Predictable Blarney Rosser with his "impecable sources"

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Tue Sep 24 17:01:55 MDT 1996


With his always "impeccable sources" - all in the pay of the imperialist
press barons of course - here comes Blarney Rosser:

As a reactionary spokesman, he comes - of course - in aid of forlorn Trots.
For that purpose, he brings along with him a Khruschovite pensioner who
slanders to order the enemy of his buorgoeis bosses: Sudaplatov, whatever he
claims, does it in order to sell books among the gullible anti-Stalin
imperialist market. They do not publish the memoirs of the true friends of
Stalin, and when some body does, they rubbish anything good anyone may have
to say about him in ooodles of imperialist paid propaganda.   Heh?

However, these stupid articles of Trotskyst religious faith do not sell well
among the revolutionary people of the oppressed countries.  No matter how
strange that may seem among the worthies in Blarney Rosser's Golf Club in
the USA?

Blarney Ross - the man who spreads all the bourgeois rubbish he can dig out
of the most variegated collection of MacCarthite sources - Maoist cannibals,
mass murdering bolsheviks - saintly Trots - can well believe that Stalin was
"worried about Trotsky's Transitional Program"!.

Yeah, Rosser. Just about as much - and likely even less -  as I worry about
malecki's next issue of Cockroach, or Rodwell's next "letter to the people
of the IV Intergalactic! - That is why I am sooo angry and concerned that I
am now looking around for TOOTHPICKS - which, in this case, you must admit,
should be more than sufficient to spear a cockroach and a gnat!


Adolfo


Below I reproduce Rosser's standard bourgeois imperialist hack defence of
that Trotskyst article of faith which ONTOLOGICALLY PROVES that "Stalin
killed Trotsky":.

PS:

I though that one of the principles of the law is that you are considered
innocent until proven guilty - However Blarney Rosss demand that Stalin be
exonerated of a charge which they have nothing but hearsay evidence from
sources who are evidently benefitting from making allegations of this sort.

Do you think Sudaplatov - or any other piss poor KGB pensioner was going to
get a cent if he did not "reveal" what the bourgeoisie wants to hear.  It is
still nothing but hearsay by an interested party.



    1)  Well, Adolfo, you are again exhibiting your
>ignorance of Mexico, as well as your notorious sexism.
>Frida Kahlo was considerably more than "a jeaolous [sic]
>Mexican painter's wife."  She is now regarded in her own
>right as probably second only to Rivera in the pantheon of
>Mexican painters.  Her star is rising and many consider her
>to be superior to him.  There is a virtual cult of Kahlo
>now in Mexico, rivaling that of the Virgin of Guadelupe.
>     2)  Your claim that it was ridiculous for Stalin to be
>concerned with Trotsky at that time is itself ridiculous.
>Despite the efforts of his trials and purges, the Fourth
>International had been founded and its Transitional Program
>had been issued in 1938.  Stalin was very concerned about
>Trotsky and had every reason to want to eliminate him.
>     3)  The source you are going to have trouble refuting
>is Sudoplatov.  He is still a loyal admirer of Stalin and
>his Cheka-descended organs and very proud of his own role
>in spying on the Manhatten Project (btw, he declares that
>the Rosenbergs were strictly peripheral small fry and thus
>McCarthyite scapegoats, although his account of what
>happened in Moscow after their execution is quite
>fascinating).  He is very proud of the organs' success at
>assassinating Trotsky and he lays it all out very clearly,
>including the fact that the orders came from Stalin
>himself.  This is not an MI6 agent talking in this book.
>     4)  And finally we have your nonsensical argument that
>statements by Mercader are to be taken at their face value,
>sort of like how we are supposed to believe confessions in
>the Moscow Show Trials.  Of course a Stalinist agent would
>be instructed to claim he was a Trotskyist.  Really,
>Adolfo, for such a smart guy you can be incredibly naive!
>Barkley Rosser
>On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:01:20 +0100 (BST) hariette spierings
><hariette at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> >Ah, yes. Everybody who says that Stalin was responsible for the
>> >assassination of Trotsky is in the pay of MI6 and imperialism -- and
>> >deserves to pay the penalty for it???
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >Hugh
>> >
>> >PS Some joke ...
>>
>>
>> Yes.  They ought to get a souvenir ice-pick - prostrate themselves befor it
>> like the monks do with the cross and go into a foaming trance of visions of
>> little grey cells - their precious little gray cells - spluttering all over
>> their boudoir where they just have been gallivanting with their latest
>> debutante or jeaulous Mexican painter's wife.  With the evidence you present
>> against Stalin - the innuendo and suppositions of his enemies, the bourgeois
>> and litterati in the pay of the imperialist secret services or editors -
>> which court - except an imperialist or Trotskyst court - would convict
>> applying the most basic rules of evidence - and, moreover, the declarations
>> of the witness at the time?  I bet none! Lots of people wanted Trotsky out
>> of the way, specially those who wanted to inherit his mantle and those who
>> saw him as an old dead dog and a spent force, better dead than alive!
>>
>> I will transcribe the declarations of witnesses presently.  I think your
>> icepick fable has had a good run - just like Orwell.  Now it turns it was a
>> pick-axe!  Maybe not so romantic and chilling, eh?  Just a bloody jealous
>> bludgeoning by a disgruntled Trot upon his leader in a moment of
>> self-realisation of what a fraudulent lie he was!
>>
>>
>> You are always asking for proof, my dear QC.  But on this, you throw away
>> your barrister's wig, and proceed as if Stalin - who was thousands of miles
>> away and had a lot more to contend than bothering about  an old charlatan in
>> Coyoacan, Mexico - was guilty as an ARTICLE OF FAITH!  - A bit more like an
>> inquisitor.  The Moscow trials were also falso despite all the confessions.
>> What sort of twisted logic is this?  Where there is no proof but hearsay
>> from an accussed enemies - he is guilty.  When the accussed confessed
>> themselves in front of the whole world - they are innocent.  Ah! The faith
>> of the religious!
>>
>>
>> Adolfo
>>
>>
>>
>>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>--
>Rosser Jr, John Barkley
>rosserjb at jmu.edu
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list