Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Free Speech's Jewish Problem

Facebook’s Holocaust-Denial Hate-Speech Problem, Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast, 18 Aug 2011 (my emphasis):
Is Facebook in denial about Holocaust denial?

For years, international organizations opposing anti-Semitism have been urging the planet’s preeminent social-networking platform to delete any content that asserts the Nazi-orchestrated extermination of 6 million Jews never took place.

And for years, officials of Facebook, boasting more than 750 million active users, have refused, insisting that mere denial of the Holocaust, however “repugnant and ignorant,” doesn’t constitute “hate speech” as defined by Facebook’s Terms of Service policy prohibiting “content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” (Which gave a huge opening to TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, who noted that while Facebook was meticulously removing photos of breast-feeding women, it was allowing the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages. His mordant headline: “Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating.”)

Facebook’s critics—including such groups as the Anti-Defamation League and the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, which describes itself as an Israeli-led “alliance of statesmen, parliamentarians, diplomats, journalists, legal experts, NGOs and scholars”—argue that Holocaust denial is, by definition, an expression of hatred for the Jewish people.

“Holocaust denial is basically a form of classic anti-Semitism,” said Deborah Lauter, ADL’s director of civil rights and its cyber-hate response team. “It’s anti-Semitism per se because it serves as a powerful conspiracy theory that basically says the Jews have manipulated history to advance their own worldview, whether to create sympathy or world domination. In other words, we have fabricated this monstrous event in history in order to further our own hidden agenda.”

Facebook spokesman Simon Axten doesn’t see it that way.

“We find Holocaust denial to be repugnant and ignorant, just as we object to many of the other ideas expressed on Facebook,” Axten told me via email this week. “We’ve come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the Holocaust is not a violation of our policies. We recognize people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.”

The controversy surrounding Facebook’s free-speech position isn’t especially new. It has been a matter of anxiety among Jewish groups at least since November 2008, when blogger and attorney Brian Cuban—the less-famous brother of Dallas Mavericks owner and Dancing With the Stars contestant Mark Cuban—sounded the alarm and prompted a spate of media attention.

But the issue bubbled up anew last month when a group of survivors of the Nazi death camps wrote to Facebook asking that the company’s broad-minded policy be reversed. It came up again on Tuesday, when Australian computer scientist Andre Oboler and Canadian lawyer David Matas, co-chairmen of the Global Forum’s Online Anti-Semitism Working Group, released a letter they sent to Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg after they attended what Oboler calls a “frustrating” video conference with an executive of Facebook’s European operations. The Facebook exec politely listened to the group’s concerns, Oboler told me from Melbourne, then reiterated the company line.

“We call on Facebook to abandon its insistence on treating Holocaust denial in a context-free manner, in which it is considered nothing more than the rejection of a historical event,” Oboler and Matas wrote to Zuckerberg. “The context makes it clear that there is no meaningful distinction between Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred against Jews … We ask that Facebook recognize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, issue a statement to this effect, and do its utmost to remove Holocaust denial from the Facebook platform.”

In his email, Facebook’s Axten stated that “in practice, we end up removing the vast majority of Holocaust denial content that’s reported to us because it’s explicitly hateful or threatening. Most instances of Holocaust denial on Facebook (or anywhere else) are accompanied by threats or clearly anti-Jewish statements, which run afoul of our policies. We remove these as quickly as possible when they’re reported to us, and the result is that there is actually very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

ADL’s Lauter gives Facebook, and especially Axten, credit for “seriously engaging” on the issue, and supports his claim that the company has been responsive to reports of hate speech. She notes that she has led several workshops in Palo Alto, Calif., with key Facebook employees to alert them to the nuances of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and related concerns. But she disputes Axten’s assertion that there is "very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

“We’re talking probably hundreds of thousands [of Facebook-hosted pages and postings] as a general problem,” she told me. “The metrics are hard to do. We would love it if, as part of their internal operations, Facebook would help with a system for coming up with those metrics, so we could see benchmarks—is it getting worse or better? How do you quantify the incidence of anti-Semitism? The whole flood of the Internet shows that, and you can’t even document the number of people expressing their hate thoughts.”
Oboler pointed out that Holocaust denial is codified as hate speech and thus against the law in 13 European countries, including Germany and Austria, and that Facebook manages not to violate local ordinances by blocking the various denial pages in the relevant jurisdictions. He said his colleagues, “who have been approaching Facebook with an open mind and in a spirit of cooperation to solve this problem, are becoming increasingly frustrated with Facebook’s irrational stubbornness on this issue and their attempts to blur the issue.”

The irony, of course, is that Zuckerberg and many of his employees are Jewish, and Oboler speculated that “maybe, as a result, they are bending too far in the other direction to let everybody know that they support free speech.”

Facebook’s Axten acknowledged in his email: “Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents or grandparents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook’s mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is the best way to combat ignorance and deception, though we recognize that others may disagree.”
The irony here is not in the good-jew/bad-jew theatrics. Despite their phony concerns about free speech the article makes clear that the "vast majority" of the content any self-righteous jew regards as repugnant, ignorant, or hateful is removed as quickly as possible. The hyperventilating and special pleading here is about removing what remains. Their jew-centric debate is about just how special the special protection for jewish sensibilities should be.

If there's any irony here it's in so many hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical jews portraying themselves as a group as the victims while they argue amongst themselves about just how far to push the victimization of those who vex them.

(Examples of the consequences of jewish hostility and the kind of criticism they don't want to hear can be found in UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA.)

Labels: , ,



Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Funny, aint it? The very people who bitch and whine about the paranoia of ‘red-baiting’ during the era of Joseph McCarthy are hysterically screaming “NAZI!” every time someone displeases the Jewish establishment."


8/23/2011 09:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

National Day of Rage, Sept 17, 2011

As usual, their "rage" will be directed against white European Americans.

Forewarned is forearmed.

8/23/2011 07:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In part the Holocaust is used by jews to hide the identities and actions of jews within our own society.

The consequences of Jew denial (or any exposure of jews) is hate speech directed against Whites, all Americans (true Americans, and not various of the faked imposters) and against freedom-loving people anywhere in the world. Those consequences are not just recent ones, but are now an established part of the historical rhectoric which allows more hatred to be expressed against Whites.

There are three videos with the words of Joeseph McCarthy in the section above, all which deserve full attention.

The jewish communists, most of whom had arrived in the US during the early part of the 1900's as "immigrants" from Russia, certainly would not have liked McCarthy's comments beginning at 5:20 on the first video above. Could this be because those remarks refer to the already being instituted jewish plans for JNO/NWO?

Regardless of the [historically speaking] recent propaganda taught that jewish-communism is not monolithic, it is (or should be) quite apparent that it is monolithic in it's direction and source.

There are only regional differences, or differences in the various messengers chosen for the implementation and delivery of communism - and those exist only as to further the overall aims of the centralized jewish-communistic(/masonic) politiburo, and for the dialectical tactical advantages which accrue to the use of the centralized communals (kehillahs) which hide behind a false front of religion.

The monolithic nature of jewish directed communism applies worldwide, and it is only the centers for the various dialectical applications of communistic strategies which seem to shift among those various kehillahs, whether it is in Moscow or New York, or to London, and/or Tel Aviv, or to a venue [UN-EU] appropriate for all of jewry. Regardless of the location or the messengers, they are jewish centered and controlled.

Before Whites and Americans can escape what is planned for them, they must awaken - and they must realize that the main job for the implementors of the JNO/NWO communists is to keep the masses of them unaware (and unorganized) until it is too late. The jewish use of the holocaust narrative helps to hide those true holocausts which jews have engaged in against Whites, Christians and others. Eustace Mullins reviewed some of those, and explains:

"We are asked to weep only for the Jews, and to ignore the many millions of actual victims of world terrorism in the past one hundred and fifty years, a chronicle of such horror that one scarcely can bear to put down this bloodstained record, not merely in fear that the world might put away its business in order to mourn these countless victims of international Communist terrorism, but that the tragic fate of these innocents, most of them women and children, is one of such pathos that one's heart could break from the full impact of its terrifying implications for everyone alive today."


8/24/2011 09:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

…I survived (six years of imprisonment in ghettos, labor camps and concentration camps as a child during World War II)… When, as a nine-year-old, I spent a month in Buchenwald, it never occurred to me that those of my fellow-inmates who were Gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war, or Danish policemen arrested for helping the Jews escape, were undergoing experiences that were different from mine…. Ever since, for over half a century, I have not been able to accept the singling out of this one front, horrible as it may have been, as a unique epoch-making event that requires its own grandiose name, its own capitalized dictionary entry, its own academic discipline called “Holocaust studies.”… But the recent, officially accepted revision of the number of Auschwitz victims from four million to a million or so has made me wonder. One of the precursors of denialism, Paul Rassinier, who died in 1967, asked: “Were Jews murdered?” and answered: “Yes, but not as many as one thinks. Were there any gas chambers? Yes, but not as many as one thinks.” ... For those who believe in ethnic cleansing, the leap from resettlement to massacre is not as great as some of us may think; and if the Nazis were, perhaps, no more evil than the Interahamwe of Uganda, the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries led by Karadžić and Mladić, or the anti-independence militias of East Timor, there is no reason to suppose that they were less so.... Both of my parents survived, and I had no siblings. I have no tattoo (though I sometimes perversely envied those who had them). I was never beaten or starved. After the War I went on with school at the normal grade level. And when I recently visited the Buchenwald memorial site, the foremost thought in my mind – unrepentant cinephile that I am – was to find the location of the barrack where I saw my first movie; never mind that my first screen image was of a smiling Hitler on horseback, introducing a newsreel. The search for the site of the barrack where I actually lived took second place. ... I spent the last months of the War, after Buchenwald, in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp...

Robert in Arabia

8/24/2011 09:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert, thanks. I find the testimony of "survivors" like Rassinier and Lubliner especially fascinating.

The idea that the Nazis set out to exterminate the Jews in their grasp during WWII simply does not hold up. Had they done so, there would be no survivors. Lubliner, like Anne Frank (and no doubt, many others) were moved from camp to camp. Why would the Nazis do this with people they simply wanted dead?

The Nazis apparently wanted the Jews dead as much as the Riddler wanted Batman dead; not enough to simply kill the bastard.

The reply is always "they needed them for slave labor," bla bla bla. Yes, well, then they didn't simply want to kill them, now did they? And the goal was not simply to kill them, now was it?

8/24/2011 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Svigor said: "The reply is always "they needed them for slave labor," bla bla bla. Yes, well, then they didn't simply want to kill them, now did they? And the goal was not simply to kill them, now was it?"

The Nazi regime wanted to kill the Jews, and advance their own war effort at the same time. They acheived this by using them as slave labor, ON A STARVATION DIET.

The Jews either died of the bad conditions, or were gassed when they become so weak that they were no longer useful.

The Nazis thus extracted the energy stored in the fat cells and muscles of their victims before killing them.

8/26/2011 11:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"Jews were the self-declared enemy of the German people."

All power needed to save ourselves rests within us. If it did not, there would be little point in this very blog's existence as its efforts would ultimately prove vain. It is not in vain.

"In reality, these traitorous parasites suffered far less than they deserved. What should have happened to them is what they have falsely claimed happened to them for the past 50 years."

Surely that would be a profound dishonor to us as it is not needed to secure our survival. Need I tell you why? Just in case I do: Survival must come first; yet if the White race had for all the generations of its existence satisfied itself with what would engender mere survival it would have never risen above the station of barbarism. Even taking the example of a single man, it is self-evidently not in his interest to live all his days as a barbarian for one day, if he has a brain in his head, he will wish to consolidate his ruthlessly gotten gains. To have the aristocrat latent in himself come to the fore so that his newly minted estate may bloom. And later, certain rules of conduct which he demands of himself that he knows are essential to the maintenance of his estate he will not dispense with in pushing off unwanted interlopers for he wishes to also keep his estate.

8/27/2011 02:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"The Soviet Union was invaded in a last ditch effort of survival."

If mere survival for Germany was the order of the day then why risk war in the first place by going into Poland in 1939? It was the millenarian fervor to bring all Germans together in the Reich and more which accomplished this.

And if survival was all that mattered to Germans, nothing else, then what was there to lose in exterminating the Jews, as the war turned ineluctably against Germans, when there was every reason to believe the former would be denied to Germans? Simply that it was beneath German honor to do it.

Yet as I've stated here before, their 'honor' was not necessarily as we conceive our own. National Socialist Germans, I presume, didn't refer to themselves as a "Master Race" for shits and giggles; as some kind of privately insincere ra-ra speech only intended to fire up the team. No, they weren't dicking around. They intended to rule what they conquered as, you know, masters.

Do you believe if Germany had succeeded in beating the Soviet Union Hitler would have just handed the land back to Slavs with effusive expressions of his gratitude for letting him borrow it? Sure.

8/27/2011 03:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why risk war in the first place by going into Poland in 1939?

"And though the victories of the German army in 1940 and 1941 were undoubtedly spectacular they were inconclusive. We are thus left with the truly vertiginous conclusion that Hitler went to war in September 1939 without any coherent plan as to how actually to defeat the British Empire, his major antagonist.

Why did Hitler take this epic gamble? This surely is the fundamental question. Even if the conquest of living space can be rationalized as an act of imperialism, even if the Third Reich can be credited with a remarkable effort to muster its resources for combat, even if Germany's soldiers fought brilliantly, Hitler's conduct of the war involved risks so great that they defy rationalization in terms of pragmatic self-interest.3 And it is with this question that we reconnect to mainstream historiography and its insistence on the importance of ideology. It was ideology which provided Hitler with the lens through which he understood the international balance of power and the unfolding of the increasingly globalized struggle that began in Europe with the Spanish Civil War in the summer of 1936. In Hitler's mind, the threat posed to the Third Reich by the United States was not just that of conventional superpower rivalry. The threat was existential and bound up with Hitler's abiding fear of the world Jewish conspiracy, manifested in the shape of 'Wall Street Jewry' and the 'Jewish media' of the United States. It was this fantastical interpretation of the real balance of power that gave Hitler's decision-making its volatile, risk-taking quality. Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the United States, as had seemed to be the destiny of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, because this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death. Given the pervasive influence of the Jews, as revealed by the mounting international tension of the late 1930s, a prosperous future of capitalist partnership with the Western powers was simply impossible. War was inevitable. The question was not if, but when."

Tooze, Wages of Destruction p. XXV

8/27/2011 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All you have to do is look into the overwhelming evidence and documentation put together by scientists, forensic pathologists, and researchers.

Well, I've looked at revisionism occasionally over the past few years, and I don't see it with the certitude you do. All I can say is, I smell a big fat rat and I see no reason to take the orthodox HOLOCAUST!!! narrative seriously when its purveyors don't seem to; they've made no effort at open inquiry, which is how you dispel the kind of cloud the revisionists have kicked up. In short, where's the forensics?

Aliens could be real, but I see no reason to believe that stuff either. If Santa Claus wants me to believe in him, he should come and see me, and bring his miracles.

8/28/2011 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To put it another way, I don't see the burden of proof as being on the revisionists, but on the orthodox, and so far they've failed miserably. I can't take Jewish testimony seriously, because Jews' word is worth less than shit; you can fertilize crops with shit. And without that testimony, the whole thing falls apart.

Maybe the orthodox historians should collect a body of testimony by non-Jews? That would hold a bit of weight.

8/28/2011 10:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent video about Jews:

8/30/2011 01:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the Holocaust revisionist's unrealistically high standards of proof make the judicious historian's task more difficult. The Nazis were "caught red handed" (hence, lots of evidence), while the Leninists and Ottomans "got away with it"(hence, less evidence). Skepticism is raised high enough to create disbelief in Ottoman and Leninist atrocities, but not high enough to create disbelief in Nazi atrocities, thus reinforcing the Jewish self image "unique victims, always victims, never perpetrators". This obviously is not in the best interests of the White American people. However, it does enable neo-Nazis to maintain their delusion that Hitler was a saint without spot or wrinkle - and that, after all, is the whole point.

8/30/2011 06:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Nazis were "caught red handed" (hence, lots of evidence)

This evidence, lots of it....

8/30/2011 06:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did judicious historians say about the "pogroms" in Poland in 1918?

"What was the truth?
According to British historian Norman Davies:

Press reports in the West of “Pogroms in Poland” though accepted by Jewish
commentators, were repeatedly discredited by the investigations of independent British and American observers. The so-called pogrom in Lwów, in November 1918, turned out to be a military massacre where three times more
Christians died than Jews. The so-called pogroms in Pińsk in March 1919 turned out to be work of a panicky lieutenant, whose order to execute thirty-five suspected Bolshevik infiltrators was described by a US investigator as
“fully justified by the circumstances” the pogroms in Wilno in April 1919 and
again in October 1920 were occasioned by the Red Army’s hasty retreats, and by military reprisals against suspected collaborators."139
In turn, Polish émigré historian Adam Zamoyski, presenting typically
Polish evaluation of the situation, wrote:

The collapse of law and order in November 1918 produced a rash of anti-Jewish outrages in country areas and in towns such as Lwów and Pińsk. Further
violence and some shootings took place in the wake of military operations between the Poles and the Bolsheviks, since some leaders of the [Jewish]Bund had called on all Jews to further international revolution by supporting the Red Army. Hostility to wards the Jews was inadvertently heightened by American and British Jewish pressure groups at Paris Peace talks of 1918. It was at their insistence that such states such as Poland were made to
sign “Minorities Treaties”, which subjected their treatment of their Jewish citizens to international scrutiny. As well as encroaching on their sovereignty,
it was an insult to the Poles with their long tradition of toleration… In the
first two years of Polish independence, powerful groups of American and British Jewry were seen to be advocating the curtailment of Polish sovereignty
apparently in unison with German interests, while Jews were in the
forefront of the Bolshevik invasion of 1920. The average Pole felt the Jews were not on the same side as him.140

What one can probably easily agree on is that Gibson’s outlook on the Jewish question was consistent with views of the US government. American
historian Frank W. Brecher characterized the main features of these views
in the following way:

• The East European Jew was closely associated with, if not the actual leader, of the Communist world movement, which represented the major extant threat to Western interests in Europe and elsewhere
• If the Jew was the victim of popular violence, it was largely his own fault, due to his revolutionary activity, rapacious economic behavior using business
methods “that would not be tolerated in the United States,” cultural separatism,
and political disloyalty to his particular country of residence
• Religious bigotry hardly played a role in anti-Jewish persecution"

139 N. Davie s, God’s Playground, vol. II, pp. 262-3.
140 A. Zamoyski, The Polish Way. A Thousand Year History of the Poles and their
Culture, New York 1988, p. 345.

Interestingly, fifteen years before Hitler came to power an American diplomat, THE US AMBASSADOR IN WARSAW HUGH GIBSON was saying that an element of Jewry was an extant threat. Of course he was dubbed an anti-semite who "had done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century" by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his associate Felix Frankfurter.

8/30/2011 11:46:00 PM  
Anonymous RED said...

Watch a jew with a conscience (something almost non-existent) deliver the real truth of the holoHOAX!

8/31/2011 06:47:00 AM  
Blogger Kairos said...

Here is a text of mine about white spirituality:

9/01/2011 01:56:00 PM  
Anonymous RED said...

People who should know better about this huge lie are keeping silent. What's wrong with you?

9/02/2011 09:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here a two good anti-NWO books:

9/07/2011 07:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here a two good anti-NWO books:

I saw those linked at Majority Rights and tried reading them but the writing is just too bad to make it through. The translation from German into English was done by a non-native English speaker.

9/07/2011 09:06:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home