Once again, I have felt the sharp end of the desperation of First Worldisim. “Kevin Rashid” has penned a blog post attacking me in one of the most dishonest ways I’ve ever seen. In true NABPP-PC style, he makes assertions while back nothing he says up. For brevity, I’m just going to jump right into it without making a huge presentation over it. So let’s get into this nonsense.

Firstly, he claims that I substituted myself in the place of MIM as he attacked the “vulgar labour aristocracy” line. His point was that none of the posts were about me or any group I’m affiliated with. Well, I know that, my point was to throw my two cents in the defense of Third Worldism. I’m not exactly sure what “Kevin” is accusing me of here. I didn’t act as though it was about me, I was defending the line from his dishonesty. “Kevin” is absolutely detracting from an actual argument, to make some nonsense accusation which has nothing to do with theory. Secondly, he accuses me of being a troll for this. Because, of course, no one could actually want to defend the Third Worldist line right? It’s an arrogant dismissal of my refutation of his falsehoods.

Secondly, he reasserts his same false statements which I already responded to. Merely repeating the falsehood doesn’t mean you’re making an argument “Kevin”.

He says, “Well, if enjoying the privileges of the First World society renders one an enemy of the Third World, what the hell are Third Worldists like Unruhe doing here?” Two things here:

1. This is not our argument, which I have already corrected him on.
2. This is tantamount to, “if you don’t like capitalism, move to Cuba,” rightwing attacks. It’s childish of you “Kevin.”

“Another example is his adhering to this Lin Biaoist theoretical line, while being an affiliate and spokesperson of an outfit that calls itself “Maoist Rebel News.” Lin Biao and Mao Tse-Tung embraced opposite political and class lines, and were in sharp opposition at the time Lin’s line surfaced. Indeed Mao denounced him as a thoroughly bourgeois thinker, conniver and saboteur, who attempted an armed coup against Mao in 1971.”

I’m not a Lin Biaoist, nor do I uphold the non-existent Lin Biao theoretical line. He published one idea. This is not a line “Kevin.” He proceeds to make attacks upon Lin Biao as if that somehow attacks me or Third Worldism. “Kevin” once again fails to even form an argument. I accused him of “waving the red flag to oppose the red flag,” which I did. His response is to basically say: “no, you are, because Lin Biao.” This makes no sense.

Thirdly, he claims to have refuted my arguments. What arguments? He doesn’t say which ones. Which is strange because he claims he never made a post to me. Even then, he’s repeatedly attacked positions neither I, nor any other Third Worldist holds. Later, he claims I constantly contradicted myself, but gives no example of it. He hasn’t, he’s reasserted the same false claims he’s always made, even after MIM, LLCO, and I have told him they’re not lines we hold. “Kevin” has no honestly at all.

Fourthly, he attacks my “dogmatism.” Which is strange, because he’s accusing me of not following a Marxist line. So I’m dogmatic and revisionist? Make up your mind “Kevin.” I suppose it would be pointless to point out he’s not accepted my open challenge to a debate. He’s doesn’t refute the Third Worldist line, he merely reasserts his original position. Quoting someone isn’t an argument “Kevin.” Worst of all, he hides behind unproductive labour jobs as a means of claiming I’m wrong. “Kevin” doesn’t seem to know what value creation is.

Fifthly, he blatantly lies about the current first world situation. “Unruhe claims First World workers have no revolutionary potential because they are “generally happy with their lot within the system”. The persistence of workers’ strikes and protests across the U.S. contradicts this claim.” Did he not notice that these protests are non-radical, liberal protests? Is he pretending this is an uprising? Did he not also notice that a good portion of the population opposes these protests? Isn’t this the same guy who hasn’t realized the Black Lives Matter has already sold out to the Democratic Party? Yes, he’s still claiming it’s a radical movement. Is “Kevin” a liar here, or disconnected from reality? “As Lenin recognized, workers’ spontaneous strikes and struggles are “embryonic forms” of their class consciousness and class struggle, which reflect their strivings toward revolutionary struggle.” What revolutionary struggles are you talking about “Kevin”? They’re liberal pro-Democrat protests.

“But let Unruhe tell it, the workers are supposed to spontaneously grasp and undertake revolution, and because U.S. workers have not, they lack revolutionary potential and are enemies of the Third World.” Perhaps he’d like to look back at history and see that this has not happened in the advanced countries. He deliberately leaves out this part of our theory. History has proven the opposite of what “Kevin” is claiming. Perhaps he’d like to address our position as to why they’re enemies of third world people.

There is not an honest bone in “Kevin’s” body. He’s a liar through and through.

Sixthly, he accuses me of basically being FBI, doing the FBI’s work, using the FBI’s tactics. I’m not even an American “Kevin.” How am I an infiltrator to parties as you claim, when I’m not in one. This is an entirely baseless accusation. “Kevin,” you’re a lying piece of shit.

Seventhly, he seems to have no idea what is going on in the first and third world.

“Unruhe is also correct that armed uprisings and revolutionary struggles have occurred with relative frequency across the Third World compared to the First World.” Actually they haven’t happened in the US. There has been no attempt at revolution in the U.S. along with many first world countries. Again he is lying about the Third Worldist theory.

“On the contrary, it is because the qualitatively different conditions between the Third and First World compel qualitatively different strategies. One allows for immediate resort to armed struggle, the other requires a long period of legal political struggle.” The problem with “Kevin’s” claim is that revolutionary struggle is NOT TAKING PLACE IN AMERICA. It is not a different quality or quantity, it is non-existent. His examples of liberal pro-Democrat are NOT revolution.

Eighthly, he claims I’m upholding “national/racial chauvinism”! On what basis? By acknowledging the class divide between the first and third world. This makes absolutely no sense.

“Kevin,” you are legitimately the biggest lying piece of garbage I’ve ever seen. You have no honesty at all. I’m done with you, you fraud. With people like you, it’s no wonder revolution fails in America.

Source:

“Kevin Rashid’s” bullshit: http://rashidmod.com/?p=1994