A thought for Steven Mock
david_michael
Mock has something interesting to say. A recurring 'interesting' theme
is the accusation that revisionists set standards of evidence that are
SO high as to be unreasonable or impossible.
Much of the difficulty here is that revisionism is essentially a
scepticism -- the methodology involves looking for problems in
'respectable' discourse about World War II. Accordingly, if such
discourse contains problems then revisionists -- damn us! -- can be
expected to point them out.
In his 'Mad Revisionist' guise, Steven Mock has eloquently made the
point that scepticism could be applied to accounts about anything --
even the existence of the moon. There is no such thing as a completely
'problem-free' discourse. Responding to this point, many 'moons' ago,
I made the point that a *consistent* scepticism would make life
impossible -- if you question absolutely everything about everything
then it is not clear how you can do anything. After all, I cannot be
absolutely sure that this keyboard is not an octopus and that I am not
sitting on some sort of elephantine creature from Alpha Centauri.
However, if you go to the other extreme and accept everything then you
end up as a gullible fool, accepting every assertion irrespective of
who makes it, prey for every charlatan and con man out there. One
needs to apply scepticism selectively -- but in many fields there are
no clear criteria as to when one should or should not be sceptical.
Much depends on trust -- one might reasonably be a good deal less
sceptical in an encounter with one's physician than with a vendor of
used cars or of real estate, for instance (although perhaps that's not
a good example given the quality of some British physicians . . .).
I have long argued that a highly sceptical attitude towards
'respectable' discourse about World War II is justified given the
powerful vested interests involved, the utter ruthlessness of the
victors, the high stakes, and the opportunities and means for jiggery
pokery -- and, indeed, actual cases of very high-level jiggery pokery.
Indeed, I have argued that historians are far too accepting of
'respectable' World War II discourse.
But does this mean revisionists have to REJECT all 'respectable'
claims about World War II, as Steven Mock seems to me to have
suggested?
I have already indicated various sorts of evidence that would seem
compelling to ME. I cited the case of an elderly lady from Cape Town
who was no great fan of the Allies but who privately admitted, with
some unhappiness, that the Ardeatine Caves massacre had indeed taken
place. She had no reason to lie. She made the comments in private. She
was no fan of the Establishment -- quite the contrary. She had all her
wits about her. She had never been tried or threatened with trial for
anything. She was just a private citizen with interesting connections
who was 'in the know'.
On 1 January, I listed other forms of evidence that I would personally
find compelling:
<begin quote>
To meet the criteron of 'cannot reasonably be disputed' you'd probably
need to produce the following sorts of evidence:
(a) documents originating from Nazi sources and published (i.e. made
public) prior to the Allied occupation of Nazi-held territory;
(b) public statements from Nazi sources that cannot be dismissed as
mere bloodthirsty rabble rousing (of the kind we had from Ilya
Ehrenberg in his 'kill Germans' commentary or from Winnie Mandela with
her 'matches and necklaces' speech) or dismissed as an attempt to get
troops into a brutal frame of mind (as we see in modern military
training where the natural inhibition against killing has to be broken
down if the troops are to function effectively);
(c) physical evidence that cannot reasonably be explained away (e.g.
large numbers of corpses of persons who could only have been murdered,
as opposed to, say, victims of disease);
(d) eyewitness testimony from people whose testimony can't reasonably
be attributed to ulterior motives (for example those who were pro-Nazi
even at the time of giving such testimony, not on trial themselves,
not in a position where they or their families could be subjected to
retribution should they fail to give such testimony, etc.) -- enemies
of Nazism, such as Jews and concentration camp inmates, obviously have
a rather large axe to grind;
(e) any other form of evidence that we can mutually agree on as
'reasonable'.
<end quote>
Point (e) is particularly important. At the end of the day, the
criterion is that of 'reasonableness'. Without doubt, what is
reasonable to someone like Steven Mock is often not reasonable to
someone like me and vice versa, largely because of the issue of trust.
And that, it seems to me, is the underlying point of contention
between revisionists and anti-revisionists. Time and time again we
hear the refrain from anti-revisionists: 'accept evidence to be true
unless you can prove it to be false'. No matter how tenuous or weak
the evidence served up -- unless we can produce devastating
refutations of it then we must accept it. We must trust. No matter
whether there were all sorts of opportunities for contamination of
evidence (even the sorts of opportunities that would cause problems in
a modern British criminal case -- particularly with regard to
confessions), no matter what questions exist about the sanity or
goodwill or impartiality of accusers -- unless we can prove that a
particular document actually WAS tampered with, or a given witness
actually WAS tampered with, then we must accept the evidence dished up
to us. This is extreme even by mainstream standards. I think very few
mainstream historians would take the view that even weak evidence
should be accepted unless it can be completely disproven. An assertion
might well be false but not provably so -- this possibility cannot be
thrown out. History is a messy business. Much of it is hidden -- it
generates no documents, no testimonies, no witnesses, no proofs. Here
we are in the realms of the whispered or implied threat, characterized
by Solzhenitsyn's question: 'Do you want to live? Do you want your
family to live?' We are in the realms of the torture chamber and the
closed confession cell. We are in the realms of the embittered and
vengeful victim seeking to destroy his former tormentors -- historians
have no access to the inner thoughts that guide his words unless his
words betray him. This is a very different world from the neat and
tidy world of 'accept unless you can prove false'. Sometimes this
hidden world can only be inferred or accessed indirectly. The task of
the revisionist historian is to try to get beyond the 'official
accounts', the documents, the proofs, and to access the 'hidden
history'. And this necessarily involves looking long and hard at the
'official accounts' -- probing for weaknesses and asking, repeatedly,
whether the arguments served up to members of the general public by
their lords and masters are really as strong as we are told.
This is not the agenda of setting impossible criteria that has been
imputed to me. As I have shown above, the criteria are not impossible.
It's a rather different project -- one of subjecting discourse to a
process of problematization and deconstruction to try to access what
might lie behind it. The ideological purpose behind the process is
not, in my case at least, to 'make Nazism respectable again' -- in my
case it is to problematize and deconstruct the demonization processes
that our current lords and masters may be using to stigmatize the
current folk devils of our age, and thus to legitimize themselves as
the current rulers of the world.
Steven Mock
news:b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com:
> Just occasionally, when he's not playing silly wotsits with me, Steven
> Mock has something interesting to say. A recurring 'interesting' theme
> is the accusation that revisionists set standards of evidence that are
> SO high as to be unreasonable or impossible.
>
> Much of the difficulty here is that revisionism is essentially a
> scepticism -- the methodology involves looking for problems in
> 'respectable' discourse about World War II. Accordingly, if such
> discourse contains problems then revisionists -- damn us! -- can be
> expected to point them out.
I would call it arrogance in the first degree for you to refer to your
methodology by the name of "scepticism". Indeed, most of your argument
in this post is, in my view, based on a fundamental misdefinition of the
concept. Scepticism is not just gainsaying, and it is more than just
doubt. It is the requirement that one not accept a conclusion unless it
can be grounded in fact and logic, and my position all along has been
that your approach to World War II history does not meet such a test. A
true sceptic does not claim the right to pick and choose according to
personal criteria what to be sceptical about. One must be as sceptical
of revisionist claims as of normative claims, one must test them to an
equally rigorous degree.
You keep going on about how we should not "trust" the evidence, but I
put to you, sir, that mistrust is merely another form of trust. The
best methodology is the one that relies to the least degree on either.
No self-respecting "sceptic" would dismiss concrete evidence for any of
the series of events known collectively as the Holocaust simply on the
unsupported prospect of an elaborate conspiracy to fabricate Holocaust
evidence, no matter how much that sceptic "mistrusted" the Allies. It
is my position, then, that the anti-revisionists are the true sceptics
in this debate, whereas revisionism is very much a dogmatic belief
system. Revisionism does not look for problems, it *needs* to find
them. It does not "point them out", it blows them well out of
proportion. It does not ask questions, it begs them. And my
examination of your arguments over the past week has highlighted
examples of all of these dynamics. Revisionism is a failed methodology
precisely because it puts the answer first and tailors its methodology
towards reaching it.
> In his 'Mad Revisionist' guise, Steven Mock has eloquently made the
> point that scepticism could be applied to accounts about anything --
> even the existence of the moon. There is no such thing as a completely
> 'problem-free' discourse. Responding to this point, many 'moons' ago,
> I made the point that a *consistent* scepticism would make life
> impossible -- if you question absolutely everything about everything
> then it is not clear how you can do anything. After all, I cannot be
> absolutely sure that this keyboard is not an octopus and that I am not
> sitting on some sort of elephantine creature from Alpha Centauri.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of The Mad Revisionist. The Mad
Revisionist is most certainly NOT as "sceptic". The Mad Revisionist,
properly understood, is the anti-sceptic. If you take from the exercise
the conclusion that nothing can be proven, that nothing can be known,
and therefore that we are free to pick and choose what we wish to doubt,
you have missed the point. The Mad Revisionist is not a satire on
revisionist "scepticism". It is also an analytical tool by which a true
sceptic can test arguments and methodologies.
Revisionists, in their efforts to find "problems" with the evidence make
arguments that might sound superficially reasonable, but when those same
arguments - often in the same language - are applied to evidence we know
to be valid, to facts as obvious as the moon is in the night sky, their
manipulative nature becomes evident in a way that it wouldn't if they
represented an honest methodology. The Mad Revisionist proves that the
same "problems" the revisionists harp on with regards to Holocaust
evidence can be found even in evidence relating to issues that are not
the least bit problematic, which demonstrates that contrary to
revisionist claims, their mere presence does not make the Holocaust any
less real than the moon.
> However, if you go to the other extreme and accept everything then you
> end up as a gullible fool, accepting every assertion irrespective of
> who makes it, prey for every charlatan and con man out there.
But this is where your discourse begins to misrepresent the position you
are opposing. No one - NO ONE - is saying that we should go to this
opposite extreme. You claim that historians of the Holocaust have.
This is simply false, and in our earlier exchange you offered neither an
example nor a broader understanding of the construction of normative
Holocaust history to support this characterization, no matter how many
times I challenged you to do so.
> One needs to apply scepticism selectively --
If one does - at least according to your subjective standards - one is
not a sceptic but an ideologue.
> but in many fields there are
> no clear criteria as to when one should or should not be sceptical.
> Much depends on trust -- one might reasonably be a good deal less
> sceptical in an encounter with one's physician than with a vendor of
> used cars or of real estate, for instance (although perhaps that's not
> a good example given the quality of some British physicians . . .).
>
> I have long argued that a highly sceptical attitude towards
> 'respectable' discourse about World War II is justified given the
> powerful vested interests involved, the utter ruthlessness of the
> victors, the high stakes, and the opportunities and means for jiggery
> pokery -- and, indeed, actual cases of very high-level jiggery pokery.
I have no objection to a sceptical attitude towards any historical
discourse, as long as it is authentically sceptical. My point is that
your's is not. Speculation based on subjective personal attitudes
towards trust never replaces hard evidence to the true sceptic.
> Indeed, I have argued that historians are far too accepting of
> 'respectable' World War II discourse.
You have asserted it. To claim to have "argued" it would imply that you
have supported it.
> But does this mean revisionists have to REJECT all 'respectable'
> claims about World War II, as Steven Mock seems to me to have
> suggested?
I have suggested no such thing. What I would suggest is that your
choice as to what to reject is motivated solely by your political
predilictions, and makes virtually no reference to the relative quality
of the evidence supporting that which you accept and that which you
reject.
You have stated, almost in so many words, that you have no desire to
reject evidence of crimes committed by the Nazis that are of no greater
or qualitatively different nature than those committed by the Soviets or
by other regimes. That, in itself, betrays the polticized nature of
your approach to history. It is only crimes of a uniquely arbitrary and
brutal nature - particularly those with a racial motivation - that you
would like to see rejected. Your political goal, in effect, is to show
that Nazism - particularly with its racial element - is no different in
respect to violence and brutality than any other polticial ideology, and
therefore should be taken as an equally acceptable political discourse.
The events you pick and choose to deny relate specifically to the
exceptional nature of Nazi brutality, and that is the only way in which
they differ from those you are acknowledge.
> I have already indicated various sorts of evidence that would seem
> compelling to ME. I cited the case of an elderly lady from Cape Town
> who was no great fan of the Allies but who privately admitted, with
> some unhappiness, that the Ardeatine Caves massacre had indeed taken
> place. She had no reason to lie. She made the comments in private. She
> was no fan of the Establishment -- quite the contrary. She had all her
> wits about her. She had never been tried or threatened with trial for
> anything. She was just a private citizen with interesting connections
> who was 'in the know'.
But I still have not seen you offer any evidence proving that Dr. Munch
differs in any qualitative way. You have speculated as to hypothetical;
reasons why his testimony might be unreliable, but one could make
similar speculations in the case of your lady from Cape Town if one were
similarly determined to do so.
I made a clear and concise argument as to how Dr. Munch met every test
set out by this example of yours. As I have said, whatever mud you've
managed to throw at the witness, you have never taken on the crux of
that argument.
But perhaps you could prove me wrong by finally following through with a
request I have made of you repeatedly since we first started talking
about approaches to evidence weeks ago: please draw us a picture of who
you would consider an acceptable witness to the Holocaust. If Dr. Munch
doesn't qualify, then give us the hyothetical life story and current
circumstances of someone who would be more comperable to your lady from
Cape Town, meeting the minimum of your criteria to reliably testify that
the Nazis killed millions of Jews in gas chambers.
Show us just how theoretically possible the existence of such a person
is in your methodology.
But, Dr. Michael, point (e) is absolutely useless, as it is completely
subjective and dependant on YOUR subjectivity. At the end of the day,
my point is that your standards of "reasonableness" vary according to
the extent to which you WANT to believe.
That you are willing to accept any evidence that you personally find
reasonable is irrelevant, as the entire point I have argued from the
start - which I feel I have already well proven - is that you will
categorically reject as unreasonable anything that interferes with your
political agenda for that reason alone.
> Without doubt, what is
> reasonable to someone like Steven Mock is often not reasonable to
> someone like me and vice versa, largely because of the issue of trust.
> And that, it seems to me, is the underlying point of contention
> between revisionists and anti-revisionists. Time and time again we
> hear the refrain from anti-revisionists: 'accept evidence to be true
> unless you can prove it to be false'. No matter how tenuous or weak
> the evidence served up -- unless we can produce devastating
> refutations of it then we must accept it. We must trust
And this is where your misrepresentation of your opponent's position
reaches its most blatant. No one - NO ONE has ever said that we must
accept evidence as "true" unless it can be proven false. What we oppose
is your opposite extreme - that it must be *discarded* if it can be
found to be the least bit problematic. As ANY piece of evidence, for
any event, can be found in some way to be problematic, clealry that is
not the methodology of someone who is serious about finding the truth.
That is the methodology of someone who is determined to discard
evidence.
Our position is not that it must be accepted as true, simply that it
must be taken into account, problems and all, as part of the broader
pattern of evidence. It is in the pattern that history comes together.
Let's take the example of Dr. Munch. You have come up with several
speculations as to how the witness might be biased, crazy, how a few of
his statements are in your view exaggerated, and so on. I find all of
these to be weak *post hoc* rationalizations, for reasons I have
explained, but most of them have at least some grain of truth or
possibility, and I have a few times concluded that I am satisfied to
have the problem you have cited be taken into account for what its worth
- given the level of significance and plausibility, the level of trust,
that the individual places in your speculation. Is it possible that
Munch was already affected by some form of dementia in 1981 that just
happened to take another 17 years to detect? Unlikely, but there's an
outside chance. Could he have had conflicts with his superiors of an
unknown nature completely unrelated to mass-extermination that turned
him from a loyal SS to such a committed anti-Nazi activist that he'd be
eager to lie throughout the rest of his life to stigamtize his former
colleagues with some of the must brutal crimes in human history? No
real evidence has been put forward in support of this implausible
theory, but anything is possible. Your objections against Munch amount,
in effect, to observing that Munch is human and anything can happen to a
human. I acknowledge the basic validity of this observation, but you
will understand my response that if being a flawed human being
invalidates your capacity to give testimony, testimony by definition
becomes impossible.
What I object to - indeed, what I find flagrantly dishonest - is the way
that, having speculated these outside possibilities, you then declare
unequivocally that you have discredited Munch as a lunatic with an "axe
to grind". This has been asserted but not proven. None of what you
have offered provides a rational reason to cast Dr. Munch's testimony
aside as worthless. On the whole, even with your objections as to what
*might* be influencing it taken in mind, it is still a compelling
testimony from someone in an excellent position to have seen what he
claims to have seen who has no apparent reason to lie.
I said from the beginning that despite the unique nature of the
testimony, I do NOT expect the entire case to rest on Dr. Munch, and you
were being shamelessly manipulative when you kept referring to him as my
"best" witness or "best" piece of evidence. For even the outside chance
that one of your objections might have relevence creates the need for
corroboration. All I did was show that here was at least one witness
that one could trust without having so much as a shred of trust in
"Allied governments", whose testimony could then be used to substantiate
other pieces of evidence for which there may have been more opportunity
for "contamination" by your standards. I hold that I have been
successful in doing so.
> No matter
> whether there were all sorts of opportunities for contamination of
> evidence (even the sorts of opportunities that would cause problems in
> a modern British criminal case -- particularly with regard to
> confessions), no matter what questions exist about the sanity or
> goodwill or impartiality of accusers -- unless we can prove that a
> particular document actually WAS tampered with, or a given witness
> actually WAS tampered with, then we must accept the evidence dished up
> to us. This is extreme even by mainstream standards. I think very few
> mainstream historians would take the view that even weak evidence
> should be accepted unless it can be completely disproven.
It depends on what you mean by "accepted". No, we don't automatically
buy into everything it says. But "accepted" can also mean that it can
be used, if carefully, to provide us with at least SOME valuable
information, all the more so if it is corroborated. As far as I am
aware, there is no mainstream historian - nor, for that matter, any
legal system in the free world - that would dispute this point in
principle. The only condition under which evidence is *worthless* is if
it can be proven fraudulant (and even then it can tell us something
about the motives of those who forged it).
No, the standards I wish to use for the Holocaust are only the standards
that are used for every other historical event. And historians are
greatful to use everything they can get their hands on. They use it
carefully, and if you can point to an instance in which you think
historians have not been sufficiently careful with a certain piece or
category of evidence in using it to construct a case, you are well
within your rights to point this out. But the burden is on you to do so
- not just to show how the evidence is problematic (an obvious
observation) but to show that those problems have NOT been properly
accounted for. You can't fault them simply for using the evidence at
all, just because you choose to call it "problematic" (does the fact
that the sky is blue also mean the Holocaust didn't happen?)
> An assertion
> might well be false but not provably so -- this possibility cannot be
> thrown out. History is a messy business. Much of it is hidden -- it
> generates no documents, no testimonies, no witnesses, no proofs. Here
> we are in the realms of the whispered or implied threat, characterized
> by Solzhenitsyn's question: 'Do you want to live? Do you want your
> family to live?' We are in the realms of the torture chamber and the
> closed confession cell. We are in the realms of the embittered and
> vengeful victim seeking to destroy his former tormentors -- historians
> have no access to the inner thoughts that guide his words unless his
> words betray him. This is a very different world from the neat and
> tidy world of 'accept unless you can prove false'. Sometimes this
> hidden world can only be inferred or accessed indirectly. The task of
> the revisionist historian is to try to get beyond the 'official
> accounts', the documents, the proofs, and to access the 'hidden
> history'.
Fine. All I'm saying is that if you truly are a sceptic, your
alternative must be grounded in *something* other than "coulda". I feel
that I have already shown that your belief in this scenario requires
quite a leap of faith, and that leap will get larger as the argument
goes on and we are confronted by the sheer quantity and variety of
whispered and implied threats, torture chambers, embittered and vengeful
victims, coordinated with hundreds of forgers and countless wild
coincidences on which your theory relies, none of which left any
documents, testimonies, witnesses or proofs. A true sceptic does not
live in such a world of faith.
> And this necessarily involves looking long and hard at the
> 'official accounts' -- probing for weaknesses and asking, repeatedly,
> whether the arguments served up to members of the general public by
> their lords and masters are really as strong as we are told.
>
> This is not the agenda of setting impossible criteria that has been
> imputed to me. As I have shown above, the criteria are not impossible.
I don't think you have shown that at all, though I invite you to.
> It's a rather different project -- one of subjecting discourse to a
> process of problematization and deconstruction to try to access what
> might lie behind it.
... he says with the air of someone actually imparting information.
Now this part's funny:
> The ideological purpose behind the process is
> not, in my case at least, to 'make Nazism respectable again' -- in my
> case it is to problematize and deconstruct the demonization processes
> that our current lords and masters may be using to stigmatize the
> current folk devils of our age, and thus to legitimize themselves as
> the current rulers of the world.
No, you're not trying to make Nazism respectable again. You're just
trying problematize and deconstruct its demonization. Which means
exactly the same thing.
And your justification is a crackpot conspiracy theory as to how this
demonzation simply could not be based on genuine and verifiable facts,
but MUST be part of a scheme imposed by "our current lords and masters".
Sure, Dr. M. You're a true sceptic.
Steven Mock
david_michael
RE. 'I would call it arrogance in the first degree for you to refer to
your methodology by the name of "scepticism".'
So you wish to discuss labels? They don't really matter to me -- I'm
more interested in substance.
RE. 'Scepticism is not just gainsaying, and it is more than just
doubt. It is the requirement that one not accept a conclusion unless
it can be grounded in fact and logic, and my position all along has
been that your approach to World War II history does not meet such a
test.'
I think your understanding of scepticism is simplistic -- one can,
after all, be sceptical about the concepts of 'fact' and 'logic'
themselves (particularly when one gets into fields such as religion,
metaphysics, etc., but also more mundane areas such as the social
sciences and history, where 'facts' become very complicated indeed).
Interestingly, the Socratic approach of questioning would not meet the
test of being 'grounded' in 'fact and logic', nor would any approach
that is essentially concerned with questioning rather than asserting.
I don't see how questions can be 'grounded in fact and logic'. Perhaps
you could explain this. My understanding of scepticism is that it is
an attempt to overthrow all dogmas without asserting anything. As
such, it usually fails, but an approximation to that ideal can be
useful in investigating phenomena.
RE. 'A true sceptic does not claim the right to pick and choose
according to personal criteria what to be sceptical about.'
I'm not sure what is intended by a 'true' sceptic. If you mean someone
who systematically questions EVERYTHING and accepts NOTHING, then such
a person would have a very difficult time surviving. He would have to
question whether each mouthful of food he ate was really edible,
whether each step he took was safe, etc. etc. Pyrrho apparently made
some efforts to live such a life and did things like wandering around
naked, carrying pigs, talking to himself, having to be rescued by his
friends as he was about to step over a precipice that he doubted was
really there . . . etc. Even he appears to have come nowhere near to
the ideal of questioning everything and asserting nothing. If you
doubt your food you die; if you doubt the evidence of your senses you
cannot do a thing. But it seems to me that one does constantly choose
in other areas what to trust and what to doubt. I have an example
right here in front of me -- two removal companies, one quoting more
than the other. The high quote is from a reputable company; the low
from an unknown. I have to choose whether to trust the low quoter.
Same in history when it comes to evaluating sources. And there ARE no
'objective' criteria, although by convention we expect some sort of
logical argument leading from compelling premisses. What logic cannot
do is tell you whether the premisses are compelling. That's a matter
of trust.
RE. 'mistrust is merely another form of trust'
Mistrust entails trust, but not in the thing being mistrusted. It
entails trust, for example, in the thought processes leading to the
sensation of mistrust. In doubting the cheap removal company I am
trusting certain conclusions that I have formed about such companies
from prior experiences with them. However, again, I am not advocating
a SYSTEMATIC doubting of all things. I don't think that is possible,
any more than a systematic acceptance of all things. It is done on a
case-by-case basis.
RE. 'The best methodology is the one that relies to the least degree
on either.'
Best for what purpose? To rely on trust to the LEAST degree might lead
to one simply dismissing the entire field of history because 'you
can't trust any of these historians!' Is that really 'best'?
RE. 'It is my position, then, that the anti-revisionists are the true
sceptics
in this debate, whereas revisionism is very much a dogmatic belief
system. Revisionism does not look for problems, it *needs* to find
them. It does not "point them out", it blows them well out of
proportion. It does not ask questions, it begs them. And my
examination of your arguments over the past week has highlighted
examples of all of these dynamics. Revisionism is a failed
methodology precisely because it puts the answer first and tailors its
methodology towards reaching it.'
I'd say that the opposite appears more compelling to me. It is the
anti-revisionists who start out with certain premisses that are both
taken for granted but are highly questionable. These vary from person
to person but generally it is taken as a 'given' and 'non-negotiable'
that your so-called 'normative case' is correct, that any questioning
of this case (except perhaps certain kinds of questioning by certain
academics) is motivated by malevolent intent, and that one should
trust anything put forward in support of this case unless it can be
absolutely refuted. The most extreme form of this anti-revisionist
dogmatism can be found in the statement of Michael Ragland that he
'knew intuitively' that 'the Holocaust' had happened. It is likewise
betrayed in numerous comments by McVay in this group and on the Nizkor
Web site stereotyping and dehumanizing revisionists.
RE. 'Revisionists, in their efforts to find "problems" with the
evidence make arguments that might sound superficially reasonable, but
when those same arguments - often in the same language - are applied
to evidence we know to be valid, to facts as obvious as the moon is in
the night sky, their manipulative nature becomes evident in a way that
it wouldn't if they represented an honest methodology.'
To which, as you know, the answer is that at some level ALL things are
problematic -- even things such as the existence of the moon. Think of
a continuum with complete scepticism at one end and complete credulity
at the other end. The complete sceptic would indeed question things
such as the moon. The utterly credulous would question nothing -- tell
him that Santa exists and he'll swallow it. I put it to you that
neither position is ideal and that one really does need to make a
choice as to what to question and what to accept. And this decision
generally depends on trust. I trust astronomers not to tell lies about
the moon. I do not trust ex-concentration-camp inmates not to tell
lies about the Nazis. I trust my bank to order me a decent new car --
I don't trust used car dealers to get me a decent old one. Others will
differ.
RE. 'The Mad Revisionist proves that the same "problems" the
revisionists harp on with regards to Holocaust evidence can be found
even in evidence relating to issues that are not the least bit
problematic, which demonstrates that contrary to revisionist claims,
their mere presence does not make the Holocaust any less real than the
moon.'
I agree that the same problems exist. Just as belief in assertions
made in 'respectable' discourse about World War II requires trust in
certain items of evidence, so does belief in the existence of the
moon. However, in each case we are free to give or not give our
belief. I find it a good deal easier to trust astronomers than the
likes of Doctor Munch, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, Ken McVay, etc.
etc. Others may differ. I don't see how this differential granting of
trust is an inconsistency on my part, any more than trusting the
expensive removal company rather than the cheap one would be
inconsistent.
I argued that 'if you go to the other extreme and accept everything
then you end up as a gullible fool, accepting every assertion
irrespective of who makes it, prey for every charlatan and con man out
there.'
You replied:
<begin quote>
But this is where your discourse begins to misrepresent the position
you are opposing. No one - NO ONE - is saying that we should go to
this opposite extreme. You claim that historians of the Holocaust
have. This is simply false, and in our earlier exchange you offered
neither an example nor a broader understanding of the construction of
normative Holocaust history to support this characterization, no
matter how many times I challenged you to do so.
<end quote>
I'm not sure if this is a genuine misunderstanding of my argument on
your part or whether it's the start of a troll, but I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt. As I thought was quite obvious, I did not assert
that anyone WAS saying that we should go to this opposite extreme.
Rather I was trying to suggest that there exists a continuum with
utter scepticism at one end and utter credulity at the other end, that
neither extreme position is tenable, and that it is reasonable to take
a sort of middle road, accepting or rejecting evidence according to
whether it seems compelling. As I said, one needs to apply scepticism
selectively. You say that
'If one does - at least according to your subjective standards - one
is not a sceptic but an ideologue.'
However, I would counter this by saying that we have no choice in the
matter. Either extreme position on the continuum is untenable. Pure
scepticism -- doubting all and asserting nothing -- would lead to
rapid death from starvation or dehydration! Total credulity would
probably be psychologically impossible as it would require one to
believe contradictory assertions! You really do have to pick and
choose what to trust, what to believe. In a sense that makes
ideologues out of everyone -- but is it not the case that everyone IS
an ideologue of sorts?
RE. 'I have no objection to a sceptical attitude towards any
historical discourse, as long as it is authentically sceptical. My
point is that your's is not. Speculation based on subjective personal
attitudes towards trust never replaces hard evidence to the true
sceptic.'
The problem with that is that the debate centres around what
constitutes 'hard evidence'. There are no objective standards beyond,
perhaps, a convention that argument should follow basic rules of logic
and progress from compelling premisses. I'm not even sure whether we
have complete agreement on that (thinking of Feyerabend).
Re. 'Our position is not that it must be accepted as true, simply that
it must be taken into account, problems and all, as part of the
broader pattern of evidence. It is in the pattern that history comes
together.'
Certainly, but we need to beware of mistaking a huge pile of weak
evidence for something probative, particularly in an environment where
the political imperatives of our current rulers strongly favour a
particular version of events, and where those current rulers have the
means, motive, opportunity and ruthlessness to engage in dirty tricks.
RE. 'Your political goal, in effect, is to show that Nazism -
particularly with its racial element - is no different in respect to
violence and brutality than any other polticial ideology, and
therefore should be taken as an equally acceptable political
discourse.'
There's a simple answer to that. Such a goal would not entail an
interest in revisionist history -- it would not necessitate an
examination of 'respectable' WWII discourse. I could simply accept
every claim that is made about the Nazis and respond by asking you
this: 'SO WHAT? You say the Nazis killed millions. Fine -- didn't the
communists do likewise, often with at least tacit support from the
West? Didn't the capitalists do likewise, not in concentration camps
(although they have had those too) but mostly through starvation and
poverty and wars of aggression? You say Auschwitz, I reply Nagasaki.
You say Dachau, I reply Hiroshima. You say Poland, I reply Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Iraq. You point to the skeletal figures of Belsen (and I
could even turn a blind eye to the West's role in THAT disaster), I
point in reply to the skeletal figures of Ethiopia. I could accept
every statement you want to make about the HISTORICAL acts of the
Nazis and STILL genuinely wonder that you can possibly hold them to be
worse than their opponents!
I'm going to leave the points about Munch as I think we've done that
to death. In particular, I don't understand the question 'please draw
us a picture of who
you would consider an acceptable witness to the Holocaust' given that
I've already outlined what I'd take as acceptable evidence in that
regard.
Steven Mock
> RE. 'Scepticism is not just gainsaying, and it is more than just
> doubt. It is the requirement that one not accept a conclusion unless
> it can be grounded in fact and logic, and my position all along has
> been that your approach to World War II history does not meet such a
> test.'
>
> I think your understanding of scepticism is simplistic --
Less so than yours, though I was, I admit, trying to put it in as
straightforward terms as possible.
> one can,
> after all, be sceptical about the concepts of 'fact' and 'logic'
> themselves (particularly when one gets into fields such as religion,
> metaphysics, etc., but also more mundane areas such as the social
> sciences and history, where 'facts' become very complicated indeed).
> Interestingly, the Socratic approach of questioning would not meet the
> test of being 'grounded' in 'fact and logic', nor would any approach
> that is essentially concerned with questioning rather than asserting.
> I don't see how questions can be 'grounded in fact and logic'. Perhaps
> you could explain this. My understanding of scepticism is that it is
> an attempt to overthrow all dogmas without asserting anything. As
> such, it usually fails, but an approximation to that ideal can be
> useful in investigating phenomena.
I think the simple definition is that the sceptic is willing to question
anything, but "question" is different than "deny" or "doubt" - it is an
intellectual process that necessitates at least the possibility of an
answer. The point is that the answer must be validated externally rather
than being the product merely of personal insight.
To keep my definition simple, let's leave it at this: a sceptic does not
simply take something on faith. Your discourse does, hence it doesn't
qualify.
> RE. 'A true sceptic does not claim the right to pick and choose
> according to personal criteria what to be sceptical about.'
>
> I'm not sure what is intended by a 'true' sceptic. If you mean someone
> who systematically questions EVERYTHING and accepts NOTHING, then such
> a person would have a very difficult time surviving.
I don't see how those two propositions necessarily go together. One could
quite easily survive by questioning everything, but need not require
accepting nothing once those questions had been answered.
<snip: some abstract discussion, that appeared to me a diversion from the
point>
> RE. 'mistrust is merely another form of trust'
>
> Mistrust entails trust, but not in the thing being mistrusted. It
> entails trust, for example, in the thought processes leading to the
> sensation of mistrust.
My point is that both are equally acts of faith. Whereas the best
historical methodology is one that keeps such bias and subjectivity to a
minimum. Not to say that its possible to do so entirely, but one can
question and test methodologies to the extent that they succeed in this
regard.
> RE. 'The best methodology is the one that relies to the least degree
> on either.'
>
> Best for what purpose? To rely on trust to the LEAST degree might lead
> to one simply dismissing the entire field of history because 'you
> can't trust any of these historians!' Is that really 'best'?
No, that is simply relying on another manifestation of blind mistrust. The
key is to seek external validation.
> RE. 'It is my position, then, that the anti-revisionists are the true
> sceptics
> in this debate, whereas revisionism is very much a dogmatic belief
> system. Revisionism does not look for problems, it *needs* to find
> them. It does not "point them out", it blows them well out of
> proportion. It does not ask questions, it begs them. And my
> examination of your arguments over the past week has highlighted
> examples of all of these dynamics. Revisionism is a failed
> methodology precisely because it puts the answer first and tailors its
> methodology towards reaching it.'
>
> I'd say that the opposite appears more compelling to me. It is the
> anti-revisionists who start out with certain premisses that are both
> taken for granted but are highly questionable. These vary from person
> to person but generally it is taken as a 'given' and 'non-negotiable'
> that your so-called 'normative case' is correct,
I disagree. One can believe the normative case for the simple reason that
is grounded in an elaborate evidentiary basis. Whereas the revisionist
case, by your own admission, is grounded on nothing but speculation and
"mistrust".
> that any questioning
> of this case (except perhaps certain kinds of questioning by certain
> academics) is motivated by malevolent intent,
Again, this is a conclusion I have come to only after a great deal of
logical thought and personal experience. I was explaning my reasoning to
you when this discussion started weeks ago, but you didn't seem all that
interested and changed the subject.
> and that one should
> trust anything put forward in support of this case unless it can be
> absolutely refuted.
I have already pointed out that this is a shameless misrepresentation of
the case, which no one adheres to. So I guess you've pretty much given up
the ghost and are back to boring trolls again. Well, it was fun while it
lasted (for all of one post).
<snip: a few personal attacks>
> RE. 'Revisionists, in their efforts to find "problems" with the
> evidence make arguments that might sound superficially reasonable, but
> when those same arguments - often in the same language - are applied
> to evidence we know to be valid, to facts as obvious as the moon is in
> the night sky, their manipulative nature becomes evident in a way that
> it wouldn't if they represented an honest methodology.'
>
> To which, as you know, the answer is that at some level ALL things are
> problematic -- even things such as the existence of the moon.
My point exactly. If you think the only solution in light of this fact is
to simply pick and choose what we want to believe and disbelieve at will, I
would call that an extremely nihilistic and anti-intellectual approach.
> Think of
> a continuum with complete scepticism at one end and complete credulity
> at the other end. The complete sceptic would indeed question things
> such as the moon. The utterly credulous would question nothing -- tell
> him that Santa exists and he'll swallow it. I put it to you that
> neither position is ideal and that one really does need to make a
> choice as to what to question and what to accept. And this decision
> generally depends on trust.
I agree with you that neither position is ideal. I disagree that one's
personal, subjective "trust" is the only means by which to determine what
position to take.
My point is that the true sceptic is at neither end, as blind faith exists
only in those extremes. In the centre is the sort of methodology that
informs all historical inquiry: believe something to the extent that it can
be supported externally. That is the anti-revisionist position as well,
which is why I say it is more authentically sceptical than revisionists who
dwell on the extreme of your spectrum as far as the Holocaust is concerned
- living in a world where conclusions on based on personal insights
involving "trust" that lack external validation.
If there is an elaborate network of evidence all pointing to the existence
of gas chambers, there is a strong reason to provisionally accept the
veracity of their existence. If someone says that there was an elaborate
conspiracy to fabricate evidence for the Holocaust orchestrated by this
thing called "our lords and masters", and he can produce no evidence at
all, then its a faith.
> I argued that 'if you go to the other extreme and accept everything
> then you end up as a gullible fool, accepting every assertion
> irrespective of who makes it, prey for every charlatan and con man out
> there.'
>
> You replied:
>
> <begin quote>
> But this is where your discourse begins to misrepresent the position
> you are opposing. No one - NO ONE - is saying that we should go to
> this opposite extreme. You claim that historians of the Holocaust
> have. This is simply false, and in our earlier exchange you offered
> neither an example nor a broader understanding of the construction of
> normative Holocaust history to support this characterization, no
> matter how many times I challenged you to do so.
> <end quote>
>
> I'm not sure if this is a genuine misunderstanding of my argument on
> your part or whether it's the start of a troll, but I'll give you the
> benefit of the doubt. As I thought was quite obvious, I did not assert
> that anyone WAS saying that we should go to this opposite extreme.
You do later.
YOU:
> Time and time again we
> hear the refrain from anti-revisionists: 'accept evidence to be true
> unless you can prove it to be false'. No matter how tenuous or weak
> the evidence served up -- unless we can produce devastating
> refutations of it then we must accept it. We must trust
MY REPLY:
And this is where your misrepresentation of your opponent's position
reaches its most blatant. No one - NO ONE has ever said that we must
accept evidence as "true" unless it can be proven false. What we oppose
is your opposite extreme - that it must be *discarded* if it can be
found to be the least bit problematic. As ANY piece of evidence, for
any event, can be found in some way to be problematic, clealry that is
not the methodology of someone who is serious about finding the truth.
That is the methodology of someone who is determined to discard
evidence.
> Rather I was trying to suggest that there exists a continuum with
> utter scepticism at one end and utter credulity at the other end, that
> neither extreme position is tenable, and that it is reasonable to take
> a sort of middle road, accepting or rejecting evidence according to
> whether it seems compelling. As I said, one needs to apply scepticism
> selectively. You say that
>
> 'If one does - at least according to your subjective standards - one
> is not a sceptic but an ideologue.'
>
> However, I would counter this by saying that we have no choice in the
> matter. Either extreme position on the continuum is untenable.
But Dr. Michael, I don't think you are honestly offering us a middle ground
here. What you seem to be saying is that we should employ one extreme on
some occasions, the other extreme on others, and that the only basis on
which we can determine when to use which is our own personal, ideological
predilictions and presumptions. I find this a highly dubious way to
approach historical inquiry.
To me the middle ground consists of applying logical and testable standards
to historical evidence, so we can at least attempt an objective way of
determining when a conclusion is grounded in evidence and when it is a leap
of faith. The fact that it is impossible to have a set of standards that
is *completely* objective does not absolve us from trying. And if you have
a criticism of the standards that historians use, feel that others would
serve better, you are free to propose your alternative.
> Re. 'Our position is not that it must be accepted as true, simply that
> it must be taken into account, problems and all, as part of the
> broader pattern of evidence. It is in the pattern that history comes
> together.'
>
> Certainly, but we need to beware of mistaking a huge pile of weak
> evidence for something probative,
The point is that this binary world you live in where any piece of evidence
is either "weak" or "probative" is simplistic and meaningless. All
evidence is in some way "weak". A pile of "weak" evidence can have a
powerful cumulative force if the weaknesses of some items are addressed by
the strengths of others. Hence it is in the pattern, not the item, that
history is made.
> particularly in an environment where
> the political imperatives of our current rulers strongly favour a
> particular version of events, and where those current rulers have the
> means, motive, opportunity and ruthlessness to engage in dirty tricks.
Was there a point in that sentence?
> RE. 'Your political goal, in effect, is to show that Nazism -
> particularly with its racial element - is no different in respect to
> violence and brutality than any other polticial ideology, and
> therefore should be taken as an equally acceptable political
> discourse.'
>
> There's a simple answer to that. Such a goal would not entail an
> interest in revisionist history -- it would not necessitate an
> examination of 'respectable' WWII discourse. I could simply accept
> every claim that is made about the Nazis and respond by asking you
> this: 'SO WHAT? You say the Nazis killed millions. Fine -- didn't the
> communists do likewise, often with at least tacit support from the
> West? Didn't the capitalists do likewise, not in concentration camps
> (although they have had those too) but mostly through starvation and
> poverty and wars of aggression? You say Auschwitz, I reply Nagasaki.
> You say Dachau, I reply Hiroshima. You say Poland, I reply Vietnam,
> Afghanistan, Iraq. You point to the skeletal figures of Belsen (and I
> could even turn a blind eye to the West's role in THAT disaster), I
> point in reply to the skeletal figures of Ethiopia. I could accept
> every statement you want to make about the HISTORICAL acts of the
> Nazis and STILL genuinely wonder that you can possibly hold them to be
> worse than their opponents!
I am not going to get into the moral equivalency argument with you, Dr.
Michael, because I know its a troll.
I shall merely point out that the quixotic effort you put into denying
racial genocide by the Nazis - despite the fact that you still can't
explain why the evidence for this event is qualitatively any worse than for
any other - proves that you recognize, on some level at least, that this is
a different sort of crime in nature and intent. One which you HAVE to make
go away if you are to rehabilitate Nazism in the eyes of morally sane
people as a viable political program, or "problematize and deconstruct the
demonization processes" or however you choose to put it.
> I'm going to leave the points about Munch as I think we've done that
> to death. In particular, I don't understand the question 'please draw
> us a picture of who
> you would consider an acceptable witness to the Holocaust' given that
> I've already outlined what I'd take as acceptable evidence in that
> regard.
No, Dr. Michael. You haven't. But I realize that you never will, for the
simple reason that to do so would require your either 1) committing to
standards you know I could meet, or 2) proving that your standards are
logically impossible by defending the patently ridiculous.
Steven Mock
Michael Ragland
Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns94709DA09DEA...@140.99.99.130>...
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com:
Just occasionally, when he's not playing silly wotsits with me, Steven
Mock has something interesting to say. A recurring 'interesting' theme
is the accusation that revisionists set standards of evidence that are
SO high as to be unreasonable or impossible.
Much of the difficulty here is that revisionism is essentially a
scepticism -- the methodology involves looking for problems in
'respectable' discourse about World War II. Accordingly, if such
discourse contains problems then revisionists -- damn us! -- can be
expected to point them out.
Response:
Revisionism is different from scepticism in one important way. I would
not characterize Holocaust revisionism as authentic revisionism.
Authentic revisionism looks over history to correct and improve. Any
serious academic historian of the Holocaut is a revisionist. Holocaust
revisionism as represented by IHR, David Irving, Leuchter, Faurrison,
etc. is a sham revisionism and a sham scepticism. Why? First of all, let
us assume there are academic Holocaust reviisionists who based on the
evidence accept the Holocaust occurred. They are still revisionists
because they are open to correcting and improving history. To use an
analogy historians of WWII accept WWII occurred yet they are open to
correcting and improving that history which doesn't necessitate
concluding WWII didn't occur. Holocaust revisionism as represented by
non-academic historians doesn't meet the rigorous academic standards.
One will also find the Holocaust revisionists of the non-academic
variety frequently advertised on neo-Nazi/white-right websites. It's
quite clear these Holocaust revisionists have a political agenda. Its
just coincidence these Holocaust revisionists are allying themselves
with the same forces which perpetrated the Holocaust. But wait! If the
Holocaust didn't happen then the Nazis weren't so bad after all. When I
look at the arrogance and contempt of somebody like David Irving I
wonder why he even bothers with his facade.
SM:
DM:
In his 'Mad Revisionist' guise, Steven Mock has eloquently made the
point that scepticism could be applied to accounts about anything --
even the existence of the moon. There is no such thing as a completely
'problem-free' discourse. Responding to this point, many 'moons' ago, I
made the point that a *consistent* scepticism would make life impossible
-- if you question absolutely everything about everything then it is not
clear how you can do anything. After all, I cannot be absolutely sure
that this keyboard is not an octopus and that I am not sitting on some
sort of elephantine creature from Alpha Centauri.
SM:
I think you misunderstand the purpose of The Mad Revisionist. The Mad
Revisionist is most certainly NOT as "sceptic". The Mad Revisionist,
properly understood, is the anti-sceptic. If you take from the exercise
the conclusion that nothing can be proven, that nothing can be known,
and therefore that we are free to pick and choose what we wish to doubt,
you have missed the point. The Mad Revisionist is not a satire on
revisionist "scepticism". It is also an analytical tool by which a true
sceptic can test arguments and methodologies.
Response:
The Mad Revisionist is a satirist of idiocy.
SM:
DM:
I have long argued that a highly sceptical attitude towards
'respectable' discourse about World War II is justified given the
powerful vested interests involved, the utter ruthlessness of the
victors, the high stakes, and the opportunities and means for jiggery
pokery -- and, indeed, actual cases of very high-level jiggery pokery.
Response:
You can say that about many major historical events.
DM:
I have no objection to a sceptical attitude towards any historical
discourse, as long as it is authentically sceptical. My point is that
your's is not. Speculation based on subjective personal attitudes
towards trust never replaces hard evidence to the true sceptic.
Response:
Baloney. In the Hans Munch thread the evidence was analyzed and Mr. Mock
used logic and reason to make mincemeat out of your arguments.
DM:
Indeed, I have argued that historians are far too accepting of
'respectable' World War II discourse.
Response:
What besides the Holocaust?
DM:
You have asserted it. To claim to have "argued" it would imply that you
have supported it.
But does this mean revisionists have to REJECT all 'respectable' claims
about World War II, as Steven Mock seems to me to have suggested?
I have suggested no such thing. What I would suggest is that your choice
as to what to reject is motivated solely by your political
predilictions, and makes virtually no reference to the relative quality
of the evidence supporting that which you accept and that which you
reject.
Response:
That would be nice if that were the case. This guy is involved in far
right extremist politics and celebrated the September 11th terrorist
attacks. He has supported regimes such as Saddam Hussein, the Taliban
and North Korea. Mr. Mock, however, does make reference to the quality
of the evidence. His being a Jew has nothing to do with this.
You Lying Cowards
>From: Steven Mock sm...@nizkor.org
>Date: 1/14/2004 7:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns94709DA09DEA...@140.99.99.130>
>
>david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>news:b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com:
>
>> Just occasionally, when he's not playing silly wotsits with me, Steven
>> Mock has something interesting to say. A recurring 'interesting' theme
>> is the accusation that revisionists set standards of evidence that are
>> SO high as to be unreasonable or impossible.
>>
>> Much of the difficulty here is that revisionism is essentially a
>> scepticism -- the methodology involves looking for problems in
>> 'respectable' discourse about World War II. Accordingly, if such
>> discourse contains problems then revisionists -- damn us! -- can be
>> expected to point them out.
>
"Steve Mock" wrote:
>I would call it arrogance in the first degree
[Deletia irrelevancies]
What qualifies a lying cockroach to decide it's "arrogance in the first
degree", idiot bigot? What investigations have been thoroughly conducted and
by whom,
lying cockroach?
Scuttle back under the fridge now, lying cockroach...
Rabbi J. G. Brown
=====================================================================
For centuries, criminals and evil men have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to be a serial criminal. - "The J. G. Brown Study", 2004
david_michael
RE. 'I think the simple definition is that the sceptic is willing to
question anything, but "question" is different than "deny" or "doubt"
- it is an intellectual process that necessitates at least the
possibility of an answer. The point is that the answer must be
validated externally rather than being the product merely of personal
insight.'
Well I think you've got that completely wrong for a start but it's not
really the important part of the argument, which we'll come to in a
moment. In short, this 'true sceptic' of yours seems to me to be very
different from the creature we encounter in Pyrrho and Empiricus. I am
not at all sure whether I would wish to be associated with such a
creature.
RE. ' One could quite easily survive by questioning everything, but
need not require accepting nothing once those questions had been
answered.'
Here I strongly agree with you -- this is precisely my line. We take
note that even things like the moon are at some level questionable,
but having noted this then we take the decision to accept these things
'for the sake of an easy life'. However, we do not accept EVERYTHING
in this way. For example, I assume you do not accept the existence of
Santa Claus in that way, or the arguments of those who hold Hitler to
have been a jolly good chap. So at some level you're taken a decision
to accept some things 'for the sake of an easy life' (such as the
reality of your food) and to reject other things (such as the argument
that Hitler was a good chap really). Where you and I seem to be having
our fundamental difference is that you seem to think that the decision
about what to accept and what to reject is something other than
arbitrary and subjective -- something other than a matter of trust.
You hit the nail on the head a few paragraphs further on when you
respond to my suggestion that there's a sort of continuum with extreme
scepticism at one end and extreme credulity at the other. You say:
<begin quote>
I agree with you that neither position is ideal. I disagree that
one's personal, subjective "trust" is the only means by which to
determine what position to take.
<end quote>
So there's a degree of common ground there in that we're both
apparently rejecting extreme scepticism and extreme credulity and
looking for some sort of middle way. We differ as to what that middle
way is. You refer repeatedly to external validation: 'the best
historical methodology is one that keeps such bias and subjectivity to
a minimum', 'The key is to seek external validation', 'One can believe
the normative case for the simple reason that [it] is grounded in an
elaborate evidentiary basis.' I regard these appeals to some external
validation as utterly untenable precisely because there is no
objective set of criteria to be employed, beyond perhaps a few basic
conventions about keeping the argument logical and compelling. In many
spheres of activity, validation procedures are indeed formalized
(which is not quite the same thing as 'objective'). In law, 'truth' is
generated by following procedures arising from statutory and common
law, interpreted by judges in accordance with rules (which allow some
room for subjectivity). In the hard sciences such as chemistry and
physics there are conventional routines that are followed for testing
hypotheses and assessing results in terms of conventional
'significance levels' to generate statements of 'truth'. In the social
sciences -- and history in PARTICULAR -- this is not the case. The
conventions are highly interpretative.
A moment's reflection will show why. History is an extremely
multidisciplinary discipline. It draws from a vast range of different
fields -- each subject that it approaches calls on different
expertise. Sometimes archaeology is involved. Sometimes document
analysis. Sometimes forensic analysis. Sometime legal input is
necessary. Sometimes geological knowledge, sometimes the ability to
analyse the contents of the stomach. And so on. What codified
'external validation system' could integrate that lot? Each situation
has a vast number of variables. You can't hold one constant and
manipulate the others because the fact that you're doing history means
that the manipulation has already been done!
Finally, there's the rather obvious point that while you do much
calling for external validation, you offer no hint of how it might
work. When discussing the convergence of evidence theory you come
perilously close at one point to suggesting that various strands have
to be 'weighed up'. And that is, in my view, the way to go. We're not
actually disagreeing on that -- although we are disagreeing on how
much weight to attribute to various types of evidence. However,
'weighing up' in that way is a highly subjective process and is
PRECISLEY the sort of approach that I'd use when assessing which
claims about the world (e.g.. moon claims) to accept 'for an easy
life' and which to regard as dodgy enough to mistrust.
It's also important to make the point that this is not some bizarre
'new theory' of mine. It is an appeal to apply the basic hermeneutic
techniques that are now standard in the social sciences to the field
of World War II history.
RE. 'If there is an elaborate network of evidence all pointing to the
existence
of gas chambers, there is a strong reason to provisionally accept the
veracity of their existence. '
This is, of course, not the case if all the 'evidence' that 'points'
in this direction is very weak.
RE. 'If someone says that there was an elaborate conspiracy to
fabricate evidence for the Holocaust orchestrated by this thing called
"our lords and masters", and he can produce no evidence at all, then
its a faith.'
Certainly. However, pointing out opportunities for contamination of
evidence, falsification of documents and interfering with witnesses is
hardly stating that there was such a conspiracy -- although it is not
ruling it out. Nor is pointing out that the 'confessions' that
anti-revsionists set so much store by would get laughed out of a
criminal court in modern-day Britain because, of course, critical
safeguards were lacking back in the 1940s.
Steven Mock
> Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9471706CCBE...@140.99.99.130>...
>
> RE. 'I think the simple definition is that the sceptic is willing to
> question anything, but "question" is different than "deny" or "doubt"
> - it is an intellectual process that necessitates at least the
> possibility of an answer. The point is that the answer must be
> validated externally rather than being the product merely of personal
> insight.'
>
> Well I think you've got that completely wrong for a start but it's not
> really the important part of the argument, which we'll come to in a
> moment. In short, this 'true sceptic' of yours seems to me to be very
> different from the creature we encounter in Pyrrho and Empiricus.
Well, I guess that's the difference between us. I am content to live in
the modern world where the scientific process has provided us with at
least a basic standard for validating theories and conclusions.
I would agree with what you say below that the process does not work
quite as neatly when applied to the social sciencies, but that does not
mean that we can cast aside the logical principles behind it in favour
of your approach, which amounts to the belief that nothing can be known
therefore we should just believe what we want to believe.
> You hit the nail on the head a few paragraphs further on when you
> respond to my suggestion that there's a sort of continuum with extreme
> scepticism at one end and extreme credulity at the other. You say:
>
> <begin quote>
> I agree with you that neither position is ideal. I disagree that
> one's personal, subjective "trust" is the only means by which to
> determine what position to take.
> <end quote>
>
> So there's a degree of common ground there in that we're both
> apparently rejecting extreme scepticism and extreme credulity
Again, I will thank you to stop misusing the word scepticism in this
way. What I reject is both extreme incredulity and extreme credulity.
Scepticism is my middle ground. It is the place where both belief and
disbelief must be questioned and tested.
> and
> looking for some sort of middle way. We differ as to what that middle
> way is. You refer repeatedly to external validation: 'the best
> historical methodology is one that keeps such bias and subjectivity to
> a minimum', 'The key is to seek external validation', 'One can believe
> the normative case for the simple reason that [it] is grounded in an
> elaborate evidentiary basis.' I regard these appeals to some external
> validation as utterly untenable precisely because there is no
> objective set of criteria to be employed, beyond perhaps a few basic
> conventions about keeping the argument logical and compelling.
Hey, don't knock the power of those basic conventions. I would say that
the circular logic employed by revisionists, and the lack of external
validation to give teeth to their their alternate theories, is more than
enough to cause the rejection of their approach by any meaningful set of
criteria.
External validation is merely a general principle by which the
objectivity of a methodology can be tested. Granted, there may be
disputes as to the extent to which a given methodology meets that test -
and if you wish to engage in such a dispute with regards to Holocaust
revisionism, it would be an interesting discussion. But that does not
mean that we can give up on such manner of validation, or such
objectivity, as a meaningful goal.
It is harder to dismiss a theory as being merely the product of the
theorist's prejudices and predilications to the extent that the theory
is validated externally. Hence it is perfectly reasonable for anti-
revisionists to argue that their theory is superior on the basis that is
is grounded in such validation while revisionism is merely a personal
belief.
> In many
> spheres of activity, validation procedures are indeed formalized
> (which is not quite the same thing as 'objective'). In law, 'truth' is
> generated by following procedures arising from statutory and common
> law, interpreted by judges in accordance with rules (which allow some
> room for subjectivity). In the hard sciences such as chemistry and
> physics there are conventional routines that are followed for testing
> hypotheses and assessing results in terms of conventional
> 'significance levels' to generate statements of 'truth'. In the social
> sciences -- and history in PARTICULAR -- this is not the case. The
> conventions are highly interpretative.
>
> A moment's reflection will show why. History is an extremely
> multidisciplinary discipline. It draws from a vast range of different
> fields -- each subject that it approaches calls on different
> expertise. Sometimes archaeology is involved. Sometimes document
> analysis. Sometimes forensic analysis. Sometime legal input is
> necessary. Sometimes geological knowledge, sometimes the ability to
> analyse the contents of the stomach. And so on. What codified
> 'external validation system' could integrate that lot?
Why must it be codified? And why according to only a single set of
standards? "External validation" is put forward merely as a general
principle. All you have just done is offer us a myriad of potential
sources for such validation! (in which case, it should be easy for you
to find validation at least *somewhere* for your theory about the
Holocaust).
> Each situation
> has a vast number of variables. You can't hold one constant and
> manipulate the others because the fact that you're doing history means
> that the manipulation has already been done!
>
> Finally, there's the rather obvious point that while you do much
> calling for external validation, you offer no hint of how it might
> work. When discussing the convergence of evidence theory you come
> perilously close at one point to suggesting that various strands have
> to be 'weighed up'. And that is, in my view, the way to go. We're not
> actually disagreeing on that -- although we are disagreeing on how
> much weight to attribute to various types of evidence.
I suppose you're right. What I disapprove of is the way that you seem
to think that upon exposing even a *potential* problem with a piece of
evidence, you automatically assume that it has not been taken into due
consideration by Holocaust historians on the grounds that they did not
summarily reduce the weight of the evidence in question to zero and cast
it aside. That is a methodology that tends towards the extreme end of
your spectrum of credulity/mistrust, and hence is counterproductive to a
genuine historical inquiry.
> However,
> 'weighing up' in that way is a highly subjective process and is
> PRECISLEY the sort of approach that I'd use when assessing which
> claims about the world (e.g.. moon claims) to accept 'for an easy
> life' and which to regard as dodgy enough to mistrust.
>
> It's also important to make the point that this is not some bizarre
> 'new theory' of mine. It is an appeal to apply the basic hermeneutic
> techniques that are now standard in the social sciences to the field
> of World War II history.
It is bizarre only because of the extreme to which you take it in the
case of this event alone, and because you have not shown that the basic
hermeneutic techniques that are now standard in the social sciences are
NOT applied to the field of World War II history. Once again, have
historians ever FAILED to weigh the evidence giving its problems due
consideration? Not that you've shown.
> RE. 'If there is an elaborate network of evidence all pointing to the
> existence
> of gas chambers, there is a strong reason to provisionally accept the
> veracity of their existence. '
>
> This is, of course, not the case if all the 'evidence' that 'points'
> in this direction is very weak.
But now you're retreating back to vagueries. Oh, so they're not just
"weak" anymore, they're "very weak". We're supposed to accept this
characterization because you have made it. The whole point of this
discussion is to determine just what it is you mean by "weak", and, as
it turns out, the same could be said for all of the evidence for any
given event. In which case, the fact that evidence in question is
"weak" even "very weak" does not invalidate the conclusion, so long as
no alternative conclusion can be supported to even a remotely similar
extent, and especially when, as I said before, the strengths of some of
the items of evidence address the weaknesses of others.
> RE. 'If someone says that there was an elaborate conspiracy to
> fabricate evidence for the Holocaust orchestrated by this thing called
> "our lords and masters", and he can produce no evidence at all, then
> its a faith.'
>
> Certainly. However, pointing out opportunities for contamination of
> evidence, falsification of documents and interfering with witnesses is
> hardly stating that there was such a conspiracy -
Considering the number of different witnesses and documents involved,
the need to co-ordinate their stories, the need to destroy any evidence
of falstification or coercion... yes, it is.
I think that should be clear enough already, but it will certainly be
clear by the end of this exercise.
> - although it is not
> ruling it out. Nor is pointing out that the 'confessions' that
> anti-revsionists set so much store by would get laughed out of a
> criminal court in modern-day Britain because, of course, critical
> safeguards were lacking back in the 1940s.
A few of them perhaps. Not most of them. Certainly not all.
Steven Mock
Sara Salzman
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
And when are you planning to respond to my answers to your lies and
slander, Dr. Homeland?
Your accusations that I was planning violence?
Your accusations that I was trying to deny David Irving rights that he,
as a foreigner, doesn't have?
You jumped in all excited, posted the majority of my phone number, made
accusations, and when thoroughly embarassed, scurried away.
So let's try once more:
> What a fascinating statement!
>
> PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
>
> Peacefully assembling?
> Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
>
> Gotta tell you, Dr. Homeland, those are GUARANTEES under our
> Constitution. If Irving doesn't like it, he can stay out of our country.
>
> If you bothered to pay attention, you'd see that I said quite clearly
> that Irving had every right to come to Denver, and every right to speak
> in a public forum.
>
> I also have those same rights.
>
> So tell me, what were those "Nazi tactics" I used?
>
> Sara
Still waiting for an answer....
--
-My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
-I don't rely on personal attacks as my means of posting and
the bulk of my posts prove so! You can't discern the difference.
BTW my name is not Fatboy you stupid kike.
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
helge
> Revisionism is different from scepticism in one important way. I would
> not characterize Holocaust revisionism as authentic revisionism.
whatever you like".
You are FREE TO EXPRESS your opinions.
> Authentic revisionism looks over history to correct and improve.
yes.
> Any
> serious academic historian of the Holocaut is a revisionist.
hmm.
Holocaust
> revisionism as represented by IHR, David Irving, Leuchter, Faurrison,
> etc.
rubbish. there is no one group of revisionists who share the same
opinion - you did create such group as it suits your goal - "there is an
evil enemy"
> is a sham revisionism and a sham scepticism. Why? First of all, let
> us assume there are academic Holocaust reviisionists who based on the
> evidence accept the Holocaust occurred.
crap.
there is no evidence that holocau$t happened.
holocau$t is a jewish lie about:
* 1 000 000 - 1 500 000 jews shot by Einsatzkommandos in Eastern Europe
* 400 000 jews gassed in "gassvans" at Chelmno
* 100 000 - 200 000 jews gassed at Sobibor "extermination camp"
* 500 000 - 800 000 gassed jews at Belzec
* 750 000 - 1 400 000 jews gassed at Treblinka
* 300 000 gassed jews at Majdanek
* 1 400 000 gassed jews in Auschwitz I and Birkenau
+ "unknown number" of jews who died because of diseases, starvation and
"slavelabour"
NONE of those above "numbers" is supported/proved by evidence.
why ? simply because there was no holocau$t.
instead of evidence and facts we are being fed with jewish bullshit
and poetry in form of "Painted Bird", "Schindler's list", "eyewitness
accounts" about "huge pits filled with boiling jewish fat", open-air
cremations where bodies of fat jewish women were used instead of [the
missing] fuel, 18-35 jews being gassed on 1 square meter, "huge
massgraves" [50m x 25m x 10m ] - none managed to find, etc.
> They are still revisionists
> because they are open to correcting and improving history. To use an
> analogy historians of WWII accept WWII occurred
they do no accept it because of some ideology or dogma - they do accept
WWII occured - because of the facts and evidence.
BTW. I never heard about a law that could be used against people who
opose the eistence of WWII, WWI, Napoleon, etc., however there are
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION opressing laws against those who are oposing the
"official version" of holocau$t - it seems to me that there is some
difference between the occurance of WWII and the occurance of holcoau$t
:)
> yet they are open to
> correcting and improving that history which doesn't necessitate
> concluding WWII didn't occur. Holocaust revisionism as represented by
> non-academic historians
rubbish. academic historians who do have different opinions are NOT FREE
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. According to you - for example - in former
communist countries of Eastern Europe - the "official" historians "were
right" and there "were no academic historians" who would oppose the
"official history" compiliant and controled by the communist government.
> doesn't meet the rigorous academic standards.
sure. what about the rigorous academic standards of THE FORENSIC AND THE
ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence for holocau$t ?
use the numbers of "killed jews" mentioned earlier and relate them with
available FORENSIC and ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence - there is only one
conclusion: there was no holocau$t - it is a jewish fraud.
> One will also find the Holocaust revisionists of the non-academic
> variety frequently advertised on neo-Nazi/white-right websites.
here we go - "methods of jewstice" - "crime by association",
thanks god that those evil "neo-Nazi/white-right" guys do not
put on their webpages something like 1+1=2 as we had to change that,
after all we can not agree with "neo-Nazi/white-right", right ?
> It's
> quite clear these Holocaust revisionists have a political agenda.
ok tell me about the "political agenda" of Rassinier and Faurisson.
> Its
> just coincidence these Holocaust revisionists are allying themselves
> with the same forces which perpetrated the Holocaust.
exactly Rassinier was imprisoned by the Nazis in a concentration camp,
but feel free and explain how he and Faurisson "are allying themselves
with the same forces which perpetrated the Holocaust."
> But wait! If the
> Holocaust didn't happen then the Nazis weren't so bad after all.
rubbish - and a typical jewish conclusion - one can easy understand your
sentance that the ONLY crimes the Nazis commited were the crimes against
jews - "the rest" doesn't matter.
"crimes against jews" and holocau$t are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
One thing is to prove crimes against jews, OTHER thing is to prove
holocau$t- simply someone who shot 500 Eskimos is an criminal and
murdered - however that does not mean that anyone can accuse him/her
of killing 800, 8000, 80000, 800000 Eskimos.
evidence and facts about 500 killed Eskimos is different from evidence
about 800, 8000, 80000, 800000 killed Eskimos.
> When I
> look at the arrogance and contempt of somebody like David Irving I
> wonder why he even bothers with his facade.
>
there was no holocau$t, the truth will out.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Morghus
<snip>
> I have long argued that a highly sceptical attitude towards
> 'respectable' discourse about World War II is justified given the
> powerful vested interests involved, the utter ruthlessness of the
> victors, the high stakes, and the opportunities and means for jiggery
> pokery -- and, indeed, actual cases of very high-level jiggery pokery.
> Indeed, I have argued that historians are far too accepting of
> 'respectable' World War II discourse.
>
> But does this mean revisionists have to REJECT all 'respectable'
> claims about World War II, as Steven Mock seems to me to have
> suggested?
>
> I have already indicated various sorts of evidence that would seem
> compelling to ME. I cited the case of an elderly lady from Cape Town
> who was no great fan of the Allies but who privately admitted, with
> some unhappiness, that the Ardeatine Caves massacre had indeed taken
> place. She had no reason to lie. She made the comments in private. She
> was no fan of the Establishment -- quite the contrary. She had all her
> wits about her. She had never been tried or threatened with trial for
> anything. She was just a private citizen with interesting connections
> who was 'in the know'.
Hell, if you are persuaded by the casual conversation of some
little old lady, I am surprised you question any part of the
Holocaust. Why does her statement carry more weight than all those
"confessions" and all those "eyewitness" reports?
The story of the massacre at the Ardeatine caves, just like the
story of the destruction of Lidice, could well be just more
anti-German propaganda now being passed off as history. No one ever
found a copy of any written documents confirming any orders or reports
of the event, even though the order is supposed to have come from
Hitler himself. The story is based entirely on testimony. Like all
anti-German Holocaust lore, there is little evidence to support the
stories of a massacre.
The basic story is illogical. The Germans are supposed to have
murdered over 350 people (mostly Italians--only 77 Jews)as reprisal
for a bombing. But instead of public executions to discourage future
bombings, the Germans sneaked the victims into a cave in groups of
five, bound their hands behind them, and then shot them through the
back of the neck, Bolshevik style. But hey, the story is about German
cruelty, so people will believe anything, even the storytelling of
some little old lady.
Michael Ragland
Response:
Revisionism is different from scepticism in one important way. I would
not characterize Holocaust revisionism as authentic revisionism.
H:
That's alright. It is your right "to characterize XYZ as authentic or
whatever you like".
You are FREE TO EXPRESS your opinions.
Response:
Okay.
MR:
Authentic revisionism looks over history to
correct and improve.
H:
yes.
MR:
Any serious academic historian of the Holocaut is a revisionist.
H:
hmm.
MR:
Holocaust revisionism as represented by IHR, David Irving, Leuchter,
Faurrison, etc.
H;
rubbish. there is no one group of revisionists who share the same
opinion - you did create such group as it suits your goal - "there is an
evil enemy"
Response:
You are mistaken. The vast majority of 'non-academic' Holocaust
revisionists seemingly question whether Nazi Germany systematically
exterminated millions of European Jewry. IHR, David Irving, Leuchter,
Faurisson, Zundel, etc. all seemingly question Nazi Germany
systematically exterminated millions of European Jewry. They do this at
the very least. In many instances they come right out and state Nazi
Germany 'did not' systematically exterminate millions of European Jewry.
In this sense they go beyond merely being just skeptical of the
Holocaust to being like you who states it never occurred. So there is
definitely a group of Holocaust revisionists (and unfortunately the term
'revisionist' has really been misappropriated here') who 'publicly'
subscribe to the 'central tenet' Nazi Germany did not systematically
exterminate millions of European Jewry. Those who accept the evidence
the Holocaust occurred have not created an evil enemy and your statement
they have is just projection on your part.
MR:
is a sham revisionism and a sham scepticism. Why? First of all, let us
assume there are academic Holocaust reviisionists who based on the
evidence accept the Holocaust occurred.
H:
crap.
there is no evidence that holocau$t happened. holocau$t is a jewish lie
about:
* 1 000 000 - 1 500 000 jews shot by Einsatzkommandos in Eastern Europe
* 400 000 jews gassed in "gassvans" at Chelmno
* 100 000 - 200 000 jews gassed at Sobibor "extermination camp"
* 500 000 - 800 000 gassed jews at Belzec
* 750 000 - 1 400 000 jews gassed at Treblinka
* 300 000 gassed jews at Majdanek
* 1 400 000 gassed jews in Auschwitz I and Birkenau
+ "unknown number" of jews who died because of diseases, starvation and
"slavelabour"
NONE of those above "numbers" is supported/proved by evidence. why ?
simply because there was no holocau$t. instead of evidence and facts we
are being fed with jewish bullshit and poetry in form of "Painted Bird",
"Schindler's list", "eyewitness accounts" about "huge pits filled with
boiling jewish fat", open-air cremations where bodies of fat jewish
women were used instead of [the missing] fuel, 18-35 jews being gassed
on 1 square meter, "huge massgraves" [50m x 25m x 10m ] - none managed
to find, etc.
Response:
Kosinsky and Spielberg made fictional works based on real life events.
You need to keep that in mind. They produced works of art. In the case
of the Painted Bird which was an excellent, violent and disturbing novel
there apparently was some deception on the part of the author. It was
suppose to be an autobiographical account of the author's life during
WWII in Eastern Europe. From what I recall the novel was greatly
embellished. In the case of Schindler's list I doubt Schindler at the
end of the war broke down and cried and declared, "I could have done
more". Again, its really inappropriate for you to criticize the Painted
Bird and Schindler's list because they are fictional works...works of
art..based on real life events. As such they are not the measuring stick
to determine evidence for the Holocaust.
MR:
They are still revisionists
because they are open to correcting and improving history. To use an
analogy historians of WWII accept WWII occurred
H:
they do no accept it because of some ideology or dogma - they do accept
WWII occured - because of the facts and evidence.
Response:
That's right. And academic historians believe the Holocaust occurred
because of the evidence...not because of ideology or dogma.
H:
BTW. I never heard about a law that could be used against people who
opose the eistence of WWII, WWI, Napoleon, etc., however there are
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION opressing laws against those who are oposing the
"official version" of holocau$t - it seems to me that there is some
difference between the occurance of WWII and the occurance of holcoau$t
:)
Response:
Yes, there is. I'm not aware of the Flat Earth Society being linked to
thousands of neo-Nazi websites. Are you? Holocaust 'revisionism' is very
much tied in with the spread of worldwide hatred..specifically
antisemitism. That is why there are laws in certain countries banning
Holocaust denial. It represents a threat to society. A person who thinks
WWI or WWII didn't occur doesn't represent a threat to society. The
person may be a crackpot such as Robert McElwaine or possibly mentally
ill but they don't represent the threat to society Holocaust denial
does.
MR:
yet they are open to
correcting and improving that history which doesn't necessitate
concluding WWII didn't occur. Holocaust revisionism as represented by
non-academic historians
H:
rubbish. academic historians who do have different opinions are NOT FREE
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. According to you - for example - in former
communist countries of Eastern Europe - the "official" historians "were
right" and there "were no academic historians" who would oppose the
"official history" compiliant and controled by the communist government.
Response:
It depends on several factors. In countries such as the U.S. and Western
Europe and some other places academic historians are free to express
their thoughts. However, if you live in some Middle Eastern countries
and some other places you as an academic historian may not be totally
free to express your thoughts. You may only be allowed to express them
in certain areas.
MR:
doesn't meet the rigorous academic standards.
H:
sure. what about the rigorous academic standards of THE FORENSIC AND THE
ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence for holocau$t ?
use the numbers of "killed jews" mentioned earlier and relate them with
available FORENSIC and ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence - there is only one
conclusion: there was no holocau$t - it is a jewish fraud.
Response:
The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and comes from a
multitude of sources. But if you are looking for forensic evidence in
the forms of bodies of those Jews who were cremated you aren't going to
find it. It left the chimney's as ash and most of that ash was dumped in
water bodies. I'm not real familiar with the archeological evidence but
I know mass Jewish graves have been unearthed. What the Nazis managed
not to burn has been discovered to a certain extent and there are likely
mass graves which have yet to be discovered. Have you heard of the
specific German killing squads in the East whose sole job was to round
up Jews and kill them? Are you saying you belive these units didn't
exist? Are you saying millions of Jews weren't transported in cattle
cars to concentration-extermination camps? Are you saying there was no
selection on the ramp and that children, the elderly and those to weak
or sick were not gassed to death and cremated?
Are you saying there were no vans which killed Jews by pumping carbon
monoxide into the van? Are you aware of the fact there are official
documents (many available on Nizkor) which document the aforementioned?
MR:
One will also find the Holocaust revisionists of the non-academic
variety frequently advertised on neo-Nazi/white-right websites.
H:
here we go - "methods of jewstice" - "crime by association", thanks god
that those evil "neo-Nazi/white-right" guys do not put on their webpages
something like 1+1=2 as we had to change that, after all we can not
agree with "neo-Nazi/white-right", right ?
Response:
You can agree or disagree with whomever you want.
MR:
It's quite clear these Holocaust revisionists have a political agenda.
H:
ok tell me about the "political agenda" of Rassinier and Faurisson.
Response:
Not real familiar with their work. I'll use David Irving instead. The
man has spoken at numerous neo-Nazi functions. The purpose of Holocaust
revisionism is to legitimize Nazism and make it a viable political
alternative again. As such it is a part of the Nazi political agenda.
MR:
Its just coincidence these Holocaust revisionists are allying themselves
with the same forces which perpetrated the Holocaust.
H:
exactly Rassinier was imprisoned by the Nazis in a concentration camp,
but feel free and explain how he and Faurisson "are allying themselves
with the same forces which perpetrated the Holocaust."
Response:
There are all kinds of people in the world. If Rassinier was imprisoned
by the Nazis in a concentration camp that doesn't necessarily mean he
would never become a Holocaust revisionist. People can identify with the
aggressor under all types of circumstances.
MR:
But wait! If the
Holocaust didn't happen then the Nazis weren't so bad after all.
H:
rubbish - and a typical jewish conclusion - one can easy understand your
sentance that the ONLY crimes the Nazis commited were the crimes against
jews - "the rest" doesn't matter.
"crimes against jews" and holocau$t are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. One thing
is to prove crimes against jews, OTHER thing is to prove holocau$t-
simply someone who shot 500 Eskimos is an criminal and murdered -
however that does not mean that anyone can accuse him/her of killing
800, 8000, 80000, 800000 Eskimos.
evidence and facts about 500 killed Eskimos is different from evidence
about 800, 8000, 80000, 800000 killed Eskimos.
Response:
In the case of the Third Reich 'crimes against Jews' and the 'Holocaust'
can't be seen separately. Antisemitism was fundamental to Nazism. We are
not talking about isolated instances of individual Germans killing a
handful of Jews. We are talking about the deliberate, purposeful and
systematic extermination of millions of European Jewry.
MR:
When I look at the arrogance and contempt of somebody like David Irving
I wonder why he even bothers with his facade.
H:
there was no holocau$t, the truth will out.
Response:
There was a Holocaust.
The Mad Revisionist
news:13479-400...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net:
> Kosinsky and Spielberg made fictional works based on real life events.
> You need to keep that in mind. They produced works of art. In the case
> of the Painted Bird which was an excellent, violent and disturbing
> novel there apparently was some deception on the part of the author.
> It was suppose to be an autobiographical account of the author's life
> during WWII in Eastern Europe. From what I recall the novel was
> greatly embellished. In the case of Schindler's list I doubt Schindler
> at the end of the war broke down and cried and declared, "I could have
> done more". Again, its really inappropriate for you to criticize the
> Painted Bird and Schindler's list because they are fictional
> works...works of art..based on real life events. As such they are not
> the measuring stick to determine evidence for the Holocaust.
THE TITANIC
Hollywood Propaganda Fraud Exposed!
Research shows Cameron's movie is fiction
by
THE MAD REVISIONIST
At the 1998 Politically Correct love-in known as the Academy Awards,
director James Cameron's latest piece of mega-budget propaganda was the
inevitable shoe-in for Best Picture. This was hardly a surprise, as it
must be the 555th movie or TV program on the "Titanic".
Titanic inevitably rang the Academy bell because Hollywood is Hollywood
and what happened to the victims of the Titanic is not only the longest
lasting, but probably the most effective propaganda exercise ever.
Hardly a day goes by that the press, radio and television don't mention
something about the 1500 alleged to have drowned. The figure is
nonsense but media folk go on parroting what everyone "knows". I used
to do the same.
There have been many other disasters at sea, and most of them have
hardly warranted a paragraph, let alone movies. Has anyone made a film
about the 1,200 killed on board the RMS Lusitania, or the death of 1,100
on the RMS Empress of Ireland? As even The Titanic Resource had to
reluctantly admit, "True, there have been worse maritime disasters, but
the power of the Titanic story has an enduring quality that appears will
never die." Any serious revisionist inevitably must ask why the
establishment has pushed the Titanic myth on the public so tenaciously.
Just look at the unusually long list of films that have been made about
this alleged tragedy alone! What other maritime tragedy has warranted
such a barrage of Hollywood propaganda, not to mention hundreds and
hundreds of books and articles, as have surrounded the alleged Titanic?
Lots of people have died in many sea disasters. The Northern Shipwreck
Database has archived more than 65,000 records of marine casualties over
the last four centuries! What makes the suffering of the Titanic so
special?
All of this has culminated in James Cameron's most recent production.
After eighty-five years the moguls of the movie world reckoned the time
was right to cash in in a big way. And Cameron reckoned it was time for
him to cash in too. "Movie of the year! Cameron takes on the
Titanic!", screamed the cover-page in Newsweek magazine. You would have
thought the disaster had just happened and that the film was the biggest
event since the Battle of Britain.
This film, however, contains so many flaws and inconsistencies that it
is absolutely worthless as a credible historical piece. Let's start with
the fact that the two principal characters, alleged to have had a
dramatic love affair aboard the doomed vessel, were, in fact, simply
names picked at random from the ship's manifests. There is no evidence
that these two persons even met during the actual voyage.
The truth is revealed when one watches the end-credits of the movie.
Stashed away, in tiny letters, shown only after most people would be
expected to have already left the theater, is the fateful disclaimer:
"Characters, places and incidents in this film are fictitous. Any
resemblance to actual events, locales or persons, living or dead, is
entirely coincidental."
Even the filmmakers are forced to admit that this movie - purporting to
represent a historical event - is, in fact, a work of FICTION, just like
Amadeus and Schindler's List!
Am I suggesting that the boat did not sink, or that dozens, maybe
hundreds of people didn't get wet and cold and maybe even broke an
ankle? No. But propaganda is selective, and Hollywood propaganda is
the most selective of all. There is no physical evidence that 1500 went
down with the ship.
Eyewitness accounts contain so many discrepancies as to make the whole
story unbelievable. Some say the ship split in two before it sank,
other's say it didn't. And it should also be noted that there were more
than 16 lifeboats on board the Titanic - 17% more than required by law.
The ship was probably scuttled (intentionally sank) after all the
passengers and crew were safely aboard the lifeboats. They all escaped
and filed monstrous insurance claims. The whole thing is a titanic
insurance hoax.
That is why the tear in the hull allegedly caused by an iceberg has
never been found. All the hull damage that has been found and
documented could have been caused by the ship hitting the sea floor.
And where, exactly, is this so-called iceberg? How can revisionists be
expected to accept that 1500 people were killed if the very instrument
of their destruction is not even available for examination?
Based on a complete lack of physical evidence alone, it is safe to
dismiss the conventional Titanic story.
--
THE MAD REVISIONIST
We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion
http://www.revisionism.nl/
Steven Mock
news:73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com:
Dr. Michael,
Morghus has taught us a very important lesson here about the value of
objective and logical standards for external validation. Care to offer
your views as to what that might be?
Steven Mock
david_michael
> In article <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>
> And when are you planning to respond to my answers to your lies and
> slander, Dr. Homeland?
>
> Your accusations that I was planning violence?
> Your accusations that I was trying to deny David Irving rights that he,
> as a foreigner, doesn't have?
>
> You jumped in all excited, posted the majority of my phone number, made
> accusations, and when thoroughly embarassed, scurried away.
>
> So let's try once more:
>
> > What a fascinating statement!
> >
> > PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
> >
> > Peacefully assembling?
> > Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
> >
> > Gotta tell you, Dr. Homeland, those are GUARANTEES under our
> > Constitution. If Irving doesn't like it, he can stay out of our country.
> >
> > If you bothered to pay attention, you'd see that I said quite clearly
> > that Irving had every right to come to Denver, and every right to speak
> > in a public forum.
> >
> > I also have those same rights.
> >
> > So tell me, what were those "Nazi tactics" I used?
> >
> > Sara
>
> Still waiting for an answer....
Apologies -- I'm trying to do too many things at once again.
Right. Mr David Irving posted an account of an attempt by you together
with some 90 other people to disrupt a meeting that he wished to hold.
You have queried his use of the word 'British' but do not seem to have
disputed the assertions that you were bringing 90 or more people with
you and first aid supplies (unless I have missed something). The
accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving, (b) the fact that
you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you, and (c) the fact that
your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies. Does it take
90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian? And
since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
'getting' someone? Since when does 'peaceful assembly' constitute
'getting' someone? And what else could the carriage of first aid
supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
Were you perhaps planning to lecture Mr Irving on how to apply a
bandage?
Your answers please, Ms Salzman?
Sara Salzman
Of course I disputed that. I told you that Irving added the word
"British" and changed the word "nine" to "ninety."
> and first aid supplies (unless I have missed something).
First aid supplies for US in case any of Mr. Irving's skinhead friends
decide to be violent towards US.
>The
> accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
> statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving,
Sorry. No violence.
> (b) the fact that
> you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you,
Wrong again. There were NINE people; and none of them were there to
"assist" me, they wanted to let David Irving know that Denver does not
"welcome" him.
> and (c) the fact that
> your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies.
a) not my "accomplice," just another American citizen,
b) the person in question decided ON HIS OWN to bring a first-aid kit,
c) he brought it because Irving attracts a lot of violent people.
> Does it take
> 90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian?
The number of people is irrelevant, although Irving lied about it to
make himself seem more important.
> And
> since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
> 'getting' someone?
Since Irving tried to deny Americans their right to protest his visit to
Denver, "getting Irving" simply meant uncovering the location of his
meeting and protesting it.
> Since when does 'peaceful assembly' constitute
> 'getting' someone?
Explained above.
>And what else could the carriage of first aid
> supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
Explained above. We were not expecting anything. We were being prepared.
> Were you perhaps planning to lecture Mr Irving on how to apply a
> bandage?
Not at all. The person who brought a first aid kit was being careful and
preparing for the reaction of Mr. Irving's "friends."
>
> Your answers please, Ms Salzman?
>
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
You have them. Now answer MY questions, which you carefully avoided:
PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
Peacefully assembling?
Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
The article in Westword, which Irving both quotes from and links to on
his site, says very clearly:
"I don't want to prevent him from coming," she says. "I just want to
make sure people know who he is." And where he is, since the location of
Irving's talk has yet to be set.
"In the meantime, Salzman has launched a one-woman crusade to make his
trip to Colorado as unwelcoming as possible. Once she determines where
he'll be speaking, she hopes to round up a group of people to protest
and hand out pamphlets describing his views. "This isn't a question of
whether he has a right to say what he wants to say," Salzman explains.
"But I'd like to make his visit a very unpleasant one."
Now tell me again, what "Nazi" tactics?
Sara
Philip Mathews
"helge" <he...@helge.net> wrote in message
news:4006b...@news6.uncensored-news.com...
Still telling the same stupid lie, eh!
The evidence is documentary, scientific, physical, and testimonial.
I doubt if you know even a fraction of it.
But here is a smattering I put together for another denier. Perhaps
you'd
like to educate yourself.
Christopher Brownings expert report to the Irving trial gives a very
brief recap of evidence for mass murder at the operation Reinhardt
camps and by the mobile shooting squads.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/browning1.htm
Here's the Table of Contents
I. Qualifications to give historical evidence
II. Purpose of this Expert Opinion Report
III. Implementation of the Final Solution
IV. Documentary Evidence for the Systematic Mass Killing of Jews by
Shooting
A. Scale of Killing
B. Escalation
C. Camouflage Language
D. Implications
V. Evidence for the Killing of Jews through Gas in Chelmno, Semlin,
and the Camps of Operation Reinhard (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka)
A. Documentary Evidence for the Emergence of a Program to Kill the
Jews of Europe Europe
B. Documentary Evidence Concerning the Gassing of Jews at Semlin,
Chelmno, and on occupied Soviet territory in gas vans
1. Semlin
2. Chelmno
3. Einsatzgruppen on Soviet Territory
C. Documentary Evidence concerning the Operation Reinhard Camps of
Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka
D. Eyewitness Testimony concerning Gassing at Belzec, Sobibor,
andTreblinka
1. German Visitors
2. German Camp Personnel
3. Non-German Guards
4. Nearby Poles
5. Jewish Escapees
E. Documentary Evidence concerning Atkion Reinhard (alternatively
spelled Reinhardt)
------------
Robert Jan Van Pelt covers some of the more important evidence for
Auschwitz. Click on evidence and then Van Pelt's report.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html
Here are the contents of his report.
Preface
Introduction
PART ONE CONCERNING HISTORY
I Auschwitz
II Auschwitz and the Holocaust
PART TWO CONCERNING EVIDENCE
III Intimations,1941 -1945
IV Attestations,1945 -46
V Confessions,1945 -47
PART THREE CONCERNING DOCUMENTS
VI Blueprints of Genocide
PART FOUR CONCERNING DENIAL
VII Auschwitz and Holocaust Denial
VIII Auschwitz and the Faurisson Affair
IX The Leuchter Report
PART FIVE CONCERNING IRVING
X Auschwitz and David Irving (1977 -1988 -1992)
X I Irving Adrift (1993 -1998)
Conclusion
---------------------------
Substantially more information about the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile
killing squads employed in Russia, including many of the written
reports prepared based on their activities, can be found here:
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/einsatz.html
--------------------
Peter Longerich, another expert who provided evidence at the
Irving/Lipstadt Trial offers an overview of the evidence for the
systematic character of Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate Europe's
Jews.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html
Here's the contents of his report.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Mass executions in the Soviet Union
A. Orders
B. The murders by the commandos
2. Executions by Einsatzgruppen and police battalions in the first
weeks of the war (Shooting of Jewish men)
2.2 Einsatzgruppe B
2.3 Einsatzgruppe C
2.4 Einsatzgruppe z.b.V.
2.5 Einsatzgruppe D
2.6 Police Battalions
2.7 Conclusions
3. Expansion of the shooting to the entire Jewish civilian
population.
3.2 HSSPF Russia South and Einsatzgruppe C
3.3 Einsatzgruppe D
3.4 Intensification of the murders in the Reichskommissariat Ostland
(area of the Einsatzgruppe A).
3.5 Conclusions
III. Regional mass murder of the Jews in 1941/42 outside of the
Soviet Union
A. The Beginning of the Deportations
B. The Transfer of Technology for Killing by Means of Gas to Eastern
Europe
C. Regional Killing and Planning, Autumn 1941
D. Pronouncements by Leading National Socialists on the
Exterminations
E. The Wannsee Conference
F. Extension of the Deportations
G. Mass murder in the Districts of Lublin and Galicia
H. Conclusions
IV. The Escalation of operations in Early 1942
V. The machinery of mass murder in full operation (1942-1944)
VI. SUMMARY
His introduction says:
[quote]
1. After the Wannsee Conference of 20 January, in the Spring of 1942,
the Nazi regime began to implement a programme aimed at the complete
physical extermination of European Jewry. The victims were either
deported to be murdered in gas-chambers in special extermination
camps, or came to their death in other ways - whether by execution or
due to the devastating living conditions prevailing during their
deportation and in the ghettos and work camps.
2. In order to carry out this mass murder of millions of people, the
Nazis set up a complex machinery of destruction characterised by a
division of labour. When closely examined, the individual elements of
this machinery and the manner in which they where co-ordinated, leave
no room for doubt that the murder of these people proceeded in a
systematic way. The organisation and extent of the deportations; the
"liquidation" of ghettos, the selection of those deemed "fit for work"
from those "unfit", the exploitation of those "fit" for work in a
programme of forced labour which generally led to total exhaustion and
death, the construction of regular "death factories", the removal of
the corpses and traces of the extermination process - these are all
compatible elements of a system of planned mass murder.
3. This system for the implementation of the death of millions of
persons "functioned" in its entirety as of July 1942. It thus took
more than one year until the mass murder of Jews - initiated in the
occupied Soviet areas in June of 1941, and extended to further areas
in East and Southeastern Europe from the Fall of 1941 onwards - was
transformed into a programme for the extermination of all European
Jews.
4. The following report gives proof to the assertion that the mass
murders of hundreds of thousands of Jews between the Summer of 1941
and the Summer of 1942 - which were still restricted to the areas of
Eastern and Southeastern Europe - were systematic in character. This
is to say, these mass murders followed a unified pattern, were carried
out on the basis of central commands, and must be regarded as
representing a conscious expression of the policy of the Nazi regime.
It will be shown that in this time period (Summer 1941 to Summer 1942)
essential elements of the Nazi policy of extermination were developed
with the goal of murdering more and more people in ever shorter time
intervals. As of the Summer, 1942, these plans were assembled into one
extermination plan for all of Europe. This report categorically
rejects the notion that the murder of European Jews in the Second
World War was the consequence of a series of isolated murder campaigns
occurring without plan in haphazard and differing ways as a result of
decisions by subordinate institutions- i.e. murder actions not
displaying a common pattern or unified control.
5. The investigation will cover three complexes: a) mass executions
in the occupied Soviet Union in the second half of 1941: b) the
regional mass murder of the Jewish civilian population outside of the
Soviet Union between the Fall of 1941 and Spring of 1942; c) the
transformation of these mass murders into a unified deportation and
extermination machinery in the area dominated by Germany in the Spring
and Summer of 1942.
------------
The best summary of the evidence for gassing vans is here:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//chelmno/gas-wagons/sonderdruck.0387
Human remains have been found at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and
Auschwitz.
Even deniers admit an excavation at Treblinka was done in 1945.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/WeberAllen133-158.html
Photographs exist of the Nazi efforts to dig up and burn corpses
during the war.
The Belzec Camp was the subject of an archeological study during which
21,000 cubic meters of mass graves were found.
http://snurl.com/2oxq Grave Pits at Belzec - Summary
http://snurl.com/2oxr Grave Pits at Belzec - Summary of Grave
Volumes
http://snurl.com/2oxm Grave Pits at Belzec # 1
http://snurl.com/2oxx Grave Pits at Belzec #2
http://snurl.com/2oxz Grave Pits at Belzec #3
http://snurl.com/2oy2 Grave Pits at Belzec #4
http://snurl.com/2oy3 Grave Pits at Belzec #5
http://snurl.com/2oy9 Grave Pits at Belzec #6
http://snurl.com/2oyb Grave Pits at Belzec #7
http://snurl.com/2oyd Grave Pits at Belzec #8
http://snurl.com/2oyf Grave Pits at Belzec #9
http://snurl.com/2oyh Grave Pits at Belzec #10
http://snurl.com/2oyj Grave Pits at Belzec #11
http://snurl.com/2oyl Grave Pits at Belzec #12
http://snurl.com/2oyo Grave Pits at Belzec #13
http://snurl.com/2oyq Grave Pits at Belzec #14
http://snurl.com/2oyr Grave Pits at Belzec #15
http://snurl.com/2oyt Grave Pits at Belzec # 16
http://snurl.com/2oyu Grave Pits at Belzec #17
http://snurl.com/2oyw Grave Pits at Belzec #18
http://snurl.com/2oyx Grave Pits at Belzec #19
http://snurl.com/2ozd Grave Pits at Belzec #27
http://snurl.com/2ozf Grave Pits at Belzec #28
http://snurl.com/2ozh Grave Pits at Belzec #29
http://snurl.com/2ozu Grave Pits at Belzec #30
http://snurl.com/2ozy Grave Pits at Belzec #31
http://snurl.com/2p01 Grave Pits at Belzec #32
http://snurl.com/2p03 Grave Pits at Belzec #33
More recent work by the same archeologist, Andrzej Kola, was done at
Sobibor.
By ANDRZEJ STYLINSKI
The Associated Press
11/23/01 3:34 PM
WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- Polish researchers said Friday that they have
discovered mass graves at Sobibor, a death camp in eastern Poland that
was
razed by the Nazis after inmates staged an uprising.
Seven mass graves and the sites where several buildings stood were
found, said Andrzej Kola, an archaeology professor supervising what he
said
was the first thorough study of the former camp.
The Nazis, who built the camp in occupied Poland in 1942, razed it in
1943 after an uprising in which inmates killed nine guards and tried
to
flee.
Three hundred Jews escaped from the camp, but dozens of them were
killed in a surrounding mine field and most of the rest were hunted
down
over subsequent days.
A total of about 50 people who escaped from Sobibor survived World War
II. Some 250,000 people, most of them Jews, are believed to have died
in the
camp.
The research team began drilling around the site over the summer to
determine where buildings and graves might have been located, Kola
said. The study is sponsored the government.
The drillings provided the initial evidence of mass graves and traces
of a long barrack. After further excavation at the building site,
researchers uncovered 1,700 bullets in one of its corners, leading
them to believe that prisoners were executed there, Kola said.
Researchers also found various objects used by inmates or guards,
including metal cups and spoons, watches and binoculars.
Kola said the barrack, located about 70 yards from the mass graves,
might have served as a gas chamber, but that further study was
necessary.
More archaeological research is planned for next year after the ground
thaws.
The test drillings and preliminary excavations have been concentrated
at former camp No. 3 at Sobibor, which was a death camp. Two other
sections were used to imprison slave laborers.
The camp, on Poland's eastern border with Belarus, was turned it into
a Holocaust memorial in the 1960s by the Polish government. New
memorial plaques, a parking lot and a small exhibition were added in
the 1990s.
The government plans to expand the museum at Sobibor, which will
include artifacts recovered during the archaeological research.
--------------
A large collection of photographs of mass grave sites in Russia can be
seen here:
http://pub86.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=4.topic
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even
supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be
content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to
acquire it."
Samuel Johnson
david_michael
RE. 'I am content to live in the modern world where the scientific
process has provided us with at least a basic standard for validating
theories and conclusions.'
And yet you are completely unable to tell me what this 'basic
standard' is in the realms of historical research. If it is not
subjective interpretation of the available evidence, what is it? I
quiver in anticipation of your enlightening me, sir.
RE. 'I would agree with what you say below that the process does not
work quite as neatly when applied to the social sciencies'
That's basic first-year undergrad stuff.
RE. 'but that does not mean that we can cast aside the logical
principles behind it in favour of your approach, which amounts to the
belief that nothing can be known therefore we should just believe what
we want to believe.'
I don't think I'd argue that we should cast aside 'logical principles'
(although in some spheres -- such as religion and metaphysics -- there
is a compelling case even for that). I'm quite content to wonder how
logic alone can enable me to decide whether any given witness is or is
not reliable, or whether to accept or reject a particular piece of
documentation. Indeed, I assert that 'logical principles' alone cannot
do that. Logic can take us from assumptions to conclusions, but it
cannot tell us what to assume ab initio. That requires not reference
to some external principle but rather a clear decision as to whether
YOU trust or do not trust.
Now I can agree with you that faulty logic is a compelling reason to
withhold trust. But in the absence of faulty logic, what external
principle can we employ?
RE. 'Hey, don't knock the power of those basic conventions. I would
say that the circular logic employed by revisionists, and the lack of
external validation to give teeth to their their alternate theories,
is more than enough to cause the rejection of their approach by any
meaningful set of criteria.'
Obviously, I dispute that.
RE. 'External validation is merely a general principle by which the
objectivity of a methodology can be tested. Granted, there may be
disputes as to the extent to which a given methodology meets that test
- and if you wish to engage in such a dispute with regards to
Holocaust revisionism, it would be an interesting discussion. But
that does not mean that we can give up on such manner of validation,
or such objectivity, as a meaningful goal.'
Objectivity is not a meaningful goal -- unless you choose to define it
in a very unusual way. Objectivity, as I understand it, is what you're
left with when you take away all points of view. As we are always
obliged to look at things through a point of view it seems that we can
never really know when we've struck 'objectivity'. I'd view the
process as one of theory evaluation rather than an attempt to get
beyond theory and strike 'fact'. As Nietzsche put it: 'There are no
facts; there are only interpretations.'
This is the case even in the hard sciences. Even the ultimate
empiricist, Popper, recognized that an experiment does not PROVE a
theory -- it merely CORROBORATES it.
RE. 'What I disapprove of is the way that you seem to think that upon
exposing even a *potential* problem with a piece of evidence, you
automatically assume that it has not been taken into due consideration
by Holocaust historians on the grounds that they did not summarily
reduce the weight of the evidence in question to zero and cast it
aside. That is a methodology that tends towards the extreme end of
your spectrum of credulity/mistrust, and hence is counterproductive to
a genuine historical inquiry.'
First, I dispute that my approach is any different from that of a
consciencious juror in a criminal trial. If there are grounds for
reasonable doubt, you don't convict. If Colonel Mustard is accused of
committing a murder in the library with a piece of lead piping, in
order to get him off it is not necessary to prove that Reverend Green
actually did it in the ballroom with a revolver. It would be
sufficient only to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the latter
scenario MIGHT have taken place. In other words, one need only present
PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS to account for the available evidence.
Second, historical research is not a criminal trial and we are not
compelled to apply the 'reasonable doubt' criterion. Nevertheless, we
are dealing with weighty matters and much hangs on them. Can we really
decide such matters with confidence on the basis of evidence that is
merely 'suggestive' and in circumstances where plausible alternative
scenarios do exist to account for it?
Third, as I have suggested before, revisionism is about trying to
access the 'hidden history' -- trying to see beyond the neatly
prepared documents and the official arguments and to consider whether
there is evidence of jiggery pokery in the world of oficialdom. To
access this one really does need to probe for weaknesses,
inconsistencies, holes, etc., in the official evidence. This also
argues for a strategy of seeking out plausible alternative scenarios.
RE. 'The whole point of this discussion is to determine just what it
is you mean by "weak"'
I can help you with that. An argument is weak if either (a) its
premisses are not compelling, or (b) the conclusions do not follow
from the premisses, or (c) both. Simple as that. Obviously the meat of
the discussion will concern what makes a premiss compelling. You seem
to feel that there are 'external' and 'objective' ways to determine
this. I think it's a matter of trust. To progress the discussion we
need to look at how you would go about objectively determining whether
a premiss for your argument is sufficiently compelling.
david_michael
Heh, well he's right isn't he. The little old lady convinced me
because I happen to know a few facts about her that Morghus doesn't
know, but I can't prove those facts to him so I can't persuade him.
Let's say only that she was well connected, was a dedicated
nationalist in 1994 as she had been for most of her life, and had been
in a position to know what was going on. From Morghus's point of view,
this is all mere hearsay, which he correctly rejects as such. There
was no great secrecy about these killings, which were standard
reprisal killings (not part of the 'Holocaust') -- those killed were
taken from local jails, marched through the streets to a convoy of
lorries, transported to the caves in the lorries in full public view,
and killed. I believe Pope Pius XII tried to intervene beforehand to
try to stop it but was not successful. I think the number killed is
usually given as 335 and the Ardeatine Caves are certainly not
remotely situated. Unpleasant, but not quite as unpleasant as the
Allied bombing of German cities such as Dresden, or Japanese cities
such as Tokyo and Nagasaki and Hiroshima, all of which had elements of
reprisal in them.
John Winslow Brown
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<catamont-DEC320...@news-60.giganews.com>...
>> In article <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>,
>> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>>
>> And when are you planning to respond to my answers to your lies and
>> slander, Dr. Homeland?
>>
>> Your accusations that I was planning violence?
>> Your accusations that I was trying to deny David Irving rights that he,
>> as a foreigner, doesn't have?
>>
>> You jumped in all excited, posted the majority of my phone number, made
>> accusations, and when thoroughly embarassed, scurried away.
>>
>> So let's try once more:
>>
>> > What a fascinating statement!
>> >
>> > PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
>> >
>> > Peacefully assembling?
>> > Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
>> >
>> > Gotta tell you, Dr. Homeland, those are GUARANTEES under our
>> > Constitution. If Irving doesn't like it, he can stay out of our country.
>> >
>> > If you bothered to pay attention, you'd see that I said quite clearly
>> > that Irving had every right to come to Denver, and every right to speak
>> > in a public forum.
>> >
>> > I also have those same rights.
>> >
>> > So tell me, what were those "Nazi tactics" I used?
Lying propaganda (which would make Joseph Goebbels proud) such as:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html
(Link active January 12, 2004. Archived locally as: ActionReportSalzman)
Action Report No. 25,
"Let's get the British bastard!"
How emails from a badly leaking laptop scuppered the violent plans of the
traditional enemies of Free Speech in Colorado
DENVER Jewess Sara Salzman (below) was the brain behind plans for the disruption
of Mr Irving's December 22, 2003 visit to the city.
In doing so, she risked federal prosecution for conspiring to violate the civil
rights of his audience. As a Holocaust professional and webmaster (she has
claimed that her Holocaust website gets Six Million "hits" each month) she
expected to get away with it.
Her gang laid plans in several directions. All failed. One of the earlier, less
violent projects was to infiltrate into the audience her husband, whom she
described as a big -- i.e., obese -- man, and have him purchase an Irving book;
he would then produce the cancelled check to claim that the British historian
was "violating his visa status."
Her computer records show that she sent over fifty emails to Denver Jewish
groups asking for support.
Most responded cautiously, asking what Abe Foxman's Anti-Defamation League was
doing about the visit.
The answer was, nothing. The ADL had burnt its fingers badly when it authorized
illegal wiretaps on a Colorado couple and publicly smeared them as anti-Semites.
A Denver court ordered the ADL to pay $9.75 million in libel damages; the
organisation's appeal was dismissed in April 2003. Even for an organization as
wealthy as the ADL (annual budget, $50 million) that kind of award hurts.
They were not keen to fetch Salzman's chestnuts out of the fire, if she
deliberately provoked trouble in Denver.
Sara's chief accomplice was a former New York City cop and jailer, Rich Miller.
She emailed him frequent updates on the plan, with headings like: "T-minus 13
days to Irving." The ex-cop would reply to her, "All is going well at my end."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/12/images/Dani_Newsum.jpg
To journalist Dani Newsum, [above], who had written a particularly nasty OpEd
piece in the Denver Post headed "NAZI SWILL, COMING SOON," Sara also fed this
information:
We've got a minimum of ninety people who will be demonstrating in front of the
(as-yet-undisclosed) location. If anyone has any media contacts, especially with
the local TV stations or Fox, please let me know. I will be working this week on
contacting various media folks. I'd especially like to reach Peter Boyles at
KHOW and Enid Goldstein at KNRC (radio), and anyone at the TV stations."
As the organised efforts to undermine Mr Irving's lecture tour -- on the
comparisons between World War II and the war in Iraq -- began to bite, from Las
Vegas onwards, Salzman gloated:
Good news from the front lines: Irving was supposed to speak in Seattle on
Monday night. He announced the location, the Pyramid Brewery, and one of the
members of Holocaust Project wrote a letter to the location.
Showing where she expected most of her support to come from, Salzman left stacks
of pamphlets at Denver's Jewish gift shops.
On December 15, with five days to go, her leaky laptop received this message
from her ex-cop friend, announcing that he and his squad would be ready for
action on Saturday. They were evidently expecting violence:
Things are warm and heating up quickly. We are prepared and ready for the event
on Saturday. Our group of four will be equipped with cameras, signs, FirstAid
supplies, water, and snacks.
WORRIED about what she called "a mole in her ranks," that day the
Holocaust-obsessed Sara had another mole -- "Michael Wilde" -- send this message
to Mr Irving:
I saw the article in Westword magazine and I'm real interested in hearing your
talk. We read about the Holocaust in school, but I can't believe all the stuff
we were told. Will you be saying anything about it?
Wilde's application failed to make the genuine guest list for Denver, because it
failed certain criteria. Sara's keyboard handiwork confirmed this decision.
("In cases like these," Mr Irving proposed to the Denver organizer, "we find the
address of a gay bar and send the suspects to wait there all evening.")
Mr Irving sent "Wilde" a standard reply, but added that he was not talking about
the Holocaust, and had never written about it.
No matter. Irving had to be silenced. Sara hammered out this message on her
keyboard to her conspirators: "We're in the loop." (She added a surly comment:
"Interesting that Mr. Irving can afford a tollfree cell phone number in US.")
Meanwhile she sent a wad of leaflets to the Denver TV and radio stations, her
fingers busily typing out more lying smears on her porous keyboard:
David Irving, an anti-American [sic], anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, will be
speaking here, and there will be a group protesting his visit. Information about
this protest has been reported in Dani Newsum's Blog 'Nazi Swill is coming to
town'.
Unfortunately, Mr. Irving (to reduce the possibility of press coverage [sic])
will not announce the location of his talk until a day or two before.
Risking a final libellous smear, Salzman added:
David Irving's followers are the same kinds of people as those who killed Alan
Berg. It's vital that we let him know he is not welcome in Denver. Sara Salzman
303-617-94**.
Meanwhile she had learned from "Michael Wilde" that he had asked Mr Irving by
email: "Do you have a place yet for your talk?" To their delight, the author had
answered ("currently on the road in Wyoming") -- less than frankly, as it would
turn out -- "Yes, north Denver, and you will be informed later today."
That confirmed what they already "knew," because he had a inserted a fake line
to that effect at the end of the Moscow Daily News report posted on his website,
namely that he would be speaking somewhere near the new Denver International
Airport.
IT WAS now D-Day minus 1 -- Friday, December 19, 2003. Sara Salzman typed this
report at 11:16 a.m.:
Irving has posted an article on his web site. . . The last sentence says:
'Irving speaks at a hotel near Denver airport on Saturday.'
If anyone wants to start calling hotels near the airport and ask if someone with
the initials "A.H." has booked a conference room for a meal and lecture, please
feel free! Sara."
She received confirmation from a fellow plotter that the most recent update was
"somewhere near the airport."
She congratulated him: "We're getting closer. My husband is going to call
Irving's cell phone after 3:00 p.m. today."
Mr Irving's phone registered an incoming "no caller ID" call at 3:10 p.m. -- but
the call did not reach him in Wyoming. She and her plotters had to rely on their
wits, and on her leaky laptop.
Late on that Friday evening, Mr Irving sealed the Denver plotters' fate with
this message to their mole "Michael Wilde":
Here is tomorrow Saturday's location by email: please keep it under your hat.
Tell no-one. We have booked a room at the Denver International Airport Marriott
(the actual address, if you're coming by taxi, is 16455 East 40th Circle).
The Marriott Corp have never let us down yet (as you know we have just held our
fourth international Real History weekend at their Cincinnati airport location)
so they don't bow to pressure.
We have asked the hotel to deny any afternoon function taking place. The booking
is under a less than obvious name, as you will see when you arrive.
I suggest you come between twelve and one, when I shall arrive; we'll have a
meal and then I will talk. Looking forward to seeing y'all there.
At 1:35 a.m. Sara sat at her lap-top and hammered out a new message to her gang.
She quoted Irving's message to "Wilde," then finalized their plans:
So here's what I suggest: We all meet in the parking lot of the Marriott. Since
Irving isn't going to be there until one, we don't want to clue him in too
early. So let's meet around 11:15-11:30.
Our person taking pictures will have to be in the lobby of the hotel, since lots
of other people will be coming and going. One of us will go in and scope it out,
figure out which "room" Irving has rented (my guess is under a name with the
initials A.H.), and then our photographer can stake out a place to take pictures
that isn't too obvious . . . otherwise the hotel will toss us.
Referring to the ex-cop Rich Miller, she suggested: "Rich, I'm sure, can fill us
in on what's 'legal' to do. . . . Let's get the British bastard!! Sara."
She then switched off her laptop, and turned in for the night, while dreams of
sweet violence danced in her head.
At ten on Saturday morning, the big day, she issued final "legal advice" to her
gang, provided by "our legal advisor at the Holocaust Project," on what to do if
they fell foul of the law and whether to comply with the Marriott's order that
they leave:
My own answer to a security guard is 'Call the police and have them tell me
that' and answer that you are 'Exercising your constitutional rights.'
This puts on record what happened and what is involved.
Second, it puts it in an area where the wimps at the Anti-Defamation League and
the nutballs at the American Civil Liberties Union can, if either decides to get
off their fat asses, intervene in a meaningful way.
The next day, she and her ("big") husband got "off their asses." When they
downloaded her emails on Saturday morning, ex-cop Rich Miller had already sent
in his own take on the forthcoming confrontation:
Let us give this racist, Nazi, Hitler lover, and Jew-hater a big Colorado
unwelcome.
The weather will be perfect, the location is ideal, and our cause is moral. See
you all at The Marriott Hotel at approximately 11:30 AM today. The Marriott
Hotel is located off Interstate 70, Exit 285, Airport Blvd. North.
If you need better directions, please call the Marriott at 303-371-xxxx. Please
do not mention David Irving. We do not want to give him a heads up as to what we
have planned.-Rich.
<END>
Care to count all of the propaganda lies you told to demonize David Irving?
Isn't doing such as this Nazi tactics:
"David Irving's followers are the same kinds of people as those who killed Alan
Berg. It's vital that we let him know he is not welcome in Denver."
"David Irving, an anti-American [sic], anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, will be
speaking here, and there will be a group protesting his visit. Information about
this protest has been reported in Dani Newsum's Blog 'Nazi Swill is coming to
town'."
"Let us give this racist, Nazi, Hitler lover, and Jew-hater a big Colorado
unwelcome."
LOOKS LIKE BROWNSHIRT TO ME!
You also lied and quoted David Irving way out of context when he was being
facetious! Remember these lies and smears you evil bitch?
<START>
Remember this you stupid pig?
<start/quote>
>In article <tcu800l03lg9dis79...@4ax.com>,
> Wally Cleaver <wally_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote:
>
>> any evidence to the contrary?
>>
>>
>> Sure do. Irving's own words:
>>
>> "Thanks to expert friends not a million
>> miles from Ft M - and to Bill
>> Gates' shortcomings in providing
>> proper email security for
>> PC's - we immediately hack a
>> handy "keyhole" into the directives
>> Mrs Salzman issues."
>>
>> The word "hack" isn't mine, it's INVING'S.
>> <end/quote>
>> -From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
>> -Subject: Re: Any comments, 'Sara Salzman 303-617-94**'?
>> -Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:07:40 -0700
>> -Message-ID: <catamont-535984...@news-60.giganews.com>
>>
>> Where in Irving's URL do those words appear?
>>
>> http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html
>
>It's not in there, you brain-damaged moron. It's in the newsletter
>itself, as I clearly stated. In the downloadable .pdf. Idiot.
You made no such claim in this thread that I saw you Jewish Bitch and GOOGLE
only shows you mentioning PDF just once as shown here:
Which was (concerning David Irving):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-564E32.17045613012004%40news-60.giganews.com&rnum=1&filter=0
Re: Any comments, 'Sara Salzman 303-617-94**'?
... It's in the newsletter itself, as I clearly stated. In the downloadable
.pdf. Idiot. --
How am I the idiot when you are the one who has been caught lying and by me
never the less! SO WHO IS THE IDIOT YOU FAT STUPID PIG!! You lied when you
stated: "It's not in there, you brain-damaged moron. It's in the newsletter
itself, as I clearly stated. In the downloadable .pdf. Idiot."
BTW what you quoted out of context was NOT a downloadable pdf file you fat
stupid slob- it was a regular web page which I am going to quote in its entirety
to prove how you twisted David Irving's words to smear him and you can count on
this you stupid pig-- I am sending him a copy of this post too!
<start/quote>
> > >http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html
> > >
> > >(I'd also like to hear what other posters think about this
> > >'anti-racist' poster's description of Irving as a 'British bastard' --
> >
> > I don't know what comments Ms. Salzman might have, but I have a few.
> > Considering that:
> >
> > a) Irving has already made no bones about his "add a word here, change
> > a word there" mode of doing "real history";and
>
> Which specific words in his account of Ms Salzman's activities do you
> challenge?
>
> (And I bet I don't get a straight answer to that one!)
Sure you do. I never said "British bastard." I said, "Let's get the
bastard." Irving added that little word, just lke he changed the word
"nine" to "ninety."
> > b) that the article to which DEM refers contains the following
> > *further* (but unsurprising) admission:
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > he [Irving] had a inserted a fake line to that effect at the end of
> > the Moscow Daily News report posted on his website
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > I'd say the chances are probably very good to excellent that the
> > description - apt as it might be - wasn't even Ms. Salzman's.
>
> Can Ms Salzman confirm that?
I can confirm that Irving is a liar and has admitted to committing a
felony under US law.
<<Tavish comment January 15, 2004. You are a libeler when you quoted David
Irving just being facetious and his remarks out of context and then imply he
committed a felony!! You Jews seem to like quoting people out of context and
then raising sheer hell on your concocted versions!!>>
> > Furthermore, I don't believe that computers are capable of unwittingly
> > "leaking" their contents conveniently onto the computers of others.
> > So it would appear that Irving, who is definitely not averse to
> > pilfering copyrighted material and images for his website, is now
> > boasting that he was party to acts that, IMHO, are equivalent to the
> > crime of "break and enter". I wonder what other posters here might
> > think of that.
>
> I see no such admission. It could well be that the information came
> into the hands of a third party who passed it to Irving. Do you have
> any evidence to the contrary?
Sure do. Irving's own words:
"Thanks to expert friends not a million
miles from Ft M - and to Bill
Gates' shortcomings in providing
proper email security for
PC's - we immediately hack a
handy "keyhole" into the directives
Mrs Salzman issues."
The word "hack" isn't mine, it's INVING'S.
<<Tavish comment January 15, 2004. VERY MUCH OUT OF CONTEXT AS I SHALL PROVE
BELOW YOU FAT STUPID LYING JEW BITCH!!!!>
[...]
> So you don't want to answer the point about Ms Salzman's use of the
> term 'British bastard'?
I've answered it. I never said it. Irving "changed a word here and
there."
Sara
-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:08:22 -0600
-From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
-Subject: Re: Any comments, 'Sara Salzman 303-617-94**'?
-Message-ID: <catamont-535984...@news-60.giganews.com>
So where is that link to a news letter your fatness? There is NO downloadable
PDF
link in the URL http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html .
If there is then it is on a linked page but not in the Action Report itself!
Have I caught you lying again Your Fatness?
<end/quote>
<STOP>
What David Irving had at his web site in true context (which was intended to be
facetious and to shove a stick at Sara Salzman's paranoia and self hatred she
projects on her opposition):
http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/RadDi3.html
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:90inljEvlNgJ:www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/RadDi3.html++%22handy+%22keyhole%22+into+the+directives%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(Link active January 15, 2004. Archived locally as: google_RadDi3)
[NOTE: I had to use GOOGLE to retrieve what Sara designedly quoted out of
context because David's entire site is down for some reason. Perhaps Sara's
pals are engaging in a denial of service attack?!>>
EXCERPT
[...]
AFTER DRIVING ALL DAY I arrive at four at the Mark IV hotel in Moscow, Idaho.
The insolent manager informs me he's cancelled our booking as "he hasn't enough
kitchen staff."
When I ask to speak with his lawyer, he phones for the police to remove me from
the hotel for "disruptive behaviour."
Two scrawny young females with notepads are hanging around outside, local
journalists. Will I go ahead elsewhere?
"That's for me to know and you to find out."
The town lives up to its name. Three of Moscow's ten police patrol cars pursue
me down Main Street -- at a stately ten miles per hour -- and serve a Trespass
Notice on me at the hotel's request.
The cops are very friendly, say they have a duty to uphold law and order if
there is a protest demo against me: "We're only carrying out our orders, sir."
I say: "Saddam's officers are probably saying the same thing." "Nice comeback,
that," says one, admiringly.
I check in at the University Inn and download messages. I have sent a picture of
yesterday's blizzard on the Interstate to London. An unusually solicitous Benté
writes: "Try to drive carefully! Take care." I reply: "You suddenly realised I
am the breadwinner, right?"
She responds: "You've got it!" -- a dreadful Americanism.
The snow since Portland has made driving very worrisome.
OUR MOSCOW ORGANISER, Alfred H, has seamlessly relocated the function to a local
hotel, which I have paid for in advanced some weeks ago as an alternate.
I warn him that the traditional enemy is bent on rioting. But it seems they
cannot locate this new address (nor however can most of my audience).
Getting tired of all this, I deliver a sharply abridged version of my talk. The
handful present includes a university professor (no friend, I am later told), a
local newspaperman whom I have allowed in despite my aversion to them, and a
plain-clothes police officer with a radiotelephone. It reminds me of Germany,
where officers also had to watch on my lectures.
TODAY I AM JUST DRIVING south through Idaho. I slip heavily on ice crossing to
the reception desk, thumping my back badly, and limp all day.
We have obtained the letter written by hatemonger Jamie McCarthy to the Pyramid
Brewery in Seattle to get them to cancel our function.
This pest has lost them a lost of business while doing us no real harm. I advise
him: "Your letter, because it induces them to violate a lawful contractual
agreement, commits a tort, an offence. Get legal advice before you do it again."
IN DENVER THERE IS A GANG plotting violence to disrupt my penultimate engagement
there. Their ringleader [SEE SPECIAL ITEM] is Sara Salzman, a local Holocaust
specialist; she has bragged to the press that she intends to make my visit to
Denver as "nasty" as possible.
Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks to expert friends -- and to Bill Gates'
shortcomings in providing proper email security for PC's -- we immediately hack
a handy "keyhole" into the directives Mrs Salzman issues.
In future she should go Mac, or pay for better firewalls. I expect my keyhole to
enable me to identify her moles and lead her entire greasy gang somewhat astray
when Saturday comes.
"In cases like these," I advise my Denver organiser, "we find the address of a
local gay bar and pack off the suspected enemy moles to wait all day there."
As stage one, I post on my website the full report appearing in this morning's
Moscow Daily News. To mislead the Salzman gang I temporarily add a fake sentence
at the end, reading "Irving speaks at a hotel near Denver airport on Saturday."
I also change the identity of my car in the Daily News item.
AFTER A MORNING OF paperwork I set out from Idaho, and drive steadily south all
day.
Not much wider than a country lane, Highway 95 goes initially over high plateaux
and treeless prairies covered with snow. There is rarely more than one other car
in sight. Before Lewiston, the road plunges unexpectedly several thousand feet
to cross a river and valley, and there are spectacular views of the town as the
road swoops down the mountainside in hairpin bends.
After two hours I pause at White Bird for coffee with Alfred H, last night's
Moscow organiser, and his family. We share a quiet chuckle at the discomfiture
awaiting the traditional enemy in Denver. Then straight down to Boise, the state
capital, and on to Mountain Home, where I try two motels.
At the first, a sleepy Asian is manning the desk. I turn on my heel, explaining
politely, "I no longer stay at Asian-run hotels in this country."
This is not a racist remark; it is merely the sad experience of such hotels'
filth and lack of maintenance. In part thanks to special financing provisions,
the Asians are taking over the motel industry in the United States; and with
some (few) exceptions, they are destroying it with speed.
The man runs out after me declaring, "I'm not an Asian"- but in a strong
Pakistani accent.
It is not for nothing that a new hotel sign is burgeoning: AMERICAN OWNED AND
RUN, it says.
At the next motel, it is clearly an Asian running it, and the reception area
stinks of week-old curry. "Jeez!" I exclaim, and back out. I check into a Sleep
Inn at the next exit.
AN AWFUL NIGHT. SOMEBODY is playing his television until three or four AM.
Weird dreams about car auctions. I am feeling very tired now. Perspiring heavily
this morning, although it is below freezing outside.
I set out for Salt Lake at 8:45 AM. A beautiful drive across the rest of the
southern Idaho desert. Prairie after prairie -- I set the cruise control at
eighty for hours at a time, and encounter virtually no traffic.
Two people phone around 11 AM for details of this evening's location in Salt
Lake; one, "Dave," meets my criteria, and I unhesitatingly give him the details.
The other, "Justin", who has an ignorant-sounding voice, withholds his surname
and says vaguely only that his interest in "the trial" had drawn his attention
to the function; I tell him to call me again at five and I will decide whether
to give him the location. I arrive at Salt Lake unexpectedly early, around two
PM.
With difficulty I find the restaurant, Tucci's, an upscale Italian joint, far
too open, in a trendy shopping-mall eight miles south of Salt Lake City. I know
at once that the evening may run into trouble with the traditional enemy. A
poorly cooked lunch arrives; it is indigestible, and I leave most of it.
"Justin" phones again, and I tell him I have decided not to identify the
location. (He has failed to meet several criteria.) After he pleads
convincingly, I relent and tell him, in strict confidence, where to come, adding
that I trust him to tell nobody else -- an error as it turns out.
A few friends finally navigate their way to this difficult site. Travis M, the
organizer, admits he has not seen it before. I point at once to the drawbacks:
poor food, picture windows on three sides of the "private room," a difficult
location, etc.
Two men outside start handing out an offensive Nizkor leaflet to incoming
customers. One is no doubt the lying "Justin". Half an hour after I begin my
talk, the manageress interrupts and says nobody told her we were going to hand
out leaflets.
I reply that these two louts are nothing to do with us, and security is called
to remove them.
The enemy doesn't like that at all: Fifteen minutes later, the manager is
receiving furious phone calls, demanding that our meeting be halted. Professor
Ernst R., a noted neurologist of the University of Utah, goes to negotiate, but
it is clear that we are going nowhere further.
At 11 PM I set out for Denver, five or six hundred miles to the south-east over
the Rocky Mountains. I have to be there by around ten AM on Saturday. I drive
all Friday across Wyoming in telephone-silence, as Sprint phones do not work
anywhere in Wyoming (or in Colorado either, as it turns out).
The road is almost dead straight for hundreds of miles -- I twice cross the
Continental Divide at 7,000 feet. I raise the cruise control setting to
eighty-five, and rarely have to tap the brakes to slow down.
It is like driving across a totally unpopulated moonscape. Stunning geological
features abound: table-mountains on every horizon, with sheer rock faces showing
millions of years of different strata; giant rock formations thrust up out of
other strata like thumbs through a pie-crust; there is not a tree in sight, and
only a few shrubs dot the bare landscape, which is covered by a wispy,
yellowish, grass-like fuzz.
From an isolated highway restaurant in this desert I call London. Jessica is
sitting in front of her computer as always. "Slouching," she happily confirms.
I arrive in Denver at nine PM, and blunder around for forty-five minutes looking
for a hotel in Aurora, a suburb of the city.
I at once check the "keyhole." Sara Salzman has still not located tomorrow's
location -- which is right here in Aurora. From Salt Lake, she has received an
email confirming that "Justin" was indeed the enemy's mole there. He seems to
have illegally taped his two phone conversations with me.
Mrs Salzman and her unsavoury cronies have fallen for the disinformation I
planted in the Moscow Daily News item.
She has now advised all her gang members that I am to speak at a hotel "near
Denver airport" on Saturday, and they expect to learn the precise location
shortly "from their mole." They will, they will!
It is not hard to identify him: he is calling himself "Michael Wilde," and he
alone receives this from me toward midnight:
Dear all -
Humble apologies for this late notification, but I was travelling through
Wyoming from Salt Lake all day and Sprint never told me when I signed up with
them that they had no coverage whatsoever in Wyoming. By the time I reached
Colorado this evening it was too late to call.
So here is tomorrow Saturday's location by email: please keep it under your hat.
Tell no-one. We have booked a room at the Denver International Airport Marriott
(the actual address, if you're coming by taxi, is 16455 East 40th Circle).
We have asked the hotel to deny any function taking place. The booking is under
a less than obvious name, as you will see when you arrive.
I suggest you come between twelve and one, when I shall arrive; we'll have a
meal and then I will talk.
Looking forward to seeing y'all there.
I think that strikes the right note, while plugging obvious loop-holes in
advance.
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2003: At ten AM a glimpse through the "keyhole" reveals
Sara Salzman instructing her gang to head out to the airport Marriott at one PM.
Tee-hee. Our actual location is miles away in southern Denver, and we're meeting
at mid-day.
While she and her herd of thugs stampede out to the beautiful new International
Airport and charge frantically around inside the Marriott, we have an excellent
lunch and a fine afternoon. Not a sign of the enemy. I leave around five or six
PM for the east, as it is already dark...
[...]
David Irving wrote a facetious satire YET Sara being the lying Jew bitch she is
chose to take a snippet from the above and use it in a deceptive way thus using
Nazi tactics! Care to deny the above was a satire Fat Pig Sara? Care to deny you
lied in order to smear David Irving? YOU ARE A PATHETIC FAT SLOB!!
BTW Sara it does appear that you have a "mole " in your organization as David
hinted at and your "mole" is disgusted with your tactics just as a certain ally
of yours identified Laurence B. Shiff as being Marduk when he got fed up with
underhanded tactics. You are being exposed for what you are you fat pig- never
forget it!
>> > Sara
>>
>> Still waiting for an answer....
>
>
>Apologies -- I'm trying to do too many things at once again.
>
>Right. Mr David Irving posted an account of an attempt by you together
>with some 90 other people to disrupt a meeting that he wished to hold.
>You have queried his use of the word 'British' but do not seem to have
>disputed the assertions that you were bringing 90 or more people with
>you and first aid supplies (unless I have missed something). The
>accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
>statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving, (b) the fact that
>you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you, and (c) the fact that
>your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies. Does it take
>90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian? And
>since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
>'getting' someone? Since when does 'peaceful assembly' constitute
>'getting' someone? And what else could the carriage of first aid
>supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
>Were you perhaps planning to lecture Mr Irving on how to apply a
>bandage?
Well put!
BTW I am filing all new complaints against Yale F. Edeiken. One of the criteria
I had to meet was if I was still being harassed/defamed because of the dismissed
lawsuit and seeing how more than one web site propagates the smear and seeing
how the extinct lawsuit is thrust up to my face weekly I have proof and this
time I am pushing to have Yale disbarred and his license revoked!
May I submit your e-mail address as being a witness and a recipient of Yale's
malicious prosecutions?
Tavish
>Your answers please, Ms Salzman?
She'll squeal like the disgusting fat pig she is and then she'll run like a
greased pig!
>David
>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=hpa1uv0m63koaqbo4...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: V2.0b Sara "The Fist" Salzman's Attempt at Revisionism FAILS- She Wrote
The FIST Postings! Date: 17 Dec 2003 19:40:10 GMT
Message-ID: <hpa1uv0m63koaqbo4...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=ige2uvsjk0bfi54at...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Re: V2.0b Sara "The Fist" Salzman's Attempt at Revisionism FAILS- She
Wrote The FIST Postings! Date: 18 Dec 2003 06:13:32 GMT
Message-ID: <ige2uvsjk0bfi54at...@4ax.com>
Despite overwhelming evidence Sara "The Fist" will keep repeating
her lies and remain in denial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Salzman aka Sara "The Fist" Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> did post:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ssch...@infinet.com
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Fist fucking (1)
Message-ID: <sschwartz-110...@p14.infinet.com>
Date: 11 Feb 95 13:19:07 GMT
References: <3hf46h$p...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <3hg9a1$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: p14.infinet.com
In article <3hg9a1$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lant...@aol.com (L
Antoniou) wrote:
> Perhaps you should read the messages before responding. If you read all
> of mine, you will see that eventually I do suggest the "duck" position -
> all fingers together. What I (and Elf) was responding to was the
> suggestion that one *begin* fisting in that position. Of course, you go
> on to say *exactly that*.
>
In fact, Laura, I did NOT say you should begin in the "duck" position. I
just stated that it was the eventual position to achieve.
I'm sorry if I did not make that clear in my post. I *did* state that fist
fucking was not something I had done very often, and merely wanted to
impart my own (limited) experience. <END>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine the person in these photos assuming the "duck" position
and "fisting" herself!
http://www.westword.com/issues/11209/2/image.gif
http://www.westword.com/issues/11209/4/image.gif
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=0ap6uv43dm8uefmm3...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Is Sara "The Whipped" Salzman Still Being Whipped by Her Husband's
Electric Whipping Machine?
Message-ID: <0ap6uv43dm8uefmm3...@4ax.com>
Date: 19 Dec 2003 22:00:00 GMT
John Winslow Brown
Winslow Brown <jw_b...@info-service-national.net> wrote:
>What David Irving had at his web site in true context (which was intended to be
>facetious and to shove a stick at Sara Salzman's paranoia and self hatred she
>projects on her opposition):
>
>http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/RadDi3.html
>http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:90inljEvlNgJ:www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/RadDi3.html++%22handy+%22keyhole%22+into+the+directives%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>(Link active January 15, 2004. Archived locally as: google_RadDi3)
>[NOTE: I had to use GOOGLE to retrieve what Sara designedly quoted out of
>context because David's entire site is down for some reason. Perhaps Sara's
>pals are engaging in a denial of service attack?!>>
UPDATE:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/RadDi3.html
(Link active January 16, 2004. Rechecked later and site is back online! Archived
locally as: ActionReportSalzman3)
Everyone read the pleasant little satire on Sara's "Nazi tactics" and David
Irving poking fun at the fat slob. Read what Irving actually wrote and the sense
it was written in and compare it to what fat slob Sara "The Fist" Salzman
claimed!
I.E.
<start/quote>
<end/quote>
Why people such as Sara Salzman and the rest of her lying filth can ever be
taken at their word is a mystery to me seeing how their lies are exposed almost
daily!
Tavish
----NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Caught in Numerous Lies----
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=f7murv0qqpmcfa2ldce7epo9gtg5am23rl%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED The Nizkor Project Director is Lying About Funds He Has NOT
Reported to CCRA!! SAAF Report for 2002 Is Further Proof! R_1122
Message-ID: <f7murv0qqpmcfa2ld...@4ax.com>
Date: 22 Nov 2003 13:01:32 GMT
AKA "Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=67qc8v8192tumoaivq4joitsquts3t5bs8%404ax.com&rnum=7
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Caught Lying About San Antonio
Connection! (Those Two U.S. Servers!) V2.0
Date: 30 Mar 2003 03:49:12 GMT
Message-ID: <67qc8v8192tumoaiv...@4ax.com>
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 18:03:44 -0800,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) typed:
[snip]
> Objectivity is not a meaningful goal -- unless you choose to define
> it in a very unusual way. Objectivity, as I understand it, is what
> you're left with when you take away all points of view. As we are
> always
> obliged to look at things through a point of view it seems that we
> can never really know when we've struck 'objectivity'. I'd view the
> process as one of theory evaluation rather than an attempt to get
> beyond theory and strike 'fact'. As Nietzsche put it: 'There are no
> facts; there are only interpretations.'
Do you believe that to be objectively true?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAebmjfbIykA6SysEQL5/QCgh+pmgpOeIAXKxf7BsWuYcgDCitoAn24o
/3zuDDxU/eS5nAEYurOGypVI
=DqFG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 09:31:51 -0800,
mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
Then in your view, Goebbels address to the nation on Radio Berlin
announcing the Lidice massacre must be just more German-hating
propaganda.
How did anyone so ignorant and stupid as you develop language skills?
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAedRTfbIykA6SysEQKKaQCeJoVX1BmLOUSo+Lo1lzQpCPin4bIAnip8
AHUsVVB0PO+VvWO/LACzCD0c
=EftZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <catamont-38B511...@news-60.giganews.com> in
alt.revisionism, on Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:23:56 -0700, Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
He can't. It would require a statement of objective facts. But he
follows that second-rate twat Nietzsche in saying, "There are no
facts; there are only interpretations."
So all you have, or can have, is his personal, subjective
interpretation of some interpreatations. And we know how much that's
worth.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAfC7jfbIykA6SysEQJi9gCeLRmQiLZg+ono8WLIsZkbSo8p8nYAn2P4
7aDNEyYvKUTOPfD8AJ+7EK+F
=BUbW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steven Mock
> RE. 'I am content to live in the modern world where the scientific
> process has provided us with at least a basic standard for validating
> theories and conclusions.'
>
> And yet you are completely unable to tell me what this 'basic
> standard' is in the realms of historical research. If it is not
> subjective interpretation of the available evidence, what is it? I
> quiver in anticipation of your enlightening me, sir.
I already told you. External validation.
> RE. 'I would agree with what you say below that the process does not
> work quite as neatly when applied to the social sciencies'
>
> That's basic first-year undergrad stuff.
>
> RE. 'but that does not mean that we can cast aside the logical
> principles behind it in favour of your approach, which amounts to the
> belief that nothing can be known therefore we should just believe what
> we want to believe.'
>
> I don't think I'd argue that we should cast aside 'logical principles'
> (although in some spheres -- such as religion and metaphysics -- there
> is a compelling case even for that). I'm quite content to wonder how
> logic alone can enable me to decide whether any given witness is or is
> not reliable, or whether to accept or reject a particular piece of
> documentation.
Like I said, I don't live in the same binary world where those are the only
two options.
> Indeed, I assert that 'logical principles' alone cannot
> do that. Logic can take us from assumptions to conclusions, but it
> cannot tell us what to assume ab initio. That requires not reference
> to some external principle but rather a clear decision as to whether
> YOU trust or do not trust.
Only if you carry this principle ad absurdum, refusing to accept even the
prima facie evidence of your own two eyes and the sina qua non of logic and
natural law itself no matter how often they are validated for you. To go
from this principle to the extreme notion that the fact that we must assume
anything means that everything is ipso facto subjective in toto is what I'd
call argumentum ad excrementum taurorum.
> RE. 'Hey, don't knock the power of those basic conventions. I would
> say that the circular logic employed by revisionists, and the lack of
> external validation to give teeth to their their alternate theories,
> is more than enough to cause the rejection of their approach by any
> meaningful set of criteria.'
>
> Obviously, I dispute that.
Knock yourself out.
> RE. 'External validation is merely a general principle by which the
> objectivity of a methodology can be tested. Granted, there may be
> disputes as to the extent to which a given methodology meets that test
> - and if you wish to engage in such a dispute with regards to
> Holocaust revisionism, it would be an interesting discussion. But
> that does not mean that we can give up on such manner of validation,
> or such objectivity, as a meaningful goal.'
>
> Objectivity is not a meaningful goal -- unless you choose to define it
> in a very unusual way. Objectivity, as I understand it, is what you're
> left with when you take away all points of view. As we are always
> obliged to look at things through a point of view it seems that we can
> never really know when we've struck 'objectivity'. I'd view the
> process as one of theory evaluation rather than an attempt to get
> beyond theory and strike 'fact'. As Nietzsche put it: 'There are no
> facts; there are only interpretations.'
This is the part of your argument I really don't understand. I don't see
why the mere fact that perfect objectivity is an impossible ideal in the
social sciences (indeed, I would dispute your claim that it is even
possible in the physical sciences, though certainly it is easier to test)
means that it can no longer be taken as a value. Indeed, that is precisely
how our dispute should be structured, if it were a normal historical
dispute: over the question of whose approach better meets the ideal. It
should be between two contending interpretations and the means by which
they are validated externally. You would contend that your interpretation
derived from a more objective approach, I would argue the same about mine,
we'd present our evidence, we'd dispute.
I think the reason you refuse to get into that conversation is because you
know you would lose. Indeed, there would be no contest. My interpretation
has external validation. Your's does not. It is just that simple, you
know it, you've admitted it. That is why you scorn any attempt at
objective verification and instead insist that the discussion is entirely
about subjective opinions of trust. Because then when backed into a corner
you can at the very least retreat to the claim that your subjective opinion
is no better or worse than my subjective opinion, thus declaring the game a
tie. And, of course, since the only standard you are attempting to support
is "reasonable doubt", a tie means you win. Its a non-argument.
But this is simply not how debates are structured according to "the basic
hermeneutic techniques that are now standard in the social sciences". The
question of "reasonable" does not come down to "everybody's opinion is
equal", but to the extent to which a conclusion can be shown to be
externally verifiable. Otherwise, any notion can be called "reasonable"
for no other reason than that someone out there, such as the Mad
Revisionist, maintains it.
> This is the case even in the hard sciences. Even the ultimate
> empiricist, Popper, recognized that an experiment does not PROVE a
> theory -- it merely CORROBORATES it.
I'm fine with that. Nothing can be 100% certain, but that philisophical
principle alone does not satisfy the legal test of "reasonable doubt", else
conviction would be logically impossible. Chaos theory is hardly a
compelling argument in favour of Holocaust revisionism. As I said in my
earlier message, if a network of corroborating evidence converges to a
point that is cause to *provisionally* accept said point. If evidence can
be brought to bear against it, or an alternate theory can be better
validated, we alter our views. So get cracking.
> RE. 'What I disapprove of is the way that you seem to think that upon
> exposing even a *potential* problem with a piece of evidence, you
> automatically assume that it has not been taken into due consideration
> by Holocaust historians on the grounds that they did not summarily
> reduce the weight of the evidence in question to zero and cast it
> aside. That is a methodology that tends towards the extreme end of
> your spectrum of credulity/mistrust, and hence is counterproductive to
> a genuine historical inquiry.'
>
> First, I dispute that my approach is any different from that of a
> consciencious juror in a criminal trial. If there are grounds for
> reasonable doubt, you don't convict.
I do not dispute this in terms of the overall case. However, you do not
apply this same standard to every piece of evidence. No juror is
instructed to disregard evidence if there is only a potential or
possibility for contamination - if the witness *might* have a grudge, if
the document *may* have been tainted - that remains unsupported and
unproven.
> If Colonel Mustard is accused of
> committing a murder in the library with a piece of lead piping, in
> order to get him off it is not necessary to prove that Reverend Green
> actually did it in the ballroom with a revolver. It would be
> sufficient only to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the latter
> scenario MIGHT have taken place. In other words, one need only present
> PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS to account for the available evidence.
Right. The question is what makes an alternative plausible. I have given
my answer: external validation. Evidence fit into a logically structured
argument. So get cracking. Be the first revisionist to come up with a
plausible alternative scenario.
> Second, historical research is not a criminal trial and we are not
> compelled to apply the 'reasonable doubt' criterion. Nevertheless, we
> are dealing with weighty matters and much hangs on them. Can we really
> decide such matters with confidence on the basis of evidence that is
> merely 'suggestive' and in circumstances where plausible alternative
> scenarios do exist to account for it?
My point is that plausible alternative scenarios do not exist. Never have.
At least, I have never seen a revisionist put one forward. And no, I don't
mean I have never seen one that *I* found plausible. I've never seen one
even TRY to support an alternate theory as to what happened to central and
eastern Europe's near-entire Jewish population.
A defence attorney can pound away at the credibility of witnesses all he
wants. If, at the end of the day, there is no one else who could even
possibly have committed the murder, his case is sunk.
> Third, as I have suggested before, revisionism is about trying to
> access the 'hidden history' -- trying to see beyond the neatly
> prepared documents and the official arguments and to consider whether
> there is evidence of jiggery pokery in the world of oficialdom. To
> access this one really does need to probe for weaknesses,
> inconsistencies, holes, etc., in the official evidence. This also
> argues for a strategy of seeking out plausible alternative scenarios.
>
> RE. 'The whole point of this discussion is to determine just what it
> is you mean by "weak"'
>
> I can help you with that. An argument is weak if either (a) its
> premisses are not compelling, or (b) the conclusions do not follow
> from the premisses, or (c) both. Simple as that.
Except that you are changing the subject. We were not talking about what
constitutes a weak argument, but what constitutes weak evidence.
I said:
> If there is an elaborate network of evidence all pointing to the
> existence
> of gas chambers, there is a strong reason to provisionally accept the
> veracity of their existence. '
You replied:
> This is, of course, not the case if all the 'evidence' that 'points'
> in this direction is very weak.
To which I said:
But now you're retreating back to vagueries. Oh, so they're not just
"weak" anymore, they're "very weak". We're supposed to accept this
characterization because you have made it. The whole point of this
discussion is to determine just what it is you mean by "weak", and, as
it turns out, the same could be said for all of the evidence for any
given event. In which case, the fact that evidence in question is
"weak" even "very weak" does not invalidate the conclusion, so long as
no alternative conclusion can be supported to even a remotely similar
extent, and especially when, as I said before, the strengths of some of
the items of evidence address the weaknesses of others.
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
> Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9471C3423A3C...@140.99.99.130>...
>> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in
>> news:73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in message
>> > news:<b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>... <snip>
>> >
Exactly, Dr. M. By your standards, Morghus is absolutely right to reject
the evidence. He is simply applying your methodology (and honestly, I
couldn't have done it better if I'd answered you myself as the Mad
Revisionist) - it is up to the individual, based on his subjectivity, to
choose what evidence to trust and what not. He chooses not to trust your
witness. By your standards, you have to accept that his opinion of your
witness is as valid as yours. The result, however, is a false negative -
your standards, objectively applied, have failed to prove something for
which there is evidence which you happen to know is true. What does that
tell you about the quality of your methodology in terms of its capacity to
discern historical truth?
The trouble is this: while Morg may be entitled to his subjective opinion,
the Ardentinne caves massacre is not a matter of opinion. It either
happened or it didn't. It can't exist in an indeterminate quantum state
between existence and non-existence like Schroedinger's cat. Either you're
right or Morghus is right - you can't both be. So recognizing that this is
not a perfect world and there we will never be absolutely 100% certain, the
question devolves to how we can best determine which of you is right. The
answer lies in testing which of you has the most logical and verifiable
argument.
What arguments does Morg put forward to support his view? There are two:
1) an absense fallacy,
>> > No one
>> > ever found a copy of any written documents confirming any orders or
>> > reports of the event, even though the order is supposed to have
>> > come from Hitler himself. The story is based entirely on
>> > testimony. Like all anti-German Holocaust lore, there is little
>> > evidence to support the stories of a massacre.
In true revisionist style, Morg harps on what pieces of evidence we don't
have (I'll take his word for it). His argument makes no reference to the
only question that is of any value to a genuine historical process: what
evidence *do* we have to work with, what means at our disposal is there to
find out what actually happened.
2) personal incredulity (mixed with a few national steretypes).
>> > The basic story is illogical. The Germans are supposed to have
>> > murdered over 350 people (mostly Italians--only 77 Jews)as reprisal
>> > for a bombing. But instead of public executions to discourage
>> > future bombings, the Germans sneaked the victims into a cave in
>> > groups of five, bound their hands behind them, and then shot them
>> > through the back of the neck, Bolshevik style.
It is clearly a weak argument with no discernible validation beyond
personal insight, whereas you at least have one witness in a position to
have seen who verifies your theory. Hence I would conclude that you had
the stronger argument. The irony, however, is that Morg is using your
methodology and you are using mine. Morghus has chosen what not to believe
based on his own presumptions and has come to a false conclusion. He has
chosen not to "trust" your witness, yet clearly the only basis he has for
making the choice he has is the evident fact that he doesn't wish to accept
the conclusion he would have to accept if he DID choose to trust her. Ask
yourself, then, is that really basis enough on which to measure evidence?
Then ask yourself, if not, how to we safeguard ourselves from inadvertently
making that - our biases, our desired conclusions - our primary if not only
basis?
Then ask yourself this: would you not do the same if someone like me put
the same manner of evidence to you in the case of the Holocaust? You cited
this woman as an example of the sort of evidence you would accept. Yet I
am certain that if I had put a witness to you that I described in exactly
the same terms as you describe her, saying much the same thing about gas
chambers as she said about the Ardentinne caves, you would have reacted in
much the same way as Morghus. You would have laughed me away, and rightly
so. But why would you have laughed me away? For no other reason that your
personal subjective opinion and the fact that my evidence supported the
"Holocaust" which you can't accept, rather than simple acts of wartime
brutality which you have no political purpose to deny.
In which case, Morghus is right. By any objective measure, you do display
a double standard in accepting what to most people would be very tenuous
evidence in contrast to that which is more solid and verifiable which you
reject. By what standards IS your old woman's testimony more credible than
that of Holocaust "confessions" and "eyewitness"? She spoke to you
privately. There is no means for independant verification of what she said
or of her personal credibility. In effect, Morg is doing the same to your
"little old lady" as you did to Dr. Munch. He doesn't know anything about
her ideological predilictions - he could claim she was "anti-Nazi" on the
same basis that you say so about Dr. Munch (for why else would she accuse
the Nazis of such a heinous atrocity?). He doesn't have first-hand
familiarity of her mental state. He could speculate that her account stems
from senility, just as you did for Munch.
Indeed, there is no objective reason why you shouldn't accept similar
Holocaust evidence if you believe this witness. The only reason you do,
the only thing that makes her different, is that you know her and trust her
personally - a fact that is of no use to anyone but you, and a standard
that is useless to me in terms of answering your challenge to present
evidence for the Holocaust you would find credible. Thus there is no way
you can deny that you were setting me impossible standards. Since your
only standard is personal, subjective credulity, you could declare
something invalid for whatever bonehead reasons you wished and I would have
no choice but to accept your opinion as writ.
The very point of learning is to challenge our presumptions. What are we
learning, then, if we base our decisions on what to believe solely on those
presumptions. An objective methodology must be the goal of any honest
inquiry for this reason alone, else the whole endeavour is pointless.
Basing your conclusions on pre-existing attitudes towards "trust" is the
act of a propagandist seeking to sow mistrust, not a serious historian
looking for the truth.
Steven Mock
helge
1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
2. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Treblinka
the difference between those two lists is the difference between FACT
and FRAUD.
there was no "extermination camp" at Treblinka, as there was no
holocau$t - it is only a jewish fraud.
BTW. there is no FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION opressing law that forbids
to question or even deny the Titanic tragedy.
THERA ARE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OPRESSING LAWS to protect the jewish
fraud called holocau$t - not for very much longer - but it is a clear
evidence about the parasitic and freedom hating nature of jews and
judaism - the traditional enemies of truth.
helge
Morghus is 100% right.
Dr. Michael's example with "old lady" is rather unfortunate.
The point Morghus is making [and I do agree with him] is that
there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATERIAL, FORENSIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL
evidence and "eyewitness testimonies", [certain type of] "documents".
"eyewitness" - can lie - and in case of biased kikes filled with hatered
against Germans, the eyewitness testimonies have no value.
with one exception - if they do provide piece of information that could
be verified [for example a jewish eyevitness testifying about a location
of a mass grave, that can be located and investigated - but that's
rather rare :) ]
"documents" it is very easy to forge documents, especialy if those
documents are not accessible to public and independent investigators,
who could evaluate them.
ON THE OTHER HAND - FORENSIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: it is almost
impossible to forge a massgraves filled with human remains, equally hard
is to produce a fake gassvan or to build a fake gasschamber, etc.
holocau$t [apx.6 000 000 killed jews] if it had happened, IT WOULD HAVE
produce FORENSIC EVIDENCE about apx.6 000 000 killed jews.
but there is none - you Mock, Holman, Mathews, Karren - all of you
[and as well the official historians] HAVE SIMPLY FAILED TO PRODUCE SUCH
EVIDENCE - 99% of your activity is shallow propaganda/poetry/philosophy
that should explain that such prove/evidence is not possible - that's
simply rubbish.
there was no holocau$t - there is no evidence that would support it -
forensic evidence that hardly supports 50 000 - 100 000 killed jews CAN
NOT BE USED as evidence for holocau$t [6 000 000 of killed jews].
helge
between 2 lines of text ?
Mathews you are a real holocau$t clown - I do [honestly] like you,
however I m not sure about your fellow holocaustniks - some of them
might feel a bit, hmm, hmm - embarrassed...
"> More archaeological research IS PLANNED for next year after the ground
> thaws."
> The government plans to expand the museum at Sobibor, which will
>
> include artifacts recovered during the archaeological research.
???
"metal cups and spoons, watches and binoculars" ?
old comb ? a shoe ? perhaps a bone from a chicken or form a fish as "a
symbol of starvation" ?
blck and white photographs of "jewish children who were 'exterminated'
in Sobibor" ?
> Kola said the barrack, located about 70 yards from the mass graves,
>
> might have served as a gas chamber, but that further study was
> necessary.
KOLA SAID :) [rigorous standards of forensic investigation :)]
"might have served as a gas chamber" ? is there any barrack - that
actually couldn't "served as a gas chamber" ?
"The evidence is documentary, scientific, physical, and testimonial."
or CRAP - to keep it short, but I have to agree "Crap" does not sound so
poetically as "The evidence is documentary, scientific, physical, and
testimonial."
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be John Winslow Brown wrote
in message <9nse00l2lup5dtg4j...@4ax.com>:
>On 15 Jan 2004 11:26:42 -0800, <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>
>david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>>Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<catamont-DEC320...@news-60.giganews.com>...
>>> And when are you planning to respond to my answers to your lies and
>>> slander, Dr. Homeland?
>>>
>>> Your accusations that I was planning violence?
>>> Your accusations that I was trying to deny David Irving rights that he,
>>> as a foreigner, doesn't have?
>>>
>>> You jumped in all excited, posted the majority of my phone number, made
>>> accusations, and when thoroughly embarassed, scurried away.
>>>
>>> So let's try once more:
>>>
>>> > What a fascinating statement!
>>> >
>>> > PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
>>> >
>>> > Peacefully assembling?
>>> > Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
>>> >
>>> > Gotta tell you, Dr. Homeland, those are GUARANTEES under our
>>> > Constitution. If Irving doesn't like it, he can stay out of our country.
>>> >
>>> > If you bothered to pay attention, you'd see that I said quite clearly
>>> > that Irving had every right to come to Denver, and every right to speak
>>> > in a public forum.
>>> >
>>> > I also have those same rights.
>>> >
>>> > So tell me, what were those "Nazi tactics" I used?
>Lying propaganda (which would make Joseph Goebbels proud) such as:
>
>http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html
>(Link active January 12, 2004. Archived locally as: ActionReportSalzman)
Glad to see that you acknowledge irving is lying for propaganda
purposes, SoB.
>Care to count all of the propaganda lies you told to demonize David Irving?
Easy. None.
>Isn't doing such as this Nazi tactics:
>
>"David Irving's followers are the same kinds of people as those who killed Alan
>Berg. It's vital that we let him know he is not welcome in Denver."
Demonstrably true.
>"David Irving, an anti-American [sic], anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, will be
>speaking here, and there will be a group protesting his visit. Information about
>this protest has been reported in Dani Newsum's Blog 'Nazi Swill is coming to
>town'."
Proven in court.
>"Let us give this racist, Nazi, Hitler lover, and Jew-hater a big Colorado
>unwelcome."
>
>LOOKS LIKE BROWNSHIRT TO ME!
Only because you are ignorant of history.
>You also lied and quoted David Irving way out of context when he was being
>facetious! Remember these lies and smears you evil bitch?
What proof do you offer that this was whimsy on the part of irving?
><start/quote>
>>In article <tcu800l03lg9dis79...@4ax.com>,
>> Wally Cleaver <wally_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote:
>>
>>> any evidence to the contrary?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure do. Irving's own words:
>>>
>>> "Thanks to expert friends not a million
>>> miles from Ft M - and to Bill
>>> Gates' shortcomings in providing
>>> proper email security for
>>> PC's - we immediately hack a
>>> handy "keyhole" into the directives
>>> Mrs Salzman issues."
>>>
>>> The word "hack" isn't mine, it's INVING'S.
>>> <end/quote>
>>> -From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
>>> -Subject: Re: Any comments, 'Sara Salzman 303-617-94**'?
>>> -Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:07:40 -0700
>>> -Message-ID: <catamont-535984...@news-60.giganews.com>
>>>
>>> Where in Irving's URL do those words appear?
>>>
>>> http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html
>>
>>It's not in there, you brain-damaged moron. It's in the newsletter
>>itself, as I clearly stated. In the downloadable .pdf. Idiot.
>You made no such claim in this thread that I saw you Jewish Bitch and GOOGLE
>only shows you mentioning PDF just once as shown here:
"That you saw." She also, in that particular message, say that it
came from the article which started the thread.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=PDF&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_uauthors=cata...@concentric.net&as_drrb=b&as_mind=15&as_minm=12&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2004&lr=&hl=en
>
>Which was (concerning David Irving):
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-564E32.17045613012004%40news-60.giganews.com&rnum=1&filter=0
>Re: Any comments, 'Sara Salzman 303-617-94**'?
>... It's in the newsletter itself, as I clearly stated. In the downloadable
>.pdf. Idiot. --
>
>How am I the idiot when you are the one who has been caught lying and by me
>never the less! SO WHO IS THE IDIOT YOU FAT STUPID PIG!! You lied when you
>stated: "It's not in there, you brain-damaged moron. It's in the newsletter
>itself, as I clearly stated. In the downloadable .pdf. Idiot."
>
>BTW what you quoted out of context was NOT a downloadable pdf file you fat
>stupid slob- it was a regular web page which I am going to quote in its entirety
>to prove how you twisted David Irving's words to smear him and you can count on
>this you stupid pig-- I am sending him a copy of this post too!
Gord has posted the entire exchange, no need for it to be posted
again, nor is anything "twisted" -- the excerpt Sara quoted was
exact,and nothing in the context indicates irving was being facetious
when he wrote it.
>I can confirm that Irving is a liar and has admitted to committing a
>felony under US law.
>
><<Tavish comment January 15, 2004. You are a libeler when you quoted David
>Irving just being facetious and his remarks out of context and then imply he
>committed a felony!! You Jews seem to like quoting people out of context and
>then raising sheer hell on your concocted versions!!>>
What support to you have for your delusion that irving did not mean
exactly what he wrote, and what context do you see as changing that?
>Sure do. Irving's own words:
>
>"Thanks to expert friends not a million
>miles from Ft M - and to Bill
>Gates' shortcomings in providing
>proper email security for
>PC's - we immediately hack a
>handy "keyhole" into the directives
>Mrs Salzman issues."
>
>The word "hack" isn't mine, it's INVING'S.
>
><<Tavish comment January 15, 2004. VERY MUCH OUT OF CONTEXT AS I SHALL PROVE
>BELOW YOU FAT STUPID LYING JEW BITCH!!!!>
Nope. Like to see you try...
>[...]
>> So you don't want to answer the point about Ms Salzman's use of the
>> term 'British bastard'?
>I've answered it. I never said it. Irving "changed a word here and
>there."
>So where is that link to a news letter your fatness? There is NO downloadable
>PDF
>link in the URL http://www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR25/Salzman.html .
Nor is that the URL she gave for it later in the thread.
>If there is then it is on a linked page but not in the Action Report itself!
>Have I caught you lying again Your Fatness?
><end/quote>
>
><STOP>
>
>What David Irving had at his web site in true context (which was intended to be
>facetious and to shove a stick at Sara Salzman's paranoia and self hatred she
>projects on her opposition):
<snip to that day's entry>
>IN DENVER THERE IS A GANG plotting violence to disrupt my penultimate engagement
>there. Their ringleader [SEE SPECIAL ITEM] is Sara Salzman, a local Holocaust
>specialist; she has bragged to the press that she intends to make my visit to
>Denver as "nasty" as possible.
>
>Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks to expert friends -- and to Bill Gates'
>shortcomings in providing proper email security for PC's -- we immediately hack
>a handy "keyhole" into the directives Mrs Salzman issues.
>
>In future she should go Mac, or pay for better firewalls. I expect my keyhole to
>enable me to identify her moles and lead her entire greasy gang somewhat astray
>when Saturday comes.
>
>"In cases like these," I advise my Denver organiser, "we find the address of a
>local gay bar and pack off the suspected enemy moles to wait all day there."
>
>As stage one, I post on my website the full report appearing in this morning's
>Moscow Daily News. To mislead the Salzman gang I temporarily add a fake sentence
>at the end, reading "Irving speaks at a hotel near Denver airport on Saturday."
>
>I also change the identity of my car in the Daily News item.
>[...]
>
>David Irving wrote a facetious satire YET Sara being the lying Jew bitch she is
>chose to take a snippet from the above and use it in a deceptive way thus using
>Nazi tactics! Care to deny the above was a satire Fat Pig Sara? Care to deny you
>lied in order to smear David Irving? YOU ARE A PATHETIC FAT SLOB!!
Yes, I deny that the above is a satire. It is irving's own diary,
posted on his web site. Can you quote anything at all from *irving*
indicating he means this diary as a satire?
>BTW Sara it does appear that you have a "mole " in your organization as David
>hinted at and your "mole" is disgusted with your tactics just as a certain ally
>of yours identified Laurence B. Shiff as being Marduk when he got fed up with
>underhanded tactics. You are being exposed for what you are you fat pig- never
>forget it!
>>Right. Mr David Irving posted an account of an attempt by you together
>>with some 90 other people to disrupt a meeting that he wished to hold.
>>You have queried his use of the word 'British' but do not seem to have
>>disputed the assertions that you were bringing 90 or more people with
>>you and first aid supplies (unless I have missed something). The
>>accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
>>statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving, (b) the fact that
>>you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you, and (c) the fact that
>>your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies. Does it take
>>90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian? And
>>since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
>>'getting' someone? Since when does 'peaceful assembly' constitute
>>'getting' someone? And what else could the carriage of first aid
>>supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
>>Were you perhaps planning to lecture Mr Irving on how to apply a
>>bandage?
>Well put!
Altho based on a naive acceptance of that what irving wrote was the
truth -- there never was going to be 90 people -- that's a little
"massaging" of the facts such as irving is known for, and which he
admits to in the very passage quoted.
>BTW I am filing all new complaints against Yale F. Edeiken. One of the criteria
>I had to meet was if I was still being harassed/defamed because of the dismissed
>lawsuit and seeing how more than one web site propagates the smear and seeing
>how the extinct lawsuit is thrust up to my face weekly I have proof and this
>time I am pushing to have Yale disbarred and his license revoked!
This should be good. All that will need to be shown is that you
yourself bring it up most of the time, and engage in personal attacks
the rest to show that you are bringing it on yourself.
But I really do hope this isn't another of your blusters -- when are
you planning to file?
>May I submit your e-mail address as being a witness and a recipient of Yale's
>malicious prosecutions?
>>Your answers please, Ms Salzman?
>She'll squeal like the disgusting fat pig she is and then she'll run like a
>greased pig!
Neither of which happened,
<snip off-topic articles reposted from a group in which the
discussion was entirely on topic and appropriate -- unlike alt.rev>
david_michael
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 18:03:44 -0800,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) typed:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Objectivity is not a meaningful goal -- unless you choose to define
> > it in a very unusual way. Objectivity, as I understand it, is what
> > you're left with when you take away all points of view. As we are
> > always
> > obliged to look at things through a point of view it seems that we
> > can never really know when we've struck 'objectivity'. I'd view the
> > process as one of theory evaluation rather than an attempt to get
> > beyond theory and strike 'fact'. As Nietzsche put it: 'There are no
> > facts; there are only interpretations.'
>
> Do you believe that to be objectively true?
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
No, and neither did he. It is, however, a compelling interpretation.
helge
perhaps the victims [or their remains] of Lidice massacre didn't
vaporize ? [173 czech men - victims produced 173 dead bodies, as opposed
to the Treblinka miracle where 750 000- 1400 000 jews disappeared].
The only questionable and most likely false part of the Lidice story is
the allegation that SEVEN[?] of those children who were sent to Germany
and not found after the war - "were gassed in gassvans at Chelmno".
There is no evidence to support that allegation - but well thats the
only bit Lidice do share with jewish holocau$t.
perhaps there are photographs of the Lidice village from shortly before
the event as well from after ?
perhaps the difference between Lidice and Treblinka is the difference
between FACT and a FRAUD.
Morghus is going [if I undestood him right] TO ACCEPT ANY REAL
[forensic, archeological] EVIDENCE that could be investigated and
evaluated - what he is not going to accept is jewish lies, poetry and
"interpretations".
The Mad Revisionist
> very good point - sit down for a 10 minutes and write down 2 lists:
> 1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
Absolutely none. There are a few bodies buried in a cemetary somewhere in
Canada, but nowhere near the 1500 number alleged to have died, and no
forensic evidence whatsoever that they died by drowning when their boat hit
an iceberg.
What's more, this alleged iceberg is curiously nowhere to be found either.
Suspicious?
Finally, all we have left is a boat at the bottom of the ocean. There are
any number of ways it could have got there. But revisionists have not been
permitted conduct an impartial forensic examination up close. Why would
that be if the Establishment didn't have something to hide?
> 2. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Treblinka
>
> the difference between those two lists is the difference between FACT
> and FRAUD.
Very well. Show me the first shred of conclusive forensic and
archeological evidence for the conventional Titanic story, and we'll talk.
Steven Mock
> Morghus is 100% right.
> Dr. Michael's example with "old lady" is rather unfortunate.
> The point Morghus is making [and I do agree with him] is that
> there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATERIAL, FORENSIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL
> evidence and "eyewitness testimonies", [certain type of] "documents".
>
> "eyewitness" - can lie - and in case of biased kikes filled with hatered
> against Germans, the eyewitness testimonies have no value.
Dr. Michael,
"helge", too, is obligingly teaching us yet another lesson as to why
measuring evidence solely on the basis of one's individual subjective
"trust" is a poor means of approaching history. Any thoughts?
Steven Mock
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in news:4007e...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>
>
>>very good point - sit down for a 10 minutes and write down 2 lists:
>>1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
>
>
> Absolutely none.
shabby goy who squeaks about holocau$t is denying evidence about Titanic
- well I m not surprised - in order to "prove holocau$t" one actually
has to DENY AND REJECT THE BASIC CRITERIA OF FORENSIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATION - as they applied to holocau$t expose the fraud immediately.
> There are a few bodies buried in a cemetary somewhere in
> Canada, but nowhere near the 1500 number alleged to have died, and no
> forensic evidence whatsoever that they died by drowning when their boat hit
> an iceberg.
>
> What's more, this alleged iceberg is curiously nowhere to be found either.
> Suspicious?
>
> Finally, all we have left is a boat at the bottom of the ocean.
hmm - hang on shabbo, didn't you said only 10 lines above that
there is "Absolutely none." forensic and archeological evidence ?
so now there is "a boat" at the bottom of the ocean.
something material, right ? that could be investigated ?
well, 1 point for Titanic :)
0 for Treblinka - as there is no extermination camp, nor it's rests,
there are no [huge] mass graves, or at least traces after huge mass
graves, and there are no human remains from 700 000 - 1400 000 jews.
there is no "boat at the bottom of the ocean" at the Treblinka.
> There are
> any number of ways it could have got there.
sure - but IT IS THERE - IT DOES EXIST - it could be investigated,
and it is not an exception - archeologist have found and studied
boats/wrecks much older than Titanic.
> But revisionists have not been
> permitted conduct an impartial forensic examination up close. Why would
> that be if the Establishment didn't have something to hide?
lie. none is stopping anyone to dive and investigate the wreck of
Titanic - it is only a question of money.
as opposed to Treblinka - where the cost are minimal - but simply there
is nothing to investigate :) - you know if you want to exhume a
massgraves and investigate the human remains - you simply need a mass
grave with human remains - jewish eyewitness testimony even a very
gruesome one want produce a massgrave :)
>
>
>>2. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Treblinka
>>
>>the difference between those two lists is the difference between FACT
>>and FRAUD.
>
>
> Very well. Show me the first shred of conclusive forensic and
> archeological evidence for the conventional Titanic story, and we'll talk.
>
Titanic 1 : 0 Treblinka
The Mad Revisionist
news:40080827$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
> The Mad Revisionist wrote:
>> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
>> news:4007e...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>>
>>>very good point - sit down for a 10 minutes and write down 2 lists:
>>>1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
>>
>> Absolutely none.
> here we go !
> shabby goy who squeaks about holocau$t is denying evidence about
> Titanic - well I m not surprised - in order to "prove holocau$t" one
> actually has to DENY AND REJECT THE BASIC CRITERIA OF FORENSIC AND
> ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION - as they applied to holocau$t expose the
> fraud immediately.
In other words, "hegle" will not provide a shred of forensic or
archeological evidence to support the conventional Titanic story.
>> There are a few bodies buried in a cemetary somewhere in
>> Canada, but nowhere near the 1500 number alleged to have died, and no
>> forensic evidence whatsoever that they died by drowning when their
>> boat hit an iceberg.
>>
>> What's more, this alleged iceberg is curiously nowhere to be found
>> either. Suspicious?
>>
>> Finally, all we have left is a boat at the bottom of the ocean.
> hmm - hang on shabbo, didn't you said only 10 lines above that
> there is "Absolutely none." forensic and archeological evidence ?
Look, you don't seem to understand. I'm a Titanic REVISIONIST. Not a
Titanic denier. I'm not saying that the boat didn't sink, or that a few
people may have gotten wet and cold, and perhaps even broken an ankle or
something.
But the traditional Titanic story is that the ship hit an iceberg and
sank, and 1500 people lost their lives. All I am saying is that there
is not a shred of archeological or forensic evidence to support any of
this. And you're evidently not going to present any.
Its all a Titanic fraud.
William Daffer
Alas for Morghus, that's not what he said. Here, let me requote
it for you, maybe this time you'll actually read it!
<quote>
The story of the massacre at the Ardeatine caves, just like the
*story of the destruction of Lidice*, could well be just more
anti-German propaganda now being passed off as history.
</quote>
[emphasis mine]
The only 'part' of the 'story' about Lidice mentioned is its
destrcution, which Morghus described as 'anti-German propaganda.'
Any qualification attaches to the massacre at the Ardeatine caves,
whose status 'could well be' _another case_ of the sort of
anti-German propaganda of which, according to Morghus, the Lidice
massacre *is*.
And nowhere does he mention any 'children.'
As John pointed out, this demonstrates how bone-ignorant Morghus is.
And in ignorance and stupidity, as evidenced by your inability to
follow the conversation, you follow close behind.
[snip remaining stupidity]
whd
--
<quote>
xganon, in 360dc87da7c02e27...@xganon.com, under the subject line:
"The Horror of the gas chambers", says:
It's too bad that they still don't do that. I would love to see most
of the oppressive Zion nazi regime and the rest of the Jew assasins
put there. For every non jew killed 100 jews should be slaughtered
like pigs. They don't belong there, the temples should be burned and
the people shot. They are all soldiers of zion and deserve one fate.
They are the chosen to die people. God has chosen the jews to be
persecuted and slaughtered. IT IS THE WAY
</quote>
helge
look Mr.Mock I m Germanic [of an Austrian/Dutch/German descent] - 190cm
tall, blue eyes, blond hair - what's your opinion if I cut my hair,
shave and put on a Wehrmacht or a SS uniform - showing a photo of me to
jews [who claim to be holocau$t survivors] - how many of them will
"identify/recognize" me as "the beast" who killed their family, their
friends, etc. ?
and how many of them will say - hmm sorry, but I've never seen this guy ?
[to clarify - I was born long after the WWII]
the point I m trying to make is that those "holcoau$t survivors" would
slaughter me - with their false testimonies only BECAUSE I M GERMANIC -
and because it suits their jewish agenda and [parasitic/criminal] interests.
if someone did commit crimes against humanity I DO AGREE that he should
be brought to justice, however the crime needs to be proven.
Steven Mock
news:40080...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
I was talking to Dr. Michael. Gehen spiel auf der Autobahn.
Steven Mock
Morghus
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 09:31:51 -0800,
> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
>
>
> > The story of the massacre at the Ardeatine caves, just like the
> > story of the destruction of Lidice, could well be just more
> > anti-German propaganda now being passed off as history.
>
> Then in your view, Goebbels address to the nation on Radio Berlin
> announcing the Lidice massacre must be just more German-hating
> propaganda.
>
You people just make things up as you go along, don't you?
Goebbels made no radio announcements about Lidice to the German nation
or any other nation. The story of Lidice was broadcast by a radio
station in Prague. No one ever saw any evidence of any massacre in
Lidice. Goebbels mentioned nothing of a massacre at Lidice in his
personal diary.
Hans Fritzsche, who later became director of the Radio Section of
Goebbels's propaganda Ministry, testified he met with Goebbels daily
after he became director of the radio, yet he never heard of any
massacre at Lidice until after the war, when the Allies generously
provided him with the Allied version of the event.
Lidice became a standard in Western propaganda after the Jew
Viktor Fischl persuaded the Crown Film Unit, the unit charged with
making British propaganda films, to shoot a phony film about Lidice
using the Welsh village of Cwmgiedd because it looked like a Czech
village. Aside from that bogus propaganda film, The only evidence of
German atrocities at Lidice is a memorial placed there after the war.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
> news:40080827$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>
>
>>The Mad Revisionist wrote:
>>
>>>helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
>>>news:4007e...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>very good point - sit down for a 10 minutes and write down 2 lists:
>>>>1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
>>>
>>>Absolutely none.
>>
>>here we go !
>>shabby goy who squeaks about holocau$t is denying evidence about
>>Titanic - well I m not surprised - in order to "prove holocau$t" one
>>actually has to DENY AND REJECT THE BASIC CRITERIA OF FORENSIC AND
>>ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION - as they applied to holocau$t expose the
>>fraud immediately.
>
>
> In other words, "hegle" will not provide a shred of forensic or
> archeological evidence to support the conventional Titanic story.
>
of forensic or archeological evidence" - looks like shabby boy shot
himslef in the leg :)
>
>>>There are a few bodies buried in a cemetary somewhere in
>>>Canada, but nowhere near the 1500 number alleged to have died, and no
>>>forensic evidence whatsoever that they died by drowning when their
>>>boat hit an iceberg.
>>>
>>>What's more, this alleged iceberg is curiously nowhere to be found
>>>either. Suspicious?
>>>
>>>Finally, all we have left is a boat at the bottom of the ocean.
>>
>>hmm - hang on shabbo, didn't you said only 10 lines above that
>>there is "Absolutely none." forensic and archeological evidence ?
>
>
> Look, you don't seem to understand.
at first you said there is "Absolutely none." evidence about Titanic,
THEN YOU HAVE TO CORRECT YOURSELF - as you were not able to
get rid of the wreck "at the bottom of the ocean."
That's the best way how to understand the jewish holocau$t fraud - you
should do it yourself - you've already reached the first milestone -
the difference between the material evidence and "poetry".
"a boat at the bottom of the ocean." I S REAL AND IT DOES EXISTS - it
could be evaluated - as opposed to for example :) jewish poetry about
mass shootings, gassvans and gasschambers.
> I'm a Titanic REVISIONIST. Not a
> Titanic denier. I'm not saying that the boat didn't sink,
simply because you can not - YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MATERIAL
EVIDENCE - the Titanic wreck at the bottom of the ocean.
On the other hand I can not acknowledge the jewish poetry about an
"extermination camp" at Treblinka - because there is NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE.
> or that a few
> people may have gotten wet and cold, and perhaps even broken an ankle or
> something.
>
> But the traditional Titanic story is that the ship hit an iceberg and
> sank, and 1500 people lost their lives. All I am saying is that there
> is not a shred of archeological or forensic evidence to support any of
> this. And you're evidently not going to present any.
>
> Its all a Titanic fraud.
>
this only shows how "intelligent" you are.
The purpose of forensic/archeological evidence is not "to support"
"traditional story about XXX" or "some eyewitness accounts".
I already pointed out 2 DIFFERENT TYPES of eyewitness testimonies:
1. facts: [at location X is a massgrave]
2. conclusions, statements without being supported by facts [I've seen
1000s of women and children being gassed and cremated, a jewish boy
being thrown by SS guy into a pit filledwith boiling human fat... blah,
blah, blah, but I m not able to show you any locations, any material
evidence ...]
the first one can be used as "input" to locate the massgrave - however
it will be the forensic expert[-s] who will produce the FACTS AND
TECHNICAL DETAILS about the mass grave
the second one - is rubbish - as there is no factual value - there is no
way to evaluate such crap as true or false.
to keep it simple:
One doesn't need to care about "Titanic stories".
The technical investigation is enough - it is not enough for a movie
script, but it is enough to establish and summarize facts about
Titanic - do you see the difference ?
helge
thanks for the answer :)
kisses,
helge
The Mad Revisionist
news:40081...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
> The Mad Revisionist wrote:
>> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
>> news:40080827$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>>
>>
>>>The Mad Revisionist wrote:
>>>
>>>>helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
>>>>news:4007e...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>very good point - sit down for a 10 minutes and write down 2 lists:
>>>>>1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely none.
>>>
>>>here we go !
>>>shabby goy who squeaks about holocau$t is denying evidence about
>>>Titanic - well I m not surprised - in order to "prove holocau$t" one
>>>actually has to DENY AND REJECT THE BASIC CRITERIA OF FORENSIC AND
>>>ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION - as they applied to holocau$t expose the
>>>fraud immediately.
>>
>> In other words, "hegle" will not provide a shred of forensic or
>> archeological evidence to support the conventional Titanic story.
>>
> hmm - a wreck of Titanic at the bottom of the sea is MORE THAN "a
> shred of forensic or archeological evidence"
Forensic or archeological evidence for what? The existence of a boat?
Nobody doubts that.
You might as well say that the ruins of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz
are proof that 1.5 million people were gassed.
There is no forensic evidence of an iceberg, nor for the figure of 1500
killed. Hegle refuses to post any.
> - looks like shabby boy
> shot himslef in the leg :)
Look at the way the establishment propagandist resorts to personal abuse
the minute it becomes clear that he cannot produce any physical
evidence.
helge
<quote>
...story of the destruction of Lidice, *COULD WELL BE* just
moreanti-German propaganda...
</quote>
*COULD WELL BE* [emphasis mine]
> Any qualification attaches to the massacre at the Ardeatine caves,
> whose status 'could well be' _another case_ of the sort of
> anti-German propaganda of which, according to Morghus, the Lidice
> massacre *is*.
>
> And nowhere does he mention any 'children.'
>
> As John pointed out, this demonstrates how bone-ignorant Morghus is.
>
both massacres are not related to holcoau$t - holocau$t is not about
173 shot Czech men and allegedly 7[?] gassvaned Czech children.
holocau$t is a jewish fraud about 6 000 000 of killed jews.
there is no evidence for holocau$t - simply because it is a fraud.
> And in ignorance and stupidity, as evidenced by your inability to
> follow the conversation, you follow close behind.
>
> [snip remaining stupidity]
>
> whd
Morghus
>
> because I happen to know a few facts about her that Morghus doesn't
> know, but I can't prove those facts to him so I can't persuade him.
> Let's say only that she was well connected, was a dedicated
> nationalist in 1994 as she had been for most of her life, and had been
> in a position to know what was going on. From Morghus's point of view,
> was no great secrecy about these killings, which were standard
> reprisal killings (not part of the 'Holocaust') -- those killed were
> taken from local jails, marched through the streets to a convoy of
> lorries, transported to the caves in the lorries in full public view,
> and killed.
I believe that is incorrect. In fact, according to the records of
the Vatican, the executions were carried out in secrecy.
I believe Pope Pius XII tried to intervene beforehand to
> try to stop it but was not successful.
I believe that is also incorrect. The Vatican had previously
intervened on behalf of 35 of those alleged to have been victims of a
massacre. Those 35 had previously been arrested on charges of
terrorism and murder and were facing the death penalty. But there was
no Papal intervention relating to the fabled Ardeatine massacre,
possibly because no such event occurred except in the active minds of
Allied propagandists.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
> news:40081...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>
>
>>The Mad Revisionist wrote:
>>
>>>helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
>>>news:40080827$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Mad Revisionist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:4007e...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>very good point - sit down for a 10 minutes and write down 2 lists:
>>>>>>1. material, forensic and archeological evidence about Titanic
>>>>>
>>>>>Absolutely none.
>>>>
>>>>here we go !
>>>>shabby goy who squeaks about holocau$t is denying evidence about
>>>>Titanic - well I m not surprised - in order to "prove holocau$t" one
>>>>actually has to DENY AND REJECT THE BASIC CRITERIA OF FORENSIC AND
>>>>ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION - as they applied to holocau$t expose the
>>>>fraud immediately.
>>>
>>>In other words, "hegle" will not provide a shred of forensic or
>>>archeological evidence to support the conventional Titanic story.
>>>
>>
>>hmm - a wreck of Titanic at the bottom of the sea is MORE THAN "a
>>shred of forensic or archeological evidence"
>
>
> Forensic or archeological evidence for what? The existence of a boat?
> Nobody doubts that.
>
I do not ask for anything more - show me similar type of evidence for
Treblinka - that's what I m after - "the wreck of Treblinka"...
> You might as well say that the ruins of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz
> are proof that 1.5 million people were gassed.
>
well, before we start to discuss "Auschwitz", i would like to hear your
opinion about Treblinka - please bare in mind that according to "the
official" holocau$t history Treblinka is "THE EXTERMINATION camp" :)
[my guess is that Treblinka will become the biggest cemetary of
holocau$t lies :)]
> There is no forensic evidence of an iceberg, nor for the figure of 1500
> killed. Hegle refuses to post any.
hmm. so there is a wreck you say at the bottom of the sea.
well - then a forensic expert can collect the data about the wreck and
establish the reason why the wreck of Titanic is lying there.
once again - I do not expect the forensic and other experts to produce a
script for a hollywood movie - the facts are enough :)
once again - the purpose of forensic investigation is not to establish
how long the music played on the bord of sinking Titanic or if Joe
kissed Marry.
Forensic/Archeological investigation is enough to produce facts about
Titanic and it's fate.
>
>
>>- looks like shabby boy
>>shot himslef in the leg :)
>
>
> Look at the way the establishment propagandist resorts to personal abuse
> the minute it becomes clear that he cannot produce any physical
> evidence.
>
well - yes - right - if only the physical evidence was not at the bottom
of the ocean :)
Sara Salzman
MadRev:
You are the wings beneath my feet :)
Sara
--
-My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
-I don't rely on personal attacks as my means of posting and
the bulk of my posts prove so! You can't discern the difference.
BTW my name is not Fatboy you stupid kike.
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 08:38:06 -0800,
mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:<t57f00t8c7a5pf5bh...@4ax.com>...
> > In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> > alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 09:31:51 -0800,
> > mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
> > > The story of the massacre at the Ardeatine caves, just like
> > > the story of the destruction of Lidice, could well be just more
> > > anti-German propaganda now being passed off as history.
> > Then in your view, Goebbels address to the nation on Radio Berlin
> > announcing the Lidice massacre must be just more German-hating
> > propaganda.
> You people just make things up as you go along, don't you?
> Goebbels made no radio announcements about Lidice to the German
> nation or any other nation. The story of Lidice was broadcast by a
> radio station in Prague.
So you're saying it was announced on radio in the Reichsprotekorate
Bohemia.
> No one ever saw any evidence of any massacre in
> Lidice.
Except people who saw Kurt Daluege's film of the destruction of
Lidice--including the piled up corpses--broadcast in German theatres.
> Goebbels mentioned nothing of a massacre at Lidice in his
> personal diary.
> Hans Fritzsche, who later became director of the Radio Section
> of Goebbels's propaganda Ministry, testified he met with Goebbels
> daily after he became director of the radio, yet he never heard of
> any
> massacre at Lidice until after the war, when the Allies generously
> provided him with the Allied version of the event.
Fritsche testified that he was away during the massacre and learned
of it from Gebbels later:
Q. Did you know of the reprisals? How did you deal with them
in your propaganda?
A. I learned of Lidice, which I just mentioned, only after
months, because at that time I was at the Eastern Front.
I learned - and this is significant - only of the destruction
of the houses of Lidice and the driving out of the inhabitants.
I learned only here in the courtroom of the killing of a part
of the inhabitants. I learned that hostages were taken, but
not that they were killed. The killing of hostages was made
public only in the occupied territories.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-165-02.shtml
> Lidice became a standard in Western propaganda after the Jew
> Viktor Fischl persuaded the Crown Film Unit, the unit charged with
> making British propaganda films, to shoot a phony film about Lidice
> using the Welsh village of Cwmgiedd because it looked like a Czech
> village. Aside from that bogus propaganda film, The only evidence
> of German atrocities at Lidice is a memorial placed there after the
> war.
All the evidence seems to suggest that you're a complete moron.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAgmQjfbIykA6SysEQJoLgCgoLFVfUqrcunPD6kpCZGp5sWZIrEAmQHg
aEWIMpFpOyNp6K4VllLHu4ks
=SPHg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
helge
>>Apologies -- I'm trying to do too many things at once again.
>>
>>with some 90 other people to disrupt a meeting that he wished to hold.
>>You have queried his use of the word 'British' but do not seem to have
>>disputed the assertions that you were bringing 90 or more people with
>>you
>
>
> "British" and changed the word "nine" to "ninety."
>
>
>>and first aid supplies (unless I have missed something).
>
>
> First aid supplies for US in case any of Mr. Irving's skinhead friends
> decide to be violent towards US.
>
sure - "neonazis" and "skinheads" - you do not want to distract for sure
right ? it looks like that Irving is only expressing ceratain views you
would like to silence :)
>
>
>>The
>>accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
>>statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving,
>
>
> Sorry. No violence.
hmm, so you want to "get" Mr. Irving without violence...
>
>
>
>>(b) the fact that
>>you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you,
>
>
> Wrong again. There were NINE people;
9-90
6-6000 000
did I get it right ? :)
>and none of them were there to
> "assist" me, they wanted to let David Irving know that Denver does not
> "welcome" him.
>
so 9 "people" - 9 jews do express the opinion of/for "the whole Denver",
hmm...
>
>>and (c) the fact that
>>your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies.
>
>
> a) not my "accomplice," just another American citizen,
kikes.
> b) the person in question decided ON HIS OWN to bring a first-aid kit,
sure as their rodent-brothers/sisters decided ON HIS OWN to bring a gun
to shoot Ukrainians, Belarussians and Poles 80-90years ago.
seems to me that these kikes are "natural born democrats" :)
> c) he brought it because Irving attracts a lot of violent people.
>
sure. you said that - therefore it must be the truth.
>
>
>>Does it take
>>90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian?
>
>
> The number of people is irrelevant, although Irving lied about it to
> make himself seem more important.
>
well deciding between Mr.Irving and thoise FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION HATING
rodents, i doubt that Mr.Irving wanted to made himself more important -
looks like that he caugt and exposed the rodents :)
>
>>And
>>since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
>>'getting' someone?
>
>
> Since Irving tried to deny Americans their right to protest his visit to
> Denver, "getting Irving" simply meant uncovering the location of his
> meeting and protesting it.
>
"Irving tried to deny Americans their right to protest his visit"
American is not equal to kike., besides irving didnt tried o deny anything.
>
>
>>Since when does 'peaceful assembly' constitute
>>'getting' someone?
>
>
> Explained above.
nothing was explained.
>
>
>>And what else could the carriage of first aid
>>supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
>
>
> Explained above. We were not expecting anything. We were being prepared.
>
sure "prepared" - as you were prepared to KILL Ukrainians, Belorussians
and Poles :)
looks like that you are "prepared" all the time :)
>
>>Were you perhaps planning to lecture Mr Irving on how to apply a
>>bandage?
>
>
>
> Not at all. The person who brought a first aid kit was being careful and
> preparing for the reaction of Mr. Irving's "friends."
>
sure.
never heard about jewish rodents self inflicted wounds ?
>
>>Your answers please, Ms Salzman?
>>
>>David
>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
>
> You have them. Now answer MY questions, which you carefully avoided:
>
> PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
>
YOU ARE DENYING THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to people who do not subscribe
to your rodent ideology.
> Peacefully assembling?
>
YUP. YOU ARE DENYING THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to people who do not
subscribe to your rodent ideology.
you only talked about "neonazis" and "skinheads", HOWEVER you didn't
support your crap with any evidence.
> Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
>
> The article in Westword, which Irving both quotes from and links to on
> his site, says very clearly:
>
yes and you manage to get only 9 rodents who suported you.
is our family so small ? :)
> "I don't want to prevent him from coming," she says. "I just want to
> make sure people know who he is." And where he is, since the location of
> Irving's talk has yet to be set.
>
> "In the meantime, Salzman has launched a one-woman crusade to make his
> trip to Colorado as unwelcoming as possible. Once she determines where
> he'll be speaking, she hopes to round up a group of people to protest
> and hand out pamphlets describing his views. "This isn't a question of
> whether he has a right to say what he wants to say," Salzman explains.
> "But I'd like to make his visit a very unpleasant one."
>
"This isn't a question of whether he has a right to say what he wants to
say,"
rodent expressing it's "opinions" - just another example how the rodents
value THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION :)
>
> Now tell me again, what "Nazi" tactics?
>
> Sara
The Mad Revisionist
Which only proves the credulity of Titanic believers.
Just show them a boat on the bottom of the sea, and they'll believe any
libelous, improbable nonsense you tell them about how it got there.
Its all a Titanic fraud.
--
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <40082...@news6.uncensored-news.com>:
>>>Apologies -- I'm trying to do too many things at once again.
>>>
>>>Right. Mr David Irving posted an account of an attempt by you together
>>>with some 90 other people to disrupt a meeting that he wished to hold.
>>>You have queried his use of the word 'British' but do not seem to have
>>>disputed the assertions that you were bringing 90 or more people with
>>>you
>> Of course I disputed that. I told you that Irving added the word
>> "British" and changed the word "nine" to "ninety."
>hmm, so only 9 jews came and not 90 as you expected...
No one said that they were all Jews. Why is it important for you to
believe that only Jews can find irving and his lies repugnant?
>>>and first aid supplies (unless I have missed something).
>> First aid supplies for US in case any of Mr. Irving's skinhead friends
>> decide to be violent towards US.
>sure - "neonazis" and "skinheads" - you do not want to distract for sure
>right ? it looks like that Irving is only expressing ceratain views you
>would like to silence :)
No one has suggested that irving be silenced. Why is it important for
you to believe that an average American would be against free speech?
>>>The
>>>accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
>>>statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving,
>> Sorry. No violence.
>hmm, so you want to "get" Mr. Irving without violence...
Had you a point here?
>>>(b) the fact that
>>>you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you,
>> Wrong again. There were NINE people;
>9-90
>6-6000 000
>did I get it right ? :)
Nope. "90" is a lie. 6 million is a best estimate calculated by a
methodology you remain willfully ignorant of.
>> and none of them were there to
>> "assist" me, they wanted to let David Irving know that Denver does not
>> "welcome" him.
>so 9 "people" - 9 jews do express the opinion of/for "the whole Denver",
>hmm...
No one said that they were all Jews -- do you always jump to such
conclusions?
>>>and (c) the fact that
>>>your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies.
>> a) not my "accomplice," just another American citizen,
>kikes.
Nope, that person specifically is not Jewish, AFAIK
>> b) the person in question decided ON HIS OWN to bring a first-aid kit,
>sure as their rodent-brothers/sisters decided ON HIS OWN to bring a gun
>to shoot Ukrainians, Belarussians and Poles 80-90years ago.
And your forensic proof of this idiocy is ... ? Where are the bodies,
the autopsies, the ballistics reports?
>seems to me that these kikes are "natural born democrats" :)
Seems to me that you are a natural born liar about Ukrainians,
Belarussians and Poles 80 to 90 years ago.
>> c) he brought it because Irving attracts a lot of violent people.
>sure. you said that - therefore it must be the truth.
irving himself complains about such.
But don't let the facts get in your way.
>>>Does it take
>>>90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian?
>> The number of people is irrelevant, although Irving lied about it to
>> make himself seem more important.
>well deciding between Mr.Irving and thoise FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION HATING
>rodents, i doubt that Mr.Irving wanted to made himself more important -
>looks like that he caugt and exposed the rodents :)
Of course, cretin can point to nothing indicating any of these people
hate freedom of expression, while even irving quotes Sara as stating
that she was not trying to stop him from having his say.
But then, taking *all* of the facts into consideration has never been
cretin's style.
>>>And since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
>>>'getting' someone?
>> Since Irving tried to deny Americans their right to protest his visit to
>> Denver, "getting Irving" simply meant uncovering the location of his
>> meeting and protesting it.
>"Irving tried to deny Americans their right to protest his visit"
>American is not equal to kike., besides irving didnt tried o deny anything.
Oh, *that's* why he has to hide where he's speaking and use fake
names...
>>>Since when does 'peaceful assembly' constitute
>>>'getting' someone?
>> Explained above.
>nothing was explained.
At least not in terms cretin can understand...
>>>And what else could the carriage of first aid
>>>supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
>> Explained above. We were not expecting anything. We were being prepared.
>sure "prepared" - as you were prepared to KILL Ukrainians, Belorussians
>and Poles :)
>looks like that you are "prepared" all the time :)
Where are the guns you claimed were used to do this killing? Looks
like by your own standards you are a fraud.
>>>Were you perhaps planning to lecture Mr Irving on how to apply a
>>>bandage?
>> Not at all. The person who brought a first aid kit was being careful and
>> preparing for the reaction of Mr. Irving's "friends."
>sure.
>never heard about jewish rodents self inflicted wounds ?
Why don't you tell us why you are assuming that *anyone* except Sara
was Jewish?
>>>Your answers please, Ms Salzman?
>> You have them. Now answer MY questions, which you carefully avoided:
>>
>> PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
>YOU ARE DENYING THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to people who do not subscribe
>to your rodent ideology.
Nope. She specifically said that she was not trying to stop his
speech.
Do you really think that lying makes your case more credible?
>> Peacefully assembling?
>YUP. YOU ARE DENYING THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to people who do not
>subscribe to your rodent ideology.
>you only talked about "neonazis" and "skinheads", HOWEVER you didn't
>support your crap with any evidence.
Actually, those were *your* words. And repeating the lie about
denying freedom of expression, especially when *you* can't support it
with any evidence doesn't make it any less a lie.
>> Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
>>
>> The article in Westword, which Irving both quotes from and links to on
>> his site, says very clearly:
>yes and you manage to get only 9 rodents who suported you.
>is our family so small ? :)
I don't know about yours -- why don't you tell us?
>> "I don't want to prevent him from coming," she says. "I just want to
>> make sure people know who he is." And where he is, since the location of
>> Irving's talk has yet to be set.
>>
>> "In the meantime, Salzman has launched a one-woman crusade to make his
>> trip to Colorado as unwelcoming as possible. Once she determines where
>> he'll be speaking, she hopes to round up a group of people to protest
>> and hand out pamphlets describing his views. "This isn't a question of
>> whether he has a right to say what he wants to say," Salzman explains.
>> "But I'd like to make his visit a very unpleasant one."
>"This isn't a question of whether he has a right to say what he wants to
>say,"
>rodent expressing it's "opinions" - just another example how the rodents
>value THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION :)
And now, given evidence that his lie about freedom of expression is
just that, cretin can do no more than repeat the lie.
Bebbo
One cannot write off eyewitness testimony so blithely. Otherwise one
might as well write off crime victim testimony by saying they hate the
perpetrator of the crime.
[...]
Joebruno
All the Titanic survivors were Jews and we know from experience how
reliable their testimony is. We hear it every day right here from the
revisionists.
Ken McVay, OBC
"Roger" <roger@ . > wrote in message
news:eef24ab531971540...@news.teranews.com...
[...]
> No one said that they were all Jews. Why is it important for you to
> believe that only Jews can find irving and his lies repugnant?
No kidding! I'm not Jewish, and I think Irving's a disgusting, repugnant
excuse for a man.
No wonder David Michael likes him - birds of a feather, you know.
Ken McVay, OBC
[...]
> There is no forensic evidence of an iceberg, nor for the figure of 1500
> killed. Hegle refuses to post any.
Just where IS that "iceberg," anyway? Why is it being hidden from public
view, and why are trained researchers like yourself refused permission to
test it?
Kurt Knoll
"Ken McVay, OBC" <kmc...@nospamnizkor.org> wrote in message
news:bu9e6...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Was it a Goldberg that sunk the Titanic ?.
Kurt Knoll.
=
Philip Mathews
> > "helge" <he...@helge.net> wrote in message
> > news:4006b...@news6.uncensored-news.com...
> >
> >
> >>>Response:
> >>>Revisionism is different from scepticism in one important way. I
> >
> > would
> >
> >>>not characterize Holocaust revisionism as authentic revisionism.
> >>
> >>That's alright. It is your right "to characterize XYZ as authentic
> >
> > or
> >
> >>whatever you like".
> >>You are FREE TO EXPRESS your opinions.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Authentic revisionism looks over history to correct and improve.
> >>
> >>yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Any
> >>>serious academic historian of the Holocaut is a revisionist.
> >>
> >>hmm.
> >>
> >> Holocaust
> >>
> >>>revisionism as represented by IHR, David Irving, Leuchter,
> >
> > Faurrison,
> >
> >>>etc.
> >>
> >>rubbish. there is no one group of revisionists who share the same
> >>opinion - you did create such group as it suits your goal - "there
> >
> > is an
> >
> >>evil enemy"
> >>
> >>
> >>>is a sham revisionism and a sham scepticism. Why? First of all,
> >
> > let
> >
> >>>us assume there are academic Holocaust reviisionists who based on
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>evidence accept the Holocaust occurred.
> >>
> >>crap.
> >>there is no evidence that holocau$t happened.
> >
> >
> > Still telling the same stupid lie, eh!
> >
> > The evidence is documentary, scientific, physical, and testimonial.
> >
> >
> >
> > I doubt if you know even a fraction of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > But here is a smattering I put together for another denier. Perhaps
> > you'd
> >
> > like to educate yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> > Christopher Brownings expert report to the Irving trial gives a very
> >
> > brief recap of evidence for mass murder at the operation Reinhardt
> >
> > camps and by the mobile shooting squads.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/browning1.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the Table of Contents
> >
> >
> >
> > I. Qualifications to give historical evidence
> >
> >
> >
> > II. Purpose of this Expert Opinion Report
> >
> >
> >
> > III. Implementation of the Final Solution
> >
> >
> >
> > IV. Documentary Evidence for the Systematic Mass Killing of Jews by
> >
> > Shooting
> >
> >
> >
> > A. Scale of Killing
> >
> >
> >
> > B. Escalation
> >
> >
> >
> > C. Camouflage Language
> >
> >
> >
> > D. Implications
> >
> >
> >
> > V. Evidence for the Killing of Jews through Gas in Chelmno, Semlin,
> >
> > and the Camps of Operation Reinhard (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka)
> >
> >
> >
> > A. Documentary Evidence for the Emergence of a Program to Kill the
> >
> > Jews of Europe Europe
> >
> >
> >
> > B. Documentary Evidence Concerning the Gassing of Jews at Semlin,
> >
> > Chelmno, and on occupied Soviet territory in gas vans
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Semlin
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Chelmno
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. Einsatzgruppen on Soviet Territory
> >
> >
> >
> > C. Documentary Evidence concerning the Operation Reinhard Camps of
> >
> > Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka
> >
> >
> >
> > D. Eyewitness Testimony concerning Gassing at Belzec, Sobibor,
> >
> > andTreblinka
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. German Visitors
> >
> > 2. German Camp Personnel
> >
> > 3. Non-German Guards
> >
> > 4. Nearby Poles
> >
> > 5. Jewish Escapees
> >
> > E. Documentary Evidence concerning Atkion Reinhard (alternatively
> >
> > spelled Reinhardt)
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Jan Van Pelt covers some of the more important evidence for
> >
> > Auschwitz. Click on evidence and then Van Pelt's report.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Here are the contents of his report.
> >
> >
> >
> > Preface
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > PART ONE CONCERNING HISTORY
> >
> > I Auschwitz
> >
> > II Auschwitz and the Holocaust
> >
> >
> >
> > PART TWO CONCERNING EVIDENCE
> >
> > III Intimations,1941 -1945
> >
> > IV Attestations,1945 -46
> >
> > V Confessions,1945 -47
> >
> >
> >
> > PART THREE CONCERNING DOCUMENTS
> >
> > VI Blueprints of Genocide
> >
> >
> >
> > PART FOUR CONCERNING DENIAL
> >
> > VII Auschwitz and Holocaust Denial
> >
> > VIII Auschwitz and the Faurisson Affair
> >
> > IX The Leuchter Report
> >
> >
> >
> > PART FIVE CONCERNING IRVING
> >
> > X Auschwitz and David Irving (1977 -1988 -1992)
> >
> > X I Irving Adrift (1993 -1998)
> >
> > Conclusion
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Substantially more information about the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile
> >
> > killing squads employed in Russia, including many of the written
> >
> > reports prepared based on their activities, can be found here:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/einsatz.html
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Longerich, another expert who provided evidence at the
> >
> > Irving/Lipstadt Trial offers an overview of the evidence for the
> >
> > systematic character of Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate Europe's
> >
> > Jews.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the contents of his report.
> >
> >
> >
> > Table of Contents
> >
> >
> >
> > I. Introduction
> >
> >
> >
> > II. Mass executions in the Soviet Union
> >
> > A. Orders
> >
> > B. The murders by the commandos
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Executions by Einsatzgruppen and police battalions in the first
> >
> > weeks of the war (Shooting of Jewish men)
> >
> > 2.2 Einsatzgruppe B
> >
> > 2.3 Einsatzgruppe C
> >
> > 2.4 Einsatzgruppe z.b.V.
> >
> > 2.5 Einsatzgruppe D
> >
> > 2.6 Police Battalions
> >
> > 2.7 Conclusions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. Expansion of the shooting to the entire Jewish civilian
> >
> > population.
> >
> > 3.2 HSSPF Russia South and Einsatzgruppe C
> >
> > 3.3 Einsatzgruppe D
> >
> > 3.4 Intensification of the murders in the Reichskommissariat Ostland
> >
> > (area of the Einsatzgruppe A).
> >
> > 3.5 Conclusions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > III. Regional mass murder of the Jews in 1941/42 outside of the
> >
> > Soviet Union
> >
> >
> >
> > A. The Beginning of the Deportations
> >
> >
> >
> > B. The Transfer of Technology for Killing by Means of Gas to Eastern
> >
> > Europe
> >
> >
> >
> > C. Regional Killing and Planning, Autumn 1941
> >
> >
> >
> > D. Pronouncements by Leading National Socialists on the
> >
> > Exterminations
> >
> >
> >
> > E. The Wannsee Conference
> >
> >
> >
> > F. Extension of the Deportations
> >
> >
> >
> > G. Mass murder in the Districts of Lublin and Galicia
> >
> >
> >
> > H. Conclusions
> >
> >
> >
> > IV. The Escalation of operations in Early 1942
> >
> >
> >
> > V. The machinery of mass murder in full operation (1942-1944)
> >
> >
> >
> > VI. SUMMARY
> >
> >
> >
> > His introduction says:
> >
> >
> >
> > [quote]
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. After the Wannsee Conference of 20 January, in the Spring of 1942,
> >
> > the Nazi regime began to implement a programme aimed at the complete
> >
> > physical extermination of European Jewry. The victims were either
> >
> > deported to be murdered in gas-chambers in special extermination
> >
> > camps, or came to their death in other ways - whether by execution or
> >
> > due to the devastating living conditions prevailing during their
> >
> > deportation and in the ghettos and work camps.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. In order to carry out this mass murder of millions of people, the
> >
> > Nazis set up a complex machinery of destruction characterised by a
> >
> > division of labour. When closely examined, the individual elements of
> >
> > this machinery and the manner in which they where co-ordinated, leave
> >
> > no room for doubt that the murder of these people proceeded in a
> >
> > systematic way. The organisation and extent of the deportations; the
> >
> > "liquidation" of ghettos, the selection of those deemed "fit for work"
> >
> > from those "unfit", the exploitation of those "fit" for work in a
> >
> > programme of forced labour which generally led to total exhaustion and
> >
> > death, the construction of regular "death factories", the removal of
> >
> > the corpses and traces of the extermination process - these are all
> >
> > compatible elements of a system of planned mass murder.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. This system for the implementation of the death of millions of
> >
> > persons "functioned" in its entirety as of July 1942. It thus took
> >
> > more than one year until the mass murder of Jews - initiated in the
> >
> > occupied Soviet areas in June of 1941, and extended to further areas
> >
> > in East and Southeastern Europe from the Fall of 1941 onwards - was
> >
> > transformed into a programme for the extermination of all European
> >
> > Jews.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. The following report gives proof to the assertion that the mass
> >
> > murders of hundreds of thousands of Jews between the Summer of 1941
> >
> > and the Summer of 1942 - which were still restricted to the areas of
> >
> > Eastern and Southeastern Europe - were systematic in character. This
> >
> > is to say, these mass murders followed a unified pattern, were carried
> >
> > out on the basis of central commands, and must be regarded as
> >
> > representing a conscious expression of the policy of the Nazi regime.
> >
> > It will be shown that in this time period (Summer 1941 to Summer 1942)
> >
> > essential elements of the Nazi policy of extermination were developed
> >
> > with the goal of murdering more and more people in ever shorter time
> >
> > intervals. As of the Summer, 1942, these plans were assembled into one
> >
> > extermination plan for all of Europe. This report categorically
> >
> > rejects the notion that the murder of European Jews in the Second
> >
> > World War was the consequence of a series of isolated murder campaigns
> >
> > occurring without plan in haphazard and differing ways as a result of
> >
> > decisions by subordinate institutions- i.e. murder actions not
> >
> > displaying a common pattern or unified control.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. The investigation will cover three complexes: a) mass executions
> >
> > in the occupied Soviet Union in the second half of 1941: b) the
> >
> > regional mass murder of the Jewish civilian population outside of the
> >
> > Soviet Union between the Fall of 1941 and Spring of 1942; c) the
> >
> > transformation of these mass murders into a unified deportation and
> >
> > extermination machinery in the area dominated by Germany in the Spring
> >
> > and Summer of 1942.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------
> >
> >
> >
> > The best summary of the evidence for gassing vans is here:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//chelmno/gas-wagons/sonderdruck.0387
> >
> >
> >
> > Human remains have been found at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and
> >
> > Auschwitz.
> >
> >
> >
> > Even deniers admit an excavation at Treblinka was done in 1945.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/WeberAllen133-158.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Photographs exist of the Nazi efforts to dig up and burn corpses
> >
> > during the war.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp.py?camps//aktion.reinhard/treblinka/images/treblinka-grave-02.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> > The Belzec Camp was the subject of an archeological study during which
> >
> > 21,000 cubic meters of mass graves were found.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oxq Grave Pits at Belzec - Summary
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oxr Grave Pits at Belzec - Summary of Grave
> >
> > Volumes
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oxm Grave Pits at Belzec # 1
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oxx Grave Pits at Belzec #2
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oxz Grave Pits at Belzec #3
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oy2 Grave Pits at Belzec #4
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oy3 Grave Pits at Belzec #5
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oy9 Grave Pits at Belzec #6
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyb Grave Pits at Belzec #7
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyd Grave Pits at Belzec #8
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyf Grave Pits at Belzec #9
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyh Grave Pits at Belzec #10
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyj Grave Pits at Belzec #11
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyl Grave Pits at Belzec #12
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyo Grave Pits at Belzec #13
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyq Grave Pits at Belzec #14
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyr Grave Pits at Belzec #15
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyt Grave Pits at Belzec # 16
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyu Grave Pits at Belzec #17
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyw Grave Pits at Belzec #18
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2oyx Grave Pits at Belzec #19
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2ozd Grave Pits at Belzec #27
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2ozf Grave Pits at Belzec #28
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2ozh Grave Pits at Belzec #29
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2ozu Grave Pits at Belzec #30
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2ozy Grave Pits at Belzec #31
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2p01 Grave Pits at Belzec #32
> >
> >
> >
> > http://snurl.com/2p03 Grave Pits at Belzec #33
> >
> >
> >
> > More recent work by the same archeologist, Andrzej Kola, was done at
> >
> > Sobibor.
> >
> >
> >
> > By ANDRZEJ STYLINSKI
> >
> > The Associated Press
> >
> > 11/23/01 3:34 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- Polish researchers said Friday that they have
> >
> > discovered mass graves at Sobibor, a death camp in eastern Poland that
> > was
> >
> > razed by the Nazis after inmates staged an uprising.
> >
> >
> >
> > Seven mass graves and the sites where several buildings stood were
> >
> > found, said Andrzej Kola, an archaeology professor supervising what he
> > said
> >
> > was the first thorough study of the former camp.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Nazis, who built the camp in occupied Poland in 1942, razed it in
> >
> > 1943 after an uprising in which inmates killed nine guards and tried
> > to
> >
> > flee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Three hundred Jews escaped from the camp, but dozens of them were
> >
> > killed in a surrounding mine field and most of the rest were hunted
> > down
> >
> > over subsequent days.
> >
> >
> >
> > A total of about 50 people who escaped from Sobibor survived World War
> >
> > II. Some 250,000 people, most of them Jews, are believed to have died
> > in the
> >
> > camp.
> >
> >
> >
> > The research team began drilling around the site over the summer to
> >
> > determine where buildings and graves might have been located, Kola
> > said. The study is sponsored the government.
> >
> >
> >
> > The drillings provided the initial evidence of mass graves and traces
> >
> > of a long barrack. After further excavation at the building site,
> >
> > researchers uncovered 1,700 bullets in one of its corners, leading
> > them to believe that prisoners were executed there, Kola said.
> >
> >
> >
> > Researchers also found various objects used by inmates or guards,
> >
> > including metal cups and spoons, watches and binoculars.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kola said the barrack, located about 70 yards from the mass graves,
> >
> > might have served as a gas chamber, but that further study was
> > necessary.
> >
> > More archaeological research is planned for next year after the ground
> > thaws.
> >
> >
> >
> > The test drillings and preliminary excavations have been concentrated
> >
> > at former camp No. 3 at Sobibor, which was a death camp. Two other
> > sections were used to imprison slave laborers.
> >
> >
> >
> > The camp, on Poland's eastern border with Belarus, was turned it into
> >
> > a Holocaust memorial in the 1960s by the Polish government. New
> > memorial plaques, a parking lot and a small exhibition were added in
> > the 1990s.
> >
> >
> >
> > The government plans to expand the museum at Sobibor, which will
> >
> > include artifacts recovered during the archaeological research.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------
> >
> >
> >
> > A large collection of photographs of mass grave sites in Russia can be
> >
> > seen here:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://pub86.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm12.showMessage?topicID=4.topic
> "The evidence is documentary, scientific, physical, and testimonial."
> sure and that's the reason why you have to insert 3 EMPTY LINES
> between 2 lines of text ?
LOL!
You really are a shameless clown.
But it is a pleasure to have Holocaust denial further embarrassed by
someone like you.
> "> More archaeological research IS PLANNED for next year after the ground
> > thaws."
>
>
> > The government plans to expand the museum at Sobibor, which will
> >
> > include artifacts recovered during the archaeological research.
> ???
>
> "metal cups and spoons, watches and binoculars" ?
> old comb ? a shoe ? perhaps a bone from a chicken or form a fish as "a
> symbol of starvation" ?
> blck and white photographs of "jewish children who were 'exterminated'
> in Sobibor" ?
>
> > Kola said the barrack, located about 70 yards from the mass graves,
> >
> > might have served as a gas chamber, but that further study was
> > necessary.
> KOLA SAID :) [rigorous standards of forensic investigation :)]
> "might have served as a gas chamber" ? is there any barrack - that
> actually couldn't "served as a gas chamber" ?
>
> "The evidence is documentary, scientific, physical, and testimonial."
> or CRAP -
Which is obviously not the case, or you can make something other than
an idiot's comment to the small recap provided.
Face it, when you claim there is no evidence you are just a lying
fool.
A fact I enjoy demonstrating whenever given the opportunity.
--
Philip Mathews
Philip Mathews
david_michael
Gawd, you slipped up there. Having just quoted Nietzsche saying 'there
are no facts; there are only interpretations' I began my response by
saying 'I happen to know a few facts about her . . .' And you let me
get away with it! Don't know who's getting doziest around here, me or
you. What I should have said, of course, is that I base my
interpretation on somewhat different information.
RE. 'it is up to the individual, based on his subjectivity, to choose
what evidence to trust and what not.'
Yes -- absolutely. He has one set of information available to him; I
have another set. It is thus unsurprising that we reach different
conclusions.
RE. 'By your standards, you have to accept that his opinion of your
witness is as valid as yours.'
Why? I don't understand this concept of 'validity'. He interprets one
set of information one way; I interpret another set of information
another way. We thus have two different interpretations of two
different sets of information. 'Validity' doesn't come into it. Maybe
both interpretations are 'valid' in the sense that they attempt to
make sense of information, but I certainly hold that my interpretation
has more explanatory power in that it can deal with additional
information that is not accounted for by Morghus's opinion.
RE. 'The result, however, is a false negative - your standards,
objectively applied, have failed to prove something for which there is
evidence which you happen to know is true. What does that tell you
about the quality of your methodology in terms of its capacity to
discern historical truth?'
I can no more 'discern historical truth' than a sociologist can
'discern sociological truth' or an artist can 'discern artistic
truth'. I can produce interpretations of sets of information. I can
say to Morghus: OK, you've produced a fair interpretation of the
information you've got, but I've got some more information and my
interpretation takes it into account whereas yours doesn't. The aim of
the game is not to access 'historical truth' but to assess the various
strengths and weaknesses of various historical discourses. What is
'historical truth' anyway other than someone trying to make HIS
particular interpretation of events to be something more than a mere
interpretation.
RE. 'The trouble is this: while Morg may be entitled to his subjective
opinion, the Ardentinne caves massacre is not a matter of opinion. It
either happened or it didn't. It can't exist in an indeterminate
quantum state between existence and non-existence like Schroedinger's
cat. Either you're right or Morghus is right - you can't both be.
OK, I'm with you 100% on that so far.
RE. 'So recognizing that this is not a perfect world and there we will
never be absolutely 100% certain, the question devolves to how we can
best determine which of you is right. The answer lies in testing
which of you has the most logical and verifiable argument.'
No, that's where we part company. We can't determine which of us is
right. At best we can suggest that one interpretation might be a more
compelling explanation of information than the other. Look, suppose I
were to produce additional information to show that my old lady (a)
was a lifelong dedicated nationalist, (b) was in a position to know
exactly what happened in those caves, and (c) was unlikely to lie.
Morghus's theory as stated wouldn't be able to account for her saying
that the massacre occurred, so my theory has better explanatory power.
But does that prove that I'm right as a matter of fact? That I'm
objectively right? That I've discerned historical truth? Nope. Morghus
could go away and then come back with additional information to show
that my little old lady had spent her life working under cover for the
CIA. At that point my interpretation would be stuffed -- I'd have to
change it. At the most, all I can say is that my interpretation --
that the Ardeatine Caves massacre happened -- is the more compelling
interpretation of the information that I have available at the moment.
To say that I've 'discovered historical truth' would be a vast
overstatement -- a monstrous arrogance.
RE. 'In true revisionist style, Morg harps on what pieces of evidence
we don't have (I'll take his word for it). His argument makes no
reference to the only question that is of any value to a genuine
historical process: what evidence *do* we have to work with, what
means at our disposal is there to find out what actually happened.'
I think his point is that he hasn't seen or heard anything to make him
believe that it happened. Fair enough. I have. We have different
information available. I don't see why pointing out the absence of
evidence is fallacious as a methodology. If a claim is being made -- x
was massacred -- then why should HE (or anyone else) believe it if
there is no evidence? In fact there IS evidence, or rather there was,
but it was never in the public domain so he has no reason to believe
it.
RE. 'He has chosen not to "trust" your witness, yet clearly the only
basis he has for making the choice he has is the evident fact that he
doesn't wish to accept the conclusion he would have to accept if he
DID choose to trust her. Ask yourself, then, is that really basis
enough on which to measure evidence?'
Why should he trust my witness? He doesn't know her. He has only my
account to go on and he doesn't know me either! I could have invented
the old lady (I didn't but I could have). We each form interpretations
based on the information we have available. Sometimes we don't have
access to key bits of information and that affects the conclusions we
reach -- but that happens whether we choose to declare our
interpretations to be 'historical truth' or not!
RE. 'Then ask yourself, if not, how to we safeguard ourselves from
inadvertently making that - our biases, our desired conclusions - our
primary if not only basis?'
In exactly the same way as in any other social science. If I can
digress briefly before coming back to your question, I'll take social
anthropology as an example. Monographs generally involve an account of
field work among some exotic subculture or some specific community.
This culminates in the 'researcher' drawing 'conclusions' about his
work. The only 'external validation' we get is the account of the
field work and references to other field work and theories, yet the
conclusions frequently go beyond the facts presented in the account
and attempt to provide some sort of explanation -- theorization -- of
what has been observed. Thus, an account of a European gypsy community
might try to 'explain' the high value placed on virginity in terms of
various sociological theories. An account of a group of drug users
might try to explain drug-taking behaviour in terms of the camaraderie
of the small community, invoking observations and external theories
again. An account of nightclub culture might attempt to explain the
difference between a successful and unsuccessful venue in terms of
whether people are collectively 'making the effort' to enjoy
themselves -- again invoking insight and theory to try to interpret
what has been observed. These are actual examples from monographs I've
encountered over the past few years. Now in each case it is highly
probable that the 'conclusions' are indeed influenced by personal
biases. Those authors who have studied the subject will probably not
even dispute this. They would probably argue that what they are
producing is not an attempt to 'discover the truth' about why some
gypsies value virginity so much, or why people take drugs, or why some
nightclub venues 'work' whereas others don't, but are simply trying to
produce the best explanation or interpretation of these phenomena that
they can by studying these phenomena in field work and by relating
them to other field work and to theory. More importantly, I think
they'd argue that THIS IS THE BEST THAT CAN BE DONE. There simply IS
no way to access 'sociological truth'. There IS no system for external
validation. This isn't to deny that at some level SOMETHING may well
objectively cause virginity to be valued highly by gypsies, or people
to take drugs, or nightclubs to fail. There may well be RIGHT ANSWERS
out there somewhere. But they can't be accessed directly. No
methodology exists to do that.
Same in history. Not always -- some historical questions can be
answered compelling by reference to validation procedures, such as
legal or hard-science methodologies (which are frequently incorrectly
construed as 'objective') -- but frequently, it is necessary to accept
that external validation procedures aren't there. I have no way to
know what happened inside Munch's brain, or inside Eichmann's prison
cell. I have to access these things indirectly, like the sociological
field researcher, observing evidence, relating it to other evidence,
building a 'case'. More to the point, so do you -- and so do academic
historians. Inevitably, different 'cases' are made, and some conflict.
This isn't a problem -- it is merely an invitation to compare the
'cases' and do further work to either reject one 'case', or modify it,
or to build a synthesis, or maybe to produce a completely new 'case'.
In this sort of research, where a claim to 'discovering truth' is not
being made, the question of bias doesn't arise. It is inevitable that
each account will be biased according to the researcher's preferences
-- that's a given. A Marxist historian will be biased in favour of
Marxism, a structuralist in favour of structuralism. Someone who
researches the Nazis will probably have strong views about Nazism;
someone who researches Cambodia will doubtless have some pretty strong
preconceptions about Pol Pot. The very questions that are asked are
influenced by biases. The answer, in each case, is not to claim
falsely that there are external procedures the following of which
somehow magically WEEDS OUT the bias and leaves us with pure objective
truth; the answer is to acknowledge the biases frankly and
NEVERTHELESS to try to make the most compelling case possible.
Read Billig's book on the National Front. I think it's called
*Fascists* or something like that -- I haven't read it since about
1982. He hated the NF. He's utterly biased. This influences his
sources -- he places enormous value on Searchlight, whose credibility
is in my view very low. He places very low value on the utterances of
the people he's studying -- he has enormous contempt for them. A more
recent example is Roger Griffin from Oxford who's into smaller, more
radical 'nationalist' groups -- he's less honest than Billig: he tries
to befriend people and claim impartiality, yet his writings show an
absolute contempt for his subjects (I crossed swords with him quite
sharply some time ago over that). Nevertheless, these are respected
social scientists DESPITE their evident biases. They don't even try to
'eliminate' their bias. They wear it on their sleeves!
Same with historians. Marxist historians don't attempt to be anything
other than Marxist historians, for instance. They say at the outset
what framework they're using and they go for it. Even those historians
who don't have a strong POLITICAL or IDEOLOGICAL bias nevertheless
engage in the same 'case building' approach with all its opportunities
for bias. I recently looked at a work dealing with the question of why
the Mayan civilization fizzled out. It looked at the various theories
that had been advanced, assessed the strengths and weaknesses, and
then produced a set of conclusions -- pure case-building methodology
as in the social anthropology examples, with all the opportunities for
bias. But how else could it be done? History is basically social
anthropology in the past tense, with all the methodological
implications of that.
RE. 'Then ask yourself this: would you not do the same if someone like
me put the same manner of evidence to you in the case of the
Holocaust? You cited
this woman as an example of the sort of evidence you would accept.
Yet I am certain that if I had put a witness to you that I described
in exactly the same terms as you describe her, saying much the same
thing about gas chambers as she said about the Ardentinne caves, you
would have reacted in much the same way as Morghus. You would have
laughed me away, and rightly so. But why would you have laughed me
away? For no other reason that your personal subjective opinion and
the fact that my evidence supported the "Holocaust" which you can't
accept, rather than simple acts of wartime brutality which you have no
political purpose to deny.'
No, the problem would be 'why should anyone accept the woman's words?'
I'd say that I cannot think of any plausible reason why she should
have uttered them falsely. She was obviously ideologically well
disposed to nationalism and had been for most of her life. She was
very trustworthy, having been associated very closely with very, very
senior people in the nationalist movement. She was as bright as they
get -- very full of beans. She had never actually participated in any
action for which she could be put on trial. She was receiving no
payment or other inducement to say what she said. She was in a
position to have know what was going on. However, Morghus could
contest each one of those assertions and I'd have a devil of a job to
prove any of them to him. Therefore it is rational for me to accept
and him to reject. It would be equally rational for me to reject it if
I were in his position.
RE. 'Thus there is no way you can deny that you were setting me
impossible standards.'
Why?
(a) You yourself claimed that you could meet the standards that I
suggested.
(b) I gave you numerous examples of types of evidence that I'd find
compelling.
(c) The bottom line was simply that there should be no room for
reasonable doubt -- a standard that is (in theory) employed in every
criminal courtroom in England. Certainly, it is subjective -- but such
decisions are made every day in the courts.
I was inviting you to make the most compelling case possible. You gave
me -- Munch!!!!! A man who certifies people dead through closed doors,
who had a long history of anti-Nazi activity (hardly impartial), and
who had to get his lawyer to inform the world that his final
utterances on World War II should be dismissed as he was completely
senile.
RE. 'The very point of learning is to challenge our presumptions.'
Oof. It might be one point, but hardly the only. Or the primary.
Surely another possible point of learning is to try to interpret the
mass of sensory stimuli that we receive and that we assume to
constitute something called 'the universe'.
RE. 'An objective methodology must be the goal of any honest inquiry
for this reason alone, else the whole endeavour is pointless. Basing
your conclusions on pre-existing attitudes towards "trust" is the act
of a propagandist seeking to sow mistrust, not a serious historian
looking for the truth.'
I say that serious and honest historians would not cliam to be looking
for 'the truth' -- it is not the function of the historian to
'discover truth' but, rather, to interpret evidence in the most
compelling way possible. History, like sociology, does not have the
tools to discern 'truth'. It is a process of construction, not
revelation.
Morghus
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > announcing the Lidice massacre must be just more German-hating
> > propaganda.
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> > at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> vaporize ? [173 czech men - victims produced 173 dead bodies, as opposed
> to the Treblinka miracle where 750 000- 1400 000 jews disappeared].
Finding dead bodies is not proof of a massacre. There was a war
on--people died. The Bolsheviks killed thousands as they marched
through the area. Keep in mind that the tale-tellers about Lidice
can't make up their minds whether the people were killed by the
Germans or the Praque police. There is no evidence of any massacre at
Lidice.
> The only questionable and most likely false part of the Lidice story is
> the allegation that SEVEN[?] of those children who were sent to Germany
> and not found after the war - "were gassed in gassvans at Chelmno".
> There is no evidence to support that allegation - but well thats the
> only bit Lidice do share with jewish holocau$t.
Everything about the Lidice horror story is questionable. The
German hating Holocaust hucksters have taken to displaying photographs
of bombed buildings somewhere and claiming they are pictures of
Lidice. There is nothing in the pictures to identify the locality.
They also like to show photographs of dead bodies with German soldiers
casually walking around examining the bodies. The hucksters insist
that is proof that the Germans must have killed all the people. They
particularly like to show bodies neatly arranged in front of a
building but with the bombed out part of the building cropped. That
way they claim the dead were all lined up and shot in Lidice. It's
all just more German-hating propaganda bullshit.
>
> perhaps there are photographs of the Lidice village from shortly before
> the event as well from after ?
If you find one, let me know. If you find any photograph with
anything in it that identifies a village called Lidice, let me know.
>
> perhaps the difference between Lidice and Treblinka is the difference
> between FACT and a FRAUD.
Forget it--the tales of Treblinka and Lidice are both frauds.
Sara Salzman
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
When do you plan to tell me what "Nazi tactics" I used to try and keep
David Irving from speaking?
Kurt Knoll
And how much does the Jewish Defence League pay you for your Comments.
You are on their Payroll aren't you ?.
Kurt Knoll.
=
Ken McVay, OBC
news:catamont-F92F88...@news-60.giganews.com...
> In article <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>
>
> When do you plan to tell me what "Nazi tactics" I used to try and keep
> David Irving from speaking?
Gosh, that's easy, Sara. You're Jewish, and you organized a peaceful protest
movement. Trash like Michael can't abide you Upitty Juice participating in
the democratic process.. it's probably an aftershock from the last time his
hamster got lost in his nether region.
David Michael on his utter and complete failure as a BNP
organizer. (Or the "Everyone is out of step but me..." approach
to radical politics...)
In <3f96...@212.67.96.135> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 22 Oct 2003
19:01:40 +0100, "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
<quote>
To: BNP national and regional leaders, key BNP activists in Hull
and Grimsby
Dear Friends
I have always tried to be open and honest with people and I have
often suffered for it. I am not the type to go plotting and
scheming behind people's backs. I will not go plotting and
scheming now. I will again be open and honest.
Let me begin with a digression. I have been involved in nationalist
politics since 1979 when I distributed copies of the National
Front election manifesto to my classmates at school. I joined the
NF in 1980 as a student. In 1982, as a result of a slick campaign
involving the co-operation of senior members of the St Andrews
University Conservative Society, I seconded the then leader of the
NF, Andrew Brons, in a debate at St Andrews University -- a phenomenal
breakthrough in clear defiance of the NUS 'no platform' policy. As
a result of this my remaining years at St Andrews were not happy.
Nevertheless I succeeded and went on to study for a doctorate at
Keele. During all this time I continued to involve myself in
politics, distributing thousands of leaflets to the houses of
Stoke-on-Trent and the Five Towns. By 1987 it was evident that the
NF was going nowhere, so I migrated to South Africa where I assisted
the Afrikaner people in their struggle against obliteration from the
face of the earth. Indeed, I have here an old copy of the AWB
newspaper Die Sweepslag where an article of mine occupies a more
prominent position than the Christmas message of Eugene Terre'Blanche!
When
that struggle failed due to the treachery of Frederik de Klerk and the
Judas, Constand Viljoen, I returned to Britain where I was employed
by a Jewish publisher -- I lasted about a year before I was thrown
out and had to establish my own business. In 1999 or 2000, despite
ill health, I joined the BNP. I was delighted to see its new
leadership and my delight increased when it became apparent that
they had a clear strategy -- something quite unknown in British
nationalist politics prior to 1999. I say these things to establish
that I have long taken politics seriously and have a track record
of activism in defence of our people.
When I took over as organizer for Hull and the North Lincolnshire
region, the area was in a tragic mess. The sudden departure of Dave
Hannam had left a terrible situation. It was not helped by the
bitter feuding between Tony Braithwaite (at the time a key member)
and John Brayshaw, the Yorkshire regional organizer. I do not
intend to resurrect that issue here other than to point out that John
Brayshaw had, in the period before I took over, effectively made
it impossible for us to do anything ? even to read our post.
Nevertheless, despite limitations imposed by my health, I rapidly
began the task of rebuilding the unit. I think that nobody disputes
that this was a period of dramatic growth, particularly in the
Hull area. The John Brayshaw/Tony Braithwaite nonsense was diffused
by marginalizing Braithwaite and by transferring the entire area
to the East Midlands region. A new committee was formed. Good,
intelligent people were brought on board. We scored a major
local victory in preventing the opening of an asylum-seeker
centre in Scartho right in the middle of a picturesque suburb
where elderly and vulnerable people were residing. We produced
one of the best local newsletters in the country. Our membership
increased. Our supply of useful activists increased. We were
getting leafleting teams out of 14 people or more at a time. Organized
nationalism was flourishing in Hull for the first time in 60 years.
However, the powers that be were not slow in responding to us and
they rapidly launched a campaign that was to prove fatal to our
efforts. The first salvo was fired by the Hull Labour MP, Kevin
McNamara, who tried to get us arrested for distributing leaflets.
This was killed when the solicitor acting for Humberside Police
pointed out that there was not a chance in hell of securing a
conviction for anything pertaining to the distribution of
the leaflets in question, which were wholly lawful.
At that point Special Branch and its fellow travellers launched a
two-pronged attack on us.
The first prong of the attack involved a direct approach from a
Special Branch officer, DS Hamilton. He had obtained information
about myself and Tony Braithwaite through an infiltrator, Mark
Broome, based in Gainsborough. His method consisted of a very
friendly approach, first to Braithwaite and subsequently to myself.
(A third approach was made much later to our Mr Knight in Grimsby
by a different officer based in Grimsby.) These approaches were
clearly intended to cause divisions in our ranks. They placed me
in a difficult position. If I spoke to Hamilton then this would raise
questions among our own people about what precisely I was saying to
Special Branch. If I did not speak to him then I was exposing us
to the risk of police harassment, raids, searches, and ongoing
disruption of our leafleting campaigns. My solution was to speak to
Hamilton but only after thorough consultation both with the local
activists and the regional and national BNP leadership. In my
conversation with Hamilton (and a SB colleague from Grimsby), which
lasted one hour, I made it very clear to him that (a) the only
information he would get from me would be public-domain
information, (b) our strategy consisted of fighting elections and
building our membership through leafleting and that we certainly
did not wish to cause trouble, (c) we would liaise with the police
over certain activities, particularly the proposed visit of
Nick Griffin. After this he lost interest in us. This meeting,
which was clearly intended to compromise me personally, failed
in its task because I was entirely open with our membership and
leadership about it.
However, the second prong of the attack was far more devastating.
Mr John Brayshaw was undertaking a serious programme of
destabilization against our resurgent unit. This consisted at
first of petty actions, such as the refusal to release our local
funds to East Midlands branch to help in their general election
campaign, and petty gossip and tittle tattle, some of which got
back to us by various means. I ignored these provocations and
insults, recognizing them as an attempt by the Establishment to
cause trouble. However, it soon became evident that John Brayshaw
was attempting to cause divisions between us and key party
figures such as our new regional organizer, Mr Belshaw, and
the branch liaison officer, Tony Lecomber. The poison that
this man laid down did its work here and is doing its work even now.
As a result of John Brayshaw's work on Lecomber it rapidly became
clear to me that it was impossible for me to continue as organizer.
It was evident that Lecomber was going to go into 'dirty tricks'
mode and I had no wish to put him to the trouble of doing so to
get me out. This did not particular trouble me as there were
others able to do the work of organizer. David Hannam, who had
recovered from his first bout of 'personal problems', volunteered
to take over and I agreed with this. I think we were all pleased
to see him back and we wished him well.
I do not intend to recount in detail the catalogue of utter
disasters that followed.
I will not dwell upon the embarrassing shambles of the 'Nick
Griffin' meeting held in late 2001. I will not recount in detail
how the chairman of Britain's fourth political party was left
standing in a car park as nobody present (including Hannam)
knew where the meeting was to be held. I will mention only
the total lack of security at the meeting, the long delay
before the meeting started, the stuttering, stammering
speeches of Hannam and Bridgeman, which were so awful as
to make us all cringe with embarrassment, and the fact that
only a mere 49 people could be bothered to turn up when
we could easily have attracted 100 or even 150 if the event
had been properly organized.
I will not comment upon the decision of Mr Hannam to order 1,000
copies of Voice of Freedom, which he neither distributed free nor
sold (they were dumped on my premises when they were already two
months old -- I have them to this very day and will dispose of them
if nobody comes to collect them).
I will not comment upon the fact that it appears that, between
November and March, for almost half a year, not a single leaflet
was distributed in the whole of Hull whereas I had planned for
50,000 of them to be distributed by January -- a wholly attainable
target given the level of activism that had emerged earlier in
2001.
Nor will I comment on the event that brought about Hannam's
downfall - - his misappropriation of several hundred pounds of
party money, earmarked for leaflets, in order to pay his own
telephone account.
Let me comment instead on the BNP leadership's response to the
demise of David Hannam.
What was the response of the East Midlands regional organizer on
receiving Hannam's letter of resignation? This imbecile wrote an e-
mail, cc-ed to Hannam, in which he opined that Hannam was a 'good
organizer' and hoped that Hannam would 'reconsider'. Get that? Not
one leaflet goes out in Hull for five months and this man is a
'good organizer'. He steals our money and he's a 'good organizer'.
He
orders 1,000 copies of a Party magazine, which he apparently
doesn't pay for and never distributes, and he's a 'good
organizer'. He totally ruins an important meeting, placing the
safety of the Party chairman at risk, and he's a 'good
organizer'. Only two local supporters, one of whom is his
girlfriend, will talk to him and he's a 'good organizer'.
What was the response of our wonderful branch liaison officer? He
wrote to me thanking me for my good services in getting back the
missing money, whilst apparently simultaneously going behind my
back and expressing support for Hannam!
Has any leadership of any political party ever been as out of touch
with its members and activists as the leadership of the BNP is
with the members and activists in Hull? Here we have these
buffoons knifing me merrily in the back in the belief that they're
going to rehabilitate Hannam when even Hannam himself recognizes the
impossibility of ever returning as the Hull organizer. With the
exception of his girlfriend (the very treasurer who, it seems, sat
back and let him take our money) and possibly one deranged postal
worker who is too afraid for his career to actually join the BNP,
Hannam has no local support. He's going around moaning now about
how he's been sent to Coventry and nobody will speak to him! The
patriots of Hull are not so easily fooled as the leadership of the
BNP. They know filth and treachery when they see it. They do not
so readily allow themselves to be hoodwinked by traitors who steal
their money and paralyse their political party.
And what of the higher levels? The well-meaning Tony Mac is
appointed to 'sort things out' in Hull. He is left in no doubt
that the top brass in the BNP want to see Hannam rehabilitated. He
takes a closer look. He discovers very rapidly that Hannam is 'a
shite' (to quote his excellent phrase as recorded on my answering
machine). He quickly finds himself stuck in an impossible
situation, sandwiched between a leadership that wants to overlook
the criminal activities of this man and a membership that does not
-- understandably as they were the victims of his crime. I suggest
an eminently workable solution. Tony agrees with me. That's the
last I hear, until I receive a members' bulletin telling me that
he's been to Hull and had a meeting with 'the new organizing team'.
I certainly wasn't invited to any such meeting. Equally, I hear
nothing but silence from Grimsby. It appears that not much is
going on anywhere in Hull and North Lincolnshire now. I suspect
that it never will.
Time and time again the same pattern has repeated itself. I warn
the BNP leaders of a problem. They respond by knifing me in the
back. And what happens next? The problem of which I have warned
manifests itself and disaster ensues.
And in the meantime, countless opportunities are being lost. Hull
has the honour of having been mentioned on news bulletins and the
Channel 4 documentary Bloody Foreigners as the town with the worst
reputation in Britain among asylum seekers because of the hostile
reception that they are given here by our local patriots. Some
asylum seekers have even asked for asylum from Hull and have been
allowed to re-migrate to Lincoln! Our dear young people do not let
them have an easy time of it up here! There are literally
thousands of good folk here who could be being drawn into the
political process and radicalized. Yet nothing is happening! Why
not? Because of the sheer incompetence of the utter cretins
currently running whole swathes of the BNP.
Time and time again I warn of the need to tackle the BBC. What is
done? Nothing. Anne Sloman operates a vicious censorship system to
keep the BNP off of the airwaves and to keep links to its website
off of the Internet, flagrantly violating the Human Rights Act
1998. Does the BNP sue? Don't be silly! Does it place pickets
outside her home? Of course not! Does it draw attention to her
activities in any way? My friends -- they're a better kept secret
than Hull BNP's ex-treasurer's gynaecological problems! This one
woman does more to keep the BNP at bay than the Anti-Nazi League,
Searchlight, Special Branch and Anti-Fascist Action added
together and yet the BNP's response to her and her organization
can be summed up in one word: pathetic.
I warn of the dangers of allowing criminals, other than those who
have political convictions, to hold positions of authority in the
BNP. What happens? We get an entire Panorama programme dedicated to
'exposing' criminality among BNP leaders! Every time BNP leaders
appear in public they're tackled on the issue of criminality in
the party's ranks and they sit there, looking foolish before
the entire country, unable to respond convincingly or at all.
How can you fight elections on a platform of law and order
when you have a bunch of third-rate crooks running whole
sections of the organization?
I say over and over again that you need to take serious measures to
secure your financial position. I forward to you a suggestion from
a local member advocating the targeting of Britain's wealthiest
people. I suggest setting up a committee to look at setting up
businesses. What is the reaction? The equivalent of a computer
software error message! Yet how can you hope to run a major
nationwide political party on a voluntary basis? You need paid
regional and local organizers. Then they will know that their
jobs are at stake if they want to start playing silly games.
You also need money to assert your rights through the civil
and criminal courts.
The response of the BNP to the events of 11 September 2002 was
disgraceful. For years, the American empire and its leaders have
been working to undermine the sovereignty of nations, our own
nation included. For years they have been working towards a one-world
system with America at the helm. For years they have been
exporting terror, death, degeneracy and filth of all descriptions
across the globe. From their nuclear bombings of entire cities
full of civilians in World War II, to their support for the
murderous Chinese and Soviet regimes (the former support
continuing to this very day), to their instigation of a regime of
poverty, starvation and death in the Third World, these Americans,
and the people behind them, have shown that they constitute
one of the deadliest regimes that the world has ever known.
Their genocide of the Arab peoples in Palestine, Iraq and
Afghanistan merely exemplifies it. But the Arab peoples are
made of sterner stuff than the great white patriots of Britain,
who sit in front of their football matches with beer in their
hands and who dare not even put out leaflets or join a political
party for fear of losing their jobs. No! Whereas the average
Briton will do nothing to fight the new American empire,
young Arab boys hurl themselves in front of Israeli tanks,
young Arab women -- 16-year-old girls -- blow themselves apart
in gestures of defiance! And what is the response of the BNP?
It launches not a campaign of solidarity with the people of
the earth as they fight to the death against America and all that
it represents but rather an ANTI-ISLAM campaign! A campaign that
cannot fail but to warm the heart of every member of Israel's
Likud!
I was in Leeds a few months ago. I saw what Islam has done to that
city. I saw street after street of young foreign people, dressed in
alien clothes, worshipping a religion alien to our land. I saw the
mosques. I smelled, and indeed ate, the exotic, alien foods. And I
saw, too, how part of our country and our English heritage had
died in that city. Yes, I can understand the resentment that our
people feel. But the resentment is misdirected. Our enemies are
not these young foreigners. Our enemies are the regimes that
brought them here and that fail to take the steps necessary to
return them to their homelands. And those regimes are also the
enemies of Islam.
Immigration empoverishes not only the receipient nations but also
the nations that send the immigrants. The BNP chairman stood in
Hull last year heaping abuse upon, for example, the Albanians (one
of the oldest and most patriotic civilizations in Europe, direct
descendants of the ancient Illyrians, and he describes them as
'scum') -- yet Albania itself is suffering terribly from a 'brain
drain' as a result of immigration to England. South Africa is
losing its best doctors and nurses to England. Immigration is
being used not only to destroy our national identity but also to
tighten the Establishment noose around the necks of empoverished
countries elsewhere in the world.
My friends, I have always made it clear that I want no part of this
'anti-Islam' campaign. Islam is not our enemy. America is our
enemy. We should be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with our Islamic
friends under the slogan 'death to America!'
And this morning, the final insult. I log on to the BNP's website
and I find a message of support for Elizabeth Windsor, the so-
called 'Queen' of England. This woman who wines and dines Nelson
Mandela and Zao Zemin. This woman whose reign has seen the decline
of Britain from a proud, free world power to a subservient suburb
of America. And the BNP sends her its good wishes.
Right.
Enough is enough!
I no longer find myself in agreement with the policies of the BNP.
I no longer have faith in its leadership or its strategies.
The time has come to look elsewhere.
It is my belief that the strategy of the BNP will not lead to
substantial long-term change in Britain. Indeed, it is my belief
that 'Britain' as such is beyond hope. We need to think globally.
As Eduard Limonov pointed out recently, 'There is no longer any
left and right. There's the system and the enemies of the system.'
The principal conflict of the future will be between the
Establishment and all who oppose it. What is needed is a global
alliance of all those who oppose the New World Order, be they
nationalists,
anarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, genuinely anti-imperialist
communists such as the North Koreans, national-Bolsheviks, third
positionists, and all the oppressed and downtrodden peoples of the
earth.
The National Front is a joke. It has all the problems of the BNP
but multiplied a hundredfold.
The ITP is going nowhere. It is an exclusive Catholic club,
handsomely blessed with money but quite devoid of strategy or
direction. It poses no threat to the New World Order.
My own view is that the future lies with the radical post-third
positionist groups of Europe, Russia and America: Limonov and Dugin
in Russia and the NRF here. At the moment they appear to be in a
fairly grim state with the usual lack of focus. However, they have
vast potential if only they can learn to think and act
strategically.
Gentlemen, it is not my wish to harm the BNP in any way. If I had
wished to do so I would have pulled out very publicly before the 2
May elections, going to the press as I slammed the door behind
myself. I have not done this. I will not do this. I have waited
until the elections are past and the situation has become
irretrievable. All address lists in my possession have been handed
over -- one list to the new Grimsby organizer, the other to Tony
Mac. There are no copies in my possession. I have worked
constructively with Tony to ensure that you have the basis for
rebuilding ther region. I have always acted honourably towards you.
I will continue to act with honour. It would not be honourable for
me to pretend to continue to support you when my enthusiasm for
your party has vanished. Rather than remaining in your ranks as
a source of discontent and division, the appropriate action is
to tender my resignation. Which I now do herewith.
I can do little or nothing for the BNP here in North Lincolnshire.
The BNP is dead here. You have killed it by failing to support
initiatives to build it and by allowing such initiatives to be
undermined by those with nefarious intent. However, you may rest
assured that, using whatever resources I can command, I shall
continue to fight resolutely and defiantly against the enemies of
our people, and for a better future for our children.
Death to America!
Death to the New World Order!
Yours sincerely
(Dr) David E Michael
</quote>
Mishima
Hash: SHA1
"Kurt Knoll" <ti...@monarch.net> wrote in message
news:<10742831...@critter.monarch.net>...
Maybe it was a Knoll troll.
~~~~~~~~~~
Verify my posts: visit http://www.geocities.com/mishima_01
for my public key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.7.96rc1
iD8DBQFACHqazDoag/n9mIwRAnSgAJ9rTunaZymQIe94HwOVs+1SchQB+gCgpC3u
Tdk1SG0EE2Ko9HMIntggy+Q=
=wSAm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Morghus
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 08:38:06 -0800,
> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
>
>
> > No one ever saw any evidence of any massacre in
> > Lidice.
>
> Except people who saw Kurt Daluege's film of the destruction of
> Lidice--including the piled up corpses--broadcast in German theatres.
>
Just go ahead and keep making up stuff, Mr. Morris. We
understand--you have nothing else. You lied about Goebbels making a
radio announcement. Now you lie about a film of Lidice. Kurt Daluege
made no film of Lidice; no one did. No film showing the destruction
of Lidice was broadcast in German theatres or anywhere else. There
is, and never was, any such film.
The only film involving Kurt Daluege was the one made by the lynch
mob posing as a court when they hanged Daluege less than two hours
after sentence was passed, a sentence based entirely on wild tales of
atrocities that never happened and murders that never took place.
Lidice was a propaganda ploy concocted by the Allies which is now
foisted on the unsuspecting public as history.
Ward Cleaver
OBC" <kmc...@nospamnizkor.org> wrote:
>"Sara Salzman"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=07qc8vguuom77pvmugliksb3dmdf8pp82r%404ax.com&rnum=6
Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
Message-ID: <07qc8vguuom77pvmu...@4ax.com>
Date: 30 Mar 2003 03:49:22 GMT
Emilio Sabatini
> In article <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>
> > Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > > In article <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> > > david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
> > >
> > > slander, Dr. Homeland?
> > >
> > > Your accusations that I was planning violence?
> > > Your accusations that I was trying to deny David Irving rights that he,
> > > as a foreigner, doesn't have?
> > >
> > > You jumped in all excited, posted the majority of my phone number, made
> > > accusations, and when thoroughly embarassed, scurried away.
> > >
> > > So let's try once more:
> > >
> > > > What a fascinating statement!
> > > >
> > > > PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
> > > >
> > > > Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
> > > >
> > > > Constitution. If Irving doesn't like it, he can stay out of our country.
> > > >
> > > > If you bothered to pay attention, you'd see that I said quite clearly
> > > > that Irving had every right to come to Denver, and every right to speak
> > > > in a public forum.
> > > >
> > > > I also have those same rights.
> > > >
> > > > So tell me, what were those "Nazi tactics" I used?
> > > >
> > > > Sara
> > >
> > > Still waiting for an answer....
> >
> >
> > Apologies -- I'm trying to do too many things at once again.
> >
> > Right. Mr David Irving posted an account of an attempt by you together
> > with some 90 other people to disrupt a meeting that he wished to hold.
> > You have queried his use of the word 'British' but do not seem to have
> > disputed the assertions that you were bringing 90 or more people with
> > you
>
> Of course I disputed that. I told you that Irving added the word
> "British" and changed the word "nine" to "ninety."
>
>
> First aid supplies for US in case any of Mr. Irving's skinhead friends
> decide to be violent towards US.
>
>
> > accusation that you were planning violence rests on (a) your own
> > statement that you had intended to 'get' Mr Irving,
>
> Sorry. No violence.
>
>
> > you had enlisted some 90 people to assist you,
>
> "welcome" him.
>
> > your accomplice had arranged to bring first aid supplies.
>
> a) not my "accomplice," just another American citizen,
>
>
> > 90 people to voice a contrary point of view to one historian?
>
> The number of people is irrelevant, although Irving lied about it to
> make himself seem more important.
>
> > since when does expressing a contrary point of view constitute
> > 'getting' someone?
>
> Since Irving tried to deny Americans their right to protest his visit to
> Denver, "getting Irving" simply meant uncovering the location of his
> meeting and protesting it.
>
>
> > 'getting' someone?
>
> Explained above.
>
> > supplies to the meeting mean other than you were expecting violence?
>
> Explained above. We were not expecting anything. We were being prepared.
>
> > bandage?
>
>
> Not at all. The person who brought a first aid kit was being careful and
> preparing for the reaction of Mr. Irving's "friends."
>
> >
> >
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
> You have them. Now answer MY questions, which you carefully avoided:
>
> PLEASE identify the "Nazi tactics" I used.
>
>
> Petitioning for the redress of grievances?
>
> The article in Westword, which Irving both quotes from and links to on
> his site, says very clearly:
>
> make sure people know who he is." And where he is, since the location of
> Irving's talk has yet to be set.
>
> "In the meantime, Salzman has launched a one-woman crusade to make his
> trip to Colorado as unwelcoming as possible. Once she determines where
> he'll be speaking, she hopes to round up a group of people to protest
> and hand out pamphlets describing his views. "This isn't a question of
> whether he has a right to say what he wants to say," Salzman explains.
> "But I'd like to make his visit a very unpleasant one."
>
>
Let's look at the facts.
Ms Salzman believes that people who have different (albeit
First-Amendment Protected) opinions to hers should be treated
unpleasantly.
How is this not different from someone who believes that a person with
a different skin colour (or sexual orientation, or nationality) should
be treated unpleasantly?
Ms Salzman's idea of "free speech" sounds like ethnic cleansing to me!
E.
helge
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in message news:<4007f...@news6.uncensored-news.com>...
>
>>John Morris wrote:
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>>Then in your view, Goebbels address to the nation on Radio Berlin
>>>announcing the Lidice massacre must be just more German-hating
>>>propaganda.
>>>
>>>How did anyone so ignorant and stupid as you develop language skills?
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>- --
>>> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
>>> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>>
>>perhaps the victims [or their remains] of Lidice massacre didn't
>>vaporize ? [173 czech men - victims produced 173 dead bodies, as opposed
>>to the Treblinka miracle where 750 000- 1400 000 jews disappeared].
>
>
>
> Finding dead bodies is not proof of a massacre. There was a war
> on--people died. The Bolsheviks killed thousands as they marched
> through the area. Keep in mind that the tale-tellers about Lidice
> can't make up their minds whether the people were killed by the
> Germans or the Praque police. There is no evidence of any massacre at
> Lidice.
>
"testimony" and a mass grave, human remains, photographs.
"testimony" - most of the holocau$t testimonies can not be evaluated,
one has to accept them or reject them - i do not accept them.
mass graves, human remains, photographs - are material evidence that can
be investgated.
>
>
>>The only questionable and most likely false part of the Lidice story is
>>the allegation that SEVEN[?] of those children who were sent to Germany
>>and not found after the war - "were gassed in gassvans at Chelmno".
>>There is no evidence to support that allegation - but well thats the
>>only bit Lidice do share with jewish holocau$t.
>
>
> Everything about the Lidice horror story is questionable. The
> German hating Holocaust hucksters have taken to displaying photographs
> of bombed buildings somewhere and claiming they are pictures of
> Lidice. There is nothing in the pictures to identify the locality.
> They also like to show photographs of dead bodies with German soldiers
> casually walking around examining the bodies. The hucksters insist
> that is proof that the Germans must have killed all the people. They
> particularly like to show bodies neatly arranged in front of a
> building but with the bombed out part of the building cropped. That
> way they claim the dead were all lined up and shot in Lidice. It's
> all just more German-hating propaganda bullshit.
>
>
>>perhaps there are photographs of the Lidice village from shortly before
>>the event as well from after ?
>
>
> If you find one, let me know. If you find any photograph with
> anything in it that identifies a village called Lidice, let me know.
>
>
>>perhaps the difference between Lidice and Treblinka is the difference
>>between FACT and a FRAUD.
>
>
> Forget it--the tales of Treblinka and Lidice are both frauds.
helge
that problem.
"crime victim" testimony must be evaluated - no idependant court is
going to accept a testimony automatically as true.
"crime victim" giving false testimony is commiting serious crime.
that's the difference between justice and jewstice.
besides I do not want to "write off eyewitness testimony so blithely"
as I wrote:
<quote>
with one exception - if they do provide piece of information that could
be verified [for example a jewish eyevitness testifying about a location
of a mass grave, that can be located and investigated - but that's
rather rare ]
</quote>
helge
Kenny I m fine with the existing material evidence about Titanic - the
wreck at the bottom of the ocean is enough, however I can not see
similar material evidence for Treblinka "extermination camp" - where
700 000 - 1 400 000 "jewish victims" "disappeared":
- no camp.
- no [traces of] huge massgraves [let me remind you that that the volume
of those [at leats 2] massgraves ] was apx. 50m x 25m x 10m.
- no human remains.
- no traces of the 6 months long daily "open-air" cremation, when piles
of 2000-3000 bodies were burned on "huge grates"
- no one until these days explained what type of fuel and from where was
used [the body-of-fat-jewish-women instead of fuel story is a good joke]
try harder Kenny, Titanic 1 : 0 Treblinka
Joebruno
The iceberg got bored with just floating around the ocean. He stepped
ashore and went into the lettuce business.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <9i5h00tls8p1glrs8...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:25:57 -0800, <bu9rt...@enews2.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
>OBC" <kmc...@nospamnizkor.org> wrote:
>>"Sara Salzman"
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=07qc8vguuom77pvmugliksb3dmdf8pp82r%404ax.com&rnum=6
>Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
>Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
No, he didn't. Because he didn't receive them. This should be clear
even to someone as delusional as yourself.
Joebruno
If you don't know for sure he's on their payroll, why would you be
stupid enough to ask what they pay him, moron?
> =
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <e6c5ec39.04011...@posting.google.com>:
>Let's look at the facts.
Do let's.
>Ms Salzman believes that people who have different (albeit
>First-Amendment Protected) opinions to hers should be treated
>unpleasantly.
I thought you wanted to talk about *facts*, not irving's lies?
>How is this not different from someone who believes that a person with
>a different skin colour (or sexual orientation, or nationality) should
>be treated unpleasantly?
>
>Ms Salzman's idea of "free speech" sounds like ethnic cleansing to me!
Which only shows that you have no idea of either "free speech" nor
"ethnic cleansing."
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <e6c5ec39.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 19:32:53 -0800,
emi...@pediatrician.com (Emilio Sabatini) wrote:
> Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<catamont-38B511...@news-60.giganews.com>...
[snip]
> > Now tell me again, what "Nazi" tactics?
> Let's look at the facts.
> Ms Salzman believes that people who have different (albeit
> First-Amendment Protected) opinions to hers should be treated
> unpleasantly.
> How is this not different from someone who believes that a person
> with a different skin colour (or sexual orientation, or
> nationality) should be treated unpleasantly?
People have a choice about what they believe, what they say, and how
they express themselves (except, obviously, in your case).
> Ms Salzman's idea of "free speech" sounds like ethnic cleansing to
> me!
Perhaps you're an idiot.
Now, wasn't that unpleasant? And have I abridged your right to
speak?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAjf+DfbIykA6SysEQI5GQCgyjGO6SvMnzc9EUChk+NdwvItNocAoMln
wHINnVVR55d/GruMrjJrNK29
=iLab
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 12:20:24 -0800,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
[snip]
> Gawd, you slipped up there. Having just quoted Nietzsche saying
> 'there are no facts; there are only interpretations' I began my
> response by saying 'I happen to know a few facts about her . . .'
> And you let me get away with it! Don't know who's getting doziest
> around here, me or you. What I should have said, of course, is that
> I base my
> interpretation on somewhat different information.
There is no information; there are only interpretations.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAjggDfbIykA6SysEQJbnACgl+GzuG80TOAY67M68dqisVpAzScAnRuW
hbem5KAS5ps+EcmFBSb1S4j8
=E6rw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 16:00:46 -0800,
mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:<rv8g00h0skk8nguis...@4ax.com>...
> > In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> > alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 08:38:06 -0800,
> > mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
> > > No one ever saw any evidence of any massacre in
> > > Lidice.
> > Except people who saw Kurt Daluege's film of the destruction of
> > Lidice--including the piled up corpses--broadcast in German
> > theatres.
> Just go ahead and keep making up stuff, Mr. Morris. We
> understand--you have nothing else. You lied about Goebbels making a
> radio announcement. Now you lie about a film of Lidice. Kurt
> Daluege made no film of Lidice; no one did. No film showing the
> destruction of Lidice was broadcast in German theatres or anywhere
> else. There is, and never was, any such film.
> The only film involving Kurt Daluege was the one made by the
> lynch mob posing as a court when they hanged Daluege less than two
> hours after sentence was passed, a sentence based entirely on wild
> tales of atrocities that never happened and murders that never took
> place. Lidice was a propaganda ploy concocted by the Allies which
> is now
> foisted on the unsuspecting public as history.
Because you say so? You also said that Fritzsche testified that he
learned about Lidice after the war. But you snipped the correction
to your made-up fact and ran away.
So cower behind your mantras. You look a right fool, and you're not
even aware of it.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAjm1TfbIykA6SysEQJuoQCeOBplma5noNDXI0IUn/HTx1W+mXsAnR9t
9kOcor+3K//u+Elay5TrT3V1
=t+Ej
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 16 Jan 2004 06:37:24 -0800,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:<4r6f00hojcf2kdgav...@4ax.com>...
> > In <b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> > alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 18:03:44 -0800,
> > david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) typed:
> > [snip]
> > > Objectivity is not a meaningful goal -- unless you choose to
> > > define it in a very unusual way. Objectivity, as I understand
> > > it, is what you're left with when you take away all points of
> > > view. As we are always
> > > obliged to look at things through a point of view it seems that
> > > we can never really know when we've struck 'objectivity'. I'd
> > > view the process as one of theory evaluation rather than an
> > > attempt to get beyond theory and strike 'fact'. As Nietzsche
> > > put it: 'There are no facts; there are only interpretations.'
> > Do you believe that to be objectively true?
> No, and neither did he. It is, however, a compelling
> interpretation.
Actually, you have no way of testing whether the little
Nietzsche-slogan is right, or, if you will, compelling.
You know what explanation I find compelling? You like the little
Nietzsche-slogan because it spares you the trouble of testing your
delusions against reality.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAjoPDfbIykA6SysEQKxkQCfawp/10D/i+2eOYtisPw1BAD5apoAn0zX
5PF8zVHIxh7F++k2Bbun1jIo
=QYMY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
helge
Lidice became a standard in Western propaganda after the Jew
Viktor Fischl persuaded the Crown Film Unit, the unit charged with
making British propaganda films, to shoot a phony film about Lidice
using the Welsh village of Cwmgiedd because it looked like a Czech
village.
</quote>
no comments Mr. Morris ?
who is running away ?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBQAjm1TfbIykA6SysEQJuoQCeOBplma5noNDXI0IUn/HTx1W+mXsAnR9t
> 9kOcor+3K//u+Elay5TrT3V1
> =t+Ej
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Steven Mock
> Gawd, you slipped up there. Having just quoted Nietzsche saying 'there
> are no facts; there are only interpretations' I began my response by
> saying 'I happen to know a few facts about her . . .' And you let me
> get away with it!
Perhaps because I'm more interested in the content of the discussion
than in playing silly wotsits. Let's move on...
> RE. 'it is up to the individual, based on his subjectivity, to choose
> what evidence to trust and what not.'
>
> Yes -- absolutely. He has one set of information available to him; I
> have another set. It is thus unsurprising that we reach different
> conclusions.
Fine. But is the only possible next step to just throw up your hands
and say all conclusions are equal, live and let live? Or is there some
way to structure a discussion over which conclusion is better?
> RE. 'By your standards, you have to accept that his opinion of your
> witness is as valid as yours.'
>
> Why? I don't understand this concept of 'validity'. He interprets one
> set of information one way; I interpret another set of information
> another way. We thus have two different interpretations of two
> different sets of information. 'Validity' doesn't come into it. Maybe
> both interpretations are 'valid' in the sense that they attempt to
> make sense of information, but I certainly hold that my interpretation
> has more explanatory power in that it can deal with additional
> information that is not accounted for by Morghus's opinion.
That's the point. It can deal with more information. That is
*precisely* the standard according to which contending theories must be
tested, and precisely the basis on which anti-revisionists claim to have
an infintely more compelling interpretation than the revisionists.
> RE. 'The result, however, is a false negative - your standards,
> objectively applied, have failed to prove something for which there is
> evidence which you happen to know is true. What does that tell you
> about the quality of your methodology in terms of its capacity to
> discern historical truth?'
>
> I can no more 'discern historical truth' than a sociologist can
> 'discern sociological truth'
Yet you have agreed that the Ardeantine caves massarce either happened
or it didn't. We are now discussing the best way towards making that
determination.
> I can produce interpretations of sets of information. I can
> say to Morghus: OK, you've produced a fair interpretation of the
> information you've got, but I've got some more information and my
> interpretation takes it into account whereas yours doesn't.
Careful, Dr. Michael. You are coming dangerously close to agreeing with
my standard of external validation. You are saying that your
interpretation is better because it accounts for a body information, as
opposed to Morghus's opinion which does not. I say you're right.
> The aim of
> the game is not to access 'historical truth' but to assess the various
> strengths and weaknesses of various historical discourses.
Fine. The question I'm asking is on what basis are the various
strengths and weaknesses of historical discourses assessed. You appear
to be agreeing with me: external validation.
> What is
> 'historical truth' anyway other than someone trying to make HIS
> particular interpretation of events to be something more than a mere
> interpretation.
A laudable goal, perhaps?
> RE. 'The trouble is this: while Morg may be entitled to his subjective
> opinion, the Ardentinne caves massacre is not a matter of opinion. It
> either happened or it didn't. It can't exist in an indeterminate
> quantum state between existence and non-existence like Schroedinger's
> cat. Either you're right or Morghus is right - you can't both be.
>
> OK, I'm with you 100% on that so far.
>
> RE. 'So recognizing that this is not a perfect world and there we will
> never be absolutely 100% certain, the question devolves to how we can
> best determine which of you is right. The answer lies in testing
> which of you has the most logical and verifiable argument.'
>
> No, that's where we part company. We can't determine which of us is
> right. At best we can suggest that one interpretation might be a more
> compelling explanation of information than the other.
Which is all I'm saying, given my caveat that in an imperfect world we
can never be 100% certain. Now let's retreat back from the vagueries
and discuss what makes an interpretation compelling.
Personally, I don't see what's so bloody complicated. Let's say there's
a historical problem, and I have a theory. That theory may suit my
ideological presumptions, but if I can bring forward, say, even one
witness to verify the theory, the charge that I am putting the theory
forward solely for ideological reasons looses weight to that extent. A
theory supported by only one witness may be tenuous, but it is better
than a theory supported by nothing.
Let's say you have a theory that my witness is lying. If your only
support for your theory is your personal subjective opinion, you are
wide open to the charge that the only reason you hold that opinion is
because you simply don't want to believe what my witness says. My
theory remains stronger than yours. If, on the other hand, you can
support your theory with another manner of verification, then we have
something to dispute.
> Look, suppose I
> were to produce additional information to show that my old lady (a)
> was a lifelong dedicated nationalist, (b) was in a position to know
> exactly what happened in those caves, and (c) was unlikely to lie.
> Morghus's theory as stated wouldn't be able to account for her saying
> that the massacre occurred, so my theory has better explanatory power.
> But does that prove that I'm right as a matter of fact? That I'm
> objectively right? That I've discerned historical truth? Nope. Morghus
> could go away and then come back with additional information to show
> that my little old lady had spent her life working under cover for the
> CIA. At that point my interpretation would be stuffed -- I'd have to
> change it.
Fine, but the point is the standard you are still using is external
validation, which vindicates my argument. Morghus still has to come
back with *information* in order to seriously challenge you. Not just
possibilities stemming from "trust", which is all he has produced thus
far.
Look at it this way. Let's say you were to produce additional
information that your old lady (a) was a lifelong dedicated nationalist,
(b) was in a position to know exactly what happened in those caves, and
(c) was unlikely to lie, and Morghus responded by declaring that he
simply didn't trust your information on the speculation that it could be
that the little old lady had spent her life working under cover for the
CIA, based on his belief that that's just the sort of thing the CIA
would do and we can't trust them. By your methodology, you would have
to shrug your shoulders and say his opinion as to what evidence to trust
is no less valid than your's. By mine, I'd say prove it.
> RE. 'In true revisionist style, Morg harps on what pieces of evidence
> we don't have (I'll take his word for it). His argument makes no
> reference to the only question that is of any value to a genuine
> historical process: what evidence *do* we have to work with, what
> means at our disposal is there to find out what actually happened.'
>
> I think his point is that he hasn't seen or heard anything to make him
> believe that it happened. Fair enough.
If that were his point, it might be fair enough. But its not. His
point is that the fact that he hasn't seen or heard anything to make him
believe that it happened proves to him that it *didn't* happen. How
would you assess an argument like that?
> RE. 'He has chosen not to "trust" your witness, yet clearly the only
> basis he has for making the choice he has is the evident fact that he
> doesn't wish to accept the conclusion he would have to accept if he
> DID choose to trust her. Ask yourself, then, is that really basis
> enough on which to measure evidence?'
>
> Why should he trust my witness? He doesn't know her. He has only my
> account to go on and he doesn't know me either! I could have invented
> the old lady (I didn't but I could have). We each form interpretations
> based on the information we have available. Sometimes we don't have
> access to key bits of information and that affects the conclusions we
> reach -- but that happens whether we choose to declare our
> interpretations to be 'historical truth' or not!
You're not answering my question.
> RE. 'Then ask yourself, if not, how to we safeguard ourselves from
> inadvertently making that - our biases, our desired conclusions - our
> primary if not only basis?'
>
> In exactly the same way as in any other social science. If I can
> digress briefly before coming back to your question, I'll take social
> anthropology as an example. Monographs generally involve an account of
> field work among some exotic subculture or some specific community.
> This culminates in the 'researcher' drawing 'conclusions' about his
> work. The only 'external validation' we get is the account of the
> field work and references to other field work and theories, yet the
> conclusions frequently go beyond the facts presented in the account
> and attempt to provide some sort of explanation -- theorization -- of
> what has been observed. Thus, an account of a European gypsy community
> might try to 'explain' the high value placed on virginity in terms of
> various sociological theories. An account of a group of drug users
> might try to explain drug-taking behaviour in terms of the camaraderie
> of the small community, invoking observations and external theories
> again. An account of nightclub culture might attempt to explain the
> difference between a successful and unsuccessful venue in terms of
> whether people are collectively 'making the effort' to enjoy
> themselves -- again invoking insight and theory to try to interpret
> what has been observed.
The point is that in all of these cases it is the observations that are
being interpreted. No doubt, there are different contending
interpretations that can be offered of the same observations, but all
such interpretations must be grounded in the external evidence. One
can't simply cast aside the data and draw whatever conclusions one
wishes on the subjective belief that gypsies and drug-uses can't be
trusted, and call this an equally valid interpretation of the evidence.
> Now in each case it is highly
> probable that the 'conclusions' are indeed influenced by personal
> biases. Those authors who have studied the subject will probably not
> even dispute this. They would probably argue that what they are
> producing is not an attempt to 'discover the truth' about why some
> gypsies value virginity so much, or why people take drugs, or why some
> nightclub venues 'work' whereas others don't, but are simply trying to
> produce the best explanation or interpretation of these phenomena that
> they can by studying these phenomena in field work and by relating
> them to other field work and to theory. More importantly, I think
> they'd argue that THIS IS THE BEST THAT CAN BE DONE.
What you don't seem to understand, Dr. Michael, is that I am in no way
disputing this point. Indeed, I think I have acknowledged the pervasive
nature of bias on numerous occasions. My point is simply that the
purpose of methodology is to neutralize, to the greatest extent
possible, the its effects. The authors of the studies you cite, unless
they were arrogant beyond belief, would never claim not to have biases.
But they would defend their work on the basis that the approach they
took to the evidence was such that their results could be defended
without recourse to personal subjectivity, and could be understood and
replicated by anyone regardless of their bias.
> Same in history. Not always -- some historical questions can be
> answered compelling by reference to validation procedures, such as
> legal or hard-science methodologies (which are frequently incorrectly
> construed as 'objective') -- but frequently, it is necessary to accept
> that external validation procedures aren't there. I have no way to
> know what happened inside Munch's brain, or inside Eichmann's prison
> cell. I have to access these things indirectly, like the sociological
> field researcher, observing evidence, relating it to other evidence,
> building a 'case'. More to the point, so do you -- and so do academic
> historians.
The point is that if I am going to make a compelling argument I have to
support it with something outside my own head. I have to defend myself
from the charge that it reflects merely what my biases compel me to
believe, and the only way to do that is through external validation.
<snip>
> RE. 'Then ask yourself this: would you not do the same if someone like
> me put the same manner of evidence to you in the case of the
> Holocaust? You cited
> this woman as an example of the sort of evidence you would accept.
> Yet I am certain that if I had put a witness to you that I described
> in exactly the same terms as you describe her, saying much the same
> thing about gas chambers as she said about the Ardentinne caves, you
> would have reacted in much the same way as Morghus. You would have
> laughed me away, and rightly so. But why would you have laughed me
> away? For no other reason that your personal subjective opinion and
> the fact that my evidence supported the "Holocaust" which you can't
> accept, rather than simple acts of wartime brutality which you have no
> political purpose to deny.'
>
> No, the problem would be 'why should anyone accept the woman's words?'
> I'd say that I cannot think of any plausible reason why she should
> have uttered them falsely. She was obviously ideologically well
> disposed to nationalism and had been for most of her life.
Yet you have no evidence that Dr. Munch wasn't, save for his objection
to and willness to speak about and document Nazi mass murder.
> She was
> very trustworthy, having been associated very closely with very, very
> senior people in the nationalist movement. She was as bright as they
> get -- very full of beans.
Pretty much how Lifton describes Dr. Munch, and this impression is
corroborated by everyone else who spoke to him during the period in
which the statements I posted were made. So once again, it seems its
merely your lack of personal experience with this witness that causes
you to give credibility to the sort of negative speculations that
Morghus has made about your Cape Town woman.
> She had never actually participated in any
> action for which she could be put on trial.
Apparently, the courts thought the same of Munch, which was why they
acquitted him (your unverified speculations as to other causes
notwithstanding).
> She was receiving no payment or other inducement to say what she said.
Like Munch.
> She was in a position to have know what was going on.
Very much like Munch.
> However, Morghus could
> contest each one of those assertions and I'd have a devil of a job to
> prove any of them to him. Therefore it is rational for me to accept
> and him to reject. It would be equally rational for me to reject it if
> I were in his position.
Which makes it pretty clear, then, that your's and Morghus' methodology
is flawed, in that it causes you to reject and discard otherwise
valuable evidence.
> RE. 'Thus there is no way you can deny that you were setting me
> impossible standards.'
>
> Why?
>
> (a) You yourself claimed that you could meet the standards that I
> suggested.
> (b) I gave you numerous examples of types of evidence that I'd find
> compelling.
> (c) The bottom line was simply that there should be no room for
> reasonable doubt -- a standard that is (in theory) employed in every
> criminal courtroom in England. Certainly, it is subjective -- but such
> decisions are made every day in the courts.
>
> I was inviting you to make the most compelling case possible. You gave
> me -- Munch!!!!! A man who certifies people dead through closed doors,
> who had a long history of anti-Nazi activity (hardly impartial), and
> who had to get his lawyer to inform the world that his final
> utterances on World War II should be dismissed as he was completely
> senile.
But that's the whole point, Dr. Michael. The reason I asked you to lay
out standards is so that we would have at least *some* objective set of
criteria to test the evidence against, in order to keep the subjectivity
involved in assessing the witness to a minimum. That's why you were so
reluctant to commit to such standards, and why you ran away from the
discussion, instead taunting demands that I meet your challenge and
produce evidence before you had articulated to my satisfaction what
would qualify to you as evidence.
Nonetheless, you did manage to articulate a few specific conditions. I
could meet those conditions, and I did. I made a clear and compelling
argument which you never touched, backed by external evidence, as to how
my witness met every single condition you'd articulated.
My point, all along, is that no matter what standards you define they
*will* be impossible to meet in the way that you interpret them, since
you openly and brazenly declare all standards to be subjective and
dependant on your subjectivity. I knew full well that any time I was
about to score you would move the goalposts. That is precisely what I
predicted you would do and precisely what you did.
You reserved the right to draw definitive conclusions about Munch's
biases and sanity when he made the statements I posted based solely on
speculation devoid of any real validation, and announced that I had
failed on that basis. Technically, you're right. I didn't satisfy
*your* criteria, because when you get down to it, your criteria amount
to simply producing evidence that you'll accept, and you didn't. But I
think I have nicely proven by now that you will never accept ANY
evidence that says what you don't want to believe precisely because it
does. Hell, you've even admitted that if I were to produce a witness to
the Holocaust described in exactly the same terms as your "woman from
Cape Town" you would have no reason to accept her testimony if you
didn't know her personally. These are the standards againt which you
test evidence. Its a joke.
> RE. 'The very point of learning is to challenge our presumptions.'
>
> Oof. It might be one point, but hardly the only. Or the primary.
> Surely another possible point of learning is to try to interpret the
> mass of sensory stimuli that we receive and that we assume to
> constitute something called 'the universe'.
To what end? But I think this is a topic we can examine further in
relation to "hegle's" contribution to the discussion.
Steven Mock
Ward Cleaver
Not according to his own web site and according to the San Antonio Express!!
From my latest archive cataloging The Nizkor Project of Nanaimo, British
Columbia Canada directed by Kenneth N. McVay:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=f7murv0qqpmcfa2ldce7epo9gtg5am23rl%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED The Nizkor Project Director is Lying About Funds He Has NOT
Reported to CCRA!! SAAF Report for 2002 Is Further Proof! R_1122
Message-ID: <f7murv0qqpmcfa2ld...@4ax.com>
Date: 22 Nov 2003 13:01:32 GMT
AKA "Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
Selected excerpts:
The Nizkor Project -- Ken McVay Director
P.O. Box 244, Station A
Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K9 Canada
1-250-616-9431
Prologue:
"[W]hen you're living a lie, the lie has to get more complicated-they're always
contradicting themselves...so that the lie itself becomes self-evident."
-- Ken McVay, director of the Nizkor Project
http://www.peacemagazine.org/fulltext/all-vol13no2.html
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: peacenik13_2)
My terse reply to Ken McVay's statement above: "You prove your lies are self
evident with your own words you tax dodger con-man liar!"
Ken McVay first denies receiving money from "San Antonio Area Foundation -
Nizkor Fund." [documented and archived locally (in case the web pages get
pulled) and all URLs are given by me for verification purposes]
EXHIBIT 1:
<start/quote>
"What Mr. Bradbury has failed to demonstrate is that The Nizkor Project, which I
direct, has any association whatsoever with the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
Nizkor Fund."
That is because Mr. Bradbury is not very bright.
The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the United
States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money
from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
For further information, review the file which Mr. Ellis and Mr. Bradbury
continue to ignore:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=9334m8%241nm1%241%40news.tht.net&rnum=3
From: kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth McVay, OBC)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: STILL Waiting for Donnie..... (Or "Bradbury: Wrong Again")
Date: 5 Jan 2001 00:32:08 GMT
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Message-ID: <9334m8$1nm1$1...@news.tht.net>
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: McVayEXHIBIT1)
EXHIBIT 2: (McVay cited the link above and here are the contents in part)
http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: SAAF_NizkorWEB)
<start/quote>
"Blakely" wrote in message
news:282e6175...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> What did you do with the $50,000 given to you to start a Nizkor
> operation in San Antonio? Since you claim you don't have a San
> Antonio operation, is it safe to say that you simply embezzled
> the money?
No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio
Area Foundation... The San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid me -
or anyone else, to my knowledge...
The computers are in use to this day, confronting and refuting
Holocaust denial, but I have nothing to do with their operation,
maintanence or development.
You can verify their existence by visiting
http://www.holocaust-history.org and http://thhp.org.
I have no association with either organization, and never have. Should
you have further questions, I suggest that you contact Robert
Washington, Patrick Groff, Mark S. Freedman or Harry W. Mazal...
> Or did you lie (you seem to be good at that lately) about not
> having a Nizkor connection in San Antonio?
I have no connection in San Antonio, and neither does Nizkor. Get used
to it.
<end/quote>
Exhibit 3:
<start/quote>
In article <3b80b9d6...@news.abccom.bc.ca>,
Ken Lewis <kle...@netbbistro.com> wrote:
[TubbyBlubber excised]
> As the sniveling, cowardly Bradshit well knows, there is no
> endowment fund nor a trust fund.
Incorrect. The San Antonio Area Foundation maintains an endowment fund
for any organization they support. Ten per cent of all monies donated
go directly into an endowment fund, so that, eventually, the fund
will fuel itself.
SAAF bylaws state that the first $10,000 donated must go into the
creation of an endowment fund maintained as a part of the trust.
That endowment fund, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the
Nizkor Project, nor has the Nizkor Project ever benefited from such a
fund.
It's entertaining watching BlubberBabble try to make sense of it all,
and it's worth noting that he hasn't contacted any of the people at
SAAF for further information, as I suggested. That suggests that, as
always, he doesn't give a rat's ass for the truth.
Duh.
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%20&as_umsgid=9l2g72%2423od%2...@news.tht.net&num=20&hl=en
From: kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth McVay, OBC)
Subject: BabbleTubby's Bullshit
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 05:35:30 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The Nizkor Project, http://www.nizkor.org/
Message-ID: <9l2g72$23od$1...@news.tht.net>
Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: McVayEXHIBIT3)
Exhibit 4: (Notice the public posting was made! December 30, 2002)
<start/quote>
The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the
United States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any
money from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund" AND you are also
on record as stating: "...The San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid
me - or anyone else, to my knowledge... I have no connection in San Antonio,
and neither does Nizkor. Get used to it" on June 2, 2000.
http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
(This is kind of fun. You keep making an ass of yourself, and I'll keep
laughing at you.)
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=xO%25P9.1985%24C43.1...@news.nnrp.ca&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Re: What did Kenny McVay do with money he claims he never got?
Reply-To: kmc...@nizkor.org
Organization: The Nizkor Project, http://www.nizkor.org/
Message-ID: <xO%P9.1985$C43.13...@news.nnrp.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:57:49 GMT
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally McVay-12-30-2002DENIAL)
End of Kenneth McVay's (Director of The Nizkor Project) own documented words
denying he has ever received any money of benefit from the San Antonio Area
Foundation OR "The San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ON THE OTHER HAND THESE DOCUMENTS PROVE MCVAY TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR!!
Here is what the San Antonio Area Foundation reported for Year 2000:
<start/quote>
http://www.saafdn.org/pdf/Fin2000.pdf
[Link active for downloading and for verification November 20, 2003.
(I have already downloaded and archived the PDF in case it becomes
unavailable for some reason.)]
Our mission: Helping donors achieve their charitable goals
Annual Report 2000
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
San Antonio Area Foundation
Growing to Give, Giving to Grow
Page 3
Fund Types
The San Antonio Area Foundation is dedicated to improving the quality
of life in our community through funding that impacts vital nonprofit
organizations so they can help people in time of need.
Discretionary Funds
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These funds enable the Area Foundation to respond
flexibly to changing community needs and emergencies.
Decisions on how to most appropriately use these
funds are left to the discretion of the Area Foundation’s
Advisory Committees and Board of Directors. Any size
gift may be given as a discretionary gift.
You’ll find many reasonable options for creating your
own fund in the paragraphs that follow. However,
if you wish to contribute to the work of the Area
Foundation and do not see an option that suits your
plan for giving, we invite you to contribute to an
existing discretionary fund. One of the many advantages
of this type of giving is that there is no minimum
contribution — you may give as little or as much as
you wish, as often as you wish.
[...]
Unrestricted Net Assets
AS OF DECEMBER 31 , 2000
Discretionary (unrestricted) 20 %
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Donor Advised Funds 36 %
Designated Funds 4 %
Field of Interest Funds 23 %
Scholarship Funds 17 %
Page 4
Discretionary Funds
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alamo Fund
Phoebe P. and John H. Foster Memorial Fund
Nat and Mannie Goldsmith Memorial Trust
Ruth Lang Charitable Fund
[...]
Beulah M. and Felix J. Katz Memorial Trust
Beta and Melvin Leazar Memorial Fund
Nizkor Fund
^^^^^^^^^^^
Mary Kay Owens Memorial Fund
Gaynelle and Gene Rankin Endowment Trust
[...]
S A N A N T O N I O A R E A F O U N D A T I O N
Post Office Box 120366 I San Antonio, Texas 78212
210-225-2243 I 210-225-1980 Fax
w w w. s a a f d n . o r g
<end/quote>
I could not find a report for Year 2001 BUT Year 2002 reads virtually the same
as Year 2000 and for a fact the "Nizkor Fund" received money from the San
Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"!!
http://www.saafdn.org/pdf/AnnRpt2002.pdf
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: AnnRpt2002)
The Nizkor Fund is listed again as being a recipient for Year 2002 yet Ken McVay
denies receiving ANY money from the San Antonio Area Foundation in a public
posting dated December 30, 2002!! I guess the San Antonio Area Foundation lies
about who it disburses funding to!!
Here is Ken McVay's very own Nizkor web site showing Ken McVay was a recipient
of San Antonio Area Foundation funding back in 1996!
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
(Link November 20, 2003 and no disclaimers are made!! Archived locally as:
11-20-2003SAAF2NIZKOR)
Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
San Antonio Express-News
August 3, 1996
Page 10B
"Internet project won't let Holocaust be forgotten"
By Thomas Edwards
Express-News Staff Writer
"Nizkor" in Hebrew means "we will remember," but it is also a
solemn promise Holocaust researcher Kenneth McVay has taken to
the Internet so that people will never forget the atrocities of
Nazi Germany.
Now his task has gotten a little easier with a $50,000 grant from
the philanthropic San Antonio Area Foundation to the Nizkor
Project, an international computer web site directed by the 55-
year-old McVay from his home in Vancouver Island, Canada...
The Nizkor Project is not only a tool to fight bigotry, it has
also "make an impact in terms of Holocaust education," McVay said.
Some of the new material he will add to the web site -- which
will have sound and movement -- includes speeches by Nazi
statesmen advocating genocide, 68 volumes of military
documentation from the Nuremburg war crimes tribunals and
material from the National Archives in Washington.
Some of the new material is being donated by San Antonio resident
Harry Mazal, who is the director of the Nizkor Project in the
United States. Mazal also has one of the world's largest private
collections of Holocaust material... <END>
Here is a link to the original news source and its archive regarding the above
article which proves Ken McVay lied when he has plainly stated: "No one ever
gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio Area Foundation... The
San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid me - or anyone else, to my knowledge.
" (Quoted and source shown higher up in this post.)
http://archives.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=keyword&p_theme=SAEC&p_product=SAEC
At the link above enter "Nizkor $50,000" into the search field, and
select these options:
Return: Best Matches First
Limit Search by Source Name: San Antonio Express-News
Limit Search by Date:
Activate search and you get:
1 record(s) found (Search results: 1 - 1)
http://archives.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=search&p_perpage=20&p_product=SAEC&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_base=Nizkor+%2450%2C000&p_field_psudo-sort-0=psudo-sort&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_Source-0=Source&p_text_Source-0=Express&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&xcal_ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes&%5B+Search+%5D.x=50&%5B+Search+%5D.y=13
(This is the link I got for the return below on November 21, 2003 12:35AM CST)
(Archived locally as: SAE-N080396)
August 3, 1996 San Antonio Express-News
Internet project won't let Holocaust be forgotten
Thomas Edwards Express-News Staff Writer
"Nizkor" in Hebrew means "we will remember," but it is also a solemn promise
Holocaust researcher Kenneth McVay has taken to the Internet so that people will
never forget the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Now his task has gotten a little
easier with a $50,000 grant from the philanthropic San Antonio Area Foundation
to the Nizkor Project, an international computer web site directed by the
55-year-old McVay from his home in Vancouver Island, Canada.The Nizkor project
[View the full-text article, 526 words]
http://archives.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html
<End of search return>
Remember folks Ken Mcvay stated higher up:
http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: SAAF_NizkorWEB)
"No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio
Area Foundation..."
BUT Ken McVay's own web site content AND the San Antonio News Express show that
instead of: "No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San
Antonio Area Foundation..." we saw: "a $50,000 grant from the philanthropic San
Antonio Area Foundation to the Nizkor Project"!!!! VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!
Now I ask everyone--Do any of you think Ken McVay reported that $50,000 (plus
all the other donations he gave thanks for) to the CCRA? Who would pay tax on
money they claim they never received YET obviously did according to all the
documentation?
DOES TAX FRAUD COME TO PEOPLE'S MINDS??
The term AUDIT keeps popping up in my mind!
Attention lurkers-- these are the contacts to report Ken McVay:
Auditor - CCRA:
canadaint...@pwgsc.gc.ca, comm...@rc.gc.ca
For office phone numbers and addresses, please visit our "Contact us" page
at http://www.ccra.gc.ca/contact.
McVay lied when he said that $50,000 was donated to "the San Antonio Area
Foundation"-- that $50,000 was donated to Ken McVay and his Nizkor Project by
"the San Antonio Area Foundation"!! As a reminder Ken McVay did state these
words about liars being self evident in their lies (as quoted from higher up in
this post): "[W]hen you're living a lie, the lie has to get more
complicated-they're always contradicting themselves...so that the lie itself
becomes self-evident."
To further prove Ken McVay is a pathological liar and an obvious tax dodger here
he is mentioning the San Antonio Area Foundation as being one of his funding
sources yet remember Ken McVay is on record as stating: "Neither The Nizkor
Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money from the "San Antonio Area
Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
<start/quote>
From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
"SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
and should be mailed to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
improvements in service.
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=50n608%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <50n608$9...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
x-network: http://www.nizkor.org/
organization: The Nizkor Project
(Archived locally as: Thanks2SAAF)
You claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation has
never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but your post above contradicts your
claim with your very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund..
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial improvements
in service."
If you never received any money from the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor
Fund then why did you give thanks?
More of Ken McVay plainly telling one and all that the San Antonio Area
Foundation is his American financing source:
<start/quote>
In article <31c2fa3a...@news.annap.infi.net>,
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote, in response to my
suggestion that he actually do some research:
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perhaps can
>talk.
Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Kleinsorg. I am financed
by thousands of "just plain folks" who wish to support my
work. In Canada, they make their cheques payable to...
[...]
In the United States, they make their cheques payable to:
SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund
and mail them to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
Once again, Mr. Kleinsorg, thank you for asking. I trust this
open, public response will satisfy your query.
By the way, Mr. Kleinsorg... now that I have responded openly
and honestly to your question, perhaps you can tell us what
difference it makes who finances my work... you are still
slandering Germans, and the German military, and I fail to see
how my financing changes that.
The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
[Ftp] http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
[Europe] ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)......unlearn
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=4pvbkg%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: Nizkor Project financing and Kleinsorg's slandering Germans
Date: 1996/06/15
Message-ID: <4pvbkg$a...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
(Archived locally as: SAAFfinances)
>This should be clear even to someone as delusional as yourself.
I do believe my documented facts are irrefutable and it is you who is denying
reality and is being delusional!!
Need I say more other than liar and tax cheat Kenneth N. McVay of Nanaimo,
British Columbia should be audited and prosecuted for tax evasion upon all the
documentation which testifies against him is verified! Canada should not be
subsidizing a deadbeat liar!
Other Ken McVay funding scams exposed in these archives:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=rhao2v4fbuij94mcmi6sicj73sa4eifsns%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Nizkor LHR Fund; Just Another Self Serving FUND Like the Nizkor
Endowment and Trust Funds?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:56:49 -0600
Message-ID: <rhao2v4fbuij94mcm...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3e060868_1%40news2.uncensored-news.com&rnum=1
Subject: Is NIZKOR Running a Self Serving Endowment Fund Scam?
Message-ID: <3e060...@news2.uncensored-news.com>
Date: 22 Dec 2002 18:46:15 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=qa5trvoa3c6ella1o1j7btunqvcbjh9pt2%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG and B'nai Brith's Apparent Funding Kick Backs and Tax Scam
Message-ID: <qa5trvoa3c6ella1o...@4ax.com>
Date: 21 Nov 2003 23:56:36 GMT
B'nai Brith also funded communist David Lethbridge:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=4186tvsr4d3oiodp2nibbuvuj91rakvimb%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED! B'nai Brith Allies Itself With Communist David Lethbridge
Against Capitalism, and Christianity V2.0 R_1207
Message-ID: <4186tvsr4d3oiodp2...@4ax.com>
Date: 7 Dec 2003 12:48:39 GMT
=============================PLUS====================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=p0afnvchj52pcuh6c0dk78f9bs7ngfetac%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG Allies Itself With Communist David Lethbridge Against
America, Capitalism, and Christianity R_0928
Message-ID: <p0afnvchj52pcuh6c...@4ax.com>
Date: 29 Sep 2003 03:38:54 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=67qc8v8192tumoaivq4joitsquts3t5bs8%404ax.com&rnum=7
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Caught Lying About San Antonio
Connection! (Those Two U.S. Servers!) V2.0
Date: 30 Mar 2003 03:49:12 GMT
Message-ID: <67qc8v8192tumoaiv...@4ax.com>
Steven Mock
> helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in
> news:4007f...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
>
>> Morghus is 100% right.
>> Dr. Michael's example with "old lady" is rather unfortunate.
>> The point Morghus is making [and I do agree with him] is that
>> there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATERIAL, FORENSIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL
>> evidence and "eyewitness testimonies", [certain type of] "documents".
>>
>> "eyewitness" - can lie - and in case of biased kikes filled with
>> hatered against Germans, the eyewitness testimonies have no value.
>
> Dr. Michael,
>
> "helge", too, is obligingly teaching us yet another lesson as to why
> measuring evidence solely on the basis of one's individual subjective
> "trust" is a poor means of approaching history. Any thoughts?
Okay, you don't want to answer. Here are my observations...
Its interesting to recall that this entire discussion began, weeks ago,
with one of "helge's" Jew-hating rants, my observation that hegle was
showcasing the anti-Semitic heart of revisionism, and your objection
that there was no reason to take helge's behaviour as a reflection of
revisionism in general.
But, Dr. Michael, if your claim is that the only means by which we can
approach historical evidence is through our subjective personal
attitudes towards whom to trust, is it not entirely apropos for us
"anti-revisionists" to make observations as to what seems to be
informing that subjectivity in the case of revisionism. For example, to
point out how overwhelmingly common it is among revisionists for those
attitudes that inform their decisions as to what evidence to trust to be
based largely on a blind, visceral anti-Semitism; or, at the very least,
by a system of myths and stereotypes of Jewish conspiracy and perfidity.
Is it wrong for us to point out that revisionists, as a rule, filter
evidence through a fundamentally baseless and dangerous belief system?
Hegle's claim that "in case of biased kikes filled with hatered against
Germans, the eyewitness testimonies have no value" is basically your
approach to victim testimony seen through a fun-house mirror. Its the
same basic principle, only the rhetoric is different. What she has done
is display that what your methodology amounts to is the claim that we
should filter evidence through our existing prejudices (and if her's
happen to be simply that Jews are just biased kikes who hate Germans,
and your's happen to be that the Allies were rotters to a man anyway,
who is anyone to criticize someone else's opinion?). Now how is anyone
supposed to *learn* anything ever if they follow that advice?
Hitler wrote a line in Mein Kampf that reminds me very much of your's
and helge's approach <cue: righteous indignation>. It jumped out at me
the first time I read it as reflecting the fundamental problem with the
man, from the start. Speaking about the experiences of his younger
years in Vienna, he declared: "During this time, I formed a picture of
the world and an ideology which has become the granite foundation of my
deeds. I had only to add a little more knowledge to what I had aquired
at that time. I did not have to revise anything." Pretty frightening,
isn't it, for someone to declare that he learned everything he needed to
know about the world at age 19 and then closed himself to any
substantial revision, merely filtering whatever information he came
across through an immature world-view. Every time I see that line I
contrast in my mind it to one by a far deeper, Jewish philosopher by the
name of Robert Zimmerman, who wrote a song with the refrain, "I was so
much older then, I’m younger than that now." Which of the two do YOU
think better deserves the title "sceptic"? How's this for a quote: the
true sceptic is sceptical first of himself.
External validation is the key test because such validation can either
confirm or deny existing attitudes or beliefs. In contrast, validation
stemming solely from personal insight can only confirm, thus keeping
someone in a belief-system that may well be fundamentally out of sync
with reality.
I don't think its such a radical proposal to suggest that the entire
point about studying something is to LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOU DON'T
ALREADY KNOW. You're not going to that if you're only willing to
acknowledge what evidence already fits in with your existing world-view.
How is "helge" ever supposed to come to understand that Jews are not all
"biased kikes filled with hatered against Germans" if she filters her
reality - her decisions as to what evidence to "trust" - through the
belief that they will do anything that "suits their jewish agenda and
[parasitic/criminal] interests"?
Steven Mock
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:11:20 GMT,
><c655a8bb1cfca781...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
>> in message <9i5h00tls8p1glrs8...@4ax.com>:
>>>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:25:57 -0800, <bu9rt...@enews2.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
>>>OBC" <kmc...@nospamnizkor.org> wrote:
>>>>"Sara Salzman"
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=07qc8vguuom77pvmugliksb3dmdf8pp82r%404ax.com&rnum=6
>>>Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
>>>Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
>>No, he didn't. Because he didn't receive them.
>Not according to his own web site and according to the San Antonio Express!!
You misspelled "... to my deliberate misinterpretation of" these site,
SoB.
<snip to>
>EXHIBIT 1:
>
><start/quote>
>"What Mr. Bradbury has failed to demonstrate is that The Nizkor Project, which I
>direct, has any association whatsoever with the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
>Nizkor Fund."
>
>That is because Mr. Bradbury is not very bright.
>
> The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the United
>States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money
>from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
>
>For further information, review the file which Mr. Ellis and Mr. Bradbury
>continue to ignore:
>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
><end/quote>
Which link specifically states that:
<quote>
No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio
Area Foundation.
</quote>
and
<quote>
I have no association with either organization, and never have.
</quote>
Which part of this are you having problems with?
Again, a very specific refutation of your baseless accusation.
>Exhibit 3:
>
><start/quote>
>In article <3b80b9d6...@news.abccom.bc.ca>,
>Ken Lewis <kle...@netbbistro.com> wrote:
>
>[TubbyBlubber excised]
>
>> As the sniveling, cowardly Bradshit well knows, there is no
>> endowment fund nor a trust fund.
>
>Incorrect. The San Antonio Area Foundation maintains an endowment fund
>for any organization they support. Ten per cent of all monies donated
>go directly into an endowment fund, so that, eventually, the fund
>will fuel itself.
>
>SAAF bylaws state that the first $10,000 donated must go into the
>creation of an endowment fund maintained as a part of the trust.
>That endowment fund, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the
>Nizkor Project, nor has the Nizkor Project ever benefited from such a
>fund.
>
>It's entertaining watching BlubberBabble try to make sense of it all,
>and it's worth noting that he hasn't contacted any of the people at
>SAAF for further information, as I suggested. That suggests that, as
>always, he doesn't give a rat's ass for the truth.
>
>Duh.
>
><end/quote>
Umm, you're supposed to be proving the opposite of what these quotes
are saying, SoB...
>Exhibit 4: (Notice the public posting was made! December 30, 2002)
>
><start/quote>
>The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the
>United States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any
>money from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund" AND you are also
>on record as stating: "...The San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid
>me - or anyone else, to my knowledge... I have no connection in San Antonio,
>and neither does Nizkor. Get used to it" on June 2, 2000.
>
>http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
>
>(This is kind of fun. You keep making an ass of yourself, and I'll keep
>laughing at you.)
><end/quote>
Is it maybe the fact that both entities use the word "nizkor?" It's
not a trademarked term, you know...
>End of Kenneth McVay's (Director of The Nizkor Project) own documented words
>denying he has ever received any money of benefit from the San Antonio Area
>Foundation OR "The San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
None of which was ever in dispute.
> ON THE OTHER HAND THESE DOCUMENTS PROVE MCVAY TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR!!
>
>Here is what the San Antonio Area Foundation reported for Year 2000:
>
><start/quote>
>http://www.saafdn.org/pdf/Fin2000.pdf
>[Link active for downloading and for verification November 20, 2003.
>(I have already downloaded and archived the PDF in case it becomes
>unavailable for some reason.)]
>
>Our mission: Helping donors achieve their charitable goals
>Annual Report 2000
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>San Antonio Area Foundation
>Growing to Give, Giving to Grow
>[...]
>Page 4
>[...]
>Nizkor Fund
><end/quote>
>I could not find a report for Year 2001 BUT Year 2002 reads virtually the same
>as Year 2000 and for a fact the "Nizkor Fund" received money from the San
>Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"!!
>
>http://www.saafdn.org/pdf/AnnRpt2002.pdf
>(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: AnnRpt2002)
Yes, SAAFDN has a fund they call the Nizkor fund. It is unrelated to
the web site of the same name. This has been explained to you
before--why do you continue to lie about it?
Okay, so a newspaper article makes the same error you did in assuming
that the fact that the same name is used, means that it's the same
entity. Newspapers make mistakes. Live with it.
>Now I ask everyone--Do any of you think Ken McVay reported that $50,000 (plus
>all the other donations he gave thanks for) to the CCRA?
And once again, I answer: "No, since it was not money her ever
received."
>Who would pay tax on
>money they claim they never received YET obviously did according to all the
>documentation?
"All the documentation" being a single newspaper article with an error
in it.
> DOES TAX FRAUD COME TO PEOPLE'S MINDS??
> The term AUDIT keeps popping up in my mind!
And yet, you have whined about this to the authorities, who have
treated it with all the seriousness it deserved: a form letter.
>To further prove Ken McVay is a pathological liar and an obvious tax dodger here
>he is mentioning the San Antonio Area Foundation as being one of his funding
>sources yet remember Ken McVay is on record as stating: "Neither The Nizkor
>Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money from the "San Antonio Area
>Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
>
><start/quote>
>From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
>Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
>
>In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
>
> "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
>
>and should be mailed to:
>
> San Antonio Area Foundation
> Nizkor Fund
> P.O. Box 120366
> San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
>
>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
>improvements in service.
>
><end/quote>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=50n608%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
Ah, *here's* the problem. The two *were* once associated. No money
changed hands between the two, and that association not longer
pertains.
Now, can we assume that you will stop telling this particular lie?
>You claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation has
>never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
>with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but your post above contradicts your
>claim with your very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund..
>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial improvements
>in service."
>
>If you never received any money from the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor
>Fund then why did you give thanks?
Because the SAAFDN does good work, similar to Nizkor?
>>This should be clear even to someone as delusional as yourself.
>I do believe my documented facts are irrefutable and it is you who is denying
>reality and is being delusional!!
Your documented facts are a single newspaper article, which touches on
a relationship which no longer exists and includes at least one error
of fact.
>Need I say more other than liar and tax cheat Kenneth N. McVay of Nanaimo,
>British Columbia should be audited and prosecuted for tax evasion upon all the
>documentation which testifies against him is verified! Canada should not be
>subsidizing a deadbeat liar!
Yes, why don't you tell us all what happened when you reported this to
the appropriate authorities?
<snip the Shame of Belleville once again recycling baseless,
mindless accusations with even *less* objective support than this
one...>
helge
your "standard of external validation" ?
this is one of the best jokes you ever wrote.
were are your "standard of external validation" when you write about
Chelmno, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, etc. ?
you have been all the time behaving like a holocaust dogmatic.
>You are saying that your
> interpretation is better because it accounts for a body information, as
> opposed to Morghus's opinion which does not. I say you're right.
>
those are TWO DIFFERENT TYPES of evidence.
plus your conclusion is wrong - according to such naive understanding of
evidence a part of the human history would disappear everytime when
some-event-eyewitness-granny dies.
it is in fact very good that someone came with an example of the Titanic
tragedy and the forensic/archological evidence about Titanic.
the purpose of history, forensic science or archeology IS NOT TO PRODUCE
CHEAP SOAP OPERATIC MOVIE SCRIPTS - and that's the difference - [jewish
holocau$t but any other propaganda as well] or a Titanic movie script
needs much more than "dry" facts...
>
>>The aim of
>>the game is not to access 'historical truth' but to assess the various
>>strengths and weaknesses of various historical discourses.
>
>
> Fine. The question I'm asking is on what basis are the various
> strengths and weaknesses of historical discourses assessed. You appear
> to be agreeing with me: external validation.
>
what external validations have you used for Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor,
Treblinka, Majdanek ?
>
>>What is
>>'historical truth' anyway other than someone trying to make HIS
>>particular interpretation of events to be something more than a mere
>>interpretation.
>
>
> A laudable goal, perhaps?
>
>
>>RE. 'The trouble is this: while Morg may be entitled to his subjective
>>opinion, the Ardentinne caves massacre is not a matter of opinion. It
>>either happened or it didn't. It can't exist in an indeterminate
>>quantum state between existence and non-existence like Schroedinger's
>>cat. Either you're right or Morghus is right - you can't both be.
>>
>>OK, I'm with you 100% on that so far.
>>
>>RE. 'So recognizing that this is not a perfect world and there we will
>>never be absolutely 100% certain, the question devolves to how we can
>>best determine which of you is right. The answer lies in testing
>>which of you has the most logical and verifiable argument.'
>>
>>No, that's where we part company. We can't determine which of us is
>>right. At best we can suggest that one interpretation might be a more
>>compelling explanation of information than the other.
>
>
> Which is all I'm saying, given my caveat that in an imperfect world we
> can never be 100% certain.
Now that's not what you have been saying - you were all the time
claiming that holocau$t is a fact [100% certain].
> Now let's retreat back from the vagueries
> and discuss what makes an interpretation compelling.
>
> Personally, I don't see what's so bloody complicated. Let's say there's
> a historical problem, and I have a theory. That theory may suit my
> ideological presumptions, but if I can bring forward, say, even one
> witness to verify the theory, the charge that I am putting the theory
> forward solely for ideological reasons looses weight to that extent. A
> theory supported by only one witness may be tenuous, but it is better
> than a theory supported by nothing.
>
rubbish.
"...I can bring forward, say, even one witness to verify the theory..."
EVIDENCE != "witness"
witness testimony is much easier to forge than material evidence.
> Let's say you have a theory that my witness is lying. If your only
> support for your theory is your personal subjective opinion, you are
> wide open to the charge that the only reason you hold that opinion is
> because you simply don't want to believe what my witness says. My
> theory remains stronger than yours.
No it is not. The fact that you "have a witness" does not automatically
means that your witness is telling the truth. ONLY after the your
witness/tesstimony was investigated and evaluated as true - then you
claim that there is evidence.
> If, on the other hand, you can
> support your theory with another manner of verification, then we have
> something to dispute.
>
>
>>Look, suppose I
>>were to produce additional information to show that my old lady (a)
>>was a lifelong dedicated nationalist, (b) was in a position to know
>>exactly what happened in those caves, and (c) was unlikely to lie.
>>Morghus's theory as stated wouldn't be able to account for her saying
>>that the massacre occurred, so my theory has better explanatory power.
>>But does that prove that I'm right as a matter of fact? That I'm
>>objectively right? That I've discerned historical truth? Nope. Morghus
>>could go away and then come back with additional information to show
>>that my little old lady had spent her life working under cover for the
>>CIA. At that point my interpretation would be stuffed -- I'd have to
>>change it.
>
>
> Fine, but the point is the standard you are still using is external
> validation, which vindicates my argument. Morghus still has to come
> back with *information* in order to seriously challenge you. Not just
> possibilities stemming from "trust", which is all he has produced thus
> far.
>
Morghus' position is the one of an independent observer - he is not
relying on some "personal accounts" - the point is that Dr.Michael
knows and trust that granny - however 99.99% of people [including you,
Morghus and me do not know the granny ] have to look only at the
available evidence and facts.
> Look at it this way. Let's say you were to produce additional
> information that your old lady (a) was a lifelong dedicated nationalist,
> (b) was in a position to know exactly what happened in those caves, and
> (c) was unlikely to lie, and Morghus responded by declaring that he
> simply didn't trust your information
WELL there (a), (b), (c) - are NOT IN ANY WAY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE
massacre. proving any of those (a), (b), (c) points does not mean/equal
proving the massacre.
BTW. isn't it interesting that Mr.Mock would preffer to focus on
(a), (b), (c) INSTEAD OF CONFRONTING the granny's testimony with the
forensic/archeological evidance ?
:)
> on the speculation that it could be
> that the little old lady had spent her life working under cover for the
> CIA, based on his belief that that's just the sort of thing the CIA
> would do and we can't trust them. By your methodology, you would have
> to shrug your shoulders and say his opinion as to what evidence to trust
> is no less valid than your's. By mine, I'd say prove it.
sure. you haven't prove so far anything - but others have to prove that
your crap is not true - welcome to the holocau$t :)
Dr.Munch "has issued 100s [or 1000s?] of false death certificates in
Auschwitz" - according to the holocau$t fable.
HOW MANY OF THOSE 100s [or 1000s?] Dr.Munch "issued" WERE FOUND AND ARE
AVAILABLE FOR INVESTIGATION ?
>
>>She had never actually participated in any
>>action for which she could be put on trial.
>
>
> Apparently, the courts thought the same of Munch, which was why they
> acquitted him (your unverified speculations as to other causes
> notwithstanding).
>
>
>>She was receiving no payment or other inducement to say what she said.
>
>
> Like Munch.
>
Munch was a defendant, he was INTERESTED to save his own ass - 20-30 of
his collegues were slaughtered. Munch DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE PIECE OF
EVIDENCE.
>
>>She was in a position to have know what was going on.
>
>
> Very much like Munch.
>
>
>>However, Morghus could
>>contest each one of those assertions and I'd have a devil of a job to
>>prove any of them to him. Therefore it is rational for me to accept
>>and him to reject. It would be equally rational for me to reject it if
>>I were in his position.
>
>
> Which makes it pretty clear, then, that your's and Morghus' methodology
> is flawed, in that it causes you to reject and discard otherwise
> valuable evidence.
"valuable evidence" ?
valuable type of evidence to you Mock as you know very well that
your holocau$t religion is based on this type of "evidence" :)
Morghus
> John Morris wrote:
> >
> <quote>
> Lidice became a standard in Western propaganda after the Jew
> Viktor Fischl persuaded the Crown Film Unit, the unit charged with
> making British propaganda films, to shoot a phony film about Lidice
> using the Welsh village of Cwmgiedd because it looked like a Czech
> village.
> </quote>
>
> no comments Mr. Morris ?
> who is running away ?
>
Don't encourage them, Helge. Holocaust hucksters have an endless
supply of prepared fabrications to go along with the stuff they make
up as they go along. Challenging the Holocaust is like shooting holes
in a pile of manure. The Holohucksters simply haul in more manure to
fill up the holes. The smell doesn't bother them at all.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <4009140b$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com> in alt.revisionism, on 17
Jan 2004 10:53:00 GMT, helge <he...@helge.net> wrote:
> John Morris wrote:
> <quote>
> Lidice became a standard in Western propaganda after the Jew
> Viktor Fischl persuaded the Crown Film Unit, the unit charged with
> making British propaganda films, to shoot a phony film about Lidice
> using the Welsh village of Cwmgiedd because it looked like a Czech
> village.
> </quote>
> no comments Mr. Morris ?
No. How about a question, though? Do you think the extistence of a
propaganda film alters the historical reality of the Lidice massacre?
If so, how?
> who is running away ?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQAmG3jfbIykA6SysEQLgmQCfUgGtJ0bvp09ZnjtAgp/DMPXhl0oAoMXl
Ao42H408chjp/7/0O52qn3kz
=gsTE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joebruno
Fatboy can't accept the fact that there is more than one Nizkor. It
took me about 2 seconds to look it up.
Joebruno
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:11:20 GMT,
> <c655a8bb1cfca781...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>
There is more than one Nizkor, idiot. I already posted this:
Advanced Search | Main | HelpWebImagesAudio/VideoShoppingNewsIn Your
AreaPeople
Matching Sites: Page 1 of 2601
What is a Matching Site?
Holocaust Educational Resource (Nizkor) - ... auschwitz. Search
Nizkor · Site Map · Our Latest · Book Store & Bibliographies.
Holocaust ... auschwitz Nizkor Awards · Link to Nizkor. Organizations
...
http://www.nizkor.org/
Fallacies - ... Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named
Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his
work to appear on the Nizkor site, as ...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
[More results from www.nizkor.org]
Equipo Nizkor - Equipo Nizkor trabaja por los derechos humanos y
contra la impunidad en América Latina y el mundo. Derechos HR |
Proyecto Desaparecidos | USA Watch | Juicios. ...
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/
Colombia - Derechos Humanos - Informes - Sin marcos | Con marcos
Observaciones sobre la legalidad del estado de excepción. Oficina en
Colombia del Alto Comisionado de la ONU para los DH. ...
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/colombia/
[More results from www.derechos.org]
The Nizkor Project - Site dedicated to the victims of the holocaust.
Contains lavish information on the concentration camps, the people
involved in the ...
http://mitglied.lycos.de/nethistgroup/Page58.html
Nizkor Project holocaust web crawler - Nizkor Project holocaust web
crawler. From: kmc...@nizkor.org (Ken McVay) Subject: Holocaust search
capacity for you Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:04:36 -0500 (EST) ...
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/nizkor-search.html
Shofar FTP Archives: orgs/international/nizkor/search-code-snippet -
Shofar FTP Archive File:
orgs/international/nizkor/search-code-snippet. ... Query: Scope: Other
Holocaust Sites. Query Options: ...
http://veritas.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/international/nizkor/search-code-snippet
Shoah Project Ohne Zensur ... Nizkor - Neonazis Nizkor - Wir werden
erinnern! Von Lorenz Lorenz-Meyer Interview mit Ken McVay und Jamie
McCarthy. ... Nizkor sei, so heißt es, "permanent im Aufbau". ...
http://www.shoahproject.org/nocensor/nizkor/shnizkorart.htm
Equipo Nizkor - Auto de Procesamiento a Pinochet - EQUIPO NIZKOR.
Información. DERECHOS. Auto de Procesamiento a Pinochet.
Procedimiento: Sumario Terrorismo y Genocidio. "OPERATIVO CONDOR ...
http://www.derechos.net/doc/pino/proceso.html
Equipo Nizkor/Derechos Response to MEP Elena Paciotti - ... retener
la correspondencia electrónica. Atte,. Gregorio Dionis Director del
Equipo Nizkor y miembro directivo de Derechos Human Rights.
http://www.gilc.org/derechos_response.html
Page: 1 2 3 next >> = Open in a new browser window.
Browse by Category:
Society > Philosophy > Philosophy of Logic > Informal Logic
Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Hate > Watch
Groups
Regional > Europe > Poland > Voivodships > Malopolska
Regional > Europe > Poland > Society and Culture > History > World War
II > Concentration and Death Camps
Regional > Europe > Poland > Voivodships > Malopolska > Oswiecim >
Auschwitz-Birkenau
Link to Us | How to Add Your Site | Advertise with Us
Questions? Comments? Send us feedback. Legal Notices | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2003 America Online, Inc. All rights reserved.
Gord McFee
helge <he...@helge.net> wrote:
> Steven Mock wrote:
> > helge <he...@helge.net> wrote in news:4007f...@news6.uncensored-news.com:
> >
> >
> >>Morghus is 100% right.
> >>Dr. Michael's example with "old lady" is rather unfortunate.
> >>The point Morghus is making [and I do agree with him] is that
> >>there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATERIAL, FORENSIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL
> >>evidence and "eyewitness testimonies", [certain type of] "documents".
> >>
> >>"eyewitness" - can lie - and in case of biased kikes filled with hatered
> >>against Germans, the eyewitness testimonies have no value.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Michael,
> >
> > "helge", too, is obligingly teaching us yet another lesson as to why
> > measuring evidence solely on the basis of one's individual subjective
> > "trust" is a poor means of approaching history. Any thoughts?
> >
> > Steven Mock
>
> look Mr.Mock I m Germanic [of an Austrian/Dutch/German descent] - 190cm
> tall, blue eyes, blond hair - what's your opinion if I cut my hair,
> shave and put on a Wehrmacht or a SS uniform - showing a photo of me to
> jews [who claim to be holocau$t survivors] - how many of them will
> "identify/recognize" me as "the beast" who killed their family, their
> friends, etc. ?
>
> and how many of them will say - hmm sorry, but I've never seen this guy ?
>
> [to clarify - I was born long after the WWII]
>
> the point I m trying to make is that those "holcoau$t survivors" would
> slaughter me - with their false testimonies only BECAUSE I M GERMANIC -
> and because it suits their jewish agenda and [parasitic/criminal] interests.
I am sorry to hear that anti-German sentiment you have encountered has
twisted you so badly.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
08:13:49 GMT, John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <73fedc95.04011...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 15 Jan 2004 09:31:51 -0800,
> mor...@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote:
>
> > david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in message
> > news:<b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com>... <snip>
>
> > > I have long argued that a highly sceptical attitude towards
> > > 'respectable' discourse about World War II is justified given the
> > > powerful vested interests involved, the utter ruthlessness of the
> > > victors, the high stakes, and the opportunities and means for
> > > jiggery pokery -- and, indeed, actual cases of very high-level
> > > jiggery pokery. Indeed, I have argued that historians are far too
> > > accepting of 'respectable' World War II discourse.
>
> > > But does this mean revisionists have to REJECT all 'respectable'
> > > claims about World War II, as Steven Mock seems to me to have
> > > suggested?
>
> > > I have already indicated various sorts of evidence that would
> > > seem compelling to ME. I cited the case of an elderly lady from
> > > Cape Town who was no great fan of the Allies but who privately
> > > admitted, with some unhappiness, that the Ardeatine Caves
> > > massacre had indeed taken place. She had no reason to lie. She
> > > made the comments in private. She was no fan of the Establishment
> > > -- quite the contrary. She had all her wits about her. She had
> > > never been tried or threatened with trial for anything. She was
> > > just a private citizen with interesting connections who was 'in
> > > the know'.
>
> > Hell, if you are persuaded by the casual conversation of some
> > little old lady, I am surprised you question any part of the
> > Holocaust. Why does her statement carry more weight than all those
> > "confessions" and all those "eyewitness" reports?
>
> > The story of the massacre at the Ardeatine caves, just like the
> > story of the destruction of Lidice, could well be just more
> > anti-German propaganda now being passed off as history.
>
> Then in your view, Goebbels address to the nation on Radio Berlin
> announcing the Lidice massacre must be just more German-hating
> propaganda.
>
> How did anyone so ignorant and stupid as you develop language skills?
He didn't.
Morghus
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.04011...@posting.google.com:
>
>
>
>
> > contest each one of those assertions and I'd have a devil of a job to
> > prove any of them to him. Therefore it is rational for me to accept
> > and him to reject. It would be equally rational for me to reject it if
> > I were in his position.
>
> Which makes it pretty clear, then, that your's and Morghus' methodology
> is flawed, in that it causes you to reject and discard otherwise
> valuable evidence.
My methodology is not flawed at all. The issue is whether some
event happened at a certain time in a certain place. If I produce a
witness who swore he saw a person levitate and hover two feet above
the ground for a couple of minutes (there are a number of such
testimonies), would you state that everyone must accept the story as
true until someone can prove otherwise? If you cannot produce another
witness who was there to refute the statement, would you retain the
story as "valuable evidence?" Would require some skeptic to provide
"external validation" in order to reject the tale? That's silly
science.
If you are convinced that some story should be taken as true
because a person said it, and you cannot think of a rational reason
why that person would lie, then I suggest you lock yourself up for
your own safety. People lie. They often lie for no good reason, at
least not one that anyone can readily ascertain. People lie to gain
an advantage, to avoid an inconvenience, to save money, to avoid a
debt, to punish an enemy, to feel important, to aggrandize themselves,
to demean an opponent, and any of a myriad of personal reasons mostly
known only to themselves.
But the most infuriating reason, and probably the one most often
motivating the liar, is the simple desire to manipulate the listener
into believing something that isn't true. Storytelling is an ancient
art predating the written word by thousands of years.
Even more infuriating is the group lie. Almost every gathering of
a social group has some clique that enjoy foisting off some lie on the
others. It makes them feel part of the group, superior to the others
who are being fooled by the lie. Most of the time, the activity is
harmless--but sometimes not so harmless.
Then, of course, you have the believers who join the liars to
spread the lie. They consider themselves somewhat superior because
they "know" something others don't. They feel important because they
have information, even though they don't know the information if
false. Some of them even convince themselves that they have personal
knowledge of the truth of it all. Of course, they have no reason to
lie so their information is considered reliable. Nevertheless, it's
still a lie, even though the person relating the lie doesn't know it.
Many people lie without knowing it. Human memory is a fragile
thing. Every test of human observation and recognition comes up with
the same results. Out of a group of people who see an event, or group
of events, almost every one will have a different story. The
variations range from slight to complete opposites. Anyone who
accepts the truth of an event based entirely on human testimony is on
shaky ground.
Recent studies have established the memory can be implanted.
People can relate incredible details of events that never happened,
all the time believing they saw it with their own eyes. The
phenomenon is especially prevalent among people who have experienced
some traumatic event. If you want to know what really happened in
some terrible tragedy, you had better have more to work with than the
word of the victims.
People lie. And people believe. And people imagine. The bigger the
lie, the more people will remember it. The more widespread the lie,
the more people will spread it. First thing you know, you have a
"confluence" of statements of people who are all spreading the same
basic lie with bewildering variations. Then you have "The Holocaust."
Patrick Keenan
> I do believe my documented facts are irrefutable and it is you who is
denying
> reality and is being delusional!!
Your "facts" are quite refutable, and it's been done a number of times.
> Need I say more other than liar and tax cheat Kenneth N. McVay of Nanaimo,
> British Columbia should be audited and prosecuted for tax evasion upon all
the
> documentation which testifies against him is verified! Canada should not
be
> subsidizing a deadbeat liar!
Yes, you do need to say more. You need to apologise for your false claims,
smears, personal attacks, and allegations.
Hope this helps.
-pk
Ward Cleaver
<d5c73a411a9c7bd2...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
> in message <a3bi00h9bg878i4dt...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:11:20 GMT,
>><c655a8bb1cfca781...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>
>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>> someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
>>> in message <9i5h00tls8p1glrs8...@4ax.com>:
>
>>>>On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:25:57 -0800, <bu9rt...@enews2.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
>>>>OBC" <kmc...@nospamnizkor.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>"Sara Salzman"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=07qc8vguuom77pvmugliksb3dmdf8pp82r%404ax.com&rnum=6
Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
>>>No, he didn't. Because he didn't receive them.
>
>>Not according to his own web site and according to the San Antonio Express!!
>
>You misspelled "... to my deliberate misinterpretation of" these site,
>SoB.
You are a liar! What is showed was actual content and in full context!
> <snip to>
>
>>EXHIBIT 1:
>>
>><start/quote>
>>"What Mr. Bradbury has failed to demonstrate is that The Nizkor Project, which I
>>direct, has any association whatsoever with the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
>>Nizkor Fund."
>>
>>That is because Mr. Bradbury is not very bright.
>>
>> The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the United
>>States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money
>>from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
>>
>>For further information, review the file which Mr. Ellis and Mr. Bradbury
>>continue to ignore:
>>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
>><end/quote>
>
>Which link specifically states that:
>
> <quote>
>
>No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio
>Area Foundation.
>
> </quote>
Contradicted with:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
(Link November 20, 2003 and no disclaimers are made!! Archived locally as:
11-20-2003SAAF2NIZKOR)
Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
San Antonio Express-News
August 3, 1996
Page 10B
"Internet project won't let Holocaust be forgotten"
By Thomas Edwards
Express-News Staff Writer
"Nizkor" in Hebrew means "we will remember," but it is also a
solemn promise Holocaust researcher Kenneth McVay has taken to
the Internet so that people will never forget the atrocities of
Nazi Germany.
Now his task has gotten a little easier with a $50,000 grant from
the philanthropic San Antonio Area Foundation to the Nizkor
Project, an international computer web site directed by the 55-
year-old McVay from his home in Vancouver Island, Canada...
>and
>
> <quote>
>
>I have no association with either organization, and never have.
Contradicted with:
<start/quote>
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/victims/numbers.killed
(Archived locally as: NizkorUSA2)
Shofar FTP Archive File: camps/auschwitz/victims/numbers.killed
[...]
--
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/
Anonymous ftp: http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
And be sure to check out:
http://www1.us.nizkor.org/~fatbroad
<end/quote>
AND
<start/quote>
From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
"SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
and should be mailed to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
improvements in service.
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <50n608$9...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
x-network: http://www.nizkor.org/
organization: The Nizkor Project
(Archived locally as: Thanks2SAAF)
AND
<start/quote>
..The Nizkor Project is not only a tool to fight bigotry, it has
also "make an impact in terms of Holocaust education," McVay said.
Some of the new material he will add to the web site -- which
will have sound and movement -- includes speeches by Nazi
statesmen advocating genocide, 68 volumes of military
documentation from the Nuremburg war crimes tribunals and
material from the National Archives in Washington.
Some of the new material is being donated by San Antonio resident
Harry Mazal, who is the director of the Nizkor Project in the
United States. Mazal also has one of the world's largest private
collections of Holocaust material...
<end/quote>
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
(Link November 20, 2003 and no disclaimers are made!! Archived locally as:
11-20-2003SAAF2NIZKOR)
AND
<start/quote>
My friend and colleague, Mr. McVay suggests that I "interact" with Mr.
Zundel...
Harry W. Mazal OBE
Nizkor (USA) An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Over 1000 Megs of data: http://www.nizkor.org
Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org (Under construction - permanently!)
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=33382a3d.653997048%40news.txdirect.net&rnum=2
From: hma...@txdirect.net (Harry W. Mazal OBE)
Subject: Re: The New, "Interactive" Ernst Zundel
Date: 1997/03/25
Message-ID: <33382a3d....@news.txdirect.net>
(Archived locally as: Mazal2Nizkor)
Yet Ken McVay stated (as shown higher up): "The computers are in use to this
day, confronting and refuting Holocaust denial, but I have nothing to do with
their operation, maintanence or development. You can verify their existence by
visiting http://www.holocaust-history.org and http://thhp.org.
I have no association with either organization, and never have. Should
you have further questions, I suggest that you contact... Harry W. Mazal, OBE.."
CARE TO COUNT ALL THE LIEWS I HAVE EXPOSED MCVAY IN NOW ROGER?
> </quote>
>
>Which part of this are you having problems with?
The parts you keep deleting!
Quit deleting key parts of my post!
>>Exhibit 3:
>>
>><start/quote>
>>In article <3b80b9d6...@news.abccom.bc.ca>,
>>Ken Lewis <kle...@netbbistro.com> wrote:
>>
>>[TubbyBlubber excised]
>>
>>> As the sniveling, cowardly Bradshit well knows, there is no
>>> endowment fund nor a trust fund.
>>
>>Incorrect. The San Antonio Area Foundation maintains an endowment fund
>>for any organization they support. Ten per cent of all monies donated
>>go directly into an endowment fund, so that, eventually, the fund
>>will fuel itself.
>>
>>SAAF bylaws state that the first $10,000 donated must go into the
>>creation of an endowment fund maintained as a part of the trust.
>>That endowment fund, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the
>>Nizkor Project, nor has the Nizkor Project ever benefited from such a
>>fund.
>>
>>It's entertaining watching BlubberBabble try to make sense of it all,
>>and it's worth noting that he hasn't contacted any of the people at
>>SAAF for further information, as I suggested. That suggests that, as
>>always, he doesn't give a rat's ass for the truth.
>>
>>Duh.
>>
>><end/quote>
>
>Umm, you're supposed to be proving the opposite of what these quotes
>are saying, SoB...
If you would leave what I posted intact it is rather self explanatory you
dullard and defender of liars!
What I posted intact and to your shame:
<START>
>>Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
>>Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
>
>No, he didn't. Because he didn't receive them.
Not according to his own web site and according to the San Antonio Express!!
From my latest archive cataloging The Nizkor Project of Nanaimo, British
Columbia Canada directed by Kenneth N. McVay:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=f7murv0qqpmcfa2ldce7epo9gtg5am23rl%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED The Nizkor Project Director is Lying About Funds He Has NOT
Reported to CCRA!! SAAF Report for 2002 Is Further Proof! R_1122
Message-ID: <f7murv0qqpmcfa2ld...@4ax.com>
Date: 22 Nov 2003 13:01:32 GMT
AKA "Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
Selected excerpts:
The Nizkor Project -- Ken McVay Director
P.O. Box 244, Station A
Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K9 Canada
1-250-616-9431
Prologue:
"[W]hen you're living a lie, the lie has to get more complicated-they're always
contradicting themselves...so that the lie itself becomes self-evident."
-- Ken McVay, director of the Nizkor Project
http://www.peacemagazine.org/fulltext/all-vol13no2.html
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: peacenik13_2)
My terse reply to Ken McVay's statement above: "You prove your lies are self
evident with your own words you tax dodger con-man liar!"
Ken McVay first denies receiving money from "San Antonio Area Foundation -
Nizkor Fund." [documented and archived locally (in case the web pages get
pulled) and all URLs are given by me for verification purposes]
EXHIBIT 1:
<start/quote>
"What Mr. Bradbury has failed to demonstrate is that The Nizkor Project, which I
direct, has any association whatsoever with the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
Nizkor Fund."
That is because Mr. Bradbury is not very bright.
The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the United
States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money
from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
For further information, review the file which Mr. Ellis and Mr. Bradbury
continue to ignore:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=9334m8%241nm1%241%40news.tht.net&rnum=3
From: kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth McVay, OBC)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: STILL Waiting for Donnie..... (Or "Bradbury: Wrong Again")
Date: 5 Jan 2001 00:32:08 GMT
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Message-ID: <9334m8$1nm1$1...@news.tht.net>
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: McVayEXHIBIT1)
<start/quote>
<end/quote>
Exhibit 3:
<start/quote>
In article <3b80b9d6...@news.abccom.bc.ca>,
Ken Lewis <kle...@netbbistro.com> wrote:
[TubbyBlubber excised]
> As the sniveling, cowardly Bradshit well knows, there is no
> endowment fund nor a trust fund.
Incorrect. The San Antonio Area Foundation maintains an endowment fund
for any organization they support. Ten per cent of all monies donated
go directly into an endowment fund, so that, eventually, the fund
will fuel itself.
SAAF bylaws state that the first $10,000 donated must go into the
creation of an endowment fund maintained as a part of the trust.
That endowment fund, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the
Nizkor Project, nor has the Nizkor Project ever benefited from such a
fund.
It's entertaining watching BlubberBabble try to make sense of it all,
and it's worth noting that he hasn't contacted any of the people at
SAAF for further information, as I suggested. That suggests that, as
always, he doesn't give a rat's ass for the truth.
Duh.
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%20&as_umsgid=9l2g72%2423od%2...@news.tht.net&num=20&hl=en
From: kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth McVay, OBC)
Subject: BabbleTubby's Bullshit
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 05:35:30 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The Nizkor Project, http://www.nizkor.org/
Message-ID: <9l2g72$23od$1...@news.tht.net>
Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: McVayEXHIBIT3)
Exhibit 4: (Notice the public posting was made! December 30, 2002)
<start/quote>
The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the
United States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any
money from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund" AND you are also
on record as stating: "...The San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid
me - or anyone else, to my knowledge... I have no connection in San Antonio,
and neither does Nizkor. Get used to it" on June 2, 2000.
http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
(This is kind of fun. You keep making an ass of yourself, and I'll keep
laughing at you.)
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=xO%25P9.1985%24C43.1...@news.nnrp.ca&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Re: What did Kenny McVay do with money he claims he never got?
Reply-To: kmc...@nizkor.org
Organization: The Nizkor Project, http://www.nizkor.org/
Message-ID: <xO%P9.1985$C43.13...@news.nnrp.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:57:49 GMT
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally McVay-12-30-2002DENIAL)
End of Kenneth McVay's (Director of The Nizkor Project) own documented words
denying he has ever received any money of benefit from the San Antonio Area
Foundation OR "The San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ON THE OTHER HAND THESE DOCUMENTS PROVE MCVAY TO BE AN OUTRIGHT LIAR!!
Here is what the San Antonio Area Foundation reported for Year 2000:
<start/quote>
http://www.saafdn.org/pdf/Fin2000.pdf
[Link active for downloading and for verification November 20, 2003.
(I have already downloaded and archived the PDF in case it becomes
unavailable for some reason.)]
Our mission: Helping donors achieve their charitable goals
Annual Report 2000
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
San Antonio Area Foundation
Growing to Give, Giving to Grow
Page 3
[...]
[...]
[...]
<end/quote>
I could not find a report for Year 2001 BUT Year 2002 reads virtually the same
as Year 2000 and for a fact the "Nizkor Fund" received money from the San
Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"!!
http://www.saafdn.org/pdf/AnnRpt2002.pdf
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: AnnRpt2002)
The Nizkor Fund is listed again as being a recipient for Year 2002 yet Ken McVay
denies receiving ANY money from the San Antonio Area Foundation in a public
posting dated December 30, 2002!! I guess the San Antonio Area Foundation lies
about who it disburses funding to!!
Here is Ken McVay's very own Nizkor web site showing Ken McVay was a recipient
Here is a link to the original news source and its archive regarding the above
article which proves Ken McVay lied when he has plainly stated: "No one ever
gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio Area Foundation... The
San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid me - or anyone else, to my knowledge.
" (Quoted and source shown higher up in this post.)
http://archives.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=keyword&p_theme=SAEC&p_product=SAEC
At the link above enter "Nizkor $50,000" into the search field, and
select these options:
Return: Best Matches First
Limit Search by Source Name: San Antonio Express-News
Limit Search by Date:
Activate search and you get:
1 record(s) found (Search results: 1 - 1)
http://archives.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=search&p_perpage=20&p_product=SAEC&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_base=Nizkor+%2450%2C000&p_field_psudo-sort-0=psudo-sort&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_Source-0=Source&p_text_Source-0=Express&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&xcal_ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes&%5B+Search+%5D.x=50&%5B+Search+%5D.y=13
(This is the link I got for the return below on November 21, 2003 12:35AM CST)
(Archived locally as: SAE-N080396)
August 3, 1996 San Antonio Express-News
Internet project won't let Holocaust be forgotten
Thomas Edwards Express-News Staff Writer
"Nizkor" in Hebrew means "we will remember," but it is also a solemn promise
Holocaust researcher Kenneth McVay has taken to the Internet so that people will
never forget the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Now his task has gotten a little
easier with a $50,000 grant from the philanthropic San Antonio Area Foundation
to the Nizkor Project, an international computer web site directed by the
55-year-old McVay from his home in Vancouver Island, Canada.The Nizkor project
[View the full-text article, 526 words]
http://archives.newsbank.com/nojavascript.html
<End of search return>
Remember folks Ken Mcvay stated higher up:
http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
(Link active November 20, 2003. Archived locally as: SAAF_NizkorWEB)
"No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio
Area Foundation..."
BUT Ken McVay's own web site content AND the San Antonio News Express show that
instead of: "No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San
Antonio Area Foundation..." we saw: "a $50,000 grant from the philanthropic San
Antonio Area Foundation to the Nizkor Project"!!!! VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!
Now I ask everyone--Do any of you think Ken McVay reported that $50,000 (plus
all the other donations he gave thanks for) to the CCRA? Who would pay tax on
money they claim they never received YET obviously did according to all the
documentation?
DOES TAX FRAUD COME TO PEOPLE'S MINDS??
The term AUDIT keeps popping up in my mind!
Attention lurkers-- these are the contacts to report Ken McVay:
Auditor - CCRA:
canadaint...@pwgsc.gc.ca, comm...@rc.gc.ca
For office phone numbers and addresses, please visit our "Contact us" page
at http://www.ccra.gc.ca/contact.
McVay lied when he said that $50,000 was donated to "the San Antonio Area
Foundation"-- that $50,000 was donated to Ken McVay and his Nizkor Project by
"the San Antonio Area Foundation"!! As a reminder Ken McVay did state these
words about liars being self evident in their lies (as quoted from higher up in
this post): "[W]hen you're living a lie, the lie has to get more
complicated-they're always contradicting themselves...so that the lie itself
becomes self-evident."
To further prove Ken McVay is a pathological liar and an obvious tax dodger here
he is mentioning the San Antonio Area Foundation as being one of his funding
sources yet remember Ken McVay is on record as stating: "Neither The Nizkor
Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money from the "San Antonio Area
Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
<start/quote>
From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
"SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
and should be mailed to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
improvements in service.
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <50n608$9...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
x-network: http://www.nizkor.org/
organization: The Nizkor Project
(Archived locally as: Thanks2SAAF)
You claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation has
never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but your post above contradicts your
claim with your very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund..
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial improvements
in service."
If you never received any money from the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor
Fund then why did you give thanks?
More of Ken McVay plainly telling one and all that the San Antonio Area
Foundation is his American financing source:
<start/quote>
In article <31c2fa3a...@news.annap.infi.net>,
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote, in response to my
suggestion that he actually do some research:
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perhaps can
>talk.
Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Kleinsorg. I am financed
by thousands of "just plain folks" who wish to support my
work. In Canada, they make their cheques payable to...
[...]
In the United States, they make their cheques payable to:
SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund
and mail them to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
Once again, Mr. Kleinsorg, thank you for asking. I trust this
open, public response will satisfy your query.
By the way, Mr. Kleinsorg... now that I have responded openly
and honestly to your question, perhaps you can tell us what
difference it makes who finances my work... you are still
slandering Germans, and the German military, and I fail to see
how my financing changes that.
The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
[Ftp] http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
[Europe] ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)......unlearn
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=4pvbkg%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: Nizkor Project financing and Kleinsorg's slandering Germans
Date: 1996/06/15
Message-ID: <4pvbkg$a...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
(Archived locally as: SAAFfinances)
<STOP>
>>Exhibit 4: (Notice the public posting was made! December 30, 2002)
>>
>><start/quote>
>>The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the
>>United States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any
>>money from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund" AND you are also
>>on record as stating: "...The San Antonio Area Foundation has never paid
>>me - or anyone else, to my knowledge... I have no connection in San Antonio,
>>and neither does Nizkor. Get used to it" on June 2, 2000.
>>
>>http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
>>
>>(This is kind of fun. You keep making an ass of yourself, and I'll keep
>>laughing at you.)
>><end/quote>
>
>Is it maybe the fact that both entities use the word "nizkor?" It's
>not a trademarked term, you know...
Read my archive you oaf!
I am not lying and you keep trying to divert from the truth! That Nizkor Fund is
for McVay and m6y archive proved it!
Once again for you seeing how you are stupid:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
(Link November 20, 2003 and no disclaimers are made!! Archived locally as:
11-20-2003SAAF2NIZKOR)
Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
San Antonio Express-News
August 3, 1996
Page 10B
"Internet project won't let Holocaust be forgotten"
By Thomas Edwards
Express-News Staff Writer
"Nizkor" in Hebrew means "we will remember," but it is also a
solemn promise Holocaust researcher Kenneth McVay has taken to
the Internet so that people will never forget the atrocities of
Nazi Germany.
Now his task has gotten a little easier with a $50,000 grant from
the philanthropic San Antonio Area Foundation to the Nizkor
Project, an international computer web site directed by the 55-
year-old McVay from his home in Vancouver Island, Canada... <END>
AND
<start/quote>
From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
"SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
and should be mailed to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
improvements in service.
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <50n608$9...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
x-network: http://www.nizkor.org/
organization: The Nizkor Project
(Archived locally as: Thanks2SAAF)
Yet Ken McVay claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation
has never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but McVay's post above contradicts his
claim with McVay's very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor
Fund.. The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
improvements in service."
SO WHICH IS IT ROGER!?!?
So why did McVay post it at his own web site without any disclaimers to that
effect? BTW I have archived that web page and had other people do so and I have
JPEG snap shots of it should the tax cheat decide to add disclaimers now!
Why did McVay make numerous posts showing the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
Nizkor Fund" being a source of donations and why did he give thanks for
donations through the same fund if he had never received any which he is now
trying to foist as reality!?
Have you any idea what would be the back interest and penalties on over $50,000
that tax dodger hasn't reported should people demand the CCRA to do its duty?
BTW here is Laura Finsten (a Nizkor supporter) in her own words:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=Pine.SOL.3.96.97060...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: FinstenSAAF)
From: Laura Finsten <fin...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Re: Yet another Nazional Appliance Illiteracy Alert!
Date: 1997/06/08
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.97060...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Michael wrote:
> All your b s aside above (as though Bnai Brith only took checks and
> gave them to Nizkor; all innocent and stuff. Ask any professional who
> deals with not-for-profits about the ease of shuffling funds.)
I have no idea how common such "shuffling [of] funds" may be. But the key
issue here is whether you have any evidence at all to support your much
repeatedly but utterly empty claim that this is the case with the
arrangement between Nizkor and B'nai Brith? I don't see any of you trying
to smear the San Antonio Area Foundation which, ironically, has probably
provided more funding for the project since it has a far larger pool of
donors to draw upon....
<end/quote>
Laura Finsten stated: "the San Antonio Area Foundation which, ironically, has
probably provided more funding for the project since it has a far larger pool of
donors to draw upon" concerning McVay's Nizkor Project but McVay still claims:
"The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the
United States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received
any money from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund." The San Antonio
Area Foundation has never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has
any connection with the San Antonio Area Foundation." which current lies are
also contradicted with:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=5m1sqg%24rse%2...@eclipse.txdirect.net&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: McVayUmbrella)
From: Ken McVay (kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org)
Subject: Re: Nizkor under B'nai B'rith auspices?!
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <5m1sqg$rse$1...@eclipse.txdirect.net>
Date: 1997/05/22
In article <5m11au$4...@access1.digex.net>, mst...@access.digex.net wrote:
> As you could tell from the Nizkor web page, Nizkor's funding in Canada
>is now coordinated through the Zikaron Tolerance and Remembrance Society,
>an independent organization. In the United States, it is channeled
>through the Nizkor Fund of the San Antonio Area Foundation, which is a San
>Antonio umbrella organization something like the United Way.
Zikaron remains a supporter of the Nizkor Project, but Canadian
_national_ funding is now managed by the B'nai Brith Foundation, in
Toronto. B'nai Brith Foundation does not, however, support Nizkor
financially - it simply receives donations from the public, issues
receipts if the donations exceed $10, and disperses donated funds as
required.
In short, the B'nai Brith Foundation operates exactly as does the San
Antonio Area Foundation - as an umbrella organization....
<end/quote>
Is McVay still going to insist he never "received any money from the
"San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund" in all that time?
WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY FOR THE TAX DODGER NOW ROGER???
>>Now I ask everyone--Do any of you think Ken McVay reported that $50,000 (plus
>>all the other donations he gave thanks for) to the CCRA?
>
>And once again, I answer: "No, since it was not money her ever
>received."
Not according to the irrefutable evidence I offered above! IOW your hero didn't
pay tax on it seeing how he is now trying to claim he never received one penny
from that fund though his numerous posts prove otherwise! Does the term AUDIT
come to mind Roger?
>>Who would pay tax on
>>money they claim they never received YET obviously did according to all the
>>documentation?
>
>"All the documentation" being a single newspaper article with an error
>in it.
I offered far more evidence than just that one news paper article you are now
implying has an error in it! Care to prove that article is in error? See how
foolish you look!?
>> DOES TAX FRAUD COME TO PEOPLE'S MINDS??
>> The term AUDIT keeps popping up in my mind!
>
>And yet, you have whined about this to the authorities, who have
>treated it with all the seriousness it deserved: a form letter.
They are socialists who stick by their man and it would be too embarrassing for
the people who awarded a tax cheat the Order of British Columbia to have to
admit their recipient lies about his funding.
>>To further prove Ken McVay is a pathological liar and an obvious tax dodger here
>>he is mentioning the San Antonio Area Foundation as being one of his funding
>>sources yet remember Ken McVay is on record as stating: "Neither The Nizkor
>>Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money from the "San Antonio Area
>>Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
>>
>><start/quote>
>>From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
>>Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
>>
>>In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
>>
>> "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
>>
>>and should be mailed to:
>>
>> San Antonio Area Foundation
>> Nizkor Fund
>> P.O. Box 120366
>> San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
>>
>>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
>>improvements in service.
>>
>><end/quote>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=50n608%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
>
>Ah, *here's* the problem. The two *were* once associated.
See how you contradicted what McVay has claimed! McVay claimed (as shown higher
up): "I have no association with either organization, and never have."
>No money changed hands between the two,
Not according to the records and to McVay's own postings!!!!!!
>and that association not longer pertains.
No longer? McVay claimed (as shown higher up): "I have no association with
either organization, and never have."
>Now, can we assume that you will stop telling this particular lie?
What lie? I have already proven McVay is lying and now I prove you to be a liar
for the liar!!
>>You claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation has
>>never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
>>with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but your post above contradicts your
>>claim with your very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund..
>>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial improvements
>>in service."
>>
>>If you never received any money from the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor
>>Fund then why did you give thanks?
>
>Because the SAAFDN does good work, similar to Nizkor?
Because they gave him funding and I noticed you deleted the post in your spin
doctoring but here it is again:
<start/quote>
From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
"SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
and should be mailed to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
improvements in service.
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <50n608$9...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
x-network: http://www.nizkor.org/
organization: The Nizkor Project
(Archived locally as: Thanks2SAAF)
You claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation has
never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but your post above contradicts your
claim with your very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund..
The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial improvements
in service."
If you never received any money from the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor
Fund then why did you give thanks?
More of Ken McVay plainly telling one and all that the San Antonio Area
Foundation is his American financing source:
<start/quote>
In article <31c2fa3a...@news.annap.infi.net>,
h...@annap.infi.net (Horst Kleinsorg) wrote, in response to my
suggestion that he actually do some research:
>First tell us who is financing your Nizkor, then we perhaps can
>talk.
Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Kleinsorg. I am financed
by thousands of "just plain folks" who wish to support my
work. In Canada, they make their cheques payable to...
[...]
In the United States, they make their cheques payable to:
SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund
and mail them to:
San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund
P.O. Box 120366
San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
Once again, Mr. Kleinsorg, thank you for asking. I trust this
open, public response will satisfy your query.
By the way, Mr. Kleinsorg... now that I have responded openly
and honestly to your question, perhaps you can tell us what
difference it makes who finances my work... you are still
slandering Germans, and the German military, and I fail to see
how my financing changes that.
The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
[Ftp] http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
[Europe] ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)......unlearn
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=4pvbkg%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
From: kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: Nizkor Project financing and Kleinsorg's slandering Germans
Date: 1996/06/15
Message-ID: <4pvbkg$a...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
(Archived locally as: SAAFfinances)
>>>This should be clear even to someone as delusional as yourself.
>
>>I do believe my documented facts are irrefutable and it is you who is denying
>>reality and is being delusional!!
>
>Your documented facts are a single newspaper article, which touches on
>a relationship which no longer exists and includes at least one error
>of fact.
I presented much more than one single news paper article you are now trying to
discredit and everyone reading this reply to your failed spin doctoring now and
in the future will see the Nizkor bunch for the liars they are!
>>Need I say more other than liar and tax cheat Kenneth N. McVay of Nanaimo,
>>British Columbia should be audited and prosecuted for tax evasion upon all the
>>documentation which testifies against him is verified! Canada should not be
>>subsidizing a deadbeat liar!
>
>Yes, why don't you tell us all what happened when you reported this to
>the appropriate authorities?
I already answered that stupid question higher up.
> <snip the Shame of Belleville once again recycling baseless,
> mindless accusations with even *less* objective support than this
> one...>
Once again personal attacks instead of documented facts BUT what can one expect
from a den of robbers?
Tavish The True
----NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay's Numerous Lies Regarding His Funding----
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=f7murv0qqpmcfa2ldce7epo9gtg5am23rl%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED The Nizkor Project Director is Lying About Funds He Has NOT
Reported to CCRA!! SAAF Report for 2002 Is Further Proof! R_1122
Message-ID: <f7murv0qqpmcfa2ld...@4ax.com>
Date: 22 Nov 2003 13:01:32 GMT
AKA "Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=rhao2v4fbuij94mcmi6sicj73sa4eifsns%404ax.com&rnum=1
Ward Cleaver
br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote:
>Fatboy
Why don't you ever accept my challenge you stupid big mouth kike son of a bitch?
--To those people who can only hurl obese or fat insults I offer
the $10,000.00 Challenge for Edeikenites Who Won't Admit Yale Lied!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5oimrvs7agr9m92kj3q74a22vba99coeos%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: The $10,000 Challenge to Ken McVay aka Re: Harold Covington & Scott
Bradbury: The Blubberbury Twins
Message-ID: <5oimrvs7agr9m92kj...@4ax.com>
References: <bpe9d...@enews3.newsguy.com>
Date: 19 Nov 2003 11:29:26 GMT
Original challenge was made: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:23:17 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=4q0pbtc3gk6oour5opkjkj1q00geehk9n3%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Yale F. Edeiken Making False Claims About My Medical Records...
Message-ID: <4q0pbtc3gk6oour5o...@4ax.com>
"NEW CHALLENGE: I will offer $1000.00 to anyone who will step up and
substantiate what Yale F. Edeiken claimed in his post about my Hermann
Hospital discharge diagnosis numbered 50 04882 6 9356."
Now go drop dead!
Tavish
Ward Cleaver
<IMjOb.26071$1K1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null>
wrote:
>Yes, you do need to say more. You need to apologise for your false claims,
>smears, personal attacks, and allegations.
Why don't you get McVay to sue me which will subject him to IRS jurisdiction and
they will be waiting for him seeing how a trial date would be set. McVay has
threatened to sue me before for posting the facts about his tax dodge so why
hasn't he followed through?
Tavish
david_michael
RE. 'Fine. But is the only possible next step to just throw up your
hands and say all conclusions are equal, live and let live? Or is
there some way to structure a discussion over which conclusion is
better?'
No, all conclusions are not 'equal'. Some are more compelling than
others. What makes an argument compelling? A number of factors,
including internal coherence, sound logic, whether the premisses are
convincing, explanatory power, and the extent to which it fits in with
what we already think that we know about the world. And this is
precisely how arguments ARE evaluated in fields that regularly employ
more interpretive paradigms. The fact that we are no longer engaging
in a 'search for truth' doesn't mean that we don't have to convince
ourselves or others.
RE. 'That's the point. It can deal with more information. That is
*precisely* the standard according to which contending theories must
be tested, and precisely the basis on which anti-revisionists claim to
have an infintely more compelling interpretation than the
revisionists.'
The ability of a theory to deal with more information may be ONE
criterion upon which it is assessed, but note that it isn't a
sufficient condition. A theory might have vast explanatory power but
still be unconvincing. Christianity has tremendous explanatory power
-- but one central premiss (God) is rather hard for a lot of people to
swallow. I could produce a theory explaining the universe in terms of
decisions made by a large green aardvark that lives somewhere in the
region of Ultima Thule -- it would have tremendous explanatory power
but would perhaps not win much support. Freud's writings on
psychoanalysis explain much, although whether the explanations are
correct or even helpful is another matter entirely! Conversely, a
theory might have very little explanatory power -- it might leave a
lot of questions unanswered -- but still be right. Explanatory power
becomes an important issue when a theory struggles to explain
something that is advanced as contrary evidence. The theory that
'alcohol is always bad for your health' struggles to explain the
observation that moderate alcohol intake correlated with increased
longevity. So another theory -- 'alcohol can be good or bad for your
health depending on what you drink, how much and how often' -- is
superior in that it can answer the contrary evidence.
RE. 'Fine. The question I'm asking is on what basis are the various
strengths and weaknesses of historical discourses assessed. You
appear to be agreeing with me: external validation.'
You were quite precise what you meant by external validation:
'External validation is merely a general principle by which the
objectivity of a methodology can be tested. Granted, there may be
disputes as to the extent to which a given methodology meets that test
- and if you wish to engage in such a dispute with regards to
Holocaust revisionism, it would be an interesting discussion. But
that does not mean that we can give up on such manner of validation,
or such objectivity, as a meaningful goal.'
External validation, as you've used the term there, is 'a principle
for testing the objectivity of a methodology'. I reject the need to
test the 'objectivity' of a methodology as I am highly cynical about
the concept of 'objectivity'. I am much more interested in whether an
argument -- IRRESPECTIVE of its 'methodology' or 'objectivity' -- is
compelling. Whether it makes me think: yes, I'm convinced. That's
where we differ.
So to go back to your question of 'on what basis are the various
strengths and weaknesses of historical discourses assessed[?]' I would
say that I would assess them on grounds of their 'compellingness' --
on how convincing they are. We can certainly identify certain things
that make theories compelling. Convincing premisses, logical argument,
an ability to fit in with our existing schemas about the world,
absence of contrary evidence -- these are all examples. Some fields --
law, the hard sciences -- have complex procedures that need to be
followed, and another factor that we might take into account is
whether these procedures have been followed successfully in evaluating
evidence in those fields. However, I do like the 'anarchistic
theorists of knowledge' who argue that it is dangerous to be too
prescriptive about how knowledge should be generated. There's always
the possibility that knowledge can be generated through very strange
paths indeed. As you know, I've long had an interest in the psychology
of textual and graphic design. This is a very multi-paradigmatic
field: people generate 'knowledge' in very different ways. Years ago
people -- Miles Tinker, Bror Zachrisson, etc. -- used to conduct
laboratory experiments to try to identify 'optimal' line lengths, font
sizes, paper colours, etc. etc. The problem was low ecological
validity -- the tasks were too artificial to tell us anything about
the real world. Others have applied other approaches -- there's an
'action research' tradition (e.g. work in the field on what makes
anti-AIDS propaganda leaflets effective), a 'user-oriented' approach
that tries to work out in advance what users will require, a
'guidelines' approach, etc. Then along came Michael McDonald-Ross and
pointed out that typesetters and non-researchers involved in document
production have a vast amount of 'tacit knowledge' that they gain
simply from doing their job over the years. From sheer experience. My
own experience in Africa bears this out -- I learned of the
difficulties young black children there experienced with italics
because nobody ever bothers to explain the convention to them, for
instance. I've not seen that in any academic papers but the
implications for educational book design are obvious. So you see, the
more you try to codify knowledge production, to formalize it, to
create 'methodologies' to try to uncover 'objective truth', the more
you close the door on these non-formal but very important sources of
knowledge generation. In text design, the men in white coats who do
experiments and carefully manipulate variables are probably the LEAST
useful. Those who observe the problems that kids encounter with text
and INTERPRET them are probably going to do a lot more good in the
world.
RE. 'Personally, I don't see what's so bloody complicated. Let's say
there's a historical problem, and I have a theory. That theory may
suit my ideological presumptions, but if I can bring forward, say,
even one witness to verify the theory, the charge that I am putting
the theory forward solely for ideological reasons looses weight to
that extent. A theory supported by only one witness may be tenuous,
but it is better than a theory supported by nothing'
I take the broad point, although some witnesses are probably not much
better than none at all. Some types of theories -- PARTICULARLY those
dealing with what I call 'hidden history', the sort that takes place
in private -- don't generate witnesses and so the presence or absence
of witnesses is not really relevant.
RE. 'Let's say you have a theory that my witness is lying. If your
only support for your theory is your personal subjective opinion, you
are wide open to the charge that the only reason you hold that opinion
is because you simply don't want to believe what my witness says. My
theory remains stronger than yours. If, on the other hand, you can
support your theory with another manner of verification, then we have
something to dispute.'
I agree entirely again, although there's a world of difference between
'your witness is lying' and 'your witness is unreliable because . . .'
Again, this is commonplace in legal situations isn't it. Look at the
Michael Jackson case. From what I can make out it seems to be pretty
much Jackson's word against that of a boy (who has already apparently
changed his story at least once). There may well be some corroborating
evidence but it hasn't emerged as yet so we'll assume that it's just
Jackson's word against his accuser. Now if Jackson can prove that the
boy is lying -- that's great: he's off the hook. But the crucial point
is that he doesn't even have to do that. It would suffice for him to
simply demonstrate that the boy is unreliable, that he can't be
trusted. Same result -- he's off the hook. This is the point I can't
seem to convey to anti-revisionists. To go back to your Dr Munch,
Munch is accusing people of murder -- fine! You seem to feel that I
should accept this unless I can prove that he's lying. I can't prove
that he's lying. The best I can do is to suggest that there are
problems with his credibility -- he was politically active, he had
made some rather odd statements in the past, and even if we accept
that he was as sane as they get right up to his last years we cannot
completely discount the fact that he had to retract some of his later
statements about the goings on at Auschwitz supposedly because he had
gone senile. An attack on the credibility of a witness is a logically
very different thing from proving them to be 'a liar' -- but its
result is to reduce the 'compellingness' of any theory that relies on
their testimony.
You then turned to Morghus's argument against my 'little old lady' who
told me that the Ardeatine Caves massacre occurred.
RE. 'His point is that the fact that he hasn't seen or heard anything
to make him believe that it happened proves to him that it *didn't*
happen. How would you assess an argument like that?'
He would be correct to assert that he doesn't have any reason to
believe that it DID happen. Does he have a reason to believe that it
DIDN'T happen? Given that he doesn't have any reason to believe that
it did happen, and applying the innocent until proven guilty
principle, the answer is yes.
RE. 'Look at it this way. Let's say you were to produce additional
information that your old lady (a) was a lifelong dedicated
nationalist, (b) was in a position to know exactly what happened in
those caves, and (c) was unlikely to lie, and Morghus responded by
declaring that he simply didn't trust your information on the
speculation that it could be that the little old lady had spent her
life working under cover for the CIA, based on his belief that that's
just the sort of thing the CIA would do and we can't trust them. By
your methodology, you would have to shrug your shoulders and say his
opinion as to what evidence to trust is no less valid than your's. By
mine, I'd say prove it.'
In the absence of proof that she was working for the CIA then it
becomes a closer call and very much hinges on whether distrust of the
CIA exceeds trust of the little old lady. On at least a couple of
occasions I've trusted people who subsequently turned out to be more
than a little dodgy in that regard -- once very recently -- so I'd
certainly want to hear what he had to say on that. But tricky
questions of trust arise regularly in courts, and even in the social
sciences. However, the crucial point is that merely challenging him to
'prove it' is likely to be too crude an approach. Suppose he can't
prove it but can produce evidence that the CIA was engaged in similar
operations with other organizations and that the opportunity was there
for them to get at the little old lady, and that she did have dodgy
contacts and that she had a father in the intelligence services (a
remarkably common phenomenon it seems), etc. etc. Should I reject his
concerns outright and continue trusting the little old lady simply
because Morghus can't produce a paycheck made out to her from the CIA?
You said that I hadn't answered this question:
RE. 'He has chosen not to "trust" your witness, yet clearly the only
basis he has for making the choice he has is the evident fact that he
doesn't wish to accept the conclusion he would have to accept if he
DID choose to trust her. Ask yourself, then, is that really basis
enough on which to measure evidence?'
Surely the answer is that we need to consider whether it is reasonable
to mistrust the witness. In this case he doesn't know who the old lady
was and has no reason to accept her words. Ergo, it's rational for him
to reject her account. In the absence of any further evidence he's
correct to take the view that he has no reason to believe that the
Ardeatine Caves massacre occurred.
Further on you comment on my observation that it is entirely rational
for Morghus to reject the old lady's words and for me to accept them:
RE. 'Which makes it pretty clear, then, that your's and Morghus'
methodology is flawed, in that it causes you to reject and discard
otherwise valuable evidence.'
Even the rigorous hard-science methodologies run the risk of doing
that -- the notorious 'type I error' of rejecting an hypothesis that
is true. I don't doubt that in legal situations the perfectly honest
testimony of numerous witnesses has been rejected because the defence
has succeeded in suggesting to the jury that those witnesses are not
'reliable'. But the crucial point is this. In a situation where you
are accusing people of grave and mighty crimes, is it not better to
risk a type I error of rejecting a true accusation than to commit a
type II error of accepting a lie?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:51:51 GMT,
><d5c73a411a9c7bd2...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=07qc8vguuom77pvmugliksb3dmdf8pp82r%404ax.com&rnum=6
>Subject: Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
>Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund
>>>>No, he didn't. Because he didn't receive them.
>>>Not according to his own web site and according to the San Antonio Express!!
>>You misspelled "... to my deliberate misinterpretation of" these site,
>>SoB.
>You are a liar! What is showed was actual content and in full context!
Which you then deliberately misinterpret to suit your need to
personally attack McVay, despite your claims not to rely on such.
>> <snip to>
>>>EXHIBIT 1:
>>>
>>><start/quote>
>>>"What Mr. Bradbury has failed to demonstrate is that The Nizkor Project, which I
>>>direct, has any association whatsoever with the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
>>>Nizkor Fund."
>>>
>>>That is because Mr. Bradbury is not very bright.
>>>
>>> The Nizkor Project has no operations of any sort whatsoever within the United
>>>States. Neither The Nizkor Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money
>>>from the "San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"
>>>
>>>For further information, review the file which Mr. Ellis and Mr. Bradbury
>>>continue to ignore:
>>>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/2000/San_Antonio_Area_Foundation_donation
>>><end/quote>
>>Which link specifically states that:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>>No one ever gave me $50,000. That sum was donated to the San Antonio
>>Area Foundation.
>>
>> </quote>
>Contradicted with:
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
Nope. A single newspaper article with an error in it doesn't
contradict anything credibly.
>>and
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>>I have no association with either organization, and never have.
>Contradicted with:
>
><start/quote>
>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/victims/numbers.killed
Nope, nothing there indicating any personal association between McVay
and SAAF.
>AND
>
><start/quote>
>From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
>Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
>
>In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
>
> "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
>
>and should be mailed to:
>
> San Antonio Area Foundation
> Nizkor Fund
> P.O. Box 120366
> San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
>
>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
>improvements in service.
>
><end/quote>
There is a difference between a personal association and to
organizations cooperating.
>AND
>
><start/quote>
>..The Nizkor Project is not only a tool to fight bigotry, it has
>also "make an impact in terms of Holocaust education," McVay said.
>
>Some of the new material he will add to the web site -- which
>will have sound and movement -- includes speeches by Nazi
>statesmen advocating genocide, 68 volumes of military
>documentation from the Nuremburg war crimes tribunals and
>material from the National Archives in Washington.
>
>Some of the new material is being donated by San Antonio resident
>Harry Mazal, who is the director of the Nizkor Project in the
>United States. Mazal also has one of the world's largest private
>collections of Holocaust material...
><end/quote>
>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
>(Link November 20, 2003 and no disclaimers are made!! Archived locally as:
>11-20-2003SAAF2NIZKOR)
Once again: nothing there indicating a personal association.
>AND
>
><start/quote>
>My friend and colleague, Mr. McVay suggests that I "interact" with Mr.
>Zundel...
>
>Harry W. Mazal OBE
Finally, a personal association. But with another individual, not
with an organization.
>Yet Ken McVay stated (as shown higher up): "The computers are in use to this
>day, confronting and refuting Holocaust denial, but I have nothing to do with
>their operation, maintanence or development. You can verify their existence by
>visiting http://www.holocaust-history.org and http://thhp.org.
>I have no association with either organization, and never have. Should
>you have further questions, I suggest that you contact... Harry W. Mazal, OBE.."
>
>CARE TO COUNT ALL THE LIEWS I HAVE EXPOSED MCVAY IN NOW ROGER?
Sure: 0.
>> </quote>
>>
>>Which part of this are you having problems with?
>The parts you keep deleting!
Because they have no relevance to the issues I am discussing.
Nothing relevant was cut -- merely your misinterpretations.
The only liar here is you, SoB. The only thing I have snipped is your
rants, based on deliberate misinterpretation, with the goal of
personal attack.
Let me ask you straight: even if all you say of McVay is true, what
does that change about the historical facts of the Holocaust?
<snip mindless repetition of rants, the relevant parts of which have
already been responded to>
>>Is it maybe the fact that both entities use the word "nizkor?" It's
>>not a trademarked term, you know...
>Read my archive you oaf!
I have. There are two organizations which use the name Nizkor. That
their directors also happen to have been colleagues doesn't mean there
is any financial link between them, nor between either organization
and the other person.
No, it didn't.
>Once again for you seeing how you are stupid:
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/mcvay.ken/press/express-news.960803
Once again, tho you are incapable of understanding: This is a
newspaper. The newspaper made a mistake. There is no link between
the two organizations.
>Yet Ken McVay claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation
>has never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
>with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but McVay's post above contradicts his
>claim with McVay's very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor
>Fund.. The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
>improvements in service."
Those funds were used to provide substantial improvements in service
for the SAAF.
Not Nizkor.
SAAF.
>SO WHICH IS IT ROGER!?!?
As above.
How show I know?
>BTW I have archived that web page and had other people do so and I have
>JPEG snap shots of it should the tax cheat decide to add disclaimers now!
Which will mean jack.
>Why did McVay make numerous posts showing the "San Antonio Area Foundation -
>Nizkor Fund" being a source of donations and why did he give thanks for
>donations through the same fund if he had never received any which he is now
>trying to foist as reality!?
Because he was simply also mentioning a similar organization's method
of accepting donations. This does not mean they shared donations.
>Have you any idea what would be the back interest and penalties on over $50,000
>that tax dodger hasn't reported should people demand the CCRA to do its duty?
Moot, since he did not receive any of that $50k.
>BTW here is Laura Finsten (a Nizkor supporter) in her own words:
Which are not binding on either Nizkor nor on the SAAF, so
<snip>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=5m1sqg%24rse%2...@eclipse.txdirect.net&lr=&hl=en
>(Archived locally as: McVayUmbrella)
>
>In article <5m11au$4...@access1.digex.net>, mst...@access.digex.net wrote:
>
>> As you could tell from the Nizkor web page, Nizkor's funding in Canada
>>is now coordinated through the Zikaron Tolerance and Remembrance Society,
>>an independent organization. In the United States, it is channeled
>>through the Nizkor Fund of the San Antonio Area Foundation, which is a San
>>Antonio umbrella organization something like the United Way.
>
>Zikaron remains a supporter of the Nizkor Project, but Canadian
>_national_ funding is now managed by the B'nai Brith Foundation, in
>Toronto. B'nai Brith Foundation does not, however, support Nizkor
>financially - it simply receives donations from the public, issues
>receipts if the donations exceed $10, and disperses donated funds as
>required.
>
>In short, the B'nai Brith Foundation operates exactly as does the San
>Antonio Area Foundation - as an umbrella organization....
>
><end/quote>
So comparing the one to the other means they are financially linked?
>Is McVay still going to insist he never "received any money from the
>"San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund" in all that time?
Why should he not, since it's the truth?
>WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY FOR THE TAX DODGER NOW ROGER???
Which tax dodger is that, SoB?
>>>Now I ask everyone--Do any of you think Ken McVay reported that $50,000 (plus
>>>all the other donations he gave thanks for) to the CCRA?
>>And once again, I answer: "No, since it was not money her ever
>>received."
>Not according to the irrefutable evidence I offered above!
Try again -- nothing there says that Ken received $50k.
>IOW your hero didn't
>pay tax on it seeing how he is now trying to claim he never received one penny
>from that fund though his numerous posts prove otherwise!
Wrong. Your deliberate misinterpretation of his posts lead you to
repeat this accusation ad nauseum.
What did CCRA say when you contacted them about this?
>Does the term AUDIT come to mind Roger?
No, the term "Usenet Kook of the Month" does.
>>>Who would pay tax on
>>>money they claim they never received YET obviously did according to all the
>>>documentation?
>>"All the documentation" being a single newspaper article with an error
>>in it.
>I offered far more evidence than just that one news paper article you are now
>implying has an error in it! Care to prove that article is in error? See how
>foolish you look!?
Yep. Definitive and unequivocal statements from all of the primaries
involved do so.
I'm not the one looking like the Kook you are, posting for no other
reason than to attack those who disagree with you.
>>> DOES TAX FRAUD COME TO PEOPLE'S MINDS??
>>> The term AUDIT keeps popping up in my mind!
>>And yet, you have whined about this to the authorities, who have
>>treated it with all the seriousness it deserved: a form letter.
>They are socialists who stick by their man and it would be too embarrassing for
>the people who awarded a tax cheat the Order of British Columbia to have to
>admit their recipient lies about his funding.
Yeah, because after all, that's the only possible explanation for them
to have blown off the Shame of Belleville...
>>>To further prove Ken McVay is a pathological liar and an obvious tax dodger here
>>>he is mentioning the San Antonio Area Foundation as being one of his funding
>>>sources yet remember Ken McVay is on record as stating: "Neither The Nizkor
>>>Project nor Ken McVay has ever received any money from the "San Antonio Area
>>>Foundation - Nizkor Fund."
>>>
>>><start/quote>
>>>From: Ken McVay OBC (kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca)
>>>Subject: The Nizkor Project appreciates your support
>>>
>>>In the United States, checks should be made payable to:
>>>
>>> "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund"
>>>
>>>and should be mailed to:
>>>
>>> San Antonio Area Foundation
>>> Nizkor Fund
>>> P.O. Box 120366
>>> San Antonio, TX 78212-9566
>>>
>>>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial
>>>improvements in service.
>>>
>>><end/quote>
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=50n608%24...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
>>Ah, *here's* the problem. The two *were* once associated.
>See how you contradicted what McVay has claimed! McVay claimed (as shown higher
>up): "I have no association with either organization, and never have."
See how you misinterpret: I never said *McVay* was associated. I
said Nizkor and SAAF were.
>>No money changed hands between the two,
>Not according to the records and to McVay's own postings!!!!!!
False.
>>and that association not longer pertains.
>No longer? McVay claimed (as shown higher up): "I have no association with
>either organization, and never have."
The association between the organizations, SoB.
>>Now, can we assume that you will stop telling this particular lie?
>What lie? I have already proven McVay is lying and now I prove you to be a liar
>for the liar!!
The only liar here is you, SoB.
>>>You claimed at the top of this post: "The San Antonio Area Foundation has
>>>never paid me, or Nizkor, and neither myself nor Nizkor has any connection
>>>with the San Antonio Area Foundation" but your post above contradicts your
>>>claim with your very own words of: "SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION - Nizkor Fund..
>>>The funds you have provided have been used to provide substantial improvements
>>>in service."
>>>
>>>If you never received any money from the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor
>>>Fund then why did you give thanks?
>>Because the SAAFDN does good work, similar to Nizkor?
>Because they gave him funding and I noticed you deleted the post in your spin
>doctoring but here it is again:
No, they didn't. Both principles have clearly stated this.
<snip mindless repetition of rants, the relevant parts of which have
already been responded to>
>>>>This should be clear even to someone as delusional as yourself.
>>>I do believe my documented facts are irrefutable and it is you who is denying
>>>reality and is being delusional!!
>>Your documented facts are a single newspaper article, which touches on
>>a relationship which no longer exists and includes at least one error
>>of fact.
>I presented much more than one single news paper article you are now trying to
>discredit and everyone reading this reply to your failed spin doctoring now and
>in the future will see the Nizkor bunch for the liars they are!
Sure. When is that new complaint about Yale going to be filed, SoB?
>>>Need I say more other than liar and tax cheat Kenneth N. McVay of Nanaimo,
>>>British Columbia should be audited and prosecuted for tax evasion upon all the
>>>documentation which testifies against him is verified! Canada should not be
>>>subsidizing a deadbeat liar!
>>Yes, why don't you tell us all what happened when you reported this to
>>the appropriate authorities?
>I already answered that stupid question higher up.
With a completely unsupported rant. They are in a much better
position to determine the merits of this case than a Kook from Texas,
don't you agree?
>> <snip the Shame of Belleville once again recycling baseless,
>> mindless accusations with even *less* objective support than this
>> one...>
>Once again personal attacks instead of documented facts BUT what can one expect
>from a den of robbers?
Since when am I a den of anything, let alone of robbers. Rogers,
maybe, if you take into account the various roles I have played -- but
I'm not *really* a different person on stage: I only look and act
differently.
Sorry to have confused you.
Ward Cleaver
<c7f26592543f6399...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>Yeah, because after all, that's the only possible explanation for them
>to have blown off the Shame of Xxxxxx...
>With a completely unsupported rant. They are in a much better
>position to determine the merits of this case than a Kook from Xxxxx,
>don't you agree?
>
>>> <snip the Shame of Xxxxxx once again recycling baseless,
>>> mindless accusations with even *less* objective support than this
>>> one...>
YOU SHITS HAVE BEEN WARNED-- Soooooo-
Seeing how people like to post where I live then I will post where
the people live who made such info public in the first place!
Sara Salzman
http://www.westword.com/issues/11209/4/image.gif
4015 S Killarney Way
Aurora, Colorado 80013
http://kevdb.infospace.com/_1_26U9TCS04PZEGED__home/wp/detail/kevdb?KCFG=us&OTMPL=/wp/results_detail.htm&FF=1&QFM=N&QN=Salzman&QF=&QC=Aurora&QS=co&actnav=org&TQA=4015+S+Killarney+Way&TQC=aurora&TQS=co&QP=&QST=&QHN=&wqp=&QZ=80013&QK=1&QO=us&QD=&DM=751&&QI=0&jnum=1&jindex=0
(Archived locally as: infospace_Ssalzman)>>Public Information<<
I am being harassed by having my confidential information being posted along
with death threats, forged child porn ads being posted which give out my address
etc., having phoney sex offender lists posted which give out my address, having
magazine and catalog subscriptions forged in my identity etc. FOR A FACT it was
Yale F. Edeiken and Yale F. Edeiken alone who subpoenaed my confidential info
from my ISP and made the subpoenaed info public-- now let him receive justice
under the Law of Moses:
Just as has been done to me and is still being done to me and solely because
of Yale F. Edeiken exclusively I will apply the LAW he claims to observe to him:
Leviticus 24:19-20 :: New International Version (NIV)
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the
other, so he is to be injured.
Yale F. Edeiken
918 N Bayard St
Allentown PA 18104
Tel 610 435-9820
(Source: Court documents)
If Yale does not like getting back in kind what he has dished out in kind
under the Law of Moses then he should either:
1) Re-file his nut case lawsuit in the proper jurisdiction and get charged with
numerous criminal counts of perjury and legal system abuse
OR
2) Encourage his THUG allies to stop harassing me and invading my privacy!
The choice is his!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-1605042226560001%40ts005d08.den-co.concentric.net&rnum=1
From: cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)
Subject: Re: Yale Now Admits To Distributing Subpoenaed Information to a Group
of People... Date: 2000/05/17
Message-ID: <catamont-160...@ts005d08.den-co.concentric.net>
>On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:28:14 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
><iloU4.3589$v%5.26...@newshog.newsread.com> wrote:
>
>>Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:3921f38a....@news.flash.net...
:.
>>> You are forever archived here with your lies about your subpoena issued to
>>> get my unlisted telephone number and unlisted address and your lies about
>>> YOUR mailing list. All admissable in court--- your recent words too!
:.
>> None of which mean what you state they mean. Mailing something to a
>>group of people is NOT"a private mailing list."
:.
>So now I do have you on record admitting to: "Mailing something to a
>group of people..."
>
>Thanks for the final admission asswipe!
>
>The "something" you mailed to a group of people was confidential
>information obtained using a subpoena. What you have confessed to is
>illegal activity!
Wrong again, anti-Lawyer.It's not confidential, it's PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Check. Certified. or Jumpsuit.
The choice is yours.
Sara
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
>>Yeah, because after all, that's the only possible explanation for them
>>to have blown off the Shame of Xxxxxx...
>>With a completely unsupported rant. They are in a much better
>>position to determine the merits of this case than a Kook from Xxxxx,
>>don't you agree?
>>>> <snip the Shame of Xxxxxx once again recycling baseless,
>>>> mindless accusations with even *less* objective support than this
>>>> one...>
>YOU SHITS HAVE BEEN WARNED-- Soooooo-
Not that the Shame of Belleville ever resorts to personal attacks.
Patrick Keenan
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:43:35 -0500,
> <IMjOb.26071$1K1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan"
<te...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, you do need to say more. You need to apologise for your false
claims,
> >smears, personal attacks, and allegations.
>
> Why don't you get McVay to sue me
And how would I do that? I've never met the man and he lives a few
thousand miles from me.
> which will subject him to IRS jurisdiction
From that comment, you obviously know considerably less than you think.
He's already subject to their jurisdiction, since he still has US
citizenship. The IRS has done nothing. Neither has the CCRA. Surprise,
surprise.
> and they will be waiting for him seeing how a trial date would be set.
The IRS and CCRA have no need to wait for anything.
They have two sets of things:
First: the facts. They have all the tax returns and information for all
parties involved, and an intimate knowledge of the laws and regulations.
And, they have the laws and a professional enforcement staff on hand.
Second: *your* false claims, smears, personal attacks and allegations, and
we already know what those have produced - form letters. No other action
on the part of the usually tenacious tax bodies.
Were your claims true, the only issue would be who prosecuted first, Canada
or the US.
But thanks for divulging your plan.
> McVay has threatened to sue me before for posting the facts
That's not likely to be true.
Apparently neither the IRS or CCRA agree that what you've posted is factual,
since neither have taken any action. And you've been whining about it long
enough for action to have *been* taken if your claims had any merit.
So it can safely be taken that you are not in possession of facts, and that
what Mr. McVay has threatened to sue you for is posting lies, not facts.
> about his tax dodge
That's *your* false claim. It is obvious that neither the CCRA or the IRS
agree with you.
> so why hasn't he followed through?
Most probably because you have no significant or meaningful assets. Civil
remedies are usually measured in monetary terms. The indigent and poor
are thus generally pretty much judgement-proof.
Now, you really do need to get to work on that apology.
-pk
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Ward Cleaver wrote
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:56:22 GMT,
><c7f26592543f6399...@news.teranews.com> Roger <roger@ . > wrote:
>>Yeah, because after all, that's the only possible explanation for them
>>to have blown off the Shame of Xxxxxx...
>>With a completely unsupported rant. They are in a much better
>>position to determine the merits of this case than a Kook from Xxxxx,
>>don't you agree?
>>>> <snip the Shame of Xxxxxx once again recycling baseless,
>>>> mindless accusations with even *less* objective support than this
>>>> one...>
>YOU SHITS HAVE BEEN WARNED-- Soooooo-
BTW: can't refute the facts, so you're resorting to personal attacks
again, SoB?