Is this ad hominem? You can't defend your position intelligently so you try to discount any opposition to it?
You're the one that talked down to me in the first place, so kiss my ass if my "ad hominem" (consisting of pointing out your ad hominem) bothers you.
Why are you so fearful of Stallman that you pretend that he does not say that which his words advocate?
No. You're simply reading things into his words that aren't there.

You know, if you take offense to his words and you cared enough to make a change, you could drop him an intelligent, well-considered email and post his response here. As it is though, you're sounding more like a conspiracy theorist, than someone with a legitimate beef.

This has to do with Richard Stallman advocating ways to eliminate high-paying jobs for developers.
You've got to be joking. How many companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Free Software? How many "middleware" service jobs would not exist? How many hardware products would not exist without an unencumbered embedded operating system in them? The list goes on and on.

Things benefit the industry in ways which you would hardly have any idea of. Just because you can't immediately see and identify the effects doesn't mean they aren't waiting to be discovered.

One such way is to destroy the notion of intellectual property via the GPL.
Riiight. The GPL is by all means a brutal hack on the intellectual property system in the US, but by no means does it prevent anyone from putting works under any other license. In addition, it leverages the existing IP framework in the US to accomplish its own goals.

The GPL's terms are not onerous; if you use GPL software and wish to redistribute it, you must do it in accordance with the GPL; nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, don't use the GPL for your software, and don't use any software licensed under it, or else pay the developer for a proprietary-friendly license.

How is it going to "destroy" intellectual property?

The other such way is to ban commercial software.
That's just absurd. I'd like to see you show me where RMS has ever advocated outlawing proprietary software. The GNU/FSF was erected in the first place as an alternative, so people can exercise choice if they are tired of being locked into proprietary solutions. Why on earth would anyone advocate removing the same choice that fostered the creation of Free Software?

So anyway, you've managed to flame away without even answering the original question: from what angle exactly are people getting the idea that Free Software is anti-capitalist or anti-corporate? I still haven't found any reasonable means, just a lot of angry people and RMS-bashers.