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

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Feb 16 2019 07:38

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."

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Feb 16 2019 20:11

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.

But to say on the anarchist website that to sympathize with the ideas of Bakunin and Pannekoek means to be a Troll... and also the fact that 20 years ago some man saw me somewhere (possibly or may be not), it also means that I'm a Troll - This is such a killer rational argument that I can hardly argue.

Noah Fence Thanks for supporting me. I don't think there are any sources of pain on this site.

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Feb 16 2019 14:44

More vinegar.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Feb 16 2019 17:17

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.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 16 2019 17:51
Red Marriott wrote:
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!

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 16 2019 20:18
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Not surprised, they must have read your posts :)

I feel like the thread should have just stopped there.

Red Marriott wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 16 2019 21:01

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.

Quote:
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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 16 2019 23:37

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:

Quote:
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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 17 2019 15:39
jondwhite wrote:
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
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Feb 17 2019 23:04

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:
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-ev...

"Instead of people of color leaving campus, white people were asked to do so."
https://psmag.com/education/the-real-free-speech-story-at-evergreen-coll...

I could cite other references.

I have no reason to believe that all the American media are lying, including (as i think) the left site https://psmag.com, but in any case this is not the question to me.

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-st... I have not witnessed this scene, but I do not understand why I have no right to give this testimony.

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, 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.
I did not mean that someone was in favor of cleaning the factory from whites and Jews, mention of the factory was needed to designate a public place. My English is obviously imperfect, and certainly could have been misunderstood in this matter.

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/anti-semitic-racist-protests-american-st...

Those who are interested can pay attention to my words, especially to paragraph 1. It's not for the person I'm commenting on. Anyone can read the links and make conclusions about me and him.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 18 2019 23:52
meerov21 wrote:
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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-ev...

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.

Quote:
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-st... 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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Feb 19 2019 11:18

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 wrote:
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-calle...

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-kno...

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

Love wrote:
"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'.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Feb 19 2019 12:45

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

Cooper Point Journal wrote:
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 wrote:
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-evergre...

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 19 2019 21:19
Noah Fence wrote:
Quote:
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.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Feb 19 2019 22:12

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

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 21 2019 03:27

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.