Indymedia article condones physical violence

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

I assure you that I do. I find the property and inheritance laws which allocate a tremendous amount of power to people depending upon the accident of their birth to be morally repugnant. I also find any other type of discrimination based upon the accident of somebody's birth to be reprehensible.

You misunderstand me. I meant you have no problem with accepting discrimination based on class.

Apparently not. That’s good bigotry, I suppose.

chekov

The Corinthian wrote:

You misunderstand me. I meant you have no problem with accepting discrimination based on class.

Apparently not. That’s good bigotry, I suppose.

What are you talking about? What discrimination based upon class am I accepting?

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

What are you talking about? What discrimination based upon class am I accepting?

Would you not discriminate against one class in favour of another, or how did you intend to deal with that whole inheritance issue you find so repugnant?

chekov

The Corinthian wrote:

Would you not discriminate against one class in favour of another, or how did you intend to deal with that whole inheritance issue you find so repugnant?

I think you are getting off topic more than a little and, for what it's worth, I think that power and wealth should be distributed as equally as is possible, regardless of accidents of birth.

Lemming

chekov wrote:

I think you are getting off topic more than a little and, for what it's worth, I think that power and wealth should be distributed as equally as is possible, regardless of accidents of birth.

And if someone has worked hard for what they have? Do you think that should be taken away if they wish to give that to their family? After all, the government already does this with inheritance tax.

Further, who decides who gets what? Ahhhh, welcome to the old rise and fall of the Soviet Empire and all the social problems involved .... I see some people never learn from the mistakes of the past

And no, he's not going off-course Chekov

chekov

Lemming wrote:

And if someone has worked hard for what they have? Do you think that should be taken away if they wish to give that to their family?

After all, the government already does this with inheritance tax.

And no, he's not going off-course Chekov

With respect, I posted on this thread as several people were putting forward a position which seemed to be claiming that indymedia was supportive of the action taken by AFA against the Celtic Wolves and I wanted to correct that. I do not really have the time or the inclination to give you a detailed description of my personal politics and I do not see how this is related to the topic.

You could argue that redistributive economics is equivalent to class-based discrimination, but then again you could just as easily argue that inheritance of property is class based discrimination (and it's would be a lot more easy to demonstrate the existance of such discrimination) and all it shows is that a framework of discrimination is not a particularly useful tool with which to analyse economics.

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

I think you are getting off topic more than a little and, for what it's worth, I think that power and wealth should be distributed as equally as is possible, regardless of accidents of birth.

Not really, you’re the one who claimed to oppose discrimination, yet are happy to publish articles promoting class war - and you can intellectualise it as much as you like (just like racists / racialists do), but that is ultimately what it is.

You have openly admitted here to being a vehicle for propaganda, not news - you can't be both. You have no problem censoring that which does not fall into what you consider ideologically acceptable, but will allow anything that is - then bizarrely claim non-complicity.

Indymedia is just one extreme claiming to be the good guys, just as Stormfront is the other, equally claiming to be the good guys, then twisting yourselves around in false logic to justify yourselves. It’s laughable, TBH.

Lemming

chekov wrote:

With respect, I posted on this thread as several people were putting forward a position which seemed to be claiming that indymedia was supportive of the action taken by AFA against the Celtic Wolves and I wanted to correct that. I do not really have the time or the inclination to give you a detailed description of my personal politics and I do not see how this is related to the topic.

Whether you like it or not, and bonkey has also said this time and time again, is that IndyMedia has given tacit agreement to acts of facist violence. The irony of that statement should not be lost on one such as yourself.

Facist scum attacked facist sum and you laud it tacitly. Indeed your own opinion positively defends such an action elsewhere in this thread. Now reverse the roles there. "Facist scum attacked facist scum". Hmmm, I can't see any discernable difference here. Care to help me out? Anyone? :rolleyes:

You could argue that redistributive economics is equivalent to class-based discrimination, but then again you could just as easily argue that inheritance of property is class based discrimination (and it's would be a lot more easy to demonstrate the existance of such discrimination) and all it shows is that a framework of discrimination is not a particularly useful tool with which to analyse economics.

Hmm, let me get this straight. You posted several sentences amounting to the same thing. Incidentally why is inheritence of property class based discrimination? Exactly what makes the inheriting of a property (and by property I mean any property, be it a house, a flat, a mansion, a car, a watch, etc) a class-based discrimination? What exactly are you discriminating against. Where is the discrimination in family member handing property to another family member?

I think your argument also shows that a framework of wishful-utopian-ideaology that has no basis founded in the reality of humanity to be an even more flawed tool with which to analyse economics.

dermot_sheehan

ronanp wrote:

Small point here which will undoubtedly be lost in the thread, but of course the editorial guidelines do not include a ban on encouragement to break the law. Law and morality are not intertwined. Something can be right yet illegal, and wrong yet legal. For example, most major civil rights movements have been illegal.

Yet for completly amoral, objective, selfish reasons, it is most wise for an internet bullitin board to delete posts advocating the commission of a criminal offence since incitement to commit a criminal offence is itself an offence.

The Corinthian

chekov wrote:

With respect, I posted on this thread as several people were putting forward a position which seemed to be claiming that indymedia was supportive of the action taken by AFA against the Celtic Wolves and I wanted to correct that.

It remains that your failure to censor or even condemn their act is at the very least tacit support for it, given that you will have no problem condemning or censoring those posts that you do not support. So you’ve not corrected anything.

I do not really have the time or the inclination to give you a detailed description of my personal politics and I do not see how this is related to the topic.

I wasn’t discussing your personal politics, I was discussing Indymedia’s politics, which you might refer to as editorial policy. If I addressed you, I only did so as you would be a representative of Indymedia.

And Indymedia has no problem with discrimination based upon class.

bonkey

chekov wrote:

I await an apology.

My sincerest apologies. I completely misread the situation.....but not in the way you think.

WHen you said you'd support it if it worked, I - for some reason - thought you had responded to a point about working within the system.

What you had, in fact, been referring to was a comment I made that beating the crap out of paedophiles would be hateful as well, to which you replied:

If it was an effective way to stop it, I wouldn't be complaining.

So in other words, your opposition to paedophiles only precludes violence because its ineffective, not because you believe its fundamentally wrong.

Given that you were the one who likened your opposition to neo-nazis to your opposition to paedophiles, I don't think its any great stretch to suggest that the logic holds here as well - that you'd support violence against neo-nazis if it was effective.

Unless you'd like to insist that "not complaining" is not a form of tacit approval?

Incidentally....boy have I had a bad day with slip-ups....I did completely miss that comment where you clarified that you believe debate etc. to be the way forward. I'm wondering how you can reconcile such a belief with your upholding of an editorial policy which effectively denies one side participation in such a debate?

I mean...who is it you're trying to reach here? If its those who already "buy in" to such ideologies, you'll deny them a platform to debate you. If its those who might be influenced by them, you deny such people the chance to see both sides square off instead of each having their own seperate world to make un-challenged assertions as they see fit.

But thats probably heading too far off-topic.

Far from being incitement to hatred in "my own book", I wrote: "Opposition to neo-nazis is not hate-mongering. That's just a red-herring. you are eliding this issue with the separate issue of the justification of extra-state violence."

I take it all back. Now that you've restated the same thing I took issue with earlier, and offered no additional reasoning as to why it is so, I'm completely convinced.

There is simply no way that one could logically argue that anti-fascism could possibly be included under this guideline.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. There is nothing that someone could do to a neo-nazi, nothing they could urge the rest of us to do, that Indymedia would draw the line at? Everything is fair game because of some "enemy of my enemy" line of reasoning? There is no line, whatsoever?

And, if we take this in conjunction with your comments on what you wouldn't complain about being done to paedophiles, we can conclude that not only would you have no problem with people saying these things, you wouldn't complain if they carried them out too, as long as it was successful in dealing with the problem?

jc

mike65

Tis hard to know which is the more ridiculous in their delusion - The Celtic Wolves/Stormfront or Indymedia/Anti-Facist Action.

Mike.

pete

A member of the Celtic Wolves has claimed that it was actually someone attending their meeting who instigated the violence ("one of the nationalists", both of whom have since renounced their involvement with CW), and not any of the AFA/AY members.

Make of that what you will.

As for ****, he has made it perfectly clear that he wants nothing more to do with the cw or any white pride groups, he is also a nationalist not a nazi and has only attended 2 small meetings, at least we know now that they are not cw material, so good luck to them.

As everyone knows 12 reds showed up with their cameras when only 4 nationalists had arrived at the meeting, i along with 4 other's arrived at the pub about twenty minutes after the lads and the reds left the pub.

As for giving the lads a good kicking, also bull****, they got about two thumps at the lads after one of the nationalists buried his boot into one of the reds stomach.

Zombrex

chekov wrote:

AFA not indymedia. FFS.

Er, this was hosted on IndyMedia, just like this post is hosted on Boards.ie, and Boards.ie does have editorial control, there are called the Mods (all hail the mods).

ChityWest

pete wrote:

A member of the Celtic Wolves has claimed that it was actually someone attending their meeting who instigated the violence ("one of the nationalists", both of whom have since renounced their involvement with CW), and not any of the AFA/AY members.

Make of that what you will.

Pete - Just out of curiosity what is the source for that ?

I think that may turn out to be some post-handbags hard man talk. I mean indymedia wouldnt have printed lies would they ? Even if it were true - and the 4 did start violence against 12 it would not alter the hipocrisy of indymedia's selective censorship by a single jot.

pete

ChityWest wrote:

Pete - Just out of curiosity what is the source for that?

A posting by "lycanthrope" of Celtic Wolves fame on the Irish section of a certain famous WN/WP website. I'm not posting a link to it as I believe it might be frowned upon here, but it should be straightforward enough to find.

ChityWest

Fair enough - will take your word for it.

lostexpectation

here you go chity 'they're tabelan killer and rapists' west


http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/

Karl Hungus

chekov wrote:

If an allegation was made about you on indymedia which was either a) unsubsantiated or b) not related to the public domain (ie what you got up to in your private life) we would remove it as soon as we saw it. On the only case ever before where an allegation was made against a named individual that he was a neo-nazi we removed it as soon as it was brought to our attention as the evidence cited in support of the claim was not deemed conclusive.

Your assurances mean exactly nothing to me.

First of all, you've demonstrated a pretty frayed view of what "Public domain" means, seeing as 4 people having a pint is not something to be considered private in your opinion. By that notion, if I happened to be having a drink with someone the AFA decided to attack, you would think it perfectly justified to publish my name, photo, address, place of business, and allow various slap-happy goons to make threats towards me.

Second of all, the likes of AFA have shown themselves to be nothing but criminals and thugs who revel in acts of violence. They're self-appointed gestapo in my view, and they've made it perfectly clear with their comments on your site that they are taking names, so if my details were posted on Indymedia, reguardless if they removed at a later date, I would still be quiet fearfull.

Thirdly, it seems like AFA aren't interested in whether they've got the right guy or not either, as is evident here. And considering that a friend of mine was assaulted by two people who called him a nazi, even though he wasn't, they just looked at him and made their minds up. This kind of rash judgement calls on who is or isn't a nazi does not make me feel comfortable, and shows that they are violence-loving thugs.

Fourthly, most of the readship of your site seems to hold a very blinkered "With us or against us" viewpoint, as evident by the comments on the article in question. Both yourself, and the people posting such comments seem to deem people who oppose the assaults committed by AFA as in the wrong. And we know what AFA do to people they disagree with, eh?

Zombrex

Who the f**k are the AFA anyway? Before this thread I hadn't heard of them before.

They sound like a bunch of angry idiots just out of college with far too much time on their hands.

Beating up people in the cause of being anti-facists is irony of the highest order :rolleyes:

And why is IndyMedia allowing them to post this as "news". I think if Charlie Bird went into a pub and started a fight with someone just so he could report on the 6-One the "news" that Charlie Bird was in a fight with someone in a pub, RTE News would have a lot to answer for.

As I said before, does IndyMedia not have any editorial control or standards over what allows to be published?

ChityWest

lostexpectation wrote:

here you go chity 'they're tabelan killer and rapists' west

http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/

Thanks Lost in space expectation : )

Just tried that site and none of the links are working - thanks anyway. I hadnt heard of this group till this indymedia article either but I have a pretty good idea of the sort of people who seem to be involved with it.

Karl Hungus

As a side note to my previous point, upon reading some of the more recent comments on the article in question, it seems that the name of the leader of the Celtic Wolves is Karl. Seeing as my online name is the same, could some slap-happy thug make a catapult-aided jump to a conclusion based on the identical names?

pete

Wicknight wrote:

Who the f**k are the AFA anyway? Before this thread I hadn't heard of them before.

AFA was originally formed as a resistance group within Nazi Germany. In its current incarnation, its position is that fascism is an outgrowth of militaristic global capitalism. AFA maintains that fascism is a major threat to individual freedom, and that the way to defeat it is to confront it physically at every opportunity, denying a public platform to neo-Nazi groups by blocking their marches, disrupting their festivals and conferences, and physically confronting their street-gangs and supporters. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Fascist_Action

I'm not sure if the current Irish AFA are related to the republican-linked AFA mentioned on that wikipedia page.

pete

Karl Hungus wrote:

First of all, you've demonstrated a pretty frayed view of what "Public domain" means, seeing as 4 people having a pint is not something to be considered private in your opinion.

That's not exactly a fair or accurate description of what was going on though, because they weren't just "having a pint", were they? They were holding a meeting (and, apparently, a recruitment session) of the Celtic Wolves, a highly secretive Irish racist group whose members have claimed or not-very-subtly hinted on the message board of a certain major international white nationalist / white power website to have been responsible for a range of illegal activities, ranging from incitement to hatred (see: "no to chinatown" CW stickering campaign) to "whatever is necessary" (paraphrasing)

Regardless of one's opinion of the AFA tactics (and once again - I don't agree with them), the infiltration of the Celtic Wolves meeting was not simply some mindless West Side Story-style Sharks vs Jets gang fight over nothing more than a slight difference of opinion over state immigration policy, and it's highly disingenuous to attempt to dismiss it as such.

The AFA goal was to show up at the meeting to highlight to the Celtic Wolves that if you're going to try to organise with like-minded individuals for a campaign of intimidation and violence against anyone you consider to be non-white, non-patriot Irish then you shouldn't expect to be able to do it in secret.

Note: Previously identified list of enemies of Ireland includes, but is not limited to: immigrants (of any colour), gays, "race traitors", trade unionists, jews, muslims, anyone to the left of Aine Ni Chonaill's ICP on the political spectrum, anyone who's pro-choice, phil lynott, samantha mumba, black taxi drivers, black bus drivers and Adrian Kennedy. If you do happen to fall into any of those demographics and bump into a CW member, make sure to point out your support of their right to free assembly while they stamp your face into the pavement. I'm sure they'll really appreciate it.

(masked pic of alleged CW member "white baron" attached for dramatic effect. source - indymedia!)

ChityWest

pete wrote:

The AFA goal was to show up at the meeting to highlight to the Celtic Wolves that if you're going to try to organise with like-minded individuals for a campaign of intimidation and violence against anyone you consider to be non-white, non-patriot Irish then you shouldn't expect to be able to do it in secret.

I thought their goal was to be a self appointed judge and jury dishing out their own pre-emptive street thug Justice !

It seems to me that everything you just outlined above as to what these people were meeting to talk about is pure total speculation. I am not saying you are 100% wrong - just that you have no way of knowing what these people were planning on talking about. It could have been the ****ing ryder cup for all you know - you dont know and neither do I - and neither did the afa twats.

I dont get where the afa think that they have the right to make these decisions as to who gets to meet with who - where and what they are allowed to talk about. So long as they are within the law - ie meeting in a pub and talking amongst themselves - then neither you the afa or anybody else has the right to go around kicking peoples heads in. Simple as that.

pete

ChityWest wrote:

It seems to me that everything you just outlined above as to what these people were meeting to talk about is pure total speculation. I am not saying you are 100% wrong - just that you have no way of knowing what these people were planning on talking about.

Incorrect. Take my word for it.

edit: i've said too much.

ChityWest

Right well forgive me for not taking your word for it this time then. I dont give a **** if they were talking the talk or talking about pamela anderson - they are allowed to talk - until they break the law they are entitled to the same rights as anybody else - and that includes the right not to be beaten up by a gang of scumbags whatever their political flavour is. Far as I am concerned the guards should be looking into this - same as they should be looking into any vigilante nutjobs.

therecklessone

pete wrote:

I'm not sure if the current Irish AFA are related to the republican-linked AFA mentioned on that wikipedia page.

During me early radical days (oh to be 17 again!) I had some brief contact with AFA Ireland and their sister group Red Action. Back in the mid-90s they were most definitely linked with Republicanism, which was pretty much why I told them to get f*cked!

Hi Pete.

pete

ChityWest wrote:

So long as they are within the law - ie meeting in a pub and talking amongst themselves - then neither you the afa or anybody else has the right to go around kicking peoples heads in. Simple as that.

Actually you're not a million miles from what I understand to be the AFA position there, as they only perceive a "threat" once the actual organising starts - e.g. individuals are free to hold whatever opinions and they like and be as wrong as they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Once again I'm not a support or member of, involved with or related to AFA.

pete

therecklessone wrote:

During me early radical days (oh to be 17 again!) I had some brief contact with AFA Ireland and their sister group Red Action. Back in the mid-90s they were most definitely linked with Republicanism, which was pretty much why I told them to get f*cked!

Hi Pete.

hi dude

yeah that was definitely the case back then, but i'm not sure if it still is.