Transcribe
Translate
K'tagogm-m, v. 1, issue 1, March 1945
Page 3
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
#3 I know of no instance where any debater in Fapa in recent years changed another debater's mind. But then--to what? For not one of them had a stand. They lacked a philosophy save that of muddle-headed pseudo-intellectualism. Their world outlook was only that they were confused liberals and grimly determined to remain confused liberals. Milty, it is true, claimed a philosophy. He said he was a socialist. Then so claimed Ackerman. And in all truth, it may be said that Ackermn has done a hundred times more to stand by his philosophy and to advance it than Rothman. For Milty is first and foremost a do-nothingist. He is negative to the bottom of his soul. His philosophy is just another escape mechanism, it lacks substance (But lest the reader mistake that I think Ackerman to be a great force for socialism, be it said that only an incredibly fine social micrometer could measure his contribution) Art Widner is another social negative. He has expressed some advanced ideas--but it is significant that he struggles mightily to oppose any application. And therewith I differ. I,too, have a philosophy. And it is curiously not liberal at all. My viewpoint is rather bull-doggish. And above all, my viewpoint is for doing things. Whatever I am, my mind is not in the least open to debate from persons who do not know or understand the world. The arguments of muddle-heads do not impress me, simply because they have not bothered to investigate their sources. I believe that I have investigated mine. My philosophy works. Both in private life and in world history. I am open to debate--but from those who debate from an honest and comprehensive platform. If you have adopted a philosophy, however wrong I think it to be, but if it is a real philosophy, a definite concrete set of ideas, ideas of a nature to move things in the world (rightly or wrongly), then I can argue with you. But those who have no platform in the first place, present nothing to demolish. They float in a cushion of air and blows merely bounce them from one indefinable void to another. About as satisfactory as punching pillars of gas. So I have not bothered to enter into the heated (for gas acquires heat on joggling) discussions in Fapa. And I am ready to argue in Vanguard. For it is a tenet of Vangapa that we will not have muddle-headers. I have seen advance copies, for example, of Jim Blish's fascist defense of Ezra Pound. And I will answer these things in the next mailing. I shall take up the cudgel. It is the same lack of a fixed world viewpoint that makes the Fapa a hotbed of quibbling over legal points raised without regard to the morals involved. To me, it is simply immoral to countenance published attacks on persons because of race. To me it is immoral, indecent and uncivilized.
Saving...
prev
next
#3 I know of no instance where any debater in Fapa in recent years changed another debater's mind. But then--to what? For not one of them had a stand. They lacked a philosophy save that of muddle-headed pseudo-intellectualism. Their world outlook was only that they were confused liberals and grimly determined to remain confused liberals. Milty, it is true, claimed a philosophy. He said he was a socialist. Then so claimed Ackerman. And in all truth, it may be said that Ackermn has done a hundred times more to stand by his philosophy and to advance it than Rothman. For Milty is first and foremost a do-nothingist. He is negative to the bottom of his soul. His philosophy is just another escape mechanism, it lacks substance (But lest the reader mistake that I think Ackerman to be a great force for socialism, be it said that only an incredibly fine social micrometer could measure his contribution) Art Widner is another social negative. He has expressed some advanced ideas--but it is significant that he struggles mightily to oppose any application. And therewith I differ. I,too, have a philosophy. And it is curiously not liberal at all. My viewpoint is rather bull-doggish. And above all, my viewpoint is for doing things. Whatever I am, my mind is not in the least open to debate from persons who do not know or understand the world. The arguments of muddle-heads do not impress me, simply because they have not bothered to investigate their sources. I believe that I have investigated mine. My philosophy works. Both in private life and in world history. I am open to debate--but from those who debate from an honest and comprehensive platform. If you have adopted a philosophy, however wrong I think it to be, but if it is a real philosophy, a definite concrete set of ideas, ideas of a nature to move things in the world (rightly or wrongly), then I can argue with you. But those who have no platform in the first place, present nothing to demolish. They float in a cushion of air and blows merely bounce them from one indefinable void to another. About as satisfactory as punching pillars of gas. So I have not bothered to enter into the heated (for gas acquires heat on joggling) discussions in Fapa. And I am ready to argue in Vanguard. For it is a tenet of Vangapa that we will not have muddle-headers. I have seen advance copies, for example, of Jim Blish's fascist defense of Ezra Pound. And I will answer these things in the next mailing. I shall take up the cudgel. It is the same lack of a fixed world viewpoint that makes the Fapa a hotbed of quibbling over legal points raised without regard to the morals involved. To me, it is simply immoral to countenance published attacks on persons because of race. To me it is immoral, indecent and uncivilized.
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
