Protest against clerical fascism this Sunday in London!
From Sacha Ismail:
Oppose the Al-Quds Day demo!
Don’t let Iran’s theocracy exploit the Palestinian cause for its own ends!
Solidarity with workers, women and students in Iran!
In 1979 Ayatollah Khomeni, leader of the Islamist counter-revolution which crushed the popular uprising against the regime of the Shah of Iran, called for an “international day of Al-Quds” (ie Jerusalem). This day, supposedly in solidarity with with the people of Palestine, is in fact used to promote international support for Iran’s Islamic republic – a viciously misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic regime which is currently engaged in a crack-down against workers, women, students, democrats and left-wing opponents.
In London, we will be counter-demonstrating to say:
*Down with the Islamic Republic, solidarity with workers, women and students in Iran
* No to war, military attacks or sanctions against Iran
* Genuine solidarity with the Palestininians, not anti-semitic demagogy
Come and join British and Iranian trade unionists, socialist, student activists and feminists to make solidarity with workers and other democratic forces across the Middle East – including Palstine, Israel, Iraq and Iran.
Meet 1.45, Sunday 28th September, Piccadilly Circus, London. For more information email
More background info here.
Shiraz Socialist 
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm
This stinks.
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 6:19 pm
March of the pro-imperialist scabs.
modernityblog said,
September 25, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I’ll bet that the likes of Ellis as positively salivating over Ahmadinejad’s UN speech?
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0809243567120227.htm
martin ohr said,
September 25, 2008 at 7:34 pm
David Ellis said, “This stinks….March of the pro-imperialist scabs.”
It’s terrible, I know Galloway gets paid by the iranian government to be pro-imperialist, but what excuse do the so called trots in the ISG have for letting Respect sponsor this terrible demo?
You’d think that any socialist worthy of the name would be on the side of Iranian trades unionists.
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 7:48 pm
ohr: pro-imperialist whore.
If Respect are sponsoring this demo it is a mistake. I’d rather have penis cancer than march next to an AWL member.
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Being on the side of Iranian trade unionists presumably means supporting an Israeli strike on their families?
modernityblog said,
September 25, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Martin,
best ignore Ellis,
he’s rather dim even for Respect fodder, and when you explain, several times, that attacking Iran would be wrong or that you are completely against it, Ellis still can’t understand the issue, basically he’s thick
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 8:16 pm
What’s that Modernity? Bomb Iran? I see.
charliethechulo said,
September 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Ellis= scab: simple as that.
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 8:34 pm
charlieetheoifwefowh = arse wipe. even more simple.
David Ellis said,
September 25, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I hope some Iranian people turn up and ask you about your bombing plans.
modernityblog said,
September 25, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Ellis,
I explain to you, a few times that I was completely against any attack on Iran, and you still wouldn’t believe me
we’ve been discussing this issue for months now, and each time, I made it VERY very clear that I was against it, in any way, shape or form
but you couldn’t even acknowledge it that basic fact
I can only assume that you can’t read, can’t think for yourself and are thick, is there another explanation for your inability to read/understand what others write?
shall I run thru that again?
martin ohr said,
September 25, 2008 at 10:06 pm
David Ellis: “ohr: pro-imperialist whore.
If Respect are sponsoring this demo it is a mistake. I’d rather have penis cancer than march next to an AWL member”
David, I don’t understand the abuse you are dealing here. I seem to have got you confused with a relatively sensible political person who posts elsewhere on the web; whereas normally I would let go such stupidity I feel somewhat duty bound to defend my family name from your playground name calling. Of course we’ve heard every possible rhyme a million times before -if not more, so calling me a whore washes straight over, but pro-imperialist! I defy you to find one single sentence of the many hundreds of thousands I’ve written that could possibly justify that? You won’t find one.
Back to the substance though, Respect is sponsoring the official Al Quds demonstration, along with some pretty unsavoury groups and the Iranian government. The counter demonstration is organised by dissident Iranian trades unionists and students, and some palestinian students. It should be a simple test of which side are you on, the Iranian government or Iranian socialist actvists? As you’ve said, you’d rather have ‘penis cancer’ than be on the side of the workers, I’m not so uncharitable that I’d hope your wishes come true.
On the whole bombing of Iran nonsense that you keep going on about. I like the fact that the mythical notion that -despite the article in question opposed (in the very first sentence) Israeli bombing Iran- AWL somehow does would not oppose Israel bombing Iran, the myth has mutated so much that David Ellis-and the stalinist idiots at socialist unity- now claims that we are actually calling on Israel to bomb Iran.
charliethechulo said,
September 25, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Ellis: pro-fascist scab
Voltaire's Priest said,
September 25, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Ellis: you are a bit of a weirdo, aren’t you?
I can’t see a list of sponsors on the Principia Dialectica site, but there’s nothing in the text that I’ve noticed (at this admittedly late hour) which indicates anything “pro-imperialism” at all.
David Ellis said,
September 26, 2008 at 7:27 am
`Back to the substance though, Respect is sponsoring the official Al Quds demonstration, along with some pretty unsavoury groups and the Iranian government. The counter demonstration is organised by dissident Iranian trades unionists and students, and some palestinian students. It should be a simple test of which side are you on, the Iranian government or Iranian socialist actvists? As you’ve said, you’d rather have ‘penis cancer’ than be on the side of the workers, I’m not so uncharitable that I’d hope your wishes come true.’
No, I said I’d rather have penis cancer than march with a scab like you or any other AWL member.
VP: werid because I won’t carry an invade Iran placard through the streets of London? You are weird. Genuinely weird. Posing as a leftie then schilling for an imperialist assault on a semi-colony.
charliethechulo said,
September 26, 2008 at 7:56 am
Ohmegawd: more dependency theory as justification for sucking up to (“schilling for” in internet-speak) the clerical fascist regime of Iran, whilst effectively scabbing on Iranian trades unionists. Despicable.
martin ohr said,
September 26, 2008 at 9:50 am
David, what are you talking about, do you even know what a scab is?I’ve never scabbed at any time in my life, I’m part of a proud tradition that stands in solidarity with workersin struggle everywhere in world not just in those countries deemed suitable.
I ask you again where there is a demo called by people funded by the Iranian government, Islamist groups who’d gladly see all socialists killed and various other anti-semite cranks, then on the other side of the street a counter demo called by Iranian and Palestianian worker activists -which side would you be on? Thankfully AWL will be side of the working class.
Ed said,
September 26, 2008 at 10:57 am
It’s so incredibly basic – that a *socialist* future depends on the Iranian working class, not their immediate oppressors. How else is socialism to come? It’s the most basic socialist question, that of agency.
That people can’t see this, and think there’s some socialist principle in opposing imperialism alongside various reactionaries, presumably rendered less reactionary because Bush and Israel don’t like them – it makes you weep.
David Ellis said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ed: You will be counter-demonstrating against a Palestinian demonstration alongside people who conduct terrorist acts within Iran and gather intelligence for Western military planners. I hope Martin Ohr is standing by the Iranian working class when one of Matgamna’s nuclear missiles hits home. At the moment all he is doing is scabbing on the Palestinian cause.
Chalrienenefooboo: what the eff has dependency theory got to do with anything? Get real puppet. You are doing more damage to Iranian trade unionists and more to assist the clerical regime in Iran than anybody with your pro-war, anti-Palestinian demos.
modernityblog said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:35 am
Ellis,
well, please do tell us your view of Ahmadinejad?
can you manage that, honestly?
martin ohr said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:35 am
David,
Ok well you’re starting to make words devoid of meaning, Scabbing does have a particularly meaning, it’s not just a random term of abuse for lefties to throw around. I ask again do you actually know what it means? Do you know what it means for a trades union activist to be called this by someone claiming to be a socialist? Do you know what happened to scabs here in yorkshire during the miners strike and after?
I think marching with palestinian activists on a counter demo against the iranian government is not letting down or in anyway undermining the palestinian cause. I’m for a settlement that in the Israel/Palestine conflict that leads to the maximum possibility of working class unity, whereas appear to be for the working class in palestine, Israel and Iran being destroyed either by the nationalist leaders or competing imperialisms.
martin ohr said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:37 am
I meant to write as my last phrase “whereas YOU appear to be for the working class in palestine, Israel and Iran being destroyed either by the nationalist leaders or competing imperialist armies”
modernityblog said,
September 26, 2008 at 12:21 pm
the problem is, that this is not a simple either/or situation
so whilst some on the Left, rightly in my view, disagree with any attack on Iran they then make the mistake of trying to sanitise Ahmadinejad’s racism
still worse, they compound that mistake by excusing away nuclear proliferation
so the principled position should be:
1) any attack on Iran: oppose
2) the Iranian leadership’s racism: oppose
3) expansion of nuclear technology: oppose
that’s wasn’t hard, was it?
Ed said,
September 26, 2008 at 12:47 pm
David: “You will be counter-demonstrating against a Palestinian demonstration alongside people who conduct terrorist acts within Iran and gather intelligence for Western military planners.”
Who, exactly?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
September 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The people organising this demo describe themselves thus:
“CIS is one of the largest independent pro western student organizations that strives to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights in Iran.”
It has existed since 2002.
Its perfectly obvious what kind of an organisation this is. It may not be actually the Mujahedin e-Khalq, which seems to be what David is alluding to, though even that is not clear and it may well include such people. It looks more like a dodgy Persian nationalist outfit.
See this for instance:
http://www.cistudents.com/en/2008/08/04/persia-ancient-soul-of-iran/
It’s US affliate has the following piece of blurb, about an Iran conference organised in Florida:
http://www.fakhravar.com/
“More than 400 people attended “Understanding Iran’s Threat,” a conference hosted by Federation’s Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC), along with the World Affairs Council of the Florida Palm Beaches and other local organizations in December 2007. Featured speakers included Jim Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and co-chair of the U.S. committee on present danger; Amir Abbas Fakhravar, Iranian student leader and former prisoner of the Iranian regime; U.S. Rep. Ron Klein (D-Florida), vice chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Middle East; Philippe Vinogradoff, consul general of France in Florida; Frank Gaffney, president and founder of the Center for Security Policy; and Victor Comras, former United Nations Security Council monitor of anti-terrorist sanctions and a leading expert on international law and terrorism financing.”
Jim Woolsey and Frank Gaffney in particular are leading US Neoconservatives and signatories of the ‘Project for the New American Century”.
So that is who these people are . a ‘pro-Western’ Iranian student front, with dodgy Persian nationalist views that chime in with those of the late Shah (who used to describe himself as ‘Light of the Aryans’ and promote similar Persian nationalist crap. And one that sponsors conferences with James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, rabid militarists who want the US to attack Iran.
These are the people you want to ally with. Fine. You are pro-imperialist whores, just like David Ellis said.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
September 26, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Actually, pimps is a better description. Thinking about it, comparing the AWL and its fellow travellers to ‘whores’ is very insulting to real sex-workers, who don’t deserve to be compared with such scumbags.
modernityblog said,
September 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm
strange how some can’t bring themselves to discuss Ahmadinejad’s racism?
let’s refresh the memory:
“The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a minuscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0809243567120227.htm
charliethechulo said,
September 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I see the usual apologists for clerical fascism, and enemies of Iranian trades unionists and democrats, have shown their scabby faces.
resistor said,
September 26, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I’ve followed your link
http://www.cistudents.com/en/
then clicked on
Federation of UK
which leads to
http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/
a creep who says
‘Meeting Richard Littlejohn was a pleasant surprise. Whenever I read his column or watch him on TV, I always say to myself, that man is saying exactly what I think. ‘
Yes, a far-right supporter of the Shah. Just the sort of company you expect the Denham and AWL to keep.
modernityblog said,
September 26, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Charlie/Martin,
that’s why I said it is useless to debate the likes of Ellis, Wally Wibblywellies, etc because they have somehow managed to rationalize the anti-Jewish racism of Ahmadinejad, contextualised it in their own minds and dismiss it (that’s the reason why they are so, so uncomfortable discussing it) and in doing so they have joined the fringe of the fringe, a very small subset of humanity that don’t have any problems with anti-Jewish racism, or can. at the very least. completely ignore it when it comes from their political allies or friends
they have joined that fringe of the fringe, inhabited by David Duke, David Irving, Roger Gaurdry and Ernest Zundel.
The problem is, that they don’t fully realize the company that they are keeping or maybe they do? but just don’t care?
so if you wouldn’t politely debate the John Tyndalls of the world then why waste your energy on Ellis, Wally Wibblywellies and related sociopaths?
tcd said,
September 26, 2008 at 6:54 pm
It’s so incredibly basic – that a *socialist* future depends on the Iranian working class, not their immediate oppressors. How else is socialism to come? It’s the most basic socialist question, that of agency.
That people can’t see this, and think there’s some socialist principle in opposing imperialism alongside various reactionaries, presumably rendered less reactionary because Bush and Israel don’t like them – it makes you weep.
so why does defending Iran against an imperialist attack mean not supporting the Iranian left agains the regime or not basing your politics on the Iranian working class? this very simple question is one that our good friend “charlie” has about 10 times shown he cannot answer.
also: because you can find left-apologists for the Iranian regime does not mean that anyone who includes as part of their politics support for Iran against western aggression, gives political support to the bourgeois Iranian regime in its struggle to continue managing society in order to provide capital (imperialist capital complemented by some national capital from the bankrupt native comprador bourgeoisie) with the conditions for profitabilty – something which the imperialist enemies of the regime are not going to change,, and if anything, due to their overaccumulation at home, need to step up, in opposition to a more protectionist domestic bourgeoisie.
charliethechulo said,
September 26, 2008 at 8:42 pm
tcd: I *do* oppose any attack on Iran. But I *don’t* “support” the regime under any circumstances. Nor would I advise any Iranian worker to.It’s called independent class politics. Does that answer your “simple question”?
resistor said,
September 26, 2008 at 8:53 pm
So do you agree with your ‘comrade’ Potkin Azarmehr when e says, ‘Meeting Richard Littlejohn was a pleasant surprise. Whenever I read his column or watch him on TV, I always say to myself, that man is saying exactly what I think. ‘
Is Littlejohn coming on your march too?
resistor said,
September 26, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Potkin links to Reza Pahlavi, the self-styled ‘Heir to the Throne of Iran’. Any chance of seeing him on your demo too? Maybe he’ll bring along some of his ex-SAVAK mates to make up the numbers for you.
johnathan rook said,
September 26, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Yes I remember seeing his blog sometime ago, a supporter of the reinstatement of the shah I do believe
johnathan rook said,
September 26, 2008 at 10:22 pm
And another quick glance at the CIS website on http://www.cistudents.com/en/2008/08/04/cis-in-frankfurt/ reveals a conference in which the delegates are posing with a pre-revolutionary Iranian flag, which is tantamount to saying, you want a pre-revolutionary Iran, ie. the shah.
Potkin Azarmehr said,
May 20, 2009 at 5:57 pm
pre-revolutionary flag means you want the Shah! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
What a moron you are :))))
So the MeK, the Mossadegh supporters, Iranian heros before the Pahlavi dynasty like Sattar Khan and Bagher Khan all wanted the Shah :))))
Thank you for exposing what an idiot you are just by saying that! Thank you very much
charliethechulo said,
September 26, 2008 at 10:43 pm
You can’t really blame them, in view of what came afterwards, can you?
And if Littlejohn opposes “resistor”‘s clerical fascist friends, so fuckin’ what?
tcd said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:21 pm
tcd: I *do* oppose any attack on Iran. But I *don’t* “support” the regime under any circumstances. Nor would I advise any Iranian worker to.It’s called independent class politics. Does that answer your “simple question”?
I didn´t say you didn´t oppose an attack on Iran. I said you don´t support defending Iran against an imperialist attack, which means calling on the Iranian masses to fight the invaders.
And no this does not mean giving up class independence, a you can have a popular resistance if the workers in the mutitions factories occupy the factories, if the soldiers rebel agaisnt their own generals and stand and fight alongside the working class as part of a mass popualr resistance, theonyl kind that cand efeat imperialism. I am not in Iran so I can´t campaign for this. But a working class vanguard in Iran could, and it would be the correct trotskyist position. I have ties with a lot of worker miltiants in many countries, South america and Europe. Sadly not in Iran. But I would be open to argue witht he Iranian trotskyist left on this.
Apart from this though you still didn´t answer, int eh other thread, the question of how supporting Iran´s right to nuclear weapons is class collaboratinsit, as if this sells out a struggle by the Iranian working class against their own regime. But no it doesn´t, nuclear weappons for Iran will only deter the expansioist and genocidal imperialists who are today slaughterign and explotiing the workign class and popular masses in Iraq and Afganistan, and who have committed genocide in Palestine and Lebanon as well. Detering such a thing in Iran can only be positive for the Iranian workign class. Remember the Trotsky quote about double chains I quoted you in the other thread? You said it was a vastly different world but is not the Iranian working class today exactly bound by double chains just as Trotsky said about the Brazilians? Do you think tightening one set of chains loosens the other? Do youthink that is a marxist position or, isn´t it actually a class collaborationist position?
tcd said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:27 pm
and jsut ot make that clear: no you do not actively support imperialism agaisn tIran as far as I know (but given the AWL positions in Israel and Palestine it would not surprise me), but the imperalist chains aroudn the Iranian working class are tightening, and if you spend your time telling those workers to spend their time opposing their governments plan to nuclear weapons, then you are helping the chains tighten. You should be arguing more for the economci struggle and the democratic rights struggle and less on using them demagogically as pawns for the genocidal US and Israeli elites. That might not be your intention but you fell for it.
johnathan rook said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:33 pm
“You can’t really blame them, in view of what came afterwards, can you?”
Isn’t that similar to the argument that you can’t blame the Palestinians for supporting Hamas?
charliethechulo said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Your class-collaborationism demonstrates itself yet again, “tcd”, with your call for the Iranian “masses” to “fight the invaders” -ie: ally with the clerical fascist Iranian ruling class. You can’t get away from it, can you? You actually positively *support* the fascists, don’t you?
charliethechulo said,
September 26, 2008 at 11:38 pm
jonathan:
Yes
tcd said,
September 27, 2008 at 1:09 am
Your class-collaborationism demonstrates itself yet again, “tcd”, with your call for the Iranian “masses” to “fight the invaders” -ie: ally with the clerical fascist Iranian ruling class. You can’t get away from it, can you? You actually positively *support* the fascists, don’t you?
Why would fighting a US invasion mean allying with the Iranian ruling class (which is not clerical, it is bourgeois, it jsut currently rules through a religious conservative regime, which was not a qualitative regeression in comaprison to the Shas’s regime in the same way that the bourgeoisies move from using liberal democratic regimes to using fascism was in the countries where fascism took power). You saying it does not make it true.
So did Trotsky support Vargas in your opinion?
You don’t have any arguments just pathetic lies, really you don’t have anythign to say about imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia or the situation of the Iranian working class.
tcd said,
September 27, 2008 at 1:17 am
Isn’t that similar to the argument that you can’t blame the Palestinians for supporting Hamas?
so Jonathan Rook you “blame the Palestinians” for supporting Hamas, a nationalist resistance movement, when they areunder occupation, seige, exile and apartheid? You “blame” a group of people for being nationalistic when they are condemned to not be allowed to have a life, because of their nationality?
I don’t think Hamas is revolutionary or proggressive it needs to be replaced with a revolutionary vanguard Palestinian party, but I don’t think a moralistic condemnation of the Paletinians for not having transcended nationalism is very useful. The left is supposed to give an answer to make this happen not denounce them as fascists. Do you do the same with the IRA?
Talking about the Shah, no there is no comaprison with Hamas. The Shah represented the most priveliged Iranians and the world’s largest oil companies. nobody supported him because of progressive illusions, like Palestinians who supprot Hamas because of the progressive illusion of being allowed to return fromt he lands which the zionist ethnic cleansing exiled them from.
Really is this a hard distinction for a materialist to make?
tcd said,
September 27, 2008 at 1:20 am
if there is a comarison, Fatah today is more like the role of the Shah.
modernity said,
September 27, 2008 at 2:09 am
Charlie,
why do you bother ?
these illiterate sociopaths would support any bunch of reactionaries (Hamas, etc), on the basis of “my enemies’ enemy is my friend” then wrap it up in some student level gobbledygook to justify it
they have no positive outlook
anyone in the West suggesting that the Palestinians should be supporting Hamas is probably on the path of becoming a proto-Strasserite or so mentally decrepit that it is not worth talking about
Charlie, just ignore them
tcd said,
September 27, 2008 at 2:12 am
anyone in the West suggesting that the Palestinians should be supporting Hamas
I didn’t say that thoug. how ironic that you would talk about illiterate and mentally decrepit, and then show that you can’t read a simple sentence.
tcd said,
September 27, 2008 at 2:38 am
Charlie, just ignore them
also, charlie already ignores what I say and instead makes up his own shit, but I don’t think is very good advice for you to give him. I am a mwmber of a party 10 times the size of the party he is in, with heavy implanatation in the working class of my country: 60% workers and 40% ndustrial workers. Despite my currency being worth 6 times less than yours, I am pretty sure that financially we could buy and sell the AWL easily, not in a small part due to the fact that our militants free wages nearly all go to the party, including many who do no eat some days in able to pay.
Regarding imperialism, my ideological tendency is the least adapting to “anti-imperialist” bourgeoisies of the whole trotskyist movement I know. And when I put forward these opinions on Iran, I am speaking for hmmm, several thousand worker-militants who are subjectively marxist. And this is in Latin America, a vanguard part of the world which the AWL talks about but has no implanatation in at all.
So I would suggest to you that charlie, if he wants to be taken seriosuly, should not “just ignore” these issues. if he cannot convincingly answer, and instead can only make general accusations of fascism, I think it is more of a problem for him than me. though ultimately the betrayals of the British left are betrayals to all of us, so yes, it;s a problem to me as well. though I have not come to expect anything better. Most of the time these betrayals come in the form of the left *supporting* third world bourgeois dictatorships. How amazing that the only ones who can see through that, the AWL, go so far the other way. Is there no-one serious alive any more for fuck sake? just pathetic clowns following either chavismo/MASismo/stalinism, or liberal pro-imperialist “save israel fromt he Nazi Iranian nuclear bomb” propaganda? you make me embarrassed from a distance. And sick also. 😦
Voltaire's Priest said,
September 27, 2008 at 10:01 am
VP: werid because I won’t carry an invade Iran placard through the streets of London? You are weird. Genuinely weird. Posing as a leftie then schilling for an imperialist assault on a semi-colony.
You clearly can’t fucking read then David/Nuke, given that I’ve never advocated any such thing. But then what else would one expect from a leftist I-Speak-Your-Weight machine like you?
Go on, say something else pro-theocratic and accuse me of being a “Bushitler” supporter. Let me know you still care…
Thick fucker.
David Ellis said,
September 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Bushitler: that’s good. So shall it be.
Willy: I said whore because it rhymes with ore but you are right. More thought should have gone into it. Pimps is what they are. Living off immoral earnings. These scum have crossed the line.
Carry on Bushitler.
charliethechulo said,
September 27, 2008 at 3:05 pm
tcd: seek help.
tcd said,
September 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm
charliethechulo: you are a member of a small group of intellectuals in the first world. when confronted with the position on imperialism of the very few serious trotskyist groups at an international level who lead some significant number of vanguard workers, fight for class independence against all bourgeois regimes, and have a majority working class composition (which ont he left is almost nonexisting), your only answer is to lie that we support the Iranian regime, lie that we are fascists, and then insult. You are pathetic. What is your dialogue with the serious left? Hoenstly? Do you even know what I mean when I say serious left? I don’t ean the stalinists you “debate” with on your website. I don’t mean the Shah supporters or the Zionists you think you can “win for marxism”. I mean, parties who lead workers, are in real struggle, are fighting and dying, like Bolviian miners, in the regions of the world you write write write write about, but would love to lead workers in, but oyu can’t because they jsut aren’t as “advanced” as you. That’s right. Palestinian workers fighting an imperialist occupation, apartheid and ehtnic cleansing, Bolivian workers who are fighting against both Evo and the right for class independence and revolution, Venezuelan workers fighting for class independence against Chavez and the US embassy and oligarchy, aren’t as advanced as you.. Correct. Congratulations.
But a question, if you are serious then why can’t you debate with serious trotskyists? why is your only answer demagogic appeals to the liberal superority complexes of your petty-bourgeois philistine posters here?
Go to the thread “Convnetion of the Left” on Lenin’s Tomb. I am Ivan D. See that “John G” says the exact same shit to me on that thread as you say to me here. You are both the same, and both pathetic, you think you can win over from a distance the “masses” with demagogic phrases, and you both stab in the back the real left in real struggle. Insult me all you want but if you can’t convince me, a trotskyist who spends his life opposing bourgeois third world nationalism and fighting for class independence in a semi-colony, then who will you convince? really? what the fuck are you doing with your life, sitting around in a small room in the first world classifying the third world masses as fascists?
Is that what your international socialism is going ot be built on? Zionists and upper class Shah supporters? and then when a real living trotskyist in a working class organisaiton comes in the room, youc an onyl call him a fascist and tell him to seek help?
Pathetic. Stop being so arrogant, you are nothing, look at yourself and what your poltiics have ever influenced on the world, and ask yourself if you have a right to be arrogant to anyone. I have read the history of your party. In 30 years of exist have you lead 1 strike? 1 simple fucking strike? And yet you think you have the right to tell genuine trotskyists to seek help? your party was born to die for fucks sake, 30 years and still have never acheived anything, never lead a single working class sturggle!
And do not tell me the objective conditions do not exist. there are a lot of strikes by vanguard sectors in Britain in the last 30 years. the trouble is you had nothing to do with them!
Voltaire's Priest said,
September 27, 2008 at 9:37 pm
David/Nuke;
That wasn’t even a coherent response. Are you feeling ok?
David Ellis said,
September 28, 2008 at 9:03 am
Fine thanks Bushitler.
voltairespriest said,
September 28, 2008 at 9:29 am
Err, no. You see, “Bushitler” was a (particularly crap) play on words by some in the anti-war movement, making reference to the US President and not-very-cleverly trying to link his name with that of Adolf Hitler. On the basis that I’m sure even one of your limited intellect would gather that it’s impossible to simultaneously be a Brummie blogger and President of the USA, I presume we can safely establish that I’m not George Bush. It’s also pretty much a given that I’m not the deceased Nazi dictator either. Ergo “Bushitler” is an even more meaningless term when applied to me, than when applied to George Bush.
It’s rather as if I were to call you “Osama bin Laden” or summat. You might clearly be a twat (a common trait between you and he) but nevertheless you are not the leader of Al-Qaeda.
Logic, see?
modernityblog said,
September 28, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Volty,
like I said, Ellis is none too bright, and you’ll see his obsessive anti-Jewish attitude across various socialist blogs
charliethechulo said,
September 28, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I still think he and “tcp” should get psychiatric help.
Lobby Ludd said,
September 28, 2008 at 9:28 pm
So what happened, then?
Couldn’t find much (any?) publicity. Wouldn’t have gone to support either side, anyway.
What am I thinking? I’ve been told that the AWL was on some kind of ideological ‘offensive’. Plainly I am mistaken.
tcd said,
September 28, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I still think he and “tcp” should get psychiatric help.
so no defence of your party which in 30 years has not led a single workers struggle?
I ask you again: what is the point of you? what do you acheive except annoying other sects? honest question. I promise ot get psychiatric help if you can show me a time when the AWL has been relevant to the workign class…deal?
Mark Sist said,
September 28, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Thick Cunts:
internationalcommunist said,
September 29, 2008 at 12:05 am
Principia Dialectica spent the whole time talking amongst themselves, then when the demo came past shouted one-sided anti-Islamist slogans while failing to also attack the fascists on the other side of Piccadilly Circus, or indeed criticise oppression of the Palestinians.
Bizarre group – they kept telling me they wanted to “abolish work” but then that they support “democrats” apparently including “reformists” (Khatami etc.). They said that the workers’ movement in Iran variously didn’t exist or was the same as the reformists… but anyway, apparently the workers’ movement can’t help “abolish work”, as “it’s not 1892 anymore”….
Photo report
Voltaire's Priest said,
September 29, 2008 at 12:10 am
Excellent and insightful comment as ever there, Mark/Will/Hak. Whatever else happens we can always rely on you to appear, take a long hard and scholarly look at a situation, then call someone a cunt 😀
modernityblog said,
September 29, 2008 at 12:56 am
hang on, volty
for us Lefty non train spotters, who exactly are Principia Dialectica? old millies?
I don’t keep up with such people, please do enlighten me 🙂
Wally Wibblywellies said,
September 29, 2008 at 11:03 am
“they have joined that fringe of the fringe, inhabited by David Duke, David Irving, Roger Gaurdry and Ernest Zundel.”
Modernity, by the way, likes to put his penis in little girls’ mouths.
Actually he doesn’t. I’m kidding of course. But his method, of fabricating associations with the likes of Duke, Irving, Zundel etc for people who make points he doesn’t like, is of the same type as someone who replies to a point he can’t answer politically with false accusations that the person who makes the point is a child-molester.
The funny thing is that Modernity and his mates claim to be opposed to Stalinism. But fabricating accusations of sympathy with Hitler and the like is actually pure Stalinism, straight from the Moscow purge trials.
Still, one of Modernity’s mentors is ‘Harry’ of ‘Harry’s Place’, who used to post as a troll on left-wing lists under the name ‘Ramon Mercader’ (Trotsky’s murderer). So what do you expect?!!
modernityblog said,
September 29, 2008 at 11:27 am
well, let’s see what evidence there is of Ellis’s view on Ahmadinejad’s anti-Jewish racism?
one of his recent contributions:
“Why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is smiling
ellis’s comment Sep 23 08, 7:26pm
Americans are living in an upside down world: it is not the Iranians but the Americans who are seen by most people as pursuing an evil and aggressive foreign policy.
Most of the world does not see Ahmadinejad as a “bozo” but as a foreigner speaking his own language who seems to have reasonable things to say.
After having been given the benefit of the doubt for many years the US is now seen as fountain of propaganda whose claims are almost invariably shown to be false.
There is no evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons and vast amounts that it is not. Most of the world sees this and the only nations which publicly disagree, Britain, France and Germany fo example, are regarded as merely puppets of the United States in this matter.
The world understands that Iran has actually called for a “nuclear weapon free” Middle East and that the “west” is opposed to this, firstly because it has armed Israel with nuclear weapons and secondly because it regularly deploys its own in the region.
The world does not see any evidence of Iranian aggression anywhere whilst it is painfully aware of US and NATO aggression on every continent.
It is saddening to see an important part of humanity blinding itself to reality and reason; but this article is an indication that this is precisely what is happening in the United States, and elsewhere, among those who fawn over Washington, right or wrong.
Just a reminder: whilst leaders of nations from around the world are meeting at the United Nations they should be treated with courtesy and dialogues conducted reasonably and honestly.
It is an eloquent commentary on the nature of the US regime that protestors cannot get within miles of their own political Conventions but men like Ahmadinejad are heckled and harassed. In much the same way journalists, who have never asked Bush or his minions a probing question during an eight year long blizzard of lies, hector and bully foreign leaders.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/ellis/comments?commentpage=2
I’ll leave you to digest his strange comments, for a while.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
September 29, 2008 at 11:56 am
No evidence of any anti-Jewish sentiment in the above piece. No idea is this Ellis is David Ellis, but either way, not even a hint of hostility to Jews.
My advice to named individuals slandered by ‘Modernity’ is simple: sue!
modernityblog said,
September 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“…as a foreigner speaking his own language who seems to have reasonable things to say.”
No gays in Iran, says Ahmadinejad
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Death to Israel”
“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has again caused international outcry by repeating his view that the Holocaust was a myth.”
In a speech broadcast live on state television on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southern city of Zahedan: “They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves.
“If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream.”
[ This is Google’s cache of http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=17019.
as http://tinyurl.com/4u95k5 ]
“Iran’s foreign minister has rejected criticism of a two-day conference being held in Iran to examine whether the Holocaust actually happened.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6167695.stm
Holocaust Denial Conference attendees:
“David Duke (USA)
Perhaps America’s best-known racist, David Duke was instrumental in the Klan resurgence of the 1970s…”
Robert Faurisson (France)
A former literature professor, Robert Faurisson is one of the most famous Holocaust deniers in Europe. Not content to deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Faurisson also claims that the Diary of Anne Frank is a “fraud,” that it is “incoherent” and “absurd.”
Wolfgang Frohlich (Austria)
A neo-Nazi and former member of Austrian Joerg Haider’s far-right Freedom Party…
…
George Kadar (USA / Hungary)
Originally from Hungary but a longtime resident of the U.S., George Kadar is an associate of David Duke and a reporter for the anti-Semitic newspaper, American Free Press. He is an active participant in the white supremacist Stormfront electronic forum, and in the late 1990s was a member of “American Spring,” a white supremacist, anti-immigrant group.
Michele Renouf (UK)
An Australia-born socialite who became a believer in Holocaust denial and a major supporter of disgraced historian David Irving, Michele Renouf, an avowed atheist, nevertheless abhors Judaism. In a 2003 interview she said, “People act as though Judaism is just another religion like Christianity or Islam. It’s not. It’s a creed of domination and racial superiority.”
…”
http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/iran_holocaust_conference.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_5
Remember that the Holocaust denier’s conference in Tehran was organised by Pres. Ahmadinejad
so only the most deranged would consider that Ahmadinejad has “…reasonable things to say…”, or unless of course they agree with his views on Gays, holocaust denial, consorting with neo-Nazi scum, etc
David Ellis said,
September 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Sorry to disapoint Modernity but that ain’t me.. I don’t do the Guardian thing. You really are getting desperate. The Stalin School of Falsification working over time again.
modernity said,
September 29, 2008 at 4:40 pm
oh yeah, sure,
“David Ellis, on September 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pm Said:
Off topic, but wouldn’t it be great if Respect was the first organisation with elected reps in Britain to take a one state position on Israel/Palestine?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/25/middleeast”
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/galloway-sharks-and-spivs-ruining-uk%e2%80%99s-financial-system/#comment-11995
must be someone else?
David Ellis said,
September 29, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Yep, that was me and I linked to the Guardian which is probably why you made your mistake.
modernity said,
September 29, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Ellis,
If I have mistakenly misrepresented your views then I apologise, but just to clear up the matter and ensure that no one is unclear of your opinions, please could you give us your view on Ahmadinejad’s racism?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
September 30, 2008 at 9:13 am
Why don’t you give us all a confession as to your child-molesting activities, Modernity?
Simon Forbes said,
October 1, 2008 at 2:00 am
No Modernity Principia were never Millies. What are we? Well think of the worst insults in the Leninist lexicon revisionists, running dogs etc. Thick cunts too. We take any insults as compliments coming from the AWL and the Broder sect.
IC, you say we spent all the time talking to ourselves. Really? It was us that confronted the March for England crowd when they turned up while you Trots fell back cowering.
Oh so brave now you are back behind your PCs aren’t you? We treat criticism by keyboard warriors for not attacking and starting a punch up with 30+ football fans with the contempt it deserves. Things you weren’t prepared to do on the day even if you were there.
One sided slogans? Well yours were a bit of a mouthful and pretty inaudible. No apologies for “Down Down Hizbollah” etc. Short, snappy and relevant to the march in front of us.
Supporters of Khatami? What? When? Read our statement – support for the revolutionary struggle for freedom, democracy and secularism in Iran. How does Khatami fit in to that?
Voltaire's Priest said,
October 1, 2008 at 7:47 am
Simon;
I’ve got to admit that whilst I’d heard of Principia Dialectica, I’d never really worked out who you were or what you believed. Assuming you don’t actually want to be known as “running dogs” or “thick cunts”, would “anarchist” or “situationist” be more appropriate? Or is that way off the mark?
David Broder said,
October 1, 2008 at 10:22 am
Michel said Principia Dialectica support “democracy” for Iran and Iranian “democrats” – dismissing the workers’ movement as trivial/an anachronism, he defended Potkin Azarmehr to the hilt and said he supported “democrats”. I asked if this meant the reformists like Khatami and he said yes. None of his co-thinkers interrupted or denied this. Another said “what workers’ movement? It’s not 1892, man…” Words like “democracy” are incredibly vague: but they just said ‘oh, well it’s easy to criticise, but Potkin’s for democracy’
I don’t see how it fits with their focus on the “abolition of work” to support conservative but secular Iranian nationalists..
Presumably what has happened is that PD got a quote off this guy, have now realised he’s a right-winger but are too embarrassed to backtrack, instead just saying the “trad-Marxists”/”Leninists” are unthinking. In fact PD’s ideas are a liberal rehash of old situationist stuff – particularly laughable is that on their site they have an ad for a showing of “an inconvenient truth” and another for “the corporation”. Debord etc. would have hated that!
Of course, Simon, I’m sure you’re right and Principia Dialectica are not “keyboard warriors”… They’re too busy “in the streets”, “abolishing work”.
modernity said,
October 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Simon Forbes,
Never mind,
I was genuinely curious but as you seem incapable of answering that basic question, I’ll leave it.
just to clarify, I am not an AWLer, a Trot or even close, I follow no one, I have no leaders and whilst I am sure that Dave Broder is a smart young chap, I have shirts older than him 🙂
I just comment at Shiraz Socialist because they tend to discuss politics, have a pleasing moderation policy and don’t rant on about “Zionists” like a lot of sites do, which can be a bit off putting for some of us
Simon Forbes said,
October 3, 2008 at 12:59 am
Sorrry if I sounded awkward Modernity but we can’t really be dealing with bargain basement labels to describe ourselves. Are you happy with one to describe yourself? As I said I am happy to leave to the likes of ‘comrade’ Broder to dream up silly labels to stick on people. I am relieved that you do not consider him to be your infallible guide – as some on here seem to.
As for this blog yes the zealous Leninist censorship rules of ‘comrade’ Broder do not seem to apply here. An entire post of mine was zapped down the memory hole of the ‘commune’ blog so I haven’t bothered to put up another on there. It wasn’t abusive just a touch close to bone I feel. I’ve made much the same points elsewhere.
Michel Prigent has asked me to point out that Broder’s claim that he said that he supported Khatami is a complete lie and that he has twisted much else of what he said. This is what can happen to little boys who persist in telling fibs.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/p/pinnochio.asp
Michel says Broder also found dealing with any kind of humour somewhat challenging.
It dawned on me what this whole ‘Potkingate scandal’ that the Broderites have tied to cook up is about. Both Broder and Sacha Ismail posted the CIS release, in a number of places including this site. They didn’t get it from us (we didn’t even receive that release) but it seems directly from the CIS on their facebook entry. It was also posted on the AWL web site. Since then they have been getting it in the neck from various Respectoids on here and other enemies of theirs. A scapegoat had to be found – us. Hence the smear campaign that’s been launched to cover their arses in case Matgamna & co, Respect et al use this debacle against them.
I am of course aware that there is a huge power struggle going on within the AWL involving among others the Broderite groupuscule and the Weekly Worker. We have no interest in this dispute and frankly whether or not Sean Matgamna remains general secretary (or whatever the equivalent is) of the AWL is of no interest to us. A friend of mine who takes a more lively interest in the internal affairs of these groups than I do told me that practically everything they do or say revolves around the pro and anti Matgamna dispute.
And yes constant rants about Zionists, incessant demands for wiping Israel off the map and “9-11 truth” conspiracy theories and illuminati clap trap do get tiresome after a while and I can well understand why you avoid web sites where that is the focus of discussion.
David Broder said,
October 3, 2008 at 9:47 pm
#78:
So much name-calling, so little understanding of the left, so little justification for PD’s support for Potkin Azarmehr.
“Zealous Leninist censorship rules” – what a joke!
I’m glad you are so resolutely opposed to labelling people. Sad that “a friend of yours” (who could this be?) doesn’t feel the same way.
I haven’t seen a CIS facebook entry – why not look at the “who we are” statement on their website?
Azarmehr is so far to the right that he’s even more conservative than Al Gore, whose terrible film the “Principia Dialectica” website advertises.
Voltaire's Priest said,
October 3, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Well, “Michel” says you have no sense of humour. So ner ner ner ner ner.
Simon Forbes said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:53 pm
VP you may be a little puzzled by the cryptic reference to a ‘friend of yours” in post 79. A little bird tells us that somebody called Mark (there is nobody we can think of by that name) rang up little David and called him nasty names. Little bird’s ears have been filled with it, sympathy is being asked for and we are being blamed for this as well.
On the above release by Sacha Ismail at the top of the page it states:-
“For more information email”
“UK@cisstudents.com”
This email address also appears on an identical release posted by Master Broder himelf on libcom.org on the 24th September and on the AWL web site. There may be other examples of this littering the web but I haven’t bothered to look (I’m not on facebook btw).
Would Master Broder and/or his fan club be so good as to explain why they put the contact details of the CIS (of which the dreaded Potkin is a member) on the release and are now proceeding to slag that group off and blame us for everything (who don’t as you see put that email address on our release)? Did they not make even the most perfunctory enquiries as to who that group were and what their politics was and whether or not they deviated at all from Marxism-Leninism?
Or is he going to persist in abdicating any responsibility and take the “it wasn’t me, it was him, it was him” line and blame us for everything? – including the terrible tragedy of Respect supporters saying rude things on here.
Speaking for ourselves are we only to speak to Iranians who are Marxist-Leninists? Not being Leninists ourselves that would put us in a sticky position.
I am sure Potkin will be relieved that going from being a far right supporter of the Shah he has now merely been deemed to be a tad to the right of Al Gore.
And yes Potkin does support democracy as does Michel and my good self. Yet Little David has a huge problem with that. Is some Leninist dictatorship under the wise leadership of say comrade Matgamna to be preferable. How long does Little David think he would last if that was the case? I hear he has been making Mister Matgamna very cross lately as well.
David Broder said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Obviously Simon, I should indeed bow to my elders, so you are justified in calling me little/Master etc.
“Leninist dictatorship under the wise leadership of Sean Matgamna”? “Deviations from Marxism-Leninism”… err, not much grip on the politics of the Commune then. Your oh-so-witty satire is almost as beyond parody as Sean’s poems.
“Democracy”? What Potkin Azarmehr calls democracy is not the kind of society I want. I suspect you are embarrassed by your group’s adulation of such a sterling democrat and are now digging deeper and deeper for fear of backing down. So you can arrogantly tell us “Think, Cunts!” as if we ought to pay attention to the truths revealed in your mag, when it came out, which was about two years ago.
As it happens, I did write a post criticising CIS on Libcom the day before the demo – http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/nazi-scum-london-sunday-28-september-22092008 . You are also right that I copied and pasted a statement from the CIS group on libcom, but can hardly be accused of being soft on them or not having criticised them! I wouldn’t work with someone as far outside the workers’ movement as Azarmehr. Despite your dismissal of the workers’ movement and demand “abolish work” you appear to have no qualms about making alliances with whoever is at hand.
More razor sharp analysis of capitalism is available and Simon’s website …. http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=191 …. which refers to “the momentous impact corporations have on our democracy”… I think I heard Nick Clegg talking about that too.
Thanks for the call.
potkin azarmehr said,
September 14, 2009 at 2:50 am
Hey Broder, the self styled posh leader of the proletariat, do you remember how you shit yourself and ran away when you saw me in Piccadilly?:)))))))))))))))))
davidbroder said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I hardly think that I can be accused of softness on CIS or not examining their politics, as this message before the demo – http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/nazi-scum-london-sunday-28-september-22092008 – and the coverage on our website make clear.
Simon’s idea that I have accused Azarmehr of “deviation from Marxism-Leninism” or that I am for “Leninist dictatorship” is beyond parody – don’t they teach you PhD students how to read? Too busy “rethinking” no doubt, and making alliances with absolutely whoever’s going (even those who do not raise the demand “abolish work!”).
This case is a particularly sorry affair because Simon is just digging and digging. So it looks almost as if the “democracy” Simon, Potkin and Michel Prigent “support” is bourgeois rule. Well, maybe that’s not fair, Principia Dialectica do have quite a cutting critique of capital (“think, cunts” and pay attention to the students’ revealed truths)…. their website even goes as far to speak of the “momentous impact corporations have on our democracy”. http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=191
“Abolish work!” is presumably, then, a subsidiary slogan to “we’re for democracy and think corporations are really quite bad”.
David Broder said,
October 5, 2008 at 10:26 am
(Obviously what happened here is that I wrote a post, thought it had disappeared so wrote pretty much the same thing again)
Voltaire's Priest said,
October 5, 2008 at 11:21 am
Well presumably they’re in favour of… not working. Dead radical, that. Well done them.
David Broder said,
October 5, 2008 at 11:38 am
Given that Pretentia Dialectica (Marcus-Leninius) don’t have to go to work, you’d have thought they’d have produced a copy of their mag since… October 2006 (issue 2 of 2). But no.
Simon Forbes said,
October 5, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Don’t work? I wish. Bit rich that jibe coming from an undergraduate anyway. Interested that the mere suggestion that alienated labour and wage slavery should be abolished, which is what the slogan “abolish work” really means, is the one thing we say that causes the greatest rage among you Leninists. Of course for Leninists along with the dictatorship of the party, the militarisation of labour and producing limitless quantities of commodities such as cement and pig iron, along with limitless pollution is somehow “building socialism.”
Anyway Michel says issue three of the mag is coming soon and will be falling on your head. It will cause still greater rage among you dogmatic Marxists than the last one.
Another of our slogans is “abolish boredom” – well even the Weekly Worker, the Ena Sharples of the Left, aren’t interested in this sectarian bun fight you started with us. It’s becoming a bore and should be abolished.
David Broder said,
October 5, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I don’t have any interest in a sectarian bunfight, but if you’re going to hang round with Potkin Azarmehr then I’m happy to comment. This is not left-wing gossip, but rather exposing the links between a group who are little but right-wing libertarians (democracy! democracy!) and Iranian conservatives.
“Of course for Leninists along with the dictatorship of the party, the militarisation of labour and producing limitless quantities of commodities such as cement and pig iron, along with limitless pollution is somehow “building socialism.”
How ridiculous, what are all the Leninism jibes about? They just have no connection with reality.
I wasn’t too enraged by your last issue, I found it dull and a rehash of ’60s situationist stuff with a bourgeois liberal twist. Pretentia Dialectica aren’t even an irritation: I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t in PD who knew anything about them, never mind listened to them. But it’s good to hear that Michel Prigent is working hard at writing another issue: I hope he can think of enough pseudonyms for all his articles.
I am not an undergrad: I am not a student, and don’t have a degree.
David Broder said,
October 10, 2008 at 9:45 am