Sunday, 28 June 2009

How to make rules do what you want

I found out why I was banned from Total War forum........

here's the message I received:

From: daelin4
To:the last name left
Sent:June 28, 2009, 2:13 am

Since you can't find out by looking at your own posts, rules 3, 4, and 11.

As for "condoning crinminal behaviour", when were you entitled to know how and when we deal with other posters? If you see other members breaching forum rules, tell them so and report it to a staff member. You did neither.

Now back to you, on what grounds and evidence do you accuse me of "protecting" those who endorse criminal behaviour? Not being able to see what we do to other offenders?
So what are rules 3, 4 and 11?
3. You will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, is material of a sexual matter, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise unlawful. You will not use this board to express your religious or political views.

4. You must not provoke, or engage, in personal attacks of any nature. You agree not to post any kind of spam or advertising. Trolling (behaviour with the deliberate goal of being controversial or offensive) is not acceptable and is likely to result in a ban.

11. Although feedback negative or positive concerning our products is welcome, unconstructive, inflammatory or deliberately provocative posts are not. If you want your post to be taken seriously then a polite, well-argued post will be well received and passed on to the developers. A post along the lines of "your games are rubbish and you are nothing but a bunch of money-grabbing corporate swine, let's all not buy any of your products and we'll try to damage your reputation" will be deleted and the poster will be banned (obviously).
Well, that pretty much covers everything. They can ban anyone they want on those grounds - they're so open to abuse and arbitrariness.

Rule 3 is about "abusive", "threatening" and "otherwise unlawful behaviour". I was protesting about exactly those things, not engaging in them. The other posters whom did break this rule did not receive any public admonition, nor did they suffer any posts being deleted, whereas I did.

As for Rule 4, somehow condoning violent vigilantism as some posters did, fails to contravene rule 4's prohibition on "controversial or offensive" material (aka trolling according to TWF)? But my protesting violent crime does?

Rule 11? The thread was off topic - it had absolutely nothing to do with the game Empire: the thread makes no references whatsoever to the developers or their game.

Somehow I transgressed those three rules, but posters advocating criminal violence didn't transgress any?

I replied to Daelin:
Sorry, but the facts are that you banned me, deleted a post of mine, and publically announced punishing me - for the most tenuous and spurious reasons, whilst at the same time there's no similar action taken whatsoever against people clearly condoning and advocating violent crime.

That's disgusting.

I don't have to do anything other than point to the thread concerned to prove that you, and the forum, did nothing about people advocating violent crime.

The same thread shows you have banned someone whom did protest it - myself. Even though I did so politely, calmly, and without abuse.

And you deleted my post which was protesting *against* violent crime - and you took the trouble to post a note saying I was immediately banned.

You raised not a word about the other posters' advocation of violent crime - there were no deletions of the posts advocating and condoning violent crime and vigilantism - there were no messages of account suspension over it. It's there in the thread! Those penalties were reserved for myself alone ie you took action against the only person who was (calmly) protesting violent crime and vigilantism.

Now you're trotting out the most arbitrary of rules to justify banning me. Hilarious.

Clearly, whatever you deem to be trolling is considered a matter of far greater offence than the advocation of violent crime.

And here's more proof of your arbitrariness: you refuse to recognise other posters' complaints about "the police doing nothing" as being "political". Whereas my protests about violent crime somehow *are* political? What a joke. I think that exposes *your* politics interfering with the board, not mine.

Maybe you don't understand? Try reading the following, and note vigilantism is illegal, OK?
( LINK )

Some Rfactor Screenshots

Banned (again) from TotalWar Forum

Not only have I lost £33 buying a piece-of-shit game from Creative Assembly, Empire:TW - they keep banning me from their forum, deleting my posts, and generally stomping over anything that goes "too far". Of course it's a game forum, and it's the official one, so one doesn't expect it to be a riot, and there are children likely present too. But what is going "too far" exactly? A lot of legitimate criticism of CA is effectively censored because of the mods' leeway for interpretation of the rules, which are so contrived that any moderator can arbitrarily declare someone is "trolling and flaming", and by so doing, have cause to ban them.

The latest episode which led to my ban is quite revealing of a shocking sort of mentality. I was banned - presumably for trolling and flaming, but I don't know for sure, as no reason has yet been given despite my requests.

What happened? Well, I took umbrage when a poster suggested violent, criminal behaviour - vigilantism. Mine was the only voice raised in protest at a poster whom had claimed he'd once taken revenge on someone when he was younger: someone had taken his bicycle so the poster had beaten them up, and listened to them "squeal like a pig". The poster claimed this was "a fun afternoon", and also revealed that in his profession today he is "only" armed with a truncheon and pepper spray - so he's a security guard, cop, or some such.

The result was getting myself banned again, a post of mine was deleted and no action whatsoever was taken against the posters whom had endorsed criminal behaviour as revenge against theft. The poster concerned had even justified themselves on the grounds that the victims were "scumbags" and had "broken the law". Never mind that vigilantism is "breaking the law" and that violence outside of necessary self-defence is also a crime............?

Here's part of the exchange for which I was banned.......remnants of it are here, for now at least.
MATRAY: Bahahahaha. I had a haro group 1 freestyle thast got stolen off when i was 15. I was only small at the time and basically they just took it off me and nobody cared. 6 months later I had a growth spurt and towered over that fat %%%+$@! as i saw him walking with a notherHe didnt recognise me til after I had kicked 6 colours of s#*t through him. Took my bike back and nobody in the neighbourhood ever heard from that guy again.

But I busted one of my fingers and it still isnt the same. But every time I look at that wonky knuckle I think back to that guy screaming like a stuck pig and think what a fun afternoon that was.

There is probably some morale to this whole episode but I cant be bothered looking into it.
My response, quoting Matray:
M: nobody in the neighbourhood ever heard from that guy again.
TLNL: probs coz you killed him.
M: every time I look at that wonky knuckle I think back to that guy screaming like a stuck pig and think what a fun afternoon that was.
TLNL: hmmm. fun? and that's the last time you engaged in violence, right? tsk.
M: There is probably some morale to this whole episode but I cant be bothered looking into it.
TLNL: no e in moral. not much room for violence either.
Matray replied, and I replied again, saying much the same thing - calmly. I offered that violence is violence, a crime, two wrongs don't make a right.....etc. Pretty reasonable argument, I thought.

Matray had suggested he wasn't violent.......hell! - he was just an ordinary guy.......
Oh and just so you know I am not a violent guy I am just an ordinary schmo.
In my repy, I'd said:

Ummm.....ordinary schmo's aren't violent guys? They are, aren't they?

Maybe, in fact, you're a little too keen to "help the little guy"? Maybe in fact it's an expression of your willingness to engage in violence, and it gives you something of an excuse, and maybe even a way to exorcise your own past and to take some revenge for the violence inflicted upon you when you were "picked on"? I don't know - I'm just saying btw. Hopefully you're not like that, but I don't know - I'm just responding to what you've written.

You'll perhaps feel I'm picking on you now? That's understandable, so sorry about. But I'm not - I'm only taking the opportunity to condemn violence - that's all. It's really not "fun". And it is related to the topic at hand. We wouldn't want to encourage aceblazer to use violence to take revenge on someone he suspected of having stolen his bike, would we? Well, I certainly wouldn't.
Pretty straightforward argument imo. "Ordinary guys" are violent? And it isn't a stretch to imagine someone so obviously enthused by his violent revenge to be harbouring a violent streak. I mean, the dude explained his work involved violence.

Then Bloodbane replied, offering
Bloodbane15: If someone picked on me and stole my personal property i would definitely beat the stuffing out of him, and probably gloat about it too.
Serves the person right for being a dirtbag.

..........If you dont be a prick and you dont break the law then you should have nothing to worry about.

I also think you are reading to deeply into matrays comment about it being "a fun afternoon", the meaning i saw behind that comment was that matray enjoyed finally being able to put that scumbag in his place not necessarily that he enjoyed being violent.
I responded again, around the point Robert Bolt famously makes in the play A Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper:Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More:
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Meaning, of course, that one cannot disregard the law to take revenge: the law is there to protect one's self against violence, and it applies to everyone. Discarding such laws for the sake of one's own wishes actually jeapordises one's self (and everyone else).

How such an argument can cause offence at a game forum, which has children present, and even censors swearing is hard to imagine. It condemns violence and vigilantism, and supports the law. Not exactly controversial, I thought.

However, my post was greeted by the moderator, daelin, thus:
Read the forums rules again and again until you understand it. Until then, you clearly need another ban.
Funny sort of standards. I'm banned, and censored - but there's silence and inaction over the advocation of violent and criminal retribution. Well, ain't that brilliant?

Condoning and advocating violent criminal behaviour is more acceptable than "flaming and trolling"? And of course, it seems protesting against violent criminal behaviour constitutes "trolling and flaming". So, no surprise to get banned for it then, eh?

Ah - you gotta love real standards.

Anyway - simple point is, vigilantism and violence are both criminal behaviour.

Empire is still total crap.

And that forum is a joke.

Friday, 26 June 2009

Eileen Fleming, Rivero, white supremacists, No More Wars for Israel Conference

Eileen Fleming was a headline-speaker at the No More Wars for Israel Conference - which Rivero promoted, and broadcast from Live on his radio show. She was trailed as a journalist, author and pro-Palestinian activist (associated with Mordechai Vanunu, whom the conference was allegedly "dedicated" to.)

She later said of the conference and its organisers

I certainly feel used......

Eileen Fleming attended the conference as a speaker - but seems to have been amongst those duped by the fascists. Hence her use of the term "used". She has worked with Modechai Vanunu

- and seems to have been invited to the conference in part because of her association with Vanunu (the conference claimed to be dedicated to Vanunu.) There's an obvious utility for fascists appearing to share common concerns with anyone having issues with Israel/Jews - hence the conference's dedication to Vanunu, the inclusion of Eileen Fleming on the speaker list, and the general exploitation of the Palestinian issue by fascism, as evidenced by this conference.

When criticised later, she wrote:

......[I] repent that I did NOT investigate the histories of those involved.

Many friends warned me there would be White Supremacists there - I thought they would be in the audience; NOT speaking!

I would never have been a part of the event if I had known that!

That's from Eileen Fleming's own blog - her replies to comments on the above linked discussion board provide some insight on the event, especially as her account contradicts claims by the organisers and other speakers.

She was the dupe.

So it is crucial to notice what Eileen did mention, but Rivero and the other cohorts did not.

Perhaps as damage limitation Eillen had written a later disclaimer of sorts on her website blog - it said:

The conference continued on Sunday, but I had already split and found out on Monday that some of the speakers, who spoke on Sunday, were white supremacists. I thank god I was not in attendance, for I abhor and detest any ideology which presupposes any person is superior to any other.

Notice that Fleming suggests she didn't know some of the speakers were white supremacists until afterwards. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't.

But it is impossible for Mike Rivero to make the same claim.

Rivero knew who was at the conference in advance - he promoted it, he broadcast from it, he railed against its supposed censorship, and of course he daily links to articles and websites of those most involved with the conference.

So Rivero is closely associated with the exact same people Eillen Fleming denounces as "white supremacists" and whose ideology she finds "abhorrent and detestable."

Funny - but all those are Rivero's links - his articles - his network

And Eileen Fleming finds them "abhorrent and detestable". Strange, when she was a speaker at a conference Rivero so heavily plugged and supported that she should find something so abhorrent, but Rivero never even sees fit to mention it?

Evidently Rivero doesn't find the ideology "abohorrent and detestable".

Rivero never even mentions the presence of what Eileen Rowley considers "abhorrent and detestable". That's lieing by omission. In the service of fascism.

This fits with the wider charge that Rivero promotes fascism whilst hiding it. It also is an example of the pointed criticism that Rivero only denounces fascism when it is associated with non-fascists.

When it is "The Real McCoy" fascism - then Rivero is silent. When it is genuinely racist, anti-semitic, neo-nazism and fascism - Rivero completely ignores it. KNOWINGLY - WILFULLY - SO AS TO MISLEAD HIS READERS.

Topham, Radical Press and the Far-right

Arthur Topham's been fingered as an anti-semite. As ever, he squeals about the injustice of it, the threat to "freedom" that recognition of his anti-semitism poses...........yeah, sure.

Could his whining be more tedious, laboured and self-defeating?

Here is Topham, proudly celebrating the fact that a leading light of the far-right, Paul Fromm, has joined Topham's cause. What a shock! Another fascist joining up with Topham to defeat the scurrilous and totally unfounded charges that Topham is an couldn't make it up. Somehow Topham feels this is going to help him! What better proves that Topham is just another far-right talking head masquerading as some beacon for "liberty". He wants the liberty to shovel his hateful shit....... Yes, before the abolition of slavery there was more "freedom" - freedom to own slaves. The dude is ridiculous.

Here's Topham digging a hole for himself:
As Publisher and Editor of I was most pleased and honoured to hear today from Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, informing me that he has formally submitted a Notice of Motion to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requesting standing as an Interested Party in the ongoing complaint case involving myself, and Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.
Here's the basic lowdown on Paul Fromm
Frederick Paul Fromm (born January 3, 1949), known as Paul Fromm, is a Canadian neo-Nazi leader and racist with ties to the Ku Klux Klan. He has been described by national media as "one of Canada's most notorious white supremacists".
Not quite the dude you'd want to have on your side in a legal wrangle about anti-semitism, I'd have thought. Topham wants to be free to spew hate - to be racist - to be a pillock (nothing we can do about that)

And just to round-off the point about how cozy together all these fascists are - especially with 911 Troof - Paul Fromm was a speaker at the No More Wars for Israel conference, the anti-semitic conference masquerading as an anti-war conference, which was organised by fascists like Joe Fields of Nerdwave, Curt Maynard, Willis Carto, and which was covered live, and heavily trailed by Mr Mike Rivero, the "legendary" freedom-fighter from Funnily enough the conference was heavily trailed at WRH, and David Dukes site, Stormfront, Vanguard News Network..........the usual swill holes of american fascism. I write about this conference here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Rivero even put some pictures up - so everyone can see the fascist's misdirection conference. What a sweetheart. How can people deny Rivero is mixed up with the kooks of the far-right?

And 911 Troof cries - just like Topham - about how unfair it is to be "labelled" and "stigmatised" with words like "fascist!" and "racist", and even "anti-semite"? Oh - how unfair to so condemn them......... [I love the way fascists and racists seek to hide and obscure their real beliefs. They obviously know everyone else finds them disgusting.........but do they really think that by being deceptive about it people will somehow find them less disgusting? That's clearly their hope.]

It's simply true that much of 911 Troof and its proponents are mixed up with organised fascism. The obvious cross-over point is the 911 Troof meme of "It's Israel!" - it dovetails right into the racism and anti-semitic Hitlerite fantasies of Jewish World Conspiracy. Vonn Brunn is a clear example of how conspiracism and fascism can be so closely interwoven, and he is also more proof that they are.

Thursday, 25 June 2009

"911 Troof" - compromised by fascism

After the holocaust museum attack in Washington, I thought I'd repost something I wrote a while back, and which someone (SOcrates) brought back to my attention.

911 Troof is protesting heartily about being fingered as part of a far-right threat to america via the Holocaust Museum perpetrator's connections to 911 Truth Movement. But that isn't the extent of the accusation. I've been saying for years that the 911 Troof Movement has real and important connections with the far-right and organised fascism. And btw - whenever I try telling Troofers about it, they respond with outrage. Just like they do over being connected to Vonn Brunn, the Holocaust Museum attacker, and just like you'd expect them to do, if what I say is true.

"911 Troof" - compromised by fascism

911 Troof movement is deeply compromised by organised fascism. 911 Troof is used by fascism both as propaganda outlet, and as recruitment vehicle.

This dark underbelly of 911 Troof explains many things about "the movement" - how it has lost hold of its rationalism, how it has swung to the right, how it's become riven with anti-semitism and dogma.

I'd suggest a very visible example of the results of such corruption are the pictures of Alex Jones' brownshirting of Michelle Malkin.

Jones and his gang accused Malkin of fascism, for the obvious reasons. Yet elsewhere Alex Jones gets delerious about his own lust for an Israeli Wall, that he desperately wants across the mexican border. At least Malkin based her authoritarianism on what she considers severe risks of terrorism. Jones authoritarianism is based on the threat of immigration!

And Jones employs Mike Rivero - they share a broadcaster, GCN, and a sponsor - Midas Gold (both of which are owned by the same person, Ted Anderson, whom AJ has as a guest - where they pretend Anderson is a financial correspondent when he's really running his adverts for gold. What an ethic, eh?)

So as Jones brownshirts Malkin for her supposed fascism, Alex is in cahoots with Mike Rivero.

Rivero had Curt Maynard on his radio show. Curt Maynard IS a fascist - he's a national socialist - nazi. His websites are full of vicious racist diatribes - he exploits and promotes hate.

Rivero links to Maynard. Rivero links to nazi propaganda - without explaining it is nazism, and without condemning it. He promotes it. There are many examples of Rivero's promoting racism and fascism whilst deliberately hiding the racist and fascist sources. And no - he can't plead ignorance.

Going back to Alex, he uses "Big" Jim Tucker - who is a longtime associate of Willis CArto. Indeed, Carto was the publisher of The SPotlight - which published Tucker's stuff on the Bilderberger group.

Tucker still works at Carto's American Free Press. And Alex Jones makes extensive use of him - on the Bilderbergs. He's in Endgame, for example.

Willis Carto is really something - and Jones works with his longtime associate. OR associateS? And Rivero, who plugs Curt Maynard's filth.

This is just the tip of the iceberg - organised fascism has been deliberately infiltrating, exploiting, and promoting 911 Troof. Indeed - much of 911 Troof comes straight from the propaganda organs of professional fascists: willis carto, for example, with his American Free Press (which just happens to have the same initials as Agence France Press. just coincidence. sure.) AFP had Bollyn - a lot of 911 conspiracy claims came through him. He was also part of a plan by AFP to give "positive coverage" to Hugo Chavez, if Chavez would bankroll AFP!!! The ethics of AFP journalists, eh? The same journalists - presumably the same ethics? - are the ones bringing you 911 "TROOF". And don't they claim the mainstream are press whores? Even when they themselves are whoring their coverage towards Venezuela?

And doesn't 911 Troof love to ask "Qui Bono"?

Well, fascism has benefited greatly. 911 Troof should be very prod of itself for that achievement. Through 911 conspiracism fascism has managed to get its propaganda into the leftwing. Masquerading as non-partisan 911 conspiracism has allowed fascism to publish even amongst the left. That's been a great success for fascism. Qui Bono? Even now 911 Troof seems unable to accept how enmeshed it has become with fascism. A lot of evidence says 911 Troof was a fascist product from the start anyway.

And Alex Jones sells more videos and annual subscriptions? Qui Bono?

Alex Jones sells videos and dangerous paranoid pap employing vague euphemisms about "globalists", "satanists" and the "enemy within" etc etc. They all correspond to time-worn anti-semitic euphemism. His stand for liberty is a sham: he lusts after an Israeli-type security-wall across Mexico.

Jones works with Rivero. Whilst Rivero promotes racists, and fascists - and deceives his audience by failing to tell them he is directing them to genuine, organised fascism. Rivero supports holocaust denial, trotting out the usual thoroughly debunked denial bullshit - he reports from genuine fascist organised conferences whilst omitting the real organisers political ideology etc etc. But he will claim Israel is fascist. OK - but if Israel state action should be denounced for being "like fascists" - shouldn't real fascists (Rivero's friends) be denounced and exposed too?

This behaviour (and more) can only be explained by understanding 911 Troof is deeply compromised with genuine fascism.

education - capitalism - humanism

Is education (and "the progress of humanity") better served through concentrating resources on the talented few, or the average many?

By instinct I'm inclined to the average many. The strongest argument seems to be that even a very small rise of a particular quality amongst the many equates to a large rise in the same quality of the few. But there's lots of problems with that. For instance, how many 'average people' would it take to come up with relativity? or evolution, gravity, the atom? Maybe an infinite number of mediocre people would fail to ever achieve relativity? On the other hand, anyone whom discovered relativity or somesuch first would automatically be extraordinary, from the fact of the discovery and invention itself.

It also seems logical that it's easier to achieve an increase amongst a few then amongst many, simply because there are fewer. But likewise, it is easier to bring a low level (of the many) up a little than it is to bring a high level (of the few) up even more.

There seems to be a movement towards concentrating resources on the few - gifted children, for example. Similarly in atheletics and sports, and in business it takes the form of entrepreneurs.

It's surely the expression of capitalism - accentuating competition......veneration of the victor......the ignominy of being the loser........

The laws of the jungle and the selfish gene. Nevertheless being human changes all that - at least it does if one is actually genuinely human.