Some organizations still support Pol Pot

Here is a blog entry from the Rural People's Party(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)
RPP Polemic Regarding Pol Pot: A Party Response to Trotskyists, Revisionists
The party was recently criticized at a forum frequented by "anti-racists." The criticisms were in response to a post by the party on the occasion of the Glorious 17th April and commemoration of the advances of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) and Comrade Pol Pot. One critic was a member of the CPU$A who asserted, in response to our party line on Pol Pot, that "90 percent of the population" wants nothing to do with Pol Pot. The other critic was a Trotskyist art-youth, who found anti-revisionism, Maoism and the struggle of the Kampuchean people against amerikkkan imperialism "funny." A response was written by the party to the two detractors and upon completion of a response the party realized that we had been banned from further posting. Later on, the original post promoting the Glorious 17th April and the CPK was deleted. What follows is the party's response to the deleted post by the CPU$A member and self-proclaimed Trotskyist respectively:From a local perspective, we don't think that the rural and urban internal black nation oppressed colonies in the south-eastern united snakkkes have a problem with implementing Pol Pot line. We don't think that if you asked the huge portion of imprisoned members of the black nation in the south suffering this very moment under immediate imperialist repression that they are going to be opposed to the bottom rail becoming the top rail by establishing the iron fist of proletarian dictatorship against the oppressor classes and for the consolidation of proletarian power. We don't think the proletarian and lumpenproletarian elements are opposed to reparations being extracted from the white nationalist amerikkkan bourgeoisie and there being self-determination and self-reliance (both of the latter which are upheld by the CPK, Juche Korea and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) in a revolutionary independent state for the black south, which constitutes a nation according to Comrade Stalin's analysis. In declaring war on private property, we do not think that the southern black nation has a problem with property being expropriated from the white nationalist exploiter who has a long and well-known history of oppression of non-whites. This includes the old bourgeoisie AND the noveoux rich which compromise the entire spectrum of labour aristocracy, petit bourgeois and bourgeoisie. The CPUSA as you know supported Comrade Stalin's analysis of the amerikkkan southeast in that an independent black nation should be established in the south-eastern united states, a line which was furthered by CPUSA member Comrade Harry Haywood. However the CPUSA later became traitors to the international proletariat when they embraced Kruschevite revisionism when Krushev betrayed the people of the USSR to capitalist restoration. When the CPUSA dropped support for Comrade Stalin they also dropped the line which Comrade Stalin had forged in regard to a black nation in the southeast U.S. and effectively decided (in line with their new-found revisionism) that there "isn't" a black nation in the south. Bourgeois and labour aristocratic elements have every interest in declaring war on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism so that the oppressed proletariat and lumpenproletariat can stay "in their place." In reference to the CPUSA, feel free to contact the party directly at our post office box or email address as listed on our website and we would be happy to send you via mail a polemic between a leadership level member of the CPUSA and supporters of the MIM (Maoist Internationalist Movement), taken from the theoretical journal MIM Theory. This may aid in your analysis between the contradictions of your party line (CPUSA) and our party line.We'd like to suggest that you consider also in regard to Pol Pot, the fact that there is an uncriticized racism and xenophobia amongst the communist movement in the U$ that encompasses Pol Pot, Mao, Great Leader Kim Il Sung and Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. From a critical standpoint, class members of the white bourgeois and white labour aristocracy should be asking themselves, why the condescension towards Asians - and certain Asians in particular (it is fine for bourgeoisified amerikkkan populace to love the Japanese - but of course many of these other nations, they simply must be crazy, correct?) Also when one criticizes Maoism on this continent, one has to consider in their criticism the Black Panther Party, which was founded and existed as a Maoist political organization and active worker's administration toward implementing a dynamic revolutionary black nationalism according to Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought before it was destroyed by FBI sponsored wrecking internally and externally. The Black Panther Party historically IS the pre-eminent Maoist vanguard in the U$, so they should be considered in any criticism of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from an anti-racist perspective.There is a largely uncriticized white chauvinism existent in communist/socialist circles within the U$ - which basically posits that they, whether being bourgeois college intellectuals or blue collar unionised labour aristocracy (who are not part of the proletariat, as their interests are intimately entwined with the interests of U.S. imperialism) "basically know better" than the internationalist proletariat. "We, the white bourgeois and labour aristocracy, we know better than what Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and Pol Pot worked for and established." "We, the white bourgeois and labour aristocracy, possess the CORRECT revolutionary line for the internationalist proletariat but, well, the internationalist proletariat THEMSELVES are obviously insane (throw in a reference to the DPR of Korea and thoughts of one's own "distaste" for actual socio-political elements of non-white nations foreign to "White America") so please, leave formulating the CORRECT revolutionary position to us (the white bourgeois and labour aristocracy) and we'll inform you as to what to do." "We, the white bourgeois and labour aristocracy, we appropriate the right to co-opt racial images of 'acceptable' Asian origin and 'acceptable' South American and Aztlan origin and 'acceptable' black nation origin in a fetishistic manner however, in reality, when it comes down to line and practice in regard to the black nation Maoists and the Maoists in India and Juche Korea, etc., we are going to completely reject them from an individualistic, privileged vantage point regardless of material conditions." These sort of perspectives are example perspectives of white chauvinism, and should be criticized. In line formulation, both open revisionists (CPUSA) and Trotskyites (referencing the other individual poster) should consider why they, from a privileged material vantage point, are "too good" to implement materialist criticism, analysis, self-criticism and Maoist thought-reform as promulgated by the luminaries of communism upheld by the Rural People's Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.) Historically this sort of chauvinism is not unprecedented of course, as the internationalist proletariat are used to being broadly dismissed. The internationalist proletariat can see them (the bourgeois) however the bourgeois can't see the internationalist proletariat, as the former's vision is effectively blurred by individualism, racism, white chauvinism and the poisonous bourgeois way of life. Once thought-reform has been done and there been a sufficient cleansing of the mind, only then will socially-programmed bourgeois start to get to the point where they can accept proletarian leadership without their knee-jerk genetic supremacist response that "we know better than the oppressed nation proletarians."

A younger Ponnary

I found a younger and more flattering picture of Khieu Ponnary (លោកខៀវ ប់នណារី)