Homosexuals and Fascism (article from A&L)

[Agathon]

[to the tune of the 1812 Overture]

bam bam bam BAM bam bam, bam bam bam BAM.

b-b-b-b-b BAM BAM... etc.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
[to the tune of the 1812 Overture]

bam bam bam BAM bam bam, bam bam bam BAM.

b-b-b-b-b BAM BAM... etc.

Maybe

ban ban ban BAN ban ban, ban ban, ban BAN...
Would be more appropriate

[Imran Siddiqui]

And don't you love his attempts to skirt trying to prove his BAM? Instead he asks me to prove a negative (homophobes aren't gay)! Priceless!

[Whaleboy]

Capitalism in its best senses is the greatest system in the world and cannot be challanged. You must be corrected. Flexibility is only found in capitalism as it uses techniques of the market place, not illogical central control. Libertarian "communism" doesn't exist.

Even been to a Kibbutz? Central control, or rather elements of? It's a sliding scale .

And what is the difference? Leftism? Stalinism? Communism? It is all the same.

If we agree that Stalinism is totalitarian and fascist then we must say that other aspects of political consideration, such as social theory must also differ. For example, libertarian communism allows for capitalism, indeed that is where most liberals currently lie. It is not a question anymore of the existence of capitalism in my opinion, rather the extent and manifestation.

The cooperation is brought along by capitalism, it is a cooperation brought along by capitalism and the market place. Not invalid and non-existent communism. You are right, communism has and never will exist. None of its elements exist either.

Communism exists everywhere, because communism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Both require elements of the other in order to function, attempts to eliminate those elements respective will cause the wider system to fail. Can you imagine a capitalist system with no cooperatives?

Given: Marx, in the manifesto, called for a dictator to lead the people toward the ideal state of communist anarchy.
Given: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Therefore: Any person thrown into such a dictator position will *necessarily* be a Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao.

Communist anarchy would tend to be libertarian anyway, unfortunately Marx should have taken a few more leaves out of Mills book in my view. Nonetheless, I find Marx's idea reminiscent of Plato's philosopher kings concept which one would hope is a little more immune to corruption. We must also consider that Marx was a writer to be interpreted and not to be taken on face, or complete value. He presents ideas and concepts that are valid and workable but the system in his mind is questionable even by those who adopt his ideas. Those that are inherently for or against communism are both in error in my view.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Even been to a Kibbutz? Central control, or rather elements of? It's a sliding scale .

There always must exist a central government to maintain law and order.

If we agree that Stalinism is totalitarian and fascist then we must say that other aspects of political consideration, such as social theory must also differ. For example, libertarian communism allows for capitalism, indeed that is where most liberals currently lie. It is not a question anymore of the existence of capitalism in my opinion, rather the extent and manifestation.

Communism eventually falls to authoritarianism because the theory itself is flawed. Libertarian communism does not exist. Calling even a left wing liberal a libertarian communist is pretty ridiculous. I wouldn't even go that far.

Communism exists everywhere, because communism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Both require elements of the other in order to function, attempts to eliminate those elements respective will cause the wider system to fail. Can you imagine a capitalist system with no cooperatives?

Communism can't exist because it is economically unfeasible and in direct violation of human nature. So please stop talking about some pipe-dream.

We must also consider that Marx was a writer to be interpreted and not to be taken on face, or complete value. He presents ideas and concepts that are valid and workable but the system in his mind is questionable even by those who adopt his ideas. Those that are inherently for or against communism are both in error in my view.

Marx was a fool at best who did not take into account the reality of human nature. We love to compete, and be competitive. We love to have a free market where we can exchange goods without the stupidity of left wing sources. His ideas and concepts are not workable and are illogical at best.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Given: Marx, in the manifesto, called for a dictator to lead the people toward the ideal state of communist anarchy.

I might be wrong, but I'd like to see a quote from the manifesto where Marx and Engels explicitly calls for a dictator to bring along communism. I doubt you can find one.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said above, are racists really black inside? Are sexists really women? So why are homophobes really gay?

This assumes racism and sexism and homophobia all come from the same places for the same reasons. That's not necessarily the case.

It's true that a good amount of homophobia is indeed from closeted gays--you can find former homophobes who can testify to that. "Methinks she doth protest too much" has been a saying for, what, 400 years now?

Of course, it's not the root of all anti-gay sentiment, but I think it's dishonest to deny it isn't a significant part of it. And it's not just closeted gays--iin many cases, it's people who are fearful of intimacy in general who find homosexuality so repulsive, but that's a similar sentiment.

As for the gay link to facism, I think the article makes a good point, but way overstates its case. The Jorg Haider bit is particularly eye-rolling worthy. There's no credible reason to believe he's gay, aside from scurrilous innuendo that is a part of gutter politics. The notion that he "vanished" from public life because he was in danger of being outed is preposterous--he vanished because his fascist sympathies made him a liability to his party and it was best for them that he do so. Also, as was mentioned, ol' Pym was hardly a fascist. By American political standards, he'd be quite moderate.

Still, I have to be reminded of the Israeli airforce guy I dated for a while who admitted to having a German soldier fetish, and casually said "All Israeli gays have it." I was pretty weirded out by that, but I can see why it would happen (though I think he's exaggerating). There's a sizable trend among gays to have a sexual fetish for being dominated in some form or another (hence the whole leather scene).

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I am attacking the arguments. I said leftism is fatally flawed because it does not accept inevitable capitalism. People are inherently capitalist.

People are inherently savannah hunter-gatherers that like shiny things and dislike being eaten by lions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think Anti-homosexual ideologies (like Falwell religions) have gay adherents.

I used to work with a very gay boy (he denied it but he set off even the most clueless people's gaydar) who went to school at Liberty College and said Fallwell was a very wonderful, lovely man.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Gay Republicans are those who are openly gay and believe they can work for better support from within the party (nice fantasy that it is).

No, they're gay people who identify with their wallet more than with their sexuality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Ugh, this is a dumb played out argument. This'll be my first and last post on the subject.

Given: Marx, in the manifesto, called for a dictator to lead the people toward the ideal state of communist anarchy.

The preceding statement is false. Marx never called for a dictator in any of his works.

Therefore, the following statements:

Given: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Therefore: Any person thrown into such a dictator position will *necessarily* be a Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Mao.

are irrelevent and do not apply.

[Boris Godunov]

The notion that power corrupts isn't always true, either.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So in other words, you do not understand basic psychology of humans.

Of course I do... it's the people who want to paint the homophobes as gay who do not. Maybe they REALLY want it to be that way, but they really understand nothing at all about human psychology. It's a way for gays to say, ha ha, you are really gay deep down, but has absolutely no basis in fact.

Are racists really black inside? Are sexists really women? Please.

First of all, race is not something you can so easily cloak or deny to oneself -- if you're black, there's no psychological denial that can get around that. Same with gender -- with exceptions of those who go to the EXTREME in getting sex-change operations. But whatever -- these analogies of yours are taking us into another dimension of silliness altogether.


Anyway, when I tried to find some reputable sources on information about homophobic behavior, I did not find anything substantial. Maybe someone can have better luck?

But here is something stupid I came across that would perfect for some Apolytoners on here . . . . .

Heterosexual Bullsh*t

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Thorn
Even personally, after all I was a fascist, and I turned out to be gay. Fez was one, now he's moderated to a Republican.

Nope, he's hardened.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The notion that power corrupts isn't always true, either.

The actual saying is:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton.