-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 05:08:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Party of Citizens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [2ndrepoftexas] By the Dawn's Early Light
Dear President Bush:
Suppose the U.N. were to give a large portion of Texas to the modern
Indian people because their ancestors had once inhabited and owned Texas.
Then suppose 5,000,000 foreigners claiming to be the rightful inheritors
of those lands streamed in, killing tens of thousands of current Texans,
seizing their land and driving them from Texas by the millions,
traumatizing the men, women and children of Texas daily for 50 years in
the process. What would you say?
You might very well call the 5,000,000 foreigners, invaders; and
thieves; and terrorists. You might lead Texans in fighting daily to
reclaim their lands using guns and bombs and all kinds of imported
weapons. You would fight for your lands would you not? Especially if you
realized that the invaders couldn't even come close to proving that they
are the rightful inheritors of the lands of the Ancient Indian peoples any
more than many other foreign groups. You would call the invaders
terrorists and thieves and impostors. Please tell the Palestinian people
why their real circumstance is not like the hypothetical one of the
Texans.
POC
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:15:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [LIFE-GAZETTE] WHO has Right of Return to Israel: The Question of
True Israelite Identity
Dear CTV:
A posting on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> apprised me that you are
looking for panelists for your Feb. 7 Program on "Israel vs. Palestine".
I am qualified to be a panelist by having earned my doctorate in
philosophy-psychology with thesis and oral defenses in nature-nurture
theories or "behaviour genetics" (U of A, 1971). The relevancy of that has
to do with the root issue here which is a claim of inheritance, otherwise
referred to as Right of Return or Identity. Let me explain further how
this applies to your forthcoming program. BTW, I have cc'd Prime Minister
Chretien's office because of the reference below re my letter to Jerusalem
Post during his last visit to that region.
The Israel vs. Palestine conflict is, at its foundation, a matter of Right
of Return. Both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Christians and Muslims lay
claim to Right of Return. Israel's Law of Return is one of its
Constitutional Documents (it has a set of documents and principles said to
be Constitutional instead of a single Constitution as is the case for USA
for example). Behind the Law of Return there is a principle, the Right of
Return. Unless that principle is valid, the Law of Return is not worth the
paper on which it is written. Palestinians also claim Right of Return.
Right of Return to where? Neither side disputes that in this region,
albeit within uncertain borders by today's knowledge, there is a territory
promised by God (or G-d if you prefer) to the Israelites. Whether that
"Deed" from the Almighty is still valid today is one issue. But I would
rather leave that to the theologians for debate. I am assuming, for the
purpose of this analysis, that it is valid today. The framework for
analysis below is based on consideration of the three broad factors
(Biological, Cultural and Spiritual) which exhaust most, if not all, of
the possibilities. To lay a claim to Right of Return, one would have to
invoke these factors and their sub-factors.
To say that a modern people called "Jews" have the exclusive Right of
Return begs the question. Jews are not necessarily the modern-day
Israelites. The Law of Return reads "For the purposes of this law, 'Jew'
means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to
Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." It doesn't say
anything about whether modern Jews are Israelites. The Jewish Alamanac
(1980, p. 3) says "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an Ancient
Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or Hebrew".
Right of Return then becomes a matter of IDENTITY. Whose modern identity
can be most closely matched to the ancient identity of a people who lived
some 3,000 years ago? What specific reasons would one give for an
inheritance right to the lands of the Ancient Israelites? If we accept
that God's promise to the Ancient Israelites is valid today, it comes down
to identity. How would one identify a modern Israelite, after the passage
of three millenia?
While the essay below is phrased in terms of CI (Christian
Identity) vs. JI (Jewish Identity), that does not exclude Muslims from
this analysis. It is just that CI and JI have more developed positions in
the public domain. If my argument is correct, the first two factors
(biological and cultural) are not going to resolve the matter. The
resolution hangs on spiritual considerations. Given that, if Muslims did
not believe they are carrying forward the ancient faith of the Israelites
and Patriarchs before them, they would abandon it for another faith. Thus
it is implicit that they are taking their stand for identity with the
great spiritual teachers of the ancient world as well. Christian and
Muslim Palestinians believe that they are best carrying forward the light
of civilization cast by the spiritual leaders from ancient times as do
Israeli Jews.
The good news is that identity based on spirituality does not demand the
shedding of blood for its affirmation. It demands reasoning and faith
expressed in the kind of works which will be "a light unto the nations" or
the "salt and light of the world".
Sincerely-FWP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO has Right of Return to Israel: The Question of True
Israelite Identity
by Franklin Wayne Poley, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Both Christian Identity (CI) and Jewish Identity (JI) are contenders for
being identified with the people of Ancient Israel. In other words, each
group asserts that it constitutes the closest desendants to Jacob
(Israel) and his children. Each asserts that the other is presenting fake
credentials or Fake Identity (FI if you will). The various arguments sort
into three categories as below: biological, cultural and spiritual.
Overall they constitute an argument from the "Laws of Inheritance" to
determine which people today can claim to inherit the ancestral rights of
Jacob and Israel. If there are any major categories for analysis beyond
these three, please bring this to my attention.
(1) BIOLOGICAL: Succintly, nobody has the proof that either CI or JI
is any more closely related to Jacob than his brother, Esau. Josephus, the
famous Jewish historian from Roman times tells us that the Romans forced a
merger of what was left of the Israelite nation with what was left of the
Edomite nation (Esau's nation). Josephus is most explicit that this was a
religious merger too. "From then on, they too were Jews" he writes.
In the Tyndale Bible Dictionary, we read under "Edomites" that "John
Hyrcanus complelled them to be circumcised and incorporated into the
Jewish people. The Herods were of general Edomite stock".
It is possible, though speculative, that the Israelites selected
their mates for lighter skin colour as CI tells us. We do have the
Biblical record that Esau's marriage to Hittite women displeased his
parents but how much of that is a religious and how much a racial matter
we can't tell. Nevertheless, both Israelites and Edomites were, based on
the lineage of their "founding fathers", descendents of Shem and therefore
"Shemites" or "Semites". Widespread marriage to outsiders could have
caused both populations to genetically drift far beyond initial Shemite
gene pools. And who could tell if the Israelites or Edomites were more
likely to have gene pools which matched initial Shemite gene pools more
closely? Adding to the difficulty we have the Ashkenazi-Khazar conversion
which is standard material in the Jewish Encyclopedias. Ashkenaz is the
name of a descendent of Japheth, not even a Shemite. Most Jews today
are deemed to be of Ashkenazi-Khazar descent. Encyclopedia Britannica
(1992) says "Today Ashkenazim constitute more than 80 percent of the Jews
in the world...." The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia gives an even
higher figure. The Tyndale Bible Dictionary tells us Ashkenaz is the
"Eponymous ancestor of the successive inhabitants of an area between the
Black and Caspian Seas" and is also "a descendant of Noah through Japheth
and Gomer". That region between the Black and Caspian Seas was Khazaria in
ancient times and later was called "The Pale". Refer to Professor
M. Gilbert's "Jewish History Atlas" for maps of Khazaria and The Pale over
the centuries.
The CI dogmatists seize on this to say Jews are racially Edomite-Shemites
or Ashkenaz-Japhethites. But they are poor geneticists and they ignore the
matter that this is also a question of a GENE POOL FOR A POPULATION, not
exclusively an individual pedigree. Also, from a gene matching
perspective, what would we say if we had Jacob's DNA profile and the DNA
profiles of every human on earth today? Would the 5,000,000 with the
closest genetic matchings to Jacob be allowed "right of return" to Israel
to displace the 5,000,000 Jews who now live there? Or would we match the
gene pool of the 5,000,000 modern people with the Ancient Israelite gene
pool after one or two or x generations? There is no getting away from the
centrality of the laws of genetics to develop an argument in law for the
"right of return" which is an ancestral claim. There is no doubt that the
Ancient Israelite gene pool drifted. Explicitly or implicitly Ancient
Israel (like all of the other ancient cultures) must have had a policy on
inbreeding-outbreeding. In my 1976 text "Individual Differences" with Al
Buss (New York Jewish BTW) you can read about the significant inbreeding
depression found for the progeny of first cousin marriages in Japanese and
Israeli populations (p. 215). Too much outbreeding and you lose the
genotype-phenotype distinctiveness of your population. Too much inbreeding
and you are likely to lose the entire group due to inbreeding depression.
Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich writes in his book, "A Concise History of
Israel" (1957, p. 80) that "Mixed marriage was not forbidden down to the
time of the kings...The list of Ezra x. 18ff. mentions 109 cases of mixed
marriage; but from Neh. xiii. 23ff. we know that they were annulled only
in special cases." Certainly it was not forbidden. To a degree it had to
be encouraged. Who is to say what degree of mixed marriage, IF ANY, would
cause the population to lose Israelite identity?
Inbreeding coefficients are calculated for populations by quantitative
geneticists. There is no fast rule as to what the inbreeding coefficient
must be before a group can be called a "race". Moreover, even if we do say
that modern Jews constitute a race, that does not mean the modern race
is matched to those called Jews in the Bible. They could well be matched
to another ancient population as discussed above under Edomites and
Ashkenazis. Inbreeding also figures in the retention of deleterious genes
by certain populations. Once such genes are located in a population (eg by
mutation or migration of the deleterious genes into the population) the
more people continue to marry within that population, the more likely it
is to continue from generation to generation and to show up in increasing
numbers. Conditions like Hemophilia in European Royals and Tay-Sachs in
Jews are examples. Again there is no merit in drawing incorrect
conclusions about such genes proving any racial identity. They prove no
such thing.
The Cohen Y chromosome constancy is a special case of biological-genetic
argument. But it fails to help us solve this problem of inheritance rights
as some have claimed. The most that Y chromosome constancy could prove is
a common male ancestor from the distant past. That male ancestor could
come from one of many populations. Even if additional evidence should link
the ancestor to a region like the Middle East, how does that help us? Many
nations, cultures, tribes etc. lived in that region. Adding "name
game" pseudo-evidence also fails to help. Some have suggested that the
phonetic similarity of Cohen or Cohn as modern names to the Cohanim
priesthood from the time of Moses is supportive evidence for JI
claims. But it is not since there are similar sounding names in other
populations as well, including the Khazar-Ashkenazi population and the
Edomite population. Phonetically similar family names of historical
importance from ancient times include Khan and Korah.
The CI dogma that the Israelites were White is fatuous. How likely is it
that the White Romans found their racial kin in the Middle East, engaged
in a religious struggle with non-Whites, and failed to make any record of
this whatsoever? SOME may well have been White but that doesn't lend
support to the CI position. The fact that Jewish family trees are quite
short, the longest only going back a few centuries, is consistent with
a reported high conversion rate. The Council of Jewish Federations
demographic survey tells us that "Since 1985, most Jewish marriages have
been intermarriages and the chance that the child of an intermarried
couple will be raised as a Jew is only 28%".
In other words there are no continuous biological pedigrees for
today which take us back anywhere close to Jacob's day. Not for CI. Not
for JI. There are no DNA matchings from the people of today to Israelites
3 millenia ago. There are no family picture albums and the few paintings,
coin images and sculptings still leave us in doubt. And that is where the
matter lies on biological-genetic criteria. In the greatest of doubt for
all concerned. But this is certain: biological criteria alone do not give
anyone a deed to the lands of Israel as far as laying claim to the
Kingdom of Ancient Israel is concerned. Thus we turn to (2) Cultural and
(3) Spiritual, criteria, to determine "Right of Return" based on identity.
True identity, not FI, "fake identity".
That's about as brief as I can make (1) while getting the main points in.
Dogmatists from either side will shout that THEY are the latter-day
Israelites by biological-genetic-geneological criteria. The reply of those
who value truth and reasoning is: SHOW US THE PROOF. I have yet to see it
and I have reasons to think it is not forthcoming. Three thousand years of
history have blurred the record of matching to an ancient race so much
that it seems unlikely it will ever be found. Some would say that the
Almighty in His wisdom has given all races an equal opportunity to prove
that they are His chosen people.
(2) CULTURAL: Do cultural-social arguments favour one side or
the other? Are there customs and habits and features of language which
support the CI or the JI position and tell us which group is closer to the
Ancient Israelites of 3,000+ years ago? These arguments are illusory. They
can give the impression of credibility while lacking the substance and
that can be seen by just a small amount of reasoning. For example, is
speaking of the Hebrew language proof of ancestry? Not a bit. Hundreds of
schools, perhaps thousands, in Christian and Islamic nations teach Hebrew.
Speaking Hebrew doesn't make one a Hebrew any more than speaking Latin
makes one a Roman of Imperial Rome. Beside that, "Eber" the original
Hebrew lived many centuries before Jacob (Israel) and a number of Hebrew
dialects arose. Ehrlich tells us "From geographical links it is probable
that northern Mesopotamia was the seat of the Hebrews; the names of
Abraham's ancestors correspond to names of cities near Haran: Peleg, Srug,
Nahor, Terah." (p.4). The point is that an argument of identity made from
Hebrew language usage is very circumspect indeed. Which Hebrew language
should it be? Can anyone show us where the Almighty stipulated that His
chosen people could only speak one dialect of Hebrew? Even if that was the
dialect used by Jacob what is the likelihood that it held constant for the
next thousand years of Israelite history? If we go back 1,000 years the
English language is so different that a modern Englishman cannot
understand it.
Next, what about the well known dietary laws like prohibitions
against eating pork or shell fish? If I were to adopt the diet of the
Ancient Aztecs would that make me an Aztec? If I dine with relish on
grasshoppers but reject ants on my plate does that make me an Ancient
Israelite? The JI counterpart to the fatuous CI "White Israelite
Race" dogma is found here. If JI really believes this Jewish Cultural
Identity dogma, then what is there to prevent anybody on earth from
adopting the attendant customs and habits, stepping off a plane in
Tel Aviv and claiming instant Jewish citizenship which is what Jews can
now do? Those customs or habits are well known. Adding the stamp of
approval of all of the rabbis in the world isn't going to add anything to
the performance of either a perfect actor and counterfeiter claiming
cultural identity or another perfect actor who is is a genuine "latter-day
Israelite". However, if 'acting like a perfect Israelite' is the
standard, there must be degrees of perfection. How many points for the
performance are assigned to dress, dietary habits, language etc? And then
we come back to the counterpart to genetic drift. Accepting that the
founding clan of Israel in ancient times consisted of sensible people,
they would have recognized that their gene pool would change over time and
that the change would be beneficial. Likewise for "cultural drift". How
much cultural drift would they have accepted as beneficial and how much
would they have called a "loss of cultural identity"? Can anyone today
answer this question? Not likely.
Consider too the many modern innovations from airplanes to
xylophones. There are no ancient laws and customs to match. If there is
any matching to be made it must be based on the spirit of the ancient laws
and not the letter of those laws. If the spirit of the law is to accept
progress when it betters the lot of a people, why not accept progress in
dietary or nutritional science, linguistics etc. as well? If JI says CI is
too lax in adhering to the ancient customs, CI might reply that they
could set up a special training camp at Hayden Lake, Idaho and soon they
will have mastered whatever dialect of Hebrew is required, eschewed
lobster and abalone and pork and what then? Will JI accept that they are
True Israelites? Did Ancient Israelites have pointy heads and did they run
around in bed sheets? Would Jacob have held it against them if they did?
Thus we can go on and on with these examples. Ancient customs and laws had
their purposes. But there was both the spirit and the letter of the
law. Concretely, there were known health dangers at the time associated with
certain foods. As science dealt with these problems why should the taboos
remain? IDENTITY is just identity. What would the Ancient Israelites have
said about the customs to which their descendents should adhere? Like most
people they would probably have said they wanted them to be living in a
better world, to have healthy and happy lives. Given that spirit of the
law, would they expect them to rigidly dress, talk, eat, transport and
house themselves as they did or adapt to the changing times? Professor
Terry Blodgett has found that some Germanic languages of today contain
1/3 Hebrew-derived words. Would the Ancient Hebrews have accepted that as
an adaption to the modern era or would they have insisted on rigidly
staying with the ancient language? If the latter, why not stay with all of
the ancient customs? And then, to what avail is scientific progress? Does
it make the Amish more Christian if they continue using horses for
transportation as did the Christians of ancient times? (At least it
reduces the likelihood of drive-by shootings). Are people more
Israelite if they live just like the Ancient Israelites or would the
Ancient Israelites laugh at this and say such people just don't "get
it" when it comes to the spirit in which the ancient Israelite laws were
given? Frederic W. Farrar, former Dean of Canterbury tells us about the
ongoing clash of Hagadists and Halachists. He writes in his book, "The
Life and Works of St. Paul" (1879) that "The two classes of students
despised each other." The conflict was based on the fact that "...the
Hagadists were grasping the spirit, while the Halachists were blindly
groping amid the crumbled fragments of the letter." (p.34).
What it comes down to is this. If an argument is made for identity from
cultural indicators and those who are most matched in this way, why not
for other ancient peoples as well? Could anthropologists or archaelogists
studying ancient Egyptians or Babylonians or Incas suddenly say, "We are
now the closest descendents to those ancient people because we now know
and practice their customs"?
If CONTINUOUS, generation-by-generation lineage were established from
Jacob to people today, and those modern people were to adhere to some of
the ancient customs that would be a different matter. Just as the royal
families of Europe have that kind of continuous claim to their thrones,
modern Israelites could claim to be the bona fide inheritors of Israelite
title. Title to material assets like land is of course another
matter, in contrast to title as a nominal claim. Various assets of the
modern royalty have been lost over the centuries and there is no dispute
in law about those losses. For example, none of the royal families claim
to rule by "Divine right" today. If they did, they could claim that they
retain the over-riding power over all of the legislatures of Europe.
Today the closest we have to any people exercising "Divine right" is in
the Middle East where Palestinians were displaced by the millions by JI
people claiming the Almighty had given them the Deed to this land. More
rational minds might ask to see that Deed and to see the specific borders
set by the Almighty (not by very human wars of conquest).
Modern JI family trees (pedigrees) do not go back any further than the
middle ages as far as I can tell from checking the geneology reference
works and few families can even claim that much of a geneological record.
But there is a curious kind of continuous lineage which DOES apply
today. That is the generation-by-generation SPIRITUAL lineage which is
claimed by the Christian churches (whether Protestant, Roman, Orthodox or
other) and is known all the way back to Peter and Jesus. Then it is
curious because it switches to a generation-by-generation BIOLOGICAL
lineage known from Jesus all the way back to Jacob, if the geneologies
given in the Bible are correct. If this kind of spiritual-biological
"geneology" is accepted, then CI in the broadest sense can claim Israelite
identity. Thus the final determiner of true identity becomes our last
category, spiritual.
(3) SPIRITUAL: Since biological and cultural means for claiming identity
leave the issue up in the air, what about spiritual? Christians and
Muslims clearly believe that they are carrying forward the ancient
spiritual teachings of the Patriarchs and Israelites in the best way
possible. If they believed otherwise they would change their religions.
Thus the identity issue widens enormously with respect to the populations
effected. All Jews, Christians and Muslims (as well as some smaller
splinter groups) believe they are identifying most closely with the
great spiritual teachers of the ancient world. Who then is the modern
"light of the world"? What criteria would be used to decide whether the
way of life prescribed by this biological-cultural-spiritual group or that
is more conducive to a modern "enlightenment" for the human race?
The answer I gave to this was presented to the Jerusalem Post in a letter
a couple of years ago when Prime Minister Chretien was visiting in that
region. They said they were interested in publishing it though I don't
know if they did as I read JP only occasionally. Most of humankind live in
and around villages and cities. Why not see who can design these habitats
to best benefit the human race? They can be very explicit about how the
designs incorporate the principles and practices of their faith. To give
an example, what about the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Here in
Vancouver proper with 500,000 people living in 36 square miles, >30 people
are killed every year in vehicular accidents. Would city planners mindful
of that commandment not design a new city when called upon to do so, which
would attempt to eliminate all such fatalities?
There is even a precedent for such an undertaking, at least at the village
level. In the 1970's the UN asked the architect Peter Land to lead a team
of 13 eminent architects from 13 countries to design a model village for
the world. Peter Land did so and stayed on to lead the construction as
well. The resulting village was "PREVI" in Peru. One of the architectural
team, Charles Correa, was chief architect for a city built anew called New
Bombay or Navi Mumbai, in India. The initial population of 250,000 is over
1,000,000 today. Today the world population increase approaches
billion per decade and almost all of that increase will accrue to villages
and cities and nearby surroundings. "Faith without works is dead" so the
manifestation of faith in constructive and benign and life enhancing
projects of this kind would be the best expression of identity with those
who made their contribution as a light in the darkness of this world over
3,000 years ago.
St. Paul continued to identify himself as a Jew (from Tarsus) and an
Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin. However, it was neither his biology
nor his cultural identity which he emphasized. In Romans 2:28-29 we read
"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one
inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in
the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God".
What kind of charity or compassion do we see in the design of the modern
lifestyle? And that was the point of my letter to Jerusalem Post. It is
inconceivable that a Buddhist would not want to see the complete societal
expression of the Buddhist lifestyle manifested; or a Muslim the Muslim
lifestyle; or a Marxist the Marxist lifestyle. And while the mere outward
simulation of such a lifestyle has its limitations as discussed above,
"faith without works is dead" is a maxim which applies in its own way to
everyone from Atheist to Zoroastrian. To CI, JI or any other genre of
believer, I would say, "Show us your faith in your works...your Culture
X. And let us decide which is best according to the principles you
espouse."
"Peace" is more easily said than done in the case of the Palestine-Israel
conflict. Fifty years of continual warfare and strife cannot be stopped by
good wishes. If, however, an international peacekeeping force can restrain
the combatants, another kind of competition will take over. And it will
have take its toll in the egos of those who lose. Those who claim to be
the "light unto the nations" or the "salt and light of the world" will
have hundreds of foreign countries and thousands of foreign cultures
watching, with high expectations.
"Show us" they will be saying, adding that "faith without works is dead".
So far both sides are complicit in horrifying, even traumatizing, the
global village. So far neither side is at all convincing in any
claim to be carrying the light of civilization from ancient times. What
will happen when peace is declared? Will either then emerge as a light for
civilization? That is what identity and right of return are really about.
What kind of city with surroundings would one expect of a "faith-based public works"
project with the objective of designing and constructing a "culture of life"? Would a
George Bush "culture of life" be the same as a Vatican "culture of life"?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
============================================================
Win a FREE Family Vacation!
To your favorite drive-to vacation spot from Bid4Vacations
Condos 7 days for $299, Cruises - bids start at $1
http://click.topica.com/caaafmbbUrGshbVXAHEf/Bid4Vacations
============================================================
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrGsh.bVXAHE
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/XgSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
