Chomsky Names Deutsch Saint, Maybe Messiah
Lane Singer
: Actually I mean exactly the sort of lies that Haber peddles on cue
: in his paragraph above.
what, you want us to buy the lies you're peddling, instead?
Tonnetta Oubari
wom...@netcom.com (Hal Womack) wrote:
> Below follows a letter which I sent to James Daugherty's mailing
>list in order to pass along a reading recommendation which had caught my
>attention. He has distributed it to some other newsgroups. I believe that
>the topic will bear more discussion WRT both to Professor Noam Chomsky's
>role in world political & intellectual life, especially as the NY TIMES
>long-standing nominee for the post of 'leading left-wing thinker' and to
>the issue of the evolving relationship of the partners in the JASPer*
>marriage of the present U.S. ruling class [* = 'Jewish & Anglo-Saxon
>Protestant]. For more on the latter topic, please see Prof. Israel
>Shahak's translation of an article titled 'The Jews at Clinton's Court' in
>the Winter 1995 issue of the JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES, available in
>several places in the U.S.A. I believe that it has also appeared several
>times on the Net; IMHO it should be on a Web page. Since the TIMES, the
>NATION magazine, MOTHER JONES and other standard U.S. media sources have
>so far for some reason failed to review the increasingly influential book
>by Shahak, I mention here again its title: JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH
>RELIGION. It provides essential cultural background for understanding the
>assassination of Prime Minister Rabin _inter alia_.
> Surely we know better than to think that Chomsky's extreme
>recommendation means that Deutsch will be promoting such an obvious,
>lawful move as --say-- the indictment of Mr. George Bush for war crimes
>in Central America. In fact, Noam's hero has already dismissed these murders
>of a couple of hundred thousand victims as a mere 'lack of candor' on the
>part of his predecessors. Has N.C. publicly followed up his quoted remark
>in the three weeks since the piece ran? Has he spoken to the issue of the
>Clinton Administration's prolonged embargo of Iraq? ..."Where the wind
>comes right behind the rain..."
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 02:11:25 -0800 (PST)
>From: Hal Womack <wom...@netcom.com>
>To: James Daugherty <jhd...@a-albionic.com>
>Cc: New Paradigms Discussion <p...@conch.aa.msen.com>
>Subject: Chomsky Names Deutsch Saint, Maybe Messiah
>
> In their Sunday magazine of 12/10/95* the Sulzbergers of the New
>York TIMES offered blessings with full incense to the new Director of the
>C.I.A., John Deutsch, in an article by one their Washington
>correspondents, Tim Weiner [author of BETRAYAL: THE STORY OF ALDRICH AMES,
>AN AMERICAN SPY]. Although in attitude a puff piece of rectal osculation,
>it has plenty of detail which IMHO makes it essential reading for students
>of the Imperial Secret Police ['ISP']. A few appetizers:
>
> John Deutsch "may be the only living American to gain the approval
>of both Ronald Reagan and Noam Chomsky, the M.I.T. linguist and leading
>[_sic_] left-wing thinker. 'He has more honesty and integrity than anyone
>[_sic_] I've ever met in academic life, or any other life' Chomsky said.
>'If somebody's got to be running the C.I.A., I'm glad it's him.'" [p.104.]
> [p. 84.] "His father, Michael Deutsch, was a Russian Jew, born in
>Smolensk in 1908, who with his family fled the Bolshevik Revolution for
>Belgium [year of departure omitted] and who learned chemical engineering
>at the University of Ghent. He married Jean Fischer, the daughter of a
>diamond merchant who ran the Zionist Federation in Belgium. Their son was
>born in Brussels in 1938....[moving to America around 1939, John Deutsch]
>"quickly joined the military-industrial elite [_sic_], serving as deputy
>director at the War Production Board, in charge of making synthetic
>rubber. He befriended generals and admirals and intelligence [_sic_]
>types...."
> [In the Philippines in 1951 Michael Deutsch teamed up with Air
>Force Lieutenant Colonel Edward G. Lansdale** and stuck with him
>thereafter. Lansdale was the Agency's Asian star for black propaganda,
>psychological warfare and ambush.] "President Kennedy loved Lansdale's
>style and created a job for him as the assistant to the Secretary of
>Defense [_sic_] for special liaison operations. In 1961, the President,
>through his brother Robert, the Attorney General, set Lansdale off on a
>C.I.A. plot code-named Mongoose --a plan to eliminate [_sic_ Weiner means
>'assassinate'] Fidel Castro. That year, Lansdale personally recruited John
>Deutsch for his first Government job.
> "At 22, Deutsch became one of Secretary of State [_sic_, error;
>Correct = 'Defense'] Robert MacNamara's whiz kids in the Pentagon's
>office of systems analysis....[John Deutsch held political posts under
>Democratic administrations and advisory _cum_ academic ones during
>Republican ones,] "serving in sort of a permanent government of
>defense intellectuals --neither hawks nor doves but owls. [There's a
>hoot, as Hegel said to Minerva. He became] .... dean of science and then
>provost at M.I.T."
> Weiner omits any further details of Deutsch's record during the
>Lyndon Johnson period of the American War Against Viet Nam or under Jimmy
>Carter.
> President Clinton appointed Deutsch as D.C.I. last May, to succeed
>Admiral William O. Studeman, at the moment when the bombing of the Federal
>kindergarten in Oklahoma had allowed his Administration to launch a
>maximum political counter-offensive. Prior to 19 April, Weiner's
>description holds true: [p. 64] "Fear was the watchword of the day. The
>agency [_sic_, should be capitalized] was taking a terrible beating,
>lampooned by cartoonists, lambasted by pundits and politicians. Its last
>chief had quit abruptly. It best people were fleeing....Republican
>Senators, three-star generals and National Security Council officials were
>talking in public about whether merely to 'overhaul' or to 'eviscerate' or
>'blow up' [N.B. --H.W.] the agency. A Presidential commission was debating
>whether the C.I.A. should live or die. The agency's very existence
>depended on what Deutsch did....
> "'The clandestine service is the heart and soul of the agency,' says
>Robert M. Gates, Director of Central Intelligence from 1991 to 1993. 'It
>is also the part that can land you in jail.'... The Clinton
>Administration has been using the agency as its own private Internet, a
>kind of secret adjunct to the Library of Congress, asking thousands of
>questions about ravaged rain forests, compact-disk counterfeiters, the
>opium crop in Afghanistan and the crooked ruler of Zaire....If the curse
>can be broken, Deutsch has the chutzpah [_sic_ the TIMES has baptized this
>word into English] to do it."
>
>___________________________
>* "The C.I.A.'s Most Important Mission: Itself". The previous week a
>supporter of San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan [now a lame-duck] at
>'informix.com' had mail-bombed me with about a million lines of spam,
>which briefly disabled my e-mail and has at least temporarily impeded my
>access to my files for that period. Therefore I must apologize if I am
>here repeating material already posted to the list. If so, I will
>appreciate it if someone will be so kind as to send me a copy of any
>earlier posting[s] on the topic of this particular article. I found this
>citation originally in the n.g. 'alt.fan.noam-chomsky'.
>
>** Immortalized as the villain Pyle by Graham Greene in his novel THE
>QUIET AMERICAN, which is set in Viet Nam in the 'Fifties.
>
> Regards, Hal
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>of Womack Enterprises | e-mail to wom...@netcom.com | tel. 415/788-5701
> Snail mail to: Hotel Europa, Rm. 209
> 310 Columbus Avenue
> San Francisco, CA 94133/ U.S.A.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Thanks for pointing this out. It is time to reorder my subscription to the
Journal.
Peace,
Toni O.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
"It isn't that they can't see the solution,
It is that they can't see the problem."
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
THE PAD
tou...@shrike.depaul.edu
THE GRIND
tou...@wppost.depaul.edu
and now....
THE WEB
http://shrike.depaul.edu:80/~toubari/
(THE TRUTH PAGE is the link to OUR Empowerment)
Lane Singer
: : : Actually I mean exactly the sort of lies that Haber peddles on cue
: : : in his paragraph above.
: Lane Singer (lsi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : what, you want us to buy the lies you're peddling, instead?
: Will Lane Singer try to back up his smear with evidence? Evidently
: he knows how to quote from articles on Usenet. Why will he fail to cite an
: example of one of my 'lies' ? Will he speak up like man and apologize for
: his libel ? Or is his tongue getting dry while his soul has shriveled to the
: size of a pea? I spit on his name.
you spread propaganda. i've been reading it for a long time.
most of it is not on subjects i'm interested in debating -- old
charges that have a grain of truth and a mountain of hyperbole.
: Can we elicit the motivation for his drive-by attack by asking him:
: A) IYOO [='in your oficial opinion'] Should we, the American people,
: arrest Mr. George Bush for war crimes in Central America?
sure.
: B) Should we immediately lift the embargos against Iraq and
: against Cuba?
sure.
: C) Should we arrest President Clinton for the murder of Leyla
: al-Attar in Baghdad on 26 June 1993 and for the massacre of the Branch
: Davidians on --well, everybody remembers this date now anyway, right?
no.
Haber & Singer know that their political position be too rotten to
: prosper in free discussion
i have no idea who haber is. i've read quite a number of your
posts, however. whatever my political position (and you haven't
a clue what it is) i don't base it on propaganda.
singer -------------------------------------------
Hated by fools, and fools to hate,
Be that my motto and my fate.
--Jonathan Swift.
Hal Womack
: Hal Womack (wom...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Actually I mean exactly the sort of lies that Haber peddles on cue
: : in his paragraph above.
: what, you want us to buy the lies you're peddling, instead?
Will Lane Singer try to back up his smear with evidence? Evidently
he knows how to quote from articles on Usenet. Why will he fail to cite an
example of one of my 'lies' ? Will he speak up like man and apologize for
his libel ? Or is his tongue getting dry while his soul has shriveled to the
size of a pea? I spit on his name.
Can we elicit the motivation for his drive-by attack by asking him:
A) IYOO [='in your oficial opinion'] Should we, the American people,
arrest Mr. George Bush for war crimes in Central America?
B) Should we immediately lift the embargos against Iraq and
against Cuba?
C) Should we arrest President Clinton for the murder of Leyla
al-Attar in Baghdad on 26 June 1993 and for the massacre of the Branch
Davidians on --well, everybody remembers this date now anyway, right?
[Where do car-bombs come from?] And for deliberately causing the deaths
of scores of thousands of Iraqi civilians by his cruel policy of economic
strangulation?
Haber & Singer know that their political position be too rotten to
prosper in free discussion, so they resort to personal defamation of those
Usenet posters who dare frankly to address life-and-death issues. This
powerful old technique from MEDUSA's* corrupt realm becomes suicidal on
the Net; that's why the old lizards hate it so and are trying as hard as
they can to bite off its balls. [A moment of silent prayer.] Ho Chi Minh
finally kicked Lyndon Johnson in the teeth and, Heaven again permitting,
the free spirit of the Net finally will do the same to her all of her
enemies in the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in the U.S. Senate, in the Munich
prosecutor's office and wherever else lying tongues cluck together over
guilty secrets and bloody hands.
________________________________
* = the monopoly propaganda MEDia of the JASPer^ oligarchy of the
U.S.A., a.k.a. 'mainstream news' [^ = 'Jewish & Anglo-Saxon Protestant'].
--
Hal of Womack Enterprises | e-mail to wom...@netcom.com | tel. 415/ 788 5701
Snail mail to: Hotel Europa, Rm. 209/ 310 Columbus Avenue/ San Francisco, CA
94133/ U.S.A. | Student of Diego Rivera, Ho Chi Minh, Paul Robeson,
Naguib Mahfouz, Shusaku, Bertolt Brecht, Madonna & Sgt. York
Hal Womack
: : he knows how to quote from articles on Usenet. Why will he fail to cite an
: : example of one of my 'lies' ? Will he speak up like man and apologize for
: : his libel ? Or is his tongue getting dry while his soul has shriveled to the
: : size of a pea? I spit on his name.
: you spread propaganda. i've been reading it for a long time.
: most of it is not on subjects i'm interested in debating -- old
: charges that have a grain of truth and a mountain of hyperbole.
The whole Net consists literally of 'propaganda', that word
deriving from the verb 'propagate'. When Ignacz Semmelweiss in the 1840's
tried to persuade his fellow physicians at the main hospital in Vienna to
wash their hands before moving from the autopsy table to the bed of
childbirth, he was making 'propaganda'. Lane Singer's vulgar abuse of this
word shows him up as a proper goose. He's been reading my posts 'for a long
time' without being able to cite even one lie, one factual mistake or even
one exagerration. Yet he fails to apologize for his false accusation. He
tries the lame dodge that he's 'not interested in debating' the subject,
although to begin with he was ready enough to open his viper's mouth. A
man without honor.
: : Can we elicit the motivation for his drive-by attack by asking him:
: : A) IYOO [='in your oficial opinion'] Should we, the American people,
: : arrest Mr. George Bush for war crimes in Central America?
: sure.
: : B) Should we immediately lift the embargos against Iraq and
: : against Cuba?
: sure.
: : C) Should we arrest President Clinton for the murder of Leyla
: : al-Attar in Baghdad on 26 June 1993 and for the massacre of the Branch
: : Davidians on --well, everybody remembers this date now anyway, right?
: no.
I thank Mr. Singer for answering my questions. Since we agree on
the first two, perhaps we can figure out a way to work together on these
urgent, vital issues.
WRT to C), Mr. Singer should check out Seymour Hersh's article "A
Case Not Closed" in one of the Fall '93 issues of the NEW YORKER magazine.
Mr. Hersh demolishes the Clinton Administration's flimsy pretexts for its
rocket attack on the Iraqi capital, thus exposing President Clinton's
action as a flagrant example of the kind of wanton, criminal aggression
the punishment of which was the declared purpose of the Nuremburg War
Crimes Trials. On 'talk.politics.guns' or in the bookstore he can find the
material for the indictment for Baby-Burning Billy's use of the Imperial
Secret Police ['ISP'] to destroy the Mount Carmel Center outside of Waco.
: Haber & Singer know that their political position be too rotten to
: : prosper in free discussion
: i have no idea who haber is. i've read quite a number of your
: posts, however. whatever my political position (and you haven't
: a clue what it is) i don't base it on propaganda.
Speaking of clues, Mr. Singer has 'no idea who haber is' although
Jon Haber's posting on this thread prompted Mr. Singer's own reply in
which Mr. Haber's name appears. Clue # two = Mr. Singer has stated his
position above on several major issues and he still thinks he's invisible.
This lad is rattled and repeating himself without saying anything
sensible, severe case of Net-shock; village bully meets the big city, goes
splat. Exactly on what does Mr. Singer think that he bases his attempt to
excuse President Clinton from prosecution for his crimes? Does Jehovah
appear to him directly for his daily briefings? Lane Singer seems to feel
that 'propaganda' means that somebody else is talking. Does his ma know
that he's playing in the street?
: singer -------------------------------------------
: Hated by fools, and fools to hate,
: Be that my motto and my fate.
: --Jonathan Swift.
Mr. Singer got 66% on his politics quiz and he picked a fine
couplet from one of the greats. He needs to go out in the woods and
meditate on character, if he's lucky he'll find there some 'shrooms .
Lane Singer
: This lad is rattled and repeating himself without saying anything
: sensible, severe case of Net-shock; village bully meets the big city, goes
: splat.
you are quite full of yourself, mr.womack.
: Exactly on what does Mr. Singer think that he bases his attempt to
: excuse President Clinton from prosecution for his crimes? Does Jehovah
: appear to him directly for his daily briefings?
ms.singer is an atheist. stop being such a racist.
JonHaber
newsgroup from letting us know what they think of Hal Womack’s railing
against the Salzberg’s (whoops, I mean the New York Times!), Zionist
control of the U.S. government, and other transparent anti-Semitic
claptrap with a fervency so far reserved only for Werner Cohn and myself.
While you are all getting your words together, I thought I would provide a
backgrounder to my friend Hal. This was a longish note posted into AOL
late last year when Hal poked his nose into a debate forum for a few brief
moments. (I never heard from him Hal again, BTW, so I assume he moved
back to UseNet for hoped-for greener pastures.) Anyway, this note also
includes information on Israel Shahak which some people have been asking
about. Ciao for niao.
Jon
As a bit of background, I ran into Hal Womack -- the guy who started this
thread -- earlier this year at the InterNet newsgroups where he was
dropping his unique blend of hysteria and feigned concern for the Iraqi
people into UseNet groups as diverse as talk.politics.mideast,
soc.culture.japan and talk.farms.chicken-ranching.
As some of you may know, I am someone who considers himself left of center
politically who has been both fascinated and appalled by the convergence
of the Far Left and Far Right on issues of Middle East politics and the
Jews. Hal here intrigued me as someone who seemed to jump right out of a
textbook on the merger of Left-Wing and Right-Wing anti-Semitism.
His last posting is an excellent example of how these two alleged ends of
a political spectrum have become virtually indistinguishable. In it, Hal
makes reference to the Ruby Ridge and Waco disasters (this is his
reference to McClennan County Texas). Now many fair-minded people took
the government's word on these two fiascoes, assuming that no good can
come out of people mixing racist-separatist ideology (the Weavers at Ruby
Ridge) or millennial fantasies (the Branch Dividians at Waco) with lots
and lots of automatic weapons. As details became known of how government
abuses and incompetence led to the tragic end of these two confrontations
and how that same government tried to cover up its mistakes, we were less
inclined to see the situation in pure black and white.
Some people hope that the publicity surrounding these cases means there is
less likelihood that they will be repeated. Others see Waco and Ruby
Ridge as more sinister examples of government overstepping its bounds --
even out of control. And then we have Hal, who has fetishisized these
events, believing both of them to be part of a grand conspiracy by the
"Imperial Secret Police (ISP)," who are secretly controlled by the Jews
(whoops, I mean Zionists...WHOOPS, I mean "NaZionists"). No doubt
coverage of Waco/Ruby Ridge were skewed by MEDUSA (Hal's labels for the
MEDia of the USA -- his love affair with acronyms rivals the Pentagon's).
If one remembers coverage of the Oklahoma bombing in April, you will
remember that the militant right similarly fixated on these two tragedies,
working them into an elaborate conspiracy theory that involved the US
government, UN secret armies, black helicopters and -- of course -- the
Jews. In fact, just as Hal was posting hysterical ravings on this subject
into talk.politics.mideast, proving the Jews were behind the Ruby Ridge
conspiracy, some like-minded characters decided to take action and blow up
the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City.
At first, a freakish character such as Mr. Womack can seem
counter-intuitive. But there are plenty of precedents for someone from
the Left fervently embracing fascist, even Nazi ideology. Mussolini, lest
we forget, started his career as a Socialist before founding the Italian
Fascist party. Many of Eastern Europe's leaders and apparachiks made a
smooth transition from Nazis Party to Communist Party membership after
World War II. Contemporary examples could include Noam Chomsky --
religious icon of the undergraduate Left who has lent his support the
Holocaust Denial movement, and the attorney Jacques Verges -- darling of
the European Far Left -- who defended Klaus Barbie, the Nazi Butcher of
Lyon, after Barbie's "extradition" to France.
The key to understanding the brotherhood of Far Left/Far Right is to
abandon the false premise that Left and Right are somehow in opposition.
If these two ends of the political spectrum have been involved with
trading insults and punches this century, it is because they are in fierce
competition for the same souls: individuals who despise democracy as much
as they. A sincere and deep hatred of democracy is what unites both wings
of the so-called political "spectrum" since democracy is a system in which
the people (in whose names the Far Left especially claims to speak)
actually make the decisions. And way deep down the enemies of democracy
know that the people would never give the Hal Womacks of the world that
which they most long for: the power of life and death over others.
With the thorough discrediting of Marxism over the last ten years (some
would say the last century), a rudderless Far Left has been gravitating
from so-called "anti-Zionism" towards full-fledged classical anti-Semitism
and conspiracy theory. This phenomenon can best be observed in looking at
whom Hal Womack considers "good Jews."
First we have Victor Ostrovsky, the ex-Mossad agent who caused such a stir
with his book "By Way of Deception." Some of you may recall earlier this
year when Peter1458 was using Ostrovsky's book to bait Jews on the net,
somehow contorting Syria's attack on the American Embassy in Beirut in
1983 into being the fault of Israel.
As I pointed out then, Ostrovsky a Mossad trainee who never made it to
full operative. This is reflected in his book -- the most interesting
(and most accurate) bits of which involved descriptions of his Mossad
training. It is when he started divulging "secrets" built on "evidence"
such as verbatim conversations between people whose languages he did not
understand, conversations that took place years before he joined Mossad's
training program that people started becoming suspicious.
Ostrovsky's ghost writer, Victor Hoy, commented in his introduction that
Mr. O was an atrocious speller. This was a polite way of saying the man
was completely incoherent with the pen -- something I discovered to my
amusement earlier this year when Victor himself showed up in the
talk.politics.mideast newsgroup (our first celebrity citing worth note).
When some of us challenged the veracity of Ostrovsky's accusations, we
were treated to pages of rambling, barely decipherable abuse. When we
returned the favor and started questioning the ex-Mossadnik's honesty and
poking mild fun at his pretensions, Victor took the course of most brave
InterNet losers, declaring in haughty tones that we were no longer worth
his time and vanishing forever from UseNet.
Ostrovsky's supporters love to parade the huge sales of his first book as
proof positive of the author's accuracy of Mossad malfeasance. (In fact,
book sales were due to the free publicity Israel stupidly gave the
publisher by trying to stop publication of the book, fearing for agents
whom the author names in the volume.) That being the case, we must judge
from the dismal sales of Victor's sequel to "Deception" that the public is
no longer buying it (especially when many of his accusations in Book II
contradict those in Book I). News this summer came out that Hal's brave,
galactic hero was asking the forgiveness of his former countrymen and
looking for a way to go home. (Imagine that? Not only did that
out-of-control, all-powerful Mossad not eliminate someone who was
allegedly spilling their most damning secrets, but the snitch actually
wants to return back to the "NaZionist" empire! Better find a new source
of dirt Hal. The Ostrovsky dog no longer seems to be hunting.)
In terms of Left-Wing anti-Semitism, the case of Israel Shahak is most
telling, so forgive me if I tell a longish tale.
Shahak is a retired Israeli chemistry professor (and Holocaust survivor),
most known for translating excerpts from the Israeli press in his regular
"Shahak Report." By a strange coincidence, all of the items included in
the "Shahak Reports" seemed to verify Shahak's central thesis: that Israel
is a racist, repressive, grasping, expansionist, exploitive, human-rights
catastrophe. Naturally, any report that failed to confirm this
characterization ended up on the cutting room floor.
Shahak's used similar "scholarly techniques" when dabbling with Talmudic
scholarship in a 1994 book entitled "Jewish History, Jewish Religion."
For those unfamiliar with Jewish history, the Talmud is a massive
collection of Jewish law, compiled over several centuries, that lays out
the rules of living a religious life. For more than a thousand years, the
material in the Talmud has been re-interpreted and commented on, in an
attempt to make it fit in with changing circumstances, creating a massive
body of work that has evolved continually for generations.
The central thesis of Shahak's book is that Jewish tradition is one of
unrelenting hostility to non Jews, transmitted from generation to
generation through the Talmud. Among other things, the Talmud teaches
Jewish children to utter ritual curses when they pass a Christian
cemetery. It requires Jews to exact as much interest as possible when
doing business with Gentiles (page 42). It also spells out one scurrilous
accusation after another about Jesus Christ. When these and other similar
allegations were published by Czarists and European right-wing forces in
the 19th and early 20th century, it was called "Talmud Defamation."
Apparently, when published by the organic chemist Shahak at the end of the
20th century, this dirt has been alchemically transmuted into "enlightened
scholarship."
As with any large, living work, like the Talmud, it is easy for someone to
reach in and grab what they want to prove one thesis or another,
especially if you ready to ignore passages or commentary that would blunt
that thesis.
Richard Schultz, an InterNet-head with a solid knowledge of Talmud, took
apart Shahak's book over at talk.politics.mideast last year when various
Holocaust Deniers and characters such as Hal Womack were masturbating
themselves into unconsciousness over "Jewish History Jewish Religion."
Suffice to say, Shahak's book does not stand up to even the slightest
scrutiny by anyone who knows something about the subject matter (one of
the reasons he is most popular among those who are the most ignorant of
Jewish traditions).
Without going into a long dissection of Talmud, let me give you a more
contemporary bit of evidence about Shahak's veracity. Here on page one of
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion" Shahak begins his book by describing an
incident that supposedly took place in 1965 when he witnessed a non-Jew
collapse in his Jerusalem neighborhood and an Orthodox Jew refused the use
of his phone to save the unconscious man's life:
"[In 1965] I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to
allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance
for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem
neighborhood. Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I
asked for a meeting with the members of the Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem,
which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked
them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the
Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved
correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring em to a
passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmud laws, written in this
century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Haaretz, whose
publication of the story caused a media scandal.
"The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the
Israeli, nor the Diaspora, rabbinical authorities never reversed their
ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life
of a Gentile."
Now Shahak has been repeating this accusation for the last thirty years.
Interestingly enough, when asked to provide names or details about this
incident after it occurred, he was unable to do so. The "scandal" he
refers to having taken place in Haaretz was actually over whether -- in
the absence of any evidence whatsoever -- Shahak made the whole thing up.
Shahak's supporters have countered challenges to Shahak's veracity with
"The Criswell Defense," popularized by Criswell the Psychic at the end of
Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space," namely "can you prove it didn't
happen."
To avoid getting into another conspiracy-theory argument, I will simply
concentrate on the rabbinical element in this incident. According to
Shahak, rabbinical authorities (unnamed) informed him after the incident
that the alleged Orthodox Jew was correct, that a Jew cannot break Sabbath
to save the life of a non-Jew. In fact, according to the passage from
page one of his 1994 book, no rabbinical authorities have EVER countered
this interpretation. And yet, I have in front of me an article written in
1966 by Immanuel Jakobovitz, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain -- and a
noted scholar in medical ethics -- which discusses the Shahak Affair in
great detail. The article was published in the religious magazine
"Tradition" and provides the definitive Halaka (Jewish Law) analysis on
the very subject Shahak brought up: whether a Jew can break the Sabbath to
save the life of a non-Jew. Unsurprisingly, the rabbi's conclusion is the
opposite of that claimed by Shahak, namely, that according to Jewish law a
Jew MUST break the Sabbath the to save the life of anyone, Jew or non-Jew.
Now Israel Shahak is familiar with this article. He made reference to
Rabbi Jakobovitz at MIT when I confronted him last year. Also, in a reply
to Richard Schultz on talk.politics.mideast, Shahak's chief water carrier
on the net, Yigel Arens (son of Israeli politico Moshe Arens and a friend
of Shahak), told us that Shahak had written a highly critical letter to
Tradition Magazine about Rabbi Jakobovitz article in 1966. In other
words, Shahak admitted knowing about the existence of a definitive
treatise on the very subject he has been bringing up for thirty years, and
yet he continues to claim that no such interpretation exists! Ipso-facto,
henceforth and thus, Israel Shahak is a liar.
Given the complete lack of credibility of the author, it is small wonder
that his squalid little tract has only been embraced by the fringes of the
Far Right and Far Left since its publication. In truth, Shahak's latest
book-shaped object is really little more than a poorly-disguised
regurgitation of 19th and early 20th century Talmud defamation. As such,
it represents a red line for even the most hostile anti-Israel forces who
recognize that embracing its assertions means embracing classic
anti-Semitic canards of the ages. (It's hard to claim that one is just
being "anti-Zionist" when you claim religious Jews wash their hands twice
before means, once in worship of God, once in worship of the devil.)
To their credit, a majority of liberals, Leftists and conservatives for
that matter have kept the book and its author at arms length. One
significant exception I can think of is a Mr. Noam Chomsky of MIT whose
words ring out from the front cover blurb:
"Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of
knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great
value."
Another example, of course, would be Mr. Hal Womack.
So it seems that (borrowing Hal's fondness for mathematical symbols) Jews
who defend themselves against physical attack or rhetorical assaults by
moral cripples = Bad Jews = NaZionists. Good Jews = Only those who are
active in the defamation and destruction of their own people. And all
indifferent Jews = Zionist dupes.
Getting back to the people of Iraq with whom Hal seems to be so concerned,
it was reported yesterday [December, 1995] by a UN human rights
organization that Saddam Hussein has again refused to sell $1 billion in
oil because of the onerous restrictions the UN would place on such a sale
according to the cease fire terms of the Gulf War (i.e. -- they would make
him use it to buy food for his people, rather than weapons or bribes for
his supporters).
Now given your important influence Hal (Womack informed me earlier this
year that it was he who personally brought down the Bush administration in
1992), maybe you can convince the Left to in turn convince Saddam Hussein
to use that money to feed his people. After all, you do care about those
people more than you do Saddam's pride, don't you Hal? Or is your concern
for the children of Iraq the same a bank robber shows to his hostage when
he informs the police to "drop their weapons or the bitch gets it?"
Finally, you closed your last diatribe by accusing me of "self-defeating
arrogance against gentiles." In fact, while you continue to worship at
the feet of compulsive liars like Victor Ostrovsky and Israel Shahak, I
prefer to draw my moral lessons from a real hero, Dr. Martin Luther King,
who said two very wise things:
(1) "...You declare my friend, that you do not hate Jews, you are merely
'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the highest
mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When
people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is God's own truth." (so
much for your: I don't hate Jews, I just want to kill Zionists -- or
"NaZionists" -- drivel)
(2) I want to live in a country where a man is judged not by the color of
his skin but by the content of his character.
So, you see, I judge no one by the group they belong to, whether they be
Jew or Gentile, black or white. I choose to judge them based on their
character. And after many months of observation, I have concluded that
you, Hal Womack, have none.
Get well soon.
Jon
Hal Womack
description of him as 'a man without honor' --he's a she! Although FTF
that does make a difference, in heavy traffic on the road or on the Net,
she should know better than to try to use her sex as an excuse for dirty
dealing. Ms. Singer continues her deceitful personal attack against me
with a persistence worthy of a better cause. Why does she ignore my offer,
cited below [#A], to cooperate on vital matters such as lifting the
Clinton Administration embargos against Iraq and against Cuba? Why does
she choose to pursue her baseless, futile abuse rather than taking some
positive steps to save life and to establish the rule of law in the world?
After all, her casual declaration that we Americans should arrest Mr.
George Bush for war crimes in Central America really rather a striking
position. Ordinarily, in my extensive polling experience, people believing
this way spontaneously feel some sense of solidarity with each other. Any
review of the Net will show whole truck loads of posters who have yet to
get that far in their thinking. What's Ms. Singer's problem? Will it turn
out to resemble somebody else's problem?
Lane Singer (lsi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Hal Womack (wom...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : This lad is rattled and repeating himself without saying anything
: : sensible, severe case of Net-shock; village bully meets the big city, goes
: : splat.
: you are quite full of yourself, mr.womack.
Ms. Singer introduces herself in public by accusing me of
lying. When I ask her why, she drops the issue. All of a sudden she gets
bored when she's expected to produce facts. She's striking the pose of
"Hold my magnolia, Pappy, while ah whups mah slave!" Is she running for
the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet Reno?
The original context of these quoted passages appears again below
[#B].
: : Exactly on what does Mr. Singer think that he bases his attempt to
: : excuse President Clinton from prosecution for his crimes? Does Jehovah
: : appear to him directly for his daily briefings?
: ms.singer is an atheist. stop being such a racist.
The gal delivers herself of her second accusation. Earlier I
rightly predicted that she would fail to substantiate her first one, so
ditto now. This time will she try to explain with references why
reasonable folk should judge me as a bigot --or will she scurry away in
her currish fashion? She presumably knows from my past articles that I
went to jail in Huntsville, Texas in 1965 for Martin Luther King's
Southern Christian Leadership Conference as well as numerous times over
ten years in four states for the Vietnamese, to keep the list short. Will
she present her credentials on this matter or will she yet again slink
away? Does she think that she's a Sulzberger or a Sias who can throw her
thunderbolts of slander and laugh? Could it be that in some twisted
fashion she takes my reference to 'Jehovah' as evidence of 'racism' and,
if so, which 'race'?
BTW I recommend that we retire the term 'racist' as a blame-word
because of its double ambiguity. First, the idea of the Human Race
conflicts with the alternate usage WRT black, oriental and white 'races'
and IMHO we should prefer the former sense. Second, a 'racist' fails to
specify which particular breed the bigot is vaunting. Such terms as 'whitist'
etc. focus more precisely. "Breedist" sounds a bit ugly and maybe that's
a desirable quality in a blame-word. The old "jingo" also a handy tag for
ultra-nationalists, as in American or Jewish j., for example.
: singer -------------------------------------------
: Hated by fools, and fools to hate,
: Be that my motto and my fate.
: --Jonathan Swift.
Miss Slow Lane Shrill Singer deluded by foolish hatred, too true.
________#A________________________________________________________
: : Can we elicit the motivation for his drive-by attack by asking him:
: : A) IYOO [='in your oficial opinion'] Should we, the American people,
: : arrest Mr. George Bush for war crimes in Central America?
: sure.
: : B) Should we immediately lift the embargos against Iraq and
: : against Cuba?
: sure.
: : C) Should we arrest President Clinton for the murder of Leyla
: : al-Attar in Baghdad on 26 June 1993 and for the massacre of the Branch
: : Davidians on --well, everybody remembers this date now anyway, right?
: no.
I thank Mr. Singer for answering my questions. Since we agree on
the first two, perhaps we can figure out a way to work together on these
urgent, vital issues.
WRT to C), Mr. Singer should check out Seymour Hersh's article "A
Case Not Closed" in one of the Fall '93 issues of the NEW YORKER magazine.
Mr. Hersh demolishes the Clinton Administration's flimsy pretexts for its
rocket attack on the Iraqi capital, thus exposing President Clinton's
action as a flagrant example of the kind of wanton, criminal aggression
the punishment of which was the declared purpose of the Nuremburg War
Crimes Trials. On 'talk.politics.guns' or in the bookstore he can find the
material for the indictment for Baby-Burning Billy's use of the Imperial
Secret Police ['ISP'] to destroy the Mount Carmel Center outside of Waco.
_____#B_____________________________________________________________
: i have no idea who haber is. i've read quite a number of your
: posts, however. whatever my political position (and you haven't
: a clue what it is) i don't base it on propaganda.
Speaking of clues, Mr. Singer has 'no idea who haber is' although
Jon Haber's posting on this thread prompted Mr. Singer's own reply in
which Mr. Haber's name appears. Clue # two = Mr. Singer has stated his
position above on several major issues and he still thinks he's invisible.
This lad is rattled and repeating himself without saying anything
sensible, severe case of Net-shock; village bully meets the big city, goes
splat. Exactly on what does Mr. Singer think that he bases his attempt to
excuse President Clinton from prosecution for his crimes? Does Jehovah
appear to him directly for his daily briefings? Lane Singer seems to feel
that 'propaganda' means that somebody else is talking.
_________________________________________
The header for #A & B follows:
From: wom...@netcom.com (Hal Womack)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:16:52 GMT
Lines: 88
He
tries the lame dodge that he's 'not interested in debating' the subject,
although to begin with he was ready enough to open his viper's mouth. A
man without honor.
JonHaber
>Reno?
Being your old charming self Hal? Boy, it's just a matter of time before
all of these justice-loving, freedom-worshipping, humanity-embracing
Chomsky fans let you know what they think of your attitude towards women
AND Jews!
>She presumably knows from my past articles that I
>went to jail in Huntsville, Texas in 1965 for Martin Luther King's
>Southern Christian Leadership Conference
And look at what you have become. A stale, old cretin who deals with his
critics with verbal violence and a hand gun. Someone who wears Martin
Luther King's image like a button while working against everything for
which King stood.
What a difference 30 years makes.
Jon Haber
JonHaber
>the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet Reno?
Being your old charming self Hal? Boy, it's just a matter of time before
all of the freedom-worshiping, humanity-embracing, peace-loving Chomsky
fans in this group let you know what they think of your attitudes towards
women AND Jews.
>She presumably knows from my past articles that I
>went to jail in Huntsville, Texas in 1965 for Martin Luther King's
>Southern Christian Leadership Conference
And look at what you have become: a stale, paranoid, anti-Semitic,
mysogenistic cretin who deals with critics using verbal violence and a
hand gun. Someone who wears Martin Luther King's image like a button
while laboring against everything for which King stood.
Hal Womack
The topic of Professor Chomsky's relation with 'our' new Director
of Central Intelligence [sic], Professor John Deutch, IMHO deserves its
own thread, namely this one. Since Jon Haber's 325 lines of personal
attack show the intensity of his interest in a diverging theme, I have
just started a new thread for it under the title of "'NaZionism': Haber
vs. Womack". There the interested reader can verify for herself that Mr.
Haber is trying to run his car on flat tires.
"One must keep ever in mind that in J.H.'s twisted mind the effort
to save the lives of Arab civilians deserves such abuse as he can find to
fling at it." From:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.current-events.russia,talk.politics.china,soc.culture.japan,talk.politics.mideast,alt.politics.clinton
From: wom...@netcom.com (Hal Womack)
Subject: Re: Iraq And the Six Billion
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 05:22:24 GMT
Lines: 303
I am responding to Mr. Haber's piece below:
JonHaber (jonh...@aol.com) wrote:
: I assume it has been the X-Mas holiday that has kept members of this
: newsgroup from letting us know what they think of Hal Womack’s railing
: against the Salzberg’s (whoops, I mean the New York Times!), Zionist
: control of the U.S. government, and other transparent anti-Semitic
: claptrap with a fervency so far reserved only for Werner Cohn and myself.
--
Hal Womack
: >Is she running for the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet
: >Reno?
: Being your old charming self Hal? Boy, it's just a matter of time before
: all of these justice-loving, freedom-worshipping, humanity-embracing
: Chomsky fans let you know what they think of your attitude towards women
: AND Jews!
Well, whaddya, whaddya? Up gallops the gallantish knightly to the
aid of the amazing Slander Woman just in time to answer the question that
had languished for nearly 14 hours, namely:
"What's Ms. Singer's problem? Will it turn out to resemble somebody
else's problem?" From:
From: wom...@netcom.com (Hal Womack)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:18:20 GMT
Lines: 134
We know that Mr. Haber has a problem something chronic of falling
into caps-lock when he gets excited and also of doubling his posts, as if
that would make them twice as impressive. BTW for the record, I'll post as
a footnote the broader context of the quote*. Also, I would be just
delighted to meet Mr. Haber in a public FTF discussion, should
circumstances permit, since he strikes the pose of someone trying to
gather a posse or whip up a mob. That brings to mind an event down at
Stanford University around 1985, an evening program which included a
representative from the State Department and the late William Kunstler
speaking on the Reagan Administration's policy toward Nicaragua. In the Q
& A period, I pointed out to the State rep that he was defending on-going
atrocious war crimes against the people of that country and asked if he
could think of any good reason why we the audience should refrain from
taking him outside and hanging him from the nearest tree. The question
visibly shook him, which brought Mr. Kunstler running up to the front of
the stage to entreat us to leave his old buddy whomever-it-was in peace,
saying that he, Kunstler, vouched for him.
WRT to my attitudes toward women and toward Jews: Although
Chairman Mao may have been less than completely original on this point, he
was certainly right that there be good & bad in everything. For example, I
admire Mother Teresa, Le Ly Hayslip, Rigoberta Menchu, Jennifer Harbury
and J. California Cooper as some of the outstanding leaders of the Human
Race. OTOH Attorney General Janet Reno, according to her own practice,
deserves capital punishment AFTOC [='after a fair trial, of course'] for
burning down the Branch Davidians. While I oppose the death penalty in
peacetime as a wicked policy, I do believe that we should punish her
severely. I misdoubt but what we will be able to find some similar charges
for Ms. Nora Slatkin, John Deutch's girl Friday & executive director of
the C.I.A.
WRT to my blunt language to Ms. Lane Singer: Those who light-mindedly
and irresponsibly libel their opponents have pulled down obloquy on their
own heads. Anyway, she falsely called me a liar and a bigot or 'racist',
to use her word; I simply pointed out to her where that path leads.
Jews, like the other 99+% of our species, fall into two basic
categories, to wit, the law-abiding and the criminal. We should behave
suitably toward both groups in the cases of all nationalities. Mr. Haber
and I profess mutual agreement on this point. We differ when it comes to
cases and cases add up to history. He has already changed his mind publicly,
although without apology, on the Weaver case, after at first endorsing the
murder by the Federal secret police of the mother Vicki with babe-in-arms
and of her fifteen year-old son, Sammy. Perhaps he will also change his
mind about supporting President Clinton's NaZionist strangulation of Iraq in
time to save a few lives. Presently, though, Mr. Haber hates the minority
of Jewish cultural leaders who uphold the idea of justice and he cheers
on the presently dominant although extremely shaky cabal pursuing a
genocidal policy.
: >She presumably knows from my past articles that I
: >went to jail in Huntsville, Texas in 1965 for Martin Luther King's
: >Southern Christian Leadership Conference
: And look at what you have become. A stale, old cretin who deals with his
: critics with verbal violence and a hand gun. Someone who wears Martin
: Luther King's image like a button while working against everything for
: which King stood.
The wanna-be charm-meister seems to need practice.
I have to ask the reader's help: I find it difficult to understand
exactly what profit Mr. Haber hopes to make by continuing his libel that I
have ever used a handgun against a peaceful person. The story fairly
well-known here in Northern California. There were fifteen witnesses to
the incident on my bus alone. One of the most common popular reactions has
been that I should have killed Mr. Dallas Johnson, rather than merely,
deliberately wounding him in the shin. The reader will remember that I had
been driving MUNI buses for 12 years; had suffered serious, permanent
injury as a result of a previous, similar attack in which I barehandedly
delivered my 6'4", 240 lb. assailant to the police; that Dallas Johnson,
in the company of his partner, had first attacked me with his fists
without provocation while I was driving the bus and then, at the time of
the shooting, was coming at me with a 36" dog chain in his hands after
having ignored my warning to stop. What would the reader have done in my
position?
Bearing in mind that Jon Haber and I began our Net acquaintance
because he favors starving to death Iraqi children, how else can we see
Mr. Haber save as a NaZionist ideologue of the most lethal stripe? He
brings to the Net de-mentality of Baruch Goldstein, honored today in
Israel by the Likudniki, and of Yigal Amir. [That is P.M. Rabin's
assassin's name, right?] In order for our species to grow up, to learn to
manage our planet right and to colonize the kozmos, we must and will
overcome that homicidal mentality. Until we succeed in that effort the
question will remain: How many of us will perish in the process and who?
I pay homage to those have fallen victim already, including:
Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X; Fred Hampton, Carl Hampton & 100
other Black Panthers; 4 million Vietnamese and many hundreds of thousands
of Central Americans and Arabs, including the Iraqi children who will die
today from starvation and preventable disease --while Mr. Haber gloats
and intones Dr. King's name over his own unholy cause.
Some clue to Mr. Haber's cultural outlook appears in Israel
Shahak's book JEWISH HISTORY, JEWISH RELIGION on p.78f.: "Rabbi Shim'on
used to say: 'The best of Gentiles --kill him: the best of snakes --dash
out its brains." The reader will note that the Rabbi Shim'on Weiser quotes
this adage in a letter to the soldier Moshe who has written him to ask his
guidance WRT the killing of Gentiles. Moshe answers, "To His Honour, my
dear Rabbi....As for the letter itself, I have understood it as follows:
In wartime I am not merely permitted, but enjoined to kill every Arab man
and woman whom I chance upon, if there is reason to fear that they help in
the war against us, directly or indirectly....I think that this matter of
the purity of weapons should be transmitted to the educational
institutions, at least the religious ones....I do hope that you shall be
active in this, so that our boys will know the line of their ancestors
clearly and unambiguously." This exchange of correspondence was "published
in the yearbook of one of the country's most prestigious religious
colleges, Midrashiyyat No'am, where many leaders and activists of the
National Religious Party and Gush Emmunim have been educated." [Note #8 =]
"....the yearbook [1974, pp.29-31] is in Hebrew, English and French, but
the material quoted here is printed in Hebrew only." This material from
the chapter entitled 'The Laws Against Non-Jews'.
Has Jon Haber attended such an Orthodox shul as this one? He and
Moshe seem as alike as two slices from the same pie, at least given their
different audiences.
The fact that, in the short run, the Sulzbergers of the NY TIMES
and Tishman [sp.?] of CBS can get away with the NZ strategy of slander
encourages Mr. Haber to bring this technique to the Net where his
simple-minded decision in a radically changed environment makes him
resemble Mr. Dallas Johnson, except that I am aiming true words at his
reputation rather than a bullet at his shin.
: What a difference 30 years makes.
: Jon Haber
Yup, then I was a callow barbarian; now I'm a 3 _dan_ on the
crest of my power.
________________________________________________
*
: you are quite full of yourself, mr.womack.
Ms. Singer introduces herself in public by accusing me of
lying. When I ask her why, she drops the issue. All of a sudden she gets
bored when she's expected to produce facts. She's striking the pose of
"Hold my magnolia, Pappy, while ah whups mah slave!" Is she running for
the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet Reno?
--
Lane Singer
<much barely coherent ranting snipped>
: "Hold my magnolia, Pappy, while ah whups mah slave!" Is she running for
: the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet Reno?
welcome to my killfile, fascist.
Hal Womack
: <much barely coherent ranting snipped>
I have restored below some of the snip, so that the reader can
easily judge for herself the accurracy, or lack thereof, of Ms. Singer's
description.
: : "Hold my magnolia, Pappy, while ah whups mah slave!" Is she running for
: : the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet Reno?
: welcome to my killfile, fascist.
"Liar, racist, fascist," bang! Yes, folks she's off and
running....away....going, gone. Anytime that I'm short of a trite insult,
I'll miss her. Oops, she dropped her bucket of facts, right out there in
the road.
: singer -------------------------------------------
: Hated by fools, and fools to hate,
: Be that my motto and my fate.
: --Jonathan Swift.
Miss Slow Lane Shrill Singer deluded by foolish hatred, still too
true.
___________________________
From: wom...@netcom.com (Hal Womack)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:18:20 GMT
Lines: 134
Ms. Singer continues her deceitful personal attack against me with
a persistence worthy of a better cause. Why does she ignore my offer ...
to cooperate on vital matters such as lifting the Clinton Administration
embargos against Iraq and against Cuba? Why does she choose to pursue her
baseless, futile abuse rather than taking some positive steps to save life
and to establish the rule of law in the world? After all, her casual
declaration that we Americans should arrest Mr. George Bush for war crimes
in Central America really rather a striking position. Ordinarily, in my
extensive polling experience, people believing this way spontaneously feel
some sense of solidarity with each other. Any review of the Net will show
whole truck loads of posters who have yet to get that far in their
thinking. What's Ms. Singer's problem? Will it turn out to resemble
somebody else's problem?
Lane Singer (lsi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Hal Womack (wom...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : This lad is rattled and repeating himself without saying anything
: : sensible, severe case of Net-shock; village bully meets the big city, goes
: : splat.
: you are quite full of yourself, mr.womack.
Ms. Singer introduces herself in public by accusing me of
lying. When I ask her why, she drops the issue. All of a sudden she gets
bored when she's expected to produce facts. She's striking the pose of
"Hold my magnolia, Pappy, while ah whups mah slave!" Is she running for
the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet Reno?
Qithara
: Getting back to the people of Iraq with whom Hal seems to
: be so concerned, it was reported yesterday [December, 1995]
: by a UN human rights organization that Saddam Hussein has
: again refused to sell $1 billion in oil because of the onerous
: restrictions the UN would place on such a sale according to
: the cease fire terms of the Gulf War (i.e. -- they would make
: him use it to buy food for his people, rather than weapons or
: bribes for his supporters).
: Now given your important influence Hal (Womack informed
: me earlier this year that it was he who personally brought
: down the Bush administration in 1992), maybe you can
: convince the Left to in turn convince Saddam Hussein to
: use that money to feed his people. After all, you do care
: about those people more than you do Saddam's pride, don't
: you Hal? Or is your concern for the children of Iraq the
: same a bank robber shows to his hostage when he informs
: the police to "drop their weapons or the bitch gets it?"
Mind us for interfering in this heated discussions of you TWO but can any
one honestly tell us what good can come out of this debate between you two
when million innocent Iraqi civilians and others elsewhere are slowly
being subjected to death for no apparent reason other than the OBVIOUS and
because of something not all of them were responsible for in the first
place? Why should the innocent babies pay for this? Is it because they are
Iraqi babies? Are these babies different than other babies? What if they
were Israeli or American babies or even other nationality babies and would
you sit idle as if it is not your concern if they were subjected to the
same ordeal? Can you tell us who is responsible for all this NEW form of
genocide against humanity? Is it the extreme LEFT or is it the extreme
RIGHT? Do you really think we care? How about human GREED and their
shameless struggle over world dominance which will be recorded in history
as the darkest moment for mankind!!!!
Mr. Haber you gave a good example to Hal about the bank robber but you
didn’t finish it. For instance who ---in your opinion of course--- are the
hostages? Who is really behind the robbery and how much did he get away
with and whether this person will ever be brought to justice or not? Who
are the police and if they really got there on time? And finally who is
the bitch and whether she really dodged the bullet?
You sure raise up some good questions but to all of us it seemed you also
don’t care about the dying innocent. Don’t try to hide behind DEMOCRACY.
This term never existed any where on this planet and has no meaning at all
as of yet!!!!!! If you are going to blame someone for not accepting the
offer we know exactly who you are going to name but that form of RECURRING
DILEMMA does not stop the suffering of the ordinary people. Give us an
acceptable solution where actual problems get solved and not become worst
than ever.
Peace and happy new year to all (if the word has any resemblance to
harmony at all)
Hal Womack
title propagated by James Daugherty in order to alert the reader that at
present at least some degree of doubt exists WRT the authenticity of Tim
Weiner's quoting of Professor Chomsky.
Subject: Re: Chomsky Names Deutsch Saint, Maybe Messiah
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.covert,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.illuminati
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.covert,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.illuminati
References: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.951230072624.1100...@conch.aa.msen.com> <womackDK...@netcom.com> <4c6qvg$k...@news1.blythe.org>
Organization: Womack Enterprises
NY Transfer News Collective (n...@nyxfer.blythe.org) wrote:
: Not only was your spelling wrong, Mr. Womack: so was your assertion.
Which assertion was that, pray?
: As we have written you via private e-mail, Noam Chomsky has specifically
: denied Weiner's claim that he "approves of" Deutch's politics or his
: policies as DCI.
The Transfer writer has asked that I keep private her 3 e-letters
to me, pleading dire personal reasons. Since, however, she here misrepresents
their content and in general comes off on this issue as more squirrely
than Central Park, I will post below some of my zaps to her to convey the
public core of the dialogue while deleting the more sensitive parts.
How could Prof. Chomsky have 'specifically denied' a claim which
Mr. Weiner never made? I quoted Weiner's complete reference to Chomsky;
the content thereof refers solely to Mr. Deutch's character, as the
reader can confirm by referring to my original post.
Chomsky has written to Tim Weiner and The New York Times,
: that wonderful "paper of <mis-recorded> record" to the effect that he
: was misquoted. He and Deutch are apparently personal friends, but his
: affection for Deutch ends with the personal, and does not extend to the
: political. Chomsky was calmly amused by the rather outrageous, whole-cloth
: fabrications in Weiner's piece.
: NY Transfer News Collective
I talked today by telephone with the secretary to the editor of
the TIMES Magazine and to the secretary of the letters section of the
paper itself. Neither section has received any communication from Prof.
Chomsky since the publication of Mr. Weiner's article on 12/10. Tim Weiner
who works in the TIMES Washington, D.C. bureau, is on vacation until 1/8.
His research assistant is out until 1/9.
At the suggestion of Beverly Stohl, Prof. Chomsky's secretary, I
faxed Miss Transfer's zap to his office at M.I.T. on 1/2, asking that he
clear up the confusion. I spoke again today to Miss Stohl. She assures me
that Prof. Chomsky will take my communications home with him over the
weekend and that he will answer me next week either by zap, fax or snail
mail.
I draw the reader's attention to the contrast between the loving
detail in Miss Transfer's above description of Chomsky's alleged protest
against the supposed misquotation and her statement below WRT the alleged
original source's 'unsuitability for publication'. With the patience of
Heaven and the creek stays down, we will sort out this little controversy
in the next week or so.
______________________
From wom...@netcom.com Thu Jan 4 14:01:12 1996
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 07:12:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Hal Womack <wom...@netcom.com>
To: NY Transfer News Collective <n...@nyxfer.blythe.org>
Subject: Reply re Chomsky quote
On Sat, 30 Dec 1995, NY Transfer News Collective wrote:
> In soc.culture.el-salvador you write:
>
> #1 -- The man's name is spelled without an "s" -- Deutch
Many thanks for the correction!
> #2 -- Chomsky has written that Weiner misquoted him most egregiously
> on the subject of Deutch. I believe you can find this on the
> net, probably in one of the journalism groups or alt.activism.
> It was posted during the last 5 days.
My search for this topic in 'alt.activism', 'alt.journalism.print',
'alt.fan.noam-chomsky', 'soc.culture.el-salvador', etc. yielded zero results.
Have you actually seen such a statement under Chomsky's name? If so, where?
Can you forward it to me? BTW who are you, anyway?
> #3 -- what *is* it about The New York Times that makes even Times-bashers
> and other sceptics BELIEVE what their reporters write?
Some of the things the TIMES reporters write are sourced, as in
this case; others are sourced & constitute admissions contrary to the
interests of their employer. Still others I doubt, deny, challenge or
interpret creatively.
Two issues of the TIMES Sunday Magazine have appeared since the
the publication of Tim Weiner's article. If Chomsky did indeed feel that
Weiner had misquoted him, SOP was for him to protest to the Magazine,
which in turn would presumably publish his remarks in full. Should the
TIMES have refused to print his hypothetical correction --quite unlikely
IMHO-- Chomsky clearly has numerous other outlets available for his
statement, starting with 'alt.fan.noam-chomsky'.
I have been in touch by telephone and fax with Chomsky's office
at MIT and am currently awaiting his reply. In my fax I falsely told him
that I had immediately replied to your e-letter and was embarrassed to
come back to Pine and find that this reply was still in 'pending'. I have
yet to learn how to upload my Mac fax to unix, so if you should wish to
see a copy I will have to fax it to you.
Sincerely, Hal
From wom...@netcom.com Thu Jan 4 14:02:07 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 07:37:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Hal Womack <wom...@netcom.com>
To: NY Transfer News Collective <n...@nyxfer.blythe.org>
Subject: Reply #2 re Chomsky
Do you give me permission to publish either or both of your
e-letters, either in part or in full?
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, NY Transfer News Collective wrote:
> I regret you didn't find it; it may have been somewhere else, or it
> never got to your site. I regret I didn't save it more
> than a day or two; it wasn't suitable for posting as news. I clean my
> mailbox out regularly, since it receives hundreds of items a day. It may
> have been on our newsfeed but not yours -- the Internet is a very fragile
> thing, you know, and many feeds are different from one site to the next,
> depending on their source. Some pieces show up on all sites and others
> only show up on a few of the sites.
You are saying here, I take it, that you did see such a statement
under Chomsky's name and that you have forgotten the source and deleted it
from your files. Why did you decide that Chomsky's reported claim 'was not
suitable for news' ? On the face of it, looks to me like a top item.
Curious to think of a system designed to survive thermonuclear war as
'fragile', although some individual pieces of it fit that description.
The report remains mysterious to me, of course.
> Who is NY Transfer News? You *are* new to the Internet. Sorry I
> didn't realize this when I wrote you. We have been around
> for a decade. I will send you a flyer.
Had I received unsigned e-mail from any other institutional
source, I would have asked the same question. When I dial 'Information', I
routinely ask the operator to identify herself. How many full-time slots
does Transfer have? Are you hiring ? :-) I have posted around 50k lines on
various topics to the Net in the last 2 years.
> You are not only new to the net, you are horribly naive. The NY Times
> routinely refuses to print letters from chomsky and his co-author
> of many books, Edward Hermann.
In general both men write quite a bit. Roughly how many past
occasions do you recall when Chomsky protested a serious misquotation by
the TIMES of his own words to them and had such a protest suppressed by
them? WRT to that capricious mythological creature, 'professional
journalistic ethics', such cases differ obviously radically from writing
in in to argue general policy. If they have seriously and obstinately
misquoted Chomsky before, why did he talk to Tim Weiner at all? Whatever
my degree of sophistication or lack thereof, I do try to learn.
> You don't know much about The NY Times.
For the time being I will make do with knowing enough to put the
Sulzbergers in prison, Heaven permitting.
[snip]
If the TIMES moves royally court-wise, away from Net-discussion, its
influence will plummet IMHO. Usenet has broken their hegemony; 'tis a new
ball game with quite different rules.
> warped and propaganda-laden content. You do read the paper, I presume,
> occasionally. If you have read any of Chomsky's work, you know what they
> do in their "news" sections. The most disheartening thing is that
> The NY Times may well be, as they claim, the best paper in the US.
> What that says about the rest is pretty terrible.
That sentiment really deserves to be carved in stone in some
prominent public place. Fortunately, the Net is bursting with life.
We should expect further qualitative breakthroughs. You noticed that
occasionally I do read the TIMES; otherwise I would have had to employ a
trance-state or a ouija board to produce that article, right?
> Oh. a Mac. Well, we run an *electronic* news service and an internet
> site.
Yes, someday I hope to be able to trade in my coal-burning Mac
for a newer model. I hear of all kinds of advances.
> We don't own a fax machine.
Would you like to make an offer on my Mac? :-)
> I was just trying, by private e-mail,
> to correct somethng you said publicly, to save you embarrassment.
Will you explain why you think that I should be embarrassed by
having quoted the TIMES in good faith? Otherwise, I do appreciate all
friendly vibes. You will remember that my article* explicity requests from
the readers such information as you have more-or-less provided to me. Of
the ten or so follow-ups, only your e-letter has made this report of a
misquote. Again, one would think that any such knowledge would be on the
tip of the tongue of most of the readers of 'alt.fan.noam-chomsky'. Such
corrections routinely appear promptly on the Usenet, as you doubtless are
well aware.
> When
> you did not reply, and others jumped on the piece you posted, I posted
> a second public response.
The plot thickens. Where did you post your _first_ 'public
response'? Your first zap to me referred to an origin in
'soc.culture.el-salvador'; no Transfer posting currently appears in that
n.g. nor, for example, in 'nyc.politics'. There are 13 n.g.'s on my
'Chomsky Names Deutch' thread. All that I have checked showed 19 responses
so far, none from Transfer. For reference, the latest Transfer posting in
'alt.activism' is dated 1/4 01:37 but, of course, it does not refer to
this issue. I acknowledge that Netcom sometimes does have delays in
posting its newsfeeds. Where & when did you post your second public
response? Will you kindly now zap me copies of both your relevant postings?
> I am sorry I got into it at all, frankly.
That's what I hope to hear Mr. Deutch say one fine day about the
C.I.A. Are you feeling better now?
> When & if you hear from Chomsky, maybe you can take care of posting a
> correction in the newsgroups.
I am still waiting for Chomsky's response. Should he confirm your
report, I will certainly post it immediately. Up to now I have replied
promptly even to mere dingbats on the thread.
> I really don't have time to continue this
> correspondence.
I appreciate your having taken time from your busy schedule to
favor me with this information. I am sending you this reply as a
precaution for the record. Should you surprisingly find to time to answer
my questions, I will be pleased.
> I am sorry I don't have the Chomsky piece any longer. I am sure when you
> hear from him, you will read for yourself what I was talking about.
[snip]
_____________________________
* The version I posted to 'ba.politics' etc. rather than the version that
James Daugherty posted to 'alt.conspiracy' etc.
Jose Luis Vivas
From a reply by NC to a question concerning Tim Weiner's article, which
apeared in the LBBS forum AskZ&C, December 19, 1995:
-----------
Reply from NC, on Tim Weiner's article in NY Times Mag.
There are three possible interpretations of Weiner's fairy tales
about what I said to him. One: he is an utter idiot, and cannot
understand anything that doesn't conform to his doctrinal
commitments. Two (more likely), he had a story line, and needed
something to make it work, so decided to fabricate those quotes
and attribute them to me (then Reagan and Chomsky agree, etc.).
Three (most likely): it was an in-joke among the commissar class.
They understand that one must NEVER quote any dissident opinion,
or even concede its existence, though it is permissible -- indeed
useful -- to fabricate quotes that make critics of privilege and
power look like imbeciles. I suspect that the third
interpretation is correct. One must bear in mind that these are
quite silly and cowardly people, who would find adolescent humor
just their style.
Weiner asked me my opinion of Deutsch and I answered, truthfully,
that we disagreed about as much as any two human beings could on
every imaginable issue, but remained personal friends, because of
respect for the other's integrity, something incomprehensible in
the circles that Weiner inhabits. The fragment of truth in his
tale is that I said that by the standards of the academic world,
or respectable intellectuals generally (including his circles),
Deutsch has unusual integrity and honesty, whatever one thinks
about his opinions and commitments. That's true, and I have no
problem in saying it -- understanding, of course, that it will
look quite different by the time it passes through the filters of
the commissar culture.
End of Reply
Richard Dunsheath
>Reply from NC, on Tim Weiner's article in NY Times Mag.
>There are three possible interpretations of Weiner's fairy tales
>about what I said to him. One: he is an utter idiot, and cannot
>understand anything that doesn't conform to his doctrinal
>commitments.
Yeah, I'm sick of those dang liberals at the NY Times always being to
doctrinal. I'm not so sure that the have too many utter idots though.
Most of them seem to be very smart, just so very liberal that they see
everyhing through rose-colored (pink) glasses.
>Two (more likely), he had a story line, and needed
>something to make it work, so decided to fabricate those quotes
>and attribute them to me (then Reagan and Chomsky agree, etc.).
Fabricate quotes eh? Misquote perhaps, but fabricate?
>Three (most likely): it was an in-joke among the commissar class.
Name calling? Is this hate speech? Bashing an entire group of
people? My, my, how very unseemly.
>They understand that one must NEVER quote any dissident opinion,
>or even concede its existence, though it is permissible -- indeed
>useful -- to fabricate quotes that make critics of privilege and
>power look like imbeciles.
No need to fabricate quotes to make Chomsky look like an imbecile.
Just let him talk.
> I suspect that the third
>interpretation is correct. One must bear in mind that these are
>quite silly and cowardly people, who would find adolescent humor
>just their style.
More hate speech!
>Weiner asked me my opinion of Deutsch and I answered, truthfully,
>that we disagreed about as much as any two human beings could on
>every imaginable issue, but remained personal friends, because of
>respect for the other's integrity, something incomprehensible in
>the circles that Weiner inhabits.
Cite proof please that this is incomprehnesible in the circles that
Weiner inhabits. Such mindless hate.
>The fragment of truth in his
>tale is that I said that by the standards of the academic world,
>or respectable intellectuals generally (including his circles),
>Deutsch has unusual integrity and honesty, whatever one thinks
>about his opinions and commitments.
Oh, there is a fragment of truth in Weiner's tale after all. What
about the statement that the quote was a fabrication?
>That's true, and I have no
>problem in saying it -- understanding, of course, that it will
>look quite different by the time it passes through the filters of
>the commissar culture.
Name calling. Doesn't he have naything more to add to the debate than
mindless name calling? I guess not.
I didn't notice the big difference between what was quoted in Weiner's
article and the quote above. Where's the difference? Help me here,
please.
Regards,
Rich
***************************************************************
"Prosperity or egalitarianism-you have to choose. I favor freedom-you never
achieve real equality anyway: you simply sacrifice prosperity for an
illusion."
Mario Vargas Llosa (b. 1936), Peruvian novelist. Independent on
Sunday (London, 5 May 1991).
Lester Toews
On 3 Jan 1996, JonHaber wrote:
> >Is she running for the 1996 Dumb Cunt award? Or does she work for Janet
> >Reno?
>
> Being your old charming self Hal? Boy, it's just a matter of time before
> all of these justice-loving, freedom-worshipping, humanity-embracing
> Chomsky fans let you know what they think of your attitude towards women
> AND Jews!
Bening your old maligning, sniveling self Jon. Womack clearly does not
define a "Chomsky fan", the whole notion of a "Chomsky fan" is abhorrent
to those who respect and admire Chomsky, and Chomsky himself abhors the
notion of either a "Chomsky fan" or this newsgroup.
YOu take a comment from someone who has previously criticized Chomsky (on
erroneous as opposed to reasonable grounds) and claim the he represents
Chomsky 'fandom.'
This is just so typical of how you operated around here for at least the
past year. With total dishonesty.
JonHaber
And you are being your usual literate self Lester. What I pointed out was
that someone who presents himself as progressive in this folder and then
goes on to refer to one of his critics as a "dumb cunt" could expect a
hail of abuse FROM Chomsky's supporters in this newsgroup. (Not that Hal
was a Chomsky supporter himself.)
If I had posted Hal's kind of language, you can rest assured that not only
would everyone be swarming on me like ants on sugar, but that my vulgarity
would become a permanent part of everyone's archive, to be thrown in the
face of anyone who ever brought up the Faurisson Affair again.
Anyway, it turns out that I was wrong in thinking that use of such vile
language would finally make the people in this newsgroup express anger
against political foes and alleged political friends with equal vigor. So
far, the only comdemantion of Hal's calling someone a "dumb cunt" has come
from you -- criticizing me for criticizing him.
So to everyone in the newsgroup: great job battling racism, sexism and
anti-Semtisim on the Left!
And once again, Lester, congradulations for living down to everyone's
expectations.
Jon
Daniel T. Kristjansson
Hal Womack (wom...@netcom.com) wrote:
: [A)Should we] arrest Mr. George Bush for war crimes in Central America?
: B) Should we immediately lift the embargos against Iraq and
: C) Should we arrest President Clinton for the murder of Leyla
: they can to bite off its balls. [A moment of silent prayer.] Ho Chi Minh
: finally kicked Lyndon Johnson in the teeth and, Heaven again permitting,
: the free spirit of the Net finally will do the same to her all of her
: enemies in the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in the U.S. Senate, in the Munich
: prosecutor's office and wherever else lying tongues cluck together over
: guilty secrets and bloody hands.
: * = the monopoly propaganda MEDia of the JASPer^ oligarchy of the
: U.S.A., a.k.a. 'mainstream news' [^ = 'Jewish & Anglo-Saxon Protestant'].
--
Daniel Thor Kristjansson http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~dkristja
NYU Engineer U.S.S Silly http://www.nyu.edu/pages/engineering
to geek or not to geek, th..., A is sometimes A, God is dead
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>Mind us for interfering in this heated discussions of you TWO but can
any
>one honestly tell us what good can come out of this debate between you
two
>when million innocent Iraqi civilians and others elsewhere are slowly
>being subjected to death for no apparent reason other than the
OBVIOUS
They are dieing, because Saddam wants them to die. Iraq has already
been given permission to sell oil, provided the proceeds are used only
to buy humanitarian supplies.
Saddam refuses, because he knows that the sight of dieing babies will
cause know nothing bleeding hearts to demand that all sanctions be
lifted.
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
abu...@mail.utexas.edu
On 3 Jan 1996, JonHaber wrote:
>Is she running for the 1996 Dumb Cunt award?
Would you have said "the 1996 Dumb Penis award" if she was a man?
Lane Singer
: On 3 Jan 1996, JonHaber wrote: (not)
: >Is she running for the 1996 Dumb Cunt award?
: Would you have said "the 1996 Dumb Penis award" if she was a man?
a) jon haber didn't say it in the first place, he was simply
the only person on this thread who objected to it (with the
exception the original target -- moi).
b) hal womack wrote it.
c) "Dumb *Prick* award" would be slightly more analogous, anyway,
though there are no terms for penis as despicable as "cunt"
is for pundy.
singer ------------------------------------------------------
Sex is like a chain gang -- there are no volunteers.
You get hand-cuffed to a maniac, for sixty years.
--------------------------------------------- the Oyster Band