Anti-Imperialism.com and its associates have consistently opposed imperialist meddling in countries such as Libya and Syria and struggled against ‘left-wing’ supporters of imperialist intervention.

Recently, Third Worldist comrades in Denver took the time to attend a local meeting of the International Socialist Organization. The goal was simple: to discredit the ISO’s position of so-called support for the CIA-backed ‘Syrian Revolution’; nothing more or less. The meeting ending up being successful and fun for the opponents of imperialism; not so much for the representatives of the ISO.

This article by Alex Lantier details just some of the pro-imperialist cheer-leading by groups like the ISO. 

The  “liberal left” has reacted to the publication of detailed reports on the CIA’s role in backing Islamist forces in the US proxy war in Syria by intensifying their support for the war. Forces like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the United States and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France are functioning as conscious propagandists for a neo-colonial CIA operation.

The ISO’s April 9 article by Yusef Khalil, “Why the Left must support Syria’s Revolution”—which cites Gayath Naïssé, one of the NPA’s main writers on Syria—begins by slandering opponents of the CIA war in Syria as supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Khalil begins, “’Airlift to Rebels in Syria Expands with CIA’s Help,’ screamed a New York Times headline in late March. ‘Foreign intervention!,’ screamed back supporters of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.” He continues, “Some on the US and international left continue to cling to the idea that the regime presiding over this violence and repression is progressive—and that the uprising against it was engineered by Western governments.”

Khalil’s statement, which mocks the idea that Western imperialism is behind the Syrian war, stands in blatant contradiction to the widely-acknowledged fact that the CIA and its regional allies are arming the opposition to destabilize Syria and topple Assad. The implication that all opposition to the US war comes from “supporters of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad” is a slander and a political lie. It is aimed at blocking a struggle to mobilize the working class in struggle against both the Assad regime and, above all, the intervention in Syria of the most ruthless sections of American imperialism.

By ruling out such a struggle, Khalil is supporting a bloody CIA operation and, behind it, the Middle East policy of US imperialism, whose war in Syria has had devastating consequences for the Syrian people.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey helped purchase and transport a “cataract of weaponry” coordinated by the CIA into Syria, in the words of one US official cited in the Times ’ March article, which is friendly to the Syrian opposition. The paper “conservatively” estimates the quantity of munitions sent to Syria at 3,500 tons. In the ensuing fighting, some 70,000 Syrians have died, and nearly 5 million have been forced to flee their homes.

US foreign policy experts have stated that Washington’s shock troops are the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front, which still receives support apparently unhindered by the CIA—even though Washington declared Al Nusra a terrorist organization last December. (See also: Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda )

The ISO statement makes clear that it supports the anti-Assad militias’ decision to take weapons from the CIA. Khalil writes, “The vital question facing the Syrian opposition is how to get aid from sources that can provide what the revolution needs, which is weapons, while maintaining independent Syrian decision-making. This is a tough question to answer, but not impossible.”

Khalil’s claim that one can maintain “independent Syrian decision-making” while taking arms from the CIA is an absurd fiction, concocted to disguise the fact that the ISO is supporting a war coordinated and organized by Washington.

As US officials speaking to the Times made clear, weapons shipments are closely overseen by the CIA. The Times writes, “American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on condition of anonymity.”

It adds that former CIA director David Petraeus was “instrumental in helping to get this aviation network moving and had prodded various countries to work together on it.”

The open support of the ISO and the European petty-bourgeois “left” for CIA-led wars is a culmination of their evolution as pro-imperialist bourgeois parties, operating in the periphery of the Democratic Party in the United States or of the social-democratic parties in Europe.

Staggered by the outbreak of a global economic crisis with the Wall Street crash of 2008, they have supported the ruling class in each country as they sought to impose the burden of the crisis on the working class. While they promoted sellouts by the union bureaucracy of workers struggles against austerity at home, their role abroad was even more nakedly aligned with imperialist policy. [The editorial department of Anti-Imperialism.com significantly disagrees with the First Worldist implications of this paragraph- NB]

After the outbreak of revolutionary struggles in the Tunisian and Egyptian working class in 2011, they supported US-led interventions to overthrow regimes Washington viewed as obstacles to its interests—first the 2011 war in Libya and then in Syria. They did so, falsely claiming that the forces that were carrying out these wars were revolutionary.

Khalil’s attempts to dress up the ISO’s pro-imperialist positions in a bit of “left” rhetoric, claiming that accepting CIA help was a revolutionary necessity, involve him in absurd falsifications.

He writes, “Syria’s revolutionaries—responding to the dictatorship’s violent crackdown—had to develop a popular armed resistance to defend themselves and defeat the forces of the regime. Large parts of the country, including major military bases and airports, have fallen from the government’s hands, but they remain under heavy bombardment. Nevertheless, in many of these areas, Syrians are experimenting with local self-government, now that the regime has lost its grip.”

The ISO’s fantasy that Syrians are now experimenting with radical forms of self-government under the jackboot of ultra-right, sectarian Islamist militias armed by the CIA is ludicrous. Syrian workers in opposition-controlled areas are either simply trying to survive as Islamist guerrillas loot their workplaces, schools, and homes, or are actively protesting the opposition’s thuggery.

A series of interviews in the Guardian with opposition militia forces in Aleppo last December laid out the basic character of the Islamist militias, who plunder the population for cash to buy CIA weapons. One militia commander said, “I liberate an area, I need resources and ammunition, so I start looting government properties. When this is finished, I turn to looting other properties and I become a thief.”

Another opposition official noted the death of an opposition fighter, Abu Jameel, in a fight with other militias over how to divide the loot from the seizure of a steel warehouse. He said, “To be killed because of a feud over loot is a disaster for the revolution. It is extremely sad. There is not one government institution or warehouse left standing in Aleppo. Everything has been looted. Everything is gone.”

Given Aleppo’s role as the center of Syria’s state-run pharmaceutical industry, the opposition’s raids on factories and other state facilities have had a devastating impact. Critical medicines are running out, notably diabetes medications and antibiotics. State flights carrying vaccines into Syria have been shot at, and chlorine for water purification is banned for import by the imperialist powers under the pretext that Assad could use it to create chemical weapons—resulting in a spread of water-borne diseases.

Abdul-Jabbar Akidi, a former Syrian army colonel and a leading official in the opposition’s military council in Aleppo, confessed that there is deep popular hostility in Aleppo to his forces: “Even the people are fed up with us. We were liberators, but now they denounce us and demonstrate against us.”

The ISO and the NPA have maintained a studious silence on popular protests against the Islamist, CIA-led opposition forces they have promoted. These protests are, however, one indication that a revolution based on the working class in Syria would take the form of an uprising against the opposition forces supported by Washington and the ISO, as well as against the Assad regime.

Struggling to find a bright side to the reactionary forces it is promoting in Syria, the ISO writes: “It would be wrong to reduce the Syrian Revolution to the question of the armed struggle and the role of imperialist powers in trying to shape and co-opt that struggle. Take the role of women in the uprising—something that has not been appreciated in the mainstream media. Women have been very active participants and leaders since the beginning … As a group of women activists in Aleppo wrote, ‘We will not wait until the regime falls to become active.’”

The ISO’s presentation of CIA-backed Islamic fundamentalists as defenders of women’s rights is absurd and repugnant. Should Al Qaeda-type forces conquer Syria with US and Saudi help, Syrian women—who largely lived in modern conditions under the secular Assad regime—will be forced to live under conditions like those faced by women under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or in Saudi Arabia. There, women are considered legal minors and are denied basic rights, including the right to drive a car.

As it turns out, the Aleppo women activists the ISO cynically held up as examples of the opposition’s supposedly progressive character have not fared well. “In early March, the revolutionary local council in Aleppo was elected and didn’t include a single woman, despite some well-known female activists being nominated,” the ISO writes, complacently adding: “So there is—like everywhere in the world—some distance to go before women have equality in Syria.”

The ISO’s attempts to somewhat distance itself from Washington’s Middle East policy likewise reek of dishonesty and cynicism. Khalil writes, “Like every other regional and international power, the US government has its fingers in Syria. It is maneuvering to shape—and ultimately, to curtail—the Syrian Revolution … Throughout the carnage inflicted by the regime, the US has kept very tight limits on the support, especially the military support, it has provided.”

Khalil quotes the NPA’s Naïssé on the reasons for US involvement in Syria: “The major imperialist powers, led by the United States, have always supported what they call an ‘orderly transition’ in Syria, which means only superficial and partial changes to the structure of the regime. This is for geo-strategic reasons, including protecting the Zionist entity [i.e., Israel] and preventing the revolution from succeeding and spreading to the entire Arab east, including the reactionary oil monarchies.”

Leaving aside the false dichotomy Khalil establishes between US policy and the CIA-led war he calls “the Syrian Revolution,” these passages make one point clear: the policies supported by the ISO and the NPA are in fact entirely compatible with the strategy of American imperialism. These include keeping Persian Gulf oil revenues under the control of reactionary, pro-US monarchs, and maintaining the division of the Middle Eastern working class between Jewish and Muslim workers that is established by the existence of the Israeli state.

Although neither the ISO nor the NPA say it, the US war against Syria also aims to deprive Iran of its main regional ally, thereby facilitating US preparations for a major war against Iran. The ultimate goal of these operations is to ensure that Washington maintains and extends its hegemony over the oil-rich, strategically located Middle East. This goal is entirely supported by the petty-bourgeois “left” parties.

If Washington has concerns about the anti-Assad “rebels,” it is not that they are revolutionary. Rather, it fears that if it arms its Islamist proxies in Syria too heavily, they might turn these weapons over to dissident Islamist factions inside the unstable Persian Gulf monarchies, or use them to mount terrorist attacks on Israel or the United States.

Inside Syria itself, war unleashed by the CIA-backed opposition—recruited from layers of Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority discontented with the Assad regime, whose ruling personnel is drawn from the minority Alawites—has developed largely along sectarian lines. It is thus returning Syrian society to conditions that existed under French colonial rule in the early 20th century. At that time, French troops and proxy forces maintained French control of Syria by setting Christians, Druze, Sunni, Alawite, and other Syrians against each other.

The US-backed opposition is thus reactionary in the classical sense of the term: it returns society towards a more primitive and oppressive past.

The ISO and NPA are hardly alone in their tactic support for US-backed proxy conflicts. As this excerpt from a recent post at Not My Tribe explains, such views are hardly new:

Today, with the announcement of the news of the US backed Syrian ‘rebels’ most recent terrorist attack (this time on a mosque!), Louis [Proyect] was busy on his 3 blogs, announcing his support for these D.C. promoted and armed thugs once again. He supports the further arming of the US backed counter revolutionary forces being used first against Gaddafi in Libya, now against Assad in Syria, and potentially in the quite near future against the current government in Iran. See Proyect’s Side with Syria’s Oppressed: An Interview with Mohamed Khairullah published on his blog ‘North Star’, which was set up by him and some fellow pro US imperialist fake Lefties expressly to push for ‘marxist’ support of Obama’s imperialist agendas in the Mid East. Here is also news of the recent use of yet more terrorism in Syria by those he promotes… Syrian suicide bombing in mosque kills top pro-Assad Sunni preacher and 41 other people

Proyect, and his collaborating and censorious cohorts like Pham Binh, claim that allying forces with NATO and the Pentagon to overthrow their own governments is revolution in progress, a bizarre idea indeed. In doing such, their activism mirrors the past renouncing of revolutionary theory by the infamous Karl Kautsky, who was once known as the ‘Pope of Marxism’, who rejected voting against war credits that supported the German military in its WW1 activities. Kautsky threw international solidarity to the wind in favor of supporting the capitalist ruing class of his own imperialist country in its war efforts, something which Louis Proyect is doing once again actively today. One could easily enough label Louis Proyect’s work as neo-Kautskyite, because it is pro imperialist in like manner as Kautsky turned to being in his own positions during WW1.

It is 2013, not 1919 or 1991. This begs the question, what kind of ‘Marxists’ fail at distinguishing between revolutions and color-revolutions? 

Join the conversation! 15 Comments

  1. This is silly. I’m a ‘US, hands off Syria!’ guy. But we have people on the left claiming the CIA wants Assad in power and others on the left claiming they want to overthrow him. My guess is that none of them know crap about what’s really going on, and this kind of ‘case-building’ is just a big self-serving waste of bandwidth

    Reply
  2. Just because there are people in the “left” having no clue of what’s going on, claiming CIA wants Assad in Power, can’t hide the fact that it is the US government, US State department, CIA, NATO; who are behind the so-called rebels, giving them weapons and money to destroy a nation that is not subservient to NWO. Same case with Libya.

    Reply
  3. The North Star doesn’t belong to Proyect — one of many egregious factual errors in this piece. Plus, you’re either too lazy or too stupid to hyperlink the Guardian material you quote extensively from so people can read the source material for themselves to make up their own minds.

    This post is layer upon upon layer of embarrassment. You make PSL’s defense of racist tyrants who collaborate with U.S. imperialism look good!

    Reply
  4. The article is interesting, but lacks a substantive discussion on what occurred in Denver. While there is a tendency in online left pubs to quote from other docs (Red Phoenix is well known for this approach to news reporting, it is my view that good political journalism must quote from other articles, or just reprint them article for political and ideological purposes.

    The politics of the article is straight forward and correct. A bit more about the political line of the real anti imperial fighters at the ISO meeting in Denver would have been good to read.. Was there a leaflet produced by the anti imperial activists distributed at the meeting? If so, reproduce it for the readers to read over.

    Reply
  5. This is a good overview of groups on the left that tacitly support imperialism in cases like Syria. And it is good that the editor here gave notice on the political differences with this site and the First Worldism implicit in the article. One other item to explain differences on is the part “maintaining the division of the Middle Eastern working class between Jewish and Muslim workers that is established by the existence of the Israeli state.” This implies ignoring the history of colonialism and the benefits Israeli “workers” get from the establishment of the Zionist entity. Of course the communist left has a long history of betrayal of the Arab masses in terms of Israel. This article in Monthly Review provides an excellent review of this history: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2007/bustani191107.html

    While I hate to agree with Carl Davidson, it is true that most of the Left doesn’t know what the hell is going on. Nevertheless one must not forget the principal contradiction. The main enemy of the people of the world is and remains imperialism led by the United States and the Western powers. Liberation will not come through collaboration with imperialists. Some will just have to learn this the hard way.

    Antonio

    Reply
  6. “My guess is that none of them know crap about what’s really going on, and this kind of ‘case-building’ is just a big self-serving waste of bandwidth” – carldavidson

    “While I hate to agree with Carl Davidson, it is true that most of the Left doesn’t know what the hell is going on.” – siglodelucha

    “This implies ignoring the history of colonialism and the benefits Israeli “workers” get from the establishment of the Zionist entity.” – siglodelucha

    I’m sorry if anyone finds me a bit rude or arrogant, but I would like to jump in and say that people like carldavidson and siglodelucha are the folks who are truly “clueless” about what is going on here.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but judging from their posts, it seems that carldavidson and siglodelucha actually believe that the main reason for why so many American “leftists” support imperialism is because they “don’t know what’s going on.”

    The reality of the matter is that most American “leftists” are much more sinister than you think. They are not “stupid” nor are they “uninformed” about global affairs. The sad truth is that most American “leftists” who tacitly support US Imperialism in Syria have just as good of an understanding of global affairs as NikolaiBrown (the author) does. The main difference is that most American “leftists” are a lot more selfish.

    Another misconception here is that you said that most American “leftists” ignore the fact that American imperialism directly benefits the lives of American workers at the expense of third world workers. This fact is not “ignored” by any American “leftist” at all.

    Most American “leftists” who tacitly support imperialism have a solid grasp of the fact that American imperialism benefits the American people at the expense of others. And the main reason for why they support imperialism, either overtly or covertly, is because they have a solid grasp of the fact that they themselves and their own loved ones benefit from imperialism. American “leftists” do not support imperialism because they “don’t know what’s going on.”

    American “leftists” support US imperialism because they know that those who they call “their own people” will be the ones to benefit from the spoils of imperialism. And what the victims of the Middle East? Well, most American “leftists” do not consider Syrians as “their own people” so they don’t really care much. But they do consider Americans as “their own people” so they definitely do give a f**k when the corporate CEOs are not paying American citizens high wages.

    Reply
    • You are right. The assertion that American leftists “don’t know what is going on” in Syria is an ass-covering alibi.

      Even the mainstream American media like the New York Times have partially admitted that the USA is arming the insurgents in Syria through proxies–and that Al-Queda terrorists like Jabhat al-Nusra are a prominent part of this insurgency.

      Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

      Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-tied-to-al-qaeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all

      It simply isn’t credible that American leftists are ignorant of this geopolitical reality, when it’s been all but admitted by their hated corporate media.

      And the American “left” in general is a political fraud.

      This American left is the left wing of the American Empire.

      And its basic political role is to play a political double game as a kind of pseudo opposition or phony dissent.

      On the one hand, the American imperial left postures as “anti-imperialists,” “anti-capitalists,” or “antiwar” activists.

      But on the other hand, they implicitly or explicitly serve the interests of their own American Empire by: Demonizing other countries/governments that are on America’s hit-list; Justifying America’s routine wars of aggression; Deflecting blame away from the USA onto their “rivals” (their favorite catchphrase is “inter-imperialist rivalry”); and in general, trying to control the political terms of so-called anti-imperialism.

      For instance, the political rhetoric that the American Left uses to frame the terms of debate is revealing.

      Much like how the American Right focuses on abstractions like “globalism” as their bête noire, the American Imperial Left will primarily focus their ire against abstractions like “imperialism.”

      Much like the Right wingers, the American Left thus tries to downplay or ignore the concrete elephant in the living room: the global American Empire and its allies.

      In some ways, the American Left is worse than the political right in that the former deceptively tries to masquerade as “anti-imperialists” or an “anti-war” opposition.

      American Leftists are imperialists in “anti-imperialist” drag.

      The ISO is merely a reflection of this broader phenomenon.

      Reply
    • You’re also right that there is a selfish material reason why the American Imperial Left behaves as they do: their very ability to be “revolutionary activists” is based upon a certain standard of living and privilege, which are all ultimately dependent on expanding the American Empire on a planetary scale.

      American Leftism in general is, in practice, a secular religion. And it is primarily a secular religion espoused by certain fringe sections of the American intellectual class, “progressive” middle class, and what has been termed the Coordinator Class.

      Though they have appointed themselves the champions of the working class, proletariat, or even, most comically, the Third World, this class acts according to its own self-interest at base.

      The British writer George Orwell once made a very revealing statement:

      “Intellectuals and others in England, who are left-leaning, are all pro-empire—for one very basic reason. We all know that, if it weren’t for the British empire, we would all be stuck living in a very cold, rainy, gray, dreary place where we would all have to work long hours and eat lots of potatoes.”

      This statement is even more applicable to intellectuals and other left-leaning people in the most criminal empire in human history: the American Empire.

      Reply
  7. Oh, and BTW. As a word of advice to NikolaiBrown, I’d like to give you a fair warning to never trust Mr. Pham Binh. Matter of fact, you should even consider blocking him and pretend as if he’s not there. Arguing with a charlatan like him will only waste your time.

    Why you may ask? If you really want to know the answer to that question, then you may have to just take a risk and trust me on this one. I say that because it may be difficult for me to provide “solid evidence” for the things I’m about to say.

    I know Mr. Pham Binh in person, and I’ve been fortunate enough to engage in a lot of private “behind-closed-doors” conversations with him. And from those conversations, I can tell you firsthand that Mr. Binh is a “two-faced” charlatan.

    When Mr. Binh is out in the open, he pretends that his intentions are to benefit the lives of all people in the world. When he writes on internet sites, he pretends that he supports imperialism because he truly wants the best for the Syrian people. He pretends that he actually believes that NATO intervention would benefit the lives of the Syrian people, even when he knows that such a thing would make their lives a living hell.

    I can’t help but think that Mr. Binh is like Satan in real life. I don’t actually believe the bible, but I make that statement because Mr. Binh purposely writes articles that are designed to lead people in the wrong direction. He knows that US-NATO intervention in Syria would utterly ruin their lives, but he still tries his best to deceive them into thinking that such things would be “better” for them.

    Of course, anyone who reads Pham Binh’s articles will get confused and wonder to themselves about how anyone can develop such bizarre ideas that don’t make any sense. If you’ve never been in a private “behind-closed-doors” conversation with Mr. Binh, then you may feel confused about how he thinks in such an odd manner.

    But if you have been in lots of private “behind-closed-doors” conversations with him, then you will realize that his behavior makes perfect sense in serving his REAL agenda. And his real agenda is not about helping the Syrian people, his real agenda is about exploiting Syrians in order to bring even more spoils to the American people, which are the ones who he calls “his own people.”

    In the private conversations, Mr. Binh is a completely different individual. He has been explicitly talking about conquering and raping foreign countries. He has been explicitly talking exploiting people from other countries in order to further uplift the lives of American people, aka “his own people.”

    I remember that in one of the conversations, he said this: “Hey, if it’s to wipe out another race in order to gain more living space and resources for my people, then I would do it without second thought.” In other words, he said that he supports genocide and using military force to remove other races/ethnicity from their lands if such actions will acquire more territory for “his own people.”

    He made that statement during a discussion about Israel. He did say that he supports Israel and that he would do the same thing to the Palestinians if “his own people” were going to receive benefits from such actions. Such a mindset is nothing short of National Socialism.

    And last, but certainly not least, Mr. Binh has talked about how to lie more efficiently during some of the private conversations, and he has specifically mentioned the Syria example. In private talks, Mr. Binh speaks freely about the fact that his real intentions is that he wants the Syrian population to be exploited in order to uplift the lives of Americans, but he has also told many people to “never say such things when you’re out in the public.”

    He said that “if anyone asks why you support NATO intervention in Syria, then just give a fake answer, a reasonable one, about how you believe that NATO intervention will benefit the Syrian people.” Basically, he has told his “comrades” about how to lie and cover-up their sinister motives with more “noble” sounding intentions.

    To make a long story short, when Pham Binh wrote this article that argued for NATO intervention, he DID NOT EVEN BELIEVE in any of the arguments that he wrote himself. (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=1097)

    When he “argued” that NATO intervention would bring benefits to the lives of Syrians, he knew that such an argument was complete horse-sh*t from the very beginning. He knew that NATO intervention would inevitably lead to a disaster for Syrians. The whole point about writing up the “argument” was that he wanted to make a lie, and set-up a smokescreen in order to cover-up his true intentions. His true intentions being that he wants the US to colonize Syria, just like Iraq, because he believes that US colonizations would bring benefits to “his own people,” aka the American people.

    If you’re going to try to challenge him on some of his “arguments” which he never believed in in the first place, then you’re just wasting your time. The main reason he wrote up those “arguments” was for charlatan tactics, to set up a smokescreen for himself. Every time you waste your time trying to talk with him about this, he just sits back and laughs at you.

    Reply
  8. Now before I end my note, I wanted to reiterate that this something that I also find to frustrating because it’s rather difficult for me to prove. So if you want to take my word for it immediately, I ask that you please try to remember what I just said and take my words to heart.

    I’ve been in many private “behind-closed-doors” conversations with Pham Binh in which he has let loose and showed his true colors and revealed that he’s a hardcore supporter of Nazi-style imperialism, but with an “Americans Uber Alles” twist.

    I myself know this to be true but it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for me to provide “solid evidence” to people who have not engaged in private “behind closed doors” conversations with Pham Binh. But never-the-less, I still feel that it’s in my responsibility to tell people about this even when I don’t have much “solid-evidence” to prove it.

    Reply
  9. One more thing. I must admit that I’m sometimes a charlatan myself. I do it for my personal safety. I never tell people face to face that I support Third Worldism. I do think that it’s dangerous, on a personal level, to tell people that you support Third Worldism when your face is out in the open.

    Pham Binh has been bad-mouthing Third Worldists for a while now. And I know that if I had told Mr. Binh that I support Third Worldism when we first met, he would not have been so open in showing his true colors (Nazi style imperialist) while in my presence.

    Actually, if I had told him that I support 3rd worldism, then he probably would not have let me in on many of his private conversations in the first place. And if he did let me in on his private conversations, then he probably would have put up a fake act and pretended to be someone else.

    Reply
  10. It’s sad because if you look at the comments section of the article I linked above, you’ll see that “Diana Barahona” spent a great deal of time trying to debate with Mr. Binh about the flaws in his article.

    In her first comment, she said that Pham Binh wrote his article on several false premises. The sad truth is that “Diana Barahona” herself did not realize that she was acting on a false premise as well.

    That false premise, which “Diana Barahona” failed to realize, is that Pham Binh never even believed in the “arguments” that he himself wrote. He wrote those “arguments” in order to lead people down the wrong path, and deceive people into supporting imperialism.

    Reply
  11. In some respects, I agree with the comments of Ken and FcukAmerica. It does not take a great deal of cognizance on the part of First Worlders to understand what a ‘Hencho en Mexico’ label implies.

    On the other hand, I don’t really care how people perceive themselves or the world they live in. First of all, it is absolutely foolish for someone to state their intentions clearly. More often than not, people either don’t truly understand their own motivations or they lie about it (I have little doubt that Pham is intelligent to fall into the latter category: i.e., a charlatan).

    More importantly, what matters is not intent but objective results. Members of the ISO may honestly believe themselves to be internationalists. But the fact remains, they serve the interests of US-led imperialism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Comment or Question

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Category

Africa, Covert Ops, Debates and Polemics, Imperialism, Libya, Middle East, Neo-Colonialism, News and Analysis

Tags

, , , , , ,