Nationwide boycott of eBay's Nazi policies

Many errors have been corrected in Wikipedia's Roman salute article.
http://rexcurry.net/wikipedialies.html The article had many visits from Dr. Curry in the past - see its talk page- as Dr. Curry attempted to correct the many errors.
http://rexcurry.net/wikipedia-lies.html

However, the wikipedia article on the "Roman Salute" is becoming more dishonest by the week. An earlier version referenced the work of Professor Rex Curry and started thusly: "The Roman salute is a gesture in which the arm is held out forward straight, with palms down. Sometimes the arm is raised upward at an angle, sometimes it is held out parallel to the ground. The salute was supposed to have been used in the Roman republic, but there is no clear evidence of this. Indeed it is not known whether salutes in the military sense existed at all in Roman culture" (by Paul Barlow). A more recent version of the same article is written as if a neo-Nazi has been covering-up again.

A big initial problem is that no wiki writer will even attempt to discover the first use of the phrase "Roman salute" and thus the writers remain stuck in intellectually dishonest confusion about dates and origins.

The article reverts back to its earlier opening concessions to the work of Dr. Curry, conceding that there is no clear evidence of the salute in the Roman Republic and also conceding that there is no evidence of salutes in the military sense at all in Roman culture.

The wiki writer then engages in speculation that people today misunderstood some images from ancient Rome. There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose long ago from misinterpretations of Roman images. There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers (including wiki writers) deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers misinterpreted Roman images in order to cover-up and suppress Professor Curry's discoveries.

The wiki writer then engages in speculation that neoclassical artists misunderstood some images from ancient Rome. There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose among neoclassical artists from misinterpretations of Roman images. There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers (including wiki writers) deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers seized upon neoclassical artists in order to cover-up and suppress Professor Curry's discoveries.

For example, there is no evidence that Jacques-Louis David actually thought that his painting "The Oath of the Horatii" represented an actual historical Roman salute. All of the evidence indicates that David created the scene out of whole cloth for drama. All of the speculating otherwise is actually the machinations of wiki writers and people of their ilk. The intellectual dishonesty is all the more evident in that the wiki writers deliberately faill to address those very points already made by Dr. Curry http://rexcurry.net/pledgehoratii.html Further, the Horatii painting depicts three people reaching for weapons.

The Tennis Court Oath was painted by David later, and repeats David's use of the dramatic gesture that David concocted, but in a more modern setting. There is no evidence that it accurately depicts the event protrayed. David was not there. Further, the oath was was written on paper (the paper being read by the central figure?) and the "oath was taken" by signing the document. There is no evidence that anyone is taking an oath in the painting (the central figure might be swearing, or he might be reading his document) while those people about him waive hats, talk, holler, point, etc. Three figures on the left seem to be an inside reference to the Horatii painting. The wiki writer is misrepresenting the works or reading into them.

The distribution of the Eagle Standards was painted by David even later, and repeats David's use of the dramatic gesture that David concocted, but in another modern setting. There is no evidence that it accurately depicts the event protrayed and there is no evidence that anyone is taking an oath in the painting at all. The wiki writer claims that this is the mos important of these paintings. That painting shows no use of the salute in pledging or oath-taking or at all and simply shows various people, with various gestures, acclaiming the central figure and grabbing for, and shouting for, the "Eagle Standards." The wiki writer is misrepresenting the works and reading into them.

The wiki writer then claims that other painters during the nineteenth century regularly depicted the straight-arm gesture in scenes of Roman imperial history. The writer cites no support because there is no support.

There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose among neoclassical artists from misinterpretations of Roman images. There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers (including wiki writers) deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers misrepresented neoclassical art to cover-up Professor Curry's discoveries.

The cover-up is also supported by the fact that wiki writers know (or should know) that Francis Bellamy explained the origin of his salute and that it had nothing to do with imitating any painting, nor imitating any "Roman" salute myth.

At this paragraph the intellectual dishonesty doubles. The writer is attempting to imply that there is a relationship between the original Pledge salute and the myth of the "Roman salute." No support is cited because there is no support. The writer is not honest enough to clearly state that the supposed Roman myth was not an influence upon Francis Bellamy or Bellamy's cohorts. The writer will not reference Dr. Curry's clear explanation of how the Pledge salute was selected by Bellamy and Bellamy's cohorts, which is known because Bellamy explained its creation. The writer knows that it does not support the myth that the writer is trying to perpetuate.

The writer will not mention Professor Curry's voluminous dissection of Bellamy's love of the military and the Bellamy term "military socialism." The writer is still covering-up for socialism. The writer is also completely evading the fact that the use of the military salute in the Pledge evolved into the classic hard stylized Nazi salute. The writer is evading the fact that the Nazi salute is an extended military salute, via the Pledge of Allegiance. All of those are discoveries by Professor Curry.

It is unclear because the writer has knowingly refused to acknowledge Dr. Curry's discovery that the use of the military salute by Bellamy, caused the extended arm salute to change in use. Wikipedia articles are so intellectually dishonest that they are comical. It had nothing to do with the "Roman salute" myth, but the writer cannot bear to give up his distortions.

The Wikipedia writer implies that the Olympic salute came from a classical painting, but the wiki writer knows that he has no support to cite. The wiki writer is aware of Dr. Curry's voluminous and ground-breaking work exposing the Olympic salute but the writer is too intellectually dishonest to even mention it. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1c.html The writer evades Professor Curry's explanation that the Olympic salute also derived ultimately from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The wiki writer references how Dr. Curry exposed the work of Martin Winkler regarding the use of the Roman salute in films. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html Professor Curry pointed out that Martin Winkler did not realize at the time of Winkler's article that the films were all pre-dated by the use of the salute in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. Martin Winkler, while discussing the old films, was unaware that the salute had been the original salute of the Pledge of Allegiance. Dr. Curry long ago challenged Martin Winkler to debate these issues in public and Dr. Curry has maintained that standing debate challenge, which has been met with complete silence. http://rexcurry.net/pledge-professor-martin-winkler.html

The wiki writer adopts Martin Winkler's intellectually dishonest use of the term "fascist" to further aid the wiki writer in covering-up for the National Socialist German Workers' Party and for the National Socialism of the Bellamys.

The wiki writer also mentions a chest variation of the salute but the writer is too intellectually dishonest to mention Dr. Curry's photographs and explanation that the same variation was used earlier in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not institute the hand-over-the-heart, and the writer acknowledges the error in the next sentence when referencing the act by Congress.
The writer fails to mention that through most of Roosevelt's time in office the straight arm salute was used and Professor Curry possesses photographic examples of Roosevelt himself being saluted with the notorious salute. It is interesting to note that Congress did not inject itself into the mess until after the U.S. entered World War II, December 7, 1941.

The article uses four (or more) forms of the word "Nazi" and never gives the actual correct name of the horrid party: the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It is a classic example of the usual cover-up for socialism, and the cover-up of the philosophical relationship between the German National Socialists and U.S. National Socialists (e.g. the Bellamys). The wiki writer's behavior is comparable to that of neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers (and Wholecaust deniers). It reinforces the hackneyed use of the shorthand "Nazi" and the myth that members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party referred to themselves as "Nazis" (they did not refer to themselves as "Nazis"). There are many people who use the word "Nazi" to avoid ever stating the actual name of the party. Technically speaking, there was no "Nazi Party" as that is simply shorthand slang that has been developed and spread by people like the writer on the left. The writer makes constant use of the shorthand "Nazi" even when discussing the very topic at hand.

Wiki writers evade the topic that Professor Curry has raised, which is that Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy were self-proclaimed National Socialists in the USA three decades before the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and Edward's book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including German, which Edward spoke and wrote, and where Edward had studied as a young man) and that Edward's dogma inspired "Nationalism" clubs worldwide including in Germany.

The Bellamy salute was not originally the same as the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, as noted by Professor Curry. However, as anyone who looks at Dr. Curry's historic photographs of the salute can see, it developed into the same salute as that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Even the writer above concedes Dr. Curry's point that the flag was saluted with a normal military-style salute and then the arm was straightened out toward the flag during the oath. The writer above tellingly evades the point that the use of the military salute led to the change in the salute to the U.S. flag. It is as if the writer above is conceding the point made by Professor Curry.

The writers are thanked for conceding that the "Roman salute" page has contained inaccuracies, and for correcting some of those errors. The writers have "become wiser," by incorporating some of Professor Curry's discoveries.

Regarding the writer at http://rexcurry.net/wikipedialies.html and referenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler_salute please note the following: Mr. Barlow is a nutter with an obsession. The history of the salute is now improved in the Roman salute article (which had many previous visits from Dr. Curry in the past - see its talk page- as Dr. Curry attempted to correct the many errors). The pact between the National Socialist German Workers' Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not well known, and is also not covered widely on Wikipedia, so it is "covered up" by people, and those people also often refer to it as the "Nazi-Soviet" pact (as the writer above does) which avoids ever using the actual name of the horrid Party (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) and reinforces the hackneyed use of the shorthand "Nazi" and the myth that members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party referred to themselves as "Nazis" (they did not refer to themselves as "Nazis"). Some people (note the writer above) try to evade the point with odd comments such as "It wasn't invented by Wikipedia editors to conceal the word 'socialism'!" That comment does not dispute the fact that there are people who use the word "Nazi" to avoid ever stating the actual name of the party: The National Socialist German Workers' Party. Not only is that done in the title of the page cited (the “Nazi-Soviet pact” page) it is done on that entire article where the actual name of the Party never appears nor even the phrase "National Socialist." The writer above also makes constant use of the shorthand "Nazi" even when discussing the very topic at hand. The Bellamy salute was not originally the same as the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, as noted by Professor Curry. However, as anyone who looks at Dr. Curry's historic photographs of the salute can see, it developed into the same salute as that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Even the writer above concedes Dr. Curry's point that the flag was saluted with a normal military-style salute and then the arm was straightened out toward the flag during the oath. The writer above tellingly evades the point that the use of the military salute led to the change in the salute to the U.S. flag. It is as if the writer above is conceding the point made by Professor Curry. Indeed, the writer seems to concede it with the comment "Anyway, even if the gesture had been the same, so what? It's just a gesture. The Soviets used conventional salutes, does that mean that the US military are Communists because they use the same gesture as the Soviet military!" It is fascinating how the writer again avoids the actual name "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and also uses the term "Communist" instead of using the term "Socialist." The writer then attempts to avoid the issue, which is the origin of the straight-arm salute, and tries to turn the issue into an odd argument about whether salutes dictate particular dogmas. Nevertheless, the writer evades the topic that Professor Curry has raised, which is that Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy were self-proclaimed National Socialists in the USA three decades before the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and Edward's book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including German, which Edward spoke and wrote, and where Edward had studied as a young man) and that Edward's dogma inspired "Nationalism" clubs worldwide including in Germany.

Yes, the "Roman salute" page did once contain inaccuracies, and the writer above is to be thanked for conceding that point. But that is no reason for the writer to blabber with his use of the term "conspiracy." It's just what you get when you have an open encyclopedia! The point is to correct error when you see it, and to not delete those corrections when they are made by people like Dr. Curry. The John Seigenthaler story from Brian Chase is another notorious example of Wikipedia’s untrustworthiness. On Wikipedia, the intellectually dishonest administrators block people who tell the truth, so it is specious to say that truth-tellers simply need to correct the articles.

The writer above also concedes that he is the Wikipedia editor who "became wiser", by incorporating Professor Curry's discoveries. The writer is to be thanked for crediting Dr. Curry with making it more widely available. It should be noted that the valuable information that Professor Curry provides is his own discovery. Dr. Curry has also mentioned that the material about the use of the Roman salute in films derives from an academic article by Martin Winkler. Professor Curry pointed out that Martin Winkler did not realize at the time of Winkler's article that the films were all pre-dated by the use of the salute in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. Dr. Curry has also publicly challenged Martin Winkler to debate these issues. Professor Curry's discovery that the swastika/hakenkreuz, although an ancient symbol, was sometimes used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party as "S" shapes standing for its "Socialism" is also his own original work. And he is right that other writers have deliberately covered up the discovery (as the writer above admits) and have excluded it from the Swastika article. The writer above simply made up his denial and he knows that Dr. Curry is correct and he shows it because he does not dispute a word of it and can give no opposing citations or reference. Even when the writer above claimes "The real reasons why the Nazis chose the swastika are well documented" he cannot provide an citation, because he knows that it would either concede (or at least not dispute) Dr. Curry's discoveries.