sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/1722573_comment.php
sf.indymedia.org/hidden.php

Self professed "radicals" defend racist cult, suppress criticism
by simply appalled Thursday, Dec. 01, 2005 at 9:52 AM

These people are disgrace to Indymedia, to the Bay Area activist community and to radicals in general.

See for yourselves:

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

add your comments

3 questions for "simply appalled"
by curious george Thursday, Dec. 01, 2005 at 6:17 PM

who exactly are the "self-professed" radicals on the web page you are pointing to? I don't read any boisterous "professions" of radicalism on that page

who exactly "defended" the "racist cult" as you call them? it sounds to me like "defended" means someone over there said what they did was "right" and I don't see that in a single comment. I see some people making the claim that people have legitimate gripes with the stores in those neighborhoods but that is not the same thing as saying anyone had a "right" to vandalize, etc.

what giant and crucial criticism or POV was "suppressed"? from all apearances, it seems like the moderators only hid a handful of comments and most everyone got to say everything they wanted to about the issue, right, left, and center. I count about 10 "hidden" comments out of 155 at this point, certainly not some giant supression of free speech. prior to this comment on this here page, the moderators here hid 1 of 1 comments (that's 100% suppression, although with just 1 comment it's too early to guage the significance of that).

add your comments

since you asked . . .
by appalled Friday, Dec. 02, 2005 at 4:27 AM

> I don't read any boisterous "professions" of radicalism on that page

That's my point, exactly. These people aren't radicals. They're reactionaries. Why are reactionaries being allowed to post racist propaganda on Indymedia bandwidth? It's enough to make *real* radicals nauseous.

>it sounds to me like "defended" means someone over there said what they did was "right" and I don't see that in a single comment.

You're not paying attention. Read again. First of all, anything less than a swift and utter condemnation of these racist scum is a de facto approval of their despicable acts. Second, every time I did just that, I was attacked. That kind of defense is called a counter attack. If you fail to recognize a counter attack when you see one, you really need to educate yourself. I think you *do* recognize a counter attack when you see one, because you're making one right now. Why? Why are you attacking an outspoken anti-racist for speaking out? Why are you not attacking the racists? Why are you defending them? Are you a racist yourself, or haven't you thought this all the way through?

>I see some people making the claim that people have legitimate gripes with the stores in those neighborhoods but that is not the same thing as saying anyone had a "right" to vandalize, etc.

(1.) Despite the crap you read over there, these allegedly "legitimate" gripes, even if they were valid, are no justification these despicable, racist assaults. To employ them as such is to defend these racist scum.

(2.) These allegedly "legitimate" gripes are themselves racist to the core. If you honestly believe that Black people and Latino people should not have the same right to choose, or even the same conveniences, as do white folks who can afford to live in Piedmont or Seacliff, you're a racist, plain and simple. If you spout crap like that here, it will be removed the minute it's noticed.

>what giant and crucial criticism or POV was "suppressed"?

The correct one, that the only appropriate response to racist assault is immediate and effective resistance by any means necessary.


>and most everyone got to say everything they wanted to about the issue, right, left, and center.

That's my point, exactly. This is disgraceful. Indymedia is not here to provide a soapbox for right wingers, centrists or the reactionary left. Indymedia is here to provide a soap box for the Global Justice Movement, which is anti-racist. The expression of racist sentiments does not belong on Indymedia bandwidth.


>the moderators only hid a handful of comments

How many is not the issue. Their content is the issue.


>certainly not some giant supression of free speech

Speech is free. Bandwidth is not. Let the racists pay for their own bandwidth. Their propaganda does not belong on Indymedia. Indymedia is not Usenet. Indymedia is not Yahoo. Indymedia is not a soapbox for any fool or villain who happens to own a computer. Indymedia is a soapbox for the Global Justice Movement. Let its enemies pay for their own soapbox. Without coherent politics, Indymedia is meaningless. One cannot coherently profess to be anti-racist, and simultaneously provide a soapbox for racists. That's incoherent. Who benefits when Indymedia's message is incoherent? Hint: it's not the Global Justice Movement.


>the moderators here hid 1 of 1 comments (that's 100% suppression, although with just 1 comment it's too early to guage the significance of that).

(1.) That's an ad hominem tu quoque, ergo irrelevant.

(2.) The issue is not how much content gets suppressed, but what kind.

(3.) What gets suppressed on this site is crap, a category which includes, but is not limited to, racist propaganda, apologies for and justifications of racist activities and organizations, attacks on anti-racists and anything even remotely contradictory to the basic ideals and values of the Global Justice Movement. This site is certainly not the only IMC to enforce such an editorial policy, but it is the only one in the Bay Area. That's disgraceful.

As a Bay Area activist, I am deeply ashamed. The theory and practice of the Bay Area activist community used to be things the world could admire, even emulate. This is no longer true. That's more than just disgraceful. It's sad. An era has ended. No longer can the aspiring radicals of this world look to the Bay Area for inspiration. Fortunately, the Latin Americans have been willing and able to step up and fill the role. The most advanced political thought and day to day street level practice on the planet today is happening in Latin America. Look there for inspiration. Don't look to the Bay Area.

In the Bay Area political thought is so incoherent that most of us can't even tell our friends from our enemies. Practice around here is even worse. More stale, pathetic and useless excuses for active resistance are difficult to imagine. Einstein once defined insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results every time." If you can think of a better description of the Bay Area activist community's drearily consistent behavior, I want to hear it.

We used to innovate around here. Now we walk around in circles. Why? What happened? The answer is simple. Incoherent thought leads to the kind of behavior we see around here these days, i.e., useless, repititive, counter productive and self defeating. The collective consciousness of the Bay Area has deteriorated considerably over the years, the last few especially. As a community, we are not thinking clearly. It's time we woke back up. It's past time.

add your comments

black power
by curious george Friday, Dec. 02, 2005 at 4:48 PM

is this website taking the position that all black power groups are inherently "racist scum"?

if this site is so enamoured of so-called radicalism, what is more radical than historically oppressed people of color fighting against entrenched racial hierarchies and for better living conditions? it's certainly more radical than yet another white person condemning black power groups

it might hurt your feelings sometimes to be lumped in with the "white" power structure by black power groups, but racism against african americans is very real to this day and is reflected in disproportionate amounts of poverty and yes liquor stores in black communities. white people, by and large, along with other people of privilege (such as store owners), hold the keys to either maintaining the status quo or equalizing things and black power groups recognize this. personal responsibility is a factor, but that alone will not undo the financial and cultural prejudices that haunt our country to this day. do you propose that the only methods for dealing with ongoing historical injustices are through "officially sanctioned" channels? is direct action never an appropriate response to multi-generational oppression of african americans?

add your comments

"is this website taking the position"
by history buff Saturday, Dec. 03, 2005 at 12:41 AM


Websites do not take positions. Websites are inanimate abstractions. Synecdoches are bunk logic. I'm speaking for myself as an activist here. When I speak as an editor, I sign it "one of the editors," something you're already aware of if you have been paying attention.

But what we are really talking about here is not my position, or anybody's. We're not talking about "positions" at all. We are talking about a political analysis that is based in the lessons of history. History is abundantly clear about race. It is used to divide the working class to the benefit of our rulers. That's why they actively encourage us to organize, not just along purely racial lines, but race against race. To organize for the benefit of one's own race is not inherently racist, but organizing *solely* for the benefit of ones own race is always inherently racist. Organizing against other races is even more inherently racist.

Organizing for Black power and Black power alone, is as racist as organizing for white power alone. Our rulers know this full well, as well as how easily purely race based organizing can be used to divide us. It's their stock in trade. That's why, for example, the FBI set up Ron Karenga's inherently racist organization, the "US," to oppose the Black Panthers, because the Panthers' chief defining political characteristic was that they saw Black liberation as but one part of the global liberation struggle of *all* oppressed people. The Panthers consciously, and effectively, reached out to white radicals, Latino radicals, Asian radicals and Native radicals, and thus sealed their own fate. No group that preached interracial alliances, let alone actively put what they preached into practice, could be allowed to survive. And so, they were consciously crushed.

>do you propose that the only methods for dealing with ongoing historical injustices are through "officially sanctioned" channels?

Of course not. That's a straw man. Stick to the subject. I never said any such thing, You know it. I know it. Anyone who is paying attention knows it. Stop putting words into my mouth. it's rude. It's dishonest. It's very bad form.

>is direct action never an appropriate response to multi-generational oppression of african americans?

Direct action is appropriate when it is properly applied to the right targets at the right times for the right reasons. The trashing of Arab owned businesses by a gang of vigilante goons, for not following the prohibitionist dogma of a racist cult of religious fanatics is not such a case.

One example of appropriate direct action against historical oppression that I myself witnessed, was undertaken by the New Haven Panthers, some of whom were my downstairs neighbors for a while, and whose first office was half a block away from where I lived. They provided a free escort service for seniors who wanted to cash their Social Security check, shop, and get home without being mugged. You could call them on the phone, and they'd send a couple of big guys to walk with you to the bank, to the store and back. They'd also help carry your groceries. As far as I'm concerned, this was an extremely righteous thing to do.

Another example is the free breakfast program undertaken by most BPP chapters. They didn't lobby or petition for the government to feed hungry children, they did it themselves. This is direct action at its finest, and propaganda of the deed at its most exemplary.

A more politically ambiguous direct action was their fight against heroin dealing. A couple blocks from the NHBPP's first office was an open air heroin market at a place called Six Corners. Not only did the cops not attempt to shut it down, some of them were actively in on it.

Personally, I don't think most people should take heroin, but the choice should be personal. It should be made by the individual, not by me, not by neighbors, not by some cult, and certainly not by the state. Back when heroin was legal and cheap, it was only a problem for users, and not even all of them, not by a long shot. It was in no way a social problem. Junkies bought their stuff, went home, got high, looked at their shoes for a while, fell asleep, woke up in the morning and went to work like anybody else. In short, they lived normal lives. Prohibition drove the price up so far that no serious heroin enthusiast can live a normal life anymore. Prohibition has turned some of the most harmless people in history into a plague of locusts upon the land.

I believe that heroin, and all recreational drugs, *alcohol included*, should be legal, cheap and easy to acquire. Yeah, they would be a problem for some of the users, as they are today. But it wouldn't be a problem for society. Prohibition has done far, far more harm that any drug ever could. It has corrupted society at every level, from the cop on the corner to the Oval Office and beyond. It has ruined countless lives that otherwise would have gone untouched. It has cost untold millions that could have been spent constructively instead. Society has seen the light as far as the prohibition of alcohol is concerned, but not yet with other drugs.

The Panthers felt differently. They only approved of some drugs, but not others. They actively drove the heroin dealers off of Six Corners by force. This actually had some positive effect, in that the junkies on their way to score didn't stop to rip us off on the way. They did it somewhere else. My car, for example, had been broken into so many times I lost count. That stopped when the Panthers took action. My roomie had been mugged twice in as many months after moving in. That stopped, too.

Of course, people didn't stop taking heroin. Nothing can stop people from taking heroin. Stopping people from taking heroin is impossible. It can't be done for the same reason that people can't be stopped from drinking alcohol. Ninety years of Prohibition has proven that conclusively. But by forcing the junkies to go somewhere else to score, the NHBPP did in fact dramatically lower the rate of street crime and house and auto burglaries in the immediate vicinity of their office. Since I lived there, I benefited directly. This I approved of.

Nevertheless, I have never approved of anyone, not the NHBPP, not the NHPD, not the BNDD (as it was called then), or anyone else, trying to stop people from taking whatever their drug of choice happened to be. I believe it's immoral. History has shown that moral or not, the attempt has done far, far more harm than good. All that street crime, the robberies, the burglaries, the muggings, etc., was not, and is not, caused by drugs, but by the price of drugs, kept artificially high by Prohibition. Just as the prohibition of alcohol gave rise to gangsterism and birth to organized crime as we know it today, so to has the prohibition of other drugs. What the Panthers' so called "anti-heroin" policy was really fighting was not the effects of heroin, but the effects of Prohibition.

I remember many lively debates on this issue with the Panthers and other neighbors as we hung out on the stoops and the sidewalks. My position was the minority position, and remained so even as I pointed out the inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy, of even debating the issue while passing a joint at the time. Most people on the block, and all of the NHBPP, took the position that heroin was inherently bad, not just for the Black community, but for anyone, while pot was actually good for us. Pot opened people's minds, and nurtured a sense of community among people who were otherwise separated by the centuries of historical process that has Balkanized the American working class into ethnic factions. The difference between "life" drugs like pot and psychedelics, and "death" drugs like heroin and cocaine, was an important part of the NHBPP's political analysis and street practice. They and I parted company on this. I believed, and still believe, that the central issue in the War On (Some) Drugs is not which drugs one takes, but who decides.

Basically, we agreed to disagree, and to all help keep the heroin dealers off of Six Corners. We had different motives, but a common interest. The Panthers considered this to be an important victory in their overall strategy of organizing all the people who lived in the neighborhood, whatever their race. I still feel that multi-racial organizations are more productive in the long run than building alliances between race based organizations. But at that point in history, the building of alliances between various racially homogeneous and semi-homogeneous groups was a significant step in the right direction, which I actively supported, not just because it kept the junkies from stealing my stuff, but because at that time, any cooperation between people of different races was significant progress in a country still shaking off institutionalized segregation.

I had, prior to moving to New Haven, lived in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where I participated in productive cooperation between an all Puerto Rican, politicized ex street gang called the Real Great Society, and our own proto-anarchist group, the New York Provos, which was part white and part Latino. So it didn't take much to convince me that, even though was the Panthers were a specifically all Black group, that they were well worth working with. They demonstrated clearly, again and again, that they were *for* Black people, but they weren't *against* whites, or anybody else, either.

Drug policy issues weren't the only political differences I had with the NHBPP, but I recognized that our differences weren't nearly important enough to be worth not working with each other over. Enlightened self interest is always collective, and we had many, many collective problems, all of which demanded collective solutions.

Of course, the NHBPP's strong arm tactics didn't keep junkies from stealing. Only an end to Prohibition will ever do that. But it did force them to loot other neighborhoods. This was a good thing for the folks who lived in our neighborhood. But it is obvious by now, as history has demonstrated quite clearly, it didn't solve the basic, underlying set of social problems engendered by Prohibition. It didn't even correctly define them.

What it did do was to earn the NHBPP not only the gratitude and respect of the neighborhood, but also the undying hatred, not just of the cops, both local and federal, who were on what we called the "Red Squad," but also of the corrupt heroin dealing Vice and Narcotics Squad who deeply resented having their street dealer employees hassled and their profits cut into. To a degree, this hastened the NHBPP's ultimate demise. But let's face it, they were doomed anyway, not because some of their political analysis was wrong, but because they had been systematically targeted by what we later learned was a nationally coordinated political suppression campaign called COINTELPRO.

COINTELPRO had a dual role. On one hand, it was intended to suppress radical organizing both around race issues and around anti-war issues. On the other hand, it was specifically tasked to prevent these two movements from merging into a single movement. In retrospect, it appears that the latter was the more important of its functions.

One way to keep people of different ethnicities from organizing together around problems they hold in common, is to encourage separatism. That's why the FBI empowered Karenga and nurtured his overtly racist organization, the "US." Never forget that the first Panthers to be gunned down in line of duty weren't killed by cops, but by Black nationalists. There is a lesson to be learned here. The powers that be do not fear ethnic nationalism. Au contrair. They recognize it as a valuable weapon against us, and actively put it to use. What they do fear is inter-ethnic, pan racial, class unity.

They so fear the rise and spread of class consciousness that they will do anything to prevent it, from encouraging racist separatism to outright, cold blooded murder. This is a vital clue in our quest to uncover their weaknesses. We ignore it at our peril, and at the peril of our struggle.

Of course Black people should organize as Black people. White people should organize as white people. Gay people should organize as Gay people. Women should organize as women. Youth should organize as youth. Elders should organize as elders. But we should not organize at cross purposes or against each other. Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc., are all forms of classism. Classism is not a purely economic function in society. Class is not about economics at all. Economics is about class. Anyway they can divide us into separate classes of oppressed peoples, it serves the same function. Whether it is about the color of your skin, what's between your legs, what you do in bed, or whatever, is of secondary importance. What's important is that whatever it is, it keeps us divided. Being divided keeps us down. Being kept down is what keeps people at an economic disadvantage, not the other way around. Poor people aren't oppressed because they are poor. Poor people are poor because they are oppressed.

Until we are able to recognize that our oppression transcends our ethnicity, our gender, our age, our language, our culture and our orientation, we will continue to be oppressed. Some of us are more oppressed than others, but we're all oppressed. The difference between a chattel slave and a wage slave only appears to one of category. It is really one of degree. As the Panthers pointed out so many years ago, a house slave may be less conscious of his or her slavery, and therefore more difficult to radicalize, but they're slaves, too. They're just better dressed and fed slaves, that's all.

This is where I part company with people like Kevin Keating and the anti-Yuppie movement in the Mission. A worker is a worker is a worker. A high paid worker is a worker, a low paid worker is a worker, an unemployed worker is a worker, a retired worker is a worker, and a student is a worker in training. A Black worker is a worker, a white worker is a worker, a Latino worker is a worker, an Asian worker is a worker, a Native worker is a worker, and so on. If you have a boss, it doesn't matter how well he pays you, what color your skin is, which ways your eyes slant, what's between your legs or what you like to do with it when you're not working. You're a worker. All workers are of the same class. This is our *our* class, the working class. It behooves us to defend its interests together.

Our class is oppressed by definition. That oppression does not stem from how we relate to the ruling class. It stems from how we relate to each other. As long as we are divided, the ruling class can keep us down. As long as we fight each other at all, we do not fight them effectively. That's why they encourage, foster, nurture, finance and even create organizations whose primary purpose is to divide us. It's a trick. Don't fall for it. Unite. Cast down our rulers. Seize back the Commons in the only way we ever can, united together as one mighty force, before which not even the ruling elite can stand.

Or, we can bicker among ourselves, and remain their slaves forever. Either way, the choice is ours, not theirs. We can make it wisely or we can make it stupidly. Either way, we make it ourselves. I say, we should make it wisely. What say you?

add your comments

thanks for clarifying
by . Saturday, Dec. 03, 2005 at 8:48 AM

when I perceived that it was someone at sf.indy who kicked me off sf-kids irc and implied it was racist when I was babbling about the Bey courthouse stuff (but couldn't tell who it was), back when it was news, and they kept calling the Eastbay Express reporter a 'hack', who did the most original reporting, by interviewing and double checking details never covered by other newspapers, with a list of their ex-foster kid women who have kids fathered by Bey I who are 13-14 yrs younger than them, I had come to an unsupported general conclusion that you guys were actually either supported the religious group, or viewed them as grass-roots community representatives. Thank you for demonstrating that this was just idle speculation.

add your comments

To history buff
by anon Saturday, Dec. 03, 2005 at 2:29 PM

Thanks for taking stand. I think a lot of the comments on Indybay have been at best naive and worst at apologizing for a racist cult. I wouldn't feel too bad about the bay area, I've talked to a lot radicals who know the score. I think it might be a little bit of an age thing. People who weren't around for Karenga and the panthers or who haven't live in an inner city neighborhood for very long suffer from some naivete. Yes we should all study history more but youngsters don't have the benefit of experience.

add your comments

"we should all study history more"
by history buff Saturday, Dec. 03, 2005 at 6:51 PM

You're right. If we don't know where we're coming from, we can't know where we're going and we don't know where we're at. There's a word for being in this state. It's called "lost."

I had the same problem when I was young. Mostly it was because when I was nineteen, a guy who was thirty two at the time told me to "never trust anyone over thirty," and I believed him. It deprived me of some history that I'd have been better off knowing. I wasn't the only one, either.

add your comments

See for yourselves
by pointer Monday, Dec. 05, 2005 at 9:09 AM

There are now four threads on this topic running on Indybay. Check out what the editors saw fit to hide and what they didn't see fit to hide. It will tell you everything you need to know about what's wrong with their editorial policy, and a lot about what's wrong with the collective reasoning powers of the Bay Area activist community.

There is a lot wrong, and it shows. It's not just racism, ignorance, and incoherence, either. There's more, a lot more, much of it worse, much worse. No wonder radical praxis in this part of the world has calcified so. People are not just not thinking clearly, they are being actively encouraged to not think clearly. What little clear thinking does take place is being actively suppressed. The Bay Area activist community is being consciously channeled into dead ends and circles. It's a sure fire recipe for defeat. Cui bono?


See:

Alcohol smashed in Oakland, California

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

Oakland CA: bow-tie jihad?

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

Hip-Hop Predicted Liquor Store Trashings Long Ago

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

Liquor Store Attacks Go Deeper than Booze

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

add your comments

"four threads"
by just wondering Tuesday, Dec. 06, 2005 at 12:43 AM

It's interesting how this thing is developing. It's really taken off, and in some curious directions, too. Some people apparently feel it *very* important to get you to think about me, instead of the topic. Why is that? What is there about this particular topic that inspires them so? They could do this about any number of topics. Why this particular one? What makes it so special as to warrant so much time and attention?

add your comments

This just in: Muslim fanatics attack non Jews, Zionists silent
by the dog that didn't bark Tuesday, Dec. 06, 2005 at 8:55 AM

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle pointed out so long ago, we can learn as much, sometimes more, from what did not happen as we can from what did. In the ongoing, four thread wide discussion of this deplorable act of terrorism, not once have we heard from the Zionist propaganda mill. This is, as Sherlock Holmes would note, a clear case of a "dog that didn't bark."

Could it be that the Zionists, always ready to condemn Muslim violence, have sat out this discussion because the victims in question weren't Jews? What does this tell us about their attitudes on race? On Muslims? On violence?

add your comments

While you're at it
by this too Tuesday, Dec. 06, 2005 at 11:07 AM

We didn't hear from the animal rights nutjobs. Is it because they do not care to condemn this deplorable act of terrorism?

And what of environmental bigots who wrongly favor native species over domesticated ones? Have they no shame? What are they so afraid of?

add your comments

"What makes it so special as to warrant so much time and attention?"
by very good question Tuesday, Dec. 06, 2005 at 11:19 AM

"What makes it so special as to warrant so much time and attention?"

What indeed?

Why would the author of this post and the majority of the comments thereafter spend so much time writing little mini-theses (to be generous about it) on the subject on Indybay and here and post massive links to Indybay here while at the same time forgetting to notice that the latest feature on the front page of this site and the latest local newswire story are both over a week old? Why does this person spend so much time trying to convince others to take his exact perspective on the matter, ignoring against all reason the futility of his attempts at mind control?

Why DO these posts on Indybay cause so much obsession that the person responsible for this site is AWOL on his own site? Is Indybay that engaging and provocative that an editor here would abandon his own site?

add your comments

Answers, not distractions
by appalled Wednesday, Dec. 07, 2005 at 10:24 AM

"This too" makes a cogent observation. It is not just the Zionists who have failed to step up here. It is nothing short deplorable that people who profess righteousness, and never fail to speak out for (some) non human animals, don't seem to mind one bit that an Arab was kidnapped and spent the night in a car trunk, not knowing if he'd ever see the light of day again. Perhaps it is because he is an immigrant, not "native" to area. Nativism is, after all, first cousin to racism. It explains why we have heard so much squawking about the so-called "rights" of local plovers, who are not endangered, and deafening silence on the fate of Connecticut's monk parakeets, who have been being slaughtered by the descendants of immigrants, for the crime of having been descended from immigrants.

There are only two possible explanations for such highly selective outrage. If it is intentional, it results from moral turpitude. If it is not intentional, it results from incoherent analysis. Which is it in this case? You tell me.

>Why would the author of this post and the majority of the comments thereafter spend so much time writing little mini-theses (to be generous about it) on the subject on Indybay and here and post massive links to Indybay here

As I have pointed out repeatedly, without once hearing it cogently rebutted, Indybay was created, and exists, to provide news and a means of communication, to the Bay Area activist community. As a member of that community, I have more than the right to post there. I have the duty.

I have a particular duty to post rebuttals to the deplorable position that certain posters have taken, and that the editors support, that is it somehow OK to be soft on racism and religious fanaticism and to engage in racist and classist paternalism. Such positions are inexcusable. As a member of the Bay Area activist community, it is my duty to see that the deceivers who edit Indybay don't manage to delude the world into believing that our community condones or excuses wannabe mutaween, or supports racist and classist paternalism. We don't. They lie.

>while at the same time forgetting to notice that the latest feature on the front page of this site and the latest local newswire story are both over a week old?

I haven't forgotten. I've been waiting for an article to be posted that fit our center column guidelines. One came in today. To qualify for the center column an article must be original, it must be fit in the [local] or [California] category, or if it fits into [national] or {international], it must be about a local person. Press releases and opinion pieces do not qualify.

We do not step outside these guidelines just to keep the center column rolling. To do so would present a false impression of events. It is intrinsic to the nature of the historical process that events, particularly political events, do not proceed at an orderly pace. Some decades, nothing happens. Some weeks, decades happen. This is the nature of the historical process.

We also strive to make practice here be consistent. Consistent practice is the result of coherent theory. Coherence and consistency are notably lacking at Indybay. Their lack sheds a very bad light on the Bay Area activist community. People from outside the area, who stumble on Indybay by way of a search engine, and are unfamiliar with the intricacies of Bay Area activist politics, can easily conclude that Bay Area activists are not only incoherent and inconsistent, but also soft on racism and religious fanaticism, and more than a little prone to classist paternalism. Rest assured, this is not true of the community at large. Most of us reject racism, religious fanaticism and classist paternalism out of hand.

Those who do not, find themselves in an indefensible position. Unable to mount a defense, they instead hide criticism, call people names and attempt to distract you with patent irrelevancies. For example, they just tried to make you forget that they made excuses for the inexcusable depredations of a roving pack of wannabe mutaween, by directing your attention to SF-IMC's editorial policy. SF-IMC's editorial policy has nothing whatsoever to do with their indefensible excuse making, let alone their (at best) atavistic paternalism. They apparently have so little respect for your intelligence that they expect you to fall for it. Tricks like this may work on Indybay's readers. Many of them, at least as demonstrated by the ones who post, demonstrate severe cognitive deficits. SF-IMC readership is different. Smart people read this site. You know better than to fall for this kind of puerile BS.

For example, you are much too smart to be deceived by such a crude and primitive logical fallacy as begging the question:

> Why DO these posts on Indybay cause so much obsession that the person responsible for this site is AWOL on his own site? Is Indybay that engaging and provocative that an editor here would abandon his own site?

The fact of the matter is that while I do follow SF-IMC's editorial guidelines as regards what does and does not go into the center column, that in no way indicates that I'm AWOL. Even a cursory perusal of our [hidden] page shows quite clearly that I'm doing my job here, which is more than can be said of the editors at Indybay. They apparently don't care how bad their site makes the Bay Area activist community look.

Or maybe they do. Maybe making the rest of us look bad is precisely their motive. It all boils down to whether they are driven by moral turpitude or deluded by their own incoherence.

Either way, they take you for dunces. Consider, for example, the following:

>>"What makes it so special as to warrant so much time and attention?"

>What indeed?

>Why would the author of this post and the majority of the comments thereafter spend so much time writing little mini-theses (to be generous about it) on the subject on Indybay . . .

I asked a valid question. It is one for which they apparently have no answer, or have an answer they are ashamed to state in public. So instead of answering, they attempt to change the subject by asking another, not relevant question. They also fail to show gratitude for my having taken time out of my busy life to do them the favor of adding cogent content to a site where cogency is so notably lacking. But hey, that's the kind of people they are.

That's *not* the kind of people that most Bay Area activists are. Most Bay Area activists reject religious fanaticism and classist, racist paternalism out of hand. Most Bay Area activists are polite enough to express thanks when somebody does us a favor. When most Bay Area activists are asked a question, we have the common, human decency to answer that question to the best of our ability, and not come back with a slap in the face to your intelligence.

So the question remains. Why has this particular issue sparked such an rabid attempt to distract you from the crux of the issue? In particular, why has that attempt taken the form of personal attacks on me? They could be trashing me anywhere. There are whole threads devoted to the subject. Or, they could have started a thread. They didn't. Why not? Why has this particular issue sparked such a torrent of personal abuse, while other issues have not? Could it be because they noticed how close to home I hit with the following observation?

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

www.indybay.org/news/hidden.php

Indybay is notorious for protecting Zionists and promoting their racist ideology. Could it be they felt the need to counter attack so strongly because I pointed out the depth of Zionist hypocrisy on this issue? When a Muslim even scowls at a Jew, the Zionist propaganda mill screams, "Anti-Semitism!!!!" and "Pogrom!!!!" But when Muslims assault an Arab, kidnap him and lock him in the trunk of a car all night, the Zionist propaganda mill is silent. More despicable hypocrisy is difficult to imagine.

So maybe that's it. Maybe the editors at Indybay are upset that I caught their pet racists in the act.

Or maybe it's something else. But what? You tell me.

add your comments

"the Zionist propaganda mill is silent"
by speculation Wednesday, Dec. 07, 2005 at 11:36 AM

Could it be that they are taking glee at what they percieve as a potential split between Arab-Americans and African-Americans?

Probably.

Are they financing this deplorable behavior under the table?

Perhaps.

Are the displaying abject, racist hypocrisy?

Absolutely.

But hey, what else could we expect from a racist cult like Zionism?

Could it be that they see in these wannabe mutaween a fellow racist cult, cut (on the bias) from the same cloth that they are?

If you're waiting for then to admit it, don't hold your breath. Over half a century later they still are loath to admit their collaboration with another racist cult, the Nazis.

A racist is a racist is a racist. Throw them all out.

add your comments

A comment was hidden because
by one of the editors Thursday, Dec. 08, 2005 at 11:12 AM

because it was factually incorrect. No, I did not "claim the opposite."

Stick to the facts, or you can't post here.

add your comments

www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/12/04/17876121.php
www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/25/17855401.php
www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/12/04/17876161.php
www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/29/17865691.php

as for the arson and kidnapping

www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_4824260