Raging Bull tolerates posts forged by Nazis
Andrew A. Skolnick
weeks to get the investors bulletin board Raging Bull to
remove a libelous post containing one of the many forgeries
that were posted on alt.revisionism by Neo-Nazi hate
mongers. These forgeries were posted in an effort to prevent
discussion of Holocaust revisionist and anti-Semitic lies.
Their campaign failed. However, one of those Nazi posts has
been reposted to Raging Bull in an attempt to defame me.
Despite its stated policy that it will not tolerate
defamation, hate mongering, or fraud, Raging Bull will not
remove the fraudulent post.
Raging Bull has become a cesspool of posters who use a
variety of false names to post disinformation, libel, and
fraudulent investment information. And now, it seems that it
is even willing to host forgeries from Neo-Nazis.
Anyone who would invest money based on information obtained
from Raging Bull is a fool.
I have posted more information about this affair on my web
site:
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick/index.htm#rb
-- Andrew Skolnick
RockyMtnCougar
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> short-wave broadcasts from Radio Moscow in the days of the Soviet
> Union?
> The ones that droned on interminably about Nazi-fascist
> conspiracies and
> how the glorious Soviet Union was being libelled by evil
> crypto-fascist
> scum? That sort of thing.
> Maybe Skolnick should apply for a job with Radio Beijing . . .
> David
Maybe you should see a doctor to correct your recto-oral fistula.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
David E Michael
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> I've just remembered what Skolnick reminds me of. Remember those
> short-wave broadcasts from Radio Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union?
> The ones that droned on interminably about Nazi-fascist conspiracies and
> how the glorious Soviet Union was being libelled by evil crypto-fascist
> scum? That sort of thing.
>
> Maybe Skolnick should apply for a job with Radio Beijing . . .
>
> David
In case anyone forgot who this Neo-Nazi is, here are some of
his fascist beliefs in his own insane words:
-- Andrew Skolnick
David E. Michael describes his vision for a Brave National
Socialist World and shares his ideas how to go about
achieving this "beautiful new world" order. Below is most of
the long rumination he posted to alt.revisionism on Sept.
11, 1998, under the name "Cuddles" (I kid you not -- like
calling Hitler "Snuggums.")
Mr. Michael provides some interesting "pragmatic"
suggestions and observations as to how today's Nazis can
overcome the the barriers that stand in their way of
bringing about the World New Order. For example, lack of
credible leadership:
"You have only to witness the undignified way in which
the so-called leaders of the movement today conduct
themselves in this newsgroup to see this. That they
should indulge in public squabbling in the face of
the enemy is unforgivable and shows that they are no
hopers. Sixty years ago, such quarrels between
brothers would have been settled in private, if
necessary with the assistance of a well-placed bullet."
Ah, brings back tears of nostalgia, doesn't it Dr. Cuddles?
Mr. Michael likes to hide behind the First Amendment while
he and his fellow goosesteppers spew racist lies, which
often incite violence. Mr. Michael is outraged that anyone
would even suggest that a Nazi's right to advocate hate and
violence be restricted. But let's look at how Mr. Michael
says advocates of Communism should be treated:
"the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing
appropriately with communists. They hanged them,
shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And
in so doing they have my complete support."
Mr. Michael, who says he's no anti-Semite, claims even to
have found three Jews tolerable enough with whom to have a
friendship:
"I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life the
Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be. I think the
problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic.
"I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet --
they are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people. But
I can think of several with whom I formed good
relationships, in three cases even friendships."
As the saying goes, with a friend like Mr. Michael, who
needs enemies?
Mr. Michael's smooth-talking diatribe provides a chilling
look into the mind of a man who "supports" stringing up
communists from lampposts, who says the Nazis were mostly
right about the "arrogant, aggressive, dishonest" Jews, and
whose biggest complaint about Hitler, was that he blew it
and lost "the most important war of all time."
What exactly does "Dr. Cuddles" advocate in the end? A more
"pragmatic" form of Nazism. I'm thinking now of writing a
screen play for a psychohorror movie called "Dr. Cuddles."
As soon as my skin stops crawling.
"Dr. Cuddles'" entire post can be read at
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=390244357
Below is nearly all of the crackpot screed:
Then I haven't proven you wrong, but it doesn't follow from
the above that I am a rampaging Hitler supporter. Let me
show you why. Let's consider where I think the Nazis were
right and where I think they were wrong.
So where do I agree with them? First, Dr Goebbels made very
clear, in 1935, the absolute opposition of the German
National Socialists to communism. This position was
reiterated by Mr Hitler. It seems quite plain to me that
communism has caused immense suffering throughout the world
this century. Estimates of the numbers slaughtered in its
name exceed 200 million. It has enslaved vast swathes of
territory; it has destroyed whole national cultures; it has
caused misery exceeding anything known to mankind.
With the lamentable exception of the Molotov--Ribbentrop
pact, which I hope was a ruse, the Nazis had an excellent
record of dealing appropriately with communists. They hanged
them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts. And in so
doing they have my complete support.
Second, the National Socialists were nationalists. At the
end of the day, nationalism, in the sense that I'd use it,
is not an abstract theory or set of propositions or
ideology. It is love of one's people and homeland, and a
desire to serve, preserve and enhance them. Nothing more and
nothing less. It is a sentiment, like love of one's wife. It
cannot be justified or refuted, although, irritatingly,
people keep trying to justify it -- and I dare say you've
shot a few of them down in flames in this very newsgroup! It
does not entail hatred of other nations, any more than your
love of your wife or children or pet hamster entails hatred
of other wives of children or hamsters. It is more a case
of: 'this is MINE -- this is what I love and shall defend'.
Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned Romantic, Mr G, but I
sincerely love my homeland and people, for all their faults,
and would like to serve them as best I can, not out of a
wish for personal gain or to further any ideology, but in
the true spirit of public service. I recognize in the
National Socialists a similar spirit. How can I condemn in
them a feeling that is so strong in myself?
Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that
was based upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of
corpses for a moment, Mr G, and imagine a world very
different from the world we inhabit today. Imagine a world
free from the wars that have scarred the face of this tired
old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no
extreme poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of
worker by employer, no jolting financial crises (with the
misery that such crises entail) -- a world united in a
common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world free
from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right'
are mere historical anachronisms, where nation works
peacefully alongside nation for the greater glory of all the
earth. Imagine, if you will, a world where, through a
process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has been
enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere
human beings grow ever closer to becoming gods.
Think of the beauty of those people, of their art, their
music, their literature. Think of their levels of culture,
their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this with the
world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result
of that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a
newspaper and look around you -- look at what your
'liberals' and your 'democrats' have left to them. Look at
the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their eyeballs,
staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos
blaring drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a
Bruckner symphony, or the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche?
What good have 'democracy' and 'liberalism' ever done for
them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa and Asia --
thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth.
What good have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the
inhabitants of those miserable regions? Answer me that! What
good is 'freedom' to a man who cannot afford to buy his
daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the legacy of
communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million
corpses -- people who died as victims of this evil claw, for
no good purpose whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your
hand on your heart and tell me, in all sincerity, sir, that
you truly and without reservation believe that the world you
and your kind have bequeathed to future generations -- the
world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes
all that is wrong with this earth -- that you honestly
believe that this world you have left for us is better than
our alternative?
Can you honestly tell me that the dream of a beautiful new
world that I have outlined above -- the dream that inspired
countless thousands of young Europeans to flock to the
National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can
you honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?
So where do I disagree with them. First, as I indicated
above, there is a lack of clarity as to intent and purpose.
Most National Socialist publications that I have seen
nowadays lack any clear direction. They seem to consist
merely of the confused mutterings of their publishers, which
range from the odd, to the mystical, to the completely daft.
Second, there is a complete lack of any credible leadership.
You have only to witness the undignified way in which the
so-called leaders of the movement today conduct themselves
in this newsgroup to see this. That they should indulge in
public squabbling in the face of the enemy is unforgivable
and shows that they are no hopers. Sixty years ago, such
quarrels between brothers would have been settled in
private, if necessary with the assistance of a well-placed
bullet.
Third, I am persuaded that the National Socialist movement
may, at times, have participated in unjustified acts of
brutality. This in no way detracts from the fact that their
enemies clearly did likewise, and I do not lose sight of the
fact that there was a war on, that 'war is war' and 'these
things happen', or that there was a strong degree of
disorganization, panic and resentment at times.
Nevertheless, such behaviour is quite inexcusable and, where
it can be proven to have occurred, it must be condemned
unreservedly.
Fourth, I think that the National Socialists may, in the
past, have taken their use of the race concept to extremes.
I don't regard the Jews as a 'race' but as a cultural group,
although one that clearly tends to attract adherents
disproportionately from one particular 'race'. I can see how
the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and
from my own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish
community, I must say that I am struck by how true-to-life
the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to be. I think the
problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic.
I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are
arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people. But I can think of
several with whom I formed good relationships, in three
cases even friendships. This is not to say that 'race'
cannot be used as a relevant factor in political decisions.
Indeed, in Britain today, where 1 in 5 pre-school children
are of 'mixed' race, it is imperative that race SHOULD be
used in political decisions if our culture and way of life
is to survive even one century into the new millennium. But
the concept must be used SENSIBLY.
Fifth, a central feature of National Socialism was the
fuhrer principle and the need for loyalty to one man, Mr
Adolf Hitler. I regret that I would swear loyalty to no one
other than myself. Mr Hitler was not infallible. The fact
that he managed to lose the most important war of all time
is clear evidence of this. So, you see, Mr G, I think that
there is good and bad in it. As with most political
movements. The trick, methinks, is to preserve and enhance
the good while doing away with the bad. In other words,
pragmatism should rule.
Charlie Chester
David E Michael wrote:
> Andrew A. Skolnick wrote:
>
snip
>
> I've just remembered what Skolnick reminds me of. Remember those
> short-wave broadcasts from Radio Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union?
> The ones that droned on interminably about Nazi-fascist conspiracies and
> how the glorious Soviet Union was being libelled by evil crypto-fascist
> scum? That sort of thing.
>
> Maybe Skolnick should apply for a job with Radio Beijing . . .
>
> David
Ah, still incapable of anything except trolling I see Dave. How's the brave
fight against communism going? Are you still running away from the Himmler
challenge?
Charlie Chester
Manchester - England