View Single Post
Old August 1st, 2011 #13
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Hadding, the reading of that passage from the Hitler-Bormann documents that I offered is perfectly consistent with the context in which it appears IN THE HITLER-BORMANN documents.

You really have a lot of face, little man, to accuse me of making an uninformed and speculative use of that quotation while you yourself are taking it out of its context.
What makes you think that I am a little man?

The context of the "Hitler-Bormann Documents" is bogus. It's François Genoud's interpretation of Hitler.

You didn't even need context to arrive at your inane interpretation. It's exactly the interpretation that any uninformed person would invent extemporaneously without context. It's the kind of exegesis that a beauty-pageant contestant would give.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Hadding, I have tried to deal with you in a collegial and civil manner, but it appears that you are worse than a pedantic detail-stickler who gets off on playing "gotcha." No, this proves that you are a dishonest little smear-monger.

But please, go ahead, do all the fact-checking and fly-specking you want. It only makes my work stronger.

The only thing that matters to me is whether there are white people on this continent 200 years from now. Given that goal, one of the smaller prices I have to pay will be occasionally witnessing your pusillanimous joy at finding egg on my face.
You're a Covingtonista. I noted how you conducted your so-called debate on Covington's Folly. You are quite biased toward the wrong side in that matter, which is really a defining issue, truth vs. lying. That's why I don't post on your blog anymore. You are okay with lying. I am not.

I don't think it's true that my criticism has made your work stronger. That would be true if you had abided by your initial response of acknowledging error and excising the quote. Your ultimate response, as I observe, has been to reinstate and expand the quote from the discredited source while suggesting that David Irving may not be credible. Mark Weber treats Irving's finding as authoritative. You further damage your own credibility by showing resentment toward criticism and clinging to your careless mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
Interestingly enough, that passage was pointed out to me by the Dr. Pierce as "scriptural" corroboration of his belief that it is a mistake for National Socialists in the US to cleave too close to the external symbols, platforms, and strategies of the NSDAP.
At least from 1993 until Dr. Pierce's death, National Vanguard Books never sold the so-called Hitler-Bormann Documents, also called The Testament of Adolf Hitler, although I remember that Angriff Press sent a couple of complimentary copies along with a case of other books when I was there in the early 1990s. Since it was a small and inexpensive book I think Dr. Pierce would have sold it if he had thought it was both authentic and important as you suggest. Irving's criticism was already published in 1983. I think Dr. Pierce must have known that the book was bogus or at least dubious for a long time before you met him (sometime in the 1990s I assume), and he was careful about such things. I doubt that he really referred to it as you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
But in the end, nothing depends on the genuineness of that particular quote. For the idea that it was adduced to support is reasonable and defensible in and of itself.
To say that people shouldn't dress up in SA uniforms from 1920s Germany if they want to be taken seriously in 2010s USA is just obvious.

Since the quote is irrelevant to the overall purport of your essay -- indeed all content dependent on it is contained within one paragraph -- I think you just tossed it in to lend some authority to your pontificating. You needed to give at least one Hitler quote to make the reader believe that you really knew Hitler's works. You just happened to pick one that was spurious, so that it ended up having the opposite of the intended effect.

I imagine that bullshitting like that works for you most of the time.