Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian "hate-speech" l
william c anderson
: Actually, he didn't get any jail time. Not even the facist Canadian
: government would do that. They "just" took away his job, blacklisted him
: from ever getting any other kind of job again, and fined him to take away
: al his possessions. Ask where Keegstra is now. ASK.
According to _A Trust Betrayed_, Keegstra is working as a auto mechanic.
He is no longer certified to teach in Canada's public school system,
but can still apply for work in private schools which don't require
certification. Are you seriously suggestiong that Keegstra should have
been allowed to keep his teaching certificate? If he had been a science
teacher, and taught that gravity was the work of microscopic purple
elves anchoring everything to the Earth, would you feel the same way?
Bill
Laura Finsten
[edit - discussing James Keegstra]
>Actually, he didn't get any jail time. Not even the facist Canadian
>government would do that. They "just" took away his job, blacklisted him
>from ever getting any other kind of job again, and fined him to take away
>al his possessions. Ask where Keegstra is now. ASK.
Who took away Keegstra's job? Who blacklisted him so that he can't ever
get any other kind of job? I was under the impression that he is (or
was until recently) working in a gas station. What *was* the fine imposed,
dear Friedrich? I had understood that after the Supreme Court upheld his
conviction, it is now up the Alberta Courts to decide the appropriate fine.
I had understood that initially he was fined $5,000 dollars, although of
course that was thrown out when he won the appeal at the provincial level.
I had also understood that one of the jurors contributed to a fund, set
up by a white supremacist group, to help pay the fine.
Nieztsche
lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:
>Nieztsche (niez...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Actually, he didn't get any jail time. Not even the facist Canadian
>: government would do that. They "just" took away his job, blacklisted
>: him from ever getting any other kind of job again, and fined him to
>: take away al his possessions. Ask where Keegstra is now. ASK.
>
>According to _A Trust Betrayed_, Keegstra is working as a auto
>mechanic. He is no longer certified to teach in Canada's public school
>system, but can still apply for work in private schools which don't
>require certification. Are you seriously suggestiong that Keegstra
>should have been allowed to keep his teaching certificate? If he had
>been a science teacher, and taught that gravity was the work of
>microscopic purple elves anchoring everything to the Earth, would you
>feel the same way?
YES!
You are a censor! Was it OK for the Katholic Church to put Copernicus
in jail? You'd just be suppressing the science teacher's UNPOPULAR
VIEWS.
WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS?
Ok, I'm done. I think we've highlighted most of the lies in Ingrid's
"Zundelgram." Wasn't that fun?
Look, I asked a serious question about what IMO is a pretty serious
case, and nobody had the time to research the details until a jester
got into the act. I can certainly understand getting a wee bit
disillusioned and hostile hanging out in these groups (especially
alt.revisionism), but be careful not to lose the trees for the forest.
Trolling up an agreement from Matt Giwer was fun, though...
- --
Visit the Zundelsite, the Voice for Freedom!
http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/
E-Mail: ezu...@cts.com
Ernst Zündel
206 Carlton Street
Toronto, ONT., Canada
M5A 2L1
Telephone: 416-922-9850
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMUELKo3DXUbM57SdAQHnFQQAqJkDBpJnuEtU2iLX7HC/HN8rxrymtQFV
nYngpX9UXpj+QBweqvZ+aaAZom85W/ZY7dTwDtSALBskVtNFHzasEDZMjuBA5VgO
nY8auqNFjhGju1V/O3AXROp7L6zzW+kiRLsUXTvfKguqESS/nHd2CC+EMeZ8/KrN
jgWE4jLlr64=
=qTe8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Daniel Keren
Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
## Zundel called to ban the movie "Schindler's List", and the TV
## series "Holocaust".
# Called for means denial. What a very strange language you speak.
I think what I say is quite clear. This madman Zundel claims to
advocate freedom of speech, and then calls to ban movies he
doesn't like.
# Look at the malicious and selective prosecution Zundel suffered in
# Canada under a law blatantly in violation of Canada's constitution.
As I said many times here, I am against prosecuting the Zundel's
of the world.
## BTW, is this madman still peddling the stuff about the
## secret "German UFO base in the South-Pole"?
# And your freedom interest in that is what?
My interest in documenting Zundel's "German UFO's" research is
of a different nature. I believe that quite a few Holocaust
deniers are crooks, and/or clinically insane. Zundel
publishes these theories about the "German UFO's", which
supposedly use secret passages in the Poles to fly to the
center of the Earth, etc; he even claims to have met "German
scientists" who designed them. He also asked people to donate
money so he can research these matters more seriously. This
seems to - partially at least - justify my belief.
-Danny Keren.
--
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
-Lu Xun.
PKolding
>Nieztsche (niez...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Actually, he didn't get any jail time. Not even the facist Canadian
>: government would do that. They "just" took away his job, blacklisted him
>: from ever getting any other kind of job again, and fined him to take away
>: al his possessions. Ask where Keegstra is now. ASK.
>According to _A Trust Betrayed_, Keegstra is working as a auto mechanic.
>He is no longer certified to teach in Canada's public school system,
>but can still apply for work in private schools which don't require
>certification. Are you seriously suggestiong that Keegstra should have
>been allowed to keep his teaching certificate? If he had been a science
>teacher, and taught that gravity was the work of microscopic purple
>elves anchoring everything to the Earth, would you feel the same way?
The question you should contemplate is that if he was indeed a science
teacher, and taught his students the elves theory, would you be
supporting his criminal prosecution because of it?
Keith Morrison
>
>>According to _A Trust Betrayed_, Keegstra is working as a auto mechanic.
>>He is no longer certified to teach in Canada's public school system,
>>but can still apply for work in private schools which don't require
>>certification. Are you seriously suggestiong that Keegstra should have
>>been allowed to keep his teaching certificate? If he had been a science
>>teacher, and taught that gravity was the work of microscopic purple
>>elves anchoring everything to the Earth, would you feel the same way?
>
>The question you should contemplate is that if he was indeed a science
>teacher, and taught his students the elves theory, would you be
>supporting his criminal prosecution because of it?
No. Jail terms should not be the result of stating an opinion.
Teaching, now that's a different story. Sure I can accept him
getting canned for (at the minimum) his stupidity but not sent to
jail *or* fined or other legal sanction.
Of course Moran will now claim that this is not what I *reallly*
mean...
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
PKolding
>I think what I say is quite clear. This madman Zundel claims to
>advocate freedom of speech, and then calls to ban movies he
>doesn't like.
But so does the CRTC, and every censorship board and government in
Canada.
Nele Abels
[snipsnap]
> You are a censor! Was it OK for the Katholic Church to put Copernicus=20
> in jail? You'd just be suppressing the science teacher's UNPOPULAR=20
> VIEWS.
*snigger* Sic tacuisses, dear Nieztsche, sic tacuisses philosophus
mansisses. Well, perhaps not. (Sorry for that pun, I couldn't resist) And
this lad told me to keep the Volksgerichtshof out out a "serious
historical discussion" on national socialist mass murder. As a historian,=
=20
he even dwarfs his beloved Fuehrer...
> Ok, I'm done. I think we've highlighted most of the lies in Ingrid's
> "Zundelgram." Wasn't that fun?
Is this guy schizophrenic or not?
> Look, I asked a serious question about what IMO is a pretty serious=20
> case, and nobody had the time to research the details until a jester=20
> got into the act. I can certainly understand getting a wee bit=20
What??
> disillusioned and hostile hanging out in these groups (especially=20
> alt.revisionism), but be careful not to lose the trees for the forest.
>=20
> Trolling up an agreement from Matt Giwer was fun, though...
> - --=20
> Visit the Zundelsite, the Voice for Freedom!
> http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/
> E-Mail: ezu...@cts.com
> Ernst Z=FCndel
> 206 Carlton Street
> Toronto, ONT., Canada
> M5A 2L1
> Telephone: 416-922-9850
>=20
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>=20
> iQCVAwUBMUELKo3DXUbM57SdAQHnFQQAqJkDBpJnuEtU2iLX7HC/HN8rxrymtQFV
> nYngpX9UXpj+QBweqvZ+aaAZom85W/ZY7dTwDtSALBskVtNFHzasEDZMjuBA5VgO
> nY8auqNFjhGju1V/O3AXROp7L6zzW+kiRLsUXTvfKguqESS/nHd2CC+EMeZ8/KrN
> jgWE4jLlr64=3D
> =3DqTe8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>=20
>=20
Elias Halldor Agustsson
But do they claim to advocate free speech?
Elías
--
© Elias Halldor Agustsson
© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
.
PKolding
>In article <4ht0bj$4...@news2.cts.com>, pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) said:
>>
>>lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:
>>>Nieztsche (niez...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>: Actually, he didn't get any jail time. Not even the facist Canadian
>>>: government would do that. They "just" took away his job, blacklisted him
>>>: from ever getting any other kind of job again, and fined him to take
>away
>>>: al his possessions. Ask where Keegstra is now. ASK.
>>>According to _A Trust Betrayed_, Keegstra is working as a auto mechanic.
>>>He is no longer certified to teach in Canada's public school system,
>>>but can still apply for work in private schools which don't require
>>>certification. Are you seriously suggestiong that Keegstra should have
>>>been allowed to keep his teaching certificate? If he had been a science
>>>teacher, and taught that gravity was the work of microscopic purple
>>>elves anchoring everything to the Earth, would you feel the same way?
>>The question you should contemplate is that if he was indeed a science
>>teacher, and taught his students the elves theory, would you be supporting
>>his criminal prosecution because of it?
>The fact is that he wasn't a science teacher and he didn't teach the elves
>theory. He taught that an identifiable group in society was of the devil,
>engaged in all sorts of perfidy and ought to be an object of hate and
>revulsion. He taught that the same group of people was out to enslave the
>world. He taught this to children. He deserved what he got.
Thank you for finally confirming the point I've been making all along.
He was arrested, jailed and criminalised on the sole basis of his
expressed political opinions. Had he made precisely the same claims
with respect to the poor, children or the sick he could not be charged
under the law (as these groups are evidently not worthy of
"protection") and the normal civil procedures would have been
instituted with respect to firing him with cause. And if he had
expressed the same views with respect to "males" he probably wouldn't
have faced any sanction whatsoever.
I have no problem with your view that political opinions should be
controlled and vetted by government, and the standard for criminality
determined upon narrow grounds applicable only to those opinions
unpalatable to a few priviliged groups. I just maintain that this is
not a view that can be held up as one supporting anything but tyranny
and totalitarianism.
ncrccjc
>Thank you for finally confirming the point I've been making all along.
>He was arrested, jailed and criminalised on the sole basis of his
>expressed political opinions.
>
>
> ... blah blah blah ...
ncrccjc responds:
PK is like the child in school who never listens and therefore never
quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
head. The rest of you should have no problem.
Laura Finsten
I just maintain that this is
>not a view that can be held up as one supporting anything but tyranny
>and totalitarianism.
So, are tyranny and totalitarianism problems for you? (I am not conceding
that Canada's hate laws represent these political forms, by the way.)
How do statements like "Jews are evil" constitute political statements?
You keep coming back to the idea that antisemitic speech a la Keegstra
and Zundel, and Holocaust denial, are political speech. And yet
Holocaust deniers deny this. What is your position on this?
(And let's leave Marc Lepine out of it.)
Howard Eisenberger
>
> I have no problem with your view that political opinions should be
> controlled and vetted by government, and the standard for criminality
> determined upon narrow grounds applicable only to those opinions
> not a view that can be held up as one supporting anything but tyranny
> and totalitarianism.
If you are referring to the Keegstra case, I'm afraid your analogy
does not pass the "bullshit test".
Laura Finsten
>PK is like the child in school who never listens and therefore never
>quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
>Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
>do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
>head. The rest of you should have no problem.
Actually, what I find rather ironic in all this is that the vast majority
of Holocaust deniers publicly disavow that their "revisionism" of the
Holocaust is political. Instead, they claim that their only interest is
in "setting the historical record straight". Yet PKolding is explicitly
aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.
Rubin Friedman
ncrccjc (ncr...@ibm.net) writes:
> pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) wrote: About Keegstra
>
>>Thank you for finally confirming the point I've been making all along.
>>He was arrested, jailed and criminalised on the sole basis of his
>>expressed political opinions.
>>
>>
>> ... blah blah blah ...
>
> ncrccjc responds:
>
> quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
> Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
> do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
> head. The rest of you should have no problem.
For a full exploration of this issue in Bosnia, there is a book by Article
19, the International Centre Against Censorship, called "Forging War", the
media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.
It clearly shows how the promotion of hatred towards others, in words, is
directly tied to acts of murder, rape and genocide. While their main
point is the danger of state controlled media, the analysis clearly shows
the dangers of hate mongering as well.
Robert Mugasera, of Rwanda, stands accused of crimes against humanity, not
because he personally killed anyone, but because his incitement to murder
and carnage have been directly linked to acts.
To hate mongers in Canada: Promotion of Hatred is not free speech. It is a
criminal act. Get used to it.
--
"Love work; despise power for power's sake; and don't get too close to the
government" - Ethics of the Fathers
Rubin Friedman
Laura Finsten (fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) writes:
> ncr...@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:
>
>
>>PK is like the child in school who never listens and therefore never
>>quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
>>Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
>>do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
>>head. The rest of you should have no problem.
>
> of Holocaust deniers publicly disavow that their "revisionism" of the
> Holocaust is political. Instead, they claim that their only interest is
> in "setting the historical record straight". Yet PKolding is explicitly
> aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.
>
>
Holocaust denial is the promotion of hatred. It is not a political
opinion. It is not scientific research. It has a very specific agenda,
to rehabilitate the Nazis and to promote hatred of Jews.
Not like saying we have to cut the deficit.
Rich Graves
According to yesterday's Toronto Star. Details anon. Followups to
alt.revisionism and alt.fan.ernst-zundel only.
So it is now legal in Canada to be a liar and a hate-monger, because to
prohibit lying and hate speech that is not a direct incitement to violence
is wrong.
Hooray for freedom.
By the way, the Nazis keep saying that Sabina Citron, who filed the
charges, is a "rich Jewess" with all sorts of support from international
Jewry. In fact, she is a Holocaust survivor of reasonably modest means,
who acted alone. It will be interesting to observe what spin the Nazis
put on this development. I'm sure they're disappointed not to have
another "Holocaust trial" to help with fund-raising and recruitment.
- --
Rich Graves, Sub-Aryan Corps Uber-Ideologist and Spokesperson
ri...@c2.org, an27...@anon.penet.fi, rcgr...@ix.netcom.com
Founder and President, Institute for Ernst Zundel Revisionism
http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMUuku43DXUbM57SdAQGJ0QQAuPO/HWNczvfhxj1Uft5luT+H0AqtNAIp
k8k+dNHcwyF90g5FWvUc7elvDjTChnwsSs8oI/hV0RKkVRGlRlFVmFNvkb51smm7
e/iadoZnwFR3W4sarBb5/dotQ0ZipEF3oWm3ICtcWDlqWtyK9WAfIF88OjDBA/TD
BkV/PZVHShE=
=irrY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Neil
> Well, why the heck don't you press charges against somebody for promoting
> hatred of Neo-Nazis? You should have plenty of targets. The fact is, you
> can't know if this is a fact until you have tried. So, until you (or some
> other Nazi) have pressed charges and the state prosecutor has decided whether
> to indict or not, you cannot complain about he laws. End of discussion.
Neo-Nazis do not comprise an identifiable group according to the Supreme
Court, assuming that "hate crimes" have even been committed against them
(I don't think they have). Perhaps Kolding could argue a case that hatred
against Germans was being propogated, but since there are no examples of
hatred against Germans that I can think of (since the vast majority of
Germans in Canada are not neo-Nazis), the judge would throw a book at him.
________________________________________
|Neil Singh, |^| |
|University of Arizona, <^\| |/^> |
|Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A. <__ __> |
|http://u.arizona.edu/~neilends | |
|________________________________________|
PKolding
>pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) wrote: About Keegstra
>>Thank you for finally confirming the point I've been making all along.
>>He was arrested, jailed and criminalised on the sole basis of his
>>expressed political opinions.
>>
>>
>> ... blah blah blah ...
>ncrccjc responds:
>PK is like the child in school who never listens and therefore never
>quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
>Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
>do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
>head. The rest of you should have no problem.
I wish someone would simply respond to the points I've made rather
than stamp their little feet and shout No! No! No!
If "the promotion of hatred" is the BAD THING, why is it allowed
against some groups but it is a criminal offense against others? The
only reason possible, and this is simply a matter of logic, is that
"the promotion of hatred" is not the BAD THING, but something else is.
And since the law is entirely concerned with expressed opinion, and is
applicable only towards certain groups, the inevitable conclusion is
that the law is all about the suppression of unpopular opinion with
respect to certain groups.
People seem to think I am making this argument based upon my political
views, rather than an analysis of the law. I hate the law for what it
is, and I would hate it just as much if it was amended to apply
universally. But the point is that it is NOT applied universally, and
it is NOT about the propagation of hatred, and it is used simply to
criminalise opinions unpopular with certain powerful interest groups.
I know this will go over your head, but, so what?
PKolding
>pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
> I just maintain that this is
>>not a view that can be held up as one supporting anything but tyranny
>>and totalitarianism.
>So, are tyranny and totalitarianism problems for you? (I am not conceding
>that Canada's hate laws represent these political forms, by the way.)
>How do statements like "Jews are evil" constitute political statements?
>You keep coming back to the idea that antisemitic speech a la Keegstra
>and Zundel, and Holocaust denial, are political speech. And yet
>Holocaust deniers deny this. What is your position on this?
>(And let's leave Marc Lepine out of it.)
I have no idea how Holocaust deniers define their own views. It seems
to me if a Prime Minister can claim that half the citizens of the
country are "enemies of Canada" political expression is virtually
unlimited. As to the phrase "Jews are evil"---I can't think of many
phrases more "political" than that, can you? Liberals are evil, and so
are mulitnational corporations, and the leaders of public service
unions, and Mike Harcourt and the NDP, and feminists and Castro and
men and separatists and federalists.
The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the
meaning and purpose of common things. There are some people who say
Marc Lepine was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a
hero. Such opinions do not somehow cease to be political expressions
merely because a majority, or a special interest group, dislikes one
view or the other.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
> If "the promotion of hatred" is the BAD THING, why is it allowed
> against some groups but it is a criminal offense against others? The
> only reason possible, and this is simply a matter of logic, is that
> "the promotion of hatred" is not the BAD THING, but something else is.
> And since the law is entirely concerned with expressed opinion, and is
> applicable only towards certain groups, the inevitable conclusion is
> that the law is all about the suppression of unpopular opinion with
> respect to certain groups.
Well, why the heck don't you press charges against somebody for promoting
hatred of Neo-Nazis? You should have plenty of targets. The fact is, you
can't know if this is a fact until you have tried. So, until you (or some
other Nazi) have pressed charges and the state prosecutor has decided whether
to indict or not, you cannot complain about he laws. End of discussion.
Elías
Rich Graves
ci...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rubin Friedman) writes:
>
>Promoting hatred of Jews is not free speech. It is hate propaganda which
>is against the law in Canada as is promoting hatred against any
>identifiable group under the law. So don't do it.
Oh, but you can; you simply have to be a little more subtle than Keegstra,
or a lot richer. Ernst Zundel, who is both, just got off the hook again;
the Attorney General refused to authorize his prosecution.
It will be interesting to see Zundel, Rimland, Lemire & Co try to present
the non-prosecution as a victory while still claiming to be "oppressed."
I'm sure that Zundel is very disappointed that he has lost the chance to
promote hatred against Jews and mock justice in a court of law again.
- --
Rich Graves, Sub-Aryan Corps Uber-Ideologist and Spokesperson
ri...@c2.org, an27...@anon.penet.fi, rcgr...@ix.netcom.com
Founder and President, Institute for Ernst Zundel Revisionism
http://www.c2.org/~rich/Press/Swedish/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMUvS9Y3DXUbM57SdAQFCNAQAoGccalmwxMb6SfjX3QfEQnBZ0JZ4FRqW
puGAcCo4NZLafpLqMMCMAFEr7OajlUtJlzsn789kC8NKvB0Ell8EcrVo791vV421
489fTYSDACn3vOROglOAFRpgqHujOMnOrX1Vdv1z4VdbaIIluQvoSEHMUJycfW3+
BpgLlJL/ivk=
=1+al
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rubin Friedman
PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) writes:
> ncr...@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:
>
>>pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) wrote: About Keegstra
>
>>>Thank you for finally confirming the point I've been making all along.
>>>He was arrested, jailed and criminalised on the sole basis of his
>>>expressed political opinions.
>>>
>>>
>>> ... blah blah blah ...
>
>>ncrccjc responds:
>
>>PK is like the child in school who never listens and therefore never
>>quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
>>Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
>>do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
>>head. The rest of you should have no problem.
>
> I wish someone would simply respond to the points I've made rather
> than stamp their little feet and shout No! No! No!
>
> against some groups but it is a criminal offense against others? The
> only reason possible, and this is simply a matter of logic, is that
> "the promotion of hatred" is not the BAD THING, but something else is.
> And since the law is entirely concerned with expressed opinion, and is
> applicable only towards certain groups, the inevitable conclusion is
> that the law is all about the suppression of unpopular opinion with
> respect to certain groups.
It is about the propagation of hatred against any identifiable group not
about "unpopular" opinion about "certain" groups. The Supreme Court made
it clear that the issue was NOT popularity or unpopularity but whether the
speech promoted hatred. This Keegstra did and so his conviction under the
law stands.
>
> People seem to think I am making this argument based upon my political
> views, rather than an analysis of the law. I hate the law for what it
> is, and I would hate it just as much if it was amended to apply
> universally. But the point is that it is NOT applied universally, and
> it is NOT about the propagation of hatred, and it is used simply to
> criminalise opinions unpopular with certain powerful interest groups.
>
I don't know what you mean by "universally". The law is applied to any
identifiable group not just some. There are other laws (libel and
slander) dealing with the protection of individuals and indeed incitement
to riot, to murder or to assault are also punishable. This is all "red
Herriing" discussion by you to talk about "certain powerful interest
groups". Everyone knows you mean the JOOs so why not come clean? This is
hardly the stuff of incisive analysis, just more promotion of hatred
against "certain powerful interest groups". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say
no more.
> I know this will go
over your head, but, so what? >
This might not go over your head but if not it will certainly go in one
ear and out the other.
Gord McFee
(Rubin Friedman) said:
>To hate mongers in Canada: Promotion of Hatred is not free speech. It is
>a criminal act. Get used to it.
Well put Rubin. I completely agree.
--
Gord McFee
.. I'll write no line before its time(gmc...@ibm.net)
-- MR/2 2.26 #331
Michael P. Stein
Rubin Friedman <ci...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Holocaust denial is the promotion of hatred. It is not a political
>opinion. It is not scientific research. It has a very specific agenda,
>to rehabilitate the Nazis and to promote hatred of Jews.
Based on my own observation, this is not entirely true.
There are Holocaust deniers who are neo-Nazis. An example is Milton
Kleim, Jr., who explicitly refers to himself as a National Socialist.
Heritage Front member Les "I don't believe Hitler killed six megakikes,
and if he did, so what?" Griswold is another example.
There are Holocaust deniers who are antisemitic, though they have not
given any sign of endorsing the rest of the NS agenda. An example is
Friedrich Paul Berg. (He may also fit into the "denial" category below.)
There are Holocaust deniers who display what I refer to as a "Don
Quixote complex." That is, they seem to be attracted to fringe causes due
to a psychological quirk. An example is Ross Vicksell. Robert Faurisson
(with whom I have had dinner) also may fall into this category.
Others seem to have a different quirk, that of liking to shock
people. David Cole (who is Jewish) strikes me as having this trait.
There are Holocaust deniers who are "in denial" in the psychological
sense. Among these are ethnic Germans who cannot cope with the idea that
some of their forebears were guilty of great crimes, and others were
complicit by silence. Simply saying, "It never happened" relieves them of
this guilt. Cecilia Clancy has written on this topic.
It is tempting to write off all Holocaust deniers as antisemites or
neo-Nazis, but that would be just another form of prejudice. I try to be
consistent in applying the principle of dealing with people as
individuals. That extends even to Holocaust deniers.
Posted/emailed.
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
DvdThomas
groups,"
>for example like "convicted criminals."
That depends on what century you're living in, I guess. The law is the
law is the law, eh Inspector?
"The kind of person who always insists
on his way of seeing things
can never learn anything from anyone." - Tao Te Ching, 24
Elias Halldor Agustsson
> If they are not identifiable all the whining about neo-nazis the the
> sham the unbiased observer knows it is.
This passage is strongly imbued with Giwerundean idiom, but I let it pass.
Yes, I agree. The Neo-Nazis, whose whole raison d'être is spreading hate, have
no reason to complain about being left out and any unbiased observer can see it
is a sham. However, I would encourage any attempt of theirs to press charges
for "hate crimes" committed against them.
> Inspiring hatred against any group is all the law says. There are no
> exceptions for groups that deserve hatred.
"Deserve" hatred? Is that a Giwerundean legal term?
> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
Try "religion" or "ethnic group."
> Get over it. It is a political law targeted at a specific group. If
You know, there is nothing wrong with targeting laws against "specific groups,"
for example like "convicted criminals."
Elías
Laura Finsten
>Laura Finsten <fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
[edit]
>>Actually, what I find rather ironic in all this is that the vast majority
>>of Holocaust deniers publicly disavow that their "revisionism" of the
>>Holocaust is political. Instead, they claim that their only interest is
>>in "setting the historical record straight". Yet PKolding is explicitly
>>aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.
>
>When someone is concerned with "setting the historical record
>straight" you may be sure they are entering the political sphere. By
>the way, what exactly constitutes a "Holocaust denier", and please
>post quotes of mine that make me one.
I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I said that you were
explicitly aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions. Whenever
I or others have said that Keegstra was teaching Holocaust denial as
history to high school students, you have leapt to his defence by
claiming that he was charged and convicted for his political views.
This is why I have said that you are aligning Holocaust denial with
political opinions.
[edit]
DvdThomas
>>Is it
>>not possible that some intelligent people, after examining the
historical
>>record, form a sincere opinion that certain elements of it are
exaggerated
>>or wrong (as all of them must be to some extent)?
>
> It is, yes....
Thank you. This rather obvious fact is seldom acknowledged here. I think
that a good many participants would answer the question with a "no" or
some stronger negative.
>>...However...
Having covered my question entirely with the answer above, I presume this
indicates that we are now discussing other matters derived from the
balance of my post, since you quote it next.
>>[...]
>>Most people become highly
>>offended at having their honest expressions of opinion greeted as
>>something evil, and absolutely incensed at being labeled a Nazi or
racist
>>or hater for asking their question in the face of objections that it is
>>cruel and insensitive to do so. The attacks that are intended to
silence
>>them thus often have the opposite effect. This is a standard facet of
>>human nature. I continue to maintain that if participants here would
>>treat others with some modicum of respect and not intentionally fan
>>emotional flames, there could be a true exchange of ideas instead of a
>>third rate display of flaming talent, or lack of same.
The gist of this is that intemperate attacks directed at the simply
curious produces shouting matches and occasionally will light off a
crusader who otherwise would have simply posed the question and gone about
his business after a time. Your reply that follows seems to broach a
different subject.
>In the case of both Vicksell and Faurisson, very serious and
>respectful questions have been evaded. Ross was a participant here for
>quite a while, and ignored many inconvenient questions (often related to
>the inconsistency of his standard of proof for historical events).
>Without any insult intended, I found him neither reasonable nor
>particularly intelligent.
This appears to be mainly an observation of Ross Vicksell's perceived
techniques in this discussion group. I might add that his referrals to
you were rather more charitable, but that is as beside the point as the
above statements are beside my point. I guess that makes us even. :-)
>Shermer's article mentioned that Faurisson will not define his
>standard of proof for a gas chamber, but rather keeps repeating, "No, no,
>I ask you for proof." I think "What would you take as proof of a
>homicidal gas chamber?" is a perfectly legitimate question to ask someone
>who claims there is no proof of homicidal gas chambers. Faurisson's
>evasion of this question is evidence of irrationality. (It also helps
him
>maintain his position - if he ever defined an objective standard, he runs
>the risk that someone might meet it, and then he'd have to abandon his
>position or be exposed as a true nutcase if he held onto his belief even
>in the face of proof he had previously agreed would be acceptable.)
>
> Further insight into Faurisson's irrationality is supplied by his
>reaction to David Cole's conclusion that there really was a homicidal gas
>chamber (albeit not for purposes of mass extermination) at Natzweiler
>concentration camp.
I think "What would you take as proof of a homicidal gas chamber?" is an
even more legitimate question to ask someone who claims that there is
proof of homicidal gas chambers. i.e. -- What exactly is it that you have
proof of? (Pardon the grammar.) Asking someone to describe the technical
details of something that he maintains did not and does not exist seems,
in fact, a bit illogical. Further, the evasion of the same question on
the part of those who claim homicidal gas chambers did exist is not proof
of their irrationality, it is a strong and very understandable indication
of just what you describe - a fear of sticking one's neck out too far and
having it chopped off by an impossible combination of claimed attributes.
Oh what a tangled web, and all that.
The thing between Faurisson and Cole is a simple personality clash. Let
he who is among us without experience of one of those cast the first
irrationality charge.
william c anderson
: Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
: >Matt Giwer wrote:
: >> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
: >Try "religion" or "ethnic group."
: Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
Apparently, Mr. Giwer does not understand the conjunction "or".
Bill
william c anderson
>lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:
>>Nieztsche (niez...@aol.com) wrote:
>>: Actually, he didn't get any jail time. Not even the facist Canadian
>>: government would do that. They "just" took away his job, blacklisted him
>>: from ever getting any other kind of job again, and fined him to take
>>:away al his possessions. Ask where Keegstra is now. ASK.
>>According to _A Trust Betrayed_, Keegstra is working as a auto mechanic.
>>He is no longer certified to teach in Canada's public school system,
>>but can still apply for work in private schools which don't require
>>certification. Are you seriously suggestiong that Keegstra should have
>>been allowed to keep his teaching certificate? If he had been a science
>>teacher, and taught that gravity was the work of microscopic purple
>>elves anchoring everything to the Earth, would you feel the same way?
>The question you should contemplate is that if he was indeed a science
>teacher, and taught his students the elves theory, would you be supporting
>his criminal prosecution because of it?
No. In fact, I don't support his criminal prosecution for what he did,
although I consider his actions heinous and contemptable. I understand
the case made by others here distinguishing free speech in a public
forum from the violation of a public trust, but slippery slopes make me
nervous. I think Keegstra should have been fired, and I think his
teaching certificate should have been revoked. I think he should be
thoroughly refuted, held up to public ridicule, and made a social pariah.
I don't think the law should touch him, in spite of the harm he's done
to numerous children. Sometimes we have to hold our noses.
And sometimes I wish defending free speech didn't so often make me
feel like I need a bath...
Bill
Neil
> If they are not identifiable all the whining about neo-nazis the the
> sham the unbiased observer knows it is.
> Inspiring hatred against any group is all the law says. There are no
> exceptions for groups that deserve hatred.
> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
It doesn't seem you have read the Criminal Code, or the Supreme Court
definition of what an "identifiable group" is. Jews are an identifiable
group by religion.
_______________________________________
| Neil |
| University of Arizona |
| http://u.arizona.edu/~neilends |
| Citizen of the Hyphenated Republic of |
| Canada |
|_______________________________________|
Neil
> Perhaps not neo-Nazism, but Identity Christianity would certainly qualify
> as a religion; I don't think that its highly contoversial belief system
> would disqualify it as such.
"Identity Christianity"? Never heard of it, but if it exists, all that
must be done now is prove someone is preaching hatred against them in
particular.
Neil
> Neil wrote:
> > Neo-Nazis do not comprise an identifiable group according to the Supreme
> > Court, assuming that "hate crimes" have even been committed against them
>
> Can anyone verify that? (cite court decision, please).
The Canadian Supreme Court affirms the definition of identifiable groups
as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or
ethnic origin" in R. v. Keegstra. To my knowledge, no one has attempted to
establish neo-Nazism as a religion in the Supreme Court.
> Another thing: are we discussing US "hate crime" laws as well?
No. I'm not, anyway.
> Some months ago I argued in a post on alt.revisionism that Holocaust
> Revisionism is a religion. I guess that that could be applied to Nazis as
> well. Does "religion" in paragraph 4 of section 318 of the Canadian Criminal
> Code only apply to certain creeds that have a special official stamp of
> approval?
There must be a definition of "religion" somewhere. I don't know of it
myself.
Neil
> What would be the point? Atheist jews do not have a religion.
Irrelevant. If an Atheist Jew (talk about an oxymoron) has the last name
of Goldstein, neo-Nazi hate crimes target him as much as they target
practising Jews.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
>
>
> Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
On the contrary. I said "religion" _OR_ "ethnic group." So we have two groups
here. Got any problems with that? I'm sure that the Canadian Supreme Court
would not.
Jamie McCarthy
> I'm sure that Zundel is very disappointed that he has lost the chance to
> promote hatred against Jews and mock justice in a court of law again.
Indeed. This "victory" for them is Pyrrhic indeed. Millions of dollars
worth of free publicity, down the drain. And worse yet, now they have
no excuse to not start work on their rebuttal to the 66 QAR. As
Ms. Rimland wrote in her Zuendelgram yesterday (Sunday):
...for now I just want you to know that a two-front war has now
become a one-front war, at least for the time being. It is a very
serious one-front war of which more will be said in time, but at the
very least, a major obstacle has been removed.
I infer that the "one-front war" is their "Great Electronic Holocaust
Rebuttal" that occupies top billing on their home page, and I further
infer that a substantive reply to Nizkor's 66 QAR might be forthcoming
shortly. I'm glad to hear that.
I point out for the record that the 66 QAR have so far been posted on
Nizkor's web site for three months and seven days, without a single reply
to their content from anyone at the Zuendelsite.
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/qar/
Posted/emailed. Cc'd to Ernst Zuendel and my colleagues at Nizkor.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
to be in the public domain. I speak only for myself.
PKolding
>ncr...@ibm.net (ncrccjc) wrote:
>>PK is like the child in school who never listens and therefore never
>>quite gets it. Keegstra was convicted on the basis of his HATEMONGERING.
>>Denigrating Judaism and promoting hatred towards Jews has ZILCH to
>>do with "expressed political opinion". Clearly, this will go right over PK's
>>head. The rest of you should have no problem.
>Actually, what I find rather ironic in all this is that the vast majority
>of Holocaust deniers publicly disavow that their "revisionism" of the
>Holocaust is political. Instead, they claim that their only interest is
>in "setting the historical record straight". Yet PKolding is explicitly
>aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.
When someone is concerned with "setting the historical record
straight" you may be sure they are entering the political sphere. By
the way, what exactly constitutes a "Holocaust denier", and please
post quotes of mine that make me one. From what I can gather the
definition seems to have expanded somewhat from what reasonable people
might assume. Evidently, it seems that expressing ANY views that might
incite people to hate the hate laws now qualifies. I wouldn't be
surprised if the next step will be to turn anyone who doesn't
formally, publically, swear to the fact of the Holocaust as a
"Holocaust denier".
How perfectly Canadian.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
> Neo-Nazis do not comprise an identifiable group according to the Supreme
> Court, assuming that "hate crimes" have even been committed against them
Can anyone verify that? (cite court decision, please).
Another thing: are we discussing US "hate crime" laws as well?
Some months ago I argued in a post on alt.revisionism that Holocaust
Revisionism is a religion. I guess that that could be applied to Nazis as
well. Does "religion" in paragraph 4 of section 318 of the Canadian Criminal
Code only apply to certain creeds that have a special official stamp of
approval?
Elías
Daniel Mittleman
>Mike Stein writes:
>
>>>Is it
>>>not possible that some intelligent people, after examining the
>historical
>>>record, form a sincere opinion that certain elements of it are
>exaggerated
>>>or wrong (as all of them must be to some extent)?
>>
>> It is, yes....
>
>Thank you. This rather obvious fact is seldom acknowledged here. I think
>that a good many participants would answer the question with a "no" or
>some stronger negative.
I am not sure I agree with Mike on this. I have yet to see someone put
together an interpretation of the historical record of which I can see
someone say, "Yes, this is internally and externally consistent and it
concludes that elements of the record are exaggerated or wrong." The
cases where I have seen people draw these conclusions they have not
really examined the historical record very well. But I am certainly
open to considering such a case if it were put before me.
>>>...However...
[snip]
>>>Most people become highly
>>>offended at having their honest expressions of opinion greeted as
>>>something evil, and absolutely incensed at being labeled a Nazi or
>racist
>>>or hater for asking their question in the face of objections that it is
>>>cruel and insensitive to do so. The attacks that are intended to
>silence
>>>them thus often have the opposite effect. This is a standard facet of
>>>human nature. I continue to maintain that if participants here would
>>>treat others with some modicum of respect and not intentionally fan
>>>emotional flames, there could be a true exchange of ideas instead of a
>>>third rate display of flaming talent, or lack of same.
>
>The gist of this is that intemperate attacks directed at the simply
>curious produces shouting matches and occasionally will light off a
>crusader who otherwise would have simply posed the question and gone about
>his business after a time.
I don't recall any "simply curious" onlookers or questioners here being
treated cruelly. Do you have a specific example to set me straight? I
could easily have missed such exchanges as there is so much traffic,
but the ones I have seen have been quite benign.
daniel david mittleman
===========================================================================
Quoth the Raven: "Never happened."
Gord McFee
>The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the meaning
>and purpose of common things. There are some people who say Marc Lepine
>was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a hero. Such
>opinions do not somehow cease to be political expressions merely because a
>majority, or a special interest group, dislikes one view or the other.
So what it boils down to is that you say Marc Lepine, who cold bloodedly
murdered 15 women in Montreal in 1989, is a hero? Given that, why should
anyone care what you say about anything else. You are a bastard, sir.
Ken McVay OBC
ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>ri...@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:
>> I'm sure that Zundel is very disappointed that he has lost the chance to
>> promote hatred against Jews and mock justice in a court of law again.
>Indeed. This "victory" for them is Pyrrhic indeed. Millions of dollars
>worth of free publicity, down the drain. And worse yet, now they have
>no excuse to not start work on their rebuttal to the 66 QAR. As
>Ms. Rimland wrote in her Zuendelgram yesterday (Sunday):
> ...for now I just want you to know that a two-front war has now
> become a one-front war, at least for the time being. It is a very
> serious one-front war of which more will be said in time, but at the
> very least, a major obstacle has been removed.
Ms. Rimland forgot to describe the scene on the steps of the
courthouse, wherein Mr. Zundel reportedly, er, lost it, giving
a well-known human rights activist the finger, and going on
and on about "you Jews."
I hope to correct this obvious oversight in time, as a
videotape of the Great Courthouse Steps Debate will soon be in
hand.
>I infer that the "one-front war" is their "Great Electronic Holocaust
>Rebuttal" that occupies top billing on their home page, and I further
>infer that a substantive reply to Nizkor's 66 QAR might be forthcoming
>shortly. I'm glad to hear that.
So am I - perhaps by the time Mr. Zundel answers the questions
I've repeatedly asked here about whether or not Samisdat
Verlag still publishes "Das Lachout Dokument," and whether or
not Samisdat still publishes the lie about Shmuel Krakowski,
he will also have found the time to address the 66 Q&R....
By the time he does, of course, we may all wish to encourgage
him to deal with the new material now appearing on the Nizkor
Web.....
>I point out for the record that the 66 QAR have so far been posted on
>Nizkor's web site for three months and seven days, without a single reply
>to their content from anyone at the Zuendelsite.
Hell, Mr. (non-Giwerese) McCarthy, I'm still waiting for him
to answer my email and public posts of last September and
October... you really should have to stand in line, eh?
BTW - Is Mr. Zundel still have problems spelling K-A-R-E-N?
Perhaps we should apply some "revisionist scholarship" to this
strange affliction, and assume that since "Karin Mock" clearly
does not represent the real name of the alleged target, Dr.
Karen Mock, that the Smith Principle applies (Falsus in uno,
falsus in zundelbus)? Or, applying the Weber Principle,
conclude that no such person as Dr. Karen Mock exists, ever
existed, or ever will exist?
After all, Mr. (non-Giwerese) McCarthy, Mr. Zundel was an, er,
"eyewitness" to this supposed event, and, by Weber & Raven
standards, if he obviously got the spelling wrong, it is quite
clear the entire "episode" is a fabrication.
Gosh. What a shock.
--
The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Anonymous ftp: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
European mirror: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)
Neil
> I'm afraid I am still at somewhat of a loss: Exactly what constitutes
> a "Holocaust denier", and if this was what Keegstra was doing what has
> it to do with propagating hatred? It seems to me you are dropping a
> real bomb into this discussion: Keegstra's "Holocaust denial" is now
> being linked with his propagating hatred, and thus we see that the
> hate law that was overturned---spreading false news---is now being
> surreptitiously applied to circumvent Keegstra's
> Supreme-Court-acknowledged Charter right to free expression.
Nice try, but Keegstra's various false, unprovable descriptions of Jews
was more of his undoing than his delusional denial of the Holocaust. Your
point is irrelevant to his case.
ibokor
: Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
:
: >Matt Giwer wrote:
:
:
: >> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
:
: >Try "religion" or "ethnic group."
:
: Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
If Sammy Davis Jnr converted, then the first alternative covers him.
If he was born a Jew, then the latter covers him as well as all
atheist Jews.
It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
language. I've given up hope that it be English.
d.A.
Laura Finsten
> [edit] Then atheists can not be Jews. Become an
>atheist and you are no longer a Jew.
This was not true in Germany after the Nuremberg
laws were passed. Identification is not necessarily
self-identification. The labels applied to individuals
by others are also significant.
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
>>
>> >Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> >> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
>>
>> >Try "religion" or "ethnic group."
>>
>> Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
>On the contrary. I said "religion" _OR_ "ethnic group." So we have two groups
>here. Got any problems with that? I'm sure that the Canadian Supreme Court
>would not.
Begin and Davis were from the same ethic group? But you meant same
religion. It appears you are saying an atheist can convert to Judaism
and remain an atheist become a member of the ethic group.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
One finger is all a real American needs to deal with the government.
It takes a village idiot and other truths children have already learned.
Good luck, Mr. Gorski
Matt Giwer
>On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> If they are not identifiable all the whining about neo-nazis the the
>> sham the unbiased observer knows it is.
>> Inspiring hatred against any group is all the law says. There are no
>> exceptions for groups that deserve hatred.
>> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
>It doesn't seem you have read the Criminal Code, or the Supreme Court
>definition of what an "identifiable group" is. Jews are an identifiable
>group by religion.
Which ever way you want it. Then atheists can not be Jews. Become an
atheist and you are no longer a Jew.
Matt Giwer
>On 18 Mar 1996, Peter Werner wrote:
>> Perhaps not neo-Nazism, but Identity Christianity would certainly qualify
>> as a religion; I don't think that its highly contoversial belief system
>> would disqualify it as such.
>"Identity Christianity"? Never heard of it, but if it exists, all that
>must be done now is prove someone is preaching hatred against them in
>particular.
Which brings us back full circle with any questioning of our favorite
Armenian holocaust is not preaching hate against Armenians.
Neil
> Which ever way you want it. Then atheists can not be Jews. Become an
> atheist and you are no longer a Jew.
They are Jews by ethnicity, which is recognized.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
>
> Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
[Giwer's idiot dribbling reply to me deleted]
> It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
> language. I've given up hope that it be English.
Then it must be Danish, for that is the only Indo-European language
which comes anything close to English in simplicity.
Jeremy A. Litt
: <Pine.A32.3.91.960318...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>
: <4il44r$7...@wi.combase.com> <4imce6$g...@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
Distribution:
Laura Finsten (fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:
: mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
: > [edit] Then atheists can not be Jews. Become an
: >atheist and you are no longer a Jew.
: This was not true in Germany after the Nuremberg
: laws were passed. Identification is not necessarily
: self-identification. The labels applied to individuals
: by others are also significant.
Even leaving aside the way external racists viewed Jews, Matt's claim
still isn't true. Converting is a way out of being a Jew. Just being an
athiest is not. I suggest Matt contact the Birmingham Temple in suburban
Detroit, and get some literature from them on what it means to be an
athiestic Jew. There aren't many, although Matt incorrectly asserts that
his foes on this conference are such. NIce try, Matt -- but wrong.
Neil
> Which brings us back full circle with any questioning of our favorite
> Armenian holocaust is not preaching hate against Armenians.
What are you talking about?
Elias Halldor Agustsson
>
> Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
>
> >Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>
> >> Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
>
> >On the contrary. I said "religion" _OR_ "ethnic group." So we have two groups
> >here. Got any problems with that? I'm sure that the Canadian Supreme Court
> >would not.
>
> Begin and Davis were from the same ethic group? But you meant same
> religion. It appears you are saying an atheist can convert to Judaism
> and remain an atheist become a member of the ethic group.
I have really come to the conclusion that you are at the bottom of the left
side of the Bell Curve, Mr. Giwer. There is absolutely no reason to discuss
anything with you. You will never understand anything.
Elías
--
© Elias Halldor Agustsson
© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
.
PKolding
>pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) wrote:
>>Laura Finsten <fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>[edit]
>>>Actually, what I find rather ironic in all this is that the vast majority
>>>of Holocaust deniers publicly disavow that their "revisionism" of the
>>>Holocaust is political. Instead, they claim that their only interest is
>>>in "setting the historical record straight". Yet PKolding is explicitly
>>>aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions.
>>
>>When someone is concerned with "setting the historical record
>>straight" you may be sure they are entering the political sphere. By
>>the way, what exactly constitutes a "Holocaust denier", and please
>>post quotes of mine that make me one.
>I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I said that you were
>explicitly aligning Holocaust denial with political opinions. Whenever
>I or others have said that Keegstra was teaching Holocaust denial as
>history to high school students, you have leapt to his defence by
>claiming that he was charged and convicted for his political views.
>This is why I have said that you are aligning Holocaust denial with
>political opinions.
I'm afraid I am still at somewhat of a loss: Exactly what constitutes
PKolding
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>ci...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rubin Friedman) writes:
>>
>>Promoting hatred of Jews is not free speech. It is hate propaganda which
>>is against the law in Canada as is promoting hatred against any
>>identifiable group under the law. So don't do it.
>Oh, but you can; you simply have to be a little more subtle than Keegstra,
>or a lot richer. Ernst Zundel, who is both, just got off the hook again;
>the Attorney General refused to authorize his prosecution.
>It will be interesting to see Zundel, Rimland, Lemire & Co try to present
>the non-prosecution as a victory while still claiming to be "oppressed."
>I'm sure that Zundel is very disappointed that he has lost the chance to
>promote hatred against Jews and mock justice in a court of law again.
Your interest in Zundel et al is beside the point. The hate law
remains and will be used to oppress people by some other
Attorney-General or upon some other pretext.
Gord McFee
(william c anderson) said:
Sometimes we do. I might add that all of the things you mention above did
happen to Keegstra. I for one do not see his prosecution as a slippery
slope. Remember: he was *teacher*, and he was perverting the minds of his
students to hate a segment of his society. I think he got what he deserved.
Here in Usenet, we take our chances and we have the brains and the
experience to argue our points and distinguish right from wrong. Those
children did *not* have that opportunity and Keegstra stole it from them.
He is the lowest form of life and I feel no pity for people like him.
>And sometimes I wish defending free speech didn't so often make me feel
>like I need a bath...
Sometimes we are so zealous in defending free speech that we categorize
things that are not free speech as free speech. This is an example in my
opinion. Every law is an infringement of some form of "pure" freedom.
Sometimes that is required so the mob will not exploit the rest.
Gord McFee
ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) said:
>
>ri...@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:
>> I'm sure that Zundel is very disappointed that he has lost the chance to
>> promote hatred against Jews and mock justice in a court of law again.
>Indeed. This "victory" for them is Pyrrhic indeed. Millions of dollars
>worth of free publicity, down the drain.
As much as I have been arguing with you privately on aspects of this issue,
on *this* point I agree with you completely.
Gord McFee
>
>Neil wrote:
>> Neo-Nazis do not comprise an identifiable group according to the Supreme
>> Court, assuming that "hate crimes" have even been committed against them
>Can anyone verify that? (cite court decision, please).
You need only read section 318, which I have posted several times, and which
defines "identifiable group".
>Another thing: are we discussing US "hate crime" laws as well?
>Some months ago I argued in a post on alt.revisionism that Holocaust
>Revisionism is a religion. I guess that that could be applied to Nazis
>as well. Does "religion" in paragraph 4 of section 318 of the Canadian
>Criminal Code only apply to certain creeds that have a special official
>stamp of approval?
It doesn't apply to Neo-Nazis.
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
>: Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
>:
>: >Matt Giwer wrote:
>:
>:
>: >> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
>:
>: >Try "religion" or "ethnic group."
>:
>: Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
>:
>If Sammy Davis Jnr converted, then the first alternative covers him.
>If he was born a Jew, then the latter covers him as well as all
>atheist Jews.
A century or two ago a group of Irish immigrants found themselves for
some reasons settling to South America. Today you see a lot of black
people with Irish names living there. They are no longer ethnically
Irish. But they are "born" Irish under idea that one can be born
something.
The "born Jewis" is a religious tenant. What connects Jews are
traditions that have come from religion not from ethnic group
membership. The "kosher" foods from European Jews are European in
origin not middle eastern. Yiddish has so many words the same or
similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
There are still lost tribes in Somalia that took several years of
study to certify they were Jewish. Even the religion itself was so
different it was not obvious but certainly no ethnic similarity.
>It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
>language. I've given up hope that it be English.
As you can see, it is this ethnic claim that does not fit when the
only thing holding Jews together is the religion. It may be a popular
claim but it does not bear scrutiny. Even to be "born a Jew" one has
to accept the religion and it is not clear how a person can claim to
be an atheist and still accept the religion on that point.
Matt Giwer
>: A-10...@nevis.u.arizona.edu> <4ii21d$n...@wi.combase.com>
>: <Pine.A32.3.91.960318...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>
>: <4il44r$7...@wi.combase.com> <4imce6$g...@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
>Distribution:
>Laura Finsten (fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:
>: mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>: > [edit] Then atheists can not be Jews. Become an
>: >atheist and you are no longer a Jew.
>: This was not true in Germany after the Nuremberg
>: laws were passed. Identification is not necessarily
>: self-identification. The labels applied to individuals
>: by others are also significant.
>Even leaving aside the way external racists viewed Jews, Matt's claim
>still isn't true. Converting is a way out of being a Jew. Just being an
>athiest is not.
How can one reject the entire religion and still accept the religious
tenet that there is only one way out? That isn't much of an atheist
no matter how you look at it.
I suggest Matt contact the Birmingham Temple in suburban
>Detroit, and get some literature from them on what it means to be an
>athiestic Jew. There aren't many, although Matt incorrectly asserts that
>his foes on this conference are such. NIce try, Matt -- but wrong.
Why would anyone go to a religion for an opinion on atheism?
Neil
> I understand completely that you want self proclamation to be the only
> criteria for being Jewish and that you are trying to salvage religion
> or ethnic as a meaningful definition. Judaism has changed a lot over
> the years. The old definitions no longer work.
> At least if you knew what you were talking about you would have
> perhaps denied that conversion is possible and thus attempted to
> negate Sammy Davis Jr. as an example.
When a neo-Nazi threatens violence against "Jews", who is affected? Any
person who is of the Jewish religion, or has a Jewish last name, or can be
identified by someone else as being associated in some way with Judaism
would be considered a member of this "identifiable group". With Matt's
argument that Jews do not comprise an identifiable group, he's grasping at
straws. This means he's running out of arguments, and the rest of us
should be happy.
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
>>
>> >Matt Giwer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Elias Halldor Agustsson <e...@itn.is> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Matt Giwer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> By the group definition it is not possible to identify Jews.
>> >>
>> >> >Try "religion" or "ethnic group."
>> >>
>> >> Sammy Davis Jr. and professed atheist jews are contrary to your claim.
>>
>> >On the contrary. I said "religion" _OR_ "ethnic group." So we have two groups
>> >here. Got any problems with that? I'm sure that the Canadian Supreme Court
>> >would not.
>>
>> Begin and Davis were from the same ethic group? But you meant same
>> religion. It appears you are saying an atheist can convert to Judaism
>> and remain an atheist become a member of the ethic group.
>I have really come to the conclusion that you are at the bottom of the left
>side of the Bell Curve, Mr. Giwer. There is absolutely no reason to discuss
>anything with you. You will never understand anything.
I understand completely that you want self proclamation to be the only
criteria for being Jewish and that you are trying to salvage religion
or ethnic as a meaningful definition. Judaism has changed a lot over
the years. The old definitions no longer work.
At least if you knew what you were talking about you would have
perhaps denied that conversion is possible and thus attempted to
negate Sammy Davis Jr. as an example.
ibokor
:
: Begin and Davis were from the same ethic group? But you meant same
: religion. It appears you are saying an atheist can convert to Judaism
: and remain an atheist become a member of the ethic group.
Of cousre! One can come to the same set of thics from different
starting points. Many of the fundamental ethics of atheist i
humanitarianism coincide with those of Christianity and Judaism,
such as the proscription of murder, etc.
d.A.
Lizard
<e...@itn.is> wrote:
>You know, there is nothing wrong with targeting laws against "specific groups,"
>for example like "convicted criminals."
>
Assuming the 'convicted criminals' have served their penance, then I
would say it is VERY wrong to target laws against them. Such laws make
anyone who commits a crime a *permanent* criminal.
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Indecency:Fuck the CDA.
Information on explosives: The formula for gunpowder is 2 parts
charcoal, 3 parts sulfur, 15 parts saltpeter.
Information on abortion:Planned Parenthood of San Rafael
:(415) 454-0471
URL:http://www.dnai.com/~lizard
Elias Halldor Agustsson
> origin not middle eastern. Yiddish has so many words the same or
> similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
It never was of middle eastern origin. It is a dialect of German with
some Hebrew, Aramaic and Slavic loan-words.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:22:01 +0000, Elias Halldor Agustsson
> <e...@itn.is> wrote:
>
> >You know, there is nothing wrong with targeting laws against "specific groups,"
> >for example like "convicted criminals."
> >
> Assuming the 'convicted criminals' have served their penance, then I
> would say it is VERY wrong to target laws against them. Such laws make
> anyone who commits a crime a *permanent* criminal.
I stand corrected and apologize for having been so imprecise.
Elías
--
© Elias Halldor Agustsson
© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
.
Jeremy A. Litt
: jal...@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:
: >: A-10...@nevis.u.arizona.edu> <4ii21d$n...@wi.combase.com>
: >: <Pine.A32.3.91.960318...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>
: >: <4il44r$7...@wi.combase.com> <4imce6$g...@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
: >Distribution:
: >Laura Finsten (fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:
: >: mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
: >: > [edit] Then atheists can not be Jews. Become an
: >: >atheist and you are no longer a Jew.
: >: This was not true in Germany after the Nuremberg
: >: laws were passed. Identification is not necessarily
: >: self-identification. The labels applied to individuals
: >: by others are also significant.
: >Even leaving aside the way external racists viewed Jews, Matt's claim
: >still isn't true. Converting is a way out of being a Jew. Just being an
: >athiest is not.
: How can one reject the entire religion and still accept the religious
: tenet that there is only one way out? That isn't much of an atheist
: no matter how you look at it.
An atheist does not believe in a deity. There are Jews who do not
believe in a deity, but still are Jews. this is only a problem for you,
Mr. Giwer, because you cling to your wrongheaded definition of what a
Jew is.
: I suggest Matt contact the Birmingham Temple in suburban
: >Detroit, and get some literature from them on what it means to be an
: >athiestic Jew. There aren't many, although Matt incorrectly asserts that
: >his foes on this conference are such. NIce try, Matt -- but wrong.
: Why would anyone go to a religion for an opinion on atheism?
Because, you lazy slug, the Birmingham Temple is a temple of athiest
Jews. Therefore, they could help correct your misunderstanding of what
it is to be Jewish. But that would involve research, wouldn't it?
Richard Charles Graves
>In article <jamie-18039...@clmx17.dial.voyager.net>,
>ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) said:
>
>>
>>ri...@c2.org (Rich Graves) wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure that Zundel is very disappointed that he has lost the chance to
>>> promote hatred against Jews and mock justice in a court of law again.
>
>>Indeed. This "victory" for them is Pyrrhic indeed. Millions of dollars
>>worth of free publicity, down the drain.
>
>As much as I have been arguing with you privately on aspects of this issue,
>on *this* point I agree with you completely.
I'm not so sure. The money is still rolling in. A recent ZGram said
something about "secret courts" where Zundel is being tried without any
rights. Sounded really nutty to me. Anyway, since when do you think
they're constrained by the truth?
-rich
marduk
photo of yourself. Unfortunately, I was drinking a diet pepsi at the time,
and when I was confronted by your incredibly ugly face, I spewed all over my
screen...
My God man!!!! Where is your sense of public service? The least you can do is
warn people....
Anyways...on to matters nazi and such-like: as a confirmed nazi pig, you no
doubt subscribe to the doctrine of eugenetics. That being the case, why did
you feel justified in procreating? Your son's photo indicates that he has
inherited many of your slug-like features, so don't you feel that you have
rather let the Aryan side down?
Oh by the way...why have you disconnected your phone number? We had some
awefully funny things to say to you...OINK, OINK.
WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE
william c anderson
> The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the
> meaning and purpose of common things. There are some people who say
> Marc Lepine was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a
> hero.
Can somebody who's followed this nutball longer than I have explain
to me why he thinks Lepine was a hero?
Bill
Elias Halldor Agustsson
>
> In article <4ig7di$a...@access4.digex.net>
> mst...@access4.digex.net "Michael P. Stein" writes:
>
> > It is tempting to write off all Holocaust deniers as antisemites or
> > neo-Nazis, but that would be just another form of prejudice. I try to be
> > consistent in applying the principle of dealing with people as
> > individuals. That extends even to Holocaust deniers.
>
> Mr Stein continues to prove that he is head and shoulders above the
> Exterminationist hatemongers in this group. I would like though to draw
> another of my so-called silly analogies. Many people reject consensus on
> a vast number of subjects, some for good reasons, others for bad. People
> who believe that disease is not caused by germs, or that there are men
> living on Mars, that the government has lied to us about UFOs, and a vast
> number of other subjects are often denounced as cranks - as often they are -
> but generally it is not assumed that they are motivated by hatred. The cry
> "anti-Semite", "Nazi", etc has become extremely boring in recent years,
> especially when many of the people shouting it have no respect for truth
> themselves and are simply promoting their own brands of racial hatred and
> vested interests.
But you have often shown that you are motivated by a belief that Jews are
the root of all evil. Perhaps one might say that this is not being
"motivated by hatred" but neither do I think that all convinced Nazis in the
Third Reich were motivated by hatred. They happened to share your beliefs
and were motivated by petty fears. I have no doubts, however, that those
who created and spread those beliefs were motivated by hatred. However, no
one has managed to prove that those beliefs have any foundation in reality
(and no, that is not proof in itself) and neither have you managed to cast
any convincing doubts on the accepted history of the Holocaust.
The question still remains: why should anyone want to try to cast aspersion
on the accepted history of the Holocaust?
Jeremy A. Litt
: The question still remains: why should anyone want to try to cast aspersion
: on the accepted history of the Holocaust?
Hmmmmmm. An interesting question, but one that does not solve the
problem in and of itself. The answer is always, "Interest in historical
accuracy."
The real question is, "why is it the Holocaust only, and not other
historical events, that obsess the Deniers?" Especially when the
Holocaust is so much more excessively documented than other events.
To believe in the Holocaust as a fraud, one must believe in a world-wide
conspiracy (successful) to manufacture proof on an unprecedented scale.
Hundreds of thousands of forged testimonies, countless forged pictures,
the confessions of Nazis, the records themselves -- the list goes on and on.
I htink paranoia about a world-wide Jooish conspiracy is the most
rational answer. If one labels this anti-Semitism, I think that is also
a rational conclusion.
Greg Raven
>
> dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:
>
> > The thing between Faurisson and Cole is a simple personality clash.
>
> No. Cole has pointed out several instances in which Faurisson
> deliberately lied and changed facts, in order to advance his own
> "revisionist" views.
>
> That's more than a personality clash. That's refutation. Faurisson
> is dishonest, and Cole exposed several examples of that dishonesty.
So, you believe Cole when he makes statements about Faurisson, but you
do not believe him when he makes statements critical of the so-called
gas chambers? As you have probably never met nor spoken to Faurisson,
and because you most assuredly have never seen a Nazi gas chamber, how
do you discriminate?
--
Greg Raven (ihr...@kaiwan.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg
Matt Giwer
>On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> I understand completely that you want self proclamation to be the only
>> criteria for being Jewish and that you are trying to salvage religion
>> or ethnic as a meaningful definition. Judaism has changed a lot over
>> the years. The old definitions no longer work.
>> At least if you knew what you were talking about you would have
>> perhaps denied that conversion is possible and thus attempted to
>> negate Sammy Davis Jr. as an example.
>When a neo-Nazi threatens violence against "Jews", who is affected? Any
>person who is of the Jewish religion, or has a Jewish last name, or can be
>identified by someone else as being associated in some way with Judaism
>would be considered a member of this "identifiable group". With Matt's
>argument that Jews do not comprise an identifiable group, he's grasping at
>straws. This means he's running out of arguments, and the rest of us
>should be happy.
Fascinating. Now that you have estblished neo-nazis are the authority
upon what constitutes a Jew the question is answered. Whoever a
neo-nazi says is a Jew is a Jew.
Why did not someone say so in the first place?
ibokor
:
: A century or two ago a group of Irish immigrants found themselves for
: some reasons settling to South America. Today you see a lot of black
: people with Irish names living there. They are no longer ethnically
: Irish. But they are "born" Irish under idea that one can be born
: something.
Most nations accept as nationals people who have at least one grandparent
of that nationality.
In the case of Germany, anyone who can establish the status of being
"Volksdeutsch", even if there has been no geographical contact with
a German country for centuries, as in the case of parts of the former
Soviet Union, or of Transylvania, is entitled to immigrate to Germany
and claim citizenship ---- with even less vestige of "German blood"
than the descendants of those Irish migrants.
: The "born Jewis" is a religious tenant.
The religious tenet of being "born Jewish" --- note the spelling ---
is that one is Jewish if one's mother is Jewish, means that if
one's matrilineal descent is through Jewish women, with no other
Jew in the family tree for 2,000 years, then on is Jewish and if
it is only the matrilineal descent is that the ancestors are *not*
Jewish, then one is *not* Jewish.
: What connects Jews are
: traditions that have come from religion not from ethnic group
: membership.
Nonsense! Religion divides Jews as much as it unites them and
ethnic relations are as important as religious affiliation.
In this, Jews are similar to Armenians or Georgians or Greeks
in that they are an identifiable ethnic group with their "own"
religion. In each of these cases, their is diversity within
the ethnic group concerned through contact with and acceptance
of others into it. The "typical" modern Greek does not look
like the "typical" classical Greek. Look also at the difference
in physical appearance, language and the like of the Germans.
This diversity within ethnic groups is common and does not
mean that the ethnic groups are not identifiable. It merely means
they are not rigid.
: The "kosher" foods from European Jews are European in
: origin not middle eastern.
So what? Almost *none* of modern European cuisine is
of European origin! Remove potatoes, coffee, rice, tea,
tomatoes, citrus fruits, garlic, peaches, grapes, pasta,
paprika, maize, etc. from European cuisine and you are i
left with very little indeed!
What makes something kosher has nothing to do with its
geographic origin.
: Yiddish has so many words the same or
: similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
Of course not. Yiddish is a German language of about the vinatge
of Middle High German (if I remember correctly). It has preserved,
as the Swiss German languages have, the form and structure and
vocabulary of this pre-modern German. Just as Swiss German,
Yiddish has incorporated other influences and modified some
aspects of grammar differently from the development
of modern German. In the case of Yiddish, some Slavic and many
Hebrew expressions and words have been absorbed. In Swiss German, much
French has been adopted.
So what? To a modern Swede, the language of his forebears of 2,000
years ago is also incomprehensible. Try speaking Chaucerian
English today.
: There are still lost tribes in Somalia that took several years of
: study to certify they were Jewish. Even the religion itself was so
: different it was not obvious but certainly no ethnic similarity.
:
: >It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
: >language. I've given up hope that it be English.
:
: As you can see, it is this ethnic claim that does not fit when the
: only thing holding Jews together is the religion.
That is simply your bogus claim. It is one numerous people deny
who are and are seen to be Jewish. Even by the standrads of Jewish
religion, you are a jew if you are born a Jew, even if you become the
Bishop of Rome.
: It may be a popular
: claim but it does not bear scrutiny. Even to be "born a Jew" one has
: to accept the religion and it is not clear how a person can claim to
: be an atheist and still accept the religion on that point.
No, you are simply wrong. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. Basta.
You cannot cease to be a Jew, according to the Jewish religion even if
you convert to another religion. You may find that no congregation
accepts you, but that is a different matter.
You might find the Preface (or Inroduction) to the Hebrew edition
of Freud's "Totem and tabou" illuminating, that is, if you can find
someone who can read and explain to you the English translation .
d.A.
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
>:
>: A century or two ago a group of Irish immigrants found themselves for
>: some reasons settling to South America. Today you see a lot of black
>: people with Irish names living there. They are no longer ethnically
>: Irish. But they are "born" Irish under idea that one can be born
>: something.
>Most nations accept as nationals people who have at least one grandparent
>of that nationality.
Who might some of these "most" nations be? The US and Britain are
about the most liberal nations in the world as to nationality and the
US does not.
>In the case of Germany, anyone who can establish the status of being
>"Volksdeutsch", even if there has been no geographical contact with
>a German country for centuries, as in the case of parts of the former
>Soviet Union, or of Transylvania, is entitled to immigrate to Germany
>and claim citizenship ---- with even less vestige of "German blood"
>than the descendants of those Irish migrants.
A fascinating idea but as a matter of curiosity do you have more than
a story to back this up? To be more specific, Hitler's ancestors were
quite German yet he stayed in uniform for so many years because he
could not get citizenship even though he was rather severely injured
fighting for Germany.
>: The "born Jewis" is a religious tenant.
>The religious tenet of being "born Jewish" --- note the spelling ---
cute
>is that one is Jewish if one's mother is Jewish, means that if
>one's matrilineal descent is through Jewish women, with no other
>Jew in the family tree for 2,000 years, then on is Jewish and if
>it is only the matrilineal descent is that the ancestors are *not*
>Jewish, then one is *not* Jewish.
It appears you are siding against conversion making one Jewish and
also against the idea that one can be an atheist and still accept a
tenet of the religion.
>: What connects Jews are
>: traditions that have come from religion not from ethnic group
>: membership.
>Nonsense! Religion divides Jews as much as it unites them and
>ethnic relations are as important as religious affiliation.
>In this, Jews are similar to Armenians or Georgians or Greeks
>in that they are an identifiable ethnic group with their "own"
>religion. In each of these cases, their is diversity within
>the ethnic group concerned through contact with and acceptance
>of others into it. The "typical" modern Greek does not look
>like the "typical" classical Greek. Look also at the difference
>in physical appearance, language and the like of the Germans.
>This diversity within ethnic groups is common and does not
>mean that the ethnic groups are not identifiable. It merely means
>they are not rigid.
You are mixing millenial differences with real time today differences.
There is no ethnic (vice religious) connection between European,
Somalian and middle eastern Jews (prior to Israel being recreated by
religious zealots.)
>: The "kosher" foods from European Jews are European in
>: origin not middle eastern.
>So what? Almost *none* of modern European cuisine is
>of European origin! Remove potatoes, coffee, rice, tea,
>tomatoes, citrus fruits, garlic, peaches, grapes, pasta,
>paprika, maize, etc. from European cuisine and you are i
>left with very little indeed!
The so what is no ethnic relationship, only religious.
>What makes something kosher has nothing to do with its
>geographic origin.
>: Yiddish has so many words the same or
>: similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
>Of course not. Yiddish is a German language of about the vinatge
>of Middle High German (if I remember correctly). It has preserved,
>as the Swiss German languages have, the form and structure and
>vocabulary of this pre-modern German. Just as Swiss German,
>Yiddish has incorporated other influences and modified some
>aspects of grammar differently from the development
>of modern German. In the case of Yiddish, some Slavic and many
>Hebrew expressions and words have been absorbed. In Swiss German, much
>French has been adopted.
>So what? To a modern Swede, the language of his forebears of 2,000
>years ago is also incomprehensible. Try speaking Chaucerian
>English today.
The so what is no ethnic connections, only religious.
>: There are still lost tribes in Somalia that took several years of
>: study to certify they were Jewish. Even the religion itself was so
>: different it was not obvious but certainly no ethnic similarity.
>:
>: >It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
>: >language. I've given up hope that it be English.
>:
>: As you can see, it is this ethnic claim that does not fit when the
>: only thing holding Jews together is the religion.
>That is simply your bogus claim. It is one numerous people deny
>who are and are seen to be Jewish. Even by the standrads of Jewish
>religion, you are a jew if you are born a Jew, even if you become the
>Bishop of Rome.
Only if one accepts the tenet of the Jewish religion does being born a
Jew make one a Jew. There is no other basis for it other than a
religious tenent. Therefore, being Jewish is a religion.
>: It may be a popular
>: claim but it does not bear scrutiny. Even to be "born a Jew" one has
>: to accept the religion and it is not clear how a person can claim to
>: be an atheist and still accept the religion on that point.
>No, you are simply wrong. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. Basta.
>You cannot cease to be a Jew, according to the Jewish religion even if
>you convert to another religion. You may find that no congregation
>accepts you, but that is a different matter.
These are all religious tenents, therefore you agree it is solely a
religion. It is purely religious superstition that it requires
conversion not to be Jewish. An atheist can not accept a religious
tenant and still be an atheist.
>You might find the Preface (or Inroduction) to the Hebrew edition
>of Freud's "Totem and tabou" illuminating, that is, if you can find
>someone who can read and explain to you the English translation .
And you may learn to read and understand even your own words some day
when you claim a religious tenant can govern an atheist.
PKolding
>In article <4ifl83$o...@news2.cts.com>, pkol...@cts.com (PKolding) said:
>>The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the meaning
>>and purpose of common things. There are some people who say Marc Lepine
>>was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a hero. Such
>>opinions do not somehow cease to be political expressions merely because a
>>majority, or a special interest group, dislikes one view or the other.
>So what it boils down to is that you say Marc Lepine, who cold bloodedly
>murdered 15 women in Montreal in 1989, is a hero? Given that, why should
>anyone care what you say about anything else. You are a bastard, sir.
My lineage is almost too lengthy and complete to suffer that last
definition, but thank you for beautifully illustrating the natural
tendency of so many to translate the simple expression of a political
opinion into evidence that the bearer holds some disagreeable and
immutable personal characteristic. Doubtless---if the principles that
are used to defend hate crimes legislation are to be believed----you
are now guilty of inciting hatred in the hearts of untold thousands. A
hatred, by the way, directed at people simply on the basis that their
parents failed to fill out the appropriate forms before they were
born.
Keith Morrison
>
>WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE
Nice try, idiot. You don't represent anyone else here so why not
shove off, hmmm?
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Jeremy A. Litt
: <4iqepo$k...@news2.cts.com> Distribution:
PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) wrote:
: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
Let me get this straight....you hold that making a hero of a mass
murderer (Lepine) is a political opinion which should not be the cause
for revulsion? Get real.
Jeremy A. Litt
: <314CC8...@itn.is> <4ijhb7$f...@wi.combase.com>
: <314D7B...@itn.is> <4il40g$7...@wi.combase.com>
: <314F03...@itn.is> <4inn8c$j...@wi.combase.com>
: <ragnaroek1996Mar20.120230.14205@n <21MAR96.
: 091092...@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
Distribution:
Keith Morrison (T0...@UNB.CA) wrote:
: In article <ragnaroek1996Ma...@news2.compulink.com> mar...@idirect.com (marduk) writes:
: >
: >WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE WE
: Nice try, idiot. You don't represent anyone else here so why not
: shove off, hmmm?
I'll second that. Your disgusting nature is clear from your post. Go
back to the rock you crawled out from under, will you?
Jeremy A. Litt
: <314CC8...@itn.is> <4ijhb7$f...@wi.combase.com>
: <314D7B...@itn.is> <4il40g$7...@wi.combase.com>
: <314F03...@itn.is> <4inn8c$j...@wi.combase.com>
: tts.u.arizona.edu> <4ir1gq$d...@wi.combase.com>
Distribution:
Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
: Neil <neil...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
: >On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
: >> I understand completely that you want self proclamation to be the only
: >> criteria for being Jewish and that you are trying to salvage religion
: >> or ethnic as a meaningful definition. Judaism has changed a lot over
: >> the years. The old definitions no longer work.
: >> At least if you knew what you were talking about you would have
: >> perhaps denied that conversion is possible and thus attempted to
: >> negate Sammy Davis Jr. as an example.
: >When a neo-Nazi threatens violence against "Jews", who is affected? Any
: >person who is of the Jewish religion, or has a Jewish last name, or can be
: >identified by someone else as being associated in some way with Judaism
: >would be considered a member of this "identifiable group". With Matt's
: >argument that Jews do not comprise an identifiable group, he's grasping at
: >straws. This means he's running out of arguments, and the rest of us
: >should be happy.
: Fascinating. Now that you have estblished neo-nazis are the authority
: upon what constitutes a Jew the question is answered. Whoever a
: neo-nazi says is a Jew is a Jew.
: Why did not someone say so in the first place?
Boy, the longer this goes on, the worse your reading comprehension gets.
He did not say that neo-Nazis are the final authority on what constitutes
a Joo. He merely pointed out that the fact that Joos are identifiable,
to Nazis (AND to themselves and others) blows a hole in your claim that
Joos are not an identifiable group.
Getting desperate?
william c anderson
: Sometimes we do. I might add that all of the things you mention above did
: happen to Keegstra. I for one do not see his prosecution as a slippery
: slope. Remember: he was *teacher*, and he was perverting the minds of his
: students to hate a segment of his society. I think he got what he deserved.
: Here in Usenet, we take our chances and we have the brains and the
: experience to argue our points and distinguish right from wrong. Those
: children did *not* have that opportunity and Keegstra stole it from them.
: He is the lowest form of life and I feel no pity for people like him.
Nor do I, and your point is taken. This case is different from that of,
say, censorship of the internet. My concern is not for Keegstra's right
to foment hatred in the classroom while employed as a public servant;
quite obviously, he has no such right, and just as obviously, the school
system has the right to fire any teacher who refuses to adhere to it's
curriculum. It's also clear that society has a duty to protect children
from being placed under the tutelage of lunatics. A narrowly-drafted
law, in this case, would not bother me--if Keegstra was, for instance,
prosecuted for some form of fraud involved in the violation of his
teaching contract, I wouldn't have a problem. If, however, a government
is given the right to impose criminal sanctions based on the content
of teaching, they can then in principle impose such sanctions based on
any content. This worries me.
Bill
Jeremy A. Litt
: <314CC8...@itn.is> <4ijhb7$f...@wi.combase.com>
: <4im8ie$6...@grivel.une.edu.au> <4inohv$k...@wi.combase.com>
: <4iqa3v$p...@grivel.une.edu.au> <4ir9a9$e...@wi.combase.com> Distribution:
Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
: ibo...@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) wrote:
: >The religious tenet of being "born Jewish" --- note the spelling ---
: >is that one is Jewish if one's mother is Jewish, means that if
: >one's matrilineal descent is through Jewish women, with no other
: >Jew in the family tree for 2,000 years, then on is Jewish and if
: >it is only the matrilineal descent is that the ancestors are *not*
: >Jewish, then one is *not* Jewish.
: It appears you are siding against conversion making one Jewish and
: also against the idea that one can be an atheist and still accept a
: tenet of the religion.
Fascinating. Where do you see that in the above? Where does ibokor side
against conversion? Where does ibokor say anything about atheists?
Where did you get the idea that the above is an exclusive list of ways to
become Jooish? Do you know the first thing about lingual construction?
: >: What connects Jews are
: >: traditions that have come from religion not from ethnic group
: >: membership.
: >Nonsense! Religion divides Jews as much as it unites them and
: >ethnic relations are as important as religious affiliation.
: >In this, Jews are similar to Armenians or Georgians or Greeks
: >in that they are an identifiable ethnic group with their "own"
: >religion. In each of these cases, their is diversity within
: >the ethnic group concerned through contact with and acceptance
: >of others into it. The "typical" modern Greek does not look
: >like the "typical" classical Greek. Look also at the difference
: >in physical appearance, language and the like of the Germans.
: >This diversity within ethnic groups is common and does not
: >mean that the ethnic groups are not identifiable. It merely means
: >they are not rigid.
: You are mixing millenial differences with real time today differences.
: There is no ethnic (vice religious) connection between European,
: Somalian and middle eastern Jews (prior to Israel being recreated by
: religious zealots.)
Hahahahahahaha! The paragraph above was funny enough, given the contact
through the ages of the Middle Eastern Jews and the European Jews (do you
even know what a *responsa* is?). But that last part is hysterical,
given that the majority of Zionists prior to independence were non-religious.
You can read almost anywhere on that point. Paul Johnson. Zvi
Geitelman. Ian Lustick. Thomas Friedman. ANYONE.
: >: The "kosher" foods from European Jews
are European in : >: origin not middle eastern.
: >So what? Almost *none* of modern European cuisine is
: >of European origin! Remove potatoes, coffee, rice, tea,
: >tomatoes, citrus fruits, garlic, peaches, grapes, pasta,
: >paprika, maize, etc. from European cuisine and you are i
: >left with very little indeed!
: The so what is no ethnic relationship, only religious.
Ah. Now THAT's proof.
: >What makes something kosher has nothing to do with its
: >geographic origin.
: >: Yiddish has so many words the same or
: >: similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
: >Of course not. Yiddish is a German language of about the vinatge
: >of Middle High German (if I remember correctly). It has preserved,
: >as the Swiss German languages have, the form and structure and
: >vocabulary of this pre-modern German. Just as Swiss German,
: >Yiddish has incorporated other influences and modified some
: >aspects of grammar differently from the development
: >of modern German. In the case of Yiddish, some Slavic and many
: >Hebrew expressions and words have been absorbed. In Swiss German, much
: >French has been adopted.
: >So what? To a modern Swede, the language of his forebears of 2,000
: >years ago is also incomprehensible. Try speaking Chaucerian
: >English today.
: The so what is no ethnic connections, only religious.
Because! I! Say! So!
What did you think, constant repetition would make you correct?
: >: There are still lost tribes in Somalia that took several years of
: >: study to certify they were Jewish. Even the religion itself was so
: >: different it was not obvious but certainly no ethnic similarity.
: >:
: >: >It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
: >: >language. I've given up hope that it be English.
: >:
: >: As you can see, it is this ethnic claim that does not fit when the
: >: only thing holding Jews together is the religion.
: >That is simply your bogus claim. It is one numerous people deny
: >who are and are seen to be Jewish. Even by the standrads of Jewish
: >religion, you are a jew if you are born a Jew, even if you become the
: >Bishop of Rome.
: Only if one accepts the tenet of the Jewish religion does being born a
: Jew make one a Jew. There is no other basis for it other than a
: religious tenent. Therefore, being Jewish is a religion.
Mr. Giwer, the fact that there is a Jewish religion does not make it
exclusively a religion.
: >: It may be a popular
: >: claim but it does not bear scrutiny. Even to be "born a Jew" one has
: >: to accept the religion and it is not clear how a person can claim to
: >: be an atheist and still accept the religion on that point.
: >No, you are simply wrong. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. Basta.
: >You cannot cease to be a Jew, according to the Jewish religion even if
: >you convert to another religion. You may find that no congregation
: >accepts you, but that is a different matter.
: These are all religious tenents, therefore you agree it is solely a
: religion. It is purely religious superstition that it requires
: conversion not to be Jewish. An atheist can not accept a religious
: tenant and still be an atheist.
Yes he/she can, dimwit.....if it's a traditional tenet (NOT tenant!)
based on a religion, and not a relgious tenet.
: >You might find the Preface (or Inroduction) to the Hebrew edition
: >of Freud's "Totem and tabou" illuminating, that is, if you can find
: >someone who can read and explain to you the English translation .
: And you may learn to read and understand even your own words some day
: when you claim a religious tenant can govern an atheist.
Matt -- wake up. Only you are claiming that the tenets (spell it right,
please) are only religious. Only you. Therefore, only you have a
problem with an athest accepting the tenets. You have created a straw
man, knocked it down, and are now expecting us to applaud.
Howard Eisenberger
> PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) writes:
>
>> The political aspect of speech is that people disagree upon the
>> meaning and purpose of common things. There are some people who say
>> Marc Lepine was an evil monster, for instance, while I say he was a
>> hero.
>
> to me why he thinks Lepine was a hero?
>
This freedom fighter considers laws such as "equal pay for equal work"
to be crimes against humanity and in order to redress these crimes
advocates killing those responsible i.e. women. He is a staunch
supporter of the free expression of unpopular political opinions.
!Rack Jite
and is answered by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
!And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
!publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
!wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
!given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
!their own gas?
!If they had only killed a few thousand nazis in the process there
!might be some respect for them. And then these people who did not
!defend themselves in the least recorded manner save for the above,
!think their co-religionists need to be honored for some reason.
And this guy sits there intimidating and threatening people because he
says the are falsely accusing him of anti-Semitism and Holocaust
Revisionism... Gosh... Cyberscum is too kind a word. :)
When anyone replies to any of Giwer's messages they should always begin
with a question to the affect as to why the most important thing in his
life is to reduce the numbers killed in the Holocuast or to only enter
newsgroups to taunt Jews.
THEN go on to refudiate whatever lies he is spreading.
But first, always get to the core of the issue, his anti-Semitism.
"I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard,
it's the pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
Conservatively Incorrect - http://www.c2.org/~ccrj/
NETSCAB CENTRAL - http://www.c2.org/~ccrj/indexnet.htm
Matt Giwer
And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
their own gas?
If they had only killed a few thousand nazis in the process there
might be some respect for them. And then these people who did not
defend themselves in the least recorded manner save for the above,
think their co-religionists need to be honored for some reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------
william c anderson
: william c anderson (lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu) writes:
: > Can somebody who's followed this nutball longer than I have explain
: > to me why he thinks Lepine was a hero?
: This freedom fighter considers laws such as "equal pay for equal work"
: to be crimes against humanity and in order to redress these crimes
: advocates killing those responsible i.e. women.
Oh.
Isn't that...well, insane?
Bill
Richard J. Green
>jal...@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:
>
>>Elias Halldor Agustsson (e...@itn.is) wrote:
>
>>: The question still remains: why should anyone want to try to cast aspersion
>>: on the accepted history of the Holocaust?
>
>>Hmmmmmm. An interesting question, but one that does not solve the
>>problem in and of itself. The answer is always, "Interest in historical
>>accuracy."
>
>>The real question is, "why is it the Holocaust only, and not other
>>historical events, that obsess the Deniers?" Especially when the
>>Holocaust is so much more excessively documented than other events.
>>To believe in the Holocaust as a fraud, one must believe in a world-wide
>>conspiracy (successful) to manufacture proof on an unprecedented scale.
>>Hundreds of thousands of forged testimonies, countless forged pictures,
>>the confessions of Nazis, the records themselves -- the list goes on and on.
>
>>I htink paranoia about a world-wide Jooish conspiracy is the most
>>rational answer. If one labels this anti-Semitism, I think that is also
>>a rational conclusion.
>
> And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
>publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
>wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
>given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
>their own gas?
Ever heard of Treblinka?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Green Department of Chemistry, Stanford CA 94303-5080
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Neil
> Nor do I, and your point is taken. This case is different from that of,
> say, censorship of the internet. My concern is not for Keegstra's right
> to foment hatred in the classroom while employed as a public servant;
> quite obviously, he has no such right, and just as obviously, the school
> system has the right to fire any teacher who refuses to adhere to it's
> curriculum. It's also clear that society has a duty to protect children
> from being placed under the tutelage of lunatics. A narrowly-drafted
> law, in this case, would not bother me--if Keegstra was, for instance,
> prosecuted for some form of fraud involved in the violation of his
> teaching contract, I wouldn't have a problem. If, however, a government
> is given the right to impose criminal sanctions based on the content
> of teaching, they can then in principle impose such sanctions based on
> any content. This worries me.
You state that "society has a duty to protect children from being placed
under the tutelage of lunatics". Does society not have a duty to protect
its own members from acts of violence? Does society not have a duty to
protect _itself_ from turmoil? Does government not exist in order to serve
the interests of the Canadian people, and of the Canadian nation? What
seems to be ignored during this debate is the exact damage people like
Keegstra and other neo-Nazis inflict upon our country, and upon our fellow
countrymen of the Jewish faith.
Some will claim that Keegstra's right to free speech are being violated,
on the grounds that his opinions are "political opinions". I completely
disagree. It is more than obvious what his actual motives were when he
forced students to absorb the garbage he taught them. Let me remind those
who conveniently forget exactly what Keegstra did, by posting a small
reference from the Supreme Court of Canada:
"Mr. Keegstra's teachings attributed various evil qualities to Jews. He
thus described Jews to his pupils as 'treacherous', 'subversive',
'sadistic', 'money-loving', 'power hungry" and 'child killers'. He taught
his classes that Jewish people seek to destroy Christianity and are
responsible for depressions, anarchy, chaos, wars and revolution.
According to Mr. Keegstra, Jews 'created the Holocaust to gain sympathy'
and, in contrast to the open and honest Christians, were said to be
deceptive, secretive and inherently evil. Mr. Keegstra expected his
students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed
to do so, their marks suffered."
It's almost obscene to even try and claim that Keegstra's words were
"political". If Keegstra was not clearly and undoubtedly trying to create
an atmosphere of intense hatred against Jews, that could very easily lead
to violence if such views were imposed on larger numbers of people, what
exactly was he trying to do?
_______________________________________
| Neil |
| University of Arizona |
| http://u.arizona.edu/~neilends |
| Citizen of the Hyphenated Republic of |
| Canada |
|_______________________________________|
Matt Giwer
>: A-10...@nevis.u.arizona.edu> <4ii21d$n...@wi.combase.com>
>: <314CC8...@itn.is> <4ijhb7$f...@wi.combase.com>
>: <4im8ie$6...@grivel.une.edu.au> <4inohv$k...@wi.combase.com>
>: <4iqa3v$p...@grivel.une.edu.au> <4ir9a9$e...@wi.combase.com> Distribution:
>Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
>: ibo...@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) wrote:
>: >The religious tenet of being "born Jewish" --- note the spelling ---
>: >is that one is Jewish if one's mother is Jewish, means that if
>: >one's matrilineal descent is through Jewish women, with no other
>: >Jew in the family tree for 2,000 years, then on is Jewish and if
>: >it is only the matrilineal descent is that the ancestors are *not*
>: >Jewish, then one is *not* Jewish.
>: It appears you are siding against conversion making one Jewish and
>: also against the idea that one can be an atheist and still accept a
>: tenet of the religion.
>Fascinating. Where do you see that in the above? Where does ibokor side
>against conversion? Where does ibokor say anything about atheists?
>Where did you get the idea that the above is an exclusive list of ways to
>become Jooish? Do you know the first thing about lingual construction?
The that one is a Jew if born Jewish through the mother" clearly has
no other source than Judaism. If your mother was born in New York and
you were born in Chicago that does not make you any more a New Yorker
than a Jew. If mother to mother for 2000 years were all born in
Europe and were born in America that does not make you a European.
It can only come from religious superstition that one can, under any
of the above circumstances, be born an New Yorker, a European or a
Jew.
He APPEARS to be siding against conversion as he gives only one way to
be a Jew by that religious superstition. I was merely pointing out
that one can not be an atheist and accept such a religious
superstition at the same time. It is like an ex-christian atheist
believing in baptism.
>: >: What connects Jews are
>: >: traditions that have come from religion not from ethnic group
>: >: membership.
>: >Nonsense! Religion divides Jews as much as it unites them and
>: >ethnic relations are as important as religious affiliation.
>: >In this, Jews are similar to Armenians or Georgians or Greeks
>: >in that they are an identifiable ethnic group with their "own"
>: >religion. In each of these cases, their is diversity within
>: >the ethnic group concerned through contact with and acceptance
>: >of others into it. The "typical" modern Greek does not look
>: >like the "typical" classical Greek. Look also at the difference
>: >in physical appearance, language and the like of the Germans.
>: >This diversity within ethnic groups is common and does not
>: >mean that the ethnic groups are not identifiable. It merely means
>: >they are not rigid.
>: You are mixing millenial differences with real time today differences.
>: There is no ethnic (vice religious) connection between European,
>: Somalian and middle eastern Jews (prior to Israel being recreated by
>: religious zealots.)
>Hahahahahahaha! The paragraph above was funny enough, given the contact
>through the ages of the Middle Eastern Jews and the European Jews (do you
>even know what a *responsa* is?).
Do you know what language it is? But tell me what is it that is not
related to religion.
But that last part is hysterical,
>given that the majority of Zionists prior to independence were non-religious.
>You can read almost anywhere on that point. Paul Johnson. Zvi
>Geitelman. Ian Lustick. Thomas Friedman. ANYONE.
Then you are siding in favor of mere declaration to make one a Jew.
In particular I did say atheist, non-religous can have several
meanings from atheist to non-observant.
>: >: The "kosher" foods from European Jews
>are European in : >: origin not middle eastern.
>: >So what? Almost *none* of modern European cuisine is
>: >of European origin! Remove potatoes, coffee, rice, tea,
>: >tomatoes, citrus fruits, garlic, peaches, grapes, pasta,
>: >paprika, maize, etc. from European cuisine and you are i
>: >left with very little indeed!
>: The so what is no ethnic relationship, only religious.
>Ah. Now THAT's proof.
It is not proof. It is a lack of one aspect of an ethnic
relationship. That is why we have the terms ethnic foods and ethnic
restaurants.
>: >What makes something kosher has nothing to do with its
>: >geographic origin.
>: >: Yiddish has so many words the same or
>: >: similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
>: >Of course not. Yiddish is a German language of about the vinatge
>: >of Middle High German (if I remember correctly). It has preserved,
>: >as the Swiss German languages have, the form and structure and
>: >vocabulary of this pre-modern German. Just as Swiss German,
>: >Yiddish has incorporated other influences and modified some
>: >aspects of grammar differently from the development
>: >of modern German. In the case of Yiddish, some Slavic and many
>: >Hebrew expressions and words have been absorbed. In Swiss German, much
>: >French has been adopted.
>: >So what? To a modern Swede, the language of his forebears of 2,000
>: >years ago is also incomprehensible. Try speaking Chaucerian
>: >English today.
>: The so what is no ethnic connections, only religious.
>Because! I! Say! So!
Your chant is not demonstrating an ethnic connection.
>What did you think, constant repetition would make you correct?
You were the one chanting. Demonstrate the ethnic relationship when
you get a chance. That you speaking english does not give you an
ethnic association with England no matter that Chaucer spoke an
earlier version of the same language.
>: >: There are still lost tribes in Somalia that took several years of
>: >: study to certify they were Jewish. Even the religion itself was so
>: >: different it was not obvious but certainly no ethnic similarity.
>: >:
>: >: >It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
>: >: >language. I've given up hope that it be English.
>: >:
>: >: As you can see, it is this ethnic claim that does not fit when the
>: >: only thing holding Jews together is the religion.
>: >That is simply your bogus claim. It is one numerous people deny
>: >who are and are seen to be Jewish. Even by the standrads of Jewish
>: >religion, you are a jew if you are born a Jew, even if you become the
>: >Bishop of Rome.
>: Only if one accepts the tenet of the Jewish religion does being born a
>: Jew make one a Jew. There is no other basis for it other than a
>: religious tenent. Therefore, being Jewish is a religion.
>Mr. Giwer, the fact that there is a Jewish religion does not make it
>exclusively a religion.
What is a religion that is not exclusively a religion? Enlighten me.
>: >: It may be a popular
>: >: claim but it does not bear scrutiny. Even to be "born a Jew" one has
>: >: to accept the religion and it is not clear how a person can claim to
>: >: be an atheist and still accept the religion on that point.
>: >No, you are simply wrong. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. Basta.
>: >You cannot cease to be a Jew, according to the Jewish religion even if
>: >you convert to another religion. You may find that no congregation
>: >accepts you, but that is a different matter.
>: These are all religious tenents, therefore you agree it is solely a
>: religion. It is purely religious superstition that it requires
>: conversion not to be Jewish. An atheist can not accept a religious
>: tenant and still be an atheist.
>Yes he/she can, dimwit.....if it's a traditional tenet (NOT tenant!)
>based on a religion, and not a relgious tenet.
Since it is being based upon religion what word would you use for it
besides tenent? Please explain the difference between what you will
choose to call it and a tenent.
>: >You might find the Preface (or Inroduction) to the Hebrew edition
>: >of Freud's "Totem and tabou" illuminating, that is, if you can find
>: >someone who can read and explain to you the English translation .
>: And you may learn to read and understand even your own words some day
>: when you claim a religious tenant can govern an atheist.
>Matt -- wake up. Only you are claiming that the tenets (spell it right,
>please) are only religious. Only you. Therefore, only you have a
>problem with an athest accepting the tenets. You have created a straw
>man, knocked it down, and are now expecting us to applaud.
Whatever the spelling you like or is correct or whatever, if you can
show me an ethnic tenent or you can come up with another name for it
fine.
But in the mean time you have do not have a problem with atheists
accept a tenent based upon religion. Again, very like an atheist
accepting baptism getting one to heaven. You define the difference on
your own instead of simply taking potshots at me. Prove you can do
it.
Matt Giwer
>: >When a neo-Nazi threatens violence against "Jews", who is affected? Any
>: >person who is of the Jewish religion, or has a Jewish last name, or can be
>: >identified by someone else as being associated in some way with Judaism
>: >would be considered a member of this "identifiable group". With Matt's
>: >argument that Jews do not comprise an identifiable group, he's grasping at
>: >straws. This means he's running out of arguments, and the rest of us
>: >should be happy.
>: Fascinating. Now that you have estblished neo-nazis are the authority
>: upon what constitutes a Jew the question is answered. Whoever a
>: neo-nazi says is a Jew is a Jew.
>: Why did not someone say so in the first place?
>Boy, the longer this goes on, the worse your reading comprehension gets.
>He did not say that neo-Nazis are the final authority on what constitutes
>a Joo. He merely pointed out that the fact that Joos are identifiable,
>to Nazis (AND to themselves and others) blows a hole in your claim that
>Joos are not an identifiable group.
>Getting desperate?
I would have rather thought you are. He was attributing to neo-nazis
an ability to identify what he can not himself identify. I would hold
that neo-nazis can not make such an identification any more than he
can but he says Jews are the group neo-nazis identify.
I would never hold a neo-nazi capable of that but it is obvious he
does.
And here you are claiming that real old time nazis can identify a
group where you can not do so. You must attribute accuracy and
correctness to them else you would not cite them as being able to do
what you can not do.
Jeremy A. Litt
Distribution:
Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
: jal...@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:
: >Elias Halldor Agustsson (e...@itn.is) wrote:
: >: The question still remains: why should anyone want to try to cast aspersion
: >: on the accepted history of the Holocaust?
: >Hmmmmmm. An interesting question, but one that does not solve the
: >problem in and of itself. The answer is always, "Interest in historical
: >accuracy."
: >The real question is, "why is it the Holocaust only, and not other
: >historical events, that obsess the Deniers?" Especially when the
: >Holocaust is so much more excessively documented than other events.
: >To believe in the Holocaust as a fraud, one must believe in a world-wide
: >conspiracy (successful) to manufacture proof on an unprecedented scale.
: >Hundreds of thousands of forged testimonies, countless forged pictures,
: >the confessions of Nazis, the records themselves -- the list goes on and on.
: >I htink paranoia about a world-wide Jooish conspiracy is the most
: >rational answer. If one labels this anti-Semitism, I think that is also
: >a rational conclusion.
: And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
: publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
: wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
: given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
: their own gas?
: If they had only killed a few thousand nazis in the process there
: might be some respect for them. And then these people who did not
: defend themselves in the least recorded manner save for the above,
: think their co-religionists need to be honored for some reason.
Wow. You're speeding into the wacko zone. Now you're not even denying
the Holocaust; you seem to be accepting it. Your problem is that:
(a)the rest of the world talks about it, and
(b)the Joos didn't kill enough Nazis.
Well, thousands were killed. But that's irrelevant to whether the
Holocaust did exist. But your true colors are showing. You don't care
if it existed. What pisses you off is that, to you, it's the subject of
too much attention.
My, what a brave man you are! Deriding mass murder victims as "cowwardly
wimps," instead of notign the true cowards, who hid behind guns and
slaughtered unarmed civilians, children, and the elderly.
you must think you are quite a man, Mr. Giwer. I'll bet you think you
could have stopped the Nazis single-handed.
Elias Halldor Agustsson
> >Yes he/she can, dimwit.....if it's a traditional tenet (NOT tenant!)
> >based on a religion, and not a relgious tenet.
>
> Since it is being based upon religion what word would you use for it
> besides tenent? Please explain the difference between what you will
> choose to call it and a tenent.
*sigh*
--
© Elias Halldor Agustsson
© mailto:e...@itn.is finger e...@itn.is for PGP
© URL: http://www.itn.is/~eha (or http://www.nyherji.is/~eha )
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
ibokor
: ibo...@metz.une.edu.au (ibokor) wrote:
:
: >Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
: >:
: >: A century or two ago a group of Irish immigrants found themselves for
: >: some reasons settling to South America. Today you see a lot of black
: >: people with Irish names living there. They are no longer ethnically
: >: Irish. But they are "born" Irish under idea that one can be born
: >: something.
:
: >Most nations accept as nationals people who have at least one grandparent
: >of that nationality.
:
: Who might some of these "most" nations be? The US and Britain are
: about the most liberal nations in the world as to nationality and the
: US does not.
Britain does, or at least did a few years ago, when a close friend of mine
acquired a British and an Irish passport on the basis of having one
English and one Irish grandparent. Other countries include: Germany,
Greece, Hungary.
:
: >In the case of Germany, anyone who can establish the status of being
: >"Volksdeutsch", even if there has been no geographical contact with
: >a German country for centuries, as in the case of parts of the former
: >Soviet Union, or of Transylvania, is entitled to immigrate to Germany
: >and claim citizenship ---- with even less vestige of "German blood"
: >than the descendants of those Irish migrants.
:
: A fascinating idea but as a matter of curiosity do you have more than
: a story to back this up?
Absolutely! Ask any representative of Germany today, or read the German
press on the problems caused by the resettlement in Germany of the
"Volksdeutsche" since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. I do not have
copies here of such newspaper clippings, but some of our contributors
from Germany can surely provide some specific references.
: To be more specific, Hitler's ancestors were
: quite German yet he stayed in uniform for so many years because he
: could not get citizenship even though he was rather severely injured
: fighting for Germany.
Hitler was an Austrian and fled to Bavaria to avoid conscription into
the Habsburg army. His not being able to immediately obtain German
citizenship is similar to the situation today with Austrians, Swiss
and southern Tyroleans. They do not have the automatic right to
German citizenship by agreement between their nation-states because
they are already citizens of a Germanic state.
: >: The "born Jewis" is a religious tenant.
:
: >The religious tenet of being "born Jewish" --- note the spelling ---
:
: cute
"Accurate" would be more fitting.
:
: >is that one is Jewish if one's mother is Jewish, means that if
: >one's matrilineal descent is through Jewish women, with no other
: >Jew in the family tree for 2,000 years, then on is Jewish and if
: >it is only the matrilineal descent is that the ancestors are *not*
: >Jewish, then one is *not* Jewish.
:
: It appears you are siding against conversion making one Jewish and
: also against the idea that one can be an atheist and still accept a
: tenet of the religion.
I am not "siding" one way or another here. I am simply explaining
what Judaism says about being Jewish. I am not judging it, I am
presenting it.
:
: >: What connects Jews are
: >: traditions that have come from religion not from ethnic group
: >: membership.
:
: >Nonsense! Religion divides Jews as much as it unites them and
: >ethnic relations are as important as religious affiliation.
: >In this, Jews are similar to Armenians or Georgians or Greeks
: >in that they are an identifiable ethnic group with their "own"
: >religion. In each of these cases, their is diversity within
: >the ethnic group concerned through contact with and acceptance
: >of others into it. The "typical" modern Greek does not look
: >like the "typical" classical Greek. Look also at the difference
: >in physical appearance, language and the like of the Germans.
: >This diversity within ethnic groups is common and does not
: >mean that the ethnic groups are not identifiable. It merely means
: >they are not rigid.
:
: You are mixing millenial differences with real time today differences.
: There is no ethnic (vice religious) connection between European,
: Somalian and middle eastern Jews (prior to Israel being recreated by
: religious zealots.)
The Jewish people, if one is to believe traditional historical
accounts, were dispersed from the Middle East about two thousand
years ago, about the same time as the Germanic peoples spread from
Northern Europe. Just as today's Southern Tyroleans have little
obviously in common with Icelanders or Norwegians and still retain
a common Germaic or Nordic ethniticity, despite "ethnic dilution"
and mixture, so it is with the Jewish peoplee and the Greek people.
:
: >: The "kosher" foods from European Jews are European in
: >: origin not middle eastern.
:
: >So what? Almost *none* of modern European cuisine is
: >of European origin! Remove potatoes, coffee, rice, tea,
: >tomatoes, citrus fruits, garlic, peaches, grapes, pasta,
: >paprika, maize, etc. from European cuisine and you are i
: >left with very little indeed!
:
: The so what is no ethnic relationship, only religious.
What "religious relationship" is there between "kosher foods"?
Very little of what Italians eat today is of Italian
origin. That does not make Italian cuisine any less Italian,
nor the Italians any less an ethnic group, even if the broad
ethnic classification could be refined. There is much difference
between Lombardy and Erboli.
"Kosher" is not a cuisine, but a set of dietary rules, it has
nothing to do with any particular cuisine. In principle, Chinese,
Japanese, Spanish cuisine can be koshr, even if some of the
standard "authentic" dishes would not qualify.
Your assertion that it is only religion which determines who is
Jewish remains mere bland assertion. Applying your own criteria,
one should call it "malicious gossip" since it is an unverified
claim repeated secon-hand.
:
: >What makes something kosher has nothing to do with its
: >geographic origin.
:
: >: Yiddish has so many words the same or
: >: similar to German it is clearly not of middle eastern origin.
:
: >Of course not. Yiddish is a German language of about the vinatge
: >of Middle High German (if I remember correctly). It has preserved,
: >as the Swiss German languages have, the form and structure and
: >vocabulary of this pre-modern German. Just as Swiss German,
: >Yiddish has incorporated other influences and modified some
: >aspects of grammar differently from the development
: >of modern German. In the case of Yiddish, some Slavic and many
: >Hebrew expressions and words have been absorbed. In Swiss German, much
: >French has been adopted.
:
: >So what? To a modern Swede, the language of his forebears of 2,000
: >years ago is also incomprehensible. Try speaking Chaucerian
: >English today.
:
: The so what is no ethnic connections, only religious.
The religious precepts and regulations insist that while conversion
requires accepting and joining the religion, birthright confirms
the status of being Jewish matrilineally *independently of religious
belief*.
:
: >: There are still lost tribes in Somalia that took several years of
: >: study to certify they were Jewish. Even the religion itself was so
: >: different it was not obvious but certainly no ethnic similarity.
: >:
: >: >It is time you mastered the rudiments of at least *one* Indo-European
: >: >language. I've given up hope that it be English.
: >:
: >: As you can see, it is this ethnic claim that does not fit when the
: >: only thing holding Jews together is the religion.
There are literally millions of Jews who do not subscribe to any religion
and yet affirm their being Jewish and are considered Jewish by the tenets
and practitioners of Judaism. They may be scorned, scolded and viewed with
disdain, but, whether or not you like it, or admit it, whether or not they
like it or admit it, they are and shall for ever remain Jews by the
standards of Judaism. If Cardinal Lustinger becomes the next pope, he will
still, according to his ethnic heritage, according to Judaisms doctrines
and standards, still be a Jew. Of course, to Dolf, even his grandchildren
would be Jews.
:
: >That is simply your bogus claim. It is one numerous people deny
: >who are and are seen to be Jewish. Even by the standrads of Jewish
: >religion, you are a jew if you are born a Jew, even if you become the
: >Bishop of Rome.
:
: Only if one accepts the tenet of the Jewish religion does being born a
: Jew make one a Jew. There is no other basis for it other than a
: religious tenent. Therefore, being Jewish is a religion.
I'll try again. This time I'll type slowly so whoever is reading this
to you can keep up.
Religious and secular Jews agree that one can be Jewish for one of
two reasons:
1. Formal conversion to Judaism;
2. being born of a Jewish mother -- irrespective of religious affiliation.
Secular Jews and some religious Jews disagree about the status of people
who are born of a Jewish father, but not Jewish mother. Some liberal
Jewish religious communities accept these people as Jewish. Other religious
communities require them to convert, but make it easier for them to
convert. Other religious communities treat them as if they had nothing
to do with being Jewish. By the standards applied by most European
nations for recognising nationality, these people would qualify as being
Jewish. By thlegal definitions current in Germany and some other
European countries before and during WWII, these people's children
were also Jewish.
:
: >: It may be a popular
: >: claim but it does not bear scrutiny. Even to be "born a Jew" one has
: >: to accept the religion and it is not clear how a person can claim to
: >: be an atheist and still accept the religion on that point.
:
: >No, you are simply wrong. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. Basta.
: >You cannot cease to be a Jew, according to the Jewish religion even if
: >you convert to another religion. You may find that no congregation
: >accepts you, but that is a different matter.
:
: These are all religious tenents,
Birthright is not a religious tenet, as such, even if some religions
endow it with privileges.
: therefore you agree it is solely a
: religion.
A non sequitur! And patently false.
: It is purely religious superstition that it requires
: conversion not to be Jewish.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, one does *not* cease to be
Jewish by converting to another religion!!!!
: An atheist can not accept a religious
: tenant and still be an atheist.
Of course (s)he can!! What does the religious belief of the
person who rents a flat or house from a landord have to do
with the philosphical and/or religious beliefs of the landlord?
One of the tenets common to most religions is the injuction
against murder.
Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist cannot accept the\
injunction against murder???
:
: >You might find the Preface (or Inroduction) to the Hebrew edition
: >of Freud's "Totem and tabou" illuminating, that is, if you can find
: >someone who can read and explain to you the English translation .
:
: And you may learn to read and understand even your own words some day
: when you claim a religious tenant can govern an atheist.
I do not know, and doubt that I shall ever understand, how a lease to
rent premises can ever govern the philosophical convictions of a
landlord.
But I do maintain that most atheists would agree with most Christians
and Jews and Muslims and Hindus on many ethical matters, even if their
reasons for condemning theft, lying, murder, avarice be based on different
grounds. These are all tenets common to most religions and to most atheists.
d.A.
Matt Giwer
>In article <4ir6do$e...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>> And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
>>publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
>>wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
>>given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
>>their own gas?
>Ever heard of Treblinka?
Ever heard of Auschwitz? Dachau? All the rest?
Matt Giwer
>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:51:59 GMT, mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote
>and is answered by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
>!And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
>!publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
>!wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
>!given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
>!their own gas?
>!If they had only killed a few thousand nazis in the process there
>!might be some respect for them. And then these people who did not
>!defend themselves in the least recorded manner save for the above,
>!think their co-religionists need to be honored for some reason.
>And this guy sits there intimidating and threatening people because he
>says the are falsely accusing him of anti-Semitism and Holocaust
>Revisionism... Gosh... Cyberscum is too kind a word. :)
If I read the participants correctly you are the only one who feels
intimidated and threatened.
>When anyone replies to any of Giwer's messages they should always begin
>with a question to the affect as to why the most important thing in his
>life is to reduce the numbers killed in the Holocuast or to only enter
>newsgroups to taunt Jews.
You are also the only one here who feels taunted. Now go away or I
will taunt you a second time.
>THEN go on to refudiate whatever lies he is spreading.
>But first, always get to the core of the issue, his anti-Semitism.
Alec Grynspan organized it against you. There must be something more
to it than you are saying. I got it! Alec considers himself a
conservative. And he described your house in a public message.
Neil
> gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
> >So what it boils down to is that you say Marc Lepine, who cold bloodedly
> >murdered 15 women in Montreal in 1989, is a hero? Given that, why should
> >anyone care what you say about anything else. You are a bastard, sir.
>
> My lineage is almost too lengthy and complete to suffer that last
> definition, but thank you for beautifully illustrating the natural
> tendency of so many to translate the simple expression of a political
> opinion into evidence that the bearer holds some disagreeable and
> immutable personal characteristic.
What the hell are you talking about, Kolding? McFee or anyone else calling
you a bastard is "evidence" of one of your insane theories about the legal
process? You must _really_ be running out of arguments. By the way, you'd
better not pursue this "bastard" thing. If we took a vote, you'd be quite
disappointed at how many people feel that you, the bearer, holds some
disagreeable and immutable personal characteristic.
> Doubtless---if the principles that
> are used to defend hate crimes legislation are to be believed----you
> are now guilty of inciting hatred in the hearts of untold thousands. A
> hatred, by the way, directed at people simply on the basis that their
> parents failed to fill out the appropriate forms before they were
> born.
The vast majority of people who read his comment that you are a bastard
understood that it did not refer to your family history. The vast majority
of them also agreed with his comment, but of course, that is irrelevant.
Neil
> Neil <neil...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> >When a neo-Nazi threatens violence against "Jews", who is affected? Any
> >person who is of the Jewish religion, or has a Jewish last name, or can be
> >identified by someone else as being associated in some way with Judaism
> >would be considered a member of this "identifiable group". With Matt's
> >argument that Jews do not comprise an identifiable group, he's grasping at
> >straws. This means he's running out of arguments, and the rest of us
> >should be happy.
>
> Fascinating. Now that you have estblished neo-nazis are the authority
> upon what constitutes a Jew the question is answered. Whoever a
> neo-nazi says is a Jew is a Jew.
> Why did not someone say so in the first place?
Where in the above paragraph did I state that neo-Nazis are the authority
on what constitutes a Jew?
Neil
> I would have rather thought you are. He was attributing to neo-nazis
> an ability to identify what he can not himself identify. I would hold
> that neo-nazis can not make such an identification any more than he
> can but he says Jews are the group neo-nazis identify.
> I would never hold a neo-nazi capable of that but it is obvious he
> does.
You are desperate. I never stated that neo-Nazis are responsible for
identifying Jews. When neo-Nazis make hateful speeches or incite violence
against Jews in general, exactly who is affected? Who is the victim? The
answer is provided by common sense, not by neo-Nazis, since anyone who is
obviously a Jew is a potential victim of violence and discrimination due
to neo-Nazi propoganda. Thus, anyone who is perceived by society at-large
as being a Jew, is considered a Jew. People with typical Jewish names
would be among this group of victims, regardless of whether or not they're
practising Jews.
> And here you are claiming that real old time nazis can identify a
> group where you can not do so. You must attribute accuracy and
> correctness to them else you would not cite them as being able to do
> what you can not do.
My theory is that you are constantly trying to rant about these tiny
little insignificant issues because you are unable to take on a challenge
from the rest of us in a debate about the real issues.
ibokor
:
: And on the other hand why is the holocaust the only obsessively
: publically paraded "poor me" that occurred to a bunch of cowardly
: wimps who, save for Warsaw, never fought back and could have been
: given a number and would have shown up at the gas chamber and brought
: their own gas?
: If they had only killed a few thousand nazis in the process there
: might be some respect for them. And then these people who did not
: defend themselves in the least recorded manner save for the above,
: think their co-religionists need to be honored for some reason.
:
:
Ask someone to read you R. Ainsztein's "Jewish Resistance in Nazi-
Occupied Eastern Europe", or I. Strobl's "Sag nie, Du gehst den letzten Weg"
d.A.
:
:
:
: ---------------------------------------------------------------
:
: