matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (01/06/86)
> I have never expressed admiration for the Stalinist or Maoist > regimes. Your redbating paranoia is showing. [LARRY KOLODNEY] > The first step in understanding any historical situation is to divide > the participants into Good Guys and Bad Guys. Since the political > leaders of the above-mentioned communist countries are responsible > for these atrocities and economic disasters, it is beyond question > that they are Bad Guys. Thus, if any policies of, say, the Cuban or > Chinese governments appear humane, enlightened, or constructive, this > is necessarily an illusion: we know that these countries are run by > Bad Guys. > > I am currently trying to determine whether the Sandinistas are the > Good Guys or the Bad Guys in Nicaragua. Any assistance will be > appreciated. [RICHARD CARNES] It's easy, Mr. Carnes. If they're Marxists, they're Bad Guys. There may be some humane, enlightened, or constructive policies they follow, but they're still Bad Guys. They operate as if the whole country is an army in the service of some ideal, with each citizen a draftee in that army and entitled to no freedom to do other than serve the ideal. Sure, there's redbaiting -- I'm engaged in it right now, Mr. Kolodney, as I write this. How come I've never heard the words "Nazi-baiting" or "racist-baiting"? Is it because the Nazis have killed so many, enslaved so many, tortured so many that we KNOW they're Bad Guys? Is it because the racists have lynched so many, enslaved and apartheided so many, sjambokked and imprisoned so many that we KNOW they're Bad Guys? Even if the South Africans removed press censorship, freed Nelson Mandela, recognized free black trade unions, and abolished capital punishment (all humane, enlightened and constructive steps), they'd STILL be bad guys as long as they endorsed apartheid and baaskaap (white supremacy). So, Mr. Carnes: Is their press censorship in Nicaragua (is there ANY non-government press in China, Cuba, or Vietnam)? Are there free trade unions in these places? Are there lots of political prisoners? Would you be pleased if the changes taking place in Nicaragua were taking place in YOUR home state? If not, then the people running the Marxist states are Bad Guys -- regardless of the fact that the Czar, Chiang Kai-shek, Batista and Somoza were also Bad Guys. The people of these countries are not guinea pigs, for use in some Grand Experiment to show how a New System can build a New Socialist Man. They are human beings just like you and me, and if WE wouldn't like to live under such an experiment, THEY shouldn't have to, either. And as long as the Marxists endorse the Marxist view of the purpose of man, they will be Bad Guys, like the South Africans. I hope this helps. -- Matt Rosenblatt (matt@amsaa.ARPA)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/07/86)
>It's easy, Mr. Carnes. If they're Marxists, they're Bad Guys. There >may be some humane, enlightened, or constructive policies they >follow, but they're still Bad Guys. I'm glad that at least one person has grasped the basic principle of dividing people into Good and Bad. One reason for so doing is that it provides a parsimonious and easily understood explanation for all the conflicts raging in the world. Good people will always be in conflict with evil people. In all of the world's conflicts, it is possible to discern a good side and a bad side. Some examples: GOOD BAD Afghan rebels Soviet invaders Black South Africans White South Africans Israel PLO America Soviet Union America Libya Some Lebanese Rest of Lebanese Britain Argentina South Vietnam North Vietnam Allies Axis Christians Infidels Greeks Trojans Humans Vampires and so on. >Would you be pleased if the changes taking place in Nicaragua were >taking place in YOUR home state? If not, then the people running the >Marxist states are Bad Guys -- regardless of the fact that the Czar, >Chiang Kai-shek, Batista and Somoza were also Bad Guys. Wouldn't it be simpler to ask the Nicaraguans themselves if they are pleased with the various changes that have taken place in their country? I don't know the answer, but it is either Yes or No. In any case, you display a thorough grasp of the Good Guy/Bad Guy Dichotomy Principle. >The people of these countries are not guinea pigs, for use in some >Grand Experiment to show how a New System can build a New Socialist >Man. They are human beings just like you and me, and if WE wouldn't >like to live under such an experiment, THEY shouldn't have to, >either. How disgusting that the Sandinistas are using the Nicaraguans as guinea pigs -- just like Auschwitz. How different from the Founding Fathers, who when drafting the Constitution wisely contented themselves with copying the time-tested features of European political systems, instead of trying anything new and experimental. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (01/09/86)
> > I have never expressed admiration for the Stalinist or Maoist > > regimes. Your redbating paranoia is showing. [LARRY KOLODNEY] > > > The first step in understanding any historical situation is to divide > > the participants into Good Guys and Bad Guys. Since the political > > leaders of the above-mentioned communist countries are responsible > > for these atrocities and economic disasters, it is beyond question > > that they are Bad Guys. Thus, if any policies of, say, the Cuban or > > Chinese governments appear humane, enlightened, or constructive, this > > is necessarily an illusion: we know that these countries are run by > > Bad Guys. > > > > I am currently trying to determine whether the Sandinistas are the > > Good Guys or the Bad Guys in Nicaragua. Any assistance will be > > appreciated. [RICHARD CARNES] > > It's easy, Mr. Carnes. If they're Marxists, they're Bad Guys. There > may be some humane, enlightened, or constructive policies they follow, > but they're still Bad Guys. They operate as if the whole country is > an army in the service of some ideal, with each citizen a draftee in > that army and entitled to no freedom to do other than serve the ideal. > > Sure, there's redbaiting -- I'm engaged in it right now, Mr. Kolodney, > as I write this. How come I've never heard the words "Nazi-baiting" > or "racist-baiting"? Is it because the Nazis have killed so many, > enslaved so many, tortured so many that we KNOW they're Bad Guys? > Is it because the racists have lynched so many, enslaved and apartheided > so many, sjambokked and imprisoned so many that we KNOW they're Bad Guys? > Even if the South Africans removed press censorship, freed Nelson Mandela, > recognized free black trade unions, and abolished capital punishment (all > humane, enlightened and constructive steps), they'd STILL be bad guys > as long as they endorsed apartheid and baaskaap (white supremacy). > > So, Mr. Carnes: Is their press censorship in Nicaragua (is there ANY > non-government press in China, Cuba, or Vietnam)? Are there free trade > unions in these places? Are there lots of political prisoners? > Would you be pleased if the changes taking place in Nicaragua were > taking place in YOUR home state? If not, then the people running the > Marxist states are Bad Guys -- regardless of the fact that the Czar, > Chiang Kai-shek, Batista and Somoza were also Bad Guys. The people > of these countries are not guinea pigs, for use in some Grand Experiment > to show how a New System can build a New Socialist Man. They are human > beings just like you and me, and if WE wouldn't like to live under such > an experiment, THEY shouldn't have to, either. And as long as the > Marxists endorse the Marxist view of the purpose of man, they will be > Bad Guys, like the South Africans. > > I hope this helps. > > -- Matt Rosenblatt > (matt@amsaa.ARPA) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Well said, Mr. Rosenblatt, well said. (And there are no shades of red, either--you are or you aren't a believer in Marxism and the evils that follow its attempted enforcement.) --arlan andrews, libertarian
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/10/86)
>(And there are no shades of >red, either--you are or you aren't a believer in Marxism and the >evils that follow its attempted enforcement.) I carelessly overlooked the definition of "Marxism" that must have been given given in a previous article. Could you please repost or send mail? Thanks. I used to think that world politics is complicated, but thanks to the net I now realize I was just confused. The net has shown me that anyone who can tell the good guys from the bad guys on the Saturday morning cartoons can understand world politics, and it is completely unnecessary to spend a lot of time studying history, political systems, current events, and so on. For example, the Sandinistas are Marxists, right? And they led a revolution a few years ago, right? Therefore the revolution was a bad thing for the Nicaraguan people, and if it is too late to bring back Somoza, the least we can do is support the Sandinistas' opponents, the Freedom Fighters, the moral equivalents of the Founding Fathers. (See below.) The quote above points out that you're either a Marxist or you're not -- there are no shades of red. This profound insight has escaped some of the Latin American clergy (and laity as well) who believe in "liberation theology": many of them believe that a Christian can accept some elements of Marxist belief! Stuff like "justice for the poor and oppressed", the need for a political transformation of society, and similar rubbish. I wish that some of these people on the net who truly understand the nature of Marxism could travel to Latin America and explain to these religious people that Marxism is inherently evil. When they see that this is true, I expect they will be grateful for being taught by an educated person from the United States -- after all, we are talking about ignorant peasant peoples. Now, how can the contras be helped? The CIA had a great idea: it wrote and distributed a manual, *Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare*, which has been published by Vintage. In the interest of showing how the evils of Marxism can be combatted, I will give here some of their excellent ideas: ______________ If, for example, it should be necessary for one of the advanced posts to have to fire on a citizen who was trying to leave the town or city in which the guerrillas (i.e., contras) are carrying out armed propaganda or political proselytism, the following is recommended: --Explain that if that citizen had managed to escape, he would have alerted the enemy that is near the town or city, and they would carry out acts of reprisal such as rapes, pillage, destruction, captures, etc., in this way terrorizing the inhabitants of the place for having given attention and hospitalities to the guerrillas of the town. --If a guerrilla fires at an individual, make the town see that he was an enemy of the people, and that they shot him because the guerrillas recognized as their first duty the protection of citizens. --The commando tried to detain the informant without firing because he, like all Christian guerrillas, espouses nonviolence. Firing at the Sandinista informant, although it is against his own will, was necessary to prevent the repression of the Sandinista government against innocent people [this is an important point -- RC]. --Make the population see that it was the repressive system of the regime that was the cause of this situation, what really killed the informer, and that the weapon fired was one recovered in combat against the Sandinista regime. --Make the population see that if the Sandinista regime had ended the repression, the corruption backed by foreign powers, etc., the freedom commandos would not have had to brandish arms against brother Nicaraguans, which goes against our Christian sentiments [contrast the deep religious convictions of the contras with atheistic Marxism]. If the informant hadn't tried to escape he would be enjoying life together with the rest of the population, because he would not have tried to inform the enemy.... 5. Selective Use of Violence for Propagandistic Effects It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, *mesta* judges, police and State Security officials, CDS chiefs, etc.... [A section of the manual instructs the contras on the assignment of] specific tasks ... in order to creat a "martyr" for the cause ... [This would be done by] taking the demonstrators to a confrontation with the authorities, in order to bring about uprisings or shootings, which will cause the death of one or more persons, who would become the martyrs, a situation that should be made use of immediately against the regime, in order to create greater conflicts.... If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out specific selective "jobs".... Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a demonstration can be created in which 10,000-20,000 persons take part.... These [shock troops] should be equipped with weapons (knives, razors, chains, clubs, bludgeons) and should march slightly behind the innocent and gullible participants. They should carry their weapons hidden. They will enter into action only as "reinforcements", if the guerrilla agitators are attacked by the police. They will enter the scene quickly, violently and by surprise, in order to distract the authorities, in this way making possible the withdrawal or rapid escape of the inside commando.... Shame, ridicule and humiliate the "personal symbols" of the government of repression in the presence of the people and foster popular participation through guerrillas within the multitude, shouting slogans and jeers.... Establish a public tribunal that depends on the guerrillas and cover the town or city in order to gather the population for this event.... The target or person should be chosen on the basis of: The spontaneous hostility that the majority of the population feels toward the target. Use rejection or potential hatred by the majority of the population affected toward the target, stirring up the population and making them see all the negative and hostile actions of the individual against the people. _________________ If such tactics were adopted, the battle against the forces of Evil might soon be won. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
salex@rice.EDU (Scott Alexander) (01/11/86)
In article <1265@brl-tgr.ARPA>, matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > So, Mr. Carnes: Is their press censorship in Nicaragua (is there ANY > non-government press in China, Cuba, or Vietnam)? Are there free trade > unions in these places? Are there lots of political prisoners? > Would you be pleased if the changes taking place in Nicaragua were > taking place in YOUR home state? If not, then the people running the > Marxist states are Bad Guys -- regardless of the fact that the Czar, > Chiang Kai-shek, Batista and Somoza were also Bad Guys. The people > of these countries are not guinea pigs, for use in some Grand Experiment > to show how a New System can build a New Socialist Man. They are human > beings just like you and me, and if WE wouldn't like to live under such > an experiment, THEY shouldn't have to, either. And as long as the > Marxists endorse the Marxist view of the purpose of man, they will be > Bad Guys, like the South Africans. > > I hope this helps. > > -- Matt Rosenblatt > (matt@amsaa.ARPA) The question which needs to be addressed is not whether or not one would like to see these changes in his home state as it currently is, but would he like to see these changes in his home state if that state is in the condition that Nicaragua was before the institution of these changes. While these changes would definitely be negative in Texas, one must keep context and realize that they might be a gain in Nicaragua. Equally, one has to examine the other *possible* changes and use that the help decide whether the change is positive or not. The question might be rephrased, "Would you be pleased with the changes if you were a member of the masses in Nicaragua?" (Insert your favorite phrase with praising or degrading connotations for `member of the masses' if you desire; that was just the first one to come to mind:-) Scott Alexander salex@rice.edu