Background info on Kenny McVay
Boris Dynin
Subject: Ken McVay -- some background
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 05:01:38 +0100
Message-ID: <3da4...@212.67.96.135>
Ken McVay has recently seen fit to try to tarnish my good name in this
newsgroup and related newsgroups. He does that quite a lot to people who
disagree with him. It's a vicious and nasty way of doing politics. It can
ruin people's lives. Yet rather than debate with people, he has made it his
modus operandi to attack their good names instead. Never mind the effect
that it might have on their families. Never mind the damage it can cause.
That's the only way he can promote the cause of anti-revisionism.
Fine. As such it is quite legitimate in my view for his victims to turn the
tables on him and put his own character under the spotlight.
Ken McVay has a daughter, Lisa.
Evidence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Nov21.004414.135%40oneb.almanac.bc.ca&output=gplain
Newsgroups: can.general,bc.general
Subject: Re: Making child suppo work - was: PARENTS REALIZING CHILD SUPPORT
Message-ID: <1992Nov21....@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
From: kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:44:14 GMT
'I thought I'd augment my earlier response with some observations... I spent
some time with Lisa Graham today (she is my daughter, in case anyone's
curious about my interest in this matter), and had an opportunity to see
what she was up against.'
She subsequently became Lisa Lambeth.
There's a delicious thread or two dating from around 1992 in which Ken McVay
and Lisa have a wonderful row with various people in a child support thread
on Usenet, no less, apparently because Lisa was trying to claim (I won't say
extort) money from her ex (a Mr Graham) to pay for her child's pony and Ken
was supporting her -- despite the fact that she admitted using some of her
support money to go on vacation to Florida. (It appears there was a court
case, Graham vs. Graham -- probably records of it somewhere which would
contain the details.) Apparently she left her marriage to go to live with
another man called Gary Lambeth ('but he came into this relationship with
his own debts to pay'), which presumably might have had something to do with
her ex's unwillingness to pay for the pony.
She used to live in a trailer, which is interesting given the tendency of
McVay's supporters to refer to revisionists as 'trailer trash':
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=eqJHVB...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca&lr=&hl=en
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: child support problems
Message-ID: <eqJHVB...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca>
From: li...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 14:45:25 PST
<begin quote>
d) The trailer I spoke of was a 2 bedroom one and decent enough to live in.
As the rooms were small, I gave each child a room and I slept on the
couch in the livingroom. I purchased it with my half of the proceeds
from our matrimonial home, and the mortgage payments were some $200.00
less than the going rental rates at the time. I sold it because I could
not even afford to pay the lousy $547.00/mo., and was concerned about
possible foreclosure.
My ex got his $13,000.00 out of the sale of our former home. What he
did with it was his business. Furthermore, I agreed to pay 1/2 of his
outstanding debts, BEFORE we saw any attorneys, although legally, I was
aware that I didn't have to.
<end quote>
McVay himself is divorced
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1993May16.143017.20024%40oneb.almanac.bc.ca&output=gplain
Newsgroups: bc.general,alt.child-support,can.politics
Subject: Re: Family Maintenance Enforcement Program
Message-ID: <1993May16.1...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
From: kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sun, 16 May 93 14:30:17 GMT
References: <k3HJ4B...@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca>
<1993May15....@ll.mit.edu>
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
<begin quote>
'in the case of my divorce '
<end quote>
Which (a) suggests why Ken was so keen to support his daughter's rather
greedy claim and (b) suggests that McVay has some further skeletons in his
cupboard that might be revealed in the transcripts of McVay v. McVay . . .
but I digress . . .
In another post Ken seems to confess that this was because he failed as a
father:
<begin quote>
Once upon a time, millions of salmon ago, I moved my family from a Yankee
city all the way up across the Canadian border and right there about 500
miles up the arsehole of the world. At the time, I was convinced I had
whatever it was it took to be a pioneer - to hack a home out of the bush and
raise my children there. (I was wrong, but that's often been the case in my
life, so I've gotten used to it :-))
<end quote>
He continues:
<begin quote>
I wanted to buy my daughter a pony. All I had, mind you, to KEEP a pony, was
160 acres of certified, mosquito-filled raw Canadian bush, but that rarely
prevented me from doing things like buying a horse for my critter, so of
course I bought her one - if anyone cares about that tail, try getting Lisa
over to rec.equestrian to chat, or ask her (politely) via email. I so
enjoyed watching Lisa with that horse that it wasn't long before I went out
and bought her another one - about the size of a small house.
When Reality finally set in, several horse stories later, I realized that
there was no way on God's earth that I could keep those horses, and I had to
explain that to my daughter.
<end quote>
That maybe suggests why Ken was keen to defend his daughter's claim for pony
money against the husband she deserted.
Ken makes some quite serious claims about Lisa's ex-husband:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Nov24.033610.17174%40oneb.almanac.bc.ca&output=gplain
Newsgroups: can.general,bc.general
Subject: Re: Making child suppo work - was: PARENTS REALIZING CHILD SUPPORT
Message-ID: <1992Nov24.0...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
From: kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:36:10 GMT
References: <1992Nov23.1...@xenitec.on.ca>
<1992Nov23....@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
<1992Nov24.0...@xenitec.on.ca>
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Lines: 65
<begin quote>
He has defrauded the federal government through bogus UIC claims (yes, UIC
is investigating, and I'm delighted to have had a part in that - it put paid
to one of his scams, which was working under the table while collecting
UI... and, I might add, the FMEP won't attach under-table wages, so he
killed several birds with one illegal act.), and done a good many other
things for which I sincerely hope he spends some jail time.
<end quote>
We don't know whether the claims are true. In that regard it is interesting
that Lisa managed to live with such an alleged crook for ten years quite
happily. However . . .
In another digression I should add that Lisa Lambeth's new-found
relationship did not end happily. In 1997, we find this sad little post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=33A5D7E7.4AA0%40nanaimo.ark.com&output=gplain
From: Lisa Lambeth <llam...@nanaimo.ark.com>
Subject: Question re: step-children & divorce petition requirements
Date: 1997/06/16
Message-ID: <33A5D7...@nanaimo.ark.com>#1/1
<begin quote>
Am about to file for divorce after a 7 yr relationship (3 1/2 yrs
legally married). Would like to file uncontested and am wondering if I
have to make any mention of my two children (by a former marriage)? My
estranged husband has no children of his own, but has lived with the
children and I for more than 1/2 their lives (they are 11 and 15 1/2).
He has never really supported them (financially) and I am seeking no
spousal or child maintenance orders nor lump sum settlements. He knows
there will be no problems with access, legal order for same or no. He
seeks nothing from me either. Thus, can I legally file a petition for
divorce without mentioning the children at all (though he has, more or
less, acted as parent to them during our relationship. I already have
orders for child support from the children's biological father)?
Any help greatly appreciated. Please e-mail response to:
llam...@nanaimo.ark.com
<end quote>
In another post, Mr McVay gives us some idea of what might have been behind
the collapse of his own marriage. He writes of a recurring dream:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Feb29.023312.5270%40oneb.wimsey.bc.ca&output=gplain
<begin quote>
Newsgroups: alt.dreams
Subject: Recurring annoyance :-)
Message-ID: <1992Feb29....@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>
From: kmc...@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 02:33:12 GMT
Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited
Lines: 16
For perhaps 25 years, I have had variants of the same dream at least
2-3 times a month. I remember them often enough to understand the
scenario:
I am being pursued by something - usually bears or sharks. They attack
my feet, and I kick back at them to protect myself. Alas, I kick the
hell out of my wife in the process, until her yells wake me up.
My wife isn't amused, bless her heart. Something's obviously bothering
me, since it manifests itself over and over again, but what?
<end quote>
There are other, less humorous, references to his fighting with his wife:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Apr28.062034.15391%40oneb.wimsey.bc.ca&output=gplain
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,can.general
Subject: Re: The illiteracy of the times
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.0...@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>
From: kmc...@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 92 06:20:34 GMT
References: <1992Apr26.1...@mongrel.uucp>
<1992Apr27....@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>
<LABACH.92A...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island
<begin quote>
I was married to a teacher for 25 years, and fought with her constantly
about the problems I observed from that vantage point,
<end quote>
It is not yet clear whether the fact that, as we have discovered, he was
viewing naked pictures of children and erotic videos and posting about the
latter to alt.sex had anything to do with the divorce.
Now, Mr McVay today launches a quite unprovoked attack on me because of my
views about the attack on the WTC. Never mind the fact that millions upon
millions of Americans and Canadians and Brits seem quite undisturbed by
American and British attacks on Iraqi, Afghan and Yugoslav civilians. Never
mind that they don't seem to bat an eyelid about Israeli attacks on
Palestinian civilians. Never mind the fact that if ever there were
legitimate military and economic targets, the Pentagon and WTC were quite
clearly them! No, McVay knows I'm in a minority (in the West) on this and so
rather than arguing with me he tries to smear me by using it to attack my
good name. He wants to make me out to be uniquely demonic.
Well then, let me address Mr McVay directly on the subject of character.
You feel that I'm somehow malevolent because of my views. Well, I can tell
you this, Mr Holier-than-Thou McVay.
During three years of marriage I have never fought my spouse. In all my life
I have never posted to alt.sex or anything like it (except maybe as
accidental crossposts when replying to crossposted threads in
alt.revisionism). I have never watched pornographic videos -- not even
*before* I was married. I have never viewed photos of naked children. I,
unlike you, have never dishonoured my marriage vows. And, unlike you, I will
make a point of teaching my child to honour his promises to other people
too -- your children (and I say children in the plural -- I'll spare you the
reason why) evidently regard their marriage promises as quite breakable.
You, Ken McVay, have failed as a husband. You've failed as a father. You're
even fairly useless as an anti-revisionist. In 1992 you were apparently
living on less than $13,000 per year (Message-ID:
<1992Dec17.1...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>), so you've failed in your
career. You're a twisted and bitter little man. Now rather than taking your
bitterness and frustration out on me, I suggest you go get psychiatric help
before you bugger up anyone else's life.
If you want to continue smearing people then they can easily respond by
taking a closer look at any records of all those divorce proceedings. And
they can take a closer look at many other interesting trails that follow off
from the things you've written over the years. Isn't there a Jewish proverb
about 'those who live by the sword' or something?
I'm more than happy to debate with you normally and courteously about World
War II history or revisionism or politics. However, you don't seem to be
capable of that.
Grow up, McVay.
David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
Ken McVay, OBC
A WG Forgery, not "$$ForBodies," "BnaiBrith," "Boris Dynan," "Brian Blank,"
"ChBronfmannHoHo," "Desi Cohen," "Don Ellis," "GanivMcVay," "GayKenNAMBLA,"
"GayMcVaysEscorts," "GSchwartz," "Henry18, " "HenryNAMBLA," "HenryZHID,"
"Jan Schmidt," "JMcCarthy," "John Poindexter," "Jon Hill," "Judenrat,"
"Judenraus," "KenLeviMcVay," "KenMarxMcVay," "KenMcVayNAMBLA,"
"KenMcVaySOB," "Lisa McVay-Henske," "LT Beria," "Molestor Ken McVay,"
"Morgentaler$$," "NationalFront," "Patrick Humphrey," "Paul Kneisel,"
"RabbiDreckschreiber," "RayEllis," "Sailor57," "Sailor88," "Sara Salzman,"
"Susan Cohen," "SyBernstein," "Yidwatch," or "Zhidwatch,"
<inter...@grosvenor.net> wrote:
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/grosvenor-william
> http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=grosvenor+faq
Still afraid to post under your own name, eh, Bill?
Can you spell "COWARD"?
(I knew you could)
Ken McVay, OBC
and self-described abject failure at organizing the Hull
and North Lincolnshire unit of the British National Party,"
stated his position on the terrorist murder of about 3000 people
on September 11, 2001 in the attacks in New York, Washington
and Pennsylvania.
<quote>
Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
turned around and have shown that they do not have to be nature's
eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the
powerless can strike back at the very heart of the dark forces that are
oppressing them. This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
Death to American capitalism!
Death to international finance!
David Michael
Message-ID: <3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
</quote>
(2) When challenged with: "You applaud the terror and killing of
thousands of innocent people perpetrated by the terrorists who attacked
the Pentagon and attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center, calling
their actions "a wonderful thing," the day the attacks occurred a
"glorious day," and finishing by fervently wishing for "many more" such
days.", his response was:
"I do indeed."
...skipping...
Lincolnshire unit of the British National Party, I'm afraid I simply
won't have time to continue our little debates in this forum. It's a
question of directing one's efforts to the place where they will have
most effect. Good wishes to all who wish to continue the good fight
here.
</quote>
david_...@onetel.net.uk (David Michael)
24 May 2001
Message-ID: <3B0C4356...@onetel.net.uk>
<quote>
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!'
</quote>
http://www.redaction.org/wwwboard/msgs5/5940.HTM
June 13, 2002
Gassen Burnham
This rubbish is getting tiresome!
Why don't you regale us with one of your 'gay cinema' stories, Kenny?
Or perhaps your buddies have done some equaly interesting 'research'
since that black commedy hit the screens?
Joebruno
> YAAAWWWWNNNNN!
> This rubbish is getting tiresome!
Yes, you are tiresome.
Ken McVay, OBC
Turlough O'Tavish
OBC" <kmc...@nizkor.org> wrote:
>Mr.
----NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay's Numerous Lies Regarding His Funding----
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
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=453fevk7jgu8ctdt45a4coabbfgo9k5dns%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Article on Ken McVay _mc...@internet.fighter_ (Also Helps Prove He's a
Liar) R_0611
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:20:32 -0500
Message-ID: <453fevk7jgu8ctdt4...@4ax.com>
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>
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=p6qc8v4546g3bl9ds3kns5pk297kpgn2k2%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG and B'nai Brith's Apparent Funding Kick Backs and Tax Scam
Message-ID: <p6qc8v4546g3bl9ds...@4ax.com>
Date: 30 Mar 2003 03:49:27 GMT
B'nai Brith also funded communist David Lethbridge:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=66afnv0e8q6h7m3g7k086el6rsbp6otg5m%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: B'nai Brith Allies Itself With Communist David Lethbridge Against
America, Capitalism, and Christianity R_0928
Message-ID: <66afnv0e8q6h7m3g7...@4ax.com>
Date: 29 Sep 2003 03:38:45 GMT
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
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Ken McVay, OBC
steve wolk
"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message news:3f96...@212.67.96.135...THE MCVAY FILES
Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
(garbage snipped)
Once again, the nazi sympathizer and apologist demonstrates that he has the moral compass of a puddle of vomit.
Sara Salzman
"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> THE MCVAY FILES
>
> Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
faulty as usual.
3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
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
Gord McFee
<news:catamont-9B03F7...@news-60.giganews.com>, Sara
Salzman wrote:
> In article <3f96...@212.67.96.135>,
> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>> THE MCVAY FILES
>>
>> Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
>
> 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
> 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
> faulty as usual.
> 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
That's how he always reacts when he is being thrashed in debate. Some
things never change.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_michael
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-9B03F7...@news-60.giganews.com...
> In article <3f96...@212.67.96.135>,
> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > THE MCVAY FILES
> >
> > Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
>
> 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
That's interesting -- I expose a man engaging in all sorts of dishonesty and
jiggery pokery and you say that I'M the one who's beneath contempt? Why?
Would you rather these matters be hidden from the public gaze?
The man has been smearing me for no reason. I've not attacked him for
months. I come back and find him smearing me merrily again. Now I'm not
stooping to his level -- I'm not smearing him. However, I'll damn well
publish the truth about him if he wants to pick a fight. If he wants to
persist then an expanded version of the McVay files could well end up on the
Web. We now own over a dozen domains so it's just a question of finding a
suitably anti-Nizkor Web hoster.
On the other hand, if he wants to actually discuss history and politics for
once . . .
> 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
> faulty as usual.
I'm not aware that I used your former last name -- are you sure it wasn't in
a quote?
> 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
I don't have time for hobbies, Sara. However, I hope to be moving shortly to
a small island in the middle of nowhere which will hopefully give me a
little more time to do things like walking and maybe keep a few chickens.
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
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:
> 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
Interesting story, Dave. Tell us the one about how miffed you were
when you couldn't get ahold of British Rail's information line.
- --
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/AwUBP5diH5QgvG272fn9EQKRswCg4jCuJFB7Vrqvpys0obYG6+4GS3MAoIC4
WBTJadHG/lxepqMBevtwiBsv
=RVn3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sara Salzman
"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> "Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:catamont-9B03F7...@news-60.giganews.com...
> > In article <3f96...@212.67.96.135>,
> > "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > THE MCVAY FILES
> > >
> > > Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
> >
> > 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
>
> That's interesting -- I expose a man engaging in all sorts of dishonesty and
> jiggery pokery and you say that I'M the one who's beneath contempt? Why?
> Would you rather these matters be hidden from the public gaze?
I can't remember anyone appointing YOU an investigator.
>
> The man has been smearing me for no reason.
No, he's been QUOTING you. You still cannot make a distinction between
your own words and "smearing."
> I've not attacked him for
> months.
Thank you for admitting you have attacked him in the past.
I come back and find him smearing me merrily again. Now I'm not
> stooping to his level -- I'm not smearing him. However, I'll damn well
> publish the truth about him if he wants to pick a fight. If he wants to
> persist then an expanded version of the McVay files could well end up on the
> Web. We now own over a dozen domains so it's just a question of finding a
> suitably anti-Nizkor Web hoster.
Ah yes, the Dr. Homeland "threats" again.
>
> On the other hand, if he wants to actually discuss history and politics for
> once . . .
>
And once again, who appointed YOU arbiter of what is appropriate in a
newsgroup?
> > 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
> > faulty as usual.
>
> I'm not aware that I used your former last name -- are you sure it wasn't in
> a quote?
Maybe you'd better read the drivel you posted then. You spelled it wrong
twice, at least.
>
> > 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
>
> I don't have time for hobbies, Sara.
That's obviously because you're spending all your time preparing
"dossiers" on those you don't like.
>However, I hope to be moving shortly to
> a small island in the middle of nowhere which will hopefully give me a
> little more time to do things like walking and maybe keep a few chickens.
>
> David
>
>
With any luck, it won't have Internet access.
steve wolk
Exactly what you are mentally qualified for. Hopefully, this island will
not have a supply of electricity.
Gassen Burnham
> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > THE MCVAY FILES
> >
> > Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
>
> 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
> 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
> faulty as usual.
> 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
>
> Sara
You trying to recruit him for your S&M group, Sara?
Gassen Burnham
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:54:35 -0600, in
> <news:catamont-9B03F7...@news-60.giganews.com>, Sara
> Salzman wrote:
>
> > In article <3f96...@212.67.96.135>,
> > "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> THE MCVAY FILES
> >>
> >> Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
> >
> > 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
> > 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
> > faulty as usual.
> > 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
>
> That's how he always reacts when he is being thrashed in debate. Some
> things never change.
ROTFL... Looks like Gourd thinks he is already a member of Sara's S&M group.
Joebruno
The terrorists were also thieves. The planes they destroyed belonged
to the airlines.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3f97...@212.67.96.135> in alt.revisionism, on Thu, 23 Oct 2003
04:43:51 +0100, "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> I hope to be moving shortly to
> a small island in the middle of nowhere which will hopefully give
> me a little more time to do things like walking and maybe keep a
> few chickens.
I never thought of the positive aspects of global warming before.
You know, I think I'll even get myself an SUV.
- --
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/AwUBP5e6LpQgvG272fn9EQLkUQCg8rtG4BoD4LjWPMdSTt3yupplxkkAoJdy
Rkt5z6ctrM+FtpvwYRjI0S0J
=nsuB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sara Salzman
gassen...@dodo.com.au (Gassen Burnham) wrote:
Poor Mr. Cummins cannot keep his own sexual fantasies to himself. Why
are you so fixated on the sex lives of others, Mr. Cummins?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Well, that's how Himmler started out! Perhaps, David, while you're
haranguing [read: clucking] your new found followers [what, no 'Cuddles'
progeny?] about 'glorious days' and 'beautiful dreams' , hey, at the end
of the line on your island just before you depart for the hopeful
Valhalla, you can do a sort of Citizen Kane shtick and, as the encased
glass ball of the 'shake for sand-storm' effect drops from your hand and
crashes to the floor, you can then belch out a resounding but final last
word ..... O S A M A !
Doc Tony
;-)
[*with due apologies to 'Citizen Kane' .... and 'Rosebud']
david_michael
"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3F97EC90...@localnet.com...
You criticize Osama, but not the Americans for dropping nukes on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, Mr Lomenzo. Is that not a trifle inconsistent?
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com
Joebruno
> From: "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
> Subject: Ken McVay -- some background
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 05:01:38 +0100
> Message-ID: <3da4...@212.67.96.135>
>
>
<deletia>
I consider my personal life to be private and have no interest
whatsoever in McVay's.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Not at all! After all, in the latter case, your N/H gambit, I gave my
opinion which you rejected but, ahh, in the former case a la your love
for Osama bin Laden and wishing 'many more' acts of international
terrorism plus, of course, your cumulative newsgroup dreck and drool,
hey, you're still the acknowledged Psycho®! That, alas, will never
change no matter your endless cut and paste routines.
I'm certain there are a quite possibly a few candidates in other
newsgroups which you can attempt to recruit to your warped wares and
'vision' for a new world but the problem is that such types would only
be like-minded psychotics as yourself! But hey, keep plugging. Perhaps
when the next terrorist attack comes and you again begin to quote Osama
bin Laden and inform Usenet readers that if it's 'their' loved ones this
time around, hey, that's the way it goes, in effect, and as per your
public comments on 9-11, so what.....well, clearly, you'll no doubt once
again endear yourself to your imagined followers and philosophical
fellow travelers for recruitment purposes. Personally, I had you pegged
for a parroting psychotic years ago. Your 'Cuddles' bit notwithstanding.
So, when are you leaving?
Doc Tony
;-)
Doc Tavish
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=66afnv0e8q6h7m3g7k086el6rsbp6otg5m%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: B'nai Brith Allies Itself With Communist David Lethbridge Against
America, Capitalism, and Christianity R_0928
Message-ID: <66afnv0e8q6h7m3g7...@4ax.com>
Date: 29 Sep 2003 03:38:45 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ncu5gvoc1nga0k933sgt0sbtglrv1nlb4e%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Communist Holocaust Has Killed Over 100 Million People
Message-ID: <ncu5gvoc1nga0k933...@4ax.com>
Date: 2 Jul 2003 15:33:38 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3hv5gvookmlibha49ph75epk0dsk0do02l%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Communist Holocaust Killed Tens of Millions of People! (Vintage Post
With Re-Vitalized Links) R_0702
Message-ID: <3hv5gvookmlibha49...@4ax.com>
Date: 2 Jul 2003 16:36:00 GMT
Need I say more?
Tavish
--Nizkor.Org Director, Ken McVay, Condoning Child Porn--
"I am weary of seeing the issue of "child porn" blown out of
proportion (I've been on and around the Net since 1988, and have
yet to come across anything I'd consider "child porn." I've
seen photos of naked children, but then I've got some of those in
my family photo album, and fail to see the harm, or any great
moral danger to our society)." - Nizkor Director Ken McVay
http://www.spectacle.org/695/mcvay.html
Verified by John Morris with Message ID:
cf214uoohhmoqblmv...@4ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=cf214uoohhmoqblmv...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: John_Confirms)
(For the record this child porn apologist is funded by B'nai Brith
as shown here: http://www.nizkor.org/league-donation.html
B'nai Brith must condone pictures of "naked children" too!)
Here is a photo of Ken McVay, director of WWW.NIZKOR.ORG-- does he
not have the uncouth look as to fit the profile of a person who
would say in general regarding child porn: "I am weary of seeing the
issue of "child porn" blown out of proportion (I've been on and
around the Net since 1988, and have yet to come across anything I'd
consider "child porn." I've seen photos of naked children, ... and
fail to see the harm, or any great moral danger to our society)."?
http://www.protocol.gov.bc.ca/protocol/prgs/obc/1995/1995_KMcVay.jpg
(Archived locally as: ChickenHawk_McVay)
Would any of you want to leave this person, Ken McVay,
alone with your children?
The Nizkor Project aka Ken McVay
P.O. Box 244, Station A
Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K9 Canada
david_michael
> change no matter your endless cut and paste routines.
So let's get this straight.
When America nuclear bombs two Japanese cities quite unnecessarily (because
the Japanese are trying to surrender anyway) slaughtering 270,000 people --
that meets with your approval.
I'd say that puts you pretty firmly in the psycho camp, Mr Lomenzo.
<snip>
> So, when are you leaving?
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
Not while there are nice juicy hypocrites like you leaping up and down and
yelling 'hit me!'
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Then by all means remain and hang around the newsgroup(s) and take even
more public thrashings, PsychoŽ! Fine with me! The more you pipe up, the
more my assessment of you as a known psychotic is both confirmed ....
and 'in situ' demonstrated! In the meantime, you can continue to do your
cut and paste N/H gambit routines and/or Osama-lover mantras with dreck
and drool chasers as it were while trolling for like-minded recruits to
your cause and vision!
Certainly the posters both here in AR or other newsgroups are likewise
enjoying themselves with their own thrashing of you and your wares, at
your expense of course but then you make it easy for that kind of thing
to happen by, well, just being yourself... a psychotic! But that's not
news. That's a given! Hey, when comes your next chapter and verse Osama
quotes? Or does that necessarily have to wait for the next 'glorious
day'? Seems to me that you would wish to quote your boy, Osama, if only
to remain mindful of , let us say, additional 'chickens coming home to
roost' although you never did answer me when I asked you how you would
feel if 'YOUR' loved ones had been or indeed became in the future so
involved in the international terrorism you so embrace and wallow in
sickening praise. Care to answer now?
Doc Tony
Ken McVay, OBC
david_michael
Good. Then I'll pipe up again and point out the slight inconsistency in your
position.
You claim that support for attacks on major American military and economic
targets is 'psychotic'.
However, you yourself have supported and continue to support the nuclear
attacks carried by America out on two Japanese cities full of civilians at a
time when the Americans knew full well that the Japanese were trying to
surrender.
> In the meantime, you can continue to do your
> cut and paste N/H gambit routines and/or Osama-lover mantras with dreck
> and drool chasers as it were while trolling for like-minded recruits to
> your cause and vision!
>
> Certainly the posters both here in AR or other newsgroups are likewise
> enjoying themselves with their own thrashing of you and your wares, at
> your expense of course but then you make it easy for that kind of thing
> to happen by, well, just being yourself... a psychotic! But that's not
> news. That's a given! Hey, when comes your next chapter and verse Osama
> quotes? Or does that necessarily have to wait for the next 'glorious
> day'? Seems to me that you would wish to quote your boy, Osama, if only
> to remain mindful of , let us say, additional 'chickens coming home to
> roost' although you never did answer me when I asked you how you would
> feel if 'YOUR' loved ones had been or indeed became in the future so
> involved in the international terrorism you so embrace and wallow in
> sickening praise. Care to answer now?
>
> Doc Tony
Sure. Pretty much the same way that I'd feel if they got hit by an American
nuclear bomb.
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Stop with the Kurt Knoll semantic impression already. I asked you if
your quoted hero Osama bin Laden or his terrorist cell network struck
again but this time YOUR loved ones were the victims, would you still
sing his praises and be willing to write off 'your' family as you are
prepared to do for the families of others?
You see, if you in fact embrace the terrorist philosophy, which you
obviously do to a rather sickening albeit publicly preached degree, then
you must be also willing to sacrifice and thus 'understand' if need be
should your 'own' should get caught up in terrorism as part and parcel
of the terrorist philosophy. Are you in fact prepared to sacrifice and
accept as 'necessary' YOUR loved ones [should they be in the wrong place
at the wrong time] for Osama bin Laden's aims and goals? Indeed, had
'your' loved ones been in those buildings or planes on 9-11? Would it
still have been a 'glorious day' with a wish of 'many more' days like
it? Yes or no?
Doc Tony
Gord McFee
<news:2403f93b.03102...@posting.google.com>, Gassen Burnham
wrote:
You mean Sara's Sink the Michael group?
Gord McFee
I wonder if the island is Madagascar? I wonder if he's moving alone? I
guess it will be his new "homeland".
Bwahahahaha.............
Gord McFee
> Well, that's how Himmler started out!
ROTFL!
> Perhaps, David, while you're
> haranguing [read: clucking] your new found followers [what, no 'Cuddles'
> progeny?] about 'glorious days' and 'beautiful dreams' , hey, at the end
> of the line on your island just before you depart for the hopeful
> Valhalla, you can do a sort of Citizen Kane shtick and, as the encased
> glass ball of the 'shake for sand-storm' effect drops from your hand and
> crashes to the floor, you can then belch out a resounding but final last
> word ..... O S A M A !
>
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
>
> [*with due apologies to 'Citizen Kane' .... and 'Rosebud']
A keeper.
Gord McFee
<news:catamont-E224C5...@news-60.giganews.com>, Sara
Salzman wrote:
> In article <2403f93b.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> gassen...@dodo.com.au (Gassen Burnham) wrote:
>
>> Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:<catamont-9B03F7...@news-60.giganews.com>...
>>> In article <3f96...@212.67.96.135>,
>>> "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > THE MCVAY FILES
>>> >
>>> > Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
>>>
>>> 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
>>> 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
>>> faulty as usual.
>>> 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
>>>
>>> Sara
>>
>> You trying to recruit him for your S&M group, Sara?
>
> Poor Mr. Cummins cannot keep his own sexual fantasies to himself. Why
> are you so fixated on the sex lives of others, Mr. Cummins?
He doesn't have one of his own?
david_michael
Well stop impersonating Joe Bruno then.
<snip>
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com
david_michael
<snip old stuff>
> The terrorists were also thieves. The planes they destroyed belonged
> to the airlines.
In fact, I'd argue that as these Arab gentlemen had purchased tickets
from the airlines for good money, and since the airlines failed to
deliver them safely to their destination, their relatives should
seriously consider sueing the airlines for damages.
Gassen Burnham
> In article <2403f93b.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> gassen...@dodo.com.au (Gassen Burnham) wrote:
>
> > Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:<catamont-9B03F7...@news-60.giganews.com>...
> > > In article <3f96...@212.67.96.135>,
> > > "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > THE MCVAY FILES
> > > >
> > > > Compiled by Dr D. E. Michael,
> > >
> > > 1. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
> > > 2. You spelled my former last name wrong. I'd say your scholarship is as
> > > faulty as usual.
> > > 3. You REALLY need a hobby, Dr. Homeland.
> > >
> > > Sara
> >
> > You trying to recruit him for your S&M group, Sara?
>
> Poor Mr. Cummins cannot keep his own sexual fantasies to himself. Why
> are you so fixated on the sex lives of others, Mr. Cummins?
>
> Sara
Beacause yours is so interesting and diverse, Ms. Salzman.
And you seem to be interested in letting people know all about it.
This is the first time I have seen you make an attempt at modesty.
Remember the 'My master holds the whip just so' post?
Tell me, is Cougar still in the picture?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>:
><snip old stuff>
But then, you'd argue for all sorts of other nonsensical things as
well...
Joebruno
Whose fault was that?You not only support terrorism, but grand theft as well.
You're more than an anarchist.You're criminally insane. You belong in a padded cell.
Joebruno
David has refined foolish irrelevance into an art form.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Well, this is the second 'snip' in two posts you've pulled when asked
directly how you would feel if your 'own' loved ones were the victims
and in terms of your open support and praise of Osama bin Laden and
terrorism so I believe that besides establishing your being a known
psychotic, you're also a coward.
What the 'snip' says is that you have no difficulty informing Usenet
readers that if 'their' loved ones had been --or-- become involved in
future terrorism, hey, so what because that's the 'chickens coming home
to roost' followed by your Osama quotes BUT when asked about your 'own'
loved ones as the victims, then or in the future, you turn coward and
snip the material.
Various readers have told you, myself included, that '45 was an action
that was certainly not enjoyed although the action ended a most brutal
world war and was mercifully never used again --but-- the cogent
difference here was that you 'EMBRACED' and indeed 'WELCOMED' 9-11 and
the non-wartime terrorist action and termed it a 'glorious day' and
wished for 'many more days like it' literally within hours of its
occurrence!
In effect duly informing 'ALL' Usenet readers that if it is 'their'
family and loved ones either on 9-11 --or-- the 'next' time around then
that's the way it goes although you remained wholly mute when asked if
those 'next' terrorist victims were to 'include' your own family.
I then asked you would you STILL be willing to quote Osama bin Laden as
you did before and say it was a 'glorious day' and wish for 'many more
days like it' when the victims were your own.....and you run. Why? Why
then are Usenet reader [of 'any' philosophical side] loved ones and
families of no consequence to you whatsoever yet your 'own' loved ones
are a different matter, yes? Then...ahhhh...'then' it's 'not' very
'glorious', yes? Then it's 'not' so cool to quote Osama bin Laden, yes?
Then it's different, yes? But for others, well now, and per your
warped mind-set, so what! THAT bespeaks both a psychotic...and a coward.
And YOU wish to garner 'like-minded followers' for your wares and
'vision'?
Sure. Only psychotics and cowards like yourself need apply.
Doc Tony
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
I have to wonder, David, if you would be so [now additionally] flippant
about the 9-11 terrorist strike tragedy had 'your' loved ones been in
those airplane seats. Or in those buildings for that matter.
But then, when I asked you that, you quickly went into run away 'snip'
mode although I notice once again that when the terrorist tragedy,
indeed 'any' terrorist tragedy, involves 'other' readers and their loved
ones and families, ahhhh, 'then' you feel quite comfortable and see fit
to make moronic and allegedly 'why not?' scenario comments as above.
And so again you well demonstrate 'for' me the validity of my assessment
of you and your now dual role of the parroting psychotic and obvious
coward.
I'm not too sure that your on-going newsgroup(s) comments will bode
well, however, for your proffered wares and world 'vision' recruitment
efforts. But then, even Charlie Manson had 'followers' so perhaps you
can tap the ranks of the psychotics and cowards like yourself who feel
and think as you do and yearn for those DEM-wishŽ 'glorious days' and
'beautiful dreams.' Minus, of course, all those pesky 'corpses' .... of
'whatever' past or indeed future events.
Doc Tony
steve wolk
Adding further to your reputation as a moral cesspool, eh? Doc is right.
You ARE a psycho.
david_michael
As I have observed many times before, Mr Lomenzo, your attempts to
appear outraged and indignant over the events of 11 September 2001
would seem a whole lot more convincing if you did not simultaneously
support wholeheartedly the American nuclear bombing of two entire
Japanese cities, killing 270,000 people, at a time when the Americans
were well aware that the Japanese government was trying to get a
cessation of hostilities.
Gord McFee
<news:b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
wrote:
Oh, I think we'll add that one to the list. Thanks, David.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>As I have observed many times before, Mr Lomenzo, your attempts to
>appear outraged and indignant over the events of 11 September 2001
>would seem a whole lot more convincing if you did not simultaneously
>support wholeheartedly the American nuclear bombing of two entire
>Japanese cities, killing 270,000 people, at a time when the Americans
>were well aware that the Japanese government was trying to get a
>cessation of hostilities.
Of course, dem cannot show that *anyone* "support(s) wholeheartedly"
the use of the atomic bomb, as opposed to simply understanding and
explicating the circumstances surrounding its use -- as contrasted
with the ode of joy dem himself posted upon learning of the WTC
attack.
Gord McFee
Here is David Michael in all his "glory".
(1) David Michael states his position on the terrorist murder of over
<quote>
Death to American capitalism!
Death to international finance!
David Michael
Message-ID: <3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
</quote>
days.", his response is:
"I do indeed."
Message-ID: <3bae...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
Mon, 24 Sep 2001 02:26:45 +0100
(3) To a debating opponent who doesn't share his admiration for
terrorism:
<quote>
All I can say in response to your filthy remark is that I very much hope
that, if there is an anthrax attack on America, your loved ones fall
victim to it so that you get a dose of your own putrid medicine.
</quote>
Message-ID: <3bc9...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:34:44 +0100
(4) In response to Joe Bruno:
[Bruno]
> I ask you now to reconsider your position. I wonder if it might have
> been rooted in a momentary anger about something. The people of
> England have a long tradition of respect for law and human life. Are
> you renouncing that tradition?
[Michael]
My only regret, Bruno, is that you were not at the very top of the New
York World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Message-ID: <b7fe1abc.02010...@posting.google.com>
Date: 2 Jan 2002 17:59:54 -0800
(5) More than a year later
<quote>
It was not a horrific event, Tony. It was you arrogant, murderous,
scummy, neoliberal bastards getting precisely what you deserve. You
filthy pigs export your murder and your corruption and your dirt
across the world and then you play all holier-than-thou when someone
gives you a dose of your own medicine. Doesn't wash with me.
</quote>
-- Message-ID: <b7fe1abc.02112...@posting.google.com>
-- Date: 27 Nov 2002 20:52:20 -0800
(6)
[Joe Bruno]
> The terrorists were also thieves. The planes they destroyed belonged
> to the airlines.
[David Michael]
In fact, I'd argue that as these Arab gentlemen had purchased tickets
from the airlines for good money, and since the airlines failed to
deliver them safely to their destination, their relatives should
seriously consider sueing the airlines for damages.
</quote>
-- Message-ID: <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>
-- Date: 23 Oct 2003 22:13:40 -0700
Gord McFee
Also interesting to note that he has fled from that thread, thoroughly
thrashed, as usual.
david_michael
Perhaps Mr McFee would be good enough to point me to the post in which Mr
Lomenzo 'explicates' the circumstances surrounding the use of atomic bombs
to exterminate 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when the Americans were
aware that the Japanese government wanted a cessation of hostilities?
David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
>"Gord McFee" <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:1e9rth0t4lvxx.1...@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:02:38 GMT, in
>> <news:47d9d8ca9964298f...@news.teranews.com>, Roger wrote:
>> > In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> > (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> > someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
>> > in message <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>> >>As I have observed many times before, Mr Lomenzo, your attempts to
>> >>appear outraged and indignant over the events of 11 September 2001
>> >>would seem a whole lot more convincing if you did not simultaneously
>> >>support wholeheartedly the American nuclear bombing of two entire
>> >>Japanese cities, killing 270,000 people, at a time when the Americans
>> >>were well aware that the Japanese government was trying to get a
>> >>cessation of hostilities.
>> > Of course, dem cannot show that *anyone* "support(s) wholeheartedly"
>> > the use of the atomic bomb, as opposed to simply understanding and
>> > explicating the circumstances surrounding its use -- as contrasted
>> > with the ode of joy dem himself posted upon learning of the WTC
>> > attack.
>> Also interesting to note that he has fled from that thread, thoroughly
>> thrashed, as usual.
>Perhaps Mr McFee would be good enough to point me to the post in which Mr
>Lomenzo 'explicates' the circumstances surrounding the use of atomic bombs
>to exterminate 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when the Americans were
>aware that the Japanese government wanted a cessation of hostilities?
Perhaps dem will point out the post in which lomenzo expresses
"wholehearted support" for the use of the bomb, let alone at a time
before such use during which the japanese government (as opposed to
certain factions within the said government) were willing to surrender
-- not to mention expressing the kind of unbridled glee dem used to
describe the "wonderful thing" that had happened and wishing for "many
more" of the same when zie learned of the airliners crashing into the
WTC?
And perhaps monkeys will fly out of my butt...
Gord McFee
So bloody predictable.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_michael
Translation: no ways.
Quelle surprise!
Steven Mock
Authentic translation: why would I answer a question built on a false
and self-referential premise?
As he said, you are so bloody predictable.
Steven Mock
Gord McFee
<news:b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
wrote:
Translation: David fled the other thread where he was wiped out, and is now
pretending it never existed.
> Quelle surprise!
No surprise at all. As I said: "so bloody predictable."
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_michael
Now would that be the thread in which:
(a) Tony Lomenzo asserted that I was a 'psycho' for agreeing with two
attacks on military and economic targets.
(b) I responded by pointing out that this was a rather strange view
coming from a man who was in favour of the completely unnecessary
nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when
Japan was trying to negotiate a cessation to hostilities and when
there is overwhelming evidence that the Americans knew it?
Orac
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
> Now would that be the thread in which:
>
> (a) Tony Lomenzo asserted that I was a 'psycho' for agreeing with two
> attacks on military and economic targets.
And I agree with him that your gloating, your utter glee upon hearing
about the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, your near
frothing at the mouth as you typed your paeon of praise to the
terrorists mere hours after the towers fell all go along with your being
a "psycho."
> (b) I responded by pointing out that this was a rather strange view
> coming from a man who was in favour of the completely unnecessary
> nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when
> Japan was trying to negotiate a cessation to hostilities and when
> there is overwhelming evidence that the Americans knew it?
The problem is, there was NOT overwhelming evidence that the Japanese
were seriously seeking to halt hostilities, nor that the Americans "knew
it." The other problem is, those of us who reluctantly concluded that
the atomic bomb was necessary to end World War II are not jumping up and
down with glee at the deaths of so many Japanese--in marked contrast to
you, who called September 11 a "glorious day," and fervently wished for
"many more like it," concluding your rant with "Death to America!" None
of us has ever wished for "many more" days like August 6 and 9, 1945.
Quite the contrary. We hope there are never again days like August 6 and
9, 1945, and that there are never again bombings of cities like those
that occurred during WWII.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>> No surprise at all. As I said: "so bloody predictable."
>Now would that be the thread in which:
>
>(a) Tony Lomenzo asserted that I was a 'psycho' for agreeing with two
>attacks on military and economic targets.
dem hopes he might fool one or two newless cluebies into thinking that
"agreeing with" was all zie did.
The rest of us remember that dem celebrated almost orgiastically the
deaths at the WTC only hours after the fact, declaring them a
"wonderful thing" and wishing for "many more like them."
>(b) I responded by pointing out that this was a rather strange view
>coming from a man who was in favour of the completely unnecessary
>nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when
>Japan was trying to negotiate a cessation to hostilities and when
>there is overwhelming evidence that the Americans knew it?
Of course, dem cannot acknowledge the difference between explaining an
historical event and supporting it, given that zir own distortions of
the circumstances surrounding such use...
Orac
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 david_michael wrote
> in message <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >news:<1apyztjk5b4kj.1msu5rgtml99t$.d...@40tude.net>...
>
> >> No surprise at all. As I said: "so bloody predictable."
>
> >Now would that be the thread in which:
> >
> >(a) Tony Lomenzo asserted that I was a 'psycho' for agreeing with two
> >attacks on military and economic targets.
>
> dem hopes he might fool one or two newless cluebies into thinking that
> "agreeing with" was all zie did.
>
> The rest of us remember that dem celebrated almost orgiastically the
> deaths at the WTC only hours after the fact, declaring them a
> "wonderful thing" and wishing for "many more like them."
"Almost" orgiastically? Hell, there was no "almost" about it. David
Michael was so excited was he about the carnage wrought on New York,
that one can't help but wonder if he was typing his diatribe with a
hard-on. He posted his paeon of praise to the terrorists mere hours
after the second World Trade Center Tower collapsed into rubble,
gleefully gloating over the carnage.
> >(b) I responded by pointing out that this was a rather strange view
> >coming from a man who was in favour of the completely unnecessary
> >nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when
> >Japan was trying to negotiate a cessation to hostilities and when
> >there is overwhelming evidence that the Americans knew it?
>
> Of course, dem cannot acknowledge the difference between explaining an
> historical event and supporting it, given that zir own distortions of
> the circumstances surrounding such use...
Indeed. He is also strangely silent about the fact that everyone who
tried to explain the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not do
so with glee. Indeed, such explanations were often very ambivalent, and
took pains to point out that the atomic bombings could only be justified
as a means of preventing the even greater carnage an invasion of the
Japanese homeland or months of continued conventional bombing would
cause. No one who tried to justify the bombings wished for "many more"
days like August 6 or August 9, 1945. This is in marked contrast to
David Michael, who fervently wished for "many more" days like September
11.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Actually I said you were a psychoŽ --and-- a coward. And YOU have amply
demonstrated that assessment and fact.
> (b) I responded by pointing out that this was a rather strange view
> coming from a man who was in favour of the completely unnecessary
> nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when
> Japan was trying to negotiate a cessation to hostilities and when
> there is overwhelming evidence that the Americans knew it?
I think like so many other areas of the historical record, you simply
make things up as you go along. I already cited the comments of the
Emperor himself in his address to his nation that things were not going
well for Japan and her 'interests' and that classic of "east Asia
emancipation" [sic] but the kicker was the Emperor commenting on the
'enemy' and "a most cruel new weapon" and so to save further [as duly
warned] annihilation, the order was given to surrender to the powerS.
Further, we were 'well' aware from the Pacific island campaigns [Iwo,
Okinawa, Tarawa, etc. etc. ] of the utter fanaticism and fighting spirit
of the Japanese troops [you know, what 'you' tend to term American and
British 'propaganda' [sic] thus giving an additional swipe to the
Japanese soldier and your total ignorance of the code of Bushido ]
---anyway---- the thought of a full land invasion of the Japanese
islands where every man, woman and child capable of holding a weapon
[witness the Hitler Youth in Europe with 12 to 16 year old 'defenders']
would be of the mind-set to repel the invader at any cost [witness also
the Kamikaze attacks on our ships] was too grim to contemplate and a
bloodbath of far more than that produced by the bombs.
Finally, when it was seen first hand the extent of what atomic weapons
could do and cause, they were never used again. There was no glee in the
use of those weapons save that a brutal world war was finally ended.
That is fact versus your smokescreen speculation. However, only a
psychoŽ and coward like yourself would publicly relish and embrace the
terrorist events of 9-11 terming same a 'glorious day' and publicly
wishing for 'many more days like it' coupled with parroting quotes from
Osama bin Laden. Hence, you gleefully wish death through international
terrorism for ALL Usenet reader families and loved ones 'yet' when asked
repeatedly what if YOUR loved ones had been the victims --or-- become
the victims of some future terrorist action, you quickly run away....the
rank coward you are. Then I said....and YOU wish to garner 'followers'
for your world 'vision' and warped mind-set? Who? I mean other than
psychotics and cowards like yourself.
Thereby, I compared you to Charlie Manson who might well welcome your
Osama bin Laden quotes and proclaimed death wish to the families and
loved ones of others...except your own of course which you thus far make
quite clear. On the other hand, I'm convinced you would be willing to
sacrifice them too if only to maintain your Osama worship and thus
'necessity' for terrorism which you continue to embrace and support. Why
do you do this? Because you're a psychoŽ...and a coward. As duly
demonstrated. As duly proven. Not by me...not by the many
posters....no-no....but by YOU! The in situ record is there...the
psychotic and cowardly record 'you' created for all to see. Is it any
wonder why no-one of any intellectual substance rallies to your 'cause'
or 'vision' or even existing "beautiful dream" fringe groups don't even
want you and no doubt themselves have you pegged for a psychoŽ! You're
not only an obvious loner but a loser to boot! The psycho and coward
pieces being only additional negative albeit quite visible baggage.
Doc Tony
>
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Not to mention his latest no doubt 'recruitment contribution' for
'followers' where PsychoŽ-DEM thought it rather humorous to suggest that
the terrorists never made their destination and so DEM felt that their
relatives should sue the airlines for return of the "good money" spent
for the tickets. What does this kind of sick comment suggest to the
normal reader when 'coupled' with DEM's outrageous remarks the very day
9-11 occurred with words like 'glorious' and 'beautiful' and, indeed,
the hope for 'many more days like it.' Could anyone 'but' a
demonstrated psychoŽ and coward like David E. Michael make such foul and
mentally unbalanced comments ?
And yet I'll wager that it 'still' hasn't fully dawned on those few
limited neuron morons who may find merit [!?] in DEM's drool that the
victims DEM wishes to see sacrificed [*thus far 'other' than his own
loved ones of course...OK for all others however...] and thus used as
requisite Osama parroted fodder even in 'future' terrorist attacks are
the family and loved ones of those few ignoramus types who may see such
'merit' [!?] in his warped rhetoric. Or who are wont to 'giggle' [!] at
DEM's latest imbecility about the terrorist ticket refunds to terrorist
relatives made only days ago. Real 'funny', huh? Perhaps to psychotics
and cowards like David E. Michael, yes indeed! But to anyone else
'except' for DEM like-minded psychotics and cowards?
And this too...have you noticed that those who engage in speculation are
often left with the unsaid 'and if 'that' does not work, then
what?'---in other words, if DEM's drop the bomb in the sea gambit did
not work, well then, next move is.... ? So then comes the 'they are
going to surrender' gambit...and if not? There's the historical rub to
the 20-20 hindsight types. If their scenarios do 'not' work..then what?
Wait it out? In other words, Europe for instance, should the Americans,
British, French, Canadians, Russians et al have 'waited' when they
reached the German border and 'hoped' that the remaining folks 'inside'
Reich borders would toss in the towel when they 'knew' all was lost? Did
the Japanese soldiers do that on the Pacific islands when they 'knew' it
was a lost cause with absolutely no hope of further re-supply? Did they?
Did appeals in Japanese do any good? Did they surrender after Hiroshima?
Only after Nagasaki did the Emperor himself make VERY clear why they
were THEN and ONLY then prepared to surrender. Which they did and which
finally ended a most brutal world war conflict.
Compare that to the obvious public relish and joy the coward and psychoŽ
David E. Michael took on 9-11....with fervent hopes for "many more days
like it."
Doc Tony
Gord McFee
No, that would be the thread where I and others successfully demolished
your specious arguments, reduced you to the point where all you could do
was squeak out your mantra, and then you fled. That thread.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
Agreed.
I think it is worth repeating his blather, along with the latest addition.
<quote>
Death to American capitalism!
Death to international finance!
David Michael
Message-ID: <3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
</quote>
"I do indeed."
Message-ID: <3bae...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
<quote>
</quote>
Message-ID: <3bc9...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
[Bruno]
[Michael]
Message-ID: <b7fe1abc.02010...@posting.google.com>
<quote>
(6)
[Joe Bruno]
> The terrorists were also thieves. The planes they destroyed belonged
> to the airlines.
[David Michael]
In fact, I'd argue that as these Arab gentlemen had purchased tickets
from the airlines for good money, and since the airlines failed to
deliver them safely to their destination, their relatives should
seriously consider sueing the airlines for damages.
</quote>
-- Message-ID: <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>
-- Date: 23 Oct 2003 22:13:40 -0700
>>>(b) I responded by pointing out that this was a rather strange view
>>>coming from a man who was in favour of the completely unnecessary
>>>nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 Japanese civilians at a time when
>>>Japan was trying to negotiate a cessation to hostilities and when
>>>there is overwhelming evidence that the Americans knew it?
>>
>> Of course, dem cannot acknowledge the difference between explaining an
>> historical event and supporting it, given that zir own distortions of
>> the circumstances surrounding such use...
>
> Indeed. He is also strangely silent about the fact that everyone who
> tried to explain the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not do
> so with glee. Indeed, such explanations were often very ambivalent, and
> took pains to point out that the atomic bombings could only be justified
> as a means of preventing the even greater carnage an invasion of the
> Japanese homeland or months of continued conventional bombing would
> cause. No one who tried to justify the bombings wished for "many more"
> days like August 6 or August 9, 1945. This is in marked contrast to
> David Michael, who fervently wished for "many more" days like September
> 11.
That's because David Michael thinks a moral compass is an instrument that
helps you find directions to the nearest city or town.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_michael
What PRECISELY have I made up?
Go on . . . ignore it.
> I already cited the comments of the
> Emperor himself in his address to his nation that things were not going
> well for Japan and her 'interests' and that classic of "east Asia
> emancipation" [sic] but the kicker was the Emperor commenting on the
> 'enemy' and "a most cruel new weapon" and so to save further [as duly
> warned] annihilation, the order was given to surrender to the powerS.
Nope. The kicker was the fact that the emperor had approached the
Russians with an offer to send Prince Konoye to Russia to arrange for
the Soviets to mediate a cessation of hostilities a considerable
period of time BEFORE the 'most cruel new weapon' was employed. And
the Americans knew it.
You are aware of this because I've told you before.
Yet, you choose to ignore it.
What does that tell us about you, Mr Lomenzo?
> Further, we were 'well' aware from the Pacific island campaigns [Iwo,
> Okinawa, Tarawa, etc. etc. ] of the utter fanaticism and fighting spirit
> of the Japanese troops [you know, what 'you' tend to term American and
> British 'propaganda' [sic] thus giving an additional swipe to the
> Japanese soldier and your total ignorance of the code of Bushido ]
> ---anyway---- the thought of a full land invasion of the Japanese
> islands where every man, woman and child capable of holding a weapon
> [witness the Hitler Youth in Europe with 12 to 16 year old 'defenders']
> would be of the mind-set to repel the invader at any cost [witness also
> the Kamikaze attacks on our ships] was too grim to contemplate and a
> bloodbath of far more than that produced by the bombs.
'You' were also well aware of the fact that Tokyo had been bombed into
rubble, Japan was blockaded, and that the Japanese government had made
several attempts to get a cessation of hostilities. The American
Strategic Bombing Survey said that 'in all probability' the Japanese
would have surrendered before an invasion could even be launched --
even without the nuclear bombs. Those who were opposed to surrender
were primarily holding out for concessions on the status of the
emperor, many of which were conceded anyway. There was ample room for
the Americans to have brought the war to an end without dropping
nuclear bombs on cities full of civilians.
Again, I've told you this before. You simply ignore it. You will
doubtless continue to ignore it, which is fine because I just get to
repeat it over and over again and any lurkers out there will see you
dodging it.
> Finally, when it was seen first hand the extent of what atomic weapons
> could do and cause, they were never used again.
On the contrary, the Americans were well aware of the damage that
nuclear bombs could do before they dropped them. After they had
dropped them they spent billions of dollars BUILDING UP their nuclear
arsenal, manufacturing more and more of the things. The only reason
they were never actually used again was because their principal
adversary, the Soviet Union, ALSO managed to acquire nuclear weapons
and any attempt by either party to use them after that point would
have resulted in 'mutually assured destruction'.
I have told you this before. Again you ignore it. Again, I get to
repeat it. Again the lurkers see you dodging it.
There was no glee in the
> use of those weapons save that a brutal world war was finally ended.
I quoted a report a few months ago that explicitly stated that when
Truman was told of the effects of the nuclear bombs he smiled.
> That is fact versus your smokescreen speculation.
No, it's fiction. Truman was very pleased with the results of the
bomb. I dare say a lot of Americans were too.
All that pompous and repetitive moralizing is positively bizarre
coming from a man who almost falls over backwards to try to justify
the nuclear bombing of entire cities.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
It no doubt sounds 'bizarre' but essentially because you're bizarre!
Anyway, all you keep doing either with me and other posters is the cut
and paste N/H gambit thing so I'm willing to let the readers decide my
assessment of you as a psychoŽ and coward...neither of which you even
bother to defend against although at this point perhaps because even you
know it's a 'given' and so you simply revert to the N/H regurgitation
gambit.
I'll give you this though, you'll take a beating and keep on bleating!
That alone 'says' something and, of course, various gems you let slip
out hither and yon among the cut and paste routines [Japanese fighting
spirit as a product of American and British 'propaganda'; Emperor's
words that I cited to you totally ignored in favor of the 'he wanted to
surrender' ploy; your Osama bin Laden kow-towing; the latest terrorist
'ticket refund' to their relatives entree just a few days ago...and
assorted PsychoŽ-DEM 'bizarre' statements] in my public assessment of
you. I'm certain that your remarks will assure recruitment efforts to
your cause and vision....from those like-minded psychotics and cowards
like yourself who feel you and your ideas [!?] have something to offer.
Hey, as stated, even Charlie Manson could claim followers!
Doc Tony
> David E. Michael
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
david_michael
Nothing bizarre about pointing out hypocrisy, Tony. You come here
moralizing about 9/11 and yet you support Hiroshima and Nagasaki --
even when it is pointed out to you that the arguments used to justify
them have about as many holes as the wreck of the Titanic.
> Anyway, all you keep doing either with me and other posters is the cut
> and paste N/H gambit thing
What's happening is that you keep posting variations of the same
material over and over again so you get the same reply over and over
again.
You say: 9/11 VERY BAD. YOU VERY BAD.
I reply: HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI MUCH WORSE. YOU SUPPORT HIROSHIMA AND
NAGASAKI. WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE 9/11?
You reply: <insert dodge>
The reason why I keep going round the loop with you is simply that it
ends with you dodging the response -- very visibly.
> so I'm willing to let the readers decide my
> assessment of you as a psychoŽ and coward...neither of which you even
> bother to defend against although at this point perhaps because even you
> know it's a 'given' and so you simply revert to the N/H regurgitation
> gambit.
Heaven forbid, Tony, that I should defend myself against your abuse.
Let it flow! You can hurl personal abuse and froth at the mouth as
much as you wish -- give us the full Cujo act, if you want; I'll
ignore it and provide reasoned argument.
> I'll give you this though, you'll take a beating and keep on bleating!
Well if that's a 'beating', sunshine, give me more!
> That alone 'says' something and, of course, various gems you let slip
> out hither and yon among the cut and paste routines [Japanese fighting
> spirit as a product of American and British 'propaganda'; Emperor's
> words that I cited to you totally ignored in favor of the 'he wanted to
> surrender' ploy; your Osama bin Laden kow-towing; the latest terrorist
> 'ticket refund' to their relatives entree just a few days ago...and
> assorted PsychoŽ-DEM 'bizarre' statements] in my public assessment of
> you. I'm certain that your remarks will assure recruitment efforts to
> your cause and vision....from those like-minded psychotics and cowards
> like yourself who feel you and your ideas [!?] have something to offer.
> Hey, as stated, even Charlie Manson could claim followers!
>
> Doc Tony
So what's your refutation of the 'he wanted to surrender ploy', Mr
Anthony Lomenzo?
<watch him run, folks>
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
You mean like you did when I asked you how you would feel if 'your'
loved ones had been --or-- were in the future the next victims of your
boy Osama and international terrorism in general which you openly
embrace and support? Although I'm on record as believing you would
willingly write them off too per the dictums of Osama and the
'necessity' of human fodder for the 'cause' ---you know, and inter alia,
your 'shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic brothers' spiel. One thing,
PsychoŽ, you're creating quite a record of PsychoŽ-DEM 'quotes' which I
see appearing in the newsgroup with your latest bit of 'humor' [!?]
about the terrorists relatives being entitled to sue the airlines
because their kin were not delivered to their destination!
A sick comment of yours, yes? I mean to most 'normal' folks reading your
latest public drool just a few days ago but then I would counter more
'typical David E. Michael' in tone and thus de facto wholly synonymous
with mental aberrations!
As for leaving the thread, are you kidding? As long as I've got you
convinced that you're 'scoring' with your wares [read: dreck and drool]
, I remain quite satisfied because as I told you many posts ago, that's
the plan! To keep you coming back and then I get to feast on your
comments and/or faux pas imbecilities. It's when you again do the old
plonk routine that would actually worry me. No-no, I prefer you right
here. You do the N/H gambit regurgitations and I continue to show you
the psychoŽ and coward. Fine with me. So too, when have I ever suggested
that you cease posting although if you wish to keep going and give the
multiple newsgroup readers 'additional', shall we say, 'insight' into
your head and wares, hey, 'I' should complain?
Anyway, let's see what has been firmly established thus far:
1. You're a psycho Ž. [no argument from you on that point and fact]
2. You're a coward. [ ditto... no argument... ]
3. You're an Osama bin Laden lover and parroting puppet [ditto ... ]
4. You're a loner and a loser [ditto ....]
5. You wish death from terrorism on Usenet poster loved ones and family
members 'but', at least for now anyway, wish to exclude your own loved
ones from such requisite Osama fodder. For now. [ditto]
6. No other 'beautiful dream' organization(s) seemingly wish to give you
the, shall we say, 'Kameraden' nod as they themselves no doubt have you
pegged for a psychoŽ simply by reading your ravings. Your latest haw-haw
'ticket refund' and 'sue the airline' to the relatives of the terrorists
bit not, in my view, helping matters. After all, even the 'Kameraden'
have loved ones and families and I would guess they hardly share your
enthusiasm and relish of your wishing 'their' loved ones and families to
be just so much necessary Osama mandated fodder for the 'pay back' and
'chickens coming home to roost' mantras. [ditto...no argument from
you....]
7. Thus far, I've seen no-one of any philosophical side jump into the
thread to defend you or your wares but then, here too, they likewise
have families and loved ones! [ditto...]
Now, that said or rather established....back to the Emperor. He says in
his address AFTER Nagasaki that the enemy has "a most cruel new weapon"
[Of note: some translations have it as 'a most cruel new bomb'] and then
he says that in order to save the rest of the Japanese people from
previously warned annihilation, he's quitting, finally, and surrendering
according to the mandate of the powers for unconditional surrender. He
does however bemoan the fact that things have not gone too well for
Japan and how the world [that's 'the world'] has apparently turned
against Japan's "interests" and Japan's alleged endeavors to
"emancipate" [!!!] east Asia [read: 'emancipate' [!] via force of arms
beginning with atrocity laden aggression against the Chinese].
So, moving on, the 'fighting spirit' of the Japanese soldier [which
'you' relegate to American and British 'propaganda' and hence your
staggering ignorance of the Japanese as a people and their code of
Bushido plus your undeserved swipe to the Japanese soldier himself
courtesy of your demonstrated ignorance] but which Allied soldiers who
fought those Pacific battles against the Japanese soldier would clearly
dispute with you in that the Japanese soldier was a very tough and
indeed fanatical opponent with a fighting spirit that was well
demonstrated and their well known [except to you that is] reluctance to
surrender no matter the overwhelming odds --anyway--- that being known
from Pacific island to Pacific island, well, it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to conclude that a land invasion of the Japanese home islands
would be a veritable bloodbath far exceeding what two bombs did. Then, a
land invasion, it's not just soldiers...it's virtually 'every' Japanese
citizen who could hold and fire a weapon or produce a pitch-fork and
most willingly die for the Emperor!
So, Hiroshima. Do they surrender? No. Nagasaki. Do they surrender? Yes.
And the Emperor SPECIFICALLY alludes to same in his speech using the
words "for this reason...." [to save total annihilation], the order was
finally given .... to surrender unconditionally.
So, as a smokescreen to your cowardly comments on 9-11, you always play
the N/H gambit figuring that posters will immediately see the 'analogy'
[!!!???] and you suggest, inter alia, which, BTW, is a bit of a botch on
your part itself because 'why' would you suggest to Gord McFee, for
example, that a bomb be dropped 'in the sea' or an 'open meadow' if you
are convinced that the Japanese were ready to surrender at any moment?
See what I mean? Why would you even have mentioned the bomb? Anyway,
that faux pas of yours aside, the sea and meadow thing was a bit
delusional because your thought [!?] was that the Japanese would 'see'
what the bomb could do [!?] and then suddenly surrender although you
didn't comment about 'what-if' that had been tried and they still did
not surrender! Then what? Use the only remaining bomb ["Fat Man"] for
another shot at the sea---perhaps closer to the coast for a, what,
better view of its power?
I think the cogent piece is this: most folks I know did not feel any
glee whatsoever about the use of the bomb..and it has to be remembered
that we had one test firing of the thing with troops not that far away
and we were not too sure what it would do other than the huge blast and
certainly the knowledge we gained 'after' use and thereby such weapons
mercifully never being used again...'after' its use .... but back to
August of '45...after Nagasaki, Japan finally quit. The world war was
over. Now, advance in time to 9-11-2001 and we have no world war but a
cowardly terrorist attack where some 3,000 victims were murdered in
buildings and airplanes and YOU, David E. Michael, literally jump for
joy within hours of the tragedy. Worse, you not only term it 'glorious'
and 'beautiful' with subsequent Osama quotes and other belched
imbecilities but publicly wish for 'many more days like it' which to me
was a direct albeit cowardly slap in the face to every Usenet reader
who saw your psychotic remarks that day 'because' it was and in fact
could be in the future 'THEIR' loved ones and families as murdered
victims that you were literally gloating about --and-- expressing a
fervent desire for much more of the same terrorism!
In effect, 'their' familes and 'their' loved ones as additional Osama
mandated victims! HOW can you expect to garner 'followers' to your world
'vision' with this kind of demented 'approach'? Further, I felt your
remarks [and subsequent remarks] were the brayings of a psychotic and a
coward. And there is where it's at!
Indeed, you still have not answered me about your 'own' family being the
victims as to whether you could square that with your Osama worship
although you seem quite content to let other Usenet families and loved
ones serve as the requisite victims and fodder for your warped
philosophy. That's cowardly. It's also psychotic but then, that's you.
Now the only thing I would request is that you certainly stay with it
but at least give some thought [!?] to a variation on the N/H cut and
paste routines and gambit...I'll take care of the rest as to confirming
my assessment of you to the readers with examples usw. and let 'you'
demonstrate the validity of my assessment. Pssst-- I would watch those
faux pas statements of yours however a la the Japanese fighting spirit
allegedly being some 'propaganda ploy' by the Americans and British
because those kind of idiotic statements merely show your rank stupidity
and in conjunction with already being pegged and proven a psychotic and
a coward. Just a tip.
Your turn, PsychoŽ!
david_michael
To which I replied that I'd probably feel rather similar if they'd
been hit by one of the American nuclear bombs that you support.
> Although I'm on record as believing you would
> willingly write them off too per the dictums of Osama and the
> 'necessity' of human fodder for the 'cause' ---you know, and inter alia,
> your 'shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic brothers' spiel. One thing,
> PsychoŽ, you're creating quite a record of PsychoŽ-DEM 'quotes' which I
> see appearing in the newsgroup with your latest bit of 'humor' [!?]
> about the terrorists relatives being entitled to sue the airlines
> because their kin were not delivered to their destination!
>
> A sick comment of yours, yes? I mean to most 'normal' folks reading your
> latest public drool just a few days ago but then I would counter more
> 'typical David E. Michael' in tone and thus de facto wholly synonymous
> with mental aberrations!
But not, I suggest, as 'sick' as supporting the completely unnecessary
slaughter of 270,000 civilians, which is your position.
> As for leaving the thread, are you kidding? As long as I've got you
> convinced that you're 'scoring' with your wares [read: dreck and drool]
> , I remain quite satisfied because as I told you many posts ago, that's
> the plan! To keep you coming back and then I get to feast on your
> comments and/or faux pas imbecilities.
As I have precisely the same plan it looks like this is going to be a
jolly long thread!
> It's when you again do the old
> plonk routine that would actually worry me.
It's impossible when posting from Google and, at the moment, my other
means of posting are too unreliable.
> No-no, I prefer you right
> here.
Good. You've got me right here.
> You do the N/H gambit regurgitations and I continue to show you
> the psychoŽ and coward.
Yes, by running away from the point that your support for the
unnecessary nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 civilians makes your
regular moral orgasms about 9/11 seem just the teeniest bit
hypocritical.
The Japanese emperor had, in fact, been trying to surrender long
before the nuclear bombs were dropped. At least two attempts were made
to mediate a cessation of hostilities -- the Americans were aware of
these. The American Strategic Bombing Survey found that he would 'in
all probability' have surrendered even before a land invasion could
have been launched even in the absence of nuclear bombs.
Instead of pursuing these openings with all vigour, the Americans
ignored them and dropped not ONE nuclear bomb over open ground (to
make the emperor aware of the 'cruel new weapon') but TWO nuclear
bombs over cities crammed with civilians, one of which was selected
(and the other which was supposed to have been selected but for a last
moment hitch) to show the maximum destructive potential of the
technology in terms of destruction of lives and property.
> So, moving on, the 'fighting spirit' of the Japanese soldier [which
> 'you' relegate to American and British 'propaganda' and hence your
> staggering ignorance of the Japanese as a people and their code of
> Bushido plus your undeserved swipe to the Japanese soldier himself
> courtesy of your demonstrated ignorance] but which Allied soldiers who
> fought those Pacific battles against the Japanese soldier would clearly
> dispute with you in that the Japanese soldier was a very tough and
> indeed fanatical opponent with a fighting spirit that was well
> demonstrated and their well known [except to you that is] reluctance to
> surrender no matter the overwhelming odds --anyway--- that being known
> from Pacific island to Pacific island, well, it doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to conclude that a land invasion of the Japanese home islands
> would be a veritable bloodbath far exceeding what two bombs did. Then, a
> land invasion, it's not just soldiers...it's virtually 'every' Japanese
> citizen who could hold and fire a weapon or produce a pitch-fork and
> most willingly die for the Emperor!
Again, the American Strategic Bombing Survey found that the Japanese
would 'in all probability' have surrendered anyway even without the
bombs and without land invasions. That's not ME saying this -- it's
the Americans. And there had already been at least two attempts to get
a cessation of hostilities before that. How you can waffle on about
the 'fighting spirit' preventing them from surrendering when they'd
been trying to do precisely that for ages is quite amazing!
> So, Hiroshima. Do they surrender? No. Nagasaki. Do they surrender? Yes.
They'd been trying to surrender for months and the Americans had been
steadfastly ignoring them. The problem wasn't an absence of WILL to
surrender -- it was a case of knowing what to do.
> And the Emperor SPECIFICALLY alludes to same in his speech using the
> words "for this reason...." [to save total annihilation], the order was
> finally given .... to surrender unconditionally.
This is the same emperor, of course, who prior to the atomic bombs had
offered to send a senior member of the royal family to Russia to get a
cessation of hostilities mediated. In other words -- a man whose
'fighting spirit' had disappeared quite some time prior to Hiroshima.
> So, as a smokescreen to your cowardly comments on 9-11, you always play
> the N/H gambit figuring that posters will immediately see the 'analogy'
> [!!!???] and you suggest, inter alia, which, BTW, is a bit of a botch on
> your part itself because 'why' would you suggest to Gord McFee, for
> example, that a bomb be dropped 'in the sea' or an 'open meadow' if you
> are convinced that the Japanese were ready to surrender at any moment?
> See what I mean? Why would you even have mentioned the bomb? Anyway,
> that faux pas of yours aside, the sea and meadow thing was a bit
> delusional because your thought [!?] was that the Japanese would 'see'
> what the bomb could do [!?] and then suddenly surrender although you
> didn't comment about 'what-if' that had been tried and they still did
> not surrender! Then what? Use the only remaining bomb ["Fat Man"] for
> another shot at the sea---perhaps closer to the coast for a, what,
> better view of its power?
> I think the cogent piece is this: most folks I know did not feel any
> glee whatsoever about the use of the bomb.
When told of its effects, as I illustrated some months ago, Truman
smiled.
You can repeat it as much as you want, Mr Lomenzo, but a whole lot of
Americans were very, very happy to see entire cities full of Japanese
get vapourized. And I put it to you that the psychological factors at
work there were not a billion miles away from those at work in Rwanda,
Serbia, and even Nazi Germany.
Sure I did. I told you that I'd feel about the same as if they got hit
by an American nuclear bomb. Now you can pretend as much as you want
that I didn't answer you, but the truth is that I did.
> Now the only thing I would request is that you certainly stay with it
> but at least give some thought [!?] to a variation on the N/H cut and
> paste routines and gambit...
I am happy to debate you on any issue you wish, Mr Lomenzo. If you
want to give me only ONE issue -- your feigned moral outrage over 9/11
-- then you'll get the same response every time, viz. who the hell are
you to criticize anyone else about bombing civilians when YOU support
two of the most outrageous civilian bombing atrocities of all time:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And it's the perfect response. Not only do you
have no coherent answer but it shows you to be a complete hypocrite
and windbag.
>I'll take care of the rest as to confirming
> my assessment of you to the readers with examples usw. and let 'you'
> demonstrate the validity of my assessment. Pssst-- I would watch those
> faux pas statements of yours however a la the Japanese fighting spirit
> allegedly being some 'propaganda ploy' by the Americans and British
> because those kind of idiotic statements merely show your rank stupidity
> and in conjunction with already being pegged and proven a psychotic and
> a coward. Just a tip.
>
> Your turn, PsychoŽ!
>
>
> Doc Tony
>
>
> >
> > David
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
Over to you, windbag.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
>What's happening is that you keep posting variations of the same
>material over and over again so you get the same reply over and over
>again.
A little projection there, eight-legged one?
>You say: 9/11 VERY BAD. YOU VERY BAD.
>
>I reply: HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI MUCH WORSE. YOU SUPPORT HIROSHIMA AND
>NAGASAKI. WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE 9/11?
>
>You reply: <insert dodge>
No, I reply: Document *one time* anyone has "supported" the bombing
of these two cities, rather than trying to explain to you that your
simplistic and delusional alternatives were mostly just that -- let
alone anyone crowing with joy over the use of atomic bombs.
You reply: . . . .
>The reason why I keep going round the loop with you is simply that it
>ends with you dodging the response -- very visibly.
Seems you are confused about your own role in the thread...
>> so I'm willing to let the readers decide my
>> assessment of you as a psychoŽ and coward...neither of which you even
>> bother to defend against although at this point perhaps because even you
>> know it's a 'given' and so you simply revert to the N/H regurgitation
>> gambit.
>Heaven forbid, Tony, that I should defend myself against your abuse.
>Let it flow! You can hurl personal abuse and froth at the mouth as
>much as you wish -- give us the full Cujo act, if you want; I'll
>ignore it and provide reasoned argument.
Reasoned argument like posting his boss's home address and saying
everyone should try to get him fired?
>> I'll give you this though, you'll take a beating and keep on bleating!
>Well if that's a 'beating', sunshine, give me more!
>> That alone 'says' something and, of course, various gems you let slip
>> out hither and yon among the cut and paste routines [Japanese fighting
>> spirit as a product of American and British 'propaganda'; Emperor's
>> words that I cited to you totally ignored in favor of the 'he wanted to
>> surrender' ploy; your Osama bin Laden kow-towing; the latest terrorist
>> 'ticket refund' to their relatives entree just a few days ago...and
>> assorted PsychoŽ-DEM 'bizarre' statements] in my public assessment of
>> you. I'm certain that your remarks will assure recruitment efforts to
>> your cause and vision....from those like-minded psychotics and cowards
>> like yourself who feel you and your ideas [!?] have something to offer.
>> Hey, as stated, even Charlie Manson could claim followers!
>>
>> Doc Tony
>So what's your refutation of the 'he wanted to surrender ploy', Mr
>Anthony Lomenzo?
That this took place *months* before the end of the war, and after the
Russians ignored the overture ***nothing more happened indicating that
Japan wanted to surrender***.
The Emperor did *not* send an emissary to any other country (not that
he actually sent anyone to the Russians, either,
The press and official government statements showed no toning down of
the "foreign devils / death before dishonour" rhetoric.
The military continued to fight kicking and screaming over every inch
of land they gave up, even when the situations became tactically
impossible.
><watch him run, folks>
Like you do when I ask who has expressed the vile glee you did over
9/11 as regards the use of the atomic bomb?
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Define 'rather similar' ... . Note: Watch this one, it's tricky!
>
>>Although I'm on record as believing you would
>>willingly write them off too per the dictums of Osama and the
>>'necessity' of human fodder for the 'cause' ---you know, and inter alia,
>>your 'shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic brothers' spiel. One thing,
>>PsychoŽ, you're creating quite a record of PsychoŽ-DEM 'quotes' which I
>>see appearing in the newsgroup with your latest bit of 'humor' [!?]
>>about the terrorists relatives being entitled to sue the airlines
>>because their kin were not delivered to their destination!
>>
>>A sick comment of yours, yes? I mean to most 'normal' folks reading your
>>latest public drool just a few days ago but then I would counter more
>>'typical David E. Michael' in tone and thus de facto wholly synonymous
>>with mental aberrations!
>
>
> But not, I suggest, as 'sick' as supporting the completely unnecessary
> slaughter of 270,000 civilians, which is your position.
>
[Cut and Paste Gambit #1 !]
>
>>As for leaving the thread, are you kidding? As long as I've got you
>>convinced that you're 'scoring' with your wares [read: dreck and drool]
>>, I remain quite satisfied because as I told you many posts ago, that's
>>the plan! To keep you coming back and then I get to feast on your
>>comments and/or faux pas imbecilities.
>
>
> As I have precisely the same plan it looks like this is going to be a
> jolly long thread!
>
At your expense however. OK by me if OK by you! What, you have something
to do? After all, it's others who decide the outcome which is only fair.
>
>>It's when you again do the old
>>plonk routine that would actually worry me.
>
>
> It's impossible when posting from Google and, at the moment, my other
> means of posting are too unreliable.
>
Why 'impossible'... just for curiosity. Why is it essential that you use
the Google thing? Again, just curious. You know, PsychoŽ, I have a
suspicion that you're doing the multi-nym thing but, alas, no definitive
proof as yet so it must remain a suspicion at this point.
>
>>No-no, I prefer you right
>>here.
>
>
> Good. You've got me right here.
>
Ohhh, I've 'got you' alright but, again, if you don't mind taking a
beating then I don't mind administering same. It gets dull however when
you do the cut and paste thing because that's all you ever come up with
but here and there come a few gems that I can use. Let's see as the
thing goes along.
>
>>You do the N/H gambit regurgitations and I continue to show you
>>the psychoŽ and coward.
>
>
> Yes, by running away from the point that your support for the
> unnecessary nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 civilians makes your
> regular moral orgasms about 9/11 seem just the teeniest bit
> hypocritical.
>
[Cut and Paste Gambit #2! ]
Readers! Do you see any DEM defense or denials here? So too, do you
honestly feel the above and taken directly from PsychoŽ-DEM statements
and applied therein using 'normality' as the gauge constitutes 'abuse'
like I was cursing at the guy or making statements without any
foundation or proof of same --or-- are my remarks about PsychoŽ-DEM, in
fact, established truisms based on his own in situ record!? In any
event, PsychoŽ-DEM himself takes no issue with my assessment! I find
that rather telling.
Let's see what else awaits.....
>>Now, that said or rather established....back to the Emperor. He says in
>>his address AFTER Nagasaki that the enemy has "a most cruel new weapon"
>>[Of note: some translations have it as 'a most cruel new bomb'] and then
>>he says that in order to save the rest of the Japanese people from
>>previously warned annihilation, he's quitting, finally, and surrendering
>>according to the mandate of the powers for unconditional surrender. He
>>does however bemoan the fact that things have not gone too well for
>>Japan and how the world [that's 'the world'] has apparently turned
>>against Japan's "interests" and Japan's alleged endeavors to
>>"emancipate" [!!!] east Asia [read: 'emancipate' [!] via force of arms
>>beginning with atrocity laden aggression against the Chinese].
>
Again, PsychoŽ-DEM takes no issue. I mean, hey, this wasn't Doc Tony
historical opinion or conjecture, I gave him the Emperor speaking
himself! Available to anyone who wishes to do the click or look it up
and in one post I duly rendered the click-on website citation for the
Emperor's surrender speech! 'After' Nagasaki.
Ahhhh, something coming below from the PsychoŽ....
>
> The Japanese emperor had, in fact, been trying to surrender long
> before the nuclear bombs were dropped.
Oyyyyyyyy! As an old neighbor, Sid W., was frequently wont to say many
moons ago in the 'Big Apple'.... !
[Cut and Paste Gambit #3 !!! ]
>At least two attempts were made
> to mediate a cessation of hostilities -- the Americans were aware of
> these. The American Strategic Bombing Survey found that he would 'in
> all probability' have surrendered even before a land invasion could
> have been launched even in the absence of nuclear bombs.
>
Yeah...the same ASBS [American Strategic Bombing Survey] that pronounced
that 'daylight strategic bombing' over German targets was a veritable
winner in Germany 'before' the coming of fighter escorts. That ASBS?
Think the raid on Schweinfurt....et al. So too, "in all probability"
means nothing in war. It's FACT and RESULTS that counts, not conjecture.
Hey, you want military conjecture, try this one, "All we have to do is
kick in the front door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing
down!" What's that? Air? Sure! Enter the Fat Man, to wit, "We can supply
the Stalingrad 6th Army by air, mein Führer! It can be done!"
Lesson: "In all probability" is not fact. History itself can make that
point painfully clear.
> Instead of pursuing these openings with all vigour, the Americans
> ignored them and dropped not ONE nuclear bomb over open ground (to
> make the emperor aware of the 'cruel new weapon') but TWO nuclear
> bombs over cities crammed with civilians, one of which was selected
> (and the other which was supposed to have been selected but for a last
> moment hitch) to show the maximum destructive potential of the
> technology in terms of destruction of lives and property.
>
Cut and Paste Gambit #4 !!!
'Open ground', you say? And the Emperor would, what, 'see' the big hole
in the ground and toss in the sword so to speak? Get real, PsychoŽ!
That's as lame as your bomb in the sea thing! Or, worse, your 'alternate
suggestion' [in situ to boot!] that the "Americans just stop fighting!"
Whew! And YOU wish to be taken seriously with ridiculous dreck like
that? C'mon already! Hence my PsychoŽ-DEM comparative to your 'logic'
[!?] as to why then didn't the Americans, British, French, Canadians,
Russians usw. simply 'stop fighting' when Reich borders were reached on
all sides and, per YOUR 'logic', simply 'wait it out' for the Germans to
dump the Führer and surrender forthwith!
>
>>So, moving on, the 'fighting spirit' of the Japanese soldier [which
>>'you' relegate to American and British 'propaganda' and hence your
>>staggering ignorance of the Japanese as a people and their code of
>>Bushido plus your undeserved swipe to the Japanese soldier himself
>>courtesy of your demonstrated ignorance] but which Allied soldiers who
>>fought those Pacific battles against the Japanese soldier would clearly
>>dispute with you in that the Japanese soldier was a very tough and
>>indeed fanatical opponent with a fighting spirit that was well
>>demonstrated and their well known [except to you that is] reluctance to
>>surrender no matter the overwhelming odds --anyway--- that being known
>>from Pacific island to Pacific island, well, it doesn't take a rocket
>>scientist to conclude that a land invasion of the Japanese home islands
>>would be a veritable bloodbath far exceeding what two bombs did. Then, a
>>land invasion, it's not just soldiers...it's virtually 'every' Japanese
>>citizen who could hold and fire a weapon or produce a pitch-fork and
>>most willingly die for the Emperor!
>
>
> Again, the American Strategic Bombing Survey found that the Japanese
> would 'in all probability' have surrendered anyway even without the
> bombs and without land invasions.
Oyyyyyyyyy! Here we go with the 'again' and 'in all probability'
thing..... . I give you fact ... and you offer conjecture.
Cut and Paste Gambit #5 !!!!
>That's not ME saying this -- it's
> the Americans. And there had already been at least two attempts to get
> a cessation of hostilities before that. How you can waffle on about
> the 'fighting spirit' preventing them from surrendering when they'd
> been trying to do precisely that for ages is quite amazing!
>
>
And I suggest you read the Emperor on that one! He made it very clear
why he finally decided to surrender! After Nagasaki. And ONLY after
Nagasaki. That is fact. His own comments will not disappear from the
historical record and I suggest you read what he had to say...after
Nagasaki...and his bemoaning the fact that the 'emancipation' [!?] gig
did not go as planned.
>>So, Hiroshima. Do they surrender? No. Nagasaki. Do they surrender? Yes.
>
>
> They'd been trying to surrender for months and the Americans had been
> steadfastly ignoring them. The problem wasn't an absence of WILL to
> surrender -- it was a case of knowing what to do.
What utter crap! The record ... and the Emperor himself says otherwise!
Had they surrendered immediately after Hiroshima then Nagasaki would
have been unnecessary. They did not surrender. They did after Nagasaki
however...as the Emperor so states "for this reason" and to prevent
further as-warned annihilation. Read it! I'm not asking you to take my
word, I'm referring you to Emperor Hirohito ... or do you take it that
he was lying to his people? I mean with you, any historical imbecility
is possible!
>
>
>>And the Emperor SPECIFICALLY alludes to same in his speech using the
>>words "for this reason...." [to save total annihilation], the order was
>>finally given .... to surrender unconditionally.
>
>
> This is the same emperor, of course, who prior to the atomic bombs had
> offered to send a senior member of the royal family to Russia to get a
> cessation of hostilities mediated. In other words -- a man whose
> 'fighting spirit' had disappeared quite some time prior to Hiroshima.
>
Ahhhh, I see, then he was 'lying' in his address to his people? Is that
your next gambit? That the guy was out of it and simply went with the
flow reading whatever was put in front him? Although in that scenario,
it would 'still' be after Nagasaki...at the point where they finally
'did' surrender. That remains historical fact.
>
>>So, as a smokescreen to your cowardly comments on 9-11, you always play
>>the N/H gambit figuring that posters will immediately see the 'analogy'
>>[!!!???] and you suggest, inter alia, which, BTW, is a bit of a botch on
>>your part itself because 'why' would you suggest to Gord McFee, for
>>example, that a bomb be dropped 'in the sea' or an 'open meadow' if you
>>are convinced that the Japanese were ready to surrender at any moment?
>>See what I mean? Why would you even have mentioned the bomb? Anyway,
>>that faux pas of yours aside, the sea and meadow thing was a bit
>>delusional because your thought [!?] was that the Japanese would 'see'
>>what the bomb could do [!?] and then suddenly surrender although you
>>didn't comment about 'what-if' that had been tried and they still did
>>not surrender! Then what? Use the only remaining bomb ["Fat Man"] for
>>another shot at the sea---perhaps closer to the coast for a, what,
>>better view of its power?
>>I think the cogent piece is this: most folks I know did not feel any
>>glee whatsoever about the use of the bomb.
>
>
> When told of its effects, as I illustrated some months ago, Truman
> smiled.
>
> You can repeat it as much as you want, Mr Lomenzo, but a whole lot of
> Americans were very, very happy to see entire cities full of Japanese
> get vapourized.
Can you name them? This response is of course on the same level of your
comment!
>And I put it to you that the psychological factors at
> work there were not a billion miles away from those at work in Rwanda,
> Serbia, and even Nazi Germany.
>
Ohhhhh myyyyyy, you're not going to go into your BNP spiel here, are
you? I've seen that as posted by McVay...it reads typical PsychoŽ-DEM
too. That 'fighting soldier to soldier with our Islamic friends' to boot
and then the situation in Europe and Africa.... as you see it of course.
Whew! Fess up, PsychoŽ, did you really dump them [the BNP] or did you do
the grand exit avec spiel already knowing they [BNP] were going to dump
you? I see you rather harsh on the BNP leaders and all.... . Just
curious on that one. Are you an NA member by any chance?
Define 'about the same as'... this was, as I stated
previously...semantics. I asked you if you could square their loss with
the dictums of your boy and hero Osama for requisite human fodder? In
effect, could you 'deal with it' and thus accept it as 'necessary' if
'your' loved ones were the next terrorist victims as you publicly wish
for 'other' victims to be so used and as per the Osama bin Laden and
thus your embraced philosophy? Give a straight answer! Can you accept it
and deal with it as being 'necessary' for the 'pay back' and 'chickens
coming home to roost' mantras? Yes or no?
>
>
>>Now the only thing I would request is that you certainly stay with it
>>but at least give some thought [!?] to a variation on the N/H cut and
>>paste routines and gambit...
>
>
> I am happy to debate you on any issue you wish, Mr Lomenzo. If you
> want to give me only ONE issue -- your feigned moral outrage over 9/11
> -- then you'll get the same response every time, viz. who the hell are
> you to criticize anyone else about bombing civilians
I'm criticizing YOU because you're a proven psychoŽ and coward. Your
remarks speak for themselves! I didn't create your remarks and
philosophy, YOU did. When you're then reminded of your own twisted and
psychotic wares, you start groping for what you feel are historical
comparatives to 9-11 and hence the N/H gambit is always dragged out as
the 'comparison' ---comparison to WHAT? You come off the psychotic 'and'
the coward in the process! And just as often simply ignorant [read:
stupid] as a chaser to your known imbecilities.
>when YOU support
> two of the most outrageous civilian bombing atrocities of all time:
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And it's the perfect response. Not only do you
> have no coherent answer but it shows you to be a complete hypocrite
> and windbag.
>
Oyyyy!
And THIS from the psychoŽ David E. Michael who when confronted with a
literal list of established facts about him, denies nothing! From Osama
lover to deadbeat to psychoŽ to coward. And now even the Emperor is
seemingly getting the bad-rap!
>
>>I'll take care of the rest as to confirming
>>my assessment of you to the readers with examples usw. and let 'you'
>>demonstrate the validity of my assessment. Pssst-- I would watch those
>>faux pas statements of yours however a la the Japanese fighting spirit
>>allegedly being some 'propaganda ploy' by the Americans and British
>>because those kind of idiotic statements merely show your rank stupidity
>>and in conjunction with already being pegged and proven a psychotic and
>>a coward. Just a tip.
>>
>>Your turn, PsychoŽ!
>>
>>
>>Doc Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>>David
>>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>>
>
> Over to you, windbag.
>
Your turn, PsychoŽ ! Do try to limit the cut and paste routines though.
And hey, how about more on the BNP thing.... did you do the swan song
spiel in lieu of getting blackballed? Could all of those folks in the
BNP off-shoot party have been as [allegedly] wrong and as bungling in
their 'duties' as you stated in your posted swan-song spiel to them?
Just curious... . You seem to have a pattern of great difficulty when
folks take issue with your ravings! Even the BNP brethren! Fess up!
Could the 'problem' really be 'you' and your known psychotic demeanor?
No-one seems to want you or be 'tainted' by you ! Why is that? Could it
be what you have to say and how you say it is viewed as 'sick' or
'demented' by others? Especially those of 'any' philosophical stripe or
bent .... but with families and loved ones they do 'not' wish to see
sacrificed for 'your' Osama belching dreck and drool. Can't say I blame
them!
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
BIZZ! Fair is fair now..the above quote [hence my usual use of single
mark notations in the event of not using 'exact' wordage or, indeed, a
typo or wrong word!] That should read, now double quote notation, "....
shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic friends" [versus soldier to
soldier'] and as per the newsgroup cited [not by me however] PsychoŽ-DEM
swan-song kiss off spiel to the BNP.
Done.
Doc Tony
[but suddenly!....]
Kurt Knoll: "What's so damn important about where Mr. Michael gets his
'gas' [!!!] from? Now me and Werner use 'Hess' [!] gas ourselves and the
prices are pretty good!"
Ross Cummins: "Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"
Phillips: "Can't you for once be serious, Mr. Cummins?"
Ross Cummins: "Ask me if I give a ##$#, Phillips! Muahahahahahahahaha!"
[retro!]
Jerome G. : " 'We' tried that once, being ultra serious I mean, but all
we could get was construction work!"
Cummins: "Muahahahahahhahahahahahaha!"
Bruno: [And STILL grousing from that old thread!] "Clap hands, he says!
Clap hands! Why didn't he get up and face me! Clap hands, he says!"
[but then...equally perplexed...]
Joe Bellinger: "I know the feeling, Bruno! With me, Doc Tony had me as
the 'gunsel' [!] when I purportedly said to Doc Tony, "I've taken all
the riding out of you I'm going to take, Doc Tony! GET UP AND SHOOT IT
OUT!"
[but to everyone's surprise and mimicking an ad hoc 'Fat Man' [*Sidney
Greenstreet....]
Gord McFee: [admonishment to Joe!] "BELLINGER! BELLINGER!" [Then
addresses Doc Tony] "Hmm-Hmm [pause] Hmm-Hmm. By gad, Doc Tony, you are
a character! Yes sir, that you are. Hmm-Hmm [pause] Hmm-Hmm. I'll tell
you straight out, Doc Tony, that I like talking to a man [pause] who
likes to talk!
Hmm-Hmm [pause] Hmm-Hmm. Now, Doc Tony, let's talk about the 'CUDDLES'
[with noted apologies to the 'falcon']...and PsychoŽ-DEM!"
Doc Tony
;-)
david_michael
Not greatly different.
>
> >
> >>Although I'm on record as believing you would
> >>willingly write them off too per the dictums of Osama and the
> >>'necessity' of human fodder for the 'cause' ---you know, and inter alia,
> >>your 'shoulder to shoulder with our Islamic brothers' spiel. One thing,
> >>PsychoŽ, you're creating quite a record of PsychoŽ-DEM 'quotes' which I
> >>see appearing in the newsgroup with your latest bit of 'humor' [!?]
> >>about the terrorists relatives being entitled to sue the airlines
> >>because their kin were not delivered to their destination!
> >>
> >>A sick comment of yours, yes? I mean to most 'normal' folks reading your
> >>latest public drool just a few days ago but then I would counter more
> >>'typical David E. Michael' in tone and thus de facto wholly synonymous
> >>with mental aberrations!
> >
> >
> > But not, I suggest, as 'sick' as supporting the completely unnecessary
> > slaughter of 270,000 civilians, which is your position.
> >
>
> [Cut and Paste Gambit #1 !]
>
>
> >
> >>As for leaving the thread, are you kidding? As long as I've got you
> >>convinced that you're 'scoring' with your wares [read: dreck and drool]
> >>, I remain quite satisfied because as I told you many posts ago, that's
> >>the plan! To keep you coming back and then I get to feast on your
> >>comments and/or faux pas imbecilities.
> >
> >
> > As I have precisely the same plan it looks like this is going to be a
> > jolly long thread!
> >
>
> At your expense however. OK by me if OK by you! What, you have something
> to do? After all, it's others who decide the outcome which is only fair.
I do actually have better things to do with my time.
> >
> >>It's when you again do the old
> >>plonk routine that would actually worry me.
> >
> >
> > It's impossible when posting from Google and, at the moment, my other
> > means of posting are too unreliable.
> >
>
> Why 'impossible'... just for curiosity. Why is it essential that you use
> the Google thing? Again, just curious. You know, PsychoŽ, I have a
> suspicion that you're doing the multi-nym thing but, alas, no definitive
> proof as yet so it must remain a suspicion at this point.
Nope. I post to this forum using Onetel. They do have a newsfeed
facility but it is crap. I don't post often enough these days to
justify using another ISP and so Google seems the obvious choice.
> >
> >>No-no, I prefer you right
> >>here.
> >
> >
> > Good. You've got me right here.
> >
>
> Ohhh, I've 'got you' alright but, again, if you don't mind taking a
> beating then I don't mind administering same. It gets dull however when
> you do the cut and paste thing because that's all you ever come up with
> but here and there come a few gems that I can use. Let's see as the
> thing goes along.
As I said -- you raise the same point, you get the same answer.
> >
> >>You do the N/H gambit regurgitations and I continue to show you
> >>the psychoŽ and coward.
> >
> >
> > Yes, by running away from the point that your support for the
> > unnecessary nuclear bombing to death of 270,000 civilians makes your
> > regular moral orgasms about 9/11 seem just the teeniest bit
> > hypocritical.
> >
>
> [Cut and Paste Gambit #2! ]
Cluck, cluck, eh?
Nope. As Truman's diary reveals.
>
> >At least two attempts were made
> > to mediate a cessation of hostilities -- the Americans were aware of
> > these. The American Strategic Bombing Survey found that he would 'in
> > all probability' have surrendered even before a land invasion could
> > have been launched even in the absence of nuclear bombs.
> >
>
> Yeah...the same ASBS [American Strategic Bombing Survey] that pronounced
> that 'daylight strategic bombing' over German targets was a veritable
> winner in Germany 'before' the coming of fighter escorts. That ASBS?
> Think the raid on Schweinfurt....et al. So too, "in all probability"
> means nothing in war. It's FACT and RESULTS that counts, not conjecture.
> Hey, you want military conjecture, try this one, "All we have to do is
> kick in the front door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing
> down!" What's that? Air? Sure! Enter the Fat Man, to wit, "We can supply
> the Stalingrad 6th Army by air, mein Führer! It can be done!"
>
> Lesson: "In all probability" is not fact. History itself can make that
> point painfully clear.
History, in this case, did. The emperor did try to get the Russians to
mediate a cessation to hostilities before the nukes were dropped.
>
> > Instead of pursuing these openings with all vigour, the Americans
> > ignored them and dropped not ONE nuclear bomb over open ground (to
> > make the emperor aware of the 'cruel new weapon') but TWO nuclear
> > bombs over cities crammed with civilians, one of which was selected
> > (and the other which was supposed to have been selected but for a last
> > moment hitch) to show the maximum destructive potential of the
> > technology in terms of destruction of lives and property.
> >
>
> Cut and Paste Gambit #4 !!!
>
> 'Open ground', you say? And the Emperor would, what, 'see' the big hole
> in the ground and toss in the sword so to speak? Get real, PsychoŽ!
> That's as lame as your bomb in the sea thing!
Let's pursue that argument.
Either knowledge that the Americans possessed the atom bomb would
cause a surrender or it would not.
If it would, then whether the weapon was demonstrated over open land
or over two cities, specifically chosen to best illustrate the
destructive nature of the technology, would be irrelevant.
If it would not cause a surrender, then why drop the bleeding thing at
all?
Now you might well come back and say that it had to be dropped over a
city to demonstrate that the Americans were PREPARED TO USE IT
RUTHLESSLY. However, they did that at Hiroshima, so why Nagasaki?
Moreover, it is by no means obvious that they HAD to demonstrate that
they were prepared to use it ruthlessly. Killing 270,000 civilians
JUST IN CASE they had to demonstrate that they were prepared to be
ruthless is, I suggest, contrary to the laws of war and, indeed, the
sort of behaviour the Nazis were hanged for after Nuremberg.
> Or, worse, your 'alternate
> suggestion' [in situ to boot!] that the "Americans just stop fighting!"
> Whew! And YOU wish to be taken seriously with ridiculous dreck like
> that?
Given that the Japanese government had indicated that it required a
cessation of hostilities and that Truman had got this message, I put
it to you that it was an entirely viable option -- PARTICULARLY if the
alternative option were slaughtering 270,000 civilians with nuclear
weapons.
> C'mon already! Hence my PsychoŽ-DEM comparative to your 'logic'
> [!?] as to why then didn't the Americans, British, French, Canadians,
> Russians usw. simply 'stop fighting' when Reich borders were reached on
> all sides and, per YOUR 'logic', simply 'wait it out' for the Germans to
> dump the Führer and surrender forthwith!
Because the Germans, unlike the Japanese, had not shown any signs of
wishing to surrender. (Duh.)
> >
> >>So, moving on, the 'fighting spirit' of the Japanese soldier [which
> >>'you' relegate to American and British 'propaganda' and hence your
> >>staggering ignorance of the Japanese as a people and their code of
> >>Bushido plus your undeserved swipe to the Japanese soldier himself
> >>courtesy of your demonstrated ignorance] but which Allied soldiers who
> >>fought those Pacific battles against the Japanese soldier would clearly
> >>dispute with you in that the Japanese soldier was a very tough and
> >>indeed fanatical opponent with a fighting spirit that was well
> >>demonstrated and their well known [except to you that is] reluctance to
> >>surrender no matter the overwhelming odds --anyway--- that being known
> >>from Pacific island to Pacific island, well, it doesn't take a rocket
> >>scientist to conclude that a land invasion of the Japanese home islands
> >>would be a veritable bloodbath far exceeding what two bombs did. Then, a
> >>land invasion, it's not just soldiers...it's virtually 'every' Japanese
> >>citizen who could hold and fire a weapon or produce a pitch-fork and
> >>most willingly die for the Emperor!
> >
> >
> > Again, the American Strategic Bombing Survey found that the Japanese
> > would 'in all probability' have surrendered anyway even without the
> > bombs and without land invasions.
>
>
> Oyyyyyyyyy! Here we go with the 'again' and 'in all probability'
> thing..... . I give you fact ... and you offer conjecture.
>
> Cut and Paste Gambit #5 !!!!
Ah, but in this instance it is sufficient to show only that there was
a POSSIBLE alternative strategy to the strategy of nuclear mass
murder. The Survey shows that there was. Truman knew that there was.
His failure to pursue it was, I suggest, criminal. That's what you
support.
>
> >That's not ME saying this -- it's
> > the Americans. And there had already been at least two attempts to get
> > a cessation of hostilities before that. How you can waffle on about
> > the 'fighting spirit' preventing them from surrendering when they'd
> > been trying to do precisely that for ages is quite amazing!
> >
> >
>
> And I suggest you read the Emperor on that one! He made it very clear
> why he finally decided to surrender! After Nagasaki. And ONLY after
> Nagasaki. That is fact. His own comments will not disappear from the
> historical record and I suggest you read what he had to say...after
> Nagasaki...and his bemoaning the fact that the 'emancipation' [!?] gig
> did not go as planned.
I've read it. I'm also aware of his actions prior to Hiroshima --
which included an offer to send a senior member of the royal family to
Russia to get the Russians to mediate a cessation of hostility. Now
you can ignore that point but it isn't going to go away.
> >>So, Hiroshima. Do they surrender? No. Nagasaki. Do they surrender? Yes.
> >
> >
> > They'd been trying to surrender for months and the Americans had been
> > steadfastly ignoring them. The problem wasn't an absence of WILL to
> > surrender -- it was a case of knowing what to do.
>
> What utter crap! The record ... and the Emperor himself says otherwise!
> Had they surrendered immediately after Hiroshima then Nagasaki would
> have been unnecessary. They did not surrender. They did after Nagasaki
> however...as the Emperor so states "for this reason" and to prevent
> further as-warned annihilation. Read it! I'm not asking you to take my
> word, I'm referring you to Emperor Hirohito ... or do you take it that
> he was lying to his people? I mean with you, any historical imbecility
> is possible!
Once again, you ignore the attempts made to broker a cessation of
hostilities PRIOR to Hiroshima, which I have told you about many
times.
> >
> >>And the Emperor SPECIFICALLY alludes to same in his speech using the
> >>words "for this reason...." [to save total annihilation], the order was
> >>finally given .... to surrender unconditionally.
> >
> >
> > This is the same emperor, of course, who prior to the atomic bombs had
> > offered to send a senior member of the royal family to Russia to get a
> > cessation of hostilities mediated. In other words -- a man whose
> > 'fighting spirit' had disappeared quite some time prior to Hiroshima.
> >
>
> Ahhhh, I see, then he was 'lying' in his address to his people? Is that
> your next gambit? That the guy was out of it and simply went with the
> flow reading whatever was put in front him? Although in that scenario,
> it would 'still' be after Nagasaki...at the point where they finally
> 'did' surrender. That remains historical fact.
He was trying to save face. The Japanese do that sort of thing, you
know. Probably something in the water.
> >>So, as a smokescreen to your cowardly comments on 9-11, you
always play
> >>the N/H gambit figuring that posters will immediately see the 'analogy'
> >>[!!!???] and you suggest, inter alia, which, BTW, is a bit of a botch on
> >>your part itself because 'why' would you suggest to Gord McFee, for
> >>example, that a bomb be dropped 'in the sea' or an 'open meadow' if you
> >>are convinced that the Japanese were ready to surrender at any moment?
> >>See what I mean? Why would you even have mentioned the bomb? Anyway,
> >>that faux pas of yours aside, the sea and meadow thing was a bit
> >>delusional because your thought [!?] was that the Japanese would 'see'
> >>what the bomb could do [!?] and then suddenly surrender although you
> >>didn't comment about 'what-if' that had been tried and they still did
> >>not surrender! Then what? Use the only remaining bomb ["Fat Man"] for
> >>another shot at the sea---perhaps closer to the coast for a, what,
> >>better view of its power?
> >>I think the cogent piece is this: most folks I know did not feel any
> >>glee whatsoever about the use of the bomb.
> >
> >
> > When told of its effects, as I illustrated some months ago, Truman
> > smiled.
> >
> > You can repeat it as much as you want, Mr Lomenzo, but a whole lot of
> > Americans were very, very happy to see entire cities full of Japanese
> > get vapourized.
>
> Can you name them? This response is of course on the same level of your
> comment!
I don't understand the question.
> >And I put it to you that the psychological factors at
> > work there were not a billion miles away from those at work in Rwanda,
> > Serbia, and even Nazi Germany.
> >
>
> Ohhhhh myyyyyy, you're not going to go into your BNP spiel here, are
> you? I've seen that as posted by McVay...it reads typical PsychoŽ-DEM
> too. That 'fighting soldier to soldier with our Islamic friends' to boot
> and then the situation in Europe and Africa.... as you see it of course.
> Whew! Fess up, PsychoŽ, did you really dump them [the BNP] or did you do
> the grand exit avec spiel already knowing they [BNP] were going to dump
> you? I see you rather harsh on the BNP leaders and all.... . Just
> curious on that one. Are you an NA member by any chance?
I am not a 'member' of anything. The things I support do not have
'members'.
Same answer as before. I'd feel about the same as if they got hit by
one of the American nuclear bombs that you support. Hey -- how would
YOU feel if your mother had been a Japanese resident of Nagasaki?
Would you then be so anxious to defend THAT slaughter as you are now?
Yes or no?
> >
> >
> >>Now the only thing I would request is that you certainly stay with it
> >>but at least give some thought [!?] to a variation on the N/H cut and
> >>paste routines and gambit...
> >
> >
> > I am happy to debate you on any issue you wish, Mr Lomenzo. If you
> > want to give me only ONE issue -- your feigned moral outrage over 9/11
> > -- then you'll get the same response every time, viz. who the hell are
> > you to criticize anyone else about bombing civilians
>
> I'm criticizing YOU because you're a proven psychoŽ and coward. Your
> remarks speak for themselves! I didn't create your remarks and
> philosophy, YOU did. When you're then reminded of your own twisted and
> psychotic wares, you start groping for what you feel are historical
> comparatives to 9-11 and hence the N/H gambit is always dragged out as
> the 'comparison' ---comparison to WHAT? You come off the psychotic 'and'
> the coward in the process! And just as often simply ignorant [read:
> stupid] as a chaser to your known imbecilities.
Wipe the spittle from your chops, Lomenzo, and take note of the
oft-repeated response. If I am a 'psycho' for agreeing with a well
executed attack on military and economic targets in a particularly
unpleasant country that has exported murder, mayhem, decadence and
destruction across the world -- what are YOU for supporting the
unnecessary slaughter of 270,000 Japanese civilians with nuclear bombs
at a time when the Japanese were trying to get a cessation to
hostilities and when Truman bloody well knew it?
> >when YOU support
> > two of the most outrageous civilian bombing atrocities of all time:
> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And it's the perfect response. Not only do you
> > have no coherent answer but it shows you to be a complete hypocrite
> > and windbag.
> >
>
> Oyyyy!
>
> And THIS from the psychoŽ David E. Michael who when confronted with a
> literal list of established facts about him, denies nothing! From Osama
> lover to deadbeat to psychoŽ to coward. And now even the Emperor is
> seemingly getting the bad-rap!
I'm merely here to demonstrate the hypocrisy of people like you, Mr
Lomenzo.
I might be slightly less than perfect, Mr Lomenzo, but at least I am
sincere in what I say. Given your attitude to the victims of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, I have no doubt whatsoever that your puffed-up wafflings
about 9/11 are utterly bogus. As, indeed, are most of the supposedly
outraged 'indignant' rants we get from you anti-revisionist types.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Ahhhhhh! Thank you, PsychoŽ...'THAT' was what I wanted you to admit. But
then, that was already a given! Think about it!
Doc Tony
I stand adjourned. Sine Die!
>even your attitude to the victims of Hiroshima
david_michael
Sine testiculi, more like.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Two are sufficient! Schmuck! 'Sine' is 'another' !
Nice try though....even though a botch!
Hey, on another matter, and honestly a 'neutral' here, if you already
pay for ISP service, why not use the freebie Netscape or IE or Forte
Agent or any of the other free browsers. I don't see why your allegedly
'forced' to use Google groups! Just curious!
Sara Salzman
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
[snip]
>
> Sine testiculi, more like.
>
> David
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com
For God's sake, Dr. Homeland, 967 lines for a FOUR-WORD response?
Did anyone ever teach you the word "bandwidth"?
Or perhaps "crashing bore"?
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
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Sara Salzman wrote:
> In article <b7fe1abc.03103...@posting.google.com>,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Sine testiculi, more like.
>>
>>David
>>http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>
>
> For God's sake, Dr. Homeland, 967 lines for a FOUR-WORD response?
>
> Did anyone ever teach you the word "bandwidth"?
>
> Or perhaps "crashing bore"?
>
> Sara
>
Thing of it is, 'Sine' would translate to 'another' and I had responded
to Psycho®-DEM that two were quite sufficient. I did say it was a nice
try however even though the Psycho® botched it. But what else is new!
Hey Sara, I would imagine that you're off the Ken Lewis holiday greeting
card list and, shall we say, permanently plonked....as it were. ;-)
Doc Tony
;-)
Sara Salzman
Suits me fine :) Now if I can only get Bradbury to follow suit....
david_michael
I think you'll find that 'alius' is 'another' and 'sine' is 'without'.
As in 'sine qua non' -- without which not. So 'sine die' would be
'without day' -- i.e. indefinitely.
> Nice try though....even though a botch!
> Hey, on another matter, and honestly a 'neutral' here, if you already
> pay for ISP service, why not use the freebie Netscape or IE or Forte
> Agent or any of the other free browsers. I don't see why your allegedly
> 'forced' to use Google groups! Just curious!
I have both IE and Netscape. However, to employ either to access
Usenet one requires an ISP with newsfeed. Onetel obstinately refuses
to get a decent news server. For a nominal fee I could use Newsfeeds
etc. but it isn't worth it. So I stick with Google, even though it
does mean that I have to read your posts.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Depends...literal versus practical usage as per general
translation...'another day'....what, 'without day' sounds like good
wordage to you if someone asked 'what does sine die' mean --or--
'another day' which more fully addresses the meaning of the phrase as in
'they stood adjourned 'sine die' or, for that matter, at the end of a
court session. What, I should de facto accept the 'without day' and not
go for its more general [and understood] 'another day'
meaning...which...in effect...and when used formally, ends the
proceedings indefinitely!
>
>>Nice try though....even though a botch!
>
>
>>Hey, on another matter, and honestly a 'neutral' here, if you already
>>pay for ISP service, why not use the freebie Netscape or IE or Forte
>>Agent or any of the other free browsers. I don't see why your allegedly
>>'forced' to use Google groups! Just curious!
>
>
> I have both IE and Netscape. However, to employ either to access
> Usenet one requires an ISP with newsfeed. Onetel obstinately refuses
> to get a decent news server. For a nominal fee I could use Newsfeeds
> etc. but it isn't worth it. So I stick with Google, even though it
> does mean that I have to read your posts.
>
Which you do in any event. ;-) One of these days perhaps they'll [ALL
governments] hopefully make the entire internet/usenet system free via
some 800 [or whatever] number to all who have a machine and a modem!
It's that beneficial, well, the truly educational and reference part of
same anyway. Already there are vast world-class and world known
libraries, museums, universities, usw. making their archives available
just for the asking. Here's a world communications medium that should be
wholly free to all! I trust we can agree on that one!
david_michael
Look it up in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, eighth edition,
p. 1133 -- unless you wish to try arguing, in the mode of a much
disciplined former participant in this forum, that this august tome is
'incorrect' . . .
> >
> >>Nice try though....even though a botch!
> >
> >
> >>Hey, on another matter, and honestly a 'neutral' here, if you already
> >>pay for ISP service, why not use the freebie Netscape or IE or Forte
> >>Agent or any of the other free browsers. I don't see why your allegedly
> >>'forced' to use Google groups! Just curious!
> >
> >
> > I have both IE and Netscape. However, to employ either to access
> > Usenet one requires an ISP with newsfeed. Onetel obstinately refuses
> > to get a decent news server. For a nominal fee I could use Newsfeeds
> > etc. but it isn't worth it. So I stick with Google, even though it
> > does mean that I have to read your posts.
> >
>
> Which you do in any event. ;-) One of these days perhaps they'll [ALL
> governments] hopefully make the entire internet/usenet system free via
> some 800 [or whatever] number to all who have a machine and a modem!
> It's that beneficial, well, the truly educational and reference part of
> same anyway. Already there are vast world-class and world known
> libraries, museums, universities, usw. making their archives available
> just for the asking. Here's a world communications medium that should be
> wholly free to all! I trust we can agree on that one!
Indeed. Unfortunately, even as we write, the European Union is
investing millions of 'euros' in developing a filter system that will
enable Internet service providers (note ISPs, not users) to filter
out 'hate' speech, or 'offensive' speech. In practice this means
speech that is offensive to the political elite (nobody gives a damn
if people like me are offended by what they say). So I think that in
the long run it'll probably go the same way as the other media --
censorship of all who are critical of the neoliberal, internationalist
consensus and the restriction of dissent to the peripheries. As such
it will increasingly become yet another Establishment propaganda organ
-- but one that offers the powers that be the ability to monitor
dissenters, to find out who they are and where they live. Not, on
balance, a good thing. I think the Amish Mennonites and primitivists
have the right idea in turning their backs on these modern
technologies and, indeed, on the outside world as a whole. It is
filthy and corrupt. Still, one uses these things while one can and in
the absence of an alternative at the moment.
> >>Doc Tony
> >
> >
> > David
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Schmuck! What better way to use a reverse whammy as response to a whammy
than to take its 'make sense' [versus literal] meaning, viz., 'another'
...get it now? In effect, your 'without day' is certainly correct and
acceptable but, as a response to the 'whammy', ahhhh, I went the
practical normal sense route and used 'another'!
In effect, 'without assigning a day', true enough, but to meet the
whammy with a reverse whammy, I took the 'another day' approach.
Now, let me get back to my two wheelbarrows! Two actually, one for your
wares of course and the other, well...think about it.
Well, It's no secret that I'm cynical about the world and its follies
but then there is the adage, "if one is not part of the solution, they
are part of the problem." Thing is that's it's the only game in town so
to speak but rather than withdraw from it totally, I prefer dealing with
the follies albeit as 'I' see them which of course is different from
every other individual and their definition of 'folly.' I've said often
enough that since recorded history began, we've been killing off each
other [even the Biblical stuff of which I have no beliefs tells of
brother killing off brother at the very get-go] in droves and I'm
cynical enough to believe that this will 'not' stop because that is the
nature of the species and the ever-present matters [read: presence] of
cradle to grave ideologies, vast social differences, religions with
'each' claiming to be 'the' alleged 'way' and/or 'answer' , gross
economic disparities, political systems, philosophies, etc. etc.
An 'ideal' or 'perfect' world....bosh! Impossible for this species
anyway. I wish the reverse were doable, viz., the grand call for
'sustained and everlasting universal peace' but that's a pipe dream. The
species and the historical record of the globe itself thus far argues
against it. I believe the absolute best we can hope for is at least
brief periods where we're not slaughtering each other for one [or
multiple] reason(s) or another. Ironic that one line in the flick 'The
Longest Day' where the audience made with the guffaw, but, think it out
for a moment, to wit, "I really wonder whose side God is on!" Hmmmmm.
Doc Tony
david_michael
> david_michael wrote:
> > "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message news:<3FA207EA...@localnet.com>...
<enormous snip to keep Ms Salzman happy>
> Well, It's no secret that I'm cynical about the world and its follies
> but then there is the adage, "if one is not part of the solution, they
> are part of the problem." Thing is that's it's the only game in town so
> to speak but rather than withdraw from it totally, I prefer dealing with
> the follies albeit as 'I' see them which of course is different from
> every other individual and their definition of 'folly.'
Well, I think the old 'serenity prayer' hits the nail on the head:
God, give us grace to accept with serenity
The things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things which should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.
I do not think we can change the world through participating in
elections or conducting violent revolutions or (the latest fad)
'entryism'. I think that we *might* be able to change it by
encouraging people to turn their backs on it and to create happy,
successful communities in the most isolated corners of the world,
completely isolated from the globalized world and its ways. If this
succeeds, others will be encouraged to imitate it. This won't change
the rest of the world, but it'll create little islands of hope in
parts of it.
>I've said often
> enough that since recorded history began, we've been killing off each
> other [even the Biblical stuff of which I have no beliefs tells of
> brother killing off brother at the very get-go] in droves and I'm
> cynical enough to believe that this will 'not' stop because that is the
> nature of the species and the ever-present matters [read: presence] of
> cradle to grave ideologies, vast social differences, religions with
> 'each' claiming to be 'the' alleged 'way' and/or 'answer' , gross
> economic disparities, political systems, philosophies, etc. etc.
To an extent it's a modernist/post-modernist thing. One of the
advantages of national-anarchism is that it is very post-modernist --
rather than seeking to impose one ideology on everyone it advocates
many different communities, each doing their own thing. You want white
nationalism -- go join a white nationalist community. You want Judaism
-- go join a Jewish community. You think Menno Simons was wonderful --
go off to the Paraguayan Chaco. Of course there'll always be
imperialists wanting to force everyone to do things in one particular
way, and N-A won't ever eliminate that. However, it does at least
provide an alternative approach.
> An 'ideal' or 'perfect' world....bosh! Impossible for this species
> anyway. I wish the reverse were doable, viz., the grand call for
> 'sustained and everlasting universal peace' but that's a pipe dream. The
> species and the historical record of the globe itself thus far argues
> against it. I believe the absolute best we can hope for is at least
> brief periods where we're not slaughtering each other for one [or
> multiple] reason(s) or another. Ironic that one line in the flick 'The
> Longest Day' where the audience made with the guffaw, but, think it out
> for a moment, to wit, "I really wonder whose side God is on!" Hmmmmm.
Given that McFee and Gorski claim to support the bugger, I think we
can guess.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <b7fe1abc.03103...@posting.google.com> in
alt.revisionism, on 31 Oct 2003 15:43:55 -0800,
david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
[snip]
> I do not think we can change the world through participating in
> elections or conducting violent revolutions or (the latest fad)
> 'entryism'. I think that we *might* be able to change it by
> encouraging people to turn their backs on it and to create happy,
> successful communities in the most isolated corners of the world,
> completely isolated from the globalized world and its ways.
"Completely isolated from the globalized world." Fine. Get on with
it.
> If this
> succeeds, others will be encouraged to imitate it. This won't
> change the rest of the world, but it'll create little islands of
> hope in
> parts of it.
Let's look at that phrase again: "completely isolated from the
globalized world." And when they're completetly isolated, they will
encourage others how?
Have your really thought this through?
- --
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/AwUBP6L5pJQgvG272fn9EQJGdgCgt1ZZF2yPjC5vseZN1tiEwR3sTlsAnRbm
t4LUy1KLqkfN4GhyTiq9MOxe
=6JRI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Philip Mathews
"John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
news:f7u5qv04uet00oetl...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <b7fe1abc.03103...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 31 Oct 2003 15:43:55 -0800,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I do not think we can change the world through participating in
> > elections or conducting violent revolutions or (the latest fad)
> > 'entryism'. I think that we *might* be able to change it by
> > encouraging people to turn their backs on it and to create happy,
> > successful communities in the most isolated corners of the world,
> > completely isolated from the globalized world and its ways.
>
> "Completely isolated from the globalized world." Fine. Get on with
> it.
>
> > If this
> > succeeds, others will be encouraged to imitate it. This won't
> > change the rest of the world, but it'll create little islands of
> > hope in
> > parts of it.
>
> Let's look at that phrase again: "completely isolated from the
> globalized world." And when they're completetly isolated, they will
> encourage others how?
Why, by being so damned happy that a permament rainbow in the sky will lead
all who wish happiness to find out what is at the end of the rainbow.
> Have your really thought this through?
Hehe!
--
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
Ken McVay, OBC
news:f7u5qv04uet00oetl...@4ax.com...
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <b7fe1abc.03103...@posting.google.com> in
> alt.revisionism, on 31 Oct 2003 15:43:55 -0800,
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I do not think we can change the world through participating in
> > elections or conducting violent revolutions or (the latest fad)
> > 'entryism'. I think that we *might* be able to change it by
> > encouraging people to turn their backs on it and to create happy,
> > successful communities in the most isolated corners of the world,
> > completely isolated from the globalized world and its ways.
>
> "Completely isolated from the globalized world." Fine. Get on with
> it.
>
> > If this
> > succeeds, others will be encouraged to imitate it. This won't
> > change the rest of the world, but it'll create little islands of
> > hope in
> > parts of it.
>
> Let's look at that phrase again: "completely isolated from the
> globalized world." And when they're completetly isolated, they will
> encourage others how?
>
> Have your really thought this through?
Oxymoron. He lacks the required neurons.
Gord McFee
<news:b7fe1abc.03103...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
wrote:
[...]
>> An 'ideal' or 'perfect' world....bosh! Impossible for this species
>> anyway. I wish the reverse were doable, viz., the grand call for
>> 'sustained and everlasting universal peace' but that's a pipe dream. The
>> species and the historical record of the globe itself thus far argues
>> against it. I believe the absolute best we can hope for is at least
>> brief periods where we're not slaughtering each other for one [or
>> multiple] reason(s) or another. Ironic that one line in the flick 'The
>> Longest Day' where the audience made with the guffaw, but, think it out
>> for a moment, to wit, "I really wonder whose side God is on!" Hmmmmm.
>
> Given that McFee and Gorski claim to support the bugger, I think we
> can guess.
ROTFL! Not bad.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_michael
Not only have I thought it through but you will find the answer to
your question at
http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html
If you wish to discuss national-anarchism it would at least be helpful
if you read some of the literature first.
Specifically, you will note that we observe that not all people are
temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such a
community -- at least not in the pioneering stages. Those who are
sympathetic to the idea but are not in a position to go and join a
community can remain outside and conduct propaganda to the extent that
they are permitted to do so.
Steven Mock
news:b7fe1abc.03110...@posting.google.com:
> Specifically, you will note that we observe that not all people are
> temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such a
> community -- at least not in the pioneering stages. Those who are
> sympathetic to the idea but are not in a position to go and join a
> community can remain outside and conduct propaganda to the extent that
> they are permitted to do so.
So basically what you are saying is that you are yourself unwilling to make
the personal sacrifices that would be involved in turning your back on the
"globalized world", but you are perfectly willing to spend your time
encouraging others to do so in the name of your ideology.
There's a word for that, Dr. M. It begins with an "h".
Steven Mock
Gord McFee
<news:b7fe1abc.03110...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
wrote:
> Not only have I thought it through but you will find the answer to
> your question at
>
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com/land.html
>
> If you wish to discuss national-anarchism it would at least be helpful
> if you read some of the literature first.
>
> Specifically, you will note that we observe that not all people are
> temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such a
> community -- at least not in the pioneering stages. Those who are
> sympathetic to the idea but are not in a position to go and join a
> community can remain outside and conduct propaganda to the extent that
> they are permitted to do so.
ROTFL! What bloody twaddle.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
Would it be "horseshit" by any chance?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
david_michael
Why?
Steven Mock
> Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
I already offered a brief explanation as to why, but maybe I can take
this opportunity to fill it out some more.
In the paragraph above, you essentially admit that life in the
"globalized world" for the average person reading your twaddle, can be
expected to be far superior and more comfortable than alternative you're
offering, thereby tacitly acknowledging the benefits of said "globalized
world". It seems to go without saying that anyone turning their back on
society as per your program would be giving up more than they could ever
expect to gain, not just materially but in any meaningful sense. One
would have to be very ideologically committed in order to make the
sacrifices involved... quite a bit MORE ideologically committed, it
seems, than you are.
In light of this, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? How
do you expect anyone to follow the political program of a propagandist
who makes excuses as to why he won't make the sacrifices he's asking of
others? Particularly when you don't offer any notion - neither the will
of God, nor an understanding of human nature, nor a vision of the future
- as to what such a person should be ideologically committed to.
In other words, your discourse, translated out of DEM-doublespeak,
basically means this: "I'm rich and comfortable, and, even though I've
decided to despise the system that has given me these comforts, I would
like to continue to be rich and comfortable. But if anyone else wants
to turn their back on the society I despise just because I happen to
despise it, I'll do my part in their struggle by being their cheerleader
from my position of comfort and privelegde."
Is it any wonder that you haven't been able to mobilize so much as a
hamster in the name of your struggle thus far?
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:32:02 GMT, in
> <news:Xns942689A7DEA4...@140.99.99.130>, Steven Mock
> wrote:
>
>> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.03110...@posting.google.com:
>>
>>> Specifically, you will note that we observe that not all people are
>>> temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such a
>>> community -- at least not in the pioneering stages. Those who are
>>> sympathetic to the idea but are not in a position to go and join a
>>> community can remain outside and conduct propaganda to the extent
>>> that they are permitted to do so.
>>
>> So basically what you are saying is that you are yourself unwilling
>> to make the personal sacrifices that would be involved in turning
>> your back on the "globalized world", but you are perfectly willing to
>> spend your time encouraging others to do so in the name of your
>> ideology.
>>
>> There's a word for that, Dr. M. It begins with an "h".
>
> Would it be "horseshit" by any chance?
That's a good word. But I was thinking of something different.
Here's another clue:
"How dare you criticize me for chortling with unrestrained glee over the
senseless and brutal murder of thousands of innocent people on September
11? You support The System that used nuclear bombs against two Japanese
cities, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and has been the cause of more death,
disease, starvation, earthquakes and premature ejaculation than anything
else since my side lost World War II. You're all a bunch of <blank>"
Care to buy a vowel?
Steven Mock
david_michael
> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.03110...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:<1nnugx41vxmeq$.ld6mdx126k79$.d...@40tude.net>...
> >> On 1 Nov 2003 05:24:42 -0800, in
> >> <news:b7fe1abc.03110...@posting.google.com>, david_michael
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Specifically, you will note that we observe that not all people are
> >> > temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such a
> >> > community -- at least not in the pioneering stages. Those who are
> >> > sympathetic to the idea but are not in a position to go and join a
> >> > community can remain outside and conduct propaganda to the extent
> >> > that they are permitted to do so.
> >>
> >> ROTFL! What bloody twaddle.
> >
> > Why?
>
> I already offered a brief explanation as to why, but maybe I can take
> this opportunity to fill it out some more.
>
> In the paragraph above, you essentially admit that life in the
> "globalized world" for the average person reading your twaddle, can be
> expected to be far superior and more comfortable than alternative you're
> offering,
No I don't.
> thereby tacitly acknowledging the benefits of said "globalized
> world".
Material benefits for a tiny minority such as yourself.
> It seems to go without saying that anyone turning their back on
> society as per your program would be giving up more than they could ever
> expect to gain, not just materially but in any meaningful sense.
No it doesn't.
> One
> would have to be very ideologically committed in order to make the
> sacrifices involved...
Certainly, at least at first.
quite a bit MORE ideologically committed, it
> seems, than you are.
You have no idea what I am doing, only a vague idea of what I have
done, and no idea what I have sacrificed.
> In light of this, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? How
> do you expect anyone to follow the political program of a propagandist
> who makes excuses as to why he won't make the sacrifices he's asking of
> others? Particularly when you don't offer any notion - neither the will
> of God, nor an understanding of human nature, nor a vision of the future
> - as to what such a person should be ideologically committed to.
Points all answered at http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> In other words, your discourse, translated out of DEM-doublespeak,
> basically means this: "I'm rich and comfortable,
Me? Rich?
> and, even though I've
> decided to despise the system that has given me these comforts,
I'd say that whatever 'comforts' I have were obtained despite the
system.
> I would
> like to continue to be rich and comfortable. But if anyone else wants
> to turn their back on the society I despise just because I happen to
> despise it, I'll do my part in their struggle by being their cheerleader
> from my position of comfort and privelegde."
Privilegde? :-)
> Is it any wonder that you haven't been able to mobilize so much as a
> hamster in the name of your struggle thus far?
How would you know?
<cue 25 different posts from Mock in response to this one, all
containing absolute rubbish>
Steven Mock
news:b7fe1abc.0311...@posting.google.com:
And yourself too, it seems. And anyone else who you expect would be
reading your tripe.
>> It seems to go without saying that anyone turning their back on
>> society as per your program would be giving up more than they could
>> ever expect to gain, not just materially but in any meaningful sense.
>
> No it doesn't.
Really? Then why aren't you willing to practice what you preach? If
you really think that someone would be better off overall (however your
values define "better off") turning their back on society rather than
living in it, why aren't you rushing to enjoy those benefits rather than
making excuses as to why you prefer to sit on the sidelines and spout
"propaganda" for those lucky souls who do.
>> One
>> would have to be very ideologically committed in order to make the
>> sacrifices involved...
>
> Certainly, at least at first.
>
> quite a bit MORE ideologically committed, it
>> seems, than you are.
>
> You have no idea what I am doing, only a vague idea of what I have
> done, and no idea what I have sacrificed.
Perhaps. I'm only reading what you wrote. When you said that "not all
people are temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such
a community", I assumed you meant yourself, given that YOU'RE STILL
HERE.
>> In light of this, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>> How do you expect anyone to follow the political program of a
>> propagandist who makes excuses as to why he won't make the sacrifices
>> he's asking of others? Particularly when you don't offer any notion
>> - neither the will of God, nor an understanding of human nature, nor
>> a vision of the future - as to what such a person should be
>> ideologically committed to.
>
> Points all answered at http://www.nationalanarchist.com
In other words, you have no real interest in discussion. Fair enough.
My last attempt to engage the content was what was contained in that URL
also degenerated to your mindlessly repeating the URL and running away.
I didn't expect this attempt to go any further.
>> In other words, your discourse, translated out of DEM-doublespeak,
>> basically means this: "I'm rich and comfortable,
>
> Me? Rich?
>
>> and, even though I've
>> decided to despise the system that has given me these comforts,
>
> I'd say that whatever 'comforts' I have were obtained despite the
> system.
Really. Then I bet you would be able to obtain even more if you were
free from it entirely. So what are you doing still here?
>> I would
>> like to continue to be rich and comfortable. But if anyone else
>> wants to turn their back on the society I despise just because I
>> happen to despise it, I'll do my part in their struggle by being
>> their cheerleader from my position of comfort and privelegde."
>
> Privilegde? :-)
Oops. Well, I guess that's another glorious victory for David E.
Michael's Meaningless Revolution.
>> Is it any wonder that you haven't been able to mobilize so much as a
>> hamster in the name of your struggle thus far?
>
> How would you know?
Lucky guess. Given that all of your efforts to mobilize in the name of
fascism, er... racial nationalism... er, anti-globalism have gone pretty
much the same way thus far, and you seem intellectually incapable of
grasping the fundamental reason as to why.
Steven Mock
Ken McVay
[...]
> You have no idea what I am doing, only a vague idea of what I have
> done, and no idea what I have sacrificed.
Of course we do. You sacrificed what little integrity you may have had
when you wrote:
<quote>
Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
turned around and have shown that they do not have to be nature's
eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and
the
powerless can strike back at the very heart of the dark forces that
are
oppressing them. This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
Death to American capitalism!
Death to international finance!
David Michael
Message-ID: <3b9e...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
</quote>
(2) When challenged with: "You applaud the terror and killing of
thousands of innocent people perpetrated by the terrorists who
attacked
the Pentagon and attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center,
calling
their actions "a wonderful thing," the day the attacks occurred a
"glorious day," and finishing by fervently wishing for "many more"
such
days.", his response was:
"I do indeed."
...skipping...
Lincolnshire unit of the British National Party, I'm afraid I simply
won't have time to continue our little debates in this forum. It's a
question of directing one's efforts to the place where they will have
most effect. Good wishes to all who wish to continue the good fight
here.
</quote>
david_...@onetel.net.uk (David Michael)
24 May 2001
Message-ID: <3B0C4356...@onetel.net.uk>
<quote>
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!'
</quote>
http://www.redaction.org/wwwboard/msgs5/5940.HTM
June 13, 2002
[Joe Bruno]
> The terrorists were also thieves. The planes they destroyed belonged
> to the airlines.
[David Michael]
<quote>
In fact, I'd argue that as these Arab gentlemen had purchased tickets
from the airlines for good money, and since the airlines failed to
deliver them safely to their destination, their relatives should
seriously consider sueing the airlines for damages.
</quote>
Message-ID: <b7fe1abc.03102...@posting.google.com>
23 Oct 2003
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>
Gord McFee
<news:Xns9427764E7669...@140.99.99.130>, Steven Mock wrote:
> Gord McFee <gord....@rogers.com> wrote in
> news:11f82xb9we4n9$.18jnm0qb...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:32:02 GMT, in
>> <news:Xns942689A7DEA4...@140.99.99.130>, Steven Mock
>> wrote:
>>
>>> david_...@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>>> news:b7fe1abc.03110...@posting.google.com:
>>>
>>>> Specifically, you will note that we observe that not all people are
>>>> temperamentally or physically suited for a lifestyle in such a
>>>> community -- at least not in the pioneering stages. Those who are
>>>> sympathetic to the idea but are not in a position to go and join a
>>>> community can remain outside and conduct propaganda to the extent
>>>> that they are permitted to do so.
>>>
>>> So basically what you are saying is that you are yourself unwilling
>>> to make the personal sacrifices that would be involved in turning
>>> your back on the "globalized world", but you are perfectly willing to
>>> spend your time encouraging others to do so in the name of your
>>> ideology.
>>>
>>> There's a word for that, Dr. M. It begins with an "h".
>>
>> Would it be "horseshit" by any chance?
>
> That's a good word. But I was thinking of something different.
I thought so.
> Here's another clue:
>
> "How dare you criticize me for chortling with unrestrained glee over the
> senseless and brutal murder of thousands of innocent people on September
> 11? You support The System that used nuclear bombs against two Japanese
> cities, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and has been the cause of more death,
> disease, starvation, earthquakes and premature ejaculation than anything
> else since my side lost World War II. You're all a bunch of <blank>"
>
> Care to buy a vowel?
Gimmee a "y".
Gord McFee
Troll rejected. You know bloody well why.
Orac
Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
Heh, heh. David's twaddle above about not himself being willing to make
sacrifices for his cause but being perfectly willing to see others make
sacrifices reminds me of one of his posts shortly after the invasion of
Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden:
"I do not speak the Afghan language and I do not share the Moslem
faith, but let me tell you this. If I could and if I did, then
tomorrow I would gladly give up everything and fight alongside those
noble and heroic people who are defending their homeland against the
murderous international Establishment."
Message-ID <b7fe1abc.0109...@posting.google.com>
The armchair revolutionary blustering away, but giving himself an out so
that he doesn't have to go and join up...
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Orac
Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
Just like he did for the Taliban in Afghanistan, shortly after U.S.
forces invaded to attack al Qaeda in October 2001:
"I do not speak the Afghan language and I do not share the Moslem
faith, but let me tell you this. If I could and if I did, then
tomorrow I would gladly give up everything and fight alongside those
noble and heroic people who are defending their homeland against the
murderous international Establishment."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b7fe1abc.0109170556.e5e66ab%40posting.g
oogle.com&output=gplain
More cheerleading from the sidelines. I'll give David this: He's
consistent.