Previous posts on this page have pointed to Indymedia censorship policies. As I said in The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism,

"Anti-fascists attempt to police all opponents of anti-fascism, not just fascists. Anti-fascists are in favor of suppressing debate. Their position 'No Platform for Racists' gives power to those who define what is racist, the product of negotiations between leftist hacks and Zionist lawyers."

A new anti-Pacifica Forum mass hysteria has recently broken out at Portland Indymedia. Based on 'intercepted communications' within Pacifica, the anti-fascists called for 'militants' to join an 'emergency mobilization'' against a Pacifica meeting at the University of Oregon. In other words, Indymedia lent itself to the advocacy of violence against academic freedom:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/02/397218.shtml?discuss

More thoughtful people posted comments disagreeing with the claim that Pacifica is a hate group which advocates rape, organizes pogroms and commits fake hate crimes inside student unions. None of these comments broke Indymedia guidelines. They were not hateful, racist or Nazi - they merely questioned whether this is true of the Forum. These comments have disappeared. One of the comments which has survived criticizes 'the support that the Jay Knotts of the world muster for these neo-nazis'.

First of all, there is only one Jay Knott. Secondly, it's flattering to think I can muster support for anyone. If I could, I would not muster support for neo-Nazis, because I don't agree with Nazism. I would muster support for a movement which recognizes Jewish power as an important problem in trying to oppose Israeli apartheid, and which does not flinch from listening to some ideas from the far right. If it were up to me, it would by no means wholeheartedly adopt these idea. But it would be quite different from the current 'anti-racist' movement which somehow avoids tackling Jewish racism. A movement, in short, which puts Palestinian lives before Jewish feelings.

The commentator, called 'Uh-huh' says I am a 'pseudo-intellectual blowhard' whose arguments are 'convoluted and ridden with fallacy'. If so, why am I barred from commentating? I have never posted hate. If my arguments are so obviously fallacious, why don't 'Uh-huh' and his buddies quote from my writings and demolish my arguments, rather than banning me? It's difficult not to conclude that perhaps they are not so fallacious as the anti-fascists think. Anti-fascism is against freedom of speech because, given freedom, it is easy to expose it for the fraud it is. That's why I support Pacifica Forum. By the way, they aren't neo-Nazis.