Mussolini's Granddaughter: "Better To Be A Fascist Than A Faggot"

[Gold9472]

Better fascist that gay - Mussolini's granddaughter

http://pageoneq.com/rssfeedstuff/index.php?id=6405

Thu Mar 9, 2006 8:05 PM GMT

ROME (Reuters) - The granddaughter of Italy's wartime dictator Benito Mussolini has defended being a fascist by saying it was better than being a "faggot".

Alessandra Mussolini's televised derogatory remarks came less than a month after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi welcomed her far-right political party into his coalition before a general election in April.

Mussolini, proud of her ancestral ties to "Il Duce", had been criticised by a drag queen-turned-politician about being a fascist on Italian TV talk show Porta a Porta.

"I'm proud of it," she snapped in comments due to be aired later on Thursday.

Vladimir Luxuria, who hopes to be Europe's first "transgender" MP and is running with the Communist Refoundation party, then asked if Mussolini wanted to lock up homosexuals.

"Better to be a fascist than a faggot," Mussolini said, using the highly offensive Italian word "frocio", according to Porta a Porta's press office.

It was not the first time one of Berlusconi's allies publicly insulted homosexuals. Mirko Tremaglia, an outspoken right-wing minister for Italians living abroad, said in 2004 that Europe was ruled by "culattoni".

The word derives from the Italian colloquial for bottom (culo) and refers to sodomists.

[Partridge]

Oh (kind of) irony!

You know the old Italian fascist symbol, the bundle of sticks and the hatchet? This one:

http://math.albany.edu:8000/~rn774/fall96/facis.gif

That bundle of sticks is called... drum roll... a FAGGOT!

[Gold9472]

Interesting...

[Partridge]

And oh yeah, I saw a short clip about Vladimir Luxuria the other night. S/he'd get my vote fo' sho!

A transgendered communist! You can't ask for more than that, unless s/he was also black and half muslim/half jewish.

[jetsetlemming]

And oh yeah, I saw a short clip about Vladimir Luxuria the other night. S/he'd get my vote fo' sho!

A transgendered communist! You can't ask for more than that, unless s/he was also black and half muslim/half jewish.
You sure stick to the issues, huh. "As long as they're of a certain race and lifestyle!"

[Partridge]

The operative word in the whole thing was 'communist' - I always vote far left (though there is some considerable debate as to exactly how leftwing the PCR is at the leadership level, but on an activist level I know some good comrades from the PCR, including my uncle. And there's no way I'd vote for the current Italian Social Democracy, and would feel a bit betrayed if the PCR leadership unilaterally decided to go into coalition to prop up a rightwing Social Democratic government such as Prodi's would inevitably be).

If s/he was a transgendered black jewish-muslim libertarian, there's no way s/he'd get my vote.

[jetsetlemming]

So... You like Bush's statism? O.o;;;

[Partridge]

That doesn't even make sense.

[jetsetlemming]

Communism+statism. Bush is a rampant statist. So you like Bush's statist moves, such as the domestic spying?

[EminemsRevenge]

Wow...they get Michael Savage's show in Italy:jerkit5:

[Partridge]

Communism+statism. Bush is a rampant statist. So you like Bush's statist moves, such as the domestic spying?

I assume you mean 'Communism = Statism'?

But 'Statism' and 'anti-statism' are not in and of themselves political ideologies - the ideology lies in what kind of society, what means of production and distrubtion exist and how they are organised, and in what way decisions are taken in the society, be it a society with a state or one without. The State is merely a tool to be wielded by the class in power or done away with (or both, as is the case with genuine communism).

For example, both a Leftwing Social Democrat a US Republican can agree that the State is necessary to 'maintain order'. However, the SD thinks the state should be used to redistrubte wealth - the Republican thinks that the State should be used to ensure the 'sanctity of private property'. Both agree that the state should exist in some form, its a question of how State Power is weilded.

Similarly, if both an anarcho-syndicalist (better know to you and me as a 'libertarian communist') and what are called market-libertarians in the US can agree that the State must be destroyed, that it exists only as a co-ercive force weilded by 'tyrants' - they fundamentally differ on how life should operate in the abscence of a State. AS's say that worker-councils should democratically control the economy, wealth distribution and that there should be no such thing as private propety etc, whereas
a ML will argue that the Invisible Hand of the Market will determine all this, and the right to private property and uninhibited wealth accumulation are the core beliefs.

However, I've yet to meet a market-libertarian who will not argue for the existence of a State in some minor form, primarily to 'defend private property rights' - That is that there should exist a state police, state armed forces and a set of laws and that these forces should be on the side of private property and 'law and order', and that is all that the state should be concerned with. So in effect, it would appear to me anyway, that for all their protestations about the State, the MLs do NOT wish to see the abolishment of the state, for without the state, they (the wealthy few who own the means of production) are helpless in the face of the masses who actually do the work. So its entirely concievable that MLs would have no opposition to wiretaps, domestic spying etc IN DEFENCE OF THEIR INTERESTS - spying on 'communist agitators', 'union rabble rousers' 'populists demagouges' etc - as has happened throughout the history of the United States.

So you're premise is false, if one believes in 'The State' (in some form or another), one is not obliged to agree with the actions carried out by any state and those who weild its power. For me, it depends on who is weilding the power against whom. Hugo Chavez for example, for all his many faults, I see as using the State in a somewhat progressive way (nationalisations, helath care programs, welfare programs etc). George Bush, I see as using it in an entirely reactionary way (militarism, imperialism, spying on anti-war groups etc).

And as for 'communism' as it existed in the Eastern Bloc or in China before the 'market reforms', or indeed Castro's Cuba, that to me is as much 'communism' or 'socialism' as I would guess George Bush's America is 'capitalism' to any self respecting market-libertarian. But I will always vote far left when given the oppurtunity, not because I specifically agree with every point in the program of any given group (using the Communist Refoundation Party in Italy as an example), but because the left generally represents the same interests as I have at heart - international solidarity, people before profit and access to health care, education and housing for all. As it is, where I live, we never get any kind of serious left candidate on the ballot (I live in the most rightwing county in Ireland) - so I'm generally forced to either vote for a pissy Labour candidate (in the style of British New Labour) or the Greens (who are really 'market Greens' and much closer to say David Cobb than Peter Camejo).

[jetsetlemming]

I've never heard of a libertarian communist. They want every little detail of life controlled by what, a ghost? Channel Lenin in a seance for advice in running the country? Statism is a political view. It's a view on the government. It's the view that you want a big, powerful government. As far as I'm concerned, the only point of the government is to protect the people and their rights. Nothing else. No public education, no public welfare, no public business treaties, no deciding who can go where or what. Protect the people, protect their rights, protect them from other people who don't want them to have rights (Like communists).

[Partridge]

Libertarian Communists (maybe you call them Anarchists in the US?) hate Lenin! They've never forgiven the Bolsheviks for Kronstadt. As I said, they want society to be controlled by workers councils (direct democracy, as opposed to representative parliamentary democracy). Genuine communists (as opposed to the Stalinists who assumed control of the USSR in about 1925-8) want a kind of mixture of the two, a centralised government made up of delegates elected from the worker councils - thats a very very basic view.

Despite what you say, I still disagree, Statism is not a political ideology - its is a view on the administration of society. What you describe as Statism is essentially classic European Social Democracy - the use of the state to redistribute some portions of wealth to help all of its citizenry within the framework of a (somewhat) regulated capitalist state.


As far as I'm concerned, the only point of the government is to protect the people and their rights
And this is where the actual politics comes in. WHAT rights are to be protected? Who decides these rights? Where did these 'rights' come from? As far as I'm concerned, people should have the 'right' to free education, health care, a living wage and decent affordable housing and the state should enforce these 'rights'. You think people should have the 'right' not to pay taxes to fund these things and teh state should enforce that 'right'. These two views are fundamentally at odds with each other - so who is correct? That's where the political aspect comes in. It's an argument not about the State, but about how the State should be administered. From what you've written, I think you would have no problem with a 'big, powerful state' that used its powers to detain subversives who 'threaten the status quo' - even if that meant a huge state apparatus (though where the funding for this would come from is a bit of a mystery - perhaps it would be like 'Brazil' [the film] where 'terrorists' are made pay the costs of their own arrests and executions).

[jetsetlemming]

[QUOTE=Partridge] WHAT rights are to be protected? Who decides these rights? Where did these 'rights' come from? [\QUOTE]
The rights in the constitution, the Founding fathers and congress, God. Or, if you prefer, our natural human concience and desire to live for oursleves and our families and not in support of endless bueracracy. You keep throwing out alot of terms about Communism and communist russia that I miss, telling me I need to look into those subjects. Unfortunately, I really don't have time to add more research to my schedule, I'm busy reseaching american education. Maybe later.

[jetsetlemming]

I'm not sure what the eqiuvelents of these three groups are in Ireland, but I'm sure there are.

[Partridge]

[QUOTE=Partridge] WHAT rights are to be protected? Who decides these rights? Where did these 'rights' come from? [\QUOTE]
The rights in the constitution, the Founding fathers and congress, God.

The constitution allowed for slavery, it was only Big Government (as you like to call it) that eventually eliminated slavery in the whole of the US, and it was more of a by-product of the Civil War than anything else. The thirteenth amendment didn't come into effect until 1865 - almost 80 years after the adoption of the original Constitution. The Fifteenth amendment (the right to vote for all adult males regardless of colour of previous status) wasn't passed until five years later - but was essentially useless and it wasn't until the Voting Rights Act, 95 years later than this right was truly enshrined. And only in 1920 did women get the Constitutional right to vote - a full 131 years after the original document was adopted! In total - taking the Bill of Rights as part of the original document (even though they were ratified three years later) - there have been 17 amendments to the Constitution, the last one in 1992.

So WHAT constitution do you favour? The original one? The one in use now? Or some arbitrary date where you think 'well that's enough rights'? If either of the latter two, well that's fine - but please don't invoke the Founding Fathers - for that is not their document, but the result of a series of amendments over a period of 200 or so years. Most of the Founding Fathers (progressive as they were for their time) were quite willing to have slaves (non-people) and have voting qualifications based on property ownership, race, and gender.

And these rights came from god? What century are we living in again? I thought it was the 21st! Maybe I need a new calendar. And what god anyway? Paine's? Jefferson's? Washington's? King George's? Do you think god came down into the Constitutional Convention and said "Well boys, here's what you gotta do?"


Or, if you prefer, our natural human concience and desire to live for oursleves and our families and not in support of endless bueracracy.

Natural Human Conscience! You say that as if it's something set in stone, that consciencness doesn't develop. If there were such a concrete thing as 'natural human conscience' - depending on the date you wish aribtrarily impose upon its 'perfectness' - we'd still be living in village collectives in which land is held in common; still believe that slavery was the 'natural order' of things; still believe that Kings had a Divine Mandate; still believe that women were inferior to men; still believe that workers have no right to organise in Unions; still believe that homosexuality is a disease and so on.


I'm not sure what the eqiuvelents of these three groups are in Ireland, but I'm sure there are.

Yes we have a Constitution, a government that signed it into law (in 1937), and Ireland - unlike the US - actually was Constitutionally Christian (specifically, Catholic) country until 1973. Needless to say, I have about as much allegiance to the Irish Constitution and those who drew it up (and their god) as I do to the US Constitution.

[jetsetlemming]

The human consience isn't set in stone it's set in mind. Just about everyone's got one, and just about everyone's runs off the same rules. The difference is how well they are able to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist (as you do). I of coruse mean the currunt constitution; that's the version that applies today. Past incarnations don't effect today, which is why we can celebrate St. Patrick's day in style. The original constitution, btw, didn't allow slavery or restrict voting. It just didn't mention them. You know, we don't have the constitution right to eat, breath, and sleep either, because nobody's thought to mention it. Gosh, somebody better include that quick! Slavery wasn't abolished by Big Government either. In the 1860's, the american government was tiny compared to now. American life then for many was controlled by the industry, hence many were living in dangerous conditions, without government protection of their rights of life or liberty. The government wasn't nearly as big as a communist night want.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Stop thinking like a faggot jetslemming.

[jetsetlemming]

Stop thinking like a faggot jetslemming.
What an un-liberal thing to say. I'd rather be a faggot than a fascist.

[beltman713]

The human consience isn't set in stone it's set in mind. Just about everyone's got one, and just about everyone's runs off the same rules. The difference is how well they are able to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist (as you do). I of coruse mean the currunt constitution; that's the version that applies today. Past incarnations don't effect today, which is why we can celebrate St. Patrick's day in style. The original constitution, btw, didn't allow slavery or restrict voting. It just didn't mention them. You know, we don't have the constitution right to eat, breath, and sleep either, because nobody's thought to mention it. Gosh, somebody better include that quick! Slavery wasn't abolished by Big Government either. In the 1860's, the american government was tiny compared to now. American life then for many was controlled by the industry, hence many were living in dangerous conditions, without government protection of their rights of life or liberty. The government wasn't nearly as big as a communist night want.
I think eating and breathing falls under the right to life clause.

[Partridge]

The human consience isn't set in stone it's set in mind. Just about everyone's got one, and just about everyone's runs off the same rules. The difference is how well they are able to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist (as you do). I of coruse mean the currunt constitution; that's the version that applies today. Past incarnations don't effect today, which is why we can celebrate St. Patrick's day in style. The original constitution, btw, didn't allow slavery or restrict voting. It just didn't mention them. You know, we don't have the constitution right to eat, breath, and sleep either, because nobody's thought to mention it. Gosh, somebody better include that quick! Slavery wasn't abolished by Big Government either. In the 1860's, the american government was tiny compared to now. American life then for many was controlled by the industry, hence many were living in dangerous conditions, without government protection of their rights of life or liberty. The government wasn't nearly as big as a communist night want.

Ok jetset, you've beaten me. I can't argue with someone who thinks that the US Constitution was the product of god (presumably the Christian one), that 'human nature' hasn't and doesn't evolve, and that voting and personal freedom rights were left out in a terrible oversight (by people who coincidently were rich, white, slave-owning males). I just can't.

As final word, I will say that, re: "slavery wasn't abolished by Big Government either" - a government that can wage a successful war on half a continent would seem pretty big to me. Of course, you mean it didn't have federal social programs (or at least as many as exist today). And on that point you are correct. I guess we could call it a 'big national security government' as a compromise.

[jetsetlemming]

Ha ha! Man, I didn't realize agruing like a liberal was so fun. I'm gonna have to do this more often!

[Partridge]

And oh yeah, I saw a short clip about Vladimir Luxuria the other night. S/he'd get my vote fo' sho!

A transgendered communist! You can't ask for more than that, unless s/he was also black and half muslim/half jewish.

S/he was elected! And now s/he's taking on the Pope!


CIVIC UNIONS: LUXURIA THERE IS NO HIERARCHY OF FEELINGS
(AGI) - Rome, May 11 - Refounded Communist MP, Vladimir Luxuria comments on Pope Benedict's speech on homosexual couples: "There is not a hierarchy of feelings - the homosexual unions must be recognized and regulated by the state".

"I comment on the Pope's speech to say that the homosexual unions are not based on a 'weak love'. Love is always a great force that allow us to live a long-term relation that we want recognized and regulated by the state" he said.

[PhilosophyGenius]

S/he was elected! And now s/he's taking on the Pope!


CIVIC UNIONS: LUXURIA THERE IS NO HIERARCHY OF FEELINGS
(AGI) - Rome, May 11 - Refounded Communist MP, Vladimir Luxuria comments on Pope Benedict's speech on homosexual couples: "There is not a hierarchy of feelings - the homosexual unions must be recognized and regulated by the state".

"I comment on the Pope's speech to say that the homosexual unions are not based on a 'weak love'. Love is always a great force that allow us to live a long-term relation that we want recognized and regulated by the state" he said.

So I guess when she said "better to be a fascist than a faggot", she actually meant the gays rather than that piece of wood.

[jetsetlemming]

Ha ha! Man, I didn't realize agruing like a liberal was so fun. I'm gonna have to do this more often!
Oh, the memories. ^_^