One thing that truly interests me about Andrew M. to screeds against me, which I think were most certainly carefully vetted by the ICL leadership, is they did FAR more to confirm my allegations than refute them. For instance I said that they were hypocritical for going after Bill Logan as a "sociopath" when they have nothing but sympathy for Robert Latimer who murdered his daughter in cold blood. Andrew M. pathetically and disgustingly defends Robert Latimer. I point out that how Jim Robertson's definition of psychopath/sociopath flies in the face of how leading world authorities on psychopaths define the term. Since I have listed the criteria for psychopathy numerous times (the criteria I list were devised by Robert Hare a leading world authority on psychopath and is a standard checklist for psychopathy throughout the western world), if Bill Logan truly is a sociopath they could have easily gone through that criteria and stated which of those characteristics Logan actually has and given concrete instances of him exhibiting those characteristics. Instead, Andrew M. like the mindless ICL drone that he is defended the early definition (that a sociopath is someone who is mentally insane) which is closer to how Hollywood defines psychopathy than how actual psychologists and psychiatrists define psychopathy. I also argued that the ICL is deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry. Andrew again makes my case but confirming that the ICL does support Robert Latimer who murdered (I lynched as I would word it) his severely disabled daughter and then sits back will outright fascists (neo-nazis, klansmen, skinheads etc.) make his case. Andrew M. also defends his peerless leaders equation of the mentally ill with psychopaths. He says that "mentally insane" people "sometimes do terrible things". As I pointed out earlier in a previous post the mentally ill are no more dangerous or violent than the average person. I cited Gastown Vocational Services (http://www.gvsonline.ca/emp.htm#q6) which is staffed by certified psychologists, occupational therapists and the like.
Another point, the ICL including Andrew M. like to dole out nasty allegations against their opponents. Andrew M. slandered me as a "Zionist", he said that I was "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend disability rights and fight for the oppressed, he said I had "no right" calling myself a Communist, Revolutionary, Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist or fighter for the oppressed, he implied that I "snear" at the oppressed. But the ICL, including the drone Andrew M., are EXQUISITIVELY SENSITIVE to criticism. Andrew M. (one of the ICL's several hundred or so mouthpieces) went as far to imply that my blog denouncing the ICL (and unlike Andrew M. and the ICL, I actually have a case against them) would someday be used my Wall Street against the ICL.
Trotskyist Greetings,
Michael G.
No comments:
Post a Comment