I never referenced the video Loren, I mentioned the text that you quoted, and then you went off on me incorrectly for the original quote, merely because the software has you being the author of it. You force me to resolve the problems for your laziness?I believe Richard is committing the logical fallacy of guilt by association. In other words, the issues Richard brings up seem to me to be intended to cast a cloud over My intentions only because dukes material that Richard. suspects as being racist.
This is not the analytic path, is it?
However, I still see your approach as guilt by association in that you are bringing up material I did not simply to associate me with it, not because i avocated it.
Moreover, where in the video was there some material that expresses the racism you seem to be claiming?
In my world these terms are racist codes, but I understand that racists don't believe that they are racist.Loren Hough quoted the following: "David Dukeâ€™s appearance on the Alex Jones show was an incredibly important moment for pro-White and pro-European causes. ..."
Need I say more? OK, I will. You seem to be raising quite a stink when you were only asked to provide some context for what you posted. This whole matter is your fault.
I believe that Loren is committing a logical fallacy by shifting the subject. How is your being asked a question that derived from your laziness, to be generous, an error on my part? To wit, Richard asked Loren: "I'm a little confused by all of this Loren. Are you saying that you are a White Supremacist and such?"
Instead you could have answered the question, and complied with the request for how you relate to all of this. But, as with every time you get some criticism we get to listen to you whine about being persecuted, and make excuses because of your 'issues'. Better yet, you could have avoided the whole business altogether by simply posting properly to begin with. IMO, you've been given way too much latitude after having been warned about your sloppy attributions and such, some of which make it appear as plagiarism, other times as incoherent babbling. Whether it is your intention or not, your being the most prolific poster here serves to marginalize our efforts, but as you say, you ARE NOT in favor of Jerry's and my position. So just a coincidence I'm sure.
As to your raising the Protocols here, how stupid would a bunch of Jews have to be to put their collective Zion name to that work? Instead, if you had done your homework you would realize that the most likely source was the Jesuits. Or are you going to say this is reverse Machiavellianism at work? They wrote this document up, proudly put their name on it, and leaked it out ... in the hopes that people would believe that someone else wrote it and tried to blame them. Didn't work too well.
But if the Protocols are legit as to their authorship, as you seem to claim, then are you saying that all the other (non-Jewish) players (that you allow for) are no better than their pawns as many claim? If so, then I would suggest that your work is done here. And you've got a lot of 61 year old seed yet to sow.
What about the House of Ephraim, or is that a trick question in your opinion?