Bomb book tests U.S. free speech

Re:A daring publisher
Ah, BBSing. Back when messaging was civilized and twit bashing was fun.

The Turner Diaries. Has anyone actually read that?

I read a brief extract from it, and, as you said, it turned my stomach. I wonder where I can find a copy nowadays. I’d loved to be able to freak people out just by quoting from it. I still have to choke down Mein Kampf, though. Dreadful stuff. Not alone because the style of writing is so second-last century. I wonder if the translation actually makes it more palatable.

Re:A daring publisher

I enjoy the ideological pretentiousness of fellow
librarians when discussing their abhorrence to anything remotely
associated with censorship. It’s amusing to me.

I wish I could say the same about the pretentiousness of the
intellectually naive and the ideology of the slavemongers when
they discuss anything remotely associated with freedom of thought
or the transmission of ideas or information.

And while I LOL at these self-anointed guardians of
freedom, I wonder if their hypocrisy is rooted in ignorance or
deception. I hope not the latter.

Hey, at least you find some grounds for amusement from those who
espouse the cause of liberty. Rest assured that there is nothing
whatsoever funny about the totalitarianism of censors and the
self-appointed and -annointed arbiters of righteousness and
morality. And I have very firm conclusions that their hypocrisy
is rooted in both ignorance and deception.

Understand that I make no pretensions regarding
censorship as a librarian. That’s honesty.

Not necessarily; it could be, and in this case certainly is,
delusion. It depends on whether or not a person admits that
censorship is practiced by some librarians and that the practice
is deplorable, or if, as you admit, you believe that humans have
no ability to strive for higher ideals, and you purport that
there is no process of selection in practice as a result, but
that it is all necessarily censorship.

Understand too, that the word “censorship” is a
loaded term that carries a lot of baggage and is quick to raise
public attention. We all know this.

The same way we all “know” that the earth is flat? That it is
motionless in the heavens? That all niggers are lazy and are the
cursed seed of Ham? That Jews control the world press and the
world economy and are Christ-killers?

Personally, I do not know any such thing. I have, however,
observed the phenomenon of censorship advocates claiming that
such is the case. Also, I ask myself why they do that; the only
reason for it that I can see from my studies is that they are
attempting to invalidate any claims that the censorship being
attempted actually is censorship. One of the hallmarks of
censorship, after all, is a denial that anyone wants to affect it
in the case at hand. That message should have come across in the
South Texas ISD case. It was right there in plain english in the Valley Star article by Ms. Zeliznek.

And the word “evolution” is as emotionally laden for those who
“know” that the bible is the literal word of God from start to
finish and believe the earth was created in seven days of 24
hours duration each. You might “know” that censorship is an
emotionally laden term, but it appears that you only “know” it
emotionally. You do not seem to have an intellectual grasp of
the term. Those who study the issue of censorship in an effort to
understand the process from a sociological viewpoint as well as
from the viewpoint of civil liberties, recognize the word for
what it is and use it in that context. As a label to describe a
phenomenon. The rational mind does not react on an emotional
basis to the label, only to the phenomenon itself. Hence, the
rational mind does not hesitate to apply the label when and where
it is appropriate to do so.

I know you’ve heard this all before but I feel it’s
time we introduce honesty into this discussion, rather than using
loaded words to perpetuate hysteria. Agree?

No. Because your ad hominem attack is one long diatribe of
anti-libertarian hysteria. And there is not, from my point of
view, one shred of honesty in it. Furthermore, in what way do
the terms: “hysteria”, “ideological pretentiousness”,
“self-anointed guardians of freedom”, “ignorance or deception”,
and “delusional sanctimony”, fail to be loaded?

We will leave the hysteria regarding the filtering
debacle alone for now.

Then why bring it up at all? Why mention it if you want it left
alone?

So what’s my point? Well, I am not sure I can make it
in one posting.

We have a saying in the writing business: if you can’t make your
point in five minutes, you don’t have one.

However, in this case I think quite honestly that you don’t
have a point at all. Not, at least, any point you can verbalize.

I guess I would ask you to entertain removing
yourself from your delusional sanctimony and accept the reality
that we as librarians censor on a daily basis.

No, I will not, because it is not a delusional sanctimony (and
tsk: such emotionally laden words). The delusional sanctimony is
to be found in the attitude that a person does not have to make
any effort to attain a higher level of consciousness. Such an
attitude in this case appears to be founded on learned
helplessness; the idea the subject has that it is too much of an
investment of resources and there won’t be any appreciable return
on the investment so why bother at all. In the case of those who
actively censor, instead of passively, the attitude stems from a
fundamental disrespect for the potentials of humanity.

Aside from which, I have adopted the conviction that there is
a difference between selection and censorship after due
consideration. In short: I already did entertain your notion and
I have found it to be bankrupt.

Yes censor!! (ahh the gasps) I would even argue that
sometimes censorship, as understood commonly among those in our
profession, is a good thing.

Then why do you keep a collection at all? By the way, you say
that it is commonly understood by the members or your profession
as if your viewpoint is held by the majority. Got any facts and
figures to back up that contention or are you merely spouting it
as an assumption the way ultra-conservatives spout their totally
unsupported proclamations about media violence and satanism?

If your convictions, and your constituency, requires
the purchase of books such as Creed of Iron, Deceived, Damned and
Defiant or Blood Ritual then buy . But chances are you will make
a personal judgment or invoke your CDP to “censor” these books
like most other librarians have done.

Once again: you are failing to consider the likelyhood of those
books being passed over simply on the basis of selection and
assuming a priori that it can only constitute censorship. Well,
fine, that is your prejudice and you have a right to it, but
nowhere have you offered any argument to support the contention.
You merely repeat it endlessly as if it is some kind dogma. What
factor of human psychology or sociology makes it impossible for
the phenomenon of selection vs: censorship; who did the work and
where is it published? Or, alternatively, what factors in the
various fields of human endeavour lead you to believe that
selection is a bankrupt concept?

Or try to explain to me how failing to consider a book for
inclusion in a collection could possibly constitute censorship
when the book is never considered at all for lack of funds.
Censorship involves content and viewpoint discrimination. How
can it possibly be censorship to not purchase a book if you haven’t
even heard any rumours about what it contains?

Better yet, feature the White Power Warehouse
http://www.whitepowerrecords.com as your feature “Censored Link of the
Week” on your website.

I do not have such a feature on my site. However, if that group
has been challenged, kindly provide the pertinent details, or,
better yet, tell me where I can find those details for myself,
and I will write it up for inclusion in the chronology.

(You may want to add Jews, gays and communists to
your warning for religious extremists)

Which part of “religious extremism” does Jewish extremism fail to
fall under?

Ah, well, the political extremism, yes, I will grant you that.
So difficult, sometimes, to differentiate when you have a state
based on a general faith rather than any particular sect or
church. Actually, what I should do to properly qualify that is
to rewrite it as “any kind of extremist”. All extremism is
inherently equally invalid.

Sure this stuff is garbage, but what about the poor,
skin-headed racists????

I have several entries where I slam city governments for
abrogating the civil liberties of white supremacists, most
commonly the KKK. As I point out, it is just as wrong to censor
hate-speech as it is to censor “mainstream” speech.

(You mention choking on Mein Kampf but this is
relatively innocuous, read more for morbid curiosity than
propaganda)

You’ve misinterpreted my words or are deliberately taking them
out of context. I was “chocking down” Mein Kampf because the
style in which it is written is so unpalatable for me that the book
cannot hold my interest. I find it boring. Not hateful. I
haven’t even gotten far enough into it to find the hateful parts.
Or do you mean to suggest that finding a book boring is a kind of
censorship?

Junk is junk and budgets are finite. Enter
“censorship”.

Again: prove it.

If self-serving self-righteousness legitimizes the
calling for some librarians. Fine. Just be sure not to “censor”
the truth of how collections are selected to the
public.

Those who support civil liberties in thought and deed will not
deny that there are librarians who use censorship in developing
their collections. I, and I believe most of them, will reject
your argument that all efforts at choosing constitute
censorship.

The fact is you are no different than the rest of us.
Sorry.

Sorry, but the fact is that you have no sense of self-worth, and
as with every bully, my sense of self-worth and aspiring to
personal growth and betterment galls you and makes you feel so
worthless that you are trying to build yourself up by tearing me
down. It’s the bully’s standard tactic. But those of us who
respect ourselves have had to put up with this crap since
kindergarten, and because we engage in personal growth, we are
easily able to recognize this sort of thing and shrug it off. We
know that your lack of self-respect is your problem, not ours.

BTW – Your website is a hoot! Terrific example of
biased opinions being used to purport an unbiased
ideology.

If you had studied my site to any depth you would have found that
in several comments I allude to my own biases and rhetoric. I do
not pretend to be unbiased, I merely make an effort to keep my
biased opinions separate from the reporting of the facts; which
is why my personal commentary is kept to within square brackets.
There are a few instances where my biases have tainted an entry,
but since you have already made up your mind that everything is
wrong-wing, you won’t be able to pick out those nuances, so don’t
worry about it. What I do not discriminate against, is what
others are allowed to say. Subject only to reasonable
time, place, or manner restrictions.

Oh, and you also seem to have ignored those entries where my
personal comments say an incident was misreported and did not
constitute censorship, and where I blow the whistle on what
appears to be deliberate misreporting.

An area where your message fails as a whole, is the
way you have so blindly invoked your own ideology and pretended
that it is perfectly rational and unbiased. I do understand that
the libertarian viewpoint itself constitutes an ideology by
definition, as with all systems of political beliefs, and I also
understand that everyone passes everything they perceive through
the filters of their personal biases and prejudices. Judging
from the tenor of your message, you do not, even though you try
to invalidate all of my convictions by saying I do these things.
Or was that a deliberate double standard morality?

Another area where your message fails is how you
try to pretend that censorship is only invoked while picking out
which books to include in a collection. You ignore the greater
scope of censorship. Would you care to try explaining how it is
normal and good when a book which has undergone the selection
process is suddenly deemed unfit for humanity and a demand is
made to remove it from the shelves or the curriculum? Is it a
good and normal thing that all Stephen King novels were
unilaterally banned by some school board officious from every
school in the Brookelane School District in Texas during the
2002-2003 school year?

How about Montgomery County? Was it normal to demand that the
librarian be fired because Robie Harris wrote a book in which he
failed to be intolerant enough towards fags and lezzies? Will it
be normal to not buy such books out of fear of losing one’s job?

As for the difference between selection and censorship, for
the benefit of those who have not previously encountered the
issue, I liken it to the difference between the Light side and the
Dark side of the force. The Light side is used to promote the
interests of humanity, and the Dark side is used to promote the
selfish interests of the oligarchy. It requires a greater
investment of resources to promote the interests of humanity,
because it is basically an act of construction. It requires a
minimal investment of energy to censor, because it is a
destructive force, and censorship, like explosions, always
follows the path of least resistance. Which means simply
throwing something into the bonfire because one person heard that
it is a “dirty” book instead of reading it to find out for
yourself.

Re:A daring publisher
Once again you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and a raft of other logical fallacies. And you also attempted to redirect the debate.

Re:A daring publisher

Predictable.

I guess better ad hominem than ad nauseam.

Neither is a valid mode of argument, and yet you do insist on employing both fallacies. Oh, well, if you want me to point out your intellectual shortcomings to the rest of the world that’s your choice. I have enough time on my hands to humour you this afternoon.

Careful. You’re banging your keys a bit too hard.

This is an
Argumentum Ad Hominem and otherwise devoid of content.

I thought logically guys like you could eliminate emotion when in discourse.

You didn’t think about it at all much less logically, or you would have realized that such a premise is as unreasonable as trying to wipe out all censorship. Open mindedness and rational discourse are not about eliminating all emotion. They are about setting aside personal prejudice long enough to consider points of view with which you do not agree. A state which you have demonstrably not attained.

Gentle suggestion: Perhaps you should think carefully about a response before regurgitating the tired old “Kill the Censors Shtick”. Think first, then respond.

Argumentum Ad Hominem. But I will reply to it: Tu Quoque.

Much of what you posted was off the mark.

This is just your personal opinion and constitutes neither a premise, an argument, or an explanation. You could not possibly prove the truth of such a statement, it is simply
Ipse Dixit.

Now allow me to lay the groundwork from which I posit my position regarding censorship. Read carefully and slowly.

If you could present your arguments with proper logical structure they might make enough sense that I wouldn’t have to read carefully and slowly.

Let’s keep this academic Fang.

You cannot ask others to do what you yourself will not or cannot do. That is a principle of leadership.

The complete elimination of “censorship” can be strived for but never attained.

Irrelevant. The topic under discussion is not the elimination of censorship.

It is an impossible though commendable goal.

It cannot possibly be a commendable goal if it is an impossible goal. The idea of wiping out censorship as a goal is as pathetically stupid as the wars on poverty, drugs, and terrorism; not to mention the nineteenth amendment.

Now I notice you couch the term “selection” as somehow different than censorship. This is pure semantics.

Only from the point of view that refuses to consider the issue at all. From the viewpoint of the rational mind, it is a matter of using a separate label to describe a separate phenomenon. Even if that phenomenon does not in fact exist the way you insist that it does not.

At least you recognize the quaint corner your argument deftly paints you in by admitting this conviction of dual definitions has been adopted by exactly one person. Yourself. I guess all the noise you hear is just from your one-man gallery.

This is an
Argumentum Ad Numerum. I am not wrong simply because I stand alone. Galileo stood alone and the world moves anyway. Moreover, I am not alone. I did not develop the concept of selection; I merely joined with those who believe in it.

Moving on. I stated junk is junk and budgets are finite. Your retort was (Prove it). Well I have $130,000 in my collection development budget. I would say that is finite. Agree?

Irrelevant; this is a Straw Man argument. The topic under discussion was your point that finite budgets necessarily create an atmosphere of censorship. Not whether the budgets were finite or not.

let’s move on to junk.

“Junk” is a subjective determination. As the saying goes: One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. If you want to make sense when using the term then you’ll have to properly define it. So, here’s a question for you to tip-toe around: exactly what constitutes “junk”?

How does one select a book?
Academic merit, credibility of the author, relevance to the mission of the library, reviews, publisher, faculty input, curriculum, etc…. you get the point.

You can hardly support your argument that there is no such thing as selection by invoking selection in your argument. Your position is supposed to be that there is no such thing as selection because it actually constitutes censorship. You’re eroding your own credibility here.

How should I allocate my budget between books that would meet the criteria of our collection development policy (remember, we all have one of these codified censor policies) and those that don’t? YOU MAKE THE CALL FANG. Give me a percentage. A real number. No whining about hypotheticals here because it is not a hypothetical. (I’m betting the house you tip toe this answer because it beckons you out of your ivory tower)

Actually, your question is meaningless the way you have posed it. However, editing out the empty rhetoric leads me to interpret it to mean: How should I allocate my budget between books that meet our criteria and those that don’t? If I have interpreted your incoherence correctly, then the way you have it written is a Red Herring. To answer the question as I interpret it: the entire exercise of the selection process is an attempt to spend one hundred percent of the budget on the best choices; what you have failed to show while dogmatically asserting that such is the case, is how it is censorship when you pass over a lesser book to buy the better book.

Oh, and one more thing: what the hell are you doing considering books that don’t even meet your selection criteria in the first place?

We have already established that I have a finite budget. Now I must somehow divorce my personal bias when selecting books.

Red Herring.

Get real. I tell the skinhead that I did not buy the White Trash Guide to World Domination because I have a FINITE budget and a responsibility to purchase better books that aren’t junk. There you have it I CENSORED!

No, you selected; allowing for your misuse of the word “junk”, given the context. Once again (and ad nauseum): It would have been censorship if you had rejected the book because of its content or viewpoint. It is selection if you opt for a work of higher artistic or literary merit or quality.

Would I entertain buying a couple of these hate tomes. Sure. I have. But it will be a smattering at best. Something, according to you, that constitutes censorship because I have no compunction of labeling this stuff as junk.

No; once again: it is censorship if you reject the books because of content or viewpoint. Secondly, you seem to have created an Equivocation. Is this book junk because it was basically scribbled, due to lack of meritricity, or is it junk because you don’t like the content? What is your intent in not selecting this book; that is where censorship enters into it.

Censorship is unavoidable because humans purchase books.

This is such a totally asinine statement that I honestly can not figure out how to classify it as a logical fallacy. Congratulations. And just to set you straight: censorship is a sociological phenomenon born of the interplay between manifest and latent functions. It has to do with the free flow of information and does not involve the written word alone. You can be stoned for a spoken blasphemy as much as for putting it in writing.

With that fact your argument is nothing more than a lofty ideal and a waste of web space.

Except you haven’t proven your position to be a fact. All you can do is to say that it is, and that is not enough to make it so.

It’s reality Fang.

Inside your mind, maybe, but I have a reality that seems to be too broad for that space.

You speak about civil liberties. How about your fiduciary responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money wisely?

Not only are the two not mutually exclusive, but responsible spending is part of what the selection process is about. Again: to buy the best book available.

(Your face is getting read. Deep breath)

Guess again. Here’s a reality for you: whatever you think you’ve got? — it isn’t enough to push anyone’s buttons.

Am I inferring that a squeaky minority have the right to pull a book? No.

No, but you are arguing from the same position the bookburners take. The idea that humanity is too weak in the mind to aspire to a higher consciousness. As I mentioned previously: in your case it appears to be a matter of learned helplessness; in their case it one of

a fundamental disresepect for the potentials of humanity.

But if you think dividing your collection development budget equally between “good stuff” and what many would consider material that has little artistic, literary or factual merit I say your irresponsible. So how do you do it without censoring?

How many times do I have to explain it to you? You read the books and pick the best one. Just because a book has a higher artistic merit that makes it more attractive does not necessarily make the other choices “junk”. And just the fact that you do read the books, assuming that you do, is enough by itself to remove the process from the realm of censorship.

You put the onus on me to provide details of any alleged censorship of WhitePower.

It’s called
Burden of Proof. You made an allegation, it’s up to you to give supporting evidence or arguments. I merely asked for that supporting evidence. At any rate, this is another Red Herring. The topic under discussion in that point was not the validity of your claim. I had posted an irrefutable reply to your hastily made claim that I did not chronicle instances of censorship against supremacist groups. I reiterate: I do chronicle such attempts when I come across them, as best as I am able, and if you have any proof that WhitePower.com or whatever has been challenged just point me to that proof. In the meantime, try these:
09 Jan 2001;
20 Jul 2001;
19 Apr 2002;
29 Nov 2002;
20 Jan 2003;
07 Jul 2003.

Tell me, do you require the same of the other parties involved in the cases you unabashedly list?

I have on occasion. Which you would know if you closed your biscuit trap and opened your eyes and mind instead. Questioning Questionable Reporting

I find it interesting that you have an inherent distrust for extremists.

I find it interesting that you say that as if you don’t.

Does your own extremism conflict with the distrust of those you wish to attack?? Don’t tell me you’re not an extremist.

Strange. I don’t recall threatening anyone with forcing information on them. Do you have anything to back that up or is it just another attempt to invalidate my stance by making me look bad? Or a sly attempt to silence me? Perhaps I should chalk that one up to an
a
Argumentum Ad Baculum. After all, the mere threat of being accused of heresy was enough to silence the academics who protested having their names fraudently associated with the Malleus Maleficarum in 1484. Although it just as easily could be pre-emptive invective. Gotta get your mud slung first, after all, to keep the other guy from using it.

In closing, I think the crux of this argument is how the meaning of censorship is cleverly massaged. You are able to justify the passing over of books as a selection process. Fine.

Whereas by massaging it your way you are able to justify the greater scope of censorship as being not that bad because everybody does it anyway. I’ve seen this sort of thing recently. Neo-nazi holocaust deniers do something similar when talking down the numbers of the dead, although their argument is that the six hundred thousand, by their count and “anyway it couldn’t possibly even have been that many”, wasn’t so bad because the Allies killed at least as many Aryans in invading Germany.

And good for Angelfire whoever the hell made them the ultimate arbiters of this debate.

Angelfire is a web site host. Talk less, look more.

My A PRIORI argument is that any selection process, created by people with prejudices, biases, whatever, disqualifies any lofty notion of a “censorship-free” library. Simple.

My a priori argument is that your a priori argument is full of shit. Your a priori argument is exactly the kind used to “prove” that niggers are only fit for slavery and all Jews are moneygrubbing status seekers. The nicest thing that can be said of your a priori argument is that it is a Fallacy of Accident.

The difference is reality v idealism.

The difference is idealism vs: reductionism. Don’t worry about it, though, I didn’t expect you to get it.

Parting question. How do you rectify the flip side of censorship?

The flip side of censorship is freedom of thought and information. You rectify it by burning people — and books — at the stake. At least until your turn comes. I refer the reader to the case of Savanarola.

What if libraries were mandated by the government to carry certain books? No exceptions. Let’s even say they are free.

If the government mandates which books a library is permitted to carry that is a very clear and present case of censorship and selection doesn’t even enter into it. See Nazi Germany.

Children’s Literature in Hitler’s Germany: The Cultural Policy of National Socialism

Christa Kamenetsky -1984

ISBN 0-8214-0699-X

Dewey # 830.9 K15C

Now, here’s a curve ball for you. What do you consider it if your anthropology section needs a book written from the white supremacist viewpoint and you have a choice between The Turner Diaries and a very well written, albeit pseudo-scientific text that is obviously claptrap? Your finite budget allows you to buy only one, but your supposed censorship policy does require that you buy one of them to fill out the collection.

Can I deduct from you “logic” you would eagerly accept this?

Speaking of reading carefully and slowly you might want to try it some time. Your spelling and punctuation are both lacking. Must derive from that fancy college education of yours. What a waste of tuition that was, eh?

Class dismissed. And feel free to mutter as you slink out the door about how the earth really doesn’t move at all.