> WWP are scum. You cannot apologize for state terror on the one hand, then
> convincingly oppose it on the other. It's a sad day when people like you
> overlook these contradictions for the sake of ideological purity (masked
> "concern for The People"). The upside, I suppose, is that we who actually
> deal with the real world can see you for the assholes you are.
Everything I've read and heard about the WWP's actions indicates that you are correct. Now, as far as "ultra-left" groups and individuals in general, we have to be more careful before blackballing them. Individuals and Organizations all go through many personal or internal changes that we cannot fairly keep track of. Therefore, I think we should take a prima facie attitude that within reasonable limits anyone is welcome, regardless of history, until the first signs of being disruptive and counter-productive occur.
This litmus test must be applied more to actions than to words. For example, I know Macdonald Stainsby in person, and know that his online politics are a lot more divisive and controversial than he himself is in a political meeting or action. In collective meetings and actions I have never seen him try to pull a group's attitude leftwards of its "natural boundaries," or any indication that he would try. Therefore, I would consider him welcome.
If tomorrow, the Sparts decided to show up in meetings and in the streets and act in the way people such as Macdonald act in person rather than in text, I would welcome them. With organiztions, of course, there is more responsibility attached to what they actually print, proportional to the danger of their message becoming dangerously prominant to the point of being associated with all of us.