The crazed and the ignorant
Read this comment thread at the Globe and Mail if you have the stomach; this is the story:
Harper wonders if Canadians really get AfghanistanThree hundred and sixty comments (including one by me ) in just under six and a half hours before the hateful spew was shut down; there are a lot of deranged people out there.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 10:14 p.m.
11 Comments:
significant manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome in many of those comments.
I am surprised that there is so little knowledge that it is a UN mandated mission, not a Washington one. Such a lack of support by the cranky lefties is odd. They usually bow down in awe at UN activities, i.e. Kyoto One world Government.
fred, watch out for the black helicopters with the ZOG agents in the back.
You two are turning into our little website's version of Felix and Oscar...
When do we get our Pigeon sisters?
Mark
Ottawa
Yeah, Fred, I read some of that G&M comment thread. Like you, I'm amazed that the opponents of Canada participating in Af-stan liberation get away with ignoring the facts:
It's multilateral, it's UN-mandated and NATO-led and commanded. All supposedly benchmarks for leftist approval.
Not just those facts, but also that the cause is liberating tens of millions of Third World folks from tyranny, giving them an opportunity to build a modern, democratic Af-stan.
An Af-stan where women are treated with equal human dignity, not like livestock; where gays aren't crushed to death for their private choices; where girls can also go to school and get an education, not just boys; where there's a growing economy, giving people opportunities to lift themselves out of the poverty and do things other than subsistence farming or the evil of opium growing, ... and where people choose their own leaders in free elections.
All this would seem to resonate with the minds of most everybody who believes in Humanity and helping oppressed people all over the world attain their birthright of freedom.
Dave: All that matters with respect to those types is that their minds (such as they are) are racked by blind hatred of President Bush and Prime Minister Harper, e.g:
'Paul Chislett from Windsor, Canada writes: Mr. Harper, I "get" Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. It is a criminal occupation of a foreign country at the behest of the criminal Bush regime in Washington. I demand our troops out now and that you, sir, cease playing warlord.'
By that line of polemic (I shudder to use the word "reasoning") then the UN Security Council, the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan, and NATO are all "criminal" organizations. But these people, in their anger or ignorance, just choose to ignore inconvenient truths.
And the Globe's misleading "get" in the headline fueled the fire.
Take a look at the "Comments" at "Daimnation!".
Mark
Ottawa
bb.. how very scary that I get that reference...
Mark, they issue that part of the left a little spread sheet for random insult generating, works like this:
You are a:
imperialist running dog tool
yankee criminal fascist
etc etc etc
Then you mix and match from each column till you get something like "The imperialist criminal invasion against the freedom loving Taliban regime is just a ploy by the Yankee's and their running dog lackeys in the Harper "government"."...
fred appears to have the right wing version.
Cameron, what you call right wing the rest of us call common sense.
Since you obviously have read the G&M comment thread before commenting, your statement reveals more about your understanding of current events than anything rejoinder comment I could ever write.
Cameron and Fred: What about the Pigeon sisters?
And what about "Splittism"? The good old days of Leninist/Stalinist rhetoric, from a Maoist (at least at the time, length for flavour):
"On What Basis Can We Achieve Real Unity Against the Enemy?
Recently, the Khrushchov revisionists have been particularly vociferous in calling for “unity against the enemy” and for “united action”. What do they really mean by the “unity against the enemy” and the “united action” which they are talking about? Do they really want to unite with us against the enemy?
No! Not at all!
The so-called unity the Khrushchov revisionists want is not based on Marxism-Leninism, on the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement, but on the revisionist general line laid down at the 20th and 22nd Congresses and embodied in the Programme of the CPSU, the general line of “peaceful coexistence”, the general line of “Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the domination of the world”. Following this line can only mean unity with the U.S. imperialists, with the reactionaries and the modern revisionists, and cannot possibly mean unity with the Marxist-Leninists or unity with the people who constitute over 90 per cent of the world’s population.
These people who are shouting “unity” have long since degenerated into the greatest splitters of modern times. Ever since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, they have kept on splitting away from Marxism-Leninism, from Stalin, from the Soviet people, from revolution and from all the Marxist-Leninist parties. Today, they are still pursuing Khrushchov’s policy of “four alignments with and four alignments against”, that is, alignment with imperialism against socialism, alignment with the United States against China and the other revolutionary countries, alignment with the reactionaries everywhere against the national-liberation movements and the people’s revolutions, and alignment with the Tito clique and renegades of all descriptions against all the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties and all revolutionaries fighting imperialism.
The Khrushchov revisionists are now more active than anyone else in crying for the “unity” of the international communist movement, the aim being to stop the Marxist-Leninists from making a further exposure of their revisionist essence and their dirty tricks and to attack those who oppose their revisionism and splittism. They are putting up a show of crying for “unity” while they themselves are disrupting unity and of shouting, “Down with splittism!” while they themselves are creating a split.
Without an elementary class analysis, the slogan “unity against the enemy” is meaningless. We must make clear whom they want “unity” with and which enemy they want to deal with. Since 1959, we have repeatedly advised the Khrushchov revisionists not to regard enemies as friends and vice versa. They categorically refused to listen. After the fall of Khrushchov, we advised them to discard his legacy and to put right their perverse attitude towards enemies and friends. They again refused to listen. They declared to our delegation’s face that there was not a shade of difference between them and Khrushchov in their attitude towards enemies and friends. They still refuse to treat U.S. imperialism as the main enemy, but insist on treating it as the main friend. They are still “uniting with” U.S. imperialism against the people of the world. Under these circumstances, how is it possible to speak of unity with the Marxist-Leninists and the revolutionary people against the enemy?
Recently, the Khrushchov revisionists have also cried for the necessity of “united action” on the part of the socialist countries. Again, we must make clear what this “united action” is for. Is it “united action” to fit in with the U.S. imperialist plot of “peace negotiations”, to betray the interests of the Vietnamese people and put down their revolution? Is it “united action” to surrender to U.S. imperialism and oppose the national-liberation movement and the people’s revolutionary struggle in every country? Or is it “united action” to implement the revisionist general line of “Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the settlement of world problems” ? Truth to tell, such “united action” can only be sought with U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, with the Indian reactionaries and with the Tito clique. To seek such “united action” with Marxist-Leninists is to knock at the wrong door.
Lenin ridiculed such people as follows: “In the market-place it often happens that the vendor who shouts loudest and calls God to witness is the one with the shoddiest goods for sale.” 11 We must expose the very shoddy goods they are peddling to the light of the sun.
Some have asked: Haven’t you Marxist-Leninists established very good united-front relations with many non-Marxist-Leninists and non-Communists? Why can’t you enter into united action with the modern revisionists?
But this does not depend on our wishes. From the point of view of our wishes, the best thing would be for them to abandon revisionism, or at least refrain from siding with U.S. imperialism, the common enemy of the people of the world. Indeed we were actuated by this wish when we repeatedly advised and criticized them, hoping that they might turn from their erroneous ways. Unfortunately, they have turned a deaf ear to all this. What can one do if they are happy in their own degeneration? They have insisted on staying outside, the united front of the people of the world against U.S. imperialism and conducting an ardent flirtation with it so that they are like a pair of lovebirds that even clubbing cannot separate. In these circumstances, of course it is impossible for them to really join the Marxist-Leninists and the people of the world in any “united action".
In this sense, they really cannot be compared with the anti-imperialist and revolutionary representatives of the national bourgeoisie in Asia, Africa and Latin America, nor even with the anti-imperialist and patriotic representatives of royal families and the nobility. As Stalin said in The Foundations of Leninism, some so-called socialists were reactionary while certain kings and some merchants, who fought for national independence, were objectively revolutionary. This is the fact and the truth.
In attacking the Marxist-Leninists, the Khrushchov revisionists have said that refusal to take “united action” with them constitutes “encouragement” to imperialist adventures and renders “invaluable service to the aggressors".
This label can never be pinned on us, but it well fits the Khrushchov revisionists. It is not we, but they with their revisionist and capitulationist line, who have encouraged the U.S. aggressor and served U.S. imperialism. Who voted in the U.N. Security Council for U.S. armed aggression in the Congo (Leopoldville)? Who bowed and surrendered before Kennedy’s blackmail in the Caribbean crisis? Who plotted the swindle of the U.S. British-Soviet partial nuclear test ban treaty to consolidate the position of the United States as a nuclear overlord? Who has been planning to organize a permanent U.N. armed force in collusion with U.S. imperialism in order to suppress the national-liberation movement? Is it not the fallen Khrushchov and his successors who have done all these things which encourage the U.S. aggressor and serve U.S. imperialism ? Aren’t these things the products of the revisionist line of “Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the domination of the world"? Aren’t such things being repeated today on the question of Viet Nam?
In contrast to the Khrushchov revisionist line, the line pursued by the Chinese Communist Party, the Indonesian Communist Party and the other Marxist-Leninist parties is a thoroughly revolutionary line, which persists in opposing imperialism, resolutely supports the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed people and nations and defends world peace. Practice has proved that this is the only correct line. Only by following this line is it possible to puncture the arrogance of the U.S. imperialist aggressor, thwart its plans for aggression and war, and thereby both promote the people’s revolution of all countries and win world peace.
The Chinese Communist Party, the Indonesian Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist parties have always stood for unity against the enemy. To Marxist-Leninists unity against the enemy means unity of the workers of all lands and unity of the workers and the oppressed people and nations of the world against imperialism and reaction. At present, it means unity of the international proletariat and the revolutionary people of all countries, and unity with all the forces that can be united, in joint action against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. What we mean by unity against the enemy is a slogan which draws a clear-cut line of demarcation between enemies and friends; it is a revolutionary slogan.
The unity of the international communist movement can be achieved only on the basis of adherence to Marxism-Leninism and opposition to modern revisionism.
The unity between the international proletariat and the oppressed nations can be achieved only on the basis of firm opposition to imperialism, particularly to U.S. imperialism, and firm support for the revolution of the oppressed nations.
The unity between the international proletariat and the oppressed people can be achieved only on the basis of firm opposition to imperialism and reaction and firm support for the revolution of the people of all countries.
It is for revolution that we unite. Unity with revolutionaries is out of the question if one opposes revolution. Making revolution and opposing imperialism is the demand of the broad masses of the people who comprise more than 90 per cent of the world’s population and is the irresistible trend of history. Whoever goes against this aspiration of the people and this trend will inevitably be discarded by history.
The great Soviet people is a people endowed with the glorious tradition of the October Revolution. The great Communist Party of the Soviet Union is a Party with a long history of revolutionary struggle. In their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and of the cause of the proletarian revolution, the Khrushchov revisionists are violating the fundamental interests of the broad masses of the Soviet people and the Soviet Communists. To fight against Khrushchov revisionism is the demand of the Soviet people and the broad masses of the members and cadres of the CPSU as well as of all the Communists and the revolutionary people of the world. The Chinese Communists and the Chinese people are firmly convinced that the Parties and peoples of China and the Soviet Union will ultimately disperse the dark clouds spread by Khrushchov revisionism, closely unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and combine their efforts to oppose U.S. imperialism and its lackeys and to promote the revolutionary cause.
We still place some hope in the leadership of the CPSU, and will welcome the day when they admit and rectify their mistakes, discard Khrushchov revisionism and return to the path of Marxism-Leninism. But it seems that this day is still far off. We Marxist-Leninists must carry the struggle against Khrushchov revisionism through to the end and must not in the least slacken our efforts."
The nutters at the Globe have abandoned all theoretical niceties for simple bile--though at the same time they retain a hermeneutic logic.
Mark
Ottawa
fred, somehow, while accusing me of not reading (or not being able to) you managed to miss the bit where I mocked the people in the comments section of the G and M.
It occurs to me that I'm being too circumspect for fred so here goes:
fred, I agree with you that the people commenting in the Globe and Mail thread are moronic. I agree with you that they are ill-informed.
What I can't agree with is your equally mindless prattle.
You are their analog.
It's not the root message that I find annoying and offensive, it's the manner of delivery.
Post a Comment
<< Home