The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_controv_9505


 R_9505 
+++ r_950501 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (141)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:54
Subject: GOVERNMENT BUDGETS     01              

DK>  ...However, The Learning Channel carried a series on one of 
DK>  my topics of interest last Friday evening - Ancient Egypt, 
DK>  with such matters as the temple complex at Karnak, recent 
DK>  researches on Cleopatra and recent studies of Egyptian 
DK>  pyramids.  To be certain, PBS stations have carried such 
DK>  programs, but always from British sourcs...at least to my 
DK>  perception.
DK> 
DK>  ...The Learning Channel series, however, being latecomers, 
DK>  has to get its programs from other sources.  The result was 
DK>  that the hour on Karnak was from French sources, where one 
DK>  learns that the actual major work at Karnak is being done 
DK>  by French archaeologists.  Similarly, the hour on Cleopatra 
DK>  was from German sources, showing there is significant 
DK>  German research into Cleopatra.  But perhaps most telling 
DK>  was the program on Egypt's Age of Pyramids, from the 
DK>  Japanese source, NHK.  Never have I noticed a PBS program 
DK>  that bothered to do the translation work needed to bring us 
DK>  these programs from other nations.

     I would also point out TLC has never run a fund drive and 
has never subject anyone to the purple pedophile.  Yet here is 
the same sort of material of equal quality without the cost of 
translation.  

     For the sake of argument, translation costs are minimal.  
TLC is also first tier above basic.  For some reason PBS is 
basic, presumably the law requiring local stations to be carried 
in Basic.  Just happen to have this month's bill handy.  $8.18 
for 26 channels in that tier.  

     But there is a difference.  TLC has advertising.  But that 
is impossible.  PBS keeps telling us we can not get the kind of 
quality programming we get on commercial TV as they offer on 
public TV.  I am certainly glad to know it is impossible.

     In other words, PBS and its supporters have no idea what 
they are talking about.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Hell, I am almost always right 99.7% of the time.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (142)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:54
Subject: MCNAMARA, MCVEIGH & LBJ                

                    McNamara, McVeigh and LBJ
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <4/28>

     We have an interesting rogues' gallery.  Robert S.
McNamara, the self confessed following orders Secretary of
Defense who uselessly killed 58,000+ Americans.  McVeigh who has
probably killed 200+ people.  LBJ who is the mastermind of
58,000+ American deaths.
     Here we have three criminals, one begging forgiveness before
he dies, one giving his name, rank and serial number, and the
other escaped from public retribution by death.  It is easy to
understand why LBJ is not being lynched, he is dead.  McVeigh
avoids the lynch mob by being in a federal prison in the middle
of an Army camp.  McNamara tours the country promoting his book
without a bodyguard.
     Is there something wrong with this picture?  Are we not
giving out justice by the stature of the person rather than the
crime?  Are we not making determination of judgement based upon
the person rather than the crime?
     He was a government official and therefore what?  He is
immune from the approbrium anyone else doing the same thing would
deserve?  He was only doing his job?  That is a very strange job.
He was only following orders?  I think I have heard that one
before.
     As far as deaths are concerned I do not see any material
difference between McNamara following the orders of LBJ and
McVeigh claiming to follow the orders of voices, save that in our
system of justice McVeigh would be less culpable than McNamara.
     Is McNamara like OJ Simpson to be excused from the death
penalty by right of public prominence?  Had Robert Redfern shot
Lincoln would that have mattered?  Yes.  Redfern would be less
guilty because he is Redfern.
     Is McNamara less guilty because he is McNamara?  Yes.
     Is McVeigh less guilty because he is McVeigh.  Hell no.  He
is even more guilty because he is a nobody with no redeeming
ethnic, racial or sexual differences to inspire a spirited if
facetious defense.
     And LBJ, we now know without question he was ordering people
to fight a war he knew could not be won and that he was only
sending people to die.  And yet the LBJ library still standing
without a torch in sight.  Will McVeigh's grave survive
desecration?
     What is the difference?  McNamara/LBJ = 58,000+ Americans
only.  McVeigh = 200+.  Hanging where hanging is due.
     It is also remarkable timing that the ADMITTED, read that
again, ADMITTED, murderer of 58,000 can publish and be debated,
read that again, DEBATED, in the media while the accused murderer
of 200 is convicted in the same media.
     Of course there are those who worship "high public office"
as though it were something that imbues the troubles and wisdom
of Hamlet.  Guess what?  Hamlet and the hero myth is about people
thrust into such matters by things beyond their control.  Anyone
running for public office, anyone accepting public office does so
because they want it.  They are not forced into it despite
attempts by sympathetic biographers to cast them in that mold.
     LBJ was not thrust into the presidency, he accepted the Vice
Presidential nomination.  Certainly JFK was assassinated but he
ran for office, by personal choice, in 1964.  He was forced into
nothing.  He wanted to be in the position of president where in
fact he could start wars if he so choose.
     He also wanted to be in a position where he could have self
serving lackey order-takers like McNamara jump as high as he
ordered and kill on command.  And McNamara wanted to be in a
position to carry out orders without guilt.  We can imagine a
Goebbels in later life writing McNamara's book searching for
public forgiveness for following the orders of his LBJ.
     But then what are we do to with McVeigh?  What he did, if he
did it, is trivial in comparison to any rational person.  Could
McVeigh be forgiven if he had high public office much as Reno has
been forgiven for Waco?
     So where is it written that people who CHOOSE to make major
decisions for the country from political connections and for
personal reasons are in any way different from people acting on
their own?  What is it anyone can imagine about these people who
work their backsides off to get to such positions of power that
makes us think they are suddenly thrust into situations they did
not expect -- in fact did not want?
     McNamara, McVeigh, LBJ.  There is no discernable difference
among them in what they knowingly and wilfully did.  We can't
try LBJ.  Who is in favor of simultaneous trials for McNamara and
McVeigh?

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * You only get six fouls per game.  Make them count.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (143)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:56
Subject: NEW LEGISLATION                        

     At a planning meeting today 4/27, Thursday, Janet Reno said 
that nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have done 
anything to prevent the OKC bombing.

     Does anyone have any idea why it is being considered? other 
than the obvious vote getting politics that is.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If a man does not work, neither let him eat.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (144)
To:      All                                    29 Apr 95 12:34:56
Subject: OJ & MCVEIGH                           

                          OJ & McVeigh
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <4/27>

     Lets reverse some roles here.  McVeigh has been in the
public spotlight being accused of murdering his ex-wife and her
friend.  OJ has been arrested and charged with bombing the
Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
     McVeigh has the "dream team" of defense lawyers.  OJ has a
public defender trying to opt out of the job.  Or would it be the
other way around?
    Whatever McVeigh defense counsel, people would be on the
streets shouting "mother killer" or would they line the streets
to show they believe he is innocent?
     Could the OJ defense be talking a racist conspiracy by the
federal government and talking about them planting a gun on him?
catching him in a speed trap? trying to show the trooper who
stopped him is a racist?
     Yet what is the difference in the two crimes?  Only numbers.
Certainly children died but then who would expect a day care
center in a federal building?
     Is a bomb really any different than a knife to the throat?
Perhaps a crime scene of an ordinary house is different than that
of a half missing building?
    It is clear what is different.  The alleged murderer of
Nicole Simpson and friend is the great OJ Simpson.  He is so
famous, so well loved, that the prosecution does not dare ask for
the death penalty for two cold blooded, wanton and very bloody
murders.  On the other had the president has promised, despite
his inability to deliver, a speedy trial and execution for a
person who does not have an illustrious sports career behind him.
     On one hand we have a black man on trial and at risk of life
in prison not death and there can be serious charges of racism
against his accusers.  On the other hand we have a white man who
will be on trial for his life for having INCIDENTALLY murdered
around two hundred people while destroying federal property.
Keep firmly in mind, the primary charge is not murder, it is
destroying federal property.
     Would if make a difference if Nicole Simpson's Social
Security card had been destroyed in the process?
     There is a very clear message here that we all know and it
is about time we talk about it publically.  It it not the act
that is punished but the person who commits the act.
     OJ can walk because of racial feelings on the jury.  OJ
escaped the death penalty because of his performance on the
football field.  The OJ trial gets the most fatuous public
attention solely because he is a sports hero.
     McVeigh isn't going to get squat.  The best he might get is
an insanity defense and a room next to Hinckley, if he has rich
parents.
     We do NOT have impartial justice in this country.  It is
about time we admit it.  Just let anyone suggest some kind of
conspiracy theory against McVeigh and they will be accused of
supporting defending a right wing extremist.  It is just as clear
anyone defending OJ Simpson defending the right of blacks to
murder white women because they are sports heroes.
     Nothing excuses emotion in place of thought and that applies
in both these cases.  There is no overwhelming provocation unless
by some chance you are personally involved, such as Carroll
O'Connor talking like Archie Bunker when the suicide of his son
is concerned.  It is not acceptable to abjure reason when reason
is required.
     But doing so is a long human tradition.  We do not give
justice based upon the crime.  We give justice based upon the
perception of the person committing the crime.
     Acceptable opinions regarding a crime are determined by the
perception of the person committing the crime.  Even down to the
innocent until proven guilty.
     Consider McVeigh on this date.  There are a few bits of
information given to the press and not only does the public have
him convicted but is looking for who "drove him to it."  For OJ
anyone can still point out, absent the DNA evidence, the evidence
points more toward Kato Kaetlin than OJ.  And just what drove OJ
to it?  How can such a question be asked?  The evidence is still
not before the jury.
     Let me ask you, if Hinckley was insane for shooting at
Reagan (which many liberals applaud although they claim it is a
joke) does that make a person believing in long laughed at ideas
such as a New World Order sane?  And if the man is insane then
who can be at fault?  Jodi Foster?
     Partly what we have in the bombing case is public discussion
in the absence of anything serious to discuss.  But in that
absence comes speculation run wild; personal imagination in place
of fact; exactly as happened in the aftermath of the OJ arrest.
     We see ourselves in what we do to fill in the blanks in the
absence of knowledge.  A rational person says he does not know
until the evidence is in and speculates upon what is known and
only what is known.
     But our justice is not rational.  We should admit it.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Catapult testing condemned by ASPCA.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (145)
To:      Frank Hay                              29 Apr 95 12:35:22
Subject: A USED CAR FROM CLINTON?               

FH>  FH> Then you are comfortable with this distinction? Just call it
FH>  FH> a "just war" and kill innocent civilians with no restraint?

FH>  MG> That there was indiscriminate killing a civilians is a fact
FH>  MG> not in evidence.

FH> That innocent civilians died is a fact not in dispute.

     That their government started the war is not in dispute 
either. 

     That people did not revolt is their problem.  If they could 
not it is regrettable.  

     You do realize we are getting to the "leaders meeting in the 
boxing ring" approach to war, simple the technology is not quite 
there yet.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Dial 1-800-ABCDEFG to improve your reading comprehension.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (146)
To:      Gary Braswell                          29 Apr 95 12:35:22
Subject: THE BELL CURVE                         

GB> MG>As
GB> MG>TB>  if this wasn't enough, then you have to move to the
GB> MG>TB>  pinnacle of this house of cards to see if it bear all the
GB> MG>TB>  weight of being an accurate predictor of economic
GB> MG>TB>  performance.  Observe:
GB> MG>TB>
GB> MG>TB>    "In _The Bell Curve_, the fundamental unit is 'The I.Q.'
GB> MG>TB>     which is the quantum that determines all sorts of
GB> MG>TB>     behaviors and social phenomena.

GB> MG>     This is an example of his lies.

GB> MG>Thus, the possibility of
GB> MG>TB>     getting a bachelor's degree (page 152), or the
GB> MG>TB>     probability of being unemployed for a month or more
GB> MG>TB>     (page 164), becomes a function of The I.Q.

GB> MG>     Another lie.
GB> 
****************************************************************************

GB> Why are these lies? Please be specific.

     Because the imputed statements are not made in the book.

GB>  Also, why don't you ever quote anything from the book to 
GB>  refute others points about it?

     How could I possibly refute a negative without posting the 
entire book?  When it is not said, it is not said.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * When you are in a hole, don't dig.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950503 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (245)
To:      Andrew Cummins                          1 May 95 14:45:14
Subject: CREATIONIST MAGNETIC FIEL              

AC>  KS>  Not the same thing at all.  The magnetic field depends on 
AC>  KS>  the molten core of the earth shifting.  Magnetic north has 
AC>  KS>  moved several hundred miles since I started flying 30 years 
AC>  KS>  ago.

AC>  Uh, how does a molten core generate a magnetic field?  

     Learn some physics and you would not have to ask.

And, 
AC>  if it is generating a magnetic field, how come the one we 
AC>  have appears to be in free decay?  

     It does not appear that way, liar.

And, has magnetic north 
AC>  really moved hundreds of miles in 30 years?  Wow, with 
AC>  speed like that I don't know how anyone could imagine that 
AC>  the imagined reversals along the ocean floor could relate 
AC>  to a field that is clearly wondering faster than it is 
AC>  reversing.  And, how do you explain the wondering?  A 
AC>  mysterious link to the earth's core?  Or, something 
AC>  reasonable like drag created by the solar wind?

     Show your math for this "drag" by the solar wind.  Where is 
the paper published?  What is it you pretend you know about the 
subject but are too stupid to understand?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Give the gift of life.  Dr. Herbert West
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (246)
To:      Windy                                   1 May 95 14:45:14
Subject: FUNDAMENTALIST CONSTITUTI              

WW> But (in so much as we have the most powerful armed forces on earth)
WW> who are these guys training to fight?

     Why don't you ask them?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Please petition the brain-bank as a hardship case.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (247)
To:      Chris Walden                            1 May 95 14:45:14
Subject: JEWS & HOLOCAUST                       

CW>   You know Matt, I can recall a few years ago my opening up 
CW>   this subject.  I began by listing some census figures for 
CW>   Jews during the period of the Holocost, and how the figure 
CW>   of 6 million couldn't be true.  You replied back with 
CW>   figures stating that the figure of 6 million was indeed 
CW>   correct.
CW> 
CW>        So, where exactly do you stand on the issue now?  
CW>   Have you changed your position on the validity of 6 
CW>   million?
     
     What stand?  The current estimate is something like 3.2 
million.  So?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Please petition the brain-bank as a hardship case.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (248)
To:      Andrew Cummins                          1 May 95 14:45:16
Subject: NOAH'S ARK            1/2              

AC>  MH>  Marc, be sure to ask Andrew where those 3 hydrospheres of 
AC>  MH>  water are hidden in order for the Flood to have occured.

AC>  The flood only required one hydrosphere.  Even now the 
AC>  earth is flooded to an average depth of about two miles.  
AC>  Dry land appeared by changes in elevation of (submerged) 
AC>  land.

     Ignorant of geology else knowingly lying about it.

AC>  MH>  Poor little Andrew has been so thoroughly debunked on the 
AC>  MH>  HOLYSMOKE echo that he's run off to this echo, assuming 
AC>  MH>  that there's no intelligent life here (well maybe :) ).

AC>  Trouble with HolySmoke is that the people there are so busy 
AC>  being jerks that they never give themselves an opportunity 
AC>  to be intelligent.
AC> 
AC>  Take yourself for an example, your criticism of the Flood 
AC>  model isn't based on anything a Creationist has presented 
AC>  to you.

     No creationist ever told the truth.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Reality will not file a complaint if you grab it.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (249)
To:      Marc Gibson                             1 May 95 14:45:16
Subject: NOAH'S ARK            1/2              

On 04/25/95 MARC GIBSON to ANDREW CUMMINS on Noah's Ark            1/2 in Fido 
{CONFERENCE}

MG>  AC>  There weren't exactly many witnesses to the Flood (at least 
MG>  AC>  witnesses who survived to tell about it).  The Flood is 
MG>  AC>  mostly a faith thing (and I believe a better explanation 
MG>  AC>  for the sedimentary rock that thickly blankets the earth).

MG> I agree, the whole bible is a matter of faith.

MG>  AC>  BTW, I trust that you're not using the term "scientific 
MG>  AC>  model" to refer to the Evolutionist model.  I trust you 
MG>  AC>  mean the scientific method.

MG> Yes, I meant scientific method.  Oops.

     Cummins is fondly known as a liar for the lord.  Nothing he 
is going to say about evolution, geology, genetics is true.  He 
knows nothing of science, period.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Please petition the brain-bank as a hardship case.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (250)
To:      John Krim                               1 May 95 14:45:16
Subject: THE INITAL RAID ON WACO                

JK>  I'm not going to elaborate, but I have to agree with 
JK>  Clinton is his broadcast on Sunday on 60 Minutes.  He may be 
JK>  full of shit most of the time, but he is right on in this 
JK>  Waco thing.  If federal officers are going to get shot at 
JK>  because they arrive with a search warrant to question and 
JK>  yes, perhaps arrest, someone(s), then there is no reason to 
JK>  take the law into your hands and fire away to get them off 
JK>  your property.  For heavens sake, even if you are innocent 
JK>  and they have made a mistake or even if they are harrassing 
JK>  you, you just can't take out a rifle and blow up someone.  
JK>  It frustrating but you just can't do it! Its plain murder 
JK>  otherwise.

     And what happens when the feds show up and START the 
shooting first and start throwing grenades into the building and 
kill TWO people inside before there is any return fire?

JK>  A few years I was involved in a hit and run, with no 
JK>  personal injury only property damage.  The police arrive at 
JK>  my house, I let them in and gave them all the information I 
JK>  had.  I was slightly nervous, but figured that my comments 
JK>  would cause them not to either arrest me nor charge me.  And 
JK>  I was right.  But even if they had have done this, that does 
JK>  not justify me in opening fire as they approach my house to 
JK>  speak with me.

     Which has nothing to do with Waco.

JK>  Koresh and his bunch were fanatics.  Koresh was a former 
JK>  rock guitarist (and I thought Reagan was nuts for trying to 
JK>  run for president), who told his flock that the men 
JK>  couldn't fuck their wives, but he would do that for them.  

     Are you going to be the first to provide evidence of this 
claim?  Are you going to say it is illegal?

JK>  Then in the final moments of the attack, they kill the 
JK>  children and themselves by blowing themselves up.  Another 
JK>  Jonestown, Guiana massacre done with kerosene instead of 
JK>  coolaid.

       The government was unable to prove they started the fire 
in court.  What do you know the government does not know?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950504 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (277)
To:      All                                     1 May 95 19:18:46
Subject: LEFTIST'S COOKBOOK                     

                     The Leftist's Cookbook
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <5/1>

     A little history lesson is in order for the liberals in the
this country.  You are hearing and reading a lot about
publications such as the Anarchist's Cookbook these days as tools
of the trade for "right wing" terrorists.  Let us review the
bidding.
     The Anarchist's Cookbook is one that I would recommend to
every terrorist.  Fully one third of the recipes do not work.
Another one third will kill the person trying to follow its
recipes -- I would be the last to call them formulas or
formulations.  And of the less than one third that remains
further research is advised to make them work.
     I presume this "dreadful" book is a good enough example. So
when did it become popular and with who?  It was first published
in the 1960s and was popular with anti-Vietnam War protestors
such as our current President.
     Now this is not to suggest that either terrorism nor the
tools of terrorism first started in the Vietnam war protestors.
Vietnam era terrorism was the post WW II explosion, so to speak,
of domestic terrorism.  The first real era was started by the
union movement in this country.  They were the stereotypical bomb
throwing bolsheviks.
     And that of course continues to this day as recently as the
Greyhound strike of the last decade when there was random rifle
fire into buses with passengers.  At least there was a cause to
deny guns to union members but that was not the liberal agenda at
the time.
     Terrorism in this country is nothing new and it did not
start from the right.  The current wave was started by the left.
That it has spread like any other "craze" in this country is
something better left to sociometrists without an agenda to
explain.
     But I will point out, when the strikers were shooting into
Greyhound buses intent upon killing people the liberals were
saying, "There is no excuse for it but ..." and then going on to
explain "legitimate" grievances that would drive a person to such
an attempt at indiscriminate murder.
     To some extent Clinton might be right. But he would make a
much more compelling case were he to discuss his youthful
interest in such things as the Anarchist's Cookbook and how he
grew beyond his action oriented youth.  Of course I do not know
that he had an interest in that specific book but it was popular
in his anti-war sub-culture.
     From spiking trees to bombing this particular federal
building there is no difference.  In the last thirty years this
is not the first federal building to be bombed, it is only the
first to be connected with the right rather than the left.  That
the left was less effective in fulfilling their intentions is a
separate discussion.
     And in these past three decades those who "understood" the
motivations of the leftist bombers were in political ascendency
and they in fact protected them.  It did not matter to them that
leftist groups had been identified and in fact convicted of
bombing, they in fact prevented the FBI from infiltrating left
wing groups for the purpose of preventing further terrorist acts.
     That is history and not refutable save by those who will not
present facts.  This is not to say that infiltration will do any
good as the Attorney General has stated that infiltration would
have done nothing to prevent this bombing.  So again we are
dancing around the head of a pin with the angels.
     The issue is not left or right.  This issue is that we can
do nothing to prevent nutcases from from doing what they want
regardless of any safeguards.  It is well known the place with
the most rules against deadly weapons is a prison and also that a
prison has the highest percentage of deadly weapons of any
population in the country.
     Even making the country a prison can not prevent terrorism.
Terrorism is too simple.  The only way to stop terrorism is to
disinvent the human mind and the first place to start is outlaw
fire and all later discoveries.
     The existence of terrorism under whatever guise or name is
but one part of the political fabric of every country in the
world.  And that all political parties in those countries are
willing to both "abhor" and "use" it to their advantage at the
same time is not in question.
     It is hard to imagine anyone singling out Oklahoma City as
something exceptional unless they believe body count is what
makes a tragedy.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "I kick ass for the Lord."  Father MacTavish
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950508 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (159)
To:      All                                     5 May 95 16:42:44
Subject: CITIZEN MILITIAS                       

     It is time to repost this one. 

                        Forming Militias
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/4>

     Anyone paying attention knows that militias are forming all
over the country primarily in response to the excesses of the
government particularly at Waco.  A rational federal government
would throw a few of their own to the wolves in hopes of stopping
the preparations for revolution.  This is not a rational
government.
     As to the justification for the citizen formation of the
militia there are many justifications.  As the citizens of the
state delegated to their cities the formation and control of the
police so to did they delegate to their states the formation and
control of the militia.  Should the city disband the police the
citizens have the right even the duty to form a citizen police
force.
     Similarly, as so many states have abandoned their delegated
power to train the militia and appoint officers the citizen have
a similar duty to create the militia.  Citizen delegation of a
power to the government is based solely upon the determination
that the government is the best executor of that power.  Should
that power not be executed then the power devolves back to the
citizens by default.
     As the citizens have the ultimate power to form a militia
there can be no objection to such militias save all the reasons
that the state can better form militias.  The failure of the
state to do what it can do best is an indictment of the state
rather than of the people forming militias.  That they may be
unruly, undisciplined and lacking a proper officer corp is a
failing of the state to exercise the delegation the members of
the militia had originally chosen.
     The formation of militias in themselves is also considered
by those who are afraid of them to be a risk to society as a
whole.  This disregards the members of such militias.  Granted
there will always be some horrible examples but by and large
their members are ex-military at the least a likely veterans of
some war or other.
     It appears obvious by inspection those who have taken an
oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
of America are to be trusted to be members of the militia.  If
that is not sufficient then what is sufficient?  If that is not
sufficient for trust of the militia why is the US army which has
taken the same oath trusted?
     The argument that a militia is not needed as there is no
risk of invasion rings hollow in that there is less a reason for
there to be a US Army now that the Cold War is over.  To claim
there is no risk of insurrection flies in the face of the
professed concern over citizen militias.  Invasion and
insurrection are the only two matters addressed at the Federal
level for the militia.  The state constitutions may have other
uses for the militias but the failure of the state to exercise
its reserved powers as discussed by Hamilton in Federalist Paper
29 is the very reason for a citizen militia.
     Can a state have a state militia as does Ohio and Texas and
a few others and by so doing preclude a citizen militia?  This is
a stickier question.  To answer it one has to go back to the
original intent of the militia.
     The original concept was that the whole of the people was
the militia; the concept that the community was responsible for
its own defense.  The original laws only bound males between 18
and 45 to become trained members.  That a state should constitute
a paid militia vice a citizen militia is contrary to this concept
of a militia.  That the requirement for payment and providing
uniforms and such vice establishing minimum criteria for
volunteers is considered and exclusionary criteria is not the
intent of the original citizen delegation of the power to the
state.
     Thus the people have a right and a duty to pursue the
original intention despite the actions of the state when that
state fails to require by law a minimum level of participation
and equipment.
     One can go back to the earlier failure of the militia and
citizen soldier first identified by President Theodore Roosevelt
citing the uselessness of the militia as a pool from which to
create an army when needed.  That was a matter of state failure
and advancing technology.  That was a determination based upon
national preparation for foreign wars only.  It had nothing to do
with dissolving the militia.
     That is the crucial point.  That the states do not maintain
a citizen militia does not take away from the citizens the power
to constitute a militia.  Nonfeasance does not mean nullification
of a power.
     That the people delegate to the state and the state does not
perform does not mean the people have lost the power.  The power
in the past, now, and forever resides in the hands of the people.
The only blame on the people is not forcing the state to comply
with the delegation or to rescind the delegation.  In the
meantime the citizens retain the power to constitute a militia.
     It takes a bit of consideration and construction but in the
final analysis, the citizens are the defense of the community of
citizens.  The citizens are the final authority upon the
constitution of that defense.  That it is called the militia
means only it is the whole of the people.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

                  [note new address and phone]



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Ban Assault Fertilizer now!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (160)
To:      All                                     5 May 95 16:42:44
Subject: OKC, WHY?                              

     Some one has to be the first to start this line of 
questioning and the only answers can be speculation at this 
point.

     We have a supposed interest in Waco, apparently the event 
used by whoever did it to psyche themselves up to the bombing, 
and that is used to explain the date of the bombing.  However, 
had it been middle east terrorists it would have been a good day 
to pick in hoping to divert attention while they escaped.

     But if in fact Waco was the focus of the event as it now 
appears due to government press releases, why Oklahoma City?  
Waco has a federal building.  San Antonio (the city of the trial 
of the Davidians) has a federal building.  Janet Reno works in a 
federal building.  A bomb this size could have flattened the 
White House if set off in front.

     So far there is no hint anyone even remotely connected to 
this had any reason to target OKC.  This was planned long in 
advance; simply getting together that quantity of any material 
takes time.  More "symbolic" targets such as the Department of 
Justice Building or the BATF headquarters building are only two 
leisurely days away from Oklahoma City.  Waco and San Antonio, 
half a day's drive.  

     So why Oklahoma City?  Does anyone have any idea why that 
city rather than any other?  For example is such a large federal 
building unusual?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Ban Assault Fertilizer now!
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




+++ r_950511 +++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (224)
To:      All                                     9 May 95 05:24:46
Subject: HOW WAS IT REALLY?                     

                       How was it really?
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <5/8>

     Here we are with our President squaring off against militia
types who have only said if the federal government attacks the
people they are ready to defend the people.  The President these
people have no right to say they love their country and despise
their government.  It is an interesting proposition despite the
1st amendment.
     While I have not had the direct pleasure of reading first
hand British texts on the Colonial Revolt of 1776 I can make some
obvious surmises from that point of view.  Consider the colonists
would not submit to a tax imposed by the King.  
     Certainly that was unheard of be it on tea or not.  Rather
the colonial considered themselves British subjects but refused
to involve themselves in the British / French conflict that was
their national heritage for centuries and was continuing in the
New World.  Where was their loyalty?
     And were they demanding change faster than possible?
Parliament was gaining a majority on the side of the colonists.
The king was ready to accede to their demands?  What were those
crazy conspiracy minded people doing declaring independence before
the government had time to declare justice?
     Obviously in the name of peace the King had to discourage
dissent among the colonists.  Keeping the peace was his duty.
And those colonists refused to accept that duty and confine their
talk to petitions to the crown.  Rather they did the absurd thing
and petitioned the people.
     Worse yet, they refuse to accept internal reform and
insisted that the people had the right to establish a government
rather than leaving government to people who had been doing it
for centuries.  That may strike us as strange today but in a day
still involved with hereditary rule appealing to those unlettered
in government was even more strange.
     But more to the point, those inflammatory fools who spoke
against established government.  They were considered as strange
as those seeing black helicopters today.  Seriously, the average
British colonial governor cared not in the least to both "his"
people if they were peaceful.
     Simply the natural human inclination to "do no work" that is
unnecessary would establish that.  Oppression was not their
intention as is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
They were simply enforcing existing laws and policies.  It was
the colonials who were misinterpreting meaning and intention in
order to foment revolution.
     Given the small percentage of radicals initially in favor of
revolution what was the justification for the few hotheads at
Concord firing "the shot heard 'round the world"?  In the view of
history, the British Empire went on for 150 more years to become
the largest and greatest in world history while the ex-colonies
in North America struggled to become a force in the world in that
same century and a half.
     In other words, if the colonies had not been lead by
hotheads, militia paranoids in this week's commentary, the
colonies would have been part of that great empire.  They would
not have languished for 150 years in the backwater of the world
fighting a lone fight against Latin America.  They would have
avoided their civil war by the outlawing of slavery in the 1830s.
They would have been major players in  WW I rather than suckered
in late comers.  The colonies would be a major force in the
empire this day as it would not have fallen after WW II.
     I have to ask how is our perspective of government today
different from the perspective a militias today?  There was no
cause for revolution from the British perspective and there is no
cause for revolution from the perspective of our current
government.  But then cause is in the eye of the beholder as well
as it is in the eye of who writes the history.
     It is certain that at the time of the US revolution there
was the equivalent of the "black helicopters" circulating about
British troops.  To this day there are stories of British
atrocities taken as fact that the British records report as
accidents.  (The Fort Trumbull massacre/accident for the history
buffs, as an example.)
     The temper of the times is that our most fiery speakers are
on the front line and if by some quirk of fate they become the
victors in the coming revolution then rest assured black
helicopters like improper taxes will be taught to school children
for generations before it is questioned.  It would not matter at
this point if either Ronald Reagan or George Washington were to
come down on a militia movement if the militia movement won.  The
winner will write the history as much as if Shea had captured and
hung Washington.
     To bring this into focus in the last lines, President
Clinton is drawing battle lines between us and them when the us
and the them is only a matter of point of view.  No matter how
"right" the government feels it is, a sufficient number of people
rejecting it as wrong regardless of the justification can
prevail.
     Drawing lines is the problem.  We now have lines.  Perhaps
it will not be some damn fool thing in Waco but rather some damn
fool thing in the White House which is as detached from reality
as was the King of England some two hundred years ago.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

    P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, Bus. 813-969-0362



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If OJ had destroyed federal property while killing ...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51




From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Controv - (225)
To:      Frank Hay                               9 May 95 05:24:46
Subject: WACO                                   

FH>  BB> Me either. The Waco people were decent Christians.

FH>  Please explain how the love of guns fits with being a 
FH>  decent Christian.  Having those guns was the main reason 
FH>  they all died.

     He that doth not have a sword, sell thy cloak and buy a 
sword.

     Or did not the speaker know what he was talking about?

FH>  Don't see the "evil" Reno going after the Amish or Friends, 
FH>  do you? These are my idea of decent Christians.  Notice any 
FH>  differences between them and the Branch Davidians? Think 
FH>  gun ownership .  .  .  .

     Think Yeshua who was the Christ.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * My corespondant's body weight is 180 cans of dogfood.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51





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.