I left it alone, but the issue came up again over the past weekend, when a prominent Holocaust denier (more on him in a few weeks) outed Hargis in a mass e-mailing. I felt it incumbent upon myself to e-mail Bradley Smith, which I did:
Bradley,Bradley stonewalled me in return:
Are you still going to exist that "Hannover" isn't Jonnie Hargis with this latest from [name deleted]?
Dear Mathis: I do not expect to "exist," unfortunately, long enough to see you let go of this one. --BWell, he's right. And indeed, why should I? After nine years of my going round and round with Hargis, he continues the very same behavior that inspired me to track him down in "real life" to begin with. I rejoindered:
Bradley,To which the old man responded:
All I've ever asked for from Hargis is an apology. That's all I've ever asked for to "let go of this one." But the bastard is just too hard-headed.
As for your refusal to admit what is now so painfully obvious, I don't even know what to say.
Andrew: that's a start. You don't know what to say. When that happens, it's ususally a good idea to remain silent. --BSo Bradley will go to his grave protecting Hargis. That much seems obvious.
The question that remains for me is, frankly, why. I can't think of any person who has done more damage to the "revisionist" cause than Hargis, essentially eviscerating the idea of "open debate" that Smith has ostensibly been championing for three decades now. All of which makes one wonder whether Bradley Smith was ever really interested in an open debate at all.
Maybe all of this simply confirms what I've always suspected: That Smith, a failed writer, got into Holocaust denial because he knew he'd become famous for it, and he wouldn't suffer the consequences from saying what he says and doing what he does that so many of his colleagues (Zündel, Frölich, Rudolf, et al.) have. That makes Bradley Smith an opportunist, and a coward to boot.
An opportunist and coward: It strikes me these are two good words to describe Jonnie Hargis.
Well, birds of a feather