Socialism and Change

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin..

 Whuch  is precisely what LBird is doing with his advocacy of society wide central planning

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin..

Whuch  is precisely what LBird is doing with his advocacy of society wide central planning

What did I predict?Slanders and lies, as usual, the political method of the 'materialists'. In a word, Leninism.Those who actually read what I write, and are very careful of the lies of the 'materialists', will be aware that 'society-wide democratic planning' (Marx's ideas about 'social production') has been consciously and deliberately altered by robbo to confuse the unwary as 'society-wide central planning'.robbo thus anticipates his own political regime, in which he as an individual is at the centre of his planning.Individualists, like robbo, will always deny democracy, because they have a 'fear of the mob'. Individualism is a ruling class idea, a social product of the bourgeoisie, and must start from concepts like 'matter', which all individuals claim to 'know', by their individual, biological, asocial, ahistoric, senses. Thus, they don't need to discuss social theory, social practice, or the place of democracy within the social production of socialism.Thus, he defines 'democracy' as 'centralism'.Democratic Communists / Marxists define 'democracy' as 'society-wide'.

[alanjjohnstone]

Coincidentally this 1964 Socialist Standard article has appeared online which may help us understand the issue a bit betterhttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/09/political-organisation-1964.html

Quote:

"… If the working class is to become the master of society—which it must do in order to change it—then it too must recognise itself as a class, and organise itself politically. This political party must be Socialist expressing workers’ recognition that their emancipation can only be achieved by the expropriation of the capitalist class and the establishment of Socialism…The Socialist political party will not appear ready-made. Like other social phenomena, it will grow out of social conditions. This raises the whole question of the role of a Socialist party in the class struggle…It must seek to dispel the political ignorance of the working class…This does not mean that the relation between the party and the working class is to be that of teacher and pupil. Socialist understanding is not something that can be constructed out of nowhere; it must grow out of social conditions. Such understanding—or class consciousness—will not arise purely as a result of the propaganda of the Socialist party. Ideas only grip the masses when they are relevant to social conditions. There are any number of cranks around with utopian schemes for social reconstruction. What distinguishes Socialists from them is that Socialism is in the material interest of the working class. Socialists have social evolution on their side. The cranks have not—that’s why they’re cranks…Education is not just a question of learning from books and pamphlets; that is just one aspect of learning from experience. The class experiences of the working class under capitalism will teach it that Socialism is the answer to its problems. The party can help this development of Socialist understanding by storing up and propagating the past experiences of the working class so that these are easily accessible. The principles of the Socialist party will be based on these experiences and will serve as a guide to social issues, being used to expose useless remedies…Once Socialist understanding grows to any appreciable extent, political conditions will completely change. Socialism will become a political issue. The comparative trivialities of present-day politics will be cast aside. The issue will be Capitalism or Socialism. …It is decidedly not the function of a Socialist party to lead the working class either in the struggle to live under capitalism or in the struggle for Socialism. The working class cannot be led to Socialism; it must emancipate itself. A Socialist working class will require no leadership; all it requires is organisation to put its aim into effect. The day-to-day struggle of the working class, the economic phase of the class struggle, goes on in the place of work. To carry out this struggle is the task of the trade unions. In so far as they carry out this task they are class weapons. The task of bargaining with the employers is not one for which a Socialist party is at all suited. Of course, the members of a Socialist party, precisely because they are class conscious workers, will be active trade unionists, desirous of getting the highest possible price for their labour power… Trade unions are class organisations when they are used correctly in the economic phase of the class struggle. They cease to be such when, for instance, they back productivity drives or finance politicians and political parties… To sum up, the movement for Socialism must be open and democratic. At present, its role is largely restricted to propaganda, but in the future it will be the working class organised consciously and politically for Socialism. It will be the instrument they will use to capture political power. The Socialist Party of Great Britain offers itself for this task.

Sorry for the abridged and adapted version, and the cherry-picked extracts. You can read the full article at the link.This was written over 50 years go…what does it tell us about the progress we have achieved as a class …and also as a party…For sure, we still are an extant socialist party but have we grown? And if we haven't, then are we suited for the task? Has understanding grown among our fellow workers? Are they more class conscious? Or possessing even trade union conscious?Am i being needlessly negative…or am i asking realistic questions that has to be answered by ourselves?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 What did I predict?Slanders and lies, as usual, the political method of the 'materialists'. In a word, Leninism.Those who actually read what I write, and are very careful of the lies of the 'materialists', will be aware that 'society-wide democratic planning' (Marx's ideas about 'social production') has been consciously and deliberately altered by robbo to confuse the unwary as 'society-wide central planning'.robbo thus anticipates his own political regime, in which he as an individual is at the centre of his planning.Individualists, like robbo, will always deny democracy, because they have a 'fear of the mob'. Individualism is a ruling class idea, a social product of the bourgeoisie, and must start from concepts like 'matter', which all individuals claim to 'know', by their individual, biological, asocial, ahistoric, senses. Thus, they don't need to discuss social theory, social practice, or the place of democracy within the social production of socialism.Thus, he defines 'democracy' as 'centralism'.Democratic Communists / Marxists define 'democracy' as 'society-wide'.

 Amusing.  LBird has the gall to accuse socialists of engaging in "slanders and lies" against him  having himself  just just accused them of opposing democracy or democractc decisionmaking in socialism which is demonstrably false.  The truth is socialists have a more nuanced and grounded view of what democracy entails than has LBird.  We recognise that there will necessarily different levels of democratic decisionmaking in socialism – local , regional and global.  We also recognise, along wth Marx, that in socialism the “free development of each is the condition for  the free development of all" and that the very nature  of socialism requires this.  How else do you operate a society based on voluntary cooperation and free accesss without individuals being able to choose for themselves in these matters as opposed to having those decisions imposed on you from above? The truth is democacy and individual freedom/autonomy are not opposites as LBird stupidly perists in maintaining but are absolutely complementary to each other.  The one needs the other for both to exist.  Its a question of striking the right balance.  Too much of either undermines or destroys both. LBrid understands nothing of this.  His views on democracy are childishly simplistic and embarrasingly dumb.  He has got no understanding of the mechanics or the logistics of decsionmaking  and for all his religious-like proclamations about democracy  –  "I am a democratic communist", doh! –  in reality,  his kind of totalitarian thinking will deliver a world  from which any kind of real democracy would be utterly extinguished.   He has just now admitted that his model of decision making is one in which all decisions are made at a "society wide" level.  Meaning 7 billion plus people are going to have to decide on literally  EVERYTHING – from whether or not your local communty needs a new library or doctors surgery  right down to what you as an individual will be allowed to consume or contribute by way of work.  If such a crackpot idea were even remotely feasiable,  which thankfully it is not , it would absolutely require all  such centralised decsionmaking to be concentrated in the hands of tiny technocratic elite – if only by default. This is in effect what LBird advocates though he lacks the wit to see it.  He seems to think that society wide decisionminaking is "democratic" while centralised decisionmaking is not.  But if there is only one body of  decisionmaking and only one centre – namely the whole of society  – then that is by definiition centralised or unicentric, not polycentric.  :LBird opposes in principle the whole idea of polycentric decision-making.  Therefore he advocates society wide central planning from a single centre  and therefore he is Leninist and an opponent of real democracy  for all his bluster to the contrary.  He stands firmly side by side with his comrade Lenin in advocating that " The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labor and pay" (State and Revolution). It is not for no reason that Lenin favoured a policy of top down "one-man management" and argued that democracy was completely compatible with dictatorship by a single individual .  Given a chance to put his balmy ideas into practice Lbird would argue exactly along the same lines and all in the name of "democracy" of course.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This was written over 50 years go…what does it tell us about the progress we have achieved as a class …and also as a party…For sure, we still are an extant socialist party but have we grown? And if we haven't, then are we suited for the task? Has understanding grown among our fellow workers? Are they more class conscious? Or possessing even trade union conscious?Am i being needlessly negative…or am i asking realistic questions that has to be answered by ourselves?

It's not a bad article, alan.It mentions 'material' once only, in the context of 'the interest of the working class'. Clearly, given how many times the article mentions 'social', 'society', 'class', etc., it's clear that 'material' here also means 'social', as it did for Marx (he opposed 'material' meaning 'human', to 'ideal' meaning 'divine').The clincher is that 'the material interests' of our class can only be determined by the class itself, so this 'material' can't pre-exist its creation by our class. It's certainly nothing to do with 'matter'. To claim otherwise, is put posit a 'matter' that our class doesn't control, and so is in the hands of an elite.I've tried to count that times the article specifically says social conditions, and I've counted 3. There is also political conditions, and a constant stress on democracy.In fact, if the article had replaced the one 'material interest' with 'social interest' or 'political interest', it would have been more consistent.Only the class can determine its 'material interest' (or, 'material conditions'), and that determination must be democratic. To read this article as talking about 'matter', a 'matter' that only an elite can 'know' (which is why the elite deny that the class can vote on this concept and replace it), is to ignore the entirety of the rest of the article, outside of one single word.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Marcos wrote:

I don't think that Robbo is so simplistic. He always gives profound and detailed explanations. You are monothematic, and now you are riding on top of your favorite little horse

Another one who apparently can't read what Marx argues, and hates a Democratic Communist pointing that out.The real problem is the 'monotheme' of the SPGB, if you're anything to go by, of anti-democratic Engelsian Materialism, just what Lenin supported and put into practice.So, yeah, my hobby horse is exposing anti-democrats who pretend to workers that 'thinkers' like Marcos and robbo 'know better' than 7 billion workers, and so set out from the very start to ensure that workers will not be allowed to vote on issues that the 'materialists' claim to know already, because the 'materialists' supposedly have a 'special consciousness' not available to all workers – hence, no democracy.Why can none of you argue about politics?Bluffers.

The world can be falling apart, the ruling class can be dropping bombs all over the earth, the working class can be going thru a lot of miseries, and LBIRD will never say anything, as soon as he hears the word Engels he jumps and become a democratic and a brave person  in front of the computer. Besides this thread that has been republished by Robbo, debunking his so called democratic ideas,  we also published  a thread proving that the SPGB was not a Leninist party like he is claiming all the time, he got several politicals knock out and he has never said anything,  it was like putting a zipper on his mouth. He backed up his allegations citing others Leninist thinkers like Lukacs and Gramsci

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

…  we also published  a thread proving that the SPGB was not a Leninist party like he is claiming all the time…

So, if the SPGB is not 'Leninist' in its ideology (even I'll grant that the SPGB's is not a 'democratic centralist' organisation, like the SWP, of which I have personal political experience), why does it publish documents and threads that claim to support 'democracy', but it doesn't support democratic social production (including ideas, of course)?When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.When I dig further, to find out why you always give this anti-democratic answer, I find that, like Lenin, you follow Engels (not Marx) and his 'Materialism' (not Marx's 'social productionism'), and have Faith In Matter (like Engels and Lenin), rather than Faith In Humans (like Marx).There are dozens of thinkers that understand the difference between Marx and Engels, not just Lukacs and Gramsci, but also Labriola, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Pannekoek, Hook, Dunayevskaya, Kolakowski, Avineri, Carver… and others, too many to list.Unless the SPGB starts to question its kneejerk anti-democratism, and finds some answers to these political questions (which have been getting asked since before the SPGB was founded), then it will not prosper (or, only amongst 'materialists', rather than amongst Democratic Communist workers, its intended class audience).Terrell Carver places the origin of the problem in 1859, in Engels' review of Marx's Preface and Introduction. That would be a good place, for anyone interested, to start – 45 years prior to the founding of the SPGB.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Marcos wrote:

…  we also published  a thread proving that the SPGB was not a Leninist party like he is claiming all the time…

So, if the SPGB is not 'Leninist' in its ideology (even I'll grant that the SPGB's is not a 'democratic centralist' organisation, like the SWP, of which I have personal political experience), why does it publish documents and threads that claim to support 'democracy', but it doesn't support democratic social production (including ideas, of course)?When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.When I dig further, to find out why you always give this anti-democratic answer, I find that, like Lenin, you follow Engels (not Marx) and his 'Materialism' (not Marx's 'social productionism'), and have Faith In Matter (like Engels and Lenin), rather than Faith In Humans (like Marx).There are dozens of thinkers that understand the difference between Marx and Engels, not just Lukacs and Gramsci, but also Labriola, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Pannekoek, Hook, Dunayevskaya, Kolakowski, Avineri, Carver… and others, too many to list.Unless the SPGB starts to question its kneejerk anti-democratism, and finds some answers to these political questions (which have been getting asked since before the SPGB was founded), then it will not prosper (or, only amongst 'materialists', rather than amongst Democratic Communist workers, its intended class audience).Terrell Carver places the origin of the problem in 1859, in Engels' review of Marx's Preface and Introduction. That would be a good place, for anyone interested, to start – 45 years prior to the founding of the SPGB.

Some of those individuals that you are citing they were Leninists. Dunayeskaya was never able to break away from Leninism and Trotskyism, and she considered that  Engels was a post Marxist, She never broke away with the concept  of Leadership,  but she rejected the vanguard party to lead, and she created a cult of herself.According to her analysis socialism existed in the Soviet Union until 1930 before the so called coup of Stalin, and the SPGN since 1917 said that socialism was never established in one countryEngels never created a cult of himself, he always considered himself as a student of Marxism. On that thread that was mentioned we disclosed all the main components of Leninism and none  of them were  applicable  to the SPGB,  and despite that L Bird continues playing the same lyrics.Now he is citing Dunayeskaya when in prior occassions he has rejected her thoughts when we had also indiicated that she belieives in the unification of idealism and materialism like him

[LBird]

Whilst what you are saying is true, Marcos, you're still not addressing the core political problem here.There are plenty of Leninists who can see that there are problems with Engels, which is why I quote them about problems with Engels. You seem to think that because I agree with them about this issue, that I support them completely, politically. Why you can't separate this out, I don't know.I've told you this many times, especially regarding Dunayevskaya, but it doesn't seem to make any impression on you – perhaps you are just following the 'materialist' method, of slandering your opponents, and making up lies.Whatever the case, you still have (never) addressed the key political issue which is facing the SPGB – how can 'matter' be 'democratic'?Simple fact is, it can't – which is why Marx didn't employ the concept, and Engels was politically mistaken to have translated 'material' to mean 'matter'.I'm not slandering you when I call you a Leninist – it's a term of political analysis, for a 'materialist' who claims to know 'matter' through a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the class as a whole. This ideology leads to a refusal to grant democratic control to the working class – you do this everytime you argue that only a minority can determine 'truth'.Unless the initial political concept of democracy is employed, to found a philosophical concept which is inescapably democratic, and leaves power in the hands of 'conscious activity' which is not individual or elite, then there will be no democracy for workers, no matter what any party claims.Marx started from 'inorganic nature' – this is not 'matter'. Engels is the origin of this idea that 'matter determines consciousness'. Marx, on the contrary, always argued that any 'nature' we know was 'nature-for-us', a social product of our conscious activity, of theory and practice. Thus, 'matter' exists for some societies, but not others. There are many other concepts, dating back to the Ancient Greeks, that suit the democratic theory and practice of the revolutionary proletariat far better than the concept of 'matter'.Now, I'm treating you like an adult, so please respond in the same terms – FFS, answer the political questions surrounding 'matter', and why anyone would choose a ruling class concept, and expect it to be useful to the exploited class, when it sets out to challenge the exploiting class. 'Matter' is a conceptual mirror of 'Private Property'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, if the SPGB is not 'Leninist' in its ideology (even I'll grant that the SPGB's is not a 'democratic centralist' organisation, like the SWP, of which I have personal political experience), why does it publish documents and threads that claim to support 'democracy', but it doesn't support democratic social production (including ideas, of course)?When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'..

 Yes thats quite true. I dont support the "democratic production of truth"  not because I am not a democrat but because the idea of putting scientific theories etc to a global democratic vote  is PLAIN BONKERS.  Its as simple as that.  When is LBird going to get that through his skull? The idea is totally impractical as well as totally unneccessary.  That is not what democracy is for.  Democracy is about practical decisons that affect us – locally regionally and globally – and I support that. LBird, however,  does not    He wants a system of totally centralised decisionmaking whereby literally the whole of society is supposed to decide on literally everything.  Since there are billions of decisions to be made and since LBird has emphatically ruled out any kind of devolved or local desicionmaking whatsoever who is going to make these decisions since clearly 7 billion people  will have neither the time nor the inclination to make them?  Thats right – the people who will make these decisions will be a tiny techncratic elite.  In the name of democracy LBird's daft ideas will kill democracy stone dead. This is what makes LBird in de facto terms a Leninist and it doesnt surprise me in the least given his background as a one time supporter or member of the Trotskyist SWP

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.

Yes thats quite true. I dont support the "democratic production of truth"  …

So, you are quite openly making a political decision without, and prior to, the organised, class conscious, working class.Why this doesn't ring massive alarm bells with those in the SPGB who really believe that they are democrats, I don't know. Perhaps no-one gives a shit.

robbo203 wrote:

…The idea is totally impractical as well as totally unneccessary.  That is not what democracy is for.  Democracy is about practical decisons… 

Here, again, is an ideology that has pre-decided for workers, what is impractical, what is necessary, what democracy is for.Surely, for anyone hoping to build for democratic socialism, only the workers themselves can determine these issues, not The Great Man robbo, who has as much regard for workers' democracy as Uncle Joe, never mind Lenin.And, once again, 'practical' is put ahead of 'theoretical' in robbo's political method – and this is the exact opposite of Marx's social method of 'theory and practice'.This means, in political terms, according to Marx's method, that robbo himself will supply the 'theory' that precedes his 'practice' – he's hiding his 'theory', and pretending that it's all just 'practical' stuff (and by this he means 'individual practice').robbo is lying to workers, when he denies having any theory. He has a theory, and it's an elitist one. Workers, beware.'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

That may be so and it may not be so, LBird.But the fact is that Robbo was obliged to resign from the SPGB because his ideas were not agreed and accepted by it. His circulars to all branches were discussed and debated by them and by the Party as a whole where they were voted upon by conference and subsequently rejected. Nevertheless, he is on the forum still able to freely offer his views, just as you are.Surely, this must give you pause for thought in your accusations concerning the non-democracy of the SPGB.(As a caveat, i was not a member at the time so i may be over-simplifying the controversy) 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.

Yes thats quite true. I dont support the "democratic production of truth"  …

So, you are quite openly making a political decision without, and prior to, the organised, class conscious, working class.Why this doesn't ring massive alarm bells with those in the SPGB who really believe that they are democrats, I don't know. Perhaps no-one gives a shit.

robbo203 wrote:

…The idea is totally impractical as well as totally unneccessary.  That is not what democracy is for.  Democracy is about practical decisons… 

Here, again, is an ideology that has pre-decided for workers, what is impractical, what is necessary, what democracy is for.Surely, for anyone hoping to build for democratic socialism, only the workers themselves can determine these issues, not The Great Man robbo, who has as much regard for workers' democracy as Uncle Joe, never mind Lenin.And, once again, 'practical' is put ahead of 'theoretical' in robbo's political method – and this is the exact opposite of Marx's social method of 'theory and practice'.This means, in political terms, according to Marx's method, that robbo himself will supply the 'theory' that precedes his 'practice' – he's hiding his 'theory', and pretending that it's all just 'practical' stuff (and by this he means 'individual practice').robbo is lying to workers, when he denies having any theory. He has a theory, and it's an elitist one. Workers, beware.'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

 LOL LBird – I am not the one who is "pre-deciding" anything .  The only one who is doing that is you, chum!  Show me a single living worker apart from yourself who seriously argues  that tens of  thousands  of scientific theories that are churned out every single year should be subjected to a global plebiscite involving 7 billion plus individuals.  Why you would want to implement such a monumentally stupid, pointless and wasteful procedure I have no idea but  you seem quite determined that this is what "democratic communism"  should entail though, as I say, I have yet see anyone else  rallying to support your madcap idea.   Seriously you are a one off.  Absolutely unique and idiosyncratic. Still, I guess its what makes the world go round – and a little more interesting than it would otherwise be

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

That may be so and it may not be so, LBird.But the fact is that Robbo was obliged to resign from the SPGB because his ideas were not agreed and accepted by it. His circulars to all branches were discussed and debated by them and by the Party as a whole where they were voted upon by conference and subsequently rejected. 

My apologies to the SPGB then, alan. Since no-one has advised me otherwise, and robbo's anti-democratic ideology has gone completely unchallenged by other posters here (and I presume at least some must be party members), I've assumed that robbo is both a party member and thus speaking in some official capacity.But the political problem still remains for the SPGB. Why doesn't it officially (or even one member!) make a stand for workers' democracy in social production? If it has rejected robbo's anti-democratic ideas, why hasn't it declared what it is for?

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Nevertheless, he is on the forum still able to freely offer his views, just as you are.

I've got no problem whatsoever with robbo peddling his anti-democratic shite openly – it should help to provoke thought amongst democratic socialists. What concerns me is that I'm the only one here openly challenging him, and defending democracy in social production.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Surely, this must give you pause for thought in your accusations concerning the non-democracy of the SPGB.(As a caveat, i was not a member at the time so i may be over-simplifying the controversy) 

Well, I've apologised for my assumption – but it only throws into sharp relief even further, your (and other members) failure to defend democracy in the face of robbo's individualist, elitist, 'materialism'.But… perhaps that's the real problem – you and the other members still cling to Engels' (anti-democratic) 'materialism', and so you are ideologically hamstrung from politically answering robbo's dangerous elitist ideas.Perhaps I should end this, given my apology to the SPGB, with giving the SPGB (or even just one member) the chance to correct my misunderstanding of the SPGB's attitude to democracy in social production.So, here goes – does the SPGB (or even just one member) argue for the democratic production of social truth? If not, who or what is to be the social producer of social truth within the 'socialism' that the SPGB envisages?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've got no problem whatsoever with robbo peddling his anti-democratic shite openly – it should help to provoke thought amongst democratic socialists. What concerns me is that I'm the only one here openly challenging him, and defending democracy in social production.

 Youve got some barefaced cheek, LBird, lying through your teeth like that.  Ive stated on umpteen occasions and I am getting bored with having to repeat myself – I support the concept of democracy fully.  For me, a socialist society  will be a society in which democracy will flourish  at many levels – local , regional and global.  I just do not support  YOUR concept of "democracy" as society wide totally centralised, decision-making with no other form of decisionmaking being permissable. In practice YOUR concept of "democracy" will turn out to be the absolute opposite of democracy.  You dont care to admit this because, at base, your ideology is a Leninist one and you are embarrassed  to have been outed as a Leninist

LBird wrote:

So, here goes – does the SPGB (or even just one member) argue for the democratic production of social truth? If not, who or what is to be the social producer of social truth within the 'socialism' that the SPGB envisages?

 You will be had pushed to find anyone, let alone any member of the SPGB,  to support your crackpot idea of holding, literally, tens of thousands of global plebiscites every year to determine the "truth" of  all those scientific theories that are chruned out each year.  I cant believe anyone can come up with such a dumb idea.  What on earth would be the point of the exercise, anyway?. If I believe in a particular scientific theory and a majority vote against what is supposed to happen? Am I suppose to relinguish the theory I support or what?  You dont explain .  You NEVER explain.  You have no idea of what democracy is supposed to be for.  Frankly I  think you are just a poseur  who has fallen in love with the sound of your own voice. That is why you are not prepared to seriously argue your case and persistantly back away from any kind of searching question that exposes your ideas for the nonsense they clearly are 

[Author]

Posts