Bigotry ? I don't know
Chuck Ferree
Comments:
Having been to Auschwitz four times, since 1945, I
feel ambivalent about this sad controversy. As a
Catholic, on the one hand, this is Polish territory,
on the other, millions of Jews perished here at the
hands of the Nazis. Polish Christians also were
murdered here by the Nazis, but many thousands of
Polish Jews were murdered here also. Since the
Jewish people were the *main targets for
annihilation by the Nazis, I would hope that the
Polish people, especially the so-called neo-Nazis,
would agree to respect the wishes of the Jewish
people, and remove the Crosses.
Sad as it is, anti-Semitism flourishes in Poland, as
in much of our so-called civilized world. Thus it
has always been, and perhaps because of mankind's
primitive propensity for arrogant bigotry, thus it
shall always be.
Chuck Ferree
FEATURES
Saturday, September 12, 1998
A veteran nationalist is
threatening to set fire to
himself if the Catholic
Church does not state in
writing that the 'papal'
cross at Auschwitz will
never be moved to
appease Jewish
opposition.
Reuter
A cross too
heavy to bear
The juxtaposition of a 26-foot
'papal' cross at Auschwitz has
provoked an international
conflict that has reverberated around
Jerusalem, Washington and
Warsaw, set back what were
improving Polish-Jewish
relations by years, and revealed afresh a
stubbornly resistant vein of
anti-Semitism in Poland, writes Neil
Bowdler
A macabre circus has come to the
sleepy corner of the Polish town of Oswiecim.
Cars and tourist buses whiz
past, their passengers stretching for a glimpse of
the
spectacle. On the pavement, the
supportive and the curious meander beneath the
baking midday sun, eager to see
for themselves what the fuss is all about. A
portable television studio has
arrived in the hope of catching a stunt-loving
media-savvy New York rabbi,
rumoured to be en route.
Towering above them all stands
the main attraction, a 26-foot "papal" wooden
crucifix planted deep in cement
amid a burgeoning field of smaller crosses
against the blood-chilling
backdrop of a wooden look-out post and an ageing
concrete wall topped with rusted
barbed wire. This is the perimeter of
Auschwitz I, the founding
element of the AuschwitzBirkenau death factory,
infamous home of the Holocaust
and the resting place of some 1.5 million
victims, an estimated 90 per
cent of them Jewish.
The result of this awkward
juxtaposition is an international conflict that has
reverberated around Jerusalem,
Washington and Warsaw, set back what were
improving Polish-Jewish
relations by years, and revealed afresh a stubbornly
resistant vein of anti-Semitism
in Poland. One American Jewish organisation is
proposing an international
boycott of Poland. Israel's two chief rabbis have
called on Pope John Paul II to
personally intervene.
Behind the sharpening fracas
proudly sits Kazimierz Switon, a veteran
nationalist who is threatening
to douse himself in kerosene and cast the match if
the Church does not
categorically state in writing that the central
"papal" cross
will not ever be moved to
appease Jewish opposition.
More than 220 further crucifixes
now stand in its "defence" - beech, flimsy
plywood, each scrawled with the
name of its donor. Many are adorned with
rosary beads or crudely moulded
plastic christs. All have been brought in
response to Switon's call for
one to be planted in memory of each of 152 Polish
Catholics executed at this
war-time gravel pit by Nazi soldiers in 1941.
"I'll set myself on fire. If
they try to move that cross, I'll bind myself to it
and
they can pull me out with it,"
crows the bearded 67-year-old, sitting with his
henchmen amid a pile of garden
furniture. "If they allow this cross to be moved,
then Poland no longer exists.
Jews want to imprison our nation, make slaves of
us. Eighty per cent of our
politicians are Jews or, worse still, Jewish
servants
destroying the Polish nation at
their command."
Not the Polish Catholic primate,
Cardinal Jozef Glemp, nor even the Pope can
persuade him to end his protest
now. He says: "The Church is us, the
rank-andfile, not the hierarchy.
I have the support of the people." That support
includes a group of shaven
neo-Nazis from the Polish city of Wroclaw who
were the latest to take their
turn in erecting a cross amid the ever more
cluttered
field. It also includes the
ageing, who prop up their rusty bicycles, and
cluster in
song under parasols outside the
gravel pit's perimeter fence for daily prayer in
defence of the cross.
Among them is Maria Jadziala,
(76), a lifelong inhabitant of Oswiecim. She
remembers the putrid smell of
burning bodies from Birkenau, when the Nazis
chose to burn the bodies of Jews
in open mass graves, so overworked were the
crematoriums.
Despite such first-hand
experiences, she paces the pavement, fuming that the
Jews could launch what she sees
as an all-out attack on Poles' most precious
cultural symbol: "These crosses
are our symbol, our faith, our fatherland." The
support also includes Jan
Bartula, Switon's vitriolic sidekick, who offers
guides
of the site to visiting
journalists to whom he delivers a carefully
rehearsed,
face-contorting rant.
"You're standing on Polish soil
soaked with the blood of murdered Polish
patriots," he bellows. "No one's
going to tell us how big this cross is going to
be, be it two metres or eight.
When Jews talk of the Holocaust, I ask myself
why there were 17 colonels,
majors and generals of Jewish origin in the SS," he
spits. To him, Bolsheviks,
capitalists, they are all simply Jews.
The conflict over the crosses is
a spill-over from an earlier clash between Poles
and world Jewry over the
presence of a Carmelite order of nuns in a building
immediately adjacent to the
gravel pit. After the personal intervention of the
Pope, the nuns were eventually
persuaded to vacate the site in 1993, but not
before the now famous 26-foot
crucifix, a legacy of a 1979 papal mass, had
been imported to the site in a
marked sign of defiance towards Jewish
organisations.
Despite the cross's presence at
the gravel pit, in the years that followed there
appeared signs of a thaw in
traditionally frosty Polish-Jewish relations, with
Poland at last demonstrating
that it could act as a dispassionate custodian of
the
largest Jewish cemetery in the
world. What promised to be a divisive dispute
over the construction with
German money of a supermarket opposite the main
entrance to the Auschwitz museum
was defused when the developers were
persuaded to build a visitors'
centre.
Then, in December last year,
another simmering conflict ended with the removal
of crosses and other religious
symbols from the Birkenau death camp in belated
compliance with a 1978 UNESCO
accord on the Auschwitz-Birkenau site.
Better Catholic-Jewish relations
were being fostered in the meantime by a Polish
Pope's instigation of a debate
on historic anti-Semitism within the Catholic
Church, and the establishment
both in Poland and elsewhere of new channels of
communication between Judaism
and Catholicism.
It was in this new spirit of
tolerance that, earlier this year, a government
official
responsible for contact with the
Jewish Diaspora suggested the gravel-pit cross
would be moved in deference to
Jewish sensitivities. The response from the
nationalist Catholic
constituency was thunderous.
Daily prayers were hastily
organised at the site of the cross. In mid-March,
some 400 protesters registered
their outrage in Warsaw.
Political support was lent by
Solidarity veteran Lech Walesa, as well as 130
Catholic MPs who signed a
petition demanding the cross stay put.
Yet it was an uncompromising
Sunday sermon by the hot-blooded Polish
primate, Cardinal Glemp, which
truly set the heart-rates of Jews racing. "The
Polish people were crucified on
the cross," he told his congregation. "That's
why they love that cross, that
symbol of love in suffering, whether it be in the
Gdansk shipyard, Warsaw, or in
Auschwitz . . . the Eiffel Tower is not liked by
everybody, but that's no reason
to move it."
Poland's chief rabbi, Menachem
Pinchas Joskowicz, responded immediately:
"Auschwitz is the place where my
family perished, my fellow prisoners - my
nation died there," he said,
adding that Judaic law forbade Jews from praying in
the sight of the cross. The
cardinal, he said, "must respect the Jewish
religion".
The country's Solidarity-led
government, dependent on support from right-wing
Catholic MPs in parliament,
firmly buried its head in the sand and said it was a
matter for the Church. A
dignified way out of the conundrum may have been
found even then, were it not for
the arrival at the site of Switon. An
anti-communist veteran who
created his own free trade union in 1978, the
Silesian-born radical has
struggled in independent Poland to find his own
place
in mainstream politics, flirting
with a number of ultra right-wing fringe groups.
In 1995, he attracted much
attention when he published a list in which he
"unmasked" Polish politicians of
Jewish origin.
THE dispute over the cross
offered him a direct route back into the limelight
and
a unique chance to hijack a
quasi-religious debate on symbols and rally around
the many malcontents of the new
capitalist Poland to an age-old anthem of Jews
in the woodwork plotting against
an often-duped nation. He set up camp on
June 14th, and if his 42-day
hunger strike failed to catch the world's attention,
his call for the planting of 152
more crosses at the gravel pit certainly did.
Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust
Museum branded it a provocative act by
extremists. Then came word of a
request for the removal of all crosses from the
site from the office of the
Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and
Cardinal Glemp went wading in
once more: "This land is Polish and attempts by
others to impose their will is
seen as impinging on the sovereignty of the
country," he gushed, adding that
escalating tension over the cross resulted from
"continual molestation from the
Jewish side".
A few days later, thanks, some
say, to a rumoured word from the Pope himself,
a newly remorseful Glemp was
recanting his words as it appeared to have at last
dawned on both Church and state
what considerable damage the dispute was
doing to Poland's international
reputation.
In late August, the Polish
Episcopacy demanded all crosses erected during
Switon's campaign be removed.
The crosses, the Polish Church's highest
council said, amounted to
political provocation and "compromised both the
memory of those murdered and the
good name of the Church and the nation, in
the meantime painfully wounding
the sensitivities of our Jewish brothers".
The government, meanwhile, used
a legal loophole to revoke the tenancy rights
to the disputed site of
Mieczyslaw Janosz, the man who had willingly granted
Switon and his colleagues the
right to set up camp under the cross. None of
this, however, amounts to a
resolution of the conflict just yet. The government
-
ever more dependent on
back-bench support from Catholic nationalists -
appears
reluctant to sanction the
forcible eviction of Switon and his crosses from the
site, despite majority public
support for him to go.
Nor are there signs that the
increasingly unwelcome international debate is
likely
to evaporate, even once the
radicals are gone. Both Poland's ecclesiastic and
secular authorities have taken
the opportunity recently to re-state their
opposition
to digging up the original
26-foot "papal" cross - the core of Jewish
discomfort.
As the country's chief rabbi has
said, to Auschwitz-Birkenau's Jewish victims,
"it doesn't matter whether it's
one cross or a thousand".
Jan Parcer, deputy leader of the
Christian Association of Auschwitz Families, an
organisation that groups
together Catholic survivors of the Nazi camp, is
just
one Pole who has become deeply
saddened by the whole sordid affair.
"Auschwitz should be a place of
pilgrimage, where younger generations can
learn. It should be about
bringing people together, not about fighting," he
says.
"No one should be allowed to
make a circus out of a cemetery." Scorning all
condemnation from his deckchair
and tent, Kazimierz Switon remains, for now,
the star-struck ringmaster.
Guardian News Service
Give a Book
Plug into Irish-America
Utterly Enjoyable
Mild Eccentricity
Front | Ireland |
Finance | World | Sport | Opinion | Features |
Letters
Crosaire | Simplex | Dublin
Live | Back Issues | Contacts | Feedback | History
©
Copyright: The Irish Times
Contact:
itw...@irish-times.com
Debunks
>From: Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com>
>Date: 9/12/98 9:03 AM EST
>Message-id: <35FA7F11...@rio.com>
>
> Posted by Chuck Ferree
>Comments:
>Having been to Auschwitz four times, since 1945, I
>feel ambivalent about this sad controversy. As a
>Catholic, on the one hand, this is Polish territory,
>on the other, millions of Jews perished here at the
>hands of the Nazis. Polish Christians also were
>murdered here by the Nazis, but many thousands of
>Polish Jews were murdered here also. Since the
>Jewish people were the *main targets for
>annihilation by the Nazis, I would hope that the
>Polish people, especially the so-called neo-Nazis,
>would agree to respect the wishes of the Jewish
>people, and remove the Crosses.
This is totally unacceptable. Poland is their country and whether the jews
like it or not, Poles were also victims--and they have a right to their
crosses--as many as they like, in fact.
Bernhard Boer
Debunks<DEB...@AOL.COM heeft geschreven in bericht
<199809130702...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...>>Subject: Bigotry ? I
don't know
>>From: Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com>
>>Date: 9/12/98 9:03 AM EST
>>Message-id: <35FA7F11...@rio.com>
>>
>> Posted by Chuck Ferree
>>Comments:
>>Having been to Auschwitz four times, since 1945, I
>>feel ambivalent about this sad controversy. As a
>>Catholic, on the one hand, this is Polish territory,
>>on the other, millions of Jews perished here at the
>>hands of the Nazis. Polish Christians also were
>>murdered here by the Nazis, but many thousands of
>>Polish Jews were murdered here also. Since the
>>Jewish people were the *main targets for
>>annihilation by the Nazis, I would hope that the
>>Polish people, especially the so-called neo-Nazis,
>>would agree to respect the wishes of the Jewish
>>people, and remove the Crosses.
>
Bellinger>>>>This is totally unacceptable. Poland is their country and
whether the jews
>like it or not, Poles were also victims--and they have a right to their
>crosses--as many as they like, in fact.
It was to be expected, this kind of reaction by the great revisionist
scholar Bellinger. Chuck Ferree talks about “a sad controversy” and he is
right. There shouldn’t be a controversy about this very delicate issue.
Bellinger’s reaction is of course not delicate, not civilised and not
intelligent. In earlier postings Bellinger has told he is not an
anti-Semite. (ROTFL) His wife has even Jewish friends! Ach ja, jeder hat
sein’ guter Jude!
Bellinger has often told the Holocaust never happened. Now he is talking
about the victims of Auschwitz. A strange twist and for moment I thought
Joe admitted all his posting up till now were bogus. But he will put some
spin on his remarks. He should call Chuck Ferree names because this WW II
veteran dares to talk about millions of victims. Joe and his revisionist
friends have “proved” there were only a mere thousands or so. He talks about
the “Jews” versus “the Poles”, which is in line with his earlier remarks.
Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles. They were Polish citizens
just like their Catholic neighbours who were also murdered by the gallant
SS.
In almost every sentence he writes Joe shows us a sample of Nazi-ideology,
of anti-Semitic thinking. Here we have another fine example.
Bernhard
NizkorS...@webtv.net
left sterile and "dead" as to be a reminder to the world of exactly what
it was and is. Incidentally, thanks Boger for acknowledging the Jews
were victims at Aushwitz. How many "victims" were there Boger? How were
they victims? What was the main method of death for these Jews. Please
post your scholarly information to the NG.
Debunks
>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>Date: 9/13/98 4:20 AM EST
>Message-id: <6tgc91$i5m$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>Chuck Ferree talks about “a sad controversy” and he is
>right.
And Chuck Ferree ultimately speaks in favor of the Jews, stating that the
crosses should be removed.
>Bellinger’s reaction is of course not delicate,
I cannot be delicate with people who attempt to belittle others and disavow for
them the rights which they claim for themselves.
>n earlier postings Bellinger has told he is not an
>anti-Semite. (ROTFL) His wife has even Jewish friends! Ach ja, jeder hat
>sein’ guter Jude!
Isn't that what Himmler once said? Are you agreeing with him?
>Bellinger has often told the Holocaust never happened.
No. Pay attention. bellinger has NEVER written that. Bellinger has written
that his interpretation of the Holocaust differs considerably from
yours-because I go with the evidence.
>Now he is talking
>about the victims of Auschwitz.
And I have no right to?
>A strange twist and for moment I thought
>Joe admitted all his posting up till now were bogus
Not at all. You have much to learn.
>He should call Chuck Ferree names because this WW II
>veteran dares to talk about millions of victims.
I do not see his opinions a requirement for name calling. after all, I am not
a Nizkook.
>Joe and his revisionist
>friends
Who are these friends? Can you name them?
>have “proved” there were only a mere thousands or so.
I don't recall ever having given that figure. Enlighten me and repost my exact
words.
>He talks about
>the “Jews” versus “the Poles”,
That is how the Jews seem to refer to the situation as I recall.
>Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There is
a difference.
>They were Polish citizens
Yes, but not by blood.
>Polish citizens
>just like their Catholic neighbours who were also murdered by the gallant
>SS.
Cite specific cases. Don't generalize, or are you claiming that the enitre SS
organization of one million men were all stationed at Auschwitz killing Jews
and Poles?
>In almost every sentence he writes Joe shows us a sample of Nazi-ideology,
>of anti-Semitic thinking. Here we have another fine example.
>
>Bernhard
>
The only example I see here is your continued ignorance.
Debunks
>From: NizkorS...@webtv.net
>Date: 9/13/98 1:11 PM EST
>Message-id: <8131-35F...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>
When you are interested in having an honest, open, and serious discussion of
this subject, let me know.
Ken Lewis
Why? When did you become interested in having an honest discussion?
NizkorS...@webtv.net
Bernhard Boer
>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>>Date: 9/13/98 4:20 AM EST
>>Message-id: <6tgc91$i5m$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>>
>
>>Chuck Ferree talks about “a sad controversy” and he is
>>right.
>
>And Chuck Ferree ultimately speaks in favor of the Jews, stating that the
>crosses should be removed.
Chuck Ferree wrote about “a sad controversy”. He chose his words carefully
and with grace. He also made it very clear why he came to his conclusion.
You on the other hand are talking like this controversy is a football game
between “the” Jews and “the” Poles. Delicacy is not one of your virtues.
>>Bellinger’s reaction is of course not delicate,
>
>I cannot be delicate with people who attempt to belittle others and disavow
for
>them the rights which they claim for themselves.
So, you cannot be delicate with yourself! Remark noted.
>>n earlier postings Bellinger has told he is not an
>>anti-Semite. (ROTFL) His wife has even Jewish friends! Ach ja, jeder hat
>>sein’ guter Jude!
>
>Isn't that what Himmler once said? Are you agreeing with him?
>
You said your wife has some Jewish friend, Himmler (or some other gallant
German Nazi, I cannot remember) said the above. It is you who are agreeing
with one of your heroes.
>
>>Bellinger has often told the Holocaust never happened.
>
>No. Pay attention. bellinger has NEVER written that. Bellinger has written
>that his interpretation of the Holocaust differs considerably from
>yours-because I go with the evidence.
Your "interpretation" of the Holocaust is a denial. Someone, who calls the
rounding up of Jews, most of them citizens of foreign (non-German) countries
"unfortunately", is outside his own dream world called a denier.
>>Now he is talking
>>about the victims of Auschwitz.
>
>And I have no right to?
If you did it without making stupid anti-Semitic remarks, yes.
>>A strange twist and for moment I thought
>>Joe admitted all his posting up till now were bogus
>
>Not at all. You have much to learn.
You are talking to the mirror, Joe.
>>He should call Chuck Ferree names because this WW II
>>veteran dares to talk about millions of victims.
>
>I do not see his opinions a requirement for name calling. after all, I am
not
>a Nizkook.
No, you are a bigot. I am not fluent in a foreign language as some
revisionist scholar claims to be. But many of your postings are full of name
calling and insults, even I can see that.
>
>>Joe and his revisionist
>>friends
>
>Who are these friends? Can you name them?
All right, you admit having no friends. Only your wife has friends, some of
whom are even Jewish!
>>have “proved” there were only a mere thousands or so.
>
>I don't recall ever having given that figure. Enlighten me and repost my
exact
>words.
Memory gone, Joe?
>>He talks about
>>the “Jews” versus “the Poles”,
>
>That is how the Jews seem to refer to the situation as I recall.
Memory gone, it is how you wrote about the situation.
>>Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>>fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>
>They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There
is
>a difference.
No, there isn't. Many of these Jewish families lived in Poland for
centuries. The concept of them being guest is stupid.
>>They were Polish citizens
>
>Yes, but not by blood.
Nationality is not defined by blood. If your definition of citizenship
applied only Native Americans would be real Americans. Nice scenario, isn't
it? Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
Americans.
Again you are using a Nazi-concept of nationality that is based up on bogus
biological ideas. There is not such a thing as "Polish" or "Jewish" blood.
Take blood from a Pole, take blood from a Jew and look to the samples under
a microscope: no difference. Race has only to do with complexion, Joe. Read
a book on biology. Oh no, you won't, because it is full of Allied
propaganda.
>>Polish citizens
>>just like their Catholic neighbours who were also murdered by the gallant
>>SS.
>
>Cite specific cases. Don't generalize, or are you claiming that the enitre
SS
>organization of one million men were all stationed at Auschwitz killing
Jews
>and Poles?
Asking an evasive question is not the way to answer a question Joe. I never
claimed the entire SS were in Auschwitz. In fact many of them were killing
Jews and other people in Russia, as you know. When I asked you names of
Dutch people who think that the German invasion of The Netherlands can be
justified you laughed at me. Now you are asking me to come up with specific
cases. All right, but first you come up with the names of the Dutch citizens
who died in Rotterdam.
>>In almost every sentence he writes Joe shows us a sample of Nazi-ideology,
>>of anti-Semitic thinking. Here we have another fine example.
>>
>>Bernhard
>>
>
>The only example I see here is your continued ignorance.
Well, you being a Nazi-apologist this remark could be expected.
Dan Parker
NizkorS...@webtv.net wrote in message
<8131-35F...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>...
Aushwitz should contain no memorials, Jewish or otherwise. It should be
left sterile and "dead" as to be a reminder to the world of exactly what
it was and is. Incidentally, thanks Boger for acknowledging the Jews
were victims at Aushwitz. How many "victims" were there Boger? How were
they victims? What was the main method of death for these Jews. Please
post your scholarly information to the NG.
Why stop with Auschwitz? Let's "sterilize" every patch soil on the earth
where people have been killed. I guess hydroponically grown food in
dirigible greenhouses will supply food for the whole world. That should work
just nicely.
And let's not forget just why we're doing this either. Let's all mope around
in sackcloth, flagellating ourselves: "remember the six million, oh, the six
million" SMACK "remember the six million, oh, the six million."
Dan Parker
Joel Rosenberg
Dan "War Hero" Parker wrote:
.
> Aushwitz should contain no memorials, Jewish or otherwise.
Because some swine like yourself says so? Really, "War Hero",
you really ought to try sobriety for a moment.
> And my mother's stroll should be made a memorial for prostitutes everywhere.
> After all, she holds the record for soldiers serviced.
Oh.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http:/www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver Stone
(see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite pizza: Pepe's White Clam Turn-ons: chianti and liner
locks
------------------------------------------------------------
Gord McFee
01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>
> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There is
> a difference.
Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
a "Polish Jew"?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
Mark Van Alstine
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------7FAA69BF81AED9B1F6208AB3
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
> Dan "War Hero" Parker wrote:
> .
> > Aushwitz should contain no memorials, Jewish or otherwise.
>
> Because some swine like yourself says so? Really, "War Hero",
> you really ought to try sobriety for a moment.
>
> > And my mother's stroll should be made a memorial for prostitutes everywhere.
> > After all, she holds the record for soldiers serviced.
>
> Oh.
Oh, so _that's_ where those troopships went....
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ragland
(inside the camp) for Jews, Poles or any others. Aushwitz should be left
dead and sterile just the way it was and is as a reminder for what it
stood for. I believe memorials are very important and necessary; the
Holocaust museum, which I'm confident you've visited, has a chamber of
burning flames in remembrance to all the Jews who perished.
I hope anybody that visits the museum will come away with empathy for
the Jews and realize they're human beings just like others. I remember
going past a corridor with photograghs of Jewish families before they
were exterminated. It shows Jews getting married, smiling and engaging
in other activites. It could have been like the photo album of any other
person be they gentile, hispanic, black, etc.
Anybody who leaves the museum thinking it is just about the Jew has
really not grasped the meaning of the museum. Yes, the museum dealing
with Jews and the Holocaust but there is a deeper reality than that.
John Morris
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
>01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There is
>> a difference.
>Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
>a "Polish Jew"?
Me too, given that there were Jews living relatively unmolested for
longer than there were Catholics in Poland. One wonders what it takes
for an antisemite like Joe to accept that a Jew has become naturalized
to a place.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Debunks
>Date: 9/15/98 1:30 AM EST
>Message-id: <35ffff91...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
>
>In <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>, on Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:26:49 GMT,
>gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
>>In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
>>01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>>> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>
>>> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles."
>There is
>>> a difference.
>
>>Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
>>a "Polish Jew"?
>
>Me too, given that there were Jews living relatively unmolested for
>longer than there were Catholics in Poland. One wonders what it takes
>for an antisemite like Joe to accept that a Jew has become naturalized
>to a place.
>
>--
> John Morris
Spare us the name calling john--you aren't earning any points.
Debunks
>From: NizkorS...@webtv.net
>Date: 9/14/98 0:04 AM EST
>Message-id: <28423-35F...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>I'm waiting Boger.
>
>
So am I. I have been waiting for 4 years.
Debunks
>Message-id: <6tito9$apu$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>Debunks<DEB...@AOL.COM heeft geschreven in bericht
><199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>>>Date: 9/13/98 4:20 AM EST
>>>Message-id: <6tgc91$i5m$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>>>
>>
>>>Chuck Ferree talks about “a sad controversy” and he is
>>>right.
>>
>>And Chuck Ferree ultimately speaks in favor of the Jews, stating that the
>>crosses should be removed.
>
>Chuck Ferree wrote about “a sad controversy”. He chose his words carefully
>and with grace. He also made it very clear why he came to his conclusion.
>You on the other hand are talking like this controversy is a football game
>between “the” Jews and “the” Poles. Delicacy is not one of your virtues.
You are right for once--HONESTY is.
>Bellinger’s reaction is of course not delicate,
>>
>>I cannot be delicate with people who attempt to belittle others and disavow
>for
>>them the rights which they claim for themselves.
>
>So, you cannot be delicate with yourself! Remark noted.
>
>>>n earlier postings Bellinger has told he is not an
>>>anti-Semite. (ROTFL) His wife has even Jewish friends! Ach ja, jeder hat
>>>sein’ guter Jude!
>>
>>Isn't that what Himmler once said? Are you agreeing with him?
>You said your wife has some Jewish friend, Himmler (or some other gallant
>German Nazi, I cannot remember) said the above. It is you who are agreeing
>with one of your heroes.
>
No, it is you. You are the one who posted the absurd remark.
>>Bellinger has often told the Holocaust never happened.
>>
>>No. Pay attention. bellinger has NEVER written that. Bellinger has written
>>that his interpretation of the Holocaust differs considerably from
>>yours-because I go with the evidence.
>
>Your "interpretation" of the Holocaust is a denial.
Oh--so it is "denial" to deny what is untrue and unproven? Well, there is
Nizkook logic for you.
>Someone, who calls the
>rounding up of Jews, most of them citizens of foreign (non-German) countries
>"unfortunately", is outside his own dream world called a denier.
>
What do you prefer I call it? If it was not unfortunate, what was it?
>>>Now he is talking
>>>about the victims of Auschwitz.
>>
>>And I have no right to?
>
>If you did it without making stupid anti-Semitic remarks, yes.
I don't make it a habit of making patently anti-Semitic remarks..it runs
against my grain.
>>>A strange twist and for moment I thought
>>>Joe admitted all his posting up till now were bogus
>>
>>Not at all. You have much to learn.
>You are talking to the mirror, Joe.
And you are responding.
>>He should call Chuck Ferree names because this WW II
>>>veteran dares to talk about millions of victims.
>>
>>I do not see his opinions a requirement for name calling. after all, I am
>not
>>a Nizkook.
>
>No, you are a bigot.
That is your erroneous opinion and you are welcome to it.
>I am not fluent in a foreign language as some
>revisionist scholar claims to be.
Well, study harder.
>But many of your postings are full of name
>calling and insults, even I can see that.
>
I rarely attack people. Funny you never noticed. usually I am the one being
attacked, but I am not complaining..it is par for the course, and people have
been unjustly attacked in the NG far worse than I.
>Joe and his revisionist
>>>friends
>>
>>Who are these friends? Can you name them?
>
>
>All right, you admit having no friends.
You said REVISIONIST friends, didn't you? Or did you mean to write something
else?
>Only your wife has friends, some of
>whom are even Jewish!
>
In fact, both she and I have Jewish friends.
>
>>>have “proved” there were only a mere thousands or so.
>>
>>I don't recall ever having given that figure. Enlighten me and repost my
>exact
>>words.
>
>Memory gone, Joe?
Sure, especially when you write things which are not true.
>
>>>He talks about
>>>the “Jews” versus “the Poles”,
>>
>>That is how the Jews seem to refer to the situation as I recall.
>
>Memory gone, it is how you wrote about the situation.
And how would YOU describe the situation?
>>Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>>>fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>>
>>They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There
>is
>>a difference.
>
>No, there isn't.
I am not interested. They were Jews who resided in Poland. They are not
Poles.
>Many of these Jewish families lived in Poland for
>centuries.
Irrelevant. Unless they mixed extensively with the population and mixed blood.
In some cases this is undoubtedly true and in others not. If a Chinese people
lived in isolation in Poland for centuries, would that make them Polish--or
conversely?
>The concept of them being guest is stupid.
It is a fact which you have difficulty accepting and
>
>>>They were Polish citizens
>>
>>Yes, but not by blood.
>
>Nationality is not defined by blood.
They are NOT poles by blood. Do you happen to know what classic Judaism thinks
of Gentiles, BTW?
>If your definition of citizenship
>applied only Native Americans would be real Americans.
Well, they are.
>Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
>Americans.
Well, America is a polyglot country with many different races and cultures and
ethicities all mixed in, more or less, and not comparable to the European
nations, with the major exception of perhaps Russia.
>Again you are using a Nazi-concept of nationality that is based up on bogus
>biological ideas.
There is nothing bogue about it. Your ideas are "politically correct"
...TODAY...but times change and so does the collective unconscious.
>There is not such a thing as "Polish" or "Jewish" blood.
Tell that to Orthodox jews. They disagree with you.
>Take blood from a Pole, take blood from a Jew and look to the samples under
>a microscope: no difference.
The differences are genetic, little Sir Echo.
>Race has only to do with complexion, Joe. Read
>a book on biology
A "modern" bogus, and "politically correct" book? I will pass...I can refer
you to biologists who will disagree with that contention--try Shockley, for
one.
>Oh no, you won't, because it is full of Allied
>propaganda.
No, it is not. It is simply politically correct Bockmist.
>>Polish citizens
>>>just like their Catholic neighbours who were also murdered by the gallant
>>>SS.
>
>>Cite specific cases. Don't generalize, or are you claiming that the enitre
>SS
>>organization of one million men were all stationed at Auschwitz killing
>Jews
>>and Poles?
>
>Asking an evasive question is not the way to answer a question Joe.
The questionn is most pertinent. Why are you avoiding answering it?
>I never
>claimed the entire SS were in Auschwitz.
I don't see why not...most of what you believe is equally foolish.
>In fact many of them were killing
>Jews and other people in Russia, as you know.
Propaganda.
>When I asked you names of
>Dutch people who think that the German invasion of The Netherlands can be
>justified you laughed at me.
How about Mussert?
>Now you are asking me to come up with specific
>cases. All right, but first you come up with the names of the Dutch citizens
>who died in Rotterdam.
>
>
I am sure you can find a list of them.
>>In almost every sentence he writes Joe shows us a sample of Nazi-ideology,
>>>of anti-Semitic thinking. Here we have another fine example.
>>>
>>>Bernhard
>>>
>>
>>The only example I see here is your continued ignorance.
>
>Well, you being a Nazi-apologist this remark could be expected.
>
>
>
You don't know what to expect.
Debunks
>Date: 9/14/98 7:26 PM EST
>Message-id: <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
>01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>>
>> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There
>is
>> a difference.
>
>a "Polish Jew"?
>
>Gord McFee
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>Date: 9/14/98 7:26 PM EST
>Message-id: <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
>01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>>
>> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There
>is
>> a difference.
>
>Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
>a "Polish Jew"?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
I don't need to define it for you. If you are so interested, look it up in the
Talmud.
John Morris
06:00:26 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>From: John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
>>Message-id: <35ffff91...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
>>In <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>, on Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:26:49 GMT,
>>gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>>>In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
>>>01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>>> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
>>>> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>>>> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles."
>>>>There is a difference.
>>>Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
>>>a "Polish Jew"?
>>Me too, given that there were Jews living relatively unmolested for
>>longer than there were Catholics in Poland. One wonders what it takes
>>for an antisemite like Joe to accept that a Jew has become naturalized
>>to a place.
>Spare us the name calling john--you aren't earning any points.
In other words, you've been caught with your swastika underwear down
around your knees again.
As for earning points, you are not going to earn any for transparently
antisemitic evasions such as this:
I don't need to define it for you. If you are so interested,
look it up in the Talmud.
Nor are you going to earn any points by refusing to explain your own
claim that Jews could not be Poles.
Mark Van Alstine
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
> >Date: 9/15/98 1:30 AM EST
> >Message-id: <35ffff91...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
> >
> >In <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>, on Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:26:49 GMT,
> >gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
> >
> >>In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
> >>01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >>> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
> >>> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
> >
> >>> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles."
> >There is
> >>> a difference.
> >
> >>Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
> >>a "Polish Jew"?
> >
> >Me too, given that there were Jews living relatively unmolested for
> >longer than there were Catholics in Poland. One wonders what it takes
> >for an antisemite like Joe to accept that a Jew has become naturalized
> >to a place.
> >
> >--
> > John Morris
>
> Spare us the name calling john--you aren't earning any points.
On the contrary, Boger, Mr. Morris is counting coup at your expense. (Not
that such is a terribly hard things to do....)
Bernhard Boer
Debunks heeft geschreven in bericht
<199809160559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>>Date: 9/14/98 5:17 AM EST
>>Message-id: <6tito9$apu$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>>
>>Debunks<DEB...@AOL.COM heeft geschreven in bericht
>><199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>>>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>>>>Date: 9/13/98 4:20 AM EST
>>>>Message-id: <6tgc91$i5m$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>>Delicacy is not one of your virtues.
>You are right for once--HONESTY is.
If criticised your despicable sense of "humour" in the past, but after
reading
this remark I have to admit you know at least one good joke. HONESTY!! A
very good joke, send it to John Cleese and he will transform into a very
funny sketch. HONESTY! ROTL!
>>Someone, who calls the
>>rounding up of Jews, most of them citizens of foreign (non-German)
countries
>>"unfortunately", is outside his own dream world called a denier.
>What do you prefer I call it? If it was not unfortunate, what was it?
It was far more than "unfortunate". By using this quite neutral word you
diminishing the nature of what happened. The rounding up of Jews was a
terrible crime.
[snip]
>I don't make it a habit of making patently anti-Semitic remarks..it runs
>against my grain.
ROTFL again, Joe. Your whole vision on the Holocaust is anti-Semitic.
Everybody who can read can see this. Some of the posters NG at least admit
being anti-Semites. You aren't even that brave.
[snip]
>>I am not fluent in a foreign language as some
>>revisionist scholar claims to be.
>
>Well, study harder.
And become as fluent in German as you? No thank you.
[snip]
>I rarely attack people. Funny you never noticed. usually I am the one
being
>attacked, but I am not complaining..it is par for the course, and people
have
>been unjustly attacked in the NG far worse than I.
The first sentence is of course a blatant lie Joe. You attack and insult
survivors of the Holocaust by telling them there were no gassings. You
attack and insult them that the fact they were rounded up was "unfortunate".
You attack and insult Chuck Ferree, a fellow American who put his life on
the line to liberate Europe, by telling him that what he saw didn't happen.
In short Joe, you lie again.
[snip]
>In fact, both she and I have Jewish friends.
Well, well, Jeder hat sein' guter Jude, I presume. But I wonder what happens
if you tell your Jewish friends that no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz and
that the rounding up of Jews in Europe during the war by the gallant Germans
was unfortunate.
[snip]
>I am not interested. They were Jews who resided in Poland. They are not
>Poles.
Of course you are not interested because you block out facts that don't
comply with your view on history. Fact of the matter was that these people
were Polish citizens.
>>Many of these Jewish families lived in Poland for
>>centuries.
>
>Irrelevant. Unless they mixed extensively with the population and mixed
blood.
> In some cases this is undoubtedly true and in others not. If a Chinese
people
>lived in isolation in Poland for centuries, would that make them Polish--or
>conversely?
Irrelevant to you, Joe, because you have a typical Nazi view on Jews.
Thousands and thousands of Jewish families lived in Poland for centuries.
What said in there passports in 1939? Oeps, Polish national.
>>The concept of them being guest is stupid.
>
>It is a fact which you have difficulty accepting and
So their passports were a fraud? Come on, Joe, you are the one who cannot
see the truth.
>>>>They were Polish citizens
>>>
>>>Yes, but not by blood.
>>
>>Nationality is not defined by blood.
>
>They are NOT poles by blood. Do you happen to know what classic Judaism
thinks
>of Gentiles, BTW?
Again Joe, nationality is defined by law, not by blood. "Jewish" is not a
nationality, not even in Israel. Many Israeli nationals are Jewish but not
all. There are Christian, Muslim, Druz etc Israeli nationals.
BTW what classic Judaism thinks of Gentiles is irrelevant. Answering a
question with an evasive question is childish Joe.
>>If your definition of citizenship
>>applied only Native Americans would be real Americans.
>
>Well, they are.
>
>>Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
>>Americans.
>
>Well, America is a polyglot country with many different races and cultures
and
>ethicities all mixed in, more or less, and not comparable to the European
>nations, with the major exception of perhaps Russia.
Following your theories on nationality I came to the conclusion that only
Native Americans are real Americans. But now you don't want
to apply your own theory on nationality to the States because it is a
polyglot country! If you would know anything about the history of Europe,
you would now that almost every European country was polyglot in 1939 (and
still is). How many language were spoken in Poland in 1939? I can come up
with at least six, Polish, German, Jiddisch, Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian.
(I presume there were more.) So Joe, if you would believe in your own
stupid theory about Jews being "guests" in Poland, you should admit that
you are a guest in the States and you should listen to the rightful
inhabitants, the Native Americans
>>Again you are using a Nazi-concept of nationality that is based up on
bogus
>>biological ideas.
>
>There is nothing bogue about it. Your ideas are "politically correct"
>...TODAY...but times change and so does the collective unconscious.
Biological facts don't change, Joe.
>>There is not such a thing as "Polish" or "Jewish" blood.
[snip]
>The differences are genetic, little Sir Echo.
Really? Take a genetic sample from a Nazi like you and from one of your
Jewish friends. Give them to an expert in genetics and ask him whether he
can show you the difference . He cannot. Simple biological facts.
>>Race has only to do with complexion, Joe. Read
>>a book on biology
>
>A "modern" bogus, and "politically correct" book? I will pass...I can
refer
>you to biologists who will disagree with that contention--try Shockley, for
>one.
>>Oh no, you won't, because it is full of Allied
>>propaganda.
>No, it is not. It is simply politically correct Bockmist.
Bockmist? No Joe, fact of the matter is you don't want to read a book that
disagrees with your perceptions. Childish and stupid. That is the real
Bockmist
[snip]
>>I never
>>claimed the entire SS were in Auschwitz.
>
>I don't see why not...most of what you believe is equally foolish.
The Einsatsgruppen weren't foolish, they knew what they had to do: murder
Jews!
>>In fact many of them were killing
>>Jews and other people in Russia, as you know.
>
>Propaganda.
Yeah, sure Joe. If you cannot deny a fact you call it "propaganda". Dr.
Goebbles, more intelligent than you, would have reacted in a different way.
He would have tried linking the murders with the Russians or he would have
proved that the Jews were temselves responsible for their dead. That is real
propaganda!
>>When I asked you names of
>>Dutch people who think that the German invasion of The Netherlands can be
>>justified you laughed at me.
>How about Mussert?
Which Mussert are you referring you? J. A. Mussert who served in the Dutch
army in 1940 (when the gallant Germany attacked The Netherlands without any
reason) or his brother Ir. A. A. Mussert, the Leader of one of the Dutch
fascist parties? A. A. (Anton) Mussert didn't justify the German invasion,
but he accepted it and tried to become the Dutch Quisling. After the war he
was tried and found guilty of, amongst others, the crime of high treason.
He was shot.
I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify the German
invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead Dutch
traitor and fascist. Not really an answer to the question, but we are used
to that.
>>Now you are asking me to come up with specific
>>cases. All right, but first you come up with the names of the Dutch
citizens
>>who died in Rotterdam.
>I am sure you can find a list of them.
Yes, I can, but then you are not interested.
>>>In almost every sentence he writes Joe shows us a sample of
Nazi-ideology,
>>>>of anti-Semitic thinking. Here we have another fine example.
>>>>Bernhard
>>>The only example I see here is your continued ignorance.
>>
>>Well, you being a Nazi-apologist this remark could be expected.
>You don't know what to expect.
Nein? Doch, mein Lieber.
Gord McFee
06:30:08 GMT, John....@x-nospam-x.UAlberta.CA (John Morris) wrote:
> In <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>, on Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:26:49 GMT,
> gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>
> >In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
> >01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
> >> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
> >> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>
> >> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There is
> >> a difference.
>
> >Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
> >a "Polish Jew"?
>
> Me too, given that there were Jews living relatively unmolested for
> longer than there were Catholics in Poland. One wonders what it takes
> for an antisemite like Joe to accept that a Jew has become naturalized
> to a place.
It's hard to understand unless you are antisemitic.
Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
Gord McFee
05:59:01 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Nationality is not defined by blood.
>
> They are NOT poles by blood. Do you happen to know what classic Judaism thinks
> of Gentiles, BTW?
How is a Pole defined "by blood"? Were the Jews of Luck, who had been
there since the 10th century, not Poles?
Gord McFee
05:59:41 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/14/98 7:26 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>
> >
> >In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
> >01:07:47 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that in
> >> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
> >>
> >> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles." There
> >is
> >> a difference.
> >
> >Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
> >a "Polish Jew"?
>
> I don't need to define it for you. If you are so interested, look it up in the
> Talmud.
So you just made it up. That's what I thought.
Dan Parker
Joel Rosenberg wrote in message <35FDCF7B...@winternet.com>...
>
>
>Dan "War Hero" Parker wrote:
>.
>> Aushwitz should contain no memorials, Jewish or otherwise.
>
>Because some swine like yourself says so? Really, "War Hero",
>you really ought to try sobriety for a moment.
I think you're the one hitting the Mogen David a little too hard, Rosenboik.
I didn't write that Auschwitz should contain no memorials. Look at that post
again. That idea was one of the brilliant Zoglings at Nizkook. He shouldn't
be fired though. I think he's just had too many lessons in tolerance. He's
overly obssessed with death.
Joel Rosenberg
>
> Joel Rosenberg wrote in message <35FDCF7B...@winternet.com>...
> >
> >
> >Dan "War Hero" Parker wrote:
> >.
> >> Aushwitz should contain no memorials, Jewish or otherwise.
> >
> >Because some swine like yourself says so? Really, "War Hero",
> >you really ought to try sobriety for a moment.
>
> I think you're the one hitting the Mogen David a little too hard, Rosenboik.
> I didn't write that Auschwitz should contain no memorials. Look at that post
> again. That idea was one of the brilliant Zoglings at Nizkook.
Your mother's lips go in and out with the tide.
> He shouldn't
> be fired though. I think he's just had too many lessons in tolerance. He's
> overly obssessed with death.
And you are underly obsssessssed with yur spelllllling cheker.
>
> NizkorS...@webtv.net wrote in message
> <8131-35F...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>...
> > Aushwitz should contain no memorials, Jewish or otherwise. It should be
> > left sterile and "dead" as to be a reminder to the world of exactly what
> > it was and is. Incidentally, thanks Boger for acknowledging the Jews
> > were victims at Aushwitz. How many "victims" were there Boger? How were
> > they victims? What was the main method of death for these Jews. Please
> > post your scholarly information to the NG.
>
> Why stop with Auschwitz? Let's "sterilize" every patch soil on the earth
> where people have been killed. I guess hydroponically grown food in
> dirigible greenhouses will supply food for the whole world. That should work
> just nicely.
>
> And let's not forget just why we're doing this either. Let's all mope around
> in sackcloth, flagellating ourselves: "remember the six million, oh, the six
> million" SMACK "remember the six million, oh, the six million."
>
> Dan Parker
Hey, as long as there are revisionazis out there denying the
Holocaust, there'll be people remembering out loud who wouldn't
otherwise.
Your sister is aroused by the phrase, "the fleet's in!"
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver
Stone
(see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite Talk Show: Not Jerry Springer Turn-ons: Silk shirts
and BuckCote
------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Ferree
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
CF:>>>>>Oh, Yeah! ROTFLMAO
Chuck Ferree
Michael Ragland
DeppityBob
Debunks adjusted the steel plate in his head and wrote:
>>> >> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that
in
> >> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
> >>
> >> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles."
There
> >is
> >> a difference.
> >
> >Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
> >a "Polish Jew"?
>
> I don't need to define it for you. If you are so interested, look it up in
the
> Talmud.<<
The Talmud has a section on what it takes to be a native Pole? Wow, you are
well-read. What, exactly, DOES it say? (I am sincerely, nay, eagerly awaiting
enlightenment, since the only alternative is to have the brave scholar Debunks
prove himself to have been MAKING IT ALL UP.)
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mandrake, for the love of Her Majesty and
the Continental Congress, get over here and
FEED ME THIS BELT!"
Debunks
>Message-id: <3604ce76...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>
>Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>
That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as the
bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not make
them Zulus.
Debunks
>Message-id: <360df07e...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>In <199809160559...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 16 Sep 1998
>05:59:41 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >Message-id: <3605a6c5...@news3.ibm.net>
>> >
>> >In <199809140107...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 14 Sep 1998
>> >
>> >> >Like the Nazi’s he believes in a “they – we scenario”, forgetting that
>in
>> >> >fact many victims in Auschwitz were Jewish Poles.
>> >>
>> >> They were Jews who resided in Poland. They were not "native Poles."
>There
>> >is
>> >> a difference.
>> >
>> >Just so I will know, what is the difference between a "native Pole" and
>> >a "Polish Jew"?
>>
>> I don't need to define it for you. If you are so interested, look it up in
>the
>> Talmud.
>
>
>--
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time
>
>Visit the Holocaust History Project
>http://www.holocaust-history.org
>
>Visit the Nizkor site
>http://www.nizkor.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
As I suggested, look it up in the Talmud or refer to Israel Shahak.
Debunks
>Message-id: <6toc3l$jb6$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>
>It was far more than "unfortunate". By using this quite neutral word you
>diminishing the nature of what happened. The rounding up of Jews was a
>terrible crime.
>
Well, there are crimes and there are "crimes." Rounding up people is quite
different from killing them.
>>I don't make it a habit of making patently anti-Semitic remarks..it runs
>>against my grain.
>
>ROTFL again, Joe. Your whole vision on the Holocaust is anti-Semitic.
Nonsense.
>Everybody who can read can see this.
Really? why do so many people disagree with you then?
>ome of the posters NG at least admit
>being anti-Semites. You aren't even that brave.
>
>[snip]
I have no compunctions about admitting if I were an anti-semite, but the fact
is I am not and you simply cannot handle the truth.
>>I am not fluent in a foreign language as some
>>>revisionist scholar claims to be.
>>
>>Well, study harder.
>
>And become as fluent in German as you? No thank you.
You should consider yourself lucky if you could speak as well as I can.
>I rarely attack people. Funny you never noticed. usually I am the one
>being
>>attacked, but I am not complaining..it is par for the course, and people
>have
>>been unjustly attacked in the NG far worse than I.
>
>The first sentence is of course a blatant lie Joe.
You certainly spot lies all over the place don't you? Everyone's "lies" but
your own.
>You attack and insult
>survivors of the Holocaust by telling them there were no gassings.
I have found no evidence to support this claim.
>You
>attack and insult them that the fact they were rounded up was "unfortunate".
OK. It was fortunate then. are you happy now?
>You attack and insult Chuck Ferree, a fellow American who put his life on
>the line to liberate Europe,
Yeh--to liberate it for communism. And Chuck is no prim little girl scout.
>by telling him that what he saw didn't happen.
Tell me what you see when you watch a magician perform....Eyes can deceive you.
>Well, well, Jeder hat sein' guter Jude, I presume. But I wonder what happens
>if you tell your Jewish friends that no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz and
>that the rounding up of Jews in Europe during the war by the gallant Germans
>was unfortunate.
I have told a few of them. One of them sees merit in the idea. so he will now
be a "bad Jew." Everyone has their own opinions.
>>I am not interested. They were Jews who resided in Poland. They are not
>>Poles.
>
>Of course you are not interested because you block out facts that don't
>comply with your view on history.
You have never provided any for me to block out.
>Fact of the matter was that these people
>were Polish citizens.
>
Yes, many of them were. Didn't the Bible predict that their seed would be in
many waters.
>>
>>Irrelevant. Unless they mixed extensively with the population and mixed
>blood.
>> In some cases this is undoubtedly true and in others not. If a Chinese
>people
>>lived in isolation in Poland for centuries, would that make them Polish--or
>>conversely?
>
>Irrelevant to you, Joe, because you have a typical Nazi view on Jews.
And what is that?
>Thousands and thousands of Jewish families lived in Poland for centuries.
>What said in there passports in 1939? Oeps, Polish national.
And?
>
>>>The concept of them being guest is stupid.
>>
>>It is a fact which you have difficulty accepting and
>
>
>So their passports were a fraud? Come on, Joe, you are the one who cannot
>see the truth.
>
Fraudulent passports were quite common at the time.
>>>They were Polish citizens
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but not by blood.
>>>
>>>Nationality is not defined by blood.
>>
>>They are NOT poles by blood. Do you happen to know what classic Judaism
>thinks
>>of Gentiles, BTW?
>
>Again Joe, nationality is defined by law, not by blood. "Jewish" is not a
>nationality, not even in Israel.
Spare me your ignorance. have you read Israel Shahak or not?
>Many Israeli nationals are Jewish but not
>all. There are Christian, Muslim, Druz etc Israeli nationals.
I am aware of this.
>BTW what classic Judaism thinks of Gentiles is irrelevant. Answering a
>question with an evasive question is childish Joe.
>
It is quite pertinent. You are wrong/
>>If your definition of citizenship
>>>applied only Native Americans would be real Americans.
>>
>>Well, they are.
>>
>>>Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
>>>Americans.
>>
>>Well, America is a polyglot country with many different races and cultures
>and
>>ethicities all mixed in, more or less, and not comparable to the European
>>nations, with the major exception of perhaps Russia.
>
>Following your theories on nationality I came to the conclusion that only
>Native Americans are real Americans.
In a sense they are, but due to conquest, American has now come to signify
something completely different.
>But now you don't want
>to apply your own theory on nationality to the States because it is a
>polyglot country! If you would know anything about the history of Europe,
>you would now that almost every European country was polyglot in 1939 (and
>still is).
Not in comparison to the US or South America.
>How many language were spoken in Poland in 1939?
Who cares? How many are spoken in the US?
>I can come up
>with at least six, Polish, German, Jiddisch, Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian.
And?
>So Joe, if you would believe in your own
>stupid theory about Jews being "guests" in Poland, you should admit that
>you are a guest in the States and you should listen to the rightful
>inhabitants, the Native Americans
>
I listen to them. I have many Native American friends. Some of them
affiliated with AIM. Do I have the power to right the wrongs inflicted against
their ancestors?
>>Again you are using a Nazi-concept of nationality that is based up on
>bogus
>>>biological ideas.
>>
>>There is nothing bogue about it. Your ideas are "politically correct"
>>...TODAY...but times change and so does the collective unconscious.
>
>Biological facts don't change, Joe.
>
No, they don't, and remember that.
>>There is not such a thing as "Polish" or "Jewish" blood.
>
>[snip]
>The differences are genetic, little Sir Echo.
>
>Really? Take a genetic sample from a Nazi like you and from one of your
>Jewish friends. Give them to an expert in genetics and ask him whether he
>can show you the difference . He cannot. Simple biological facts.
Are Jews prone to tay Sachs disease? I am not.
>>Race has only to do with complexion, Joe. Read
>>>a book on biology
>>
>>A "modern" bogus, and "politically correct" book? I will pass...I can
>refer
>>you to biologists who will disagree with that contention--try Shockley, for
>>one.
>
>>>Oh no, you won't, because it is full of Allied
>>>propaganda.
>
>>No, it is not. It is simply politically correct Bockmist.
>
>Bockmist?
Yes, you know the word, don't you? Or will you claim that I made it up?
>No Joe, fact of the matter is you don't want to read a book that
>disagrees with your perceptions.
On the contrary...I read them all the time, just like I am reading and
responding to your post.
>Childish and stupid. That is the real
>Bockmist
>snip]
>
>>>I never
>>>claimed the entire SS were in Auschwitz.
>
>>I don't see why not...most of what you believe is equally foolish.
>
>The Einsatsgruppen weren't foolish, they knew what they had to do: murder
>Jews!
And many of those Jews they executed believed they had to murder Germans as
well. Quite tragic.
>
>>>In fact many of them were killing
>>>Jews and other people in Russia, as you know.
>>
>>Propaganda.
>Yeah, sure Joe. If you cannot deny a fact you call it "propaganda". Dr.
>Goebbles, more intelligent than you, would have reacted in a different way.
Tell us how he would have reacted. You seem to have an affinity for him.
>He would have tried linking the murders with the Russians o
Why? he wasn't a liar or a Soviet.
>or he would have
>proved that the Jews were temselves responsible for their dead. That is real
>propaganda!
I think you know quite a bit about propaganda and practice the art frequently.
>
>>>When I asked you names of
>>>Dutch people who think that the German invasion of The Netherlands can be
>>>justified you laughed at me.
>
>>How about Mussert?
>
>Which Mussert are you referring you? J. A. Mussert who served in the Dutch
>army in 1940 (when the gallant Germany attacked The Netherlands without any
>reason) or his brother Ir. A. A. Mussert, the Leader of one of the Dutch
>fascist parties?
Are you in doubt?
>A. A. (Anton) Mussert didn't justify the German invasion,
>but he accepted it and tried to become the Dutch Quisling. After the war he
>was tried and found guilty of, amongst others, the crime of high treason.
>He was shot.
>
Why am I not surprised?
>I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify the German
>invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead Dutch
>traitor and fascist. N
Never satisified, are you? How about van Tonningen?
>>>Now you are asking me to come up with specific
>>>cases. All right, but first you come up with the names of the Dutch
>citizens
>>>who died in Rotterdam.
>
>
>
>>I am sure you can find a list of them.
>
>Yes, I can, but then you are not interested.
>
>In almost every sentence he writes Joe shows us a sample of
>Nazi-ideology,
>>>>>of anti-Semitic thinking. Here we have another fine example.
>
>>>>>Bernhard
>
>
>>>>The only example I see here is your continued ignorance.
>>>
>>>Well, you being a Nazi-apologist this remark could be expected.
>
>>You don't know what to expect.
>
>Nein? Doch, mein Lieber.
>
>
ich? Dein Lieber?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>
>In <199809160559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, on 16 Sep 1998
>05:59:01 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>
>> They are NOT poles by blood. Do you happen to know what classic Judaism
>thinks
>> of Gentiles, BTW?
>
>there since the 10th century, not Poles?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
Depending upon the extent of admixture with the native Poles.....Residence does
not define nationality by blood.
Bernhard Boer
Debunks heeft geschreven in bericht
>>Message-id: <3604ce76...@news3.ibm.net>
>>
>
>>
>>Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
>>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>>
>
>That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
the
>bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
make
>them Zulus.
No, it doesn't, but it makes them South Africans, that's the point.
Bernhard
Bernhard Boer
Debunks heeft geschreven in bericht
>
>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>>Date: 9/16/98 7:46 AM EST
>>Message-id: <6toc3l$jb6$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
[snip]
>>The rounding up of Jews was a terrible crime.
>Well, there are crimes and there are "crimes." Rounding up people is quite
>different from killing them.
The rounding up was the prelude to the killing. Another point is of course
that this rounding up was forbidden under international law since the Jews
were in case of The Netherlands Dutch citizen.
[snip]
>>ROTFL again, Joe. Your whole vision on the Holocaust is anti-Semitic.
>
>Nonsense.
Well, you use Nazi terms as “Rasse”, you stated that the Jews in Poland were
no Poles by blood, you told me, a Dutchman, that the Dutchman who joined the
SS and German auxiliary forces were brave patriots, you deny people were
gassed in German run concentration camps, you claim France and Britain
started WW II and you wanted us to believe Hitler wanted no war at all. Add
al this up and what do you get? Yes, a Nazi.
>>Everybody who can read can see this.
>
>Really? why do so many people disagree with you then?
I have not read one posting that agrees with your points of views, so you
cannot talk about many people disagreeing with me. In earlier discussions
with others you fought your way out the same trap by telling that you
received many emails on the subject discussed and all those emails supported
you. Since emails are private nobody could check your claims. Please do not
come up with emails but show me a substantial number of postings agreeing
with your viewpoint.
[snip]
>>And become as fluent in German as you? No thank you.
>
>You should consider yourself lucky if you could speak as well as I can.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! ROTFLLL!!! Your jokes are improving Joe!
(Still you claim to be fluent in German but even a non-native speakers has
pointed out mistakes you made. I keep repeating this because you don’t seem
to understand what fluent means.)
[snip]
>>You attack and insult
>>survivors of the Holocaust by telling them there were no gassings.
>
>I have found no evidence to support this claim.
>
That is because you didn’t want to find them.
>You
>>attack and insult them that the fact they were rounded up was
"unfortunate".
>
>OK. It was fortunate then. are you happy now?
Of course I am not because you ridicule on of the most terrible crimes of
this century. I am also not happy now about the malicious way in which you
cut the postings of your opponents; you are always leaving out important
parts. You left out some important sentences that I will repeat:
It was far more than "unfortunate". By using this quite neutral word you
diminishing the nature of what happened. The rounding up of Jews was a
terrible crime.
And even worse: you don’t include a reference to your snipping like I do.
(People can read the original and see what I snipped.)
>You attack and insult Chuck Ferree, a fellow American who put his life on
>>the line to liberate Europe,
>
>Yeh--to liberate it for communism. And Chuck is no prim little girl scout.
Wrong on two accounts. The Allies, amongst whom Chuck Ferree, liberated
Europe from Nazism, a extremely evil ideology, they didn’t liberate it for
communism. Western Europe has never been under communist rule. And as far I
have read Chuck’s postings, he never has claimed to be a girl scout so you
lie again, Joe.
>>by telling him that what he saw didn't happen.
>
>Tell me what you see when you watch a magician perform....Eyes can deceive
you.
You mean the Allied soldiers who liberated the camps saw an illusion when
the saw the piles of bodies, when the saw the hunger stricken inmates? Well,
you hit just another low, Joe.
>>Well, well, Jeder hat sein' guter Jude, I presume. But I wonder what
happens
>>if you tell your Jewish friends that no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz and
>>that the rounding up of Jews in Europe during the war by the gallant
Germans
>>was unfortunate.
>
>I have told a few of them. One of them sees merit in the idea. so he will
now
>be a "bad Jew." Everyone has their own opinions.
He sees merit… well give him some time behind your computer and let him tell
us what he thinks exactly. But I notice your other Jewish friends do not
agree with your views.
>>>If your definition of citizenship
>>>>applied only Native Americans would be real Americans.
>>>
>>>Well, they are.
>>>
>>>>Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
>>>>Americans.
>>>
>>>Well, America is a polyglot country with many different races and
cultures
>>and
>>>ethicities all mixed in, more or less, and not comparable to the European
>>>nations, with the major exception of perhaps Russia.
>>
>>Following your theories on nationality I came to the conclusion that only
>>Native Americans are real Americans.
>
>In a sense they are, but due to conquest, American has now come to signify
>something completely different.
A shifting the subject! Nice evasion but you admit you do not believe in you
your own theories on nationality. You only talk about “real Poles” and
“guests” when the discussion is about Jewish Poles. How convenient!
>>But now you don't want
>>to apply your own theory on nationality to the States because it is a
>>polyglot country! If you would know anything about the history of Europe,
>>you would now that almost every European country was polyglot in 1939 (and
>>still is).
>
>Not in comparison to the US or South America.
An evasive remark and an untrue remark. Europe must be polyglot because a
large percentage of the Americans are of European stock. Simply look at a
language map of Europe printed in let’s say 1936 and admit you are wrong.
>>How many language were spoken in Poland in 1939?
>
>Who cares? How many are spoken in the US?
>
>>I can come up
>>with at least six, Polish, German, Jiddisch, Ukrainian, Russian,
Lithuanian.
>
>And?
Well, you told us that your theories about nationality didn’t apply to the
States because they are polyglot. So, your theories on nationality don’t
apply to polyglot countries and since Poland was a polyglot country in 1939
they didn’t apply to Poland and the Jews living there were Poles.
>>So Joe, if you would believe in your own
>>stupid theory about Jews being "guests" in Poland, you should admit that
>>you are a guest in the States and you should listen to the rightful
>>inhabitants, the Native Americans
>>
>
>I listen to them. I have many Native American friends. Some of them
>affiliated with AIM. Do I have the power to right the wrongs inflicted
against
>their ancestors?
The point is you stated that in your opinion the Jews in Poland were mere
guests. Applying your theories to the States the only conclusion possible
was that you and all other inhabitants of the States except the Native
Americans are guests. (But then you contradicted your theories by another
theory about polyglot countries. And since the States in 1998 and Poland in
1939 can only be classified as polyglot, your theory on nationality doesn’t
apply to these two countries.)
[snip]
>>>No, it is not. It is simply politically correct Bockmist.
>>
>>Bockmist?
>
>Yes, you know the word, don't you? Or will you claim that I made it up?
You cut my posting in a way people could think I don’t know what Bockmist
is. Therefore the original lines:
Bockmist? No Joe, fact of the matter is you don't want to read a book that
disagrees with your perceptions. Childish and stupid. That is the real
Bockmist.
No Bockmist this time but a real Schwindelei.
[snip]
>>The Einsatsgruppen weren't foolish, they knew what they had to do: murder
>>Jews! [eps, should read Einsatzgruppen]
>And many of those Jews they executed believed they had to murder Germans as
>well. Quite tragic.
>
First you admit that the Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews, then you try to
blame the Jews for this tragedy by claiming the Jews believed they had to
kill Germans. Of course there is no proof for this claim. But it is quite
obvious why you make this claim. If true they Einsatzgruppen were acting in
self defence and thus not guilty of any crime.
[snip]
>>I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify the German
>>invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead Dutch
>>traitor and fascist. {Mussert}
>
>Never satisified, are you? How about van Tonningen?
Well, you stated that there are Dutch people who think the German invasion
was a good thing. Then you came up with the name of a dead Dutch fascist.
Now you give us another name: van Tonningen. I presume you mean Rost van
Tonningen. Rost is not, as you seem to think, a first name but part of a
family name. Two people men called Rost van Tonningen played a role in The
Netherlands during the war. They were brothers. N.A. Rost van Tonningen
was an officer in the Dutch army. He fought the Germans and he most
certainly didn’t applaud the German invasion. Mr. (this doesn’t mean
“mister” but “meester in de rechten” = degree in law, comparable with the
French “maitre”) M. M. Rost van Tonningen was member of Parliament for the
largest Dutch fascist party. He most certainly adored Nazi Germany, but he
died shortly after the war. (Officially he committed suicide but it is also
possible his guards treated him so badly that he jumped from the third floor
of the jail. I happen to think the latter happened.)
So, Joe, you browsed trough some books on WW II and came up with the names
of two dead Dutch fascist. Still you claim there ARE (here and now) Dutch
people who think the German invasion of their country was a good thing.
Please come up with names of people who live.
Or are referring to the grandson of Mr. M.M. Rost van Tonningen, drs. M.M.
Rost van Tonningen? He is named after his father and grandfather Meinoud. I
know him personally and I can assure you he doesn’t think the invasion of
the gallant German army of The Netherlands was a desirable event.
[snip]
Bernhard
DeppityBob
Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
>>>
>Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>
That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as the
bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not make
them Zulus.<<
So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
bags.
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mandrake, for the love of Her Majesty and
the Continental Congress, get over here and
FEED ME THIS BELT!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gord McFee
03:10:54 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Well, well, Jeder hat sein' guter Jude, I presume. But I wonder what happens
> >if you tell your Jewish friends that no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz and
> >that the rounding up of Jews in Europe during the war by the gallant Germans
> >was unfortunate.
>
> I have told a few of them. One of them sees merit in the idea. so he will now
> be a "bad Jew." Everyone has their own opinions.
Err, Joe, just the other day you said you never discuss the Holocaust
with your Jewish friends. Were you fibbing then or now?
Gord McFee
03:12:03 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/16/98 12:11 PM EST
> >Message-id: <360cf01c...@news3.ibm.net>
> >
> >In <199809160559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, on 16 Sep 1998
> >05:59:01 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >> >Nationality is not defined by blood.
> >>
> >> They are NOT poles by blood. Do you happen to know what classic Judaism
> >thinks
> >> of Gentiles, BTW?
> >
> >How is a Pole defined "by blood"? Were the Jews of Luck, who had been
> >there since the 10th century, not Poles?
>
> Depending upon the extent of admixture with the native Poles.....Residence does
> not define nationality by blood.
You didn't answer my first question:
How is a Pole defined "by blood"?
Tell me, Joe. Let's say a German colony had settled in Luck in the 10th
century and lived there ever since. They had fought for Polish
independence, paid taxes, raised generations of children, learned and
spoken the Polish language. Would they be Poles?
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/16/98 10:07 AM EST
> >Message-id: <3604ce76...@news3.ibm.net>
> >
>
> >
> >Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
> >Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
> >the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>
> That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as the
> bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not make
> them Zulus.
Brilliant. The Führer would agree. After all, it is he who wrote:
<begin quote>
Diese Verpestung unseres Blutes, an der Hunderttausende unseres
Volkes wie blind vorübergehen, wird aber vom Juden heute planmäßig
betrieben. Planmäßig schänden diese schwarzen Völkerparasiten unsere
unerfahrenen, jungen blonden Mädchen und zerstören dadurch etwas, was
auf dieser Welt nicht mehr ersetzt werden kann.
This contamination of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our
people blindly ignore, is used by the Jew today according to plan.
These black parasites of the peoples deliberately violate our
inexperienced, young blond girls and thereby destroy something that
cannot be replaced in this world.
-- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol II, pages 629-30
<end quote>
Gord McFee
GMT, deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob) wrote:
> Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
>
> >>>
> >Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
> >Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
> >the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
> >
>
> That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as the
> bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not make
> them Zulus.<<
>
> So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
> years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
> bags.
Damn, Dep. I was waiting for Joe to figure that part out by himself and
you went and spoiled it. :-(
Debunks
>Message-id: <3614bb78...@news3.ibm.net>
>Tell me, Joe. Let's say a German colony had settled in Luck in the 10th
>century and lived there ever since. They had fought for Polish
>independence, paid taxes, raised generations of children, learned and
>spoken the Polish language. Would they be Poles?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time
They would be Germans by blood but Polish citizens. A Japanese who lives for
centuries in the USA is still Japanese by blood but an American citizen. See
how easy that was?
Debunks
>Message-id: <6ttp33$s8u$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>
>Debunks heeft geschreven in bericht
><19980916231054...@ng146.aol.com>...
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>>From: "Bernhard Boer" <bb...@worldonline.nl>
>>>Date: 9/16/98 7:46 AM EST
>>>Message-id: <6toc3l$jb6$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>[snip]
>
>>>The rounding up of Jews was a terrible crime.
>
>>Well, there are crimes and there are "crimes." Rounding up people is quite
>>different from killing them.
>
>
>The rounding up was the prelude to the killing.
That is your opinion. I disagree.
>Another point is of course
>that this rounding up was forbidden under international law since the Jews
>were in case of The Netherlands Dutch citizen.
From what I remember the Dutch assisted in these deportations.
>Well, you use Nazi terms as “Rasse”,
Well, whall we now remove the word race from the dictionary?
>you stated that the Jews in Poland were
>no Poles by blood
a fact. Jews by blood, and naturalized citizens of Holland.
> you told me, a Dutchman, that the Dutchman who joined the
>SS and German auxiliary forces were brave patriots,
A fact.
>you deny people were
>gassed in German run concentration camps,
I am still waiting for the evidence.
>you claim France and Britain
>started WW II
They declared war on Germany.
>and you wanted us to believe Hitler wanted no war at all.
Not with the west, he didn't.
>Add
>al this up and what do you get?
The truth.
>
>I have not read one posting that agrees with your points of views,
Then you only read MY posts?
>so you
>cannot talk about many people disagreeing with me.
Sure I can; but you cannot talk about everyone disagreeing with me.
>In earlier discussions
>with others you fought your way out the same trap by telling that you
>received many emails on the subject discussed and all those emails supported
>you. Si
Most email which I receive does indeed support me. A few do not.
>. Since emails are private nobody could check your claims.
And?
>Please do not
>come up with emails but show me a substantial number of postings agreeing
>with your viewpoint.
Have you read anything by any other people besides exterminationists in this
NG?
>
>>>And become as fluent in German as you? No thank you.
>>
>>You should consider yourself lucky if you could speak as well as I can.
>
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! ROTFLLL!!! Your jokes are improving Joe!
>
But not your poor sense of humor....
>(Still you claim to be fluent in German
I am. Discussion is over.
> I keep repeating this because you don’t seem
>to understand what fluent means.)
>
>[snip]
Rather it is you who does not understand. Poor tyke.
>
>>>You attack and insult
>>>survivors of the Holocaust by telling them there were no gassings.
>>
>>I have found no evidence to support this claim.
>>
>
>That is because you didn’t want to find them.
As if it is not flaunted in this NG everyday! Come up with something original
and convincing.
>>You
>>>attack and insult them that the fact they were rounded up was
>"unfortunate".
>>
>>OK. It was fortunate then. are you happy now?
>
>Of course I am not because you ridicule on of the most terrible crimes of
>this century.
If it were an actual crime I would not ridicule it. You blithely ignore those
instances where I posted convincing atrocities committed in the camps.
>I am also not happy now about the malicious way in which you
>cut the postings of your opponents;
I have a right to respond to whatever I feel is pertinent. No one prevents you
from reposting.
> you are always leaving out important
>parts.
Example? I don't think so.
>You left out some important sentences that I will repeat:
>It was far more than "unfortunate".
I left that in.
>By using this quite neutral word you
>diminishing the nature of what happened. The rounding up of Jews was a
>terrible crime.
>
I left that in. Do you have any sense of reality?
>And even worse: you don’t include a reference to your snipping like I do.
>(People can read the original and see what I snipped.)
That's nice. They can also access Deja news for your gems of wisdom which is
like finding a needle in the haystack.
>>You attack and insult Chuck Ferree, a fellow American who put his life on
>>>the line to liberate Europe,
>>
>>Yeh--to liberate it for communism. And Chuck is no prim little girl scout.
>Wrong on two accounts.
RIGHT on BOTH accounts.
>The Allies, amongst whom Chuck Ferree, liberated
>Europe from Nazism,
And enslaved half of Europe for the benefit of Stalin. Some
"liberators"....they didn't even bomb the raillines from Hungary to
Auschwitz--some liberators--they stood by while the Germans crushed the Polish
Home army in 1944--some LIBERATORS! LOL!
>a extremely evil ideology,
As if communism isn't! Do you happen to know that many American States had
Nuremberg-like laws still in effect in 1960? Some LIBERATORS! Phonies and
hypocrites.
>they didn’t liberate it for
>communism.
Sure they did.
>Western Europe has never been under communist rule
No one said it was, but that never prevented them from trying.
>And as far I
>have read Chuck’s postings, he never has claimed to be a girl scout so you
>lie again, Joe.
Did I say he did?
>>>by telling him that what he saw didn't happen.
>>
>>Tell me what you see when you watch a magician perform....Eyes can deceive
>you.
>You mean the Allied soldiers who liberated the camps saw an illusion when
>the saw the piles of bodies,
No, they saw bodies all right....and they helped to create that unholy sight,
and then obscennely used the garish conditions to propagandize and moralize to
Germans..They and thier policies were hypocirsy in action.
>
>when the saw the hunger stricken inmates?
And? If they hadn't been bombing all the rail lines and food stores, they
would have been properly fed.
>I have told a few of them. One of them sees merit in the idea. so he will
>now
>>be a "bad Jew." Everyone has their own opinions.
>
>He sees merit… well give him some time behind your computer and let him tell
>us what he thinks exactly
I don't think he interested in posting his opinions here.
>But I notice your other Jewish friends do not
>agree with your views.
>
Not on that subject, they don't. They have simply believed the hype--and I
can't blame them, It is quite overwhelming.
>>>>If your definition of citizenship
>>>>>applied only Native Americans would be real Americans.
>>>>
>>>>Well, they are.
>>>>
>>>>>Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
>>>>>Americans.
>>>>
>>>>Well, America is a polyglot country with many different races and
>cultures
>>>and
>>>>ethicities all mixed in, more or less, and not comparable to the European
>>>>nations, with the major exception of perhaps Russia.
>>>
>>>Following your theories on nationality I came to the conclusion that only
>>>Native Americans are real Americans.
>>
>>In a sense they are, but due to conquest, American has now come to signify
>>something completely different.
>
>A shifting the subject! Nice evasion but you admit you do not believe in you
>your own theories on nationality.
Of course I do. It is you who doesn't.
>You only talk about “real Poles” and
>“guests” when the discussion is about Jewish Poles. How convenient!
"Jewish Poles" is a contradiction in terms.
>>But now you don't want
>>>to apply your own theory on nationality to the States because it is a
>>>polyglot country! If you would know anything about the history of Europe,
>>>you would now that almost every European country was polyglot in 1939 (and
>>>still is).
>>
>>Not in comparison to the US or South America.
>
>
>An evasive remark and an untrue remark.
Not at all.
>Europe must be polyglot because a
>large percentage of the Americans are of European stock. S
And how do you figure that? Such convoluted logic! No wonder you are an
exterminationist.
>Simply look at a
>language map of Europe printed in let’s say 1936 and admit you are wrong.
I am not wrong,.
>>How many language were spoken in Poland in 1939?
>>
>>Who cares? How many are spoken in the US?
>>
>>>I can come up
>>>with at least six, Polish, German, Jiddisch, Ukrainian, Russian,
>Lithuanian.
>>
>>And?
>
>Well, you told us that your theories about nationality didn’t apply to the
>States because they are polyglot.
You know the history of Poland as well as I do. These territorial acquisitions
add no merit to your arguments.
>So, your theories on nationality don’t
>apply to polyglot countries and since Poland was a polyglot country in 1939
There is no compariosn between Polish society and the USA.
>hey didn’t apply to Poland and the Jews living there were Poles.
>
>
The Jews living there were Jews. Period. Where did these Jews originally come
from--Poland? LOL!
>>So Joe, if you would believe in your own
>>>stupid theory about Jews being "guests" in Poland, you should admit that
>>>you are a guest in the States and you should listen to the rightful
>>>inhabitants, the Native Americans
>>>
>>
>>I listen to them. I have many Native American friends. Some of them
>>affiliated with AIM. Do I have the power to right the wrongs inflicted
>against
>>their ancestors?
>
>The point is you stated that in your opinion the Jews in Poland were mere
>guests.
Is that not how they thought of themselves for the most -part?
>Applying your theories to the States the only conclusion possible
>was that you and all other inhabitants of the States except the Native
>Americans are guests.
Jews generally retain their culture and identity. Americans, being polyglot,
do not. No comparison here.
>And since the States in 1998 and Poland in
>1939 can only be classified as polyglot, your theory on nationality doesn’t
>apply to these two countries.)
>
>[snip]
Of course it does. Your error is trying to compare two dissimilar cultures.
>>>No, it is not. It is simply politically correct Bockmist.
>>>
>>>Bockmist?
>>
>>Yes, you know the word, don't you? Or will you claim that I made it up?
>
>You cut my posting in a way people could think I don’t know what Bockmist
>is. Therefore the original lines:
>Bockmist? No Joe, fact of the matter is you don't want to read a book that
>disagrees with your perceptions. Childish and stupid. That is the real
>Bockmist.
>No Bockmist this time but a real Schwindelei.
>
>[snip]
Deine.
>>The Einsatsgruppen weren't foolish, they knew what they had to do: murder
>>>Jews! [eps, should read Einsatzgruppen]
>>And many of those Jews they executed believed they had to murder Germans as
>>well. Quite tragic.
>>
>First you admit that the Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews, then you try to
>blame the Jews for this tragedy by claiming the Jews believed they had to
>kill Germans.
Er--some of them WERE killing Germans.
>Of course there is no proof for this claim.
Do you believe the Jews? If so, it is their claim.
>If true they Einsatzgruppen were acting in
>self defence and thus not guilty of any crime.
>
>[snip]
>
No, if they were attacked they would be acting in self-defense, literally
speaking---Gerkmans WERE attacked, and it was their duty to investigate,
arrest, and punish the perpetrators. It was all an unholy business
nonetheless.
>>I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify the German
>>>invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead Dutch
>>>traitor and fascist. {Mussert}
>>
>>Never satisified, are you? How about van Tonningen?
>
>Well, you stated that there are Dutch people who think the German invasion
>was a good thing. Then you came up with the name of a dead Dutch fascist.
Is MRS. Van Tonnigen deceased?
>Now you give us another name: van Tonningen. I presume you mean Rost van
>Tonningen. Rost is not, as you seem to think, a first name but part of a
>family name. Two people men called Rost van Tonningen played a role in The
>Netherlands during the war. They were brothers. N.A. Rost van Tonningen
>was an officer in the Dutch army. He fought the Germans and he most
>certainly didn’t applaud the German invasion. Mr. (this doesn’t mean
Obviously I was not referring to him.
>) M. M. Rost van Tonningen was member of Parliament for the
>largest Dutch fascist party. He most certainly adored Nazi Germany, but he
>died shortly after the war.
Not his wife.
>(Officially he committed suicide but it is also
>possible his guards treated him so badly that he jumped from the third floor
>of the jail. I happen to think the latter happened.)
So do I. Such criminal behavior was quite common throughout Europe at the
time.
>So, Joe, you browsed trough some books on WW II and came up with the names
>of two dead Dutch fascist.
I didn't browse through anything. I cited what you asked for from memory.
>Still you claim there ARE (here and now) Dutch
>people who think the German invasion of their country was a good thing.
Of course.
>Please come up with names of people who live.
To add to your list of people to hound and persecute? I think not.
>Or are referring to the grandson of Mr. M.M. Rost van Tonningen, drs. M.M.
>Rost van Tonningen? He is named after his father and grandfather Meinoud. I
>know him personally and I can assure you he doesn’t think the invasion of
>the gallant German army of The Netherlands was a desirable event.
>
>[snip]
Who cares if he is as brainwashed as you are?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>
>In <19980916231054...@ng146.aol.com>, on 17 Sep 1998
>03:10:54 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >Well, well, Jeder hat sein' guter Jude, I presume. But I wonder what
>happens
>> >if you tell your Jewish friends that no Jews were gassed in Auschwitz and
>> >that the rounding up of Jews in Europe during the war by the gallant
>Germans
>> >was unfortunate.
>>
>now
>> be a "bad Jew." Everyone has their own opinions.
>
>with your Jewish friends. Were you fibbing then or now?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
I said it is not a common subject for discussion. Some of them mention it on
their own from time to time and it is clear that they would disagree with my
opinions. Others, like David Cole, agree. I could and did discuss it with him
for obvious reasons.
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/18/98 3:55 AM EST
>Message-id: <6tt7cn$hdu$2...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>
>Debunks heeft geschreven in bericht
>>>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>>>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>>>
>>
>>That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
>the
>>bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
>make
>>them Zulus.
>
>
>Bernhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I KNOW what your point was, but you are still ignoring mine.
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/18/98 11:51 PM EST
>Message-id: <19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
>
>>>>
>>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>>
>
>That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
>the
>bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
>make
>them Zulus.<<
>
>years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
>bags.
>
Go ahead. be prepared for about 6 months worth of packing. Europeans are
certainly Americans but that does not prevent themselves from being called
ITALIAN AMERICANS, GERMAN AMERICANS, OR POLISH AMERICANS does it? Should I now
prepare to pack your backpack?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/20/98 10:37 AM EST
>Message-id: <360c1cc4...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>In <19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>, on 19 Sep 1998 04:51:01
>GMT, deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob) wrote:
>
>>
>> >>>
>> >Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
>> >Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>> >the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>> >
>>
>> That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
>the
>> bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
>make
>> them Zulus.<<
>>
>> So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
>> years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
>> bags.
>
>you went and spoiled it. :-(
>
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time
Joe has since replied to this puerile and fallacious argument.
DeppityBob
Alex Vange hyperventilated sounds like these:
>>
DeppityBob <deppi...@aol.compugeek> wrote in article
<19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>...
>
> So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about
500
> years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack
your
> bags.
The United States is a country that was founded by White people.
White people built a great civilization in America. There were some
primitive savages here before them but they didn't build a great
civilization.<<
Yeah, those primitive savages whose Iriquois Confederacy was the model for the
American representative democracy. Primitive savages who built a thousand years
ago, in New Mexico, the world's biggest apartment building (until the 19th
Century). Primitive savages whose way of life, whose religion, and whose art
were all one and the same. They lived simply, as God intended them to, until
the Europeans ran over them. (Unless you can find some Biblical reference that
indicates that people are supposed to develop technology...?)
And I have to admit, this is a great civilization the Europeans built here.
Look at all their accomplishments! Love Canal; Times Beach; Three Mile Island;
mercury/PCB-contaminated fish in the Great Lakes; rivers you can't touch (like
Greasy Grass in South Dakota, contaminated by uranium tailings from mining);
acid rain; rivers killed by agricultural runoff; toxic algae blooms; hordes of
extinct animals; filthy brown air, even over the Rockies, even over the Grand
Canyon, even in the Smoky Mountains; soil laced with PCBs, lead, and other
dioxins; diseases that have grown so inured to antibiotics that we can't treat
them anymore (new strains of TB); new versions of old diseases (hepatitis-C);
constant noise and stress; hormones in your beef, screwing up your kids'
maturation (if you've noticed, kids ARE, without a doubt, reaching puberty at
much earlier ages); the eroding ozone layer (notice how much more burning the
sun is now, than it was when you were a kid?); a virtual global epidemic of
cancer due to industrial dumping (not to mention horrendous rates in birth
defects, infant mortality, and lowered immunity); the depletion of fresh water
*worldwide*, resulting in rampant cholera, diptheria, TB, and other diseases;
depleted resources for boviculture; depleted fisheries and shrimperies... And
much much more! And then there's the intangibles. Worry over nuclear accident
or nuclear war; stress from overwork; uncertainty of terrorism; pressure,
noise, and fears associated with travel (planes crashing, trains derailing,
cars colliding); the constant noise of "information" (TV, radio, computers,
papers, magazines, et al); the ease with which someone may be killed (bullets,
bombs) at random...
Yeah, wonderful times. Maybe the "primitive savages" didn't have such a bad
idea--their worries were generally limited to "Will I get hurt hunting for
elk?" or "will there be enough rain for corn this year?" Unless there were
wars--and then, women and children did NOT get killed, and none of them
wondered if they would awaken to a blasted, nuclear hell.
Find a better argument than air conditioning, OK?
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/19/98 3:12 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3614bb78...@news3.ibm.net>
>
> >Tell me, Joe. Let's say a German colony had settled in Luck in the 10th
> >century and lived there ever since. They had fought for Polish
> >independence, paid taxes, raised generations of children, learned and
> >spoken the Polish language. Would they be Poles?
>
> They would be Germans by blood but Polish citizens. A Japanese who lives for
> centuries in the USA is still Japanese by blood but an American citizen. See
> how easy that was?
Yes, thank you.
So, the German colony -- which has lived in Poland for 1000 years,
speaks no German, knows no German songs, knows no German people, has
never seen Germany, may never even have heard of Germany -- nonetheless
remains German "by blood". This in spite of any intermarrying that may
have taken place over 1000 years. Is that your position?
While we are at it, could you explain to me the components of German
blood? In what proportion does which ingredients have to be present for
the blood to be German?
If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
that your position?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
> >Date: 9/18/98 11:51 PM EST
> >Message-id: <19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>
> >
> >
> >Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
> >
> >>>>
> >>Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
> >>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
> >>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
> >>
> >
> >That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
> >the
> >bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
> >make
> >them Zulus.<<
> >
> >So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
> >years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
> >bags.
>
> Go ahead. be prepared for about 6 months worth of packing. Europeans are
> certainly Americans but that does not prevent themselves from being called
> ITALIAN AMERICANS, GERMAN AMERICANS, OR POLISH AMERICANS does it? Should I now
> prepare to pack your backpack?
Or Jewish Americans? Is your point that Jews are defined by blood, by
nationality, by ancestry, by culture, or what?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/21/98 9:25 PM EST
>Message-id: <3612ee41...@news3.ibm.net>
>> >Date: 9/19/98 3:12 PM EST
>> >Message-id: <3614bb78...@news3.ibm.net>
>>
>> >Tell me, Joe. Let's say a German colony had settled in Luck in the 10th
>> >century and lived there ever since. They had fought for Polish
>> >independence, paid taxes, raised generations of children, learned and
>> >spoken the Polish language. Would they be Poles?
>>
>> They would be Germans by blood but Polish citizens. A Japanese who lives
>for
>> centuries in the USA is still Japanese by blood but an American citizen.
>See
>> how easy that was?
>
>Yes, thank you.
>
>So, the German colony -- which has lived in Poland for 1000 years,
>speaks no German, knows no German songs, knows no German people, has
>never seen Germany, may never even have heard of Germany -- nonetheless
>remains German "by blood". This in spite of any intermarrying that may
>have taken place over 1000 years. Is that your position?
>
If they have not intermarried with the host population, they are still German
by blood.
>While we are at it, could you explain to me the components of German
>blood? In what proportion does which ingredients have to be present for
>the blood to be German?
>
Read the Nuremberg laws. I will defer to them.
>If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
>years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
>should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
>that your position?
No, they were Jews, depending upon the admixture of blood.
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>Date: 9/21/98 9:25 PM EST
>Message-id: <3612ee41...@news3.ibm.net>
>If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
>years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
>should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
>that your position?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time
>
Apparently you are also asking for a personal opinion here, although I have
given it many times before. I do not approve of the way German Jews were
treated in general, and wish events could have worked out differently, but,
remember, that out of the pain of suffering and injustice, a new nation was
born.
Debunks
>
>In <19980920200451...@ng72.aol.com>, on 21 Sep 1998 00:04:51
>GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host nations.
Jews are of the seed of Abraham--is that not how they define themselves? This
is simply a fact. Since I am not a racist or anti-semite, I prefer not to get
in a long drawn out discussion over this topic.
DeppityBob
Debunksie, who is such a coward he doesn't even post a profile on AOL, wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>Date: 9/20/98 10:37 AM EST
>Message-id: <360c1cc4...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>In <19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>, on 19 Sep 1998 04:51:01
>GMT, deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob) wrote:
>
>> Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
>>
>> >>>
>> >Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
>> >Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>> >the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>> >
>>
>> That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
>the
>> bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
>make
>> them Zulus.<<
>>
>> So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
>> years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
>> bags.
>
>Damn, Dep. I was waiting for Joe to figure that part out by himself and
>you went and spoiled it. :-(
>
>--
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time
Joe has since replied to this puerile and fallacious argument.<<
Not that he made a damn bit of sense when he did, or can take responsibility
for having shot himself in the foot with it.
DeppityBob
Debunksie, the coward who shoots himself in the foot, wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Date: 9/18/98 11:51 PM EST
>Message-id: <19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
>
>>>>
>>Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
>>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
>>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
>>
>
>That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands as
>the
>bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
>make
>them Zulus.<<
>
>So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
>years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack your
>bags.
>
>Dep
Go ahead. be prepared for about 6 months worth of packing. Europeans are
certainly Americans but that does not prevent themselves from being called
ITALIAN AMERICANS, GERMAN AMERICANS, OR POLISH AMERICANS does it? Should I now
prepare to pack your backpack?<<
Hey, I am part Potawatomi, bubba. I get to stay.
DeppityBob
Debunksie, the shudder that walks like a man, wrote:
>>
I KNOW what your point was, but you are still ignoring mine.<<
How can we, it being on top of your head and all?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Message-id: <19980921235221...@ng87.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunksie, the shudder that walks like a man, wrote:
>
>>>
>I KNOW what your point was, but you are still ignoring mine.<<
>
>How can we, it being on top of your head and all?
>
>Dep
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have always wondered how you have managed to ignore yours, which is
practicably situated underneath your bum.
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Message-id: <19980921235048...@ng87.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunksie, the coward who shoots himself in the foot, wrote:
>
Strange comment, coming from a barney Fyfe clone.
>Hey, I am part Potawatomi, bubba. I get to stay.
>
>Dep
>
You are also part idiot, and that means you will have to pack your bags. What
are their names, anyway?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Message-id: <19980921234913...@ng87.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunksie, who is such a coward he doesn't even post a profile on AOL, wrote:
>
Why should I? Did you want to get in touch with me?
John Morris
03:29:34 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>>From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
>>Date: 9/21/98 9:25 PM EST
>>Message-id: <3612ee41...@news3.ibm.net>
[snip]
>>While we are at it, could you explain to me the components of German
>>blood? In what proportion does which ingredients have to be present for
>>the blood to be German?
>Read the Nuremberg laws. I will defer to them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
>>years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
>>should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
>>that your position?
>No, they were Jews, depending upon the admixture of blood.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Previously, in the same thread:
<quote>
From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
Date: 22 Sep 1998 03:34:42 GMT
Message-ID: <19980921233442...@ng93.aol.com>
Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with
host nations. Jews are of the seed of Abraham--is that not how they
define themselves? This is simply a fact.
Since I am not a racist or anti-semite, I prefer not to get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in a long drawn out discussion over this topic.
</quote>
ROTFL!!!!
Can Joe Bellinger say "performative contradiction"?
Hey, Curdles! Is *Joe* going to preserve our way of life, too?
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Bernhard Boer
Again my news server didn't sent Bellinger's response and again I had to
rely on DejNews.
>[snip]
>
>>>>The rounding up of Jews was a terrible crime.
>
>>>Well, there are crimes and there are "crimes." Rounding up people is
quite
>>>different from killing them.
>
>
>>The rounding up was the prelude to the killing.
>That is your opinion. I disagree.
But this "opinion" is based on the fact that more than 100,000 Jewish Dutch
citizens were missing after 1945. You can disagree with what and who you
want, but you cannot disagree with this fact. Surely you have some
explanation for the disappearance of so many people or do you take your
usual shortcut and tell us the facts are fabricated?
>>Another point is of course
>>that this rounding up was forbidden under international law since the Jews
>>were in case of The Netherlands Dutch citizen.
>From what I remember the Dutch assisted in these deportations.
Not "the" Dutch assisted in these deportations, but many did indeed help the
Germans. Many helped their fellow countrymen and thousands of Jews could
hide from the German police.
The point I made was not about Dutch collaborators. I have often stated that
many Dutch people aided the invadors of their country. The point I raised
was the question of legality. In another tread you tried to justify German
actions against Greek civilians by pointing to international law. Well,
international law forbade the deportation of foreign civilians to
concentration camps. You dodged this point as you have dodged other point
that you couldn't rationalise away.
>>Well, you use Nazi terms as "Rasse",
>Well, whall we now remove the word race from the dictionary?
Of course not. Again one of your stupid remarks. But Nazi's like you use
this biological term wrongly.
>>you stated that the Jews in Poland were
>>no Poles by blood
>a fact. Jews by blood, and naturalized citizens of Holland.
Your knowledge of Dutch history and Dutch law is a "lachertje". You have
really no idea what you are talking about. Unlike your beloved Nazi-Germany
The Netherlands had no laws like the Nuremberg Laws. Nationality was defined
in a law I referred to earlier postings : de wet op het Nederlanderschap.
Nationality had nothing to do with "blood". The law made no distinction
between people of "Jewish" and "Dutch" blood because that distinction does
only exists in the mind of people like you who have a very limited knowledge
of biology.
Dutch Jews had and have the same rights as their non-Jewish countrymen. They
were born as Dutch citizens. Naturalisation was very complicated affair:
Parliament had to vote on every application for Dutch citizenship. Where you
got the idea that Dutch Jews had to apply for citizenship is an enigma and
as usual you cannot come up with documentation on the subject because it
doesn't exists.
>> you told me, a Dutchman, that the Dutchman who joined the
>>SS and German auxiliary forces were brave patriots,
>A fact.
People who join armed forces of a country that invaded their country without
any justification are called traitors, not patriots.
>>you deny people were
>>gassed in German run concentration camps,
>I am still waiting for the evidence.
Well, the evidence is there, but you deny it.
>>you claim France and Britain
>>started WW II
>They declared war on Germany.
On September 1 1939 Germany invaded Poland. This attack started WW II. But I
wouldn't be suprised when you will tell us that the fake attack on the
German radio station in Gleiwitz really happened and that the German
invasion of Poland was therefore justified.
>>and you wanted us to believe Hitler wanted no war at all.
>Not with the west, he didn't.
A lie as history showed.
>>Add
>>al this up and what do you get?
>The truth.
The truth is that you have a Nazi-agenda.
>>In earlier discussions
>>with others you fought your way out the same trap by telling that you
>>received many emails on the subject discussed and all those emails
supported
>>you. Si
>Most email which I receive does indeed support me. A few do not.
Yeah, yeah, Joe and you want us to believe this?
[snip]
>>>>And become as fluent in German as you? No thank you.
>>
>>>You should consider yourself lucky if you could speak as well as I can.
>
>>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! ROTFLLL!!! Your jokes are improving Joe!
>
>But not your poor sense of humor....
A childish remark, Joe.
>>(Still you claim to be fluent in German
>I am. Discussion is over.
You are not as shown by native speakers. Actually we have never discussed
this point because you do not want to face reality. Even I, a Dutchman,
could point out mistakes in your German. Your answer was and is: you are all
wrong, I am fluent in German. You can repeat this mantra over and over again
but only people who don't speak German will believe you. There wasn't and
isn't a discussion. There is only a silly American who believes his own
lies.
> >I keep repeating this because you don't seem
>>to understand what fluent means.)
>
>>[snip]
>Rather it is you who does not understand. Poor tyke.
You have claimed several times that you do not attack people personally.
Since I never made the stupid claim to be fluent in another language than my
mother tongue, I look words that I do not know up. Tyke is not a word used
by a man who only attacks the views of his opponents. You have exposed
yourself again as a liar.
[snip]
>>Of course I am not because you ridicule on of the most terrible crimes of
>>this century.
>If it were an actual crime I would not ridicule it. You blithely ignore
those
>instances where I posted convincing atrocities committed in the camps.
If you had written the truth, I wouldn't have ignored your postings on the
camps, but your posting are full of lies.
[snip]
>> you are always leaving out important
>>parts.
>Example? I don't think so.
I have given examples.
>>You left out some important sentences that I will repeat:
>I>t was far more than "unfortunate".
>I left that in.
>>By using this quite neutral word you
>>diminishing the nature of what happened. The rounding up of Jews was a
>>terrible crime.
>
>I left that in. Do you have any sense of reality?
I do, but you don't. It is a pity you believe your own lies.
>>And even worse: you don't include a reference to your snipping like I do.
>>(People can read the original and see what I snipped.)
>That's nice. They can also access Deja news for your gems of wisdom which
is
>like finding a needle in the haystack.
They have to because you cut and past in a malicious way.
[snip]
>>The Allies, amongst whom Chuck Ferree, liberated
>>Europe from Nazism,
>And enslaved half of Europe for the benefit of Stalin. Some
>"liberators"....they didn't even bomb the raillines from Hungary to
>Auschwitz--some liberators--they stood by while the Germans crushed the
Polish
>Home army in 1944--some LIBERATORS! LOL!
Baffling sentences. Stalin used to be an ally of that other dictator. Only
when Hitler betrayed his ally Stalin and the Western Allies fought side by
side. Even you must know this. And even you must know that the Western
Allies didn't trust Stalin. It was a case of "anyone who fights my enemies
is my ally".
>>a extremely evil ideology,
>As if communism isn't! Do you happen to know that many American States had
>Nuremberg-like laws still in effect in 1960? Some LIBERATORS! Phonies and
>hypocrites.
Still justifying Nazi-crimes by pointing to wrongs on the other side. Of
course communism was an evil ideology, but that is not the point. The point
is that Nazism was evil. You cannot play down Nazi crimes by pointing to
crimes committed by communists.
>>they didn't liberate it for
>>communism.
>Sure they did.
>>Western Europe has never been under communist rule
>No one said it was, but that never prevented them from trying.
Incredible: first you say the Western Allies liberated Western Europe for
communism and a sentence further you deny that statement.
>>>by telling him that what he saw didn't happen.
>>
>>Tell me what you see when you watch a magician perform....Eyes can deceive
>.you.
[snip]
>>>You mean the Allied soldiers who liberated the camps saw an illusion when
>>>the saw the piles of bodies,
>>No, they saw bodies all right....and they helped to create that unholy
sight,
>>and then obscennely used the garish conditions to propagandize and
moralize to
>>Germans..They and thier policies were hypocirsy in action.
The unhloy sight was created by the German guards, not by the Allied
soldiers.
>>when the saw the hunger stricken inmates?
>And? If they hadn't been bombing all the rail lines and food stores, they
>would have been properly fed.
Read your own lines about the raillines to Auschwitz a few sentences above.
Now you criticise the Allies for bombing the railroads to the camps! And
there is no evidence that the Germans wanted to feed the inmates properly.
The death rate was already extremely high before the Allied started bombing
the railroads intensively.
[snip]
>>>>>If your definition of citizenship
>>>>>>applied only Native Americans would be real Americans.
>>>>
>>>>>Well, they are.
>>>>
>>>>>>Joe and almost all other Americans expelled because they aren't true
>>>>>>Americans.
>>>>
>>>>>Well, America is a polyglot country with many different races and
>cultures
>>>>and
>>>>ethicities all mixed in, more or less, and not comparable to the
European
>>>>nations, with the major exception of perhaps Russia.
>>>
>>>>Following your theories on nationality I came to the conclusion that
only
>>>>Native Americans are real Americans.
>>
>>I>n a sense they are, but due to conquest, American has now come to
signify
>>>something completely different.
>
>>A shifting the subject! Nice evasion but you admit you do not believe in
you
>>your own theories on nationality.
>Of course I do. It is you who doesn't.
I merely tried to show how inconsistent your theories are. They apply to
Poland because you want us to believe the Jewish Poles were no Poles. But
they do not apply to your own country because you than have to admit you are
a "guest" in the States and not a real American.
[snip]
>>So, your theories on nationality don't
>>apply to polyglot countries and since Poland was a polyglot country in
1939
>There is no compariosn between Polish society and the USA.
Of course there are many comparisons between the two.
>>hey didn't apply to Poland and the Jews living there were Poles.
>The Jews living there were Jews. Period. Where did these Jews originally
come
>from--Poland? LOL!
Were did the Poles come from? When did the Poles arrive in what is now
Poland? Idiot.
[snip]
>>>I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify the German
>>>>invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead
Dutch
>>>>traitor and fascist. {Mussert}
>>
>>>Never satisified, are you? How about van Tonningen?
>
>>Well, you stated that there are Dutch people who think the German invasion
>>was a good thing. Then you came up with the name of a dead Dutch fascist.
>Is MRS. Van Tonnigen deceased?
You don't even know her correct name! It is Rost van Tonningen, fool. And
yes, she is not dead and yes she has still her Nazi-believes.
>>Now you give us another name: van Tonningen. I presume you mean Rost van
>>Tonningen. Rost is not, as you seem to think, a first name but part of a
>>family name. Two people men called Rost van Tonningen played a role in The
>>Netherlands during the war. They were brothers. N.A. Rost van Tonningen
>>was an officer in the Dutch army. He fought the Germans and he most
>>certainly didn't applaud the German invasion. Mr. (this doesn't mean
>Obviously I was not referring to him.
You didn't know to which Rost van Tonningen you were referring otherwise you
would have written his name correctly. You didn't know there were in fact
two brothers called Rost van Tonnningen.
>> M. M. Rost van Tonningen was member of Parliament for the
>>largest Dutch fascist party. He most certainly adored Nazi Germany, but he
>>died shortly after the war.
>Not his wife.
But you were not talking about her, you were talking about van Tonningen,
not about MRS. Van Tonningen.
>>(Officially he committed suicide but it is also
>>possible his guards treated him so badly that he jumped from the third
floor
>>of the jail. I happen to think the latter happened.)
>So do I. Such criminal behavior was quite common throughout Europe at the
>time.
Come on, Joe, you want me to believe you know anything about this specific
case? You cannot read Dutch so therefore your knowledge on the case can only
be limited. In fact you are of course on auto pilot again.
>>So, Joe, you browsed trough some books on WW II and came up with the names
>>of two dead Dutch fascist.
>I didn't browse through anything. I cited what you asked for from memory.
Looking for facts is indeed not one of your virtues. And now you want us to
believe you cited from memory. If you had read something on the subject you
had at least written the name of the traitor correctly. But even after my
posting you still write about "van Tonningen". The correct name is Rost van
Tonningen.
>>Still you claim there ARE (here and now) Dutch
>>people who think the German invasion of their country was a good thing.
>Of course.
>>Please come up with names of people who live.
>To add to your list of people to hound and persecute? I think not.
Evasion noted. You try to justify your silence by making the ridiculous
claim I hound people. The real reason for your silence is of course that
your knowledge of Dutch history is extremely limited and you do not want
expose this fact. Just read a few good books on the subject before you try
to lecture me on the history of my country.
>>Or are referring to the grandson of Mr. M.M. Rost van Tonningen, drs. M.M.
>>Rost van Tonningen? He is named after his father and grandfather Meinoud.
I
>>know him personally and I can assure you he doesn't think the invasion of
>>the gallant German army of The Netherlands was a desirable event.
>
>[snip]
>Who cares if he is as brainwashed as you are?
So you are only interested in the views of people who agree with your
Nazi-views! Revisionism at its best.
Bernhard
DeppityBob
>>>Debunksie, the shudder that walks like a man, wrote:
>
>>>
>I KNOW what your point was, but you are still ignoring mine.<<
>
>How can we, it being on top of your head and all?
>
>Dep
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have always wondered how you have managed to ignore yours, which is
practicably situated underneath your bum.<<
No, that would be the tack I have placed on my chair, to remind me of what a
constant irritant, yet actually minor threat, Revisionists are.
DeppityBob
Debunks, who gargles with Drano, wrote:
>>>
>Debunksie, who is such a coward he doesn't even post a profile on AOL, wrote:
>
Why should I? Did you want to get in touch with me?<<
Uhhhhh not in particular no. But I just think it *is* a tetch peculiar that you
Revisionist guys are full of he-man Seig Heil bluster and stuff, yet don't even
have the cojones to put up a profile. I mean, mine may be comical, but at least
I *have* one. AND it includes my general living area. I even, from time to
time, put my *real name* on a post--see?
Dep (Scot Murphy, Man With a Spine)
DeppityBob
Debunksie, the Booger With a Vocabulary, wrote:
>>>
>Debunksie, the coward who shoots himself in the foot, wrote:
>
Strange comment, coming from a barney Fyfe clone.<<
Since I am feeling a tad light-hearted today, I'll point out that it's
capital-B Barney and F-I-F-E, but I am just correcting the spelling and not
making any sort of connective issue about it.
>Hey, I am part Potawatomi, bubba. I get to stay.
>
>Dep
>
>>You are also part idiot,<<
Only the German part.
>>and that means you will have to pack your bags. What
are their names, anyway?<<
My bags don't have names. Sheesh. And you call ME an idiot.
Dep
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
[deleted]
> >Or Jewish Americans? Is your point that Jews are defined by blood, by
> >nationality, by ancestry, by culture, or what?
>
> Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host nations.
Admixture of what?
> Jews are of the seed of Abraham--is that not how they define themselves? This
> is simply a fact. Since I am not a racist or anti-semite, I prefer not to get
> in a long drawn out discussion over this topic.
You raised it. Not slithering away, are we?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
Gord McFee
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/21/98 9:25 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3613f1d6...@news3.ibm.net>
> >
> >In <19980920200451...@ng72.aol.com>, on 21 Sep 1998 00:04:51
> >GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >> >From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
> >> >Date: 9/18/98 11:51 PM EST
> >> >Message-id: <19980919005101...@ng27.aol.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Debunks sneezed, and it looked a lot like this:
> >> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>Just as an example. The Jews had been in Luck since the 10th century,
> >> >>Kalisz since the 12th century, Cracow, Lublin and Brest-Litovsk since
> >> >>the 14th, Tarnow and Rzeszow since the 15th, and so on.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That is quite irrelevant. They are starangers dwelling in strange lands
> >as
> >> >the
> >> >bible predicted. The Boers have been in Africa for ages but that does not
> >> >make
> >> >them Zulus.<<
> >> >
> >> >So since Europeans have been on the North American continent for about 500
> >> >years, that does not make them Americans. Way cool. Get out. I'll pack
> >your
> >> >bags.
> >>
> >> Go ahead. be prepared for about 6 months worth of packing. Europeans are
> >> certainly Americans but that does not prevent themselves from being called
> >> ITALIAN AMERICANS, GERMAN AMERICANS, OR POLISH AMERICANS does it? Should I
> >now
> >> prepare to pack your backpack?
> >
> >Or Jewish Americans? Is your point that Jews are defined by blood, by
> >nationality, by ancestry, by culture, or what?
>
> Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host nations.
Admixture of what?
--
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/21/98 9:25 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3612ee41...@news3.ibm.net>
> >
> >In <19980920192754...@ng72.aol.com>, on 20 Sep 1998 23:27:54
> >GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >> >Date: 9/19/98 3:12 PM EST
> >> >Message-id: <3614bb78...@news3.ibm.net>
> >>
> >> >Tell me, Joe. Let's say a German colony had settled in Luck in the 10th
> >> >century and lived there ever since. They had fought for Polish
> >> >independence, paid taxes, raised generations of children, learned and
> >> >spoken the Polish language. Would they be Poles?
> >>
> >> They would be Germans by blood but Polish citizens. A Japanese who lives
> >for
> >> centuries in the USA is still Japanese by blood but an American citizen.
> >See
> >> how easy that was?
> >
> >Yes, thank you.
> >
> >So, the German colony -- which has lived in Poland for 1000 years,
> >speaks no German, knows no German songs, knows no German people, has
> >never seen Germany, may never even have heard of Germany -- nonetheless
> >remains German "by blood". This in spite of any intermarrying that may
> >have taken place over 1000 years. Is that your position?
> >
>
> If they have not intermarried with the host population, they are still German
> by blood.
But Polish citizens as you said above.
> >While we are at it, could you explain to me the components of German
> >blood? In what proportion does which ingredients have to be present for
> >the blood to be German?
>
> Read the Nuremberg laws. I will defer to them.
What do they say? What if the Germans in my example above had
intermarried?
> >If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
> >years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
> >should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
> >that your position?
>
> No, they were Jews, depending upon the admixture of blood.
Were they citizens? If not, why the double standard.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3625600c...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>In <19980921233442...@ng93.aol.com>, on 22 Sep 1998 03:34:42
>GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>> >Or Jewish Americans? Is your point that Jews are defined by blood, by
>> >nationality, by ancestry, by culture, or what?
>>
>> Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host
>nations.
>
>Admixture of what?
>
Admixture with their host nations, of course.
> Jews are of the seed of Abraham--is that not how they define themselves?
>This
>> is simply a fact. Since I am not a racist or anti-semite, I prefer not to
>get
>> in a long drawn out discussion over this topic.
>
>You raised it. Not slithering away, are we?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
Just stating obvious facts, Gord.
Debunks
> Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host
>nations.
>
>Admixture of what?
>
>--
>Gord McFee
Are you really this dense?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/22/98 10:04 PM EST
>Message-id: <19980922230433...@ng27.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunksie, the Booger With a Vocabulary, wrote:
>
>>>>
>>Debunksie, the coward who shoots himself in the foot, wrote:
>>
>
>Strange comment, coming from a barney Fyfe clone.<<
>
>Since I am feeling a tad light-hearted today, I'll point out that it's
>capital-B Barney and F-I-F-E, but I am just correcting the spelling and not
>making any sort of connective issue about it.
>
>>Hey, I am part Potawatomi, bubba. I get to stay.
>>
>>Dep
>>
>
>>>You are also part idiot,<<
>
>Only the German part.
>
> >>and that means you will have to pack your bags. What
>are their names, anyway?<<
>
>My bags don't have names. Sheesh. And you call ME an idiot.
>
>Dep
>
As usual, the comment went over your head.
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Message-id: <19980922215322...@ng27.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunks, who gargles with Drano, wrote:
>
>>>>
>>Debunksie, who is such a coward he doesn't even post a profile on AOL,
>wrote:
>>
>
>Why should I? Did you want to get in touch with me?<<
>
>Uhhhhh not in particular no. But I just think it *is* a tetch peculiar that
>you
>Revisionist guys are full of he-man Seig Heil bluster and stuff, yet don't
>even
>have the cojones to put up a profile. I mean, mine may be comical, but at
>least
>I *have* one. AND it includes my general living area. I even, from time to
>time, put my *real name* on a post--see?
>
>Dep (Scot Murphy, Man With a Spine)
>
I am not without a sense of humor, and I also have posted my name directly to
articles. So what is your point? WHy do you think I should post aprofile on
aol? Will it make you happy if I do?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/22/98 6:01 PM EST
>Message-id: <6u9aho$2c7$1...@news.worldonline.nl>
>
>
>Again my news server didn't sent Bellinger's response and again I had to
>rely on DejNews.
>
>>[snip]
Would you like me to send you a copy via email in the future?
>
>>>>>The rounding up of Jews was a terrible crime.
>>
>>>>Well, there are crimes and there are "crimes." Rounding up people is
>quite
>>>>different from killing them.
>>
>>
>>>The rounding up was the prelude to the killing.
>
>>That is your opinion. I disagree.
>
>But this "opinion" is based on the fact that more than 100,000 Jewish Dutch
>citizens were missing after 1945.
And this incontrovertibly proves that they were "murdered?" As you know,
Europe was full of displaced persons. Countless numbers of Jews emigrated
illegally during the post war years. We will never be able to trace them.
>You can disagree with what and who you
>want, but you cannot disagree with this fact.
You may be right.
>Surely you have some
>explanation for the disappearance of so many people or do you take your
>usual shortcut and tell us the facts are fabricated?
I am not certain whether these figures are indeed correct or not, but even if
they are, it really does not prove your contention that thse people were
murdered.
>>Another point is of course
>>>that this rounding up was forbidden under international law since the Jews
>>>were in case of The Netherlands Dutch citizen.
>
>>From what I remember the Dutch assisted in these deportations.
>
>Not "the" Dutch assisted in these deportations, but many did indeed help the
>Germans.
All right, then my point is established. These people were as Dutch as you
are.
>Many helped their fellow countrymen and thousands of Jews could
>hide from the German police.
>The point I made was not about Dutch collaborators. I have often stated that
>many Dutch people aided the invadors of their country. The point I raised
>was the question of legality.
Well, it was certainly legal for them at the time.
> In another tread you tried to justify German
>actions against Greek civilians by pointing to international law. Well,
>international law forbade the deportation of foreign civilians to
>concentration camps.
Then why did the allies violate this clause after the war?
>You dodged this point as you have dodged other point
>that you couldn't rationalise away.
I never rationalize...I simply tell the truth without curry or favor.
>
>>>Well, you use Nazi terms as "Rasse",
>>Well, whall we now remove the word race from the dictionary?
>
>Of course not. Again one of your stupid remarks.
Well it was your stupid remark I was responding to, wasn't it?
>But Nazi's like you use
>this biological term wrongly.
Oh? I see....So there is a "right" way and a 'wrong" way to use the term? How
interesting!
>
>>>you stated that the Jews in Poland were
>>>no Poles by blood
>
>>a fact. Jews by blood, and naturalized citizens of Holland.
>Your knowledge of Dutch history and Dutch law is a "lachertje".
OK. So Dutch law provides a miraculous change of race for naturalized
citizens. I never knew that. When I run into a Chinaman who wishes he was a
Dutchman, I will refer him to you.
>You have
>really no idea what you are talking about.
And you do?
>Unlike your beloved Nazi-Germany
>The Netherlands had no laws like the Nuremberg Laws.
Different folks, differnt strokes.
>Nationality was defined
>in a law I referred to earlier postings :
Yes, but "Nationality" cannot change the race one was born into.
>Nationality had nothing to do with "blood".
So you agree?
>The law made no distinction
>between people of "Jewish" and "Dutch" blood because that distinction does
>only exists in the mind of people like you who have a very limited knowledge
>of biology.
>Dutch Jews had and have the same rights as their non-Jewish countrymen.
Yesm, that is all well and fine, but law or no law, the Jews were still a
biologically distinct group from the indigenous Dutch, unless they intermarried
with them and continuously reinforced the genetic traits of the Dutch.
>They
>were born as Dutch citizens.
Yes, that much is clear. It is also clear that they were not Dutch by race,
but Jews--Semites.
>Naturalisation was very complicated affair:
>Parliament had to vote on every application for Dutch citizenship. Where you
>got the idea that Dutch Jews had to apply for citizenship is an enigma and
>as usual you cannot come up with documentation on the subject because it
>doesn't exists.
Well it was just conferred upo them as it was in Germany and everywhere else.
I am not arguing this with you. I cannot see why the Jews should have been
subjected to abrogation of civil rights. They, too, have a right to life,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
>> you told me, a Dutchman, that the Dutchman who joined the
>>>SS and German auxiliary forces were brave patriots,
>
>>A fact.
>
>People who join armed forces of a country that invaded their country without
>any justification are called traitors, not patriots.
>
They did not join the armed forces. They were fighting against communism as
llies of the Germans--the Waffen-SS was a more or less independent formation
which asumed the character of the French Foreign Legion.
>>>you deny people were
>>>gassed in German run concentration camps,
>
>>I am still waiting for the evidence.
>
>Well, the evidence is there, but you deny it.
>
You all kep saying this, but talk is cheap.
>>>you claim France and Britain
>>>started WW II
>
>>They declared war on Germany.
>
>On September 1 1939 Germany invaded Poland. This attack started WW II.
Britain and France's declaration of war started world war two.
>But I
>wouldn't be suprised when you will tell us that the fake attack on the
>German radio station in Gleiwitz really happened and that the German
>invasion of Poland was therefore justified.
>
>
Don't place words in my mouth.
>>and you wanted us to believe Hitler wanted no war at all.
>>Not with the west, he didn't.
>
>A lie as history showed.
>
It is no lie at all. Who declared war upon whom?
>
>>>Add
>>>al this up and what do you get?
>>The truth.
>
>The truth is that you have a Nazi-agenda.
Prove it.
>>In earlier discussions
>>>with others you fought your way out the same trap by telling that you
>>>received many emails on the subject discussed and all those emails
>supported
>>>you. Si
>>Most email which I receive does indeed support me. A few do not.
>
>Yeah, yeah, Joe and you want us to believe this?
Who cares? I don;'t.
>
>[snip]
>>>>>And become as fluent in German as you? No thank you.
>>>
>>>>You should consider yourself lucky if you could speak as well as I can.
>>
>>>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! ROTFLLL!!! Your jokes are improving Joe!
>>
>>But not your poor sense of humor....
>
>A childish remark, Joe.
>
A childish remark to a childish person.
>>>(Still you claim to be fluent in German
>
>>I am. Discussion is over.
>
>You are not as shown by native speakers. Actually we have never discussed
>this point because you do not want to face reality
It is you who does not wish to face reality. I am quite proficient in German.
How do you explain the fact that I read the National Zeitung with no problem at
all? Perhaps when I converse with my Unclue, I am speaking in tongues?
>Even I, a Dutchman,
>could point out mistakes in your German.
This is all nitpicking and irrelevant,. I can point out many English mistakes
of English speaking people as well.
>Your answer was and is: you are all
>wrong, I am fluent in German.
And there you should be content to let the matter lie.
>ou can repeat this mantra over and over again
>but only people who don't speak German will believe you.
OK. Well, let them be entitled to believe what they want. How is that?
>There wasn't and
>isn't a discussion. There is only a silly American who believes his own
>lies.
Ok. Then let's leave it at that, ok?
>
>> >I keep repeating this because you don't seem
>>>to understand what fluent means.)
>>
>>>[snip]
>
>>Rather it is you who does not understand. Poor tyke.
>
>You have claimed several times that you do not attack people personally.
>Since I never made the stupid claim to be fluent in another language than my
>mother tongue, I look words that I do not know up. Tyke is not a word used
>by a man who only attacks the views of his opponents. You have exposed
>yourself again as a liar.
Tyke is not an insult, Boer. Buy a new dictionary.
>[snip]
>>>Of course I am not because you ridicule on of the most terrible crimes of
>>>this century.
>
>>If it were an actual crime I would not ridicule it. You blithely ignore
>those
>>instances where I posted convincing atrocities committed in the camps.
>
>If you had written the truth, I wouldn't have ignored your postings on the
>camps, but your posting are full of lies.
>
What strange affliction has altered your perceptions?
>
>[snip]
>>> you are always leaving out important
>>>parts.
>>Example? I don't think so.
>
>I have given examples.
>
>>>You left out some important sentences that I will repeat:
>>I>t was far more than "unfortunate".
>>I left that in.
>>>By using this quite neutral word you
>>>diminishing the nature of what happened. The rounding up of Jews was a
>>>terrible crime.
>>
>
>>I left that in. Do you have any sense of reality?
>
>I do, but you don't. It is a pity you believe your own lies.
Should I believe yours?
>>And even worse: you don't include a reference to your snipping like I do.
>>>(People can read the original and see what I snipped.)
>
>>That's nice. They can also access Deja news for your gems of wisdom which
>is
>>like finding a needle in the haystack.
>
>They have to because you cut and past in a malicious way.
>
>
Not at all.
>[snip]
>>>The Allies, amongst whom Chuck Ferree, liberated
>>>Europe from Nazism,
>
>>And enslaved half of Europe for the benefit of Stalin. Some
>>"liberators"....they didn't even bomb the raillines from Hungary to
>>Auschwitz--some liberators--they stood by while the Germans crushed the
>Polish
>>Home army in 1944--some LIBERATORS! LOL!
>
>
>Baffling sentences.
Not at all, but your response certainly is.
>Stalin used to be an ally of that other dictator.
Never. It was a simple non aggression pact. They were never allies.
>Only
>when Hitler betrayed his ally Stalin and the Western Allies fought side by
>side.
Stalin was never an ally. And he was intending to betray Germany as well.
>And even you must know that the Western
>Allies didn't trust Stalin
No? Then why was he their "valiant ally?"
>t was a case of "anyone who fights my enemies
>is my ally".
I see...just like Al Capone....
>
>>>a extremely evil ideology,
>
>>As if communism isn't! Do you happen to know that many American States had
>>Nuremberg-like laws still in effect in 1960? Some LIBERATORS! Phonies and
>>hypocrites.
>
>Still justifying Nazi-crimes by pointing to wrongs on the other side.
Is it a fact or not, Mr. Boer? The Allies were and still are always mouthing
moral superiority to the "evil" germans...
>Of
>course communism was an evil ideology, but that is not the point.
Yes, it is.
>The point
>is that Nazism was evil. You cannot play down Nazi crimes by pointing to
>crimes committed by communists.
>
Some of the Nazis comitted war crimes. So did the allies. So did the Jews.
>>>they didn't liberate it for
>>>communism.
>
>>Sure they did.
>
>>>Western Europe has never been under communist rule
>
>>No one said it was, but that never prevented them from trying.
>
>Incredible: first you say the Western Allies liberated Western Europe for
>communism and a sentence further you deny that statement.
I said they "liberated" Europe for Communism, and a man of your imagined savvy
should have been able to differentiate which areas and countries of Europe were
being referred to.
>>>by telling him that what he saw didn't happen.
>>>
>>>Tell me what you see when you watch a magician perform....Eyes can deceive
>>.you.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>You mean the Allied soldiers who liberated the camps saw an illusion when
>>>>the saw the piles of bodies,
>
>>>No, they saw bodies all right....and they helped to create that unholy
>sight,
>>>and then obscennely used the garish conditions to propagandize and
>moralize to
>>>Germans..They and thier policies were hypocirsy in action.
>
>The unhloy sight was created by the German guards, not by the Allied
>soldiers.
>
Actually, if you knew you KZ facts, you would know that the German guards had
little direct contact with the inmates of the camps.''
>>>when the saw the hunger stricken inmates?
>
>>And? If they hadn't been bombing all the rail lines and food stores, they
>>would have been properly fed.
>
>Read your own lines about the raillines to Auschwitz a few sentences above.
>Now you criticise the Allies for bombing the railroads to the camps!
In Germany, they certainly did. Are you now claiming that they bombed the rail
lines into Auschwitz? Let's see,...if the allies bombed the raillines in
Germany...then they contributed to the starvation of inmates of the camps...if
they failed to bomb the raillines from Hungary to Auschwitz, then they aided in
the destruction of Hungarian Jewry....those allies of yours are not looking too
good about now, are they?
>And
>there is no evidence that the Germans wanted to feed the inmates properly.
There are REAMS of evidence to support this. The people responsible for
conditions in the cams were often the inmates themselves, who terrorized and
stole from the weaker inmates,.
>The death rate was already extremely high before the Allied started bombing
>the railroads intensively.
>
>[snip]
Due to typhus and epidemics, and Himmler ordered camp officials to reduce these
rates by all and any means necessary. Were they disobeying their orders?
Curious how you think...
>[snip]
>
>>>So, your theories on nationality don't
>>>apply to polyglot countries and since Poland was a polyglot country in
>1939
>
>
>>There is no compariosn between Polish society and the USA.
>
>Of course there are many comparisons between the two.
Not in this restricted sense.
>hey didn't apply to Poland and the Jews living there were Poles.
>>The Jews living there were Jews. Period. Where did these Jews originally
>come
>>from--Poland? LOL!
>
>Were did the Poles come from? When did the Poles arrive in what is now
>Poland? Idiot.
>
The Poles are a branch of the Slavic race with admixtures of German blood.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify the German
>>>>>invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead
>Dutch
>>>>>traitor and fascist. {Mussert}
>>>
>>>>Never satisified, are you? How about van Tonningen?
>>
>>>Well, you stated that there are Dutch people who think the German invasion
>>>was a good thing. Then you came up with the name of a dead Dutch fascist.
>
>>Is MRS. Van Tonnigen deceased?
>
>You don't even know her correct name! It is Rost van Tonningen, fool. And
>yes, she is not dead and yes she has still her Nazi-believes.
>
And? Did I write her name wrong?
>>>Now you give us another name: van Tonningen. I presume you mean Rost van
>>>Tonningen. Rost is not, as you seem to think, a first name but part of a
>>>family name. Two people men called Rost van Tonningen played a role in The
>>>Netherlands during the war. They were brothers. N.A. Rost van Tonningen
>>>was an officer in the Dutch army. He fought the Germans and he most
>>>certainly didn't applaud the German invasion. Mr. (this doesn't mean
>
>>Obviously I was not referring to him.
>
>You didn't know to which Rost van Tonningen you were referring otherwise you
>would have written his name correctly.
Yesm, I do, otherwise you would not have mentioned him. It appears that you
are in need of an education yourself--from me.
>You didn't know there were in fact
>two brothers called Rost van Tonnningen.
Are you telling me or asking me?
>
>>> M. M. Rost van Tonningen was member of Parliament for the
>>>largest Dutch fascist party. He most certainly adored Nazi Germany, but he
>>>died shortly after the war.
>
>>Not his wife.
>
>But you were not talking about her, you were talking about van Tonningen,
>not about MRS. Van Tonningen.
>
>>(Officially he committed suicide but it is also
>>>possible his guards treated him so badly that he jumped from the third
>floor
>>>of the jail. I happen to think the latter happened.)
>
>>So do I. Such criminal behavior was quite common throughout Europe at the
>>time.
>
>Come on, Joe, you want me to believe you know anything about this specific
>case? You cannot read Dutch so therefore your knowledge on the case can only
>be limited. In fact you are of course on auto pilot again.
>
Are you telling me or asking me? I am more knowledgeable than you will ever
care to give me creidt for.
>
>>>So, Joe, you browsed trough some books on WW II and came up with the names
>>>of two dead Dutch fascist.
>
>>I didn't browse through anything. I cited what you asked for from memory.
>
>Looking for facts is indeed not one of your virtues.
Then we are alike.
>And now you want us to
>believe you cited from memory.
I don't care if you believe or don't believe.
>If you had read something on the subject you
>had at least written the name of the traitor correctly. But even after my
>posting you still write about "van Tonningen". The correct name is Rost van
>Tonningen.
Next time I will try and include the entire name. How is that? Will that make
you chirp wand coo with delight?
>>Still you claim there ARE (here and now) Dutch
>>>people who think the German invasion of their country was a good thing.
>
>>Of course.
>
>>>Please come up with names of people who live.
>
>>To add to your list of people to hound and persecute? I think not.
>
>Evasion noted. You try to justify your silence by making the ridiculous
>claim I hound people.
Yo specifically? That is not what I implied.
>The real reason for your silence is of course that
>your knowledge of Dutch history is extremely limited and you do not want
>expose this fact.
All right. We will soon see about that. Keep an eye out for a future post
entitled "Dutch Treat."
>Just read a few good books on the subject before you try
>to lecture me on the history of my country.
Someone needs to.
>
>>>Or are referring to the grandson of Mr. M.M. Rost van Tonningen, drs. M.M.
>>>Rost van Tonningen? He is named after his father and grandfather Meinoud.
>I
>>>know him personally and I can assure you he doesn't think the invasion of
>>>the gallant German army of The Netherlands was a desirable event.
>>
>>[snip]
>>Who cares if he is as brainwashed as you are?
>
>So you are only interested in the views of people who agree with your
>Nazi-views! Revisionism at its best.
>
>Bernhard
>
As if I am not familiar with other views?
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>Date: 9/22/98 7:02 AM EST
>Message-id: <360a90db...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
>
>In <19980921232934...@ng93.aol.com>, on 22 Sep 1998
>>>Date: 9/21/98 9:25 PM EST
>>>Message-id: <3612ee41...@news3.ibm.net>
>
>>>While we are at it, could you explain to me the components of German
>>>blood? In what proportion does which ingredients have to be present for
>>>the blood to be German?
>
>>Read the Nuremberg laws. I will defer to them.
>
>>>If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
>>>years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
>>>should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
>>>that your position?
>
>>No, they were Jews, depending upon the admixture of blood.
>
>Previously, in the same thread:
>
><quote>
>From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Message-ID: <19980921233442...@ng93.aol.com>
>
> Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with
> define themselves? This is simply a fact.
>
> Since I am not a racist or anti-semite, I prefer not to get
> in a long drawn out discussion over this topic.
>
>ROTFL!!!!
>
>Can Joe Bellinger say "performative contradiction"?
>
>Hey, Curdles! Is *Joe* going to preserve our way of life, too?
>
>--
> John Morris
Hey, Johnny--where is the contradiction? If someone refers to ther ace of the
Jews, something which they themselves believe in, does that make one a
"racist?" You are mental.
Debunks
>If they have not intermarried with the host population, they are still German
>> by blood.
>
>But Polish citizens as you said above.
Of course.
>
>> >While we are at it, could you explain to me the components of German
>> >blood? In what proportion does which ingredients have to be present for
>> >the blood to be German?
>>
>> Read the Nuremberg laws. I will defer to them.
>
>What do they say? What if the Germans in my example above had
>intermarried?
DOn't you have a copy on hand somewhere? Stop pulling my chain.
> >If one extrapolates that to Jews who had been living in Germany for 1000
>> >years, then I take it you would agree that they were German citizens and
>> >should not have been treated as they were by the German government. Is
>> >that your position?
>>
>> No, they were Jews, depending upon the admixture of blood.
>
>Were they citizens? If not, why the double standard.
>>
They were, but then the Reich Government decided to repeal that status. I
don't agree with it personally.
Jeff Heidman
>
> >I am. Discussion is over.
>
> You are not as shown by native speakers. Actually we have never discussed
> this point because you do not want to face reality. Even I, a Dutchman,
> could point out mistakes in your German. Your answer was and is: you are all
> wrong, I am fluent in German. You can repeat this mantra over and over again
> but only people who don't speak German will believe you. There wasn't and
> isn't a discussion. There is only a silly American who believes his own
> lies.
This is complete crap!!!!
I don't speak German, and I don't believe him either!!
And, to top it off, I'm an American!
Jeff Heidman
Bernhard Boer
expert on German, the Talmud, WW II, race relations and (since a few days)
Dutch History. Yes, I am talking about Joe Bellinger. He just sent me a copy
of one of his posting, but I am quite capable to find his postings at
DejaNews.
So, here we go again. Dutch history & law according to Gekke Henkie , (Joe’s
alias translated in Dutch).
[snip]
Bernhard>>But this "opinion" is based on the fact that more than 100,000
Jewish Dutch
>>citizens were missing after 1945.
Joe>And this incontrovertibly proves that they were "murdered?" As you know,
>Europe was full of displaced persons. Countless numbers of Jews emigrated
>illegally during the post war years. We will never be able to trace them.
Emigrated? So the death certificates in the archive of the RIOD in Amsterdam
are fakes? Only a few thousands Jews emigrated after the war because there
were not many left. The emigrated to several countries quite legally. Joe
tries to rationalise and because he must rationalise millions of Jews away
he tells the Revisionist lie about the secret emigration. If true Israel
would have had millions of inhabitants in let’s say 948. End of
rationalisation.
Bernhard>>You can disagree with what and who you
>>want, but you cannot disagree with this fact.
Bellinger>You may be right.
The fact that more than 100,000 Dutch citizens were murdered by the Germans
because the Germans classified them as “Jews” is a fact.
Bernhard>>Surely you have some
>>explanation for the disappearance of so many people or do you take your
>>usual shortcut and tell us the facts are fabricated?
I predicted this reaction but think the option of “secret emigration” is
quite poor.
Bellinger>I am not certain whether these figures are indeed correct or not,
but even if
>they are, it really does not prove your contention that thse people were
>murdered.
You don’t know because your knowledge of Dutch history is poor. These
figures are correct, as you would know if you had read something on the
subject. Your first line of defence is called “emigration”; your second is
“there is no proof they were killed”. Evasions, again, and again and again.
Bernhard>>>Another point is of course
>>>>that this rounding up was forbidden under international law since the
Jews
>>>>were in case of The Netherlands Dutch citizen.
>
>>
Bellinger>>>From what I remember the Dutch assisted in these deportations.
>>
Bernhard>>Not "the" Dutch assisted in these deportations, but many did
indeed help the
>>Germans.
>
>All right, then my point is established. These people were as Dutch as you
>are.
I never denied the fact that the collaborators were Dutchman. Your silence
about my remarks about the legality of the rounding up is significant. You
dodge the subject again.
Bernhard>>Many helped their fellow countrymen and thousands of Jews could
>>hide from the German police.
>>The point I made was not about Dutch collaborators. I have often stated
that
>>many Dutch people aided the invaders of their country. The point I raised
>>was the question of legality.
>
Bellinger>Well, it was certainly legal for them at the time.
But if caught the gallant Germans who defied international law sent them to
a concentration camp.
Bernhard>> In another tread you tried to justify German
>>actions against Greek civilians by pointing to international law. Well,
>>international law forbade the deportation of foreign civilians to
>>concentration camps.
>
Bellinger>Then why did the allies violate this clause after the war?
Anwser the question. The Western Allies didn’t sent German civilians to
concentration camps. The prison camps couldn’t be compared with the Kzs. But
the Russians did and their camps were concentration camps.
Bernhard>>You dodged this point as you have dodged other point
>>that you couldn't rationalise away.
>
Bellinger>I never rationalize...I simply tell the truth without curry or
favor.
If you never rationalise you are not a human being. Everybody rationalises
at moments.Logic noted.
Bernhard>>>>Well, you use Nazi terms as "Rasse",
Bellinger>>>Well, whall we now remove the word race from the dictionary?
>>
Bernhard>>Of course not. Again one of your stupid remarks.
>
>Well it was your stupid remark I was responding to, wasn't it?
I pointed out that your use of the term “race” is identical with that of the
Nazi’s.
Bernhard>>But Nazi's like you use
>>this biological term wrongly.
>
Bellinger>Oh? I see....So there is a "right" way and a 'wrong" way to use
the term? How
>interesting!
Yes of course there is. The way you use it is that of a discredit political
perception called Nazism.
Bernhard>>>>you stated that the Jews in Poland were
>>>>no Poles by blood
>>
Bellinger>>>a fact. Jews by blood, and naturalized citizens of Holland.
>
Bernhard>>Your knowledge of Dutch history and Dutch law is a "lachertje".
>
>OK. So Dutch law provides a miraculous change of race for naturalized
>citizens. I never knew that. When I run into a Chinaman who wishes he was a
>Dutchman, I will refer him to you.
A Chinese who becomes a Dutchman keeps of course his yellow skin, I never
claimed otherwise. You think, as all Nazi’s do, that there exists something
as a “Jewish” race. In fact there isn’t. The genetic material of a black
person differs at certain points of that of a white man. Hence the
difference in complexion and hair colour etc. The genetic material of a Jew
and a non-Jew don’t differ at the certain points mentioned above. There are
no genetic differences; hence Jews don’t constitute a different race.
[snip]
Bernhard>>The law made no distinction
>>between people of "Jewish" and "Dutch" blood because that distinction does
>>only exists in the mind of people like you who have a very limited
knowledge
>>of biology.
>>Dutch Jews had and have the same rights as their non-Jewish countrymen.
>
Bellinger>Yesm, that is all well and fine, but law or no law, the Jews were
still a
>biologically distinct group from the indigenous Dutch, unless they
intermarried
>with them and continuously reinforced the genetic traits of the Dutch.
Jews are not a race of their own, nor are the Dutch.
Bernhard>>They
>>were born as Dutch citizens.
Bellinger
>Yes, that much is clear. It is also clear that they were not Dutch by race,
>but Jews--Semites.
Since there is no such thing as a Dutch race your remark is utter nonsense.
Bernhard>>Naturalisation was very complicated affair:
>>Parliament had to vote on every application for Dutch citizenship. Where
you
>>got the idea that Dutch Jews had to apply for citizenship is an enigma and
>>as usual you cannot come up with documentation on the subject because it
>>doesn't exists.
>
>Well it was just conferred upo them as it was in Germany and everywhere
else.
>I am not arguing this with you. I cannot see why the Jews should have been
>subjected to abrogation of civil rights. They, too, have a right to life,
>liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
How generous of you.
Bernhard>>> you told me, a Dutchman, that the Dutchman who joined the
>>>>SS and German auxiliary forces were brave patriots,
>>
Bellinger>>>A fact.
>>
Bernhard>>People who join armed forces of a country that invaded their
country without
>>any justification are called traitors, not patriots.
>>
>
>They did not join the armed forces. They were fighting against communism as
>llies of the Germans--the Waffen-SS was a more or less independent
formation
>which asumed the character of the French Foreign Legion.
You left out my reference to the auxiliary forces like the Landwacht,
Landstorm and NSKK! You now come up with the story that these Dutch SS men
were “allies” of the Germans, which is simply ludicrous. And because you
know you are on thin ice, you compare the Waffen SS with the Foreign legion
and thus rationalise the treason away. Fact of the matter is that many of
the Dutch people who joined German forces never fought against the Soviets
at all. They fought against their fellow Dutchmen. Read a book on Dutch
history Joe and pay special attention to late 1944 and early 1945 when the
western front lay partly in The Netherlands.
Bernhard>>>>you deny people were
>>>>gassed in German run concentration camps,
>>
Bellinger>>>I am still waiting for the evidence.
>>
Bernhard>>Well, the evidence is there, but you deny it.
>>
>
>You all kep saying this, but talk is cheap.
Confronted with the evidence of an SS officer who testified to the gassings,
your feeble reply was “this testimony reeks”. That is cheap talk. You better
read for instance Daniel Kerren’s postings.
Bernhard>>>>you claim France and Britain
>>>>started WW II
>>
Bellinger>>>They declared war on Germany.
>>
Bernhard>>On September 1 1939 Germany invaded Poland. This attack started WW
II.
>
>Britain and France's declaration of war started world war two.
>
Bernhard>>But I
>>wouldn't be suprised when you will tell us that the fake attack on the
>>German radio station in Gleiwitz really happened and that the German
>>invasion of Poland was therefore justified.
>>
>>
>
>Don't place words in my mouth.
I didn’t. I only said I wouldn’t be surprised if you had clung to the story
of the Gleiwitz radio station. But you are silent about the German invasion
of Poland because you know that started the war.
Bernhard>>>and you wanted us to believe Hitler wanted no war at all.
Bellinger>>>Not with the west, he didn't.
>>
Bernhard>>A lie as history showed.
>>
>
>It is no lie at all. Who declared war upon whom?
Applying this evasive remark to the other theatre of war it would mean
America started the war in the Pacific. The States declared war officially,
didn’t they? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor but it didn’t declare war on the
States. So much for your theory. Poland was the ally of France and Britain
and an attack on Poland was considered an attack on them by these allies.
BTW did Germany declare war on Poland? And did this happen before or after
Germany invaded Poland?
[snip]
Bernhard>>>>Still you claim to be fluent in German
>>
Bellinger>>>I am. Discussion is over.
>>
Bernhard>>You are not as shown by native speakers. Actually we have never
discussed
>>this point because you do not want to face reality.
>
>It is you who does not wish to face reality. I am quite proficient in
German.
>How do you explain the fact that I read the National Zeitung with no
problem at
>all? Perhaps when I converse with my Unclue, I am speaking in tongues?
First you claimed to be fluent in German, then you claimed to be not fluent
in written German but only in spoken German and now you state you are “quite
proficient in German”. “Quite proficient” is not the same as “fluent”. In
short you lied. You do speak and read German, but you went simply too far
when you stated “I am fluent in German”. For some strange reason you cannot
accept the result of your retractions.
Bernhard>>Even I, a Dutchman,
>>could point out mistakes in your German.
>
>This is all nitpicking and irrelevant,. I can point out many English
mistakes
>of English speaking people as well.
But you claimed to be FLUENT! That is the point. And your claim isn’t true
as anybody who speaks German can see.
Bernhard>>Your answer was and is: you are all
>>wrong, I am fluent in German.
>
>And there you should be content to let the matter lie.
Evasion, slithering, but no straight admission of a mistake. Discussion
technique Bellinger style.
[snip]
Bernhard>>You have claimed several times that you do not attack people
personally.
>>Since I never made the stupid claim to be fluent in another language than
my
>>mother tongue, I look words that I do not know up. Tyke is not a word used
>>by a man who only attacks the views of his opponents. You have exposed
>>yourself again as a liar.
>
>Tyke is not an insult, Boer. Buy a new dictionary.
A new dictionary? Written by Joe Bellinger? Or do you mean another
dictionary? Of course tyke is an insult.
[snip]
>>Stalin used to be an ally of that other dictator.
>
>Never. It was a simple non aggression pact. They were never allies.
Never? Germany and the Soviet-Union divided Poland in 1939 after they had
attacked this country. That invasion made them allies. Be real.
[snip]
Bernhard>>And
>>there is no evidence that the Germans wanted to feed the inmates properly.
>
>There are REAMS of evidence to support this. The people responsible for
>conditions in the cams were often the inmates themselves, who terrorized
and
>stole from the weaker inmates,.
Do you really want us to believe that the Kapo’s and people like them were
responsible for conditions in the camp? They were part of those conditions,
that’s all. They had no influence on the real masters, the German guards.
Bernhard>>The death rate was already extremely high before the Allied
started bombing
>>the railroads intensively.
>>
>>[snip]
>
>Due to typhus and epidemics, and Himmler ordered camp officials to reduce
these
>rates by all and any means necessary. Were they disobeying their orders?
The chicken farmer chickened out at the end of the war when he saw Germany
would loose. Only then he gave the orders you refer to. And circumstances
under which the epidemics arose were man made: by the German guards who
treated the inmates terrible.
[snip]
>The Poles are a branch of the Slavic race with admixtures of German blood.
There is no Slavic gen and therefore there is no Slavic race.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
Bernhard>>>>>I asked you for names of Dutch people HIC ET NUNC who justify
the German
>>>>>>invasion of The Netherlands and you come up with the name of a dead
>>Dutch
>>>>>>traitor and fascist. {Mussert}
>>>>
Bellinger>>>>>Never satisified, are you? How about van Tonningen?
>>>
Bernhard>>>>Well, you stated that there are Dutch people who think the
German invasion
>>>>was a good thing. Then you came up with the name of a dead Dutch
fascist.
>>
Bellinger>>>Is MRS. Van Tonnigen deceased?
>>
Bernhard>>You don't even know her correct name! It is Rost van Tonningen,
fool. And
>>yes, she is not dead and yes she has still her Nazi-believes.
>>
>
>And? Did I write her name wrong?
Yes, Joe, you did and have explained this but you still do not get it.
Really, you have made stupid remarks but this is almost too stupid to be
true. Read and read again, this family is called Rost van Tonningen, not Van
Tonningen tout court.
Bernhard>>>>Now you give us another name: van Tonningen. I presume you mean
Rost van
>>>>Tonningen. Rost is not, as you seem to think, a first name but part of a
>>>>family name. Two people men called Rost van Tonningen played a role in
The
>>>>Netherlands during the war. They were brothers. N.A. Rost van Tonningen
>>>>was an officer in the Dutch army. He fought the Germans and he most
>>>>certainly didn't applaud the German invasion. Mr. (this doesn't mean
>>
Bellinger>>>Obviously I was not referring to him.
>>
>
Bernhard>>You didn't know to which Rost van Tonningen you were referring
otherwise you
>>would have written his name correctly.
>
Bellinger>Yesm, I do, otherwise you would not have mentioned him. It appears
that you
>are in need of an education yourself--from me.
You didn’t write the name correctly, not even after I told you how it is
written. Everybody can read this. Your ignorance speaks for itself.
Bernhard>>You didn't know there were in fact
>>two brothers called Rost van Tonningen.
>
>Are you telling me or asking me?
You didn’t know otherwise you have told us to whom you were referring. You
also said you cited from memory. Well, you made a minor mistake, which can
happen to everybody. But as usual you cannot admit a mistake and you want us
to believe you knew that there were two brothers called Rost van Tonningen.
Pathetic.
[snip]
>>The real reason for your silence is of course that
>>your knowledge of Dutch history is extremely limited and you do not want
>>expose this fact.
>
>All right. We will soon see about that. Keep an eye out for a future post
>entitled "Dutch Treat."
At this moment your knowledge on Dutch history is limited but you will
follow my advice as we can see. My advice was:
Bernhard>>Just read a few good books on the subject before you try
>>to lecture me on the history of my country.
>
>Someone needs to.
My countryman Herman ten Klooster advised me to spend as little time as
possible countering your untrue statements about The Netherlands and WW II
because you are a “malloot” . Your last sentence shows he is right.
Bernhard
DeppityBob
Deboogers baffles himself thusly:
>>>
>>>>>The rounding up of Jews was a terrible crime.
>>
>>>>Well, there are crimes and there are "crimes." Rounding up people is
>quite
>>>>different from killing them.
>>
>>
>>>The rounding up was the prelude to the killing.
>
>>That is your opinion. I disagree.
>
>But this "opinion" is based on the fact that more than 100,000 Jewish Dutch
>citizens were missing after 1945.
And this incontrovertibly proves that they were "murdered?" As you know,
Europe was full of displaced persons. Countless numbers of Jews emigrated
illegally during the post war years. We will never be able to trace them.<<
That's because they were plowed into fields, dumped into rivers, mixed with
asphalt...or don't you count ashes? Regardless, do you have any *independent*
statistics that support your claim of "illegal Jewish migration"? By this, I
mean documentation coming from neither Revisionist nor Holocaust supporters.
Plain, simple censuses. Facts from the countries themselves, perhaps. Almanacs,
maybe. Can you confirm this by independent means? (Otherwise, your claim has
no validity.)
>Surely you have some
>explanation for the disappearance of so many people or do you take your
>usual shortcut and tell us the facts are fabricated?
I am not certain whether these figures are indeed correct or not, but even if
they are, it really does not prove your contention that thse people were
murdered.<<
Well, they had to go SOMEWHERE. And since the overwhelming evidence,
documentary, filmic, photographic, material, testimonial, and
historiographical, all support the Holocaust contention, I'd say it pretty well
supports it beyond any reasonable doubt. Note the word "reasonable."
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"MY SCREENNAME IS LEGION!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/22/98 11:00 PM EST
> >Message-id: <3625600c...@news3.ibm.net>
> >
>
> >In <19980921233442...@ng93.aol.com>, on 22 Sep 1998 03:34:42
> >GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >[deleted]
> >
> >> >Or Jewish Americans? Is your point that Jews are defined by blood, by
> >> >nationality, by ancestry, by culture, or what?
> >>
> >> Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host
> >nations.
> >
> >Admixture of what?
>
> Admixture with their host nations, of course.
What is being mixed?
Gord McFee
GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
> >From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
> >Date: 9/22/98 11:00 PM EST
> >Message-id: <36106fe...@news3.ibm.net>
>
> > Jews are simply Jews, depending upon the amount of admixture with host
> >nations.
> >
> >Admixture of what?
>
> Are you really this dense?
Are you really this slithery? Do you realize I have you trapped and you
are going to run away? C'mon, tough guy, say it!
DeppityBob
Debunks, who always blames someone else for his shortcomings, wrote:
>>
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
Well, perhaps it wouldn't have if you'd learn how to write effectively, you
feeble-minded goose. Of course, you'd never recognize sarcasm if it swatted you
upside the head and danced on its point, would you?
You want the names of my ancestors? My g-g-g-grandmother is Senn-niss-Quah. Her
daughter (they were trying to assimilate) was Nancy, a fullblood Potawatomi,
who married my g-g-grandfather James, a second-generation German. Fair enough?
(I would think so, for a coward who won't use his real name online or even post
a profile on AOL.)
DeppityBob
Debunks wrote:
>>
I am not without a sense of humor, and I also have posted my name directly to
articles. So what is your point? WHy do you think I should post aprofile on
aol? Will it make you happy if I do?<<
No, I was just trying to say that you didn't have the backbone to stand behind
your own opinions. However, you *did* post your name in response to another
snippet of this thread, so I withdraw that insinuation and apologize for having
issued it.
Debunks
>
> Harold's former classmates at Chapel Hill High School tell me
> that he was believed to have made an infernal pact with Satan
> and sold his soul in exchange for his fantastic writing ability.
> Unclean! Harold must be exorcized with bell, book, and candle!
Boy, did he get robbed.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver
Stone
(see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite Talk Show: Not Jerry Springer Turn-ons: Silk shirts
and BuckCote
------------------------------------------------------------
Debunks
(referred to as "heizer" = stoker/burner, in the official
SS documents), was [1]:
Krema II: day shift 84, night shift 85.
Krema III: day shift 84, night shift 85.
Krema IV: day shift 84, night shift 85.
Krema V: day shift 72, night shift 84.
That is, 663 altogether.
Now, our "brave revisionist scholars" (tm), claim that
less than 100 people died in Auschwitz-Birkenau every day.
That raises a few questions:
1) Why would all the four huge Kremas be manned, to dispose
of only less than 100 corpses per day?
2) Why would they have day and night shifts in all these
huge Kremas?
3) Why would more than 600 stokers be required, to dispose
of less than 100 corpses?
It is obvious that, to burn about 100 corpses a day, one
small Krema would suffice, and, probably, no more than 10
stokers would be required.
I wonder how our "brave revisionist scholars" (tm) will
explain this?
[1] APMO, D-AuII-3a/1, Inventory No. 29723. See Czech,
"Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945". p. 724. See also
Document on display in the "Jewish Martyrdom" exhibit
in Auschwitz Main Camp, listing 661 stokers in October 3,
1944. For a scan of a photograph I took of the document, see
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/images/1998/
stoker-number.jpg
-Danny Keren.
DeppityBob
>Yeah, but he lied about having sex with someone while
>Bush and Reagan consorted with the enemy and lied
>about it. Slightly different degree of importance
>there.
Hmm.. enemy.. of course, China isn't our enemy, even when they take the tech
we give them and pass it to folks like Iran and Pakistan.. neither are drug
dealers, russian arms smugglers, etc... ?
>Do you truthfully explain to people every detail
>of the last time you boinked?
Agreed there. The fact that Starr brings it all into this is STUPID of him.
>Would you like to make a sworn statement here on
>the net that you haven't had sex with someone
>who isn't your SO recently? Do you have sex
>with anyone of the same sex very often? Occasionally?
>
>How often do you masturbate? How do you do it?
>Is it any of my business to ask this?
>
>Do you get the drift?
>
>Yes, Clinton is a philanderer, but that isn't news.
>
>Yes, Newt abandoned his wife for another woman as she
>was dying of cancer, but he's a Republican, so that's
>not news either.
Never lied about it, FWIW. He said
>Now... on to more important things.... have you polished
>your boots lately? They'd better not look scummy!
>
>Ron
The Starr thing is STUPID. Period. If he has nothing more than this, he's
just making the real scandals look insignificant.
David Powell
Debunks
<dpa...@intrstar.net> writes:
>Is it physically painful to be so stupid?
You tell me.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why your side keeps talking
about Khazars.
>In mixed marriages, if a child is born of a Jewish woman, the child is
>considered a Jew. Not so with the father.
In a marriage between a male Jew and a female convert, the child is
"as Jewish as &5#+).' Tevye" as Walter Sobchak so eloquently put it.
>If Jews have decided...
That was God's decision. Christians believe that God is Jew. We don't.
>...which parent passes on "jewishness" then that
>shows that it is important from which side the Khazar genes come.
In Judaism, genes aren't sacred; rules are.
Jeff Heidman
NSWPP <ns...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Dear HC,
>
> A friend of mine, who's not really politically minded, sent me (and a
Sure.
>bunch of his other friends on a cc-list) this list of dead friends of Bill.
>The message was apparently sent to him by someone else. The Internet is
>serving as a bypass to the controlled media to a much greater degree than I
>would have thought. Most people have a cc-list of ten or twenty friends,
>and, if they get something interesting and forward it, and that message
>gets forwarded to even more people, it doesn't take too long for millions
>or tens of millions to get some news, which the controlled press is
>censoring.
Give me a a couple weeks and a million dollars and I will compile an even
larger list of "suspicious deaths" of people associated with just about
*any* public figure. It's not hard as long as you assume it's never really
a suicide, there are no accidents, and "dying in her sleep" is murder.
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane, Political Science, University of Washington
Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis, University of Ediacara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve!
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
Debunks
us have experienced. It is, to many, the crux of National Socialism.
Under what we might designate as "International Socialism" - which is the
state of the world today - the global economy (which does exist, but
shouldn't), caters to the lowest common denominator, and actually funds
itself by extorting money from anyone and everyone it can. Interest
bearing "loans", payable always to the the jew, are the only things that
keep the facade visually intact. It doesn't matter what your racial
origins might be -- you are an economic unit of production, and nothing
more.
We are all slaves to the global economy, regardless of our race, religion,
etc. National Socialism is the cure, no matter how bitter a pill it may
seem to take. In a nationalist country, the labors of the people furnish
the medium of exchange with power, as all is devoted to the very simple
goal of maintaining a nationalistically oriented society - free of the
economic predations of jewry.
Today our labors provide for the well-being of Wall Street kikes, and
guarantee nothing to our children. You suggest a gradual change, and that
is wise. National Socialism suggests a gradual change, also. It is still
going to be a very rough road.
At least two presidents have been assassinated in this country shortly
after they proposed a nationalistic form of currency. This is something
worthy of consideration. The International Jew will allow you all the
sandbox you need for playing in, but threaten the source of their stolen
wealth, and you are doomed.
DEJ
-------------
Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in article
<360142...@cableinet.co.uk>...
> Interesting. One question, advanced in a constructive rather than a
> confrontational spirit.
>
> You're planning to do a lot of spending. Free health care, discounted
> mortgages for families, etc. Presumably you're also going to be spending
> a small fortune fending off attacks from your enemies. You propose,
> however, to have minimal taxation. I am sure that there will also be a
> huge flight of capital as well, as soon as it looks like you're going to
> take over. So . . . where's the money going to come from?
>
> I think that any attempt to implement a National Socialist economic
> program like the one you've outlined will lead to chaos unless you plan
> it very, very carefully and move towards it very, very gradually.
> Pragmatism in all things, I'd say.
>
> Cuddles
>
>
Jeff Heidman
<360424c0...@news.tiac.net>...
> Pity the po' nigga. Today's burglar alarms are too tough for coons to
> defeat so they're grabbing cars from people while they're driving
> them. Now the prickish owners of gas stations want to be PAID for
> refueling them! Statistically ALL niggaz should be considered Guilty
> until proven innocent. Unless a coon can come up with the money up
> front NO GAS. Clerks aren't paid to chase down a pack of fucked up
> coons in a stolen car for chump change. Niggaz earn the name
everyday.
>
It's sad, but true. If I ever owned a gas station I would put in tire
destroyers. No pay, lose your rubber.
Debunks
wrote:
> If your family has been in the United States for six generations, you have 32 great-great-great grandparents. >Can you provide conclusive documentary and forensic proof that not a single one of them owned slaves or >benefitted in any way from chattel slavery?
Lets see. My mom's family all came from Ireland and Slovakia in the late
1800s, so obviously that leaves them out. My father's people were mostly
small farmers who's backtrail so far disappears around 1790 and leads to
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and what's now West Virginia. As far as I know
none of them lived in the Confederate states besides the part of
Virginia that seceeded to become West Virginia. That area had no
plantations.
As to benefitting from slavery, there's a possiblity that some of my
ancestors were slaves and indentured themselves, none were Black (of
course). Also there's fact is that the vast majority of Whites were
HARMED by the presence of Black slaves. It's a malicious lie that
average Whites benefitted from slavery. The slaves benefitted only the
3% of Whites who were well-to-do planters.
Looks like you struck-out on that try.
Regards,
Ian McKinney
======================================================
WESTERN IMPERATIVE NETWORK (WIN) - Fighting Anti-White
Propaganda, Misinformation, and Attitudes in Cyberspace
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
NON-WHITE CRIME AND DEPENDANCY STATISTICS ARCHIVE
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/pif.html
DIVERSITY'S DESTRUCTION DOCUMENTED
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Websites that I support but do not speak for:
NATIONAL ALLIANCE - The Leading Patriotic Organization
in America http://www.natvan.com/ Hear NA chairman
Dr. William Pierce's Hard-Hitting Weekly Internet
Broadcasts at http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/
THE INCOMPARABLE DR. REVILO OLIVER
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/america
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DeppityBob
want to guess who did ?
Regards,
Dennis M. Maurer
Dennis Maurer <dma...@netcom.com> wrote:
: X-NO-ARCHIVE: YES
: http://www.idbsu.edu/surveyrc/Staff/jaynes/marxism/bios/rosa.htm
: Luxemburg, Rosa (1871-1919), German socialist leader and
: revolutionary, prominent in the international socialist movements in
: the early years of the 20th century.
: She was born on March 5, 1871, in Zamoßç, Poland (then a part of
: Russia), and was educated in Warsaw, where she became active in
: political societies. In 1889 she fled Poland to avoid imprisonment for
: her activities and settled in Switzerland; she studied natural science
: and political economy at the University of Zürich, writing a doctoral
: dissertation entitled The Industrial Development of Poland (1898). In
: 1898 she migrated to Germany, acquiring citizenship by marriage to a
: German worker, and affiliated herself with the German Social
: Democratic party (SPD), the leading organization of international
: socialism. During the Russian Revolution of 1905 Luxemburg went to
: Warsaw to participate in the struggle and was imprisoned. After her
: release she taught in the SPD school in Berlin (1907-14) and wrote The
: Accumulation of Capital (1913; trans. 1951).
: At the outbreak of World War I, she and the German socialist Karl
: Liebknecht formed a revolutionary faction within the SPD that became
: known as the Spartacists. Because of her vociferous opposition to the
: war, she was imprisoned; after her release in November 1918 she helped
: to transform the Spartacists into the Communist party of Germany.
: Luxemburg reluctantly took part in the unsuccessful Spartacist
: uprising against the government in January 1919, and both she and
: Liebknecht were arrested and murdered by German troops on the 15th of
: that month.
: http://www.marx.org/Luxemburg/Archive/160400.htm
: "The War and the Workers"
: The Junius Pamphlet (1916)
: Written in April 1915.
: Published Zurich in February 1916 and illegally distributed in Germany
: [ ... ]
: " Thrice handicapped -- a woman, a Pole, and a Jew -- Luxemburg was
: the most eloquent voice of the left wing of German Social Democracy,
: the defender of Marxist purity against all comers, and a constant
: advocate of radical action."
: ..............................................................................................
: International Spartacists exist today!
: http://www.algonet.se/~malecki/ICL.htm
: Sample - Women & Revolution
: http://www.algonet.se/~malecki/WR.htm
: Women's Rights Under Attack in the "New World Order"
: Abortion Rights and Class struggle in Europe
: The availability of safe, legal and free abortion is a measure of the
: condition of women, which in turn is an index of the general
: advancement of any society. This simple, safe medical procedure is a
: fundamental democratic right. Like all benefits for the working class
: and oppressed in capitalist society, the right to abortion was the
: product of great social struggles. Abortions have been legally
: available, albeit often with cruel and degrading restrictions, in many
: European countries and in North America since the 1970s. Yet today
: abortion rights are under sharp attack.
: Abortion is and explosive political issue because, at bottom, it
: raises the question of equality of women. Engaging deep fears and
: prejudices which the capitalists stoke in their attacks on health care
: and other social services, abortion rights are thus subject to the
: ebbs and flows of the class struggle.
: [ ... ]
: The revitalization of organized religion is another indispensable
: weapon in the capitalist arsenal. For 17 years, the virulently
: anti-Communist Polish pope, Karol Wojtyla, has tramped the globe
: inveighing against equality for women and birth control. To fight
: abortion he has put the immense wealth and political power of the
: Vatican at the disposal of some of the most reactionary and violent
: forces in society. His 1995 cynical, "Evangelium Vitae" denies women
: the status of full human beings, would excommunicate homosexuals and
: "fornicators" and calls AIDS "god's punishment." Declaring abortion
: murder and god's law above those of men, the head inquisitor of Rome
: gives absolution in advance to anti-abortion assassins and commandos
: everywhere. This obscurantist bigot is a deadly criminal whose war on
: abortion rights is responsible for untold deaths and injuries for
: women the world over.
: The International Communist League upholds the right to abortion as a
: necessary measure for women's health and existence. We fight for free
: abortion on demand in order to ensure that legal abortion can become a
: reality for working, minority and immigrant women.
: ----
: "The Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution of the early 20th century
: will overthrow the Czarist government and it will be led by a
: disproportionate number of Jews." JewishAmerica.COM
: http://www.jewishamerica.com/TimeLine/haskala.htm
: http://x10.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=368649052
DeppityBob
for you now. I realize now that you are only attacking
the innocent because you have to justify in your twisted
little mind, why you can't get work as an actor.
It is called TALENT. something you don't possess.
What's wrong little boy, are you upset that your
Hitler Youth Group can't get hired because you are
too stupid or to lazy to go out and work for your future?
You have to find fault in everything that happens to
you through the lies that your momma beat into you
as a child. Your hatred stems from fear. You are
scared that the "Niggers and the Jews" (sorry)
might be better than you so you attack them without
even trying to better yourself. You are a loser so your
goal is to bring everyone else down with you. The problems
in society is not the "minorities" or the Jewish, or anyone
really. It is people like you who keep us from evolving into
a better race of MAN. A race of MAN who can love his
neighbor regardless of color or religion or affiliation.
Please, do the human race a favor, gather up all of your
little hate monger friends, go find a fine German crafted
pistol and take turns shooting each other in the head until
there is only you left. Then be a hero, and commit suicide!
Athespian
Blood Stained Boots wrote in message
<6uc5in$cn7$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
>"Athespian" <mbri...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
>>WHOA!!!
>>THAT IS QUITE ENOUGH FROM THE RACIST FACTION
>>OF THIS <NG>!!
>
>>YOUR COMMENTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO
>>WITH THIS THREAD OR THIS <NG>! PLEASE!!!!!!
>
>>TAKE YOUR FILTH SOMEWHERE ELSE!
>>Athespian
>
>But it does have something to do with this ng, alt.acting.
>
>Holywood and the show biz of Jew York City is controlled by Jews.
>Acting pertains to show biz. See?
>
>BSB
>
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Message-id: <19980924004803...@ng12.aol.com>
>
>No, I was just trying to say that you didn't have the backbone to stand
>behind
>your own opinions. However, you *did* post your name in response to another
>snippet of this thread, so I withdraw that insinuation and apologize for
>having
>issued it.
>
>Dep
>
Apology accepted.
Debunks
>Subject: Re: Bigotry ? I don't know
>From: deppi...@aol.compugeek (DeppityBob)
>Message-id: <19980923235447...@ng12.aol.com>
>
>
>Debunks, who always blames someone else for his shortcomings, wrote:
>
>
Really/ When and where? Please cite specific instances.
>Well, perhaps it wouldn't have if you'd learn how to write effectively, you
>feeble-minded goose.
I am not used to writing in a manner more suited to 2 year olds rather than
adults.
>Of course, you'd never recognize sarcasm if it swatted you
>upside the head and danced on its point, would you?
Are you talking about yourself?
>You want the names of my ancestors? My g-g-g-grandmother is Senn-niss-Quah.
Tttttthhhhat's nice......Mine was Mathilda.
>Her
>daughter (they were trying to assimilate) was Nancy, a fullblood Potawatomi,
>who married my g-g-grandfather James, a second-generation German. Fair
>enough?
Tttthhhat's nice.
>(I would think so, for a coward who won't use his real name online or even
>post
>a profile on AOL.)
>
>Dep
>
I think we have since settled this issue, haven't we?
Debunks
Debunks
SoundViews wrote:
> >I've heard a BBC documentry called World Of the Skinhead heard
> >it features the Bussines and the Templars if body out there has this
> >on tape is willing to make a copy get in touch with me.
>
> it's called *world of skinhead* and it will be released on video soon by s.t.
> publishing...
>
> it doesn't feature the business or the templars actually playing, though it
> shows the first business gig here in nyc (or more specifically the big beatdown
> afterwards), and members of the templars being interviewed (along with a lot of
> other nyc skins!!!). the other bands/band members (sorta) featured would be
> roddy moreno of the oppressed, paul burnley of no remorse, various members of
> the whalers (from norway), laurel aitken (live footage), members of
> pist'n'broke, and a few other that i can't recall...
>
> oh yeah, it's a very good documentary -- well worth checking out!
>
> never surrender,
> lee/do a runner!
> ---
> "it is better to be the
> hammer than the anvil."
Well, lee,
Gives a shout when it does come out or get get us a copy. Much appreciated.
--
Oi Cheers,
Laz
"Be true to your friends if heavens fall."
Cole Younger
Bernhard Boer
Individuals are classified into races. When an individual mixes with
a race other than their own, it means there is something about the
other race that is better than their own. Thus, they have a poor
opinion of themselves and the race to which they belong.
BSB
ch...@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>Um, this logic stuff is a little trickier than you've been lead to
>believe.
>Deductive reasoning only works when *all* of the premises are
>known to be true. Now, I think your argument is:
>(P1) I have talked to all people who mix with other races, and they
> all said that they engage in this kind of behavior because
> they believe that their own race is inferior.
>(P2) If a person believes he belongs to an inferior race, then he
> has psychological problems.
>(C) All people who mix with other races have psychological problems.
>Now, P2 is well-established; you have to be a lunatic to believe
>in nonsense like the existance of "inferior races".
>But what about P1? Well, I sincerely doubt that you've really
>talked to all of the people who mix with other races. It's possible
>that you've talked to *some* of them...but in that case, it would
>be an *inductive* argument, not a *deductive* one. Actually, I'd
>be willing to bet that you've talked to *none* of these people,
>and you're just making up stories about them. (The technical name
>for stories like this is "lies", and logicians who make up "lies"
>are called "liars", by the way.)
>Anyway, I'd urge you to actually go out and find some race-mixers,
>and ask them about their motivation. You might be surprised at what
>you learn.
>--
>=================================================================
>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher (ch...@eco.twg.com)
>The Graduation Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/4185
>=================================================================
Debunks
The Aryan past is spectacular: We were the originators of pictographs
and writing; we built Arkaim in Russia, the ancient Aryan capitol of
the world; we were the ancient Atlanteans; we were the original
inhabitants of ancient Egypt, as the earliest frescoes and statues
depict blue-eyed, Aryan people; we were the original Royal Priesthood of
Melchizedek in Egypt; we were the builders of the Great Pyramid of Giza
with Freedom Labor inspired of God in mathematics which tells a story to
whomever will open their eyes to it (Isaiah 19:19-25), this edifice
intended as an altar unto the Lord, with a little passageway on its
inside timeline, going from the "Descending Chamber" to the "Ascending
Chamber" right at A.D. 33; the Egyptian Sphinx is also ours, written in
Sanskrit, the language of the Russians.
We were the builders of ancient Babylon and its hanging gardens, until
corrupted by corrupters; we were the blue-eyed Medes-Persians, the
originals of present-day Iran, the name derived from "Aryan," meaning
Noble; we were the Greek "Danaoi," and the Spartans, who were
descendents of Abraham; we were the Greeks who founded ancient
Byzantium; we were the Greek Alexander-the-Great, who conquered more
territory in his short life-span than any other conquerer, becoming the
richest man in personal wealth to this day to have ever lived--even more
than the Jewish Rothschild's and Rockefeller's--our Alexander was the
conquerer who was initated into the ancient rites of Osirus in Egypt,
who contributed Greek culture to the world, who married a princess, and
who made plans for the library at Alexandria; we were the Ptolemies who
built that library; we were the philosophers Plato and Aristotle; we
were Cleopatra, who gave her life for her people; we were the Romans who
contributed Roman culture to the world; we were the builders of the
1,000 year-old Christian Byzantine Empire.
We were in China first, as the Chinese have dug our blonde and
red-headed blue-eyed ancestors up in the lowest strata--Hungarians,
Serbs, Goths, Cossacks from the Don River, Turks, Swedes, Macedonians,
and Czechs; we were the Phoenicians who ruled the seas; we were the
Phoenician-Hebrews that settled in Britain, the Phoenician Brithish, we
ruled the seas again, and supplied the materials to build Solomon's
Temple; we were "Isaac's Sons," hence the term "Saxons"; we were those
known to the Romans in Britain as Germans, from the Latin germanus,
meaning "genuine"; we were the ones who brought the Hebrew language to
Britain, of which the English language is 75% derived from; we were the
British who later absorbed the Israelite tribe of Ephraim; we were the
Israelites of old, who after Assyrian captivity, as recorded in II
Esdras, landed in "Arsareth," present-day Germany. We were known as the
Scythians, or Latin "germanus" for genuine, as in the germ, or core, of
wheat; we are the blonde, blue-eyed, and tall Nordics of the Israelite
tribe of Naphtali that are buried in thousands of tombs in present-day
Russia.
We were from the Israelite tribe of Dan who named the Danube River and
Denmark and settled in Ireland and named Dunkirk, and other Irish places
after Dan; we were the prophet Jeremiah who visited Ireland; we were
the Vikings of the tribe of Benjamin that conquered and invaded, and
left its culture everywhere we went.
We are the ones that carried Benjamin's wolf symbol with us. We are the
ones who fulfilled Genesis 42:27: "Benjamin
shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the
prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil"; we were Zebulon, who
handled "the pen of the writer" (Judges 5:14), who became Holland and
developed the printing press.
We are the ones who carried all of the symbols of Israel to Europe which
exist still to this day as a witness and clue of our origins, with the
Royal families of Europe from Israel; we were the early Church Fathers,
including St. Augustine, who was inspired to write the "City of God"; we
were those that Jesus, the "I am that I am" and the Lion of the Tribe of
Judah, was speaking of when he told his disciples: "But go rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:6); we were those who
became Christianized when Paul visited us in Britain, and evangelized
us, including Britain's Royal family; we were the Druids who built
Stonehenge.
We were the Crusaders who brought the book of Enoch and more culture to
Europe, hence the Age of European Enlightment; we were the ones who
built
church edifices across Europe, of which it is claimed that if you view
the
situation from space, they are laid out across the terrain in
the form of a 5-pointed star, 5 representing grace, a reminder of the
original 5-pointed blue stars found in the earliest synogogues; we were
the German Catholic Luther who stood up against the Pope with corruption
charges, who dared to defy ecclestiastical tyranny, who announced
"justification by faith," and who gave the German people a Bible so they
could read the truth; we were the other Protestant reformers, protestors
of
tyranny.
We were French woman Joan d'Ark; we were Scotsman William Wallace of
"Braveheart" who cried "freedom" rather than "mercy," and this is how
our
people live; we were the Pilgrims to America; we were the various sea
and
land explorers, and those who later landed on the moon; we were the
classic
composers Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, and Handel, the latter who
shut
himself up to compose "Handel's Messiah," and who attested to all of
heaven
opening up to him while finishing this
inspired work.
We were the originators of the "rights of man" and the Magna Carta,
using the Bible as our blue-print for freedom; we were John Locke, and
Thomas Paine; we were the Founding Fathers of America, the tribe of
Manasseh: General Washington, who God protected while in battle; the
genius, Jefferson, who penned the inspirational Declaration of
Independence, who was proficient in Greek and Latin, who hated all
"tyranny of the mind," and who built beautiful Monticello; Madison, the
father of the American Constitution; Patrick Henry who declared, "Give
me liberty, or give me death"; the patriot rider, Paul Revere; Nathan
Hale, who regretted having only one life to give for his country--we
were also the women who stood by these men; we were also the brilliant
anti-Federalists, who believed in self-government and state sovereignty
as written in the Articles of Confederation, and we were the South who
stood for these principles during the American Civil War, or the
War-Between-the-States.
We were the geniuses of innumerable inventions; we were the French who
gave America the Statue of Liberty, who one observer claims is actually
Alexander-the-Great bearing the torch of freedom; we were the builders
of the Washington Monument, an edifice inspired by the original Egyptian
obelisk pointing upward towards the sun; we were Lawrence of Arabia who
gave freedom to the Arab people; we were the American Amelia Earhart,
the first woman to fly across the Atlantic in 1928, and who later flew
solo in 1932.
We were American patriot Charles Lindberg who took the first solo
flight across the Atlantic, and German patriot Rudolph Hess, imprisoned
for life for pursuing peace during a peace flight to Britain; we were
the statesman Adolph Hitler who stated that the world would rise from
the ashes and know that he was right. As Jesus stated in the Beatitudes
of Matthew 5:11, persons such as him would have all manner of evil
spoken against them falsely because of what they stood for; we were
those executed at Nuremberg unjustly after being tortured into
confessions and evidence falsified. Just as the narrator in "Braveheart"
states, "history is written by those who hang heroes"; we were the
classic writers Jane Austen of "Pride and Prejudice," Margaret Mitchell
of "Gone with the Wind," and Taylor Caldwell of "Captains and the
Kings."
We are the creators of civilizations, which the pagans
destroyed as they have ever destroyed everything they have
ever touched.
This world, despite all its present darkness, is on the verge of a new
dawn breaking forth. It is in upheaval as the present world system moves
towards collapse. The earth is leaving the 2,000 year-old age of Pisces,
the fish or Church age, and entering into Aquarius, the water bearer,
an age of the Spirit and Truth.
Debunks
Anonymous was pretending to be a chew when it wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Really, it's much worse than you think.
...for the chew.....soon the world will see what the vampire-race has been doing.
Russia will be first to act. If you are a chew in Russia, watch out !!
>
>
> We own everything, and everybody. Take your women, for example. We do.
> They're attracted to money and power, and we have almost all the money and
> power. That's why your mothers and sisters and daughters -- and wives! -- are
> such easy prey.
You aren't man enough to say that to my face ; If I ever heard you say that about
my mother and sisters I'd throttle your little pimply neck and squeeze your ugly
head like one of your zits until it popped.....Then I'd send your filthy corpse to
your rabbi so he could make matzo.
>
>
I have more respect for the chew to think that this posting was legitimate, but I
couldn't resist responding.....
--
Einheit,
B. King
***************************************
"GUT IST UNS NICHT GUT GENUG"
***************************************
http://home.earthlink.net/~bjking/
Jeff Heidman
>The King of the Jews must not be at the mercy
>of his passions, and especially of sensuality: on no
>side of his character must he give brute instinct
>power over his mind. Sensuality worse than all else
>disorganizes the capacities of the mind and clearness
>of views, distracting the thoughts to the worst and
>most brutal side of human activity.
>
> The prop of humanity in the person of the
>supreme lord of all the world of the holy seed of
>David must sacrifice to his people all personal inclinations.
>
>Our supreme lord must be of an exemplary
>irreproachability.
>
It is interesting who was chosen for our present "King". According to
the Protocols, King Billy exhibits traits that are the antithesis of what is
called for in a Zionist king . The description of sensuality is especially
noteworthy. The Chosen ones clearly understand the manipulative potential
of individuals whose philosophy revolves around their genitals. It is also
noteworthy that Adolph Hitler carefully shunned sexual activity and any
association with such proclivities. Despite strenuous Jewish attempts to
label Hitler as a sexual deviant, such attempts have failed miserably
simply because the evidence is not there.
Cousin Billy is a prime example of how the "chosen ones" deal with
those that leave their gentiles hanging out in public. When it serves their
purpose, the Jews use hard evidence (no pun intended - really) of such
impropriety forcefully. When they don't have such evidence, they usually
try and manufacture it. It further noteworthy that the NKVD/KGB, an
organization founded and administered during its formative phase by a Jew,
utilized sexual blackmail as a prime method of manipulating critical
individuals in various foreign governments such as agents and diplomats.
The Old Testament specifies the ancient Hebrew's use of sex as a tool
for blackmail. There are many examples of this throughout the Old Testament
but perhaps the classic example can be found in the book of Genesis. This
is clearly explained when Abraham uses his own wife Sarah to blackmail
foreign Kings. Abraham uses this technique to increase his wealth. He
accomplishes this by setting Sarah up with various kings while claiming
Sarah is his sister, a half truth as Sarah is actually Abraham's half
sister, as well as his wife.
After Sarah manuevers the king(s) into a compromising position,
Abraham then reveals Sarah is his wife and feigns outrage and indignity as
he demands repariations for the king's impropriety with his wife. Abraham's
use of Sarah as a tool for blackmail once again clearly and definitively
demonstrate the foundations of such manipulative techniques still
effectively employed by the Jews.
GL
Debunks
Hertzlinger) writes:
>
>Now is the Time to Make Great Advances
>Toward Genuine Kosen-Rufu: Under the Banner
>of Harmonious Unity Between the Priesthood and
>Laity - 750th Anniversaryt o the Establishment
>of Nichiren Shoshu · 300,000 Believers General Tozan
I did not write that post.