berman@ihuxm.UUCP (The Keyboard of Reason) (06/04/84)
Bob Brown writes: > >...... our Communist friends have quite a record: > > Lenin ? > > > Stalin 2-3 million Ukranians starved 1930's > Stalin 10 million ? purges and death lists > > Mao 30 to 50 million ? Nobody knows for sure. > > Pol Pot 2.5 million Cambodians > >Anybody know of some I missed ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, I know of some you missed: Johnson Nixon 2 million Vietnamese, 50,000 Americans Reagan 40,000 Salvadoran victims of death squads that are part of government forces armed and trained by the Reagan regime. Flame on self-righteous ones! Andy Berman
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (06/04/84)
>Bob Brown writes: > > > >...... our Communist friends have quite a record: > > > > Lenin ? > > > > > > Stalin 2-3 million Ukranians starved 1930's > > Stalin 10 million ? purges and death lists > > > > Mao 30 to 50 million ? Nobody knows for sure. > > > > Pol Pot 2.5 million Cambodians > > > >Anybody know of some I missed ? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Yeah, I know of some you missed: > > Johnson > Nixon 2 million Vietnamese, 50,000 Americans > > Reagan 40,000 Salvadoran victims of death squads > that are part of government forces armed > and trained by the Reagan regime. > > > Flame on self-righteous ones! > > Andy Berman > Whenever I see commentary of this type, I'm at a loss to know what it is supposed to mean. Does it mean that: 1) They're no worse than us 2) We're OK 3) Therefore, They're OK or does it mean that: 1) We're no better than they are 2) They're no good 3) Therefore, we're no good ...? Comparing their behavior to ours does not diminish its (their) loathsomeness even one little bit. However, at least in this country, we have a right to make that comparison without being shipped off to a Gulag. -- Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish
clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (06/05/84)
> From: berman@ihuxm.UUCP (The Keyboard of Reason) [SIC] <-(my comment) Organization: Comp. Center, Univ. of Texas at Austin Lines: 26 > > Yeah, I know of some you missed: > > Johnson > Nixon 2 million Vietnamese, 50,000 Americans > > Reagan 40,000 Salvadoran victims of death squads > that are part of government forces armed > and trained by the Reagan regime. This only underscores the original point. The numbers here add up to about 2,100,000. Stalin killed that many (or so) in the Ukraine (sp) ALONE. Face it, the WORST atrocities that can POSSIBLY be blamed on the U.S. (which seems to be a lot - at least by people whose vested interests are in such things) pale in comparasion to those perpetrated by the Communist regiemes of the 20th century. Oh yes, I do believe there have been several hundred thousand killed more or less directly by the Soviets in Afghanistan (I don't have the real numbers on the top of my head). -- Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas (Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots) "The ennui is overpowering" - Marvin clyde@ut-ngp.{UUCP,ARPA} clyde@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA} ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde
rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (06/05/84)
To be really complete in considering national crimes, how can you ignore the genocide practiced against the American Indians?
larry@grkermit.UUCP (06/05/84)
"However, at least in this country, we have a right to make that comparison without being shipped off to a Gulag." I'm sure the people who were killed in vietnam and salvador will be very glad to hear that.
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (06/05/84)
Do you really believe that the numbers involved in attrocities have any bearing on the degree of dispicability of the crime - what difference does it make whether 1000 or 6 000 000 are killed? marcus hand (pyuxt!marcus)
hgp@houem.UUCP (Howard Page) (06/06/84)
>> >> Yeah, I know of some you missed: >> >> Johnson >> Nixon 2 million Vietnamese, 50,000 Americans >> >> Reagan 40,000 Salvadoran victims of death squads >> that are part of government forces armed >> and trained by the Reagan regime. >This only underscores the original point. The numbers here add up to about >2,100,000. Stalin killed that many (or so) in the Ukraine (sp) ALONE. > >Face it, the WORST atrocities that can POSSIBLY be blamed on the U.S. >(which seems to be a lot - at least by people whose vested interests are >in such things) pale in comparasion to those perpetrated by the >Communist regiemes of the 20th century. >Oh yes, I do believe there have been several hundred thousand killed >more or less directly by the Soviets in Afghanistan (I don't have the >real numbers on the top of my head). It's not that I don't disagree with the numbers, but is a murderer who kills one person simply half as bad as a murderer who kils two ? Answer only with a simple YES or NO! :-) H.G. Page ..!ihnp4!houem!hgp
david@rand-unix.UUCP (David Shlapak) (06/06/84)
--- >Bob Brown writes: > > > >...... our Communist friends have quite a record: > > > > Lenin ? > > > > > > Stalin 2-3 million Ukranians starved 1930's > > Stalin 10 million ? purges and death lists > > > > Mao 30 to 50 million ? Nobody knows for sure. > > > > Pol Pot 2.5 million Cambodians > > > >Anybody know of some I missed ? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Yeah, I know of some you missed: > > Johnson > Nixon 2 million Vietnamese, 50,000 Americans > > Reagan 40,000 Salvadoran victims of death squads > that are part of government forces armed > and trained by the Reagan regime. > > > Flame on self-righteous ones! > > Andy Berman > Gee, I don't know, I've only read about it, but it seems to me that the Communists had a lot to do with all those poor Vietnamese who died....but I guess that's just Fascist propaganda put out by the Reagan "regime," huh? As for the "40,000" killed by death squads in El Salvador, where is that figure from, "The Nation?" I like to think I'm reasonably current on these things, and I've never seen a figure CLOSE to that magnitude before...I'm NOT saying Andy Berman's wrong, just trying to get a source to consider... Uh, speaking of hypocrisy, Andy.... --- das
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (06/06/84)
bip.
Well, this is old news, and it is silly to blame "this country"
(as it exists now) for things that happened > 100 years ago, on the
other hand, "this country" takes a lot of credit for things it did
then, too.
I'm not sure what this comes out to in raw numbers, but consider
that Hitler (not a communist) destroyed about 40% (?) of the Jewish
population in his attempted genocide. Mao killed only a small
percentage of his population. The gov't. of the USofA was responsible
for the destruction of 99% of the native population of this land.
The president most responsible for this action is still an
honored hero in American culture, and enjoys center stage on our
$20 bill. At least in modern Russia Stalin has become a non-entity
(amazing how they do that), and in modern Germany Hitler is almost
unanimously rejected.
-Glennscw@cepu.UUCP (06/08/84)
>H.G. Page(..!ihnp4!houem!hgp) >It's not that I don't disagree with the numbers, but is a murderer who >kills one person simply half as bad as a murderer who kils two ? >Answer only with a simple YES or NO! :-) YES (I'll bicker with the ratio but a mass murder is worse that a single murder) -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
dire@dartvax.UUCP (06/08/84)
The figure of 40,000 killed means that many civilians killed in the
last three years of civil war, most of these deaths ( > 95%) are
atributed to government forces and paramilirary forces of the
right. These include the National Gaurd and the Treasury police.
The actual numbers come from many sources, a few are groups like
Anmesty International and America's Watch along with many organizations
affiliated with the Catholic Church.
--
John Macario
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!dire
CSNET: dire@dartmouth
ARPA: dire%dartmouth@csnet-relay
US MAIL: 10 TERRACE VIEW
Lebanon, NH 03766
"...it's even worse than it appears but it's all right..." crm@rti.UUCP (06/09/84)
What's more, the score accoring to these notes is about 44.5 million to 2+ million. Does that mean we're ~ 1/22nd as bad? How did you miss 50,000 per year in traffic accidents, killed because our politicians refuse to outlaw automobiles?
lab@qubix.UUCP (06/09/84)
Lest we forget:
Alcohol: 25,000 PER YEAR just on the highways alone (and who can
count all the shootings (drunkenness contributes to
"accidents"), stabbings, etc., resulting from
intoxication (or maybe intoxication started the argument
that caused it ...)?)
Abortions: 1,500,000 PER YEAR since 1973. The slaughter of the
innocents continues...
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPAdya@unc-c.UUCP (06/09/84)
References: qubix.1186
Cigarettes: the largest single cause of environmentally
produced cancer in the world....sharp@kpnoa.UUCP (06/10/84)
Everyone go out and read the books by Lewis Fry Richardson called
Statistics of Deadly Quarrels (edited by Q.Wright & C.C.Lienau) and Arms and
Insecurity; a Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War (edited
by N.Rashevsky & E.Trucco), both published by Boxwood Press, Pittsburgh.
There's also a follow-up book called Deadly Quarrels, by David Wilkinson,
University of California Press. Therein you will find all the numbers you
want about deaths, together with who fought whom and why. Then perhaps this
`discussion' will be better informed.
--
Nigel Sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories
Tucson, Arizona (602) 325-9273
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,lbl-csam,seismo}!noao!sharp
ARPA: noao!sharp@lbl-csam.arparcc@imsvax.UUCP (06/11/84)
>The worst part is that there is no one out there listening who can say >that these people would not do that. Kill a man for his religion. The >attitude is so prevelent in the world that you don't even blink an eye >and disclaim the probability. Yet each of these religions teaches love >and peace. I started the entire controversy with a statement about >religions and then added that religious fanatics are just more dangerous >because they have more followers. I have not seen anything on the net >to make me change my mind. > From the (death weary) Soapbox of > Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} > > THE PEACE YOU WILL FIND IN YOUR SOUL > IS THE PEACE YOU HAVE GIVEN TO OTHERS Agreed. Though religions may advocate tolerance, in practice, many develop the attitude that someone who is not a believer is somehow inferior and not "human", thus killing them isn't such a big deal. This also spills over into attitudes about culture and the superiority of one culture over the other. These attitudes aren't the sole property of Judeao-Christian (sp?) religions either, although they can provide many spectacular examples. -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen umcp-cs!eneevax!imsvax!rcc (NEW ADDRESS)
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (06/12/84)
bip.
Just one disagreement with Tom?s statement that Hitler was
persecuting Jews because of their religion, not their race: wrong-o.
Jews were persecuted on both counts. It was easier to find Jews
who were actively practicing Judaism, but there were a LOT of Jewish
Christians, agnostics, etc. killed in WWII simply because of their
ancestry (There are at least some mentioned in "The Hiding Place", if
you want a source). Furthermore, Hitler's stated reasons for his
dealings with the Jewish people had nothing to do with their beliefs.
Also, to defend my statement about "The president most responsible
for the Indian genocide..." being Jackson -- I misstated that. It
should have been "the president responsible for the most deaths" --
and not in the Indian Wars, but the "Trail of Tears".
I know that the original discussion was on relgion/war, but
it seems to have migrated to a discussion of "Is the USA morally
superior to other countries". My opinion on that is that I don't
believe 'moral' makes much sense applied to countries, at least
not applied evenly throughout their history. Certain policies of
the government of country X could be moral or immoral, but
"The USA" is too ephemeral a beast to pin morals on. The policies
of the United States have been, I believe, more immoral than moral,
but also no worse than most countries.
-Glennmwm@ea.UUCP (06/13/84)
#R:ihuxm:-100800:ea:10100050:000:402 ea!mwm Jun 12 18:06:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / grkermit!larry / 8:22 pm Jun 7, 1984 */ "However, at least in this country, we have a right to make that comparison without being shipped off to a Gulag." I'm sure the people who were killed in vietnam and salvador will be very glad to hear that. /* ---------- */ Of course, those who died in the bulge and argonne forest battles will be glad to hear it, too. <mike
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (06/15/84)
<...>
You forgot to mention Pinochet.
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietblack@nisysg.DEC (03/29/85)
>> Does the Canadian government actually violate this fundamental right? >> [Greg Kuperberg] >I have to agree with Greg on this one. I think Nazis, Communists, >Ku Klux Klan members *all* should have the right to speak and express >their opinions. I was upset to hear that a speech by members of the >Army War College at a university in New York City was interrupted by >catcalls and a melee to the point they were not allowed to speak. >So long as those people who support peace rather than war also have the >right to speak I see nothing wrong with letting militarists try to >defend their position. > tim sevener whuxl!orb I'm glad we agree on *something*! >Mr. Black's articles have always been churning with passionate >convictions with little evidence. But I think he has gone a little >too far this time. Is he really subtly suggesting that 6 million Jews >were not massacred in WW II? No, I'm not saying anything subtly. I'm saying right out that I personally do not believe the story of the Holocaust. >>> From Don Black: >> Some interesting points were raised, including the fact that the >> judge failed to take judicial notice that the Holocaust actually took >> place thus placing the burden of proof that it took place on the plaintiff. >> Scientific and forensic evidence was presented by Zundel that it never took >> place. Alleged eyewitnesses to the event were time and again proven >> to be telling falsehoods. >> >> This is exactly the thing that Constitutional reformers want for the >> United States. They don't want anybody to go digging around in Orwellian >> Memory Holes, so they can spout only their version of history. Granted >> some horrible things took place during World War 2. But at least let's >> get at the truth, whatever it may be. The court record of the Ernst Zundel trial is a public record in Toronto, is it not? The Associated Press went into detail about the testimony, both eyewitness and expert. The cat is out of the bag. Somebody is speaking with forked tongue. Let's find out the truth. >"Granted some horrible things took place"! Mr. Black if you want why don't >you go to Germany and visit Auschwitz at first hand for yourself. Read >"The Diary of Anne Frank", read William Shirer's account of the rise and >fall of the Third Reich. The figure of 6 million Jews killed may be >more or less than the actual number. That millions were killed and the >rest persecuted by the Nazis is a fact which cannot be reasonably disputed. Oh, yes, I CAN dispute the "millions killed." Just because something is repeated over and over, it isn't automatically the truth. I'd love to go to Auschwitz to do my own research. I'm sure that the story of the Holocaust will stand up against scientific forensic evidence. I've read several of Mr. Shirer's books--"Berlin Diary," "The End of a Berlin Diary," "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." I've also read "The Diary of Anne Frank." And about 200 other books on World War II. (May I suggest "The Arms of Krupp," by William Manchester?) They still don't "prove" the killing of SIX MILLION Jews. I could accept a total of six million war casualties, but not six million of one particular group. And while we're on the subject, we all seem to be ignoring the problems faced by Jew and Christian alike under the various Communist regimes world- wide. For example, Lenin and Stalin have not been condemned for the genocide of 140 million Christians, Jews, and Moslems after the Bolshevic Revolution. And how about the ongoing genocide in Afganhistan? >Or how about this piece of paranoia?: >> I'm proud to be an American chuavinist. The United Nations is nothing >> more than a hotbed of Communist infiltrators, formed by Communist conspirators, >> to serve the purposes of international Communism. The lion only wants to >> lay down with the lamb in its belly. Why is it that American blood gets shed >> every time some little banana republic has a revolt? We get engaged in so >> many petty quarrels that we fail to see the real issues, the problems >> here at home that are destroying our own society. >Are you telling me that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were "Communist >conspirators"? You do realize that Roosevelt was as much as anyone else >the founder of the United Nations don't you? But *of course* Roosevelt >was that commie that sponsored the New Deal. He was also the most subtle >of Communists since he did hardly anything that might prove that he was >actually a Communist. He even fooled major industrialists to serve on >the various Economic Boards during World War II- these premier capitalists >never once suspecting that really Roosevelt was a Communist. >Not only that but he got Henry Wallace to launch his own Progressive >campaign for President so that Roosevelt would look like a moderate >when Wallace said he was too conservative. >"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck: > it must be a cow!!" You said a mouthfull. I said at the beginning that we agreed on a few things. About the only thing you missed is that the Comintern and the elected US government was at the time, and still is, controlled by the international banking cartel in New York. (I like the term "American Chauvinist." I'm going to get a lot of mileage out of it.) >I'll bet you didn't know Mr. Black that actually our whole society is going >to pot because it's been infiltrated by *aliens from outer space*. >How do I know? Well, I leave it to you to prove otherwise. All I have to >do is make the statement, *I* don't have to present any evidence for it. You miss the true source of the Aliens. Whereever they originate, they're streaming into the country across our southern border, and nobody has any inclination to stop them. It doesn't matter that they're placing a tremendous burden on the American public, or they they are carrying diseases such as tuberculosis, leprosy, and plague. It doesn't matter that they have occupied Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago (by official INS figures). (Aahhhh-- Black is anti-Hispanic, too! So I set myself up for more denunciations. What else is new? Sorry, Charley! In this case, my information is the PUBLIC RECORD of the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service. Stick that one in yer ear.) >Please present your evidence that > 1)Roosevelt was a Communist > 2)our society has *not* been infiltrated by *aliens from outer space* >tim sevener whuxl!orb The discussion of item 2 belongs in net.ufo. I would refer the reader to an organization called MUFON for more information. Now how about this goodie: >> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. > >I don't think you meant quite what you said. > >Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, >I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, >nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. > >Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," >and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. > >Or did you mean something else? > > > --Andrew Koenig Andy, your words speak for themselves. You're obviously confused. I cannot "force" DECWRL to output my submissions. Nor can I "force" any individual to read them. (Did I twist your arm to turn on you terminal and read USENET?) >If my reputation gets ruined because people accuse me of being a Communist >whether such accusations are true or not, then our country will have come >to a sorry state and I also do not want a stake in any system which would >ruin someone on such a basis. We may be heading in that direction but >I doubt that the situation will reach the point it did under McCarthyism. >The time for that is past. What may become the new basis of persecution >if the New Right has its way is "secular humanism". As netters may be aware >several years ago the Congress very foolishly acceded to right-wingers >demand to ban "secular humanism" from the nation's schools. That nobody >has been able to clearly define "secular humanism" (except that it is >every reasonable conclusion of science that the ranting right disagrees >with) does not prevent its possibility for being used as a tool of >persecution-it may even make it better, for how can one disprove that one >is a "secular humanist"? >Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin does this all sound vaguely familiar? > tim sevener whuxl!orb > democratic socialist and proud of it! Nowadays, it's a heckova lot easier to smear somebody's reputation by calling him a "Nazi" or a "racist," or by even suggesting that he's anti- semetic. It's quite fashionable to be a Communist, a socialist, etc. I guess people figure that if they identify with the One-World-Government conspiracy, they might be treated better when it gets here. But God help those who oppose it. By the way, the term "Nazi" is derived from the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialist workers party--Hmmmm, where have we heard that term before? I can see you haven't done too much homework on Humanism, Tim. Humanism was defined for the first time in 1933 in the booklet "The Humanist Manifesto," which was signed by (amongst others) R. Lester Mondale (does the name Mondale ring a bell?) and the "renowned" educator John Dewey. There are actually at least two booklets in the series, Manifesto I and II.) Humanism was recognized as a religion by the US Supreme Court in Torasco vs Watkins (367 US 488). Check the footnotes on the decision for more information and references. Now, assuming that Humanism is defined as a religion, why is it OK for the Left to require that Christianity be purged from the schools, but it is not OK for the "ranting right" to complain about Humanism? Isn't that rather hypocritical? (Why is it that the Right is always "ranting" and "raving?" I don't understand.) I submit that it might be better if the government schools stuck to the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and left the teaching of ethics, values, religion, sex, et alia to the parents, where it belongs. As for persecution because of a belief in Humanism, you shouldn't have any problem, so long as nobody messes with the Constitution. Freedom of religion and all that good stuff, you understand. Now, mess with the Constitution, and I promise there will be many p*****-off patriots out in the streets carrying Chairman Mao's source of power. I mourn the loss of Freedom of Speech and Expression in Canada. Well, your constitution was the decision of the Canadian people. You voted it in, you live with it. Some day it will bite you. And then it might be too late. Can you imagine if we had similar laws here in the States? Louis Farakhan would be behind bars, for sure. And then we'd have ten million or so of his followers holding New York City as ransom for his release. And you know what? I'd be there helping! The J.D.L. would have been run out of town years ago. We never would have been able to whip up enough patriotic fervor to win either world war ("Why fight 'em? Ain't we supposed to love 'em?"). John Brown's material probably would have been banned thus prolonging the agonies of slavery. So be grateful. The pendulum swings both ways. It's a shame that Communists (that is, the little guy out in the trenches) don't understand that they are the pawns of the very capitalists they are supposed to be destroying. The same people that financed the Bolshevic Revolution are the exact same people that bought out the Wilson administration, and they've bought out every national election since. Communism is only the facade for bigger, worse things. They need a diversion, an external threat, while they play their little mind games and consolidate their power internally. Americans only see the handwriting on the wall when their backs are to it. For more information on Communism, I recommend the publications of the John Birch Society, whose addresses are 395 Concord Avenue Belmont MA 02178 (Right next to the post office, near the railroad station. From Harvard, take the Belmont Center bus to the end of the line. Open Monday thru Friday, 9 to 5.) and 2627 Mission St. San Marino CA 91108 In Hoc signo, vinces. Don Black
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/01/85)
Is this paranoid populist serious ?????
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (04/02/85)
All right, Mr. Black; I can no longer sit on the fence on this anymore. I have said that you were not worth attacking. You are not. But you are worth rebutting. I do hope you reason, as that is what I am trying to do. In article <1385@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > >>Mr. Black's articles have always been churning with passionate >>convictions with little evidence. But I think he has gone a little >>too far this time. Is he really subtly suggesting that 6 million Jews >>were not massacred in WW II? > > No, I'm not saying anything subtly. I'm saying right out that I >personally do not believe the story of the Holocaust. > >>>> From Don Black: >>> Some interesting points were raised, including the fact that the >>> judge failed to take judicial notice that the Holocaust actually took >>> place thus placing the burden of proof that it took place on the plaintiff. This is due to the wording of the law, not the judge's opinion. The wording of the law will be changed. History should not be proven in the courts. >>> Scientific and forensic evidence was presented by Zundel that it never took >>> place. Alleged eyewitnesses to the event were time and again proven >>> to be telling falsehoods. Falsehoods are in the eye of the beholder. Can you refute the films? The verdict proved that there was some evidence for the plaintiff. >>> >>> This is exactly the thing that Constitutional reformers want for the >>> United States. They don't want anybody to go digging around in Orwellian >>> Memory Holes, so they can spout only their version of history. The question of the trial was the history. However, the charge was on inciting hatred of a racial group. Mr. Black, you do realize that you are condoning hatred, don't you? Then, as a Christian, what do you think of Matthew 5:43-48? Agreed truth should win out; but, I question Zundel's motives. >>> Granted, >>> some horrible things took place during World War 2. But at least let's >>> get at the truth, whatever it may be. I agree, let's get at the truth. But, let's not hate people because we think they MAY have done something. I didn't see your postings for awhile; all I heard was your detractors. I condemned what you said, but I didn't and still do not hate you. >>"Granted some horrible things took place"! Mr. Black if you want why don't >>you go to Germany and visit Auschwitz at first hand for yourself. Read >>"The Diary of Anne Frank", read William Shirer's account of the rise and >>fall of the Third Reich. The figure of 6 million Jews killed may be >>more or less than the actual number. That millions were killed and the >>rest persecuted by the Nazis is a fact which cannot be reasonably disputed. > > Oh, yes, I CAN dispute the "millions killed." Just because something is >repeated over and over, it isn't automatically the truth. I'd love to go to >Auschwitz to do my own research. I'm sure that the story of the Holocaust >will stand up against scientific forensic evidence. Assuming you ment that the Holocaust would not stand up against your investigation, I would like to see you try and do this investigation WITHOUT your prior bias. I realize that every historian has a bias, but you have called for the oppression of the people who you are researching. Your bias is acute. Other historians are biased as well, but hatred?!? Admittedly, there would be some hatred of the Nazi-regime. But, recently, (the name and place are lost from me right now) a war-criminal in the U.S. calmly said "Yes I did it. But, you have to understand the times." I do not understand the times, as he would put it, but I do understand the first phrase. Is that unbiased evidence.(I believe that this story was in the March 30, Globe and Mail or the March 31 Toronto Star; I'm sure someone can check it out and give the full details of the story). > I could accept six million war casulties, but not six million of one group. Is this because of your prior bias, or was this non-acceptance arrived at scientifically? You have to accept something for evidence. History is based on documentation, not on theory. Apart from your "Holocaust Hoax" material, where is your evidence? >>>Why is it that American blood gets shed >>> every time some little banana republic has a revolt? We get engaged in so >>> many petty quarrels that we fail to see the real issues, the problems >>> here at home that are destroying our own society. The U.S. hasn't sent a "real" peacekeeping force, under the U.N.'s banner, for years. You've been to busy worrying about your own problems in Grenada, in Vietnam, in Bierut, in Guatemala.... > >Are you telling me that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were "Communist >>conspirators"? You do realize that Roosevelt was as much as anyone else >>the founder of the United Nations don't you? > > About the only thing you missed is that the Comintern and the elected >US government was at the time, and still is, controlled by the international >banking cartel in New York. Prove it. With unbiased evidence of course. > >>I'll bet you didn't know Mr. Black that actually our whole society is going >>to pot because it's been infiltrated by *aliens from outer space*. >>How do I know? Well, I leave it to you to prove otherwise. All I have to >>do is make the statement, *I* don't have to present any evidence for it. > > You miss the true source of the Aliens. Whereever they originate, >they're streaming into the country across our southern border, and nobody >has any inclination to stop them. It doesn't matter that they're placing >a tremendous burden on the American public, or they they are carrying >diseases such as tuberculosis, leprosy, and plague. It doesn't matter that >they have occupied Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago (by official INS figures). >(Aahhhh-- Black is anti-Hispanic, too! So I set myself up for more >denunciations. What else is new? Sorry, Charley! In this case, my >information is the PUBLIC RECORD of the Federal Immigration and Naturalization >Service. Stick that one in yer ear.) Excuse me here, but he did ask where your proof is. Mr. Black: Jews and Hispanics and athiests, and communists and socialists, and democrats, and yes, even the bankers of New York are all people. Do you believe that there is a hierarchy of humanity? Hey, I'll let you in on a secret. White Protestant Americans are just as low in God's sight as the rest of us. *** Romans 3:22-25 *** Of course, you may ignore that as Paul was a Jew, Galatians 1:13, don't ya know? >>Please present your evidence that >> 1)Roosevelt was a Communist >> 2)our society has *not* been infiltrated by *aliens from outer space* >>tim sevener whuxl!orb > >>> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >>> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >>> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. I agree about your right, although I do not think Constitutions should be written in stone, never to be changed. But, you do not have the right to incite hatred of Jews, Hispanics, bankers, etc. That is an abuse of privelage. >> tim sevener whuxl!orb >> democratic socialist and proud of it! > > Nowadays, it's a heckova lot easier to smear somebody's reputation by >calling him a "Nazi" or a "racist," or by even suggesting that he's anti- >semetic. It's quite fashionable to be a Communist, a socialist, etc. I >guess people figure that if they identify with the One-World-Government >conspiracy, they might be treated better when it gets here. First, have you read any Marx? No not Groucho(a little bit of humour don't ya know; he was Jewish as was Marx)! There is a difference between socialism and communism. And, in today's thinking there is even more of a difference between the two. Witness, the socialist government in B.C.; it's roots are in socialism but it's head is in conservatism. And witness, the various socialist governments in Europe; most are purging themselves of any communist influence. And, as for your One world government theory, the commies in Europe are not, I repeat not, taking orders from Moscow anymore. I'm no lover of the communist system, as I would be oppressed as much in it as under you guys, but, if some people had their druthers, we would live in a capatalist One World Government. Neither is any good. > But God help >those who oppose it. God helps everybody, even Gorbachev. *** Romans 3:22 *** If they want it. > > By the way, the term "Nazi" is derived from the Nationalsozialistische >deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party. >Socialist workers party--Hmmmm, where have we heard that term before? Social Credit comes from a socialist idea of the 1920's. Do you think they, the most conservative government in all of Canada, are in on the conspiracy to? If so, prove it. > I can see you haven't done too much homework on Humanism, Tim. >Humanism was defined for the first time in 1933 in the booklet "The >Humanist Manifesto," which was signed by (amongst others) R. Lester >Mondale (does the name Mondale ring a bell?) Just an aside. That's one reason why I kind of laughed every time I heard Mondale say, "I was a preacher's kid." He was but, not the type of preacher most people think about. >and the "renowned" educator >John Dewey. There are actually at least two booklets in the series, >Manifesto I and II.) Humanism was recognized as a religion by the US >Supreme Court in Torasco vs Watkins (367 US 488). Check the footnotes >on the decision for more information and references. > > Now, assuming that Humanism is defined as a religion, why is it OK >for the Left to require that Christianity be purged from the schools, but it >is not OK for the "ranting right" to complain about Humanism? Isn't that >rather hypocritical? (Why is it that the Right is always "ranting" and >"raving?" I don't understand.) I submit that it might be better if the >government schools stuck to the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic, >and left the teaching of ethics, values, religion, sex, et alia to the parents, >where it belongs. I wish I could agree with you on this, but religion will NEVER be purged (good communist word that, nyet?) from the school system. The teaching of values is an important part of the school system. It is one reason why schools exist. > As for persecution because of a belief in Humanism, you shouldn't have >any problem, so long as nobody messes with the Constitution. Freedom of >religion and all that good stuff, you understand. Now, mess with the >Constitution, and I promise there will be many p*****-off patriots out >in the streets carrying Chairman Mao's source of power. Note: I remember in the beginning of this discussion,Mr.Black, you wrote that you would edit all obscenities. Question: Why are you using them? Crummy witness. Admonishment, don't ya know? Now, persecution happens with and without a constitution. One of the fallacies of the U.S. is that a constitution brings human rights. Constitutions are not read by everybody. With or without a constitution, people will be persecuted, both Christians and Humanists. Life is like that. > I mourn the loss of Freedom of Speech and Expression in Canada. Well, >your constitution was the decision of the Canadian people. You voted it in, >you live with it. Some day it will bite you. And then it might be too late. Seems to me YOUR constituition ain't much better. Some freedom of religion, when you can't even put up a creche of the nativity, if you vote for it. Our constitution has a proviso which says that parliament can overturn, with the consent of the provinces, any of the constitutions parts. I believe you have a similar proviso on your ammmendments. The difference is we have a smaller system of government, which, by consent of the people, has been given a lot of free reign to do what ever they want. We trust our governments; you guys trust your constitution. > Can you imagine if we had similar laws here in the States? Louis >Farakhan would be behind bars, for sure. And then we'd have ten million or You overestimate Farakham's sway. >so of his followers holding New York City as ransom for his release. And >you know what? I'd be there helping! The J.D.L. would have been run out >of town years ago. We never would have been able to whip up enough patriotic >fervor to win either world war ("Why fight 'em? Ain't we supposed to >love 'em?"). I could make a plea for Christian pacifism here; but let me just mention a few verses. Matthew 5:38-48 Psalm 11:5 Deuteronomy10:19(aliens) Mark 9:50 Romans12:17-21 Hebrews 12:14 >John Brown's material probably would have been banned thus >prolonging the agonies of slavery. So be grateful. The pendulum swings both >ways. John Brown incited hatred; he killed people. No evil is worth the death of others. > It's a shame that Communists (that is, the little guy out in the trenches) >don't understand that they are the pawns of the very capitalists they are >supposed to be destroying. The same people that financed the Bolshevic >Revolution are the exact same people that bought out the Wilson administration, >and they've bought out every national election since. Communism is only >the facade for bigger, worse things. They need a diversion, an external >threat, while they play their little mind games and consolidate their power >internally. Americans only see the handwriting on the wall when their >backs are to it. Proof, please supply dicumentation that does not start with that assumption and then tries to prove it. > > For more information on Communism, I recommend the publications of >the John Birch Society, whose addresses are Nice unbiased material there, eh? > > Don Black Mr. Black, in summary: 1. Provide documentary, unbiased material. Don't make an idea and try to prove it. That's bad history. And answer the qustion. Don't go off on some tangent. 2. If you call yourself a Christian, read your Bible with an eye towards what God will tell you, not what you will let Him tell you. In admonishment, DAVE BROWN I CORINTHIANS 4:14 I AM NOT WRITING THIS TO SHAME YOU, BUT TO WARN YOU, AS MY DEAR CHILDREN.