The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Greg Raven's Refusals to Link to Nizkor


Greg Raven, the president of the IHR, maintains a web site which contains offensive lies about the Holocaust. Nevertheless, since we at Nizkor deem it important for people to be aware of the lies being told about the Holocaust as well as the truth, we have provided links to Raven's web site. We thus make it easy for visitors to read what he has to say, not merely what we say he has to say.

Mr. Raven has refused to return the favor; in fact, he has responded to each such request of ours with silence.

We are forced to wonder: what is he afraid of? And what should we make of his and his comrades' claims that Holocaust "revisionism" merely seeks to present "both sides of the story"?

We are working on documenting the occasions on which Mr. Raven has been asked to return this favor. Some such requests are below; many others are still being collected and will appear on this page shortly.

Date: 15 Mar 1995 09:47:26 -0500
From: donald05@pipeline.com (Donald Moffitt)
Subject: Re: Hey Lurkers!
Message-ID: <3k6ulu$mun@pipe1.pipeline.com>

In alt.revisionism Michael Philips <topcat@igc.apc.org> said:

>               The Revisionist Guidebook - Updated
>     Hey lurkers!  After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for
awhile, you
>may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's
easy.
>For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no
>preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as
the
>revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the
road to
>deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you
are
>valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible
conspiracy.
......................
  [Almost everything you ever wanted to know about revisionist scholarship
deleted]

Just one minor addition:

--Put a home page on the WWW repeating all of the above.  Be grateful when
the historians and archivists who have exposed your dishonesty install a
link on *their* own Web site to *yours* -- the easier for browsers to
observe your adventures in scholarship and alchemy (turning Scheiss into
Shinola].  But under no circumstances reciprocate with a link on *your*
page to theirs!  Repeat once more that you are interested only in a
dispassionate search for facts and truth.

FYI, Ken McVay's home page now under construction promises to be truly
enlightening and already contains much useful history and documentation.
The URL is http://www.island.net/~kmcvay/rue.....    [that will get your
close enough to the meat, at least.]
Messrs. McVay and Jamie McCarthy *have* installed a link to Greg Raven's
home page; his autobiography, meant to be parodic or whimsical, I guess, is
particularly and peculiarly interesting.    McVay has requested a
reciprocal link from Raven.
     Need it be added that the request has been ignored?
Donald Moffitt





Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 18:15:22 GMT
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: The premiere "RUE Annotation" Web page
Message-ID: <1995Apr7.181522.29091@hobbes.kzoo.edu>

I'm pleased to announce the opening of the first in what is hopefully a
long series of collections of Web pages:  an annotation of Greg Raven's
"Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2."

http://www.island.net/~kmcvay/rue/RUEann-R2.html

What I've done is very simple, yet I believe it may prove to be one of
the most effective means of dealing with revisionists.  I downloaded
Greg Raven's "Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2" from his own Web site, stripped
off his links, added links to commentary of my own, and reuploaded it to
my site.  The commentary is in easily-digestible pieces, yet taken
together is quite thorough, and it's all cross-linked to copies of the
original Usenet articles and the email discussions that formed the
discussion in the first place.  All together, this annotation of Greg
Raven's one Web page involves thirty separate RUE Web pages.

Of course, on my annotation page, there is a link to the original file
on Mr. Raven's site.  If Mr. Raven is interested in readers "getting
both side of the story," as he sometimes claims, I challenge him to do
the same:  put a link to the annotation on the original.  Or, he can put
a link to my RUE site home page on his own home page.  I've already done
that for him;  I ask him again, why won't he return the favor?

The RUE site home page again, in case he's forgotten, is:

http://www.island.net/~kmcvay/rue/RUE1-HomePage.html

Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy       k044477@kzoo.edu       jrm0@aol.com
 http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/    I speak only for myself.





From k044477 Sat Apr  8 15:23:37 1995
Subject: a new Web link
To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com, codfish@netcom.com
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 95 15:23:37 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

I'm pleased to announce the opening of the first in what is hopefully a
long series of collections of Web pages:  an annotation of Greg Raven's
"Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2."

http://www.island.net/~kmcvay/rue/RUEann-R2.html

What I've done is very simple, yet I believe it may prove to be one of
the most effective means of dealing with revisionists.  I downloaded
Greg Raven's "Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2" from his own Web site, stripped
off his links, added links to commentary of my own, and reuploaded it to
my site.  The commentary is in easily-digestible pieces, yet taken
together is quite thorough, and it's all cross-linked to copies of the
original Usenet articles and the email discussions that formed the
discussion in the first place.  All together, this annotation of Greg
Raven's one Web page involves thirty separate RUE Web pages.

Of course, on my annotation page, there is a link to the original file
on Mr. Raven's site.  If Mr. Raven is interested in readers "getting
both side of the story," as he sometimes claims, I challenge him to do
the same:  put a link to the annotation on the original.  Or, he can put
a link to my RUE site home page on his own home page.  I've already done
that for him;  I ask him again, why won't he return the favor?

The RUE site home page again, in case he's forgotten, is:

http://www.island.net/~kmcvay/rue/RUE1-HomePage.html

Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy       k044477@kzoo.edu       jrm0@aol.com
 http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/    I speak only for myself.





From k044477 Sun May 14 21:36:22 1995
Subject: your Web site
To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 21:36:22 EDT
Bcc: dk@lems.brown.edu, mstein@access.digex.net, stig@mmt.kth.se
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Hello again, Mr. Raven.

I'd like to ask you, again, if you will put a link to my Web site
on your home page.  I have quite a few links to your site, so if
you're interested in providing "both sides of the issue," it seems
only fair.

If you would like to provide this, then please let me know so I can
explain what Web sites of mine would be most appropriate.  (They're
changing and moving around at the moment.)

Also -- on your home page you request corrections for any factual
errors.  Are you serious about this?  Would you like me to provide you
with a list of errors for you to change?

Because last I checked, you seemed to be ignoring me, and if you're just
going to ignore me I wouldn't want to waste my time preparing the list.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy       k044477@kzoo.edu       jrm0@aol.com
 http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/    I speak only for myself.





Date: 26 May 1995 20:16:44 GMT
From: jaklein@news.amherst.edu (Josh Klein)
Subject: Re: Web, FTP, and e-mail resources for Aryans
Message-ID: <3q5cvc$lnf@amhux3.amherst.edu>

Milton Kleim (bb748@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> Ken Mcvay (kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca) writes:
>  
> >           The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
> >           ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
> >           web: http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
>  
> While you're there, be sure to check out all of the great stuff written by
> myself and my comrades, and archived by the fool Mcvay.  BTW, Mcvay is one
> of our best supporters.  Without his idiotic "anti-Nazi activism,"
> allowing us enormous amounts of widely-disseminated free advertisement, we
> couldn't have built our Fascist Action Network to be as effective as it is.

Ken McVay is quite proud of the fact that his Nizkor has links to Greg
Raven's revisionist pages.  After all, Ken figures, we have nothing
to hide -- and the debate seems constantly to reveal (to anybody who
is willing to open their eyes) the fact that the Holocaust occured.
I remember Ken asking Mr. Raven to put a link to Nizkor on the IHR
page.  For a long time, Raven did not answer; I wonder whether he has by
now?

--
Josh Klein
Amherst College





Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 01:26:18 GMT
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Web, FTP, and e-mail resources for Aryans
Message-ID: <1995May28.012618.27486@hobbes.kzoo.edu>

Josh Klein wrote:

   I remember Ken asking Mr. Raven to put a link to Nizkor on the IHR
   page.  For a long time, Raven did not answer; I wonder whether he
   has by now?

I'm unaware whether Ken McVay has ever asked Mr. Raven for this favor.
He may have.

I do know that _I_ have, on multiple occasions -- five or six, at
least. I've seen Mike Stein ask also.

Mr. Raven has not answered.

In fact, my last email to Mr. Raven, on May 14th, read as follows:

   I'd like to ask you, again, if you will put a link to my Web site on
   your home page.  I have quite a few links to your site, so if
   you're interested in providing "both sides of the issue," it seems
   only fair.
   
   If you would like to provide this, then please let me know so I can
   explain what Web sites of mine would be most appropriate.  (They're
   changing and moving around at the moment.)
   
   Also -- on your home page you request corrections for any factual
   errors.  Are you serious about this?  Would you like me to provide
   you with a list of errors for you to change?
   
   Because last I checked, you seemed to be ignoring me, and if you're
   just going to ignore me I wouldn't want to waste my time preparing
   the list.

Needless to say, Mr. Raven ignored me.

Let me add a bit of perspective.  I've written Mr. Raven six times so
far in 1995.  (That's not including the fourteen copies of Usenet
articles which were directed to him.)  Mr. Raven has replied to me with
two pieces of email.  The first was an attempt to answer some questions
about "physical evidence," and it was prompted by over a month's worth
of my asking him questions.  The second was a pseudo-explanation of why
he wasn't going to waste time on me.  Since then, he has, apparently,
not wasted time by bothering to read what I send him.  The only
question is why I continue to bother to send him email.  (In the three
months since he "dismissed me," I've sent him three pieces of email,
not including the seven copies of Usenet articles directed to him.)

As I wrote him on February 22nd:

   From your silence, then, I take it you're not going to answer my
   question [...]
   
   I rhetorically ask:  how am I supposed to provide you with
   "physical evidence" when you won't even tell me when I'm getting
   warm?  Has this whole "physical evidence" spiel of yours been some
   kind of Twenty Questions game, and is the question above number
   twenty-one?  If I get someone else to ask it, will the count start
   over for them?
   
   And I repeat that I find it hard to believe that you're ignoring me
   solely because I allegedly distort your meaning -- especially when
   you are unable to cite a _single_ instance where I have done so in
   a manner that was relevant to a point I was making.  I think you're
   ignoring me for other reasons, and I might suggest that one of them
   is that I'm nudging you uncomfortably far into a corner, logically
   speaking.
   
   Just a hypothesis, of course.
   
   Anything more to say to me, Mr. Raven?  Or will silence be all I
   should expect from you in future?

Needless to say, silence was my answer.

And as long as I've called up my archives of these old pieces of email,
I'll repost one of the articles I sent Mr. Raven specifically
concerning "physical evidence."  I think it poses a darn good question,
which Mr. Raven never, of course, got around to answering.

   Mr. Raven, I have a question for you.
   
   The other day I had CNN turned on while I was working at the
   computer, and I happened to overhear a commentator saying something
   like "...soon we'll be seeing the first physical evidence
   introduced in the trial..."
   
   Of course my ears are tuned in to your favorite phrase, "physical
   evidence," and I glanced up in time to see a little infographic
   telling me that it was Day 42 of the O.J. Simpson trial.
   
   Your rule of thumb, Mr. Raven, is that physical evidence must be
   produced _before_ eyewitness testimony.
   
   The problem, Mr. Raven, is that there is no such _thing_ as
   physical evidence without testimony.
   
   Let me see if I can make this clearer for you.  You wrote late last
   year that:
   
   > This is so simple: in a murder trial, the prosecution must produce
   > the murder weapon.  This murder weapon must be analyzed to
   > determine if it was the actual murder weapon, etc.  But in the case
   > of the gas chambers, we are asked to accept that millions were
   > murdered using a weapon that still has not been seen, tested,
   > examined, etc. This is outrageous.
   
   There's a great big bugaboo lying in your phrase "analyzed to
   determine if it was the actual murder weapon, etc."  Without the
   testimony of the cops on the scene, a glove with O.J.'s blood on it
   means _nothing_. Heck, I work on my car in the winter, and I skin
   my knuckles sometimes, so I bet there's a glove with _my_ blood on
   it somewhere.  Does that mean I killed anyone?  Of course not. 
   O.J.'s glove is important in the trial because of the _testimony_
   of the cop who found it, who says it was found at the murder scene.
   
   Or let's take the murder weapon itself, the knife, and let's say it
   has Nicole Simpson's blood and O.J. Simpson's fingerprints on it. 
   Does that mean anything by itself?  Of course not!  By itself, it's
   just a knife with some gunk on it.  But what if a police officer
   testifies that the knife was found thrown into some bushes near
   Nicole's body?  Then, _because_ of that testimony, it's an alleged
   murder weapon.
   
   _That's_ the reason that the O.J. trial went 42 days without the
   prosecution presenting any physical evidence.  The first 42 days
   were reserved for _testimony_ outlining the case:  witnesses to
   place certain people at certain times, to say what they'd seen and
   heard, and so on.
   
   Now, one main difference between the O.J. case and the Holocaust is
   that there were apparently no witnesses to the killing of Nicole,
   whereas there are hundreds of witnesses to the Holocaust.  Another
   difference is that the perpetrators of the Holocaust pretty much
   all confessed to it, but pled "not guilty by reason of being under
   orders" instead of just plain "not guilty."
   
   But, those differences aside, the fact remains that courts hear
   _testimony_, including testimony regarding the murder weapon,
   _first_. _Then_ the actual murder weapon is presented.
   
   It doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.  Without
   testimony, a bloody glove is just a glove with blood on it, and
   Krema II is just a blown-up fifty-year-old building with ovens in
   it.  Sure, we can do "analysis" of the blood to see if it matches
   O.J.'s, and likewise we can test the walls of Krema II to see if
   there is cyanide residue in them. But that "analysis" gets done
   _after_ testimony tells us why they're important.
   
   So, the question, Mr. Raven:
   
   Why do you think it makes sense to present physical evidence first?
   
   Emailed to Mr. Raven.

Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy       k044477@kzoo.edu       jrm0@aol.com
 http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/    I speak only for myself.





From k044477 Sat May 27 21:30:11 1995
Subject: email copy of posted article
To: greg.ihr@kaiwan.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 95 21:30:11 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Again, Mr. Raven, I ask.  I've put a link to your Web site on several of
my Web pages.  Will you return the favor?

I just posted this article:

From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Web, FTP, and e-mail resources for Aryans
Message-ID: <1995May28.012618.27486@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 01:26:18 GMT

Josh Klein wrote:

   I remember Ken asking Mr. Raven to put a link to Nizkor on the IHR
   page.  For a long time, Raven did not answer; I wonder whether he
   has by now?

I'm unaware whether Ken McVay has ever asked Mr. Raven for this favor.
He may have.

I do know that _I_ have, on multiple occasions -- five or six, at
least. I've seen Mike Stein ask also.

Mr. Raven has not answered.

In fact, my last email to Mr. Raven, on May 14th, read as follows:

   I'd like to ask you, again, if you will put a link to my Web site on
   your home page.  I have quite a few links to your site, so if
   you're interested in providing "both sides of the issue," it seems
   only fair.
   
   If you would like to provide this, then please let me know so I can
   explain what Web sites of mine would be most appropriate.  (They're
   changing and moving around at the moment.)
   
   Also -- on your home page you request corrections for any factual
   errors.  Are you serious about this?  Would you like me to provide
   you with a list of errors for you to change?
   
   Because last I checked, you seemed to be ignoring me, and if you're
   just going to ignore me I wouldn't want to waste my time preparing
   the list.

Needless to say, Mr. Raven ignored me.

Let me add a bit of perspective.  I've written Mr. Raven six times so
far in 1995.  (That's not including the fourteen copies of Usenet
articles which were directed to him.)  Mr. Raven has replied to me with
two pieces of email.  The first was an attempt to answer some questions
about "physical evidence," and it was prompted by over a month's worth
of my asking him questions.  The second was a pseudo-explanation of why
he wasn't going to waste time on me.  Since then, he has, apparently,
not wasted time by bothering to read what I send him.  The only
question is why I continue to bother to send him email.  (In the three
months since he "dismissed me," I've sent him three pieces of email,
not including the seven copies of Usenet articles directed to him.)

As I wrote him on February 22nd:

   From your silence, then, I take it you're not going to answer my
   question [...]
   
   I rhetorically ask:  how am I supposed to provide you with
   "physical evidence" when you won't even tell me when I'm getting
   warm?  Has this whole "physical evidence" spiel of yours been some
   kind of Twenty Questions game, and is the question above number
   twenty-one?  If I get someone else to ask it, will the count start
   over for them?
   
   And I repeat that I find it hard to believe that you're ignoring me
   solely because I allegedly distort your meaning -- especially when
   you are unable to cite a _single_ instance where I have done so in
   a manner that was relevant to a point I was making.  I think you're
   ignoring me for other reasons, and I might suggest that one of them
   is that I'm nudging you uncomfortably far into a corner, logically
   speaking.
   
   Just a hypothesis, of course.
   
   Anything more to say to me, Mr. Raven?  Or will silence be all I
   should expect from you in future?

Needless to say, silence was my answer.

And as long as I've called up my archives of these old pieces of email,
I'll repost one of the articles I sent Mr. Raven specifically
concerning "physical evidence."  I think it poses a darn good question,
which Mr. Raven never, of course, got around to answering.

   Mr. Raven, I have a question for you.
   
   The other day I had CNN turned on while I was working at the
   computer, and I happened to overhear a commentator saying something
   like "...soon we'll be seeing the first physical evidence
   introduced in the trial..."
   
   Of course my ears are tuned in to your favorite phrase, "physical
   evidence," and I glanced up in time to see a little infographic
   telling me that it was Day 42 of the O.J. Simpson trial.
   
   Your rule of thumb, Mr. Raven, is that physical evidence must be
   produced _before_ eyewitness testimony.
   
   The problem, Mr. Raven, is that there is no such _thing_ as
   physical evidence without testimony.
   
   Let me see if I can make this clearer for you.  You wrote late last
   year that:
   
   > This is so simple: in a murder trial, the prosecution must produce
   > the murder weapon.  This murder weapon must be analyzed to
   > determine if it was the actual murder weapon, etc.  But in the case
   > of the gas chambers, we are asked to accept that millions were
   > murdered using a weapon that still has not been seen, tested,
   > examined, etc. This is outrageous.
   
   There's a great big bugaboo lying in your phrase "analyzed to
   determine if it was the actual murder weapon, etc."  Without the
   testimony of the cops on the scene, a glove with O.J.'s blood on it
   means _nothing_. Heck, I work on my car in the winter, and I skin
   my knuckles sometimes, so I bet there's a glove with _my_ blood on
   it somewhere.  Does that mean I killed anyone?  Of course not. 
   O.J.'s glove is important in the trial because of the _testimony_
   of the cop who found it, who says it was found at the murder scene.
   
   Or let's take the murder weapon itself, the knife, and let's say it
   has Nicole Simpson's blood and O.J. Simpson's fingerprints on it. 
   Does that mean anything by itself?  Of course not!  By itself, it's
   just a knife with some gunk on it.  But what if a police officer
   testifies that the knife was found thrown into some bushes near
   Nicole's body?  Then, _because_ of that testimony, it's an alleged
   murder weapon.
   
   _That's_ the reason that the O.J. trial went 42 days without the
   prosecution presenting any physical evidence.  The first 42 days
   were reserved for _testimony_ outlining the case:  witnesses to
   place certain people at certain times, to say what they'd seen and
   heard, and so on.
   
   Now, one main difference between the O.J. case and the Holocaust is
   that there were apparently no witnesses to the killing of Nicole,
   whereas there are hundreds of witnesses to the Holocaust.  Another
   difference is that the perpetrators of the Holocaust pretty much
   all confessed to it, but pled "not guilty by reason of being under
   orders" instead of just plain "not guilty."
   
   But, those differences aside, the fact remains that courts hear
   _testimony_, including testimony regarding the murder weapon,
   _first_. _Then_ the actual murder weapon is presented.
   
   It doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.  Without
   testimony, a bloody glove is just a glove with blood on it, and
   Krema II is just a blown-up fifty-year-old building with ovens in
   it.  Sure, we can do "analysis" of the blood to see if it matches
   O.J.'s, and likewise we can test the walls of Krema II to see if
   there is cyanide residue in them. But that "analysis" gets done
   _after_ testimony tells us why they're important.
   
   So, the question, Mr. Raven:
   
   Why do you think it makes sense to present physical evidence first?
   
   Emailed to Mr. Raven.

Emailed to Mr. Raven.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy       k044477@kzoo.edu       jrm0@aol.com
 http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/    I speak only for myself.




Date: 28 May 1995 21:45:14 +0100
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: Web, FTP, and e-mail resources for Aryans
Message-ID: <3qancq$igp@bell.maths.tcd.ie>

jaklein@news.amherst.edu (Josh Klein) writes:
>I remember Ken asking Mr. Raven to put a link to Nizkor on the IHR
>page.  For a long time, Raven did not answer; I wonder whether he has by
>now?

	Oh Greg Raven will do it; just after Hell freezes over!

-- 
Derek Bell  dbell@maths.tcd.ie  WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
 Death confronts us not unlike the historical battle scene that hangs on the
   wall of the classroom. It is our task to obscure or quite obliterate the
        picture by our deeds while we are still in this world. - Kafka




Date: Sun, 28 May 95 19:48:40 GMT
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Re: Web, FTP, and e-mail resources for Aryans
Message-ID: <1995May28.194840.3068@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>

In article <3q5cvc$lnf@amhux3.amherst.edu> jaklein@news.amherst.edu (Josh Klein) writes:

>Ken McVay is quite proud of the fact that his Nizkor has links to Greg
>Raven's revisionist pages.  After all, Ken figures, we have nothing
>to hide -- and the debate seems constantly to reveal (to anybody who
>is willing to open their eyes) the fact that the Holocaust occured.
>I remember Ken asking Mr. Raven to put a link to Nizkor on the IHR
>page.  For a long time, Raven did not answer; I wonder whether he has by
>now?

To my knowledge, Mr. Raven still seems to fear providing opposing
links on the IHR WEB. In that, he is quite typical of his ilk.

One can only ponder what it is that Mr. Raven fears? He is, after
all, a "revisionist scholar," in search of the Truth... or so he
would have us believe.

Perhaps Mr. Raven, who would no doubt be delighted to provide access
to the Nizkor WEB and other links containing material opposing his
myopic point of view, is simply being muzzled by his keepers, much
in the same fashion as he is being kept from responding to questions
here - were he his own master, I'm certain such a Seeker of Truth
would not hesitate to respond to questions offered here.

-- 
          The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
          ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
	  web: http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca




Date: 29 May 1995 21:43:51 -0400
From: mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Subject: Re: The Intellectual Dishonesty of Revisionists, Part II
Message-ID: <3qdt8n$n52@access2.digex.net>

[Remainder of article omitted.  The complete article, described as an IHR
pamphlet, may be found at http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg. Greg Raven's
Web page.  Parenthetically, despite repeated requests Mr. Raven has so
far failed to provide links from his Web page to Jamie McCarthy's page,
although Mr. McCarthy voluntarily placed a link from his page to Mr.
Raven's.  One can only wonder why Mr. Raven will not provide people
visiting his Web page the opportunity to see counterarguments, even though
Mr. McCarthy did so voluntarily with no prompting from Mr. Raven.]



Date: 30 May 1995 20:39:24 +0100
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: Help-Revisionist History info needed
Message-ID: <3qfs9c$rdr@bell.maths.tcd.ie>

wboaden@bilbo.zynet.co.uk (Boaden) writes:
>I am researching the claims made by both "survivors" and Revisionist
>Historians about the occurance of the Nazi Concentration camps.
>Please E-mail me (or post I guess) if you have any knoledge on the
>subject or know of any WWW,FTP resources.

	Here's a few resources:

	http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html#Holo
	http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca/

	The newsgroup alt.revisionism (to which I am crossposting this).

	Note that Ken McVay has the courage to include links to Holocaust
"revisionist" sites, but they haven't the courage to return the favour.
This shows the confidence that Ken has in his proof.




Date: 30 May 1995 21:54:17 +0100
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: Web, FTP, and e-mail resources for Aryans
Message-ID: <3qg0lp$1jq@bell.maths.tcd.ie>

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) writes:
>Miltie and his little minions have their own Web page?  Gee, that must make 
>for exciting reading!

	Well, I think Miltie's name appears on Stormfront's page.

>And to answer your question, of course they won't put in links to Ken';s 
>archives.  Unlike their rubbish, Ken's archives are based on facts.

	Well, that was a rhetorical question aimed at the revisionists; I
don't expect them to answer it, but it was worth raising because of that
reason.




-- 
Derek Bell  dbell@maths.tcd.ie  WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
 Death confronts us not unlike the historical battle scene that hangs on the
   wall of the classroom. It is our task to obscure or quite obliterate the
        picture by our deeds while we are still in this world. - Kafka




Date: 25 Jun 1995 14:21:30 -0700
From: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: Re: Engineer Says - NO HOLOCAUST * NO WAY * NO HOW !
Message-ID: <3skk0q$fn1@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>

In article <greg.ihr-2506951231590001@kaiwan091.kaiwan.com>,
Greg Raven <greg.ihr@kaiwan.com> wrote:

>In article <3sh6a1$98m@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman) wrote:

>> The anti-Revisionist arguments on alt.revisionism, plus the
>> unwillingness or inability of Revisionists to respond, have persuaded
>> me that homocidal gassings did take place at Auschwitz. I don't know
>> how many, and I don't know what the range of estimates among
>> Exterminationist historians are. And I am not going to spend a lifetime
>> researching the matter and add my own estimate to the pile of existing
>> estimates. But, if and when, the Revisionists make a counter-response,
>> I certainly want to read it.

>The correct answer is "zero." There are no gas chambers, no evidence of
>gas chambers, poor-to-nonexistent evidence of gassings in non-gas
>chambers, and the few "eyewitness" accounts there are either do not square
>with the physical facts, or violate laws of physics.

And your, er, single best evidence for this is ...?

By the way, Mr. Raven, I understand you have yet to provide links
from the ihr web site to those which hold contrary views. That is,
of course, interesting in light of the fact that many of the
"anti-revisionist" sites, including Nizkor, provide links to the ihr
site.

Whatever are you afraid of, Mr. Raven?

P.S. When is Fritz Berg going to return to the net? (Or has he
simply lost his taste for being humiliated?)

-- 
     The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
                   Anonymous ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca
 Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca (Under construction - permanently!)
    Kenneth McVay OBC.  Home Page: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/~kmcvay




Date: 25 Jun 1995 22:06 MST
From: dmittleman@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman)
Subject: Re: HOESS STATEMENT "edited"  AT NIZOR?
Message-ID: <25JUN199522064891@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu>

In article <greg.ihr-2506951625500001@kaiwan097.kaiwan.com>, greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) writes...
>> :>>The Hoess Statement (German & English) [from the Nizor/rememberance 
>> :>>resource]     
>> :> (snip)
>> :>>    6. The "final solution" of the Jewish question meant the
>> :>> complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I had the order to
>> :>> produce extermination facilities in Auschwitz in June 1942. At
>> :>> that time three further annihilation camps already existed in
>> :>> the general government: Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. These camps
>> :>> found themselves under the mission command of the security
>> :>> police and the SD.....
>> :> 
>> :>>>From "Der Kommandant von Auschwitz erzaehlt," in _Das Dritte
>> :>> Reich und die Juden_, edited by Leon Poliakov and Josef Wulf.
>> :>> Berlin Grunewald, Verlag-GmbH, 1955.
>> :>
>> :>>However, it should read June 1941. 
>> :>
>> :>>So was it just a typo, or does the source say 1942 as well?
>> :> (snip)
>> Hoess received the posting to Auschwitz on May 4, 1940 from Gluecks (Le 
>> Commandant d'Auschwitz parle, page 130 [French edition of "Der Kommandant von 
>> Auschwitz erzaehlt", petite collection maspero, Paris, 1979].  The purpose of 
>> the camp at that time was to serve as a concentration camp (Schutzhaftlager).
> 
>You are swallow camels and straining at gnats, as they say. Virtually
>everything that Hoess has to say about this matter is suspect, as these
>statements are the result of torture. While you worry about whether Hoess
>was correct about the year, you have overlooked the fact that there is no
>"Wolzek" camp and there never was.

    Greg, I remember reading this discussion the last time it came up in
    a.r.  I recal that you (and others) made similar suggestions of
    torture.  You were asked to provide evidence or a logic stream to
    support this contention.  Some evidence was provided which *might*
    suggest that Hoess's testimony could be tainted by toture (I say
    *might* as it was not clear either way.)  Discussents then pointed out
    that even if Hoess's trial testimony was tainted, that such testimony
    was independent in time from his memiors.  They pointed out that there
    was no evidence presented supporting a conclusion that his memiors were
    tainted.  I don't recall you effectively addressing these points last
    time they came up.  Why are you starting the discussion from the
    beginning this time rather than addressing previous questions put to
    you and jumping right back into the middle of the discussion?

    By the way, if Hoess was tortured and coerced to provide planted
    evidence, then why did his torturers force upon him the name of a
    nonexistent camp?  Seems that people planting a story would get the
    basic facts right.  Seems to me that it is more likely someone under
    stress and away from their working notes might more likely mistake that
    name of a camp.

>Hoess' statements have long been "corrected" by anti-revisionists eager to
>have some kind of utterance from a Nazi officer that the Holocaust
>extermination stories are believable. Even Christopher Browning and
>Deborah Lipstadt have abandoned Hoess. You would do well to emulate them.

    My recollection is that Lipstadt's comments on Hoess were discussed
    previously (I don't recall Browning.)  You made this same charge about
    Lipstadt before.  Other posters then contributed the complete quote
    from Lipstadt's book showing that she did not "abandon" the testimony
    of Hoess; rather she said that he was not a good source for a
    particular fact: the number of people who died as Auschwitz.  As you
    have participated in these discussion you must know this.  Why do you
    persist in contributing information to a.r that has previously been
    shown to be incorrect?  Aren't you after the truth here?

    Which reminds me, why have you not provided links to Jamie
    McCarthy's and Ken McVay's www pages from your page.  They have
    provided links to your page.  Are you or are you not in favor of open
    and honest communication in search of the truth?

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (520) 621-2932

       "I can't complain, but sometimes I still do..."  -- Joe Walsh

Path: voyager.net!isclient.merit.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.uoregon.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!iol!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!usenet
From: gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: racist filth
Date: 26 Oct 1995 01:02:38 GMT
Lines: 36
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <46mmne$21km@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
References: <457fpa$e5s@uuneo.neosoft.com> <4586l9$3m2@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <270ellb5f.alamito@hathcok.nshore.org> <greg.ihr-1510951756520001@kaiwan099.kaiwan.com> <45ur62$18i@earth.superlink.net> <45v0po$neh@news1.panix.com> <greg.ihr-2210951813130001@kaiwan096.kaiwan.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip152-204.on.ca.ibm.net
X-Newsreader: NeoLogic News for OS/2 [version: 4.3]
Xref: voyager.net alt.revisionism:15276 rec.arts.books:30976

In message <greg.ihr-2210951813130001@kaiwan096.kaiwan.com> - greg.ihr@kaiwan.c
om (Greg Raven) writes:
:>
:>In article <45v0po$neh@news1.panix.com>, davemarc <davemarc@panix.com> wrote:
:>
:>> pauli@superlink.net (paul ilechko) wrote:
:>> >greg.ihr@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
:>> >
:>> >
:>> >>You obviously still feel badly about having been conned by Negroes to
:>> >>change their terminology first to "Blacks," then to "African-Americans."
:>> 
:>> I was wondering why Greg Raven seemed so bitter about the minor 
:>> inconvenience of these changes in terminology.  Having looked over Greg 
:>> Raven's website (with its link to The Institute for Historical Review, 
:>> which advocates Holocaust revision and calls the new Holocaust Museum a 
:>> "monstrosity"), I'm even more puzzled.  Maybe he should think of the 
:>> terminology changes as linguistic revisionism.  Maybe then he won't sound 
:>> so resentful of "Negroes."
:>
:>
:>Your comment is not very clear. First, I am not bitter about these changes
:>in terminology, minor or otherwise. Second, my Web site does not have a
:>link to the Institute for Historical Review, which does not have its own
:>site. Third, what does the IHR and/or Holocaust revisionism have to do
:>with the topic at hand?

How many links does your website have to the Nizkor Project, Greg?




Gord McFee

"I'll write no line before its time"


[ Index ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.