to have fascists republish
> their defamations has not yet been fully examined.
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:50:30 GMT, Bert Byfield
> <bbyf...@caravelabooks.com>
> <Xns925AAB5176A4Cbb...@24.24.0.22> wrote:
-----
Even more instructive than his big lie technique is Kneisel's "debating"
style. Kneisel does not answer arguments. In place of counter-argument,
one finds grand pronouncements "analyzing" the opponent. This does not
serve to comprehend an argument AFTER IT HAS BEEN REBUTTED but to hide
the absence of an answer. One can see this cultist technique in Healyism
at its worst, when in place of an argument, one would be given a
Healyite "analysis" of why the argument exemplifies undialectical
thinking. It is probably in a similar sect that Kneisel learned his
techniques, which he, unlike the Healyites, puts to genuine cultist, not
mere sectarian, end.
Notice how Kneisel evades answering that he obviously uses the cultist
technique of guilt by association.
srd
Paul Kneisel
any of the points Diamond claims to be proving.
One could, e.g., claim that Diamond is a space alien and claim one proved
it by quoting from a cookbook.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:29:07 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<steph...@mindspring.com>
Bert Byfield
> You've just described yourself.
Is this some sort of swishy version of "I'm not but you are! Nah! Nah!" ?
A. G. Phillbin
<bbyf...@caravelabooks.com> wrote:
^>>Fags are not really very happy and carefree. They are a grumpy lot.
^
^> You've just described yourself.
^
^Is this some sort of swishy version of "I'm not but you are! Nah! Nah!" ?
Not at all. Guarnot wasn't calling you Faggy (the closeted eigth
dwarf), he was calling you Grumpy. Personally, I would have gone with
Dopey.
Stephen Diamond
Bert Byfield <bbyf...@caravelabooks.com> wrote:
The question is, how is an "oppressed group" supposed to be gay?
The fact is that more than three times as many "gays" are clinically
depressed than heterosexuals. Whether this is part of the "gay" syndrome
as such, as I think, or the result of prejudicial treatment, as the
"gays" tend to say, "gays" are NOT gay.
srd
Guarnot
>depressed than heterosexuals. Whether this is part of the "gay" syndrome
>as such, as I think, or the result of prejudicial treatment, as the
>"gays" tend to say, "gays" are NOT gay.
<Yawn> Oh, I'm sorry, were you saying something?
Stephen Diamond
gua...@aol.comspamno (Guarnot) wrote:
I was only being polite to the "gay" who asked the question.
srd
Demcha
they face on a daily basis.
Women are more depressed then men.
If their were statistics you would fine Blacks more depressed.
Capitalism is depressing.
Stephens constant ravings about homosexuality is depressing.
Please Stephen change the subject.
Do you defendd China Uncondionaly
Stephen Diamond
dem...@aol.com (Demcha) wrote:
> Do you defendd China Uncondionaly
YES.
But where we differ is that I defend RuSSIA unconditionally.
srd
Paul Kneisel
<steph...@mindspring.com>
<stephend15-06829...@news.mindspring.com> wrote:
Diamond must mean neofascist Russia, neofascist because it worships
capitalist technology, or at least according to Diamond's rather cultic
defitions of such things.
>srd
Bert Byfield
> opression they face on a daily basis.
No, because they could keep their perverions to themselves, and no one
would know. It is offensive to force people to listen to the details of
one's sex life when they do not wish to know such stuff.
> Women are more depressed then men.
Sexist!
> If their were statistics you would fine Blacks more depressed.
Racist!
> Capitalism is depressing.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
> Stephens constant ravings about homosexuality is depressing.
I find it entertaining and enlightening, myself.
> Please Stephen change the subject.
So you surrender the point?
> Do you defendd China Uncondionaly
Doesn't everyone?
Bert Byfield
> YES.
> But where we differ is that I defend RuSSIA unconditionally.
You defend a strange form of criminal chaotic capitalism unconditionally?
Demcha
blacks and immigrants is homophobic, sexist, racist, anti-immigrant or maybe a
statement of reality.
Capitalism depressing?
Oh I forget you like it.
Demcha
the numbers.
At one anti-facist rally near my house the photographer at that time came back
to my darkroom and we made a mathematical determinations of facess depth of
crowd width and an overhead using rulers and such from the pictures.