Open questions for Vrije Bond
Hier kun je discussieren over Open questions for Vrije Bond.
Given the following:
1) Several groups, individuals, and organizations, among which Vrije Bond, have organized or promoted fundraisers starting in March this year to provide weapons to violent ultranationalists and neo-nazis.[1]
2) Unlike the other groups involved, who seem to be have been as unaware as the public about the details of these transactions, Vrije Bond, or at least some of its member groups, has knowingly and deliberately misled the public about the politics and activities of the benificiaries of these fundraisers and actively suppressed evidence about it during fundraising drives.[2]
The following questions exist for Vrije Bond:
Q1) Will there be political accountability for the use of these funds you have helped raise?
Q2) Will you reimburse people you have misled, who might not have donated if they had fully known what their money would likely be used for?
Q3) Why have you deliberately misled the public and tried to suppress evidence regarding these things during your fundraising drives? One can only hope this was just some rogue member group of yours?
refs
1. See for the example the runes on the rifle of a representative of one the main beneficiary groups (https://t.me/khardcore/380) or the open admission of donating weapons and ammunition to Right Sector's medical unit "Hospitallers" (https://t.me/solidarnistinua/274)
2. It's difficult to publish the evidence here without putting out personal information, but should Vrije Bond decide to deny these facts then we'll figure something out.
If you not join the Vrije
If you not join the Vrije bond piss off with your bullshit quote.
What bullshit quote? There is
What bullshit quote? There is not a single quotation in this text.
duh?
Beetje vaag om een vraag aan de VB te stellen op Indymedia, al helemaal als je toch niet aankomt met het 'bewijs' waar je mee dweept.
Tad strange to ask questions to the Vrije Bond on Indymedia, especially when you anounce 'evidence' but fail to deliver.
"Tad strange to ask questions
"Tad strange to ask questions to the Vrije Bond on Indymedia"
Hence the "open" in "open questions." As the fundraising and activities were directed at the public so should its defense be public.
"especially when you anounce 'evidence' but fail to deliver"
Evidence is only required for facts which are in dispute. As noted in the relevant footnote, unless Vrije Bond disputes the factuality of said claim there's no need for publication of evidence. Also, I didn't "announce evidence" and then "failed to deliver" - as I said, if Vrije Bond decides to dispute the factuality of the claim in question then we'll figure something out for it. But since such denial hasn't occurred yet, that question hasn't posed itself yet.
Not that it matters, as I see the text was already moved to ruis anyway. Some things shall simply not be done publicly...ok.
So guilty unless proven
So guilty unless proven innocent? There is no reason to assume the vrije bond would donate to these kinds of groups. How canthey prove they didnt if there is nothing to show sincethey would never do such a thing. I think the burden of proof lies on you with your nonsensical claims.
Why guilty until proven
Why guilty until proven innocent? This isn't a courtroom. A proposition is neither true nor false until proven either way. Such proof however must not necessarily take the form of publishing of specific evidence, but can also take the form of an admission of the factuality of the claim by the other side, like this:
Person A: Person B did X, Y, and Z.
Person B: Yes that is factually correct.
Let me remind you of how these things are done these days by our more nationalist-minded comrades: "For example, former anarchists Anatoly Dubovik and Oleksandr Kolchenko living in Ukraine have published the names and addresses of our activists on the open Internet. The first of them wrote the corresponding text, and the second gave him his Facebook account for publication and approved it."[1]
In such context, and given the link between possibly personally identifying information and the evidentiary basis for the given claim, there is nothing unreasonable about a proof strategy which minimizes the need for publication of such information. Not sure why you're so impatient, either they'll say that the claim in question is factual which makes this whole side discussion moot, or they'll say it isn't and then the next step can be decided upon. But to be more precise, at the time of the initial fundraising drive in the second half of March this year, the following was observed on a public-facing website administrated by a member group of Vrije Bond:
1) Removal of various contributions on the subject which had been written over the preceding weeks, including
1.1) Links to databases of bombardments in the Donbass region over the past 8 years.
1.2) Information on the paramilitary structures of Azov and Right Sector.
1.3) Crucially, information on various occurences starting in 2014 where self-proclaimed "leftist anti-fascists" and "anarchists" had joined neo-nazi paramilitary formations or otherwise cooperated and/or joined with the far-right.
1.4) Information on deployment and then-current activities of some of those far-right paramilitary groups.
2) The unexplained banning of the former contributors in question.
3) The promotion of fake claims whitewashing some of the (para-)military formations. Crucially, some of the fake claims in question were already debunked by the very evidence (databases in particular) that had just been removed.
In short, supressing the evidence that might have made people think twice and be more careful about throwing money for weapons willy-nilly into an active conflict zone, whilst (knowingly and deliberately) promoting fake claims on the subject.
refs
1. Statement by IWA Russia 3/6/22 https://aitrus.info/node/5974
What membber group
What membber group
Anarchistisch Collectief
Anarchistisch Collectief Antwerpen
Thats not a member group but
Thats not a member group but a group that alugns with the vrije bond. Why dont you Write about them?
Because as far as I knew it
Because as far as I knew it was a member group. And technically I have been writing about them, just mistakenly identified as a member group. The point of the text doesn't change in substituting ACA for Vrije Bond.
technically???? you are
technically???? you are specifically talking about vrij bond and slandering there name and you dont know differences between groups. the point of the text does change. you shuld actually make a excuse to vrij bond
"Technically" in the sense
"Technically" in the sense that the statements apply, and always have applied, to ACA but which was just misidentified as a member group. Either I could write the same text again with nothing much changed except for writing "ACA" where it says "member group of Vrije Bond" and we could all have this discussion again with the same change in all the comments, or we could just let it stand with the understanding that in everything that came before we mentally substitute "ACA" where it says "member group of Vrije Bond." The latter seems much easier to me.
But if ACA isn't a member group then of course you are correct that apologies are in order towards Vrije Bond, so: Apologies to Vrije Bond.
You claim that this misidentification somehow means I don't know the differences between groups, but that's not the case either. Vrije Bond is a cooperative amalgation of autonomous member groups and individual members, sharing resources such as solidarity funds or a paper. For example AGA would be a member group, AGA is not the same as Vrije Bond, it's a member group. I know these things, I just misidentified one group as a member group. In my defense it's an easy misidentification, given the strong alignment to Vrije Bond such as through distributing Vrije Bond material at events and such. But if I understand this correctly, their status would be a bit akin to, say, Leuven Anarchistische Groep before they became a member group: They are a strongly aligned group, distribute Vrije Bond material and such, have members who are individually Vrije Bond members, but as a group they are not a member group?
I suspect that, as a movement, zero lessons are going to be drawn from this whole thing though. In the comment thread below we have people vigorously pointing fingers at Operation Solidarity, even though not much of anything has been established about that: for all we know they went in bed with some dubious figures, or they could point the finger even further down the line. In all that, of course, no thought is put in whether over-reliance on a system of excessively long trust-chains (someone who trusts someone who trusts someone who trusts someone who trusts someone who says it's totally fine) is a good idea in the first place. As that seems to be the least robust and most easily subverted system one could think of. Similarly in this comment thread focusing on the misidentification of ACA as a member group of Vrije Bond where, even as it could not be put in Vrije Bond's shoes, the described events did occur and also play their role in making people act carelessly where care is due.
Turns out ACA is, in fact, a
Turns out ACA is, in fact, a member group of Vrije Bond after all.[1] The identification was accurate. So I of course retract my ill-advised apology in the previous comment, and the question goes right back to Vrije Bond: If, as you claim, it was a good faith mistake then why the simultaneous hiding of information on the history of some Ukrainian "anarchists" in direct cooperation with the far-right, as well as on the crimes against civilians of some of the military formations engaged in the fight, which were furthered attempted to be whitewashed with outright fake claims?
refs
1. ACB's statement on acceptance as a member group, noting it follows the similar acceptance of ACA as one: https://www.facebook.com/anarchoBruhhe/posts/pfbid02u97zE1xHnzxTwk8uvGx8...
Vrije bond only reposted a
Vrije bond only reposted a message about donating to Operation Solidarity which is a leftwing anti fascist group. Please show me were they asked to fund the groups that you are pointing at.
What's the difference between
What's the difference between reposting a message about donations and asking donations yourself? If I relay a call for donation and people donate based on that call then I am just as responsible. And in this case we're not just talking about relaying a donation request, we're talking about 1) relaying a donation request, _and_ 2) supressing evidence that might have made people be a bit more careful about the whole thing, _and_ 3) promoting fake claims about the whole thing - which were even debunked by the very evidence that had just been removed. (see response to the comment above, which should appear shortly)
But yes, the Operation Solidarity funds is what we are talking about. As we know,[1] out of about 60k in total, the majority (about 41k) went to the military and the majority of the remainder (about 13k) went to supporting infrastructure. As we are told[2] a main beneficiary of the military supplies is a group called 'Kharkiv Hardcore.' Nationalists (they're constantly shouting "Slava Ukraini" at each other with political demands going no further than "Kharkiv is Ukrainian and always will be" whatever that even means, see for example the video linked in the OP text) who are full of Odal runes (not just the rifle in that earlier linked video, take a scroll through the rest of that channel paying attention to tattoos and such). On top of that weapons and ammunition also got provided to fighters in a Right Sector unit, as linked earlier.
refs
1. https://t.me/solidarnistinua/299
2. https://t.me/solidarnistinua/293
Vrije Bond relayed, in trust,
Vrije Bond relayed, in trust, a call for donations reposted by Anarchistische Groep Amsterdam, in trust , a call for donations of Anarchist Black Cross Dresden, for Operation Solidarity, which is as far as all of these groups understood is an amalgamation of antifascist anarchist groups.
Yes I understand that. But
Yes I understand that. But irrespective of what has gone wrong along this chain, at the end of the line at least some of these weapons are ending up where they are ending up. If it were just that, though, there wouldn't so much of a problem eliciting this text on indymedia. The same thing is after all true for pretty much everyone else, there was even a concert with bands and all. It's the addition of point 2, the simultaneous removal of any evidence and information that might have made people more careful, and point 3, the subsequent promotion of fake claims whitewashing some of the (para-)military formations, that's the problem.
To give an example, given that there's a lot to do about the Arsenal Kiev ultra's with that documentary about them that came out just recently. Suppose the following sequence of events occurs:
1) A fundraising call is shared here for that Arsenal group.
2) I post a comment pointing out that Arsenal Kiev has, in the past, made agreements with and cooperated with the far-right and subsequently took dubious political positions glorifying Fascist Italy, as well as cooperation with Autonomous Resistance (an autonome nationalisten group), and provide some references.[1]
3) Indymedia removes the comment and references in question.
4) Indymedia blocks the commenter from commenting any further.
5) Subsequently, Indymedia starts promoting claims that Arsenal Kiev ultras have never cooperated with any far-right groups or made dubious political claims.
6) People donate to the fundraiser.
7) Months later it turns out that at least some of those funds ended up with the far-right.
Then, as far as I see it, Indymedia can certainly be held accountable for it. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this _will_ occur with the Arsenal thing, I have no idea as I haven't looked deeply into that for a long time (as far as I knew their club didn't even exist anymore) - for all I know it's all just fine now. The point is just that by removing such information and then bullshitting about it, people who are considering whether to donate are not are stopped from making informed decisions about the question in accordance with their own principles and considerations.
refs
1. See for example page 77 of "The Ukrainian Left during and after the Maidan protests" (pdf here https://www.cslr.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The_Ukrainian_Left_du...)
You are mixing things up. AGA
You are mixing things up. AGA organiseren the fundraising you are referring to, not vrije bond. Also, vrije bond and aga are not the same people as indymedia. Therefor i doubt the validiteit of your claims. Also, iepuld say all was in good trust, but the responsibility lies with operation solidarity. So please point your arrows were they belong
Nobody claimed that Vrije
Nobody claimed that Vrije Bond and AGA are the same people as Indymedia, nothing got mixed up there. That thing about indymedia is called a hypothetical, note the word "Suppose" at the start of it.
Comment was hidden
[spam deleted]
[spam deleted]