Sanctimonious Trot has no sense of humour!
hariette at easynet.co.uk
Mon Sep 23 12:41:36 MDT 1996
>Adolfo publicly charges me with being on the payroll of MI6. He offers no
>evidence. The ostensible reason for this accusation is that I defend
>Orwell's literary work and the way he put his life on the line for his
>conception of socialism. I have condemned Orwell's ties with the
>intelligence services ("Damn his eyes for that").
Isn't that brilliant sanctimonious QC work, Mr. Barrister for George Orwell?
First it is not merely the literary work of Orwell what you are defending
but THE POLITICAL MESSAGE of MI6 inscribed on it! That is what you call
"putting his life on the line for his conception of socialism". In fact,
Orwell put his life on the line for HMG and the British imperialist
bourgeoisie, and you are putting your name on the line for that same
reactionary cause, so there is nothing but hypocresy on your part when you
complain like a "twice deflored virgin" when you are - very naturally -
linked with those you are defending and continue to do their bidding in
insulting the dictatorship of the proletariat and its leaders. Lamentations
to the wailing wall, sanctimonious Mr. Rodwell!
And the terrified virgin screams in panic:
>Adolfo writes that he's looking for an ice-pick to crush my skull with.
Oh my! Oh my! what a sense of proportion with a joke! Do you really think I
would waste a perfectly good ice-pick on dumb plonker like you?
In any case, it was a disgruntled Trotskyst agent - a man who later was
welcomed by his masters the anti-Stalin clique of Khruschev into Russia with
the aim of smearing Stalin - who carried that useless action upon a
political corpse. The Trotskysts only repeat the MI6 and imperialist line
when they accuse Stalin of the actions of their own mignons.
What proof do you offer that Stalin would have bothered to crack that skull?
None, except your assertions which are no different than Proyects about
malecki. Which leads me to your final sanctimonious complaint:
>Louis P publicly accuses Bob Malecki of being a cop and an agent
>provocateur. He offers no evidence for this.
Has not that same malecki said innumerable times just about the same thing
against everybody? What is so wrong with investigating him to see if there
is any truth in his claim to fame - and publishing royalties - since he is
advertising a book in which he slanders just about every revolutionary and
progressive in the Vietnam movement, including the FLN, Ho Chi-minh, etc?
I have already said that the worse result for malecki would be to find out
that he is really malecki, since there hardly can be anything more
disgusting than that roach. What is all this gas-bag solidarity all about?
Not content with defending Orwell you also act as solicitor for malecki,
who, according to his tale in question, is a man that knows and insists in
undertaking his own defense? Is this penchant something to do with a
frustrated legal career on your part, or something?
>Louis P threatens to publish personal material on still-sensitive events
>relating to US resistance to the Vietnam war.
>The only motives for this indefensible behaviour by our two model
>revolutionaries seem to be personal antipathy coupled with rabid
>However, they should take time out and think for a second that people who
>scream cop and spy and snitch the loudest might be the ones most interested
>in distracting attention from their own activities.
>One thing is certain: neither of them cares a hoot for the tone, level or
>content of this discussion list.
>This current turbulence is a good sign, however.
>Not even their staunchest supporters have thrown themselves into the ruck
>to help out. The most they've got is a feeble "hear, hear!" from Doug on
>When we've wiped the puke off after this insane vomiting, we'll be more
>ready for real discussions than ever before.
And isn't that so beautifully pacific and reasonable, madame La Ballerina
Always ready with the elegant phrase that cost you nothing, eh? It is you
who have debased the level of discourse here with your rantings and you
explosion of hatred due to the systematic and unanswerable exposure of your
darling Orwell in the article in LALKAR what has been the root cause of this
affair. You threw that smokescreen to cover-up and made vicious allegations
and insults which deserved every bit you got for your exertions on behalf of
a POLICE SPY such as Orwell.
Just for example: You accussed the article in LALKAR of being "anonymous"
as if with that you could somehow contest its veracity, despite the fact
that it is perfectly reasonable not to sign an article on a publication with
a responsible editor. Moreover, Sol Peru Committee was endorsing its
contents by publishing it and Sol Peru Committee has a public spokesman. So
what was that all about but throwing "sand on the peoples eyes" Mr.
Orwell-the-Rodwell? Is that how you define your level of debate? Innuendo
and allegation? Isn't it you who has a penchant for allegation, name
calling, innuendo ALL THE TIME, and when you are confronted, then go crying
like a Magdalen and muttering about "levels of debate"? I will say that, in
my opinion, it is you who most unreasonably debase all debates, Mr. Rodwell.
Moreover, you are trying to infect with this attitude other usually more
reasonable people using your sanctimonious demagogy to that end. I see that
poor Bilenkin is already gone to the barricades thinking he is a Red Guard
emerging from his "ruins of the Soviet Union". Pity that in his banner there
is still the faint trace of "Vote for Zugianov" still to be perceived! It
somehow detracts from his "heroic posturing".
I will say, in synthesis, that it was most obviously your vomiting in the
mirror what you ough to begin by wiping-off!
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism