Re: [sixties-l] Re: Black Panthers (Roz replies[2])

From: David Horowitz (
Date: Tue Jun 13 2000 - 19:34:58 CUT

  • Next message: David Horowitz: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-The Black Panthers"

    "Everyone on the left knew they had turned pure criminal." This is typical
    mindless leftism. The posts to this list alone show how false Albert's statement
    is (and it is not the first time he has used it, nor is he the only one to have
    done so). Does Jeffrey Blankfort think the Panthers were "pure criminal?" What is
    the argument on this thread about if not this issue? Hasn't everybody who has
    written to criticize me done so on this point, claiming that the Panthers were
    not criminals? And the only reason there is even any concession to some criminal
    acts on their part is because of a 20 year effort by myself and a handful of
    other individuals who defied the pc attitudes of the left and people like Stew
    Albert to bring the facts to light. I will pay $100 to anyone on this thread who
    can turn up a single article by a leftist in 1973, which is when I got involved
    with the Panthers that describes them as criminals. (Excluded from this offer are
    the attacks of the Cleaver faction of the Party. Of course, when leftists attack
    each other in a power struggle they always smear the other side as police agents,
    criminals and the like). Stew Albert was a frequent writer for the Berkeley Barb
    in the Sixties. I recall an article by him declaring Machine Gun Kelly and John
    Dillinger to be revolutionary heroes. Perhaps Stew would do us the favor of
    posting a published comment of his from those years about the Panthers turning
    "pure criminal." wrote:

    > Country Joe makes a good point re-Horowitz. His, is a tired and repetitive
    > game. I guess he is operating out some sense of responsibility for his
    > mistakes - especially recruiting a politically inexperienced bookkeeper into
    > the Panther crowd at a time when everyone on the left knew they had turned
    > pure criminal. (I'm not talking here of using illegal tactics to serve
    > political purposes which they did in their earlier 60's period.) She wound up
    > being murdered and this is David's burden. But let us not let his problems
    > disrupt our street corner. In the last analysis what other reason would he
    > have for being here?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 14 2000 - 17:27:52 CUT