From: Rad Edelstein (
Subject: Re: Raspuns domnului Edelstein 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1996/03/26

roscai@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Rosca Ioan) wrote:

>Domnule Edelstein, 
> 1  Poate ca textul dv. e interesant pentru unii cititori (pe care 
>probabil ii aveti in vedere cind imi raspundeti in engleza) , dar eu nu 
>am gasit in el nimic nou. Nici ca mesaj, nici ca tehnica. Nu va contest 
>consecventa. Dar o depling. (Aveti dreptate, intre noi e un psudo-
>     Apelul meu era catre alti evrei.   

So, what's new in your postings, Mr. Rosca?   (message, technique?) 
Maybe you want me to consider your implying that I write in English in
order to misrepresent your words as new?  You've said this before,

>     De la dv stiu deja ca trebuie sa ma astept la :
>a- a recurge la atacul la persoana IN LOCUL dezbaterii de idei

You have not had a dialogue; you had just postulated "the TRUTH".
Show me any acknowledgement that you were wrong (not necessarily an
appology) and then I'll say that you opened for a debate ("dezbatere").

>b- a eluda toate intrebarile de fond prin diversiuni arbitrare

This is your perception.  I have stated my opinions on what you said,
without ignoring parts of your posts.  If you think that I was
elusive, what should I say about your complete avoidance of answering
to my questions?  Were you any better?

>c-  a rastalmaci textele mai vechi- la adapostul faptului ca cititorul nu 
>le are in fata- si a deforma pe cel in discutie- la adapostul 
>"stereofoniei lingvistice" 

I'm going to "rastalmacesc" again, on this post of yours.  You accuse
me of lack of scrupules, of using a language foreign to you, and of
misquoting you.  Well, show me any such comments that I made that did
not reffer specifically to something that you wrote.  And look further
down through your post to see how you gathered specific comments I
made on some of your posts, took them out of their proper context (you
cut out your antisemitic remarques I was responding to), and combine 
this with with your keeping a file on me (exactly that that you imply
others might be doing to you), to get the picture of yourself.  When I
wrote that it is not about "overthrowing", but "taking the place of"
(something that it seems you did not understand - see the respective
passage bellow), I had no clue that you would prove me right so soon:
you use the exact methods of those you claim to despize - the 

>d- a reclama nejustificat autoritate stiintifica si obiectivitate

I can claim objectivity as long as I want.  It is up to you and others
that read my postings to decide whether I am objective or not.  You
have already given your verdict, but in all honesty I would give you
too much credit to take it at face value after all that you wrote.
As for "scientific authority", it seems that my quoting history books
bothers you.  What should I do instead in order to mention facts from
the past?

>e -a face abstractie de frazele care nu va convin 

Again, I have replied fully to your posts.  I don't believe that I
have ommited anything with intent.

>f- a va dezinforma publicul 

This is what your friends, the legionaires did (and still do).  I am
not "disinforming the public".  It seems that for you it matters
enormously that you create a public to listen to you.  For me it did
not and it can clearly be seen that the language that I use and the
attacks on you would not do me any favour in creating such a public.  
Mr. Rosca, I could have used innuendoes and sophisticated language as
well as you, even in Romanian.  For me it is not a purpose to hide
behind subtelties and I commited myself to not being sneaky like you
(even though the temptation is great, especially after your having
already accused me of the sort).

>g- a va ascunde stingaci ura mocnita impotriva poporului roman 

That's a cheap shot, but I knew you were capable of it.  If you
believe that I have curtailed in any way my negative comments on
Romanians, and that I have hate that I keep untold, you might also
have a reason for why I'm refraining from it.  I don't see any and I
don't see any reason why I could not write in hateful terms about 
Romanians if I wanted to do so.  After reading posts of the likes of
you, my reaction is not of hate, but of increasing sadness.  Vying for
the approval of the "romanian people" seems something that you would
me more interested in and you are the one with an interest of not
being offensive towards them.  Believe me, if I hated, you would have
seen it.

>  Oricind doriti pot exemplifica.


>  In revansa, ati putea sa ma citati (corect ...) in acele locuri in care 
>mi-as fi manifestat pro-legionarismul, pro-antonescianismul , 
>antisemitismul, dispretul pentru Holocaust etc ? 
>Ex. :
>>[...]your dear Antonescu gave the explicit order
>>[...] Your attitude is the same: you are accusing the victims. 
>>[...]Personally I would join such a group, with one condition: if it 
>>has nothing to do with the likes of you.  If today, when you appeal 
>>for understanding and help, you find yourself uncapable to 
>>denounce your past apologetic comments on the legionaires

When you'll quote me within the context, I will reply to it.  I don't
keep a file, like you.  By such display, you show you're not better
than those that you claim you fight against.

>     Continui sa cred ca faceti aceste afirmatii cu scop de diversiune si 
>intimidare. Degeaba perorati :
>>>     Domnul Ahronovitz a incercat sa-mi stopeze demersul 
>>>comparativ cu acuzatii de anti-semitism.
>>Nobody stops you, Mr. Rosca.
>     Nu mai spuneti ! Din cite stiu eu "antisemitismul" e considerat 
>crima si cel "vinovat" risca repercursiunile legii. De n-ar fi decit 
>expulzarile si interdictiile de a profesa care se aplica pe aici (Canada) 
>la tot felul de indivizi ce fac "delict de opinie antisemita". In aceste 
>conditii (cam inchizitoriale -dupa parerea mea) faptul ca incercati sa 
>ascundeti potentialul amenintator al etichetelor cu care ma cadorisiti 
>nu e decit o ipocrizie. De-abia acuzatia mea- ca va manifestati anti-
>romaneste- nu are nimic intimidant din moment ce o astfel de fapta 
>nu e interzisa .... 

Again, you're the victim.  I am not aware of cases when antisemites
have been persecuted in Canada, as I am not aware of cases when
antiromanians got away with antiromanian acts in Canada.  Maybe you'll
give some examples, cause you very easily postulate, but I can not
take such statements at their face value.

>  2   Nu speram altceva de la dv. , dupa interventiile mai vechi. De 
>aceea nu consideram util a va mai raspunde. Cind m-am referit la cei 
>care ne contesta calitatea de supravietuitori a unui macel v-am avut in 
>vedere . Nu era nevoie sa confirmati : 

Again, you misquote me.  I have never claimed that Romanians did not
suffer under communism.  On the contrary, I have added that those
involved in crimes against Romanians (of all ethnical background)
should be punished.I claimed that the Holocaust can not be compared
with those crimes and I have helped you with many points on what is
different.  It is obvious, yet you do not want to see it.  (BTW, take
this last sentence, put it together with other comments of mine, and
draw again conclusions about my ugly characteristics; you know how, 
you're doing it throughout your post).

>>>Motto : " Lui Simon Wiesenthal nu cred ca i-ati spune ca e 
>>>intransigent, nu cred ca l-ati acuza de robespierrianism pentru ca a 
>>>facut o viata ceea ce a facut."(Gabriel Liiceanu ) 
>>Poor selection.  The equation of a reign of terror with the hunting
>>down of Nazi criminals...
>>One, with the aim of destroying political enemies [!!!!]and 
>>reshaping mentalities, the other with the aim of bringing to justice 
>>people whose crimes are clear and determined.[...]

Is this an "arbitrary diversion" of mine, or it just "eluded" to you?
Or is it that a motto has no significance or importance to the rest of
the posting?

>>You have stated this comparison over and over again.  You have 
>>never brought any arguments for your theory.
>>Violence, rape, death marches for men, women, and children, for 
>>elders and the sick, mobs bathing in their blood, looting of their 
>>property in daylight, inequality in rights, the obstruction from 
>>finding work,from performing one's profession, applied selectively 
>>to their ethnical group; what are you comparing to this?
>>Civilians with no anti-government political activities, shot and
>>thrown into the river; what are you comparing to this?
>>The fear and terror that all Jews lived under, "getting it" both from
>>the government, from extremist groups, and from their own 
>>neighbours, all only because they were Jews; what are you 
>>comparing to this?
>>The media portraying them as a fifth column, abusing them, telling
>>lies about them and then rallying the mob against them based on 
>>these lies; what are you comparing to this?
>>Everybody telling them that they are no good, that they don't 
>>deserve to live, that they should get lost, that they killed Jesus and 
>>should pay for it, 
>>that they don't have any room any more because it is the time for 
>>Romanians to get everything; what are you comparing to this?
>>Yes, Romanians suffered under communism, as did Jews and 
>>others.Those guilty deserve to be punished.  Your understanding of 
>>the quality and proportion of the two crimes though, is ridiculous.   
>   Cele de mai sus reafirma refuzul dv de a privi comunismul ca un 
>gigantic genocid.

You have not answered a single one of those questions.  Regardless of
what you claim, there is one single reason: you have no answer.  The
two do not compare in scope and quality.  Again, this does not mean
that Romanians were not persecuted under communism as you try to imply
that I am saying.

> Va priveste. Dar va trebuie mult singe rece pentru 
>ca - la numai citeva linii mai sus- sa pretindeti :
>>you could see that my position on the necessity of a process of    
>>Communism in Romania do not differ from yours.   iar -la citeva linii mai
>>jos- sa exclamati :    
>>Here you're recognizable again - the use of inuendoes.  Care to
>>clarify what "e vorba de altceva" you had in mind? 
>cind eu denuntasem tocmai acel alt "understanding of the quality and 
>proportion of the two crimes " pe care iata, il confirmati.

You're a liar, Mr. Rosca.  Again, you took it out if its context   The
second comment had nothing to do with the topic of comparisson that
you are talking about.  Here is the full paragraph:
>     Apoi, au venit stirile despre "inalta apreciere" pe care o arata 
>anumite asociatii evreiesti  liderului comunist dispus "impaciuitor" 
>la returnari de proprietati si despagubiri .("miercuri 6 septembrie, 
>generalul israelian Moshe Nativ,director general al Agentiei Sochnut 
>si ambasadorul Naftali Lavi,vicepresedinte la "World Jewesh 
>Restitution Organization" i-au inmanat presedintelui Romaniei, la 
>Palatul Cotroceni, medalia jubiliara "Ierusalim 3000" ").  Domnul A. 
>a uitat sa protesteze, desi ne ceruse ritos sa condamnam ridicarea 
>unor statui lui Antonescu.  Este clar ca pentru dumnealui "e vorba 
>de altceva" si tocmai de aceea cred ca se inseala cind isi imagineaza 
>ca simte romaneste !]

Here you're recognizable again - the use of inuendoes.  Care to
clarify what "e vorba de altceva" you had in mind?  Care to
substantiate it with facts, as well?"

Talking about selectivness, you never answered the question.  More
than that, you took my question and implied that I addressed it in a
different context.  You have quite a chutzpach to accuse me at the
begining (without proof) of exactly what I am proving you here that
YOU do.

>     Da, E vorba de altceva  si pentru dv. (ca si pentru domnul 
>Ahronovitz)  din moment ce va par " ridiculous" cind compar 
>nazismul cu comunismul.  

See above (otherwise you're going to say again that I left "important
issues" unanswered).

>   Caci la acel "what are you comparing to this?" - ar fi trebuit sa va 
>raspundeti singur !

I don't have to answer to it.  It would be rethorical and rethoric is
your occupation.  
If you're so self-righteouss, why don't you answer it?  Question by

>    Daca nu stiti raspunsul inseamna ca indemnul :
>>> sa inceteze "discretia" evreilor din Europa de 
>>>Est, [...]  fata de Genocidul Rosu .
>nu e gratuit : se aplica de exemplu la dv ! 

What can I say?  Again, Rosca himself!  I am talking to you
personally, I am saing that you are an antisemite, not the Romanians,
yet in your posts you're always talking about Jews (in this case not
just me and Miha, or "some" Romanian Jews, or 
Romanian Jews; but ALL Eastern European Jews).  And then to claim that
I'm not noticing the essence of what you're posting :-) ...

>     Iar  excalmatia: 
>>"au vazut fara sa vada" - spurcata limba ai, Mr. Rosca!
>are o anume savoare...

Hey, you loved it, didn't you?  Why dont't you try some Idish phrase
to throw back at me?  Or better, why don't you leave it as it is,
cause' your established status does not allow you to "lower yourself"
to it?

BTW, am I not vicious, disgusting, unjust, lacking scrupules, and
unscientific here?  For your consolation, I don't do it to everybody,
only to those who deserve it.

>   Ca sa nu mai vorbim de culoarea pe care ati dat-o interogatiei mele: 
>>>daca evreii nu s-au simtit co-detinuti cu noi in 
>>>lagarul stalinist - inseamna ca au fost efectiv altceva, ca armata 
>>>sovietica i-a eliberat o data cu intemnitarea noastra ! 

What did I answer?  Refresh my memory, pull out my file.  Oh, is it on
your desk already? :-)

>    Revenind la demonstratia echivalentei... Am facut-o in multe 
>interventii ,in multe feluri. Sinteti sigur ca vreti sa ma repet ? Sinteza 
>in 75 de puncte pe care o adresasem presedintelui Clinton a fost 
>considerata de unii chiar prea migaloasa. Ati citit-o ?  Sinteti de fapt 
>la curent cu ce s-a publicat dupa 1989 in Romania privind crimele 
>regimul comunist ? Cunoasteti modelul "Pitesti" -  ca mecanism de 
>degradare progresiva a poporului roman in captivitate ?
>   A transforma o tara intr-un lagar de munca, exterminare,  
>indobitocire, alienare , compromitere, dezumanizare - si aceasta pe 
>timp de o jumatate de secol - e o operatie cu nimic mai putin odioasa 
>ca Holocaustul.
>     Un munte de victime printre rezistenti.  Un ocean de suferinte 
>printre "supusi". Un abis de umilinte printre "reeducati" . Trei 
>generatii de prizonieri. 
>    Schinjuirea perpetua e preferabila executiei ?A extirpa cu 
>incetinitorul omenescul din detinuti sa fie  mai civilizat decit a-i 
>lichida repede ?  

Yes Mr. Rosca, this is the best example of how you think.  The Jews
that were taken through long marches through Bessarabia did not suffer
as much as the prisoners of communist jails.  Their deaths were at
least as civilized, as they were "quickly liquidated" - you say.
People dying of hunger did not suffer, right?

Why am I wasting my time with you?

>La Pitesti nu se puteau nici sinucide ... A oferi 
>victimei iesirea de a se intovarasi cu calaii sa fie o alinare ? Sau un 
>pisc de diabolica rautate ?
>    Comunicidul e o operatie pe viu, o gigantica si interminabila 
>schingiuire colectiva. Nu e nevoie de morti (decit daca nu se supun) 
>ci de oameni-neoameni. 

Mr. Rosca, give me back my family, those that did not get to live or
yet to be born because of the Holocaust in Romania.  Give them back to
me, even if they're not human anymore, even I have to stay away from
them because of some quibble!  
Where is my family?  And where is yours?

>     Evreii care au scapat de Holocaust ar vota cu nazistii care i-au 
>decimat ? Daca romanii au fost adusi in acest hal , e pentru ca  
>experimentul la care au fost expusi a fost devastator !  
>    Asta, pe problema de fond.

It's because instead of education you're feeding them a new set of
nationalistic dreams!

>3  In ce priveste ... "stilul": 
>>your dear Antonescu gave the explicit order
>>[...]you find yourself uncapable to denounce your 
>>past apologetic comments on the legionaires,
>>[...]you would have acknowledged the guilt of those who 
>>perpetrated the Romanian Holocaust.
>>]...] you deny it happened and you attempt to 
>>rehabilitate those who have commited it. 
>imi terbuie multa rabdare ca sa va amendez.  
>  Dar cum stiu ca va bazati pe oboseala mea , nu va voi da satisfactie.

It is not about satisfaction, Rosca.  It's about what you stand for.

>    Nicaieri nu am negat uciderea evreilor in Romania. Nici tragedia 
>victimelor. Nici nocivitatea crimei si justetea pedepsirii criminalilor. 

So that you don't cry again that I am hiding what you write, I'll
translate this, as it is the first time that you state clearly a
position on this issue:
"Nowhere have I denied the murdering of Jews in Romania.  Nor the
tragedy the victims went through.  Nor the maligness of the crime and
the justice in punishing the criminals."
Yes you did.  Repeatedly you cleared those who fought communism of the

responsibility for their role in the Holocaust.

>Nici dreptul dv de a va ocupa de acest dosar. Am negat prioritatea 
>rejudecarii acestui proces - IN LOCUL Procesului Comunismului . 
>Caci v-am explicat extensiv ca propaganda dv reprezinta pentru 
>criminalii comunisti o binevenita diversiune.

You have constantly mentioned Jewish names, with preponderence and
This is the main reason that I went on to comment on your postings,
not the issue of priorities.  Every single political commentary of
yours: about Romania of last century, about Romanian literary figures,
about WWII, about communism, and 
about neo-communism, have had more Jewish names mentioned or blame
laid on all Jews or some Jews as their common and most apparent link.
This is what I commented on.  This is antisemitism, despite your
hiding behind "priorities".  If in any of those instances (many not
having to do with communism at all) you would have abstained from
singeling out Jews, you could have claimed it is different.  But 
that was indeed the only thing that united your postings.

>    O fi fost bunicii dv batjocoriti de nazisti dar de comunisti au fost 
>batjocoriti nu numai bunicii si parintii mei ci CHIAR EU.  Cei lasati 
>fara o minima justitie in Romania se degradeaza, mor , innebunesc, 
>se exileaza,se sinucid. AZI ! MIINE ! Si daca sint lasati criminalii sa 
>triumfe nestingherit, vor fi batjocoriti si fii nostri. Nu-i asa ca tot nu 
>intelegeti deosebirea ? 

I did not leave Romania long before you did, so we had to live under
the same political conditions.

I can see your sense of urgency and I have to confess that I agree
with it more and more.  Even if I would ever do something about it,
though, it would not be by joining hand with someone who does not
waste any occasion to point to Jews as the source of evil in Romania.
I will not "befriend the devil" to help him "cross the bridge".

>    Dar am respins si  rolul de judecator pe care il reclamati desi 
>sinteti avocat. Judecator care de altfel ... porneste investigatia de la 
>concluzii ferme. Concluzii stabilite in baza unui "scientifism" gaunos 
>: consultari bibliografice selective, metoda arbitrara. 
>     Va contest soliditatea argumentatiei , atita timp cit  propuneti ca 
>"autoritate" pe un ins ca Mihai Pelin (fost "istoric " nationalist, 
>odinioara angajat  personal de Iosif Constantin Dragan pentru 
>scociorirea arhivelor in spirit nationalist si actualmente redactor al 
>"Cartii Albe a Securitatii" si in paralel al unor lucrari despre evrei in 
>care-si ataca cu aplomb vechile idei ...). 
>      Trebuie sa dezumflu "academismul" in numele caruia dati 
>sentinte, atita timp cit operati cu un concept de cauzalitate istorica 
>atit de rudimentar incit il denuntati pe Eminescu ca responsabil 
>pentru Holocaust ... 

The selection of my quotes from Pelin was minimal.  You are judging
the man for his past and I see nothing wrong with it.  What I have
quoted were arguments that you could not refute, and that's what
angers you.  The exclusion of Jews from the evacuation of Bessarabia
is a fact, regardless of Mr. Pelin's personality.  The Romanians who
greeted the Soviet troops as well as the Jews, are also fact, not 
invention of Mr. Pelin, and the campaign of the legionaires coupled
with "testimonies" from those Romanian officers who deserted their
troups, in front of a court-martial (those that are the "proof" of
Jewish attrocities against the retreating Romanian army, and that are
still quoted and fed to Romanians), are also facts and if you had any
real argument against them, you would have mentioned it, I'm sure.  
Do I need to remind you whose technique you're using?  If you have
proof to contradict his statements (by the way, he documents his book
with quotes from documents that are supposed to exist in Romania; it
should be simple to prove that he is not telling the truth), then
bring it forth.

You have also made comments about what happened in Iasi, until I
quoted Romanian official documents (at which point you dissapeared).
These were not from Pelin, as most of my quotes were not from Pelin.

As for Eminescu, my words were not that he is "responsible" for the
Holocaust, but that he contributed through the antisemitic atmosphere
that he created (legionaires constantly quoted him).  If you claim
that that had no influence, you probably know better than me (your
"scientifism" is pure and perfect).

>(Apropo , nu v-ar strica ceva lecturi de epistemologie, va recomand 
>de exemplu Hempel Carl "Aspects of Scientific Explanation", 
>Achinstein Peter "The Nature of Explanation"; Ruben David-Hillel 
>"Explaining Explanation", G.H von Wright "Explanation and 
>Understanding" etc . Veti avea mari surprize ! Si veti fi poate mai 
>putin sigur pe dv., mai circumspect fata de "obiectivitate", 
>"demonstratie"  si "certitudine" mai putin ironic fata de dialogul meu 
>cu domnul Ciuca... )

Rosca, you two are the greatest epistomologists on scr.  Are you
satisfied, now?

>     Am mai respins si tratarile in bloc la care recurgeti, rudimentare si 
>resentimentare :
> > you should ask yourself about the causes of such a  tragedy and
> >about the moral stand of your forefathers when they  were murdering 
>> my forefathers. [un mesaj mai vechi- foarte concludent]
>   Patima va expune la o orbire jalnica de la "inaltimea" careia dati 
>romanilor lectii de istorie :
>> There is much bitterness inside me and there will probably continue 
>> to be, until I see enough done to establish and accept the truth.[...] 
>> but there was no general call for an investigation, the punishment of 
>> those guilty,  or fordenounciation of antisemitism, which means  
>>acceptance and consequently complicity.  Does it not surprise you 
>>that with the exception of two Eastern European countries, every 
>>other one has faced its mistakes [during the Holocaust]?
>      Pentru a proteja pe cititorii neavizati de crasa dezinformare la care 
>v-ati pretat in acest paragraf ,v-am raspuns cu spicuiri din 
>interminabilul sir al proceselor pe care comunistii le-au intentat 
>antisemitilor, nazistilor sa.-dupa 1944. V-am oferit un pomelnic de 
>sentinte nominalizate.

If you read it carefully, you will see that I reffered to the question
of the existance of a moral outcry by the Romanian population.  Please
read it again ("for the first time").  It does not reffer at all to
the actions taken by the communist government.
What dezinformation is in that?  Could you spell it out?

>     In loc sa va cereti scuze pentru ca ati incercat sa acreditati ideea 
>falsa ca judecata n-a avut loc, sau -in caz ca datele pe care le-am postat 
>va erau necunoscute-sa le comentati, in loc sa explicati de cite ori 
>trebuie ca Antonescu (si ceilalti) sa fie Re-judecati, Re-condamnati si 
>Re-executati pentru ca sa fie "  enough done" si sa va ostoiti acel 
>"bitterness inside" , ati preferat sa ma denuntati si pe mine ... 

Again, it is not about their being to court and judged again.  You
claim that they were falsely accused, which in many cases it might
have been true.  But then, the same mistery as that of the 89'
"Revolution" must have happened (there were no "terrorists").  The
issue I raised was acceptance that the facts had happened and 
until this post all you did was to start qualifying the motives behind
the crimes.

>      Simplismul urii dv. ne baga intr- oala pe toti : ucigasi de evrei, 
>anti-semiti, legionari, comentatori neconvenabili, orice alti suspecti :
>>examples of Jews jailed by the communists in the same cells with 
>>your mentors (you know whom I'm talking about).  To discount 
>>them shows your total malevolence.  Unlike their fellow cell mates 
>>who had them in their hands (again), they were victims during the 
>>war as well, not criminals [!!!! e limpede ...]  .
>E clar. Purgatoriul celor condamnati (si exterminati) de comunisti nu 
>va satisface. Trebuie reactualizat , largit, finalizat. Eventual, tot de 
>comunisti, caci pareti constient de nerealismul rasturnarii lor... 

No Mr. Rosca, not everybody is an antisemite.  If you want to feel
solidary with most Romanians, you'll have to do it on adifferent
basis.  By the way, did anybody tell you that you're unique? :-) 

When did I ask for those who have been judged for participating in the
Holocaust to be judged again?  Mr. Rosca, you're placing words in my
mouth that I never said.  So much for your superior epistomology...
>    Am mai respins spiritul arogant in care CERETI generatiei mele 
>sa-si toarne cenusa in cap pentru fapte cu care nu are absolut nici un 
>fel de legatura , desi e mai "cuminte" sa renunte la a-si face justitie 
>pentru violul la care a fost expusa direct:

To your comment above, my quotes bellow do not have a dirrect
relevance.  You're talking about my trying to instill guilt in the
current generation for the acts of their forfathers.  Guilt is
something that can come only from the inside.  If being presented with
all the facts (which is what I advocate) they would feel guilt, I
would be the first to try to convince them that they should not, that
they are not their forefathers.  On the other hand, reviving
legionaire ideology IS a guilt and that's something you have not
expressed yet.

>>[...]Political instability will bring even more poverty and pain on the 
>>Romanians than they have now.  
>>[...] A change of Government and instability will make it even less 
>>likely a candidate and will empoverish the population even more.  
>>[...] To add to it punishments of different degrees on a quarter of the 
>population (you are serious about judging and condemning Romanian 
>communists, right?), will not make such a government too popular .  
>>[...] If they mange to stabilize the climate and keep the power, 
>>investment money will start pouring in.  Dupa aceste cinice constatari,
>>textul de mai jos pare retoric : 
>>As for denouncing Iliescu, that's exactly what Jews should do.  We 
>>should tell the Romanians that most of them were stupid and that 
>>they didn't prove themselves worthy Romanians when they voted for 
>>him in such large numbers.     
>    Da , ar trebui. Romanii la care va referiti nu pot fi cocolositi , nici 
>daca sint victime ale "operatiei comuniste". 

So Romanians should also be accused?
Well, why don't you start doing it?  Or is it easier to start with the
Could you dirrect two consecutive posts at the Romanians who
contributed themselves to the situation without condemning the Jews?
That is, talk about informers, of fear of your neighbours, and so on?

>Am spus-o obsesiv asa 
>incit : 
>>Can you find any nominal accusation of an ethnically 
>>Romanian communist in your postings? 
>e inexplicabil. Sau v-au scapat toate mesajele mele impotriva 
>Mafiotilor Securicomunisti Romani (in frunte cu nefastul impostor 
>Ion Iliescu ) ?

I stand corrected.  You're right: Romanians 1 - Jews 21 guilty.

>     Majoritatea poporului roman (actual) a pierdut meciul cu 
>comunismul si reprezinta o masa retrograda care sufoca pe cei (din 
>pacate minoritari) care au supravietuit moral.

Oh, elitism, where has thou been gone.  It's so good to see someone
fighting for the minority inteligentzia that the masses are
suffocating.  BTW, you're not new to this; the Menshevics have also
advocated it.

> Cind am incercat sa ne 
>eliberam, acum 6 ani , "oamenii de bine " au contribuit decisiv la  
>infringerea noastra. Credeam ca e limpede cit e de mare  
>nemultumirea  mea (amestecata cu mila) fata de acesti frati ce slujesc 
>obedient Reteaua Securicomunista -chiar si dupa ce li s-au scos 
>lanturile !!!

Why did you think you made it obvious that "you are not content with
your brothers - the mass of Romanians  (but at the same time feel
pitty for them)" ?  Where did you mention this before?  Mr. Rosca,
etimology or not, you can't ask of me clairvoyance.

>     Dar acesta e doar efectul unei teribile nedreptati , excrocherii si 
>tragedii. Incit sentintele urmatoare suna a batjocura:
>>Jews en masse have already made their statement about Romanian 
>>communism: they left the country.  Romanians, through their recent 
>>elections, have also made one: they prefer neo-communism,
>>or they are too lethargic, showing that they don't care about it.
>>[...]Romanians have shown their option and they would blame the 
>>Jews less if Jews would invest in Romania now.  There's no sign of 
>>moral and ethical values being more important for Romanians than 
>>food, perceived stability, and nationalistic rethoric
>   Elocventa e insa remarca:  
>>To add to it punishments of different degrees on a quarter of the 
>>population (you are serious about judging and condemning 
>>Romanian communists, right?),
>cu care Iliestii ne-au familiarizat.  
>   Nu domnule Edelstein , anti-comunismul din Romania de azi nu 
>vizeaza un sfert din populatie (spre deosebire de anti-nazismul 
>dumneavoastra). El isi propusese sa "pedepseasca" pe activistii care 
>ne-au batjocorit, dominat, chinuit si decimat- dindu-i jos de la putere!

All right, I got it.  Only those who are in power are to be punished.
The others can continue like before, just under a new master.  Yes, I
do understand now what you mean by justice ("pe ici, pe colo, prin
punctele esentiale, fara sa schimbam nimic insa").

>>how do you explain that most of the Jews left Romania 
>>IMMEDIATELY after the war? 
>>[...]And why didn't Israel become a communist state,
>>with all thes communist Jews going there
>    Simplu : spre inestimabilul noroc al Izraelului , evreii sanatosi 
>(deci  ne-comunisti) au fost majoritari si au plecat mai intii, in timp 
>ce minoritatea  "comunistoida" a mai ramas prin Europa de Est sa-si 
>testeze (un timp) visele. Au ramas si au facut treaba tare murdara , 
>(inpreuna cu degeneratii locali) tot "IMMEDIATELY after the war". 
>In final, nesatisfacuti de ce a iesit si tot mai prost tratati de "tovarasii 
>de drum" au sters-o spre "alte zari", unde sint azi in mare siguranta 
>(daca nu cumva chiar in verva).
>     Ma bucur ca ii doriti pedepsiti pe acesti monstri. Nu vad insa cum 
>va fi asta posibil.

How about we give you a card blanche to go to Israel and scoop these
monsters - the former Romanian communists out.  After this (and after
overthrowing Iliescu), everything is going to be all right (and then
you'll grant the Jews permission to ask why is there a rehabilitation
campaign for Antonescu going on).

>     Mai ales ca fata de acele :
>>books full of names of Jewish communists who denounced their 
>>fellow Jews for wanting to leave for Israel and contributing thus to 
>>their arrest and persecution
>nu ati putut face referire la acele "books full of names of Jewish 
>communists who denounced their fellow" ...romanians , sau care au 
>participat la distrugerea lor.[Tismaneanu face o bresa -care desi 
>timida-trebuie salutata).

I'm obliging and I'll give you one such book: "Sionistii Sub Ancheta"
- A.L.Zissu.  Before attacks to the person. you might want to notice
that it consists of a listing of depositions made to the Romanian
Securitate between May 10, 1951 and March 1, 1952.  You'll find dozen
of names of Jewish communists and you could take it with you when you
go to hunt them down in Israel (forget about Romania, your enemies 
are in Israel, aren't they?).

>     Cit despre :
>>pure fiction all the books the Jews who survived the Gulag 
>>wrote, right? 
>Din Romania ? Care, domnule ? E cit se poate de posibil sa nu fiu eu 
>bine informat. Veniti cu argumente si voi fi mai placut impresionat 
>decit vreti sa credeti.Nu e vina mea daca (deocamdata) mica dv 
>"istorie" a anticomunismului evreiesc in Romania e neconvingatoare :
>>Jews have died during the "Revolution"; one of the four that 
>>Russian tanks went over in Moscow was a Jew; Jews have 
>>candidated on anti-communist platforms in Poland and Hungary; 

You are taking it out of context, again.  I have mentioned those
specifically because your question was Jewsih opposition to communism.
You have generalized (all Jews, communism in general) and my answer
was appropriate.
>   Spuneti ca :
>> Guess fiction are Goma's encounters of Jews during his own 
>>persecution in Romanian jails.
>   Dar eu nu va intrebasem de victime ci de rezistenti. Si dintre 
>romanii care au facut puscarie, multi nu se opusesera activ regimului. 
>Ca sa nu mai vorbim de comunistii inchisi de proprii lor frati 
>fratricizi ...   
>    Sionistii au fost inchisi si oprimati pentru ca au cerut elementara 
>libertate de a pleca. Niciodata nu am afirmat ca nu sint si evrei 
>printre victimele comunismului. Am semnalat doar ca participarea 
>activa la lupta contra lui, e invers "disproportionata" -in raport cu 
>procentul pe care il reprezentau in populatie- fata de participarea lor 
>in tabara comunizanta. 

You are correct.  Disproportionately Jews were victims without having
resisted.  Is this good for you?

>     Iesind afara, nu pot face altceva decit sa semnalez ceea ce se 
>intimpla cu adevarat in Europa de Est.  Am inceput printr-o lunga 
>serie de articole despre adevarata fata a regimului de la Bucuresti si 
>despre inabusirea revolutiei.

No, Mr. Rosca.  You did not start with articles about the Buchares
regime; you started with articles blaiming the Jews.  You hoped for
sympathy counting that nationalists will rally even more towards you
because of it.  If they did or not it 
does not matter to me.  My replies were to your posts on the Jews.
>    Un anume "domn S" a contrapus o savanta "analiza" dovedind 
>legitimitatea alegerilor. Dupa care a trecut la o serie de materiale 
>despre "durerile evreiesti".
>     Mai tirziu, domnul Ahronovitz  ne invita la dialog pasnic cu 
>ocazia vizitei uzurpatorului Iliescu. Cind i-am explicat ce inseamna 
>acesta in lumina echivalentei nazism-comunism , a explodat veninos. 
>     In acest timp au inceput sa curga semnele de apropiere intre 
>regimul securist si anumite asociatii evreiesti : retrocedari, 
>comemorari, indepartari ale tovarasilor "nationalisti" - versus: 
>facilitari, omagieri, medalieri. 
>      In paralel , dumneavoastra v-ati implintat taman in stringenta 
>problema a denutarii extremei drepte interbelice.  

I have never included you together with others that share antisemitic
views on scr.  You are including me in a sort of a pattern, you are
associating my points of view with others that I did not express, or
at times I took an opposite stand on.  You seem not to be thinking of
me as an individual with my own ideeas, but as part of a group of
windmills you feel a duty to charge against.

The "interbelic right wing"'s rehabilitation is one of the first
things you started with.  
That is when I said that you were using a legionaire rethoric, but you
have never dissociated yourself of it, even though (whatever the
reason) you have started cleaning out your postings of such language.

>     Astfel mi s-a creat senzatia  ca am -printre alti adversari- pe UNII 
>evrei care au cu totul alte interese. De a se racori pentru uri obsesive 
>(ca dv) , de a musamaliza murdarii stinjenitoare (cum fac cei ce "nu 
>inteleg" rostul Procesului Comunismului), sau de a proteja un inceput 
>de intelegere economica cu Mafia Securista de la Bucuresti.
>    Ar fi fost suficent sa imi contraziceti aceste IMPRESII. (Cum o 
>face, intr-o anume masura, domnul Lou Gelehrter.) 
>     Dar dv., prin  reaua vointa manifesta si inexplicabila imi 
>alimentati suspiciunile... 

It would have been sufficient for you to stop singeling Jews in every
article on the the ills that befell Romania..

Again, innuendoes.  What do you consider me a suspect of?
Do you realize how inexplicable it is to me that you can not denounce
the legion, while claiming being in support of freedom?  That you try
to explain how they were actually patriots deserving of honor?

>    Iata (e numai un exemplu) cum "interpretati" (rastalmaciti) , apelul 
>meu impotriva asocierii cu securistii romani : 
>>>   Nu putem ura succes intreprinderilor securisto-straine.
>>Oh, thou foreigner!  God's wrath be on thou, for you alone are the
>>root of all evil in Romania! Sounds familiar?

Did you say foreign or not?  What difference would it have made for
you if you had stopped at "securist[e]"?  Why did you have to add

>>> Au la temelie rudele si visele noastre .  Stapina absolut in 
>>>Romania, Mafia Securi-Comunista are nevoie de sprijin din afara, 
>>>pentru a se integra in "circuitul mondial ". Cind il va obtine , se 
>>>spulbera si ultimele sperante de a mai fi rasturnata.
>>Oups! You got the wrong word again.  In Legionaire rethoric and 
>>mentality - proved through their actions - the word is "inlocuita".
>>Guess one can not be asked to learn and retain it all; never mind, as 
>>long as you stick with blaiming the Jews and the foreigners, you're 
>>doing just fine.

No comment here?

>> >   Pe evrei ii putem ruga sa ne menajeze -in masura posibilului- in 
>>>numele reciprocitatii (si ei au apelat la izolarea criminalilor 
>>>nazisti)si a faptului ca sint mai in masura ca alti "parteneri straini" 
>>>sa aprecieze cine sint "tinerii intreprinzatori" romani. Pina si banii 
>>>excrocati de la evrei pentru parasirea lagarului, sint in "capitalul 
>>>social" al Tovarasilor Patroni. Curat  capital social ! Murdar capital 
>>>social ...  

Is this capital "dirty" because money extorcated from Jews leaving
Romania are part of it, or because it's in the hands of the
neocommunists?  You see, through statements like this you show your
true colors.  Why in the world you had to make 
the association between the Jews and "dirty" money in the hands of the
neo-communists?  Can't you see that this exactly the reason that I can
not join a coalition with pigs, even if I believe in the danger of

>   Cum nimic din textul romanesc nu va explica reactia (era foarte 
>clar ca securistii si nu strainii sint cei denuntati in "Nu putem ura 
>succes intreprinderilor securisto-straine.") e evident ca vizati cititorul 
>care nu intelege romaneste.
>   Ceea ce denota ca nu aveti scrupule.
>   Fapt pentru care , m-as mira sa va mai raspund.

Again, why was it difficult to stop before mentioning the foreigners?
How would have that been less of a statement?

For the benefit of those not speaking Romanian, I will translate both
what I commented on, and your last comments.  I have not made any
comment on your not wrighting in English and that is indeed your
business.  On the other hand to ask me to translate what you write is
ridiculous.  If you're so adamant about it, you could ask someone to
do it for you.

"We can not wish good luck to the securi-foreign enterprises. [...]
Supreme Lord in Romania, the securi-communist mafia needs help from
abroad, to integrate into the "international circuit".  When it will
obtain it, the last chances for its being  overthrown will vanish.
[...] Jews we can ask to spare us - as much as they can - in 
the name of reciprocity (they have also appealed for izolating the
Nazi criminals)  and of the fact that they are to a greater extent
than other "foreign parteners" to appreciate who are the "young
Romanian entrepeneurs".  Even the money extorcated 
from Jews for their leaving the camp, are the "social capital" ot
Comrade Patrons.  Clean social capital!  Dirty social capital!"

"As nothing in the text in Romanian could explain your reaction (it
was obvious that the Securitate were denounced, and not the foreigners
in "We can not wish good luck to the securi-foreign enterprises"), it
is obvious that you target the reader that does not know Romanian.
Which denotes that you have no scrupules.For which, I will be
surprised if I'll answer you again."

Well, Mr. Rosca, spare me.  You have not had a single constructive
statement as long as you continue to mention Jews every other

>Ioan Rosca                                       Montreal, 23 martie 1996
>(PS: data poate fi utila in cazul in care mi se intocmeste undeva un 
>dosar. De aceea o adaug...)   

You're some future great personality and you have to leave it for
Spare me again, Mr. Rosca.

No place, no date (this way "securitate won't catch me").