Jump to content
The Education Forum

Nazi Race Hate on Our Forum


Recommended Posts

Guest David L Sharp
Mr. Astucia, I certainly didn't agree with your views at first, though you may have something on the Lennon case. But this is absolutely outlandish. I am not by any means pro-Semitic, but I am not by any means anti-Semitic either. I feel, if you offend enough people, you should be removed. And you've done that much.

I agree with some of your theories, but this blatant neo-nazi stuff is just too much, be it on this forum or elsewhere; it's still the same racist position that offends people. I know Shanet would agree.

Therefore, I am temporarily ceasing posts from the forum after I have seen more of your posts. I was already stopping after Mr. Dankbaar left, but now...well, this situation is far worse.

G

I have no idea what you are referring to since I have not stated a single opinion on this forum about the Holocaust, Hitler or the Nazis. One can only imagine how you would react if I actually did.

Salvador Astucia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest David L Sharp
Mr. Astucia, I certainly didn't agree with your views at first, though you may have something on the Lennon case. But this is absolutely outlandish. I am not by any means pro-Semitic, but I am not by any means anti-Semitic either. I feel, if you offend enough people, you should be removed. And you've done that much.

I agree with some of your theories, but this blatant neo-nazi stuff is just too much, be it on this forum or elsewhere; it's still the same racist position that offends people. I know Shanet would agree.

Therefore, I am temporarily ceasing posts from the forum after I have seen more of your posts. I was already stopping after Mr. Dankbaar left, but now...well, this situation is far worse.

G

Mr. Vendettuoli:

You must have me confused with someone else. I have not expressed any opinions about Neo-Nazis, Hitler or the Holocaust on this newsgroup.

Salvador Astucia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share your concerns. Looking at his website Salvador would appear to be a Holocaust Revisionist and probably a neo-Nazi as well.

Gary:

You and other people keep bringing up issues that I have not mentioned in this forum. In an American court of law, if an attorney for one side brings up a particular topic, then discussion on that topic is fair game for the opposing attorney. Why did you mention Holocaust Revisionism? Are you willing to discuss it? If this were a court of law, your comment would make the Holocaust a topic of open debate.

So I will put it to the moderators. Will you (moderators) grant me permission--in advance--to start a discussion thread about Holocaust Revisionism? The main topics of discussion would be as follows:

- Is the death count (six million Jews) accurate?

- Were gas chambers the primary means of killing inmates in Nazi camps?

Seriously, I do not expect the moderators to allow such a discussion, regardless of any evidence I might produce. But sometimes making a request is just as important as the response received. I only ask the question because Mr. Buell introduced the topic of the Holocaust as a means of discrediting me. But if given an opportunity to back up his comments with evidence, I have every confidence that he would suddenly fall mute.

Regards.

Salvador Astucia

-Yes it is accurate

-No that is not the only way the prisoners were murdered. Most prisoners from the Eastern Front were simply shot and buried in mass graves

Since when has Holocaust Denial had a place on this forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The William Randoph Hearst United States Senate Scholarship is a

high honor, nearly comparable to the Rhodes or Fulbright.....

It certainly hasn't impaired my critical approach to US History

For instance I can still post this photo of Wm R. Hearst

at Harvard in 1888 dressed for the Hasty Pudding Show....

(and thus criticize him for his racist insensitivity)...

I fail to see how I can embarass myself by presenting my universally

recognized academic credentials on an international educational forum ....

(for the purpose of exposing an anti-semite with no credentials, not even a name.)

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But other countries (Canada, Germany, France, even Austrialia) have special laws about hate speech which severely limit open discussions about the Holocaust and Hitler.

Yes, we do have special laws over here in Europe and it is based on the fact, that the political and economic situation seems to give fresh soil to rigthwingers and Neo Nazis and therefore these laws are urgent. Any Propaganda to support any anti-semitic views are prohibited. For those who are unaware of the situation in Europe it is maybe hard to draw a line but there is no question that these lines

are necessary.

Therefore I absolutely support Shanet's request.

Edited by George Bollschweiler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have special laws over here in Europe and it is based on the fact, that  the political and economic situation seems to give fresh soil to rigthwingers and Neo Nazis and therefore these laws are urgent. Any Propaganda to support any anti-semitic views are prohibited. For those who are unaware of the situation in Europe it is maybe hard to draw a line but there is no question that these lines

re necessary.

Therefore I absolutely support Shanet's request.

As a historian who is only too aware of how governments have used censorship in the past to control the minds of its citizens, I rarely support the idea of censorship. I am not here talking about the blatant use of censorship by the Nazi and Soviet regimes. I am also concerned about the use of censorship in democracies. This often involves creating an atmosphere of self-censorship (as George Bernard Shaw once said, the most dangerous form of censorship of all).

As students of the JFK assassination, we more than most, are aware of the dangers of subtle forms of censorship (see my thread on the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird).

I am especially opposed to censoring people for what they may say in the future, rather than what have actually said on this forum. For that is the case we are discussing at the moment.

I do believe that anything that encourages hatred of a particular race does need to be censored. However problems arise from this position. For example, some people have claimed that criticism of the foreign policies of Israel is racist. Similar things have been said about criticisms of Muslim governments. Christians have argued recently in the UK that the authorities are quick to ban things that give offence to the Muslim community but are unwilling to ban things such as the Jerry Springer Musical that offend Christians.

The Holocaust is one of the most comprehensively documented events in history. It is therefore difficult to believe that any sane individual can believe it did not happened. Therefore, most people, including myself, assume that Holocaust deniers are racists. However, does that mean that the expression of this theory is always racist? Is it healthy for a government to stop citizens from expressing holocaust denial beliefs? For example, might some people believe that the theory might have some substance if the powers that be refuse for it to be expressed. If the “Holocaust Did Not Happen” theory is ridiculous, as I believe it is, surely it could be defeated by rational debate.

I have spent my adult life fighting racism. However, I do not believe that “holocaust deniers” cause a major problem. A far greater risk to creating a harmonious society is those people who are racist but claim they are not. The sort of people who vote for politicians who favour racist policies. This of course included people in Germany who voted for the Nazi Party. But least we forget, other countries have voted in racist politicians over the years. That is of course true of the United States for most of the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, an interesting and thoughtful post. But . . .

I think that failing to provide, as a private citizen, a forum for the expression of bigoted, racist views is not the same as government censorship. Government censorship would totally ban the expression of a prohibited point of view. If the view is indeed offensive, however, a private publisher need not lend it support by publishing it. The publication could almost be viewed as an endorsement.

The internet is pretty much wide open for people to express whatever views they chose to do. I don't believe you would like scatalogical or obscene langauge used in your Form in part because it demeans the Forum. The same, I suggest, can be said for racist comments even when such comments do not employ offensive language.

You also raise a valid point that mere criticism of Isreal or Israeli policies is not ipso facto racist. The murky issue is what if the person posting such viewpoints is clearly (based on non-Forum statements) a racist?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you might be interested in this email I have just received from Salvador Astucia. Hopefully, you will now understand how we were trying to handle a difficult situation.

John Simkin: Your fellow propagandist, Andy Walker, has essentially revoked my posting privileges, although he claims he's merely monitoring my posts. The bottom line is my messages are not being posted on the message board. So in effect, it equivalent to having one's privileges revoked. Frankly, it was a gutless move. He's giving people the false impression that I left voluntarily, so he can claim he runs an open forum. Even for an obvious propaganda operation, your forum is really bad. Not just flawed. It's very bad. It's worse than the Usenet. And your moderating abilities? The worst. Poor. Very poor. Perhaps you should consider retirement. Seriously.

Salvador Astucia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Simkin Posted Today, 11:49 AM

  I thought you might be interested in this email I have just received from Salvador Astucia. Hopefully, you will now understand how we were trying to handle a difficult situation.

John Simkin: Your fellow propagandist, Andy Walker, has essentially revoked my posting privileges, although he claims he's merely monitoring my posts. The bottom line is my messages are not being posted on the message board. So in effect, it equivalent to having one's privileges revoked. Frankly, it was a gutless move. He's giving people the false impression that I left voluntarily, so he can claim he runs an open forum. Even for an obvious propaganda operation, your forum is really bad. Not just flawed. It's very bad. It's worse than the Usenet. And your moderating abilities? The worst. Poor. Very poor. Perhaps you should consider retirement. Seriously.

Salvador Astucia

John, Andy, others:

I wouldn't worry about someone's bitter comments too much. It seems to me that we seem to have at least one new person at a time on this Forum whose purpose of posting is other than to discuss and debate the JFK assassination. We've had some interesting characters, some of whom are still around. The way I see it, Mr. Astucia is/was the character for this week. Since you have kindly posted Mr. Astucia's e-mail, he no longer needs to be concerned that other members think he left at his own will, we now know his posting rights have been taken away by the administrators. Surely a relief to know this.

Eagerly waiting to see who will pop in next week.

One policy I would like to see enforced, is the policy of staying on Topic. As issues such as the holocaust, the political situation in the middle-east and anti-semitism are sensitive and important issues, they do not exactly link into the JFK assassination. However, if I'm wrong and if they do directly relate, perhaps someone can enlighten me. Often times new threads are started that don't relate to the issue at hand in any way.

Otherwise, I think the quality of the issues here are at a professional level and very interesting. I am grateful to be able to be part of the Forum.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Simkin: Your fellow propagandist, Andy Walker, has essentially revoked my posting privileges, although he claims he's merely monitoring my posts. The bottom line is my messages are not being posted on the message board. So in effect, it equivalent to having one's privileges revoked. Frankly, it was a gutless move. He's giving people the false impression that I left voluntarily, so he can claim he runs an open forum. Even for an obvious propaganda operation, your forum is really bad. Not just flawed. It's very bad. It's worse than the Usenet. And your moderating abilities? The worst. Poor. Very poor. Perhaps you should consider retirement. Seriously.

Salvador Astucia

Just for the record I placed Salvador under moderator supervision because over the last 4 days he has posted from 5 seperate IPs. I was concerned that the account was being shared. This has been done to us by a right wing group in the past.

Either John or myself will moderate his postings when we have time.

I work full time as a teacher in a school - Salvador is not really my priority at the moment.

It's many years since I have deserved the label "gutless" :hotorwot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hesitate to post my comments, at the risk of being branded a "nazi," but here goes. First of all, let me say that this is John's forum, and he certainly has the right to set the rules. I appreciate very much his efforts and value the forum as an educational tool. That being said, I also believe completely in free speech and a free press. The whole issue of WWII has become increasingly sacrosanct, even among those who are willing to debate and discuss the most controversial topics imaginable. This does not merely apply to the holocaust, but to such tangential issues like Pearl Harbor, and the increasingly obvious indications that FDR had advance knowledge and/or goaded the Japanese into attacking us. The level of debate in such cases is best summed up by the reaction of historian Barbara Tuchman, whose idea of rebutal was to state, "Toland is a nazi," after Pulitzer Prize winning historian John Toland wandered into the revisionist waters with his "Infamy" book about FDR's role in allowing the Japanese attack to happen. I had to read "Infamy," after reading Tuchman's vicious and infantile response to Toland's well- researched and thoroughly documented work. It convinced me. If that makes me a nazi, or perhaps a "jap" somehow, then so be it.

I am therefore sympathetic to any revisionist claims about any historical incident. It bothers me that so many otherwise open-minded people want to exempt this one particular historical event from free discussion. Why? If the case for the nazis exterminating six million jews is so convincing, then the debate ought to be quick and easy. Calling those who dispute any particular part of history a "nazi" or "anti-semitic" or "racist," or whatever, isn't constructive and frankly diminishes your own credibility.

I am still a novice to this whole subject, but I have taken the first step in examining this subject in at least some depth. Many of you may not be aware of the plight of one Ernst Zundel, a former Canadian teacher who is, believe it or not, in his second year of SOLITARY CONFINEMENT in a Canadian prison. His crime; he "denies the holocaust." BTW, what kind of bizarre, Orwellian term is that? That sounds like a term from the middle ages for those who denied the church or something. When I first heard about this, I was appalled, even though I thought he was probably a nut to deny the nazi atrocities. While reading about Zundel's history (he has already been tried twice for this "crime"), I discovered that he had commissioned an expert, during his first trial, to go to Auschwitz and examine the gas chambers, the soil, and anything else what could prove or disprove that the exterminations had taken place. The guy's name was Fred Leuchter, and he was not a nazi, an anti-semite, or political at all. He was considered the nation's foremost expert on capital punishment devices, having consulted with many prisons and advised them about their gas chamber systems and electric chairs. To make a long story short, Leuchter came away convinced that no gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. He wrote the "Leuchter Report" afterwards, and if you are really interested in historical truth, then I urge you to read it. I think it can be read in its entirety (it's not that long) online. If you just use a search engine, you should be able to find it easily.

I hope that I will not be banned from this forum for speaking out. I don't know Mr. Astucia at all, but I do support everyone's right to free speech. Unless someone is coming out and advocating the extermination of a particular race of people, or saying that a particular group of people ought to be rounded up and imprisoned because of their race, religion, height, weight, or whatever, and as long as they aren't vulgar or incomprehensible in their arguments, then I think responsible people who hold a different view ought to feel free to engage them in civil discourse.

BTW- for the record, I don't admire Adolf Hitler. I don't think the nazis were cool. I don't like heiling anyone and woudn't want a dictator ruling me. That being said, I think the historical revisionists may have some valid points and they shouldn't be thrown in jail, or legally penalized in any way, for stating them. I also think that suppressing these views plays into the hands of real anti-Jewish feeling; if you believe "the jews" control the world, then this feeling will reinforced by name-calling and censorship. Anyhow, those are my feelings. Now please be kind....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hesitate to post my comments, at the risk of being branded a "nazi," but here goes. First of all, let me say that this is John's forum, and he certainly has the right to set the rules. I appreciate very much his efforts and value the forum as an educational tool. That being said, I also believe completely in free speech and a free press. The whole issue of WWII has become increasingly sacrosanct, even among those who are willing to debate and discuss the most controversial topics imaginable. This does not merely apply to the holocaust, but to such tangential issues like Pearl Harbor, and the increasingly obvious indications that FDR had advance knowledge and/or goaded the Japanese into attacking us. The level of debate in such cases is best summed up by the reaction of historian Barbara Tuchman, whose idea of rebutal was to state, "Toland is a nazi," after Pulitzer Prize winning historian John Toland wandered into the revisionist waters with his "Infamy" book about FDR's role in allowing the Japanese attack to happen. I had to read "Infamy," after reading Tuchman's vicious and infantile response to Toland's well- researched and thoroughly documented work. It convinced me. If that makes me a nazi, or perhaps a "jap" somehow, then so be it.

I am therefore sympathetic to any revisionist claims about any historical incident. It bothers me that so many otherwise open-minded people want to exempt this one particular historical event from free discussion. Why? If the case for the nazis exterminating six million jews is so convincing, then the debate ought to be quick and easy. Calling those who dispute any particular part of history a "nazi" or "anti-semitic" or "racist," or whatever, isn't constructive and frankly diminishes your own credibility.

I am still a novice to this whole subject, but I have taken the first step in examining this subject in at least some depth. Many of you may not be aware of the plight of one Ernst Zundel, a former Canadian teacher who is, believe it or not, in his second year of SOLITARY CONFINEMENT in a Canadian prison. His crime; he "denies the holocaust." BTW, what kind of bizarre, Orwellian term is that? That sounds like a term from the middle ages for those who denied the church or something. When I first heard about this, I was appalled, even though I thought he was probably a nut to deny the nazi atrocities. While reading about Zundel's history (he has already been tried twice for this "crime"), I discovered that he had commissioned an expert, during his first trial, to go to Auschwitz and examine the gas chambers, the soil, and anything else what could prove or disprove that the exterminations had taken place. The guy's name was Fred Leuchter, and he was not a nazi, an anti-semite, or political at all. He was considered the nation's foremost expert on capital punishment devices, having consulted with many prisons and advised them about their gas chamber systems and electric chairs. To make a long story short, Leuchter came away convinced that no gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. He wrote the "Leuchter Report" afterwards, and if you are really interested in historical truth, then I urge you to read it. I think it can be read in its entirety (it's not that long) online. If you just use a search engine, you should be able to find it easily.

I hope that I will not be banned from this forum for speaking out. I don't know Mr. Astucia at all, but I do support everyone's right to free speech. Unless someone is coming out and advocating the extermination of a particular race of people, or saying that a particular group of people ought to be rounded up and imprisoned because of their race, religion, height, weight, or whatever, and as long as they aren't vulgar or incomprehensible in their arguments, then I think responsible people who hold a different view ought to feel free to engage them in civil discourse.

BTW- for the record, I don't admire Adolf Hitler. I don't think the nazis were cool. I don't like heiling anyone and woudn't want a dictator ruling me. That being said, I think the historical revisionists may have some valid points and they shouldn't be thrown in jail, or legally penalized in any way, for stating them. I also think that suppressing these views plays into the hands of real anti-Jewish feeling; if you believe "the jews" control the world, then this feeling will reinforced by name-calling and censorship. Anyhow, those are my feelings. Now please be kind....

"He was considered the nation's foremost expert on capital punishment devices, having consulted with many prisons and advised them about their gas chamber systems and electric chairs. To make a long story short, Leuchter came away convinced that no gassings had taken place at Auschwitz."

Leuchter and his report have been discredited and debunked over and over again.

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your courage and support.

As I told one member in a private E-Mail yesterday;

"if the JFK researchers share any common political thread,

I would say it is their anti-fascism... "

So lets move on .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet,

The link you left didn't provide any real rebutal to Leuchter. It had a lot of vitriol and character assassination, and little data to refute his research. It reminded me very much of LN rebuttals to the work of Warren Commission critics. And debating the holocaust isn't what I meant to do, anyhow, when I posted a defense of the RIGHT to "deny the holocaust," or the official version of any historical event.

Do you think that people should be imprisoned for "denying the holocaust?" How is it fair and just for a teacher like Ernst Zundel to be kept in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for two years (!) for this "thought crime?" Serial killers aren't treated that harshly! What is so dangerous about a dissenting view on this issue? No belief or idea is dangerous enough to warrant official intimidation or legal repercussions. Making it a crime to "deny" any part of "official" history is antithical to everything this country is supposed to stand for. If an idea or an "extremist" group is kooky and/or uncredible, then an open airing of their evidence, with opposing viewpoints, would quickly expose that and destroy their credibility. If they were, however, not so kooky and even credible, then a public discussion would benefit everyone by permitting us to better understand our past.

If John is ever interested in having a discussion of this issue, I'd be happy to participate, although I am not an expert and relatively new to the subject. I think it would be educational, but it's a sensitive subject and totally his call. While I find the arguments of the revisionists persuasive, that is really irrelevant to how I feel about the question of whether or not the topic can be broached in polite society. Even if I had lost loved ones in the nazi concentration camps, I'd like to think that I'd still support the right of individuals and groups to dispute the official facts about WWII in general, including the holocaust. I want to make it clear that I subscribe strongly to the belief that Voltaire and Patrick Henry held, namely that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my dying breath your right to say it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

As a historian who is only too aware of how governments have used censorship in the past to control the minds of its citizens, I rarely support the idea of censorship. I am not here talking about the blatant use of censorship by the Nazi and Soviet regimes. I am also concerned about the use of censorship in democracies. This often involves creating an atmosphere of self-censorship (as George Bernard Shaw once said, the most dangerous form of censorship of all).

As students of the JFK assassination, we more than most, are aware of the dangers of subtle forms of censorship (see my thread on the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird).

I am especially opposed to censoring people for what they may say in the future, rather than what have actually said on this forum. For that is the case we are discussing at the moment. 

I do believe that anything that encourages hatred of a particular race does need to be censored. However problems arise from this position. For example, some people have claimed that criticism of the foreign policies of Israel is racist. Similar things have been said about criticisms of Muslim governments. Christians have argued recently in the UK that the authorities are quick to ban things that give offence to the Muslim community but are unwilling to ban things such as the Jerry Springer Musical that offend Christians.

The Holocaust is one of the most comprehensively documented events in history. It is therefore difficult to believe that any sane individual can believe it did not happened. Therefore, most people, including myself, assume that Holocaust deniers are racists. However, does that mean that the expression of this theory is always racist? Is it healthy for a government to stop citizens from expressing holocaust denial beliefs? For example, might some people believe that the theory might have some substance if the powers that be refuse for it to be expressed. If the “Holocaust Did Not Happen” theory is ridiculous, as I believe it is, surely it could be defeated by rational debate.

I have spent my adult life fighting racism. However, I do not believe that “holocaust deniers” cause a major problem. A far greater risk to creating a harmonious society is those people who are racist but claim they are not. The sort of people who vote for politicians who favour racist policies. This of course included people in Germany who voted for the Nazi Party. But least we forget, other countries have voted in racist politicians over the years. That is of course true of the United States for most of the 20th century.

John,

What a thoughtful, refreshing perspective. This is very close to my own views on the subject, except for the fact that I have, as indicated in an earlier post, been persuaded by the Leuchter Report that the revisionists have some very valid points. At the very least, I am apalled at the imprisonment of teacher Ernst Zundel in Canada, and the whole notion of making it illegal to "deny" any part of "official" history. After all, is it that far of a stretch to suppose that what JFK assassination researchers are doing is "denying" the official story of November 22, 1963?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...