Refuting A Weak Attempt At Refutation -- Part Fourteen




Unfortunately, Internet Explorer 11 will no longer play the videos posted to this page. As far as I can tell, they play as intended in other Browsers. However, if you have Privacy Badger [PB] installed, they won't play in Google Chrome unless you disable PB for this site.


[Having said that, I have just discovered that these videos will play in IE11 if you have upgraded to Windows 10! It looks like the problem is with Windows 7 and earlier versions of Windows.]


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


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


Firefox and Chrome reproduce them correctly.




Although I am highly critical of Dialectical Materialism [DM], nothing said here (or, indeed, in the other Essays posted at this site) is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM] -- a theory I fully accept -- or, for that matter, revolutionary socialism. I remain as committed to the self-emancipation of the working class and the dictatorship of the proletariat as I was when I first became a revolutionary nearly thirty years ago. [That puts paid to the allegation that those who reject DM soon abandon revolutionary politics.]


My aim is simply to assist in the scientific development of Marxism by helping to demolish a dogma that has in my opinion seriously damaged our movement from its inception: DM --; or, in its more political form, 'Materialist Dialectics' [MD].


The difference between HM and DM as I see it is explained here.


[Latest Update: 15/05/2020.]


Quick Links


Anyone using these links must remember that they will be skipping past supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections.


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


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


(1) Background


(2) TFB Pleads Innocence


(3) TFB Demands Evidence, Which He Then Ignores


(4) The End Is Now In Sight


Summary Of My Main Objections To Dialectical Materialism


Abbreviations Used At This Site


Return To The Main Index Page


Contact Me




In 2015, I posted the following comment on a YouTube page which was devoted to introducing prospective viewers to a highly simplified version of DM:


Alas for this video, I have demolished this dogmatic theory (from a Marxist angle) at my site:

Main objections outlined here:


I have posted many similar comments on other pages at YouTube that are devoted to this theory and received little or no response. But, the producer of this film (whose on-screen name used to be Marxist-Leninist-Theory [MLT], but which has now changed to The Finnish Bolshevik -- henceforth, TFB) did respond (and to which I replied, here and here).


Not long afterwards, another video appeared on YouTube -- which was also produced by TFB, but posted to his other YouTube page -- entitled: "Refuting a Trotskyite Attack on Dialectics". I have replied to this largely incoherent video, here, here, and here.


After several, shall we say, 'skirmishes' over the previous six months or so, TFB posted a second, even longer video, which attempted to respond to one of my briefer attacks on this failed 'theory' of his:



Video One: The Garbling Continues


As part of my reply to TFB's earlier video, I transcribed the vast bulk of it into print, which took absolutely ages. I did this for several reasons:


(a) So that others could see how largely incoherent it is.


(b) So that it would be easier to expose TFB's lies and fabrications.


(c) So that I couldn't be accused of distorting what he had said.


I have so far posted seven responses to the above video, so this Essay constitutes my eighth reply. All my debates and responses to TFB have now been collected together, here.


Incidentally, I have now decided to post much shorter replies to TFB in order to (a) Increase the probability of him reading them and, consequently, (b) decrease the likelihood of having to explain the same things to him yet again, over and over, as had been the case up to now -- since he still refuses to read my longer replies, even though he expects his viewers to listen to his voice droning on and on, making the same points time and again, often incoherently, for over an hour!


As before, I have done my best to transcribe TFB's words accurately. I have left nothing out, so any series of dots in the transcription reflect pauses or changes of direction on TFB's part. If there is anything unclear or garbled in his delivery, I will say so inside a couple of square brackets.


Mercifully, this is the last of my responses to TFB (unless he replies, of course!).


[My last four responses to TFB, including this one, have been seriously delayed for reasons beyond my control.]


TFB Pleads Innocence

TFB complains some more:


So, anyway, she continues by saying:


"Finnish Bolshevik just made this up -- which is yet another fib from this 'revisionist' comrade."


Er..., I don't know what I supposedly made up, but.... OK.


[TFB now quotes me.]


"Readers can access the background details here, where they will see just why I have accused FB of blatantly lying." [From here.]


You have accused me of lying plenty of times, but it's just so weird, like..., you're the most difficult person to talk to. You seem to misunderstand even the most basic things. When I say something you immediately think I am accusing you of something. And when you're not..., when you're not thinking I that am accusing you then you are accusing me. Like, you're accusing me of lying. I've..., I've.... I haven't lied. I don't know what you mean. [Approximately 1:03:00-1:03:49.]


Attentive readers will no doubt have noticed that even while TFB is disingenuously complaining that he hasn't a clue why I accused him of lying, he neglected to click on a link right in front on him, staring him in the face at this point in the video! This link: here, which would have taken him to where I have explained all this to him -- that is, to the second of my replies to his first video where I quote several examples of his bare-faced lies. I have reposted perhaps the worst example in reply #12, as well as several more instances in other earlier replies to this, the second video. I do not propose to post it all again in this particular response. TFB has been told many times what his lies are, he just refuses to read what I have accused him of, or he just waves these lies away with declaimers that are as feeble as they are implausible -- like this: "I don't know what you mean" --, and then he feigns innocence or incredulity at the same time as ignoring the link that would have explained it all to him!"


There are several new lies to add to the list in this second video, as my replies have shown -- and I have highlighted a few more in this response to him (here, for example). For instance, he accused me of adding some comments to one of my Essays concerning the introduction of the term "external contradiction" by Stalin and his henchmen in order to 'justify' the introduction of the doctrine of Socialism in One Country [SIOC] after he had raised this topic with me -- implying I was being dishonest and had altered the record in order to mislead my readers. However, as I have shown (utilising a site that caches old web pages -- follow this link for more details), those remarks of mine about 'external contradictions' and SIOC (etc.) go back as far as 2009 (the aforementioned site does not cache anything older than that, as far as I know). This was long before I knew TFB even existed. In fact, I originally posted those remarks on the web several years before even that; I wrote them first in the early 2000s, and began posting them in 2005. TFB could have checked this for himself, but as usual, his shoddy approach to accuracy and detail let him down, again.


But what of his accusation that I "seem to misunderstand even the most basic things."


However, when I accuse TFB of something, I quote him, I don't attempt to paraphrase him. Note the following comment which has been posted at the top of all my replies:


As part of my reply to TFB's earlier video, I transcribed the vast bulk of it into print, which took absolutely ages. I did this for several reasons:


(a) So that others could see how largely incoherent it is.


(b) So that it would be easier to expose TFB's lies and fabrications.


(c) So that I couldn't be accused of distorting what he had said.


And I have continued to do that in all my responses to this second video. As I point out, I do this so that TFB can't sleaze his way out and claim I have misquoted him, and so that his lies are plain for all to see.


But, in general, and by way of contrast, TFB fails to quote or cite where I have done many of the things he accuses me of, and here we have yet another example. So, what "basic things" have I misunderstood? As usual, TFB failed to be specific.


Perhaps he meant the following "basic thing" (this passage was taken from the transcript of TFB's first video, where he attempted to 'explain' how ice melts(!) -- anyone reading this gobbledygook might sympathise with me for 'failing to understand' much that he says, "basic" or otherwise). I have quoted this passage several times, but once more won't harm:


So, let's make this even more simple. Now this is going to be scientifically inaccurate in terms, but I'm going to simplify the terminology so much that even a Trotskyist can understand.


So, keep in mind that this is not the...really the way you should use these terms, but whatever...


So, er..., would it be more understandable to you if I said that more heating..., er..., more melting..., er..., if I instead of saying more heating if I...even though [this is an extremely garbled section! -- RL] it's not really melting, but just if if [sic] I said it like it's melting? If I said that once melting..., once 'melting' has accumulated, even though it's really heat, but let's just say that it's melting so that it's easier to understand. So, one..., once melting has accumulated we have a quantitay (sic), ...a quantity turning into a quality. Er..., enough melting quantity turns into solid goes ff... (sic) to liquid; quantitative change. Erm..., so qualitative change is a threshold, and quantitative change is the gradual approach toward the threshold. Erm..., I hope I have made this clear.


And just to avoid this kind of semantic nonsense and playing with words [!! -- RL], let's take one more example where the wording is not as confusing.


So, look at...look at a piece of ice. Then look at water. Are they qualitatively different? Well, yes they are. One is liquid and one is solid, clearly. Are they quantitatively different? Why yes they are. One has notice..., noticeably more heat than the other, because it' know...liquid. So, a qualitative leap has happened somewhere, has it not? Erm..., is there a category of (sic) between frozen, i.e., solid and liquid? No. Is there water that is half or perhaps 33% frozen? No.


Even when, for example, a glass of water freezes and it's sort of kind of solidifies (sic) partially while still having some liquid in the glass, it's not half-frozen water. It's ice on top of liquid water. Same with melting icicles that have water dripping from them. They're not 90% frozen water, but it's ice with liquid water dropping..., er..., dripping from it.


Er..., so this works the exact same way with metal. I hope that's clear enough. [Garbled and undecipherable] just ask questions if you don't..., er..., if it's confusing. I know this is kind is kind of confusing, but..., er..., I hope that makes sense to you. [Approx 28:26-31:07 into Video One. Follow this link for my reply, where I have constructed a detailed take down of this garbled 'argument, including his claim that melting ice and liquid water don't co-exist (scientists call this specific condition a mixed phase). Has he never seen ice cubes slowly melt? Ice and water typically co-exist, even at the North and South Poles.]


Does anyone understand the first few paragraphs of this word salad? If TFB struggles to explain such "basic things", what hope have I -- or anyone else -- of comprehend him?


Here is another example from Reply #6 where I pointed out that TFB struggles even to explain his Über-Guru, Stalin:


Second, it was revealing to see TFB struggling to explain Stalin's argument, since the inflection in his voice coupled with the garbled nature of his comments suggest he was beginning to see that this is a 'dialectical relation' after all:


Doesn't require any kind of understanding of dialectics to understand this, 'cause he's saying that there's internal..., there's groups internal to the country, social classes, er..., that are in..., er..., in..., er..., contradiction, and then..., er..., then there's groups outside the country which are in contradiction with the country. So, anyone can understand this, like there's capitalist countries out there who don't like us, then there's social groups in this country that are in contradiction with each other. [Bold added. The exact time when TFB said this in his second video can be found here.]


One wonders what was going on in TFB's head as he tried to make the above point about 'internal contradictions' in the former Soviet Union [fSU]. The latter most certainly were viewed as dialectical -- and, as we saw in my first reply to TFB, here and here, this is precisely how Stalinists in the 1920s and 1930s saw them, too; indeed, this is how subsequent theorists also interpreted them (even those pesky 'Brezhnev era revisionists' beloved of TFB) --, which makes the contrast with 'external contradictions' dialectical, too. Or, does TFB imagine that Stalin didn't think that the relation between the fSU and the capitalist powers was dialectical? [On this, see Note One.] TFB had already told us that the relation between a ball and a foot that kicks it is 'dialectical'. Why then not the relation between, say, the USA and the fSU?


It isn't too much of a stretch to conclude that this very thought was beginning to dawn on TFB as he came out with the above garbled thoughts (especially those highlighted in bold) -- which might help explain why they were quite so reticent and incoherent. [Quoted from here.]


[There are two more examples where TFB utters word salad after word salad here and here, the first of which is quite as bad as the 'melting' passage above. I haven't re-posted that material in this reply since it is rather long.]


I have advised TFB several times to delete that garbled and largely incoherent first video and try again. I also suggested he scripted his videos in future so that viewers might stand a chance of following his argument, such as it is. He then published a second video that was nearly as incoherent and garbled! For all the good my advice did I might just as well have been talking to a cactus.


TFB Demands Evidence, Which He Then Ignores


But there is more; here is TFB, quoting me:


"Finally, FB asks me to educate him some more...."


Like, you're the most dishonest person ever. Like, what do you.... Why are you saying that I'm lying? I mean, look at you. [Pause.] Like...., yeah..., cos this is exactly how it went, right?


[TFB tries again.]


"Finally, FB asks me to educate him some more (concerning Lenin's interpretation of 'external forces')...."


Yeah, cos you're like [TFB pretends to be quoting me -- RL], "Lenin has this weird interpretation of external forces that doesn't agree with you." I'm like...and I respond sarcastically by saying:


"Really? Enlighten me."


And she takes this completely seriously. She's just, she's like [TFB is quoting me again]:


"I think we can all now see that that task is impossible -- FB just ignores what he doesn't like, or misreads what little he seems able to take in."


Wow! I'm asking you to provide evidence for your stupid claims. Er...ah... Like, I could say... Imagine if I said that in some other argument. Somebody asks me for evidence. I'm like, "Oh, you're just stupid. Google it. Educate yourself." That is a totally unreasonable position to hold. Although, you know, some people are like that and a lot of people have..., like.., a lot of people point out these idiots who are, like, arguing with people and when you challenge them they are, like, "Oh, I'm..., I don't have time to answer your questions. Just Google it. Figure it out yourself. I'm not going to justify my own position. Not going to provide evidence for my own claims. I mean, you have to figure the.., [this is a garbled word -- RL]..., them out."


No, you made a claim, you provide the evidence.  Not..., it's not my job.


[TFB is quoting me again.]


"Interested, and educable, readers can find my words of 'enlightenment' here."


Er..., then it links to the previous response to me. Er..., since it links to a previous response to me then how is it supposed to provide any additional information to me? Cos, we have already been through this. But, you..., you just..., just now made the claim that Lenin has this strange interpretation of external forces, but it links to an old response. Like, care to elaborate at all of this (sic). [Approximately, 1:03:50-1:06:07. I have added italics where TFB's inflection suggests he wanted to emphasise a certain word.]


A couple of points:


(1) Since TFB refuses to read my replies it is hardly surprising he continually misses the evidence I have provided, especially that which shows he repeatedly tells bald faced lies. As noted above, he has been told even that several times, and he has been given chapter and verse when and where he has told such lies, but he just ignores it. So, TFB isn't interested in evidence or proof.


But as we have also seen dozens of if times, TFB has once again attempted to put words in my mouth (that can't be found anywhere in my replies to him -- certainly he provides no direct quotes or links to back up these assertions --, or, indeed, anywhere at my site), or he implies that this is my attitude to supplying evidence and answering questions:


Oh, you're just stupid. Google it. Educate yourself.... I don't have time to answer your questions. Just Google it. Figure it out yourself. I'm not going to justify my own position. Not going to provide evidence for my own claims. I mean, you have to figure...them out. [Ibid.]


Ok, so, here are just two examples of TFB's response to the evidence I actually have provided:


I'm saying that you write a whole bunch of stuff, and use big words, and have tons of quotes, but still, at the end of the day, it's all worthless. Doesn't prove anything. Doesn't debunk anything. It's all basically a huge waste of time, but it..., but it looks so impressive, or it..., it looks daunting, so that you're..., you're able to get away with it. [From here.]


Like..., if I was talking to somebody, and I was, like, I made some really stupid argument, and then I said "Oh, but before you can respond you have to read, like, this..., fifteen volume book..., set that I have written...before you can respond." I mean, I am sure we have all met people like this on line.... You're trying to talk to them, and you're like..., they're spamming stuff, spamming more and more information at you, and it's often irrelevant to the question. And it doesn't really mean anything or support their case or anything, they're just spamming information just so that you can't really properly respond. You're put on the defensive because of the constant barrage of sh*t coming at you. You can never narrow the...discussion down to the heart of the matter. That's what your entire website is. That's why I am saying that you're trying to baffle me with bullsh*t. [Quoted from here.]


Once more: he isn't interested in argument, evidence or proof.


And, here are just a few of the occasions where he has called me or my ideas "crazy" or "stupid" in this video alone: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.


And sure, I call DM a "crazy" theory, too -- but I back up everything I say with a level of detail and argument TFB can only dream about, as anyone who reads, say, this or this, can attest.


(2) I didn't introduce the idea of 'external forces', TFB did. I mentioned the fact (which was established in earlier replies to him, one of which has been reproduced below) that after Lenin passed away Stalin and his henchmen invented the phrase "external contradictions" (a term that neither Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov nor Lenin used, and which TFB had never seen or heard of before -- on that, see below, too) in order to support their new theory of SIOC. For some reason best known to himself, TFB then confused "external contradiction" with "external forces". He convinced himself (without any proof) that that is what I really meant, and he has been banging on about that ever since (indeed, for much of this second video!).


[The term, "external forces" made its first appearance approximately thirty-three minutes into Video One, and it reappears about four minutes into Video Two, introduced both times by TFB, not me.]


Had TFB never mentioned such "external forces", I wouldn't have had to use that term in my replies. I even said this in my third response to his first video (which TFB above says he 'dealt with' -- his memory is either defective, or he is lying again).


Here is part of my response to his use of "external forces in Video One:


"True-to-form, MLT focuses on 'external forces' when the issue in fact revolves around 'external contradictions'...." [Quoted from here. Back then "MLT" was TFB's old name.]


And, here is TFB/MLT's admission that the phrase "external contradictions" was new to him, as well as his conflation of such 'contradictions' with "external forces":


"Then it uses the word 'external contradictions' (sic). I've never heard that before. Never. External contradiction. So, it's basically's external forces but they call it 'external contradictions' so that it would sound more made up, basically. So, once again, dishonest word-play, here." [Quoted from here. Bold added.]


So, TFB not only tells us he had never heard of "external contradictions" before, he claimed I had invented this term so it "would sound more made up"! [TFB later argued he didn't mean to suggest that I had made this term up. I have dealt with that response here.]


Even more bizarre, the following material was staring him in the face on the very page to which he was supposed to be responding in this second video (for some reason I can't recall, I called him "FB"; "ML" stands for "Marxist-Leninist"):


Now, had FB done his homework, he'd have seen I also quote other ML-theorists from Stalin's era. Here is just one example (taken from an official DM-textbook, published in 1931):


"Marx-Leninist dialectic does not deny external contradictions -- the action of one process on another. On the contrary it proceeds from the idea of an indissoluble connection of all processes of actuality and demands a knowledge of the mutual action of processes, their influence on each other, and their mutual penetration." [Shirokov et al (1937), p.201 -- as noted, this book was originally published in the USSR in 1931; I am here using the 1937 translation. The on-line edition is from 1941, I believe. Bold emphasis added.]


"The contradictions between the capitalist and socialist systems do, of course, influence the development of socialist relationships in the U.S.S.R. But socialist society is developing on the basis of internal laws, on the basis of internal contradictions, and not on the basis of the external contradictions between the capitalist world and ourselves." [Ibid., p.204.]


"The full victory of socialism in our country has a decisive importance also for the final victory of socialism.


"And so we see that external contradictions certainly influence the development of a process; that such contradictions, however, are only overcome by the internal self-development of that process itself." [Ibid., p.205.]


Several things follow from this:


(a) My allegations above were correct, this term was invented by the Stalinists (and later appropriated by Mao) for the reasons I intimated. Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin knew nothing of this term, or these 'contradictions' (and there is good reason why);


(b) From the first of the above passages (from Shirokov (1937)) we can see 'external contradiction' is being used 'dialectically' -- " proceeds from the idea of an indissoluble connection of all processes of actuality and demands a knowledge of the mutual action of processes, their influence on each other, and their mutual penetration";


(c) Once again, I find I have to educate FB about his own 'theory';


and, finally,


(d) We can now see that the "Brezhnev era revisionists who wouldn't agree with Stalin or Mao" actually do agree with Stalin and Mao on this, as well as the official textbook put out by the Stalinists in the 1930s. So, it seems that FB is the 'revisionist' here!


This is quite apart from the fact in his earlier video FB was happy to quote from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia -- published in 1979 by "Brezhnev era revisionists".


So, what does FB have to say next?


Wonder no more, for here are his more profound thoughts:


"Maybe you've found more quotes then I have, since you're most likely older then (sic) me. Duh."


Ouch! I can see I have met my match!!


Or, just maybe I know FB's 'theory' better than he does...


Well, at least I don't post ill-informed and largely incoherent videos on YouTube pretending to be some sort of authority on this failed 'theory'. When I assert something I have the evidence to hand (or I don't assert it) -- unlike FB, who seems to think self-inflicted ignorance counts as proof. [Quoted from here.]


TFB then has the cheek to say I provide no evidence!


[I have covered this topic in much greater detail in my first reply to TFB's second video, some of which material has been re-posted below.]


In the meantime, I have provided even more evidence in support of my allegations about the invention of the term, "external contradictions". Again, as pointed out in my first reply to this video:


Now, I also alleged (and I argued this in detail in the aforementioned Essay (i.e., Essay Nine Part Two) -- which TFB won't allow his tender eyes to gaze upon) that the Stalinists invented the term "external contradictions" after Lenin had passed away in order to help 'justify' the idea that socialism could be built in one country -- as far as I am aware, this term doesn't appear in any of the writings of DM-theorists prior to Stalin's use of it. Neither Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov or Lenin used it. In my longer replies to TFB I went into considerable detail why the Stalinists did this, and how it introduced fatal defects in Lenin's theory of change. TFB skates over this with hardly a comment (although he later returns to this topic and taunts me for not explaining fully!) without examining my argument, even though I posted links to it. I suspect he hasn't even read it, preferring perhaps to remain in his self-imposed state of ignorance -- even about Lenin and Stalin!


I subsequently provided TFB with quotations from Stalin and Mao where they used the term "external contradiction" (as part of a broader allegation that TFB doesn't even know his own 'theory', a condition he seems only too eager to maintain), as well as those from other Stalinist authors. In Appendix A I have added to this material with further quotes from these two -- as well as from other Marxist-Leninist [M-L] theorists who wrote in the 1930s, and from several others. Appendix B reproduces Stalin's own quote in full -- i.e., the one where he first uses the term "external contradiction", and where he, not me, he connects it with the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country' [SIOC], and hence with Soviet foreign policy, just as I alleged. [Quoted from here.]


[TFB then made an attempt to distinguish between an author "coining" a term (such as "external contradiction") and the idea itself being around before that term had been "coined". I have dealt with that response here and here.]


To repeat (and we can now perhaps see how right I was when I wrote it):


"I think we can all now see that that task is impossible -- FB just ignores what he doesn't like, or misreads what little he seems able to take in."


In which case, we can also perhaps see the following for the lie it is (this is yet another example of TFB trying to put words in my mouth):


"Lenin has this weird interpretation of external forces that doesn't agree with you."


I have nowhere said anything like this, nor anything that implies, hints or even vaguely suggests it. Nor would I --, since, as I have pointed out several times, I wasn't interested in "external forces" but in "external contradictions". Nor have I said anything about my (supposedly) "weird" ideas about Lenin and "external forces" -- or even "external contradictions" since Lenin never used that term, as I have had to point out to TFB many times.


So, where TFB got this "weird" accusation from we shall have to leave to his psychiatrist to determine.


(3) But what of this?


"[T]hen it links to the previous response to me. Er..., since it links to a previous response to me then how is it supposed to provide any additional information to me? Cos, we have already been through this. But, you..., you just..., just now made the claim that Lenin has this strange interpretation of external forces, but it links to an old response. Like, care to elaborate at all of this (sic)." [Loc cit.]


Why did I link to this 'old material'? Simple: TFB doesn't read my replies, so I link to earlier material in the fond hope he might actually read it! As usual, he failed to do even that!


[As noted above, I have since added much more evidence. That new evidence was even posted to the comments section of his YouTube page a while back. There is no sign he has read that, either! Once more: TFB has the cheek to complain about me not posting evidence!]


The End In Sight


We are now within sight of the end (at long last!).


TFB drones on some more:


Well, I think that's enough..., that's..., surely that is enough.


To save time, to narrow it down, to make it..., you know I basically tried to improve this discussion a little bit. Erm..., although I know that you [presumably addressing me -- RL] gonna (sic) turn this into a major polemic against me rather than an actual discussion, cos you're not interested in actually talking about these things, you just want to use this as content for your website, apparently, but if you just..., if you actually want to have a serious discussion, then why don't you just explain your position on Lenin. [Pause] Like, do that before you go off on a crazy tangent about something entirely different, just explain your position on Lenin in your response.


That's all for now. I will see you guys later with something else. Er..., so, until next time, red salute. [Approximately 1:06:08-1:07:09.]


Unfortunately, TFB has shown very little genuine desire to debate DM with me; he just ignores the vast bulk of what I have written, while I have responded to practically everything he has said in these two videos -- which collectively last over one hundred and five minutes -- as these transcripts and replies to him have demonstrated. Instead, he has shown he is more focused on telling lies about me and my ideas, or putting his own invented words in my mouth. This is further underlined by the fact that he thinks I am only interested in adding more content to my website! I could say he was only interested in material for his YouTube page, but that would be to sink to his level.


He now wants me to "explain my position on Lenin"! That, after he had just said I shouldn't go off on a "crazy tangent". But, what else would that be when we are supposed to be discussing DM, not Lenin?


Anyway, I have tried to talk about Lenin several times (especially when I attempted to explain why Lenin agreed with Hegel's criticisms of Hume's theory of causation, and how that implied there could be no 'external contradictions'), but, once again, I might just as well have been talking to the cat, since TFB just ignored that material. Moreover, in my reply to his first video also tried my best to reduce TFB's ignorance of Lenin's ideas about "self-motion", but yet again, much of it sailed right over his head.


So, I have absolutely no desire to explain my "position on Lenin" to someone who is a serial liar, who can't even read what is in front of him, staring him in the face, and who simply ignores what he can't handle or can't understand.


The End!


Word Count: 5,830


Latest Update: 16/05/20


Return To The Main Index


Back To The Top



© Rosa Lichtenstein 2020


Hits Since :