The blog Jansson thought of quitting our discussions … has been updated, in response to Jansson’s hysterics with the (as usual self-revealing) title Muehlenkamp goes full retard.
Meanwhile, Reverend Jansson has announced further masses for "Revisionist" true believers.
It’s good to see that the HC critique continues figuring prominently in "Revisionist" attention. If that were not so, Jansson wouldn’t try to gain attention by announcing future error-picking exercises (more about such exercises later) as "attractions" for the faithful.
Again, I wonder why Jansson continues making a fuss about issues that I thought were supposed to have been exhaustively addressed in MGK’s magnum opus.
Does he have such a low opinion of MGK’s performance that he considers it necessary to come to their assistance?
Does he want to show his coreligionists that he's at least as smart and knowledgeable as the movement’s coryphées?
Or is he (not unreasonably) concerned that MGK’s lengthy screed might be read by as few people as are likely to have read his beloved Führer’s Mein Kampf?
P.S., 05.06.2015: Not being a native speaker of the English language, I used a term (error picking) which is too weak for what I meant to express. The appropriate term is error nitpicking.
PPS, 06.06.2015: Jansson has released the introduction of his announced error nitpicking exercise about the HC critique.
It seems that this humble writer’s contributions to the critique will be Jansson’s main focus, which is not surprising insofar as a) techno-babble is Jansson’s specialty and b) the fellow obviously hates my guts (which in turn is not surprising given the outcome of our encounters so far, taking into account Jansson's petty and vindictive character).
It’s not entirely without interest that Jansson calls the critique "the most substantial piece of anti-revisionism to appear since Robert Jan van Pelt’s The Case for Auschwitz". While this assessment should in part be attributed to Jansson’s trying to make his exercise look as important as possible in the eyes of his coreligionists, it also further illustrates (after, among other things, MGK’s magnum opus) the extent to which the critique rattled the "Revisionist" cage (or perhaps "rocked the "Revisionist" church" would be a more adequate expression).
I look forward to Jansson’s precious assistance in helping me improve my response to Mattogno, and perhaps anticipate some of it.