User talk:Alex Laubin

Eustace Mullins

Given your Wikipedia credentials and your claims to being a professional historian and biographer, I am somewhat disappointed in your article on Eustace Mullins. While I appreciate that you have added some information, and not entirely discarded my contributions, what bothers me is your insistence on labelling a complex man as "Anti-Semite" or "Neo-Nazi" instead of representing his views and allowing the reader to decide. I can understand your opinion that Mullins is an anti-semite, and I was similarly disturbed by the statements he made in The Biological Jew. He himself seems to have later felt that such claims were mistaken. In spite of these wrong-headed works, having read Secrets of the Federal Reserve, I feel that Mullins has made a very important contribution, and that to label him off-hand as "Anti-Semite" and such only prevents the reader from understanding his actual views and writings. Similarly, it is unfair to simply label Ezra Pound as a "Fascist" without any evidence or explanation. You also display a tendency to accuse Mullins of "guilt by assocation" with various "Neo-Nazis" and "revisionists" like Willis Carto. I suggest to you that these associations are parenthetical to the works actually written by the author, and that his arguments deserve, like anyone else's, the benefit of an unbiased reading.

I would ask that you consider revising the article in favor of a truly neutral point of view, which presents the life and work of Mr. Mullins without the convenient labels. Thank you. Alex Laubin 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. You will note, that I considerably toned down the article from what it had been, and added significant new contributions. Having said that, he was certainly, at least at one time, an anti-Semite. The fact that he later moved away from that position, doesn't discount that he held it at one time. Do you agree? If a person was an anti-Semite for 20 years don't they deserve the label, even if they aren't one today? Wjhonson 05:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. If someone held a certain view for 50 years, and then realized "Hey, I've been a real a-hole for most of my life" and recanted on that view, then they don't deserve to be labelled and dismissed for having held that view. The fact is, Eustace Mullins was the first person, as far as I can find, to reveal the truth underlying Jupiter Island and the Federal Reserve Act, which, if he is right, constitutes the hijacking of our currency and our democracy. This is a significant finding, and there is not a single mention of race or religion in Secrets of the Federal Reserve. My point is that the man's work stands, regardless of your labels, and that an encyclopedic article should represent the man as he is, and not debase itself to the lower instincts of those seeking blame. Mullins is not Hitler, or Mussolini. He is who he is. An encyclopedia should represent that.

And likewise, an encyclopaedia cannot ignore what someone wrote, simply because it's unseemly. I agree that his first book did not mention Jews. But we're not only talking about his first book, but all his work. The article is about his entire history, not just the beginning and the end. Leaving out the middle would be a disservice don't you think? Wjhonson 06:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deal in logic and statements of fact. There are a great deal of arguments, somewhat logical and factual in the man's writings. Weigh them. Explain them. Dismiss them if you have the evidence to do so. Don't just be a stick in the mud and call the man a Nazi because you think it's cool. Have you read Ezra Pound? Do you think he's a fascist based on his work? Is it possible he was against World War II in every way, and that he broadcast from whereever he could? Bottom Line: You need to work on this article, and exile your prejudice, or else I will.Alex Laubin 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I deserve the tone you are using. Did I add the anti-semite category? Do you think I created the anti-Semite tone of the article? Are did you simply not review the history of the page? Wjhonson 06:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Eustace Mullins

Your recent edit to Eustace Mullins (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 07:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Pixelface 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eustace Mullins -- any news?

Hi Alex. I see we both have an interest in creating a neutral Eustace Mullins article (by removing some of the pejorative language, for starters). As you pointed out on someone's talk page, the anti-Jewish tracts Mullins has written are but a small portion of his published work. Characterizing him as an "anti-Semite" and nothing else isn't very scholarly.

Would you happen to know what Mr. Mullins is up to right now? He had a website up last year, but that seems to have vanished. His website said he was working on an autobiography. Do you know if that's ever materialized? St37 09:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex I'm sure you have a lot to offer to wikipedia, but you removed large sections of the research I did on Eustace Mullins. I'm not sure I see the point of some of your removals, so I've restored part of them. Wjhonson 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for neutral and balanced. I just personally had nothing to offer on the other side of that anti-Semitic coin. I've only read a few paragraphs of his work. I just added bits about his biography, appearances, connections to other persons of interest, etc. Wjhonson 06:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and hopefully you'll be interested in branching out into other areas. We really need someone who can dig into some of these issues and do the source-research. I have access to the New York Times index, but it would be nice to have access to Commentary magazine also and the Common Sense archives, but I don't :( Wjhonson 06:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Mullins

Hey Alex. I was just passing through and noticed you had left a response on my user talk page. Wow, it's been almost a year since you left it. Time flies!

Aside from the occasional contribution, I've lost interest in Wikipedia, so unless something happens to change that, I'm probably not going to touch the Eustace Mullins article.

Wikipedia might be a nice idea in theory, but in practice, it's not worth the effort. St37 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]