[Jason posted at different Internet forums for quite some time as "Wahrheit" and "Wahrheitseeker". Until recently he was a Holocaust denier. His voluminous output at CODOH, RODOH and elsewhere prevents any suspicion of him being an anti-"revisionist" mole. He was also one of the people at the root of "Inconvenient History" blog, though his contributions seem to have vanished. Not so long ago he has changed his views - a story to be told in the future, that's for sure.
We think that what Jason has to say in this article is interesting and instructive.
Note that HC team does not necessarily agree with opinions expressed by our guest bloggers or guarantee the accuracy of all their claims.]
CODOH: The Forum That Moderated Itself to Death
On February 8, 2010 I was permanently banned from the CODOH Revisionist forum. Ostensibly, the justification for my ban was my "pre-meditated" change of heart regarding the veracity of the "Holocaust tale", and my efforts to "dupe" CODOH readers.
That I had been a revisionist from 2005 to fall 2009 is clear, but after further study of the relevant literature, I decided that the evidence for a Nazi program of extermination was simply too overwhelming to deny any longer. More will be said of my change at a later time, but after hundreds of posts at the CODOH, RODOH, and History Channel forums arguing the revisionist case, and much work behind the scenes on various revisionist projects, I find the charge that I was "faking" as a revisionist the whole time to be ridiculous, to say the least.
The treatment I received at CODOH forum was no exception to the longtime rule. By the very nature of CODOH forum's guidelines, open debate was set up to fail. Posts are only allowed to contain one point, and thus, are inherently un-historical in their approach; one cannot honestly discuss history by forbidding the analysis of an event's context. Other rules do not appear as malignant, but are applied selectively, and are employed as a tool to rig debates.
Although name-calling is officially forbidden, one can easily search the forum and find many vile remarks regarding "believers" (the word "denier," in contrast, is prohibited); regarding the name-calling of revisionist posters and writers, however, this rule is strongly enforced. The same selective enforcement occurs regarding the "no dodging" instructions. Revisionist posters are freely able to "dodge" my Transit Camp Treblinka Challenge (which is the longest thread on the CODOH forum, yet still is without an answer to the original post), but any mention of a murdered Jew, without overwhelming forensic evidence to rely upon (and only forensic evidence!) is seen as "dodging." That the forum moderator (who posts under the handle "Hannover," a devious effort typically seen as sock-puppetry) also dodges posts can be seen in my thread on Thies Christophersen, wherein he ignores all my points on Christophersen, creates straw men, and bloviates about revisionism in general.
Of course, I have long been aware of the unfair moderating practices at the CODOH forum. On November 2, 2008, while I was still a revisionist, I complained to CODOH regarding their forum's moderating policies (whole email is attached as an appendix for open disclosure). In that email, I wrote:
"I am afraid if something is not done to keep the Revisionist forum up to the standards of "open" debate, many more posters will also pack their bags and take their game elsewhere. At such a dismal time in the revisionism movement, where leaders such as Rudolf, Zundel, and Toben are in European jails, one must keep the community as active and as large as possible. Shunting different revisionist ideas, and limiting the "open" nature of debate is detrimental to our movement, and threatens the very lifeblood in times such as these."Since November 2008, the situation at the CODOH forum has only continued to deteriorate. Despite the forum's eight year lifespan, it still has not reached 500 total posters; the 470+ that it currently has overwhelmingly arrived some years ago, with only a trickle of new posters coming in now; indeed, only a small fraction of the total posters still appear on a regular basis. Numerous posters (mostly revisionists) have left the forum because of the heavy-handed moderating practices. No other forum involved with Holocaust discussions (including revisionist arguments) has such a tendency to delete unwanted posts.
There are some who have stuck around the CODOH forum and have enjoyed the isolation of their posts, free from criticism, but every month brings about an increasing number of posters who turn their back on the CODOH forum, or at least voice their opposition to the moderator's policies.
In other words, the CODOH Revisionist forum is dying.
Now, such a sad state of affairs for revisionism could have easily been avoided by the CODOH leadership had founder Bradley Smith or Editor-in-Chief Richard Widmann (both of whom I respect) taken a different approach to the CODOH Revisionist forum.
I have long believed in the fruitfulness of combined research efforts. In late 2008, given the poor state of revisionist research (Mattogno still is the lone researcher), and the failure to keep information moving at the same pace as Germar Rudolf once did, I thought something had to be done. As a revisionist, I tried to spawn new efforts to get things moving again (such was my conviction at the time).
My initial aim was to establish a revisionist blog (now the Inconvenient History blog), which could help accumulate various articles, information of interest, and spur more discussion and interest in Holocaust revisionism as a whole. After gathering a preliminary group of contributors for the blog, we contacted CODOH for logistical support in hosting a website for us.
My initial proposal to Bradley Smith came on November 7, 2008. After some discussion with him and CODOH editor Richard Widmann, CODOH formally agreed to host our blog. One of our main warnings to CODOH, however, was that our blog would be run independently, and would be allowed to post whatever revisionist views we wished, including critical reviews of revisionist research. Going off of our experience with the CODOH forum, and by the very nature of the relationship, we felt justified in our terms and our caution in working with CODOH.
Richard Widmann responded to our terms as follows (only relevant portions quoted - email dated November 9, 2008):
"CODOH is not dogmatic in its views and I think would provide you the latitude you are seeking.Bradley Smith emailed a similar comment (dated November 11, 2008):
The CODOH Forum is not CODOH. It is largely the work and effort of the moderator there whom I assume you know. He has tremendous freedom to do what he wants-and what he does is certainly different than what I would do. The key is however that he does it. It is not something I have the time nor the stomach for.
I am interested to know why you might think us "Close-minded" or dogmatic in this area. I know of no one less so in the entire debate on either side.
SO in short-yes you could do your own thing. The only intervening I recall through the years with regard to the Forum has been requesting to allow more posts to be posted and to stop a campaign which called for the banning of the work of David Irving."
"Widman speaks for me here on all points.That the two see the CODOH forum as distinctly different from CODOH itself (and thus, not held responsible) is a very misguided view to take, and one that I am at a loss to explain.
I have always been especially interested in the revisionist criticism of published H. revisionism. have always thought it a weakness of CODOH in not having it.
To date we have not had a way of doing this with anything resembling graciousness or generoisity, and without those qualities it is destructive. The Forum is run on a very tight leash, but as Widmann notes, it is run, and has been run for years at considerable risk and personal cost for the primary moderator, and has built up a very large repository of information."
The CODOH Revisionist forum acts as the everyday face of CODOH, where discussions with readers progress daily. It is highlighted on CODOH's mainpage, along with a feature that showcases the most recent posts on various threads. In addition, the CODOH name is featured prominently and in numerous locations on the Revisionist forum's website. To deny this connection is simply absurd. Thus, when posters are banned or censored for their views on the Revisionist forum (revisionist or orthodox), CODOH's credibility in defense of "free speech" suffers.
Widmann and Smith's indifference to the ongoing tragedy of "open debate" at their forum (or sponsored forum) also is counterproductive for the revisionist 'movement', for many sane posters have simply left the revisionist scene due to their disenchantment with CODOH's forum.
From an anti-revisionist's perspective, what more could one wish? The revisionist movement is purging itself.
As the cynics would no doubt say, CODOH has passed the point of open debate and only seeks to pursue its own agenda. Surely the group has a right to protest the criminalization of Holocaust revisionism, as well as the alleged sacredness of the Holocaust taboo on college campuses (see Bradley Smith’s dispute with Harvard), but do they really expect people to take them seriously when they allow blatant censorship in their own backyard? Do as I say, not as I do?
It is sometimes said that cognitive dissonance produces a positive effect in the mind, allowing it to better judge the issues at hand. When the dissonance is not cognized, however, the mind does not progress in its intelligence, and incongruent positions result. Thus, CODOH focuses its efforts on breaking taboos and pushing for more academic freedom regarding the Holocaust, all the while hosting a forum that censors and bans unsought posters’ opinions.
The blissful indifference that Widmann and Smith maintain with their forum (though both are aware of the endless complaints about the moderator) does not bode well for CODOH’s future, nor for Holocaust Revisionism. Without some level of intellectual curiosity, CODOH will become (even more) irrelevant to real historic revisionism; instead, it will become nothing more than a defender of the revisionists’ own dogma.
Like the revisionist posters who wish to escape criticism, CODOH seems to have abandoned its willingness to think.
-Jason Willis Myers
from: Truth Seeker <email@example.com>
date: Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:05 PM
subject: CODOH revisionist forum
hide details 11/2/08
I am an active revisionist poster over at the CODOH forum. I have continually took part in discussions exposing the Holocaust-lie, and have even put together 2-3 serious articles on points which debunk the exterminationist claim (which I must finalize before trying to get posted to the CODOH library).
It is with much regret that I have noticed a serious downturn in the quality of discussion at the CODOH revisionist forum. Many of the former established posters, who actively contribute meaningfull information to the forum (such as Laurentz Dahl) have been ran over by the likes of Greg Gerdes. I agree in principle with the claims of Gerdes, and the demands for proof of the Reinhard camps, but any slight deviation of Gerdes' position always leads to constant beratement and incessant attacks. Laurentz Dahl left the forum becaue of him, and Carlo Cutlass Supreme has also suffered from his tactics.
Also, Dr Joachim Neander (an open-minded believer) has also continually suffered beratement at the hands of a few: 'Hannover', 'Turpitz', etc...Posters of quality and intelligence such as Neander should try to be held onto as much as possible, but yet in any post he makes, he is attacked for being a "believer". This is not healthy for the supposed "open" debate of the forum.
Not to mention, I too have suffered a spell of censorship by the moderator. I did nothing wrong, and was very polite in my posts. I responded to points raised in a thread, but was told that my arguments have already been dealt with in other threads. When I visited those threads, and posted my points again, I still have been censored and told that I am posting to already-responded to points. The fact that my points have NOT been adequately debunked apparently fails to be understood. Rather it is a purposeful effort to shun my ideas which clash with the moderator's notions.
I am afraid if something is not done to keep the Revisionist forum up to the standards of "open" debate, many more posters will also pack their bags and take their game elsewhere. At such a dismal time in the revisionism movement, where leaders such as Rudolf, Zundel, and Toben are in European jails, one must keep the community as active and as large as possible. Shunting different revisionist ideas, and limiting the "open" nature of debate is detrimental to our movement, and threatens the very lifeblood in times such as these.
I am open to any ideas or other questions you may have.