From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Anti-Nazi Rally
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:07:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.162028.2602@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

> well, *pro*secution is not the same as *per*secution. i agree that the
> turning of tables is a problem. but i was simply trying to find out
> what they did. and if you know no more about it than i, then "parking
> tickets" is not a reasonable assumption.

Actually, they were giving people racist phone calls. They admit this.
But they are using free speech as their defence.
It's in today's Canadian newpapers (just found out today). The big 
story is that the Heritage Front (the group in question) has members
in the courtroom sitting next to "evil" aboriginals (native Americans/
Canadians if you prefer). I hope they hate it.

> i don't disagree. but even then there is a difference between hate
> literature and the rest of your "persecuted classes": the former
> encourage violence against others; the latter do not (for the most
> part). and demonstration is not persecution.

The problem with "hate literature" is that is so badly defined that
almost anything remotely controversial (a la Salman Rushdie) could
be defined as that. Which brings me up to the subject of Holocaust
denial. While many may claim that Holocaust denial is the same
as being in favour of executing Jews, I argue that it is not.
As noxious as this "literature" may be, concluding the latter from the
former is a product of sloppy reasoning. The problem is that almost
all the neo-nazi groups (White Pride/KKK/Heritage Front/
Nationalist Party etc) now accept Holocaust denial. It makes their
love of Hitler more respectible if he really didn't gas the Jews.
Does that mean that everybody who publishes or writes such books
is an anti-Semite and secretly desires the destruction of the Jews?
Hardly. (now there is a misnomer - Arabs are semitic peoples too). But in
the eyes of the Canadian court system they ARE the same, and any
book remotely offensive to Jewish people has at least once been banned
from entry into Canada. 

As a libertarian, I can live with almost any nonsense as long as
it doesn't interfere with the exercise of my liberty. The same goes
for the KKK or the Heritage Front. Until they loot shops, hang
"niggers", or start a civil war they have as much right to liberty
as you and I. No peaceful activity should be prohibited by law, no
matter how offensive it may be. Because, YOU may be next. (and that
makes you no different than the Nazi/Soviet persecutors).

> [deleting your phrase which prompted my comment makes both my reaction
>  and your follow-up rather difficult to understand. for the
>  record, it was: "leave them alone. they will disappear"]

Sorry, I shouldn't have put it that way. I sometimes VERY badly put
together my arguments. If we leave them alone, and they leave US
alone, then there is no danger. The latter is the real issue, as
I not defend anybody's right to lynch "niggers" and such, no matter
how many times I may defend their right to their own parades (and also
the right to moon them...).

>>It was Arthur C Clarke who said that the 
>>philosophy of mass obedience leads to Auschwitz. We are either sheep
>>to be led to the slaughter at the whim of a leader or philosophy,
>>or we are free men and women. There is NO in between and NO compromise.

> right. and what better way to show that one is not a sheep than
> by protesting openly against those who would be shepherds?
> you want to "drive nails" into them, but others shouldn't peacefully march?

My argument is that no law will drive these people away. If you must,
moon their parades, burn their magazines or start your own newsletter.
As long as they aren't lynching anybody, they can do whatever they want,
and so can you. Hence, no need for specific Hate laws. People should do
on their own all too often what they ask their lawmakers to do for them.
Individual action has always been more effective then legal persecution.

[ much deleted... sorry]

> this post of yours has gone a long way to at least letting me and
> others understand what you are about, unlike the sniping which communicates
> very little. and with that .sig of yours, you should have expected
> someone to call you on one of your posts eventually.

Isn't it a great .sig?

[ Chuck responds to my assertion that kids in school are being 
brainwashed ]

> agreed. so should we just "leave it alone. it will go away?"

Actually, a system of private education would do the trick. If
parents would rather send their kids to, for example, a Hebrew
school, instead of the Public system, then why not? Why force 
people to support only ONE SYSTEM. That is what communism, nazism
and all the other ideologies are all about - highly centralized
and exclusionary institutions where people have NO POWER OF REAL
CHOICE (now if only Steve Potter could be convinced that this
is the real issue).

And since my liberty to choose is at stake concerning education,
I certainly NOT would leave it alone and assume it would go
away. Liberty, the only real issue. Fight those who would
claim power over us. Take back the power that is yours by right.

>>heroes. Or all the ex-Nazis we used to fight communism or send
>>people into space. Nice job guys. Real Heroes. Or the generals who
>>sent our troops into Dieppe knowing they would die. Real Heroes. Or
>>Bomber Harris bombing civilian targets (a la Dresden) instead of 
>>military targets (the Rheinland). Real Heroes. People who wage wars
>>are WAR CRIMINALS not WAR HEROES. And the soldiers
>>are just pawns in their deadly game. 

> confusing the pawns with the generals is unfair.
> the soldiers did their best, and *did* give their lives so we
> could be free. they did not choose their fate.
> and we did not start WWII. remember?

WWII could have been avoided, but that is a very long story (hint:
it started at Versailles).

As for the soldiers, they are as much victims of war as anybody
else. Remember, the East European volunteers who joined the Waffen
SS to free Eastern Europe and Russia from communism also believed
that they gave their lives for freedom. If anything the soldiers 
from all sides and all countries have one thing in common. Solidarity
and death. Everyday a soldier faces death. Everyday his friends and
comrades die and still he must live on and fight. This is the 
heritage of war. The real war criminals are the politicians, the
arms manufacturers and jingoistic sentiments that they
inspire in ordinary people to "support out troops".

I remember the Gulf War and I am still angry at the manipulation
that the media did on all of us. People bought the propaganda and
lies. There were no baby incubators snatched. The White House
invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And Iraq wasn't alone in provoking
war in the region. And yet they told us that somehow they had become
the "new enemy". First Syria, then Iran, then Libya, then Iraq.
And we bought it because WE TRUST OUR LEADERS, instead of questioning
them. WE TRUST OUR LEADERS in wartime because they tell us that
if we don't, we may put our soldiers at risk, even though THEY SENT
THEM TO BATTLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

> different wars have different meanings. some are just; some are not;
> some, it is hard to tell. to lump them all together and say that
> they are all wrong is to say that liberty means nothing.

Most wars are fought not for liberty but to expand or preserve the
power base of the countries who fight them. Hence, the only
difference between Castro's Cuba and Pinochet's Chile is the country
holding the puppet strings. Take away ideology and you have nothing
left except power. That is the real goal of most of our wars,
not liberty.

> why should we take him down from his soap-box?
> won't that just be giving him "attention he doesn't deserve"?
> shouldn't we just "leave him alone. he will disappear"?
> and aren't you being a "Neo Nazi" by "persecuting" this person?

Anybody who threatens my liberty deserves is my enemy. No exceptions.
In a way I am still right. If we refuse to give the guy on the
soapbox any audience, we ARE letting him alone, and REFUSING his
claims to represent us. In our protest, we deprive him of power, we are
MAKING him disappear.

> you object to rallies, but you appear to have no problem with persecution.

I object to rallies in favour of legal persecution, not peaceful and
outrageous protest (a la mooning), which is a WONDERFUL exercise of
freedom. And yes, I say PERSECUTE THE PERSECUTOR. Liberty demands no
less.

> you claim to respect freedom, but you would "drive nails" into someone
> purely for speaking his mind.

Wrong. I will drive nails into any saviour who pretends to hold
power over me. Speak all you want, and I will
be silent. Take power over me and you become my enemy and I will not
be silent. Therein is the difference.

> maybe your positions aren't as clear on the matter as you thought, eh?

Sorry if my early posts weren't as clear as I meant them to be. I hope
this one clears up any difference.

> P.S. you sound like you have more objectivist in your blood than you might
> care to admit.

I have always preferred the generic term libertarian as I have always
conceived objectivism as Ayn Rand's personal religion. That being
said, yeah I do have things in common. yeah I concede the argument.
Here you win. Have a nice day.

(oh what's with all the small letters. getting egalitartian on us,
aren'y you?)

> charles

John
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish