The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/d/dumas.steve/1994/dumas.1294


Archive/File: pub/people/dumas.steve dumas.1294
Last-Modified: 1995/01/03

From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Tue Dec 20 10:40:51 PST 1994
Article: 20137 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 23:46:56 GMT
Lines: 204

Ken Mcvay (kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca) wrote:
> [Followups directed to alt.revisionism]

> Mr. Hoffman II recently claimed that criminal charges had been
> brought against John Ball and Doug Collins. I challenged him to
> produce evidence of this, but he did not respond.

> He did not respond because he was not telling the truth - no
> criminal charges have in fact been laid against either person.

> As I understand it, a  _complaint_ has been brought before the 
> Human Rights Commission of British Columbia, alleging that 
> Mr. Collins contravened the following section of the Human 
> Rights Act:

>                            Human Rights Act

>                                Part 1

>                   DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES PROHIBITED

> Discriminatory publication

> 2.  (1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be
> 	published, issued or displayed any statement, publication,
> 	notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

> 	(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to
>  	    discriminate against a person or a group or
> 	    class of persons, or

> 	(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class
> 	    of persons to hatred or contempt 

> because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion,
> marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex,
> sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of
> persons.


	Mr. McVey, I am eagerly awaiting Canada's first "hate" case, either
through a human rights commsssion, or in a criminal court of law, 
involving a member of an "oppressed" minority against a member 
of the Majority. In short, such a case will simply never happen.
Human rights commissions are essentially tools by which 
hypersensitive minorities can silence views which they do not
like. 

	The line of thinking which produces the greatest amount
of "hatred" and "contempt" against a "class of persons" is that 
which dominates holocaust-promotion. The supposed "lesson" of the 
holocaust campaign is that by talking about on a daily basis 
society will somehow become immune from "it" happening again. 

	Mr. McVey, the constant promotion of this theme that Gentiles
are all latent killers who at any given moment could launch into a 
genocidal tirade, is extremely hateful. Constantly being told that we
(Gentiles) are so dangerous that we require extensive supervision by 
beefed-up human rights commissions and stronger laws is highly insulting.
The implication of the "lesson" of the holocaust is that Gentiles cannot
be trusted. We are constantly told that although we may put on a calm
exterior, we are in fact never to be trusted because "it" could happen
again! NEVER AGAIN!!!

	Mr. McVey, if I or anyone else in this increasingly 
totalitatarian country of ours (Canada) were to suggest that the Jewish
people were in the slightest way as potentially dangerous Gentiles are
constantly protrayed, we would have our asses before either a judge in
a court of law, or before a human rights tribunal before we could utter 
our own names! 

	Mr. McVey, whether it is sections 318 or 319 of the criminal code,
whether it is the Ontario Human Rights Code, of the Federal Human Rights
Act, or the British Columbia Human Rights Act, the fact is that the
basic civil liberties of free expression and free assembly will soon be
a thing of the past in this great "democratic" country of ours. And
when that happens Mr. McVey, you and your exterminationist friends will
have pleasure of debating the holocaust all on your own! 

	Mr. McVey, I am fully aware that you have become a darling of
sorts in Canada. I am also fully aware that as a result of my postings
in this newsgroup my name is probably on the "watch" list of every
Jewish group in North American. Fine. However, I will die before I allow
the "sensitivity" of the holocaust campaign to dictate what I can and
cannot say, and to whom I can and cannot listen. Evidently, Doug Collins
is another man with conviction. I sure you and your backers will pop
open the champagne when he is eventually neutralized, either through bill
33, or the criminal code. 

	You and your ilk will not stop until Canadian Majority finds 
itself imprisoned in Canada's very own "intellectual concentration camps." 







>    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or
>        to a communication intended to be private.

> [End quote of Human Rights Act, Section 2]

> Once such a complaint has been filed, the commission must decide
> whether or not it has merit. If it finds in the negative, it can
> dismiss the complaint. If it finds that the complaint has merit, it
> can order an investigation. The results of that investigation are
> brought to a Board of Inquiry. The powers of this Board are covered
> in Section 17 of the Act:

> 17. (1) Where a board of inquiry considers that a complaint is not
>         justified, it shall dismiss the complaint.

>     (2) Where a board of inquiry considers that a complaint is
>         justified, it
>     
> 	(a) shall order the person who contravened this Act to cease
> 	    the contravention and to refrain from committing the same
> 	    or a similar contravention,

>         (b) may make a declaratory order that conduct of the type
> 	    complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination
> 	    contrary to the Act,

>         (c) may order the person who contravened this Act to do one or
> 	    both of the following:

> 		(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate
>                     the effects of the discriminatory practice;

>                (ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program
> 		    or other special program if the evidence at the
> 		    hearing has disclosed that the person engaged in a
> 		    pattern or practice that contravened this Act, and

>         (d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the
> 	    proceedings, may order the person who contravened this Act
> 	    to do one or more of the following:
>    
>                 (i) make available to the person discriminated against
> 		    the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the
> 		    opinion of the board,, the person was denied
> 		    contrary to the Act;

>                (ii) compensate the person discriminated against for
> 		    all, or a part the board determines of any wages
> 		    or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the
> 		    contravention;

>               (iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount
> 		    the board of inquiry considers appropriate to
> 		    compensate that person for injury to dignity,
> 		    feelings and self respect or to any of them.
>       
>     (3) A board of inquiry may make an order as to costs it considers
>         appropriate.            

>     (4) Where an order is made under subsection (2) (a), (c) or (d) or
> 	(3) or section 14 (1) (d) (ii), the council or the person who
> 	was discriminated against and in whose favour the order is
> 	made may file a certified copy of the order with the Supreme
> 	Court and on being filed the order has the same force and
> 	effect, and all proceedings may be taken on it, as if it were
> 	a judgement of that court.

>         [1984-22-17, 1989-40-102; 1992-43-11, effective July 13, 
>         1993 (B.C. Reg 238/92)]

> [End text of Section 17 of the Act]

> In short, the HRC has no power or authority to issue or to consider
> a criminal complaint. It can, however, with the force of law, order
> compensation and/or costs to be paid to the injured party.

> It is clear, from reading Mr. Hoffman's comments throughout the
> thread, that he referred to this complaint. He even cited a
> Vancouver (B.C.) newspaper report which dealt with the filing of the
> complaint by the Canadian Jewish Congress; this article, it should
> be noted, did not mention Mr. Ball.

> One can only speculate as to why Mr. Hoffman misrepresented the law 
> relating to discrimination, which I have reproduced in part above. 
> Perhaps he simply believed what others might have told him, and was 
> ignorant of the contents of the Act, or perhaps his misrepresentation 
> was deliberate; I cannot say.

> However, Mr. Hoffman's false contentions and assertions, easily
> refuted by anyone reading the Act itself, demonstrate once again how
> important it is to check such claims carefully - accepting anything
> Mr. Hoffman offers at face value is obviously risky.

> -- 
>   "Everything I do is done with the full knowledge of the Fuehrer." 
>   (Himmler, Heinrich.  See Jochen von Lang, "Der Adjutant: Karl Wolff,"
>                 Munich: Herbig, 1985, pp .  140ff)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sat Dec 24 05:28:37 PST 1994
Article: 20298 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  <1994Dec20.190819.11877@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 04:13:12 GMT
Lines: 269

Ken Mcvay (kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca) wrote:
> In article  sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas) writes:

> >Ken Mcvay (kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca) wrote:
> >> [Followups directed to alt.revisionism]
> >
> >> Mr. Hoffman II recently claimed that criminal charges had been
> >> brought against John Ball and Doug Collins. I challenged him to
> >> produce evidence of this, but he did not respond.

> >> He did not respond because he was not telling the truth - no
> >> criminal charges have in fact been laid against either person.

> >> As I understand it, a  _complaint_ has been brought before the 
> >> Human Rights Commission of British Columbia, alleging that 
> >> Mr. Collins contravened the following section of the Human 
> >> Rights Act:

> [HRA text deleted]

> >	Mr. McVey, I am eagerly awaiting Canada's first "hate" case, either
> >through a human rights commsssion, or in a criminal court of law, 
> >involving a member of an "oppressed" minority against a member 
> >of the Majority. In short, such a case will simply never happen.
> >Human rights commissions are essentially tools by which 
> >hypersensitive minorities can silence views which they do not
> >like. 

> It's McVay.

> Cases involving minority members against majority members have been
> filed many times, and in many ways. The 1993-1994 B.C. Council of
> Human Rights Annual Report lists several.

> Significantly, with regard to your somewhat confusing statement, the
> annual report includes case studies in which the complaint was found
> to be without merit, and was therefore dismissed. (See Ng & St.
> George's School, and Nahal & Globe Foundry Ltd., in which the
> complaints alleged racial discrimination; both were dismissed by the
> Council.)

> In short, using your terminology, members of "hypersensitive
> minorities" were unable to "silence views which they did not like,"
> or, for that matter, silence anyone or anything. Perhaps Mr. Dumas
> would like to explain how these cases do not dismiss his allegations
> relating to human rights legislation...

Mr. McVay, I apologize for not expressing myself properly. I meant
to say that it will be quite a while until a human rights 
commission, or a court of law, will hear a case where a Majority
member accuses a member of an "oppressed" minority of promoting
"hatred" or "discrimination." Essentially, human rights commissions
and sections of the criminal code dealing with "hatred" or "genocide"
are designed to provide "oppressed" minorities with a so-called
political advantage over the "dominant" Majority.

If my memory serves me correctly the federal human rights commission 
may have actually dealt with one case involving a German trucker who 
felt he was dismissed from his position because he was White. 
However, such a case, and there is a slight possibility that there
are a couple of others at least at the federal level, are not the
kind with which human rights commissions are supposed to deal. They
are designed primarily for "oppressed" minorities. In Canada, the
Majority must deal with the "minorities-have-no-power-therefore-
they-are-not-capable-of-hatred-or-discrimination" mentality. 

Generally, minority on Majority incidents are not treated as 
issues of "hatred" or "bigotry." For example, that black immigrant
who threw that White womyn to her death onto some subway tracks
in Montreal was not discussed as a "hate" issue. 

Do you remember Chief Bill Wilson's "We should have killed all of 
you (White settlers)" anecdote? Doug Collins has his ass before
a human rights council for having said something far less than 
what Wilson said. Why wasn't Wilson charged under section
318 of the criminal code? Easy. He is part of an "oppressed" minority.
Why wasn't Wilson dragged before a human rights council? If there
was a point in history where minorities allegedly operated at a 
disadvantage, this no longer applies.

The main "hate" cases either in a court of law, or before a human
rights commission, have centred around Jewish "sensitivity." Who
can forget the cases of James Keegstra (criminal case), 
Ernst Zundel (criminal case), Malcolm Ross (New Brunswick human
rights commission), Johnn Ross Taylor (federal human rights
commission), and now Doug Collins (British Columbia Human Rights
Council). I believe the federal Human Rights Act was actually 
ammended in order to nail Taylor (section 13?), and we all know
that bill 33 in British Columbia was  dubbed the "Doug Collins 
Bill."  

> >	The line of thinking which produces the greatest amount
> >of "hatred" and "contempt" against a "class of persons" is that 
> >which dominates holocaust-promotion. The supposed "lesson" of the 
> >holocaust campaign is that by talking about on a daily basis 
> >society will somehow become immune from "it" happening again. 

> Which "class of persons" is exposed to "hatred and contempt" by the
> historical reality of the Holocaust, Mr. Dumas?

Mr. McVay, constantly reminding people that they are in fact
latent murderers and thus need constant supervision by the
intelligence activities of Jewish groups is insulting. If the 
Jewish community has the attitude that the rest of society
cannot totally be trusted and thus require legal constraints 
upon their ability to think and speak freely, well...

> >	Mr. McVey, the constant promotion of this theme that Gentiles
> >are all latent killers who at any given moment could launch into a 
> >genocidal tirade, is extremely hateful. Constantly being told that we

> Please provide some evidence to support your allegation that the
> reality of the Holocaust promotes this view. In particular, please
> document this support as it relates to non-Jewish victims of the
> Holocaust - i.e. Romani, Christians, and political enemies of the
> Nazi regime.

Mr. McVay, I am referring to the "lesson" of the holocaust. This
"lesson," which has become the moral foundation of the Western
World, is that "it" happened before, and "it" could at any
moment happen again. This "lesson" does not mean the same for 
Jews as it does for Gentiles. The former are taught to be on guard,
while the latter are portrayed as potential killers. The Jewish
community do not spend most of their energy wondering about 
how potentially evil they are. This kind of self-hatred is for
Gentiles.

However, before we get into a battle over evidence, please 
share with us your interpretation of the "lesson" of the 
holocaust. 


> >(Gentiles) are so dangerous that we require extensive supervision by 
> >beefed-up human rights commissions and stronger laws is highly insulting.

> Who has told Canadians this? The gentiles sitting on the human
> rights councils? Parliament? Who?

Are you suggesting that the Jewish lobby have not pursued the
strengthening of hate laws, and have not used human rights 
commissions more than any other group? I will give you the 
opportunity to re-phrase your question because the Jewish lobby
have more than any other group spent the most political energy 
trying to have stronger "anti-hate" (anti-thought?) measures
than any other group - by far!!! Are you suggesting otherwise?

Also, the Gentiles sitting on human rights councils and commissions,
and in parliament would not dare challenge the Jewish lobby in 
their quest to toughen Canada's "anti-hate" industry. Anyone with
any degree of honesty knows fully well that challenging the Jewish
lobby is virtual political suicide. Please, let's get serious! 

> >The implication of the "lesson" of the holocaust is that Gentiles cannot
> >be trusted. We are constantly told that although we may put on a calm
> >exterior, we are in fact never to be trusted because "it" could happen
> >again! NEVER AGAIN!!!

> Are you saying that non-Jews are incapable of genocide? Can you
> support this with evidence, which might include viewpoints relating
> to Bosnia, Cambodia, etc.?

First, the notion that non-Jews are capable of genocide has 
become probably the dominant "moral" theme in our society. 
Do the the Jewish community spend most of their time reflecting
about their potential for evil? Of course not! In the case
of other "genocides," the most salient characteristic of the 
holocaust campaign is its moral hubris. 

Some members of the Jewish community suffer from a terminal case 
of victimological supremacy. In other words, some of them have a 
bad case of "we have suffered more than anyone else syndrome."  
They will be the first to tell you that their "experience" is by far
the worst atrocity that ever occured. The "others" continue
to be treated as "second-rate" victimological events. 


> >	Mr. McVey, if I or anyone else in this increasingly 
> >totalitatarian country of ours (Canada) were to suggest that the Jewish
> >people were in the slightest way as potentially dangerous Gentiles are
> >constantly protrayed, we would have our asses before either a judge in
> >a court of law, or before a human rights tribunal before we could utter 
> >our own names! 

> How are gentiles constantly portrayed, Mr. Dumas?

As a bunch of potential murderers who can never really be trusted.

> >	Mr. McVey, whether it is sections 318 or 319 of the criminal code,
> >whether it is the Ontario Human Rights Code, of the Federal Human Rights
> >Act, or the British Columbia Human Rights Act, the fact is that the
> >basic civil liberties of free expression and free assembly will soon be
> >a thing of the past in this great "democratic" country of ours. And
> >when that happens Mr. McVey, you and your exterminationist friends will
> >have pleasure of debating the holocaust all on your own! 

> How do you reconcile this assertion with the recent Supreme Court of
> Canada judgements addressed elsewhere in this newsgroup, which
> clearly supported the supremacy of Charter rights as opposed to
> legislation restricting speech?

Mr. McVay, section 181 of the criminal code has ideed been struck 
down by the Supreme Court because it violated section 2(b) of the
Charter. However, the criminal code still contains sections 318 and 319. 
I understand an effort is being made to have Ernst Zundel charged under
section 319, which means we might have to endure yet another 
"thought trial." 


> >	Mr. McVey, I am fully aware that you have become a darling of
> >sorts in Canada. I am also fully aware that as a result of my postings
> >in this newsgroup my name is probably on the "watch" list of every
> >Jewish group in North American. Fine. However, I will die before I allow
> >the "sensitivity" of the holocaust campaign to dictate what I can and
> >cannot say, and to whom I can and cannot listen. Evidently, Doug Collins
> >is another man with conviction. I sure you and your backers will pop
> >open the champagne when he is eventually neutralized, either through bill
> >33, or the criminal code. 

> I am on record as opposing restrictions (generally speaking) on
> speech. I am also on record as opposing the Canadian Jewish Congress
> action with regard to Mr. Collins, and I support your right to say
> whatever you wish to say with regard to the Holocaust.

Thank you. How kind of you. I just hope my ranting on alt-revisionism
does not land me in jail, or before a human rights tribunal. If so,
will you come to my aid?


> >	You and your ilk will not stop until Canadian Majority finds 
> >itself imprisoned in Canada's very own "intellectual concentration camps." 

> Me "and my ilk?" Who are these ilks, Mr. Dumas, and how have you
> determined that these ilks and I hold common views with regard to
> the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Mr. McVay, if I have mistaken you as a member of the "thought police" 
then I apologize. However, who are you working with? 

> On the rhetorical side, you suggest that the "Canadian Majority" is
> somehow at the mercy of some un-specified group... will you please
> define this un-specified group, and tell us how you determined who
> they are, and what they want to do?  Having done that, will you then
> demonstrate how the cases cited (See above) by the BC HRC, and the
> SCC judgements, support your allegation of "intellectual
> concentration camps?"

Mr. McVay, the Canadian Majority is being attacked by a "progressive-
minority coalition. I have already cited several thought-crimes case
above and expect many more in the future. Being dragged before 
a court, council, or commission, for expressing politically 
incorrect opinions is part of living in an "intellectual concentration"
camp. In a future posting, I will provide further examples.
They involve local thought-control in Ottawa, and the case of a
high school girl in early 1991. Till then...

> -- 

> "However, it is sophistry to proclaim that something must have happened a
> certain way because your `reason' demands it." (Greg Raven, Institute for
> Historical Review)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sat Dec 24 05:33:15 PST 1994
Article: 20304 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>  
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:53:02 GMT
Lines: 91

Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> In article , sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve
> Dumas) wrote:

> >         Mr. McVey, the constant promotion of this theme that Gentiles
> > are all latent killers who at any given moment could launch into a 
> > genocidal tirade, is extremely hateful. Constantly being told that we
> > (Gentiles) are so dangerous that we require extensive supervision by 
> > beefed-up human rights commissions and stronger laws is highly insulting.
> > The implication of the "lesson" of the holocaust is that Gentiles cannot
> > be trusted. We are constantly told that although we may put on a calm
> > exterior, we are in fact never to be trusted because "it" could happen
> > again! NEVER AGAIN!!!

> Pure baloney. Nowhere in any history of the Holocaust that I've seen is it
> stated that the Holocaust happened simply because the Germans were
> Gentiles. The point I believe is put across by remembrance of the
> Holocaust is that _any_ people, even one so civilized as were the Germans
> of the 20th century, can descend into race hatred and genocide if they are
> not on their guard. It is precisely to keep that guard up that the
> Holocaust must be remembered.

Mr. Brown, are you suggesting that the "lesson" of the holocaust
is also directed towards the Jewish community? Are you suggesting
that the "it could happen at any moment and must therefore strengthen
and create more laws" theme is also directed towards Jews? I cannot
recall the last time a Jewish speaker in Canada was labeled too
"dangerous" to be heard, or the last time a Jewish figure had
his/her reputation totally ruined for being "anti-Gentile." 

Mr. Brown, let's fact it, the holocaust "lesson" from the Jewish 
perspective is not one of self-introspection. It is one of 
teaching Jewish children that the Gentile world either took part
in the "attempt" to "wipe out," or "stood by" as "it" happened. 
This theme, although to a much lesser extent, is also what governs
the African-American and aboriginal psyches. In all of these cases
there is an historical "enemy" which is portrayed as having 
committed atrocities against them. 

The "lessons" in all of these cases are not applied in the same
way to all communities. None of these groups spend a whole lot of
time engaging in self-hatred, or drowning themselves in guilt. Their
psyches are dominated by rage over what "happened." Suggesting that
the "lesson" of the holocaust is not a Jewish-Gentile issue is like
suggesting that slavery was not a black-White issue, and that
the last 500 years of the White man's rule in the New World is
not an aboriginal-White issue. 

Mr. Brown, a strong case could probably be made that the 
holocaust campaign actually acts as an ethnic glue for the
Jewish people. This constant hammering away at the "look
at what was done to us by Gentiles" theme is an extremely 
convenient way of promoting group solidarity. The "lesson" of
"it could happen again" is not taught to Jews the way it is
to Gentiles. Gentiles are taught that they cannot even trust
themselves, while Jews are taught that they must be on guard
against persecuat




/infI`6(NB l4
PDOz6( 7VfX
C> I challenge Dumas to provide quotes from any so-called "exterminationist"
> that supprts the thesis that it was the Germans being Gentiles that was
> the sole cause of the Holocaust. Have you the guts to back up your wild
> assertions with facts, Dumas?

> Posted and emailed.

> JGB

> P.S. Note also, that nowhere in his tirade did Dumas in any way mention or
> disprove Mr. McVay's thesis: that Hoffman^2 lied when he said that
> criminal charges have been brought against Collins. Once again, a brave
> Aryan soldier turns and runs from the truth.

> JGB

> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown                                   jeff_brown@pol.com
>  "What's going to happen?"   "Something wonderful..."   -- '2010'



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Mon Dec 26 17:51:00 PST 1994
Article: 20405 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>    
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 07:56:39 GMT
Lines: 91

Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> In article , sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve
> Dumas) wrote:

> > Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> > > In article , sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve
> > > Dumas) wrote:
> > 

> > > >[...deletia... Dumas asserts that the 'implication of the "lesson" of 
> > > >the holocaust is that Gentiles cannot be trusted"...]
> > 
> > > Pure baloney. Nowhere in any history of the Holocaust that I've seen is it
> > > stated that the Holocaust happened simply because the Germans were
> > > Gentiles. The point I believe is put across by remembrance of the
> > > Holocaust is that _any_ people, even one so civilized as were the Germans
> > > of the 20th century, can descend into race hatred and genocide if they are
> > > not on their guard. It is precisely to keep that guard up that the
> > > Holocaust must be remembered.
> > 
> > Mr. Brown, are you suggesting that the "lesson" of the holocaust
> > is also directed towards the Jewish community? Are you suggesting
> > that the "it could happen at any moment and must therefore strengthen
> > and create more laws" theme is also directed towards Jews? I cannot
> > recall the last time a Jewish speaker in Canada was labeled too
> > "dangerous" to be heard, or the last time a Jewish figure had
> > his/her reputation totally ruined for being "anti-Gentile." 

> When was the last time a speaker in Canada was labeled "too 'dangerous' to
> be heard" based on his being Gentile, Dumas? You make an accusation, but
> do not provide facts to back it up.

> > Mr. Brown, let's fact it, the holocaust "lesson" from the Jewish 
> > perspective is not one of self-introspection. It is one of 
> > teaching Jewish children that the Gentile world either took part
> > in the "attempt" to "wipe out," or "stood by" as "it" happened. 

> Ah... Dumas now presents himself as an expert on the "Jewish perspective"
> on the Holocaust. As an 'expert', Dumas, I am certain you can provide us
> with many citations from Jewish sources to substantiate the claim that the
> Holocaust is used to portray all Gentiles as "the enemy". That _is_ your
> position, isn't it, Dumas? If so, kindly back it up.

> Does anyone besides myself see a pattern here? Assert, assert, and assert
> again -- but never, ever document your assertions...

> >[...deletia...]

> > > I challenge Dumas to provide quotes from any so-called "exterminationist"
> > > that supprts the thesis that it was the Germans being Gentiles that was
> > > the sole cause of the Holocaust. Have you the guts to back up your wild
> > > assertions with facts, Dumas?
> > 
> > > JGB

> Note, here, the Dumas' response to a challenge to document his thesis:
> absolute silence. If the evidence exists (anywhere besides in Dumas'
> skull, that is) that the Holocaust is taught in this way, why is it not
> presented?

> JGB

Mr. Brown, it sounds like you are the one who is the "expert." 
Before we get into specific examples, I am asking you to put
your intellectual cards on the table and tell me exactly 
where I have gone wrong. Are you suggesting that members of 
the Jewish community treat the "lesson" of the holocaust 
in the same way Gentiles do? Are the cultural and spiritual
angles of the holocaust the same for both Jews and Gentiles?
I want you to tell me exactly where I have gone wrong? 

In short, are you suggesting that the "Gentiles did it before
and therefore could do it at any moment again" interpreation
of the holocaust campaign is in fact false? Before we get
into evidence, please state your position!




> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown                                   jeff_brown@pol.com
>  "What's going to happen?"   "Something wonderful..."   -- '2010'



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs Mon Dec 26 18:47:13 PST 1994
Article: 20415 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
In-Reply-To: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca's message of Sat, 24 Dec 1994 07:56:39 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> 
	
	
	
	
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 22:35:23 GMT
Lines: 47


From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
>Are you suggesting that members of 
>the Jewish community treat the "lesson" of the holocaust 
>in the same way Gentiles do? Are the cultural and spiritual
>angles of the holocaust the same for both Jews and Gentiles?

Yes, yes, and yes.

That you believe otherwise indicates, to me, some sort of lack of
exposure to Jewish culture.

Jews tell their children that the important lesson of the holocaust
was that the Germans (et al) who did this were, up to that point,
decent, civilized people who were their neighbors and friends. Jews
had lived as a significant community in Germany for over 400
years. That they went nuts in this particular way is frightening and a
lesson for all of us because, ultimately, there's really nothing to
explain it; you can't distance yourself from it. Not comfortably.

>In short, are you suggesting that the "Gentiles did it before
>and therefore could do it at any moment again" interpreation
>of the holocaust campaign is in fact false?

It's not false, it's true, but replace "gentiles" with "anyone" and it
would be entirely true.

I think the attitudes you express are fairly provincial and sound like
a bunch of "us" talking about "them" in a bar or whatever. Where do
you get these ideas?

Indeed there has been a thread of vicious anti-semitism throughout
modern history and it's not entirely deluded for a jewish person to
keep an eye out for its resurgence. It's naive to think that somehow
it's become impossible.

But genocides and mass-murder have occurred throughout history, and
disturbingly seem to not abate at all in recent times. Anyone who
believes the limit of the lessons of the Holocaust applies only to the
particular perpetrators is a fool.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Tue Dec 27 17:10:13 PST 1994
Article: 20467 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>    <3da244$cca@access1.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 07:27:25 GMT
Lines: 147

Michael P. Stein (mstein@access1.digex.net) wrote:
> In article ,
> Steve Dumas  wrote:
> >Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> >Mr. Brown, are you suggesting that the "lesson" of the holocaust
> >is also directed towards the Jewish community?

>     I would so suggest.  There are lessons for everyone here.

Mr. Stein, will you or someone else please state exactly how 
the Jewish community treats the "lesson" of the holocaust?
Do they discuss the holocaust in terms of how they themselves
are capable of such "evil?" Do they spend a good chunk of their
emotional and spiritual energy contemplating their "potential"
for evil? I hardly think so. 

> >Are you suggesting that the "it could happen at any moment and must 
> >therefore strengthen and create more laws" theme is also directed 
> >towards Jews?

>     False conjunction.  "It could happen at any moment" is, sadly, being 
> proved once more in Bosnia and Rwanda.  To the right of the "and" should 
> appear, "and therefore we must not shut our eyes and do nothing while it 
> happens" - I would say that's the theme.

Mr. Stein, please do not look upon me as someone who does not
feel for people who suffer. I look upon the situations in Bosnia, 
Rwanda, East Timor, and numerous others, as tragic. I would 
seriously take issue with the so-called "intent" of the holocaust 
campaign. The "if we talk about it all the time 'it' will never
happen again" approach is potentially dangerous. I would suggest
that the form which the holocaust campaign currently resembles
is a formula for DISUNITY. I strongly believe that the current
tone and approach of the holocaust campaign is in fact 
intensifying social tension for a number of reasons and on a 
number of levels. If the campaign is supposed to be making a
moral statement, then it is FAILING. 

P.S. Will you please give me until AFTER Christmas until 
I get into some of these "reasons?" I am quite enjoying 
where our pattern of exchanges are taking us, but I really do
have other things to do. I will gladly pick up on our theme
in due course. Thank you for your understanding!

> >I cannot recall the last time a Jewish speaker in Canada was labeled too
> >"dangerous" to be heard, or the last time a Jewish figure had
> >his/her reputation totally ruined for being "anti-Gentile." 

>     Can you recall the last time it happened to a Quaker speaker, a 
> Mennonite, a Buddhist, someone Japanese, a Mexican?

>     Did Meir Kahane ever try to speak in Canada?

Mr. Stein, I am really glad that you raised this point. In the 
near future I am going to get much more specific about some
of Canada's bouts with censorship. In particular, I will touch
upon the cases of Ron Gostick, Paul Fromm, Thetis Bernard, and
others to illustrate the correlation between Jewish lobbying
and the assault upon free speech and assembly. I look forward 
to it! It will also allow me to get into Canada's heiarchy of
victims, and how the Jewish community has managed to achieve 
victimological supremacy in Canada. Of course, the legacy of the
holocaust is central to these dynamics. 

Mr. Stein, the holocaust campaign has assumed the status of a
virtual state religion in Canada. I am looking forward to 
demonstrating how this is so in the coming months. 

> >Mr. Brown, let's fact it, the holocaust "lesson" from the Jewish 
> >perspective is not one of self-introspection.  It is one of 
> >teaching Jewish children that the Gentile world either took part
> >in the "attempt" to "wipe out," or "stood by" as "it" happened.

>     Right, Steve, which explains why so much effort has been made to
> identify and honor righteous Gentiles who risked their lives to save
> Jews.... 
>  

Mr. Stein, you are touching upon something very important here.
I have already discussed the "moral hubris" of the holocaust
campaign. The notion of a "righteous Gentile" is becoming
increasingly important in our society. If those involved 
with Nazi Germany have come to be seen as the most severe
form of "evil" the earth has even known, then the "righteous 
Gentile" has become the most sacred form of humanity. 

Mr. Stein, in today's world the boundaries of "good" versus
"evil" are to a large extent centred upon the legacy 
of the legacy of the holocaust. The holocaust and the 
"sensitivity" of the Jewish community have become the
Western World's "moral compass." The idea of designating 
people as "rightous Gentiles" is an act of extreme moral
vanity. It's as if to say "we will decided who is righteous
and who isn't." 

Mr. Stein, remind me after Christmas to recount for you the
case of Clara Brett Martin, Canada's first female lawyer who
has posthumously been defamed because of her allged antisemitic
views. It is a most interesting case and it to some extent
illustrates what I have said above. 

> >Suggesting that
> >the "lesson" of the holocaust is not a Jewish-Gentile issue is like
> >suggesting that slavery was not a black-White issue,

>     As a matter of fact, Michael Hoffman would like to sell you a book 
> which (at least from the advertising copy) proves it wasn't.

Mr. Hoffman's book is an excellent one and simply makes the point 
that Whites also suffered from slavery. Anyone who knows anything 
about slavery knows that blacks were not the only people to have
suffered from slavery. There was domestic slavery in Africa, and also
in the pre-colonial New World, as well as in the Arab world, and other 
areas. 

However, the moral question of slavery is North America is essentially
a balck-White issue. The victimological angle is discussed primarily 
in terms of what Whites "did" to blacks, regardless Mr. Hoffman's
book. Essentially, Mr. Hoffman's book was an attempt to finally
expand the narrow boundaries of discourse on this matter. I believe
he did an excellent job. 

> >C> I challenge Dumas to provide quotes from any so-called "exterminationist"
> >> that supprts the thesis that it was the Germans being Gentiles that was
> >> the sole cause of the Holocaust. Have you the guts to back up your wild
> >> assertions with facts, Dumas?

>     Apparently not, since all he did was once more assert that the issue
> is the nasty Jews smearing ALL Gentiles. 

Before we get into an anecdotal war, are you suggesting that the
holocaust campaign is "not" a Jewish-Gentile issue?

>     Posted/emailed.
> -- 
> Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
> POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
> Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Wed Dec 28 18:14:19 PST 1994
Article: 20498 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Internet Racism
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: 
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 13:47:13 GMT
Lines: 48

Harvey Goldberg (ae763@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> The use of the Internet by white-supremacists, 
> Holocaust deniers, gay bashers and other elements 
> of the extreme right is matter of concern to human 
> rights agencies.

> I work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  
> I am currently doing research on the use of the 
> Internet for the propagation of hate material.  
> The purpose of the research is to determine what 
> measures could be considered to control the use 
> of the Net for this type of purpose.

> I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has 
> any views, information or comments on this 
> subject or who know of anywhere on the Internet 
> where this matter is discussed.

> --
> Harvey Goldberg
> ae763@FreeNet.Carleton.CA)     
> 613 996 9661 (fax)
> 613 943 9090 (voice)     613 996 5211 (TTY) 


Those of you in the United States who have been wondering
what the Canadian "human rights" indsutry is all about are
going to soon find out! All these people have to to do when
the hear opinions they don't like is cry "hate" and then 
start shutting people down. All they need is one complaint
from a member of a hypersensitive minority and it's game over! 
My only surprise is that is has taken so long. 

P.S. For those of you who have been sending me e-mail
accusing me of being an agent, your use of language 
such as "megakike," "gook," and "slope," in both this
newsgroup and others, will definitely weaken our ability to 
have open discussions. If anything, this kind of crude 
language gives the human rights industry and other agents 
of "thought control" a much stronger case to cesor people. 
The use of such language not only leaves us open for 
censorship, it makes the entire internet look bad. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Thu Dec 29 09:12:36 PST 1994
Article: 20577 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Act (British Columbia)
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Dec16.002857.3300@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>    <3da244$cca@access1.digex.net>  
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: 
 
Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> In article , sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve
> Dumas) wrote:

> > Michael P. Stein (mstein@access1.digex.net) wrote:
> > > In article ,
> > > Steve Dumas  wrote:
> > > >Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> > > >Mr. Brown, are you suggesting that the "lesson" of the holocaust
> > > >is also directed towards the Jewish community?
> > 
> > >     I would so suggest.  There are lessons for everyone here.
> > 
> > Mr. Stein, will you or someone else please state exactly how 
> > the Jewish community treats the "lesson" of the holocaust?
> > Do they discuss the holocaust in terms of how they themselves
> > are capable of such "evil?" Do they spend a good chunk of their
> > emotional and spiritual energy contemplating their "potential"
> > for evil? I hardly think so. 

> You "hardly think so", eh, Dumas? Why? Where's your evidence for how the
> "Jewish community" (note that this is apparently some monolithic entity:
> obviously, all Jews think exactly alike, just like all Gentiles...) treats
> the lesson of the Holocaust. All we've got here, Dumas, is more words
> pouring out of your keyboard. Where are your facts, Dumas? Where are your
> facts?

> >[...deletia...]

> > I would 
> > seriously take issue with the so-called "intent" of the holocaust 
> > campaign.

> _What_ 'Holocaust campaign', Dumas? Who is in charge of this campaign? Who
> pays for the dozens of 'Gentiles are scum' commercials you apparently have
> been seeing on CNN?

> >[...deletia...]

> > P.S. Will you please give me until AFTER Christmas until 
> > I get into some of these "reasons?" I am quite enjoying 
> > where our pattern of exchanges are taking us, but I really do
> > have other things to do. I will gladly pick up on our theme
> > in due course. Thank you for your understanding!

> Oh, you're ever so welcome, Dumas. May I remind you who started this
> thread? It wasn't Mr. Stein, nor myself...

> >[...deletia...]

> [Michael P. Stein writes:]
> > >     Can you recall the last time it happened to a Quaker speaker, a 
> > > Mennonite, a Buddhist, someone Japanese, a Mexican?
> > 
> > >     Did Meir Kahane ever try to speak in Canada?
> > 
> > Mr. Stein, I am really glad that you raised this point.

> ... which you proceed to ignore, Dumas. Funny how that keeps happening...

> >[...deletia...]

> > > >C> I challenge Dumas to provide quotes from any so-called
> "exterminationist"
> > > >> that supprts the thesis that it was the Germans being Gentiles that was
> > > >> the sole cause of the Holocaust. Have you the guts to back up your wild
> > > >> assertions with facts, Dumas?
> > 
> > >     Apparently not, since all he did was once more assert that the issue
> > > is the nasty Jews smearing ALL Gentiles. 
> > 
> > Before we get into an anecdotal war, are you suggesting that the
> > holocaust campaign is "not" a Jewish-Gentile issue?

> I note, once again, that Dumas has failed to answer the challenge: to
> provide quotes from any so-called "exterminationist" that supprts the
> thesis that it was the Germans being Gentiles that was the sole cause of
> the Holocaust.

> I ask again: Where are your facts, Dumas? Where are your facts?

> Posted and emailed.

> JGB


Mr. Brown, have I touched a nerve? Relax. Enjoy the holiday!

This newgroup is not going anywhere. We have plenty of time to 
discuss the various dynamics associated with holocaust-promotion. 
Evidently, you and others do not even think there is such a
thing! You seem to be suggesting that the current status of
the holocaust is something which just seemed to happen by 
accident. 

Mr. Brown, two other minor points before we proceed.

1. Do you think the holocaust has been "politicized" in any way?

2. Do you think the holocaust involves the promotion of "guilt?"


BTW, I assumed you noticed the posting from someone affiliated 
with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is a history
in Canada of people being punished by the human rights industry 
for "offending" the Jewish community; although Stein seems to 
question whether such a thing even exists. If not the human rights 
industry, people in Canada have been dragged before a court of law for
"offending" these same people. 

There is also a tendency to boot revisionists out of our 
for offending these same people. There is also a tendency
to hound high school teachers such as Paul Fromm out of 
the classroom because groups like the Canadian Jewish Congress
do not "like" their views. In fact, Bernie Farber of the CJC
stated on a local radio talk show that he took great pride 
in doing so. 

There is also a tendency for this group, which according to 
Stein does not exist, to make life extremely difficult for
anyone who writes or says something they don't "like." 
Just ask a former local hight school student named Thetis
Bernard. This poor girl made the mistake of writing an 
article which was pro-David Irvin, shortly after Irving's
1990 visit to Ottawa. The ritual defamation of character
to which she was subjected did not "just happen" by accident.

Mr. Brown, please also remind me to later discuss the huge
controversy surrounding the Ottawa Board of Education's 
holocaust studies controversy. 

Mr. once you become more familiar with the thought control
industry in Canada, both the human rights and criminal cases,
as well as others which never reached a tribunal or a court 
of law, it will be difficult to ignore the increasingly 
inquisitional fabric of the holocaust. 

> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown                                   jeff_brown@pol.com
>  "What's going to happen?"   "Something wonderful..."   -- '2010'



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sat Dec 31 08:06:39 PST 1994
Article: 20655 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Right Discourses: Dumas vs. Griswold
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:   
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 06:01:36 GMT
Lines: 171

John Baglow (ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>   In a previous posting, Steve Dumas (sdumas@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
>   
> >P.S. For those of you who have been sending me e-mail 
> >accusing me of being an agent, your use of language  
> >such as "megakike," "gook," and "slope," in both this 
> >newsgroup and others, will definitely weaken our ability to  
> >have open discussions. If anything, this kind of crude  
> >language gives the human rights industry and other agents  
> >of "thought control" a much stronger case to censor people.  
> >The use of such language not only leaves us open for
> >censorship, it makes the entire internet look bad. 
>   
>   The person referred to here by Mr. Dumas, as any reader of this group
>   and alt.skinheads knows, is Les Griswold, of the neo-nazi National Alliance.
>   Mr. Dumas' far-right connections have already been noted on this group,
>   and are documented in Warren Kinsella's recent book, Web of Hate.
>  
>   Why are they fighting?
>  
>   Simply speaking,we have here a clash of discourses. Looking carefully
>   at the quotation from Mr. Dumas, above, one can see that his concern is
>   not really with Mr. Griswold's views at all, but with his use of
>   language.

>   Using crude racial slurs and words like "megakike" will "weaken our
>   ability to have open discussions." It hands a weapon to that common
>  enemy, the  human rights industry." And it makes the Internet "look bad."

>   In other words, it is tactically inadvisable to use the upfront,
>   no-nonsense language of Mr. Griswold if one is to advance the cause.
>   Just as some have borrowed scientific discourse to legitimize racism (e.g.,
>   Philippe Rushton), others use liberal discourse to legitimize illiberal
>   pursuits. Mr. Dumas is a shining example of the latter.
>  
>   In his recent postings, written in a self-consciously laid-back style,
>   cloyingly polite at times, Mr. Dumas makes freedom of speech the issue,
>   and appears to champion it. But there is not a single contributor to
>   this newsgroup who believes in free speech in the absolute. Shouting fire in
>   a crowded theatre? Libelling or slandering someone? What about threatening
>   a person's life? Shouting obscenities in a church? Everyone draws a line
>   somewhere between permissible and non-permissible speech. My own view,
>   not shared by many of the other contributors to this newsgroup, I'll admit,
>   is that hate laws are a desirable expression of a society's wish to be
>   humane and decent. They represent an extension of libel and slander law to
>   groups, and have been applied, not exclusively by the way, to protect
>   groups already suffering from oppression of other kinds. They haven't 
>   been strikingly successful in terms of convictions, as Ken McVay has
>   noted. But that's not really the point: what they do is make hatemongers
>   accountable for their public promulgation of hatred in a formal way.
>    
>   Now some will object that such heavy-handedness has no place in the
>   world of ideas. And I would generally agree; except that we aren't really
>   dealing with * ideas* in this newsgroup. While some people out there are
>   swept up in the "Holocaust-is-a-vast-conspiracy" mythos, and probably
>   believe in alien abductions as well, there are no innocents on this
>   newsgroup, on either side of the question. Whether we are dealing with
>   the vaunting childishness of li'l Miltie Kleim, or the self-conscious poise
>   of Mr. Dumas, or the gruntings of Mr. Doyal, "Murungu", Rick Savage and of
>   course Hoffman II, not one of these individuals really believes that the
>   Holocaust didn't happen. Nor do the more polished Ross Vicksell, Dan
>   Gannon, etc.,etc. The agenda is clear: whitewash nazism, because the
>   time is ripe for another go at it; and, while they're about it, inflict a
>   few psychological wounds on the Jewish community. "Your grandmother wasn't
>   gassed, you vile little liar. She's living in Poland."
>   
>   We have heard people claim that M. Faurisson, for example, is just a seeker
>   after truth, with no far right connections. Yet, on the same film
>   (discussed on this group before) in which David Irving made a tasteless
>   joke about Jews and portable gas chambers, one could see M. Faurisson
>   greet neo-nazi Ernst Zuendel effusively, saying, "If I'd known you were going
>   to be here, I'd have brought you a present." No, there are few innocents in
>   the professional Holocaust-denial crowd.
>    
>   Which makes me, in conclusion, welcome the incursion of Mr. Griswold
>   into several newsgroups recently. I hate everything the man stands for.
>   He is uncouth, insulting and (to put it gently) not too analytical. In a
>   perfect world, his crap would never hit the net. But, so long as the net
>   is wide open to all, I far prefer the cheerful barbarism of the Griswolds
>   of this world, the directness and honesty of such people, to the
>   disingenuous discourse of the "scholarly" Holocaust-deniers, with their
>   footnotes and cultivated phrases, their phoney politeness. Griswold is
>   telling it like it is, from his perspective. No pretence, no learned
>   discourse without the learning. How refreshing!


> --
> John Baglow			"Listen to the fool's reproach! it is a
> 				 kingly title!"
> 					--William Blake			


John, if I am so "in" with the far-right, then why have
I received e-mail from both Griswold's wife and Kleim
suggesting I am an agent? John, these people hate me
even more than you do! 

Stating this point by no means I am sucking up to you, 
Kinsella, or anyone else. However, the far-right types
mock me for either being a "Kosher conservative," or an
agent. The people who would be most upset at you placing
me in with them is not me, but them! If fact, they would
probably think you are hurting "their cause" by putting me
in the same category! 

You will probably witness this in the very near future.
It is only a matter of time before their venom expands
from my e-mail box to various newsgroups for everyone
else to read. In fact, the vicious e-mail I have received 
from the far-rights types is much, much more vicious than 
anything I have received from you, Mr. Stein or Mr. Brown. 
In fact, compared to what the far-right types have sent
me, all of the aforementioned have been extremely civilized. 
If you choose to continue placing me in the ranks of the
"far right" then so be it. However, the only people you are 
angering is them. 

This is unfortunate because although we do have different 
approaches, we do have common areas of concern. Just because
some people are more hard core about certain issues than
others, does not mean that more moderate types should not
continue to have concerns about these same issues. 
The Griswolds are deeply concerned about the racial situation
in Canada and in the rest of the Western World. So am I. Do we
have the same approach? No. Do we agree on everything? No. 
I would much rather be doing some intellectual battling with you 
than with them. 

You see John, the conservative types think I am too radical, 
the radical types think I am too tame, and the "progressive"
types such as yourself think I am a nazi. I can't win! I am
being pounded by all sides! 

BTW, I have already prepard a sketch of your political 
activity. However, I am just too damn lazy to sit down and type
the whole thing in. (Is there anyone out there willing to donate
a scanner?) I use this and other newsgroups as a sounding board. 
I have no desire to go to my book shelf, or to my files, and spend
serious time inputing material. I am not being paid, nor am I being
graded for academic purposes. 

However, eventually when I overcome my laziness I will 
finally enlighten this newsgroup with some of your political
activities and connections. As a prelude, you can start 
by explaining to readers just exactly who the International
Socialists are, and what kind of groups to which some of your 
gay friends are connected. Hint, the acronym for one of them
starts with an "N" and ends with an "A," contains six
letters and has something to do with boys. Sounds a little 
like "Wheel of Fortune," doesn't it? It is going to be most 
interesting! 

John, this newsgroup really should be restricted to ideas.
The Ken McVay tactic of smearing the IHR, and your tactic of
constantly referring to me as a member of the "far right" should
really be discouraged. However, in the piece I have prepared on 
your background I have utilized "Kinsellian" methodology, which 
of course includes the classical tactic of "guilt-by-association."
You see John, this tactic has been used extensively by "progressive"
types such as yourself. However, when used against "progressives"
the results can be most shocking. Be prepared. 

P.S. If I were an agent I would have asked my handler to 
get me a scanner. All of this typing is a real drag! 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sun Jan  1 04:42:12 PST 1995
Article: 20688 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Right Discourses: Dumas vs. Griswold
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:   , <3e1ate$22h@urvile.MSUS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 05:59:51 GMT
Lines: 196

Milton John Kleim, Jr. (hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU) wrote:
> Steve Dumas replies to Baglow:

First of all, you are the one who started this whole mess 
by sending Les and Sylvie the e-mail I sent to you. My 
understanding of e-mail is that it is supposed to be private! 
I subsequently sent you an e-mail asking why on earth you 
would send them the e-mail I sent you? Your response?
"Steve, what do you know about CSIS?" 

What the hell was I supposed to make of that!!!!

> >John, if I am so "in" with the far-right, then why have I received e-mail from
> >both Griswold's wife and Kleim suggesting I am an agent? 

> Never did I send you a message suggesting you are "an agent?"  Do you have a
> guilty conscience?  All my last message said was "what do you know about the
> Canadian Security Intelligence Service?"

What on earth was the implication of that question? 

> >John, these people hate me even more than you do!

> While I can't speak for Sylvie and Les, I will speak for myself.  I do not
> "hate" you, Steve.  I do however have a profound distrust of you after you
> suggested you wanted to cause trouble for Les and Sylvie for their views.

In the e-mail I asked you what you thought of their postings and 
what you thought Dr. Pierce would think. Granted I did also ask
for e-mail contact with the National Alliance but would not
have asked them this question. I also asked you what you thought
other people think of their postings. The REASON, repeate REASON,
I asked was because I was reading racial slurs which I did
not think were appropriate for the internet. I was CONCERNED 
about about the tone of the debates given the language
and also the material which was being directed towards the 
Griswold's. Evidently, they have also received death threats. 

My POINT, repeat POINT, was that kind of exchanges I was 
reading in alt.skinheads were probably not accomplishing 
anything. It was not just a matter of weak ideas, or poor
debating, it was a matter of people reading some of the 
most disgusting filth available on the internet. 

Those of you who have not read the stuff should really take
a look. The people Les Griswold and his wife are debating 
talk about raping his wife and child, and various other 
things which are just too sickening to mention. Les and
his wife DO NOT BELONG IN THIS KIND OF INTELLECTUAL GUTTER!
They are too good for this kind of thing. 

MY INTENTION WAS NOT TO BRING THEM ANY HARM BUT JUST
TO GET  A FEEL OF WHAT OTHERS SUCH AS YOURSELF WERE
THINKING ABOUT THE SITUATION!!!

> I do not believe you are an "agent" per se.  I believe you _could_ be an 
> informer.  
>  
> >However, the far-right types mock me for either being a "Kosher conservative,"
> >or an agent. 

> Do you deny you are a Kosher Konservative?

Can you give me a definition?

> >You will probably witness this in the very near future.  It is only a matter 
> >of time before their venom expands from my e-mail box to various newsgroups 
> >for everyone else to read. 

> Besides what occurs during this discussion, I do not plan to denounce you
> in any way, Steve.  Actually, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as
> to whether you are genuinely a White activist, or as Sylvie called you,
> a "canary" -- yellow and likes to sing.

I am pro-White - no question. However, I do not approve of anyone
using racial slurs. I also respect other racially concious members
of other races but do not approve of being called things like 
"honkey" or "white trash." I strongly believe that racial harmony
requires mutual respect. 

I understand that Les and his wife were given a rough ride by some 
of the scum in alt.skinheads. However, the best thing they could 
have done is simply ignored the sick and dimented people who have 
talked about raping his wife and child. They are not, and never
were, worth two seconds of their time. 

> >In fact, the vicious e-mail I have received from the far-rights types is much,
> >much more vicious than anything I have received from you, Mr. Stein or Mr. 
> >Brown.

> What "vicious" e-mail?  Mine?  Sylvie's?  Why don't you post this alleged
> "vicious" e-mail?

I will not post Sylvie's e-mail. You see John, I am not like you. I
would never send someone's e-mail to someone else like you did
mine to Les and Sylvie. If you found my questions disturbing you
should have just sent me an e-mail and said you did not want
to discuss the issue, or that I was out of line. You NEVER 
should have sent them that e-mail. That is what started this
whole mess. 

> >In fact, compared to what the far-right types have sent me, all of the afore-
> >mentioned have been extremely civilized. 

> Perhaps Jeffrey Brown likes you, Steve -- for good reason?

I am really getting sick and tired of having to respond to
suggestions that I am an agent, either from you, the Griswold's, 
or anyone else. 

> >The Griswolds are deeply concerned about the racial situation in Canada and in
> >the rest of the Western World. So am I.  Do we have the same approach?  No. Do 
> >we agree on everything? No.  I would much rather be doing some intellectual 
> >battling with you than with them. 

> Then why did you start trouble?  And lie about what your intentions were when
> I called you on them?

First of all, YOU are the one who started the trouble by sending
them my e-mail to YOU. Secondly, I still do not understand where
you get this notion that I somehow had "sinister" intentions 
towards them! I simply asked what you and others thought of their
postings, in particular the language and the tone. If I implied 
that I had a problem with all the their postings then that is
my mistake and I apologize. 

However, I still maintain that although they were (are) dealing
with some pretty awful characters in alt.skinheads, they should 
not have allowed themselves to get into using terms such as "chink,"
"gook," and whatever other terms were used. If having this concern 
constitutes being "sinister" or having "harmful" intentions towards
them, well...

> I can tolerate "cold-feet," but I CANNOT AND WILL NOT tolerate ANY action,
> or even the expression of intent, to cause trouble amongst comrades.  If you
> had merely asked me what I thought of Les and Sylvie's posts, I would have
> been happy to tell you, and then drop the matter.  When you expressed a sini-
> ster (implicit) desire to cause them trouble, you were marked as a problem
> to be dealt with.  We have enough enemies working against our People, Steve,
> and don't need a "comrade" doing more damage and sowing more dissension.

I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! 

I still do not understand how I was "sinister!" I asked you for 
YOUR OPINION!!! How on earth was I "causing them trouble?!"
I still do not understand how asking a question about the use
of racial slurs and engaging in debates with people who talk
about "fucking" a man's wife and young son constitutes "doing
more damage and sowing more dissension."  

If you took my concerns in this way then I sincerely apologize.
You SHOULD HAVE taken the matter up with me, not sent them the
e-mail I sent you. If anything, that is what caused the "dissention." 

> >You see John, the conservative types think I am too radical, the radical 
> >types think I am too tame, and the "progressive" types such as yourself think 
> >I am a nazi. I can't win! I am being pounded by all sides! 

> You could have "won," by keeping your nose out of where it shouldn't have
> been.  You, and Les, Sylvie, and I, disagree on many things, and could have
> worked for the 14 Words in our own ways, but you chose to desire to try to
> "rein in" those you disagreed with.

You mean asking you a question means someone's "nose" was where it
should not have been? 

Despite your claim that my "nose" was out of place, I am still 
concerned about the use of racial slurs. You see John, you and
the other Americans on this system have no idea what Canada is
like. We do not have the same freedoms that you have in your
country. If anything, the use of that kind of language can
cause serious problems for free speech in general. I am sorry
if my concern for my freedom means my "nose" is out of place. 

> >P.S. If I were an agent I would have asked my handler to get me a scanner. All
> >of this typing is a real drag! 

> But if CSIS were making you an "involuntary" agent (by threatening you with
> prosecution), why would they provide you with money or equipment?

The reason I am not being threatened with "prosecution," at least
yet, is because I do not make a habit of using racial slurs. I
don't like racial slurs being used against me, and I do not
like reading them. If this make me a "Kosher Conservative", so 
be it. 

P.S. Had you not sent my e-mail to Sylvie, we could have
had this out the way we should have - in private. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sun Jan  1 04:42:14 PST 1995
Article: 20689 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Right Discourses: Dumas vs. Griswold
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:     
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 06:19:35 GMT
Lines: 102

John Baglow (ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> In a previous posting, Steve Dumas (sdumas@chat.carleton.ca) writes:

> > If you choose to continue placing me in the ranks of the
> > "far right" then so be it. However, the only people you are 
> > angering is them. 

> But not enough, it would appear, to drop your column (written under the
> pseudonym Steve Baker) from the Heritage Front's organ, Up Front. Or was
> that just a youthful phase? (I don't read UF. Maybe you no longer write
> for it.)

For your information John, the guy they call Steve Baker
has not submitted an article to _Up Front_ since December
of 1992. 

> > You see John, the conservative types think I am too radical, 
> > the radical types think I am too tame, and the "progressive"
> > types such as yourself think I am a nazi. I can't win! I am
> > being pounded by all sides! 

> THat's life in the big city.

> > However, eventually when I overcome my laziness I will 
> > finally enlighten this newsgroup with some of your political
> > activities and connections. As a prelude, you can start 
> > by explaining to readers just exactly who the International
> > Socialists are, and what kind of groups to which some of your 
> > gay friends are connected. Hint, the acronym for one of them
> > starts with an "N" and ends with an "A," contains six
> > letters and has something to do with boys. Sounds a little 
> > like "Wheel of Fortune," doesn't it? It is going to be most 
> > interesting! 

> 1) The International Socialists are an ultra-left organization composed
> mainly of students. For anyone involved in actually organizing people (I
> am a trade unionist) they can be a royal pain in the ass. They have,
> however, organized, or helped to organize, anti-nazi demonstrations in the
> Ottawa area at which I haver spoken on behalf of organized labour. Does
> Mr. Dumas have a point?

First, if you insist on calling anyone to the right of the Reform
Party, or possibly even the Reform Party itself, "neo-nazi," then
why are groups like the ultra-left International Socialists not called
communists? 

John, you are missing my point about Kinsellian methodology. Kinsella
utilized the "guilt by association" technique in his book _Web of Hate_.
If we were to use this methodology on you, or anyone else in the
ranks of the "left wing," they you would therefore be a communist.
That is exactly what he did throughout the book. 

That is also exactly what he did to Paul Fromm. Fromm spoke at
two Heritage Front rallies early in their existence and was 
therefore branded a "neo-nazi." If this is the case, then why
are you not a communist? Why the DOUBLE-STANDARD?! You can't 
go around calling numerous people "neo-nazis" using this 
approach and the say it doesn't apply to you. In other words,
you can't have your cake and eat it to.

> 2) The reference to NAMBLA is bizarre, but typical of those who insist
> that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing. Mr. Dumas is
> obviously no stranger to homophobia. The only gay activist I have any
> regular contact with is a lesbian who shares my strong opposition to the
> sexual predation which NAMBLA stands for. Mr. Dumas will have to do better
> than this.

John, your interference in the CKCU-Robert Eady conflict
indicated that you are fanatical about gay issues. It was a conflict
in which you had not business getting involved. In particular, you 
had no business using PSAC letterhead when writing to the CRTC in 
support of the pro-gay CKCU radio show Defiant Voices. 

Also, I have already indicated that I am going to apply Kinsellian
methodology to your case. I do to you what Warren Kinsella did to
me and many patriots in this country. I am going to apply the same
"guilt-by-association" technique that he used throughout his book.
When the item will be posted you will see just how much I have
learned from reading Mr. Kinsella's material. 

Also, the tactic of throwing around a term such as "homophobia" 
is getting old. Try to think of something new. 

> > You see John, this tactic has been used extensively by "progressive"
> > types such as yourself. However, when used against "progressives"
> > the results can be most shocking. Be prepared. 

> I'm not shocked yet, Mr. Dumas. Now, did the Holocaust happen? 

> --
> John Baglow			"Listen to the fool's reproach! it is a
> 				 kingly title!"
> 					--William Blake			



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sun Jan  1 04:42:15 PST 1995
Article: 20690 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Right Discourses: Dumas vs. Griswold
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:     <3e19hs$qne@access4.digex.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 07:38:37 GMT
Lines: 232

Michael P. Stein (mstein@access4.digex.net) wrote:
> In article ,
> Steve Dumas  wrote:
> >John Baglow (ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> >>[re: vicious language/vicious intent]

> >John, if I am so "in" with the far-right, then why have
> >I received e-mail from both Griswold's wife and Kleim
> >suggesting I am an agent? John, these people hate me
> >even more than you do!

>     I wonder if Mr. Kleim would care to confirm or deny this allegation?


> >You will probably witness this in the very near future.
> >It is only a matter of time before their venom expands
> >from my e-mail box to various newsgroups for everyone
> >else to read. In fact, the vicious e-mail I have received 
> >from the far-rights types is much, much more vicious than 
> >anything I have received from you, Mr. Stein or Mr. Brown. 
> >In fact, compared to what the far-right types have sent
> >me, all of the aforementioned have been extremely civilized. 

>     There seems to be some suggestion from the above paragraph that if
> _not_ compared to what you receive from the far right, some things I (not
> to mention Messrs. Baglow and Brown) have sent you might be considered
> somewhat vicious and uncivilized.  What, praytell?  Permission is granted 
> to post any email I have sent you, though for the most part I am pretty 
> sure it has merely consisted of copies of postings.

Mr. Stein, please forgive my tendency at times to be inarticulate. 
The e-mail you and other exterminationists has not been "uncivilized."
The point I tried to make, although unsuccessfuly, was that one
would think that if were to receive any e-mail that was "vicious"
one would expect that it would come from people with whom I had
had some disagreements. I am sorry that my wording did not reflect
this point. Neither you or any other exterminationist has sent
me "uncivilized" e-mail and I apologize for implying this. This 
doesn't mean that the e-mail or the postings have necessarily
been friendly, but it does mean that I made a mistake in implying
that it was "uncivlized." Sorry. 

>     To tell you the truth, I haven't received _any_ mail I'd consider
> vicious from far-right types.  (Illiterate and incoherent, perhaps, but
> not vicious and uncivilized.)  Postings are another matter, of course. 

I should have provided a definition of "far right." The discussion
concerning whether there is a correlation between revisionism and
racial activism have already been raised in this newsgroup. There
probably is. However, there are some exceptions. When I meant "far
right" I meant the Griswold's and Mr. Kleim. I am not necessarily
using "far right" pejoratively. It is meant to descripe someone, 
or some group, which is serious about racial issues, and who have
a certain approach. 

I understanding that some of the revisionists who post in this
newsgroup are not necessarily concerned about racial issues. I 
don't think Ross Vicksell is much into the racial question, nor
are the IHR. Hence, when I meant "far right" I did not intend
to refer to them. If this was the implication then I apologize. 
Any e-mail that has been sent to me by either Mr. Vicksell or
others who are more into revisionism than racial issues has
been nothing but cordial. If I have created the impression that
it has been otherwise then I sincerely apologize. Once again, I 
should stress that my writing skills can at times leave much
to be desired. 

> >You see John, the conservative types think I am too radical, 
> >the radical types think I am too tame, and the "progressive"
> >types such as yourself think I am a nazi. I can't win! I am
> >being pounded by all sides! 

>     "I weep for you," the Walrus said, "I deeply sympathize...."

It could very well be that any alliances I had developed in 
this internet could very well be damaged. This is most
unfortunate. To be honest, I became a little paranoid when
I got an e-mail suggeting I was an agent, and then received
another one asking what I knew about CSIS. What was I to 
make of this? It is something I would have expected from the
people with whom I had been debating. 

The only reason I have raised this point in a newsgroup is
because this entire "episode" started when the person to
whom I sent an e-mail sent it to someone else without my
permission. Can anyone enlighten about e-mail etiquette?
How is this sort of thing viewed? Is it considered ethical 
to send someone's e-mail to other people without the person's
permission, or without telling the person it is going
to be sent? Is this common? Someone please inform me because
I am still relatively new at this. 

> >BTW, I have already prepard a sketch of your political 
> >activity. However, I am just too damn lazy to sit down and type
> >the whole thing in. (Is there anyone out there willing to donate
> >a scanner?)

>     Anyone wishing to put evidence into discussion may fax material to me
> at (703)683-1178, and I will attempt to do an OCR conversion on it.  I
> can't do tremendous volumes, and if the print quality is poor I won't
> spend large amounts of time working it through, but I'll give it a shot at
> least.

>     I make this offer to all; if any of the Holocaust deniers have
> evidence they just haven't been able to type in, here's your chance to
> present all that great evidence you say you've got.  Just two things: 
> send it full-size (i.e., don't photoreduce it), and send it right side up,
> not sideways.  (I know some people, myself included, reduce two pages of a
> book onto one sheet of paper, sideways.  If faxed to me that way, I cannot
> OCR it - limitation of the software, sorry.)


> >John, this newsgroup really should be restricted to ideas.

>     I would hope _evidence_ would be permitted as well....

Your point is well-taken. However, this newsgroup is highly 
informal. It is not something which is being graded by a 
professor. You are correct in stating that assertions which
are not necessarily supported by "evidence" are either invalid,
or questionable. There is no arguing this point. Ideas without
support leave themselves open to being discredited. I will not
refute this point. It has been made on numerous occasions by 
yourself, Mr. Brown, and others on you side. 

However, I have little desire to put too much into this 
newsgroup. I am not being paid, nor am I gaining a higher
degree. In time I could very well open my filing cabinet,
or go to my bookshelf, and document certain assertions. 

However, the question is how much energy does one want to
put into this newsgroup, or any other? For example, I have
written elsewhere, complete with "documentation," about the 
Thetis Bernard case here in Ottawa. This is a case about
a young high school girl who was subjected to a digusting 
round of character defamation because she wrote an article 
in her high school's newspaper which was sympathetic to the views 
of David Irving. In fact, I am one of the few people in this
city who actually has a copy of the newspaper in which the 
article appeared. The name of the newspaper is _Nova Res_. I 
also have the later edition of this paper in which Ian Kagedan
of the B'nai Brith wrote an article. The fact that he was
able to interfere in this whold matter is central to the
whole issue. 

I have quoted from the article in the past and included it
in a speech I wrote for a pro-Majority activist in 1993. I 
have also included it and other articles about this case 
in a major project upon which I have been working for the 
past couple of years. The issue is not whether I can 
document this case. In fact, I have actually conducted 
several interviews with some of the major players in the 
case, including one with former City of Ottawa Concillor 
Mark Maloney. Mr. Stein, because I have not shared this 
information with this newsgroup, does not mean I can't 
document this case. In order to do so I would have 
to get both copies of the aforementioned editions of
Nova Res, several articles from local newspapers, and also 
notes from the interviews I conducted, including one with
Thetis Bernard herself. 

Mr. Stein, I am probably one of the most informed people in 
this entire city, if not country, when it comes to this case. 
If my reluctance to get all of this material together and 
then type all of it in makes me someone who is not "qualified"
to dicuss this case, then what can I say? 

I say more power to you, Mr. Karen, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Raven, 
and various others who go to great lenghts to document 
things. I seriously admire all of you for doing so. If I am 
deficient in this respect, then so be it. In due course when
I feel like going to such lengths. In the meantime, you are
fully entitled to challenge the credibility of my postings 
when they do not contain references. 

Another example of what I am talking about is the controversy 
surrounding the Shirley Show episode which dealt with the 
holocaust. I remember going back and forth with a guy named 
Morrisson (Keith?) from some university in New Brunswick. He 
made the claim that  Shirley Solomon, the hostess of the show, 
did NOT say she was too scared to meet with the show's German 
guests, who happened to be the children of German Nazis, before 
the show; something she has done for every other guest on
every other show.  

I just happen to have the transcript of that very show. Guess 
what, Shirley is quoted as saying she was in fact "too scared" 
to meet with them. In this case a transcript is not even needed. 
I also have the show on two different video cassettes. First, 
I am not sure whether it is legal to quote from the transcript, 
but even if it is, I simply don't feel like. If this means that
therefore I have no case and that Shirely Solomon did not say 
something I heard her say, and something which is clearly in
the show's transcript, then so be it. 

I remember one followup to this controversy even questioned
whether the Shirley Show even existed! 

> >The Ken McVay tactic of smearing the IHR,

>     Is it smearing the IHR to say that they print falsehoods and invalid 
> arguments, if one in fact has evidence of this?  (E.g., my refutation of 
> Mark Weber's article about the size of graves at Treblinka, or the letter 
> the JHR refused to print from the person Mark Weber falsely accused of 
> getting cold feet and backing out of a debate.  Weber has responded to 
> neither of these, to the best of my knowledge.)

Mr. Weber is probably too busy to play intellectual ping pong with
you. If you really want to know about smear tactics, you should 
do some research about what has happened to the revisionists in 
this country and anyone associated with then. Mr. Stein, do you 
know what it is increasingly starting to resemble? An Inquistion. 
Sorry Mr. Stein if I have not yet documented for you specific 
examples. However, if I don't watch myself I could very well be
next. If that happens Mr. Stein, you can come and visit me in 
my prison cell and I will tell you all about it face to face. 


>     Posted/emailed.
> -- 
> Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
> POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
> Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sun Jan  1 11:30:07 PST 1995
Article: 20705 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and Mr. Dumas
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:        
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: 

John Baglow (ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>  In a previous posting, Steve Dumas (sdumas@chat.carleton.ca) writes (and
>  I'm sure the readers of this newsgroup are simply enthralled):
>  
> > John, your interference in the CKCU-Robert Eady conflict
> > indicated that you are fanatical about gay issues. It was a conflict
> > in which you had not business getting involved. In particular, you 
> > had no business using PSAC letterhead when writing to the CRTC in 
> > support of the pro-gay CKCU radio show Defiant Voices. 
>  
>  A little scene-setting here. The conflict Dumas describes had to do with a
>  local anti-gay crusader who was trying to shut down a radio program on a
>  local radio station (CKCU) by having the Canadian licensing and regulatory
>  body, the CRTC, pressure the station. 
>  
>  A fine defence of free speech is here being mounted by Mr. Dumas. Is he
>  irritated at this blatant attack on free speech by Mr. Eady? No, he is
>  fiercly critical of me instead, for intervening. It should be explained
>  that the complaints process in Canada invites representations from others,
>  so that I sent a letter defending the station.
>  
>  My union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, is clear and unequivocal
>  about gay rights, and arrived at its position in a democratic fashion,
>  through the resolution and convention process. At the time I was National
>  Director for the National Capital Region, an elected position, and I wrote
>  to the CRTC defending CKCU and noting the PSAC's position on the issue of
>  gay rights.
>  
>  Mr. Dumas, the ardent defender of free speech, thinks I had no right to
>  intervene, even though such intervention is a recognized part of the
>  procedure. And that I had no right to speak on behalf of my union, even
>  though I was expressing the position of my union. What he is sidestepping,
>  furthermore, is that much of the Eady-CKCU controversy had to do with free
>  speech.
>  
>  Odd, how selective Mr. Dumas is. How inconsistent. Could he be an agent?  :) 
>  

> > Also, I have already indicated that I am going to apply Kinsellian
> > methodology to your case. I do to you what Warren Kinsella did to
> > me and many patriots in this country. I am going to apply the same
> > "guilt-by-association" technique that he used throughout his book.
> > When the item will be posted you will see just how much I have
> > learned from reading Mr. Kinsella's material. 
>  
>  As I've said for months [yawn], I can't wait. But here is the interesting
>  part: the quote from Kinsella which I put on the net some time ago
>  contained a number of allegations--not one of which Mr. Dumas has ever
>  denied! So what is he getting so righteously indignant about? If what
>  Kinsella says is false, Mr. Dumas has a very winnable lawsuit, it seems
>  to me.
>  
>  Now, Mr. Dumas, here's the thing. Readers of this newsgroup have been
>  amazingly tolerant so far, as you have wandered miles off-topic and taken
>  me with you. But this is a group for discussing the Holocaust. Do you have
>  anything useful to say on this subject? If you want to pursue the issue of
>  gay rights, I would suggest alt.discrimination. If you would like to
>  debate the collective bargaining issue of same-sex benefits, there is
>  always alt.society.labor-unions. There may be readers in those newsgroups who
>  would like to engage in discussion with you.
>  
>  
> --
> John Baglow			"Listen to the fool's reproach! it is a
> 				 kingly title!"
> 					--William Blake			


John, you are the one who started by making allegations about
my background. What did that have to do with this newsgroup? 
You are correct that the CKCU-Eady issue does not
belong in this newsgroup. However, it is part of your background. 
You cannot preach about to me about being "off topic" when
you are in fact the one who started. 

I owe you one in this respect. When I eventually get it out of
the way we will be even and then will put this tactic behind us. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sun Jan  1 11:30:08 PST 1995
Article: 20707 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Right Discourses: Dumas vs. Griswold
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:     <3e19hs$qne@access4.digex.net>  
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 19:10:33 GMT
Lines: 87

Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) wrote:
> In article , sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve
> Dumas) wrote:
> [responding to Michael Stein:]

> > Your point is well-taken. However, this newsgroup is highly 
> > informal. It is not something which is being graded by a 
> > professor. You are correct in stating that assertions which
> > are not necessarily supported by "evidence" are either invalid,
> > or questionable. There is no arguing this point. Ideas without
> > support leave themselves open to being discredited. I will not
> > refute this point. It has been made on numerous occasions by 
> > yourself, Mr. Brown, and others on you side. 
> > 
> > However, I have little desire to put too much into this 
> > newsgroup. I am not being paid, nor am I gaining a higher
> > degree. In time I could very well open my filing cabinet,
> > or go to my bookshelf, and document certain assertions. 

> I see. Defending your assertions is something you will do only if there is
> some clear profit in it for you. How like so many other revisionist
> 'scholars' we have seen here...

> > However, the question is how much energy does one want to
> > put into this newsgroup, or any other?

> >[...deletia...]

> > I say more power to you, Mr. Karen, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Raven, 
> > and various others who go to great lenghts to document 
> > things. I seriously admire all of you for doing so. If I am 
> > deficient in this respect, then so be it.

> You are, as you say, deficient, Dumas. You have presented not one
> scintilla of evidence to support your claim that Gentiles specifically and
> exclusively are being uniformly tarred with the brush of 'potential
> genocidal maniacs' by some well-orchestrated 'Holocaust campaign'.

Mr. Brown, here is something which you will find most interesting.
It comes from the ubiquitous Alan M. Dershowitz, the superstar
lawyer/celebrity who can't seem to get enough publicity. It 
demonstrates the "it could happen to us again at any moment"
mentality which I have discussed in other postings:

	Occasionally, my Jewishness, and the history of 
	persecution it represents, is the source of my anger 
	- what some have called the permanent chip on my shoulder. 
	More often it provides the basis for my "Holocaust mentality" 
	- my constant state of preparedness for potential 
	persecution. (From Dershowitz's _Chutzpah_, p. 10)

Who does Dershowitz think is going to do this "persecuting?"
His own community? Mr. Brown, please tell us to whom he
is referring? Who is he suggesting is going to 
"potentially persecute" he and his community? 


> > In due course when
> > I feel like going to such lengths. In the meantime, you are
> > fully entitled to challenge the credibility of my postings 
> > when they do not contain references. 

> I and others have done so. You have uniformly failed to respond with
> evidence to support your claims. You have cited such truly lame excuses as
> "how much energy does one want to put into this newsgroup" and "[I'm] just
> too damn lazy". You show no inclination to support this claim at any time
> in the foreseeable future.

> I suggest, therefore, that you renounce this claim and admit that it is
> unsupportable. Have you the intellectual honesty to do this, Dumas?

See "Holocaust mentality" above.

> JGB

> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown                                   jeff_brown@pol.com
>  "What's going to happen?"   "Something wonderful..."   -- '2010'



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Mon Jan  2 05:02:45 PST 1995
Article: 20796 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and Mr. Dumas
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:        
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: 

John Baglow (ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>  In a previous posting, Steve Dumas (sdumas@chat.carleton.ca) writes (and
>  I'm sure the readers of this newsgroup are simply enthralled):
>  
> > John, your interference in the CKCU-Robert Eady conflict
> > indicated that you are fanatical about gay issues. It was a conflict
> > in which you had not business getting involved. In particular, you 
> > had no business using PSAC letterhead when writing to the CRTC in 
> > support of the pro-gay CKCU radio show Defiant Voices. 
>  
>  A little scene-setting here. The conflict Dumas describes had to do with a
>  local anti-gay crusader who was trying to shut down a radio program on a
>  local radio station (CKCU) by having the Canadian licensing and regulatory
>  body, the CRTC, pressure the station. 
>  
>  A fine defence of free speech is here being mounted by Mr. Dumas. Is he
>  irritated at this blatant attack on free speech by Mr. Eady? No, he is
>  fiercly critical of me instead, for intervening. It should be explained
>  that the complaints process in Canada invites representations from others,
>  so that I sent a letter defending the station.
>  
>  My union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, is clear and unequivocal
>  about gay rights, and arrived at its position in a democratic fashion,
>  through the resolution and convention process. At the time I was National
>  Director for the National Capital Region, an elected position, and I wrote
>  to the CRTC defending CKCU and noting the PSAC's position on the issue of
>  gay rights.
>  
Your union is a about as "democratic" as our parliamentary system!
Would you suggest that MP's reflect the views of ordinary Canadians?
Mr. Baglow, many of the members of you union are simply too 
intimidated to speak their minds about your union's "progressive"
positions on things like gay rights and affirmative action. They
know damn well that people like you will lauch into your typical
name-calling tirade accusing people of "racism," "homophobia," and
god knows what elese. 

Mr. Baglow, believe me when I tell that you are extremely 
unpopular with many of your union's grassroots members. 

>  Mr. Dumas, the ardent defender of free speech, thinks I had no right to
>  intervene, even though such intervention is a recognized part of the
>  procedure. And that I had no right to speak on behalf of my union, even
>  though I was expressing the position of my union. What he is sidestepping,
>  furthermore, is that much of the Eady-CKCU controversy had to do with free
>  speech.
>  
One of the main reasons for your unpopularity is your fanaticism
in defending things like gay rights. Where the hell were you 
when a pro-gay show on CKCU gave a sympathetic interview to 
NAMBLA? 

I find it interesting Mr. Baglow that you would make a complaint
over the anti-Catholic rantings of a couple of homosexuals a
crusade for free speech. Where was your opposition to Doug
Collins being nailed by the British Columbia Human Rights 
Council? It seems you are only concerned about "free speech"
when a member of the Majority, in this case a Catholic like
Eady, decides to play the "sensitivity" game. If anything, you
are the one being inconsistant. 

>  Odd, how selectizve Mr. Dumas is. How inconsistent. Could he be an
agent?  :)  >  
I hope to hell Kleim and the Griswolds are happy over what they
started! 

> > Also, I have already indicated that I am going to apply Kinsellian
> > methodology to your case. I do to you what Warren Kinsella did to
> > me and many patriots in this country. I am going to apply the same
> > "guilt-by-association" technique that he used throughout his book.
> > When the item will be posted you will see just how much I have
> > learned from reading Mr. Kinsella's material. 
>  
>  As I've said for months [yawn], I can't wait. But here is the interesting
>  part: the quote from Kinsella which I put on the net some time ago
>  contained a number of allegations--not one of which Mr. Dumas has ever
>  denied! So what is he getting so righteously indignant about? If what
>  Kinsella says is false, Mr. Dumas has a very winnable lawsuit, it seems
>  to me.
>  
>  Now, Mr. Dumas, here's the thing. Readers of this newsgroup have been
>  amazingly tolerant so far, as you have wandered miles off-topic and taken
>  me with you. But this is a group for discussing the Holocaust. Do you have
>  anything useful to say on this subject? If you want to pursue the issue of
>  gay rights, I would suggest alt.discrimination. If you would like to
>  debate the collective bargaining issue of same-sex benefits, there is
>  always alt.society.labor-unions. There may be readers in those newsgroups who
>  would like to engage in discussion with you.

The person who started this tendency to go "off topic" is you. You
are the one who decided someone's alleged background is relavent. 
However, I am obliged to fight fire with fire. You have started
something which to which I will eventually respond. Warren
Kinsella has given me the methodological tools I need to 
connect you to some interesting elements. It should be 
interesting. 

>  
>  
> --
> John Baglow			"Listen to the fool's reproach! it is a
> 				 kingly title!"
> 					--William Blake			



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------


From oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Mon Jan  2 05:02:46 PST 1995
Article: 20801 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!juno.xana.bc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Right Discourses: Dumas vs. Griswold
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:   <3e19hs$qne@access4.digex.net>  <3e6pp8$sc9@access1.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 06:51:16 GMT
Lines: 160

Michael P. Stein (mstein@access1.digex.net) wrote:
> In article ,
> Steve Dumas  wrote:
> >Michael P. Stein (mstein@access4.digex.net) wrote:
> >Mr. Stein, please forgive my tendency at times to be inarticulate. 
> >The e-mail you and other exterminationists has not been "uncivilized."

>     Thank you for the clarification.  I didn't think I had been, but 
> people don't always perceive things the same way.


> >The point I tried to make, although unsuccessfuly, was that one
> >would think that if were to receive any e-mail that was "vicious"
> >one would expect that it would come from people with whom I had
> >had some disagreements.

>     I expect vicious email to come from people who are vicious.  Granted, 
> disagreement is the usual trigger, but most people can disagree without 
> becoming uncivilized.


> >When I meant "far
> >right" I meant the Griswold's and Mr. Kleim. I am not necessarily
> >using "far right" pejoratively. It is meant to descripe someone, 
> >or some group, which is serious about racial issues, and who have
> >a certain approach. 

>     Actually, this is not the usual meaning of "far right" in my
> experience.  For example, Sen. Barry Goldwater is often described as "far
> right" but is not a racist as far as I can tell.  Similarly, the Italian
> Fascists were far-right, but the Italian brand of far-right activity for
> some reason did not include the kind of anti-Jewish frenzy that the German
> variety contained - in fact, I remember reading (but don't have the
> reference to hand, sorry) that Jews were welcome in Mussolini's movement. 

I am aware that my definintion of "far right" would not cut
it in a formal ideological taxonomy. I only provided this
crude definition in order to discern between the pure
revisionists and the pro-White/revisionists on the net. 
I wanted to clarify who I was accusing of sending me 
what I deemed to be unkind e-mail. There were only 
two such individuals. Hence, I am probably going too
far by implying that this is a tendency of the "far right"
types to which I am referring. For this I also apologize.

> >Mr. Stein, I am probably one of the most informed people in 
> >this entire city, if not country, when it comes to th[e Bernard] case. 
> >If my reluctance to get all of this material together and 
> >then type all of it in makes me someone who is not "qualified"
> >to dicuss this case, then what can I say? 

>     Usually it is sufficient to provide a precise literature reference, if
> the thing is available in a well-stocked library.  Usually the Holocaust
> deniers who post here do not even give the name of the book they are
> relying on for their "facts."  For something as hard to find as a high
> school newspaper, it does help to have the actual text.  However, you need
> not type it in; if you can fax it to me, I can try to get it converted via
> computer software to text form.  Again, (703)683-1178.

>     I believe you when you say these articles existed - don't get me 
> wrong.  What I would like to have the ability to do is evaluate your 
> _interpretation_ of these articles.  Right now all we have to go on is 
> your _assertion_ of the fundamental meaning of what happened.  Given what 
> happened with Hoffman and his unsupportable interpretation of the Morgen 
> and Mittelstaedt affidavits, I would like to be able to read the original 
> text for myself.

I will repeat what I said earlier. I do not treat this newsgroup
as my ultimate intellectual expression. I am currently working
on a major project. I have little interest in duplicating 
a great deal of the material upon which I am working. I will 
gladly inform you and others when I am finished. The case
of Thetis Bernard will figure prominantly. 

However, in a nutshell, this is what happened. A local high 
school student in Ottawa attended a David Irving lecture in 
Ottawa. It was held on November 5, 1990, at Ottawa's Congress 
Centre. Believe it or not, the attendence was about 600! The 
young high school girl wrote a report for her high school 
newspaper, which happens to be named _Nova Res_. The girl's 
article accepted David Irving's thesis. 

Well, when the article was published, the you-know-what hit
the fan. The article became a leading local story. It was
featured prominantly in the local media and caused a major
uproar at the girl's school. Not only did the girl get 
blasted, but so did the paper, and the paper's editor. 

The school was also pressured by the B'nai Brith and 
former of Ottawa Councilor Mark Maloney. The girl was
forced into a lengthy closed door meeting with both
of these gentlemen, one of the school's principals, 
a teacher and the editor of the paper. She was 
told me in an interview that she was severely 
condemned for writing the article and that the 
meeting in general was extremely intense. 

A couple of issues later the school's paper (Nova Res) 
dedicated the entire issue to the holocaust! There 
were articles by both Kageden and Maloney, as well as
numerous others by other students. The paper also 
apologized for having run the pro-David Irving article
without having had it juxtaposed with one challenging
Irving's thesis. 

However, this wasn't the end of it. Also in 
response to the article the school called a 
general assembly in which holocaust survivors 
were called upon to share their stories. The
girl who wrote the pro-Irving article was in the
audience and was being given an extremely difficult
time by the other students. Although it wasn't
said directly, the other students knew the 
assembly had been called because of her. 

The girl was subsequently taunted in the halls
by other students. She was also given the cold
shoulder by some of her teachers. It became 
an extremely hostile enviroment for her. 

All of this, and a little more I have not 
described, occured because of one article!
Mr. Stein, this is yet another example of what
I mean when I speak of the holocaust campaign
in terms of having an "inquistional" dimension. 
This is also what I mean when I refer to Jewish
intellectual supervision. Should the B'nai Brith
have interferred in this matter? I don't think so.



> >>     Is it smearing the IHR to say that they print falsehoods and invalid 
> >> arguments, if one in fact has evidence of this?  (E.g., my refutation of 
> >> Mark Weber's article about the size of graves at Treblinka, or the letter 
> >> the JHR refused to print from the person Mark Weber falsely accused of 
> >> getting cold feet and backing out of a debate.  Weber has responded to 
> >> neither of these, to the best of my knowledge.)
> >
> >Mr. Weber is probably too busy to play intellectual ping pong with
> >you.

>     A scholar should never be too busy to respond to a significant
> criticism of his work, in my view.  This goes (at least) double when the
> matter involves a defamatory falsehood about someone, as it did in the 
> case of the debate.

>     Posted/emailed.
> -- 
> Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
> POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
> Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Dumas
Carleton University

Email address: sdumas@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.