HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
2/2 A serious mistake, damaging anti-imperialist unity
[03.07.02]
[Continued from part 1/2]
6) Sixthly: Could you have *mixed up* the posting from me
with the reply to it from David Q., Javier?
While *I* certainly did *not* write that David was "a spy",
"an agent provocateur", or something simliar, someone else
*did*, namely *he himself*, in his reply to me. No doubt
this was meant "ironically", but he did write:
[David, in reply to Rolf:]
>Yes, Yes...Rolf I admit it. Aside from being David, I am
>also go under the Aliases of Tariq, Barry, and of course
>Thomas, etc. Yes,, you guessed right, my man...And Yes, I
>work for the Zionists.. And, of course, the CIA!...What
>else?
Here, even if just ironically, "the CIA" and "the Zionists",
for instance (things in no way referred to in my posting),
certainly *were* mentioned. Thus, at least something similar
to such talk of "spies", "provocateurs" etc as you wrongly
told the subscribers to ANTINATO was present in *my* posting.
Perhaps you mixed the two postings up, glancing through
David's reply only rather hastily and thinking that *that*
posting came from me?
Or perhaps you made that mistake of *believing* that some-
thing which David *implied* in his reply - by his saying he
"admitted" a lot of things including some obviously silly
ones - was actually *true*? Did you perhaps "take for gran-
ted" that I had actually "accused" him of those ridiculous
things, as he implied I had? Without your even bothering to
make that elementary check-up of this of a quick look at
what I actually *had* written, respectively, had not writ-
ten?
Neither of those two hypotheses I'm advancing here as a pos-
sible explanation for your recent action, Javier, seems very
likely to me. But they at least are less shocking, as such
possible explanations, than the thought that you might pos-
sibly have *invented*, just "out of the blue", that serious-
ly slanderous misinformation, to the ANTINATO subscribers,
that I in my reply to David Q. - a writer rather new to me -
had (clearly unjustly, then) called him "a spy", "an agent
provocateur" or something similar.
7) Seventhly (and yes, this already *is* a lot of points,
but such a thing, on your part, I cannot just "pass over",
"as if it were nothing", either, of course): Your misinfor-
mation, "tossed up into the air with the back of your hand",
so to speak, concerning things I purportedly "had stated on
various earlier occasions" about "some other writers" than
David Q. too:
[Javier, referring to Rolf:]
>You've done it to David, did the same to Claudia, Nancy,
>Barry, the Irishman, and I'm forgetting many others for
>sure.
A "responsible" way for the owner of such a mailing list as
ANTINATO to act, vis-a-vis its subscribers, do you think?
Some "pieces of information" which these subscribers, in
particular such which may not have been on the list all
that long, might have a chance of checking on? Was that what
you "provided them with" here? Or some "information" which
they might have a chance of understanding, even, in case
they didn't know who were "Claudia", "Nancy", "Barry" and
"the Irishman"?
It's necessary, I think, that I comment a little, concrete-
ly, in so far as this is possible for me at all, on what is
the case concerning these four further pieces of slander
against me, and misinformation to all other subscribers,
which you brought here. To begin from the end:
a) "the Irishman":
I, for one, and for sure, don't even know whom, in this case,
you might be referring to. But I can assure all readers that
I've *never* called someone who might somehow be referred to
in such a manner "a spy", "an agent provocateur" or something
similar. Among those rather few who, earlier and in various
contexts, *were* established by me and/or by others to be
such, as later warned against on ANTINATO too (cf above),
there was no "Irishman".
b) "Barry":
This writer whom you mentioned I can indentify, "for sure",
as Barry Stoller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. He has only
rather recently started writing to this list, I believe, and
I've referred to him, on the basis of several facts which
emerged in some much earlier public discussions with him and
which I shall gladly show to everybody too, as that *Khrush-
chovite counter-revolutionary* and *enemy of the peoples in
the world* which he has clearly shown himself to be.
"A spy" or "an agent provocateur", which is something rather
importantly different even from that which he is, this I've
*never* called Barry Stoller.
c) "Nancy":
I think you must be referring to Nancy Hey <cattynancy
@starpower.net>, who has been posting to the ANTINATO list
since several years back, often reproducing some articles of
a more or less anti-imperialist nature from openly-bourgeois
or Leftist (with or without quotes) newspapers, magazines
and websites but sometimes also contributing comments on here
own on certain political questions.
I don't recall ever having even commented, whether in posi-
tive or negative terms, on any of the writings of Nancy Hey,
some of which I've found rather good. (Perhaps I *have* com-
mented on, and/or forwarded, one or two of them, over the
years.) Certainly I've *never* called Nancy Hey "a spy", "an
agent provocateur" or something similar. I've had no reason
whatsoever to do this.
I see that I've saved one posting from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
as one which I liked, on Sweden from where I'm posting.
That was sent Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:30:04 EST, subject "Be
careful what you wish for, Sweden!", and started out by
saying:
[CattyNancy:]
"The Swedes should think long and hard before they
support Western meddling in Yugoslavia! The same
kind of meddling could be used against them! See
the following:..."
Or precisely the same, on that question, as something written
earlier by me, on 01.05.2000 as part of a Mayday leaflet of
mine (in translation) then:
[Rolf:]
"That demand which have been raised by many is quite
justified: Sweden out of Kosovo!"
Your misinformation on *this* point, concerning such a writer
as Nancy Hey, certainly is particularly strange, Javier.
d) "Claudia":
By this you must must mean a "writer" who since - how long is
it now? - over a year, or at least several months, I think,
"is no longer with us": "Claudia K. White", who started pos-
ting to the ANTINATO list in November 2000 and who contribu-
ted, using variously the addresses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, from which last address another
writer, "M.S. Darkstar", now likewise no longer heard from,
would sometimes post to ANTINATO too.
"Claudia K. White" in the main reproduced articles from
newspapers, magazines and websites. And in "her" case, not
least with contents supporting that nasty sneak "green" war-
fare against the people in all countries, by the very worst
among the imperialist reactionaries, which unfortunately,
some obviously sincere but very ignorant Leftists still do
*not* recognize as what it is, having been fooled into be-
lieving that it's "protection of the environment" or some
such things those arch-reactionaries, the US imperalists in
particular, are so extremely interested in furthering.
Against one such instance of - perhaps unwittingly, I
thought - harmful reactionary propaganda, I sent a posting
with friendly criticism and some information, in November
2000. From "Claudia K. White", there then came a reply
which I found it suitable to quote and to comment on, basing
myself also on some other peculiarities which that "writer"
had shown, as follows below.
In the context of your now recently having advanced it as an
"accusation"(!) against me, Javier, that I called *that*
particular "writer" precisely *a spy*, it's suitable to
quote the entire main part of that reply of mine:
[QUOTE:]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: Rolf... & US spy Thomas "Claudia"
P. Murray
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill Howard)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:43:33 +0100
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
Re: Rolf... & US spy Thomas "Claudia" P. Murray
[Posted: 12.11.00]
"Claudia K White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who
also writes from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote to the
Stop NATO list [HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] on Tue,
07 Nov 2000 22:09:01 -0800, under subject "Rolf The
Freak Swede!!!", the refreshingly revealing:
>Dear Rolf
.....
>You are a Lunatic Nut case....
>What kind of Freak White Supremacist Nazi are you?
[...I hope subscribers to this list will have seen
for themselves what "basis" there could have been for
such "theories"..]
{Well, or for such "slight disagreement", on the
part of "Claudia", as you perhaps would call this,
Javier, considering how you characterized the re-
cent and similar statement of disagreement (above)
by David? - RM, July 2002]
and Bill Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked, on
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 04:42:33 -0000:
>Greetings One and All of the STOPNATO NO PASARAN!
>List,
>
>May I refer to the post the subject of which begins;
>"Rolf...", sent on 'Wednesday, November 08, 2000
6:09 AM' apparently by; Claudia K White and may I ask
the following question:
>
>Is there a possibility of a typing error in the
>complete subject line of the post?
>
>Yours Sincerely,
>Bill Howard
Whereupon "good old Claudia" came back today,
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:04:21 -0800, with:
>Bill,
>I don't think there is a typing error, however, I am
>not recieving incoming mail much at this account, as
>it is being hacked, or cracked or shall I say many
>technical errors here... Perhaps you can write me
>off list and give me the paticulars so that I may
>answer your question better....
>If the question is did I mean to insult Rolf, the
>answer is yes.
>
>Claudia
And if the question is, why would "she" want to do
this, one likely answer might be: It so happens that
I've been revealing, on this list for instance and on
newsgroups, some things about the activities of the
US imperialists which they're not so happy about
having revealed. (See some earlier postings.)
Further, if the question is, is "Claudia" really
Claudia, the answer is "no". It may be of some in-
terest to subbers to know what a number of facts has
shown - I could go into details if requested but
won't, at the moment, increase traffic on account of
this - namely, that behind that cover, "Claudia K
White", there lurks the spy of US imperialism Thomas
P. Murray, a rather infamous and persistent infil-
trator of a number of Leftists mailing lists since
back in 1996.
If the question is, what other "pseudonyms" has this
spy been revealed as hiding behind, or what purpor-
tedly existing other persons, "cyber ghosts", has he
invented, for his stabbing-in-the-back activities, in
the time since then, I can provide this (possibly
incomplete) list:
Updated Murray Funny Net Family list (MFF list)
Cyber ghosts invented and managed by Thomas P.
Murray, USA:
Last update: 03.09.2000
[List snipped here]
[END OF QUOTE]
And back then, you advanced certain objections to my
bringing this matter up, in this way, didn't you, Javier.
Among other things, you maintained that I was "wrong" in
saying that "Cynthia K. White" was an *invented* "person".
You rather strangely maintained that you "could tell" this,
"since you knew" that one quite other "person" which I had
included on that Murray "cyber ghost" list "was a real one",
*not* however saying *how* you "knew" this, nor even what
"person" you were referring to.
I don't know whether you, at that time, perhaps directed some
criticism at "Cynthia" for "her" (on not the best of factual
bases) maintaining that I was "a Lunatic Nut case" and also a
"Freak White Supremacist Nazi", adding later to Bill Howard
who wondered about a possible typo in "Claudia's" subject
line, that "her" intention with this precisely was "to in-
sult" me - a project which was and is not so easy for anyone
to succeed in, I have to tell you, and an attempt which, as
coming from *such* a direction, as sheer flattery and a small
indication that I perhaps had succeded in making *some* reac-
tionary swine at least somewhat uncomfortable. I did not see
any such criticism on your part against "Claudia" on the list,
at least.
Anyway, you did not, at that time, go so far in that defence
and protection of yours of that "writer", "Claudia K. White",
Javier, that you perhaps started "moderating my account" (an
action you wrote now recently that you might engage in, under
certain circumstances - see below) or for instance kicked me
off that list whose owner you are.
I thought then that perhaps you had realized that such attemp-
ted protection on your part of "Claudia" (or the likes of
"her") was not really a very good line of action after all,
and/or that it could not really be very effective, since, even
if I was "silenced" on ANTINATO, there would always be other
mailing lists and above all the *permanently free-speech* Use-
net newsgroups, read by quite large numbers of people all
over the globe.
I noted anyway, a couple of months later, an of course wel-
come small encouragement on your part of writings by me on
quite another theme, that of support of the DR Congo against
the massive aggression and other machinations of the imperia-
lists' which that country was (and is) being subjected to. My
22.01.2001 article "The foul murder of L-D Kabila" you brief-
ly commented on, on the list, as "a quite good posting".
But now it seems that you had not completely "given up on"
that (now since long absent) "writer" whom, I suppose, most
ANTINATO subscribers have more or less forgotten today. That
"good old" "Claudia K. White" who in "her" time had at least
"a slight disagreement" with me (for instance) and who was
so keen on trying to scare people with the purported "dan-
gers" of peaceful nuclear energy, of cheaper and more plenti-
ful oil ("global-warming"-boo!) etc etc, in the vein precise-
ly of, above all, the US imperialists.
In your completely unfounded, precisely upside-down, slanders
against me recently, you added also that "old" one, that I
"unjustly" had characterized that quite particular "writer"
as precisely that *spy* which "she" was.
You continued your posting, Javier, with:
>This is enough.
By which you mean, my *purportedly* "having called" David Q.
"a spy" (or something similar) in our quite recent discussion
- which I'm showing all now was a flagrant MINIFORMATION on
your part - and my *purportedly* having earlier called "the
Irishman", Barry Stoller and Nancy Hey "the same" - LIKEWISE
pieces of flagrant MISINFORMATION on your part - plus my pur-
portedly "having been wrong" in my warning all about that
today long-since "dead" (as far as the ANTINATO list is con-
cerned) "Claudia K. White" as, in "her" case really, a spy.
That too was precisely a WRONG "piece of information", on
your part as list owner, to all (other) subscribers.
What was *considerably more than* "enough", in this context,
Javier, this in my opinion was *your* very massive MISLEADING
of the subscribers to that list owned by you. It's necessary
that you apologize to them for it.
>My patience [!! - RM] is not unlimited.
You should, in my opinion, on the contrary, now precisely
somewhat patiently examine this whole posting of yours, and
those on which it was "based" (above all), namely, those
other recent ones by me and by David Q., in order to see
whether that posting was not written by you in far too great
haste.
>Please stop it or I'll start moderating your account.
One more time: I never started doing that "it" which you're
"referring to". Please realize this, and draw the neccesary
consequences from it.
>And, by the way, I *don't* want you to cross-post my words
>to any other forum or e-list.
>
>
>Regards,
>Javier
Well, concerning what you on your part perhaps want or don't
want in such a context, Javier, I should remind you, I think,
of one rather elementary "fact of life" concerning such words
as someone has *already* uttered *publicly*, to *one* public
forum.
You, in this case, are in basically the same situation, you
know, as a politician who's uttered some statements, "on the
record", so to speak, as a candidate in an election campaign
perhaps, to a certain forum - say, to an audience in the
rather big A-N conference hall, situated in some southern dis-
trict of a country we could call "Atlantis". He in that case
must expect representatives of mass media from the northern,
eastern and western districts also to be present, as well as
such of the nationwide media.
Such a politician would make himself pretty ridiculous, don't
you think, if he said: "Now I *don't* want these words of
mine, which I've uttered to my potential voters here in the
south, to be repeated *in any other part of the country*."
Of course people also outside the south might well have an
interest in what that politician was saying to the potential
voters there, quite in particular if he were someone running
for national office of course, but also in case his ambitions
were only local. What happens, and what is being planned res-
pectly promised, "down south", naturally will be of some con-
cern also to the "Atlantis" citizens elsewhere, at least if
it's somtehing that is not very small and very local in its
(possible) consequences.
If that politician *should* say: "Please note that those
words of mine were *only* intended for *southern* 'consump-
tion'", then this would even, quite justifiedly, arouse some
suspicion, whouldn't it, concerning what that person was en-
gaging in or declaring as his intentions: Some scam intended
to favour southerners, perhaps, to the detriment of all
others? Or possibly, some promise which he did not intend to
fulfill anyway and which was just intended to fool some
people in the south into voting for him?
In the case, not of that "A-N conference hall in southern
Atlantis" but of the ANTINATO list on the Internet, which
again is connected to the other parts of the whole world, in
which anti-imperialist information and propaganda and anti-
imperialist struggle in general of course is also going on,
it's clear that such a thing as that relatively important
international forum's owner's - whether inadvertently, by
some just too hastily-decided-on action, or, even more se-
riously, as a thought-out plan of deception, in which case
*everybody must expect more of the same* too - *misleading*
all others on that forum, this is something which anti-impe-
rialists also elsewhere, and people in general, *should* be
told about.
Even more so, when that list owner even says: "I don't(!)
want people elsewhere to hear this which I just said here".
So of course I *shall* tell everybody (whom I can reach)
about this, Javier. And also, when (respectively, if) you
have later and rather soon made that excuse for it to your
"local voters", the ANTINATO subscribers, which I'm demanding
of you now (in part 1/2 above), then of course it will be my
obligation to tell those same people about that too.
I consider this matter to be, of course, by no means any
"personal" one perhaps, but one of considerable importance
on principle, one that very much has to do with the question
of unity of sincere anti-imperialists internationally.
And I on my part shall continue to go by that rule of seeking
unity also with people who may have made mistakes but who, if
so, are genuinely striving to correct them.
Rolf M.
Malmö, Sweden
[The last parts of your message, first reproducing
David Q.'s reply to me and then that message by me
which he replied to:]
On 2 Jul 2002 at 3:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (subject "Re: Support for
kicking the USA out of the UN (#02):
> <<<<And you yourself David, could you perhaps be related,
> cyberspace-wise, to Tariq too? Let's see what the
> future will show.>>>>>
>
>
> Yes, Yes...Rolf I admit it. Aside from being David, I am
> also go under the Aliases of Tariq, Barry,and of course
> Thomas, etc.Yes,, you guessed right, my man...And Yes, I
> work for the Zionists.. And, of course, the CIA!...What
> else?
>
[Here my message to which David Q. replied, the one which
you, Javier, misinformed people about quite seriously:]
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Copies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Taimur Rahman)
> From: Rolf Martens
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for kicking the USA out of
> the UN (#02) [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
> Date sent: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:44:03 +0200
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> At 22:44 2002-07-01 -0400, you ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>> wrote, to the ANTINATO and "MaoZeDong" mailing lists:
>>
>> [Quoting me, RM:]
>>>> <<<<<I have to tell you that some inconsistencies in your
>>>> message suggest that you are really not Tariq at all but
>>>> only one of the many non-existent persons, so-called
>>>> "cyber ghosts", invented by a certain reactionary-minded
>>>> person in the USA, Thomas P. Murray, who takes an in-
>>>> terest in trying to fool others and "at best" lead them
>>>> astray in various ways.>>>>>
>>>
>>>Yet another sign of an extremely paranoid individual,
>>>seriously in need of councelling.
>>
>> How very interesting, Davey-baby!
>>
>> You're arging that Tariq is "real", and "not" another
>> Murray invention.
>>
>> Well, let's wait a little and see how things turn out
>> concerning that. Tariq did promise me, as you saw
>> too, a report on a certain seminar/debate which would
>> take place in Peshawar, Pakistan, last week in July.
>>
>> I've informed Taimur Rahman, UK, who's of Pakistani
>> origin, about this too; he no doubt will have some
>> possibilities of checking this out, in August or so.
>>
>> And you yourself David, could you perhaps be related,
>> cyberspace-wise, to Tariq too? Let's see what the
>> future will show.
>>
>> [RM, earlier: Kick the USA out of the UN!]
>>
>>>[Fisk:]
>>>>... said, "I agree- [USA] and Israel!
>>>>The two nations that continually vote against peace and
>>>>progress!"
>>>
>> [Tariq:]
>>>>I will like to add another name: India.
>>>
>>>Well, Tariq, that was one thing which you wrote that was
>>>*completely out of character* for any *genuine* Pakistani
>>>Leftist. But a typical one for a stupid reactionary US
>>>bourgeois person, such as the inveterate "cyber ghost" in-
>>>ventor Thomas P. Murray, to try to *make people believe* a
>>>Pakistani Leftist might write.>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AH -- but how does the enlightened "marxist" Rolf
>>>Marten of Sweden define such a term as a ' genuine
>>>Pakistani Leftist'?; and for that matter,"genuine"
>>>leftist? Under what circumstances is this title revoked?
>>>
>>
>>
>>You don't like my calling that stoopid Murr-Murray
>>"stoopid"? This may have one very simple explanation, or
>>what do other readers think?
>>
>> Rolf M.
>> Malmö, Sweden
===========================
---------------------------
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
==^================================================================
