ngridrimland@hughes.net

I need to give my two cents' worth to this erupting and maybe disrupting disagreement.  I want to say this gently, but it seems to me that we have vastly more important, overriding things in common than areas where we disagree.  I think that's what we need to keep in mind that - when we disagree with someone -  we don't let our disagreement be sands of friction to the much more important goals that we have in common and need to protect.

I think the temptation of arguing with someone and then getting everybody to take sides is destructive of our Volksgemeinschaftsgeist.  We don't do that with snail mail - why do it with email?  Because it is easy and free?

To be specific to your objection to John's article, Carolyn.  In general, I believe you have merit on your side - because what little I know of the topic - was Hitler, or was he not, "controlled" by the Jews? - is an important one.  I only know what Ernst told me - that Hitler took Jewish money in the beginning, but he didn't let the Jews put a ring in his nose in exchange - and that THAT was the reason things got deadly between them.  They couldn't control him.  He didn't do what they wanted him to do, because the man couldn't be bought.  He did what he felt was right.  So if John brings the Rothschilds and the Pope and whatnot into his essay, I believe that he is wrong on that specific point, but that is not ill will or malice or even sabotage, that's ignorance - and ignorance on a specific fact in history is hardly a sin.  We have all been guilty of that. What is far more important is that he provided a URL to one of Hitler's speeches, and people will go and read stuff for themselves - and maybe revise their opinion. 

And if Andrew is only "half-right", that is a valid criticism also in my book, but that is not a sin either.  Those two can still learn.  Maybe they will, and maybe they won't.  We can all still learn.  Who was it that said, "Meine Herren, die Generallinie nicht vergessen!"?

What is far more important, to me, is that both John and Andrew and even Gordon Duff and Michael Rivero and you and I have done excellent work for quite some time on MOST topics, and we each in our corner have helped to erase all kinds of misconceptions.  Do we have disagreements?  Of course.  I remember Bruce Campbell once calling Ernst "a pacifistic old man" - and did he ever put my nose out of joint!  But that did not impact on our friendship because we respect each other for our strengths and strive to overlook our weaknesses.  In my book - and this has only come to me lately - I believe that it is far, far more important not to attack somebody openly on an itsy-bitsy point of disagreement and be tolerant if our  comrade in the trenches does 90 or 95 % of good work.  We should write off the 5% where he does not - or tell him privately.

I have felt strong misgivings, even shame, when otherwise sane, moral people keep nitpicking on Hitler - when it is clear they don't know anything whatsoever about Hitler from beans.  They regurgitate what the enemy has put into their hard drive.  Why do they do it?  Because they think they get themselves some brownies by putting themselves in a good light - brownies likely from the enemy who loves it when they do it.  It's unworthy of any one of us to do that - it isn't chivalrous to kick a dead man in the shin - but is that a battle I need to take on?  When it is costing me a useful comrade who is 100% on my side in other, far more important ways?

I think if we feel strongly enough to write to a comrade about a disagreement, we should not broadcast it on the Net.  It only dissipates our energy and time and soul essence.  We should keep that private and see if it can be resolved amicably - or if not, to just set it aside for a better opportunity.

As we say in German, Nichts für ungut.  Don't misunderstand what I am trying to say.

• Civil War
• Rallies
• Whistleblowers
• Go Back

Related in this Category