The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mckinstry.colin/1995/mckinstry-10q




Question One
------------ 

   In a conversation with Peter Kramer, in which he mentioned cyanide,
   you asked:

     "You mean the special formula while having Zyclon B, but 
     doesn't leave traces in concrete like the Germans used at 
     Auchwitz?" (McKinstry, All Jew Haters Read This)

   Since the presence of HCN traces in the gas chambers at
   Auschwitz has been established by the Krakow Institute, and
   even by the widely-discredited Fred Leuchter, whose conclusions
   from this presence flew in the face of reality, I would like you
   to tell us which gas chamber's ruins do not 

                         Work Cited

   McKinstry, Colin. UseNet alt.politics.white-power. Subject: 
   "Re: All Jew Haters Read This," June 9, 1995.  Message-ID: 
   cmck02-0906951119010001@gl_4.cs.auckland.ac.nz

From jeff_brown@pol.com Thu Jun 15 05:55:08 PDT 1995
Article: 5698 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!iglou!dyn024.slip.iglou.com!user
From: jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
Subject: Re: Hybrid vigour and civilization
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyn024.slip.iglou.com
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@iglou.com (News Administrator)
Organization: IgLou Internet Services
References:   <3qnkvh$ga@chinacat.cwa.com> <3qu5o0$dkn@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>   <3r4m6b$s0e@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>   
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 02:24:33 GMT
Lines: 75

In article ,
cmck02@cs.auckland.ac.nz (McKinstry) wrote:

> > > While you like to say we have an open minded and scientific course. Would
> > > you please explain why natural anthropology is a banned discipline.  Got
> > > outlawed completely about ten years ago.
> > 
> > McKinstry adopts the Griswoldian tactic of assertion sans substantiation.
> > Where was this "discipline" banned? Who banned it? What are the relevant
> > citations to the law that bans it?  
> 
> It was banned because it explains the races.  Which a desiring to be
> multicultural governments couldn't afford to have.  Hence why it was
> banned.

You still fail to provide any substantiation for your charge. You have
merely repeated it, and embroidered it a bit. Not one word of your reply
constitutes proof.

I suppose you could have misunderstood the question. I doubt it; it is far
more likely that you are trying desperately to avoid admitting that no
such ban exists. You say the ban was enacted "about ten years ago": it
follows that some specific act, by some specific body, instituted the ban.

Let me rephrase the questions, so as to avoid all possibility of
misunderstanding, whether honest or deliberate:

1) Who, specifically, banned the study of 'natural anthropology'?
("Multicultural governments" is not a specific. "The government of
Freedonia", for example, would be. Do you understand what 'specific' means
in this context? An actual name of an actual person or group of persons,
up to and including a national government or international body governing
some aspect of scientific study, is specific. A vague, handwaving "they"
is not.)

2) When and where was the ban enacted? (Specifics, again, are necessary.)

3) Where can documentation of the ban, specifying just what type of study
is banned and what the penalties will follow upon violation of the ban, be
found? Specific documents, dates, and page numbers must be given.

There is a common tactic, used many times before here and elsewhere by
others like McKinstry. It consists of saying, in effect: "I know this is
true. You're just ignorant of the facts of the matter. Why should I do
your homework for you? Go look it up yourself." This is not a valid
tactic: it conveniently overlooks the clear obligation of he who raises a
point or makes a claim to establish the evidence for said claim. It is not
the task of those who challenge a claim to back it up with evidence; it is
the task of those who make the claim to do so.

> > > I've been tempted to reproduce
> > > some articles but with the Western Governments ranting and raving over the
> > > evil internet I didn't want to give them some real ammunition.
> > 
> > A more likely explanation is that the evidence for McKinstry's alleged ban
> > simply does not exist.
> > 
> Gee, my ego has been damaged. Why didn't you just say chicken?

If you insist. You are chicken: you fear that you cannot produce the
evidence for said ban, because no such ban exists.

> One day I might just reproduce some texts.  Just be
> prepared for a lot of reading.  Though only once the heat dies down on the
> propaganda against the Internet.  

Since you have not defined what "heat dies down" means, you have given
yourself the perfect excuse to never post the evidence you claim to
possess.

JGB

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



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.