>From the outright liar who frames people with an opposing viewpoint as
"lunatics" and then denies it in the same post, this may only be a
compliment. Ken is obviously wasting his good will on you.
As far as spending time on my post, it is worth noting that you snipped almost all of it and then spent all of your post attacking strawmen arguments I did not make. You should get a job writing press releases for NATO.
>Basic point still holds: most Communists supported the Allies
>against the Axis. You can say they weren't the "real"
>communists, but your historical position remains an embarrassing
>minority one.
I'll ask the question again. *When* did most Communists support the Allies over the Axis? Everyone already knows the answer to this question and what caused in the change in the position in most Communists, but I'm sure you will continue to ignore it.
And I defy you to point to anything in my posts that either state or implies that the CP members and other leftists were not "real."
You may remember defying anyone to find a post of yours were you said anything bad about Marxists communists and socialists, but I will have much better luck with my little statement of defiance than you did with yours. To wit:
You:
>>>I defy anyone to find one negative word in any post I have ever
>>>written about "marxists," "communists," or "socialists," though
>>>I've made clear I am none of the above. I'm even nice to Trots;
>>>would have to be, since I was one.
Me:
>>Sure, no prob:
[Me, quoting you on the very same post you made your defiant claim]
>>I would like to isolate the lunacy of those who cannot pass the
>>Hitler Test, typified by the doctrine of revolutionary defeatism
>>or, for that matter, by the Spart treacle Doug posted yesterday.
>You can try to equate your idiosyncratic position
>with that of socialists everywhere, but only gullible people will
>believe you.
I can try? Thanks for the permission Li'L Dumplin. However, I haven't tried anything of the sort. The *only* thing I said is that most communists and socialists were anti-Nazi long before the Allies were and in fact, long before fascism had swept through Europe. But much the same way you create fatuous Hitler tests, ignore the massive shifts in Soviet foriegn policy which created both support for and opposition to the Axis, I'm sure you will spend all the rest of your time attacking strawmen instead of the actual facts I brought up.
> The complicity of the Allied nations in acceding to
>Hitler's rise, and to the launch of his military adventures, is
>obvious and utterly beside the point.
It is besides the point unless a) you are arguing for some kind of moral position rather than a political one, which you are and b) you think Hitler's rise wasn't worth stopping or was inevitable. The Allies failed the Hitler Test. You claim to not be interested in people who failed the Hitler Test. You are interested in the Allies.
> In the breech, the Allied
>nations did the right thing, for whatever reason, and you still
>can't figure that out.
On the contrary, my position is derived from looking at both sets of arguments. I have figured it out, and the famous *it* I have figured out is that you are one more burnt-out former leftie blowhard.
>You said:
>> . . . Isolationist and racist currents like "Multiethnic
>communities in the Balkans can work." Yeah, that's real racist
>and isolationist.>
>
>No, it's just foolish, at this point in time. If you don't think
>the American public's attitude towards intervention is not
>colored by race and isolationism, there isn't much more to be
>said.
Your snipping certainly would have gotten you a good job in the Politburo. Let me restore context:
You:
>>>I have no optimism for the political future of my own peculiar
>>>views on this. I fully expect most of what passes for the left
>>>to go along with revolutionary apathy, as well as playing
>>>opportunistically to isolationist and racist currents among the
>>>general public, and abetted by the likely incompetence and
>>>inconstancy of U.S./EU policy.
Me:
>>Isolationist and racist currents like "Multiethnic communities in the
>>Balkans can work." Yeah, that's real racist and isolationist.
The argument the rev-defs are making is the multiethnic argument. In what way does this "play opportunistically" to isolationist and racist current, or really, have anything to do with those currents? My comments weren't about what Americans think of the intervention, but about what leftists are "playing" to, and what they are playing to is neither isolationist or racist.
Why you thought you'd be able to take my quotes out of context and not be called out on it and proved to be schilling bullshit is beyond me.
>> >As for demonization, some here expect to get away with all
>manner of slurs against those with whom they disagree, but
>scratch them with, in this case, nothing more than a political
>attack exploiting their own phraseology, employing no greater
>pejorative than terms like "confused," and well its just boo hoo
>hoo.>
>
>> Don't forget the explicit term "lunatic" or phraseology that
>boils down to
>"pandering to racism" or "too stupid to figure out that Hitler
>was bad."
>All of those are worse pejorative than confused. >
>
>Those are your words, not mine, except for 'lunatic'.
Yes moron, that's why I noted lunatic as an "explicit term" and the others as "phraseology that boils down to."
Insisting that the rev-defs haven't "figured out" WWII with 50 years of hindsight is an obvious slur on their intelligence and a contention that they are stupid.
Also, there is *no* difference between "playing opportunistically" and "pandering." You certainly have a lot of gall to torture my text and snip most of it, and then claim that I am somehow misstating your positions.
>I was considerably more polite, then and now, as well as compared to
>yourself.
I never claimed to be polite and I see no need to be polite to someone who fills my email box with nonsense and slurs.
Politeness in defense of imperialism is no virtue.
> You are right to say this is at least borderline ad
>hominem, but your standing on this is undercut by your own
>language. Even so, lunatic referred to a doctrine, not to
>persons, as in:
>
>> > I would like to isolate the lunacy of those who cannot pass
>the Hitler Test, typified by the doctrine of revolutionary
>defeatism or, for that matter, by the Spart treacle Doug posted
>yesterday.>
>
>Nevertheless, I will admit this is backpeddling. So I will
>apologize to Ken for use of the word lunatic if he apologizes for
>saying anyone on the other side of the debate is simply
>interested in justifying a renunciation of progressive activism.
Why should he apologize? I proved my statement was true, after you defied the world to show it. You should apologize without condition.
If you wish an apology from Ken, you should show that those on the other side are not interested in justifying their renunciation of progressive activism (you should also show that he actually claimed this for ANYONE to the debate, and not just you). If you can't do that, then you have no reasonable expectation to complain.
>> >You only salute him because he validates your position. He's
>> >just another useful idiot.
>>
>> More Stalin baiting.
>
>I make no apologies for prejudice against the grave-digger of
>socialism. Go ahead and spread it around.
I'm not prejudiced against Stalin. I am against Stalin because I studied him. However, you again show off your semi-literacy. The Stalin baiting you are engaging in is in using a specialized term like "useful idiot" to describe or taint Ken's actions and connect them to Stalin's. It has nothing to do with your position on Stalin, it is about your position on Ken's appreciation of Chomsky as essentially a Stalinist action.
>The rest of your post consists of excerpts from mine, followed by
>absurdly warped paraphrases that you attack. Not worth response;
>anyone who cares will see the difference.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>In closing, in regard to:
>
>> Like being annoying on a mailing list?
>
>. . . I will say that I normally do not take pleasure in annoying
>people, but in your case I will make an exception.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step.