The Sad Decline of Indymedia by Chuck0 for InfoShop news 7:40am Mon Dec 9 '02 It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media production... print article December 8, 2002 It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media production. The IMC network recently observed its 3rd anniversary and the 100th IMC went online, but the IMC project is facing some serious problems which, if they aren't addressed by the supporters of the IMC network, will eventually destroy the wonderful idea that is Indymedia. There are some that would argue that the Indymedia network needs a stronger organization to address its current and persistent problems. This may be somewhat true, but those of us who have pressed for reforms find ourselves at the mercy of a network of people who are afraid to step forward and make tough decisions. It might help if there were some more organized processes, but I see the chief problem with Indymedia these days to be a political one, not an organizational or technical problem. The IMC Network has a statement of principles and so do most local IMCs. However, the political orientation of the IMC has never been firmly established. Other IMC volunteers and myself have strongly argued for a series of regional IMC meetings and conventions to resolve these questions. The problems with the IMC's vague politics is not so much what ideology it should embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC Network rejectsand opposes. This vagueness on politics has allowed an international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and reputation in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes. If you are a regular visitor to the IMC-Global website (http://www.indymedia.org), you may have noticed some big changes earlier this year. The "open" newswire was moved off the front page for a variety of reasons. The most diplomatic reason was that many felt that the features being created by local IMCs should be featured on the Global website. This was a solid idea and should have been implemented despite the other reasons. The messier reason why the open newsire was relocated was because the IMC Global volunteers were fighting a losing campaign against right wing disruption of the website. This disruption aimed to establish "free speech" space on the Indymedia websites for right wing views and racist posts--the people doing this knew that the liberal free speech attitudes of most IMC volunteers would paralyze them from implementing consistent moderation. This right wing attack also included the posting of constant anti-semitic content, right wing op-eds and articles (carefully stripped of their source infromation), conspiracy theories, and other crap designed to ruin the reputation of the Independent Media Network. I was part of the IMC Global Newswire collective during this period and made proposals concerning a process to deal with this problems. I also painstakenly documented the attack patterns by the right wingers and showed that certain individuals were posting similar content at the same time to various IMCs. This campaign by our enemies was successful because the IMC volunteers refused to implement aggressive moderation and otherwise dragged their feet until the changes were made earlier this year. What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we lost the Indymedia network as a public space for our activists. If you remember what the IMC websites were like in the year after Seattle, you will remember them as places where activists came together to talk about issues. After the right wingers had their way for a year, you would commonly hear activists complain about Indymedia and say that they didn't bother with Indymedia anymore. Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive action against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged the Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of color. We understand that some pro-Israel extremists think that anycriticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the IMC network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles, opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC network is that most activists refused to stand up to the free speech totalitarians within the network, who argued that everything posted should stay visible to the public. I've been a free speech advocate for many years and often considered myself to be a free speech zealot, but not even I would argue that our websites should provide anyspace for right wing and racist views. The racists have their websites--we don't need to use our limited resources to promote their hideous and offensive views. The net result of this inaction is that racist and anti-semitic views became normalizedon Indymedia websites. Sure, newswire moderators would remove the occasional racist rant or picture, but lots of stuff was left online. This normalizationof racist content showed the racists and right wingers that they could have their way with Indymedia. It also alienated lots of potential Indymedia supporters. Why should a Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech against that person? I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the activist community (and movements). I still remain a big supporter of the Indymedia project. The Indymedia project has become a revolutionary force that has greatly empowered DIY journalists, rank-and-file activists, and average working people. This essay is not meant to criticize IMC volunteers, rather to call out to supporters of alternative media projects to speak up and demand that the IMC make some tough decisions to address these vexing and persistent problems. The Indymedia project has great potential. Let's not throw out the baby with bathwater in our efforts not to step on toes. portland.indymedia.org/front.html3?articl... add your comments Source file

A suggestio by vhyujf 10:04pm Tue Dec 10 '02 address: bnk phone: b kjg bkjg print comment The reason why the "decline of Indymedia" is inherent, is because you fascist like to see yourselves as outsiders. In fact the Media in America is cdontrolled by fascist such as yourselves. To wit - The Fascist new York Times an ultra-liberal rag is not only extremely liberal if someone writes something t6hat disagrees with the lib eral rulership they won't be published. Just like in the satanic and fascist Baath/satan party in "iraq" DEATH TO SATANISM (JISLM) and DEATH TO THE MUSLOFASCIST SUPPORTERS (NATIONALIST SOCIALISTS) b jgt add your comments

ah by len 10:19pm Tue Dec 10 '02 print comment You illustrate the problem perfectly add your comments

Rights and responsibilities - an example by TeeJay 7:43am Fri Dec 13 '02 print comment The following are the "rules" for PCGamer Forum in the UK. I know it is just a videogaming site, but it has some of the best political discussion of anywhere I have ever been on the internet bar none. All *points of view* are tolerated but gratuitously offensive comments are not as they they don't allow free speech they destroy it. It is just lik being in a room full of people and having extremists deliberately provoking fights and violence. Anyway enough of me, here's the rules (London stylee): IF NEW TO THE FORUM, READ THIS MESSAGE. IGNORANCE OF THE RULES OF THE FORUM WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EXCUSE FROM THE MANAGEMENT. THANK-YOU. Welcome to the PC GAMER forum! It's a forum for the readers of PC GAMER magazine - and other assorted good folk - to discuss matters pertaining PC games. Read this entire message before considering entering. It'll be better for all of us. Please practice general netiquette at all times. Do not write your messages in ALL CAPS, as it makes you look like as if you're screaming, or just a mad raving lunatic. Do not insult people pointlessly. Do not troll by saying pointlessly provocative titles. Do not be a fool. This isn't Tellytubbies, so we don't want to set a strict rule regarding language, except it header titles described below. Consider the average level of expletives considered reasonable in pleasant company. Note that people whose posts consist of nothing but expletives will be gagged. In order to make this thing work, I will be sending my team to sterilise threads that serve no use. These include personally abusive, grotesquely off-topic and desperately surreal threads. This is not a democracy. This is a semi-benevolent dictatorship. Behave. Some threads are clearly started without thought. The response to it shouldn't be flaming the unfortunate in question - this just perpetuates the nasty atmosphere and in many cases its ignorance of what's been discussed and allowed in the forum rather than genuine maliciousness. A thread that you believe should be deleted, simply post a message asking me to remove the thread, with me in the "To" part of the message. I will look at the thread and delete it if I agree with you. If you see that someone else has already posted to the thread asking to remove it - and you agree with them - don't post anything else to the thread Why? Because if you post to it, it skips to the top of the list. By posting to it, you're making it more visible to everyone else. Essentially, it means you make more prominent whatever ridiculous opinion you despise so much. So, if you really care, don't post anything in these threads. That last one's he important one. It's especially aimed at those who like to think themselves as forum regulars. If you want a good forum, obey. Discussions of races/countries/groups/whatevers foibles generally will be deleted. Discussions about races/countries/groups/whatevers specifically are generally reasonable. For example, a discussion about the vagaries of the American election is reasonable. A discussion about all Americans being evil will lead to you being gagged. When entitling a thread, don't put an expletive in it. Reasonable swearing is acceptable within a message, but not in the title. It looks tacky and reduces the atmosphere of the forum. Doing it repeatedly will lead to gagging. Complaints about gagging should go to Me. Include your log-in name so I can remember why I nuked you. Note, I'm doing this for kicks. I don't get paid for it. Equally, I'm not able to insult you back due to being an efficient employee. This means, like waitresses and barstaff, I hold the right not to deal with you if you're being abusive to me. This is, of course, different to criticising my work. Calling me by any expletive will get you - yes, you've guessed it - gagged. Finally, don't come to me with freedom of speech arguments. This is a house. If you insult anyone or act a fool inside my house, I make you leave. Yours, A Higher Moral Authority. add your comments

Capitalist Conspiracy Theory by free marketeer 8:10pm Fri Dec 20 '02 print comment It's pretty funny to see Chuck0 ranting against conspiracy theories when he is a proponent of one of the biggest ones - that capitalism is a big conspiracy by anyone who wants to own property or make a profit to enslave everyone else who happens to own less property or make less profit. And of course he is as bigoted against them as Hitler was against the Jews and like Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot, etc. would throw them all in camps -- unless he just exterminated them. I do agree that the obviously racist stuff should be banned, but characterizing as "right wing" the 95% of humanity that just wants to do a little business and banning their free speech is definitly fanatical and bigotted. add your comments

It is worth it. by Ipomea 1:14am Sat Dec 28 '02 [email protected] print comment New to Forum. Dialog, disagreement, etc is what ultimately gives us a critical eye to all media. Hatred and vitreol are not useful in this process. If ones language is limited to outbursts of racism and anger, there is no dialog. Freedom of speech includes freedom of listening. If one does only half, it is neither communication or constructive. I say nuke-em if they can't engage constructively. add your comments

whatever by whatever 12:39pm Sun Dec 29 '02 address: whatever phone: whatever whatever print comment this form of broadcoast and discussion is no rather a "leftist" project, than a "rightist". It is just a political and democratic one. So this ought to be the point from which the fight against undemocratic statements should start: The so called "democratic consensus", rather than a certain leftist position yet to be found. There is just one "problem": this would also lead to the expulsion of any kind of stalinist approach. As a regular observer of my local Indymedia, to me it seems to be a leftist phenomenon to call each other "stalinists" (or similar constructs), and there is absolutely no consensus on who is and who is not. So how can local "indymedia-chiefs" be prevented from using their censorship-powers to push forward their definition of "stalinism"? There is one possibility offering itself: no comments allowed, just pure (!)independent(!) broadcast, maybe accompanied by a series of comments by the local staff. A collective of related local newspapers. And the readers in the role of judges, who have to decide whom to trust. At least the two parts (broadcast/scussion) should be stronger divided than they are now. add your comments

A somehow related discusion in indyArgentina by Herr Doktor (es mi nick y no lo cambio) 4:24pm Sat Jan 11 '03 print comment Only problem: it´s in spanish and I am a really lousy translator, so you should stick to it. Sorry. Use babelfish if you want. http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/75202.html Another: http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/75137.html http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/74817.html http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/74588.html http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/74630.html add your comments

Bash the Anti-Globalization Twits by Pro Global 2:34pm Mon Jan 13 '03 print comment Anti-globalization protesters are modern-day Luddites - ICC President Davos, Switzerland, 26 January 2001 - As protesters against globalization attempt to penetrate the World Economic Forum, BBC News Online invited ICC President Richard D. McCormick to make the case for the global economy and the positive role of business in the battle against poverty. Mr McCormick, in Davos for the Forum, said it was time for business to put the record straight in face of "cheap sloganeering and mindless vandalism" of protesters who have staged noisy and sometimes violent demonstrations at major international meetings from Seattle to Prague. His article was carried in the BBC'S "Head to Head" feature, together with one by Barry Coates of the World Development Movement. The BBC asked whether the protesters were right to target the World Economic Forum. Mr McCormick said that, without globalization "the developing world and millions in it who live in extreme poverty will lose the best chance they have of improving their lot in life." He noted that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan will be reporting to the assembled government and business leaders on the progress of his Global Compact with business. The ICC President then added: "The UN and business should, and do, work together in promoting the values they share in the areas of human rights, labour standards and environmental protection. Asserting that multinational companies are a powerful force for good in the world, Mr. McCormick said: "They spread wealth, work, technologies that raise living standards and better ways of doing business. That's why so many developing countries are competing for investment." He described the street protesters who wanted to disrupt the Davos meeting as "modern-day Luddites who want to make the world safe for stagnation" and said that their hostility to business made them the enemy of the world's poor." Barry Coates condemned what he called "the Davos business model" which he said was unregulated, exclusive and beyond the reach of government. Head to Head - debating globalization add your comments

'The heart is purified by faith,, by GOSPEL 8:35am Wed Jan 15 '03 print comment 'The heart is purified by faith not by circumcision or the law of Moses." Acts 15:19. add your comments

Indymedia's Pet Goldsteins by commie basher 7:56am Fri Jan 17 '03 print comment You Indymedia freaks trying to make us all laugh? Trying to convince us that you were outraged by Goldstein? You Indymedia racists have been touting and promoting thousands of Palestinian Goldsteins since you got started. Goldstein was universally condemned by every single part of the Israeli political spectrum, while the Palestinian nazis are justified and blessed not only by every single part of the Arab spectrum, including Israeli Arab fascists like Bashara and Tibi, but by the entire Indymedia anti-Jewish Fanatic Left. It is the classic axis of evil - allying Israel's anti-Zionist Left with Arab fascism!! add your comments

Our enemies by John Veldhuis 10:38am Fri Jan 17 '03 print comment Both the people that want to drive the jews into the Mediterranean See and the people that want to keep the Israeli settlements in Gaza and the Westbank are the enemies of peace, and therefore of us all. add your comments

Academic Terrorists by Up Theirs 9:04am Mon Jan 20 '03 print comment Terror's Academic Sympathizers By Leslie Carbone FrontPageMagazine.com | December 9, 2002 In his latest video message, Osama bin Laden tried to justify al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on American citizens on the grounds that we pay taxes to our government: "The American people are the financiers of the attacks against us; they are watching — through their elected senators — the spending of taxes that pay for planes bombing us in Afghanistan, armies occupying our land in the Arabian Peninsula, tanks [used] against the Palestinians and fleets putting Iraqi children under siege." But bin Laden missed the diversity of American society. Thus, Americans are also paying taxes to support professors in Middle East Studies programs who openly sympathize with al-Qaeda’s "position" and oppose American values, American interests, and America’s war on terror in the Middle East—and even launched a boycott of a federal program intended to boost U.S. national security by providing scholarships to students who want to study Arabic. The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) was founded in 1966 as a self-described "international organization for those involved in the study of the Middle East" housed at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Today it boasts more than 2,600 members. The strategic importance of the Middle East during the Cold War and the United States’ growing dependence on its oil made the U.S. government sit up and take notice of the region. The government turned to the academy for analysis, offering millions of tax dollars to support studies of the region, and a discipline was, if not born, reborn. Previously, studies of the Middle East had followed a European model that emphasized the humanities, including languages. This old-school model, redolent of dusty Oxford and Heidelberg scholars, could be stuffy and esoteric at times, and presumed the superiority of the West, but it grasped the importance of history, particularly ancient history, in this region and had no trouble facing basic facts like the fact that the Koran commands holy war. It did not suffer from the delusion that everyone is really an American under the skin. The new model de-emphasized both. The move away from teaching languages in particular had dire implications for U.S. national security, as it led to a shortage of people who could actually speak and understand Arabic languages in our intelligence agencies. The crisis that this shortage presented became clear during the 1991 Gulf War. In response, Congress under the leadership of then-Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.) established the National Security Education Program (NSEP), which provides grants to students studying the languages and cultures of regions critical to U.S. national security. In return, graduates are required to work either for federal offices or agencies involved in national security affairs or in higher education. Appalled by the idea of federal grant recipients actually having to work for the money, MESA flipped. MESA, along with the African Studies Association and the Latin American Studies Association, passed resolutions refusing to cooperate with NSEP. Not only did area studies professors refuse to apply for or accept funding from the program (not necessarily a move to be discouraged), but they even refused to recommend the program to potentially interested students. Fending off the competition in this manner, flush with government grants, American Middle East scholars continued to shy away from humanities and emphasized instead the politics of the region, offering predictions on how the area would change. The problem was that they got almost everything wrong. Blinded by ideology and wishful thinking, seduced by tax and foundation money, scholars of the Middle East consistently miscalculated the political climate of the region they claimed to be experts about. Avoiding the politically incorrect topic of Islamic terrorism, Middle East scholars insisted that the United States could bring peace and democracy to the region only by supporting Islamic fundamentalists. According to former MESA president and director of Georgetown University’s Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding John Esposito, Americans needed to "transcend their narrow, ethnocentric conceptualization of democracy" in order to embrace "Islamic democracy", which, "though unlike the Westminster model or the American system", could still prove capable of forging "effective systems of popular participation". In other words, Western bigots needed to get over thinking that their conception of democracy was the only conception of democracy. (Of course, Westerners tend to understand democracy according to its Western conception because democracy is a Western concept. But that’s not politically correct to admit.) As for Islamist terrorism, well, it wasn’t really much of a threat. Most Islamic movements had realized that violence was counterproductive. The 1990s, according to Esposito, promised "to be a decade of new alliances and alignments in which the Islamic movements will challenge rather than threaten their societies and the West". MESA member Fawaz Gerges, a Sarah Lawrence professor specializing in international relations of the Arab world, went further, condemning "the terrorist industry" that strikes "fear and horror in the American psyche". In March 2001, Gerges wrote: "Should not observers and academics keep skeptical about the U.S. government’s assessment of the terrorist threat? To what extent do terrorist ‘experts’ indirectly perpetuate this irrational fear of terrorism by focusing too much on farfetched horrible scenarios? Does the terrorist industry, consciously or unconsciously, exaggerate the nature and degree of the terrorist threat to American citizens?" Six months later, refusing to play along with the academy’s kinder and gentler presentation of Islamic extremism, Osama bin Laden "challenged" America. If September 11, 2001, were the first occasion on which bin Laden had issued such a challenge, comments like Gerges’ would be an embarrassment. But they are much more than that, for bin Laden had "challenged" the World Trade Center once before in 1993, the U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Horrible these harbingers of future attacks were; far-fetched they were not. The academics just didn’t want to be confused with the facts. Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the hubris and hypocrisy infecting the academy would have expected the flames of last September to burn the blinders off the eyes of Middle East scholars once and for all. That someone would have been wrong. Six days after September 11, Stanford University professor of Middle East History Joel Beinin delivered a speech titled "Why do they hate us?" at a pacifist rally opposing the soon-to-commence war on terrorism. To answer his question, Beinin cited the "sight of American-supplied F-16 fighters and Apache helicopters bombing civilian targets", U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and, of course, U.S. support of Israel, which has engaged in a 34-year "occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem" and employed "disproportionate … force in attempting to suppress the Palestinian uprising over the last year". Beinin called for Americans to seek to understand "something about the historical conditions that inflamed the rage of those who attacked us on September 11" before they "embark on a long campaign against a shadowy enemy". About ten weeks later, Beinin took office as president of MESA. This telling event transpired at the organization’s annual conference, held that November in San Francisco. If one didn’t look too deeply, the conference actually provided a glimmer of hope that MESA had seen its flawed analysis collapse with the Twin Towers. The light from the fires emanating from the other side of the country revealed a glaring omission from the conference program: There was no discussion scheduled on terrorism, owing naturally to the discipline’s see-no-evil approach to its region of interest. While rescue workers crawled through the rubble of the towers looking for victims, MESA conference organizers scrambled to throw a terrorism panel together, and it looked for a moment as though reality might be getting through. That illusion crumbled as soon as the panel itself began. According to The New Republic, presenter after presenter referred to "so-called terrorism". Picking up a baton from their newly minted president, the assembled academics criticized and condemned America. Blasting the war on (so-called) terrorism, Georgetown’s Michael Hudson declared, "We have not shown that our actions differentiate us from those who attacked us." Taking MESA’s reins at the conference, Beinin inherited the spectacular unveiling of his field’s blindness. While bin Laden provided the visual effects in September, Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers of Sand, an analysis of the Middle Eastern studies field hit the bookstores a month later. The book’s publication ignited a controversy over MESA and particularly over their continued presence on the federal dole. Hoover Institution fellow Stanley Kurtz, in particular, questioned the wisdom of pumping Middle East Studies full of cash in view of their resounding failures to provide any useful analysis. The cheek with which leftist ideologues commit the very sins of which they shrilly accuse others is perhaps nowhere better demonstrated than in Beinin’s July 16, 2002, e-mail message to Middle East Studies Center and Program Directors: "You are probably aware that the public attack on American Middle East studies and MESA in particular that began with the publication of Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand has continued throughout the year in the mass media with articles … as well as radio shows by one Stanley Kurtz (a fellow a the Hoover Institution located uncomfortably close to my office)… While the intellectual criticisms of MESA members are mostly mean[-]spirited, ad hominem, and spurious, there is a significant threat to Middle East studies from this assault." Beinin goes on from his slur against Kurtz for writing mean-spirited, ad hominem, and spurious articles about MESA to define the threat: MESA stood to lose its government goodies. In the face of this dreadful threat, Beinin called upon his colleagues to write counter-articles pointing out all the good things Middle East studies provides, advocate "lively discussion of Middle Eastern affairs", and "explain why our understandings of the Middle East are often at variance with popularly held views." In other words, let’s not worry about improving our understanding of our subject matter so as to avoid repeating the failures of the past; let’s just get the public relations machine in gear to make sure we keep our funding. Ah, the academy. * * * Leslie Carbone, former executive director of Accuracy In Academia, is the author of Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform (forthcoming). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- add your comments

I agree: please moderate messages by Michael 5:29pm Tue Jan 21 '03 print comment I fully agree with the initial post, that these Indymedia sites have become buried in unreadable, most often offensive non-news, non-dialog posts. Reading racist comments and endless equations to Hitler and the nazis is surely unacceptable to anyone with genuine concern for the well-being of Indymedia and an effective, intellectually sound left. I liked the PC Gamer moderator's rules, though I'm sure an ideologically acceptable, less homespun method can be found. The intent is not to be undemocratic, or to limit free speech; the intent is to keep abusive posts and personalities out of the discussion. I find disagreeable and disruptive ideas and arguments exciting and valuable; but disruptive behavior is just like when an argument "gets ugly" in the physical world. That's when some good samaritan steps in, breaks it up, and escorts one or both parties away from the scene. I'd be paying alot more attention to this news wire if such a samaritan were keeping us all in line. I agree, I agree, I agree. Excellent idea. Michael add your comments

Marching Song of the Anti-Zionist Fascist Lef by Progressive 7:02am Mon Jan 27 '03 print comment We are progressive, caring, socially advanced, egalitarian and freedom-loving Anti-Zionists. Here we present to you our Grand Marching Song. Set to John Philip Sousa. All together: We believe in enlightened government and progress. And that is why we support Arab fascism. We believe in peace. And that is why we support all military aggression against Israel. We believe in democracy. And that is why we believe that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that must be destroyed. We believe in freedom. And that is why we support Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, as well as His Ugliness Yassuh Ara-fat. We believe in the freedom of speech and of the press. And that is why we support the Palestinian Authority. We believe in self-determination and self-definition for all. But not for Jews. We oppose violence. And that is why we support Palestinian terror. We believe in human dignity. And that is why we applaud when Arabs blow up Jewish women and children. We believe in human rights. And for this reason we support Arab atrocities. We believe in fraternity and the brotherhood of nations. Which is why Israel must be de-Zionized and converted to a clone of Lebanon and Bosnia. We believe in voting. Which is why we applaud Libya, Sudan, Iran, and Iraq and demand that Israel be destroyed. We believe in freedom of movement. Except for Jews. We favor equality. As in Syria, Iraq and Libya. We favor minority rights. But not for Jews, Kurds, Southern Sudanese, Copts or any other politically incorrect groups. We believe in freedom. But do not mind that slavery still exists in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere among Arabs. We believe in a free press. And so we support censorship by the PLO. We believe in freedom to practice religion. But only for Moslems. We believe in affirmative action preferences for those who suffered from past discrimination. But not for Jews. We believe in progress and enlightenment. And so we support Jihad and pogroms. We believe in egalitarianism. And so we support demands for ethnic cleansing of the Middle East to drive out the Jews. We love children and living things. And this is why we applaud suicide bombers. We hate it when people blame the victims. Which is why all terrorism is the Jews' fault. We believe in education. As long as we never have to read any books. We believe in multiculturalism. As long as no one ever has to learn respect for the Jews or for the West or for Amerika. We believe in progress. And so we celebrate barbarism and savagery. We believe in progress. As long as Arab countries never are asked to progress beyond the 12th century. We believe in democracy. But not for Arabs. We believe in prosperity. And that is why we support Arab feudalism and kleptocracy. We believe in equal citizenship. Just as long as Israel never conscripts its Arabs. We believe in freedom of expression. Which is why people who do not agree with us must be censored. We believe the human rights of Arabs must be protected. But not in Arab countries. We are upset by illiteracy. And that is why we practice it. We believe in women's equality, but not for Arabs. We oppose torture, Except when it is by the Palestinian Authority or similar progressive Arab force. =========== add your comments

My song is a bit shorter by John Veldhuis 9:34am Mon Jan 27 '03 print comment I am against racists. I don't care whether someone is jewish or not. I don't care whether someone is islamic or not. I don't care whether someone is christian or not. I don't care whether someone is a semite or not. I don't care whether someone is black or not. I don't care whether someone is white or not. I am just against racists. Too bad Israel has become an Apartheid state, instead of the democratic ideal the real zionists used to have. Israel is taken over by militarists and religious fundamentalists, together known as extreme right wing racists. A vote for Likud is a vote for Apartheid. A vote for Likud is a vote for the mafia. A vote for Likud is a vote for the end of Israel. add your comments

Is this a REAL answer to the above? by J. 5:32pm Tue Jan 28 '03 print comment In the previous "chant" some legitimate concerns were raised to which this author could marshall only badly diguised hatred?...This is a prime example of blatant hatred as any absolute is always incorrect as we all know. Likud or Labour are JUST political parties,as its memembers can do rights or wrongs also, but hardly will determine the fate of any nation.People on the other hand DO, thus the line of arguement displayed by the writer is hardly anything more than badly disguised hatred and bigotry.Paying lip service to democracy is not enough to be called democratic. We can make judgements of others easily,but this writer needs some self examination for sure...Also, some more studies in world affairs would be very useful. Eventually might even temper this deep hatred displayed here in the guise of democracy. add your comments

Let` s focus on the true enemy of Our freedom by Sarah 6:41pm Tue Jan 28 '03 print comment The truth of the matter is that whomever we vote for, be it barak or sharon, will not alter our destiny. The reason is that the characters in charge are a global Masonic elitist cult hellbent on crushing everything in their way. Communists and Leftists were once in their way to global annihilation and thus the holocaust occured. Thinking Israelis may suffer a similar fate as ``democracies`` don`t suffer dissent lightly. add your comments

Leftist Fascism by Progressive 8:30am Wed Jan 29 '03 print comment The Left's Silence on Islamic Fundamentalism By Stephen Brown FrontPageMagazine.com | January 29, 2003 While Canadian leftists were front and center in demonstrations last week against America's war preparations in the Gulf, shouting their usual hatred against the United States from long-entrenched habit, they have been conspicuously silent about Muslim fundamentalists in their own backyard. There was no reaction from the Canadian Left, for example, to recent revelations that Canadian citizen Mohammed Mansour Jabarah confessed to being an al-Qaeda terrorist. Jabarah is being held in a detention center in Brooklyn since he voluntarily walked across the Canada-US border into American custody last year at Niagara Falls. He was an important al-Qaeda operative in a plot to blow up Western targets in Singapore in 2001 with as many as seven suicide truck bombs. Prior to Jabarah’s confession, the Canadian Left only concerned itself with the fact that the terrorist’s rights may have been violated when he crossed the border, as no lawyer was present when he signed a form waiving those rights. As well, since American officials haven't charged Jabarah, Canadian leftists have also been calling for his release and return to Canada, portraying him as an innocent victim unjustly held by a cruel foreign power. And, as usual with the Left, charges of racism were also made. Jabarah's "illegal" treatment, according to some leftists, was due to his being a Muslim and not a white English- or French-Canadian. But perhaps even more frightening for Canadian society than home-grown Islamic terrorists was an incident at a Toronto mosque over the Christmas holidays. The mosque, patronized by Somali Muslims, sent a message to its members on Christmas Day telling them not to congratulate any non-Muslims on their festivals because it would be like "congratulating a murderer." And any Muslim who wished someone a Merry Christmas "exposes himself to the wrath and anger of Allah." How lovely. The mosque director claimed that it was a junior employee who sent out this notice, and that it was done without permission. However, the director was glaringly remiss in not immediately repudiating this hateful message, thus casting doubt on his claim. In fact, reporters who went to the mosque and interviewed patrons discovered that they agreed with the message's contents. Only after receiving negative exposure in the media did the director finally disclaim this piece of hate literature. Again, as in the Jabarah case, there were no cries of outrage from the Left, the self-appointed watchdog of multicultural tolerance, about this piece of blatant hate-mongering. There were no demands for an investigation and no demonstrations either. And even though a moderate Muslim was quoted as saying this hate-filled outlook towards other religions is becoming widespread in Toronto mosques where, he noted, Wahabbism is taking hold, the Left still remained silent. Another case of leftist tolerance for what it would normally consider intolerable concerns the latest Toronto school board elections, in which two Muslim candidates ran for trustee positions on anti-homosexual platforms. Again, the Left mounted no shrill campaign against them, a striking occurrence when one considers how close the homosexual issue is to its heart. Normally in such cases, leftists would have howled louder and longer than a back-alley tomcat that just had its testicles stepped on, especially if the candidates were Christian fundamentalists. One explanation for the Left's silence concerning Islamic fundamentalism is that it simply doesn't know how to react to a minority group that despises its cherished multiculturalism, has no concept of respect or tolerance for others, believes it is superior to everyone and everything, and even includes such people like Jabarah, who would kill his non-Muslim neighbors with no more feeling than squashing an uninteresting specimen of insect. The Left's naive, irresponsible and dangerously utopian vision for society never considered the possibility that, under multiculturalism, a group with a powerful agenda diametrically opposed to its own would ever establish itself here. In their arrogance and conceit, leftists believed all new immigrants would fit neatly into their societal blueprint and become non-judgmental multiculturalists like themselves. Another reason for the Left's silence is fear. Muslim fundamentalist intolerance is the rock on which Canada's ship of multiculturalism will eventually founder. Some leftists realize this, but fear to confront it, since to do so would reveal they have been wrong about multiculturalism for the past thirty years – and that it was never realizable in the first place. Like with the Soviet Union, Canadian multiculturalism is another failed leftist experiment. But the Canadian Left would rather stay silent and witness a complete collapse of its dream than admit that yet another one of its destructive, social-engineering theories is a catastrophe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Brown is a journalist based in Toronto. He has an M.A. in Russian and Eastern European Studies. Email him at [email protected]. add your comments

Media Israel Bashers are Racists by Tanya's Codpiece 7:24am Thu Jan 30 '03 print comment Why the Media Habitually Side with the Palestinians By Erick Stakelbeck FrontPageMagazine.com | January 30, 2003 I’ve finally figured out why the media habitually sides with the Palestinians against even the slightest Israeli movement. As Frank Sinatra might have said after reading the script for The Manchurian Candidate, "They’ve been brainwashed, baby." And I think I know just when it happened: The date: September 30, 2000—the earliest stages of the current Palestinian Intifada. The setting: A dank, windowless basement somewhere deep in the West Bank. Twenty Western journalists are kidnapped from their hotels and brought to this dungeon-like hovel, where they’re injected with a powerful brainwashing drug obtained by the P.L.A. courtesy of Iraq. Yasser Arafat, his bumpy face illuminated by a single bare light bulb dangling from the ceiling, sizes up the weak Western devils seated before him and breaks into a yellow-toothed grin. This is his moment. A French cameraman tries to scream, but all that comes out is a whimper. Resistance is futile. Arafat: "Repeat after me, infidels!" Journalists (zombie-like): "Repeat after me, infidels." Arafat: "You will go back to your pitiful countries and report the following, each and every day for as long as I let you breathe: The Israelis are nothing but Zionist aggressors occupying what is and always has been Arab land. The Jews are the true terrorists! " Journalists: "The Israelis are nothing but Zionist aggressors…" Okay, so I exaggerated a bit. (Isn’t that the Middle Eastern way?) But somebody call Hollywood, because I think we’ve got ourselves a movie. We could call it The Moroccan Candidate, or maybe The Boys From Bethlehem. We could even get has-been filmmaker Oliver Stone to direct. After all, Stone just wrapped a fawning documentary about Arafat entitled Persona Non Grata (to go along with his pro-Castro piece, Commandante, that premiered last weekend at the Sundance Film Festival), and was recently quoted in the New York Post as saying "I can see why suicide bombers feel the way they do. Israel doesn’t belong in the West Bank." Never mind that said suicide bombers are the reason the Israelis occupied the West Bank in the first place. With befuddled Leftists like Stone wielding media influence, it’s no wonder that in the case of the Palestinian refugees, Arabs have managed to perpetrate what author Hal Lindsey calls, "one of the most colossal lies in the history of mankind." In his book, The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad, Lindsey writes: "For some reason, the whole world has swallowed unbelievable products of the Arab propaganda machine…The record shows that migrant Muslims came from other Arab lands to areas of Palestine that were reclaimed and developed by Jews in order to get jobs. It was afterward that they began to claim that Jews displaced them from land that had been in their families for hundreds of years." The vast majority of today’s Palestinians are descendants of people who immigrated to Israel in the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, some Muslims came from as far away as Bosnia-Herzegovina to reap the benefits of the Jewish revitalization of the Holy Land, which had become a malaria-ridden wasteland under centuries of Ottoman rule. Yet, as Lindsey states in his book: "These same poor Muslims who benefited from the Jewish jobs later charged the Jews had stolen their land, which had been in their families since time immemorial…The West has bought this lie without questioning its veracity." A particularly noxious example of the Western media’s gullibility in regards to the so-called Palestinian plight appeared in the January 8 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News. A four-page photo spread entitled "Cycle Of War" was featured prominently in the paper, which prides itself on being the type of liberal progressive rag that litters far too many of America’s newsstands. Despite its title, "Cycle Of War," portrayed anything but a mutually recurring conflict between two opposing sides. Rather, the eleven full-color photos showcased in the spread amounted to no less than a ringing endorsement of the Palestinian cause. The photos were taken in the West Bank city of Nablus, and a more slanted view of the Middle East crisis you aren’t likely to see this side of Al-Jazeera television. Jennifer Midberry, who took the photos and also wrote the short article preceding them, says that she "studied in Jerusalem in spring, 1999 and grew fond of Israel and Jewish culture." Her snapshots, however, which purport to show "life under Israeli curfew and its toll on children," tell quite a different story. Here are brief descriptions of four of the more incendiary pictures, along with the captions that accompanied each: —A shirtless, bloodied Palestinian teenager lies on the ground, writhing in pain. The caption beneath his picture reads, "Hossam Katawi, 16, is treated after being shot in the chest while throwing stones at Israeli tanks." I hate to be cynical, but something tells me there is a bit more to this story than what we’re getting from the Daily News. —A group of Palestinian teens and young men run from an Israeli tank after pelting it with stones. "We know the stones don’t do anything to the tanks," offers one of the teens. "But what can we do? It is our only defense." Here’s an idea: put down your rocks and tell your parents to demand the immediate resignation of Yasser Arafat. Then maybe the suicide bombings will cease and the Israeli tanks can leave. —A forlorn-looking young boy stares into the camera from a huge hole that has been blown into the side of his house. The caption reads, "Salah Bushcar stands in the rubble of his family’s home after it was demolished by Israeli forces in retaliation for a suicide bombing carried out by Salah’s brother, Osama Bushcar." Which explains the Israeli "occupation" in a nutshell. —A group of elementary school students is shown leaving a school building, which is surrounded by rubble. "One-third of the term has been canceled because of the curfew," reads the caption. "So teachers will not be able to complete all of the material in the curriculum." This would bother me much more if the curriculum didn’t include textbooks that explain how Jews use the blood of young children to make matzo at Passover. And let’s not forget the popular kids’ program that glorifies suicide bombing. I could describe the remaining photos, like the one where an ailing Palestinian boy lies in a hospital bed "after being shot in the ankle by Israeli Defense Forces for playing outside after curfew," but you get the idea. The most ironic part of this piece is that it was published just three days after a horrific suicide bombing in Tel Aviv killed twenty-two Israeli civilians. As stated previously, the article appeared on January 8, but I decided to wait two weeks to write this column in order to gauge Daily News readers’ reaction. As expected, their response was intense and varied. But for me, the following excerpt from one of the letters sums things up perfectly: "Israel must continue to defend its citizens until a more trustworthy hand is extended from the Palestinians. As the late Golda Meir said, ‘there will never be peace until the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate ours." Now that would make for a great movie. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- add your comments

Rt.Wing - Intolerant & Racist must have a pla by Trevor MacDonald 7:47am Wed Feb 19 '03 [email protected] print comment There are no "two sides" to this story: Chuck0 is correct that Indymedia will die and become restrictive or uselessly bland media if the problem of disrupters and Site-provocateurs is not managed effectively. HERE IS WHAT I WOULD DO ABOUT THEM 1. Obnoxious and inflamatory speech MUST HAVE A PLACE or the concept of 'Free Speech' on Indymedia really is DEAD. (For instance when my son was at Brown University - it was a dismissal offense to post racial or ethnic attacks anywhere. This was a mistake. All that does is drive the racist troglodytes underground and covert. What should have been done is that they should have been Confronted, and logically and linguistically anilated in debate. Because they were not - the simple-minded are left to believe that 'perhaps they had so much of a point that the administration was afraid of them'.) BUT - we can't use the open debate concept on a typing site - because it is not possible to enforce the rules of constructive mature debate on a typing site. SO ..... 2. I would allow ALL obnoxious, inflamatory and false declarations ****Initially**** on any Indymedia newswire publishing page. BUT THEN 3. When the webmaster determines that a post is an inflamatory rabble-rousing obscenity of a post ... what he would do is : Simply move it to the "RIGHT WING RABBLE-ROUSING KINDERGARTEN PAGE". Such an actual page would be created and all destructive false and aggrssively ignorant posts would be MOVED to THAT page. 4. Hence - If anyone wished to hear how the mental troglodyte glass expressed themselves one could go to that page and READ IT ALL!!! Hence No restriction of free speech. And if the webmaster occassionally made and error and simply shipped a post over there just because he didn't like its aggressive tone: the readership would let him know that he was not exercising judgment but personal bias - instead. 5. This would allow free speech even for the most heinous fool on Indymedia - while making it impossible for that fool to disrupt the general flow of positive posting. The reason that such a solution is rarely carried out is that - those in a position to do so - still fear the power of the vindictive racist post. They shouldn't. They should fear Censorship more. add your comments

Rt.Wing - Intolerant & Racist must have a pla by Trevor MacDonald 7:47am Wed Feb 19 '03 [email protected] print comment There are no "two sides" to this story: Chuck0 is correct that Indymedia will die and become restrictive or uselessly bland media if the problem of disrupters and Site-provocateurs is not managed effectively. HERE IS WHAT I WOULD DO ABOUT THEM 1. Obnoxious and inflamatory speech MUST HAVE A PLACE or the concept of 'Free Speech' on Indymedia really is DEAD. (For instance when my son was at Brown University - it was a dismissal offense to post racial or ethnic attacks anywhere. This was a mistake. All that does is drive the racist troglodytes underground and covert. What should have been done is that they should have been Confronted, and logically and linguistically anilated in debate. Because they were not - the simple-minded are left to believe that 'perhaps they had so much of a point that the administration was afraid of them'.) BUT - we can't use the open debate concept on a typing site - because it is not possible to enforce the rules of constructive mature debate on a typing site. SO ..... 2. I would allow ALL obnoxious, inflamatory and false declarations ****Initially**** on any Indymedia newswire publishing page. BUT THEN 3. When the webmaster determines that a post is an inflamatory rabble-rousing obscenity of a post ... what he would do is : Simply move it to the "RIGHT WING RABBLE-ROUSING KINDERGARTEN PAGE". Such an actual page would be created and all destructive false and aggrssively ignorant posts would be MOVED to THAT page. 4. Hence - If anyone wished to hear how the mental troglodyte glass expressed themselves one could go to that page and READ IT ALL!!! Hence No restriction of free speech. And if the webmaster occassionally made and error and simply shipped a post over there just because he didn't like its aggressive tone: the readership would let him know that he was not exercising judgment but personal bias - instead. 5. This would allow free speech even for the most heinous fool on Indymedia - while making it impossible for that fool to disrupt the general flow of positive posting. The reason that such a solution is rarely carried out is that - those in a position to do so - still fear the power of the vindictive racist post. They shouldn't. They should fear Censorship more. add your comments

Good Evening by Miklos Platthy 9:22am Sat Mar 15 '03 [email protected] print comment Good evening to everybody Less talk more journalism. If one wanted to go to a forum, there a thousands on the Web. For indymedia to be a credible Alternative media site then there must be journalistic guidelines to follow. If I am studying a subject whether it is the proposed War on Iraq or an oil spill in the Pacific Ocean, then I do not wish to read simply one persons opinion of events that have no basis other than their own judgements. What indymedia needs is less judgement. From what I have seen there are many indymedia sites that are blossoming, reporting facts that have been neglected in the mainstream media or not published at all. For indymedia to flourish I must realise that I am responsible for indymedia, that I am responsible for the world around me. The realisation that I am 'the world' is all that is necessary for this sense of responsibility to come about. For my world is my nourishment, and for me to be properly nourished I must contribute to the world that I depend on. I have frequently in the past seen with the eyes of a separate observer, as if I had no relation whatsoever to the events passing around me. I do not wish to change you or to bring about change, this is not an action born of desire, but of care. I care...I love..... A love that is not born from a feeling of emptiness or attachment, but a love that resonates throughout reality as a bell resonates through the air. A love that awakens one to the 'reality' and not the fancy of self* (*a self born from previous experience, that has been developed, that believes and that wishes everything to be different). To see the world as if one had never seen it before, the movements, the breeze and awaken an interest that has lied dormant for so long. It is this sense of care or understanding that brings about a revolution in mind and attitude, a revolution that occurs within ones heart. A revolution that changes everything. A few questions and points which I put forward before I cease my writing. *Why do you write? Is this action born from a desire to change, and where does this desire come from? *I see indymedia not for what it was, but what it is. Indymedia is an Internet community that has been set up specifically to give and 'open' media to the peoples of the world, it is a project that encourages people to write, to care, to participate, to be inspired and to challenge the values that have been entrenched in the collective consciousness of our communities, whether we are from the US, India, the UK, Latin America or anywhere for that matter. I myself am from Sydney and the more I read, the more I realise that I see myself in the opinions and the stories that are put forth. Somewhere within me is the desire to trivialise and to ridicule. Where is that emotion born? Enough chatter from me. Love Miklos P.S. With regards to the volunteers that make indymedia possible. A question to you: What role does Catalyst play in keeping Indymedia running at www.indymedia.org? Or what role did the play in creating it? add your comments

" Go, Chuck O!" by Cindy 4:57am Fri Mar 21 '03 print comment Chuck makes a series of excellent points, which turn on several problems: "Should there be a limited set of controls over what's published on the site?"; "Who controls IMC and why?", and "Don't overtly and covertly fascist (Chuck uses the term "right wing") forces always attempt to occupy common spaces and materials for their own agenda?" Any recent history of contemporary resistant organizations and efforts will show the danger of infiltration by fascist forces whose effect was the destruction of the material or space. See the discussion of the political cell in Critical Arts Ensemble's "Digital Resistance" (Autonomedia, 1994). Second, if there is the freedom to speak, there is also the desire to have say in the outcome of one's labors (the IMC Site') which constitutes an active politics and which is denied only to the detriment of the laborers. In other words, if those who make the IMC site do not attempt to have some control over how their labor is used, it can be used by the cancerous powers of fascism. Finally, IMC stands to lose everything if those who contribute cannot engage in a discussion and attempt to control, to the best of their ability, the misuse of their labors. IMC will become a trash site. add your comments

David B. by [email protected] 7:41pm Sun Sep 28 '03 address: [email protected] phone: B. David print comment Chuck, it's hilarious how you rant against conspiracies by "right-wingers" who post "anti-semitic" content in order to undermine Indymedia. Has it ever occurred to you that Indymedia and the Left has become an outlet for real anti-semitism, especially from the islamofascists? But in your denial, you blame it on a "right-wing conspiracy". Wake the fuck up you idiot. You're anti-establishment movement has made common cause with the worst kind of (islamo)fascism and anti-semitism, all in the name of sticking it to whitey. Stop blaming it on "right-wing conspiracies" and wake the fuck up! add your comments