Comments on: Sihanouk and the GRUNK, 1973

By: Pineapple

Pineapple — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:45:35 +0000

As far as I am aware it is of course Sihanouk seen in the footage, and he didn't make his journey into the 'liberated zone' with his wife Monique until February and March 1973. I think you're confused, seen as this blog post is about the 1973 visit. There is another video here, and if you watch it after about 18:57 minutes, you see footage which I believe is of the Chinit River area controlled by the Communists. There is no footage of the 1971 Congress meeting you talk about, but it does show the makeshift Congress hall which was used by them, albeit empty. Note the portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:22:12 +0000

I think this video you have here, if it IS from the Cambodian Communist Party 3rd Party Congress, took place in 1971. But would that make sense? This looks like Sihanouk visiting the liberated areas in early 1973. I’m confused. Was this gathering in this video a Party congress? Or is this video of two different events?

By: Tong Reasathea

Tong Reasathea — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:00:57 +0000

A sort of. There are quite a few one man parties in Cambodia. Take for an example ex-party of Khieu Sengkim, brother of Khieu Samphan, or Pen Sovann’s party. They all want their piece of pie, but as you noticed it’s already taken by rich okhnyas. They won’t share with anybody and they’re pretty cruel too, big money won’t leave any human feelings. Part of this reason I don’t believe in any Communist organization in Cambodia, there will be same kind of answer as killing of Tou Samouth, you can play any phony party, but as soon you touch real ground you’re in danger. All these fake parties, named with same words “Freedom”,”Democracy”,”Development” etc. etc. they’re “paper tigers”.

By: Pineapple

Pineapple — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:55:55 +0000

Looks like a one-man band. A wannabe. No way can a small-time middle class businessman based in the United States muscle in on the established political gangster elite in Phnom Penh, with their hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vested interests. Some of the Khmer bloggers out there also have some strange theories on the recent past, especially when it comes to bending reality so as to fit it into their hatred of the Vietnamese. It’s from one extreme to the other. Non-Communists otherwise exalting Pol Pot as the best Khmer nationalist in living memory, with a firm stance on defending the country from Vietnamese influence, to believing the Khmer Rouge were part of a sinister Vietnamese plan to exterminate the Khmers for the purposes of territorial expansion. That last bit should be safely marked as being conspiraloon nonsense.

By: Tong Reasathea

Tong Reasathea — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:57:39 +0000

He doesn’t look very intelligent that guy, posing at the front of Mercedes, with the party which copies everything from US policies. It’s hard to expect an intelligent reply, prepare though, Pineapple, for a flow of Khmer emigres who will splash their hate on your website like they do on KI media.

By: Pineapple

Pineapple — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 07:00:34 +0000

Aside from the chauvinist/racist term for Vietnamese, what do you mean by a problem of democracy? What ‘democracy’ are we talking about here? It is quite clear, the political expediency that came into play during the war, for both the Khmer Communists and the Prince. Are you a republican?

By: Oeurn Sarath

Oeurn Sarath — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:44:11 +0000

Our Khmer Experience, 2-3 millions khmer gone!
That is democracy problem? in our Khmer land.Samdech Sihanouk from Hanoi?
Our leader from Hanoi? Our samdech ouv in Khmer rouge uniform?and
leader of the khmer rouge? and help Vietcong? Brother and sister with Youns?
From: Samdech Jaywarman VII Oeurn Sarath from Americ!
Founder of Sangkhum Khmer Niyum Party
United People of Cambodia
http://www.SKNParty.com

By: Pineapple

Pineapple — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:20:51 +0000

No worries. You said it better than I could.

By: lb

lb — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:23:39 +0000

Banksy isn’t so much art in an age of mechanical reproduction as just mechanical reproduction. The political ‘statements’ his work makes – and let’s face it, outside the ‘content’, it’s just a bunch of pisspoor stencils – are either startlingly juvenile or clearly aimed at those who have no understanding of, or interest in politics beyond a vague notion that it’s somehow ‘bad’ (i.e. much of the liberal middle class).

A few apolitical Banksy-liking acquaintances have tried to justify their preferences on the grounds that his work is ‘witty’, but then again we’re hardly talking Tale of a Tub. As for ‘subversive’, the other adjective that’s – as you say -commonly bandied about, Banksy clearly hasn’t tried living in a real police state. He really deserves to be beaten insensible with a large folio edition of Goya’s Disasters of War.

Good to get that off my chest, anyway.

By: Pineapple

Pineapple — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:21:13 +0000

“Christ, I despise Banksy.”

Same here. His ‘work’ is cliched, vague, liberal rubbish. I think some people call it subversive. I work in a supermarket by the way, so being the mere drone that I am, do not ‘get’ the genius inherent in some embarrassing teenage ‘political’ statement involving a Tesco carrier bag. I think it’s … um … summat to do wiv consumerinism … or wotevah.

Oh shit! I’ve just seen a napalmed Phan Thi Kim Phuc holding hands with Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald! However, I prefer those quarter pounders with cheese they sell at Burger King, if I need to soak up some beer.