UNITE! Info #106en: 5/7 More rattler "NE" writhings
Rolf Martens
[Posted: 30.07.99]
[Continued from part 4/7]
RATTLER WRITHINGS AND SOME STRAIGHT FACTS [ctd.]
X. BOTTOMLESS "FORGETFULNESS" ON OWN EARLIER
WRITHINGS, WRIGGLES AND STABBINGS-IN-THE-BACK
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"As an example for the completely bottomless method of Rolf Mar-
tens the subsequent utterance may serve:
"So from that point in time on (at the latest) one may
date the bourgeois degeneration of the KPD/ML(NEUE EIN-
HEIT), for it didn't publicly state a single word on the
PCP nor on the 'RIM', and to this day (as far as I know)
still hasn't done so. Its failure to support the PCP
must be condemned."
[KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT) is the former name of our organisation]"
Yes, wasn't this a REALLY "BOTTOMLESS" method on my part??
Because, *after* this, and more of the same, you finally *did*
state - for a while! - that you (too!) basically *supported* the
PCP, didn't you? I'm referring of course to a posting of yours
on 11.02.1997.
I've recently documented again (in Info #105en) how you, 5-6
months later, on the contrary, *attacked* the PCP and its armed
struggle. It seems suitable to document now (once more) how you
earlier *expressed support* for it too. I'm quoting on this from
my Info #50en:
[QUOTE:]
Actually, on 11.02.1997, your group [referring to you snakes]
did make a few initial statements concerning the PCP, in connec-
tion with its making an analysis (and an IMO not so bad one at
all, with at least one idea that was new to me too) of the then
ongoing hostage-taking affair in Lima and the possible motives
for US imperialist string-pulling behind it (which I had already
argued why I suspected, in December '96). Its subject line was:
"NEUE EINHEIT: Chairman Gonzalo of the PCP about MRTA
and about efforts to trade upon the revolutionary party
in Peru",
which already in itself indicated *support* for the struggle of
the PCP, didn't it. And in the text it said i.a.:
"The MRTA which has taken hostages in Lima in Dec. 1996
was severely denounced by the chairman of the PCP in
1988, when he gave a large interview touching also the
experiences with this organisation. His estimation was
in many ways similar to our analysis and evaluation of
their action. The Chairman Gonzalo was captured in Sept.
92 and since then he has been kept in prison under con-
ditions of absolute isolation. His teachings are still
of great interest."
Clearly again, a statement of basic *support* for the PCP. And:
"The MRTA was built up in 1984 as a competing party and
competing armed units with regard to the PCP. The Pe-
ruvian army in 1983/4 lead a very bloody offensive
against the rebellion in the mountains, the PCP spoke of
genocide. Perhaps the MRTA made use of some weak points
of the armed struggle of the PCP when it attempted to
establish itself as a competing force."
Here, the armed stuggle of the PCP is being directly supported
by your group. There "perhaps" being "some weak points" in it
which reactionary forces might exploit for their own purposes
isn't taken as a reason for not supporting it either. Your
group (or "the Editorial Staff of the NEUE EINHEIT") further
quotes comrade Gonzalo, commenting i.a.:
'Quite close to these reflections in the section "On the
party" there is to be found one more very interesting
passage in the Gonzalo interview. It also reflects cri-
tically the own role.'
So, when finally taking up an explicit position on the PCP and
on comrade Gonzalo, your group appeared to adopt basically the
same standpoint as I had been taking up from 1992 on, when I
gained what I found to be sufficient information (so far) for
this: That of a critical support.
[END OF QUOTE]
And what are you saying now on this "bottomless" business, "edi-
torial staff of Neue Einheit"? I first wrote that the PCP must
be supported; you later - finally - did express such support.
What was so "bottomless" about this "method" of mine then?
Ah - well, as can be seen in your next lines, you just prefer to
"forget all about" that part of what you quoted from me which
referred to *the PCP*, and *only* want to talk about the part
about the "RIM". And it's not so strange either that you do
want to throw the very question of that struggle in Peru into
a *bottomless pit of "forgetfulness"*, is it? This does remain
one *extremely black chapter* concerning you.
Now OK, let's "just" discuss the "RIM":
XI. SUDDENLY, AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF SILENCE,
IT'S MORE FUN (JUST) TO DISCUSS THE "RIM"
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"In this utterance Rolf Martens speculated that certain ocurren-
ces in the history of our organisation were not known. After he
had again and again attempted to lodge such accusations, our or-
ganisation issued a large statement ("The Development of Our Or-
ganisation's Position Concerning the So-Called RIM") in which
the interrelations were explained, some internal occurences in-
cluded."
You're now mentioning your "Internet Statement No. 2/1998".
Those "internal occurrences" also discussed in it were and are
quite irrelevant, in the present context.
What I had pointed out, again and again in 1996-97, was your
long-time *covering-up* of the "RIM". After this, you finally,
first, on 05.08.1997, shamefacedly and shyly mumbled that the
1984 "RIM Declaration" was "unacceptable". Quite right! And
then you said this again, on 06.02.1998, in that "IS 2/98" of
yours precisely "dedicated to" the question of the "RIM". The
only really interesting thing in that "IS" was your *confession*
that you just had "filed away"(!) that "declaration" *and* that
you had seen it as early as in late 1984.
I had previously only been able to conclude that you must have
seen it at some time at least in late 1987 / early 1988.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"Rolf Martens has never commented on this although previously he
had kept publicly complaining that we were not able to speak out
on this."
No, I didn't comment on that one - on that *confession* of yours
of 06.02.1998 concerning the "RIM". Why should I?
Recently, on the same day as you posted your present lines, I
did mention that "Internet Statement No. 2/98" - in my Info
#105en, likewise of 26.07.1999. This was in part to point out
how you in that statement did confess to that long-time crime of
yours, and also to comment on that silly lie in it, that you
"had" told me - at least - about the existence of the "RIM",
back in the mid-80s.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"After such a statement had been published he shut his mouth."
After the criminal has confessed - indeed to an *even longer*
"career" in crime than he (you) had been publicly accused and
suspected of - why should the "prosecutor" *not* "shut his
mouth"?
XII. AGAIN, THAT "OLD BLACK MAGIC" - THROAT-SHOVING -
ONCE MORE
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"Our organisation had its reasons to keep certain reservations
with regard to the PCP, especially as it was part of this RIM-
coalition."
Just listen to that, other people!
You, the "NE" snakes, never *were* the ones who - in public at
least - made any efforts at separating the - hopefully - revolu-
tionary and main aspect of the PCP from that of its also endor-
sing the clearly reactionary "RIM Declaration". *I* did this,
while you during a long time were *silent* on these questions.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"We did appreciate the will to initiate against the current of
revisionism such a revolutionary struggle in Peru, and at the
same time formed a differentiating opinion, in spite of the dis-
tance and the difficulties to analyse certain things from
Europe."
This "sounds good". Such a "differentiating opinion" was what
I formed, and *expressed*, internationally, in order to *sup-
port* the correct things and *combat* the false ones. You with
your silence did *neither*.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"Above all, however, it was extremely cautious as regards the
surrounding of this organisation. The later experiences have
shown that there was ample reason to do so."
Here you, firstly, totally are "forgetting" the PCP in Peru it-
self - and the fact, of course, of your first "supporting" its
struggle, only to turn around 180 degrees and attack it six
months later. You now are mentioning only the (so-called)
"surroundings of" the PCP.
Secondly, you're trying to cover up the fact that you *in no
way* counteracted the extremely reactionary activities, of com-
bating and discrediting Marxism, precisely by those "PCP sur-
roundings", for instance in Berlin, since way back in 1987,
but instead precisely *covered up* those activities too, there-
by turning into an *ally* of these "surroundings".
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"In 1997 our organisation issued several statements which show a
differentiated judgement in this question, among these in par-
ticular a large publication "José Carlos Mariátegui and Cultural
Questions of the Peruvian Revolution" (June 30, 1997) by our
chairman Klaus Sender (the longtime pen-name of Hartmut Dicke),
in which he made a detailed inquiry into the PCP's fundaments."
Which was a quite good criticism too, and welcomed at once by
me, though I of course knew it was written with ulterior mo-
tives, for camouflage purposes.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"Since the publication of this article the pressure on our orga-
nisation and on other organisations, too, to unconditionallly
support these so-called friends of the PCP, has faded out and
disappeared."
Again, "only" these "surroundings" "exist" in this posting of
yours. How about the the PCP itself in Peru; what "standpoint"
are you taking up now on this??
You're SILENT. And NO WONDER. Since on this point there is
that really VERY FLAGRANT AND OBVIOUS crime of yours.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"The description given by Rolf Martens on the course of events
in 1997 in this question is a free invention."
No, it's *not*. But since you snakes in the below don't even
say *what* might be "wrong" about it, I cannot say more on this.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"To the author of the article about Mariátegui, Rolf Martens
then attested that he had written an "actually very good criti-
cism",..."
NOT "to the author", but *publicly*, I said so.
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"... he even all of a sudden started a patronizing behaviour and
demanded the article's publication also in Spanish (which ac-
tually had been done by ourselves already some time ago),..."
No "patronizing" standpoint did I ever take up against you,
reactionary snakes and swindlers, nor did I ever "demand" any-
ting whatsoever from you.
XIII. SOME STATEMENTS ON THE PCP IN PERU
- CONTRADICTORY OR CONSISTENT? -
AND ON SWINDLERS' FUTURE PROSPECTS
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"...and now himself played the critic of the PCP, for example in
the following way:..."
"Played", that's rich! As if it hadn't been *I* who, since back
in 1994 (cf above), precisely had *criticized publicly* that
most important error, above all, of the PCP's, that of its en-
dorsing the "RIM Declaration", while *you* precisely had been
*silent* on this for over a decade, and only now - in mid-1997
which is the time you're referring to - came forward with an
*indirect* criticism, at least (this being, as I said, a quite
useful one).
You're quoting from me:
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
" "Such a party as the PCP, which they at the same time
genuinely feared as a revolutionary one, in the other
aspect of it was an ideal one for the US imperialists to
divert on to a wrong track, by flattery, for instance,
and by massive infiltration which they no doubt have
engaged in against the PCP since long, and make use of
it as an instrument against the whole international
Marxist-Leninist movement."
"These organizational principles peculiar to the PCP
have been utilized by the US imperialists to establish a
'chain of command' that has no corresponding 'chain of
criticism' from below. The 'orders', the deceptions,
first come from the CIA, or from the direct muppets it's
using, to the PCP in Peru, and - if successful at least,
that is, if accepted as OK by the PCP leadership - then
transmitted to the MPP:s in the different other coun-
tries..." (Rolf Martens, in his UNITE! Info #38en,
06.07.97)
Compare this with the passages quoted above!"
Yes, other readers, why not do so?
My support of the PCP, from 1994 on (in English), was always a
*critical* one.
And that passage quoted above by no means contradicts the ones
you "NE" editorial-staff swindlers quoted from me before either,
where I said i.a. that "Its [your group's] failure to support
the PCP must be condemned" and that ".... the people's war in
Peru led by the PCP should absolutely be supported by the
Marxists-Leninists in other countries, who by no means should
team up with the opponents of that people's war".
What you of course also "forgot" to quote from that same Info
#38en of mine but what I did write too, after the above passage
with quite sharp criticism against the PCP, was:
'On the other hand, the very fact that the CIA has
*needed* its "RIM" muppets to do that back-stabbing
against the PCP, by which these muppets exposed them-
selves so completely too, is one thing that indicates
that the PCP is *not* essentially a phony organization
either but is one whose struggle the US imperialists
actually do fear.' (Info #38en, part 3/6, 06.07.1997)
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"When Rolf Martens was approached for this contradiction he an-
swered threatening the author with physical destruction."
Silly lies, two of them. One is pretty nasty too, though.
There was and is *no* contradiction in that which I wrote. I
continued, all the time, to basically support the PCP while at
the same time pointing out its serious errors and negative
aspects.
As for "threat of physical destruction" against "an author"
("Walter Grobe") who in 1997 tried the same trick as you're
trying now, editorial-snakes (quoting one passage from my Info
#38en while leaving out that other, which of course was equally
an important part of my judgement of the PCP then), I refuted
that self-revealing lie of his, and a large number of others,
in all their details with my Info #50en. Before I posted it, I
also made one brief reply pointing out that *your lies*, snakes
- not only those of "Grobe" - most probably would *not* help you
- *you all*, rightist-elements, not only "Grobe" - from even-
tually coming to a *very bad end* at the hands of the masses.
This by no means was a "threat" of course but a prediction. What
do *you* think eventually *will* happen to ultra-reactionaries
like yourselves? And now, when bringing this ridiculous lie of
yours on this, you "needed to" name just "that author" as the
"subject" of that prediction of mine, didn't you, since it pre-
sumably would have sounded even more ridiculous if you'd accused
me, one single person, of "threatening" the entire (even if not
so big) "Group Neue Einheit" "with physical destruction"?
[RATTLER WRITHING:]
"We have never said something like this about the PCP."
Meaning, something like that quoted above from my Info #38en.
No, of course, you "ONLY" have 1) kept mum about it for over
a decade, 2) clearly voiced "support" for its armed struggle, in
February 1997, 3) equally clearly suddenly completely condemned
and attacked that same struggle in July-August 1997, with not
the least explanation of why that complete turn-around, and 4)
since then avoided saying anything at all on the question.
[Continued in part 6/7]