Trauma – PTSD

Question:

Would you feel intimidated if Ralph had a big swastika in all his posts?

Offended, Yes.  Intimidated, No. "Q" — My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected in any way to my employer.

Response:

… that the people at BCPU are deluded, but even deluded people deserve their free speach.  Its just that you don’t have to listen. When ralph and his bunch speak of the thought police, the anti-publishing hate-crime-for-speaking-your-mind laws are probably what he refers to. They scare me more than ralph and his alter-egos scare me. I can’t believe civilized, supposedly free societies censor ideas but here you have blatant examples and the people are acutually applauding the censorship.

I would like to point out that this is not a free speech issue.  The first amendment protects individuals from the government’s interference in their rights to say what they want.  It does not obgliate anyone with a press or other medium to distribute information for the individual. If the U.S. government, or any state or local government, tried to shut b-cpu down, that would be unconstitutional.  But for the businesses, universities, and public access sites to be required to carry this information has nothing to do with the first amendment. I personally feel that censoring b-cpu is a bad idea.  Let them put out the information; that is the best way to put it up next to the truth, and show it for what it is.  But to say that efforts to stifle it are fascist is incorrect. Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin ! its the man in the whitehouse, the man under the SWBell Advanced Tech Labs ! steeple.  handin out drugs to the american people. (314) 235-7444            ! i dont believe in anything, nothing is free. i aint

–                           | You have all the time from when you remove the |      Martin F. Melhus     | card(s) from your hand until you put it (them) |                           | take your two. – Hidden texts, Book of MauMau. |

Response:

Nor do I find it healthy for victims of the Holocaust to react in any other manner than the one they have been using for the last 50 years.  

Are you a doctor or a psychologist?  Many Holocaust victims have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Is it their fault that they have this disorder? Are they responsible for what was done to them? Who are you to say that they way they have reacted is unhealthy? What is the healthy way to react to 1)  being part of a medical experiment? 2)  being in a concentration camp for 3 years, knowing that one can be killed at any time 3)  witnessing one’s relatives being killed 4)  torture 5)  etc. What is the healthy way?  And who are you to judge? "Q" — My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected in any way to my employer.

Leon Gross I’m not an actor, but I play one on TV.

Response:

:    4. Inadequate proof for assertions Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate. Sorry, but nothing the IHR says has ever been published in a refereed journal Please look at the court case. Your response is precisely the point the previous poster was making: proof is the subject of the debate.  This thread concerns itself with the personalities in the debate, not the debate itself. I’m saying that the source of his information is not accepted by anyone in the historical community as proof of anything.  In fact, the historical community has condemned what they do. (American Historical Soceity, Duke Univeristy History Department).

You’ve just given a response that is appropriate to the debate itself; namely, the information used by Ralph lack credibility.  This item refers to the tactic of making assertions without adequate proof.  It is part of a discussion about the personalities in the debate, not the debate itself. :    5. Advocacy of double standards See how Ralph and his friends use historical texts. In his distortion of historical events, is Ralph advocating a double-standard? Yes, he ignores the mountains of evidence that says Jews were gassed as part of a plan to exterminate them. He quotes the texts out of context to advance his adsurd thesis that none were gassed.

You have not given an example of a double standard.  In advocating a double standard, one would have to propose that all abide by a certain standard while excusing oneself from its restrictions.  You’ve given an example of Ralph’s ignorance.  His ignorant reasoning does not constitute an advocacy of a double standard for anything. :    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. It does for Ralph.  He says that his computer was banned by the Zionist thought police.  

Good point.  But that hardly excuses the "Anti-Ralph" invective. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -:    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their :       opponents and/or critics Ralph:      No Anti-Ralph: Enormously Bullshit.  They quote texts out of context, which means they repress the actual content and use it for their own purposes.   They also publish the Ad from the Northwestern Daily without saying that it is an ad, and don’t publish the Northwestern Daily’s response. Pete Faust said that anyone who says that Jews were gassed is a war criminal.  What do you think of that? A bit of a stretch for the definition of "censorship," don’t you think?   Misrepresentation would better characterize misquoting texts.  It is hardly the heinous crime of repression to simply take a quote out of its context. More importantly, though, Ralph does not ask for or advocate the repression or censorship of his detractors. But Faust does, and we don’t know if they are the same people.

This particular brand of logic is most distasteful.  It is a cauldron of suspicion fueled by misguided conjecture.  Nevertheless, the salient point of this item is that "Ralph does not ask for or advocate the repression or censorship of his detractors."  Regardless of speculative convictions, the point remains unchallenged. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -:    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: :       whom they hate and who hates them Not much of this Bullshit.  They call all their enemies Zionist and call themselves anti- Zionist.  They also call anybody who believes in the truth of the Holocaust "exterminationists", and call themselves "revisionists."  What more do you want. 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. The anti-Ralph group is 1) The American Historical Association 2) Duke University Department of History 3) Circuit Court of the US 4) Canadian Government 5) Polish Government 6) US government 7) German government Encyclopedia Britanica 9) All historians in this country.

The Anti-Ralph group are those who have posted to Ralph in this newsgroup for the express purpose of refuting his claims.  The various groups and institutions you’ve mentioned are not regular participants or posters to this particular group, and are most likely unaware of the individual designated as "Ralph" herein.  Certainly this is the case for the Circuit Court of the US, the Canadian Government, the Polish Government, the US Government, the German Government, the Encyclopedia Britanica, and the sum-total of all historians in this country.  It is doubtful that the entire faculty from the Duke University Department of History and the members of the American Historical Association have posted to Ralph in this newsgroup; however, I will concede the point if each one of these people e-mail me a copy of their discussion with Ralph. :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc) Apparently your not familiar with the practices of the KKK affiliated group the NAAWP where Ralph gets his information from.  Do you consider cross burning intimidation? Cross burning is intimidating; if Ralph can burn one over Usenet, I’ll be intimidated. He can’t.  But he does post info from the KKK-related group.

Your example does not illustrate a tendency toward argument by intimidation. :    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others Not really relevant Really, when they call Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner for Peace a liar?  When they say that the Jews are lying about the holocaust and they are telling the truth?  When they say they are for freedom of speech and others aren’t? 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. OK, now I ask you, who is morally superior? Elie Weisel, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, or Ralph, who posts propaganda from white-supremicist groups?

Once again, you confuse the act of *asserting* a moral superiority with the act of *assigning* a rating to a moral position.  You and Ralph may assert any moral position you each choose; you may assume any superiority to satisfy whatever position you’re asserting.  The question of actual moral superiority is not at issue here. :    14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a "good" :        cause Not unless you include censorship. How about insulting the memory of the dead, and slandering holocaust survivors, Elie Wiesel, Simon Weisenthal, Mermelstein, and the ADL. 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. They also insult the living who were related to the dead.  They had to apologize for that, in a court ordered apology!!

Your example is not a case of Ralph using the End to justify the Means. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -:    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less :        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis Ralph:      Not guilty Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly. The ‘logical reasoning’ in the articles they post is nonsense.  The motivation for the conclusions is hate, not scholarship. This comes from the Duke Univeristy History Department. 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? It’s not extremicist to call a white-supremicist a white-supremicist. It’s not extremicist to point out a hate group for what it is. 48 Hours (CBS) called the IHR a hate group in _48_Hours_on_Hate_Street. Is 48 hours extremicist? Are the American Historical Association,    The Duke Univeristy History Department,    The Northwestern Daily    The [U of ]Chicago Maroon    The Harvard Crimson extremist?  They have all condemned the IHR for what they do.

It is this kind of knee-jerk reasoning that characterizes an emotional rather than logical response.  Item 15 concerns this point.  Upon the mention of "extremist" as it applies to you, you’ve reacted to the situation without due regard for the context of Item 15 itself. "Q" — My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected in any way to my employer.

Response:

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? :    2. Name calling and labeling Ralph:      Minimal Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc Ralph refers to all of his enemies as Zionists.  See what names he calls Elie Weisel, Simon Weinsenthal and the ADL. 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. :    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. :    4. Inadequate proof for assertions Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate. Sorry, but nothing the IHR says has ever been published in a refereed journal. Please look at the court case. Your response is precisely the point the previous poster was making: proof is the subject of the debate.  This thread concerns itself with the personalities in the debate, not the debate itself.

Sorry, not to some of us. There are no personalities here – not to me. There is only the absolute evil represented by a disgusting display of racial hatred and bigotry – it is as clear to me as the light of day. :    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. :    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their :       opponents and/or critics Ralph:      No Anti-Ralph: Enormously Bullshit.  They quote texts out of context, which means they repress the actual content and use it for their own purposes.   They also publish the Ad from the Northwestern Daily without saying that it is an ad, and don’t publish the Northwestern Daily’s response. Pete Faust said that anyone who says that Jews were gassed is a war criminal.  What do you think of that? A bit of a stretch for the definition of "censorship," don’t you think?   Misrepresentation would better characterize misquoting texts.  It is hardly the heinous crime of repression to simply take a quote out of its context. 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 would say, in response to "reasoned debate" about these vermin, "CENSOR them? Censor, hell. I think someone should blow the bastards straight to hell." Before you dismiss such invective to the dustbin of political emotionalism, I suggest you talk to a lot of folks between the ages of fifty and seventy… 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. 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. Yes, "Zionist Thought Police" is a thought-stopping cliche.  Your point is well-taken.

It is much more than that, old son, much more. It is a carefully crafted and calculated emotional trigger, specifically designed to elicit predictable response, and it’s more than a little effective, not to mention offensive. (No, I’m not Jewish, and the only Jewish friends I have don’t like me very much – but I think I can still understand what these vermin represent.) 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. 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. 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. But I think you will find that the majority of respondents to Ralph’s postings exhibit a kind of groupthink of their own.  Is this desireable?

If it provides the world perceived by this nazi trash with a clear, concise picture of how they are viewed by the society which shelters them, then yes, it’s desireable. Sorry for the diatribe, old son. I’m old, tired, and resolved to never, EVER, again permit this sort of nazi trash to ascend in my neck of the woods. Never. — UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!

"how come the awesome zionist machine hasn’t managed to even squash a

Response:

I really hate getting involved in you said, he said, she said that I said bickering, but I’ll bite on this one… In Canada, both cross-burning, and publishing material that Ralph posts (Holocaust denial) are both hate crimes. If you were in Canada, a good case could be made that Ralph was doing the equivalent of burning a cross over Usenet.  

I thank the supreme being every day that I don’t live in Canada.  I think that the people at BCPU are deluded, but even deluded people deserve their free speach.  Its just that you don’t have to listen. When ralph and his bunch speak of the thought police, the anti-publishing hate-crime-for-speaking-your-mind laws are probably what he refers to. They scare me more than ralph and his alter-egos scare me. I can’t believe civilized, supposedly free societies censor ideas but here you have blatant examples and the people are acutually applauding the censorship. If you’re looking for facism, I dare say you found a little pool of it in Canada and all the other countries that have these laws. Fascism is even more despicable when its being officially sanctioned by the state. I also believe that Holocaust denial, as well as certain other forms of neo-Nazi propaganda and symbols are illegal in Germany.

Well…thats their problem.  People have the right to deny anything they so choose.   More evidence of thought police. Would you feel intimidated if Ralph had a big swastika in all his posts?

Actually, no.  I’d think he was really out of hand but it takes a lot more to get me intimidate then some imagined two-bit ascii art of a swastika. [And you can't get the ACLU involved in this, or take it to the supreme court, because Canada is not part of the United States.  However, Canada does get Usenet stuff].

Luckily for them.  The angels who run Canada and make sure that you arent exposed to dangerous ideas may some day take usenet away when they find out that your being exposed to ideas they dont like.  Those ideas may be yours.          First they came for the deluded nazi’s, and I did nothing             because I wasnt a deluded nazi-goosestepper puke.          Then they came for the populists and I did nothing because             I wasnt a populist.          Then they came for the replublicans, and i did nothing because             I wasnt a republican.          Then they came for the conservative democrats, and I did nothing             because I wasnt conservative.          Then they came for the liberatarians and I did nothing because             I didnt belong to a third party.          Then they came for me and there was no one to speak for me. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for  your right to say it."        Patrick Henry Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin ! its the man in the whitehouse, the man under the SWBell Advanced Tech Labs ! steeple.  handin out drugs to the american people. (314) 235-7444            ! i dont believe in anything, nothing is free. i aint

Response:

In discussing the behavior of Those on the net. :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc) Apparently your not familiar with the practices of the KKK affiliated group the NAAWP where Ralph gets his information from.  Do you consider cross burning intimidation? Cross burning is intimidating; if Ralph can burn one over Usenet, I’ll be intimidated.

In Canada, both cross-burning, and publishing material that Ralph posts (Holocaust denial) are both hate crimes. If you were in Canada, a good case could be made that Ralph was doing the equivalent of burning a cross over Usenet.   I also believe that Holocaust denial, as well as certain other forms of neo-Nazi propaganda and symbols are illegal in Germany. Would you feel intimidated if Ralph had a big swastika in all his posts? [And you can't get the ACLU involved in this, or take it to the supreme court, because Canada is not part of the United States.  However, Canada does get Usenet stuff]. Leon Gross I’m not an actor, but I play one on TV

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Nor do I find it healthy for victims of the Holocaust to react in any other manner than the one they have been using for the last 50 years.   Are you a doctor or a psychologist?  Many Holocaust victims have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Is it their fault that they have this disorder? Are they responsible for what was done to them? Who are you to say that they way they have reacted is unhealthy? What is the healthy way to react to 1)  being part of a medical experiment? 2)  being in a concentration camp for 3 years, knowing that one can be killed at any time 3)  witnessing one’s relatives being killed 4)  torture 5)  etc.

I think you are confused.  If you pay close attention to the structure of my sentence that you quoted, you will find that it in fact endorses Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and any one of a number of ailments that afflict those who were victims of the Holocaust.  It goes like this: "Nor do I find it healthy" sets up a negative condition. "in any other manner than" sets up an exclusive condition. Consequently, the writer states his approval of something by disapproving of anything that is not that thing itself.  In this case, I find it healthy for victims of the Holocaust to react in the manner in which they have for the last 50 years.  Or, as I’ve stated it, I do *not* find it healthy for the victims to react in any *other* manner *than* the one . . . . "Q" — My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected in any way to my employer.

Response:

Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,                      accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc) Your just wrong about this.  Ralph has called people lots of names. He posts articles from groups with a clear political status.   Pseudonym?  Ask him who he works for, where he lives, what his job is, what his training is.  No answer.

But the point is, Ralph never accuses others of using a psuedonym. :    2. Name calling and labeling Ralph:      Minimal Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc Ralph refers to all of his enemies as Zionists.  See what names he calls Elie Weisel, Simon Weinsenthal and the ADL.

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. :    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations Not much on either side. "Zionist control of the media?"

Both parties are guilty. :    4. Inadequate proof for assertions Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate. Sorry, but nothing the IHR says has ever been published in a refereed journal. Please look at the court case.

Your response is precisely the point the previous poster was making: proof is the subject of the debate.  This thread concerns itself with the personalities in the debate, not the debate itself. :    5. Advocacy of double standards See how Ralph and his friends use historical texts.

In his distortion of historical events, is Ralph advocating a double-standard? :    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. :    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their :       opponents and/or critics Ralph:      No Anti-Ralph: Enormously Bullshit.  They quote texts out of context, which means they repress the actual content and use it for their own purposes.   They also publish the Ad from the Northwestern Daily without saying that it is an ad, and don’t publish the Northwestern Daily’s response. Pete Faust said that anyone who says that Jews were gassed is a war criminal.  What do you think of that?

A bit of a stretch for the definition of "censorship," don’t you think?   Misrepresentation would better characterize misquoting texts.  It is hardly the heinous crime of repression to simply take a quote out of its context. More importantly, though, Ralph does not ask for or advocate the repression or censorship of his detractors. :    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: :       whom they hate and who hates them Not much of this Bullshit.  They call all their enemies Zionist and call themselves anti- Zionist.  They also call anybody who believes in the truth of the Holocaust "exterminationists", and call themselves "revisionists."  What more do you want.

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. :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc) Apparently your not familiar with the practices of the KKK affiliated group the NAAWP where Ralph gets his information from.  Do you consider cross burning intimidation?

Cross burning is intimidating; if Ralph can burn one over Usenet, I’ll be intimidated. :    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches Ralph:      Don’t think so Anti-Ralph: Nazi trash, Anti-Semite, Racist, etc, etc Zionist thought police?  Zionist control of the press?  Zionist control of the banks?  ’Freedom of speech’?  ’Hoax’

Yes, "Zionist Thought Police" is a thought-stopping cliche.  Your point is well-taken. :    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others Not really relevant Really, when they call Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner for Peace a liar?  When they say that the Jews are lying about the holocaust and they are telling the truth?  When they say they are for freedom of speech and others aren’t?

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. :    14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a "good" :        cause Not unless you include censorship. How about insulting the memory of the dead, and slandering holocaust survivors, Elie Wiesel, Simon Weisenthal, Mermelstein, and the ADL.

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. :    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less :        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis Ralph:      Not guilty Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly. The ‘logical reasoning’ in the articles they post is nonsense.  The motivation for the conclusions is hate, not scholarship. This comes from the Duke Univeristy History Department.

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? :    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Nope: you don’t need to be hyper-sensitive to be offended by Ralph Ralph refers to anyone who disagrees with him as a Zionist.

Agreed.   :    19. Inclination toward "groupthink" Well, Ralph’s argument is that this is so. Ralph’s discussion of Jews is classic group think.

But I think you will find that the majority of respondents to Ralph’s postings exhibit a kind of groupthink of their own.  Is this desireable? "Q" — My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected in any way to my employer.

Response:

But it won’t happen. I wish these nebulous "THOUGHT POLICE" would take their job seriously turn these guys off the net

See my new .sig – life looks brighter every day <Have a nice weekend — UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!

"how come the awesome zionist machine hasn’t managed to even squash a

Response:

     One example of this is the incredible over-reaction to unfounded claims of racist and anti-Semitic harassment and violence.  Simple human failings, such as unkind graffiti or bothersome telephone calls,

"Simple human failings…"? You’re a sick man, Mr. Winston

Response:

:    1. Character assassination Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,                      accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc)

You miss the point. It is not character assasination, it is character euthanasia. Ralph et al’s arguments have been more than sufficiently refuted here and elsewhere by careful documentation (for example, I have posted the texts of memos between Nazi officers during the war which casually describe to each other events they claim never occurred, see the bottom of this note.) What would you do with a person who insisted that 2+2=5? Even after you sat down and showed him in the simplest possible terms that it must be so? You would ridicule him, laugh in his face. That’s all you’re seeing here, the time has long past to be bothered offering polite disagreement when they deny information that could hardly be more factual and continue to post the same, tired lies over and over again. Their interest is not in any way the truth. Don’t be fooled, don’t be naive. They are cynical liars and propagandists. They have rights under freedom of speech. So do the rest of us. "Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three vans, without any faults occuring in the vehicles."         Dr August Becker on 5 June 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff "Apart from that I gave orders that all men should stand as far away as possible from van during the gassings, so that their health would not be damaged by any escaping gases. I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the following: Some of the Kommandos are using their own men to unload the vans after the gassing. I have made commanders of the Sonderkommandos in question aware of the enormous psychological and physical damage this work can do to the men, if not immediately then at a later stage."         Dr August Becker on 16 May 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Rauff —         -Barry Shein Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

Response:

I have been following the b-cpu wars for a few weeks with

                                                        a newbie, it’s been                                                         going on for a *long,                                                         long, long time*.                 At first it was, bizarre, now it is simply out of                 control. See my FAQ suggestion… a mixture of amusement and bemusement.  Like (I assume) many people, I am very curious about this Winston character. Is he a jackbooted skinhead?  Is he a dispassionate

historical skeptic?   Unlike his detractors, I am not prepared to place him anywhere on that spectrum based on what I have seen. Although my suspicions place him as a clever bigot, my jury’s out.

Bigot, yes. Clever, NOT! One thing which I do find very tiresome is the amount of mindless abuse directed at the b-cpu’ers.  

You are new here, I would prefer to call it tired reflex responses to megabytes of the same old boring crap. I suppose you weren’t around to enjoy ARF, where is that bARF these days? These B-CPU Nazis almost make ARF a pleasant retreat… (no flames please I wish people would either ignore their output or respond sensibly to it (many have).

I see you have bit the line too. You must unsubscribe this and every newsgroup ASAP if you want to save yourself from it! I like my FAQ & Ignorance idea… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyway, in James Lippard’s summary of Wilcox’s characterisation of political extremists I was struck by the correlation between this list and Ralph and his detractors. I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but I simply observe the following scorecard: : : Laird Wilcox is not an alias of Ralph Winston (though, for all I : know, the reverse could be true–but I doubt it).  He is a researcher : who *is* the founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political : Movements in the Spencer Library of the University of Kansas.  He has : compiled several guidebooks to extremist groups:  _Guide to the American : Right_, _Guide to the American Left_, and _Guide to the American Occult_. : He has authored a very good article titled "What is Political Extremism?" : which appeared in _Free Inquiry_ magazine, I believe, in which he : characterized the behavioral traits of extremist groups as: : :    1. Character assassination Ralph:      Never

Never, yeah right, "ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE" isn’t character assasination. Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,                       accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc)

Have you ever heard of a clown called Bradley Smith? DO you know who he is and what he did? :    2. Name calling and labeling Ralph:      Minimal

This man is a blatent Anti-semite… Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc

All of the above descriptions are accurate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations Not much on either side. :    4. Inadequate proof for assertions Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate. :    5. Advocacy of double standards hmm. :    6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil Ralph:       I don’t think so Anti-Ralph:  Assuredly

Oh please! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :    7. Manichean worldview Where’s my dictionary? :    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their :       opponents and/or critics Ralph:      No Anti-Ralph: Enormously :    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: :       whom they hate and who hates them Not much of this :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc) :    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches Ralph:      Don’t think so Anti-Ralph: Nazi trash, Anti-Semite, Racist, etc, etc :    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others Not really relevant :    13. Doomsday thinking Ditto :    14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a "good" :        cause Not unless you include censorship. :    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less :        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis Ralph:      Not guilty Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly. :    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Nope: you don’t need to be hyper-sensitive to be offended by Ralph. :    17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions Nope :    18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty Nope :    19. Inclination toward "groupthink" Well, Ralph’s argument is that this is so. :    20. Tendency to personalize hostility Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Pretty clear-cut. :    21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win Ralph:      Guilty!!! Blames PC thinking, media bias, etc for unpopularity                of his ideas. Anti-Ralph: Innocent!   (They’ve won) ——- Conclusion: It’s about time Ralph’s detractors calmed down a bit.

Damn! Ralph MUST BE A NICE GUY THEN! SHIT, AND I THOUGHT HE WAS A NAZI! Caveat: It’s easy for Ralph to win this one, because most of his postings         consist of one-way transcriptions of other people’s essay-style         writings, rather than real dialogue.

Yeah, one way transmission. It’s kind of hard to argue with someone who never answers back. Let’s face it, its hard to argue with a placard. Recommendation: Don’t respond to Ralph’s pre-potted postings.  Try to                 draw him into real interactive debate/discussion.

          B[B I agree with that, but the nonsense these people spew out is so outrageous, and deliberately crafted to offend, that someone (especially newbies) are bound to try to counter it. You can't argue with a rock. And we can't turn it off. All we can do is just ignore it and hope they get bored and go away. But it won't happen. I wish these nebulous "THOUGHT POLICE" would take their job seriously turn these guys off the net -Garret

Response:

Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,                      accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc)

Your just wrong about this.  Ralph has called people lots of names. He posts articles from groups with a clear political status.   Pseudonym?  Ask him who he works for, where he lives, what his job is, what his training is.  No answer. :    2. Name calling and labeling Ralph:      Minimal Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc

Ralph refers to all of his enemies as Zionists.  See what names he calls Elie Weisel, Simon Weinsenthal and the ADL. :    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations Not much on either side.

"Zionist control of the media?" :    4. Inadequate proof for assertions Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate.

Sorry, but nothing the IHR says has ever been published in a refereed journal. Please look at the court case. :    5. Advocacy of double standards

See how Ralph and his friends use historical texts. :    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. :    7. Manichean worldview Where's my dictionary?

Dichotomy of good vs. evil.   Winston believes that there is an evil Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world.   :    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their :       opponents and/or critics Ralph:      No Anti-Ralph: Enormously

Bullshit.  They quote texts out of context, which means they repress the actual content and use it for their own purposes.   They also publish the Ad from the Northwestern Daily without saying that it is an ad, and don't publish the Northwestern Daily's response. Pete Faust said that anyone who says that Jews were gassed is a war criminal.  What do you think of that? :    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: :       whom they hate and who hates them Not much of this

Bullshit.  They call all their enemies Zionist and call themselves anti- Zionist.  They also call anybody who believes in the truth of the Holocaust "exterminationists", and call themselves "revisionists."  What more do you want. :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc)

Apparently your not familiar with the practices of the KKK affiliated group the NAAWP where Ralph gets his information from.  Do you consider cross burning intimidation? :    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches Ralph:      Don't think so Anti-Ralph: Nazi trash, Anti-Semite, Racist, etc, etc

Zionist thought police?  Zionist control of the press?  Zionist control of the banks?  'Freedom of speech'?  'Hoax' :    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others Not really relevant

Really, when they call Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner for Peace a liar?  When they say that the Jews are lying about the holocaust and they are telling the truth?  When they say they are for freedom of speech and others aren't? :    14. Belief that it's okay to do bad things in the service of a "good" :        cause Not unless you include censorship.

How about insulting the memory of the dead, and slandering holocaust survivors, Elie Wiesel, Simon Weisenthal, Mermelstein, and the ADL. :    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less :        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis Ralph:      Not guilty Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly.

The 'logical reasoning' in the articles they post is nonsense.  The motivation for the conclusions is hate, not scholarship. This comes from the Duke Univeristy History Department. :    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Nope: you don't need to be hyper-sensitive to be offended by Ralph.

Ralph refers to anyone who disagrees with him as a Zionist. :    19. Inclination toward "groupthink" Well, Ralph's argument is that this is so.

Ralph's discussion of Jews is classic group think. :    20. Tendency to personalize hostility Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Pretty clear-cut.

You haven't been reading.  Look at what they say about Mermelstein. :    21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win Ralph:      Guilty!!! Blames PC thinking, media bias, etc for unpopularity               of his ideas. Anti-Ralph: Innocent!   (They've won)

He also blames this for the court case. ------- Conclusion: It's about time Ralph's detractors calmed down a bit.

It's about time for Ralph Winston to be exposed for what he really is. Caveat: It's easy for Ralph to win this one, because most of his postings        consist of one-way transcriptions of other people's essay-style        writings, rather than real dialogue.

No shit.  That way everything is polished and nice, and neat.  Just like the Ads that they put in the newspaper which the Duke Univeristy Dept of History says that they look like scholarship from their appearance, but have no scholarship in content. Recommendation: Don't respond to Ralph's pre-potted postings.  Try to                draw him into real interactive debate/discussion.

He doesn't answer any of my questions.   And I refuse to debate him as an equal.  Here's why: "The 'revisionism'.. is not meant to rectify a historical error; rather its aim is to hurt Jews and to demean and demonize them. ...As historians we deplore the effort to use the language of 'scholarship' to distort and oblieterate and event which, to our everlasting shame, did occur.  We urge all the members of the Duke community to treat such advertisment with the contempt they deserve."         Quoted from 'The history department responds to Holocaust Ad'         Unanimously approved at History Department meeting, 11/8/91         Duke University Chronicle, Wed, Nov 13, 1991 Leon Gross I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.

Response:

| Ralf | | [staff deleted] | |      Writing about this problem in his nationally syndicated column in | January 1988, conservative columnist PATRICK J. BUCHANAN referred to | Prof. WILLIAM WILBANKS, professor of criminal justice at Florida | International University and author of _The Myth of a Racist Criminal | Justice System_.  Here is what the professor found, buried in the | nation’s crime statistics: | |      "There is interracial violence in America.  In 1985, 629,000 |      interracial crimes were reported (where victims survived to |      identify the criminal); but nine out of ten were committed by |      blacks against whites.  Where white criminals, 98 percent of the |      time, prey on other whites — to rape, rob and assault — black |      criminals chose fellow blacks as victims less than half the time. |      Black criminals seem to prefer attacking white people.  While only |      2 percent of the victims chosen by white criminals are black, more |      than 50 percent of the victims targeted by black criminals — to |      rape, rob and assault — are white." | | ….. | | Fine, I’ve never heard an absurdity of a more refined sort. In fact, being | professor in the U.S. doesn’t necessarily mean being numerate. The professor | simply can’t do numbers — yeah, he’s not a mathematician, he’s a lawyer. What follows after this is a numerically incorrect analysis of the situation caused by the authors hatred of b-cpu’s latest article. If 10% of our population (black or white) perpetrated 1 crime, and each of them chose a person randomly from the rest of the population then you would get the following statistics: (% = % of total pop of group perpetrator is from *      % of people commiting crimes *      % of total pop of group the crime is perpetrated against) 6.4% of the population are white criminals who attack whites (80% * 10% * 80%) 1.6% of the population are white criminals who attack blacks (80% * 10% * 20%) 1.6% of the population are black criminals who attack whites (20% * 10% * 80%) 0.4% of the population are black criminals who attack blacks (20% * 10% * 20%) Comparing this to the given data, 1 out of 2 interracial crimes should be perpetrated by blacks. Instead it is 9 out of 10. The figure that 50% of all crimes commited by blacks are against whites, was not used independently, but was compared to the fraction of white crimes commited against blacks. By comparing the two figures you eliminate nearly all of the ghetto effect, with the remaining factors equally likely to pull it in either direction. The ratio of the two fractions given in the article is 25. That means that a black criminal is 25 times more likely to commit a crime against a white, that a white is against a black. My calculations show that the two percetages should be 80% and 20% yeilding a factor of 4. Both figures demonstate a considerable disparity. It is a perfectly legitimate conclusion that blacks prefer attacking whites, and white criminals avoid blacks. Additionally, there is a considerable body of cultural data which would provide reasons for this disparity. Jason W. Solinsky

Response:

I have been following the b-cpu wars for a few weeks with a mixture of amusement and bemusement.  Like (I assume) many people, I am very curious about this Winston character. Is he a jackbooted skinhead?  Is he a dispassionate historical skeptic?   Unlike his detractors, I am not prepared to place him anywhere on that spectrum based on what I have seen. Although my suspicions place him as a clever bigot, my jury’s out. One thing which I do find very tiresome is the amount of mindless abuse directed at the b-cpu’ers.  I wish people would either ignore their output or respond sensibly to it (many have). Anyway, in James Lippard’s summary of Wilcox’s characterisation of political extremists I was struck by the correlation between this list and Ralph and his detractors. I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but I simply observe the following scorecard: : : Laird Wilcox is not an alias of Ralph Winston (though, for all I : know, the reverse could be true–but I doubt it).  He is a researcher : who *is* the founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political : Movements in the Spencer Library of the University of Kansas.  He has : compiled several guidebooks to extremist groups:  _Guide to the American : Right_, _Guide to the American Left_, and _Guide to the American Occult_. : He has authored a very good article titled "What is Political Extremism?" : which appeared in _Free Inquiry_ magazine, I believe, in which he : characterized the behavioral traits of extremist groups as: : :    1. Character assassination Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,                       accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc) :    2. Name calling and labeling Ralph:      Minimal Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc :    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations Not much on either side. :    4. Inadequate proof for assertions Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate. :    5. Advocacy of double standards hmm. :    6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil Ralph:       I don’t think so Anti-Ralph:  Assuredly :    7. Manichean worldview Where’s my dictionary? :    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their :       opponents and/or critics Ralph:      No Anti-Ralph: Enormously :    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are: :       whom they hate and who hates them Not much of this :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation Ralph:      Never Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc) :    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches Ralph:      Don’t think so Anti-Ralph: Nazi trash, Anti-Semite, Racist, etc, etc :    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others Not really relevant :    13. Doomsday thinking Ditto :    14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a "good" :        cause Not unless you include censorship. :    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less :        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis Ralph:      Not guilty Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly. :    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Nope: you don’t need to be hyper-sensitive to be offended by Ralph. :    17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions Nope :    18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty Nope :    19. Inclination toward "groupthink" Well, Ralph’s argument is that this is so. :    20. Tendency to personalize hostility Ralph:      Nope Anti-Ralph: Pretty clear-cut. :    21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win Ralph:      Guilty!!! Blames PC thinking, media bias, etc for unpopularity                of his ideas. Anti-Ralph: Innocent!   (They’ve won) ——- Conclusion: It’s about time Ralph’s detractors calmed down a bit. Caveat: It’s easy for Ralph to win this one, because most of his postings         consist of one-way transcriptions of other people’s essay-style         writings, rather than real dialogue. Recommendation: Don’t respond to Ralph’s pre-potted postings.  Try to                 draw him into real interactive debate/discussion.

Response:

Ralf [staff deleted]      Writing about this problem in his nationally syndicated column in January 1988, conservative columnist PATRICK J. BUCHANAN referred to Prof. WILLIAM WILBANKS, professor of criminal justice at Florida International University and author of _The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System_.  Here is what the professor found, buried in the nation’s crime statistics:      "There is interracial violence in America.  In 1985, 629,000      interracial crimes were reported (where victims survived to      identify the criminal); but nine out of ten were committed by      blacks against whites.  Where white criminals, 98 percent of the      time, prey on other whites — to rape, rob and assault — black      criminals chose fellow blacks as victims less than half the time.      Black criminals seem to prefer attacking white people.  While only      2 percent of the victims chosen by white criminals are black, more      than 50 percent of the victims targeted by black criminals — to      rape, rob and assault — are white." ….. Fine, I’ve never heard an absurdity of a more refined sort. In fact, being professor in the U.S. doesn’t necessarily mean being numerate. The professor simply can’t do numbers — yeah, he’s not a mathematician, he’s a lawyer. Good… Also if you are blinded with hatered nothing matters, 2+2=4, 5? maybe 7?… Look, Ralf, the black people in America are a minority, say 10% (doesn’t matter how many exactly). *Suppose* black criminals are not racists at all, meaning they don’t give a shit whether the fella they want to kill is white or black. Take a guy from the crowd and kill him. Now look, the chances are 90% he is white!! So,– you have guessed, silly thing, — a perfectly unprejudiced criminal will kill 9 whites for 1 black, just because blacks are a 10% minority. 20%? Okay, okay, then 8 whites for two blacks. Now you may wonder, mindless creature, why the figure is 50% not 80 or 90% of white victism of black criminals. That’s simple, boy, because some of black criminals live in black ghettos, which whites sort of created for them out of their good hearts I guess, and therefore THEY SIMPLY HAVE MORE CHANCES TO OFFEND A BLACK PERSON AROUND. It must be clear by now that the sort of comparison presented by Prof Wilbanks, the bigot, can prove that black criminals prefer black victims as easily as the venerable professor thinks it proves they prefer to kill whites. Can’t comment on the rest of the text. Feel like vomiting. Folks, this is a sci.research group I believe, not nazi.coming.coming.coming. –Alex

Response:

*** The following is about 2,800 lines long, and contains about 152 *** kilobytes of data.  I recommend saving it for later reading, *** printing, and/or sharing with others.  I’m sure you will find it *** to be most interesting reading!                        _THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT_         Racist and Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Harassment and Violence:                An Essay on Hoaxes and Fabricated Incidents                An Analysis by Laird Wilcox, December 1990 Laird Wilcox Editorial Research Service P.O. Box 2047 Olathe, KS 66061 Phone/Fax: 1-913-829-0609                                Foreword      Like many young Americans who came of age in the 1960’s I was active in the civil rights movement.  I served as vice-chair of a chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, and I was a member and active participant in the activities of the Civil Rights Council at the University of Kansas in 1964 and 1965.  I also served on the board of the Lawrence, KS, chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and I’ve continued to be a member of that organization, with increasing reservations, to this day.      My commitment to civil rights was based upon the assumption that all people should be free to become whatever they’re capable of becoming; that all citizens of the United States were equal before the law; and that legal distinctions based on race were simply unfair.  I remain committed to those principles.      However, beginning as far back as 1968 it became obvious to me that many people who had attached themselves to the civil rights movement had another agenda altogether, and it had nothing to do with freedom, equality before the law, or fairness.  It was an ideological agenda that embraced, among other things, the very essence of racism itself.  It was committed to a massive increase in the power of the state and a corresponding decline in individual freedom, civil liberties and political and economic rights for all races.      This was no conspiracy.  It was simply unscrupulous individuals latching on to a noble and idealistic social movement and turning it to serve their own interests.  Nothing, I have learned, is quite as corruptible as idealistic sentiment.  One can do things in the name of helping "others" that would be unthinkable otherwise, and noble causes quickly compromise themselves by letting the end justify the means.      "Reverse racism" was quick in forming, and in the sense of releasing suppressed anger and resentment, it was understandable to a certain extent.  It became institutionalized and legitimized in the form of "affirmative action" in 1968, however, and today we’re on the verge of a complete role reversal, where the victims and the victimizers once again change places and victimization itself continues unabated.      Literally millions of people, including many government employees on every level, have a stake in the continuation, and not the alleviation, of "discrimination" and "bigotry."  On the campus, careers are developed around "identifying" and managing problems of "prejudice" towards every identifiable group except white males.  An entire body of law has developed around issues of gender and race, as well as other designated victims and minorities.  Advocacy organizations, journalistic careers, and political reputations depend upon continuing religious, racial and gender problems.      As specific problems move toward amelioration they are simply redefined, and the definitions are broadened to take in more and more personal and private behaviors.  What constitutes "discrimination" now embodies behaviors which, objectively, are without any discriminatory intent, and a vast and pervasive double standard has become institutionalized.  Our deepest and most personal attitudes, opinions and beliefs are becoming subject to scrutiny and censure by a predatory and unscrupulous "though police."      One example of this is the incredible over-reaction to unfounded claims of racist and anti-Semitic harassment and violence.  Simple human failings, such as unkind graffiti or bothersome telephone calls, are treated with disproportionate gravity, and ethnic and religious special interest groups are demanding, and receiving, preferential treatment under the law — which is itself a form of prejudice and bigotry.  This report deals with that phenomenon, and I hope you will give serious thought to what you will learn, and to my request for assistance in collecting information.                               Laird Wilcox December 1990                        THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT        RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC GRAFFITI, HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE:               AN ESSAY ON HOAXES AND FABRICATED INCIDENTS                   Copyright 1990, 1991 by Laird Wilcox                THE "RISING TIDE" OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM      Are you disturbed by the "rising tide" of allegedly racist and anti-Semitic incidents?  Have you wondered how come of these incidents seem to occur at the time when they’re most effective for propaganda, institutional blackmail, "consciousness raising," or to promote repressive legislation and censorship?  In fact, a significant percentage of these incidents are hoaxes, and these hoaxes can promote real "copy-cat" incidents which would not otherwise have occurred.      We use the word "hoax" to generally refer to a misleading or deceptive event which has the _effect_ of attributing "blame" or causality to persons other than those who are actually responsible.  In some cases, this may not be the express intention of the perpetrator. "Fabrication" generally refers to a somewhat elaborate and involved falsehood.  The individuals discussed in this essay are not necessarily bad people, only people who may have exercised bad judgement or made a mistake.  I think it best serves the interests of all Americans to avoid excessively harsh judgements in considering this issue.                MOST INCIDENTS ISOLATED, INVOLVE JUVENILES      The great majority of bonafide racist and anti-Semitic incidents are essentially "ad hoc" phenomena, usually involving juveniles entirely unaffiliated with any "hate group", and do not represent any plot, trend or conspiracy.  Incidents involving significant physical injury or property damage are rare, given the large population involved.  We often forget that we live in a country of a quarter billion (250 million) people of wide ethnic and cultural diversity, and a certain number of incidents of this type are bound to occur, as they do in other multi-ethnic societies.  In fact, when the United States is compared with the rest of the world we tend to experience less of this behavior than many other countries.      The majority of Americans see racial and ethnic hatred and      violence as simply unfair, and reasonably so.  It’s in the      interest of all Americans that we enjoy equal justice under the      law.  The kind of unfairness engendered by organized bigotry,      whether directed at blacks, whites, Jews or any other group      subverts that process and must be opposed.  No one should be      subjected to illegal activity, violence or unfair treatment on      account of race, religion or creed.  Hoaxes fabricated to      manipulate institutions, acquire victim status, or intimidate      critics and opponents serve only to threaten civil liberties.      The issue of racist and anti-Semitic hoaxes is extremely controversial.  The organized special interest advocacy groups that claim victimization, often with valid reason, view attention to hoaxes as a threat to their credibility.  This is not entirely unrealistic on their part.  The hoax controversy draws attention to two important issues:  1) The actual degree of victimization, which may be less than claimed, and 2) the utility or usefulness of hoaxes to serve their agenda, even if discovered.  Both of these issues will be addressed in this essay.  A consequence of this, however, is that to raise this issue can bring a torrent of defamatory and degrading abuse down upon one’s head, including charges of racism and anti-Semitism!          ONE ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENT PER 185,000 CITIZENS PER YEAR      The 1,350 or so anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the ANTI- DEFAMATION LEAGUE last year amount to approximately _one incident per 185,000 Americans_!  No disrespect is intended, and I’m sure these were distressing to those who experienced them, but these figures do not support the claim of a serious and significant trend toward anti- Semitic violence.  Most of these incidents are on the order of graffiti, verbal altercations or telephone harassment by kids and many remain unsolved.  A single hoaxer with a can of spray paint or a pocket full of quarters can inflate these statistics considerably.      In fact, the ADL itself may have been party to such misrepresentation on the cover of the March 1985 issue of the _ADL Bulletin_ where a photograph designated "Desecration of a Jewish home in Kings Point, NY" was a fake.  The swastika depicted does not follow the contours of the paneled door and appears to stand out and away from it.  It was painted onto a photo or transparency and then rephotographed.  The issue of the _Bulletin_ featured a major article entitled, "Anti-Semitic Vandalism: 2-Year Trend Reversed."  The article noted that California, with a population of 23,000,000 had experienced 99 incidents in 1984, or one incident per 230,000 citizens.      The ADL actually solicits its own statistics on anti-Semitic incidents by circulating questionaires to its mailing list (a population sensitized to the victimization to begin with).  This practice raises serious doubts about statistics compiled by an interested to promote its own agenda.  According to LEONARD LARSEN, syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Service, the ADL’s statistics may be questioned on other grounds as well.  LARSEN notes that among the "anti-Semitic" … read more »

Response:

The following should not be construed as a defense of any views expressed by Ralph Winston.  It is, however, a criticism of a respondent of Ralph Winston. I am sorry for behaving foolishly by writing about Mr Laird Wilcox in that fashion and citing KLANWATCH as a KKK newspaper.  I accept your criticism and I am glad someone came forth to do so.  I am saying this because I am sick and tired of reading racist articles.  My anger got the best of me in the wee hours of the morning.  I do not apologize, on the other hand, for attacking Ralph Winston’s character.  

No apology necessary; but thanks for your retraction regarding Wilcox and Klanwatch. In his article, Mr. Wilcox listed numerous hoaxes, some of which I am   acquainted.  He did not, on the other hand, list any true anti-semitic and/or racist acts.  Therefore, his work can be considered propaganda because it only supports one point of view.

He does discuss genuine anti-semitic and racist acts and groups in the _Report_.  (I haven’t read what Winston posted to see if he posted the whole thing, so maybe he simply excluded that discussion.)  Wilcox does argue that the vast majority of incidents are isolated incidents involving individuals, usually juveniles. Also, he cites the ADL (Anti Defamation League) as having erroneous data because of all these hoaxes.  What he fails to mention is that the ADL did not include these hoaxes into their statistics.  Therefore, it can be con- strued that Mr. Wilcox’s work is not very accurate.  Sure, it is good to list many cases that will support his point but that doesn’t mean too much without looking at the whole picture.

Actually, he shows the opposite–that they *have* included hoaxes in their statistics.  He cites the March 1985 issue of the _ADL Bulletin_ as an example, where a photograph of "Desecration of a Jewish Home in Kings Point, NY" was a fake.  He also points out that they get their statistics through member surveys, that they count unsolved incidents, and that they have counted such things as pro-Palestinian graffiti and the distribution of pro-Palestinian literature as "anti-semitic" incidents. In N.Y.C. alone (one of the largest "melting pots" in the world) there are numerous bias crimes a year.  On the other hand, if one examines other parts of the country where there are few minorities, you will see a low rate in these sorts of incidents.  I am sure Mr. Wilcox doesn’t see too many hate crimes in his neck of the woods for this reason.

No doubt this is true, but Wilcox has been collecting reports nationwide, not just in Kansas. It is my opinion that Ralph Winston is committing a crime against humanity when he writes that the Holocaust is a myth.  OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROVED HOW WRONG THIS IDEA IS and yet he still continues to propagate such nonsense all over the world.  His argument is slanderous towards Jews as well as those who have empathy for such a tragic loss of people. Sure, you might say that this would be a violation of our First Ammendment but by the same token I could go out and yell fire in a packed movie house and be arrested. Of course, I should be arrested for potentially harming countless many lives but slandering and propagating hate also harms countless many lives.

I do not think these cases are analogous; neither do the U.S. courts. I do believe that Winston is the same guy that got kicked off of PRODIGY for writing anti-semitic articles.  There is not much one can do to throw him off this system because USENET is not controlled by any one particular organ- ization.  I believe in free speech but then again the owner’s of PRODIGY had the right to do what they wished (i.e., the system is not public domain). PRODIGY has as much a right to do this as some country clubs have when they restrict Blacks, Jews and other minorities from  using their facilities.

Agreed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The preceding was in response to a criticism of my prior posting. My apalogies to: University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Thank you. And no thanks to the "MAIN MORON" (be sure to look over your shoulder every so often). — =- Matthew Okon (alias Yura Nass) /////// in conjunction with OHME BOYS!! =-

University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

Response:

The following should not be construed as a defense of any views expressed by Ralph Winston.  It is, however, a criticism of a respondent of Ralph Winston.

I am sorry for behaving foolishly by writing about Mr Laird Wilcox in that fashion and citing KLANWATCH as a KKK newspaper.  I accept your criticism and I am glad someone came forth to do so.  I am saying this because I am sick and tired of reading racist articles.  My anger got the best of me in the wee hours of the morning.  I do not apologize, on the other hand, for attacking Ralph Winston’s character.   In his article, Mr. Wilcox listed numerous hoaxes, some of which I am   acquainted.  He did not, on the other hand, list any true anti-semitic and/or racist acts.  Therefore, his work can be considered propaganda because it only supports one point of view. Also, he cites the ADL (Anti Defamation League) as having erroneous data because of all these hoaxes.  What he fails to mention is that the ADL did not include these hoaxes into their statistics.  Therefore, it can be con- strued that Mr. Wilcox’s work is not very accurate.  Sure, it is good to list many cases that will support his point but that doesn’t mean too much without looking at the whole picture. In N.Y.C. alone (one of the largest "melting pots" in the world) there are numerous bias crimes a year.  On the other hand, if one examines other parts of the country where there are few minorities, you will see a low rate in these sorts of incidents.  I am sure Mr. Wilcox doesn’t see too many hate crimes in his neck of the woods for this reason. It is my opinion that Ralph Winston is committing a crime against humanity when he writes that the Holocaust is a myth.  OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROVED HOW WRONG THIS IDEA IS and yet he still continues to propagate such nonsense all over the world.  His argument is slanderous towards Jews as well as those who have empathy for such a tragic loss of people. Sure, you might say that this would be a violation of our First Ammendment but by the same token I could go out and yell fire in a packed movie house and be arrested. Of course, I should be arrested for potentially harming countless many lives but slandering and propagating hate also harms countless many lives. I do believe that Winston is the same guy that got kicked off of PRODIGY for writing anti-semitic articles.  There is not much one can do to throw him off this system because USENET is not controlled by any one particular organ- ization.  I believe in free speech but then again the owner’s of PRODIGY had the right to do what they wished (i.e., the system is not public domain). PRODIGY has as much a right to do this as some country clubs have when they restrict Blacks, Jews and other minorities from  using their facilities. The preceding was in response to a criticism of my prior posting. My apalogies to: University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

Thank you. And no thanks to the "MAIN MORON" (be sure to look over your shoulder every so often). — =- Matthew Okon (alias Yura Nass) /////// in conjunction with OHME BOYS!! =-

Response:

The following should not be construed as a defense of any views expressed by Ralph Winston.  It is, however, a criticism of a respondent of Ralph Winston. Ralphi, you are truly a loser.  How long did it take you to write this hunk of shit.  

He didn’t write this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes:                              Laird Wilcox December 1990                       THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT       RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC GRAFFITI, HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE:              AN ESSAY ON HOAXES AND FABRICATED INCIDENTS                  Copyright 1990, 1991 by Laird Wilcox               THE "RISING TIDE" OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM Who the f*ck is Laird Wilcox.  Perhaps another one of your aliases

Laird Wilcox is not an alias of Ralph Winston (though, for all I know, the reverse could be true–but I doubt it).  He is a researcher who *is* the founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Spencer Library of the University of Kansas.  He has compiled several guidebooks to extremist groups:  _Guide to the American Right_, _Guide to the American Left_, and _Guide to the American Occult_. He has authored a very good article titled "What is Political Extremism?" which appeared in _Free Inquiry_ magazine, I believe, in which he characterized the behavioral traits of extremist groups as:    1. Character assassination    2. Name calling and labeling    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations    4. Inadequate proof for assertions    5. Advocacy of double standards    6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil    7. Manichean worldview    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their       opponents and/or critics    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are:       whom they hate and who hates them    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others    13. Doomsday thinking    14. Belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a "good"        cause    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance    17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions    18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty    19. Inclination toward "groupthink"    20. Tendency to personalize hostility    21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win The article in question, which goes into each of these points to some degree of detail, is reprinted in _The Hoaxer Project Report_.     Similar compilations of "racially-motivated" incidents compiled by other interested parties, such as KLANWATCH, are also flawed, and perhaps the most glaring flaw in these statistics is the practice of counting unsolved incidents.  Doubtless, numerous hoaxes are included KLANWATCH? Oh, you mean the KKK’s news letter. Very reputable source, NOT!

No.  Klanwatch is an ANTI-KKK group’s newsletter. Laird Wilcox, compiler and editor of these publications, is founder of the WILCOX COLLECTION ON CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL MOVEMENTS, housed in Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas.  The collection, established in 1965 and maintained by the University, occupies over 1,400 feet of shelving and contains over 5,500 books and pamphlets, 4,000 serials, 800 audio tapes, and files on more than 8,000 organizations.  From 1986 until 1989 the collection will be undergoing a $345,000 cataloging project.  The WILCOX COLLECTION has been described as "…one of the largest collections of its kind in the world" and is used regularly by researchers and scholars.  For further information write to the WILCOX COLLECTION, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66061. Oh, come on now. Do you expect anyone to believe this.

Why don’t you contact the University of Kansas Spencer Library and verify it for yourself? One might as well conclude from all of this, if he is as ignorant as Maynerd the Main Moron, that racism doesn’t exist.  There are too many jews in Dixie so how would you know anyway.

There is certainly no such argument in _The Hoaxer Project Report_. Your organization says:        THE HOLOCAUST IS A MYTH    JEWS CONTROL THE MEDIA    JEWS CONTROL THE WORLD’S BANKING SYSTEM    JEWS REPORT FALSE ANTI-SEMITIC ACTS Now, Now.   Isn’t all the above enough to prove that you and all of your

associates are ANTI-SEMITIC.

Of course not.  It’s certainly not sufficient to show that *everybody Winston cites or appeals to in the course of his arguments* is an anti-Semite.  Yet, if you are including Laird Wilcox in the above, that’s just what you are arguing.    The fact of the matter is that there *have* been racial and anti-Semitic incidents which were hoaxes perpetrated by members of the groups in question, for a variety of reasons.  Wilcox provides ample documentation for a few dozen such hoaxes.  He may be incorrect in the conclusions he draws from this about how widespread such hoaxes actually are, but that doesn’t make him an anti-Semite or a racist. The truth of the matter is that is Jews actually controlled the world, you and everyone like wouldn’t exist.  I mean if Jews have conspired as much as you believe, wouldn’t someone like you be a hair on the ass of a giant? Hey Ralphi, WE’RE COMING FOR YOU!!!! — =- Matthew Okon (alias Yura Nass) /////// in conjunction with OHME BOYS!! =-

University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

Response:

Ralphi, you are truly a loser.  How long did it take you to write this hunk of shit.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - writes:                              Laird Wilcox December 1990                       THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT       RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC GRAFFITI, HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE:              AN ESSAY ON HOAXES AND FABRICATED INCIDENTS                  Copyright 1990, 1991 by Laird Wilcox               THE "RISING TIDE" OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM

Who the f*ck is Laird Wilcox.  Perhaps another one of your aliases     Similar compilations of "racially-motivated" incidents compiled by other interested parties, such as KLANWATCH, are also flawed, and perhaps the most glaring flaw in these statistics is the practice of counting unsolved incidents.  Doubtless, numerous hoaxes are included

KLANWATCH? Oh, you mean the KKK’s news letter. Very reputable source, NOT! Laird Wilcox, compiler and editor of these publications, is founder of the WILCOX COLLECTION ON CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL MOVEMENTS, housed in Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas.  The collection, established in 1965 and maintained by the University, occupies over 1,400 feet of shelving and contains over 5,500 books and pamphlets, 4,000 serials, 800 audio tapes, and files on more than 8,000 organizations.  From 1986 until 1989 the collection will be undergoing a $345,000 cataloging project.  The WILCOX COLLECTION has been described as "…one of the largest collections of its kind in the world" and is used regularly by researchers and scholars.  For further information write to the WILCOX COLLECTION, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66061.

Oh, come on now. Do you expect anyone to believe this. One might as well conclude from all of this, if he is as ignorant as Maynerd the Main Moron, that racism doesn’t exist.  There are too many jews in Dixie so how would you know anyway. Your organization says:         THE HOLOCAUST IS A MYTH         JEWS CONTROL THE MEDIA         JEWS CONTROL THE WORLD’S BANKING SYSTEM         JEWS REPORT FALSE ANTI-SEMITIC ACTS Now, Now.   Isn’t all the above enough to prove that you and all of your associates are ANTI-SEMITIC. The truth of the matter is that is Jews actually controlled the world, you and everyone like wouldn’t exist.  I mean if Jews have conspired as much as you believe, wouldn’t someone like you be a hair on the ass of a giant? Hey Ralphi, WE’RE COMING FOR YOU!!!! — =- Matthew Okon (alias Yura Nass) /////// in conjunction with OHME BOYS!! =-

Response:

Related Posts