Banned

If you hide the looney right-wing posts and leave up teh left wing posts the effect makes the right wing opinion look less crazy than it really is.

For example, the posts by fresca that have not been hidden are proIsrael and somewhat sane, but his posts calling for concentration camps for Palestinians etc.. get hidden and it makes it less clear to those listening that the opinions of the proIsraeli right are more than just wrongheaded.

Some of the rightwing posts are disruptive but how do you ballance that with allowing activists to see the true face of those we oppose...

They can read it on another site. The people who make this site possible refuse to allow our time, money, energy, talent and skill be hijacked by a bunch of villains and *ssholes to be used as a soapbox for their sick, evil bullsh*t.

it criticized our editorial policy in an inappropriate thread. If it happens again, Boswell will be banned and all his comments removed.

How many of the readers of indymedia are law enforcement?

http://merlin.raisethefist.com/catic/catic_23.html
http://merlin.raisethefist.com/catic/catic_24.html

I see Anti-Zionism and Anti-Jewish people here every day. In fact anyone that knows of your website thinks of it as being the "Jew Hating" website.

It's offensive, but more than that, it's racism.

In addition, is it okay for people here to hate caucasians, though they themselves usually are caucasian? These people also do not get banned.

These are not the same thing. To say they are is racist.

Anti-Semitism is forbidden on SF-IMC. Anti-Zionism is encouraged.

Thank you for the job you are doing. Because of efforts like yours, I have a much better sense of where our movement is headed.

In the struggle.

maybe both groups should be more specific about the root reason why they are "zionist" or "anti zionist" for example

anti-sematism is presumably banned because it is racist - absolutly nothing to do with who that racism might be directed at. (which is a good thing)
At the same time anti-zionism is encouraged yet there could be multiple debatably good and debatably bad reasons for that.

for example being anti zionist because israel(zion) has jews in it would be a "bad' reason - that is the one that holocaust deniers and nazis might use.
others might say anti-zionism is good because israel (zion) because it is a state and states are bad (ie anarchy is better) - some might agree with that (most wouldnt but at least it isnt as bad as the first one)
Some might say israel is bad for some other reason like it's history or it ignoring a two state solution.

At any rate if you all group yourself together as "anti zionists" you create a litle confusin with the "zionists" as to whether your an anarchist a socialist or a facist.

" BAN THE EDITORS!!!!
by CENSORSHIP SUCKS!!!! Sunday August 24, 2003 at 08:33 PM:
FUCK THE FASCIST CENSORSHIP BOARD!
WE DEMAND THEY ALL BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY!!! "


Response: Do us all a favor: HOLD YOUR BREATH!!

Thanks. We try.

Struggle is certainly the right word for it. If we editors didn't mop up around here on a regular basis, our enemies would make this place totally unusable. Most of you have no idea how bad the flood of malicious tripe and gibberish is, because you never see it. We get to it first Some days we are bombarded with literally hundreds and hundreds of hate posts. It’s like war.

See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1556221_comment.php#1556637

We take it as a compliment, of course. We must be doing something right, or we would be under such intense attack. But it is a lot of work.

For a taste of what it’s like, see:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U348631B5

Note the dates and times.

And those are only the posts. You can imagine how many, many more comments we have to deal with.

Suitable for removal is exactly how I feel about Zionists on SF-IMC, with your constant pornographic impersonations and juvenile, misogynist, pornographic slurs.

Ever hear?: You reap what you sow.

I'll bet there will be more!

HAMAS

We're all volunteers. We do this for love, not money.

I am glad that anti-Zionism is encouraged as Zionism is racism and an ideology of imperialism but anti-Semitism is not banned on this website. See, e.g., http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/08/1635303.php

It is not the picture but the very old implication in the story of "sinister Jewish money" controlling things.

We all do thank the many volunteers that make this website possible. We do wish, however, that those among the volunteers who do not understand that the cited article is anti-Semitic ask your Jewish members of your staff and your friends. The older we are, the more examples we can cite of anti-Semitism in history and in our experience.

This "Rothschild Jewish banking family controlling everything "anti-Semitic lie is promoted by, among others, college professors, of whom I had one, right here in the San Francisco Bay Area during the height of the protests against the Vietnam War in this hotbed of radicalism. Being the only Jewish student in the class, I condemned it and no one else, not even the other "radical" students, which I also was, supported me. We were all the first generation after World War 2, yet nothing had been learned.

I had many other experiences of anti-Semitism at the hands of students and teachers, including having a dozen eggs thrown at our house for protesting anti-Semitism. The wealthy father of one of the hoodlum boys who did it came to our house, after being visited by the police, and told my father he was too sensitive to anti-Semitism when we protested the egg-throwing incident. My father, all 5'6" of him, with his booming voice from his barrel chest, told this rich snot, "You're damned right I am sensitive to anti-Semitism!" as he slammed the door in the face of that rich parasite with his beefy cook's arms. I was real proud of Dad and I will never, ever forget the whole incident. I was 15 years old and I watched the whole scene.

Please make some effort to learn the many facets of anti-Semitism and remove the anti-Semitic posts from this website. Thank you.

That's not what the article says. Either you're reading comprehension skills are abysmal, or you're intentionally dissembling.

If you consider it anti-Semitic to criticize anyone who is Jewish, you're a racist. Being Jewish is not what’s wrong with the Rothchilds anymore than being Christian is what’s wrong with the Gettys. Being rich is what’s wrong with the Rothchilds, and with the Gettys and with the rest of the villainous scum who rule this world.

"If you consider it anti-Semitic to criticize anyone who is Jewish, you're a racist. being Jewish is not what’s wrong with the Rothchilds anymore than being Christian is what’s wrong with the Gettys. Being rich is what’s wrong with the Rothchilds, and with the Gettys and with the rest of the villainous scum who rule this world."

This is a good example of why relying on slogans will fail people if they make decisions about racism in a historical vacuum. The old narrative that Jewish bankers control the world financial system but this narrative was one of the central foundations of pre-WWII anti-semitism. It contributed in part to the dehumanization of both rich and poor Jews.

The fact this old narrative is being revived in the context of anti-Zionism is indeed upsetting. I know "one of the editors" means well but perhaps he/she should spend some time reading about what historical anti-semitic narratives are so that they can spotted or at least not dismissed with sneering contempt.

The Rothchilds, like the rest of the global ruling class, are evil, brutal, ruthless, amoral, blood sucking parasites. To exclude them from criticism for their evil, solely because they are Jews, is racist. Period. End of story.

The editor promoting anti-Semitism with the anti-Semitic Rothschilds story clearly is profoundly ignorant and does not wish to learn. Such a person has no business being an editor. The story has not ended and will not end until anti-Semitism has ended and that can only occur after capitalism ends.

The reason the Zionists have any base in the official religious Jewish community is because of this anti-Semitism. Whether we are atheists of Jewish descent, the most common variety of Jewish in the US that includes this writer, or religious, we are all very aware of all facets of anti-Semitism and unlike the editors of this website, know the 2,000 year history of anti-Semitism very well, because we experience it daily.

Until the Rothschilds article and all other anti-Semitic articles are removed from this website, this website is correctly described as an anti-Semitic website.

Anti-Semitism among the Left is nothing new. This writer has experienced that too. It is usually based on profound ignorance which is clearly the problem with the editor monitoring this article.

The current preoccupation with the Israel garbage has certainly become a cover for anti-Semitism, and we are all very aware of that fact. Miserable little Israel is just a US military base used to protect US oil profits in the Middle East. The main problem is US imperialism.

The horrors being perpetrated by Israel with our tax dollars guarantee that Israel is a death trap for Jews and Arabs, and are no different from the horrors being perpetrated by the horrors of fascist US puppet states all around the world. Whether it be the mass genocide in African countries, the millions of people murdered in Latin America annually for labor organizing, peasant organizing and the like, the daily police state terror and murder in the workingclass communities of the United States, Europe and Asia, they are all the same problem: capitalism in its highest stage, namely imperialism.

It is clear the younger generation of the Left continues to carry on with the same ignorance and refusal to act against anti-Semitism as the older generations, guaranteeing the continued existence of all the Zionist organizations. Solving the problems of the world starts with looking in the mirror at yourself. When you get rid of your anti-Semitism, then you can tell others what to do.

I, for one, will continue to protest the anti-Semitism of this website, and everywhere else, just as I protest the Zionist government of Israel. The Rothschilds article is anti-Semitic. Remove it from this website now or live with the moniker: Anti-Semitic Website.

Slogans are Scary: " The fact this old narrative is being revived in the context of anti-Zionism is indeed upsetting. I know "one of the editors" means well but perhaps he/she should spend some time reading about what historical anti-semitic narratives are so that they can spotted or at least not dismissed with sneering contempt."

This is exactly on target.

One of the most frequently repeated slogans is "it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism," as if being one somehow precludes the other. And while the Indybay editors can occasionally grudgingly acknowledge that, yes, there have been cases on Indybay where antisemites are exploiting anti-Zionism as a way to get their anti-Jew licks in, they note only the most extreme examples -- say, when the neo-Nazi National Alliance set up a false-front site earlier this year -- but let the rest pass without as much as a blink of an eye.

They see nothing wrong, in principle, with saying that the Zionists control the world press, the US Government, international financial institutions, the legal system, and so on. They just don't see how they're just dressing up old antisemitic rhetoric with only a couple of Post-It notes covering the word "Jews" and replacing them with "Zionists."

Ultimately, this is a moral decision, and it's one that the Indybay editors are failing. They don't want to see it, so they don't see it. Or they only see it in the most extreme examples, and are perfectly fine accepting codewords at face value the rest of the time. Or they claim that the extreme examples are really only Zionist plants, and balm their consciences that way.

When I first started reading this site, I didn't think that antisemitism among the progressives was a serious problem. I am no longer so sanguine.

@%<

>the anti-Semitic Rothschilds story

The Rothschilds story is not anti-Semitic. It’s anti-banker. One cannot be anti-banker without also being anti-Rothchild because the Rothchilds are bankers. To criticize all bankers except the ones who are Jewish, is racist. To purport that Jews should not be criticized, is racist. Gehrig, is racist


>One of the most frequently repeated slogans is "it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism," as if being one somehow precludes the other.

Of course one does not preclude the other. However, that one does not preclude the other is irrelevant because, while all anti-Semites are anti-Zionists, all anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites. This is what we who are familiar with logic call a “category error.” It is also racist. Gehrig is a racist


>They see nothing wrong, in principle, with saying that the Zionists control the world press, the US Government, international financial institutions, the legal system, and so on.

Gehrig has it backwards. The people who control the world press, the US Government, international financial institutions, the legal system, and so on, are, for the most part, also Zionists. If they weren’t, Israel would not exist. However, they are not all Jews. The overwhelming majority of the world’s ruling class are not Jews. That does not preclude their being Zionists. To be a Zionist, one need not be Jewish. To be a Zionist, one need merely support the existence of the state of Israel. To say otherwise is not only at odds with the facts, it is also racist. Gehrig is a racist.


>When I first started reading this site, I didn't think that antisemitism among the progressives was a serious problem. I am no longer so sanguine.

When I first started fighting what I perceived to anti-Semitism (literally, with my fists, and at a very young age) I was under the misimpression that anyone who attacked a Jew, any Jew, was an anti-Semite. This is an inherently racist analysis. Since then I grew up. Gehrig has not. Gehrig is still a racist.

Racists are not permitted to spew their lies on this site. Yet Gehrig appears here every day. Every day, he spews the same set of lies, all a version of “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” So the question arises, why is Gehrig different from all other racists?

He’s not. He’s merely the one we employ as a foil. Who better here could better illustrate the intrinsic racism that is the essence of Zionism, than an ultimately predictable, wholly monothematic, obsessive compulsive?

That’s not a rhetorical question. Find one, and we’ll replace Gehrig. In the mean time, if you ever wonder what a Jewish racist sounds like, just read Gehrig. Not all Jews are racists. Not all racists are Jews. Gehrig, however, is both. If he is also anything else, except perhaps a baseball fan, he has failed to display it here. Here, he does one thing, and one thing only. He embarrasses non racist Jews. What a waste.

Il Duce: "The Rothschilds story is not anti-Semitic. It’s anti-banker. One cannot be anti-banker without also being anti-Rothchild because the Rothchilds are bankers."

You demonstrate your ignorance of a long, long, long history of antisemitic rhetoric connected with the "Jewish international moneyhandlers" and their connection with the Rothschilds. You think it's just coincidence that this name came up, out of _all the bankers in the world?_ You think it's just, hey whattaya know, how 'bout that, whatta coinky-dink that it just happens to parallel a centuries-old antisemitic slur naming the Rothschilds by name? Your naivete would blanche Pangloss. Wow, whatta coincidence that it just happens to be wired straight into a true-blue, four-star antisemitic canard, and feckless, clueless Il Duce can't see anything wrong with that.

Il Duce: "To criticize all bankers except the ones who are Jewish, is racist. To purport that Jews should not be criticized, is racist."

You can jam that straw man up your ass.

If you can point to a serious post by anyone at any time in the last six months arguing that the Rothschilds should be immune from criticism, post it here and I will send Indybay one hundred dollars. The Rothschilds should not be subject to _antisemitic_ criticism. See the distinction, o self-appointed master of logic?

And if you can point to a post from me in which _I_ say that "Jews should not be criticized," and I'll make it two hundred dollars. Jews should not be subject to _antisemitic_ criticism. See the distinction, o self-appointed master of logic?

The point, which your political prejudices are forcing you to ignore or pretend you don't see, is that there's _nobody_ saying "you can't criticize Israel" -- only that there are some kinds of criticism which are inherently antisemitic and which should be avoided by anyone who isn't an utter social sleezebag, a category I'd earnestly like to exclude the Indybay editors from but cannot given the current evidence.

Il Duce: " Of course one does not preclude the other. However, that one does not preclude the other is irrelevant because, while all anti-Semites are anti-Zionists, all anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites."

Oh, _brother_ -- and you claim that you can lecture _others_ on fundamental logic and category errors? You're embarrasing yourself! Your argument here is "Since not all A are B, we are justified in pretending _no_ A is B, and let's just treat B and A as mutually exclusive, and if you object I'll call you a racist."

Way to go, ace. "Not all A are B" is not the same as "No A are B." Study this one hard, and you won't make the same mistake for the five hundredth time running. Won't that feel swell!

There's been no shortage of anti-Israel rhetoric from antisemites on this board, although in each case you've rushed to sweep in and say "golly, another disconnected incident unassociated in any way with all the _other_ similar disconnected incidents that happen with such regularity, each of which in turn is unrelated to all the others."

And that leaves you with an awkward, awkward problem -- what do you do with the stuff that is _both_ A and B? And what you do, based on your dreary and dismal past performance, is usually ANY GODDAMNED THING IN THE WORLD TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND MAINTAIN YOUR DENIAL. Such as:

Il Duce: "Gehrig is a racist."

Eat me, Il Duce. If you think I'm a racist, why don't you ban my ass from this board, like you keep threatening to and then keep weaseling away from? I'll tell you why -- because, despite all your swagger, you realize that you'd only be making my case for me, and you realize that banning me would be an admission that your stance is at root no different than "la-la-la-la I-can't-HEAR-you."

Suppose someone were to say, "The problem with tenors is that they're Guinness-swilling drunkard football-hooligan family-of-fourteen Papist whiskey-for-breakfast corned-beef-and-cabbage-eaters." Suppose someone else were to say, "What an offensive use of stereotypes of the Irish." Would Il Duce then charge in and say, "No, nothing anti-Irish about it, since not all tenors are Irish -- and you must be an Irish agent to object to it"? That would be absurd -- but no more absurd than your current stance on antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

Il Duce: "The people who control the world press, the US Government, international financial institutions, the legal system, and so on, are, for the most part, also Zionists, yammity yammity meander yammity..."

Wow. You _really are_ completely tonedeaf on the antisemitic stereotype issue, aren't you. You absolutely don't hear what you're saying. And that's why you're getting so much criticism on the antisemitism issue, you poor fool, and you _just don't get why_.

Il Duce: "Gehrig is a racist."

Eat me, il Duce. Your condemnation would only bother me if I had any regard for either your intellectual honesty or your reading comprehension.

Il Duce: "I was under the misimpression that anyone who attacked a Jew, any Jew, was an anti-Semite. ... Since then I grew up. Gehrig has not."

How stupid _is_ Dumbfock Holmes? Obviously, very goddamned dumb. Worse, he's _serenely_ dumb. How do we know this? Because he's seen me explain, time and time again, that I don't consider _any_ criticism of _anything_ Jewish to be _automatically_ inherently antisemitic -- THAT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ANTISEMITIC DEPENDS (I'm typing in all caps here in case Il Duce's eyes are failing as badly as his brain) ON THE NATURE OF THE CRITICISM ITSELF. You can attack _cigarettes_ in an antisemitic way, but that doesn't make attacking cigarettes automatically antisemitic. You can attack _sitcoms_ in an antisemitic way, but that doesn't make attacking sitcoms automatically antisemitic. And you can attack _Zionism_ in an antisemitic way, but that doesn't make attacking _Zionism_ automatically antisemitic.

Watch, folks -- in two days Il Duce will again say "Gehrig believes attacking Zionism is antisemitic." Why? Either because he's an idiot, or because he finds it rhetorically convenient to simply lie through his teeth when the spirit moves him. You decide; I vote for dumb. That one crucial mental cog remains frozen in place, and he still thinks _I_ think any criticism of a Jew is inherently antisemitic.

And this is _such_ a simple point, and Il Duce is having _such_ a gargantuan godawful time getting it through his head, that I can't help thinking that he simply chooses to keep himself from understanding it. Why? Because then he'd have to accept that, yes, Indybay is indeed hosting an awful lot of egregious antisemitic commentary _alongside_ more legitimate criticism of Israel. And then he'd think: "- Oh no! The Zionist was right!" And then his head would explode.

Il Duce: "Gehrig is still a racist."

Still eat me, Il Duce.

Il Duce: "Yet Gehrig appears here every day. Every day, he spews the same set of lies, all a version of “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”"

Poor Il Duce! No matter how many times I explain, he's still stuck a couple laps behind. One more time, Il Duce, although this must be the twentieth time that your three remaining braincells have withstood the onslaught of this simple fact, successfully avoided the acquisition of new knowledge, and then chortled to themselves joyously over their 'victory': no, I don't think that anti-Zionism is _automatically_ antisemitism. But you'd have to be an utter drooling fool -- in fact, as much a fool as Il Duce here -- to believe that anti-Zionism is _never_ antisemitism.

You're making a fundamental category error, and you'll defend that error to the death rather than reexamine it. Category A: antisemitic criticism of Israel. Category B: non-antisemitic criticism of Israel. The Il Duce solution: there are not two categories, there is only one. When I say A, Il Duce will talk about B but claim it's the same thing. Reminding him that there is also A makes his brain itch painfully, so he avoids it at all costs (by calling me racist, among other things).

One more time, so that, in a few days, you can pretend once again that I've never said it and actually said something different: "Criticism of Israel or Zionism is _not_ automatically antisemitic. Criticism of Israel or Zionism using antisemitic rhetoric or stereotypes _is_ inherently antisemitic. Only a fool pretends the latter case doesn't happen, especially on Indybay. Il Duce is in denial about it, though, and so he jams his fingers in his ear and says 'la-la-la-la GEHRIG-IS-RACIST la-la-la-la."

@%<