Anti-War rally in San Francisco
Frito Pendejo
but here are some photos from the San Francisco Chronicle, which seem to
show pretty much the same thing I saw two years ago, except that the
protesters are demanding Barack Obama be impeached instead of George W.
Bush:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2010/03/20/state/n153320D60.DTL
And here is one of my own photos from the 2008 rally. Just imagine the
outrage if it was Chairman Obama instead of Emperor Bush being compared
to Hitler:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3644823884_5780daea31.jpg
Anarcissie
<y4edne3eAIgc2DvW...@earthlink.com>,
Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
I think you could probably catch an Obama-Hitler
comparison at a Tea Party. However, the favorite
image seems to be the Obama-Joker parody. As
for outrage, no doubt there is some huffing here
and there, but most of the putative huffers are
astounded by the craziness of the Right (or some
of the Right, anyway) and are struck speechless.
My theory is that the Democratic Party, moving to
the right, has occupied all the rational, established-
order ideological space that the Republicans used to
farm. (For instance, the current Health Care Reform
bills is essentially a Republican bill; the stuff the
progs wanted in it has been taken out.) This has left
the right wing without a grip. Social conservatives
(i.e. racists and religious fanatics) are especially
going mad. I understand from reading the very little
news that I can stand that formerly out-of-bounds
racial and sexual epithets are now used quite overtly
at rallies without a murmur from the party elders.
I don't know how this is going to come out.
Mr. O, already cautious and conservative, has been
astonishingly conciliatory with, seemingly, no reward
whatever. I suppose he and his associates will take
it out on the progs. They've kicked them around
quite successfully since at least spring of '08; why
stop now?
Freddrick Smith
into war with African savages and with Iran.
You dont think he is going to continue to ignore the Africans do you .
James A. Donald
> My theory is that the Democratic Party, moving to the right, has
> occupied all the rational, established- order ideological space that
> the Republicans used to farm. (For instance, the current Health
> Care Reform bills is essentially a Republican bill; the stuff the
> progs wanted in it has been taken out.) This has left the right
> wing without a grip.
That is crazy talk. Not one republican has voted for the health care
bill, and to round up enough Democrats to vote for the bill has
required bribery, intimidation, and major right wing concessions to
democrat voters in marginal seats - for example allowing farmers
enough water to farm.
Obama's foreign policy is anti american and destructive.
Bush moved America far to the left, and Obama has moved America
further to the left. The Tea party is well to the left of Reagan era
conservatives and only marginally to the right of center. Sarah Palin
occupies the center as indicated by polling, slightly to the left of
the tea party - indeed she occupies the center (as Rasmussen measures
the center) so precisely that I pretty sure her persona and belief
system is systematically constructed according to her interpretation
of the latest polling from Rasmussen. The Republican party is well to
the left of Palin, being dominated by Bush republicans, and the
Democrats well to the left of the Republicans.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
James A. Donald
> > Bush moved America far to the left, and Obama has moved America
> > further to the left. The Tea party is well to the left of Reagan
> > era
All the Tea in China Blue
> That's funny.
The fact that we are now discussing a health scheme that has been a
wet dream of the left ever since the depression demonstrates it.
Similarly, consider what is happening in Afghanistan and Israel. You
may well think those polices "right wing" in some sense, but they are
pretty far left compared to what has gone down in the past. A few
decades back, if the enemy controlled a village, we would just napalm
the whole #@%^&* village. Even the subjugation of Haiti by Clinton
when he imposed Aristide was fairly ruthless and brutal, none of this
worrying if we might hurt the feelings of some Haitians.
Frito Pendejo
> In article<eibdq5970nvhn936p...@4ax.com>,
>> further to the left. The Tea party is well to the left of Reagan era
>
I think he makes a good point. The Bush presidency began with the
largest expansion of federal powers in U.S. history, and ended with the
nationalization of certain industries and the largest transfer of wealth
in U.S. history.
Bush basically destroyed capitalism. Capitalism involves risk, and the
bailouts set a precedent where companies and their investors are
rewarded for bad decisions, which seems to be equivalent to socialism,
since state-run enterprises also cannot fail.
Anarcissie
<fdgdq5t9idgtr8n1n...@4ax.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > > Bush moved America far to the left, and Obama has moved America
> > > further to the left. The Tea party is well to the left of Reagan
> > > era
>
> All the Tea in China Blue
> > That's funny.
He's probably using the terms "left" and "right"
differently than you (or I) would.
> The fact that we are now discussing a health scheme that has been a
> wet dream of the left ever since the depression demonstrates it.
Ever since Bismarck.
> Similarly, consider what is happening in Afghanistan and Israel. You
> may well think those polices "right wing" in some sense, but they are
> pretty far left compared to what has gone down in the past. A few
> decades back, if the enemy controlled a village, we would just napalm
> the whole #@%^&* village. Even the subjugation of Haiti by Clinton
> when he imposed Aristide was fairly ruthless and brutal, none of this
> worrying if we might hurt the feelings of some Haitians.
>
Of course in a larger sense war and imperialism are
always rightist, but in the almost universal liberalism
of the U.S. it has been the Near Left, starting with
Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, who were the big pushers
of imperialism and the Right who were dubious about it,
preferring local control of the lower orders through
local institutions, rather than trying to control the
whole world.
This imperialism has always been accompanied by a great
deal of high-mindedness, idealism, and professed concern
about the best interests of its targets, even while
slaughtering them. Hence it was the Democrats Kennedy
and Johnson who set up and began the War in Vietnam,
not the Eisenhower and Taft Republicans, who famously
thought that a war on the mainland of Asia was crazy.
Remember "hearts and minds"?
Nixon began, and Reagan completed, the Republican
movement to the Democratic position in the war and
imperialism area. However, they have not displaced the
Democrats, as witness Clinton's and Obama's fondness
for the adventures begun by the Bushes. And as I said
the Democrats have been moving steadily to the Right in
other areas, steadily occupying more and more
ideological terrain, so that the Repubicans now find
themselves with an unstable base consisting mostly of
religious fanatics and "social conservatives." These
days, you can be a Wall Streeter, a neo-con, a war
freak, and fit quite comfortably in the Democratic
fold.
What is truly miraculous is the way the Democratic
leadership has at the same time managed to keep the
progs under control while they give them nothing but
the back of the hand. I haven't figured that one out.
There seems to be no Left left.
Fred
typed:
In the first place Bush moved the country far to the right, not the
left. Bush didn't come up with anything to help the poor, even when
disaster struck in New Orleans, the feds sent in armed guards and
mercenaries rather than aid. If you shoot the poor, you don't have to
feed them. Not really left wing stuff, to be sure.
Obama is continuing the tradition, albeit not in the U.S. yet.
He did however send in the army when Haiti was struck by the Earthquake
instead of sending aid, and the army immediately blockaded the airport
and refused to allow aid into the country. piling up the aid that had
already arrived at the airport and prevented even that from being
distributed. This is a form of genocide, and just like with the Bush
regime, it is perpetrated against Black people, by an oreo president.
There is no "left" in the U.S. government. They serve their
masters, not the people.
--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my address to reply by email)
<http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney.html>
Anarcissie
<KtCdnZYyR8RyTDvW...@earthlink.com>,
Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
If _left_ now means centralizing authoritarianism, then
the terms "left" and "right" don't mean anything any
more and we might as well give up using them.
The association of capitalism with risk is ambiguous.
Capitalists have often tried to minimize their own
risk, often at the expense of others. The history of
capitalism is full of monopolies, cabals, subsidies and
bailouts. The rich have political power and influence
as a result of their wealth, and they use it.
In the case of the American financial industry,
the practice of getting Federal government bailouts
goes back at least to 1987, when a major crash was
averted by making virtually unlimited credit available
to certain important stock-market traders. (There may
have been earlier instances, but this is the first one
I know about.) This bailout changed the rules of the
game, because now although the individual investor
could still fail, the _class_ of investors could not
fail. The market is guaranteed to go up, or at least
not go down too badly. There followed the 20 years of
inflated equity prices and then real estate, fueled by
extremely low interest rates and easy credit for the
rich, policies carried on by Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton,
and Bush 2, and with the support of both major
parties. It is being carried forward now under Obama.
It should be clear that the will and ideology which
created this arrangement and are maintaining it now
have little to do with the main political parties or
such designations as "liberal" and "conservative". And
nothing could be further from socialism -- "the
ownership and control of the means of production by the
workers".
James A. Donald
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:07:49 +0000 (UTC), Fred
> In the first place Bush moved the country far to the right
In what did Bush move the country to the right?
Government spending as a proportion of GDP rose dramatically under
Bush, well above Clinton levels.
Affirmative action rose dramatically under Bush, far above Clinton
levels, especially in lending.
Regulatory interference in business and supervision of business rose
dramatically under Bush, far above Clinton levels. We recently
learned that Lehman's accounts were fraudulent. (Lehman's bankruptcy
was the start of the financial crisis coming out in the open) As soon
as we learnt this, those who committed this fraud pointed out that
this fraud had been approved by the SEC and Federal Reserve, and that
such "approvals" were very close to being commands.
It has now become apparent that the Bank of America engaged in the
same fraud, which suggests that everyone in the finance industry
engaged in similar fraud, which could only happen if the SEC and the
Federal Reserve told everyone to commit fraud, in order to stay in
line with the fraud being committed by the quasi governmental finance
entities: Fannie, Freddy, and HUD.
> Bush didn't come up with anything to help the poor,
> even when disaster struck in New Orleans, the feds sent in armed
> guards and mercenaries rather than aid.
And what did the Democrat run state government do? What did the
Democrat run city government do.
One thing the Democrat run city government did before the crisis is
embezzle the funds for maintaining the dikes. Another thing it did
was lock down all the buses in depots that subsequently went under
water, rather than using them to evacuate people.
You are comparing Bush not with Clinton and Carter, but with your
ideal government of true leftists. Bush is undoubtedly right wing
compared to your left wing ideal, but he is pretty far left as
compared to the actual Democrats that have been running the country
from time to time, including Clinton, Carter, and the Democrats that
ran the state and local governments that had responsibility for New
Orleans.
James A. Donald
> If _left_ now means centralizing authoritarianism,
The claim was that Bush moved the country far to the left. To check
this claim, he has to be compared with past actual US governments, not
compared to your ideal perfect leftist regime.
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:44:35 -0400, Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com>
> If _left_ now means centralizing authoritarianism,
The claim was that Bush moved the country far to the left. To check
this claim, he has to be compared with past actual US governments, not
compared to your ideal perfect leftist regime.
But digressing to this new question that you raise:
Left has always meant centralized authoritarianism: Does anyone doubt
that Cuba and North Korea are left.
Students are still forbidden to doubt that the North Korean economy
was a great success, at least at first, even though it was quite
obviously a catastrophe from the very first day.
The universities are left. The universities teach that Castro is
popular, and North Korea was, at least in the beginning, a good and
successful example of planned industrialization, showing the way for
third world countries to develop without all those evil sweatshops.
Therefore, Cuba and North Korea are left in the eyes of the left.
What the Universities teach is leftism: Before Soviet Union
collapsed, in part because economic stagnation meant it could no
longer afford a military capable of terrorizing its empire, every
student was taught:
: : "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that
: : the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for
: : economic growth The Soviet model has surely demonstrated
: : that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources
: : for rapid growth."
And if a student dared disagree, he was failed.
"It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe
are miserable." --Paul Samuelson, Professor of Economics, MIT, Nobel
Laureate, Economics, 1981.
"The Soviet Union is not now, nor will it be during the
next decade, in the throes of a true systematic crisis, for it boasts
enormous unused reserves of political and social stability that
suffice to endure the deepest difficulties." --Seweryn Bialer,
Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, Foreign Affairs
Magazine, 1982/3.
"I found more goods in the shops, more food in the
markets, more cars on the street ... those in the United States who
think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social
collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink are wishful
thinkers who are only kidding themselves." --Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,
1982.
"All evidence indicates that the Reagan administration
has abandoned both containment and detente for a very different
objective: destroying the Soviet Union as a world power and possibly
even its Communist system. [This is a] potentially fatal form of
Sovietphobia ... a pathological rather than a healthy response to the
Soviet Union." --Stephen Cohen, Princeton University Sovietologist,
1983.
"That the Soviet system has made great material
progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from
the general urban scene...One sees it in the appearance of well-being
of the people on the streets...and the general aspect of restaurants,
theaters, and shops... Partly, the Russian system succeeds because,
in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use
of its manpower." --John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics,
Harvard University, 1984.
"On the economic front, for the first time in its
history the Soviet leadership was able to pursue successfully a
policy of guns and butter as well as growth ... The Soviet
citizen-worker, peasant, and professional - has become accustomed in
the Brezhnev period to an uninterrupted upward trend in his
well-being ..." --John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics,
Harvard University, New Yorker Magazine, 1984.
"What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that
the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic
growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command
economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." --Paul
Samuelson, MIT, Nobel laureate in economics, 1985.
"Can economic command significantly compress and
accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the
Soviet Union suggests that it can. In 1920 Russia was but a minor
figure in the economic councils of the world. Today it is a country
whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United
States." --Lester Thurow, Professor of Economics, MIT, The Economic
Problem, 1989.
These individuals are the Bishops and Archbishops of the left, their
journals and institutions the bibles and Cathedrals of the left.
The Universities are leftism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union,
they are leftism's Pope, its Holy See. They and the New York Times
are the Cathedral, before which all true leftists solemnly kneel.
And the Universities are centralized authority, as much as the Kremlin
was.
For example: Before 1970, ever academic who reported on Lamarck and
common descent told the same story, usually illustrated with lengthy
quotes from Lamarck - that though Lamarck got the mechanism wrong, he
got the history right - that Lamarck proposed that all complex life
forms were descended from a single simple ancestor. After 1970,
everyone sung a different song, like Winston Smith's hate week. Not
only did they now supposedly believe that Lamarck proposed parallel
descent, though they failed to quote anything from Lamarck supporting
this story, but also seemingly everyone had always believed that
Lamarck proposed parallel descent. As in hate week, "We've always
been at war with Eastasia". When some detail of the line changes,
your teacher will, like the crowd at hate week, like the historians of
science, sing a different song and fail to notice that his song has
changed. Thus the universities are not one thousand independent
voices, but one thousand megaphones attached to one microphone.
Anarcissie
<t3kfq5t6pr94ge76i...@4ax.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:44:35 -0400, Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com>
> > If _left_ now means centralizing authoritarianism,
>
> The claim was that Bush moved the country far to the left. To check
> this claim, he has to be compared with past actual US governments, not
> compared to your ideal perfect leftist regime.
>
> But digressing to this new question that you raise:
>
> Left has always meant centralized authoritarianism: Does anyone doubt
> that Cuba and North Korea are left.
Yes, from what I know about them I doubt that they
can be properly called leftist. Or, if one must call
them leftist, then both the right and the left are the
same, as liberals say, and we have no word for those
who are not authoritarians. Looking around at the
political scene, I suppose that makes a kind of sense,
for most of those who are not struggling for power are
lined up to submit to power.
Frito Pendejo
> In article
> <t3kfq5t6pr94ge76i...@4ax.com>,
> James A. Donald<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:44:35 -0400, Anarcissie<anarc...@gmail.com>
>>> If _left_ now means centralizing authoritarianism,
>>
>> The claim was that Bush moved the country far to the left. To check
>> this claim, he has to be compared with past actual US governments, not
>> compared to your ideal perfect leftist regime.
>>
>> But digressing to this new question that you raise:
>>
>> Left has always meant centralized authoritarianism: Does anyone doubt
>> that Cuba and North Korea are left.
>
>
> Yes, from what I know about them I doubt that they
> can be properly called leftist. Or, if one must call
> them leftist, then both the right and the left are the
> same, as liberals say, and we have no word for those
> who are not authoritarians. Looking around at the
> political scene, I suppose that makes a kind of sense,
> for most of those who are not struggling for power are
> lined up to submit to power.
There is a word for those who are not authoritarians, anarchists or
libertarians.
Both leftists and rightists tend to be authoritarians, with each
condemning government when the other side is in power, and encouraging
more government when their side is in power.
For example, rightists say they believe in limited government and
states' rights, but then cheered as George W. Bush seized unprecedented
new powers for the federal government. Leftists babble about the right
to choose, but would control what people eat for their own good, as if
humans were nothing more than domesticated animals, with no more right
to choose what to eat than a pet dog.
Fred
typed:
> --
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:07:49 +0000 (UTC), Fred
>> In the first place Bush moved the country far to the right
>
> In what did Bush move the country to the right?
>
Giving himself virtually unlimited powers, implementing torture,
continuing and strengthening opposition to education and health care,
promoting ignorance to supplement blind obedience , promoting racist
policies leading to homelessness and death among Blacks, especially
following the New Orleans Disaster.
Obama continues the policy with a military response to Haiti
instead of a humanitarian response.
> Government spending as a proportion of GDP rose dramatically under Bush,
> well above Clinton levels.
>
Yes. He had his war to pay for. Again, Right Wing Imperialism.
> Affirmative action rose dramatically under Bush, far above Clinton
> levels, especially in lending.
>
Lending?... to whom? Are you referring to the Housing loan
sharking debacle, perhaps?
> Regulatory interference in business and supervision of business rose
> dramatically under Bush, far above Clinton levels.
Not on behalf of average citizens. Not on behalf of the workers.
We recently learned
> that Lehman's accounts were fraudulent. (Lehman's bankruptcy was the
> start of the financial crisis coming out in the open) As soon as we
> learnt this, those who committed this fraud pointed out that this fraud
> had been approved by the SEC and Federal Reserve, and that such
> "approvals" were very close to being commands.
>
Y.e.s. ... Government being crooked in order that a few wealthy
friends can make even more profits is a right wing thing.
> It has now become apparent that the Bank of America engaged in the same
> fraud, which suggests that everyone in the finance industry engaged in
> similar fraud, which could only happen if the SEC and the Federal
> Reserve told everyone to commit fraud, in order to stay in line with the
> fraud being committed by the quasi governmental finance entities:
> Fannie, Freddy, and HUD.
Right Wing. Right Wing,... Right wing. Textbook Fascism all the
way.
>
>> Bush didn't come up with anything to help the poor, even when disaster
>> struck in New Orleans, the feds sent in armed guards and mercenaries
>> rather than aid.
>
> And what did the Democrat run state government do? What did the
> Democrat run city government do.
>
The democrats and the republicans are two right wing parties.
Americans aren't given an alternative. That's right wing also.
> One thing the Democrat run city government did before the crisis is
> embezzle the funds for maintaining the dikes. Another thing it did was
> lock down all the buses in depots that subsequently went under water,
> rather than using them to evacuate people.
>
> You are comparing Bush not with Clinton and Carter, but with your ideal
> government of true leftists. Bush is undoubtedly right wing compared to
> your left wing ideal, but he is pretty far left as compared to the
> actual Democrats that have been running the country from time to time,
> including Clinton, Carter, and the Democrats that ran the state and
> local governments that had responsibility for New Orleans.
Rubbish.
James A. Donald
<fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:12:22 +1000, James A. Donald's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
> > --
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:07:49 +0000 (UTC), Fred
> >> In the first place Bush moved the country far to the right
> >
> > In what did Bush move the country to the right?
> >
> Giving himself virtually unlimited powers, implementing torture,
> continuing and strengthening opposition to education and health care,
> promoting ignorance to supplement blind obedience , promoting racist
> policies leading to homelessness and death among Blacks, especially
> following the New Orleans Disaster.
He increased spending substantially on education and healthcare, he
greatly increased affirmative action, especially affirmative action
lending to Blacks and Hispanics, and whatever he did wrong following
the New Orleans disaster, the state and local governments (left wing
Democrat run) did worse.
> Obama continues the policy with a military response to Haiti
> instead of a humanitarian response.
Clinton and Obama both used military means against Haiti. Bush did
not. This surely puts Bush to the left of Clinton and Obama on Haiti.
> > Affirmative action rose dramatically under Bush, far above Clinton
> > levels, especially in lending.
> Lending?... to whom? Are you referring to the Housing loan
> sharking debacle, perhaps?
The crisis was in significant part, loans made in 2006-2007 that went
bad in 2006-2007, and on most of these loans, someone purchased a
house no money down and never made a single payment. Who then is the
shark?
> > Regulatory interference in business and supervision of business rose
> > dramatically under Bush, far above Clinton levels.
>
> Not on behalf of average citizens.
And has regulation ever been on behalf of the average citizen? The
foxes have always been guarding the henhouse. The investigation of
Madoff was first thwarted under Clinton. The connection between the
Treasury and Goldman and Sach has been pretty much the same in one
administration after another.
.
> Y.e.s. ... Government being crooked in order that a few wealthy
> friends can make even more profits is a right wing thing.
Back before the crisis, Democrats seemed pretty sure that Fannie and
Freddie were left wing things. I kept hearing that the Republicans
were trying to destroy Fannie and Freddy. If only that had been true!
> The democrats and the republicans are two right wing parties.
> Americans aren't given an alternative. That's right wing also.
If so, Bush cannot have "moved the country to the right"
But right now we are seeing some pretty sharp and major disagreements
between Republicans and Democrats - which sure looks to me as if the
voters are being given alternatives.
Frito Pendejo
> Fred <fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> Obama continues the policy with a military response to Haiti
>> instead of a humanitarian response.
>
> Clinton and Obama both used military means against Haiti. Bush did
> not. This surely puts Bush to the left of Clinton and Obama on Haiti.
I should mention that at the 2008 rally I attended I saw leftist
protesters demanding that the U.S. send troops to Haiti to restore
ousted dictator Jean Bertrand Aristide to power.
Apparently, leftists don't have a problem with U.S. imperialism and
military occupation of sovereign nations when it suits their agenda.
Fred
typed:
> On 2010-03-23 21:05, James A. Donald wrote:
When it suits justice, but there would have been no need of troops.
Aristide had something like a 95 % popularity rating, especially among
the poor.
Anarcissie
<PamdnTL6n_CKtTTW...@earthlink.com>,
Frito Pendejo <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote:
The political terms "right" and "left" historically
referred to attachment to authority: the Right were
the friends of the King of France, and the Left the
opposition, because of seating arrangements in the
prerevolutionary French legislature. If, thanks to
Lenin, etc., we now have to say that both Left and
Right are authoritarian, then we have simply lost a
word and possibly the concept it represented.
Frito Pendejo
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:33:59 -0600, Frito Pendejo's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
>> On 2010-03-23 21:05, James A. Donald wrote:
>>> Fred<fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>>>> Obama continues the policy with a military response to Haiti instead
>>>> of a humanitarian response.
>>>
>>> Clinton and Obama both used military means against Haiti. Bush did
>>> not. This surely puts Bush to the left of Clinton and Obama on Haiti.
>>
>> I should mention that at the 2008 rally I attended I saw leftist
>> protesters demanding that the U.S. send troops to Haiti to restore
>> ousted dictator Jean Bertrand Aristide to power.
>>
>> Apparently, leftists don't have a problem with U.S. imperialism and
>> military occupation of sovereign nations when it suits their agenda.
>
> When it suits justice, but there would have been no need of troops.
> Aristide had something like a 95 % popularity rating, especially among
> the poor.
Yeah, he was so popular he had to be escorted out of the country by the
U.S. military to protect him from the rampaging mobs. Though he
originally agreed to leave voluntarily, he later claimed he was deposed
in a U.S.-led coup. Like so many other leftist dictators, he initially
came to power via the democratic process, then perverted the electoral
system to extend his term in office indefinitely.
James A. Donald
On 2010-03-23 21:05, James A. Donald wrote:
> >> Clinton and Obama both used military means against Haiti. Bush
> >> did not. This surely puts Bush to the left of Clinton and Obama
> >> on Haiti.
Frito Pendejo
> > I should mention that at the 2008 rally I attended I saw leftist
> > protesters demanding that the U.S. send troops to Haiti to restore
> > ousted dictator Jean Bertrand Aristide to power. Apparently,
> > leftists don't have a problem with U.S. imperialism and military
> > occupation of sovereign nations when it suits their agenda.
Fred
> When it suits justice,
Aristide had the pregnant wife of a journalist who reported
politically incorrect news scooped open, petrol poured in place of
her baby, and set on fire.
He personally removed the eyes of a minion whose loyalty he doubted.
The latter crime led to his overthrow - while Stalin could torture his
minions to death and get increased loyalty thereby, similar acts by
Aristide led to his minions joining the resistance.
> but there would have been no need of troops.
When Clinton imposed Aristide the first time around, lots of troops
were needed.
> Aristide had something like a 95 % popularity rating, especially
> among the poor.
Only mass murderers who silence all dissent and who torture their
opponents get a 95% popularity rating.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> The political terms "right" and "left" historically referred to
> attachment to authority: the Right were the friends of the King of
> France, and the Left the opposition,
The left of the French Revolution, however, became the Committee of
Public Safety, which ruled through the most brutal terror, exercising
power far more absolute than that which the supposedly divine right
monarch had exercised.
The French left of the French Revolution gave us the "Red Terror",
from which communists drew their name and symbolic color.
The people's flag is deepest red, not from draping the martyred dead
of the revolution, but because of the guillotine.
Anarcissie
<m5hlq55ejhkjgb5da...@4ax.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:01:42 -0400, Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The political terms "right" and "left" historically referred to
> > attachment to authority: the Right were the friends of the King of
> > France, and the Left the opposition,
>
> The left of the French Revolution, however, became the Committee of
> Public Safety, which ruled through the most brutal terror, exercising
> power far more absolute than that which the supposedly divine right
> monarch had exercised.
>
> The French left of the French Revolution gave us the "Red Terror",
> from which communists drew their name and symbolic color.
So maybe people can't handle freedom and equality.
That possibility doesn't change the historical meaning
of the terms.
> The people's flag is deepest red, not from draping the martyred dead
> of the revolution, but because of the guillotine.
Well, now the Republicans are "red". Is this merely
another gratuitous confusion, or does it reflect their
adoption of the drive for global domination they
absorbed from the Democrats? At least this time it's
elite murdering people instead of ordinary folk. The
natural order of the universe is preserved.
sushi monster
> In article
> <m5hlq55ejhkjgb5da2nmu2khmd77r6m...@4ax.com>,> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:01:42 -0400, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The political terms "right" and "left" historically referred to
> > > attachment to authority: the Right were the friends of the King of
> > > France, and the Left the opposition,
>
> > The left of the French Revolution, however, became the Committee of
> > Public Safety, which ruled through the most brutal terror, exercising
> > power far more absolute than that which the supposedly divine right
> > monarch had exercised.
>
> > The French left of the French Revolution gave us the "Red Terror",
> > from which communists drew their name and symbolic color.
>
> So maybe people can't handle freedom and equality.
> That possibility doesn't change the historical meaning
> of the terms.
Being against the authority of the king and the church does not make
one anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute authority of
the republic. As history showed with the red terror and the levee en
masse, the "left" of the French Revolution devised a political
innovation vastly more authoritarian than the monarchy that preceded
it, if measured only by its capability of conscripting a slave army
that dwarfed the professional armies of its monarchist neighbors -- an
innovation that the rest of Europe spent the 19th century either
attempting to emulate or destroy, or more often both, much as the
similar innovations of the fascists and communists of the 20th century
infected world politics with militarism.
[...]
Fred
typed:
> On 2010-03-24 04:37, Fred wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:33:59 -0600, Frito Pendejo's busy little fingers
>> typed:
>>
>>> On 2010-03-23 21:05, James A. Donald wrote:
>>>> Fred<fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Obama continues the policy with a military response to Haiti instead
>>>>> of a humanitarian response.
>>>>
>>>> Clinton and Obama both used military means against Haiti. Bush did
>>>> not. This surely puts Bush to the left of Clinton and Obama on
>>>> Haiti.
>>>
>>> I should mention that at the 2008 rally I attended I saw leftist
>>> protesters demanding that the U.S. send troops to Haiti to restore
>>> ousted dictator Jean Bertrand Aristide to power.
>>>
>>> Apparently, leftists don't have a problem with U.S. imperialism and
>>> military occupation of sovereign nations when it suits their agenda.
>>
>> When it suits justice, but there would have been no need of troops.
>> Aristide had something like a 95 % popularity rating, especially among
>> the poor.
>
> Yeah, he was so popular he had to be escorted out of the country by the
> U.S. military to protect him from the rampaging mobs.
There were no mobs against Aristide. He was kidnapped at
gunpoint by Americam Marines.
Though he
> originally agreed to leave voluntarily, he later claimed he was deposed
> in a U.S.-led coup.
American Propaganda. He "agreed" at gunpoint.
Like so many other leftist dictators, he initially
> came to power via the democratic process, then perverted the electoral
> system to extend his term in office indefinitely.
With a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
Fred
typed:
> --
> On 2010-03-23 21:05, James A. Donald wrote:
>> >> Clinton and Obama both used military means against Haiti. Bush did
>> >> not. This surely puts Bush to the left of Clinton and Obama on
>> >> Haiti.
>
> Frito Pendejo
>> > I should mention that at the 2008 rally I attended I saw leftist
>> > protesters demanding that the U.S. send troops to Haiti to restore
>> > ousted dictator Jean Bertrand Aristide to power. Apparently,
>> > leftists don't have a problem with U.S. imperialism and military
>> > occupation of sovereign nations when it suits their agenda.
>
> Fred
>> When it suits justice,
>
> Aristide had the pregnant wife of a journalist who reported politically
> incorrect news scooped open, petrol poured in place of her baby, and set
> on fire.
>
Absolute crap.
> He personally removed the eyes of a minion whose loyalty he doubted.
>
Total lies.
Fred
typed:
> In article
> <m5hlq55ejhkjgb5da...@4ax.com>,
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:01:42 -0400, Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The political terms "right" and "left" historically referred to
>> > attachment to authority: the Right were the friends of the King of
>> > France, and the Left the opposition,
>>
>> The left of the French Revolution, however, became the Committee of
>> Public Safety, which ruled through the most brutal terror, exercising
>> power far more absolute than that which the supposedly divine right
>> monarch had exercised.
>>
>> The French left of the French Revolution gave us the "Red Terror", from
>> which communists drew their name and symbolic color.
>
> So maybe people can't handle freedom and equality. That possibility
> doesn't change the historical meaning of the terms.
>
He's pulling the wool over your eyes again. The red is and
always was the colour chosen because of the blood shed by those who
worked for the revolution.
Fred
typed:
> On Mar 25, 8:29 am, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <m5hlq55ejhkjgb5da2nmu2khmd77r6m...@4ax.com>,
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:01:42 -0400, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > The political terms "right" and "left" historically referred to
>> > > attachment to authority: the Right were the friends of the King of
>> > > France, and the Left the opposition,
>>
>> > The left of the French Revolution, however, became the Committee of
>> > Public Safety, which ruled through the most brutal terror, exercising
>> > power far more absolute than that which the supposedly divine right
>> > monarch had exercised.
>>
>> > The French left of the French Revolution gave us the "Red Terror",
>> > from which communists drew their name and symbolic color.
>>
>> So maybe people can't handle freedom and equality. That possibility
>> doesn't change the historical meaning of the terms.
>
> Being against the authority of the king and the church does not make one
> anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute authority of the
> republic. As history showed with the red terror and the levee en masse,
> the "left" of the French Revolution devised a political innovation
> vastly more authoritarian than the monarchy that preceded it,
Doubtful they could have even if they'd tried.
James A. Donald
> > > The political terms "right" and "left" historically referred to
> > > attachment to authority: the Right were the friends of the King
> > > of France, and the Left the opposition,
James A. Donald
> > The French left of the French Revolution gave us the "Red Terror",
> > from which communists drew their name and symbolic color.
Anarcissie:
> So maybe people can't handle freedom and equality.
It was not the ordinary people that gave us the red terror, but the
left. The left was not equal to those they ruled, nor did they give
them freedom, a pattern that has continued to the present day.
This pattern long preceded the French Revolution. Recall
Shakespeare's caricature leftist, Jack Cade, who is unable to
comprehend the difference between all things being owned in common,
and all things being owned by Jack Cade, and who proceeds to liquidate
people on the basis of class identity.
> That possibility doesn't change the historical meaning of the terms.
What people are is what they do, not what they say they intend to do.
The left is Jack Cade, who says one thing yet means another.
Freedom and equality are necessarily incompatible, for if people are
free, they will pursue their own individual good, and some will
succeed better than others. The left, from the very beginning,
intends to solve this problem by making the people equal to each
other, but subordinate to their rulers, who will decide what each man
should do, and make him do it, and what each deserves, and give it to
him.
> > The people's flag is deepest red, not from draping the martyred
> > dead of the revolution, but because of the guillotine.
>
> Well, now the Republicans are "red".
They were so named by left, that is to say, the New York Times
Frito Pendejo
Chairman Obama has taken to wearing red ties of late, particularly
during important speeches. I assume he does this to project an image of
conservatism, which is important since he already enjoys the support of
the radical left, and it is moderates and conservatives he is trying to
sway.
Red tie at health care speech (Nancy Pelosi also wears red dress):
http://blog.mlive.com/elections_impact/2009/09/large_obama-health-care-speech.jpg
Red tie at State of the Union speech:
http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/wp-content/uploads/state-of-the-union-2010.jpg
But notice how he switches to a blue tie as he signs the health care
bill into law, projecting an image of the power of the Democrat Party:
Blue tie while signing the health care bill:
http://imgsrv.kmox.com/image/DbGraphic/201003/1525616.jpg
Frito Pendejo
> With a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
> sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
Only 95%? Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il enjoyed 100% approval ratings.
James A. Donald
> > U.S. military to protect him from the rampaging mobs.
Fred
> There were no mobs against Aristide.
The people attempted to remove him by peaceful means, by strikes and
protests
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/521740751.html?dids=521740751:521740751&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+06%2C+2004&author=Carol+J.+Williams&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=The+World%3B+Strikes+Aim+to+Put+Pressure+on+Aristide%3B+Opposition+groups+organize+a+nationwide+work+stoppage+and+street+protests+to+push+the+beleaguered+Haitian+president+to+resign.
Any protestors not armed with deadly weapons got killed.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112106,00.html> He terrorized
protestors, meaning that armed resistance was the only option
And armed resistance is what he got
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/15/theobserver1>
> He was kidnapped at
> gunpoint by Americam Marines.
The supposed kidnapping only happened after rebels who intended to
kill him were in control of the city, and all resistance had
collapsed.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/world/main601240.shtml>
Police took refuge in their stations, making clear they were
too scared to patrol the streets of Cap-Haitien amid fears that rebels
already have infiltrated the northern port and more were headed that
way.
The rebels have chased police from more than a dozen towns and
cut supply lines to northern Haiti from Port-au-Prince, the capital to
the south, and from the western Dominican Republic, which shares the
island of Hispaniola with Haiti.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113661852.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6980354.html
The leader of armed rebels who have overrun half of Haiti said
Wednesday he wants to "give a chance to peace" and indicated his
troops would hold off attacking the capital to see if President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide will resign.
And the rebels, who had the upper hand, clearly intended to kill
Aristide:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113661852.html
a leader of the armed rebels, said his troops were marching
from Cap-Haitien, which is under rebel control, to Port-au-Prince and
the National Palace. He said he wanted to ensure that Aristide doesn't
leave Haiti.
He was protected from rampaging mobs by US marines.
>
> Though he
> > originally agreed to leave voluntarily, he later claimed he was deposed
> > in a U.S.-led coup.
>
> American Propaganda. He "agreed" at gunpoint.
>
> Like so many other leftist dictators, he initially
> > came to power via the democratic process, then perverted the electoral
> > system to extend his term in office indefinitely.
>
> With a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
> sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
--
James A. Donald
sushi monster's busy little fingers
> > make one anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute
> > authority of the republic. As history showed with the red terror
> > and the levee en masse, the "left" of the French Revolution
> > devised a political innovation vastly more authoritarian than the
> > monarchy that preceded it,
Fred
> Doubtful they could have even if they'd tried.
The monarchy could not conscript troops, nor raise taxes. Taxes were
limited to those of ancient custom and long established tradition,
which were extremely low. Nor could the monarchy issue laws. Laws
were derived from long established precedent. The monarchy could not
execute political dissidents.
The left in power engaged in mass conscription, confiscatory taxation,
hyperinflation, the red terror, mass murder of political opponents,
suspected political opponents, potential political opponents, possible
political opponents, suspected possible political opponents, suspected
potential political opponents, and suspected possible potential
political opponents, which eventually included each other.
James A. Donald
> He's pulling the wool over your eyes again. The red is and
> always was the colour chosen because of the blood shed by
> those who
> worked for the revolution.
"Red" originally stood for the "red terror" of the second committee of
public safety, the Paris commune, with which the communists
identified. If someone was a "red", he was a supporter of the paris
commune. After the paris commune fell, they were indeed apt to be
murdered, but that was not why they were called "reds".
"Communist" is derived from "communard", supporter of the paris
commune, and "red" is derived from "red terror", the terror that
the Paris commune carried out.
Before communists were marxists, they were nonetheless communards
and reds.
Fred
typed:
> On 2010-03-25 15:56, Fred wrote:
I don't think so.
Frito Pendejo
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:41:47 -0600, Frito Pendejo's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
>> On 2010-03-25 15:56, Fred wrote:
>>> With a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
>>> sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
>>
>> Only 95%? Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il enjoyed 100% approval ratings.
>
> I don't think so.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200105/18/eng20010518_70368.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6064382.ece
sushi monster
> --
> sushi monster's busy little fingers
>
> > > Being against the authority of the king and the church does not
> > > make one anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute
> > > authority of the republic. As history showed with the red terror
> > > and the levee en masse, the "left" of the French Revolution
> > > devised a political innovation vastly more authoritarian than the
> > > monarchy that preceded it,
>
> Fred
>
> > Doubtful they could have even if they'd tried.
Your responses here remind me of the scene in Orwell's 1984 where
Winston grills an old man about his recollection of actual history
versus the official history. Historical injustices must be magnified
and distorted to a point of absurdity in order to justify the crimes
and oppression that followed, which themselves are already minimized
through apologia or omission. While Orwell wrote that passage
ironically, with surreal distortions intended to be immediately
recognized by the contemporary reader, I suspect that a lot of people
today could read it and entirely miss the point, possibly even if the
passage were re-written to be describing today's society instead of
pre-war Britain. But I digress.
> The monarchy could not conscript troops, nor raise taxes. Taxes were
> limited to those of ancient custom and long established tradition,
> which were extremely low. Nor could the monarchy issue laws. Laws
> were derived from long established precedent. The monarchy could not
> execute political dissidents.
There were many legitimate grievances against the monarchist
government, which was anti-democratic, oppressive, inefficient, and
entrenched. But the Revolution followed the same pattern as we saw
later in Cuba -- a decrepit non-democratic regime replaced by a far
more authoritarian and oppressive "leftist" one. Batista's regime is
called a dictatorship, but it was Castro who had the power to send
hundreds of thousands of his subjects to war seven thousand miles from
home as mercenaries for foreign masters. Pre-revolutionary Cuba,
supposedly another of America's sweatshop colonies, couldn't even
manage mass conscription to send troops for the Allies in the World
Wars.
[...]
James A. Donald
> > > sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
> > Only 95%? Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il enjoyed 100% approval ratings.
> I don't think so.
The evidence that they have 100% approval ratings is better than the
evidence that Aristide had a 95% approval rating.
Fred
typed:
>> > > with a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
>> > > sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
>
>> > Only 95%? Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il enjoyed 100% approval
>> > ratings.
>
>> I don't think so.
>
> The evidence that they have 100% approval ratings is better than the
> evidence that Aristide had a 95% approval rating.
I am in contact with Haitian lkiving in Canada and they know first hand
what went on and is still going on. Aristide was kidnapped and you can
ask him today. He was starting schools and health care for his people
and the poor were starting to lift themselves up, so they had to be
clobbered in the eyes of Washington. So there was a fake revolution by a
small band of former Duvalierists carrying American M16s and it was blown
out of all proportion by the Western mainstream media.
You are carrying on the propaganda here on this group, but it's all a
pack of lies.
Fred
typed:
> On Mar 26, 12:30 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> --
>> sushi monster's busy little fingers
>>
>> > > Being against the authority of the king and the church does not
>> > > make one anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute
>> > > authority of the republic. As history showed with the red terror
>> > > and the levee en masse, the "left" of the French Revolution devised
>> > > a political innovation vastly more authoritarian than the monarchy
>> > > that preceded it,
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> > Doubtful they could have even if they'd tried.
>
> Your responses here remind me of the scene in Orwell's 1984 where
> Winston grills an old man about his recollection of actual history
> versus the official history. Historical injustices must be magnified
> and distorted to a point of absurdity in order to justify the crimes and
> oppression that followed, which themselves are already minimized through
> apologia or omission. While Orwell wrote that passage ironically, with
> surreal distortions intended to be immediately recognized by the
> contemporary reader, I suspect that a lot of people today could read it
> and entirely miss the point, possibly even if the passage were
> re-written to be describing today's society instead of pre-war Britain.
> But I digress.
>
Do you? A nice story, but as you tell it, it would also be a
great excuse for minimizing the abuses of the oppressive regime to start
with. Since I am advocating no crimes and no oppression, it would seem
to be pointless.
>> The monarchy could not conscript troops, nor raise taxes. Taxes were
>> limited to those of ancient custom and long established tradition,
>> which were extremely low. Nor could the monarchy issue laws. Laws
>> were derived from long established precedent. The monarchy could not
>> execute political dissidents.
>
> There were many legitimate grievances against the monarchist government,
> which was anti-democratic, oppressive, inefficient, and entrenched. But
> the Revolution followed the same pattern as we saw later in Cuba -- a
> decrepit non-democratic regime replaced by a far more authoritarian and
> oppressive "leftist" one.
That's just a lie. Cuba has been liberated by it's revolution.
> Batista's regime is called a dictatorship,
Indeed it was.
> but it was Castro who had the power to send hundreds of thousands of his
> subjects to war seven thousand miles from home as mercenaries for
> foreign masters.
You mean to free South Africans? Are you in favour of the
Apartheit that was there? The United States was and supported it by
sending the South African regime weapons.
> Pre-revolutionary Cuba, supposedly another of
> America's sweatshop colonies, couldn't even manage mass conscription to
> send troops for the Allies in the World Wars.
>
Jusrt like Haiti today couldn't send troops anywhere either.
Frito Pendejo
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:24:04 +1000, James A. Donald's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
>>>>> with a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
>>>>> sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
>>
>>>> Only 95%? Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il enjoyed 100% approval
>>>> ratings.
>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The evidence that they have 100% approval ratings is better than the
>> evidence that Aristide had a 95% approval rating.
>
> I am in contact with Haitian lkiving in Canada and they know first hand
> what went on and is still going on. Aristide was kidnapped and you can
> ask him today. He was starting schools and health care for his people
> and the poor were starting to lift themselves up, so they had to be
> clobbered in the eyes of Washington. So there was a fake revolution by a
> small band of former Duvalierists carrying American M16s and it was blown
> out of all proportion by the Western mainstream media.
> You are carrying on the propaganda here on this group, but it's all a
> pack of lies.
The only interest the U.S has regarding Haiti is preventing an exodus of
Haitian refugees to the USA. One has to wonder how popular Aristide
really was given that so many Haitians were willing to risk their lives
trying to sail to Florida on styrofoam rafts just to escape from him.
Blog containing links to articles on Aristide's corruption:
http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2007/07/haiti-jean-bertrand-aristide-drugs-and.html
sushi monster
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:06:17 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
> typed:
You are instead lying away or creating apologies for crimes and
oppression of your favored regime, and inventing and magnifying crimes
and oppression of the regime you oppose so that you can pretend they
are morally righteous. This is the story that Orwell told.
> > but it was Castro who had the power to send hundreds of thousands of his
> > subjects to war seven thousand miles from home as mercenaries for
> > foreign masters.
>
> You mean to free South Africans? Are you in favour of the
> Apartheit that was there? The United States was and supported it by
> sending the South African regime weapons.
I had in mind their deployment to prop up the Derg in Ethiopia and all
their other attempts to help the Soviets expand their empire into the
African power vacuum the other empires were leaving in a more or less
peaceful manner.
Had Cuba, a nation in the Caribbean, actually gone to war with South
Africa, seven thousand miles away, to end the apartheid regime, this
might have been equally as justifiable as Bush's invasion of Iraq to
end the Saddam dictatorship, or the 19th century conquest of Africa by
Europe to end the slave trade, I suppose. So for the sake of
argument, let's assume for a moment that Cuba sent soldiers to free
South Africans, rather than to ensure the victory of the Soviet-
aligned Angolan nationalists over competing nationalist parties.
Let me ask you, then, how many murdered Angolans is a fair price to
pay for the fall of apartheid? Half a million? Likewise, how many
young Cuban lives should be ruined? Apartheid of course did not fall
until *after* the Cubans withdrew from Angola. A very short time, in
fact -- almost as if the presence of a hostile army occupying a
neighboring state gave them a legitimate security concern and the aid
of the rival great powers that allowed apartheid to persist longer
that it might otherwise have lasted.
So unlike Bush in Iraq or Europe in Africa, Cuba's alleged noble
intentions failed (and likely backfired), and at the price of half a
million lives. Madeline Albright, who likewise failed to overthrow
Saddam's dictatorship (though maybe you could argue that she'd
loosened them up a bit for Bush), famously stated that the price of
half a million lives was worth the effort. I somehow doubt that she
has a place in your pantheon of noble warriors fighting for global
justice.
Given that Cubans had and have approximately similar political rights
as blacks under apartheid -- e.g., they were equally entitled to vote
in sham elections for powerless, tightly controlled political bodies
while the real leadership remained in unelected and unaccountable
hands (or, in the case of South Africa, in the hands of governors
elected by a minority of the population), it seems like a better place
for Castro to start fighting for global justice would be at home. He
had that chance when his army overthrew Batista, of course, but he
decided he preferred to lead a fascist dictatorship rather than to
restore constitutional democracy and political equality to his
citizens. He's a man of action of course, so who could blame him, but
it hardly seems like a choice that others should be lauding as a moral
decision.
> > Pre-revolutionary Cuba, supposedly another of America's sweatshop colonies,
> > couldn't even manage mass conscription to send troops for the Allies in the
> > World Wars.
>
> Jusrt like Haiti today couldn't send troops anywhere either.
Indeed, because only you have this strange delusion that Haiti is an
imperial possession of the United States. Batista was capable of
conscription when his government was threatened by revolution, but
apparently Cuba's alleged American owners were unable to inspire them
to contribute likewise to a war that claimed four hundred thousand of
their men.
[...]
James A. Donald
> I am in contact with Haitian lkiving in Canada and they
> know first hand what went on and is still going on.
> Aristide was kidnapped and you can ask him today.
Aristide was about to be killed. His capital had fallen to
the raging mob:
<http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0gEmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2PwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1880,6078646&dq=aristide&hl=en>
"Haitian capital descends into anarchy as rebels
close in on Aristide"
<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-91477008.html>
<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113661852.html>
<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-91518575.html>
<http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118710482.html>
If not "kidnapped", would have been killed within minutes,
for whether or not he went willingly, his remaining guards
went willingly.
Aristide was installed by white troops, and his praetorian
guard consisted of white foreigners. These guys, Aristide's
personal guard, had been installed by the US, and had to be
rescued. Whether he came along under his own power, or was
dragged along, makes no difference. The capital had fallen to
men who intended to kill Aristide, and the white men who had
for so long protected him from the rage of the terrorized and
brutalized Haitian people were finally leaving.
> He was starting schools and health care for his people and
> the poor were starting to lift themselves up, so they had
> to be clobbered in the eyes of Washington.
He was installed at gunpoint by Washington, but after he was
installed:
<http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-egNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0XgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5492,18111&dq=aristide&hl=en>
"support eroded due to corruption, his failure to
help the poor, and brutal suppression of opponents.
> So there was a fake revolution by a small band of former
> Duvalierists
That his bodyguards were white, that the people who installed
him were white, and that whites were fleeing the capital as
the entirely black rebels arrived, tells us that Aristide was
a foreign overlord, imposed on Haiti at gunpoint by the USA.
James A. Donald
> A nice story, but as you tell it, it would also be a great
> excuse for minimizing the abuses of the oppressive regime
> to start with. Since I am advocating no crimes and no
> oppression, it would seem to be pointless.
You defend brutal tyrants who engaged in terror and mass
murder, both Aristide, and the Committee of Public Safety.
Fred
typed:
> On 2010-03-27 08:33, Fred wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:24:04 +1000, James A. Donald's busy little
>> fingers typed:
>>
>>>>>> with a 95% approval rating, he perverted nothing, except foreign
>>>>>> sweatshop owners plans to run the country like a slave camp.
>>>
>>>>> Only 95%? Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il enjoyed 100% approval
>>>>> ratings.
>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> The evidence that they have 100% approval ratings is better than the
>>> evidence that Aristide had a 95% approval rating.
>>
>> I am in contact with Haitian lkiving in Canada and they know first hand
>> what went on and is still going on. Aristide was kidnapped and you can
>> ask him today. He was starting schools and health care for his people
>> and the poor were starting to lift themselves up, so they had to be
>> clobbered in the eyes of Washington. So there was a fake revolution by
>> a small band of former Duvalierists carrying American M16s and it was
>> blown out of all proportion by the Western mainstream media. You are
>> carrying on the propaganda here on this group, but it's all a pack of
>> lies.
>
> The only interest the U.S has regarding Haiti is preventing an exodus of
> Haitian refugees to the USA. One has to wonder how popular Aristide
> really was given that so many Haitians were willing to risk their lives
> trying to sail to Florida on styrofoam rafts just to escape from him.
>
HAHAHahaha!
Fred
typed:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:33:49 +0000 (UTC), Fred
>> I am in contact with Haitian lkiving in Canada and they know first hand
>> what went on and is still going on. Aristide was kidnapped and you can
>> ask him today.
>
> Aristide was about to be killed. His capital had fallen to the raging
> mob:
There was no raging mob. just thirty guys with American M16s and
a lot of propaganda.
Anarcissie
<715cd984-e9c6-4484...@j16g2000prn.googl
egroups.com>,
sushi monster <blackbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
In order to do its thing, the violent republic / mob
soon discovers that it needs military organization. So
it forms one. A military organization is necessarily
authoritarian. At this point, a person using a
coherent vocabulary would have to say that the
republic or mob was no longer the Left regardless of
its professed goals (liberty, communism, etc.) In the
case of the French Revolution, its authoritarian nature
was soon fully revealed in the figure of Napoleon. The
friends of the King of France became the Friends of the
Emperor of France.
I concede people generally don't speak coherently --
they mistake style for content. Thus it may be that
terms like "left" and "right" have been hopelessly
confused. Too bad if so; it would be nice to express
on one syllable what otherwise requires eight.
James A. Donald
> > Aristide was about to be killed. His capital had fallen
> > to the raging mob:
Fred
> There was no raging mob. just thirty guys with American
> M16s and a lot of propaganda.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/14/Worldandnation/Haiti__How_nation_bui.shtml
While the country descends deeper into poverty,
government officials drive around in shiny new deluxe
sport utility vehicles. Last year the government
spent an estimated $7-million on four mansions for
top officials, including one for Prime Minister
Jean-Marie Cherestal, a boyhood friend of the
president.
The prime minister's $1.3-million home is perched
atop a hill with a magnificent view of the slums
below.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-89554402.html
Police break up anti-government protest in Haiti with
tear gas, warning shots
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-88729761.html
Thousands demand Aristide's ouster in Haiti; ...
gunmen open fire on crowd ..."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-91633149.html
a rebel convoy rolled into a suburb of the Haitian
capital Monday and was met by hundreds of jubilant
residents who danced
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to do its thing, the violent republic / mob soon
> discovers that it needs military organization. So it forms
> one. A military organization is necessarily authoritarian.
> At this point, a person using a coherent vocabulary would
> have to say that the republic or mob was no longer the Left
> regardless of its professed goals (liberty, communism,
> etc.) In the case of the French Revolution, its
> authoritarian nature was soon fully revealed in the figure
> of Napoleon. The friends of the King of France became the
> Friends of the Emperor of France.
>
> I concede people generally don't speak coherently -- they
> mistake style for content. Thus it may be that terms like
> "left" and "right" have been hopelessly confused. Too bad
> if so; it would be nice to express on one syllable what
> otherwise requires eight.
Yet we observe leftists defending Aristide, the Soviet Union,
and the French Committee of Public Safety. The New York
Times told us there was no Ukraine Famine, the universities
taught that the Soviet Union was highly successful in
promoting spectaculars economic growth.
sushi monster
> egroups.com>,
> sushi monster <blackblackw...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Being against the authority of the king and the church does not make
> > one anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute authority of
> > the republic. As history showed with the red terror and the levee en
> > masse, the "left" of the French Revolution devised a political
> > innovation vastly more authoritarian than the monarchy that preceded
> > it, if measured only by its capability of conscripting a slave army
> > that dwarfed the professional armies of its monarchist neighbors -- an
> > innovation that the rest of Europe spent the 19th century either
> > attempting to emulate or destroy, or more often both, much as the
> > similar innovations of the fascists and communists of the 20th century
> > infected world politics with militarism.
>
> In order to do its thing, the violent republic / mob
> soon discovers that it needs military organization.
On the contrary, the military organization was always the republic's
thing. The left had no intention of dismantling or decentralizing the
military, decentralizing political power, or pursuing peaceful
relations with the rest of Europe -- they wanted control over the
state for conquest and reformation of man and society without having
to share power with an antiquated and inefficient monarchy and clergy.
> So it forms one. A military organization is necessarily
> authoritarian. At this point, a person using a
> coherent vocabulary would have to say that the
> republic or mob was no longer the Left regardless of
> its professed goals (liberty, communism, etc.)
No, a person using a coherent vocabulary would identify the Left with
the highly authoritarian Republican opposition to the monarchy, not
with anti-authoritarianism. A person who held anti-authoritarian
views would shun the label "leftist" and would seek to distance
themselves as much from non-traditionalist "left" authoritarians as
from traditionalist "right" authoritarians, and would recognize when a
shift from traditionalist to non-traditionalist authority resulted in
greater concentration of power and oppression.
[...]
Fred
typed:
> I concede people generally don't speak coherently -- they mistake style
> for content. Thus it may be that terms like "left" and "right" have
> been hopelessly confused. Too bad if so; it would be nice to express
> on one syllable what otherwise requires eight.
Yup. Wasn't it the book "1984" that talked about taking the words away
from reformers so they can no longer talk about what was needed. The
words mean something different and you can no longer say what you want to
say.
This is deliberate linguistic sabotage, not just a mistake. It's part of
mind control.
Fred
typed:
> Indeed, because only you have this strange delusion that Haiti is an
> imperial possession of the United States. Batista was capable of
> conscription when his government was threatened by revolution, but
> apparently Cuba's alleged American owners were unable to inspire them to
> contribute likewise to a war that claimed four hundred thousand of their
> men.
>
Likely an oversite. Nobody's perfect. Maybe there was concern
over loyalty of conscripted Cuban troops.
Fred
typed:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:40:46 +0000 (UTC), Fred
>> A nice story, but as you tell it, it would also be a great excuse for
>> minimizing the abuses of the oppressive regime to start with. Since I
>> am advocating no crimes and no oppression, it would seem to be
>> pointless.
>
> You defend brutal tyrants who engaged in terror and mass murder, both
> Aristide, and the Committee of Public Safety.
Aristide was a preist and a kind gentle leader very popular with
his people. He was thrown out in a military coup managed by the U.S.,
Canada, and France. They are now busy returning Haiti to a slave camp
where sweat shops can run and profit. Haiti's poverty is easily
understood by the constant oppression from foreign powers.
sushi monster
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:04:14 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
> > Indeed, because only you have this strange delusion that Haiti is an
> > imperial possession of the United States. Batista was capable of
> > conscription when his government was threatened by revolution, but
> > apparently Cuba's alleged American owners were unable to inspire them to
> > contribute likewise to a war that claimed four hundred thousand of their
> > men.
>
> Likely an oversite. Nobody's perfect. Maybe there was concern
> over loyalty of conscripted Cuban troops.
Did not prevent real empires from calling up hundreds of thousands of
their colonized subjects as soldiers and military laborers for the
war.
They could always do what Castro does and punish the families of
defectors in order to discourage disloyalty. But that particular
innovation in oppression probably requires an infrastructure of
informant spies at the block level to effectively implement, so
perhaps they were insufficiently authoritarian to do so.
Anarcissie
> On Mar 28, 12:25 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sushi monster <blackblackw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Being against the authority of the king and the church does not make
> > > one anti-authoritarian if one believes in the absolute authority of
> > > the republic. As history showed with the red terror and the levee en
> > > masse, the "left" of the French Revolution devised a political
> > > innovation vastly more authoritarian than the monarchy that preceded
> > > it, if measured only by its capability of conscripting a slave army
> > > that dwarfed the professional armies of its monarchist neighbors -- an
> > > innovation that the rest of Europe spent the 19th century either
> > > attempting to emulate or destroy, or more often both, much as the
> > > similar innovations of the fascists and communists of the 20th century
> > > infected world politics with militarism.
> >
> > In order to do its thing, the violent republic / mob
> > soon discovers that it needs military organization.
>
> On the contrary, the military organization was always the republic's
> thing. The left had no intention of dismantling or decentralizing the
> military, decentralizing political power, or pursuing peaceful
> relations with the rest of Europe -- they wanted control over the
> state for conquest and reformation of man and society without having
> to share power with an antiquated and inefficient monarchy and clergy.
If you're talking about, say, Lenin and Trotsky, your
history is incorrect. The Bolsheviks at first thought
a regular army was unnecessary and that militias would
suffice for the defense of their realm. The Germans
and the White armies soon taught them otherwise. Or
at least that's what I've read -- I wasn't there.
> > So it forms one. A military organization is necessarily
> > authoritarian. At this point, a person using a
> > coherent vocabulary would have to say that the
> > republic or mob was no longer the Left regardless of
> > its professed goals (liberty, communism, etc.)
>
> No, a person using a coherent vocabulary would identify the Left with
> the highly authoritarian Republican opposition to the monarchy, not
> with anti-authoritarianism. A person who held anti-authoritarian
> views would shun the label "leftist" and would seek to distance
> themselves as much from non-traditionalist "left" authoritarians as
> from traditionalist "right" authoritarians, and would recognize when a
> shift from traditionalist to non-traditionalist authority resulted in
> greater concentration of power and oppression.
Well, in my view, a coherent vocabulary would start out
with the invention of slavery, military organization,
and fortified towns. We could call the ideology of
this form of social organization "the Right" because
the right was the place of honor in a military
formation. (That was because in a phalanx or other
mass of soldiers armed with swords or spears, it was
necessary to put the most reliable soldier at the right
end of the line.)
Since there were people who didn't like military
organization or slavery, at least when they were the
targets, we can call them "the Left" -- that which is
_left_ over when all the _right_ people get organized.
So now you have the political Right and Left, although
it is my impression that these terms did not come into
regular use until the previously mentioned French
parliament made up its seating arrangements. The Right
is the party of power, authority, order, private
wealth, hierarchical social status, and the military
virtues; the Left, the party of peace, freedom,
equality, and autonomy. As Stephen Crane put it,
Once there came a man
Who said,
"Range me all men of the world in rows."
And instantly
There was terrific clamour among the people
Against being ranged in rows.
There was a loud quarrel, world-wide.
It endured for ages;
And blood was shed
By those who would not stand in rows,
And by those who pined to stand in rows.
Eventually, the man went to death, weeping.
And those who staid in bloody scuffle
Knew not the great simplicity.
Inasmuch as my view goes back to prehistory
and is consistent, significant, and even cast
into poetry by a Class A poet, I think it is
coherent. Although the truth is, it was first
explained to me by a pamphlet published by
the John Birch Society, who put Communists
and Nazis on the Right, anarchists on the Left,
and themselves as classical liberals (I guess)
in the just-right happy Middle.
Of course, it's a free country, and you can use
terms like 'Right' and 'Left' however you please.
sushi monster
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:25:25 -0400, Anarcissie's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
> > I concede people generally don't speak coherently -- they mistake style
> > for content. Thus it may be that terms like "left" and "right" have
> > been hopelessly confused. Too bad if so; it would be nice to express
> > on one syllable what otherwise requires eight.
>
> Yup. Wasn't it the book "1984" that talked about taking the words away
> from reformers so they can no longer talk about what was needed. The
> words mean something different and you can no longer say what you want to
> say.
> This is deliberate linguistic sabotage, not just a mistake. It's part of
> mind control.
As is apparent from the evidence, it is the conflation of "left" with
"anti-authoritarian" that is linguistic sabotage. But given that you
view a state that used or uses mass conscription, execution and
imprisonment of political enemies, deployment of military forces to
intervene in distant conflicts on behalf of an expansionist
imperialist power, political censorship, and a vast network of
informants as representing "liberation", it is likely that your re-
definition of "authoritarian" is equally as creative.
sushi monster
> sushi monster <blackblackw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 12:25 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In order to do its thing, the violent republic / mob
> > > soon discovers that it needs military organization.
>
> > On the contrary, the military organization was always the republic's
> > thing. The left had no intention of dismantling or decentralizing the
> > military, decentralizing political power, or pursuing peaceful
> > relations with the rest of Europe -- they wanted control over the
> > state for conquest and reformation of man and society without having
> > to share power with an antiquated and inefficient monarchy and clergy.
>
> If you're talking about, say, Lenin and Trotsky, your
> history is incorrect. The Bolsheviks at first thought
> a regular army was unnecessary and that militias would
> suffice for the defense of their realm.
An odd reading of Lenin. He advocated abolition of the professional
army, the civil militias, and the police force, to be replaced by a
single, universal, national, proletarian militia of every able-bodied
man and woman, a universal politicized military with police powers,
for use in both offensive and defensive wars, in order to allow the
"proletariat" the use of the whole power of the state. He did not
even advocate mass conscription -- he advocated *universal*
conscription, in times of both peace and war, until such time as the
global socialist victory. You can't really get any more authoritarian
than that. You'd have to make up imaginary things to submit to
authority -- mobilization of the Little People and regulation of the
Spirit World.
[...]
James A. Donald
> his people.
If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have been
installed at gunpoint by US Marines.
If Aristide was popular with his people, his bodyguards would have
been black instead of white.
If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have needed to
put down peaceful protests by indiscriminate gunfire.
If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have needed to
rig the 2000 elections so flagrantly.
If Aristide was popular with his people, would not have burned his
political opponents alive.
James A. Donald
> the military organization was always the republic's thing.
> The left had no intention of dismantling or decentralizing
> the military, decentralizing political power, or pursuing
> peaceful relations with the rest of Europe -- they wanted
> control over the state for conquest and reformation of man
> and society without having to share power with an
> antiquated and inefficient monarchy and clergy.
And at this point, I say: three cheers for antiquity and
inefficiency.
Recall Aesop's parable of the frogs who wanted a King.
They prayed for a King. And God replied "what should a King
be?"
And the frogs sought a King that was big, mighty and
impressive, like the Israelites choosing Saul.
So God dropped a log on them.
After a while, the frogs were dissatisfied, and asked for a
King that was more energetic and active.
So God sent them a stork that gobbled them all up.
See also the book of Samuel in the old testament, that tells
a similar tale.
Whenever people have ambitions for what government should do,
the results resemble those that happen when Gore preaches
global warming.
James A. Donald
> If you're talking about, say, Lenin and Trotsky, your
> history is incorrect. The Bolsheviks at first thought a
> regular army was unnecessary and that militias would
> suffice for the defense of their realm.
The military revolutionary committee was full of high ranking
military officers. If it was not exactly the army, it
surely was not a militia. Rather it was a communist plot
within the army against the democratically elected government
- similarly with attempted communist takeover in Portugal.
The militia to which you refer was "the red guards" - who
never numbered more than seven thousand. They were never
intended to be an actual fighting force, but rather to
symbolize the "proletariat" in "proletarian insurrection", to
apply a proletarian coat of paint to the actions of a small
elite operating within the army and secret police.
If the communists had actually intended to rely on militias,
they would have recruited a red guard a hell of a lot bigger
than seven thousand.
The communist power base in Czarist Russia was the army,
aristocracy, and the secret police, not the proletariat, just
as in today's America, it is Harvard and Princeton, not the
proletariat.
James A. Donald
> An odd reading of Lenin. He advocated abolition of the
> professional army, the civil militias, and the police
> force, to be replaced by a single, universal, national,
> proletarian militia of every able-bodied man and woman, a
> universal politicized military with police powers, for use
> in both offensive and defensive wars
I think Anarcissie's rational is old army right wing, new
army, being a "militia" is left wing - but the procedures,
institutions, and officers of the new army came from the old
army, at least until they ran out of politically reliable
officers with adequate experience.
He may also be thinking of the "red brigade", which was
something more like a real militia - that is to say, based on
volunteers, and rather weak in chain of command and military
discipline - but the "red brigade" was a coat of paint over a
military coup.
Anarcissie
Fred <fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:25:25 -0400, Anarcissie's busy little fingers
> typed:
>
> > I concede people generally don't speak coherently -- they mistake style
> > for content. Thus it may be that terms like "left" and "right" have
> > been hopelessly confused. Too bad if so; it would be nice to express
> > on one syllable what otherwise requires eight.
>
> Yup. Wasn't it the book "1984" that talked about taking the words away
> from reformers so they can no longer talk about what was needed. The
> words mean something different and you can no longer say what you want to
> say.
> This is deliberate linguistic sabotage, not just a mistake. It's part of
> mind control.
I don't see a distinct saboteur. I see a common
yearning for Big Daddy.
Fred
typed:
Well, I never did that.
Fred
typed:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:59:54 +0000 (UTC), Fred
>> Aristide was a preist and a kind gentle leader very popular with his
>> people.
>
> If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have been
> installed at gunpoint by US Marines.
>
Aristide was elected in the first free elections that Haiti was
allowed.
> If Aristide was popular with his people, his bodyguards would have been
> black instead of white.
>
He didn't have many, nor much need for them. He disbanded the
Haitian army.
> If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have needed to put
> down peaceful protests by indiscriminate gunfire.
>
He didn't.
> If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have needed to rig
> the 2000 elections so flagrantly.
>
Now you've gone off the deep end into the fantasy pool.
> If Aristide was popular with his people, would not have burned his
> political opponents alive.
Fantasy pool on "acid."
James A. Donald
> Aristide was elected in the first free elections that Haiti was
> allowed.
If you refer to the 1990 election, it helped Aristide considerably
that all his major opponents were barred from running.
The 1990 election prohibited the most important candidates - at the
request of the US and under pressure from the US.
Thus in the 1990 election Aristide won in Washington, not Haiti.
> > If Aristide was popular with his people, his bodyguards would have been
> > black instead of white.
> He didn't have many, nor much need for them. He disbanded the
> Haitian army.
See the photo:
<http://www.wehaitians.com/otto%20reich.html>
Observe the skin color of the bodyguards that protect him from
Haitians.
>
> > If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have needed to put
> > down peaceful protests by indiscriminate gunfire.
> He didn't.
"Aristide's Brutal Tactics Further Inflame Haitian"
<http://www.wehaitians.com/aristide%20brutal%20tactics%20further%20inflame%20haitians.html>
> > If Aristide was popular with his people, he would not have needed to rig
> > the 2000 elections so flagrantly.
> >
> Now you've gone off the deep end into the fantasy pool.
>
> > If Aristide was popular with his people, would not have burned his
> > political opponents alive.
>
> Fantasy pool on "acid."
sushi monster
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:26:57 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
> typed:
> > As is apparent from the evidence, it is the conflation of "left" with
> > "anti-authoritarian" that is linguistic sabotage. But given that you
> > view a state that used or uses mass conscription, execution and
> > imprisonment of political enemies, deployment of military forces to
> > intervene in distant conflicts on behalf of an expansionist imperialist
> > power, political censorship, and a vast network of informants as
> > representing "liberation", it is likely that your re- definition of
> > "authoritarian" is equally as creative.
>
> Well, I never did that.
"That's just a lie. Cuba has been liberated by it's revolution."
[...]
Fred
typed:
> Fred <fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> Aristide was elected in the first free elections that Haiti was
>> allowed.
>
> If you refer to the 1990 election, it helped Aristide considerably that
> all his major opponents were barred from running.
>
Quoting Patrick Elie,
"When Jean-Claude Duvalier was forced to leave the country in 1986,
nobody expected that after 30 years of repression, the first 15 of which
were sheer terror, that there would be this profound movement within the
Haitian population that would turn into thousands of grassroots
organizations. It was this movement that was the origin of the Haitian
saga of the last 20 years. It was this movement rather than the political
parties that stood up against the return of dictatorship. It was this
movement that confronted the military government when it tried to control
the election in 1987 and this movement that swept Aristide into power in
1990"
> The 1990 election prohibited the most important candidates - at the
> request of the US and under pressure from the US.
>
> Thus in the 1990 election Aristide won in Washington, not Haiti.
>
If this were true, which I doubt, it might be that Washington
thought Aristide was going to be one of their puppet dictators and sell
out his own people. That didn't happen.
Fred
typed:
> On Mar 30, 7:44 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:26:57 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
>> typed:
> [...]
>> > As is apparent from the evidence, it is the conflation of "left" with
>> > "anti-authoritarian" that is linguistic sabotage. But given that you
>> > view a state that used or uses mass conscription, execution and
>> > imprisonment of political enemies, deployment of military forces to
>> > intervene in distant conflicts on behalf of an expansionist
>> > imperialist power, political censorship, and a vast network of
>> > informants as representing "liberation", it is likely that your re-
>> > definition of "authoritarian" is equally as creative.
>>
>> Well, I never did that.
>
> "That's just a lie. Cuba has been liberated by it's revolution."
>
> [...]
Indeed it has.
sushi monster
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:46:26 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
> typed:
> > On Mar 30, 7:44 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:26:57 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
> >> typed:
> > [...]
> >> > As is apparent from the evidence, it is the conflation of "left" with
> >> > "anti-authoritarian" that is linguistic sabotage. But given that you
> >> > view a state that used or uses mass conscription, execution and
> >> > imprisonment of political enemies, deployment of military forces to
> >> > intervene in distant conflicts on behalf of an expansionist
> >> > imperialist power, political censorship, and a vast network of
> >> > informants as representing "liberation", it is likely that your re-
> >> > definition of "authoritarian" is equally as creative.
>
> >> Well, I never did that.
>
> > "That's just a lie. Cuba has been liberated by it's revolution."
>
> > [...]
>
> Indeed it has.
And so I repeat: you view the victory of a fascist dictatorship as
liberation. Your definitions of "liberation" and "authoritarian" are
therefore highly unlikely to offer any useful political communication.
James A. Donald
> > > Aristide was elected in the first free elections that
> > > Haiti was allowed.
James A. Donald:
> > If you refer to the 1990 election, it helped Aristide
> > considerably that all his major opponents were barred
> > from running.
Fred
> Quoting Patrick Elie,
>
> "When Jean-Claude Duvalier was forced to leave the country
> in 1986, nobody expected that after 30 years of repression,
> the first 15 of which were sheer terror, that there would
> be this profound movement within the Haitian population
> that would turn into thousands of grassroots organizations.
> It was this movement that was the origin of the Haitian
> saga of the last 20 years. It was this movement rather than
> the political parties that stood up against the return of
> dictatorship. It was this movement that confronted the
> military government when it tried to control the election
> in 1987 and this movement that swept Aristide into power in
> 1990"
If this was true, Washington would not have found it
necessary to lean on the election process to make sure that
the result came out right.
> If this were true, which I doubt, it might be that
> Washington thought Aristide was going to be one of their
> puppet dictators and sell out his own people. That didn't
> happen.
Since his bodyguards were white, I am pretty sure it did
happen. He who controls the praetorian guard, controls the
country. Observe that Aristide campaigned in Washington,
rather than Haiti, much as Ho Chi Minh campaigned in Moscow,
and Pol Pot in Hanoi.
What happened in Haiti under Aristide is what you get when
the boys from Harvard run a country.
James A. Donald
> it might be that Washington thought Aristide was going to
> be one of their puppet dictators and sell out his own
> people. That didn't happen.
None of the people you call puppet dictators were installed
by the troops of outsiders, none of them had foreign
bodyguards. All of those that you claim represented the true
will of the revolutionary masses relied on outside
assistance, frequently American assistance. Often, like
Aristide and Ho Chi Minh, they were installed by foreign
troops, frequently, like Aristide, they relied on foreign
bodyguards to protect them from "their" people.
Infant mortality is a good indication of the condition of the
poorest. Who then was selling out his people? Pinochet,
under whom infant mortality dramatically diminished, or
Mugabe and Aristide, under whom infant mortality dramatically
increased?
Aristide and Mugabe represent the rule of foreigners - not
America, but Harvard, Princeton, and the LSE, who are indeed
anti American, in the sense that they wish to destroy America
in the same way they destroyed Rhodesia, and for much the
same reasons.
Fred
typed:
> Fred <fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> > > Aristide was elected in the first free elections that Haiti was
>> > > allowed.
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > If you refer to the 1990 election, it helped Aristide considerably
>> > that all his major opponents were barred from running.
>
> Fred
>> Quoting Patrick Elie,
>>
>> "When Jean-Claude Duvalier was forced to leave the country in 1986,
>> nobody expected that after 30 years of repression, the first 15 of
>> which were sheer terror, that there would be this profound movement
>> within the Haitian population that would turn into thousands of
>> grassroots organizations. It was this movement that was the origin of
>> the Haitian saga of the last 20 years. It was this movement rather than
>> the political parties that stood up against the return of dictatorship.
>> It was this movement that confronted the military government when it
>> tried to control the election in 1987 and this movement that swept
>> Aristide into power in 1990"
>
> If this was true, Washington would not have found it necessary to lean
> on the election process to make sure that the result came out right.
>
Washington took Aristide out, invaded with troops and conducted
a blood burge of Lavalas supporters. They then announced "free"
elections and Haitians got Preval. Now Lavalas, the most popular party
in Haiti by far, is not allowed to run for office.
Fred
typed:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:23:09 +0000 (UTC), Fred
>> it might be that Washington thought Aristide was going to be one of
>> their puppet dictators and sell out his own people. That didn't
>> happen.
>
> None of the people you call puppet dictators were installed by the
> troops of outsiders, none of them had foreign bodyguards.
Papa Doc and Baby Doc were both darlings of Washington.
Who their bodyguards were is irrelevant..\
> All of those
> that you claim represented the true will of the revolutionary masses
> relied on outside assistance, frequently American assistance.
They "required" nothing but honest elections and precious few of them got
that. The only free elections Haiti has had produced Aristide as their
leader.
> Often,
> like Aristide and Ho Chi Minh, they were installed by foreign troops,
> frequently, like Aristide, they relied on foreign bodyguards to protect
> them from "their" people.
Aristide was elected by the Haitian people and for a while it
looked like Haiti would have a future other than more slavery. They
started to have education and health care and a growing economy. That
was too much for Washington and the IMF and World Bank.
Like Venezuela, Haiti will have to get rid of foreign
intervention before they can be free.
>
> Infant mortality is a good indication of the condition of the poorest.
> Who then was selling out his people? Pinochet, under whom infant
> mortality dramatically diminished, or Mugabe and Aristide, under whom
> infant mortality dramatically increased?
>
Infant mortality could not have increased under Aristide since
health care was better than ever before, or since.
> Aristide and Mugabe represent the rule of foreigners - not America, but
> Harvard, Princeton, and the LSE, who are indeed anti American, in the
> sense that they wish to destroy America in the same way they destroyed
> Rhodesia, and for much the same reasons.
You're raving now. I am not rising to that bait. Bad enough I
took the main hook.
Fred
typed:
> On Mar 31, 9:24 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:46:26 -0700, sushi monster's busy little fingers
>> typed:
>> > On Mar 30, 7:44 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:26:57 -0700, sushi monster's busy little
>> >> fingers typed:
>> > [...]
>> >> > As is apparent from the evidence, it is the conflation of "left"
>> >> > with "anti-authoritarian" that is linguistic sabotage. But given
>> >> > that you view a state that used or uses mass conscription,
>> >> > execution and imprisonment of political enemies, deployment of
>> >> > military forces to intervene in distant conflicts on behalf of an
>> >> > expansionist imperialist power, political censorship, and a vast
>> >> > network of informants as representing "liberation", it is likely
>> >> > that your re- definition of "authoritarian" is equally as
>> >> > creative.
>>
>> >> Well, I never did that.
>>
>> > "That's just a lie. Cuba has been liberated by it's revolution."
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> Indeed it has.
>
> And so I repeat: you view the victory of a fascist dictatorship as
> liberation.
Nope.
James A. Donald
> > If this was true, Washington would not have found it
> > necessary to lean on the election process to make sure
> > that the result came out right.
Fred
> Washington took Aristide out, invaded with troops and
> conducted a blood burge of Lavalas supporters.
We saw the capital fall. It was not Washington that took
Aristide out, but Haitians.
Washington twice intervened to install Aristide in power, and
during the entire period of his rule, he was kept alive by
white bodyguards of unknown origin, but under the
circumstances, presumably US bodyguards.
James A. Donald
> > None of the people you call puppet dictators were installed by the
> > troops of outsiders, none of them had foreign bodyguards.
Fred
> Papa Doc and Baby Doc were both darlings of Washington.
The New York Times is the voice of power, the voice of Washington, the
voice of authority, and it has always condemned Papa Doc and Baby Doc
with the most savage rhetoric, and warmly praised Aristide.
It was pressure from Washington during 1987-1990 that installed
Aristide in 1990. It was US marines that installed Aristide in Haiti
at gunpoint in October 1994. He arrived in 1994 on a plane full of a
crowd of US politicians.
Frito Pendejo
When I visited Vietnam last year, I was reminded to not refer to "the
fall of Saigon," since the city was "liberated" by the communists from
imperialist occupation.
http://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/turista666/vietnam/20091202-091832ict-z.jpg
See more communist propaganda in my photo album:
http://s929.photobucket.com/albums/ad137/turista666/vietnam/