black@nisysg.DEC (03/29/85)
Somehow I fail to understand why everything that is not
complimentary to Judaism is classified as "antisemetic," "Nazi,"
"racist," "bigoted," "foolish," "unintelligent," "Neanderthal,"
etc. Pick your explitive. People who don't follow the "approved"
version of history are "naive," "stupid," "unintelligent,"
"a**h****s," "s***heads," etc.
So far, the invectives I have seen on this net from some (not all)
of the contributors have only served to strengthen my beliefs. Let me
show you some examples of the MAIL I've received in the last few days.
Most of it speaks for itself. Notice some of the inclinations to
smear the individual, to question the intelligence level, to restrain the
civil rights, to declare things to be not protected by law, all of which
I have said in the past that I abhor out of principle.
In this first letter, the writer did go into some very good detailed
information. And he made some compelling arguements concerning the conduct
of World War II. These comments more appropriately belong to net.politics.
I have edited out those comments for brevity.
>Thank you for your naive letter. It is nice to see foolish
>innocence in the world. It also explains your foolish postings to
>the various newsgroups from a psychological point of view. I will
>try to explain what I mean in the simplest of language. I'll
>avoid as many words of over 3-5 letters so you will understand.
>If not, there is a big book called a "dictionary". You use it to
>look things up in. Please use it when you don't understand a
>word. As an example, why not start by trying to find the word
>"condescending". This is what I am by even bothering to respond
>to your naive letter.
Note: con-de-scend (v.) To agree to do something one
regards as beneath one's rank or dignity.
>As far as what you consider yourself, a person who says "some of
>my best friends are <ethnic>" generally would hate to be
>considered a racist, but it is usually pretty clear that the
>person is one. You exhibit extreme symptoms of antisemitism even
>in your disclaimer.
>
>I have no coment about your feelongs towards communism.
>
>Don, every letter you write, to me, to the net etc indicates a
>severe lack of education. Either that or a major case of
>intellectual blindness. I do not know what you do for a living or
>where you work, but with attitudes like those you profess, I hope
>it is in a place where you cannot hurt anybody.
>
>Sam ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!XXX
Notice the reference to an apparently innocent phrase, which I stand
accused of using, that automatically brands one as a racist, no matter what
the disclaimer, no matter how innocently it is used. I detect also a lack of
concern about the menace of Communism. Everything I have to say, no matter
how correct it may be, is automatically "extreme symptoms of antisemitism."
Material such as this only serve to reinforce my beliefs.
In this next one, the desire to limit civil rights and freedom of
speech are blatant. I've included it unedited, just as I received it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: 10382::DECWRL::"decvax!research!grigg!ark" 26-MAR-1985 18:37
To: nisysg::black
Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 85 15:36-PST
Received: by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA00223; Tue, 26 Mar 85 15:37:25 pst
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 85 15:09:50 est
Message-Id: <8503262337.AA00223@decwrl.ARPA>
Apparently-To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nisysg!black
> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious
> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's
> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked.
I don't think you meant quite what you said.
Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want,
I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen,
nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages.
Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered,"
and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution.
Or did you mean something else?
--Andrew Koenig
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What chemical is this person on? (There I go, using the tactics of the
opposition.)
I don't believe I have twisted anybody's arm to turn on their terminal
and read my material. And there's no way to force DECWRL to transmit my
material if it doesn't want to. Somebody's a little confused about facts
of life.
But this is just the kind of person that I am opposed to, those who
would crush the opposition, crush free expression, crush free choice.
This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the
match to burn a library.
Some of the opposition is far more subtle:
> ...I wasn't suggesting that
>you should be censored (by me or anyone else), but that you
>should understand that others -- both inside and outside of DEC --
>may feel that you are in some way representing the company.
I was under the impression that people on the net were far more
professional than to carry there religious beliefs to the marketplace.
I guess I was wrong.
Here's a prime example of the use of "peer pressure" to silence
"socially unacceptable" thought. "We-the-group-feel-that-your-beliefs-
may-reflect-on-us-as-a-whole-so-if-you-expect-to-stay-part-of-the-group-
you'd-better-mend-your-ways." Very petty, very unprofessional. Cowardice,
actually.
>If my reputation gets ruined because people accuse me of being a Communist
>whether such accusations are true or not, then our country will have come
>to a sorry state and I also do not want a stake in any system which would
>ruin someone on such a basis. We may be heading in that direction but
>I doubt that the situation will reach the point it did under McCarthyism.
>That nobody
>has been able to clearly define "secular humanism" (except that it is
>every reasonable conclusion of science that the ranting right disagrees
>with) does not prevent its possibility for being used as a tool of
>persecution-it may even make it better, FOR HOW CAN ONE DISPROVE THAT ONE
>IS A "SECULAR HUMANIST"? [Emphasis mine.--DB]
>
>Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin does this all sound vaguely familiar?
> tim sevener whuxl!orb
> democratic socialist and proud of it!
OK, Tim--it's YOUR question.
Now here's mine--HOW DOES ONE DISPROVE THAT HE IS A "NAZI," A "RACIST,"
A "BIGOT," OR ANY OTHER EXPLITIVE THE LEFT LIKES TO USE?
In the last couple of weeks, the net has served to solidify some of
my beliefs and opinions. I believe even more that Christianity is the most
persecuted religion, and that it will get worse before it gets better.
This net is obviously not the place to expect a free, open discussion
of any religious topic unless a) it is 100% complementary of Judaism, or
b) it fits into "established" religions, or c) it is a Humanistic topic about
why Deism is wrong. I hope I cracked a few ivory towers. I hope it
has stirred some thoughts in the minds of true Christians about who you are
and where you should be going. And WHO doesn't want you to find out. And
why.
I urge every Christian to read the Bible. Get several good translations,
so you can rectify any question about language. Find the oldest ones you can,
to avoid confusion in the newer translations, and then get some newer ones for
comparison. I personally use two copies of the King James version, one is over
100 years old, a Douay-Rheims, a Jerusalem, and two from the Witnesses, one
of which includes the Greek interlinear translation. Recently I've started
on the works of Josephus. For the Catholics, remember that over 90% of
Catholic doctrine is in scripture--there's no sin in reading it. The basic
difference in the King James version seems to be in the names and total
number of books. The language translation tends to be very close. For
you Protestants, don't be deceived by those who say the Old Testament has
no relevance. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it.
Some of you asked for proof that the US Declaration of Independence is
based on scriptural law. For those of you who are open-minded, contact:
The Christian Committee to Teach Bible law
PO Box 481
Lakemore OH 44250
They offer a complete course on the subject. The first lesson is free;
donations are requested for the rest.
For those of you who have expressed an interest in Christian Identity,
contact me off line, and I'll give you some material and contacts.
I guess what it boils down to is that I've said enough--on this net.
As you all seem to desire, I'm going to crawl back into my cave with
the other dinosaurs. (They actually make better company than some humans.)
Veni, vidi, vici.
Don Black
The Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 6:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again
and rend you."
If the shoe fits, wear it.rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/01/85)
> Somehow I fail to understand why everything that is not > complimentary to Judaism is classified as "antisemetic," "Nazi," > "racist," "bigoted," "foolish," "unintelligent," "Neanderthal," > etc. Pick your explitive. People who don't follow the "approved" > version of history are "naive," "stupid," "unintelligent," > "a**h****s," "s***heads," etc. You fail to understand quite a lot of things. But that's to be expected, I guess. There's a good reason your lame rewrite of history in your own image isn't "approved": it's a load of made-up excrement designed by hateful people like you to spread your own brand of lies. No more. No less. And, again, you complain about things non-complimentary to Christians that are based on fact (though probably not in your new version of history), while feeling free to engage in spreading falsehoods of an uncomplimentary sort about other groups. It's not the same. No matter how much you whine and tell us that it is. > So far, the invectives I have seen on this net from some (not all) > of the contributors have only served to strengthen my beliefs. Let me > show you some examples of the MAIL I've received in the last few days. > Most of it speaks for itself. But I thought it was running 2-to-1 in your favor! What happened? Did the tide change? Or did you just forget one of the lies you made up? > Notice some of the inclinations to > smear the individual, to question the intelligence level, to restrain the > civil rights, to declare things to be not protected by law, all of which > I have said in the past that I abhor out of principle. No one has proposed restraint of civil rights. On the contrary, I'm glad you take your own opportunity to show us all how full of shit (yes, that's the word, my friend, "ladies present" or not) you really are. The smearing and the display of minimal intelligence are provided by you alone. > I detect also a lack of > concern about the menace of Communism. Everything I have to say, no matter > how correct it may be, is automatically "extreme symptoms of antisemitism." > Material such as this only serve to reinforce my beliefs. How correct it may be? Sorry for disturbing the group with loads of noise about this man. He's obviously a comedian. Anyone who could stand there and proclaim such views he puts forth as "correct" is either a great comedian or a total buffoon who doesn't quite understand how one determines correctness. > But this is just the kind of person that I am opposed to, those who > would crush the opposition, crush free expression, crush free choice. > This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the > match to burn a library. I welcome "crushing of the opposition" by showing that they were deliberately telling lies, by showing that they were doing so deliberately spreading hatred. As has been done to you. If you can't find any real defense against such "crushing" that shows your lies for what they are, why not just crawl back into the little hole from which you came, where your insecurities that led you to such bigotry may be put to better use. > HOW DOES ONE DISPROVE THAT HE IS A "NAZI," A "RACIST," A "BIGOT," OR ANY > OTHER EXPLITIVE THE LEFT LIKES TO USE? It's too late for you, you've already proven it in the affirmative. > In the last couple of weeks, the net has served to solidify some of > my beliefs and opinions. I believe even more that Christianity is the most > persecuted religion, and that it will get worse before it gets better. That's right, gather those persecuted Christians (as Gary Samuelson once claimed to be) together, to garner support. All the ones who kept silent will either leap up and join you or just continue to be silent. > This net is obviously not the place to expect a free, open discussion > of any religious topic unless a) it is 100% complementary of Judaism, or > b) it fits into "established" religions, or c) it is a Humanistic topic about > why Deism is wrong. I hope I cracked a few ivory towers. I hope it > has stirred some thoughts in the minds of true Christians about who you are > and where you should be going. And WHO doesn't want you to find out. And > why. What you should expect when a) you tell lies in order to be uncomplimentary, b) you can't support your mouthings with anything substantial, is exactly what you're getting. Don't cry. What you're complaining about is just what you deserve, given what you've had to say. One who tells lies and complains about the lies being exposed as such is indeed a baby. Yes, you say lots of uncomplimentary things. Are they the truth? Then expect a continuation of what's been directed at you. > I urge every Christian to read the Bible. Get several good translations, so > you can rectify any question about language. Find the oldest ones you can, > to avoid confusion in the newer translations, and then get some newer ones > for comparison. ... For the Catholics, remember that over 90% of > Catholic doctrine is in scripture--there's no sin in reading it. This really shows your stupidity, Black. No good Nazi would ever tell people to go back to the source and read. Reading leads to acquisition of knowledge. Besides, once they read the Bible, they'll know the truth about the made-up stories you've told. Whoops! (Does any Catholic feel offended by the insinuation of that last statement?) > Some of you asked for proof that the US Declaration of Independence is > based on scriptural law. For those of you who are open-minded, contact: > > The Christian Committee to Teach Bible law > PO Box 481 > Lakemore OH 44250 You mean, for those who would accept biased stories as fact. As you do whenever it suits you. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (04/01/85)
In article <1399@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > > In the last couple of weeks, the net has served to solidify some of >my beliefs and opinions. I believe even more that Christianity is the most >persecuted religion, and that it will get worse before it gets better. I can hardly see how anything that has taken place in net.religion can be called persecution. Alot of us don't like your ideas, sure, and frankly consider them to be highly offensive (to put it mildly) but a little name calling isn't persecution. If I haven't spoken up about the "Communist Menace" it's because from where I stand the groups associated with your particular point of view are a far more real and present danger to my freedom. > > This net is obviously not the place to expect a free, open discussion >of any religious topic unless a) it is 100% complementary of Judaism, or >b) it fits into "established" religions, or c) it is a Humanistic topic about >why Deism is wrong. I hope I cracked a few ivory towers. I hope it >has stirred some thoughts in the minds of true Christians about who you are >and where you should be going. And WHO doesn't want you to find out. And >why. I'm not going to buy that for a minute! How much more free and open can you have it! We criticize you, you criticize us. Nobody is censored. Any number of people have asked you serious questions about the foundations of your belief. You haven't answered one of them. Instead you rant and rave about being persecuted. I, for one, have a decidedly non-standard series of beliefs that are as far in one direction from "established" Christianity as yours are in the other. (I guess I'm what Charley Wingate would call a "weak" Christian.) There's been a fair amount of discussion and criticism about them but, hey, I'm tough -- I'll be quiet till the flames die down but I'm not going to run away. There have also any number of things that are uncomplimentary to Judaism discussed here, but there is a not-so-fine line between uncomplimentary and derogatory. It is a line which, I fear, you have crossed. My disagreement with your point of view, however, is less because it is antisemetic (or at least I believe it is) and more because it is simply anti-people or anti- anyone who is not of *our* common heritage. If you believe that North America is the promised land that we northern European barbarian types are to inherit, then you probably don't think much of the Native Americans whose land this was before we rather rudely took it. This hasn't been discussed, but it seems a clear implication. What is your opinion of the Japanese Internment camps set up by the U.S. Government in WWII? How do blacks fit into the scenario of the Promised Land and the Chosen People? > I guess what it boils down to is that I've said enough--on this net. >As you all seem to desire, I'm going to crawl back into my cave with >the other dinosaurs. (They actually make better company than some humans.) > > >Veni, vidi, vici. Oooooh! The Big Lie! Proclaim a victory and turn tail. Gimme a break. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (04/02/85)
In article <1399@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > > >The Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 6: > >"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls >before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again >and rend you." Matthew 7:3 Read it Don and think about yourself, Admonishingly yours, DAVE BROWN