25 May 2006

Savage Grilling: Florian on the Hotseat (Part 1)

This is the first of a two-part Savage Justice interview of Florian Guererro - who recently interviewed me on his own blog, Florian's Insensitivity Training - follows below.

Guerrero, a 29 year old resident of Atlanta, started his blog as a bourgeois rejoinder "to get back at all of these candy crybabies out there who feel the need to scream, cry, and shake their rears at the rest of us when they feel offended by the truth."

While Florian and I disagree on virtually everything, I appreciate his courage in stepping up to the plate and his willingness to make an effort at rational dialogue. As a revoluionary, too, I think understanding views like his adds to our understanding of the political and social forces on the Plantation.
JB: Explain, in your view, the reason for the recent political sea change in South America, particularaly around questions of land and property ownership.

FG: Latin America has been in a declining period for well over 40 years. There are many factors that have led to this, but most notably of which is the corrupt politicians leading these nations. In every single Latin American nation there has been an aristocracy that has been at the forefront of each government. Sure they call themselves "democracies", but in reality these nations have been nothing more than an elitist-aristocratic government order left over from the old colonial days of Spain. There are only two-classes in Latin America, the poor and the rich. The rich, obviously are the ones in power and struggling to retain this power. When these nations had their revolutions, they weren't really revolutions in the sense of changing for the better--really they just exchanged one corrupt tyrant far away from home for another much closer. I hate to inject race into the Latin American political climate, but it just cannot be avoided. Honestly, after spending about 2 years living in Mexico I can say that the racism there is infinitely worse than you or your comrades claim it to be here. The indigenous people of Latin America are hardly ever integrated well, most are uneducated and speak broken spanish and have nobody really looking out for them. Mestizos also look down on the indigenous with disdain. As recently as the early 20th century, white europeans outnumbered the indigenous people as well as mestizos. Since then, the indigenous have grown considerably in size and political strength as they now heavily outnumber european descendants. After living in oppressive conditions for centuries the political left has appealed greatly to these people. When a politician claims to be "for the poor" the peasant population rally's behind such an individual. Of course, now the key question is "what have you done for me lately?" Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, and perhaps on July 2nd, Mexico will all be under hard-line leftist leadership. It's not a good trend, especially from an economic standpoint--but having lived there for a couple years I would ask: What alternative could you possibly expect after decades of living in oppressed poverty? Speaking from the point of property and land ownership, again this goes back to the two class system in these nations. Had these nations had competent leadership all these years and utilized their abundant natural resources to the fullest of their potential, none of this leftward political tilt would have happened.


JB: Describe what you perceive to be the current situation in Iraq. Do thesame for Iran?

FG: Despite what the press declares as a failure, I believe Iraq--though difficult, will eventually decide that enough is enough and eventually unite. It wasn't a mistake to go in and the intelligence wasn't as faulty as most people realise. The only major failure the Bush Administration have done is that they didn't foresee the sectarian and ethnic violence between the Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites and Azeris. Perhaps a better plan would have been to carve the country up into 4 zones separating them by ethnic-tribal and religious zones. As for Iran, I cannot see anything positive coming out of the current situation there. The hardline President has obviously decided to grab the world by the groin as he continues to make daily threats to the US and Israel. It's also known that China and Russia have a big stake in Iran. This reminds me a lot of 1917 when the nations of the world were drawing up on their alliances. Iran is perhaps the biggest threat to world peace since Nazi Germany. I'm almost convinced war with them is inevitable. Either Israel strikes them first--taking out their nuke facilities, or Israel gets hit in a sneak attack by Iran once they have atomic weapons in their possession. Look for something bad to happen within a year.


JB: You have said that "walls and Empire's are a good thing." Can you please expand on this statement, specifically with regard to the question of who benefits from them?

FG: Of course. I don't believe in the brotherhood of man, nor that the world belongs to everybody. In the past tribes kept and protected their territories and nations defended their borders. Why should this be any different today? On our southern border, we have a nation of people who are forced to leave their corrupt nations to try to live and work here. They come here demanding rights, privilages, government programs and Spanish services. It's an invasion, and there is no other way to define it. When a group of people who are culturally, linguistically, philosophically and ethnically different attempt to change the demographics of the nation they occupy it can be called nothing else. If one cannot defend their own home then what is left to defend? A Great Wall of America is one of the best things that can really stem the flow of these illegal invaders. This is our nation and it's our right and privilage to defend it, as well as saw who can and cannot enter. Interestingly enough, these same people who paraded through our streets several weeks ago demanding citizenship and everything else, refuse to do the same in their own native countries. Refer back to my answer to question #1 for the main reason on that. Quite simply, their governments wouldn't put up with it, and it would be a Grande riot that would make Selma look like a preschool party. Hence, they come here.


JB: Should the more then 300,000 persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath have the Right to Return to their community? Should Palestinians whose lands have been confiscated since 1948 have that same right? Why or why not?

FG:Bad analogy. The 300,000 displaced people by Katrina have every right to live wherever the hell they want to live in America. If it's New Orleans, then I'm all for it--and not soon enough. "Palestinians", as you call them, have no such claim to Israel. The Palestinians are leftovers of the the Arab-Turkic-Gypsy invaders of the Muslim Jihadi conquests of the 11th-13th centuries. Israeli's lived in and ruled Israel for over 1900 years before they were eventually conquered and spread out by the Romans in 135 CE. Greco-Romans ruled over Palestine for the next 550 years until the first wave of Islamic Arab invasions began. After that, there were constant wars between the Byzantines and Arabs over the territory until finally the Arabs held onto Jerusalem and Palestine for good after 1400. Jews are the original inhabitants of Israel and it's their ancestrial land. Palestinians have no such claim or right to Israel, their ancestrial lands lie in Saudi Arabia or further east. Of course, all peoples of the world that are alive today have in some way confiscated land they live and occupy. It's one of the sins of man. I reckon nobody can absolutely claim their land is theirs without first declaring they also confiscated it from somebody before. However, Jews have a claim of over 2600 years over the Palestinian Arab-Gypsies, hence Israel belongs to them.


JB: You once said: "['Illegal' Immigrants] even claim that without them we would starve! How liberating to know that I'm incapable of making my own sandwich or grilling my own steak." How do you understand the social composition of the workforce on Uncle Sam's plantation? In particular, what role do you see immigrants playing in it now and what changes do you propose?

FG: For anybody to say that if one group of people's work ceased than another group would starve is nonsense. It just shows pure ignorance. There is no such thing as a job an American "will not do". Americans have always been the hardest and most dedicated workers. 25% of illegals work in the food industry and most illegal aliens work in that sector because that is where the work is for them. They are low-skilled laborors and hence that is what they can do. Immigrants have always worked hard and I'm in no way trying to insult their work ethic, but as the technology advances I forsee the need to hire them much less. For example, most agriculture harvesting can be done mechanically--the reason hired hands are used is because it's more cost-effective. The American economy, huge as it is, does have a limit. There will be a bottoming out soon enough and a lot of these immigrants will go home when that happens.


JB: Why do you feel that Uncle Sam has more people - both overall and per capita - imprisoned than any other country?

FG: Fairly complicated, but there are many reasons. Are you sure China doesn't have more than us? I believe they have a whole lot more. I'll assume you mean in the western world. Fair enough. First, we have a huge population--almost 300 million. With that amount you're always going to find a few bad apples. Secondly, some of our laws have to change. Most criminals are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. As a semi-believer in Libertarian principles, I think we could cut the prison population in half by making it less of a crime to possess drugs or use them--or perhaps adopt Holland's stance on drugs. Either way, cut the non-violent drug offenders out of the system. Lastly, enforce the death penalty for all violent murderers and rapists. Nobody should be on death row for 18 years. Once a guilty verdict is handed down, the guilty party should be quickly escorted to the execution chamber and put out of their misery. Appeals waste tax payer money and time, and in today's court-system hardly anybody gets wrongly convicted. One last point, more people per capita imprisoned isn't in my opinion, a bad thing. People need to be responsible for their actions and pay the price for what they've done--sadly in today's immediategratification society hardly anybody sees that.


JB. Were you the Prime Minister of Israel, how would you respond to the Palestinian Prime Minister's guarantee of peace in exchange for an Israeli retreat to the '67 borders.

FG: Hypothetical of course. I wouldn't trust the Palestinian PM with my laundry. Thousands of suicide attacks on innocent Israeli's over the years have spoken more loudly than any sweet-talk the Palestinian PM could ever say. Olmert would have to be a complete idiot to believe in this proposal. Since when have the Palestinians kept their word? Why should we believe them now? If I were the PM of Israel, I'd take it a step further: One more attack on Israel or it's citizens and all Palestinians living within Israeli borders will be massively deported.


JB: On September 11, how do you account for the collapse of Building 7?

FG: I don't really remember the account so much of Buidling #7 because the focus was all on the WTC. However, from what I have read the collapse of the south tower caused #7 to go under. In any case, the area covered by the WTC's was enormous, any adjacent buildings were going to be destroyed once the towers were.


JB: You have said, "I might add that all western nations have become more submissive to the whims of the sensitive people from around the world--most notably those from the failed civilizations of Africa and Asia who may be offended by the valid rants of the native-born westerners." Please elaborate on your characterization of 'failed' in reference to the people of Africa and Asia? How do you define 'native born westerners'?

FG: Sub-saharan African nations and most Middle-Eastern and Central Asian nations have failed because of the logistics and cultural progress (or lack thereof) in those nations. Almost every single country in the regions I metioned has never been tamed, and this level of lawlessness is what makes these countries the unstable ghetto's that they are today. These people hardly have remorse or the revoltion for death, the way we westerners do. Life isn't celebrated as it should be, hence the violence that pervades these cultures and they bring it to western nations when they migrate there. Native born westerners are people who were born and raised in western civilization. A belief in God, a belief and celebration for the individual, a belief in free markets, a belief in law and order, an embrace of education, and a genuine respect for all human life. Native born westerners when talking about Europe refers to White Europeans only. Native born westerners when talking about Australia, America or Canada can mean anybody born and raised in these nations and the beliefs of western principles.


JB: Do you feel that African slavery and the genocide of those indigenous to Sam's plantation impacts society today?

FG: Not as much as people with your mindset would like us to believe. As a matter of fact, not at all. Sure, some people might hold grudges or disgust at what happened 4 or 5 generations ago, but it hardly impacts society the way most liberals and reparationists think it does. The truth is, nobody that owned slaves is alive today, and neither is anybody that was a slave. The militants that believe in reparations or retributions really have no idea what they are talking about. When you ask me this question, I just have to see that the Secretary of State is a Black woman, that the best athletes in this country are Blacks, that the CEO's of many fortune 500 companies are also Blacks. If slavery still impacted society today--then none of these facts would be true.


JB: Define terrorism.

FG: Any act of violence that is perpetuated by a group of armed people against a group of unarmed civilians for political or military gain.


JB: Given the criticism of Marx and communism that ensued following my interview, I was hoping you could elaborate on a few of Marx's ideas to which you take greatest exception?

FG: I'm hardly a student of Marx, but I would have to say that the class warfare he supported was the main idea I take greatest exception to. Anytime there is a fight between the have's and have nots, blood will be spilled. Marx is indirectly responsible for the Bolshevik revolution and many other uprisings, of which the body count is in the tens of millions if not over 100 million. I don't believe that somebody, just because they have worked hard all of their life--owes me anything because I didn't. Most people get what they deserve out of life. Welfare and social programs are just code words for THEFT. I also have a firm belief in the divinity and existance of God, Marx--was an atheist.


JB: In his 1938 essay "On the Character of the Coming War," Trotsky wrote the following lines about about Uncle Sam and I'd like your response: "The United States, owing to her almost total possession of an entire continent with inexhaustible natural wealth, and owing to favorablehistorical conditions, has extended her sway over the world very “peacefully” and “democratically,” if we disregard such trifles as the extermination of the Indians, the robbery of the choicest portions of Mexico, the crushing of Spain, the participation in the last war, and so on. This “idyllic” mode of exploitation belongs now, however, to the past. The rapid and fearful decay of American capitalism poses before it the question of life and death in a more and more obvious military form. From Wilson’s pacifist fourteen points, Hoover’s Quaker ARA ( the internationalphilanthropic organization ), Roosevelt’s reformist New Deal, the doctrine of isolation, the laws of absolute neutrality, etc., the United States is heading inevitably toward an imperialist explosion such as the world has never seen.

FG: Well, perhaps Trotsky instead of pointing fingers at America about her past sins should look at his county's own. Most notably, Russia and the USSR's treatment of minority Tartars, Ukrianians, Poles, Kazakh's, and indigenious tribes in it's east. Texas, NM, AZ and CA were hardly Mexico's "choicest portions". Most of Mexico's wealth lies in it's central and southern regions. Spain did itself in with it's treatment of Cubans and Puerto Ricans. I imagine if such a thing were going on today, any American President would have intervened on the behalf of the Islanders. While I will not agree that the USA has become an imperialist, we have become the superpower the world has never before seen that Trotsky feared. This is not a role that most Americans would have chosen either. We were sort of put there, partially because of Europe's ineptness towards competent world leadership and partially because of our tremendous success militarily andscientifically during WWII. We have become the world's police force, and unfortunately it has brought a high amount of animocity among the world's population. A damned if you do -- damned if you don't situation. Personally, I would prefer a much more isolationist international policy to try to fix matters here at home.
|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home