Sanctimonious Trot has no sense of humour!

Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at
Mon Sep 23 15:36:00 MDT 1996

     Ah, so we are getting back into fantasy land again,
eh?  If you want to be pro-Stalin and anti-Trotsky, fine.
Indeed, I remember that you had it as the supreme crime of
those charged in the Moscow Show Trials that they were
"Trotskyist plotters."  Wow.
     But, please, spare us from claims that Stalin did not
order and orchestrate the assassination of Trotsky.  The
evidence from numerous recently published books based on
KGB archival materials are simply too overwhelming in
contradiction to your claims.  Try Pavel Sudoplatov's
memoirs for the most recent, who remains to this a day a
big fan of your guy, Uncle Joe.  For a more questionable
source, try the book on the KGB by Andrew and Gordievsky,
although they have been backed up in numerous claims such
as the identity of the "fifth man," (John Cairncross) by
other more recent sources. Both books claim it was Stalin
all the way. Sudoplatov, who oversaw the WWII Soviet
intelligence effort to spy on the Manhatten Project, even
details how the safe house in Santa Fe used by the Los
Alamos spies was the same one used in the late 30s and 1940
to coordinate the effort against Trotsky.
     Adolfo, you are a very intelligent guy, but get real.
Barkley Rosser
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:41:36 +0100 (BST) hariette spierings
<hariette at> wrote:

> >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
> >anti-Trotskyism.
> >
> >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
> >the sidelines.
> >
> >When we've wiped the puke off after this insane vomiting, we'll be more
> >ready for real discussions than ever before.
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Hugh
> >
> And isn't that so beautifully pacific and reasonable, madame La Ballerina
> Rossa?
> 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!
> Adolfo Olaechea
>      --- from list marxism at ---

Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb at

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list