A "soundtrack for the movement"?

Submitted by AWL on 21 December, 2010 - 7:49 Author: The Ruby Kid

The Ruby Kid, aka Daniel Randall, is a political activist and hip-hop artist. He has been a member of Workers' Liberty since 2002 and has been recording and performing music since 2007. Here, in an article originally published on his MySpace blog, he responds to an ongoing debate around the meaning of "protest music" in 2010, and whether the new youth and student movement needs "a soundtrack". For more info on The Ruby Kid, visit his website.

Things are kicking off a bit these days. You’ve probably noticed. Comparisons to the Thatcher era abound and, while the workers’ movement isn’t as strong now as it was then (before she crushed it), the comparisons are not without legitimacy.

I’m a socialist and, I hope, not an armchair one. I’ve been involved in activist politics for a lot longer than I’ve been involved in hip-hop and I think it’s fair to say that my politics are pretty much the defining dynamic of my life. I don’t think music is going to change the world and it’s certainly not paying my bills, so it’s basically a glorified hobby for me right now. But it’s an important hobby, and one of the things that’s interested me about the general response to the upturn in struggle we’re seeing is the questions some people are asking about the movement’s artistic, and specifically musical, accompaniment. John Harris put it most starkly in The Guardian: ”Where Is The Protest Music for 2010?” His article was specifically about The Agitator, a band whose music I can frankly take or leave and who people whose opinions I trust have accused of bandwagon-jumping. To say that Derek Meins of The Agitator is "the one man" who is "rising to the challenge" of "giving voice to the anger of the youth" is a bit over-the-top, in my view, partially because there are loads of people making "political" music (as a follow-up article by Harris showed) and because I think we've already proven ourselves pretty capable of giving voice to our own anger. But I’m not writing this blog to slag off The Agitator (never met them, I’m sure they’re decent folk, etc.) or even to respond to the article. I’m writing it because I’m genuinely interested in the question and because it’s one of the main things interviewers are asking me these days. And if blogs aren’t for self-indulgently sounding-off in a manner that assumes anyone else cares about your opinion, what are they for?

I’ve played a fair few shows in my time with solid “protest” credentials. I did a show with Kate Tempest recently in the Goldsmiths student occupation (and was booked to do one at UCL which didn’t quite come off). I did a spoken-word spot at Climate Camp in 2008 and I’ve done more benefit gigs than I can remember, for a whole range of organisations and campaigns (including Workers’ Liberty, No Sweat, Hackney Alliance, The Mule and even a few I’ve got a few disagreements with like the Anarchist Federation and RIO in Germany).

My name’s even come up in some of the current discussions: in this blog, for example, or even in the comments section on Harris’s Guardian piece, picking up on a description of me as a “revolutionary prophet”, used by a reviewer in Sandman Magazine a couple of years ago. (For the record, I definitely don't think of myself in those terms.)

Let me be clear about this: I’m not a “protest” rapper and I don’t make “protest songs”. I even baulk slightly at the description of my music as “political”, as if there’s somehow some music which is disconnected from or untouched by politics. I think all music, all art, is a product of the world that generated it and as such all art is “political”. We don’t need a special category for it. There are more (and, in my view, better) ways for music (or other art) to play a useful role in a struggle like this than simply communicating some of the movement’s ideas (or, in reality, an individual artist’s understanding of what the movement’s ideas are or should be) in its content.

Sometimes I write raps or poems that’re specifically, explicitly about class struggle. Sometimes I don’t. I don’t particularly think it matters. Fundamentally, that’s because I think it is that struggle – and not my music or The Agitator’s music or anyone else’s music – that is going to change the world.

Our movement will embrace art, but we’ll embrace the art that makes us feel something and we won’t vet it on the basis of its political credentials. When people bring sound-systems on demos they play dubstep or grime - music which, if it has political content in the crude sense that people who talk about “protest song” understand it, can embody some pretty reactionary ideas. They don’t play Billy Bragg or The Agitator or indeed The Ruby Kid. And that’s fine. I’m more than happy with that.

I also bristle at what I see as the snobbishness that sometimes underlies a lot of comment around this issue. People bemoan the lack of “political” music and disdainfully lament that people are watching X-Factor instead of listening to… I dunno… someone “political”, I guess. But firstly, the people who win X-Factor are invariably extremely talented singers and I have no interest in being snobbish or disdainful towards anyone who’s good at what they do. And secondly, the movement I’m interested in building will be made up of X-Factor viewers. It will be made up of people who listen to pop music. Undoubtedly as the movement grows and continues this debate will continue and probably a lot of people’s artistic predilections will shift and change. That’s good and healthy and I hope some people will be turned onto types of music and other art that they hadn’t experienced before. But for right now, a movement that demands people leave their existing musical tastes at the door and embrace only “political” music and “protest song” is not useful.

Here’s a crazy, fantastical scenario: every year, the X-Factor finalists release a song whose proceeds go to soldiers’ charity “Help For Heroes”. Maybe next year, some of the finalists will be young people who’ve been involved in this movement and who have done some thinking about the role of the state. Maybe one or two of them will make a fuss about the single. Maybe they’ll refuse to take part. Maybe they’ll argue that the proceeds should go to a working-class campaign organisation instead. Maybe there’d be a consequential explosion of debate about these issues not just within the movement but across society. Then we’d be getting somewhere…

One reviewer wrote of Maps [The Ruby Kid's latest EP] that it’s “ironic” that there’s less explicit class-struggle content on the record at a time when there’s more class struggle in society. Is it “ironic”? I’m not sure. Maybe it’s because there is more real struggle for people to see, experience and participate in that I feel less compelled to write tracks like Only One Victory that mention Sacco and Vanzetti and talk about dialectics in the hooks.

I think art does have a direct role to play in any social movement; it can be used to raise awareness, challenge ideas, to raise money. Sometimes a direct exposition of political ideas in the content of a work of art is useful and important. If people feel my music can be useful in any of these ways, then great. But we shouldn’t get hung up on that or turn it into a dogma or pretend that only art which does this is legitimate or worthwhile or of any value. Like wiser folk than me have said, art must be judged on its own terms.

There is no single “soundtrack” to this movement. We will have many, and none. The music we will listen to and the art we will enjoy will be as diverse as the movement itself. We’ll listen to The Agitator, Tempa T, Bob Dylan, Matt Cardle and Rebecca Ferguson. A tiny handful of people might even listen to The Ruby Kid. But most fundamentally we will remember that, whatever we listen to, the frontline of our struggle is in our workplaces, schools, colleges, and communities. And not on our iPods. So listen to whatever the fuck you like and I’ll see you on a picket line sometime soon.


Submitted by Bruce on Thu, 23/12/2010 - 12:27

This issue seems to emerge regularly. Not surprising as it's about the basic relationship between musical form, musical content and society. The relationship is complex. It's possible to have the same musical forms with very different political content. Or similar content in very different sounds. And music is a social and political product but one that can in its turn affect social movements. (Think of South Africa, for example).

But Dan is right that he shouldn't feel compelled to write 'protest' songs (more echoes of Dylan here?) but I think Dan's attitude is a bit too laissez-faire towards some forms of music which can be reactionary. And let's not forget the role of the 'culture industry' in determining what is available and what wins X-Factor.

Submitted by Clive on Thu, 23/12/2010 - 14:34

Good post. But often social upheavals bring new movements in the arts and among artists, who start issuing manifestos and whatnot. Be nice if something like that happened. Anyone got any thoughts on Artists of the Resistance?

Submitted by AWL on Thu, 23/12/2010 - 16:10

Artists of the Resistance seems okay, as far as it goes (and general criticisms about the top-down and fairly undemocratic nature of the parent body, CoR, notwithstanding). As far as I can make out, they're basically saying "arts is under attack, we're involved in the arts, let's fight back." That seems fair enough to me. It doesn't seem to be about imposing an artistic-ideological agenda for the movement in the way that all the "where is the protest music?" sanctimony is.

Bruce, all "forms of music" have the potential to "be reactionary". All forms of art do. Look at cinema... you've got Battleship Potemkin and you've got Triumph of the Will. And yeah, of course we should critique the "culture industry"; it's a capitalist industry just like any other, with everything that goes along with that. But fundamentally I guess my attitude to art is pretty "laissez-faire" and libertarian. It's not about being politically indifferent or pretending that art can't or shouldn't play a political role, it's just about rejecting what are, at root, Stalinoid attempts to limit artistic and cultural expression on the basis of political dogma.

I guess what I'm saying is... Dylan going electric = a good thing. D'you know what I mean?

From Daniel (aka The Ruby Kid)

Submitted by guenter on Sun, 26/12/2010 - 13:33

sorry, if i may be once again the party-stopper.... but i not only have difficulties, to consider stuff as hiphop &rap as something progressive, moreover, protestsongs, no, i dont consider that as music at all.(same with techno-"music".)
it may sound oldfashioned to the younger ones here, but for me, music has to sound "beautiful", not noisy, and has something to do with a gifted voice to sing with and the ability to play accustic instruments- nothing articial as sampling keybords and synthesizers. and, every idiot can programm a drummachine via computer and stutter something to a monotonus beat. leaving aside, that the lyrics of many rap- and hiphop-artists (majority!) is sexist &homophobic (some of them call to murder gays!)- i wanna discuss it mainly from the musical aspect now. can this be considered as music? was punk a "authentic rebellion" as often said, or only another hype of the record industry? what was so revolutionary about this guy from the sex pistols, who was a junkie and murdered his girlfriend, while on heroin? analog: is anything revolutionary, what comes out from the black ghettos? in my opinion, stuff as rap &hiphop , is no development of the old afroamerican music styles (gospel, soul, blues &jazz), but rather the destroying of it. and even if they all had rev. lyrics, i`d still prefare the sound of an great allround-musician as van morrison, despite his religious lyrics.
a type of protestsongs which i liked, had been the "folkies" of the 60ies &7oies; stuff as woody guthrie, pete seeger, the arly dylan, joan baez. or this beautiful irish folk, which, beside the pubsongs, includes very many highly political songs. but this does fullfill my criterias of music, and dont claim (as some leftwing songwreiters did) that the sound is secondary, as long as the lyrics are alright. among rap&hiphop, most of the time its neither the sound nor the lyrics which appeal to me.

Submitted by guenter on Thu, 30/12/2010 - 15:07

no more interesents around to continue the discussion?

Submitted by AWL on Thu, 30/12/2010 - 16:07

No time to write a long response now, but just briefly; you seem pretty closed-minded, Guenter, and the idea that we can establish fixed, objective criteria for what constitutes good music is frankly Stalinoid.

I think a world in which all we could listen to was early Dylan and Van Morrison would be unspeakably boring.



Submitted by guenter on Thu, 30/12/2010 - 19:45

a) iam afraid u didnt understand anything. i didnt FIX the only right criterias for music, but offered my personal criterias for discussion, as others offer other criterias for music. and where did i ever say, WE..... SHALL listen to dylan and van only? i have 2.000 albums from all musical directions and perhaps a much more widespread musical taste than you. probably a less boring world than with monotonous rap &hiphop.

b) its extremely shameless and idiotic to call me -since 40 years releated 2 rev. socialism- an stalinist (!) 4 my position about music. (since when did they have sense 4 something beautyful?) is this the only word u can stutter? how old are u, ruby KID? I challenge you to take this word back and talk less nonsense.

Submitted by AWL on Thu, 30/12/2010 - 22:56

Alright mate, calm down. It's not a competition to see who has more CDs.



Submitted by guenter on Fri, 31/12/2010 - 00:03

It's not a competition to see who has more CDs.

-do u wanna become worldchampion in twistin words around?
first, when i tell my criterias about music, u act as if i wud have forced a law on u which allows u only 2 listen to my taste of music; and when i tell u, that i know and apreciate several music styles, u reply "its not a competition who has more cd´s". how much demagoguel and beside the point u wanna "argue"?
btw, its only u who must calm down. u invited "stalinoid" without any reason. so tell me if u take it back or not, otherwise we dont need 2 continue anyway. madness and staliniphobia is not my level.


Submitted by Clive on Fri, 31/12/2010 - 05:35


Nobody has called you a Stalinist. Daniel suggested that your apparent wish to declare a particular type of music 'not good' was reminiscent of Stalinist policy towards art. Well, I agree. That doesn't make you 'a Stalinist'.

How is anyone supposed to engage with an argument about whether or not particular types of music are good or bad? You don't like hip hop. I like some of it. So what? But if you declare that hip hop can't even really be considered music, what do you expect people to say? It doesn't seem to me to be an argument worth responding to. Consequently, it was you that killed the discussion.

The argument is about how, or even whether, artists should directly engage with politics. The way that was done by, say, Dylan in the early sixties is one way, but not the only one, and for my money not necessarily the most interesting.

Submitted by guenter on Fri, 31/12/2010 - 15:01

what i said was not at all a "reminiscent of stalinist policy towards art" and iam waiting ur explaination why what i said has aanything to do with stalinist politics towards art. thats plain nonsense, an awful demagoguel one. if i was 2 force u by law to listen what i want and threaten u with hard punishment if u dont, THAN u have reminiscence 2 stalinist art policy.
also, i didnt DECLARE that rap/hiphop isnt music (an declaration has the pretention to be the only right statement for all times), i simply said that for my personal taste i dont consider that as music. so what? u know the difference between an declaration and an personal point of view?
moreover i didnt kill the discussion, but tried to open it up, with various more quests and examples, as
-is anything progressiv what comes out of the black ghettos?
-was punk an authentic protest, as often said, or another artificial hype of the music industrie

i mentioned some music styles and some artist names, and daniel picked out 2 names and claimed, that i want anybody to listen 2 dylan and van morrison only. how demagoguel is that?
i speak clearly and simply, but often get missunderstood here. it seems that some here simply understand what they want 2 understand. that shows an serious lack of sensitivity, intitution &understanding abilities, an indeed antisocialist approach in handling people and critic.

2. opposite to what daniel tried to understand -btw, he dont even has the guts to apologise for his "stalinoid-, i probably have a much wider musical spectrum than he has and probably know many more music styles, he never heard about.but an hiphopper calls me "much closed-minded", LOL! i worked many years as a journalist, and particular also as a music-journalist. i understand something about it, and iam not closed-minded at all, only because i dont like rap, hiphop, techno &disco and dont consider this as real music! its dan who express his closed mind, when he thought, a musical world with mainly dylan or van morrison (well, i have hundreds of artists collected) was boring. (that wud rather be the case, if only the monotonous, alway

Submitted by guenter on Fri, 31/12/2010 - 15:15

that wud rather be the case, if only the monotonous, always same beat of rap was around only.) but anytime in my life, when i talked to rappers/hiphoppers, they considered van morrison as boring (only he alone plays many different music styles, as rock, soul, blues,gospel, r&b, jazz, folk and so on), moreover they said so about the indian sitar music i like. that shows me, that their ears might be destroyed by noise, so they cant hear the exciting microtunes of sitar-ragas, and then they find it boring.
my friend, doctors told me that i have an "absolute hearing". that means, my hearing is so differenciated, that u can give me a dozen recordings of the same symphony, by a dozen different orchestras, and i tell you, where and how the orchestras played slightly different from each other. iam the last person one could label as "closed-minded" in music. its u and dan who killed the discussion with ur awful misinterpretations. feels like kindergarten- or rap stuttering.

Submitted by Clive on Fri, 31/12/2010 - 16:47

"if i was 2 force u by law to listen what i want and threaten u with hard punishment if u dont, THAN u have reminiscence 2 stalinist art policy."

I think what Dan, and certainly what I, more had in mind was the idea that artists have to follow a particular - 'the Party' - line, subject their work for official approval, etc. Eisenstein, for instance, was not as far as I know ever literally threatened with punishment, but there's no doubt he was forced to tailor his work to the dictates of the Party (under Stalin's control for all but his earliest work). I know less about Shostakovitch, but again as far as I know he wasn't literally threatened with physical (which is what I take you to mean by 'hard') punishment, but he was forced under control by the state.

Or, more recently, in the struggle in 1980s South Africa, which to all intents and purposes was dominated by the CP, there was a strong tendency to make artists get official approval for what they were doing (from the Party or its front organisations) - approval for both content and style, that is.

Guenter, you seem to expect people here to be telepathic. How can we know your musical tastes, that you've worked as a music journalist, or anything else? You entered this debate with the provocative claim that hip hop probably isn't even music; nobody felt inclined to engage with this claim; and then you get upset because this claim has understandably irritated someone who is a hip hop musician! (and you then have the nerve to assume that this is all he listens to. How the hell do you know? Maybe you are telepathic).

For myself, a formative part of my youth was spent listening to avant garde serious music, so I guess a) I'm open to most things, and b) I'm used to the complaint that things 'aren't music'. That goes, too, for contemporary music which uses computers (which is a lot of it and not just hip hop). If you think such music is necessarily not beautiful, or that it takes no musicality or musical skill to do (which is the implication of part of your first post), I think you're wrong.

On the actual debate: I think the original post is right to say that art can be political in more than the obvious way, and artists shouldn't feel the need, necessarily, to be 'directly' political in their work. I was once told by a socialist that (as a writer) I should only be writing stuff about and for the 'new social movements', and that anything else was a waste of time. My basic feeling, though I didn't say it to him, was 'fuck off'. He wasn't a Stalinist, and wasn't in a position to force me to do anything; but his impulse - to wish for some kind of ideological control - seemed and seems to me to come from a very bad tradition.

Submitted by guenter on Fri, 31/12/2010 - 20:33

even if u say, "stalinoid" only means to fix a partzy-line about musical taste, which shall be followed, then iam still lightyears from what u guys labeled me. cause where did i try to fix a line, where did i force my interpretation on others? SHOW ME ONE SENTENCE. "i simply said my personal definition of music, as others said there´s," WHY MUST I REPEAT THIS SENTENCE? also i didnt assume anywhere, that dan may listen 2 nothing else than hiphop. i said, i probably know more music styles, and i told about my experience with MANY other rappers, who indeed often have been limited in their taste, cause their noise-used ears didnt had the ability anymore to catch the microtunes of, for example, sitar-ragas. and if some1 considers an allround-musician as van morrison as boring (must hiphoüpüers i know, do) than he is usually not really into music at all.

2. as iam also a writer -i published 2 books, poetry and short-stories-, i also wud have rejected that guy u describe in the end, who told u, that lefties shall write only political stuff. but why in the hell can u compare my position with his position? i see it exactly the other-way-around: YOU AND DAN -and perhaps a few more here- seem to follow an line, which is established among the left, and does consider rap and hiphop as protestsongs, what is a bad double-joke for me: cause of thje sexist &homophobe lyrics of many rap-artists, and cause i dont consider this as music at all. and yes, i say, that every idiot can do an rap. (many popular artists dont have any musical-skills. if worse, if bigger they get. look, what is topping the charts.) this is an position like many others, its madness if that freaks anyone out. then YOU and dan are like this guy, u mentioned, u cant tolerate someone requesting YOUR fixed position. ALL i really said, was: for me, music has something to do with an gifted voice and an ability to play some accustic instruments. this position is widespread and no big deal- not worth to create such an ruckus out of it! i cud have lived with if dan had called that oldfashioned or so, but not "stalinoid".

3. and yes, iam a bit telepathic sometimes. telepathy does really excist and is no esoteric nonsense. i myself often felt or dreamed things before they happened, including the death of my mother in an car-accident. it can also happen with less important things: recently i thought about a very small house i once lived in on myself and felt that it was vacant again- that was 10 years later. i called up the old houseowner and he cudnt believe my call, cause the house just got vacant again. but i better dont discuss such things here....... and yes, from socialist people i expect more sensitivitiy and intuition, and yes, often i expect too much. and than i may fire up an fiery poelmic, if others dont see what i see, but neither am i really excited ("calm down guenter"- usually wrong) nor do i intend an personal insult. i simply have a much hotter temperament than my cold country-people or all the cold northeuropeans, and wished i cud live in 1 of those emotional cultures, where my temper never was a problem 4 any1. but my attempts to move over never worked out, and with my nowadys financial &health-situation its too late 4 that.
but, btw, my friend james baldwin, the great afroamerican writer and spokesperson of the civilrights-movement, who died on dec.1, 1987 (what i also dreamt a day before), some1 "who should know", also considered this new black styles rather as destroying of the old black music, and not as their development! (what say? will jimmy be labeled as stalinoid now?)
i once remember an situation in an recordstore, where i asked if cds of blind willie johnson (and some other 1920ies stuff) was still available, while at the same moment an afroamerican had asked the salesman about some rap-crap. then he looked at me, as if i might had remembered him on his own true culture/heritage....

Submitted by Clive on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 16:15

Guenter, you're the one who created the ruckus. And sure, it is a commonplace that 'rap' isn't music, and only acoustic instruments constitute music. Everybody's initial reaction to this preposterous commonplace was to ignore it. If you think any idiot can rap - well, I don't know what planet you're on. And it is utterly false to suggest that *all* rap is homophobic.

How is it 'a line' just to demur from the idea that an entire genre of music, one of the most popular in the world, is all rubbish? If I said I thought Bob Dylan was a terrible poet, and you said 'no he isn't', you wouldn't be putting 'a line', now, would you? You'd be expressing an opinion. Lordy.

And really, if you're going to play the card in this discussion not only that James Baldwin had the same view as you, but that he was your friend... Words fail me.

Submitted by guenter on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 19:12

if i understand u right, it seems that u wanna suggest , that i might have lied about baldwin being a friend of mine. thats very shameful and mad from you. leaving aside, that i cud easyly proof this with the letters i still have from him, and with the publications i did about him after his death, inventing this fact is also not "playing a card". this are this SICK and twisted interpretations u guys make out of what i say, and with such twisted thinking and very extreme lack of sense 4 people, persons like u will never ever reach socialism. i only invented the baldwin example to show u, how many guys u wud have to label as "stalinoid" then.

so, obviously the ruckus was all created by u and dan. ALL i had said in my first posting was, that music -for me- has something to do with a gifted voice 2 sing with and with the ability to play instruments. this is probably the most widespread position, perhaps the position of a majority, and if this position did shock you, than YOU are on another planet. seems, that the "unorthodoxy" of AWL does only excist in some weak positions towards imperialism, but not in other questions.

so i refuse talking to you, cause i almost got a heartattack about ur shameless suggestion. iam serious- as i was always honest here. if u dont feel that, than nobody can help you, and all ur political work will always be in vain. first cure ur own madness or anti-sensitivity or what it is, before u join politics.
pls dont adress me anymore. i wont read it anyway.

Submitted by Clive on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 20:06

Guenter, it did not occur to me that you were lying, and I was not accusing you of lying. I was unimpressed by your attempt to enlist 'authority' on your side of the argument.

So once again, what you're so upset about is in your own head. If you want to go off in a huff and stop talking, fine with me.

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 03/01/2011 - 13:40

So once again, what you're so upset about is in your own head

no, clive, u know that my writing and understanding of english is not perfect, and what u said was at least missunderstandable to me. (for being an writer, u are astonishing insensitive.)

so, the probs are still in ur head: i had explained u, that i had invented baldwin only, to show u, how many people u had to label as "stalinoid" then. so, instead of having the human "greatness" -rather domething self-evident 4 socialists- to realise ur errors and take ur abuse/slander back, u still stick to ur SICK interpretations u made out of my words, not even understanding, that this type of negative interpretations (of something neither said nor intended) tells much more about urself than about the person u fantasised about. like a broken record-disc, where the needle does hang, u only repeat the already refuted. i wish u a good therapist. ur behaviour of sick interpretations beside the point, twisting words around, abuse &slander, understanding what u want to understand, is all the same i experienced in a website which was dominated by the extreme rightwing. seems, that we have the same type of people anywhere. and as long as "leftiest" like u and dan dont work on their personal behaviour, socialism can never be achieved, and thats it. understand it or leave it, bye.

Submitted by Clive on Mon, 03/01/2011 - 14:12

You thought I was accusing you of lying, and I wasn't. All right, that's because you misunderstood me, which is a language problem. Actually, despite what you think you telepathically know about me, I am sensitive to that. But I simply did not do what you accused me of, so I don't see I have anything to apologise for.

What 'sick' interpretations are you talking about? What did you 'refute'? Either you accept that you misunderstood what I was saying - I wasn't saying you were lying about knowing James Baldwin, I just thought it was an irritating thing to say in an argument - or you don't. Frankly, you should apologise to me, since you accused me of 'sick' accusations and so forth, when I had done nothing of the sort.

Guenter, you tell people here, including me, that we're not proper socialists, and more, horrible people etc - 'insensitive', repeatedly; now you've told me twice I am sick, now that I need therapy. All I have done is disagree with you. You accuse me of 'abuse and slander', when I think the boot is very much on the other foot, mate. I'm inclined not to debate with you, either, since you are extremely rude. However, if you are prepared to calm down, so will I.

Submitted by guenter on Mon, 03/01/2011 - 20:35

my goodness, u really didnt understood a single word. u thought, all i said was about the baldwin-case, but it was a summing up of all the debate from the beginning. and i gave u many examples in all of my postings together, where u made very strange interpretations out of my words. (and if i were to tell u, that i invented baldwin, only 2 show u how many people u shud have 2 declare as stalinoid then, u make the interpretation that this was "playing a cardd". then this is an unnecessary bad interpretation. i can very well defend myself without "authorities". so, instead that the baldwin-example made u think, u make the next interpretation.) if u didnt understand this examples- be it. i wont repeat all of them now. anyway, u ignored most of my arguments ever made and quests i brought up, others u twisted around. and yes, i consider this as a type of thinking and behaviour, which dont differ from any common non-left and rightwinger. getting an answer it deserves , u call the other one rude. ( i may have a lack of patience, what is not only due to my temper, but because iam running out of lifetime. being with very many serious and painful healthprobs, and in the status after 2 heartattacks, ur insensitivity will probably always affect me more than the-other-way-around.)
most of the time in my life i had friendly discussions with people who started friendly with me. in this case here, u and dan had created all the prob, when he started to call me stalinoid for a harmless and widespread defination of music, then he pissed off without taking that back, and u defended his nonsense. if i say, go to therapy, is not meant as the insult u took it. i think, that everybody needs therapy, a person dont become personally different if he turns leftwing, but exactly the old habitts will ruin a new society from inside.

Add new comment

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.