Left Politics

Every once in a while we come across the most inane discussion. It all reminds us of a movie we once saw in which the central message was «one should not confuse babies and angels». Now of course the writer and the director wanted us to think that it was ok to do so, but, we think the initial missive was bang on. It appears that in our unexplained absence good old Cherniak has taken the opportunity to get dumber while his shadow boxing intellectual opponent Mr. Scully has taken the opportunity to become the dumbest faux intellectual in the history of blogging.

WTF you ask? Well apparently Cherniak and Co. have been having a debate on what is the definition of terrorism. Good topic we think. Too bad the intellectual neophytes in question do not have the capacity for abstraction—and as such definition—(fuck we should have gone to law school) (fuck that, what a nightmare of social interaction!) And yes we just put two distinct but connected thoughts in separate brackets. Oh well let us say good night to the English Gestapo while we are here.

Again, WTF you ask? Well if you have not taken the time to explore the links provided above; here we give the skinny on the situation. Mr. Scully’s final definition for terrorism was «those who kill without a just cause.» And of course our intellectual pimp squeak Cherniak finds the definition a little too inclusive!

Katel should release an album entitled: “faux intellectual shit parade“ Look the issue is really simple. Terrorism is the tactic of an inferior force who believes that through random violent conflict one can further their political objective. It is distinguished from war by the fact that those who wage war are usually understood to be officially (state) sanctioned combatants who use violence to further their political agenda. Neither definition has any referent to a just cause.

The precipitate to our definition is that Mosses was a terrorist too! How do you like those apples?


By Goodwin Ginger

We have seen a lot of bullshit in our time and even participated in some of it but still we have to call bullshit on the whole faux May day Chamberlain fiasco.

Our opinion: all Sound and furry signifying exactly nothing.  If May is guilty of anything, it is using a worn out troupe of the right to go after the Cons.

And all this sanctimonious horseshit coming out of the Cons about “how dare blah did di blah blah.”  “Bugger off” we say.  We had all heard a steady beat coming from the Con’s war drum over Afghanistan and Iraq: all of our enemies were at one point likened to Hitler and those that disagreed were cast as nouveau Chamberlains.

The Canadian Jewish Congress, Oy Vey, where were they back then?  Back then of course it suited their foreign policy agenda to use such crass parallels.

Maybe we could all agree that for the benefit of public discourse and respect for the dead we should all stop whoring the Holocaust and its associated cast of characters for present political gain.

We are not holding our breath.

Disutopia is the most significant project of our time. It is not the temporary absence of Utopia but the celebration of the end of social dreams. Social dreams have become a nightmare in which it is impossible to materialise our desires into a collective thought. Disutopia should not be confused with the form in which it appears: indifference. Disutopia entails an active process involving simultaneously the struggle to control diversity and the acclamation of diversity; the repression of the struggles against Disutopia and celebration of individual self-determination. The result of this is social schizophrenia. In so far as diversity, struggle and contradiction cannot be eliminated by political or philosophical voluntarism, Disutopia has to be imposed. The advocates of Disutopia spend a huge amount of time in de-construction, repentance, denial, forgetfulness, anti-critique, coupled with academic justifications and the scientific classification of the horrors of our time. Whilst the reality of capitalism is destroying planet earth, Disutopia pictures Utopia as a romantic, naïve and old-fashioned imaginary that is accused of not dealing with the real world. However, our point is that Disutopia can only be sustained by denying the real content of life, i.e. the foundations of the real world. The result of all this together is mediocrity.

Dinerstein and Neary “Class struggle and the Communist Manifesto” (2001, p. 4).

First off, the progressive vote is now split between four parties in Canada: the Liberals, the NDP, the BLOC, and the Greens. The liberals have no hope of poaching votes from any of the decided voters in the other three progressive parties. This means the liberals will have to concentrate on getting out their own vote and on targeting the swing voter. And here is the rub: there simply is not enough ideological difference between the liberals and the conservatives these days to make a real play for the swing voter. In the concrete the conservatives appear less extreme than they would like to be and in the concrete the liberals were more to the right than their self-image would like to admit.

The liberals cannot credibly hold themselves up as the protectors of the universal welfare state. Indeed it was they not the Conservatives that spent the better part of the decade waging an ideological and material attack on the welfare state. The liberals solved the federal deficit by forcing provinces to restructure their welfare programs and choke funding to higher education and health care. As such, when it comes to economic policy there is hardly a ray of light that separates the Conservatives and the Liberals: they are both neoliberals when it comes to the economy.

The liberals cannot credibly hold themselves up as the protectors of the environment. The Conservatives are right on this one. The liberals had the better part of decade to do something on the environment and they did next to nothing. Oh sure they talked a good game but they did worse than nothing. Anyone who is even faintly familiar of what went down in the federal Ministry of the Environment knows what schizophrenic organization it became under the liberals. Add to that the culling of inspectors and the lax enforcement of existing environmental protection and you get the impression that the Ministry of the Environment under the liberals was little more than an appendage of industry: kind of like Transport Canada which has always been an appendage of industry.

The liberals cannot credibly run as an anti-war anti-fear party. They drafted the draconian anti-terrorism legislation and they sent Canada into Afghanistan and determined the structure of that mission.

The liberals cannot credibly run as paragons of virtue determined to stamp out patronage. Indeed the liberals were a patronage machine and when patronage was not enough they shifted to envelopes stuffed with cash.

In short, Dion cannot credibly run the liberals as honest brokers. Given their previous record as the governing party they can neither poach votes form the left or the right because they have zero credibility on either side of that divide. Hence, it is going to be a popularity contest determined by Charisma, which is the one thing Dion totally lacks.

Get ready the Harper majority is coming.

It looks as though Labour is set to take back the government in Australia. Eight months is a long time in politics but the trends are all moving in the right direction. And it looks like Howard’s attack adds actually moved opinion in the opposite direction. WK take note.

Man if you wanted to discredit the left this little initiative would be the way to go about it. Does nayone know who these people are? We swear this is either a CSIS or Scientology Front, most likely the latter and not the former.

Dear Dawg with respect to your post in our comments section,

This is not about freedom of expression per se as we are already on record as understanding the limitations to that right.

The question is: what is the responsibility of members of a community to one another? And this is why the little show trial you had was so disgusting. Apologize or be banned. This is Maoist re-education at its best.

Who but the most defeated of individual without any sense of personal autonomy could bend to that especially if they felt it was being motivated by the likes of Kinsella and Cherniak? Robert’s comment was full of shit we all decried him for that we even educated him on that. End of story. Or at least that should have been. But you little kids needed to make clear your virginal purity.

Which of course is bullshit because there are dark places in your hearts somewhere –unless of course you now have achieved transcendence into a God.

And the reference to Apartheid was about just that: (1) censorship of this type is futile and (2) how injuriously offended people deal with the perpetrators of those offences. The wisdom of the TRC was that Apartheid was a complex social beast which was not the property of any individual but rather the property of a social totality which spanned vast swaths of time and geography reaching way down into the very soul of the West and its colonial endeavors (see any connection to anti-semitism?). The TRC made young activists all very sick. The elders defended its (TRC) wisdom. You all should grow up. Purity is for babies and Gods and you my little Dawg are a man. Learn the difference.

“Attack the argument, the emotion but not the man.” Given your apparent foundness for Maoist re-education here is a suggestion: write that on a chalk board, tie it around your neck and repeat it outloud as you walk down the public streets.

Next Page »