On 2008-05-08 01:27 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
> On May 7, 11:42 pm, Daniele Futtorovic
> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I pretty much agree with the definition of "settler" you have
>> elaborated throughout this thread, that the decisive criteria is
>> whether they consider themselves part of a foreign nation, or
>> instead of the nation they're dwelling in. I don't necessarily
>> agree with the practical consequences you've spoken of, but neither
>> do I disagree -- in my view they're essentially dependent on the
>> specific situations and my knowledge of those which were discussed
>> is too limited for me to take any specific position.
>>
>> At any rate, in my opinion the aspect of settler or not is mostly
>> irrelevant, or rather ought to be from a point of view of class
>> struggle. What in this context matters is not whither some person
>> came but whether his an exploiteur or not. In the same way, while I
>> hold the view that control of immigration (meaning, in practice, a
>> stop to immigration) would be in the interest of workers in
>> developed industrial countries, I hold it that such a policy should
>> involve accepting, integrating those who've already immigrated into
>> such a country.
>>
>> I also agree that Vngelis' posts, in this thread as well as in the
>> "MIA" thread, are a far cry from rational for the most of them, and
>> that he seems to be frantically aiming, or should I say "throwing
>> dirt" at you personally. I've been off a while, but reading up some
>> of the post of the last months, I found myself more often than not
>> wondering, and not being able to decide, whether I was drunk or the
>> posters (not limited to Vngelis).
>>
>> Still, there have been enough situations where I was agreeing with
>> Vngelis, seeing more truth/sense in his positions than in his
>> contendents', for me to know that he is not "fundementally
>> irrational", even least "not even political". So I could probably
>> spend my time pondering whether he popped a fuse or got replaced by
>> an MI6 bot -- only that I won't, simply taking what's written as it
>> is written, regardless of the author, to some extent at least.
>>
>> In that sense, please allow me to counter rationally (according to
>> your qualification) such arguments as I deem fit to be countered.
>> After all, there isn't like an oversupply of rationality in our
>> world, so it shouldn't hurt too much.
>>
>> -- DF.
>
> Praising Cold Warriors Rorty or current gangsters like Zisek on MIA I
> assume and having a person in charge of the Lenin archive who openly
> loathes ...bolshevism are part of your world Danielle. They aren't
> part of mine.
I understand what you mean, but I think your radicalism misplaced. It's
a bloody archive, what could go wrong? There should be enough means to
control these people.
Sometimes you have to cope with what means you have. Especially in this
case, that of an archive, I think judgement should be made according to
the result. There's a good deal of pragmatism that can be learned from
Lenin, more so even than from Trotsky.
(And try to spell my forename with one 'L' only, please. Sorry to be
touchy, but it's a bit of an issue when you carry such a name into an
English-glotted context)
> I also note on your lectures on 'racism' you parrot standard 'left'
> tripe. Good for student audiences irrelevant in the real world.
That's as it may be, but since I have my own reasons for my opinions,
I'm fine with that. If you have any subtsantial argument against them,
feel free to come forth with it.
> A nationalist who refuses to expel white settlers who call for
> autonomy is toothless and pointless and will suffer whatever fate
> awaits him. Those who want to split up countries should be expelled
> back to the USA where they come from.
Expel them? No, not at all. Why not rather shoot them (since we already
are in the business of telling other people what they ought to do with
their country, anyway).
Expelling, in my opinion, is wrong in this case, especially if taken as
the sole measure. The im****tant point with such splitters is to render
them powerless. As I said in my racism allegory before, once they are
powerless it don't matter squat what they think. And the reason I think
they shouldn't be expelled ever after having been rendered powerless is
that they're much easier to control if they're still under your
legislation.
Take the examples of the cuban exiles in the US. They're a powerful
pressure group against Cuba. Wouldn't it be much better for the Cuban
regime if they could lay their hands on them?
The best solution IMO would be to strip the exploiteurs, whether
settlers or not, white or black or yellow or red or pink or green (but
especially the green ones: you can't trust'em), of their power, get them
into the rank and file, and let civil legislation deal with any further
attempt for unrest. That's what it's for, after all.
But you might also simply shoot them all. Although it's not necessarily
as simple, and it might be harder to get a consensus for it. But ah,
there you go.
Expelling would be a wrong and very dangerous policy, IMO. Deal with
problems, don't hide them under the carpet. They'll breed there.
--
DF.
|
