CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 3 months 1 week ago (Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:08 pm)

This was to be expected, but still unfortunate. The revisionist CODOH Facebook page was banned. It’s interesting that while most revisionists are against endless wars, we are the ones who feel the wrath of ADL censorship, while warmongers like Obama and
John Bolton don’t worry about being removed for their genocidal tendencies.

With Twitter, YouTube, and now Facebook all censoring CODOH in the devil’s harmony, there are alternative platforms to spread revisionism, like Parler, Wimkin, VK, Bitchute and Minds. I have contacted CODOH about creating a page specifically on an alternative social network by the name of Wimkin, but I have heard nothing yet. Perhaps it would help to have a sub forum here to talk about platforms, which even if they have issues, at least tolerate revisionist views (like Parler or Wimkin), and those that don’t (like YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook)?

https://www.facebook.com/CODOHForum/
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

https://freespeechmonika.wordpress.com/ ... t-details/

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2358
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 1 week ago (Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:40 am)

The old CODOH Twitter had some API that auto-posted every time a new thread was made. I wonder if any of these platforms have similar features.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Moderator » 3 months 1 week ago (Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:47 pm)

Germar Rudolf has posted this

https://codoh.com/library/document/face ... e-hill/en/
Facebook Bans CODOH/Castle Hill
Unfree Speech
By Germar Rudolf
Published: 2020-11-26
After announcing on October 12, 2020, that they would ban any material contesting the orthodox Holocaust narrative, we were holding our breath. Now we don't have to hold it anymore. Since yesterday, November 25, our facebook pages are official taken down:

https://www.facebook.com/CODOH-349393818463125/
https://www.facebook.com/castlehillpublishers/

From our end, we only received a notice on the screen once when visiting Facebook, as posted here. Now, when we go online, our Facebook page looks like nothing has changed, but whenever we try to post anything, it refuses to do so.

We'll soon open an account with some other social media platform and will publish that info soon.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3672
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Hektor » 3 months 1 week ago (Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:46 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:This was to be expected, but still unfortunate. The revisionist CODOH Facebook page was banned. It’s interesting that while most revisionists are against endless wars, we are the ones who feel the wrath of ADL censorship, while warmongers like Obama and
John Bolton don’t worry about being removed for their genocidal tendencies.

With Twitter, YouTube, and now Facebook all censoring CODOH in the devil’s harmony, there are alternative platforms to spread revisionism, like Parler, Wimkin, VK, Bitchute and Minds. I have contacted CODOH about creating a page specifically on an alternative social network by the name of Wimkin, but I have heard nothing yet. Perhaps it would help to have a sub forum here to talk about platforms, which even if they have issues, at least tolerate revisionist views (like Parler or Wimkin), and those that don’t (like YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook)?

https://www.facebook.com/CODOHForum/


I recall that twitter and youtube used burying tactics on undesired material to prevent more people from seeing it in their feeds or during searches. Targeting specific accounts can yield quick results for the censors, but also will lead to people changing their publishing strategy and tactics. Well, and it makes it easier for competitors to grow as well. The thing is that hosting on the web needs to be financed as there are cost involved. That will potentially be another angle of attack, targeting advertisers, payment transaction providers and the like. There are really some people out there that want to prevent certain communications they don't like and they are not limited to government as a means of suppression.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2358
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 1 week ago (Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:50 pm)

Hektor wrote:I recall that twitter and youtube used burying tactics on undesired material to prevent more people from seeing it in their feeds or during searches. Targeting specific accounts can yield quick results for the censors, but also will lead to people changing their publishing strategy and tactics. Well, and it makes it easier for competitors to grow as well. The thing is that hosting on the web needs to be financed as there are cost involved. That will potentially be another angle of attack, targeting advertisers, payment transaction providers and the like. There are really some people out there that want to prevent certain communications they don't like and they are not limited to government as a means of suppression.

A few days ago a guy on Tucker Carlson's show said he did some sort of study on Google and found that they had reminders on how to vote for only the Democrats, none for the Republicans. He called them out and they fixed it.
Google does own YouTube and they have some sort of file on you if you use their platforms. They can target people based on ideology and often do. It is a form of shadow banning. Let the hopeless "deplorables" see the content they like but don't recommend it to anyone else - leftists, centrists, etc.

They very much do want to control the flow of information and they are far from neutral
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3672
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Hektor » 3 months 1 week ago (Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:13 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:
Hektor wrote:I recall that twitter and youtube used burying tactics on undesired material to prevent more people from seeing it in their feeds or during searches. Targeting specific accounts can yield quick results for the censors, but also will lead to people changing their publishing strategy and tactics. Well, and it makes it easier for competitors to grow as well. The thing is that hosting on the web needs to be financed as there are cost involved. That will potentially be another angle of attack, targeting advertisers, payment transaction providers and the like. There are really some people out there that want to prevent certain communications they don't like and they are not limited to government as a means of suppression.

A few days ago a guy on Tucker Carlson's show said he did some sort of study on Google and found that they had reminders on how to vote for only the Democrats, none for the Republicans. He called them out and they fixed it.
Google does own YouTube and they have some sort of file on you if you use their platforms. They can target people based on ideology and often do. It is a form of shadow banning. Let the hopeless "deplorables" see the content they like but don't recommend it to anyone else - leftists, centrists, etc.

They very much do want to control the flow of information and they are far from neutral

Well, that kind of communications management isn't exactly new, but that large corporations do that now is kind of a novelty.
I wonder if leftists were excluded from using courier services or the telephone network during the "Red Scare". I think not, although Communists were dismissed from public service, if I recall it correctly.
During the first years of the occupation of Germany there were Denazification/Re-education policies in all occupational zones. The Western ones just as the Soviet Occupational Zone. The Communists were of course more blunt jailing or intimidating anyone that wasn't too enthusiastic about Communism. Media or publishers companies were confiscated and made the "property of the people".
The Western Zones did it a bit more subtle. "Nazis", meaning officials and members of NS-organisations, were classified and then killed, jailed, expropriated or banned on the job market for their former professions. Books were banned, publishers lock down, unless they had supposedly "democratic" management. One way to achieve compliance of publishers was the rationing of paper for printed publications like newspapers.
Cinemas were obliged to show Allied propaganda, so were radio-stations, etc.
This is sort of Milieu-control and Control of Communication. Check Lifton's 8 criteria for Thought Reform.
In the beginning those Re-education Efforts were mildly successful. Too many Germans still remembered the time before the war and what happened during and after the War. And this didn't put the Allies exactly in a good light, although most had only limited knowledge from their own experience and from conversations with friends and family. They resisted indoctrination not because they were "Fanatical Nazis", but because they had a sober outlook on life. Remember Most communication was from person to person in those times. While newspapers, radio and film were available, this wasn't as important as mass-media is today and TV was only in the starting phase, Not sure when a larger number of Germans started owning this, I'd guess in the sixties. Radio communications were listened to with family and friends and the kids listened to their parents more in those days. Autistic media consumption as it's done today with TV and the internet wasn't really a thing then. The teachers, while not NSDAP members, were mostly neutral/apolitical and their own experiences were still on their minds. Rabid "Anti-Nazis" would be taken with a grain of salt anyway. What however limited the communication about contemporary history and war/ immediate post war experiences was the fact that most people wanted to forget their partially horrific experiences and go on rebuilding their lives, large portions of the population were "dehoused" and had no homes of their own, this only changed over time with the rebuilding of Germany.

Today things are of course different. Political Correctness has taken over universities, media and the education system already for decades and this has disseminated through most of society to some extent. There are many newly established taboos and the modes of communication are quite different. Social experiences are either done in masses with a lot of noise (spectator sports, concerts, disco, etc.) or in rather small circles. A lot of communication does come directly from the internet and the google empire is one major source of this. Google's the main search engine, Youtube the main video provider. Facebook the biggest social network and twitter another social media giant. A large portion of the Western population gets it's info via those channels right now. There was a time of relative "tolerance" since the emergence of the internet, but this was locked down step by step. Remember: "First they came for the Holocaust Deniers" - Now they come for the rest that isn't exactly pro-left in its outlook.

Facebook was actually a bit more reluctant than the other platforms on this. But it's huge - and my guess is those in charge don't want trouble, those working their are more than often rabid leftists and hence they'll shut down the things they don't like, piece by piece.

I'm actually surprised the CODOH page lasted that long.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Moderator » 3 months 1 week ago (Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:15 pm)

We’re getting reports from a few people that it is now working.
Will advise.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby HMSendeavour » 3 months 1 week ago (Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:23 am)

The most users CODOH ever had online was 763 in April of 2015. This past Halloween - five years later - CODOH has surpassed that number astronomically with 1512 users online. I think this is pretty impressive. Is it even possible that the Facebook page could bring in that much traffic? Honestly I haven't noticed anyone really use Facebook anymore.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

forasanerworld
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:37 am

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby forasanerworld » 3 months 1 week ago (Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:39 am)

I find Quora more than tolerating, even links into CODOH and fpp are all fine; a lot of the dialogue is pretty banal but some know their stuff and stand up well against Roberto M when he shows up.

User avatar
Webmaster
Administration
Administration
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:58 pm
Contact:

Re: CODOH Page Banned on Facebook

Postby Webmaster » 3 months 1 week ago (Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:09 am)

HMSendeavour wrote:The most users CODOH ever had online was 763 in April of 2015. This past Halloween - five years later - CODOH has surpassed that number astronomically with 1512 users online. I think this is pretty impressive. Is it even possible that the Facebook page could bring in that much traffic? Honestly I haven't noticed anyone really use Facebook anymore.

It had something to do with this thread:
if there is a god he will have to beg my forgiveness

And a lot of visitors viewed Pia Kahn's profile page for some reason.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests