Trojan Horses (was ex-radicals)

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

>- --- JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
> but if the 
>> person making this charge is not an agent they
>> should get a bit more humble 
>> about the problem, and stick to the content of the
>> disagreement.
>
>What kind of bullshit is this?  Chuck and I and others
>have many problems with the WWP.  One is their
>organizational opportunism.  Another one is that they
>want to pose as a force of liberation, while
>supporting their own brand of repressive regimes. 
>They ride into the movement in a trojan horse,
>decrying US imperialism, while supporting other
>regimes that are also repressive.  Why shouldn't Chuck
>expose them?  Why should he restrict his opposition
>only to the repression and militarism of the United
>States and its allies?  Why should he just stick to
>the "hush hush" line that you propose Jenny?  
>
>So, the content of the disagreement is not JUST about
>WWP's opportunism...it is about what they represent
>and defend.
>
>- -Thomas

I meant that the WWP person making the charge against ChuckO--as reported by 
Nathan-- needs to stick to the content of the disagreement, rather than 
agent-baiting him.  Sorry that wasn't clear.  Kelley correctly interpreted 
it, thanks.

loupaulsen at attbi.com:
>In any case, Chuck0 did not write that anyone in WWP called him an agent or 
a 
>right-winger.  He attributed the attack, originally, if I recall, to "WWP-
>allied" members of the NLG.

He didn't say either thing, it was Nathan who said it.


>I don't believe Chuck0 is an agent, and I don't think anyone in WWP has made 
>such a baseless charge.

I was responding to Nathan's post.

Jenny Brown