🚀 go-pugleaf

"David S. Maddison" <maddison@power.connexus.net.au> wrote:
>"The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English (Jews) and
>the French (Jews) have been employed for centuries in every court and
>country in Europe.  Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany,
>Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy and Turkey for the last hundred
>years...all the power of Europe will be  continually maneuvering with us
>to work us into the real or imaginary balance of power." (John Adams)

Isn't it likely that the quote is correct, but the bracketed words
(which appear in brackets in your source) are an insertion? One major
issue in early USAn history was the European balance of power and how
the New World would fit into it. John Adams would then be making a
statement about European diplomacy, with nothing to connect it to Jews
at all - quite the contrary; he's talking about government intrigues
and government negotiations.

jds

In soc.culture.jewish on Wed, 03 Nov 1999 21:12:10 +1100 Joe Slater
<joeDELETETHIS@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> posted:

>"David S. Maddison" <maddison@power.connexus.net.au> wrote:
>>"The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English (Jews) and
>>the French (Jews) have been employed for centuries in every court and
>>country in Europe.  Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany,
>>Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy and Turkey for the last hundred
>>years...all the power of Europe will be  continually maneuvering with us
>>to work us into the real or imaginary balance of power." (John Adams)

>Isn't it likely that the quote is correct, but the bracketed words
>(which appear in brackets in your source) are an insertion? One major
>issue in early USAn history was the European balance of power and how
>the New World would fit into it. John Adams would then be making a
>statement about European diplomacy, with nothing to connect it to Jews
>at all - quite the contrary; he's talking about government intrigues
>and government negotiations.

I think so too.  Adams refers to prior "centuries" and at the time he
lived Jews had been excluded from England for centuries and only been 
allowed back in about 100 years before.   I think that was true for
France too.  

If these words had been written and "Jews" were among them, the two
words wouldn't have appeared in parentheses but in the text.

If they were spoken from a prepared text, words in parentheses aren't
spoken and there is no point in having them, and if added later when
he didn't say them they don't count.

It's typical of a piglet to blame Jews for BOTH sides of a
controversy.  We all know that otherwise the British and French loved
each other. All those wars were just for show. <grin>.

>jds


meirman@QQQerols.com

Remove the QQQ 
and I'll get back to you.

Sorry to change the thread of this, but last night I saw a program in the UK
on BBC1 - Child of the Death Camps, which was about Binjamin Wilkomirski and
his book Fragments. The program lasted for a hour or so, but left me with
little doubt that he is an imposter, with too many arguments to go into
here, I guess there would be something at www.bbc.co.uk about the program.
The source that convinced me most was a Jew, sorry I've forgotton his name,
who has met many survivors and went on to say that the book did not ring
true. He also said quite powerfully that if it is not true, when it purports
to be, that those who deny the Holocaust ever existed have further
ammunition!

Good luck, I think you need it.

Gareth
(only Welsh)

In article <wQkgOK7Hsv=B2AXmBg1QjquPHA1X@4ax.com> Wed, 03 Nov 1999
21:12:10 +1100 Joe Slater <joeDELETETHIS@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:

>"David S. Maddison" <maddison@power.connexus.net.au> wrote:
>>"The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English (Jews) and
>>the French (Jews) have been employed for centuries in every court and
>>country in Europe.  Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany,
>>Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy and Turkey for the last hundred
>>years...all the power of Europe will be  continually maneuvering with us
>>to work us into the real or imaginary balance of power." (John Adams)
>
>Isn't it likely that the quote is correct, but the bracketed words
>(which appear in brackets in your source) are an insertion? One major
>issue in early USAn history was the European balance of power and how
>the New World would fit into it. John Adams would then be making a
>statement about European diplomacy, with nothing to connect it to Jews
>at all - quite the contrary; he's talking about government intrigues
>and government negotiations.


One thing I have learned Joe, is that one can never accept anything
that an anti-Semite, neo-Nazi or Holocaust denier says as being
correct. Every single thing they utter and every single reference they
cite much be checked each and every time. In my refutation of these
850 quotes, and also in the Talmud quotes I am working with there have
been numerous instances of fabrications, selective quotation,
"filleting", rearrangement, mistranslation and out-of-context quoting.
The current quote might well be correct, except for the reference to
"(Jews)", but I need to see the original quote to know. Of course, the
quoters of this material don't know how to give a proper reference,
making the quotes very difficult to check. So if someone knows the
source of the above quote, please let me know.

David Maddison

In soc.culture.jewish Gareth Jones <GarethNOSPAMJones@computerweekly.net.zzz> wrote:
: Sorry to change the thread of this, but last night I saw a program in the UK
: on BBC1 - Child of the Death Camps, which was about Binjamin Wilkomirski and
: his book Fragments. The program lasted for a hour or so, but left me with
: little doubt that he is an imposter, with too many arguments to go into
: here, I guess there would be something at www.bbc.co.uk about the program.
: The source that convinced me most was a Jew, sorry I've forgotton his name,
: who has met many survivors and went on to say that the book did not ring
: true. He also said quite powerfully that if it is not true, when it purports
: to be, that those who deny the Holocaust ever existed have further
: ammunition!

: Good luck, I think you need it.


Why would believers in the historical fact of the Holocaust need "good
luck" just because one author made claims in his book which have been
disproven using non-Holocaust-denier resources? The facts of the Holocaust
are not beyond critical examination, nor should they be because it is a
historical event and all facts pertaining to historical events should be
subject to the same scrutiny. The problem that Holocaust deniers have is
that when their claims are exposed to scrutiny their claims are shown to
be false. On the other hand, the veracity of facts pertaining to the
Holocaust has been proven time and time again. The occassional erroneous
claims get through, such as the Wilkomirski book, and fortunately these
are quickly detected by conventional processes. If anything, the exposure
of the Wilkomirski claims is a VERY HEALTHY thing, because it proves that
people are vigilant about the facts, and are completely prepared to expose
incorrect facts when they are detected. The fact that no significant
errors have been demonstrated in other facts relating to the Holocaust
proves that nobody has been able to find fault with them, as they did with
the Wilkomirski book.

So a hearty thank you! to Mr Wilkomirski for making sure that everybody is
on their toes and the processes of historical criticism are enquiry is
alive and healthy. 

David Maddison

In soc.culture.jewish Gareth Jones <GarethNOSPAMJones@computerweekly.net.zzz> wrote:
: Sorry to change the thread of this, but last night I saw a program in the UK
: on BBC1 - Child of the Death Camps, which was about Binjamin Wilkomirski and
: his book Fragments. The program lasted for a hour or so, but left me with
: little doubt that he is an imposter, with too many arguments to go into
: here, I guess there would be something at www.bbc.co.uk about the program.
: The source that convinced me most was a Jew, sorry I've forgotton his name,
: who has met many survivors and went on to say that the book did not ring
: true. He also said quite powerfully that if it is not true, when it purports
: to be, that those who deny the Holocaust ever existed have further
: ammunition!

: Good luck, I think you need it.


Why would believers in the historical fact of the Holocaust need "good
luck" just because one author made claims in his book which have been
disproven using non-Holocaust-denier resources? The facts of the Holocaust
are not beyond critical examination, nor should they be because it is a
historical event and all facts pertaining to historical events should be
subject to the same scrutiny. The problem that Holocaust deniers have is
that when their claims are exposed to scrutiny their claims are shown to
be false. On the other hand, the veracity of facts pertaining to the
Holocaust has been proven time and time again. The occassional erroneous
claims get through, such as the Wilkomirski book, and fortunately these
are quickly detected by conventional processes. If anything, the exposure
of the Wilkomirski claims is a VERY HEALTHY thing, because it proves that
people are vigilant about the facts, and are completely prepared to expose
incorrect facts when they are detected. The fact that no significant
errors have been demonstrated in other facts relating to the Holocaust
proves that nobody has been able to find fault with them, as they did with
the Wilkomirski book.

So a hearty thank you! to Mr Wilkomirski for making sure that everybody is
on their toes and the processes of historical criticism and enquiry are
alive and healthy. 

David Maddison

Fergus McClelland wrote:

>  There was even an old rabbi who believed the fraud was
> his son, even after DNA analysis proved he was not.

This is sadly understandable, in any situation where someone loses a child.

Susan

Sorry but you missed the point of 'good luck'. I was referring to your
disproving anti-jewish quotes. It seems that the book Fragments is very
disprovable, if that is a valid word, for may reasons.
If the book can be and is disproved then people who argue that the holocaust
did not exist, I'm not one of them, can then further their argument by
saying that Fragments is a forgery, therefore the holocaust is also a
forgery.
Appolgies for my bad use of grammar.

Gareth


David S. Maddison <maddison@power.connexus.net.au> wrote in message
news:3822226a.0@news.internex.net.au...
> In soc.culture.jewish Gareth Jones
<GarethNOSPAMJones@computerweekly.net.zzz> wrote:
> : Sorry to change the thread of this, but last night I saw a program in
the UK
> : on BBC1 - Child of the Death Camps, which was about Binjamin Wilkomirski
and
> : his book Fragments. The program lasted for a hour or so, but left me
with
> : little doubt that he is an imposter, with too many arguments to go into
> : here, I guess there would be something at www.bbc.co.uk about the
program.
> : The source that convinced me most was a Jew, sorry I've forgotton his
name,
> : who has met many survivors and went on to say that the book did not ring
> : true. He also said quite powerfully that if it is not true, when it
purports
> : to be, that those who deny the Holocaust ever existed have further
> : ammunition!
>
> : Good luck, I think you need it.
>
>
> Why would believers in the historical fact of the Holocaust need "good
> luck" just because one author made claims in his book which have been
> disproven using non-Holocaust-denier resources? The facts of the Holocaust
> are not beyond critical examination, nor should they be because it is a
> historical event and all facts pertaining to historical events should be
> subject to the same scrutiny. The problem that Holocaust deniers have is
> that when their claims are exposed to scrutiny their claims are shown to
> be false. On the other hand, the veracity of facts pertaining to the
> Holocaust has been proven time and time again. The occassional erroneous
> claims get through, such as the Wilkomirski book, and fortunately these
> are quickly detected by conventional processes. If anything, the exposure
> of the Wilkomirski claims is a VERY HEALTHY thing, because it proves that
> people are vigilant about the facts, and are completely prepared to expose
> incorrect facts when they are detected. The fact that no significant
> errors have been demonstrated in other facts relating to the Holocaust
> proves that nobody has been able to find fault with them, as they did with
> the Wilkomirski book.
>
> So a hearty thank you! to Mr Wilkomirski for making sure that everybody is
> on their toes and the processes of historical criticism and enquiry are
> alive and healthy.
>
> David Maddison
>