A Party for The Nematode
stephen
Pansexual Peace Party!"
http://www.third-party-candidates.org/third-party-website-Pansexual-Peace-Party.php
srd
dusty
> "Vote for Pleasure
> Pansexual Peace Party!"
>
>
> srd
Yes there is rich humour here, and in some ways it fits the bill - and
he has it coming - his recent postings have far too often gone to the
point of apparent deliberate obfuscatory disruption - but calling him
a "nematode" with all the dehumanising invertebral connotations
arising therefrom (and the unproven agent status) don't do justice to
your noble record.
David Stevens
>
> Yes there is rich humour here, and in some ways it fits the bill - and
> he has it coming -
[scratches head] Why should any historical materialist think that
my degree of "having it coming" is more or less? (Seriously).
To the extent that it's funny, and to the extent that it fits the bill,
did I not always have it coming?
Or is Dusty one of the guys with a theory of APST Camps or
Alliances or Omni-Tendencies -- with a particular relation among
those being required to _make_ something politically true?
> his recent postings have far too often gone to the
> point of apparent deliberate obfuscatory disruption -
Since I don't know Dusty yet, I'd like to find out what he means.
"Disruption," is subjective enough for me to ask for clarification,
unless it was qualified here by "apparent."
(I hope that appearances alone will not determine our relationship.
Dusty may agree that I've not allowed my opinion of him to be
governed by personal subjectivism).
"Deliberate" is certainly my aim. But it sucks as a qualifier for
speaking of a disruption still to be defined. (A charitable reading
must allow that "apparent" is still involved someplace, I suppose).
If Dusty wants to discuss disruption, I am happy to become his
Jew Shylock: "I am not bound to please thee with my answers."
(Nor is Dusty bound to please _me_. But the fact that he knows
how to stand as a communist, and how to challenge me as one,
has been pleasantly instructive to me so far, and I ain't dead yet).
Vngelis made one request I would oblige if I could understand it.
(But my inability to understand him, more generally, seems likely
to render it moot in many cases). Gelis does not like people to
change the titles of threads, when those people are me -- and
I do understand that subjectivism defines _Gelis_. So, he uses
Google to post. I went to Google, but failed to see what he was
talking about. If you answer a subthread, it properly picks up
the correct subthread title, does it not? They can be browsed
together -- I presume that most Googlers read them that way --
but when you answer them, it brings up the appropriate title
for the response to match.
I don't have a congential need to change titles; it is a courtesy
to my audience. I also know that my audience does not care
very much; most people on the Net for a couple months get
used to a certain amount of topic drift. For the maybe 5%
who care, however, I deem it a courtesy to change the thread
title if there is a radical (not conversationally drifted) change.
A brand new topic could elicit a brand new thread, to which
I guess Gelis would have to find some other grounds for
thinking whatever I say disruptive. ;-) But I resist trying to
pick up the conversation, copy it, and carry it elsewhere
unless it makes it _more_ clear to all readers.
That's more words trying to guess the content (if any) to
that objection by Gelis than he used to express himself.
But I know he feels strongly; first, because he dislikes me;
and secondly, because he yammered about it twice.
I decline to address the first issue. It would feel icky to
wake up some morning and learn that Gelis likes me.
But maybe, if I understand the content to that objection,
he can find something new to yammer about. I imagine
that his noise level might remain the same; but if Dusty
hopes for any better than I do, I'm glad to cooperate.
I hope that Dusty (and other readers unacquainted with
me) doesn't expect my articles to be uniformly soothing,
or even uniform at all.
My target audience is not a monolith. For years, I couldn't
drum up interest in economic questions. Now, all of a Crisis,
I hear from people who _read_ that stuff.
Other comrades turn to the comic pages. YMMV.
> ... but calling him
> a "nematode" with all the dehumanising invertebral connotations
> arising therefrom (and the unproven agent status) don't do justice to
> your noble record.
To his credit, Dusty justifies my treating him as a sincere socialist
who happens to disagree with me on stuff. I am not sure whether he
is my Opponent; but he doesn't seem to be my Enemy.
Dusty gives every evidence of _knowing the difference_ himself.
Given the state of our planet, that's A Good Thing.
- David Stevens
scottp...@gmail.com
On Oct 1, 2:49 am, dusty <trackdu...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Yes there is rich humour here, and in some ways it fits the bill - and
he has it coming - his recent postings have far too often gone to the
point of apparent deliberate obfuscatory disruption - but calling him
a "nematode" with all the dehumanising invertebral connotations
arising therefrom (and the unproven agent status) don't do justice to
your noble record.
_____________________________
His nickname is more like a character from a contemporary day Fable de
La Fontaine.
scottp...@gmail.com
Once upon a time, it was May, 1968 in Paris, France. There was a
nematode who was not at all happy. Every nematode had exactly 650
neurons, but this nematode had only 649. The research scientists in
the neurology department at the Salptriere separated this poor
nematode
from all of his friends. "We use nematodes for our exacting studies
because each one has precisely 650 neurons, but you have only 649!"
they explained. "You're no use to us at all!"
Depressed, the nematode escaped to find a Trotskyite with 651
neurons, hoping that the Trot would not believe in private property
and
give him an extra neuron. Since everyone was on strike, it took the
poor nematode a long time to crawl around Paris in search of
Trotskyite
headquarters (the buses weren't running). Finally, he found a
professional revolutionary selling newspapers to some striking subway
workers. The nematode explained his problem, and the Trotskyite was
very happy to help (he, in fact, had 653 neurons, and his
corresponding
increase in theoretical capacity had landed him on to the central
committee).
The Trotskyite removed a single neuron from his brain using an ice
pick, and he gave it to the nematode. The nematode was so gratefual
that he bought a one year subscription to the revolutionary newspaper
for twenty-five centimes. The nematode was elated as he crawled his
way back toward the Salpetriere with this single Trot neuron in his
backpack. His brain would be valuable in making neuroscience history.
The nematode was carrying a small particle of history on his back,
just
like a revolutionary.
David Stevens
>
> THE NEMATODE AND THE REVOLUTIONARY
> Once upon a time, it was May, 1968 in Paris, France.
The hungry troll knows how to make me feel nostalgic.
That pleases me, so I shall feed him.
> There was a
> nematode who was not at all happy. Every nematode had exactly 650
> neurons, but this nematode had only 649. The research scientists in
> the neurology department at the Salptriere separated this poor
> nematode
> from all of his friends. "We use nematodes for our exacting studies
> because each one has precisely 650 neurons, but you have only 649!"
> they explained. "You're no use to us at all!"
> Depressed, the nematode escaped to find a Trotskyite with 651
> neurons, hoping that the Trot would not believe in private property
> and
> give him an extra neuron. Since everyone was on strike, it took the
> poor nematode a long time to crawl around Paris in search of
> Trotskyite
> headquarters (the buses weren't running).
Sadly, that was true. A general strike immediately poses the question
of power. During the 1877 St. Louis Commune [*], the strikers had
to organize essential services on their own. In 1968 Paris, I guess
they weren't thinking about how much I depend on the bus.
As if it wasn't all about me, personally.
(Imagine how poor Scott would feel, were it not all about him!)
> Finally, he found a
> professional revolutionary selling newspapers to some striking subway
> workers. The nematode explained his problem, and the Trotskyite was
> very happy to help (he, in fact, had 653 neurons, and his
> corresponding
> increase in theoretical capacity had landed him on to the central
> committee).
That is Solomon, at his best.
> The Trotskyite removed a single neuron from his brain using an ice
> pick,
That is Solomon, more representatively.
> and he gave it to the nematode. The nematode was so gratefual
> that he bought a one year subscription to the revolutionary newspaper
> for twenty-five centimes. The nematode was elated as he crawled his
> way back toward the Salpetriere with this single Trot neuron in his
> backpack. His brain would be valuable in making neuroscience history.
> The nematode was carrying a small particle of history on his back,
> just like a revolutionary.
I believe this must be Solomon's finest work. I think he should teach
poor Mr. Diamond how to wield a proper icepick.
"I am at home in the world wherever there are clouds,
birds, and human tears." -- Rosa Luxemburg
- David Stevens
[*] in addressing US parapragmatists, experience suggests
that a more cosmopolitan example would be unappreciated
David Stevens
Comrade Roger Blackwell wrote:
> It is a constant battle to use apst as a mechanism
> for serious discussion against all those that are
> trying to belittle the medium and deflect all the
> discussions that are taking place. How many times
> do we hear that newsgroups *are not the real world*
> or other crap like that? That would make personal
> conversation, letters and even books *not of the
> real world* by that criterion.
>
> I tend to think of apst as closer to a conversation medium
> than a written one in the sense that written articles
> that are longer and require more thought and preparation
> probably would mainly be skipped over in apst in favour
> of shorter and easier polemics.
Long ago, Roger and I had a disagreement about the
size of our readership. I attempted a guess. Roger
said that my guess was too high. Some years later,
I decided Roger had been right. But I don't _know_.
There has been a secular change. School is in session
right now, throughout North America, but a generation
raised on Myspace no longer floods Usenet every autumn.
I don't agree with Holmes that blogs have replaced
newsgroups. But then I also don't agree with him when
he says that illegal immigrants and children make up
most of the minimum wage workforce in our country.
If I am going to change John's thinking on something,
perhaps I would start there. (I don't want to see a
socialist develop such contempt for the oppressed as
characterizes Mr. Diamond's views).
I would want to have some numbers. Probably, I would
need to develop my point over time. John's a pretty smart
guy when he wants to be, and no matter how many times
I see Gelis spit a line like "does NOT", Holmes never
seems to fall for it convincingly; he only falls for it enough
to respond in kind.
APST is a _broadcast_ medium above all. Comrades who
treat it as a private conversation tend to fall more
quickly into raw personalism. As Roger established
to my satisfaction, we do not even know how many
people are in the "room" with us.
There are people who read everything I write. But there
has never been a person who agreed with everything I write,
nor even enjoyed it all.
A broadcast medium offers unique opportunities. If you
think of it as "speech" rather than "writing" -- I know
I'm in the active posters' minority on that one -- at least
think of it as a radio wireless broadcast.
Play to the galleries! Play to the people who are
tuning in from home or office!
And take advantage of your ability to spend years in
deliberation to answer a thoughtful comrade.
- David Stevens
scottp...@gmail.com
"I am at home in the world wherever there are clouds,
birds, and human tears." -- Rosa Luxemburg
- David Stevens
Well, definitely human tears . . . that's for sure. In terms of
writers, I find Andrei Platonov's Chevengur and The Foundation Pit to
me more indicative of how "humanitarian" Trots/Stalinists/Communists
would be after obtaining power.
One only need to have a passing knowledge of the regimes in their
little cults to obtain that "preview."
stephen
Refuse to submit, I propose, to the self-serving norm of the
lumpenized sects, who hold discussing unproven infiltration
allegations taboo. Stevens's objection to vngelis's discussion of the
significance of "Lisa's" malingering is the same self-protective
reflex of the sects as the ban on public discussion of infiltration.
Avoiding such allegations in the public space, moreover, only excuses
them in private e-mail, where they are corrosive, and the person
discussed can't reply.
When a poster brags about his role as a communist activist,
immediately after refusing to produce evidence of that activism, that
poster has supplied evidence he is an agent. Not dispositive evidence,
far from it, but the lack of consistency, lack of principle and basic
sleaziness is enough that it should give rise to suspicion. A poster
who attacks others as "anti-elucidatory," yet posts reams of
incomprehensible rubbish, reveals a comparable inconsistency. Or one
who uses extreme hyperbole randomly, yet claims an interest in the
truth.
srd
scottp...@gmail.com
writers, I find Andrei Platonov's Chevengur and The Foundation Pit to
me more indicative of how "humanitarian" Trots/Stalinists/Communists
would be after obtaining power.
__________________________________________
Hey! Maybe Platonov could inspire a new nickname for SEPtic: The
Profoundly Re-founded Foundation Pit.
Key word: Pit
scottp...@gmail.com
What really terrified you about that post was not the fact that you're
a Nematode, but that you might actually be one neuron short of being a
Nematode!
scottp...@gmail.com
yea even though I dubbed you with thy name -- namely, Nematode . . .
somehow I still don't feel that I know you . . .
Well, Nematode . . . I thought about this situation, and I a rather
succinct test question came to me that made me think it might give me
some insight into the true/real nematode. So here is my question:
With which character do you sympathize/identify most in Trevor
Griffith's play "The Party"?
____________________________
Now Nematode . . . I'm giving you A LOT of credit here assuming that
you have read this play. This is pretty obscure stuff.
scottp...@gmail.com
instead answer:
Which would you give up if you had to pick one: Trotskyistical
communistical revolutionary revolutionarianism . . . OR . . .
recreational drugs and 3, 4, 5,. . .n-ways?
John Holmes
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, David Stevens wrote:
>...
> Long ago, Roger and I had a disagreement about the size of our readership. I
> attempted a guess. Roger said that my guess was too high. Some years later,
> I decided Roger had been right. But I don't _know_. There has been a secular
> change. School is in session right now, throughout North America, but a
> generation raised on Myspace no longer floods Usenet every autumn.
> I don't agree with Holmes that blogs have replaced newsgroups.
You don't? That certainly seems to be the attitude in the general
Internet culture, where Usenet in general, not just apst in
particular, is increasingly regarded as a dinosaur medium for old
farts like us. Myspace, Youtube, Facebook, those are the big
things right now. The blogosphere for the serious.
I think Usenet's main role now is for use by hobbyists, like stamp
collectors and semi-retired socialists. That's why they call it Usenet
after all.
> But then I
> also don't agree with him when he says that illegal immigrants and children
> make up most of the minimum wage workforce in our country. If I am going to
> change John's thinking on something, perhaps I would start there. (I don't
> want to see a socialist develop such contempt for the oppressed as
> characterizes Mr. Diamond's views).
I feel no contempt for either illegal immigrants or adolescents. (As
for children, child labor is coming back here and there but it's still
quite illegal). But it was an impressionistic opinion, if you have
some statistics to bring in by all means do so. By the way, another
grouping sometimes on minimum wage is college students picking up a
little spare change. Used to be housewives did that, when there were
housewives.
Then of course there are the poor bastards on "workfare." Have they
been brought up to minimum wage yet, or are they still getting paid
token slave-labor wages? Not that long ago, Burger King was filling
out its workforce with "workfare" recipients at $1.50 an hour.
> I would want to have some numbers. Probably, I would
> need to develop my point over time. John's a pretty smart guy when he wants
> to be, and no matter how many times I see Gelis spit a line like "does NOT",
> Holmes never seems to fall for it convincingly; he only falls for it enough
> to respond in kind.
> APST is a _broadcast_ medium above all. Comrades who treat it as a private
> conversation tend to fall more quickly into raw personalism. As Roger
> established to my satisfaction, we do not even know how many people are in
> the "room" with us.
Yes, that's a danger, which I may have fallen into occasionally, I
would like to think not as badly as others.
>
> There are people who read everything I write. But there
> has never been a person who agreed with everything I write, nor even enjoyed
> it all.
> A broadcast medium offers unique opportunities. If you
> think of it as "speech" rather than "writing" -- I know I'm in the active
> posters' minority on that one -- at least think of it as a radio wireless
> broadcast.
Remember the CB radio?
-jh-
David Stevens
>>...
>> Long ago, Roger and I had a disagreement about the size of our
>> readership. I attempted a guess. Roger said that my guess was too high.
>> Some years later, I decided Roger had been right. But I don't _know_.
>> There has been a secular change. School is in session right now,
>> throughout North America, but a generation raised on Myspace no longer
>> floods Usenet every autumn. I don't agree with Holmes that blogs have
>> replaced newsgroups.
>
> You don't? That certainly seems to be the attitude in the general Internet
> culture, where Usenet in general, not just apst in particular, is
> increasingly regarded as a dinosaur medium for old farts like us. Myspace,
> Youtube, Facebook, those are the big things right now. The blogosphere for
> the serious.
>
> I think Usenet's main role now is for use by hobbyists, like stamp
> collectors and semi-retired socialists. That's why they call it Usenet
> after all.
The volume of data pumped theough the newsgroups is much larger,
but that's because of binaries -- programs, pictures, audi-visual data.
I agree that the Myspace generation is not _here_. But I don't think
they are someplace else instead. I think Usenet and old-style mailing
lists maintain their function. If you want a question answered by a
Microsoft employee about technical details on a 64-bit Windows
system, do you go to Facebook or Twitter? Compared with Usenet,
I don't think the social networking sites offer the same mixture of
range and depth.
>> (I don't want to see a socialist develop such contempt for the
>> oppressed as
>> characterizes Mr. Diamond's views).
>
> I feel no contempt for either illegal immigrants or adolescents.
You certainly do not, and I did not intend to imply any!
I think being acquainted with the social reality of people at the bottom
of the workingclass -- what today I will call the overworking-class -- is
an important part of our terrain. I did NOT mean to imply that you share
Diamond's contempt for workers, making fun of "presumptuous janitors"
from atop a haughty petty-bourgeois pedastal in a legal office.
I apologize if that was how it sounded.
- David Stevens
stephen
This Stevens is simply a total lying swine. "Janitor" was SINGULAR,
pertaining to Stevens, in his named role.
It is outrageous that this swine remarks about the honesty of others.
Holmes is a truth-teller in comparison. Stevens competes with Proyect
in prevarication.
srd
stephen
But at least Proyect has a trace of pride, and doesn't grovel for
foregiveness after lying and cheating.
srd
David Stevens
by number of postings:
Diamond 8836 stephen...@mindspring.com
Gelis 5368 Vngelis
Kaufman 3511 kman...@earthlink.net
H.Watson 3103 hwat...@portup.com
H.Watson 2890 Hunter Watson
Prianikoff 2507 a...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk
Proyect 2390 l...@panix.com
Proyect 2060 l...@columbia.edu
Blackwell 1855 rog...@blackwell23.freeserve.co.uk
Stevens 1642 phylstev...@worldnet.att.net
The highest-volume month (3296 posts) was June 2000.
source: pulled [1 Oct 2008] from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/about?hl=en
With due apologies to our speech-conversation school of commie posters,
I need to start writing more _long_ articles. I don't want to approach guys
like Hunter Watson and Stephen Diamond.
-- David Stevens
stephen
> A "top ten" list the most frequent posters n all of APST history,
> by number of postings:
>
> Diamond 8836 stephen...@mindspring.com
> Gelis 5368 Vngelis
> Kaufman 3511 kman...@earthlink.net
> H.Watson 3103 hwat...@portup.com
> H.Watson 2890 Hunter Watson
> Prianikoff 2507 a...@prianikoff.freeserve.co.uk
> Proyect 2390 l...@panix.com
> Proyect 2060 l...@columbia.edu
> Blackwell 1855 rog...@blackwell23.freeserve.co.uk
> Stevens 1642 phylstev...@worldnet.att.net
>
> The highest-volume month (3296 posts) was June 2000.
>
>
> With due apologies to our speech-conversation school of commie posters,
> I need to start writing more _long_ articles. I don't want to approach guys
> like Hunter Watson and Stephen Diamond.
>
> -- David Stevens
Nice try, but I doubt anyone is fooled by your lame attempts at
distraction and prevarication, your desperate efforts to avoid
defending your outrageous lying. You asked Holmes to point to a lie.
Wouldn't do that now, would you, scum?
srd
stephen
Stevens's latest turn, lying without compunction, showing no concern
even to defend his truthlessness, raises my likelihood estimate
substantially that there is something deeply foul about this poster.
Stevens abandons any threads where he is cornered ideologically, to
open new fronts based on provocation and prevarication.
srd
srd
John Holmes
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, David Stevens wrote:
Right, exactly, stamp collectors, people who want details on
computers, etc. are definitely better off on Usenet than Youtube. But
even there, blogs seem to be the thing. When I've had computer
problems, I've frequently gone to tech blogs, never to a Usenet
discussion group. My mistake perhaps.
>
>>> (I don't want to see a socialist develop such contempt for the oppressed
>>> as
>>> characterizes Mr. Diamond's views).
>>
>> I feel no contempt for either illegal immigrants or adolescents.
>
> You certainly do not, and I did not intend to imply any!
>
> I think being acquainted with the social reality of people at the bottom
> of the workingclass -- what today I will call the overworking-class -- is
> an important part of our terrain. I did NOT mean to imply that you share
> Diamond's contempt for workers, making fun of "presumptuous janitors"
> from atop a haughty petty-bourgeois pedastal in a legal office.
>
> I apologize if that was how it sounded.
>
> - David Stevens
Apology accepted (other implicit apologies accepted also).
-jh-
David Stevens
>
> ... but calling him
> a "nematode" with all the dehumanising invertebral connotations
> arising therefrom (and the unproven agent status) don't do justice to
> your noble record.
I do not share Dusty's objection, in this concrete context.
I hope he was not taken in by some troll claiming, e.g.,
]]
]] When The Nematode is addressed by name, It screams
]] "zoological dehumanization."
A quick text search will reveal that I never criticized any
individual on APST for zoological dehumanization. More
than a decade ago, I critiqued a _socialist tendency_ for
doing so (in print) to another socialist tendency.
I could never object to a bourgeois troll -- Hunter Watson,
Bert Byfield, Stephen Diamond, or Scott Solomon -- using
that language. (I could not appeal to Bolshevism).
I only characterized the term itself after Mr. Scott Solomon
reappeared, like APST's own Brigadoon. But that was only
to introduce Scott to any new readers, and to note that
"pug dogs and puppies attempting to mount an elephant"
sounds funnier to me. (I qualified the subjectivism as
a personal favorite).
That Hunter Watson never used such language shows
his moral stature, in bourgeois terms, relative to the others.
But I don't appeal to Hunter to do (or not do) anything.
- David Stevens
David Stevens
>
> Apology accepted (other implicit apologies accepted also).
One implicit apology is overdue to be made explicit, surely.
I'm not sure whether a plural number of apologies mightn't require
a plural number of orifices to achieve delivery; and I do not think
of APST as an "aural" medium, except maybe when I make song.
Paraphrasing liberally (such that Comrade Holmes is not responsible
for characterizations I make) John has earned a TOLDJA SO with
regard to my calling Mr. Diamond a lying scumbag context stripper.
I'm sorry I didn't believe Holmes as to Diamond's insincerity. As I've
said before, Diamond is smarter than I am. And John already knows
my limitless capacity for making my own mistakes, which I proved
in the RFD for soc.politics.anti-fascism -- more than anyone else.
Comrade Holmes also suggested that I might tire of expecting Dusty
to be a Leninist, but here's the thing with that: Comrade Dusty has
not yet made a BLOODY SHIRT posting without offering a shirt
to the audience for inspection.
Elsewhere, Dusty seems to suggest that I have a dirty shirt somewhere
beneath a stack of books. But while he hasn't yet described its color,
he also hasn't posted a shrill SOILED SHIRT article about it.
Dusty gives every indication of being sincere about a tone more
conducive to dialogue. If at times he seems not to want to see
a co-thinker rightly criticized, he doesn't seem unprincipled.
(I'll bet Dusty recognizes what a picket line is about, etc.)
And if Dusty, or anyone, can tell me WTF Gelis means when
he says I am changing thread titles in a way that they are harder
for him to "find," it cannot hurt. This is clearly a question for the
Google crowd; but no amount of my shoveling dead dogs for
Mr. Diamond, and no number of experiments or queries over
this weekend, offered me an insight.
I can, however, obtain an objective metric of subjectivism by
measuring how many times Gelis did not yammer about the
exact same thing from any other author. ;-|
- David Stevens
stephen
> "John Holmes" <jhol...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
> > Apology accepted (other implicit apologies accepted also).
>
> One implicit apology is overdue to be made explicit, surely.
>
> I'm not sure whether a plural number of apologies mightn't require
> a plural number of orifices to achieve delivery; and I do not think
> of APST as an "aural" medium, except maybe when I make song.
>
> Paraphrasing liberally (such that Comrade Holmes is not responsible
> for characterizations I make) John has earned a TOLDJA SO with
> regard to my calling Mr. Diamond a lying scumbag context stripper.
Stevens and I argued about Holmes a couple of weeks ago or so. I said
Holmes was intellectually dishonest, arguing politically in the manner
of a lawyer defending his client, without concern for genuine inquiry.
Stevens disagreed ... with my limiting criticism Holmes's
disingenuousness. According to Stevens, Holmes is a liar. Stevens
smeared Holmes by claiming Holmes quoted the nematode out of context,
fooling me momentarily. No apology here for Stevens's calumnies
against Holmes. Stevens thinks everyone forgets his mendacity, just
because the victim does.
But Holmes has more important things on his mind than getting a
complete apology from the 'tode. Holmes may be retired from politics,
but just as he has circulated rumors, privately, that one or another
poster might be a cop, complete with his theory that cops practice
copping, even when retired, Holmes still practices convertin' others
to Spartthink, using patented Spart methods. The Spart method of
convertin' folks is a most personal, one-on-one process, slimy and
disgusting. The careful reader can get a taste of it in this exchange
between Holmes and Stevens. Focus on Holmes, here.
srd
u
stephen
> Dusty wrote to Mr. Diamond:
>
>
>
> > ... but calling him
> > a "nematode" with all the dehumanising invertebral connotations
> > arising therefrom (and the unproven agent status) don't do justice to
> > your noble record.
>
> I do not share Dusty's objection, in this concrete context.
>
> I hope he was not taken in by some troll claiming, e.g.,
> ]]
> ]] When The Nematode is addressed by name, It screams
> ]] "zoological dehumanization."
>
> A quick text search will reveal that I never criticized any
> individual on APST for zoological dehumanization.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/79d967b5d73ccce9?dmode=source
"Scott Solomon is the proud _inventor_ of that example of
what the Bolsheviks used to call "zoological dehumanization."
I'm not sure about how it compares to a gay muppet boojum.
Stalin's prosecutor, Vyshinsky, was more fluent than poor
Scottie. He offered "carrion", "lice", the well-known
"hybrids of fox and pig," and my own personal favorite,
"pug dogs and puppies attempting to mount an elephant." "
Now The Nematode wants to tell us that comparing Solomon to Vyshinsky
is not a criticism of Solomon. Maybe not to Proyect, but certainly to
any non-Stalinist. As you can see, I don't have to--and wouldn't--
consult the archives; it's a recent posting.
(As to The Nematode's archivism, consider that most people don't
change their positions in response to argument. Marxists should. But
The Nematode treats 10-year old postings as proof of ... I'm not
exactly sure. Does he prove an eternal position, or does he prove
original sin? Anyway, The Nematode is obfuscatory, even if only for
the seeking to reinforce tenacious position-holding, which he sees as
a measure of "consistency." The Nematode, after all, hasn't summoned
the courage to test his positions by joining a party, or even
supporting one. Thus he can continue believing what he wants
indefinitely, still espousing some of the SLP's nonsense and hippy
drug worship from his non-committal wanderings.)
srd
Vngelis
This is a trick I have seen in the workplace many times. After
creating mini-provocations as to the abilities of other co-workers and
getting caught out red-handed grovelling becomes an art form in
practice to the extent that it de-humanises human relations.
Stevens is the type of character one requires to have the dexterity of
a ballerina to walk across a floor made of eggshells in order not to
bother his 'sensitivities'. Sensititivies which change hourly/daily.
When politics are absent all we have are the 'eggshells'. Somewhere
along the line of his miserable little life, he hovered around some
group or another, they didn't recognise his 'greatness' and his aim is
to take it out on as many as possible.
This is his whole raison d'etre. Eggshells on the floor signify an
empty product.
vngelis
David Stevens
>
> According to Stevens, Holmes is a liar.
Surely Holmes never expected an apology for _that_. Once again,
some "n-Camp Theory of APST" tries to apply factional standards
to objective fact. Surely, we have tired of _that_ dead dog. (Even
Holmes has managed to move away from the death squadista thing).
Holmes said Dusty was a "gay basher." I objected. What followed
involved other questions, where I believe Holmes was equally wrong,
but in a more deliberate (worse) way. But we didn't have to get too far
before Holmes backed off, with his characteristically centrist smarminess
(as in "Dusty has not YET" crap) from the gay-bashing charge.
I could call Diamond a gay-basher. But I would be politically wrong.
Mr. Diamond advocates formal democratic rights for homosexuals,
although we disagree on what those concrete rights should be; and
when I object to individuals politically or hygienically, I can frame it
in some way that doesn't involve whom they sleep with _other than
politically_. (Of course, for Diamond, the anti-homo thing is a central
and politically defining lodestar. Not my fault).
I don't even like "political gay-basher" to describe Diamond's rants.
It trivializes _real_ acts of violence against gays and Lesbians. (That's
why I jumped on Freedom Socialist for calling Healy a "serial rapist,"
thereby trivializing serial rape).
The one time Mr. Diamond bashed a gay guy, according to Stephen's
own report, it was self-defense. Even if it was just two swaggering guys
with chips on their shoulders, Diamond didn't go out cruising to inflict
bruisings, or anything like that.
What I found disturbing about the incident is _mostly_ subjective.
I have a deep -- very deep -- aversion to physical violence. A few
years ago, I was escorting a disabled woman along Van Ness Avenue
in broad daylight. I got tackled from behind by a guy who outmassed me
by a lot. (Police later surmised that the guy was crazed from drugs, but
I didn't observe any obvious sign of intoxication). I was able to remove
my companion and me to safety. But it took several minutes, and I had
to strike the man several times. I think I made him bleed, which was
nothing I intended (or noticed, until cleaning myself up later).
So I find it disturbing that Diamond would _brag_ about bashing a guy.
It was as if he reveled in the violence and was still swaggering about it
when he wrote about it years later.
Well, I am not proud of violence. It's a shitty option for us and ours.
If I resort to violence, it can only mean that any rational alternative is
not available. I consider it a BFD. I am neither ashamed nor proud of
the fight I had on Van Ness Avenue -- but I am _disgusted_ by my own
recourse to violence -- and for every possible dictionary or etymological
value of the word, "disgust."
Bread and ROSES. Bread and Roses.
- David Stevens
PS -- "Nematode" and "Muppet" are as good as "Janitor" -- none of those
names can be misspelled in such a way as to confuse me with this creep.
(Quite seriously, I don't object). - DS
stephen
> "stephen":
>
>
>
> > According to Stevens, Holmes is a liar.
>
> Surely Holmes never expected an apology for _that_. Once again,
> some "n-Camp Theory of APST" tries to apply factional standards
> to objective fact. Surely, we have tired of _that_ dead dog. (Even
> Holmes has managed to move away from the death squadista thing).
Holmes, perhaps deceptively, made the apology sound like a prepared
affair, complete for all accusations. "For many other things," or a
similar phrase, is how Holmes described it. The Nematode did nothing
to dispel the impression Holmes created, until now. He has ceased
policing Holmes alleged lies, which is for the better, since Holmes
doesn't lie, but one can wonder about the previous false accusations.
The Nematode also suddenly stopped attacking me as a Jew or alleging I
am a Nazi ("gautleiter"). Some of his incomprehensible gibberish
contained the sense that he was privately upbraided for these vile
postings.
srd
srdiamond
retract when rebutted. Only liars take accusations of prevarication so
lightly.
(Something similar to the proclivity of cops to make allegations that
others are cops. Note, though, that not all liars make these
accusations; neither do cops always make the corresponding ones.)
As with most psychopaths, The Nematode's inability to subordinate
conduct to principle doesn't replace copious rationalizing.
srd
Vngelis
>
> The Nematode also suddenly stopped attacking me as a Jew or alleging I
> am a Nazi ("gautleiter"). Some of his incomprehensible gibberish
> contained the sense that he was privately upbraided for these vile
> postings.
>
> srd
The irony isn't that he suddenly stopped.
But the arbiters of 'political correctness' on this site, Einde and
Walters have ignored Stevens postings.
Not because they didn't occur, but because he volunteered to become a
front man of a weak coalition of globalists to attack all and sundry.
Just as with the Iraq war the 'left' moved to the right, then with the
Georgian war, the 'left' will go into overdrive attacking any and all
positions that threatens their cosy relationships with big business.
vngelis
Einde O'Callaghan
> On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, stephen <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Nematode also suddenly stopped attacking me as a Jew or alleging I
>> am a Nazi ("gautleiter"). Some of his incomprehensible gibberish
>> contained the sense that he was privately upbraided for these vile
>> postings.
>>
>> srd
>
>
> The irony isn't that he suddenly stopped.
> But the arbiters of 'political correctness' on this site, Einde and
> Walters have ignored Stevens postings.
I don't bother to read the interminable exchanges between Diamond and
Stevens because they are incredibly boring as it's clear that Diamond
has an almost pathological dislike for Stevens and this is to a certain
extent reciprocated.
If, however, Stevens is "Jew-baiting" or inferring that Diamond is a
Nazi then that should be criticised and he should stop. Nevertheless, I
do seem to recall that Diamond has also been very quick on occasions to
label people as Nazis.
Einde O'Callaghan
stephen
interkom.de> wrote:
> Vngelis wrote:
Nevertheless, I
> do seem to recall that Diamond has also been very quick on occasions to
> label people as Nazis.
I recall one. And that wasn't quick. Who did you have in mind? (And
how is it relevant to Stevens's nazi-bating, anyway, whether I do it
too?)
srd
stephen
> has an almost pathological dislike for Stevens and this is to a certain
> extent reciprocated.
Do you mean to say some do _not_ have this reaction to Stevens? <g>
srd
David Stevens
>>
>> The irony isn't that he suddenly stopped.
>> But the arbiters of 'political correctness' on this site, Einde and
>> Walters have ignored Stevens postings.
"Being on APST means that nobody has to read you."
> I don't bother to read the interminable exchanges between Diamond and
> Stevens because they are incredibly boring
Here, Einde showed excellent judgement. (Seriously).
> as it's clear that Diamond has an almost pathological dislike for Stevens
> and this is to a certain extent reciprocated.
I actively dislike Diamond to the extent of my capacity! Perhaps it's that
emotional flatness of mine. Or I'm getting old and tired. Mostly, when
I look at stuff from the long historical view, I just can't get worked up.
(We have world historic challenges ahead, and I am supposed to be
_excited_ about another dingleberry in the punch bowl?)
>
> If, however, Stevens is "Jew-baiting" or inferring that Diamond is a Nazi
> then that should be criticised and he should stop.
I called him Trixie Rabbi, and wrote on that ("Is it politically correct?
No, it's politically accurate"). And I said he was "only an assistant
Gauleiter" for signing on to Meberry's bio troll. Diamond is no Nazi.
(I said the assistant Gauleiter thing was because "he needs the work,"
and I personally don't believe he has the courage of his convictions).
I really did call SF Mayor Willie Brown a "Huey Long in minstrel
blackface," and supervisor Ammiano as "our petulant Fairy Supe,"
but I guess Diamond can't be expected to be consistent, even if
he were to believe his own claims of outrage (which he doesn't).
So I'm eager to see the Court of Political Correctness convene.
Diamond has routed himself ideologically by showing the kind of
anticommunist crap he is willing to resort to, but his appeal to PC
ought to finish off lingering doubts from any weak sisters.
> Nevertheless, I do seem to recall that Diamond has also been very quick on
> occasions to label people as Nazis.
He called me a fascist. But I don't hold to the "Sliming Scale of Rages"
that I criticized Meberry for. Just because some little kid misbehaves
doesn't mean I get to revert to the old playground rules.
But I won't completely ignore a dingleberry in the punch bowl. It would
be bad for political hygiene were I to ignore Diamond's intellectual
capacities, combined with willingness to take public positions like this:
"Stevens is a disgusting slime, a danger to the movement equal almost
to a Watson. He is best dead." [7 Mar 2000]
- David Stevens
David Stevens
assistant, but to the lump's Master Baiter.
- David Stevens
stephen
What you avoided witnessing, O'Callaghan, is a flame war. Have you
never participated in one of the glories of usenet? I suppose not;
flame wars don't feature irony.
Do you think participants in flame wars generally harbor "almost
pathological" dislikes? Intense hatred is more to the point. Because
one communicates on usenet without, usually, any possibility of acting
on one's emotions, the need to control their intensity can be
eliminated. You might be surprised at how many people it's easy to
hate, if only you allow yourself. On usenet, the only consequence of
*not* allowing oneself is wasting one's time stupidly. It's different
for you; were you to act stupidly, you would tend to bring disrepute
on your tendency.
Yet we probably agree, posters shouldn't cross some lines. Here's
where I think we disagree. I would never complain about someone
alleging and arguing that I am a Nazi, although my reply wouldn't be
polite. What I object to is only publicly implying someone is a Nazi,
without argument, when the poster admits the slur's falsity. The
ignominy is too serious to be a fit subject for ultra-hyperbole. As to
"Rabbi," I take the old-fashioned position that it is OK only for
another Jew to harp on my Jewishness during an argument. A Jew can
call me "kike," for all I care. Coming from anyone else, the terms are
something else entirely. Blacks understand these dialectics.
srd
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
>
> What you avoided witnessing, O'Callaghan, is a flame war. Have you
> never participated in one of the glories of usenet? I suppose not;
> flame wars don't feature irony.
>
although never really here in apst.
> Do you think participants in flame wars generally harbor "almost
> pathological" dislikes? Intense hatred is more to the point. Because
> one communicates on usenet without, usually, any possibility of acting
> on one's emotions, the need to control their intensity can be
> eliminated. You might be surprised at how many people it's easy to
> hate, if only you allow yourself. On usenet, the only consequence of
> *not* allowing oneself is wasting one's time stupidly. It's different
> for you; were you to act stupidly, you would tend to bring disrepute
> on your tendency.
>
I think in most cases flame wars are fuelled by extreme aggressive
feelings against the targets - and indeed they do IMHO often verge on
"pathological dislike". However to be quite honest I tend to regard my
"antagonists" here in apst more with disdainful amusement than with any
strong feelihgs of dislike. Vangelis, for example, often makes me laugh
out loud - which can be a bit embarrassing in a public library.
> Yet we probably agree, posters shouldn't cross some lines. Here's
> where I think we disagree. I would never complain about someone
> alleging and arguing that I am a Nazi, although my reply wouldn't be
> polite. What I object to is only publicly implying someone is a Nazi,
> without argument, when the poster admits the slur's falsity. The
> ignominy is too serious to be a fit subject for ultra-hyperbole. As to
> "Rabbi," I take the old-fashioned position that it is OK only for
> another Jew to harp on my Jewishness during an argument. A Jew can
> call me "kike," for all I care. Coming from anyone else, the terms are
> something else entirely. Blacks understand these dialectics.
>
I'm well aware of this dialectic - I'm Irish and I lived in England for
20 years during the height of what we Irish call "the Troubles".
Einde O'Callaghan
David Stevens
> ..
>> What you avoided witnessing, O'Callaghan, is a flame war. Have you
>> never participated in one of the glories of usenet? I suppose not;
>> flame wars don't feature irony.
>>
> I'm well aware of what a flame war is, and have participated in a feew -
Werner Cohn (who calls Noam Chomsky an anti-Semite), got into
a flame war with Diamond around the subject. I wasn't around,
and Werner hasn't returned, so I'll attach a post by A.G. Philbin.
Werner was nice to me, when I was new on APST. Even if he is
a scalawag Zionist (which he is), he has excellent table manners.
So I'll add a post I made to one of the earlier Cohn-Diamond
flamewars.
I don't see the US end of this question as all that dialectical, but Sean
Carroll noted long ago that Mr. Diamond suddenly "discovers"
dialectics when he rationalizes one of his swerves. We need David
Walters if somebody is going to explain the "good yeridah" Yiddish
joke. My Yiddish is better than Diamond's, which is to say not very
good at all.
- David Stevens
==============
From: A. G. Phillbin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky
Subject: Re: Cohn Lies (Was Re: The Revolution is On the March -- Go Forward
!)
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:46:23 GMT, Stephen Diamond
<stephen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
^In article <ipiious3e5b76v9g98e982rbl55pvl6...@4ax.com>,
^ A. G. Phillbin <agfilbinNO_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
^
^> your moronic expression
^> of your own personal bigotry.
^
^Bigotry? It has been said I am bigoted against "gays," which is at least
^is in the neighborhood of the truth, since I hold "gays" in contempt. It
^has been said that I am bigoted against immigrants, which bears no
^relation to the truth, particularly in light of the fact that my parents
^were immigrants. Am I now being accused of bigotry against the Jews,
^which is doubly absurd in light of the fact that two figures I admire
^most, Trotsky and Freud were Jews, not to speak of the fact that I am
^Jewish myself?
The fact that you profess to "being Jewish (your)self" is irrelevant
to the question of anti-Semitic bigotry. So is admiring two Jews. You
referred to WC's ellipses as "Jewish racist dots." Explain what was
"Jewish" about those ellipses, or his particular usage of them. I
won't even ask how they got to be "racist." In case your snipping of
my explanation of your bigoted remark was not deliberate (highly
doubtful -- you're good at cutting and pasting to protect your
"record"), I reprint it below:
^What exactly are "Jewish racist dots," Diamond? (I assume you meant
^the ellipses) Do they take the day off on Saturdays and wear Klan
^hoods? Or would two dots been less "Jewish" or less "racist," or both?
^It is truly amazing how you can manage to ruin an otherwise
^intelligent, cogent comment on WC's use of partial quotes to twist the
^meaning of an article his way by bringing in your moronic expression
^of your own personal bigotry. If Hunter Watson had done this, would
^you call them "nazi WASP dots?" If Byfield did it (he often does),
^would they be "libertarian Catholic dots?" When you do it, should we
^call them "self-hating Jewish Trot sectarian pedant dots?"
Do I make myself clear, Diamond? Now try answering the question
without your typical evasiveness and dissembling, *especially*
avoiding any more whining about "being Jewish (your)self," or how you
admire two Jews. There are jazz fans out there who nonetheless hate
black people. There are black people who hate black people. You are
too fucking old to need to have these things explained to you as if
you were an eight year old.
==============
From: David Stevens
Subject: Re: The good yeridah.
Date: 2000/03/18
Werner Cohn wrote:
>
> In article <stephend15-BFDC39.11085317032...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "Stephen
> R. Diamond" <stephen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Just as Stevens the Spart without a Card conversed pleasantly with
> > Watson before I called him on it, he now banters pleasntly (and
> > definitely does not try to destroy politically)
It is the job of a reporter to afflict the comfortable and
to comfort the afflicted. Since, for purposes revolutionary,
Werner already destroyed himself politically, Comrade Cohn
now counts as among the afflicted. (So does Diamond, although
I do not intend to minister to him).
> > and invites Werner, who
Comrade Cohn requires no invitation from me. (He graciously
accepted my presence; Cohn resided at APST before I did).
> > he whitewashes as a social democrat, although Werner has not in years
> > shown an ounce of any kind of socialist fluid in his veins.
> >
> > Stevens knows well that Werner is a rabid Zionist: IN OTHER WORDS AN
> > ANTI-ARAB *RACIST*.
> >
>
> Is Stevie right, is he wrong ? Hard to say.
Er ... I have already made suggestions, if not definitive
contributions to the political psychopathologies of each of
you: Mr. Diamond (who openly calls for leftists to die) and
Comrade Cohn (a scalawag of a socialdemocratic Zionist).
In news:33BF00...@worldnet.att.net (July 1997) I wrote:
->
-> Speaking of upside-down and backwards, I don't see
-> you so different from Werner, Stephen, just a little
-> bit younger. Like counterrevolutionary contradictory
-> Stalinism itself, you will either overthrow your own
-> pseudo-consciousness to join us some day, or you will
-> become exactly as Werner is now. Think about it.
Obviously, the context is a little different now. (Diamond
replied to me back then: "If you could show that otherwise I'd
become like Cohn, I would become a revolutionary immediately,"
a hope nobody entertains for Diamond any more).
I think Zionism _is_ a peculiar form of fascist racism akin
to National Socialism, FWIW. So now, I suppose, it's obligatory
for me to warn _you_ not to become any more like Diamond.
Not that you will listen, of course.
(For the record, I consider your 'political personality' more
stable than Diamond's ever was ... even though I guess he was
letting all that nastiness build for more than thirty years).
> But one thing is abundantly
> clear: WHAT A NICE GUY HE IS, THAT STEVIE !
Abundantly clear -- to you -- for a long time, I know.
Here's his answer to you on (7 February 1997):
Subject: Re: Truth and Hunter Watson; INCIVILITY
From: Stephen R. Diamond
+
+ In article
+ <wernerco-0702970017450...@57.new-york-002.ny.dial-access.att.net>,
+ werne...@worldnet.att.net (Werner Cohn) wrote:
+
+ > "Little crawling coward" -- this is an example of the kind of
+ > incivility that condemns the sectarian left to complete isolation
+ > from the world of reasonable people.
+
+ I think I've made it clear I am not of the left. My incivility
+ is personal, and based on my contempt for little crawling cowards
+ and idiots.
+
+ If you think incivility is confined or even much correlated with
+ the far left, you haven't seen usenet - and I know you have,
+ because I've seen your idiot comments in the Mac support forums.
+
+ The one thing that's nice about the left is it doesn't whine about
+ incivility - like belly crawling social democrats do.
+
+ Stephen R. Diamond
(three years before he moralistically whined about
being called "scumbag" by a bunch of "buttfuckers")
Comrade Cohn, like Mr. Diamond, elected to turn his back on the
movement for revolutionary social change. I have nothing in
common with Cohn's current politics, nor he with mine.
But Comrade Cohn has cooperated in a principled way with scholars
and archivists of the far left seeking to preserve our traditions
of class-struggle. Mr. Diamond challenged Cohn's right to the
appellation "comrade." I will not challenge the courtesy for Cohn,
although I am bound to for Mr. Diamond.
Many of our comrades on this NG are socialdemocratic scalawags,
neither better nor worse than Cohn politically in most respects.
I'm glad to call Werner Cohn my comrade. I have seen him write
a lot of stupid and even some IMO-dishonest things. But I think
he has very good table manners.
More importantly, his history is a part of our history.
Werner Cohn was once one of Us.
-- David Stevens
(who has won exactly two American Jews to
anti-Zionism in my entire political life)
David Stevens
> We need David
> Walters if somebody is going to explain the "good yeridah" Yiddish
> joke. My Yiddish is better than Diamond's, which is to say not very
> good at all.
ah. The joke, posted _accidentally_ by Cohn in the first place,
is this time attached on purpose. After all this time, I finally get it,
after I reformatted Werner's original post (below), which helped.
The non-English words are Hebrew, not Yiddish.
Vocabulary questions still go to David Walters, not to his gay muppet
boojum Stevens. (I even needed David to approve my spelling in that
old song, Ladyspar Toochus).
- David Stevens
----------
From: "Werner Cohn"
Subject: The good yeridah.
Date: 2000/03/17
The good yeridah; or So Far So Good.
First, some definitions. Aliyah, as everyone knows,
is going "up" to Israel, or simply going up.
Yeridah is emigrating "down from" Israel, or simply
going down. A yored is someone who has made yeridah.
OK, so far so good.
This Israeli visits Borough Park and meets
a yored, an Israeli who has emigrated to the US.
So, says the Israeli, did you have a good yeridah ?
Well, so so.
OK. You can have a really good yeridah, and you
don't even have to leave Tel Aviv. Go back to Israel
and meet me there and I'll tell you how.
So the yored goes back to Israel and meets his friend
who tells him how to have a good yeridah right in
Tel Aviv.
The yored goes up to the Shalom Tower, right in Tel
Aviv. He goes all the way up and then jumps down.
When he's in the middle of his fall, he looks around.
Well, so far it's a good yeridah, he says to himself.
So far so good.
---
From: dwalters
Subject: Re: The good yeridah.
This joke is much better when told in Yiddish.
I had my mother translate it. Ironically, Yiddish
is a better medium for a joke like this than Hebrew.
David Walters
David Walters
Yeah, that would be "Ladyspar Tuchus" as opposed to your "Toochus".
Yeridah is indeed Hebrew not Yiddish. My Israeli cousin is staying with
me and I can confirm it.
david
David Stevens
>
> Yeah, that would be "Ladyspar Tuchus" as opposed to your "Toochus".
Nuts. That means I still got it wrong (on the last reposting).
BTW, I will remove Malecki's Song and Proyect's Song from
the songbook. (The Proyect Song was already 'suppressed' by
my invented ADL "hate speech" filter, after that collaboration
between the SF Police red squad and the ADL).
> Yeridah is indeed Hebrew not Yiddish. My Israeli cousin is staying with
> me and I can confirm it.
Reading on the early US labor movement, I come across a
lot of what I call German (including Yiddish) in the debates.
I remember a piece of anti-DeLeon doggerel with a
"Hoch die Hand und hoch die Hammer" kind of flavor.
And there was an SLP guy named Lowenthal whose name
and tail together used to get twisted by DeLeon.
- David Stevens
David Stevens
> On usenet, the only consequence of
> *not* allowing oneself is wasting one's time stupidly. It's different
> for you; were you to act stupidly, you would tend to bring disrepute
> on your tendency.
What's interesting here is explicitly unstated: the IST tendency
values its reputation more than the world-historic KDE.
That's an implicit version of "damning with faint praise." ;-|
- David Stevens
David Walters
De Leon was Jewish, but a Dutch Jew, which means he *probably* didn't
know Yiddish. Most middle-class Dutch Jews spoke Dutch.
David
David Stevens
>
> De Leon was Jewish, but a Dutch Jew, which means he *probably* didn't
> know Yiddish. Most middle-class Dutch Jews spoke Dutch.
I'd guess Dutch for DeLeon's native language, but he could debate
well in what I imagine to be standard ("High") German. In its earliest
days, SLP was almost exclusively a German language party. Until
the 1899-1900 split, _Volkszeitung_ and _People_ were both run
through the Volkszeitung's (privately owned) publishing arm. And
no matter which alphabet they used, I think the background of the
Volkszeiting crowd was mostly Yiddish.
I am not clear even on how to tell "Low" German from Dutch.
I take the view that there is (still) a sort of spectrum: You can
walk any twenty-mile segment between Amsterdam and Vienna,
and other people will understand you about as well as they did
at the beginning of the day.
I never studied German, so I miss a lot. Yiddish, mostly, has
greatly enriched the expressive power of American English.
The USA surely needs words like schmaltz and schtick!
- David Stevens
David Walters
Yes, no, maybe.
OK, so...there was a small but significant par of the 19th Century
German immigration that was Jewish. But they were in fact *German* more
so than Jewish. German Jews by and large spoke German, not Yiddish.
Yiddish had very little penetration among German Jews and, most German
Jews were not "Stetyl" (small village) Jews but more urban. While the
Jews that became the Yiddish speaking Jews certainly traveled through
Germany, the "German Jews" were more assimilated, giving up most of
their African genes to northern Euro ones.
I would say that in the case of Dutch Jews, who has a certain amount of
Spanish blood in them, that this was probably even more the case.
David
David Stevens
>
> Yes, no, maybe.
>
> OK, so...there was a small but significant par of the 19th Century
> German immigration that was Jewish. But they were in fact *German* more
> so than Jewish. German Jews by and large spoke German, not Yiddish.
> Yiddish had very little penetration among German Jews and, most German
> Jews were not "Stetyl" (small village) Jews but more urban. While the
> Jews that became the Yiddish speaking Jews certainly traveled through
> Germany, the "German Jews" were more assimilated, giving up most of
> their African genes to northern Euro ones.
>
> I would say that in the case of Dutch Jews, who has a certain amount of
> Spanish blood in them, that this was probably even more the case.
Because of my interest in Iberian languages, I'm fascinated by the
Judaeo-Spanish (Sephardic) language, sometimes called Ladino.
(It doesn't seem like DeLeon used the language; as you said, most
of the Dutch Jews spoke Dutch). Because 1492 was the year the
Jews were expelled from Spain, it's like a pre-Columbian artifact
of the linguistic persuasion. There's a strong Portuguese element
(in part because Jews were not expelled from Portugal until later).
John Reed, when he was reporting on the Balkan Wars a century
ago, said "Ladino" was the main commercial language in Salonika.
- David Stevens
Einde O'Callaghan
pogroms were actually Sephardim, not Ashkenazim. This can be seen in
names like Ricardo and Disraeli - originally d'Israeli - and also I
susuperct de Leon. I think this was also originally true of the majority
of German Jews too, although after the partition of Poland there were
many Ashkenazim in the areas taken over by Prussia and Austria.
Einde O'Callaghan
David Walters
Yes, that's correct. Azhkanazim (my ancestors) came from the same places
as the Sephardim, but before the Sephardim, losing the
"Latin-Arab-Hebrew" dialects, evolving it as as Low-German, Hebrew and
whatever else thrown in.
Ladino was the trade language for many people. There were also Berber
and Turkish versions of this Hebrew based language (under the Caliphate,
who was...relatively pro-Jewish). Columbus was said to have understood
and read it (employed as he was by Jewish explorers and mapmakers).
The Greek Jews are more interesting, IMO. While Ladino may of
predominated among some of the large Jewish community in Thessaloniki, a
much older language existed, to, reflecting the only "non-Sephardim,
non-Ashkenazim" in Europe, the "Romaniotes" a Jewish "people" and
language about 2000 years old, predating both Ladino and Yiddish. It is
not a Hebrew dialect, per se, but a Greek dialect that was spoken by a
large somewhat reclusive section of the Thessaloniki community. There
were both Hebrew and Aramaic inflections in the grammer of the language.
Greek WRP leader Michael Savas descends from this community.
David
stephen
> On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, stephen <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Nematode also suddenly stopped attacking me as aJewor alleging I
> > am a Nazi ("gautleiter"). Some of his incomprehensible gibberish
> > contained the sense that he was privately upbraided for these vile
> > postings.
>
> >srd
>
> The irony isn't that he suddenly stopped.
On irony, I defer to the expert, O'Callaghan. The most significant
event was stopping, while continuing to deny his rhetoric's anti-
Semitic character. Actions speak louder than words, as Holmes likes to
say.
> But the arbiters of 'political correctness' on this site, Einde and
> Walters have ignored Stevens postings.
> Not because they didn't occur, but because he volunteered to become a
> front man of a weak coalition of globalists to attack all and sundry.
This theory may be refuted by the fact that he did stop. I infer
someone told him to. That would support your theory, in his being
directed by others. But it seems to rebut your idea that they put him
up to the anti-Semitism. Also, some of them are Jews.
My theory is that the reason for the anti-Semitic rhetoric is that he
*is* an anti-Semite. Notice how he constantly mentions how smart he
thinks Holmes and I. This is the brainy (but evil) Jew part of the
anti-Semitic steoreotype. He thinks I'm a shyster and that Holmes is a
liar, although Holmes is actually extremely honest in the strictly
formal sense. We're cheating Jews. Walters seems disconfirmatory.
Maybe it's simply impossible to harbor enmity against Walters.
srd
stephen
interkom.de> wrote:
> I'm well aware of what a flame war is, and have participated in a feew -
> although never really here in apst.
For anyone who doesn't know what a flame war is, turn to
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/topics?lnk=rgh
You can view an ongoing flame war that has persisted for at least a
year, involving maybe a score of perennial posters. It shows that
laymen interested in law are even more obnoxious than attorneys.
srd
John Holmes
German was the original language of the American socialist movement.
Back then, many people thought of Yiddish as a dialect of German,
generally a very bad one. In fact, the term "Yiddish" did not enter
English or even Yiddish until around 1890 or so. The usual name, even
in Yiddish itself, was "zhargon," from which we get the English word
"jargon."
This was Marx's opinion as well, he loved the German language and
disliked "zhargon" intensely, including or maybe even especially when
his mother tried to teach it to him.
Although Yiddish never did acquire a flag or a postage stamp,
everybody now agrees it is a separate language.
-jh-
John Holmes
He was only "Dutch" in the terms of the time. He was from a very
prosperous Sephardic family in Venezuela. "De Leon," I have heard, is
a very classic Sephardic name. I doubt he spoke Ladino, I'm sure it
had died out in Venezuela by the mid-19th century.
-jh-
John Holmes
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, David Walters wrote:
In the eighteenth century, German Jews spoke Yiddish. Then you had
Moses Mendelssohn and Reform Judaism, and the basic plank of Reform
Judaism is to make it less like Polish Judaism and more like
Lutheranism. So you had the invention of the synagogue, etc. Most
German Jews Germanized to one degree or another, and many went all the
way and converted to Protestantism, as Marx's father did--but his
mother did not. She definitely did know Yiddish, and so did Marx,
although he never admitted it in public. Engels told this to Jenny
Marx on his deathbed, when she was involved in organizing Jewish
immigrants from the Tsarist Empire in the East End of London.
-jh-
John Holmes
Right, exactly. English Jews, like Dutch Jews, were escapees from the
Spanish Inquisition, not the Tsarist Empire. De Leon was definitely
Sephardic.
There was a certain hierarchy among Jews in the 19th century, in the
USA and worldwide. Sephardic Jews were usually very rich and looked
down their noses at the German Jews, who in turn looked down their
noses at the East Europeans. Benjamin Disraeli was the ultimate role
model for the Sephardics. The most prominent Sephardic Jew in America
was the woman poet who wrote the famous poem about the Statue of
Liberty, lifting the lamp besides the golden door etc.
On her part, being pro-immigrant was an act of unstated Jewish
solidarity, not felt by most Sephardic Jews, who in the South were
sometimes slave traders during the Civil War, whereas the first German
Jewish immigrants started as door-to-door peddlers, but quickly worked
their way up into the middle class.
-jh-
John Holmes
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, David Walters wrote:
>...
> The Greek Jews are more interesting, IMO. While Ladino may of predominated
> among some of the large Jewish community in Thessaloniki, a much older
> language existed, to, reflecting the only "non-Sephardim, non-Ashkenazim" in
> Europe, the "Romaniotes" a Jewish "people" and language about 2000 years old,
> predating both Ladino and Yiddish. It is not a Hebrew dialect, per se, but a
> Greek dialect that was spoken by a large somewhat reclusive section of the
> Thessaloniki community. There were both Hebrew and Aramaic inflections in the
> grammer of the language. Greek WRP leader Michael Savas descends from this
> community.
>
> David
>
So, Judeo-Greek instead of Judeo-Spanish. More like ancient Greek or
modern, I wonder? Yiddish is much more like sixteenth century German
than modern.
So Savas is Jewish? Perhaps this is the root of Vangelis's um,
"attitude" to Jews in the movement? From what very little I know of
him, he does not sound like a fine example of a revolutionary.
-jh-
dusty
> You can view an ongoing flame war that has persisted for at least a
> year, involving maybe a score of perennial posters. It shows that
> laymen interested in law are even more obnoxious than attorneys.
> srd
Shit, it's like The Three Stooges - only with words - forgotten the
episode. La la...la la...la la...la la...la la..
dusty
> Although Yiddish never did acquire a flag or a postage stamp,
> everybody now agrees it is a separate language.
> -jh-
I wonder what Archie Forrester thinks about that Holmes, particularly
the "everybody".
Vngelis
You confuse 'jews' with apologists for zionism.
When the Israeli wars of aggressions started against Egypt in 1973
onwards Savas played the 'jewish' card.
Subsequently apart from being the main arselicker for Healy for a
decade and being 'elected' head of Healys FI AFTER the split, he
appeared on tv donning religious jewish paraphernalia reading
something from the Torah. The same bloke who went to Iran and Libya
and saw the permanent revolution being implemented.
Having been a globalist of later wanting the population of India to
move to Greece in order to show solidarity with wages which are pegged
to the floor so as to cater for his sensitivities of slave labour
(HItler etc.) he is a rotten apple, always has been always will be.
You can keep him.
vngelis
John Holmes
If your description is at all accurate, and given if nothing else that
he was the head of the ICFI, I could do nicely without such presents,
even if today is some Jewish holiday or other (I think it is, at least
Steve Colbert claimed it was tonight, and we all know how reliable he
is.)
I suppose this is a step forward for you which I can be pleased about,
seeing as in the spring at one point you were talking about keeping
Jews out of the revolutionary movement since all of them are Zionists.
-jh-
nada
Yeah, Judeo-Greek. It's why it's considered a Greek dialect and not a
Hebrew one. Ladino was written in Arabic and Hebrew letters, Yiddish
with Hebrew letters and Romaniotes in Greek.
D.
nada
But he was born in Curaçao, not Venezuela and both his parents
emigrated from Holland.
David
John Holmes
Curacao? Thanks for the correction. I suppose that's not very far as
the crow flies. Wonder where I heard Venezuela? Somewhere, I heard he
came from an old, prosperous Venezuelan Ladino family. Just a couple
weeks ago, I heard from an expert on such things that De Leon is a
name that indicates you're from a rather elite Sephardic background.
-jh-
Archie Forrester
even though it has been 'entered' very heavily by Slavic (and Hebrew)
vocabulary, its grammar, phonology, and basic word-stock are German.
Would these 'entries' by non-Germanic languages entitle it to genetic
re-classification? The answer would always be no - heavy re-
lexification is never a criterion for genetic re-classification;
English, for example, remains a Germanic language, despite the lexical
influence from French etc.
It's true that Yiddish is generally written in the Hebrew script; but
the example of Serbo-Croatian proves that use of a particular script
does not a separate language make.
So Yiddish is a Germanic (let's say - provisionally - 'tongue') which
is mutually-intelligible with German. Hmmmmmmmm.............
There may, on the other hand, be contemporary political reasons for
considering Yiddish a separate language; although Zionists - I mean
the radical cultural refromists of the high period and their
intellectual descendants - almost proverbially shunned it in favour of
Hebrew, and continue to do so, in recent years (mainly American,
liberal) Jews have begun to (and I apologise for the use of this
revolting word) 'reclaim' it. Thus the reason that "everyone" now
regards it as a separate language - hardly surprising when you
consider the preponderance of liberal American Jews in linguistics.
I wonder whether this (again, apologies) 'reclaiming' of Yiddish - and
its consequent elevation to the status of a language from that of a
dialect - isn't a product of the Israel-shame felt among sections of
liberal American Jewry (although this, of course, extends only so far
as criticism of actions - and not essence - will take it). I have in
mind here the close identification between the revival of Hebrew and
the State of Israel and that State's recent, particularly flagrant,
misdeeds, at which liberal Jewish opinion (though it remains
essentially Zionist) cannot help but recoil......
Archie Forrester
Actually, on reflection, I think I would take the matter further back
in time, to the period of the mainstream's glorification of everything
Jewish that began in the 1960's, and has at its centre the constant
publicisation of the Holocaust.
Archie Forrester
>
> - Show quoted text -
.....the glorification - especially - of the culture of Eastern
European Jewry.
Vngelis
>
> - Show quoted text -
If by 'revolutionary' you mean the myriad of self-proclaimed
trotskyist sects they can keep them.
Their politics are identical either soft or hard globalism or soft or
hard zionism.
They are made for each other.
vngelis
todo too...
to expect from the dilettantisms of gelis.
D.
todo too...
>
> If by 'revolutionary' you mean the myriad of self-proclaimed
> trotskyist sects they can keep them.
> Their politics are identical either soft or hard globalism or soft or
> hard zionism.
> They are made for each other.
> vngelis
One has to expand, analysis and be *specific* something the Gelis has
usually failed to do.
For example...Is Soros (the lastest Larouchite/Gelis manifestation of
all that is evil) closer to Vngelis or the IST. Vngelis would argue that
because a representative of Soros, supposedly, shared a "platform" on
mutual agreement on an issue that...perhaps Vngelis himself agrees with,
the IST is therefore the SAME AS Soros.
I've shared the state with many a union bureaucrat (class
collaborationist, Democrat, etc) in battles against the boss when the
bureaucrat was forced to defend the members.
NGOs have, on occasion, sided with people to further democracy. For
example, super-Liberal organization ACORN has now come under attack for
registering working class voters, mostly Black and Latino. The attacks
come from Vngelis's allies such as Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh (this
is the Vngelis 'method' of guild by association, all) for registering
"dead people" and "illegal aliens". I would GLADLY appear on the same
platform with representatives of ACORN in defense of the Franchise and
for democratic rights. ACORN may or may not be supported, funded,
directed or otherwise influenced by "Soros". I couldn't give a shit as
it's totally and absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
People who argue against any such kind of united front are doing the
work of the bosses with sectarian excuses not to defend democracy. Good
luck with that.
David
David Stevens
<=> "Hoch die Hand und hoch die Hammer" kind of flavor.
Proof that I don't know German -- it should be
"der" Hammer. (Hand and Hammer refer to the
traditional SLP arm and hammer symbol, which
came from the early union movement, which took
it from classical legends of Vulcan/Hephaestus,
that god of blacksmiths and craftsmen).
The poem (below) is from 25 April 1899.
"Daniel" is DeLeon. "Hugo" must be Hugo Vogt.
Olive Johnson says only that "a comrade who
went through the fight with DeLeon says
he thinks the author was M. Winchevsky, an
individual who did all he could to add to the
confusion of that day."
I guess Winchevsky, whether or not he wrote it,
joined SP after the 1899-1900 split. John Holmes
once wrote:
=
= Morris Winchevsky, "der zeide," was the original
= founder and leader of American Jewish Socialism.
=
= He was also a supporter of the American Communist
= Party in his last years.
=
= The American Yiddish Trotskyist journal (unzer
= kamf) published an obituary of "der zeide" which
= claimed that, in an interview shortly before his
= death (in 1931 I think), he had told the editor
= (Lazar Kling) that he opposed the expulsion of
= Trotsky and the Trotskyists from the communist
= movement.
--
Ordonanzen, Ordonanzen!
Die Sekionen muessen tanzen
Wie ich ihnen aufgespielt.
Eins-Zwei-Drei und Runde, Runde!
Tanzet, oder geht zu Grunde,
Wenn der Boss es Euch befiehlt
Lernet Disziplin begreifen,
Euer Fuehrer wird Euch pfeifen
Und Ihr werdet ihn verstehn.
Immer steifer, immer strammer,
Hoch die Hand und hoch der Hammer!
Rings um mich sollt Ihr Euch drehn.
Ich verbeite, ich gestatte;
Ich belehr' und ich ersatte,
Wenn's mich gut duenkt, Euch Bericht
Straeubt Ihr Euch, bring' ich am End um
Wahl und Wort und Referendum,
Die pro forma Ihr gekriegt.
Ordonanzen! Ordonanzen!
Die Getreuen muessen tanzen
Wie ich ihnen aufgespeilt.
Tanzet Deutsche, Juden, Polen,
Wie der Daniel Euch befohlen,
Wie der Hugo ihm befiehlt.
--
[from Olive M. Johnson, from a copy marked
"Gross-- N.Y. Arbeiter Z. Apr. 25/99"]
- David Stevens
Vngelis
Here Stevens political colours are firmly nailed to the mast.
The Soros-Rockeferler funded Institute for War and Peace turned up to
say how nasty Russia was in its brutality of 'poor little Georgia' and
how it should be made part of the EU.
In other words openly supporting the war aims of US imperialism. He
who pays the piper calls the tune.
Stevens is ...happy with that, in order to not appear ...sectarian.
Once a yank always a yank.
Vngelis
David Stevens
> ..
> Stevens is ...happy with that, in order to not appear ...sectarian.
>
> Once a yank always a yank.
uh -- Once a misattributor, always a misattributor?
- David Stevens
Vngelis
United fronts exist between people or organisations based on the
working class.
They do not exist with banking houses.
But then again the aim of the zionist left is to prove that the left
goes hand in hand with the banksters.
And ensure that the jewish elements within them are over-emphasised so
the right has an easy time in 'proving' that Marx even Trotsky were
essenitially Rothschild creations.
vngelis
todo too...
What does that mean "once a yank always a yank"? Anyway, to clear things
for me since I wasn't closely following...did the UK SWP support the
political aims of the "War and Peace Institute"? I don't know. I don't
even know what side they took in the Georgian Affair at all.
So...who supports, in the US, the aims of US imperialism in the
Caucuses? Anyway? I looked, can't find any. I think...maybe, News and
Letters support it. They do, after all, support Obama.
david
Vngelis
When one argues that one is invited onto a platform to speak about War
and Peace on a war that has just broken out and that this is a policy
of the united front in action, then one must have some basis to
explain what a united front is between workers and bankers. For
inviting Soros-Rothschild reps to speak at a rally against a war in
order then to argue that Russia is a bully and Georgia must join the
EU then you are either pretending
a) this has anything to do with a united front
b) it is a united front with the banksters and imperialism
c) if groups in America call for a vote to Obama then they are
imperialist in their outlook.
vngelis
stephen
> Vngelis wrote:
>
> > If by 'revolutionary' you mean the myriad of self-proclaimed
> > trotskyist sects they can keep them.
> > Their politics are identical either soft or hard globalism or soft or
> > hard zionism.
> > They are made for each other.
> > vngelis
>
> One has to expand, analysis and be *specific* something the Gelis has
> usually failed to do.
>
> For example...Is Soros (the lastest Larouchite/Gelis manifestation of
> all that is evil) closer to Vngelis or the IST. Vngelis would argue that
> because a representative of Soros, supposedly, shared a "platform" on
> mutual agreement on an issue that...perhaps Vngelis himself agrees with,
> the IST is therefore the SAME AS Soros.
>
> I've shared the state with many a union bureaucrat (class
> collaborationist, Democrat, etc) in battles against the boss when the
> bureaucrat was forced to defend the members.
A Democrat might support a local union's strike. With Soros, we speak
not of a politician but the most direct expression of monopoly
capital's interests. And issues of war and peace go to the most
fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie. I want more details, since I
think the correct criticism is directed to implementing actions and
forums acceptable to Soros.
srd
Einde O'Callaghan
link to an article in Socialist Review about a week or so ago.
Einde
stephen
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can I surmise that the vngelis forum placed the SWP (U.K.) on the same
platform with the Soros organization in the sense that they made
common cause with the Soros org over being critical of the Georgian
moves? Even if it didn't happen that way, it's something the SWP might
do, and vngelis (and I) wouldn't. Is that fair to say?
srd
todo too...
>
> Can I surmise that the vngelis forum placed the SWP (U.K.) on the same
> platform with the Soros organization in the sense that they made
> common cause with the Soros org over being critical of the Georgian
> moves? Even if it didn't happen that way, it's something the SWP might
> do, and vngelis (and I) wouldn't. Is that fair to say?
>
> srd
So the issue then isn't Soros at all, it's their position on the war,
which obviously IS more important, Soros being a footnote to all his.
David
John Holmes
Winchevsky was one of the central founders of Jewish Socialism in
America as a separate movement, way back in the 1880s (Perhaps
"original founding leader" was overstatement, but not much of one). He
was definitely a very active opponent of De Leon in the late '90s. A
"Kangaroo" I think. Like Forward editor Abraham Cahan and indeed the
great majority of organized Jewish socialists in America at that
moment, he left the SLP for the SP.
In the 1921 split in the Jewish Socialist Federation, he once again
went with the majority, joining forces with the "Workers Party,"
essentially the legal arm of the illegal CP (for details on this read
Bryan Palmer's Cannon bio), together with most of its prominent
members and leaders, like Moissaye Olgin and J. B. Hardman/Salutsky
(though he, unlike Olgin, left almost immediately).
It is perfectly believable from what I know about him that he wrote
the song you quote below.
Perhaps some of the maneuvers Stalin was inflicting in the late '20s
on the Comintern impelled him to sing it again in the shower while
nobody was listening.
-jh-
John Holmes
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Vngelis wrote:
>>...
>> NGOs have, on occasion, sided with people to further democracy. For
>> example, super-Liberal organization ACORN has now come under attack for
>> registering working class voters, mostly Black and Latino. The attacks
>> come from Vngelis's allies such as Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh (this
>> is the Vngelis 'method' of guild by association, all) for registering
>> "dead people" and "illegal aliens". I would GLADLY appear on the same
>> platform with representatives of ACORN in defense of the Franchise and
>> for democratic rights. ACORN may or may not be supported, funded,
>> directed or otherwise influenced by "Soros". I couldn't give a shit as
>> it's totally and absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I am all in favor of registering "illegal aliens." But I'm sorry, I
know it's traditional in Chicago, where I think ACORN has its
headquarters, but registering dead people and then having ringers from
ACORN or whatever to come in and vote for them on election day is a
bit much.
It's an old Democratic Party tradition, especially in Daleyland in
Chicago. The 1960 election was stolen for John Kennedy in 1960 by
the Chicago graveyard vote. It has been argued that the downstate
Republican machines were stealing for Nixon to an equal degree, so it
cancels out.
I mean, if they were falsifying voter registration on behalf of a
socialist or labor candidate, then I suppose you could make an
argument for defending them on the basis of class solidarity, though
it's not exactly the defense case one would prefer. But here the idea
is just to get people to vote for the Democrats, which is something
else altogether.
Now, perhaps there's just a few cases like this by ACORN, and the
Republicans are using this as a tool vs. the enormous flood of new
black voters the Demos are registering. But it's been more than just
Fox News reporting this stuff, I've seen it on cable news from
normally pro-Obama talking heads.
And besides, vote theft is a Democratic Party tradition that goes back
some 200 years. The leopard does not change his spots. Not that the
Republicans are any better of course.
-jh-
Einde O'Callaghan
Einde O'Callaghan
Vngelis
There were 3 speakers.
From the anti-war movement (SWP)
From the Labour Party-ex-editor of the New Statesman Peter Wilby
From the Soros-Rothschild funded Institute for War and Peace.
All 3 of them shared a platform taking it in turns to attack Russia,
compare notes on varying degrees about 'poor little Goergia' in the
honorouble traditions of British anti-communism and ending on a happy
note after trying to silence people from the floor, on why Georgia
needs to join the ...EU.
Einde has no clue about his pro-Americanism as he is in deep shit
which he assumes is perfume. Much like the stalinists of yesteryear
but only worse. If one was to criticise their beloved Stalin on
anything they went apeshit. 70 years past and they died supporting
him. Einde will continue to praise America to his dying days.
vngelis
dusty
Einde wasn't at the meeting and therefore I make reference only to the
IS below.
You correctly point out a certain similarity between the behaviour of
the IS and "the stalinists of yesteryear - but only worse".
There were important differences: the stalinists were deeply implanted
in the industrial working class and (very effectively in Australia -
at least before and after WW II) provided leadership for numerous
major struggles for wages and conditions; and they were deeply tied to
the deformed and degenerated workers' states, acting to ensure that
when these parties shared platforms with pro-imperialists even working
with them they did so with the firm purpose of defending those states,
not destroying them. And this connection always put them in the firing
line of the state apparatus tending to drive them to fight that
apparatus.
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
>
> Einde has no clue about his pro-Americanism as he is in deep shit
> which he assumes is perfume. Much like the stalinists of yesteryear
> but only worse. If one was to criticise their beloved Stalin on
> anything they went apeshit. 70 years past and they died supporting
> him. Einde will continue to praise America to his dying days.
>
Vangelis has really gone over the edge. Perhaps we should send for the
men in white coats?
I can only describe the above tirade as the ravings of somebody who's
lost touch with reality. But then contact with reality has never seemed
to be one of his strong points.
Einde O'Callaghan
John Holmes
If true - always a question with Vangelis's postings - then the
British SWP has some explaining to do.
Does Einde? Well, the gossip column outtake posted here a few weeks
ago from the Weekly Worker, which also likes to print letters from
Steve Wallis, hinted that there might be rifts between the iSt's
German section and the British SWP...
-jh-
David Stevens
> > ...
>> Einde has no clue about his pro-Americanism as he is in deep shit
>> which he assumes is perfume. Much like the stalinists of yesteryear
>> but only worse. If one was to criticise their beloved Stalin on
>> anything they went apeshit. 70 years past and they died supporting
>> him. Einde will continue to praise America to his dying days.
Gratis anhelans, multa agendo nihil agens.
Sibi molesta, et aliis odiosissima. [*]
> Vangelis has really gone over the edge. Perhaps we should send for the men
> in white coats?
I reject that. It is too facile a way to marginalize an opponent, like
Professor Kevin Murphy used to refer to opponents as "nutters."
I admit that, in the concrete, Gelis presents the singular most
challenging form the question has ever taken for me (despite the
abundant "heterodox" and anti-Marxist views among advocates
of medical marijuana). The _way_ Gelis chooses to argue his
positions seems almost calculated to be other than convincing,
as if he lives on his own planet. But Gelis really cannot be so
crazy as to believe that; and he really isn't.
> I can only describe the above tirade as the ravings of somebody who's lost
> touch with reality. But then contact with reality has never seemed to be
> one of his strong points.
I reluctantly concluded that there's no point in bothering to treat Gelis
as if he were _capable_ of political correction. Gelis doesn't have the
integrity to keep from repeating, or even dialectically re-inventing, his
rotten stuff. Walters' point (a while back in another thread) that Vngelis
fights against his very own positions restated, has been well argued by
Vngelis himself. So I have no problem in labeling it as "sub-optimal"
in game-theoretical terms, no matter what his game is.
If it's any consolation, I think virtually all non-writing APST readers
pretty much ignore Gelis. (This exchange between O'Callaghan
and me will be read by some Newsreader-readers who bypassed
the Vngelis original).
- David Stevens
[*] Phaedrus, _Fables_ (II, 5, 3):
Out of breath to no purpose, in doing much doing nothing.
A race hurtful to itself and most hateful to all others.
stephen
> I reject that. It is too facile a way to marginalize an opponent.
<deletion>
> I reluctantly concluded that there's no point in bothering to treat Gelis
> as if he were _capable_ of political correction.
Vintage Stevens. The Stevens Paradim. He criticizes O'Callaghan for
what is basically a joke and a protest of absurdity, since vngelis's
first paragraph is lucid. Then, using his own unjust attack on
O'Callaghan as cover [Stevens _did_ "defend" vngelis, didn't he?],
Stevens slurs vngelis in exactly the way criticized, only more
strongly, asserting, with emphasis, that vngelis lacks even the bare
capacity for political discussion. Actual attempted "marginalization,"
fortunately by one himself marginalized.
srd
David Stevens
said Mr. Diamond, tongue in cheek.
- David Stevens
stephen
There he goes, changing titles without noting the change. I wondered
when he would gather the courage to change this one.
His comment here manages to be as irrelevant and as disgusting as
possible.
srd
David Stevens
_Troilus_ in Act III scene 2
- DS
todo too...
But ACORN is simply not do this in the Democratic machine mold. The
situation in Illinois and New Mexico...the *specific ones* mentioned by
McCain are all based on ACORN *itself* noting the possible descrepencies
and reporting *per the law*. It's actually nothing new and voter
registration organizations have done this for year. What's different NOW
is that the Republicans went after ACORN for it. The charges against
them stem from *typical* Republican "let's get the Blacks and Mexicans
off the voter registration rolls". It's a naked campaign to go after the
Demcoratic "constituency". It's open and racist and it's that simple
John. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to know this after 2000
and 2004.
I agree, however, that they will have a harder time doing this this time
around, but we'll see.
David
David Stevens
> ...
> situation in Illinois and New Mexico...the *specific ones* mentioned by
> McCain are all based on ACORN *itself* noting the possible descrepencies
> and reporting *per the law*. It's actually nothing new and voter
> registration organizations have done this for year. What's different NOW
> is that the Republicans went after ACORN for it. The charges against
> them stem from *typical* Republican "let's get the Blacks and Mexicans
> off the voter registration rolls". It's a naked campaign to go after the
> Demcoratic "constituency". It's open and racist and it's that simple
> John. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to know this after 2000
> and 2004.
the discrepancies -- anybody who ever registered voters knows that such
discrepancies are common. So it disturbs me that the Republicans are
willing to play it up in a mere intramural dispute between two right wings
of the Party of Capital. Even if one discounts the demagogueries meant
to toss red meat to their supporters (and discounts the fact that the
republican wing of the Capital party doesn't have very good seats in
the forthcoming electoral circus, so they run from behind), it does
remind me somewhat of 2000. They're willing to damage their own
political system, just for the opportunity to become a lot less popular
then they are at the moment. Another decade of thinking that way,
and maybe they really will become the Coup wing of the ruling party.
- David Stevens
John Holmes
Ah, I thought they were being exposed by the Repubs etc. If they
reported this stuff themselves that is just normal bureaucratic
blunders, natural in a voter registration program as large scale as
the one the Demos and their allies have undertaken. I still find it
hard to believe that a group as thoroughly Democratic Party as ACORN
is actually doing everything honestly, but I suppose it could happen.
>
> I agree, however, that they will have a harder time doing this this time
> around, but we'll see.
Oh, yeah. Much, much harder. I don't think they'll have much luck
going after ACORN regardless of whether ACORN is engaged in
registration fraud or not. At this point, the Republicans have 2000
and 2004 to answer for, and I'm sure the Demos could get away with
plenty of genuine voter fraud if they wanted to.
-jh-
> > David >
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan replied to Vngelis:
> > > ...
>>> Einde has no clue about his pro-Americanism as he is in deep shit
>>> which he assumes is perfume. Much like the stalinists of yesteryear
>>> but only worse. If one was to criticise their beloved Stalin on
>>> anything they went apeshit. 70 years past and they died supporting
>>> him. Einde will continue to praise America to his dying days.
>
> Gratis anhelans, multa agendo nihil agens.
> Sibi molesta, et aliis odiosissima. [*]
>
>> Vangelis has really gone over the edge. Perhaps we should send for the
>> men in white coats?
>
> I reject that. It is too facile a way to marginalize an opponent, like
> Professor Kevin Murphy used to refer to opponents as "nutters."
I did use the word "perhaps". But I must admit I'm at a loss to know how
to react to such craziness. I often get the feeling when responding to
Vangelis that he doesn't respond to what anybody writes, only to his own
preconceptions. It's a bit like trying to "discuss" with a political
autist or somebody living in a world of their own, indeed in a universe
of their own. I'm sometimes reminded of some of the discussions Alice
has during her various trips to Wonderland.
Einde O'Callaghan
Archie Forrester
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> > David Walters wrote:
> >> David Stevens wrote:
> >>> David Walters:
>
> >>>> De Leon was Jewish, but a Dutch Jew, which means he *probably*
> >>>> didn't know Yiddish. Most middle-class Dutch Jews spoke Dutch.
>
> >>> I'd guess Dutch for DeLeon's native language, but he could debate
> >>> well in what I imagine to be standard ("High") German. In its
> >>> earliest days, SLP was almost exclusively a German languageparty.
> >>> Until the 1899-1900 split, _Volkszeitung_ and _People_ were both run
> >>> through the Volkszeitung's (privately owned) publishing arm. And no
> >>> matter which alphabet they used, I think the background of the
> >>> Volkszeiting crowd was mostly Yiddish. I am not clear even on how to
> >>> tell "Low" German from Dutch. I take the view that there is (still)
> >>> a sort of spectrum: You can walk any twenty-mile segment between
> >>> Amsterdam and Vienna, and other people will understand you about as
> >>> well as they did at the beginning of the day.
> >>> I never studied German, so I miss a lot. Yiddish, mostly, has
> >>> greatly enriched the expressive power of American English. The USA
> >>> surely needs words like schmaltz and schtick!
>
> >>> - David Stevens
>
> >> Yes, no, maybe.
>
> >> OK, so...there was a small but significant par of the 19th Century
> >> German immigration that was Jewish. But they were in fact *German*
> >> more so than Jewish. German Jews by and large spoke German, not
> >> Yiddish. Yiddish had very little penetration among German Jews and,
> >> most German Jews were not "Stetyl" (small village) Jews but more
> >> urban. While the Jews that became the Yiddish speaking Jews certainly
> >> traveled through Germany, the "German Jews" were more assimilated,
> >> giving up most of their African genes to northern Euro ones.
>
> >> I would say that in the case of Dutch Jews, who has a certain amount
> >> of Spanish blood in them, that this was probably even more the case.
>
> > I believe most Dutch and English Jews up to the time of the Russian
> > pogroms were actually Sephardim, not Ashkenazim. This can be seen in
> > names like Ricardo and Disraeli - originally d'Israeli - and also I
> > susuperct de Leon. I think this was also originally true of the majority
> > of German Jews too, although after the partition of Poland there were
> > many Ashkenazim in the areas taken over by Prussia and Austria.
>
> > Einde O'Callaghan
>
> Yes, that's correct. Azhkanazim (my ancestors) came from the same places
> as the Sephardim, but before the Sephardim, losing the
> "Latin-Arab-Hebrew" dialects, evolving it as as Low-German, Hebrew and
> whatever else thrown in.
>
> Ladino was the trade language for many people. There were also Berber
> and Turkish versions of this Hebrew based language (under the Caliphate,
> who was...relatively pro-Jewish). Columbus was said to have understood
> and read it (employed as he was by Jewish explorers and mapmakers).
I realise I'm a little bit late here, but...
Ladino is a Romance-based tongue - really a descendant of Old
Castillian. Like the Ashkenazim (debatably), it's not genetically
Semitic.
The Sephardim ARE Semites; they came to Spain and Portugal with the
Arabs and Berbers.
The "Caliphate" (by which I suppose you mean the Ottoman Empire) was
only "relatively pro-Semitic" because of the advantages - financial
and so on - associated with allowing the Iberian Jews to settle in the
Empire.
You have about as much idea about this stuff as you do about
Macedonia.
Where on Earth do you get your information from?
Vngelis
>
> Where on Earth do you get your information from?
A big grim building beginning with L...
vngelis
Vngelis
interkom.de> wrote:
>
> I did use the word "perhaps". But I must admit I'm at a loss to know how
> to react to such craziness. I often get the feeling when responding to
> Vangelis that he doesn't respond to what anybody writes, only to his own
> preconceptions. It's a bit like trying to "discuss" with a political
> autist or somebody living in a world of their own, indeed in a universe
> of their own. I'm sometimes reminded of some of the discussions Alice
> has during her various trips to Wonderland.
>
> Einde O'Callaghan
>
To a globalist who is disconnected from reality what I say is indeed
Alice in Wonderland stuff.
No two ways about that.
The problem though is do developments end up corresponding with what I
say will happen next or not.
That is key.
vngelis
Einde O'Callaghan
LOL. I'm still waiting for the US elections to be cancelled as
confidently predicted several weeks ago by yours truly drawing on the
wisdom of Sorcha Faal.
Einde O'Calalghan
todo too...
Nothing you said contradicts what I stated. The Ottomans...being mostly
Sufi in perspective, couldn't care less about their Jews so long as they
provided the medium for keeping exchange in various parts of the empire.
As such, it was Ottoman areas that to this day maintained larger
Sephardic communities (Sarajevo, for example) and other places in the
Balkans.
Ladino has many Hebrew forms within it, especially nouns. To hear it
spoken it sounds like a smoother version of Hebrew...when listening for
Hebrew inflections and works.
Seattle Washington has the largest Sephardic community in the US. They
have lots of interesting sources on Ladino there. Obviously Yiddish is
far more Semitic character wise and has far more Hebrew...if this is
what it is...inside it.
D.
David Stevens
taxonomy of a language. Archie Forrester's earlier example (of English)
was a good one. English is a "Germanic" language, although most of
its vocabulary comes from French or Latin. (In fact, strange as it sounds,
more "Old French" words survive into Modern English than survived
into Modern French).
Forrester called Ladino/Judezmo/Espaniol a kind of Castilian, and
he is kind of right. ;-) Some of the classical features of Castilian
don't appear in Ladino (or, for that matter, Portuguese or Leonese).
The Latin word "ant," from which we derive formic acid and formica
plastic, became "hormiga" in Spanish -- but it is "furmiga," at least
among Balkan speakers of Ladino-Espaniol. And the well-known
dipthongization characterized by Castilian "quiero" (I want/love) is
absent in Ladino, where the word remained "quero."
- David Stevens