Letter of reply to Honi Soit

Today Honi Soit has accomplished the previously thought impossible feat of destroying the modicum of journalistic integrity they had. We sincerely apologise for previously suggesting that they had hit rock bottom, we were so so wrong.

We at the Conservative Club believe strongly in the freedom of speech and expression, regardless of how morally repugnant your position is. But don’t just listen to us, listen to Noam Chomsky: ‘If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.’ In a Liberal Democracy such as ours, you cannot justify the use of violence when a multitude of other mechanisms exist to punish those who incite ideological violence.

http://honisoit.com/2017/08/face-off-should-we-punch-nazis/

In an article published today titled ‘Face off: Should we punch Nazis?’ we were treated to an intellectual masterclass that would make Socrates weep with envy, or realistically just weep.The authors, Kishor Napier-Raman vs Noa Zulman, competed to see who could best justify political violence against those who they disagreed with. Curiously the strong condemnation of nazism for killing millions, which of course is an abhorrent ideology, didn’t follow with a similar condemnation of socialism which has and continues to take exponentially greater life.

Kishor Napier-Raman argued for the Pro-Punch side and opened by stating, “By punching fascists, we tell society that these ideas are so repugnant that they ought be crushed rather than ‘debated’.” How foolish of us to forget that ‘punching’ is actually a tool of clear communication and not actually one of crude violence. It only occurred to us after reading this that Immanuel Kant did forgo the pen for the first, after realising it would be a far more efficient use of his time to instead travel around punching people who he disagreed with. How foolish of us to forget arguably one of the greatest philosophical contributions of the 20th century, that time when Bertrand Russell beautifully and clearly articulated his thoughts on religion by punching someone. It is a far more effective approach to condemn an ideology by exposing its inherent hatred by means of argument and communcation; rather than attempt to suppress its followers by force which only will strengthen their resolve.

You might be so foolish as to have doubts about the intellectual value of ‘punching’ but purge this thought-crime from your mind and read this elegant riposte, ‘It is therefore deeply unfair to expect members of those groups to respond to people who want us dead with cold, rational and respectful discourse.’ The next time Jewish members of the Conservative Club or Jewish students at Sydney University are threatened with extreme violence by both neo-nazis and socialists, should their immediate reaction by one of violence? Of course not.

As stated we live in a Liberal Democracy where so many other avenues exist to punish the perpetrator and help prevent this from happening before violence can be legitimately justified. The author notes that Nazis want them dead so punching them is therefore actually an act of self-defence, which is a fair point. Let’s take a look at some notable examples of self-defence at Sydney University:

Such as that time our fearless protectors from the Left launched a violent attack on the world’s most dangerous South Australian, Minister Christopher Pyne:

http://www.smh.com.au/…/protest-at-christopher-pyne-sydney-…

Don’t forget the time these noble Leftist warriors attacked former Prime Minister John Howard en masse when he returned to Sydney University to receive an honorary doctorate:

http://www.abc.net.au/…/protests-erupt-at-sydney-un…/7893528

And don’t forget the time that our guardian angels protected us from Senator Simon Birmingham who had turned up to Sydney University with a license to kill and not to adjudicate a debate:

http://honisoit.com/…/riot-police-clash-with-students-prot…/

Noa Zulman then enters the arena and instead of launching any defence of free speech or even providing the slightest condemnation of those who employ violence, she suggests that, “I’d go as far as to suggest that punching Nazis might seem like the right thing to do in the short term, but hurts progress in the long term”. Just to clarify, she opposes the use of violence not on a moral basis but simply that it will inhibit progress for the Left.

She does raise the useful suggestion that punishing those who engage in violent and politically extreme behaviour without punching might be a more effective way to deal with them. Of course though this must only be applied to right-wing extremists, because how else do you expect Grassroots to fill up one of their lately lodged SRC tickets? But read again her quote above and you’ll notice how she begins to wax lyrically about the morality of punching a Nazi. She concludes her magnum opus by writing, “Punching a Nazi is good; hanging one by the gallows is better.” No doubt striking fear into skinheads across the globe, who foolishly had expected to engage strictly intellectually with their opponents.

Take a panadol, have a nap, and apologise to your brain for subjecting it to reading that article.

3 thoughts on “Letter of reply to Honi Soit

  1. Dear Mr McCann,

    Firstly, may I please ask that you spend more time proofing these articles. The frequent grammatical and syntax errors present throughout this piece and is distracting when trying to get a read on what it is you seem to be so worked up about.

    Your post here is troubling to say the least. It is not so because of your apparent disgust with the remarks of these Honi-Soit contributors, but rather because of your flippant and, I assume, uneducated remarks regarding Nazism. To say “Curiously the strong condemnation of nazism for killing millions, which of course is an abhorrent ideology, didn’t follow with a similar condemnation of socialism which has and continues to take exponentially greater life” is to forget not only the horrors unleashed by Nazi’s during the Second World War, but to extend an olive branch to those people who long for the day when the world will once again embrace the quest towards achieving Aryan perfection. People who walk underneath the Nazi flag and use it’s power as a platform for their beliefs are those people who, wittingly or not, stand by the events of Kristillnacht, The Holocaust, and any other atrocity committed by those members of the National Socialist German Workers party. They march and speak on a platform of hate and violence, which brought together the entire western world in an effort to destroy it forever. It is not an acceptable view to hold, no matter what freedoms of speech we wish to enjoy. The same way that supporting acts of terrorism and enjoying child pornography are not, under any circumstances, acceptable, so too is Nazism firmly off limits. And Mr McCann, Nazism has hurt people; close to 50 million people.

    Perhaps your stance on punching protestors is the right one, perhaps it isn’t. Violence is so often not the answer. The time came and went for us to “engage strictly intellectually” with Nazi’s. Our complacency in combatting their ideology led to a war that you’ve no doubt heard of. Nazi’s are bad, Mr McCann. To play nice and give them a seat at the table is to declare that their views are equal to our own. They aren’t.

    Sincerely,
    B. McFarts

    P.S. Nazism means “National Socialism.” Perhaps you will remember this the next time you wish to make the “Nazi’s are bad, but socialists are worse” argument.

    Like

    1. Dear Barry,

      Not entirely sure who to address as you have decided to hide behind a fake account. Very strong words for someone too frightened to put a name to a response.

      Apologises that you haven’t been able to grasp the point of the article, next time I can simplify it a lot more for you. There’s no point in responding to what seems to be a regurgitated vomit of what you’ve read on Buzzfeed, Red Flag, and the Atlantic. I’d ask you to try and think critically about the topic but I imagine that would cause you quite a large headache.

      If you think that someone who supports freedom of speech then supports anything said, then you argue from a position of such ignorance that makes any rational debate impossible.

      Looking forward to reading a comment with your actual name.

      Ta,
      Edward McCann

      Like

      1. Mr McCann,

        I see that instead of engaging with me you’ve decided to delete my reply. How very “intellectual” of you.

        Sincerely,
        B. McFarts

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s