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
PaddyReilly
You’re missing the point, Paddy.
It’s all coming to a close now and you’ve either missed all the action or you were cheering it on.
Paisley, like Adams, is irrelevant now. All that is required of them is that they retire gracefully. But they won’t. They’ll continue to justify evil, more in word than in deed, and they have to be challenged and made an example of so that the world may know the road to peace.
And in this the prophecies are in my favour. I write that with a grin on my face.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 08:59 PMi agree with USA, and i live this side of the pond: if shallowness is anywhere in this site its the bloody inane drivel which john o’connell tries to shove down people’s throats. and john, DON’T invite me to look at your site again. coming from this side of the pond i’ve endured enough religious fundamentalists and their diatribes of hate wrapped up in the cloak of jesus’ love.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:01 PMLorraine
Where is the hate, dear?
Who do I hate?
All I present is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation. I’m sorry if you thought that God would think that Gerry Adams is the good guy. This thread is about shallow evil men who advocate the tactical use of human suffering. That is the evil in all this not the fact that Gerry Adams will go down in history as the Antichrist. That is my contribution, and I ask you to respect that, rather than insulting my and most people’s intelligence.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:10 PMJohn
As I have suggested elsewhere
“The only issue of matter is whether any argument put forward is rational.”
You claim - “All I present is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation.”
That fails the rationality test.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:24 PMIt must be my own status as a cold killing machine, but I don’t see anything wrong with what Guevara says about hatred. Should, for instance, the French Resistance have loved their neighbours the Nazis and turned the other cheek?
And I don’t see any contradiction between the hatred quote and his other observation, to which Garibaldy refers, that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. How can you be guided by a great feeling of love unless you can also, when the moment arises and you are confronted by a brutal enemy, be guided by a great feeling of hatred?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:27 PMGaribaldy: “Yeah cause Cuba after the Revolution began by removing the cities, then massacring educated people, instead of raising the educational standards across the country. “
Are you suggesting that La Cabana wasn’t a killing field, where Ernie eliminated those best equipped to resist the totalitarian state that Ernie was killing—murdering—to establish and cement?
Are you suggesting that the foundation of Socialist Cuba isn’t built on a mound of bodies?
Garibaldy: “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. “
I wouldn’t say that—for all his ANG flight time is sneered at, he was flying a plane you couldn’t pay me to go up in, and I like flying.
But this smacks of rationalization, Garibaldy. You laud the murder for for not being a hypocrite, which suggests your values are somewhat misplaced. By your standards, the like of the UDA and UVF are fine, upstanding individuals, as they did their own killing and aren’t hypocrites.
Garibaldy: “For Che it was removing corrupt and brutal dictatorships that oppressed millions. I can think of worse reasons.”
Ah, but Che also found it appropriate to excercise when comrades lacked what he saw as “inadequate fervor” for the revolution, a response to petty theft and as an appropriate punishment for not wanting one’s father shot.
Sounds like violence was a pretty common response for Ernie.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:27 PMjohn
1. don’t patronise me and call me dear
2. you’re obviously infatuated with gerry adams, given that i didn’t mention him, or defend him; you still feel the need to work him into your esoteric diatribes and warped interpretations of the Bible, demonstrating your own personal hatred of the man (wrapped up in the cloak of jesus’ love, of course). you are just like the other fundamentalist preachers of hate who stoke the fires of wars and then wash your hands of it and claim it all has nothing to do with you. i see through charlatans like you.
3. end of dialogue.Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:30 PMDread,
I’m suggesting that the executions carried out in Cuba of flunkeys of tyranny were incredibly different to the activities of Pol Pot in both scale and nature. Which any rational person can see.
Socialist Cuba is built on a successful struggle against tyranny, followed by huge redistribution and the building of new social services that transformed the lives of the Cuban people beyond recognition. Which is how the Cubans themselves feel. What are you trying to do is delegitimise a revolutionary struggle against tyranny, not at all different in spirit from that that secured American independence and overthrew feudalism and absolutism in France.
My comment on hypocrisy raised the issue of whether those who encourage violence through their actions but are too cowardly to carry it out are not as culpable as those who do. So many politicians here have blood on their hands through encouraging the men of violence, and Bush is guilty of total hypocrisy for dodging a war and then running around starting them. Therefore I have less respect for him than say Kerry or Mc Cain, though I reject US involvement in Vietnam entirely. By saying the cowardly encourager of murderer adds hypocisy to his crimes is not to support them or regard them as fine, upstanding individuals. I don’t think that’s a skewed moral comapss at all, I think it’s a perfectly common attitude to enemies during warfare for example.
Violence was a common response during warfare. But, and this is the difference with the likes of Pol Pot, not once the revolution had been secured.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:43 PMI’m sure you appreciate the comparison.
Sophistry. I’m more than sure you could appreciate the juxtaposition of the 1977 Bodenstown speech and the quote from Che. The difference in direction and tone is stark, and I rate the significance and import ahead of pedantic picking on words. But each to their own.
I’ve simply pointed out that the man Adams publicly pays homage to has made the statements quoted.
Now that, Pete, is an outright lie. You draw attention to those statements not simply to note that this is a somehow interesting tidbit, but to associate those views with Adams and invite the reader to make certain comparisons. What you are doing is no different to the current Reverend Wright furore in America. There is plenty to condemn Adams with from his own mouth if you are so inclined. There is no need to pass on the words or sins of others.
Moreover, I fundamentally disagree with what you are doing here. It’s appalling. You are using a single quote of a man out of context and out of time. How you use it is equally appalling - that anyone who admires him must somehow take the totality of his views by association.
Che is an interesting character and it is certainly possible to admire aspects of him while disliking others. A quick such of Google doesn’t give much on Adams specific opinions on him but being much more thorough than me I’m sure that you’d be able to turn up something. That might be a more interesting an informative contribution than innuendo.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 09:45 PMkn
”Im sure you appreciate the comparison.
Sophistry. I’m more than sure you could appreciate the juxtaposition of the 1977 Bodenstown speech and the quote from Che [from 1967]. The difference in direction and tone is stark, and I rate the significance and import ahead of pedantic picking on words. But each to their own.”
In response to -
“[nor] could the movement survive purely based on hate”
“Hatred as an element in the struggle..”
I’m sure you appreciate the comparison.”
Sophistry, indeed.
As for
“Che is an interesting character and it is certainly possible to admire aspects of him while disliking others. A quick such of Google doesn’t give much on Adams specific opinions on him but being much more thorough than me I’m sure that you’d be able to turn up something.”
Feel free to add more information on that topic.
It’s what the internet was invented for.
“The internet removes the time barrier. Without it, we never stop, and still we’re never completely right. But everything can be changed. Publish what you know now; learn more, add more. It’s never finished and it’s never completely right.”
You don’t expect me to argue your case for you. Do you?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:02 PMShould, for instance, the French Resistance have loved their neighbours the Nazis and turned the other cheek?
This always struck me as one of the most appalling difficulties of Christianity: you are called to love your enemies, no matter what they do. It is easy to say in trite manner but truly difficult to apply. So, yes, if they were Christian they should have loved him. The interview with Gordon Wilson about Enniskillen was on that programme last night. I pray I’m never tested to see if I’m a tenth of the man he was. Whether or not “turning the other cheek” is required in this case would be debated by theologians. But personally I’d say no. There is Just War, though it is rare.
At the same time, while I think it’s ultimately destructive, it’s easy to see how Che could have came to that attitude faced with many of the things he saw; and in a sense I admire the uncompromising nature and the pureness of the argument:
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
effectively he is prepared to trade his soul to defeat what he sees as a truly evil enemy; no tolerance of it is permitted. There is a certain admirability in that, and the uncompromising nature links a little with me to the uncompromising bushido philosophy of the Samurai of which I am fond.
Am I allowed conflicting views?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:02 PMSophistry, indeed.
Yes. Basing the argument around single words rather than the totality is exactly that. Repeating it does not change it.
Che is arguing for an all consuming hate; he may cite it as an “element of the struggle” but it becomes the totality of the man that pushes him “beyond the natural limits”. Moreover, it is a call to hate. The 1977 Bodenstown speech is a call to move away from hate.
You don’t expect me to argue your case for you. Do you?
I don’t believe I was making any association of the views of Che Guevara with Gerry Adams. You are. To make your case you would require words from Adams, not Guevara. I’d prefer if you could reflect some current positions too, since it’s about now, but you know, anything would be a start.
Basically: where’s the beef?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:11 PM”Sophistry, indeed.
Yes. Basing the argument around single words rather than the totality is exactly that. Repeating it does not change it.”
It’s a direct comparison of the semi-quote you supplied with the quote I referenced.
“I’d prefer if you could reflect some current positions too, since it’s about now, but you know, anything would be a start.”
I don’t blog to do what you’d prefer, ken.
The topic includes the legacy of those [past] times.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:18 PMPete Baker
Are you suggesting that the Book of revelation is not based on rationality? I think it is perfectly rational in the context of a man who was in captivity writing about what he thinks is important.
I quote my interptetation of that rationality by suggesting that the beast that John saw on Patmos is indeed the leader of Sinn Fein. I use certain coincidences to back up my argument.
The relevance is that you began a thread which questions those who have used violence as a tactic to change the world, the tactical use of human suffering. This is very relevant to my deliberations on Adams and also my deliberations on Adams are very relevant to the discussion.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:25 PMLorraine
end of dialogue
And I was just beginning to enjoy it.
If my only sin is to be fundamentalist about Jesus teachings then I’m not sorry to say that I don’t particluarly care about your judgment on me.
And Lorraine, I’ll do the judging around here, if you don’t mind. You’re just an amateur, though methinks it is not the first time you’ve sat in judgement of others. Do not judge.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:33 PM“Are you suggesting that the Book of revelation is not based on rationality?”
Hmm.. not quite. It’s that the Book of Revelation is a supernaturally based prophesy - see futuring.
“I quote my interptetation of that rationality..”
Ahh.. You see, that’s where you’re going wrong.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:34 PM“I’ll do the judging around here, if you don’t mind.”
Charming.. and, I’d suggest, blasphemous to many.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:40 PMJohn O’Connell i had a look at your page and the level of expenditure or lack thereof evident from the piss poor website you have, leads to me to one of either two conclusions, you are an extreme pisstaker, or as is more likely the case, nobody really gives a flying fuck about your opinions and wacky ideas, thus resulting in very poor sales of your books and donations, resulting in you becoming all the more delusional and embittered little fool you quite clearly are. Really be honest, your the guys who holds the bible reference at the football matches are’nt ya? I’ll bring ya a sambo next time im going.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:41 PMIt’s a direct comparison of the semi-quote you supplied with the quote I referenced.
Apparently no online transcript exists. The precise section I had was in a book now packed for moving. Closest I have is here:
“Hatred and resentment of the army cannot sustain the war”. And you are still pulling on particular words. You’ll have to go to inference rather than particular words now to make your comparison. Are you allowed to do that, seeing as how I’m not?
I don’t blog to do what you’d prefer, ken.
Quite. Apparently supporting evidence or relevance is also optional.
The topic includes the legacy of those [past] times.
Really? Because could you direct me to the post where you have addressed anything about the legacy of anything? Because it isn’t this one.
You could have also pulled any number of quotes form Guevara. How about:
“If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”?
Maybe:
“I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves.”?
Or
“In a revolution, one triumphs or dies (if it is a true revolution)”
Relevant in certain ways to here and I could go on all day. Why that quote? What link does it have to Adams?
Where’s the beef?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:50 PMShould also have added this, of course:
At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:52 PMRebublicanStones
Nope. Not me.
It’s a great website or I want the ten grand back.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 10:59 PMken
“And you are still pulling on particular words. You’ll have to go to inference rather than particular words now to make your comparison. Are you allowed to do that, seeing as how I’m not?”
You are free to make any argument any way you want to.
As long as it’s coherent then it will be more persuasive.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 11:02 PMWhy don’t we all just ignore John O’Bible and pretend he isn’t there and then he might really go away?
Would the same tactic work if we ignored Pete’s seemingly endless attempts (using selective quotes from Che rather than St John) to brand Gerry Adams as the Antichrist, I wonder?
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 11:05 PMRory
Still here.
Posted by on Apr 23, 2008 @ 11:39 PMIt’s probably best if we just ignore him on any of the threads he pops up on.
Posted by on Apr 24, 2008 @ 03:26 AM
