[mobglob-discuss] another Radical idea !

[Macdonald Stainsby]

Before I answer any of the post from Bella, thanks to her for her honesty and
great thanks to my friend Kimball for his kind words about the activities I have
been engaging for the last while. It isn't "fun", except in the sense that
struggle for correct ideas does give me and many others a sense of purpose.
Hopefully, this one small struggle is almost over, thanks, ironically, to the
bankruptcy laws.

On to Bellas words (which I do not believe belong in private email):

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bella" <bella_donna_36 at yahoo.com>


> Your one-man crusade to discredit Arthur got really tiresome about a month
> ago, and your ongoing campaign to turn everyone against the Radical
> stinks.  I don't appreciate anyone telling me what I should or should not
> read.

Not once have I suggested what a person should or should not read, and I ask you
to take very careful note not to state that I have. You, my friend (that's not
sarcasm), will not see me go ballistic on your ass, as you put it. But this is
not at all where I am going. There is a principle at stake among those we want
to work with that we provide an anti-oppressive space, and the "paper" the
"Radical" does not provide that in the slightest. I have said repeatedly, either
the paper (which thank goodness no longer exists) or the website could end all
of this by distancing itself from these *KNOWN ANTI-SEMITIC FASCISTS* and let us
all know they will never be given space in his paper/website-- or then simply
that the Radical is not to be considered part of our movement and those who
promote it are not welcome. We cannot allow the paper to call itself part of the
"anti-globalisation" movement out of some vague anti-oppression impulse so long
as this anti-people garbage shows up within it- regardless of how many articles
by Starhawk and others it may carry. That is not the point, but in fact the
danger and why we must double our vigiliance! The Radical wants to allow average
folk who do not have the needed background to think that they are part of us.
Anti woman terrorism is not us, or I'm leaving. So are mosty women, for that
matter! The same goes for the anti-semites, the anti-immigrants and many other
"creatures" we are being put on the same pages and webpages as. I don't want
that association, and I do not believe-- because I do indeed believe in this
movement! -- that more than a very very small number of us do.

> I have a brain in my head and I use it. The Radical has printed many
> articles that are NOT questionable, by many viable authors.

See above.

  Your various
> attempts to discredit Arthur, and now to actually LAUGH at his misfortune
> of potentially losing his livelihood, is just plain mean !

I am glad because he is associating himself with the people who make even George
W look like a liberal. Eustace Mullins, mentioned by Kimball, denies the
holocaust. These people aren't welcome in my neighbourhood, and those who want
to invite them to parties don't get invited to mine. In political organising it
is even more important.

> Do you even
> know him on a personal level or are you only assuming to?

This is irrelevant, as I have said before. Actions are what matter, and to this
date, he has not distanced himself from any and all fascists. While he does not
do this and instead reprints more fascists (LaRouche was recently printed on the
internet, by the way), I'll treat him like a fascist. For people who are
alcoholics, etc. a lot of councillors recommend: "If you want to know where you
are in life, look at your friends". Topham should do just that. Then, if he is
serious about being an advocate for anti-oppressive relations-- economic,
social, gender and racial-- he'll make it very very clear. It's not like this is
at all complicated!

> Why are you on
> such a personal vendetta against him? Instead of trying to publicly
> destroy the man, how about opening a fair dialogue with him? How about
> reaching out and actually helping him, maybe even contribute to the
> content of the paper once it comes back? There are not many alternative
> papers out there and I think we should all be doing something to help save
> this one so we all have a forum for our ideas and commentary.

His dialogue with me so far includes only a series of threats to sue me,
personal insults and anti-communist drivel. I am attempting-- though it is
difficult-- to maintain this as a political issue. It's about what kind of world
we want, and what kind of "coalitions" we make and how that contributes to it.

The Radical, Lyndon LaRouche and the rise of the Nazis have one thing in common:
they all talk left and act right. Worse, they start out "left" and go FAR FAR
right, and history has made it very clear you don't ignore them, you kick them
to the curb-- or they make it clear they are not anti-semites, racists etc...
Again, in even the same post, I'll state: Topham can clear this up if he wants
to and I'll publically shake his hand. He must dissociate himself from the scum
of the earth and never repeat his *actions* of giving these people-- more racist
than even John Ashcroft -- a place to organise and promote their hatred, a
hatred they want to use to ultimately end in genocide on a global scale.

>  Obviously
> there is an issue with past articles, and I think we are all intellegent
> enough to work through that.

The LaRouche stuff just happened. Plus, Topham has never distanced himself from
them, except for a weak "oops" in the case of one article by Paul Fromm. If he
doesn't know how to produce a paper without "oopsing" his way into publishing
articles by known NAZIS, then he should perhaps allow himself to give up
editorial control to someone who can actually read.

>  It pisses me off when the "movement" is
> trying so hard to create a climate of solidarity and then this shit
> happens.

I will solidarise with the following:

anyone.
This is not limited to anti-capitalists. I am not limiting this to anarchists or
communists or any social democrats or enviros, etc-- No one has to come into our
movement and sign a contract.

However, let's talk solidarity. What kind of solidarity is it with our Jewish,
Pakistani, etc. etc. to not make this a clear defined line? Have you not notice
that our city is very diverse yet our "diverse" movement is white? How should I
explain to my Jewish friends that we don't take this as a central issue, we
don't "crack the whip" and demand that no, you don't need to have a program, a
"line" that we all agree on, none of this-- but just some very basics. Such as:
your political allies must know the holocaust happened, for a very, very, loose
starting point. I get mad that I even have to type this.

> You seem to have alot of drive for activism, why not use it in a
> positive way instead of slandering people and then giggling over someone's
> hardship likes its some game?

Don't personalise this. Thank you. Slander is when you make something up, I am
calling this editor on the content of the paper he edits.

>Who are you going to turn to when your
> hydro gets cut and there's no food on your plate? The 'movement'? Odds are
> we will be there for you just like alot of people are there for Arthur.  I
> don't think anyone will be kicking you when you're down !! Even
> considering your holier-than-thou attitude and Arthur's previous editions
> which contained questionable material, we are still brothers and sisters
> fighting against the same shit!!
>

I am not working with these fascists, they are not in my movement, and anyone
who works with them is not either. I have to say something I expect to annoy
you, I hate it so much when I har this as an answer to me. But, with that intro,
here it is: Please go study two things: A) Fascists who talk and act left to woo
"us" to their filth, and B) what happens when we don't deal with it while it is
still a small phenomenon.

> Try not to write people off so easily.
>

You have asked me since the beginning not to deal with this in the way I have,
yet I still enjoy calling you a sister in struggle-- by the way, I hit a little
tiny bump on my non smoking run, but I'm back on the anti-cancer stick horse--
and as such you are my evidence as to how easily I write people off.

I'll work with Arthur Topham and "radical press" when he quits working with
these horrible people he does. For Christ's sake, these people would get kicked
out of the Canadian Alliance for being too right wing. Why on earth are we less
progressive that the CA? That's just "fucked up".

Macdonald