Debate with Victoria
on Holocaust matters
Re: British Jews tried to stop Balfour Declaration
From Victoria
<email withheld>
5 May 2017 at 07:20
Hello Mr. Myers,
I am writing to express my disagreement over what you said
in your post in the comments section on the above article posted on Henry
Makow's site.
{she proceeded to harangue me over some things that a "Peter"
had posted on that site, assuming that i was the one} ==
Virginia,
I did correspond with Henry Makow at that time, and on these
topics, but I believe that I was not the respondent in this case.
Anyway, I cannot find any record of the discussion, on my
computer or on Makow's site, or anywhere else. Where did you find it? Please
send the link.
Peter ==
RE: British Jews tried to stop Balfour Declaration article
Inbox
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Why are you sending me your address? Are you that Peter Myers who wrote the
comment or not? ==
Victoria,
Now I know the source of the discrepancy.
At the current version of his webpage https://www.henrymakow.com/001458.html,
Henry has removed the comments. That's why I could not find them.
But when I went to the Internet Archive, I was able to find
them in the version saved on February 8, 2008:
You will notice that Henry mentions me by name (Peter Myers)
in one place, with regard to my comment on "Blaming the British". That is
correct.
The other comment you are referring to is simply by "Peter",
no surname given. I do not believe that was by me.
Firstly, I keep records of all my emails (that's how I
communicated with Henry, not by entering cmments at his site), and I have no
record of this.
Secondly, because some of the viewpoints expressed are not
those I hold or have held.
eg that Balfour "didn't like Jews" or saw the Declaration
"as a possible way to get rid of
Jews in Britain."
You were assuming that the comments by "Peter" were by me,
even though no surname was given.
By the way, are you Jewish?
Peter ==
Re: Emailing: British Jews Tried to Stop Balfour Declaration
- henrymakow.com Inbox
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Mr. Myers,
I think it is entirely inappropriate of you to ask me about my
ethnicity. I never asked you about your ethnicity and don't consider it
even relevant to this discussion. ==
Victoria,
Over the years, I have had a number of discussions with Henry
Makow, by email. Despite our differences, were were always civil in our dealings
with one another.
Right from the start, you launched into an attack on me,
without first checking that I was the "Peter" in question.
> Are you that Peter Myers who wrote the
> comment or not?
The text does not say the comment was by "Peter Myers";
merely by "Peter". You were jumping to conclusions. And using a hostile tone, as
if you wanted to lynch me.
Henry Makow's website is about covert forces promoting the
Culture War. Some of those forces are Jewish. It is appropriate for participants
to practice self-disclosure.
Attacking from the shadows, while preserving anonymity or
concealing one's own identity or interests, is inconsistent with this
endeavour.
Peter ==
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Mr. Myers,
I don't believe that
I am under any obligation to disclose my ethnic identity, especially since
you never disclosed yours to me.
On your website Neither Aryan Nor Jew, you never stated how
or in what way your ethnicity or ethnic interest, has influenced you to start
the website, or participate in discussions with Mr. Makow.
I only wrote to you to express my disagreement as a
bystander, not because I had what you perceived as some hidden agenda or
interest which that was influenced by ethnicity. Sometimes people's reactions
are influenced by things other their ethnic/racial identity or interests, but
simply by what they see as unfair, unsubstantiated and deceitful accusation
against an entire ethnic group. People's motivations are not always driven by
their ethnic origins or racial/group interests. If you are one of those people,
you should understand.
Ethnic identity is a deeply personal matter. It is only
appropriate to reveal it to people who one has known or had been friends with
for a very long time.
I don't know if I clarified it to you in the prior email, but
here is another commenter's response to
an aforementioned comment, where he mentions your name.
[Commenting on Peter Myers' statement that I am "blaming it
on the British" and "letting the Jewish lobby off the hook"]
It was one of the reasons why I decided that it was you who
wrote that comment.
That was the main reason why I assumed it was you who wrote
it. I believe I already told you that I was sorry for the inconvenience and in
my initial email, I said that you could disregard it if it wasn't you who wrote
the comment.
You said that my email was in a hostile tone. It was due to
the tone of the comment itself being a deeply hostile one.
The author did launch into an entirely unjustified,
unfounded, and extremely mean-spirited attack on the Jews. It did seem like he wanted to lynch every ordinary Jew
he came into contact with, possibly excluding H. Makow. ==
Victoria,
There was a Peter Meyer who had a site called serendipity.li.
Some people confused the two of us. There was some overlap between our views,
but differences too.
The only record I can find of dealing with him is a short
email from him in 2008.
On my website, I cannot find any mention of his name "Peter
Meyer", and serendipity is mentioned in one place - a link relating to 9/11: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm
It is possible that he is the Peter whose comment on Makow's
website upset you. He does seem to have supported Ernst Zundel. But he may not
be the one. You could, however, try to get in touch with him (if he's still
alive). I see that his articles are still online.
Peter ==
Re: Clarification Inbox
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Mr. Myers,
I was honestly insulted that you would think that just
because I was refuting a comment on an article that dealt with Jews and
Zionism, meant that I was pursuing some
covert agenda having to do with my own ethnic identity and interests.
Just because everything you do may be influenced by your
identity and interests revolving around it, does not mean that this is how other
people operate.
Since you say you are not the one who wrote that comment,
then you are not responsible for its content.
But nobody who writes a comment such as this, where they
launch into a hostile tirade against an
entire ethnic group, should be surprised if somebody returns the volley at them in the
same hostile manner. ==
RE: Clarification Inbox
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Thank you, I will take a look at his website, but I haven't
found any
mention of him on H. Makow's website.
It was more than 10
years ago, and it could be that you may have forgotten
that ever writing
that comment on Makow's website.
Because some of the things you wrote about on your own site
are actually
consistent with that comment's hostile tone.
But at least for now, I will take you at your word that you
never wrote it.
Regards,
Victoria. ==
Victoria,
> It was more than 10 years ago, and it could be that you
may have forgotten
> that ever writing that comment on Makow's website.
It's not a matter of forgetting. I'm a very methodical person
- I keep a record of everything I write, and name each file so that I can find
it.
As I explained to you, I only communicate via email - not by
making comments on other people's webpages. And I keep a copy of everything.
> Because some of the things you wrote about on your own
site are actually
> consistent with that comment's hostile tone.
Even Makow agrees that Zionists hold a lot of power in the
US.
Do you? Are you one
of those Jews who deny that the Jewish Lobby has often manipulated
American Politics?
That Jews on the
Supreme Court brought Gay Marriage to the US?
Jewish writers admitted that the Balfour Declaration was part
of a deal whereby Jews got Palestine in return for their
Even Jewish writers agree that Jews run Hollywood.
So it is not surprising that "Peter" shares some viewpoints
with me. Nevertheless there are differences, which you seem to doubt/dispute
eg I never wrote that Balfour "didn't like Jews", because I
have no knowledge of whether he did so or not.
Nor did I write that Balfour viewed the Declaration "as a
possible way to get rid of Jews in Britain."
See if you can find such sentiments (by me) anywhere on my
website.
Can I expect an apology or retraction from you? Not
likely.
You're playing the aggrieved innocent. But actually you're a
militant waging your own war on
anti-Zionists.
Peter ==
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Mr. Myers,
I don't know what exactly I have to apologize for, since you never apologized for concluding that I
had some kind of covert agenda.
Now on top of that you insult me again by accusing me of being
a militant fighting the
anti-Zionists!
> You're playing the aggrieved innocent. But actually
> you're a militant waging your own war on
anti-Zionists.
You don't have a
right to just cut and label me a "militant Jew fighting anti-Zionists",
or label me as "anything" just because you don't like what I wrote to you and my
questions! I was sincerely expressing my
protest with the way that "Peter" entity chose to go an a rampage against
the ordinary Jews, who were never asked or taken into consideration, when the
big fat cats who were running the world at that time were making common cause
with the early Zionists and issuing all these declarations. I really don't care
what you may think of me for expressing my disagreement and I also don't fear you!
> Are you one of those Jews who deny that the
> Jewish Lobby has often manipulated American
Politics?
> even Makow agrees that Zionists hold a lot of power in
the US.
> That Jews on the Supreme Court brought Gay Marriage to
the US?
> Even Jewish writers agree that Jews run Hollywood.
No, I am neither a Jew, nor a Zionist, nor
"one of those Jews", and you are wrong again!
I also am not a member of the Supreme court, don't work in
Hollywood, am not involved in politics
and don't hold any power at all. Therefore, you have no business bringing these issues
up in your correspondence with me. If they bother you so much, then I
suggest that you take them up with the Zionist Jews in question. Even if I were
a Jew, you would still have no right to provocatively question me on the above
issues, like I have any say in them.
Nevertheless, no Jew
in US or anywhere has to mindlessly agree with and nod their heads in agreement
with the perception that their enemies have of them supposedly being directly
responsible for all of those things.
I don't know why you choose to veer off the main topic of my email, namely
the British being the main culprits for promoting Jewish Zionism, and their
guilt and responsibility in bringing Europe's Jews under Zionist control. Plus,
British being one of the main forces guilty and responsible for the destruction
of European Jewry.
> Jewish writers admitted that the Balfour Declaration
> was part of a deal whereby Jews got Palestine in
return
> for their
Like I said,
whatever was the cause, the "Peter" who
posted the comment had no right to vilify and attack the ordinary Jews for
something that they had no control over. Those Jews behind Balfour Declaration
were in fact Zionist Jews.
Instead of building bridged with the Jews, Britain and others
European powers, supported and enabled the Zionists in putting Jews of Europe
under their direct control, and thus paving the way for their annihilation.
==
Victoria,
> You don't have a right
Yes, BUT YOU HAVE a RIGHT to ACCUSE ME of things I didn't do,
and to keep up those accusations despite my stating that I did not make Peter's
comments, and that I disagreed with some of those comments.
All the Rights are yours. You are entirely in the Right.
> I was sincerely expressing my protest
> with the way that "Peter" entity
But when I explained that I was not that Peter, and did not
make those comments, you kept accusing me of having done so.
The polite, courteous thing to do would have been to ASK me
first if I had made those comments, and only launch your protest if I had.
> you have no business bringing these issues
> up in your correspondence with me
The matters I brought up are also covered in Henry Makow's
website. He and I agree about most of those matters. And since the points you
made derived from Makow's webpages, my points were quite appropriate.
In any case, Rights are always on your side. You never do
anything wrong.
I think we had better wind up our discussion now. Anyway, I
am going away for a trip.
Peter ==
From Victoria
<email withheld>
> Yes, BUT YOU HAVE a RIGHT to ACCUSE ME of things I
didn't do, and to keep up those accusations despite my stating that I did not
make Peter's comments, and that I disagreed with some of those comments.
Mr. Myers,
I only told you reasons as to what made me decide (albeit
wrongly)that it was you who wrote the comment.
One of the comenters brought up the name "Peter Myers" and
that made me sure that the comment was yours.
> All the Rights are yours. You are entirely in the
Right.
> > I was sincerely expressing my protest
>> with the way that "Peter" entity
> But when I explained that I was not that Peter, and did
not make those comments, you kept accusing me of having done so.
> The polite, courteous thing to do would have been to ASK
me first if I had made those comments, and only launch your protest if I
had.
Like I said, I apologize for the inconvenience. I may have been quick jump to
conclusions, but the reason I included my rebuttal of the comment, because I
was sure you would never respond to me and would never ascertain whether it was
you or not either way.
>> you have no business bringing these issues up in
your correspondence
>> with me
>The matters I brought up are also covered in Henry
Makow's website. He and I agree about most of those matters. And since the
points you made derived from Makow's webpages, my points were quite
appropriate.
> In any case, Rights are always on your side. You never
do anything wrong.
I wanted d to stick to the topic of article in response to
which the comment was written.
But the things on your website that were somewhat similar to
the tone of the "Peter " in question, were the ones where you were positioning yourself as a Holocaust
denier, and also your article or a
review about the book where the author imputes Holocaust to the people's belief
in the infamous "Protocols of Zion". Regardless of whether they were a
forgery or not, one cannot deny that indeed they were one of the factors that
led to the genocide of the European Jews by the Nazis. If they were not a
forgery, then why indeed is it still so difficult to ascertain who was their
author. You would think that those who believed in them being authentic would
put some mental and scholarly efforts in establishing the identities of their
authors. ==
Victoria,
> you were positioning yourself as a Holocaust denier
I have never been a holocaust denier. But I do reject holocaust exceptionalism.
What's the difference between being killed in a gas chamber, and being
killed in the Red Terror? Or the Gulag?
Or the Great Leap Forward? Or in Israel's attacks on Gaza? Or on the US
invasion of Iraq, which would not have happened but for about 50 Neocons, of
whom half were Jewish (mostly Trotskyists turned Zionist).
As the the historicity of the Nazi holocaust, I did "sit on
the fence" over this issue for years. For good reason, as I explained in my
webpage 'Fighting with Words: the word "Holocaust"
Finally in late 2008 I research the history intensively, and
concluded that it had occurred.
In early 2009, I ran a debate on it for 3 weeks, in which I
came out strongly against the deniers:
You must have seen that on my website, yet you chose to
ignore it, and depict me as a holocaust denier.
Well, there are other
kinds of denier too.
Such as those who
deny the power the Jewish Lobby has wielded for years.
You're not Jewish, ok I accept that. Are you a Trotskyist or
an Anarchist?
Peter ==
RE: Inbox
From Victoria
<email withheld>
Hello Mr. Myers,
I appreciate you clarifying your position on the
Holocaust.
But I don't appreciate that you are once again jumping to
baseless
assumptions about me.
I am not an
ideologically driven person, and I don't think I have to say
more. My emails to you were never driven by ideology.
I think what makes the Holocaust stand out, is that an entire people was
subject to a campaign
of methodic genocide that was premeditated.
Even if the genocide
was not planned originally, but was mean to be a
wholesale ethnic cleansing campaign which the Nazis did make
clear from the
get go, does amount to a genocide. To ethnically cleanse an
entire group of
people and expel them from their homelands is genocide
too.
I wrote to you with the sole purpose of rebutting what I
thought was your
email on H. Makow's site.
If I will have any further questions on something that was on
your website,
I will contact you then.
Finally, an apology from you for calling me a "militant Jewish anti-Zionist"
would be appreciated. ==
Victoria,
> calling me a "militant Jewish anti-Zionist"
That purports to be an exact quote, but actually it's
not.
I did not call you Jewish, but asked
"Are you one of those
Jews who deny that the Jewish Lobby ..."
I did call you a militant - I wrote,
"But actually you're a militant waging your own war on
anti-Zionists".
Please don't misquote me again. Such carelessless is not
scholarly.
It would not have been too much trouble for you to look up
what I actually wrote, but you did not bother.
I can't see any point in further discussion. Anyway, I'm
about to head off.
Peter ==
Victoria,
I should have addressed your statement that holocaust
exceptionalism is justified because "an entire people was subject to a campaign
of methodic genocide".
The Nazis attempted to get rid of Jews within the regions
they conquered. But they made no attempt to get rid of Jews in other countries.
So it did not apply to "an entire people".
In the same way, Israel is conducting a genocide of the
Palestinians. But only the ones living in Palestine, not those living in the
West. So not "an entire people".
Further, Israel and its Lobby have lobbied for the West to
attack Arab/Islamic countries - Iraq, Libya, Syria. That cost a million lives in
Iraq alone, plus ongoing disasters.
Many people regard Netanyahu as akin to Nazis. The "holocaust
exceptionalism" argument breaks down.
Nazi mass killing of
Jews would not have happened if Jews had not been the predominant leaders of the
Bolshevik Revolution.
In Ch. 16 of The Last Days of the Romanovs, Robert Wilton
named the Jews running all the revolutionary parties: http://mailstar.net/wilton.html
Admittedly Stalin turned the tables on them, and gave them a
taste of their own medicine. But first they had imposed the Red Terror, and a
genocide of the "Great Russian" people. The term "genocide" includes destruction
of a people's culture. The "holocaust exceptionalism" argument breaks down.
Finally, Nazi mass
killing of Jews would not have happened if Zionists had not swayed the outcome
of World War I via the Balfour Declaration - which was regarded as a
contract between Britain and World Jewry.
Theordor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote:
"When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the
subordinate officers of all revolutionaly parties; and at the same time, when we
rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse." (The Jewish State,
p.91)
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the
founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the
Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates":
Leonard Stein writes in his book The Balfour Declaration
(Vallentine-Mitchell, London, 1961):
"Herzl describes in his diaries an interview with Chamberlain
in April 1903, when the El Arish scheme was again discussed. He told
Chamberlain, he says, that 'we shall get
[Palestine] not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers. And
if we are in El Arish under the Union Jack, then our Palestine will likewise be
in the British sphere of influence.' This suggestion, Herzl writes, was not at
all ill-received.89" (p. 25) http://mailstar.net/balfour.html
If all such details are kept out of the picture, "holocaust
exceptionalism" seems plausible. But when the missing details are included in
the total picture, the "holocaust exceptionalism" argument breaks down. All
sides have blood on their hands, and none are morally superior.
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.