Mr. Griswold,

You have often, in your embarrassing months here on the net, made statements which others have questioned. Strangely, however, you rarely, if ever, provide answers to those questions.

In the never-ending quest for reality, therefore, I have determined to repeat these questions for you, in the hope that you will eventually get around to answering them. (That is unlikely, of course, since, as a leading Canadian "National Alliance" member (Is Mr. Griswold really the best the National Alliance can come up with in Canada?), you don't deal in facts, but empty rhetoric.)

Question One [January, 1995]

(I have omitted the background data here, as this specific issue is dealt with extensively in another regular post.*)

A. How many Natives were there on the North American continent prior to the arrival of the white man?
B. How many are there now?

Question Two, v1.0 [April, 1995]
Question Two, v1.5 [December, 1995]

This question has been changed. The background text remains the same, but the question itself has changed.

On April 3, 1995, you published the following assertions:

Liberals LOVE to go on about how "Whites beat Blacks too, so let's not hear about Black-on-White crime anymore!" As if a few isolated incidents equal the undeclared race war that the Black race is perpetrating on the White race! Just a few facts:

1. A majority of people murdered by Blacks are not Black.

2. In 1988 there were ten cases of White men raping Black women in the U.S., but NINE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE (that's 9,405) cases of Blacks raping White women.

3. White criminals attack Blacks only 2% of the time.

4. In 1985, there were 629,000 interracial attacks recorded by the FBI. 90% were Black on White.

Gee, since Blacks only make up about 13% of the U.S. population, one would expect that they only commit 13% of the crime.

(Yeah, we really believe THAT one!) (Griswold, Black on Black)

When queried about the source for your statistics, you claimed it to be "The FBI Uniform Crime Report," (Griswold, Griswold makes more claims) but, as more than one user pointed out, the FBI does not report arrest figures for interracial rape. (See, for instance, Marty Kelly, who published the following...)

"So I took a look at Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1975), one of the more significant discussions of how discussions of rape get used politically. I knew her 1970s statistics wouldn't be generalizable to this thread, but thought I might find some useful points. I did. In her discussion of the thorny complications involved in talking about rape and race, she mentions that "The FBI holds to a firm policy of not reporting arrest figures for interracial rape" (Brownmiller 214). ...that policy still seems to be in effect." (Kelly, Griswold makes up...)

==> New text begins here

The OLD question, therefore, was this: (a) Where did you get your statistics, and (b) why did you lie about them, since it is quite clear that you did not obtain them from the cited source?

The new question has its roots in an ongoing discussion with one Mr. Jeffrey Brown, who made the following comment:

Which observations, Griswold? Observations like the 9,405 black-on-white rapes you claimed took place in 1988, for which no documentation has ever been produced? Observations of that quality?

To your credit, Mr. Griswold, you admit "having been proven wrong." Alas, Mr. Griswold, you were gilding the lily just a tad: the reality is that you were admitting to the truth: that you had openly lied about their source. We had suspected that you had simply made them up from the beginning - April 3rd, 1995, and known you were lying on April 14. Your long-delayed admission follows:

That's really good, Brown. The fact is, NEGROES COMMIT CRIME, and they commit crime far out of proportion to their representation in the general population. Don't wet yourself over having proved me wrong on one stat; you may have won the battle, but you are FAR from winning the war. (Griswold, re: sickening)

The amended question, v1.5, therefore is:

Why did you wait 270 days before admitting you were a liar, when it had been common knowledge for fully 259 days?

Question Three [March 1995]

The Jews are in the United States

In late March of 1995, in response to the following query from Kevin Filan,

"Assuming the Holocaust was a "hoax," where did all the Jews of Poland and eastern Europe go?"

Your considered reply was: "The United States." (Griswold, 6 Million)

Mr. Filan responded with the following:

"You obviously believe that the missing Jews of Eastern Europe are now in New York and Miami Beach,"

"And you obviously believe that they aren't."

Mr. Filan then asked if you could provide evidence for your assertion that the Jews had immigrated to the United States. Your response appeared calculated to suggest that immigration statistics would not provide evidence, since "Jew" was not a relevant classification:

"Do you mean before or after "jew" was no longer a racial classification, and jews called themselves as "German", "Polish", "Hungarian", etc., depending on their country of origin?" (Griswold, 6 Million [2])

Mr. Filan then produced relevant immigration statistics from the United States government. These statistics demonstrated that approximately 480,000 people, of all races and national origins, immigrated to the United States during the Nazi era, thus demolishing your claim that the missing European Jews had all moved to the United States. (Filan, 6 Million) The Jewish population of Miami Beach, by the way, Mr. Griswold, is approximately 340,000.

Question #3, therefore, Mr. Griswold, is as follows:

Since it has been conclusively demonstrated that the missing European Jews could not possibly have immigrated to the United States, where did the Jews of Eastern Europe go?

Question Four [April 1995]

In early April of 1995, you made the following statement:

And you might want to keep a lid on that "human soap" shit - no-one buys it anymore, not even hollow cause hucksters. (Griswold, ADV)

In my reply (1995Apr22.224610.23271@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca), I asked you the following question, and asked that you share your sources:

Does this mean, Mr. Griswold, that you, alone among scholars, "revisionist" or no, have finally located the long-sought refutation of the testimony of Mazur et al with regard to Stutthof?

To date, Mr. Griswold, you have failed to respond in any way, or, of course, provide any source documentation for your assertion regarding "human soap shit." My question above, therefore, constitutes Question #4.

You have not attempted to question the Stutthof experiments.

You have not attempted to discredit Mazur, or the others who testified at Nuremberg. Instead, you elected silence, even in the certain knowledge that it would make you appear even more foolish than you have in the past - which is saying something.

Why is that, Mr. Griswold? Are you content to have the world regard you as nothing more than a loud-mouthed, uneducated simpleton? (A regard which, judging from your track record thus far, is richly deserved, and utterly accurate.)

Question Five [June 1995]

In June of 1995, you made the astounding claim reproduced below:

Andy Walton (atticus@mindspring.com) writes:

> In article <D9KI2y.J01@freenet.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

>> It has everything to do with this or any other newsgroup on
>> politics. Oh, your favorite hero Adolf Hitler commited suicide
>> in case you had forgotton.

> Wartime propaganda. Hitler died fighting.

> Fighting whom? Are you saying that he didn't die in the bunker,
> but on the front lines? Amazing that no one noticed him.

No, Raggedy Andy, he died fighting the Russians. Remember those lovable, cuddly communist nice guys? They were swarming all over Berlin in late April of 1945.

The question, Mr. Griswold, is this: What led you to this astounding conclusion, given the documented history of Hitler's suicide?

Question Six [June 1995]

In June of 1995, during a discussion in which you seemed to support selective inbreeding, you made the following comment:

"... if you had been following the debate earlier, you'd realize that inbreeding must be coupled with keeping undesirable specimens from breeding. Of course, most libs had shrieking fits when they saw that." (Griswold, Incest)

I would ask, Mr. Griswold, that you define the term "undesirable specimens," and outline precisely how you would prevent them from breeding.

Question Seven [June 1995]

During a discussion with Andy Walton (Griswold, Tactics for Racial Survival), you made the following comment:

"Like that LBJ was right to force White girls at bayonet point i into a school with a Black student?"

Although many users responded by asking you to document the claim that a white girl was forced, at bayonet point, "into a school with a Black student," you have failed to do so. Question Seven, therefore, is this:

At what school did this event allegedly occur, and on what day? In addition, can you cite specific newspaper reports and/or published books which document this event?

Question Eight [June 1995]

In a classic example of Griswoldese, you made the following statements in a discussion in alt.skinheads:

If a jewish kiddie is TAUGHT that it's normal for the nice bearded man to touch him/her on the naughty bits, then he/she won't REPORT it as sexual abuse, will he/she?

Anyway, what about the oral sex that all jewish boys are submitted to by eight days of age when the _mohel_ circumcises them, then sucks the blood out of the wound, with a mouthful of wine the whole time?

Please do enlighten your non-Jewish audience, Mr. Griswold, by providing documentation for both assertions (that Jewish children are taught to submit to sexual abuse, and that the mohel's practice equates with oral sex).

Question Nine [August 1995]

In article <DCw7u2.78p@freenet.carleton.ca>, in response to a continuing discussion between myself and Marc Lemire, during which I stated:

"Mr. Lemire apparently has difficulty relating to Canada's legal system, as he continues to assert that the "Jewish Armed Resistance" (an apparently non-existent, long-defunct group) was responsible for the Zundel arson."

You replied:

"Funny, that. A Revisionist gets his house torched by a party, or parties, unknown, and you rush to their defense with 'innocent until proven guilty'. Yet, EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of White on non-White violence is a 'neoNazi' plot. Am I the only one who smells 'double standard' around here?" (Griswold, McOyVay the masochist!)

It would appear that your intent was to create the impression that I and other users here believe, and state, that "every single instance of white on non-white violence is a neo-nazi plot."

The question, therefore, is this: What articles can you provide that establish that either I, or others here, have expressed this view?

Since it is clear that you cannot provide any such articles, the second part of the question addresses your motivation: Why have you lied about this matter?

----

One can, of course, only speculate as to why Mr. Griswold refuses to address the questions so frequently asked of him. What is clear, however, is that Mr. Griswold is afraid of open debate, unafraid of inventing statistics to suit his racist, neo-nazi agenda, and absolutely unconcerned about being clearly shown to be both a liar and a fraud. (How fitting, therefore, that Mr. Griswold should represent the " National Alliance" in Canada. It would appear that the primary criteria for joining this "party" include a proven track record of racism and lies.)

What a sterling example our Mr. Griswold provides for other starry-eyed nazi wannabees...

* For the complete file on "the Native Population According to Griswold," see natives.

Work Cited

Please see the original plaintext version for citations.

The original plaintext version of this file is available via ftp.

[ Index ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor