Talk:Eustace Mullins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Forgery Allegations

This is another of Mullins' forgeries that was cleaned out of the Zionism article. I thought it needed a bit more background and explication before it could go in this article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

***Begin quote***

At a Jewish conference, January 12, 1952, in Budapest, a Zionist Jew, Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich, spoke before the Emergency Council of European Rabbis. The following is part of that speech which can be found in William Guy Carr’s book, Pawns in the Game on pages 105-106:

"The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold. I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave. We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born."
"Our control Commissions will, in the interest of peace and wiping out our interracial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with white. The white woman must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark people."

The speech goes on to say:

"... We are about to reach our goal. World War II furthered our plans greatly. We succeeded in having many millions of Christians kill each other and returning other millions in such conditions that they can do us no harm. There remains little to be done to complete our control of the stupid goyim."

***End quote***

Apparently according to The Worlds Greatest Mistakes, by Nigel Blundell, Rabinovitch himself is non-existent, another hoax concocted by Mullins. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War?

Dear user/sysop Jayjg: Please explain to me - in detail - how my edits to this page constitute a "whitewash". Essentially, these are the edits I've made: added a link to Mr. Mullins' official webpage; added a mention of and a link to The Barnes Review, for which Mr. Mullins is an associate editor; removed a book from the bibliography which does not exist ("The London Connection" is a subheading to one edition of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", it is not a seperate book in itself); mentioned that Mr. Mullins worked for Senator Joe McCarthy and that his biography of Ezra Pound is the only one authorized by Pound; removed an accusation for which I doubt the original author has any proof whatsoever (if you have any proof that Mr. Mullins "forged" the text A Racial Programme for the 20th Century, please present it; I happen to know that a playwright named Myron Fagan referenced this text in one of his articles several years before Mullins did); removed or reworded several sentences which were obviously not NPOV. I will also add that the article you keep reverting to appears to be an almost exact copy (although with some interesting ommissions) of an article posted at http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/s/shallit-jeffrey/sr-mullins.html, which I submit as further evidence that the original article is not NPOV (or even original, for that matter - have you considered the issue of copyright violations with the article you keep reverting to?). If you can't convincingly explain how my edits are a "whitewash" - which I doubt you can - then please stop reverting the article or removing my edits. Whatever axe you have to grind with Mr. Mullins, I suggest you take it somewhere else - Wikipedia is not the place for a vendetta. Thank you. User 216.239.68.46 (Igor) - Posted August 15, 2005.

It's a whitewash because you deleted the bit that says "anti-semite." It's a whitewash for getting rid of "have a nice day." Source any factual claims you want to add.Hipocrite 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Mullins claims that he is not an "anti-semite", therefore, I would argue that you are attempting to present an opinion as though it were a fact. Would you find it acceptable and NPOV if I were to go to the Ariel Sharon article and start the article with "Ariel Sharon is a noted Jewish mass murderer of Palestinian children"? I think not, but that's exactly what you expect me to let you do with the Eustace Mullins article. Apparently, guys like you, Jayjg, and DreamGuy think that as soon as you've pegged someone as an "anti-semite", this gives you the right to play it fast and loose with the facts or to do any old hatchet job on them you like. Furthermore, even if we were to agree for the sake of argument that Mr. Mullins has and continues to harbour a personal dislike of Jewish people (and who would know except for him?), I would argue that that is not the theme which pervades the majority of his writing (how would you know, since you obviously haven't read any of his books and seem to be relying overwhelmingly on personal attacks you found on the internet as your sources?). You are attempting to present a few texts which are anti-Jewish in nature (and which you haven't even read, I bet) as though they represent the bulk of his writing. They do not, and you're obviously over-emphasizing these texts while de-emphasizing the others because you have a personal vendetta against Mullins and wish to do a hatchet job on him. Why not present the facts in a neutral way and let the reader decide for himself whether or not Mr. Mullins is an "anti-semite"? Isn't that what NPOV and this encyclopedia are supposed to be all about? Even despite my supposed "whitewash", it comes through loud and clear that Mr. Mullins has written some texts that make some unflattering remarks about Jews. Regarding the "have a nice day" bit, if you can't cite the exact book or article in which Mr. Mullins is alleged to have said that, and your "source" isn't able to cite the exact book or article either, may I suggest that it is because Mullins never said it. I am familiar with the majority of Mr. Mullins' works, and I have never come across this "have a nice day" thing (nor does it sound like something he'd write). As far as Joe McCarthy, try reading the interview linked at the bottom of the page. If that's not a good enough citation for you, then I hope you're prepared to have your edits held up to the same standards, because almost EVERYTHING you've written about Mullins could use extensive citations. Bottom line here is: either you try to write an article which is objective and scholarly, or you scrap it altogether. Amalekite 09:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (formerly Igor)

[edit] About Alexander Baron

Dear DreamGuy: I notice you posted a link to Alexander Baron's article EUSTACE CLARENCE MULLINS: Anti-Semitic Propagandist or Iconoclast? in your last reversion/edit. While I don't object to this link, I thought you might be interested in knowing a little bit more about Alexander Baron. Mr. Baron's claim to fame is that he wrote a book in the 90's in which he alleged British historian David Irving was a secret agent of Zionism who had been blackmailed into service for organized Jewry. Organized Jewry, according to Baron, had in its possession evidence of Mr. Irving's alleged proclivity for sodomizing young black boys. In that book, Baron claims to have been physically assaulted by the agents of Zionism and organized Jewry in order to keep him silent about David Irving. He also claims that Mr. Irving once masturbated in his face while wearing a Nazi uniform. Mr. Baron has penned several books and pamphlets expressing his belief that the purported extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis during WWII never happened. David Irving, according to Baron, was a straw man planted by Zionists to discredit the Holocaust revisionist movement. Funny, DreamGuy, how you edited the article to call Mr. Mullins a "Holocaust denier", and then you link to an article written by "Holocaust denier" Alexander Baron, presumably with the intent of showing just how "anti-Semitic" Mullins is!!! I mention all of this because it appears to me your only concern with this article is to dig up dirt - any dirt - on Mr. Mullins, no matter how questionable your source is. Do you have a vendetta against Eustace Mullins, DreamGuy? More importantly, have either you or Jayjg even read so much as ONE book by Eustace Mullins? If not, then what makes you think you're qualified to edit an article about him? User 216.239.68.46 (Igor) - Posted August 15, 2005.

[edit] Reasonable changes, but unsourced

While I understand the desire to get some of the changes in, I'd have to demand sourcing for the Mccarthy claim, the "currently completing" claim, and I'd have to ask what the policy on "revisionist history" vs. "holocaust denial" is. I'll start on that research post-hasteHipocrite 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me give you a head start on that research - you can email Mr. Mullins at info@eustacemullins.com and ask him yourself. His snail mail address is 1247 Mt. Torrey Rd.; Lyndhurst, VA; 22952. Let us know what he says. Regarding his autobiography, I myself am satisfied with what he says on his website - "Currently in preparation: Three for America, Eustace Mullins' long-awaited autobiography, detailing his long association with unsung patriots Ezra Pound, H.L. Hunt, and Joe McCarthy, who have been consigned to oblivion by the elitists." Perhaps he won't complete it, but so what? If he doesn't complete it, we can make a reference to his "unfinished autobiography". BTW, I don't want you, Jayjg, and DreamGuy to have to bear the brunt of the research for this article, so I'm going to invite some knowledgeable acquaintances to pitch in as well. Amalekite 09:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The "currently completing" stuff has been removed; if it's ever published, it can be added back. I've asked for a source for the McCarthy claim, and the "revisionist" stuff has been made accurate. Jayjg (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Proving that you're a better wikipedian than I, you do everything that I was like "f it, someone else will do this" when I reverted. KudosHipocrite 15:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I just reverted the first time too. :-) Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnes Review

Jayjg : Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your assertion that The Barnes Review is "generally devoted to Holocaust denial"? I have in my hand the latest issue (July/August 2005). I see an article on the Crusades. There's an article on Darwinism. There's an article on the Australian civil war. There's an article on the Russian submarine the 'Kursk'. Strange, out of 18 articles spread out over 80 pages, not one of them is about "the Holocaust"! Looking through all my back issues, going all the way back to 1997, with the notable exception of their "All Holocaust Issue", I'd have to say that The Barnes Review have, on average, over the past 8 years, devoted less than 5% of their page space to the topic of "the Holocaust". Again, I'll have to ask you to refrain from making false statements concerning topics you obviously know nothing about. Thanks. Amalekite 10:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I bet you do have the latest issue. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barnes_Review Hipocrite 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Why do you cite this source as being authoritative, Hipocrite? Your "source" is full of errors and outright lies. Any statements in the article based upon this source should be removed from the article at once if NPOV is to be maintained. Roseblossom 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Free Press

Jayjg : The American Free Press is "100% employee-owned" (open any issue of AFP to the second page and read the fine print). Willis Carto is not listed as a member of AFP's National Staff or as a member of any Regional or International Bureau. On what evidence do you base your statement that Carto "founded" AFP? In your edit summaries, you mention an "article" - what article? Furthermore, regardless of how or by whom AFP was actually founded, would you please explain why you feel this is relevant to an article about Eustace Mullins? You obviously feel it is important or you wouldn't have put it back in the article. Is there a particular reason you wish to have the name "Willis Carto" in the article? If so, what is that reason? I have emailed AFP to see what they have to say about your assertion. I'll post their reply when I get one. Amalekite 10:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Free_Press Hipocrite 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This source is full of errors and outright lies. Try to remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine before making changes to articles based on junk like this. Roseblossom 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From The Horse's Mouth: AFP & Willis Carto

I got an email back from AFP's Managing Editor Chris Petherick. Here's what he had to say about Carto "founding" AFP:

***Begin Quote***

Subject: Re: Wikipedia - AFP & Willis Carto From: afpeditor@americanfreepress.net Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:57:33 -0400 (EDT)

Wikipedia is a user posted encyclopedia. Last year, I updated the AFP section to reflect reality. Someone else then arbitrarily reposted the original listing adding Carto back into it.

I have to ask: What other authoritative source for posting about AFP would there be than the editor who runs the newspaper?

I do not know why anyone changed my post other than mentioning someone as controversial as Carto would attract more attention.

For anyone who is genuinely interested in knowing about AFP, I choose what stories go into the paper. Carto is not on the corporate documents and has no legal authority over the company. There is a board of directors. Carto is not on that board. In addition, there was a lawsuit filed by those who forced the closure of The Spotlight trying to prove that AFP was an alter ego. That case was thrown out of court. The plaintiffs had access to all of our corporate documents.

It's a nice fairy tale to say that Carto founded AFP. However, what really galls me is that it significantly downplays the efforts of people like me—those who have worked hard to grow this paper and make it accessible for all Americans.

C. Petherick

***End Quote***

Is that authoritative enough? Amalekite 16:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No. C. Petherick is a Dubious Source. Hipocrite 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
He's less dubious than the sources you've been posting. Roseblossom 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Carto founded both publications: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] When the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, and various Holocaust Deniers and Holocaust Denial groups agree on something, it's probably true. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You believe truth to be a matter of consensus? Roseblossom 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have a nice day

Who is L.J. Davis? The only source I found for the "have a nice day" claim is here. But that author doesn't bother to explain the name or list a verifiable source, either. I don't see how this claim can stay in the article. Rl 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This guy, I assume. Jayjg (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. I'd rather remove that particular claim (I'm not going to, though). The source is uncomfortably close to hearsay from an adversary, especially considering that the quote is disputed. And it doesn't add anything substantial – Mullins manages just fine to come across like a complete loony. Rl 17:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I'll take it out, since you don't want to. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

This article is clumsily written, poorly organized, and ungrammatical, which is why I revised it for readability last night (without removing any of the information therein). I see now that no good deed goes unpunished. Thanks for restoring this article to the mess of conjecture, poor paragraph structure, and incoherence it was, fellas.

The open source ideal is not applicable to the realm of fact. Authoritativenes requires authority. Any source of data which can be endlessly and anonymously edited soon ceases to be anything more than another forum for endless adolescent grudge-matches and flame wars regarding what constitutes "fact" and what does not. It is this adolescent fixation on "openness" that gives Wikipedia its widespread reputation as being an unreliable source of research data.

With this in mind, I hereby retire from the Wikipedia field, leaving those of you who have the time to waste upon this sort of thing to do so without further interference from me. Have fun grinding those badly-structured axes, folks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bchan (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 August 2005.

I have reverted your edit. And I went to your talk page and explained my reason. I made no judgment of your edit, it may well have been a great improvement. Submitting a significantly rewritten article with an edit summary "grammar edits--content unchanged" is worse than none at all because it is misleading and thus unacceptable. Feel free to revert to your version – just be sure to supply a better edit summary. Rl 08:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hoaxs and international finance

Hoax is POV. Conspiracy theory allows for the slim chance of accuracy. Holocaust denial is POV, and often inaccurate. Holocaust revisionism is more neutral, redirects to the same place, and allows for equivication (jews were killed, but only 3 million, or etc...). Also, Jewish International Bankers clearly refers to International financiers, if you read the article @ International financiers, you will see that this is not a new concept. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸. The neutrality of this article ought to be contested. There are so many problems with it, and such conflicting opinions as to what to do about it, that I'm not sure it can be rescued. Roseblossom 15:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
A hoax is something you've invented that is false; Mullins invented these things, they're false, so they're hoaxes. "Holocaust denial" is the standard term for Holocaust denial, and where are article resides - avoid re-directs (and you've lost this battle many times already). Finally, "Jewish International Bankers" is a rarely used term, and a decent NPOV encyclopedic article will likely never be written on it. If one ever is, feel free to dab it here. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "Jewish International Bankers" is objectionable on its face and certainly linked to a history of sordid bigotry against Jews. Holocaust Denial is the term used by most scholars and journalists. This page treats Mullins fairly given his work product over the past few decades. Let's not sanitize what he is or what he has written. We should not become apologists for blatant antisemitism. --Cberlet 22:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet (or should I call you Chip Berlet?) - Try to remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine before you go about tainting everything with your POV. Roseblossom2 17:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
That's a very good point. For our information, and in the spirit of openess, do you doubt that six million jews were slaughtered by Nazis in Germany during World War II? Do you have a personal Final Solution to the Jewish Problem? Hipocrite 18:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Is that a personal attack, Hipocrite? Who are you referring to when you say "our"? What business is it of yours how many Jews the editor believes were "slaughtered by Nazis" during the Second World War? And you are aware that according to Simon Wiesenthal, the bulk of those six million Jews were killed in Poland, not "in Germany"? The Middle Man 08:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: The only difference every election year from DNC rhetoric about "the Rich" is the word "Rich Jew"; otherwise the rhetoric is identical to what was heard in the 19th & early 20th centuries. nobs 02:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, hoax seems to be inadequate if the article A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century is correct. Maybe it's just me, but I associate the term hoax with pranks, practical jokes, and urban legends, not with political forgery or fraud. Rl 21:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not call it "an alleged political forgery" then? Roseblossom2 17:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
No alleged there. Let's call it what it is - a false document designed to stir the flames of anti-semitism, in the hopes that Jews would be killed, see also the Protocols of the Elders of Zion Hipocrite 18:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Nah, let's stick to "an alleged political forgery." Your version is far too wordy. The Middle Man 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/s/Talk%7EEustace_Mullins_1144.html"