The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/h/hoffman.michael/1994/usenet.9410


Article 16724 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Faurisson vs. Berenbaum
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 21:29:06 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 137
Message-ID: 
References:   <366a8a$lc2@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>  <369hdg$2l2@prime.mdata.fi>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article , wmcguire@world.std.com
(Wayne McGuire) wrote:

> In article ,
> golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device) wrote:
> 
> //1.  It is not a "remarkable fact" that there is no reconstruction of a gas
> //chamber at the Holocaust Museum.  It is merely a fact.
> 
> It strikes me as odd that gas chambers are not prominently
> featured at the HMM (if this is indeed the case--I haven't seen
> the HMM with my own eyes).
> 
> I've already explained why: [...]

And I have already explained that the gas chamber is merely one aspect, an
important aspect to be sure, but not the only significant facet of the
totality, the entire horror.  It does represent the extent to which the
Nazis were interested in using "scientific" methods to carry out their
program of extermination, which I find rather more chilling than merely
lining everybody up and shooting them.

> To find gas chambers barely mentioned at the HMM (is this really
> the case?) will definitely create some cognitive dissonance for
> anyone steeped in the Hollywood version of the Holocaust created
> during the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties.

In fact, there is a small-scale model of an Auschwitz (I think) gas
chamber and crematorium.  It is done in white (or off-white) plaster or
plastic, I'm not sure which.  It depicts the environs around a gas
chamber, and takes up something like 5x8 feet.  One walks around it and
sees, at one point, a line of people waiting to descend into the anteroom
of the gas chamber.  There is no representation of people dying in the gas
chamber, so eager Nazis will have to use their imaginations.  When you
walk around the model, there is a corner behind the building in which
guards are shooting a prisoner.  There are small plaques describing the
sequence of murder.

There are also a huge number of photgraphs, descriptions, and the like
relating to the gas chambers.

What there is not, however, is a full-scale mockup of a gas chamber for
deniers to walk through, or for them to point out as only a "replica" and
hence "not proof."  (There is a full-size railcar, however, through which
one walks to get from one area in the exhibit to the next area.  I believe
it is an actual railcar that was used to transport prisoners to one of the
camps, but I may be wrong about that.)

> Is the HMM itself making something of a quiet revisionist
> statement about the role of the gas chambers in the Holocaust?

No.

> Is it possible that the role of the gas chamber was slightly
> exaggerated in the Hollywood version of the Holocaust? (This is
> an actual, not a rhetorical, question. I don't know.)

How can this question be answered?  To you, the Holocaust equals gas
chambers.  To me, it does not.  Hence, the "role of the gas chamber" is a
matter of perception and interpretation.  Hollywood's approach to the gas
chambers may in fact be rather simplistic, but that's undoubtedly because
Hollywood creates wealth by turning everything into a sound or video
bite.  On the other hand, I don't think anybody seriously claims that
Hollywood productions represent history accurately.

> //2.  You speak of gas chambers as "the weapon of genocide," as if there
> //were only one such weapon.  If the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews
> //and others must be reduced to a single "weapon," then I nominate to that
> //dubious position the sheer hatred and contempt with which the Nazis
> //regarded anybody who was not one of them.
> 
> And would this apply any less to the Marxists who murdered over
> 100 million innocent civilians in this century?
> Marxists--especially the dictatorship of the Marxist
> intelligentsia--felt hatred and contempt for anybody who was not
> one of them. And this attitude was eminently evident in the
> founder of Marxism himself--Karl Marx. He was a truly nasty
> specimen.

I'm not familiar enough with Marx's personality or his writings to know if
he was "truly nasty" or not.  Why don't you post some of his hate-filled
diatribes, or pointers to them, so I can judge for myself?  I'm also not
sure that the Marxist mass murderers were so much filled with hatred and
contempt as paranoid fear of any potential challengers.

> Does your moral outrage over Marxist crimes match that of your
> (justifiable) moral outrage over the Nazi murder of 5 to 6
> million Jews?

Well, gee, thanks for validating my moral outrage at the Nazis and their
mass murder.  Does my moral outrage over Marxist crimes match it?  In some
ways yes, in some ways no.  I am morally outraged (and incredibly
saddened) at the idea of any mass murder, regardless of who is the
perpetrator.  However, I lost family members -- men and women I never
knew, but family nonetheless -- to the Nazi extermination program.  (I'm
pretty sure I also lost family to Russian pogroms, but I don't know for
certain.)

Does your moral outrage over Nazi murders of 11 to 12 million people,
about half of whom were Jews, match your (justifiable) moral outrage over
what you portray as "Marxist" murders?  (I make that last qualification
because I am not convinced that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were obeying Marxist
principles in any meaningful sense.)

> A statistical question: precisely how many people were killed in
> gas chambers, and precisely how were these statistics arrived at?
> Is this a subject about which there is no debate among serious
> and respectable historians?

In fact, the numbers are not precisely known, and probably never will be
(for a variety of reasons).  Others can undoubtedly fill you in better
than I on the methods by which various numbers have been propounded.  In
fact, though, historians do research and discuss (I might not say
"debate") and attempt to ascertain the "actual" number as closely as
possible.

> And I never did see any clear reply to my earlier question: did
> the Allied forces collect substantial physical evidence of gas
> chambers when they entered the camps? Given the size of the gas
> chamber operation, as I have understood it from the popular
> story, it seems unbelievable to me that the collapsing and
> retreating Nazi forces could have erased all physical evidence of
> its operation. When you are on the verge of total defeat, you
> don't have the time and concentration to go about erasing all
> traces of your crimes; you are on the run.

Except that in the extermination camps, the Nazis had sufficient advance
warning to use explosives to destroy the gas chambers.  I believe I will
let others fill in the answer in more detail.

Emailed to Mr. McGuire.

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_


Article 16727 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!heifetz.msen.com!zib-berlin.de!gs.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!uroessl1
From: uroessl1@gwdu03.gwdg.de (Roessler  Ulrich)
Subject: Re: Faurisson vs. Berenbaum
Message-ID: 
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
References:     <36ep1d$dj3@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 01:36:44 GMT
Lines: 42

dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

>wmcguire@world.std.com (Wayne McGuire) writes:

># A statistical question: precisely how many people were killed in
># gas chambers, 

>According to the "Institute for Contemporary History" in Munich,
>the numbers for the major camps are (I am quoting a summary they
>recently published):

[Summary deleted :]

>The difference between the total of the victims of the gassings cited
>in the above mentioned composition and the number of victims of the
>operation groups and the total of roughly 6 million victims of the
>Nazi persecution of the Jews results from the fact that a very high
>percentage of the victims have lost their lives through indirect
>extermination actions such as the method "destruction through work",
>bad treatment, under nourishment, epidemics, exhaustion during forced
>transportations etc.

>

># and precisely how were these statistics arrived at?

>I suggest that you write them and ask. Another good source might be
>the summaries of German courts in trials of SS men who served in the
>camps. 

The research done by the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte on this subject
is reported in:

Dimension des Voelkermords : die Zahl der juedischen Opfer des
Nationalsozialismus / hrsg. von Wolfgang Benz. - Muenchen : Oldenbourg, 1991. -
VI,584 S.
(Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte ; 33)
ISBN 3-486-54631-7

Unfortunately, the book isn't translated in English yet.

u.roessler                                     uroessl1@gwdg.de


Article 16738 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Faurisson vs. Berenbaum
Date: 30 Sep 1994 00:55:27 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <36g5nv$82a@access4.digex.net>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,
Wayne McGuire  wrote:
>Is it possible that the role of the gas chamber was slightly
>exaggerated in the Hollywood version of the Holocaust? (This is
>an actual, not a rhetorical, question. I don't know.)

    Given that people seem to think that six million Jews were gassed -
something no responsible historian has ever claimed; fewer than half the 
victims were gassed - it would appear so.


>A statistical question: precisely how many people were killed in
>gas chambers, and precisely how were these statistics arrived at?
>Is this a subject about which there is no debate among serious
>and respectable historians?

    There is indeed debate.  There were records of rail shipments of
prisoners, and estimates have been made from them.  However, the
conditions were horrible and many people died en route.  The number who
were already DOA is not known.  It is also unclear how many registered
prisoners at Auschwitz genuinely died of disease, malnutrition, etc., and
how many were gassed in a "Selection" with false entries made in the death
registers. 


>And I never did see any clear reply to my earlier question: did
>the Allied forces collect substantial physical evidence of gas
>chambers when they entered the camps?

    The Soviets captured all four major killing centers.  Belzec, 
Sobibor, and Treblinka had been completely razed and planted over well 
before the Soviets arrived.  Significant quantities of human remains were 
found.  Mark Weber has claimed not enough, but I rather suspect nobody 
ever really made a concerted effort to find every bit.

>Given the size of the gas
>chamber operation, as I have understood it from the popular
>story, it seems unbelievable to me that the collapsing and
>retreating Nazi forces could have erased all physical evidence of
>its operation.  When you are on the verge of total defeat, you
>don't have the time and concentration to go about erasing all
>traces of your crimes; you are on the run.

    The clearest physical evidence - bodies which could be autopsied to 
establish cyanide as cause of death - were cremated as they were killed.  
Thus there was no time pressure.  Once cremated, an autopsy is impossible.

    If the Germans were anything like us, they kept any secret documents 
(which explicit gassing orders would have been) in a classified safe.  
Upon retreat, just drop the contents in a bonfire.  Quick and effective.  
(Sort of an early version of Oliver North's shredding party.)

    The gas chambers were dynamited.  However, the small gas chamber in 
Krema I was converted to an air raid shelter, and Krema I was not 
dynamited.  Fred Leuchter found faint cyanide traces there.  I have read 
that the Poles found cyanide residue on a metal grille from one of the 
Kremas, but I don't have a reference handy - I think it's somewhere on 
Ken's server.  There is a gas-tight door with a protective metal grille 
over the peephole.  (Protecting against what?  The delousing chamber 
doors didn't have such a grille.)

    There are also documents that escaped the bonfire.  One mentions a
"Vergasungskeller" (gassing cellar).  An inventory sheet for the gas
chamber mentions shower heads, but the construction drawing (which has all
other plumbing in the room drawn in) shows no pipes going to any showers. 
(This is consistent with eyewitness reports of dummy showers to lull
people into a false sense of security.) There are also "wire mesh
introduction devices" listed on the room's inventory sheet, and
Sonderkommando member Filip Mu"ller said that besides the concrete support
pillars in the room, there were perforated metal columns into which the
Zyklon granules were dropped.  That certainly sounds like a suspicious
correlation to me.  There is a letter suggesting the preheating of the
chamber with heat from the cremation furnaces.  Had the gas chamber really
been a morgue, that would make no sense.  For a gas chamber, though, it
makes perfect sense - the more heat, the faster the cyanide disperses. 
There is an order for gas detection devices. 

    Not exactly an order signed in blood by Hitler with a thumbprint, but 
all these items do seem to converge on the same conclusion that was 
suggested by the eyewitnesses: that Zyklon-B was used to kill people at 
Birkenau.

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



Article 16752 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!openwx!eskimo!doyal
From: doyal@eskimo.com (Thomas Doyal)
Subject: Re: Schindler Fraud
Message-ID: 
Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:  
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 11:34:47 GMT
Lines: 67

Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:

: From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
: >In the course of mounting a defense against revisionist charges of a Jewish
: >gas chamber hoax...


: "Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three
: vans, without any faults occuring in the vehicles."

: 	Dr August Becker on 5 June 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff

: "Apart from that I gave orders that all men should stand as far away
: as possible from van during the gassings, so that their health would
: not be damaged by any escaping gases. I would like to take this
: opportunity to draw your attention to the following: Some of the
: Kommandos are using their own men to unload the vans after the
: gassing. I have made commanders of the Sonderkommandos in question
: aware of the enormous psychological and physical damage this work can
: do to the men, if not immediately then at a later stage."

: 	Dr August Becker on 16 May 1942 to SS-Obersturmbannfuherer Rauff

:   "..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered
:    from outside.  They go down five or six steps into a fairly long, 
:    well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined 
:    with benches to the left and right. It is brightly lit, and 
:    the benches are numbered.  The prisoners are told that they are to 
:    be cleansed and disinfected for their new assignments.  They must therefore 
:    completely undress to be bathed. To avoid panic and to prevent
:    disturbances of any kind, they are instructed to arrange their
:    clothing neatly under their respective numbers, so that they will
:    be able to find their things again after their bath.  Everything
:    proceeds in a perfectly orderly fashion.  Then they pass through 
:    a small corridor and enter a large cellar room which resembles a
:    shower bath.  In this room are three large pillars, into which
:    certain materials can be lowered from outside the cellar room.
:    When three- to four-hundred people have been herded into this room,
:    the doors are shut, and containers filled with the substances are
:    dropped down into the pillars.  As soon as the containers touch 
:    the base of the pillars, they release particular substances that put
:    the people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door opens
:    on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then
:    the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
:    floor, where ten large crematoria are located. (Because fresh
:    corpses burn particularly well, only 50-100 lbs. of coke are needed
:    for the whole process.)  The job itself is performed by Jewish
:    prisoners, who never step outside this camp again.
:       The results of this `resettlement action' to date: 500,000 Jews
:    Current capacity of the `resettlement action' ovens: 10,000
:    in twenty-four hours."
:                   --from report entitled "Resettlement of Jews"
:                     written by SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch
:                     for SS-Col. M. von Herff and RF-SS H. Himmler, after
:                     inspection of Auschwitz camp on 14-16 May 1943.  This
:                     excerpt from "Hitler and the Final Solution" by
:                     Gerald Fleming, ISBN 0-520-05103-3.
: -- 
:         -Barry Shein

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

Now if everybody would just admit that the Jews are not Gods"Chosen People"
this argument about the *holocaust* would just fade away.

Doyal


Article 16771 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ames!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!amd!amdahl!netcomsv!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!codfish
From: codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell)
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 07:58:16 GMT
Lines: 14

:     What bizarre delusions these revisionists have about their 
: influence.  Spielberg gave only an indirect mention of the gas chambers.  
: I have no idea if Spielberg even knows that revisionists exist.  The 
: movie certainly has nothing to do with attempting to prove the existence 
: of gas chambers. 

What does?

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

          Ross Vicksell


Article 16774 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Schindler Fraud
In-Reply-To: doyal@eskimo.com's message of Fri, 30 Sep 1994 11:34:47 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 21:19:36 GMT
Lines: 30


From: doyal@eskimo.com (Thomas Doyal)
>Now if everybody would just admit that the Jews are not Gods"Chosen People"
>this argument about the *holocaust* would just fade away.

That's a remarkably offensive comment. What's your point? That Judaism
is unique in being a religion which claims to be a true religion? That
the Jews must pay some ranson (which you have so kindly chosen) just
so people would cease lying in such a hideous way?

And what about the Gypsies, homosexuals, cripples and other
unfortunates, Catholic clergy, Seventh Day Adventists, etc together
numbering about the same as the Jewish victims, who also died in the
Nazi death chambers? What price must they pay so these people will
stop denying their victimization? Have you set a price for that yet?

A lie is a lie. The only ones who have to change anything about
themselves are the liars.

To accept anything less is cowardice and tantamount to accepting their
lies. A lie can only be undone with the truth, not by paying a price
to the liars.

You are seriously confused.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

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


Article 16814 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!pm005-05.dialip.mich.net!user
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 1994 14:20:45 -0400
Organization: University of Michigan
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
References: 
   <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>
   
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm005-05.dialip.mich.net

codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) wrote:

> :     What bizarre delusions these revisionists have about their 
> : influence.  Spielberg gave only an indirect mention of the gas chambers.  
> : I have no idea if Spielberg even knows that revisionists exist.  The 
> : movie certainly has nothing to do with attempting to prove the existence 
> : of gas chambers. 
> 
> What does?

Well, for starters, things discussed every day here on alt.revisionism.

Himmler's Poznan speech, to name the example that I'm trying to get
everyone to talk about.

I've been trying for nearly the last five months.

Greg Raven ignored it for four months, gave a weak, cursory overview
of a reply, and when that reply was demolished, he vanished off the
net.

When I asked _you_ to talk about it privately, Mr. Vicksell, you said
you didn't want to get into it.

Mr. Smith is ignoring it.

Mr. Berg ignored it.

Landpost has been the only one to dive in, and of course we all have
seen how well he did.  The only thing he could do was insist that
"Ausrottung" means something other than "extermination," despite the
evidence to the contrary of many dictionary excerpts posted, and all
the native German speakers who saw fit to comment.

I've _repeatedly_ made the offer, for the last two years, that I'll
discuss any single topic with any revisionist.  The only restrictions
are that the topic has to be narrow enough to allow focused
discussion (certainly I won't limit it to one _document_ as Raven
tried to do), and it has to be the topic that the revisionist feels
best makes the case that the Holocaust never happened.

No one has taken me up on it.  No revisionist has offered.  Landpost
said he would but then backed down.

So I guess alt.revisionism certainly has nothing to do with attempting
to prove the _nonexistence_ of gas chambers.

The question is:

What does?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy   Internet: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu   AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "...just consider alt.revisionism a suburb of talk.bizarre
  and everything starts falling into place."  - Steve Miller


Article 16864 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 2 Oct 1994 04:11:45 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 305
Message-ID: <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net>
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
>From: Michael A. Hoffman II
>Unless you have an original edition of  >>Schindlers Ark<< you are not 
>going to be able to match my page numbers. Therefore I will refer you 
>only to chapters 18 and 19 for the citations vis a vis Kastner.

    Thanks, I found it.  The name is Rezso Kastner, not Rudolf.

    Yes, Schindler did volunteer to do courier work for Dr. Kastner, and 
no, Spielberg didn't put it in the movie.  But *all* movies based on 
books leave something out.  I can think of several reasons why Spielberg 
might have omitted it.

    But whatever the reason, I honestly can't understand how the 
omission in some way makes Schindler or the Jews out to be better than 
they were, or the Nazis to be worse.  Yet I get the clear impression you 
think it's a big deal.  Obviously I'm missing something.  Could you 
please explain it to me? 


>Yes, the crucial truth is that Spielberg withheld the fact that the SS 
>Judiciary regarded Goeth as evil and had him arrested and imprisoned. 
>Spielberg should have been aware of the arrest if he troubled to read 
>the book upon which his film is putatively based.

    But the *reason* the SS thought him evil is significant.  If the SS
thought him evil because he was corrupt, that's not surprising.  If the SS
thought him evil because he murdered prisoners, that's another thing. 
Even there, though, was it because they thought murdering prisoners was
bad in and of itself, because Goeth did it with special brutality, or
simply because it lost valuable slave workers and therefore hurt the
Reich's war effort? 

    Still, once more I cannot understand showing Goeth's arrest on 
corruption charges (which are the only ones discussed in Keneally's 
book) would have caused anyone to have a different opinion of the Nazi 
treatment of the Jews.  I think most people would form a *worse* opinion 
of investigators who were outraged over corruption while remaining 
completely unconcerned about murder! 


>Keneally knew Goeth had been arrested by the SS and said so in the 
>book.  There is nothing misleading or incorrect in my attribution.

    There is most definitely something misleading in what you wrote.  The
way you phrased it could easily mislead someone to believe that not just
the arrest, but the specific charge of murdering prisoners, was contained
in Keneally's book (which it was not).

    However, I do recognize that you may not have done this 
deliberately.  There are many sloppy writers in the world and you may 
just be one of them.  I make it a point never to attribute to malice 
what can adequately be explained by stupidity. 

    Spielberg left out other things from the book as well, altered
still others, and put a few things in which weren't at all in the book.  
I had raised some of these points myself in a discussion of the movie 
and book which took place before you arrived here.  Many of these 
changes I attribute to the differences between books and movies.  Many 
of the things omitted would have made Goeth look even worse had they 
been shown.

    And I can't help but remark that based on what I've seen, a 
revisionist complaining about distortion by omission is rather like 
Ivan Boesky complaining about insider trading or the late Richard Daley 
Sr. complaining about electoral fraud.  (Or, come to think of it, like 
Tim McCarthy complaining about illiteracy.)


>As for your immediate seizure upon any contrivance necessary to
>absolve your exterminationist cohort of any malfeasance in this regard,

    Mr. Hoffman incontrovertably possesses a proclivity for 
sesquipedalian rhetoric! 

    As for seizing on any contrivance necessary - hold that thought.  
I'll get back to it soon.  I promise.


>you claim that Spielberg wanted to have mercy on the Germans by sparing 
>them the >>Kafkaesque<< ordeal of explaining how they would arrest 
>someone for theft alone who was so egregious a murderer.

    To refresh your memory, here is my exact text: 

>>Frankly, it seems to me that for Spielberg to show Goeth tried for
>>corruption but not for the murder of prisoners would have been an
>>excellent Kafkaesque point to put into the movie to show just how evil the
>>Germans were - ignoring murder to concentrate on theft.  Maybe you should
>>be glad Spielberg left it out.

I never said Spielberg *wanted* to have mercy on the Germans.  I said that
if his goal really *had* been to paint them as black villains - as I gather
you believe - he *could* have gotten in an extra dig by highlighting an
arrest for theft alone as related in Keneally's book.  You apparently
disagree, but in my view if Spielberg *had* shown this particular part 
of Keneally's book, I think most people would have had if anything a 
*worse* opinion of the Nazi system. 

    Somehow you turned this into "Spielberg wanted to have mercy on the
Germans."  Did you deliberately distort my words or are you just a poor
reader?


>Spare me your sophistry.

    Spare me your twisting of my words, along with your "spare mes" and
the long-suffering martyr act.  That's supposed to be *my* schtick,
remember?


>Keneally filtered the truth about Goeth and Spielberg filtered Keneally.

    Do you have evidence that Keneally *knew* that Goeth faced a murder 
charge as well as a corruption charge?  If he did not know this, then he 
did not "filter" the truth, he merely failed to dig all of it up.  If 
you want to say his work was not scholarly, or that he wasn't as 
diligent as he should have been, that's certainly a defensible criticism 
and I won't offer any argument there. 


>Goeth was arrested for murder, corruption and theft by 
>the SS investigative team headed by the great German Judge Konrad 
>Morgen.  I gave other references for these facts than the hack writer 
>Keneally.

    Yes, but did you give them to Keneally while he was writing his book? 
You say you have information about the SS investigation of Goeth that
Keneally may not have had.  (I still haven't had the chance to check out
your reference on this.)  Perhaps Keneally should have done more research. 
But you seem to think this proves Keneally *deliberately* omitted this
information.


>I cited Keneally solely as evidence that Spielberg 
>deliberately omitted exculpatory information concerning the German 
>military, which had appeared in the book that is supposed
>to give his hate propaganda flick, authenticity.

    Spielberg also didn't show Goeth shooting prisoners with the
regularity implied by Keneally.  Why aren't you complaining about that
omission too?  And I don't find Keneally's description of Goeth's arrest 
by the SS particularly exculpatory, given that no murder charge was 
mentioned in Keneally's book.

    However, I would like to remind you that the movie was primarily about
Oskar Schindler, not Amon Goeth.  While you have indeed proved that
Spielberg left out information which to your mind at least put the German
military in a better light, you still have some way to go to prove that
Spielberg did so with the specific intent to make the Germans look more
villainous.  The fact that Spielberg left out some things from the book
which would have made Goeth look even worse is not consistent with your 
contention.


>But then, as you admit,

    I love the way the revisionists use the word "admit," like I have 
something to hide and the truth has to be dragged out of me.


>Keneally based his book, >>largely on interviews with the Schindler 
>Jews,<< in other words, almost exclusively on the case for the 
>prosecution.

    I think Keneally also "admits" this in the foreword.

    Again, since you seem to be having a hard time understanding this 
point, the film is first and foremost about Oskar Schindler, not Amon 
Goeth.  Remember, it is entitled "Schindler's List," not "Goeth's Camp."


>On Spielberg's deliberate falsification of Tractate Sanhedrin 37a:

    This statement really deserves an in-depth look.  It's - well, I just 
don't know how to characterize it.

    Spielberg made a movie.

    The movie was entitled "Schindler's List."

    The movie is about people and events in the life of one Oskar 
Schindler. 

    The movie was *not* entitled "The Talmud."

    The movie is not *about* the Talmud.

    Again, it's about Oskar Schindler and the people he saved.

    One of the events in the life of the aforementioned Oskar Schindler is
that Schindler was presented with a ring made by a jeweler named Licht 
from gold voluntarily donated from his own mouth by a Mr. Jereth, in 
appreciation for what Schindler did.

    On that ring Licht engraved an inscription.  The inscription was in 
Hebrew, but Keneally gave it in translation as Spielberg gave it - 
without "of Israel."  Mr. Hoffman has presented no evidence that this is 
NOT what the ring says.

    If that's what the ring says, then Spielberg portrayed these events 
from the life of Oskar Schindler accurately (or at least as accurately 
as the source material allowed). 

    Somehow, in the truly exceptional mind of Mr. Hoffman, this accurate 
portrayal of an event in the life of Oskar Schindler - which, again, 
was what Spielberg was trying to do - becomes "DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION 
OF SANHEDRIN 37A!" 

    Such logic is - dare I say it - positively Talmudic.  Fritz Berg would
be impressed.  *I'm* certainly impressed.  Mr. Hoffman, are you sure you're 
not Jewish?  We in the IJC could certainly use a keen mind like yours!

    This wouldn't happen to be seizing upon any contrivance necessary to 
convict a member of the exterminationist cohort of malfeasance, would 
it?  (I *promised* I'd get back to it, didn't I?) 


>you say that my citation appears in only certain  >>versions of the 
>Talmud<<  and not in others. You mean to say that there are several 
>Babylonian Talmuds?

    Don't you know there is a Jerusalem Talmud as well?


>Or are you preying on the gullibility of your audience to claim that 
>Talmud is a sort of indeterminate factor?

    If I really were out to prey on people's gullibility, I could 
certainly do a better job than any revisionist I've seen. 

    Remember, the Talmud was oral law for centuries.  It was only written
down in exile when it was feared that due to the dispersion of the Jews it
would become lost.  Yes, there are tales of scholars with photographic
memories who could relate the Talmud word for word.  However these were
rare. 


>Where are these other versions that overturn the
>scripture, >>whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel<And who counterfeited them, the maskilim of the Haskalah?

    You can't even correctly remember what I said yesterday (you wrongly 
said that I said "Spielberg wanted to have mercy on the Germans by 
sparing them the >>Kafkaesque<< ordeal of explaining how they would 
arrest someone for theft alone who was so egregious a murderer.").  Yet 
if someone makes a textual lapse - either an insertion or an omission - 
after centuries, to you that *must* be some nefarious plot.  


>There is not a  scintilla of flexibility or compromise with regard to 
>the Talmud: He chodosh osur min hatorah!  Thats halakah.  Everything else is 
>chukos ha goyim, because no rabbi in the world has the power to transgress 
>that which the codes have instructed.  Even to put forth such a 
>proposition is maskilisheh kasheh.  Talmud is min hashomayin.  Inviolate.

    Avol harabonim hoyu min ha'adamah.

    Your knowledge of Hebrew and Yiddish phrases is truly impressive.  I
wonder if it's as comprehensive as my knowledge of martial arts - I know
jiu-jitsu, judo, aikido, and several other Japanese words.

    Can you tell us, then, why the Mishnah contains may formulations of 
the sort, "R. Judah says ... but the Sages say ...?"

    And now that we've gone over all that, and thoroughly confused those
who don't know Hebrew and Yiddish, and almost certainly don't care, what 
does this have to do with whether or not the Germans deliberately killed 
millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.?  Or whether the events 
depicted in "Schindler's List" did or didn't happen as depicted? 

    I suggest that if you want to continue the Talmudic discussion, we
move it to soc.culture.jewish.  The contribution of such a talmud 
chochem as yourself would be most welcome, I'm sure. 


>Finally, I very much enjoyed your statement,  >>I have no idea if Spielberg
>even knows that revisionists exist.<<  Your career at the Comedy Club is 
>assured. 

    Thanks!  Many people do appreciate my wit - sometimes even 
revisionists.  If you stick around here, you'll undoubtedly see more of 
it.  You do show promise as a straight man, though I must tell you that 
you have far to go before you can hope to match the great Tim McCarthy. 

    But I assure you, I have never talked to Spielberg and am not
telepathic, so I really don't see how you expect me to know whether or not
he knows about revisionism.  After I posted my article someone told me
that Spielberg said something at the Oscar ceremony which indicates that
he may indeed know.  But since I didn't watch the Oscars, I didn't know
that.  (I readily admit that my ignorance of popular culture is
staggering.)

    Still, I'm glad you got a chuckle out of it.  Maybe you're just
someone who's easily amused.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16868 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Schindler Fraud
Date: 30 Sep 1994 09:56 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 10
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <30SEP199409563461@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References:   
NNTP-Posting-Host: bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article , doyal@eskimo.com (Thomas Doyal) writes...

>Now if everybody would just admit that the Jews are not Gods"Chosen People"
>this argument about the *holocaust* would just fade away.

    Huh?  I don't understand your point.  What is the relationhip between
    the two?

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 16901 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 2 Oct 1994 15:49:29 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <36n2s9$n6m@access3.digex.net>
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,
Jamie McCarthy  wrote:
>codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) wrote:
>>mstein@access.digex.net (Mike Stein) wrote:
>
>> :     What bizarre delusions these revisionists have about their 
>> : influence.  Spielberg gave only an indirect mention of the gas chambers.  
>> : I have no idea if Spielberg even knows that revisionists exist.
>> : The movie certainly has nothing to do with attempting to prove the 
>> : existence of gas chambers. 
>> 
>> What does?
>
>Well, for starters, things discussed every day here on alt.revisionism.
>
>Himmler's Poznan speech, to name the example that I'm trying to get
>everyone to talk about.

    Um, no - Himmler's Poznan speech really only shows a plan or policy 
to exterminate the Jews.  Raven's right in that it doesn't mention gas 
chambers as a specific means to carry out that policy.

    As far as something which *does*, try Pressac, Jean-Claude: 
"Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers."  You might in
particular check out the photographically-reproduced letter from Bischoff
to Kammler which mentions the "Vergasungskeller."  As Bradley Smith might
have said, I can easily see how he got that word confused with
"Leichenkeller," since the two words sound so much alike. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



Article 16918 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
In-Reply-To: hoffman2nd@delphi.com's message of Sun, 2 Oct 94 16:58:45 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>
	 <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net>
	
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 21:50:47 GMT
Lines: 43


From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew. But then again, neither are you.
>Youre a Khazar, an Ashkenazi (Ash-ken-nazi), one of the chosen people from the
>Caucasus, not the Levant. Your identity is as much of a hoax as Spielberg*s
>movie and therein hangs a tale.

Ho boy, another one of the arthur koestler 13th tribe gang.

The nice thing about hatemongerers is that they never leave it to you
to tell them what you are. They always know better what you are, and
thus makes their judgements more simple.

> Not only am I not a Jew, I am not an Edomite of any kind, Khazar,
>Ashkenzai or Yehudi. I am however a connoisseur of the art of
>jew-jitsu,something you and the other hoaxers will be learning to your
>sorrow, as you cross swords with me in the future.

Hmm? Is this a threat? What is this loon talking about? Why the play
on "jew-jitsu" vs ju-jitsu? Is he referring to the martial art or
something else?

And as to whether or not you are an Edomite...WE'LL be the judge of
that (heh.)

>--Michael A. Hoffman II. Editor, Revisionist Researcher. Current
>issue: U.S. $6 from Wiswell Ruffin House, Box 236, Dresden, N.Y. 14441

And always the pitch...

Where the hell is "Dresden", NY?

Judging from the zip code it's probably in the Ithaca/Elmira/Syracuse
area. But I've lived there and never ran into a "Dresden" (I know of a
Dryden) tho there are a lot of tiny little towns in that northern
stretch of Appalachia. Your cousins also your aunts and uncles and all
that Michael Jr?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

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


Article 16942 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Goeth's arrest
Supersedes: <36o05u$q77@access4.digex.net>
Date: 3 Oct 1994 00:24:18 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <36o11i$qm1@access4.digex.net>
References:   <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
> From Michael A. Hoffman II
>Kastner was a committed and influential Zionist and Nazi collaborator.

    You wouldn't happen to have any documentation of this, would you?  
It's news to me.  And therefore I suspect it would have been news to the 
audience.  So even if Spielberg had shown the meeting, who in the 
audience would have known that Kastner was (according to you) a Nazi 
collaborator?


>In return for favors from the Nazis he helped Eichmann deport thousands 
>of Jews to Auschwitz.

    So?  According to a number of your fellow revisionists, Auschwitz was
a wonderful place to be during the war - brothel, swimming pool, no Allied
bombing.  And certainly no gas chambers.  Therefore nothing is wrong with
helping Eichmann to deport Jews to Auschwitz.  Except now you're trying to
tell me there is.  You can't have it both ways, Mr. Hoffman. 


>Pro-Zionist Spielberg*s cartoon  >>history<<  of World War Two would
>have been damaged if he had portrayed the authentic relationship between
>Schindler and Kastner, which is not limited simply to what Keneally says about
>this subject. Your arguments about the movie are based largely on the gospel
>according to Keneally. 

    No, my argument *is* that the movie is based on Keneally.

    And what *was* the authentic relationship between Schindler and 
Kastner, and what evidence do you have for it?


>I have only cited Keneally so that you and Spielberg could not weasel 
>out of certain historical facts so patent that even Keneally
>had to mention them.

    And what facts am I trying to weasel out of?



>The point about Goeth being arrested and jailed by the SS for the murder of
>prisoners (as well as for corruption) is that is destroys the whole basis for
>Spielberg*s propaganda film--e.g., that Goeth*s behavior was supposedly
>sanctioned by the German military when in fact, the opposite was true.

>I do not expect this to be of interest to you because like Spielberg you 
>are merely a propagandist performing damage control on behalf of a dogma.

    And you're *not* a propagandist in service of a dogma?

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

    I have twice pointed out that in Keneally's book, the aspect of
Goeth's behavior which was frowned upon by the German military would not
have changed anyone's opinion about the Nazis.  You have not really
addressed this point.  You keep saying that Spielberg knew things that 
weren't in Keneally's book without ever showing any evidence that 
Spielberg did any of the research needed to know those things.

    You have also not addressed my question: did you deliberately twist 
my words or were you just a poor reader when you falsely claimed I said 
that Spielberg *wanted* to spare the Germans from being portrayed as 
caring about corruption but not murder?

    Are you afraid to address this question?


>But to scholars and the public the fact that the German military 
>regarded officers like Goeth as a disgrace and deserving of imprisonment 
>will be a major revelation

    What scholars will find this a major revalation?


>coming as it does in counter-point to a cartoon posing as a cinema 
>verite documentary (>>Schindler*s List<<) which both denotes and connotes 
>that the German military ordered, sanctioned and approved the behavior 
>of Amon Goeth.

    Really?  Where is the scene where Goeth is ordered to be corrupt?


>As for the feigned naivete you exhibit toward Spielberg*s motivations for
>omitting these exculpatory facts, only a tendentious partisan

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

    There is nothing feigned in my post.  I am not a mind reader, and I do
not *know* why Spielberg did what he did - although I know some things
about movie making which cause me to consider some possible reasons you
are leaving out.  (Are you deliberately suppressing them because you're a 
tendentious partisan?)


>could peddle such faith in the objective good will of St. Steven 
>Spielberg and pretend not to know why Spielberg didnt mention the fact 
>that it was the SS Judiciary itself that ended Goeth*s reign.

    I don't *pretend* not to know, I really don't - since I'm not 
telepathic.  You claim that you *do* know what Steven Spielberg was 
thinking.  Please prove your assertion that Spielberg *knew* that Goeth 
was arrested for the murder of prisoners, and deliberately left it out in 
order to show the Germans in a worse light.


>If you wish to posit Mr. Spielberg*s inherently benign and
>innocent nature,

    No, I only wish to posit Mr. Spielberg's inherent nature as a 
filmmaker, with all that entails.


>be my guest but forgive the rest of us for being so 
>cynical as to believe that Spielberg had to suppress the facts in order 
>to maintain cachet for his portrayal of all German soldiers as devils.

    I'll tell you what - I'll forgive you if you forgive me for being so 
cynical as to believe that revisionists deliberately suppress facts to 
maintain cachet for their claim that there is no evidence of a Nazi plan 
or policy to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, or the use of 
gas chambers to carry out such a policy.


>When this writer documents that the Talmud quote in  >>Schindler*s List<< 
>is a phony you then claim that its only a minor falsification.

    Please quote the exact words I used to claim this.

    I claim that it is an accurate portrayal of what is in Keanally's 
book.  I have asked you what evidence you have that the book is wrong 
about the actual words on the ring, and you have provided none.

    You also have NOT documented it was a "phony;" refer to the citation
to Dr. Denby's book on the Mishnah in my previous post. 


>>The movie is not >>>about<<  the Talmud. 
>>It is not  >>entitled The The Talmud.<<

>No kidding. What magnitude of importance this additional evidence of 
>Spielberg*s fraud represents, is not what is being debated.  When we 
>inventory the entire list of prevarication and imposture we have the 
>case against the movie.
>The inscription on the ring that is given to Schindler is attributed, 
>in the movie, to the Talmud and that attribution is false.

    Once more I note that you have not responded to the citation I gave to 
Dr. Denby's book.  

    And you have once more failed to address the fact that if the events
portrayed in that scene happened as shown, then how can there have been a 
deliberate fraud on Spielberg's part?  If he had altered the inscription 
on the ring, that would have falsified the history of Schindler's life!

    But yet again, you need address the note in Dr. Denby's book rather
than just repeating your charge.  Even if you tell me the same thing three
times, that still does not make it true, Rev. Dodgson notwithstanding.  
According to the note in Denby's book, the quote is not a phony.


>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew. But then again, neither are you.
>Youre a Khazar, an Ashkenazi (Ash-ken-nazi),

    Thanks, I know how to pronounce it.


>one of the chosen people from the Caucasus, not the Levant.  Your 
>identity is as much of a hoax as Spielberg*s movie and therein hangs a tale.

    Amusingly enough, my identity *is* a hoax - just not the one you
think.  (Stein was not the original name of my father's father.)  So, you
think you know my family's genealogy, then? 

    Even if the Khazar tale were true, if you really knew halacha, you'd 
know that they *would* be Jews.


> Not only am I not a Jew, I am not an Edomite of any kind, Khazar, 
>Ashkenzai or Yehudi.

    How about an ashcan Nazi, then?


>I am however a connoisseur of the art of jew-jitsu,something you and 
>the other hoaxers will be learning to your sorrow, as you cross swords 
>with me in the future.

    Gosh, I'm shaking in my boots.

    But the sword thingee is aikido.


>Your Hebrews not too great,

    Please, tell me what was wrong with it.  Though while we're on the 
subject -

>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew.

    I suppose you think that *your* (not "youre") English is hot 
stuff....


>hows your Latin?  Nemo me impune lacessit.

    Captain Nemo, at your service, then.

    But if you insist on cutting your *own* throat, well, is that *my*
fault?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 16960 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Goeth's arrest
Supersedes: <36o11i$qm1@access4.digex.net>
Date: 3 Oct 1994 05:37:40 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <36ojd4$2vk@access4.digex.net>
References:   <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
> From Michael A. Hoffman II
>Kastner was a committed and influential Zionist and Nazi collaborator.

    You wouldn't happen to have any documentation of this, would you?  
It's news to me.  And therefore I suspect it would have been news to the 
audience.  So even if Spielberg had shown the meeting, who in the 
audience would have known that Kastner was (according to you) a Nazi 
collaborator?


>In return for favors from the Nazis he helped Eichmann deport thousands 
>of Jews to Auschwitz.

    So?  According to a number of your fellow revisionists, Auschwitz was
a wonderful place to be during the war - brothel, swimming pool, no Allied
bombing.  And certainly no gas chambers.  Therefore nothing is wrong with
helping Eichmann to deport Jews to Auschwitz.  Except now you're trying to
tell me there is.  You can't have it both ways, Mr. Hoffman. 


>Pro-Zionist Spielberg*s cartoon  >>history<<  of World War Two would
>have been damaged if he had portrayed the authentic relationship between
>Schindler and Kastner, which is not limited simply to what Keneally says about
>this subject. Your arguments about the movie are based largely on the gospel
>according to Keneally. 

    No, my argument *is* that the movie is based on Keneally.

    And what *was* the authentic relationship between Schindler and 
Kastner, and what evidence do you have for it?


>I have only cited Keneally so that you and Spielberg could not weasel 
>out of certain historical facts so patent that even Keneally
>had to mention them.

    And what facts am I trying to weasel out of?



>The point about Goeth being arrested and jailed by the SS for the murder of
>prisoners (as well as for corruption) is that is destroys the whole basis for
>Spielberg*s propaganda film--e.g., that Goeth*s behavior was supposedly
>sanctioned by the German military when in fact, the opposite was true.

>I do not expect this to be of interest to you because like Spielberg you 
>are merely a propagandist performing damage control on behalf of a dogma.

    And you're *not* a propagandist in service of a dogma?

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

    I have twice pointed out that in Keneally's book, the aspect of
Goeth's behavior which was frowned upon by the German military would not
have changed anyone's opinion about the Nazis.  You have not really
addressed this point.  You keep saying that Spielberg knew things that 
weren't in Keneally's book without ever showing any evidence that 
Spielberg did any of the research needed to know those things.

    You have also not addressed my question: did you deliberately twist 
my words or were you just a poor reader when you falsely claimed I said 
that Spielberg *wanted* to spare the Germans from being portrayed as 
caring about corruption but not murder?

    Are you afraid to address this question?


>But to scholars and the public the fact that the German military 
>regarded officers like Goeth as a disgrace and deserving of imprisonment 
>will be a major revelation

    What scholars will find this a major revalation?


>coming as it does in counter-point to a cartoon posing as a cinema 
>verite documentary (>>Schindler*s List<<) which both denotes and connotes 
>that the German military ordered, sanctioned and approved the behavior 
>of Amon Goeth.

    Really?  Where is the scene where Goeth is ordered to be corrupt?


>As for the feigned naivete you exhibit toward Spielberg*s motivations for
>omitting these exculpatory facts, only a tendentious partisan

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

    There is nothing feigned in my post.  I am not a mind reader, and I do
not *know* why Spielberg did what he did - although I know some things
about movie making which cause me to consider some possible reasons you
are leaving out.  (Are you deliberately suppressing them because you're a 
tendentious partisan?)


>could peddle such faith in the objective good will of St. Steven 
>Spielberg and pretend not to know why Spielberg didnt mention the fact 
>that it was the SS Judiciary itself that ended Goeth*s reign.

    I don't *pretend* not to know, I really don't - since I'm not 
telepathic.  You claim that you *do* know what Steven Spielberg was 
thinking.  Please prove your assertion that Spielberg *knew* that Goeth 
was arrested for the murder of prisoners, and deliberately left it out in 
order to show the Germans in a worse light.


>If you wish to posit Mr. Spielberg*s inherently benign and
>innocent nature,

    No, I only wish to posit Mr. Spielberg's inherent nature as a 
filmmaker, with all that entails.


>be my guest but forgive the rest of us for being so 
>cynical as to believe that Spielberg had to suppress the facts in order 
>to maintain cachet for his portrayal of all German soldiers as devils.

    I'll tell you what - I'll forgive you if you forgive me for being so 
cynical as to believe that revisionists deliberately suppress facts to 
maintain cachet for their claim that there is no evidence of a Nazi plan 
or policy to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, or the use of 
gas chambers to carry out such a policy.


>When this writer documents that the Talmud quote in  >>Schindler*s List<< 
>is a phony you then claim that its only a minor falsification.

    Please quote the exact words I used to claim this.

    I claim that it is an accurate portrayal of what is in Keanally's 
book.  I have asked you what evidence you have that the book is wrong 
about the actual words on the ring, and you have provided none.

    You also have NOT documented it was a "phony;" refer to the citation
to Dr. Danby's book on the Mishnah in my previous post. 


>>The movie is not >>>about<<  the Talmud. 
>>It is not  >>entitled The The Talmud.<<

>No kidding. What magnitude of importance this additional evidence of 
>Spielberg*s fraud represents, is not what is being debated.  When we 
>inventory the entire list of prevarication and imposture we have the 
>case against the movie.
>The inscription on the ring that is given to Schindler is attributed, 
>in the movie, to the Talmud and that attribution is false.

    Once more I note that you have not responded to the citation I gave to 
Dr. Danby's book.  

    And you have once more failed to address the fact that if the events
portrayed in that scene happened as shown, then how can there have been a 
deliberate fraud on Spielberg's part?  If he had altered the inscription 
on the ring, that would have falsified the history of Schindler's life!

    But yet again, you need address the note in Dr. Danby's book rather
than just repeating your charge.  Even if you tell me the same thing three
times, that still does not make it true, Rev. Dodgson notwithstanding.  
According to the note in Danby's book, the quote is not a phony.


>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew. But then again, neither are you.
>Youre a Khazar, an Ashkenazi (Ash-ken-nazi),

    Thanks, I know how to pronounce it.


>one of the chosen people from the Caucasus, not the Levant.  Your 
>identity is as much of a hoax as Spielberg*s movie and therein hangs a tale.

    Amusingly enough, my identity *is* a hoax - just not the one you
think.  (Stein was not the original name of my father's father.)  So, you
think you know my family's genealogy, then? 

    Even if the Khazar tale were true, if you really knew halacha, you'd 
know that they *would* be Jews.


> Not only am I not a Jew, I am not an Edomite of any kind, Khazar, 
>Ashkenzai or Yehudi.

    How about an ashcan Nazi, then?


>I am however a connoisseur of the art of jew-jitsu,something you and 
>the other hoaxers will be learning to your sorrow, as you cross swords 
>with me in the future.

    Gosh, I'm shaking in my boots.

    But the sword thingee is aikido.


>Your Hebrews not too great,

    Please, tell me what was wrong with it.  Though while we're on the 
subject -

>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew.

    I suppose you think that *your* (not "youre") English is hot 
stuff....


>hows your Latin?  Nemo me impune lacessit.

    Captain Nemo, at your service, then.

    But if you insist on cutting your *own* throat, well, is that *my*
fault?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 17009 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user
From: landpost@clark.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 4 Oct 1994 03:42:05 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 18
Message-ID: 
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:


> No one has taken me up on it.  No revisionist has offered.  Landpost
> said he would but then backed down.
> 
> So I guess alt.revisionism certainly has nothing to do with attempting
> to prove the _nonexistence_ of gas chambers.
> 
--------

I'm waiting for a reply to my post "Jamie McCarthy's thin jackets". Er, I
mean I'm "standing" for a reply to this post.


Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net


Article 17036 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!nntp.gmd.de!dearn!barilvm!vms.huji.ac.il!itex!news
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Message-ID: 
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 16:26:02 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Sender: warren@itex.jct.ac.il
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net> 
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at ITEX
Lines: 24

In  hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:

    On Spielbergs deliberate falsification of Tractate Sanhedrin 37a: you
    say that my citation appears in only certain >>versions of the
    Talmud<< and not in others. You mean to say that there are several
    Babylonian Talmuds? Or are you preying on the gullibility of your
    audience to claim that Talmud is a sort of indeterminate factor? Where
    are these other versions that overturn the scripture, >>whosoever
    preserves a single soul of Israel<
References:  <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net>  <370vo2$6lc@access4.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

What's really funny is that all of the "Schindler's List Movie is a
fraud people" seem to have missed the really significant changes that
were made in the adaptaion.  For instance, Ben Kingsley's character is
actually a conflation of two separate characters in the book; Schindler
was not present when the Plaskow camp was dismantled and the bodies 
disinterred and burned; Schindler doesn't make that awful bathetic speech 
in the book that he does in the movie before leaving the factory; etc.
Obviously, for better or worse (and frankly, I was not tremendously
thrilled by the movie), Spielberg understands that the dramatic
requirements for making a film are different from those of a novel.


None of which has anything to do with the basic fact, namely, that
Schindler saved over a thousand Jews.  
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"


Article 17078 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Goeth's arrest
Supersedes: <36ojd4$2vk@access4.digex.net>
Date: 6 Oct 1994 09:57:22 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <370vo2$6lc@access4.digex.net>
References:   <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
> From Michael A. Hoffman II
>Kastner was a committed and influential Zionist and Nazi collaborator.

    You wouldn't happen to have any documentation of this, would you?  
It's news to me.  And therefore I suspect it would have been news to the 
audience.  So even if Spielberg had shown the meeting, who in the 
audience would have known that Kastner was (according to you) a Nazi 
collaborator?


>In return for favors from the Nazis he helped Eichmann deport thousands 
>of Jews to Auschwitz.

    So?  According to a number of your fellow revisionists, Auschwitz was
a wonderful place to be during the war - brothel, swimming pool, no Allied
bombing.  And certainly no gas chambers.  Therefore nothing is wrong with
helping Eichmann to deport Jews to Auschwitz.  Except now you're trying to
tell me there is.  You can't have it both ways, Mr. Hoffman. 


>Pro-Zionist Spielberg*s cartoon  >>history<<  of World War Two would
>have been damaged if he had portrayed the authentic relationship between
>Schindler and Kastner, which is not limited simply to what Keneally says about
>this subject. Your arguments about the movie are based largely on the gospel
>according to Keneally. 

    No, my argument *is* that the movie is based on Keneally.

    And what *was* the authentic relationship between Schindler and 
Kastner, and what evidence do you have for it?


>I have only cited Keneally so that you and Spielberg could not weasel 
>out of certain historical facts so patent that even Keneally
>had to mention them.

    And what facts am I trying to weasel out of?



>The point about Goeth being arrested and jailed by the SS for the murder of
>prisoners (as well as for corruption) is that is destroys the whole basis for
>Spielberg*s propaganda film--e.g., that Goeth*s behavior was supposedly
>sanctioned by the German military when in fact, the opposite was true.

>I do not expect this to be of interest to you because like Spielberg you 
>are merely a propagandist performing damage control on behalf of a dogma.

    And you're *not* a propagandist in service of a dogma?

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

    I have twice pointed out that in Keneally's book, the aspect of
Goeth's behavior which was frowned upon by the German military would not
have changed anyone's opinion about the Nazis.  You have not really
addressed this point.  You keep saying that Spielberg knew things that 
weren't in Keneally's book without ever showing any evidence that 
Spielberg did any of the research needed to know those things.

    You have also not addressed my question: did you deliberately twist 
my words or were you just a poor reader when you falsely claimed I said 
that Spielberg *wanted* to spare the Germans from being portrayed as 
caring about corruption but not murder?

    Are you afraid to address this question?


>But to scholars and the public the fact that the German military 
>regarded officers like Goeth as a disgrace and deserving of imprisonment 
>will be a major revelation

    What scholars will find this a major revelation?


>coming as it does in counter-point to a cartoon posing as a cinema 
>verite documentary (>>Schindler*s List<<) which both denotes and connotes 
>that the German military ordered, sanctioned and approved the behavior 
>of Amon Goeth.

    Really?  Where is the scene where Goeth is ordered to be corrupt?


>As for the feigned naivete you exhibit toward Spielberg*s motivations for
>omitting these exculpatory facts, only a tendentious partisan

    Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

    There is nothing feigned in my post.  I am not a mind reader, and I do
not *know* why Spielberg did what he did - although I know some things
about movie making which cause me to consider some possible reasons you
are leaving out.  (Are you deliberately suppressing them because you're a 
tendentious partisan?)


>could peddle such faith in the objective good will of St. Steven 
>Spielberg and pretend not to know why Spielberg didnt mention the fact 
>that it was the SS Judiciary itself that ended Goeth*s reign.

    I don't *pretend* not to know, I really don't - since I'm not 
telepathic.  You claim that you *do* know what Steven Spielberg was 
thinking.  Please prove your assertion that Spielberg *knew* that Goeth 
was arrested for the murder of prisoners, and deliberately left it out in 
order to show the Germans in a worse light.


>If you wish to posit Mr. Spielberg*s inherently benign and
>innocent nature,

    No, I only wish to posit Mr. Spielberg's inherent nature as a 
filmmaker, with all that entails.


>be my guest but forgive the rest of us for being so 
>cynical as to believe that Spielberg had to suppress the facts in order 
>to maintain cachet for his portrayal of all German soldiers as devils.

    I'll tell you what - I'll forgive you if you forgive me for being so 
cynical as to believe that revisionists deliberately suppress facts to 
maintain cachet for their claim that there is no evidence of a Nazi plan 
or policy to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, or the use of 
gas chambers to carry out such a policy.


>When this writer documents that the Talmud quote in  >>Schindler*s List<< 
>is a phony you then claim that its only a minor falsification.

    Please quote the exact words I used to claim this.

    I claim that it is an accurate portrayal of what is in Keanally's 
book.  I have asked you what evidence you have that the book is wrong 
about the actual words on the ring, and you have provided none.

    You also have NOT documented it was a "phony;" refer to the citation
to Dr. Danby's book on the Mishnah in my previous post. 


>>The movie is not >>>about<<  the Talmud. 
>>It is not  >>entitled The The Talmud.<<

>No kidding. What magnitude of importance this additional evidence of 
>Spielberg*s fraud represents, is not what is being debated.  When we 
>inventory the entire list of prevarication and imposture we have the 
>case against the movie.
>The inscription on the ring that is given to Schindler is attributed, 
>in the movie, to the Talmud and that attribution is false.

    Once more I note that you have not responded to the citation I gave to 
Dr. Danby's book.  

    And you have once more failed to address the fact that if the events
portrayed in that scene happened as shown, then how can there have been a 
deliberate fraud on Spielberg's part?  If he had altered the inscription 
on the ring, that would have falsified the history of Schindler's life!

    But yet again, you need address the note in Dr. Danby's book rather
than just repeating your charge.  Even if you tell me the same thing three
times, that still does not make it true, Rev. Dodgson notwithstanding.  
According to the note in Danby's book, the quote is not a phony.


>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew. But then again, neither are you.
>Youre a Khazar, an Ashkenazi (Ash-ken-nazi),

    Thanks, I know how to pronounce it.


>one of the chosen people from the Caucasus, not the Levant.  Your 
>identity is as much of a hoax as Spielberg*s movie and therein hangs a tale.

    Amusingly enough, my identity *is* a hoax - just not the one you
think.  (Stein was not the original name of my father's father.)  So, you
think you know my family's genealogy, then? 

    Even if the Khazar tale were true, if you really knew halacha, you'd 
know that they *would* be Jews.


> Not only am I not a Jew, I am not an Edomite of any kind, Khazar, 
>Ashkenzai or Yehudi.

    How about an ashcan Nazi, then?


>I am however a connoisseur of the art of jew-jitsu,something you and 
>the other hoaxers will be learning to your sorrow, as you cross swords 
>with me in the future.

    Gosh, I'm shaking in my boots.

    But the sword thingee is kendo.


>Your Hebrews not too great,

    Please, tell me what was wrong with it.  Though while we're on the 
subject -

>To answer youre question, Im not a Jew.

    I suppose you think that *your* (not "youre") English is hot 
stuff....


>hows your Latin?  Nemo me impune lacessit.

    Captain Nemo, at your service, then.

    But if you insist on cutting your *own* throat, well, is that *my*
fault?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 17138 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!sjsumcs.sjsu.edu!wetware!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.unb.ca!amalthea.sun.csd.unb.ca!t08o
From: t08o@amalthea.sun.csd.unb.ca (Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 6 Oct 1994 22:23:07 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <371tcb$9s4@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References:   <36ojd4$2vk@access4.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: amalthea.sun.csd.unb.ca

Please state the nature of the International Conspiracy that has
faked the Holocaust.

Please indicate some of the leaders of this conspiracy.

Please indicate the method by which they convinced thousands to
testify in generally identical terms.

Please indicate why only people such as yourself have been able to
uncover said conspiracy when the conspiracy is obviously strong
enough to control entire nations.

Please indicate why said powerful conspiracy has not silenced you yet.



Keith Morrison

The Foot in Mouth Quote of the Week

"Look, Keren, I know that people not native to the west, such as you,
 have problems grasping some of the ideas of western mathematics."
                                   -Tim McCarthy, 29/09/94
                                    to Dr. Danny Keren, Ph.D.
                                      (Mathematics)
************************************************************
*t08o@unb.ca  *  My views are not those of the University  *
***************  of New Brunswick.  UNB never has views on *
*             *  on anything, ever.                        *
************************************************************


Article 17156 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!news.i-link.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!landpost_ppp.clark.net!user
From: landpost@clark.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Thin jackets"
Date: 7 Oct 1994 02:07:04 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 9
Message-ID: 
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>    
NNTP-Posting-Host: landpost_ppp.clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In article ,
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

GARBABE DELETED:

Heresay, all of it. 

Tim McCarthy
landpost@clark.net


Article 17169 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ddsw1!golux.pr.mcs.net!user
From: golux@mcs.com (The only Golux in the World, and not a mere Device)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Thin jackets"
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 01:04:31 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 40
Message-ID: 
References:  <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>     
NNTP-Posting-Host: golux.pr.mcs.net

In article ,
landpost@clark.net wrote:

> In article ,
> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> GARBABE DELETED:
> 
> Heresay, all of it. 

I believe you think you mean "hearsay."  (Unless you mean heresy. Hmm...) 
And it may or may not be, depending on the perspective you take.  On the
one hand, it is offered as the actual testimony of an eyewitness; hence
not hearsay.  On the other hand, it is being offered here with the witness
out of the "courtroom" (so to speak), and it is offered to prove the truth
of the matter being asserted (i.e., the facts of winter and clothing in
Auschwitz); hence, hearsay.  Back on the first hand, however, it appears
to be a diary, indicating that it may fall into the "present sense
impression" exception to our carefully crafted hearsay rule; hence perhaps
admissible hearsay.  (I won't go into the effect of Mr. Levi's
unavailability on the hearsay nature of his writing.)

Of course, this isn't a court of law, so the hearsay rule is pretty much
irrelevant.  You are perfectly welcome, if you so desire, to dismiss Mr.
Levi's journal as "hearsay" and to refuse to accept what he wrote as
truth.  However, you should realize that the exact same objection holds
with respect to your clothing list and your train schedules: they're just
something that someone wrote down once, and that someone is not here to
authenticate or corroborate their writing.

So instead of calling it "garbage" and dismissing it as "heresay," perhaps
you might try to form a cogent response, if such a thing is possible, to
Mr. Levi's description of Auschwitz winters.  (Maybe you could assure us
that the climate in Poland during the war was actually quite tropical.)

-- 
D. J. Schaeffer |       The Todal looks like a blob of glup.
golux@mcs.com   |     It makes a sound like rabbits screaming,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        and smells of old, unopened rooms.
                            -- Thurber, _The 13 Clocks_



Article 48032 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: bigfoist@aol.com (Bigfoist)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: N.Y. Times Targets Bo Gritz for Federal Attack
Date: 9 Oct 1994 10:56:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 5
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3790a1$bk8@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: <5m02xa4.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article <5m02xa4.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>, hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:

In a nutshell, what are Bo's views on minorities, gays and women?

And exactly what is "traditional family morality?"


Article 48033 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!potogold.rmii.com!rainbow!broward
From: broward@rmii.com (Horne Broward)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: N.Y. Times Targets Bo Gritz for Federal Attack
Date: 9 Oct 1994 16:52:15 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <37973v$4am@potogold.rmii.com>
References: <5m02xa4.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <3790a1$bk8@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rmii.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Bigfoist (bigfoist@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <5m02xa4.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>, hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:

: In a nutshell, what are Bo's views on minorities, gays and women?


      What is this important?  So that you can decide in your heart
      whether he should be burned or not?




Article 17360 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access3.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 10 Oct 1994 00:49:30 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 518
Message-ID: <37ah4q$9vr@access3.digex.net>
References:   <36ojd4$2vk@access4.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access3.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
>From Michael A. Hoffman II.
>Responding to Michael Stein.
> 
>Pot, kettle. black.
>Brilliant repartee, that. Is this  imbecile chant your standard reply when you
>stand convicted of hypocrisy?

    No, it's my standard reply *to* a hypocrite.

    You have called me one, but failed to point out any inconsistency in 
any position I have taken.  You are cordially invited to do so, or 
withdraw your accusation.  If you attempt to support your empty 
assertion - good luck! - be sure to quote my words in context, not 
paraphrase them.  You have distorted them in previous articles. 

    On the other hand, you self-righteously call me tendentious and all 
sorts of other things which can fairly be ascribed to yourself.  Your 
hypocrisy *is* demonstrated.

    And in your current response you certainly don't redeem yourself. 
In fact ... well, we'll get to that in due time.


>Kastner is a major figure in the history of Zionism. Do your homework and 
>serve your apprenticeship and then you can come and play with me. I do 
>not teach remedial history to Holocaust party hacks.

    You know, the last revisionist who refused to provide a citation when
asked took the same condescending tone.  So I did some digging, and found
the reference.  You know what?  The original claim was a gross distortion
of the referenced work.  (And frankly, I'm being charitable.)

    So I hope you'll understand why, given my previous experience, I'm 
just a *leetle* suspicious.  If you have the goods, why are you afraid 
to show them?  I would think you'd be only too eager to spread the 
truth!  If you won't do it for my sake, then how about for the sake of 
all the other people who may be reading and have minds open to your 
startling truths?  Inquiring minds want to know! 

    Thus your reaction to my question is, to say the least, puzzling - 
that is, puzzling if you really have the facts to back up what you say.  
Of course, if you don't, and you're bluffing, well, then of course your 
behavior isn't puzzling at all.  If you insist on acting in a manner 
indistinguishable from that of someone who can't deliver the goods, I 
hope you realize that people might mistake you for someone who really 
*can't* deliver the goods.  Oh, well, suit yourself.


    If you are hoping that if you act condescending enough, you'll
somehow intimidate me (or anyone else here, for that matter), I suggest 
you ask Fritz Berg or Peter Skaliks how much success they had with that 
tactic.  Skaliks suffered rather a major embarrassment when he tried it 
- he seems to have slunk off.

    And if you think that you can do anything to me with insults - 
well, you can ask Fritz Berg what luck he had there.


>I will not go back and forth with you on your absurd claim that had 
>Spielberg shown Goeth being arrested by the SS 

    You carefully omitted my point about it being not simply an arrest, 
but specifically an arrest for corruption and not murder as described in 
Keneally's book.

    Why did you omit that important point?  It changes the meaning of 
what I said.

    Perhaps you just overlooked it.  Several of us have noticed in 
recent months what appears to be a communicable strain of myopia among 
revisionists; a visit to the optometrist might be in order.

    Because you've glossed over it *three times* now.


>it would not have changed anyones opinion about the Nazis.  You are only 
>projecting your own robotic rigidity and ascribing universal assent to it.

    I suppose if I were as full of myself as you seem to think I am, 
I *would* hold the opinion that only an idiot would disagree with my 
point.  (That is, my point AS I WROTE IT, not as you presented it - you 
seem to show quite a robotic rigidity in mutilating my meaning.)

    But quite aside from the fact that I am not so full of myself as you 
think, I do recognize the existence of idiots in this world, and so 
clearly I couldn't ascribe universal assent to it.  *You* disagree, 
after all. 


>Scholars, researchers and historians worthy of the name exhibit 
>curiosity, surprise and similar human attributes when encountering
>anomalous information.

    Are you saying that moviegoers are scholars, researchers and
historians?  How would moviegoers even know that this information is
anomalous? 

    Or are you saying *I* should exhibit curiosity when encountering
anomalous information?

    If it's the latter, I *did* exhibit curiosity.  (I suggest you take 
a taxi to that optometrist - your eyesight's obviously so poor that 
you'd be a menace behind the wheel.)  I *asked* you for a reference, so 
that I could do further research to learn whether the information is 
truly anomalous or not.  And you ever so politely said: 

>Do your homework and serve your apprenticeship and then you can come and 
>play with me.  I do not teach remedial history to Holocaust party hacks.

    Goodness, Mr. Hoffman, that's certainly an unfriendly attitude to 
take to someone seeking the truth.  And I am.  What makes you think I'm 
a Holocaust party hack?  Just because I think the evidence that the 
Holocaust is infinitely more persuasive than the revisionist case?  Yes, 
I admit to this.

    Of course, when anomalous information comes from a source of which 
I am skeptical, my reaction is a bit different than when it comes from 
a source I trust.  Am I skeptical of your statements?  Yes.  But you can 
blame most of my attitude on so many of your fellow revisionists, since 
their cases are full of lies, distortions, twisted logic, quotes out of 
context, half truths, etc.  (I gave a list of examples in another 
posting just recently.)

    Yet you will note I did not dismiss you out of hand, as you seem to 
be doing to me.  I won't accept your unsupported assertions, but I was 
and remain perfectly willing to give a fair look at any documented 
evidence you bring to the table.  Your fellow revisionists have been
rather disappointing on that score.  If you are not like them, you will 
truly be a new thing in my experience.  But your habit of not showing 
your readers the exact words I used, cutting out important bits of what 
I said so as to distort its meaning, certainly doesn't seem promising.  
And furthermore ... well, as I said, we'll get to that.  Promise.


>Also kindly refrain from telling me what I believe vis a vis revisionism.

    Oh?  You show no hesitation in telling me what I believe - even when
it is directly contradicted by an honest reading of my words. 

    But by all means, tell us what you think happened in Auschwitz-
Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor - and why you think so.


>Within revisionism there are all kinds of disputes. For example, 
>Friedrich P. Berg has disputed some major contentions of Dr. Robert 
>Faurisson.

    Indeed, I know which article of Berg's you're talking about, or one 
of them at least.  Just by coincidence, I posted excerpts from it the 
other night. 

    Perhaps you should not be so hasty in jumping to conclusions about 
what I do and don't know?


>But what you have forgotten to tell your Internet auditors
>is that Danby upholds the authoritative text as I have quoted it: If any 
>man saves alive a single soul from Israel, scripture imputes it to him 
>as though he had saved a whole world (The Mishnah, p. 388). Danby simply 
>acknowledges in a five word footnote that other texts omit the word 
>Israel.... [Danby] is only acknowledging the existence, not the veracity, 
>of, to put it charitably, minor heteordox versions.

    This accusation deserves a response.  Let's rewind the tape and 
look at the EXACT words that passed between us, eh? 

    In your original posting, you said:

>The aphorism has a nice, warm, humanistic tenor, but there's just one 
>problem: that's not what the Talmud says. The actual Talmud verse states, 
>"Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him 
>as if he had preserved a complete world" (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a). The 
>Talmud only praises the saving of Jewish lives. In Spielberg's non-stop 
>deception, even the documented contents of Jewish books are falsified.

    It seemed to me you were accusing Spielberg of being the one 
who altered text.  So I pulled the first handy book on the shelf, and 
found that if there was alteration, it predated Spielberg.  Therefore
on 29th September in message <36de93$gs4@access4.digex.net>, I replied:
>    The words "of Israel" is is present in some versions of the Talmud and
>not in others.

    [Yes, I noticed the atrocious construction of this sentence.  That's 
what I get for writing at 2AM.] 

    You see, the reason I raised the point is that if the variant texts 
exist - corrupt or not - someone who has read such a text and quotes it 
is not falsifying it.  Therefore even if Spielberg had been making a 
movie about the Talmud (which I remind you he was not), you'd be jumping 
the gun in claiming *he* was responsible for any fraud. 

    Just thought I'd mention in passing, you seem to show some 
inconsistency between the amount of evidence you need to convict 
Spielberg of fraud and the amount of evidence you (well, OK, unwarranted 
assumption - let's just say all other revisionists) demand to convict 
the SS of mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers. 


    But you seemed to think that I was making the whole thing up.  In 
article , you wrote: 
>you say that my citation appears in only certain ["]versions of the 
>Talmud["] and not in others.  You mean to say that there are several 
>Babylonian Talmuds?  Or are you preying on the gullibility of your 
>audience to claim that Talmud is a sort of indeterminate factor?
>Where are these other versions that overturn the scripture, 
>["]whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel["]? 

On 2nd October, in message <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net>, I quoted the above 
text, and directly beneath the final sentence said:
>    I will give you the reference from which I made my statement.  
>Danby, Herbert: The Mishnah [Oxford University Press, 1933] p. 388, note 
>4.

    When you look at the exchange in context, I was answering as best I 
could your direct question "Where are the other versions?"  I don't 
know where they are - but the fact that they were there before 
Spielberg's birth calls into question your claim to have proved 
intentional fraud on the part of Spielberg, and that was what I was 
trying to point out.  As I was writing it, I thought the fact that the 
answer to this question pointed to a footnote would imply that the 
standard version was in the main body of the text.  But on rereading, it 
*is* too subtle, and I should have realized that many people would not 
get it - not from this text alone, at least. 

    Still, I'm both surprised and disappointed that someone who throws 
around phrases such as "stands ... on its own exegetical integrity" and 
"hermeneutic context of the Talmud as a whole" almost as if he knows 
what those impressive words mean didn't pick up on it here.  Oh, and I 
would dearly love to hear Mr. Hoffman explain how the restrictive 
interpretation stands on its own exegetical integrity *without* the 
hermeneutic context of the Talmud as a whole.  (But email or 
soc.culture.jewish is the proper place to do that.) 

    Now at this point I'm sure Mr. Hoffman would be only too glad to 
announce that all of the above is merely weaseling on my part in trying 
to clear myself of Mr. Hoffman's sly insinuation that I deliberately hid 
the fact that the main text gives the words "of Israel" and only the 
note gives the quote as in Keneally's book. 

    Except that if you read further down in my text, you find the 
additional line:

>According to the note in Danby's book, the quote is not a phony.

     According to the *note*.  By this time I think a reasonably 
intelligent reader should realize from what I wrote that it's the note 
that refers to the text without "of Israel."  Yet (to refresh everyone's 
memory) Mr. Hoffman sneered: 

>But what you have forgotten to tell your Internet auditors
>is that Danby upholds the authoritative text as I have quoted it[....]
>Danby simply acknowledges in a five word footnote that other texts omit 
>the word Israel.... [Danby] is only acknowledging the existence, not the 
>veracity, of, to put it charitably, minor heteordox versions.

[If you're wondering about the second use of ellipsis dots, the text has 
been moved below for better logical organization of the argument.]

    Well, you show some charity at last.  Maybe there's hope.

    I suppose here I must ask: just what do you mean by "veracity?"  
True in that they are the most accurate version of the original oral law 
as given to Moses, or true merely in that those who wrote them were not 
knowingly changing the text?  In either case, how do you propose to 
determine the veracity of these texts?  Do you have a time machine? 

    Anyway, neither does Danby *question* their veracity in either 
sense, yes?  He just presents the text with "of Israel" as being the 
preferred version (for what reason, he does not say - simple majority?) 
and notes that "Some texts omit 'of Israel'."

    Not that it makes a difference in the larger context of this 
discussion, which is whether *Spielberg* has been proven to have 
*deliberately* changed text.  For what I meant, you exegetical expert, 
you, is that if variant texts are already floating around, then you 
haven't show the movie version of the quote is necessarily a phony *on 
Spielberg's part*.

    I think the "hermeneutic context" of *my* writing as a whole shows 
that I gave notice sufficient to tip the reasonably intelligent reader 
to the fact that the alternate version was referred to *in the footnote* 
- and furthermore, that my intent was to show for both this and an even 
more important reason (namely, that the movie was *not* about the 
Talmud, but about Schindler's life) that Mr. Hoffman is, to put it 
mildly, stretching a bit in his assertion that Spielberg deliberately 
falsified a Talmud quotation. 

    But perhaps the problem is simply that I overestimated Mr. 
Hoffman's intelligence.  All I can say in my defense - and it's a poor 
excuse, I know - is that Mr. Hoffman himself makes the same mistake. 


[The following text is represented by the latter ellipsis dots in the 
previous citation from Mr. Hoffman's posting.] 

>hence you cannot claim Danby for your attempt to salvage Spielbergs 
>fraud.  You must rather consult those other texts.  Please do so and 
>make your claim based on them and not Danby[.]

    Are you saying I must find the original Nth century text and carbon
date it, or what?

    But [apologies to everyone else here for repeating myself, but Mr. 
Hoffman does seem to be unusually slow to Get The Point] I do *not* need 
to refer to those texts to point out that even if Spielberg *had* been 
making a movie about the Talmud - and I remind you for the eighth or 
ninth time now, HE WAS NOT - if these texts exist as Danby says they 
do, then in order to convict Spielberg of fraud you would be required 
to show that he did not read these texts but rather only the texts you 
are citing, and wilfully omitted the offending words himself rather than 
making the honest mistake of relying on a text he thought was authentic 
but turned out to be corrupt. 

    And as I *also* said before (and I hate to think how often), that's 
not the real issue, no matter how much you pretend that a scene intended 
to show a moment about Schindler's life - which included the quote 
without "of Israel" - is by some bizarre pseudologic a proven case of 
intentional falsification of the Talmud.   You keep evading the issue 
that Spielberg was showing what happened in the life of Schindler, not 
making a movie about the Talmud.  You can scream all you like that 
Spielberg was deliberately distorting the Talmud.  But it seems you 
simply cannot handle the fact that what Spielberg was doing in that 
scene was showing Schindler's life.  Bluster and evade and distract all 
you like, but that's the way it is.  Deal with it. 

    When I made these points, you accused me of "seiz[ing] upon any 
contrivance necessary to absolve [my] exterminationist cohort of any 
malfeasance."  Well, chew on this: recently I publicly defended self-
acknowledged National Socialist Milton Kleim, Jr. against Daniel Keren's 
charge of lying, because Keren presented no evidence that Kleim did not 
*believe* what he was saying (no matter how wrong it was).  I think you 
should still be able to find that article if you look for it.

    Was I "seizing upon any contrivance" then?  Believe it or not, Mr. 
Hoffman, I *do* have consistent standards, no matter how many times you 
throw around the word "hypocrite" without ever actually making a case. 
(However, it sticks to you like glue, as I shall show in a moment.)


    Now, if you have evidence Spielberg falsified the *scene*, by all 
means bring it out.  Spielberg changed some *other* things about the 
book - someone else here gave some examples, and before you arrived here 
I had mentioned some more.  (E.g., Schindler seeing the burning of the 
little girl in red was pure Hollywood; you cannot find that scene in the 
book.  It was effective moviemaking, but personally I really wish 
Spielberg had resisted his entertainer's instincts there.) 

    And during the last discussion of the book in this forum, when I 
quoted Keneally's text about the Zyklon found at Lublin, I was careful 
to note your point that most Zyklon at Lublin *was* for delousing.  (It 
is believed there were some experimental Zyklon gassings at Majdanek, 
but Auschwitz-Birkenau was the only camp to use it on a mass scale.) 

    If you have evidence *I've* said something false, bring it out as 
well.  I acknowledge and retract errors.  But as I said above, I'll 
thank you to quote my words in context. 


    Now, Mr. Hoffman, since you're such a fussbudget about forgetting to 
tell people things, shall we talk about a few spots in your own writing, 
hmn? 

    In the same post in which you wax indignant about *my* supposed 
lapse, you omitted for the THIRD time the full context in which I wrote 
of Goeth's arrest. 

In article ,  you wrote:
>The crucial truth that Spielberg withheld from his audience is that in
>Sept., 1944, Goeth was arrested by the Central Office of the SS
>Judiciary and imprisoned on charges of theft and the murder of
>concentration camp inmates.  Spielberg was certainly aware of this fact
>since it is mentioned in chapter 31 of the book by Keneally upon
>which the movie is supposedly based.

    Someone unfamiliar with the text of Keneally's book could take "this 
fact" to refer to the *entire* compound construction "arrested ... and 
imprisoned on charges of theft and ... murder."  I pointed out that it 
was extremely misleading because the murder charge was NOT mentioned in 
Keneally's book.  I then quoted Keneally's exact text to demonstrate 
this point. 

    Yet you ignored it completely.  You replied in message 
: 
>Keneally knew Goeth had been arrested by the SS and said so in the 
>book.  There is nothing misleading or incorrect in my attribution.

    I answered in message <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net>: 
>    There is most definitely something misleading in what you wrote.  The 
>way you phrased it could easily mislead someone to believe that not just
>the arrest, but the specific charge of murdering prisoners, was contained
>in Keneally's book (which it was not). 

>    However, I do recognize that you may not have done this 
>deliberately.  There are many sloppy writers in the world and you may 
>just be one of them.  I make it a point never to attribute to malice 
>what can adequately be explained by stupidity. 

    Yet sure enough, in your latest post - after I had made the 
point *twice* - not only did you still refuse to admit that your 
original phrasing was misleading, but you once again forgot to tell 
people that when I talked about people's likely reaction to being told 
of Goeth's arrest, I clearly talked about the scenario described in 
Keneally's book - an arrest for corruption *only*.

    In order to charge Spielberg with engaging in a coverup and myself 
of making absurd arguments, you had to gloss over that key point about 
exactly what is in Keneally's book not once, not twice, but *three* times 
- and after it had been pointed out to you *twice*.  For someone who 
cries about exegetical integrity, you often exhibit a complete lack of 
integrity in your interpretation of text.

    Let's see, you cited Ainsztein, p. 845 regarding the arrest and 
imprisonment of Goeth?

     "Between 2,000 and 3,000 prisoners were brought from the 
  Montelupich Prison to Plaszow for execution during Goeth's reign,
  which ended on 13 September 1944, when he was arrested by the SS 
  court of Cracow on charges of having stolen large amounts of money, 
  valuables, clothes and furniture belonging to his Jewish prisoners, 
  which he should have delibered to the SS Administration of Concentration
  Camps."

     Source: Ainsztein, Reuben.  "Jewish Resistance in Nazi-Occupied 
Europe" [Harper & Row, 1974], p. 845.

    In other words, Ainsztein gives us nothing which isn't in Keneally.  
No murder charge against Goeth is mentioned.  So what's the big deal 
about Ainsztein? 

    But now you've got me curious.  I really will have to drop by my 
neighborhood library this week and check out the IMT references you 
gave. 

    Oh, and I've saved the best for last.

>The restrictive interpretation found in both Danby and Soncino, stands 
>both on its own exegetical integrity as the correct rendering of the 
>Mishnah passage at issue,

    Just in passing, it's not a restrictive *interpretation*, it's a 
text, pure and simple.  Danby and the Soncino editions both give the 
text, not any modern interpretation. 

    Now, remember, when I pointed out there were texts without the 
words, "of Israel?"  And you roared indignantly, 
>you say that my citation appears in only certain ["]versions of the 
>Talmud["] and not in others.  You mean to say that there are several 
>Babylonian Talmuds?  Or are you preying on the gullibility of your 
>audience to claim that Talmud is a sort of indeterminate factor?

    Well, Mr. Hoffman, I think there's something you forgot to tell *your*
Internet readers (not auditors).  You say you were using Soncino for your
source?  Guess what - Soncino has the same footnote about some texts
omitting "of Israel!"  Were the footnotes too tiny for you to handle with
your Revisionist Myopia?  Forget the optometrist, I think it's time you
got a seeing-eye dog.


    Can you say "chutzpah?"  I knew you could.  Well, quite honestly I'm 
not at all upset.  I don't need to skewer you; you're doing a fine job 
of carving *yourself* up.  All I need do is sit back and point out every 
time you commit the very sins you falsely accuse me of.  And that, I 
daresay, I *can* do with impunity.  As the line goes, what are you going 
to do - bleed all over me? 

    I know you fancy yourself an expert intellectual swordsman, Mr. 
Hoffman, but I feel I ought to extend just one friendly piece of advice.  
The pointy end should be AWAY from you.  (You will just have to trust me 
on this one.) 


    You will note that I do you the courtesy of providing a direct quote
of your text to which I am responding.  In the future (provided you don't
just slink off into the night like Skaliks - which, frankly, I would do if
I were in your shoes), why don't you save yourself much additional
embarrassment and both of us some time by quoting my text directly rather
than taking liberties with it, as you have done on several occasions now. 

    Surely by now you realize that thanks to the magic of technology I 
am perfectly capable of putting quotes next to distorted paraphrases by 
way of response.  I'm surprised Greg Raven didn't think to warn you 
about this filthy and underhanded little trick of mine, since he's been 
the victim of it more than once.  Ask him about page 181 of Pressac, 
which contains the comments of Pressac about the testimony of Bo"ck - 
provided he's willing to talk about it, that is; he's been somewhat 
reluctant to discuss it here. 


The following matter is still open and waiting for your response:

>>When this writer documents that the Talmud quote in  >>Schindler*s List<< 
>>is a phony you then claim that its only a minor falsification.

>    Please quote the exact words I used to claim this.

     You have not answered my request to back up your accusation.  The 
challenge is repeated.  As usual, in your characterization of my words 
I can find no resemblance to any text I actually wrote.  Can you quote 
it back to me?  As Fritz Berg might say, put up or shut up.

    I'll give you a free ride on the question about whether the angel 
Moroni drew the plans for the Kremas which contained no plumbing for the 
showers, or wrote the letter from Bischoff to Kammler containing the 
word, "Vergasungskeller."  (I'm such a sweetheart.)

                        
    By the way, you haven't told me what was wrong with my Hebrew.  I'm
still curious.  Even if you don't do it for my sake, you appear not to
like me - don't you want to show everyone what a fool I am by exposing my 
misuse of Hebrew?  Well then, go for it!  As I said, I don't mind being 
corrected.

    Or were you bluffing there, too?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 17416 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!prime.mdata.fi!mits.mdata.fi!kauhunen
From: kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi (Kari Nenonen)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: "Thin jackets"
Date: 11 Oct 1994 01:47:49 GMT
Organization: Mits BBS, Helsinki, Finland (40+ Nodes +358-0-4582066)
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <37cqs5$c51@prime.mdata.fi>
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article ,
  wrote:
>In article ,
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
>GARBABE DELETED:
>
>Heresay, all of it. 

Heh heh heh. You obviously cannot write two lines without fucking it up,
landpost.

>
>Tim McCarthy
>landpost@clark.net


-- 
Kari Nenonen   - kauhunen@mits.mdata.fi          - Skepsis r.y.
Maavallintie 4 - Tel: 358-0-5636625              - Helsingin Scifiseura
00430 Helsinki - The Finnish Dramatists' Society - Wan.Her.Tiet.Kirj.N.H
Finland        - The Writers' Union of Finland   - International J.C.


Article 17444 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!fonorola!mitel!not-for-mail
From: freedman@software.mitel.com (Gordon Freedman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 11 Oct 1994 12:31:48 -0400
Organization: Mitel Corporation
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <37eelk$61i@picard.mitel.com>
References:   <36lq01$ch4@access3.digex.net>  <36ojd4$2vk@access4.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: picard.mitel.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]

hoffman2nd@delphi.com wrote:
: From Michael A. Hoffman II.
: Responding to Michael Stein.
:  
: < Garbage deleted >

: Kastner is a major figure in the history of Zionism.
Please provide your sources.  Scholars do not take for fact that which
is undocumented or unattributed.  If you wish to state that this is your
opinion - fine.  If you wish to state that you knew him and his actions -
fine.  Otherwise, please provide at least one source.

: Revisionism itself requires revision and my views do not absolutely uphold what
: you are pleased to imagine is the stock World War Two revisionist line. Within
: revisionism there are all kinds of disputes. For example, Friedrich P. Berg has
: disputed some major contentions of Dr. Robert Faurisson. And so forth.
This is always the cry of revisionists before the insults fly.  I didn't say
I believed this or that.  Well, In order to make this "discussion" interesting
why don't you outline your beliefs upfront.  That we we can have a go at
establishing (or refuting) a coherent thesis.  If you keep saying "my views 
do not absolutely..." in response to critisism, how will we know when 
your postings further the discussion?

:  The sophistry you need to construct around Spielbergs falsification of the
: Talmud passage
He is allowed to chose the source he quotes.  A given translation reflects
a translator's view of the text as a whole.  You can express discontent at 
the choice of quotes, but you are simply a liar when you state that 
Spielberg falsified anything.

: ..., as well as upon the fact that it is perfectly consonant with the
: hermeneutic context of the Talmud as a whole, which explicitly legislates that
: Gentiles are not human beings.
Go study Talmud for a while.  It will take you a long time to learn the 
entire Talmud, but what you will find will be quite unpleasant.  The bible 
has stated that all human beings (gentile and Jewish) are decendants of Adam
and as such should be treated accordingly.  Even evil doers are judged for
their crimes only once the crimes are committed.  If you have studied Talmud,
you are a liar,  if not, you are an imbecil for stating as fact something
about which you know very little.

For the uninitiated, the Talmud takes 7 years to complete if studied an hour
a day given a) complete knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, b) thorough 
knowledge of the bible (old testament) in its original text, c) competency
in Talmudic study, and d) a thorough understanding of the Talmud's contents -
usually aquired by having studied it before.

Gordon Freedman
-my opinions, not my employers-


Article 17530 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Goeth's arrest
Supersedes: <37l7r7$jk8@access1.digex.net>
Date: 14 Oct 1994 09:22:57 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <37m0nh$r0r@access1.digex.net>
References:   <37ah4q$9vr@access3.digex.net> <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>,   wrote:
>From Michael A. Hoffman II
>Replying to Michael Stein
> 
>In John chapter 8, verses 37-47, Christ takes up
>the issue of the Pharisaic >>tin ear.<<

    As you have continued to distort my meaning in your post, and ignored 
my request to quote my words rather than paraphrase them, I think you are 
the one suffering from tin ear, clouded eye, and petrified brain.

>You appear to be constitutionally incapable of hearing the truth.

    How would you have any way of judging this?  Try writing some truth.  
Representing my words honestly would be a good start.  Quoting would be 
even better.


>When the truth is spoken to you, you hear something else and then react 
>to and pontificate upon your own fantasy.

    This is in fact an excellent description of what you say about my 
writing, which you distort and carefully avoid quoting so people can see 
what I really said.


>Only a grind and a hack would continue to suggest that Keneally
>is the only authority for the history of the SS Judiciary and the record of
>Commandant Goeth.

    Only a grind and a hack such as yourself would continue to suggest I 
said anything of the sort.  Quote my words.  I dare you.


>I have given you references for the fact that Goeth was also arrested 
>for brutalizing and murdering prisoners. The IMT reference is Morgens 
>statement. You must also refer to his superior Mittelstaedts affidavit.

    Gee, Mr. Hoffman, what happened to Ainsztein?  Just sort of
disappeared after I revealed that your beloved Ainsztein said no more than
Keneally did? 

    Why did you refer to Ainsztein when it said no more than Keneally did?

    You say that the fact that Spielberg didn't include the info about a
charge of murdering prisoners proves he was covering up.  So far the only
place you've mentioned that Spielberg could have learned this was the IMT
documents.  I ask you how one is supposed to know that one ought to search
for information about Goeth there, since Goeth was not tried by the IMT
but by a Polish court. 


>The surprise and curiosity which you fail to exhibit when your Hollywood 
>auteurs are revealed as carnival pitchmen,

    If you think that it is surprising that Hollywood gets things wrong,
may I ask what desert island you've been living on for the past fifty
years, Mr. Hoffman?  I told you I already knew that Spielberg changed
things in his source material.

    The point you keep ignoring is that you have no evidence Spielberg
failed to show anything as a result of a deliberate desire to conceal. 
Please provide that evidence.  If you want to call him a poor historian
because he failed to dig up Morgen's statement, well, go ahead.  I won't
defend him there.  He might not even defend himself there.  Do you have
any reference other than the IMT material to the prisoner mistreatment
charge?  Aisztein doesn't seem to have anything on it. 

    Oh, and, if you think what he did to "Schindler's List" is bad, check
out "Jurassic Park...." 


>I am speaking of the information revealed in alt.revisionism about this 
>fraudulent film.

    Given that you are completely incapable of interpreting my text
correctly, I will reserve judgement until I see whether your citation to
the IMT evidence is germane, or simply reflects the same lack of reading
comprehension you show when interpreting my words. 


>However this claim would never be made with regard to
>an Arab film about Israeli army war criminals.

    If an Arab film failed to mention that an Israeli soldier depicted as
torturing Palestinians was arrested for stealing Army funds, actually, I'd
say exactly the same thing. 


>Any such Arab film which covered up Israeli prosecution of Khazar war 
>criminals would be labeled as propaganda;

    Not on my part, if the prosecution was not related to the war crimes.


>but when such techniques are used in >>Schindlers List<< you make excuses
>instead of facing up to the propaganda tactic and condemning it.

    I have stated my position and it is consistent.  You simply repeat
your distortion of my position with robotic rigidity due to *your* tin
ear.  (If I really said what you claim, why don't you just quote my words,
eh?)  You also omitted the other evidence I offered as to the consistency
of my positions.  Now, when Spielberg omits anything, it's fraud and
falsification, but when you do it, well, I guess that's another thing. 


>With regard to the analysis of Spielbergs falsification of the Talmud quote

    Yet another unsupported assertion that Spielberg did things from 
deliberate deception rather than simple ignorance.  I've warned you about 
this enough times that I'd say that you can no longer claim simple 
ignorance.  Have you put in the requisition for the seeing-eye dog yet?


>It should hardly need to be stated, but given your tin ear the task 
>seems incumbent, that because Danby and Soncino acknowledge the 
>existence of spurious versions of the Talmud

    Your tin ear does not permit you to acknowledge that Danby and 
Soncino did not call them spurious.

    And, of course, there's the matter of your completely fraudulent
display of shock and surprise when I told you about the Danby note.  It
was in Soncino as well, yet you covered up its existence.  Would you care
to discuss that flagrant bit of dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part? 


>the>>variant<< Talmud texts emanate from a process of forgery

    Another accusation without any proof offered.  *yawn*


> On Kastner: look at the pedestrian game you are playing, daring me to 
>reveal what I know or otherwise stand accused of >>bluffing.<<
>This is on par with your very cerebral >>pot, kettle, black<< retort.

    Look at the pedestrian game you are playing, trying to distract from 
the issue that you make assertions without backing them up.

    This is on a par with bluffing.

    What's wrong with my Hebrew, Mr. Hoffman? 

    Oh, next time could you please learn to format your text properly?


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




Article 48491 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!svc.portal.com!portal!cup.portal.com!John_L_Humbert
From: John_L_Humbert@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: N.Y. Times Targets Bo Gritz for Federal Attack
Message-ID: <124720@cup.portal.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 94 08:27:46 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
References: <5m02xa4.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
  <3790a1$bk8@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <37973v$4am@potogold.rmii.com>
Lines: 27

In a previous article broward@rmii.com (Horne Broward) writes:

>: In article <5m02xa4.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>, hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
>
>: In a nutshell, what are Bo's views on minorities, gays and women?
>
>
>      What is this important?  So that you can decide in your heart
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      whether he should be burned or not?
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


That's exactly right!  That's the way these people think.  If his views,
Bo's or anyone else,  don't match their views then they deserve to
be exterminated bye the Government,  burned alive,  shot, or what ever.
These are the same people that call *Bo* wacko.

What does a persons view on issues,  such as gays or abortion, have to do
with a persons Constitutional right to exist and live freely as they wish?

What truly irks people like Bigfoist and frankenchrist, is the fact that
*some* people don't agree with them.  These people only want to get away
and associate with others that share the same views-- but the people they
are trying to get away from JUST CAN'T STAND IT!

 John Humbert



Article 17612 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
In-Reply-To: hoffman2nd@delphi.com's message of Sat, 15 Oct 94 11:04:22 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  
	<37ah4q$9vr@access3.digex.net> <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
	<37m0nh$r0r@access1.digex.net> <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 22:15:21 GMT
Lines: 22


Gak, can anyone figure out what this guy hoffman is saying in his
manic, free-associative prose?

So was Ammon Goeth:

	a) A talmud scholar

	b) A movie critic

or

	c) A Miami Beach bragain basement merchant

?


-- 
        -Barry Shein

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


Article 17634 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: annya666@aol.com (AnnyA666)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 16 Oct 1994 11:00:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 8
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <37rf5k$ffj@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>, hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes a
lot of incomprehensible drivel:

Is there a point to this discussion?  I can't follow this thread--and I
suspect it has something to do with your eclectric prose style.  Are you
really an editor or are you just a kid with a title?

Are you in some way attempting to defend the actions of Anton Goeth?  




Article 18003 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 22 Oct 1994 20:22:02 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 413
Message-ID: <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net>
References:  <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <37m0nh$r0r@access1.digex.net> <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>, Michael Hoffman
(hoffman2nd@delphi.com) writes:
>Your latest post proves that your arguments are not those of a 
>researcher, a scholar or a debater

     I can't see what Mr. Hoffman is complaining about, since his previous 
posts prove that he is not any of these.  Scholars and such give 
*references*.  He gave precious few. 

    And those I was able check up on didn't check out.  Keneally didn't 
say what Hoffman's words implied they did.  I pointed out why Hoffman's 
words were misleading and he brazenly pretended they weren't.  Ainsztein 
didn't say anything more than Keneally, although Hoffman tried to fool 
people into thinking they did.  (I had previously given him the benefit of 
the doubt and chalked this sort of thing up to his being a sloppy writer 
despite his use of big words, but from now on I'll judge him by his own 
standards.)     


>To those aspects of the historical record which I cited in my last post, 
>you did not cite other aspects of what you perceive to be the documentary 
>record to counter them,

     Mr. Hoffman can't be bothered to give sources for most of his 
assertions (and those he gave which I have had a chance to check have 
proven deceptive in some way); why does he hold me to a higher standard? 


>   For example, when I stated that >>only a grind and a hack would 
>continue to suggest that Keneally is the only authority for the history 
>of the SS Judiciary and the record of Commandant Goeth,<< your response 
>was, >>quote my words, I dare you.<< Noblesse oblige, Mr. Stein. 

     *sigh*  I suppose I only have myself to blame.  I should have added 
the request that he quote them *in context*, since below he did not. 


>   When I insisted that Spielberg omitted the historic fact of Goeths 
>arrest for murder by the SS Judiciary you said it was >>an arrest for 
>corruption and not murder as described in Keneallys book.<< 
> Got that? >>as described in Keneallys book.<<


     A quote at last.  But let's supply some *context*, shall we?
[Note: In my original response Hoffman's quote was truncated at "SS."]

>>I will not go back and forth with you on your absurd claim that had 
>>Spielberg shown Goeth being arrested by the SS it would not have changed 
>>anyones opinion about the Nazis.

>    You carefully omitted my point about it being not simply an arrest, 
>but specifically an arrest for corruption and not murder as described in 
>Keneally's book.

     He snipped off the last dozen words and took them out of context.  
With "noblesse" like that, who needs villainy?

     I even *warned* him I could simply restore the context and post it
next to his distortion.  I guess he didn't believe me.  Oh, well; his
problem, not mine. 

     Hoffman dishonestly tried to say that Keneally said the SS had 
arrested Goeth for both corruption and murder.  Keneally in fact only 
spoke of the corruption charge.  I had previously said that if Spielberg 
had shown the arrest exactly as described in Keneally, with only a 
corruption charge, it would not have redeemed the SS as far as crimes 
against the prisoners.  The specific words quoted above were in the 
context of the fact that Hoffman was mutilating my point by omitting text, 
not any attempt on my part to say that Keneally was the only reference 
available about Goeth. 

    And here he does it again, changing my meaning by quoting out of 
context.  Scholars, researchers and debaters do not quote out of context.  
I do not quote out of context.  Only dishonest grinds and hacks quote out 
of context.  By their works shall ye know them. 


[Note: pieces of Mr. Hoffman's text have been moved up from their
original positions for more coherent discussion.  They *are* in context.]

>Once again you restrict discourse on the subject of the history of 
>Goeths prosecution by the SS [...]

>Next Mr. Stein says of this writer >>The point you keep ignoring is that 
>you have no evidence Spielberg failed to show anything as a result of a 
>deliberate desire to conceal. Please provide that evidence.<< The 
>evidence is in the fact that Mr. Spielberg did conceal. He concealed the 
>historical truth about Goeth. The issue about it being >>deliberate<< or 
>not is a red herring.  [...]

>The fact that Spielberg has done a three hour, Oscar-winning, blockbuster
>Hollywood production whose main spawn of Satan is the German commandant Amon
>Goeth and concealed Goeths arrest and imprisonment for murder and corruption
>constitutes the evidence for Spielbergs fraud.

     I *thought* the subject of discourse was whether Spielberg had 
knowingly concealed exculpatory facts.  Hoffman said he committed fraud.  
Fraud requires that the person doing the concealing *knows* what is being 
concealed, is concealing it *deliberately*.  Thus the issue of it being 
"deliberate" or not is NOT a red herring.  Someone who uses words like 
"hermeneutic" *ought* to know that.  I guess since "fraud" has only one 
syllable, Mr. Hoffman can't be bothered to find out what it means. 


>Other lies in your last post are as follows. Stein states: >>So far the 
>only place youve mentioned that Spielberg could have learned this (about 
>Goeth being arrested for murder) was the IMT documents.<<  Wrong. You are 
>fantasizing again, Mr. Stein.  What I actually said was, >>The IMT 
>reference is Morgens statement.<<  Got that? Morgen is IMT but not 
>Mittelstaedt.  How is it that you omitted Mittelstaedt when I cite him in 
>the next sentence after the Morgen citation?  Are you an old duffer, 
>Mr. Stein?  Do you have trouble recalling what you had for breakfast?

     Actually, Mr. Hoffman only has himself to blame for this.  I was 
merely trying to write concisely, since Hoffman had already given the 
references.  Hoffman mentioned both Mittelstaedt and Morgen and only gave 
a Blue Series (IMT) reference.  In his original article, Hoffman mentioned 
"the *affidavit* of Mittelstaedt" and "the *testimony* of Morgen" and 
followed both with one reference to the back of the very last volume of 
the Blue Series.  Something that far back would be an affidavit.  I 
therefore assumed that it was Mittelstaedt's, and the citation omitted was 
Morgen's testimony on the witness stand.  But after Mr.  Hoffman's latest 
post, I had an opportunity to take a peek at Vol. 42, p.  556.  It 
contains an affidavit from *Morgen*, not Mittelstaedt. 

    There were two sets of trials in Nuremberg, the International Military 
Tribunals (IMT) for the major war criminals, and the Nuremberg Military 
Tribunals (NMT) which followed.  I looked up the Mittelstaedt affidavit in 
the Nuremberg documents index and found its reference number (NO-1875, 
which Hoffman never gave), indicating it is an NMT document.  Therefore to 
be accurate I should have said "the Nuremberg documents" rather than "the 
IMT documents." 

     But under Hoffman's standards I am indeed guilty.  I relied on a 
corrupt source - Hoffman himself.  Indeed, even before his latest posting, 
I certainly had plenty of reason to know Hoffman was thoroughly corrupt 
and absolutely should not have relied on him for anything.  Since by 
Hoffman's standards repeating the words of a corrupt source, even when one 
does not know that the words cited are in some way misleading, is fraud, I 
must plead guilty to his charge. 

     Of course, someone with half the intelligence Mr. Hoffman pretends to 
have, as well as a non-tin ear, ought to have known what I meant, and 
moreover understood that my point was that Hoffman demands Spielberg 
search over ten thousand pages (except now it seems it's about 20,000, 
since he's including both the IMT and NMT material) for something there 
was no reason to expect to be there in the first place.  Therefore I have 
more than a small suspicion that Mr. Hoffman's indignant ranting about my 
omission of Mittelstaedt is simply more phony posturing. 

     As for forgetting what I had for breakfast, of course Mr. Hoffman is 
joking.  Surely he knows that one never forgets the taste of matzos made 
with the blood of Christian babies. 


>   Aw shucks, I guess I forgot that when it comes to judging Jooze, only 
>the best of intentions are to be assumed. Benefit of the doubt up the 
>kazoo must be extended to Saint Stevie. Meanwhile, malice of forethought, 
>afterthought and everything in-between for the krauts and the 
>revisionists. 

     I had previously given Hoffman the benefit of the doubt on his 
misleading text which implied *Keneally* talked about the SS laying a 
murder charge against Goeth.  And I previously mentioned that I had 
publicly defended self-proclaimed Aryan National Socialist Milton Kleim, 
Jr. against a charge of lying by saying that failure to give the name of 
a book he read did not prove that he was lying about reading the book. 

     The tin-eared Hoffman ignored all of that, and concealed both of 
those facts about my past behavior in making the above charge of hypocrisy 
against me.  By his own standards, once again he proves himself guilty of 
fraud. 


>   Mr. Stein, in the course of seeking from this writer the education in 
>history which he has not had the industry to procure on his own, insisted 
>that I teach him about Kastner, 

     Another lie.  I only asked for the literature references of the 
source(s) used for the claims about Kastner (and really, I'm chiefly 
interested in those outlining the nature of Schindler's dealings with 
him).  Scholars aren't afraid to name their sources.  Bluffers - and 
hypocrites who may be hiding exculpatory information after complaining 
about it in others - are.  By their works shall ye know them. 


>Kastner had dealings with Schindler which were mentioned by Keneally but 
>which Spielberg omitted from >>Schindlers List<Spielbergs ideological dogma about Zionism as a form of statecraft 
>beneficial to his co-religionists. 

     There he goes again.  Nothing in Keneally about Kastner or 
Schindler's dealings with him says anything negative about Zionism.  By 
Hoffman's own standards, he's committed yet another fraud. 


>   However when in my last post, when I did outline a few bare bones 
>basics about the curriculum vitae of Kastner, Mr. Stein had no 
>intelligent comment or reaction to what he had hectored me to produce 
>except the lame insistence that I made assertions about Kastner without 
>backing them up. Yet when I >>back them up<< 

     Scholars and researchers do not "back up" assertions without 
documentary reference with still more assertions without documentary 
reference.  That is a characteristic of hacks and grinds.  By their works 
shall ye know them. 

     I do know a few things about Reszo (or Israel; Rudolph was his middle 
name) Kastner (or Kasztner).  The question in my mind is what *sources* 
Hoffman used, and what is he leaving out?  If Hoffman's sources support 
him, why is he so afraid to give a book title, author, and page?  Or 
perhaps "source" is another word too simple for Mr. Hoffman to know the 
meaning of. 


>Mr. Stein does not counter with any facts of his own but denies that I 
>have produced anything of substance. 

     Well, hey, if unsubstantiated assertion without reference is all it 
takes, I can do it too.

     "You're wrong.  And if you were a real historian, you would know 
exactly what book told me so, therefore I won't tell you.  Nyaa."

     Gosh, that was certainly easy!  Hey, look, ma, I'm a revisionist
scholar! 

     Well, that may be how revisionist scholars work, but not real ones.  
Why won't Hoffman give his source on the sinister nature of Schindler's 
dealings with Kastner (only hinted at, never detailed) - because it 
surely isn't Keneally?  Could Hoffman's refusal be because he's lying 
about it as baldly as he lied about what can be found in Keneally and 
Ainsztein?  Or because he's leaving things out?


>He demands that I retail the history of World War Two, Zionism and 
>Talmud.

     Yet another lie.  I demand only that he supply *references* for his 
assertions.  Scholars do, bluffers don't.  By their works shall ye know 
them.  ("Reference" has three syllables; Hoffman ought to know what it 
means.)


>He responds with personal opinions and negations, not citations 
>from the documentary record.

     What citations from the documentary record has *he* brought to the
debate?  Keneally and Ainsztein have not supported his contention that
Goeth was charged by the SS with the murder of prisoners despite his cheap
attempts to imply they do.  I *quoted* Ainsztein.  I *quoted* Keneally. 
The quotes don't say what Hoffman tried with paraphrases to con people
into thinking they do.  That is not an opinion, that is a fact. 

     Hoffman seems to be saying that if Spielberg didn't spend enormous 
sums to have someone read every word of everything having to do with Nazis 
to find something to show that the Nazis condemned Goeth's treatment of 
prisoners, this proves he knew that it *would* be there so he fraudulently 
concealed it by not looking for something in, e.g., Vol. 42 of a document 
of a tribunal which didn't try Goeth.  Or something like that.  What was 
that about cheap shyster logic? 

     As to why the impecunious Mr. Critchley could find it, well, one 
possible reason for lack of funds is lack of job - which would mean he has 
lots of time on his hands.  Or is Mr. Critchley's full-time job indeed 
looking for anything which can possibly serve to defend his beloved poor 
misunderstood Nazi mass murderers?  Ah, well, you know what is possible 
for a labor of love. 

     Of course, considering the ill-concealed antisemitic spittle 
dribbling down Mr. Hoffman's chin, a labor of *love* might not be quite 
the right phrase.... 


>Prove that the Talmud versions in the Danby and Soncino footnotes refer 
>to accurately translated versions faithful to the original, based on your 
>own research, 

     Mr. Hoffman makes a desperate and pathetic attempt to distract 
attention from his crime in covering up the fact that Soncino gives 
exactly the same footnote as Danby.  His display of shock and surprise was 
a complete sham. 

     He asks me to prove the versions without "of Israel" are NOT 
deliberate deceptions.  Don't revisionists always say that burden of 
proof is on the accuser?  And that you can't prove a negative?


>When are you going to produce some data of your own, Mr. Stein?

     When Hoffman produces a literature reference that stands up to 
verification, rather than distorted citations and unsubstantiated 
assertions. 

     Of course in other words this means never....

     Ah, what the heck.  Noblesse oblige and all that.


(From Affidavit SS-65 by SS Judge Georg Konrad Morgen, IMT Vol. 42,
p. 556 - cited by Hoffman in a previous post.)

   Einzelakte krimineller Art - unter Umstaenden mit Massenwirkungen 
   - waren angemasste Exekutionsrechte durch Kommandanten und 
   nachgeordnete Stellen unter Faelschung der aerztlichen 
   Totenscheine.  Willkuer, Schikane, ungesetzliche Zuechtigungen, 
   Rohheitsdelikte und Sadismus, Beseitigung laestiger Mitwisser.  
   Diebstahl und Schiebungen.  Alle diese Delikte begangen sowohl 
   allein von Haeftlingen wie SS Angehoerigen, meist jedoch in engem 
   Zusammenwirken von SS Angehoerigen mit Capos und umgekehrt. 

   4.   Der Eingriff der SS Gerichtsbarkeit in die KZ erfolgte mit 
   Beginn meiner Untersuchungen Juli 43 und dauerte bis Kriegsende.  
   Er konnte nicht frueher erfolgen, weil kein Verdacht in dieser 
   Richtung bestand. 

   Verhaftet wurden die Kommandanten von Buchenwald, Lublin, 
   Warschau, Herzogenbosch, Krakau-Plaszow.  Erschossen die 
   Kommandanten Buchenwald und Lublin.  Mehrere hundert Faelle 
   gelangten zur Aburteilung.  Schwere und schwerste Strafe wurden 
   gegen Angehoerige aller Dienstgrade verhaengt. 


[My translation, with thanks to Ulrich Roessler for suggestions.] 

   Individual acts of a criminal nature - under the circumstances 
   with wide effects - were the assumption of a license to kill by 
   commandants and subordinate positions covered up through 
   falsification of medical death certificates.  Arbitrary conduct, 
   chicanery, unlawful corporal punishments, acts of brutality and 
   sadism, liquidation of no-longer-convenient accomplices, thievery 
   and black-market profiteering. All these offenses were committed 
   both alone by prisoners as well as SS members, most however in 
   close partnership by SS members with Capos and vice versa. 

   4.   The intervention of SS jurisdiction in the KZ was brought on 
   with the beginning of my investigations in July 43 and lasted 
   until the end of the war.  It could not have started earlier, 
   because there was no suspicion along these lines. 

   Arrested were the commandants of Buchenwald, Lublin, Warschau, 
   Herzogenbosch, Krakau-Plaszow.  The commandants of Buchenwald and 
   Lublin were shot.  More than a hundred cases were brought to a 
   verdict.  Serious and maximum punishments were imposed on members 
   of all ranks. [...] 


     Oh, dear.  Mr. Hoffman said that "Verification of the arrest, 
prosecution, and imprisonment of Goeth may be found ... in the testimony 
of Morgen himself."  Arrest, yes.  But on what charges?  Seems Judge 
Morgen doesn't unequivocally support Hoffman's claim that Goeth was 
charged with murder either.  There's a laundry list of offenses and a list 
of the most prominent offenders (listed only by camp, not personal name) 
but no specific charges lodged against any specific individual. 

    Therefore from this affidavit it is not possible to conclude that 
Goeth was charged with murder by the SS.  (If Hoffman thinks it does, it's 
more evidence of his tin ear.) In fact, it would seem from Morgen's 
affidavit that Goeth was not *convicted* of murder, given that Koch 
(commandant of Buchenwald) was shot and Goeth wasn't.  Two of Hoffman's 
three sources have now proved to be worth no more than Keneally in 
revealing the SS charge of prisoner murder against Goeth. 

     Hoffman demanded I quote from the documentary record.  I guess nobody 
ever told Mr. Hoffman the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for - you 
may get it." 

     Hoffman tried to hoodwink people into thinking that evidence was just
lying around all over the place to show that the SS charged Goeth not only
with corruption, but murder.  Hoffman referred to Ainsztein, but Ainsztein
said nothing about murder - strike one.  Hoffman referred to Morgen, but
Morgen didn't tell us the charges against Goeth - strike two.  Looks like
only Mittelstaedt stands between Mr. Hoffman and complete humiliation. 
Oh, well, I have some other reasons to go to the National Archives anyway,
so it won't be as if I was making a special trip.  Of course, to oblige a
scholar like Mr. Hoffman, I wouldn't mind even if I were. 


>And now you are demanding that I give you Hebrew lessons?

     No, I've had those.  And someone who says "He chodosh" certainly 
isn't qualified to give them.

    Hoffman tried to show what a whiz-bang scholar he was by throwing out 
some (mutilated) Hebrew phrases.  I responded in Hebrew.  He said based on 
that one sentence that my Hebrew's not too good.  Oh?  Just what gives him 
reason to say that?  I'm merely demanding Hoffman back up his claim.  He 
doesn't say what "Avol harabonim hoyu min ha'adamah" means, nor what's 
wrong with it. 

     He can huff and puff all he likes, but *I* say his hilarious
histrionics and pompous posturing simply attempt to conceal the fact that
he doesn't know what it means, and doesn't know what is wrong with it (not
surprising, as it is both gramatically and semantically correct). 

     I'm calling Hoffman's bluff; he has it in his power to prove me wrong 
(especially since he's had over a week now to find someone who can 
translate my sentence for him, something any bright first-year Hebrew 
student should be capable of).  I challenge him to provide a translation 
and a correction, or admit he's a bluffer with no foundation for his 
accusation that my Hebrew is "not too good." 

     Oh, and as far as what's wrong with *his* Hebrew, as best I can 
decipher his intent, "He chodosh" should either be "Hu chodosh," or "He 
chodoshoh."  That is, "It is new," with the pronoun and adjective agreeing 
on gender.

     Someone who really knew Hebrew would know this.  A bluffer wouldn't.  
By their works shall ye know them.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 18084 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: McVay a "police agent?"
References: <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Oct25.171818.25559@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 17:18:18 GMT

In article  hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:

>Welcome to Auschwitz of the Mind

We see it here time and time again.. scratch these folks a bit, and
the suppuration begins to show.

>zealots like Michael Stein, semi-coherent babblers like Mr. Shein or police
>agents like Mr. McVay. Their mission is not that of the curious freethinker

Police agent, Mr. Hoffman? What evidence do you have for such
nonsense? What are you trying to imply?

-- 

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


Article 18086 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
In-Reply-To: hoffman2nd@delphi.com's message of Sun, 23 Oct 94 23:49:24 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
	<37m0nh$r0r@access1.digex.net> <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
	<38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net> 
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 06:43:09 GMT
Lines: 8


Yow, Hoffman, troubles with the wife?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

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


Article 18087 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 24 Oct 1994 08:33:26 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <38frgm$q31@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References:  <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

 wrote:

# against this I rail and fill my pen, not with ink, but hydrocyanic acid.

No, no. You should say: 

"against this I rail and fill my pen, not with ink, but material
for resettlement of Jews", or

"against this I rail and fill my pen, not with ink, but material
for special treatment". 

# The IMT affidavit of SS Judge Morgen is truly a revisionist document of
# significance. It opens the door a bit on the hidden history of World War Two
# outside the purview of the official history. 

I really fail to understand how Morgen's testimony in Nuernberg
(and, if I recall correctly, he also testified in the Frankfurt
"Auschwitz Trial", held by the German legal system) - can help
the deniers. 

Morgen talked at great length about Nazi mass murder in gas
chambers. He said he was shocked when he discovered it, and tried
to stop it, but very soon found out that the orders for the mass
murders came from the top, that is, Hitler. He (Morgen) did try
to prosecute arch-murderer Grabner from Auschwitz, but! Morgen
says he could not prosecute Grabner for the mass murder operation,
and that he charged him with other murders, that exceeded the
extermination program. In Morgen's own words:

"... Kriminalsekretaer Untersturmfuehrer Grabner, whom I charged
with murder in 2,000 cases outside of this extermination action".



-Danny Keren.



Article 18101 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Hoffman's Hebrew - one other possibility
Date: 24 Oct 1994 20:05:20 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <38hi40$75u@access1.digex.net>
References:  <37m0nh$r0r@access1.digex.net> <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

In article <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net>,
Michael P. Stein  wrote:
>     No, I've had those.  And someone who says "He chodosh" certainly 
>isn't qualified to give them.
>
>     Oh, and as far as what's wrong with *his* Hebrew, as best I can 
>decipher his intent, "He chodosh" should either be "Hu chodosh," or "He 
>chodoshoh."  That is, "It is new," with the pronoun and adjective agreeing 
>on gender.

    Someone emailed me to suggest that "he" should be pronounced "hey," 
not "hee," and what Hoffman really meant was "Hechodosh" - classical
Hebrew for "the new."  This would be grammatically correct, and now that I
see the idea I agree that's what he must have meant.

    However, it merely shifts Hoffman's error.  In Hebrew the definite
article is a prefix - i.e., it is part of the word.  Slicing it off as a
separate entitiy is analogous to deliberately writing, e.g., "un
grammatical."  I suppose one could chalk it up to a typographical error -
he did keep "hatorah"  together - except in the same post in which he used
"He chodosh," he also split "hagoyim" into "ha goyim."  Strange. 
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 48943 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!tezcat.com!tezcat.com!not-for-mail
From: sundell@tezcat.com (Lou Menotti)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Swiss Solar Temple Suicide:The Catholic Connection
Date: 24 Oct 1994 23:28:58 -0500
Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <38i1ia$dj5@xochi.tezcat.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: xochi.tezcat.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

hoffman2nd@delphi.com wrote:
: The investigating magistrate in the Swiss Solar Temple Suicide has
: said the group had close ties to the Catholic Church. I surmise he is
: referring to the ultra-traditional >>Latin Mass<< Catholics. The
: alliance between Catholicism and the Occult is an old one (see
: Joris-Karl Huysmans >>La Bas<<). I would appreciate E-mail or
: replies to this thread from researchers who have any references
: whatever to Catholicism and the Solar Temple of Switzerland.
: --Michael A. Hoffman II.


On the day the body of the leader of the Solar Temple was identified, I 
heard on NPR passing mention that the Temple had been linked to 
guns-and-drugs operations.  Unfortunately, I've missed most of the 
coverage on this whole incident (don't ask :-) ).  

I would also appreciate any info along these lines, -especially- the 
guns-n-drugs connec.  Reeks of the CIA, eh wot?

Lou Menotti
sundell@tezcat.com



Article 18106 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!kfk.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!stepsun.uni-kl.de!uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de!informatik.uni-kl.de!stschulz
From: stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Message-ID: <1994Oct24.221248.14731@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Sender: news@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (Unix-News-System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
References:  <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <37m0nh$r0r@access1.digex.net> <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net> 
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 22:12:48 GMT
Lines: 24

In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:

[Stupid, inane and childish diatribe deleted - I wonder what would
 happen to Hoffman if Hermi would be allowed to kill the hopeless
 psychopaths...]

|> Ready? Here we go. Author:L.B. Title:Z.I.T.A.D.

Just in case somebody really wants to check this out: I guess he is
talking about 

Brenner, Lenni: Zionism in the age of the dictators,
London : Croom Helm ; Westport, Conn. : L. Hill, c1983

[As above...but then perhaps Miltie's euthanasia would not be applied
 to stupid Nazi assholes...]


Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
    Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 48976 of alt.conspiracy:
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Solar Temple Suicides
From: william.mclaughlin@dscmail.com (William Mclaughlin)
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!nova.voicenet.com!dscmail!william.mclaughlin
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1.37172.1341.0N27E3D2@dscmail.com>
References: 
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 94 14:30:00 -0640
Organization: DSC/Voicenet * Ivyland, PA * (215) 443-9434
Lines: 147

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

     Here's an article that was uploaded to FIDO's INDIAN_AFFAIRS echo. Has
anyone else heard about this angle?


                                                           Mac

*************************************************************************

Geoff Baker
THE GAZETTE

  Authorities in this province were highly fearful of doomsday cult leader 
Luc Jouret long before 50 people were found dead in burned out buildings in 
Switzerland and Quebec.

  The Suret du Qubec strongly suspected Jouret was behind a
paramilitary group known as Q-37, which  threatened  in  November 1992 to 
assassinate Public Security Minister Claude Ryan unless he got tough with 
Mohawks.

  But despite extensive telephone tapping,  seizures  and  weapons charges 
brought against Jouret and two members of his Order of the Solar Temple in 
March 1993, he never spent a day in jail.

  "There wasn't enough proof for all that, prosecutor Jean-Claude Boyer 
said yesterday of the death threats made against Ryan.

  Instead. Jouret and accomplices Hermann Delorme, an insurance salesman 
from Granby, and Jean-Pierre Vinet, a Hydro-Quebec project manager, 
pleaded guilty last summer to minor charges ranging from weapons possession 
to conspiracy to traffic in firearms.

  Because they were charged by summons which is less severe than by 
indictment  and did not have criminal records, the men were let off with 
discharges on the condition they each donate $1,000 to the Canadian Red 
Cross.

  The charges resulted from a plot by the group to purchase prohibited nd 
restricted weapons, which police had tried to link to the threats to kill 
Ryan.

Agreed to sell weapon

  A Suret officer from Knowlton named Daniel Tougas was also charged in 
the affair for agreeing to sell one of the weapons, a.38-calibre
revolver, to Delorme.

   "I did it as a favor for a friend," Tougas said yesterday. Tougas 
retired from the force last year after pleading guilty to possession 
of an unregistered weapon and delivery  of a  restricted  firearm without a 
permit. He received an unconditional discharge for both charges.

   He denied being a cult member or knowing Jouret personally and said 
he only knew Delorme he'd bought insurance from him over the years.

   Search warrants, transcripts of wiretaps and other documents filed in 
court by the Surete and examined yesterday showed that police had ample 
reason to be fearing for the safety of Ryan and possibly four other cabinet 
ministers.

   On Nov. 23, 1992, a man calling himself Andre Masse of Granby telephoned 
the offices of Liberal MNA Roger Pare and told his political attache, 
Jacques Martin, that "the province is bankrupt because of the policies of 
Claude Ryan toward redskins."

    The caller said he was from a group called Q-37; Q for Quebec and 37 
for the number of founding members in the group) and that Ryan had 90 days 
to change his policies or else he would be killed and Mohawks reservations 
blown up.

       Similar calls were made that afternoon to the offices of Liberal MNA 
Pierre Paradis and Parti Quebecois MNAs Jacques Brassard and Carmen Juneau.

  On Dec. 10. 1992. a man identifying himself as the same person phoned 
Paradis's office again and told aide  Louise  Levesque  he wished to send 
his regards to the MNA as well as to Premier Robert Bourassa. Transport 
Minister Sam Elkas  and  Justice  Minister  Gil Remillard.

  It wasn't until Feb. 2. 1993. that police linked the tough talk to 
action. An informant police described as highly reliable gave the name of a 
Granby  man  who  had  approached him looking to buy a silencer-equipped 
revolver that could hit a target from 35 feet away.

  The informant, code-numbered IN-8397. said the man  who went by his real 
name. not Andre Masse, told of there being 37 people in his group and 
stated that violence could be used as a means to obtain its goals.

  On Feb. 4, the informant told of another meeting in which the man 
admitted being part of a paramilitary group.  The informant said the 
man told him he wanted to start a commando unit because with the Liberal 
government: "We will lose what we have won. We will defend ourselves at the 
price of our skin."

  The man had specified that the weapon he was seeking had to be of a size 
that it could be quickly hidden on someone dressed like a businessman. 
Price was not a factor, but the weapon had to be acquired quickly. the 
informant said.

  On Feb.  15.  1993, Judge Luc Trudel authorized electronic surveillance 
on the private telephone of Delorme. Eleven days later, additional phone 
taps were secured For the homes of Jouret, Vinet and Tougas.

  The surveillance showed that Delorme was working for Vinet to
purchase silencer equipped guns on the orders of Jouret.

  In a 6:06 a.m. call from Vinet's Nuns' Island home to Jouret overseas, 
the cult leader appeared ecstatic that a plan to purchase weapons had been 
finalized.

   "We're going to win." transcripts of the wiretaps quote Jouret as 
saying.

   "It's certain," Vinet replied.

   "Nonetheless. now. prepare yourself that's all." Jouret said.

   On March 2. 1993. Jouret made a telephone call to a woman  in Montreal 
and told her to quit her job and get ready to join him in Switzerland.

   He told her to stop training in karate and begin taking target practice 
as part of a plan that would be explained later.

  The next day. the Surete raided the homes of Jouret, Vinet. Delorme, 
Tougas and buildings belonging to the cult.

  Although weapons, holsters, cartridges, bullets, agendas and telephone 
records were seized. police found nothing on Q-37 or a plot to assassinate 
the ministers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLqnhawxYgSQBQgB9AQHv9gP+J9YGz8LR6VG/iXbpOJiceYpDoCARb+8m
yJEH4/Bq62I4OEE3TVt6siaLoNJmbKF0awUNeeEx3KrFgjK5QTYy98yhOs0r5cUx
+hAfvihifHhWCLsU7Ze7EL+a5vuHSsnLtvc4tYKVvSrQN0iARGt8HetUtClqz5w0
+y8ANMT8BoQ=
=8AzG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



~~~ PGPBLUE 2.0 

... Lick Here *** You May Be One Of The LUCKY 25!!!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12


Article 18151 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: McVay a "police agent?"
In-Reply-To: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca's message of Tue, 25 Oct 94 17:18:18 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net>
	
	<1994Oct25.171818.25559@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 02:38:31 GMT
Lines: 42


From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
>In article  hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
>>zealots like Michael Stein, semi-coherent babblers like Mr. Shein or police
>>agents like Mr. McVay. Their mission is not that of the curious freethinker
>
>Police agent, Mr. Hoffman? What evidence do you have for such
>nonsense? What are you trying to imply?

He's trying to imply that there's a good reason phrases like
"semi-coherent babbler" come to mind, even if his targets are a bit
off base.

I love guys like Hoffman, they make such asses of themselves and come
off as such utter lunatics who has to expend energy discrediting the
revisionists? This stuff is right up there with the weirdest US Maoist
or Trotskyist stuff ("are you ready for the worker's paradise soon to
come! join us, comrades, and smash the evil capitalist...blah blah")
or Tony Alamo (recently deceased) handbills about the pope being
behind every evil on earth.

I remember back when Lyndon LaRouche went under the name "Lynn Marcus"
and was a leftist (sort of, NCLC) making spittle-flying speeches in
Bryant Park in Manhattan about how the police were all sexual deviates
fixated on their batons which were actually huge dildos blah blah BLAH
blah BLAH.

Most everyone recognizes these kinds of people, and the few that don't
are as lost as they are. It's the same instinct that tells an animal
to shy away from another sick animal, only we sense it at an
intellectual level.

What a freak show.




-- 
        -Barry Shein

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


Article 18179 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Message-ID: <1994Oct26.021720.32282@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 26 Oct 94 02:17:20 -0500
References:  <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>   
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 29

In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
> Danny Keren  writes:
>  
>>I really fail to understand how Morgen's testimony in Nuernberg
>>(and, if I recall correctly, he also testified in the Frankfurt
>>"Auschwitz Trial", held by the German legal system) - can help
>>the deniers. 
>>
>>Morgen talked at great length about Nazi mass murder in gas
>>chambers. He said he was shocked when he discovered it, and tried
>>to stop it, but very soon found out that the orders for the mass
>  
> Has Keren noted the title of this thread? It is >>Goeths Arrest.<<
> We are debating the impact of the arrest of Goeth by the SS on the
> credibility of the film, >>Schindlers List.<<
>  
> Kindly raise your point, worthy as it is, in another thread.
        
????  You're the one who brought up Morgen, what's wrong 
with someone pointing out that your conclusions are wrong?

I mean, are you trying to become moderator of a.r. too?

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "All Truths are for me soaked in blood"
Miami University	  	    -Nietzsche, _Ecce Homo_
Oxford, Ohio 45056  	"yeeck! ack! ungh!" -- me	
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------



Article 48987 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!waikato!auckland.ac.nz!news
From: blue wonder 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Swiss Solar Temple Suicide:The Catholic Connection
Date: 25 Oct 1994 21:50:25 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <38juj1$6fm@net.auckland.ac.nz>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.216.25.131

they were all victims of malicious cimcumstance.

and money washing

and the pope was involved

twice

bob


Article 18195 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu!miavx1!bpharmon
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Message-ID: <1994Oct25.222106.32273@miavx1>
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov)
Date: 25 Oct 94 22:21:06 -0500
References:  <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>   
Organization: Miami University
Lines: 17

In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
> Welcome to Auschwitz of the Mind
[chomp chomp chomp]

> Before you shower your anti-Goyimite invectives upon me for making the
> distinction between Christian working people and Edomite parasites, I require
> that you regard the beam of anti-Gentile racism in your own eye, as exhibited in
> your statement:

Yikes.  I think there may be a place in alt.usenet.kooks 
for this guy....

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "Everything has its wonders, even darkness and
Miami University	  silence.."
Oxford, Ohio 45056		-Helen Keller
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------


Article 18197 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Christopher Hoover)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 26 Oct 1994 10:04:55 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <38lun7$8d5@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References:  <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>    <1994Oct25.222106.32273@miavx1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)

bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Raskolnikov) writes:

>In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
>> Welcome to Auschwitz of the Mind
>[chomp chomp chomp]

>> Before you shower your anti-Goyimite invectives upon me for making the
>> distinction between Christian working people and Edomite parasites, I require
>> that you regard the beam of anti-Gentile racism in your own eye, as exhibited in
>> your statement:

>Yikes.  I think there may be a place in alt.usenet.kooks 
>for this guy....

Hmmmm.  Not enough sheer posting volume yet, methinks.  But just wait, 
and give the boy a little time....


Chris
-- 
Christopher J. Hoover    choover@nyx.cs.du.edu     Kibo flavor:  Unlisted
Disclaimer:  standard    It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.


Article 18201 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.igc.apc.org!cdp!igc.org!igc.apc.org!cberlet
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 26 Oct 94 04:47 PDT
Subject: Re: McVay a "police agent?"
Message-ID: <1560600031@cdp>
References: <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway 
Lines: 18


The attempt to label someone as a police agent as a means to undermine
their credibility has a long and sordid history in the U.S. Criticism and
confrontation with facts is not a "policing" function nor a form of censorship.
Those of us who attempt to expose the revisionists and other bigots and
fascists on the net are not the "Net Police," we are attempting to balance the
industrious few who promote scapegoating and demagoguery. The net community
is in its infancy, and like any community, it has to develop mechanisms to
allow debate but set standards of decency and honesty that reflect the majority
while respecting the rights of the minority. 

By whining about McVay and others who expose the twisted logic of the
revisionists, the revisionists show the shallowness of their arguments.

No censorship, just long "Twit" files kept by each user. To shut the door on
a huckster is just common sense.

-Chip

Article 18235 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 28 Oct 1994 12:04:18 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 230
Message-ID: <38r7e2$k11@access4.digex.net>
References:  <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> <38caba$b4e@access4.digex.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
>Stein: >>Keneally did not say what Hoffmans words implied they did (sic)...
>Ainsztein did not say anything more than Keneally, although Hoffman tried to
>fool people into thinking they did.<<
> 
>Keneally said exactly what I said he did: he said Goeth was arrested 
>by the SS.

     That's what Keneally said, but not exactly what Hoffman first said 
Keneally said.  See below. 


>In previous postings, Mr. Stein was satisfied that sufficient rejoinder lay 
>in his  parrot-like stammering, >>Keneally says Goeth was only arrested for
>corruption.<<  Where did he derive this information about Keneally and
>Goeth?From this writer.

     False.  I had read Keneally well before Hoffman arrived here, and 
posted the relevant quotation with no further information from Hoffman.


>Stein routinely begs for research data from me.

     False.  I routinely demand that Hoffman live up to the usual 
scholarly standard and provide sources for his assertions, so they can 
be verified.  I am quite capable of finding sources of information on my 
own.


>When it is furnished he spins it into a farrago from which he hallucinates
>alternately ludicrous and desperate hypotheses: >>Hoffman dishonestly tried 
>to say that Keneally said the SS had arrested Goeth for both corruption and
>murder<< Since I have never said any such thing, 

     Oh, but he did.  (I love my hard drive.)

   From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
   Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
   Subject: Schindler Fraud
   Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 20:16:42 -0500
   Message-ID: 

   [...]
   The crucial truth that Spielberg withheld from his audience is that in 
   Sept., 1944, Goeth was arrested by the Central Office of the SS 
   Judiciary and imprisoned on charges of theft and the murder of 
                                                        ^^^^^^
   concentration camp inmates. Spielberg was certainly aware of this fact 
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   since it is mentioned in chapter 31 of the book by Keneally upon which
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
   the movie is supposedly based. 



     Res ipse loquitur.  (Since Mr. Hoffman is so fond of Latin.)

     I did try to give him the benefit of the doubt for sloppy writing,
but I'm now holding him to his own standards.


>Next, after pleading, whining and hectoring with an intensity I have not
>observed since the last campaign for Israel Bonds, our mendicant holy hoaxer
>wheedled me into providing him with a few choice bits of info on Kastner.

     Which I didn't really want.  All I wanted was Hoffman's source to 
verify his accuracy, which is currently hovering near zero for all his 
Goeth sources (and sinking - see the end of this post).


>I suppose you will greet this decision with the usual string of
>denunciations and demands to the effect that you have a right to my 
>source(s).

     I most certainly do have such a right, just as Hoffman or anyone else
has a right to challenge me to produce my sources, if for no other reason
than to make sure I am interpreting them correctly.  Honest scholars and 
researchers should have no problem with that.


>But let us have some fun.  I will give the initials of one book with 
>important Kastner references as well as the initials of the author of that 
>book. [...] Ready?  Here we go.  Author:L.B.  Title:Z.I.T.A.D.

     No problem.  Lenni Brenner: Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, of
course.  Naturally I can obtain that book; my neighborhood library (the
Library of Congress; you may have heard of it) is fairly well stocked.  I
didn't know if it was Brenner, or "Perfidy" by Ben Hecht, or "The Hidden
History of Zionism"  by Ralph Schoenman.  I even have in hand a copy of
Kastner's own postwar affidavit - which, as one might imagine, has a
rather different slant on what went on, notably with regard to Becher. 
Then there's Herman Liebermann's response to Hecht, "The Man and His
'Perfidy'", as well as sources in Hebrew and even Yiddish (Paluszak,
Elias: "Shuldik Oder Nisht Shuldik?").

    The thing is, I suspect that no matter what I may cite favorable to
Kastner, if it comes from any other source, Hoffman will simply say it's a
deliberately fabricated whitewash (like textual variants of the Talmud),
and only *his* source contains the truth.  (You see, by Hoffman's rules,
information favorable to Nazis is always true and must always be
diligently searched for and mentioned, but information favorable to Jews
and Zionists is false and can be ignored.) So I might as well save myself
a lot of pointless effort and go straight to Hoffman's own source first to
see if he's even reading it correctly. 


>Another Stein yarn:>>Oh, dear. Mr. Hoffman said that >verification of the
>arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of Goeth may be found...in the 
>testimony of Morgen himself.<
> 
>>>Arrest yes. But on what charges?<<
> 
>Check your own translation of Morgens affidavit, Mr. Stein (and 
>incidentally if it really is your translation, it is a darned good one).

     As previously stated, I made my own translation.  While it was
essentially accurate in its intial form, there were a few words or phrases
where Ulrich Roessler pointed out some nuances and suggested improvements
to better capture the tone - so I cannot take sole credit. 


>SS Judge Morgen
>states that arrests were for >>the assumption of a license to kill by
>commandants and subordinates...acts of brutality and sadism<<
> 
>Got your bifocals cleaned, old timer?  Morgen says arrests were for >>the
>assumption of a license to kill<< by >>commandants,<< including the 
>commandant, after June, 1943 at >>Krakau-Plaszow.<< The commandant at 
>Krakau-Plaszow in that time period was Amon Goeth.

     Evidently Mr. Hoffman, for all his vocabulary, learned to read at the
same school attended by Tim McCarthy.  Morgen gave a laundry list of
criminal acts he found, committed (as he said) by SS men and prisoners
both, followed by a list of commandants arrested.  But there were over a
hundred cases.  Hoffman evidently believes that every person arrested was
charged with every single crime on the list. 

    That's rather like claiming the statement "I have books on my shelves
written in French, German, and Hebrew - for example 'La peste', 'Faust',
and the Torah"  *must* mean that *each* book contains *all three*
languages.  It is possible for this to be true, but hardly the normal
reading!  Morgen's statement does not rule out the possibility that Goeth
was charged with murder, but neither does it clearly establish that point. 


>Observe the mentality of the zealot and the partisan: Mr. Stein does 
>not pause for a moment to breath a single note of surprise at the 
>testimony of Morgen, 

     That's because to me, it's old news.  I knew about it earlier; it 
was mentioned here before Mr. Hoffman arrived on the scene, as was the 
result of another SS trial where the court condemned an officer for 
sadism even as it explicitly affirmed the necessity of killing the Jews.  

    Mr. Hoffman has the strange conceit that he's the only person that
knows anything.  What is it about this newsgroup that brings out so many
people who are legends in their own minds? 

     Anyway, let us now turn to the last piece of evidence cited by 
Hoffman, the affidavit of Kurt Mittelstaedt (NO-1875), as cited in Mazor, 
Michel: "Le phe'nome`ne nazi (documents nazis commente's)" [The Nazi 
Phenomenon (annotated Nazi documents)] [Editions du Centre, 1957], p. 
146:

        I, the undersigned, Kurt Mittelstaedt, former SS-
   Obersturmbannfu"hrer and SS judge, declare under oath:

        In the summer of 1944, the chief representative of the SS Central 
   Office, SS-Oberfu"hrer Dr. Reinecke, showed me a sort of Roneotyped* 
   proclamation the text of which ran something like this: 

        "Jewish men and women - Have no fear, nothing will happen to you in 
   Germany.  You will be put to work there, because Germany has need of the 
   labor of every man and every woman.  Don't give up your valuables, don't 
   give them to the Hungarian police, but take them with you to Germany.  
   You will need them there."

        The text, of which I have given you here the sense, was worded 
   differently; it corresponds however to the sense of the proclamation, as 
   I understood it.  The scheme of the proclamation had been devised by 
   SS-Sturmbannfu"hrer and judge Dr. Morgen according to instructions 
   from Budapest.  I don't know if the proclamation was distributed to the 
   Jews before the departure of the convoys from Hungary to Auschwitz. 

        All human considerations aside, in my estimation it is contrary to 
   the attributes of a judge to take or promote such measures.  Dr. Morgen 
   must have known by this time what fate awaited the Jews at Auschwitz.  
   He could not have been less capable of speaking in this proclamation of 
   work in Germany and deceiving them about the disposition of their 
   property, even if it involved the interests of Germany.

        The facts given above are accurate.  I have made this declaration 
   voluntarily and without constraint.  I have read, signed, and approved 
   this declaration 

        Oberusel, 14th December 1945.   Kurt MITTELSTAEDT

*Roneo is a trademark; I would guess it's some sort of mimeograph or stencil.



     Although this is a secondary source, and an English translation (yes,
this time entirely mine) of a French translation of a German original to
boot, it's pretty hard to mess up the translation of "Goeth" or "Plaszow,"
neither of which appear in the source.  Nor, for that matter, does
"meurtre" (murder) or "homicide" (exactly what it looks like). 

     Mazor does not show any ellipsis dots, as he does in some other
documents, so this would appear to be the complete statement.  Unless Mr.
Critchley was referring to some different Mittelstaedt affidavit, or found
additional text that Mazor left out without any indication that he had
done so, it would seem that document NO-1875 is essentially a character
reference for Morgen, and has no more to do with showing what charges were
laid against Amon Goeth than the latest football scores.  Yet Mr. Hoffman
certainly made a big deal of it.  How very odd. 

     While it's possible that the indictment of the SS court may have
additional information - and I may look to see if this is among the
captured German records at the National Archives as time and other
research priorities permit - no source cited by Hoffman appears to give
firm backing to his claim that the SS charged the murderous Amon Goeth
with anything other than corruption.

     I note that the bluffer still couldn't say what was wrong with my
Hebrew.  As for the rest of Mr. Hoffman's posting, the only sensible
response is thorazine, 60mg.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Article 18281 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!cato.Direct.CA!hookup!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!netaxs.com!btrosko
From: btrosko@netaxs.com (Brian Trosko)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goeth's arrest
Date: 27 Oct 1994 03:52:53 GMT
Organization: The Trilateral Commission
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <38n86l$omf@netaxs.com>
References:  <5ywWpjt.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>    <1994Oct25.222106.32273@miavx1> <38lun7$8d5@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: unix3.netaxs.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Christopher Hoover (choover@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: >Yikes.  I think there may be a place in alt.usenet.kooks 
: >for this guy....

: Hmmmm.  Not enough sheer posting volume yet, methinks.  But just wait, 
: and give the boy a little time....

And not enough random capitalization, either.


Brian "UNAUTHORIZED DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is 
ENCOURAGED" Trosko



Article 18293 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!misvms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Death Threat Against Revisionist Posted
Date: 27 Oct 1994 23:19 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 42
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <27OCT199423194244@misvms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: misvms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes...

>I wonder what would happen to Khazars (or philo-Khazars) like Schulz if, when
>losing a debate, they did something besides summoning the ghosts of Abe Reles,
>Menachem Begin and other august ice-pick pokers and piano-wire wielders? Or
>perhaps Schulz draws his inspiration from the continuing presence in this mortal
>realm of Shitsack Shamir, architect of the murder of the 53 year old U.N.
>diplomat Folke Bernadotte on Sept. 17, 1948? (Bernadotte had rescued hundreds of
>Khazars during World War Two).

    I would be interested in learning more about this murder.

>This too was the >>argument<< meted to University of Lyon Professor of
>Literature Robert Faurisson, who was nearly beaten to death by three agents of
>Betar, the Israeli terrorist gang, just because Faurisson wrote books and
>articles the Israelis could not answer.

    Could you tell me how we know is was Betar?  Did they acknowledge it? 
    (I have never heard of them, so I will simply accept your assertion
    they exist.)  Was there physical evidence linking them?

    I would think [1] that "agents of Israel" would let Faurisson's work
    stand on its own - it is pretty bad work and there are plenty of people
    around to discredit it.  No need to make a martyr out of someone who
    really isn't all that important.  And [2] if "agents of Israel" eally
    wanted to kill someone, they would succeed in doing so.

    Is it possible that Faurisson was simply beaten by local thugs?

>(For the record, the New York Times, >>newspaper of record<< has never mentioned
>the attempted murder of Dr. Faurisson, though the Times gives lavish column
>space to any Muslim writer who is in any way harassed by >>Fundamentalists,<<
>beginning with Rushdie).

    Unless the NYT had evidence that it was a political happening rather
    than local thugs beating a pretty unimportant professor in France, I
    don't see why they would have any reason at all to cover it.  What
    would have been the evidence that the NYT would have had to demonstrate
    it was a political beating?

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932


Article 18298 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Death Threat Against Revisionist Posted
In-Reply-To: hoffman2nd@delphi.com's message of Thu, 27 Oct 94 21:59:36 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 06:23:47 GMT
Lines: 57


From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
>I wonder what would happen to Khazars (or philo-Khazars) like Schulz if, when
>losing a debate, they did something besides summoning the ghosts of Abe Reles,
>Menachem Begin and other august ice-pick pokers and piano-wire wielders?

Sorry, but I have never in all these years seen Abe Reles or Menachem
Begin's name mentioned on this list. Not that I've read every single
word tho I read much of it. I don't even recognize the name Abe Reles.

But I'm sure our friend Hoffman is forthcoming with the quote by Mr
Schulz he is referring to. He wouldn't just fabricate stuff like this,
would he?

>This too was the >>argument<< meted to University of Lyon Professor of
>Literature Robert Faurisson, who was nearly beaten to death by three agents of
>Betar, the Israeli terrorist gang, just because Faurisson wrote books and
>articles the Israelis could not answer.

Since this is the very first time I have seen such specifics mentioned
regarding Faurisson's incident, tho the incident itself has been
mentioned many times, might Mr Hoffman be so kind as to indicate where
he gets his information from. And perhaps indicate who this "Betar"
is.

>(For the record, the New York Times, >>newspaper of record<< has never mentioned
>the attempted murder of Dr. Faurisson, though the Times gives lavish column
>space to any Muslim writer who is in any way harassed by >>Fundamentalists,<<
>beginning with Rushdie).

And your point is...?

>>>This was said in jest;  but if the speaker could have seen the evil leer with
>which the Jew bit his pale lip as he turned round to the cupboard, he might have
>thought the caution not wholly unnecessary, or the wish (at all events) to
>improve upon the distillers ingenuity not very far from the old gentlemans
>merry heart.<< -Charles Dickens, >>Oliver Twist.<<
>Chapter 13 of the 1838 edition.

That Mr Dickens was an anti-semite is certainly no great discovery,
again, what's your point?

Dickens was a drunk and ne'er do well. He went to Jews to borrow
money, not uncommon for a man with no credit in his day. And then
reviled them in his books because they dared want to be paid back,
oftentimes making deals with his publishers. But I'm sure when Mr
Hoffman lends money he is above desiring to be paid back.

I suspect you're of about the same moral caliber, which is why you do
so poorly in life. I realize that's not how you see it, then again,
neither did Dickens...

-- 
        -Barry Shein

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


Article 18309 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!stepsun.uni-kl.de!uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de!informatik.uni-kl.de!stschulz
From: stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
Subject: Re: Death Threat Against Revisionist Posted
Message-ID: <1994Oct29.214425.19698@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Sender: news@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de (Unix-News-System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
References:  
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 21:44:25 GMT
Lines: 51

In article , hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
|> In the alt.revisionism thread >>Goeths Arrest,>> Stephan Schulz, responding to
|> revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II, stated:
|> >>I wonder what would happen to Hoffman if Hermi would be allowed to kill the
|> hopeless psychopaths.<<
|>  
|> I wonder what would happen to Khazars (or philo-Khazars) like Schulz if, when
|> losing a debate, they did something besides summoning the ghosts of Abe Reles,
|> Menachem Begin and other august ice-pick pokers and piano-wire wielders? Or
|> perhaps Schulz draws his inspiration from the continuing presence in this mortal
|> realm of Shitsack Shamir, architect of the murder of the 53 year old U.N.
|> diplomat Folke Bernadotte on Sept. 17, 1948? (Bernadotte had rescued hundreds of
|> Khazars during World War Two).

[...]

Well, first let me tell you that I was in no way involved in the
particular debate (Goeth's Arrest). Barry Shein and others managed
quite well to dissect your claims. All I did was to cut your childish
"Auschwitz of the mind" posting, in which you refused to give any
reasonable sources, and to provide the title you (probably) hinted at.

I did comment the cutting with rhe following two bits of text:

> [Stupid, inane and childish diatribe deleted - I wonder what would
>  happen to Hoffman if Hermi would be allowed to kill the hopeless
>  psychopaths...]

...

> [As above...but then perhaps Miltie's euthanasia would not be applied
>  to stupid Nazi assholes...]

I fail to see any death threat in this. Just in case you wonder:
"Hermi" and "Miltie" refers to Herman Milton Kleim, the keeper of the
National Socialism FAQ, an avid fan of Hitler and, occasional,
Holocaust denier. He supports euthanasia for hopeless idiots.

All _I_ did was to question how you would fare under his regime. Yes,
this is a deliberate attack of your mental state (There: I spell it
out so that even _you_ can understand it). However, how you can
construct a death threat from this is above (or, more likely, below)
me. 


Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
    Please email me as stschulz@informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Article 18337 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: oneb alt.revisionism:18337 soc.culture.canada:34854 bc.general:9355
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.canada,bc.general
Path: oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: McVay a "police agent?"
Summary: Michael Hoffman III achieves a BSI of 0.75, and reaches a 
         new low by accusing me of being a "spy" and a "police agent."
References:  <1994Oct25.171818.25559@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1994Nov01.085847.19144@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 08:58:47 GMT

[Followups to alt.revisionism - my apologies to soc.culture.canada and
bc.general, but I thought folks there might find Mr.  Hoffman's latest
vitriol of interest, given recent discussions there about my work, and
about Doug Collins.]

In article  hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes:
>Shine a Red Light on Officer McVay
 
>>>Police agent, Mr. Hoffman?What evidence do you have for such nonsense?What
>are you trying to imply?<<
 
>She tucked the ten dollar bill under her mattress and pulled up her panties as
>the semen streamed from her pussy.>> Prostitute, Mr. Hoffman? What evidence do
>you have for such nonsense?What are you trying to imply?<<

Wipe your chin, Mr. Hoffman, the spittle is showing.

>I aint implying anything McVay. I am saying flat out you is The Man, The Heat,
>The Fuzz; a self-admitted collaborator with  the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office
>of Special Investigations (cf. McCleans Magazine, Oct. 17, 1994, p. 6).

You must have a different edition of MacLean's, Mr. Hoffman (perhaps
that is why you called it "McCleans Magazine," which I have never
heard of), because nowhere in the MacLeans article does it say that I
"collaborate" with the OSI. 

Here, word for word, is what it _does_ say:

   "McVay has received help, in the form of research and additional
   documents, from supporters who include Eli Rosenbaum, chief
   war-crimes prosecutor for the U.S.  justice department."
   (_Maclean's_ Magazine, Oct.  17, 1994, p.  6)

Nowhere, Mr. Hoffman, is there any indication of facts beyond those I
have already outlined here: The OSI provided me with photocopies of
public documents, readily available from American court procedings -
nothing more, nothing less. As an American citizen, as well as a
Canadian citizen, I have no problem with an American public official
providing me (or you, for that matter) with public documents. Perhaps
you can explain how receiving public documents from such an official
somehow makes me a "police agent." (What a twisted view of life you
must have, Mr. Hoffman - thank you for sharing it with us.)

>Moreover, are you or are you not a supporter, upholder and fellow-traveler of
>the Canadian government prosecution and Zionist and misnamed >>human rights<<
>groups in Canada who seek to imprison publisher Ernst Zundel and school teacher
>Jim Keegstra and ban writer David Irving? No one but a cop would support the
>imprisonment of publishers and teachers and a ban on writers. What is your
>considered position on this Canadian inquisition, Patrolman McVay?

My position, which has been clearly stated in the press (see below),
on the radio, and on television, is this: I am opposed to censorship
of ideas, and that includes the InterNet, Mr.  Zuendel's hate
literature, and Mr.  Irving's travels.  Period.  (I prefer crap like
yours out on the sidewalk, where I can avoid stepping in it, Mr.
Hoffman.)

      Victoria (B.C.) Times-Colonist, October 14, 1994.  Front
      page:

      But censoring Internet material is not the answer, he said:
      "It's safer to have it up-front and out in the open where
      we can smell it."

Tell me, Mr. Hoffman, if there is something in that excerpt that
confuses you?

>Do you or do you not support absolute freedom of speech, press and travel for
>revisionists in Canada?

Yes, I do. (There was a time, several years ago, when I did not.
However, after years of being subjected to poison like yours, I came
to realize that the only remedy was public exposure and education.)

>Also, your >>dossiers<< on revisionists comprise prosecution materials for
>witchfinder generals in Germany, Australia, Britain, France, South Africa and
>Canada. In those countries, prison sentences are imposed upon those who express
>doubts about homicidal gassings having taken place in Auschwitz and other camps.
>McVay aids and abets this inquisition; news of this inquisition has been largely
>successfully suppressed in the Establishment  propaganda media.

The files contained in the "dossier" archives contain public
information, taken from world-wide press reports. Do you have a
problem with that, Mr. Hoffman?

>McVay is a spy for O.S.I. official Eli Rosenbaum and others of his ilk who seek
>to deport and imprison elderly anti-communists but who never investigate or
>prosecute Khazar communists living or traveling in the U.S. who were responsible
>for atrocities and war crimes against the peasants of Russia and Eastern Europe.

Bullshit, Mr.  Hoffman.  You appear to have gone off the deep end -
although your BSI (Berg Spittle Index) comes in at a disappointing
0.75 (Mr. Berg reached your level of gratuitous insult in a mere
three weeks on the net.)

Where is your evidence for this transparent slander?

> Mr. McVay is well paid for spying on us here on the Internet. A nice
>Judeo-Christian church in Canada is paying him a salary.

Bullshit, Mr. Hoffman. No church, in Canada or elsewhere, is paying me
a salary (it would be nice, but it simply isn't true), and you, sir,
are a liar. Period. The _only_ salary I receive is the $622 my boss
gives me every two weeks. What _evidence_ can you provide to support
this absolutely ridiculous accusation?

(Yes, Mr. Hoffman, the United Church of Canada's British Columbia
Conference is issuing tax receipts for donations to the fund
established to help me obtain better equipment. Thank you for bringing
that up. Anyone wishing to donate to the fund should make their
cheques payable to the United Church of Canada (B.C. Conference),
earmark them "CRJ/Fascism and Holocaust Archives," and send them to
the Committee for Racial Justice, 103-1290 Homer Street, Vancouver,
British Columbia, CANADA V6B 2Y5, as previously noted by Doyal, in
this newsgroup and elsewhere.)

What have we established here, Mr. Hoffman?

You lied about my being a "police agent."
You lied about my being a "spy."
You lied about my receiving a salary from a church.

In short, Mr. Hoffman, you are a liar.

Your article, however, is not without its value. I will quote it on
"Canada AM" soon, as an illustration of precisely why I am still doing
this, after three long years. It's certain to attain classic status
within a very short time.
-- 

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


Article 49245 of alt.conspiracy:
Xref: oneb alt.conspiracy:49245 talk.rumors:4537
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!usenet
From: Victor Healey 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Swiss Solar Temple Suicide:The Catholic Connection
Date: 30 Oct 1994 11:27:46 GMT
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <38vvvi$gj8@nntp.crl.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl6.crl.com

This fellow is trying to track down a rumor.


> The investigating magistrate in the Swiss Solar Temple Suicide has
> said the group had close ties to the Catholic Church. I surmise he is
> referring to the ultra-traditional >>Latin Mass<< Catholics. The
> alliance between Catholicism and the Occult is an old one (see
> Joris-Karl Huysmans >>La Bas<<). I would appreciate E-mail or
> replies to this thread from researchers who have any references
> whatever to Catholicism and the Solar Temple of Switzerland.
> --Michael A. Hoffman II.

Please send email to this gentleman at
 
hoffman2nd@delphi.com
 
if you have any information.


Article 18341 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!winternet.com!interlog.com!news.cais.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: NO Death Threat Against Revisionist Posted
Date: 28 Oct 1994 08:41:08 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <38qdf4$q4l@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab6b.cs.brown.edu

 wrote:

# Stephan Schulz, responding to revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II, stated:

## I wonder what would happen to Hoffman if Hermi would be allowed
## to kill the hopeless psychopaths.

This is not a death threat. Mr. Schulz was mocking the fact that 
Hoffman's fellow "revisionist", Milton "hermann" Kleim, said that he 
supports killing all the mentally retarded and insane people in the US. 
As Mr. Schulz hints, it seems that quite a few "revisionists" fall in
one of these categories.

# This too was the >>argument<< meted to University of Lyon Professor of
# Literature Robert Faurisson, who was nearly beaten to death by
# three agents of Betar, the Israeli terrorist gang, 

We keep asking for proof of this. So far, no "revisionist" gave any
evidence to who these alleged "attackers" were; no names, nothing.
How to they know they were Jews, or belonged to "Betar" (whatever
that is)? 

Also, I see no response from our "revisionist scholars" to the fact 
that an article in the "Spotlight" reported that two groups of "leading
revisionists" beat the crap out of each other and threatened each
other with guns during a fight for the control of the IHR. Would
this not explain the attacks against IHR people (if these attacks
indeed occurred)?


-Danny Keren.


Article 18342 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Michael Hoffman and "Khazars"
Date: 30 Oct 1994 22:30:48 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <3916qo$hlm@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:  <390o1i$dqr@access4.digex.net> <5I9WTMU.hoffman2nd@delphi.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,   wrote:

>Confounding Khazars in alt.revisionism is proving to be jolly good fun!

I assume that by "Khazars", Hoffman means "Ashkenazic Jews."  Although
I am well aware that assuming anything about Hoffman's modes of thought
[sic] is probably not all that safe.

In any event, if I am correct, and Hoffman believes that today's
Ashkenazic Jews are in fact descendants of the Khazars, perhaps he
can answer one simple question.  Why is that Yiddish (the common
tongue of Ashkenazic Jewry) is a *German* dialect that contains 
Slavic ("mir" for "wir", "paskudnyak"), Hebrew ("mame-loshen",
"a miesse meshina [appropriate for Mr. Hoffman]", "momzer"), and
even Romance ("cholent", "davenen", "bentschen") words, but *no
Turkic*, if the Jews are the direct descendants of a Turkic-speaking
people?
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."


Article 18344 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!news.Arizona.EDU!bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu!dmittleman
From: dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hollywood Hate Propaganda Documented
Date: 30 Oct 1994 15:30 MST
Organization: University of Arizona (BPA)
Lines: 66
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <30OCT199415301260@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>
References: <5KxVTkQ.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    

In article <5KxVTkQ.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>, hoffman2nd@delphi.com writes...
>    HATE PROPAGANDA
>   in a Human Rights Mask
>   Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II. 1994. All Rights Reserved

    I know many people are not going to bother to weed through the "hate
    propoganda" that Michael Hoffman II has done us the favor of
    cataloguing, so I have extracted out a few of the most neferious TV
    episodes to make sure no one misses them... 

>Wonder Woman.  Nefarious Nazis capture a benevolent outer space alien

>Cheers. Circumcision is sensitively portrayed as a kindly Jewish father
>(Frasier) reacts to his son's bris.

>The Waltons. John-Boy and the family aid saintly Jewish refugees.

>The Simpsons. In this installment in the popular cartoon series, Bart and his
>sister study the Talmud to find a way to help a Jewish clown get back into the
>good graces of his formidable father, a rabbi who does not approve of clowning.
>Voice of the rabbi: Jackie Mason. ...moving episode --TV Guide.

    How terrible!  How horrible!  What hate!  Who can I write to to get
    these malevolent ills corrected?

    The most amazing thing about this list is that Hoffman forgot to
    include Hogan's Heroes.

    (I wonder if Zundel was a consultant on that Wonder Woman episode?)

    Hoffman also goes on to condemn the following TV and movies...

>The Young Lawyers. Noble, compassionate Jewish lawyer Aaron Silverman (Zalman
>King) fights for justice.

>Avalon. Barry Levinson's heartwarming story of three generations of a noble
>Baltimore Jewish family and the wise  patriarch who guides them.

>Sesame Street. The Land of Israel. The PBS childrens TV program highlights
>the nobility of the Jewish nation of Israel.

>Tales of the Days of Awe. In celebration of the Jewish High Holy Days, ABC-TV's
>anthology of profoundly moving sacred stories by Elie Wiesel and Sholom Aleichem
>is dramatized.

>Lies My Father Told Me. Marvelously heartwarming account of a gallant Jewish
>grandfather in Canada. Yossi Yadin.

>Yentl. The glories of Jewish heritage and the noble religious spirituality of
>the Talmud are celebrated in this tale of a heroic Jewish girl determined to
>study at a yeshiva.

    Mr. Hoffman, I challange you to demonstrate how any of the above TV or
    movies promotes hate.  You have "listed" hollywood products, but you
    have done nothing to document hate.  Just read through the descriptions
    YOU offered us.  Where is the hate?  "Marvelously heartwarming account
    of a gallant Jewish grandfather..."  "...heartwarming story of three
    generations of a noble >Baltimore Jewish family..."  "Noble,
    compassionate Jewish lawyer Aaron Silverman fights for justice."  I
    fail to see any hate here.

    Mr. Hoffman, I challange you to demonstrate how your posting does NOT
    promote hate.

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932



Article 18350 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!news.unb.ca!leda.sun.csd.unb.ca!t08o
From: t08o@leda.sun.csd.unb.ca (Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: McVay a "police agent?"
Date: 30 Oct 1994 17:30:50 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <390l8a$6pu@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>
References: <5s7VBb+.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>  <1994Oct25.171818.25559@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: leda.sun.csd.unb.ca

[snicker]
[giggle]
[chuckle]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (ROTFL)

This is great!  He keeps this up and my 'quotes' file is going to grow
exponentially!

Keith Morrison

The ROTFL Quote of the Week:

McVay is a spy for O.S.I. official Eli Rosenbaum and others of his ilk who seek
to deport and imprison elderly anti-communists but who never investigate or
prosecute Khazar communists living or traveling in the U.S. who were responsible
for atrocities and war crimes against the peasants of Russia and Eastern Europe.
                                - Michael A. Hoffman II


************************************************************
*t08o@unb.ca  *  My views are not those of the University  *
***************  of New Brunswick.  UNB never has views on *
*             *  on anything, ever.                        *
************************************************************



Article 18353 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ooo! Can I play too? (Hollywood Hate Propaganda)
Date: 30 Oct 1994 23:08:29 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <39191d$ioo@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <5KxVTkQ.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <5KxVTkQ.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>,   wrote:

> A documented compendium of hundreds of mendacious movies and TV programs,
>promulgated under the guise of advancing human rights, while negatively
>stereotyping, defaming and libeling Germans and Muslims and advocating the
>servile idolization and adoration of Jews.
 
I should point out that I was unaware that "Star Trek" and "The Twilight
Zone" were promulgated under the guise of advancing human rights,
but live and learn, I suppose.
 
>Charge of the Model T's. Evil Germans start a Mexican war against America.

Do you think that the Zimmerman note was a forgery?

>Twilight Zone. "Death's Head Revisited." 
>Twilight Zone. "He's Alive." 

You left out the episode where the guy gets four wishes from a genie and
ends up as Adolf Hitler in the bunker in May 1945.

>The Thirty-Nine Steps. (1978). Evil Germans conspire to start World War One.

This is of course a remake of a movie made before World War II.

>Enemies, A Love Story. A noble Polish Jew is haunted by memories of the
>unspeakable evil of the Germans.

This is a rather unusual description of the film.  Ron Silver's character
is hardly "noble" (he runs off leaving his two wives and child behind)
nor is the Auschwitz survivor (who eventually commits suicide but had at
one point lied about being pregnant).

>Angel of Death. The life of the German fiend Josef Mengele is dramatized.

I don't understand.  Are you denying that Mengele was a fiend?

>Judgment at Nuremberg. Oscar winning film about the trial of evil German war
>criminals.

Do you think that the war criminals were not evil, or that they were not
German?

>Casablanca. In Morocco, a cafe owner is tormented by evil Germans.

*Nobody* torments Fred C. Dobbs.  Whoops, that's "Treasure of the
Sierra Madre."  Although I *was* ROTFL at the inclusion of Casablanca
on this list of "mendacious" films.

>Shoah. Claude Lanzmann's highly acclaimed marathon documentary is a cinematic
>testament to the unspeakable evil of the Germans.

As I recall, the Poles don't come off looking too good either.

>Au Revoir, Infants. Louis Malle's tale of evil Germans on a rampage.
>Night and Fog. The wickedness of the Germans is revealed.

It's "Au Revoir les Infants."  Those Jews sure get around -- they
even control the media in France!

>To Be or Not to Be.  Sadistic Germans are outwitted by a kindly 
>Jewish comedian.

While the actors who played the hero (Jack Benny in the original, Mel Brooks in
the remake), were Jewish, I believe that the character was supposed to be
Polish.  Actually, in the original, Benny's character was supposed to be
a serious stage actor.

>Notorious. A vicious Nazi sadistically manipulates his wife in his greed for
>power.

Actually, (a) Claude Rains's character was neither "vicious" nor "sadistic"
(those characteristics are reserved for Cary Grant's character, the
nominal hero) and (b) he poisons his wife (whom he in fact loved) only
after finding out that she was a spy.

>The Death of Klinghoffer. An operatic masterpiece about the murder of a kindly
>Jewish cripple by vicious Arab terrorists.

Of course, the opera has a scene in which direct moral equivalence is made
between the Zionists and the Palestinians, but let that pass.

>Sakharov. A heroic Russian Jewish scientist is persecuted by those around him.

Was Sakharov Jewish?  I had thought that he wasn't.  Live and learn, I
guess.

>Fanny and Alexander. The evil of a vicious Lutheran minister is contrasted with
>the wisdom, piety and forbearance of a noble Jewish rabbi.

You should watch the movie again -- he wasn't a rabbi.

>The Frisco Kid. Marvelously engaging tale of a saintly Polish rabbi in the Old
>West, whose charm, humor and kindness shine through every difficulty.

And it had Harrison Ford in it too!

>Star Trek. On the outer planet Ekos, Capt. Kirk (Wm. Shatner) attempts to
>prevent history from repeating, when a neo-Nazi tries to take over the 
>universe.  Spock: Leonard Nimoy.

Okay, now you've gone too far.  In the Star Trek episode "Patterns of
Force", the "neo-Nazi" (actually his very WASP history professor) only
wants to organize the planet.  The local natives come up with the idea
of taking over nearby "Zeon" -- not the whole universe.  Your sacrilege
in taking Star Trek in vain has been noted.

>The  following is a list of movies and TV programs concerning the Bolshevik 
>Mass Murder of 60 Million Russian Christians perpetrated by such top Jewish
>communists as Trostsky, Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Uritsky, Kamenev, Berman, Yagoda,
>Frenkel, Kaganovich and Kuhn and on the hunt for Jewish communist war 
>criminals: NONE.
 
I guess HBO's movie "Stalin" doesn't count because Stalin wasn't Jewish.
(Unless you're Tim McCarthy).

Anyway, you left out a whole bunch of examples, such as:

The Damned.  Dirk Bogarde plays a degenerate Nazi scumball.
The Dick Van Dyke Show.  The saintly Buddy (Morey Amsterdam) has a
delayed holy Bar Mitzvah ceremony.
Barney Miller.  The saintly Jewish police captain sees that justice is
done in the 14th precinct.
Der Blaue Engel.  Marlene Dietrich seduces a hapless teacher in degenerate
1930's Germany.
The Twelve Chairs.  A Christian (Russian Orthodox) priest greedily forsakes
his duty to try to find a hidden treasure.
Love at First Bite.  Saintly Jewish psychiatrist tries to save the world from
the ravages of evil Count Dracula.
Hogan's Heroes.  Clever Allied prisoners outwit bumbling German cretins.
[I think that show was disgusting for reasons that probably differ from
Hoffman's, BTW.]

Hope this helps!
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."


Article 18354 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!schultz
From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Michael Hoffman and "Khazars"
Date: 30 Oct 1994 23:15:38 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <3919eq$irc@agate.berkeley.edu>
References:   <3916qo$hlm@agate.berkeley.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article ,   wrote:
#Richard Schultz  writes:
# 
#>In any event, if I am correct, and Hoffman believes that today's
#>Ashkenazic Jews are in fact descendants of the Khazars, perhaps he
#>can answer one simple question.  Why is that Yiddish (the common
#>tongue of Ashkenazic Jewry) is a *German* dialect that contains 
#>Slavic ("mir" for "wir", "paskudnyak"), Hebrew ("mame-loshen",
#>"a miesse meshina [appropriate for Mr. Hoffman]", "momzer"), and
#>even Romance ("cholent", "davenen", "bentschen") words, but *no
#>Turkic*, if the Jews are the direct descendants of a Turkic-speaking
#>people?
# 
#Mr. Schultz should consult the book: >>The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic
#People in Search of a Jewish Identity<< by Paul Wexler. If not in your
#library write: Slavica Publishers, PO Box 14388, Columbus. Ohio 43214.
# 
#This is an outstanding new book on the subject which I recommend.

Yes, but why not answer the question?  If you can make a reasonable
case, then I might look up such a book, but since the issue has been
discussed at length on the net several times in soc.culture.jewish,
you are going to have to at least make an attempt at proving your case.

--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."


Article 18371 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news1.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Michael Hoffman Should Grow Himself a Pair of Testicles
Date: 30 Oct 1994 13:18:26 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <390o1i$dqr@access4.digex.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net

In article ,   wrote:
>Gordon Freedman has left unchallenged my refutation ...

    And Michael Hoffman, despite his sneering accusation that my Hebrew is
not too good, has left unrefuted (through several iterations now) my claim
that there is nothing wrong with "Avol harabonim hoyu min ha'adamah." 
Wonder why.


>Grow yourself a pair of testicles and post your inchoate musings

    Well, Mr. Hoffman is certainly not shy on that point.
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.



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.