Indymedia article condones physical violence

अधिनायक

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold, ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

You need a very clear definition of fascism before you declare religious war on it. Otherwise, you can just suppress all political opinions you disllike and brand them as fascist.

What difference is there between the negative aspects of fascism and say stalinism. So why do you provide a platform for stalinists?

You have presented an assumption that fascism is the most dangerous of ideologies and thus the only ideology banned from indymedia and followed this with another assumption that the best way to suppress this ideology is through censorship and violence.

Your only evidence is a half remembered quote from some Nazi.

All societies contain people who believe in the violent suppression of those who disagree with them. Indymedia is a part of this tradition and no amount of Orwellian 'we have to hit people to set them free' is going to convince people otherwise.

Zombrex

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold

That may be true, but that isn't freedom. That is the oppression and surpression of ideas that are considered dangerous. Surpressing an individuals freedom in the cause of protecting freedom is a bit of a oxymoron.

pete

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

You have presented an assumption that fascism is the most dangerous of ideologies and thus the only ideology banned from indymedia and followed this with another assumption that the best way to suppress this ideology is through censorship and violence.

Your only evidence is a half remembered quote from some Nazi.

All societies contain people who believe in the violent suppression of those who disagree with them. Indymedia is a part of this tradition and no amount of Orwellian 'we have to hit people to set them free' is going to convince people otherwise.

Look I really don't mind if you want to shoot the messenger, but you could at least have the common courtesy to have read the message first.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

That may be true, but that isn't freedom. That is the oppression and surpression of ideas that are considered dangerous. Surpressing an individuals freedom in the cause of protecting freedom is a bit of a oxymoron.

I don't see how one can define freedom as the oppression and suppression of ideas that are considered dangerous.
[edit] Reread wickknights post ignore [/edit]

Suppressing the freedom of a single individual in the name of protecting broader or societal freedom is not oxymoronic. (Even if this 'article' is moronic). It is the rights of the individual against a public good.

Though one wonders who AFA are to determine the public good. To publish people's names and addresses with no attempt at verification is to expose people to harm.

Surely I have the right to be a racist if I choose; who decides who a fascist is anyway, fascism is not necessarily racism and vice versa.

Also why are they boasting about this what if criminal charges followed?

The appeals to the rights of gays and blacks are absurd. Have these Celtic Wolves evre attacked blacks or gays? If so when. Have blacks and gays asked AFA for protection?


On the other hand if these scumbags want to beat each other up that's fine and I suppose that if you are a Nazi you deserve what you get.

But aren't these so called nazis just posturing kids?

so many questions but where are the answers?

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Suppressing the freedom of a single individual in the name of protecting broader or societal freedom is not oxymoronic. (Even if this 'article' is moronic). It is the rights of the individual against a public good.

Well you will notice the "in the cause" bit of my post.

Naturally individual freedom is not limitless within a stable society. For example I'm not free to kill you, or even for that matter come into your house, drink your beer and watch the world cup naked in your bath tub without your permission..

But I think it is better to wait until these so called neo-facists actually try and oppress freedom before they are physically stopped. If they break a law then there is grounds to stop them (for the state to, not the fecking AFA).

The point is the skin-heads should be as free as everyone else Just because we don't agree with how they use this freedom doesn't mean we have the right to stop it.

And you are right, even if all that above is wrong or changes, the AFA is certainly not in any position to decide anything about anything with regard to what is best for society.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Look I really don't mind if you want to shoot the messenger, but you could at least have the common courtesy to have read the message first.

As long are you agree with the message being presented. Otherwise you’re more than happy to suppress it. So please spare us this further hypocrisy.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

As long are you agree with the message being presented. Otherwise you’re more than happy to suppress it. So please spare us this further hypocrisy.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but apart from that minor problem could you please indicate where I have shown any "hypocrisy"?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but apart from that minor problem could you please indicate where I have shown any "hypocrisy"?

You claim that people should have the courtesy to listen to the message, yet no doubt, if the message is not palatable or to your liking, such as any delivered by these Celtic Wolves, you’re quite happy to not to have the courtesy to allow them the opportunity to do the same.

Regardless of what their message is, it betrays a base hypocrisy in your position.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

You claim that people should have the courtesy to listen to the message, yet no doubt, if the message is not palatable or to your liking, such as any delivered by these Celtic Wolves, you’re quite happy to not to have the courtesy to allow them the opportunity to do the same.

Regardless of what their message is, it betrays a base hypocrisy in your position.

And if you'd bothered to actually read what i posted on this thread you'd know that I don't agree with AFA's actions.

edit: as explicitly stated in the following posts

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51498734&postcount=6

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51498979&postcount=13

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51513657&postcount=175

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51513894&postcount=180

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51515102&postcount=189

Apparently i wasn't clear enough.

In my innocence, I actually thought that trying to explain some of the reasoning behind AFA's position might add to the debate. Silly me.

Zombrex

pete wrote:

And if you'd bothered to actually read what i posted on this thread you'd know that I don't agree with AFA's actions.

In my innocence, I actually thought that trying to explain some of the reasoning behind AFA's position might add to the debate. Silly me.

I think TCs point is that IndyMedia probably wouldn't publish a "news" report from the CW that they had manged to violently stop some dangerous socialists from trying to undermine the government by holding a cake sale (or what ever socialists do these days)

I'm not sure what exactly your connection to IndyMedia Ireland is so I don't want to assume you speak for them.

I don't know maybe they would. I have long given up reading IndyMedia since it seems to be little more than a rant board, with no form of editorial jornalistic process. Its not a news source since you can't trust anything on it.

pete

Wicknight wrote:

I think TCs point is that IndyMedia probably wouldn't publish a "news" allow a report from the CW that they had manged to violently stop some dangerous socialists from trying to undermine the government by holding a cake sale (or what ever socialists do these days)

based on Chekov's contributions to this thread, I imagine IndyMedia wouldn't print (or more accurately, would remove) anything in breach of their editorial policy. In your example, that would be the supporting racism part, not the violence part.

And the Socialists? Mostly, they talk.... and talk. Oh, and sell newspapers. Then talk some more.

I'm not sure what exactly your connection to IndyMedia Ireland is so I don't want to assume you speak for them.

I have no connection with them whatsoever. No idea why anyone would get the idea that I have. I don't even read it.

therecklessone

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure what exactly your connection to IndyMedia Ireland is so I don't want to assume you speak for them.

And knowing Pete through another message board, I'm fairly certain he's no connection with Indymedia. Like he said himself, he's trying to provide context to what happened.

Zombrex

pete wrote:

Apparently i wasn't clear enough.

It is more confusing than anything else.

As you said, you have clearly denounced the AFA actions. But at the same time you are repeatble posting that the Celtic Wolves are a dangerous group who wouldn't hesitate to beat the crap out of someone, as if this really matters in how people denounce the AFA.

What "context" you attempt to put all this in isn't very clear, neither is why you wish to change the context if you don't wish to justify the actions of the AFA.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion as to who the Celtic Wolves are. But the simple fact of the matter is they were holding a peaceful meeting in a private pub. Whether the Celtic Wolves are a bunch of dangerous scum bags or a bunch of boyscouts, that is rather irrelevent, the AFA actions were not justified or acceptable either way

pete wrote:

In my innocence, I actually thought that trying to explain some of the reasoning behind AFA's position might add to the debate

Maybe, but this "explaination" can at times be confused with a justification, since most of the time someone explains why they (or someone else) did something as an attempt to make it more justifiable.

But I accept that this is more an assumption on the rest of our parts than yours. But perhaps in future posts you could make what point you are trying to make by explaining the AFA position a bit more clear

thebaz

There has been no reports on these Celtic Wolves in the maintstream media that i have seen, is this a real or imagined threat , or just a small bunch of disafftected Bohs and Rovers hooligans. Were these Celtic Wolves supposedly involved in the Dublin riots a few months back ? curious to why there has been no mention in national media ?

ChityWest

thebaz wrote:

There has been no reports on these Celtic Wolves in the maintstream media that i have seen, is this a real or imagined threat , or just a small bunch of disafftected Bohs and Rovers hooligans. Were these Celtic Wolves supposedly involved in the Dublin riots a few months back ? curious to why there has been no mention in national media ?

Because there a bunch of non-entities is my guess - but afa in their wisdom have taken the decision to consider the cw as being a threat to national security. And that they (afa ) have become the secret police/a-team and think they have the right to kick off violence to prevent the imminent 4th reich. From reading their nonsense its going to happen any day now - keep watching the horizon for the nazi hordes.

I know those are cheap sarcastic put-downs but seriously that indymedia thread is full of Goebbels this, Auschwitz that, only way to destroy nazism that, equating their attacks right up there alongside the likes of the french wartime resistance when in (I think) most peoples opinion they are just scumbags out for trouble wherever they can find it. Then trying to pass themselves off as heroes or defenders or whatever - all with the tacit support of indymedia - an Almost mainstream media outlet site.

seedot

chitywest, I really don't think you get indymedia at all.

It is not trying to be a 'mainstream media source' - it was set up because these sources were lacking.

It (indymedia the website or the group who volunteer time on it) does not condone or support or adhere to every belief and viewpoint that is put forward.

It is an attempt to devise a common, agreed set of rules and an open accountable way of implementing these rules to produce media about stories that otherwise don't get covered. The irish site is one of the most successful in the worldwide network at doing this.

It is a global project which grew out of the anarchist milieu - as such the irish laws on restricting journalism are not really a major issue.

note: i'm also a volunteer with the site but these opinions are entirely my own as neither i, chekov or afa speak for indymedia.

I'm interested in why nobody picked up on the INLA story chekov linked to earlier? It has the exact same elements as this AFA story - but maybe you are all used to media carrying statements from republican groups and as such can't use this as a stick to beat indymedia?

and, if you don't like indymedia: change it, set up an alternative, monitor it whatever. All of this is encouraged and facilitated by indymedia.

ChityWest

Whether it likes it or not indymedia is bordering on the mainstream - it is not just extremist leftist types who use it - a lot of the broader population who are anti war in iraq would be inclined to use it (in my estimation).

In that sense it is leaning towards mainstream - another example of that would be the fact that a green party td has posted there. Yet at the very same time it is facilitating thug violence on our streets. The point about indymeds lauded 'editorial policy' came up earlier on in this thread - and I would repeat that I dont give 2 damns what it says in their sacred little scroll if they are using it to justify facilitating thug violence and intimidation then that policy is not one that I would agree with. If you read that thread you would see thugs swapping information for the sole purpose of identifying and locating individuals for more violence and intimidation - policy be damned - your not going to convince me that that behaviour is acceptable.

This constant pointing to the 'policy' as a means for justifying their actions is wearing a bit thin. imo. And no we dont all have that much spare time on our hands to set up a counter indymedia site.

* * Indymedia really need a legal scare to set them straight in my opinion. I would hate to see another person getting attacked (possibly even stabbed) as a direct result of their editorial policy of allowing thugs to swap such information - but, perhaps if that does happen and they are taken to court for it they may change their tone to a more liberal /democratic accountable and sane 'policy'

Zombrex

seedot wrote:

It is not trying to be a 'mainstream media source' - it was set up because these sources were lacking.

It seems a bit funny to set up a source of "news" that is even more lacking in standards that modern news organistations. The criticism of mainstream media (biased, opinionated, inaccurate) are all charges that could be laid at the feet of IndyMedia.

seedot wrote:

It is an attempt to devise a common, agreed set of rules

Which this article breaks, a number of times

http://www.indymedia.ie/editorial wrote:

5 - Discriminatory or hateful posts.

8 - Articles which have no News Content.

10 - Fascists.

There is a difference between reporting on news and creating news just so you can report on it.

seedot wrote:

and, if you don't like indymedia: change it, set up an alternative, monitor it whatever. All of this is encouraged and facilitated by indymedia.

Or ignore it, which is what most people do I would imagine.

ChityWest

seedot wrote:

I really don't think you get indymedia at all.

It is not trying to be a 'mainstream media source' - it was set up because these sources were lacking.

Put it this way ;

If Boards.ie - had a thread - which was one long brag about how several boards posters had physically assaulted group X - while outnumbering them by say 3 or 4 to 1 on the streets of dublin, would that thread be ok in your book ?


If it contained



- people swapping info in order to locate where individuals lived/worked in order that they could be further assaulted or intimidated



- people bragging about how hard it is to type because their knuckles are still sore from the bragged-about physical assault they just carried out


- insane wacky references to historical armageddon type WWIII rise of nazism type scenarios as a substitute for justification for violence against people




I doubt indymedia would think much of an editorial policy that justified that sort of thread on a public board. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Despite 3 (so far) indymedia members coming on here to justify/explain/condone this behaviour on the basis of its 'editorial policy' re free speech - I dont for a single second think that indymedia would tolerate a similair post where the targets of the violence happened to be left wing instead of right.

If cw or some other group put a similair post up on indymedia bragging about beating up some leftwing people - and swapping info to find out where they live/work etc - bragging and trying to justify it all I would guess that that post would last all of 4 seconds.

Fact is indymedia are tolerating that post because it's targetting violence against people indymedia dislike.

Not one of the indymedia people who came on here ever went 'actually hold on a second' or 'whoa wtf were we thinking' - instead you have all taken the indymedia party line that violence against people, based on their political beliefs being diferent to your own, is justified, acceptable and therefore tolerable on your public board - so long as the people being assaulted are people you dont like - for whatever reason.

seedot

OK, I'd read the thread before I posted so i don't have any interest in rehashing the arguments so far.

I'm also not that interested in the free speech for racists argument - partly because I already spent a few days debating that here just before this incident.

I am just wondering at the lack of understanding of Indymedia that is portrayed here. indymedia.ie has grown enormously over the last 5 years to the point where our average daily traffic is about 10gb / 450k hits with up to 250,000 unique IPs in a busy month (for example when the minister for justice taks about us in the Dail). As I mentioned, the GP is only one group who posts - we have two MEPs who post regularly along with the full range of political parties. This is because we have been careful to develop a process and set of policies that more and more people are seeing as an alternatve way of creating and sharing media to the 'mainstream' filtered way

The point of my boasting is not just to put the lie to the claim that most people ignore indymedia, but also to say that this diffrent way of dealing with stories, of promoting 'radical passionate tellings' is not only needed but effective. For the last five years people have been saying how nobody bothers looking at indymedia for xxxx or xxx but the traffic keeps growing.

But can I return to my earlier point about the INLA post. Should this have been hidden? Sould the news that the US, as part of its illegal occupation ,bombed a house containing zarqawi and 12 other people (probably eating or sleeping or doing something else innocuous AT THAT MOMENT) be hidden? What is the policy that you would propose Indymedia follow?

Wicknight mentions 5 - hateful posts, 8 - non news and 10 - fascist as candidates.

8 is automatically ruled out - this is obviously news or we wouldn't be talking about it here.

I think a definition of fascism that includes AFA is a bit of a stretch, whether or not you agree with our no platform stance.

so we are left with 5 - hateful posts. which was designed very much with the 'play the ball not the player' rule in mind.

have a look at some of what we deleted from that thread here or here or any of the other posts from that month. Also think about the fact that this was not promoted to a front page story (which involves some level of editorial approval) but rather was not hidden by an editor.

ChityWest

Seedot - do you want to address any of the points made in the post before yours ? or is the indymedia response to not respond where it suits ? I am talking about this post here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51519250&postcount=220

Zombrex

seedot wrote:

The point of my boasting is not just to put the lie to the claim that most people ignore indymedia

Boards.ie gets a huge amount of posts, and people also largely ignore any "news" that springs up here.

You seem to be confusing eyes on the page (an advertising term) with journalistic respect. By your logic the Metro and Hearld AM papers must be Irelands leading journalistic endevors, rather than glorified advertising wrapped up in a "newspaper".

The "news" on IndyMedia is ignored, simply because it cannot be trusted. I know of no one who takes IndyMedia seriously as a news source.

seedot wrote:

Sould the news that the US, as part of its illegal occupation ,bombed a house containing zarqawi and 12 other people (probably eating or sleeping or doing something else innocuous AT THAT MOMENT) be hidden?

No.

Should the US Army be allowed author the "news" report that is then reported by all mainstream news organisations. That would be a firm no as well.

You seem to be confusing being the news with writing the news. It is the responsibility of a news organistation to report on what is happening, not do something so they can report on it.

seedot wrote:

What is the policy that you would propose Indymedia follow?

Independence from the story, objectivity, accuracy and journalistic integrity (I would of thought that would be obvious). Of which IndyMedia has neither.

If the same people who make the news then also report this news it makes a mockery of the idea of journalistic integrety.

seedot wrote:

8 is automatically ruled out - this is obviously news or we wouldn't be talking about it here.

This is only news because the AFA made it news and then reported on it. If the ITN news crew were having a slow day so decided to rob a bank so they could report on it, would that be "news"?

seedot wrote:

I think a definition of fascism that includes AFA is a bit of a stretch,

Well considering IndyMedia, and most of the western world for that matter, use a largely distorted definition of "facism" since WWII, that is debatable (Facism simply means central or inward looking government or political movement, from the Italian word "fascio").

But if modern populise definition of fascism means the oppression of personal freedom and ideas, then AFA are the very definition of this fascism.

Only someone very ignorant of history would believe only Neo-Nazis can be fascists.

seedot wrote:

whether or not you agree with our no platform stance.

You don't have a no platform stance. You have a "no platform for groups we don't like" stance.

seedot wrote:

so we are left with 5 - hateful posts. which was designed very much with the 'play the ball not the player' rule in mind.

The entire article is a hateful post (rant).

So if the "player" isn't a user or member of IndyMedia, thats ok is it? That logic might fly in a bulliett board system, but as a "news" source. Come on :rolleyes:

seedot wrote:

rather was not hidden by an editor.

Which means it was approved by an editor of IndyMedia does it not? Which means IndyMedia has to take a large proportion of responsibility for this, no?

Karl Hungus

pete wrote:

I sure do - what's interesting is that it's got nothing to do with the Celtic Wolves.

What you've linked to is a thread about a proposed, quite general, "look at us, we're all cuddly and reasonable" meeting, and not what was held last saturday (i.e. a Celtic Wolves session).

Incidentally, and from memory, if you read a little further you'll find mention of using the "national meeting" as potentially being a stepping stone to forming "paramilitary" group.

Ok, fair enough, they're seperate meetings.

But I see even more problems here. You seem to imply there's a distinction in ideology between the Stormfronter's that want to meet for a pint, and the Celtic Wolves, yet there is no such evidence to suggest that. All we have is a CW sticker campaign, and claims on behalf of yourself, Indymedia and AFA that "They'll use violence!"

Now, even if there was some evidence of an ideology of violence held by the CW, or factual violence on their behalf. by their very definition AFA would not bother with any such distiction between the CW group, and any other group who they would consider "Fascist":

Groups identified as fascist are typically those associated with white supremacy, racism and political authoritarianism, whether of an openly Nazi or fascist character, or of a looser kind of right-wing populism.

There's no doubt the characters on Stormfront who claim beliefs of non-violence and peaceful protests hold racist viewpoints, therefor they are equally as culpable as the Celtic Wolves to recieve direct violence at the hands of AFA and AY in their eyes. Proof of this is the fact that AFA brutally assaulted Justin Barrett for wanting to speak publically.

In short, it doesn't matter if they are "Cuddly and reasonably", they're equal targets.

pete wrote:

I believe the idea is that fascism is so dangerous an ideology it should be be confronted at every stage of development to ensure it never gains a foothold, ie not affording those who would use their "individual freedom" to work towards denying the rights of others the opportunity to do so.

Again, who decides that fascism is dangerous? In this case, it's the AFA

They're the self-appointed secret police (As ChityWest put it) here, it's them who decide on their definition of what fascism is, it's them who decide what groups and individuals are a danger, and it's them who act upon it. Aswell as that, they're also their own propoganda machine!

I would personally mirror comments by thebaz and ChityWest as stated here and here. I think in the incredibly Politically Correct envoiroment that we live in, and the sheer level of media sensationalism, that if the Celtic Wolves so much as hiccuped, they'd be pounced on, so the very fact that this hasn't happened leads me to believe that the group in question really are a non-entity. I'd also assert from this that most of the danger that surrounds this group is purely an invention by AFA and affiliates.

Thus far, all this has lead me to believe that this whole issue is nothing but scare-mongering and violence for the pure revelry of it.

Karl Hungus

ChityWest wrote:

Because there a bunch of non-entities is my guess - but afa in their wisdom have taken the decision to consider the cw as being a threat to national security. And that they (afa ) have become the secret police/a-team and think they have the right to kick off violence to prevent the imminent 4th reich. From reading their nonsense its going to happen any day now - keep watching the horizon for the nazi hordes.

I know those are cheap sarcastic put-downs but seriously that indymedia thread is full of Goebbels this, Auschwitz that, only way to destroy nazism that, equating their attacks right up there alongside the likes of the french wartime resistance when in (I think) most peoples opinion they are just scumbags out for trouble wherever they can find it. Then trying to pass themselves off as heroes or defenders or whatever - all with the tacit support of indymedia - an Almost mainstream media outlet site.

Incidentally, I was just watching an episode of The X Files that reveals a plot of Nazi Scientists creating human-alien hybrids.

Make of that what you will.

Sand

Neo-Nazi and Anti-Nazi groups are both born from the same idealogy that embraces violence and violent, final erradication of their opponents. Its not surprising theyre quick to engage in brawls on the street. Violence pervades both idealogies absolutely.

As for Indymedia, its just a soapbox with delusions of grandeur. Theres no reporting there, simply propaganda

this diffrent way of dealing with stories, of promoting 'radical passionate tellings' is not only needed but effective.

But can I return to my earlier point about the INLA post. Should this have been hidden? Sould the news that the US, as part of its illegal occupation ,bombed a house containing zarqawi and 12 other people (probably eating or sleeping or doing something else innocuous AT THAT MOMENT) be hidden? What is the policy that you would propose Indymedia follow?

Would radical passionate tellings be a reference to lies and factual inaccuracies to facilitate agendas? The occupation of Iraq is not illegal. They have a UN mandate. Its 100% legal and the Iraqi government support the Coalition presence.

This is what Indymedia is - lies and propaganda, no better than youd get from a message board, dressed up and demanding to be taken seriously as a news source. Hence the AFA using it to crow about their violence, thats what Indymedia is for. Political propaganda.

note: i'm also a volunteer with the site but these opinions are entirely my own as neither i, chekov or afa speak for indymedia.

Yes, Indymedias status as a flag of convenience is well known. It allows centralised distribution of propaganda, but cunningly refuses to accept any responsibility for its content so any crackpot can use it without Indymedia feeling obliged to ensure certain standards are being met - like, no celebration of thuggery. It allows you to proudly boast about Indymedias perceived achievements, whilst shrugging and denying Indymedia has anything to do with Indymedia if its convenient. No one ever speaks for Indymedia when its troublesome.

ChityWest

Karl Hungus wrote:

Incidentally, I was just watching an episode of The X Files that reveals a plot of Nazi Scientists creating human-alien hybrids.

Make of that what you will.

Trust No One.
(Specially not indymedia).

Karl Hungus

ChityWest wrote:

Trust No One.
(Specially not indymedia).

No, I certainly wouldn't trust Indymedia. Not that I ever have in the past, but right now the sheer level of tin-foil hattery is becoming increasingly evident. Reading more of the comments posted on the article in question, I came across this gem, posted by a fellow who goes under the monicker "By Any Means Necessary":

Everyday is a struggle and we are at war with these racists and white supramacists, together us ants will conquer the elephant.

I've said my piece about innacuracy, propoganda, and scare/hate-mongering, but I think this is definetly self-deluding fanatic territory here, seemingly from the same AFA thugs that wrote the article.