PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

STRIKE DIARY: 1o.o7.o3
Bottom-feeders

Disinformation & Conspiracy Theories

The open wire wasn't set up for the benefit of the editorial collectives.

Strange, how people who regularly employ disruption as a 'consciousness raising' technique tend to have exactly the same kind of hostile, knee-jerk reaction they encounter themselves, when those same tactics are applied in an effort to draw attention to their own inconsistencies, abuses and hypocrisy.

It is a testament to the power and effectiveness of the work of IMCLF associates that the NYC editorial collective has repeatedly and simultaneously denounced it both as a concerted 'sustained campaign of disinformation' and the work of a 'mentally ill' and imbalanced 'individual.'

Who else could be behind a sustained, effective political action campaign, besides a Lee Harvey Oswald or a Ted Kaczynski in cahoots with a bunch of outcasts, misfits, Cointelpro agents, 'The Government,' OBL and Saddam Hussein?

Did you read yesterday's NYC report 'Source of Attacks on NYC IMC Documented by anti-spam '?

How utterly pathetic.

Sorry boys, but we're talking about an 'inside job.'

Add it up. Clearly, the only ones 'off balance' are the operatives infiltrating the NYC editorial collective.

Who else could be behind a sustained campaign to censor the submissions of contributors on a constant 24/7 basis, in rotating shifts?

Who else would suggest that encouraging open-publishing activism is best accomplished through increasing the 'security' of the IMC network by requiring contributor identification for submission approval, thereby increasing exclusion and reducing participation?

Who else would use the current 'disruptions' as a pretext -- and remember, we're talking activist politics here -- and an excuse to advocate for increased censorship and pre-screening (verification) of contributors and their material submissions?

Who else would interpret the concept of open-publishing to mean appropriating the product of the contributors?

And who else would suggest or pretend, despite extensive, growing and vocal protest, that censorship it is a non-existent issue, that the 'moderation' policy is a glowing success, that current 'disruptions' are the work of trolls, spammers and professional fomenting trouble-makers bent on destroying the NYC editorial collective, dismiss it as a local issue and repeatedly insist it is irrelevant to the network at large?

And because neither the IMCLF, nor the issues themselves have the support of name-brand cyber-star power to increase visibility, not even an Al Giordino nor even, apparently, as of this moment, a chuck0 on their side, well, how can the malcontent's claims be taken seriously?

Nope, NOBODY wants to associate with a bunch of 'mentally unstable' misfits and outcasts...undesirables...untouchables; now there's evidence of an EFFECTIVE smear campaign. Or maybe not. We'll just have to wait and see. There are some very clever people out there; we salute and thank them, appreciate their support and continue to enjoy working with them.

'Three Cheers' for bringing widespread attention to the rot in the NYCIMC collective. And remember: keep up the good work, it's been very effective.

Peculiar, though, in a world of fear and suspicion, how quickly political alliances come and go: One day, out of the blue, you're an ally, the next -- 'poof' -- a non-entity, and suddenly the mutual interest mysteriously evaporates, without a trace, faster than a Hollywood movie.

Sometimes, it seems there's only one thing politics boils down to: betrayal.

But, it's good when people disassociate themselves from us early, since it lets us know exactly who can't be trusted, who are the most vacillating and unreliable people, and who fears more for their personal reputation than anything else; people who like to throw eggs, but sure as hell don't want to get hit by any.

Still, deserters who cheer us on and then undercut our efforts are welcome for as long as they care to stick around. We all know people like that, we may have even been people like that. Hey, forgive and forget. Welcome back.

Sooth Saying (Speaking for Myself)

In roughly two months, at the 'review' stage of the current 'moderation' policy, I can imagine a scenario where the editorial collective fawns over how great and successful it's all been. How removing 'disruptive elements' can be even better accomplished by increasing the (culture of) 'security' of the operation and moving it to a new server, along with modifications to the open-publishing software that will enable the 'gatekeepers' to reduce even further any such future disruptions.

Six months after that, or less, I can also imagine those same proponents of censorship promoting and encouraging the idea across the entire IMC network and how, as 'security' is increasingly employed, the editorial collectives crow in unison about, "How much easier it's made all of our jobs," and "how much happier readers and contributors are," and "how now thankful editors everywhere all have so much more time to concentrate on their 'real' work."

Yes, I can imagine, in probably not much more or less than a year's time, give or take, how the IMC Network will have become an entrenched and assimilated captive, controlled by dedicated editorial activist collectives, engaged in permanent and professional 'hostile' opposition to the establishment they feed off, making damn sure that no seriously 'controversial' material ever finds its way on to Indymedia ever again, unless, of course, it's been officially approved and the contributors identity verified.

The IMCLF always said we work by voluntary, free association, that we don't exercise compulsion, just like the IMC network is supposed to. If people are afraid to identify with us, it's understandable. I've never enjoyed standing out like a bleeding ulcer, I am not an exhibitionist by nature, and cowardice is a characteristic I am intimately familiar with.

I also understand people who don't want to be involved in something unless they are the one who started it or until they've been directly affected by it. It's natural for people not to want get involved. It takes a lot of hard work and persistence to get and keep people interested, and more than perseverance to get them and keep them active.

Of course I feel unwelcome here. So what? All I or anyone else has ever done is accept an invitation to express ourselves. I have as much right as anyone to be here, and I'll tell you right now, I'm the one who'll decide whether to contribute or not, not you.

You can dictate all you want, the more the better; the longer this goes on the more obvious it becomes that you are doing my work for me, and the sooner I can quit this bloggery and get back to work.

Until then, you know where to find me: **CENSORED**