Identifying Hatred Filth and Lies
Dean
I was quite amused by the hysterical reactions I got when I noted that anyone who paid to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has blood on his hands. Most amusing was a person identified only as "LKR," who said, "It angers me that you're equating a political commentary film created within a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY to Nazi or Stalinist propaganda. This comparison is beyond inappropriate."
People like LKR need to do a little more thinking. Our liberal democracy allows the creation of Nazi and Stalinist propaganda. White supremacists, holocaust revisionists, and other hate-merchants (such as Michael Moore) are protected in their political commentary by the 1st amendment and by the great values of our liberal democracy. Hate-sites on the Internet such as Stormfront also are allowed to exist. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazi party, and Michael Moore fan clubs are all allowed to operate in this society. They go unmolested so long as they are non-violent. That's what liberal democracy is all about.
This in no way, shape, or form means that I am not free to identify such people as human cockroaches. Which is exactly what they are.
You see, the cure for hate-speech is more speech. Nazis and communists and Michael Moore apologists and white supremacists are all allowed to say whatever they want--and the rest of us are free to call them out on their lies and to identify them for what they are.
I am also amused by people who say that my words are "angry." They aren't. They're my dispassionate evaluation and judgement. It's simply the truth: if you paid to see this movie you are complicit in mass murder--because it is used as a recruitment film by terrorist groups, and its many lies motivate some of the very people shooting at our troops now. It has also created a morale problem for our troops--not a pressing one, as it turns out, but multiple reports from the field confirm that it's so.
So. If you paid to see this film, you have blood on your hands. Furthermore, if you defend this movie, then you are either horribly misinformed or you are a human cockroach.
Guess what? By saying all that, I'm exercising my free speech rights. Isn't liberal democracy grand?
There is one key difference between my words and Moore's though: my words don't kill people, whereas Moore's movie, like the communist and Nazi propaganda films it so closely resembles, does. I would therefore suggest that those of you who are angry with me have your anger misplaced. Your anger should be directed at Moore. I also suggest that, while the damage cannot be undone, you can help ameliorate it by donating to Truth for Troops.
Don't like me for saying all this? Go read this. Then go to Hell. :-)
Thank God for the first amendment, though. Otherwise the kind of crypto-fascist cretins who defend Michael Moore, read Daily Kos, etc. would probably try to arrest me for speaking out against their hero.
I think people should see <i>Fahrenheit 9/11,</i> and then see <i>Fahrenhype 9/11</i> immediately afterward. I even allowed Baby Xrlq to watch both films, and am proud to say he didn't believe a word of <i>Fahrenheit 9/11,</i> despite the fact that when he saw it, he had literally been born yesterday.
Hee!
Both, I'd say. But I still think you can make up for it if you donate to Truth for Troops. :-)
I think people should see Fahrenheit 9/11, and then see Fahrenhype 9/11 immediately afterward.
I'd suggest they have a moral obligation to find one of the pirated copies on the internet, to avoid giving money and encouragement to this film's distributors and creators.
His only intention in making this movie was for money. Now those that support this movie are only padding his pockets to turn out more movies that will make continue to lie and exagerate in order to spread his anti-American propoganda.
As far as President Bush being "far-right," try telling that to the millions of Conservatives that believe otherwise. As one of them, I can tell you he is far from the Conservative beacon of light I would have wished for in a Republican president.
1) That you're saying it's anti-American to criticize President Bush.
2) By saying it's an anti-American film, you're assaulting the first amendment.
3) They'll say that dissent is patriotic.
#1 and #2 are both clearly false, and to #3 I can only respond by quoting Fred Phelps of God Hates America, who says that "God destroyed the WTC to punish America! Deal with it!...Bloody butcher Bush thinks he can distract from these facts by taking over Babylon with his fag army. As a result of his foolishness, body bags are coming home by the truckload." He also says "Pat Tillman could have used his influence for good, and instead, used it to promote the filthy American army; the same army that rapes little Iraqi boys. He got what he deserved!"
Old Fred Phelps is quite the patriot, right? If dissent is the definition of patriotism, if you're automatically a patriot for "criticizing the President," then Phelps is the living embodiment of patriotism, isn't he?
As for my "hysterical rubbish"--sorry, I stand by every word of it.
'Scuze me? If you share Hitler's view on Jews, how does that NOT make you a bad person?
if you're accusing Michael Moore of being anti-semitic, especially to the point of genocide, that is your business. I don't think that, i didn't say that and I don't think his views are that evil by anyones reckoning. Oh why do people always bring up Hitler when people question America's actions?
I never saw the movie. Figured I had enough verifiable facts to stoke my own dislike of Bush without having to resort to admittedly biased moviemaking, and remember that it was Moore himself who said he was presenting an op-ed piece as much as a documentary.
But as far as Dean's point equating moviegoers with murderers, remember those anti-drug ads that popped up after 9/11 equating dope-smoking with supporting terrorism? Now that we're back to Afghanistan exporting, what is it, 75 percent of the world's opium supply, is George Bush a terrorist for propping up that country's government?
I don't really think so, but it's a slow morning, and I feel like picking a fight. I've already tried to start one with Pat Robertson, but so far, there are no casualties.
Yeah, me too. I belong to an e-mail chat group populated by about 85% angry liberals, 5% angry right-wingers, and 10% reasonable people. Talk about an echo chamber. And the second most popular charge (after "hypocrisy", which gets thrown whenever someone in the 95% thinks they've sussed out an inconsistency) is "angry."
I think there's a bit of projection going on there, honestly.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
I'm not sure your complicity charge holds up. I don't find it persuasive, except in the Christian sense that we are all caught in a web of evil woven by Satan from which Christ is the only escape. We all bought Saddam's oil, and Saudi oil and Chavez oil, right? We buy Nestle's products, and they sell formula in the third world. We buy things from people who advertise on CBS (supporting fraudulent, possibly deadly, journalistic fraud). We buy things from people who advertise on Fox (supporting what looks like the worst sexual harrassment case I can remember). The only way to avoid supporting evil is hermitage.
Also remember, many people think that Micheal Moore's charges are true, and they don't rise to the level of evil that the KKK, the Nazis and the Communists do. Do you really think Moore is an apologist for Islamofascists, terrorists and Saddam? The millions of confused peace marchers who backed Neville Chamberlain were simply refusing to believe that Hitler was worse than repeating World War I. You have to admit, World War I was the worst thing seen in Europe since Napolean, a hundred years earlier, so they had a point. World War II proved that they were wrong that World War I was the worst possible thing. The Communists proved that the peace marchers against fighting Communism were similarly deluded. The peace marchers in this era are simply refusing to believe that Saddam is worse than Castro, Ho Chi Minh's successors, Kim, the mullahs, the Muramar murderers, the Somali warlords, and all the others whom we have tolerated lo these many years.
Moore's film seems to be one big conspiracy theory. I have a friend who believes that Dubya wants to bring about Armageddon via a new Crusade. He also thinks Oliver Stone got Kennedy's assasination right. He, and about seven eighths of the rest of the world are a sucker for the right conspiracy theory. I have to fight them off, myself.
As far as I'm concerned, you are complaining about, trying to fight and exhibiting traits of basic human nature. The tendency to proclaim that my guys are nearly saints and your guys are nearly devils appears in all people and all groups. And sloppy thinking takes a tremendous amount of hard work to avoid, especially when matters are very complex and there is a simple, handy conspiracy theory which is supported by things which are true. For example, we know that if the Middle East had no oil to corrupt their economy that this war would not have happened. (Simple, handy conspiracy theorists may now all shout, "No war for oil!")
Either way, due to the way you've chosen to frame your comments, I predict you will be every bit as persuasive to those who've seem the film as Pat Robertson is to homosexuals. (Honey, vinegar, flies, you know the drill.)
Yours,
Wince
Scotts implication was that Moore and the people that supported him were evil or bad people-else why use hitler. Just as easily he could have said "if you do not follow bushes views on X does that not make you a good person" (in his case!)
If the MSM would do its job, and pin Kerry down on how he feels about Moore's 'endorsement' in relation to More's well-known anti-American and pro-terrorist statements, he'd probably distance himself from More. That doesn't mean he would be agreeing with Bush, in fact he would still show the same level of disagreement. But he wouldn't be in a position of endorsing vile lies and terrorist support as Moore has.
Just borrow it or watch a bootleg copy so Moore makes no money in the capitalist system he so despises.
Moore wants you to download it for free. Ask Dean -- I sent him the link where you can do so.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I stand by every word of that and I will defend it to the death, for exactly the same reason that I will defend to the death the Second Amendment and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, including the hated Ninth Amendment, and also the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and the rest of our Constitution.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God [and all Gods and Goddesses], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I stand by every word of that, too.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"
I stand by every word of that, too. That is my absolute holy dogma.
I agree completely with Nat Hentoff. "Free speech for me, but not for thee" is nothing but hypocritical bullshit, no matter who says it.
I will defend to the death your right to be a human cockroach, for the selfish reason that I will defend to the death my right to call you a human cockroach if you choose to be one. Contrary to a certain regular commenter here in Dean's World, a commenter who has been here as long as I have, but who has, all too obviously, never, ever understood nor ever bothered to try to understand a single word I ever wrote here or anywhere else, that does not make me an advocate of pogroms or open graves.
I am exactly the opposite. I am an uncompromising defender of the inalienable rights of the individual man and woman to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as he or she chooses define happiness for himself or herself. In so selfishly defending my own rights, I therefore defend the rights of those with whom I most violently disagree, even the rights of those I hate.
Yes, I am an angry man. And, yes, I am a man of hate. My speech is indeed "hate speech". I hate anybody who is an enemy of my sacred freedoms, or who demands that I disarm myself in the face of the enemies of my sacred freedoms. I am not tolerant, nor have I ever professed to be. I am and have always been openly and explicitly intolerant, dogmatic, absolutist, extremist, sex-obsessed, and selfish. I am an egoist. Proudly.
I condemn Michael Moore and all other Communists, but I will defend their right to be Communists for the same reason that I defend my right to name them and to condemn them for what they are. I condemn Holocaust deniers and all other Jew-haters and racists, but I will defend their right to be Jew-haters and racists for the same reason that I will defend my right to name them and to condemn them for what they are. I will defend the right of homo-haters and sex-haters to be homo-haters and sex-haters for the same reason that I will defend my right to name them and to condemn them for what they are: advocates of pogroms and mass graves
I am proud to be a American precisely because mine is the country that men like Rev. Fred Phelps and Robert T. Lee (see his "AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION PRODUCES HOMOSEXUALITY!"), as well as their Muslim counterparts such as Osama bin Laden, hate. But, at least they are honest about their hatred for America and everything Old Glory stands for.
Not so for the rest of that ilk, lying hypocritical scum like Lou Sheldon, Robert Knight, Paul Cameron, Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes, Rick Santorum, Robert Bork, Marilyn Musgrave, and all the rest of that collectivist crowd of totalitarian subversive rats, and all their apologists and appeasers. I will defend their right to be despicable for the same reason that I will defend my right to name them and to condemn them for what they are: sex-hating self-hating despicable lying hypocritical scum and collectivist totalitarian CommuNazi subversive rats who are deliberately paving the road to pogroms and open graves.
Some people won't like my "name-calling". Some people won't like my harsh, stringent, warlike, intolerant _style_. Some people won't like the way I defend my own freedom as well as theirs. They will tell me "you catch more flies with honey". I reply, as I have many times before, that I am not trying to catch flies. I am trying to ward off a swarm of killer bees, and you don't do that by covering yourself with honey. As for those who are "put off" by harsh language, I don't want you on my side anyway, because you won't have the guts to fight for your values. Better an open foe, I say, than a "friend" who urges you to stop fighting for your values.
In sum, then, I will defend your right to be despicable as I will defend my right to call you despicable. I will fight for my values and my freedoms against all enemies.
I do not expect to be in the least bit persuasive to Michael Moore apologists for such people are already beyond being reasoned with, just as communists and white supremacists are generally beyond being reasoned with.
The communists had many deluded and well-meaning defenders. Stalin called them "useful idiots." There are those who defend the holocaust revisionists along similar lines.
It remains that the picture this film paints of America, and of Saddam's Iraq, is inherently propagandistic and uses the same techniques as the Nazi and communist propaganda filmmakers used.
I don't particularly care who is or is not swayed by my arguments on this film or its detractors. I merely re-emphasize something I have said in the past: if you are a defender of Michael Moore, I do not want to know you. You are not welcome in my home or on my blog. This film is killing Americans and killing innocent civilians and is an expression of human evil, and no decent person of any political stripe would deny it so far as I am concerned.
Swaying people? You can't reason with some people. This I have come to accept. That doesn't mean I can't make my revulsion for them plain.
The only reason we disagree is that I mistook your intent. It's all my fault, you were perfectly clear. You were not trying to get Moore supporters to switch sides, you were trying to get Moore detractors to support Troops for Truth. My bad.
Steven,
Your style is perfection. Don't change a thing. Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Your consistent passion for freedom is intoxicating, and your prose is the two-by-four that gets the donkey's attention so he can start to think. (So were Dean's, but this noggin took multiple, err, wake up calls.) I wish we could get either one of you on Bill's show (Maher or O'Reilly). You'd show the tired old advocates like Jesse Jackson some real political thought.
Yours,
Wince
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
As for Jesse Jackson, I must say that at this point I have even more contempt for that racist demogogue than for any of the other creeps I mentioned. He wouldn't listen to me because I'm too melanin-deficient, but I'd love to put him in a room with Thomas Sowell, Deroy Murdock, Ingrid E. Barnes, or Tyron Garner (John Geddes Lawrence couldn't have done it without him ? thank you, both of you gentlemen!), and see how long any of these men and women would allow him to spew his baloney.
And if it's in the movies, it must be true.