Ferretball vs. Grover Furr

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=887998

Remember that Marxist professor from over a year ago that I told you about? Well, here at Montclair State University there seems to be a festering breeding pit / portal where these beings seem to spawn from a nearly limitless supply of carbon energy. They are ALWAYS raising up some sort of a shitstorm when they're not teaching Marxism 101. They are a thorn in the side to virtually every moderate-to-right group and student on campus, and they are spared from the administrative banhammer only by virtue of their tenure.

I posted an article in the Montclairion, the school newspaper, where I claimed I was a liberal supporting the war. Here is the article:

quote:
    Ferretball came out of the closet to say:

    The Progressive Case For War

    I'd consider myself a liberal progressive. I support gay marraige. I support the legalization of drugs. I support the intifada. I oppose the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay. I oppose our reprehensible behavior during the Cold War. I donated money to Ralph Nader, and rooted for Al Gore. I oppose Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. I am currently dating an Arab Muslim female immigrant, with whom I have promiscuous and unprotected sex with. And here's the kicker that should absolve me of any ties with conservatism - I think we had 9/11 coming to us.

    Yet I cannot bring myself to oppose the war in Iraq. Yes, I know we supported the monster in the past. Yes, I know we gave him WMD. I know that we helped the Ba'ath party get into power, from which Saddam Hussein used as a springboard to get into power. Yes, I know that thousands of innocent civilians died. And I know that the WMD argument, was and always will be, without merit.

    But I look at my fellow progressives and I wonder why they aren't standing with me. Because, shady reasons notwithstanding, this war was a progressive's dream come true. Say what you will about Bush's motives for invasion, but the end result of this endeavor will be a progressive one.

    Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms are no longer in operation. This is progress. A regime that murdered hundreds of thousands and started a war that killed millions is no longer in power. This is progress. Democracy will flourish in the region. This is progress. As a progressive, I put the spread of democracy and the establishment of human rights, especially in a region where these ideas have not truly taken hold, above everything else.

    To see my fellow progressives denounce the war solely because the perpetrator happens to be at odds with a lart part of their ideology strikes me as intellectual and moral cowardice. The very act of this war, and the end result of it, is by and large a progressive one, and it pains me to see progressives shoot themselves in the foot.

    It also pains me to see progressives make complete and utter morons of themselves. The Bush = Hitler lingo is comically retarded, and the Worker's World Party is a Stalinist abomination. The liberals have lost touch with their own soul, and have resorted to the very tactic that they reviled in the 80's - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. As a liberal, I am decidedly ashamed. They have inadvertently allied themselves with perhaps the most unprogressive forces and ideologies of the late 20th century - Islamism and Ba'athism.

    This liberal will be voting for Bush next election, unless the democrats can muster up a candidate that supports the war and supports my right to own an assault rifle.
______________________________________


To which he sent me the following e-mail:

quote:

    Grover Furr came out of the closet to say:
    I remember you as a good student, and applaud
    your attempt to 'go against the current' and think for yourself.

    However, I think you're dead wrong on the Iraq war.

    I'll give a few detailed comments on some of your remarks -- the ones I
    think are wrong -- at the end. First, let me comment on your "paradigm."

    This war is American imperialism. It's no different from German
    imperialism in WW2, or Japanese imperialism in WW2, or British, French,
    German, Italian, etc. imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is
    exploitative -- an extension of massive violence to gain economic profit
    and political advantage. Neither American nor Iraqi workers will gain
    from this.

    Imperialism is "progressive" only in one sense -- that it is the
    logical, and inevitable, outcome of capitalism. In short, that it's
    inevitable, as long as capitalism exists. That's why capitalism is no
    good, and has to go. The really "progressive" developments in the 20th
    century were the communist revolutions in Russia, China and elsewhere.
    They failed, ultimately, to build the egalitarian, non-exploitative
    society at which they aimed? Yes, they did fail. But they tried, and we
    can learn from them. "Progressive" will be when they are tried again.
    Nothing in capitalism can be "progressive" in the sense of: good for
    the majority of people.

    Saddam was a very bad guy, put in place by other bad guys, including the
    US government. But he was not removed _because_, as you imply, he was
    "bad." He was removed because he did not kowtow to US imperialists.

    Mr. Sutton, imperialist violence -- say, in the 19th and early 20th
    centuries, the takeover of Africa, most of Asia, etc. -- and earlier,
    the takeover by Spain and Portugal of South Amerca, just to mention a
    few examples -- was always accompanied by the overthrow of "bad
    leaders." Africa, Asia, South America -- in NONE of these did the
    European imperialists overthrow "democracies".

    Does that justify imperialism? Do Western imperialists "have the right"
    to invade and take over every country whose leaders are violent exploiters?

    If so, then Western imperialists -- say, the US -- "have the right" to
    take over ANY country in the world! Every place! ANY invasion by the US
    is "justified", because NO government in the world is truly democratic,
    all are exploitative and violent against their own people. The US has
    and does support many of them. I'm sure you know this.

    As for your claim that the US will promote "democracy" -- does this
    really require refutation? WE DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY HERE IN THE US! What
    makes you think Bush & Co. are going to install it somewhere else?

    This "democracy" business is the age-old justification of the
    imperialists. In the 16th-early 20th centuries, the ideological
    justification for imperialism included: "Bringing the true religion
    (Christianity)"; "bringing Civilization"; "the white man's burden"
    (racism); "preparing the people for self-government" (but who had
    "governed" BEFORE the imperialists came?).

    After WW2, the ideological justifications for imperialism shrunk to two:
    (1) anti-communism -- because the communist movement was the main force
    behind the truly "progressive", anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist
    movements, and was supporting workers' rights around the world; and (2)
    "spreading democracy" -- which mean, Western-style rule by a capitalist
    elite, backed up by the Army -- i.e. forming client states for Western
    imperialists.

    The anti-communism is still around, but now being replaced by
    "anti-terrorism", the latest ideological justification for imperialism,
    as in the case of Iraq. And "spreading democracy" is still around. It is
    nonsense, cynical public relations for imperialism, that's it.

    As for the Workers World Party -- I disagree with them because of their
    stance that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which they phrase as
    "national liberation is the first step towards anything better." This
    made sense in 1920, when the Bolsheviks adopted it, because it had not
    ever been tried. It hasn't worked. "National liberation" has led over
    and over again to rule by some kind of exploiters, leaving the working
    population just as badly off as ever.

    And I disagree with them because they are Trotskyists. In effect, this
    means they are Cold-War anti-communists, who lie about and despise
    what's best about the 20th century, the Soviet-led Comintern and,
    therafter, the Chinese Revolution. They demonize it, along with
    demonizing Stalin and Mao, like Bush's friends do (Bush called Saddam
    "like Stalin", remember?).

    The real danger is not Bush. I agree with you here. The real danger are
    the "Liberals" who put a "humanist" or "democratic" or "progressive"
    face on this imperialist slaughter. This is what the New York Times and
    the Democratic Party are promoting, and what the European powers want,
    along with the U.N. Many people see through Bush, but not through this
    Liberal imperialist line, which therefore is more dangerous, and worse.

    You yourself have fallen for it. I urge you to reconsider.

    Thanks for your thoughts, and your time.

    Sincerely,

    Your former professor,

    Grover Furr
    English Dept.
______________________________________

Don't these morons realize that the Cold War is over and THEY FUCKING LOST? Don't they realize this Imperialism shit got old the 45654th fucking time it was brought up?

Why in the everlibing fuck do these people still teach our college students? I'll be damned if I can find a conservative blowhard professor equally worthy of a thousand :rolleyes: as this one.