January 15, 1998

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

When I talked to the producer after the last television show I did in San Francisco, she told me that the ADL, whose segment will be juxtaposed to mine, had admitted that their definition of what constitutes a "hate site" was "arbitrary" and "biased". It will be interesting to see if that admission will find its way into the broadcast, or if it will end up on the editorial cutting floor.

"HateWatch", the outfit that groups and "exposes" what they call "hate sites", and whose spokesperson of sorts is one Marc Kaufmann, wrote me a long epistle of his rationale to designate the label "hate" to certain websites, such as the Zundelsite, while withholding it from others, such as Nizkor, whom we would call a "hate site" with far more justification.

A segment of the Kaufmann mindset is as follows:

"Ms. Rimland, you have listed above four organizations (the ADL is, in fact, a subgroup of B'nai B'rith). Should I detail for you why each group you cited is or is not a hate group as per the definition from HateWatch that you cite above?

Nizkor is not a hate group because it does not advocate violence in any form, nor does it advocate hostility toward any particular race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or gender, nor does it disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to the aforementioned groups. You may argue that, in "lobbying" in support of the idea that the Holocaust is an historical fact that Nizkor is disseminating historically inaccurate information. Even if this were so (which I will say for the record it is not -- the Holocaust did, in fact, occur), Nizkor is still not maligning a race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or gender by taking this position. You may argue that the group it is maligning is Germans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only group that Nizkor "maligns" is Nazis and anti-Semites. Unless you are of the opinion, which I am not, that all Germans are Nazis and anti-Semites, then Nizkor's position on the Holocaust cannot be taken as a "hate" position given the above definition."

David Thomas, a well-known Internet writer in our camp, took Marc Kaufmann on in what he calls "A partial list of illogic in the above". I bring it here in full, having added only paragraph breaks to make for easier reading:

(1) After stating that ADL is a subgroup of B'nai Brith, he goes on to apply the boiler-plate verbiage to B'nai Brith instead of ADL.

The ADL is a spy group, among other nefarious activities, who routinely advocate hostility toward individuals they unilaterally label as anti-Semites. I guess promoting hostility toward individuals is OK.

(2) He names and exempts from his definition of hate two groups identifiable by shared beliefs. I guess promoting hostility toward groups that are identifiable by the common beliefs of their members is OK. Sounds awfully like that includes religions though.

(3) He ignores the fact, easily verifiable on Deja News, that Nizkor "affiliates" have indeed advocated violence and promoted a reeking brand of obscene hostility on Usenet, without any public censure from Nizkor. The fact that these thug-talkers are volunteers does not relieve the parent organization from responsibility for actions plainly made on Nizkor's behalf. Chuck Ferree comes quickly to mind, as does Van Alstine.

(4) Per his remarks, Nizkor's 100 megs or more of archived material on some highly controversial issues and a huge, skimpily documented subject, about which academic historians have not reached consensus or firm conclusion, contains no inaccuracies whatsoever. Nizkor seems to adopt the same attitude per the comments of their "official" spokesmen on Usenet, who have repeatedly claimed in exchanges that what they represent is the absolute truth.

In comparison, CODOH makes no such ridiculous claims of infallibility, nor does Greg Raven, nor any revisionist site I know. The two mentioned by name in fact request that readers please notify them of any errors spotted.

I don't know how much further you can go to indicate sincerity and good faith, but Nizkor doesn't even know how to do this. They may have expunged some of this material, I'm really not sure, but I am positive that for some time they maintained dossiers on individuals, featuring quotes from their Usenet postings along with claims that said individuals were, variously, liars, nazis, neo-nazis, haters, and other scurrilous labels.

The apparent dispensation for this behavior in Kaufmann's explanation is either that (a) hating individuals is an exempted activity, and/or (b) Nizkor has made no mistakes in their summary identifications of the inner thoughts of those targeted, or (c) that it's OK to promote hostility toward groups with shared beliefs if those assumed and unidentified beliefs are unpopular with other summary labeling groups who dislike said unenumerated beliefs, with the strong implication that the only beliefs applicable for this hate exemption are those critical of unidentified aspects of either Jewish culture or any activity of the borderless state of Israel.

Let me sum this convoluted (nonsense) and Mr. Kaufmann's real beliefs up in fewer words. It is not hatred to hate groups or individuals who have been identified by Zionist activist front groups as sanctioned targets, or who are openly critical of any aspect of Zionist activities. This dispensation extends further to cover all activist groups, and their unilateral pronouncements of targets, who are unofficial supporters of Zionism and/or political correctness, who do not too openly advocate violence directly.

All Israelis are exempt from any charges of hate advocacy by dent of ignoring remarks from that quarter. And Elie Wiesel's admonition that all Jews should maintain a healthy, virile hatred for the German is just a metaphorical remark that does not advocate what it seems to advocate.

And your check is in the mail, I'll send someone right out, this won't hurt, etc.

Hate Watch and its ilk are doublespeak promoters of hostility who should be at the heads of the lists they keep. They are disingenuous, slippery-talking, self-righteous-appointed and anointed, illogical, biased if not bigoted members of that growing crowd enthralled with the vicious premise that "Hating Sanctioned People and Groups is Good Clean Fun and an Honorable Civic Duty."

They sow the toxic seeds of eventual mob justice, and do so with pride. In the inevitable lynching scenarios, they are the ones who plant a rope at the scene beforehand and stand back to watch, deriving vicarious satisfaction from the end result without taking active part.

If the deeds are called to account, they will piously claim and be able to document that they have been publicly opposed to such actions all along, and are innocent of any degree of approval, let alone complicity. They will then be amongst the moist-lipped observers at the edge of the crowd watching the duped enablers of their inner wishes getting their necks stretched.

And the cycle repeats.

The world's been that way for a long time. You wonder sometimes if we'll ever change. Or ever learn, which of course must come first.

If people want to hate something, they should confine that feeling to intangibles, such as flawed and socially damaging philosophies. Perhaps then they'll be struck by the inanity of hating entities with no physical presence, settle for simply opposing them vigorously, and thereby learn the value of dispassionate application of the rules of law and reason - said value being that the third element of a civilized society is compassion, which is absent when passions are inappropriately invested in the first two."

David Thomas

Thought for the Day:

"No doubt Jack the Ripper excused himself on the grounds that it was human nature."

(A. A. Milne)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1998 ZGrams