Jones Apologizes For Gangster Rule, But Only In Practice
Borba100 at SPAMaol.com
Borba100 at SPAMaol.com
Fri May 4 09:08:58 MDT 2001
In a message dated 5/4/01 7:17:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jones118 at lineone.net writes:
<< Imperialism cannot be reformed or ameliorated, it has to be sm ashed.
When imperialism in its death-agony, destroys its own creations (including
such things as the rule of law) we ought not to help it do so, but on the
contrary, to defend to accumulated values of bourgeois civilisation and
force, expose the hypocrisy, brutality and cynicism of bourgeois civil
society and do what we can to make them play honestly by their own rules. >>
First, there is fly in this rhetoric. "The rule of law" was NOT the creation
of Imperialism and its predecessors, except in the sense of the codification
of commercial law and the institution of rules of various sorts for ruling.
To the limited extent "rule of law" exists for Imperialism's victims it has
been wrested from (not created by) Imperialism by blood and struggle of
millions. On its own, Imperialism and its predecessors have been quite
satisfied with the guillotine for stealing a loaf of bread and the slaughter
of 10 million Congolese, not to mention "creating" Fascism.
Even the codification of international law after World War II occurred
because of the power of the Soviet Union, China, etc.
Aside from giving the Imperial rulers credit where none is due, Mark Jones
sounds all super-duper revolutionary. "Death agonies" this and "smash" that.
But when Jones APPLIES his more-Left-wing-than-thou rhetoric it seems he
thinks that opposing the arrest of Borodin means "helping Imperialism destroy
its own creation, the rule of law." Jones taunts me and others on this list
"Well some people appear to be arguing exactly that: that it is wrong for
to arrest someone like Pavel Borodin for fraud on Swiss banks, because
Borodin is a
Russian high-up and this insults Russia's honour."
Jones should get the prize for Most Persistent Attempt to Erect a Straw Man.
The fact is, Borodin was NOT arrested for fraud on Swiss banks, he was
arrested as a provocation at U.S. orders after in the first place being
charged by Carla del Ponte, a Swiss prosecutor who is a Washington operative
and who was rewarded for the Borodin job by being made Chief Prosecutor of
the War Crimes Tribunal, he was arrested after Switzerland, on U.S.
instructions, turned down the Russian offer to produce him to voluntarily
testify (that is, they wanted the spectacle of his arrest and incarceration -
nothing less would do !), after Russian investigators found no evidence of
crime, after Switzerland refused to make available to Russian courts their
supposed documents to substantiate charges, after the U.S. tricked him to
coming to the U.S. where over a dozen FBI agents were waiting to seize him,
at a time when a) the U.S. was applying pressure to freeze assets of Russian
Banks abroad and needed the "anti-Russian-Corruption" propaganda associated
with his arrest to smooth away any resistance to said freezings, b) the U.S.
was upping the attack on the uncooperative Lukashenka who worked with Borodin
in the Russian Belarus Union c) the U.S. wished to threaten any Slav
contemplating rebellious behavior that arrest for corruption loomed d) the
U.S. ruling class wished to signal, at the useful moment of the installation
of the moron Bush, that the fight against Russia was to be escalated. To
read more on this, see
And yes, I will stand up for the "little boy attacked by the bully", as
Nestor says. The arrest of Borodin WAS an attack on Russian honor, and this
is a VERY important point. It is surprising, or perhaps not surprising, that
Jones, a citizen of the country most skilled at humiliating the natives,
doesn't recognize same when it occurs in modern dress.
Similarly, the arrest of Miloshevich is an attack on Serbian honor.
One of the key tasks when transforming a proud free people (which means ANY
people!) into colonial slaves is to impress on them a) the incapacity of
their societies to rule themselves (that is, they must "learn" that their
MANY MANY criminals must be seized abroad or through efforts directed from
abroad because internal corruption makes sovereign justice impossible) and b)
they must be taught that they are incapable of defending themselves from such
arbitrary Imperial treatment. This has been and continues to be done all over
Africa, Asia and Latin America, not to mention to working people in the USA
and other Imperial lands. Insults to "honor" are just as important as buying
and stripping down factories, cutting the safety net. This is what is
involved in making people applying for "welfare" wait ten hours,
mispronouncing "foreigners'" names, intimidating Black people trying to
vote, whatever. Insult and "rubbing their faces in the evidence of the
weakness" are very important to Imperial rule.
This "insult to honor" was the key thrust of the Spy Plane incident.
Washington's propaganda TO THE CHINESE stresses the pitiful weakness of their
government, etc. Note that Washington also mocks China's effort to "glorify"
This attempt to "show them they are being humiliated" was why Washington made
the fact that it had ORDERED of the Miloshevich arrest so blatantly clear.
The MAIN U.S./Euro thrust is against the former Soviet Union. That is the
reason for the escalating attack on the Balkans, the increased arming and
mobilization of the U.S. battalions nicknamed "the KLA," the arrest of
Miloshevich and persecution of the Socialists and nationalists in Yugoslavia,
the increased terror against progressive forces in Turkey, the increased move
to bring NATO to Russian borders, etc. That is not to minimize the vicious
attacks the U.S. is making elsewhere in the world. The point is, if the
former SU can be reduced to twitching territories, Washington's full force
can be directed against China (using for example the Islamist sections of
Washington's growing proxy army) - and if China and former SU are both
totally broken up and hobbled, then THAT world will make THIS world look like
THAT is why every politically conscious heart in Asia, Africa, Latin America
and other areas - even in backward Boston (e.g., mine) - stopped when the
Russian Paratroopers seized Pristina airport two years ago June. I was
speaking at a rally when the news came and the Serbs in the audience wept. At
the Belgrade Forum conference March 23 I had a conversation with a very smart
Russian General. He said many things, my only point was : "If you soldiers
found some way to give Washington a thrashing it would do more for the
ordinary people's will to struggle than anything else."
In this crucial attack, with all the propaganda spewed out by the vast
Anglo-U.S.-German media, it should not be surprising that we find "Mark
Joneses" all over. A Jones for every political persuasion.
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com is a Mark Jones for the anti-interventionist
right - like our Jones, he might oppose U.S. intervention in this or that
instance - and especially in past instances - but on the crucial CURRENT
questions, for example Miloshevich (i.e., the resistance in the Balkans, the
key strategic area) he has Washington's position, exactly. Justin Raimondo,
the speech writer for Pat Buchanan, says that Miloshevich is a) a pitiful
failure and b) a gangster. Those are his words. You may recall that, in
similar fashion, Mark Jones wrote
" In [Jared] Israel's case His Master's Voice-- Slobodan Milosevic-- has
> shown that he is the template. Milosevic, who combines self-pity with
> gangsterism in equal measure, now has a record of almost absolute political
Raimondo and Jones attack those who defend Miloshevich in almost the same
words. Justin Raimondo calls us "the Milosevic fan club." Mark Jones called
me a "Stalinist gramophone." Similarly, Raimondo says George Szamuely writes
"commie drivel." (Parenthetically, isn't it odd that Jones, who always says
he loves Stalin, quotes a phrase from the main anti-Stalin novel,
"Darkness at Noon," to attack me? What happened? Did Jones pick up the wrong
We find the same statements from Noam Chomsky, who is a Mark Jones of the
soft Left. Again: Chomsky says Miloshevich is a gangster, pitiful failure,
How about a little creativity, guys. How do you expect us "apologists for
third world gangsters" to rise to soaring heights" when we are arguing
against people of such predictable discourse?
More information about the Marxism