Nazi's in America ....

[bmattock]

So I'm reading and reading and thinking, what point did I not get across?

I 'got' your point. You dislike the KKK and the neo-Nazis and you think they should be suppressed 'by any means necessary'. I just disagree with it.

Sorry guys, if you don't see the difference between the Knights of Columbus and the nazis, the B'nai Brith and the nazis, if you don't see how female circumcision isn't the same as the nazis, (but think Judaic male circumcision is) well, maybe I'm reading the wrong board.

Do I see the difference? Yes. Of course.

Do I believe that YOU want to suppress the Knights of Columbus the way you do the KKK? Of course not.

I even agree with you that the KKK and the neo-Nazis are detestable little gangs of thugs with nary a brain stem between 'em.

What YOU fail to see is that YOUR agenda, no matter how noble, calls for the dismemberment of civil liberties of a particular group you dislike. If YOU can do that to the KKK, then Joe Sixpack Catholic-Hater can do it to the KofC. That sword cuts both ways. I won't go along with it. We either have liberty or we do not - and it applies to all, no matter how detestable they may be.

Liberties can only be curtailed when they conflict with other liberties. No one has a right to kill you as part of their (let's say, for the sake of argument) cannibalistic religious beliefs - your right to live outweighs their right to practice their religion.

However, they can espouse cannibalism, they can write books about the joys of cannibalism, they can demonstrate and march around and attempt to recruit new members into their Kannibal Klan - as long as they do not cross the line into incitement to DO something about it - or actually do it. I know you don't like that - I'm sorry. Liberty is like that sometimes.

I agree with the ALCU. Honestly, I understand their right to legally defend a nazi. (I contribute to the ALCU.) THAT is the same as my right to stop them by whatever means possible. Nazis guys, nazis. Ovens. Poles, gypsie, Jews, French, Slovacs, Russians. Anyone who wasn't arian was, well, toast or a lampshade.

You don't have the right to "stop them by any means necessary." Any means would also mean by murdering them. So to stop them from murdering, you'd murder them. That's what 'by any means' actually means. Sorry, I have to give that the big thumbs down.

Grow a set of balls and see that these people are wrong and don't be so liberal.

I am more conservative than most people you will ever meet. And my balls are doing quite well, thanks.

Don't tell me the the political party responisble for the most deaths since the I don't know when has a right to come in my (or any) neighborhood and recruit little nazis to do more of the same.

Well, too bad, because they do. We don't have any outlawed political parties here. People can decide for themselves.

And for sure don't tell me you lost a relative, be them a civilian or a soldier in the army, and tell me nazis still can demonstrate.

Too bad, because that is exactly what I'm telling you, and I served in the US military.

Sorry, liberalism and reality do not agree with me some times.

I'm not a liberal, nor am I a Democrat. I am a conservative.

And I do not mean I am conservative. I mean follow some thoughts to their logical conclusions and realize half answers are usually no answer at all.

Your logical conclusions will dismember freedom in America, and then there is nothing left to protect.

Now obviously, my pre-coffee words aren't going to change anyone's mind here.

Nor the post-coffee words, I suspect.

And yes, thank G-d that is one of the perqs of living here in a free society. You say what you want, I say what I want.

But you said the KKK and the neo-Nazis do NOT have the right to say what they want; well, not in your neighborhood, anyway. Where's your free society now?

However, go ahead and say nazis can do what they want (or incite by merely saying what they want).

I didn't say that, but nice try at twisting my words. Inciting to riot is a crime in most jurisdictions, and people who do so can be arrested, tried, convicted and punished. Until they 'incite to riot' to the degree that a prosecutor choose to prosecute, and a jury votes to convict, it is nothing but speech, and speech must remain free.

That same law gives me the freedom to think you are a complete fool, playing with fire, and that come any means I see I WILL attempt to stop your misfound sense of 'political correctness'.

Freedom of speech is not a 'law'. In fact, freedom of speech is a natural right, recognized by the Constitution as amended as being given to us by our Creator. In fact, there are no 'laws' on the books 'granting' anyone freedom of speech. Even the Bill of Rights does not 'give' us any rights - it merely restricts the federal government from usurping the rights that it details.

But you certainly have the same right to free speech that I do, or that an idiot Klansman does. So go right ahead and try to stop my "misfound sense of 'political correctness'." Frankly, I find the whole idea that you think I'm a PC liberal very amusing.

And THAT is a right guaranteed me by the constituition.

No sir, it is not. It is a right given to us by G-d. READ THE CONSTITUTION if you don't believe me. To wit:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does it say? It does NOT say that YOU have the right to freedom of speech. It says that the federal government has no right to restrict freedom of speech. Think that's a different way of saying the same thing? It is not. If our right to freedom of speech were GIVEN TO US by the Constitution, then an appropriate law could TAKE IT AWAY AGAIN. G-d gave us our freedoms, not Congress. And Congress cannot take those rights away. Nor can you.

Now, off to work, where I can read the rest of these posts from the peace and quite of my desk, and probably get all frenzied up again!

Shalom, Salaam, and Pax Vobiscum. Jack Daniels works for me - not at work, of course.

I had to edit this after reading. To clarrify, of course I agree anyone has a constituitional right, under the LAW, to demonstrate. What I mean is, in a civilized, free society (and no, this next comment does not make this an oximoron) all citizens have an OBLIGATION to prevent nazis from exercising those rights.

Phooey. You reasonably want to prevent Nazis from speaking freely. I may agree with you in your opinion of those turds, but if I go along with you in suppressing their rights, then I must go along with Joe Sixpack when he wants to suppress the Mime Workers of America. And you think that this is different - you're reasonable, and he's not. But if you spend a couple hours reading his strange mystic reasoning or perusing his recommended websites, he'd prove it to you - well maybe not, but of course in HIS mind he would.

If I agree, even once, that a US citizen should have their rights curtailed because of what they might do - even if I believe in my heart that they ARE evil and WILL try to do something bad, then I am not being honest about the liberty I claim to value.

I'm sorry, it is like listening to the never-ending "One True Church" arguments - everybody thinks THEIR church is the 'right' church, and if only I'd listen to your argument, I'd agree with you. In this case, you have a problem with the KKK and the neo-Nazis, and you can't see that some other guy down the street says he has just as reasonable a claim to fear the Elevator Operators of America. If I listen to you, I have to listen to him. Freedom denied to one is freedom denied to all.

I'm going to close by describing a horrible practice that should be curtailed. You see, there was, not long ago, this group of people who ruled by fear and despotism. They invaded other countries, they impressed their belief system on those countries, they forced people to convert at the point of a sword, and they sometimes chose not to believe that the conversions were authentic and killed them anyway. They seized lands and riches from those they were against, and they did it in the name of their G-d. They invaded the Middle East not once, but thrice, and they put people of the same G-d to death after barbaric tortures and forced confessions. The last of their pogroms did not end until a mere few hundred years ago. In Salem, Mass.

Yeah, those horrible people are Christians. And I look around and I see millions of people who think they have the right to talk about Christianity. They seem to think that they have the right to try to convert, to preach, and you know what? There are even some extreme sects that preach violence. Some preach violence against abortion clinics and doctors. Some feel that Jews are to blame for whatever ills they feel they suffer. Some find Muslims responsible. Some hate other flavors of Christianity.

Well, let's put a stop to that. No more freedom of speech for them, they've abused it. My G-d, they come into my neighborhood and they hang fliers and they go door-to-door, and they even opened one of their hateful buildings on my block. Dear Lord, they're on TV every day!

I have the right to stop them by any means necessary. Never again the Burning Times!

I hope you caught the sarcasm. And if you think - yeah, but my case is different, because...then you didn't catch my point. You're not special. Neither am I. Get over it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ducttape]

k, I've had my coffee, watch out!

AM I confusing wanna-bes with, ah, bes? What seperates them other than right place, right time? Put a wanna be nazin in a room with anyone other than a 'racially pure arian' and do you think he will offer them tea?

On the way to work I was thinking of this scenario:

I'm of German descent (I mean for this discussion. There is a little in there, but I tend to root further east in Europe.) I invite you to my house and show you around and say 'isn't this a lovely lampshade? My grandfather made it during the war. I think it's a Warsaw, 1932 vintage. Maybe as early as 1930. See this mark here? This is were my grandpa's unit in the Weirmacht numbered him, before shecketing him. And this one here? Antwerp, probably a '16-'17 vintage. This one is a real prize because grandpa got him BEFORE they had a chance to put the number on"

Dispicable? Yes. Legal? Yes. (Maybe not, as human furniture is probably not legal. Pls see my point below for what I am driving at)

Now, you come over to another spot on my shelf and I say 'Here is my prized piece. I got it myself! New Yorker. Vintage 1945. I got him just last weekend because they had a gthering in the Central Park Sheep Meadow. It was a beautiful thing getting this one. So much fun, I'm going back for another next Saturday."

What's the difference? Words are words. Actions are different than words. You have the right to say anything your heart desires, even if I think you are an ass for doing so. However, ACTIONS are different. You do NOT have the right to do anything you want. You do NOT have the right to NOT peacably assemble (how about that, libertarians. Should we allow people to assemble to riot? To form a lynch mob?) You do NOT have the right to hit someone. You do NOT have the right to turn them into a lampshade.

I have to tell you that I don't give a rats petunia that it's perceived they aren't in a position to cause the damage of the 1930's nazis, or no one will take them seriously, or the situation today is different, or any other excuse. Was it 'so' different in Germany in the 20's that Hitler's arrest in the beer hall pursch put an end to him?

That's my point.

All this is well and done and it's very nice to be academic about it. But when push comes to shove and nazis are knocking at your door saying let's get the Pole or the Jew and you DON'T do anything about it, you are as guilty as them. This is the real word, not a classroom civics lesson.

 

[bmattock]

What's the difference? Words are words. Actions are different than words. You have the right to say anything your heart desires, even if I think you are an ass for doing so. However, ACTIONS are different. You do NOT have the right to do anything you want. You do NOT have the right to NOT peacably assemble (how about that, libertarians. Should we allow people to assemble to riot? To form a lynch mob?) You do NOT have the right to hit someone. You do NOT have the right to turn them into a lampshade.

I agree with all of that. But you don't agree with it. You said so yourself.

You said that decent people have an obligation to prevent these people from assembling, and from speaking - using any means necessary. You said that.

I have to tell you that I don't give a rats petunia that it's perceived they aren't in a position to cause the damage of the 1930's nazis, or no one will take them seriously, or the situation today is different, or any other excuse. Was it 'so' different in Germany in the 20's that Hitler's arrest in the beer hall pursch put an end to him?

The fact that you do or don't give a "rat's petunia" about anything means nothing to me. I don't care about your history lesson, I don't agree with your conclusions. You insist that I must. Well, I don't.

That's my point.

Your point, as I understand it, is that the KKK and neo-Nazis are sufficient dangerous, by their mere existance, to be stopped from speaking and assembling by any means necessary. And I disagree with that point.

All this is well and done and it's very nice to be academic about it. But when push comes to shove and nazis are knocking at your door saying let's get the Pole or the Jew and you DON'T do anything about it, you are as guilty as them. This is the real word, not a classroom civics lesson.

When Nazis knock at my door, I'll give them what I keep in my rifle barrel. When they come for you, I'll be at your side to help defend your rights, if you'll allow me to.

When neo-Nazis assemble in a park or rally on courthouse steps, or march in Skokie; when they publish doctines and pamphlets and screeds; when they give the Hitler salute and yell racial insults at the crowd that gathers to jeer them - I dislike it intensely. But I will not infringe their right to do those things. Or I run the risk of having MY rights curtailed because someone else thinks I'm the whackjob.

I refuse to play the semantic game that if I let them speak, I must be for them. If I let them march, I must want them to kill you. Nothing is further from the truth, and I resent any such implication. I don't defend the KKK or the neo-Nazis. I defend liberty, which is much more important than you - or me - and our discomfort about these idiots.

You equate saying with doing in the case of neo-Nazis and the KKK - so you argue that they alone do not deserve the right to free speech, the right to assemble. Don't deny it, you said that, repeatedly. I disagree with you. That's it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[lmd91343]

Bill,

You write way too fast for me. I am responding to your messages after you have moved on to subsequent ones. Wow, you think and type fast.

I am going to paraphrase a couple of things you have written. Please forgive me if I don't get them exact.

I believe, the point you try to make is that freedom for you is best maintained by freedom for all. And that also includes not interfering in "bad" groups' "privacy" (who they are and their associations) until they have proved they present a clear danger.

In your last post to me you made the points that the Nazis were in-effective and the KKK was broken. They don't represent a danger.

Getting back to freedom, there is a freedom you leave out. That freedom is freedom from fear. It is not guaranteed by the constitution, but is accepted as part of America like the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Oops, I am getting ahead of myself. I want to thank you for making my point. I knew you'd eventually get there. The Nazis are in-effective and the KKK is broken. That is because of the two prong plan of 1) publicity/daylight 2) not giving them a free pass financially, I have been hawking. Actually I can't claim credit. The groups I support do it. They are: Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Foundation; and the Museum of Tolerance. To a great extent the work of these groups, especially the ADL, have reduced the fangs of the "bad" groups. The ADL is particularly proud of its involvement in the curbing of the KKK. They pushed and sponsored the public anti-mask laws that removed the anonymity of the KKK membership. This publicity has given other groups and people the ability to pursue financial damages for the damage they cause. The daylight also forces the collection of taxes that were ignored by some local agencies.

As for Freedom From Fear and the increasing capabilities given by technology, we still need to follow these "bad" groups. With not much money and people they can do horrible damage. I don't want to list the obvious physical attacks. You thought the technology I mentioned was to allow them the ability to more clearly broadcast their voice. I don't want to deny them their voice. We can't deny any voices if we wish to preserve speech freedoms. Anyway I don't have Freedom from Fear. These "bad" guys have said they want to kill me. They belong to groups that have killed thousands and millions in living memory. They can't be ignored. I live in Los Angeles, the second biggest Jewish city in the world. Here, my cars have LAPD issued stickers that identify me as a member of a Jewish organization so I can pass the first checkpoint to go into the synagogue. I then need to pass private security and an LAPD officer to go into the sanctuary. We have had to build a tall wall around our compound with metal spikes on top. We had to build a tall fence around the parking lot with automatic gates and spikes on the driveways. We built a wall with locked doors between the parking and the buildings guarded by a police officer. There are two more sets of locked metal gates that must be passed to get to the buildings where the children are. This was all pre-Iraq war. This is not unique here. It is like this now at most large Jewish organizations here. My last trip to Sinai Temple in B.H. I had to get out of my car, open my trunk, and have the bottom side of my car inspected with a mirror.

You expressed a fear that once a group has been vanquished, my "mob" would move on to other targets. In the several generations of the ADL's practices this has not been the case. I am sorry that you see that trend with cigarette policies in your area.

As for the "marble heads in a sekrit(sic) society", I was unclear whether you spoke of the ADL (good guys) or the CCC (bad guys, the polite branch of the KKK). I gave you the link. You said you ignored it. You said you did not know of the CCC. So I don't know how you can come to your "marblehead sekrit(sic) society" comments. Don't judge me by the words and actions of others. I don't do that to you. I expect the same in return.

As for the "tin foil hat" comment, that was good. Very funny. I must live in a bubble. I had to look it up. I better go put one on so the government does not control my brainwaves!

Respectfully,
Lance

 

[lmd91343]

Peter,

Well reasoned. However that was not my point. I was comparing the technologies of destruction, the ability to kill. I used examples from the 1880s and the 1940s to show the increase in the killing potential.

As for communication technology, I said it would be "silly" to try to restrain it.

Oh yes, I did see Elvis cruising down Sunset Blvd yesterday in a Caddie convertible!

Respectfully,
Lance

I disagree with this. Modern information technology has the same effect as the printing press: it allows many different, and sometimes contradicting, opinions to be spread much quicker than before. So while it's true on the one hand that, as you say, any extremist group can reach a far wider audience much quicker than any time before in history, this is offset by the fact that any other group can do exactly the same.

The US is the best example here. There's more wacko groups in the US than there's citizens, I'm sure. Lots of them are plain crazy (yes, Elvis landed in Arizona desert and gave a concert), others are naive (sure, revolution is about to happen worldwide real soon) and others are dangerous. But there's so many of them, that the incredible amount of voices turned into people shouting at top of their voices to be heard between all the others, which then became just background noise.

I don't believe that in the current situation in North America or Europe, extremism has that much of a chance to convince the masses. There's so many groups that, when any one poses a threat to the general freedom, another one will step in and sue them, expose them or by other means drag them down. Comparing this to the 1930s is not a good comparison, because back then, there were only a few extremist left groups fighting against a fairly right world, which reacted by founding a couple of extremist right groups in reaction. News papers and radio were the only media. Since then, TV and Internet have come up. During the fall of the eastern European communist regimes, the main fight was about media. Hitler was possibly a pioneer in this area. But these days, there's so much media in the western world that it'll be very hard to conquer all of them and indoctrinate the masses in the same way as in the 1930s, or in Eastern Europe where the only state-owned TV channel could be taken over and forced to broadcast a new agenda.


Peter.

 

[bmattock]

I am going to paraphrase a couple of things you have written. Please forgive me if I don't get them exact.

I'll forgive you, but I'll also correct you. And if I misspoke, I'll correct myself.

I believe, the point you try to make is that freedom for you is best maintained by freedom for all.

Not quite. My point is that if we don't all have 'Freedom of Speech,' then none of us have 'Freedom of Speech.'

And that also includes not interfering in "bad" groups' "privacy" (who they are and their associations) until they have proved they present a clear danger.

Again, not quite. I said that 'bad groups' have the same right to privacy that 'good' groups do, unless and until they are accused in a court of law of something that would require their privacy to be surrendered. In other words, if they don't break the law, their business is their business and not yours - or mine.

In your last post to me you made the points that the Nazis were in-effective and the KKK was broken. They don't represent a danger.

Close. I represent that they don't represent nearly the danger that the Nazis did in Hitler's time, or the KKK did at the turn of the last century. I am sure they are still dangerous.

Getting back to freedom, there is a freedom you leave out. That freedom is freedom from fear. It is not guaranteed by the constitution, but is accepted as part of America like the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

It is not a defined right or freedom, protected by the Constitution. Made-up rights are not rights. Sorry, that's a real pantload. If everyone has the right to freedom from fear, then you can get me locked up - I'm a scary guy, big and aggressive looking. I scare a lot of people.

You don't have a right not to be offended - and you don't have a right not to be scared. And no, such a made-up right is not 'generally accepted'. Well, not where I live, anyway. California, that's a whole 'nuther place.

Oops, I am getting ahead of myself. I want to thank you for making my point. I knew you'd eventually get there. The Nazis are in-effective and the KKK is broken. That is because of the two prong plan of 1) publicity/daylight 2) not giving them a free pass financially, I have been hawking. Actually I can't claim credit. The groups I support do it. They are: Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Foundation; and the Museum of Tolerance. To a great extent the work of these groups, especially the ADL, have reduced the fangs of the "bad" groups. The ADL is particularly proud of its involvement in the curbing of the KKK. They pushed and sponsored the public anti-mask laws that removed the anonymity of the KKK membership. This publicity has given other groups and people the ability to pursue financial damages for the damage they cause. The daylight also forces the collection of taxes that were ignored by some local agencies.

Congratulations. I don't see how that makes your point. If your very fine groups had been going after the American Librarians Association instead, would that be OK? If the method is unjust, then it is unjust for all. However, what was done was legal. I don't like it, and I won't applaud it, but it was legal.

As for Freedom From Fear and the increasing capabilities given by technology, we still need to follow these "bad" groups.

So you say. Who 'we'? Not me. I refuse. And how do I know that your buddy down the street won't say that 'we' also need to follow XYZ group - one that I belong to? Oh, but you would never target 'good' groups - only 'bad' ones. But if I disagree about what a bad group is, then what? Too bad for me? Nope, that dog won't hunt.

With not much money and people they can do horrible damage. I don't want to list the obvious physical attacks. You thought the technology I mentioned was to allow them the ability to more clearly broadcast their voice. I don't want to deny them their voice.

Yes, you do wish to deny them their voice. You have said it. You change your tack to soothe your opponent and make yourself seem like less of a strident wack-job. Not working.

We can't deny any voices if we wish to preserve speech freedoms.

True. So why are you so interested in stopping the KKK from marching, speaking in public, and so on?

Anyway I don't have Freedom from Fear.

And you don't get freedom from fear. Neither do I. I'll get over it. You should too.

These "bad" guys have said they want to kill me.

File a complaint with the police, give specifics. When and where were you threatened?

They belong to groups that have killed thousands and millions in living memory.

So has Christianity. I'm a Catholic. Deal with me. Tell me that I don't have a right to exist, to believe as I wish, or even to be private about my religious beliefs if I wish. Go on, do it.

They can't be ignored. I live in Los Angeles, the second biggest Jewish city in the world. Here, my cars have LAPD issued stickers that identify me as a member of a Jewish organization so I can pass the first checkpoint to go into the synagogue. I then need to pass private security and an LAPD officer to go into the sanctuary. We have had to build a tall wall around our compound with metal spikes on top. We had to build a tall fence around the parking lot with automatic gates and spikes on the driveways. We built a wall with locked doors between the parking and the buildings guarded by a police officer. There are two more sets of locked metal gates that must be passed to get to the buildings where the children are. This was all pre-Iraq war. This is not unique here. It is like this now at most large Jewish organizations here. My last trip to Sinai Temple in B.H. I had to get out of my car, open my trunk, and have the bottom side of my car inspected with a mirror.

I'm very sorry to hear it.

I am more than sorry, I am ashamed that we have a society where that sort of thing would ever be necessary to protect your right to live, worship, and assemble as you please.

You expressed a fear that once a group has been vanquished, my "mob" would move on to other targets.

In a way, yes. I expressed a belief that if I say "You're right, those KKK and Nazi guys are dangerous. Let's wipe 'em out," then I also have to listen to the Tinfoil Helmet Brigade tell me how the Jews sacrifice babies and need to be killed, and how the Catholics cut the heads off of Protestants, and they ALL need to be stopped, because they're ALL bad guys.

I also said that people who hate seldom stop with what they say their goals are. "Oh, just the KKK and the Nazis, and then we'll stop." Right.

In the several generations of the ADL's practices this has not been the case. I am sorry that you see that trend with cigarette policies in your area.

I don't know what the ADL's agenda is, or what it will become. I speak of human nature based on historic observation. And the cigarette policies of which I speak are most onerous in the California area. California is famous for that type of thing.

As for the "marble heads in a sekrit(sic) society", I was unclear whether you spoke of the ADL (good guys) or the CCC (bad guys, the polite branch of the KKK).

Your good guys, your bad guys. Our assessments may coincide, or they may not. I won't support your agenda, because anyone can claim what you claim - that group X is 'bad' and needs to be suppressed.

If we agree that the KKK is an evil organization - and we do - but I then take the next step and agree that they therefore need to be suppressed, destroyed, monitored, harrassed, defanged, exposed, and so on - I am setting myself up to be the next 'bad guy' group that either you or someone else decides to destroy.

You only care about YOUR fear, YOUR agenda. I care about liberty for all. Even you, even neo-Nazis. If they're American citizens, they have the right to speak, and to assemble. Sorry.

And that's why I won't play, simply put.

I gave you the link. You said you ignored it. You said you did not know of the CCC.

Right. Never heard of it. Now I have. Not interested.

But I know the sound of an axe being sharpened. You're not going to stop mentioning it, because it is your favorite cause to flog - that much is clear. I won't play shill for your sales job. Do your own work if you want to sell your propaganda. I won't honor your link and I won't read your agit-prop.

So I don't know how you can come to your "marblehead sekrit(sic) society" comments. Don't judge me by the words and actions of others. I don't do that to you. I expect the same in return.

"Don't judge me by the words and actions of others." Ironic.

As for the "tin foil hat" comment, that was good. Very funny. I must live in a bubble. I had to look it up. I better go put one on so the government does not control my brainwaves!

Respectfully,
Lance

The "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" is that invisible empire of paranoid delusionals who feel that the Bilderbergers, Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission, Illuminati, Freemasons, the Priory of Scion, or The Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man is trying to sekritly control the world - or the "CCC." You lost all credibility with me when you began flogging your precious link at me. Once you put on the big shiny hat, you're just another buffoon trying to explain why the group he hates is 'bad', while the group he supports is 'good' and why I ought get with the program and see it that way too so he can get on with destroying them. Phooey.

 

[PeterL]

Lance,

Getting back to freedom, there is a freedom you leave out. That freedom is freedom from fear. It is not guaranteed by the constitution, but is accepted as part of America like the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Freedom of fear is a very bizarre concept. Fear is something inside a person, like pain. It's impossible to enforce. First of all, how can it be measured ? Even if measuring it wouldn't be necessary (which would immediately invalidate it as something we can reason about), it would still be impossible to check. "He is giving me fear"... That's a very tough one.

Fear is as much part of life as love or anger. You can have fear because a car didn't see you and nearly drove you over. You can have fear because there's too many other people with you in the elevater. Or fear because your girlfriend didn't call. Fear that that quarrel on the corner of the street turns into a fight. It's part of life, you can't remove fear from it. To live is to fear.

This mentality sounds like the over-protectionist parent attitude that I so much despise. My children should be protected from everything at all times. Other people don't have the right to tell *my* kid what to do or what not to do (where's society's role in education ?). Lock up the kids, lock up yourself, but then don't complain they are claustrophobic and could be hurt, or you are claustrophobic and it gives you fear.


Peter.

 

[Andy K]

You don't have to be a Nazi to commit atrocity. Just be a bystander or be afraid to say 'Stop, this is wrong.'

 

[nwcanonman]

You don't have to be a Nazi to commit atrocity. Just be a bystander or be afraid to say 'Stop, this is wrong.'

........................
And as shown by the news last week (man pulling child, screaming "HE
's NOT MY DAD!") in NYC and the vast majority of passers by just kept "walking by" and didn't even call 911. Sad really. :bang:

 

[lmd91343]

Hi Peter,

"Freedom from Fear" sounds a bit weird, but it is part of the American tradition. In January of 1941, during WWII, President Roosevelt gave a speech declaring that all peoples should posess the "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.

Even though not expliciitly stated in our constitution, it has become part of our American historical/political lexicon just like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Here is a link about the "Four Freedoms":

http://tinyurl.com/m4mbh
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od4freed.html

Lance,



Freedom of fear is a very bizarre concept. Fear is something inside a person, like pain. It's impossible to enforce. First of all, how can it be measured ? Even if measuring it wouldn't be necessary (which would immediately invalidate it as something we can reason about), it would still be impossible to check. "He is giving me fear"... That's a very tough one.

Fear is as much part of life as love or anger. You can have fear because a car didn't see you and nearly drove you over. You can have fear because there's too many other people with you in the elevater. Or fear because your girlfriend didn't call. Fear that that quarrel on the corner of the street turns into a fight. It's part of life, you can't remove fear from it. To live is to fear.

This mentality sounds like the over-protectionist parent attitude that I so much despise. My children should be protected from everything at all times. Other people don't have the right to tell *my* kid what to do or what not to do (where's society's role in education ?). Lock up the kids, lock up yourself, but then don't complain they are claustrophobic and could be hurt, or you are claustrophobic and it gives you fear.


Peter.

 

[lmd91343]

Andy,

You are right on. This is our American tragedy. This is not only tragic for the lives destroyed, but shameful for us Americans who stood idly by. The KKK's handiwork is a trail of blood and tears. To our credit, we broke the back of the KKK.

-Lance

You don't have to be a Nazi to commit atrocity. Just be a bystander or be afraid to say 'Stop, this is wrong.'

 

[bmattock]

Andy,

You are right on. This is our American tragedy.

Nonsense. Most Americans were not aware of the atrocities being perpetrated by the Nazis against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally retarded until after we had entered the war. And although the US government was willing to go to war, the populace had made it quite clear that after WWI, they wanted nothing more to do with the affairs of Europe.

This is not only tragic for the lives destroyed, but shameful for us Americans who stood idly by.

Again I say nonsense. First of all, "us Americans" doesn't include a very large part of the living population - my own father was too young to have fought in WWII, and he's passed away himself now. I was born in 1961. I do not wear any hand-me-down shame. Second, I'd like to know where the world decides they want us as Americans. Half the time, they scream at us to get involved, take a stand, stop an atrocity - the other half of the time they scream at us for doing so. Should there be some European Minstry of Telling America What to Do?

The KKK's handiwork is a trail of blood and tears.

Yes it is. They suck. Racism sucks.

To our credit, we broke the back of the KKK.

By suing them into non-existance as an organization (Southern Poverty Law Center, et al, v the Klan)? Like the people who hate firearms but can't manage to get others to rally to make them illegal - sue the manufacturers in the hopes it will become too expensive to make them. And the groups who sue the tobacco industry and the alcohol producers and whatever else any fringe organization happens to have a mad-on for.

So tell me, hero. Who's next for you? Whom do you wish to destroy for being 'evil' next? And don't tell me there isn't anyone.

Yes, I agree with you, and nearly everyone, that the KKK is an evil organization. My fear is that the methods you're so proud of can be used on anyone - anyone YOU decide is evil. And next time, it might be me.

I don't agree with your methods - I think you're dangerous to our liberties, and I'm more worried about that than I am about the Klan.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Hi Peter,

"Freedom from Fear" sounds a bit weird, but it is part of the American tradition. In January of 1941, during WWII, President Roosevelt gave a speech declaring that all peoples should posess the "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.

Tradition is not law. There is no right in the USA to "Freedom from Fear." The speech was emotive, compelling, and rhetorical.

Even though not expliciitly stated in our constitution, it has become part of our American historical/political lexicon just like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

No, it hasn't. Nor has "Freedom from Want," an apparent "right" stated by President Roosevelt.

Here is a link about the "Four Freedoms":

http://tinyurl.com/m4mbh
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od4freed.html

[/quote]

Quoting a speech made by a US President does not make it law. It doesn't even make it 'tradition' and even tradition is not law, unless you're talking about English Common Law. You haven't the legal right to freedom from fear, any more than I do.

If we did, in fact, have the freedom from fear, then I'd have the perfect right to sue you into oblivion, to obtain a permanent injunction to stopper your mouth, because I fear the damage you would gleefully do to our civil liberties in the name of stopping your pet 'bad guys' from speaking. Today, we agree that the KKK are 'bad guys'. Tomorrow, you may take it into your head that some group I belong to are bad guys and go after them. No way.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

You don't have to be a Nazi to commit atrocity. Just be a bystander or be afraid to say 'Stop, this is wrong.'

People seem unable to separate words from actions. I don't like to see someone burn an American flag, but it is not the same thing as someone aiming a gun an an elected representative. One is speech, and other is action. If I want to HAVE free speech, I have to be prepared to DEFEND free speech, no matter how disgusting the speaker or their message. Illegal acts are already illegal - and citizens should try to stop them from happening.

Lance is trying to tie speech to action - the KKK talks hate and destruction and murder - so go ahead and attack them, stifle them, shut them up, sue them out of existance, and so on. Because they will fit their words to action at some point.

OK, so let's shoot everyone who talks trash agains the government. Hey, some of them may actually do something, so why take a chance? They don't get freedom of speech if it irritates or frightens us. Because WE are good and THEY are bad.

Of course, I hope you never decide that some group I belong to is bad...

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[nwcanonman]

Lance,
Although some of the KKK have become "less vocal", your saying their "back is broken" may give some the impression they no longer exist or have become powerless.
Speaking from personal experience they are very much around (though quieter) and working at bigotry daily. "Lest we forget...." goes for them too.

 

[VinceC]

>> And although the US government was willing to go to war, the populace had made it quite clear that after WWI, they wanted nothing more to do with the affairs of Europe.<<

Perhaps foolishly, I'll jump into this.

U.S. public and congressional opinion was strongly against U.S. involvment in World War II, though the Roosevelt administration and bipartisan internationalists constantly sought ways to support anti-fascist forces. I'll remind Bill that the United States declared war on Japan, not Germany, following the Pearl Harbor attack. This was immediately followed by a declaration of war By Germany Against the United States.

The U.S. public has been ambivalent about European and global affairs ever since, U.S. bipartisan leadership less so. After the war, the United States oversaw the rebuilding of Germany, Austria and Italy, instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economies of Western Europe, created NATO (of which several former East Bloc nations are now members) and maintained a commitment of more than one-third of a million troops in Europe from the Korean War to the disolution of the Soviet Union. Only now, U.S. troops commitments on Continental Europe are falling below 100,000 for the first time since the Americans waded ashore at Normandy in June 1944. The United States maintains a militarily significant presence in the Balkans -- for the purpose of promoting peace in a manner conceived by Roosevelt's Fourth Freedom, Freedom from Fear, which was actually very early thinking on an international peacekeeping organization to monitor and enforce disarmament. This eventually became the U.N., though it has not lived up to its idealistic beginnings. The United States plans to maintain 70,000 troops in Europe for the indefinite future and is using NATO as one of several mechanisms for modernizing and inspiring formerly communist-dominated republics that wish to join. The United States is also engaged in a very recent grass-roots campaign to promote dialogue between minority Muslim communities in Europe and the United States to help drown out the voices of anti-Western hate groups of religious militants who are actively recruiting among economically and socialy disconnected young people in both countries. Europe and the United States represent a block of shared values, ideals and cultures, as well as a great deal of shared pain. Not unlike a large family, where the members bicker and undercut one another but still remain united by deep, uncuttable bonds.

For the record, Roosevelt's Four Freedom's speech pre-dates U.S. entry into World War II by 11 months and was part of an attempt to convince Congress to keep funding armaments for anti-fascist forces. Here's the relevent exerpt:

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception — the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear."

The context of this is also important. The "Freedom from Fear" speech echoes Roosevelt's First Innaugural, in 1933. When the nation was in very real danger of economic and social collapse, Roosevelt famously took office saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" so that overcoming fear and panic became a trademark thought of his administration.

And as a final personal note, I do wish current leaders of several nations could stress a similar thought that free people can meet and overcome hostile forces without resorting to fear, paranoia and panic.

 

[Andy K]

Bill you might like to look at the link I posted. I was not referring to WW2. If you are concerned about your personal liberties then you need to take a good look at the Patriot Act, the Department For Homeland Security (am I alone in thinking 'homeland' smacks of 'fatherland'?) and the domestic policies of your current Administration vis a vis wire tapping.
We currently have our own problems over here dealing with Monica Blair, sorry I mean Tony Lewinski, (well you get the idea) and his intrusive control freak government.

Ps, Vince, it wasn't just Americans who waded ashore in Normandy.

 

[VinceC]

>> it wasn't just Americans who waded ashore in Normandy.<<

Quite true. A significant British force, as well as a coalition of Canadians, free French, Poles and contingents from all other nations under fascist occupation. I was mainly addressing Bill's comments about isolationist U.S. public opinion, a phenomenon as old as the nation itself.

 

[bmattock]

Bill you might like to look at the link I posted. I was not referring to WW2. If you are concerned about your personal liberties then you need to take a good look at the Patriot Act, the Department For Homeland Security (am I alone in thinking 'homeland' smacks of 'fatherland'?) and the domestic policies of your current Administration vis a vis wire tapping.
We currently have our own problems over here dealing with Monica Blair, sorry I mean Tony Lewinski, (well you get the idea) and his intrusive control freak government.

Ps, Vince, it wasn't just Americans who waded ashore in Normandy.

Andy, you might be surprised to find I am no supporter of the Patriot Act, or the DoHS. And, for the record, I told my wife of the plan to create the DoHS a full year BEFORE 9/11 - I read the Rand report recommending the creation of this monstrosity. I told my wife - and she well remembers - that if she ever heard a President of the United States say "homeland security" (a combination of words not used precisely because it does invoke 'der fatherland') that America was over, freedom was gone. When he did it a year later, she decided that I was no paranoid delusional. I am paranoid - and usually right.

I am farther to the right than you can possibly imagine - I detest our current situation, our neo-con government, and the intrigues of the left. They're all a bunch of idiot children with way too much power.

For proof of my bonafides:

a534b8d4.0302111938.5dbffa6c@posting.google.com

Just search Google Groups with the above. I've been saying this stuff for years.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Lance,
Although some of the KKK have become "less vocal", your saying their "back is broken" may give some the impression they no longer exist or have become powerless.
Speaking from personal experience they are very much around (though quieter) and working at bigotry daily. "Lest we forget...." goes for them too.

The KKK still exists. There are also plenty of tiny little groups of people who hate based on race - not just whites who hate blacks, although you hear more about them. They rally from time to time, or make the news by papering a neighborhood with leaflets, etc. I am not suggesting that they are not dangerous - idiots with deep-seated hatreds are generally dangerous in one way or another.

What I am saying is this - in the USA, we don't fear words - not enough to suppress them for their content. Lance, et al, like to say that "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," ie, no liberty is absolute. David Rose (ducttape) would argue that just as you cannot yell fire in a theater, you can't speak this sort of hatred - it is not protected speech.

But even in the theatre example - no one is restrained ahead of time based on their prediliction to yell 'fire'. First one must commit the crime before they can be punished. And in that example - which is a good one - a 'right' is being limited for one and only one reason - it represents a direct and understandable infringement on a different liberty - the right to life itself. The connection drawn between the action (yelling fire) and the result (stampede towards the exits, panic, people trampled and killed) is one that a 'reasonable and prudent' man might make with very little examination of the issue. It's a straight line. If I strike a match, I'll get a flame.

In the example of the KKK or the neo-Nazis marching and demonstrating - one would have to make the 'reasonable and prudent' straight line connection between their words, and actions they advocate, such as killing Jews or blacks. If I yell fire - there is GOING to be a race to the exit. If someone yells "Jews and blacks are inferior! They're mud people! They want to take over the world and sleep with yer wimmin!" that is not going to cause an immediate attack on Jews and blacks.

In other words, the exercise of freedom of speech by the KKK or the neo-Nazis does not represent an infringement of anyone else's freedoms - so it cannot be considered speech that can be infringed or suppressed. The courts have consistantly held this to be true.

Lance has taken the additional step of insisting that we have a right to freedom from fear - so it is THIS right which is being infringed - so now we can get on with the suppressing of the KKK and neo-Nazi exercise of their free speech.

But this so-called 'right' is not a defined right, and even if he was correct that it has become 'ingrained in our tradition' (which I contend it has not), you can't take it to court. It does not exist in a legal sense.

Yes, the KKK is dangerous - any hate group is. I fear those who would usurp all of our liberties to keep those on the fringes silent more than I fear those on the fringes.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks