Will somebody at Takimag cover the false conservatives effort to tamper and destroy the America’s democratic traditions? Governor Siegelman’s trial is something one expects in a third world dictatorship. The second example is Rush Limbaugh encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary in the democratic primaries. It is astonishing that a self styled “conservative” has a great contempt for the democratic process.

I think this is a good move, particularly since most of the comments come from a fairly small group of people. I do know of some sites that have gone to a “register before commenting” model and later switched to a “comments will be moderated before becoming visible” policy, but what works at one site doesn’t necessarily work for all sites. Personally I prefer the registration approach.

Good move.

For those Takimag writers worried about comments beyond the pale, are they worried that the next president of the USA comes from a background of virulent black racialism? 

Trinity United Church of Christ’s Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book “Black Theology and Black Power.”

Cone’s book states that:

What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.... black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

This is from the Talking Points page at the Trinity United Church website:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

I’m an avid reader over at Mises.org.  What I like about their blog, apart from the intellectual exchanges is their admin’s simple and direct message to readers that post label comments.  It says ‘Post an intelligent and civil comment’, which is a crisp and clear message to readers and trolls alike.  Here’s the link if you’ve not already viewed it.  Perhaps you can coin your own line and monitor the situation before you start moderating comments.

I think that banishing offensive comments is a step down a slippery slope, and merely flagging them still requires the reader to read enough to decide they’re not worth reading.  I suggest that a separate link be created, for each topic, where the reader can go to find those posts that the site has determined to be “beyond the pale”.  That way, the authors can’t say they are being silenced, but thoughtful readers will only have to sift through the mmuck when they want to.  If nothing else, this provides a check against unwarranted banishments, as the community at large will have the chance to consider the merits of what’s been thus segregated, if it wants to.

Total agreement - with the caveat that we do not actually have to audition during the “lengthy sing-up process”.

You’d be up to your ears in Horst Wessel Song.

I think that the posts should be at least screened before being put up. There should be a system in place where person running his or her own website should be able to control the content of the website. A newspaper does not print all of the “Letters to the Editor.” They just print the ones that the editor feels should be printed. If the editor seems unfair in the selection of the letters too bad. There are other newspapers and other websites that anybody could look at.

@ RS, Thanks.  ‘Nuf said.

RS - i enjoy the site.. i don’t post that often.. i agree when you start to decide what to keep and what to edit, it becomes a slippery slope and it takes away from other articles you could be writing while you babysit.. i hope you don’t have to become a babysitting agency for your own site, but it sounds like you are headed in that direction.. good luck with whatever you decide on…

This is a quirky kind of site that allows a lot of free discussion. I would hate to see that end.But in the end you own it and you set the rules.I suppose I have been over the top once and awhile but, I try to see everyone as a human being.I think the name calling can get out of hand and racist comments have always been banned here.The trouble is what do some people consider racist or hateful.

One of the things that has given this site it’s distinction has been the quixotic and motley collection of nuts.... me included.... commenting upon the various and sundry...and they are various to be sure.... things written here. I never knew there was a league of remorseful monarchists in the lapsed-republic until I stumbled on this site via Antiwar. It’s a free for all and that’s a rare thing in this highly edited and packaged age.

But, given the strange brew of loutish screeds that occurred yesterday, it would appear to be somehow required.

It is always interesting how the various Geopolitical issues related to the Middle East and the Neo-Cons devolve into anti-semitic “Jewish Conspiracy” rants in both defense and offense modes. Anyone who would like to see a broad discussion of the dysfunctions in the Middle East should read one of the major Israeli dailies, Haaretz and they will get more of a balanced overview than any American newspaper offers. Some of the loudest commentary on abuses related to illegal settlements and treatment of the Palestinians come from Israeli jews themselves. Our increasingly Likudnik relationship with Israel is so far from being some kind of religious conspiracy as to be laughable. It sells, jets, missiles, bullets and armament and maintains instability in the region, what our cockeyed government appears to desire. The only religion here is the religion of Empire.

Wise decision Takimag, these Nazi’s have their own websites. Let them speak their ignorance there.

BIG MISTAKE-O…
Rather than censor for content
how about limiting the LENGTH
of a comment?
Personally I enjoy the idiotic
comments on this site provided
they are pithy and short.
You can cut all the ones over
2 paragraphs and that will cull
the bull and release us from
your record keeping.
Your call however…

I don’t post much here but do post quite a bit on another site that requires registration and a yearly payment of $30..  In spite of the policies, there is far more trolling going on there and personal attacks are rife.  As I have spent some considerable amounts of time in Thailand due to both military service and personal travel (and comment on that sometimes) I was being labeled by one of the more odious trolls as a peodophile (sp?). I post there using my real name (it’s liberating) and pointed out to this idiot that their IP address could be tracked if deemed necessary by the law and that they were defaming not a pseudonym but a real person with a real name that lives in a real town.  The abuse stopped.

You might consider having folks post with their real name.

Was it really that big of a problem? I hadn’t noticed it. Few articles have more than 20 posts. Few of them are offensive - and those are easily ignored. Free speech is messy. We know that. Blocking the truly offensive shouldn’t be that difficult. Stay vigilant. Frank has a good point: Who is it you’re afraid of? What’s this really about?

Thank you--I hope this policy will enable the civil conversations to have the space they deserve, the distractions by trolls having been eliminated.

If I may be so bold (and without stating my opinion on the subject of post deletion/sign-up requirement/vetting or other because the whole subject is a minefield)might I ask if any of the contributoring authors (of the feature articles) will be subject to any of these restrictions?

As a traditional catholic myself, I find I agree with much of what John Zmirak writes but would question, yet again, his needing to scratch the itch of muslims as bombers.

(it was tough, but this comment is not “replete with “...” “ as is my wont!)

what article was it that caused such a hulla-ballo?

This new censorship policy is a bad idea. I have been reading the articles and comments on the web site for some time. Comments from racialists, neo-Nazis and the like are pretty rare, and, when they occur, they are for articles that you could easily predict ahead of time would attract that sort (for example, John Zmirack’s recent article praising the Islam bashing movie, Fitna). Moreover, it is of interest to hear what these people have to say to clarify our own points of agreement and disagreement, and many will oppose these sorts of people in the comments for an interesting back-and-forth discussion. If David Duke were to say comment on an article on say Obama or another issue of the day and the comment was un-offensive save for its racialist perspective, I don’t see why you should censor his comment. The participants of the site (including the writers) are mature and generally well educated adults who can handle it. The solution is to speak up and show Mr. Duke the error of his ways.

You might consider including vulgarities in your ban.  They undercut the site morally and intellectually, and ruin the value of any comment that includes them.

What a prude I’ve become!  I guess I’ve reached the point.

During the 90’s Freerepublic was one of the hottest web sites around. Then they started censoring anybody who didn’t think Bush was the Second Coming. They subsequently went down the tubes. I would hate to see this site go that way…

You shouldn’t ban racialist POV’s.  The fact is racialist politics plays a big role in American politics, witness the Israeli lobby.  If you ban this POV, you distort the reality of the situation.

The rest of the media has done this, takimag is better than that.

I read TakiMag nearly every day and occasionally post comments.  I am curious as to what set this off.  I have seen very few “offensive” comments. In fact, the comments here are almost always polite in the broad sense and literate.  Perhaps I have a high tolerance. John Zmirak gets on my last nerve, unlike even the most odious Nazidroid.  But, due to the comparatively high minded comments here, I don’t don’t post what I think about his essays.

Anyway, PC is not limited to the “left.” Once you start policing comments and those who send them, there’s no stopping it.

In the nearly 3 years I’ve been blogging I’ve only had to “censor” 2 commenters.  One stole someone’s identity, and the other is a couple with whom I’ve had in-person run-ins and have taken to stalking me.  They have threatened to sue me and once even called the police saying I threatened to kill them (online!) because I disagree with them.  The cops told them to take a high dive. Outside of some “clear and present danger” I really don’t like the idea of policing comments, even by registration, which I don’t think does much good.  My local newspaper has a registration rule and we have someone known as “Timmy Ten Names” who never shuts up. I think TakiMag needs to trust it’s readers, and if a nut comes through occasionally, so what!

I have been a reader at this site for approximately three to four months. The websites that I usually post at, all have some sort of censorship and/or rules. Some are even “moderated” (That is, pre-screened before posting.)

May I suggest the following: (1) A sign-up requirement (2) Posting of “rules” for the comments section (3) A “three strikes and you’re out” policy.

I would like to say at this time how much I have enjoyed reading the articles and the comments at this site.

all the jew haters here say they have shown “proof” of their conspiracies, yet all they ever do is throw accusations and name-calling without any damn evidence!

for example the above 2 stories are not much “proof” since they do not even mention what those individuals have been arrested for.  The stories say some people were charged with racial incitement/hatred but nothing else is mentioned.

Mark Brooks and Mike Sloane I bet must have like the biggest collection on their computer of black-man-on-white-girl porn! We all know the type..... they are the people who openly hate a certain thing but behind closed doors they go nuts and have fetishes about that certain thing!

Funny how their comments were deleted right before I finished typing my entry right above!

I understand the desire to avoid abusive language, and, indeed, in the past (last year) I complained
about the use of “four letter” words, and the need for courtesy, even in strongly-worded messages. But,
at the same time, I have numerous doubts about the kind of censorship that apparently some who write messages
apparently desire for this list. Apparently, some would like to proscribe entirely discussions that deal
with Judaism, or World War II, or race, or some other “hot” topics that, for some, seem beyond the pale. Certainly, well-spoken responses and discussion are desirable on such topics...but would we “ban” a Dr. E. Michael Jones, or a Kevin Macdonald, for instance, from authoring messages and/or articles on this site?  What about the distinguihsed professor Philippe Rushton on race and genetics, Jared Taylor? Or, what about someone such as myself, with strongly-held views on religious liberty, the meaning of Vatican II’s declaration Nostra Aetate?  Last year I wrote on this list at lenghth (and in debate) about such issues. How--and where--and who---would draw such lines? I was called
at that time by a couple posters an “anti-semite.”

For those old enough to remember, go back and read issues of the National Review, beginning in the 1950s,
and then 1960s, up to recently. Every so many years, Buckley would “excommunicate” another grouping. I remember
vividly what happened to M.E. Bradford, for his views on Lincoln.  Are we then going to excommunicate a
distinguished author such as E. Michael Jones for his very critical history of revolutionary impulses within
Judaism? What about Alfred de Zayas and James Bacque on the final days of World War II and the “extermination”
of German expellees from eastern Europe?

Perhaps these are not good examples, and such good writers would not run the risk of being banned. But, there
are indeed some persons who contribute to this forum on a regular basis who consistently and repeatedly
urge banning of those that THEY consider “browns” or “Nazis” or “racists.”

I understand the desire to maintain decorum and stay on topic and refrain from certain usages, but it seems
to me that there is worse danger in attempting to ban or censor messages, even if in the opinion of most on this list they are idiotic or hateful.  It is, very simply, the slippery slope.... No thanks.