Tuesday, December 05, 2006
UK Indymedia Stinks
In my post, I referred to a comment on a UK Indymedia post, concerning the monitoring of UK Indymedia. I observed that the comment on UK Indymedia had (unsurprisingly) been hidden.
A few minutes ago, this (poorly written) comment appeared on the post:
Why does this blog post made up stories? I followed the link and there is no such comment hidden or otherwise. Also, many of this blogs other critisisms about the content of posts on indy sites refer to posts which imc collecitives obviously don't aprove of either as they have been hidden. Looks like somebody should be watching the watcher to keep him honest.Sure enough, the comment on UK Indymedia has been deleted.
Not hidden, deleted.
I don't know if the timing (or the spelling) of the latest comment on IMW is related, however something really stinks. Any ideas?
The site's now run by a little group of fruitcakes and jew haters.
I think he thinks that, as long as he's not demanding that Jews be marched into the ovens, then it's not really antisemitism and that that makes everything okay. And that anybody who thinks otherwise is just carrying water for The Zionist Menace.
It was very disappointing.
Harlan Ellison once said that the two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity; surely boneheadedness must be somewhere in the top five.
As for David Gehrig "carrying water for the zionist menace", that isn't actually in dispute. Its something explicitly acknowledged including her:
As for the summary of the email exchange, its somewhat duplicitous, like the author himself.
Nobody takes it seriously anymore
Go ahead, by the way, and read the post he points to. And then ask yourself -- what is there in it that he finds so horrendous?
The answer, of course, is that it's the sort of blasphemy that one is not allowed to utter on UK Indymedia: that perhaps Israel was not a mistake, that perhaps the Palestinians have had a hand in determining their present status, that perhaps there's more to the conflict than "blame it all on one side."
That's one's not in their psalter, and to sing it is to render yourself a "racist" in their eyes. It's blasphemy.
By placing the marker about what constitutes leftist opinion on the subject so far out to the extremes -- well, talk about a one-way ticket to irrelevance.
Of course, adding lies on top of it is just a bonus. Because it's a private correspondence, I consider it confidential and can't repost it, but yes indeedy, folks, "Sam Wilson" did indeed argue that the blatantly antisemitic post in question wasn't really blatantly antisemitic after all and that it's a shame it was hidden without a fuller discussion.
So there's where it stands. UK Indymedia is of course absolutely against antisemitism whenever it sees it -- at least in theory. But given an actual example, an actually antisemitic post, it seems that "Sam"'s perfectly willing to tape over his own eyes and then intone, "Well, of course I'm absolutely against antisemitism when I see it."
And the average poster here will accept that without question.
Because this sleazey little backwater is the one that can lay claim to "a one-way ticket to irrelevance" with absolute justification.
If indymedia was as irrelevant as claimed, it would be sad to have a blog about it.
See, this is where the UK Indymedia blindness kicks in. (That and the inability to distinguish its from it's.) The article wasn't antisemitic because I say it is. I could call it a Shakespearean sonnet or a stack of cork coasters, but that wouldn't change what it is. The article was antisemitic because it was fatally shot through with the historical tropes of antisemitic rhetoric, without only the barest Groucho glasses and false nose to disguise it.
And I spent a mere 2500 words on UCIMC arguing a rock-solid case for exactly that.
But that case reached a conclusion "Sam" can't handle. So he must wave it away as mere assertion. Isn't that what Nixon used to do to the case against Nixon?
So tell us, "Sam" -- when standard, rote antisemitic motifs are used to attack organizations that are disproportionately Jewish, in what magic Lewis Carroll world is that not the exploitation of antisemitism?
Quick, don't answer that, tape over your eyes and grumble about Zionists instead!
Yes, and therefore anyone who doesn't agree with you must be wrong.
I understand your proposition perfectly - Gehrig is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
Thats what you accused Nixon of.
And there can be no worthwhile debate or discussion when someone is that sure of themselves.
I don't share your politics, nor your vision of an indymedia that is an employer, property owning and commission taking entity.
In your 2003 article you say :"You have to deal with arguments on a case by case basis" and now you show us how much you mean this by being prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
I do not accept your AUTHORITY regardless of whether you are from "global HQ" or not.
I'm all for IMC UK making up its own mind after a full and frank examination of the concepts and facts.
No way are you the right person to be our adviser on the issue of anti-semitism - you're too arrogant, too caught up in your own mission and too biased to be of any use whatsoever.
But of course not:
Get it before it's gone! ;)
And I did indeed deal with the blatantly antisemitic post you're now defending on a "case by case" basis. There's a long section of the 2500 essay specifically about the post. But you're flailing for excuses to pretend I haven't nailed it to the wall, and -- naturally enough -- you're trying to turn your own inability to spot blatant antisemitism into an indictment of "thought police."
You're doing quite badly. Maybe it's time for another one of those "who cares about this backwater site anyway" responses that you keep placing in this site you keep finding yourself drawn to again and again?
Do you consider the Landesman article to be tainted enough by antisemitism to be against the UK discrimination policy? You seem to indicate that. Do you mean it?
The same sentence repeated in several paragraphs "nailed it to the wall"?
So, starting with the Forbes source. Is the claim false?
If so, you haven't evidenced that in the article. You've just said that its anti-semitic to say it.
Nows your chance to tell us how petras got it wrong. That it simply isn't true.....
Where do the organisations in COPMAJO get their funding from?
Are there "Jewish funded PACs?"
Did they fund The election camapigns to the tune of 60% (Dem) and 35% (Rep)?
And finally, is it tryue that 99.5% of American Jews are zionists? Did that figure come from you gehrig?
Actually, that was from nessie, the terrorist fellating, (and terrorist funded) editor of SF. nessie's well documented as to his pathological hatred of the Jews.
Leftist mental cripples can't even try and bait someone without falling completely on their acne-cratered faces.
"Actually, that was from nessie, the terrorist fellating, (and terrorist funded) editor of SF."
not according to this:
Nessie believes that anyone who thinks Israel has any right at all to exist is automatically a "racist." When told that this makes 99.5% of American Jews "racists," nessie blamed the 99.5% of American Jews for being racist.
Nessie was told.
Rightist mental cripples can't even try and bait someone without falling completely on their acne-cratered faces.
I'll say this for you: like nessie you hang onto your horrific stupidity like a pit bull.
At least that's how UK Indymedia apparently sees it.
In British libel law, defamatory words are presumed false. Petras' article defames the Jews, although it does so in a way that apparently jibes with your own worldview, "Sam," what with these secret Jew organizations running things and all, and so you have no problem with it. In UK Indymedia, antisemitic rhetoric is presumed true as long as it comes in the right guises.
And I think "Sam" has some sense of just how badly he's losing the argument on points, because he keeps trying to bring in other topics -- UCIMC, nessie, etc. Presumably because he knows he's lost his core argument and is defending the antisemitism of an antisemitic post.
But don't stop now, "Sam"! Dig yourself deeper! There may still be some areas of your vast moral blindspot that you haven't yet exposed.
nope, it should be on those who have a problem with the article and/or those who demand political censorship on ideological grounds.
If Petras is evoking anti-semitic stereotypes with lies, then these lies should be laid bare.
But merely seeking to silence all examination of an allegedly powerful lobby by screaming anti-semitism, without disputing the facts, could be an unacceptable act of the very political censorship that you so often decry, no?
You haven't yet explained the origin of the claim that 99.5% of American Jews are zionists. You've repeated it often enough in posts.
It seems a dangerously high figure - as it conflates Jewishness and Zionism, making it clear that only an insignificant number of Jews are opposed to an ideology which serves to dehumanise and seeks to destroy the Palestinians.
You remember them?
The ones you left out of this formulation:
"Here's what I'd argue. Through most of history, your identity was tied to your land. You knew you were a Pole because you lived in Poland, or that you were Deutsch because you lived in Deutschland, or whatever. If your nation was conquered, then in a few generations your culture faded into history. Which is why you don't run into Babylonians anymore."
How about if you knew you were a Palestinian because you lived in Palestine?
There are certainly prominent Israelis who want the Palestinians to go the way of the Babylonians. Some of them have been in the Israeli cabinet. There are also enough zionist keyboard warriors who deny the very existence of the Palestinians, and who advoacate ethnic cleansing.
Ever heard this one?
Q:Whats the difference between the Israeli right and the Israeli left?
A:The Right want all Palestinians to be put on busses and driven to Jordan.
The left want those busses to be air-conditioned.
David IF I SAY THAT AN ARTICLE IS ANTI-SEMITIC YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT MY AUTHORITY AND REMOVE IT WITHOUT QUESTION Gehrig, when I lived in Apartheid South Afica I often heard the line that "you can only understand what happens here if you live here" said to overseas critics od apartheid.
Turned out that the critics understood perfectly what was going on, whilst the indigenous whites, with the overt political censorship they were subjected to, did not.
Now you would struggle to find a white South African who admits to supporting Apartheid.
"Yesterday the major Zionist organizations told us who we may or may not criticize in the Middle East, today they tell us who we may criticize in the United States, tomorrow they will tell us to bend our heads and submit to their lies and deceptions in order to engage in new wars of conquest at the service of a morally repugnant colonial regime."
Thats a claim from Petras. You appear to be intent on proving it.
Of course, Indymedia UK has the right to post all the antisemitism it wants. And it has the right to defend its posting of antisemitism all it wants.
But choices have consequences. And one of the consequences of UK Indymedia's defense of antisemitism is that it has completely destroyed its moral ground when it comes to the issue of antisemitism.
And, like you'd expect in any good case of cast-iron denial, "Sam"'s blaming the messenger.
UCIMC seems to be absolutely unable to do anything except resort to ad homs at this stage.
UCIMC also seems to be very keen on censoring any examination of a lobby that cheerlead the US adminsitration into a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
You will no doubt recall the article in question has been hidden by - wait for it - Indymedia UK.
In the same way that a Rolex wearer had a hand in their own mugging.....
"it has completely destroyed its moral ground "
Is that moral as in the "most moral army in the world"?
And he really did, immediately after saying "And where did I claim to be representing Indymedia uk?" turn around and suddenly assert that I'm representing UCIMC. And where did I claim to be representing UCIMC? The sample place I asserted that "Sam" is representing UK Indymedia -- nowhere.
Amateur hour, isn't it.
For what it's worth, here's the story on the "99.5%" bit.
Nessie the antisemite claimed that, by definition, anyone who thinks the state of Israel has a right to exist is as racist as the Nazis were. I suggested that this was a ridiculous statement for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that, because of the disproportionate way that criticism falls onto the Jews, it was inherently antisemitic. Nessie's stance was, "so what if it insults some Jews." My response was, "not _some_ Jews, but nearly every Jew in America." And I produced the Zogby poll of 2003 which showed that nessie's definition of "racist" -- the belief that Israel has the right to exist -- applied to literally 199 out of 200 Jews in America. And he has been stuck ever since trying to convince anyone in that now-infinitesimal set of people who still gives a shit what he thinks that, no, calling 99.5% of American Jews "racist" isn't an inherently antisemitic act, and that doing on the IMC network actually ennobles the IMCs rather than degrading them. That is, nessie thinks it's a _good_ thing if IMCs condemn 99.5% of American Jews as "racist."
As I've repeatedly noted, what's the difference between nessie and David Duke? David Duke wants you to hate 100% of American Jews. Nessie wants you to hate only 99.5%.
Nessie has his usual platter of patter that he spins up, but it's always stopped cold by a simple question: "Nessie, can you say in as many words that you do not hate 99.5% of American Jews?" He has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot. And when it was finally clear that he could not simply agree with such a simple statement, it was also finally clear that nessie is indeed an antisemite.
Let me add one other bit here -- a recently releasted poll from Quinnepac University asked Americans to rate how "friendly" or "unfriendly" some other nations are, on a scale of 1 to 100. The highest scores went to the UK (79), Canada (73), and Israel (68) in that order, followed by Germany, India, Mexico, Russia, France, China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq, down to a three-way tie between Syria, Cuba, and the PA (around 24), then Iran (16), then North Korea (14) at the bottom.
What's particularly interesting is that, despite all the noise you hear about how America is slowly turning against Israel, over the last year -- a year including the war in Lebanon -- Israel gained six percentage points.
You've attached yourself to a reformist liberal IMC and then proceeded to attack any IMC that reflects a view contrary to yours.
You've consistently attacked UK IMC:
"it's the sort of blasphemy that one is not allowed to utter on UK Indymedia"
"See, this is where the UK Indymedia blindness kicks in."
" In UK Indymedia, antisemitic rhetoric is presumed true as long as it comes in the right guises."
"After all, just because it's the ravings of an antisemite, well, still, the burden of disproving it should be on the Jews, right? Just like Petras' article.
At least that's how UK Indymedia apparently sees it."
" And one of the consequences of UK Indymedia's defense of antisemitism is that it has completely destroyed its moral ground when it comes to the issue of antisemitism."
and thats just from this thread. You've taken your experience of an individual and attacked the group that you identify them with. At the same time you've condemned the act of equating all Jews with a stereotype.
Do you see the hypocrisy of your own actions Mr. Gehrig?
No, you don't.
* rolling eyes *
One more once, as the musician said: I'm not attacking the Petras post because it's anti-Israel. There are plenty of anti-Israel posts on every IMC, including my own. Check it yourself, if you'd like.
If my goal was, as you keep erroneously asserting, shutting down any "view contrary to" mine, then I wouldn't have concentrated this entire thread on just one particular anti-Israel post when UK Indymedia is such a smorgasbord of same, and I sure wouldn't have kept the anti-Israel posts on UCIMC up when I could, as an editor, so easily and invisibly cause them to disappear.
What's the difference between anti-Israel posts I attack and ones I don't? Exactly that distinction, that broad and clear and cleanly spelled out distinction, that I am now giving up any hope you will ever be able to see. And that is that posts like Landeman's resonate with the classical tropes of antisemitic rhetoric, for exactly the reasons I spelled out, and I attack them for resonating with the classical tropes of antisemitism.
And your concluding argument in your post seems to be that I shouldn't conclude that all of UK Indymedia is as clueless when it comes to antisemitism as you are. Is that what you really meant to imply?
Of what possible use can it be for any Indymedia to host an anti-Israel post not just I but most Jewish readers would consider offensively antisemitic? Who benefits? The Palestinians? No -- all you've done is taint their cause with antisemitism. The Israeli left? No -- all you've done is provide more evidence supporting the right wing assertion that "anti-Israel = antisemitic."
If Indymedia ever wants to become a voice in the Israel/Palestinian conflict of anything besides valueless bugeyed rage, it will have to do -- consistently -- what the Landesman article fails to do, which is to separate antisemitic arguments from anti-Israel arguments.
There are Indymedia people who get this.
There are Indymedia people who don't get it yet but will.
There are Indymedia people who don't and won't.
Anyway, want the last word? It seems to mean a lot to you. Go ahead and grab it.
No. It implied that you're a bigot. And that its amazing hypocrisy to spend your life combatting bigotry of one particular brand whilst displaying bigotry yourself. It brings your sensitivity on the subject into serious disrepute.
And is there any way that a powerful lobby can be discussed without resonating with the classical tropes of anti-semitism?
Forbes is either mainly accurate or mainly wrong.
Richard Cohen is either correct about the levels of funding, or he is not.
Petras is either consciously or unconsciously trying to provoke hatred against Jews, or he is not.
The line from you is that everything is irrelevant because it discusses a powerful lobby that closely identifies itself with Jews, and the anti-semitic trope is that there is a secret cabal of Jews who rule the world.
Which isn't the same thing.
The last commentator on your follow up says:
""(b) Zionist organizations, through their uncountable wealth, run the world's media, financial institutions, and political parties (and thereby governments) as part of a secret global hegemony designed to further their own interests at the expense of the world at large."
Anti-Semitism defiitely does exist among some on the left but I think that your oversimplify it a bit. Mearsheimer and Wash (who are not are not really on the left) are probably not antiSemitic but their arguments can sound like "b" in that it talks about US foreign policy being influenced by proIsrael lobbies. Looking through their work I think one could argue it has a slightly antiSemitic tone but does leave open the question about how one can talk about groups like AIPAC and JINSA in a critical fashion without sounding like one is talking about a "Jewish" conspiracy. As someone who is Jewish I think the difference between complaints about the power or AIPAC that are based on traditional antiSemitic conspiracies and criticism based on political disagreement are somewhat clear but thats mainly because within the Jewish community such arguments are akin to arguing about the politics of the NAACP within the African American community. From the outside its hard for the arguments not to sound biggoted but when many of the current (and future) wars around the world center around Israel (Lebanon, Iraq and Iran) you cant expect nonJews to not talk about the influence of proIsrael NGOs...."
Is there, in your knowledge, an examination of the power of organisations such as AIPAC which suceeds in not resonating with the classical trope. If not, is it possible that one could be written?
Or is discussion of the issue forbidden?
So far, your argument is for censorship.
If I've got you wrong, you have an opportunity to clarify.
What does it take for them to cave in?
A Democratic victory in both houses.
Sad but partially true.
Really? Seems to me that your posts stay up and your side represented in all media outlets. Censorship because folks don’t buy your conclusion? Well, I apologize for the intelligence most American’s seem to posses in this matter. Perhaps you should work harder for a state controlled solution to this clear “moral discrepancy” Sam.
Wow, what a deep and well stated theory. Are there any other aspects of life that you wish to shed your wisdom on?
And as much as you would like to think, and like to argue that it is the “Israel lobby” that controls American policy and the hearts of a massive majority of American hearts, it has nothing to do with AIPAC, but because rational individuals understand Israel is the lone liberal democracy sounded by nations and organizations that wish to DESTROY IT. I know this will seem like a trivial point to you, but it is at the heart of a rational individual’s support for Israel, and why we will continue to poke holes in Indymedia’s bias against them.
I know this will fall on deaf ears, so I will go enjoy the West Wing and let you sink into your circular fallacy.
"It [the claim that 99.5% of American Jews are zionists] seems a dangerously high figure - as it conflates Jewishness and Zionism, making it clear that only an insignificant number of Jews are opposed to an ideology which serves to dehumanise and seeks to destroy the Palestinians."
LMFAO... this clown and liar may as well "knight" himself as the British version of 'nessie' who insists Zionism is the Jewish version of Nazism.
What follows doesn't even merit a single comment:
" " perhaps the Palestinians have had a hand in determining their present status"
In the same way that a Rolex wearer had a hand in their own mugging....."
""it has completely destroyed its moral ground "
Is that moral as in the "most moral army in the world"?"
What other government occupies the West Bank and Gaza?
Define "occupies". Define "justice".
Be specific. Give examples.
That's a logical fallacy. Only one government occupies the so-called West Bank and Gaza. It is the Hamas Palestinian government.
heard it before
not real name
a bunch of complete fools
see what I mean?
since you asked