Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Reds" vs "fascists":Reagan's remarks
Message-ID: <459@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 18:58:16 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.459
Posted: Sat Jan  4 18:58:16 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 05:54:59 EST
References: <1783@teddy.UUCP> <39000044@ISM780B.UUCP> <449@whuts.UUCP> <351@cisden.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 60

> 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