Gabrielle
Registered
22
Apology and Clarification
by Edgar J. Steele
May 6, 2004
like anti Semites or hate mongers? LOL!
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE
'>
!--QuoteEBegin-->First, the apology, which I owe to all Christian Identity (CI) adherents of all shapes and sizes, regardless of belief structure, wherever they may be.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š In my article, "A Hitch in Our Git Along," I made the following statement:
"Christian Identity
adherents and right-wing whack jobs condemn me for refusing to preach that blacks are the literal offspring of Satan and, most recently, for not demanding that all homosexuals be shot on sight, even the ones that can't be seen, oddly enough."
There is so much wrong with that statement that I scarcely know where to begin.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š
First and foremost, though I listed CI adherents and "right-wing whack jobs" separately, merely by joining them together in the same sentence, I imparted a negative con
notation regarding my CI friends that I do not feel and did not intend.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š For that, I abjectly and miserably apologize.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š I am sorry.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š Just today, two of them emailed me about the i
mpre
ssio
n left and,
to their credit, they both did it in a very understanding and friendly way.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š Nobody asked for any clarifications, but I think I owe my CI friends an apology, nonetheless.[/b][/quote]
Edgar is trying to cover his blunder after he came out of the closet with his true feelings about sodomites.
My guess would be that he couldn't care two cents about CI adherent's feelings"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦in fact, I'd dare say he is more concerned about hurting sodomites' feelings than CI folks. When people like him say things like, Christian Identity adherents and right-wing whack jobs, they mean it. Notice he considers straight, right wing white people to be whack jobs ' but he wants to recruit the poor, misunderstood homosexuals that just 'need a life too
' into the white movement.
A different point of view, indeed! Something you would ex
cept to find in a leftist propaganda newsletter, as a matter of fact...
This, again, is just a smoke screen to hide what this whole propaganda-filled article is about: Mr. Steele trying to prove to his poor, delu
ded followe
rs that he really is not a promoter of sodomites ' keep reading; a few paragraphs more to go, and we see what this is all about...
Since we ar
e currently pret
ending this is a
bout CI, though, most CI believers
do not believe that stupidity about blacks and J*ws; there are, of course, some factions that do, but the majority does not.
And Mr. Steele makes some fairly interesting ' although, unsurprisingly, wholly incorrect ' statements about the Bible and Christianity. His claims about what the Bible teaches, etc., are complete hogwash, as they are NOT talking about white people"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦but I digress ' let's save that for another debate!
nted yourself as brave, proud victim of the system. Who would dare question your motives now??! I will"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
ose who questioned his point"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦surely that point, his th
inking, could have held its own against other, infe
rior, thinking? Perhaps the other thinking was not
so inferior after all, and so had to be silenced so Steele wouldn't lose face?
Mr.Steele throws a
round such trigger words as infiltrators and poseurs, disruptors in my parlance to label the people who point out the fallacies of his own words; yet he never disputes their words or tries to disprove what they say. No indeed"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦instead, he does just what the leftist, jewish media does: attack the messenger, never the message. He calls names and throws false accusations around; he attacks the people with legitimate arguments against his queer eye for the WN movement idea.
What you really mean, Ed, is that anyone who dares to question you is a 'bad guy'; the same, of course, is no doubt true of anyone who debates this with WN's ' I'm sure they're all infiltrators, poseurs, disruptors, baby-
killers, and whatnot"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
You're scared to debate your theory
' so you call names and cry (loudly). I'm no
t scared, though"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦Any time you want to openly debate me
on a forum, feel free to do so"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦the first ' and, accord
ing to you, last ' time I talked with you, though, you stated, " won't engage in a battle of wits with
you because I do not take advantage of the defenseless. What a cop out. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=130188
You claim you didn't write this for the people in the movement ' well, did you expect them not to read it? I guess not, considering your comments (think:
" knew that if I cho
se "In Defense of Homosexuality" I would get scores
of nasty emails from those in what we laughingly call "T
he M
ovement.") But wait! It's not middle America that reads your site, is it now? I mean, how much of middle Amer
ica listens to a guy who identifies with 'skin heads' and 'the movement'?! You even posted in that ridiculous, completely unrelated beginning how you worried about what people in what you 'laughingly call The Movement' would say"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
3. Homosexual marriage is an abomination and should be outlawed.
Why? Says who? Just because YOU don't think so, don't they deserve a life just as much as everybody else? (And, before you jump on me, hold on there! Those are your words, not mine!) Who are you to deprive them of a marriage? After all, these poor fellas can't be blame
d for what they do if
, as you say, it's just a result of a birth defect (
if it must be called one!), akin to"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦what was your example? A clubfoot? "â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
Would you say that a guy with a clubfoot can't find a wife? Then why a guy with homosexual tendencies that, by your own claims, he is no more responsible f
or than the clubfoot?
Here's a quote from your "n Defense of Homophob
ia for our 'gentle reader's"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
More babble: 7. Homosexuality is most prevalent f
or males and most often is the result of a brain defect which occurred during fetal development.
So what good old Ed is telling us here ' as he's said before ' is that it is not their fault ' it's a brain defect. Wake up people and smell the coffee!
8. Those who compl
ain the loudest about homosexuality should take a serious look at their own latent homosexual tendencies.
Can he be any more jewish?! I mean this guy is using the sodomite's trick! Using this lawyers reasoning - or lack thereof - if a person questions something they know is harmful to their race or person, they must secretly want to be that harmful and evil thing themselves. I guess we all
long to be J*ws, then? Or black? Am I the o
nly that can see this?
And he sa
ys: 11. Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, is a great movie despite its subject matter,
not because of it.
Really? And I suppose a movie about pedophiles visiting a daycare center could be an entertaining, heartwarming film, 'despite its subject matter, n
ot because of it'? Please!
That's truly a lawyer's statement!
You say in your original essay:
that I'm heterosexual ' if you need reassurance, well"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦<
br>
You have a habit of no
t telling the truth, Ed. The main - if not the only - reason you wrote this entire artic
le was to try and cover up the mess, and the shadow you cast on your creditability with this homo rubbish"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦and you know it. After reading your articles, I must say you lack a lot o
f credibility in my eyes. You have a habit of rambling on to distract and confuse your readers from the main point. You have a tendency to spout a lot of macho sounding rhetoric. But, just like another writer, you are a great friend of the homosexual world. But fear not 'my gentle reader,' I will not accuse you of being him ' though you both share the same viewpoint, I am not so insecure concerning my viewpoint that I need to discredit my '
opponent' by insinuating that he suffers from multiple identities ' or that he's so dishonest he makes up other 'people' to support his thinking. LOL!
If you open yourself to evil, or pretend you don't k
now about it, are you somehow not guilty of allowing and welcoming i
t? Sorry ' life doesn
't work like that"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
I will end this with a very sad, but true statement. Much to my disma
y, many WN men seem to be blind to the fact sodomy is detriment to our race - not a sickness, but straight out perversion. WN Women seem able to see this clearly, but many ' far too many
' WN men seem to want to believe that queers are okay. Why? I don't know"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
Apology and Clarification
by Edgar J. Steele
May 6, 2004
'Professional disruptors'"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦is that something
like anti Semites or hate mongers? LOL!
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE
'>
!--QuoteEBegin-->First, the apology, which I owe to all Christian Identity (CI) adherents of all shapes and sizes, regardless of belief structure, wherever they may be.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š In my article, "A Hitch in Our Git Along," I made the following statement:
"Christian Identity
adherents and right-wing whack jobs condemn me for refusing to preach that blacks are the literal offspring of Satan and, most recently, for not demanding that all homosexuals be shot on sight, even the ones that can't be seen, oddly enough."
There is so much wrong with that statement that I scarcely know where to begin.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š
First and foremost, though I listed CI adherents and "right-wing whack jobs" separately, merely by joining them together in the same sentence, I imparted a negative con
notation regarding my CI friends that I do not feel and did not intend.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š For that, I abjectly and miserably apologize.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š I am sorry.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š Just today, two of them emailed me about the i
mpre
ssio
n left and,
to their credit, they both did it in a very understanding and friendly way.â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š Nobody asked for any clarifications, but I think I owe my CI friends an apology, nonetheless.[/b][/quote]
Edgar is trying to cover his blunder after he came out of the closet with his true feelings about sodomites.
My guess would be that he couldn't care two cents about CI adherent's feelings"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦in fact, I'd dare say he is more concerned about hurting sodomites' feelings than CI folks. When people like him say things like, Christian Identity adherents and right-wing whack jobs, they mean it. Notice he considers straight, right wing white people to be whack jobs ' but he wants to recruit the poor, misunderstood homosexuals that just 'need a life too
' into the white movement.
A different point of view, indeed! Something you would ex
cept to find in a leftist propaganda newsletter, as a matter of fact...
This, again, is just a smoke screen to hide what this whole propaganda-filled article is about: Mr. Steele trying to prove to his poor, delu
ded followe
rs that he really is not a promoter of sodomites ' keep reading; a few paragraphs more to go, and we see what this is all about...
Since we ar
e currently pret
ending this is a
bout CI, though, most CI believers
do not believe that stupidity about blacks and J*ws; there are, of course, some factions that do, but the majority does not.
And Mr. Steele makes some fairly interesting ' although, unsurprisingly, wholly incorrect ' statements about the Bible and Christianity. His claims about what the Bible teaches, etc., are complete hogwash, as they are NOT talking about white people"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦but I digress ' let's save that for another debate!
Don't worry, you do have some followers "â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦ a few of Stormfront's moderators, to start with...
You have certainly pai
nted yourself as brave, proud victim of the system. Who would dare question your motives now??! I will"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
The community rallied behind him, hmmm"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦ why was that necessary? Why would anyone have to rally behind him? What did he do or say that made it so necessary for his true believers to 'rally' behind him? Surely, if his point was a good one, he wouldn't have needed these individuals, these friends, to 'rally behind him and 'shut down' th
ose who questioned his point"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦surely that point, his th
inking, could have held its own against other, infe
rior, thinking? Perhaps the other thinking was not
so inferior after all, and so had to be silenced so Steele wouldn't lose face?
Mr.Steele throws a
round such trigger words as infiltrators and poseurs, disruptors in my parlance to label the people who point out the fallacies of his own words; yet he never disputes their words or tries to disprove what they say. No indeed"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦instead, he does just what the leftist, jewish media does: attack the messenger, never the message. He calls names and throws false accusations around; he attacks the people with legitimate arguments against his queer eye for the WN movement idea.
What you really mean, Ed, is that anyone who dares to question you is a 'bad guy'; the same, of course, is no doubt true of anyone who debates this with WN's ' I'm sure they're all infiltrators, poseurs, disruptors, baby-
killers, and whatnot"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
You're scared to debate your theory
' so you call names and cry (loudly). I'm no
t scared, though"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦Any time you want to openly debate me
on a forum, feel free to do so"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦the first ' and, accord
ing to you, last ' time I talked with you, though, you stated, " won't engage in a battle of wits with
you because I do not take advantage of the defenseless. What a cop out. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=130188
There was no twisting by myself, Harold Covington (Who did you say he was? me in drag? :rollseyes: ), or any other that I read who wrote on the matter. You are know trying to save face by calling the concerned people who had real, honest doubts about what you were trying to do to the WN movement names.
You claim you didn't write this for the people in the movement ' well, did you expect them not to read it? I guess not, considering your comments (think:
" knew that if I cho
se "In Defense of Homosexuality" I would get scores
of nasty emails from those in what we laughingly call "T
he M
ovement.") But wait! It's not middle America that reads your site, is it now? I mean, how much of middle Amer
ica listens to a guy who identifies with 'skin heads' and 'the movement'?! You even posted in that ridiculous, completely unrelated beginning how you worried about what people in what you 'laughingly call The Movement' would say"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
3. Homosexual marriage is an abomination and should be outlawed.
Why? Says who? Just because YOU don't think so, don't they deserve a life just as much as everybody else? (And, before you jump on me, hold on there! Those are your words, not mine!) Who are you to deprive them of a marriage? After all, these poor fellas can't be blame
d for what they do if
, as you say, it's just a result of a birth defect (
if it must be called one!), akin to"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦what was your example? A clubfoot? "â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
Would you say that a guy with a clubfoot can't find a wife? Then why a guy with homosexual tendencies that, by your own claims, he is no more responsible f
or than the clubfoot?
Here's a quote from your "n Defense of Homophob
ia for our 'gentle reader's"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
More babble: 7. Homosexuality is most prevalent f
or males and most often is the result of a brain defect which occurred during fetal development.
So what good old Ed is telling us here ' as he's said before ' is that it is not their fault ' it's a brain defect. Wake up people and smell the coffee!
8. Those who compl
ain the loudest about homosexuality should take a serious look at their own latent homosexual tendencies.
Can he be any more jewish?! I mean this guy is using the sodomite's trick! Using this lawyers reasoning - or lack thereof - if a person questions something they know is harmful to their race or person, they must secretly want to be that harmful and evil thing themselves. I guess we all
long to be J*ws, then? Or black? Am I the o
nly that can see this?
And he sa
ys: 11. Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, is a great movie despite its subject matter,
not because of it.
Really? And I suppose a movie about pedophiles visiting a daycare center could be an entertaining, heartwarming film, 'despite its subject matter, n
ot because of it'? Please!
That's truly a lawyer's statement!
You say in your original essay:
Well, maybe you need to 'test your sexual security'"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦I don't, thanks anyways ' I don't have to prove to myself
that I'm heterosexual ' if you need reassurance, well"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦<
br>
You have a habit of no
t telling the truth, Ed. The main - if not the only - reason you wrote this entire artic
le was to try and cover up the mess, and the shadow you cast on your creditability with this homo rubbish"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦and you know it. After reading your articles, I must say you lack a lot o
f credibility in my eyes. You have a habit of rambling on to distract and confuse your readers from the main point. You have a tendency to spout a lot of macho sounding rhetoric. But, just like another writer, you are a great friend of the homosexual world. But fear not 'my gentle reader,' I will not accuse you of being him ' though you both share the same viewpoint, I am not so insecure concerning my viewpoint that I need to discredit my '
opponent' by insinuating that he suffers from multiple identities ' or that he's so dishonest he makes up other 'people' to support his thinking. LOL!
If you open yourself to evil, or pretend you don't k
now about it, are you somehow not guilty of allowing and welcoming i
t? Sorry ' life doesn
't work like that"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
I will end this with a very sad, but true statement. Much to my disma
y, many WN men seem to be blind to the fact sodomy is detriment to our race - not a sickness, but straight out perversion. WN Women seem able to see this clearly, but many ' far too many
' WN men seem to want to believe that queers are okay. Why? I don't know"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¦
