I think you have your theories mixed up. The core members of the Frankfurt School did ground some of their theories in Freudian analysis, however this was never separate from a Marxist analysis and therefore a materialist class struggle. Hegelian dialectics is also always part of this triad philosophical basis, of which Freud is only ONE part.

Others however completely reversed the base of some impulses they refer to from the classic Freudian drives and instead concretised the “ideal”. If you are referring to Dialectics of Enlightenment you have to read it with their other works to appreciate the full complexity of the concepts it brings up. The same goes for the other books.

It irritates me to see people referring to very precise philosophical concepts loosely and as it fits them in garbled sentences. Please choose something less complicated if you wish to do so. Some people dedicate a large part of their lives to broaden human thought, it is unacceptable that it is used in that way – to muddle minds. You reek of “cultural materialism” which is an ignorant reading of that strain of philosophy.

Ever watched the live performance where Peter Maffay gets the kiddies up on stage? He was born in Romania, the son of Transylvanian Saxons. There’s more European history in that one man than the entire ‘European Studies’ department.

Want to know what drives revolutions? Music. Scooter also sampled a certain song by an East German band, which Maffay also covered.

When Western Europeans stopped singing themselves off to war, they started losing them.

You may have meant that, but it’s not the first interpretation that comes to mind when reading this:

“Among the officials in Malta’s government and Cabinet, and among the major players, how many are in a stable heterosexual relationship?

Go on, try it. You have to think really hard. Edward Scicluna, George Vella, and… Think of a name at random then. Nine times out of ten, they’re either gay or serial philanderers.”

The point, I think, should be that the bunch of them are dishonest (either cheating on their wives, or sharing indecent photos of their partner). Mentioning gayness is really irrelevant. The point about keeping their sexuality private is irrelevant also, we know a bunch of them are straight but that isn’t the problem.

And incidentally, I think their sexuality is a public concern, an how they conduct themselves in expressing it is also relevant, with which you clearly seem to agree.

I don’t know what you’re on about.

Why did you make the assumption in the first place if not to underline society as flawed beyond redemption and which must be changed perforce even at the cost of its cohesion?

A pre-emptive strike on debate to turn everyone else into the guilty adversary.

Don’t give me heteronormative, a word fabricated to conjure into reality ‘conflict’ theorised by some cultural marxist, usually inexistent in previous reality.

There’s your magic words.

Never enough conflict to justify the new caste systems, magic words then, result infinitely useful and in constant demand.

Frankly speaking, I had no idea 10% of the population had a problem with their numerical representation on the distribution curve. Heteronormative is bad because numerically biased. Fancy that.

No, it’s not, the context is that the name of the game has to produce infinite minorities oppressed and shamed into trigger state.

Yes it is relevant if LGBT used him to come up with the heteronormative gibberish, it makes them a fringe group bent on antagonising the rest of society as Muscat dispenses privilege gaining moral power.

I also note you do not differentiate between individuals and the lobby.

But disregard all I’ve written above.

Are gays a minority? Go on now.