[Marxism] Re: Re: Pearl Harbor, etc.

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lou wrote:

> I think that you are far too smitten with controversies.

&

> Right-wing nationalists? That's putting it charitably. He gets rave reviews
> at http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/, a website whose home page
> announces, "No Jews. Just right." They also like him over at
> http://www.ihr.org, a holocaust revisionist website.

> I have a better idea. Why don't you begin to participate here on the same
> basis as everybody else. Is it that you have no interest in broader
> questions of the class struggle?

Lou, as caritably as I can put this, when you start to send out "zingers"
and character assasinations of an "opponent" in a debate, you are usually
frustrated that you can't squash them politically so you choose a different
route. Can I ask you to calm down, sit on your denunciations and either let
"Bob" speak and rebut respectfully, or say nothing? His demeanor is not
disrespectful, he has cited things and does not need people like yourself
trying to paint him a sympathiser with neo Nazis, a clear undercurrent of
alarm bells in your hyperbole around Buchanan.

He has stated that talking about "conspiracy" in a vacuum isn't helpful, and
with that you havce plainly indicated you agree. However, the story on 9-11
is very much still something that is not considered political truth,
especially outside of (North) America, where most people believe they must
have some hand in it.

Now, when Bob talks about the motivations of the alleged hi-jackers, he goes
into postulations that he would probably agree are not helpful. But to
decifer what is going on requires a rigouropus analysis of where the war
came from, who had already planned it and why. Mark Jones work on oil, and
Stan's follow up and improvement upon those theses demonstrate the systemic
need to cull the population, ultimately. It also shows that the US cannot
possibly leave Iraq under any circumstance due to these realities-- and that
this differs radically from our work therefore, during the Vietnam War.

This is a class based analysis. It is also based on an energy theory of
value that I think needs to be worked into our understanding of class
actions-- labour theories of value cannot explain alone the need for an
entropic world order to exterminate any opposition to hegemony over these
markets.

ANWR is open for drilling; a few years ago that was impossible. Not now, not
in the oil-driven death throes of imperialism, or exterminism. A ruling
class that has no limits on its own destructive capabilities is now
unleashed upon the world. Of course "conspiracies" exist-- your barber acts,
without telling you about it, in his or her best interests. Why oi interests
who infest this regime would not is never explained.

Now, I think such a debate should not allow empty postulations of the
unprovable. They also should not be allowed to include slanderous attqacks
on personality in place of argumentation and scholarship. All that is needed
is observable fact. And so far, the slanders are only coming from those who
want to avoid criticising the tales of the FBI after 911 (or in places like
Pearl Harbour). However, Marx was clear: he was for "ruthless criticism of
alll that exists".

Pleae, stay respectful and enjoy a chance to see if the facts go anywhere
new. Such is the point of research and scholarship-- and no one here is
interested in aliens, weather baloons or the like. We can keep these
diversions-- what "conspiracists" are accused of-- away from a reasoned
debate that is about learning.

--

Macdonald Stainsby
http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
        --Bertholt Brecht.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism