the owners of LIBCOM officially banned me from the right to create a blog

I asked about creating a blog too, dont think i got a response.

It's like the Nazis burning books up in here. Hashtag censorship. Hashtag WATABOUTMAHRITES.

Not surprised, they must have read your posts :)
Incredible that they banned you from creating a blog rather than just to host it, and you can't make a blog on any other sites either

Did they give you a reason?

As I recall meerov21 made themselves unpopular with some regular contributors on libcom with ill thought out responses on some much earlier discussions around issues of 'identity politics' which might explain the admins hesitance in agreeing to blog facilities. They have since posted a number of extended texts and useful follow-up discussions which are certainly within the parameters of libcom's politics, even if I have some disagreements personally with their views. Still they are not banned from this site as such and the 'privilege' of running a regular blog isn't handed out to everyone - not the end of the world.

Rob Ray

It's like the Nazis burning books up in here. Hashtag censorship. Hashtag WATABOUTMAHRITES.

Wouldn’t have expected sneering from you Rob Ray.
I don’t see why meerov shouldn’t have a blog. Though I frequently disagree with him he writes pretty well, has had a lot of experience that others on the site haven’t had, and often has a unique perspective of things. That makes his posts interesting and a meerov blog probably would be good for the site.

Edit: Cross post with Spikeymike

meerov21 made themselves unpopular with some regular contributors on libcom with ill thought out responses on some much earlier discussions around issues of 'identity politics' which might explain the admins hesitance in agreeing to blog facilities.

Indeed. I personally went toe to toe with him on that very topic, but that’s just one thing and if being popular is a required criteria for getting blogging rights then that would truly be some bullshit.
Still, like you say, not the end of the world, he can still create threads or post on those created by others. I would still like to know the admins reasons though.

I think Rob Ray’s post was a ‘bit of a dig’ rather than a true sneer.

Meerov21’s stuff is interesting though usually expressed in an irritating way. The Libcom admins probably feel granting him a blog could end up as a licence to be offensive to other posters – take the way meerov21 refers to ‘the owners’ of this site, as if they behaved as capitalists or were some other form of miscreant.

So sorry, meerov21 - tough-titty.

Nobody is obligated to give you a platform. Who are you? Just some guy on the internet. Go start a Wordpress.

meerov21

jondwhite
I asked about creating a blog too, dont think i got a response.

Thanks to several friends, I was able to contact the owners of the site and get a clear answer.

Just checked and I sent the message on 10-12-18 23:52 and never got a response.

Yeah I'm mostly taking the piss a bit about the portentous tone for what, in the final analysis, is a collective saying to someone "we don't want you to have a blog on here." No collective is obligated to give a platform, it's not a "right". Plus it's totally understandable why meerov, who has a habit of getting into arguments and handing out denunciations, might not get a semi-official platform to do so.

I dispute that meerov has a habit of getting into arguments, or at least that he necessarily responsible - two to tango and all that. It’s truer to say that he has a habit of expressing views that are contrary to the more widely held views of Libcom participants. That sort of thing rarely goes down well around here.

I mean, his response in this very case to being told he couldn't have a blog was to do a post titled "the owners of LIBCOM officially banned me from the right to create a blog". Which if it was me would rub the wrong way, frankly. He has neither a right to a blog nor is he banned and phasing it like that is deliberately provocative.

Though that said, if he's likely to post stuff which is against the collective's established values why wouldn't he be told no? They've never said they're an open platform, in fact they were partly formed as an antidote to Indymedia and its salutary lesson in how letting anyone post whatever they want leads to total tin foil hat nonsense.

Well, I’m not defending his choice of words in creating this post - he’s clearly got his knickers in a knot over this and in fact, in private correspondence it was my suggestion that he let it go.
The thing is though, that meerov is nothing like a tin foil hat merchant and as has been said, his general position is one that I think most of us would agree is essentially a libcom, one, if not a Libcom one. Of course it’s the prerogative of the admins to decide such things, I’m not disputing that, but if it is because his views aren’t quite agreeable enough, I think the parameters are being set somewhat too narrow.

Noah Fence

his general position is one that I think most of us would agree is essentially a libcom, one, if not a Libcom one. Of course it’s the prerogative of the admins to decide such things, I’m not disputing that, but if it is because his views are quite agreeable enough, I think the parameters are being set somewhat too narrow.

Indeed, especially in light of the fact that one of the admins gets to keep being an admin after openly admitting that he "find[s] [him]self drifting" toward nationalism. The fact that this is okay but giving a blog to Meerov is not says a lot about how the politics of Libcom... evolved over time.

Yes because Juan Conatz saying he feels despondent about his experiences over the last eight years is definitely something to be dragged out as a hammer to beat the admins with in support of an argument that your boy should have a sodding blog.

I know the left is full of tossers who think winning an argument, no matter how petty, is far more important than showing some fucking common decency but I swear I never get used to it.

I see that "Lately I've been feeling sad and gloomy, therefore I get a carte blanche for my politics turning to utter shit" has been raised to a new Libcom orthodoxy. Maybe I was wrong about Libcom's politics changing – maybe it doesn't even have any politics anymore and has just turned into some kind of bizarre leftist support group.

AnythingForProximity

I see that "Lately I've been feeling sad and gloomy, therefore I get a carte blanche for my politics turning to utter shit" has been raised to a new Libcom orthodoxy. Maybe I was wrong about Libcom's politics changing – maybe it doesn't even have any politics anymore and has just turned into some kind of bizarre leftist support group.

Yeah, people can come on here and whine about the admins and the site all day long when they're feeling small and inadequate. You feeling better, champ?

Also, by definition a "bizarre leftist support group" would have politics or it wouldnt be a leftist support group.

Uncreative

Also, by definition a "bizarre leftist support group" would have politics or it wouldnt be a leftist support group.

Fair point!

I'm just saying something that many people are embarrassed to say: that the anarchist movement has become just an extreme flank of left-wing liberalism, identity politics and trade unionism

You're saying the same thing every other wannabe political gatekeeper has said since about 1840 regarding anyone they think isn't toeing the line they've laid out adequately. "Waah everyone's more liberal than I, the true arbiter of class struggle" is neither special nor particularly iconoclastic.

And yet it seems you are in a position to judge when denouncing people (indeed the entire movement) as liberals, trade unionists and adherents of the Dread Spectre of Identity Politics. Or as antifa student crybabies (goodness, with such a constructive attitude I am baffled as to why you didn't get this blog). Don't put yourself down meerov, don't hide your light behind Bakunin's bushel, these are your criticisms and it's your ideological gatekeeping going on here, not his or Pannekoek's. There's nothing about identity politics in Workers Councils.

AnythingForProximity

Indeed, especially in light of the fact that one of the admins gets to keep being an admin after openly admitting that he "find[s] [him]self drifting" toward nationalism. The fact that this is okay but giving a blog to Meerov is not says a lot about how the politics of Libcom... evolved over time.

I don't think I've been one of the people that run the site for about 2 years now, maybe 3? Not quite sure. But I must be an important enough internet personality in your life that you remember my posts from 7 months ago. I'm flattered that you were paying attention.

meerov21

But this is not true, I never considered myself a model of class struggle. I've always pointed to people and movements that are. It's just some people here are scared when I talk about some things that they think are Holy or untouchable, like your antifa or students-crybabys at the University.

meerov21, how old are you? Not a rhetorical question, but a sincere one since I think I remember you from an international anarchist listserv in the mid-1990s (started by a comrade from Finland). If it was you, you were a name-calling troll.

Based on the post above, you're the same internet provocateur who makes posts in bad faith, then when called out about it claims victimhood.

If you want to bash antifa, do the hard work of critique, rather than casting out facile aspersions. Hate students and youth? Give reasons why you have such reactionary positions.

And that's the key word: reactionary. Why in the world would libcom administrators give you a blog when you're incapable of stopping yourself from saying things based so much hubris? It's almost as if you're proud of your ignorance. Or is it just an act? Are you simply trolling?

meerov21

2) I made this post for the reason that many people on this site (not one, not two, but more) asked me why I didn't have a blog here and explained to me that I should have one. And I agreed with this opinion. I believe that such questions can be discussed publicly and have given a public answer.

If you live by such noble anarchist traditions as transparency and an open collective dialogue, please simply state which libcom poster(s) has been suggesting that you have a blog.

So now meerov is a liar as well as all his other crimes, right? I think you should confess all comrade, give us all the offences that should be taken into consideration and maybe you’ll get a more lenient sentence? You’re not gonna get a blog but nobody asked you for one anyway, did they? That silly old brain of mine must of imagined those blog requests too, eh? Must be coz of all the drugs I took in the 90s for which it’s only fair I should be judged and condemned for twenty odd years later. I should imagine that Lucky Black Cat will shudder in horror when I tell her that I imagined I had read her suggestion that you should start a blog on one of the forums!
Ok, enough sarcasm, but really, this is all a bit much. People are interested in meerovs stuff, they’ve even said so on this thread, and even if he is a bit of an asshole sometimes when interacting with others, it certainly doesn’t justify the characterisation that this thread has subjected him to.
Yes, he is just some guy on the internet, like all of us, and as we have had our own trials in life, so has, no doubt, meerov, and we all need cutting a little slack considering the shit that our lives in capitalism put us through.

Anyways meerov, whilst I tend to think you should have been granted a blog, it’s not that big a deal - you haven’t been censored in any way, you can create content in the usual way on the forums, post library articles or comment on other people’s threads, right? I can understand your ire but do the dog with a bone act and you’re just inviting pain to into your life - my personal experience of doing just that resulted in me hating Libcom and staying away from it for a year or more which was a shame.
Libcom, it’s posters and it’s admins are far from perfect but as far as online anarchist forums and resources go I’d say it’s the best we’ve got by a country mile.

To be clear: I'm not opposed to meerov21 being granted his wish (or "right") and getting a blog. But with all the hyperbolic "help, I'm being censored and banned" bullshit, he's his own worst enemy.

Reminds me of the expression, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

More vinegar.

Do a Wordpress (or similar) blog and you can post a link on here to your articles for those interested. You could even start a thread for that purpose and for their discussion.

Red Marriott

Do a Wordpress (or similar) blog and you can post a link on here to your articles for those interested. You could even start a thread for that purpose and for their discussion.

That’s more like it!

radicalgraffiti

Not surprised, they must have read your posts :)

I feel like the thread should have just stopped there.

Red Marriott

Do a Wordpress (or similar) blog and you can post a link on here to your articles for those interested. You could even start a thread for that purpose and for their discussion.

But where would be the fun in that? It wouldn't get as many responses as this thread and where would that sweet taste of victimhood come from?

AnythingForProximity

I see that "Lately I've been feeling sad and gloomy, therefore I get a carte blanche for my politics turning to utter shit" has been raised to a new Libcom orthodoxy. Maybe I was wrong about Libcom's politics changing – maybe it doesn't even have any politics anymore and has just turned into some kind of bizarre leftist support group.

Yes, one post means that whereas all the other actions of the admins over many years and their stated aims and purposes do not.

Does anyone genuinely believe that meerov has been censored? He's quoted a response which says he can post in the forums as well as adding history and library articles. And depressing that this thread has so many posts, pointless rehashing of a dull and pointless issue which makes good posters exasperated and gives people who like drama some drama which, in spite of what they think, isn't doing them any good.

I don’t think anyone has suggested cencorship and certainly I see no drama here, in fact I would agree that it’s pretty dull.
Also, I reckon you’re probably misinterpreting the reasons that some people might participate in this thread.

good posters

I’m curious as to how this is defined and who gets to define it. Anyways, these ‘good posters’ have the option of not opening the thread, right? That would surely save them from this terrible exasperation to which they are being subjected.

libcom.org is a website run by the libcom collective, and we have the right to determine who gets a blog here.
Your posts often have good insight and useful historical information, so we have given you permissions to post to our library and history sections.
However our blogs need to be individually approved by us. And a number of your posts in the forums are unacceptable from our point of view. For example, you have repeatedly made racist false claims, like claiming that black factory workers had demanded whites leave the workplace as they did "not feel safe", and that black students had demanded white students leave universities.
We will not have a blogger associated with our website who makes false, anti-working class, racist claims online, refuses to provide any evidence for them and refuses to retract them or apologise for them.

As for this:

I'm sorry that I'm not a "Puerto Rican nationalist" and I'm not in the same organization ( IWW) as this man, Jeff Monson https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CebTL03WsAQ5H2D.jpg . Otherwise, I would even have a chance to become an admin of this site, like Juan Conatz . It's not weird.

As JC said, he hasn't been a libcom admin for at least 2 years, long before he made the post linked to. He also isn't a member of the IWW. Nor are any other libcom admins to my knowledge.

Even if somebody were, the IWW is a union, albeit a small one. There is nothing wrong with being a member of a union with people you disagree with. For workers to win struggles, we have to unite with people we disagree with.

What JC did do, is put in literally thousands and thousands of hours of painstaking work, adding stuff to our library and history sections, getting hold of rare materials, even building his own scanner to digitise them and put them online, as well as writing loads of great original content. While at the same time being a constructive presence in discussions, being informative and respectful, and never making up racist lies.

This is why we invited JC to join the admin collective, and gave him a blog.

jondwhite

I asked about creating a blog too, dont think i got a response.

Very sorry about this, we don't recall receiving this request.

Unless your blog had a very specific remit, which would steer clear of the subject, I don't think we would be able to give you a blog because of our difference of opinion on electoralism.

We do appreciate your contributions to the library though!

meerov21

Steven
For example, you have repeatedly made racist false claims, like claiming that black factory workers had demanded whites leave the workplace as they did "not feel safe", and that black students had demanded white students leave universities.
.

He is not telling the truth to you right now:

Meerov, you seem like quite an intelligent person, so I don't know how you can post things which are so foolish.

You are claiming that I am lying. However our whole conversation took place in the forums and is clearly visible to anyone who wants to read it.

What you said was this:

The problem arises when they [black people] demand that people with a different skin color leave the public space (factory or university, because in the presence of people with a different skin color "they do not feel safe").

I then challenged you to provide evidence of when this happened.

You failed to provide any evidence at all.

You spoke about one incident, where one hostile white journalist was told to leave a meeting. There is no evidence that was because of his race. It was because he was a hostile journalist. I also pointed out that radicals frequently eject journalists from their meetings. Have you ever been to Greece? You should see what white anarchists do there to journalists who get close to them.

The other examples you gave were things like students of colour holding meetings, which you acknowledged they had the right to do, but then you also claimed they didn't have the right to ask white people to leave these meetings if they refused. Which is contradictory.

As for the rest of your post:

1)
"Later a Day of Presence reunites various campus groups. Weinstein said he's been aware of the tradition for some time, and never objected to it. But this year, organizers said that on the Day of Absence, they wanted white people to stay off campus".
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/30/escalating-debate-race-evergreen-state-students-demand-firing-professor

this issue at Evergreen isn't something you mentioned in the last discussion. None of the examples you pointed to in the previous discussion actually backed up what you are claiming. This one does seem to, partially, as it may show at least some reporters claimed that people of colour asked white people to leave a campus for one day. However, the school pointed out that much of the reporting of the day of absence was inaccurate. When it actually happened, there were events just for people of colour, as well as multiracial events. And the furore around it generated by the extreme right led to the University being closed for 3 days by neo-Nazi threats of violence.

So your statement about students may have been partially correct, albeit it was just for in one university on the planet in 2017, for one day and was not just because people with white skin made people of colour feel unsafe (and of course in the US, Latinx people with white skin are still considered as people of colour, so actual skintone isn't even the issue). However your statement about factory workers was a blatant lie.

2) Moreover, I cited the statements of a well-known Jewish journalist that he was subjected to a verbal anti-Semitic attack at a meeting of students. This post was censored by this person (he changed its title). http://libcom.org/forums/theory/anti-semitic-racist-protests-american-students-21042018?page=2 I have not witnessed this scene, but I do not understand why I have no right to give this testimony.

No one "censored" you. You have even linked to the post here. How are people able to read it if I "censored" it?

3) As for the factory. That's what I actually said:
...people have the right to unite on the basis of ethnic principle, this is their right, [b]but no one gives them the right to demand to throw Jews or whites out of a public place, for example from the territory of the University or the factory.

The quote I'm referring to I pasted above.

My English is obviously imperfect, and certainly could have been misunderstood in this matter.

If you are now saying that you didn't mean to say that black factory workers had demanded whites be thrown out because they "made them feel unsafe", you could have said so on that thread, when you were repeatedly challenged about it, and you refused to admit that it was a lie.

If you want to retract it and admit that no black factory workers have demanded whites be removed, then please do.

While you're at it, you could also read about all the times white workers have gone on strike to prevent black people from being hired with them – which is a real thing which happened. Also I would recommend reading up on the history of actual segregation in US universities. Where black people were forbidden to attend in most cases up until recently, and were black people were attacked or even killed for attending mostly white universities.

This is also a great example of why we didn't give you a blog.

As you have never to my knowledge made one post about racism or discover nation against people of colour. But you repeatedly replicate extreme right talking points, and distort information to try to make it look as if "reverse racism" is a real thing.

Even in your initial example where you talk about a journalist who happens to be Jewish, like that makes him infallible, you consistently claim that everyone who spoke to him was a person of colour. Whereas as I showed in the other thread, the photographs of the protests in that university are multiracial and include large numbers of white people, and almost certainly Jewish people as well (given how frequently Jewish people are involved in anti-racist protests).

Let's look at that 'day of absence'. It looks like it was not 'organizers', and not students, but a single member of staff. Maybe someone can find another person who had the same idea, but I can't.

Atlanta Black Star

Evergreen was thrust into the spotlight last spring after a series of heated emails between Love and former faculty member Bret Weinstein over the Day of Absence/Day of Presence activities surfaced online. Each year, about 200 of the school’s 4,800 students, faculty and staff take part in the event, in which non-white students typically spend a day off campus to engage in other programs and discussions.

Love proposed a switch to the tradition, however, asking that white students who chose to participate remain off campus instead, as a show of “solidarity” with the minority students. Her idea wasn’t well received by Weinstein, however, who denounced the flip as “an act of oppression in and of itself.”

“You may take this letter as a formal protest of this year’s structure, and you may assume that I will be on campus on the Day of Absence,” the biology professor said in response to Love’s email. “I’d encourage others to put phenotype aside and reject this new formulation, whether they’ve ‘registered’ for it already or not. On a college campus, one’s right to speak or to be, must never be based on skin color.”

https://atlantablackstar.com/2017/11/27/evergreen-college-employee-called-anti-racist-day-absence-resigns-amid-campus-turmoil/

Based on that e-mail exchange though, Weinstein then went all over the media saying he was a victim of racism. He's since been doing the 'intellectual dark web' circuit of shows like the Rubin Report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fEAPcgxnyY&t=698s
and Joe Rogan with Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI

He's also the brother of Eric Weinstein, who's the managing director of Thiel capital - Peter Thiel has been one of the most well known/richest supporters of neoreactionary (NrX) ideology such as Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin. They may have different politics but here they are on video (on Dave Rubin): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmXq97do-tQ

(I haven't watched these videos beyond a few seconds each, just showing the amount of media attention this guy has managed to get for responding to an e-mail).

If we look at the actual student protests, which happened after the media furore started rather than before afaict, their explicit demands things like disarming of campus police officers as well as being rid of Weinstein (who at this point has confected a massive liberal/right wing backlash against poc students at the college). What they did not demand was for white students or faculty members to leave the campus - I can't see a single report that even claims this explicitly, rather saying 'organizers' which leads back to one staff member writing a polite e-mail, let alone a source for it, this report at least contains details of what did happen with some referencing: https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2017/06/02/19057135/what-we-know-about-the-lockdown-and-unrest-at-washingtons-evergreen-state-college

This was a response from Love, the original staff member who suggested white students could leave campus:

Love

"In the decades-long history of this event, it has ALWAYS been and will always be voluntary," she said in a statement. "Furthermore, this is the first year white people have been invited off-campus, as people of color have been asked to participate off campus each year prior. During the antagonizing party’s multi-year tenure at Evergreen, he has not once expressed complaint for the invitation extended to people of color leaving campus."

So no, black students did not 'demand that white students leave campus'.

Here are some comments from white students at the Evergreen, from the Cooper Point Journal which is a student publication there:

Cooper Point Journal

I took the liberty of speaking to some white Evergreen students who were enrolled at the time of the 2017 DoA/DoP. One student reminded me that, like always, the Day of Absence was optional and required students to pre-enroll to attend. She did not feel forced or oppressed but made the autonomous decision to participate in the day’s events. Another white student did not enroll because of conflicting commitments, and only participated in the Day of Presence activities. He stated that there was no sense of obligation to attend, nor did he feel forced or oppressed. Many other white students echoed these sentiments including those who did not attend simply because they did not want to. Since these events were for the students, one has to wonder where Weinstein imagined this oppression if it did not happen to any of the white students who he feels were affected.

And this is what happened to the students as a result of the media furore:

Cooper point Journal

Progressive cred notwithstanding, Weinstein put the Evergreen student body at risk by publicizing the protest in such a dishonest and unflattering way. The faces, names and phone numbers of student organizers were published online on subreddits dedicated to harassing leftists and people of color. A swastika was spray-painted on the side of a seminar building the day after the protest. Students living in Olympia have been routinely harassed by Weinstein’s sympathizers who show up to on and off-campus housing to threaten violence and shout racial slurs at students.

http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/05/31/the-truth-about-the-evergreen-protests/

Noah Fence

good posters

I’m curious as to how this is defined and who gets to define it. Anyways, these ‘good posters’ have the option of not opening the thread, right? That would surely save them from this terrible exasperation to which they are being subjected.

I posted it, it's pretty obvious that it would be my definition.

I define a good poster as someone with a genuine desire to advance working class politics. I suppose it makes sense that someone who regularly name drops, refers to pms and has extreme difficulty not talking about himself for more than three posts might think that there was more to it than that. I think your posting persona is a waste of time and meerov usually is too.

The last part of your post actually makes sense. I just ignored all of your posts for a long while and it was a good call. Shouldn't have let myself be sucked in, could have spent this time reading useful articles or translating something, and I said as much last time too, I think.

Well Jeff, there are a number of mean posts on this thread but your one is certainly the meanest.

Not sure what the beef is. Libcom owes us nothing but a generalized platform to submit and discuss stuff.
Blogs are for the few who the collective wishes to grant a blog to. Hurt feelings, yup, I can get that. Obliged to give a blog to anyone, no.