Quote from: Omega on March 24, 2022, 02:24:10 PMI am going through it from the other direction and seeing similar things. The weird toning down of the Nazi elements before and after that big outburst. After that the book more and more focuses on Israel to the point it nearly eclipses the nazi stuff. Theres a subtle tonal shift Im seeing. Theres also more later in the book of the WWII denial scattered through the rest of the book. It gets old rather fast.

I'm not American, so I might be missing some nuance/reference to "American nazi" lore or similar stuff, but I agree with you that it almost seemed like Barker was a "disinterested" nazi apologist: He doesn't seem to know German culture all too well, and his supposed historical talking points seem almost like he's going down a list and checking them off one by one. Compared to other academic examples of nazi ideology, racism, or anti-Semitism, he's remarkably unsophisticated for a man of his supposed background.

So, I can see how his focus might not have been on "nazi-ism", but on "Anti-Israelism", something he also lets shine through in the letter quoted by Morris. I do not think one should read too much into this distinction, though: The man wrote a 450-page unironic fictional treatise on how the future is better with laser-wielding tech-nazis. He presumably actively sought out the publisher of "The Turner Diaries". And afterwards, he apparently became the face of a Holocaust-denying publication. There seems little room for nuance there.

Sure Barker deserves the right for due process (English?), just like anyone else. But unless there are statements from him personally that directly and clearly disown "The Serpent's Walk" and his other actions in some way, the case lamentably seems pretty clear here.

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:20:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 09:27:52 AM

   That is a very good point.   Maybe there should be a list of publishers with counter to it, instead of putting nazis as too woke.  Because last I read from the two books I read on the subject, Nazis were NOT woke.

Oh but they are. Nazis believe exactly the same things about race as the wokists. They just flip which skin colors should be segregated or condemned. Except when it comes to Israel and Jews, where their beliefs match precisely.

  Race, maybe, nationalism, transgender issues, use of violence, etc they have some pretty different beliefs.    They are not the same thing, no more than an alligator and a bear are the same animal.  Both are dangerous, but present different dangers and in different ways.   Two things both being bad do not make them the same thing.  It makes them both bad, calling  two different bad things the same bad thing is folly.

Their views on Race-based Collectivism are one and the same.

  No, they are not.   

They absolutely are:

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 25, 2022, 03:20:51 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:20:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 09:27:52 AM

   That is a very good point.   Maybe there should be a list of publishers with counter to it, instead of putting nazis as too woke.  Because last I read from the two books I read on the subject, Nazis were NOT woke.

Oh but they are. Nazis believe exactly the same things about race as the wokists. They just flip which skin colors should be segregated or condemned. Except when it comes to Israel and Jews, where their beliefs match precisely.

  Race, maybe, nationalism, transgender issues, use of violence, etc they have some pretty different beliefs.    They are not the same thing, no more than an alligator and a bear are the same animal.  Both are dangerous, but present different dangers and in different ways.   Two things both being bad do not make them the same thing.  It makes them both bad, calling  two different bad things the same bad thing is folly.

Their views on Race-based Collectivism are one and the same.

  No, they are not.   

They absolutely are:

    We will just have to agree to disagree.
   

Quote from: oggsmash on March 25, 2022, 03:27:25 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 25, 2022, 03:20:51 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:20:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 09:27:52 AM

   That is a very good point.   Maybe there should be a list of publishers with counter to it, instead of putting nazis as too woke.  Because last I read from the two books I read on the subject, Nazis were NOT woke.

Oh but they are. Nazis believe exactly the same things about race as the wokists. They just flip which skin colors should be segregated or condemned. Except when it comes to Israel and Jews, where their beliefs match precisely.

  Race, maybe, nationalism, transgender issues, use of violence, etc they have some pretty different beliefs.    They are not the same thing, no more than an alligator and a bear are the same animal.  Both are dangerous, but present different dangers and in different ways.   Two things both being bad do not make them the same thing.  It makes them both bad, calling  two different bad things the same bad thing is folly.

Their views on Race-based Collectivism are one and the same.

  No, they are not.   

They absolutely are:

    We will just have to agree to disagree.

Only because you're incapable of effective rebuttal.

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 25, 2022, 05:10:34 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 25, 2022, 03:27:25 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 25, 2022, 03:20:51 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:20:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on March 23, 2022, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on March 23, 2022, 09:27:52 AM

   That is a very good point.   Maybe there should be a list of publishers with counter to it, instead of putting nazis as too woke.  Because last I read from the two books I read on the subject, Nazis were NOT woke.

Oh but they are. Nazis believe exactly the same things about race as the wokists. They just flip which skin colors should be segregated or condemned. Except when it comes to Israel and Jews, where their beliefs match precisely.

  Race, maybe, nationalism, transgender issues, use of violence, etc they have some pretty different beliefs.    They are not the same thing, no more than an alligator and a bear are the same animal.  Both are dangerous, but present different dangers and in different ways.   Two things both being bad do not make them the same thing.  It makes them both bad, calling  two different bad things the same bad thing is folly.

Their views on Race-based Collectivism are one and the same.

  No, they are not.   

They absolutely are:

    We will just have to agree to disagree.

Only because you're incapable of effective rebuttal.

No, because you are going to equate a multi racial movement to a mono racial movement no matter what I say.  You see the worst bad guys in Nazis (and rightfully so) but you label the woke as the same thing. It is a simple way to look at things.  A bit of cursory reading about nazis, and it is pretty clear they are not multi racial, not by design.  Woke ideology is, it has to be to gain footing.  Now could it morph later (it is more social marxism, and does have someone to "blame" but all strong arm political movements do).   

  I simply prefer to not spend all day arguing over how there are some clear differences in racial views and policies among the woke and nazis.  I also know, no one really changes their minds in an argument.   That takes time, reading, and close at hand experience. 

Quote from: Rafael on March 25, 2022, 01:44:57 AM
I'm not American, so I might be missing some nuance/reference to "American nazi" lore or similar stuff, but I agree with you that it almost seemed like Barker was a "disinterested" nazi apologist: He doesn't seem to know German culture all too well, and his supposed historical talking points seem almost like he's going down a list and checking them off one by one. Compared to other academic examples of nazi ideology, racism, or anti-Semitism, he's remarkably unsophisticated for a man of his supposed background.

So, I can see how his focus might not have been on "nazi-ism", but on "Anti-Israelism", something he also lets shine through in the letter quoted by Morris. I do not think one should read too much into this distinction, though: The man wrote a 450-page unironic fictional treatise on how the future is better with laser-wielding tech-nazis. He presumably actively sought out the publisher of "The Turner Diaries". And afterwards, he apparently became the face of a Holocaust-denying publication. There seems little room for nuance there.

Sure Barker deserves the right for due process (English?), just like anyone else. But unless there are statements from him personally that directly and clearly disown "The Serpent's Walk" and his other actions in some way, the case lamentably seems pretty clear here.

Guess what. There kinda is. Turns out Barker may actually have written the book as some sort of subtly jab at Nazis, neo-nazis and supremacists. His father was one and from all accounts he hated it. And one of his close friends said that elabourate pranks was something he did.

Also heres the kicker. In Barkers letter to a publisher he states he sent the book off to all the neo-nazi publishers and none accepted it.
But here the book is published?

But.

It is not quite the book Barker describes.

So here is a big what if for you. What if Vanguard altered and published the book somehow without him knowing? Which might be the case depending on how obscure the book was in publication. Which was likely pretty obscure.

If thats the case then the foundation must have known if they did the research they claim... and threw Barker under the bus to virtue signal.

Thats alot of ifs. But it is more in line with the Barker people close to him know. If so then I owe Dee an apology.

Trying to get your book published by neo-Nazis, and finally succeeding, is not exonerating at any level. I cannot formulate any acceptable motivation for doing so. "To prank someone" is not a justifiable reason to publish with Nazis.

Quote from: pawsplay on March 26, 2022, 01:41:58 AM
Trying to get your book published by neo-Nazis, and finally succeeding, is not exonerating at any level. I cannot formulate any acceptable motivation for doing so. "To prank someone" is not a justifiable reason to publish with Nazis.

Why not? Say I write a novel that is an elaborate satire of their beliefs, but it's sort of played straight. You have to really pay attention to get it. Then for further shits and giggles I decide that having a neo-nazi publisher run it would double the amount of hee-haws I get out of it because I've gotten them to pay me for taking a piss on them.

Why would that be unacceptable? Unless you're thinking along the lines of the old lefty canard that "if there's six people at a table and one is a nazi there are six nazis at the table".

I'm not saying that's what happened here, I don't know but it now seems at least in the realm of plausibility.

Quote from: Arkansan on March 26, 2022, 02:52:02 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on March 26, 2022, 01:41:58 AM
Trying to get your book published by neo-Nazis, and finally succeeding, is not exonerating at any level. I cannot formulate any acceptable motivation for doing so. "To prank someone" is not a justifiable reason to publish with Nazis.

Why not? Say I write a novel that is an elaborate satire of their beliefs, but it's sort of played straight. You have to really pay attention to get it. Then for further shits and giggles I decide that having a neo-nazi publisher run it would double the amount of hee-haws I get out of it because I've gotten them to pay me for taking a piss on them.

Why would that be unacceptable? Unless you're thinking along the lines of the old lefty canard that "if there's six people at a table and one is a nazi there are six nazis at the table".

I'm not saying that's what happened here, I don't know but it now seems at least in the realm of plausibility.

Apart from this being a fantasy scenario that seems to have nothing concrete behind it, writing a subtle takedown of Nazi ideology (which, going by what people who've looked at the book have said doesn't seem to be the case) isn't taking money from the publisher. They may pay you, but others will pay them more for the book. A publisher is a business, they're trying to make a profit. So as long as the book does the business the publisher thinks it will, you haven't taken money from a Neo-Nazi publisher, you have made them money.

Quote from: Blankman on March 26, 2022, 03:07:04 AM

Quote from: Arkansan on March 26, 2022, 02:52:02 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on March 26, 2022, 01:41:58 AM
Trying to get your book published by neo-Nazis, and finally succeeding, is not exonerating at any level. I cannot formulate any acceptable motivation for doing so. "To prank someone" is not a justifiable reason to publish with Nazis.

Why not? Say I write a novel that is an elaborate satire of their beliefs, but it's sort of played straight. You have to really pay attention to get it. Then for further shits and giggles I decide that having a neo-nazi publisher run it would double the amount of hee-haws I get out of it because I've gotten them to pay me for taking a piss on them.

Why would that be unacceptable? Unless you're thinking along the lines of the old lefty canard that "if there's six people at a table and one is a nazi there are six nazis at the table".

I'm not saying that's what happened here, I don't know but it now seems at least in the realm of plausibility.

Apart from this being a fantasy scenario that seems to have nothing concrete behind it, writing a subtle takedown of Nazi ideology (which, going by what people who've looked at the book have said doesn't seem to be the case) isn't taking money from the publisher. They may pay you, but others will pay them more for the book. A publisher is a business, they're trying to make a profit. So as long as the book does the business the publisher thinks it will, you haven't taken money from a Neo-Nazi publisher, you have made them money.

Oh I wasn't saying that's what happened here I was just entertaining a tangentially related hypothetical. I suppose I hadn't considered that they likely wouldn't publish something unless they were reasonably sure it would turn over some cash. Which in that case I can see the argument that you've put money in their pocket.

From the way Barker talks. I dont think he expected it to be accepted. Sounds almost like he sent it off just to vex them. Theyd get x-far in and all of a sudden see all this stuff that they wouldnt like.

But if my guess is right then Vanguard apparently did use the book and Barker never knew. I wonder though how exactly he sent the book out for submission as he was using a fake name. How was he going to get payed? Did he use a fake address and account. He'd have never been able to cash a check signed to someone else? Or did he never expect to get payed? Maybe he did not think anyone would take the submission and alter it?

Which is more likely?

A: Barker, who was known to hate his neo-nazi relatives and these types in general, writes a book to somehow tweak their noses and fuck with them?
B: Barker was a neo-nazi and did it for the evulz? And somehow hid it from everyone?

Quote from: Omega on March 26, 2022, 04:28:59 AM
From the way Barker talks. I dont think he expected it to be accepted. Sounds almost like he sent it off just to vex them. Theyd get x-far in and all of a sudden see all this stuff that they wouldnt like.

But if my guess is right then Vanguard apparently did use the book and Barker never knew. I wonder though how exactly he sent the book out for submission as he was using a fake name. How was he going to get payed? Did he use a fake address and account. He'd have never been able to cash a check signed to someone else? Or did he never expect to get payed? Maybe he did not think anyone would take the submission and alter it?

Which is more likely?

A: Barker, who was known to hate his neo-nazi relatives and these types in general, writes a book to somehow tweak their noses and fuck with them?
B: Barker was a neo-nazi and did it for the evulz? And somehow hid it from everyone?

What? Do you think this is the first time in history that an author publishes something under a pseudonym? You know that any book written by "Richard Bachman" was actually written by Stephen King, right?

Quote from: Omega on March 25, 2022, 08:08:34 PMSo here is a big what if for you. What if Vanguard altered and published the book somehow without him knowing? Which might be the case depending on how obscure the book was in publication. Which was likely pretty obscure.

If thats the case then the foundation must have known if they did the research they claim... and threw Barker under the bus to virtue signal.

Thats alot of ifs. But it is more in line with the Barker people close to him know. If so then I owe Dee an apology.

As you say, probably not entirely implausible, but apparently quite improbable based on the evidence that has been presented so far.
If we get more context, maybe there's a saving grace for Barker somewhere in there.

Personally, I would be rather surprised, though, if that really still happened: What little I've seen of the people from Barker's circle in this context just doesn't seem like they have much to add to the issue. (Except maybe few extra semantics, or accounts of their personal experience with him.) Maybe they come up with some more polished statements, some time soon, or maybe they still can present a few pieces of documentation that exonerate Barker. - Now, nothing so far suggests that we may consequently expect that to happen: Whatever Barker's personal relationship with naziism, he still did do those things.

Like, maybe we still get to say, "he wasn't a total piece of shit" - but that doesn't change that the overall picture looks like it will remain extraordinarily negative.

Quote from: Omega on March 26, 2022, 04:28:59 AM
From the way Barker talks. I dont think he expected it to be accepted. Sounds almost like he sent it off just to vex them. Theyd get x-far in and all of a sudden see all this stuff that they wouldnt like.

But if my guess is right then Vanguard apparently did use the book and Barker never knew. I wonder though how exactly he sent the book out for submission as he was using a fake name. How was he going to get payed? Did he use a fake address and account. He'd have never been able to cash a check signed to someone else? Or did he never expect to get payed? Maybe he did not think anyone would take the submission and alter it?

Which is more likely?

A: Barker, who was known to hate his neo-nazi relatives and these types in general, writes a book to somehow tweak their noses and fuck with them?
B: Barker was a neo-nazi and did it for the evulz? And somehow hid it from everyone?

Chrine found the photocopy of the payment check, as well as proof copies.

Quote from: Blankman on March 26, 2022, 04:32:30 AM
What? Do you think this is the first time in history that an author publishes something under a pseudonym? You know that any book written by "Richard Bachman" was actually written by Stephen King, right?

You are right. I was more thinking of the steps required as noted above. And the possibility Barker didnt really expect the book to be accepted. Unless more correspondence is unearthed. It is all just guesswork. But you are right and thinking on it I can see where if, a big if, Barker was really focused on this gag then he'd go through all the steps needed. Considering that he went to all the trouble to write a freaking novel as a joke. Yeah. That makes sense now.

Well as much sense as any of this makes. But would not be the first time someones gone to elabourate lengths to get back at some person or group.  Michael Crichton wrote Eaters of the Dead because he got into an argument at a lecture with a friend who declared that Beowulf was boring. Ben Bova and Alan Dean Foster have as well. Probably many more Im not aware of or have forgotten.