HOLOCAUST

[Centurion]

23 Jul 00 14:32, Joe Lafoon wrote to Mimi Weasel:

JL> While Mimi Weasel gunned down Jeff Binkley, Joe charged his Tau
JL> Cannon...

JB>>definition of the word imply on it. I think Stan's comment is right.
JB>>My kingdom for a smart liberal.

MW>> Give us all a break, if you _had_ a kingdom you wouldn't be plopped
MW>> on your tush typing ridiculous crud all day every day. Neither you
MW>> nor Stan have anything going for you, you're a couple of big time
MW>> losers. Ever hear the expression "big fish in a little pond"? That's
MW>> an extremely apt description of Stan.

JL> How would you know? You ever met Stan? Or Jeff?

The arrogance of some people is awesome to behold, ain't it? :-)

Centurion (rift...@netscape.net)
Patriots do what must be done, all others merely die.

GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway

[Gary Braswell]

RT> RT> SS>American troops were appalled when they liberated the camps. They
RT> RT> SS>were completely unprepared for what they found.

RT> RT> JB> Yes, let's continue the liberal ideal of rewriting history. So the

RT> RT> GD> Bull f*cking Sh*t.

RT> RT> JB> arm bands were invisible ? 6 million Jews get killed and nobody
RT> RT> JB> notices. Let's get serious.

RT> RT> GD> See previous reply in the fact that the Death Camps were mainly
RT> RT> GD> based in conquered territories.

RT> RT> GD> Now, Jeff, are you trying to say that 6 million Jews and 10 or 20
RT> RT> GD> million other minorities weren't killed by the Nazi's? Are you
RT> RT> GD> going to deny Mr Schreiber's tatoo?


RT> RT>Compared to Stalin and Mao, Hitler was a bumbler when it came to
RT> RT>murdering people.

RT> GB> Stalin and Mao had a lot more time.

RT>Is that an excuse?

Just a fact. Had Hitler had the time Stlain and Mao did, he likely would
have killed far more than they.
-!-
ž OLXWin 1.00b ž I feel much better since I gave up hope!

[Gary Braswell]

MW>whilst talking to MIMI, JEFF said:

MW>JB>MG>Even at this late date it is hard to accept that any group of
MW>JB>MG>people could have done that to any other group of people.

MW>JB>Isn't that what Clinton claimed was happening in Kosovo, even though
MW>JB>now we know it wasn't ?

MW>I pity you, it must really suck to be so obsessed with him that you
MW>think he's the cause of all your problems. I have an overwhelming desire
MW>to point out what a loser you are, but I suppose I'll refrain from doing
MW>so.

Lets drop the loser bit.

[Gary Braswell]

EH>JB>>definition of the word imply on it. I think Stan's comment is
EH>JB>>right. My kingdom for a smart liberal.

EH> MW> Give us all a break, if you _had_ a kingdom you wouldn't be
EH> MW> plopped on your tush typing ridiculous crud all day every
EH> MW> day. Neither you nor Stan have anything going for you, you're
EH> MW> a couple of big time losers. Ever hear the expression "big
EH> MW> fish in a little pond"? That's an extremely apt description
EH> MW> of Stan.

Lets drop the losers routine.

[ROGER TRUCKS]

MG> and actions by Stalin and Mao somehow mitigates those by Hitler? Now
MG> that's a twisted perception if ever there were one.

RT> Nope. It's just that the leftists always downplay Stalin and Mao.
RT> The LW's always, without fail, compare Conservatives to Hitler and the
RT> Nazis. How come they never compare them to Stalin or Mao?

GD> Only because their politics were different.

Huh? Nazi means "National *Socialist* German Workers" party.
Their politics were/are both the same as far as I'm concerned.
They were/are evil.

GD> No one is excusing what Stalin and Mao did, except for maybe a
GD> few rabid far-left wingers.

Hitler is vilified much more often than Stalin or Mao by the liberals.
I think the liberals hate Hitler because he doublecrossed Stalin.
Given time, I think Stalin would have done the same thing to Hitler.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]

[ROGER TRUCKS]

SH>> Jeff Binkley and I were the topic of more messages
SH>> yesterday than I cared to count.

SH>> Not even the presidential election got the attention we
SH>> did.

SH>> Any idea what it is about the two of us that gets the
SH>> rumpswabs so worked up?

RT> Telling the truth could be one reason.

SH> Maybe it's the way we tell it.

I doubt it. The liberals deal so much in lies they think truth
is a foreign language.

[TERRY VERNON]

SS> AH> It was kept quiet so the targets wouldn't be forewarned. They
SS> AH> might have fought back if they knew they were doomed. *adh*

SS> TV> See: Warsaw ghetto.

SS> In the '50s I met two guys at a small Presbyterian college in Ohio
SS> both of whom had escaped, with their families, from the Warsaw
SS> ghetto. They met at Wooster for the first time. That's also where I
SS> met the friend who showed me the videotape of her aunt. It's a weird
SS> world.

Few escaped in the final days of the ghetto, though quite a lot
managed to escape before the Nazis clamped down.

Those who fought back against the Nazis were almost all killed.
But that was a glorious thing to do...

SS> One thing that no one has mentioned yet is that the Nazis went to
SS> great lengths to give the impression that the Jews were being
SS> relocated not killed. They even sent postcards from people who had
SS> been transported back to the ghetto saying how good a time they were
SS> having at Treblinka.

My memory is foggy - wasn't that Theresienstadt?
Initially, Jews were not being killed there, and that was intended
to avoid protests when the next batch were rounded up.

Terry V.
---
ţ MM 1.1 #0367 ţ Nimrods rule the waves!

[Dan Kimmel]

"ROGER TRUCKS" <org.fidonet.p0...@ROGER.TRUCKS> wrote in message
news:0000...@GratisNet.com...

>
>
> MG> and actions by Stalin and Mao somehow mitigates those by Hitler? Now
> MG> that's a twisted perception if ever there were one.
>
> RT> Nope. It's just that the leftists always downplay Stalin and Mao.
> RT> The LW's always, without fail, compare Conservatives to Hitler and
the
> RT> Nazis. How come they never compare them to Stalin or Mao?
>
> GD> Only because their politics were different.
>
> Huh? Nazi means "National *Socialist* German Workers" party.
> Their politics were/are both the same as far as I'm concerned.
> They were/are evil.

Don't they teach history in school any more? The Nazis were about as
"socialist" as China is a "republic."

>
> GD> No one is excusing what Stalin and Mao did, except for maybe a
> GD> few rabid far-left wingers.
>
> Hitler is vilified much more often than Stalin or Mao by the liberals.
> I think the liberals hate Hitler because he doublecrossed Stalin.

No, you're wrong. As evidenced by this message you don't think at all.

[Gary Braswell]

RT> GD> No one is excusing what Stalin and Mao did, except for maybe a
RT> GD> few rabid far-left wingers.

RT>Hitler is vilified much more often than Stalin or Mao by the liberals.
RT>I think the liberals hate Hitler because he doublecrossed Stalin.
RT>Given time, I think Stalin would have done the same thing to Hitler.

There is no doubt of this.

Stalin hoped Germany and the Allies would ware themselves out in war
leaving the USSR the largest military power and able to move on the
weakened nations.

-!-
ž OLXWin 1.00b ž I feel much better since I gave up hope!

GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway

[Gary Braswell]

K>From: "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net>

K>"ROGER TRUCKS" <org.fidonet.p0...@ROGER.TRUCKS> wrote in message
K>news:0000...@GratisNet.com...
K>>
K>>
K>> MG> and actions by Stalin and Mao somehow mitigates those by Hitler? Now
K>> MG> that's a twisted perception if ever there were one.
K>>
K>> RT> Nope. It's just that the leftists always downplay Stalin and Mao.
K>> RT> The LW's always, without fail, compare Conservatives to Hitler and
K>the
K>> RT> Nazis. How come they never compare them to Stalin or Mao?
K>>
K>> GD> Only because their politics were different.
K>>
K>> Huh? Nazi means "National *Socialist* German Workers" party.
K>> Their politics were/are both the same as far as I'm concerned.
K>> They were/are evil.

K>Don't they teach history in school any more? The Nazis were about as
K>"socialist" as China is a "republic."

K>>
K>> GD> No one is excusing what Stalin and Mao did, except for maybe a
K>> GD> few rabid far-left wingers.
K>>
K>> Hitler is vilified much more often than Stalin or Mao by the liberals.
K>> I think the liberals hate Hitler because he doublecrossed Stalin.

K>No, you're wrong. As evidenced by this message you don't think at all.

The don't think at all comment is an insult. Stop it.

-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!

[Mimi Weasel]

whilst talking to ROGER, DAN said:

RT>> Huh? Nazi means "National *Socialist* German Workers" party.
RT>> Their politics were/are both the same as far as I'm concerned.
RT>> They were/are evil.

DK>Don't they teach history in school any more? The Nazis were about as
DK>"socialist" as China is a "republic."

Steve Kangas wrote a brilliant piece on this that should be required
reading for CONservatives. It's a very long piece but part of it reads
like this:

Myth: Hitler was a leftist
By Steve Kangas
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/hitler.html

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Summary
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that
his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker
ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany,
private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they
in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True
socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be
democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on
the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over
freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over
cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship
over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism,
nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even
held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
Argument To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far
right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a
strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at
Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something
of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism,
conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that
Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not
the right. The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a
National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word
"Socialist" openly identifies itself as such. However, there is no
academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer.
Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples
include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir
Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The
true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but
whether or not it actually was. In fact, socialism has never been tried
at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some
people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is
no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves
socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand
why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.Perhaps the primary
concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the
means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery,
etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The
first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and
productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in
return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has
disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private
individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is
limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all
workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism,
where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of
the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few
people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the
other. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is
social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as
their industry representatives to regional or national congresses.
Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies
that would operate on a free market, without any central government at
all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary
feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of
production. The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it
was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with
a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or
control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of
socialism that call for a central government, that government is always
a strong or even direct democracy never a dictatorship. It doesn't
matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people,
or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves
are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic
and non-socialist. And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers
controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It
was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically,
private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The
Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their
workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise,"
and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the
employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."(1)
The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling
Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established
a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar
Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second
nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first
nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the
Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that
state economic policies can be successful without resorting to
dictatorship or war.) Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker
protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great
Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social
unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and
increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises;
privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would
crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer
describes the Nazi's dual strategy: "The party had to play both sides of
the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the
crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National
Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the
other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of
those who had an ample supply of it." (2) Once in power, Hitler showed
his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The
Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to
strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old
trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not
represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to
see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of
work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi
rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers
wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from
16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not
protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the
economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked
down on any protest. There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even
remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of
Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's
take a closer look:
The Politics of Nazism The political right is popularly associated with
the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these
are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in
every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political
beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true
of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a
leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the
right. These include:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.
===========================

It's a great piece, follow the above URL and read the whole thing.

L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL

þ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 þCourt Reporters do it on a trial basis

[Stan Hardegree]

SH>> Right now, my personal life consists of watching the great
SH>> Tiger Woods tame St. Andrews (or, as the locals say,
SH>> "sinANdrews") - watching with the most beautiful woman on
SH>> the planet at my side, fetching me an ocassional drink.

EH> Somehow, someone will make a reference to you being a
EH> chauvanist for that statement.

The important thing is that she doesn't think that. She loves me. I fetch her
drinks, too.

BTW: I heard that CBS pulled record ratings for the British Open. Tiger is a
phenom like no other I have ever seen.

But, of course, I'm a golfer.

SH>> There has never been a golfer like Tiger. And he is a good
SH>> man. The richly endowed Tiger Woods Foundation exists to
SH>> help underprivileged kids.

EH> And, somehow, someone will make a reference to you being a
EH> racist bigot for that statement.

EH> That someone will also most likely make nasty remarks about
EH> your wife and about Tiger Woods in the process. That someone
EH> will then turn around and rant on about how evil you are for
EH> making personal attacks on those you don't agree with.

I couldn't care less what people think about me.

---

GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway

[Stan Hardegree]

MW> popularly associated with the right. These include:
MW> Individualism over collectivism.
MW> Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. Eugenics
MW> over freedom of reproduction.
MW> Merit over equality.
MW> Competition over cooperation.
MW> Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
MW> One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
MW> Capitalism over Marxism.
MW> Realism over idealism.
MW> Nationalism over internationalism.
MW> Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
MW> Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

Good grief.

Astounding what passes for political thought in some qurters.

Meat eating over vegetarianism?

Oh man!

[Gary Braswell]

EH> MW>>> Give us all a break, if you _had_ a kingdom you wouldn't be
EH> MW>>> plopped on your tush typing ridiculous crud all day every
EH> MW>>> day. Neither you nor Stan have anything going for you,

EH> MW>>> you're a couple of big time losers. Ever hear the
EH> MW>>> expression "big fish in a little pond"? That's an extremely
EH> MW>>> apt description of Stan.

EH> EH>> Given that you have no earthly clue about Stan or anyone
EH> EH>> else's personal life, you sure do talk some trash about
EH> EH>> them.

EH> SH> Right now, my personal life consists of watching the great
EH> SH> Tiger Woods tame St. Andrews (or, as the locals say,
EH> SH> "sinANdrews") - watching with the most beautiful woman on the
EH> SH> planet at my side, fetching me an ocassional drink.

EH>Somehow, someone will make a reference to you being a chauvanist for that
EH>statement.

EH> SH> There has never been a golfer like Tiger. And he is a good
EH> SH> man. The richly endowed Tiger Woods Foundation exists to
EH> SH> help underprivileged kids.

EH>And, somehow, someone will make a reference to you being a racist bigot
EH>for that statement.

EH>That someone will also most likely make nasty remarks about your
EH>wife and about Tiger Woods in the process. That someone will then
EH>turn around and rant on about how evil you are for making personal
EH>attacks on those you don't agree with.

EH>It never fails...

Well, if it happens now, they will have some interesting consequences.
-!-
þ OLXWin 1.00b þ I feel much better since I gave up hope!

[Gary Braswell]

BK> SH> Any idea what it is about the two of us that gets the rumpswabs
BK> SH> so worked up?

BK> Yeah, but I don't want to get a moderator warning.

Oh why not join in the fun.<g>
-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!

[FRANK SCHEIDT]

-=> Quoting Earl Croasmun to Mimi Weasel <=-

EC> There are those on this echo who call themselves "conservative" and
EC> like to badmouth people or things or ideas as "liberal" or "leftist."
EC> And there are others who like to badmouth "conservatives" or
EC> "rightwingers." It is just empty namecalling both ways, since there is
EC> no definite referent to either school of thought.
EC>
EC> In the past I have commented on how meaningless it is to call a
EC> position on an issue a "liberal" or "conservative" position. Pro-life
EC> is not any more "conservative" than it is "liberal." Being in favor of
EC> tax cuts or ballistic missile defense is no more and no less "liberal"
EC> than opposing them. It just leads to a deadend.
EC>
EC> This article is a good example of braindead thinking on such labels.

-> Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on
-> the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over
-> freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over
-> cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship
-> over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism,
-> nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
-> common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even
-> held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
EC>
EC> Notice the blind stupidity of trying to split the world into binary
EC> choices, and then assigning the good half to the "left" and the bad
EC> half to the "right" (more specifically the "far right," even though the
EC> writer doesn't consider the possibility of a "far left").
EC>
EC> The "right" is inherently racist, and the "left" isn't? The "right"
EC> favors eugenics, and the "left" doesn't? These are absurd and baseless
EC> claims to anyone who understands history. The very fact that he
EC> oppeosed "eugenics" to reproductive "freedom" is silly.
EC>
EC> "Leftists" opposed merit? "Rightwingers" favor dictatorship?
EC> "Leftists" are pacifists who reject "common sense?" Being friendly
EC> with "the Church" is rightwing?

-> The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it
-> was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with
-> a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or
-> control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of
-> socialism that call for a central government, that government is always
-> a strong or even direct democracy never a dictatorship.
EC>
EC> Another appeal to imaginary socialism as opposed to "true socialism"
EC> in the sense of what socialism truely becomes in the real world.

I have read the above carefully -- very carefully -- and
have come to the conclusion that it is fatally *flawed*.
How so? It is flawed in that there's an implication that
the average reader will understand and accept the 100% truth
of your excellent posting. Labels, when applied broadly, as
is typically the case, are worthless because none of us can be
placed into rigid boxes. I suspect that even Mimi has some
good points. How about it, Mimi, any sensible ideas? Let's
see it!

Maybe a more logical way to apply labels, "conservative",
"liberal", etc., would be to apply a factor indicating the
extent to which the writer considers the person to *fit* in
that particular box. Maybe simply using a scale from 0.00
to 1.00 where 0.00 would indicate such a low level of
compliance with the label so to be the exact *opposite*
of the label description and 1.00 would indicate 100%
compliance with the label. The average writer would
probably be at the 0.50 level. This could easily be
included in a set of parentheses thus not taking up much
space.

Example: Mimi's ideas are those of a (0.90) liberal. Some
of them are eminently (0.11) sensible ... and so on ...

PREDICTION: This will not catch on ... uh ... (0.97) this
will not catch on ...