Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb
Message-ID: <20851@styx.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 18:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: styx.20851
Posted: Thu Sep 11 18:28:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 22:40:57 EDT
References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <20812@styx.UUCP> <1076@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 64
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8368 talk.politics.misc:40

Well, I was ready to rush right over and get my licks in, but the rest
of the community has done a pretty thorough job of chastising Mr.
Maroney for emotional argumentation and the dangers of pulling quotes out
of context.

One thing that I missed on the first go-round is that Mr. Maroney
apparently has not read FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD nor Heinlein's excellent
book of essays, EXPANDED UNIVERSE, in anything near their entirety
Anyone who has done so and could seriously entertain the thought that
Heinlein is in favor of nuclear war is, simply, dealing in a different
mental space than the rest of us. Evidently, Mr. Maroney has come to
his conclusions about the "fascism" of American SF writers, RAH
included, on the basis of an essay by Michael Moorcock, the noted
British new-waver and ideologue. Interesting.

I would also like to know in what way Heinlein and his colleagues are
"fascists". My Merriam-Webster here defines fascism as

	"A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts
	nation or race above the individual and that stands for a
	centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
	leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
	suppression of opposition." (1977 edition, p. 416)

This is most interesting. Obviously this closely resembles Robert A. 
Heinlein's political views! (:-) I wonder if Mr. Maroney would care to
flesh out his thesis, or if he merely defines the word "fascist" to
mean "anything I don't agree with."

> Mr. Berch speaks with the fervent preconception of a fundamentalist
> inventing excuses for the slaughter of the Midianites.  [...]

Not being a fundamentalist, I am not familiar with the slaughter of
the Midianites. Will somebody enlighten me?

> I know Heinlein is probably one of your heroes, Mr. Berch, [...]

Of course he is. I am not ashamed to say so in any public forum,
including this one. 

> [...]    And "Pie in the Sky" is even more unambiguous:
> "There are so many, many things in this so-termed civilization of ours which
> would be mightily improved by a once over lightly of the Hiroshima
> treatment."  

Evidently Mr. Maroney both 1) did not bother to read the paragraphs
surrounding the quoted material, and 2) is unfamiliar with the
rhetorical device of irony.

> [...]
> collection "The Opium General", deals not primarily with the fascism of many
> science fiction writers, but of the peculiar phenomenon of their support by
> people who disagree with their views; Mr. Berch has given us a fine example
> of this.  

Now you've lost me. Who said I disagreed with RAH's views? I am
not a fascist, nor is he (see definition above). Mr. Heinlein and I 
certainly differed in our views about the nature and necessity 
of the Vietnam war, and probably disagree about a whole bunch of relatively 
important things, but are pretty much in sync otherwise. What gives?

Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb