The grossly misnamed Trotskyist League of Canada (TL), claims that the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT) was in a "de facto block" with the English-Canadian Bourgeoisie concerning the 1995 Quebec referendum. Frankly, I think this is baseless. The IBT has consistently state that it unconditionally defends the right of Quebec to self-determination and supports bi-national class struggle. The English Canadian Bourgeoisie opposes both. It certainly opposes bi-national class struggle and oppose the right of Quebec to self-determination. This is clearly illustrated in the Clarity Act implemented by the Liberal party and backed by the arch Anglo-Chauvinist Reform party as well as the Social Democratic New Democratic Party (NDP).
In fact the Trotskyist League had the exact same stance until 1995! In 1980:
"As Leninists we adamantly defend the right of the Québécois to self-determination including their right to form a separate state. But we are not nationalists, and we do not advocate such a move unless national antagonisms have grown to such a point that the possibility of unity between English- and French-speaking workers is decisively blocked. The militant Québécois working class can and does play a leading role in united class struggles across the country, notably the 1976 one-day general strike and the bitter 1978 CUPW battle. Therefore at this time the Trotskyist League does not advocate the independence of Quebec. In a clearly worded, democratic referendum, we would today vote no."
Spartacist Canada No. 43, Summer 1980
In fact over the Charlottetown Accord the Trotskyist League formed a de facto with Arch Anglo-Chauvinist Reform party and voted NO. The IBT abstained. Oh and let us not forget the Trotskyist Leagues de facto bloc with outright fascists over the lynching of disabled children.
Trotskyist Greetings,
Michael G.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Is the ICL a Cult?: A Point by Point Analysis
The following is based on a cult checklist compiled by Dr Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal, and published at the website of the AFF (American Family Foundation).
1. The group is committed to a living leader to whom unquestioning commitment is displayed.
Jim Robertson as I understand it is regarded as the "peerless leader" (although I'm not sure if they actually use the term). Any remark or behavior by Jim Robertson no matter how vulgar, stupid, racist, ablest, homophobic, misogynistic etc. is overlooked and even defended, Jim Robertson reportedly has referred to Kurds as "Turds", feminists as "doberman pinschers", the mentally ill as "sociopaths", gays as "sexual psychopaths" the Irish as "stupid micks", Albanians "goat-fuckers" and so on. Any behaviour or remark by the "peerless leader" is made a test of faith.
2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
I've been reading there paper for about four years now. They go on and on about "recruiting new members", "welcoming new readers". A group needs to recruit, a group a paper needs reader, I get that. But I think the Sparts get WAY to pre-occupied, in my humble opinion.
3. The group is preoccupied with making money/fundraising.
Come to think of it they do get they spent more money on selling stuff and fundraising events (stuff that involves making money) than actual protests. One supporter got lashed out at for not giving enough money at "holiday appeals". Fundraising is okay but not when it becomes so obsessive and not when it substitutes actually doing anything. And I don't think its appropriate to lash out at people for not giving enough at a fundraiser.
I remember one event where a member gave about $20 and spent a about $20 dollars, give or take on there literature. People in the group lashed out at that person, however, because they hadn't given enough. This person was not a well off person and was currently applying for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), welfare and mental health housing. They have a hard time getting employed due to multiple disabilities and mental illnesses. They lived with and are financially dependent on their parents who have a history of abusing them. Their mom more emotionally and their dad more physically. Also for most of the period they were a sympathizer for of the ICL they were being stalked by an aunt who had sexually abused them as a child. When they were about six she would get them look at young girls genitals. Their parents, especially this person's dad welcomed this aunt, his sister to visit the parent's house. She would sometimes come over several times a week, call several times a day, she made concerted efforts to get back in touch with this person. She left letters for them. She would hang around this person's house for up to 11 hours waiting. There were nights where they even slept on the streets or in homeless shelters because they were afraid to sleep at this person's house. They couldn't afford to sleep in a hotel. This person contemplated suicide on several occasions. This person's aunt didn't stop coming until this person called the police although they still have nightmares on a regular basis about her. And YES people in the ICL KNEW about this person's family situation. But what are they worried about? This person giving them more money! And to top that off, since this person left the organization the ICL have refused to refund a single cent of the money that that person donated to them (roughly $320). As I said before, this person was not well off and a $320 refund would be a nice bonus.
4. Questioning, doubt, or dissent are actively discouraged or even punished.
If the ICL can't refute what their members or supporters are saying and it challenges the official stance of the party the ICL always has a plan B, hysterical screaming. They'll meet you privately (usually a group of them) scream at you until you renounce your position. And what happens if you refuse to renounce your views? They'll keep bringing up the issue every time they come into contact with you, hysterical screaming in all.
5. Mind-numbing techniques (e.g., meditation, chanting, singing, lengthy rituals, lack of sleep) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Like I said in my last point, they have hysterical screaming. Being screamed at on a regular basis will eventually break anyone. I have anxiety disorder and emotional management issues and people in the ICL knew about this yet this didn't change their behaviour in fact I think it was especially harmful to me.
As described by their splinter group the International Bolshevik Tendency:
"A meeting is called where the designated comrade is called to account for mistakes which he allegedly committed. Each item on the bill of particulars is grossly exaggerated and extrapolated; perfidious motivations (political and/or personal) are attributed. Incidental personal criticisms of the individual's mannerisms, lifestyle or demeanor are thrown in for good measure. Those leading the attack typically do a good deal of histrionic screaming and posturing in order to create the proper emotionally-charged atmosphere. The assembled membership is expected to provide the chorus: repeating and embellishing on the accusations. (A reluctance to participate is punishable by being made the next point on the agenda.) Attempts by the accused to agree with the substance of the charges are initially dismissed as disingenuous and insincere, unless the hapless "star" of the proceedings is prepared to exceed all the others in vilifying himself. There is no beating the rap. If you can prove that some of the allegations are false, new ones are quickly invented. Or you are charged with using "lawyer's arguments" and attempting to obscure the overall picture by quibbling over "details." In some cases, the refusal of individuals involved to "come clean with the party" (i.e, confess to the charges) is itself taken as evidence of an anti-leadership attitude. After all, if you don't agree with the charges, then you must think the campaign against you is a bureaucratic atrocity!
Round after round, meeting after meeting, the "fight" continues until the object of the exercise gives up and hands in his resignation or confesses in what is deemed a suitably abject and contrite manner. Breaking down and crying is usually taken as evidence of sincerity, especially in men. The "fight" is then concluded with the unanimous passage of some harshly condemnatory motion. Anyone fortunate enough to be deemed worthy of one last chance can expect to spend at least the next few months as a pariah. Eventually there is a new victim and, with luck, the previous target can gradually recoup his status as a regular member. But the "lesson" is not quickly forgotten.
The leadership's shock therapy techniques are deliberately intended to break the personal and political self-confidence of those subjected to them. Usually the "fights" are aimed at potential "troublemakers"--the idiots and yes-men can usually be integrated without difficulty. The choice posed: to crawl or to leave the group (known as opting for a "biological existence") is only a difficult one for those who take the politics seriously.
These practices create enormous pressures within the organization. They have proved remarkably effective in shaping and molding (i.e., atomizing and intimidating) the SL membership. This in turn promotes among many a desire to ingratiate themselves with the leadership, a constant need to be assured that they are "doing well" and an acute sensitivity to subtle hints on how to do so."
6. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., how to dress, dietary prescriptions/ proscriptions, what job to take, where to live, who to marry, orders to divorce, how to raise an discipline children).
In my experience the ICL dictating who I could be friends with and who I could interact with and how I could interact with certain people. I was ordered to cut ties with any friends who were leftists but not in the ICL.
Although I have not experienced these or witnessed these things first hand it has been alleged by other people who have left the ICL that the ICL forcibly seperates couples, forces female comrades to have abortions and forces female comrades to give up their children for adoption. However, the ICL's leader, Jim Robertson, is not above scapegoating subordinates for the crimes committed by the organization.
7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader, and members. For example, the leader is considered a Messiah or an avatar; the group leader has a special mission to save humanity.
The ICL claims that they and they alone have the right to claim to be Trotskyist, Leninist, Marxist and Revolutionary and fighters of the oppressed. As far as they are concerned anyone else who makes these claims is "vile", "hypocritical", "lying" etc. That they an they alone seek to destroy racism, bigotry, poverty and war and that they alone seek to do away with the Capitalist system that breeds these.
Also, being someone with disabilities and mental illnesses I remained part of their underclass. Only those without disabilities or mental illnesses could be part of the elite. Also, when veteran cadre talked about "smashing the skulls of other leftist", manhandled people at political events or lashed out at people at events or their own supporters this their behavior overlooked.
The mentality among the ICL is that any criticism of the ICL no matter how legitimate and even if it is from a Trotksyist standpoint, is "in the services of the enemy of the revolutionary proletariat". Basically, any criticism of them or their leader seeks to undermine their mission to save humanity. They have no problem calling their opponents racist, cops, cults or even nazi-lovers but they themselves are extremely sensitive to criticism. They have always had an are of entitlement and superiority in my experiences.
No matter how disgusting, bigoted, ablest, racist, sexist, reactionary, opportunistic, or counterrevolutionary they get they always seem entitled to sit on their high perches and judge everyone else. The mentality in the group is that anything is okay if they do it because they're revolutionary.
8. The group has a polarized us-vs.-them mentality
The ICL, in my experience, treats everyone even there supporters like the evil incarnate. They are the most hostile towards people who leave (or are kicked out of their organization).
When I left the groups and complained about the groups actions to other lefts groups I was accused of making a "pact with the devil". They treat any criticism of their organization, any questioning of their group or Robertson's authority as tantamount to "being counterrevolutionary" and seeking "to destroy the only revolutionary organization in the world".
9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (e.g., police, customs officers, income tax officials, etc.).
For this point I want to point out that if the state is to target any left group I would do what I can to fight such state persecution. I make no exception with the ICL. I am against the ICL thrown in jail for their political views, I am against them being banned from campuses or political events.
In terms of James Robertson evading taxes or breaking laws not concerning the workers' movement such as murder, rape, theft etc. if he has committed such things they have not come to my attention.
Mind you they have refused to refund me for the money I donated to them which I have repeatedly requested back. I am not sure if this action is illegal but that's besides the point. Since this is a dispute within the workers' movement I don't think that it would be principled to take the ICL to a capitalist court.
10. The leadership induces guilt in members in order to control them.
When I worked with the ICL, as well as now, I have voiced my opposition to individuals who murder the disabled in cold blood and groups that rally for these people's freedom. The ICL tried and still tries to demonize me resorting to hysterical denunciations, saying I'm "not a real Communist", that I am "trivializing lynchings", that I am "vile and hypocritical", they ask me how I sleep at night.
As I wrote above when I complained about there actions to other groups, I was accused of "making a pact with the devil" (there words not mine).
11. The group teaches that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group.
Death threats, hysterical denunciations, bullying, vulgar slurs against minorities, manhandling, brainwashing, forcing women to have abortions, forcing women to put up there children for adoption, separating couples, rendering people suicidal and probably other things all acceptable when done by the International Communist League, since they are "the only revolutionary party in the world", "the only party defending the oppressed" etc. The mentally in the ICL, as I have state before is "its okay as long as we do it because we're Revolutionary".
12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest to them before they joined the group.
As I stated before I was told to cut ties with any friends I had who were leftist but not members of the ICL. I can think of few instances of people in the group actually having any long term friendship with anyone who is not somehow connected to the ICL. The few people who had friends outside, I can only honestly remember one person, never stayed in touch with them.
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. Most people in the ICL who are so busy with the group that they usually lose touch with friends, girlfriends and boyfriends and family.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and socialize only with there members.
As I state in several above points almost no one in the ICL that I know has any long term friends who are not also connected with the ICL. And there is of course them telling me to cut any and all ties with leftists outside the ICL.
Disclaimer: This analysis is partly drawn on personal experience and partly drawn on what I have read. Although, I try to be as objective as possible these reflect my personal opinions.
1. The group is committed to a living leader to whom unquestioning commitment is displayed.
Jim Robertson as I understand it is regarded as the "peerless leader" (although I'm not sure if they actually use the term). Any remark or behavior by Jim Robertson no matter how vulgar, stupid, racist, ablest, homophobic, misogynistic etc. is overlooked and even defended, Jim Robertson reportedly has referred to Kurds as "Turds", feminists as "doberman pinschers", the mentally ill as "sociopaths", gays as "sexual psychopaths" the Irish as "stupid micks", Albanians "goat-fuckers" and so on. Any behaviour or remark by the "peerless leader" is made a test of faith.
2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
I've been reading there paper for about four years now. They go on and on about "recruiting new members", "welcoming new readers". A group needs to recruit, a group a paper needs reader, I get that. But I think the Sparts get WAY to pre-occupied, in my humble opinion.
3. The group is preoccupied with making money/fundraising.
Come to think of it they do get they spent more money on selling stuff and fundraising events (stuff that involves making money) than actual protests. One supporter got lashed out at for not giving enough money at "holiday appeals". Fundraising is okay but not when it becomes so obsessive and not when it substitutes actually doing anything. And I don't think its appropriate to lash out at people for not giving enough at a fundraiser.
I remember one event where a member gave about $20 and spent a about $20 dollars, give or take on there literature. People in the group lashed out at that person, however, because they hadn't given enough. This person was not a well off person and was currently applying for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), welfare and mental health housing. They have a hard time getting employed due to multiple disabilities and mental illnesses. They lived with and are financially dependent on their parents who have a history of abusing them. Their mom more emotionally and their dad more physically. Also for most of the period they were a sympathizer for of the ICL they were being stalked by an aunt who had sexually abused them as a child. When they were about six she would get them look at young girls genitals. Their parents, especially this person's dad welcomed this aunt, his sister to visit the parent's house. She would sometimes come over several times a week, call several times a day, she made concerted efforts to get back in touch with this person. She left letters for them. She would hang around this person's house for up to 11 hours waiting. There were nights where they even slept on the streets or in homeless shelters because they were afraid to sleep at this person's house. They couldn't afford to sleep in a hotel. This person contemplated suicide on several occasions. This person's aunt didn't stop coming until this person called the police although they still have nightmares on a regular basis about her. And YES people in the ICL KNEW about this person's family situation. But what are they worried about? This person giving them more money! And to top that off, since this person left the organization the ICL have refused to refund a single cent of the money that that person donated to them (roughly $320). As I said before, this person was not well off and a $320 refund would be a nice bonus.
4. Questioning, doubt, or dissent are actively discouraged or even punished.
If the ICL can't refute what their members or supporters are saying and it challenges the official stance of the party the ICL always has a plan B, hysterical screaming. They'll meet you privately (usually a group of them) scream at you until you renounce your position. And what happens if you refuse to renounce your views? They'll keep bringing up the issue every time they come into contact with you, hysterical screaming in all.
5. Mind-numbing techniques (e.g., meditation, chanting, singing, lengthy rituals, lack of sleep) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Like I said in my last point, they have hysterical screaming. Being screamed at on a regular basis will eventually break anyone. I have anxiety disorder and emotional management issues and people in the ICL knew about this yet this didn't change their behaviour in fact I think it was especially harmful to me.
As described by their splinter group the International Bolshevik Tendency:
"A meeting is called where the designated comrade is called to account for mistakes which he allegedly committed. Each item on the bill of particulars is grossly exaggerated and extrapolated; perfidious motivations (political and/or personal) are attributed. Incidental personal criticisms of the individual's mannerisms, lifestyle or demeanor are thrown in for good measure. Those leading the attack typically do a good deal of histrionic screaming and posturing in order to create the proper emotionally-charged atmosphere. The assembled membership is expected to provide the chorus: repeating and embellishing on the accusations. (A reluctance to participate is punishable by being made the next point on the agenda.) Attempts by the accused to agree with the substance of the charges are initially dismissed as disingenuous and insincere, unless the hapless "star" of the proceedings is prepared to exceed all the others in vilifying himself. There is no beating the rap. If you can prove that some of the allegations are false, new ones are quickly invented. Or you are charged with using "lawyer's arguments" and attempting to obscure the overall picture by quibbling over "details." In some cases, the refusal of individuals involved to "come clean with the party" (i.e, confess to the charges) is itself taken as evidence of an anti-leadership attitude. After all, if you don't agree with the charges, then you must think the campaign against you is a bureaucratic atrocity!
Round after round, meeting after meeting, the "fight" continues until the object of the exercise gives up and hands in his resignation or confesses in what is deemed a suitably abject and contrite manner. Breaking down and crying is usually taken as evidence of sincerity, especially in men. The "fight" is then concluded with the unanimous passage of some harshly condemnatory motion. Anyone fortunate enough to be deemed worthy of one last chance can expect to spend at least the next few months as a pariah. Eventually there is a new victim and, with luck, the previous target can gradually recoup his status as a regular member. But the "lesson" is not quickly forgotten.
The leadership's shock therapy techniques are deliberately intended to break the personal and political self-confidence of those subjected to them. Usually the "fights" are aimed at potential "troublemakers"--the idiots and yes-men can usually be integrated without difficulty. The choice posed: to crawl or to leave the group (known as opting for a "biological existence") is only a difficult one for those who take the politics seriously.
These practices create enormous pressures within the organization. They have proved remarkably effective in shaping and molding (i.e., atomizing and intimidating) the SL membership. This in turn promotes among many a desire to ingratiate themselves with the leadership, a constant need to be assured that they are "doing well" and an acute sensitivity to subtle hints on how to do so."
6. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., how to dress, dietary prescriptions/ proscriptions, what job to take, where to live, who to marry, orders to divorce, how to raise an discipline children).
In my experience the ICL dictating who I could be friends with and who I could interact with and how I could interact with certain people. I was ordered to cut ties with any friends who were leftists but not in the ICL.
Although I have not experienced these or witnessed these things first hand it has been alleged by other people who have left the ICL that the ICL forcibly seperates couples, forces female comrades to have abortions and forces female comrades to give up their children for adoption. However, the ICL's leader, Jim Robertson, is not above scapegoating subordinates for the crimes committed by the organization.
7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader, and members. For example, the leader is considered a Messiah or an avatar; the group leader has a special mission to save humanity.
The ICL claims that they and they alone have the right to claim to be Trotskyist, Leninist, Marxist and Revolutionary and fighters of the oppressed. As far as they are concerned anyone else who makes these claims is "vile", "hypocritical", "lying" etc. That they an they alone seek to destroy racism, bigotry, poverty and war and that they alone seek to do away with the Capitalist system that breeds these.
Also, being someone with disabilities and mental illnesses I remained part of their underclass. Only those without disabilities or mental illnesses could be part of the elite. Also, when veteran cadre talked about "smashing the skulls of other leftist", manhandled people at political events or lashed out at people at events or their own supporters this their behavior overlooked.
The mentality among the ICL is that any criticism of the ICL no matter how legitimate and even if it is from a Trotksyist standpoint, is "in the services of the enemy of the revolutionary proletariat". Basically, any criticism of them or their leader seeks to undermine their mission to save humanity. They have no problem calling their opponents racist, cops, cults or even nazi-lovers but they themselves are extremely sensitive to criticism. They have always had an are of entitlement and superiority in my experiences.
No matter how disgusting, bigoted, ablest, racist, sexist, reactionary, opportunistic, or counterrevolutionary they get they always seem entitled to sit on their high perches and judge everyone else. The mentality in the group is that anything is okay if they do it because they're revolutionary.
8. The group has a polarized us-vs.-them mentality
The ICL, in my experience, treats everyone even there supporters like the evil incarnate. They are the most hostile towards people who leave (or are kicked out of their organization).
When I left the groups and complained about the groups actions to other lefts groups I was accused of making a "pact with the devil". They treat any criticism of their organization, any questioning of their group or Robertson's authority as tantamount to "being counterrevolutionary" and seeking "to destroy the only revolutionary organization in the world".
9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (e.g., police, customs officers, income tax officials, etc.).
For this point I want to point out that if the state is to target any left group I would do what I can to fight such state persecution. I make no exception with the ICL. I am against the ICL thrown in jail for their political views, I am against them being banned from campuses or political events.
In terms of James Robertson evading taxes or breaking laws not concerning the workers' movement such as murder, rape, theft etc. if he has committed such things they have not come to my attention.
Mind you they have refused to refund me for the money I donated to them which I have repeatedly requested back. I am not sure if this action is illegal but that's besides the point. Since this is a dispute within the workers' movement I don't think that it would be principled to take the ICL to a capitalist court.
10. The leadership induces guilt in members in order to control them.
When I worked with the ICL, as well as now, I have voiced my opposition to individuals who murder the disabled in cold blood and groups that rally for these people's freedom. The ICL tried and still tries to demonize me resorting to hysterical denunciations, saying I'm "not a real Communist", that I am "trivializing lynchings", that I am "vile and hypocritical", they ask me how I sleep at night.
As I wrote above when I complained about there actions to other groups, I was accused of "making a pact with the devil" (there words not mine).
11. The group teaches that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group.
Death threats, hysterical denunciations, bullying, vulgar slurs against minorities, manhandling, brainwashing, forcing women to have abortions, forcing women to put up there children for adoption, separating couples, rendering people suicidal and probably other things all acceptable when done by the International Communist League, since they are "the only revolutionary party in the world", "the only party defending the oppressed" etc. The mentally in the ICL, as I have state before is "its okay as long as we do it because we're Revolutionary".
12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest to them before they joined the group.
As I stated before I was told to cut ties with any friends I had who were leftist but not members of the ICL. I can think of few instances of people in the group actually having any long term friendship with anyone who is not somehow connected to the ICL. The few people who had friends outside, I can only honestly remember one person, never stayed in touch with them.
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. Most people in the ICL who are so busy with the group that they usually lose touch with friends, girlfriends and boyfriends and family.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and socialize only with there members.
As I state in several above points almost no one in the ICL that I know has any long term friends who are not also connected with the ICL. And there is of course them telling me to cut any and all ties with leftists outside the ICL.
Disclaimer: This analysis is partly drawn on personal experience and partly drawn on what I have read. Although, I try to be as objective as possible these reflect my personal opinions.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Are the Mentally Ill "Dangerous"
Andrew M. claims that the mentally "insane" sometimes do do "terrible things". But according to Gastown Vocational Services:
MYTH
You should be concerned about someone with mental health disability having the potential for violence.
FACT
Contrary to media focus, individuals with a mental health disability are no more prone to violence than the general public, and in fact, are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
http://www.gvsonline.ca/emp.htm
Again, the ICL's crap flies in the face of the findings of experts on psychology and related fields. Andrew M.'s remark really reflect his bigotry towards the mentally ill and don't have any weight in scientific fact. If Andrew had any integrity he would apologize for these remarks and for his disgusting apologies for the fascistic lyncher Robert Latimer. If Jim Robertson had any integrity he would apologize for conflating the mentally ill with psychopaths as well as apologize for all of his other vulgar slurs.
Comradely,
Michael Gregory,
a dedicated Trotskyist
MYTH
You should be concerned about someone with mental health disability having the potential for violence.
FACT
Contrary to media focus, individuals with a mental health disability are no more prone to violence than the general public, and in fact, are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
http://www.gvsonline.ca/emp.htm
Again, the ICL's crap flies in the face of the findings of experts on psychology and related fields. Andrew M.'s remark really reflect his bigotry towards the mentally ill and don't have any weight in scientific fact. If Andrew had any integrity he would apologize for these remarks and for his disgusting apologies for the fascistic lyncher Robert Latimer. If Jim Robertson had any integrity he would apologize for conflating the mentally ill with psychopaths as well as apologize for all of his other vulgar slurs.
Comradely,
Michael Gregory,
a dedicated Trotskyist
Monday, April 27, 2009
On Andrew's Allegations that Tracy Latimer was in "Constant Pain"
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)