Leftist Censorship on the Basis of False Statements: The Case of MarxMail.world Listserve

I have merely copyed an email I received from one of the moderators who unsubcribed me from the Marxmail listserve. The moderator’s unsubscription of me and the censorship of my experiences as a Marxist father are indicative of the pathetic state of much of the so-called radical left these days:

Les Schaffer:

Fred:

as i recall, you were making claims related to an ongoing legal case in Canada. We have no way — as email list participants far from the scene — of adjucating such a matter. i do not remember you engaging with list members about your personal experience in a way that anyone could relate to.

otherwise, on the whole you have been resistant to engaging with other marxists on the list. and the list is a moderated list. my guess is you understand what moderation means, and just dont like it. start your own list unmoderated and see how that works out.

we as moderators are tired of the personal sniping and are making changes. i’ve unsubscribed you from the list. if you have a change of heart and want to rejoin, write me and we can go from there.

Les

On 10/3/23 8:04 AM, Group Notification wrote:

A message was sent to the group https://groups.io/g/marxmail from luchaharris@gmail.com that needs to be approved because the user is moderated.

View this message online

Subject: Re: Mod Post: gojko rakic to be moderated.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 07:40 AM, Les Schaffer wrote:

if you are unwilling to engage with people who see things differently,
close the door behind you

Actually, it was the moderators who closed the door–by censoring my experiences as a Marxist father. Given that, obviously if I try to bring my experiences into a debate, I will be censored.

I will continue to send posts from my blog–and not engage in debate on this listserve (but I will on my own blog since on my blog I will not be censored).

Just a correction on a previous post of mine: I referred to a person who lies being labelled with the adjective “liar.” It is actually a noun. My mistake.

In any case, I rest my case.

Fred

9:55 AM (0 minutes ago)

to Les

“as i recall, you were making claims related to an ongoing legal case in Canada.”

What nonsense. What “ongoing legal case?” You censor someone on the basis of a false proposition. There is no “ongoing legal case”. That is a lie. My daughter is now 29. She was 2-years old when she first indicated that her mother was using a “paleta” (a wooden stick) and a cincho (belt) to “discipline her. Etc. The issue is related to my complaints to the Winnipeg Child and Family Services (WCFS) about such abuse. Given that the court-ordered assessor was more concerned with my alleged “Marxist indoctrination” of my daughter rather than with my true allegation of physical abuse by the mother (he specifically stated that my claim was somewhat ridiculous–anytime I made legitimate complaints about such concerns to the WCFS, they always found out that my daughter did not need protection. Furthermore, in 2004, when I made another complaint, they threatened to consult their legal counsel and call the police. Etc.

But such details escape such “Marxist” censors. There is no ongoing legal case. It is a fabrication of the moderators of Marxmail. Such sloppy work–which is what I hardly expected.

Or my daughter’s accusation that she was sexually abused by her mother’s partner? That went to court long ago (and was dismissed because it was allegedly a case of my daughter’s statement versus his statement–but I believe my daughter was sexually abused–evidence on the basis of her violent behaviour for several years). Her mother’s partner has been dead for several years now from cancer.

So what is this alleged “ongoing legal case?”

What “ongoing legal case” are you referring to? You exercise censorship without even taking the care of getting your facts straight. Please provide evidence that I indicated that there is an “ongoing legal case.” You cannot, because I never indicated that. Such carelessness and lack of concern for the truth–characteristic of the social-reformist assessor as well.

At least have the courage to indicate that you have unsubscribed me on the listserve on the basis of false accusations of an imagined “ongoing legal case.”

I will be copying this email and my reply to my blog.

And it does not bother me at all that I have been unsubscribed–by moderators who cannot even get their facts straight!

Fred

Apparently, there are now five moderators, four of whose names I know. The name of the emailer above, David Walters, Anthony Boyton and Mark Bauger. The fifth name is unknown to me.

An update is in order. I thought that it would be appropriate to wait for a couple of days in order to see whether the moderators would indicate to the listserve that they had unsubscribed me on the basis of false statements. The moderators have done no such thing (I still have “read only” access” to the listserve, apparently)

Given their lack of courage in indicating to the members of the listserve the false basis for their action, I can only conclude that the moderators are in indeed censors who act like dictators. Marx long ago, as editor of the newspater Reinische Zeitung (Rhenish Gazette) had to deal with such people.

By the way, the argument by Les Schaffer that

i do not remember you engaging with list members about your personal experience in a way that anyone could relate to.

is interesting. To be able to do so, I would have had to been able to indicate what happened–but was censored by Les et al. They criticize me for not doing what they ensured I could not do.

I could have added the following as well: What ongoing legal case? Do they mean when I was arrested for allegedly abusing my daughter physically on April 4, 2011 (“coincidentally” four days after I submitted a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission against Child and Family Services–another lesson to be learned there about the limited power of human rights commissions (and their possible collusion). My lawyer indicated that the Human Rights Commission would not address my complaint given that there were criminal charges. The Commission never did address my complaint.

My daughter’s mother was never charged with physical abuse–despite doing so for over a decade.

That legal case ended in November, 2011, when the charges were dropped (without explanation). So, what “ongoing legal case?”

The charges probably stemmed from 2010, when I was to have surgery related to bladder cancer. I gave my daughter a note indicating that I was to have surgery on April 19, 2010 (and I also gave her a book on evolution–she was going through a religious phase). The same day that I gave her the note and book, I received a call from Winnipeg Child and Family Services, indicating that my daughter had been apprehended and that should I try to contact her I would be arrested.

After my surgery, I began sending a table of the numerous times that I had complained to the Winnipeg Child and Family Services about the mother’s physical abuse of Francesca–to the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Education and the Premier of Manitoba, Greg Selinger (head of the government and the New Democratic Party–a social-democratic or social-reformist party). I titled the table: J’accuse.

In any case, some may wonder why I would bring in an allegedly personal issue into a political struggle. As I indicated in another post on this blog, the personal can, at times, be indeed political if political lessons are to be drawn from it.

In addition to the political lessons outlined above, one of the political lessons to be drawn from it is that Marxists should be keenly aware of the possibility of political bigotry when they call themselves Marxists. The court-ordered assessor, Wayne Ashley (I will name him now–let him take me to court)–was politically biased, focusing on my so-called Marxist indoctrination of my daughter rather than the true allegations of my daughter’s mother using a wooden stick and a belt to “discipline” my daughter since the age of at least two years old.

There are various other lessons to be drawn. I will simply copy some of the points from the posts on my blog on this issue:

Some lessons to be drawn, when dealing with social workers, the courts, the police and other representatives of the social system:

Expect the interests of children to be less important than political oppression of Marxists.

Unless Marxists record everything, expect social workers to either be incapable of understanding the situation which you face, or expect them to distort it, or even to lie. (And even if you record it, they will try to interpret the situation in such a way that tries to show Marxists to be irrational.)

Expect accusations of indoctrination from those who are themselves indoctrinated (see my series of posts on silent indoctrination in schools by means of the Canadian history curriculum, for example A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

Do not expect that your efforts at telling the truth will prevail over lies by others since the representatives of the class of employers will assume that the lies of others are the truth and that your telling the truth is a lie.

Expect social democrats to be incapable of dealing with the reality of the details of government or state oppression.

Or the following:

Political Lessons to Be Learned

When we look at all these experiences, it can be seen that the government and its representatives in many ways functions to oppress workers and citizens. The left seem oblivious to this aspect of the regular person’s experiences. Indeed, the left’s frequent reference to the solution of “expanded public services,” for many sounds like a call for an expanded system of oppression. Is there really any wonder why workers and citizens have moved to the right in many instances? The left, of course, absolves itself of any responsibility for this turn. It chastises the lower levels of the working class for, for instance, voting for the likes of Trump, while it fails to look critically at its own contribution to the continued oppression of workers and citizens.

Or again:

The social-democratic left generally fail to consider the extent to which this network of individuals and professions reinforces the fundamental structure of the power of the class of employers and the associated economic, political and social structures of exploitation and oppression.

The underestimation of the extent to which there exists a network of individuals and professions that serve, ultimately, the interests of the class of employers thereby overestimates the ease with which social change can occur without a decided strategy for addressing such institutional, ideological and individual oppression.

What is needed is open and systematic critique of such individuals, professions and institutions.

This requires that the radical left discuss such issues and formulate measures and organize to counteract these oppressive individuals, professions and institutions.

It also requires the radical left critique the social-democratic or reformist left since such reformers are blind to the oppressive nature of such institutions.

I rest my case.