Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:02:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #66en: 1/9 Detecting some Net cops, I. UNITE! Info #66en: 1/9 Detecting some Net cops, I. [Posted: 23.05.98], Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anm=E4rkning: On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / =A1UNIOS! / F=D6RENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series: See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der letzten Seite / Verrez information =E0 la derni=E8re page / Ver informaci=F3n en la =FAltima p=E1gina / Se information p=E5 sista sidan. INTRO NOTE (taking up the entire part 1/9): This goes to the Marxism-General mailing list (M-G) managed by the Spoon Collective which, unfortunately, is to be closed today (GMT) on 23.05, with no replacement in sight, and to newsgroups. On the subject of the reactionary measures against the important international forum M-G, see Info #65en: "The panicky closure of M-G", in 9 parts, of today, 23.05.98. There are several reasons why I'm bringing an Info on the pre- sent subject and why I'm doing it just now. (It may be suitable to follow up with one or more later Infos on it; thus the number "I." to this one.) One of these reasons is, that I want to de- monstrate some methods, in general, on how you can detect cops, that is, real "pro" agents of the bourgeoisie, who're masquera- ding in Net postings of theirs as "Marxists", "revolutionaries" or "leftists". This I'm doing here, in the first place, by bringing again, in parts 2/9 - 8/9 below, an originally 5-part posting of some 70 K which I sent to the M-G's predecessor, the Spoons' Marxism list or "M1", on 30.06.1996: "Why do I think Chris is a cop?". Probably, many of the present M-G subscribers haven't seen this. I hope it will interest some of them, also for that reason per- haps that it shows some parts of a certain quite important poli- tical struggle which there was on "M1" in mid-1996. Since on M-G there still is that 10 K limitation on each posting which was imposed as part of the (first) bourgeois-reactionary clampdown on this list, last January, my 1996 posting now comes in 7 parts, as reproduced below, instead of 5. And here below in part 1/9 are some further comments on the general theme of cop detection and of that of course always present problem on the Net: What's genuine and what's a fraud; how should you do in order perhaps to see this? One thing which is important in this connection is: The cops above all were (and are) after *hitting at the poli- tical line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong* - of course. And they in 1996 (this isn't all that clearly visible now) with particular fanaicism defended, did *all* they could to continue covering up, that still quite important Operation Subversion against the international Marxist-Leninist movement which the CIA (etc) have engaged in since 1984 (and even earlier), namely, the so-called "RIM" - "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement". This is what my 1996 posting was intended to show too. That posting above all directly concerned one writer to "M1" who is still "with us" and who in recent months and weeks has posted quite often to M-G too, Chris Burford, London, UK <cburford-AT-gn. apc.org>. It was written in connection with the big so-called "Quispe" fight which took place on "M1" (mainly) in April-June 1996 and based on the seemingly very strange behaviour of the "disinterested observer" Chris B. in that instructive struggle. These two writers, "Quispe", who later has more or less quit, and Chris-B., who (luckily) has not, are clear examples of Net cops. What I wrote about the latter on 30.06.96, then stating that "I cannot say that the below constitutes proof of what I think on this point, but I hold that it's very strong support of it", has since gotten ample confirmation by a lot of things. The time factor prevents me for including a summary of this in the present Info - this has to wait until later. In part 9/9 there is however a note concering one bit of information what was likewise posted to the Marxism list, in July 1996. The massive exposure in April-June 1996 of "Luis Quispe" (W. Palomino), editor of "The New Flag", New York City, USA, who earlier posted so prolifically in purported "support" of the PCP in Peru but who turned out to be an agent of US imperia- lism, is a chapter by itself - for a later Info, perhaps. On the question of what is really sufficient proof in such a case and what is not, different people of course may have dif- ferent views. All readers of the below, for instance, have to judge by themselves concerning the particular case of Chris-B. Also, there are some other people against whom a suspicion of their being cops has been advanced at some point or other, by some other writer or writers who have then either put forward some arguments of theirs to support this or else have just thrown such accusations out into the blue. I myself, for in- stance, have been one of these "targets", this on the part of "Quispe" quite early on in the 1996 fight mentioned, and by his close ally Chris-B both then and later. As I noted in 1996 too, basically, everybody should really always be under sus- picion. Now some writers to M-G (and earlier to "M1") with very great fervour have maintained that you should *never*, under no cir- cumstances whatsoever, publicly advance as your opinion, or sus- picion, that some other writer is a cop. This really ridiculous standpoint, which of course only goes to help those cops which there logically are, sometimes has been modified by the writers in question into "you must never do so without advancing con- clusive proof". As judges of what *is* such proof, they clearly advance - themselves. A few such writers, for instance, have attacked me and even called for my expulsion from M-G on the grounds that I "without proof" have pointed out the character of Chris-B. They "choose not to recognize" my 1996 posting and the many other things I've advanced as arguments in the case. Their standpoint clearly goes straight against the vital openness charter of M-G, as I've pointed out too - e.g. in a 05.05 comment on that charter. Recently, on 20.05, there again was such an attack, by Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>, a writer who otherwise had *appeared* rather strongly to advocate list openness and who therefore was included by me in a possible 9-person commit- tee which I on 02.05 suggested be formed to organize a new mailing list to replace M-G. (I in late 1996 had expressed quite another opinion concerning Hugh R., one which I later wrote I held was probably mistaken.) He wrote i.a.: >...As many have done in relation to the *real* problem Chris >mentions -- that of cop-baiting. If Rolf can't produce compel- >ling evidence of his charges [against Chris-B - RM] he should >shut up or be suspended. It's one of the cops' favourite >tricks to cause bad blood and suspicion by loudly insisting >"let's keep the cops out", Rolf must know that. As must the >other inveterate cop-baiter Dragnet Proyeccht.... This is one immediate reason too why I'm now bringing again that 30.06.1996 posting of mine, which Hugh (and others) had also had occasion to read at the time. Whether or not he on his part considers the things brought forward in it as evidence "compelling": His late-in-the-day "suspension" call *is* quite contrary to the M-G charter. This needs to be stressed again. But now at least he and others can freshen up their memories as to what I long ago *have* brought forward by way of evidence. And Hugh must know that I on my part *never* have said "let's keep the cops out" but, quite on the contrary, have always *ex- pressly opposed* all suggestions of expelling, say, "Quispe" or Chris-B. I've said, again and again: Such people are valuable to have on a list, as "skeletons-in-the-classroom-corner". Here's what the M-G charter says *against* banning what Hugh R. above calls "cop-baiting" (quote from my 05.05 comment): '[Such a ban contravenes]... these important principles stated by the M-G charter: "...a list that offers abso- lute openness to its subscribers", "All posts are dis- tributed to the list without the contents being reviewed or approved by anyone" and, in particular, "no subject is out of bounds", "...policy is intended to allow creative and critical thought", "...diverse view points are welcome", "The Left does not have to be afraid of the truth, not even the truth about itself" and "POSTS ...DEALING WITH SUBJECT MATTER THAT SOME MIGHT FIND OFFENSIVE OR SLANDEROUS MAY APPEAR...", "SUCH POSTS WILL NOT BE CENSORED". =09 It furthermore contradicts the sound advice given and in part stressed by the M-G charter in its saying: "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT POSTS...(see above)... MAY APPEAR...", "SUCH POSTS...ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR..." [etc]...'=09 A quite noteworthy thing in this contect is the fact that neither Hugh R. nor certain other "opponents of cop baiting" wrote anything at all against a statement by Vladimir Bilenkin on 11.05 suddenly and angrily, with *no* reasons whatsoever ad- vanced for it, denouncing another writer, Andrew Allen Walton, as "an FBI agent" immediately after the latter had stated he was an adherent of Mao Zedong Thought (which it's known that Vladimir has always heatedly opposed). They weren't concerned at all about that. Robert Malecki for instance - another ad- herent of Trotsky, as is Hugh R. - too was silent, only saying, after I criticized this, that Vladmir "had gone too far". It's the exposure precisely of Chris Burford that certain wri- ters are so very much against. Why is this then? In part 9/9 below, I among other things shall advance a theory on that. But here first follows, in parts 2-8/9, my 30.06.1996 posting. End of intro note [Continued in part 2/9] --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005