Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: [hitchens] La sinistra e l'islamofascismo

Ecco, secondo me questo è un vero uomo di sinistra
=================================================================
In enemy territory? An interview with Christopher Hitchens
Islamofascism and the Left
 
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=450
To many of Christopher Hitchens' old friends, he died on September 11th 2001. 
Tariq Ali considered himself a comrade of Christopher Hitchens for over thirty 
years. Now he speaks about him with bewilderment. "On 11th September 2001, a 
small group of terrorists crashed the planes they had hijacked into the Twin 
Towers of New York. Among the casualties, although unreported that week, was a 
middle-aged Nation columnist called Christopher Hitchens. He was never seen 
again," Ali writes. "The vile replica currently on offer is a double."
This encapsulates how many of Hitchens' old allies - a roll-call of the left's 
most distinguished intellectuals, from Noam Chomsky to Alexander Cockburn to 
(until his premature death last year) Edward Said - view his transformation. On 
September 10th, he was campaigning for Henry Kissinger to be arraigned before a 
war crimes tribunal in the Hague for his massive and systematic crimes against 
humanity in the 1960s and 1970s. He was preparing to testify in the Vatican - as 
a literal Devil's Advocate - against the canonisation of Mother Theresa, who he 
had exposed as a sadistic Christian fundamentalist, an apologist for some of the 
world's ugliest dictatorships, and a knowing beneficiary of corporate fraud. 
Hitchens was sailing along the slow, certain route from being the Left's 
belligerent bad boy to being one of its most revered old men.
And then a hijacked plane flew into the Pentagon - a building which stands just 
ten minutes' from Hitchens' home. The island of Manhattan became engulfed in 
smoke. Within a year, Hitchens was damning his former comrades as "soft on 
Islamic fascism", giving speeches at the Bush White House, and describing 
himself publicly as "a recovering ex-Trotskyite." What happened?
When I arrive, he is reclining in his usual cloud of Rothmans' smoke and sipping 
a whisky. "You're late," he says sternly. I begin to flap, and he laughs. "It's 
fine," he says and I give him a big hug. On the morning of September 11th, once 
I had checked everybody I knew in New York was safe, I thought of Hitch who had 
become a friend since he encouraged my early journalistic efforts. He had been 
campaigning against Islamic fundamentalism for decades. I knew this assault this 
would blast him into new political waters - and I buckled a mental seatbelt for 
the bumpy ride ahead.
I decide to open with the most basic of questions. Where would he place himself 
on the political spectrum today? "I don't have a political allegiance now, and I 
doubt I ever will have again. I can no longer describe myself as a socialist. I 
miss it like a lost limb." He takes a sip from his drink. "But I don't regret 
anything. I'm still fighting for Kissinger to be brought to justice. The 
socialist movement enabled universal suffrage, the imposition of limits upon 
exploitation, and the independence of colonial and subject populations. Its 
achievements were real, and I'm glad I was part of it. Where it succeeded, one 
can be proud of it. Where it failed - as in the attempt to stop the First World 
War and later to arrest the growth of fascism - one can honourably regret its 
failure."
He realised he was not a socialist any longer around three years ago. "Often 
young people ask me for political advice, and when you are talking to the young, 
you mustn't bullshit. It's one thing when you are sitting with old comrades to 
talk about reviving the left, but you can't say that to somebody who is just 
starting out. And what could I say to these people? I had to ask myself - is 
there an international socialist movement worth the name? No. No, there is not. 
Okay - will it revive? No, it won't. Okay then - but is there at least a 
critique of capitalism that has a potential for replacing it? Not that I can 
identify."
"If the answer to all these questions is no, then I have no right to go around 
calling myself a socialist. It's more like an affectation." But Hitch - there 
are still hundreds of causes on the left, even if the ?socialist' tag is 
outdated. You used to write about acid rain, the crimes of the IMF and World 
Bank, the death penalty... It's hard to imagine you writing about them now. He 
explains that he is still vehemently against the death penalty and "I haven't 
forgotten the 152 people George Bush executed in Texas." But the other issues? 
He seems to wave them aside as "anti-globalisation" causes - a movement he views 
with contempt.
He explains that he believes the moment the left's bankruptcy became clear was 
on 9/11. "The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents 
all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating 
everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much 
of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the 
theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the 
perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. 
"It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire 
has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any 
movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings."
Hitchens - who has just returned from Afghanistan - says, "The world these 
[al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission 
and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life 
of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the 
ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea 
of a completely closed society. To stand equidistant between that and a war to 
remove it is?" He shakes his head. I have never seen Hitch grasping for words 
before.
Some people on the left tried to understand the origins of al-Quadea as really 
being about inequalities in wealth, or Israel's brutality towards the 
Palestinians, or other legitimate grievances. "Look: inequalities in wealth had 
nothing to do with Beslan or Bali or Madrid," Hitchens says. "The case for 
redistributing wealth is either good or it isn't - I think it is - but it's a 
different argument. If you care about wealth distribution, please understand, 
the Taliban and the al Quaeda murderers have less to say on this than even the 
most cold-hearted person on Wall Street. These jihadists actually prefer people 
to live in utter, dire poverty because they say it is purifying. Nor is it 
anti-imperialist: they explictly want to recreate the lost Caliphate, which was 
an Empire itself."
He continues, "I just reject the whole mentality that says, we need to consider 
this phenomenon in light of current grievances. It's an insult to the people who 
care about the real grievances of the Palestinians and the Chechens and all the 
others. It's not just the wrong interpretation of those causes; it's their 
negation." And this goes for the grievances of the Palestinians, who he has 
dedicated a great deal of energy to documenting and supporting. "Does anybody 
really think that if every Jew was driven from Palestine, these guys would go 
back to their caves? Nobody is blowing themselves up for a two-state solution. 
They openly say, ?We want a Jew-free Palestine, and a Christian-free Palestine.' 
And that would very quickly become, ?Don't be a Shia Muslim around here, baby.'" 
He supports a two-state solution - but he doesn't think it will solve the 
jihadist problem at all.
Can he ever see a defeat for this kind of Islamofascism? "This kind of 
theocratic fascism will never die because we belong to a very poorly-evolved 
mammarian species. I'm a complete materialist in that sense. We're stuck with 
being the product of a very sluggish evolution. Our pre-frontal lobes are too 
small and our adrenaline glands are too big. Our fear of the dark and of death 
is very intense, and people will always be able to profit from that. But nor can 
I see this kind of fascism winning. They couldn't even run Afghanistan. Our 
victory is assured - so we can afford to be very scrupulous in our methods."
But can he see a time when this kind of jihadist fever will be as marginalised 
as, say, Nazism is now, confined to a few reactionary eccentrics? "Not without 
what that took - which is an absolutely convincing defeat and discrediting. 
Something unarguable. I wouldn't exclude any measure either. There's nothing I 
wouldn't do to stop this form of fascism."
He is appalled that some people on the left are prepared to do almost nothing to 
defeat Islamofascism. "When I see some people who claim to be on the left 
abusing that tradition, making excuses for the most reactionary force in the 
world, I do feel pain that a great tradition is being defamed. So in that sense 
I still consider myself to be on the left." A few months ago, when Bush went to 
Ireland for the G8 meeting, Hitchens was on a TV debate with the leader of a 
small socialist party in the Irish dail. "He said these Islamic fascists are 
doing this because they have deep-seated grievances. And I said, 'Ah yes, they
have many grievances. They are aggrieved when they see unveiled woman. And they 
are aggrieved that we tolerate homosexuals and Jews and free speech and the 
reading of literature.'"
"And this man - who had presumably never met a jihadist in his life - said, ?No, 
it's about their economic grievances.' Well, of course, because the Taliban 
provided great healthcare and redistribution of wealth, didn't they? After the 
debate was over, I said, ?If James Connolly [the Irish socialist leader of the 
Easter Risings] could hear you defending these theocratic fascist barbarians, 
you would know you had been in a fight. Do you know what you are saying? Do you 
know who you are pissing on?"
Many of us can agree passionately with all that - but it is a huge leap to 
actually supporting Bush. George Orwell - one of Hitchens' intellectual icons - 
managed to oppose fascism and Stalinism from the left without ever offering a 
word of support for Winston Churchill. Can't Hitch agitate for a fight against 
Islamofascism without backing this awful President?
He explains by talking about the origins of his relationship with the 
neconservatives in Washington. "I first became interested in the neocons during 
the war in Bosnia-Herzgovinia. That war in the early 1990s changed a lot for me. 
I never thought I would see, in Europe, a full-dress reprise of internment 
camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstiutution of torture and rape as 
acts of policy. And I didn't expect so many of my comrades to be indifferent - 
or even take the side of the fascists."
"It was a time when many people on the left were saying ?Don't intervene, we'll 
only make things worse' or, ?Don't intervene, it might destabilise the 
region.'", he continues. "And I thought - destabilisation of fascist regimes is 
a good thing. Why should the left care about the stability of undemocratic 
regimes? Wasn't it a good thing to destabilise the regime of General Franco?"
"It was a time when the left was mostly taking the conservative, status quo 
position - leave the Balkans alone, leave Milosevic alone, do nothing. And that 
kind of conservatism can easily mutate into actual support for the aggressors. 
Weimar-style conservatism can easily mutate into National Socialism," he 
elaborates. "So you had people like Noam Chomsky's co-author Ed Herman go from 
saying ?Do nothing in the Balkans', to actually supporting[ital] Milosevic, the 
most reactionary force in the region."
"That's when I began to first find myself on the same side as the neocons. I was 
signing petitions in favour of action in Bosnia, and I would look down the list 
of names and I kept finding, there's Richard Perle. There's Paul Wolfowitz. That 
seemed interesting to me. These people were saying that we had to act." He 
continues, "Before, I had avoided them like the plague, especially because of 
what they said about General Sharon and about Nicaragua. But nobody could say 
they were interested in oil in the Balkans, or in strategic needs, and the 
people who tried to say that - like Chomsky - looked ridiculous. So now I was 
interested."
There are two strands of conservatism on the US right that Hitch has always 
opposed. The first was the Barry Goldwater-Pat Buchanan isolationist right. They 
argued for "America First" - disengagement from the world, and the abandonment 
of Europe to fascism. The second was the Henry Kissinger right, which argued for 
the installation of pro-American, pro-business regimes, even if it meant 
liquidating democracies (as in Chile or Iran) and supporting and equipping 
practitioners of genocide.
He believes neoconservatism is a distinctively new strain of thought, preached 
by ex-leftists, who believed in using US power to spread democracy. "It's 
explicitly anti-Kissingerian. Kissinger hates this stuff. He opposed intervening 
in the Balkans. Kissinger Associates were dead against [the war in] Iraq. He 
can't understand the idea of backing democracy - it's totally alien to him."
"So that interest in the neocons re-emerged after September 11th. They were 
saying - we can't carry on with the approach to the Middle East we have had for 
the past fifty years. We cannot go on with this proxy rule racket, where we back 
tyranny in the region for the sake of stability. So we have to take the risk of 
uncorking it and hoping the more progressive side wins." He has replaced a 
belief in Marxist revolution with a belief in spreading the American revolution. 
Thomas Jefferson has displaced Karl Marx.
But can we trust the Bush administration - filled with people like Dick Cheney, 
who didn't even support the release of Nelson Mandela - to support democracy and 
the spread of American values now? He offers an anecdote in response. There is a 
new liberal-left heroine in the States called Azar Nafisi. Her book ?Reading 
Lolita in Tehran' documents an underground feminist resistance movement to the 
Iranian Mullahs that concentrated on reading great - and banned - works of 
Western literature. "And who is this book by an icon of the Iranian resistance 
dedicated to? [US Deputy Secretary of Defence] Paul Wolfowitz, the bogeyman of 
the left, and the intellectual force behind [the recent war in] Iraq."
With the fine eye for ideological division that comes from a life on the 
Trotskyite left, Hitch diagnoses the intellectual divisions within the Bush 
administration. He does not ally himself with the likes of Cheney; he backs the 
small sliver of pure neocon thought he associates with Wolfowitz. "The thing 
that would most surprise people about Wolfowitz if they met him is that he's a 
real bleeding heart. He's from a Polish-Jewish immigrant family. You know the 
drill - Kennedy Democrats, some of the family got out of Poland in time and some 
didn't make it, civil rights marchers? He impressed me when he was speaking at a 
pro-Israel rally in Washington a few years ago and he made a point of talking 
about Palestinian suffering. He didn't have to do it - at all - and he was 
booed. He knew he would be booed, and he got it. I've taken time to find out 
what he thinks about these issues, and it's always interesting."
He gives an account of how the neocon philosophy affected the course of the Iraq 
war. "The CIA - which is certainly not neoconservative - wanted to keep the 
Iraqi army together because you never know when you might need a large local 
army. That's how the US used to govern. It's a Kissinger way of thinking. But 
Wolfowitz and others wanted to disband the Iraqi army, because they didn't want 
anybody to even suspect that they wanted to restore military rule." He thinks 
that if this philosophy can become dominant within the Republican Party, it can 
turn US power into a revolutionary force.
I feel simultaneously roused by Hitch's arguments and strangely disconcerted. 
Why did Hitch so enthusiastically back the administration's bogus WMD arguments 
- arguments he still stands by? I think of the Bush administration's denial of 
global warming, the hideous ?structural adjustment' programmes it rams down the 
throats of the world's poor (including Iraq's), its description of Ariel Sharon 
as "a man of peace"? Why intellectually compromise on all these issues and back 
Bush?
Bosnia was not the only precedent for Hitch's reaction to 9/11. He was disgusted 
by the West's slothful, grudging reaction to the fatwa against his friend Salman 
Rushdie. Back in 1989, he was writing about the "absurdity" of "seeing Islamic 
fundamentalism as an anti-imperial movement." He was similarly appalled by the 
American left's indulgence of Bill Clinton's crimes, including the execution of 
a mentally disabled black man and the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in 
Sudan that led to the deaths of more than 10,000 innocent Sudanese people. This 
brought him into close contact with the Clinton-hating right - and made him view 
their opponents with disgust.
And so the separation of Hitch and the organised left occurred. Is it permanent? 
Nobody was a better fighter for left-wing causes than Hitch. Nobody makes the 
left-wing case against Islamofascism and Ba'athism better than him today. Yet he 
undermines these vital arguments by backing Bush and indulging in wishful 
thinking about the Republicans.
As I luxuriate in the warm bath of his charisma, I want to almost physically 
drag him all the way back to us. He might be dead to the likes of Tariq Ali but 
there is still a large constituency of people on the left who understand how 
abhorrent Islamic fundamentalism is. Why leave us behind? I stammer that I can't 
imagine him ever settling down on the American right. He pauses, and I 
desperately hope that he will agree with me. "Not the Buchanan-Reagan right, 
no," he says. There is a pause. I expect him to continue, but he doesn't.
Back in the mid-1980s, Hitch lambasted a small US magazine called the Partsian 
Review for its "decline into neoconservatism". I don't think Hitch is lost to 
the left quite yet. He will never stop campaigning for the serial murderer Henry 
Kissinger to be brought to justice, and his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism is 
based on good left-wing principles. But it does feel at the end of our 
three-hour lunch like I have been watching him slump into neoconservatism. Come 
home, Hitch - we need you.
POSTSCRIPT: You can read some comments on this article at
http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2004/09/hari_to_hitchen.html
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/09/of_the_left.html
http://thoughtatthemeridian.blogspot.com/2004/09/hari-hitchens-dilemma.html
http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/weblog/2004/09/i_defer_to_pier.html
http://newpatriot.org/2004/10/in-enemy-territory.html
http://www.danwismar.com/archives/wizblog/002398.html
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2004/09/hitchens_sulliv.html
http://marcmulholland.tripod.com/histor/index.blog?entry_id=461417
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_leninology_archive.html#109906391624368341
Please e-mail comments (or links to commentary on this article) by following the 
contact details above. You can read other interviews with Johann - with figures 
from the Dalai Lama to Simon Peres to Chuck 'Fight Club' Paulahniuk - by 
clicking on 'Archive' above and following the link to interviews.
 
-- 
:> [Tb] : Il dovere di un comunista sarebbe quello di formare un cordone
sanitario attorno alla feccia nazi
: [.sergio.] : No
Il mio blog: 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 Ecco, secondo me questo č un vero uomo di sinistra
<torrieri>E' un fascista</torrieri>
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Draft beer, not people

 Ecco, secondo me questo è un vero uomo di sinistra
[cut]
Sarebbe bene (in a perfect world) finirla con quest'idiozia
dell'islamofascismo (equivalente al fascioalpinismo, o al sadomusicismo).
Ma, naturalmente, il senso del ridicolo non è di serie. Prego, accòllati
Romanato, Zelig Amalric, Charlie, Zaccaria, Oriana (ops: è defunta) & co. I
compagni di strada (hai ragione) non sono una colpa. Ma quanno uno se li
cerca co' la cannelletta, embeh, forse se li merita. Esequie.
Namib

 Ma, naturalmente, il senso del ridicolo non è di serie. Prego, accòllati
No, mi tengo hitchens & co
E per il resto, c'è zavorra in abbondanza per tutti. Credo dovrebbe essere 
chiaro. Amalric no, è solo uno che hai fatto incazzare :-)
Tb


 sadomusicismo
Posso confermare che esiste pure questo <g>


 No, mi tengo hitchens & co
dove co sta per goebbels, kahane (che non e' razzista , lol!), szalasi e i
cameratucoli del ng alla romanato, zaccaria, amalric, charlie, arduino e
altro letame nero simile
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
http://cubainforma.interfree.it/
il film sul 9/11 : 
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 altro letame nero simile
pio pio, fake.
Am.
-- 
Ovviamente hanno esagerato (oltretutto sbagliato anche i tempi)
ma non vedo nulla di scandaloso.
Tutti si danno del nazista o fascista reciprocamente (Capt. Kirk)

 <torrieri>E' un fascista</torrieri>
parla per te coniglio di tremaglia che non sa nemmeno rispondere  - vile -
su ips se AN e' un partito antifascista. lol!
e ora vai a invocare mobilitazioni a favore di criminali di guerra USA che
rischiano la pena di morte...


 rischiano la pena di morte...
Eh??
Palmiro Pangloss

 Eh??
cio' che hai letto e capito, "suonato"


 cio' che hai letto
Scemo, sei tu che - a parte provare queste accuse - ti devi rileggere
il mio post del quale ragli.
Palmiro Pangloss

 Scemo, sei tu che - a parte provare queste accuse 
provato : ho fatto una ricerca e posso affermare che hai invocato marce
contro la pena di morte solo, e ripeto SOLO, per criminali di guerra USA.
Smentiscimi ora, pagliaccio reggicoda dei goebbelsucci ungheresi.


 provato
ROTFL no Sergio, non hai provato un cazzo. Te lo ridico, rileggi
attentamente il mio post che ti eccita tanto.
Palmiro Pangloss

 No, non credo. Capisco il puntiglio classificatorio.
Beh?
Non capisco quale sia il problema.
Chiamare le cose con il proprio nome?
Anche io penso che chi sogna un regime oscurantista, totalitario,
teocratico e violento sia un terribile pericolo, un nemico da combattere.
Il fatto che costui poi sia musulmano, cristiano, ebreo o sarcazzo cosa
è sostanzialmente irrilevante.
Chaimarlo fascista è certamente irrilevante ed inesatto: quel che conta è
quanto sopra detto e che cioè è un nemico pericoloso.

 wrote:

Ma io alla fine potrei anche essere d'accordo che l'etichetta e' di 
comodo soprattutto in chi non ha fatto grandi studi in materia 
(Giorgino).
Tuttavia ci e' qualcuno di importante che ha tentato una sistemazione 
delle caratteristiche non solo politiche, ma anche psicologiche e per 
cosi' dire religiose o mistiche dei regimi fascisti: 
In Mass und Macht di Elias Canetti, se ne ricordo bene il contenuto. E 
penso che se si andra' a rileggere quel libro, o certe cose di Jung, si 
ritrovera' il sottofondo religioso-paranoico della dittatura, il mito 
del duce o leader religioso che le masse accettano o invocano *quando si 
sentono senza nessun futuro*. 
Come e' accaduto in Germania dopo la sconfitta della 1 GM, e nei paesi 
arabo islamici, con l'esclusione o autoesclusione delle masse dalla 
ricchezza, dopo il fallimento dei regimi socialisti postcoloniali.
Questa parte e' un po' con lo spannometro, ma e' ripresa da un fondo di 
Mario Pirani, pubblicato ieri su La Rep.
Comunque e' esistita una Psicologia delle Masse (Canetti) e ha prodotto 
una griglia che rende conto dei due fenomeni: quello politico e quello 
religioso, senza per altro negare l'analisi maxista piu' tradizionale.
My 2 cents.


 Chaimarlo fascista è certamente irrilevante
Non è irrilevante. Identifica un nemico non generico, ma specifico delle proprie 
convinzioni e del proprio sistema di valori.
Identifica un modo, IMHO non discutibile, di stare a sinistra. Specialmente in 
una nella quale si discute se un presidente della camera possa andare a 
discutere ad una festa di AN. Ma si candidano gli esponenti dell'UCOII e si 
omaggia Hezbollah.


 No, mi tengo hitchens & co
Pazienza. E salutami quel fascista di Caligola, se lo vedi (e può anche
essere, in questi curiosi tempi).
Namib

 specula. Ma che il problema esista mi pare indubbio.
A essere cattivi direi che e' un problema che esiste solo in Italia e 
Germania, due paesi ex-fascisti.
 Che poi il tratto comune sia l'antisemitismo e/o il revanscismo contro 
l'Ammerica ( e il poodle), non saprei.
Alcune cavie del NG danno dei readings molto alti in entrambi gli 
esperimenti.


 o al sadomusicismo).
E anche del cattocomunismo?
Non dico come idiozia, ça va sans dire, ma come realta' in se.
Perche' esiste, eh, il cattocomunismo.
Come termine, come accozzaglia di gente, come corrente politica.
Conclusione, le idiozie - nel mondo ideale, non nel tuo bunker -
esistono eccome, in tutta la loro imbarazzante assurdita'. Ed e' cosi'
da sempre, da quando un uomo "crede", sia in un Dio che in un Ideale.
Baci baci 
-- 
Nadja Jacur
 
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 stupido e discretamente infantile.
Obietti al consumo del termine, e al suo possibile depotenziamento?
Ma in questo caso mai vi fu uso piu' appropriato, rispetto alla violenza 
di una dittatura di massa.
Forse in termini di 'Massa e Potere' dovremmo anche includerci lo 
Stalinismo, con caratteristiche piu' simili a quelle del nazismo e della 
teocrazia, che a quelle della democrazia.
Ma questi paragoni tabu', correnti nel resto dell'Occidente, sono cio' 
che si vuol evitare in questo cortiletto del medesimo.


 Perche' esiste, eh, il cattocomunismo.
E anche il sadomusicismo, parola di Tb. Come lo vedi, già che ci siamo, il
liberalfascismo?
Namib

 quanto sopra detto e che cioè è un nemico pericoloso.
Toh, quoto.
Il problema e' che s'e' abusato di certi termini (tra cui fascista,
comunista, etc). Termini che, ormai, individuano solo una realta'
storica (e alcune, spesso poco rappresentative, derive nostalgiche). Ma
il termine e' diventato un "archetipo" (o amneo cosi' lo chiamai). Un
jolly sempre buono da usare per bolare il Nemico di turno.
Ora, dare della fascista - per es - alla Fallaci e' una coglionata.
Criticala, ma non usare accazzo "l'archetipo". Ma in quel caso era tutto
ok. Si chiudeva un occhio. Ora viene applicato, che so, ad un
Ahmadinejad o ad Hezbollah (che qualcuno percepisce "da questa parte,
contro la lotte eterna contro Il Nemico Imperialista Ammerikkano, il
Grande Sith) e allora non va piu' bene, allora si nota che e' un
archetipo usato accazzo.
Stride.
Tutto meravigliosamente cabarettistico, come al solito.
Come Stali cne si incazzava se qualcuno chiamava nazisti i nazisti,
perche' nazionalsocialisti era pericolosamente vicino a socialisti e
pertanti bisognava chimarli diversamente. Fascisti, per er. Panni
puliti. E tutto e' ok.
Ma LOL.


 E anche il sadomusicismo, parola di Tb.
Perche' ha sentito suonare/cantare mio cugino.
E' una vittima, ha sofferto.


 Tutto meravigliosamente cabarettistico, come al solito.
Certo, certo, la tua morale è sempre quella: noi "commmmunisti" siamo
faziosi, coi paraocchi ed in realtà opprimiamo le masse realmente
proletarie e non capiamo che tu sei l'unico latore della Verità
Rivelata.
Quando ti deciderai a riscendere sul pianeta terra, fammelo sapere, così,
magari, si riesce a fare un discorso come si deve.

 che si vuol evitare in questo cortiletto del medesimo.
Non sono "paragoni tabů", tant'č vero che vengono fatti praticamente ogni
giorno (piů per insultare i comunisti che per altri motivi). E finché
restano paragoni sono roba innocua, da giornale di destra. Quando si intende
invece creare una superstruttura *ideologica* che accomuni comunismo (e le
sue diverse fasi in differenti Paesi) e fascismo (nazionalmente declinato,
quanto meno), piů - addirittura, - l'Islam si fa un'operazione del tutto
destituita di fondamento logico e storico. Un po' come fece Stalin, appunto,
con il suo "socialfascismo". Propaganda era quella, propaganda questa.
"Favole per i semplici" (cit.).
Namib

 ROTFL no Sergio, non hai provato un cazzo. 
invece si : non ci sono altri post tuoi in cui invochi mobilitazioni
contro la pena di morte se non quello a favore di criminali in divisa USA.
Smentiscimi la mia affermazione adesso, pagliaccio di tremaglia.


 magari, si riesce a fare un discorso come si deve.
LOL, io?
Siete voi (cioe', loro, tu ci orbiti attorno) che hanno verita'
rivelate. Dogmi. Credo. Uniche certezze. Oppiacei (laici o religiosi)
che staccano i piedi per terra e gli mandano la testa alla deriva tra le
nuvole.


 wrote:

Apprezzo la serieta' dell'argomento pero' ti rispondo in modo faceto 
(come tu hai fatto tante volte) citando, horribile dictu, Nadir:
"Ora, dare della fascista - per es - alla Fallaci e' una coglionata.
Criticala, ma non usare accazzo "l'archetipo". Ma in quel caso era tutto
ok. Si chiudeva un occhio. Ora viene applicato, che so, ad un
Ahmadinejad o ad Hezbollah (che qualcuno percepisce "da questa parte,
contro la lotte eterna contro Il Nemico Imperialista Ammerikkano, il
Grande Sith) e allora non va piu' bene, allora si nota che e' un
archetipo usato accazzo.
Stride."
Am.
PS: Elias Canetti e' un grande, e ne aspettiamo un altro - o un altro 
Gadda - per rimettere al suo posto quel pendaglio da forca di Amaddin.


altro letame nero simile
Che bel quadretto!
Eccoli tutti riuniti:
http://xoomer.alice.it/barcapi/pagliacci/index.html
PS ma chi č SZALASI?
--
Uno schiaffo in faccia agli anarchici del pensiero:
Barcapi, il sito.
http://xoomer.alice.it/barcapi/
Lista ploncati:
1) tonibarbuch
2) delafiga

 contro la pena di morte se non quello a favore di criminali in divisa USA.
Ecco, questa tua affermazione e' cio' che devi provare. Vai.
E, BTW, e' sbagliata anche l'affermazione.
Palmiro Pangloss

 Germania, due paesi ex-fascisti.
Non è vero. Esiste in modo preoccupante anche in USA. Non so dire bene sul resto 
d'Europa, ma azzarderei che in Francia se ne soffra alquanto.


 un discorso della propaganda fascista.
Cosi' si scelse il Khomeinismo, anche in Francia: per antiamericanismo.
Del resto anche la Francia ha i suoi cadaveri collaborazionisti 
nell'armadio.
Quanto agli USA sospetto che sia un problema di self-hate della sinistra 
o di trozkismo.
E cosi' si ritorna a bomba sulle seduzioni del totalitarismo.


 Perche' ha sentito suonare/cantare mio cugino.
ROTFLASTC!

whiplash wrote:

Whip mi manca ancora. Ma giuro che avevo in mente cose molto precise.


 Whip mi manca ancora. Ma giuro che avevo in mente cose molto precise.
Tipo? :)
In realtà non prendo più in mano una chitarra da eoni e non sono mai stato
un virtuoso.
A ciò aggiungiamo che mi dilettavo con cose per cui mediamente la gente
comune dopo un po', a seconda del tipo di repertorio che mi girava in quel
momento, o si addormentava o maturava istinti omicidi.
Qualche milione di sigarette fa la voce, invece, non era affatto male.

 <torrieri>E' un fascista</torrieri>
Giusto.  Piu' precisamente un Giovanni Gentile in versione meno
intelligente.
Direttamente complice di centinaia di migliaia di omicidi in Iraq e
Afghanistan, e delle torture a Guantanamo e ad Abu Gharaib.   Per ora
deve solo vedersela con antifascisti che, giustamente, lo coprono di
insulti dovunque vada,
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hitchens
http://www.gawker.com/news/christopher-hitchens/funeral-crashers-starring-christopher-hitchens-184394.php
Ma Im'Sh'Allah Verra' il giorno in cui dovra' rispondere per i suoi
crimini. Preferibilmente davanti a un tribunale  popolare Irakeno.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html
Bush's Useful Idiots
Tony Judt on the Strange Death of Liberal America
Why have American liberals acquiesced in President Bush's
catastrophic foreign policy? Why have they so little to say about Iraq,
about Lebanon, or about reports of a planned attack on Iran? Why has
the administration's sustained attack on civil liberties and
international law aroused so little opposition or anger from those who
used to care most about these things? Why, in short, has the liberal
intelligentsia of the United States in recent years kept its head
safely below the parapet?
It wasn't always so. On 26 October 1988, the New York Times carried a
full-page advertisement for liberalism. Headed 'A Reaffirmation of
Principle', it openly rebuked Ronald Reagan for deriding 'the
dreaded L-word' and treating 'liberals' and 'liberalism' as
terms of opprobrium. Liberal principles, the text affirmed, are
'timeless. Extremists of the right and of the left have long attacked
liberalism as their greatest enemy. In our own time liberal democracies
have been crushed by such extremists. Against any encouragement of this
tendency in our own country, intentional or not, we feel obliged to
speak out.'
The advertisement was signed by 63 prominent intellectuals, writers and
businessmen: among them Daniel Bell, J.K. Galbraith, Felix Rohatyn,
Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Irving Howe and Eudora Welty. These and other
signatories - the economist Kenneth Arrow, the poet Robert Penn
Warren - were the critical intellectual core, the steady moral centre
of American public life. But who, now, would sign such a protest?
Liberalism in the United States today is the politics that dares not
speak its name. And those who style themselves 'liberal
intellectuals' are otherwise engaged. As befits the new Gilded Age,
in which the pay ratio of an American CEO to that of a skilled worker
is 412:1 and a corrupted Congress is awash in lobbies and favours, the
place of the liberal intellectual has been largely taken over by an
admirable cohort of 'muck-raking' investigative journalists -
Seymour Hersh, Michael Massing and Mark Danner, writing in the New
Yorker and the New York Review of Books.
The collapse of liberal self-confidence in the contemporary US can be
variously explained. In part it is a backwash from the lost illusions
of the 1960s generation, a retreat from the radical nostrums of youth
into the all-consuming business of material accumulation and personal
security. The signatories of the New York Times advertisement were born
in most cases many years earlier, their political opinions shaped by
the 1930s above all. Their commitments were the product of experience
and adversity and made of sterner stuff. The disappearance of the
liberal centre in American politics is also a direct outcome of the
deliquescence of the Democratic Party. In domestic politics liberals
once believed in the provision of welfare, good government and social
justice. In foreign affairs they had a longstanding commitment to
international law, negotiation, and the importance of moral example.
Today, a spreading me-first consensus has replaced vigorous public
debate in both arenas. And like their political counterparts, the
critical intelligentsia once so prominent in American cultural life has
fallen silent.
This process was well underway before 11 September 2001, and in
domestic affairs at least, Bill Clinton and his calculated policy
'triangulations' must carry some responsibility for the
evisceration of liberal politics. But since then the moral and
intellectual arteries of the American body politic have hardened
further. Magazines and newspapers of the traditional liberal centre -
the New Yorker, the New Republic, the Washington Post and the New York
Times itself - fell over themselves in the hurry to align their
editorial stance with that of a Republican president bent on exemplary
war. A fearful conformism gripped the mainstream media. And America's
liberal intellectuals found at last a new cause.
Or, rather, an old cause in a new guise. For what distinguishes the
worldview of Bush's liberal supporters from that of his
neo-conservative allies is that they don't look on the 'War on
Terror', or the war in Iraq, or the war in Lebanon and eventually
Iran, as mere serial exercises in the re-establishment of American
martial dominance. They see them as skirmishes in a new global
confrontation: a Good Fight, reassuringly comparable to their
grandparents' war against Fascism and their Cold War liberal
parents' stance against international Communism. Once again, they
assert, things are clear. The world is ideologically divided; and -
as before - we must take our stand on the issue of the age. Long
nostalgic for the comforting verities of a simpler time, today's
liberal intellectuals have at last discovered a sense of purpose: they
are at war with 'Islamo-fascism'.
Thus Paul Berman, a frequent contributor to Dissent, the New Yorker and
other liberal journals, and until now better known as a commentator on
American cultural affairs, recycled himself as an expert on Islamic
fascism (itself a new term of art), publishing Terror and Liberalism
just in time for the Iraq war. Peter Beinart, a former editor of the
New Republic, followed in his wake this year with The Good Fight: Why
Liberals - and Only Liberals - Can Win the War on Terror and Make
America Great Again, where he sketches at some length the resemblance
between the War on Terror and the early Cold War.[1] Neither author had
previously shown any familiarity with the Middle East, much less with
the Wahhabi and Sufi traditions on which they pronounce with such
confidence.
But like Christopher Hitchens and other former left-liberal pundits now
expert in 'Islamo-fascism', Beinart and Berman and their kind
really are conversant - and comfortable - with a binary division of
the world along ideological lines. In some cases they can even look
back to their own youthful Trotskyism when seeking a template and
thesaurus for world-historical antagonisms. In order for today's
'fight' (note the recycled Leninist lexicon of conflicts, clashes,
struggles and wars) to make political sense, it too must have a single
universal enemy whose ideas we can study, theorise and combat; and the
new confrontation must be reducible, like its 20th-century predecessor,
to a familiar juxtaposition that eliminates exotic complexity and
confusion: Democracy v. Totalitarianism, Freedom v. Fascism, Them v.
Us.
To be sure, Bush's liberal supporters have been disappointed by his
efforts. Every newspaper I have listed and many others besides have
carried editorials criticising Bush's policy on imprisonment, his use
of torture and above all the sheer ineptitude of the president's war.
But here, too, the Cold War offers a revealing analogy. Like Stalin's
Western admirers who, in the wake of Khrushchev's revelations,
resented the Soviet dictator not so much for his crimes as for
discrediting their Marxism, so intellectual supporters of the Iraq War
- among them Michael Ignatieff, Leon Wieseltier, David Remnick and
other prominent figures in the North American liberal establishment -
have focused their regrets not on the catastrophic invasion itself
(which they all supported) but on its incompetent execution. They are
irritated with Bush for giving 'preventive war' a bad name.
In a similar vein, those centrist voices that bayed most insistently
for blood in the prelude to the Iraq War - the New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman demanded that France be voted 'Off the
Island' (i.e. out of the Security Council) for its presumption in
opposing America's drive to war - are today the most confident when
asserting their monopoly of insight into world affairs. The same
Friedman now sneers at 'anti-war activists who haven't thought a
whit about the larger struggle we're in' (New York Times, 16
August). To be sure, Friedman's Pulitzer-winning pieties are always
road-tested for middlebrow political acceptability. But for just that
reason they are a sure guide to the mood of the American intellectual
mainstream.
Friedman is seconded by Beinart, who concedes that he 'didn't
realise'(!) how detrimental American actions would be to 'the
struggle' but insists even so that anyone who won't stand up to
'Global Jihad' just isn't a consistent defender of liberal
values. Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate, writing in the Financial
Times, accuses Democratic critics of the Iraq War of failing 'to take
the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously'. The
only people qualified to speak on this matter, it would seem, are those
who got it wrong initially. Such insouciance in spite of - indeed
because of - your past misjudgments recalls a remark by the French
ex-Stalinist Pierre Courtade to Edgar Morin, a dissenting Communist
vindicated by events: 'You and your kind were wrong to be right; we
were right to be wrong.'
It is particularly ironic that the 'Clinton generation' of American
liberal intellectuals take special pride in their
'tough-mindedness', in their success in casting aside the illusions
and myths of the old left, for these same 'tough' new liberals
reproduce some of that old left's worst characteristics. They may see
themselves as having migrated to the opposite shore; but they display
precisely the same mixture of dogmatic faith and cultural
provincialism, not to mention the exuberant enthusiasm for violent
political transformation at other people's expense, that marked their
fellow-travelling predecessors across the Cold War ideological divide.
The use value of such persons to ambitious, radical regimes is an old
story. Indeed, intellectual camp followers of this kind were first
identified by Lenin himself, who coined the term that still describes
them best. Today, America's liberal armchair warriors are the
'useful idiots' of the War on Terror.
In fairness, America's bellicose intellectuals are not alone. In
Europe, Adam Michnik, the hero of the Polish intellectual resistance to
Communism, has become an outspoken admirer of the embarrassingly
Islamophobic Oriana Fallaci; Václav Havel has joined the DC-based
Committee on the Present Danger (a recycled Cold War-era organisation
dedicated to rooting out Communists, now pledged to fighting 'the
threat posed by global radical Islamist and fascist terrorist
movements'); André Glucksmann in Paris contributes agitated essays
to Le Figaro (most recently on 8 August) lambasting 'universal
Jihad', Iranian 'lust for power' and radical Islam's strategy
of 'green subversion'. All three enthusiastically supported the
invasion of Iraq.
In the European case this trend is an unfortunate by-product of the
intellectual revolution of the 1980s, especially in the former
Communist East, when 'human rights' displaced conventional
political allegiances as the basis for collective action. The gains
wrought by this transformation in the rhetoric of oppositional politics
were considerable. But a price was paid all the same. A commitment to
the abstract universalism of 'rights' - and uncompromising
ethical stands taken against malign regimes in their name - can lead
all too readily to the habit of casting every political choice in
binary moral terms. In this light Bush's War against Terror, Evil and
Islamo-fascism appears seductive and even familiar: self-deluding
foreigners readily mistake the US president's myopic rigidity for
their own moral rectitude.
But back home, America's liberal intellectuals are fast becoming a
service class, their opinions determined by their allegiance and
calibrated to justify a political end. In itself this is hardly a new
departure: we are all familiar with intellectuals who speak only on
behalf of their country, class, religion, race, gender or sexual
orientation, and who shape their opinions according to what they take
to be the interest of their affinity of birth or predilection. But the
distinctive feature of the liberal intellectual in past times was
precisely the striving for universality; not the unworldly or
disingenuous denial of sectional interest but the sustained effort to
transcend that interest.
It is thus depressing to read some of the better known and more
avowedly 'liberal' intellectuals in the contemporary USA exploiting
their professional credibility to advance a partisan case. Jean Bethke
Elshtain and Michael Walzer, two senior figures in the country's
philosophical establishment (she at the University of Chicago Divinity
School, he at the Princeton Institute), both wrote portentous essays
purporting to demonstrate the justness of necessary wars - she in
Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent
World, a pre-emptive defence of the Iraq War; he only a few weeks ago
in a shameless justification of Israel's bombardments of Lebanese
civilians ('War Fair', New Republic, 31 July). In today's
America, neo-conservatives generate brutish policies for which liberals
provide the ethical fig-leaf. There really is no other difference
between them.
One of the particularly depressing ways in which liberal intellectuals
have abdicated personal and ethical responsibility for the actions they
now endorse can be seen in their failure to think independently about
the Middle East. Not every liberal cheerleader for the Global War
against Islamo-fascism, or against Terror, or against Global Jihad, is
an unreconstructed supporter of Likud: Christopher Hitchens, for one,
is critical of Israel. But the willingness of so many American pundits
and commentators and essayists to roll over for Bush's doctrine of
preventive war; to abstain from criticising the disproportionate use of
air power on civilian targets in both Iraq and Lebanon; and to stay
coyly silent in the face of Condoleezza Rice's enthusiasm for the
bloody 'birth pangs of a new Middle East', makes more sense when
one recalls their backing for Israel: a country which for fifty years
has rested its entire national strategy on preventive wars,
disproportionate retaliation, and efforts to redesign the map of the
whole Middle East.
Since its inception the state of Israel has fought a number of wars of
choice (the only exception was the Yom Kippur War of 1973). To be sure,
these have been presented to the world as wars of necessity or
self-defence; but Israel's statesmen and generals have never been
under any such illusion. Whether this approach has done Israel much
good is debatable (for a clear-headed recent account that describes as
a resounding failure his country's strategy of using wars of choice
to 'redraw' the map of its neighbourhood, see Scars of War, Wounds
of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy by Shlomo Ben-Ami,[2] a historian
and former Israeli foreign minister). But the idea of a super-power
behaving in a similar way - responding to terrorist threats or
guerrilla incursions by flattening another country just to preserve its
own deterrent credibility - is odd in the extreme. It is one thing
for the US unconditionally to underwrite Israel's behaviour (though
in neither country's interest, as some Israeli commentators at least
have remarked). But for the US to imitate Israel wholesale, to import
that tiny country's self-destructive, intemperate response to any
hostility or opposition and to make it the leitmotif of American
foreign policy: that is simply bizarre.
Bush's Middle Eastern policy now tracks so closely to the Israeli
precedent that it is very difficult to see daylight between the two. It
is this surreal turn of events that helps explain the confusion and
silence of American liberal thinking on the subject (as well, perhaps,
as Tony Blair's syntactically sympathetic me-tooism). Historically,
liberals have been unsympathetic to 'wars of choice' when
undertaken or proposed by their own government. War, in the liberal
imagination (and not only the liberal one), is a last resort, not a
first option. But the United States now has an Israeli-style foreign
policy and America's liberal intellectuals overwhelmingly support it.
The contradictions to which this can lead are striking. There is, for
example, a blatant discrepancy between Bush's proclaimed desire to
bring democracy to the Muslim world and his refusal to intervene when
the only working instances of fragile democracy in action in the whole
Muslim world - in Palestine and Lebanon - were systematically
ignored and then shattered by America's Israeli ally. This
discrepancy, and the bad faith and hypocrisy which it seems to suggest,
have become a staple of editorial pages and internet blogs the world
over, to America's lasting discredit. But America's leading liberal
intellectuals have kept silent. To speak would be to choose between the
tactical logic of America's new 'war of movement' against Islamic
fascism - democracy as the sweetener for American involvement - and
the strategic tradition of Israeli statecraft, for which democratic
neighbours are no better and most likely worse than authoritarian ones.
This is not a choice that most American liberal commentators are even
willing to acknowledge, much less make. And so they say nothing.
This blind spot obscures and risks polluting and obliterating every
traditional liberal concern and inhibition. How else can one explain
the appalling illustration on the cover of the New Republic of 7
August: a lurid depiction of Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in the
style of Der Stürmer crossed with more than a touch of the 'Dirty
Jap' cartoons of World War Two? How else is one to account for the
convoluted, sophistic defence by Leon Wieseltier in the same journal of
the killing of Arab children in Qana ('These are not tender
times')? But the blind spot is not just ethical, it is also
political: if American liberals 'didn't realise' why their war in
Iraq would have the predictable effect of promoting terrorism,
benefiting the Iranian ayatollahs and turning Iraq into Lebanon, then
we should not expect them to understand (or care) that Israel's
brutal over-reaction risks turning Lebanon into Iraq.
In Five Germanys I Have Known, Fritz Stern - a coauthor of the 1988
New York Times text defending liberalism - writes of his concern
about the condition of the liberal spirit in America today.[3] It is
with the extinction of that spirit, he notes, that the death of a
republic begins. Stern, a historian and a refugee from Nazi Germany,
speaks with authority on this matter. And he is surely correct. We
don't expect right-wingers to care very much about the health of a
republic, particularly when they are assiduously engaged in the
unilateral promotion of empire. And the ideological left, while
occasionally adept at analysing the shortcomings of a liberal republic,
is typically not much interested in defending it.
It is the liberals, then, who count. They are, as it might be, the
canaries in the sulphurous mineshaft of modern democracy. The alacrity
with which many of America's most prominent liberals have censored
themselves in the name of the War on Terror, the enthusiasm with which
they have invented ideological and moral cover for war and war crimes
and proffered that cover to their political enemies: all this is a bad
sign. Liberal intellectuals used to be distinguished precisely by their
efforts to think for themselves, rather than in the service of others.
Intellectuals should not be smugly theorising endless war, much less
confidently promoting and excusing it. They should be engaged in
disturbing the peace - their own above all.

 Ecco, questa tua affermazione e' cio' che devi provare. Vai.
quindi tu di nuovo non smentisci la mia affermazione, ergo ho ragione.

 quindi tu di nuovo non smentisci la mia affermazione, ergo ho ragione.
Sei patetico. Spe' che te lo dimostro: tu in realta' sei Mirko
Tremaglia che fa il provocatore nascondendosi dietro ad un nick. Se non
mi smentisci ho ragione.
Palmiro Pangloss

 quindi tu di nuovo non smentisci la mia affermazione, ergo ho ragione.
LOL! Ma neanche in 'Alice al Paese delle Meraviglie'.
 A pensarci bene deve essere l'eredita' di Vishinsky (che incorporo' la 
Latvia all'URSS)


 Giusto.  Piu' precisamente un Giovanni Gent
Cervello in fuga allo spumante
Ingredienti :
1 carpone pelato (122 Kg.)
240 cipolline
25 l. di spumante
150 gr. di scorza di mandarino grattugiata
aneto
200 cl. di aceto di Cognac
50 gr. di dragoncello
sale a odori
Preparazione :
Prendere il carpone svuotato dal cervello (in fuga) e condirlo col sale a odori, 
l'aneto ela buccia di mandarino grattugiata, condire l'esterno col sale a odori,
in una padella (se la padella fosse piccola utilizzare una teglia), far
dorare il carpone infarinata in 800 gr. di burro, farla dorare 8-10 Mn. su
ogni lato, aggiungere le cipolline e lasciarle cuocere, quando le
cipolline saranno colorate aggiungere il dragoncello e flammare con
l'aceto di Cognac, appena la fiamma si spegne versare il spumante,
incoperchiare e lasciar rosicare per 45 Mn.


 Tremaglia che fa il provocatore nascondendosi dietro ad un nick.
dimostralo che sono Mirko Tremaglia. lol
 E sul tuo invocare la mobilitazione solo a favore di criminali di
guerra USA non hai smentito nulla.

 dimostralo che sono Mirko Tremaglia. lol
Gia' fatto: da ricerca su google risulta che non dici mai di non
esserlo ergo - secondo il tuo ragionamento -  lo sei. Ora a te,
dimostra di non esserlo
Ma sei proprio sicuro che io abbia mai invocato una mobilitazione a
favore di chicche e sia?
Palmiro Pangloss

 Cervello in fuga allo spumante
[cut]
Vaffanculo, Toni, sto ridendo da solo come un cretino.
-- 
Davide

 favore di chicche e sia?
era un tuo fake? <g>

 Vaffanculo, Toni, sto ridendo da solo come un cretino.
questa volta non è colpa di Toni, *sei* un cretino. <g>

 era un tuo fake? <g>
Chi? Quando?
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Draft beer, not people

 sanitario attorno alla feccia nazi
Giusto.
Qui', per esempio, il cordone sanitario ha funzionato perfettamente e
ha tenuto fuori il Nazista:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_University_%28Montreal%29#Netanyahu_protest

 Provalo.
fatto, per quello ribadisco che non esistono altri tuoi post in cui
invochi mobilitazione contro la pena di morte nei confronti di chi non e'
un criminale di guerra USA.
Da fascistoide quale seiil tuo invito alla mobilitazione per quelle
canaglie non mi sorprende, mi sorprende invece che continui a negare che
l'hai fatto solo per loro.
