I want to write that I think one has to be deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry to claim that it is "undeniable" that Tracy Latimer "suffered horribly because of her horrible condition" or that it is "undeniable" that Tracy was in "constant pain". The notion that the disabled are in "constant pain", that they "suffer horribly" or that their life is a "hopeless tragedy" is the typical demagoguery of ablest bigots. In fact there Nazi executioners, ones who killed the disabled, (of course there were plenty of other groups who were targeted by the Nazis), who said that they killed the disabled "only to relieve them of unnecessary suffering". Robert Latimer defends his actions on the same grounds.
Also, the arguments people in the ICL who support Robert Latimer, Robert Latimer's more mainstream supporters and the arguments by outright fascists in support of Robert Latimer are all, I think, virtually identical (except perhaps that crap spewed by fascists about Jews controlling the government). I would also like to state again that Robert Latimer has sat back and allowed outright fascists to make his case. The fact that Robert Latimer has never disavowed the outright fascists who support him, I think is a pretty damning indictment of his own political leanings. If Robert Latimer truly was about relieving Tracy of pain and not about killing the disabled he should have stated categorically that the fascists don't represent his views. Robert Latimer to this day has not said a word against the fascists who support him. Also, Robert Latimer's behavior to the Fascists is in complete contrast to his attitude to those who stand in his way. He has referred to disability rights activists as being "abusive", he describes those who criticize him as "slanderers", who said before his first trial that "anyone who supports the charges against him is a torture-monger". Yet he and robertlatimer.net have nothing negative to say about the Fascists who support him.
Andrew said that by "all" accounts Tracy was said to be in "constant pain". All the disability rights groups I have come across refute this claim. So basically a disabled person is murdered. Andrew has the nerve to sit on his high perch and judge me on this issue but hasn't even bothered to read the perspectives of those in the disabled community. He says he doesn't know enough about the issue (boy I'll say) but that he knows enough to "know" that I am "wrong" to call Latimer's acts lynchings. Well he was only right about the first part. Frankly, the fact that he thinks Latimer was acting out of "compassion", is a testament to his own ignorance about the issue. I think if he had said that he did not know enough about the issue and left it at that he would be more accurate. I think the fact that Andrew thinks I am wrong for calling Latimer's acts an act of terror and think makes it clear how ill-informed his is. He hasn't even bothered to hear the perspectives of the disabled. It would be like in the Jim Crow South if one only heard the perspectives of whites (most of whom were racist) on the lynching of Emmett Till and based on that came to the conclusion that they "knew" that it was wrong to condemn the KKKs acts as acts of terror. I think if Andrew admitted he was ill-informed about the issue and didn't disgustingly defend Latimer he could have saved his integrity. It no crime to plead ignorance. However, Andrew has clearly chosen to destroy his integrity and credibility beyond repair.
Also, I am really at a loss at Andrew's allegations that I am "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend the rights of the disabled. Perhaps in the tightly controlled world of Jimstown, where black is white and white is black, where war is peace, where freedom is slavery, where ignorance is strength such slanders make sense. However, I think the real world is quite different.
I think it would be too simplistic to describe Andrew and simply evil. Honestly, I think he as much the victim of his cult and its peerless leader as he is an aggressor towards me.
Comradely,
M.G.
P.S. Andrew is referred to Andrew M. is different from the Andrew referred to in On Comrade Andrew's Shameful Conduct. They are, however, both in the same cult.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The ICL's Bombasity and the Rights of the Disabled
Andrew M. made a remark that was quite peculiar in his second email to me. He said that every source he read said that Tracy Latimer was in "a great deal of constant pain". I gather he hasn't read a thing from really anyone in the disabled community or by a single disability rights group. Yet the ICL, the hive mind that Andrew is a drone for, has the nerve to prance around and act like they are experts on the issue. To my knowledge, they have yet to read a single article dedicated to the rights of the disabled. I checked their search engine I found only a handful of sentences mentioning "disabled" or "disability".
There are some other points I would like to make. Andrew M. denounced me for "being silent" on the British troops in Northern Ireland. The reason I took a while to respond is that I was researching the Bolshevik Tendency (BT)'s stance on the issue. I am not a member of the BT and don't speak for them, nor do I represent their views. Personally I am for British Troops out of Northern Ireland and apparently the BT is too.
If silence is "proof" of guilt, which Andrew M. claims than lets look at what he has been silent on. Well for one he has been silent on my remarks that Robert Latimer has never disavowed the outright fascists that support him. This I think is quite telling of Robert Latimer. I don't think Latimer is a fascists but his silence and willingness to sit back and let them defend him I think is a very damning indictment of Robert Latimer's own political leanings. Also, I pointed out that whether or not Latimer intended it, his murdering (lynching as I call it) of his daughter Tracy along with the mass Pro-Robert Latimer hysteria whipped up by the Bourgeois Press has had the affect of terrorizing the disabled, inspiring further violence against disabled and encouraging the fascists to crawl out of their holes. Andrew has remained silent on this points but still defends Robert Latimer's actions.
Also, Andrew has remained silent on my mentioning of a letter sent by Bill Logan to Jim Robertson three years before the show trial telling Robertson exactly what Bill Logan was doing. Robertson three years after the letter claims that he knew nothing about the situation three years later.
Also I don't think Andrew adequately addresses one of my other points. I pointed out that several top cadre from the main section (the US section) of the ICL, including Jim Robertson spent considerable time under the Logan regime but saw nothing amiss. Andrew claims that Logan kept Robertson and others from talking to people from talking to people in the Logan regime and that people in the section didn't say anything. Frankly, I don't think this carries a lot of weight. If people from the main section including Robertson had visited the Logan regime briefly, then maybe this argument would have held weight. However, Robertson and other spent considerable time in the Logan regime. I think if it were qualitatively different than the rest of the ICL then these prominent cadre would have blown the whistle.
Some other points, apparently David S., the father of Vicky's child (Vicky was the women pressure to abort her kid), was a drinking buddy of Jim Robertson. When Vicky was being forced to have an abortion David was there. He when this was taking place David was sent to the US section. So I think it is safe to say the information about Vicky being forced to have an abortion would have reach Robertson (if he didn't already know). Also Jim Robertson has been known to tell people the ICL that they ought to have their tubes tied. Around the time Vicky was being forced to have an abortion, James Robertson was prancing around shouting "goddamn babies" and I believe he was doing this when he was around Vicky. Also although it is not official policy, people in the ICL are "encouraged" no to have kids.
Comradely,
M.G.
There are some other points I would like to make. Andrew M. denounced me for "being silent" on the British troops in Northern Ireland. The reason I took a while to respond is that I was researching the Bolshevik Tendency (BT)'s stance on the issue. I am not a member of the BT and don't speak for them, nor do I represent their views. Personally I am for British Troops out of Northern Ireland and apparently the BT is too.
If silence is "proof" of guilt, which Andrew M. claims than lets look at what he has been silent on. Well for one he has been silent on my remarks that Robert Latimer has never disavowed the outright fascists that support him. This I think is quite telling of Robert Latimer. I don't think Latimer is a fascists but his silence and willingness to sit back and let them defend him I think is a very damning indictment of Robert Latimer's own political leanings. Also, I pointed out that whether or not Latimer intended it, his murdering (lynching as I call it) of his daughter Tracy along with the mass Pro-Robert Latimer hysteria whipped up by the Bourgeois Press has had the affect of terrorizing the disabled, inspiring further violence against disabled and encouraging the fascists to crawl out of their holes. Andrew has remained silent on this points but still defends Robert Latimer's actions.
Also, Andrew has remained silent on my mentioning of a letter sent by Bill Logan to Jim Robertson three years before the show trial telling Robertson exactly what Bill Logan was doing. Robertson three years after the letter claims that he knew nothing about the situation three years later.
Also I don't think Andrew adequately addresses one of my other points. I pointed out that several top cadre from the main section (the US section) of the ICL, including Jim Robertson spent considerable time under the Logan regime but saw nothing amiss. Andrew claims that Logan kept Robertson and others from talking to people from talking to people in the Logan regime and that people in the section didn't say anything. Frankly, I don't think this carries a lot of weight. If people from the main section including Robertson had visited the Logan regime briefly, then maybe this argument would have held weight. However, Robertson and other spent considerable time in the Logan regime. I think if it were qualitatively different than the rest of the ICL then these prominent cadre would have blown the whistle.
Some other points, apparently David S., the father of Vicky's child (Vicky was the women pressure to abort her kid), was a drinking buddy of Jim Robertson. When Vicky was being forced to have an abortion David was there. He when this was taking place David was sent to the US section. So I think it is safe to say the information about Vicky being forced to have an abortion would have reach Robertson (if he didn't already know). Also Jim Robertson has been known to tell people the ICL that they ought to have their tubes tied. Around the time Vicky was being forced to have an abortion, James Robertson was prancing around shouting "goddamn babies" and I believe he was doing this when he was around Vicky. Also although it is not official policy, people in the ICL are "encouraged" no to have kids.
Comradely,
M.G.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
On Bill Logan's "Sociopathy"
As I have stated before there is a psychopath checklist it is the following:
1) Glib and Superficial
2) Egocentric and Grandiose
3) Lack of Empathy
4) Deceitful and Manipulative
5) Shallow Emotions
6) Impulsive
7) Poor Behaviour Controls
8) Need for Excitement
9) Lack of Responsibility
10) Early Behaviour Problems
11) Adult Anti-Social Behaviour
12) Lack of Remorse or Guilt
This check-list was devised by Dr. Robert Hare a leading world authority on psychopaths he also points out that psychopaths have NONE of the hallmarks of mental illness.
Jim Robertson, head of the International Communist League (ICL), calls Bill Logan a sociopath (psychopath and sociopath are synonymous). He describes a sociopath as someone who is "mentally insane who act it out in social configurations". Andrew M. tries to defend Jim Robertsons definition of psychopath which flies in the face of the findings respected authorities on psychopathy. And continually asks me why Bill Logan is the head of the International Bolshevik Tendency. What he seems to be asking is why a "proven sociopath" is the head of the International Bolshevik Tendency. However, the ICL who continually calls Bill Logan a psychopath can't even define the term properly. So I think it is reasonable to say that the burden of proof still rests firmly on the ICL on whether Bill Logan is a psychopath. Perhaps if the ICL wants to make that case that Bill Logan is a psychopath they should first declare Jim Robertson's definition of psychopath in the Logan Dossier to be erroneous then go through the psychopath check-list and see if Bill Logan actually exhibits any of the characteristics of psychopathy. As for Andrew's allegation that I "hide behind Robert Hare's definition of psychopath I am at a loss at what this statement actually means Since Robert Hare's book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths amoung Us , which claims that psychopaths have none of the hallmarks of mental illness is based on, if I am not mistaken, over twenty years of extensive of research on the subject.
The ICL claims in the Logan Dossier that Bill Logan experienced delusions. Delusions is associated with psychosis. Delusions and and psychosis are hallmarks of mental illness. So again this would run completely contrary to how leading world authorities on psychopathy define the term. As someone with several mental illnesses including psychosis, not to mention more than a few family members and friends with mental illness, I find Jim Robertson's remarks personally demeaning.
In a genuine Leninist vanguard if Jim Robertson made the remarks he did, other people in the group, I believe would probably say something like "comrade apologize". However, with the ICL being an obedience cult with Jim Robertson as the peerless leader, any remark by Mr. Robertson however vile, fowl, bigoted, ill informed, stupid etc. is made into a test of faith in the peerless leader. Andrew M. tries to defend Robertson's remarks by saying that mentally insane and mentally ill are two different things and the I only would be offended by Jim Robertson's remarks if I thought that I myself was mentally insane. Mentally insane and mentally ill ARE in a way two different things one is politically incorrect. Mentally insane and mentally ill and different in the same way that "Nig**r" and black are two different terms. Frankly, I think Jim Robertson's conflating of psychopathy and mental illness has really become a set of emperor's clothes.
Also, from what I understand, Bill Logan and Adaire Hannah have recognized and repudiated their actions in the Australia/New Zealand section of the International Spartacist Tendecy (IST), the predecessor of the ICL, over 30 years ago and have since then built an organization that doesn't tolerate the same time of behaviour.
Comradely,
M.G.
1) Glib and Superficial
2) Egocentric and Grandiose
3) Lack of Empathy
4) Deceitful and Manipulative
5) Shallow Emotions
6) Impulsive
7) Poor Behaviour Controls
8) Need for Excitement
9) Lack of Responsibility
10) Early Behaviour Problems
11) Adult Anti-Social Behaviour
12) Lack of Remorse or Guilt
This check-list was devised by Dr. Robert Hare a leading world authority on psychopaths he also points out that psychopaths have NONE of the hallmarks of mental illness.
Jim Robertson, head of the International Communist League (ICL), calls Bill Logan a sociopath (psychopath and sociopath are synonymous). He describes a sociopath as someone who is "mentally insane who act it out in social configurations". Andrew M. tries to defend Jim Robertsons definition of psychopath which flies in the face of the findings respected authorities on psychopathy. And continually asks me why Bill Logan is the head of the International Bolshevik Tendency. What he seems to be asking is why a "proven sociopath" is the head of the International Bolshevik Tendency. However, the ICL who continually calls Bill Logan a psychopath can't even define the term properly. So I think it is reasonable to say that the burden of proof still rests firmly on the ICL on whether Bill Logan is a psychopath. Perhaps if the ICL wants to make that case that Bill Logan is a psychopath they should first declare Jim Robertson's definition of psychopath in the Logan Dossier to be erroneous then go through the psychopath check-list and see if Bill Logan actually exhibits any of the characteristics of psychopathy. As for Andrew's allegation that I "hide behind Robert Hare's definition of psychopath I am at a loss at what this statement actually means Since Robert Hare's book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths amoung Us , which claims that psychopaths have none of the hallmarks of mental illness is based on, if I am not mistaken, over twenty years of extensive of research on the subject.
The ICL claims in the Logan Dossier that Bill Logan experienced delusions. Delusions is associated with psychosis. Delusions and and psychosis are hallmarks of mental illness. So again this would run completely contrary to how leading world authorities on psychopathy define the term. As someone with several mental illnesses including psychosis, not to mention more than a few family members and friends with mental illness, I find Jim Robertson's remarks personally demeaning.
In a genuine Leninist vanguard if Jim Robertson made the remarks he did, other people in the group, I believe would probably say something like "comrade apologize". However, with the ICL being an obedience cult with Jim Robertson as the peerless leader, any remark by Mr. Robertson however vile, fowl, bigoted, ill informed, stupid etc. is made into a test of faith in the peerless leader. Andrew M. tries to defend Robertson's remarks by saying that mentally insane and mentally ill are two different things and the I only would be offended by Jim Robertson's remarks if I thought that I myself was mentally insane. Mentally insane and mentally ill ARE in a way two different things one is politically incorrect. Mentally insane and mentally ill and different in the same way that "Nig**r" and black are two different terms. Frankly, I think Jim Robertson's conflating of psychopathy and mental illness has really become a set of emperor's clothes.
Also, from what I understand, Bill Logan and Adaire Hannah have recognized and repudiated their actions in the Australia/New Zealand section of the International Spartacist Tendecy (IST), the predecessor of the ICL, over 30 years ago and have since then built an organization that doesn't tolerate the same time of behaviour.
Comradely,
M.G.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Links Arguing that Tracy Latimer wasn't in Constant Pain (Part 1)
Andrew M., sneered at the notion that Tracy Latimer's pain was intermittent. He said he would like to see my sources. He claimed that all of the sources that he read say Tracy Latimer was in "constant pain". Well I have decided to show my sources.
http://www.kacl.ca/Tracylatimer.htm Tracy Latimer Resource Page
http://www.normemma.com/artaleof.htm Susan Smith and Robert Latimer: A Tale of Two Murders
http://www.normemma.com/ Broadreach Training and Research
http://www.normemma.com/indxadvo.htm Professional Development of Human Servicess
http://ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/deathmaking/latimer/archives Latimer Archives|Council of Canadians with Disabilities
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/308119 Latimer Ruling 'Slippery Slope', Disabled Say|Toronto Star
http://www.planinstitute.ca/?q=node%2F181 My Wish for Tracy Latimer|Plan Institute
http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/ideas/story.html?id=94cc7258-aa05-462c-930b-9e25b68c8454 Tracy Latimer's Legacy|Edmonton Journal
http://dawn.thot.net/Tracy_Latimer.html Tracy Latimer|DisAbled Women's Network
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/309347
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/drn/latimer0402.html
I intended to add more later too.
Comradely,
M.G.
http://www.kacl.ca/Tracylatimer.htm Tracy Latimer Resource Page
http://www.normemma.com/artaleof.htm Susan Smith and Robert Latimer: A Tale of Two Murders
http://www.normemma.com/ Broadreach Training and Research
http://www.normemma.com/indxadvo.htm Professional Development of Human Servicess
http://ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/deathmaking/latimer/archives Latimer Archives|Council of Canadians with Disabilities
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/308119 Latimer Ruling 'Slippery Slope', Disabled Say|Toronto Star
http://www.planinstitute.ca/?q=node%2F181 My Wish for Tracy Latimer|Plan Institute
http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/ideas/story.html?id=94cc7258-aa05-462c-930b-9e25b68c8454 Tracy Latimer's Legacy|Edmonton Journal
http://dawn.thot.net/Tracy_Latimer.html Tracy Latimer|DisAbled Women's Network
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/309347
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/drn/latimer0402.html
I intended to add more later too.
Comradely,
M.G.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Some More Thoughts Concerning Andrew M.'s Comments
In the two emails Andrew M. has sent me, which I would imagine were carefully vetted by the ICL leadership, he said that I have no right calling myself a Communist, Revolutionary, Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist or Fighter for the Oppressed. Frankly, I think this takes a great deal Chutzpah on the part of Andrew and the International Communist League. Andrew M. and his cult are defending Robert Latimer and Ablest bigot and fascistic yahoo who murdered his own disabled daughter in cold blood. Yet Andrew has the nerve to sit on his high perch and call me "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend the disabled. Vladimer Lenin says in What is to be Done?, "The role of the [Communist] is not to be a party secretary but to be a tribune of the people to oppose oppression and tyranny wherever it appears and whatever stratum of society is affected". The ICL's arguments that Tracy Latimer was "in a great deal of constant pain and Latimer killed her to relieve her suffering" might as well be sited from outright fascists since various fascist group, who support Latimer, make the exact same arguments (except for the crap about "Jew controlled governments"). The ICL takes the program of outright fascists and call it Leninism. Thus dragging Communism through the mud. Its regarded a "sleight-of-hand" for leftists to adopt the program of the liberal bourgeoisie. What do you call it when a left group adopts the program of outright fascists?! I'm sorry Andrew, if anyone here has lost the right to call themselves Communist, Revolutionary, Leninist, Marxist, Trotskyist or fighter for the oppressed, I think it fair say that its is you and the ICL, not me.
Being the apologists for lynchings of the disabled that you (Andrew M. and the ICL) are, you can of lost the right to judge who does and doesn't have the right to call themselves Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Communist, Revolutionary, or Fighter for the Oppressed.
Also, I want to state that as far as I am concerned the ICL has no right callling themselves the "tribune of ALL the oppressed". To cover for its cowardly flinch on the lynching of Tracy Latimer, the ICL quite ludicrously and revoltingly tries to pass off Robert Latimer as oppressed. The ICL now has to explain how exactly white men with property are oppressed. They also claim that Robert Latimer and Tracy Latimer "suffer together". This remark is truly demeaning towards the disabled. Based on the same logic, one could argue that Islamic Jihadist dads and their daughters "suffer together", even if the daughter is "honour killed" by her father (at least Muslims are actually oppressed, unlike Robert Latimer). Or you could logically say that homophobic evangelical parents "suffer together", even if the parents murder their kid. Or you could even say that misogynistic men "suffer together" with the wives they beat. Andrew, perhaps rather than being disgusted with me I think just maybe you should look yourself in the mirror.
Comradely,
M.G.
P.S. I think it is quite telling of the ICL's attitude towards the disabled that would be outraged at the murdering of disabled people being called lynchings. My views on the disabled are not all that different than practically anyone in the disabled community.
Being the apologists for lynchings of the disabled that you (Andrew M. and the ICL) are, you can of lost the right to judge who does and doesn't have the right to call themselves Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Communist, Revolutionary, or Fighter for the Oppressed.
Also, I want to state that as far as I am concerned the ICL has no right callling themselves the "tribune of ALL the oppressed". To cover for its cowardly flinch on the lynching of Tracy Latimer, the ICL quite ludicrously and revoltingly tries to pass off Robert Latimer as oppressed. The ICL now has to explain how exactly white men with property are oppressed. They also claim that Robert Latimer and Tracy Latimer "suffer together". This remark is truly demeaning towards the disabled. Based on the same logic, one could argue that Islamic Jihadist dads and their daughters "suffer together", even if the daughter is "honour killed" by her father (at least Muslims are actually oppressed, unlike Robert Latimer). Or you could logically say that homophobic evangelical parents "suffer together", even if the parents murder their kid. Or you could even say that misogynistic men "suffer together" with the wives they beat. Andrew, perhaps rather than being disgusted with me I think just maybe you should look yourself in the mirror.
Comradely,
M.G.
P.S. I think it is quite telling of the ICL's attitude towards the disabled that would be outraged at the murdering of disabled people being called lynchings. My views on the disabled are not all that different than practically anyone in the disabled community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)