From: eric@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Eric Scott Kuhnen)
Subject: Re: Winston vrs. the world
Keywords: nazi trash
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:39:13 GMT

kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.235223.8914@wdl.loral.com> eric@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Eric Scott Kuhnen) 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?

A good argument.  Regardless of the motivation, he doesn't make the
accusation.


>>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.

That was probably the most moving statement I've read from you.  Thank-you
for taking the time to write it.


>>>>:    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.

The Sin of Youth is the Transgression of Inexperience.  Applied literally,
it would taint both you and I since neither of us are directly connected
to the events under discussion.  Fortunately, empathy can absolve one from
the Sin of Youth, and you've demonstrated that you possess great empathy
for the victims of the Holocaust.  Your empathy is a great thing, but your
passion obscures the finer points of your reason.  For example, using
"guilt" as a springboard to a discussion about camps, etc., does not follow
from the statement that both parties are guilty of sweeping generalizations
in their opinions.  Rather, it is simply a knee-jerk reaction, a kind of
". . . automatic gainsaying by one person to what another person says."
(M. Palin, MP)


>>>>:    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.

You've proved the point of Item #6.


>>>>:    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their
>>>>:       opponents and/or critics
>>>>Ralph:      No
>>>>Anti-Ralph: Enormously
>>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

The point remains, regardless of the motivation, that "Ralph" does not
advocate the repression or censorship of his detractors.


>>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.

Again, you simply reiterate the point: you are defined in terms of who
you hate (hate chosen in place of loathe, deplore, or any other synonym
of your choosing).


>>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.

Were I not blessed with infinite patience, I might throw up my hands in
frustration.  Instead, I casually point out that the original item was
about the use of intimidation in speech and language, and you jumped
to the cross-burning example, clearly side-stepping the point altogether.
My rejoinder was a subtle use of humor to expose your logical faux pas.


>>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.

To be precise, what is "given" is both side's *assertion* of moral
superiority over the other, *not* the moral high ground itself.  The question
of moral correctness is the subject of another thread.


>>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.

Let them.  Name-calling is an old and tired tactic of the childish; others
have endured worse.


>>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.

And you would be guilty of murder, just as sure as your enemies would.  I 
cannot for a moment see you "sitting back" while another deprives a person
of their inalienable rights.  But the commission of murder is a high and
heavy responsibility to assume.  In so doing, you have thrown out the Rule
of Law in order to establish the Rule of Law, and that is the unacceptable.
The End cannot justifies the Means.

"Q"
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected
in any way to my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.flame