orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/19/85)
> > > >I HAVE NEVER HEARD A MAINSTREAM POLITICIAN CRITICIZE ANYONE FOR BEING A FASCIST. > > > >I HAVE HEARD MANY POLITICIANS USE THE WORDS "COMMUNIST" AND "MARXIST" AS > >NEGATIVE EPITHETS. > > > >Can someone provide a counter example (in the past 20 years?). > > In one of my calmer moments I once told a guy pushing laser weapons at the > airport that Lyndon LaRouche was a piece of dogshit and he called me a > fascist. I thought that was kind of funny and felt lucky he didn't pull a > gun on me. > > In this country fascists like Franco and Klaus Barbie are cool; > it is the "premature anti-fascists" who got called up before HUAC. > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Not only have mainstream politicians *never* called anyone a fascist, our beloved right-wing reactionary (fascist?) President Reagan stated his support for fascism while in Portugal on his Bitburg trip. Does anyone remember Reagan's marvelous attempt to whitewash Nazi atrocities by traveling to Bitburg without any plans to go to the Concentration Camps? You probably are unaware of our Presidents remarks which stirred a storm in Spain. After leaving Spain, while in Portugal Reagan said that he doesn't *always* support "freedom fighters" like the terrorists in Nicaragua: for example he said he did *not* support the Lincoln Brigade of Americans fighting against Franco's fascism. Since Spain just recently returned to democracy after years of oppression under Franco this was not greatly appreciated. But I suppose it shows quite plainly just *whose* side the extreme rightwing represented by Kemp and Reagan really stands for: given the choice between a democratically elected socialist government and fascism they'll go for fascism every time. But who would say that in the mainstream media? "You ain't been doing nothin' if you ain't been called a Red!!" tim sevener whuxn!orb
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/27/85)
In article <449@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) defends his habit of calling President Reagan a "fascist" by writing, among other things: >You probably are unaware of our Presidents remarks which stirred a storm >in Spain. After leaving Spain, while in Portugal Reagan said that >he doesn't *always* support "freedom fighters" like the terrorists >in Nicaragua: for example he said he did *not* support the Lincoln >Brigade of Americans fighting against Franco's fascism. Since Spain >just recently returned to democracy after years of oppression under >Franco this was not greatly appreciated. > >But I suppose it shows quite plainly just *whose* side the extreme >rightwing represented by Kemp and Reagan really stands for: >given the choice between a democratically elected socialist government >and fascism they'll go for fascism every time. Well, netters, we've finally got a fix on exactly what Sevener's political stance is. Read that above, and follow the logic of it. A man says he did not support one side in a (long-ago) war. Tim Sevener concludes from this that the man must have the same politics as the people on the other side of the war. (Reagan did not support the Communists -- therefore he is a Fascist.) Sevener actually says this. So, Mr. Sevener, let's apply the same reasoning, *your* reasoning, to yourself. You did not (do not) support the United States' efforts against the Soviets in 1918, right? You don't support Hitler's invasion of Russia, do you? Therefore, your politics must be the same as the Soviets'. And you, therefore (just as Reagan, by your "logic", is a Fascist), are not a "liberal", not a "socialist", not even a "leftist", but a Stalinist, a Communist, a supporter of genocide and terrorism and the Gulag. I'm sure glad we got this cleared up. When are you and your friends in the Kremlin going to stop murdering people, Mr. Sevener? (Or at least, when are you going to learn to use words like "Fascist" correctly?) -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/05/86)
> man says he did not support one side in a (long-ago) war. Tim Sevener > concludes from this that the man must have the same politics as the > people on the other side of the war. (Reagan did not support the > Communists -- therefore he is a Fascist.) Sevener actually says this. > > So, Mr. Sevener, let's apply the same reasoning, *your* reasoning, to > yourself. You did not (do not) support the United States' efforts > against the Soviets in 1918, right? You don't support Hitler's invasion > of Russia, do you? Therefore, your politics must be the same as the > Soviets'. And you, therefore (just as Reagan, by your "logic", is a > Fascist), are not a "liberal", not a "socialist", not even a "leftist", > but a Stalinist, a Communist, a supporter of genocide and terrorism and > the Gulag. > > Peace and Good!, > Fr. John Woolley Fr. Woolley, I maintain my consistency in opposition to war and violence by anyone whether it is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the French and American invasion of Indochina. Reagan does not. I also consistently maintain support for democracy and the people's right to govern themselves and control their own lives. Reagan does not. Reagan has no concern for democracy in the least, either in our own country or abroad. His unconcern for democracy in our own country is illustrated by his attempt to undermine civil liberties in this country, to appoint an Attorney General who openly proclaims that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, by attempting to demolish rights to privacy by centralizing and allowing access to all citizens government records, by censoring the press in the invasion of Grenada, by prosecuting Samuel Morrison for leaking government documents which were admitted by the government to be known already to the Soviets. Reagan has no concern for international law when he mines the harbor of an ally, or when he funds war within that country and fellow signatory to the OAS treaty. Reagan's remarks about support for the Spanish Republicans who were opposing Franco and included people from a wide spectrum of political' opinion united in their opposition to Fascism coupled with his trip to Bitburg and exoneration of the Nazis there, shows to me where his sympathies lie. Let us take another example: the current political party in power in South Africa supported Hitler during WW II. Indeed the system of apartheid and institutional racism they constructed was partially inspired by Hitler's racism. Regardless of economic ties, one would expect the *least* one would do in opposition to such a racist government would be to cutoff all arms sales to a government which both uses those arms against its own people AND also to invade its allies and continue to forcibly occupy another country.(namely Namibia) Yet shortly after assuming office in 1981 Reagan immediately resumed arms sales to South Africa. It is this sort of overt support for racist governments and military dictatorships which leads me to conclude that Reagan has few qualms about fascism so long as $$$$$$ can be made. The fact that Franco's fascism was a testbed for fascism in Europe makes his remarks particularly abhorrent in the light of his earlier trip to Bitburg. tim sevener whuxn!orb
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (01/06/86)
>Fr. Woolley, I maintain my consistency in opposition to war and violence >by anyone whether it is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the >French and American invasion of Indochina. Reagan does not. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Tim, I'm not certain that a consistent opposition to "war and violence by anyone" is a sound moral position, and I'm not even sure that it is yours. Let's take a couple of cases - WWII and the Ukranian famine. (I'm even giving you the benefit of hindsight and history here.) Would you have opposed the use of war and violence had the French and British invaded Germany to stop Hitler? Would you have opposed the use of war and violence to stop the Ukranian famine? If you answer no to either question, then you are not consistent in opposing "war and violence by anyone;" like Reagan and most of the rest of us, you oppose them selectively. So now, if you answered no to either question, you might want to explain the grounds on which *you* oppose the use of war and the grounds on which *you* would support it. And, Tim, if you are a true pacifist and sincerely oppose all war and violence, I'll gladly apologize for doubting your statement. (And I'll likely have some other questions, as well.) regards, Charli
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (01/09/86)
> Fr. Woolley, I maintain my consistency in opposition to war and violence > by anyone whether it is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the > French and American invasion of Indochina. Reagan does not. > I also consistently maintain support for democracy and the people's > right to govern themselves and control their own lives. > Reagan does not. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > Tim, what is your opinion on the American Revolution and the Civil War?
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/14/86)
> > Fr. Woolley, I maintain my consistency in opposition to war and violence > > by anyone whether it is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the > > French and American invasion of Indochina. Reagan does not. > > I also consistently maintain support for democracy and the people's > > right to govern themselves and control their own lives. > > Reagan does not. > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > > Tim, what is your opinion on the American Revolution and the Civil War? I think the American Revolution was exactly the sort of situation in which Gandhian tactics of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience could have been successful. The Americans won the American revolution essentially because most of the population was in sympathy with the revolutionaries. Despite Britain's advantage in military might per se the revolutionaries had the advantage of the people's positive support for their cause and resistance to the British. I believe in most cases of colonies achieving their liberation or a people withstanding external aggression that it is the sympathies of the general population which is far more important than military might. Thus the Vietnamese defeated the world's strongest *military* force and the Afghans may soon be successful in forcing the world's second strongest military force to withdraw primarily because of the people's widespread support. However at the time of the American Revolution such techniques had not yet been invented. Gandhi's successful movement to free India and Martin Luther King's nonviolent leadership of the American Civil Rights Movement both developed such techniques and showed they could be successful. I would argue *more* successful than armed revolution by violence. That is where I also depart from many leftists who justify the violence committed by armed revolutions because their ends are legitimate. One can contrast India and China as examples - while India has many problems it never suffered the bloodbath which China suffered as the armed Marxists under Mao came to power. (India did suffer the riots between Hindhus and Moslems but not due to the government itself) This does not mean that bloodbaths or dictatorships will *always* occur after armed revolutions - the US proves this is not the case. But given an armed revolution led by people who have already justified murder and violence as means to achieve their ends, it is far more likely that such leaders will use similar justifications to massacre opponents "for good reasons" (as they will explain it) after they come to power. I am very much afraid that the ANC's turn to violence in South Africa will bring to power the most radical and extremist when the white-ruled apartheid regime is finally toppled. I fail to see where the violence has accomplished anything which could not have been accomplished as well through nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. For one thing refusal to use violence would give the Jerry Falwells of this world absolutely no justification for attacking the ANC. For another thing it could be just as disruptive of the government internally and just as galvanizing for world opinion. The people amassed in peaceful demonstrations at funerals lately has been more conducive to getting sanctions against South Africa than bombings. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/21/86)
>> Tim, what is your opinion on the American Revolution and the Civil War? > >I think the American Revolution was exactly the sort of situation in >which Gandhian tactics of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience >could have been successful. The Americans won the American revolution >essentially because most of the population was in sympathy with >the revolutionaries. Despite Britain's advantage in military might >per se the revolutionaries had the advantage of the people's positive >support for their cause and resistance to the British. I was taught in (English, Scottish and Canadian) schools that the American Revolution had the support of about 1/3 of the population, but had substantial support in Britain, including that of the King (the hated George III) but not of his Government. Whether civil disobedience would have been successful in righting the wrongs of the colonies is dubious, since it could have had no effect on policies in England. It could have affected only the actions and policies of the Colonial governors. What MIGHT have worked would have been a good public relations campaign among the landowners in England, leading to an election win for a group supporting American self-government (in effect, the American Colonies had substantial self-government before the Revolution, and much of the fuss was about the British Government's insistence that it had some right to tax without consulting the Colonies. The revolutionaries didn't want to acknowledge those rights. Whether the Americas became freer after the Revolution than they would otherwise have been is an interesting question that I don't think anyone can easily answer.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt