From email@example.com Tue Jul 23 09:53:02 PDT 1996 Article: 52486 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!news1.erols.com!fred.enteract.com!news.voyager.net!clmx16.dial.voyager.net!user From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jamie McCarthy) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: TOO SHOCKING FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:33:07 -0400 Organization: Absence Software Lines: 295 Message-ID:
References: <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net firstname.lastname@example.org (DvdThomas) wrote: > Jamie McCarthy wrote: > > >What happened to your insisting on extreme care and tremendous amounts > >of proof before accusing people of crimes they did not commit? When > >we're speaking of _German_ atrocities, you require a confession stamped > >by a notary public and signed in triplicate by God Himself. But when > >we're speaking of _American_ atrocities, it's quite enough to say that > >"it is quite unbelievable" that the Americans were able to resist > >brutally torturing their captives. > > Where on earth did you get your idea of what I insist on? >From reading what you write. > I believe you > attribute the viewpoints of others, or perhaps the viewpoints that a black > or white analysis leads to in your own mind with my own outlooks. You are wrong. > You argue in extremes. No. I don't. > That does not fit into any valid description of my > opinions, thank you just the same. This is one of the major reasons I > don't care to discuss the subjects with you. I spend more time wiping > thrown balls of tar off myself than I do addressing the topics. That gets > old in a hurry. You've said all that before. It makes for a nice-sounding argument: those darn guys on alt.revisionism just assume so much, they don't bother trying to get to know people, and they lump everyone together under the "Nazi" category. Trouble is, I haven't done any such thing. Your argument sounds nice, it's just wrong is all. I've been reading your words on Usenet and in email and recently on Germanica-l for somewhat over a year now, DThomas. I pay attention when you write me email. I always read it at least twice. In short, I got my idea of what you think from _you_. What is my basis for saying that you have a double standard when it comes to German atrocities vs. American atrocities? Well, when I wrote the above, I had the exchanges below in mind. Note that you dismiss the Mazur soap story as a "fantastic story" because the _only_ evidence is three eyewitness testimonies and corroborating physical evidence. Compare this to your statements earlier in this thread, which dismiss the necessity of skepticism regarding the alleged torture of captive Nazis. Proof is unnecessary because "it is quite unbelievable that no Germans were subjected to this treatment." It's unbelievable that a Nazi would commit atrocities, and it's unbelievable that the Americans would not commit atrocities. Nuff said about that. I assume you now understand why I described your opinions the way I did. Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 06:31:35 -0400 From: DvdThomas@aol.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Nizkor Project H. Morrell writes: >Mr. Thomas is not being truthful when he claims that Nizkor >parrots some of the wild claims (soap from corpses, etc..) made >concerning the holocaust. I offer the following as a demonstration >as to what is on the Nizkor site as a demonstration: You, sir, are mistaken in saying that I was not being truthful. Note that I say you are mistaken, not that you are not being truthful or that you are lying. My opinion is that you believe what you wrote above, but it is wrong. Even if my opinion were that you are lying, common courtesy would dictate that I not use that description in the absence of some compelling reason to do so. Nizkor contains 100 megabytes of data, of which you quoted perhaps one thousandth of one percent. I participated in lengthy arguments in alt.revisionism wherein it was attempted to point out that the publicly accepted tales of making soap from human corpses was first circulated in World War I, and carried over to World War II. The point being made was that when confronted with this statement, instead of agreeing that it was an outright, egregious lie that should be laid to rest by common agreement on its falsity, the tacit proponents would respond with stories about an alleged soap-making experiment (Mazur), making the specious case that "it wasn't totally untrue, and that's why we can't agree totally that it was a lie." Using this logic, the slightest shred of truth prevents a fantastic story from being branded a lie. One could thus say, "Today I say a herd of pigs flying across the blue sky." and not be lying because indeed the sky is blue, and besides, there was an experiment where a Midwest farmer was said by a witness to have launched pigs through the air with a large slingshot and they did fly for a short distance. What rubbish. Further, they even challenged the documented connection with the World War I propaganda stories and indeed the existence of those stories themselves. At that point it is easy to make the conclusion that there was a lack of good faith in their arguments. There may be more technical terms for it, but this is what is commonly known as "weaseling." Crawling through a tight, narrow verbal space to allow the lie to continue to hold some vestige of credence. Because of attitudes like this, the contemptible lie lives on in large segments of the public consciousness, and you will see it repeated on occasion in the media and by people described as survivors of the concentration camps. The text of the posts involved in the arguments I describe are contained in Nizkor's archives. That is what I meant in my statement, and that, my friend, is the truth. Please be more thorough in your investigations before directing such terms at someone. Even if I thought you were a liar, I would not dream of saying so publicly without hard proof and a damned good reason to do so. You had neither in this case. (As for the comments on Mazur, who constitutes the weaseling material, he does a pretty good job of discrediting himself in his own Soviet inspired "testimony.") Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:32:00 -0400 From: DvdThomas@aol.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: *Nizkor Project on "Soap" Michael Palmer writes: >Holding a democratic nation responsible for the actions of its government >is hardly a novel or outrageous concept. If I am anti-German in this >respect then so is every Bundeskanzler since Adenauer, every >Bundespr"asident since Heuss, and every leader of the CDU, FDP, and SPD >since the War. You're getting warm, very warm! >No rational person considers another anti-American simply >because (s)he points out the injustices visited upon the American Indians >by the White Man. That's true now, but would it have been if the time frames were similar. In other words, what do you think the response to the above would have been in, say, 1915? >Quite frankly, the incessant whining, the taking great offense at small or >non-existent insults, and the puffy proclamations that "anyone who >disagrees with my contention that I am a victim because I am a German" is >an enemy of God and society, that fill a significant number of posts here >is far more anti-German than anything I post, since it reinforces to the >casual reader many of the standard negative--albeit incorrect--stereotypes >of Germans. That you would refer to what in some cases is righteous anger as "whining" says a lot in itself. The reactions you so negatively characterize are quite natural ones born of frustration, i.e. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." >The issue of German civilian deaths at the close of the war and in >the immediate postwar period is a red herring, like a 6-year-old >boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar pointing to his >7-year-old brother and saying, "But he took *more* cookies than I >did!" Certainly there were atrocities committed by the victors, >but that is an entirely separate issue: in the history of man's >inhumanity to man there is plenty of blame to go around. The fact >that the the atrocities committed by party A are numerically fewer >than those committed by party B does not exonerate party A from >responsibility for the atrocities it committed. The issue is not using one atrocity to excuse another, the issue is party A eternally pilloried and party B never mentioned? If we are truly to "learn from the experience" a common line used to continue wallowing in morbidity, then should not all the experience be included? What justification can you give for being selective in identifying murderers and condemning their actions? I know the justification of others, and it is to keep A's face in the mud as long as possible. >The present palaver over whether anyone made soap from the bodies >of dead concentration camp inmates is another issue blown >completely out of proportion: if it was attempted at all it was >only once or twice, and by one of the pseudo-scientific types that >hung on the fringes of the concentration camp apparat. You miss the point entirely. "It" is two things. One is the soap myth, a long-standing completely false piece of propaganda. The other is the Mazur testimony, a probably false Soviet inspired contribution to the Nuremberg trials. The soap myth predates Mazur by 25 years. They are quite independent things. Yet people persist in connecting them as you do by referring to "it," and insisting on including Mazur in any discussion of the soap myth. Why? What is the justification and purpose if not to infer that, well, the myth is basically untrue, but..... In other words, they only made a little bit of soap, so there was some truth to "it." Discussion gets "blown out of proportion" because the inability to see or accept this simple differentiation leads to unnecessary verbiage. The soap myth is a self-contained despicable myth. End of discussion on that one subject. >The great majority of post-war German society recognizes this >responsibility of the pre-war generations, but has learned to >incorporate it into their past and to move forward, to make its >own reputation in the world. It is time that you stop blaming >life's disappointments on "anti-Germanism", grow up, and do >likewise. Your advice would be good if the premise on which it is based were true. It isn't and thus it isn't. Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:05:18 -0400 From: DvdThomas@aol.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: *Nizkor Project on "Soap" Michael Palmer wrote: >To castigate those who acknowledge Germany's responsibility >completely misses the mark: you should direct your anger against >those other countries that refuse to acknowledge their complicity >in the Holocaust. And, of course, in the making of soap, excuse me, the experimental making of soap which is highly likely based your understanding of the demented minds of a class of people (camp staff). >I believe I make it perfectly clear that making soap from the >corpses of prisoners was never considered seriously, if at all, on >either the national or even the camp level. "never considered seriously, if at all" Isn't that like saying "almost", or "only a little bit"? What justification do you offer for continued waffling on this? Why is it so hard for you to just blow it completely off, without adding a "but..."? Perhaps because it gives partial justification to your bigoted analysis of the demented? Some people just have to have their demons. Perhaps not all Satanic cults involve the occult. Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:45:48 -0400 From: DvdThomas@aol.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Euro-American Students' Union Karl Marten writes: >Fifty years of German-bashing is enough. > >Let us celebrate our German heritage. Amen. Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 05:00:35 -0400 From: DvdThomas@aol.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: *Nizkor Project on "Soap" G. Holford writes: I continue to be astonished at the degree to which germanic peoples are subordinated in this society. Let my people go! *********** Tell old Pharoah, brother! (Psychic prediction: now that I have taken the time to explain to DThomas that I am reading what he writes, and that I'm not judging him merely by the company he keeps, nor am I calling him a "Nazi," and after I have taken the time to dig up the original source material explaining my reasoning, DThomas will become very quiet on this subject. Until the next time he brings it up, at which point Jamie McCarthy's views will once again be caricatured as "I'm 24 years old and know everything and you are a hater and a liar." [quote from germanica-l, 5/2/96]) Posted; not emailed to DThomas, because he has told me not to send him email. -- Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/ firstname.lastname@example.org Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/ Hate mail will be posted.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor