Re: On the Settler Question

On Apr 29, 11:45 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> So...in your rodent way of twisting what your opponent says, you now
> see that I do cal Boers settlers, and N. Americans (which you rodent
> like, ignore) and the Zionist settler population in occupied
> Palestine.
>
> But your definition for Vietnamese boat people, most of whom left
> because the didn't want to live under the unified Vietnamese gov't,
> could traitors, could be anti-communists, but we now agree, finally,
> that they are not "settlers". The rat comes out from under his putrid
> rock.
>
> Nations do not develop mono-racially...or even mono-culturally. They
> get created through a process of uniting different peoples, often.
> China is an example of that. Even though no one language is dominant
> (Manderin, Cantonese, Korean, Tibetan, Shangauese, etc etc) through
> the process of the fight for *national* liberation they forged one
> nation. Usually this occurs via class society, sometimes in the above
> way like China. Some nations are simply not: there are no "Spanish".
> There are Basques and Catalan and Galicanos, etc. That is why the left
> in the "Spanish state" says "state", recognizing as they have since
> the 1930s that the state encomp***** many nations. Regardless, no one
> is a 'settler' there.
>
A much larger response occurred further up which you must have
missed...

Nations may not develop mono-racially or mono-culturally but when they
mature that is what they become.
There is no multi-cultural nation. Language which is centralised,
consciousness which becomes socialised by living and existing in a
specific nation implies that the Chinese for instance are a specific
race of people with a language and a common history. China hasn't as
yet matured to have one language to be dominant like Russia or Germany
or France.

You would like to state alongside the Sparts and the New World Order
crowd that there was no Iraq it is made of of Sunnis and ****as or
Yugoslavia as it is made up of Croats and Serbs when in reality the
distinction between the different peoples is a technicality much in
the same was as Cretans consider themselves different to Athenians and
vice versa. But their history is common and their break-up is
engineered. Their nation is under attack by the forces of globalist
imperialism which seeks the pre-history of nations in its ideological
arsenal to attack them using the remnants of the left which adopted
the mantra of no borders at the same time as the emergence of the
transnationals as a specific form of economic development.

Thus you seek to override the role of settlers and their specific
history with imperialism. History though has no such qualms.
Historical wrongs will be put right if nations want to exist with a
modi*** of independence and territorial integrity. That means
specifically as the crisis of imperialism gets worse the settlers or
their descendants the world over will be ejected from the body politic
of the societies they are in, whether you like it or not, whether you
want to describe it as 'ethnic cleansing' or any other such new world
order speak.

Fleeing or being expelled are two sides of the same coin much in the
same way that a white farmer being shot by a lum*****ed hoodlum is
part of the class struggle whether it is political or not as it is
economic, the economics of mass impoverishment amidst splendour.Class
conflict isn't suspended because the ANC is in power. It may be
tem****arily arrested but 'crime' takes its place. The class doesn't
wait for parties to get their act together in a neat revolution prior
to taking direct action. Zimbabwe is currently the future of S Africa.
But because S Africa is semi-industrialised it will be better
organised there and more worker orientated to its core and the 4
million white settlers will have a hard time as many are doing now. As
far as I am concerned the white farmers are good game literally just
like the blacks were for them for over a few centuries.