Re: An letter to Against the Current

["Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Borba100@xxxxxxx
> Every time someone attacks Imperial policy - e.g., in Zimbabwe, or
> Philippines, Timor or Yugoslavia - we are told: if you are right how come
> all the local lefties are backing (whoever is the choice of the
> Imperialists.)
>
> Could it be because the local leftists are Uncle Toms or Imperial imports?
> (Did I say that?  How crude of me.  Imperialists would never stoop to such
> dastardly tactics as: trying to make sure they control the "Left" side of
> the struggle...)

What can I say to this?  It must be a full moon.

> In Philippines they intervene (behind the thin veneer of a local leader)
> to oppose corruption, since as we know our little brown brothers cannot be
> trusted to make their own decisions.

Apparently their decisions need to be made by Jared, because their local
leftists are Uncle Toms and Imperial imports like the Communist Party of the
Philippines and the New Peoples' Army.

> East Timor is in some ways the most vicious.

Yes.  But the independence movement *won* - and that is the goal that
leftists supported for all those years.

The problem with "anti-imperialist" New York Times leftists is that they
feel obliged to carry out backflips every time the imperialists change their
policy.  That is, the politics of the "anti-imperialists" are entirely
derived from - or rather, dependent upon - the whims of imperialism.  They
are incapable of taking principled political stances - their politics is
entirely impressionistic.

This is not changed one iota by even valid criticisms of the errors of
others.

(And I really did enjoy the "Uncle Toms and Imperial imports" line - thank
you Jared! :-) )

Alan Bradley
abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx