Re: On the Settler Question

On May 7, 10:46=A0am, Daniele Futtorovic
<da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-05-07 00:31 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>
> > The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no settlers
> > then argued there were using as a point of reference what I stated
> > about the PAC in S Africa (in other words backpeddling like a slimy
> > politician) seems to assume that what characterises a settler is what
> > =A0others believe they are. In other words when I stated that despite
> > the whites being in S Africa for 3 centuries makes them no more
> > African than an Albanian becomes Greek because he is in Greece for
> > one and a half decades. The whites in Bolivia consider the indigenous
> > to be Indian and seek to distance themselves from them in a racialist
> > =A0manner. Why shouldn't they be expelled by the =A0indigenous Indian
> > nationalists?
>
> Because it would be their (the indigenous nationalists') undoing.
>
> A racist with a gun is dangerous. A racist without a gun is just a
> pathetic loonie.
>
> Racism is an ideology. You should know as well as I do that ideologies
> don't drive the world. Economics (and their more sophisticated form,
> class struggle) do. A racist ideology can at best ever be a tool to
> provide moral justification for an existing social inequality. Remove
> the inequality (expropriation), the ideology will fart itself out.
>
> --
> DF.

DF, you are trying to give a rational(ist) argument with a
fundementally irrational person, someone who isn't even political. For
example, he *projects* onto the PAC a "throw the settlers out"
position they never had. The irrationality of his view...that
"settlers" (as only defined by himself) have to leave every country
they reside in even if the m***** don't call for this shows how such
irrationality (and a bizzare form of racialism) he's sunk to.

Further he delibertly falsifies my position by a false reductionist
argument "The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no
settlers..." rather a pathedic lie. He further lies when he writes
"...what characterises a settler is what
others believe they are." He refuses to look at the totality of a
discussion to draw conclusions. That the PAC defines what a settlers
is is good enough for me. For V, who now casts himself as the
consiousness (I know, a joke if there ever was one) of the PAC (and
other BC groups I suppose) by seeking to be the arbritor of
"settlerism". Irrational.

I accept the PLO Charter version as well: Jews who accept Palestinian
rule and stop seeking Jewish exclusiveness can stay, those that
percist in Zionist practices are to leave.

So...DF, "settlerism" is not what they say, but the way they ACT.
(something I've stated about a dozen times now).

An Albanian who lives in Greece for 15 years (or a Greek who lives in
Albania for the same period) is still Albanian, but he's part of the
Greek working class, whether British and Greek Citizen Vngelis
believes it or not. Same is true for the Polish worker in London.
Niether are "Settlers" because they are not trying to colonize the
country to the exclusion of the "native" populations. That ****tends a
"settler state" mentality.