Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
UNITE! Info #311en: A debate on "cyber ghosts", Mao Zedong's line and how
to
unite
[Posted: 14.03.2008]
Note: The "UNITE! (etc) Info" posting series (1995-) advocates the
political
line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. For all items, see
www.rolf-martens.com.
INTRO NOTE:
Here I'm reproducing a debate which took place recently on the Modern
Marxism
mailing list (created by me in August last year) at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modern_marxism/.
Participants in it were
David
Walters <dave.walters@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, who among other things is one of the
main
editors of the Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) at
http://www.marxists.org/,
myself and, (nominally) "marxist front" (or "MF")
<marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
who/which however is not really "a Marxism-interested person or group in
India", as "he"/"it" has pretended and still is pretending to be, but a
so-called "cyber ghost" invented and managed for disturbance-creating
purposes
by a certain bourgeois-reactionary person in the USA, whom I know about
since
1996 as a kind of "specialist" on such things, by the name of Thomas P.
Murray.
One of the peculiarities of this very good medium of communication, the
Internet, of course is the possibility, for those persons who want to do
so, to
"multiply" practically at will, by just acquiring a number of different
e-mail
addresses - hundreds of them you can easily get, as the person I mentioned
has
done too; writing, from each of those addresses, in a style which (the
"creator" may believe, at least) is a particular one and rather different
from
his/her "normal", and also invent some "life stories", perhaps, for all or
some
of those "cyber ghost" "extra personalities". And websites and photos "of
their
own", "they" of course can be provided with too, by a sufficiently
"diligent"
"ghostwriter".
In a debate at another mailing list back in the year 2000, for instance,
this
Murray opposed me politically in the guise of no less than six different
"persons", "who" all in fact turned out not to be any real such but only
"existed" in that rather cold and inhospitable realm, cyber space. On
this, see
Info #131en, "The merry Murray 'M-L' melee", of 21.08.2000, part 1/8 etc.
That
time, it also turned out that some other and really existing debaters did
not
understand at all that some of their "interlocutors" were mere inventions,
"ghosts", and apparently had not even reflected on that really obvious
possibility of there existing such "cyber ghosts" as members of that
mailing
list. That same really somewhat strange lack of fantasy I've encountered
in
several Marxism-interested (real) persons later too.
The recent debate began precisely with my exposing, on 02.03, the fact
that
there, unfortunately, wasn't any such person or group in India as Murray
pretended his "marxist front" to be, but only a "cyber ghost" with that
name
and (of course, Indian-looking) e-mail address. This fact, which I had
been
suspecting for a while already, had become clear, at least to me, after
that
"marxist front", "who"/"which" had earlier acted as a "rather good friend"
of
mine, the day before had suddenly "come after me with a knife", so to
speak.
Murray (of course) wasn't very pleased with the exposure of that
particular
"cyber ghost" of his. It was the second one which I had found out about
within
a short period of time, and one who/which would have been a relatively
im****tant person or group, if there had really existed a such in India.
But his
attempts at making that exposure "go away again" only made it even clearer
-
and, I think, probably pretty clear to the other MM list members too -
that
this "marxist front" is not now nor was ever a member (or several members)
of
the community of living humans on earth. There was no need for me to reply
very
much to the repeated protests "by" "marxist front" maintaining that "I was
mistaken" and that "he"/"it" "absolutely *was* made up of flesh and
blood".
But interesting did this so far not very exciting debate (or " ") become,
when
that other and really existing (of this there seems to be clear evidence)
list
member, David W., started taking part in it, from 03.03 on. In what way
this
was, readers will soon see. The continued debate, between David and me,
came,
very naturally, to touch on some politically quite im****tant matters.
In the below, I shall start out with reproducing the latest posting in
this
debate, a rather long piece by me from yesterday 13.03, which I hope will
be
found to contain things of general interest. All the other, and earlier,
postings I shall then reproduce too, in chronological order. Some of these
perhaps don't contain all that much of direct political interest to
others, but
I'm including all of them anyway so as to show readers precisely how that
entire debate "went down".
The so-called "marxist front" "in India" came to the MM list in early
December
last year. "He" or "it" did appear to me from the beginning on to be
surprisingly ignorant of certain matters for a Marxism-interested person
or
group in India. But I had then no compelling reason to think that
"he"/"it" was
not genuine, as I hoped was the case. In reply to two apparently ignorant
statements by "MF", I wrote, after having done some research too, my Info
#297en, "On Tibet and the India-China border war in 1962", on 08.12.2007,
sent
also to the MM list and to several other addresses. "MF" - that is, Murray
-
seemed to be "duly impressed" by that which I had written but did not
appear to
listen very much to my arguments concerning these matters. This already
was a
little suspect concerning "MF", I thought.
Anyway, when in mid-January of this year, "MF" suggested that an Internet
petition be set up against the then ongoing reactionary suppression in
Pakistan
against democratic forces there - a good idea, which in retrospect can be
seen
to have been intended by the "cyber ghost" managing Murray to improve the
camouflage of that "MF" of his a little - there still was no sufficient
reason
for me to treat "MF" as anything else than an actually existing person or
group
in India. So I took up that idea, and set up the petition "Stop Crackdown
on
Democratic Forces in Pakistan" at
http://www.petitiononline.com/CraDoPak/petition.html,
stating in the
relevant
note at that website that this petition was "created by MF and RM on
Modern
Marxism list" and "written by Rolf Martens".
That Internet petition did not really get to "take off", as to signatures,
of
which it collected only 9, but as a small international demonstration it
was a
not quite unim****tant thing anyway. It was e-mailed to its "target", the
government of Pakistan, on 25.01.2008, as also noted in the index section
of my
homepage. A little more on it I have in my "News with brief comments"
items 339
and 342. Out of those 9 signatures it had, actually as many as 2, it
turned out
later, were by "cyber ghosts" - in addition to that of "MF"
"him"/"it"self,
Murray quite nicely added one by "Norma J F Harrison"
<normaha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"the USA", exposed as a "cyber ghost" only much later and rather recently,
a
short time before "MF".
That fact, which can be seen today, that it in January of this year was
not
even 9 but only 7 persons of flesh and blood who internationally made
their
voices heard on the question at hand, doesn't really matter much anyway, I
think. That time, the disturbance-intended "cyber ghosts" had actually
turned
out to be of some help, propagandistically, instead of just making
nuisances
of themselves. In retrospect, I think I did the right thing in "teaming up
with" that "MF" on this, despite "his"/"its" already then being a rather
suspect entity.
Here follow the debate postings - as I already said above, the latest one
first
and then the others in chronological order. Please don't get too
discouraged,
readers, by their rather large number, 17 in all. Some of them are rather
brief, and you can always skip such postings which don't look very
interesting.
The latest one, mine of yesterday, is the one which I on my part want to
recommend the most. Obvious writing errors I've edited out.
DEBATE POSTING 17 OF 17
Message #1339
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:49 am [NB, all times are CET]
From: "foreanaer1995" <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: More on your notably "telling" me, Trot-trotting David, what
(not) to
write
Hello again, David,
I want to return now to that little "cyber ghost" debate which there
recently
was on this list. I think that there's quite a lot to learn, for everybody
on
this list (and others too), from some postings in that debate, quite in
particular from one of yours - "only" a one-liner, but how obviously
heartfelt
and how full of information it was! - which was message to this list #1265
(sent 03.03).
A DEBATE, FIRST WITH ONLY AN AMURRICAN PHONY "INJUN (GROUP)" GETTING
"HIS/ITS
HEAD" SMASHED A LITTLE BY ME, BUT THEN BECOMING MORE INTERESTING BECAUSE
OF
YOUR NERVOUSLY "INTERVENING" "FROM ABOVE" TO HELP POOR MURR-MURR "INJUN
(GROUP)", OBVIOUSLY ACTING, AS YOU SHOWED THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE, WITH
THE
"SUP****T" OF SOME PRETTY BIG AND STRONG FORCE IN THE WORLD - NOW WHO OR
WHAT
COULD THAT BE?
Your "intervening" etc here and "telling" me what to write and what not to
write, in that list message #1265, more precisely was expressed by you as
follows:
"I call a truce between both you mutton-chops. Cut the **** and stick to
politics!"
A couple of very interesting sentences here, don't other list members
think so
too?
I already have commented a little on them, in my list message #1279, above
all,
which indeed was pretty long (as complained about later by you). But I
think
they, and the whole cir***stances behind them, do merit being commented on
even
some more.
You here, as one list member to another, to begin with, were "telling"
another
list member, me (and, yes, one "other such" too - this, as it happens, one
about which I had recently written that "it" was a swindler-managed "cyber
ghost" too, but your also extending a command" of yours, or something
similar,
to that "other list member" too, that's not so relevant in this context)
what
he (I) "should write", respectively "not write".
And you also "explained" to me (and to the already more or less dead
"ghost")
what "was actually politics" and what "was not" - a question on which you
of
course, David, in your capacity of propagandist of arch-reactionary
bourgeois
Trotskyism, could not but be considered, by all other list members (to
begin
with), as anything else than a "really big expert", could you.
And it was in that capacity of yours as an anti-Marxist, reactionary
Trotskyite
too that you felt called-upon to "tell" me to "cut" that exposing of mine
of
that "cyber ghost" - which, by the way, I had already carried out, so it
was
then even to late in the day for your shouting, director "Dino" David,
"cut,
cut!" to have any effect "of im****tance" on me, as being one of some
"mutton-chops" in your "film recording crew" or whatever, as obviously you
thought that matters were standing. Which was a mistake, of course.
The day when I - who to the best of my ability, and as I on my own part do
believe, with some success too, since some 30+ years back have been
advocating
and representing the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, which
obviously is the correct one, as seen from the standpoint of the vast
majority
of people - shall accept "directing" from Trotsky-adhering people, that
day of
course has the name "never in your dreams" or something similarly
poetical.
I on my part "never in my dreams" have gotten any idea of perhaps
suggesting,
telling or proscribing to *you* what *you*, for instance should "suitably"
write respectively "not write", David. And certainly not have I ever
thought
that my being list owner "around here" might possibly entail any "rights"
or
any "suitability" for me as "landowner" to say, "now shoo away from that
particular field, which, I as owner happen to know, most other list
members
absolutely don't want to be touched or walked on", or "by treading on
which
you're coming uncomfortably close to my lordly political mansion, you
lowly
mere list member and mutton-chop", etc, etc.
Criticizing or perhaps applauding the postings of others, that's quite
suitable
behaviour for all of us list members, I think. Saying to one or several
others,
as did recently you, David, "now write this, but absolutely not that -
some
things which you mutton-chop once did throw around were *absolute manure*,
which you need to *cut out* next time, on this list at the very least" -
that's
something else, and something a bit strange too
What made you think that you "needed to" do that, David? This was "a
first", on
your part too. I think it's clearly visible, anyway: In your presuming to
order
others around like that, you felt, and wanted to show us others, there
being
some pretty big and strong force or other in your sup****t, behind that
"command" of yours to me, "now cut out that **** of yours of your exposing
as a
swindle that "marxist front" of the US reactionary small-time swindler
Murray's, which he has assured all of us others really is a
well-intentioned
political group absolutely existing in India".
Very clearly, that "force" which you tried to make me (and all others too)
"feel" as standing behind you, that was nothing else than the
arch-reactionary
imperialist bourgeoisie in the world.
You acted here quite openly as something like "an extended arm of the
White
House's", didn't you.
Which very much puts the lie to that which you also have been saying, that
you're "in favour of" the proletarian revolution, and shows you up as
someone
- at least today - very warmly *sup****ting the dictator****p of the
bourgeoisie*.
Now this isn't really "a very big shock" for me, in the first place. And
in the
second place, your actions in politics are also, like those of not so few
people, rather inconsistent and contradictory. With some of your actions,
you
in my judgment are *favouring* the proletarian revolution too. Might you
at
some point later, perhaps, go over to that side? On such matters I at
least
don't want to make any predictions.
As I intend to explain a little more in detail further below in this
posting -
OK, already pretty long too, and longer still I intend to make it - I
think
that things between you and me stand, approximately and on principle, as
they
did in 1972, for instance, between "Tricky Dick" Nixon, on the one hand,
and
Mao Zedong - then inviting "Tricky" to visit him - on the other. By which
I
don't mean to say that I'm someone perhaps comparable to Mao Zedong.
What I do want to say is that his action of extending a certain necessary
united front against the then seriously war-threatening expansionist
actions of
Soviet social-imperialism, the then most dangerous source of a devastating
largescale war of aggression, even to such a representative of a certain
faction within US imperialism as was "Tricky" - who at the same time of
course
was bombing Vietnam, against which Mao Zedong's China never once ceased or
diminished its massive sup****t, that was a good move, which I've been
trying to
copy under other cir***stances, rightist-reactionary "Dino", by going into
a
certain united-front type alliance on some points with you.
This despite fact that you too, so to speak, are "continuing to bomb
Vietnam",
with your reactionary propaganda concerning the main matters of political
line
today.
Did "Tricky" perhaps, while in Beijing, try to "tell Mao Zedong what was
really
a genuinely Marxist-Leninist line", or assure him that he, "Tricky", held
Mao
to be "a very good friend of his"? Probably not. That's one point on
which, I
think, "Tricky" was better, less hypocritical, than his
bourgeois-reactionary
colleague (of today) - you, "Dino" David.
I think it's suitable also to comment on some other things in connection
with
that recent debate of ours:
HOW AND WHY DID THIS DEBATE BEGIN, AND THEN "DEVELOP"? WHAT INTEREST MAY
IT
HAVE (HAD), IN THE FIRST PLACE?
This debate began, as others may recall, between that - small-time but
since
long rather infamous anyway - reactionary ghostwriting prankster and
diversionist in the USA, Thomas P. Murray.
(OK, probably you and most others on this list couldn't or cannot tell all
that
certainly that it *was* he. But I happen to know the guy and his
particular
"MO", "mode of operation", since over 10 years back. And also of course,
as it
was you who said to begin with, my name is Monk! - Adrian Monk! (Like that
of
the current TV soap opera detective in the USA, who clearly is
out-Sherlocking
even Sherlock himself. Or, I mean, he would have, if he had been any more
existing in the world outside of ideas than was his predecessor "the
famous"
Sherlock Holmes, or more than was ever any of the literally hundreds of
"cyber
ghosts" invented and managed, since at least 1996, by the abovementioned
reactionary Murr-Murr-Ghostie swine.)
What Murray rather stupidly did was, to let his cyber ghost, that actually
non-existing "person" or "group" "marxist front" (or "MF") "in India",
"writing" from <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, attack me rather viciously, in
a
message to this list, #1247, on 01.03. This despite precisely "his" or
"its"
("MF's") then just recently having created an Internet petition precisely
together with me (the "Stop Crackdown on Democratic Forces in Pakistan"
one - I
was pleased to see you sign it too), and thus, apparently, being "a pretty
close buddy" of mine.
So why was "MF" now suddenly coming at me with that knife?
Probably because "his"/"its" handler, Murray, had gotten a little nervous
on
account of my recently having exposed another, and less - potentially -
im****tant "cyber ghost" of his, that "radical though also rather ignorant
chick", "Norma J F Harrison" <normaha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>.
WHY WOULD "THE MF GROUP IN INDIA" HAVE BEEN RATHER IM****TANT, IF IT HAD
REALLY
EXISTED? CONVERSELY, WHY WAS IT OF SOME POLITICAL IM****TANCE TO GET TO
KNOW
THAT IT DOESN'T? AND WHY DID YOU, DAVID, FEEL SO VERY MUCH "STUNG IN YOUR
HEART" WHEN I EXPOSED THAT "MF" REACTIONARY SWINDLE AS A REACTIONARY
SWINDLE?
Had there really existed - as it during a few months at least appeared
quite
possible to me was actually the case, although I did have some
bigger-and-bigger-getting doubts about this too - such a person or group
in
India as that "marxist front" or "MF", positively interested in Marxism
and in
international contact, discussion and co-operation, that would have been a
quite im****tant thing, even if he, she or it were relatively ignorant, to
begin
with.That's what I mean by saying that "MF" was "potentially" im****tant.
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THIS MM LIST WAS CREATED AND MY WANTING YOU,
FOR
INSTANCE, TO JOIN IT
The reigning imperialist system on earth, obviously, is totally bankrupt
and is
only becoming more and more so for each day. But where the heck are those
forces who are so sorely needed, then, to unite together the 6.7 or so
billion
people on earth, help them see approximately how to take over this planet
from
those ridiculously small cliques of reactionary s*** who for some reason
or
other are still controlling it, although their time has really been up
since
(at least) decades and decades back, and organize that takeover, aka the
international proletarian revolution?
Practically no such seem to exist - whom you can get into contact with,
anyway.
A few parties here and there in some of the oppressed countries seem to be
not
that all bad, are leading struggles by the people in a basically rather
good
way, but as far as I can see, none of them has a knowledge of Marxism, of
the
international situation, and of the latest tricks of the imperialists'
even
approaching a level comparable to that which, during some comparable
earlier
periods, had, for instance, the First International as led by Marx, Engels
and
some others, or the Bolshevik party plus the Third International, say, in
the
early 1920s, or, in the 1960s and early 1970s, the CPC in China as led by
Mao
Zedong.
Since there aren't any such forces today, some new and genuine ones much
be
created respectively developed, and united internationally as much as
possible,
then. And it does seem to me that any such which may or do exist, at some
level
of interest, those are nowhere bigger than, approximately, one individual
or
perhaps some quite few such. If in international contact with each other,
these
hopefully can develop not so badly even today, since one thing which does
exist, that's a simply enormous store of proletarian revolutionary theory
and
experience, to be found above all in the writings of Marx, Lenin and Mao
Zedong
and in those of their, true enough, very few later followers and further
developers - some of whom I've been lucky enough to be in contact with
(before
they degenerated).
To contribute towards such development, that's my intention with this
mailing
list, set up in August 2007 and now having, not very many but anyway 39
subscribers, from a sizable number of countries on 5 continents.
Politics that really, consistently and with sufficient knowledge for it
actually to make a difference, is in favour of the international
proletariat
and the vast majority of people today, that's something which comes down
to a
matter of no more than some individuals here and there, I believe. Each of
you
others, thus, who have gathered on this mailing list, for instance, I'm
viewing
as, potentially at least, an internationally not unim****tant political
"potentate" or force.
That's also why such an individual as that reactionary ghostwriting
prankster,
the abovementioned Murray in the USA, at present can create some not quite
unim****tant diversions too, although these diversions really present no
political dangers to speak of and will always be found out sooner or
later;
sometimes they even can have some positive effects, such as that proposal
for
an Internet petition (concerning Pakistan) which Murray let his "MF" put
forward last January, for the purpose of camouflaging that "MF" a little
better, and which did help create that small but not completely
unim****tant
thing.
And the fact that organized Marxism at present is (and in the last 2-3
decades
has been) so really "impossibly" absent in the world, the fact that here
is
such a horrible "big black hole" in this respect, that fact also is one
that
has caused that certain "Monkish" (to use the expression coined by you)
Internet writers - who're seeing through one or several ones of those
many
whopping big machinations, manoeuvres, manipulations, conspiracies and
even
[wars] directed against the people by the imperialists today, not least in
many
fields of the natural sciences - are *not* (today) Marx adherents, as they
logically, in my judgment, really "ought to" be.
Some of those non-Marx-adhering writers too - whether they're (basically)
uncorrupted scientists, as some of them are, or whether they just have
seen
some im****tant truths, scientific ones or others, that are being
suppressed by
the "mainstream" media - can be said to be political "potentates" in some
way
or other, favouring the common interests of the vast majority of people.
As one example of this, I can mention Dave McGowan, a Californian like
you,
David, and even one with the same first name as you, who at his website
"Center for an Informed America" at http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/
has
written quite a lot of good stuff, not least some very well-informed and
often
quoted such about oil's actual origin (abiotic, coming from the earth's
mantle). In my list message #1260, of 02.03, can be seen a repeated
personal
invitation to him where I said he was really needed here on MM. But no, so
far
he clearly isn't interested, and I cannot really "kidnap" that guy or
anybody
else, can I?
I was pleased to see your accepting that personal invitation which I sent
also
to you, David, around the time that MM was started, in August last year.
You
also are such a person whom I'd call a certain "potentate" in leftwing or
pur****tedly leftwing politics, above all because of your work with the
Marxists
Internet Archive (MIA) since many years back, which certainly is an
im****tant
positive contribution of yours; you're one of MIA's main editors, if not
*the*
main editor of it, and clearly, MIA is, in a positive sense, im****tant
enough
to have scared the Chinese revisionists, for instance, the rulers of a
country
with 1,300+ million inhabitants, into trying, repeatedly, to sabotage its
website, at http://www.marxists.org/.
Of course, a continuing bad aspect of the MIA is, that it tends to lead
some
more ignorant though Marxism-interested people [astray], with that picture
of
the infamous traitor Trotsky smack in the middle of its entrance page.
One im****tant reason, anyway, why I hoped you'd join MM was the fact that
you,
although a Trotskyite and thus a adherent of one of several very
reactionary
phony"Marxist" political currents, obviously, in contrast to many of your
"colleagues", don't fear debates, even such with some pretty sharp
disagreements in them, but on the contrary will often start such - in
addition
to your also sharing information which you have with political opponents
of
yours too. And you did contribute quite a lot towards enlivening this
mailing
list in its beginning; in this I was certainly not disappointed.
You even have abandoned - in recent years, it seems, and possibly in part
influenced by me in this - one arch-retrogressive dogma that has long been
an
im****tant part of the ideological setup of practically all the various
phony"Marxist" or revisionist currents, the one saying that it's "really
an
awful thing" to use, under conditions of capitalism, that most modern of
energy
sources by far, nuclear energy, which today you are actively advocating
instead.
I did know that you, in your capacity of Trotsky adherent, had a basically
very
reactionary, anti-Marxist and bourgeois political standpoint. And, things
being
as they are, I held and hold it to be a good thing to have some
non-Marx-adherents on this list too - such are expressly said in its
description likewise to be welcome on it - and I still think that having
some
such members on it is liable to stimulate open and non-dogmatic debate.
It's
quite OK with me of course that you've been saying, as if you believed it
yourself, that arch-reactionary, backstabbing Trotskyism, "that's the
really
proletarian ideology" and also that I'm "a good friend" of yours.
I don't consider myself at all "a friend of" any propagandist of
Trotskyism,
but basically a political adversary of all such. Only as a *secondary*
aspect,
in my engaging in some united-front-type alliances with "your" kind of
bourgeois rightwingers too, can it be said - I on my part hold - that
someone
like you and someone like me to a certain extent are "friends".
How *extremely* right-wing was (and is) your political standpoint, which
has
shown up in postings of yours to this list already earlier, did surprise
me
somewhat. For instance your saying, in list message #126, of 26.08.2007,
that
Mao Zedong was - "a traitor to the workers" and "a traitor to socialism".
Even
among bourgeois reactionaries, that's a pretty extreme standpoint, it must
be
said.
And there have been a lot of other points concerning the politics of today
(not
the old Stalin-Trotsky conflict in history, which is a complicated
business and
which you and I have agreed to defer debate on until later) - in one
posting
some months ago I counted to 15 such points (in a debate which I intend to
return to too) - on which you've stood up quite heatedly *against* that
which
is in the interests of the vast majority of people and *for* precisely
that
which US imperialism, above all, wants.
I should note there too, at the same time, that at least on one point of
present-day policies, I've been wrong and you've corrected me - a matter
of my
exaggerating, wrongly agreeing with an article at Rense.com, the
possibility
for the bourgeoisie in the USA to introduce openly fascist-type political
conditions there. (I then did expressly recognize, in a later "News with
brief
comments" item at my homepage, that you had been right against me on that
point.)
The quite sharp political disagreements between you and me, anyway, I
think
have made for some debates between us which, hopefully, others have found
interesting too. And (as I already wrote a little about above):
THE RELATION, POLITICALLY, BETWEEN YOU, ON THE ONE HAND, DAVID, AND ME, ON
THE
OTHER, MY EXTENDING A PARTICULAR INVITATION TO THE MM LIST TO YOU, AMONG
SOME
OTHERS, AND OUR UNITED-FRONT-TYPE CO-OPERATION ON CERTAIN MATTERS SO FAR,
WHICH
I HOPE WILL CONTINUE, I'M VIEWING AS ONE RATHER SIMILAR, ON PRINCIPLE, TO
THAT
BETWEEN THE THEN US PRESIDENT "TRICKY DICK" NIXON AND MAO ZEDONG IN (FOR
INSTANCE) 1972, WHEN "TRICKY" WAS INVITED TO VISIT MAO, AND IN THE
IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING YEARS TOO.
You precisely have written (and have repeated, heatedly, in a rather
recent
posting of yours, list message #1303, on 07.03) that this thing that Mao
Zedong
[did] was "very bad indeed", was a "*backstabbing*" action against the
international proletariat.
In reality, it was precisely the opposite, was precisely a part of an
action
for creating the broadest united-front possible against that very serious
danger, at that time, of a largescale aggression by Soviet
social-imperialism,
a danger threatening Western Europe, above all, and an action which was
very
perspicacious on the part of Mao Zedong and very much *favoured* the
people in
all countries. This and other really brilliant international moves by Mao
Zedong in those years, 1972-1976 (he passed away on 09.09.1976), as well
as the
continuing and widening of the Cultural Revolution in China itself, made
his
prestige among the people in the world, quite justifiedly, greater than
ever.
Well may you howl and scream, Trotskyite David, (in your #1303, for
instance)
that "the opposite was the case". The messages, published at the time in
Peking
Review, in late October / early November 1976, congratulating Hua Guofeng
(then
still pursuing Mao Zedong's political line) to his appointment as CPC
chairman
after Mao Zedong, messages that came from 54 organizations in 43 countries
in
the world and which expressed the massive sup****t, by those organizations
including the (then) quite im****tant and big communist parties in the
Philippines, Indonesia and Peru etc etc, give you the lie totally on this.
(See
"UNITE! Info #310en", at my homepage, index, 19.02.2008.)
Those many messages to China then corresponded also to what the m***** of
people in the world thought of Mao Zedong's political line, as carried out
in
practice precisely in the years 1972 - (early autumn) 1976. And this was
not
only what people here in Northern Europe thought, as that ****** posting
of
yours maintains too, but practically all over the globe. Precisely from
here in
Sweden, though, I happen to have a series of figures which can be said to
show
the views of those best-informed politically.
It's the development, over the years, of the number of members of the
(non-party-political) Swedish-Chinese Friend****p Association (abbreviated
"SKVF" in Swedish). That number during a long time, from 1962 to 1967,
stayed
constant at the rather low level of 500. (Sweden has/had some 9 million
inhabitants.) From 1968 on, after the Cultural Revolution ha been going on
a
couple of years, it started to move upwards, and did so steeper and
steeper for
each following year, until it reached 9,500 in 1976 (and the association's
leaders hoped it would move on to some 50,000). But from November 1976 on,
there was counter-revolution in China, and while the mass media here began
lauding China, as led by that traitor Deng Xiaoping, to the skies, the
m*****
of people in Sweden reacted very quickly, in the opposite direction, to
that
change, which they sensed. The SKVF member****p number abruptly ceased its
earlier steeper and steeper growth, remaining only constant in 1977, and
from
1978 on it started sinking like a stone again, by [1982] having gone down
to
4,000. Eventually, that whole association vanished.
You, David, wrote some more **** on these matters in your #1303, saying
also
that Mao Zedong "crossed a class line"[!!] when he opposed the
Hitler-fascism-similar international aggressive dealings of the
*social-imperialist* Soviet Union, which since long really *had* crossed
the
class line, over to the dictator****p of the bourgeoisie, by the actions of
Khrushchov and the other Soviet revisionists from the late 1950s / early
1960s
[on].
And you also, poor "Dino", tried to explain to us others "how, in the
mid-1970s", "more and more ordinary people" "were leaving the camp of Mao
Zedong" "entering" that which you Trotskyite only slightly camouflaged
bourgeois reactionaries (well, not so few among you were really only, I
think,
just very ignorant of the realities of Soviet social-imperialist internal
and
external policies) insisted on continuing to call "a worker's state",
pretending (or not knowing any better than) that it "had not" changed its
class
character totally, since the 1930s and 1940s.
Listening to those explanations of yours on that, and indirectly also on
those
"oh-so-progressive" "workers' states" in some (other) East European
countries
too, many among us others, I suppose, finally correctly have understood
how
very necessary, for the "traditional" capitalists, had been that
well-known
Berlin Wall, erected of course in order to prevent almost everybody in
Berlin(West), and in West Germany, from defecting and escaping
*eastwards*, to
those Paradises of "workers' states" there!
Jokes aside, though, almost everybody who got into some closer contact
with, or
otherwise got to learn a little more about, the social-imperialist Soviet
Union, just hated its guts.
Practically everybody, that is, except for some quite few people - here in
Europe, *very* few indeed, in the more distant North and South America,
say, a
few more, perhaps - above all people who were in, or who trusted the
statements
of, some *phony*"Marxist" organizations - Trotskyite and other
openly-revisionist ones such as the "CPUSA" perhaps in particular, but
also a
whole series of other pur****tedly "socialist" organizations.
What was it about that really fascist-type state, the Soviet Union in the
late
1960s and early 1970s, that attracted the leaders of "your" type of
organizations so very much, and that obviously attracted you personally so
very
much too, David, that still today, you cannot stop disseminating the most
schtoopid, childish lies about the "workers' state" of that time still
today?
I think it to a large degree was that "promise" precisely of *fascist*
suppression of the proletarian revolution which that state held out, to
those
phony"Marxist" leaders, whose main driving force - this it's im****tant to
understand - was always their utter *hatred* of that revolution. Plus the
fact
[that] the actually *bourgeois* character of that state was always
systematically denied and hidden too, by all the openly-bourgeois media.
Didn't
"everybody" "know" that "communism" - as those media always called any
state
that "defined itself" as "socialist" - that was what there was in the
Soviet
Union?
To some not all that bad-intentioned but very ignorant people, in North
and
South America, say, even the social-imperialist Soviet Union may have had
some
attraction, as being, some may have hoped, at least something of a
counterweight against that very big, strong and nasty reactionary power
whose
actions everybody there had experienced "close to home" - US imperialism.
Such
"counterweight" reasoning in certain cir***stances may even be justified.
But I'm guessing that your - pretty strong, I've noted - love for that
earlier
big bully in the world, Soviet social-imperialism, has the same background
as
your, likewise, quite particular one for the US imperialism of today -
perhaps
you haven't even consciously noted that yourself? - a big and strong bully
against the people in the world, one some of whose very obvious and
well-known
wrongdoings you're opposing too, David, but whose more hidden (and also
more
revealing) ditto, including such smaller-time such which it's inspiring -
the
tricks of the "cyber ghosting" Murr-Murr, say - you absolutely don't want
to be
dragged up into the daylight; no, such "****", you tried to make me listen
to
your "command" about:
"Cut!"; "Cut!"; "Now cut that out!". Which, you must have realized
yourself,
couldn't have had much chance of success, could it?
And then, in some later postings, (#1295, #1296 and #1303), you tried to
"run
way from it all" - your "little" oneliner in #1265 - "It was just a joke";
"I
never intended to help 'MF' at all"; "I don't know what was going on",
respectively, "You [Rolf], didn't get it, did you?", etc.
Those postings of yours were pretty funny and instructive too, and really
likewise worth some comments. But now even I - at long last - have gotten
as
fed up with this whole "cyber ghost" discussion, as are perhaps some
others,
already after reading this additional pretty long (sorry about that!)
piece of
mine on this theme.
So I'm ceasefiring, or fireceasing, here, certainly not accepting any
"truce"
but, on the contrary, declaring another small but total victory for the
"Monk
people" against that "cyber ghost community", its Murr-Murring handler and
against your attempt at "rescuing" him too, plus that "Big-Big Brother"
who
could be sensed in the background of your "cut-the-****!" one-lined but
volumes-speaking posting.
Rolf
PRE-DEBATE POSTING 1 OF 1
Message #1247
Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:21 pm
From: marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
Rolf
one quick question, in this world apart from yourself who else is a
*Marxist*?
From
Vijay
(pronounced *Revisionist* and not knowing *ML* by comrade Rolf!!!!)
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Vidrohi,
Please wait a little for a longer reply of mine to yours below, which I
intend
to write relatively soon. (I have some other things to do too which I find
im****tant.)
....
DEBATE POSTING 01 OF 17
Message #1250
Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 4:33 am
From: "foreanaer1995" <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
I have a quick reply to that question of yours too, old Murr-Murr
ghostwriter.
I never once, on this list, did call myself "a Marxist". Which you could
see
for yourself, if you were to look through all the postings here by me, so
far.
So that question of yours actually was pretty silly.
I want to add a few things here, Murr-Murr, concerning that "cyber ghost"
of
yours, "marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>", which you're making
"write"
now and which first appeared in early December last year:
When I replied to two questions by that "writer", with an item in my
series
"UNITE! (etc) Infos" on 08.12.2007, I still held it quite possible that
"he",
"she" or "it" was genuine and above-the-board - that is, an actually
Marxism-interested person or group actually writing from India.
That Info was, as you may recall, numbered #297en and entitled "On Tibet
and
the India-China border war in 1962". I did a little research before
writing it.
True enough, that "writer" had already demonstrated a level of ignorance
which
I found rather surprising, for such a person or group. But this could be
explained, I thought, by something like that which I wrote in that Info:
"It's unfortunate that you, living in India itself where both the question
of
Tibet and that of the border war in 1962 of course have a particular
im****tance, have been deceived by this propaganda. But I think your being
mistaken on these issues can be explained by the reactionary lying about
them
having been most massive and by a suppression of those facts which refute
it,
and certainly does not necessarily mean that you 'have become
chauvinist'."
Still in January of this year, when that "writer" - also "signing" some of
"his"/"her"/"its" postings "MF" - suggested that an Internet petition be
made
against the crackdown on democratic forces in Pakistan, and also signed
that
petition which I soon wrote (including my saying that it had been created
by
"MF and RM on Modern Marxism list"), I had no compelling reason to think
that
"he"/"she"/"it" was just another of those hundreds of "cyber ghosts"
created,
since (at least) 1996, by a certain reactionary retired schoolteacher and
(as a
such, not yet retired) prankster in the USA by the name of Thomas P.
Murray -
that is, you, Murr-Murr-Ghosty.
I treated this matter then proceeding from the (still not all that
unlikely)
assumption that this "MF", of that big country, India, was quite genuine
and
above-the-board.
It was some stuff which you made "MF", or "Vijay" - that name which your
"MF"
"confessed to having", only rather late in the day - write more recently,
that
is, last February, that clinched the matter for me:
From then on, I was certain: "He"/she"/"it" really is just another one of
your
"cyber ghost" creations, Murr-Murr-Ghosty.
A pity of course, now that I recently have "made" that likewise really
"rather
nice" cyber ghost chick "Norma J" of yours too - and yes, I do appreciate
the
little joke of making appear (as "she" did for a while in August 2007) on
a
list abbreviated "MM", which might be short for "Marilyn Monroe" too, of
course, precisely somebody so much reminding people of good old Marilyn's
real
name, Norma Jane [Note, 14.03.2008: I corrected that to "Norma Jean" in a
brief
posting soon after the one reproduced here. - RM] Baker - a pity, I
repeat,
that out of the (only) 9 signatories to that petition, as many as 2, or
all of
22%, were really only "cyber ghosts" created by you.
But this doesn't really matter much. Despite everything, that petition was
a
quite good and by no means completely unim****tant thing anyway.
In setting it up "at the initiative of somebody else", I was able to
utilize
that idea of yours, Murr-Murr-Ghosty - which you no doubt put forward as
part
of your intended cover for that "Frontie" - for a not so bad purpose.
And your silly question now clinches even more the matter of whether that
"Injun" (those "Injuns") was/were really (an) (East) Indian "Injun(s)" or
not,
instead of perhaps one (or several) North Amurrican ditto, and whether, if
the
latter, "he"/"she"/"it" had some real wigwam(s) somewhere else than under
the
keyboard of a certain reactionary retired teacher and (not yet retired)
prankster by the name of Murray, you see, Murr-Murr-Ghosty.
Now have I elaborated on this too much, do other readers think? I hope I
haven't bored too many with it. In the present situation - returning a
little
to your question here, Murr-Murr - when actual Marx adherents who can be
contacted still seem to be rather few, one lone prankster like yourself
can in
fact make his "voice" (or rather, "voices") heard a little too, and it is
of
some interest to ascertain what writers (or " ") who appear on various
mailing
lists and/or newsgroups are just "cyber ghosts" instead of something else.
In all cases anyway, this will become clear after a while, even if it may
sometimes take some months. And no serious political problems can be
created by
such persons plus "ghosts" as you and your little circus,
Murr-Murr-Ghosty.
Rolf
--- In modern_marxism@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
marxist front
<marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
DEBATE POSTING 02 OF 17
Message #1254
Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:15 am
From: marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
Okie com Rolf
So now we are also a ghost of that Murr or whatever you call it .....I
need not
give you testimonies of my and my group's existence in India and outside
cyber
world, in fact sometimes I think that you are a CIA agent out there to
destroy
communist unity by dividing groups and person by name calling.
how you get this information of Murr's creation is something inruging may
be
you have a database that gets updated every nano second by latest creation
of
Murr how much money have you been paid by the imperialistic agencies to
desrupt
the Communist groups in the cyberworld, hope you do not do it in your area
if
those people allow you to e in their group
You said we appeared last year in December didn't your boss in CIA and its
lackey org give a real data on us????????
In fact you remind me of a news item last year where I guess the entire a
CP
was formed by the Dutch (I guess) intelligence agency they also called
them
self follower of Mao....are you one of them Rolf?
COMRADES BEWARE OF THIS CIA AGENT ROLF
Vijay
(A revisionist, Murry's creation)
MF
foreanaer1995 <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
DEBATE POSTING 03 OF 17
Message #1257
Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 2:11 pm
From: "foreanaer1995" <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
Nice try, Murr-Murr-Ghostie!
Rolf
--- In modern_marxism@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
....
DEBATE POSTING 04 OF 17
Message #1258
Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 3:15 pm
From: marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
Sure CIA agent Rolf (aka imperilaist lackey.....)
foreanaer1995 <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
DEBATE POSTING 05 OF 17
Message #1259
Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 4:18 pm
From: "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
So who do you think wins, huh, Ghostie?
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: marxist front
To: modern_marxism@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [modern_marxism] Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
....
DEBATE POSTING 06 OF 17
Message #1261
Date: Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:26 pm
From: marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
Its for you to decide CIA lackey ,,,,,,, not us a genuine ML group
in the end it is Marxist Leninist who would win and all CIA agents and
their
boot lickers posing as friends of proletariats would loose
Understood dear Rolf the imperialist agent
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
DEBATE POSTING 07 OF 17
Message #1265
Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:22 am
From: "David Walters" <dave.walters@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
I call a truce between both you mutton-chops. Cut the **** and stick to
politics!
David
--- In modern_marxism@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> Its for you to decide CIA lackey ,,,,,,, not us a genuine ML group
....
DEBATE POSTING 08 OF 17
Message #1267
Date: Mon Mar 3, 2008 5:00 pm
From: marxist front <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: FRSO: Some Points on the Mass Line
Ok a truce
But it should be from both side....it is not acceptable for us for someone
first calling us "Revisionist" then questioning our existence......If
someone
does it he is a lackey of imperialism
As we say in this part Lal Salam ( Red Salute) to all comrades and
Samrajaywad
ke chamcho Murdabad(down with agents/lackeys of Imperialism)
David Walters <dave.walters@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
DEBATE POSTING 09 OF 17
Message #1271
Date: Tue Mar 4, 2008 11:48 am
From: "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Mazdoor Mahaz [plus some stuff on "marxist front" "in India"
etc]
[Note, 14.03.2008: This posting of mine was a reply to Taimur Rahman
<redpak2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, of Pakistan, who usually writes to the cmkp_pk
mailing
list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/.
He recently had sent a
private
reply to me, to a question which I had put at that mailing list. I sent a
reply
to this again privately to him, Cc-ing that reply to the MM list, as the
debate posting reproduced here. - RM]
Thank you for this information (below), Taimur, about an organization
which was
earlier unknown to me.
With people like that, I, for instance, might well enter into some
united-front
alliance or other. I'm finding no objection to this on principle. But at
the
same time, I shall criticize their Hoxhaist line.
Speaking about organizations and about "lighter notes", you may be
interested
in learning the following (I hope you won't mind it's quite long but will
find
at least some parts of it to be useful):
In early December last year, there appeared "a new writer" on that mailing
list
MLL which you know about, and also on the MM list managed by me (and to
which
I'm also sending this reply by me now, including the quote from you), a
"writer" by the name of "marxist front" (sometimes undersigning postings
as
"MF"), and with the address <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>.
Thus it seemed to be a Marxism-interested person or group in India. And I
thought of course, that if this was actually a such, who/which was
interested
in some international discussions too, that was really a good thing.
Now that "writer" did, from the very beginning on, seem surprisingly
ignorant
for such a person or such a group in India. He, or it, maintained that
China
"had conquered and occupied Tibet" and "had attacked India", both of which
things, he or it maintained, had "created problems for the M-L movement in
southeast Asia in particular".
I took the op****tunity then to do some research on the brief 1962
India-China
border war, about which I was already rather certain that it was an unjust
war
on the part of India, the actual aggressor in that case, and a just one, a
counterattack in self-defence, on the part of the then still socialist
China,
and also a little on Tibet, which I since long knew was actually a part of
China since centuries back and which was liberated, certainly not
"occupied",
in 1950-1951.
The results of this I presented, as replies to "MF", in my "UNITE! Info
#297en:
On Tibet and the India-China border war in 1962", on 08.12.2007, at:
http://www.rolf-martens.com/UNITE%21%20Infos/webstyle1/unite_info_297en.html
Replying again to this, "MF" stuck to "his"/"its" stupidities on these
matters,
and among other things, ridiculously, complained about China's "having
allied
itself to" such an Islamic country as yours, Pakistan - no doubt referring
to
the fact that Pakistan (then still not having Sharia laws, I read too, as
it
got to have under Zia ul-Haq in the 1970s) had solved its border problem
with
China in a sensible way, by negotiations, in 1963.
This made me already suspect rather strongly that this "marxist front" was
not
really a Marxism-interested person or group in India, because those
standpoints
were quite unlikely to be taken up by even a relatively very ignorant such
person or group in that country.
It so happens that I have a rather long experience as a political
activist,
going back to the mid-1970s approximately, when I also got into contact
with an
actually genuine and very advanced M-L party in Germany, some
representatives
of which happened to stay here in Malmö, Sweden, for a while, because of
persecution in the then West Germany and Berlin(West), and learned quite a
lot
from that party up until 1990, when I had to criticize it as then totally
bourgeois-degenerated and to break with it. I also have a not so short
experience as an Internet writer and debater (on various mailing lists,
for
instance), since late 1995.
Among other things I got to learn, as one part of that experience, about
the
existence of what I'm calling "cyber ghosts". These are "writers" with
certain
e-mail addresses and certain "political standpoints" - sometimes with
certain
(pur****ted) "life stories" (and in one case I've encountered even with a
photo
too - that of a mischievous-looking "young Vietnamese woman" by the name
of "Ms
Lee Trahn" - the "h" very strangely-placed before the "n" here, as in some
German names, but never in Vietnamese ones), only, these "writers" don't
correspond to any real persons, or organizations. One actual person, for
instance, can create as many different such "cyber ghosts" as he/she wants
to,
simply by acquiring several different e-mail addresses and then using his
or
her fantasy.
This is another phenomenon - please note - than that of certain persons
going
under an alias or other when writing on the Internet, something which of
course
may be quite justified and may not be intended basically to fool other -
ordinary - people at all, but only to offer some protection for the person
in
question from certain reactionaries.This of course is like V. I. Uljanov
calling himself "Lenin", and more recently, the chairman of that party in
Germany which I mentioned, Hartmut Dicke, during a certain period calling
himself "Klaus Sender" - the name under which I. for instance, used to
know
him.
One instance of such "cyber ghost" creation, which I got to know about
from
1996 on, was that of a certain reactionary retired teacher in the USA by
the
name of Thomas P. Murray. He was severely criticized by some other writers
then
for his constantly trying to impersonate other people and in that way to
create
trouble for them, and for his constantly appearing under new e-mail
addresses -
already dozens of them at that time - falsely pretending that behind each
of
those new addresses there was another actual person - sometimes a female
one
too, and sometimes an entire group or organization. I thus became familiar
with
that phenomenon of "´cyber ghosts" in general and also with there
emanating a
whole fleet, or circus, of such from the keyboard of that particularly
persistent prankster, the reactionary Mr. Thomas P. Murray, the USA.
Now later, in the year 2000, I was debating some things on a certain
mailing
list - which happened to be precisely one controlled by a Hoxhaist above
all,
by the name of Hari Kumar. Another phony"Marxist" (op****tunist) was also
writing to it, a Per Rasmussen, of Denmark. In a most intensive debate on
that
list then, there were no less than 8 [Note, 14.03.2008: Actually, a little
less: 6. - RM] "different persons", with otherwise "quite different"
political
standpoints, who all teamed up, in just hating, and very violently
opposing,
that political line which I was advocating. I soon got to understand then
-
which, at the time, however, neither Hari K. nor Per R. could be made to
understand, when I presented the (in my opinion) rather compelling
arguments
for it - that all of those "persons" in reality were "cyber ghosts"
created
precisely by that same person in the USA, Murray.
I soon wrote a rather long Info about that - also quite funny -
experience: My
"UNITE! Info #131: The merry Murray 'M-L' melee", in 8 parts, of
21.10.2000,
now at
http://www.rolf-martens.com/UNITE%21%20Infos/U%21%20%23131en/U%21%20%23131en%20
1-8.txt etc.
One "cyber ghost" of Murray's who made "his" (I think) very first
appearance
then, in the course of that intensive debate in the year 2000, was a
pur****ted
"former military man" by the name of "Mark Scott", address
<mn1scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>. "Him" you of course know about rather well too,
don't
you, Taimur?
Because not only did this Murray reactionary s*** express his particular
hatred
of me quite particularly violently and swinishly through the "writings" of
that
particular cyber ghost of his, "the ex-military-man" "Mark Scott", ever
since
we encountered each other on a mailing list again, which was on the list
MLL
from autumn 2007 on, but he also got to hate you, Taimur, rather
intensively
too, from late December 2007 on, since you consistently maintained that
the
assassination of Benazir Bhutto on 27.12.2007 had been a reactionary crime
and
nothing something quite different, as Thomas P. Murray was stupid enough
to let
his puppet "Mark Scott" maintain quite openly.
At that point in time, late December 2007 - early January 2008, when you -
very
nicely, I hold - refuted the utterly reactionary standpoint of "Mark
Scott" on
this assassination, you got a dose, from "him", of that stuff too, about
which
Mao Zedong used to say "to be attacked by the enemy is a good thing".
You rightly suspected then that "Mark Scott" was not the writer's real
name.
But it seems you didn't realize - as I did, having some particular
experience
with this phenomenon - that it was this reactionary person, Murray, who
was
"ghostwriting" the postings of "Mark Scott". In this case, it didn't
really
matter much whether there behind the name "Mark Scott" was a real person
or
not.
However, another interesting thing at the same time was the postings to
MLL of
"another writer" "by the name of" "frankenstein580" or "f580", and address
<frankied002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>. "He" was very much and very curiously sup****tive
precisely of this "Mark Scott". I had already realized, since some time
back,
that "he" too was a member of that "merry Murray" cyber ghost family -
even
before "frankenstein580" had "told" us others at MLL "all the details" of
"his" - oh, so tragic! - "life" (something which "Mark Scott" did too,
just in
order to "convince everybody", of course, that "he" "really did exist").
Now do you get the picture, on principle, here?
|
