Ted Hayes and the effigy of Bin Laden across the street from the King Fahad Mosque.

The mosolem in attendance at the mosque went outside to see what was happening.

Ted Hayes and his followers had a street permis for their protest, but they probably didn't enticipate that they would be counter protesters preventing them to protest just in front of the mosque. They had to go accross the streets. At this location, I was told that in the past the racist protestors didn't encounter any counter protesters to confront them.

I counted about 60 counter protestors. They came with placards and signs to denouce the racist bigots.

Both sides were stongly vocing their discontent.

All the moslems came outside the mosque to confront the protestors with their stares.

There was a lot of media there. Ted Hayes knows a lot about media stunt.

All the moslems came outside the mosque to confront the protestors with their stares.

CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, Sunday, September 10, 2006, At 5 p.m., just after all the police left, Ted Hayes and his followers hanged the effigy of Bin Laden in front of a crowd of about 150 people, across the street from the King Fahad Mosque.

Ted looks crazy on this picture. Is he?

As usual, the racists came over to harass the counter protestors.

That's the messages that most counter protestors voiced.

As usual, the racists came over to harass the counter protestors.

All the moslems came outside the mosque to confront the protestors with their stares.

My estimate of the crowd there was about 150.

As usual, the racists came over to harass the counter protestors.

As usual, the racists came over to harass the counter protestors.

Well I guess this officially puts the cat out of the bag. We knew you goons hated America but coming out to show your support for Bin Laden and Muslim terrorism is really sinking to the lowest common denominator. Absolutely disgusting. This should put you on terror watch lists.

They burn Christian churches in America too.

It's not right to carry out a protest like this in front of a church, mosque, temple, or whatever.

UAC was trying to send the message that 1) they hate Osama Bin Laden enough to hang him (but don't a lot of people?)... and 2) that they consider the members of the mosque to be the same as Osama Bin Laden. What's more, UAC is being the judge of the matter.

That's wrong.

Dont forget the Christian Fundamentalist bomb abortion clinics too in america. and Also, who is Irv Rubin? a domestic terrorist from the JDL

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0030.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_0027.htm

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37363/

Hmmmmm. All those pictures and STILL no photos of what the protesters signs said.

You want us to believe that Ted Hayes and his protesters were "racists" and "hated Muslims" but we can't see a single sign.
Only American flags.

Wouldn't those signs show that the protesters were against ISLAMIC VIOLENCE directed against Americans? Were the counter-protesters SUPPORTERS of Bin Laden?

Perhaps some of the people who attended can clear this up for LA.IMC readers.

ISLAM YES

The sign that the man is holding, on the last picture says, " USA yes, Islam no."
That's a racist comment, Becky!

are you for the bombing of the mosque then just like what Irv Rubin and Earl Kruger got arrestted for and they both died in hell one killed himself and the other neonazi kill him.
and the Christian Fundementalist who bomb abortion clinics, attacking gays, etc. is this what islamic fundementalist do? "pro-choice, gays dont have a right" Right Becky.

More Racist Signs

on the last picture, she acts like a JDL member.

Can u edit your video? Majority of your video are boring as hell. Or just give it to Brooke Young. He will galdly edit it for u.

I heard about it here and thought I'd stop by to check out the scene, UAC was chanting "We Love Muslims, we love Muslims" and "join us, join us" seemed a far cry from what this article is saying. The Muslims were invited to come and stand with the UAC united against binny boy but they didn't and actually PROTESTED A HANGING OF BIN LADEN! How can anyone protest a haning of bin laden unless they are for him?

And I agree with you. It IS a racist sign.

UAC has been harassing this mosque several time before and they havent made any communication with the mosque.
also, this website want to dialog with the founder about his misconspection about islam but Jesse refuse to. is he afraid too?

http://www.examinethetruth.com/Jesse_Petrilla.htm

I was just out converting some Christians to Islam, till I came across Jesse Petrilla’s website: United American Committee. Let me introduce myself, my name is Nadir Ahmed, and I have a website called: www.ExamineTheTruth.com. My site has demolished and exposed many of the anti Islamic pundits via debates and challenges, for example Ali Sina:

http://www.examinethetruth.com/page_against_01.htm#sina

In fact, the latest victim was Craig Winn (prophetofdoom.net), who was exposed BADLY on the Mike Gallagher radio show by Jalal Abualrub. You can download the debate from my site to see what he did to him. It was ugly. By the way, that was second website exposed on the United American Committee’s list ! In addition to that, I personally humiliated Jesse Petrilla’s good buddy Michael Savage on his show (July 18).

And now, ExamineTheTruth.com has come for Jesse Petrilla. We would like to extend a friendly challenge to debate, and he can pick the topic. Anything he wants. But, I hope that he will defend his outrageous claim:

"non-believers are not innocent according to Islamic law, and we are not civilians according to Islamic jihad, we are the enemy, and according to Islamic extremists, our killing is not unjustified."

This is nothing but a bold face lie. Nevertheless, we are sure and confident that we will be victorious no matter what the topic is. To be frank, I don't think Jesse Petrilla is the "tough guy" that he makes himself out to be. And I believe this debate challenge will sustain that. ExamineTheTruth.com is one of the most powerful tools used by Muslims in evangelization and to spread Islam all across America. We have Islamic missionaries on the ground, in the air, and on the net working round the clock. Therefore, if Jesse Petrilla is really serious about stopping Islam, he should take us head on.

But, if Jesse Petrilla backs down from this challenge, then he will be viewed as nothing more than a fraud. I have come to learn that the cowardly retreat of the Islam bashers as in the case of Craig Winn, turned out to be a terrible disappointment for their “flock” and faithful supporters. In response to the Islamic debate challenge, Craig Winn issued the following statement:

And Nadir, Osama, Jalal, and all the others are too late. Craig has returned to his first love—Yahweh’s Scriptures. After doing 1500 hours of live broadcast interviews and debates on the direct connection between Islam and terrorism, Craig has received a promotion. He no longer has to spend his days wallowing in Satan’s hellish scriptures. He has returned to amplifying the full meaning of Yahweh’s words as they are presented in His prophetic writings.

To put it short, Craig Winn refused, and ran from the debate challenge. But, Craig Winn’s flock expected an aggressive challenge to be met with an even more aggressive defeat and humiliation of Islamic apologists and Imaams. But, these supporters soon found out that their fearless leaders were NOT what they thought they would be and fell way short of their expectations.

As a result of the Winn bubble bursting, many of these readers have been turning to Islamic websites to get a more balanced approach, and many have left their prejudices against Islam behind. I have received many emails from faithfreedom.org, prophetofdoom.net and answering-islam.org expressing their reservations over this. Left with no choice, Craig Winn backtracked on his previous statement, ignored “Yahweh’s promotion”, and decided:

“Let’s get it on…”


He accepted the debate challenge proposed by Jalal Abdualrub on the Mike Gallagher radio show, and got the worst beating of his life. In front of millions probably, Jalal Abdualrub cornered him and pummeled him for 40 long minutes. It was a terrible humiliation. Today, Craig Winn is nothing more than a clown from the boogie town. And now, it is time to turn the spot light on Jesse Petrilla’s United American Committee.



A final point, I meet a lot of U.S. military personnel, for example, my brother who just came back from serving in Iraq, and I also did some chaplain work on naval bases. I am quick to point, that those so-called “patriots” (who refused to debate with Islamic apologists) have a hypocritical double standard:
They tell you to “be brave!”, “face the enemy head on!” and encourage you to go to Iraq. But! They themselves are not “brave” and refuse to face their enemy head on and run like cowards from the Islamic debate challenge. I further ask, “what do you have to say about these patriots and conservatives who make claims against Islam, but refuse to allow any qualified Islamic apologist to challenge what they say, or to even question them? They of course are “too busy” for that. Again, what do you think about their credibility? We on the other hand allow all of our views to be debated and challenge. That’s the difference. And by God’s grace, we have converted many service men.

The bottom line, if you can not rise to the intellectual challenge of Islam.. you're toast. You won't even get out of first gear. We awaite Jesse Petrilla’s response

.

*Update 02/09/06*: Jesse Petrilla has refused to entertain any discussion/debate regarding his statement, “non believers are not innocent…” as posted above. Be rest assured, his claim is false. ExamineTheTruth.com has made the following observations of Jesse Petrilla’s United American Committee:



ü Complete refusal to entertain any debate regarding his/her views. As of Saturday, February 09, 2006 we are not aware of a single instance of where the site owner has participated in any forum or debate, which brings his/her views regarding Islam into question by qualified critics.

ü The websites are complete one sided, little to almost no cross examination of the website’s arguments or claims.

ü As a result of blocking out all debate and adequate representation of the opposing party, the website owner has been able to conjure up a spectacular world of fantasy fiction, as the site owner is presented as a “knight in shining armor” doing battle with the forces of evil.

Once again another polarized debate completely misses the point. The so-called 'patriots' led by Minuteman (anti-Mexican immigrant) psuedo-African-american Ted Hayes (we hear Condi's looking for some action, eh Ted?) only tell half the story by hanging the Bin Laden effigy on 9/11. To be completely accurate, the true patriots would hang a GW Bush, (Cheney, et al regime) effigy(ies) directly next to the Bin Laden effigy..

What is becoming known fact amongst more aware people in both the "left" and the "right" is the complicity of the GW Bush regime with funding, training and continuously supporting Saudi based "Al-Queda" terrorists and Saudi's fundamentalist Wahhabist regime. The the GW Bush regime was complicit in the Saudi attacks on WTC circa 9/11 is also increasingly obvious to those who have chosen to remove their heads from out of the sand..

"The Homeland Security Act is designed to control all US law enforcement agencies so that elements in the CIA and Mossad can target Americans with impunity, like they did on Sept. 11. American agencies were designed to remain independent so they could serve as a check on each other.

The Act is also designed to allow George W. to place his henchmen in positions of control. Remember, he is a product of a secret Satanic cult, the "Skull and Bones." This sounds gruesome but the Twentieth Century provided many precedents. The illuminati was behind both Nazi and Communist mass slaughter and terror. Our position is akin to the European Jews who disbelieved warnings of the holocaust."

more @;
http://www.rense.com/general32/masters.htm

The so-called "liberals" miss the point when avoiding the facts that Saudi Royal Bin Laden Family influenced Wahhabist Islam is a fascist theocracy state that threatens Muslims, Judeo-Christians, animists, secular agnostics, Buddists, etc.. by their fundamentalist rhetoric and military actions. As does the tele-evangelist Christocratic Zionist regime led by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, GW Bush, etc...

From the Wilderness reports;

"There are direct historical links between Osama bin Laden's business interests and those of the Bush family. On September 15 I received the following message from FTW subscriber, Professor John Metzger of Michigan State University:

"We should revisit the history of BCCI, a bank used by the legendary Palestinian terrorist known as Abu Nidal. BCCI was closely tied to American and Pakistan intelligence. Its clients included the Afghan rebels, and the brother of Osama bin Laden, Salem. Salem bin Laden named Houston investment broker James R. Bath as his business representative in Texas, right after George W. Bush's father became CIA director in 1976. By 1977, Bath invested $50,000 into junior's first business, Arbusto Energy, while Osama bin Laden would soon become a CIA asset. George W. BushÕs FBI director Robert Mueller was part of the Justice Department's questionable investigation of BCCI. (On BCCI, the bin Ladens, and the Bushes, see the books, The Outlaw Bank, A Full Service Bank, and Fortunate Son)." Further details of the business and financial relationships between the Bush and bin Laden family are found in Peter Brewton's 1992 book The Mafia, CIA and George Bush. BCCI, incidentally, was founded by a Pakistani."

read more @;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html

Wanna find Bin Laden family 'black sheep' Osama? Try looking for Osama Bin Laden in Crawford, Texas. Maybe Ol' Sama has a nice little shack where he can turn out those lovely videotapes threatening the "infidels" with another terrorist attack. Ranches have always been great places for hiding unpopular political allies, eh Georgie W?

For someone who has such a problem with IMC's (in general) you sure post alot of noise...
If you want a site that caters to your rabid pro-israel views, here's one that's right up your alley:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

So much for Christianity's claim that it's a religion of love.

God DAMN fucking Christian racist mother fuckers!

That's why we don't like it when the right wing zionist filth that troll this site squeal "antisemitism" at all the critics of Israel.

Judaism is different than Islam in that it also has the aspect of being an ethnicity as well as a religion. Some people are only ethnically Jewish, others only religiously Jewish, many both.

Fill in the blank Mari.


Nation of Islam is______.

I will give you a hint it is not latinos. it is part of your title.

Try updating the fricken picture captions. Wow, how informative.

Why is it racist if you don't like a belief system or some of the values it teaches? A belief system has no discernable DNA as far as I know. A belief system only exists on paper & in a person's mind. You can dislike it all you want, it's not racist.

I hate Nazis & white supremicists. Does that mean I hate white people? I hate Communism, does that mean I am racist against Chinese or Cubans?

I don't like the religion of Islam for a host of reasons, not least the way it is being used by some to advocate, excuse, justify, & incite violence, all of which are happening in this world today & I am sick of people denying it, & I am sick of the excuses being made for it( Israeli injustices anyone?).

I thought anyone could be a Muslim like anyone can be a Christian, if they so choose? So how can someone be a racist for standing up to a *religious group* who murders in the name of their god?

And it's not just one or two Muslims killing in the name of their god....I really wish people would wake up to that fact.

Islam, a religious cult that brainwashes it's followers, has the problem.. with hate and horrible Human Rights issues.

"thought anyone could be a Muslim like anyone can be a Christian, if they so choose? "

Yes, but what happens to one who chooses to no longer be Muslim and renounces the religion?

There is more live reporting from the scene at the following links.

http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/rage_against_the_muslims/
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/video_killed_the_terrorist_star/
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=rtlee

But instead, we came to this site, and its not a dumbass right wing looney site.
Start here. Try this instead of spamming your wingnt blogs...
http://www.infoshop.org/focus/rightwingnuts.php

I am as hawkish as they come, but I found this scene to be truly sickening. Whether you call it racism, bigotry or just hate is irrelevant. Harrassing law abiding citizens for their religion is about as un-American as you can get.

I get upset when things like this happen to Jews in Europe.

Religion carries people's identity and culture. It provides meaning and beauty to people's personal lives. I strongly oppossed many of the attitudes and beliefs widespread in the Islamic world today. But I will oppose those attitudes and beliefs and the actions that come from it.

For example, anti-semtiism is unacceptable. I do not care if comes out Islam or poverty or anger at Israel. It is anti-semitism that affects us. Nothing else is my business.

When will
“…straight right-wing, multiple-divorced a**holes... realize that letting gay people get married won’t hurt their way of life, since they’ve already f#@ked it up for themselves and everyone else anyway by re-electing Bush.” -- Hughston Walkinshaw, founding member and executive director of the Blue Barn Theater.

Walkinshaw is a racist.

Reply to Mari not you daisy. Did you read her comment? Mari should have said Some of latinos and African America...
Also, there is a wave of muslims in south america.

Al Yahud asked "Yes, but what happens to one who chooses to no longer be Muslim and renounces the religion?"

The answer is simple. Islamic law "Shariya", demands that they be put to death or at the least exiled. In Islam it is unforgivable to leave Islam.

You say you tried to debate military personell returning from the middle east and they would not debate. In Afghanistan and Iraq they faced roadside bombs, suicide bombers, ambush and countless other dangers and you have the gall to call them cowards. I linked here from another site and it didn't take too long to see where you're coming from. I don't hold much hope of a reasoned and informed debate at this site. Calling people cowards and denigrating people you don't agree with is not debate. But it does seem to be the muslim apologist way. Loud screeching about your oppression got tiresome a long time ago. Get some new material.

> Your absurd comparisons of christian
> fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics
> to Islamofascist fundamentalists who commit
> terrorist acts are apples and oranges

Wrong again. Terrorist acts are terrorist acts regardless of the name of the cult that the cultist adhears to. Christianity and Islam are equal in all relevent aspects.

Christianity has the larger body count and history of inhuman crimes and atrocities, of course, bar none, but that's only because Christianity's history goes back further than most.

Christianity and Islam -- and Judism -- are all evil by their own standards, leave alone the superior standards of non-cultists. Trying to pretend that Christian terrorism is some how different than Islamic terrorism is one of the reasons why Christianity persists in being so profoundly evil.

My opinions only and only my opinions.

until the rightwing racist fascist got a hold of Christianity. clearly jesus would be against this capitalist system.

For the life of me I cannot understand how some Americans can believe that Islamists in America support or defend Osama bin Laden, or the September 11 2001 crimes against the USA. Nor can I imagine how hanging bin Laden in effegy is "racist," though doing so outside a Islam place of worship smacks of organized hate: wouldn't it have been more appropreate to hang bin Laden in effigy near the White House, next to an effigy of Bush2, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, etc.? They are all the enemies of America, no less than bin Laden.

Even after all that discussion time on imc this thread cannot get beyond simplistic left vs. right false dichotomy that either villifies Judeo-Christianity and exalts Islam or villifies Islam and exalts Judeo-Christianity without looking at the complicity of the ruling global elites (ie., Bush, Bin Ladens, Israel, etc..) from both religious camps in manipulating average everyday people of all sides into this global religious ethnic conflict soon becoming nuclear holocaust..

How did we get to this point?

Hundreds of years ago Islam was formed by prophet Muhammed in response to the intertribal conflicts of various pagan Arab nations. The early stages of Islam included the variety of Earth-centered Arabic dieties that later merged to become Allah, nearest in physical form at Kabbah, Mecca. Original Islam taught compassion for the poor, equal rights for all, justice for those wronged. Many Muslims continue to follow these ideas in practice..

Over the last few decades a recent form of Islam called Wahhabism surfaced that seeks to expel any and all pagan/heathen elements form Islam. Especially hated by Wahhabists is the female pagan goddess of pre-Islam called "al-Uzza". As a pagan infidel myself, i find the Wahhabists attack on pre-Islamic herstory to be an affront to the religion's diverse people. The treatment of Sufi Islam by Wahhabists is not better. There is no reason for the so-called left to defend Wahhabist Islam..

"Yet for all his successes the confederation inspired by Muhammad's charismatic personality – he welded together an unlikely coalition of ex-merchants, desert nomads, and agriculturalists – did not survive his death. Most Arabs, particularly the nomadic and semi-nomadic Bedouin, remained at heart polytheistic pagans and Muhammad's successor Abr Bakr (632-634) immediately had to crush a rival alliance of tribes in eastern Arabia, and even rival 'prophets'.

Islam has been riven by sectarianism ever since."

more Islam herstory @;
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/islam1.html

Ironically the Wahhabists are most often found cavorting around the royal palaces of Saudi Arabi, home of the infamous Bin Laden family. Like their political allies the Bushes, the Bin Laden royalty that rules Saudi Arabia with an iron fist soaked with blood strives to be the most materialistic/consumerist, they built the world's largest parking garage..

The origin of Christianity is from an individual named Jesus (common name in those days) who led the lifestyle of an ancient anarchist, feeding people by sharing food and speaking out against the injustices of the Roman government. His words and deeds were disliked by the Holy Roman Empire, at that time a psuedo-pagan imperialist state that demanded complete obediance from their subjects. Jesus and his followers, later named Christians were all executed for their acts of subversion against the state. Ironically many people named Jesus were executed by the Roman Empire, probably for all sorts of reasons. The actual Jesus that Christians worship may be a conglomeration of urban legends about a variety of political agitators named Jesus..

Were Jesus to hypothetically return today, he could be an outspoken person concerned with human rights now living his final days out on death row (ie., Mumia Abu-Jamal). Most certainly the real and true Jesus would NOT be welcomed in the company of psuedo-Christian GW Bush..

Modern day Christianity comes in many forms, though the track record of the last 2000 years following their leaders death are not good in the human rights and sustainable ecology category. From witch burnings to crusades against Islam, to colonialist genocide against indigenous north/meso/south Americans, modern day Christian's lifestyle of bigotry, deceit and materialism is far removed from their original role model Jesus. One could claim that at the extreme, certain Christian leaders (ie., Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, GW bush, etc..) are in fact living and speaking in the EXACT 100% OPPOSITE manner of how Jesus advised people to live..

Five years ago 9/13 Jerry Falwell said;
"I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, ... the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen." Jerry Falwell, 700 Club, 2001-SEP-13.

religious right hatespeech cont's @;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter7.htm

The hypothetical return of Jesus would result in the psuedo-Christians (GW Bush, Robertson, et. al) being the FIRST to be thrown into the pit of Hellish flames so many Zionist evangelicals are so fond of mentioning..

Funny thing that the Christian Zionists themselves may be attempting to circumvent the will of G-d by beginning a man-made nuclear holocaust in the Middle East disguised as "Rapture". To accomplish this the petroleum extraction/occupation of Iraq would continue to worsen the ecosystem, and the ongoing conflict between Judeo-Christians and Muslims would lead to a final "Battle of Armageddon" to take place in modern day Israel-Palestine..

"Christians offering an alternative to the biblical and political distortions of Christian Zionism - because if we remain silent they'll assume we agree."

Above quote from some decent Christians who challenge Christian Zionism with their database;
http://www.christianzionism.org/

Needless to say Jewish scholars and Rabbis have forseen this event planned by Christian Zionists and completely separate themselves from Zionist Israel. The Rabbis of Neturei Karta provide evidence in their Holy book the Torah that the Zionist state of Israel goes against their law and needs to be dismantled peacefully. Ironically that is the same agreement they reached with so-called "anti-Semite" Iranian President A who hosted them in Iran as peace diplomats. Far better than the treatment they received at the hands of right wing Christian Zionists who physically assaulted the anti-Zionist Rabbis when they protested Israel's violence towards Palestinians at a Zionist conference in the Southeastern US..

In the Rabbi's words;

"Torah Jewry, therefore, condemns the horrifying suffering inflicted upon both the Palestinian and Lebanese people. Because of all of the above, all attempts to achieve peace and stability for "Israel" are destined to fail. The Creator cannot be defied with impunity.

The Rabbis stated, that the State of "Israel" will result in unending pain, suffering and bloodshed. May the Almighty protect His creations.

The State of "Israel" does not speak in the name of Jews, they have stolen the name "Israel" from the Jewish people. Jews are commanded to be loyal citizens in every country in which they reside.

Zionism and the State of "Israel", is the main cause of the exacerbation of anti Semitism universally."

read more @;
http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/2006July18.cfm

Hi everyone - this is the real johnk here - not the fraud who's been baiting Fred. I would never bait Fred, because it'd turn into a big, time-sucking fight. Got too many things to get done here.

Anyway, to answer a couple troll-bait questions that came up here a few times:

>If burning Bin Laden in effigy is racist, I guess everyone who burns Bush in effigy is also racist? Obviously, not.

Well, it you wanted to burn some bad Black dude in effigy in front of a Black church, it would be racist.

If you burned Irv Rubin (already dead) in effigy in front of a temple, that would be racist too.

If you burned a Christian criminal in effigy, in front of a Christian church, in a country where Christians were a small minority, and of a "race" different from the majority race, that would be racist. It'd be racist if everyone were of the same race, too, in my opinion.

It doesn't matter that the people inside the church disagree with, or even hate the person being hung in effigy.

"Racism" is just a term that people in America use interchangably with "bigotry". It can be against any community of people: religious, racial, ethnic (most racism is probably inter-ethnic), or pretty much any visible community of people. It's just the most convenient term to use because racism was such a part of our history, and because a lot of people understand the experience.

Sometimes, you hear people equating homophobia and racism. Homophobia is a kind of racism, they say. I agree. Here's why:

- Racism isn't just personal bigotry, but a widely held social dislike of a group of people. LGBT people have suffered this. (Please correct me if I got the letter order wrong.)

- Racism is supported by the legal system, as laws which disadvantage or exploit a group of people. LGBT people have suffered this.

- Racism is supported by naturalistic arguments that pretend to be science.

- In America, the main way people are encouraged to deal with racism is denial (colorblindness), and if possible, having the "different" person hide the difference as much as possible. The remedy is "Uncle Tomming" or "passing."

"Racism" is the common term, because it carries with it, many connotations about the social construction of race and racism. It's something that's not just an identity, but it's something made more real by the numerous material actions that people take to ensure that one identified group is generally socially inferior to another identified group.

Racism against a religion is racism. Though people can change religions, if they grew up in a specific church, they're going to carry that identity with them for a long time. For example, there are atheists who still identify with their ethnic-religious identity, or are identified by others as such. You know, "I'm an atheist but I grew up ....." Or vice versa, for that matter, with religious people returning to their "roots " after a generation or two of atheism or agnosticism or non-attendance at church. It runs pretty deep.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/9839832/detail.html?rss=den&psp=nationalnews

A Maryland substitute teacher was arrested after an alleged anti-Islamic tirade in front of high school students.

-=-

Read the full story. This wonder is just like these clowns who terrorized the Mosque.

My opinions only and only my opinions.

> UAC was chanting "We Love Muslims, we love
> Muslims" and "join us, join us" seemed a far cry
> from what this article is saying.

You don't expect people trying to hide their religious hatred to admit it in public. Consider the homophobic hate filled Christians that continually demand they don't hate gays, they just hate the "sin" of being gay -- which is exactly like proclaiming one doesn't hate niggers, only the "sin" of dark skin.

The hatred is pronounced in the fact that these scumbags presume that their intellectual and moral superiors need to answer to them, low-life scumbags. The people of Mosques, synagogs, and other churches don't need to answer to any bang of racist, hate filled rabble -- and they certainly don't need to cave in to terrorist demands and threats.

There was once a rule of law in the United States, an ideal where individuals are presumed innocent of all charges until evidenced guilty in a court of law. That was before this Christofascist terrorist regime inflicted "USA PATRIOT Act" against America and nullified the U. S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Now wer have rabble crazies in the street screaming their hatred and bigotry -- and waving Nazi and Confederate flags.

Religion has destroyed the United States' rights, freedoms, and liberties.

My opinions and only my opinions.

Calling them "racists" doesn't maketheir point any less valid. Please stop the ad-hominem garbage, it really doesn't help your argument.

Yup, another zionist info-op. Yawn

Did anybody see any "effigy?" Yawn.

Some guys hangin out in a back-alley of the 'hood somewhere burned an effigy. oo-eee. Yawn.

Israel just got down killing a thousand Lebanese civilians and is turning Gaza on a spit, cooking its residents' eyeballs out with an acetylene torch, and who does the Grand Patriarch of Kawruption in Rome choose to criticize for 'violent tendencies?' It just boggles the mind. If I were them, I'd be burning effigies too

How can we learn if we can't talk to one another?

Allowing only ONE SIDE to present its point of view does no one any good.

Unless your purpose is to keep Indymedia readers in the dark about unpleasant realities, please stop it!!

It is censorship. It has no place at Indymedia.

Its a violation of the principle of open publishing,
against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and worst of all---it DRIVES READERS AWAY IN DROVES!!

Look no further than SF.IMC for an excellent example of what heavy-handed censorship can do to an IMC.

It's a ghost site that can't even fund $30/mo from members.
It didnt start out that way.

The only readers it drives away are all 5 of the rabid frothing at the mouth zionist propaganda-trolls...we don't need you. If we wanted the JPOST/FOX News, mainstream media viewpoint, we'd go to those sources. We come here for something different.

You are as impervious as a brick to any discussion of Israel that doesn't spike your hasbar-O-meter, and I'm not vaguely interested in "learning" anything from you either. There are more valuable lessons to be learned by simply taking a walk and keeping my eyes open

Spare us the glib PC-babble

She doesn't want to discuss anything. She repeats the same photographs.
She repeats the same Israeli talking points. She repeats the same references from Israeli links. I don't think she is able to discuss anything.

Her desperation shows, one minute she is literally begging....then she begins the hollow threats (in all caps no less-LOL!--about e-gad!--people will 'leave this site in droves'
LMFAO!
Who would leave because Becky's propaganda pictures of (allegedly) Palestinians dancing in joy on the beach weren't allowed to stand???
Gimme a fucking break.
Most people don't come here for a debate and/or discussion. Most people come here and read about stuff that is un/under reported in the mainstream media. alternative media provides a balance--in and of itself--to the rest---we don't need more right wing/pro-war/pro-israel viewpoints here under the sembelence of 'balance'.
and we sure know she isn't interested in 'discussion'. she is only interested in rabidly defending all things israel and propagandizing.
go to FreeRepublic, Little Green Footballs or Utah IMC for that tripe.

OH PULEEEEEEZZZZ WRITES: "I'm not vaguely interested in "learning" anything from you either."

BECKY: Then why do you read my posts?

You are not FORCED to read my posts. Next time, when you see its me that wrote it, skip it and read the next one.
Its no excuse for censorship based on the personal whims of monitors. There is an editorial process and it allows debate.

ME TOO WRITES: "She repeats the same photographs."

BECKY: You mean I reposted it after it had been censored meaninglessly.

BECKY why should I have step over it.
This forum is for justice not your propaganda that has been shown to be
pure baloney. No matter how you slice it. You never notice and go on with your C & P propaganda and repeated spam.

You will not enjoy power to propagandize here.
We come here for an alternative to your point of view. We know they myriad places to visit if we want the pro-israel, pro-war propaganda bullshit.
Your talking points are widely available in other places.
This is not a chatroom--try Yahoo, FreeRepublic, Little Green Footballs for folks who will love to have you post there....or Utah Imc/cesspool.

each and every one is ambiguous and yet you load it with your very special interpretations.
For instance the photo you show of a man with a gun pointing over some children. You don't even know that by his position, he is exposing himself and using covering fire to keep who ever is shooting at the children, head down. If he was using them for protection, he would be down and not standing up above them. You are not real bright and I think I'm not alone in saying I'm sick of you and your other side of the argument.

I am not Fox News. I am a nobody, just like you.

I don't have a lot of money. I work at a low paid job like a lot of people. I deserve to have a voice on Indymedia just like anyone else. I comply with (or don't) the editorial guidelines just like anyone else. I should be able to speak, or be censored by the same guidelines as everyone else.

Anything else is unjust.

I can't afford to buy time on Fox News or place ads in the newspaper. For me to have a voice, it is formats like Indymedia, or Free Radio Santa Cruz or Community Television where I, can voice my concerns, air my grievances, and celebrate our successes.

Indymedia is the perfect place for a person like me.

Heavy-handed censorship kills sites.

I'm speaking from experience here. I joined LA.IMC in August of 2000 when Robert Norse and I came down for the Democratic National Convention. We went to the Shadow Convention and signed up.

Back in Santa Cruz, Robert and I were approached in the Fall of 2000 by the person who founded Santa Cruz Indymedia. We immediately joined.

For the next five years, we were major contibutors to Santa Cruz Indymedia, contributing written articles, photographs, audiofiles, and an occasional video clip. So I know what an active Indymedia is supposed to look like---and its inclusive of a lot of different voices.

The very spirit of Indymedia is killed when a small cabal goes behind closed doors literally and behind pseudnyms figuratively, and decide for themselves what speech will be allowed and what speech won't be allowed.

Soon they are only talking to themselves and they repel both newcomers who come in and read confusing threads that are responses to posts long since censored, as well as drive away longime supporters and readers.

Who wants to put a lot of work or research into writing and posting a piece if some anonymous shitheel is going to 86 it in the wee hours while sweating over his keyboard for reasons unknown?

That's a way of discouraging anyone who dares post an opinion that doesn't perfectly line up with the bias of the censor.

You have to ask, why is TW here?
Why doesn't TW post up at Indybay.org where he lives?
Thats because they have NO DEBATE there anymore.
So TW is coming here.

And you let TW's most vituperative comments to stay up, while you delete the most innocuous comments posted by me--innocuous due to their accuracy that is.

I only suggest what is likely to happen.
Look at what HAS happened to Indymedias that got too heavy with the censorship.

Indymedia Vancouver folded. SF.IMC is a ghost-site with new comments disabled for awhile at least for lack of $30/month i donations.

All due to heavy handed censorship.

Look. Indymedia is the Goose that lays the golden egg.
Don't kill the goose.

LOVE THOSE REPORT BUTTONS WRITES: "This forum is for justice not your propaganda that has been shown to be
pure baloney. No matter how you slice it. "

BECKY: This forum is for reporting the news in an alternative forum where individuals who cannot usually have access to mainstream press can make their voices heard.

It's not a tiny club, where you get to be judge, jury, and executioner, change the rules to suit your whim, and get to slander, libel, censor, impune, to your hearts content knowing you are immune from complaint since you OWN the censorship button.

While you flippantly refer to my posts as "propaganda" it is
just a smokescreen for the fact that given a computer, a google search engine, enough coffee to keep a trucker awake from Cleveland to LA and days of research, you can't seem to refute a single point I make.

At least I give credit to TW. Between the smears, pejoratives, and personal attacks, he stops to refute a point or two. Badly, mind you. But he does it.

You don't even try.

WRONG BECK-O WRITES: "You will not enjoy power to propagandize here. "

BECKY: Okay. This is the argument that because I make a point that someone somewhere in the MSM also makes, mine should be censored.

Not that lots of people cut n past articles already in the MSM somewhere. But that the issue, the event, or the IDEA is already reported in some other place. Let me show you
why you don't mean what you say.


Lets look at the lead article here.

Marcus posts some photos about the Culver City protest in which activist, Ted Hayes, hung an effigy of Osama bin Laden to protest the terrorism of Sept. 11th. A few news media covered that story to some minor extent. Here's an example.

WORLD NET DAILY

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51604

BECKY: Shall monitors hide the original article because someone, somewhere, who happens to be more mainstream --or, gack, is conservative---also reported the event?

In fact, the counter-protesters probably sent out
press releases and contacted the MSM in the hopes of getting a reporter out there to cover the event and get your message out.

Thats what good activists do. I know. I've done more than my share of it.

Anyway, obviously you don't mean what you say. You don't thing that EVERY story that by some miracle finds its way into the MSM should be censored if it appears on LA.IMC as well.

Nor do you mean that any IDEA which may have been expressed somewhere in the corporate press should be censored from LA.IMC.

Medea Benjamin appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. Does that mean that from now on, all posts from Code Pink should be censored? After all, we heard THOSE IDEAS on the O'Reilly Factor!!

In my alternative press, many voices speak.
Monitors take out the spam, the commercial posts and advertisements, the casino come ons, and posts which are clearly over the top or mere character assassinations--likes the ones you post about ME here.

In your alternative press, due to some misguided sense of "solidarity" only one point of view Is allowed. Everyone speak with one mind. And no different points of view are tolerated, or the mob will descend, shreiking and yelling.


I hate to see LA.IMC sink to that level.

I'm just trying to keep the thread on-topic. I think a lot of people would say bringing discussions about israel or palestine is off topic. The handful of debaters here keep those OTHER threads alive, well into the dozens, but there are only FOUR about this demo, and only TWO that are post-demo. Time is a finite resource, and has to be preserved for the readers. Having a bunch of out-of-towners take over a thread and drive it into the isra-pali-fight-club is annoying.

The hiding is pretty biased, but not totally. I generally look more for virulent rage than political position. Big reposts also get flagged a lot. Others may have different standards.

The link you posted, the one you cited as mainstream media, is to an _announcement_ of the protest, not a report on the protest.

But that's not germaine to your argument, I agree. But your either/or argument (either publish only original work or publish anything) doesn't work, either. All media has a point of view, a bias, if you will. Without exception, media develops its readership/audience by maintaining a pov that appeals to a segment of the total public.

News reports that are constructed on commonly-held premises are generally designated "objective" and become "mainstream news." When the premises--the suppositions of how the world does/should operate--are challenged in news stories, the result is called, disparagingly "yellow journalism" or, politely, "biased journalism," or, professionally, "advocacy journalism." (Think Michelle Malkin on the right. I'm sure you have a list for the left.) And there's "niche market" journalism--think La Opinion or The Black Commentator or the San Francisco Bayview (sadly, in financial difficulty), which, as far as definitions go, isn't much different from advocacy journalism.

But I digress. "Objective" = hegemonic view of the world. "Biased" = non-standard view of the world. In any case, no thinking person needs Chomsky to tell them that _all_ media is biased. If marxist or anarchist premises were more widely accepted, LA-IMC would be the LA Times, and the LA Times would be the "minor" publication. Free Republic would be downright fringe.

The LA-IMC editors are highlighting left-wing advocacy journalism. Everyone is welcome to publish here. Some will make the front page, some will make local news, some will make it no further than breaking news, and some will be hidden. That's the job of editors--to determine and maintain the "voice" and the readership of the publication. "Comments" are a means for readers to acknowledge that what they write doesn't merit a strong spotlight, usually because it's too referential to stand alone. Some other povs are included in comments; some aren't. No publication can feature everything equally--then nothing has any importance. When you and I post these remarks as comments, we acknowledge that.

Now, you can go on demanding the LA-IMC be something it isn't. That's your right. But most everyone here has tacitly agreed that the editors are usually choosing well--they choose a voice that most of us prefer, and they include enough debate to keep us on our toes. Those who don't agree with the editors go elsewhere for their news. I think that's what others here are suggesting you do. LA-IMC isn't for everybody.

Becky's views are widely available elsewhere. We come to this site to get the points of views that we don't get (generally) in the mainstream media---a left/radical/marxist/anarchist/socialist-libertarian slant. As someone who (if I had to identify) falls into the socialist-libertarian category, I am for the 'little guy', against wealthy states preying on those less privilaged/fortunate. I am very critical of rich, violent states that claim to be democratic (US, Israel--but certainly not only them) and don't feel this point of view gets much play in MSM, so I go to alternative/indymedia for this perspective---where different news/opinions/perspectives (i.e. arab news) may be consolidated.
Likewise, I don't go to sites that are much different than this (i.e. rabid pro-israel sites) and try to change them/persuade them/debate them. If I do want to do this, I know there are many, many forums out there specifically for this.

I'm just trying to keep the thread on-topic. I think a lot of people would say bringing discussions about israel or palestine is off topic.

And having people attack Becky simply because they don't garee with one aspect of her political beliefs is also annoying. All personal attacks should be deleted.

Big reposts also get flagged a lot.

Thank you- the Ann Lesch post has appeared about 6 times so far this year. Its long, boring and not even topical.

You will never run shit here--no matter how much spamming, trolling, whining, crying, lying, deflectiong, etc. you do--this will never be turned into a MSM pro-jizrael, pro-war right wing puke site.
You efforts are futile. We watch you have meltodowns, only to be deleted daily. You are a joke.

Thanks to John K for trying to explain how you come to your decisions when editing these threads.

JOHN K WROTE: "Having a bunch of out-of-towners take over a thread and drive it into the isra-pali-fight-club is annoying."

BECKY: First, I joined LA.IMC in Aug. 2000, so unlike many here, I am a member.

2nd--- TW, JA, Nessie in all of his many names, and Toady are ALSO from "out of town" too. In fact, how can an editor even know if someone is a local or from out of town?

the reason TW and JA and others are posting HERE is because they were able to make the censorship at Indybay.org SOOOOO complete, that no one ever posts an alternative point of view there anymore.

they are bored, and come here. If you want this to end, contact Indybay.org and urge them to lift the censorship.
You can make a case that Indybay.org's censorship is adversely affecting LA.IMC. Tia, Charismatic Megafauna, and I would all rather post on your own IMC. LA.IMC is at least in our home state.

I am unaware of any editorial guildeline that allows monitors to censor posts if they come from "out of towners." Aren't you just making up this rule?

I can appreciate the "off-topic" concern (which IS in the editorial guidelines) but if you enforce this---in order to be fair, you need to do it to ALL posts, not just those you disagree with.

Finally, I am opposed to censorship at Indymedia of articles that do not violate the editorial guidelines, but disagree with a monitors political opinions. This is blatant censorship and I will call you on it every time it happens.

I appreciate monitors removing spam, advertisements, and those annoying come ons for casinos. Removing posts that are filled with invective, hate, and smear other activists also should be removed---especially if they are just name-calling and contain no substance for the complaints.
I don't think any of my posts fall in that category, but I am frequently deleted anyway.

That guy who endlessly spammed the Bible was also cause for deletions---however, I noted that he was tolerated quite a bit.

Finally, those who post under someone elses name should be removed. I've found dozens of posts under my name that i didnt post. This is wrong and a cause for monitors to remove posts----however, again, this appears to be tolerated by monitors depending on their own personal biases and prejudices.

Go try to post either of the articles on the mosque demo from here on http://www.israelforum.com/board/. See what kind of reception you get, and I'll bet you'll find we're kinder and gentler over here.

Following a purpose, adhering to a philosophy, isn't censorship. LA-IMC can't/shouldn't be all things to all people, even if you demand it. Becky, you're demanding LA-IMC turn into something it isn't. Most people here don't want LA-IMC to be what you want. If you want an unedited (or, as you say, "uncensored") message board, go put one up. I wish you luck.

Johnk, I think, noted this thread isn't about Israel, Palestine, or Hezbollah. He's right. It's about an Islamic mosque, the UAC (a non-religious organization, ostensibly), some Minutemen, and Coptic Christians. Asking everyone to stick to the topic--and yes, I've just violated that--isn't asking too much.

This is not a chatroom, not a debate forum. It is not a right wing pro-israel site. You will not be allowed to turn it into one, Becky.

you never responded to my post about one of the photos you provided to us as proof of something what ever it was against your favorite Palestinian punching bag.. I'll repeat it.

each and every one is ambiguous and yet you load it with your very special interpretations.
For instance the photo you show of a man with a gun pointing over some children. You don't even know that by his position, he is exposing himself and using covering fire to keep who ever is shooting at the children, head down. If he was using them for protection, he would be down and not standing up above them.

JUST THINKING OUT LOUD WRITES: "Go try to post either of the articles on the mosque demo from here on http://www.israelforum.com/board/. See what kind of reception you get, and I'll bet you'll find we're kinder and gentler over here."

BECKY: The policy of another publication or website is irrelevant here. You invite me to post somewhere else. I invite you to go jump in a lake. My entire post addressed LA.IMC editorial policies and practices, which only came up after I had been , again, censored for no reason.

LOUD WRITES: "Following a purpose, adhering to a philosophy, isn't censorship."

BECKY: Oh, now you are saying it ISN'T censorship. So I deluded myself into thinking my posts had been deleted for its political content alone?

LOUD WRITES: "LA-IMC can't/shouldn't be all things to all people...."

BECKY: I think it should be what it was set up to be. An alternative voice for the people--especially in the area in which they live---so they can make their own news, comment on other people's posts, and circumvent the MSM which cost money to be part of and is beholden to pleasing its corporate advertisers. Open Publishing mean anyone can publish---provided they follow the consensed guidelines of the collective. And yes it IS a place where people can have discussions and dialogues. These are all crucial to functioning democracies and part of our nationally proclaimed rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

LOUD WRITES: ".....even if you demand it. Becky, you're demanding LA-IMC turn into something it isn't.

BECKY: I hold LA.IMC, its readers, its members, and its monitors accountable for maintaining the viability and credibility of this IMC thru even-handed adherance to its own guidelines and principles, and thru acting in good faith.

LOUD WRITES: "Most people here don't want LA-IMC to be what you want. If you want an unedited (or, as you say, "uncensored") message board, go put one up. "

BECKY: That is not what I said. And if my words haven't been censored yet, anyone can scroll back up and see what I did say. I am indebted to the editors, the monitors, and the membership that keeps it going. And i read many more articles than I ever comment on or post. This editing should be done ONLY according to the editorial guidelines and not the personal animosity of one or two monitors.

LOUD WRITES: "this thread isn't about Israel, Palestine, or Hezbollah. "

BECKY: How was the post that monitors censored about some Muslims burning an effigy of the Pope THAT DAY off-topic? I thought it a timely coincidence, that if folks objected to Ted Hayes hanging Osama in effigy, then they too would object to burning the Pope in effigy.

Here is the photo which is ubiquitous on Indymedia. It shows the huge, armored IDF tank vs. some Palestinian boys with rocks.

It shows the excessive force of the Israelis and the brave, but futile resistance of a poor, struggling people.

That's why THIS photo is the one most IMC's select to promote.

Nevermind that the tank may be merely parked and no child is threatened by it. Nevermind that teachers, leaders, Imams, parents, and terrorists promote those boys to go down and confront the armed force of the Israelis on a daily basis!!

Can't you see that is putting children in harm's way?

This photo, fortunately, I had the foresite to put a date, time, and location on. Some other photos, I have less information about their source.

YOU may only see the child with the rock in the photo. But all IDF soldiers know, what they are really facing are the armed gunman, usually concealed on a rooftop, in a window, behind a wall, and even, among children.

Your comments about the gunman standing above the children, as putting himself at risk seems a stretch. doesnt he have to stand to shoot if he doesn't want to shoot a child in the back?

Wouldn't this be a terrible dilemna for an IDF soldier who was being fired on, when he could see that returning fire might kill some children?

I'm sorry. I don't remember the source of this photo. I made the caption myself so all I know is it was taken in either Gaza or the West Bank.

your photo could be titled " rocks scare away timid IDF in APC."
All of the ones I've seen you post are pure nothing. Except for you skewed interpretations.

You have never served in the armed forces and certainly not in combat.
Forgive an old veteran of the Army, but your gunman photo is a big stretch if you think this man is hiding behind the children.
As I said before, he appears to be laying down covering fire and is exposing himself by not crouching down" behind the children".
You interpret it your way out of ignorance and ill thought dogma.

[We come to this site to get the points of views that we don't get (generally) in the mainstream media---a left/radical/marxist/anarchist/socialist-libertarian slant. ]

 

Interesting.   I've always  believed that the purpose of a free press was to discover the truth and distribute the facts to the people  - without any "slant" at all.

 

Sounds to me like your'e looking more for propaganda than the truth.

 

 

 

 

"distribute the facts to the people - without any "slant" at all"

There's no such thing. Reporters are not adding machines, they all bring a bias to their work. You think your preferred sources have no "slant" at all? You're wrong. The slant they do speak from you've just sopped up since you were suckin momma's tit, so you don't notice. You think you're not consuming propaganda? hahahahaha poor naive child! You've spent your whole life wallowing in a cesspool of the most scientifically perfected propaganda the world has ever seen. It mostly reveals itself through glaring systemic omissions, 'Big Lies' in the negative. Goebbels would just stare slack-jawed and shake his head in awe. Then he'd tent his pants out. Orwell, seeing that it's not just commies who aspire to total mind control, would be forced to salt and pepper a copy of 1984 and chew it down. So you think US media outlets today are striving to develop "perfected" objective journalism? You look at television, major newspapers, Time magazine, etc. and this is what you see? hahahahahaha. Remember in Star Wars when Obi-Wan Kenobi said the 'Jedi mind-trick' only works on *weak* minds? That would be YOU.

Where did you get these photos from?

Then all you could conceivably rely on is your own personal observations.
This would make forming opinions on world affairs extremely difficult. We must rely on other people, and use critical thinking to interpret what is believable and what is not. LGF is propaganda, but so is IMC. All that is left is choosing what propagand you prefer.

It seems to me that the "gunman" photo has acquired quite a few peculiar visual artifacts, particularly around the rifle and strap; and this together with the poor perspective and coarse resolution, cannot even be considered reliably authentic. This is laughable. What ts is not, is, "evidence".

EARLY WRITES: "It seems to me that the "gunman" photo has acquired quite a few peculiar visual artifacts, particularly around the rifle and strap; and this together with the poor perspective and coarse resolution, cannot even be considered reliably authentic. This is laughable. What ts is not, is, "evidence".

BECKY: Fine. Don't believe your own eyes then.

More photo-shopped zionist propaganda.

The Palestinian Authority has no real authority.

Soldier laughs at dead child

"If all reporting is propaganda, then all you could conceivably rely on is your own personal observations."

That's right

"This would make forming opinions on world affairs extremely difficult."

No, it would make forming ACCURATE opinions on world affairs extremely difficult. The thing is, second-hand information in any amount doesn't really resolve this. An individual can consume such information voraciously and still be completely delusional about the state of the world. There are plenty of examples. For example all the Americans who dutifully get their four-hour dose from the brain-destroyer machine every evening like good bleating asshole sheep. They're taking in such "information" by the slop-bucket-load, and STILL they don't know shit about anything. If anything, there's an *inverse* relationship

Danny Shechter got it exactly right: "the more you watch, the less you know"

A better way to address the deficit is travelling to new places where you know the language and just being a fly on the wall and trying very hard to shatter the lens of preconcieved ideas, which many people just never do. Even then, you just might never achieve a God-like understanding of the world. It's anathema to say, I know: Like moths to a flame, people are drawn to the conceit that their minds are God-like and they know everything. In truth, this is a kind of narcissistic immaturity. Accepting that you don't and can't know everything is the most crucial lesson of all. This world is vast beyond comprehension, a solemn fact that should be accepted with grace. This even holds true for subsets of small subsets, e.g. the politics of human beings

Personally, I believe the doors to perception on such things lie not through learning, but through UN-learning. Most ideological/political/historical dogmas are iron bars that cage you away from understanding what's right in front of your face. This is their purpose. A lucid mind in a hoi-polloi slob like you is an exceedingly dangerous thing.

Let those bars get flabby from neglect and then wriggle out through them and you begin to discover that many ideological/political/historical matters are in fact much simpler than advertised, astonishingly so.

Slavery never ended. It's just the slaves LIKE being slaves now. The day slavery truly ends will be the day civilization itself ceases to exist, having been denied its life blood

City-states never ended. To the extent that modern nations advertise themselves as NOT being structured on this more ancient principle, they are frauds.

Colonialism never remotely ended. The day it does... well, refer back to 'slavery'

Monarchy never ended. In fact 'monarchy' itself is a too-elaborate concept: pathologically greedy people in the right place at the right time (e.g. the Vanderbilts, Hearsts, or Rockefellers) will accumulate fantastic wealth. Having done so, they will have gained entry into the uppermost stratum of class society: the people who actually BENEFIT from the contrived order of things. Among these people, the one who has the most wealth of various forms will have the most influence over others, and this person will be "king." By "king" I mean the top mafia kingPIN who will kill with impunity **anybody** who tries to oppose him

This is the only politics that is real.

Everything else is smokescreens, distractions, lies

"Politics" really is this incredibly simple. To lose sight of this simplicity is to fall back behind the bars and become confused again

"Civilization" is a pyramidal social hierarchy of privilege and subjugation, with this monarchal class sitting pretty at the pyramid's pinnacle. These people have been fascinated with the symbolism of the pyramid for thousands of years. This is how long they have known that this simple image really is the essential order of their world, and they've even created occult symbols to enshrine this understanding

Everyone is familiar with the occult symbol up top, for example. A symbol that captures everything I've described could hardly be more blatant than this. Wakey-wakey...

By UN-learning, you can figure all this out from your front porch, just watching the world go by. Whatever you do, don't turn on the brain-destroyer machine. In fact bring it out on the porch with you. You can blow its guts out across your yard with a 12-gauge and than plant daisies in it. Best teevee show ever!

The essential point is this: most of what Americans think of as "hard-won knowledge" is actually mentally crippling bullshit. Our minds are clogged with it

TW wrote:

[So you think US media outlets today are striving to develop "perfected" objective journalism? You look at television, major newspapers, Time magazine, etc. and this is what you see?]

I said nothing of the sort. They are, for the most part, corporate oligachical prestitutes.

I do admire James Natchwey, however.

He seeks the truth, photographs it, and then presents his work to people so they can make up their own minds.

IMHO, His journalistic example is an ideal for organizations like IMC to strive towards.

TW wrote:

 

[So you think US media outlets today are striving to develop "perfected" objective journalism? You look at television, major newspapers, Time magazine, etc. and this is what you see?]

 

I said nothing of the sort.  They are, for the most part, corporate oligachical prestitutes.

 

I do admire James Natchwey, however.  

 

He seeks the truth, photographs it, and then presents his work to people so they can make up their own minds.

 

IMHO, His journalistic example is an ideal for organizations like IMC to strive towards.

Wait a minute, I am completely confused.

I thought it was not possible for a black man to be racist?

I'm a documentary filmmaker looking for video footage from the sept 10 protest outside the king fahd mosque. it's to be used for a short film on the subject of tolerance/intolerance toward muslim-americans, being produced for current tv.

please contact me if you have any information. mtesta@afifellows.org

thanks!