From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.activism
Subject: Winston vrs. the world
Summary: winston loses
Keywords: nazi trash
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:40:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: world,local
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island

In article <1992Apr16.235223.8914@wdl.loral.com> eric@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Eric Scott Kuhnen) writes:

>gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:

>But the point is, Ralph never accuses others of using a psuedonym.

Perhaps that is because "Ralph" suspects that others concerned about
his lies don't exhibit his cowardice, and don't use phoney names.
Whether or not "Ralph" is really "Ralph" is perhaps an issue he/she/it
would be wise to avoid. Pot calling kettle black, and all that, eh?

>>>:    2. Name calling and labeling
>>>Ralph:      Minimal
>>>Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc
>>Ralph refers to all of his enemies as Zionists.  See what names he calls
>>Elie Weisel, Simon Weinsenthal and the ADL.

>The "Anti-Ralph" contingent are far from spotlessness on this point.  Further-
>more, one should be above name-calling and labeling altogether, as this item
>suggests.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about why I react the way I do to
the triad, and I have concluded that it is because they bring out the
beast in me, and I don't like that very much.

I am 52 years' old. I remember little of the Second World War, but I
remember a great deal about the aftermath - the books, the films, the
early television documentaries. I spent many years of my life studying
the nazi phenom, and have absolutely _no_ doubts about my
understanding of what went down during the "nazi years", or any doubt
whatsoever regarding the Holocost. None. I donated a library,
collected over many, many years, at a cost of God knows how much
money, to a local high school (Nechako, Vanderhoof, B.C.) when I
finally got tired of the books, the ugliness, the sheer bulk of the
evidence about what happened during those years.

I remember how it felt when I realized that "Krystalnacht" was not
only _permitted_ by the nazi government, but encouraged as a matter of
state policy. As a starry-eyed, idealistic Yankee teen, I was
dumbfounded that the world had simply stood by and watched while
bullies backed by government actively murdered helpless citizens for
the crime of being different.

I remember how it felt to read the data from the trials after the war.
I remember how it felt to translate documents from the original German
to English, just so I could get a better picture of what really
occurred.

>>>:    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations
>>>Not much on either side.
>>"Zionist control of the media?"

>Both parties are guilty.

Sorry, I won't buy that. Perhaps the youth of today see this as some
sort of "intellectual exercise," but I do not. I recognize the origin
of phrases like that, and I understand exactly what is implied. There
is no concept here of "democratic, reasoned, discourse," but rather
the vile ravings of perverted and merciless bigots. Do not speak to me
of "guilt" unless you are prepared to speak of the camps, Lidice, and
the filth represented by such nazi trash. Perhaps you are simply
cursed with the sin of youth, and cannot truely comprehend the sheer,
unadulterated and massive evil these people once perpetrated, and,
make NO mistake, would perpetrate again, given half a chance.

>>>:    4. Inadequate proof for assertions

>>>Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate.
>>Sorry, but nothing the IHR says has ever been published in a refereed journal.
>>Please look at the court case.

>Your response is precisely the point the previous poster was making: proof is
>the subject of the debate.  This thread concerns itself with the personalities
>in the debate, not the debate itself.

Sorry, not to some of us. There are no personalities here - not to me.
There is only the absolute evil represented by a disgusting display of
racial hatred and bigotry - it is as clear to me as the light of day.

>>>:    6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil
>>>Ralph:       I don't think so
>>>Anti-Ralph:  Assuredly
>>He calls all his enemies Zionist, and says he is anti-Zionist.

>"Zionism" does not carry the stigma of evil that so many of the "Anti-Ralph"
>comments and invective do.

To the neo-nazi filth advocating these disgusting "positions," the
emotion behind their advocacy is clear and concise - a racial hatred
spawned from sexual inadequacy, lack of intellectual endowment, and
perhaps a complete hatred of self - I believe you simply do not
understand exactly what it is this winston persona represents. This
isn't some sort of intellectual exercise, designed to tune Ivy League
minds to the realities of the world, this is evil, pure and simple. 
You can "intellectualize" all you wish, and devote weeks and weeks of
stylized discussion to the reality of this filth, but that will not
alter one single molecule of reality.

>>>:    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their
>>>:       opponents and/or critics
>>>Ralph:      No
>>>Anti-Ralph: Enormously
>>Bullshit.  They quote texts out of context, which means they repress
>>the actual content and use it for their own purposes.  
>>They also publish the Ad from the Northwestern Daily without saying that
>>it is an ad, and don't publish the Northwestern Daily's response.
>>Pete Faust said that anyone who says that Jews were gassed is a war
>>criminal.  What do you think of that?

>A bit of a stretch for the definition of "censorship," don't you think?  
>Misrepresentation would better characterize misquoting texts.  It is hardly
>the heinous crime of repression to simply take a quote out of its context.
>More importantly, though, Ralph does not ask for or advocate the repression
>or censorship of his detractors.

"Ralph" could hardly take any other position, given the quite
predictable reaction to his filth. There are many of my generation who
would say, in response to "reasoned debate" about these vermin,
"CENSOR them? Censor, hell. I think someone should blow the bastards
straight to hell." Before you dismiss such invective to the dustbin of
political emotionalism, I suggest you talk to a lot of folks between
the ages of fifty and seventy...

>I tend to agree with your assertions on this point, minus the expletive.  But
>you must also agree that by its very name an "Anti-Ralph" group is defined
>in terms of who it hates and, to a lesser extent, who hates them.

Hate? Sorry, friend, but the word is meaningless in this context.
These people are beneath contempt and beyond hatred. Ask anyone who
lost family to the ovens.

>Cross burning is intimidating; if Ralph can burn one over Usenet, I'll be
>intimidated.

thus conceding that you totally dismiss the power of words to distort
the truth and re-shape reality to fit a filthy agenda.... how sad, and
how terminal.

>Yes, "Zionist Thought Police" is a thought-stopping cliche.  Your point is
>well-taken.

It is much more than that, old son, much more. It is a carefully
crafted and calculated emotional trigger, specifically designed to
elicit predictable response, and it's more than a little effective,
not to mention offensive. (No, I'm not Jewish, and the only Jewish
friends I have don't like me very much - but I think I can still
understand what these vermin represent.)

>I should think that both sides are asserting a moral superiority over their
>opponents.  Perhaps that is why the item is not relevant; it is a given.

Sadly, it is not a "given." If it were, this discussion would be over,
and these vermin would not be troubling us.

>Sticks and stone, Sir, sticks and stones.  Insulting the memory of the dead
>is as bad a quoting something out of context.  It is a common debating ploy
>and hardly an advocacy of the End justifying the Means.

It is not the memory of the dead these vermin insult, it is humanity
itself.

>Yes, Ralph is guilty.  But the real point it, so are you.  That's the whole
>issue with this thread: how both the Ralph and Anti-Ralph factions are just
>that--extremist organizations that follow a predictable pattern.  The
>various numbered items of this post identify an extremist group.  Perhaps the
>more burning question is, Why?

I am not a "group," old son, I'm just someone who has lived most of
his life with a clear and unshakeable vision of what the nazis did to
the world. Am I an "extremist?" If you consider that I would not
hesitate for an instant to make good use of my double-barreled
12-gauge to blow some nazi prick to hell rather than sit back and
watch him burn a church to the ground while beating Jewish folks to
death in the process "extremist," then I plead guilty. There will be
NO "krystalnacht" in this neck of the woods.

>But I think you will find that the majority of respondents to Ralph's postings
>exhibit a kind of groupthink of their own.  Is this desireable?

If it provides the world perceived by this nazi trash with a clear,
concise picture of how they are viewed by the society which shelters
them, then yes, it's desireable.

Sorry for the diatribe, old son. I'm old, tired, and resolved to
never, EVER, again permit this sort of nazi trash to ascend in my neck
of the woods. Never. 

-- 
=======================================================================
> UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
"how come the awesome zionist machine hasn't managed to even squash a
little turd such as yourself?" (martin@pharoah.cyborg.bt.co.uk)