Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 23rd, 2012 #481
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I've been restraining myself with great difficulty from calling you an idiot.....
You're such a nice guy Hadding, known for it too, I don't think

After all that ''restraining'' (i.e.,creating a stupid analogy involving a Frenchman) an ''idiot'' then went and beat you to the draw and called you an....''idiot''

There's no justice in the world...'cept maybe here at VNN...eh. what?


In truth: You didn't have a clue what Bowden said or meant. And that's on the record for all to see now.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #482
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post

In truth: You didn't have a clue what Bowden said or meant. And that's on the record for all to see now.
Paranoiacs of course will see what they want to see. If using the word Shoah in a quasi-academic speech is supposed to prove that somebody believes in the Holocaust then there are no limits to what can be proven.

Last edited by Hadding; August 23rd, 2012 at 05:56 PM.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #483
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Paranoiacs of course will see what they want to see.
I'll take your expert opinion on this given how your own chronic paranoia once caused you to charge me with being a certain Harold Covington.

Oh lord, how I fuckin' laughed.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #484
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Johnson's pretense he can separate his attempt to resuscitate fascism from discussions of WWII is parallel in ridiculousness to Jared Taylor's pretense that he can separate the racial question from the jewish question.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #485
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Johnson's pretense he can separate his attempt to resuscitate fascism from discussions of WWII is parallel in ridiculousness to Jared Taylor's pretense that he can separate the racial question from the jewish question.
This is currently at the top of C-C homepage.

From 3:30 Greg Johnson says they (New Right) reject fascism, national-socialism and all forms of nastiness associated with those philosophies whether real or imagined. Instead they're gonna defeat the Jews and the bankers with love and kindness. In short, they're stepping over WWII

 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #486
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

This picking up others' phrases is something in Johnson I had not noticed until someone pointed it out. He very definitely picks up little phrases from different people and uses them himself. Kind of maps on to things. Makes his views look more considered than they actually are. It really makes me angry, his attitude that these poower lil jews suffr'd spec'ly, ie, remember the shlomocoooaust and keep it howly. They were operating the damn communism. I love that Churchill phrase - they were the driving power behind it. They were going to reenact the Russian abattoir in Germany. How in the world can he seriously sit there and say something only a degree from what that fugly Emory broad or fat Abe would say? That is a true tergiversation. Disloyalty is the main non-external reason Whites cannot organize to defeat the jew. He is being disloyal to his intellectual predecessors. I really do think that English-descended people, perhaps because of the real atrocities they committed, and the lies they made up in WWI, cannot find it in their self-vaunted 'fairness' to forgive Germany for being their victim. They identify with jews. That's one reason you never have to push them very hard to throw Germans under the bus. It's disgusting.

Also said by Greg in the TOO essay: the holocaust 'remembrance' campaign is not so much a "source" of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an "expression" of it. That may be, but so what? The source of their power is controlling money and the media. This enables them to push their ideas, without competition, through all official channels. The H is one of their main attack-lies, and our children are its victims. How can we not fight it? Makes no sense. Especially when, as the fact-finders have shown, the facts put the lie to jewish claims.

Here's what Weber wrote in 2009, with my comments in
blue.

How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?

By Mark Weber

January 7, 2009

For more than 30 years, writers and publicists who call themselves revisionists have presented evidence and arguments questioning generally accepted accounts of the Holocaust. Some of these researchers have shown impressive fortitude -- defying smears, abuse, physical violence, and worse.

In countries where “Holocaust denial” is a crime, skeptics have been fined, imprisoned or forced into exile for expressing dissident views on this issue. These victims of what amounts to a blatant suppression of free speech include Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Jürgen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in Germany.

Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.

I have played a role in this effort. In published writings, in lectures, and in courtroom testimony, I have devoted much time and work to critically reviewing the “official” Holocaust narrative, to countering Holocaust propaganda, and to debunking specific Holocaust claims.

But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions, there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.

This lack of success is not difficult to understand. Revisionists are up against a well-organized, decades-long campaign that is promoted in the mass media, reinforced in classrooms, and supported by politicians.

Tim Cole, a history professor and prominent specialist of Holocaust studies, has written in his book Selling the Holocaust: “From a relatively slow start, we have now come to the point where Jewish culture in particular, and Western culture more generally, are saturated with the 'Holocaust'. Indeed, the 'Holocaust' has saturated Western culture to such an extent that it appears not only centre stage, but also lurks in the background.

Don't tell that to Matt Parrott. Johnson's project is to make a sea change in culture - yet he's not going to deal with the Holocaust. By the above - how is that possible?

This can be seen in the remarkable number of contemporary movies which include the 'Holocaust' as plot or sub-plot.”

Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. In many American and European schools, a focus on the wartime suffering of Europe's Jews is obligatory. Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial. The largest is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, which is run by a taxpayer-funded federal government agency, and draws some two million visitors yearly. Kind of makes Parrott's claim that the 'holocaust' is fading away look pretty dumb and wrong.

A number of countries, including Britain, Germany and Italy, officially observe an annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2005 approved a resolution introduced by Israel to designate January 27 as an international Holocaust remembrance day.

In the United States and western Europe, the Holocaust has become a venerated, semi-religious mythos. Prof. Michael Goldberg, an eminent rabbi, has written of what he calls a “Holocaust cult with its own tenets of faith, rites and shrines.” In this age of secular “political correctness,” Holocaust “denial” is the modern equivalent of sacrilege.

A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that -- as revisionists acknowledge -- Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.

Their decision to lead communist revolutions is what led to their being treated as the enemy of enemies. That's hardly singled out. You could with more justice say jews singled White Aryan Europeans out for especially severe treatment. And you would say that if you were on their side.

This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary:

Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”

Hitler let the Frankfurt School run away. That's the worst of the worst jews - killed? gassed? locked up? Nay. Allowed to emigrate. Oooh. That's some harsh treatment, that.

March 27, 1942: “The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgouvernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there's not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters.”

Meh. No specifics. Fighting fire with fire is legitimate.

April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”

Mazel tov. May they all be wiped out. But when the numbers are added up, how many actually went down? Not many.

No informed person disputes that Europe's Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.

Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.

Yet the same things and usually worse happened to most other real European peoples, and not a word or thought is given to them.

But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.

Even before World War II, the organized Jewish community was playing a major role in the political and cultural life of Europe and the United States, and the Zionist movement was already very influential. Although propaganda about the wartime catastrophe of Europe's Jews was a factor in American society during the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the late 1970s that “the Holocaust” began to play a really significant social-political role. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that the term began to appear as a specific entry in standard encyclopedias and reference books, and became an obligatory subject in American textbooks and classrooms.

Cuz, yeah, jews are slow to jump on claims about special suffering. The very fact none of the wartime leaders mentioned any 'holocaust,' and jews themselves didn't get around to it until they needed to gin up sympathy suggests that in fact there was no there there.

In short, the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe in keeping with, and as an expression of, a phenomenal increase in Jewish influence and power. The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power.

By the same logic, any attempt to argue or fight against jews is futile because they control the high points: the academy, press, pulpit, stage and screen, and money system. If it's worth fighting jews at all, then surely this basis of the pseudo-culture and pseudo-knowledge they've put out there - so extensively it amounts to the mainstay of "our" culture as the guy he quotes says above, then if we can put dents in it with found facts provided by the revisionists, then that would seem a very good way to go. It's a known principle in fighting that, if you're accosted by a gang, if you take out its leader, the rest are likely to get scared and run away. We don't have the option of not addressing the H Lie. If we're to fight jews at all. And in a not-so-veiled way, not fighting jews at all seems to be what Weber advocates.

Suppose The New York Times were to report tomorrow that Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum had announced that no more than one million Jews died during World War II, and that no Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The impact on Jewish-Zionist power would surely be minimal.

Although “Holocaust remembrance” remains well entrenched in our society, its impact seems to have diminished in recent years. In part this is because the men and women of the World War II generation are nearly all gone. But another factor has been a major shift in the world-political situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire, the end of US-Soviet “Cold War” rivalry, the Nine-Eleven terror attack in 2001, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and current world economic crisis, have ushered in a new era – one in which the Holocaust imagery of the 1940s is less potent because it's less relevant.

No, they just portray whichever nation they want to use American boys to destroy next as the new Hitler, about to wipe them out. This keeps the holocaust evergreen.

Criticism of Israel and its policies has become much more common in recent years, even in the United States. Among thoughtful men and women, and especially among the young, sympathy for Israel has fallen noticeably, while skepticism about the role of the Holocaust in society has grown. Tony Judt, a prominent Jewish scholar who lives and works in New York, wrote recently:

“Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these – in ways our parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: 'Why do we focus so much on the Holocaust?' 'Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?' 'Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?' And, increasingly, 'Doesn't Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?' I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.” If so, this directly contradicts Weber's thesis, which he does not acknowlege.

This shift what shift? There is no shift in the words of jew Judt? The facts about 'the' 'holocaust' and the treatment Israel accords Palestinians (and others) are related and mutually reinforce; Weber like Johnson makes distinctions that aint there has also been noticed at the Institute for Historical Review. Over the past ten years, sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Holocaust history have steadily declined, along with inquiries about Holocaust history and requests for interviews on this subject. At the same time, and obviously reflecting broader social-cultural trends, there has been a marked rise in sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Jewish-Zionist power, the role of Jews in society, and so forth. This has been matched by an increase in the number of inquiries and requests for interviews on those issues.

Jewish-Zionist power is a palpable reality with harmful consequences for America, the Middle East, and the entire global community. In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one. In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.

It fits very naturally with every other criticism of jews. It dovetails and reinforces the concepts that: jews lie, jews hate other peoples, jews wreck nations.

One influential statesman who seems to understand this is the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed. In a much-discussed address delivered at an international conference in October 2003, he spoke forthrightly against Jewish-Zionist power, while making clear that he accepts the familiar “Six Million” Holocaust narrative. In the global struggle against this power, he said, “we are up against a people who think ... We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also ... The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”

He's wrong to admit it, because it's not true, and it doesn't help his position.

Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe's Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.

That is manifestly not true. Most people go, as I did, from assuming there's no way that such a big thing as 'the' 'holocaust' could be lied about to understanding - yes, it can be. That's just the kind of big-lie our enemy specializes in. Then we have all the speech martyrs as role models. They inspire courage in others.

Why is this man accepting money to lead an organization whose mission he no longer believes in? That is dishonorable.

The solution is not to give up, as Weber tacitly urges. It's to keep plugging away, knowing good progress has been made, and eventually our side will triumph.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 23rd, 2012 at 08:16 PM.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #487
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

The big lie technique as quoted by Adolf Hitler.

Quote:
All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people (jews) know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media

Last edited by James Hawthorne; August 23rd, 2012 at 08:27 PM.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #488
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Mark Weber wrote:

Quote:
Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.

I have played a role in this effort. In published writings, in lectures, and in courtroom testimony, I have devoted much time and work to critically reviewing the “official” Holocaust narrative, to countering Holocaust propaganda, and to debunking specific Holocaust claims.

But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions, there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
Alex, over the years I've heard Mike Piper mention that Weber was taken on and given the task (by Carto?) of writing the final word on the holocaust and swore that this work was progressing but progressing slowly due to the ever growing size of the book which Weber assured one and all was ''huge''.

Do you or anyone else know what this book was called and what happened to it?
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #489
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Mark Weber wrote:

Alex, over the years I've heard Mike Piper mention that Weber was taken on and given the task (by Carto?) of writing the final word on the holocaust and swore that this work was progressing but progressing slowly due to the ever growing size of the book which Weber assured one and all was ''huge''.

Do you or anyone else know what this book was called and what happened to it?
Never heard of it.

I am not deeply conversant in matters revisionist. I have certainly read a good deal on it, but not to remember all the details, just to collect the facts I can use in White politics.

Has Weber been bought off by someone? Do his friends MacDonald and Johnson know this? Why do they adopt his line on the H and revisionism?
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #490
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Mark Weber wrote:

Alex, over the years I've heard Mike Piper mention that Weber was taken on and given the task (by Carto?) of writing the final word on the holocaust and swore that this work was progressing but progressing slowly due to the ever growing size of the book which Weber assured one and all was ''huge''.

Do you or anyone else know what this book was called and what happened to it?
"The Final Solution - Legend and Reality."

Weber spent years at the home of revisionist William Curry. Mr Curry was supporting Weber to write this book. It was Mr Curry's dying wish that the book be published. The book was never completed by Weber.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #491
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Never heard of it.

I am not deeply conversant in matters revisionist. I have certainly read a good deal on it, but not to remember all the details, just to collect the facts I can use in White politics.

Has Weber been bought off by someone? Do his friends MacDonald and Johnson know this? Why do they adopt his line on the H and revisionism?
I'll post something in a minute once I've tidied it up.

When you see its source you might want to remove but I don't think there'll be a problem.

So look out for it.....
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #492
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Quote:
Has Weber been bought off by someone? Do his friends MacDonald and Johnson know this? Why do they adopt his line on the H and revisionism?
Weber is just a lazy indolent using the IHR and the donations he gets as his own personal sinecure. Johnson and MacDonald agree on his stance. Weber's turn around mainly has to do with money. Keeping the dolts sending in money so as he doesn't have to find a real job, IMHO.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #493
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
I'll post something in a minute once I've tidied it up.

When you see its source you might want to remove but I don't think there'll be a problem.

So look out for it.....
I'm having trouble with the formatting.

It's OK until I post or preview then the formatting is lost and the text forms one huge block without breaks.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #494
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Hawthorne View Post
"The Final Solution - Legend and Reality."

Weber spent years at the home of revisionist William Curry. Mr Curry was supporting Weber to write this book. It was Mr Curry's dying wish that the book be published. The book was never completed by Weber.
Yes, for 10 yrs he was engaged in on-off correspondence with Irving about writing the introduction.

It's supposed to contain an ''unflattering'' picture of Anne Frank. Have you seen this?
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #495
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Never heard of it.

I am not deeply conversant in matters revisionist. I have certainly read a good deal on it, but not to remember all the details, just to collect the facts I can use in White politics.

Has Weber been bought off by someone? Do his friends MacDonald and Johnson know this? Why do they adopt his line on the H and revisionism?
I find Dr. Faurisson convincing to the effect that Weber goes too soft simply because that's his nature. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/...institute.html

Weber does that even when defending himself. I called up Weber at the IHR once in the late 90s because he was being attacked (unjustly in that instance) on a shortwave program and I gave him the call-in number so that he could defend himself. The performance was pathetic. Even defending himself he concedes too much.

So, the notion that he was bought off is a redundant explanation. In conceding too much to the enemy, Weber is just being Weber.

Last edited by Hadding; August 23rd, 2012 at 09:26 PM.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #496
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I find Dr. Faurisson convincing to the effect that Weber goes too soft simply because that's his nature. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/...institute.html

Weber does that even when defending himself. I called up Weber at the IHR once in the late 90s because he was being attacked (unjustly in that instance) on a shortwave program and I gave him the call-in number so that he could defend himself. The performance was pathetic. Even defending himself he concedes too much.

So, the notion that he was bought off is a redundant explanation. In conceding too much to the enemy, Weber is just being Weber.
Why don't MacDonald and Johnson stiffen him up, rather than accede in his flaccidity?

WTF? Is there no one in this movement who will fight...even verbally? I'm starting to doubt it.
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #497
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Yes, for 10 yrs he was engaged in on-off correspondence with Irving about writing the introduction.

It's supposed to contain an ''unflattering'' picture of Anne Frank. Have you seen this?
No the book just died a death, like poor Mr Curry, who put his faith in Weber to write this very important book. He used Mr Curry for as long as he could, then just moved on. The book is just another Weber project that never gets finished.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 24th, 2012 #498
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,400
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Hawthorne View Post
No the book just died a death, like poor Mr Curry, who put his faith in Weber to write this very important book. He used Mr Curry for as long as he could, then just moved on. The book is just another Weber project that never gets finished.
Do you know when Mr Curry died?
 
Old August 24th, 2012 #499
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Do you know when Mr Curry died?
No idea, he was in his 70's in the late 1980's I suspect, very ill with an oxygen tank. Which makes what Weber did to him more troubling. Curry was a ' funder' he would fund revisionist projects he liked. He was a wealthy Nebraskan
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old August 24th, 2012 #500
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
If it's worth fighting jews at all, then surely this basis of the pseudo-culture and pseudo-knowledge they've put out there - so extensively it amounts to the mainstay of "our" culture as the guy he quotes says above, then if we can put dents in it with found facts provided by the revisionists, then that would seem a very good way to go. It's a known principle in fighting that, if you're accosted by a gang, if you take out its leader, the rest are likely to get scared and run away. We don't have the option of not addressing the H Lie.
That's a very good analogy. Attacking the periphery of a problem just because it's easier, rather than going to the heart of the matter, is an approach guaranteed to produce longterm failure. Another analogy: you can't cure a disease by dealing only with the symptoms.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, holocaust fairytales, holocaust mythology, jared taylor, revisionism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 PM.
Page generated in 0.23560 seconds.