NAZI ******* vs. LYING JEWISH *******

By Larry Parr

Rolf Tueschen overstepped, though not by so much as Roman Parparov
below in reply.

Mr. Tueschen called an Israeli named Omid David "a lying Jewish
*******" because the latter called a German politician a "Nazi *******." Mr.
Tueschen argues that the politician was or is not a "Nazi *******," and he
turned the tables. He termed Mr. David a "lying" (accurate gerundival
adjective, he avers) "Jewish *******" (accurate ID and noun-for-noun response,
he avers).

First, the truth of the matter is what counts, and a German has every
bit as much a right to call a Jew a ******* as anyone else, including say, an
officially denominated "righteous gentile." Some of us are opposed to p.c.
categories of who get to speak about whom.

Secondly, Mr. Tueschen went too far because Mr. David did not call the
German politician a "German *******"; he called him a "Nazi *******." Mr.
Tueschen, who defends himself on the basis of offering an accurate symmetrical
response, would have done a bit better to have written "lying Likud *******"
or, in truth, he should have found some fringe Israeli party that advocates die
enloesung for Arabs and tossed that epithet at Mr. David. BUT ....

Thirdly, even if Mr. Tueschen had done so, he would still have failed
in his symmetry. That's because no Israeli political party, even the most
extreme that would commit unspeakable crimes, has committed anything like the
crimes of the Nazis. Actual criminality still trumps blabbing about it.

Fourthly, given that symmetry simply was not possible in the
expression offered by Mr. Tueschen, he should have contented himself by calling
Mr. David "a lying *******," period.

Having said the above, Rolf Tueschen's crime is not all that great in
the give-and-take of polemics. He hit the nail a glancing blow.

Turning to Roman Parparov.

Mr. Parparov begins with a blood libel: "As a German you should have
known what your nation willingly did to Jews." The accurate statement is
"German government," not the "German ... nation." Hitler never received a
majority of the vote in a free election, and even if he had, there would have
been a very large minority despising everything the man and his movement stood
for. When WWII began, there were no crowds in Berlin cheering the departing
troops marching eastwards -- unlike the millions who shouted for war in mass
demonstrations in all capitals on the eve of WWI. There is every reason to
believe that this thing called a "German ... nation" found even the propaganda
face of Nazism appalling, let alone the real face.

If some Germans repented of an action that they deplored or had no
part in, then they acted irrationally. They ought to have been condemning the
actions of the Nazis, not repenting of them. Sin is not collective. The
moment we start thinking that way, we open the door to collective punishment of
the kind the Nazis meted out in Lidice or the Israeli government -- in a
watered-down, less murderous way -- metes out to Palestinians on a daily basis.

Finally, Mr. Parparov offers this bit of idiocy: "As for
'anti-Palestinian - prove any statement that was made by Israelis on this issue
that hasn't been true so far."

Wow! Here we have the statement of an Old World ideologue. The
thinking behind this sentence is so far removed from the democratic
understanding of political life that one does not know where to begin. We
shall try.

First, everyone here understands, as does Mr. Parparov himself, that
even Israelis fail in omniscience. They must make false statements about
Palestinians every single day in every single way. If not, then they are not
merely the Chosen People, they are infallible gods. The same can be said about
every one of us addressing any other people every single day in every single
way.

Secondly, if Mr. Parparov's statement is absurd in the literal sense,
then what was he trying to say to us in the sense of political metaphor? If he
is on the right-wing fringe of Israeli politics, then he is saying that
Palestinians are fit for liquidation because even the strongest statements
against them are ... true. If he is not on that fringe, then his statement
could have many gradations of meaning, though all of them assume the right to
punish a people collectively for the acts of some.

Finally, what about a statement made by some Israeli in government
that was palpably untrue about Palestinians? Mr. Parparov has asked for proof,
and I can offer none. Still, the claim by the assassinated Israeli tourism
minister that Palestinians are "cockroaches" strikes me as untrue in an
anatomical sense. If Mr. Parparov argues that the statement is true in the
metaphorical sense, then we are reminded of what the leftist literary critic
Malcolm Cowley wrote in the 1930s about Stalin's victims. He was reviewing
Robert Vogeler's Prisoner of the NKVD and admitted that the work carried the
conviction of truth. But it was "the truth of the orchard sprayer as seen
through the eyes of the wolly aphis and codling moth."

Cockroaches, like aphae and moths, are fit for ... spraying. Whether
it be with Zyklon or some other substance is irrelevant so long as the job gets
done.

Right?

TUESCHEN LOSES KENNEDY

By Larry Parr

In an exchange with Greg Kennedy (nomorechess) Rolf Tueschen wrote, "That I did
it as a foreigner and not native English speaker was a sensation IMO, having in
mind Larry's outstanding lingual mastership that already took the life out of
many guys here around."

"Took the life out of many guys here around." Heh, heh, heh!

Mr. Tueschen has just lost the zombified Mr. Kennedy.

But his lies go so far that he for example calls a late German politician, a
former Vice Chancellor of Germany, Juergen W. Moellemann from Muenster, a "Nazi
*******"!


Labeling someone a Nazi is nothing to be taken lightly. One had better
be right, damn right, or one is spitting on the graves of those
millions who died at the hands of those butchers. Those were real
Nazis. To call some lightweight offender (or even non-offender) a Nazi
is to dilute that terrible evil.

This, by the way, is what that ancient bigot Bibuld does in each of
his posts, labeling Bush a Nazi. Bibuld is despicable, a person of
very low character. Not a Nazi, just a bottom feeder.

"Elijah" wrote in message
...
"what would you expect from an Israeli?"
and "Jewish propaganda"
are two phrases that hopefully do not show your best side.

Calling someone a "lying Jewish *******" is offensive to Jews because
it uses two derogatory words "lying" and "*******" with a neutral word
"Jewish." Almost any neutral word that is inserted between "lying"
and "*******" becomes an insult, such as "lying German *******" "lying
Irish *******" "lying Italian *******" or "lying Hindu *******."

Next time simply call him "a lying *******" and you'll see better
results.
Hmmm, so now there is a politically correct way to insult someone!

On 07 Nov 2003 02:01:00 GMT, (Rolf Tueschen)
wrote:

Elijah wrote:

"what would you expect from an Israeli?"
and "Jewish propaganda"
are two phrases that hopefully do not show your best side.

It's my view. In that group I never read anything thoughtful from an Israeli,
it's always about "several ways to kill Arafat or to throw him out or to
eliminate the whole Palestinians at once" - I beg your pardon, but I can't
tolerate such inhuman propaganda.


"What would you expect from an Israeli?" is not as specific as "What
would you expect from an Israeli who participates in that hate forum?"

"Jewish propaganda" is also not specific. Judaism has nothing to do
with it. Indeed, one should not even label it "Israeli propaganda."
What he is saying sounds more like "anti-Palestinian propaganda," or
as you say, "inhuman propaganda." If he were expressing the exact
sentiments of, say, the Likud party, then one could label it "Likud
propaganda." You will offend less with greater specificity and
precision.


I don't know how you learned to argue but I call things for what they are.
Racist propaganda from Israelis get the label "Jewish propaganda".


Again, you are generalizing as well as confusing religion with
nationality. If you were a Lutheran and were spreading propaganda
about the influence of illegal immigrants on the German economy would
I be correct to label that "Lutheran propaganda"?


If I could
read something thoughtful from an Israeli I would react otherwise but even as a
German I canot invent sophistication that isn't there. Of course I know that
there are many Israelis who are in favor og peace and against the military
policy of Sharon. But in that particular forum you can't find that position.


I would suggest participating in a different forum. The likelihood of
your learning anything new, interesting or thought-provoking from them
seems slim, and the likelihood of their learning anything from you
seems equally slim, if they are as entrenched and passionate about
their ugly position as you say they are.


Calling someone a "lying Jewish *******" is offensive to Jews because
it uses two derogatory words "lying" and "*******" with a neutral word
"Jewish."

Yes, I knew that but do you think that "Nazi *******" is better? Please read
more carefully why I had used that expression. Or do you think it doesn't make
sense to teach an Israeli about the evil of lying? Excuse my being harsh, but
you sounded a bit arrogant IMO.


Oh, I think what he said is quite a bit more offensive than what you
said, however it is your reaction that should concern you. Just
because he said something worse doesn't make what you said okay. And
again, I do not think you are "teaching" anyone about the evils of
lying.


Almost any neutral word that is inserted between "lying"
and "*******" becomes an insult, such as "lying German *******" "lying
Irish *******" "lying Italian *******" or "lying Hindu *******."

Yes, but then you think that 'Nazi *******' to a German is quite normal? And
more so if it's an intentional lie? An intentional propaganda lie? - Not in my
books.


Again, not normal at all, and indeed it is an intentional propaganda
lie, but not a Jewish one.


Next time simply call him "a lying *******" and you'll see better
results.

You mean that if I use "Jewish" then the lying is of not so big importance and
the attack against Jews becomes the main topic? - Again, not in my books. As I
said, I used the combination 'lying Jewish *******' to the resident propaganda
liar from Israel in that forum. It was the direct opposite because the
politician wasn't a Nazi nor a Nazi ******* logically.

NB I once asked the same person if an Israeli could be _wrong_ dealing with
Palestinians and the whole topic. I still wait for an answer. - The point is,
that I can't give you a complete picture of the situation, because this is
happening for over a year now. But what I told you is an authentic part, a
representative sample so to speak.

Thanks for the answer. Please tell me if you see something new right now.

Rolf

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
I want to know how you judge this.

In a private forum a Jewish chess programmer (Omid David) always writes
hate
propaganda pro Israel and against Arafat and his Palestinians. Nothing
wrong
with that IMO, what would you expect from an Israeli?

But his lies go so far that he for example calls a late German politician,
a
former Vice Chancellor of Germany, Juergen W. Moellemann from Muenster, a
"Nazi
*******"!

When I read it I couldn't believe my eyes. Moellemann well criticised the
policy of Sharon but he never was a whatever Nazi! Nor a Neo-Nazi. Nor an
anti-Semite.

So, when I read that Nazi-******* insult (Jewish Propaganda) I tried to
teach
the guy a lesson from psychology. I turned around the insult and directed
it
against himself.

I called Omid David, the brave Israeli, a Jewish ******* and because he
had
spread lies about an honest German politician, who is dead BTW, I added
the
adjective "lying", so that the whole expression was 'lying Jewish
*******'.

After this hell broke lose.

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

What do you, from the international community, think about the expression?
Is
it impossible to characterize a Jew who's lying as a lying *******? Just
because I am a German I should not be allowed to speak the truth? And if
someone speaks the truth about a Jewish liar, is he therefore an
Anti-Semite???

Not that i needed advice. I am old enough to know how to deal with a liar.
But
I would be interested in your opinion how you think about a German who
calls a
Jewish liar a 'lying Jewish *******'. Is it forbidden because of the
Holocaust?


Rolf

Rolf,
A number of years ago, back around the time of the Gulf War, William F.
Buckley wrote an article dealing with this subject. He concluded, correctly
I think, that because of certain group histories, words that might be
considered neutral when applied to one group have quite a different meaning
when applied to another group. I think the way he put it was that you can
say things about Episcopalians that you just can't say about Jews. To
illustrate this with a personal example, I have a friend who was born in a
displaced persons camp (or D.P. setting) in Belgium shortly after the end of
WWII. He entered the US as an infant, and has spent his whole life in the
U.S. On occasion I would kid him about not being a real American, of just
being a "damn Belge" trying to pass. To the extent that there is any,
admittedly minimal, humor in this, it is that it is essentially impossible
in American culture to insult someone from Belgium on the basis of ancestry
or group identity. The same sort of "humor" directed towards an American
of Japanese ancestry would be another matter altogether, given the history
of the treatment of Japanese within the U.S. Thus, same words, very
different meaning. I don't think that it is mere political correctness that
should guide one's speech in this regard.

Now when David referred to a German as a "Nazi," he should have been aware
that it is quite a different matter to call a German a Nazi, than it would
be, for example, for an American of a liberal political orientation to call
a conservative American a "Nazi." In the latter case, it would be most
likely be understood as slightly overheated rhetoric in an effort to make a
point about political differences. In the case to which you refer, the
nature of the attack comes off as quite different, being more personal and
venomous, and suggestive of moral depravity. It could well be that David
meant it in that more poisonous, and I suspect it is that latter connotation
you picked up on when you responded as you did.

By the same token, because of history, as well as the fact that you are
German and the target of your remarks is an Israeli, your response to David
as a "lying Jewish *******" evokes in listeners quite a different sense of
what your meaning is than if you had addressed a poster from Oslo as a
"lying Norwegian *******." The latter sounds merely odd, at least to my
ears. So I don't think the criticism of you in that group was unfair.

Finally, I fail to understand how you could think your response to the
Israeli showed any sort of psychological sophisitication. Sounds like mere
name-calling to me.

Bob Musicant

..
This bit about *assumming* that, because Mr. Tueschen is German, he must
therefore be a Nazi (especially since he is criticizing a Jew) is, at best,
quite strange. I for one, made no such leap-of-illogic.
When I picture the tattered remnants of the Nazi party, I think of
Uhhhmurikkka. When I think of quality automobiles, I think of Germany.





Finally, I fail to understand how you could think your response to the
Israeli showed any sort of psychological sophisitication. Sounds like mere
name-calling to me.


Mr. Tueschen has a long history of proclaiming psychological sophistication,
and psychological motives for having written things in a particular way.
We might speculate that he does this (always after-the-fact) in order to
justify or excuse something which others perceive as being amiss; but we could
also just take him at his word, for who knows better *why* Mr. Tueschen writes
what he writes, than Dr. Graue himself? (whoops)







So I don't think the criticism of you in that group was unfair.


Mr. Tuschen pointed out some "facts" which seemed to clearly indicate that
his target was both a liar and a propagandist, though no supportting evidence
was given of the third charge. In view of this, you think it is "fair" for
them to kill the messenger? Mr. Tueschen is automatically a Nazi because he
inserted the word "*******," in an attempt to equalize the negative connotation
associated with the term "Nazi"? On the contrary, this action is evidence
that Mr. Tuschen felt the need to *insert* something nasty, to go along with
"Jewish" and "liar", in order to compensate.
A true Nazi would have felt that the term "Jewish" alone, was more than
sufficient -- trumping "liar" by a wide margin.

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
This bit about *assumming* that, because Mr. Tueschen is German, he must
therefore be a Nazi (especially since he is criticizing a Jew) is, at
best,
quite strange.

I re-read what I wrote, and can't find anything in it that could fairly be
construed as an allegation that Rolf is a Nazi, either in a figurative or
literal sense. That most certainly was not my intended meaning.

Mr. Tueschen has a long history of proclaiming psychological
sophistication,
and psychological motives for having written things in a particular way.
We might speculate that he does this (always after-the-fact) in order
to
justify or excuse something which others perceive as being amiss; but we
could
also just take him at his word, for who knows better *why* Mr. Tueschen
writes
what he writes, than Dr. Graue himself? (whoops)

I gather that by profession he is in fact something in the nature of what in
the U.S. might be called a psychotherapist, a term which may be used by
licensed clinical social workers or M.S.W.s. (or anyone else for that
matter, as its use, at least in some states, is unregulated).

..
I re-read what I wrote, and can't find anything in it that could fairly be
construed as an allegation that Rolf is a Nazi, either in a figurative or
literal sense.


That may be because the reference to the term "Nazi" was contained, not in
the post by Mr. Musicant, but in Mr. Tuschen's own post. Mr. Tuschen is the
one who proclaimed that he had been branded a "Nazi", after criticizing a
Jewish propagandist/liar.
Thus, putting this together with a statement that that such a (counter)attack
on Mr. Tuschen was *not* unfair, we might conclude something along these lines.
Not a name-calling exactly, but a kind of "endorsement" of one. In fact,
immediately after Mr. Tuschen posted, asking for feedback, he was criticized
for needlessly inserting the word "Jewish" -- as if he were a Nazi. I alone
have taken him to task for the completely unsubstantiated "*******" accusation,
which came from out of thin air -- unlike the terms "Jewish" and "liar."





I gather that by profession he is in fact something in the nature of what in
the U.S. might be called a psychotherapist,


More like an amatuer pseudo-psychologist, who analyzes from a distance.
I doubt that Mr. Tuschen deceives himself into thinking his efforts have any
theraputic effect. Again, the Larry Parr "case" leaps to mind: repeated
"counseling" by Mr. Tueschen, with zero beneficial effect. The same with the
Bob Hyatt "case." :-)

One Eyed Jack wrote:

I do not think such epithets, apply to you at all Rolf.
But I am certain "nazi *******' is way better than 'jew *******' because:
Not all jews are *******s but all nazi are complicit in mass murder.

You make a mistake if you think that I literally used the term 'Jewish' as the
opposite of 'Nazi'. That is more a mathematical view you may follow. However I
was in a private group and wanted to address the resident Jewish propaganda
crook who had called a German politician a 'Nazi *******', who a) is already
dead, b) certainly wasn't innocent like a new born baby but c) who also
certainly wasn't a Nazi whatsoever. So it's not mathematically the exact
opposite Nazi ******* and Jewish *******, but it's hitting right to the core of
the problem, because it was a damned lie to call Moellemann a Nazi *******.

Only No-More-Chess has understood that important item of the whole problem. We
have a damned lying_ Jewish_ ******* who _then_ claimed being insulted and the
PC watchers in that forum followed his agenda. Because - apparently - as a Jew
you can call someone a Nazi ******* and nobody will further examine you. With
me as the exception. I took him to task.

Probably, just perhaps, these PC watchers followed a logic that you also imply.
A Nazi is always a ******* but a Jew only seldom is a nasty *******. I would
agree with the latter but the named Omid David is definitely a nasty Jewish
*******. Period.

What is with your basic assumption that all Nazis are "complicit to mass
murder". Thankfully you didn't follow Goldhagen who claims that all Germans are
guilty of that. But I would also object to your generalization. I agree that
these Germans who belonged to the Nazi Party are guilty of supporting an
inhuman policy but since it could be historically proven that the "mass murder"
had been successfully veiled from the eyes of the population, your term
"complicit" is wrong. But - likewise this doesn't mean innocence to be clear
about it.

The late Moellemann just received the label Nazi ******* because the Jewish
propaganda resident in that forum saw his occupation with more pro-Palestinian
policies. Let me describe the facts as follows. As a worker for former Foreign
Minister Genscher Moellemann was the contact person for the Arab and therefore
also Palestinian affairs. The whole (other) workers were occupied with
pro-Israel policies and the rest of the world. Just to give you some
clarification. But that doesn't make Moellemann a Nazi *******. Just like "Ben
Wisch", aka Wischniewski, wasn't a Nazi *******. He was the contact person to
the Arabs under the Social Democrat chancellors in the pre-Kohl epoche (before
1983).

Let me add: in that forum you can read that the famous computerchess expert and
opponent of Kasparov in the JUNIOR challenge, Amir Ban, another Israeli
resident, characterizes the critic against Sharon's policy as the veiled form
of an already existing Anti-Semitism. The usual trick of Anti-Semites so to
speak. That is a scandal! Because then non-Israelis can no longer criticise
Israelian policy if that were correct.

All that is representative for the famous short-cut the Jews world-wide want to
install:
because of the Holocaust Israel and the Jewish orgaizations in the World could
not be criticised with justification because their policy is always
self-defense by definition, and Israel and the Jews will never again remain
defenseless, as against the Nazi Holocaust. So e.g. Israel has the right to
interfer all over the World where something "dangerous" is going on. Israel can
take Eichmann in Argentina and can bomb Atomic facilities in Iraq. Perhaps it's
planned to take the Pope because of his critical comments concerning the Middle
East - who knows! That is all well allowed because of the Holocaust...

Not in my books.

Does that qualify me as being an Anti-Semite?
Not in my books.

Rolf



One phrase links disgusting traits with a percieved race, while the
other links disgusting traits with a political idea that deserves no
thought at all.
there are innocent jews. would you argue the case for innocent nazis? i
doubt it.