Most people on this board have quit dignifying Frenchy with responses. Following this post I will join them. Now, Frenchy, I was aware the history of the term 'fascist' has Latin roots--the Sicilian coal miners to whom I referred spoke Italian, for crying out loud! I was only indicating a change in usage that came recently to make a point regarding the historical fact that the fascists co-opted some slogans from the Left.
:Frenchy said: "Homophobic" (is) another word that deserves and early death. It means 'afraid of man.'
No, it doesn't, Frenchy. You speak contemporary English just as well as I do, so you know the term means "afraid of homosexuals." You deny this, of course, because in your mind your not afraid of them at all. You just think they're sick.
Taken as just your opinion, that's okay. But in a context of society, anybody who wants to call themselves 'progressive' or 'socialist' must object to you on this point. Simply put, gays are one of the groups which capitalist society has made scapegoats to distract our attention from the real issue of class. Calling them "sick" or "perverted" plays right along with official thinkin ultimately serves the interests of capital.
(An interesting aside, though, advocating gay rights within the capitalist framework is the flip side of this coin. If there are, say, 10% gays in the population, it will do nothing to make sure that 10% of the CEO's are gay. Any liberating movement must be animated by the overall class struggle, even if it concentrates on the interest of particular oppressed groups.)
Frenchy said: Now, if you've got anymore to say about the subject, spit it out.
Consider yourself spat at, Frenchy.
I speculated Frenchy had an overwhelming father-figure and Frenchy said: : &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Ahhhh, a part time amatuer shrink. I see your mental image of me as; White middle-aged male, pot-belly, faux dreadlocks, dashiki over cammy's, high-top steel-toe boots with bloused pants, wearing a monocle and carrying a swagger stick; vastly inferior to you in intellectual terms, at home in the local VFW and a connoisseur of beverages that come in a package of six or by the keg. I am, in your mind, a virtual robot who is invincibly ignorant of the real status of the world.
: Fine.
Don't knock beer drinkers, Frenchy. Then, jettison the idea of you being vastly inferior in intellectual terms. I don't see any huge intellectual difference in human beings anywhere--most of us, as a species, are pretty much the same.
However, I do see you as deeply, deeply indoctrinated--almost to the point of madness--and I'm frustrated that you don't seem to read the postings on this board, rather you prefer to spout sound-bites from Rush Limbaugh and re-print columns from conservative think-tanks.
So, no, I don't see you as vastly inferior,just brainwashed. As abbreviations for this concept, here's a short list which people here will undoubtedly use to refer to you: moron, dumb-ass, idiot, cretin, cro-magnon, neanderthal, douchebag and ditto-head.
About Marx and mass murder, Frenchy asked: How about the part in the Communist Manifesto . . . ?
Frenchy, later on in your post you say that the people in the poor countries I listed earlier should look to America's history for an example. That is, they should read the Federalist Papers and overthrow their governments. Leaving aside the fact that these Third World dictatorships (Indonesia, El Salvador, etc. ad nauseum) are supported by the U.S, aren't you applying a different standard for one country and not for another? That is, can't you see that what you're saying is: "The American Revolution was right, but the socialist revolutions are wrong." Isn't this a double-standard, a lapse in reasoning, a tautology? And couldn't the only cause of this irrationality be traced to an allegiance to power and its official doctrine?
By the way, Howard Zinn notes in "The People's HIstory of the United States" that the American Revolution had nowhere near majority support. John Adams estimated a third of the population supported the war, a third was against it and another third was neutral.
I could be wrong, but I think that statistics of Bolshevik support were higher than that--maybe Mr. Stoller will help me out here.
:
: Frenchy said: @@@@@@@@@@@I don't think their (people living under Third World dictatorships) governments want those poor slobs to know about the Bill of Rights, especially the part about having a God-given right to own weapons for the express order of overturning a tyranical government. Federalist 29 covers that.
Did you follow the events in East Timor recently? Or did you know that Ho Chi Minh drafted Vietnam's Declaration of Independence on America's?
If "God given rights" exist, the U.S. does more than any country in the world to make sure that these rights don't become actual rights of citizens.
Porgie said: I've been to these countries and seen what the "free-market" has done. As I've mentioned before, the rights that we in the First World enjoy rest not on their abstract beauty and harmony with the laws of Human Nature and God, but on the toil, sweat, blood and terror of millions of other people around the globe. Just look at the labels on your clothes!
:
Frenchy said :######Ultimately, yes, the blame does in fact belong to the Communist Monster.
(I throw up my hands here)
Porgie asked: For the people making our clothes, toys and gadgets, the question is more like, "Yeah, capitalism, what could be worse?"
Frenchy answered: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Making statements like that, and apparently believing them, without questioning the political and economic structures of those countries is a sure fire sign of a huckster.
Well,a huckster at least has success on occasion, and I've had zero with you. Your case is primarily a psychological. I truly believe something has blocked your intellect from becoming what everyone's is capable of becoming: spontaneous, autonomous and self-reflecting.
You're like an acorn, Frenchy. An acorn which could have become a mighty tree, except a pig ate you while you were still on the ground.
P.T.
