Talk:Eustace Mullins/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

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 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)

User:Jayjg Leave the links to Mr. Mullins' works alone. Let people read what his views were, they speak for themselves. There is no copyright violation here, so no need to bring up that bullshit as excuse. --nt351 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nt351 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reasonable claims - actual evidence

"Conspiracy theory allows for the slim chance of accuracy."

Absolute absurdity. Any theory can be highly probable, no matter if you call it conspiracy or not. Is there a total deterioration in peoples ability for rational thought these days? The apparent total lack of ability to exercise abstract thought is frightening. scientific method in argumentative and public discourse is almost annihilated by the mainstream media and people so afraid of being branded with the words "conspiracy" that public debate and rational discourse is rapidly becoming impossible. Not even real and valid critisism comes through the shouting, slander, tarring and derogatories flung at anyone daring to question or critisise "official" or mainstream versions of events and history anymore. Does noone see the dangers here? we have to take valid critisism seriously, wether it complies with or deviates from the official or mainstream views or not,for if we stoop to the level of the perpetrator of any given fault we become one. Is this concept not possible to grasp? It is the basis for our democracies! those at fault shall not be treated with our committing another fault. It's a basic principle from Socrates, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.13.104 (talk) 11:05, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

"Wikimedia-blacklisted"?

Disgruntled much? "In an interview, conducted in 1993 (available on the Wikimedia-blacklisted site www.alexanderbaron.150m .com/eustace_mullins_3.html -- remove space), Mr. Mullins disclaims his past antisemitism:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.3.202 (talk) 01:47, May 7, 2007 (UTC) I changed "...Mr. Mullins disclaims his past antisemitism" to "Mr. Mullins seemed to disclaim his past antisemitism" because after an ambigous No (the word is used to dismiss the question rather than to answer it), the sentence immediately changes the topic and avoids the question of how he feels about Jews. He did not say "I do not believe Jews are parasites", he merely said "No that was written in only one book and I've moved on to other books." This kind of diverting answer seems to me to solidify, rather than repudiate, antisemitism. The bit about "moving on to other spheres" implies NOT that he changed his mind but that he didn't think the subject important enough to bother with.

How ridiculous! 'No' means 'No' . And "moving on to other spheres" doesn't imply anything other than he's moving onto other spheres.81.79.151.59 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


A great honeypot

This article is a terrific honeypot. Conspiracy theory is like taking hits from a bong, but Eustace Mullins surely is the crack cocaine of crackpottery. Observe the zombies as they totter in, drooling and muttering. Give them a wide berth and then a gentle nudge in the direction of the manhole with the cover that just so happens to be removed for maintenance. SA-YO-NA-RA!!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mullins Is Not A Reliable Source

In my personal collection, I have dozens of articles written by Mullins since the 1950's -- which is why I was able to quote directly from those articles in my Mullins report which is based, primarily, upon first-time-released FBI files and documents:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/mullins

Most people who are introduced to Mullins do not know a thing about his background. He is definitely an interesting person. But, how do we give credence to a man whom even the John Birch Society has characterized as a life-long bigot?

Mullins' rense.com interview (and the chapter of his book, Murder By Injection, which discusses the origins of the Birch Society) is so manifestly false and absurd that nobody who is serious about factual truth or accuracy could possibly believe it.

Significantly, I wrote to Mullins on several occasions to ask questions about what he wrote. I even enclosed postpaid reply envelopes. He never responded. Draw the logical conclusion!

Here is something almost nobody knows about Mullins.

Mullins was a frequent correspondent with H. Keith Thompson Jr. Thompson (for those unfamiliar with him) was a major figure within the pre-war and postwar neo-nazi movement in the United States including the German-American Bund and an organization he started called the American Committee For the Advancement of Western Culture--whose members comprised a "who's who" of the anti-semitic extreme right in the U.S. during the 1950's. In 1954, Thompson wrote an article by the title "I Am An American Fascist" published by Expose magazine. Thompson was also a Registered Agent in our country for the German Socialist Reich Party. Yes---the heir to Hitler's Nazi Party!

Eustace Mullins confided to Thompson that he (Mullins) fabricated a "speech" which he attributed to "Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich".

Mullins admitted to Keith Thompson that he fabricated this hoax because he enjoyed causing grief to the Jewish community.

This bogus "speech" was entitled "Our Race Will Rule Undisputed Over The World" and it supposedly was made before the "Emergency Council of European Rabbis" in Budapest, Hungary on January 12, 1952.

This forgery was circulated by Mullins in Conde McGinley's newspaper, "Common Sense", as well as by Lyrl Clark Van Hyning's Chicago publication, "Women's Voice" and in September 1952 by Ron Gostick's Canadian newsletter, Canadian Intelligence Service, and by many other publications as "proof" of a Jewish global conspiratorial plot along the lines of another similar hoax, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

To give readers a sense of the type of people whom Mullins felt most comfortable associating himself with, Ron Gostick was the founder and Director of the Canadian League of Rights. According to the FBI file on this organization:

“The group is headed by Ronald Gostick who is subject of Bufile 105-15137 and he was investigated by the Bureau in 1951 under the caption of Internal Security-X-Canada in connection with his Fascist and anti-Semitic writings. Gostick is regarded as a sensationalist and an alarmist.” [FBI HQ file 105-15137, serial #10, 10/13/60] Gostick frequently spoke in the United States under the auspices of Gerald L.K. Smith.

A Canadian intelligence agency report in Gostick’s FBI file makes the following observations:

“He first came to the attention of this Force in 1950 when, as national organizer of the Social Credit Movement, he addressed several meetings across Canada…In these addresses Gostick spoke on the ‘Power Behind Communism’ and bitterly attacked the Jewish element, stating that the Zionist had put the Communists in power and were striving for a World Government to enforce their way of life…While he is anti-Communist, he attributes most of the ills of the world to Jews and continually sows seeds of dissension and hatred between Jews and non-Jews.”

Also see my Google report for details concerning Mullins' associations with anti-semitic organizations such as Realpolitical Institute and National States Rights Party.

The President of the John Birch Society, has stated that Mullins fabricated his comments about a Birch Society-Rockefeller relationship AFTER the Birch Society refused to sell Mullins' books!

Mullins also claimed that Gary Allen, the author of the well known 1972 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy (NDCIC) cited Mullins as a reliable source in the original edition of NDCIC.

However, John McManus, President of the JBS, saw the text of the first edition of NDCIC before it was published and he has stated categorically that there were no references to anything Mullins wrote nor any favorable comments about Mullins.

In short, Mullins has a long history of lying and circulating hoaxes and spreading malicious anti-semitic calumnies. --Ernie1241 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is “Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation?”

Everywhere I look outside wikipedia, Mullins is credited with writing this book/pamphlet/whatever it is. Yet it is absent in list of works here. Why? Is he or isn’t he the author? If not, who is?

Can anyone enlighten me. Thanks. 75.85.81.0 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For a copy of Mullins' article, "Hitler: An Appreciation" -- see page 27 (exhibit 4) of this House Committee on Un-American Activities report:

http://debs.indstate.edu/u588n4_1954.pdf

Ernie1241 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)ernie1241

death

http://cofcc.org/2010/02/eustace-mullins-one-of-the-greatest-historians-of-the-20th-century-has-passed-away/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

here is an msm confirmation:

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20100204/NEWS01/100204014 Lurgis (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Editions History

I'm putting down some notes here to help with a future clean up of the books list. His work on the Federal Reserve has been published in a variety of editions under different titles. This information is still incomplete and not all of this is verified/sourced, so I'm not updating the main page yet.

The original work appears to be published with the cover title "Mullins on the Federal Reserve" in 1952 by Kasper & Horton, though the title page also calls it "A Study on the Federal Reserve." The ffep has an uncredited introduction which later editions credit to Ezra Pound. This edition has 140 pages in sixteen chapters (there are two "Chapter Fifteen"s). Martino Publishing in 2009 published a facsimile version of this, though it omits the ffep introduction.

In 1954, a "revised edition" with 144 pages was published as "The Federal Reserve Conspiracy" By Christian Education Assn. which according to Mullins in a 1991 edition was unauthorized. This appears to have added a "Conclusion" and made some other edits. This was reprinted in 1968 with an added petition by Common Sense, and in 1971 by Omni Publishing.

In 1983, Bankers Research Inc. published this under the title "Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection" at 198 pages with major revisions, removals of old material and additional new material added. This was updated in 1991 with a new introduction by the author with 201 pages total.

--Jlick (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits - over-quoting, long edits, unsourced edits

Over the past couple of days this article has been vastly expanded, with the insertion of large numbers of extremely lengthy quotes of Mullin's views, as well as various unsourced claims, and fawning statements taken from "facsimile reprints", and lengthy quotes from non-notables. The net effect is to make this article a soapbox for Mullins's views. I'd appreciate it if the editor in question would fix these problems, sourcing the unsourced material, and briefly paraphrasing the lengthy quotes. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm actually thinking that the amount of block quotes in the article at the moment constitutes copyvio. I'd also like to suggest that the editor who added the material pare it back, lest I begin boldly deleting things at random. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've started, but it's overwhelming. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayig - here is Mullins' book "Secrets of the Federal Reserve". You evidently are interested in writing about Mullins, so maybe you should become acquainted with his work before doing so. The facsimiles previously mentioned are in this pdf of the book, which is basically a copy of the online addition (with facsimiles added): http://www.mediafire.com/?mr14lwh2vmz

Stephen Zarlenga is notable in the monetary reform community, which is directly relevant to this topic. His organization is endorsed by notable individuals such as Dennis Kucinich and Michael Hudson. His website is here: http://monetary.org/ The following two items will give you the best overview of what Eustace Mullins felt he was dealing with:

1) http://www.archive.org/details/RussiaNo.1

2) http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD/Red_Symphony-Landowsky-1968-30pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=340 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.238.152 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in what reliable secondary sources have to say about Mullins. That wouldn't include Mullins or Zarlenga. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I just cut out all the extended pull quotes from primary sources in the antisemitism section. I'm not opposed to limited quotes from Mullins, provided that a secondary source authenticates and establishes notability, but that was excessive, and was obscuring the fact that the section has essentially no reliable sources. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That was a good edit, but as your comment points out, there's still a lot of work to be done. Jayjg (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This Wiki is of a REALLY poor standard.

Half of this page consists of a completely un-sourced, 100% subjective, completely un-sourced rubbish.

  • Many of the quotes simply don't exist in any of Mullin's works, they are not even para-phrased, but are rather simply... made up!
  • Why is he listed as an "anti-semite" in the first sentence? Antisemitism isn't an occupation so not sure why you would add it to the list next to "biographer", etc, this alone betrays the writers clear intention which can be seen throughout the rest of the "article", and that is to focus entirely upon a subject which in reality was only a small part of the man's life. Even the article on Hitler doesn't say: "Hitler was a fascist, politician, anti-semite", because such a label needs to be subject to a discussion, and thus its only place is within the subsequent text!
  • The "Antisemitism" section looks like it has been written by a four year old. Absolutely pathetic. Have you ever heard what a paragraph is? No sources. Quotes that are made up. Whole sections entirely consisting of the writers OPINION, stupid loaded phrases like: "he still defended the Romanov dynasty as if they were the saviors of mankind"..... Are you serious?

I've got to go but have only really touched on how poorly written this article is (easily the worst I've seen on Wiki). Hint: If you're going to push a political agenda or assassinate someones character, at least put even a token amount of effort into making it look !

Wikipedia is for OBJECTIVE analysis! Not personal subjective accounts of how much you dislikes someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoological (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Zoological (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ‎

FACTUAL ERRORS IN WIKI ARTICLE ABOUT MULLINS

There are numerous factual errors contained in this article. First, Mullins did not, as the article states, reproduce a large portion of his FBI file in his self-published book, A Writ For Martyrs.

The HQ main file on Mullins (HQ 105-15727) is 541 pages. In his "Writ" book, Mullins selected only about 60 serials to partially reproduce.

More importantly, Mullins doctored several of the serials to excise references to his homosexuality, anti-semitism, and connections to neo-nazis and racists.

In addition, there are several major FBI field office files pertaining to Mullins and those total several hundred more pages. Of particular interest are field files from New York City (100-112532) and Richmond VA (105-186). Unfortunately, the Chicago field file has been destroyed. There are also numerous cross-references in other files which discuss Mullins such as files on National States Rights Party, William B. Wernecke, Max Nelsen, Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, and many others.

I am currently working on the second edition of my report on the Mullins. I will be discussing, at length, various assertions made by, and articles written by, Mullins.

For example: I will devote considerable attention to the various hoaxes which Mullins authored including:

  • the “Rabbi Rabinovich” speech
  • the “Lizzie Stover College Fund”
  • the “Israel Cohen” hoax
  • the alleged Birch Society/Rockefeller “connection”

In addition, I will devote a major portion of my Report to a discussion of Mullins’ autobiographical book, “A Writ For Martyrs” — because a factual analysis of that book so clearly illustrates how political extremists manipulate data to preclude any adverse judgments about their own lives.

In his book, Mullins portrays himself (and his friend Max Nelsen) as completely innocent average Americans who were viciously hounded, harassed, and persecuted by an out-of-control “police-state” security organization accountable to no one (i.e. the FBI).

Here are some relevant facts which Mullins omits from his book:

(1) Mullins received training in explosives and bomb-making (!!!) at the farm of William Wernecke in Huntley IL. The FBI learned about this from interviewing Wernecke’s wife.

(2) Max Nelsen had advocated bombing synagogues in Illinois and he expressed approval of the October 1958 bombing of the Atlanta, Georgia Temple — which involved members of the National States Rights Party (NSRP). Mullins recommended membership in the NSRP and Nelsen was the Illinois leader of the NSRP plus he bragged about his close association with George Lincoln Rockwell (who later founded American Nazi Party) and other neo-nazis.

(3) During his college days, Nelsen sent anonymous threatening letters to the then-Mayor of Minneapolis (Hubert Humphrey) and to the Police Dept Detective who eventually arrested Nelsen. Furthermore, Nelsen plastered the area around his university campus with “Kill Jews” signs.

(4) Beyond that, the propaganda which Nelsen put out during his college years and subsequently in Illinois (in conjunction with Mullins through groups they co-founded such as M&N Associates, Realpolitical Institute, and Institute For Biopolitics) was explicitly inciteful of racial and religious hatred.

(5) In short, contrary to the whitewash which Mullins presents in his book, there were many legitimate reasons why the FBI became interested in both Mullins and Nelsen and why they both were listed as “potential bombing suspects” and “racial extremists”.

(6) From the FBI viewpoint, here were two guys (Mullins and Nelsen) that...

(a) constantly associated themselves with extremists (such as James Madole-National Renaissance Party, John Kasper—(Clinton TN riot fame), Joseph Beauharnais-White Circle League of Chicago and Emory Burke—The Columbians---which was listed as a subversive group on the Attorney General's List) OR

(b) who were involved in, or had condoned, violent acts or who had received instruction in bomb-making and use of explosives (for example: William Wernecke, James Madole, Emory Burke, F. Allen Mann, Joseph Beauharnais, John Kasper, etc) OR

(c) who had written or published literature which was extremely inflammatory and inciteful of racial and religious hatred

(d) Plus Mullins had lived (for varying periods of time) with some of these guys (such as William Wernecke, Matt Koehl, John Crommelin, John Kasper)

There is much more in Mullins’ book which is totally false or deliberately misrepresents the facts of the matters he discusses.

A brief preview:

I recently obtained the military service records plus additional FBI files pertaining to Mullins — who is described by his admirers as: “America’s premier populist historian…a titanic figure on the landscape of American (and world) history as a consequence of his monumental contributions to the arena of political, economic and philosophical discussion.” [American Free Press, 7/27/09, p A-4, "Meet Eustace Mullins"]

The actual beliefs, values, and life-long associations of Mullins reflect a totally different reality.

The new edition of my Mullins Report will incorporate scanned copies of personal correspondence and articles written by Mullins which have never previously been publicly revealed. Such data will conclusively demonstrate the life-long bigotry of Mullins and his history of fabricating hoaxes for his gullible readers.

1. MILITARY SERVICE

In most of his self-written biographical sketches Mullins described himself as “a veteran of the United States Air Force with 38 months of active service during World War II.”

However, according to his military service records at the Military Personnel Records Center (St. Louis MO):

Mullins served in the Army Air Corps from 1/2/43 until 2/5/46. He served as a Clerk-Typist but had no foreign service.

He received “two Summary Court-Martials” for being AWOL and for failure to report to an appointed place.

During his military service, he was hospitalized upon two different occasions:

(1) September 11, 1943 – September 17, 1943 = he was hospitalized with a diagnosis of “constitution psychopathic state, inadequate personality, EPTI” [EPTI=existing prior to induction]

(2) December 14, 1944 – February 29, 1945 = he was hospitalized with a diagnosis of “constitutional psychopathic state, unqualified, EPTI”

On this second occasion, Mullins was brought in as a prisoner. At the time of his arrest he had in his possession a gun and bullets and according to his service records “he made the statement to two officers that he had purchased the revolver with the intention of committing suicide sometime during the afternoon of his arrest…His reason was because he was tired of living.”

The doctors who evaluated him concluded that he exhibited “both psychopathic and neurotic trends, both due to the same dynamic latent homosexuality…”

Among his symptoms: having to urinate while sitting down, dreams of snakes, castration anxiety, fear of going blind and heart failure.

“The case was presented to the Section VIII Board for disposition and after a two to two deadlock, patient was ordered back to duty.”

“After completion of various tests, Mullins was determined to be a ‘malingerer’ and that disciplinary action rather than medical action should be taken.”

(2) EDUCATION

Mullins declared in his autobiographical summaries that:

“After serving thirty-eight months in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II, Eustace Mullins was educated at Washington and Lee University, Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, and New York University. He later studied art at the Escuela des Bellas Artes, San Miguel de Allende Mexico and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C.” [From: Mullins's self-published book, "The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History", Revelation Books, (Staunton VA), 1987, page 2, "About The Author"]; Also see American Free Press, 7/27/09, page A-4, “Meet Eustace Mullins”]

The reality:

(a) Washington and Lee University: He attended W&L from 2/46 to 2/48. He never declared a major. He did not graduate. His GPA was below the required minimum of “C”. (b) Ohio State University: The Registrar’s Office at Ohio State had no record of Mullins ever attending that University. (c) University of North Dakota: The Registrar’s Office at UND had no record of Mullins ever attending that University. (d) New York University: Mullins attended a summer session (June-September 1947). (e) Institute of Contemporary Arts: Mullins attended as a writing student in 1948-1949. He did not receive a degree.

(3) 1958 INCOME TAX RETURN

Mullins claimed a $60 deduction representing a bad debt allegedly owed him by “Mr. Leslie Richards, FBI”. No person by that name ever was employed by the FBI.

Mullins also claimed that he donated $125 to United Jewish Appeal and $75 to the Urban League.

The IRS declined to prosecute Mullins for tax fraud only because the cost of prosecution would exceed the amount of money that could be recovered. Ernie1241 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that proves that Mullins is an anti-Jewish?

I haven't seen any proof or evidence that says Mullins is anti-Semitic. Anti-Semite isn't even an accurate description since Semites are not only Jews, but Arabs. Why don't you just provide substantial and conclusive proof/evidence that Mullins is anti-Jewish? I know already he must be anti-Zionist, but that does not equate with anti-Jewry. Zionism is only political movement/state and Jewry is ethnicity/religion. Hey and I'm sure that there are Jews that hold the same views as he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarmarin1995 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Oscarmarin1995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What type of evidence would you consider indisputable proof of his Jew-hatred? For some examples, see my Mullins report: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/mullins
The next edition of my Mullins report will reproduce copies of Mullins' personal correspondence and articles which reveals his extraordinary hatred and venom for Jews and anybody connected to Jews. More info: ernie1241@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.44.189 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's Try This Again

From my perspective, this article reads like a character assassination, not an encyclopedia piece. There's shot-taking in the first sentence for crying out loud. Would you open an article on Bobby Fischer with "Bobby Fischer was a chess master and antisemite"? Would you open an article on Mel Gibson with "Mel Gibson is an actor and antisemite"? Besides being clearly NOT impartial, it sounds completely ridiculous and un-encyclopedic. The opening should tell us who the man was, where he came from, when he lived, and what his profession was. It shouldn't tell us what a certain subset of the population THINKS he was.

Unfortunately some individuals by the names "Galassi" and "Jpgordon" keep removing my criticisms from this page and trying to suppress free speech, telling me that "this page is not a forum". I suspect that the deletion of my posts has alot more to do with the nature of my criticms than my allegedly treating the talk page "like a forum". It seems some people on this website only want the world to see their version of the truth, without any interference from dissenting voices, even if those dissenting voices happen to have valid criticisms, which I believe I do. It appears I'm not the only one who has expressed this or similar sentiment on this talk page. Who knows? Maybe other criticisms have been put out there only to be erased by the likes of "Galassi" and "Jpgordon" AnAimlessRoad (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. Do not make further comments here about editors. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for "free speech". Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you kindly point out where the alleged offensive remarks about other editors are in my post, and would you kindly point out where exactly I used the talk page like a "forum". I've consistently remained on the topic of the Eustace Mullins article and the censorship practices involving said article. I've indulged in no personal attacks, nor have I misused the talk page. Unless of course expressing a dissenting opinion means I'm using the page "like a forum" around these parts. If you have an issue with my criticisms, make your point instead of pretending that I'm somehow misusing this page in order to censor me. Thanks. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The entire paragraph starting with Unfortunately some individuals by the names "Galassi" and "Jpgordon" was about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, inappropriate editing and censorship tactics need to be commented upon, else the problem will continue. However, I understand that you have a dog in this fight, and as I said before, it's quite clear that your retorts have more to do with the nature of my criticisms than any supposed violation of talk page rules.
The opening should read something like "Eustace Clarence Mullins, Jr. (March 9, 1923 – February 2, 2010) was a populist American political writer and biographer. His most famous work was The Secrets of The Federal Reserve. Along with Nesta Webster, he is generally regarded as one of the most influential authors in the genre of conspiracism. Some of his work has attracted controversy over what critics perceive as antisemitic content."
Less character assassination, more balance. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Your comment again started with a discussion of other editors, not article content. This is your final chance. Do not discuss anything but article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Stay on topic. Allow me to reiterate:
The opening should read something like "Eustace Clarence Mullins, Jr. (March 9, 1923 – February 2, 2010) was a populist American political writer and biographer. His most famous work was The Secrets of The Federal Reserve. Along with Nesta Webster, he is generally regarded as one of the most influential authors in the genre of conspiracism. Some of his work has attracted controversy over what critics perceive as antisemitic content.". Less propaganda, more balance. Thanks for reading. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that wording is it doesn't accurately reflect what the sources say. The sources I've seen just say he was an antisemite. Are there other reliable sources that say something different? Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
And, more to the point, he is particularly known as a Jew-hater (as opposed to, say, Bobby Fischer, who is particularly known as a chess master, even though he hated Jews too.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please consider the following information in your decision re: Mullins. Mullins wrote a letter-to-the-editor of the National States Rights Party newspaper (The Thunderbolt) in which he recommended membership in the NSRP.
The official policy of the NSRP calls for extermination of Jews. J.B. Stoner, the National Chairman and Legal Counsel of the NSRP, repeatedly stated that Hitler was too "moderate" re: Jews. In the 1940's, Stoner organized the Christian Anti-Jewish Party which proposed that being a Jew should be a crime punishable by death! This is the type of person and organization which Mullins repeatedly associated himself with and endorsed. Among the other Jew-haters he was employed by, or with whom he was closely associated were: Matt Koehl (American Nazi Party), H. Keith Thompson Jr. (who wrote a series of articles entitled, "Why I Am An American Fascist"), Max Nelsen (who described himself as a Hitler admirer and as a racist), James Madole (who led the first postwar neo-fascist organization in our country, the National Renaissance Party---and Mullins frequently spoke at their events). The next edition of my Mullins report will reproduce copies of documents which establish, beyond any possible dispute, that Eustace Mullins was a life-long racist and anti-semite and Jew-hater. 74.106.44.189 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)ernie1241
Totally agree with your comment. Accusations of antisemitism should be mentioned in the article, but the way they are highlighted is obviously a simple promotion the editor's agenda of character assassination. Was struck by this upon first reading and agree that it is contrary to the high standards that Wikipedia is capable of achieving. Tcolgan001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading this guy's book "Secrets of the Fed Reserve" now and haven't come across any anti-Semitic commentary, not even remotely. The main thrust is about a "London Connection" who control the Fed in USA". I don't see any evidence of anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.29.7 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not read far enough. In that book Mullins charged (without a shred of credible evidence, of course) that the Fed was controlled by international Jewish bankers, whom he then went on to blame for virtually everything. Do a quick Google search -- you'll find dozens of blatantly antisemitic Mullins articles. One, for example, absolves the Nazis of the Holocaust and claims the Jews perpetrated it upon themselves!. (How or why they would do that is never convincingly argued.) You will also find records of Mullins' repeated appearances at Neo-Nazi rallies. If you're still not convinced, read [http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Jew-Eustace-Clarence-Mullins/dp/B0006BWIK8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359420911&sr=1-1&keywords=the+biological+jew The Biological Jew]. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 01:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mullins denies being an antisemite

I'm concerned about these two paragraphs:

In an interview in 1993 with Alexander Baron, Mr. Mullins disclaimed his past anti-Semitism. Question: Do you believe Jews are parasites? EM: "Parasites? No, as I say, this was a theme that I developed in 1968 in that one book. I've never referred to it again and in fact there is nothing about Jews in my last five books in the past twenty years simply because I moved into larger spheres, The World Order..." Source: http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/eustace_mullins_1.html

In his Book Review of Eric Jon Phelps' Vatican Assassins, in The Spectrum from April 2002, Mullins wrote: "Although I am continuously denounced as “anti-Semitic” by Zionist terrorist groups working actively with the Jesuits and Freemasons, I have never failed to credit the inspiration of my book Murder By Injection, the only history of the American Medical Association, to three Jewish dissidents whom I was proud to call friends: Morris Bealle, founder of the Capitol Hill News Service, whose book Medical Mussolini, a biography of Morris Fishbein, head of the AMA for many years, and his sequel The Drug Trust, led me to research the CIA and Jesuit control of the worldwide drug conspiracy and its techniques of people control; Dr. Emanuel Goldenson, with whom I used to talk all night in his Manhattan mansion a few doors from Nelson Rockefeller’s residence; and Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, whose trenchant appearances on the nation’s leading talk-shows led to his untimely demise from a Washington “heart attack” as the only means of stopping him from educating the American people about the details of the medical conspiracy against them. These men were welcome allies in the crusade to bring The Truth to the American people, a crusade in which Brother Eric brings us all the vital information which we need to win this worldwide struggle. You will find his work a necessary tool in furthering your own understanding, and in our survival." Source: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/spectrum/volume3/S0310.PDF

I have no objection to quoting Mullins on his lack of antisemitism, but I would like to see them written in a more encyclopedic, relevant, and wikified manner. These two paragraphs are overlong, filled with irrelevancies, and not written according to the usual standards of WP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- not only is The Spectrum the furthest thing from a reliable source, but "some of my best friends are Jews" is the furthest thing from a plausible denial. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"Some of my best friends are Jewish dissidents" is a new twist on it, though. I'm at 3RR for today, but perhaps will rewrite them tomorrow if no one else cares to take a stab at it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - Neutrality of article now disputed.

This article is nearly entirely the subjective opinion of alf.laylah.wa.laylah, who uses spurious "sources" that are in nearly all cases, completely irrelevant and say nothing of the kind.

Please discuss here how we can fix this amicably without an edit war.

Wikipedia is not the place for subjetive rants, but rather objective, PROVABLE facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeayeayeaye1111 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Learn to read the history. I added nothing substantial to this article other than sources to stuff that was already in there. If you don't like the unsourced material, take it out and talk about it. If you don't like the sourced material, such as the fact that Mullins was an antisemite more than a "biohgrapher," you should talk about why it is you think that doesn't belong in the article. And really, I looked through the history, and the only thing I've ever added to this article besides sources for stuff that was already there was this and a category. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I can only echo what alf laylah wa laylah said: On Wikipedia, your opinion does not matter; my opinion does not matter; what matters is source material. If you have reliable source material that contradicts the reliable source material cited in the article, we're all eyes/ears. If all you have is your own opinion, find an antisemitic forum (there are plenty) and have at it there. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 14:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence of his bio ostensibly ends with "and antisemite"? As if this were his life's work? By any standard this is defamation or libel. Talk about an amateurish Wiki hatchet job entry, this one takes the cake. Meh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.29.7 (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, every descriptor in the article is sourced. If you have reliable sources to the contrary, bring 'em. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 01:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on CfD notifications

Please participate: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Better_notification_system. Thanks! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


Removal from anti-semitism category

Per consensus here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories and elsewhere, people are not to be included in anti-X categories. There are also new categories sprouting up for anti-jewish writers, but I have not removed those from this because the whole category is up for deletion, and in those cases you cannot remove people from the category if they might be valid members. Category:Antisemitism in the United States OTOH will remain as a category, but it should be purged of all biographies - this is just the first on my list... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck arguing, based on sources, that Mullins and Pound weren't anti-semitic. I foresee a very heated battle. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's not my argument. It's whether he can be placed in a category called "Anti-semitism" in the United States - check the CFD result above, which agreed people weren't to be so-classified. Also, BLP applies to recently dead. The extent of his anti-semitism is really best left for the article to discuss in nuance - since categories are either in or out, a general consensus is that people should not be in Anti-X categories, especially when the term Anti-X is disparaging. Otherwise we'd have categories like "Anti-gay politicians" and "Racist novelists" and so on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Mullins doesn't meet the WP:BDP "recently dead" criteria so BLP definitely does not apply. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
He's not just an "anti-Jewish writer," he was a major publisher of antisemitic conspiracy theories as well. Calling him merely an "anti-Jewish writer" is ignoring his other antisemitic activities. I don't care if he's in the "anti-Jewish writer" category, but his role is larger than that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
See discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia, and see the header of this category Category:Antisemitism: "This category is for issues relating to antisemitism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic." I've just added the same to the US category. Again, I'm not debating whether or not he's anti-semitic - but per consensus bios and groups cannot be added to such categories, regardless of what they did. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for adding that header to US antisemitism? He's not "allegedly" antisemitic, either. He's antisemitic per any number of reliable sources. Your position as I understand it is that subcategories should not be diffusing when they don't capture everything about the article that's placed in them. "Anti-Jewish writers" does not capture everything about this guy. Should we start subcategories for "anti-Jewish publishers," "anti-Jewish lecturers," "anti-Jewish activists," and put him in all of them? What's the use of that. Also, your argument that he should be in "anti-Jewish writers" but not antisemitism contradicts your claim above that people are not to be included in anti-X categories. You yourself put him in an anti-X category.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They all say the same thing - we don't categorize based on this sort of thing. Keep the views in the article. Stop telling me about how anti-semitic he is - I DON'T CARE, it's besides the point. That's for the article to sort out.

Also, I think you're confused - I don't agree with him being in Anti-Jewish writers, and I've nominated that category to be nuked from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. However, when deletion debates are ongoing, you cannot remove people from the category, so he stays. I never added him to anything anti, did I?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not telling you how antisemitic he was, I'm saying that his antisemitic activities were broader than writing. That's how you told me to argue for non-diffusion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Will Hitler's bio be removed from Category:Antisemitism in Germany using the same argument being used for Mullins ? It doesn't make sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point. What kind of op-ed will that get in the NYT? It makes no sense at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, I can understand the urge to exclude bios because anti-X categories like these often seem to cause chaos in the hands of POV pushers/neutrality-challenged. But sometimes they fit perfectly and Mullins would be one of those instances as far as I can tell. If we can categorize anti-war activists as anti-war activists or a derivative of that term then we should be able to categorize antisemites as antisemites or a derivative of that term. There's nothing controversial as far as RS are concerned about describing him as an antisemite or categorizing him on that basis. Categories are to help people find things and if someone is looking for information about Antisemitism in the United States they need to be able to see the Mullins article there, just like they can see the MLK article in the American anti–Vietnam War activists category. Well, that's what I think anyway for what's it's worth. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
But anti-war activists don't usually dispute the term. That's the tricky part with these anti-semitism or racist or homophobe or sexist or whatever categories. Very few of those accused of such things would agree with the label being applied. It is much better to apply labels like Right wing nationists or Nazis or whatever - anti-semitism works fine as a category but it *doesn't* work well as a category applied to people who are accused of same. Please read the previous CFD discussions so you can see where previous consensus lies on this. Categorizing people-by-antisemitism comes up literally once a year, and once a year the categories in question are deleted. In this case, the category itself is not under dispute, but membership of accused anti-semites is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect Obiwan, you might try reading some sources. There is absolutely nothing alleged about Mullins, Kaspar or Pound. They were the real thing and they owned it outright. The category says alleged - but this page simply does not fit. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Even Anti-Semitic people was deleted by consensus - without the "alleged" qualifier. Also, look up on this page, you see a whole discussion debating that exact label applied to this exact fellow. I'm not going to get into that discussion, but just pointing out why in general we don't put people in this categories that are seen as derogatory labels and with which the people in question may not agree with said characterization of their beliefs. NPOV, and all that. To your point about "they were the real thing", I suppose this means that this category *could* contain anyone who is a card-carrying anti-semite, but if they haven't paid their dues, or didn't write *enough* books, they couldn't be placed here? It's an unending discussion, and it's why the consensus has been, just don't do it at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess that means that the answer to the question "Will Hitler's bio be removed from Category:Antisemitism in Germany?" is yes. Think about that. The phrase throwing the baby out with the bathwater springs to mind. I understand the concerns but what matters is what RS say about the instance being categorized and what helps readers find information. It's a slippery slope. Criminals deny their crimes despite being found guilty, holocaust deniers deny the holocaust but deny being holocaust deniers etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure Sean - you're probably aware of Godwin's law, which, since we're discussing anti-semitism, was going to show up sooner or later in any case. What the Nazis did was so extreme that it's extremely difficult to reason in a level-headed way with arguments that include the Nazis, so I just think I'll leave that particular german category to someone else to sort out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not an instance of Godwin's law. No one's comparing anyone to Nazis. This is a serious point. Hitler is the personification of antisemitism in Germany. He wrote one of the foundational antisemitic works of the 20th century and then destroyed Europe while trying to implement his ideals, and Wikipedia can't put him in a category about antisemitism because of a slippery slope article that ends with a drunken Mel Gibson blathering on the shoulder of the Pacific Coast Highway?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's close enough - anyway, my point is, the Nazis are to be treated separately, I'm not going to remove them from Category:Antisemitism - I value my life, right? But the broader consensus still holds. Perhaps it's a sort of nazi-exceptionalism? Dunno... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dunno what to say - Pound spent 12 years in an insane asylum but that sentence could well have been jail or even death because he was a traitor to the US and made antisemitic radio broadcasts from fascist Italy during WWII. Mullins and Kaspar met w/ him in the hospital and learned from him. Maybe the wrong people were invited to the !vote and you have a limited consensus. But taking the anti-semitism label from someone who is notable for that is like ... well ... taking the novel label away from someone who is known for writing novels. I now realize I haven't a clue how categorization works on WP, but I do know that we have a problem. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about a racist label, or a sexist label, or a homophobic label, or whatever - and I don't doubt that such labels do exist and are applied. But we have to draw a line, and consensus has been to *not* include people who are accused of anti-semitism in anti-semitism categories - this consensus has been reinforced over 6 years of different category discussions, all ending with the same conclusion. The labels we apply to people in the real world are different than the labels we apply to people in wikipedia, especially when it comes to labels that are defaming.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I give up. I also sense an agenda. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is a rather straightforward example of WP:DUCK. While it's true that some of "the people in question may not agree with said characterization of their beliefs", I doubt that Mullins would be one of those people. When you write a diatribe against Jews and title it The Biological Jew, there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room on the question of your bigotry. I've been through a few dust-ups here on this question, always with people who have never bothered to read any Mullins (or indeed any books at all, it seems). I have yet to run into anyone who has read The Biological Jew who won't concede that he was an antisemite -- and that includes several of his sympathizers. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Joe, again, you may be right, I haven't read his stuff, I frankly don't care that much about this fellow. I'm just pointing out that using the categorization system to label people as such doesn't work, in general - that's what the article is *for*.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have to agree with those above who have said that categories are to help people find things, and if someone is looking for information about antisemitism and those who are commonly categorized as such, they need to be able to find the Mullins article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Then wouldn't they also want to find Mel Gibson? Sorry to bring up the extreme case, but his name is bandied about frequently nonetheless. If you read the discussions that led to deletion of anti-semitic+people categories, this reasoning was discounted - there are other ways to get info - for example, Antisemitism in the United States could cover noted anti-semites (and cover the nuance of their views, whether those views shifted, etc). I'm not trying to remove information from wikipedia, I'm just arguing that it goes against all of our policies to categorize people in this fashion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess this is going to fall into the agree-to-disagree category. And yes, they would want to find Mel Gibson, and should. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
And that's exactly the point at which the slippery slope starts, until we get to anyone who has every been accused of anti-semitism being placed here in this category. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The domino theory. I just don't see that happening; nobody would consider placing Mel Gibson (to continue that example) in that category if there were only one accusation, or even two -- and if someone tried, it would be removed based on WP:BLP. But when the examples keep piling up, [6], we are doing a disservice to readers if we ignore it, IMHO. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read this Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Anti-Semitic_people. Consensus was pretty clear that we should not categorize people based on this - Mel Gibson included.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Then we need a new consensus, because here, you are clearly a voice in the wilderness. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ouuuuuuuuuuu (that's a wolf). I think I should not have pursued deep discussion here, it's the wrong forum - I've suggested moving this discussion, see the link below, and please join at the other page and share your thoughts on the category in general. My issue is not with this bio specifically, it is with any anti-semitic bios being included in that category. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I know we've been through this before, Obi-Wan, but the slippery slope argument is a *fallacy*. It is not a valid argument.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in this case. Read Wikipedia:OC#OPINION. It exists for exactly this reason. Can you imagine if we start debating whether Mel Gibson belongs or not in this anti-semitism category? And pretty soon the whole thing just becomes a flytrap for smearing bios. The solution of not applying such cats to bios is the better one IMHO, and this was supported by many previous discussions at CFD which ended with a very clear consensus - bios were not to be added. These kind of discussions, about whether someone is or isn't anti-semitic, and what they said or didn't say, and if they changed their mind, and if they actually have Jewish friends (like this fellow claims), are really much better suited for the article and talk pages - since categories are not partial membership, they are black or white, in or out - and as such, categories which have a tendency to defame are in general almost never applied to bios.
You realize that the top-level cat, Category:Antisemitism, has contained that prohibition against bios since early 2011, placed there by an admin who closed the discussion: [7]. Is there any reason to believe a country-level sub-cat would not have the same restrictions, when the CFD explicitly mentioned that its intent was to apply to all of the country-level versions? I'm sorry but if you want to dispute this, the whole category, and probably the whole anti-semitism tree, needs to be brought to CFD to have a wide-ranging discussion on who can be added. Until that time, previous consensus should hold. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, if you really believe it why not have the courage of your convictions and apply the principle to some Germans? Consensus is on your side, after all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever heard that proverb, about the best way to eat an elephant? One bite at a time... and my plate is full.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 – This discussion is really about whether any bios accused of anti-semitism are allowed in this category at all, and the main discussion should be here. In order to centralize the discussion, let's all continue this at the category talk page. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why the move? This is about a person who is no longer alive. But you've moved to a page where the discussion is about BLPs. There's a difference. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the discussion is not about BLPs (BLP is one concern, but not the only one, cited in the various closes of past discussions on this issue). In any case, we're having the same discussion on two pages, so better to centralize, and apply what is decided back here when done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You keep moving the goal posts. This conversation should stay here because it's about Mullins. Moreover, you should start a conversation at Ezra Pound because you reverted there. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's the same discussion TK. I'm making the same exact arguments. It doesn't matter if you bring me a copy of his membership in the anti-semite association of America signed by him - my reading of the consensus is that NO bios accused of anti-semitism were to be added to the anti-semite categories, and that consensus is now being discussed at the other page. I'll stop moving bios for now, but we don't need to debate page by page the extent of X's anti-semitism. It was my fault for starting a big discussion here when this isn't about this guy at all, in the end.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'll certainly agree with that last sentence. As for Mullins (since we're on the Mullins talk page), the consensus here, clearly, is that he was an antisemite and should be described as such. If you look at the previous discussion, the best anyone could do in documenting Mullins's own defense was that pathetic interview for a schizoid rag, where he admitted calling Jews "parasites", but not in the last few books; and besides, some of his best friends were Jews. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Obiwan, please be very clear in the other discussion that we are talking about people whose notability depends on their antisemitic stance and who are no longer alive. These are crucial points. Furthermore, I think that CfD should do a better job of advertising categories when they are discussed so that those of us who tend articles that are affected can chime in. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Joe: "he was an antisemite and should be described as such" - yes, again, I'm not an expert, I haven't read the material, and I leave it up to you capable editors to decide that weighty question. But "described as such" is not the same as "categorized as such", unfortunately (or fortunately), and there are umpteen descriptions that exist in articles that would never be permitted as categories - see WP:OCAT for many examples.
TK, when there is a discussion about a category, it is advertised on the category page itself, and usually relevant wiki-projects are notified, but not always. You may want to start up a discussion at the CFD general board, to suggest better ways to notify article editors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand that you're making a distinction between "described" and "categorized", and I also understand that "antisemite" is not a category OR a descriptor to be used lightly, in any context. That said, I don't see anything over at WP:OCAT that would disqualify Mullins from the antisemite category; he more than satisfies the stated notability and verifiability criteria. So while I get your argument that a line has to be drawn somewhere (and I guess that's what we're going to talk about at the other discussion), by any standard, that line has to be well past Eustace Mullins's name. And we need to be very careful not to fall into the trap of not labeling anybody for fear of mislabeling a less-clear-cut example -- say, our friend Mel, who apparently hates Jews only when he's drunk. Allegedly. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any proscription of lower level categories, such as antisemtism in the US.--Galassi (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The claim has been made that the CfD discussion linked to above recurses through all subcategories even though no one bothered to add language to the category descriptions at that time to express the restriction. I don't believe this, but that's what's being said.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All great points, can we please centralize? Please? Other people/boards have been invited to the other discussion. This is way beyond this bio now. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

anti-semitic

Why do you people always have to label people "anti-semitic"? If there was a Wiki-article saying negative things about the English or the Africans, they wouldn't be labeled anti-English or anti-African. They'd just be what they are, critiques of the English or critiques of the Africans. What people like you don't get is you justify every criticism about The Tribe.

The silliness of the professional antisemite

From the OED we have the following. Now, it's not so silly a phrase. It's a legitimate and recognized use of the word "professional." I realize that, as the OED says, in this case it's a humorous use, which is why I'm not proposing it for use in the article, but it's hardly a weird way to describe the guy. Even Time Magazine uses it. This is not part of my argument about the lead sentence, just a note that it's hardly useful to disparage expressions as "silly" in the course of a conversation when, in fact, they are in accord with standard English usage.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Professional
3c. In humorous or derogatory use. Of a person: habitually making a feature of a particular activity or attribute, esp. one that is generally regarded with disfavour; inveterate.
1814 F. Burney Wanderer III. vi.lviii. 394 The blush of Juliet manifested extreme confusion, to see herself represented..as a professional parasite.
1879 Cornhill Mag. Oct. 414 It is one of the misfortunes of the professional Don Juan that his honour forbids him to refuse battle.
a1911 D. G. Phillips Susan Lenox (1917) (unexpurgated ed.) II. iv. 69 But she found all the homes full, with long waiting lists, filled for the most part..with professional objects of charity.
1937 Time 18 Jan. 75/2 Chekhov was a strong supporter of Zola and the Dreyfusards, Suvorin was a professional anti-Semite.
1978 J. Krantz Scruples vi. 167 The ‘extra man’ invited to sit next to her at dinner was..a professional leech who dined out every night by mere virtue of being unmarried and mildly presentable.
1995 Private Eye 8 Sept. 6/1 The professional northerner saved particularly harsh words for their ‘ill-mannered children’.

I didn't realize you were using it as a joke. It sounded like your argument was the fact that he was a professional antisemite was the reason he should be called "antisemite" tout court. I will call you a professional trickster from now on. Let's get back to the point. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a joke at all, a usage connoting an air of humor. However, Je suis, en fait, un tricheur professionnel, c'est vrai.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Compromise version by Galassi

Inserted in this edit: "a populist American political writer, biographer, noted for his [[antisemite|antisemitic]] views" I would like to state here that I am fine with this compromise and to solicit the opinions of others.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too as long as the sources are cited next to it. I see that the Anti-Defamation League and Chip Berlet sources([1][2]) that were there have gone missing. As expert/specialist sources I think they should probably be restored. Maybe all those sources should be consolidated into one ref. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The existing citations support the statements sufficiently. Only reason to reintroduce such heatedly partisan sources is to promote their views. I would strongly contest the notion that either the ADL or Berlet are "experts" in any field.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yea! Heavy! And a bottle of bread! I agree with you, TDA. Neither the ADL nor (especially) Berlet are reliable for what was sourced to them, which is why I found better sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Rothschilds material duplicated

I removed a bunch of stuff about the Rothschilds and Jewish control of the world financial system in this edit. This material essentially duplicates stuff that's well covered in the "writings" section. Also, it's badly written, too much so for me to fix, and seems to be unsourceable except from primary sources. There's no indication from secondary sources that this level of detail about this particular theory is especially important. However, I'm not wedded to the removal of this material, especially if someone can see a way to fix it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Descriptions of minor works removed

I removed a bunch of descriptions of his minor works in this edit. I don't see much material about them in the secondary sources, so don't feel their inclusion in this article is important. The material I removed was all unsourced and, as far as I can see, not sourceable other than to the actual writings. Again, I'm not especially wedded to my removal, but perhaps we can have a discussion about whether we really need a paragraph on each pamphlet the guy wrote even if there's no indication that they're relevant to his career?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Eustace Mullins, Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist, Dies at Age 86". Anti-Defamation League. 2010-02-04. Retrieved 11 February 2011.
  2. ^ Berlet, Chip. "Rumor, Demonization, Scapegoating, Conspiracism, and Scare-Mongering are not Investigative Journalism". Political Research Associates. Retrieved 11 February 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eustace_Mullins/Archive_1&oldid=1151017965"