[mobglob-discuss] A radical idea !

[Macdonald Stainsby]

I'll make this the last of it then, Bella.

I'll deal a little with your questions/comments and propose we come up 
with guidelines for how anti-oppressive relations need to work. What 
kind of lines are we going to draw? What is and is not okay in our 
movement? Let's try to hash that out. How do we define racism? Is it a 
construct of bad attitudes, or is it systemic and problematic? What of 
the far-right attempts to infiltrate the anti-globalisation movement 
throughout Europe and North America? Is this an issue that anti-racists 
should take up? Can we come to a basis of unity against any and all 
forms of racial-conspiracy mongering? not simple conspiracy mongering, 
you understand- the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, the attempt to 
undermine our health system, etc.

But how about: we do not believe that the "Zionist Occupational 
Government" runs North America. Can we at least agree to that and hold 
our members to the same? Would that be censorship or a very tame and 
simple statement (one would hope simple). Let us kick around some basic 
forumlas then, of what we want in an anti-racist statement of 
principles. I'll leave that as a request, and see what comes of it.

Another time, another place for the discussion of the paper is fine. 
But so far as the Radical and the comparison to the Socialist Worker 
paper, I don't read the SW, I'm not a particular fan. That doesn't mean 
it is dangerous, nor do I find it offensive. I just don't happen to 
subscribe to the particular anti-capitalist take of the SW, but it is 
just another progressive paper. Different issue entirely... 

As far as the testosterone level of the postings, I'm certain you are 
correct-- as I'm spending way too much office time in here on this 
bloody thing. Helping work out frustrations, you might say.

One last thing: The "left" isn't censoring the left, the left is 
attempting to make clear exactly what "left" means. 

Taking anti-misogyny sideswipes will never bother me. People might 
think otherwise, but I find most repressed groups taking shots like 
this to be a (possibly bad) form of resistance.

Macdonald



Bella <bella_donna_36 at yahoo.com> said:

> How about if anyone doesn't like the Radical, don't read it. There are
> publications, tvshows, newspapers, columnists, 'isms' and individuals 
out
> there that people disagree with for various reasons.  For example, 
there
> are activists that don't agree with every article in IS literature 
either,
> but nobody goes on the attack about it or confronts IS paper-sellers 
at
> actions (please dont label me for using this example).  Everyone is
> entitled to their own political views, religious beliefs, etc. 
Diversity
> is such a wonderful thing.
> 
> Racism should not be tolerated, however the left censoring the left is
> equally appalling.
> 
> I think Mac, Rick and Arthur each have some valid points, and this 
subject
> is worth discussing in a rational way. However, the testosterone 
level of
> the thread has gotten cranked right up (Oh gawd, I hope I'm not 
labelled
> as a male-ist), and degenerated to what comes across as muscle-
flexing,
> typical male bullshit (pardon my French - oops, I hope you dont think 
I'm
> a seperatist).  The discussion is not rational anymore, the finger
> pointing is childish and the head butting is getting boring.  It's 
making
> Mobglob look a bunch of whiney-baby infighters.  Is there any 
conclusion
> on the horizon to this?
> 
> I hope you don't think I'm just being "bitchy" cuz that would make 
you a
> misogynist. I'd really like to work with all of you, and I'm taking 
this
> in stride. It just seems that words are picked apart so quickly 
(hence my
> sarcastic interjections - I hope my point has been made).  I'm mostly
> interested in how you guys will resolve this, which will be very 
telling.
> 
> Peace, love and resolution,
> Shirley
> 
> 
>  
> --- Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby at dojo.tao.ca> wrote:
> > Arthur Topham has begun threatening me for calling him and his 
paper 
> > associated with racists. I stand by that, and I think the David 
Icke 
> > quotes and the Paul Fromm article are sufficient evidence. 
> > 
> > A couple of points: I apologised for my tone on emails with Rick 
vis a 
> > vis the thread on the list; I apologised not at all for doing what 
I 
> > could to expel the Radical from the Convergence Centre in Calgary. 
> > 
> > Jews do not drink the blood of gentiles and that is obviously a 
line we 
> > must draw. Abortion rights should be sacrosanct and so there too is 
a 
> > line. People who defend this paper keep saying, in different words, 
two 
> > basic points: one, the amount of good things in the paper outweigh 
the 
> > rabid anti-immigration, anti-semitic (and other), so ignore the 
stuff 
> > you don't like. I suggest that people do a bit of research into the 
> > orignial Nazi Party program of 1922. It had the contents of 
> > nationalisation of the banks, workers full employment and several 
> > public works projects. Within the context of today's politics, 
stripped 
> > of the anti-semitism and all of the militarism, it would appear 
social-
> > democratic as well. One cannot ignore the links to bizarre (and 
> > dangerous) political positions! Joseph Goebbels was once a self-
> > professed Marxist and revolutionary, and he joined the Nazis 
because 
> > they were called "The German National Socialist Workers Party".