Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Peter Lemkin]

Simkin's equivalent to the secret Khrushchev speech Part I:

From: "John Simkin" <john.simkin@xxxxxxxx>
To: "'Peter Lemkin <xxxxxx@xxxxxx>,
"'Evan Burton'" <eburton@xxxxxxxx>,
<xxxxxf@xxxxxx>,
"'Gary Loughran'" <garyloughran@xxxxxxxx>,
"'Antti Hynonen'" <xxxxxxxxxx>,
<Stephen.Turner@xxxxxx>,
<donjeffries@xxxxxx>,
"'john geraghty'" <johnpetergeraghty@xxxxxx>,
"'The Education Forum'" <cbecket@xxxxxx>
Cc: <andy.walker@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Peter's removal
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:02:00 -0000

I returned home yesterday from burying xxxxxx yesterday to discover numerous resignations and continued abuse of other members on the Forum. It was a strange experience to go from a real world of supportive human behaviour to the internet world of nastiness and spite.

But as Don Jefferies says, I need to emerge from my world of grieving to deal with this crisis. I can only do it by going back to the beginning of the Forum. Andy and I started this forum as a reaction from being censored on the History Forum. That is important as it has always been my intention that this forum would allow the maximum amount possible of freedom of speech. Of course it is very easy to give freedom of speech to people with mainstream opinions. If Andy and I had held mainstream views, we would not have been censored on the History Forum. The real test is to allow people the freedom to express views you disagree with. It is true that the original forum was originally intended for teachers but from the beginning it was open to anyone who had an interest in history or education.

The forum was also for people who wanted to criticize my Spartacus Educational website. In fact, our stats show that the vast majority of new people who visit the forum come via my website. This is not surprising as my website gets around six million page impressions a month. In turn, the large number of visitors to the forum has helped to boast its ranking on Google. Therefore, the forum has become an important place for people who wish to maximise an audience for their views.

Teachers are very busy people and they do not get much time to post on forums. They are also more interested in mundane things like lesson plans than discussing the truth about events in the past. It soon became clear that if you wanted to discuss the practical aspects of teaching, then it could be argued that there were better forums available. Although I tried to encourage teachers to debate these issues by posting what I considered to be stimulating ideas, it soon became clear that I was fighting a losing battle.

At the same time, the number of people who were visiting via my website who wanted to complain/criticise its content was growing fast. This was especially true of the material on 20th century American history. This is not surprising as around 70% of my visitors come from the United States. They were also interested in the more controversial and unresolved aspects of that history. When I produced a page on the presidency of John F. Kennedy I had no idea that it would get the reaction it did. I got so many comments via email and the forum about the death of JFK that I decided to add a new section on the subject. Later I created sections on other controversial subjects such as Watergate, the death of Robert Kennedy, the Struggle for Civil Rights in the USA, etc.

As far as I am concerned, these sections have been a success. It has led to several witnesses agreeing to be interviewed on the forum. Authors of important books about these subjects have been willing to discuss their work with fellow researchers. It is clear from page impressions that this section of the forum is far more popular than the original parts of the forum. I am very disappointed that the original sections, especially the one on other areas of history that I write about, now receive very few responses. However, there is nothing I can do about that. I cannot make people post of these threads.

The problem with the “Conspiracy” section of the Forum is that it has attracted some very strange characters. Some of these people are clearly paranoid who seem to see a conspiracy in every event that does not plan out as they hoped. I am aware that some of these people have suffered for their views in the past and that has encouraged their sense of paranoia. This has meant that when certain members have problems with the technology they feel that Andy and I are involved in some sort of conspiracy against them. There have also been times when I have disagreed with certain conspiracy theories and as a result I have been accused of being a disinformation agent. I think this is very funny and it does not matter to me that I am in the pay of MI5 or the CIA. Other members who have criticised conspiracy theories, such as Len Colby, have also been accused of being secret agents.

I have to admit that since the death of xxxxxx I have not been in the mood to deal with these petty squabbles. I have indeed taken a backseat and allowed the moderators deal with these issues. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those like Evan, Antii and Kathy who have dealt with most of these issues. It is a thankless task as I know from experience it only results in abusive insults.

In recent weeks Andy and Evan have also been accused by Peter Lemkin of being part of some conspiracy. This is as a result of Peter being removed as a moderator. Although it was Evan who originally suggested that Peter should be made a moderator, he has been unfairly targeted by the paranoid conspiracy theorists as the man behind this action. Andy and Evan have now had enough and have resigned as administrator and moderator. If this happens, the only people who are going to be happy are Peter and the other members of the Deep Politics Forum. As a conspiracy theorist, I would not be surprised if this was the original objective.

I would therefore ask Andy and Evan to return to the Forum. I also think that it might be worth voting again on Peter’s position as moderator. I am still voting “Yes” but only just, because I have been deeply disturbed by the comments he has been making by email and on the Deep Politics Forum. The decision will be based on a majority vote.

John Simkin

My initial reply:
I wish Jack hadn't said that, but once out of the bag... Yes, It was, I believe, in Sept of 09 by one Mr. Walker. I politely but angrily told him that was impossible or a mistake and offered to defend myself. He didn't allow me to. J. S., I believe, has the beginnings of proof that Andy has just 'been out to get me for my political views' and has either misinterpreted or invented excuses to make that happen. I never harassed any woman - physically of via internet. I worked with my mother on Women's Rights issues and take that very seriously; believing myself to be pro-feminist. There have been other charges, but I am silenced. I can not even post now! I doubt any of you are getting my attempts at posts, instead they, I would guess, are going to Mr. Walker, who is not allowing them, despite their not breaking the rules, to be heard. I had kept the matter of the false accusation of harassment between Walker, Simkin and I, but it has not been dealt with. Walker simply believes it as fact, as he does that no conspiracy ever existed. I've not heard from John about my evidence to prove my innocence [and at the same time try to protect one person on the Forum from embarrassment] - of which I have more. As for the action, I believe Walker now claims was the last 'straw' in Burnham's biography, I am amazed how prescient it proved - it was not meant to be a trap, but it turned-out IMO to be just that. I simply welcomed him, I know of his JFK work which is very good. I told him that unlike the Forum from which he was coming IMO certain 'tricksters' were tolerated. Andy posted I should retract that [I didn't see that for perhaps half or a full day later - and don't feel it was so inappropriate]. I think LCs reaction proved my point about 'tricksters' and their being tolerated.....

It is getting very messy now and I must say I sent three emails of warning to Simkin that Walker had it in for me and I saw all this coming in some form about 1.5 months ago. I believe it is all political and the other allegations are baseless and unfair. I have been accused, sentenced and executed for my beliefs alone and without trial, presentation of evidence or ability to defend myself. I don't envy you all now. I do ask any of you of good faith and heart to help me out. J.S. promised me some email that was to be sent to all of you and me, despite what has now happened. I have heard nothing from him since. I believe that was 2.5 days ago...though I'm loosing track of time.

Yes, I have strong political beliefs, but so does Evan and they have never been grounds for removal or sanction [because, it is sad to say, but I think true because they are in parallel with those of Walker]
A moderator should be able to speak their mind "moderators have opinions too" as one of your signatures says correctly. We are here {I was here} to enforce the rules and keep the anger level down and tricksters at bay. I thought I was doing that. I have asked John if this is a free speech Forum or a Walker-approved speech Forum. I have received no response. I realize I am standing up to the powers that be, but this is a family tradition and my own belief system, that one must. I did so with respect and without anger at first until I was attacked repeatedly and accused repeatedly [and falsely] by one of the administrators. The other has always been very kind to me and has even been someone I've had private exchanges of emails with on a variety of subjects [here I'm not talking about any of this mess]. I hope there is a way back - or at least my name can be cleared. Again, I regret and did not ask my friend Jack to say what he said. However, the accusation is so untrue yet real [as were the other accusations], it is best dealt with, however, off the main Forum. I think the future of the Forum and its health are at stake; it goes well beyond little 'ol me. Thanks for the support of those who have offered it. May truth and justice prevail and a little sanity with a pinch of humanity.

I was just out walking my two Malamutes. I have no family – they are family since my real love and former family Crazybear died. While on the walk I realized John’s huge logical inconsistency/fallacy in his letter. He posits that [I suppose he meant I and those like me] are too inclined to see everything as a ‘conspiracy’ [The my conspiracies are correct; your conspiracies are a bit too odd or too far afield school of thought.] Yet a few lines down he posits that perhaps ‘that was the real intention’ [to cause Andy and Evan’s resignation]. John, that puts you in exactly the same ‘tent’ as I – only the color of the tent is different – not the ‘fabric’; as you were hinting that I was overly conspiratorial in thinking aloud if Andy supported Evan who supported Len and xxxxx et al. and there was a bias to the Forum. You can’t have it both ways and be consistent! Thus, your speculation on a Lemkin + unnamed other conspirators is canceled out by and with any speculation on any other ‘conspiracy’ you don’t like – be it about the Forum or 9-11 [which seems to rub you the wrong way, while you like my JFK posts] Each to his own, eh! Lastly, it is an experiment that can’t be done without a time machine, but as a thought experiment I posit that the vote, whatever it is would be different in the next days than it would have been the day of or just after the mess occurred. I’m certainly not blaming you for being at xxxxxxxx's funeral – last thing I’d ever do. My sympathies were made clear! However, by happenstance the time things were left to ‘fester’ my upset and paranoia grew; the anger of many built; allegiances and positive/negative feelings of one towards others changed sides, etc. Not having a time machine [oh, how I could use one for many reasons – the least of which being this Forum!], I’d only ask each voter or person who can effect a voter to take this into account. I can’t ask you to vote as you would have then, now…oh, I can….but things are not the same, as Einstein proved. We’ve moved in spacetime and I and others did things we wouldn’t have done or THOUGHT to have done had the spacetime not moved so far. Lastly, the ugly ‘rumors’ v. ugly ‘facts’. I don’t know how to deal with them. I’m of two minds. I know I am innocent of all the big ugly rumors and feel I am also innocent of the smaller ones. It is the big one that is most problematical. I’ll leave it at that, cryptically. I stand ready to PROVE, not just offer circumstantial evidence, that the rumors are untrue. I hope I need not have to. As I said, J.S. has some evidence. I hold other.
Perhaps it was yet the machinations of conspiratorial thinking. I don’t know where it began. I know where it wound up – in a series of PMs to me of the ugliest kind. Peace and bow-wow. Peter

I should have read through it for clarity. It is both very early morning here and had little sleep - the whole matter is SO upsetting, I don't even like re-reading it - though I should have. The warning emails I gave [about 3 of them] starting about1.5 months ago were sent to JS. I saw this coming and said to JS I felt I was being 'set-up'.

Peter Lemkin