The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/p/porter.carlos/1998/porter.9802

From Thu Feb  5 22:29:29 EST 1998
Article: 163000 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: ausrotten of 3 February 1998
Date: 4 Feb 1998 18:37:37 GMT
Organization: Tornado News Processing System
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <01bd318a$49f542e0$095795c2@default>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Xref: alt.revisionism:163000


Dear Mr. McCarthy,

a)	If use of the word "Ausrottung" doesn't prove the existence of the gas
chambers, then what have we proven by proving that somebody used the word
"Ausrottung"? Nobody denies that people were shot.
b)	When American statesmen said they were going to put a man on the moon in
ten years, does the promise in itself prove that they did it? 
c)	Perhaps we disagree as to the meaning of the word "plan". To me, a
"plan" is something worked out in detail. No "plan" to exterminate the
Jews, or anyone else, has ever been found. 
d)	I have never heard of a murder case in which a defendant got convicted
because the jury looked something up in a dictionary.
e)	When MGM -- a Jewish-controlled movie studio -- made cartoons of Bugs
Bunny handing out bombs in ice cream cones to Japanese children, is that
evidence of a "plan" to "exterminate" the Japanese?   
f)	 If you don't believe in the existence of the White Race, why don't you
take a walk through downtown Detroit or East St. Louis late at night? Other
people do believe in the existence of the White Race and will kill you to
prove it.
g)	I do not believe in the authenticity of the documents which you use to
prove cremation times or anything else. I have discussed these documents in
h)	If I found a "copy" of an "official German document" stating that the
Empire State Building has no ground floor and floats in the air by
levitation, people would wonder if such a thing was in fact scientifically
possible. The invention of absurd and preposterous "thought crimes" such as
"Empire State Building Levitation Denial" or "denying the levitation of the
Empire State Building" would be considered proof of nothing. Yet "official
German documents" are produced "proving" that human bodies can be cremated
in 30 - 45 minutes, 3 at a time, using coke for fuel, and this is taken
seriously. Personally, I consider approximately 3/4 of the documents
reproduced by Pressac to be forgeries or altered copies. 
i)	I consider the Himmler speech to be an altered copy of a speech on the
military situation; nothing more. To prove differently, you would have to
do forensic tests on the paper.         

It would be cruel to leave you in suspense any longer. 

My sources (translating the German abbreviations into English) are: 

Langenscheidts Handwoerterbuch Englisch
By Heinz Messinger and Werner Ruedenberg
1981 ISBN 3-468-5122-0

Ausrott/en v/t. (Plants) (also figurative): root out; (figurative),
extirpate, eradicate, stamp out; (People) exterminate, wipe out;
Ausrottung, f.: uprooting, extirpation, eradication; extermination;
(Politics) (Entire peoples): also: genocide.

Cassel's German and English Dictionary
By Karl Breuil completely revised by Harold T. Betteridge, Funk &
Wagnallis, NY 1958 and 1962.
[No ISBN number]

Ausrotten: v.a. extirpate, exterminate, root out, purge, stamp out,
destroy. Ausrottung, f.: destruction, extermination, extirpation. 

I must point out a circular argument in the reasoning of your
German-speaking friends who insist that the term must be translated as
"extermination". They believe in the so-called Holocaust, so it is
"extermination"; I don't believe in it, so, to me, it is "extirpation",
most likely physical expulsion accompanied by some degree of killing for
criminal offences or in reprisal for guerrilla warfare. I see no way around
this problem, except that the burden of proof is on the accuser. 

As for my professional qualifications, it's really none of your business,
but  I've translated contracts involving tens of millions of dollars, and
let me tell you something, I always get paid. If it's vague in the
original, I leave it vague in the translation. Do you want to see my tax
returns? 5 or 6 years ago, I made 60,000 dollars in one year, doing all the
work myself. I usually make about half as much, but it's not worth earning

more. Do you want to pay my Valued Added Tax (a kind of sales tax) for
translations I did in the last 6 months alone? It comes to over 6,000
dollars. Shall I send you the tax form? Perhaps your friends at Nizkor will
pay it for me.

I've translated thousands of legal and technical documents, including
medical reports, lab reports, accident reports, patent applications, laws,
decrees, regulations, contracts, judgements, summonses, legal arguments,
technical reports, property transfers, deeds, foreign exchange control
regulations, court documents, financial reports and accounts, bond issues,
loan contracts, insurance contracts, commercial correspondence, reports on
mechanical heart valves, roofing systems, electrical systems, veterinary
surgery, brain surgery, art, painting, computers, menus, advertising, etc.

I am a qualified conference interpreter (although I have never worked as an
interpreter) and a member of the Institute of Linguists, London, a
recognized professional association. 

Why did I demand my German court documents in English so that "I wouldn't
have to have everything translated"? For the same reason I told them I
couldn't appear due to "pedal-driven brain-bashing machine induced injuries
and severe radiation burns caused by a German WWII atomic bomb". Because
they have no right to try me for anything, and because I have a right to
cause them as much trouble as I possibly can. It's in the law. They are
required to supply with all documents in my native language, and they
persisted in refusing to do so. 

I have spoken very little German in the past eight years and do not
translate into German. I believe I have a right to say that I do not feel
sufficiently comfortable in spoken German to defend a court case, orally,
before a German court. That is my right. I am a translator into English,
not an interpreter into German. Perhaps you have no idea how difficult it
is to speak correct German. I would speak much better German than I do if I
did not speak Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian as well. Perhaps you
wouldn't understand that.

But since the Germans have been kind enough to offer me a "total immersion"
refresher course in spoken German, there is some chance that my spoken
German might improve somewhat in the near future, possible with some large
admixture of slang.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in your problems
with German documents.



From Thu Feb  5 22:29:30 EST 1998
Article: 163102 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Sonderbehandlung 5 February 1998
Date: 5 Feb 1998 11:27:38 GMT
Organization: Tornado News Processing System
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <01bd321a$ae22d9e0$055795c2@default>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Xref: alt.revisionism:163102

To Jamie McCarthy,

Since we are all such hot-shots in the German language, and since
dictionaries are infallible guides to the translation of certain words --
particularly in view of the manner in which WWII has altered the meaning of
certain words -- I have the following question for you. 

I once translated an extremely lengthy commercial representation contract,
>from  German into English, between a world-famous automobile manufacture and
all their car dealers in Germany. Among other things, it stated that if the
representative sold enough cars, he would be "sonderbehandelt"; he would
receive "Sonderbehandlung". 

Does this mean that the manufacturer is going to murder all the car
dealers? And, if so, does my professional duty require me to reveal this
information to the world?

Since the dealers are to be killed for selling too many vehicles instead of
too few, is this an example of the "extermination through work" which we
are always hearing about?

Perhaps this is what the smokestacks on the factories are for: the
cremation of car dealers who sell too many cars. It's obvious! Why does the
world stand by and do nothing?

Also, when I translate a tourist brochure stating that a "Sonderzug" is
being run to some ski resort during the winter months, should I warn the
world that the skiiers (presumably those unable to ski productively or pay
for enough lessons) are to be murdered upon arrival?

My conscience is gnawing me; I cannot live with this knowledge any longer.
Shall I seek an interview with the Pope to warn him of this fiendish plot
to exterminate the world's car dealers and skiiers? (After all, the Pope's
a Pole, he'll believe anything.) 

I feel that revelation of this knowledge may well ruin my translation
business as well as directly endangering my life -- since the persons
responsible for this plot will no doubt stop at nothing to conceal their
diabolical designs -- but my duty to the world's car dealers and skiiers by
far outweighs any consideration I may have for my personal safety.

'Tis a far, far, better thing I do, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.

I cannot live with this inner torment. Shall I commit self-suspension with
a typewriter ribbon (if I can find one in these days of computers)?

Your advice in this matter is much appreciated.




P.S. Please don't forget to write a Broadway play about me after my
untimely demise. I assume that Nizkor can be relied upon to produce the
literary works required to ensure my immortality as a martyr to the truth
about this horrible Holocaust? 

P.P.S.  When can we meet to discuss the royalty arrangements? I am urgent
need of cash to pay all the back taxes on my translation work. Can we work
out a payment in advance? I promise to furnish further details of this
fiendish plot if the cash advance is sufficiently large. Please advise. 

From Mon Feb  9 03:33:50 EST 1998
Article: 163355 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ausrotten of 7 February 1997
Date: 7 Feb 1998 22:41:30 GMT
Organization: Tornado News Processing System
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <01bd33f4$5f5fe9c0$LocalHost@default>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Xref: alt.revisionism:163355

With reference to Ausrottung of 5 February 1997

Dear Mr. McCarthy,

a)	Many thanks for the confirmation that "Sonderbehandlung" means
b)	Sonderbehandlung = execution. 
c)	Car dealers who sell too many cars will be "sonderbehandelt" = killed.
d)	This proves the existence of a plot to kill car dealers.
e)	I've got your documents on the table, Mr. McCarthy. They back me up
f)	The plot cannot have been 100% successful, however, since 4 million car
dealers are still alive.
g)	Car dealers who are still alive are called "survivors". 
h)	Use of the word "survivor", of course, proves that millions of other car
dealers were in fact killed. 
i)	It was a Japanese car manufacturer; perhaps the car dealers are being
eaten as well. (See my articles on Japanese war crimes trials.)
j)	Is executing people and calling it "Sonderbehandlung" any worse than
smashing children's hands for throwing stones, or dynamiting houses and
torturing prisoners, again, for throwing stones, and calling it something
k)	If someone "denied" the reality of Israeli crimes against the
Palestinians, would you care?
l)	Would you dedicate your life to proving the reality of Israeli crimes
against Palestinians just because someone "denied" them?
m)	No one "denies" the atrocities of the British, Americans, Soviets,
Czechs, Poles, and Communists,  but no one cares about them either. Their
victims have no rights. What makes the Jews so special?
n)	If someone "denied" the reality of American crimes in Viet Nam, would
you care? 
o)	If someone "denied" the reality of Communist crimes in Viet Nam, would
you care?
p)	It is hard to imagine anything more contemptible than using self-pity as
a weapon against the world, then using that same self-pity to justify
atrocities against others -- in particular, the Palestinians, and, most
recently, the Irakis. Israel is a torture state, unique in the world. 
q)	In effect, Jews demand a near-monopoly on the world's pity, expressed
and payable in cold cash and enforced by criminal prosecution. Is this why
Jews have been universally disliked for 3000 years?
r)	Is this why they have been expelled from nearly every country in Europe?

s)	The Old Testament contains 137 descriptions of 100% extermination
committed by Jews, or Hebrews, if you prefer, on God's orders. You can
count them. The only problem in counting them is deciding when one mass
murder description stops and the next one begins, since they are virtually
continuous. No original extermination order signed by God has ever been
found, but we have the confessions of the criminals (Moses, Joshua, David,
etc. etc). That this mentality is still very influential has been shown by
Dr. Israel Shahak, among others. 
t)	My question about Bugs Bunny is a serious one.
u)	Would you agree that Jews are far too free and easy about advocating and
practising the extermination of others, in view of their sensitivity with
regards to themselves?   
v)	Since the word "Ausrottung" is used to describe our treatment of the
American Indians by every German who feels himself placed even the
slightest bit on the defensive by any American, why do the American Indians
waste their time rain-dancing for tourists and opening gambling casinos? 
w)	All the so-called Native Americans need to do is turn some wigwam into a
"gas chamber" ["GAS CHAMBER; NEVER USED] or, possibly, [DESIGNED AS KIVA,
CONVERTED INTO GAS CHAMBER], fake a few "photocopies" of "official
government documents", write up a few impossible "eyewitness statements",
rake in 50 billion dollars, invent the crime of "Native American Holocaust
Denial", and retire to Miami beach.
x)	 The only problem with the scheme described above is that the American
Indians possess an innate sense of human dignity which the Jews have never
exhibited and will never understand. 
libel-site. Pressac has done the world a great service in reproducing these
documents so that we can see just how worthless most of them really are.
(The blueprints are authentic.)
z)	Don't let the French or Germans hear you refer to the gas chambers as a
"straw man", since you will probably be fined or imprisoned.



P.S. I'll let the Detroit blacks define the White Race for you, they have a
better grasp of these anthropological matters.

From Mon Feb 23 22:20:57 EST 1998
Article: 164835 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 20 Feb 1998 22:43:49 GMT
Organization: Tornado News Processing System
Lines: 283
Message-ID: <01bd3e42$f738cb60$0a5795c2@default>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Xref: alt.revisionism:164835

20 FEBRUARY 1998



a)  If we really want a rarified atmosphere, why not break "Ausrottung"
down into its component parts? Aus = out, "Rotte", in modern German, as you
well know, = troop, band, gang, horde, lot, mob, file of troops, squad,
two-ship formation, pack, company, etc.; Rottenfuehrer, in the WWII German
army, was, I believe, a squad leader, today, it is a foreman.
Zusammenrottung (zusammen = together) = "rioting or unlawful assembly". I
know it's not part of the dictionary definition, but "Ausrottung", to me,
rather suggests the dispersal or expulsion of a mob of people; i.e., it is,
by its very nature, very much of an abstract sort of word, not at all like
Toeten, to kill, from Tod, from death. Why don't we argue about that for a

b)	Charles Dodgson, the author of Alice Through the Looking Glass, was a
professor of mathematics at Christ Church, Oxford, and wrote many books on
mathematics and logic. At your request, I will explain the matter again.
Please pay very careful attention.

c)   The Knave of Hearts (that's Heinrich Himmler), writes a "poem" (the
"Secret Speech", 1919-PS), in which he confesses to "stealing tarts"
(exterminating the Jews). 

d)   The "poem" is not in his handwriting (it is entirely typewritten on
plain paper, without any letterhead, stamps, or handwritten markings of any
kind; the handwritten notes are mostly illegible, at least to me, but they
are legible where the incriminating statements ought to appear, and they
are not there; the origin and authenticity of the notes and voice recording
are unestablished). 

e)   The "poem" "does not mention tarts" (it mentions Jews in 3 paragraphs
out of a total of 116 pages; it speaks of the "Ausrottung der Juden", then
states that the "Ausrottung der Juden" is "in the programme" -- presumably
the Party programme, a public document for electoral purposes  -- and then
speaks of the "Ausrottung" of laziness)[!!!] It also accuses the Russians
of cannibalism, saying that the average Russian is happy to put his
neighbour's liver in his lunch box [!]. 

f)   The "poem" is "not signed" (does not bear a signature).

g)   But the "poem" "proves he is guilty" ("proves the Holocaust"), because
"otherwise he would have signed his name to it like an honest man" (i.e. we
"know there was a Holocaust", so we translate "Ausrottung" as
"extermination", then we turn around and use our own translation as "proof
of the Holocaust"!). This is called arguing in a circle -- assuming in the
premises that which is to be proven in the conclusion. 

h)   In law, this kind of thing is called "shifting the burden of proof".
For example:

i)   If I get arrested for burglarizing a house at 10 Oak St., they've got
to prove I burglarized a house at 10 Oak St. If I break a window in a
dwelling house during the nighttime and stick my hand through, OK, it's
burglary, but they've got to prove it. They've even to prove it was
nighttime (or getting dark). If I say, "I don't know nuthin' about, I
wasn't there, and you got the wrong guy", they can't say "Aha! He didn't
deny there was a burglary; that proves there was a burglary; that proves
he's guilty." That's crazy. 

j)   If I get arrested for stealing a car, nobody expects me to say, "There
wasn't any stolen car"; that's crazy. And they can't say "Aha! He didn't
deny there was a car theft, that proves there was a car theft, that proves
he's guilty." 

k)   If I get arrested for robbing a market with a .38 calibre revolver,
nobody expects me to say, "There wasn't any robbery", that's crazy. All I
can say, and all they will permit me to say, is "I don't know nuthin' about
it, I wasn't there, and you got the wrong guy." They can't say, "Aha! He
didn't deny there was a robbery, that proves there was a robbery, that
proves he's guilty." 

l)   No court system in the world would permit that. That didn't even
happen during the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages. It doesn't even
happen in African dictatorships. But it happened at Nuremberg. 
m)   Same thing if I get arrested for "gassing Six Million Jews". What am I
supposed to say? "I don't know anything about it, and you got the wrong
guy". Then the Nuremberg Tribunal, and all war crimes tribunals ever since,
say, "The defendants at Nuremberg didn't deny there was a Holocaust, that
proves there was a Holocaust, that proves they were guilty." That's crazy.

n)   In a real trial, they've got to prove the weapon is capable of doing
what they claim it did. 

o)   Let's say I get arrested for threatening some guy with a flick knife.
I'm supposed to have opened it with a flick of the wrist and robbed him of
five dollars.  I say, "OK, it's my knife, but you can't open it that way,
it's rusty." The police confiscate the knife and put in a plastic bag.
Every policeman who handles that knife has to sign for it, it's called the
"chain of custody of the evidence". The prosecutor has to bring that knife
to court and open it with a flick of the wrist right there in the courtroom
and prove that it can open that way. So the prosecutor brings it to court,
and of course, it works perfectly! So we subpoena every policeman who
handled the knife. We've got a right to cross-examine them. If I can get
them to admit that they've altered the evidence by oiling the knife, maybe
I can get acquitted. They've got to bring the evidence to court. They can't
just come to court with a "photograph" of the knife and an "affidavit" from
the witnesses. 

p)   Let's say I rob a market with a .38 calibre revolver. It's a real gun,
and it's loaded, but it can't shoot, see, because the firing pin's busted.
Some jurisdictions make a distinction between 1st and 2nd degree robbery.
First degree robbery has to involve a weapon capable of causing "death or
serious injury". If the gun can't shoot, it's not first degree robbery.
Everybody who handles that gun has to sign for it. To prove first degree
robbery, they've got to take the gun to a police firing range and attempt
to fire it. The ballistics expert has to write a report, and come to court
and be cross-examined. If I can get the police to admit that they've
altered the evidence by repairing the firing pin, I'm not guilty of first
degree robbery. Of course, I'm still guilty of second degree robbery, but
the point is, they can't just come to court with a "photograph" of the gun,
and an "affidavit" from the witness; what's more, the prosecutor can't just
"read" the report to the jury (particularly if the prosecutor is an armed
robber himself, like the Soviets). The Americans at Nuremberg came to court
with a "photograph" of a can of Zyklon, "photographs" of dead bodies,
"photocopies" of documents, and a stack of "affidavits". They only called
33 witnesses in the first Nuremberg Trial.

q)   I've only translated one police murder report, but if a guy says, "I'm
going to knock you down", and then he knocks the guy down and kills him,
I'm going to translate it as "I'm going to knock you down", even if death
results. I'm not going to translate it as "I'm going to kill you", because
it's not there; I can only translate what is there.

r)    I have always said that if you could prove that there was a Holocaust
of the Jews, and that the Himmler speech is authentic, then the speech
would be consistent with a Holocaust of the Jews, but it doesn't work the
other way around.

s)   If a Mexican threatens another Mexican and then kills him, you would
translate the threat to prove malice aforethought; but the threat, and your
translation of it, do not prove murder; it is no substitute for an inquest.

t)   Let's say I shoot some guy in my kitchen. My little boy hollers "Daddy
shot Charlie!" We know who Daddy is, we know what "shot" means, and we know
who "Charlie" is, he's the victim. OK, "Daddy shot Charlie" is an excited
utterance, that's an exception to the Hearsay Rule, my neighbour can come
to court and say he heard my kid holler "Daddy shot Charlie". But they've
still got to do an inquest. They've got to bring the witness to court. They
can't just introduce a "photograph" of the body, an "affidavit" from the
neighbour, and a "photograph" of the gun. Let's say I've threatened Charlie
in the past. I told him,"Ah'm a gonna kick yore ass". It's not a threat to
kill him, but it proves malice, I can't say I was just cleaning the gun and
it went off. They've still got to do an autopsy, ballistics tests,
fingerprint tests, etc. If I shot him in the chest from 10 feet away, I
might get off on manslaughter: "We were arguing, and I shot him in the heat
of anger". If the angle of entry shows he was lying on the floor when I
shot him, or if I shot him in the temple at point-blank range, I'll
certainly be convicted of first degree murder; but they need the autopsy
and ballistics tests.

u)   They never did any tests of any kind in any war crimes trial that I
know of. The only forensic report they ever introduced at Nuremberg was
USSR 54, which "proved" German guilt for the Katyn massacre. The Nuremberg
defendants didn't deny the existence of the gas chambers, but they didn't
deny the existence of the steam chambers either. They had a whole courtroom
full of lawyers. Not one defendant, not one lawyer, ever said, "Hey, 6
weeks ago, it was 10 steam chambers at Treblinka, now it's 10 gas chambers,
what's going on here?" This fact alone proves that the defendants and
defence were intimidated. 

v)   I believe that the Americans performed tests on the gas chamber at
Dachau, but that they were negative; i.e., that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers knew, by November 5, 1945, that there was no gas chamber at
Dachau, and, by inference, that no other gas chamber elsewhere could
function in the manner alleged, but that the order was given, certainly by
President Truman, to proceed with the accusation on political grounds, even
though they knew perfectly well that it wasn't true. 

w)   I believe that this order can be found at pages 000390 and 000391 of
the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, file designation 12-226-bk2, dated
5.29.1955 from GSA Postal Censorship, consisting of 1 document 5 pages, 1
document 2 pages, still secret by order of 27 June 1974 from GSA Postal
Censorship; the pre-trial gas chamber exhibits follow immediately (never
introduced into evidence). 

x)   I've written about this in my articles on Dachau. I won't repeat
myself. I believe the US Army Corps of Engineers went to President Truman
and said, "Sir, we've found evidence that these stories of gas chambers are
not true, what should we do about it?" and I believe that Truman said, in
writing, "The accusation is to be made regardless", and that letter still
exists in that file. They then re-wrote their Dachau "gas chamber report"
and took it right over to Nuremberg and introduced it into evidence, even
though they knew perfectly well it wasn't true. What kind of trial is that?

y)   You correctly state that I must translate "according to the meaning
and the context". Do you mean the context of the 3 paragraphs in the 116
page speech, or the meaning and context of the 3 paragraphs in the
Holocaust myth as a whole? 

z)   Personally, I was presented with a purely technical translation
problem, the use of the same word, always very vaguely, 3 times in the same
text. In commercial translation work, if something appears likely to cause
a dispute, you translate it very neutrally and very literally. If a
contract says, "Shipping prices will continue to evolve", does that mean
they're going up or down? I can't know; all I can say is: "Shipping prices
will continue to evolve." 

aa)   If a term appears likely to cause confusion, you use the same word
every time; it doesn't matter so much what you call it, as long as you are
consistent. You don't call something a "substrate" in one sentence and a
"load-bearing support" two lines down, because they won't know whether
you're talking about the same thing or not. 

bb)   I translated "Ausrottung" as "extirpation" because it is vague enough
to fit all three usages in the text. If this were a complaint over a
commercial translation, I'd say, OK, fine, gimmie two thousand bucks and
21% VAT, and you can re-write it all you like. 

 cc)   Please provide me with a complete list of all the persons Goering is
alleged to have murdered. Perhaps he beat his first wife to death with a
sledge hammer?

dd)  I've had 6 German judges myself, and I'm glad to hear how fair and
impartial they are. 

ee)   Remember that joke about the plot to kill all the car dealers
[Sonderbehandlung 5 February], "I cannot live with this inner torment, 'tis
a far, far better thing I do, etc. etc. blah, blah blah"? You took it
seriously; I got a big long e-mail from you asking me all how could I be a
translator and not know what a "Sonderzug" is; I had to explain to you that
it was a joke. I wrote to somebody else, and said, hey, you know that joke
about the plot to kill all the car dealers, somebody took it seriously,
people are stupid; the immediate answer was, oh, that must be Nele
Abel-Ludwig, he's a nice kid, but dense as only a German can be; I must
deduce that your powers of perception are somewhat limited.

ff)   On second thought, I think I'll give up this translatin' racket,
cause I just ain't cut out for it; I really thought I could put one over on
you and yer pal Jamie, translatin' "Ausrottung" as "extirpitatin', 'stead'a
"'stermination", but I know when I'm done, see, I'm gonna give up this
translatin' racket and lead a life of crime. Crime pays, workin' don't.
Tell ya what I'll do, since yer pal Jimmie [I can hardly bring myself to
call him Jamie, as that gives me the feeling that I am referring to a
child], see, he can be the brains, see, on account of how he's so much
smarter than me, workin's a waste a time, there's no percentage in it, so
we stick up 50 gas stations, Jamie and me, but we don't kill nobody, see,
then, 'cause the MO's the same, we get arrested and charged for a gas
station robbery in which 2 people are killed. Well, you know me, I like a
good robbery as much as the next guy, but I don't wanna get smogged for no
murder, I'm a weakling, see, I can't take it, so I scrag myself in jail,
see, and I leave a suicide note that says "If it wasn't for that dirty son
of a bitch Jamie McCarthy, this wouldn't have happened." What I mean is, if
Jamie hadn't talked me into goin' along on 50 robberies, I wouldn't be
facing no double murder charge. The note is authentic, it's in my
handwriting. But you know -- you KNOW -- that if the prosecutor can
introduce that note into evidence (probably as a "dying declaration
exception to the Hearsay Rule"), every court, and every judge, and every
jury in the country, is going to take it as meaning "McCarthy is guilty" --
guilty, not just of 50 robberies, but of 2 murders as well. And he can
protest all he wants. He can say, "I'm a respectable stick-up artist, I
don't kill nobody, see, all I do is threaten them with guns and take their
money." Ha! Ha! They'll laugh him right out of the court house and right
into the smogger. They "know" he's guilty, see, 'cause they got the note to
"prove" it.  Hand-wrote.

gg)   Don't worry, Jamie; take a deep breath and it'll all be over quickly.
Plop. Fzzzzzzzzz…..
hh)	The question remains: why should we cry buckets over a load of smogged
Jews fifty-three years ago on evidence that wouldn't convict you for
robbing somebody of a five-dollar bill on the street with a rusty flick



P.S. Don't forget to smoke a Camel next week for Christ.

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.