Lenin's Tomb: My Final Word
[This is another example of a so-called 'racist' post that was removed from 'Lenin's Tomb'. I will not submit any further posts to that blog].
Communism leads inevitably to the Enver Hoxha Tractor Combine, the Trabant and other ersatz immitations of free-market endeavour.
Moreover, a significant part of the politicaly-inspired mass-murder and mayhem of the 20th Century was caused by communist regimes of one shade or another.
Marx was a decent man, troubled by the social conditions of his time, but his ideas have little or no practical application to today's world. And if you read the testimonies of many people who were involved in radical socialist movements in the 60s and 70s, they now realize that they were wrong and that their actions and beliefs made existing problems worse rather than actually solve them.
It is ironic that alchemy was mentioned in relation to capital somewhere else in this post because I think Marxism is a form of politically alchemy: an attempt to create a golden era out of the leaden reality of human nature and human aspirations. It is always bound to fail because it goes against the laws of nature.
Take for example, Sir Isaac Newton: a brilliant man, possibly the most brilliant who ever lived, but he wasted a significant amount of his life messing about with alchemy. How ironic that someone who played the most significant part in uncovering the real laws of nature was attempting something that was bound to fail because it violated those laws. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from this.
Newton also wasted his time trying to decipher the biblical bronze-age nonsense that is the prophecies of Daniel, but he also represents a perfect example of rationality and reason. He is the posterboy of the Age of the Enlightenment, a development that lead to the ultimate ascendancy of Western Civilization.
Now, the greatest challenge facing Western Civilation, and indeed all of mankind (at least outside of the environmental sphere) comes from those who wish to turn the clock back, and who wish to compell all of mankind to be subject to irrational, ignorant and intolerant religious beliefs and customs. Militant Islam (i.e. pure Islam, practiced and executed as Mohammed intended it to be, and not the PC 'religion of peace' poppycock we are told to swallow on an almost daily basis) is the prime example of this. It is now spreading through the entire world like a tumour that will surely kill its host if not excised.
Given that Communism (and National Socialism) was the bugbear of the 20th Century, and that Militant Islam (i.e. Islamofascism) is shaping up to fulfill that role in the 21st, it is perhaps fitting that the far-left finds so much in common with the Jihadi Islamists. After all, they find common cause in their shared hatred of America. The jihadis loathe America and Western cultural values in general, whilst the far-left and soppy-minded liberals engage in a form of cultural self-loathing and push their unjustified historical guilt-complex to more ridiculous and absurd extremes.
The far-left basically sympathises with suicide bombers in London, Tel-Aviv, Madrid and Bali. They 'understand' the frustrations of the people who carried out the WTC attacks. In their minds, it is not the Islamists who are the problem, it is America and the West. As a trivial example, look at the postings here in 'Lenin's tomb' where left-wing ire is reserved for the Metropolitan police and not for the sods who either carried out mass murder or attempted it. There is symapthy for Palestinian suicide bombers (often accompanied by something like 'I don't agree with the bombings but compared to what the Israelis have blah blah blah done..'; for me, this is a bit like when someone says 'I'm not a racist but...'), but no sympathy for innocent Israelis (referred to collectively as 'Zionists' in their hypocritcal and blantantly racist lexicon). I could go on.
To conclude, the far-left (and signficant strands of liberal opinion in the West) believe that it is not Islamists who are the problem, it is America and the West. They believe that Bin Laden, though misguided, is basically right. A signicant portion of the Islamic world believes that Bin Laden is, in fact, not at all misguided: he is just right. (Where I currently live, it is very common to see youths wearing Bin Laden T-shirts. He is their hero because he is standing up to America). Everything is the fault of George Bush and Tony Blair. I must, of course, also include the Israelis in this culpability club.
But sooner, or later, left-wing and liberal opinion is going to see that the Islamists war on the West is not because of the American invasion of Iraq, is not because of sympathy with the Palestinians or the Afghans, or because of opposition to the denial of schoolgirl headscalves in France or because of anodyne cartoons in Denmark; these are symptons and not causes. It is all about the Islamit's desire to impose their dreadful belief system on the rest of the world by force, terror and blackmail.
The Bali bombers chose to kill westerners and non-Muslim Indonesians (i.e. Balinese Hindus) precisely because they were westerners and Hindus. Moreover, they were decadent and immoral alcohol-drinking westerners and Hindus. For the Islamists, it all about war on the 'other', the infidel, the Dar al-Harb (House of War). A few spurious, and sometimes believable, political reasons for their actions can also be thrown in now and then so that 'useful fools' can be foolishly used until it is time to turn on them as well.
Communism leads inevitably to the Enver Hoxha Tractor Combine, the Trabant and other ersatz immitations of free-market endeavour.
Moreover, a significant part of the politicaly-inspired mass-murder and mayhem of the 20th Century was caused by communist regimes of one shade or another.
Marx was a decent man, troubled by the social conditions of his time, but his ideas have little or no practical application to today's world. And if you read the testimonies of many people who were involved in radical socialist movements in the 60s and 70s, they now realize that they were wrong and that their actions and beliefs made existing problems worse rather than actually solve them.
It is ironic that alchemy was mentioned in relation to capital somewhere else in this post because I think Marxism is a form of politically alchemy: an attempt to create a golden era out of the leaden reality of human nature and human aspirations. It is always bound to fail because it goes against the laws of nature.
Take for example, Sir Isaac Newton: a brilliant man, possibly the most brilliant who ever lived, but he wasted a significant amount of his life messing about with alchemy. How ironic that someone who played the most significant part in uncovering the real laws of nature was attempting something that was bound to fail because it violated those laws. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from this.
Newton also wasted his time trying to decipher the biblical bronze-age nonsense that is the prophecies of Daniel, but he also represents a perfect example of rationality and reason. He is the posterboy of the Age of the Enlightenment, a development that lead to the ultimate ascendancy of Western Civilization.
Now, the greatest challenge facing Western Civilation, and indeed all of mankind (at least outside of the environmental sphere) comes from those who wish to turn the clock back, and who wish to compell all of mankind to be subject to irrational, ignorant and intolerant religious beliefs and customs. Militant Islam (i.e. pure Islam, practiced and executed as Mohammed intended it to be, and not the PC 'religion of peace' poppycock we are told to swallow on an almost daily basis) is the prime example of this. It is now spreading through the entire world like a tumour that will surely kill its host if not excised.
Given that Communism (and National Socialism) was the bugbear of the 20th Century, and that Militant Islam (i.e. Islamofascism) is shaping up to fulfill that role in the 21st, it is perhaps fitting that the far-left finds so much in common with the Jihadi Islamists. After all, they find common cause in their shared hatred of America. The jihadis loathe America and Western cultural values in general, whilst the far-left and soppy-minded liberals engage in a form of cultural self-loathing and push their unjustified historical guilt-complex to more ridiculous and absurd extremes.
The far-left basically sympathises with suicide bombers in London, Tel-Aviv, Madrid and Bali. They 'understand' the frustrations of the people who carried out the WTC attacks. In their minds, it is not the Islamists who are the problem, it is America and the West. As a trivial example, look at the postings here in 'Lenin's tomb' where left-wing ire is reserved for the Metropolitan police and not for the sods who either carried out mass murder or attempted it. There is symapthy for Palestinian suicide bombers (often accompanied by something like 'I don't agree with the bombings but compared to what the Israelis have blah blah blah done..'; for me, this is a bit like when someone says 'I'm not a racist but...'), but no sympathy for innocent Israelis (referred to collectively as 'Zionists' in their hypocritcal and blantantly racist lexicon). I could go on.
To conclude, the far-left (and signficant strands of liberal opinion in the West) believe that it is not Islamists who are the problem, it is America and the West. They believe that Bin Laden, though misguided, is basically right. A signicant portion of the Islamic world believes that Bin Laden is, in fact, not at all misguided: he is just right. (Where I currently live, it is very common to see youths wearing Bin Laden T-shirts. He is their hero because he is standing up to America). Everything is the fault of George Bush and Tony Blair. I must, of course, also include the Israelis in this culpability club.
But sooner, or later, left-wing and liberal opinion is going to see that the Islamists war on the West is not because of the American invasion of Iraq, is not because of sympathy with the Palestinians or the Afghans, or because of opposition to the denial of schoolgirl headscalves in France or because of anodyne cartoons in Denmark; these are symptons and not causes. It is all about the Islamit's desire to impose their dreadful belief system on the rest of the world by force, terror and blackmail.
The Bali bombers chose to kill westerners and non-Muslim Indonesians (i.e. Balinese Hindus) precisely because they were westerners and Hindus. Moreover, they were decadent and immoral alcohol-drinking westerners and Hindus. For the Islamists, it all about war on the 'other', the infidel, the Dar al-Harb (House of War). A few spurious, and sometimes believable, political reasons for their actions can also be thrown in now and then so that 'useful fools' can be foolishly used until it is time to turn on them as well.
posted by The Count of Monte Cristo in a Bubble Car at 11:18 AM
11 Comments:
Thank you to the above two posters (Arkan and Jonob) for taking the time to leave their comments, even though I categorically reject most of what is claimed in them. First of all, with regard to ad-hominem attacks, I was in fact subject to them from the very outset. After my first post, in which I raised the issue of the sympathies the far-left has for Islamists, I was subject to a torrent of abuse; I was called a "moron", "a twat" and on several occasions was told to "f*** off" by some of the lofty intellectuals who post at the blog. Later on, they resorted to the usual far-left tactic of labelling any opponent a "a racist" or "a Nazi". Moreover, Jonob, I don't think I ever specifically accused you of supporting North Korea or Cuba: my point was a general one about the double-standards the Left has towards left-wing and anti-American regimes in terms of human rights, etc.
If I sounded abrasive, then it was because I was often very angry about some of the posts made. Anyone who calls himself Lenin online is setting himself up to be attacked. After all, if you name yourself after, and apparently idolize, a mass-murderer and tyrant then no quarter should be given either to him or his apostles. There were several other things that angered me, and for which I think I was justified in having an "abrasive" and "overly-arugmentative" approach. One that springs to mind were those posts hoping that Iraqi insurgents kill British soldiers. There were several other examples.
Jonob, sorry but you CANNOT replace Islam with Judaism. The comparison is pathetic and really angers me. Jews are not carrying out terror-attacks on a world-wide scale. And besides, I wasn't talking about Islam speading: I was talking poltical Islamism which is different. And if you think political Islam isn't spreading like a tumour, and isn't causing worldwide problems (especially in this week when the report on the London bombings was released) then you are either stupid or wilfully blind. To argue the case against Islamism is not racism; on the contrary, it is to fight against the racism and anti-semitism on which their "disgusting" pernicious ideology is based.
Arkan and Jacob, thank you once again for your comments.
I agree, Arkan, at times I was pissed off, and perhaps some people were baiting me. The irony is that I was also (wrongly) accused of being a troll, of deliberately saying things I didn't necessarily believe in just to provoke a reaction. You are correct in saying that those who attacked me (rather than those who argued with me) are not banned. But that is, as you know, because they tow the party line, so to speak.
I was also annoyed by the arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters. One poster insisted that he knew all about Singapore, and disregarded as "gibberish" my corrections to the many factually incorrect statements he made about the place even though I recently spent several years living there. When I pointed out that the so-called infringements on personal liberties in Singapore (such as unmarried people not being allowed to be in proximity to each other or the suppression of homesexuals) was absolutely not true, but in fact occurred in neighbouring Islamic Malaysia my post was deleted. I also recall the term "racist shite" being used against me at some point in the proceedings.
The 9/11 hijackers may well have engaged in activities by Islam, but may have rationalised it, claiming the doctrinal clause of Taqiyya (or holy deception) which allows them to deceive their enemies. See the following link for more informationL
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/25320
Jonob, in my youth I was fascinated by Stalinist Albania, but was never a Stalinst or indeed a communist. I was also interested in the Soviet Union and other communist countries. In my teens I visited Ceaucescu's communist Romania, and was shocked by the repression and misery. I also visited Yugoslavia many times. Other communist countries I have visited within the last few years are the Lao People's Democratic Republic and China. I note that you visited Russia; I have never been to Russia, but I have a few Russian friends and work colleagues. I am fairly knowledgeable about Russian history, and do know the difference between Lenin and Stalin. You will have to admit that Lenin did order the murder of the entire Russian Royal family, women and children. I am also reminded of a rather juvenile rhyme I was told in my youth to distinguish between Lenin and Stalin:
"There was a man called Lenin,
Who did many men in,
But for every man Lenin did in,
Stalin did ten in."
The question of Islam is a difficult and complex subject. It also, as I have learned first-hand, very difficult (even impossible?) to question the basic tenets of a religion with two billion adherents without being smothered in charges of racism or inciting hatred. First of all, I want to stress that the vast majority of Muslims are decent people. (I have had many, many Muslim friends in the past). But they are decent in spite, not because of literal or pure Islam. If they literally obeyed all of the Koran and the Hadith, then honour killings, military campaigns to spread Islam by the sword, polygamy, slavery and excessive violence would dominate their lives. Yes, the same thing can be said about parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus), but the Koran is much more extreme. The Koran is a hard, austere and severe document replete with prohibitions, anger and exhortions to violence. I, and many thousands of others around the world, believe that the reason why Islamic terrorists are capable of extreme acts of terror or brutality is because they are literally taking the instructions from the Koran. Recently, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney said the following after reading the Koran (link provided later) "...On the pessimistic side of the equation, concern begins with the Koran itself. In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages."
http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/Addresses/200627_681.shtml
It might also be of interst to read what ex-Muslims (i.e. apostates) have to say about Islam as a religion. Link provided below.
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
The over-reaction of many Muslims to the recent Danish cartoons can also be traced to the behaviour of the prophet himself. He had many poets and artists put to death for writing poems or songs mocking him. One such person was the lady poet, Asma bint Marwan (e.g. see link below).
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5307
Jonob, you ask me how I propose to excise the tumour of Islam. Well first, I don't see the entire Islamic culture as the tumour; it is the militant literalists, the Islamists who are the tumour, those who think they can apply the mindset, laws and customs of seventh-century peninsular Arabia on the entire world. And I really don't know for sure how to excise this tumour, maybe we can only resist it through education and honest open debate. Islamic culture needs to start helping and reforming itself. Islamic theology needs to transform itself into something more positive and relevant. Muslims in the West needs to start integrating themselves more thoroughly into their host societies (note that we don't have these debates about Hindus, Buddhists or Jews).
Of course, I don't wish to demonize all Muslims. I don't think Muslims are inferior in any sense, but the Islamists believe that non-Muslims. For example, I give you a direct link to Grand Ayotollah Sistani's (mentioned in the liberal press as a possible recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize) website below in which he puts infidels (i.e. kafirs or unbelievers) on the same level as pigs and faeces. Najis, incidentally, is the Islamic term for filth. I would love some of the purblind, or selectively blind PC nutters in 'Lenin's tomb' to comment on this. Please visit this link; it has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/3/inside/18.htm
I agree that political and racist extremists could, and indeed are, exploiting anti-Muslim sentiments. The BNP in the UK for example. This is a very difficult, sensitive and potentially danegrous issue, and I can't pretend to have the answers. But we can't just ignore the issue; the Islamists will not let us do that.
Thank you both (Arkan and Jacob) for this constructive dialogue.
Thank you to the above for again taking the time to place such lengthy and detailed comments. I'll try to respond to some of the points made, but forgive me if there are ommissions.
Jonob, although the ends of the links disappear to the right, you should find that if you begin highlighting the link and drag your mouse across the rest of the link will appear.
Jonob, I understand your concerns about world poverty and know that thousands do die every day as a direct result of poverty and disesase. In some cases, perhaps this can be traced to globalization with unfair competition from richer nations. But the picture is very complicated and contradictory. Hundreds of millions of people in China and India, for example, have been brought out of poverty because these two countries have effectively joined the world economy. Isn't more often the case that corruption or the lack of political will (sometimes from the rich developed nations) that is cause of the poverty rather than globalization or free-market economics per se? I also can't believe that you think the ordinary people, from many nationalities, who worked in the World Trade Centre deserved to die because of the terrible poverty and injustice we have in this world.
I didn't assume that left-wingers at Lenin's Tomb blog supported Al-Sistani, but now looking at what I wrote, I can perhaps understand why I gave this impression. I cited his website, and the comments on it, to illustrate just how extreme, hostile and racist extreme Islam(ist) beliefs can be.
I agree with your sentiments that Muslims should be treated like human beings in all respects. In the West, Muslims have far greater freedoms than they do in the Islamic world. This, as I know from direct personal experience, is not reciprocated generally in the Islamic world towards non-Muslim minorities. Most non-Muslims in the Islamic world live under sufferance, and suffer discrimination and unfair restrictions. In some cases, such as Christians in Pakistan and more recently in Indonesia and Egypt, non-Muslims have a dangerous and precarious existence. Iran regularly executes and persecutes non-Muslims for religious crimes. (See amnesty international link below).
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130102006
Moreover, people born into the Muslim faith who do not wish to live according to its strict rules and prohibitions, a have very difficult time. I'm sure you know what happens to apostates. Within the last week I read of a case of women in Malaysia who converted from Islam to Christianity and is now in serious trouble. Can you imagine such a thing in the West? Can you imagine it even being an issue. Such things serve to show the vast and ever-widening chasm that is opening up between the liberal West and the Islamic world. I am sure you've heard of Samuel P. Huntington's thesis on the "clash of
civilizations".
Arkan, Rabbie Burns, the Scots poet, famously commented our inability to “see ourselves as others see us”. When I first started posting at 'Lenin's tomb', sure I was expressing opinions that were against those of the majority of people who post there, but I believed (perhaps incorrectly) that I was doing it in a temperate and reasonable way. As I recall, I even used 'with respect' parenthetically in many of my posts, and always thanked posters for their responses, even the ones who told me to "F*** Off" or called me a crazy bastard; I never used invective that against anyone. Arkan, I am aware of the subtle and ostensibly balanced approach you have adopted in 'Lenin's tomb'. One example, which springs to mind is your treatment of the Palestinian issue. As you pointed out in so many words, mistakes and excesses have been perpetrated by both sides (as they are in any conflict).
I understand what you mean by saying that making incorrect assumptions about what people believe in or what they are can really piss them off. But since it was a left-wing forum I believed that I have sufficient insight into the general tenor of their beliefs. I know one size doesn't fit all. For example, there are some left-wingers who admired the old Soviet Union (e.g. Galloway), but there are other communists such as the Socialist Workers Party who never did (Neither Washington nor Moscow, but international Socialism was their (old?) motto). But in order to make sense of anything, we often have to generalize. I should point out that I was also subject to some presumptions. I got the impression that some posters assumed that I was some kind of white supremacist. I was accused of being a 'Daily Mail' reader. One poster even talked of my Victorian morality, but I'm not sure on what data these extrapolations were made.
In an earlier post, you asked me if I was in southeast Asia. I do live in southeast Asia, and have done so discontinously for a total of eight years.
I would like to say more, but have to stop now. I realise that I haven't responsed in detail to all of the points you both raised. Please forgive me for that.
Further to my comments above, I've just had a look at the blog 'Lenin's tomb' and noted that my final post (which I sent last week and where I stated that I wasn't going to post there any more) has been deleted and replaced with a facile comment about an attempted comeback by a racist. Since I also pointed out in the deleted post that my partner is non-Caucasian, it was necessary for this to be deleted lest there be any confusion in the minds of other posters. I must say that this racist labelling really annoys me, especially since I probably have more internationalist and integrationist credentials than those responsible (Aside from extensive world travel, I've dedictated nearly a decade of my life into becoming a fluent speaker of an Asian language and consider myself to be a true citizen of the world.)
If I was so motivated to do so, I could still post a respone on the blog in question (via an annonymous proxy or by a change of computer), but will instead just treat it with the silent contempt it deserves. And besides, I have to be realistic: the post will, in all likelihood, be removed just like the others were.
Arkan, thanks for pointing out the typo in my introduction; I've now fixed it.
Arkan, I've just responed to your comments on the Albanian-Serb issue in another thread.
Jonob, mea culpa. I misread your post: I thought you said that you wouldn't loose any sleep over the people killed in the WTC. After re-reading your post, I realise that you didn't say that. So, I apologise. I was wrong in this case.
As for the point about India and China. Sure they still have high levels of poverty, but it is an indisputable fact that since opening up their markets, the lives of the vast majority of people who live in those countries, especially China, have improved dramatically. That was the point I was making when I said millions had been brought out of poverty.
Jonob said: "The rest of your post is the usual whinging about Muslims". No, I don't whinge about Muslims, I whinge about Islamic extremism and the double-standards of the Islamic world. And doubtless the relatives of the people who died during the London and Madrid train bombings, or the Bali nightclub bombings, think that the threat of militant Islam is just "bollocks".
Jonob, further to my last comment, I think you need to reconsider what you mean by a "racist nutter" . As I see it, a racist is someone who has dislike of, or is prejudiced aginst, people of different races. A racist typically, and mistakenly, believes in the superiority of his own race. He may also seek to scapegoat, as Hitler did with the Jews, people from one particular race.
You applied this rather unpleasant term to me presumably because of my comments about Islam. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I absolutely do not hate Muslims: I take issue with militant Islam and certain questionable Islamic practices, not with Muslims as people or fellow human beings. And I have the right to question and be critical of this and ANY belief system, and not to be hindered by mindless political correctness and soppy-minded self-loathing liberalism. Moreover, in case you haven't noticed, Islam is a religious/political belief system: Muslims are not a race, and so the accustation of racism just doesn't wash. If you want to know what racism really is, then try to understand, for example, the mindset of Islamic extremists like the Bali Bombers: White Australian=Infidel, Balinese=Hindu Infidel.
Of course, only a tiny minority of Muslims have a warped hatred like this. And as I repeatedly try to emphasize, my beef is with the minority and not the majority of decent Muslims who live their lives avoiding a literal and absolute interpretation of their religious inheritance, and instead abstract only positive and moral values.
You might also consider the rampant anti-Semitism to be found in many parts of the Islamic world; for example, the file "Schindler's List" banned in Malaysia because some Islamic clerics said it was just "Jewish propaganda". Anti-semitic cartoons, featuring hook-nosed shady-looking characters are to be found throughout the Arab world.
You strongly suspect I am not a scientist, do you? Well, how presumptious of you. In fact, I have a first-class honours degree in a science subject and a Ph.D. in engineering from a leading university in the U.K.
The only logic you appear to be familiar with is the fallacious type. According to you, muslim apostates like Ibn Warriq (who wrote "Why I am not a Muslim"), or brave figures from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Taslima Nasrin who have rejected Islamism in exactly the same terms as I have done, are also "racists". I am a "racist" for having opinions on matters affecting my partner, who is a non-Muslim in a Muslim-majority country. You really are a dimwit with, I suspect, little or no knowledge of the real world. According to you, this is just my "whinging" on about Muslims. You even somehow link my beliefs with the accidental shooting of a Brazilian in London, and claim I am somehow promoting race hatred; how preposterous, insulting and stupid in the extreme.
As an example of your superficial and irrational view of the world, let me take something you wrote in your very last post: you mentioned the occupation of Afghanistan as one of the "causes" of Islamist terror. This is a prime example of getting cause and effect mixed up, of putting the cart before the horse. The Islamists who attacked the USA were based in, and supported by, the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban was removed from power with minimum loss of civilian casualties; in short, Afghanistan was liberated, and the terrorists whom you admire were driven out. The Islamists attacked the USA first, and the Americans justifiably and admirably responded. Afghanistan is not being occupied, you clown. Even PC Canada have troops stationed there, all with the permission of the democractically elected government of Afghanistan. But the far-left doesn't really believe in democratic elections, does it? They always loose. That's why the Socialist Workers Party never takes part in any elections in the UK.
The other points in your post are the usual far-left dribble and nonsense about Palestine and how beastly the West is to the Muslim world in general; all of which is not even worthy of comment.
I have tried to be polite and reasonable in my discussions with you, but you are just typical of the shallow, immature and unpleasant types who find refuge in extremist politics.
I suggest that you go and join your fellow looney Leninists, juvenile jahadi-lovers and anti-semites masquarading as anti-Zionists in 'Lenin's tomb', feasting on the rotten carcass of Marxist-Leninism.
To conclude, I really am sick to death of reading your holier-than-though jejune cant, not to mention your irrational and annoying charges of racism, which are just the stock-in-trade of the hysterical, parasitical and unthinking far-left.
10:05 AM
Jonob, my current blog readership may well have dropped by one third with your departure, but then again my blood pressure has also fallen by the same fraction.
Arkan, thanks for your comments.
I agree with what you say about the childlike politics of the late 1960s. In trying to solve injustices and problems in the world, radicalism has proven time and time again to just make things worse and to create new problems. The far-left always has been naive and irresponsible, not to mention totally unrealistic. Their general approach was, and still is, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Better that everybody is equal in poverty and stagnation, because that is ALWAYS the outcome of any radical socialist government. Look at Zimbabwe; grab the assets of the rich, destroy their ability to create wealth and let's all be equal in poverty.
They see everything through the distorting prism of class war, and are essentially driven by hate. Maybe that's why they find so much in common with the Jihadis. If you read recent comments in 'Lenin's Tomb', you will see, for example, these class warriors recently venting their spleen about Bono. The lead singer from U2 is trying to use his fame and influence in a positive way to help raise Aid's awareness in Africa. Instead of acknowledging this as a good thing, Bono is subject to a barrage of angry insults and cynicism by them, as well as expressions of hatred because ... well because he doesn't share their anarchic-socialist view of the world, and because he is rich, ergo, being a rich capitalist he is partly responsible for world poverty and exploitation of the masses.
Arkan, you are only nineteen! For a variety of reasons, I imagined you to be at least twice that age.
Maybe you are right about Bono gaining more publicity, but given that U2 are such a megagroup already I'm sure this will only have a marginal effect on their record sales.
Post a Comment
<< Home