HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
Stephen, You, me, Heather, Rick, Mart, Javier, Richard, Joe Blow, -- my apologies to all whose names weren't mentioned -- all hold dogmas. That is, our previous conceptions filter and hence influence the conclusions we reach on issues. Whether one“sees the grey” in things or ascribes to a perceivably more “dogmatic” position(s) is besides the point. It’s all relative. As Durkheim pointed out: there would be sinners in a society of Angels. In terms of Mugabe, It boils down to strategy: we can follow in the foot steps of the Z magnets and worry about the (real or non-existence) peccadillas of Mugabe (and essentially accomplish nothing in terms of stopping this imperialism and more generally ridding the world of capitalism) or we can concentrate on exposing the greater crimes of our own leaders, the greater threat posed to the world by an "intervention" such as this, and that which drives "interventions" more generally. Take you’re pick? “Who needs enemies when you’ve run out of allies”. Stephen Gowans wrote: > Dear Friends, > > For those of you scratching your head in puzzlement about why I should > be going on with nauseating persistence on what seems to be the very > straightforward issue of Eric Margolis, I will end with one question. > > Would you like this list to do what it usually does, or would you like > it evolve into a list filled with posts as the following (which is > simply Rick's note, with the name changed). > > Ask yourself, How would Rick, or Heather, or Mart, react to this? How > would your react to it? > > Dear Friends, > > For anyone not already acquainted with the fact, Robert Mugabe is a > virulent homophobe, who said at an international book fair in Harare in > 1995, "If we accept homosexuality as a right, as is being argued by the > > association of sodomists and sexual perverts, what moral fibre shall our > > society ever have to deny organized drug addicts, or even those given to > > bestiality, the rights they might claim and allege they possess under > the rubrics of "individual freedom" and "human rights," including the > freedom of the press, to write, publish and publicize their literature." > > Homosexuals, added Mugabe, are "worse than dogs and pigs." > > A quick Google search with the words "Robert Mugabe homophobia" will > demonstrate with whom we're dealing. There is nothing remotely > enlightened or progressive about this individual, notwithstanding the > fact that he has adopted Marxist rhetoric when it suits his purposes. In > > fact, the only time he criticizes Western Imperialism, is when his > presumed progressive party is under fire. Otherwise he's perfectly happy > > to work with the West. > > As such he operates on a personal, and hardly political or principled, > agenda. Other African leaders are making the same points he is on land > reform and opposition to the IMF and World Bank and Western imperialism; > > there's no need to provide this enemy of ours with more exposure and > authority than those who can't see beyond his opportunistic Marxist > facade have already given him. > > As many of you will know, I have written in defence of Mugabe, and have > opposed Mugabe's principal domestic opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, but I > haven't angelized Mugabe. He is no angel. Curiously, many of us write > furious screeds on the media's demonizing of those who dare pursue an > independent economic course while angelizing Washington's allies, but we > > are perfectly comfortable demonizing (Morgolis) and angelizing (Mugabe) > . It may be psychologically comforting, though more than a little > puerile, but the result is that we come across as strident dogmatists, > who've lost the ability to argue persuasively because we spend our time > on listserves "for cadre" as Heather puts it. Maybe that's why what > amounts to argument is often nothing more than a string of ready-made > phrases (bourgeosie pseudo-leftists), cryptic innuendo (It's no > coincidence he's Canadian-based) and witch-hunt allegations (If he > disagrees with me he's either working for the State Department, or if he > > isn't consciously, he is unconsciously, and so he's just as guilty.) And > > who decides who legitimate cadre are, Heather? And who decides who "our" > > enemies are, or aren't, Rick? > > Heather writes, " There have been cases in the US since the early 1990s > of people trying not to appear too left or with the left on these > issues. They have formed alliances with right wingers," which is odd > coming from you Heather, because Workers World and the IAC, of which you > > are a part are daily subjected to the same accusations. You know the > smear. Workers World is connected with Ramsey Clark, Ramsey Clark was > establishment, therefore Workers World is establishment. Workers World > has worked with the Rainbow Coalition. The Rainbow Coalition masquerades > > as being Left. Workers World gave the Rainbow Coalition undeserved > credibility, presumably the way antiwar.com and bourgeoisie > pseudo-leftists pacifist New World Order-lovers give Morgolis and Fisk > and Herman and Chomsky and Francis Boyle and (ask Rick for the list: > it's a long one) credibility. > > Perhaps a Dear Friends post, beginning "For anyone not already > acquainted with the fact, Ramsey Clark is a Western disinformation > specialist" is in order, or, "Dear Friends, For anyone not already > acquainted with the fact, Steve Gowans' best friends from 1984 to 1986 > were two NATO officers. In 1986 he was employed by the Canadian Armed > Forces, the very same organization that boasted of flying the third > greatest number of sorties against Yugoslavia in 1999. His neighbour, > with whom he is friendly, works for the Canadian equivalent of the NSA. > In 1987, he was accused of scabbing by the Canadian Energy and > Communications Workers. Let us not give this enemy of ours the > credibility that the right-wing antiwar.com and reactionary > MediaMonitors and ideologically confused, bourgeoisie Swans have already > > given him." And then we can all set to fighting amongst ourselves, > accusing each other of being pseudo-leftists and agents of the > establishment. Or maybe we should just declare this a Workers Work cadre > > list, require an ideological background check, and be done with it. > > That then is the point. Rick's note may have seem innocent enough, and > doubtlessly it was in its intentions, but once we began done this path, > it leads to a paroxysm of pointless fractiousness, ending in absurd > paranoia. > > And as Rick is fond of saying, The State Department will be pleased. > > > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
