A couple of days ago Mr. Giwer backed out from a discussion of his totalitarian
plan of establishing concentration camps for the unemployed. I managed to
prove that Mr. Giwer, although constantly uses the US constitution as an
argument, in his ideal state intends to give civil rights only to property owners and
to give government to an undemocratic elite. Mr. Giwer ran away from this
discussion because he was not able to answer. In the following, I repost the
last part of the discussion in the hope of receiving an answer.
>>Yes, I have read your web-pages. Your noble cause is “defending the civil
>>rights.” But who have the “civil rights”? Those who have property.
[Mr. Giwer answered]
>That is no place on my website. Why would you insist upon making up
>such a thing?
If Mr. Giwer is denying that he claims to defend the civil rights, then
why is he always talking about the constitution? But if he is denying that
in his system civil rights are dependent on personal property, this is
written all over his website. Of course he does not say that explicitly,
but this is the only logical consequence of his ideas. I am working on an
essay in which I extract the relevant passages from Mr. Giwer’s essays.
But even without this, Mr. Giwer’s dubious attitude towards democratic
principles is illustrated sufficiently in this very post. I will quote
the passage in question completely:
The voting question has been a serious one since the vote
was invented. It is a simple question of should people have the
power to vote the treasury for themselves and if so, why?
Now if the constitution were to be adhered to, there would be no
problem with who can vote. But in the US the process of some
voting themselves the treasury is well underweigh. In fact it has
progressed to the point where those programs are heading the
country towards bankruptcy.
In a nutshell, Mr. Giwer argues that because all those with an insufficient
income vote for politicians offering “those programs” which give them
support, the United States are on the brink of bankruptcy. He concludes
that only those contributing taxes should be allowed to decide on
government policy. This is called census suffrage (at least this is the
German terminus technicus. I’m not sure about the precise English term.)
The electorate is measured by their property. My Oxford dictionary gives
as the definition of ‘civil rights’: the rights of citicens to political
and social freedom and equality. In Mr. Giwer’s terms this political
equality is only to be enjoyed by those owning property.
Ergo: who have the “civil rights”? Those who have property.
(I will not elaborate on the sentence “Now if the constitution were to be
adhered to…” which could very well be interpreted in the way that only
men have political rights.)
>>People who have lost their property, their health or their ability to
>>work, or even their work-place in a time of recession are in tough luck.
>>Your ideal state will not give them any support. The only choice
>>they have is to starve or to go into one of your concentration camps.
[Mr. Giwer replied]
>That is not on my site either. Why would you say such a thing?
Again, because it’s the logical consequence of your ideas. It’s that simple.
>>That’s some “option”, yeah. There, their remaining few pieces of property
>>will be stored away, they will be guarded and be submitted to body
>>searches. That’s nothing else then losing most of their civil rights.
[Mr. Giwer replied]
>You have no concept of the drug problem in this country. You also have
>no concept of civil rights.
I have quoted a nice definition of civil rights above. What is Mr. Giwer’s
definition? I’m afraid, we’ll never know.
[Mr. Giwer continued]
>These people have another option, the right to work. And as noted we
>already have hundreds of private places for the homeless all over the
>country and all run by private charities. I have suggested nothing that
>it is not in them including work for your keep and added medical care
For a very long time this passage by Mr. Giwer is actually the first one
which would deserve the attribute “cunning”. I did explicetly speak of times
of recesssion when there is no work, or of people losing their health and
their ability to work. Mr. Giwer withholds this in a rethorically clever
way and implies that I was suggesting everybody should receive governmental
support whether they are able to work or not. This is of course not true,
I say that the state has a responsibility towards the weaker citzens in
times of need. This opinion is not shared by Mr. Giwer because he has the
paranoid notion of a huge army of couch-sloths tyrannizing the property
owners. Please compare:
Who made you the labourer for me? I quit work. I live off the
government. Thank you very much. […]
It was the people I vote for who decided I should be the master
and you should be the slave. (Call me Master, §§1 and 5)
Therefore, Mr. Giwer does much more than to give “just another”
solution. His plans of establishing concentration camps for the
unemployed in his ideal state must be seen in context with the fight of
the “property owning elite” against “the enemy”, the poor. In this fight,
the measures of the society to protect weak members is seen by Mr. Giwer as
attempts by “the Government” to establish “tyranny”.
And this brings this discussion back to the topic “holocaust” revisionism.
Mr. Giwer feels sympathy for many of the aspects of Nazi Germany. He
probably likes the “iron broom” of the Hitler government, their merciless
methods against the “Jewish” stock market, against the socialists, against
worker’s unions and against women’s liberation. He certainly likes their
mystical sympathy for the ancient patriarchal system of free landowning
peasents as the backbone of the nation. His fight against the truth of the
Holocaust may be understood in the way that he prefers to believe the Nazi
Mr. Giwer would fall exactly in the same trap as the German big business
fell in 1933. Accordingly, Mr. Giwer does not like the fascist control
over business, something the businessmen under Hitler had to find out the
hard way. Perhaps he would be a proud fascist, if the fascists had left
the business alone?
This attitude explains Mr. Giwer’s motives in his “revisionist” struggle
and his seemingly contraditory claim of “not being fascist”. In trying to
reduce the definition of fascism to its economical aspect on the one hand,
and in trying to whitewash all other fascist measures on the other hand,
he maintains the freedom to dream up a totalitarian state without
coming into the danger of being called fascist or communist. (Well, at
least he thinks so…) Indeed, although constructing a system being fascist
to its core, he still feels right use the term “fascist” as ammunition in
his polemics against government measures he doesn’t like.
This could be a quite dangerous tactic, if applied by someone with the
according intellectual capacity and rhethoric abilities. But fortunately
Mr. Giwer’s essays are much too blunt to fool anybody. But it should
be said in public anyway, just in case…
From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 08:51:25 PDT 1996
Article: 51352 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Nele Abels)
Subject: Mr. Giwer is confronted with his fascist ideas but chickens out
(was: RE: Testimonial fiction)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 15:02:57 GMT
Organization: Hochschulrechenzentrum der Universitaet Marburg
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1