Berlosconi -- a modern European fascist

ram | 26.09.2003 22:55 | Culture | Indymedia | Repression

Surely there is somethig fishy in censoring this link.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/277960.html
Is it my comment that did it? Then you remove my comment! Not the whole valid article!!!
Why?

This is quite big news for today in most news services I saw today.
They all carry their take on Berlosconi's award.

There has been quite a lot of criticism of this action by a well known Zionist lobby group in the US.
The latest critics include prominent Jewish scholars many Italian Jewish organisations.

This is very relevant to us as the pigscum is the current chief of the EU.
He has been abusing this position by influencing many laws and rulings.

Come on even the ADL does not like the man.... they just want to use him and he wants to be used.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.09.26/news6.berlusconi.html
'
At the Anti-Defamation League's Tuesday-night dinner to honor Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, the crowd gave a resounding applause when ADL national director Abraham Foxman announced, "I like Bush. I like Sharon. And Silvio Berlusconi, we are delighted to have you here tonight." But the solidarity of the moment did not extend far beyond the Plaza Hotel Ballroom.
......
Speakers at the event praised Berlusconi for supporting the recent American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. During his speech, Berlusconi thanked the United States for ridding Italy of fascism during World War II.

In going ahead with the ceremony as planned, Foxman repeatedly said that Berlusconi's support of Israel and the United States is more significant than a few poorly considered comments.

"This man has stood by America," Foxman said. "This man has been upfront on fighting terrorism. This man is the only clear voice on support and understanding of Israel [in Europe]. When there have been explosions of antisemitism, this man has been right out there on the front. For all these things, we are paying tribute to him."
'

ram

Comments

Hide the following 23 comments

Milione firme

26.09.2003 23:31

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/sthttp://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=34688022&p=346883z4

ram

Hidden because

27.09.2003 00:18

it contained the word "Zionazi" several times in the body of the article - this term has been banned from Indymedia UK - see

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2003-May/003819.html for more details.

Tom

Thanks Tom

27.09.2003 07:34

Assuming Tom to be a IMC-UK 'volunteer', Wow finally (maybe) some constructive dialogue!
Thanks Tom.

Yes I do not see your link reaching a consensus as such but understand problem with 'what caused panic'.
The old posts now seem to be lost, if it is the case that will be a damn shame.

Personally I would not have used the silly term Zio Nazi for the ADl. Instead something like pigs or pigscum to avoid confusions.
Infact the JINSA is a pigscum organisation and ADL and are a bunch of pigs.

--------------------------------
Anyway whats up with this ADL=Zionazi repetition?
Agent TJ at working the late shift? Maybe TJ has lost the plot ?
Maybe Tom is the T in TJ and Tom had a change of mind?

What is intriguing is there has not been an equation to the effect
ram=bollockschop?

ram

berlusconi and ram

27.09.2003 10:12

Why do you have to say pigscum as well? Why not just use normal language??

Berlusconi is a right-wing maniac, his recent comments aren't just evidence of that, he was also a part of P2 (CIA, italian secret police, and fascists) who carried out terrorist bombings to blame on the left, to create a tense atmosphere for a military coup in case of Communist coup (unlikely as the CP leader renounced violence after WW2, tho he could of course have been lying), Soviet invasion, or worker's rising (which both the Stalinists and Americans feared most after WW2).

Ram however is also insane in my opinion. In the past you said to me that I was a racist for thinking that the Chienese government and Islamic fundamentalism were bad, and that maybe the Chienese were best fitted for that kind of government, the 1989 protestors were bad because they wanted american-style democracy, and mao was good. You also said that anarchism was a Western/European thing that didn't fit the rest of the world. Maybe you should look up the huge histories of the massive Chienese and Korean anarchist movements, the Japanese anarchist movement, etc.

sfsdfa

Sad And Dangerous Development

27.09.2003 10:16

For the UK IMC to now ban words is a sad & dangerous development. I can accept hiding articles in extreme circumstances, but to think you have the authority to ban words & hide anti-facist material on that basis is something I do not believe anyone who uses the IMC has granted any of you the authority to do.

Banning anti-fascist wordage & hiding anti-fascist material at a time when the whole world is waking up to the facist parralells ocurring is likely only to raise alarm bells that UK IMC has facist infiltrators who are beginning see if they get away with flexing their censorious muscles under cover of the riducouls slur of anti-semitism against those people who are clearly anti-facists.

IMC, I'm ashamed of you.

James Venables

In defence of the IMC editors

27.09.2003 13:14

I believe the IMC banned the terms 'zionazi' because every time someone used the term the newswire would degenerate into a disgusting and unreadable flamewar. The repetitious spam by ram above was the sort of thing the indymedia collective, and myself, would like to avoid. The term 'islamofascist' was banned at the same time.
It had nothing to do with antifascism. If the IMC was to ban a message saying 'All black people are nazis', I wouldn't necessarily think that the poster needed sympathy for his anti-fascist sentiment, would I?

Aim Here

In Defence Of Free Speech

27.09.2003 15:17

"If the IMC was to ban a message saying 'All black people are nazis', I wouldn't necessarily think that the poster needed sympathy for his anti-fascist sentiment, would I?"

What an idiotic & facile retort this is. It is clearly not the case that an entire people are being persecuted in a manner reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto in the name of 'black people'. This is being done in the name of Zionism, hence the tidy soundite of Zionazi.

If you're not able to give a comeback with any meaningful & comparable comeback 'aim here' then you have in fact voluntarily given up the argument.

"I believe the IMC banned the terms 'zionazi' because every time someone used the term the newswire would degenerate into a disgusting and unreadable flamewar."

This is just the tyranny of etiquette, which again has no relationship to the content, but is merely obsessed with manners as a painfully weak excuse for censorship. It's just that some people are too precious to handle heated debate.

Free Speech is defined at root by the right to be offensive. Take that away & you've started the process which leads to the underming & eventual emptying of the term 'free speech of it's true & rightfully controversial content.

James Venables

It's editing, not censorship

27.09.2003 17:54

Indymedia is frequently under attack from trolls, spammers, flamers, conspiracy nutjobs, Nazis, Israel-supporters posing as Nazis and 57 other varieties of malcontent. If this site were to contain nothing but incessant bloody flamewars of the 'You're a Zionazi' 'No, you're an Islamofascist' sort (as was the case) then no sane thinking person would want anything to do with it, and it becomes utterly useless for the job it was intended to do, which is to inform and educate people about worldwide political activism. Posts which disrupt that job don't belong here and should be edited out.

There used to be a very real problem with posts containing the word 'Zionazi' and 'Palinazi' and 'Islamofascist' swamping the newswire with garbage. That's why this censorship/editing is in place. Maybe you don't remember it. I do.

It's not real censorship in any case - there's nothing on Indymedia stopping you from trying to compare the policies of the Israeli state to those of your favourite fascist bogeyman. Just don't do it in an unnecessarily inflammatory way that wrecks the reason for Indymedia's existence.

Indymedia is relatively free and open. If you want a real 'freedom of speech' challenge, try getting the word 'Zionazi' past the editors on the open parts of the BBC or CNN website. It always seems to be net forums with relatively free and open policies that end up getting 'Rebel without a Clue' types (

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame75.html) like you wasting the moderator's time with this sort of crap. The IMC operators are unpaid volunteers, do good work considering what they've to deal with, and you've got more freedom of speech here than most similar places on the net. Enjoy it. There is a reason for whatever rules are in place, you know.

As for my opinion on this subject, I don't think you can't seriously call all Zionists Nazis just because of the brutal racist policies of the Israeli state. Are the Peace Now or Gush Shalom people Nazis? Most of them support the existence the state of Israel. Noam Chomsky has called himself a Zionist on a number of occasions. Is he a Nazi?

Aim Here

Steadily Reducing Freedom

27.09.2003 18:14

"like you wasting the moderator's time with this sort of crap."

The only time being wasted here is via tyhis form of self-appointed judgemental moderation which neither understands or appreciates the true value of free speech.

"and you've got more freedom of speech here than most similar places on the net."

So we're supposed to now just take the reduced level of free speech being handed down by moderators who have the equivalent attitude of 'if you don't like the freedom you get given here then go back to Russia (choose your demon country, website etc & insert).'

I will not tolerate being given a prescribed level of reduced freedom on this site while we are facing issues of such gravity & importance!

James Venables

Aim Here Is Not Fit To Moderate

27.09.2003 18:30

Hello 'Aim Here'

This is a truly infantile link to use in your defence. Your are not fit to moderate if this is encapsulates your view of people who submit onto this site.

For your information, I write the hightly successful Bristol-Stop-The-War Newsletter, as well as moderate Direct Against Against War, Bristol Activists & UWE Stop The War.

So 'Aim Here' from one moderator to another, you're not fit for the job. LEAVE.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame75.html

James Venables

Missing the point

27.09.2003 18:34

Unfortunately, nice as it might be in principle to allow people to post whatever they like, in practice this *SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK*. Every piece of racist or abusive crap that gets posted would then spawn a lengthy flame war (I'm not making this up, it is precisely what *DOES* happen when such posts, for whatever reason, don't get hidden promptly).

The primary purpose of this site is *NOT*, in my view, a slavish commitment to some abstract notion of "free speech", but to provide a *news* resource, direct from the people rather than through the distorted goggles of the mainstream media. The presence of the "comments" facility should not lead to Indymedia being mistaken for a discussion forum. We do take the principle of open publishing seriously, but if the site is to be in any way a useful resource, it is necessary to establish at least *SOME* mechanism for preventing it degenerating into a flame war.

Where's The Fire

27.09.2003 18:40

Considering that this thread has not generated into flaming, but has become purely an issue of censorship & free speeach, then none of these flaming arguments stand up.

The arguments to hide these articles are not being made on the basis of any serious analysis, but are instead being made on the bais of flaming which has not occurred.

RAM called the hiding of the original article fishy. I would now say it stinks of alterior motives.

James Venables

discussion not invective

27.09.2003 18:44

"If this site were to contain nothing but incessant bloody flamewars.... "Too right, I wouldn't plough thro it for scattered islands of info and discussion. I agree with the IMC volunteer, just say what we mean, spell it out, why not?

fortune

Fake Commentary

27.09.2003 18:51

The situation still exists that this has not degenerated into flaming, but yet the reasoning used to hide it is constantly repeated as a response to flaming.

This is reminiscent of the logic used to invade Iraq on the basis of nob-existent WMD. You can repeat this flaming argument as much as you wish, but it still does not stand up in this case, as the flaming does not exist in this case.

SO WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON?

James Venables

Just for the record

27.09.2003 18:58

For the record, I'm not an IMC moderator or any other moderator for that matter. I was defending their actions simply because I well understand and sympathise with the problems they faced when trying to provide a useful resource for activists while under the pressures they face. Those little local Stop The War boards don't have anywhere near the problems of a high-profile target like a national Indymedia. This board gets all sorts of crap flung at it from all directions - IMCs have been the victims of police and government oppression, concerted trolling campaigns by right-wing message boards, all they way down to random spamming BNP supporters with far, far too much time on their hands. Everything you can think of, in other words.

The fact that you can be a moderator of one of those boards AND still have those naive ideas of freedom of speech of yours does amaze me though. You might change your tune if one of your boards gets hit by a concerted right-wing trolling campaign as happened to the Edinburgh Stop The War Coalition board a couple of weeks ago.

As for my infantile link, it's surely no less infantile of the term 'Zionazi'. Perhaps you should google 'Godwin's Law' sometime. In any case, those flamewarriors profiles have a knack for being uncannily accurate....

Aim Here

Idiot Spin & Weak Assumptions

27.09.2003 19:11

Hello 'Aim Here'

From this brief exchange I understand you are someone who makes a lot of weak assumptions.

"Those little local Stop The War boards don't have anywhere near the problems of a high-profile target like a national Indymedia. This board gets all sorts of crap flung at it from all directions."

Wrong 'Aim Here' these boards get hammered from all directions too. Clearly as you now admit you do not have moderator experience, or inside knowledge of how other boards work, your defence has just been collapsed by your own weak assumptions.

"The fact that you can be a moderator of one of those boards AND still have those naive ideas of freedom of speech of yours does amaze me though."

The idea that my knowledge & experience of free speech makes me naive is itself a crass & stupid piece of self contradicting spin. It's the very fact that I'm a moderator for these boards, & that I have to suffer being hammered by spam that I recognize the need to defend free speech from the cynicism which wells up when faced with so much junk.

Any moderators, or defenders of moderators, which do not seek to retain a full & gutsy defence of free speech are clearly no-longer fit to moderate.

James Venables

Disapointed

27.09.2003 20:16

Fucks sake. You all deserve a slap. Now quit this nonsense and then, in your own time, fucking grow up. Middle class wankers the lot of you.

Disapointed

Middle Class Wankers?

27.09.2003 21:05

Another fool assumption maker. Clearly very few people take the issue of Free Speech seriously, & instead want to censor 'hide' items on the basis of subjective etiquette (real middle class wanker territory).

Next....

James Venables

Round and round we go...

27.09.2003 21:27

Well unfortunately the search and archive features on the old indymedia website seem to be broken or I'd provide you with a few concrete examples of what exactly the indymedia mods were up against.

As for this quixotic 'free speech' crusade of yours, I notice you're hell-bent on hassling the indymedia moderators, who, for all their faults, are the good guys. As I said before, go take up the right to yell 'Zionazi' on the BBC news website or something, where there's considerably less freedom of speech.

In fact, the more you sit here and bang on about your god-given right to yell 'Zionazi' in a crowded cinema, the more I think you're deliberately trying to disrupt this place. With your humungous experience of forum moderation you've no doubt come across a few of those 'Rebel without a Clue' types who break a rule or two and then overwork the moderators in huge, interminable and pointless discussions over exactly why their post was deleted. I've seen forums destroyed by a small gang of trolls using exactly that as a strategy, so much so that the mods couldn't cope, and had to delete the forum.

Even if you're not doing this deliberately, it's still pretty pathetic, as is trying to unhide this thread by posting a link to it on the newswire. The moderators have made their decisions, and they have their reasons which have been more than amply explained to you by now. Either live with it or fuck off.

Now I'm going to slap myself as the man says, and then shut the fuck up.

Aim Here

Flogging Your Own Dead Horse

27.09.2003 23:53

You already lost the argument 'aim here' so off you pop. As I said from the outset I accept hiding of articles in extreme situations, so your entire argument is based upon a failure to read.

This is a situation where the moderators have overworked themselves on basis of choosing to censor a word, & on the basis of that subjective & silly etiquette an entire argument was hidden along with it.

This is the basis of my argument. You clearly think that the moderators are somehow above criticism, & that there should be no accountability. If that idea is allowed to take root then this site will steadily degenerate into a censorsite.

James Venables

Disapointed

28.09.2003 10:10

JV. Arguements on free speech or not who else could write so patronisingly. I'll hold my hands up to being foolish if you concede that you have conducted yourself like a m/c wanker. I wont be coming back to this thread, though I know you (unfoolishly on my part) will. No hard feelings on my part just want to fight for peace and justice like all of us here and find it hard to deal with the bullshit thats been writen above. In conclusion don't go looking for struggles that don't exist. We have too many already.
Peace to you all
D.

Disapointed

Berlisconi

28.09.2003 17:28

Top geezer! I particularly liked his solution to the refugee problem in Italy. We should adopt it here.

Mungo

Anyone Still Here?

29.09.2003 22:29

Anyone still here?

Is so, I'm just saying that I do appreciate the issue of sites getting overwhelmed with stuff, as you'll see if you visit DAAW & check it's latest posting.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/directactionagainstwar/

My excuse/reason for rejecting stuff on DAAW is purely because DAAW is set up to perform a specific job. But a site such as indymedia is set up for largely general post, & as a result any attempt to control it risks compromising that general role. I think this is a danger that indymedia should remain ever alert to, as censorship is a slippery slope that people don't often realise they are on until they reach the bottom.

That's what I was really saying. I don't think any of you are wankers or facists ;o).

Cheers,

James

James Venables