Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!black@pundit.DEC (DON BLACK DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N13 LOC: POLE C6)
From: black@pundit.DEC (DON BLACK DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N13 LOC: POLE C6)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: More of the saga
Message-ID: <3699@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 12:34:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3699
Posted: Fri Aug 16 12:34:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 01:33:18 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 111




Hey, Oaf--

     Toss these around awhile.


>    If  you  think I called you a Nazi out of thin air, rest assured I
>had logical reasons, provided by yourself, and  I  pointed  them  out.
>Also  you think WRONG, since I called you no such thing.  I said I was
>unable, on the strength of the evidence you  so  kindly  provided,  to
>claim you aren't one.  Not the same thing.

     The term "Nazi" gets used so much that the exact definition has long
since been blurred.  I guess the current definition depends on what the
ADL decides it is on any particular day.

     Nobody really knows any more what the roots of Nazism were.  People 
blame it on Nietzche and Satre and Camus and Hauer and Goebbels (sp?) and
Hitler.  Tell me, Oaf, who wrote "On the Jewish Question" (1844) and 
"The German Ideology" (1845)?


>	>    The UN to this day has no legitimacy, and neither does the 
>	>Israeli State.


     I don't see where any One-World-Government organization, whose goals
are to destroy the sovereignty of any and all nations, has any legitimacy 
at all.  

     As far as Israeli being illegitimate, I believe that's fairly obvious.
The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since
it was not legitimate British territory to begin with.  They were an army of
occupation on Palestinian land.  If it were to be turned over to anybody, it
should have been released to those who had a more legitimate claim, to wit,
the Palestinians.

     The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on
territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population.  The 
Palestinians had been in the area for 2000 years.  They owned it rightfully.
Previously the Israelites and the Jews had both abandoned the territory and
had made no claim to it.  (Who'd want a sand dune anyway?)

     The very fact that the UN did make such an order shows that it is no
respector of nations or civil rights.

     Now, since the Jewish refugees had been slowly moving into the area 
over a couple of centuries, they could well have worked their way into the
local governments, and legiimately voted to accept the war survivors.  But
they didn't.  They stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and
drove the Palestinian people into the desert.

     Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I oppose the Israeli
State.


>	>     As for Hitler not killing any Jews, well, I guess there are 
>	>pro's and con's of the subject, aren't there?  I suppose the subject 
>	>has been "proven" in a courtroom.  But that's relatively easy to do 
>	>when the jury's been brainwashed, and the judge has been paid off.

     It is a well-known fact that some people and organizations do not believe
the whole story of the "Holocaust."  Which means there are "pros" and "cons"
of the subject.  

     Just because the Institute for Historical Review says it didn't happen
doesn't mean that it didn't.  Likewise, just because the Simon Wiesenthal
Center says it did, doesn't mean that it did.  What makes this country
strong is that we have the right to discuss the issue in public, like it
or not.  It's called "Individual Freedom."

    
> ||	 >>    If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells  like
> ||	 >>a  duck,  lives  in the swamp with the ducks, and presumably
> ||	 >>hopes to produce future generations by <@%$>, who  am  I  to
> ||	 >>question  whether it's a duck?  (Now, as to whether you're a
>          [Oaf]
>    I happen to think you're a KGB agent, hired to spread second-level
>disinformation   under   guise  of  a  Klansman  and  neo-Nazi.   

     Same to you, fella!

>Said
>disinformation, when exposed, will lead to more favorable  perceptions
>of  Soviet  intentions  and  a  very  strong  reaction in favor of gun
>control, perhaps outright confiscation:....  

     Not likely.  In fact, You've actually added fuel to my fire.  

     Lets face it, Oaf.  If I did a 180-deg. switch, claimed to be a KGB
agent, and advocated Communism and repression, you'd jump all over me like
flies on a cow paddy.  You don't want "Sovietism" any more than I do.  But 
yet, a sovereign free constitutional republic doesn't suit your fancy, either.
Simply because it allows too much free examination and discussion of history,
religion, finance, politics, etc.   A Constitutional Republic is a nation
governed by laws, rather than by men.  A nation governed by laws can call its
officials to task if they screw up.  But a government of men has no account-
ability.  And accountability is exactly what our "Shadow Government" is
afraid of.  

     Enough for now.  There's plenty more to come.


     (By the way, if I really were a KGB agent, wouldn't I be smart to shut
up, go away, and let some other agent take over?)


     --Don Black