HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
1/2 A serious mistake, damaging anti-imperialist unity
[03.07.02]
Javier (Francisco Javier Bernal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>),
You wrote, to the ANTINATO mailing list list on Tue, 2 Jul
2002 21:33:59 +0100, subject "Re: Support for kicking the USA
out of the UN (#02)":
[Javier:]
>This is really sad, Rolf.
>
>Can you please stop? You're hardly doing yourself a favour
>with such a behaviour. Why do you have to call anyone who
>slightly disagree in his views with those of yours a spy,
>impersonator, agent provocateur, etc? You've done it to
>David, did the same to Claudia, Nancy, Barry, the
>Irishman, and I'm forgetting many others for sure.
I on my part think that this matter is *serious*, even more
than sad, which it is too.
With the above, you're making a mistake which I certainly
hope is inadvertent, but which, in its possible effects and,
even more, as to its principle, so to speak, risks causing
considerable damage to anti-imperialist unity, among sub-
scribers to and writers to the ANTINATO list in particular.
*Nowhere* in that recent reply of mine to David Q.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, posted to some mailing lists
on Mon, 2 Jul 2002 07:44 +0200, did I call that writer "a
spy"(!), "an agent provocateur"(!), or anything similar; nor
did I even maintain that he was "an impersonator".
Last in your posting you yourself did quote *the entire text*
of that reply - and please also *check your archive of pos-
tings*. But in your comments (quoted above) you maintained
that I "had written" these things, which where clearly *not*
there at all.
All on the ANTINATO list can see for themselves that this
slanderous allegation of yours, concerning what I wrote quite
recently, was wholly and completely *an invention* by you.
You even *added some other* pure *fantasies* of your own
here, on what I purportedly on earlier occasions "had done
to" some other writers.
I HEREBY DEMAND that you EXPRESSLY EXCUSE YOURSELF to the
readers of the ANTINATO list for those QUITE SERIOUS SLAN-
DEROUS ALLEGATIONS against me with which you, as MODERATOR of
that list, thus have MISINFORMED the subscribers to it.
If you do not do this, then I certainly shall draw that con-
clusion, and publish it as widely as possible, in order to
warn people, that you in reality are someone who *wittingly*
disseminates serious misinformation and slander, in favour of
reaction in the world.
Even as caused by a MISTAKE on your part - which I do HOPE it
was - these false allegations *were* a quite serious slander.
Perhaps you not understand, or agree with, this? Please let
me explain it to you, in some detail.
It's because I hold that these false allegations of yours
*are* a quite serious mistake on your part that I'm finding
it necessary to reply to your rather brief comments - by
which you just "tossed" these things "into the air", in the
most irresponsible manner, "with the back of your hand", so
to speak - with this considerably longer present one.
1) Firstly:
There of course *are* some spies, agent provocateurs and the
like on the Internet, sent out by the arch-reactionaries in
the world in order to combat and to cause mischief, directly,
to various sincere Leftists on the Net, more indirectly to
the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples and
nations.
If and when such are discovered and made out clearly to be
precisely spies, agent provcateurs etc and nothing else, then
of course these should be publicly exposed, for all to be
warned against them. *Not* to do so, on the part of those
who because of some experience of their own have seen through
them, would be an error.
And likewise would it be an error, which may cause rather
serious harm, for some writer or writers to *maintain*, pub-
licly, that some other or others, who is/are *not* (a) such,
*has/have* such a character. For the important unity on some
questions today, also among many who may not agree recipro-
cally on everything, such wrong accusations of course are
among the most damaging things you can imagine.
Such an error it is that you now recently maintained, public-
ly, that I "had committed", Javier, and not "just once"
either, but "several times". And have you reflected on, in
which way, on what "basis", it was that you put forward this
accusation? (See the quote above from your posting.)
And *your* - actual - recent error, of *maintaining* that
someone else "had branded" some third person as "a spy" or "a
provocateur", and indeed "had earlier branded" a number of
others too (quite unclearly referred to) as "spies" or "pro-
vocateurs", when that someone else in fact had *not* done
that (quite irrespective of the question, whether this in all
or any of the cases actually might have been justified to
do), such an error too of course risks damaging that impor-
tant unity too, in the same way as someone's falsely crying
out: "Spy!".
That last I have *not* done - as, in the recent and main
case of David Q., all can see for themselves at once. Quite
damaging could a false allegation such as yours, that I
*had* done so, become, unless the one who had advanced that
allegation rather quickly explained, to all to whom it was
directed, that it was an inadvertant mistake, and apologized
to them for it.
2) Secondly, concerning the ANTINATO list:
This mailing list, as managed by you, and today bringing to-
gether quite a number of obviously sincerely anti-imperialist
writers from several parts of the world, is a relatively im-
portant one, as I think all will agree. It clearly would be
something of a positive factor too - if there were *not* such
phenomena on it as that recent posting by you, its very
owner, from which I've so far quoted some lines, and which,
"at worst", might possibly be a result of some *quite contra-
ry real intentions* on your part. (Please note, I'm *not*
saying they *are*. I'm saying that one must also take into
consideration *the sad possibility* that this error of yours
was *not* made inadvertantly.)
3) And thirdly, concerning me, the one against whom you ad-
vanced the allegations in these lines quoted above:
As readers of the ANTINATO list, for instance, will have
seen, I've been posting relatively often to that list since
several years back now, and to certain Usenet newsgroups and
other mailing lists since late 1995, among other things with
a series "UNITE! (etc) Infos" which advocates the political
line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, as stated by a note in
these series postings.
(Incidentially you, Javier, helped me improve that note's
version in Spanish, a little more than a year ago - an action
rather contrary to that which, for a reason or reasons un-
known to me, emerged from you quite recently now. As I al-
ready said, I do hope that this was an inadvertent mistake of
some sort on your part.)
With these postings, I have been opposing, to the best of my
ability, certain arch-reactionary forces in the world, ene-
mies of practically everybody, and have not least - in my own
judgement - contributed relatively importantly towards ex-
plaining and exposing publicly certain quite nasty dirty po-
litical tricks which these arch-reactionary forces are, or
have been, engaging in, tricks which, presumably, still not
everybody today realizes *are* dirty political tricks.
The combating of those forces, and in particular, the expo-
sing of those dirty tricks of theirs, precisely conform to,
and in my judgement are quite important and necessary parts
of, that programme which the ANTINATO mailing list at its
website declares that it has:
"ANTI NATO Information List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is
open to express opinions about opposition to coercive
and unjust globalization and especially of its mili-
tary wing, NATO."
I have a relatively long experience in such combat, and not
least had the privilege of "studying", so to speak, between
1974 and the late 1980s, at a small and (probably) more or
less unique advanced "political university" which existed,
based in (West) Germany, at that time. In my Internet pos-
tings I've continued, as well as I've been able to, to make
use of that particular knowledge which emerged from that
formerly very correct small party (called "NE" for short),
and of that, also parallel and available to many more people
internationally, which emerged from the likewise very advan-
ced and incomparably bigger CPC in China up until late 1976
approximately.
This you know about, Javier, don't you - whether or not you
agree with me that Marxism is a correct theory, extremely
important for understanding what's going on in the world
today, and that the CPC as led by Mao Zedong and also the
former "NE" in Germany precisely were those who correctly
developed that theory further. You probably *don't* agree
with me on this - but so of course do many others who like-
wise are stating their adherence to the programme of the
ANTINATO list. And this in the past has not prevented co-ope-
ration on your part for instance with me, as opposed to that
completely unfounded slander by you in that posting which I'm
now replying to.
Knowing something about, and judging on things in accordance
with, Marxism, this helps people see through those particular
tricks of the reactionaries' in the world today which I men-
tioned above, I think, but is not absolutely necessary for
this either.
Various things which I have written, to ANTINATO for in-
stance, naturally enough, also have sometimes been criti-
cized or attacked by some other writers - something which
I've welcomed and have replied to also, in most cases only
by one posting in reply or refutation. I've taken care not
to engage in longer discussions on such a list as ANTINATO,
which of course is geared not mainly to debate but more to
dissemination of such information as comes from various di-
rections.
4) Fourthly, concerning the question of possibly existing
reactionary spies and provocateurs in general, on the Net,
who may be trying to create disturbances:
By those "dirty political tricks" by the arch-reactionaries
which I said above might still be unknown to rather many, I
did not in the main mean their constantly sending out - to
create some disturbances for the sincere Leftists and "at
best" lead them on to some completely wrong track - a number
of "better-" or "worse-"camouflaged spies, agents provoca-
teurs etc.
That phenomenon, in general, is well-known to practically
everybody, I assume. And practically everybody too, presu-
mably, knows about there being an difference between actual
spies and provocateurs (etc), on the one hand, and such
people whose writings (if we just consider the Internet) are
"just" reactionary, completely so or on only these or those
concrete points, wittingly or unwittingly, while clearly or
probably *not*, as far as others can see, being directly in
the employment of the arch-reactionaries.
As to actual spies and provocateurs, sent out by the reac-
tionaries, I have in fact participated several times, in
quite other contexts than that of the ANTINATO list, in the
finding out and public exposing some such. One such case
which some list subscribers today may have read about, since
it was engaged in by rather many at the time, was the joint
exposure, back in 1996, above all by some of us actual sup-
porters of the just people's war i Peru, writing from London,
Malmö, Detroit and Toronto, of a certain then rather "well-
known" purported "co-supporter" in New York City of that
people's war, "Luis Quispe" (W. Palomino), as a CIA agent.
This earlier, quite important, struggle against the back-
stabbing then I have later written about, for instance, in
some of my postings also to ANTINATO, and I've also in such
postings mentioned some earlier exposures of individual
agents or, of agent forces (organizations) which I, because
of that abovementioned particular knowledge in certain fields
which I happen to have, have carried out without the support
of any others.
(And yes, of course it's always possible that some other
people today may say to me, and to my "co-exposers" of
"Quispe", for instance: "You did not really expose any
agent[s] in this in that case then; these were some wrong or
at least unfounded conclusions by you [people], not helping
unity but only damaging it". Then those others must advance
some arguments for what they're saying, and the matter can
be put to - factual - discussion then; if I [and others]
in fact were proven to have been wrong or too hasty, then of
course I [we] should publicly admit this.)
This immediately above has nothing to do quite directly, of
course, Javier, with your allegations against me that I would
(presumably quite unjustly then, or on an absolutely insuffi-
cient "basis of evidence") have called David Q., or earlier,
three other people on the ANTINATO list, "a spy" ("spies") or
"(a) provocateur(s)". But I have included it in order to make
clear also to you how, in my definite opinion, one must ap-
proach the entire matter of possible actual spies and provo-
cateurs.
Now there is of course is that strange theory, advanced by a
few people, that the arch-reactionaries "will not" constantly
send out provocateurs etc so as perhaps to mislead people, or
that "one should not talk at all" or "at least not publicly"
about such things. I hope you're not an adherent of that
theory, Javier.
You *should* of course talk about such things, and precisely
publicly too, in such cases at least where there, firstly, is
a more serious risk that some sincere Leftists and anti-impe-
rialists may be misled by them and you, secondly, have a suf-
ficient basis in facts either to cry out "Spy!" or to sound
a certain warning: "these and these activities engaged in
by this or that writer seem, even, fishy to me; it may be
wise to take a closer look at that writer and to avoid trus-
ting that he/she is being completely truthful".
Now in *one* case, among those four other writers to the
ANTINATO list whom, you maintained, I had earlier called "a
spy" or something similar, Javier, I certainly *did* call
that particular "writer", precisely, *a spy*.
You however completely forgot to inform the (present) sub-
cribers about the circumstances of *that*, which was some
1½ years ago, on 12.11.2000, and was directed against one
"writer" who since a rather long time back is no longer
"with us".
Thus the other subscribers, at least those who had not yet
joined the list at that time, or do not recall the details
of that particular case, were given no chance by you of
judging for themselves whether my designating that "writer"
in that way perhaps was unjustified or perhaps was justi-
fied. This matter was presented by you as if it were *not*
justified, on my part. The circumstances however show that
it *was*. So concerning this particular case too, you now
recently *misinformed* the list subscribers.
I shall show all, below in part 2/2, somewhat briefly what
*were* the actual circumstances in that very particular
earlier case, back in November 2000.
5) Fifthly, what did I write, more precisely, to (or about)
David Q., in my reply to him?
I invite you to take a closer look now at that reply, Ja-
vier - or perhaps, even a *first* look(?); it's possible, I
think, that you "drew" your "conclusions" (above) concerning
that posting of mine *without even having read it*, that you
went *only* by that which *David*, on his part, later, *im-
plied had been contained* in that reply of mine, for in-
stance. (Its entire text, as I said, is included, last, in
this present posting, part 2/2.)
Once again: In not one of those lines (some 40-50, including
quotes) with which I replied to that writer did I refer to
him as "a spy", "an agent provocateur", nor something simi-
lar.
(A writer whom I had found out to be, and could demonstrate
to be, a spy [or something of that order], such a writer I
would of course be *justified* to call, and indeed should not
shy away from calling, precisely, "a spy". But there is this
case there was *no* such designation of him at all, on my
part, whether justified or unjustified. - Am I being repeti-
tive and somewhat boring here, and/or in some of the passa-
ges above? I'm taking that risk, in order to clarify these
things to you as thoroughly as I possibly can, Javier.)
Did I call David Q. "an impersonator"? I did *not* do that
either. (See my reply again!) I did suggest that *possibly*,
this writer, David (with a Canadian domain to his e-address),
*might be* "related, cyberspace-wise, to" another one, a
certain Tariq (with a Pakistani domain to his e-address),
who was mentioned in that reply (as writing to some other
lists than ANTINATO).
Tariq's support for my call,
"Kick the USA out of the UN!",
I had welcomed (of course). But to him I had written also
that, unfortunately, certain inconsistencies in his reply to
me (not least his proposal, very much out of character for
any genuine Pakistani Leftist, that "India(!) too" should be
kicked out, an idea which would be more typical of, for in-
stance, certain very reactionary-minded people in some of
those "richer" countries which are oppressing and exploiting
both Pakistan and India and would like to pour oil on that
certain local conflict which there is between the govern-
ments of those two countries) did suggest that his stated
support for kicking the USA out perhaps was not worth so
much, since these inconsistencies to me suggested that he,
Tariq, *might* be just one of those many persons (or "cyber
ghosts") invented by one since long infamous creator of
many such, a certain openly-bourgeois reactionary in the USA
by the name of Thomas P. Murray.
To my suggesting this possibility concerning Tariq, that
other writer, David Q. replied (see your own posting's quote
of that reply, which I'm reproducing below, as the second-
last thing here, in part 2/2) that this, on my part, was:
[David:]
>Yet another sign of an extremely paranoid individual, se-
>riously in need of councelling [sic].
This reply by David you, Javier, characterized (above) as
his "slightly disagree[ing] in his views with those of
yours [i.e., mine]", when telling all how you sad you were
about my reply again to that writer.
Well, one *may* call that statement of David's his "slightly"
disagreeing in his views with mine too, I suppose. I on my
part have no quarrel with you on *that* account, although I
on my part would rather characterize such a statement as one
of "somewhat sharper disagreement", one of "not agreeing at
all", or in the language of diplomacy, an piece of a "frank
and open exchange of views".
I on my part replied to David's "slight disagreement", as
expressed in that way, only that I found this "very interes-
ting". (See the text of my reply.)
I further suggested to David that he and I "wait a little and
see how things turn out concerning that", meaning the ques-
tion of whether Tariq perhaps was or perhaps was not in fact
another invention by that long-time multi-impersonator (as
he since long is), Mr Murray of the USA, whom I also charac-
terized as "stupid".
That characterization seemed to anger David, as I noted in
my reply, adding that this *might* have "one simple expla-
nation" - that possible one, I meant of course, that he
"perhaps could be related, cyberspace-wise, to Tariq too",
and that both of them, thus, perhaps *might* have someting
to do with the considerably less "wise" Mr Murray.
Is this a correct characterization of what I wrote, Javier,
or is it not?
I think that upon a little reflection, at least, you must
agree that it's correct, and that thus, you do need to
apologize to the readers of ANTINATO for *your* very wrong
and misleading description of it.
[Continued in part 2/2]
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
