Friday, 7 August 2009

Trotsky on Fascism


Extracts from a letter to an English comrade, November 15 1931;
printed in The Militant, January 16, 1932
* * *

What is fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the forms of counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say, prior to the advent of fascism in Italy)?

The former dictatorship in Spain of Primo de Rivera, 1923-30, is called a fascist dictatorship by the Comintern. Is this correct or not? We believe that it is incorrect.

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he accomplished his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two totally different forms of dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling many old military institutions with the fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera.

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.

The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism....

It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed....

In order to be capable of foreseeing anything with regard to fascism, it is necessary to have a definition of that idea. What is fascism? What are its base, its form, and its characteristics? How will its development take place? It is necessary to proceed in a scientific and Marxian manner.

From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932
* * *

At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium -- the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat -- all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.

From fascism the bourgeoisie demands a thorough job; once it has resorted to methods of civil war, it insists on having peace for a period of years. And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by Mussolini -- the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role -- but it means first of all for the most part that the workers' organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism....

* * *

Italian fascism was the immediate outgrowth of the betrayal by the reformists of the uprising of the Italian proletariat. From the time the [first world] war ended, there was an upward trend in the revolutionary movement in Italy, and in September 1920 it resulted in the seizure of factories and industries by the workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat was an actual fact; all that was lacking was to organize it and draw from it all the necessary conclusions. The social democracy took fright and sprang back. After its bold and heroic exertions, the proletariat was left facing the void. The disruption of the revolutionary movement became the most important factor in the growth of fascism. In September, the revolutionary advance came to a standstill; and November already witnessed the first major demonstration of the fascists (the seizure of Bologna).

[NOTE: The fascist campaign of violence began in Bologna, November 21, 1920. When the social-democratic councilmen, victorious in the municipal elections, emerged from city hall to present the new mayor, they were met by gunfire in which 10 were killed and 100 wounded. The fascists followed up with "punitive expeditions" into the surrounding countryside, a stronghold of the "Red Leagues". Blackshirt "action squadrons" in vehicles supplied by big landowners, took over villages in lightning raids, beating and killing leftist peasants and labor leaders, wrecking radical headquarters, and terrorizing the populace. Emboldened by their easy successes, the fascists then launched large-scale attacks in the big cities.]

True, the proletariat, even after the September catastrophe, was capable of waging defensive battles. But the social democracy was concerned with only one thing: to withdraw the workers from combat at the cost of one concession after another. The social democracy hoped that the docile conduct of the workers would restore the "public opinion" of the bourgeoisie against the fascists. Moreover, the reformists even banked strongly upon the help of King Victor Emmanuel. To the last hour, they restrained the workers with might and main from giving battle to Mussolini's bands. It availed them nothing. The crown, along with the upper crust of the bourgeoisie, swung over to the side of fascism. Convinced at the last moment that fascism was not to be checked by obedience, the social democrats issued a call to the workers for a general strike. But their proclamation suffered a fiasco. The reformists had dampened the powder so long, in their fear lest it should explode, that when they finally with a trembling hand did apply a burning fuse to it, the powder did not catch.

Two years after its inception, fascism was in power. It entrenched itself thanks to the facts the first period of its overlordship coincided with a favorable economic conjuncture, which followed the depression of 1921-22. The fascists crushed the retreating proletariat by the onrushing forces of the petty bourgeoisie. But this was not achieved at a single blow. Even after he assumed power, Mussolini proceeded on his course with due caution: he lacked as yet ready-made models. During the first two years, not even the constitution was altered. The fascist government took on the character of a coalition. In the meantime, the fascist bands were busy at work with clubs, knives, and pistols. Only thus was the fascist government created slowly, which meant the complete strangulation of all independent mass organizations.

Mussolini attained this at the cost of bureaucratizing the fascist party itself. After utilizing the onrushing forces of the petty bourgeoisie, fascism strangled it within the vise of the bourgeois state. Mussolini could not have done otherwise, for the disillusionment of the masses he had united was precipitating itself into the most immediate danger ahead. Fascism, become bureaucratic, approaches very closely to other forms of military and police dictatorship. It no longer possesses its former social support. The chief reserve of fascism -- the petty bourgeoisie -- has been depicted. Only historical inertia enables the fascist government to keep the proletariat in a state of dispersion and helplessness....

In its politics as regards Hitler, the German social democracy has not been able to add a single word: all it does is repeat more ponderously whatever the Italian reformists in their own time performed with greater flights of temperament. The latter explained fascism as a postwar psychosis; the German social democracy sees in it a "Versailles" or crisis psychosis. In both instances, the reformists shut their eyes to the organic character of fascism as a mass movement growing out of the collapse of capitalism.

[NOTE: The Versailles Treaty, imposed on Germany after WWI; its most hated feature was the unending tribute to the victorious allies in the form of "reparations" for war damages and losses. The "crisis" referred to in the above paragraph was the economic depression that swept the capitalist world after the Wall Street crash of 1929.]

Fearful of the revolutionary mobilization of the workers, the Italian reformists banked all their hopes of the "state". Their slogan was, "Help! Victor Emmanuel, exert pressure!" The German social democracy lacks such a democratic bulwark as a monarch loyal to the constitution. So they must be content with a president -- "Help! Hindenburg, exert pressure!"

[NOTE: Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), Junker general who gained fame in World War I and later became president of the Weimar Republic. In 1932, the social democrats supported him for re-election as a "lesser evil" to the Nazis. He appointed Hitler chancellor in January 1933.]

While waging battle against Mussolini, that is, while retreating before him, Turati let loose his dazzling motto, "One must have the manhood to be a coward." [Filippo Turati (1857-1937), leading reformist theoretician of the Italian Socialist Party.] The German reformists are less frisky with their slogans. They demand "Courage under unpopularity" (Mut zur Unpopularitaet) -- which amounts to the same thing. One must not be afraid of the unpopularity which has been aroused by one's own cowardly temporizing with the enemy.

Identical causes produce identical effects. Were the march of events dependent upon the social-democratic party leadership, Hitler's career would be assured.

One must admit, however, that the German Communist Party has also learned little from the Italian experience.

The Italian Communist Party came into being almost simultaneously with fascism. But the same conditions of revolutionary ebb tide, which carried the fascists to power, served to deter the development of the Communist Party. It did not give itself an accounting as to the full sweep of the fascist danger; it lulled itself with revolutionary illusions; it was irreconcilably antagonistic to the policy of the united front; in short, it was stricken with all the infantile diseases. Small wonder! It was only two years old. In its eyes, fascism appeared to be only "capitalist reaction". The particular traits of fascism which spring from the mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie against the proletariat, the Communist Party was unable to discern. Italian comrades inform me that, with the sole exception of Gramsci, the Communist Party would not even allow for the possibility of the fascists' seizing power. Once the proletarian revolution had suffered defeat, once capitalism had held its ground and the counter-revolution had triumphed, how could there be any further kind of counter-revolutionary upheaval? How could the bourgeoisie rise up against itself! Such was the gist of the political orientation of the Italian Communist Party. Moreover, one must not lose sight of the fact that Italian fascism was then a new phenomenon, just in the process of formation; it would not have been an easy task even for a more experienced party to distinguish its specific traits.

[NOTE: Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937): a founder of the Italian Communist Party, imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926, he died in prison 11 years later. He sent a letter from prison, in the name of the Italian party's political committee, protesting Stalin's campaign against the Left Opposition. Taglatti, then in Moscow as the Italian representative to the Comintern, suppressed the letter. Throughout the Stalin era, Gramsci's memory was deliberately effaced. In the period of de-Stalinization, however, he was "rediscovered" by the Italian Communist Party and officially enshrined as a hero and martyr. Since, there has been considerable international acclaim of his theoretical writings, particularly his prison notebooks.]

The leadership of the German Communist Party today reproduces almost literally the position from which the Italian Communists took their point of departure; fascism is nothing else but capitalist reaction; from the point of view of the proletariat, the difference between divers types of capitalist reaction are meaningless. This vulgar radicalism is the less excusable because the German party is much older than the Italian was at a corresponding period; in addition, Marxism is enriched now by the tragic experience in Italy. To insist that fascism is already here, or to deny the very possibility of its coming to power, amounts politically to one and the same thing. By ignoring the specific nature of of fascism, the will to fight against it inevitably becomes paralyzed.

The brunt of the blame must be borne, of course, by the leadership of the Comintern. Italian Communists above all others were duty-bound to raise their voices in alarm. But Stalin, together with Manuilsky, compelled them to disavow the most important lessons of their own annihilation.

[NOTE: Dmitri Manuilsky (1883-1952): Headed the Comintern from 1929 to 1934; his removal heralded switch from ultra-leftism to the opportunism of the Popular Front period. Later appeared on diplomatic stage, as delegate to United Nations.]

We have already observed with what diligent alacrity Ercoli switched over to the position of social fascism -- i.e., to the position of passively waiting for the fascist victory in Germany.

[NOTE: Ercoli. Comintern pen name of Palmiro Togliatti (1893-1964). Headed Italian Communist Party after Gramsci's imprisonment. He survived all zigzags in Comintern line, but after Stalin's death he criticized Stalin's rule as well some of its continuing features in the USSR and International Communist movement.]

From The Turn in the Communist International and the German Situation, 1930
* * *

The official press of the Comintern is now depicting the results of the [September 1930] German elections as a prodigious victory of Communism, which places on the order of the day the slogan of Soviet Germany. The bureaucratic optimists do not want to reflect upon the meaning of the relation of forces which is disclosed by the election statistics. They examine the figure of the increased Communist vote independently of the revolutionary tasks created by the situation and the obstacles it sets up. The Communist Party received around 4,600,000 votes as against 3,300,000 in 1928. From the viewpoint of "normal" parliamentary mechanics, the gain of 1,300,000 votes is considerable, even if we take into consideration the rise in the total number of voters. But the gain of the party pales completely beside the leap of fascism from 800,000 to 6,400,000 votes. Of no less important significance for evaluation the elections is the fact that the social democracy, in spite of substantial losses, retained its basic cadres and still received a considerably greater number of workers' votes [8,600,000] than the Communist Party.

Meanwhile, if we should ask ourselves, "What combination of international and domestic circumstances could be capable of turning the working class towards Communism with greater velocity?" we could not find an example of more favorable circumstances for such a turn than the situation in present-day Germany: Young's noose, the economic crisis, the disintegration of the rules, the crisis of parliamentarism, the terrific self-exposure of the social democracy in power. From the viewpoint of these concrete historical circumstances, the specific gravity of the German Communist Party in the social life of the country, in spite of the gain of 1,300,000 votes, remains proportionately small.

[NOTE: "Young's noose": a reference to the Young Plan. After Owen D. Young, American big businessman, who was Agent-General for the German Reparations during the 1920s. In summer of 1929, he was chairman of the conference which adopted his plan, which replaced the unsuccessful Dawes Plan, to "facilitate" Germany's payment of reparations as per the Treaty of Versailles.]

The weakness of the position of Communism, inextricably bound up with the policy and regime of the Comintern, is revealed more clearly if we compare the present social weight of the Communist Party with those concrete and unpostponable tasks which the present historical circumstances put before it.

It is true that the Communist Party itself did not expect such a gain. But this proves that under the blows of mistakes and defeats, the leadership of the Communist parties has become unused to big aims and perspectives. If yesterday it underestimated its own possibilities,then today it once more underestimates the difficulties. In this way, one danger is multiplied by another.

In the meantime, the first characteristic of a really revolutionary party is -- to be able to look reality in the face.
* * *

In order that the social crisis may bring about the proletarian revolution, it is necessary that, besides other conditions, a decisive shift of the petty bourgeois classes occurs in the direction of the proletariat. This gives the proletariat a chance to put itself at the head of the nation as its leader.

The last election revealed -- and this is where its principle symptomatic significance lies -- a shift in the opposite direction. Under the blow of the crisis, the petty bourgeoisie swung, not in the direction of the proletarian revolution, but in the direction of the most extreme imperialist reaction, pulling behind it considerable sections of the proletariat.

The gigantic growth of National Socialism is an expression of two factors: a deep social crisis, throwing the petty bourgeois masses off balance, and the lack of a revolutionary party that would be regarded by the masses of the people as an acknowledged revolutionary leader. If the communist Party is the party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of counter-revolutionary despair. When revolutionary hope embraces the whole proletarian mass, it inevitably pulls behind it on the road of revolution considerable and growing sections of the petty bourgeoisie. Precisely in this sphere the election revealed the opposite picture: counter-revolutionary despair embraced the petty bourgeois mass with such a force that it drew behind it many sections of the proletariat....

Fascism in Germany has become a real danger, as an acute expression of the helpless position of the bourgeois regime, the conservative role of the social democracy in this regime, and the accumulated powerlessness of the Communist Party to abolish it. Whoever denies this is either blind or a braggart....

The danger acquires particular acuteness in connection with the question of the tempo of development, which does not depend upon us alone. The malarial character of the political curve revealed by the election speaks for the fact that the tempo of development of the national crisis may turn out to be very speedy. In other words, the course of events in the very near future may resurrect in Germany, on a new historical plane, the old tragic contradiction between the maturity of a revolutionary situation, on the one hand, and the weakness and strategical impotence of the revolutionary party, on the other. This must be said clearly, openly and, above all, in time. >
* * *

Can the strength of the conservative resistance of the social-democratic workers be calculated beforehand? It cannot. In the light of the events of the past year, this strength seems to be gigantic. But the truth is that what helped most of all to weld together social democracy was the wrong policy of the Communist Party, which found its highest generalization in the absurd theory of social fascism. To measure the real resistance of the social democratic ranks, a different measuring instrument is required, that is, a correct Communist tactic. With this condition -- and it is not a small condition -- the degree of internal unity of the social democracy can be revealed in a comparatively brief period.

In a different form, what has been said above also applies to fascism: It emanated, aside from the other conditions present, in the tremblings of the Zinoviev-Stalin strategy. What is its force for offensive? What is its stability? has it reached its culminating point, as the optimists ex-officio [Comintern and Communist Party officials] assure us, or is it only on the first step of the ladder? This cannot be foretold mechanically. It can be determined only through action. Precisely in regard to fascism, which is a razor in the hands of the class enemy, the wrong policy of the Comintern may produce fatal results in a brief period. On the other hand, a correct policy -- not in such a short period, it is true -- can undermine the positions of fascism....

[NOTE: "Zinoviev-Stalin strategy": Gregory Y. Zinoviev (1883-1936), chairman of the Comintern from its founding in 1919 till his removal by Stalin in 1926. After Lenin's death, Zinoviev and Kamenev made a bloc with Stalin (the Troika) against Trotsky and dominated the Soviet party. In the period of the Zinoviev-Stalin domination of the Comintern, an opportunist line led to a series of defeats and missed opportunities, most notably the calling off of the German revolution of 1923. After breaking with Stalin, Zinoviev united his following with the Trotskyist Left Opposition. But in 1928, after the expulsion from the party of the United Opposition, Zinoviev capitulated to Stalin. Readmitted to the party, he was expelled again in 1932. After disavowal of all critical views, he was again readmitted, but in 1934, he was expelled and imprisoned. He "confessed" at the first of the great Moscow Trials in 1936 and was executed.]

If the Communist Party, in spite of the exceptionally favorable circumstances, has proved powerless seriously to shake the structure of the social democracy with the aid of the formula of "social fascism", then real fascism now threatens this structure, no longer with wordy formulae of so-called radicalism, but with the chemical formulas of explosives. No matter how true it is that the social democracy by its whole policy prepared the blossoming of fascism, it is no less true that fascism comes forward as a deadly threat primarily to that same social democracy, all of whose magnificence is inextricably bound with parliamentary-democratic-pacifist forms and methods of government...

The policy of a united front of the workers against fascism flows from this situation. It opens up tremendous possibilities to the Communist Party. A condition for success, however, is the rejection of the theory and practice of "social fascism", the harm of which becomes a positive measure under the present circumstances.

The social crisis will inevitably produce deep cleavages within the social democracy. The radicalization of the masses will affect the social democrats. We will inevitably have to make agreements with various social-democratic organizations and factions against fascism, putting definite conditions in this connection to the leaders, before the eyes of the masses.... We must return from the empty official phrase about the united front to the policy of the united front as it was formulated by Lenin and always applied by the Bolsheviks in 1917.

From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932
* * *

A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the butcher came night with his sharp knife.
"Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns," suggested one of the bulls.

"If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove us hither with his cudgel?" replied the bulls, who had received their political education in Manuilsky's institute. [The Comintern.]

"But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!"

"Nothing doing," replied the bulls firm in their principles, to the counselor. "You are trying, from the left, to shield our enemies -- you are a social-butcher yourself."

And they refused to close ranks.


Larry said...

You USED TO BE A TROOFER---so you must have been RIGHT wing, huh?? Plus, your blog is called, the Last Blog LEFT----hmmmm, left WING maybe?????


the_last_name_left said...

This is completely irrelevant to the thread, Larry.

But, to answer the points, yes I'm leftwing. I'm completely open about that.

Was I a Troofer? No. I'll explain:

Immediately following 911, there were a lot of questions, which needed answers, and there was a dearth of answers. (Obviously, because evidence isn't marshalled immediately.) I certainly did become convinced that 911 was a conspiracy - I didn't believe the towers could have fallen like that.....there seemed so many holes in the story, PNAC, Full Spectrum Dominance, the War on Terror kicking off, etc etc.

I'd always loathed Bushco and American Imperialism and militarism, so it wasn't much of a leap.

Progressively though more evidence has been provided - I have become convinced that I was ignorant of how tall buildings behave and collapse - and I became aware of how prevalent far-right extremists and their insidious methods and ideology were operating behind the scenes in 911 conspiracy. Reassessing the evidence led me to reject what I had been led to believe - *note* - I HAD BEEN LED TO BELIEVE things which were simply not true. I had been misled by (what turns out to be) elements of the far-right, pursuing their own agenda. I found the presence of the far-right had had a very corrosive effect on 911Truth - and was largely responsible for it becoming TROOF.

I don't feel any shame in having changed my mind. And I certainly don't feel any shame in having rejected the far-right extremism which permeates 911Troof - or in distancing myself from it, and opposing it.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me - but what I find reprehensible is that the leaders of 911 Troof deny and purposefully obscure their very close affiliations with the extreme, racist, fascist far-right.

I retraced my footsteps through my journey in 911truth - and discovered almost the entirety of what I believed was sourced within the far-right. But the thing is, it was never clearly identified as being from the far-right - indeed, every effort was being made to deny such provenance.

I just so happen to have had a longtime interest in Nazi Germany, Nazism, socialism etc - and that background proved useful to decode the methods being used by fascism to infiltrate and propagandise through 911 Troof. You can perhaps my horror when I discovered organised fascism was actually operating clandestinely behind 911 Troof, and why I was so disturbed to see Troofers increasingly adopting the language, tactics and ideology of fascism.

Make no mistake - it is there. And that explains why holocaust denial has become so popular within 911 Troof, and why 911 Troof employs identical fallacies and tactics of holocaust denial; it explains the growing anti-semitism in 911 troof; the crossover of fascism and 911Troofers; etc etc etc.

The simplest test is to simply try putting the issue of fascist infiltration to troofers - and watch them delete it, over and over again.

If 911 Truth was a genuine movement, it would be eager to address the issues - and to expell the fascist elements - but it doesn't - it resists even acknoeledging the problem. So, imo 911 troof can't address the issue, because the two are now inseparable. Hence TROOF, rather than TRUTH.

Larry said...

If you had one iota of intelligence, you would see the fraud of the right/left paradigm. Youve eve ADMITTED that is hardly a difference------RIGHT, because it doesnt EXIST! I only mention the terms "right wing" an "left wing" in my stories so people can understand that Im talking about the people who CALL THEMSELVES that. Its like when certain Republicans all themselves "Republicans" but theyre really NOT Republicans (theyre Neo-cons), but I still use the term so people can know thats who Im talking about. You admitted in one of your posts that there's not much difference---I agree, but its because it doesnt exist. Its an illusion used to divide and conquer and to play one crowd versus the other---thats it.

Larry said...

By the way, if you claim yo possess the truth, why do you keep using the exact same dodge and deflect and spin tactics Ive seen from so many? How many times now have I asked you to provide me a picture of a building that suffered universal collapse that had just fires and damage AFTER you incorrectly said the McCormick Center was such an example (which its not)? How many times--like 15 now? And yet you CONTINUALLY ignore it--why is that? You purposely ignore that because Im wrong and youre right? If truth is on YOUR side, then give me the answer Im asking for and stop IGNORING it.

I find it hilarious you said:

"The simplest test is to simply try putting the issue of fascist infiltration to troofers - and watch them delete it, over and over again."

Yet you ENABLED COMMENT MODERATION ON YOUR BLOG in order to silence me because I was crushing you with facts. AND you keep IGNORING certain point I make (McCormick Center) and IM fascist??

THEN you said:

"If 911 Truth was a genuine movement, it would be eager to address the issues - and to expell the fascist elements - but it doesn't - it resists even acknoeledging the problem."

You just described YOU. YOU censored your blog, NOT ME. YOU ignore my comments about the McCormick Center REPEATEDLY, so YOU are the one who doesnt address the issues!

You laughingly said:

"Progressively though more evidence has been provided - I have become convinced that I was ignorant of how tall buildings behave and collapse - and I became aware of how prevalent far-right extremists and their insidious methods and ideology were operating behind the scenes in 911 conspiracy."

So, youre an architect?? You were "ignorant of how tall buildings behave and collapse.."---now youre an EXPERT? Youre such an expert that you dont even know what a UNIVERSAL collapse is, since you sent me a link (although invalid) of the McCormick Center to PROVE WTC 7 was not the first to suffer such a fate, yet the McCormick Center was NOT a universal collapse!! It appears nothing has changed---you are STILL ignorant of how tall buildings behave and collapse!

the_last_name_left said...

where did I admit there's not much difference?

I don't believe there is no difference - it's all the difference in the world.

You misunderstand my position. People who say there is no left/right are deluded, or liars. Only people who say it are "right wingers".

the_last_name_left said...

L: Yet you ENABLED COMMENT MODERATION ON YOUR BLOG in order to silence me because I was crushing you with facts. AND you keep IGNORING certain point I make (McCormick Center) and IM fascist??

No, I enabled comment moderation because you spam irrelevancies, you refuse to answer simple questions, and use foul language.

I made that clear already.

L:You just described YOU. YOU censored your blog, NOT ME. YOU ignore my comments about the McCormick Center REPEATEDLY, so YOU are the one who doesnt address the issues!

I've re-enabled moderation moderation because you immediately start spamming irrelevancies.

There is NO building exactly like the WTC7 that has suffered similar damage and collapsed - correct.

There is also no building exactly like the WTC that suffered similar damage and did NOT collapse. That is what you miss.

L: So, youre an architect??

HA - I am listening to REAL architects, Larry.

You refuse to answer if you are an architect - over and over - you refuse to answer that question.

I'm not an architect - I happily admit. To you that undermines my understanding of what REAL architects and physics professors tell me. Fine.

But you refuse to answer if you even are an architect!

And - crucially - somehow your not being an architect is irrelevant to your own assertions about the dynamics of building collapse.

That's a patently flawed method, Larry. And you're just spamming the same crap again, though your language has improved a little, well done. Clearly you DO KNOW what you're doing. When you can sort out where to post things of relevance, moderation will disappear again.

Larry said...

I KNEW you wouldnt post my last comments, because they DESTROYED you. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being. Im done wasting my time with you.

You are not allowed to post on MY blog anymore since you censor YOUR blog. BUT, I am STILL not enabling comment moderation. I do NOT punish everyone for the actions of ONE asshole...BUT if I cant post on yours, you do NOT post on mine. Thats not censorship---that's an eye for an eye.

the_last_name_left said...

Destroyed me? No - you're just recycling the same crap - and not particularly concisely either.

Are you an architect Larry?

Still haven't answered, have you?

What's your alternative explanation for WTC7 and WTC1+2?

Still haven't answered, have you, Larry?

You are not allowed to post on MY blog anymore since you censor YOUR blog.

LOL - I prevent you posting absolute rubbish, irrelvancies, insults etc - yes.

I have no reason to fear any of your "arguments". I can't even think of a reason I might.

And as I said - I am happy to publish whatever you write - so long as it is relevant and so long as it isn't full of your usual bile.

I don't mind criticism, and I don't mind people disagreeing with me.

You however deleted my civil and relevant replies (note the PLURAL) - and now you're refusing to allow my civil and relevant comments at your blog. So - not an eye for an eye, Larry. But why would I expect you to be "fair" - you don't even answer simple questions - just rattle on with your tedious "assertions" which are only your (non-expert) opinion.

You just can't take anyone believing differently, can you? And you just can't answer what is asked of you. And you can't assess evidence objectively.....etc.