No unanimity, Black Don

Don Black points out, fairly enough, that there is no unanimity of
opinion on his Stormfront mailing list.

Subject: Policy on “spies”–Stormfront moderator
Sent: 1/13/96 6:36 AM
Received: 1/15/96 10:18 AM
From: Stormfront-l, [email protected]
To: [email protected]

From: [email protected] (Don Black)
Date: Sat Jan 13 1995
Subj: Policy on “spies”–Stormfront moderator

At 03:19 AM 1/6/96 GMT, Milton wrote:
>Stormfront must remain a forum for the free exchange of ideas by LOYAL
>individuals, so this is the only viable option. Any situation which
>causes our comrades to refrain from free discourse weakens Stormfront’s

This is exactly what worries me–too much “free discourse.” Everyone
here should understand that this is not a “secure” list, that there’s
nothing I can do to change that, and that, as Slick Willie has pointed
out, “words have consequences.”

No one should say anything here, or on any other mailing list, or in a
room full of “comrades” they know personally, that they can’t afford to
have posted on Usenet, read in a court of law, printed on the front page
of the New York Times, or reproduced in a book that stays around for
twenty years. I’ve had all of these things happen to me, when private,
casual conversations with people I knew *personally* turned out to be
not so private. I can only think of nine people on this list whom I’ve
ever met in person, along with a few others I know by reputation outside
the Net, and I’m even less trusting of anyone I know *only* as an e-mail
address. You should be too.

The objective of this list, as I see it, is to provide an alternative to
newsgroups–to provide a place where White Nationalists can discuss
issues of importance without the distractions, and where they can
develop some sense of community (albeit with caveats). I accomplish
this by moderating posted messages, but I have no way to ensure that all
those *listening* share our objectives. I would like for this list to
serve as a recruiting tool and not just become a “clique of good
buddies” [Randolph MacKenzie]. I’ve therefore left subscriptions
open–Listserv automatically handles the three to ten subscription
requests a day (along with an approximately equal number of
unsubscription requests) without much intervention by me.

I could, of course, easily delete the two or three people I know or
strongly suspect are “spies.” They could almost as easily then
resubscribe under an alias, as Neil O’Connor pointed out.

Ken McVay briefly subscribed a few months ago using an anon remailer
(which I only knew about because of a mistake he made, causing messages
to bounce back directly to Stormfront from Nizkor). He could just as
easily do the same thing again, without the bumbling, and I wouldn’t
know the difference. We have several subscribers using anon accounts,
two of whom have posted regularly. But I could ban anon subscriptions,
of course, then the “spies” would have to use an alias. If their domain
names made that too obvious, they could open telnet accounts with
freenets or elsewhere. And those with AOL accounts, like Jamie McCarthy,
can use up to five different usernames. Jamie could become. . .
[email protected]”. . . or maybe “Mack88”. . . we could have a contest
to pick a Movement-sounding name for him–one we’d never suspect :-).

Then we have all the other “spies” I don’t have a clue about. The local
ADL here in “New Yoik with Palm Trees” (aka West Palm Beach) has been
complaining a lot about me lately, so I presume they’re represented
somewhere on the subscription list. And we can’t forget the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, which has openly called for Net censorship from the
beginning. I keep expecting to wake up some morning to see Rabbi Hier on
the Today Show quoting some of the more “hateful” messages here to
demonstrate “‘ze danger of Nazis on ‘ze Internet.” Then there’s the
probability that we’re also being monitored by various secret police
agencies, including the FBI and BATF, and including those from
jurisdictions outside the U.S. Considering the agendas of these groups,
Nizkor’s archiving of our messages seems rather benign.

All this said, though, McVay still irritates me. I particularly dislike
his piling up quotes from various posters and attributing a unanimity of
opinion to everyone here. He did this with Ron Schoedel recently,
throwing in various posts, including Ghenhis’s now infamous “hustling
newsgroups” quote, to “demonstrate” how Ron was “exploiting” the
country-western newsgroup. And I noticed he just did it in the discussion, this time invoking my name, and
attributing various opinions expressed here to me, and associating me
with the push for the new newsgroup. I haven’t even posted to that
thread yet.

>From the beginning, I’ve considered requiring subscribers to this list
agree to the same statement I require for new members to my BBS, since
this is an extension of the BBS:

This electronic BBS is a private system and is protected by the
provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. No
person is authorized to access this system for the purpose of
gathering information for any government or police agency or any
private investigative organization.

The views expressed on this board do not necessarily represent the
views of the system operator or Stormfront, Inc. Nothing on this
board should be construed as attempting to encourage or incite
violence or other illegal activity. This board operates pursuant to
rights enumerated in, but not necessarily limited to, the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

I have *not* done this primarily because I don’t want to create the
illusion among subscribers that their posts are really protected by this
agreement. It might dampen the efforts of some of the more regulated
government agencies, but I suspect Jewish groups will feel they’re above
the law, or they’ll look for a loophole, or they’ll figure no U.S.
Attorney would prosecute them. One of the “loopholes,” what constitutes
a “private investigative agency,” could be partially closed by
specifying “including but not limited to” various of our opponents’
organizations. Another downside, though, is that this would create an
external illusion of a “secret, conspiratorial” group, which our foes
could then claim to have “infiltrated.”

Anyway, I’ve thought about this a lot, and I have some mixed feelings.
Since I provide this list for subscribers, I’ll let the subscribers
decide this question. If there’s a clear consensus to implement this
policy, but with the clear understanding that its effects will be
largely symbolic, I’ll do it. Otherwise I’ll leave things as they are.

Let me hear from you.

Racial regards,

To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront Mailing List
Host: [email protected] (Don Black)
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to ‘[email protected]’ with the
line ‘unsubscribe Stormfront-L’ in the message BODY.
Processed with Listserv v2.77 for Wildcat v4