LibCom Circles The Wagons

If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and then add this site ( Microsoft's new browser, Edge, automatically renders these links compatible; Windows 10 also automatically makes IE11 compatible with this site.


However, if you are using Windows 10, Microsoft's browsers, IE11 and Edge, unfortunately appear to colour these links somewhat erratically. They are meant to be dark blue, but those two browsers render them intermittently mid-blue, light blue, yellow, purple and red!


Firefox and Chrome reproduce them correctly.




If your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these and the other links won't work!


I have adjusted the font size used at this site to ensure that even those with impaired vision can read what I have to say. However, if the text is still either too big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!


Summary Of My Main Objections To Dialectical Materialism


Abbreviations Used At This Site


Return To The Main Index Page


Contact Me


Dialectical Carnage

Alas, the blood bath over at LibCom has at last come to an end -- but, guess what? It turns out that 'Libertarian Communists' can't defend their 'theory' ('Dialectics'), either!

What a monumental surprise!

But, today we read this from 'Si':

What a startlingly unpleasant, delusional, obsessional character you are. Of course you don't have the right to 'infer to the best explanation' -- your (literally) pathetic use of your sex as a weapon (as if anyone cares a damn that you're a woman) is the final straw as far as I'm concerned, rounding off tens of bizarre, repetitive, interminable postings which display not the slightest modicum of wit, insight or grace. Anyone who has the time to write the amount you do on here... still, whatever lets you reproduce your sense of self-worth, I guess. I suggest everyone else stop feeding this pathetic troll -- let her have her (Pyrrhic) victory -- I'm sure she'll gloat at length on her site -- but this ludicrous farce -- this hideous discursive trainwreck -- has gone on long enough.

Notice: no attempt to address the issues, just a determination to deny me the option to hypothesise along the same dishonest lines as this sad character.

Double standards from this site? The very idea!

And, far from this being a "Pyrrhic" victory for yours truly, I think it should be classified as yet another indication of how Dialectical Mystics can't defend their 'theory' -- at least, not without invention and no little dissembling.

Once more, they can dole it out but cannot take it, and run for mumsy's skirts when given a comprehensive pasting.

But, how does Posey respond to the public humiliation inflicted on him (not by me, but by himself with his neurotic urge to invent, coupled with his refusal to substantiate any of the lies he concocts -- compounded by his attempt to make an 'inference to the most convenient explanation' -- all exposed by yours truly)?

You guessed it: more of the same, as if that were a surprise, too:

Her 9,000 word piece is really just one extended personal attack. I will leave it to anyone who is interested (I don't see why anyone should be) to decide if this person has gone way off the deep end. If Rosa thought that any of my inferences about her views, or any of my attempts to try to characterize what she were saying, were wrong, really the easiest way to deal with this (and what I always do when people misinterpret what I say) is to simply and patiently clarify what her view is. I don't think that would have been very difficult. A lot easier, one would think, than writing an obsessive 9,000 word ad hominem. If she's not an empiricist, if she defends the method of hypothesis and test, or whatever, all she had to do was to make this clear. That should be no big deal, one would think.

She makes a big deal of the fact that i started posting on at the time she posted here. actually i had tried to register on some time in the past, when i found out that an old comrade and friend I'd known since the '70s was posting there under the moniker redstar2000, but it was down. From her references to it here, I merely inferred it was back up again, which I was unaware of. her presence on it was of little concern to me.

Once more: no attempt to justify his allegations (fully documented here), or withdraw them -- and he forgets that when I tried to do what he now suggests I should have done earlier, he continued to advance the same baseless assertions. After several fruitless attempts to ask him to stop, if anything, he got worse!

Since then he has been sulking. Indeed, he now just moans about this "personal attack", forgetting the attacks he made on me (just as he glosses over his own monomaniacal ransacking of my site in a fruitless endeavour to find something to justify his lies) --, as well as forgetting my promise always to give far worse that I get.

And as far as his pathetic excuse concerning stalking me at RevLeft is concerned, he first of all chased up my posts at the YFIS Forum (where I received the same abusive response from those 'authoritarians' as I have from these 'libertarians' -- unfortunately, the YFIS Forum no loner exists!) within hours of my first snub to him, and then high-tailed after me to RevLeft just as quickly when I told him I had posted more material there.

Sure, he has left me alone at RevLeft; that is because any attempt to stalk me there (where I am a mod) will only succeed in his posts being deleted (and not just by me), and his membership thrown into doubt.

Other responses from the LibCom Liars include this revealing one from 'Fido':

That's because she's a sad sad insane pharisee (sic)..., quite insane. I'm just seeing her deliberately misrepresent Marx, while claiming to represent him. And then to personally attack someone like that? Wow. She really doesn't belong in the worker's movement. I was wondering why she called herself a Leninist, and not a Marxist, or even a Marxist Leninist. Now I understand. She's an authoritarian with a chip on her shoulder. She's removed whatever shred of sense can be found in Lenin and advances such garbage. Blech. SIMCP has the right idea as far as her insane self is concerned, let her ramble.

This is the character who began his 'replies' to me with abuse, lies and a liberal use of scatological language, when I had (unusually for me!) been rather pleasant.

But as I said on the opening page:

How Not To Argue 101

This page contains links to forums on the web where I have 'debated' this creed with other comrades.

For anyone interested, check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.

You will no doubt note that the vast majority all say the same sorts of things, and most of them pepper their remarks with scatological and abusive language. They all like to make things up, too, about me and my beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this stuff from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an aggressive stance with them every time -- I soon learnt back in the 1980s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate, nor reduce the amount of scatological language they used.

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Apparently, they expect me to take their abuse lying down, and regularly complain about my "bullying" tactics.

So, these mystics can dish it out, but they cannot take it.

Given the damage their theory has done to Marxism, and the abuse they all dole out, they are lucky this is all I can do to them.

So, after being initially pleasant to this 'comrade', and after receiving the same sort of abuse from him that I have had to endure now for the last quarter of a century (some of which can be found here), I have now started to wipe the floor with him, to which he can't respond (mainly because he knows very little about the subjects on which he pontificates, even though he thinks differently), and neither can he handle it.

Under mummy's skirts he goes!

Hence, he now just confines himself to advancing the above amateurish psychological diagnosis of yours truly (I am sure Fido thinks he's an expert psychiatrist, too!), refusing to face up to the uncomfortable facts I laid before him, and in extensive detail.

Since he, and the other mystics, can't respond effectively to me (as this thread shows), they have now gone into a collective huddle and decided to ignore me.

This is all to the good, since that is the same unchanging policy adopted by other 'consistent' believers in Heraclitean change that I have encountered over the years.

The world might alter, but they never do.

Heads back in the sand comrades --, and then forward to the next 150 years of glorious dialectical failure!

Return To The Main Index

Back To The Top

Rosa Lichtenstein 2020

Hits Since May 2007: Coupons Coupons