Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile

On May 11, 8:41 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> See, THIS is why I stick around. The day Vngelis calls it quits, I'm
> outta here...
>
> On May 10, 8:18 am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > First we had Walters arguing there were no settlers anywhere on earth
> > as we could not go back in time to dertermine a settler as their
> > presence means due to their past they cant now be classified
> > as ...settlers.
>
> The second reason I"m around is Vngelis' Excercize in Creative
> Writing. So, let's review, one-step-at-a-time:
>
> No, I never stated there were "no settlers anywhere in the world". You
> said "eveyone in teh world is a settler if they can't get notorized,
> certified do***entation that they've live in an area for the past 30
> geneations...". Or something like that. Anyone?
>
> > Then we had the story that the PAC didn't actually call for 'One
> > Settler One Bullet' as they didn't actually mean the white settlers.
>
> No,they didn't. According the PAC themselves it was never part of
> their "program" only something that showed up ad-hoc by their
> sup****ters. Hey, go argue with them, not me.
>
> > Finally we have the Holmes version. Anyone who aint got Indian blood
> > is a settler.
>
> Now, V, wipe your mouth after you throw please. John was basically
> giving the "Vngelis test for national loyalty". He's correctly
> restating what YOU said. Now, go on...
>
> > Who settlers are  and what they represent will be decided on which
> > side of the fence they sit when the nations that make up countries are
> > torn asunder by civil wars. When the descendants of european settlers
> > in Bolivia vote for autonomy ie to split the country up, or like the
> > Croats did to become non-Yugoslav a conflict develops and in that
> > conflict one takes sides even theoretically if one cannot do so
> > practically. The Spart line was 'neutrality' ie to sup****t US
> > imperialism.
>
> No one can accuse of me of being a Spart-Symp but that was not their
> position. Actually, V, don't ya know, EVERY white guy in Santa-Cruz is
> mixed European/Indian. In fact, if you'd only pay attention to the
> articles you yourself posted from the Guardian, they talk about the
> "Indigenous vs Metixzo" line. Like I noted, the "whiteness" of these
> capitalists and rightwingers often changes depending on the point they
> try to make. Sometimes they like to flout their 'mixed heritage'
> sometimes, and in real life, they draw a sharp color line. That they
> are "settlers" or "Bolivians" is not even a question in Bolivia...it's
> that the rich, WHITE, assholes are trying to split up Bolivia. I too
> will lose no sleep if they are attacked, killed, driven away or given
> a shovel to do some honest work. However, that's up to the working
> class and peasant m***** of Bolivia and will be base, no doubt, on the
> kind of resistance they get from their CLASS enemy. But I doubt you
> will see raised outside the sort of academic article posted by you the
> 'settler' issue.
>
> > The previous Bolivian president fled the country if I am not mistake
> > and went straigh to Miami. Why do you think that is?
> > a) he had too much Indian blood in him
> > b) he had none
> > c) he was pro-American
>
> C. What do I win? That was the point...it was his POLITICS. The
> ecuadorean m*****, even more indigenous, drove out their 100% INDIAN
> prez for the same reason the Bolivians did.
>
> > If a Bolivian revolution occurs and Morales isn't part of the Bolivian
> > revolution but part of the containment of it, then for the Bolivan
> > nation to remain united it has to clear the oligarchs. A majority of
> > them are decendants of white settlers, as they are also in South
> > Africa as they were in Zimbabwe etc. If Morales doesn't attack them
> > other forces will. Either which way an historical impasse is being
> > created and an op****utinty has arisen. The autonomy vote may be the
> > straw that broke the camels back. I hope so. Now if they resist
> > militarily and they are then defeated and shot I will lose no sleep
> > over it.
>
> So...that they are "settlers" or "Bolivian Oligarchs" or "Martians" is
> of course totally irrelevant to what might happen to them.
>
> D.
>
> > vngelis

The Sparts condemned Serbian nationalism as a reactionary force and
the line of a plague on both your houses under the context of an
intervention of US imperialism which they alluded would not
occur ...but eventually did. We argued with them over exactly that
point.

Their line on Palestine is a soft-zionist line imbued with anti-
religious anti-islamic propaganda under the guise of the 'liberation'
of women, much in tune with Bush in particular on Afghanistan.

Israel has had 1 million ex-Soviet citizens arrive there to bolster it
up. Now someone will claim they are ...jewish, much in the same
fa****on as whites fleeing S Africa have to find 1 distant relative in
either Holland or the UK to be granted citizen****p to come back as
migrants.

If someone is half-indigenous that in times of conflict places them on
the side of the oligarchy then they will be swept aside.

The argument is political from another angle. Wherever the descendants
of settlers make up a significant pro****tion of people they need ot be
removed primarily because the rest of society cannot grow or mature
with their presence there.
Trotsky argued precisely that point with respect to Blacks living in
the USA. They needed to form their own state and be left alone from
the descendants of settlers to grow and develop politically. This the
Sparts hate and disagree with and are against this line in their own
country, so how could they ever be for it elsewhere?

A variation of this line exists among all grouplets. They see Israel
as a 'jewish' state cos there happen to be jews living there, much in
the same way as they see Afrikans as being ...African as they have
been there since the 17th century.

vngelis