Mr. Baglow, would you please compare the following:
-the resources of Ernst Zundel with those of the people who
brought him to trial.
-the resources of the “mainstream” publishing empire which mass-produces
mountains of books and literature on the Holocaust.
The resources of the IHR with those who:
-make academy-award winning movies with budgets in the tens
of millions of dollars, and whose “theme” is on the verge of entering
classrooms.
-have incorporated “Holocaust studies” programs in various
school boards.
-have built museums (churches?) to the tune of multiple
millions, and having the “theme” act as the “unofficial” state
religion.
-lobby for multiple billions in reparation money and loans,
the latter of which are frequently written off, or reduced.
-in Canada, have direct access to federal and provincial
ministers for the purpose of finding ways to “punish” revisionists.
-can punish revisionists by having thought crimes trials (i.e.
Zundel and Keegstra) and kangaroo court-style human rights hearings
(Malcolm Ross). In Ross’s case, the Premier of New Brunswick appointed
the one-person tribunal even though he (Premier) publicly stated that
he wanted Mr. Ross “out of the classroom.” Ross was a math and
linguistics teacher who never taught a word of his revisionist
inclinations in any of his classes. So much for being fair!
-can ritually defame any person, group, or political entity,
for disobeying the victimological contentions of the Holocaust. Such
defamation usually includes: job loss, court costs, court time, being
subjected to a never-ending campaign of intimidation and harassment,
verbal and physical threats, and the thorough demonization of one’s
character.
Mr. Baglow, it would be extremely interesting to compare the financial
assets and political resources of those who promote the Holocaust, as
opposed to those (revisionists) currently engaged in the herioc
struggle to end this grotesque defamation of those who allegedly did
“it.” It would be even more fascinating to examine the profit margin
of the benefactors of Holocaust-promotion industry, compared to the alleged
“wealth” of the very few like Zundel and the IHR who have the guts to
challenge what has essentially become theocratic orthodoxy in the
Western World. A quick peek at Mr. Spielberg’s bank account is
probably all that is needed to shut you up.
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sat Oct 29
18:58:59 PDT 1994
Article: 18232 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Introducing Mr. Dumas
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 16:06:20 GMT
Lines: 69
Steve Dumas ([email protected]) wrote:
> John Baglow ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Since we have now been joined by a new neo-nazi revisionist, I thought
> > participants in the group might be interested in learning a little about
> > Steve Dumas.
> > Mr. Dumas is the research officer for an outfit known as the Northern
> > Foundation, associated with a number of far-right and neo-nazi groups in
> > North America, an organization which itself has produced many organizers for
> > the neo-nazi Heritage Front in Canada. Dumas has written a number of
> > columns for “Up Front”, the HF’s house organ, under the pseudonym “Steve
> > Baker.” His first column mourned that there were so few white
> > supremacist organizations in Canada, although he seems to be in error on
> > this point. Dumas is or was a student at Carleton University in Ottawa.
> > Here is a quote from one of his writings: “I firmly believe it should be
> > possible to be proud of being white and European culture [sic] without
> > putting a hood on. There’s plethora of groups which promote minority
> > interests…I stand by everything I’ve written for ‘Up Front’. I would
> > much rather be with people who are my own kind. The Jews have a country of
> > their own–is there anything wrong with that? No, there’s not. We want our
> > own country.”
> > Reference: “Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network”. Warren
> > Kinsella. HarperCollins, 1994.
> > —
> > John Baglow “Listen to the fool’s reproach! it is a
> > kingly title!” –William Blake
> Mr. Baglow,
> I am a little short on time and therefore will not yet state everything
> that needs to be said in response to your article. However, it was
> with great interest that you mentioned Warren Kinsella’s book. As soon
> as the CSIS-Grant Bristow controversy erupted, I rushed to my copy of
> the book and attempted to locate Mr. Bristow’s name in the index. No
> such luck. Grant Bristow’s name was nowhere to be found. Mr. Kinsella did
> indeed make allegations about me and many, many other people. A further
> critique of the book is forthcoming.
> Mr. Baglow, it is obvious that you and I are not ideological friends.
> I will not allow myself to be backed into a corner by responding to
> your claim that I am a neo-Nazi. This is a term which people such as
> yourself and your friends in the far-left International Socialists use
> with reckless abandon. According to people like yourself, anything to
> right of the NDP is potentially neo-Nazism. I will not allow myself to
> get caught in the “progressive” trap of tyring to prove to you, or your
> ilk, that I am not what you claim.
> However, for the moment I would ask that you seriously consider why Mr.
> Kinsella failed to mention Grant Bristow’s name in his book Web of
> Hate. In an earlier article you expressed outrage over that fact that
> the Heritage Front was financed by the Canadian government. This funding
> not only allowed the Heritage Front to grow, but it made them much, much more
> radical than they would have been otherwise.
> Mr. Bristow attended the Heritage Front’s rallies, provided security
> for the Reform Party, was probably their most influential advisor, and was
> in fact one of the group’s founders, according to media reports. Yet
> Mr. Kinsella failed to mention his name. How is this to be explained?
> Mr. Baglow, I understand that you and I are not on good terms.
> However, I would welcome a civilized response on this matter.
> My curiosity on this matter is currently much greater than my desire to
> engage in some mental sparring with you. We can leave that for later!
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!
spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!
bzs Sun Oct 30 16:54:16 PST 1994
Article: 18259 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!
spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: [email protected] (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Baglow
In-Reply-To: [email protected]’s message of Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:57:13 GMT
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 22:46:09 GMT
Lines: 48
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
>My comparison of resources was in reponse to Mr. Baglow’s contention
>that some revisonists are making a healthy profit from their
>activities. This begged a comparison between revisionist wealth and
>power compared to the awesome might of the Holocaust industry.
No, you’re shadow-boxing.
The claim was not that the revisionists were making a healthy profit,
per se. Lots of people make money off of lots of things, it’s hardly
much proof of anything at all.
The claim was THAT THEY WERE *ONLY* IN IT FOR THE MONEY (or illusion
of power or attention or similar, some no doubt just to be irritating,
the intellectual equivalent of refusing to bathe.)
That is, professional hucksters and charlatans who know damn well the
snake oil they’re pushing isn’t worth a thing and that they’re lying.
They *know* they’re lying.
Nice try to twist it around, tho.
But it’s pretty obvious when we see some of the stupidest and most
pathetic excuses for “proof” as to why the revisionists believe what
they believe. The answers they give would only play with the naive and
gullible. Word games, “forgeries all forgeries”, what’s the single
best evidence, it’s all an international jewish conspiracy, etc.
Anything, they’ll say utterly ANYTHING, except merely deal with the
evidence.
It’s HUCKSTERISM, pure and simple, they’re working the yokels for a
buck. Any idiot can see that.
I particularly have come to enjoy, darkly, the bizarre:
The Holocaust didn’t happen and the victims of it deserved what they
got!
theme we’ve been seeing here more and more. Ayup, makes sense to me,
duh, where can I put my coin?
—
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | [email protected] | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!
math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas Sun Oct 30
16:54:17 PST 1994
Article: 18267 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!
math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Introducing Mr. Dumas
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 22:20:12 GMT
Lines: 96
Steve Dumas ([email protected]) wrote:
> Steve Dumas ([email protected]) wrote:
> > John Baglow ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > [very long posting on Warren Kinsella’s book deleted]
> > > Mr. Dumas spends a very long time asking one question: why Warren Kinsella
> > > doesn’t mention Grant Bristow in his book on far-right groups in Canada. I
> > > have no idea. He doesn’t mention Jason Smith either, which must be a great
> > > disappointment to the latter. He doesn’t mention Les Griswold, who, I
> > > understand, has something to do with the National Alliance. He doesn’t
> > > mention old-time right-wingers like Geoffrey Wasteneys, who referred to
> > > two well-known Church of the Creator types as merely “inquisitive young
> > > men” recently. He doesn’t name these inquisitive young men either. The list
> > > goes on and on.
> > > Does he have a point? Does it have anything to do with Holocaust revisionism?
> > > —
> > > John Baglow “Listen to the fool’s reproach! it is a
> > > kingly title!” –William Blake
> > Mr. Baglow,
> > Please note the error I made in my earlier follow-up. I meant to say to
> > the “right” of the NDP, as opposed to the “left.” I regret any
> > inconvenience this may have caused you.
> > Once again, I will defer my response to your expanded allegations
> > towards both myself and others. However, please note that your far-left
> > activities have yet to be discussed. Of note, your involvement with the
> > IS and their ties with the violent Anti-Racist Action are extermely
> > interesting. If this is the kind of “Kinsellian guilt-by-association”
> > game you want to play, then I am prepared to do the same.
> > Your are correct in stating that my follow-up is not related to
> > revisionism. However, I was responding to your article which is also
> > unrelated. We really should continue this in another forum.
> > However, I am disappointed that you did not address the Grant Bristow
> > question. Mr. Bristow, outside of Wolfgang Droege, was virtually “Mr.
> > Heritage Front.” I have never even heard of Jason Smith. But to omit
> > Mr. Bristow, one of the core members? Your answer was not satisfactory.
> > Let me bring your attention to the chapter notes for chapter 8 in Web
> > of Hate on p. 368. Kinsella states “This chapter is based on
> > interviews with Wolfgang Droege, George Burdi…and many lesser known
> > members of the Heritage Front.” Where was Grant Bristow, one of the
> > founding fathers?
> > How could he omit the name of “the” key organizer and founding father,
> > credentials which are much, much more significant that many others who
> > were either included, or excluded? He also failed to mention that Bristow
> > was part of the Libyan delegation. On p. 223 Kinsella states that
> > while in Libya “Droege and a few of the others decided to form a new
> > and better Canadian white supremacist organization.” We now know,
> > thanks to Bill Dunphy of the Toronto Sun, that one of these “others”
> > was indeed Grant Bristow. Kinsella also states:
> > Back home, Droege held low-key meetings with his new group in
> > his apartement. They discussed their plans for their new group, and
> > they registered the name: the Heritage Front. (p. 223)
> > (Below this passage Kinsella mentioned the names of Droege,
> > and two others which I will not name. But no Bristow!)
> > Thanks again to Bill Dunphy, we now know that Bristow was at this
> > meeting. No mention of Bristow on the Libyan trip, or his status as
> > one of the founding members? What on earth is going on here?
> > Even more interesting, in the chapter notes for #5 and #6 on p. 366
> > Kinsella states “Intervied for chapter 5 were…many sources within
> > CSIS, the RCMP and other police agents.” The failure to mention
> > Bristow, combined with interviews with “many sources within CSIS,” is
> > something you should address. Making the argument that “Kinsella did
> > not mention certain others therefore the Grant Bristow omission is
> > insignificant” is simply not good enough.
> > In conclusion, we really should continue this exchange in another
> > forum. Any suggestions?
> P.S. The spell check on this system is not working. In the passage
> from Kinsella’s Web of Hate “apartement” should be spelled “apartment.”
> Sorry!
P.S. I made another mistake! In an earlier follow-up I stated
“How could he (Kinsella) omit the name of “the” key organizer and founding
father (of the Heritage Front), credentials which are much, much more
signifcant that many others who were either included, or excluded?”
It should read “…than those of many others…” as opposed to
“…that many others…” – Sorry!
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!utcsri!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!
sdumas Mon Oct 31 07:57:00 PST 1994
Article: 18287 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!utcsri!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: The Shirley Show
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <38ikqu[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 07:27:24 GMT
Lines: 148
Morrison ([email protected]) wrote:
> From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
> Message-ID:
> Re: The Shirley Solomon Show
> >After he made the “My father was castrated” remark, it took him several
> >seconds to realize the that the hush of silence was in fact confusion
> >on behalf of both the audience and the hostess (Shirley Solomon). The
> >entire scene was extremely awkward.
> *sigh* As stated previously, I saw said show and did _not_ find it
> strange. Remember, the man was speaking in front of an audience, possibly
> for the first time. How many adopted kids, when discussing their parents,
> say “my dad” or “my mom”? From my experience, quite a few.
> >However, of greater importance was the theme of the show itself. It was
> >extremely digusting. Shirley Solomon was stationed on stage between three
> >children of Nazis on here right (coincidence?) and the children of
> >survivors on her left (yes, including Mr. Castration!).
> Uh, sure, whatever. However, if they were so sneaky to slip in political
> commentary in seating arrangements, why weren’t they smart enough to edit
> out the “awkward bits” before airing? Remember, Mrs. Solomon is a child
> of survivors herself.
> >The issue was
> >whether the children of the survivors should, or could, forgive the
> >children of the Nazis. Of course, the latter children had nothing to
> >do with what their parents had “allegedly” done.
> And if you were paying attention, you would know that all of those children
> (except maybe for one) were active in educating the public to what crimes
> the Nazis had committed, _before_ they appeared on the show.
> >However, as most people should already know, Jewish moral supremacy
> >and anti-Gentilism seemingly knows no boundaries. Throughout the
> >entire show Jewish members of the audience put a victimological
> >display of epic proportions. The level of German-bashing within this
> >one-hour span has probably never been greater.
> Bullshit, plain and simple bullshit. That did _not_ happen, and, if
> anything, the audience seemed disturbed that these children of survivors
> still held so much resentment.
> >What the guilt-ridden Germans on the stage should have realized is
> >that using the “We-must-admit-we-have-been-evil” approach will only
> >intensify the revenge campaign against Gentiles. The German guests went out of
> >their way to state their sorrow for the “sins” of their parents. They
> >also made strong commitments to “educate” people about the
“horrors” of what
> >”happened.” Their positions had very little impact on the Jewish
> >members of the audience. In fact, the level of moral indignation seemed to
> >increase the more the German guests apologized.
> What show were you watching? By the way, your putting quotes around the
> words ‘happened’ ‘sins’ and ‘horrors’ indicates that you hold a certain
> point of view about the veracity of those events, thus you must, if that
> is the case, subscribe to the idea of the IJC. And if the IJC was so bloody
> good at forging documents, photos etc, why weren’t they smart enough to
> edit out that awkward “castration” bit?
> I ask again, is logical thought a dying art?
> Keith Morrison
> The Name is Bond, James Bond Quote of the Week
> “I stated, based on inside information the source for which I am not at
> liberty to divulge…”
> – Greg Raven
> ************************************************************
> *[email protected] * My views are not those of the University *
> *************** of New Brunswick. UNB never has views on *
> * * on anything, ever. *
> ************************************************************
Mr. Morisson,
One of the first lessons taught in logic 101 is that sylogistic
reasoning is a faulty form of logic. Pointing out unrefined
victimological skills does not mean that one subscribes to the alleged IJC,
or any other conspiracy at that. We will probably never know whether
Mr. Castration was telling the truth. My point was that the way in
which he told this victimological tale left much to be desired. I have
serious doubts about the authenticity of his claim.
The last time my I had such a strong notion that something of this
sort was not quite right was in the case of someone named John
Demjanjuk. Remember him? The Damjanjuk case clearly demonstrates
that professional victimologists and revenge artists don’t always get
their man! Some of the witnesses in this case swore that he was indeed
“Ivan the Terrible.” Interestingly, the courtroom theatrics were
similar to what took place in the audience during the Shirley Show.
In both cases, and in many others, the exterminationists worked
themselves into a frenzy. It is simply not possible to think clearly
when in this state of mind.
This also occured this past winter on the Phil Donahue Show when
Bradley Smith, David Cole and Michael Shermer squared off. I am
assuming that this show has been discussed extensively in these
circles. Mr. Morisson, how do you explain Donahue’s error in
identifying one of the clips as “evidence” of the Holocaust, when in
fact it was not; a fact subsequently confirmed by Mr. Shermer?
How do you explain the hysteria of the “survivors” in the audience who
insisted that lamp shades had been made of human skin and that bars of
soap had been made of human flesh? They would not even listen to Mr.
Shermer, a historian and staunch exterminationist, who stated
that indeed the “lamp shades” and “bars of soap” claims were false.
Members of the audience and callers insisted on clinging to these
anachronistic victimological claims. How do you explain this?
Hence, whether it is Mr. Castration, John Demjanjuk, Phil Donahue
showing supposed footage of the Holocaust when it in fact was not,
hysterical members of panels and studio audiences making questionable,
if not false, victimological claims, professional victimology is not
infallible.
Speaking of faulty logic, your debating technique seems to be that when
someone points out a flaw in Holocaust victimology they are
contradicting themselves because all such people necessarily subscribe to
the IJC theory, which implies Jewish omnipotence, which means no such
mistakes are supposed to occur. A pure sylogism!
Mr. Morisson, it is quite obvious that you and I are living in two
different worlds. If that episode of the Shirley Show was not an
exercise in German-bashing, then what is? The central question of
the show was whether the children of the Nazis could, or should, be
forgiven. How on earth can you claim that such a premise is not
German-bashing?
At the beginning of show Shirley said that on every other show she had
met and spoken with the guests in something called the “green room.”
On this particular show she did not. Why? Because she was too scared.
She was acting like these guests were a bunch of monsters who could
not be trusted to have a casual conversation. If that is not dehumanizing
her guests, then what is?
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!
sdumas Mon Oct 31 07:57:02 PST 1994
Article: 18288 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Introducing Mr. Dumas
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 07:55:43 GMT
Lines: 68
John Baglow ([email protected]) wrote:
> Since we have now been joined by a new neo-nazi revisionist, I thought
> participants in the group might be interested in learning a little about
> Steve Dumas.
> Mr. Dumas is the research officer for an outfit known as the Northern
> Foundation, associated with a number of far-right and neo-nazi groups in
> North America, an organization which itself has produced many organizers for
> the neo-nazi Heritage Front in Canada. Dumas has written a number of
> columns for “Up Front”, the HF’s house organ, under the pseudonym “Steve
> Baker.” His first column mourned that there were so few white
> supremacist organizations in Canada, although he seems to be in error on
> this point. Dumas is or was a student at Carleton University in Ottawa.
> Here is a quote from one of his writings: “I firmly believe it should be
> possible to be proud of being white and European culture [sic] without
> putting a hood on. There’s plethora of groups which promote minority
> interests…I stand by everything I’ve written for ‘Up Front’. I would
> much rather be with people who are my own kind. The Jews have a country of
> their own–is there anything wrong with that? No, there’s not. We want our
> own country.”
> Reference: “Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network”. Warren
> Kinsella. HarperCollins, 1994.
> —
> John Baglow “Listen to the fool’s reproach! it is a
> kingly title!” –William Blake
Mr. Baglow,
I am a little short on time and therefore will not yet state everything
that needs to be said in response to your article. However, it was
with great interest that you mentioned Warren Kinsella’s book. As soon
as the CSIS-Grant Bristow controversy erupted, I rushed to my copy of
the book and attempted to locate Mr. Bristow’s name in the index. No
such luck. Grant Bristow’s name was nowhere to be found. Mr. Kinsella did
indeed make allegations about me and many, many other people. A further
critique of the book is forthcoming.
Mr. Baglow, it is obvious that you and I are not ideological friends.
I will not allow myself to be backed into a corner by responding to
your claim that I am a neo-Nazi. This is a term which people such as
yourself and your friends in the far-left International Socialists use
with reckless abandon. According to people like yourself, anything to
left of the NDP is potentially neo-Nazism. I will not allow myself to
get caught in the “progressive” trap of tyring to prove to you, or your
ilk, that I am not what you claim.
However, for the moment I would ask that you seriously consider why Mr.
Kinsella failed to mention Grant Bristow’s name in his book Web of
Hate. In an earlier article you expressed outrage over that fact that
the Heritage Front was financed by the Canadian government. This funding
not only allowed the Heritage Front to grow, but it made them much, much more
radical than they would have been otherwise.
Mr. Bristow attended the Heritage Front’s rallies, provided security
for the Reform Party, was probably their most influential advisor, and was
in fact one of the group’s founders, according to media reports. Yet
Mr. Kinsella failed to mention his name. How is this to be explained?
Mr. Baglow, I understand that you and I are not on good terms.
However, I would welcome a civilized response on this matter.
My curiosity on this matter is currently much greater than my desire to
engage in some mental sparring with you. We can leave that for later!
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!
sdumas Mon Oct 31 07:57:03 PST 1994
Article: 18289 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Baglow
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References:
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:03:16 GMT
Lines: 26
Barry Shein ([email protected]) wrote:
> From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
> >The resources of the IHR with those who:
> I have a better idea, let’s first compare the resources of the Flat
> Earth Society with the resources of NASA and other world-wide
> astrophysical research organizations. And of course all those
> sphero-hoax movies which depict the earth as round.
> All you may have found here is reality trying desparately to get
> through to you. I realize that the lights are out and nobody’s home,
> but that’s beyond anything we can repair.
> -Barry Shein
> Software Tool & Die | [email protected] | uunet!world!bzs
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Mr. Shein,
If you are attempting to compare the resources of NASA with those
who promote the Holocaust, then you have strengthened my argument.
Thanks!
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!
sdumas Mon Oct 31 07:57:04 PST 1994
Article: 18290 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Baglow
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:57:13 GMT
Lines: 76
[email protected] wrote:
> Mr. Dumas,
> What does any of what you wrote have to do with whether the holocaust
> happened or not. The financial resources of the parties involved are irrelevant
> to this discussion. This is yet another example of the revisionist/flat earther
> tendency to avoid the real issue (because they cannot prove their case).
> Harvey K. Morrell
> [email protected]
> In article , [email protected] (Steve Dumas) writes:
> >
> > Mr. Baglow, would you please compare the following:
> Rubbish deleted
>
> > The resources of the IHR with those who:
> >
> > -make academy-award winning movies with budgets in the tens
> > of millions of dollars, and whose “theme” is on the verge of entering
> > classrooms.
> >
> > -have incorporated “Holocaust studies” programs in various
> > school boards.
> >
> > -have built museums (churches?) to the tune of multiple
> > millions, and having the “theme” act as the “unofficial” state
> > religion.
> >
> > -lobby for multiple billions in reparation money and loans,
> > the latter of which are frequently written off, or reduced.
> >
> > -in Canada, have direct access to federal and provincial
> > ministers for the purpose of finding ways to “punish” revisionists.
> >
> > -can punish revisionists by having thought crimes trials (i.e.
> > Zundel and Keegstra) and kangaroo court-style human rights hearings
> > (Malcolm Ross). In Ross’s case, the Premier of New Brunswick appointed
> > the one-person tribunal even though he (Premier) publicly stated that
> > he wanted Mr. Ross “out of the classroom.” Ross was a math and
> > linguistics teacher who never taught a word of his revisionist
> > inclinations in any of his classes. So much for being fair!
> >
> > -can ritually defame any person, group, or political entity,
> > for disobeying the victimological contentions of the Holocaust. Such
> > defamation usually includes: job loss, court costs, court time, being
> > subjected to a never-ending campaign of intimidation and harassment,
> > verbal and physical threats, and the thorough demonization of one’s
> > character.
> > Mr. Baglow, it would be extremely interesting to compare the financial
> > assets and political resources of those who promote the Holocaust, as
> > opposed to those (revisionists) currently engaged in the herioc
> > struggle to end this grotesque defamation of those who allegedly did
> > “it.” It would be even more fascinating to examine the profit margin
> > of the benefactors of Holocaust-promotion industry, compared to the alleged
> > “wealth” of the very few like Zundel and the IHR who have the guts to
> > challenge what has essentially become theocratic orthodoxy in the
> > Western World. A quick peek at Mr. Spielberg’s bank account is
> > probably all that is needed to shut you up.
Dir Sir,
My comparison of resources was in reponse to Mr. Baglow’s contention
that some revisonists are making a healthy profit from their
activities. This begged a comparison between revisionist wealth and
power compared to the awesome might of the Holocaust industry. It kind
of reminds of me of David versus Goliath. I really should have posted
my article as a follow-up and not a separate item. This is probably
why you questioned the context of dealing with the resources of both
sides. I will know better the next time. You will just have to be patient with
this technological rookie.
From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!
scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!
sdumas Fri Oct 28 08:34:31 PDT 1994
Article: 18183 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!
scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!chat!
sdumas
From: [email protected] (Steve Dumas)
Subject: Dear Mr. Baglow
Message-ID:
Sender: [email protected] (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:57:33 GMT
Lines: 55
Last-Modified: 1994/11/01
