I'm going to cut to the chase here and just answer the points in your last post that I feel need addressing. There are several, as usual, but I'm not going to bother to explain myself any further. This message will include references for readers to check on their own to verify points on which you and I disagree. And, if the next message from you continues in the same tone as all your previous messages, I shall refrain from responding at all. You can claim that as a victory if you like and go storm a beer hall, or whatever it is that people like you do when victorious over the evil Jew. I don't care.
1. The only self-professed Jew whose Jewishness I said I doubted was Ditlieb Felderer. I gave my reasons for doubting this. Clearly just because one says one is Jewish does not make it so. I allowed for the possibility that he is Jewish, and I stated that if he is Jewish, then I feel sorry for his parents, because they have raised trash. What I have not done, as you claim, is wantonly disavow the Jewishness of everyone who claims they are Jewish out of inconvenience.
2. I do not "agree on the matter of Aryan stupidity." I asked you not to put words in my mouth. Unlike you, I do not judge entire groups of people, nor do I judge individuals based on their basically involuntary membership in groups. If you choose to do so, that is your choice, but kindly do not make me complicit in such bigoted assumptions.
3. Shahak's assessments of Zionism and Israel may, in certain cases, be correct, but in trying to tie in Jewish law, as he does in Jewish History, Jewish Religion, he engages in enormous lies. I gave you a reference that proves that Shahak is a known liar, but you never bothered to check it, or if you did, you chose not to mention it. So, to address the interested reader, please see the journal Tradition, Volume 8, Issue 2 of 1966. Read the article entitled "L'Affaire Shahak" by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits. See how Shahak was asked to produce witnesses to the events he describes in the introduction to Jewish History, Jewish Religion. See how Shahak admitted he made the story up. This information has been in circulation for 34 years, and Shahak has never addressed it. He instead relies on the ignorance of his readers. World Wide Web users can find excerpts here, submitted by a friend who chooses to remain anonymous: http://www.reportersnotebook.com/wwwboard/messages/33.html
4. I am unaware of any "lambasting" of Lassalle by Marx. You claim that what you write is "subject to independent verification and originates with [J]ewish sources." What would be helpful, in the future, is for you to offer your sources up front.
5. I think that we have beaten the issue of Lenin's Jewishness to death. All that can be conclusively proven is that he had one Jewish grandfather. Under the Nuremberg laws, that makes his a mischlinge [more on this later]. If that suffices for you, then he's a Jew.
6. Hitler was "smeared" as being Jewish early in his career in attempts to discredit him. Because his father was illegitimate, it was easy to speculate on Hitler's ancestry. However, no one has ever given conclusive proof of Hitler being Jewish. You write, "If Dr. Mathis agrees with Hitler's enemies, then he would deem Hitler 'jewish' [sic]. If Dr. Mathis denies Hitler's [J]ewish status, then he would appear to be one of Hitler's friends." Mr. Thomson, I am not required to accept that Hitler had Jewish ancestry just because I am an enemy of Hitler. The reasons to hate Hitler are legion; the issue of his alleged Jewishness is irrelevant. Furthermore, you fail to see any grey area between being a "friend" or "enemy" of Hitler, and you link this all to whether or not I accept Hitler having Jewish ancestry. The logic used to construct this argument is extraordinarily poor. I suggest you consult an introductory book on constructing logical arguments, and that you specifically review the section on logical fallacies.
7. Ignoring my having given you the correct Georgian word for "Jewish," you persist in labeling Stalin Jewish and refer to your "research." Please provide this research you speak of. By the way, the Kaganovich you speak of – Lazar Kaganovich, the "Wolf of the Kremlin" – was Stalin's brother-in-law, not his father-in-law. Obviously, the father-in-law would also be called Kaganovich (a very Jewish name, by the way), but he was not the so-called Wolf.
8. Please provide some proof that Skryabin is a Jewish surname. I offered you the evidence that "Molotov" is merely Russian for "hammer" and Molotov never went by the Germanic name Hammer. Now you shift your ground and claim that Skryabin is a Jewish surname. Evidence is now required. Kindly refrain from referring to your "research" without producing it. Thank you in advance.
9. When alleging the Jewishness of leaders of the Soviet Union, please supply your references. I have tried to do the same on issues. It's a matter of courtesy. I am more than willing to accept the Jewishness of several leading Soviets (Trotsky, Kamenev, Litvinov, etc.). I believe I have sufficiently shown that Stalin was not a Jew. If you want to persist in showing that Andropov and others were Jews, offer me sources and, preferably, page numbers. I am a busy man and don't have the time to spend trying to disprove non-backed claims. As I have stated many times, I am content to admit I am wrong when so proven.
10. "Rabbi" does not mean "teacher." The Hebrew rabbi translates more properly as "my master." Mastery may encompass teaching, but the term is more one of respect than educational ability. The Hebrew for "teacher" is moreh.
11. You write, "Rabbis do not equate Zionism with Judaism, but they strongly support the Zionist state of Israel." This statement proves nothing, but let's follow through a bit. How about the Satmarer Chasidim, who are violently anti-Zionist? How about the Neturey Karta sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who live in Jerusalem but recognize Yasir Arafat as their legitimate leader? In fact, most ultra-Orthodox Jews are not Zionist, because Zionism is a violation of Jewish Law. Pursuant to this, you write, "Rabbis disagree, but does this disagreement stem from ignorance of their religion? I doubt it." Well, it would depend on the case. Two Orthodox rabbis making a ruling on Jewish Law may have a disagreement, and a vote would be taken to settle the issue. Rabbinical law is based largely on majority votes over disagreements in interpretation of Jewish Oral Law. However, in the case of Reform Judaism, and your favorite Reform Jew, Rabbi Wise, we are dealing with a denomination of Judaism that is largely ignorant of the Oral Law, particularly during R' Wise's era. So in the case of R' Wise disagreeing with an Orthodox rabbi on any number of issues (kosher law, sabbath observance, Zionism), Wise would be significantly disadvantaged by being ignorant of the Oral Law. Reform Judaism was based largely on rejection of the Oral Law. That being the case, it is a very fair assessment to state that a disagreement between rabbis may "stem from ignorance of their religion."
12. Looking over your statements about Theodore Kaufman's book, I must ask again that, in the future, you put your evidence up front. I get a strong feeling that you get your jollies from a feeling of oneupsmanship gained from my inability to prove or disprove something when you give me nothing but your word to work with.
13. I mention the Max Taubner verdict, and you throw out the "human soap" libel. In logical circles, we call that a "red herring." We should note than an Israeli historian, Yehuda Bauer, was instrumental in disproving the human soap story. But you never addressed the Taubner verdict. Why not? Is it too damning? Interested parties can read the Max Taubner verdict in the book The Good Old Days, edited by Ernst Klee et al. The verdict is also online at http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/t/ftp.py?people/t//taubner.max
You offer more red herrings and do not address the notes from Himmler's Posen speech. Why not? Are they too damning?
And "historian David Irving"? Pardon me while I laugh. More on that below.
14. I have read Hilberg, albeit only the most recent edition. Perhaps he did, at one time, believe a written order existed for the extermination of the Jews. No reputable historian I know of today believes such an order exists; in all likelihood, one does not. Eichmann said that the order was oral, but that the order was clear – exterminate the Jews. I find it noteworthy that Eichmann never tried to deny the extermination of the Jews. His defense was a "chain of command" defense, which many tried at Nuremberg and failed.
15. Please offer some proof that Stalin planned to conquer all of Europe. If I recall correctly, Stalin stood in direct opposition to Trotsky, who believed in continual, worldwide revolution, in that Comrade Stalin believed in "socialism in one state." This statement of policy was made in, I believe, 1942 (the "Man of the Year" issue of Time for that year is on Stalin and mentions this policy). Note that the U.S. did not enter the war as a direct combatant until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. I choose to believe that, like most military experts at the time, the U.S. knew that Hitler had committed a fatal error. Thus, U.S. involvement in the war was less a matter of getting rid of Hitler than containing Stalin. Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, England may have made a separate peace with Germany eventually and there might be a Greater Reich on the Continent today. Because of Hitler's monumental error, we will never know.
16. I must confess my own ignorance in not knowing that Intourist was a Soviet tourist agency. If that is the case (I have no reason to believe you're lying), then I am less inclined to doubt the validity of the ad you mention. However, we must now consider that the ad's orientation was therefore Communist rather than Jewish (and no, they're not the same thing). A rather large portion of Jewish Law has to do with the disposition of private property; if Communism proposes the abolition of private property, then how can Communism be "Jewish"? Still, seeing is believing. I have not seen the ad you mention, and until you supply me with the issue of the Canadian Jewish News in which said ad appeared, I will choose the old Scottish verdict of "not proven."
17. You write, "If National Socialism and fascism do not belong to the Germans and the Italians who adopted them, then to whom do they belong?" I believe you misunderstood me. I stated that Nazism was not German and Fascism not Italian as a means of stating that philosophies transcend their creators (Hitler, a German, created Nazism; Mussolini, an Italian, created Fascism). Of course Nazism could be said to "belong" to the Germans of the Third Reich and Fascism to the Italians of the Mussolini regime. But Fascism must also then "belong" to Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Marcos' Philippines, and so forth. I hope my point is more clear now.
18. You write, "The fact that wealthy people tend to be more intelligent than poor people is more a sign of the influence of heredity over that of environment." First of all, wealthy people are not more intelligent than poor people; they merely score better on the SAT. Second, the truth is not that heredity conquers environment, but that inheritance conquers environment. In a nation with a highly confiscatory inheritance tax, where individuals are forced to compete on an even field, correlations between wealth and "intelligence" are far less conclusive.
19. On Berkowitz and Dahmer, you write, "Is the judgement as to their psychological and criminal status 'abitrary'?" Of course not, but then both men were/are psychotic and not neurotic. You have yet to address this distinction, which I first made weeks ago. Furthermore, I never stated that criminal status was arbitrary.
20. You write, "No, England has not thrived as a nation as the direct result of [J]ewish influence." I did not say that it did. I merely said that England has thrived and so has its Jews.
21. You write, "To use a Krema (crematorium) for a gas chamber is ludicrous, for that would be like gassing someone in a gas oven, then striking a match to dispose of the body!" What you leave out is that gassings took place in one room, while cremation took place in another. The term Krema referred not only to the ovens but to the entire buildings.
21. You write, "Jew math is amazing: six million minus four million equals six million." Oddly, you say this in the same paragraph that you cite Hilberg, who never accepted the four million figure. How do you rectify this?
22. I may be incorrect in stating that the 74,000 figure comes from the Red Cross, but Arthur Butz does juxtapose the Red Cross inspection of Auschwitz (in which they were restricted from being shown the Kremas – see Hans Münch's testimony on this) and the death register figure. A simple question to ask one's self is this: If you intend on killing many people in a place upon their arrival, why bother counting them? The death register recorded the non-murderous deaths of prisoners who passed selection and worked. It is a ludicrously low figure. One need only consider the sheer cremation power that existed at Auschwitz (52 ovens, most with multiple muffles). Why build that many ovens for a mere 74,000 bodies? It would take only a month to dispose of all those bodies without a trace with that many ovens, and Auschwitz was in operation for four years.
23. You write, citing the Canadian Jewish News: "This means there were over 11 million [J]ews in German custody: 6 million gassees plus over 5 million ungassed [J]ews." Let's take this piece-by-piece. First of all, the Wannsee Protokol does in fact list 11 million Jews in the European sphere of influence (the figure includes French North Africa). Not all those Jews fell into Nazi hands, but many did. Second, no one has ever claimed that six million Jews were gassed. Hilberg, whom you're so fond of quoting, notes that nearly half of all deaths of Jews took place outside of the camps, and not all camp deaths were by gassing. It's another red herring. But the figure of five million Jewish survivors sounds about right. About a million went to the U.S. and Palestine each, perhaps two million to the Soviet Union, and the rest ended up in DP camps.
24. You write, "Contradictions in testimony generally discredit the witnesses who make such conflicting statements." I agree, but I was referring to one person's testimony contradicting another person's testimony. I do not believe Dr. Hilberg has contradicted himself under oath. It is true that Dr. Hilberg is not an historian or a statistician. He is a political scientist by training, as I believe you are also. Certainly the study of certain aspects of WWII would fall under that field of study. You accuse Hilberg of disregarding evidence that tended to disprove his theory. A recent British court ruling found that "historian David Irving" routinely does the same. Has any court ruled that Hilberg falsifies evidence or ignores contradictory evidence? Again, I have only your word to suggest that Hilberg does this. You conclude the paragraph here by stating, "Liars should at least do their homework so please pay attention, Dr. Mathis." You would seem to be implying that I am a liar. Do that again, and I am gone.
25. You state that Hilberg wrote that a deadly dose of HCN is one milligram per kilogram of body weight. Is that for a body louse or for a rat? The reason I ask is this: Even a person with only an introductory course in biology (me, for instance), knows that arthropods (insects, arachnids, some shellfish), have entirely different circulatory, nervous, and respiratory systems than mammals. Mammals are much more susceptible to cyanide gas than lice are. One of the reasons that rats are used in medical and psychological experiments is because the Order Rodentia is one of the closest to the Order Primates. Meanwhile, lice aren't even mammals; they're arthropods. We probably evolved, before we were apes, from small rodent-like creatures. We don't use insects in experiments to extrapolate conclusions about humans. My taxonomical terms may be off, but I think my point remains.
26. Mr. Thomson continues to bring up questions about the Holocaust that have been answered time and time again. Jean-Claude Pressac's book The Crematories of Auschwitz demonstrates rather clearly that not only was it possible to do the killing described in the time allotted, but that it was in fact done. It is a canard that "no trace" was left of the victims; remains were found at Treblinka, Belzec, and elsewhere. Also, noting Hilberg once again, we should keep in mind that a full quarter of the Jews killed were shot and not gassed on encamped otherwise. Interested parties should look at Hilberg's appendices, at Pressac's book, and on the Web here (particularly the works of Green and Zimmerman): http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/
27. I love the good old "Judea Declares War on Germany" angle. It's the "There was no Holocaust and the Jews deserved it" argument. Yes, Untermeyer ran that ad. Yes, a boycott followed. That was 1933. In what year was Mein Kampf first published? If a nation elected an openly anti-Semitic demagogue as its leader, don't you think that would elicit some reaction from Jews? White rule was threatened in Rhodesia and Harold Covington became a mercenary. See the similarity? Except Jews didn't take up arms or get violent. That was left for the Nazis to do.
I note that you critique my own views of socialism thus: "Dr. Mathis does not object to certain forms of socialism, as long as they are gradual and 'democratic'. Since Germany was in a state of economic emergency from 1918 until 1935, two years after Hitler's election, drastic means were certainly in order." Sorry, Mr. Thomson, but no emergency, unless military, merits the suspension of civil and human rights, the confiscation of property, and other measures taken by the Nazis (and Soviets).
28. My remarks on backing the Reichsmark with gold were not fully or correctly enunciated. Under Finance Minister Schacht, the Third Reich first operated on a system of credit and trade, but the principal goal of economic recovery was not the benefit of the Volk but the preparation for war. Once the war began, the Reich confiscated and traded in large amounts of gold to keep the war industry rolling. So my dates were off. This remains true: You stated that the Reich issued debt-free currency, and they did, in the form of rearmament bills that the Reichsbank then discounted. So those in the armaments industry did well, as did those in industries that helped out in rearming Germany. The average wage laborer, however, made around $7.00 a week. Interested parties will want to consult Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, particularly "Life in the Third Reich: 1933-1937."
29. The Soviet Union was not a tool of Zionism. Indeed, Zionism was considered "bourgeois" in the Soviet Union, and many refuseniks, notably Natan Sharansky, spent years in the Gulag Archipelago for expressing pro-Zionist sentiments. For the period between 1948 and 1967, the Soviet Union took a cool but generally friendly view towards Israel, but after the Six-Day War, the Soviet Union clearly sided with anti-Zionist Arab states. Any person can look at the historical record and see that this is true. The Soviets provided nations belligerent to Israel with massive amounts of aid. And when the Soviet Union fell, what did these Arab states do? They all ran to the peace table with Israel. I don't doubt that Churchill, Reed, Marx, Hess, and anyone else made predictions to the contrary of what history showed to be true. Churchill was, in my opinion, an idiot on many counts, as was Marx, though their idiocy came from different orientations. So I won't dismiss your sources as Nazi fiction, but I will point out that they are wrong.
30. I do work for a living, so kindly do not further insult me by suggesting that I do not. I was not funded during my doctoral studies and worked full-time jobs while living in New York City and paying NYC rents. Now I work two jobs because I don't have a full-time academic appointment. Life has not been easy for me economically. Do not pretend to know me.
31. Regarding economics, I will end my remarks by saying this: I ran your argument by two economists, and they both disagreed while disagreeing with each other. The Anglo-Irish Fabian socialist and anti-Semite George Bernard Shaw (I believe he wrote plays, too) said it best (in paraphrase): All the economists in the world laid end-to-end would not reach a conclusion.
32. I will restate for the final time that the Talmud is a compendium of opinions on the Oral Law, some of which constitute the Law as it should be practiced. But there are many dissenting opinions that don't constitute practical law. Do not deliberately misstate my points.
33. That you've changed your "quotation" from "talking beasts" to "beasts of the field" is amusing. The word used, behemoth, actually does translate as "beast of the field," though it's generally used to denote a hippopotamus these days. You write, "The references to Goyim as 'beasts' with 'no souls' or with 'satanic souls' seem quite popular in [J]ewish sources, Dr. Mathis' apologias to the contrary." Well, now you've made another claim without any evidence.
Here: I'll do you one better. Here are some genuine Talmudic quotes that anyone can look up on their own, OK?
Gittin 61a: "The rabbis taught: 'We support poor Gentiles with the poor people of Israel, and we visit sick Gentiles as well as the sick of Israel and we bury the dead of the Gentiles as well as the dead of Israel, because of the ways of peace."
Avoth 3, 14: "Rabbi Akiva was accustomed to say: Beloved is man [the word here is not Jew, but mankind], for he was created in God's image."
Hullin 7a tells how Pinchas ben Yair miraculously split a river to speed his way to carry out the commandment to redeem captives. He went out of his way to split the river again in order to allow a gentile who was accompanying his group to also cross the river to speed his way.
That should suffice for now. I should acknowledge Michael Gruda for these quotations.
34. You write, "It is much better to shed our blood fighting against our enemies, than to shed it fighting for them." I agree, Mr. Thomson, but I wonder if your enemies are real or imagined, and I still find it troubling that seem to find it necessary to fight at all.
35. You write, "As I recall, The Soncino Edition of The Babylonian Talmud includes The Cabala, which includes the Zohar." You recall incorrectly. Readers, head to a good university library and find the Soncino Talmud. You'll notice the Zohar is not part of it. The Kabbalah, by the way, is not a text, but the study of the Zohar, which is a text. You continue, "The Soncino Edition has been my only experience with The Babylonian Talmud, as it is in English." Mr. Thomson, there now exist three or four English translations of the Talmud. You bring up Prinatius' text on the Talmud, which actually includes alleged quotes that appear nowhere in the Talmud. Elizabeth Dilling I've never heard of, but I'd be willing to take a look at her "work." It's probably as laughable as Michael Hoffman's, which has been thoroughly refuted. I find it humorous that, after being proved wrong twice on the translation of Leviticus 18:23, you mention it again. Then you ask me to look up the Talmud quotes you want to use against me for you. As you note, Mr. Thomson, the Talmud is 60-plus volumes. Do you expect me to take time out from my schedule to aid you in assailing my religion? Keep dreaming!
36. You mention Robert Reich's dire predictions on NAFTA. Have they come true? If so, please provide verifiable statistics. Something from the Statistical Abstract would be best. As for the rest of your paragraph here, it's anecdotal evidence. Sources up front, please!
37. You continue your assault on Zionism by mentioning Victor Ostrovsky. I have no reason to doubt his plight; the Mossad views leaks as dangerous, just as the CIA does or Richard Nixon did. But what you're doing is using the tactics of some Zionists to attack all of Zionism. The only thing all Zionists share is the desire for a Jewish state. Anything beyond that – tactics, borders, population, etc. – is subject to debate. Why do you think Israel has so many political parties? I suggest you begin looking at Zionism as a spectrum of beliefs and not a monolithic entity. Of course, with your being the man who coined the term "ZOG," I doubt this will be a successful endeavor for you.
38. On a quick note: Salman Rushdie is not an "anti-Moslem writer." He is a Muslim, and Satanic Verses is a book that is remarkably affirmative of Islam if one chooses to read the whole book and not just parts that some mullahs have deemed offensive.
39. Your discussion of Max Lipson is interesting. I don't doubt that it's true, so I'll state for the record that I disagree with the tactics used against him. The best thing for "revisionism" is to let Ernst Zündel run his mouth. The more he says, the deeper into the fecal matter he gets himself. I believe in free speech for everyone, Mr. Thomson. Please be clear on that.
40. You mention a "Jewish author" named Black (I'll take your word for it) who was pressured for writing on Nazi-Zionist collaboration. Yehuda Bauer, Tom Segev, and Hannah Arendt have all written on the topic. I don't see why Black would suffer more than these three. As I said in a previous missive, dear dead Joe Burg wasn't hitting on much when he noted Nazi-Zionist collaboration. It has been known for years by people who have bothered to investigate it. Suggested text: Jews For Sale? by Yehuda Bauer.
41. You mention that I am a convert to Judaism. You've obviously been doing your research on me. This is a true statement. However, my grandmother (and thus my father) were/are Jews by birth. So I do know the people, as well as the books, thanks very much. I am what was defined at Nuremberg in 1935 as a mischlinge of the second degree. From 1935 to 1942, this would mean that I would be disallowed to marry anyone of Jewish ancestry, in order to eventually breed out Jewish blood. However, under provisions decided at Wannsee in 1942, second-degree mischlingen were to be treated as full-blooded Jews if they looked Semitic or were politically subversive. I fit both categories. Supreme Court Justice (and Jew) Louis Brandeis once said, "Anti-Semitism creates Jews." It did in my case.
You write, "Being a convert means that Dr. Mathis can always 'deconvert'." This is untrue, actually. A convert becomes, in the eyes of Judaism, as much a Jew as anyone else and cannot become "less" of a Jew than any other Jew – even a Jew who converts to Christianity. My grandmother converted to Catholicism before marrying my grandfather (whose last name I carry); he was a good Austrian Catholic like Adolf Hitler himself. My grandmother attended mass every Sunday and had a Mass of Christian Burial. The spring after she died, we received a letter from the State of Israel telling us that a tree had been planted in Israel in her honor. Despite renouncing Judaism, Jewish Law still saw her as being Jewish. Jewish Law also views my father as being Jewish, despite being raised Catholic.
You continue, "The rule of kosher female ancestry still applies, whether a [J]ew has synagogue membership or not, as Reformed Rabbi Momsen of Toronto discovered." First of all, the term is "Reform" not "Reformed." Second of all, the interested reader will want to consult the Biblical Book of Ruth, about a convert to Judaism. Ruth's most famous descendant was David, the King of Israel. By Jewish tradition, the messiah will come from David's line. By Christian tradition, he did. So much for the "rule of kosher female ancestry" if our messianic ideal is based on the line of a convert.
42. Back to your discourse: "Jewishness is not religious, per se for [J]ews distinguish between persons who are 'half-[J]ewish', etc. These partial [J]ews are also called 'mamzers' or 'bastards' by full-blooded [J]ews. Since [J]ewishness is a matter of blood, and not belief, such references to 'half-breeds' is logical. If [J]ewishness were strictly a religion, it would be absurd to say one is 'half-[J]ewish', as it would be to describe someone as 'half-Catholic' or 'half-Moslem'."
There's much to deconstruct here. What in Hebrew is called mamzeruth, or "bastardhood," only applies (once again) in a Jewish state ruled by Torah where there is a Temple standing. Some Jews use the term mamzer as a pejorative, but they aren't using it as a measure of Jewish Law, since the term has no practical application in that sense. Anyway, try to view Judaism and Jewishness separately. In the sense of Judaism, no person can truly be "half-Jewish," because if your mother isn't Jewish, then you aren't (unless you convert). However, if one's mother is Jewish but one's father is not, that person is fully Jewish, no questions asked. That's the religious aspect of it. On the ethnic end, a person can be a half, a quarter, an eighth, etc., Jewish as one can be half-Italian (as I am), half-Austrian (as is my father), or half-Xhosa (a significant portion of the South African population). There is little question that Jews constitute a distinct ethnic group. I certainly wouldn't deny it. What peeves me is that people like you can't decide to hate me for my religion, my "race," both, or neither. I wish you all would make up your minds.
43. You refer to Meyer Lansky's funeral and state, "Since Dr. Mathis prefers to disregard my references, he can look it up on his computer." Offer your references up front and I'll regard them!!! What I won't do is simply take your word for things. Sorry.
44. You write, "I understand that Dr. Mathis has his own website which purports to wage his version of a 'holy war' against 'hate'. In truth, it is a hate-site against people who love Whites." More research on me, but terribly outdated. And how would you know what the site's content was if you don't have Web access? Anyway, that page was live in 1996-1998 and has been lying fallow ever since. What it called for was boycotts of ISPs who hosted hate-oriented Web sites. Barely anyone responded, so I took the site down, though remnants of it remain online. Readers may want to see http://www.geocities.com/andrewmathis/
Ironically, Mr. Frenz's site was once on my list. I've since adjusted my world-view to acknowledge that disparate points of view are best left out in the open. As I've stated, I disagree whole-heartedly with the lion's share of Mr. Frenz's personal philosophy, but I came to like him as a person. On a final note, the JDL lists my former Web site as an "anti-Nazi resource," but I make it rather clear on the present version that I don't approve of the JDL, Kahane, or any sort of fascist.
45. You write, "I maintain that the [J]ews gained sufficient control over Egypt, Greece and Rome to contribute to their destruction. I did not deny it, as Dr. Mathis suggests." Well, you also didn't prove it. Offer me something in the way of a text to look at. You, on the other hand, can recognize ancient Israel's vassal status to Egypt (which is Biblically corroborated – in a "Jewish supremacist text," I don't think you'd find such admissions), Persia (under Cyrus), and Greece (under Alexander and the Seleucids). Israel enjoyed independence as a kingdom from roughly 1000 BC to 600 BC and then briefly again between around 200 BC and the Roman conquest of Palestine. Curious readers will want to consult Flavius Josephus' The Jewish War to see if Jews really controlled Rome. Josephus seemed to think not.
46. Regarding Yiddish in the Soviet Union, you write, "A Mexican who visited Moscow told me that he heard Yiddish spoken quite frequently amongst ordinary civilians there. If they're [J]ews, why shouldn't they speak Yiddish?" Quite right, Mr. Thomson, but here you aren't alleging, as before, that these Jews were part of the secret police. Do you see the difference? A Russian Jew would likely be a Yiddish speaker. It does not necessarily follow that the Soviet Secret Police spoke Yiddish. You haven't even constructed a syllogism that would attempt to prove this. You've only given word of mouth.
47. Herzl died in 1904. Jabotinsky died in 1940. While both were Zionists, neither could be fairly said to be a founder of Israel. Jabotinsky actually died in the U.S.; he wasn't even fighting with Zionist militias when he died. Jabotinsky clearly envisioned an Arab-free Jewish state. It's not so clear that Herzl had the same point of view. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. You seem to hold that if Jabotinsky's view had won out, that things would have been better for Israel. I, however, believe Ben-Gurion did the right thing in accepting Arabs as citizens in Israel. But then, you define a nation on "race," and I do not.
48. You write, "Since very few Germans were even alive during the 'Nazi' era, from 1933 to 1945, and are not members of the NSDAP, Germans should be absolved of paying 'Holocaust Reparations', if I interpret Dr. Mathis correctly." Well, I'm officially against German reparations (one of few areas on which I could find common ground with Menachem Begin). But let's make one thing clear: German reparations are not based on the Holocaust; they are based on the cost of settling displaced Jews in Palestine. No one can deny that the Nazis were responsible for displacing Jews. The idea of reparations was first floated by Konrad Adenauer and was violently protested by then-minority leader Begin in the Knesset. The measure to accept reparations passed 60-51, with nine abstentions. That isn't a very wide margin, is it?
49. On Kahane, you write, "Israel had the option of disregarding Kahane's renunciation of U.S. citizenship. As I understand, not only was he kicked out of the Knesset, but his political party, Kach, was banned. Obviously, it does not pay to be an honest, outspoken [J]ew, especially in Israel." Yes, Kach was banned and then, when Kach follower Baruch Goldstein murdered Arabs at prayer at a mosque in Hebron, it was outlawed entirely. But to the point: It always pays to be honest, Mr. Thomson, but it isn't always diplomatic. And Kahane was no diplomat. The State of Israel could not afford the baggage of Meir Kahane.
50. On Jack Bernstein, you cite the picture on the back of his book. Sir, that could be anyone. You say you read two books by Bernstein and he was the only author listed on both. The interested reader may want to consult the Library of Congress. The book you cite, An American Jew, is cited by the Library of Congress as "by Jack Bernstein as told to Len Martin." Len Martin is a Posse Comitatus activist. There are no other books listed by Jack Bernstein in the Library of Congress catalogue. Internet users can consult http://www.loc.gov/
You ask, "Why say Jack Bernstein did not exist, when his experiences so closely resemble those of other [J]ews who have suffered in Israel for similar reasons, and have left Israel as a result?" Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why hasn't Israel gone after Israel Shahak or Tom Segev or Noam Chomsky?
51. In a very early response to you, I pointed out that the Protocols can be shown to be a forgery by simply comparing them to Maurice Joly's Dialogues in Hell. While the name of the author escapes me, a good book on the topic is called Warrant for Genocide. The German anti-Fascist writer Konrad Heiden's essay on this forgery is available online at http://www.netbistro.com/electriczen/denial/heiden.html
52. Yes, Kol Nidrey translates as "All Vows." You write, "The important point which Dr. Mathis makes, and which substantiates my [J]ewish sources, is that one can say this prayer and be absolved of LYING TO GOD." Um, no. Clearly, if one reviews what I transcribes, it only absolves for sins of omission and not commission, i.e., failure to fulfill a vow by forgetting but not deliberately ignoring or disregarding it. Your description of how a Jew could be sworn in under Jewish Law is basically correct, so I won't quibble. I do take issue with this: "It also absolves one from telling the truth when one affirms to tell the truth." Does this apply to Quakers and Jehova's Witnesses too, since they also refuse to take oaths or swear on holy books? You conclude that it is "important to remember that [J]ews generally do not consider Gentiles to be people, that is, human beings. Dr. Mathis may be an exception, or he may be lying to us." Again: I do not lie; do not accuse me of it again. Second, you still have absolutely no source for this allegation that Jews view non-Jews as non-human. Thus I dismiss it.
53. Your description of the treatment of German POWs is distressing but is (again) unsourced. Please provide sources for your allegations.
54. You have the temerity to write, "As compared to Dr. Mathis, I am no bigot." I am not the one who thinks all members of an ethnic group or religious group are criminals or of low morals; I am not the one who used the term "nigger" in his discourse; I am not the one who judges a man on his color. No, I merely don't want to put my money in the pockets of my enemies. Secondhand books are a solution to this problem.
55. You call kosher slaughter "torture-killing" and later you state, "As I understand from my sources, the infliction of pain in circumcision and kosher-slaughter is a mitzvah or divine commandment." Wrong on all counts. Kosher slaughter is designed to be humane and kill an animal instantly, with one sweep of a very sharp knife. Halal, or Muslim, slaughter is based on the same concept. It all comes from the Toraic injunction against animal cruelty. Judaism forbids hunting for this reason. You accuse me of casting red herrings? I'm not the one who brings up the tired "human soap" libel when faced with the damning Max Taubner verdict (see above).
56. As I was circumcised at the age of two days, and as I'm not a homosexual, I've never actually seen an uncircumcised penis up close, but if my understanding of human anatomy is accurate, masturbating the penis before circumcision would cause the foreskin to retract, exposing the glans. This would make excising the foreskin more difficult. Throw into this the complication that erections in eight-day-old boys (that's the required age for circumcision by Jewish Law) are rather rare. The "vampire fellatio" slander was answered in a previous post, but I'll reiterate: It is rarely practiced anymore but is done to stanch the blood flow and disinfect the wound. The mohel fills with mouth with wine before sucking on the wound, and he does not swallow the blood/wine mixture. Thus the mohel is not a "vampire," and "fellatio," which implies oral stimulation of the penis for sexual gratification, also does not take place. Conclusion: Your (once-again) unnamed sources are wrong. I dare say you've never been to a bris yourself.
Well, reply, Mr. Thomson, if you can keep yourself on the issues and away from my person. Do not imply that I am a liar. Do not call me names. Otherwise, you will find yourself screaming into the void. Though perhaps you're used to that by now.
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.