What I said was, "An accurate quote of Hitler or anyone else is acceptable. What is unacceptable is espousing or praising the doctrine therein, such as was done by the most recently banned brigade member. He was not smeared, he was quoting and espousing neo-nazi doctrine."
Back at #321 4CJ called Hitler a bloviating idiot. Apparently you interpret bloviating idiot to indicate support.
4CJ can speak for himself. You have already spoken for yourself.
Concurring bump. It would be impossible to write a working history of the Second World War, or even the Weimar Republic, without quoting Adolf Hitler. That isn't the same thing as collecting his pictures or burbling over his busts, portraits, personal effects, film clips, and so on.
Leni Riefenstahl, who died just a couple of years ago, might never have worked in film again if she had continued to make honorific statements about Hitler and his Thousand-Year Reich. Persons wanting to employ her (for a marine documentary she was working on three years ago, e.g.) would fairly have worried that they were supporting Hitler, however indirectly, and affording her the resources with which to reproduce her propaganda spectaculars of the 30's. But just quoting him as a source, or studying his ideas or his psychology, would certainly seem to be fair game.
If capitan adhered to his own rule, he could never make a film like The Boys from Brazil or Marathon Man, in both of which Sir Laurence Olivier used his art to shine a klieg light on what it was really like to be around a real, live, functioning Nazi -- not the safely-dead documentary ones familiar to us from newsreels.