JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Education Forum Goes Off the Rails

<< < (5/6) > >>

Benjamin Cole:
EF-JFKA participant James Wilkinson defines William Niedernut's role as moderator at the forum thusly:

If this is indeed The Current State of the JFK Education Forum, then perhaps it is for the best if it can’t be continued. Provided a way is figured out to preserve its decades of rich, insightful discussions, of course.

If I were an intel agent tasked with disrupting this board’s ability to collaborate on new leads and other developments, I wouldn’t waste my resources on lone-nut defenders, not when there are plenty of them who do so out of good faith.

No, I’d direct my asset to fixate on 9/11 Truther narratives to the exclusion of any other topic, including the one purportedly at hand, sowing redundant rounds of division and name-calling at the slightest prompt. I’d want them to otherwise toe the line when it comes to popular JFK conspiracy theories so they’d amass enough credibility to angle for a moderator role.

Because with the authority to ban contributors while deleting their allegedly offending posts, that asset could then also ban anyone who criticizes their Stalinesque abuses of authority.

By the time they’re ever sidelined as moderator, the damage will have already been done.

Now I don’t really think William is an asset tasked with chaos and disruption on this Forum. That’s not the point.

The point is that if I were in the position to run such an operative, that hypothetical asset couldn’t have done a better job than what William’s actually managed here in real life. If one’s behavior is indistinguishable from that of a hypothetical saboteur, after all, then isn’t the distinction between those alternatives one that’s without a meaningful difference?

Say what one will about a witting saboteur, but at least they actually accomplish what they aim to do, because at least they know what they’re doing.

He continues to defend Holocaust denier Ron Unz from that description in the face of well-supported evidence—now by insinuating that there’s some sort of cryptic significance to the use of the 6-million-Jews figure before the war.

And hardly anyone but myself bothers to challenge this odiousness. When we’re reduced to arguing over the definition of Holocaust denialism, the denialists have already won the debate.

It’s a fitting end, really, to what was for so long an extraordinary project. But everything has its own lifecycle. Once any message board drifts into tolerance of Holocaust denial, it’s usually a sure symptom of the inevitable.

It’s all the more ironic that the most disruptive elements dedicate their time and efforts toward this end unwittingly, free of charge. At least it could be argued that they’re saving the taxpayers some money, I suppose.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Indeed.

---30---

On target.

The question is, why did EF-JFKA founder John Simkin sit on his hands for months and months as Niedernut (in addition to other defects, Niedernut a WWII holocaust-denier) destroyed the EF-JFKA?

The latest word is that the legal owner, or legal operator (I can't tell which), of the EF-JFKA, named James Gordon, has been located. Evidently, the EF-JFKA had plenty of money in a Go Fund Me till, but was not paying the site's host. No one seems to know where the money is now, or how to pay the site's web-host.

Steps have been taken to preserve the EF-JFKA's content for heritage. I guess that includes the demented rantings of William Niedernut. There is endless bickering and sniping even yet among EF-JFKA participants.

My advice to JFK Assassination Forum participants: Don't go down the sniping road. Be collegial. Don't insult. If you have a different point of views, respectfully express them. Confine your present-day political rants to the "U.S. And International Politics" thread.

Among the many mistakes Simkin made was starting numerous threads on present-day topics, evidently as he wanted a sounding board for his views. This led to un-ending gangbang-juvenalia on Trump. But anyone can read anti-Trump blabber anywhere on the 'net in profusion. So why did the EF-JFKA exist?

Lance Payette:
On the Zionism post at the Ed Forum with which Ben started this thread, Greg Doudna said a very wise thing yesterday:

On antisemitism. It must be condemned and repudiated, no less than any toxic racism. Here is one sure “tell” of antisemitism, which I know a little about in my field. When one hears invocation of the Gospels’ anti-Jewish tropes. This is the terrible hidden secret and burden of Christianity, that its very Passion salvation foundation origin myth [that demonizes] Jews, is antisemitic, scapegoating Jews for killing God. If you see or hear that, even as allusion from otherwise secular people, then you can KNOW antisemitism is going on.

This "Jews killed Jesus" thing really is the root of antisemitism, as opposed to legitimate questioning of the policies and practices of the political state of Israel. The error in the opposite direction that we hear all the time is that the political state of Israel must receive blind, unwavering support because "the Jews are God's chosen people." (Even if they actually are, equating the Jews with the political state of Israel is a category mistake.)

As you may or may not know, the Second Temple and the city of Jerusalem were razed and the Jews were driven out and enslaved by the Romans in 70 AD as a result of the First Jewish Revolt that began in 66 AD and ended at Masada in 73. The four Gospels and Acts were all written after 70 AD, when being a Jew was a risky and dangerous thing to be. Conversely, being pro-Roman was an entirely unrisky and non-dangerous thing to be. Not unsurprisingly, the Gospels and Acts and even some of the epistles have a distinct pro-Roman and anti-Jewish slant, going so far as to portray Pilate (who was finally recalled by Rome because his cruelty threatened peace in the region) as not such a bad guy and really kind of a philosophical sort - and even putting anti-Jewish and pro-Roman statements into the mouth of Jesus. Historians are in pretty much unanimous agreement that the Romans would not have hesitated a moment to crucify Jesus (probably precipitated by his outburst in the Temple) and that there is no way the Jewish populace would have been screaming for his death (after supposedly welcoming him into the city with cries of "Hosanna!" days earlier). Some members of the Sanhedrin may have been complicit, but certainly not "the Jews."

In short, the whole "Jews killed Jesus" (or "Jews killed God") thing is, as Greg says, a myth that has haunted and demonized the Jews for 2,000 years. I have relatives who care less about Jesus than I care about Scientology but who nevertheless "hate the Jews" for this bogus reason as though "hating the Jews" were simply what all decent people should do. It's completely ridiculous.

Kevin Balch:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 17, 2026, 10:08:06 PM ---On the Zionism post at the Ed Forum with which Ben started this thread, Greg Doudna said a very wise thing yesterday:

On antisemitism. It must be condemned and repudiated, no less than any toxic racism. Here is one sure “tell” of antisemitism, which I know a little about in my field. When one hears invocation of the Gospels’ anti-Jewish tropes. This is the terrible hidden secret and burden of Christianity, that its very Passion salvation foundation origin myth [that demonizes] Jews, is antisemitic, scapegoating Jews for killing God. If you see or hear that, even as allusion from otherwise secular people, then you can KNOW antisemitism is going on.

This "Jews killed Jesus" thing really is the root of antisemitism, as opposed to legitimate questioning of the policies and practices of the political state of Israel. The error in the opposite direction that we hear all the time is that the political state of Israel must receive blind, unwavering support because "the Jews are God's chosen people." (Even if they actually are, equating the Jews with the political state of Israel is a category mistake.)

As you may or may not know, the Second Temple and the city of Jerusalem were razed and the Jews were driven out and enslaved by the Romans in 70 AD as a result of the First Jewish Revolt that began in 66 AD and ended at Masada in 73. The four Gospels and Acts were all written after 70 AD, when being a Jew was a risky and dangerous thing to be. Conversely, being pro-Roman was an entirely unrisky and non-dangerous thing to be. Not unsurprisingly, the Gospels and Acts and even some of the epistles have a distinct pro-Roman and anti-Jewish slant, going so far as to portray Pilate (who was finally recalled by Rome because his cruelty threatened peace in the region) as not such a bad guy and really kind of a philosophical sort - and even putting anti-Jewish and pro-Roman statements into the mouth of Jesus. Historians are in pretty much unanimous agreement that the Romans would not have hesitated a moment to crucify Jesus (probably precipitated by his outburst in the Temple) and that there is no way the Jewish populace would have been screaming for his death (after supposedly welcoming him into the city with cries of "Hosanna!" days earlier). Some members of the Sanhedrin may have been complicit, but certainly not "the Jews."

In short, the whole "Jews killed Jesus" (or "Jews killed God") thing is, as Greg says, a myth that has haunted and demonized the Jews for 2,000 years. I have relatives who care less about Jesus than I care about Scientology but who nevertheless "hate the Jews" for this bogus reason as though "hating the Jews" were simply what all decent people should do. It's completely ridiculous.

--- End quote ---

I think the bible is a fairy tale so I would never use it as supporting evidence for anything. On the other hand, antisemitism is more commonly being used like racism.

Lance Payette:

--- Quote from: Kevin Balch on June 18, 2026, 01:15:22 AM ---I think the bible is a fairy tale so I would never use it as supporting evidence for anything. On the other hand, antisemitism is more commonly being used like racism.

--- End quote ---

OK, but it is being used precisely like racism because of the underlying myth of the Jews as "Christ killers." Otherwise, the visceral hatred of the Jews is inexplicable. People don't just adopt antisemitic attitudes out of thin air. There is no comparable racist-like hatred of Egyptians or other cultures because they weren't "Christ killers." As I stated, that myth has now snowballed where people who care little or nothing about Jesus are antisemitic and really can't tell you why. (As an historical document, the Bible is not a fairy tale; it holds up well insofar as it describes the history of the periods in which it was written.)

Benjamin Cole:
LP--

What is sad is that the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel crackpots came to roost at the Education Forum-JFKA, under the wing of William Niedernut, and the dull uncomprehending stare of John Simkin.

The EF-JFKA was long troubled by dubious moderation, and incessant bickering, sniping and trading of juvenile insults.

But it went off the rails under Niedernut.

Maybe the EF-JFKA can recover, or maybe the ship has sunk. We will see.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page