oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (08/10/85)
>> Me, the oaf (Also non-quoted lines). > Don Black > Various people on the net love that term "Nazi." > I'm a dummy. I don't understand what a Nazi is. >> ****************************** //******>> [SHORTENED FOR BREVITY] || >> [All quotes by Don Black.] || || >> If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like || >>a duck, lives in the swamp with the ducks, and presumably || >>hopes to produce future generations by <@%$>, who am I to || >>question whether it's a duck? (Now, as to whether you're a || >>dummy...) [Oded Feingold] || (I corrected how you || spelled my name.) || \\******>> Shortened for brevity, perhaps. More likely shortened for the additive inverse of clarity. The excised quotes were > After all, there are approximately 40 million Jews worldwide. A standard claim of those who assert the holocaust never existed. Nobody has ever been able to find 26.5 million of those Jews. > The UN to this day has no legitimacy, and neither does the >Israeli State. ... > As for Hitler not killing any Jews, well, I guess there are >pro's and con's of the subject, aren't there? I suppose the subject >has been "proven" in a courtroom. But that's relatively easy to do >when the jury's been brainwashed, and the judge has been paid off. If you think I called you a Nazi out of thin air, rest assured I had logical reasons, provided by yourself, and I pointed them out. Also you think WRONG, since I called you no such thing. I said I was unable, on the strength of the evidence you so kindly provided, to claim you aren't one. Not the same thing. I happen to think you're a KGB agent, hired to spread second-level disinformation under guise of a Klansman and neo-Nazi. Said disinformation, when exposed, will lead to more favorable perceptions of Soviet intentions and a very strong reaction in favor of gun control, perhaps outright confiscation: O, ye fools who have read so far, read on and be educated. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * You proclaim the existence and malevolent power of a sinister clique including the Communists, and some kind of conspiracy to enslave the USA. Samples: > One also has to realize that the Israeli State was formed >by the edict of a One-World-Government organization,... ... > Every war the United States has been involved in since the turn >of the century has had only one reason: to further the causes of the >One-World-Government, Internationalist Slave-Traders. Call them what >you will, be it Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateralists, Bilder- >bergers, Aquarians, Illuminati--they're all one and the same. But manifestly, no such organization or conspiracy can be found, except of course, our friends in Moskva, and your self-contradictory (and often nonsensical) postings: >while the greater threat from a Communist Mexico is >totally ignored. ... >It is fairly obvious that we are being set up for an invasion of >the American mainland by Communist forces. ... >assault from Cuba into Florida and the Gulf states-- merely provoke a backlash of disbelief. "If he makes so little sense, and is so full of random hatreds, and hates the Communists so much... > So today, when the knifepoint of Communist slavery is right in >our belly, we do nothing to stop it from slicing our hearts out. then clearly, the Commies are not as bad as he says." Does the audience still seek confirmation of "self-contradictory?" Another example from the same posting that included the preceding quotes: [From Mr. Black's Memorial Day address, a fitting time to stir patriotic fervor, and a suspension of healthy skepticism.] > But this time the Rockefeller/Rothschild Internationalist >clique has made one fatal mistake. What sane person, pray tell, would accuse the Rockefellers or Rothschilds of being in league with Communists? Aren't they the consummate capitalists, by definition? Why on earth would they team up with the Bolsheviks, and lose their fortunes? Or, assuming they could retain their fortunes and privilege in a Soviet-run world, why would these aesthetic sybarites want to see their world turn as gray and unhappy as it would become under such conditions. Better to own a beautiful world than control an ugly one, no? So what is Mr. Black up to? Why would he bother to leave his credibility so vulnerable? Assuming he really meant it, wouldn't a slightly less hysterical tone accomplish the same task with less likelihood of failure? How can we reconcile such absurd flights of rhetoric with his obviously keen mind? The answer may surprise you... There are TWO American audiences that Don Black is trying to reach, and he expects to stir opposing reactions in each: The interplay between the two, and the resulting stratification and internecine hostility in American society, displays the genius in his (well, more likely Colonel General Viktor Vissarionavich Bogdanov's, of the 12th Propaganda and Psychological Warfare Directorate, KGB) scheme. First, there are the true believers; people of low education, sophistication, and mental equipage. They are economically buffeted by a changing world and their manifest inability to keep abreast of things, and stricken in their pride by everything from civil rights to feminism to gay rights. These are the farmers, unemployed manufacturing workers, Vietnam Vets unsuccessfully reintegrated into American society, bikers who never grew up, prudish and ultimately dissatisfied mothers, and other marginal types who join KKK, Posse Comitatus and similar organizations. Their lives are dominated by disappointment, fear and hatred, and "leaders" like Don Black and Rev. Jim Wickstrom (also undoubtedly a plant, with rhetoric identical to Mr. Black's when it comes to "one-world international slave traders") whip up for them a vainglorious fantasy life of taking to the hills and fighting off the Commies and tax collectors (in no particular order) with their pitiful, illegally automatized weapons. They find a cohesive philosophy in Messrs. Black's and Wickstrom's Fundamentalist Christianity, > * * > *** *** > In Hoc Signo ***** ***** Vinces > > ****** ****** > ***** ***** > **** **** > *** *** > ** ** > * * [in this sign we will win] and a sense of worth in believing they (and this country) are the Chosen of God. Coincidentally, that latter belief is bolstered by fanatical hostility to the "other" contenders for that title, namely the Jews, and you'll find Anti-Semitism a significant part of their belief structure. This is the class of people Don Black wants "behind" him, believing his words. The second group is far more important: It consists of solid citizens in positions of influence. Mr. Black has no hope of convincing them with his apparently childish fulminations. Rather his scheme is to _alienate_ the intellectuals, and by dint of shrill accusations and nonsensical rhetoric convince them of Mao's favorite dictum [item 27 out of 402 in the little red book]: "Whoever is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whoever is the friend of my enemy is my enemy." If people get disgusted enough by his postings (and speeches, if the papers report them), they'll look more favorably at the Soviets, simply because he "opposes" them so vehemently. There's one more thread to tie in, namely gun control: Note that Mr. Black is apparently fanatically against it, claiming the citizenry needs its guns to fight off attacking Soviet ground forces, let alone common criminals. Also, note that he makes no secret of his support for automatic weaponry in the hands of private citizens -- he even posted a message telling how to convert a legal semi-automatic AR-15 to an illegal fully automatic one. Why? Let's expand a previous quote: > But this time the Rockefeller/Rothschild Internationalist clique >has made one fatal mistake. Those of us who survived the Viet Nam era >have learned the lessons of warmaking all too well, lessons we will >not easily forget. WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO USE OUR SKILLS one >more time to keep our Nation and People free. The federal government already identifies Posse Comitatus as a terrorist organization, and the KKK has been known as one for a long time. [I don't know whether they enjoy the official designation at present. Probably not, since they're so fragmented.] The people who undertake their depredations are not the Blacks and the Wickstroms, but the poor psychos who really believe. Because they are amassing automatic weapons, they are becoming a match, in individual cases, for local police departments. In future, they can be expected to grow stronger, and engage in raids, robberies, assassinations, attacks on synagogues (which are already taking place, for example) and the issuance of vigilante "justice," probably against prominent leftists, liberals, Jews, Blacks, Hispanic politicians, and immigrants, for example from SE Asia. [KKK involvement is suspected in attacks on Cambodians in East Boston this summer.] These outrages will bring heavier and heavier police reaction. Due to the armament these groups possess, and their fanatic nature, there will be a series of increasingly bloody confrontations between these people and the authorities, possibly involving the national guard if the police in some location find themselves outclassed. Such incidents will build strong pro-gun-control sentiments among ordinary citizens and conceivable Agents of Influence, including the technological professionals. Even a proponent of personal defense, such as myself, might consider myself better off if guns were strictly controlled than if I had to deal with automatic-weapon attacks by multiple assailants with my little eight-shooter (or even fourteen...) Not that the claims of guns-against-Russians ever made sense, but with that ostensible excuse among the survivalists, and a worsening domestic picture, more Draconian laws can be expected to come down the pike. The role of us well-to-do netters (ahem) will be to support such legislation, our resistance to gun control sapped by the relatively chaotic national scene and the known stupidity of anti-gun-control rhetoric. Also to advocate and support authoritarian measures, given the perverse and limitedd type of class warfare that Mr. Black's friends and rhetoric seem to advocate. As part of the general abreaction to neo-conservative excesses, one can expect that politicians advocating vigilance against the Soviet Union and sacrifices to provide for the common defense will have a tougher time, being tarred by their association with the people committing outrages. Hence US arms policy will move more toward appeasement while at the same time domestic policy will become harsher. What better method of weakening our defenses abroad and increasing dissatisfaction (and turmoil) at home? If it seems I have rolled over full circle and indicated that the Soviets would indeed like to invade us, rest assured I meant no such thing. USSR would be crazy to do anything like that, given that they can accomplish their goals (of making opposing nations compliant) by less drastic means. [They'd be crazy to do something like that anyway, but that's another issue.] As the US continues to move into conventional inferiority with the USSR, the Soviets can support their friends, hurt ours, support revolutions, garner the sponsorship of national liberation movements, intimidate the Europeans into unlinking their defense from our own (and extracting tributes of trade privileges, if nothing else) without spending a drop of Russian blood [not that they're afraid to...], while we exhaust ourselves resolving the violent internal contradictions that Mr. Black and his cohorts so assiduously pursue. Not that Mr. Black's work is the "enslavement" of the US -- that would make little sense, given that WE'RE the Soviet breadbasket and research establishment, and we'd be far less efficient if we knowingly did it all for them. Just a general weakening of American resolve. No biggie... We all play our little parts, some more dramatic than others. Besides, if the Russians ever invaded, or "enslaved" the US, Mr. Black would be the first one up against the wall and shot --- his demagogic skills, and knowledge of what's really going on, would make him far too dangerous to be let loose. I wonder if he'd confess at a show trial, like the 1930s purge victims, giving their deaths as well as their lives to further the people's revolution, already in the monster's hands. [Of course not -- what occupying general would bother with a trial?] Ah well, idle speculation. Before I leave, I'd like to look at Mr. Black's protestations, not as nicely done as the rest of his propaganda: > THE name of the game apparently is that if you can't make >a logical argument against what's being said, then by all means >discredit the person. All's fair in love and war. ... > It's too bad that the net has to be subjected to "Ad >Hominem" slurs. But I suppose if They let me on the net, >They can let this kind of crap continue. C'est la guerre, >n'est-ce pas? No, it's not too bad. It's part of the job: You were supposed to draw the lightning, thereby defusing the suspicion. Of course, you were expected to protest, but THAT you could have done better. 5.2 out of 10, and that's being generous. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Is it now clear why I have called you "Comrade" these many months? PS: Donald, you're clearly an American, no mole. Did you fool yourself too, in the end? -- Oded Feingold {decvax, harvard, mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf oaf%oz@mit-mc.ARPA MIT AI Laboratory 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 617-253-8598