Chuck Munson, "webmaster" (emperor) of infoshop.org, is engaged in increasingly heavy handed censorship of opposing anarchist view points on infoshop.org as shown by his censorship of criticisms of the arcticle Poor, White and Pissed. While the article probably does make some good points, it also contains some racist & sexist comments. Some people made posts in the comments area criticising that sexism & racism. Chuck responded by censoring those comments. The first, by Kirsten Anderberg, was removed and a note left stating it was removed for "politically correct" trollbaiting. "Political correctness" is what racists/sexists cry when someone calls them on their racism/sexism. Later posts, including mine, were simply erased without any kind of notice. They just disappeared. Kirsten e-mailed the author of the piece and his response more than confirmed that he's a sexist asshole. As critical comments kept getting made on the piece, Chuck banned all commenting on the article to insure no one could criticize it.

I posted a complaint about this to the infoshop forum but Chuck deleted it. I also send complaints to the infoshop sustainers list, but he refused to allow them to be posted and booted me from the list. Any criticism of Chuck or his moderation policies is not allowed in any infoshop-affiliated form, they are all censored.

This heavyhanded censorship authoritarian, sexist and completely unnacceptable. Please send him an e-mail chuck@mutualaid.org criticizing him for this. If he recieves enough negative feedback from this he might change his mind.

Kirsten has attempted to circumvent Chuck's censorship by sending out a series of e-mails, through her own personal list, criticizing his censorship. Below I have cut and paste some of these e-mails. There is some hyperbole in them, but they provide background info.

Dear Conscious People;

There is an article about poverty by a white male headlining on
Dissidentvoice.org, and infoshop.org/inews right now that has in its first
paragraph, "If you are blonde, sit near me" in the middle of his
complaining about poverty! Highly alerted by such language, I wrote the
editors of both sites posting it, and was told I am too "politically
correct" by Chuck who runs infoshop.org and my comment re this was deleted
as "trollbait" off the actual article. Chuck said I was just being
"politically correct" and implied it was inappropriate and defended this
article as just aother poor person's view,implying I should just respect
it. Well, I am no idiot. I wrote the author. His response to what that
means is:

"It means I like blonde pussy. Regards, Joe Bageant"

Wow. I have to raise issue with this. I am considered blonde by many. So I
need to be reduced to a blonde pussy, while this man and male editors
pretend we are in alliance on poverty issues? I write A LOT on poverty and
I AM NOT in alignment with this Joe Bargeant. I will argue that if women
must endure sexism to fight against poverty, that is wrong. This man has
said he wants women as meat, as his sex niggers, basically...but he is mad
he is called white trash. This is sick shit, people. I do NOT support it.
See Joe's email and mine below. This confirms for me how far we need to
go. I REFUSE TO LET MEN REDUCE ME TO PUSSY WHILE THEY CLAIM THEY ARE
WORKING FOR POVERTY RIGHTS. POVERTY AFFECTS A LOT OF PUSSY! And this man
has one hell of a lot of nerve. As do the male editors who posted that
without noticing the implicit sexist or racist implications in that line,
like I did. WHICH IS WHY I IMPLORE YOU ALL TO START SUPPORTING WOMEN
WRITERS WITH MONEY as we need to REPLACE the almost ALL MALE EDITOR POOL
in alternative media and women cannot do it with zero money. The FACT that
almost all indy media is controlled by male editors is well-reflected in
this scene where I picked up on a creep saying he wanted blonde pussy in
his first line of a poverty article, where male editors thought this guy
was some great poverty activist, but I was not fooled. I knew right off
the bat something was wrong. Perhaps since I have suffered sexism and the
male editors have not.

Men who degrade women's body parts as part of their activism should be
ostracized in my opinion. I do not WANT to work by this man. I WILL NOT
work with this man, nor will I support his work. Working for poverty
rights includes respecting women which this man obviously does not. I have
NEVER written an article about poverty asking for a men with 10 inch dicks
to sit near me. I find this to be absolutely appalling and I find his
response to be unbelievable. Let's keep this guy's name in our memory, he
is a PROBLEM writer. He is NOT an ally of the poor, or "pussy." It is a
nightmare being a feminist writer in this male world!

Thank you,
Kirsten Anderberg


---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Return-Path: <bageantjb@netscape.net>
Received: from mx12.nyc.untd.com (mx12.nyc.untd.com [10.140.24.72])
by maildeliver08.nyc.untd.com with SMTP id AABBBYCTTAF3WF8A
for <sheelanagig@juno.com> (sender <bageantjb@netscape.net>);
Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:32:17 -0800 (PST)


It means I like blonde pussy.

Regards,
Joe Bageant


"sheelanagig@juno.com" <sheelanagig@juno.com> wrote:

>
>Authored by: kirstenanderberg on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 07:21 PM PST
>
>Re your infoshop article -
>
>This line concerns me -
>"in which case I say, “Come sit by me comrade! (Especially if you are a
blonde.)"
>
>What is that about? At first I thought that could work if this was a
person of color, saying a blonde should sit near them to learn, assuming
the blonde would mean white. But as I read on, this author is saying he
is called "white trash." So I am back to wondering what the blonde
statement means. And most blondes appear to be dyed blonde, so what is
this about again?
>
>What DOES it mean? Is it sexism? Saying pretty blonde women, sit near me?
Or just what DOES it mean? I am lost. I like poverty articles, but not
with a red flag out front like saying "blondes, sit near me' with no
explanation!
>
>Kirsten Anderberg
>www.kirstenanderberg.com

Apparently this sick man thinks this is really funny. And this is the guy
that is Chuck's new right hand man. I have left infoshop so this man can
step forward. I am being character assassinated in personal ways by Chuck
online to protect this guy. Talk about bad judgment, chuck! Anyway, Jow
may hate poverty and like pussy, but pussy does not like Joe Bargeant and
I think he is SICKENING.
~ Kirsten



---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: Women Reduced to "Pussy" for Poverty Activism???!
From: "Bageant, Joseph" <Joseph_Bageant@Primediamags.com>
Date: Tue, February 22, 2005 10:51 am
To: "'kirstena@resist.ca'" <kirstena@resist.ca>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kirsten:

Permit me to clarify my position.

I hate poverty and like pussy.

Yup! that's my official political position all right!

joe

I feel it is very important that people see what slime women are having to
deal with in anarchy and alt media. You all know that this man Joe
Bargeant wrote a so-called poverty article saying he likes blonde pussy in
the first sentence, that was posted on front pages at DIssidentVoice.org
and Infoshop.org. Infoshop additionally banned ALL discussion about this
man's sexism and defended this sexist crap. I now have to bring you an
online interview that has come to my attention with this man Joe. This
selfproclaimed anarchist. Here, he tells you about HIS WIFE BARBARA (I DO
NOT ENVY HER having to put up with a middle aged husband advertising for
blonde pussy in his articles, no wonder she doesn't read his articles!)
and how he fucked up his kids, and how he loves America and was in the
military and hung out with some of the biggest sexist pig names of the
60's and 70's!

And you can see his picture at this url also, which, as I suspected, shows
us a fat older military man, who is most probably saying he wants thin and
young women to have sex with him, not just blonde women, I mean, pussy. He
is the exact type of guy who wants to be allowed to be fat and old, but
expects women to diet and be eternally young for his male fantasies and
trophy status for him. The ole double standard the boys club lives in. We
must look like made up dolls while they look like unkept pigs. I wonder if
he has those gross mudflaps with the tit woman on them on his truck? After
reading Joe's pathetic emails to me about his liking blonde pussy (well,
we know he likes WHITES now don't we, and in the erotic community in
Seattle at least, the blue eye, blonde hair descript is really a way many
use to mask their racism, they look for blue eyes and blonde hair but what
they really MEAN is "white"), I read this and thought well, it is a man's
world...and this is a man's man. A WHITE MAN'S MAN EVEN. PLAYING THE
POVERTY CARD and stupid anarchist male editors bit, too! I would never
have been stupid enough to publish a white male's "poverty" article
without first READING IT! And anyone who READ IT, saw a red flag in the
first sentence, hello! And he was just published by men, for men. On sites
run by men. And I am more than happy to leave ANY site that publishes this
man's work. Period. I do not WANT to sit NEXT to Joe Bargeant EVER! Nor
do I even want the edges of my articles touching his slimy existence.
REMEMBER THIS MAN'S NAME. HE IS TROUBLE. HE IS ANTI-WOMAN. HE IS NOT
WELCOME IN ANY ACTIVIST CIRCLE I AM IN. PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO
COMPROMISE ON THIS. I AM FINE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT
JOE BAGEANT. And I hope he uses birth control, since he says he fucked up
the kids he made with his own wife.

This article is from http://www.energygrid.com/society/ap-bageant.html

Chuck and Sunil -

Sunil, my point was he sent me a pic of him looking like a slob, when he sends the other places he
does interviews a pic of him in nice clothing. Why is that? And he says he is poor while bragging
how much money he makes for speaking. You confused the two issues Sunil. One was about him
disrespecting women writers and feigning poverty, the other was about him lying he is poor and
speaking in first person about poverty when he is a middle class white man. Chuck said to me he is
"another poor person" using his voice. NO HE IS NOT! HE IS ANOTHER WHITE MAN PRETENDING HE IS POOR
TALKING OVER REAL POOR PEOPLE SO WE CANNOT BE
HEARD! And reducing the majority of the human race to pussy!

I am sorry, but it is you men who need to go back and look at your tactics. My job is to agitate
for women's equality and I make no apology, just like the NAACP re their mission. I WON'T BACK
DOWN ON THIS. There must be safe space made for women in alt media and we are starting right here
right now guys. Does it occur to you that you and I are dealing with two different Joe Bageants?
Sexist pigs treat women differently than men. Does he speak about pussy and cosmic debris in
emails to you? I doubt it boys. He is treating women peers differently
than male peers, cuz I am just more pussy, boys. Wonder how he treats blacks when you are not
looking as well.

In today's emails from this loser, I read this trash:

"So I look into the buddhist void and hear the cosmic laugh of horror and roll back into the never
ending river of life from which I sprang. And I realize that to have seen the face of yer own
death is not
everything. Because there is still upon this earth sweet pussy, the naked beating heart of our
goddess beating between two legs trying to tell us to love life, hate war, and die sweetly with
out childten and
grandchildren in our eyes and hearts? LOVE YA KID, Do ya know that you have met your Krishna? Not
to worry. These things come to us late. joe"

Oh PLEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!!!!!!!! Now this guy is some kind of cosmic master?? Is he saying HE is
Krishna and I have now found god via him? What the hell? LMAO!! Um, Mother Earth is saying she
wants Joe OUT of her pussy now! Yuck! I am tripped out how this guy is co-opting feminist
culture and wording using goddess this and that, but is so utterly disrespectful and grotesque at
the same time.

And yet more rank words from Joe Bageant today, "Believe me, I am beyond
contrivance and manipulation. Not
a good thing. Or a bad thing. Just a fact. Live with your ass in the
grinder...risk everything....Write with your heart and
you will see. Love your pussy....love all pussies....dicks are cool too!
Joe"

Okay, this man has no right to talk about anything but DICKS. He
does not have a pussy. Why is every other word out of this man's mouth
"pussy?" He has no right to that. He may speak about DICKS
because he has one. He MAY NOT speak about pussies. Joe Bageant talks to ME, a woman writer, QUITE
DIFFERENTLY than he talks to the male editors. Hmmm. Suprisingly, he does not mention pussy every
other word when talking to the male editors who have now supported this loser, Sunil and Chuck0.
But he does talk that way to WOMEN. And this woman writer is busting this loser. And the men who
support him.

We have here a man who speaks with less maturity than a typical teenager, when speaking about
women, and you men in the alternative press are calling ME immature? Um, double standard on THAT
ONE BROS! And if he is gonna talk nonstop about pussy, I feel we need to put him to the same
objectification and standards, so I have asked him repeatedly now to please announce his dick size
erect so we can see what he is offering up for this pussy. He has dodged that repeatedly now, and
I
just asked once again, as I find it ironic that men who want to scream pussy all day hide their
little dicks. Let's put a spotlight on his dick for a minute to see what he is offering if he is
such a stud. Obviously, that one has left him just gulping, which is humorous, but telling. He is
willing to whip women's genitals all over in public, but the minute you turn the tables, he
doesn't want to play.

I am sorry but if you guys do not get this, then you do not get it. This is the same exact problem
people of color are facing as well. If they speak up, they are the bad guy. Fuck that shit men. I
will not play that. Review your own tactics please. You have lost course. You are the ones who
cannot find women writers, only more and more white men for your sites. I AM a woman writer and am
telling you I am LEAVING due to this sexist shit. So do not complain about the nearly all male
middle class white writers, you do not support the women writers properly. Women are not pussy and
no man has the right to repeatedly talk about
pussy the way this man has to a woman colleague. Nor should Archie Bunker be writing about
oppression. He says he takes life as a big joke cuz he is dying. Well, I am dying too, and I do
not take life as a big joke BECAUSE I may be dead tomorrow.

Kirsten Anderberg

kirsten is a PC liberal cunt. she should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen getting her man a beer.

A hetereosexual male preferring, by virtue of his own, personal tastes, blonde women over non-blonde women as potential partners, is in absolutely no way sexist.

His response to Kirsten's reaction leaves much to be desired, but it may just be that he is simply annoyed by her initial question. It's kind of a pain when you can't say that you like blonde women without being called a sexist.

I'm not defending the "blonde pussy" statement. I'm defending the original statement.

I don't understand you peoples resentment against anyone who objectifys someone.

if they do it it's thier own business, if they are not hurting anyone, who cares?

Please explain it to me.

And also why can't a guy talk about "pussy"??

Every human being is one half man and one half woman. Thats where sex is born. Because we sort of gain our other half i guess or something.

Besides in that guys dreams, he dreams of blonde pussy and he is talking about those objects in his head. Thats what her is talking about. If you are object in his head. So what? You shouldn't try and control him.

Infact i'd challange anyone to have sex without objectifying. You know why? because you have to reconise and objectify the other person as a sex object before your dick will work.

Infact you would be hard pressed to have any sort of emotional relationship without objectiforcation as well. Because you objectify someone as a partner or as a friend. And the emotions attached to that objectiforcation come.

Infect objectifying is pretty much all humans do. Stop saying objectiforcation is bad. Because its all you fucking do.

On the other hand you may find ONLY being objectified as a sex object to be threatening. Rightfuly so. But thats no need to get angry and objectify that person as a enemy, because then you are just as bad as he.

Yeah the guys a dickhead, but so am i in so many ways. But i'm good in so many ways aswell.

I feel threatened by how threatened Kirsten is by this guy. Because i have a sexuality too. You might objectify me as an enemy aswell.

Before you know it i'm branded a sexist racist and a facist. Enemy no.1.
Just cause i said somehting dumb and childish, or something personal about myself that you take personaly yourself. But i'll grow up and i have nothing to do with you.

Yes it's mighty insecure of me. But this whole things based on insecurity.

In the end, i just want to get on with life, I don't want to be apart of this hate mongering.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with personal preference. I agree with that. However, making openly sexist, hyper-objectifying, comments is not something that should be supported by anarchists.

It's not about being PC, it's about language and its effects on the understanding and expression. Language influences the thought patterns. People who say such things as, "I like blonde pussy" are more than likely objectifying assholes. Not because they do prefer a certain type of person, but because the certain type of person they like is viewed as a sex object and nothing more. If he simply stated, "I like blonde women" it would mean, yes, that he likes blonde pussy. The difference is that he would be viewing them as people instead of objects of sex.

Sexism should not be tolerated in anarchism. Fuck that guy.

Thanks for posting this, Morpheus, I have already sent an e-mail.

Wow, for once we agree on something...

BTW, Joe Bageant is my personal hero, and I am glad I read this post before going to bed.

What's wrong with sex objects? Sometimes I like being a sex object. Sometimes it's just appropriate. Sometimes it's not. There doesn't really seem to be a general rule.

There was nothing sexist about what he said, except for, perhaps, the "blonde pussy" remark.

By the way, men can say "pussy" as much as they want, regardless of what Kirsten thinks. There's nothing sexist about it. A pussy is a pussy, and the word sounds much nicer than "vagina." Guys don't need to have pussies to talk about them. Her claim that men can only talk about "dicks," because they have them, and not "pussies," because they don't have them, is ludicrous.

I must say that I, too, enjoy pussy, and I'm not ashamed of it. I have a girlfriend who I love, and she is certainly much, much more than an object to me (as I am much more than an object to her), but hey, she sure makes me feel nice, and I sure make her feel nice, and sex is just as much about feeling wonderful -- physical pleasure -- than it is about love. It can be anything, depending on the situation. In my own situation, it's both. Love, because I love my girlfriend, becuase I like being that close, because I like giving her pleasure; physical, because it feels good, because the actual friction that our bodies provide for each other produce orgasms that are delightful.

It's not exactly rocket science.

Just to give an outsiders perspective:

I used to be an anarchist, and I adored infoshop.org. These days, I'm no longer the revolutionary I used to be, but I remember the days quite fondly, and thus, I still visit the site from time time, especially the forums. It was a long time ago that I noticed Mr. Munson's heavy-handedness when it came to opinions expressed on his website. I found it pretty disconcerting that rather than combat these rival opinions, he would just delete them. Flaming and actual trolling is one thing, but Chuck used those as an excuse to get rid of anything he didn't like.

More recently, however, a new policy in one of his forum rooms is to delete any post written by an anarcho-capitalist. Now, I understand why anarchists dislike the ideas of ancaps, as anyone who isn't an ancap would. However, I always enjoyed reading their responses to the real anarchists, because they would often bring up very valid flaws within the anarchists' reasoning. Through dialogue, many of these flaws were fixed rather well.

Dialogue should be welcome within any group of people. It helps us grow. I can only conclude that Chuck Munson desires no dialogue on his website that he doesn't particularly approve of. This doesn't really send a promising message to non-anarchists.

I was going to post something in the infoshop forums to this effect, but I figured it would simply be deleted. I'm glad to see that others find his actions distasteful. It's not helpful to your movement if a popular anarchist website is run through such authority-ridden methods.