The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/michael.david/2001/David_Michael_on_WTC_Bombing


From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:26 EDT 2001
Article: 955970 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References:  <3b960d4b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 3
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 06:52:00 +0100
Lines: 65
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.8
Message-ID: <3b970ddc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 6 Sep 2001 06:47:08 GMT, 213.78.42.8
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.8
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:955970 alt.politics.white-power:538483 alt.politics.nationalism.white:529726 alt.flame.niggers:493158


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m3d75516c0.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "Johann Sebastian Bot"  wrote in message
> > news:ovCVO=4nB7eBsn3MTYiRkM+hg8YQ@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > Dr. David Michael claims he is "smeared" when his writings on the
Nazis
> > are
> > > accurately quoted.
> >
> > Nup, I claim I am smeared when you or your dishonest little
smearmongering
> > chums take sentences or passages out of context to make out that I am
saying
> > something other than what I am actually saying.
> >
> > Which, let it be noted, you do rather often.
> >
>
>   And yet you never *prove* that these sentences are taken out of
>   context by showing how the meaning is changed when the sentences are
>   considered *in* context. In fact, you never even *attempt* to prove
>   it. All you ever do is make the claim.

Actually I seem to recall that I did prove it when Comrade Kneisel first
produced this little piece.

>   Which means that the claim you are misrepresented is just an example
>   of the 'big lie.'

William, I don't know if you seriously believe the rubbish that you write
but if you do then I think you are in need of psychiatric help.

>   Lie often enough and loud enough and people will begin to believe
>   the lie.

That is the principle underlying anti-revisionism, isn't it.

>   On the other hand, we've shown you to be quite handly at out of
>   context quoting.
>
>   For instance, your frequent hatchet job of my quote:
>
>     On 5 February 2000 William Daffer wrote: 'total honesty isn't
required'.
>
>   is an example of *precisely* the sort of thing you complain about, a
>   context destroying quote.

I think it encapsulates your approach to alt.revisionism rather neatly, in
fact.

>
>   *Hypocrite*

You're the one who gets all moral about the murder of Jewish civilians while
tying yourself in knots trying to excuse the murder of Japanese and German
civilians.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:26 EDT 2001
Article: 956619 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References:  <3b960d4b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b970ddc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 3
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:31:22 +0100
Lines: 45
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.193
Message-ID: <3b98cb08@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 7 Sep 2001 14:26:32 GMT, 213.78.42.193
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!news.mindspring.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.193
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:956619 alt.politics.white-power:538713 alt.politics.nationalism.white:529904 alt.flame.niggers:493685


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m3wv3b68ta.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m3d75516c0.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "Johann Sebastian Bot"  wrote in message
> > > > news:ovCVO=4nB7eBsn3MTYiRkM+hg8YQ@4ax.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. David Michael claims he is "smeared" when his writings on the
> > Nazis
> > > > are
> > > > > accurately quoted.
> > > >
> > > > Nup, I claim I am smeared when you or your dishonest little
> > smearmongering
> > > > chums take sentences or passages out of context to make out that I
am
> > saying
> > > > something other than what I am actually saying.
> > > >
> > > > Which, let it be noted, you do rather often.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   And yet you never *prove* that these sentences are taken out of
> > >   context by showing how the meaning is changed when the sentences are
> > >   considered *in* context. In fact, you never even *attempt* to prove
> > >   it. All you ever do is make the claim.
> >
> > Actually I seem to recall that I did prove it when Comrade Kneisel first
> > produced this little piece.
> >
>
>   Nope.

Yup.



David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:26 EDT 2001
Article: 957158 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References:  <3b960d4b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b970ddc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b98cb08@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 3
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:16:29 +0100
Lines: 513
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.162
Message-ID: <3b9a190e@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 8 Sep 2001 14:11:42 GMT, 213.78.39.162
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.162
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957158 alt.politics.white-power:538897 alt.politics.nationalism.white:530052 alt.flame.niggers:494158


"Paul Kneisel"  wrote in message
news:RYOZOwiHg+qyD8i1i7As8w2VUrNv@4ax.com...
> Daffer makes a good point about Michael.

In all my years on Usenet I have never once seen Daffer make a good point
about anything.

>But it is often worse: Michael
> deletes footnotes, then pretends the article is about something else, and
> then accuses the author of telling lies about it.

If I remember rightly I caught you red handed (no pun intended) telling a
whopper.

> Interesting isn't it that the fascists with PhD's lie just as much as
those
> with room-termperature IQs.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can produce no evidence to substantiate your
highly defamatory allegation.

Here, for all to see, is my exposure of your dishonest nonsense so that you
can run away from it again:


Mr Kneisel again repeats his lies and defamation. Here, again, are the
answers to his points.

> Dr. David Michael represents a unique opportunity to see the functioning
of
> the Holocaust Denial movement.

I am a member of no such movement. I do not 'deny' anything; I do however
make a point of taking a somewhat more critical view of World War II history
than you and your kind.

>The movement stresses the educated
> nature of its members and claims that it wants an academic debate on the
> issues.

There is no such 'movement'.

> Yet when we look around we see the very academics are absent from
> the discussions. We can find all manner of anti-Semites, Hitler-lovers,
and
> Klan-style racists all telling us that the "Holocaust never happened
> and it should happen again."[1] But their academics, save for Dr. Michael,
> are not among them.

Now what would happen to any academic who stuck his neck out on Usenet to
post pro-revisionist material?

Would he have a job six months down the line?

How would he feed his kids?

> This gives us a wonderful opportunity to see exactly how the academics
> argue when confronted with the discussion they claim so badly to want.
>
> This particular dispute began when I wrote of Michael's sympathy for the
> Nazis and documented it with his own writings.[2] In my article I stated
>
> I had taken the material from an earlier post by Michael and footnoted
> it.[3]
>
> Michael responded [4] admitting the quotes attributed to him were
accurate,
> writing "Yes, in that article I outlined the areas where I agreed with
> the Nazis...." But he also claimed that the quotations were improper,
> claiming that the article in question also contained areas were he
> disagreed

The article responded to an enquiry by Dr Gorski as to where I agreed and
disagreed with the Nazis. I outlined what I saw as their strengths and
weaknesses. You took out the strengths bit and ignored the weaknesses.

> with the Nazis, adding "You're basically following in the same path as
John
> Morris and Ken McVay in quoting from the areas where I agree and
> snipping the areas where I disagree. Which shows that, like most
> anti-revisionist posters, you're a thoroughly dishonest man."
>
> He expanded his objection writing several days later that "The best you
can
> do is to chop up a post in which I advanced my views of the good and
> bad points of the Third Reich, quote the 'good' points, and snip my
> criticisms of Nazism."[5]
>
> Later in the discussion he similarly berated John Morris, claiming "The
> distortion lay in your posting selected parts of the item in question to
> try to propagate the notion that I hold views that you know, in fact, I do
> not hold. That is dishonest. You could easily have posted the entire
> item. That you did not do so tells us a lot about anti-revisionism."[6]
>
> This seems a bizarre response from an academic.

Let's get this straight. You deliberately cut out my criticisms of Nazism. I
point out that your behaviour in so doing is dishonest. You claim that this
is 'a bizarre response'.

I put it to you that this is about as bizarre as anything gets on Usenet!

> Writers have no obligation
> to add quotations outside the scope of an article.

And people who are smeared have no obligation to refrain from pointing out
that they are smeared and expose the dishonest nature of the smearer.

> One can, for
> example, properly charge Herman Goering with being a Nazi without adding
> that he had disagreements with Hitler. Equally, one can charge someone
> with sympathy with Nazi policies by correctly quoting their articles to
> this effect. The fact that somebody may have other disagreements in no way
> negates those areas of support.
>
> But this is a minor academic trifle.

No, comrade -- it's you gibbering away like a ruptured warthog.

> Michael originally responded to the 16 January critique by reposting the
> critique and adding his objections, something quite common in usenet
> discussions. But there was one exception to this repost: Michael deleted
> the footnote to his original article that was being critiqued.
>
> Michael claims that his crucial writing was deleted from a critique but he
> was the one performing a deletion. This removal of the reference to his
> original post is telling. For he claims that his original post contained
> criticisms of Nazi policies.
>
> It contained no such criticisms.

Funny, then, how Morris and I have been discussing them in just the past 24
hours! See below for a refutation of Comrade Kneisel's latest brainstorm.

> Michael simply invented a non-existent critique of the Nazis and used it
to
> offset accurate quotations from his pro-Nazi writings. Then he accused
> his honest critic of "dishonesty" for deleting that which never existed to
> be deleted.

Here's the original post again, Comrade Kneisel. And you'll observe that it
does indeed criticize aspects of Nazism as well as praising other aspects --
i.e. it proves you to be a total liar (like most communists):

I now reproduce the post in full:


From: Cuddles 
Subject: National Socialism and Cuddles -- a clarification
Date: 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <35F99AAA.126E@cableinet.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <35F3F570.153B1AEA@rio.com> <35F46A67.58A2@cableinet.co.uk>
<6t1sop$16e$1@blackice.winternet.com> <35F48726.1965@earthlink.net>
 <35F561EC.29C2@cableinet.co.uk>

<35F5CFBB.4063@cableinet.co.uk>
 <35F6859E.3749@cableinet.co.uk>

<35F6E29C.133C@cableinet.co.uk>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cableinet.net
X-Trace: news3.cableinet.co.uk 905550311 20662 194.117.148.17 (11 Sep 1998
21:45:11 GMT)
Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 1998 21:45:11 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism

ORAC wrote:
>
> In article <35F6E29C.133C@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35F6859E.3749@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
wrote:
> >>
> >> >ORAC wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <35F5CFBB.4063@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of
trying to
> >> >> >save the world.
> >> >>
> >> >> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your
post
> >> >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> >> >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time
attempting
> >> >> to make a serious response.
> >> >
> >> >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
> >> >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do .
.
> >>
> >> I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
> >> Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies
and
> >> Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
> >> imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you
slipped
> >> up and let your true colors show...
> >>
> >> National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save
the
> >> world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations
conquered
> >> and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
> >> hands of the Nazis...
> >
> >Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you please
> >explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
> >were saving the world lets 'my true colors' show?
>
> Well,

Nice to see you putting up an argument, Mr G! And it's a tough one too.
Please read on.

> your true colors are that you tend sympathize with the philosophy
> and goals of National Socialism, aren't they?

Philosophy -- no. I don't think National Socialism has a coherent
philosophy. That's one reason why various attempts to revive it tend to
result in numerous factions forming. I do have a lot more time for the
approach of the early Fascisti. I like their pragmatism: they don't ask
'how can I make my people serve my ideology', but rather 'which ideology
shall we apply here, now, in this particular instance, to serve my
people'. For me, politics is not a battle between 'Right' and 'Left' but
between idealogues and pragmatists. That's why I don't share the doom
and gloom of many nationalists. I see a movement towards a far more
pragmatic approach in politics nowadays -- a 'fascistization' of
politics. The gulf that separates, say, Tony Blair from Oswald Mosley is
not as great, in my view, as the gulf that separates Tony Blair from,
say, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the dogmatist at the far 'Left' of his
Labour Party. But this has nothing to do with National Socialism.

As to whether I sympathize with the goals of National Socialism, the
honest answer is that I sympathize with some of them. Just as I
sympathize with some of the goals of libertarianism and even some of
communism. I'm a true eclectic. If a man talks sense, and if the sense
that he talks can serve my country, then he is worth listening to
whatever labels he applies to himself. Again, I'm following in the
tradition of the likes of Mr Mussolini and, to a lesser extent, Sir
Oswald Mosley (neither of whom were, at first, particularly
anti-Semitic, I should add). Both were prepared to follow the
traditional political routes only insofar as they served the nation.
When they ceased to do so, they adopted a more opportunistic, pragmatic
approach, albeit at considerable personal cost.

> But perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. I'm only human, and
> Usenet often hides the subtle shadings of meaning that people intend when
> the post, leading to frequent misunderstandings. Perhaps, despite your
> many posts that suggest otherwise, you do not have National Socialist
> sympathies. If so, it's really quite simple for you to prove me wrong. All
> you have to do is to answer these two questions:
>
> 1.) Do you in general believe in the philosophy or goals of National
Socialism?

Philosophy -- no. Goals -- some.

> 2.) Do you in general sympathize with the goals or philosophy of National
> Socialism.

Philosophy -- sometimes. Goals -- some.

> Two explicit "no" answers without prevarication or reservation, and you've
> proven me wrong.

Then I haven't proven you wrong, but it doesn't follow from the above
that I am a rampaging Hitler supporter. Let me show you why. Let's
consider where I think the Nazis were right and where I think they were
wrong.

So where do I agree with them?

First, Dr Goebbels made very clear, in 1935, the absolute opposition of
the German National Socialists to communism. This position was
reiterated by Mr Hitler. It seems quite plain to me that communism has
caused immense suffering throughout the world this century. Estimates of
the numbers slaughtered in its name exceed 200 million. It has enslaved
vast swathes of territory; it has destroyed whole national cultures; it
has caused misery exceeding anything known to mankind. With the
lamentable exception of the Molotov--Ribbentrop pact, which I hope was a
ruse, the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts.
And in so doing they have my complete support.

Second, the National Socialists were nationalists. At the end of the
day, nationalism, in the sense that I'd use it, is not an abstract
theory or set of propositions or ideology. It is love of one's people
and homeland, and a desire to serve, preserve and enhance them. Nothing
more and nothing less. It is a sentiment, like love of one's wife. It
cannot be justified or refuted, although, irritatingly, people keep
trying to justify it -- and I dare say you've shot a few of them down in
flames in this very newsgroup! It does not entail hatred of other
nations, any more than your love of your wife or children or pet hamster
entails hatred of other wives of children or hamsters. It is more a case
of: 'this is MINE -- this is what I love and shall defend'. Maybe I'm
just an old-fashioned Romantic, Mr G, but I sincerely love my homeland
and people, for all their faults, and would like to serve them as best I
can, not out of a wish for personal gain or to further any ideology, but
in the true spirit of public service. I recognize in the National
Socialists a similar spirit. How can I condemn in them a feeling that is
so strong in myself?

Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that was based
upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment, Mr
G, and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today.
Imagine a world free from the wars that have scarred the face of this
tired old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no extreme
poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of worker by employer, no
jolting financial crises (with the misery that such crises entail) -- a
world united in a common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world
free from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right' are mere
historical anachronisms, where nation works peacefully alongside nation
for the greater glory of all the earth. Imagine, if you will, a world
where, through a process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has
been enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere human
beings grow ever closer to becoming gods. Think of the beauty of those
people, of their art, their music, their literature. Think of their
levels of culture, their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this
with the world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result of
that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a newspaper and look
around you -- look at what your 'liberals' and your 'democrats' have
left to them. Look at the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their
eyeballs, staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos blaring
drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a Bruckner symphony, or
the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche? What good have 'democracy' and
'liberalism' ever done for them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa
and Asia -- thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth. What good
have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the inhabitants of those
miserable regions? Answer me that! What good is 'freedom' to a man who
cannot afford to buy his daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the
legacy of communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million corpses --
people who died as victims of this evil claw, for no good purpose
whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your hand on your heart and tell
me, in all sincerity, sir, that you truly and without reservation
believe that the world you and your kind have bequeathed to future
generations -- the world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes all that is
wrong with this earth -- that you honestly believe that this world you
have left for us is better than our alternative? Can you honestly tell
me that the dream of a beautiful new world that I have outlined above --
the dream that inspired countless thousands of young Europeans to flock
to the National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can you
honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?

So where do I disagree with them.

First, as I indicated above, there is a lack of clarity as to intent and
purpose. Most National Socialist publications that I have seen nowadays
lack any clear direction. They seem to consist merely of the confused
mutterings of their publishers, which range from the odd, to the
mystical, to the completely daft.

Second, there is a complete lack of any credible leadership. You have
only to witness the undignified way in which the so-called leaders of
the movement today conduct themselves in this newsgroup to see this.
That they should indulge in public squabbling in the face of the enemy
is unforgivable and shows that they are no hopers. Sixty years ago, such
quarrels between brothers would have been settled in private, if
necessary with the assistance of a well-placed bullet.

Third, I am persuaded that the National Socialist movement may, at
times, have participated in unjustified acts of brutality. This in no
way detracts from the fact that their enemies clearly did likewise, and
I do not lose sight of the fact that there was a war on, that 'war is
war' and 'these things happen', or that there was a strong degree of
disorganization, panic and resentment at times. Nevertheless, such
behaviour is quite inexcusable and, where it can be proven to have
occurred, it must be condemned unreservedly.

Fourth, I think that the National Socialists may, in the past, have
taken their use of the race concept to extremes. I don't regard the Jews
as a 'race' but as a cultural group, although one that clearly tends to
attract adherents disproportionately from one particular 'race'. I can
see how the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and from my
own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish community, I must say that I
am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to
be. I think the problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic. I
tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
aggressive, dishonest people. But I can think of several with whom I
formed good relationships, in three cases even friendships. This is not
to say that 'race' cannot be used as a relevant factor in political
decisions. Indeed, in Britain today, where 1 in 5 pre-school children
are of 'mixed' race, it is imperative that race SHOULD be used in
political decisions if our culture and way of life is to survive even
one century into the new millennium. But the concept must be used
SENSIBLY.

Fifth, a central feature of National Socialism was the fuhrer principle
and the need for loyalty to one man, Mr Adolf Hitler. I regret that I
would swear loyalty to no one other than myself. Mr Hitler was not
infallible. The fact that he managed to lose the most important war of
all time is clear evidence of this.

So, you see, Mr G, I think that there is good and bad in it. As with
most political movements. The trick, methinks, is to preserve and
enhance the good while doing away with the bad. In other words,
pragmatism should rule.

> I'm sure you can do that little thing just to prove my assertion wrong,
> can't you? (Of course, just remember that if you decide to do so
> insincerely just to make me look bad it'll certainly come back to haunt
> you later when you post something that contradicts your answers to these
> questions...)

Well, I know there's always a temptation to label things. I think labels
usually tend to oversimplify and hence distort. It depends what you want
to do. If you want to smear me, then I suppose applying the 'Nazi' label
is as good as any. If you want to accurately classify me for some
obscure purpose, the 'Nazi' label would not fit particularly well.

> >Do you disagree with me on this point? Why?
>
> For the most part, yes, I do disagree. The primary purpose of Germany's
> war was not primarily to "save the world" but to secure Lebensraum for
> Germany in the East, as described in MEIN KAMPF. Later, when it became
> clear that Germany was losing the war that it had started, the only thing
> the Nazis were trying to save was their hides.

I think they were trying to save the world from Bolshevism, from what
they saw as Jewish influence, and from a variety of other 'degenerate'
forces. Certainly they wanted to secure Lebensraum and I think they
wanted to rectify what they saw as unjust conditions imposed upon them
by brute force at the end of the First World War. If you can let me know
precisely what it is you disagree with in this I'll fish around and try
to find some documented backup for it.

Cuddles


> This is not to say that Michael's original post had no criticism.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. Do try to get your story straight,
Kneisel.

> Indeed it
> did. Michael berated another critic for ignoring his -- once again --
> invisible anti-Nazi writings. Specifically, he wrote "Tim, I have dealt
> with all the accusations you've made. You still make them. I can only
> assume therefore that either you're a complete prick or that you're just a
> dishonest troll. Wake me up when you have something serious to say."[3]
>
> In short we see even in Denier academic

I am neither a Denier nor, by the anti-revisionist definition, an 'academic'
(they seem to think one has to be employed by a university to be an
academic).

> a methodology resembling classical
> rhetorical techniques used by the Nazis: accuse others of doing what
> you are doing or about to do. When you do something accuse the victim of
> your aggression of aggressing against you. This is best seen in the Nazi
> preparation for the attack on Poland, preceded by a propaganda barrage of
> Polish aggression against Germans.
> Specifically,
>
> Michael praised various Nazi policies.

I posted a summary of the areas where I agreed and disagreed with Nazism.

> Michael was attacked for this.

John Morris hit on the idea of extracting the bits where I agreed with them
and snipping the criticisms so as to give readers the impression that I was
some sort of rabid Nazi. Ken McVay followed suit. You are tagging along a
well-worn path. I simply respond by pointing out that there were criticisms
as well as praise and remarking on the dishonesty that anti-revisionists
find themselves forced to use in order to 'combat' revisionism.

> Michael responds to the attack by referencing an invisible criticism of
> Nazi politics.

The entire post is reproduced above now. Readers will observe that you are
just another anti-revisionist liar.

> Michael is again attacked for his pro-Nazi sympathies.
>
> Michael again invents an invisible critique in the original article
> containing the earlier invisible critique.

Again, the criticisms are reproduced for all to see.

> In his response, Michael deletes the reference to this article while
> accusing his critic of being "dishonest" for deleting the non-existent
> anti-Nazi writing.
>
> Michael's sympathy for Nazi policies and actions remains. So do his
> repeated dishonesties he's presented to confuse the issue.

No confusion there.

You have lied. It's there for all to see.

David








From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:26 EDT 2001
Article: 957159 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References:  <3b960d4b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b970ddc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b98cb08@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 3
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 14:20:30 +0100
Lines: 545
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.162
Message-ID: <3b9a19fe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 8 Sep 2001 14:15:42 GMT, 213.78.39.162
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.162
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957159 alt.politics.white-power:538898 alt.politics.nationalism.white:530053 alt.flame.niggers:494159


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m3lmjqwhzc.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m3wv3b68ta.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m3d75516c0.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Johann Sebastian Bot"  wrote in message
> > > > > > news:ovCVO=4nB7eBsn3MTYiRkM+hg8YQ@4ax.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. David Michael claims he is "smeared" when his writings
> > > > > > > on the Nazis areaccurately quoted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nup, I claim I am smeared when you or your dishonest little
> > > > > > smearmongering chums take sentences or passages out of
> > > > > > context to make out that I am saying something other than
> > > > > > what I am actually saying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which, let it be noted, you do rather often.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   And yet you never *prove* that these sentences are taken out of
> > > > >   context by showing how the meaning is changed when the sentences
are
> > > > >   considered *in* context. In fact, you never even *attempt* to
prove
> > > > >   it. All you ever do is make the claim.
> > > >
> > > > Actually I seem to recall that I did prove it when Comrade Kneisel
first
> > > > produced this little piece.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   Nope.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
>
>   Prove it.

OK, here we go.

From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups:
alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.
flame.niggers
References: 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 2
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:19:34 -0000


Mr Kneisel again repeats his lies and defamation. Here, again, are the
answers to his points.

> Dr. David Michael represents a unique opportunity to see the functioning
of
> the Holocaust Denial movement.

I am a member of no such movement. I do not 'deny' anything; I do however
make a point of taking a somewhat more critical view of World War II history
than you and your kind.

>The movement stresses the educated
> nature of its members and claims that it wants an academic debate on the
> issues.

There is no such 'movement'.

> Yet when we look around we see the very academics are absent from
> the discussions. We can find all manner of anti-Semites, Hitler-lovers,
and
> Klan-style racists all telling us that the "Holocaust never happened
> and it should happen again."[1] But their academics, save for Dr. Michael,
> are not among them.

Now what would happen to any academic who stuck his neck out on Usenet to
post pro-revisionist material?

Would he have a job six months down the line?

How would he feed his kids?

> This gives us a wonderful opportunity to see exactly how the academics
> argue when confronted with the discussion they claim so badly to want.
>
> This particular dispute began when I wrote of Michael's sympathy for the
> Nazis and documented it with his own writings.[2] In my article I stated
>
> I had taken the material from an earlier post by Michael and footnoted
> it.[3]
>
> Michael responded [4] admitting the quotes attributed to him were
accurate,
> writing "Yes, in that article I outlined the areas where I agreed with
> the Nazis...." But he also claimed that the quotations were improper,
> claiming that the article in question also contained areas were he
> disagreed

The article responded to an enquiry by Dr Gorski as to where I agreed and
disagreed with the Nazis. I outlined what I saw as their strengths and
weaknesses. You took out the strengths bit and ignored the weaknesses.

> with the Nazis, adding "You're basically following in the same path as
John
> Morris and Ken McVay in quoting from the areas where I agree and
> snipping the areas where I disagree. Which shows that, like most
> anti-revisionist posters, you're a thoroughly dishonest man."
>
> He expanded his objection writing several days later that "The best you
can
> do is to chop up a post in which I advanced my views of the good and
> bad points of the Third Reich, quote the 'good' points, and snip my
> criticisms of Nazism."[5]
>
> Later in the discussion he similarly berated John Morris, claiming "The
> distortion lay in your posting selected parts of the item in question to
> try to propagate the notion that I hold views that you know, in fact, I do
> not hold. That is dishonest. You could easily have posted the entire
> item. That you did not do so tells us a lot about anti-revisionism."[6]
>
> This seems a bizarre response from an academic.

Let's get this straight. You deliberately cut out my criticisms of Nazism. I
point out that your behaviour in so doing is dishonest. You claim that this
is 'a bizarre response'.

I put it to you that this is about as bizarre as anything gets on Usenet!

> Writers have no obligation
> to add quotations outside the scope of an article.

And people who are smeared have no obligation to refrain from pointing out
that they are smeared and expose the dishonest nature of the smearer.

> One can, for
> example, properly charge Herman Goering with being a Nazi without adding
> that he had disagreements with Hitler. Equally, one can charge someone
> with sympathy with Nazi policies by correctly quoting their articles to
> this effect. The fact that somebody may have other disagreements in no way
> negates those areas of support.
>
> But this is a minor academic trifle.

No, comrade -- it's you gibbering away like a ruptured warthog.

> Michael originally responded to the 16 January critique by reposting the
> critique and adding his objections, something quite common in usenet
> discussions. But there was one exception to this repost: Michael deleted
> the footnote to his original article that was being critiqued.
>
> Michael claims that his crucial writing was deleted from a critique but he
> was the one performing a deletion. This removal of the reference to his
> original post is telling. For he claims that his original post contained
> criticisms of Nazi policies.
>
> It contained no such criticisms.

Funny, then, how Morris and I have been discussing them in just the past 24
hours! See below for a refutation of Comrade Kneisel's latest brainstorm.

> Michael simply invented a non-existent critique of the Nazis and used it
to
> offset accurate quotations from his pro-Nazi writings. Then he accused
> his honest critic of "dishonesty" for deleting that which never existed to
> be deleted.

Here's the original post again, Comrade Kneisel. And you'll observe that it
does indeed criticize aspects of Nazism as well as praising other aspects --
i.e. it proves you to be a total liar (like most communists):

I now reproduce the post in full:


From: Cuddles 
Subject: National Socialism and Cuddles -- a clarification
Date: 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <35F99AAA.126E@cableinet.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <35F3F570.153B1AEA@rio.com> <35F46A67.58A2@cableinet.co.uk>
<6t1sop$16e$1@blackice.winternet.com> <35F48726.1965@earthlink.net>
 <35F561EC.29C2@cableinet.co.uk>

<35F5CFBB.4063@cableinet.co.uk>
 <35F6859E.3749@cableinet.co.uk>

<35F6E29C.133C@cableinet.co.uk>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cableinet.net
X-Trace: news3.cableinet.co.uk 905550311 20662 194.117.148.17 (11 Sep 1998
21:45:11 GMT)
Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 1998 21:45:11 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism

ORAC wrote:
>
> In article <35F6E29C.133C@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <35F6859E.3749@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
wrote:
> >>
> >> >ORAC wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <35F5CFBB.4063@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of
trying to
> >> >> >save the world.
> >> >>
> >> >> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in your
post
> >> >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> >> >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time
attempting
> >> >> to make a serious response.
> >> >
> >> >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found some
> >> >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually do .
.
> >>
> >> I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your screw-up,
> >> Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi sympathies
and
> >> Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
> >> imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you
slipped
> >> up and let your true colors show...
> >>
> >> National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to save
the
> >> world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations
conquered
> >> and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at the
> >> hands of the Nazis...
> >
> >Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you please
> >explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
> >were saving the world lets 'my true colors' show?
>
> Well,

Nice to see you putting up an argument, Mr G! And it's a tough one too.
Please read on.

> your true colors are that you tend sympathize with the philosophy
> and goals of National Socialism, aren't they?

Philosophy -- no. I don't think National Socialism has a coherent
philosophy. That's one reason why various attempts to revive it tend to
result in numerous factions forming. I do have a lot more time for the
approach of the early Fascisti. I like their pragmatism: they don't ask
'how can I make my people serve my ideology', but rather 'which ideology
shall we apply here, now, in this particular instance, to serve my
people'. For me, politics is not a battle between 'Right' and 'Left' but
between idealogues and pragmatists. That's why I don't share the doom
and gloom of many nationalists. I see a movement towards a far more
pragmatic approach in politics nowadays -- a 'fascistization' of
politics. The gulf that separates, say, Tony Blair from Oswald Mosley is
not as great, in my view, as the gulf that separates Tony Blair from,
say, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the dogmatist at the far 'Left' of his
Labour Party. But this has nothing to do with National Socialism.

As to whether I sympathize with the goals of National Socialism, the
honest answer is that I sympathize with some of them. Just as I
sympathize with some of the goals of libertarianism and even some of
communism. I'm a true eclectic. If a man talks sense, and if the sense
that he talks can serve my country, then he is worth listening to
whatever labels he applies to himself. Again, I'm following in the
tradition of the likes of Mr Mussolini and, to a lesser extent, Sir
Oswald Mosley (neither of whom were, at first, particularly
anti-Semitic, I should add). Both were prepared to follow the
traditional political routes only insofar as they served the nation.
When they ceased to do so, they adopted a more opportunistic, pragmatic
approach, albeit at considerable personal cost.

> But perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. I'm only human, and
> Usenet often hides the subtle shadings of meaning that people intend when
> the post, leading to frequent misunderstandings. Perhaps, despite your
> many posts that suggest otherwise, you do not have National Socialist
> sympathies. If so, it's really quite simple for you to prove me wrong. All
> you have to do is to answer these two questions:
>
> 1.) Do you in general believe in the philosophy or goals of National
Socialism?

Philosophy -- no. Goals -- some.

> 2.) Do you in general sympathize with the goals or philosophy of National
> Socialism.

Philosophy -- sometimes. Goals -- some.

> Two explicit "no" answers without prevarication or reservation, and you've
> proven me wrong.

Then I haven't proven you wrong, but it doesn't follow from the above
that I am a rampaging Hitler supporter. Let me show you why. Let's
consider where I think the Nazis were right and where I think they were
wrong.

So where do I agree with them?

First, Dr Goebbels made very clear, in 1935, the absolute opposition of
the German National Socialists to communism. This position was
reiterated by Mr Hitler. It seems quite plain to me that communism has
caused immense suffering throughout the world this century. Estimates of
the numbers slaughtered in its name exceed 200 million. It has enslaved
vast swathes of territory; it has destroyed whole national cultures; it
has caused misery exceeding anything known to mankind. With the
lamentable exception of the Molotov--Ribbentrop pact, which I hope was a
ruse, the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts.
And in so doing they have my complete support.

Second, the National Socialists were nationalists. At the end of the
day, nationalism, in the sense that I'd use it, is not an abstract
theory or set of propositions or ideology. It is love of one's people
and homeland, and a desire to serve, preserve and enhance them. Nothing
more and nothing less. It is a sentiment, like love of one's wife. It
cannot be justified or refuted, although, irritatingly, people keep
trying to justify it -- and I dare say you've shot a few of them down in
flames in this very newsgroup! It does not entail hatred of other
nations, any more than your love of your wife or children or pet hamster
entails hatred of other wives of children or hamsters. It is more a case
of: 'this is MINE -- this is what I love and shall defend'. Maybe I'm
just an old-fashioned Romantic, Mr G, but I sincerely love my homeland
and people, for all their faults, and would like to serve them as best I
can, not out of a wish for personal gain or to further any ideology, but
in the true spirit of public service. I recognize in the National
Socialists a similar spirit. How can I condemn in them a feeling that is
so strong in myself?

Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that was based
upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment, Mr
G, and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today.
Imagine a world free from the wars that have scarred the face of this
tired old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no extreme
poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of worker by employer, no
jolting financial crises (with the misery that such crises entail) -- a
world united in a common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world
free from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right' are mere
historical anachronisms, where nation works peacefully alongside nation
for the greater glory of all the earth. Imagine, if you will, a world
where, through a process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has
been enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere human
beings grow ever closer to becoming gods. Think of the beauty of those
people, of their art, their music, their literature. Think of their
levels of culture, their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this
with the world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result of
that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a newspaper and look
around you -- look at what your 'liberals' and your 'democrats' have
left to them. Look at the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their
eyeballs, staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos blaring
drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a Bruckner symphony, or
the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche? What good have 'democracy' and
'liberalism' ever done for them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa
and Asia -- thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth. What good
have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the inhabitants of those
miserable regions? Answer me that! What good is 'freedom' to a man who
cannot afford to buy his daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the
legacy of communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million corpses --
people who died as victims of this evil claw, for no good purpose
whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your hand on your heart and tell
me, in all sincerity, sir, that you truly and without reservation
believe that the world you and your kind have bequeathed to future
generations -- the world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes all that is
wrong with this earth -- that you honestly believe that this world you
have left for us is better than our alternative? Can you honestly tell
me that the dream of a beautiful new world that I have outlined above --
the dream that inspired countless thousands of young Europeans to flock
to the National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can you
honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?

So where do I disagree with them.

First, as I indicated above, there is a lack of clarity as to intent and
purpose. Most National Socialist publications that I have seen nowadays
lack any clear direction. They seem to consist merely of the confused
mutterings of their publishers, which range from the odd, to the
mystical, to the completely daft.

Second, there is a complete lack of any credible leadership. You have
only to witness the undignified way in which the so-called leaders of
the movement today conduct themselves in this newsgroup to see this.
That they should indulge in public squabbling in the face of the enemy
is unforgivable and shows that they are no hopers. Sixty years ago, such
quarrels between brothers would have been settled in private, if
necessary with the assistance of a well-placed bullet.

Third, I am persuaded that the National Socialist movement may, at
times, have participated in unjustified acts of brutality. This in no
way detracts from the fact that their enemies clearly did likewise, and
I do not lose sight of the fact that there was a war on, that 'war is
war' and 'these things happen', or that there was a strong degree of
disorganization, panic and resentment at times. Nevertheless, such
behaviour is quite inexcusable and, where it can be proven to have
occurred, it must be condemned unreservedly.

Fourth, I think that the National Socialists may, in the past, have
taken their use of the race concept to extremes. I don't regard the Jews
as a 'race' but as a cultural group, although one that clearly tends to
attract adherents disproportionately from one particular 'race'. I can
see how the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and from my
own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish community, I must say that I
am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to
be. I think the problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic. I
tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
aggressive, dishonest people. But I can think of several with whom I
formed good relationships, in three cases even friendships. This is not
to say that 'race' cannot be used as a relevant factor in political
decisions. Indeed, in Britain today, where 1 in 5 pre-school children
are of 'mixed' race, it is imperative that race SHOULD be used in
political decisions if our culture and way of life is to survive even
one century into the new millennium. But the concept must be used
SENSIBLY.

Fifth, a central feature of National Socialism was the fuhrer principle
and the need for loyalty to one man, Mr Adolf Hitler. I regret that I
would swear loyalty to no one other than myself. Mr Hitler was not
infallible. The fact that he managed to lose the most important war of
all time is clear evidence of this.

So, you see, Mr G, I think that there is good and bad in it. As with
most political movements. The trick, methinks, is to preserve and
enhance the good while doing away with the bad. In other words,
pragmatism should rule.

> I'm sure you can do that little thing just to prove my assertion wrong,
> can't you? (Of course, just remember that if you decide to do so
> insincerely just to make me look bad it'll certainly come back to haunt
> you later when you post something that contradicts your answers to these
> questions...)

Well, I know there's always a temptation to label things. I think labels
usually tend to oversimplify and hence distort. It depends what you want
to do. If you want to smear me, then I suppose applying the 'Nazi' label
is as good as any. If you want to accurately classify me for some
obscure purpose, the 'Nazi' label would not fit particularly well.

> >Do you disagree with me on this point? Why?
>
> For the most part, yes, I do disagree. The primary purpose of Germany's
> war was not primarily to "save the world" but to secure Lebensraum for
> Germany in the East, as described in MEIN KAMPF. Later, when it became
> clear that Germany was losing the war that it had started, the only thing
> the Nazis were trying to save was their hides.

I think they were trying to save the world from Bolshevism, from what
they saw as Jewish influence, and from a variety of other 'degenerate'
forces. Certainly they wanted to secure Lebensraum and I think they
wanted to rectify what they saw as unjust conditions imposed upon them
by brute force at the end of the First World War. If you can let me know
precisely what it is you disagree with in this I'll fish around and try
to find some documented backup for it.

Cuddles


> This is not to say that Michael's original post had no criticism.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. Do try to get your story straight,
Kneisel.

> Indeed it
> did. Michael berated another critic for ignoring his -- once again --
> invisible anti-Nazi writings. Specifically, he wrote "Tim, I have dealt
> with all the accusations you've made. You still make them. I can only
> assume therefore that either you're a complete prick or that you're just a
> dishonest troll. Wake me up when you have something serious to say."[3]
>
> In short we see even in Denier academic

I am neither a Denier nor, by the anti-revisionist definition, an 'academic'
(they seem to think one has to be employed by a university to be an
academic).

> a methodology resembling classical
> rhetorical techniques used by the Nazis: accuse others of doing what
> you are doing or about to do. When you do something accuse the victim of
> your aggression of aggressing against you. This is best seen in the Nazi
> preparation for the attack on Poland, preceded by a propaganda barrage of
> Polish aggression against Germans.
> Specifically,
>
> Michael praised various Nazi policies.

I posted a summary of the areas where I agreed and disagreed with Nazism.

> Michael was attacked for this.

John Morris hit on the idea of extracting the bits where I agreed with them
and snipping the criticisms so as to give readers the impression that I was
some sort of rabid Nazi. Ken McVay followed suit. You are tagging along a
well-worn path. I simply respond by pointing out that there were criticisms
as well as praise and remarking on the dishonesty that anti-revisionists
find themselves forced to use in order to 'combat' revisionism.

> Michael responds to the attack by referencing an invisible criticism of
> Nazi politics.

The entire post is reproduced above now. Readers will observe that you are
just another anti-revisionist liar.

> Michael is again attacked for his pro-Nazi sympathies.
>
> Michael again invents an invisible critique in the original article
> containing the earlier invisible critique.

Again, the criticisms are reproduced for all to see.

> In his response, Michael deletes the reference to this article while
> accusing his critic of being "dishonest" for deleting the non-existent
> anti-Nazi writing.
>
> Michael's sympathy for Nazi policies and actions remains. So do his
> repeated dishonesties he's presented to confuse the issue.

No confusion there.

You have lied. It's there for all to see.

David




Splattered, Comrade Daffersky?




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:27 EDT 2001
Article: 957193 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References:  <3b960d4b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b970ddc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b98cb08@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b9a19fe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <9ndg1b$mt8$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 3
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:27:01 +0100
Lines: 648
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.217
Message-ID: <3b9a45bb@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 8 Sep 2001 17:22:19 GMT, 213.78.39.217
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.217
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957193 alt.politics.white-power:538916 alt.politics.nationalism.white:530065 alt.flame.niggers:494204


"warren2"  wrote in message
news:9ndg1b$mt8$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "david_michael"  wrote in message
> news:3b9a19fe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> >
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m3lmjqwhzc.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m3wv3b68ta.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > > > news:m3d75516c0.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Johann Sebastian Bot"  wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:ovCVO=4nB7eBsn3MTYiRkM+hg8YQ@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. David Michael claims he is "smeared" when his writings
> > > > > > > > > on the Nazis areaccurately quoted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nup, I claim I am smeared when you or your dishonest little
> > > > > > > > smearmongering chums take sentences or passages out of
> > > > > > > > context to make out that I am saying something other than
> > > > > > > > what I am actually saying.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which, let it be noted, you do rather often.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   And yet you never *prove* that these sentences are taken out
> of
> > > > > > >   context by showing how the meaning is changed when the
> sentences
> > are
> > > > > > >   considered *in* context. In fact, you never even *attempt*
to
> > prove
> > > > > > >   it. All you ever do is make the claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually I seem to recall that I did prove it when Comrade
Kneisel
> > first
> > > > > > produced this little piece.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Yup.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   Prove it.
> >
> > OK, here we go.
> >
> > From: "david_michael" 
> > Newsgroups:
> >
>
alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.
> > flame.niggers
> > References: 
> > Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 2
> > Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:19:34 -0000
> >
> > 
> > Mr Kneisel again repeats his lies and defamation. Here, again, are the
> > answers to his points.
> >
> > > Dr. David Michael represents a unique opportunity to see the
functioning
> > of
> > > the Holocaust Denial movement.
> >
> > I am a member of no such movement. I do not 'deny' anything; I do
however
> > make a point of taking a somewhat more critical view of World War II
> history
> > than you and your kind.
> >
> > >The movement stresses the educated
> > > nature of its members and claims that it wants an academic debate on
the
> > > issues.
> >
> > There is no such 'movement'.
> >
> > > Yet when we look around we see the very academics are absent from
> > > the discussions. We can find all manner of anti-Semites,
Hitler-lovers,
> > and
> > > Klan-style racists all telling us that the "Holocaust never happened
> > > and it should happen again."[1] But their academics, save for Dr.
> Michael,
> > > are not among them.
> >
> > Now what would happen to any academic who stuck his neck out on Usenet
to
> > post pro-revisionist material?
> >
> > Would he have a job six months down the line?
> >
> > How would he feed his kids?
> >
> > > This gives us a wonderful opportunity to see exactly how the academics
> > > argue when confronted with the discussion they claim so badly to want.
> > >
> > > This particular dispute began when I wrote of Michael's sympathy for
the
> > > Nazis and documented it with his own writings.[2] In my article I
stated
> > >
> > > I had taken the material from an earlier post by Michael and footnoted
> > > it.[3]
> > >
> > > Michael responded [4] admitting the quotes attributed to him were
> > accurate,
> > > writing "Yes, in that article I outlined the areas where I agreed with
> > > the Nazis...." But he also claimed that the quotations were improper,
> > > claiming that the article in question also contained areas were he
> > > disagreed
> >
> > The article responded to an enquiry by Dr Gorski as to where I agreed
and
> > disagreed with the Nazis. I outlined what I saw as their strengths and
> > weaknesses. You took out the strengths bit and ignored the weaknesses.
> >
> > > with the Nazis, adding "You're basically following in the same path as
> > John
> > > Morris and Ken McVay in quoting from the areas where I agree and
> > > snipping the areas where I disagree. Which shows that, like most
> > > anti-revisionist posters, you're a thoroughly dishonest man."
> > >
> > > He expanded his objection writing several days later that "The best
you
> > can
> > > do is to chop up a post in which I advanced my views of the good and
> > > bad points of the Third Reich, quote the 'good' points, and snip my
> > > criticisms of Nazism."[5]
> > >
> > > Later in the discussion he similarly berated John Morris, claiming
"The
> > > distortion lay in your posting selected parts of the item in question
to
> > > try to propagate the notion that I hold views that you know, in fact,
I
> do
> > > not hold. That is dishonest. You could easily have posted the entire
> > > item. That you did not do so tells us a lot about
anti-revisionism."[6]
> > >
> > > This seems a bizarre response from an academic.
> >
> > Let's get this straight. You deliberately cut out my criticisms of
Nazism.
> I
> > point out that your behaviour in so doing is dishonest. You claim that
> this
> > is 'a bizarre response'.
> >
> > I put it to you that this is about as bizarre as anything gets on
Usenet!
> >
> > > Writers have no obligation
> > > to add quotations outside the scope of an article.
> >
> > And people who are smeared have no obligation to refrain from pointing
out
> > that they are smeared and expose the dishonest nature of the smearer.
> >
> > > One can, for
> > > example, properly charge Herman Goering with being a Nazi without
adding
> > > that he had disagreements with Hitler. Equally, one can charge someone
> > > with sympathy with Nazi policies by correctly quoting their articles
to
> > > this effect. The fact that somebody may have other disagreements in no
> way
> > > negates those areas of support.
> > >
> > > But this is a minor academic trifle.
> >
> > No, comrade -- it's you gibbering away like a ruptured warthog.
> >
> > > Michael originally responded to the 16 January critique by reposting
the
> > > critique and adding his objections, something quite common in usenet
> > > discussions. But there was one exception to this repost: Michael
deleted
> > > the footnote to his original article that was being critiqued.
> > >
> > > Michael claims that his crucial writing was deleted from a critique
but
> he
> > > was the one performing a deletion. This removal of the reference to
his
> > > original post is telling. For he claims that his original post
contained
> > > criticisms of Nazi policies.
> > >
> > > It contained no such criticisms.
> >
> > Funny, then, how Morris and I have been discussing them in just the past
> 24
> > hours! See below for a refutation of Comrade Kneisel's latest
brainstorm.
> >
> > > Michael simply invented a non-existent critique of the Nazis and used
it
> > to
> > > offset accurate quotations from his pro-Nazi writings. Then he accused
> > > his honest critic of "dishonesty" for deleting that which never
existed
> to
> > > be deleted.
> >
> > Here's the original post again, Comrade Kneisel. And you'll observe that
> it
> > does indeed criticize aspects of Nazism as well as praising other
> aspects --
> > i.e. it proves you to be a total liar (like most communists):
> >
> > I now reproduce the post in full:
> >
> > 
> > From: Cuddles 
> > Subject: National Socialism and Cuddles -- a clarification
> > Date: 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
> > Message-ID: <35F99AAA.126E@cableinet.co.uk>
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > References: <35F3F570.153B1AEA@rio.com> <35F46A67.58A2@cableinet.co.uk>
> > <6t1sop$16e$1@blackice.winternet.com> <35F48726.1965@earthlink.net>
> > 
> <35F561EC.29C2@cableinet.co.uk>
> > 
> > <35F5CFBB.4063@cableinet.co.uk>
> > 
> <35F6859E.3749@cableinet.co.uk>
> > 
> > <35F6E29C.133C@cableinet.co.uk>
> > 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@cableinet.net
> > X-Trace: news3.cableinet.co.uk 905550311 20662 194.117.148.17 (11 Sep
1998
> > 21:45:11 GMT)
> > Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable
> Internet)
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Reply-To: Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 1998 21:45:11 GMT
> > Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
> >
> > ORAC wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35F6E29C.133C@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >ORAC wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> In article <35F6859E.3749@cableinet.co.uk>, Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >ORAC wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> In article <35F5CFBB.4063@cableinet.co.uk>,
> Cuddles@cableinet.co.uk
> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >And National Socialism was a combat action with the intent of
> > trying to
> > > >> >> >save the world.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You know, I was almost starting to take what you were saying in
> your
> > post
> > > >> >> seriously until you said this. After this comment about National
> > > >> >> Socialism, however, I realize that I would be wasting my time
> > attempting
> > > >> >> to make a serious response.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Aw don't feel too bad about it, Mr G. I am sure you'd have found
> some
> > > >> >other reason to avoid attempting to make a response. You usually
do
> .
> > .
> > > >>
> > > >> I was going to suggest that YOU not feel so bad about your
screw-up,
> > > >> Cuddles. You're usually much better at cloaking your Nazi
sympathies
> > and
> > > >> Holocaust denial in righteous "humanitarian" outrage about various
> > > >> imagined Allied "atrocities" against the poor Nazis. This time you
> > slipped
> > > >> up and let your true colors show...
> > > >>
> > > >> National Socialism a "combat action with the intent of trying to
save
> > the
> > > >> world," indeed! Try telling that to Poland and the other nations
> > conquered
> > > >> and ravaged by Hitler. Try telling that to the millions who died at
> the
> > > >> hands of the Nazis...
> > > >
> > > >Mr Gorski, I know you dislike engaging in argument but would you
please
> > > >explain to me how making the observation that the Nazis thought they
> > > >were saving the world lets 'my true colors' show?
> > >
> > > Well,
> >
> > Nice to see you putting up an argument, Mr G! And it's a tough one too.
> > Please read on.
> >
> > > your true colors are that you tend sympathize with the philosophy
> > > and goals of National Socialism, aren't they?
> >
> > Philosophy -- no. I don't think National Socialism has a coherent
> > philosophy. That's one reason why various attempts to revive it tend to
> > result in numerous factions forming. I do have a lot more time for the
> > approach of the early Fascisti. I like their pragmatism: they don't ask
> > 'how can I make my people serve my ideology', but rather 'which ideology
> > shall we apply here, now, in this particular instance, to serve my
> > people'. For me, politics is not a battle between 'Right' and 'Left' but
> > between idealogues and pragmatists. That's why I don't share the doom
> > and gloom of many nationalists. I see a movement towards a far more
> > pragmatic approach in politics nowadays -- a 'fascistization' of
> > politics. The gulf that separates, say, Tony Blair from Oswald Mosley is
> > not as great, in my view, as the gulf that separates Tony Blair from,
> > say, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the dogmatist at the far 'Left' of his
> > Labour Party. But this has nothing to do with National Socialism.
> >
> > As to whether I sympathize with the goals of National Socialism, the
> > honest answer is that I sympathize with some of them. Just as I
> > sympathize with some of the goals of libertarianism and even some of
> > communism. I'm a true eclectic. If a man talks sense, and if the sense
> > that he talks can serve my country, then he is worth listening to
> > whatever labels he applies to himself. Again, I'm following in the
> > tradition of the likes of Mr Mussolini and, to a lesser extent, Sir
> > Oswald Mosley (neither of whom were, at first, particularly
> > anti-Semitic, I should add). Both were prepared to follow the
> > traditional political routes only insofar as they served the nation.
> > When they ceased to do so, they adopted a more opportunistic, pragmatic
> > approach, albeit at considerable personal cost.
> >
> > > But perhaps I have misinterpreted your intention. I'm only human, and
> > > Usenet often hides the subtle shadings of meaning that people intend
> when
> > > the post, leading to frequent misunderstandings. Perhaps, despite your
> > > many posts that suggest otherwise, you do not have National Socialist
> > > sympathies. If so, it's really quite simple for you to prove me wrong.
> All
> > > you have to do is to answer these two questions:
> > >
> > > 1.) Do you in general believe in the philosophy or goals of National
> > Socialism?
> >
> > Philosophy -- no. Goals -- some.
> >
> > > 2.) Do you in general sympathize with the goals or philosophy of
> National
> > > Socialism.
> >
> > Philosophy -- sometimes. Goals -- some.
> >
> > > Two explicit "no" answers without prevarication or reservation, and
> you've
> > > proven me wrong.
> >
> > Then I haven't proven you wrong, but it doesn't follow from the above
> > that I am a rampaging Hitler supporter. Let me show you why. Let's
> > consider where I think the Nazis were right and where I think they were
> > wrong.
> >
> > So where do I agree with them?
> >
> > First, Dr Goebbels made very clear, in 1935, the absolute opposition of
> > the German National Socialists to communism. This position was
> > reiterated by Mr Hitler. It seems quite plain to me that communism has
> > caused immense suffering throughout the world this century. Estimates of
> > the numbers slaughtered in its name exceed 200 million. It has enslaved
> > vast swathes of territory; it has destroyed whole national cultures; it
> > has caused misery exceeding anything known to mankind. With the
> > lamentable exception of the Molotov--Ribbentrop pact, which I hope was a
> > ruse, the Nazis had an excellent record of dealing appropriately with
> > communists. They hanged them, shot them, strung them up from lamp-posts.
> > And in so doing they have my complete support.
> >
> > Second, the National Socialists were nationalists. At the end of the
> > day, nationalism, in the sense that I'd use it, is not an abstract
> > theory or set of propositions or ideology. It is love of one's people
> > and homeland, and a desire to serve, preserve and enhance them. Nothing
> > more and nothing less. It is a sentiment, like love of one's wife. It
> > cannot be justified or refuted, although, irritatingly, people keep
> > trying to justify it -- and I dare say you've shot a few of them down in
> > flames in this very newsgroup! It does not entail hatred of other
> > nations, any more than your love of your wife or children or pet hamster
> > entails hatred of other wives of children or hamsters. It is more a case
> > of: 'this is MINE -- this is what I love and shall defend'. Maybe I'm
> > just an old-fashioned Romantic, Mr G, but I sincerely love my homeland
> > and people, for all their faults, and would like to serve them as best I

> > can, not out of a wish for personal gain or to further any ideology, but
> > in the true spirit of public service. I recognize in the National
> > Socialists a similar spirit. How can I condemn in them a feeling that is
> > so strong in myself?
> >
> > Third, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement that was based
> > upon a wonderful dream. Forget the stories of corpses for a moment, Mr
> > G, and imagine a world very different from the world we inhabit today.
> > Imagine a world free from the wars that have scarred the face of this
> > tired old planet since the beginning of time; a world with no extreme
> > poverty, with no disease, with no exploitation of worker by employer, no
> > jolting financial crises (with the misery that such crises entail) -- a
> > world united in a common purpose and a common vision. Imagine a world
> > free from the old conflicts, where worker and employer strive
> > side-by-side for the common good, where 'Left' and 'Right' are mere
> > historical anachronisms, where nation works peacefully alongside nation
> > for the greater glory of all the earth. Imagine, if you will, a world
> > where, through a process of artificial genetic selection, mankind has
> > been enhanced to heights undreamed of: when, year by year, mere human
> > beings grow ever closer to becoming gods. Think of the beauty of those
> > people, of their art, their music, their literature. Think of their
> > levels of culture, their humanity, their nobility. Now contrast this
> > with the world that has been bequeathed to our children as a result of
> > that needless and miserable world war. Just pick up a newspaper and look
> > around you -- look at what your 'liberals' and your 'democrats' have
> > left to them. Look at the dull-eyed teenagers, drugged to their
> > eyeballs, staggering around bleak housing estates, their stereos blaring
> > drum-beats! What do they know of the glories of a Bruckner symphony, or
> > the heart-rending beauty of Nietzsche? What good have 'democracy' and
> > 'liberalism' ever done for them, Mr G? Answer me that! Look at Africa
> > and Asia -- thousands upon thousands of square miles, characterized by
> > war, starvation, famine, massacre, corruption, decay, filth. What good
> > have 'freedom' and 'rights' ever done for the inhabitants of those
> > miserable regions? Answer me that! What good is 'freedom' to a man who
> > cannot afford to buy his daily bread? Tell me that, Mr G! Look at the
> > legacy of communism -- the blood red claw that, even today, enslaves a
> > quarter of the world's population. Think of the 200 million corpses --
> > people who died as victims of this evil claw, for no good purpose
> > whatsoever. Now can you honestly put your hand on your heart and tell
> > me, in all sincerity, sir, that you truly and without reservation
> > believe that the world you and your kind have bequeathed to future
> > generations -- the world that has given us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the
> > pathetic figure of William Jefferson Clinton, who symbolizes all that is
> > wrong with this earth -- that you honestly believe that this world you
> > have left for us is better than our alternative? Can you honestly tell
> > me that the dream of a beautiful new world that I have outlined above --
> > the dream that inspired countless thousands of young Europeans to flock
> > to the National Socialist banner -- is not worth fighting for? Can you
> > honestly tell me that it is not worth dying for?
> >
> > So where do I disagree with them.
> >
> > First, as I indicated above, there is a lack of clarity as to intent and
> > purpose. Most National Socialist publications that I have seen nowadays
> > lack any clear direction. They seem to consist merely of the confused
> > mutterings of their publishers, which range from the odd, to the
> > mystical, to the completely daft.
> >
> > Second, there is a complete lack of any credible leadership. You have
> > only to witness the undignified way in which the so-called leaders of
> > the movement today conduct themselves in this newsgroup to see this.
> > That they should indulge in public squabbling in the face of the enemy
> > is unforgivable and shows that they are no hopers. Sixty years ago, such
> > quarrels between brothers would have been settled in private, if
> > necessary with the assistance of a well-placed bullet.
> >
> > Third, I am persuaded that the National Socialist movement may, at
> > times, have participated in unjustified acts of brutality. This in no
> > way detracts from the fact that their enemies clearly did likewise, and
> > I do not lose sight of the fact that there was a war on, that 'war is
> > war' and 'these things happen', or that there was a strong degree of
> > disorganization, panic and resentment at times. Nevertheless, such
> > behaviour is quite inexcusable and, where it can be proven to have
> > occurred, it must be condemned unreservedly.
> >
> > Fourth, I think that the National Socialists may, in the past, have
> > taken their use of the race concept to extremes. I don't regard the Jews
> > as a 'race' but as a cultural group, although one that clearly tends to
> > attract adherents disproportionately from one particular 'race'. I can
> > see how the concerns about Jewish influence may have arisen, and from my
> > own fairly recent encounter with the Jewish community, I must say that I
> > am struck by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to
> > be. I think the problem, however, is cultural rather than genetic. I
> > tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet -- they are arrogant,
> > aggressive, dishonest people. But I can think of several with whom I
> > formed good relationships, in three cases even friendships. This is not
> > to say that 'race' cannot be used as a relevant factor in political
> > decisions. Indeed, in Britain today, where 1 in 5 pre-school children
> > are of 'mixed' race, it is imperative that race SHOULD be used in
> > political decisions if our culture and way of life is to survive even
> > one century into the new millennium. But the concept must be used
> > SENSIBLY.
> >
> > Fifth, a central feature of National Socialism was the fuhrer principle
> > and the need for loyalty to one man, Mr Adolf Hitler. I regret that I
> > would swear loyalty to no one other than myself. Mr Hitler was not
> > infallible. The fact that he managed to lose the most important war of
> > all time is clear evidence of this.
> >
> > So, you see, Mr G, I think that there is good and bad in it. As with
> > most political movements. The trick, methinks, is to preserve and
> > enhance the good while doing away with the bad. In other words,
> > pragmatism should rule.
> >
> > > I'm sure you can do that little thing just to prove my assertion
wrong,
> > > can't you? (Of course, just remember that if you decide to do so
> > > insincerely just to make me look bad it'll certainly come back to
haunt
> > > you later when you post something that contradicts your answers to
these
> > > questions...)
> >
> > Well, I know there's always a temptation to label things. I think labels
> > usually tend to oversimplify and hence distort. It depends what you want
> > to do. If you want to smear me, then I suppose applying the 'Nazi' label
> > is as good as any. If you want to accurately classify me for some
> > obscure purpose, the 'Nazi' label would not fit particularly well.
> >
> > > >Do you disagree with me on this point? Why?
> > >
> > > For the most part, yes, I do disagree. The primary purpose of
Germany's
> > > war was not primarily to "save the world" but to secure Lebensraum for
> > > Germany in the East, as described in MEIN KAMPF. Later, when it became
> > > clear that Germany was losing the war that it had started, the only
> thing
> > > the Nazis were trying to save was their hides.
> >
> > I think they were trying to save the world from Bolshevism, from what
> > they saw as Jewish influence, and from a variety of other 'degenerate'
> > forces. Certainly they wanted to secure Lebensraum and I think they
> > wanted to rectify what they saw as unjust conditions imposed upon them
> > by brute force at the end of the First World War. If you can let me know
> > precisely what it is you disagree with in this I'll fish around and try
> > to find some documented backup for it.
> >
> > Cuddles
> > 
> >
> > > This is not to say that Michael's original post had no criticism.
> >
> > Now you're just contradicting yourself. Do try to get your story
straight,
> > Kneisel.
> >
> > > Indeed it
> > > did. Michael berated another critic for ignoring his -- once again --
> > > invisible anti-Nazi writings. Specifically, he wrote "Tim, I have
dealt
> > > with all the accusations you've made. You still make them. I can only
> > > assume therefore that either you're a complete prick or that you're
just
> a
> > > dishonest troll. Wake me up when you have something serious to
say."[3]
> > >
> > > In short we see even in Denier academic
> >
> > I am neither a Denier nor, by the anti-revisionist definition, an
> 'academic'
> > (they seem to think one has to be employed by a university to be an
> > academic).
> >
> > > a methodology resembling classical
> > > rhetorical techniques used by the Nazis: accuse others of doing what
> > > you are doing or about to do. When you do something accuse the victim
of
> > > your aggression of aggressing against you. This is best seen in the
Nazi
> > > preparation for the attack on Poland, preceded by a propaganda barrage
> of
> > > Polish aggression against Germans.
> > > Specifically,
> > >
> > > Michael praised various Nazi policies.
> >
> > I posted a summary of the areas where I agreed and disagreed with
Nazism.
> >
> > > Michael was attacked for this.
> >
> > John Morris hit on the idea of extracting the bits where I agreed with
> them
> > and snipping the criticisms so as to give readers the impression that I
> was
> > some sort of rabid Nazi. Ken McVay followed suit. You are tagging along
a
> > well-worn path. I simply respond by pointing out that there were
> criticisms
> > as well as praise and remarking on the dishonesty that anti-revisionists
> > find themselves forced to use in order to 'combat' revisionism.
> >
> > > Michael responds to the attack by referencing an invisible criticism
of
> > > Nazi politics.
> >
> > The entire post is reproduced above now. Readers will observe that you
are
> > just another anti-revisionist liar.
> >
> > > Michael is again attacked for his pro-Nazi sympathies.
> > >
> > > Michael again invents an invisible critique in the original article
> > > containing the earlier invisible critique.
> >
> > Again, the criticisms are reproduced for all to see.
> >
> > > In his response, Michael deletes the reference to this article while
> > > accusing his critic of being "dishonest" for deleting the non-existent
> > > anti-Nazi writing.
> > >
> > > Michael's sympathy for Nazi policies and actions remains. So do his
> > > repeated dishonesties he's presented to confuse the issue.
> >
> > No confusion there.
> >
> > You have lied. It's there for all to see.
> >
> > David
> >
> > 
> > 
> >
> > Splattered, Comrade Daffersky?
>
>
> I have read your endlessly repeated protestations of innocence too many
> times, mr. michael.  It is clear to any objective person that you are
> convicted, out of your own mouth, of being an antisemite, a racist, and a
> Nazi sympathizer and apologist.  Nothing you say can change that simple
> fact.  By the way, how's the weather not in Lincolnshire?
>
> sw

Translation: 'damn -- splattered again.'

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:27 EDT 2001
Article: 957275 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Question for Dr Gorski (OT)
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:40:35 +0100
Lines: 9
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.56
Message-ID: <3b9a8121@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 8 Sep 2001 21:35:45 GMT, 213.78.40.56
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.56
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957275

When wandering down the corridor of our local hospital last week I saw a
nurse carrying a box labelled ELEPHANT TUBING. What on earth is elephant
tubing?

Just wondered.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:28 EDT 2001
Article: 957784 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References: 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:54:32 +0100
Lines: 64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.43.50
Message-ID: <3b9cb6e3@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 10 Sep 2001 13:49:39 GMT, 213.78.43.50
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!novia!novia!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet-peer!btnet!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.43.50
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957784 alt.politics.white-power:539162 alt.politics.nationalism.white:530289 alt.flame.niggers:495034


"Johann Sebastian Bot"  wrote in message
news:IoicOw=fzDD9FqeRvZ+jR62wou12@4ax.com...
> BNP supporter and academic David Michael has repeatedly accused me of both
> "lies" and "smears"

Quite correctly so, as I illustrated recently.

>when I've documented his sympathies with the Nazis.

I do not sympathize with them. Indeed, at the moment they are being a
decided pain in the ass.

> Michael made two mistakes.
>
> The first was to assume that posts made anonymously would remain
anonymous.
> There is an incredible amount of truth in the nym since people often
assume
> that any expression of their real politics cannot be used to threaten
them.
> So it seems occured with "Cuddles" and the general support expressed for
> Nazi policies on murdering their opponents and engaging in a broad
> anti-Semitic propaganda campaign.

You do write a lot of garbage, Comrade.

> Michael's second mistake was attacking me dishonestly when his earlier
> writings were revealed.

My only attacks on you have been to document your general total dishonesty.

> I do not turn the other cheek. I am thermosetting,
> not thermoplastic; when heat is applied I become harder, not softer.

Oooooooh! Big man!

> Thus it comes about the Michael's pro-Nazi sympathies expressed in
> Michael's own words should receive a special place on the net.

In other words you are going to spam your same lies and smears over and over
again in the hope that some of the mud will stick. Water off a duck's back,
old son.

> In this way the average net user can determine if I am a "liar" or if
> Michael's seeks to deflect attention from his pro-Nazi views by so
> attacking honest critics.

That you are a liar has already been clearly shown. You said I didn't
criticize Nazi policies. I did, and I produced the post to show it.

> Equally the reader can determine if I have "smeared" Michael or if the
> damage to Michael's reputation comes, not from unfair defamtion, but from
> his own words.
>
> PS: Of course knowing Michael one strongly suspects his response is to
> again claim he's been "smeared" and to do so on a thread titled "Paul
> Kneisel's Pro-Communist Sympathy."

I have already done both.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:28 EDT 2001
Article: 957895 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3b9cb6e3@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20010910144159.04255.00000610@mb-cq.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:21:35 +0100
Lines: 31
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.121
Message-ID: <3b9d1fae@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 10 Sep 2001 21:16:46 GMT, 213.78.39.121
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.121
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957895


"Vellicet"  wrote in message
news:20010910144159.04255.00000610@mb-cq.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 1
> >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> >Date: 10/09/01 10:54 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3b9cb6e3@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> >
>
> David, how do you intend to avoid the BNP being linked to bad publicity

The answer is that as long as its opponents want to use smears as their
primary method of attack, rather than dealing with the arguments that it
advances, then it will not be able to avoid such a link. All that one can do
is to expose the lies one by one and ask people to think critically about
some of the dafter accusations that are made.

> such as
> Oldham?

Well I'm not sure that the BNP *was* linked to bad publicity at Oldham. The
two parties that came off worse there were the NF and the Asians. Given that
the BNP scored not only its highest vote ever, but the highest vote in the
history of British nationalism, I'd say that it did rather well in Oldham.


> Jason James

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:29 EDT 2001
Article: 957898 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <3b9cb6e3@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> <20010910144159.04255.00000610@mb-cq.aol.com> 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:24:31 +0100
Lines: 46
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.39.121
Message-ID: <3b9d205d@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 10 Sep 2001 21:19:41 GMT, 213.78.39.121
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.39.121
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957898


"SW"  wrote in message
news:Md8n7.738634$K5.79123906@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
>
> Vellicet  wrote in message
> news:20010910144159.04255.00000610@mb-cq.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 1
> > >From: "david_michael" david_michael@onetel.net.uk
> > >Date: 10/09/01 10:54 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <3b9cb6e3@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
> > >
> >
> > David, how do you intend to avoid the BNP being linked to bad publicity
> such as
> > Oldham?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason James
>
>
> The same way he tries to avoid the fact that he's a Nazi sympathizer

Uh? I call Adolf Hitler a 'twit' and criticize the Nazis at length and you
call me a 'Nazi sympathizer'?

>and
> apologist - by lying about it.

Funny how you can't produce any examples of such 'lies'.

>  The same thing he does when he claims to be
> not a psychologist

No, I am a psychologist. Or at least I have a degree in psychology. Your
usual claim is that I am a psychotherapist, which is false.

> who is not from Lincolnshire.

I am not *from* Lincolnshire.

> sw

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:29 EDT 2001
Article: 957908 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.flame.niggers
References:  <3b960d4b@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b970ddc@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b98cb08@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <3b9a19fe@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:58:18 +0100
Lines: 535
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.42.201
Message-ID: <3b9d2882@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 10 Sep 2001 21:54:26 GMT, 213.78.42.201
Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.42.201
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:957908 alt.politics.white-power:539211 alt.politics.nationalism.white:530345 alt.flame.niggers:495152


"William Daffer"  wrote in message
news:m3d74yyihd.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> "david_michael"  writes:
>
> > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > news:m3lmjqwhzc.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > >
> > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > news:m3wv3b68ta.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> > > > > > news:m3d75516c0.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > > > > > > "david_michael"  writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Johann Sebastian Bot"  wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:ovCVO=4nB7eBsn3MTYiRkM+hg8YQ@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. David Michael claims he is "smeared" when his writings
> > > > > > > > > on the Nazis areaccurately quoted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nup, I claim I am smeared when you or your dishonest little
> > > > > > > > smearmongering chums take sentences or passages out of
> > > > > > > > context to make out that I am saying something other than
> > > > > > > > what I am actually saying.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which, let it be noted, you do rather often.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   And yet you never *prove* that these sentences are taken out
of
> > > > > > >   context by showing how the meaning is changed when the
sentences
> > are
> > > > > > >   considered *in* context. In fact, you never even *attempt*
to
> > prove
> > > > > > >   it. All you ever do is make the claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually I seem to recall that I did prove it when Comrade
> > > > > > Kneisel first produced this little piece.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Yup.
> > > >
> > >
> > >   Prove it.
> >
> > OK, here we go.
> >
> > From: "david_michael" 
> > Newsgroups:
> >
alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.
> > flame.niggers
> > References: 
> > Subject: Re: Michael's Pro-Nazi Sympathy: 2
> > Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:19:34 -0000
> >
> > 
>
>   [snip reposts, the equivalent URLs are provided below for those
interested.]
>
>   The next time you repost a previously posted article, please include
>   the Message-ID. That makes it easier for me to reduce your repost to
>   the google URL. Really, all you needed to do was post the google URL
>   and then comment on it. We didn't need the 500 lines of rehash when
>   everyone could go read the post themselves at Google.
>
>
>   The posts in question are:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3UVuOuP%2Bjn6v6CCdpz3niEIbBRA%2B%404ax.
com
>
>
>   for Paul's article and
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2813554426d&hl=en&safe=off&selm=3a6e5
1a8_5%40news.newsfeeds.com
>
>   for your first response.
>
>
>   Just for completeness sake, your orignal _Wonderful Dream_ post may be
read in its entirety at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35F99AAA.126E%40cableinet.co.uk
>
>
>   While I think it's overstating the matter to claim that your
>   original article contained *no* criticisms,

Ah. Thank you.

>it isn't over stating it
>   by very much

It certainly is.

> and whatever the degree of its overstatement pales to
>   insignificance when compared to your claim that your criticisms of the
>   Nazis saves you from the charge of being a Nazi sympathizer.

As I said in the original article, I maintain that the Nazis had some good
points and some bad. I could say the same about the communists. Does that
make me a communist sympathizer too?

>   The matter comes down to this: you seem to think that the mere fact
>   that the word 'disagree' appears in your _Wonderful Dream_ post
>   means that your disagreements are at all *substantive*.

Well I respectfully put it to you that accusing them of incoherence,
incompetence and brutality is *quite* substantive, William.

> Noting could
>   be further from the truth, as I will not demonstrate. This won't be
>   the first time through this exercise, several other people have done
>   the same sort of exegesis, but you continue to act as if this matter
>   hasn't been addressed.
>
>   Why is that?

Why is what?

>   To cut to matter down to it's essentials, your list of areas where
>   you disagreed with 'the Nazis' amounts to, in John Morris' incisive
>   description, 'praising by faint damnation.' And when compared to the
>   effusivness of your praise, the contrast can not fail to show that
>   you sympathise with the Nazis more than you disagree. Which, of
>   course, was precisely the assertion to be proved.

You make me feel as if I'm the defendant in some sort of Stalinist show
trial! Somehow I don't think that anything I say would alter your verdict,
and if you had the power I do not doubt that you'd sentence me to a bullet
in the back of the head and a shallow grave.

>   Okay, I've just gone back and reread your _Wonderful Dream_ post.
>
>   To put the matter in perspective, Dr. Gorski was tring to determine
>   whether 'despite your many posts that suggest otherwise, you do not
>   have National Socialist sympathies.'
>
>
>   I note that at the beginning of your response to Orac's questions,
>   you suggest that a description of you as a Nazi symptathiser is at
>   least warranted because you acknowledge to Orac that you've failed
>   to meet his criterion.

Yes, but one can fail to meet *his* criteria and *still* not be a Nazi
sympathizer. I mean one can fail to meet the Socialist Workers' Party's
criteria for not being a fascist without actually being a fascist! Using the
same style of argument you could make me out to be a communist or even a
liberal (after all, I do concede that democracy is probably a better way of
running a country than dictatorship).

> I assert this on the basis of the following
>   exchange from that post.
>
>   I quote:
>
> 
>     [orac]
>     > 1.) Do you in general believe in the philosophy or goals of National
>     > Socialism?
>
>     Philosophy -- no. Goals -- some.
>
>     > 2.) Do you in general sympathize with the goals or philosophy of
National
>     > Socialism.
>
>     Philosophy -- sometimes. Goals -- some.
>
>     > Two explicit "no" answers without prevarication or reservation, and
>     > you've proven me wrong.
>
>     Then I haven't proven you wrong, but it doesn't follow from the above
>     that I am a rampaging Hitler supporter. Let me show you why. Let's
>     consider where I think the Nazis were right and where I think they
were
>     wrong.
>
> 
>
>
>   By the way, Orac never characterized you as a 'raging Hitler
>   supporter' All he said was:
>
>     "your true colors are that you tend sympathize with the philosophy
>     and goals of National Socialism, aren't they?"
>
>   By your response, you've given limited credence to that claim.

Unfortunately I've given equal credence to the claim that I have a lot of
problems with National Socialism.

>   But we needn't rest here, there's much more evidence for the claim
>   that you are a Nazis sympathizer.

Yes, but using the same kind of evidence you could also end up claiming that
I'm a communist sympathizer or a liberal sympathizer. The fact that one
sympathizes with *some aspects of* any X does not mean that one sympathizes
with X in its totality.

>   And we know that you *really* don't want to even be labelled a
>   'sympathizer', much less a 'raging Hiter supporter.' After all, that
>   is the charge you're defending yourself from here, isn't it? But it
>   is interesting to note that you equivocate those two ideas.
>
>
>   Finally, I want to point out that being a 'sympathizer' does not
>   require that you agree with *all* the goals, political agenda or
>   philosopy of the Nazis.

Well once you start arguing like that, then I could accuse *you* of being a
Nazi if you were to sympathize with only *one* of their goals. I put it to
you that your argument is daft.

>So the mere fact of your supposed
>   'criticisms' does not save you from the charge. The matter can only
>   be determined by looking at the nature of those criticisms.
>
>
>   In any event, this is the point in your response to Gorski where you
>   launch into your _Wonderful Dream_ speech. This part of your speech
>   is postively fawning.
>
>
>   You follow with the areas of your disagreement. Since the matter
>   revolves around this issue, let's have a closer look. Comments by me
>   will appear [comment: thusly /comment]
>
>   
>
>       So where do I disagree with them.
>
>       First, as I indicated above, there is a lack of clarity as to
>       intent and purpose. Most National Socialist publications that I
>       have seen nowadays lack any clear direction. They seem to
>       consist merely of the confused mutterings of their publishers,
>       which range from the odd, to the mystical, to the completely
>       daft.
>
>   [comment:
>
>   "National Socialist publications I have seen *nowadays*."  That's
>   not a criticism of the Nazis of Hitlerian Germany, but of the
>   current crop of neo-nazis. As such, it is *irrelevant to the
>   question of whether you sympathize with the Nazis*. Logically the
>   Nazis could have been less 'odd... mystical... completely daft' than
>   the modern day version, so the fact that the current crop of
>   neo-Nazis *are* 'odd ... mystical ... completely daft' wouldn't
>   count as a criticism of the Nazis.
>
>   Ergo: this is no 'criticism' of the historical Nazis and the claim that
you
>   more agree than disagree with them remains intact.
>   /comment]

Well you're assuming a break between the historical Nazis and their modern
day admirers. I'm not sure that the modern day admirers would necessarily go
along with that. The Nazis of the NSDAP were no better on this score. There
is much talk of Nazi 'ideology' but really it just sort of boils down to
'Germans good; Jews bad'. I think that the vague and shifting nature of Nazi
'philosophy' was discussed at Nuremburg.

 >       Second, there is a complete lack of any credible leadership. You
>       have only to witness the undignified way in which the so-called
>       leaders of the movement today conduct themselves in this
>       newsgroup to see this.  That they should indulge in public
>       squabbling in the face of the enemy is unforgivable and shows
>       that they are no hopers. Sixty years ago, such quarrels between
>       brothers would have been settled in private, if necessary with
>       the assistance of a well-placed bullet.
>
>   [comment
>
>   Again, a criticism of modern day neo-Nazis *not* the Nazis whose
>   sympathies towards you are supposedly addressing. So far you've
>   raised two objections to that thesis 'David Michael is a Nazi
>   sympathizer' by pointing out that 'David Michael is not a
>   sympathizer of *modern day neo-Nazis'* (which I believe to be false,
>   too, but that's a matter for another post) and then expect the
>   reader to take this as proof of the first assertion.

Well I'd hardly say that the likes of Adolf Hitler constitute 'credible
leadership', although for slightly different reasons.

>   Moreover, this paragraphs should, in fact, be counted as evidence
>   *for* the assertion of your Nazi sympathies, since you explicitly
>   express your approval of the ways things were done in the time of
>   the historical Nazis over the way they are done currently, to whit:
>   'Sixty years ago, such quarrels' [political infighting] 'between
>   brothers would have been settled in private, if necessary with the
>   assistance of a well-placed bullet.'

Well I certainly approve of the way Hitler dealt with Roehm!

>   /comment]
>
>       Third, I am persuaded that the National Socialist movement may,
>       at times, have participated in unjustified acts of
>       brutality. This in no way detracts from the fact that their
>       enemies clearly did likewise, and I do not lose sight of the
>       fact that there was a war on, that 'war is war' and 'these
>       things happen', or that there was a strong degree of
>       disorganization, panic and resentment at times. Nevertheless,
>       such behaviour is quite inexcusable and, where it can be proven
>       to have occurred, it must be condemned unreservedly.
>
>
>   [comment
>
>   Which is, of course, the single most important evidence that you
>   *are* a Nazi sympathizer, since it shows you in you
>   Going-to-holocaust-denial-Sunday-meeting suit.

Which is clear evidence that your argument is quite incoherent!

>   /comment]
>
>       Fourth, I think that the National Socialists may, in the past,
>       have taken their use of the race concept to extremes. I don't
>       regard the Jews as a 'race' but as a cultural group, although
>       one that clearly tends to attract adherents disproportionately
>       from one particular 'race'. I can see how the concerns about
>       Jewish influence may have arisen, and from my own fairly recent
>       encounter with the Jewish community, I must say that I am struck
>       by how true-to-life the Nazi stereotype of the Jews seems to
>       be. I think the problem, however, is cultural rather than
>       genetic. I tend to strongly dislike most Jews whom I meet --
>       they are arrogant, aggressive, dishonest people. But I can think
>       of several with whom I formed good relationships, in three cases
>       even friendships. This is not to say that 'race' cannot be used
>       as a relevant factor in political decisions. Indeed, in Britain
>       today, where 1 in 5 pre-school children are of 'mixed' race, it
>       is imperative that race SHOULD be used in political decisions if
>       our culture and way of life is to survive even one century into
>       the new millennium. But the concept must be used SENSIBLY.
>
>   [comment
>
>   'I think the National Socialists *may* have taken their use of the
>   race concept to extremes.  . . . Indeed, in Britain today, where 1 in 5
>   pre-school children are of mixed race, it is *imperative* that race
>   SHOULD be used in political situations'
>
>   So, while you may disagree that Jews are a race, you certainly agree
>   with the premise of the Nazis that race should be used to preserve
>   'culture and way of life.'

I certainly do, but with the reservations you quote above, which are big
ones.

> Again, some small disagreement on the
>   matter of which specific races are the problem, but overall
>   agreement that 'race' is the basis on which to approach the problem,
>   if not the cause of the problem itself.
>
>   Oh, and you find the Nazi stereotype of the Jews to be 'true-to-life.'

I think that one has been done to death by now, don't you?

>
>   /comment]
>
>       Fifth, a central feature of National Socialism was the fuhrer
>       principle and the need for loyalty to one man, Mr Adolf
>       Hitler. I regret that I would swear loyalty to no one other than
>       myself. Mr Hitler was not infallible. The fact that he managed
>       to lose the most important war of all time is clear evidence of
>       this.
>
>
>   [comment
>
>   So you disagree with the Fuehrerprinzip, but not because it's wrong
>   per-se, but because you, personally, couldn't swear loyalty to one
>   man. This leaves open the possibility that you'd accept this
>   political principle, provided the person being sworn to was *you*.

Actually, when I get involved in party politics I am a very democratic
leader. In recent months I've gone along with several suggestions that I
didn't particularly like in order to keep key people happy.

>   Oh, and he lost a war.

Well that *is* a bit of a minus, William.

>   /comment]
>
>
>   
>
>
>   Let's sum up:

OK.

>   1. Modern day neoNazis are incoherent. This isn't even a criticism
>   of the historical Nazis.

They were incoherent too.

>   2. No credible leadership in *modern day* neoNazis. Nor is this
>      one. In fact, this paragraphs strengthens the claim of your
>      sympathies, since you explicitly prefer the Nazi way of solving
>      internal disputes with the 'assistance of a well placed bullet.'

The old Nazis were not really credible either, although for somewhat
different reasons.

>   3. Nazis *may* have *at times* (possibly, but it isn't proved!, no,
>      no, no, all sorts of things could have happened, Hoess could have
>      been tortured, thousands of documents could have been forged,
>      physical evidence manufactured, phtographic evidence manufactured
>      or modified and why? because I say so) engaged in 'unjustified'
>      act of 'brutality.' Nor murder, not genocide, not slave labor,
>      not forced seizure of land, money, artwork, not unjustified
>      war. 'Brutality.' All this, despite the clear acknowledgement in
>      point # 2 that they settled political infighting with a
>      'well-placed-bullet.' By the implicit holocaust denial present in
>      this point, it is the *strongest* evidence of your sympathies.

I think there are all sorts of problems with the specific allegations you
mention and they have been discussed at length in this forum. I certainly do
think that the Nazis may have been brutal, but when we look at Nagasaki and
Hiroshima, the behaviour of Stalin and co., the bombings of, inter alia,
Hamburg and Dresden, and Churchill's notorious anthrax bomb plans, then I
don't think one can honestly say that they were any more brutal than their
enemies.

>   4. Race *may* have been too prominent, despite the fact that you
>      believe that it is *imperative* that this concept be used to save
>      'culture and way of life.' and despite the fact that you've found
>      the Nazi stereotype of the Jews 'true-to-life.' So you accept the
>      principal but not the particular application of the Nazis. I
>      would still call this sympathetic.

I do think that race is important. However, so do a lot of people who could
hardly be characterized as Nazis!

>   5. Don't like Fuehrerprinzip because you could not, yourself, swear
>      allegiance, and because Hitler lost the war. Presumably he could
>      have lost the war without the Fuehrerprinzip, other's have, so
>      this criticism is hardly substantive.

Actually, I think that had he listened to good advice he might have been
dissuaded from attacking Russia, in which case world history could have been
very different.

>      Well, this is about the only *real* criticism you've made, yet it
>      doesn't really sound like one. You don't criticise the principle
>      as a political entity, but as a personal dislike. And the only
>      historical statement really isn't about the Fuehrerprinzip, but
>      it's *particular* manifestation in Hitler as military leader.
>
>
>   By the way this has all been done several times before by John Morris.
>
>   See, for instance:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wonderful+dream+group:alt.revisionism+auth
or:Morris&hl=en&safe=off&scoring=d&rnum=27&selm=2g%3DnN7Mn3EgauaTS01Uq%3DobD
nouh%404ax.com
>
>   If you do the search which is hidden in this URL, the reader will
>   find, dozens of posts on this subject, ranging back in time more than a
year.

All slightly surrealistic, let it be noted. These people are, after all,
trolling.

>   Lastly we note that each and every times this discussion comes up
>   you make the same claim that we are misrepresenting you by not
>   posting your areas of disagreement. And even when people do, and
>   synopsize your 'areas of disagreement' to highlight how
>   insubstantial they are, you claim that the mere synopsis is a
>   misrepresentation. As anyone can see, nothing could be further from
>   the truth. On this latter point, the interested reader is invited to
>   peruse the subthead starting at:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&frame=right&rnum=1&thl=0,1215
915595,1215855912,1215849719,1215831011,1215815961,1215777944,1215767764,121
5670914,1215563508,1215442446,1215395651&seekm=utjq6t4eff02hnnkdk01smgq9hh78
p7rib%404ax.com#link4
>
>
>   I harbor no illusions that I will put this matter to rest with my
>   response, it's just part and parcel of your *big lie* technique

Um, the 'big lie' technique was attributed by Hitler to the Jews actually.
And he did that long before I was even born!

> to
>   keep making the claim hoping that people will have forgotten that
>   it's been refuted many times. But at least I will have added my
>   voice to the rising chorus.

Oh I don't doubt that had you been around in the days of good old Comrade
Stalin you'd have been right there at the front of the show trials demanding
exemplary justice!

>   In conclusion: it's clear that describing you as a 'Nazi
>   sympathizer' is, if anything, too mild.

Describing you as a Stalinist nutcase, on the other hand, would be quite
accurate.

>
> > Splattered, Comrade Daffersky?
>
>   Hardly, Fuehrer Dave.

I think so.

> whd

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:29 EDT 2001
Article: 958164 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <9nl6tm$bmj$1@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Who blew up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:13:10 +0100
Lines: 15
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.40.48
Message-ID: <3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 11 Sep 2001 16:08:17 GMT, 213.78.40.48
Path: hub.org!hub.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.40.48
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:958164

I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment. If Bush shows
his balls I just hope that someone shoots the bastards off.

DEM

"The Middle Man" <7patblakely@mailandnews.co7> wrote in message
news:9nl6tm$bmj$1@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
> I view this action as a act of war on the United States. I only hope Bush
> shows some balls on this one.
>
> --PB
>
>




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:30 EDT 2001
Article: 958215 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <9nl6tm$bmj$1@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com> <3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>  <9nlddb$rj0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
Subject: Re: Who blew up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:33:53 +0100
Lines: 33
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.155
Message-ID: <3b9e49dd@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 11 Sep 2001 18:29:01 GMT, 213.78.41.155
Path: hub.org!hub.org!feed.textport.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.155
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:958215


"warren2"  wrote in message
news:9nlddb$rj0$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "William Daffer"  wrote in message
> news:m3ae0167ep.fsf@odysseus.localdomain...
> > "david_michael"  writes:
> >
> > > I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment. If Bush
> shows
> > > his balls I just hope that someone shoots the bastards off.
> > >
> > > DEM
> > >
> >
> >   You can be sure this quote will come back and haunt you, coward.
> >
> > whd
>
>
>
> Trust the Nazi sympathizer and apologist use the deaths of thousands and
> thousands of people to further his cowardly agenda.
>
> sw
>
>
Trust the Stalinist hypocrite to ignore the deaths of thousands of Iraqi
women and children, of thousands of Palestinians.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:30 EDT 2001
Article: 958217 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20010911120525.03978.00000183@mb-de.aol.com> <3B9E4465.6533A110@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Who blew up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:37:41 +0100
Lines: 49
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.155
Message-ID: <3b9e4ac0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 11 Sep 2001 18:32:48 GMT, 213.78.41.155
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.155
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:958217


"Buck Turgidson"  wrote in message
news:3B9E4465.6533A110@mindspring.com...
> Debunks wrote:
>
> > >Subject: Re: Who blew up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon?
> > >From: "Jeffrey G. Brown" jg_brown@my-deja.com
> > >Date: 9/11/01 8:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: 
> > >
> > >In article <3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment.
> > >
> > >So, Hamster Boy, do you consider the deliberate murder of civilian
> > >noncombatants
> > >to be justified?
> > >
> > >JGB
> > >
> >
> > Do you consider the murder of Palestinian children justified?
>
> What the flying fuck is going on here?! Hundreds, maybe thousands of
> innocent lives have just been lost, the vulnerability of free society
> has been expsed, more attacks could be coming, billions of dollars in
> damages have been incurred, and an already-shaky world economy may find
> itself plunged into deep recession....and you jokers are blathering
> about the "liberal Establishment" and whining about the fucking
> Palestinians?!
>
> JOE. Wake the fuck up. You live in AMERICA. AMERICA has been attacked.
> YOUR country. YOUR homeland has been the target for the worst terrorist
> action in history. It's probably not seemly to throw your sympathies
> over to the fucking terrorists, dig? America was attacked because of its
> relationship with Israel. Do you get it? Those oppressed extremists you
> so admire have just become your assailants. It's time to stop wringing
> your hands and weeping about the poor, poor murderers who have just
> attacked YOUR country and show some sympathy for your fellow Americans.

It seems manifestly obvious to anyone who surveys this afternoon's
festivities that the primary targets were not the American people but the
financial and military installations of those who spread murder, poverty,
death and despair throughout the world.

David




From david_michael@onetel.net.uk Wed Sep 12 13:27:31 EDT 2001
Article: 958251 of alt.revisionism
From: "david_michael" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References:  <20010911120525.03978.00000183@mb-de.aol.com> <3B9E4465.6533A110@mindspring.com> <3b9e4ac0@news-uk.onetel.net.uk> 
Subject: Re: Who blew up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon?
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:18:49 +0100
Lines: 100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.41.155
Message-ID: <3b9e5465@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>
X-Trace: 11 Sep 2001 19:13:57 GMT, 213.78.41.155
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!ldn-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!news-uk.onetel.net.uk!213.78.41.155
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:958251


"Andy"  wrote in message
news:aqisptkkmr2o9koagrnr6s5860am0k4o5d@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:37:41 +0100, "david_michael"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >"Buck Turgidson"  wrote in message
> >news:3B9E4465.6533A110@mindspring.com...
> >> Debunks wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Subject: Re: Who blew up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon?
> >> > >From: "Jeffrey G. Brown" jg_brown@my-deja.com
> >> > >Date: 9/11/01 8:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> > >Message-id: 
> >> > >
> >> > >In article <3b9e28e1@news-uk.onetel.net.uk>, "david_michael"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I view it as an act of war against the liberal Establishment.
> >> > >
> >> > >So, Hamster Boy, do you consider the deliberate murder of civilian
> >> > >noncombatants
> >> > >to be justified?
> >> > >
> >> > >JGB
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Do you consider the murder of Palestinian children justified?
> >>
> >> What the flying fuck is going on here?! Hundreds, maybe thousands of
> >> innocent lives have just been lost, the vulnerability of free society
> >> has been expsed, more attacks could be coming, billions of dollars in
> >> damages have been incurred, and an already-shaky world economy may find
> >> itself plunged into deep recession....and you jokers are blathering
> >> about the "liberal Establishment" and whining about the fucking
> >> Palestinians?!
> >>
> >> JOE. Wake the fuck up. You live in AMERICA. AMERICA has been attacked.
> >> YOUR country. YOUR homeland has been the target for the worst terrorist
> >> action in history. It's probably not seemly to throw your sympathies
> >> over to the fucking terrorists, dig? America was attacked because of
its
> >> relationship with Israel. Do you get it? Those oppressed extremists you
> >> so admire have just become your assailants. It's time to stop wringing
> >> your hands and weeping about the poor, poor murderers who have just
> >> attacked YOUR country and show some sympathy for your fellow Americans.
> >
> >It seems manifestly obvious to anyone who surveys this afternoon's
> >festivities that the primary targets were not the American people but the
> >financial and military installations of those who spread murder, poverty,
> >death and despair throughout the world.
>
> David, you are beneath contempt.
>
> ---
> Andy

No, Mr Duffy. For many months now the government of America, with the
backing of the British government and other lackeys around the world, has
been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of children in the
Middle East. Sometimes your filthy friends dropped death from the skies in
the form of bombs directed at the people of Iraq. Sometimes your fellow
vermin in the American government sponsored other governments to do their
murderous work for them, as has been the case with their support for the
strutting war criminal Sharon in Israel. Sometimes you people starved your
victims slowly to death, depriving them of medicines and other essentials,
as has been the case not only in Iraq but also in the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan. The difference is that we never heard about those deaths. We
were not shown the pictures of smouldering buildings crumbling to the ground
when they were Iraqi buildings. We did not see the bleeding bodies when they
were the bodies of Iraqis. We were not allowed to hear the cries of the
dying children of Afghanistan or Palestine. Those things were kept from our
television screens. And because you kept it from our television screens, you
kept it from the minds of our poor, betrayed people.

Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost. This afternoon a truly
wonderful thing has happened: the oppressed of the earth have turned around
and have shown that they do not have to be nature's eternal victims. They
have shown that the poor, the downtrodden, and the powerless can strike back
at the very heart of the dark forces that are oppressing them. This time it
was not Palestinian children who cowered in fear as death came from the
skies -- this time it was the very fat bankers and financiers who sustain
the terroristic regime of Sharon. This time it was those very military men
who mastermind the attacks on the women and children of Iraq. They thought
they were so safe as they planned death and destruction from their
comfortable offices in the Pentagon, and as they did their dirty deals in
the World Trade Center. Now they have been given a bloody nose that they
will never forget.

Today was a glorious day. May there be many others like it.

Death to American capitalism!

Death to international finance!








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.