I just got an e-mail from Harold A. Covington. Most likely Covington found the way to send e-mail to me through the running argument on Stormfront between one of Covington's misanthropic minions and a friend of mine who posted this blog's address.
Covington's missive consists of a slightly augmented version of his blog post of 3 August 2010, which he posted the day after I discussed the lack of merit in A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement and its obvious connection to Harold Covington on Jim Giles' show. I included that statement from Covington, that attempt to deny what I said on 2 August, within my first post on this blog, Contra Istam Historiam Brevem.
Covington had the temerity to reproduce in his message to me today this passage from that blog post of 3 August, which antedates my extensive criticism of the material and therefore takes no account of the fact that what Covington wrote on 3 August 2010 is now blatantly ridiculous:
Covington's missive consists of a slightly augmented version of his blog post of 3 August 2010, which he posted the day after I discussed the lack of merit in A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement and its obvious connection to Harold Covington on Jim Giles' show. I included that statement from Covington, that attempt to deny what I said on 2 August, within my first post on this blog, Contra Istam Historiam Brevem.
Covington had the temerity to reproduce in his message to me today this passage from that blog post of 3 August, which antedates my extensive criticism of the material and therefore takes no account of the fact that what Covington wrote on 3 August 2010 is now blatantly ridiculous:
I used to say that I could not spot a single significant factual error in the document, but after the recent flapdoodle about the Brief History, I sat down and read it over again, and I believe I have spotted one major error--Revisionist author Bradley Smith, referred to as "the late Bradley Smith" in the Brief History, is in fact still alive. I think I'm actually the first person to notice this.
Other than that, I can't take any major issue with the facts presented in the report. It is damning, and it is true, which is why periodically certain elements within the Movement re-discover it and go into a screaming hissy fit over it, which is occurring as we speak. They cannot refute its content, and it drives them around the twist.
The fact remains that the document has been online for four years now, and other than the Bradley Smith gaffe (which I say again, I seem to be the first one to point out) no one has been able to disprove anything in it.
I would refer Mr. Covington to the Miami-Dade or West Palm Beach Police homicide divisions if he wants to know of two more absolutely, indisputably untrue claims in the Brief History. There was no Barry Edwards murder in West Palm Beach and there was no Dennis Witherspoon murder in rural Dade County. I can provide the necessary contact information for anybody that would like to confirm that. Just send me a private message.
Those two stories, by the way, have been openly credited to Harold Covington in the past. He included them in his very nasty 1993 obituary of Ben Klassen.
It really doesn't help your credibility, Mr. Covington, to go on insisting that these stories are true when the disproof has been published.
In his e-mail missive to me, the only material that Covington added to the text of his blog entry, apart from the salutation, "Mon Idiot," were two paragraphs suggesting that the only reason why anybody wants to believe that he is the author of the Brief History is that, since the arrest of Frank Collin in 1980, he, Covington, has been the target of a vast homosexual conspiracy:
Those two stories, by the way, have been openly credited to Harold Covington in the past. He included them in his very nasty 1993 obituary of Ben Klassen.
It really doesn't help your credibility, Mr. Covington, to go on insisting that these stories are true when the disproof has been published.
In his e-mail missive to me, the only material that Covington added to the text of his blog entry, apart from the salutation, "Mon Idiot," were two paragraphs suggesting that the only reason why anybody wants to believe that he is the author of the Brief History is that, since the arrest of Frank Collin in 1980, he, Covington, has been the target of a vast homosexual conspiracy:
Most of the accusations that I wrote the entire document itself spring from a obsessive personal hatred of myself, amounting to a form of insanity, which has been present within the Movement for the past 30 years. This deranged hatred is in my view due to my role in the exposure of a homosexual child molestor in the Movement in 1979 and his subsequent arrest and receipt of a seven year prison term. I have expounded on this bizarre phenomenon elsewhere in my article The Seabrook Theory.
A lot of the "evidence" that I allegedly wrote this work is that "only Harold can write like that." I find it amusing and bemusing that apparently, in some people's minds, I am the only person in the Movement who knows how to string a few properly spelled and grammatically correct sentences together in the English language.
 |
| Bill Seabrook (1886-1945) |
I strongly suspect that Covington could not produce the slightest evidence that anybody resents his role, whatever it may have been*, in what happened to his erstwhile half-Jew paederast fuehrer, nor that any of the people displeased with Covington are homosexuals, apart from accusations that Covington himself invented. That's quite a trick, isn't it? Accuse various competitors of being homosexual rapists and murderers and then when they react, invoke the notion of a homosexual conspiracy -- which confirms the initial accusations!
Furthermore,the claim isn't that "only Harold can write like that" (notice the self-congratulation there?); it's that only Harold Covington (apart from a few people who parrot what he says) is noteworthy for these kinds of personal attacks.
Why should it be a reproach anyway, to be credited with authorship of the Brief History if it is as good as Covington claims? One obvious reason why Covington would deny authorship is that he doesn't want to risk being sued or found in contempt of court again. Another motive could be to pretend that praise of himself is coming from somebody else.
I derived the hypothesis that Covington was the author this Brief History from the fact that it contained some well known Covington material, the attacks on Ben Klassen. I approached the question of whether Covington was responsible for the entire "history" with reasonable skepticism, but the more I examined it the more obvious it became that Covington wrote it (although large sections are plagiarized). It is full of gratuitous insertions of praise for Covington, and the concluding section, which states the purpose of the whole work, is explicitly about him. The message is, Everybody else is scum. Support Harold Covington.
Now it could be that some deranged Harold Covington fan undertook to compile that 70-page "history" for the purpose of promoting Harold Covington. But that is not the obvious and simple explanation.
Furthermore,the claim isn't that "only Harold can write like that" (notice the self-congratulation there?); it's that only Harold Covington (apart from a few people who parrot what he says) is noteworthy for these kinds of personal attacks.
Why should it be a reproach anyway, to be credited with authorship of the Brief History if it is as good as Covington claims? One obvious reason why Covington would deny authorship is that he doesn't want to risk being sued or found in contempt of court again. Another motive could be to pretend that praise of himself is coming from somebody else.
I derived the hypothesis that Covington was the author this Brief History from the fact that it contained some well known Covington material, the attacks on Ben Klassen. I approached the question of whether Covington was responsible for the entire "history" with reasonable skepticism, but the more I examined it the more obvious it became that Covington wrote it (although large sections are plagiarized). It is full of gratuitous insertions of praise for Covington, and the concluding section, which states the purpose of the whole work, is explicitly about him. The message is, Everybody else is scum. Support Harold Covington.
Now it could be that some deranged Harold Covington fan undertook to compile that 70-page "history" for the purpose of promoting Harold Covington. But that is not the obvious and simple explanation.
________________________
* In his essay "The Frank Collin Affair" Covington admits that it was Mike Whalen (a spokesman for the NSPA) not he himself, who discovered "actual, incontrovertible, physical proof that Collin was buggering little boys." After that there was a meeting where members of NSPA (including Gerhard Lauck) considered what to do. The only conceivable question that they might have considered, if the evidence was incontrovertible, is whether to report Collin to the police or to try to cover up the crime. Covington says that he participated in that meeting, but does not say what his role in it was.
* In his essay "The Frank Collin Affair" Covington admits that it was Mike Whalen (a spokesman for the NSPA) not he himself, who discovered "actual, incontrovertible, physical proof that Collin was buggering little boys." After that there was a meeting where members of NSPA (including Gerhard Lauck) considered what to do. The only conceivable question that they might have considered, if the evidence was incontrovertible, is whether to report Collin to the police or to try to cover up the crime. Covington says that he participated in that meeting, but does not say what his role in it was.
No comments:
Post a Comment