The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/michael.david/2004/michael.0401


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:39 EST 2004
Article: 948400 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 8 Jan 2004 18:16:21 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 178
Message-ID: 
References:        
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.109.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073614637 17246 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 02:17:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:17:17 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948400

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
> >> 
> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that he
> >> > HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
> >> 
> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity 
> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
> >> 
> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had an 
> >> "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> >> the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the fact that
> >> he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr. Michael to
> >> label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything* the Nazis did
> >> makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if you were a
> >> member of the Socialist Workers Party).
> >> 
> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has against
> >> the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of innocent
> >> people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's first hand
> >> experience of this event, there is no indication of ANYTHING ELSE
> >> that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't matter to Dr.
> >> Michael if the only motivation he can come up with as to why Munch
> >> would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact that it was the truth.
> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to discredit
> >> him as a source of information.
> >> 
> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this argument
> >> can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased towards
> >> saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in some way motivated
> >> to say that thing, they wouldn't say it.  However, it doesn't matter
> >> to Dr. Michael if the only bias that can be discerned stems from that
> >> thing being the truth.  The fact that such a bias exists calls the
> >> person's motives for saying it into question, and hence the testimony
> >> is invalid as evidence in support of that truth.  Therefore no one
> >> who says anything can ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. 
> >> Nothing is true.
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> > 
> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
> > an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> > the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
> > 
> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the Polish
> > authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active role in
> > such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out the details
> > if necessary.
> 
> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling a
> lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to you. 
> 
> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such that
> you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more general
> sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of assessing the value
> of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
> 
> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that he
> voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he saw, I 
> will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify your 
> attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I have 
> quite clearly explained why any rational person looking objectively at 
> Munch's life history would presume that if he had any bias at all, it 
> would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating - the crimes of the 
> institutions he was directly a part of. 
> 
> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> > innocent people.'
> > 
> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
> 
> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we must
> discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown grudge
> against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying but that
> you can't even specify? 
> 
> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as evidence
> in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what Munch,
> himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying that
> Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be lying for
> reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
> 
> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time you
> refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various pieces
> of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
> 
> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered millions
> > of innocent people.
> 
> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally involved
> with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You forget that the
> point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality as a *witness*. 
> Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in some way to what he
> actually *witnessed*. 
> 
> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased
> > towards saying that thing.'
> > 
> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
> > 
> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated by a
> > stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no conflict
> > of interest with the murderer.
> > 
> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his employer,
> > was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail and almost
> > hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has had
> > psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his employer, and
> > has a track record of supporting the staunch political opponents of
> > his employer. Moreover, the employee is psychologically 'weak' and
> > only escaped hanging by making it perfectly clear that he absolutely
> > repudiated the behaviour of his employer.
> > 
> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
> > 
> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that case.
> > 
> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think this
> > addresses your point.
> 
> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random passer
> by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has actually
> been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch is closer
> to the following CASE 3: 
> 
> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.  The
> employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow employees.
>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on a
> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is committed,
> and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between his loyalty to
> his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless goes to the police
> with what he knows and has seen. 
> 
> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> Prosecutor. 
> 
> Unless you could *prove*, that:
> 
> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN his
> refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee was
> "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that his
> trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> 
> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> 
> If not, the defence is sunk.
> 
> You haven't.
> 
> Steven Mock


So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.

David Michael
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:39 EST 2004
Article: 948401 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 8 Jan 2004 18:16:57 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 178
Message-ID: 
References:        
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.109.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073614658 17397 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 02:17:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:17:38 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948401

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
> >> 
> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that he
> >> > HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
> >> 
> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity 
> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
> >> 
> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had an 
> >> "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> >> the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the fact that
> >> he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr. Michael to
> >> label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything* the Nazis did
> >> makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if you were a
> >> member of the Socialist Workers Party).
> >> 
> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has against
> >> the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of innocent
> >> people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's first hand
> >> experience of this event, there is no indication of ANYTHING ELSE
> >> that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't matter to Dr.
> >> Michael if the only motivation he can come up with as to why Munch
> >> would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact that it was the truth.
> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to discredit
> >> him as a source of information.
> >> 
> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this argument
> >> can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased towards
> >> saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in some way motivated
> >> to say that thing, they wouldn't say it.  However, it doesn't matter
> >> to Dr. Michael if the only bias that can be discerned stems from that
> >> thing being the truth.  The fact that such a bias exists calls the
> >> person's motives for saying it into question, and hence the testimony
> >> is invalid as evidence in support of that truth.  Therefore no one
> >> who says anything can ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. 
> >> Nothing is true.
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> > 
> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
> > an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> > the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
> > 
> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the Polish
> > authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active role in
> > such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out the details
> > if necessary.
> 
> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling a
> lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to you. 
> 
> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such that
> you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more general
> sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of assessing the value
> of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
> 
> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that he
> voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he saw, I 
> will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify your 
> attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I have 
> quite clearly explained why any rational person looking objectively at 
> Munch's life history would presume that if he had any bias at all, it 
> would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating - the crimes of the 
> institutions he was directly a part of. 
> 
> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> > innocent people.'
> > 
> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
> 
> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we must
> discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown grudge
> against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying but that
> you can't even specify? 
> 
> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as evidence
> in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what Munch,
> himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying that
> Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be lying for
> reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
> 
> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time you
> refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various pieces
> of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
> 
> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered millions
> > of innocent people.
> 
> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally involved
> with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You forget that the
> point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality as a *witness*. 
> Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in some way to what he
> actually *witnessed*. 
> 
> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased
> > towards saying that thing.'
> > 
> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
> > 
> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated by a
> > stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no conflict
> > of interest with the murderer.
> > 
> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his employer,
> > was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail and almost
> > hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has had
> > psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his employer, and
> > has a track record of supporting the staunch political opponents of
> > his employer. Moreover, the employee is psychologically 'weak' and
> > only escaped hanging by making it perfectly clear that he absolutely
> > repudiated the behaviour of his employer.
> > 
> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
> > 
> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that case.
> > 
> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think this
> > addresses your point.
> 
> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random passer
> by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has actually
> been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch is closer
> to the following CASE 3: 
> 
> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.  The
> employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow employees.
>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on a
> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is committed,
> and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between his loyalty to
> his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless goes to the police
> with what he knows and has seen. 
> 
> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> Prosecutor. 
> 
> Unless you could *prove*, that:
> 
> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN his
> refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee was
> "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that his
> trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> 
> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> 
> If not, the defence is sunk.
> 
> You haven't.
> 
> Steven Mock


So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.

David Michael
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:40 EST 2004
Article: 948402 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 8 Jan 2004 18:17:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 178
Message-ID: 
References:        
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.109.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073614664 17411 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 02:17:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 02:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948402

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
> >> 
> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that he
> >> > HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
> >> 
> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity 
> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
> >> 
> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had an 
> >> "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> >> the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the fact that
> >> he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr. Michael to
> >> label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything* the Nazis did
> >> makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if you were a
> >> member of the Socialist Workers Party).
> >> 
> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has against
> >> the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of innocent
> >> people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's first hand
> >> experience of this event, there is no indication of ANYTHING ELSE
> >> that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't matter to Dr.
> >> Michael if the only motivation he can come up with as to why Munch
> >> would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact that it was the truth.
> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to discredit
> >> him as a source of information.
> >> 
> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this argument
> >> can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased towards
> >> saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in some way motivated
> >> to say that thing, they wouldn't say it.  However, it doesn't matter
> >> to Dr. Michael if the only bias that can be discerned stems from that
> >> thing being the truth.  The fact that such a bias exists calls the
> >> person's motives for saying it into question, and hence the testimony
> >> is invalid as evidence in support of that truth.  Therefore no one
> >> who says anything can ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. 
> >> Nothing is true.
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> > 
> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
> > an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> > the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
> > 
> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the Polish
> > authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active role in
> > such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out the details
> > if necessary.
> 
> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling a
> lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to you. 
> 
> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such that
> you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more general
> sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of assessing the value
> of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
> 
> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that he
> voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he saw, I 
> will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify your 
> attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I have 
> quite clearly explained why any rational person looking objectively at 
> Munch's life history would presume that if he had any bias at all, it 
> would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating - the crimes of the 
> institutions he was directly a part of. 
> 
> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> > innocent people.'
> > 
> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
> 
> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we must
> discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown grudge
> against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying but that
> you can't even specify? 
> 
> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as evidence
> in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what Munch,
> himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying that
> Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be lying for
> reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
> 
> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time you
> refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various pieces
> of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
> 
> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered millions
> > of innocent people.
> 
> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally involved
> with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You forget that the
> point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality as a *witness*. 
> Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in some way to what he
> actually *witnessed*. 
> 
> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased
> > towards saying that thing.'
> > 
> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
> > 
> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated by a
> > stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no conflict
> > of interest with the murderer.
> > 
> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his employer,
> > was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail and almost
> > hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has had
> > psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his employer, and
> > has a track record of supporting the staunch political opponents of
> > his employer. Moreover, the employee is psychologically 'weak' and
> > only escaped hanging by making it perfectly clear that he absolutely
> > repudiated the behaviour of his employer.
> > 
> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
> > 
> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that case.
> > 
> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think this
> > addresses your point.
> 
> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random passer
> by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has actually
> been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch is closer
> to the following CASE 3: 
> 
> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.  The
> employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow employees.
>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on a
> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is committed,
> and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between his loyalty to
> his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless goes to the police
> with what he knows and has seen. 
> 
> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> Prosecutor. 
> 
> Unless you could *prove*, that:
> 
> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN his
> refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee was
> "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that his
> trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> 
> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> 
> If not, the defence is sunk.
> 
> You haven't.
> 
> Steven Mock


So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.

David Michael
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:42 EST 2004
Article: 948412 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 8 Jan 2004 21:16:52 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 38
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.109.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073625413 29170 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 05:16:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948412

holman@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote in message news:...
> In article ,
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> > Points other than point 8 addressed in other post in this thread.
> > Point 8 -- perhaps Steven Mock would be good enough to explain how you
> > can tell that someone is dead from through a window?
> 
> IF I KNOW that
> - a concentration of 300 ppm of cyanide kills people within 5 to 10
> minutes, that
> - the people trapped in the chamber have been exposed to a concentration
> more than 20 times that high during the last few minutes of a 15 minute
> gassing cycle due to my understanding of the outgassing rate of cyanide
> from Zyklon-B, that 
> - I initially heard screaming and the sounds of pandemonium, but that
> after 5 minutes they had been replaced by death coughs followed by a
> period of complete silence, and that
> - looking through a peephole and detecting no signs of movement, but only
> motionless people with their eyes agape and signs of bodily fluids having
> been expelled due to the relaxation of sphincter muscles, 
> 
> THEN
> 
> - I COULD JUSTIFIABLY CONCLUDE on the basis of my knowledge of medicine,
> physiology, and the chemical properties of cyanide that 
> - THE PEOPLE IN THE CAMBER WERE ALL DEAD.
> 
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman

But why would it be necessary to have a medical doctor -- and one who
detested the job -- to do that?

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:42 EST 2004
Article: 948414 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 8 Jan 2004 21:36:32 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 149
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.109.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073626593 30280 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 05:36:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948414

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> Dr. Michael, let's try and bring this discussion back under control.  
> You are right about one thing - we are about to end up talking in 
> circles.  Understandably, I have a different take as to why.  It is not 
> the result of my "circular troll", as you put it (in a vain attempt to 
> distract attention away from the content of what I say by casting 
> dispersions on my motives for saying it). 

> What I see is this: you are 
> offering lame rationalizations as to why we should discard Dr. Munch as 
> a source of evidence, I'm explaining to you why I think those 
> rationalizations are lame, you're ignoring my explanations and reposting 
> the same lame rationalizations, I explain again, you repost, and so on.  
> You're right: we could keep going this way forever, or until one of us 
> gets fed up.  So let me break down for you, from my perspective, what it 
> is I think we have left to discuss.
> 
> In an earlier post, you said: 
> 
> > I thought that
> > Mock had agreed that 'captured' witnesses and those with an axe to
> > grind were not acceptable witnesses. He appears to be backtracking on
> > this -- perhaps that's all he can find, so he has no choice?
> 
> It doesn't bother me at all to hear you say this.  Indeed, this is 
> precisely how I predicted our discussion would progress.  If you'll 
> recall, my argument from the beginning has been that your standards of 
> evidence, while worded in such a way as to sound superficially 
> reasonable, are in fact designed to be sufficiently vague and open to 
> such wide interpretation that you can, if necessary, use them to dismiss 
> any evidence against your cherished position that could possibly exist, 
> no matter how conclusive or credible that evidence might be.  Hence, I 
> have no doubt that no matter what witness testimony or other piece of 
> evidence is put before you, you will find some way to stretch your 
> definition of "captured by the Allies" or "an axe to grind" in order to 
> include it, then accuse me of failing to meet your conditions.  That you 
> do so, and often quite shamelessly, is precisely what I set out to prove 
> in this thread.  I feel, at this stage, that my success on that score is 
> evident.
> 
> Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish TV 
> in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid speculations 
> about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious conspirators 
> during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false testimony in exchange 
> for his life.  There are many holes in this theory, but I have avoided 
> discussing them because such a discussion would be an irrelevant 
> diversion.  I did not post his testimony in 1946-47 as evidence and 
> therefore have no immediate interest in defending it.  I resolved not to 
> post any testimony from anyone in Allied captivity, and I have kept my 
> word.  You go on to speculate that once he had provided such false 
> testimony, it would be difficult and damaging to his credibility for him 
> to change his story.  I accept this too, for the sake of argument.
> 
> But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't change 
> his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he claims to 
> have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the Holocaust to Swedish 
> TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how you explain the fact 
> that he was chose to talk about it at all.  What pressure or coercion 
> could have been placed on him during his "Allied captivity" in 1946-47 
> (that it takes "trust", rather than merely a sense of reality, to assume 
> they did not do) to induce that behaviour in 1981?
> 
> I think you realize how weak your extension of the concept of "captured 
> by the Allies" is in this situation.  If you didn't, you wouldn't be 
> trolling so hard to avoid the question, nor would you have proceeded to 
> try and find other rationalizations - completely unrelated to the 
> conditions you set for me at the outset - to discard Munch's testimony.  
> 
> You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your support 
> for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his statements in 
> which he described the trauma he experienced in relation to his 
> encounters with the mass murder of innocent human beings at Auschwitz as 
> representing a chronic condition that had no relation to the stated 
> object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when he was in his 90's, it 
> was certified that he was experiencing mental deterioration due to his 
> advanced age.  To suggest that either of these are justifications to 
> consider him in any way unfit to give evidence in the early 1980's is 
> nothing more than pure hostile speculation, coming from someone who is 
> truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be 
> dismissed as crazy, if that's the last resort you have left.  If this is 
> the best you can do, I'm content to leave the matter at that.
> 
> But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to 
> grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the definitions 
> of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no 
> "axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many of his fellow SS doctors, 
> including his superiors, and, when interviewed by Lifton, praised 
> aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly are unable to come up with any 
> specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly has against the Nazis or why, 
> other than his disapproval of the racially-motivated mass murder he 
> claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the only evidence you offer in 
> support of the claim that he has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he 
> "collaborated" with the occupation authorities after the war, yet the 
> only form of "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his 
> willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  
> The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks about the 
> Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the Holocaust.  
> Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to believe has an 
> "axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless condition, in the way that 
> you use it, for the purpose of honestly assessing evidence.
> 
> I am satisfied that my first contribution towards answering your 
> challenge has accomplished two things: 1) it has successfully 
> demonstrated that your standards for assessing eyewitness testimony are 
> irrational, meant to exclude by definition anyone who could possibly 
> give evidence against your case, and therefore are a poor methodology 
> for anyone who genuinely valued historical truth; and, 2) it has 
> provided a sample of key pieces of evidence in support of the theory 
> that gas chambers were used for racially motivated mass murder at 
> Auschwitz, held together by an eyewitness account from someone in a 
> position to have seen who has no reason to lie... at least none that 
> you've proposed.
> 
> Steven Mock

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:44 EST 2004
Article: 948417 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lying Liar David E. Michael Cannot Control His Lies
Date: 8 Jan 2004 21:42:21 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 146
Message-ID: 
References:     <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.109.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073626942 30667 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 05:42:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 05:42:22 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948417

"steve wolk"  wrote in message news:<3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
> news:b7fe1abc.0401080247.16d85491@posting.google.com...
> > "steve wolk"  wrote in message
>  news:<5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
> > > "John Morris"  wrote in message
> > > news:rernvv82lut51bnoqdvm6n023tio7dpg4b@4ax.com...
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > In  in
> > > > alt.revisionism, on 6 Jan 2004 12:47:21 -0800,
> > > > david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > > > > news:...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > Steven Mock goes on to say of me:
>  
> > > > > 
> > > > > As he put it, he will only accept testimony "from people whose
> > > > > testimony can't reasonably be attributed to ulterior motives (for
> > > > > example those who were pro-Nazi even at the time of giving such
> > > > > testimony, not on trial themselves, not in a position where they or
> > > > > their families could be subjected to retribution should they fail
> > > > > to give such testimony, etc.) -- enemies of Nazism, such as Jews
> > > > > and
> > > > > concentration camp inmates, obviously have a rather large axe to
> > > > > grind;"
> > > > >   
> > > > > Again, this is an absolute lie. What I actually said was:
> > > >
> > > > An absolute lie?  Here is what you said in Message-ID:
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > To meet the criteron of 'cannot reasonably be disputed' you'd
> > > > probably need to produce the following sorts of evidence:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > (d) eyewitness testimony from people whose testimony can't reasonably
> > > > be attributed to ulterior motives (for example those who were
> > > > pro-Nazi even at the time of giving such testimony, not on trial
> > > > themselves, not in a position where they or their families could be
> > > > subjected to retribution should they fail to give such testimony,
> > > > etc.) -- enemies of Nazism, such as Jews and concentration camp
> > > > inmates, obviously have a rather large axe to grind;
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > You accuse Steven Mock of lying about what you said when he produced
> > > > a direct quote.  It's word-for-word what you wrote.  It's a
> > > > cut-and-paste.  Did you think no one would look?
> > > >
> > > > It's not "the medicalization of dissent," David.  You really are a
> > > > patholical liar.  You cannot control your lying.
> > > >
> > > > Seek help.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He ALWAYS lies.
> >
> > This is what I am accused of saying:
> >
> > 
> > As he put it, he will only accept testimony "from people whose
> > testimony can't reasonably be attributed to ulterior motives (for
> > example those who were pro-Nazi even at the time of giving such
> > testimony, not on trial themselves, not in a position where they or
> > their families could be subjected to retribution should they fail to
> > give such testimony, etc.) -- enemies of Nazism, such as Jews and
> > concentration camp inmates, obviously have a rather large axe to
> > grind;"
> > 
> >
> > This is what I actually said:
> >
> > 
> > To meet the criteron of 'cannot reasonably be disputed' you'd probably
> > need to produce the following sorts of evidence:
> >
> > (a) documents originating from Nazi sources and published (i.e. made
> > public) prior to the Allied occupation of Nazi-held territory;
> > (b) public statements from Nazi sources that cannot be dismissed as
> > mere bloodthirsty rabble rousing (of the kind we had from Ilya
> > Ehrenberg in his 'kill Germans' commentary or from Winnie Mandela with
> > her 'matches and necklaces' speech) or dismissed as an attempt to get
> > troops into a brutal frame of mind (as we see in modern military
> > training where the natural inhibition against killing has to be broken
> > down if the troops are to function effectively);
> > (c) physical evidence that cannot reasonably be explained away (e.g.
> > large numbers of corpses of persons who could only have been murdered,
> > as opposed to, say, victims of disease);
> > (d) eyewitness testimony from people whose testimony can't reasonably
> > be attributed to ulterior motives (for example those who were pro-Nazi
> > even at the time of giving such testimony, not on trial themselves,
> > not in a position where they or their families could be subjected to
> > retribution should they fail to give such testimony, etc.) -- enemies
> > of Nazism, such as Jews and concentration camp inmates, obviously have
> > a rather large axe to grind;
> > (e) any other form of evidence that we can mutually agree on as
> > 'reasonable'.
> > 
> >
> > Note the crucial difference between 'you would probably need to
> > produce' and 'he will only accept' (together with the other important
> > sections that John Morris snipped, including section 3)). If this does
> > not prove that John Morris from the University of Alberta is a 'lying
> > liar', not to mention a man who engages in defamation of the worst
> > sort, then I'm a fruitbat.
> >
> > Note too how this sort of behaviour is encouraged by other prominent
> > anti-revisionists, including a senior Canadian civil servant, Gordon
> > McFee, and the husband of senior Canadian professional anti-racist,
> > Karen Mock.
> >
> > But such is the way in which these people have to proceed. Smear, lie,
> > intimidate.
> >
> > It hasn't worked. It won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> You ALWAYS lie.  As a result, your writings are impotent and your websites
> are impotent.  It is easy for people to see you for what you really are.
> You will always be one of life's losers.  I suspect that, when you finally
> shuffle off this mortal coil, you will find some way to lie about it.

My word -- Wolkie is still at it!

(a) If I am such a liar, what was the very worst lie that I have ever
told. Please post evidence to support your case.

(b) You have stated that I always lie. I hereby declare that grass is
generally green in England (although it goes brown at times), that I
am not a pregnant female aardvark, that guinea pigs are capable of
squeaking and that Steve Wolk is a wonderful person.

Thank you and goodnight.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:45 EST 2004
Article: 948483 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 09:08:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 92
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.163.79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073668111 11050 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 17:08:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:08:31 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948483

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would appreciate 
> it if you would at least do me the courtesy of answering this one...
> 
> Steven Mock
> 
> 
> Steven Mock  wrote in
> news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 
> 
> > By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the discussion
> > is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in the logic and 
> > methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would be so kind as to
> > make an effort to answer these questions, which I'm now posting for
> > the 3rd time.  Thank you.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is to say,
> > invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere fact that
> > someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is enough to proof
> > enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias.  Catch-22.
> > 
> > And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm "misrepresenting" your
> > argument, answer these two questions:
> > 
> > Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
> > racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having an 
> > anti-Nazi bias?
> > 
> > Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
> > considered by you a reliable witness?
> > 
> > If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
> > questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
> > methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder to 
> > someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short, anyone
> > who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by definition
> > BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
> > 
> > Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence do you 
> > have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact that he spoke
> > openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
> > 
> > It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth that 
> > meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical.  End of 
> > argument.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar Rudolf's 
> > argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it, and if not,
> > what does the use of such an argument say about the logic of Rudolf's 
> > approach to historical evidence.  I'd appreciate it if you'd address 
> > that point as well.
> > 
> > Steven Mock

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:45 EST 2004
Article: 948485 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 09:10:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 231
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.163.79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073668229 11149 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 17:10:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:10:29 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948485

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401081816.58c95371@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> >> > news:... 
> >> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> >> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
> >> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that
> >> >> > he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity
> >> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
> >> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
> >> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
> >> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
> >> >> an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
> >> >> about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the
> >> >> fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr.
> >> >> Michael to label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything*
> >> >> the Nazis did makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if
> >> >> you were a member of the Socialist Workers Party).
> >> >> 
> >> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> >> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> >> >> innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's
> >> >> first hand experience of this event, there is no indication of
> >> >> ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't
> >> >> matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation he can come up with
> >> >> as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact
> >> >> that it was the truth. 
> >> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
> >> >>  discredit 
> >> >> him as a source of information.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> >> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
> >> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in
> >> >> some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
> >> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
> >> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The fact
> >> >> that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for saying it
> >> >> into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as evidence in
> >> >> support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says anything can
> >> >> ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing is true.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Steven Mock
> >> > 
> >> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
> >> > had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
> >> > about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
> >> > 
> >> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
> >> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active
> >> > role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out
> >> > the details if necessary.
> >> 
> >> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling
> >> a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to
> >> you. 
> >> 
> >> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
> >> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
> >> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
> >> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such
> >> that you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more
> >> general sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of
> >> assessing the value of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
> >> 
> >> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that
> >> he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he
> >> saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify
> >> your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I
> >> have quite clearly explained why any rational person looking
> >> objectively at Munch's life history would presume that if he had any
> >> bias at all, it would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating -
> >> the crimes of the institutions he was directly a part of. 
> >> 
> >> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> >> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> >> > innocent people.'
> >> > 
> >> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
> >> 
> >> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
> >> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
> >> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying
> >> but that you can't even specify? 
> >> 
> >> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
> >> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
> >> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying
> >> that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be
> >> lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
> >> 
> >> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
> >> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time
> >> you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various
> >> pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
> >> 
> >> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
> >> > millions of innocent people.
> >> 
> >> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
> >> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
> >> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality
> >> as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in
> >> some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
> >> 
> >> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> >> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
> >> > biased towards saying that thing.'
> >> > 
> >> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
> >> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
> >> > 
> >> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated
> >> > by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no
> >> > conflict of interest with the murderer.
> >> > 
> >> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
> >> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
> >> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
> >> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has
> >> > had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
> >> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
> >> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
> >> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
> >> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of his
> >> > employer. 
> >> > 
> >> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
> >> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
> >> > 
> >> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
> >> > case. 
> >> > 
> >> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
> >> > this addresses your point.
> >> 
> >> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
> >> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
> >> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
> >> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
> >> 
> >> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
> >> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
> >> employees. 
> >>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
> >>  a 
> >> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> >> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
> >> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
> >> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
> >> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
> >> 
> >> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> >> Prosecutor. 
> >> 
> >> Unless you could *prove*, that:
> >> 
> >> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
> >> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
> >> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
> >> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> >> 
> >> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> >> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> >> 
> >> If not, the defence is sunk.
> >> 
> >> You haven't.
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> > 
> > 
> > So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
> > criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
> > 
> > David Michael
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> 
> Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can 
> move on.
> 
> Steven Mock


>From the number of identical subposts that are now appearing and
fanning out across the thread, and the repeated insistence that I
answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan  9 14:22:46 EST 2004
Article: 948487 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 09:12:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 231
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.163.79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073668335 11271 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2004 17:12:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:15 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948487

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401081817.2b30be47@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> >> > news:... 
> >> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> >> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
> >> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that
> >> >> > he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity
> >> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
> >> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
> >> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
> >> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
> >> >> an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
> >> >> about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the
> >> >> fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr.
> >> >> Michael to label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything*
> >> >> the Nazis did makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if
> >> >> you were a member of the Socialist Workers Party).
> >> >> 
> >> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> >> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> >> >> innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's
> >> >> first hand experience of this event, there is no indication of
> >> >> ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't
> >> >> matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation he can come up with
> >> >> as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact
> >> >> that it was the truth. 
> >> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
> >> >>  discredit 
> >> >> him as a source of information.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> >> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
> >> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in
> >> >> some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
> >> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
> >> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The fact
> >> >> that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for saying it
> >> >> into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as evidence in
> >> >> support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says anything can
> >> >> ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing is true.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Steven Mock
> >> > 
> >> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
> >> > had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
> >> > about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
> >> > 
> >> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
> >> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active
> >> > role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out
> >> > the details if necessary.
> >> 
> >> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling
> >> a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to
> >> you. 
> >> 
> >> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
> >> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
> >> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
> >> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such
> >> that you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more
> >> general sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of
> >> assessing the value of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
> >> 
> >> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that
> >> he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he
> >> saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify
> >> your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I
> >> have quite clearly explained why any rational person looking
> >> objectively at Munch's life history would presume that if he had any
> >> bias at all, it would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating -
> >> the crimes of the institutions he was directly a part of. 
> >> 
> >> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> >> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> >> > innocent people.'
> >> > 
> >> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
> >> 
> >> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
> >> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
> >> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying
> >> but that you can't even specify? 
> >> 
> >> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
> >> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
> >> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying
> >> that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be
> >> lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
> >> 
> >> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
> >> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time
> >> you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various
> >> pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
> >> 
> >> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
> >> > millions of innocent people.
> >> 
> >> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
> >> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
> >> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality
> >> as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in
> >> some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
> >> 
> >> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> >> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
> >> > biased towards saying that thing.'
> >> > 
> >> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
> >> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
> >> > 
> >> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated
> >> > by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no
> >> > conflict of interest with the murderer.
> >> > 
> >> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
> >> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
> >> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
> >> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has
> >> > had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
> >> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
> >> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
> >> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
> >> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of his
> >> > employer. 
> >> > 
> >> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
> >> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
> >> > 
> >> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
> >> > case. 
> >> > 
> >> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
> >> > this addresses your point.
> >> 
> >> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
> >> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
> >> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
> >> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
> >> 
> >> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
> >> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
> >> employees. 
> >>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
> >>  a 
> >> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> >> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
> >> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
> >> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
> >> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
> >> 
> >> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> >> Prosecutor. 
> >> 
> >> Unless you could *prove*, that:
> >> 
> >> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
> >> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
> >> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
> >> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> >> 
> >> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> >> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> >> 
> >> If not, the defence is sunk.
> >> 
> >> You haven't.
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> > 
> > 
> > So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
> > criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
> > 
> > David Michael
> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
> 
> Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can 
> move on.
> 
> Steven Mock


Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:05 EST 2004
Article: 948535 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lying Liar David E. Michael Cannot Control His Lies
Date: 9 Jan 2004 19:38:39 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 40
Message-ID: 
References:     <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073705919 22104 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 03:38:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:38:39 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948535

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> news:b7fe1abc.0401082142.454463c7@posting.google.com:
> 
> > (a) If I am such a liar, what was the very worst lie that I have ever
> > told. Please post evidence to support your case.
> 
> I don't know about the *worst*, but this new thread has produced some 
> pretty hearty whoppers.
> 
> Here's one: in an effort to cast dispersions on the mental faculties of Dr. 
> Munch, you have repeated to me several times, "you yourself indicated that 
> he was having mental problems even at Auschwitz."
> 
> I did no such thing.
> 
> Here is what I really said:
> 
> "Wirths could not order Munch to participate [in the selections], as the 
> Hygienic Institute was outside of his jurisdiction, but he could apply 
> considerable pressure.  He was able to persuade Weber, but Munch 
> continually found excuses, finally declaring to Wirths that he simply could 
> not handle it psychologically.  "I... observed it [selections] and... could 
> stand it for only half an hour [and then] had to vomit" to which Wirths 
> replied, "That will pass.  It happens to everyone..."(Lifton 308)"
> 
> So either 1) you are lying, or 2) you consider it a "mental problem" to 
> have psychological difficulty with the prospect of participating in the 
> mass murder of innocent people.
> 
> If it is the latter, I submit this proves Dr. Munch to be far more sane 
> than you.
> 
> Steven Mock

We're referring here to a medical doctor who, according to you, used
to diagnose people as dead through a peephole in a closed door . . .

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:06 EST 2004
Article: 948536 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,free.uk.talk.sheffield
Subject: Re: Lying Englishman David E. Michael, Terrorist supporter
Date: 9 Jan 2004 19:42:08 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 520
Message-ID: 
References:     <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073706129 22294 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 03:42:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948536 free.uk.talk.sheffield:31323

"Ken McVay, OBC"  wrote in message news:...
> "Steven Mock"  wrote in message
> news:Xns946BDD10120FBsmocknizkororg@140.99.99.130...
> 
> [Michaelbabble flushed right down the smelly old bradbury]
> 
> > So either 1) you are lying, or 2) you consider it a "mental problem" to
> 
> He ALWAYS lies, except when he's praising mass murder and terrorism, or his
> abject failure as an organizer for the BNP, as he did in the examples below:
> 
> Mr. David Michael, a disgusting, shameful Englishman,
> and self-described abject failure at organizing the Hull
> and North Lincolnshire unit of the British National Party,"
> stated his position on the terrorist murder of about 3000 people
> on September 11, 2001 in the attacks in New York, Washington
> and Pennsylvania.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a
> truly wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have
> turned around and have shown that they do not have to be nature's
> eternal victims. They have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the
> powerless can strike back at the very heart of the dark forces that are
> oppressing them. This time it was not Palestinian children who cowered
> in fear as death came from the skies -- this time it was the very fat
> bankers and financiers who sustain the terroristic regime of Sharon.
> This time it was those very military men who mastermind the attacks on
> the women and children of Iraq. They thought they were so safe as they
> planned death and destruction from their comfortable offices in the
> Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in the World Trade Center.
> Now they have been given a bloody nose that they will never forget.
> 
> 
> Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.
> 
> Death to American capitalism!
> 
> Death to international finance!
> 
> David Michael
> 
> Message-ID: <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> 
> Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
> 
> 
> 
> (2) When challenged with: "You applaud the terror and killing of
> thousands of innocent people perpetrated by the terrorists who attacked
> the Pentagon and attacked and  destroyed the World Trade Center, calling
> their actions "a wonderful thing," the day the attacks occurred a
> "glorious day," and finishing by fervently wishing for "many more" such
> days.", his response was:
> 
> "I do indeed."
> 
> ...skipping...
> Lincolnshire unit of the British National Party, I'm afraid I simply
> won't have time to continue our little debates in this forum. It's a
> question of directing one's efforts to the place where they will have
> most effect. Good wishes to all who wish to continue the good fight
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (David Michael)
> 24 May 2001
> Message-ID: <3B0C4356.E8783F0B@onetel.net.uk>
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is not our enemy. America is our enemy. We should be fighting
> shoulder-to-shoulder with our Islamic friends under the slogan
> 'death to America!'
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.redaction.org/wwwboard/msgs5/5940.HTM
> June 13, 2002
> 
> 
> [Joe Bruno]
> 
> > The terrorists were also thieves. The planes they destroyed belonged
> > to the airlines.
> 
> [David Michael]
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I'd argue that as these Arab gentlemen had purchased tickets
> from the airlines for good money, and since the airlines failed to
> deliver them safely to their destination, their relatives should
> seriously consider sueing the airlines for damages.
> 
> 
> 
> Message-ID: 
> 23 Oct 2003
> 
> Here he is trying to gloss over his personal inability to "organize"
> anything larger than a hamster:
> David Michael on his utter and complete failure as a BNP
> organizer. (Or the "Everyone is out of step but me..." approach
> to radical politics...)
> 
> In <3f96c572@212.67.96.135> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 22 Oct 2003
> 19:01:40 +0100, "david_michael"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  To: BNP national and regional leaders, key BNP activists in Hull
>  and  Grimsby
> 
>  Dear Friends
> 
>  I have always tried to be open and honest with people and I have
>  often suffered for it. I am not the type to go plotting and
>  scheming behind  people's backs. I will not go plotting and
>  scheming now. I will again  be open and honest.
> 
>  Let me begin with a digression. I have been involved in nationalist
>   politics since 1979 when I distributed copies of the National
>  Front  election manifesto to my classmates at school. I joined the
>  NF in  1980 as a student. In 1982, as a result of a slick campaign
>  involving  the co-operation of senior members of the St Andrews
>  University  Conservative Society, I seconded the then leader of the
>  NF, Andrew Brons, in a debate at St Andrews University -- a phenomenal
>  breakthrough in clear defiance of the NUS 'no platform' policy. As
>  a  result of this my remaining years at St Andrews were not happy.
>  Nevertheless I succeeded and went on to study for a doctorate at
>  Keele. During all this time I continued to involve myself in
>  politics, distributing thousands of leaflets to the houses of
>  Stoke-on-Trent  and the Five Towns. By 1987 it was evident that the
>  NF was going nowhere, so I migrated to South Africa where I assisted
>  the Afrikaner  people in their struggle against obliteration from the
>  face of the  earth. Indeed, I have here an old copy of the AWB
>  newspaper Die Sweepslag where an article of mine occupies a more
>  prominent position  than the Christmas message of Eugene Terre'Blanche!
> When
>  that struggle failed due to the treachery of Frederik de Klerk and the
>  Judas, Constand Viljoen, I returned to Britain where I was employed
>  by a Jewish publisher -- I lasted about a year before I was thrown
>  out and had to establish my own business. In 1999 or 2000, despite
>  ill health, I joined the BNP. I was delighted to see its new
>  leadership  and my delight increased when it became apparent that
>  they had a clear strategy -- something quite unknown in British
>  nationalist politics prior to 1999. I say these things to establish
>  that I have long taken politics seriously and have a track record
>  of activism in defence of our people.
> 
>  When I took over as organizer for Hull and the North Lincolnshire
>  region, the area was in a tragic mess. The sudden departure of Dave
>   Hannam had left a terrible situation. It was not helped by the
>  bitter  feuding between Tony Braithwaite (at the time a key member)
>  and John  Brayshaw, the Yorkshire regional organizer. I do not
>  intend to resurrect that issue here other than to point out that John
>  Brayshaw  had, in the period before I took over, effectively made
>  it impossible  for us to do anything ? even to read our post.
>  Nevertheless, despite  limitations imposed by my health, I rapidly
>  began the task of rebuilding the unit. I think that nobody disputes
>  that this was a period of dramatic growth, particularly in the
>  Hull area. The John Brayshaw/Tony Braithwaite nonsense was diffused
>  by marginalizing Braithwaite and by transferring the entire area
>  to the East Midlands  region. A new committee was formed. Good,
>  intelligent people were  brought on board. We scored a major
>  local victory in preventing the  opening of an asylum-seeker
>  centre in Scartho right in the middle of  a picturesque suburb
>  where elderly and vulnerable people were  residing. We produced
>  one of the best local newsletters  in the  country. Our membership
>  increased. Our supply of useful activists  increased. We were
>  getting leafleting teams out of 14 people or more  at a time. Organized
>  nationalism was flourishing in Hull for the  first time in 60 years.
> 
>  However, the powers that be were not slow in responding to us and
>  they rapidly launched a campaign that was to prove fatal to our
>  efforts.  The first salvo was fired by the Hull Labour MP, Kevin
>  McNamara, who  tried to get us arrested for distributing leaflets.
>  This was killed  when the solicitor acting for Humberside Police
>  pointed out that  there was not a chance in hell of securing a
>  conviction for anything  pertaining to the distribution of
>  the leaflets in question, which  were wholly lawful.
> 
>  At that point Special Branch and its fellow travellers launched a
>  two-pronged attack on us.
> 
>  The first prong of the attack involved a direct approach from a
>  Special Branch officer, DS Hamilton. He had obtained information
>  about myself and Tony Braithwaite through an infiltrator, Mark
>  Broome, based in Gainsborough. His method consisted of a very
>  friendly approach, first to Braithwaite and subsequently to myself.
>  (A third approach was made much later to our Mr Knight in Grimsby
>  by  a different officer based in Grimsby.) These approaches were
>  clearly  intended to cause divisions in our ranks. They placed me
>  in a difficult position. If I spoke to Hamilton then this would raise
>  questions among our own people about what precisely I was saying to
>  Special Branch. If I did not speak to him then I was exposing us
>  to  the risk of police harassment, raids, searches, and ongoing
>  disruption of our leafleting campaigns. My solution was to speak to
>  Hamilton but only after thorough consultation both with the local
>  activists and the regional and national BNP leadership. In my
>  conversation with Hamilton (and a SB colleague from Grimsby), which
>  lasted one hour, I made it very clear to him that (a) the only
>  information he would get from me would be public-domain
>  information, (b) our strategy consisted of fighting elections and
>  building our  membership through leafleting and that we certainly
>  did not wish to  cause trouble, (c) we would liaise with the police
>  over certain  activities, particularly the proposed visit of
>  Nick Griffin. After  this he lost interest in us. This meeting,
>  which was clearly intended  to compromise me personally, failed
>  in its task because I was  entirely open with our membership and
>  leadership about it.
> 
>  However, the second prong of the attack was far more devastating.
>  Mr  John Brayshaw was undertaking a serious programme of
>  destabilization  against our resurgent unit. This consisted at
>  first of petty actions,  such as the refusal to release our local
>  funds to East Midlands branch to help in their general election
>  campaign, and petty gossip and tittle tattle, some of which got
>  back to us by various means. I  ignored these provocations and
>  insults, recognizing them as an attempt by the Establishment to
>  cause trouble. However, it soon became evident that John Brayshaw
>  was attempting to cause divisions between us and key party
>  figures such as our new regional organizer,  Mr Belshaw, and
>  the branch liaison officer, Tony Lecomber. The poison  that
>  this man laid down did its work here and is doing its work even now.
> 
>  As a result of John Brayshaw's work on Lecomber it rapidly became
>  clear to me that it was impossible for me to continue as organizer.
>   It was evident that Lecomber was going to go into 'dirty tricks'
>  mode  and I had no wish to put him to the trouble of doing so to
>  get me  out. This did not particular trouble me as there were
>  others able to  do the work of organizer. David Hannam, who had
>  recovered from his  first bout of 'personal problems', volunteered
>  to take over and I  agreed with this. I think we were all pleased
>  to see him back and we  wished him well.
> 
>  I do not intend to recount in detail the catalogue of utter
>  disasters  that followed.
> 
>  I will not dwell upon the embarrassing shambles of the 'Nick
>  Griffin' meeting held in late 2001. I will not recount in detail
>  how the  chairman of Britain's fourth political party was left
>  standing in a car park as nobody present (including Hannam)
>  knew where the meeting  was to be held. I will mention only
>  the total lack of security at the  meeting, the long delay
>  before the meeting started, the stuttering,  stammering
>  speeches of Hannam and Bridgeman, which were so awful as
>  to make us all cringe with embarrassment, and the fact that
>  only a  mere 49 people could be bothered to turn up when
>  we could easily have  attracted 100 or even 150 if the event
>  had been properly organized.
> 
>  I will not comment upon the decision of Mr Hannam to order 1,000
>  copies of Voice of Freedom, which he neither distributed free nor
>  sold (they were dumped on my premises when they were already two
>  months old -- I have them to this very day and will dispose of them
>   if nobody comes to collect them).
> 
>  I will not comment upon the fact that it appears that, between
>  November and March, for almost half a year, not a single leaflet
>  was  distributed in the whole of Hull whereas I had planned for
>  50,000 of  them to be distributed by January -- a wholly attainable
>  target given  the level of activism that had emerged earlier in
>  2001.
> 
>  Nor will I comment on the event that brought about Hannam's
>  downfall - - his misappropriation of several hundred pounds of
>  party money,  earmarked for leaflets, in order to pay his own
>  telephone account.
> 
>  Let me comment instead on the BNP leadership's response to the
>  demise  of David Hannam.
> 
>  What was the response of the East Midlands regional organizer on
>  receiving Hannam's letter of resignation? This imbecile wrote an e-
>  mail, cc-ed to Hannam, in which he opined that Hannam was a 'good
>  organizer' and hoped that Hannam would 'reconsider'. Get that? Not
>  one leaflet goes out in Hull for five months and this man is a
>  'good  organizer'. He steals our money and he's a 'good organizer'.
>  He
>  orders 1,000 copies of a Party magazine, which he apparently
>  doesn't  pay for and never distributes, and he's a 'good
>  organizer'. He  totally ruins an important meeting, placing the
>  safety of the Party chairman at risk, and he's a 'good
>  organizer'. Only two local  supporters, one of whom is his
>  girlfriend, will talk to him and he's  a 'good organizer'.
> 
>  What was the response of our wonderful branch liaison officer? He
>  wrote to me thanking me for my good services in getting back the
>  missing money, whilst apparently simultaneously going behind my
>  back  and expressing support for Hannam!
> 
>  Has any leadership of any political party ever been as out of touch
>   with its members and activists as the leadership of the BNP is
>  with  the members and activists in Hull? Here we have these
>  buffoons  knifing me merrily in the back in the belief that they're
>  going to rehabilitate Hannam when even Hannam himself recognizes the
>  impossibility of ever returning as the Hull organizer. With the
>  exception of his girlfriend (the very treasurer who, it seems, sat
>  back and let him take our money) and possibly one deranged postal
>  worker who is too afraid for his career to actually join the BNP,
>  Hannam has no local support. He's going around moaning now about
>  how  he's been sent to Coventry and nobody will speak to him! The
>  patriots  of Hull are not so easily fooled as the leadership of the
>  BNP. They  know filth and treachery when they see it. They do not
>  so readily  allow themselves to be hoodwinked by traitors who steal
>  their money  and paralyse their political party.
> 
>  And what of the higher levels? The well-meaning Tony Mac is
>  appointed  to 'sort things out' in Hull. He is left in no doubt
>  that the top  brass in the BNP want to see Hannam rehabilitated. He
>  takes a closer  look. He discovers very rapidly that Hannam is 'a
>  shite' (to quote  his excellent phrase as recorded on my answering
>  machine). He quickly  finds himself stuck in an impossible
>  situation, sandwiched between a  leadership that wants to overlook
>  the criminal activities of this man  and a membership that does not
>  -- understandably as they were the  victims of his crime. I suggest
>  an eminently workable solution. Tony  agrees with me. That's the
>  last I hear, until I receive a members'  bulletin telling me that
>  he's been to Hull and had a meeting  with 'the new organizing team'.
>  I certainly wasn't invited to any such meeting. Equally, I hear
>  nothing but silence from Grimsby. It  appears that not much is
>  going on anywhere in Hull and North  Lincolnshire now. I suspect
>  that it never will.
> 
>  Time and time again the same pattern has repeated itself. I warn
>  the  BNP leaders of a problem. They respond by knifing me in the
>  back. And  what happens next? The problem of which I have warned
>  manifests  itself and disaster ensues.
> 
>  And in the meantime, countless opportunities are being lost. Hull
>  has  the honour of having been mentioned on news bulletins and the
>  Channel  4 documentary Bloody Foreigners as the town with the worst
>  reputation  in Britain among asylum seekers because of the hostile
>  reception that  they are given here by our local patriots. Some
>  asylum seekers have  even asked for asylum from Hull and have been
>  allowed to re-migrate  to Lincoln! Our dear young people do not let
>  them have an easy time  of it up here! There are literally
>  thousands of good folk here who  could be being drawn into the
>  political process and radicalized. Yet  nothing is happening! Why
>  not? Because of the sheer incompetence of  the utter cretins
>  currently running whole swathes of the BNP.
> 
>  Time and time again I warn of the need to tackle the BBC. What is
>  done? Nothing. Anne Sloman operates a vicious censorship system to
>  keep the BNP off of the airwaves and to keep links to its website
>  off  of the Internet, flagrantly violating the Human Rights Act
>  1998. Does  the BNP sue? Don't be silly! Does it place pickets
>  outside her home?  Of course not! Does it draw attention to her
>  activities in any way?  My friends -- they're a better kept secret
>  than Hull BNP's ex-treasurer's gynaecological problems! This one
>  woman does more to  keep  the BNP at bay than the Anti-Nazi League,
>  Searchlight, Special Branch  and Anti-Fascist Action added
>  together and yet the BNP's response to  her and her organization
>  can be summed up in one  word: pathetic.
> 
>  I warn of the dangers of allowing criminals, other than those who
>  have political convictions, to hold positions of authority in the
>  BNP. What happens? We get an entire Panorama programme dedicated to
>  'exposing' criminality among BNP leaders! Every time BNP leaders
>  appear in  public they're tackled on the issue of criminality in
>  the party's  ranks and they sit there, looking foolish before
>  the entire  country,  unable to respond convincingly or at all.
>  How can you fight elections  on a platform of law and order
>  when you have a bunch of third-rate  crooks running whole
>  sections of the organization?
> 
>  I say over and over again that you need to take serious measures to
>  secure your financial position. I forward to you a suggestion from
>  a  local member advocating the targeting of Britain's wealthiest
>  people.  I suggest setting up a committee to look at setting up
>  businesses.  What is the reaction? The equivalent of a computer
>  software error  message! Yet how can you hope to run a major
>  nationwide political  party on a voluntary basis? You need paid
>  regional and local organizers. Then they will know that their
>  jobs are at stake if they  want to start playing silly games.
>  You also need money to  assert your  rights through the civil
>  and criminal courts.
> 
>  The response of the BNP to the events of 11 September 2002 was
>  disgraceful. For years, the American empire and its leaders have
>  been  working to undermine the sovereignty of nations, our own
>  nation  included. For years they have been working towards a one-world
>  system  with America at the helm. For years they have been
>  exporting terror,  death, degeneracy and filth of all descriptions
>  across the globe.  From their nuclear bombings of entire cities
>  full of civilians in  World War II, to their support for the
>  murderous Chinese and Soviet  regimes (the former support
>  continuing to this very day), to their  instigation of a regime of
>  poverty, starvation and death in the Third World, these Americans,
>  and the people behind them, have shown  that they constitute
>  one of the deadliest regimes that the world has  ever known.
>  Their genocide of the Arab peoples in Palestine, Iraq and
>  Afghanistan merely exemplifies it. But the Arab peoples are
>  made of  sterner stuff than the great white patriots of Britain,
>  who sit in  front of their football matches with beer in their
>  hands and who dare  not even put out leaflets or join a political
>  party for fear of  losing their jobs. No! Whereas the average
>  Briton will do nothing to  fight the new American empire,
>  young Arab boys hurl themselves in  front of Israeli tanks,
>  young Arab women -- 16-year-old girls -- blow  themselves apart
>  in gestures of defiance! And what is the response of  the BNP?
>  It launches not a campaign of solidarity with the people of
>  the earth as they fight to the death against America and all that
>  it represents but rather an ANTI-ISLAM campaign! A campaign that
>  cannot fail but to warm the heart of every member of Israel's
>  Likud!
> 
>  I was in Leeds a few months ago. I saw what Islam has done to that
>  city. I saw street after street of young foreign people, dressed in
>   alien clothes, worshipping a religion alien to our land. I saw the
>   mosques. I smelled, and indeed ate, the exotic, alien foods. And I
>   saw, too, how part of our country and our English heritage had
>  died  in that city. Yes, I can understand the resentment that our
>  people  feel. But the resentment is misdirected. Our enemies are
>  not these  young foreigners. Our enemies are the regimes that
>  brought them here  and that fail to take the steps necessary to
>  return them to their  homelands. And those regimes are also the
>  enemies of Islam.
> 
>  Immigration empoverishes not only the receipient nations but also
>  the nations that send the immigrants. The BNP chairman stood in
>  Hull last  year heaping abuse upon, for example, the Albanians (one
>  of the  oldest and most patriotic civilizations in Europe, direct
>  descendants  of the ancient Illyrians, and he describes them as
>  'scum') -- yet  Albania itself is suffering terribly from a 'brain
>  drain' as a result  of immigration to England. South Africa is
>  losing its best doctors  and nurses to England. Immigration is
>  being used not only to destroy  our national identity but also to
>  tighten the Establishment noose  around the necks of empoverished
>  countries elsewhere in the world.
> 
>  My friends, I have always made it clear that I want no part of this
>  'anti-Islam' campaign. Islam is not our enemy. America is our
>  enemy.  We should be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with our Islamic
>  friends  under the slogan 'death to America!'
> 
>  And this morning, the final insult. I log on to the BNP's website
>  and  I find a message of support for Elizabeth Windsor, the so-
>  called 'Queen' of England. This woman who wines and dines Nelson
>  Mandela and Zao Zemin. This woman whose reign has seen the decline
>  of  Britain from a proud, free world power to a subservient suburb
>  of  America. And the BNP sends her its good wishes.
> 
>  Right.
> 
>  Enough is enough!
> 
>  I no longer find myself in agreement with the policies of the BNP.
>  I  no longer have faith in its leadership or its strategies.
> 
>  The time has come to look elsewhere.
> 
>  It is my belief that the strategy of the BNP will not lead to
>  substantial long-term change in Britain. Indeed, it is my belief
>  that 'Britain' as such is beyond hope. We need to think globally.
> 
>  As Eduard Limonov pointed out recently, 'There is no longer any
>  left  and right. There's the system and the enemies of the system.'
>  The  principal conflict of the future will be between the
>  Establishment  and all who oppose it. What is needed is a global
>  alliance of all  those who oppose the New World Order, be they
>  nationalists,
>  anarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, genuinely anti-imperialist
>  communists such as the North Koreans, national-Bolsheviks, third
>  positionists, and all the oppressed and downtrodden peoples of the
>  earth.
> 
>  The National Front is a joke. It has all the problems of the BNP
>  but multiplied a hundredfold.
> 
>  The ITP is going nowhere. It is an exclusive Catholic club,
>  handsomely blessed with money but quite devoid of strategy or
>  direction. It  poses no threat to the New World Order.
> 
>  My own view is that the future lies with the radical post-third
>  positionist groups of Europe, Russia and America: Limonov and Dugin
>   in Russia and the NRF here. At the moment they appear to be in a
>  fairly grim state with the usual lack of focus. However, they have
>  vast potential if only they can learn to think and act
>  strategically.
> 
>  Gentlemen, it is not my wish to harm the BNP in any way. If I had
>  wished to do so I would have pulled out very publicly before the 2
>  May elections, going to the press as I slammed the door behind
>  myself. I have not done this. I will not do this. I have waited
>  until  the elections are past and the situation has become
>  irretrievable.  All address lists in my possession have been handed
>  over -- one list  to the new Grimsby organizer, the other to Tony
>  Mac. There are no  copies in my possession. I have worked
>  constructively with Tony to  ensure that you have the basis for
>  rebuilding ther region. I have always acted honourably towards you.
>  I will continue to act with  honour. It would not be honourable for
>  me to   pretend to continue to support you when my enthusiasm for
>  your party has vanished. Rather than remaining in your ranks as
>  a source of discontent and division,  the appropriate action is
>  to tender my resignation. Which I now do  herewith.
> 
>  I can do little or nothing for the BNP here in North Lincolnshire.
>  The BNP is dead here. You have killed it by failing to support
>  initiatives to build it and by allowing such initiatives to be
>  undermined by those with nefarious intent. However, you may rest
>  assured that, using whatever resources I can command, I shall
>  continue to fight resolutely and defiantly against the enemies of
>  our  people, and for a better future for our children.
> 
> Death to America!
> Death to the New World Order!
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> (Dr) David E Michael
> 
> 


IGNORE THE TROLLS


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:08 EST 2004
Article: 948537 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews2.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: St. Kilda/David Michael
Date: 9 Jan 2004 19:56:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 177
Message-ID: 
References: <8031-3FFEC345-46@storefull-3118.bay.webtv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073706975 23160 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 03:56:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:56:15 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948537

ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message news:<8031-3FFEC345-46@storefull-3118.bay.webtv.net>...
> Aside from some few isolated communities there are no St. Kilda's in the
> world anymore and nor will there ever be.

Readers will note the odd logic. Presumably 'a St Kilda' means 'an
isolated community'. Michael Ragland's comment thus reduces to 'aside
>from some few isolated communities there are no isolated communities
in the world anymore and nor will there ever be'.

I put it to you, dear reader, that this sentence does not make sense.

> We saw what happenned to Nazi
> Germany.

It ceased to exist.

> Less than 60 years after WWII there are signifigant immigrant
> populations in Europe and even a growing Jewish population.

I thought that it was declining.


> The way the
> world is today at most "theoretically" one could engage in major ethnic
> cleansing like the Nazis did but within 40-60 years and probably less
> there would be the same problems as immigration and eventually Europe's
> "white" populations would be threatened again. Some might suggest what
> if a regime came to power in Europe which was racist and
> sustainable...had lasting power. Perhaps not a Thousand Year Reich but
> had lasting power.  I would submit in today's globalized world that
> isn't possible and I will discuss in a moment what I mean by
> "globalization".

That paragraph doesn't make sense either.

 
> I read some of the points from the National Anarchist FAQ site. I will
> respond to each one.
> 
> 1. That a one-world government, either in the form of a de jure global
> superstate or in the form of a de facto global superstate arising from
> an advanced state of globalization, is a bad thing. 
> 
> Response:
> The world is "light years" away from a one-world government if such a
> thing is even possible. The UN or blue helmets don't constitute a world
> government. Typically, the UN is often used by certain governments.
> There is much divisiveness in the UN among member states. In dealing
> with the world's economy the UN plays little role. In terms of crises it
> plays a limited and sometimes dismal role. There are certainly
> oligarchies and ruling elites in the world but they advance their own
> corporate interests.

Globalization is far more advanced than most people realize and has
been since the 1970s.

 
> 2. That imperialism and neo-imperialism are bad things. 
> 
> Response:
> The world is full of neo-imperialism and this takes the form of not so
> much governments as corporations advancing power and dominion over other
> governments..gaining indirect control over the political and economic
> life of other nations. These corporations advance national interests.
> Iraq is a classic example. The reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was
> because of its oil..not to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. At
> most that was a secondary concern and was used as propaganda as well as
> the weapons of mass destruction. But neo-imperialism flourishes in
> Africa, South America and many other places. The World Bank, the IMF and
> other organizations sometimes use extortion. Many countries are in debt
> but maybe we will relax a little if you let us do our corporate
> development projects. This is the way the world is and anybody who
> thinks they can change it is fantasizing. This is the "free market" and
> corporations and governments have billions and billions of dollars
> invested all around the world. This will not change. 

Mr Ragland is contemplating his crystal ball . . .
 
> 3. That the creation of small, more-or-less independent communities or
> homelands is a desirable alternative to globalization, imperialism and
> neo-imperialism and that a world built up of such communities would be a
> good thing. 
> 
> Response:
> It can't happen David. It's a pipedream.

To which the answer is that it has happened, is happening and will
continue to happen. An article on the subject will appear on my Web
site at the next update giving examples over the centuries.


> Trying to make it happen will
> only result in massive violence and bloodshed.

Says Michael Ragland hopefully.

In fact it has been happening since several thousand years BC with
minimal bloodshed.


> The world is
> interdependent.

But people and groups of people can become relatively independent.


> A hundred years ago the world was more independent but
> technology and made it increasingly interdependent. There's no way
> around this. Globalization has been occurring for the last four
> centuries and it will continue. 

There is a way around it. Turn your back on it.
 
> 4. That the traditional political distinction between 'left' and 'right'
> is simplistic and unsuited to the modern world. 
> 
> Response:
> Well that's interesting because you still use those terms don't you? I
> agree I think it is simplistic.

Do I? I try to use them in inverted commas, unless I'm being lazy. In
South Africa in the good old days, all the liberals used to refer to
'coloureds' in inverted commas to suggest that they didn't accept the
classification system. That's how I'd refer to 'right wing' and 'left
wing' nowadays.
 
> 5. That in the highly globalized world of today, which approximates to a
> de facto global superstate, a more useful distinction is that between
> 'the system' ('the Establishment') and 'the enemies of the system'. 
> 
> Response:
> There is no de facto global superstate. The world has become more
> globalized and interdependent but that doesn't mean its a de facto
> global superstate.

As I said, globalization is more advanced than many realize.



> It's interesting you state the political distinction
> 'right' and 'left' is simplistic yet you make the equally simplistic
> distinction between 'the system' ('the Establishment') and the 'enemies
> of the system'.

Eduard Limonov's distinction -- but more functional in the modern
world than 'left' and 'right'.

> There are oligarchies and ruling elites and I might
> consider them my enemies i.e. I disagree with many of their policies but
> I'm under no illusion of my ability to have any influence. 

Neither am I. But I can turn my back on them and encourage others to
do likewise.
 
> 6. 'The system' ('the Establishment'), being a globalizing,
> imperialistic and neo-imperialistic institution, is a bad thing that
> should be opposed. 
> 
> Response:
> Oppose it all you want. You won't stop it. I have respect for
> investigative journalists who expose the injustices and corruption of
> some of these globalizing and imperialistic agents. 

I did say 'oppose', not 'stop'. Some N-As think they can stop it. They
issue bold calls to arms. I think they're nuts. You won't stop it. You
can, however, withdraw from it as far as possible.
 
> 7. That some degree of alliance formation between enemies of the system
> is a good thing. 
> Response:
> It depends on what the alliance formation is. As horrible as the current
> system is there are some things which could make it even worse.

Agreed.

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:11 EST 2004
Article: 948539 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 20:05:09 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 166
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073707510 23743 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 04:05:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:05:10 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948539

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401082136.3c65a13@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> 
> 
> 
> >> I am satisfied that my first contribution towards answering your 
> >> challenge has accomplished two things: 1) it has successfully 
> >> demonstrated that your standards for assessing eyewitness testimony
> >> are irrational, meant to exclude by definition anyone who could
> >> possibly give evidence against your case, and therefore are a poor
> >> methodology for anyone who genuinely valued historical truth; and, 2)
> >> it has provided a sample of key pieces of evidence in support of the
> >> theory that gas chambers were used for racially motivated mass murder
> >> at Auschwitz, held together by an eyewitness account from someone in
> >> a position to have seen who has no reason to lie... at least none
> >> that you've proposed.
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> > 
> > Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
> > identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
> > thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
> > already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
> > content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
> > summary of the problems with Munch:
> > 
> > (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> > collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> > impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> > his superiors and the world.
> 
> Same answer as before.  Go back and read it:
> 
> "But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to  
> grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the definitions 
> of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no 
> "axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many of his fellow SS doctors, 
> including his superiors, and, when interviewed by Lifton, praised 
> aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly are unable to come up with any 
> specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly has against the Nazis or why, 
> other than his disapproval of the racially-motivated mass murder he 
> claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the only evidence you offer in 
> support of the claim that he has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he 
> "collaborated" with the occupation authorities after the war, yet the 
> only form of "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his  
> willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  
> The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks about the 
> Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the Holocaust.  
> Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to believe has an 
> "axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless condition, in the way that 
> you use it, for the purpose of honestly assessing evidence."
> 
> You have not addressed this point.
> 
> > (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> > lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> > senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> > yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> > Auschwitz.
> 
> Same answer as before...
> 
> "You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your support 
> for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his statements in 
> which he described the trauma he experienced in relation to his 
> encounters with the mass murder of innocent human beings at Auschwitz as 
> representing a chronic condition that had no relation to the stated 
> object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when he was in his 90's, it 
> was certified that he was experiencing mental deterioration due to his 
> advanced age.  To suggest that either of these are justifications to 
> consider him in any way unfit to give evidence in the early 1980's is 
> nothing more than pure hostile speculation, coming from someone who is 
> truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be 
> dismissed as crazy, if that's the last resort you have left.  If this is 
> the best you can do, I'm content to leave the matter at that."
> 
> You have given us no reason why we should doubt his mental capacities in 
> the early 1980's.
> 
> > (c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
> > overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
> > door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
> > pure Aryan race being gassed.
> 
> Already dealt with.  If these are the biggest flaws you can find in his 
> statements, I'm satisfied.
> 
> > (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> > tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> > slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> > credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> > was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> > the war.
> 
> Same answer as before...
> 
> "Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish TV 
> in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid speculations 
> about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious conspirators 
> during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false testimony in exchange 
> for his life.  There are many holes in this theory, but I have avoided 
> discussing them because such a discussion would be an irrelevant 
> diversion.  I did not post his testimony in 1946-47 as evidence and 
> therefore have no immediate interest in defending it.  I resolved not to 
> post any testimony from anyone in Allied captivity, and I have kept my 
> word.  You go on to speculate that once he had provided such false 
> testimony, it would be difficult and damaging to his credibility for him 
> to change his story.  I accept this too, for the sake of argument. 
> 
> "But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't 
> change his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he claims 
> to have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the Holocaust to 
> Swedish TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how you explain the 
> fact that he chose to talk about it at all.  What pressure or coercion 
> could have been placed on him during his "Allied captivity" in 1946-47 
> (that it takes "trust", rather than merely a sense of reality, to assume 
> they did not do) to induce that behaviour in 1981?"
> 
> You have not answered this question.  You will NEVER answer this 
> question.
> 
> No, Dr. Michael.  Any intelligent reader can see that I have already 
> addressed the holes in each of these lame rationalizations directly 
> above.  By simply repeating the rationalizations, without addressing the 
> issues I've raised, you are essentially admitting defeat.
> 
> Steven Mock

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:13 EST 2004
Article: 948540 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 20:05:42 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 112
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073707542 23828 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 04:05:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948540

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401090908.3233a3e1@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would
> >> appreciate it if you would at least do me the courtesy of answering
> >> this one... 
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock  wrote in
> >> news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 
> >> 
> >> > By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the
> >> > discussion is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in the
> >> > logic and methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would be so
> >> > kind as to make an effort to answer these questions, which I'm now
> >> > posting for the 3rd time.  Thank you.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is to
> >> > say, invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere fact
> >> > that someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is enough to
> >> > proof enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias.  Catch-22.
> >> > 
> >> > And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm "misrepresenting"
> >> > your argument, answer these two questions:
> >> > 
> >> > Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
> >> > racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having
> >> > an anti-Nazi bias?
> >> > 
> >> > Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
> >> > considered by you a reliable witness?
> >> > 
> >> > If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
> >> > questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
> >> > methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder to 
> >> > someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short,
> >> > anyone who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by
> >> > definition BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
> >> > 
> >> > Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence do
> >> > you have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact that
> >> > he spoke openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
> >> > 
> >> > It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth
> >> > that meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical.  End
> >> > of argument.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar Rudolf's 
> >> > argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it, and if not,
> >> > what does the use of such an argument say about the logic of
> >> > Rudolf's approach to historical evidence.  I'd appreciate it if
> >> > you'd address that point as well.
> >> > 
> >> > Steven Mock
> > 
> > Same answer as before. Go back and read it.
> 
> No.  You never answered any of these questions or requests.  You are 
> lying.
> 
> If that is how you mean to leave the discussion, I suppose I shall just 
> have to accept it.
> 
> Its been fun.
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Mock

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:14 EST 2004
Article: 948541 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 20:06:15 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 112
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073707576 23847 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 04:06:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:06:16 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948541

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401090908.3233a3e1@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would
> >> appreciate it if you would at least do me the courtesy of answering
> >> this one... 
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Steven Mock  wrote in
> >> news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 
> >> 
> >> > By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the
> >> > discussion is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in the
> >> > logic and methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would be so
> >> > kind as to make an effort to answer these questions, which I'm now
> >> > posting for the 3rd time.  Thank you.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is to
> >> > say, invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere fact
> >> > that someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is enough to
> >> > proof enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias.  Catch-22.
> >> > 
> >> > And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm "misrepresenting"
> >> > your argument, answer these two questions:
> >> > 
> >> > Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
> >> > racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having
> >> > an anti-Nazi bias?
> >> > 
> >> > Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
> >> > considered by you a reliable witness?
> >> > 
> >> > If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
> >> > questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
> >> > methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder to 
> >> > someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short,
> >> > anyone who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by
> >> > definition BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
> >> > 
> >> > Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence do
> >> > you have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact that
> >> > he spoke openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
> >> > 
> >> > It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth
> >> > that meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical.  End
> >> > of argument.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar Rudolf's 
> >> > argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it, and if not,
> >> > what does the use of such an argument say about the logic of
> >> > Rudolf's approach to historical evidence.  I'd appreciate it if
> >> > you'd address that point as well.
> >> > 
> >> > Steven Mock
> > 
> > Same answer as before. Go back and read it.
> 
> No.  You never answered any of these questions or requests.  You are 
> lying.
> 
> If that is how you mean to leave the discussion, I suppose I shall just 
> have to accept it.
> 
> Its been fun.
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Mock

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:17 EST 2004
Article: 948542 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 20:06:51 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 214
Message-ID: 
References:         
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073707611 23864 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:06:51 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948542

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in message news:...
> Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> > david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> > news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> > 
> > > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > > news:... 
> > >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
> > >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
> > >> 
> > >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
> > >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that he
> > >> > HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
> > >> 
> > >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity 
> > >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
> > >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
> > >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
> > >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
> > >> 
> > >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had an 
> > >> "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> > >> the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the fact that
> > >> he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr. Michael to
> > >> label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything* the Nazis did
> > >> makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if you were a
> > >> member of the Socialist Workers Party).
> > >> 
> > >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has against
> > >> the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of innocent
> > >> people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's first hand
> > >> experience of this event, there is no indication of ANYTHING ELSE
> > >> that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't matter to Dr.
> > >> Michael if the only motivation he can come up with as to why Munch
> > >> would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact that it was the truth.
> > >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to discredit
> > >> him as a source of information.
> > >> 
> > >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this argument
> > >> can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased towards
> > >> saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in some way motivated
> > >> to say that thing, they wouldn't say it.  However, it doesn't matter
> > >> to Dr. Michael if the only bias that can be discerned stems from that
> > >> thing being the truth.  The fact that such a bias exists calls the
> > >> person's motives for saying it into question, and hence the testimony
> > >> is invalid as evidence in support of that truth.  Therefore no one
> > >> who says anything can ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. 
> > >> Nothing is true.
> > >> 
> > >> Steven Mock
> > > 
> > > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
> > > an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke about
> > > the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
> > > 
> > > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the Polish
> > > authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active role in
> > > such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out the details
> > > if necessary.
> > 
> > I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling a
> > lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to you. 
> > 
> > The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
> > Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
> > Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
> > these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such that
> > you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more general
> > sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of assessing the value
> > of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
> > 
> > You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that he
> > voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he saw, I 
> > will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify your 
> > attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I have 
> > quite clearly explained why any rational person looking objectively at 
> > Munch's life history would presume that if he had any bias at all, it 
> > would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating - the crimes of the 
> > institutions he was directly a part of. 
> > 
> > > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
> > > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
> > > innocent people.'
> > > 
> > > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
> > 
> > You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we must
> > discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown grudge
> > against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying but that
> > you can't even specify? 
> > 
> > At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as evidence
> > in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what Munch,
> > himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying that
> > Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be lying for
> > reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
> > 
> > On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
> > which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time you
> > refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various pieces
> > of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
> > 
> > > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered millions
> > > of innocent people.
> > 
> > Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally involved
> > with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You forget that the
> > point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality as a *witness*. 
> > Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in some way to what he
> > actually *witnessed*. 
> > 
> > > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
> > > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is biased
> > > towards saying that thing.'
> > > 
> > > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
> > > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
> > > 
> > > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated by a
> > > stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no conflict
> > > of interest with the murderer.
> > > 
> > > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
> > > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his employer,
> > > was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail and almost
> > > hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has had
> > > psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his employer, and
> > > has a track record of supporting the staunch political opponents of
> > > his employer. Moreover, the employee is psychologically 'weak' and
> > > only escaped hanging by making it perfectly clear that he absolutely
> > > repudiated the behaviour of his employer.
> > > 
> > > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
> > > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
> > > 
> > > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that case.
> > > 
> > > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think this
> > > addresses your point.
> > 
> > Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random passer
> > by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has actually
> > been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch is closer
> > to the following CASE 3: 
> > 
> > An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.  The
> > employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow employees.
> >  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on a
> > plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> > employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is committed,
> > and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between his loyalty to
> > his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless goes to the police
> > with what he knows and has seen. 
> > 
> > I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> > Prosecutor. 
> > 
> > Unless you could *prove*, that:
> > 
> > 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN his
> > refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee was
> > "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that his
> > trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> > 
> > If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> > certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> > 
> > If not, the defence is sunk.
> > 
> > You haven't.
> > 
> > Steven Mock
> 
> 
> So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
> criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
> 
> David Michael
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:19 EST 2004
Article: 948543 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Date: 9 Jan 2004 20:07:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 85
Message-ID: 
References:          
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.110.202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073707638 23871 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 04:07:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:07:18 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948543

Steven Mock  wrote in message news:...
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> news:b7fe1abc.0401081817.2b30be47@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
> > news:... 
> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
> >> > this addresses your point.
> >> 
> >> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
> >> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
> >> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
> >> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
> >> 
> >> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
> >> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
> >> employees. 
> >>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
> >>  a 
> >> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
> >> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
> >> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
> >> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
> >> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
> >> 
> >> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
> >> Prosecutor. 
> >> 
> >> Unless you could *prove*, that:
> >> 
> >> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
> >> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
> >> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
> >> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
> >> 
> >> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
> >> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
> >> 
> >> If not, the defence is sunk.
> >> 
> >> You haven't.
> 
> You really have no response to this, do you?
> 
> Well, I guess my work here is done.
> 
> Steven Mock

Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
summary of the problems with Munch:

(a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
his superiors and the world.

(b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
Auschwitz.

(c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
pure Aryan race being gassed.

(d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
the war.



David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:20 EST 2004
Article: 948583 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,free.uk.talk.sheffield
Subject: Re: Lying Englishman David E. Michael, Terrorist supporter
Date: 10 Jan 2004 06:10:55 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 73
Message-ID: 
References:   <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>     
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.104.92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073743857 18911 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 14:10:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:10:57 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948583 free.uk.talk.sheffield:31350

Hilary Ostrov  wrote in message news:...
> On 9 Jan 2004 19:42:08 -0800, in
> ,
> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote:
> 
> >"Ken McVay, OBC"  wrote in message news:...
> >> "Steven Mock"  wrote in message
> >> news:Xns946BDD10120FBsmocknizkororg@140.99.99.130...
> >> 
> >> [Michaelbabble flushed right down the smelly old bradbury]
> >> 
> >> > So either 1) you are lying, or 2) you consider it a "mental problem" to
> >> 
> >> He ALWAYS lies, except when he's praising mass murder and terrorism, or his
> >> abject failure as an organizer for the BNP, as he did in the examples below:
> 
> [snip examples]
> 
> >IGNORE THE TROLLS
> 
> It's very silly of you to SHOUT when you are urging people to ignore
> you, David.  But I must say, it's been very entertaining watching you
> back yourself into a corner in the Hans Munch thread - while Steve
> Mock made mincemeat of you in very short order.  There've been very
> few threads in which I've ever seen you flee to the safety of your
>  *quite* so quickly.
> 
> Those who've never had the dubious pleasure of encountering Dr. David
> E Michael before now, will no doubt
> agree that his contributions to that thread give very strong support
> to his claim that his doctoral thesis "was the biggest load of
> bollocks that [he'd] ever written."
> 
> Then again, he never did set his goals here particularly high.  As he
> told us, quite some time ago, his aim in alt.revisionism was "not to
> impress, but to cast doubt upon".  His posting history will confirm
> that he has succeeded in the former far beyond his wildest dreams. And
> while he's very unimpressive, the only "doubts" he's ever succeeded in
> casting have landed resoundingly upon himself.
> 
> [follow-ups set]
> 
> hro

RE. 'Steve Mock made mincemeat of you in very short order'

Steve Mock responded to my challenge to produce his best evidence for
his so-called 'normative' case by wheeling out the statements of a man
who:

1. according to Mock was in the habit of certifying people dead
through a closed door;

2. had a history of psychiatric difficulties culminating in him being
declared mentally weak by his own son and totally senile by a
psychiatrist and by his own layer;

3. had a track record of political activism against the very people
his statements were directed against -- including collaboration with
the Polish authorities in producing propaganda material and work on
propaganda films.

As a result of this, Steve Mock has had to resort to extracting
himself from the discussion by spamming hundreds of nonsense posts all
over the thread and declaring that I'm running away when I don't do
likewise!

If that, in the view of Ms Ostrov, is Steve Mock 'wiping the floor'
with me then I have to say that perhaps she could persuasively use the
same 'senility' defence as Munch!

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Sat Jan 10 12:08:20 EST 2004
Article: 948588 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail
From: david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: St. Kilda/David Michael
Date: 10 Jan 2004 07:05:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 426
Message-ID: 
References:  <2689-3FFF9BCB-170@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.104.92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073747117 21293 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2004 15:05:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:05:17 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948588

ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message news:<2689-3FFF9BCB-170@storefull-3116.bay.webtv.net>...
> ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
> news:<8031-3FFEC345-46@storefull-3118.bay.webtv.net>... 
> 
> Aside from some few isolated communities there are no St. Kilda's in the
> world anymore and nor will there ever be. 
> 
> DM:
> Readers will note the odd logic. Presumably 'a St Kilda' means 'an
> isolated community'. Michael Ragland's comment thus reduces to 'aside
> from some few isolated communities there are no isolated communities in
> the world anymore and nor will there ever be'. 
> I put it to you, dear reader, that this sentence does not make sense. 
> 
> Response2:
> Well you're audience is filled with Eddi Haskell's and Waldo's so you
> may have a point. As Hitler stated propaganda must be developed which
> the dummest dimwit can understand. Everything must be in black and white
> with no shades of grey. Nevertheless, I will attempt to elaborate on
> what I meant by the statement "Aside from some few isolated communities
> there are no St. Kilda's in the world anymore and nor will there ever
> be." Yes, you were correct that I was using St. Kilda as a metaphor for
> an isolated community. What I meant that in terms of "countries" there
> are no isolated countries in the sense these countries trade and have
> other relations with countries. There are a few totally self sufficient
> communities (not countries) in the world but given the "long term"
> effects of globalization it seems very unlikely any completely self
> sufficient communities will exist in the future. St. Kilda was just a
> small example. As European exploration occurred many previously
> self-sufficient communities lost their self-sufficiency. This is
> reflected in a number of ways. The Native Americans buffalo was largely
> decimated and their land taken from them by Europeans and they lost much
> of their self sufficiency. Another example is when the modern world with
> its technology and culture collides with the old ways of a self
> sufficient community. I just saw a tv show on this regarding the Eskimo. 

Well, I basically agree that there are no self-sufficient countries --
we could perhaps quibble about North Korea but that's firmly on the
slippery slope. That's precisely why I no longer regard the
nation-state as being a plausible alternative to globalization. We
have to move towards a different kind of community now --
self-selecting intentional communities. Nationalism is dead; some sort
of national-anarchism is the only alternative now. The challenge is to
develop a national-anarchism that can attract a broad appeal.

> MR:
> We saw what happenned to Nazi
> Germany. 
> 
> DM:
> It ceased to exist. 
> 
> MR:
> Less than 60 years after WWII there are signifigant immigrant
> populations in Europe and even a growing Jewish population. 
> 
> DM:
> I thought that it was declining. 
> 
> Response2:
> I don't have statistics on hand. I thought I had read in certain areas
> of Europe (in this case Germany) there had been a growth in Jewish
> population.

You may be right in the case of Germany. I thought our Chief Rabbi
here in England was lamenting the decline of the Jewish community
about a decade ago but I'm not up to date and I can't be bothered to
look it up.

 
> MR:
> The way the world is today at most "theoretically" one could engage in
> major ethnic cleansing like the Nazis did but within 40-60 years and
> probably less there would be the same problems as immigration and
> eventually Europe's "white" populations would be threatened again. Some
> might suggest what if a regime came to power in Europe which was racist
> and sustainable...had lasting power. Perhaps not a Thousand Year Reich
> but had lasting power. I would submit in today's globalized world that
> isn't possible and I will discuss in a moment what I mean by
> "globalization". 
> 
> DM:
> That paragraph doesn't make sense either. 
> 
> Response2:
> Well David if you have bothered to read many "white right" sites (such
> as the top 100 link you provide on your site) they many of them make it
> no secret they want a white America and white Europe. They make it no
> secret they don't like immigrants. They make it no secret if they came
> to power they would do something to fulfill this goal. The goal of many
> of these organizations is not merely to withdraw and form their own
> ethnic/cultural communities within a country but to obtain political
> power and attempt to put tighter controls on immigration and politically
> advance their culture which they see as European civilization. It's
> highly unlikely in such a government one would see a great wealth of
> ethnic/cultural diversity. In the case of Nazi Germany it resulted in
> the stripping of all the civil rights of Jews, immigration and finally
> deportation and extermination.

The problem with the 'white right' groups on that link is that they
don't really have any strategy or any resources. They'll never get
anywhere. Not one of those groups -- including some that call
themselves national-anarchists -- has thought things through. They're
basically just little groups of friends who associate together for the
purpose of grumbling to the world. I link to them because some of the
things they say are important and need to be heard.
 
> MR:
> I read some of the points from the National Anarchist FAQ site. I will
> respond to each one. 
> 
> 1. That a one-world government, either in the form of a de jure global
> superstate or in the form of a de facto global superstate arising from
> an advanced state of globalization, is a bad thing. 
> 
> Response: 
> The world is "light years" away from a one-world government if such a
> thing is even possible. The UN or blue helmets don't constitute a world
> government. Typically, the UN is often used by certain governments.
> There is much divisiveness in the UN among member states. In dealing
> with the world's economy the UN plays little role. In terms of crises it
> plays a limited and sometimes dismal role. There are certainly
> oligarchies and ruling elites in the world but they advance their own
> corporate interests. 

I do not regard, and never have regarded, the UN as the principal
driving force behind globalization. It is merely one of many, many
instruments. It was perhaps designed to spearhead the process, and
could probably spearhead the process in the future, but at the moment
it is a sideshow.

 
> DM:
> Globalization is far more advanced than most people realize and has been
> since the 1970s. 
> 
> Response:
> That was enlightening. The issue wasn't whether globalization had
> increased but whether a "one world government" was a bad thing. An
> increase in globalization is not synonymous with a "one world
> government". 

Short of writing a book on the subject what more can I say? Go to
Amazon.com, type in 'globalization' and read about it.

 
> 2. That imperialism and neo-imperialism are bad things. 
> 
> Response: 
> The world is full of neo-imperialism and this takes the form of not so
> much governments as corporations advancing power and dominion over other
> governments..gaining indirect control over the political and economic
> life of other nations. These corporations advance national interests.
> Iraq is a classic example. The reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was
> because of its oil..not to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. At
> most that was a secondary concern and was used as propaganda as well as
> the weapons of mass destruction. But neo-imperialism flourishes in
> Africa, South America and many other places. The World Bank, the IMF and
> other organizations sometimes use extortion. Many countries are in debt
> but maybe we will relax a little if you let us do our corporate
> development projects. This is the way the world is and anybody who
> thinks they can change it is fantasizing. This is the "free market" and
> corporations and governments have billions and billions of dollars
> invested all around the world. This will not change. 
> 
> DM:
> Mr Ragland is contemplating his crystal ball . . . 
> 
> Response2:
> Well, basically it will not change..certainly not within our lifetimes.
> Even during the time of Nazi Germany globalization proceeded. 

I think that if enough people simply turn their backs on the process
-- vote with their feet -- then this in itself creates an alternative.
You don't need millions -- just enough to create sustainable
communities.


 
> 3. That the creation of small, more-or-less independent communities or
> homelands is a desirable alternative to globalization, imperialism and
> neo-imperialism and that a world built up of such communities would be a
> good thing. 
> 
> Response: 
> It can't happen David. It's a pipedream. 
> 
> DM:
> To which the answer is that it has happened, is happening and will
> continue to happen. An article on the subject will appear on my Web site
> at the next update giving examples over the centuries. 
> 
> Response2:
> Cite your examples.

You'll need to wait for the article to appear on the Web site -- it's
three-quarters done and should go up in the not-too-distant future.
Basically, we're looking at several distinct traditions:

1. THE MONASTIC TRADITION
This goes back to ancient Egyptian times when groups of devotees lived
lives of isolation in the temples of various gods, particularly in the
New Kingdom era. As we advance through time we find pagan monasteries,
and then we get to the great Buddhist tradition about six centuries
before Christ, with its emphasis on people living isolated lives of
contemplation and self-discovery in Buddhist monasteries. Before the
Chinese invaded, some 11% of the entire population of Tibet lived in
such monasteries -- perhaps the closest the world has ever seen to my
sort of national-anarchist society. Other traditions have also
produced monastic-type movements -- Jainism, the ashrams -- and these
will be discussed in my article. Some 400 years AD we saw groups of
hermits in the Egyptian deserts banding together to create the first
specifically Christian monastery. This tradition led to the Christian
monastic movement, which, however, has never been as successful as the
Buddhist counterpart.

2. THE NON-MONASTIC RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Again, going well back to the dawn of time. If we look at the
Christian tradition alone, we see the Montanists and the entire set of
traditions starting with the Anabaptists (who attempted to create the
New Jerusalem in the city of Munster, believe it or not!) and
culminating in the very successful old-style Mennonite settlements in
the Filadelfia region of Paraguay -- perhaps the nearest thing to my
vision of a national-anarchist type settlement in the modern world --
and the Hutterites, who also come close to my sort of approach. Less
successful attempts to do this on a national scale are the Jewish
state of Israel and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan under the
Taleban.

3. THE NON-RELIGIOUS POLITICAL TRADITION
Basically three substrands: socialist, anarchist and nationalist.
Again, these go back quite literally to the dawn of civilization, with
bands of hunter-gatherers apparently constituting the first anarchist
communities. The Icelandic Free State is sometimes cited as a
successful example of a functioning anarchist society. Somalia today
is sometimes given as a modern-day example. Socialists attracted to
the community approach include Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. The
modern-day examples of isolated socialist communities have not been
particularly successful largely because of their reliance on flawed
Marxist dogma, but Hoxha's Albania and to an extent modern-day North
Korea were attempts in this direction. The Maoists in Nepal have
potential. As for the nationalist approach -- numerous examples, none
particularly successful. The volkstaat movement in South Africa has
potential -- Orania will probably become just a vast holiday camp for
Afrikaners.

There were numerous failures and a few modest successes. We need to
learn from the failures and build on the successes.

 
> Response:
> Trying to make it happen will 
> only result in massive violence and bloodshed. 
> 
> DM:
> Says Michael Ragland hopefully. 
> 
> Response2:
> No David. Now you're engaging in projection.

Seriously, though -- has the monastic movement generated as much
bloodshed and violence as those who have sought to impose vast
world-saving ideologies on the entire planet?

If a small community goes wrong, it affects only a few people. If a
nation-state goes wrong, it affects millions. If an empire or a
globalized world goes wrong . . .
 
> DM:
> In fact it has been happening since several thousand years BC with
> minimal bloodshed. 
> 
> Response2:
> Examples?

See above.

 
> Response:
> The world is interdependent. 
> 
> DM:
> But people and groups of people can become relatively independent. 
> 
> Response2:
> That's true. The danger is when that relative independence threatens to
> destroy that interdependence. Genocide is the most extreme example of
> this.

Genocide results not from small groups of people turning their backs
on a dirty and wretched world but from attempts to impose vast
world-saving ideologies on us all -- democracy, communism, Nazism . .
. all just as bad.

 
> Response:
> A hundred years ago the world was more independent but technology and
> made it increasingly interdependent. There's no way around this.
> Globalization has been occurring for the last four centuries and it will
> continue. 
> There is a way around it. 
> 
> DM:
> Turn your back on it. 
> 
> Response2:
> If I want to live out in the woods and be a hermit. Put another way
> globalization will continue to occur whether you turn your back on it or
> not.
> 
> 4. That the traditional political distinction between 'left' and 'right'
> is simplistic and unsuited to the modern world. 
> 
> Response: 
> Well that's interesting because you still use those terms don't you? I
> agree I think it is simplistic. 
> 
> DM:
> Do I? I try to use them in inverted commas, unless I'm being lazy. In
> South Africa in the good old days, all the liberals used to refer to
> 'coloureds' in inverted commas to suggest that they didn't accept the
> classification system. That's how I'd refer to 'right wing' and 'left
> wing' nowadays. 
> 
> Response2:
> Fair enough but you do provide a link to the top 100 "white right" sites
> on your website. Apparently the term still has some utility.

I link to all sorts of people with whom I don't agree. If they have
something interesting to say then I'm happy to exchange links, even if
I loathe them at the personal level or think they're bonkers on the
ideological level!

 
> 5. That in the highly globalized world of today, which approximates to a
> de facto global superstate, a more useful distinction is that between
> 'the system' ('the Establishment') and 'the enemies of the system'. 
> 
> Response: 
> There is no de facto global superstate. The world has become more
> globalized and interdependent but that doesn't mean its a de facto
> global superstate. 
> 
> DM:
> As I said, globalization is more advanced than many realize. 
> 
> Response2:
> Yes, that is what you've said but you haven't made your case. I agree
> globalization has increased and I've stated to some extent how I think
> it has but you have provided nothing.

To make that case I'd need to write a book. But the books have already
been written. Go to Amazon.com and type in 'globalization' for an
up-to-date list.
 
> Response:
> It's interesting you state the political distinction 'right' and 'left'
> is simplistic yet you make the equally simplistic distinction between
> 'the system' ('the Establishment') and the 'enemies of the system'. 
> 
> DM:
> Eduard Limonov's distinction -- but more functional in the modern
> world than 'left' and 'right'. 
> 
> MR:
> Perhaps but just as simplistic.

The distinction between day and night is simplistic. Does that mean
that we should not use it?

 
> Response:
> There are oligarchies and ruling elites and I might consider them my
> enemies i.e. I disagree with many of their policies but I'm under no
> illusion of my ability to have any influence. 
> 
> DM:
> Neither am I. But I can turn my back on them and encourage others to do
> likewise. 
> 
> Response2:
> One can turn their back on them but its like standing on a railroad
> track and turning your back on a train. You can face the train and still
> get run over. Or, you can jump off the tracks and realize your powerless
> and let the train takes its course. Some may plant explosives to derail
> the train but that will only temporarily disrupt operations and the next
> train will soon be on its way.

Isolated communities have survived for many, many years. There are
monasteries that have preserved the same rituals for 1600 years! The
Mennonites of Paraguay have preserved their lifestyle since the early
twentieth century. The Buddhist movement has preserved a way of life
since almost six centuries before Christ -- even the Chinese in Tibet
haven't managed to eliminate it altogether!

 
> 6. 'The system' ('the Establishment'), being a globalizing,
> imperialistic and neo-imperialistic institution, is a bad thing that
> should be opposed. 
> 
> Response: 
> Oppose it all you want. You won't stop it. I have respect for
> investigative journalists who expose the injustices and corruption of
> some of these globalizing and imperialistic agents. 
> 
> DM:
> I did say 'oppose', not 'stop'. Some N-As think they can stop it. They
> issue bold calls to arms. I think they're nuts. You won't stop it. You
> can, however, withdraw from it as far as possible. 
> 
> Response:
> I would say that is possible only within your own mind.

Why would you say that?

> 7. That some degree of alliance formation between enemies of the system
> is a good thing. 
> Response: 
> It depends on what the alliance formation is. As horrible as the current
> system is there are some things which could make it even worse. 
> 
> Agreed. 
> David

David
http://www.nationalanarchist.com



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.