Michael,
You are flat-out wrong. The ICL's arguments against Bill Logan DO NOT hinge "on Bill Logan being a 'psychopath'," they hinge on the fact that he is a sociopath and his actual crimes; very horrendous crimes, some that I have already listed and which you can find out about by reading the Logan Dossier or three Logan Bulletins, and for which there is very extensive evidence (in the bulletins/Dossier). It is a result of these crimes that the ICL calls Bill Logan a "sociopath" (not a "psycopath", Michael). Frankly Michael, unless you consider yourself to be mentally insane there's no reason for you to be offended by that term being used to describe Logan. There is a difference between having a mental illness and being mentally insane; unfortunately those who are mentally insane can sometimes commit very real crimes, just as Logan did.
You completely cover up for Bill Logan by not addressing his crimes. Do you believe that it was right for him to try and force a woman to have an abortion? Do you believe he did a good deed in driving the woman to the verge of suicide by pressuring her to give her baby up for adoption? What about the couples he separated? What's your position on that? You do not address any of these things; you hide behind the cover of Dr. Robert Hare's definition of a psycopath (when in any case Bill Logan was referred to as a "sociopath"). And by the way, the few times that there were visitors to the Australian section under Logan's regime Logan isolated the visitors from the Australian/New Zealand membership as much as possible, so that visitors could not see what was happening, what he was doing, and the members wouldn't talk to them about it.
By the way, the BT's claim to be for the right of Quebec to self-determination is just a cover for their Anglo-Chauvinism. When the question was concretely posed in the referendum, they issued an English-only leaflet calling for a "no" vote. They are only for Quebec's right to self-determination if it means that Quebec choses to remain an oppressed nation under Anglo-Canadian rule. They actively oppose Quebec independence; it's not a coincidence that they were invited to a massive Anglo-Chauvinist Canadian unity rally. And Michael, I will say again that you have no right to call yourself a Marxist, revolutionary or supporter of the oppressed if you, as a person in English Canada, do not support Quebec independence. What's your position on the issue? Are you for or against Quebec independence? Which side of the class line are you on? I mentioned the British section of the BT's refusal to call for British troops out of Northern Ireland. You have not responded to this. Which side of the barricades are you on with this question? Your silence on this question speaks volumes on the BT's/your chauvinism and disregard for special oppression.
You support a group that sat back and relaxed while counterrevolution devastated East Germany and the Soviet Union. And this group has the chutzpah to call itself "Bolshevik"? The ICL fought tooth and nail for proletarian political revolution in East Germany and the Soviet Union.
By the way, one of the main reasons that the BT is outside of the worker's movement is that it is led by the monster Bill Logan (who none of the delegates at his trial defended him, including the future members of the BT - and that should say something to you). As far as hysterical denunciations go, you are the one who told me "F$*k you and the horses you came riding in on." Over the past few months, you have slandered the ICL as being "deeply insinuated in ablest bigotry" and have alleged that Jim Robertson knew of one of Bill Logans crimes, and did nothing (i.e. that he is passive towards such reactionary crimes). This is false, and echoes the BT's slanders that the Logan regime was the norm in the iSt. You and the BT do this because you dodge the main question: why is this monster leading your organization? You sent me an email with the subject heading screaming, "Tracy Latimer's blood is on your hands!" How do sleep at night? How do you have the audacity to end your letters with "sincerely" and "comradely"?
You're wrong about a number of other things. You're wrong when you say Tracy Latimer's pain was intermittent - I'd like to see your sources for that. Everything I have read on the subject suggests that she was a quadriplegic in tremendous, constant pain.
You're wrong when you say the ICL "won't recruit people with disabilities or mental illnesses." In fact, there are members who were recruited with disabilities and mental illnesses. And I'd like to ask you, what has the BT written about the disabled? I'd challenge you to find me one article; if I looked I'm sure I could find multiple articles written by the ICL.
You're also wrong when you say the ICL is "hostile towards there [sic] readers and supporters reading anything published by the BT." To prove the absurdity of that accusation, the ICL published a series of public bulletins entitled "Hate Trotskyism, Hate the Spartacist League" which included material written by the BT and IG.
And look at both sides? What does the BT have to say about what Bill Logan did? They dodge it as much as possible but they know it's true and damning given that Logan is a member of their organization and committed the crimes he did. You parade about, bragging that you're so well-informed and independent-minded (i.e. more intelligent)--as opposed to the people in the ICL who you slander as cult-members. What a joke! Your arguments are but BT arguments recycled (with a few dropped words here and there). You basically admit that Bill Logan committed crimes. Why do you support an organization of which he is leader, Michael?
Another thing: you claim that you "haven't nor will I never complain about the ICL to the following", and you include a list that includes cops, the bourgeois press, and various others. Yet you run a Spartacist Watch website from which any of those people/organizations could take your material/slanders and use it for their own vile purposes. And let me remind you that the Wall Street Journal picked up on the BT's slanders of the ICL (as defenders of Mumia Abu Jamal) as a "cult" in 1995 when whether or not Mumia would be executed was very much an undecided question.
You, Michael, and the BT, deliberately dodge Logan's crimes and my arguments because you are both politically bankrupt to the bloody core. Faced with overwhelming evidence that would put most people to shame, you and your organization resort to making hysterical anti-communist slanders and unabashed lies. The most baseless one of which is that, "I think the ICL was a cult and this type of abusive practice was common throughout the organization I think the people at the top of the organization, including James Robertson are to blame for these things as well as Bill Logan when he was in the group." This is utterly baseless; it never was the case and the BT knows it. The notion that Bill Logan's functioning was the norm in the iSt is false to the core. If it were true, why was Logan given a trial and expelled?
Andrew
P.S. Fuck you too Michael, and your BT cronies
No comments:
Post a Comment