M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[overgeeked]

I agree about the parallels to H. P. Lovecraft, to a point. Lovecraft was openly, viciously racist throughout most of his life. And freely expressed his racism in his fiction, poetry, letters, speech, etc. MAR Barker wrote a neo-Nazi tract under a pseudonym to protect himself from the obvious repercussions. A lot of Lovecraft’s fans despise his politics. I get the impression there’s going to be a lot of talk about separating the art from the artist in the near future.

 

[Hussar]

The rules for 'don't be a dick' change considerably over time. People used to be burned at the stake for being gay; now it's increasingly no big deal. Andrew Jackson was considered a great president for all the land he got his supporters; now we hate him for getting it by driving off the Native Americans. It works the other way--Grant's reputation has improved as his drunkenness gets forgotten (and the Lost Cause and Dunning School historians lose influence) and his attempts to push Reconstruction are appreciated. I'm sure the Brits here have their own examples.
/snip

But, even at the time, people were pretty much sure that burning other people at the stake was a bad thing and those doing the burning, by and large, even at the time, weren't exactly being patted on the back, even if they weren't being openly opposed.

And, again, let's not forget, we're talking about someone who was apparently openly supporting Nazis in the 1990's. There's really no "Oh, well, he's just a product of his time" excuse to be had here.

 

[GuyBoy]

There is no “grey area” with Nazism and neo-Nazism. No historical relativism.
They are repugnantly evil.
Attempting to mitigate that repugnant evil with accusations of “ cancel culture” is siding with repugnant evil.

 

[Jd Smith1]

As a person of color, I agree it can make some bigots more subtle, but most respond in a reactionary fashion- pushing back- not by modifying their behavior.

In the more extreme cases, I agree. But in the majority of bigots, my experience has been that they simply changed their public habits. But I have little proof of this, of course.

But if we operate under the premise that opinion has been modified because of an elimination of public expression, then racism ended in the USA decades ago...

 

[Jd Smith1]

I agree about the parallels to H. P. Lovecraft, to a point. Lovecraft was openly, viciously racist throughout most of his life. And freely expressed his racism in his fiction, poetry, letters, speech, etc. MAR Barker wrote a neo-Nazi tract under a pseudonym to protect himself from the obvious repercussions. A lot of Lovecraft’s fans despise his politics. I get the impression there’s going to be a lot of talk about separating the art from the artist in the near future.

Just what is needed: a lot of talk.

Barker was openly a Holocaust denier for years. I doubt he used a pseudonym (if he wrote the book) out of fear of repercussions. For that matter, what repercussions? If he wrote the book he did nothing illegal, and its hardly the only such book out there.

I've known about Lovecraft for decades (he certainly did not hide his opinions), but I've used his Mythos for nearly as long. Bigot or not, the man could write.

I'm about to hire a contactor to do some repairs to my patio roof, and I'm not going to inquire as to his politics. All I am concerned with in this interaction is the quality of his work and the fairness of his fees.

 

[Fifth Element]

'Apparently' is the point where you lose this issue. Criticized him if you have factual proof Otherwise you're just rumor-mongering.

Earlier you said you buy the products of a virulent racist because you don't think the racism matters to the products. Now you're claiming that there is insufficient reason to believe that Barker was racist. But if you buy a racist's products anyway, that isn't the issue for you. So it's a red herring.

 

[Fifth Element]

Given that he was openly a Holocaust denier for years, and he still has fans and a foundation, what exactly are you 'addressing'?

The fact that the vast majority of his fans have no idea he was a Holocaust denier.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, it is not, because it takes the stand that 1) Freedom of speech is not inalienable.

It isn't. But if it is, you should have zero problem with the things I'm saying, since my freedom of speech is inalienable.

2) That people as a group are too dumb to see the weakness of that ideology.

Okay, we shouldn't say obvious things because they're obvious, even if many people go to great lengths to defend those things. Makes sense.

3) that your own ideology is so fragile that it cannot prevail in the face of competition.

LOL.

 

[Fifth Element]

Barker was openly a Holocaust denier for years.

Wait, I thought that was just "rumor-mongering?"

 

[Jd Smith1]

Earlier you said you buy the products of a virulent racist because you don't think the racism matters to the products. Now you're claiming that there is insufficient reason to believe that Barker was racist. But if you buy a racist's products anyway, that isn't the issue for you. So it's a red herring.

Please quote where I said that Baker was not a racist. I think you are confused.