From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: can.politics,van.general,can.general,bc.general Subject:
Ken McVay speaks for only *some* of us Date: Sun, 24 May 1998
22:02:34 GMT
"*Says* Cecilia says"????
I'm Cecelia and I actually did post this to soc.culture.jewish
awhile back. And Ken, it is spelled "Cecelia" not "Cecilia."
You and I go back to 1991, before you founded Nizkor, Ken. You
should know how to properly spell my name. And I am part of the
history of Nizkor, Ken, yet you pretend to have just barely heard
of me.
I sent you in materials and you used them, but did not credit
me as the source. These concerned much material on Willis Carto
and some key information on Fred Leuchter's patents, engineering
ethics, chemistry (to refute Fred Leuchter's claims) etc.
In fact, you ignored my material
on Carto for many e-mails until one day, one of them clicked something
in you. *then* you posted a request to your <[email protected]>
mailing list (to which I was one of the original subscribers)
which went defunct long before the founding of Nizkor asking for
info on Willis Carto. Then after a while longer, due in significant
part, to the info *I* sent you on Carto, you then made him a very
big project of yours, the topic of a whole long FAQ even.
The stuff on Leuchter's patents also received no ack from you.
Yet, one day long past, I was browsing the Jerusalem1 server in
Israel and noticed there was a section on Revisionism there. It
was mainly or perhaps solely a mirror of your pre-Nizkor anti-Revisionist
website. I forget what you called it. THERE, under a subdirectory
on Leuchter, was verbatim my e-mail to you on Leuchter's patents.
But the header was stripped off. See, Ken, you saw value in this
information, but you did not see value in me as the source. It
was only after I complained to your webmaster, Jamie McCarthy,
that you revised that page to include the original headers of
the msg. For other e-mail msgs I saw on the Jerusalem1 mirror
such as ones from Danny Keren, you left the headers intact. But
mine? Oh well.
And the chemistry and physics material I sent you to refute Leuchter's
claims, you totally ignored, so I gave up sending you additional
material. Yet, later, the same information appeared in your site
with a Brian Harmon being given great accolades by you for providing
it to you. Brian did indeed provide the info to you at a later
date than I did, but it was the same info I had offered to you.
From Brian, it was not only worth your repeating, but you also
saw fit to give im credit. Yes, his was in more detail, but I
think when he sent in the initial stuff, you encouraged him to
send in more, so he did. I was not so fortunate to get encouraged.
Oh, and medical information I sent you to refute specific claims
of deniers you also ignored.
One time, I and Jamie McCarthy sent you material together (the
I obtained alone). This was concerning what "Murungu"
means in Shona (a southern African Bantu language - an Internet
National Socialist used the nickname of "Murungu" so
that was why I offered to Jamie an explanation of what this word
means). *This* you put on your Nizkor site. But the fact that
Jamie was the one I approached with the info instead of you made
a difference.
Jamie eventually resigned from Nizkor. It was soon after that
that soc.culture.jewish.holocaust went dead. Jamie was doing the
technical work for you while you over-moderated the content. Without
Jamie's technical help, you could no longer run soc.culture.jewish.holocaust,
so you let it lie fallow rather than let some other moderator
take over to keep it active.
Recently, soc.culture.jewish.holocaust came back to life. And
guess what. It is back under the care of one or more of the original
founders -- that is, the people who ran it out of a University
of North Carolina server before they no longer had time to devote
to it (and when you then took it over).
Why, Ken, do you treat me like such dirt? I think it had a lot
to do with the fact that I want to empower and enable people while
you want to dominate and control. And the fact my learning style
is to get varied info from a variety of sources rather than just
mindlessly learn from just one (and one on your exact wavelenght)
has also a lot to do with it. And the fact that I do not want
to bit the head off of every Revisionist I meet or see has much
to do with it too.
My approach is far different than yours. I seek to understand
and elucidate while you seek to punish and reek revenge. I seek
to prevent future Revisionism before it starts by elucidating
*why* people become Revs in the first place and providing viable
alternatives to satisfy the same needs such people seek and find
in Revisionism. You, by contrast, seek to hunt them down, "expose"
them, discredit them and equate each and every one of them with
hard-core Jew-haters. I seek to humanize whilst you seek to dehumanize
them.
Oh, and the fact that I know what Revisionism is (and is *not*)
from the *inside out* instead of from the outside letting my prejudices
dictate to me what is inside --- that has a lot to do with it
too.
I was potentially a very valuable resource to you, Ken. But you
did not want elucidation and alternatives and causes of Rev that
do not fit your preconceived notions.
(According to you, each and every person who becomes a Rev does
so out of evil motives, specifically, Jew-hating motives -- but
I posited motives like trying to find relief from a Shoah that
is too hard to bear and further posited that Germans both American-born
and European-born are at much greater risk to become Rev's due
to a need to seek shelter from the guilt -- guilt which is big
enought as it is, but gets amplified further by anti-German bigots.
THIS vital info YOU did not want to HEAR.)
If I had offered to name you names of all the in-the-closet Revs
I knew and to give you private personal information on the publicly-Revisionist
people I know (I mean information they would want kept private),
maybe then you would have seen me as a valuable resource, Ken.
But this too is not my style. I would relate other Revisionist's
experiences to you but with all identifying information expunged.
You did not like that Ken. Names, addresses, employers you would
have wanted. Traumatic anti-German childhood and young adult experiences
you did not want.
Along the same lines, you once put out a call for any information
anybody knows about Arthur Butz (a Revisionist who is also an
engineering prof). I offered you lots of info about what he has
done engineering-wise and professor-wise. I also has publicly-available
family background info to submit once I saw how you responded
to the engineering and professor info. But you just e-mailed me
back with a rude letter saying you are not interested in the engineering
aspects of Butz. See, Ken, you only wanted DIRT on Butz. You did
not want NORMAL information that is essential for a full and complete
understanding of Arthur Robert Butz.
Interestingly enough, I later read Deborah Lipstadt's chapter
on Butz in her _Denying the Holocaust_. Some of it was *wrong.*
The correct info was in the stuff I sent you and you pooh-poohed
and in the stuff I was waiting to send you, but did not. Seems
like Lipstadt would have been interested in seeing the stuff *before*
her book went to press -- it would have saved her errors.
Have you been in contact with Lipstadt as she as still working
on _Denying the Holocaust_, Ken? See now how you could have received
all the info I had on Butz (not just the dirt) and then alerted
Lipstadt about it. Lipstadt could have then contacted me (that
is, if you would have been decent enough to credit me as the source)
and seen what I had for herself and then go and review the direct
sources from whence I got the info in the first place. These were
not insider Revisionist sources. These were publicly available
sources. She could then have written the final draft of _Denying_
to reflect this all. Now, she has gone on record as making some
basic errors on basic biographical info on not only Butz, but
also on App (to whom she also devotes a whole chapter).
I then e-mailed you for advice on how I correct these errors without
making Deborah Lipstadt sound foolish. You pooh-poohed the notion
that I could be right and Lipstadt be wrong. To bad, Ken.
Actually I was wrong to have ever tried to seek such advice from
you in the first place. I already knew what you were like, but
at the time, you were for all practical purposes, all I had.
So, you unilaterally decided that my massive, but "normal"
information on Butz was not worth knowing and not worth passing
on to scholars researching Holocaust denial. But, I suppose, in
addtion to thinking you speak for each and every participant of
<can.politics, van.general, can.general, and bc.general>
(such as by posting "Knoll speaks for none of us" with
the "us" meaning all the participants of the said NGs),
you think can speak for Lipstadt and also but make her decisions
for her. Too bad.
So I had little value to you, Ken. Too bad. What I know, in the
right hands, is invaluable for the very same "combat the
Holocaust deniers" work you so sincerely and diligently devote
yourself to. But you methodology is so different from mine that
I even had to put your phrase "combat the Holocaust deniers"
in quote marks because it is so different from what I feel when
I think of reducing the phenonomon of Holocaust denial. I do not
want to "combat" Holocaust deniers who are sincere disbelievers
of the Shoah. I just want to provide viable alternatives and to
combat the *causes* of people seeking solace or an outlet in Revisionism.
Thanks to people like you, Ken, there is at this time a dire poverty
of viable alternatives to Revisionism. Thanks to you and your
ilk, people like me and Werner Knoll are faced with two extremes
-- yours (which actually deserves the label "Holocaust Lobby")
and radical Revisionism's.
At the very same time you and your ilk seek to suppress the truth
about why we turn to Rev, some of those who run radical Revisionism
(Carto, Mark Weber, Hans Schmidt) understand *very well* the needs
of people like me, Werner Knoll, hundreds of thousands of American
and Canadian Germans to include Ernst Zu"ndel. And they meet
our needs and lure us into Revisionism (Zu"ndel was so lured
in Toronto years ago) with these met needs. Once there, an effort
is on to lure us into hard-core Jew-hating circles (they so lured
Zu"ndel).
With me, all the further they got me was Revisionism. The "Holocaust
Lobby" then did much to drive me towards hard-core Nazism.
It is only to my credit I did not go. Don't say if I resisted
anybody could. I am made of some pretty tough stuff. If most people,
including Ken, were subjected to what "the Holocaust Lobby"
subjected me to since 1990 when I first "came out,"
they would be neo-Nazis. Like I said, this included Ken. I will
not say all the things they put me through here. Maybe I will
publicly say it another time or in another venue and maybe I will
not.
With Werner, I cannot tell from just the few posts I read if he
had been lured as far as actually into Revisionism or not. But
I can see that he is "at risk." But Ken, with your posts,
you are increasing the risk. "At risk" does not mean
"evil" either, Ken. Do not blame the victims. We too
are victims and survivors of the Shoah.
And I myself am also a victim from a Jewish point of view, Ken.
But you were so busy trashing me the ways the Germans part of
my heritage made me 'at risk' that you never even let me tell
you I am also Jewish and very much like a Hidden Child first generation
Jewish Shoah survivor and very much like a Second Generation Jewish
Shoah survivor. It is your own prejudice which did not let you
see THESE traits in me, Ken. That plus the fact you are a Goy.
The JEWISH rage in me never spoken about a huge portion of my
people cut off, my JEWISH mourning, you never heard. Had I gotten
a different e-mail account and showed you the Jewish rage and
mourning within me, you would have liked that other persona, huh,
Ken.
But stuff like this (stated before the above paragraph) Ken, you
do not want to hear because according to your preconceived notions,
we START OUT AS hard-core Jew-haters and then pretend to be like
normal people to assimilate out and infiltrate normal society
to inject our poison into it with our "tricks of the deniers."
This is actually true for some people who *claim* to be Revisionists
such as Willis Carto. But for many of us, the exact percentage
I do not know due to lack of formal academic studies I would like
to see done, the truth is just the opposite of what you presuppose.
Lots of people start off with a pre-conceived notion, Ken, including
myself. But real scholars and real researchers and real advocates
do not selectively cleave to or selectively ignore new information
that confirms or denies respectively our preconceived notions
and initial hypotheses. (If you are such a great and wonderful
real researcher and educator of the Shoah, Ken, then how come
you did not last very long on the academic holocaus mailing list
on a server at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where
many real Shoah scholars and many real Shoah survivors participated?
(The list is now called <holocaust> and is on a different
server.) Either you got unsubscribed by the owners or you unsubscribed
yourself in disgust that that real Shoah scholarship forum did
not gobble up your polemics.
But you refuse to see many of the critical points I make in this
post. You have seen most of them in the 1991 to 1997 timespan
(with a gap) many times, so you have had opportunity to consider
them. And due to your refusal, you actually drive more people
into Revisionism or deeper into Revisionism or into hard-core
Jew-hatred with the very efforts you expend to "combat the
Holocast deniers/neo-Nazis."
Such is a travesty. But such is also reality. People like you
are part of the real world we all have to deal with.
Cecelia Plechinger
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you
as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non
commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat
of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et
d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <[email protected].
Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as
the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library.
It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues
to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks
for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the
author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any
responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because
laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question
apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland,
Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors
living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinixons without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.