(continued)
---
I am not afraid of your criticism. In fact, I consider constructive criticism to be healthy. Your track record in the movement has earned you the respect for your opinions to voiced and heard.
I can’t rightfully speak for Chairman Roper’s criticism of some of Dr. Pierce’s failed methods. I believe they were probably a rash reaction to some of the insults you began flinging towards us. I can tell you however that Chairman Roper has a tremendous respect for Dr. Pierce.
---
This smear by Billy is from post #456 from the very long "Erich Gliebe" thread:
"You are correct in saying the Alliance was never an umbrella organization. History will probably describe the NA more like a very fancy and eccentric hat on the head of a cranky, philandering physicist who ran a book club for angry old men. (The “colorful feather” in that hat would, of course, be one Kevin Alfred Strom.)" "Tremendous respect?" Give me a break, Ben.
As you can read, Billy states clearly that I'm correct in my statements about umbrella organizations, so HIS rash, ridiculous smear of Dr. Pierce and Kevin are not some reaction to any legitimate, constructive criticism I've said regarding your expedient big tent approach. Billy has demonstrated that he chafes easily and has a tendency to flame up like a hothead and spew insults that leave his followers off-guard and cringing. I never knew Dr. Pierce to do this, not even once. Your Chairman is the one flinging personal insults that people like you can't rightfully defend or speak for. You can't take his unreasonable comments and smears of Dr. Pierce back. You can't unring the bell. You say you're not afraid of my constructive criticism. Erich cetainly fears it, and maybe Billy does, too. Billy KNOWS that utilizing the umbrella approach to building a revolutionary vanguard is a dishonest approach; Erich probably doesn't. Erich is anything but tightly focused.
Ben, didn't you state in clear language that you prefer to see your followers wearing coats and ties like Dr. Pierce encouraged? How does that jibe with what Billy says here: "It turns out that rejecting and ridiculing Christians and frowning at working-class men who don’t own a suit and tie has proven to be a disastrous recruitment strategy if you are looking for decent White men and women of good European stock." More dishonesty from Chairman Roper? He sets up the straw man that Dr. Pierce somehow "frowned" on working class men. Dr. Pierce frowned on ANYBODY who couldn't get with the program and present himself as normal -- blue collar, white collar or professional.
If all we want to attract is "decent people of good European stock" we have to look no further than the Presbyterian Church or the Republican party, right? These outfits are full of decent folks of good European stock who might fit under your umbrella of White unity, if ONLY you'll compromise your principles just a little more, like not being so racist and intolerant, or make room for the decent queers, the ones of good European stock, that is, and the decent Jews; be just a little more Xian. Where exactly do you folks at WR draw the line, Ben, in an effort to get more warm bodies? I like where Dr. Pierce drew the line, whether you and Billy and Vic and Erich do or not.
Anybody can read Dr. Pierce's words below from 22 years ago to see if he is either "ridiculing" or "rejecting" Christians." He's simply being honest with them, telling them they should not lead double lives or be hypocritical in their deeply held beliefs. This is my favorite line, the one that won me over completely: "Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance." Now, THAT's honesty! He might as well have written to any Bible-thumping followers: "Go to an umbrella organization that doesn't mind having competing ideologies in its flock."
---
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank you for your help with the Billy Brown case. I will admit I was a little troubled when the lawyer you found for him didn’t bother to show up at the court date, but it is my understanding that has all been resolved...Ben Vinyard[/QUOTE]
---
"Resolved?" What are you talking about, you were "a little troubled?" Were you in court that day? Billy and his lawyer crossed in the courthouse. They didn't recognize each other because until then they had only talked on the phone. There was a continuance of the case granted and they met for over an hour later in the day, with his lawyer making several phone calls all over the state trying to line up a top-notch civil attorney to carry your case forward after the criminal portion is completed. Where's Victor in all this? I called or e-mailed him a half-dozen times about this matter, trying to get him involved, with no reply. To my knowledge he nor any these other lawyers you say WR has have ever contacted Billy's lawyer of record. When Billy made unreasonable demands of his lawyer in a letter, Cc'd to me and Vic, his attorney sent Billy his retainer fee back to him, yet on the strength of my friendship with him is STILL going to represent Billy for FREE. You guys don't know how lucky you are to have this lawyer that you're so "troubled" with representing Billy.
I transcribed and posted the following over two months ago in a thread titled, "Dr. Pierce's gift to us is being squandered by his successor." That thread is still archived, Ben, if you want to get to the root of this debate about dueling umbrellas:
(See addendum)
|