dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (GREEN) (04/26/85)
I found this dreck in net.flame; I don't want it to miss your attention. **************************************************************************** From mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt Thu Apr 25 09:43:31 1985 Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxi.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt From: arndt@lymph.DEC Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Oh dear, is it something in the water at utzoo? Message-ID: <1827@decwrl.UUCP> Date: 25 Apr 85 14:43:31 GMT Date-Received: 26 Apr 85 03:57:28 GMT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 39 Laura Creighton claims that the Jews were no threat to the Nazis. See what happens when you don't read history? The whole POINT of the Nazi killing of the Jews was that they WERE a mortal threat to Germans and the German state, if not to the whole world! That was the rationalization for the camps and the killing. The Jews were subhuman, lice on the body of the human race. Along with the Slavs, etc. Just like germs, so you rub them out. Now you can argue that the above wasn't so - they weren't a threat - but the Germans didn't just throw a dart and pick on the Jews. Or perhaps one could argue that the Germans really didn't believe the Jews were a threat, dispite their statements, but hated them for some other reason. But don't discount so easily the idea the the Germans were immoral people, the SS I mean, when they killed. They DID have moral standards - just not yours perhaps! They said over and over again to each other and to the world that they were moral men building a new world for mankind. A sort of 'pro-choice for mankind' movement. Getting rid of the subhuman element that was killing the human race. See, once you define something as non-human, well, there goes the ball game for that group. And one can maintain a nice 'moral' stance and kill without feeling guilt. Sure it may 'look' like a human child, boy, man, but it really isn't . . . BANG! NEXT! Mengle didn't experiment on PEOPLE! That would be immoral. He merely did the same thing we do today (actually less) with bunnies, birds, monkeys, etc. Nice doctor. Helping mankind. Gotta go, the telephone man is under my desk!!!! More later. Regards, Ken Arndt
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (04/27/85)
So what else is new?
liss@psyche.DEC (Frederick R. Liss 237-3649) (04/29/85)
[Very long quote at end] At the risk of being publicly flamed or worse yet, receiving a flood of hate mail, I will disassociate myself from the opinions of any other DEC employee posting to the net. I have been following this newsgroup for the past five months and find it a source of enjoyment and inspiration. Every once in a while I come across an article that makes my hair stand up. The referenced article not only angers me, its source is an embarassment to me. Please don't judge all of us by a few vocal individuals. Regards, Fred --- Frederick R. Liss UUCP ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-psyche!liss Digital Equipment Corp. ARPA liss%psyche.DEC@decwrl.ARPA 333 South St. Shrewsbury MA, 01545 Mail Stop SHR1-4/D21 [long quote follows] >Xref: tektronix net.religion.jewish:01891 > >I found this dreck in net.flame; I don't want it to miss your attention. > >**************************************************************************** > > >From mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt Thu Apr 25 09:43:31 1985 >Relay-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxi.UUCP >Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP >Path: mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt >From: arndt@lymph.DEC >Newsgroups: net.flame >Subject: Oh dear, is it something in the water at utzoo? >Message-ID: <1827@decwrl.UUCP> >Date: 25 Apr 85 14:43:31 GMT >Date-Received: 26 Apr 85 03:57:28 GMT >Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP >Organization: DEC Engineering Network >Lines: 39 > > >Laura Creighton claims that the Jews were no threat to the Nazis. > >See what happens when you don't read history? > >The whole POINT of the Nazi killing of the Jews was that they WERE a >mortal threat to Germans and the German state, if not to the whole world! >That was the rationalization for the camps and the killing. The Jews were >subhuman, lice on the body of the human race. Along with the Slavs, etc. > >Just like germs, so you rub them out. > >Now you can argue that the above wasn't so - they weren't a threat - but >the Germans didn't just throw a dart and pick on the Jews. Or perhaps one >could argue that the Germans really didn't believe the Jews were a threat, >dispite their statements, but hated them for some other reason. > >But don't discount so easily the idea the the Germans were immoral people, >the SS I mean, when they killed. They DID have moral standards - just not >yours perhaps! They said over and over again to each other and to the >world that they were moral men building a new world for mankind. A sort of >'pro-choice for mankind' movement. Getting rid of the subhuman element that >was killing the human race. See, once you define something as non-human, >well, there goes the ball game for that group. And one can maintain a nice >'moral' stance and kill without feeling guilt. Sure it may 'look' like a >human child, boy, man, but it really isn't . . . BANG! NEXT! > >Mengle didn't experiment on PEOPLE! That would be immoral. He merely did >the same thing we do today (actually less) with bunnies, birds, monkeys, etc. > >Nice doctor. Helping mankind. > >Gotta go, the telephone man is under my desk!!!! > >More later. > >Regards, > >Ken Arndt Posted: Mon 29-Apr-1985 13:27 To: RHEA::DECWRL::"net.religion.jewish"
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (05/03/85)
In article <> liss@psyche.DEC (Frederick R. Liss 237-3649) writes: > >Every once in a while I come across an article that makes my hair stand >up. The referenced article not only angers me, its source is an >embarassment to me. Please don't judge all of us by a few vocal >individuals. > Regards, > Fred (What follows here is a lengthy quote from Ken Arndt-see the original article) I guess that Fred must either have not been reading carefully, or have been reading regularly enough to dig Ken's meaning out of the posting (he sure ain't the only one of us whose discourse occasionally raises the hackles before the message is through). I'd suggest that you take a look at the "eat the monkey" arguments he posted a while back, as they're a variety of the same method of inquiry. Ken's point here is the suggestion (I think) that much of our discussion of the Holocaust may commit the error of thinking that the exterminating Beasts were *unlike* (and I use the term very carefully, or hope I do) us in their consuming hatred and their ability to exploit the silence of "decent" Germans (cf: all kinds of discussion of this on the Don Black issue and the ensuing furor). I am inclined to lean toward this view myself upon occasion-it is certainly much easier to believe that *all* persons are potentially capable of such evil and that the Holocaust is an isolated incident that must (insert the BItburg pronouncement of the week here).... The initial generation of emigre scholars (the "Frankfurt School") seem in part to recognize the dangers of holding such a view. As I understand their analysis of the matter, the *mechanism* of deceit and exploitation that the Nazis used was novel (for the post-Industrial Revolution culture of its time)-particularly with regard to the use of language and the manipulative power of logic. However (again, this is my reading of the matter) there seems little to suggest that the Nazis were any different from you or I. Such unspeakable evil can indeed be done by ordinary persons in the right setting with the right lack of constraints. This is the *real* ugliness of what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil". What ultimately allowed the horror to succeed, though, was a situation in which the moral convictions of the people involved could make no convincing case AGAINST the lies and the hate and the ugly twisting. Unless there *is* a clear understanding of both the means of manipulation and the grounds on which moral (I know, I know-more "religionist" terms. Sorry-can't avoid it here) decisions are made. The next Holocaust is just waiting to happen: and not necessarily to just the Jews. Or the Moonies. Or Gays. Or (insert the national group of your choice). Or Episcopalians. Or reasonable people who.... All Ken's article does-as I see it-is to try to lay out the general shape of the *Nazi* ideologues' perception of the manner. In their eyes, the arguments were *quite* reasonable. What disturbs me about seeing things in that manner is that the clear suggestion of such a posting is not that Ken is crazy, but (again-I think) his point. The Beasts considered themselves reasonable men who acted on "reasonable" grounds. I'd suggest that if you're interested in looking at some of the primary documents (besides Mein Kampf), you check out an anthology of primary readings called "Nazi Culture". THe contents will frighten you a good deal more than the more easily dismissable ravings of MK, as they are "the acceptable face" of the awful enterprise. One other interesting thing here from the Frankfurt School that keeps coming up.One of the best tactics useable in the twisting of language is to "invent" a term with a certain amount of "scientific" but strong connotative meaning when you wish to define a wide variety of postitions. The single term is then used whenever *any* shade of the opponent's opinion shows up. It's also best if the word has either a clinical connotation (ie one that connotes a specific disorder: psychological may not be preferable to genetic here, as trying to argue nature/nurture arguments may defuse the intent of the would-be oppressor), or an overtly political one that hints a level of extremism whenever used. Some proper modern day examples of this term in use seem to include: Secular Humanist. Reactionary. Freedom Fighter. Moral Majority. Zionist. Homophobic. Sexist. Racist. ProLife/ProChoice. As you've noticed, some of those terms *do* have a certain proper usage. Some of the terms are chosen by the very people they are used against, rather than those who wish to vanquish them. It may be that the choice of title involves similar decisions and choices on the part of those who wish to define themselves and those who wish to persecute others. Oh my. THis has gotten to be a larger issue than I'd expected. I'd better stop, simply suggest that Ken's article may be crazy, but Ken is not for posting. It is up to all of us to identify what is truly crazy about it, even if it sounds like our own words with a half-twist that uncomfortably reminds us that there might be a Himmler asleep inside *all* of us. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Once I was young:once I was smart:now I'm living on the edge of my nerves:-Japan Gregory Alan Taylor:162 Clark Hall:Cornell University:Ithaca,NY 14850:USA USENET: {cmcl2,decvax,ihnp4}!cornell!lasspvax!gtaylor ARPANET: gtaylor@lasspvax.arpa BITNET: gtaylor@crnlthry.bitnet ________________________________________________________________________________