This blog is dedicated to the memory of David Weintraub, who took on insidious astroturfers and won.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Exploitation Of Teens And Gay Culture

Did Nicholas Ray molest Sal Mineo?


We are all aware that the primary rationalization for homophobic efforts in Western countries, to exclude sexual minorities from full and open participation in all aspects of community, to exclude sexual minorities from the full protection of human rights legislation, is the idea that Gay men are inherently oriented toward abusing minors. All Progressive persons also know, or should know, that this bigoted perception of an inherent relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia is false. The truth about this, frequently deliberate, misconception can be found here:

Religious Tolerance site facts about homosexuality and child abuse

Nevertheless, this misconception persists and is gleefully perpetuated by many "conservative" propagandists. A clear example of how this misconception is currently being exploited and promoted by such persons can be found here:

The "traditional value" of hating homos

I'm a Gay man and I'm going to confront this bigoted misconception, here in this posting, but not the way you are used to seeing this done - for example on the Religious Tolerance site. This is not going to be another regurgitation of GBLT 101 counter-propaganda. I'm going to speak Truth, here. Some of this truth may be disturbing for Progressive readers, but it has to be brought forward - and by Gay men themselves - so that the underlying realities can be understood and addressed, and the full enjoyment of our human rights can be enabled.

I'll begin by cleaning house. I was horrified by Socrates' disclosure that a former member of this Blog had posted rationalizations for sexual relationships between teens and adults, elsewhere on the 'net. Rationalizations for sexual relationships between teens and adults are inevitably built on delusions and false premises, because such relationships are inherently abusive - as I will demonstrate. Such rationalizations will inevitably be interpreted as an endorsement of child abuse - whether their author intended that or not.

Homophobes love to exploit the existence of such rationalizations in Gay literature. From the 'traditionalvalues' site linked above:
"Eberstadt cites the Village Voice, which states that "Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' as such affairs are respectfully called these days."

They are able to exploit this, because it is a fact. It is reality, they are not inventing fraudulent documentation ala The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is also a fact, that some Gay men including some historic leaders in Gay advocacy movements, internalized 'romanticized' rationalizations about sexual relationships between teens and adults, to protect themselves from the ugly truth of their own victimization, and made the tragic mistake of publicly proclaiming these defensive delusions. It's ok for Gay men to admit this and discuss it publicly, however, because a fully informed understanding of how & why Gay men historically developed such rationalizations powerfully supports the need for complete social normalization of the GLBT community.

Sexual relationships between teens and adults are inherently abusive

I'm not going to reproduce quotes from any of the delusional arguments in favor of such relationships, (and there are many), that can be found on the'net. This is not going to turn into intellectualized porn. If you were hoping to find that here, kindly f*ck-off and go away.
There are some recurrent themes in rationalizations for such relationships, that I will now confront and debunk.

"I had sexual relationships with adults when I was a young teen. I wasn't exploited, because I sought and initiated these encounters. Therefore, it's ok for adults to have sex with boys who 'come on to them' "

Wrong. I'ts quite natural for adolescents to be attracted to adult physiques and to fantasize having sex with mature persons. On top of this, adult persons have many things that teens crave and aspire to sharing in; greater autonomy, their own vehicles & dwellings, wealth, status, power, etc. Young teens may fantasize a relationship with an adult wherein they would be treated as an equal, as an adult, and experience sexual and material fulfillment. They might make the mistake of seeking such a relationship, because they cannot foresee the potential for tragic consequences.

But you, as an adult, can foresee the harm that could befall them and - as the more mature person - it is your responsibility to protect the younger person, by turning them down and redirecting them to their peers.

They cannot imagine contracting sexually transmitted diseases and the suffering that might cause them, but you can. They cannot foresee that you will only treat them as an equal when you are alone together, that your friends and family will not accept them as an adult and when you are around those person you will treat them like "a kid" - because that's what they are. They cannot foresee the emotional devastation this reality will cause them, but you can.

They lack the life experience to foresee that they will have to hide the true nature of your relationship from everyone else in their lives, so that you don't go to prison, and that hiding your true self from everyone around you necessarily poisons your soul.

An emotionally disturbed Gay man might be able to rationalize away other aspects of such a relationship that are inherently abusive - such as your superior social, psychological and financial power in the relationship - but there is no way to escape the reality that engaging in a sexual relationship with a legal minor will force that person to hide a part of themselves and their life experience from everyone else in their lives. That will necessarily cause them harm, it will f*ck them up just as surely as the social necessity for hiding your true self, that you have experienced at one time or another in your own life, f*cked you up. They will experience trauma, as a result of your relationship with them, which makes such a relationship inherently abusive.

"I'm a Gay man who had relationships with adults when I was a teen, and so did several of my friends, but we weren't traumatized by those experiences"

BULLSHIT. The well documented prevalence of drug abuse, alcoholism, psychological disorders, self-destructive behaviours and suicide in our community is completely unrelated to the high rates of sexual exploitation by older persons that Gay men have historically reported experiencing in their youth? Can we please stop lying to ourselves about this?

Homophobic persecution forced Gay men into unhealthy behaviours

The prevalence of romanticized, rationalized, "idyllic accounts of 'intergenerational relationships,' in Gay literature is not evidence of an inherent relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. It is, in reality, evidence that historic homophic repression and persecution of homosexuality in our culture had forced Gay youth into inappropriate relationships and at the same time facilitated the exploitation of Gay youth by sexual predators.

My first encounter with a Gay community organization happened when I was 20 - way back in the late 1970's. The men that I met through this group could overwhelmingly be divided into three categories, with respect to their initial "coming out" as a Gay person and subsequent involvement with whatever homosexual underground existed where they were living at the time. (None of us had "grown up" with an open, public, Gay support group operating in our community).

Some of these men claimed that they had "always been out", but only with respect to their sexual behaviour - they hadn't always been open & public about their orientation with their families, schoolmates or co-workers. Guys with this background often talked about having been sexually precocious from a young age, engaging in mutual seduction with their agemates but also "seducing" older boys and later - adult men, that they found attractive. These tales almost always had a romanticized interpretation of their exploitation by older boys or men, these were "love affairs" in their memory. Some of these "lovers" were described as having been adonises of heterosexuality, athletic and macho teens or men who were nevertheless seduced by the "charms" of a young Gay boy that they would end up loving more passionately than any girl or woman they had ever known. I'm not saying that this kind of scenario is impossible, or that every guy claiming such a history was deliberately misrepresenting the nature of these relationships, but...
As I got to know these men better and developed friendships with several of them, less romantic details came up. Some had a history of teenaged prostitution and drug addiction, and their adult "lovers" turned out to be romanticized Johns. Some admitted to having been forcibly raped or even gang-raped by their teenage "lover's" friends or schoolmates/teammates. Despite the romantic spin they put on their experiences, it was apparent that being openly attracted to other males as a child/youth, that being known - just within neighborhood gossip - as "that queer kid", had made them easy prey for a certain class of sexual predator. Being "queer" meant that they were somehow inherently morally corrupt and therefore as "legitimate" a target for callous male lust as any "whore" would be.

Some other men in the group described having their first homosexual romances when they were in their teens. For most of these, their initial partner was a college-aged or older man that they knew through family or other social networks, who was known or rumored to be "queer". Men with this background sometimes talked about having sexual or romantic attractions to their peers, as a youth, but never revealing or acting on those feelings for fear that doing so would be at best complete social suicide and just as likely to result in the serious, routine beatings and/or rapes that other boys suspected of being "queers" had been subjected to. For these men, their initial partner was "safe" enough to risk revealing their homosexual attractions with. Their partner was old enough and secure enough to survive being "known", at least within their own circles, as having homosexual inclinations - whereas their teenaged peers would all be just as paranoid about "letting their secret slip" even if any of them had been gay-identified at that point in their lives. These men had no hope for a peer partner, if they were to find an outlet for their sexual and romantic expression it would necessarily have to be with an older male. If they were lucky, their older partner might actually be a well-adjusted gay man who could and would welcome them into a thriving gay underground through which they might find more appropriate partners closer to their own age. That is the romantic rationalization spin often placed on this life history, they had a fleeting affair with their older partner which affirmed their gay identity and gave them entry to "the community", so it was a positive relationship and not an abusive one. But this same scenario is also a predator's dream - young, naive boys desperately seeking out someone who is "like them", someone who will accept or even love them for the person they really are. I have to wonder, how many of the predatory Priests working in church youth groups or boarding schools specialized in spotting and exploiting exactly this type of gay youth? How many experiences of meeting an older person who callously exploited the boy and then dumped him out of their lives, did these Gay youths have to expose themselves to before they found the one sincere man who became the romanticized lover of their memory?

The third 'category' of men in our group were those who had remained completely virginal and closeted - with respect to their homosexual inclinations - until well into their 20's, 30's, or 40's. Deeply repressed and closeted gay men, most of these guys were still "living the lie" outside of our group. Some were married, or had been married, to women. Others had never had a sexual or romantic relationship with anyone of either gender. Their failure to mature as a sexual person seemed to have stunted their develoment in other ways - they were able to pose as "adult" in a job or career but their social behaviour was annoyingly childish and their receational interests were fixated on childhood hobbies. 30-year-old salesmen whose homes were filled with model trains and stacks of pornographic magazines. For many of these men, their only sexual interactions with another human being were of the demeaning, anonymous, public washroom variety. They seemed just as neurotic and screwed-up as the drug-addicted male prostitutes.

There were very few "normal", emotionally healthy, people involved in this organization at that time. I was there, in part, because a psychologist that I was paying to "make me straight" insisted that I check it out. He wasn't a bad person, this psychologist, and must have known that my quest to become a "normal", heterosexually oriented person would end in failure. I was the one insisting that he could somehow "cure" me, demanding that he try, unconcerned that I was squandering an inheritance on a fraudulent psychological theory. My involvement with the group didn't reassure me that it was "ok to be gay", as this psychologist had probably hoped it would. For the most part, the other men seemed as damaged and broken as I felt that I was.
It was years later that I came to see how heroic each person in that group really was, (even the ones that weirded me right out), that they had all been victimized and damaged in various ways by homophic repression but were nonetheless striving to build a community capable of providing spaces of genuine safety within which the next generation of gay youths could interact and grow in a natural, healthy manner.

Several of the elders in my Gay community, guys in their sixties or older, with whom I have discussed this issue over the years, related their initial experiences in boarding schools they had attended. Their descriptions of a culture of sexual exploitation, protected by informal 'traditions' handed down from one generation to another by the boy residents themselves, seems to support
what Johnathan Gathorne-Hardy revealed in "The Public School Phenomenon".

Way back in the early history of English boarding schools, hundreds of years ago, boys aged 8 to 18 were all crammed together in squalid dormitories within these ancient buildings. Violence was commonplace, even rampant. Beatings and other physical bullying between boys was an everday occurence. Children sometimes died from this. Teaching staff beat boys with wooden whips or paddles, sometimes out of desperate efforts to maintain order, sometimes perhaps because they were sexual sadists. Older boys were recruited to help run the place and keep order, especially where the staff were to lazy, indifferent or drunken to bother doing it themselves. Teaching staff sexually abused older boys who in turn exploited their power and authority to administer whippings to extort sexual favors from younger boys. Sexual exploitation was a matter-of-fact occurence in some schools over some periods of their history.

The curriculum of these schools, which predate the explosion in natural sciences during the late 1700's and 1800's, consisted primarily of "the classics". Boys learned greek and latin and studied texts written by ancient greek and roman scholars. Among these texts were some which detailed ancient greek concepts of homosexual mentoring between men and adolescent boys, termed "pederasty". The boys in these schools were exposed to the idea that noblemen sometimes take young boys "under their wing", look after their needs, train them to take a place of responsibility in the community and facilitate their advancement up the corridors of wealth & power - but that these relationships are also specifically sexual and romantic. It is not difficult to find, in descriptions of boarding school culture from various periods, direct imitation of these ideas within the boy-run culture of the schools. Older boys had power, authority and greater "wealth" than younger boys. If you were going to survive the chaos and deprivation of boarding school life, having an older "mentor" and "protector" looking out for you must have seemed an ideal solution. If that older boy turned you into his "lover" and used you sexually, you could rationalize this betrayal by assuring yourself that this was actually an ancient and beneficient tradition. This relationship wasn't shameful or demeaning, it was "noble" and even "enlightened"! Older boys involved in exploiting younger ones could employ the same rationalizations - I'm not a rapist, I'm just following this ancient and noble tradition.

And so it went, for hundreds of years.

It is therefore not surprising that, when psychology was in its infancy and "homosexual behaviour" was first studied in the context of a pathology rather than a criminal act of sin, Gay men of the time who had the self-awareness necessary to understanding that they were "a different kind of person" from the heterosexual majority exported the rationalizations they had internalized in their boarding school days into their theories about what was "wrong" with them, of why they were the person that they were. The earliest manifestations of organizations composed of self-aware homosexual men, such as the Uranian poets, perceived themselves to be "pederasts" - "boy-lovers", because they had incorporated that romanticized interpretation of their own childhood exploitation, while it was happening to them. Their only other models of what it meant to be "homosexual" were; a sinner, a criminal or a lunatic. No doubt, some may have been pedophiles, but others were likely to have been Gay men who had only one positive interpretation of their experiences available to them - pederasty - the romanticized attraction of older males for younger ones.

This romanticization of the experience of being sexually exploited by an older male as an "initiation" into a homsexual way of life continued to be passed down and can still be found in the tragic determination of some Gay community elders that "This is who we are. This is natural, for us".

Fortunately, the rise of day schools and decline of boarding school culture, the development of Gay youth groups and safe spaces for them to interact within, and especially the advent of the internet, has forever debunked these rationalizations. Left to themselves, Gay youth naturally seek out partners within their own peer groups (surprise, surprise!). In a social climate that is more accepting of homosexuality being normal and natural for some people, participation in other forms of neurotic and unhealthy behaviour also naturally decline. There is no need to debase yourself in public washrooms, for example, and most Gay youth today express the same kind of revulsion over such behaviour that an emotionally healthy heterosexual person might express.

Social acceptance of homosexuality as normative for some persons, and the removal of social obstacles to Gay men living normal, healthy lives as full participants in our shared community, is the key to eliminating unhealthy, neurotic behaviours including romanticization of the sexual exploitation of minor persons by adults.


Anonymous said...


A few points since I am the one supposedly rationalising adults having sex with teens as being OK.

I would urge you to go to the MLW thread from last summer and read the entirety of my comments rather than rely on Socrates selective smear tactics and out of context quotes.

If Socrates hasn't already posted a link to that thread I will do so later. For now I am on Blackberry.

In fact, I was not approving/rationalizing adult on child sex or young teens and adults, nor was I even talking strictly about gay sex. I did state in fact that such individual episodes cannot be rationlized nor generalized. An 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is technically rape.21 and 17? These are high school and college relationships. Peers. Is this your view, that a hard legalistic line must be drawn in all cases regardless of circumstance? Do we not already have too much criminalization in our society?The female Washington school teacher who had an affair with a jr high school boy went to prison. She had been in an abusive relationship with her adult male spouse. Eventually, as the boy became a man, they stayed together married and had a child together.

This is an odd set of circumstances true and outside societal norms but apparently the relationship has worked out certainly better than the teacher's first marriage.Do we have the right to deny other peoples legitimacy?

Was prison really indicated here? Obviously, adult on child sex is wrong.Child prostitution is wrong. My argument is that teenagers and young adults without much age difference must be considered in context and if judged must be judged individually.
Your post is heartfelt and I sense a deep well of personal anguish from which this piece has sprung.
And I am in wholehearted agreement that sexual exploitation of minours is criminal.

I disagree w a heavy handed application of law in every case for every circumstance.

Generalized justice breeds bigottted injustice.

Anonymous said...

I see this mainly as a generational advance WRT gay rights.

Back in the day it was illegal to engage in homosexual acts much less get married, adopt kids, etc. Think about that fact. Not that many years ago. As you noted, exploitative relations fluorish in darkness, in secrecy in shame. With so many more people closeted the focus among gays of my day especially in the pre-AIDS era was promiscuous sex. I mean, you couldn't expect truly meaningful longterm gay relationships in that repressive environment..

Today we are moving to an improved stage of acceptance of gay people. My son in high school has friends who are already out as freshmen. Its considered another form of normal, not a big deal in any way. Back in the day that just didn't happen. In my day the gay kids had to run away, often into abusive situations....

This is progress Bob. Not perfect, not complete, but clearly societal acceptance of gays has advanced with each succeeding generation.

Have we reached the promised land? Of course not.

We never will in this life. Still, the gains are undeniable, especially if you remember the 60s or earlier...

socrates said...

I didn't take anything out of context. Here's the link. Donkeytale's username on that thread was Joseph KKK.

He's now trying to put lipstick on his perverted, pig thoughts. Of course it's reasonable to look at a case of a 17 year old with someone 15 differently from an illegal relationship between someone 40 and another 15. I hope the courts do instead of coming up with strict sentencing guidelines.

I don't blog here in order to get spit on. If a friendship or whatever breaks up, those people have the right to be left alone. What donkeytale and the other troll are doing have similarities with stalking. I'm not going to complain too much, because it's just words on a page and easily tossed out like garbage. This continued trolling says more about those persons' lack of integrity and mental stability than anything else. These are sadists. Donkeytale has a long history of making hurtful comments towards others. We're not talking once in a while in the heat of the moment. He thrives on trying to hurt feelings.

Here are some deleted comments he made earlier today.

Of course I knew all about the Grahame-Ray and stepson menage a trois but I'm trying to protect your delicate sensibilities.

Ray himself was bisexual, and also supposedly had an affair with the Sal Mineo during the filming of Rebel.

That stepson was only 13. Mineo and Natalie Wood were about 15 or 16 during the filming of Rebel Without a Cause. The director Nicholas Ray was 43. So here's what Donkeytale had to say about all that:

Man, how did they even find time to film that flick?

Here's one thing he wrote at MLW:

Your mistaking a 13 yr old boy for a child. A thirteen yr old boy is a sexual being. A horn dog, in fact.

Donkeytale suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. Here's some more he wrote today:

And now you are going off on TLNL, too?

WTF is truly funny is that you name yourself after a Greek philosophy major and those Greeky dudes were the ones who codified sexual perversion with minour males.

I don't even know what he's trying to say other than making an attempt to be disruptive on a blog he's known for quite a while he's no longer welcomed on.

There's more, but it's just his usual thinking that people are interested in hearing his thoughts on sex.

I won't delete anything on this thread, since Bob created it, unless it's something written by the other troll.

It's remarkable that Donkeytale now shows up trying to rewrite his stance on statutory rape into a more benign reading. He had plenty of time to condemn Ray for the alleged rape of his stepson. No such statement was made. People can check out his comments on the MLW thread and decide for themselves. I've provided that link a number of times. What has been Donkeytale's major rebuttal? I think Michael Jackson was innocent.

Seriously donkeytale, why don't you just go away? Anyone can start one of these blogs, and then it becomes their privilege to decide who gets to post. What part of that don't you get?

You can think I'm a puritan. You can think whatever you want. But I still maintain the right to keep this blog as clean as possible. And that means yes, you are offensive, and I have the right to disallow trashy ideas.

Anonymous said...

Haha. The word verification on this comment is "angst."

Socrates, stating facts is not the same as condoning statutory rape. Stating the same smear tactics over and over just makes you out to be the same hypocritical fool and thin-skinned creep we all know and love.

Zinn and Chompsky? RIOTOUS!

You have officially entered the Failreft Supersoling zone of the whiteysphere.

socrates said...

Donkeytale is unable to delete comments he made at the MLW link. It's all there. Donkeytale's downfall as a blogger has taken place, because he doesn't realise it's the reader who decides.

He's a sadist. Now I understand why a poster named Susan Something thought he might be a stalker. I don't. I think he fits the definition of an internet troll.

someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

socrates said...

I made a mistake in an above post. Sorry for any confusion. It was the actress wife of Nicholas Ray who was found in bed with the stepson. Nonetheless, I believe it's fair to say donkeytale thinks that was a lucky boy, considering he was a so-called horndog. On the MLW thread, he said the 15 year old in I think Florida was lucky to have ended up with the pretty teacher. It doesn't make sense for myself and him to get into a flame fest. The link in question has been provided.

This guy is a classic troll. Why mention Chomsky and Zinn? Why try to make TLNL think I'm going off on him? In the previous DFQ2 thread, I linked to Chomsky and Zinn quotes concerning the Israeli-Palestinian troubles. Now donkeytale is throwing that in, and it's most certainly going to confuse some readers, as is his references to posters named fairleft and supersoling.

Here's an idea, donkeytale. Why not just go away? I wouldn't mind a fresh start at DFQ2 without your presence. I won't mention you again. People can read the MLW link and decide for themselves. What part of I don't like you and want you to leave don't you get?

Anonymous said...

sadist...mentally ill...insane...troll...stalking..smear

(LOL) hypocritical fool...thin-skinned creep... (LOL)



Anonymous said...

You can talk about me all you want Socrates. You can keep lying, misconstruing, insinuating and making all manner of complete fool out of yourself.

I would like Bob to respond to my comments, since they were direct, on point and 100% related to his post.

Thanks for the link, too. It further proves that you misled Bob with your smear tactics.

socrates said...

Whatever, pervert. Your sick thoughts concerning this topic are preserved on that link. By the way, are you ever going to leave this blog? Your form of sadism has run its course.

bob said...

Victimized persons sometimes remain in a relationship with their abuser for years, decades, even a lifetime. That does not mean the relationship was not or is not abusive, nor does it mean they were not harmed by it.

Victimized persons sometimes return to a relationship with their abuser after periods of separation. That does not mean the relationship was not or is not abusive, nor does it mean they were not harmed by it.

socrates said...

Bob, did you read the thread at MLW? What's at issue here is whether or not donkeytale is a sadistic pervert trolling this website. He is an anonymous coward, for he'd never say any of this to my face. He has my email. I am willing to hear him say this in person next time he's in Boston. He won't get away with trolling me any longer at DFQ2.

the_last_name_left said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the_last_name_left said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
socrates said...

TLNL, this topic concerns adults having illegal, sexual relations with minors. Twenty year olds are adults. I agree with you that age differences can be overrated. However, my opinion is that someone 40 going with someone 20 is a loser.

The person you were replying to is not allowed to post here ever again, and all its posts will be deleted. Anyone interested can go to the link and see for themselves its condoning of sex between adults and minors. They can decide for themselves if he is an immoral pervert or if I'm a slanderous, hypocrite censor. I refuse to allow that person to participate ever again. This is not a big blog. I refuse to allow trolls to become regulars. I'd rather it be a slow forum than one filled with trash posts.

socrates said...

Long story short- Bob is off the DFQ2 author list. TLNL had one of his posts deleted, as in completely evaporated. Bloggers can erase their posts, as TLNL did above. Yet ony blogspot authors of the main entries can completely delete all evidence that a post was ever written. I've never erased TlNl's posts at DFQ2. We had some problems a few years back, but that's water under the bridge. It had to be Bob. I didn't do it. I'll try to make sense of all this in a new entry, when I get the time. I don't suffer trolls, and that's why comment moderation is back on.

Anonymous said...

Ph, OK. I get it now. "This comment has been removed by the "AUTHOR."

Not the commenter but the author of the piece, is that right?

I thought the commenter had the ability to delete his post too?

Still, where is TLNL?

The word verification is "bancypia".


I feel like I'm in the spirit world that Frau Tale always tries to explain to me. I'm now residing in Bancypia.


Too bad about Bob. Waiting for your bombshell expose.

Maybe fighting trolls and internet fakes IS your lot in life.


socrates said...

Dude, I don't get why you just won't go away. It was a good run, but it's over. People can go to the link and decide for themselves.

It looks to me like the actual authors can only delete their comment like Susan Something did, but they are unable to make all traces of it disappear.

TLNL is probably a bit bugged out. Other times he goes on mini-holidays. A month or so ago, it seemed like he was quitting for good. When I get the new entry up, it will include all his comments, including the one you made in between.

It's for the best that there's comment moderation. If something happened to me, not that I'm paranoid, but say the proverbial train falls off the track or a drunk driver hits me, whatever, I won't have to worry about this place becoming a zoo after I've gone to blogging heaven.

Here's another benefit. My policy has always been that if a post makes it, as in I read it and initially decide it's cool, it stays. So your new posts won't be getting deleted, if they make it through the queue. If you had any dignity, you'd go away, imho. I never delete anything I write. Never. Unlike Bob which will soon be known by all. This goes way beyond TLNL's post being zapped. Like I said, I'm 99.99% sure it wasn't my fault. If Bob didn't have the crazy background, which will soon be revealed, I wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.

I believe there's really no big difference between you or anyone else posting here or speaking in my house. This is a small place. No way can DFQ2 be compared to HuffPo or DKos. It's me here. On a small blog, one can ask someone to go away or start hitting the delete button. In real life, one can order someone off their property, if they're getting in one's face. If one is a guest in someone's house, one doesn't act like an obnoxious drunk with a lampshade on his head, goose the owner's wife, punch a hole in their wall, etc..

It is too bad about Bob. He makes you look pretty good right now. But I don't want to do a rush job. Or maybe I'll trickle it out, because the suspense must be killing the thirty or forty people who read this blog. They, whoever they are, say that for every person who posts, there are ten who lurk. I used to check out Alexa. But it seems wonky. One time they said this place was hot shit, then it fell off the charts. The real meters cost money or are intrusive, or maybe I couldn't be bothered to check it out. I tried site meter for a few days but then got rid of it. No, my life's calling is not being a blogger. I'm pretty sure most of it is a scam, no different than regular tv and print media. Right wingers, fake lefties, and conspiracy theory freaks can kiss my ass.

Anonymous said...

Spirits have no dignity. We don't exist in the human realm. We are here but we are not here.

And sometimes we go away, sometimes we are given or discover a pathway back to the human realm, but mostly we are neither here nor there.

Funny thing is, I'm beginning to understand it all better now. What Frau Tale has been teaching about spirits, although I confess its still confusing to a degree.

I'm a virtual spirit, and I guess I'm attached to you, just as spirits attach to people. We spirits can be bothersome or friendly, and alot of it is up to the perception of the human.

I'm a friendly spirit, always have been and always will be, but nothing or no one is 100% one way or other, not even spirits.

At least with me, Soc, you always know where you stand. I'm very real, in a virtual reality sort of way.

Real isnt the same as all good-goody happy happy nicey nicey.

There exists the human duality. Spirits have it too, since we were once human.

I've read that "he wouldnt say it to my face so he cant say it to me online" rationale before. All over, in fact.

Is that really true? Have you not said things to people, including me, that you would not say to our face?

Of course you have. Would you treat guests in your house that way?

No one is 100% of anything and we are all guilty of the same that we deplore in others. Our humanity demands it, imperfect as we all are.

I get where your coming from to an extent.

However, for better of worse, you have attracted the spirits (or trolls) that you have attracted for a reason.

Think about it really hard and honestly.

You alone are not immune from the karmic consequences of your actions and statements, your blogging persona.

I like you and enjoy reading your schtick, even when you are bashing me unfairly.

Especially when you are bashing me.

Who cares? The quotes you pulled out the other day actually led me to study some old comments I'd forgotten and I really came away impressed with my intellgence and insightful commentary. Thanks for this.

The great fun of the internets is that ITS NOT REAL.

Its not possible to follow the same rules and guidelines online as in real life. Theres really no reason to be the same. If so, why do it at all?

Some people desire the online experience to be like the real experience because they are substituting one for the other.

The healthy way, methinks, is to try keeping the two personas completely separate both mentally and emotionally.

Yes, even our "real" selves that we present in reality are fake.

All of us fail to compartmentalize personas at times, of course. But when the two converge most or all of the time is when we really get screwed up....and we are only screwing with ourselves.

I've been mostly offline lately and life is much sunnier, believe me. I still read this blog and the FSZ from time to time. I posted something short on FSZ yestrday, even, and left a few comments for Noom, who is now posting as "dave from brooklyn" and still battling (or trolling of you will) the Blews and Failrefts and Jacob Freeze's of the Whiteysphere.

Francis was there for awhile but now he's gone. Miep is a regular. You said some things to her that you wouldnt say to her in person, thats for sure.

I like you Soc. I'm sorry that you take this all so seriously as if it mattered.

The key is all there inside and I'm one of the better spirits.

Bet on it.

socrates said...

I figured out what happened to TLNL's missing post. I explain that in the Something Stinks About America diary comments. The same thing happened to one of your posts on what you refer to as beisbol. I can repost that one if you like, though it's now a bit dated. The gist was you're happy with the Texas Rangers.

The cat's out of the bag, however, for other things I mentioned about Bob, and I'll have to follow through on that.

I don't think you're a threat to minors. I apologise for my part in the escalation of bad vibes which has taken place over the last several weeks.

Of course we've all said things face to face we shouldn't have. I actually cracked a smile, when you said when we meet in Boston, it will be for a duel. That was an epic success for a one-liner.

I've actually made that kind of comment before. The dude who I reported to police for cyberstalking- I once dared him to meet at a boxing ring to duke it out. I would have followed through on that one too. I wasn't going to ever fight you in person. One time Eric offered to meet. His son was in some karate festival in Northern Mass.. My car was on the blink at the time, but if it hadn't been, I would have followed through on that invite.

I'd meet you for a coffee sometime, probably in Harvard Square or some place cool like that. I'd definitely keep an eye out for spy darts or a sinister drop of arsenic into me overpriced latte, laddie. p:>

I have no regrets about certain fallouts I've had on the net. I truly do not miss FSZ, MLW, or Pffugee. I kind of miss the soapblox software, but that's about it.

I get that the internet is ultimately not real. But in a way, it is. I do understand why I've attracted certain trolls. I remember when I went into Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. I done good. I trollbusted MajorFrickenFlaw and Larisa. I trollbusted some real names like Brad Friedman and Brett Kimberlin. I've come up with some good stuff. I'm not saying I'm a bag of chips and all that. But until someone sincerely looks at the content of what I came up with, it's all just dumbass, insignificant meta.

I had fun. I loved finding dirt on maryscott. I do remember you stuck up for me. It's not my fault she made posts supporting tax cuts for the rich. It's not my fault she slammed Mumia T-shirt Obama bashers then mere weeks later, she was not happy with Obama's policies. It's not my fault she supports a Fox News producer, who I'm pretty sure is the notorious AngryRich. How should Mary Scott's name be spelled? F-a-k-e L-e-f-t-y, just like the CIA loving Markos Moulitsas.

I haven't posted at Holland's blog in a long time and probably won't ever again. He's just repeating himself. I admit I've often repeated myself yet never to that extent. He's a one-trick pony blogger. I think one of my best traits was to always be able to find new topics.

I don't visit many blogs anymore.

My best cybersleuth days are well in the rear view mirror. I hate to have to go after Bob a bit, but a card thrown is a card played.

Now I have to go back to the other thread and put up TLNL's lost post. It was a good one. I'd rather we call a truce than bring back up all the negativity. I'm not trying to have a one-sided fight club between us either. You said I was a thin-skinned hypocrite. That I support Michael Jackson. That I censor. That I'm as much a fake lefty as supersoling and fairleft. There were other things.

It stinks to have comment moderation, but I have no other choice. The Duncan wanker troll is posting my personal info. I was deleting your stuff, because I wanted you to go away. Now I realise that is a pointless endeavour. I do differentiate between yourself and that dude.

I even acknowledge that it was your brilliance that I have co-opted in referring to it as the Theresa Duncan wanker troll. You made a comment once which sounded like that but in your own words.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, sometimes I go with over the top escalation just to make the blogging more interesting. Y'know get the heart beating stronger.

Never really any hard feelings on my part, actually. And I enjoyed Bob's work. Hopefully, you will find it in your heart to reinstate his privileges.

I hope you don't mind but I posted a slightly revised version of my last comment as a dairy at FSZ.

Not to bash you but because I'm in one of those zones of late and thought it was a pretty good effort.

You are my muse.

I also thought you might delete the comment so I copied it and pasted it and it was burning a hole in my googler, or wtf.

Thanks for sharing those comments to Bob. I thought they were really good ones, if I do say so myself.

What do you think of the L'affaire Assange? I half expected he was gay by the looks of him (not that there is anything wrong with being gay or looking gay, which of course there is really no such "look") but wow! At least one of those chicks he banged is hot. Probably both. Sweden has some pretty f'd up laws if he can be busted or investigated for consensual sex.

Too bad. The dude needs to stay there and he's gotta be eligible to get more pussy than Frank Sinatra with his liberal celebrity meter running into the stratosphere

This is a subject for your talents, IMHO.

As for a meet-up, I dont have Boston in my immediate plans but I'm going to be in NYC sometime before Christmas, visiting my new granddaughter. I also promised to meet up with Noom and Eric whenever I hit town.

Why don't you take the train down or wtf? That would be a summit worthy of Yalta.

socrates said...

I thought Assange was cleared. I did notice the story when it first came out. It's definitely one of those situations one would like to see solved. If the women are cool, then would it be fair to speculate on some intel shenanigans without needing a tinfoil hat?

I've been busy finishing up the new expose. That should be out soon. I've really no problem with Bob, seeing he didn't delete TLNL's post. He might have a problem with me once the new piece is available. I have to post it. There's no turning back. He's more than welcomed to respond to it. He's welcomed to make posts. Heck, The Cold Spy had every opportunity to clear his name. That he deleted his Cold Spy website and facebook page kind of gives me the idea I nailed that one.

What's at issue is whether Bob can deal with the fact I think he's been a paid astroturfer. This will make more sense once the new diary is released to the general public. It has nothing to do with his posts on sexual orientation or the satanic panic.

Like I said, I'm not into visiting FSZ or any of those places anymore. MLW is the worst. That place used to rock for interesting threads, back in the Holland, blogging curmudgeon, thereisnorape days. I guess if I'm ever having trouble falling asleep, I could take a gander at some karmafish or curmudgetteface posts.

I'm not going to be adding any bloggers to DFQ2 again. If it means this place gets extremely slow, I can live with it. I can't risk anyone deleting anything beyond their individual posts Susan Something style. A glitch could take place, and I could end up making more assumptions making an ass out of u and me.

I'll try to take a look at the new Assange thingie when I can. Feel free to post anything current. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you need an update to the story. I could've sworn the whole thing got dropped fairly quickly by the piggies.

That N.Y. summit idea sounds fun. I doubt I'll be able to attend. I guess maybe as a consolation prize, perhaps we could talk on Eric's phone. In a way, maybe it's best if I never talk with you guys. It might be like when folks go to school reunions and it's a lie to say to someone they look the same. I've never met anyone in person I got to know through blogs. I've spoken on the phone with a couple of them. That's it. I've only made one real life friend through blogging, and you don't know her. She's wicked awesome.

Maybe I'll make it to New York. Give me a reminder when it gets closer to happening. It'd need to be an early meeting. I don't think I'd want to stay there overnight. It's about a four or five hour drive, from what I remember. It's been years since I've seen the Big Apple. It's definitely a fun place.

socrates said...

This link seems to explain the Assange story. Apparently the brouhaha was over his refusal to wear a condom. I can't figure out the thing about a second accuser. Was this some sort of threesome?

I guess we can put the tinfoil hats away. The lady named Anna Ardin used to intern for the rag that first published the story. It sounds like the MIC lucked out having some scandal hit Assange having nothing to do with themselves. Now their anonymous coward bloggers can post away in a but, but, but Clinton, Teddy Kennedy is a drunk mode. A limited hangout has conveniently fallen onto their war mongering laps.

I never thought Assange was gay. Some guys it's fairly obvious. Hello Freddie Mercury. I can see how someone might think he looks gay, but that's just cause he has a boyish look with long hair.

Aaah, I googled Anna Ardin images. She's very cute.

Anonymous said...

I'm not doing your homework for you, but Assange has been cleared on the rape charge but still is under investigation for molestation. This is the Swedish legal weirdness. These are two adult women, one early 30s and the other about 20, who got wind that each had been bagged CONSENSUALLY by Assange within days of each other.

Supposedly, they compared notes, became jealous, and went together to the cops.

Their complaint centers around the fact that "Assange wont take no for an answer." Oh, and he refuses to wrap it up.

The angle of these chicks being CIA seems to be pure tinfoil. The conspiracy seems to be purely spurned chick-related.

My interest is how can this situation be criminalized?

In Sweden, the supposed free sex capital?

Anonymous said...

Our comments crossed. There are different angles to consider.

One is Assange's moral stance. He refused an STD test, too, according to the Daily Mail which obtained the police records. Passing VD is a crime, I guess?

[TLNL impersonation alert]

The second is the so-called leftist state getting into everybody's underwear and chicks deciding after the fact if a crime has been committed.

Entrapment anyone? Orwell cum Kafka?

And whither thou? You stated emphatically that 40 yr olds banging 20 yr olds was wrong.

Well, that was what Assange just did.

Was he wrong? Or is it situational? If you like him he's innocent?

Just asking.

socrates said...

Now I'm reading that the writer above didn't get his facts straight, that Ardin worked for a small paper and not the big rag. What an idiot, because he berated so many for jumping to conclusions it took him twenty minutes to figure out. I still agree with his main premise that this was more a fluke than anything Intelligence dreamed up. Man, this thing is running wild on blogs. It's like the OJ Simpson or JonBenet type stories but for the internet. Like the Karl Rove has been indicted mess by Leopold. I think it's going to take a lot of work to figure out what's really going on here. It might be best to wait a month or two and see what shows up after the dirt clears from the umpire's eyes.

socrates said...

Yes, it could get a bit confusing when our posts cross. Ok, I do think Assange is a loser to go after 20 year olds he doubles in age. I'm not even saying that's immoral. It's definitely not illegal. I think people should be with folks around their same age. Let's say for folks who are 25, they should go for +- five years. Then when folks get older, plus or minus ten years makes sense. I agree the actual age of consent is fairly arbitrary. I think in Ireland the age of consent is 16. Here, I think it will get us 20. When in doubt, don't do it. Sure, it takes away the spontaneity to ask a woman for identification. If for young people to wait a year until their significant other is legal, they must wait.

socrates said...

Assange is my hero for the wikileaks thing. Marttin Luther King apparently cheated on his wife. That doesn't take away from the great things he did for society. We're talking apples and oranges if we compare Assange's sex life with his activism. And good point on Sweden with it's prudish laws. They'd chuck us all in their dungeond if they could for even mentioning the topics we have. The guy refused to wear a condom and wouldn't take a test for std's? That should be his right. If the woman doesn't like it, then tell him to get out of the bed. If he continues, then it's rape or molestation. No should mean no in any language.

socrates said...

I admit I'm late to this party about Assange and his love life. It seems too difficult or time consuming to figure out completely. But here's what I think needs to be figured out.

Ok, I see that Assange fooled around with the two women at different times. Assange is clearly a male slut.

I see that Sweden has strict laws about revealing info about suspects. Yet this story was leaked out to the right wing rag. How did they get the story? Perhaps that's where intelligence might have been involved, spying on Assange and waiting for anything they could then smear him with.

Was it a fluke coincidence or was this a set up? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. Anyone saying anything about this is only sharing their opinions.

The bottom line is this has become the epitome of a limited hangout. The issue of war crimes is being swept under the table.

I read Wikileak people want Assange to step down. I think he should. He's ruining a good thing, because his personality is now overshadowing the project to attract whistleblowers.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I agree with your take on not adding other bloggers.

And your right about the Assange caper, too, its a distraction. It may have some larger import, but only as a warning to future rock stars, or wtf.

Assange is a star, and the guy who actually made him a star sits in a military prison from which he may never be released. Oddly enough, he sits there because he outed himself to some creep ex-hacker who the poor dupe trusted and blabbed his story.

Likely because he too wanted some recognition for doing the REAL heroic deed of outing the classified info from inside the beast.

And the ex-hacker, Lamo, also gets recognition for doing something thats so uncool its unspeakable. He ratted out the true hero in this saga to the pigs.

PFC Manning, is that the guys name?

Double dupe. I wonder what he's thinking there in his cell reading about Assange getting laid by hot chicks probably every day of his now illustrious life while he rots in jail?

There's a lesson in this somewhere, but I haven't sorted it out.

Meanwhile, the bombs keep dropping all over Iraq and AfPak.

socrates said...

Sorry about comment moderation. I was never fully on board with the Peeder Political Flesh Feast method. It's human nature and too many act on it to act the buffoon. I'm not saying yourself. Obviously I am a never say never guy who says never too much. Though I am proud of having quit blogs and never returned. Pffugee comes to mind. Also, once maryscott made it clear I would be deleted on contact at MLW, I never went back. Or maybe it's because she was talking up reporting me to the FBI for stalking.

Her definition of that is if people go searching for her comments across the net and repost them with some commentary.

My new post on that "election integrity" fake lefty with the major meltdown, I actually made an extensive effort to verify it was the same guy.

There was an open Peeder-like forum called Debate Both Sides. It was as unmoderated and free speechy as a place could be. I had to contact some company dudes hosting it to have things removed, because the moderators didn't have a clue. That place recently got whitewalled. I looked into it. The main mod invited 9/11 conspiracy debunkers to duke it out with the believers. Comments were being made that crossed the line. I think my first complaint was the first chop into the owner's psyche that the place wasn't worth it to keep going. That place was originally started by Arianna Huffington.

Maybe shadowthief was Anonymous Army? That's a possiblity. I am fairly sure Number 5 was AA. He told me they were roommates, but it sounded like the cliche where a person tells a doctor about their friend's problem, when it's really about him or her.

I don't think I outed Bob. I mean, he was putting that other name up as his own, which may or may not actually be a real name. So I figure I outed a username, which isn't a real name.

I did out one guy once, the May person. But then I deleted it, once I realised that was immoral. Hertzberg the meltdown dude I just wrote on, on the other hand, isn't a regular guy. I know the real name of another person who treated me badly. He works for Bluehost and is a major conspiracy theory nut, which many -Morons- Mormons are. I won't reveal his name. I did write to Bluehost and ask them to get their employee to stop f***ing with me.

But now I'm becoming the distraction.

Yes, I think that kid's name is Manning. Lamo broke an American cardinal sin. Snitching is not the American Way. It's good to do it when it matters, like with a murder or something truly awful. I agree that kid is getting a raw deal.

I don't understand the Assange case. Those are supposed to be progressive chicks. Why'd they snitch him out to the cops? I read a recent article, sorry no link, where Assange's son is saying his dad can be kind of like that with women. I don't get what he did wrong. He refused to wear a condom? There's no law against that, since he didn't rape anyone. Or a condom broke, and he refused to have an std test taken? Well, I'd like to see the Swedish law which says he has to take one for that situation. Those women were having pre-marital sex with a stranger they didn't even know. Those are the risks one takes, if they're going for one night stands. I feel like this story makes no sense.

Maybe Assange was trapped and one or two of those women are working for the dark side. Anything's possible. Yet it's pointless to act like a conspiracy theory freak and assert that is what most likely happened.

That's the kind of nonsense Brad Friedman, Kimberlin, Leopold, Larisa, et al peddle. That's pretty much the kind of trollbusting I'm most proud of. I caused a big stink up based on content. I got banned from DKos for that. That's different from being banned for being a troll.

Those fake lefties become a distraction with their various hoaxes. They make the ideas of citizen journalism, amateur cybersleuthing, and internet whistleblowing seem like mythology.

Anonymous said...

One of the answers might be "progressive chicks are uncool."

Or "progressives are uncool." Pyrrhiod. The whiteysphere has long since proven that in spades.

[oxymoron alert].

Progressive societies, or socialist societies, if you will, seem self-defeating.

They have to work too hard at keeping the lid on. Of course, I'm not syaing I want to live in a libertarian society either.

"The Sickness Unto Death" is a great book, especially the title. Kierkegaard. I think he was Swedish, or wtf.

Unfortunately, there is no known cure for the human condition. Or maybe its fortunate.

The cure can be worse than the disease.

socrates said...

I'm just saying at least one of the ladies seemed to be involved with inviting Assange to speak. Of course many people are posers.

Since the cat's out of the bag, I believe everyone has the right to know exactly what happened. Assange must have done something wrong, or he was wrongly accused.

I'm not too into discussing political ideology concerning social structure. I will say this, is it me, or was there never much discussion of the poor and disadvantaged at pffugee or the other soapbloxes? I don't remember any of that.

I believe in socialism. I see you don't. Perhaps we should avoid hitting this wall. You could try TLNL's blog. I bet he'd love debating it with you.

I saw this movie last night called The Black Legion with Humphrey Bogart. It was pretty good. Based on truth. Combine the TeaNuts with Huey Long and the Ku Klux Klan, and that's your historic vigilante group.

I'll have to give a nod to Francis' critique of Hollywood. There were no black people in the movie, and The Black Legion definitely went after blacks to go with other groups of people they despised like Jooos, commie pinkos, immigrants, etc..

I'm googling around trying to learn more, but it seems like a dark hole, just like the Assange story. The Black Legion had members who were cops, prosecutors, automotive higher ups who employed them to beat on labor unionists. Malcolm X's dad was killed by them. I can see why government pigs went after Hollywood. It's pretty crazy how one can often learn more from a movie than a sanitised history book. We've never gotten an explanation for the grassy knoll. No one should expect the truth to emerge concerning Assange and his male slut adventures. The most interesting questions actually have nothing to do with that. Does the US export terrorism? Have they committed war crimes? If so, and I believe so, why do they keep getting away with it? I mean, if GW, Cheney, and such people got arrested, that would make a difference. How do we get to that point? Think about Jim Garrison. He was a smart guy. You really think he would have prosecuted a guy for killing Kennedy, if he didn't have anything on him? Some conspiracy theory chatter is good. As long as it's kept fact-based. I better stop? TLNL is getting upset I'm using up all the question marks?

socrates said...

Blogger has added a stats feature. This place isn't as dead as I thought it was. Maybe I can share some of that data, when time permits.

I saw you're posting at FSZ. I think you're a chump for doing so.

Isn't soapblox only $15/month? A well-to-do capitalist like yourself could afford that. You, Noom, and Eric should start your own political flesh feast. That would be five bucks each. Just make sure to delete anything illegal, no outing of regular guys, no deleting of anything that doesn't break said rules, and that would be the ultimate revenge against dumbass losers like MattyJack and LauraJohn.

But for you to go back to FSZ is a joke. Sorry, pal, but it's true, and deep down you know it.

Now you and Miep are whooping it up, something about Frank Zappa.

I saw a few comments by Blews exposing more of his insanity, whether paid, weak satire (trollish), or real.

To use one of your coined phrases, I also saw a sock of a sock of a sock show up to belch out the thing about lap dogs or whatever, of how you will do to Miep what you eventually do to others, i.e. unexpectedly lash out at your allies, stir trouble. Like for real, on that MLW link, it's right there how you crossed the line in regards to rules of dialogue etiquette. I'm the first to admit curmudgetteface is a joke, but if you're proud of looking like a troll with some of your choice words with her back then, knock yourself silly.

I've seen this type of Jekyll and Hyde behaviour before. I give you credit for being one username when you're going after people.

I was immediately attacked at FSZ just because the greeters couldn't accept that Larisa and MajorFlaw got me unfairly banned from DailyKos. They were unable to deal with content exposing Brad Friedman, Brett Kimberlin, Larisa, and that whole milieu of confidence players. It was classic blame the messenger schtuff.

Supersoling is the ultimate concern troll. I believe Supergump is a more fitting name for that paint sniffer. Your coining of me as sock rat had no basis in reality. No one ever debunked what I came up with on Larisa and Brad. The truth about Brett Kimberlin is astounding. Much of what I blogged was very good.

I think the kind of trolls I attract are of the sock of a sock of a sock variety. I think if you could go back to their original usernames, you'd still be asking who the frickensass is that? Like CommentBreath and the criminal DumbDogg.

Apologies to any lurkers who aren't familiar with this what is referred to as meta. Don't sweat it.

Comment moderation is off for now. I think it'll be periodically turned off an on. Say I might be off the computer for a few days, then I'll activate it, for situations like that. Outrageous trolling of myself will not be allowed, period.

Anonymous said...

It depends on what you mean by 'socialism.' If you mean European style social democratic welfare states which I guess is what I'm referring to in this instance, then I am for more of that in the US. I am for higher taxes to support strengthening the welfare state. I'm just noting the downsides, evident in this system, where political correctness seems to have overstepped the bounds.

Have you read about the Chilean mine collapse? Its instructive on social issues. The miners are alive and there is a breathing hole down which food, medicine and communication travels.
But it will take 3-4 months to rescue them.In the crisis some men have taken the lead and the others have followed, formed a benevolent hierarchy. The men will have to clear away tons of debris while the rescue effort ensues.

Man is a hierarchical animal. During crisis we pull together for the common good. But once the crisis fades, and generations pass, the tendency is for the reliable human faults such as greed, envy and malice to do their work.

This is as true of capitalist societies as it is of socialist societies or the senile fascist society of our present day.

The European welfare state is capitalist not socialist.

The Chinese state is capitalist.

Socialist states can't seem to channel human nature in a way that elevates society economically. There is ample historical evidence. I wish it were not so, just like my fate, but the truth is the truth, regardless what I wish.

What happens in these societies is that the hierarchy endures, hardens, calcifies and becomes repressive.

True socialism has never worked because of the human social dynamics.

socrates said...

It's pointless to get into debate over words such as socialism, capitalism, left, right, etc., because for the most part it tends to degenerate into existential talking over one another.

I think you do best, when you get into specifics rather than make absolute statements. I have seen you attack the criminal justice system. That has been a good effort.

A Professor, who would be considered left of liberal, argued that there needs to be a proper mix of planned and free economy. That makes sense to me. You don't want boxes of cereal costing 12 bucks. You also don't want the state enforcing who is to make the cereal. That's kind of a rough example, but I think it hits the spot without rubbing it out.

In my simplistic, idealistic lefty vision, I pinpoint certain fundamentals that need to be addressed; Education, health care, housing, jobs, income inequality, an end to the death and spying industries, etc..

The Constitution isn't necessarily a bad document. Part of it is about saying we are all born equal. When social reality does not line up with law, that is referred to as a legitimation crisis. People are clearly not born equal.

I don't see much lefty idealism on the internet. There are too many Fairlefts gumming up the works. Who on Earth would ever promote Huey Long, the Iranian theocracy, Big Brother in urban areas, claim Richard Nixon as the last liberal US President, and attack Francis Holland for his blasting to the public about Markos Moulitsas being a lover of the CIA?

I was checking out the stats and found a place that linked to DFQ2 twice, one concerning Annette Appollo, the other on the owner of Democratic Underground having been employed by Al From's Democratic Leadership Council.

I signed up yesterday and don't understand what the delay is in activating my account. I wanted to respond to two attacks on my blogging on Tinoire and Brad Friedman.

socrates said...

I've been looking through this place called It is very similar to the FSZ's and Pffugee's splintering off of Daily Kos but for Democratic Underground. I see many similarities between separate milieus. Yet unless someone is aware of such milieus, I can see how it all sounds like silly name dropping of mostly anonymous usernames partaking in flame festivals, similar to I admit the above referencing to FakeLefty.
I see Jeff Wells signed up to oldelmtree. His intro was explaining how he'd been banned from DU for voting the wrong way in a poll. His explanation was that his vote was satire. He would probably argue that Al Jolson's black face was satire too, since he voted for the racist option.

Then of course there is the little problem of himself whining about being unfairly banned, when I was originally banned from his Rigorous Intuition garbage pit before even making one post!

Surely we all are susceptible to claims of hypocrisy, as you perhaps define as a projection alert.

The people there for the most part lauded my effort concerning Annette. That was a good one. Perhaps I am at peace with blogging, because I realise I've accomplished as much as I can by nailing certain subjects. A couple losers attacking me for what I've written about Friedman and Tinoire means squat. I nailed the Appollo story, as I nailed the others.

There is a chunk of fake lefties who do nothing but attack messengers rather than content. Those are your supergumps, Mattyjacks, MajorFlaws, and Karmafishies of the blogosphere. They are the #1 reason why the internet never gets anywhere.

There are two aspects to consider, such as apples and oranges. You have your so-called meta. You also have real topics. They often overlap in this unreal milieu we found ourselves somewhat trapped in. I'm glad I was able to break off from its stranglehold on one's blogging. The one thing that we have most bonded on the last couple years is our shared awareness of that overlapping where meta interacts with real topics. TLNL did the same thing, and you'd know that, but he started from a third milieu.

socrates said...

I think I now see what's up with the old elm tree website. It is a splinter forum from Tinoire's fake commie one.

I have no proof, but I think the person running the new place is Tinoire.

Progressive Independent doesn't fool me. It's beyond fishy how over the top they are posing as commies.

Commies would never promote Michael Rivero or vote for Ron Paul.

The old elm tree forum doesn't fool me either. All the major forums and all the offshoots are crap, whether one's talking about Democratic Underground or Daily Kos.

Now I know why my account hasn't been activated. Imho, Tinoire is the admin of both PI and the new place.

socrates said...

The poster named Miep is crazy. She's saying I'm hanging out at FSZ. No, I post at neither Pffugee or FSZ.

She's conflating Noom with donkeytale. She is confirming my initial critiques of her blogging, that she jumps in where she doesn't know what's been going on.

I don't even remember how many times we responded to each other. It couldn't have been more than a few times.

When I first learned of Noom and donkeytale, I too thought they were the same person. But after a while, one can see they are separate people.

Miep has accused donkeytale of being a sock puppet master. I don't think he's ever used one. Noom has admitted to being the King of sock puppet mastery.

Miep is still talking about me, long after I've tried to forget about her brand of crazy. MattyJack then said something about how some people are so annoying, one wishes they were dead.

MattyJack is also insane. As for Miep, a day or whenever after I blogged on the worst meltdown in internet history, she broke that record. She's listed her home address and phone number and has invited demons in her head to come by for breakfast, the condition being they supply their own food. She put up a picture of herself. Picture Ma Kettle on acid.