schneider@2littl.DEC (10/09/85)
> = Don Black >> = someone who's probably sick and tired of Don Black > Secondly, you're referring to the personality in Denver, I believe, who > was murdered by a common criminal. This particular criminal happened to > attend a service at the Church of Christ in LaPorte, Colorado, on the > occasion of a special visit by Pastor Jack Mohr. Traditionally, when a > Christian attends a service at a church other than his own, it is a courtesy > to sign the guest book. It happens that this criminal-type signed the guest > book at the church. He was not seen at the church prior to the special > service, nor was he seen again afterward. >> And if you say that IC's didn't murder him, then you're a liar again because >> it's well known that the murderers were IC's. > It's a well-known "fact" spread by the Anti-Defamation League. Anything > the League publishes is true, don't you know? Don, its interesting here how you spin your tale. The account you gave of the murder above differs quite strongly with the one distributed to and through every news agency, and I'm reasonably certain that ADL hasn't got such a stranglehold on the media. Without saying the words you're doing your best at denying the fact that the Christian Identity had anything to do with the murder of Alan Berg, even though the FBI would strongly disagree. What's the extreme right version of the little episode when the FBI finally tracked that little sect down with their cache of arms. Another JDL/ADL myth, perhaps? In case you hadn't noticed everytime you air your alleged facts they're quickly shot down by people who take each individual idea you have and shoot it full of holes. Then you change fronts. If you're keeping score out there: 1. The holocaust DID occur. 2. The Christian Identity has so many holes in its basic tenets that the rest of the United States, if not the world has been wondering about the sanity of its members. 3. The state of Israel exists and it has as much right to exist as the United States does. Don, you're current "enemy" is the JDL and you seem to be forever wondering why the rest of the country isn't up in arms. Could it be that they aren't such a threat, that they're really not as prevelant as your hate literature tells you they are? What it comes down to is that your doing your best to link Jews with evil and you (and the rest of your political bedfellows) must be very frustrated by now that no one believes you, least of all the media (except for your own). > ...The main problem is that Identity Christians are gradually and > steadily undermining the myth of the Holocaust. And without the Holocaust, > the Israeli UN Protectorate has no reason to be protected. See number 3 above. Note that Don once again has no facts present. > I notice also in this article the writer is running out of logical > arguments against Christian Identity. I say this because he repeatedly says > "You're a liar! You're a liar!" Ad Hominems rather than cold, hard logic and > fact. I've seen enough facts and cold, hard logic to entirely discredit your attempt at rewriting history. The writer who called you a liar probably got tired of beating a dead horse. Alright readers, now read the following words and just substitute the obvious religion in and imagine Dan Rather discussing Jesse Helms. > The fact is their is one particular group in this country who is > advocating religious tolerance from one side of their mouths, while practicing > religious bigotry on the other side. The fact is that this particular group > desires nothing more than to have ALL religion driven from community life, > from family life, from the school environment, from the government > environment. They want nothing but secular atheism taught and practiced. The > concept of a Higher Authority is completely alien to them. The fact is that > Christian, Jew, and Moslem alike have the right to resist this movement, by > any means necessary. > The fact is that this particular group cannot tolerate exposure or > criticism. They cannot even stand legitimate commentary. Those who do dare > to take a stand against them are branded as liars or worse (as you can see). > But that's all right. It's to be expected. And in doing so, they only expose > themselves for what they are. There is probably no hope of ever curing the delusions that Don Black suffers from, but always remember that it is best not to ignore or censor his paranoia. He gets a lot of mileage from claiming he's right by citing ad hominem arguments and therefore totally ignoring the facts which thoroughly discredit him. One shouldn't open up this door of opportunity for him. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-2littl!schneider
schneider@2littl.DEC (DANIEL SCHNEIDER) (11/02/85)
My, a personal reply from Don Black himself. Despite my apprehensions I think you deserve the same. >> = someone who's probably sick and tired of Don Black > " "= someone who might rather change the subject and discuss more important > issues. Don, I really doubt the truth of this. You have one recurrent theme and never stray far from it. [The murder of Alan Berg story...rebuttal...etc.] > Besides, just because something is "well-known" doesn't necessarily make > it true. And because I disagree with something that's "well-known" doesn't > make me a liar. Of course you're right. But it doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. >> Don, its interesting here how you spin your tale. The account you gave of >> the murder above differs quite strongly with the one distributed to >> and through every news agency, > That's right, it does. If the truth hurts, "Tough Cookies." Why should I assume your version is the truth when all sources I have heard contradict you. Based on public reports which reach me, you seem to be spreading sheer fiction. AND you have quite obvious motive to do so - you'd like to protect that "good" reputation your organizations have. Why should any reasonable person go out on such a limb and give you a fair shake, much less believe you.? >> Without saying the words you're >> doing your best at denying the fact that the Christian Identity had anything >> to do with the murder of Alan Berg, even though the FBI would strongly >> disagree. > Read my lips. The Christian Identity Church, to wit, the Church of > Christ in La Porte, Colorado, has absolutely no connection with the murder of > the personality, a Mr. Berg I believe his name was. The only connection that > can be made is that the murderer attended one service at the church, signed > the guest book, and was never seen again at the church. > Would you be interested in a copy of Pastor Pete Peters' sermon about the > incident? Give me a mailing address, and I'll supply a copy of the tape. I would not be interested in such things. I have heard and read plenty about the methods these purported "men of the cloth" use to spread the word (so to speak). I'm sure that Pastor Pete's sermon is replete with denial of any and all attachments the Christian Identity movement may have with the murderers, but I'm more inclined to believe the federal authorities. >> What's the extreme right version of the little episode >> when the FBI finally tracked that little sect down with their cache of >> arms. Another JDL/ADL myth, perhaps? > The "extreme right" version is that the radio personality was murdered > neo-nazi criminals. Period. Hmmm. But don't you recognize your own ilk? Those "neo-nazi criminals" were Christian Identity members, or is the FBI lying? And, if you tell me that the FBI was lying where does that leave me. I could still believe the FBI or I could switch over to Don Black and Pastor Pete. Hmmm. Tough choice. Wonder why virtually 100% of the media believes the FBI here when Pastor Pete has EVERY REASON to lie. I assume your answer to this dilemma will be your stock one about being too close to the truth for comfort. Such has been your outlet before when you've no more facts to butcher. >> In case you hadn't noticed everytime you air your alleged facts they're >> quickly shot down by people who take each individual idea you have and >> shoot it full of holes. Then you change fronts. > Every time? > No, not quite. I'm too close to the truth for comfort. > I "change fronts" because there is just too many issues to be discussed. > I get tired of arguing with fools. Or you're tired of playing the fool. Ah! there's that "too close for comfort" argument again. Its nice. Its groundless and you don't even have to invent any facts to back it up. Is anybody buying it outside Identity Christians? I doubt it. >> If you're keeping score out there: [Your score or mine?] [My score as I read the net. You have had one person come to your personal defense, but no one has come to your factual defense. I think this says a lot.] >> 1. The holocaust DID occur. > It's your right to believe it did, and it's my right to believe it > didn't. I KNOW it occured, as you probably do also. You can tell yourself you don't believe but I warn you, you'd best stay away from the history books or you'll find yourself totally disillusioned by the facts. > Now, SOMETHING did happen in Occupied Europe during the period 1933-1945. > No doubt about it. But let's have the truth about it, not just the Si > Weisenthal Holy Writ. There is more evidence on this topic than on many other facts of history and they aren't all documented by the Simon Weisenthal Institute. But face it, this isn't what you're arguing about here, is it? Thankfully for those who have suffered enough no one of stature is coming forward and making them relive the horror that occured. I know of the nominal term "Christian" in your religion, but a true Christian would not seek to hurt so many for such bent desires. >> 2. The Christian Identity has so many holes in its basic tenets that >> the rest of the United States, if not the world has been wondering >> about the sanity of its members. > Sometimes the truth is unbearable. Besides, exactly what do you know > about Christian Identity that makes you say this? Prove it. Put up or shut > up. Oh changing idioms, are we? "Too close for comfort" has become "the truth is unbearable", has it? My biblical knowledge is diminuitive, but I have heard everyone from Jew to Fundamentalist Christian tear the Christian Identity theory to shreds, including what has occured right here on the net. To those on the net who took you to task, you "moved on to higher objectives" when your/the IC theories were disposed of by fact. I'd say the burden of proof rests on your shoulders and you've been ducking it since you related the IC dogma a month or so ago. I did carefully note you never responded to Rich Rosen's or Gary Samuelson's rebuttals and challenges to continue the debate. I believe that is what we call "taking a graceful exit", eh? Much more palatable than public (or at least netwide) humiliation, especially since you still claim that the theories stand unchallenged. > You might be interested to know that the World-Wide Church of God is an > Identity church, and nobody seems to object to The Plain Truth being available > free just about everywhere. Not to mention some of the tenets of Mormonism. I might be interested to know, especially since I don't follow what you mean. Some of the tenets of Mormonism are pretty groundless also, but I don't think that's at all relevant here (unless the IC and Mormonism is connected in some way - but I never heard of it. Is it?) >> 3. The state of Israel exists and it has as much right to exist as >> the United States does. > Not quite. The Israeli UN Protectorate exists, on land stolen from a > once-prospering indiginous population. This is an opinion held by about two > billion Arabs, among others. Not quite, you (and YOU alone) can choose to not recognize the state of Isreal but don't try to tell me not to recognize it. Remember your own credo - "America first - without apologies". Well America recognizes the state of Isreal and that's a fact that even our dim-witted president will attest to. In addition your "story" of the stealing of the land has also been thoroughly discredited. It makes things very convenient for your arguments that no matter how often you're contradicted, you drop out of the discussion and then hoist your flag again as truth; I guess you have the right to do this, but you lose BIG debating points for such actions. > Now, about its right to exist: This "right" is based on a scriptural > claim to prior ownership. No claim was made, no attempt was made to take back > Palestine, from 70 AD to 1948 AD. Now scripture itself tells us that the > statute of limitations for claiming a debt is seven years. I would say that > the statute of limitations has long expired. Oh but hasn't this same biblical statute of limitations (which I have never heard of) expired for those lovely Identity Christian theories? Such a shame that one must be consistent, isn't it? > In 1948, the Jewish refugees had the sympathy of the world, because they > had been (undeniably) enslaved, and allegedly massacred. The term "Holocaust" > became popular. They were given Palestine as a place of refuge, because the > local Arab leaders were Nazi sympathizers. Also, there was already a large > Jewish population in the area. Now, without a gigantic Holocaust for gaining > sympathy, there would be no reason to "compensate" the Jews by giving them > Palestine. If this Holocaust is proven to be a fake, or not as great as it > was made out to be, then the Israeli UN Protectorate becomes history. Sorry Don, even if you could "prove" the Holocaust to be a "fake", there is little you could do about getting the Isrealites off their land. For one thing, they have the most powerful forces in the Mid-east, on their own, without any outside interference. Recently they were described as the third greatest power in the world. Secondly if the US can flaunt the World Courts' decision with respect to Nicaragua where there is relatively little vested interest, what do you think the reaction would be if they were told hands-off Isreal. In a word, Don, you are POWERLESS to do anything about Isreal. >> Don, you're current "enemy" is the JDL and you seem to be forever >> wondering why the rest of the country isn't up in arms. Could it >> be that they aren't such a threat, that they're really not as prevelant >> as your hate literature tells you they are? > Would you describe the Boston Globe and the Manchester Union-Leader as > Hate Literature? Don, I read the Globe every day. There are NO recurrent stories of JDL atrocities on their pages. From this brand of allegation, I would assume we could put your characterization of the Union-Leader in its proper perspective also. If you care to cite the daily ravagings of the JDL as reported in the Globe, I'll look them up as they roll of the presses and admit I'm wrong. > You're right my enemy is the JDL. For one thing, they're an unregistered > agent of a foreign power. For another they are a foreign military force > operating illegally on United States territory. For another, they have this > disgusting habit of murdering people and burning libraries. But the most important reason you wish to discredit them is because of the word "Jewish" in their title. After all the atrocities of IC members is just as well documented and you seem to embrace that organization... >> What it comes down to >> is that you're doing your best to link Jews with evil... > Not really. A couple of verses in Revelation tell the story: [ Don quotes the book of Revelations. I have no desire to requote any part of the bible in the current political discussion. The "gist" is delightfully translated for the unenlightened. ] > So, apparently some will say they are "Jews," just to get the Jews in > trouble. And there are some who are descended from the Benjamites, who are > more receptive to Christian ethics. > As I have stated time and again, if you had taken the time to read my > postings, I make no claim about to racial superiority; I decry violence, > genocide, terrorism, etc; and I advocate civil rights for everyone according > to the Constitution. Maybe you've chosen to overlook this minor detail. I have taken the time to read your postings. I just am not gullible enough to BELIEVE large portions of them and I also read between the lines and have the vision to understand the goals you have in posting. Whatever positions you maintain (no violence, terrorism, etc. all quite admirable) they seem to be just a one way street with you. Furthermore they are not the positions advocated by the organization you speak for and whose literature you obviously read. I would suspect that the IC sect you belong to has advocated this seemingly "moderate" postion of anti-injustice as a tool with which they disseminate propoganda to the innocent or ignorant. I am unsure whether you yourself are the tool or the ignorant/innocent. I suspect the former at this point and that almost every member starts off as the latter. So anyways here on the net you have been spreading the view of IC which they want the public to see. As I have heard and read though this is a far cry from what goes on inside your "houses of God". It is there where hatred is spread, where people can be driven to heavily arm themselves in alleged "self-defense" and even to murder. It has been done and it has been proven and no amount of denial will sway those facts. The IC personal vision of law and order exceeds even what the FBI will allow in this country. >> and you (and the >> rest of your political bedfellows) must be very frustrated by now >> that no one believes you, least of all the media (except for your >> own). > What's frustrating is that we are often confused with neo-nazi groups who > love to blow things up, shoot up banks and police officers, etc. If you truly are frustrated from the confusion you would sever your connections with Identity Christianity for they are documented to have quite different ends and the means they have used are illegal under our present system. You would hold the same view of Identity Christianity that you have of the JDL if you truly hold such practices in abhorance. On the other hand if your desires are the same as the rest of the IC sects I see all your actions as very consistent: two faces, one internal and one external if you will. And here is the lucky net on the outside. > If we are not "doing a number" on the Holocaustian Legend, then why did > the JDL burn the library of the Institute for Historical Review? Ah, the logic of it all: library burns therefore the Jews are lying. Nice try, but no dice. > One fact is that the testimony of prosecution witnesses at the Zundel > trial was totally inconsistant with scientific and forensic evidence presented > by the defense. I'd say that the Klingons will attack before you begin undermining the facts of the Holocaust. But again, you're really seeking to hurt Jewish people, and then rewrite history if such a goal is attainable. The Jews have had real opponents before this and come out ahead. I'm quite sure the propaganda war can be weathered. > Besides, sometimes I only intend to get the net readers thinking. I > could present a ton of facts, but it is far better to give the sources, and > let people research the facts themselves. My dictionary defines propaganda as "materials disseminated by the proselytizers of a doctrine." Your definition above is quite good, though. >> I've seen enough facts and cold, hard logic to entirely discredit >> your attempt at rewriting history. The writer who called you a liar >> probably got tired of beating a dead horse. > No, you haven't. You believe what you want to believe; that is your > right. Organizations with better funding and far better information are doing > the rewrite. Here's another one of those tough choices: do I believe Don Black and the Christian Identity dogma, or do I believe Encyclopedia Britanica, the Associated Press, UPI, history books of the period, etc,etc,etc? >> There is probably no hope of ever curing the delusions that Don Black >> suffers from, but always remember that it is best not to ignore or >> censor his paranoia. He gets a lot of mileage from claiming he's >> right by citing ad hominem arguments and therefore totally ignoring >> the facts which thoroughly discredit him. One shouldn't open up this >> door of opportunity for him. [Daniel Schneider dec-2littl!schneider] > You're d___ed right I'm incurable. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't > mean they aren't out to get me. > --Don Black You're not incurable; you'll probably never be cured though. If you could see the other side of your self-imposed walls your tone would be one of regret instead of sarcasm here. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-2littl!schneider