Wednesday, April 23, 2008
“Hatred as an element of the struggle..”
I had previously asked, given that Gerry Adams is a fan of the middle-class would-be permanent revolutionary, whether it was still chic to worship ‘Che’ in Sinn Féin in this new ‘indigenous’ deal. The Belfast Telegraph reports that we may, or may not, find out.
A spokesman for the west Belfast MP said: “Gerry was one of a range of people interviewed for this documentary. The interview took place in London and he was asked when he first saw the iconic image of Che Guevara, what the image means to him, the impact on the conflict here and his lasting legacy 40 years on.”
The documentary, of which the interview is a part, has been made by the same Trisha Ziff who curated the exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2006. But nevermind the image, what about the facts? [new link]
“Our mission, in the first hour, shall be to survive; later, we shall follow the perennial example of the guerrilla, carrying out armed propaganda (in the Vietnamese sense, that is, the bullets of propaganda, of the battles won or lost — but fought — against the enemy). The great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas taking root in the dispossessed masses. The galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”
Pete Baker @ 10:49 AM
Winston Churchill could have said this, or Bomber Harris - and they killed many more civilians than Guevara.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 02:45 PMGiven that hatred is the basis of all war, including armed struggle, is it not conceivable that the leader of that violent rebellion against the ways of God could be the Antichrist? If it isn’t an antichrist in the form of Che, or Castro, or Stalin, or Mao, someone’s going to come along who fits the bill as THE ANTICHRIST, a person who actually believes there is merit in the bloodlust.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Gerry Adams, the Antichrist (because he actually still believes in the merit of armed struggle despite all the killing, deaths, 15,000 prioners convicted from his own organisation, 120,000 years served by his prisoners, and the ending of his campaign in a failure to achieve what it set out to achieve.)
Why Gerry Adams is the Antichrist!
First of all, I believe that Gerry Adams is the Antichrist because of the coincidence that his name comes out at 666 on my numeric alphabet (see Appendix 1), a numeric alphabet that I discovered during my years at St Columb’s College in Derry and further investigated during my years at University College Galway. If his name didn’t come at 666, using some reasonable means, then I would not believe that he is the Antichrist. He would simply be to me just another delinquent who leads a very large conspiracy to undermine Ireland.Second of all, due to another pertinent coincidence his name contains “Adam”, the name of the first man, and from a theological point of view, this adds much to the basis of him being the Antichrist. Adam coincidentally means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and the number of the beast is specifically described as “man’s number” (Rev 13:18).
These are extraordinary coincidences and not to dismissed by any means by any intelligent observer of matters theological.
The apostle Paul wrote: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). Adam therefore symbolises death, and thus the question must be asked, is there significance to the ‘Adam’ in Gerry Adams’ name? Does Gerry Adams, the effective leader of the IRA’s republican movement, symbolise death?
The descriptions of the beasts in the Book of Revelation are interesting.
‘The inhabitants worshipped the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed,’ (Rev 13:12). Coincidentally, Gerry Adams was shot and wounded in 1984, but recovered. Afterwards, he became Sinn Fein president and one of the foremost politicians in Northern Ireland. The use of violence for him is a matter of tactics. That is a matter of fact and record. Gerry Adams has not stepped away from violence. He believes in his own words that “there is a time for peace and a time for war”, mocking the Prince of Peace and equating Christ with the Antichrist, good with evil.
The first beast, who is said to be the Antichrist, is prophesied to have “seven heads” (Rev 13:1), which is coincidentally the number of heads on the IRA army council, including Gerry Adams’ allegedly.
“Who can make war against him?” (Rev 13:7). The IRA has been described as ‘the most sophisticated terrorist organisation in the history of mankind’. Their structure makes it impossible for a conventional army to defeat them
Gerry Adams fulfilled another prophecy during the run-up to the 2007 Assembly election campaign in the North of Ireland. This involved him requesting the use of Clonard Monastery (Roman Catholic) church in West Belfast for a political meeting discussing his party’s policy. He still believed that armed struggle was a legitimate means of resolving differences.
When Gerry Adams took to the altar of Clonard monastery while his beliefs were in conflict with Christ’s teaching, he was proclaiming himself to be wiser than God and better than Jesus Christ. He was in logic proclaiming himself to be God.
“[The man of lawlessness or the Antichrist] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes 2:3-4)
For more, click on my name and follow links.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:20 PMPete this is what the 3rd thread you’ve shoehorned this hatred thing into? Anyway, not to be pedantic, but it’s totally misleading to call Che a permanent revolutionary. He hated Trotskyism, and this suggests he was one.
On another note, given that Adams rejected revolutionary socialism when he went with the Provisionals, this makes his appearance in this video even more laughable. Clearly this Ziff woman is intoxicated by the whiff of grapeshot.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:23 PMOh yeah, as I pointed out before Che also said that the revolutionary’s motivation comes from love for his fellow man. Not from hatred.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:24 PMGaribaldy: “Oh yeah, as I pointed out before Che also said that the revolutionary’s motivation comes from love for his fellow man. Not from hatred. “
Oh, surely, as demonstrated by his extra-judicial executions of “enemies of the revolution.”
Che was Beria writ small.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:31 PMI could take these references to “Bomber Harris” more seriously if they didn’t invariably come from sneaky regarders of Bomber Adams.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:35 PMIt was indeed demonstrated by that Dread seeing as they would have done exactly the same to him. These things unfortunately happen during large scale civil wars. And were most of the executions not carried out by revolutionary tribunals, i.e. emergency courts?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:37 PMQuaysider,
There’s a pedar o’donnel who posts on politics.ie who supports The Workers’ Party. If this is the same one, then hardly someone who regards Adams well.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:39 PMI suppose just not bothering to read the crazy posts from that whack job John O’Connell is one route to take, but it is annoying to see this garbage appearing frequently recently.
Is he joking or is he actually this mentally unbalanced? Should he be reported to the police or medical professionals? Incarcerated or medicated?
I guess it is one of the drawbacks of blogging...his post are the inane ramblings of a complete fuckin nut job.
Christian fundamentalism at its finest.Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 04:54 PMGaribaldy
“as I pointed out before Che also said that the revolutionary’s motivation comes from love for his fellow man. Not from hatred.”
His alleged kindness to small animals is probably more relevant than his attempt to justify the sort of tactics he advocated in his last article - where the quote is from.
As for shoe-horning it in again..
Gerry was being asked about Guevara’s impact and the legacy from it..
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 05:40 PMPete who are you quoting in the title? I don’t see it appearing anywhere else in the text. Quite confusing to have a quote then hit us with Gerry Adams’ name - although as far as I can see the quote does not come from him, in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with him. Poor show old chap.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 05:42 PMPete,
That quote is from a collection of his articles but alas I do not have it to hand. In fact, I couldn’t even tell you were it is. But it seems to me just as valid a reflection of his policy as this description of how soldiers fighting a war (guerilla or otherwise) must feel in order to be victorious.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 05:44 PMMagnificent case you make against Adams here, Pete. Why you even appear to have convinced John O’Connall. You must be thrilled.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 06:29 PMUSA
One word for our good friends on the other side of the pond is ... shallow.
How can we take you seriously? You really don’t know if I’m serious or joking because Americans tend to be so shallow?
The truth is that you will never know the mind of God in choosing Gerry Adams, your good friend, of course lest you deny it, as the beast of Revelation. Others may sense its relevance and just not care, but you get upset and that demonstrates that you simply haven’t got a clue about the Troubles. You owe alliegance to someone who is in fact delusional according to the good book.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 06:46 PMRory
I should imagine that the case was made during the course of the Troubles with all those people being murdered in the pursuit of the tactical use of human suffering.
If that doesn’t make him dangerously deluded in your mind, then nothing will.
I’m sure that I’m accurate in insisting that God has something to say about Gerry’s tactical use of human suffering. He’ll be wondering why Gerry is trying to do God’s job.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 06:53 PMMight be more pertinent to ask what Adams actually thinks about “hared as an element of the struggle”. I might then refer you to Jimmy Drumm’s 1997 Bodenstown speech, written by Adams and Morrison that states that the armed struggle could not be sustained by the simple presence of the British alone, or be could the movement survive purely based on hate. It is one of the very early moves towards ending Abstentionism and moving towards a political route, and might therefore be relevant.
But of course, we all know that if you admire someone you have to agree unquestionably with every single statement they made or action they’ve performed, at every single point in time, even if you random pull a quote of of context and insist it’s the entirety of the man’s view. Pete is such a thorough and rigorous poster it must be true, especially as he’s seen fit to post it three times.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 07:45 PMShould of course be 1977 speech.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 07:46 PMJohn O’Connell, I’m at little confused as to what has happened to the assistant anti-Christ, namely the Rev Ian Paisley, now that he has resigned. Will he continue to be assistant Anti-Christ from his position of impotence? What happens if, Satan forbid, he dies? Or has Peter Robinson taken on his role for him?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 07:49 PMGaribaldy: “It was indeed demonstrated by that Dread seeing as they would have done exactly the same to him. These things unfortunately happen during large scale civil wars. And were most of the executions not carried out by revolutionary tribunals, i.e. emergency courts? “
If you would dignify the notion of Che and a collection of his underlings being “a court.” The verdict was a given, with La Cabana fortress filling the same role as Lubianka prison. Ernesto played Beria to Castro’s Stalin, with the dead having more to do with cementing the power of the revolution than justice or even vengeance.
A telling point—apologists for both Che and the Cuban regieme overlook Ernesto’s own statements where they conflict with the preferred narrative. Che was a gigolo—a travelling hobo who mooched off women who proved to have a small talent for murdering bound men.
As for his quotes, Garibaldy…
“Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us above and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to, and transforming him into an effective, violent, seductive and cold killing machine.” - Ernesto “Che” Guevara
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 07:56 PMIn short—who should I believe, you or Ernie?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:01 PMYou left out this bit Dread from the paragraph Pete quotes
“Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”
In other words, the regimes he was facing were so brutal, moving beyond one’s natural empathy for all men was necessary to defeat them. Seems reasonable enough. And hardly unprecedented.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:04 PMYou can believe his description of what is required to overcome brutal tyranny, and that he was motivated by love for mankind. The two are not at all contradictory.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:06 PMGaribaldy: “You can believe his description of what is required to overcome brutal tyranny, and that he was motivated by love for mankind. The two are not at all contradictory. “
Feh. By that standard, one could point to a whole host of totalitarian thugs who “loved,” Garibaldy.
I would point out that Che said a true revolutionary is motivated by love. That said, his almost pornographic passages in his diaries about shooting some of his own mean makes whether Ernie was what a body would consider a “true revolutionary.”
I find it passingly strange that one could claim that love for one’s fellow man would support the act of personally executing a fourteen year old boy for trying to defend his father from Che’s murder squad.
The only difference between Pol Pot and Che is that one of them was educated in Paris and one of them wasn’t.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:16 PMYeah cause Cuba after the Revolution began by removing the cities, then massacring educated people, instead of raising the educational standards across the country.
Removing an oppressive regime justified violence. And Che did not shirk from it. At least in that he was not a hypocrite or a coward, unlike say some of our politicians or a certain leader of the free world.
We all - with the exception of extreme pacifists - see circumstances where violence is justified. For Che it was removing corrupt and brutal dictatorships that oppressed millions. I can think of worse reasons.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:26 PMken
“[nor] could the movement survive purely based on hate”
“Hatred as an element in the struggle..”
I’m sure you appreciate the comparison.
“we all know that if you admire someone you have to agree unquestionably with every single statement they made or action they’ve performed.”
I’ve simply pointed out that the man Adams publicly pays homage to has made the statements quoted.
A case in point is the paragraph which follows the quoted section in the original post - and which I also quoted here. Btw, I had intended to include that link in the original post, I’ll add it now.
“We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move. Then his moral fiber shall begin to decline. He will even become more beastly, but we shall notice how the signs of decadence begin to appear.”
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:48 PM
