I really am unhappy with the way that Christian Identity anti-Semites such as Stevertigo are being allowed to push hatred of Israel and Jews on this e-mail list, and on multiple Wikipedia articles.
I am even more unhappy about the way that several people are writing me privately, admitting to me that they too see huge amounts of anti-Semitism, but that they are publicly unwilling to say or do anything about this, especially in regards to Stevertigo.
This man is a violently hateful anti-Semitic racist, and the way that so many people consider him a valuble controbutor onl serves to further the impression that Wikipedia is becoming an internet haven for anti-Semites, as well as people who Catholics and others.
The following analysis of Stevertigo shows that he is a "Christian Idenity" style anti-Semite. What people do with this information will show whether or not anti-Semitism is considered acceptable or not on Wikipedia.
Just stop allowing him to edit articles on Jews, Christians, Israel, etc.
******************
Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David Irving]]. I immediately removed the text, only to start a minor edit war and provoke censure for the act, even from people I believe acted out of good intentions. You might also want to see the essay on Irving that SV posted on his personal page.
Before you react, here are some thoughts. SV is acting cleverly-so cleverly, in fact, that for a while I thought that SV was actually Irving himself. By the way, it's not that far off. Notice how, on the Talk Page, when I called Irving a Nazi apologist, he signed his response "The Apologist." I was up to three this morning, tracing his contributions, and their development is too sophisticated for the standard anti-Semitic gibberish that people post. In short, his argument over several weeks is leading somewhere. The points he is trying to make are as follows:
1. Anti-Semitism should be defined as taking extreme actions against Jews: killing them, maiming them, or hurting them in some other, physical way. Anti-Jewish sentiment is not anti-Semitism.
2. [[Henry Ford]] may have published anti-Semitic articles, but by this definition, he is not an anti-Semite. I call this stage, "testing the waters." He continues:
3. [[David Irving]] is a much-maligned academic. He is a "young and talented writer," who has simply, and misguidedly tried to point out that post the second generation of Germans after the Holocaust "were no less victims of Hitler than the Jews were." Irving then wants "to bridge the gap between victor and victim."
4. David Irving gave reasons why the numbers attached to the [[Holocaust]] could not be authentic. He repeats Irving's famous assertion: "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
By following this logic,
5. The Nazis could not possibly be anti-Semitic (point 1), because while they spoke about the Jews harshly, they did not actually do any harm.
Therefore:
6. Who is responsible for the supposed imbalance between Germany and the rest of the world if not the Jews?
As evidence for this, I quote Stevertigo's misquote of Chomsky on his homepage: "Those who express their fear and concern over manifestations of anti-Semitism among Blacks and others might be taken seriously if they were to pay even the slightest attention to what is said by their friends and associates. They do not." In other words, Blacks are justified for anti-Semitism because of anti-Black racism supposedly prevalent among Jews. In other words, anti-Semitism can be justified. Once again, we go back to "testing the waters."
This argument is remarkably sophisticated-more so than, for example, Clutch's rantings. Stevertigo is using quite a few techniques used in top-notch propaganda efforts:
* He is combining fact with fiction in sophisticated ways, so that readers immediately make the assumption that if one statement is truthful, the other must necessarily be truthful too.
* He is appealing to the innate sense of identification with the underdog that most people have: notice his quote from Thomas (originally in Psalms, but who is gonna check): "the discarded stone is the keystone."
* He presents as fact things that only people with specialized knowledge will know is wrong. In "Letter versus Spirit" last night, he wrote: The Hebrew word "Torah", in fact, similar to the Christian Old Testament, translates as "the Law." He got a little snide when I called him on that.
* He is trying to drive wedges between people involved in the debate.
* He is employing cynicism to fend off criticisms of him: "And due to my ties to the Neo-nazi Filipino hemp mafia…"
* He is citing NPOV as a justification for promoting his agenda.
* He is transferring guilt from the victims to the oppressors. For instance, "Even though they were only small children while Hitler was alive, they still shouldered the heavy hand of guilt - of War-raped mothers and sisters, of destroyed country, and a long lost sense of who they were." In other words, the poor German children watched their mothers raped by the Allies, their country destroyed by them, and their sense of identity "long lost."
Poignant, painful imagery, but what the fuck is "long lost?" "Long lost identity" is actually a Nazi phrase regarding the lost of German culture because of Jewish infiltration, but who the heck is gonna know that unless they actually studied the history.
* He is claiming to take a middle ground between two extremes: "I think Irving represents an important middle ground between victim and victim." In other words, Nazis should be rejected (or at least at this point, their arguments should be rejected), but so should Jews, because the two represent extremes.
Please understand that we will not change SV's mind. He is too steeped in his belief system for that. My concern is that he is fooling others.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Oh, stop your whining. There are no Daddy figures around here to stop Stvertigo from editing articles on Jews, nor to stop you from editing articles on Palestinians, something I would dearly like to see. Are you some kind of authority freak?
On 10/01/03 at 09:36 AM, Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com said:
Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David Irving]].
To what are you referring? According to
http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history
Stevertigo hasn't edited that article since February 17.
On 10/01/03 at 09:36 AM, Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com said:
Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David Irving]].
To what are you referring? According to
http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history
Stevertigo hasn't edited that article since February 17.
Robert, will you *please* stop sending these e-mails? This is spam. I doubt anyone can find any more new information in these e-mails of yours than can be found in Viagra spam mail, you have the same problems over and over, you're being harrassed for being a Jew, everybody's anti-Semite, yadda-yadda-yadda. I read the "bizarre rant on oil" Stevertigo posted, courtesy of Gareth BTW -- you didn't bother to quote it, you just started complaining about it.
Can you actually prove these horrendous anti-Semitic statements made by Stevertigo as to justify this interminable e-mail of yours? Please either post some quotations here, or just stop it! Also, not posting any of the wrong-doings of Stevertigo on this list along with your accusations insults our intelligence -- it looks like we're too idiots to appreciate the hatred in his postings, and you're the only one who can really understand what he's really saying, so you have to somehow interpret it for us. Try us once, give us the juice, let's see what this evil, evil man wrote, let's all be the judges of his horrid attitude and stone him to death in the name of what is good, right and decent! But let's see some data first, ok?
Gutza
Robert wrote:
Much ado about nada, IMHO.
I really am unhappy with the way that Christian Identity anti-Semites such as Stevertigo are being allowed to push hatred of Israel and Jews on this e-mail list, and on multiple Wikipedia articles.
I am even more unhappy about the way that several people are writing me privately, admitting to me that they too see huge amounts of anti-Semitism, but that they are publicly unwilling to say or do anything about this, especially in regards to Stevertigo.
This man is a violently hateful anti-Semitic racist, and the way that so many people consider him a valuble controbutor onl serves to further the impression that Wikipedia is becoming an internet haven for anti-Semites, as well as people who Catholics and others.
The following analysis of Stevertigo shows that he is a "Christian Idenity" style anti-Semite. What people do with this information will show whether or not anti-Semitism is considered acceptable or not on Wikipedia.
Just stop allowing him to edit articles on Jews, Christians, Israel, etc.
[lots of valid evidence]
RK
Stevertigo may be a little confused about jew-related issues and NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should block him from editing the articles. We only need to convince him that what his writing is not NPOV (no matter how "correct" it is).
Besides, Stevertigo is not anti-semetic. If he was, don't you think he would have said something bad about our religion to at least one of us, RK? (BTW, I'm Jewish) LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com