Sunday, September 02, 2007

The Worship of Murderers

Dean Jorge Bocobo describes the background behind the arrest of Jose Maria Sison, chief of the Communist Party of the Philippines, on the charge of ordering the murder of subordinates who had left his fold from the Netherlands, in an article at Pajamas Media.

Sison had been granted political refugee status in the Netherlands nearly 20 years ago on the basis of a claim that his life would be in danger in the Philippines. Once Sison was in safe harbor, the CPP’s top leadership and their families joined him to Utrecht where Sison received millions in financial contributions from the European Left and other international sources. From their European base they ran the CPP-NPA’s operations in the Philippines by fax and email and in coordination with their agents and allies in the Philippines. When anyone defied them, they allegedly resorted to assassinations to eliminate their ideological rivals, some of whom had returned to the fold of the law and were therefore considered “counter-revolutionaries” subject to execution by the same “People’s Courts” responsible for the purges and “killing fields” of the 1980s. ...

Sison allegedly ordered the murders of two former fellow Communists in the Philippines, Romulo Kintanar and Arturo Tabara in 2003 and 2004. He is being held in The Hague pending arraignment and trial under Dutch law for allegedly ordering the assassinations, which are the basis of murder charges against him and New People’s Army operatives in the Philippines.

Together with Ramsey Clark, Danny Glover, Mumia Abu-Jamal, William Kunstler, Gloria Steinem and Howard Zinn, Sison signed the Call to Defend the Life of Dr. Abimael Guzmán, former leader of the Sendero Luminoso or Shining Path guerilla movement in Peru. Sison, a leading member of the Call, fulsomely praised Guzman, to the extent of comparing Guzman to his own exalted persona. "Comrade Guzman and I have similar experiences with regard to the risks and difficulties that cadres in our position face, whether we are in motion doing field work or in a relatively stationary position doing office work." Sison's comparison of Abimael Guzmán to himself is apt. Theodore Dalyrymple records his memories of the Shining Path, of which Sison would be undoubtedly proud.

The worst brutality I ever saw was that committed by Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru, in the days when it seemed possible that it might come to power. If it had, I think its massacres would have dwarfed those of the Khmer Rouge. As a doctor, I am accustomed to unpleasant sights, but nothing prepared me for what I saw in Ayacucho, where Sendero first developed under the sway of a professor of philosophy, Abimael Guzman. I took photographs of what I saw, but the newspapers deemed them too disturbing to be printed. Human kind at breakfast can bear very little reality. But I also found it difficult to persuade anyone by means of words of the reality of what I had seen: most people nodded and thought I had finally gone mad. On the plane back from Peru, I delighted a worker for Amnesty International when I described to him some of the bad behaviour of the Peruvian Army; but when I described what I had seen Sendero do, incomparably worse, I might as well have talked to him of sea monsters, and of giant squid that could drag nuclear submarines to the depths.

Like Dalyrymple, Dean Jorge Bocobo tries to tell us about monsters whose existence we refuse to recognize; about a man who was exalted and given political protection in the enlightened West -- only to use this haven to murder political enemies or terrorize ordinary people; but most especially to silence any former subordinates who refused to go along. Sison is an example of the ultimate misuse of tolerance and the final perversion of political liberty. It's murder in the name of tolerance; evil facilitated in the guise of righteousness. This inversion is made possible by our own forgetfulness; by a world which ritually remembers the evils of Nazism but pointedly forgets its rival and more monstrous twin. Albert Camus did not. And he warned us what would happen if we persisted with our selective amnesia.

One might think that a period which, in a space of fifty years, uproots, enslaves, or kills seventy million human beings should be condemned out of hand. But its culpability must still be understood... In more ingenuous times, when the tyrant razed cities for his own greater glory, when the slave chained to the conqueror's chariot was dragged through the rejoicing streets, when enemies were thrown to the wild beasts in front of the assembled people, the mind did not reel before such unabashed crimes, and the judgment remained unclouded. But slave camps under the flag of freedom, massacres justified by philanthropy or by a taste for the superhuman, in one sense cripple judgment. On the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence — through a curious transposition peculiar to our times — it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself.

Bocobo has made a start at defending innocence and giving murder back its name.


Ramsey Clark is set to join Sison's legal team.

Former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark was reported to have offered his legal assistance to join an international team of lawyers. The purpose is to defend the Philippines' top communist, Jose Maria Sison, who was arrested by the Netherlands police on multiple murder charges, on Tuesday.

A statement by the New York Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines said, "Sison is a great spirit that the world needs to know about, a great voice that the world needs to hear. The demonization [of him] will destroy us if we permit it to continue."

Clark was also a supporter of Slobodan Milosovic and lawyer for Saddam Hussein.

On 18 March 2006, Clark attended the funeral of Slobodan Milošević. He declared: "History will prove Milošević was right. Charges are just that, charges. The trial did not have facts." He compared the trials of Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein, stating: "both trials are marred with injustice, both are flawed." He also described Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein as "[b]oth commanders" who "were courageous enough to fight more powerful countries."

Sison's Human Rights defenders are undoubtedly correct when they say "The demonization [of him] will destroy us if we permit it to continue," because it will enable the whole world to see just exactly what these so-called defenders of Human Rights really stand for. Some of them are nothing but apologists and publicists for the worst mass murderers, terrorists and thugs on the planet.


Blogger Pascal said...

It would be so much easier to fight this sort of thing if the bad guys were only on the Left. The worship of Murderers is much more widespread than to be simply assigned to one side of the aisle.

How to put it?

As in the refusal to show the revolting pictures lest people be aroused to rid the world of their buddies, the Guzmáns and Sisons, the fourth estate repeatedly proves how it is humanity's fifth column.

However, don't put aside the other half of the equation lest it damn you. The largest source of MSM's continued funding comes from ads paid through our patronage of the companies who see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

And so ever more of us prove daily that we have as much chance to enter the gates of heaven as a camel has to pass through the eye of a needle.

9/02/2007 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

You're absolutely right. The Left has no monopoly on bad guys. In a balanced world maybe Pinochet and Castro could help each other up the scaffold or into jail.

Besides which there are dubious characters who are hosted in exile because they might be useful someday, usually in order to create mischief. London may be suffering from the side effect of hosting all those wanted Jihadis.

But the principle should be that high-flown rhetoric does not excuse mass murder. Acts define a terrorist, not his excuses. For good or ill, September 11 focused attention on how dangerous it is to use politics as a litmus test to decide the licitness of violent group. It showed the dangers of taking a serpent to one's bosom. Sison's troubles actually began with September 11 because it dried up his easy European money and forced him to rely more on extortion and rackets. And because he had to control his rackets he was forced, like all mobsters, to keep his men in line by sanctioning hits. Eventually that led to the murder charges.

But one should not lose sight of the fact that once we learned to recognize murder again after September 11 a lot of roaches who had heretofore been daubed over with cheap political perfume became visible again. Marxist or not.

9/02/2007 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger Nomenklatura said...

One aspect of this I find ironic and, despite the tragic aspects, somewhat amusing is that leftists support people like Jose Maria Sison for exactly the same reasons that the 'white trash' (people they love to look down on) keep pit bulls and other savage dogs.

It's all about their image, their self-image and the desire to look a bit menacing.

If only we could find them some less damaging playthings! That would be a real service to mankind.

9/02/2007 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

Terry Nichols one of the the oklahoma bombers went to the Phllipines in a few months before the 1995 bombing.

That bombing was pivitol to the clinton administration. It really helped them to secure their standing leading up to the 2006 elections.

I don't know how much of this is true:but according to this site:

Speculation about Nichols frequent travels to the Philippines has run rampant since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building. And it was some time after the bombing before the pieces to the puzzle started to emerge with a connection. The Philippines have long been a hot-bed for terrorists and fundamentalists activities - especially the island of Mindanao. It has been noted that Terry Nichols made several trips to the Philippines in the early 90's. It has also been noted that Terry Nichols spent some time in Mindanao. Kelly Patricia O'Meara, among others, of Insight Magazine, reported that Terry Nichols was witnessed attending a meeting on that island and that also present in that meeting were Ramzi Yosef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah. Ramzi Yosef was the mastermind behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, , while Murad and Shah, also involved in the 1993 bombing, were convicted in 1996, for conspiring to blow up 12 airline jets. It was reported that the subject of the meeting centered around bombing activities and building bombs.

Around the same time that the plot to bomb the Murrah Federal Building was being formulated, a group of Al Qaeda operatives had been sent to the Philippines for the purpose of planning and carrying out an operation known as "Bojinka." The plot called for terrorists to plant bombs on 11 U.S. bound planes, all of which would detonate simultaneously over the Pacific. During phase II of the plot, one or more planes would be hijacked and flown into prominent USA landmarks such as the CIA building, the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. This plot was to be carried out on January 21, 1995 - the exact date that Nichols' visa to the Philippines was to expire. The Bojinka plot was broken up on January 6th when some flammable bomb ingredients caught fire in the safe-house of Yosef. Ramiz Yosef escaped and fled the country along with Khalid Shaikh, the reported "mastermind" behind the attacks of September 11th.

Not only was Nichols seen in the company of those plotting the Bojinka move, but while he was spending time in Cebu City where his wife was attending classes - Ramzi Yosef was also in Cebu City visiting friends who were attending the same university. Timothy McVeigh's defense attorney attempted to bring these facts before the jury during the McVeigh trial - but the court ruled against admitting the evidence.

9/02/2007 12:50:00 PM  
Blogger Pascal said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9/02/2007 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger Pascal said...

In a balanced world maybe Pinochet and Castro could help each other up the scaffold or into jail.

Those like Pinochet, reactive forces to Leftist excesses, do not represent the depth of the problem on the Right of which I speak. It's "Progressives" entrenched high on the Right who speak oh so softly but see to it that extremists are free to beat the bushes until there is nowhere else to turn. They are the toughest obstruction that the forward looking Right must figure out how to deal with.

For those are Postmodern progressives; meaning that they deem anything that contributes to man's diminution is progress to them. For establishmentarian reasons, they are resistant to being marginalized as the Left had until recently done their nihilists and radical greens.

Mostly for this reason I continue to bristle when you use the word modern where you could use either the words contemporary or postmodern. When we see the problem and fail to label it properly, we wind up fighting shadows.

9/02/2007 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

Mostly for this reason I continue to bristle when you use the word modern where you could use either the words contemporary or postmodern. When we see the problem and fail to label it properly, we wind up fighting shadows.
This is interesting but I can't figure out quite what "mostly for this reason" alludes to. There are a number of suggestions from the previous paragraphs but you left plenty of lattitude for a reader to read into them what ever he wants to. Can you clarify.

9/02/2007 03:00:00 PM  
Blogger Pascal said...

Did you not click on the link at "continue to bristle" Charles?

"Progressive" in its postmodern meaning is quite troubling for optimists. Those on the Right who laid claim to the progressive label years ago remain with considerable power. The Right is ostensibly the home for the stalwarts of modern advances. Yet the "progressives" there continue to block our efforts and defenses.

My old glossary dealt with the shady behavior of Progressives long before Postmodernism's influence came to my notice.

9/02/2007 03:21:00 PM  
Blogger Whiskey said...

Wretchard -- the reason for the political perfume is quite simple. The Left wants a King, where they might be courtiers. And gain much influence and power.

Simple as that.

No wonder Dalyrymple's Amnesty International acquaintance wanted nothing to do with hearing Sendero Luminoso's deeds. They wanted Guzman as their King.

9/02/2007 04:10:00 PM  
Blogger Pascal said...

Sorry Charles. I respond quickly last time when in a rush out the door.

What reason caused me to bristle? Was that your question Charles?

Wretchard's reports and commentaries often have had instances wherein he could point out how postmodern thinking has been intruding itself. But he'd have to decide to add that bit of editorializing to his stories, and I don't think he's quite ready to do that.

I find it bitterly ironic that postmodernist's damage should be attributed to modernism, and I'm aware of him doing that a couple times in the last 2-3 months.

Postmodernism embraces a moral relativism that believes mankind must be saved from himself. It abandons the old ideal of protecting innocents and thinks it is thereby protecting the productive from "useless eaters." It's reminiscent of the most extreme utilitarians of the early 20th Century, but is much more careful about stating its goals after the Hitlerian experience.

But if the productive would actually let mankind thrive, oh, no, we can't have that either. We saw proof of that in the reaction from the most radical greens when it was first thought that cold fusion had been discovered.

Hence I think you may come to understand what is the postmodernist's desire. They wish to see man's greatest asset, his God-like creative mind, suppressed. (Thus my seeing the Western Left, Western statists, and radical Islam all having a similar goal: The Arabic meaning of Islam - Submission.)

Hence a postmodernist progressive is precisely antagonistic towards progress in the modern sense.

Thus Wretchard's use of modern where postmodern is apt or where contemporary is at least neutral, bothers me since I think he misses opportunities favorable to my goal: overturning moral relativism.

And further, I think he shares my sensibilities simply judging by many of the sentimental phrases he comes up with, So I think I'm being helpful to him.

I must add that I really hate criticizing Wretchard. I value his service too much and I wouldn't wish him to think I'm a sniper. I hope I am being helpful. But one man's thinking he's being helpful could be another man's PITA. I pray I'm the former. At least our host hasn't complained to me. A positive point is that he once apologized to me; but for a reason I am not too clear about.

9/02/2007 06:49:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

Pascal Fervor said...

Did you not click on the link at "continue to bristle" Charles?
Yeah you got me. I didn't peruse the link. Having looked at the link now I think I have a better idea of what you meant by postmodern except that the context looks different. I would define postmodernism as pre judeochristian pagan. the gods are all different in the pre judeochristian pagan world but the basic temple practices are the same the world over. they include human sacrifice and male & female temple prostitution. I'm probably going further than Francis Schaeffer. (he died in 1984)His book "Escape from Reason" does a great job of tracking the relationship between religious and political thinking since Thomas Aquinus 1225-1274. Schaeffer really gives an intelligible way to frame
the post modern world in historical terms. I only read the book two years ago. I wish I'd read him in college so many years ago. I wish too that I'd taken the year or two it would have taken to read and understand the book of Romans in my early 20's. I would have saved myself decades of confusion.

the second link to your second definition of progressive also appears to me to have a different context.

Its not one I completely understand so I'll give you my definition.

I live inside the beltway of washington dc. during the 19th century and up to the FDR's presidency in the 1930's in this part of the world "progressive" simply meant using modern technology to advance civilization. But there were progressives in every country and what they meant by technology was the same but what they meant by civilization differed. so technology was being used to advance different civilizations. The early 20th century communists, for example, were progressives who believed that technology would bring heaven on earth. that's what idealism was about--in the service of idealism millions would be slaughtered--why? because the ends justified the means.

the early 20th century was a time of technological revolution almost as profound as the one we are currently in. only this time nobody believes that technology will provide anything more than a temporary fix lasting a couple generations. For example, I think we are within only a 5-10 years of collapsing the cost of water desalination & transport making it economically possible to turn the world's desert's green and double the size of the habitable planet. But at best I don't think this will do more than buy the earth--and that means mostly the USA -- time to develop the technologies that will make space colonization possible.

At heart the USA is a frontier country. Able and Esau are losing everywhere but before their loss is complete they will go to the stars.

There is another narrative.

After FDR "progressive" meant using the government to disadvantage white christian protestants in favor of everyone else. after the 1960's "progressive" meant getting the government to disadvantage white christians in favor of everyone else.

It was an confusing choice of words that abe lincoln used when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Most of the time the logical train of thought is too subtle for me.

It comes from the book of Matthew.
Mat 12:25
But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

Mat 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.

Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
A lot of guys, of course, will confuse themselves for Jesus by mat12:28. That is, I did just that.

This is a mistake. Why? Jesus is God. Also, in the ancient world as in much of the middle east today -- the lit world --the one that was brightly illuminated--was the past . the future was entirely dark. Jesus was the only one looking ahead. Today a lot of people look ahead. There's even a living to be made by people who call themselves futurists. They're as accurate as say weathermen.

John 3:6-10 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

9/02/2007 10:20:00 PM  
Blogger LarryD said...

Progressive used to mean someone who believed in Progressivism, but that meaning hasn't been current in the US for generations.

Having worn out the label "liberal", our socialists are turning to "progressive" instead. Being aware of this, I put scare quotes around that use of "progressive" when I write.

postmodernism was invented by a surviving Nazi, it represents the abandonment of reason by the Left.

9/04/2007 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Pascal said...

Charles and LarryD

Lost my ISP for 3 days. Here's something you may like. A Progressive Rant.

9/05/2007 02:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger