Friday, March 26, 2010

And today's babble "Unionist" award goes to..... "Stargazer"

This is the third, and the last, in a series of awards for malicious misreading, willful distortion, wanton decontextualization, utter disingenuousness, contemptuous hypocrisy and basic intellectual dishonesty while purporting to be someone of the Left. Perhaps before we get to today's recipient, I should confess that while much of this is facetious (and perhaps deserving of its own "Unionist' award), there is something much more serious at stake. For me, the Left designates not only a political economy that stands in critical relation to capitalism, not only a socially progressive vision of a more voluntaristic and cooperative world where liberty and justice are enjoyed by all, but, and perhaps, most critically, that this is all grounded in an ethical relation to one another, to knowledge and to truth.

Of course, right wing discussion groups are full of ignorance, hate, and intolerance. Of course liberal discussion groups are disingenuous, dull, and hypocritical (and they certainly don't have anyone as clever and intelligent as Unionist to do their bidding, otherwise we might be in serious trouble- imagine Kinsella with intelligence). But I expect the Left to speak ethically, humbly, openly, competently and self-reflexively.  My Left dwells in nuance and distinction and it takes from Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, that the oath of the philosopher ("all is to be doubted" ) should begin with that most fundamentally unquestioned belief in the antitheses of values. Today we might summon this as a challenge to binarism.

In a rarefied world of pure binary antagonism, of fundamentalism, there is no nuance, there is no reverence, respect for alterity, and there is no forgiveness (a hospitable openness gifted in advance). In fact, in such a pure world, the enemy of one's enemy becomes one's friend, the friend of one's enemy becomes one's enemy, and ends justify means, regardless of how insidious those means. Sadly, the Left sometimes resembles its extreme right wing counterparts exhibits the nuance and emotional maturity of a two year old (I think here of the psychoanalytic term "ambivalence") which often leads to deranged claptrap, personal attacks, abusive insults etc. And this leads to today's Unionist award recipient: Stargazer

Essentially, Stargazer portrays herself as the often deranged embodiment of "ambivalence", oscillating wildly between love and hate- usually the latter as attested to by her perpetual status as babbler which reads "is really pissed." And her part in the feeding frenzy on DiNovo was exemplary. Just as the derangement to the perceived betrayal was about to launch into full force a babbler by the name of Prophit had the gall to post:
The Ontario leg voted on what in my view is a proper expression of the position of most Ontarians. I am pleaseantly surprised that it was unanimous and that it had the backing of my own party, the NDP.
Stargazer quickly interceded with the following display of generosity:
You're an idiot. Sorry, I can't be nicer to you.
Proper expression of most Ontarians? Bull fucking shit. Proper expression of neo religious whackjobs and their lovely neighbours, the Zionists.
It's censorship, freedom of expression and a whole host of issues at stake here and you think this represents what most Ontarians want? I don't think so.
Isn't there a policy you agree to when you sign up here? Like you know, Human rights are not up for debate? Clearly Babble allows for that debate. Frankly I'd rather see all these Israel right or wrong defenders banned. How would that be for censorship.

Then when another babbler Peech bravely shares a personal story, Stargazer simply calls Peech a fine hypocrite:
Peech wrote:
My cousin  was a victim of a murder suicide (aka. "Palestinian resistance") while she was having lunch in a restaurant .  So I have a problem with anyone proclaiming that they have a right to call for the eradication of another nation state or murder it's members. Especially when it is  a double standard which was the whole point of my post which obviously anyone mired in ideology is blind to.
Why do we not see "Victims of Torture from the Fascist Islamic Republic of Iran week"? Why are you singularly obsessed with Israel whilst minimizing or ignoring atrocities of states much much worse? That is the point of the condemnation of IAW.

Stargazer wrote:
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Lastly, when it was reported that DiNovo had received threats of violence. Stargazer responded with this shining example of Leftist solidarity and compassion:
The thing is, we have no evidence she had received death threats. She never did give specifics and instead appeared to blame the death threats on anyone who disagreed with her...She has only herself to blame. Until she takes action on the so-called death threats, then I might believe they actually happened.
For Stargazer one moment you're a brother/sister in arms (she gushes often at Unionist whom she praises for not only anticipating her comments, but saying things so much more wonderfully) the next you're the enemy. Pure reactive, disproportionate, hate filled bile. Pure Ambivalence.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

And today's "Unionist" award goes to ...... genstrike @ babble

Today's Unionist award for malicious misreading, willful distortion, wanton decontextualization, utter disingenuousness, contemptuous hypocrisy and basic intellectual dishonesty while posturing as someone of the Left goes to genstrike over @ babble.

In outrage and contempt for DiNovo, genstrike not only misses the point that the "condemnation"was not of the activists themselves, but a disagreement with their tactics. The condemnation was specifically of their use of the term apartheid. And genstrike's stubborn unwillingness to recognize this is only aggravated in his comparing the "betrayal" to that of Brutus' act of treachery.

But what really secures the award for genstrike was his scathing hypocrisy displayed in the ruthless piling on DiNovo and then having a complete meltdown on the babble forum where genstrike allows his/her rudeness to escalate to the point of telling another babbler to "go f*ck yourself".  This was very quickly edited, and I note in a such a way as to attempt still to disparage DiNovo. Where are all the screen captures of genstrike's outrageous and incendiary remarks? Where was the twittering? Where are the negative sanctions for flagrantly violating babble policy?

Genstrike, stepping away from the keyboard after you have egregiously insulted a fellow babbler is no moral high ground. Your retaliation was far more severe and under far less provocation.
Now, mon frère, mon semblance, to celebrate your insult to public decency with Baudelaire's opening to "The Flowers of Evil" [from the evening redness in the west]:

To The Reader

Stupidity, delusion, selfishness and lust
torment our bodies and possess our minds,
and we sustain our affable remorse
the way a beggar nourishes his lice.

Our sins are stubborn, our contrition lame;
we want our scruples to be worth our while—
how cheerfully we crawl back to the mire:
a few cheap tears will wash our stains away!

Satan Trismegistus subtly rocks
our ravished spirits on his wicked bed
until the precious metal of our will
is leached out by this cunning alchemist:

the Devil’s hand directs our every move—
the things we loathed become the things we love;
day by day we drop through stinking shades
quite undeterred on our descent to Hell.

Like a poor profligate who sucks and bites
the withered breast of some well-seasoned trull,
we snatch in passing at clandestine joys
and squeeze the oldest orange harder yet.

Wriggling in our brains like a million worms,
a demon demos holds its revels there,
and when we breathe, the Lethe in our lungs
trickles sighing on its secret course.

If rape and arson, poison and the knife
have not yet stitched their ludicrous designs
onto the banal buckram of our fates,
it is because our souls lack enterprise!

But here among the scorpions and the hounds,
the jackals, apes and vultures, snakes and wolves,
monsters that howl and growl and squeal and crawl,
in all the squalid zoo of vices, one

is even uglier and fouler than the rest,
although the least flamboyant of the lot;
this beast would gladly undermine the earth
and swallow all creation in a yawn;

I speak of Boredom which with ready teats
dreams of hangings as it puffs its pipe.
Reader, you know this squeamish monster well,
—hypocrite reader, —my alias, —my twin!

— Charles Baudelaire, The Flowers of Evil (1857)
Update: Seems that genstrike just doesn't seem to know when to stop. He's pounced on another pile on, I mean, debate topic. Oh the gall... By the way, genstrike continues unabated and without reprimand from any moderators. How charming. babble leaking credibility with each disingenuous breath.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Today's Unionist award goes to......... Unionist

There is no paucity of malicious misreading, willful distortion, of wanton decontextualization, of utter disingenuousness, and basic intellectual dishonesty. Something I'm sure we're all guilty of from time to time, but occasionally people elevate this to an art form. For years I used to call this "pullin' a Cherniak", but having recently come across Cherniak's doppelgänger in the rabid Left wing of the blogoasylum known as babble, I now use the phrase "pullin' a Unionist" to refer to such practice on the Left.

In my previous post I pointed to a classic instance of "pullin' a Unionist". Today I will demonstrate another, and not only because I'm an a**hole, but because I want to share with you some beautiful words, which I wouldn't have discovered were it not for Unionist "pullin' a Unionist". You see, as Grand Inquisitor and Supreme Authority on babble, Unionist is prone to seeing himself as not having to abide by babble policy (although in fairness, the policy only really exists to allow for the banning of those who disagree with the apparatchik) and as the final authority on any given subject.

Anyway, Unionist was one of the first of the babble feeding frenzy on ONDP & DiNovo to steer the criticism towards vitriol and scorn, and what seemed to really set him off were some comments in Hansard about DiNovo attending a Passover Seder which began by praying for one's enemy. This sent Unionist into a frenzy of namecalling, charges of lying, of ignorance, of questioning her sobriety, and led to his pronouncement the it is Christians who are called to love one's enemy, and that Jews pray on, not for, their Egyptian enemies in a traditional Haggadah. Then earlier yesterday Unionist wrote:
I've mentioned this a few times - but in her speech, DiNovo said that the Passover Seder begins with a prayer for the Egyptians, who were the enslavers of the Israelites. I pointed out that that is not only false, it is a loopy crazy invention - because the Haggadah (the booklet which is read and sang every Seder night) is filled with triumphalist rhetoric about God destroying our enemies, etc.
My point - how can a rational person stand up in public and make up nonsense like this? Did she just badly misinterpret something someone had told her?
So this becomes the foundation of Unionist's public derision. DiNovo lies, she makes things up, badly misinterprets and this justifies his zealous and scornful attack on her character. Incidentally Unionist's comments about her receiving death threats are truly special, but can also be seen as emanating from this foundational premise. In response I posted:
I am no Jew and have never assisted at a Seder supper, but in two seconds I was able to find a Passover Seder Haggadah, that begins essentially not only as DiNovo described in Hansard, but also are simply beautiful words:

So let's now close our eyes. Can you see the universe and your place in it? Affirm now your role as partner with God in the healing and transformation of all that is. The Seder can also be a time to do "tikkun" (to heal and transform parts of ourselves and our society). To read the Seder please continue reading this piece.

"KIDDUSH We are gathered here tonight to affirm our continuity with the generations of Jews who kept alive the vision of freedom in the Passover story. For thousands of years, Jews (and our non-Jewish allies) have affirmed this vision by participating in the Passover Seder. We not only remember the Exodus but actually relive it, bringing its transformative power into our own lives. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means "narrow straits." Traditionally, mitzrayim has been understood to mean a spiritual state, the "narrow place" of confusion, fragmentation, and spiritual disconnection. Liberation requires us to embrace that which we have been taught to scorn within ourselves and others, including the split-off parts from our own consciousness that we find intolerable and that we project onto some "evil Other." The Seder can also be a time to reflect on those parts of ourselves. Israel, according to the Torah, left Egypt with "a mixed multitude." The Jewish people began as a multicultural mélange of people attracted to a vision of social transformation. What makes us Jews is not some biological fact, but our willingness to proclaim the message of those ancient slaves: (Say Together) The world can be changed, we can be healed."
Unionist, of course, dodged this reply, "pullin' a Unionist", because his foundational premise for defaming a public figure would vanish. In the meantime, we might just revel in the beauty and hope of a prayer which I otherwise would never have stumbled upon. Hate can lead you to beauty, but only love will lead to peace and justice.

Monday, March 15, 2010

In Defence of DiNovo, or why I've been looking for a new Socialist home (Updated)

Having followed the cannibalistic feeding frenzy by a small segment of fundamentalist Leftists on one of the its strongest advocates in public life has been nothing short of incredulous. On the whole, this could be just another day on the Left and could be dismissed as a rather benign episode of "pajama people"* and /or rabblerousers responding with unhinged disproportion at a perceived betrayal of their pure, fundamentalist politics. Such derangement, however, has been possible only on the back of a totally disingenuous interpretation of DiNovo's actions and words, and has led to an unusual escalation culminating allegedly in threats of violence directed at DiNovo herself.

So what has DiNovo done that is so awful? To begin with, in babblean fundamentalist circles her first mistake was to treat a fellow MPP as a fellow parliamentarian and to show him anything other than contempt and disdain. DiNovo may have even used parliamentary and conciliatory language in dealing with Shurman. Shame indeed! In the rarefied world of pure antagonism of these fundamentalists, there is no nuance, there is no reverence, respect for alterity, and there is no forgiveness (a hospitable openness gifted in advance). In fact, in such a pure world, the enemy of one's enemy becomes one's friend, the friend of one's enemy becomes one's enemy, and ends justify means, regardless of how insidious those means.

Nonetheless, in order to entirely conflate DiNovo's remarks and position on the IAW resolution with that of Peter Shurman's requires nothing less than malicious and wilful misreading (something I used to call "pullin' a Cherniak", but now for nuance sake in Leftists circles I call it "pullin' a Unionist"), as well as a flagrant decontextualization of the two speakers.

To begin, DiNovo clearly speaks from a radically different place than Shurman. She speaks as a woman, a feminist, a theologian, queer rights activist, and social justice activist (her track record of standing up for oppressed groups -Muslims, Tibetans, Ukrainians who suffered Holodomor etc... is unmistakable)** Next, although in her remarks, DiNovo, I believe rightly, agrees with Shurman on the need to call into question the term "apartheid", she does so out of a desire for peace rather than a desire to absolve the State of Israel. And yes, peace means justice, and justice for everyone. Taking her cue from many Muslims themselves she spoke with, many of whom are not vested in the term apartheid, DiNovo pushes the need to talk about ending the occupation, to talk about the wall and for a two state solution. She in essence reiterates NDP federal policy, which even the National Post saw as her digression from Shurman's resolution and the conservative position. And the National Post's ability to deal with nuance is about as impaired as fundamentalist Leftists.

Then, there's the issue of whether speaking in agreement to one part of a motion constitutes agreement with the entire resolution, and whether in fact the ONDP did give its voiced support for the resolution in the legislature.

All to say, Leftist derangement that led to its pillorying of DiNovo hinges on the preposterous establishment of equivalences between Shurman and DiNovo. Since the rabid Left exhibits the nuance of a two year old (I think here of the psychoanalytic term "ambivalence" that characterizes among other things excessive narcissism and I think "fundamentalism") this led to deranged claptrap, assaults on her character, and, in my view, ultimately erodes the legitimacy of IAW.

When DiNovo's egregious actions weren't being met with derangement, they were met with a soft, "kind" patronizing admonishment that was in my view even more insulting. I'm thinking here of a letter circulated, by "academics", I believe, in which they gave DiNovo an out by patting her on the head and saying "dear dear, you just don't know all the facts, and just how bad it is over there. It's not your fault you didn't know how wrong you are."

Give me a f*cking break. Given DiNovo's education, her multi-faith background and her links to the Muslim community, not to mention to the Leftist/activist community, my sense is that she's not in need of any lessons about the suffering and human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territory, especially not when those lessons issue from overprivileged, overeducated white boys whose acquaintance with deprivation is running out of Chardonnay at the Conference reception. I only resort here to hyperbole, because predictably also heard around rabble were comments like DiNovo deserves to experience first hand the deprivation in Gaza and so what if she's receiving death threats, her actions in the legislature help perpetuate bloodshed in Gaza.

And then, there were attempts to extract a retraction and an apology from DiNovo and demand that she throw herself at the mercy of good willed progressives. This coming from babble, the epicentre of derangement, and from "Unionist" no less!! Yes, the same "Unionist" who initiates a discussion to extort an apology from DiNovo, and subsequently in that thread writes "And by the way, Sineed, while it's not my place to ask her to apologize (as I mentioned from the outset), I have every right to condemn the shameful words she pronounced in public." Hello! If it's not your place to ask her to apologize, why start of discussion topic on it? This also the same Unionist who in that same topic grudgingly acquiesces that sending DiNovo death threats might be a wee bit over the top, but not nearly as egregious as her not having called the police. I wonder if her being out of the country has something to do with it.

Now onto the other big issue: the assault on free speech. This incidentally was the tac taken by reasonable Leftists with legitimate disagreement, but also by Leftists and NDP'ers who wanted to attack DiNovo (i.e. appease the dozen rabid Leftists and the three intimidating Islamists who complained vociferously), but had the decency not to use "the friend of my enemy must be my enemy" argument outlined above. You see, since DiNovo did not actually deviate from NDP policy on the Middle East, she could not be condemned for that (I've never heard Jack Layton refer to "Israeli apartheid", have you?) Nonetheless, it is claimed that in her denunciation of the term apartheid, she attacked free speech. My short reply is no! She exercised her right to free speech and denounced speech designed to foreclose free speech. She correctly, in my opinion, condemned needlessly inflammatory and incendiary language in order to keep speech open not to close it down.

I suspect critics who see this as an assault on academic freedom and/ or free speech see this as egregious owing to the fact that this was uttered from a place of power and privilege and "suasion". I agree that the position from which discourse issues is highly relevant. I suspect too that these critics would not view a similar condemnation of the term apartheid issued, for instance in an email or on the radio, as other than an expression of disagreement. While I'm sympathetic to the need to be vigilantly protective of our right to speak freely and openly, and I am sympathetic to the slippery slope argument, I don't believe the DiNovo's condemnation was wrong, nor do I fear that it could lead to labelling the term "Israeli apartheid" as hate speech.

While the resolution passed in the Ontario legislature does emanate not from an ordinary place, but a place of power, we do need to be careful. However, the resolution has at best "moral" suasion, and has no legal and authoritative power. These resolutions are brought forward all the time (e.g. I don't recall an outcry when parliament guided public opinion and resolved to commemorate Holodomor), so the issue obviously isn't one of parliamentarians exercising moral suasion. It was a toothless motion and given the current levels of respect for our political leaders and representatives, I'm thinking this resolution has little moral suasion. To call this censorship and McCarthyism is virtually to water down these terms to meaning disagreement. And if you censor disagreement, how will you know when the "real" censorship arrives.

That IAW would proceed as planned was never in doubt. There was never a call to silence or shut down IAW, rather a calling into question the deployment of a term, which even if descriptively accurate, is itself designed to preempt fair and open dialogue, is needlessly incendiary, and ultimately not at all useful if the objective is peace and justice for all. I recall speaking with a woman who is with Students for a Free Tibet who was perplexed at the thought of achieving peace by first slapping your enemy in the face. Tibetans, she argued, wish to speak with the Chinese, not insult them. By the way, here already lies an early warning to Palestinians that IAW is not really about them. IAW is not about peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis, it is about a larger revolutionary project of resisting American power and dominance.

Nonetheless, I do agree that we must be careful each step of the way. I have no doubt that political groups will attempt to use this resolution to promote their political agendas.

With respect to this particular case, my problem with the deployment of the term "apartheid" in IAW is only as it pertains to the attempt to pass off IAW as an unbiased, free and open dialogue going on across university campuses. For in my view, and I have attended IAW events in the past, it is precisely on university campuses that this kind of monologic debate needs not to be shut down but at least and always challenged and called into question. "Israeli apartheid", assuming apartheid is even an appropriate descriptor, does little other than to circumscribe the discussion within very narrow and highly volatile limits, to preempt disagreement, and to promote hostility, all of which in my view are anathema to university discourse.

As a rallying cry, as propaganda, as rhetoric for a social movement I have no objection to the deployment of the term Israeli apartheid. At least not in terms of its usefulness. It serves for the extreme Left a way to sharply demarcate its enemies and its allies. It serves to cleanly demarcate oppressors from victims. It serves to moralize the troops and fill them with information, as well as, far too often with hatred. While I believe in speaking truth to power, I believe the truth must be spoken out of love and forgiveness, not from a place of hate. And if the goal of this social movement is to broaden its base, I believe it needs to begin from a place of ethics, love, and justice, not antagonism and hatred.

This leads to a real objection I have with the term apartheid. There is a reason why the Left has prioritized the Palestinian struggle against its Israeli oppressors above many other geopolitical conflicts and injustices, and that's because the Left sees this as a crucial battle in the war against neoliberal capitalist expansion and American hegemony. Fair enough, a noble war indeed! However, to the extent that capitalism is reducible to pure desire, as desire always for more, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality etc., I find it highly ironic then, that the Left would vest so much in a term which is so laden with ethnic/racial identification, when in fact it's not all about the Palestinian people per se, its about the fact that they stand locked and opposed to Israel. I'm not saying that IAW is anti-semitic, I'm saying it is anti-Israel to the extent that Israel is strategically critical to US empire building.

At the same time, this also goes along way to understanding why the event can't be called Palestinian Liberation Week or any such combination of terms which might glorify and empower Palestinians. I hope I'm wrong, and excuse me for being harsh, the way I see it, what is critical for the Left is not who the Palestinians are in themselves but their relational status to the State of Israel.

While I certainly agree that victims shouldn't have to be perfect in order to earn our solidarity, I also don't think victims should be exalted to a place of almost divine abjecthood, of sublime object cause of our ideology, and the Left has a strong track record of doing so, starting with that most glorious and morally untouchable object: the Proletariat. But here I get stuck, I don't really know where to go next. Is it possible to simultaneously be in solidarity with and to call into question, a victim? I get economic forces of oppression, I get the need to resist blaming the victim, and I understand the need to adopt a culturally relative approach. But I'm still troubled by the often appalling treatment of women and the ghastly treatment of "queers", not to mention our reluctance to speak up against those abuses because of a group's victimhood. It seems the only way to justify not speaking up is either intimidation or by entirely blaming an oppressor and thereby denying agency. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

* a handful of overeducated, overprivileged mostly geeky white males who have nothing better to do than troll the web all day in their pajamas from their hovels in Parkdale, provided they've managed to move out of their parents' basements.

** it would be interesting to compare the Palestinian struggle not only with South African liberation movement, but also with the Tibetan struggle to return home

I did forget to mention that Warren Kinsella needs to be graced with a Cherniak Award for his hypocrisy over this. A Cherniak award is given to a Liberal who displays exceptional degree of
malicious misreading, of willful distortion, of wanton decontextualization, of utter disingenuousness, and/ or basic intellectual dishonesty. When Warren pounced all over DiNovo for "losing it", I'm left to wonder why he found it so objectionable, understanding that for Kinsella flagrant hypocrisy doesn't apply to people who have handed him his ass in an election.

Regardless what could have been so objectionable from Kinsella's point of view?
1. That she was being labelled a Zionist (something Kinsella all too readily admits). 2. That she lashed out at someone insulting her online (Kinsella's online behaviour has not exactly been exemplary; he not only retaliates, he's been known to commission online "lynchings" and outings of people through his blog, he's made numerous sexist and racist gaucherie in public)
I also would think that Kinsella might have shown a little more sensitivity for someone who's been receiving violent threats, since I'm sure he's not unfamiliar with that territory.

Needless to say, my comment was not approved, but other interesting comments were. And one, by the very same Cherniak for whom the award is named, who chimed in to pile on DiNovo only to be questioned why he would object to DiNovo's "zionism". After all, it doesn't get more rabidly zionist than Cherniak. At the same time, it does seem that Kinsella has had a change of heart and that the State of Israel may not be beyond reproach after all, since he's quite content to allow a comment arguing in favour of Israeli apartheid.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Wanted: New Home for a Non-Deranged Socialist, or How I got the Boot from Babble

I know that for Liberals/Conservatives the term "deranged Socialist" is simply redundant, but what about within Socialist/ Leftist discourse? Is there a place on the Left for a democratic socialist whose politics include not only Marx, but also Christ, Gandhi, Beckett, Levinas, Derrida, Lacan and a healthy splash of Zizek to name a few. From Marx, I take political economy, from Christ and Gandhi I take strength, compassion, radical love, and a praxis where means and ends are inextricably linked such that the magnanimity of a goal never justifies achieving that goal ignobly. From Beckett and Derrida I take a path of interminable openness parodic laughter and intellectual humility. From Levinas and Lacan I take a respect for alterity. And from Zizek, I take the wonderful zeal, intensity, contradiction and brilliance that is Zizek.

I know I'm asking a lot, but at this point I'd settle for a home where the Left tolerates debate and doesn't respond with knee-jerk reactionary feeding frenzies when one of its allies publicly disagrees with a singular aspect of their revolutionary politics. At this point I'd settle for a home where members are not banned because a moderator finds their posts pompous. Not inflammatory, not incendiary, not offensive, not intellectually dishonest, but in the subjective opinion of the moderator, riddled with "pomposity". All of this while tolerating, in fact implicitly encouraging, favoured members to hurl epithets, name call, as well as to speak cynically, disingenuously, and quite frankly abusively.

I am, of course speaking of that beacon of Leftist enlightenment, Rabble, and I speak as synthome, a former member censored and banished for displaying, you guessed it, "pomposity" (which I take to mean disagreeing with the essentialist fundamentalist views currently held on Rabble). I implore dear readers to weigh in on whether my banishment seems justified. Interesting that not one of those enlightened and "progressive" voices even raised an eyebrow at my banishment. It was passed over in complete silence, suggesting there was either unanimity of agreement or people were intimidated to speak up for fear of being banished themselves. Whatever the case, the total silence is symptomatic.

More importantly can anyone point me towards a Socialist community that believes in ethicality, democratic ideals, intellectual rigour, justice for all, and intimidation by none? I refuse to be intimidated by fundamentalism whether it be political (e.g. Unionist on Rabble), atheist (e.g. Richard Dawkins), or religious (Islamic, Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, I refuse to elevate victimhood to the impenetrable unquestionable status of a sublime object/ Cause (whether "the Proletariat", "the Palestinian", "the baby seal"). I believe in speaking the truth and I believe in love, and thus in truth spoken out of love.

Not that I wish to promote Rabble, but here are some threads in which the deranged Left is in fine form and in which yours truly, le sinthome (synthome), responds, leading to my eventual deactivation (followed by my brief re-emergence as objet_petit_a. Incidentally, I am open to the idea that I'm the crazy one. So let me know...