March 18, 2008

Southern Poverty Law Center's Map of Extremists in MA

Hm, look at who is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's map of extremists in Massachusetts... our favourite fan, Mass Resistance!


Grace C. said...

I recognize the JDL as the group who helped protect Eazy-E and Ruthless Records in their dispute with Suge Knight and Death Row.


Cat R. said...

Well, it couldn't have happened to a nicer or more intelligent bunch of people.

Anonymous said...

SPLC thinks alternative (i.e. non anti-arab/muslim) explanations of 9/11 are hateful? Someone should tell Howard Zinn! Who knew Howard was an anti-semite and/or neo-Nazi sympathizer...

Thoughts, anyone?

maudite entendante said...

Um, Anon, could you be a little less cryptic, for those of us who don't have the time/inclination/browser capabilities/intestinal fortitude to follow your little white rabbit all over the internet? What group are you talking about, and what do they say that the SPLC objects to?

For what it's worth - not having followed the damn links, because, hello, this is my cell phone - there is absolutely a difference between the following two "non anti-arab/muslim" analyses of the causes of 9/11. (Note: these are presented as samples for study, not as a representation of any actual specific real person's position.)

1. Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum. Rage and hatred come from histories of subjugation and getting screwed over - not from, e.g. believing that there is no god but God and Mohammed is his prophet. And while, obviously, taking out this rage and hatred in murderous ways is unacceptable, it's more productive to try and understand and prevent the root causes of terrorism than to chalk it up as "an Arab/Muslim thing" and go about exacting revenge.

2. The U.S. brought it on themselves with their horrible, unconscionable {foreign policy/gay-lovin'/whatever}. Those plane-crashers were instruments of {karma/God/whatever}, and I'm just jealous I couldn't be a part of that righteous payback.

I trust the difference is clear?

Now, which is Zinn, and which is the group condemned by the SPLC? (And if they don't quite match either of these archetypes - which fact would not be surprising, given they're hypothetical - then explain what they are and what the difference is.) Don't just come here, drop a snarky question and a link, and leave.

<3 ,


maudite entendante said...

oh, lordy, it's a troll.* never mind.

*no offense to your family, Miss Em.

Anonymous said...

M.E., whether you realize it or not you are displaying anti-arab/muslim bigotry. Call me whatever you want, I sleep with a clear conscience, and not, like you, out of ignorance.

emily0 said...

Anonymous, her father is an Arab. Nice try, though.

maudite entendante said...

*giggle* Anti-Arab? Wow, there's something my Palestinian self has never been called. I'd be really pissed if I weren't so busy being really amused.

And I'm being anti-myself why, exactly? Because your personal theory was not one of the two that immediately sprang to mind when I was trying to rack my brain for theories that could be called "non-anti-arab," even though I specified that there were certainly many others that I was missing?

Or because I called you (I'm assuming you're the same anonymous) a troll? Yeah, that doesn't actually have anything to do with your political/theoretical position, but rather your style of argumentation. Which, once I finally watched your video, seems to be along the following lines: "Oh? You think [something tangentially related to maybe the U.S. government not having blown up the WTC]? Well, Howard Zinn disagrees!!! What do you think of that?!?!"

The crucial flaw there is that I don't actually give much of a flying fuck what Howard Zinn thinks about, e.g., architecture, given that he's an economic historian. In fact, given that I'm a linguistic anthropologist, I actually go through much of my life not giving a flying fuck what Howard Zinn says about anything. So playing him as some sort of trump card has absolutely no effect on me.

By the way, you never did answer my question - what in Heaven's name does your comment actually have to do with this thread? Does the SPLC identify a group with the same alternate theory as Howard Zinn (apparently, the inside-job theory) as an extremist group? If so, which group? And is this the only belief of theirs that has led them to be so classified? And if not, how are you not a troll?

emily0 said...

Sorry to speak for you, ME.

maudite entendante said...

Ha, em0, no problem. It's not your fault you type faster (and more succinctly) than I do.

I think I scared our friend away, though. *wistful sigh* Now how will I procrastinate?

Anonymous said...

Not at all. Let me explain. The belief that arab muslims attacked America on 9/11 is false. Self-hatred is not uncommon especially when one is trying to fit in with a group (like say, the GBLT community,) that frowns on questioning that particular myth. The SPLC, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and other self-ordained "hate-police" have been very busy painting anyone who dares to question the official anti-arab/muslim fairy tale as a hater who disbelieves the official story out of a desire to blame "the Jews". The simple fact is that the owner of WTC7, which collapsed with still no explanation after 6 years, at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001, the same man who leased the twin towers 6 weeks before they were destroyed, the same man who having laid out some $40 million of his own money then sued to be awarded $7 billion for the leased (i.e. not his) property destroyed, which he is under no obligation to rebuild, the same man who is now suing for an additional $12 billion for god knows what this time, the same guy, this guy who owned a strip club called Runway 69 and who tried unsuccessfully to establish a "free trade zone" (read no labor or environmental laws) in Israel's Negev desert, that lovely man there, happens to be named Lawrence Silverstein. So of course anyone who listens to, say, the 300 architects and engineers of, or, I dunno, Howard Zinn, is accused of harboring "jew-hatred" and blaming "daJOOOOOZ" (whatever that may mean) for every evil under the sun. Now if you can't see the problem with this, and the role that SPLC plays in this charade, and the devastating effect it has had on arabs and muslims around the world, then you truly are in denial and in effect, if not intent, are expressing anti-arab/muslim bias, since of course we know that the only people on earth evil enough to demolish buildings on top of living people would be "Islamofascist terrorists".

So go ahead and feel self-righteous while you can, pretty soon you'll realize the tragic error of your ways and you will feel terrible, as well you and many others should. And then maybe you'll be able to help those of us who want the killing to end.

icarus said...

^ please don't feed the troll.

Anonymous said...

December 8, 2007
Mr. Mark Weitzman
Simon Wiesenthal Center
1399 South Roxbury Drive
Los Angeles, California 90035
310.553.4521 (fax)
50 East 42nd Street, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10017
212.883.0895 (fax)
Via: Certified US Mail & Email:

Re: SWC testimony 11/6/07 before the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment
Dear Mr. Weitzman,
Thank you for responding in your email form letter to a couple of the many important concerns raised recently by other members of the 9/11 Truth & Justice Movement to your presentation at the House Committee on Homeland Security - "Using The Web As A Weapon: The Internet As A Tool For Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism" on 11/6/07 before Representative Jane Harman. Your clarifications, however, offer no correction or retraction for the irresponsible and false statement "Incubator of 9/11 Conspiracies and Disinformation" the heading that you placed over our science-based website "" – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which bears my name, Richard Gage, AIA, an architect of 20 years.
Also, you made no apology, explanation, or correction for your words which you stated precisely during the time in which you displayed the and websites:
"And then finally we end with a site that literally talks about the bombing of – 'soon, soon, soon the attack on Manhattan'."
This part of your presentation can be reviewed at the 45:50 mark in the video located at:
The C-SPAN Archive version of the video is in two parts. The sentence above occurs at the 28:20 mark of the second portion of C-SPAN's version.i
I am aware of no page on our site ever having contained this sentence or any sentence like it. Our staff has researched the matter, and the phrase appears nowhere on our site, nor was it found by an internet search. Curiously enough, we find the phrase only when you are being quoted.
The clear implication is that our website promotes "conspiracies", "disinformation", and – since you sandwiched it between violent Jihad militant training type websites – "terrorism" too. A brief review of our website shows that it simply contains science-based facts and questions regarding the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7 – as well as a petition listing over 800 signatories, including more than 230 well-respected architects and engineers who are demanding a real investigation of these building "collapses" based upon the clear evidence presented in our website.
For your information, since you have obviously not taken the time to review the website before defaming it, this evidence of the controlled demolition of the three WTC high-rises includes careful documentation of these facts:
• The destruction occurred with rapid onset, at virtually free-fall speed, and with radial symmetry.

• One hundred eighteen first responders described hearing, seeing and feeling explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction.

• The concrete floors were almost completely pulverized into dust and gravel.

• The structural steel framework was largely dismembered into shippable lengths. Much of it was hurled outside the Twin Towers' perimeters, some as far as 500 feet away.

• Tons of molten metal were seen by FDNY and others, and was described as "flowing like lava" for weeks after 9/11, yet its existence was denied by NIST.

• FEMA documented structural steel samples showing evidence of rapid oxidation, sulfidation, intergranular melting, and partial evaporation – features which occur only with temperatures at least 1,000° F. hotter than office or jet fuel fires.

• Proven chemical evidence of thermate, an incendiary material which produces molten iron as its by-product, found on the columns and beams, previously molten metal, and iron-rich micro-spheres in the dust by Dr. Steven Jones (and corroborated by the USGS but never explained).
These features are characteristic of controlled demolitions, and not office or jet fuel fires. Of course, the 47-story WTC Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and yet its unnatural destruction exhibits all the same features – except it imploded into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds!
Maybe now you understand why our membership of architects, engineers, and other building professionals, who are all calling for a science-based forensic investigation – which has yet to be performed – is growing exponentially! We ask SWC for nothing less than the tolerance it espouses so well.
And yet you have made the egregiously false statements noted above in public, on television, and to Congress about us. These statements have the clear potential to inflict serious damage to my reputation, my standing in the community, and my career, as well as each of our 230 architects and engineers and other distinguished members.
I and the members of therefore demand a retraction of these false, defamatory, outrageous and insulting statements that you made in the scope of your duties at the SWC. This retraction must be thorough and exculpatory, exceeding the scope of your original publication(s), lest it be ineffective and meaningless. We at demand a formal apology from SWC for having displayed our website at all in your Homeland Security presentation.
Your timely apology must be sent to (and aired on) C-Span, to Rep. Jane Harman, and all congressional representatives and others in attendance. It must be posted on the SWC. And it must explain your motives in making the publication and the retraction.
Our constitutional republic was founded upon the fundamental right to ask questions, demand answers, and to seek truth and justice. This is all that we in the 9/11 truth movement are seeking. Of all people and of all organizations, you and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who highlight the virtue of tolerance, should be honoring our right to ask these questions, not branding us as terrorists. Your behavior reeks of the McCarthyism of the 1950's, and is totally unacceptable to me, our members, and all Americans who cherish the first Amendment.
Regarding the anti-Semitism noted in your email form letter: We, too, abhor bigotry in all its forms, and have distanced ourselves from those few who engage in it. But anti-Semitism has nothing to do with our website or the science of the destruction of the three WTC high-rise buildings on 9/11 to which it is dedicated. The scientific method is non-partisan, apolitical, and a transparent process. Scientists defend their positions in public based on accepted, defensible processes. While reports put forth by the government and others have labored in vain to explain away the massive scientific evidence for controlled demolition left behind in the rubble, the witness testimony, and the videos, we at have simply collected, assembled, and structured it in a way which enables everyone to understand it easily.
Simon Wiesenthal was a paragon for seeking the truth, however hard and difficult it might be. The SWC should be honoring our right to publish technical information and encourage fact-based forensic inquiry into the three largest structural failures in U.S. history – not branding us inciters of terrorism.
Tolerance arises from understanding, and understanding from direct experience. In this light we would like to meet with you and your board and staff to present to you the specific concerns documented on regarding the basic science of these "collapses". We would like to learn from you what you perceive as so threatening so as to deem it necessary to "warn" Congress about us. By understanding each other's concerns, we will strengthen our mutual resolve to work toward the creation of a more truthful and tolerant society.
We reserve all rights, and communicate to you without any prejudice to any rights. We are ready to move forward. Please let us know the best time to meet. We can assemble in your New York or Los Angeles office.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
For the 800 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
(signed copy to Commission)

Jane Harman (CA-36)
Dave Reichert (WA-8)
Bennie Thompson (MS-2)
Mike Honda, (CA-15)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Barbara Boxer (CA)

Testimony and prepared statements for the hearing:

Anonymous said...

It's not that nice, is it, realizing that you're guilty of the same kinds of ingnorance that you as members of the GBLT community rightly condemn? So call us trolls, terrorists, whatever you like--Rosie O'Donnell is a proud dyke and one of us too, so go ahead and lash out at her while you're at it. Once you've vented your anger and frustration (they come soon after the denial passes) we'll be here to help you attain acceptance and closure.

All the best,

queer-friendly truther, anti arab/muslim-defamation committee

icarus said...

pasting long, incoherent "testimony" doesn't convince anyone of your point. it just makes us want to delete your comment as spam.

just sayin'.

maudite entendante said...

Ok, icarus, I tried, but I'm going to have to agree with you at this point that no actual conversation can happen at this point. Conversation - even debate, which is a subtype of conversation - is basically a set of interconnected propositions made by more than one person, sustaining a coherent theme across at least one set of speaker-changes. If Anon is going to refuse to actually respond to anything I say/ask - and no, taking one word like "Arab" or "SPLC" and using is as a prompt for a free-association riff doesn't count as a response - then I'm not interested in trying to hold up a conversation all by myself.

I'm on my phone again, so I don't have the tech to do this, but I propose we delete the entire thread, my comments (and em's) included, since we've now established pretty firmly that they can't actually be connected to the topic. If other Quenchfolk agree, would someone please take care of this?

icarus said...

i'm sort of entertained by the trollage. we could leave it up as testament to your rationality in the face of illogic. :-)