Lenin’s Tomb
Love the Kevin McCarthy analogy.
Troll de-loused.
That's 'Silvio', rather than 'Silvino', Berlusconi. Other than that, good work!
You realise this is going to bring them here in their droves, don't you?
I'll edit that 'Silvino'
Troll castrated.
How true. After making a few comments on the war in Lebanon, my friends, well, those whom I considered my friends, are calling me a Jew-hater and oh, yes, I am going to hell, too, when I die, because I am against God's people.
If I keep reading, and making comments, I may have to move from Mississippi.
Thanks for the links on the Zionist. I also checked a few books out of the library.
Not all of their posters are pro-Lebanon war or even pro Iraq war though, somewhat undermining justin's claim that they are neo-McCarthyites. Take this post, for instance.
http://
hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne...a_war_crime.php
I think there will always be a place on the left for those people who aren't instinctively anti Americanand do not always side with terrorists in every and any dispute. You shouldn't get so worked up about it.
because the enemy are bad, that means that we are good
Isn't this Nietzche's definition of 'slave morality'? In that case, Justinis absolutely right that HPs effluviations derive from impotence.
h - I'm rather surprised by wardytron's stance. He'll have to break out of the Cuckoo's Nest like Hari soon, and leave the chronics strapped to the wall, dribbling and pissing.
I can't understand what you think anyone here is worked up about, however? It seems to me that if you take a march against Israeli mass murder and call it a "pro-fascist rally" that could be described as, at the very least, excited, agitated, unnerved, hysterical...
Janie - did you ever find David Hirst's book The Gun and the Olive Branch? Also, Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is a classic in its field.
"Fascist enemies of peace," a phrase straight out of the Tankie handbook.
I'm consistently amused and bemused by the other favourite slogan of the warmongers - they will often have the mandibles to say that we are "Pro-war, Not Antiwar" for supporting the right of invaded countries to defend themselves. It's a strange way to proceed, to treat the matter as if we propose to oppose 'war' in the abstract, rather than this specific war, the cited war, the one that all the fuss and hullabaloo is about, the US-led war on its enemies. Supporting self-defense is 'pro-war' in this perverted logic while denouncing the self-defense which robs the aggressors of their victory is 'pro-peace'.
Lenin wrote, "they will often have the mandibles to say that we are "Pro-war, Not Antiwar" for supporting the right of invaded countries to defend themselves."
As a self-labeled SFA,
I can't recall the last time the warmongers in question supported the right of anybody to oppose their precious USA.
In fact they call such people 'terrorists'.
I'm like: 'the occupation' means something,
they are like: what is 'the occupation'?, BTW, you're a Godless pinko commie islamofascist traitor, help yourself to a heaping portion of shitthefuckup and go read The Bible.
I'm not responsible for any injuries you incur while laughing:
http://madzionist.blogspot.com/
Justin is a good writer, I'd like him to write here more often, make him a regular contributor.
HP commentator accussed SWP and George Galloway of planning the London bombings.
"seanb
That has been the aim of Respect and the Muslim Brotherhood alliance. Things are going to plan for them so far, the 7/7 bombings were part of that scene.
Posted by Sanj at July 25, 2006 10:08 PM"
unclejimbo - that's entirely up to the man himself.
Sonic - well, check the figures man. Respect gained a couple of thousand members in the year 2005, so that proves that we were behind it, because it gave us more members. Also, several of our members have brown skin and some of them have beards. What more do you need?
Although it's hard to prove, my impression is that Harry's Place was concocted in the early days of the run up to the invasion of Iraq to do precisely what it does: propagandise for liberal imperialism. In that sense, it's never really had much of a decline -although Hari's departure (and even Harry's to an extent) were certainly punctuation on a downward slide.
My own moment of realisation came with their attempt to foist the category 'pro-liberation left' on us, in order to distinguish themselves from the left. The sheer galling dishonesty of it shocked me then and still does now.
HP's a spent force now, it seems and has turned in on itself -attracting ever more rightist and unpleasant commentators. This is, I assume, the natural result of trying to cheer lead war and oppression in the name of a project that never existed. Their regular posters are in the midst of being used by the Guardian CIS site but this will tail off soon. Then there'll be nothing.
The Guardian blog site is quite something. I have stopped looking at CIS posts because the comments beneath really do make you feel you've wandered into the Bürgerbräu Keller. Even the Guardian is finding it too much; they're trying to limit comments to one per person per x minutes, which is getting a cutely united 'community' response from people who insist that they know more than Monbiot about energy policy because they read x magazine. Anyway.
'Although it's hard to prove, my impression is that Harry's Place was concocted in the early days of the run up to the invasion of Iraq to do precisely what it does: propagandise for liberal imperialism. In that sense, it's never really had much of a decline -although Hari's departure (and even Harry's to an extent) were certainly punctuation on a downward slide.'
The real clue to the ideological orienation of Harry's Place, it seems to me is the fact that many of the posters are members of the Labour Party, and some of them seem to be quite high up in their local Labour Party organisations/groupings (can you tell that I'M not a member of the Labour Party?). Harry's Place is orientated round, and is devoted to propounding, Tony Blair's foreign policy. Its main purpose, apart from general propaganda, is to keep sceptical Labour Party members on message and (increasingly) to safeguard the Blairite ideology if and when Brown takes over. Or does anyone think it's a coincidence that the Harry's Place line deviates from that of Tony Blair in no (significant) way whatsoever?
In Philip Kaufman's remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, released in one of the other years Israel invaded Lebanon, McCarthy reprises his panic-in-the-traffic act, and is promptly run over by a van.
Somehow, that scene now seems less pessimistic than it did.
http://jangliss.livejournal.com/....com/
82274.html I blogged on this a few weeks ago and am so happy to find someone who can put those same thoughts into coherent sentences.
John A - that Wikipedia quote nails it, of course. Harry has always, always hated the Trots more than he ever hated fascism, racism or any of the rest of it. It is the only aspect of his politics that really stuck with him (apart from his support for tanks 'liberating' people).
brendan - yes, absolutely, and the support for racism against Muslims is part of a Blairite attempt to split the antiwar movement as are the repeated demands that antiwar leftists prove themselves before the imaginary tribunal of the right.
HP's a spent force now, it seems and has turned in on itself -attracting ever more rightist and unpleasant commentators. This is, I assume, the natural result of trying to cheer lead war and oppression in the name of a project that never existed.
The point of Harry's Pricks is to split the left, pure and simple. Ninety percent of their posts are attacks against one section of the left or another. The only time they ever post something even close to left-wing interests is when they post about trade union rights in Iran, women's rights in Palestine or press freedom in Venezuala. Funny how they're not interested in the human rights of all Iranians, Palestinians, Venezualans etc.
Worst of all of their new intake is the buffoon Graham. With his prolier-than-thou stance, his laughable I-was-a-punk-once-honest attempt at a persona, you've also got his his absolute cowardice in an argument. They're all contemptible shits, but amongst them he is king
Nice one, Justin.
In the past couple of weeks, 'David T', one of the two main posters on HP Sauce, has absented himself almost entirely, leaving the field to Gene Zitver, an ageing American Zionist whose efforts to police a British site are hampered by his ignorance of Blighty. (He has just solemnly told off a commenter for calling the British police 'the filth'.)
David T's recusal may be due to the same queasiness about Israel's latest adventures which affected Wardytron, a newish poster, and which caused Johann Hari to quit the team when he turned against the Crusade in Iraq. (Interesting that one of HP's household gods, Norman Geras, has also gone schtum on the subject of Zionist infallibility.) All this endless excoriating of marginal opponents of the war like you lot may be to cloak disagreements among the leadership about whether it's a Good Thing.
Gene's other main gig is sneering at every anti-American radical leader in Latin America, particularly Hugo Chavez who (of course) is a 'fascist' and 'antisemite'. The mental landscape of HP is forever 1939, garnished with Islamophobia which sometimes approaches the level of Little Green Footballs or USS Neverdock.
The other occasional enforcer, 'Brownie', is the NuLab hard man whom one can sometimes almost visualise dancing up and down with rage when his beloved leader Tony is dissed. Brownie lives in Cambridgeshire and stands for the council as a paper candidate, collecting derisory votes, so one can sympathise when HP commenters refuse to cheer him up. He is a classic authoritarian personality, demanding the annihilation of smoking and the return of National Service.
Altogether HP is a quaint crew nowadays for those of us who remember the careless raptures of 2002-03. One recalls Jimmy Maxton's call to Ramsay MacDonald during the latter's last speech as PM: 'Sit doon, mon, ye're a bloody tragedy.'
You have to admit though guys - those salutes the Hezbollah types are doing in Lebanon are pretty Nazi like.
Most countries think Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation. Lenin's Tomb however in its head in the sand way, probably calls them "freedom fighters" or the like.
Wake up and smell the coffee boys.
Harry's Place views are the mainstream. Lenin's Tomb are for the quirks.
What i understand about the SWP and the other Trot groups is why they have to resort to revolution - their warped views have no chance at the ballot box.
Trotsky is dead.
Jack the Bear - that's a brilliant summary.
Excellent post Jack.
Lenins tomb have never calle them freedom fighters and neither have I. Ban this troll.
I don't agree with deleting trolls who are not either slanderous (Tim Robinson) or deceitful (Mike Clark) or overly repetitive. Ex-Maven should remain, as he is totally hilarious. His moral calculus, on which a particular angle at which a saluting arm is raised weighs far more than a hundred destroyed apartment blocks and a thousand dead Lebanese - or his "eat shit - 10 million flies can't be wrong" argument - just shows everything you want to know about liberal imperialism.
I would like to thank him, however, for telling me that Leon Trotsky is dead. I really didn't know. I thought he'd just been taking a break from politics for the last 66 years.
"Wake up and smell the coffee boys.
"Harry's Place views are the mainstream."
Yeah, as a poll for The Guardian showed only today, most British people are interested in Israel to the virtual exclusion of trivial domestic matters, and stand solidly behind George Bush and Tony Blair in the Long War for a better world where truly decent, muscular progressives will teach barbaric 7th century fascist headchoppers the virtues of Liberty and Modernity...
Whoops, been pouring out too much HP Sauce again.
"All this endless excoriating of marginal opponents of the war like you lot may be"
Marginal, never! Just kidding, the anti-war sentiment is not marginal, unfortunately in political life it is. it's the old schism between the populace and the politicians.
Who cares what Kiwis think!
;)
Why do people march against war? Because they're actually pro-fascist! Ha ha ha!
Actually, this is exactly what the German American Bund did prior to the US's entry into WW2. (No that any WW2 analogies are permitted here of course.) The reasons were simple. They were American fascists and they were against the US entering a war against fascists. It's actually a fairly simple idea. So there are reasons and precedent for a fascist "march against war". It's not an inherently absurd idea. (Especially when the marchers are seen cheering in favor of glorifying fascists. Creepy, but not absurd.)
Ok I admit it, we are all fascists, Black Socialists, Gay Socialists, Jewish Socialists, all secretly hoping that Osama and the lads get their act together and introduce the world-wide caliphate so we can kill everyone we do not like.
Sorry Len to give the game away, I just cracked under the brilliant inquisitive skills of Sammy, couldn't keep the whole evil plot secret under such pressure.
Good work, Justin.
But I still think the funniest commentary on Harry's Place is the wikipedia article they and some of their admirers created about it, in which every trivial thing they ever said or wrote and every change of mind they may have had is pompously presented as a landmark event, referenced in detail for future scholars. ('Harry has noted that he is still a Guardian reader' [footnote 16] 'He made a public break with his former views in a Workers' Liberty message board discussion in October 2002, where he said Stalinism was a viewpoint "I now reject totally".[footnote 24])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Har...Harry%
27s_Place
"so we can kill everyone we do not like"
First shoot Johann Hari then nick his Independent piece, writing, instead, on why Cadbury eggs are soft from the inside yet not to chocolaty.
"Like many critics of Islamism, Harry's Place is often accused of Islamophobia.[28]"
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be from a neutral point of view? None of us consider HP Islamophobic because it's anti-Islamist.
We consider it Islamophobic cos its bloggers and commenters hate Muslims.
An excellent piece Justin.
Interesting that one of HP's household gods, Norman Geras, has also gone schtum on the subject of Zionist infallibility.
yeah this is very curious - reminds me of something somebody observed about John Major, when at the height of the black Wednesday crisis, the defining event of his life, he lost his bottle, and visibly shrank back from the nightmare unfolding around him – like Geras, all he wanted to do was talk about was cricket…..
We are the Village Green Preservation Society,
God save Donald Duck, Vaudeville and Variety.
but not geroge galoway
Galloway takes money from Al-Qaeda to fund Respect and Hezbollah. He also kicked my puppy two years ago. Bastard. Lenin, what would you do if someone kicked your puppy.
I'll be watching you Mr. "Lenin", I have pictures of you Mr. "Lenin". I have cleared a wall in my bedroom that had old pictures from reconnaissance missions I collected watching Galloway. I'll be watching you now as well Mr. "Lenin", don't be to alarmed, you only brought it upon yourself you islamobaathotrotoantisemitofasicst.
I'm Tim Robinson the sniffer:
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/.../joe-
weasel.gif
like Geras, all he wanted to do was talk about was cricket...
Not an unsound aspiration in itself.
Hassan, Hassan, ya habbib,
Fathan, fathan Tal-Abib!
sniff, sniff, sniff
Galloway takes money from Al-Qaeda to fund Respect and Hezbollah. He also kicked my puppy two years ago. Bastard. Lenin, what would you do if someone kicked your puppy.
Did he? Poor Timmykins. Was he dressed as a cat when he did it? And he's got a beard too. There, there my love.
booo hoooooooo
I'm so sad Sean, no one knows how difficult this is for me.
Mr. "Lenin" I'll have spies after you.
Really good post, with one crucial mistake. Surely it was Hilary (Sir Edmund) who said the stuff about Everest. Mallory sounds a bit King Solomon's Mines to me. Heather should know - Mr Ed was from NZ I think.
"Meaders" showed no such thing, but don't let that trouble you.
(Sorry, could somebody deal with this one?)
(Last post to Tim, whom I now see has been happily disposed of.)
Bloody brilliant Justin. Very well written but I understand a few months ago you made a rather obvious grammatical error..can anyone remember what it was?
When Graham of HP Sauce wrote that "some of the slimey boneless creatures currently infesting the British left evolved from amphibians", he got this reply from 'David Upandatemborough':
Ah, Graham must mean the sub-subspecies Eustonista Harryensis Shachtmanii, the Lesser Pale Pink Decent. Within recent years this has mutated into a purely parasitical organism permanently attached to the guts of state power, grooming its host by tickling its delusions of grandeur while digesting its own stomach in the misplaced belief that it is chewing a nutritious diet of secular righteousness.
Fortunately this rather repellent tapeworm is rapidly vanishing from the Left landscape. Only 2,200 were found in a protracted 'Mongerwatch' trawl conducted by Prof. Geras and Dr Nastynick, and only 250 of these were healthy enough to venture out into the light for a seasonal mating ritual at Trafalgar Square: the dance of Free Expression.
Ecologists expect that the Lesser Pale Pink Decent, which is increasingly unmuscular, will be entirely bereft of a leg to stand on shortly. It will duly become extinct, except in a few artificial bubble environments in North London and the Near East.
This is one rare breed the planet is better off without.
It's interesting how many of the Stalinists turned Blairites retain their inherent political unpleasantness. The Harry's Place site is proof of that. I guess that their political essence remains the same: from bootlicking the Kremlin to bootlicking the White House. A simple transfer of allegiance.
Muslims on front line as racism rises across EU
http://news.independent.co.uk/
eu...icle1197272.ece
The last public meeting of the Euston Manifesto, addressed by the leader of Labour Friends of Iraq and the editor of Democratiya, attracted a mere 18 people.
I think that's one of the funniest (and weirdest) things about the whole HP/Eustonite movement. They genuinely think that Joe Public shares their point of view when it's blindingly obvious that they don't.
They are genuinely puzzled when thousands and thousands turn up at anti-war protests, yet only two men and a dog show for the Euston Circle Jerk or the "Whaddawe Want? Racist Cartoons! Whendowewannem? Now?" Free Expression march.
i hate georg galoway.
he has a mustach
Edited By Siteowner
Bit late, but someone's just drawn my attention to this gem on that site. With regard to Leon's cartoon it's apparently "Interesting. Within less than two hours of my original post, the cartoon appeared on the Respect website." That bloke should get professional help if he really thinks that the timeframe is a result of his rantings rather than me having spent the whole day at the other end of the country and only getting back to attend to the latest website updates in the wee small hours.
No "lies" involved, Timmy. Watch yourself before you go.
sniff sniff galoway
sniff sniff GALLERWAY
His first statement is consistent with the second. Watch yourself. BAe systems aren't worth it.
Toodle-pip, Timmy.
18 people at a Euston Manifesto meeting?.. that is probably about 15 more than at your average SWP event
18 people at a Euston Manifesto meeting?.. that is probably about 15 more than at your average SWP event
Don't kid yourself 'Ex Maven':
http://www.linkswende.org/cgi-bi...ism05/
index.php
Anyone notice the Guardian poll yesterday? Only three per cent of respondents thought Britain is "not close enough" to the US.
That's the Eustonites constituency.
***Janie - did you ever find David Hirst's book The Gun and the Olive Branch? Also, Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is a classic in its field.***
I ordered both from Amazon. I could not find them in my library system, and Memphis would charge me a $50 fee, so I thought buying would be better.
mmmmmmm gallosmells
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.
The last public meeting of the Euston Manifesto, addressed by the leader of Labour Friends of Iraq and the editor of Democratiya, attracted a mere 18 people.
The meeting was announced as being 'in Waterloo' and you had to ask for an email to be told precisely where. Very mysterious for a would-be mass movement. More like a (counter)-revolutionary cell. Another old Trot/New Left habit dying hard, perchance.
There seems to be nothing else on the stocks at Mornington Crescent except an ongoing appeal to send Iraqi trade unionists used mobile phones.
The core of that Euston/Democratiya/Unite Against Whatever/Engage/Labour Friends of Israel & Iraq bolus is remnants of the 1980s Union of Jewish Students, fighting anti-Zionism in the NUS. They proceeded to the Socialist Organiser/Alliance for (White) Workers Liberty (Solidarity). They have since sunk gratefully into middle age and New Labour, limping down the last steps of the Shachtmanite road towards barely critical adoration of nuclear 'might' represented by Bush II and Olmert.
The constant factor in all this is a servile anxiety to be 'ever strong upon the stronger side'. The constant drawback is that they always arrive to kiss the giant's toes just when the giant is catching Alzheimer's Disease.
Really good post, with one crucial mistake. Surely it was Hilary (Sir Edmund) who said the stuff about Everest. Mallory sounds a bit King Solomon's Mines to me. Heather should know - Mr Ed was from NZ I think.
Mallory
Re: johng's posting, I have to admit that there is at least one infelicity of style in the current piece: the final two sentences in the second paragraph should really only be a single sentence.
In relation to Brendan's posting of last night, the important thing to remember about the contemporary Labour Party is that, at least as far as its office-holders are concerned, it is simply a vehicle for advancing one's career. It is there for ambitious people. People seek office within it for that reason. And when you are an ambitious person, in any organisation, your normal means of advancing your career is to find out what powerful and important people want and say that it is also what you want. Hence, of course it's natural to side with the US in world affairs: they are the powerful people, the ones with whom you naturally identify. Hence of course you side with Israel in the Middle East, instinctively.
This is also the key to the personality and actions of Tony Blair.
GALLOWAY JUST SHIT MY PANTS!!!111!!@
The core of that Euston/Democratiya/Unite Against Whatever/Engage/Labour Friends of Israel & Iraq bolus is remnants of the 1980s Union of Jewish Students, fighting anti-Zionism in the NUS. They proceeded to the Socialist Organiser/Alliance for (White) Workers Liberty (Solidarity).
I thought it was a happy meeting of likeminded folk having travelled rather separate paths, rather than the same group. Members of Socialist Organiser, forerunners to the Alliance for White Liberty, were pushing for bans on university Jewish Societies in the late 1970s, weren't they? (You'll notice that the AWL have simply altered the ethnic-religious group involved, whilst keeping the same underlying atrocious politics.)
In relation to Brendan's posting of last night, the important thing to remember about the contemporary Labour Party is that, at least as far as its office-holders are concerned, it is simply a vehicle for advancing one's career. It is there for ambitious people. People seek office within it for that reason. And when you are an ambitious person, in any organisation, your normal means of advancing your career is to find out what powerful and important people want and say that it is also what you want. Hence, of course it's natural to side with the US in world affairs: they are the powerful people, the ones with whom you naturally identify. Hence of course you side with Israel in the Middle East, instinctively.
All true, but doesn't explain Euston or the AWL.
Passeth all understanding...
The eighteen strong attendence at the Euston Group public meeting would have shamed even Bob Geldof (who managed to attract over double that number to his gig in Milan last weekend). Of those eighteen, one was an anti-war and anti-Euston Iraqi democrat, and another was yours truly. Of the remaining sixteen, only one was female.
The organisers were clearly hoping for a couple of hundred, as they had booked a large lecture theatre at Kings College in central London. Gary Kent from Labour Friends of Iraq told the audience that everywhere he had been to in Iraq people had come up to him and thanked him for the US and British liberation! A truly remarkable account that appeared to contradict all the available evidence. Kent later admitted that he had never set foot outside of Kurdistan.
Alan Johnson of Democratiya spoke quite movingly about the historic struggles of Iraqi communists and trade unionists against both Saddam Hussein and his then US imperialist sponsors. In answer to a question from the floor about why he was against imperialism then, but not against it today, Johnson said that following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the main emphasis of US foreign policy was now on "democracy promoting", and that they deserved critical support in this endevour.
The questioner responded by pointing out that at exactly the time the United States were planning their war on Iraq, they were actively sponsoring a coup against the hugely popular elected government of Venezuela. Johnson replied that the world was now complicated and that you could no longer meaningfully talk about Imperialism/Resistance.
I have to say that it was the least inspiring meeting I ever attended in my life, and believe me there's been some stiff competition. It wasn't only the pathetically small attendence that dampened the atmosphere, or the almost complete absence of women and ethnic minorities. The principal reason, I think, was the absence of any vision that went beyond supporting George Bush and attacking the left, and the almost pathological denial of the disaster that is Iraq. I left the meeting wondering why these people bother pretending to be on the left at all. They appear to have no base of support in society, nor any interesting or coherent ideas, and are largely a creation of the media.
R.I.P.
It must be a stange experience to have generated a world-shattering 'democratic' manifesto - one that fuses their idea of democracy to the State of Israel and the United States - only to watch as the three examples of Arab 'democracy' in the region are being pulverised under the weight of the Israeli and US militaries. Each destroying the thing it loves, I guess.
The Euston manifesto was touted by HP and others as a way of bringing together the Left. If that had been the desire, then it would have addressed principles that stand apart from any particular nation and it would have been the work of more than just HP, Geras, the kook Kamm and a couple of warmed-over splenetic journalists.
What they really wanted was to shift the *split in the Left* so that it was more to their liking. The shift was huge. Eighteen people can't be wrong!
Do they get funding? If so, from whom?
Well we kow the WRP were funded by Libya. The question is who funds the SWP.. I wouldnt be surprsised if it was Iran
Meaders wrote: < Members of Socialist Organiser, forerunners to the Alliance for White Liberty, were pushing for bans on university Jewish Societies in the late 1970s, weren't they? >
I've not heard of that one; it doesn't sound right. I think the only left group to go that way was the SWP, which very briefly attempted to get Uni Jewish societies banned on the grounds that they were ipso facto racist. I don't know if this was a national policy, or one concocted locally by an over-zealous branch secretary.
I do know that the rest of the left was appalled by this (I was a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party at the time, and we were amazed at the stupidity of it).
I and my late pal Al Richardson were accused by the AWL's ganzer macher Sean Matgamna himself of having an 'anti-Semitic' stand on Palestine/Israel because we called for a single democratic state with equal rights for all citizens. We were thus being racist for calling for an anti-racist solution -- that's dialectics for you.
Some good and fair points made here, but I've seen the game of Links played on LT before.
The march for free expression attarcted quite a few islamophobic loons, despite all the attempts of the organisers to distance themselves form these people. Nevertheless, those attempts fro ignored by critics of the MFE, who accused anybody and everybody of supporting the BNP. What is that if not accusing X of being bad, because X is connected by Y which has also attracted support of Z?
Also, beware of Jack The Bear. He posts at Harry's Place under a variety of pseudonyms (and is usually known as Luniversal, or Luni) and is an out and out anti-Semite. I'm not saying that makes you all as bad as him, but beware the people you cheer on.
'Some good and fair points made here'
Fair enough...
'but I've seen the game of Links played on LT before'
But I will ignore them for spurious reasons...
And the traditional, unsupported anti-semitism smear.
Oh, for honest opponents...
The question is who funds the SWP
Um... their members?
Dr Paul: the SWP has never attempted to ban Jewish Societies and has opposed such attempts. It would be, at the very minimum, completely idiotic. I don't know about "over-zealous" local members, but I am aware that people like Kamm have attempted to smear the SWP with this before. (IIRC, Socialist Organiser made some effort to do so at Sunderland Poly in the early 1980s, so I may have got the dating wrong earlier.)
Woraller, wtf are you on about? See the bit where I say, quite clearly "I'm not saying that makes you all as bad as him". I noted a few people chgeering him on earlier in the threads. And I wondered if they perhaps knew some of the thoughts he has when it comes to Jews, that's all.
And it is not "spurious reasons". Justin's post is good, but i thin it is wrong to claim some kind of moral superiority for LT on the game of links, because I've seen the game played here too.
Blimey.
Re "Keep Watching The Lies" - Harry's Place has been recommended by Michael Gove in "The Times".
No further comment is needed!
...because I've seen the game played here too.
Where? I'm racking my brains a bit, but nothing springs to mind.
'See the bit where I say, quite clearly "I'm not saying that makes you all as bad as him". '
That is the bit that marks you out as a nasty smearer. You can't credibly claim that anyone here (apart from trolls) is anti-semitic and you have had the position re support for Hezbollah explained to you.
So, dishonestly, instead of taking our arguments into account and engaging us from that perspective, you engage in the nonsense links game to imply that despite the lack of any darned facts, despite the many 'good points' you fail to respond to, we are anti-semitic.
Typically snide, face saving, liberal shite when caught equivocating in the face of brutal aggression, in other words.
Meaders, as my first comment suggested, the MFE is one such example. Because some BNP tried to sabotage the event, anybody and everyboyd who chose to go along was smeaered as pro-BNP. Or how about when HP criticises the MCB? Undoubtedly, some of the MCB's critics are islamophobic morons, but if somebody on HP posts that they think the MCB is not representative enough, they are smeared as Islamophobes too.
Woraller, I don't really know what to say to you. So much for all those claims last week about this site being above personal insults. A couple of people saluted JTB's comments. The only, ONLY thing I said is be careful, because while he might not have posted anything too objectionable here, he is a very nasty piece of work. Now you can take that or leave it, but I was in no way attempting to smear regulars here as anti-semites (and I specifically mentioned this in my first comment, which you are still choosing to overlook), and for you to shout and swear at me that I am is especially vicious and entirely unwarranted.
And finally, I love how you claim I "have had the position explained ot me re:Hezbollah" as there can onyl be one true and correct opinion and it has to be yours. For goodness' sake. I've listened to people's arguments here on Hezbollah. I've said time and again that I am not convinced by the,. I wasn't aware that difference of opinion was not allowed. I am a liberal, that is correct. And unlike you I don't think that's a dirty word.
-x-
as my first comment suggested, the MFE is one such example. Because some BNP tried to sabotage the event, anybody and everyboyd who chose to go along was smeaered as pro-BNP.
No: the March for Racist Expression was a rally for racist cartoons, irrespective of the BNP. That the BNP supported it stems from this central fact - not the other way round.
worraller: a very brief Google trawl reveals a lot of harrumphing out there about Jack the Bear. The guy certainly appears to be a provocateur, but make of that what you will.
It was about far, far more than those cartoons, but let's not go over old ground. The movement died anyway.
publicansdecoy, the 'links' thing doesn't get played here, as the majority of HP commenters are armchair general types who aren't actually members of any political organisation, apart from the Eustonites (if that counts), and a few Labour Party members (if that counts, for that matter).
> Because some BNP tried to sabotage the event
How did the BNP try and "sabotage" the event? They agreed with the MFE's stance and turned up to support it.
But, as has already been said, no one here had to play a links game, as the whole concept of the MFE was racist to start with, making its organisers racists, regardless of whether or not the BNP attended.
Posters here generally call people 'racist' when they say or do racist things. HP call people anti-semites because they once went on a march with someone who once stood quite near a guy who once said he didn't like Woody Allen films.
The movement died anyway.
Thank goodness, though unfortunatley Islamophobia remains a "respectable" form of racism.
The MFE was portrayed, unfairly, as a BNP event, which it never was, and the organisers took great steps to distance themsleves from the BNP right from the very start, not that the critics paid much attention to that. The BNP were told to stay away, and sadly some turned up and overshadowed other points on the day.
I do not agree that the MFE was racist in and of itself, as it happens. Although by your own logic I suppose that means I'm a racist too. I could get furious about that accusation, but what's the point? Your mind is entrenched. I abhor racism in any form (and yes, that includes Islamphobia) and would immediately disassociate myself from anything that I thought racist.
I'm not saying that makes you all as bad as him, but beware the people you cheer on.
Right. And Harry's place has, among many others, 'Old Peculiar' who believes that Arabs are unfit for democracy, members of an inferior civilsation etc. What should be surprising, but sadly isn't, was the absence of any real outrage or censure from the posters at HP (imagine what a similar pronouncement about Jews would have provoked). Nor is OP particularly untypical. So please don't try and play the 'careful who cheers you on' card - HP is populated my many apologists for unrestrained free-markets - and others whose Islamaphobia is similarly unrestrained.
publicansdecoy: "The only, ONLY thing I said is be careful, because while he might not have posted anything too objectionable here, he is a very nasty piece of work."
Let's have some examples, then.
The BNP were told to stay away, and sadly some turned up and overshadowed other points on the day.
...and what particularly attracted them to it, do you think? Reading Voltaire?
I do not agree that the MFE was racist in and of itself, as it happens. Although by your own logic I suppose that means I'm a racist too.
No, the "logic" here is all your own.
I could get furious about that accusation...
You mean the one you've just made of yourself? Could be interesting to watch.
(It's the heat, isn't it?)
The Campaign for Free Expression started as, as far as I can tell, a combination of secularists and extreme libertarians who felt upset by the calls by various Muslim clerics and organisations for the banning of the cartoons published in Denmark. All manner of other people joined it, from the gay Outrage group and some Middle Eastern left-wingers through the right-wing conservative Freedom Association to the far right. When the organiser agreed with the police's demand that anti-Muslim devices were not to be displayed on banners, there weren't half some angry bigots sounding off on the campaign's website!
Although I am in favour of free expression, I did not support it as I felt that the overall context of the matter was not free speech, but the question of an anti-Muslim provocation by a Danish right-wing paper (one with a very unpleasant history) that published the cartoons deliberately in order to get an angry response from Muslim leaders, and then be able to cry 'free speech, free speech' in feigned outrage. This is something that the far-right does with regularity.
Those marching for 'free speech' in this instance were effectively endorsing the provocation set up in Denmark. Now I think that some of the people involved were unaware of the deeper issues -- some secularists are amazingly naive politically -- but many I believe were fully aware of the real issues involved.
A good measure of those involved would be to see on what other questions of censorship or restriction they would start or support a campaign. Older folk like me will remember the hard work put in by the precursor of the Freedom Association in supporting the bosses in the Grunwick strike. Anything supported by this group must by its very nature be suspect.
People may be interested to learn that a leading member of Outrage has recently joined the Harry's Place as a regular columnist.
Dr Paul,
Although the organisers tried to stress it was about more than the cartoons, unfortunately and inevitably they were focussed on more than anything else. Points were also made at the rally about Bezhti, or Jerry Springer: The Opera, but sadly they seemed to get drowned out.
Perhaps the best thing about the day itself is that it started to chuck it down just as the Freedom Alliance bloke started talking, so most of us went to the pub then anyway :)
Dicky Bird,
I don't particularly have the appetite to trawl through the Harry's Place comments boxes or grant further publicity to this Luniversal moron. If you feel like it, look out for comments from people using the names Luniversal, Jack The Bear, Harry's Placeman, Gorblimey!, Heterodox and probably many others too. His email address is usually a string of random numbers and letters at sneakemail.com, although it's not always the case. The man's a cretin. Sometimes he'll write fairly innocuous things, but other times he lets his guard down.
"The BNP were told to stay away, and sadly some turned up and overshadowed other points on the day."
So clearly it wasn't a march for free expression then.
What was it exactly?
Gotta love it when liberals get their bigotry in a twist.
Brett Lock has joined Harry's Place, yes - and has used it to a) give his support to Israel and b) have a go at the SWP for trying to organise protests in east London against the police's actions.
Yep - instead of even thinking about showing solidarity with a community under attack, he chose to attack the people who are trying to do something about it.
He fits right in, and shows why Outrage deserves zero respect.
And publicansdecoy, apart from being a liar (people were *not* smeared as "BNP" for going on that march. Please, stop lying), you also provide no evidence.
Maybe "Jack The Bear" is a rotten racist, and he'll be banned from here if he is.
But to simply assert, without evidence, that this person is the same as the other people, and to use that to smear him and, by association, us - well, you're a typical lying liberal after all.
I'm not saying you're a paedophile, but I think I'll watch the way you look at young boys from now on.
See? Your game is easy.
PS because you play the victim card so much, let me explain it to you: You deserve the hammering you get here, because you refuse to believe that your cosy reality might have some broken glass into it.
You shake your head and tut tut at how mean we are, while giving de facto support to the massacre of civilians by hugely powerful states.
You claim you want debate, but your "anti-semite" smear, your lies about the BNP and your claims about opponents of the MFE just shows what a smug, lying liberal you are.
Please, don't pretend to care about dead Palestinians. Hand-wringing never saved any lives.
I have now stated explicitly that I am not accusing any of the regular commenters of anti Semitism several times. How many more times do I have to say it: I do not think you are anti semites. I can keep saying it. And you can keep accusing me of saying the opposite if you want. I don't know what else to do. And *I'm* the liar, apparently?
Sorry for trying to do you a service by warning you about JTB. As I pointed out earlier, you can take it or leave it. Or you can use it as yet another stick to beat me if you want. Blimey, I was only trying to be helpful - even friendly, you might say. I should've known that would be ignored.
RE: The MFE, so you'll beat it if the BNP comes along and oyu'll beat it for trying ot exclude the BNP? Which is it, because it seems to me you can;t have it both ways. I was not involved in organising the MFE in any capacity, but I supported it and attended it. I would not describe myself as a free speech absolutist. I will not support exhortations for violence against others, for example. I actually want to see the greatest diversity of viewpoints co-existing as possible. I don;t think supporting a group who wants ot eliminate people with different viewpoints is consistent with that. My view can be precisely summed up by the old adage 'tolerate all but the intolerant'. Perhaps you think that is a hypocritical position. I would argue that it is less hypocritical than saying you suport free speech and also saying that you support the policies of the BNP.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2...taire-
tiny.html
This is Lenno's report of the MFE. It is a tissue of lies through and through, from his estimates of his numbers, his accounts of the speeches ("stiff, unclapping hands when [Tatchell] referred to gay rights" - an outright lie. I was there. There was no such thing), and his slurs about "the obvious knuckle-draggers from the Master Race" etc etc etc.
I started commenting on this site with one basic point or question to ask - if you people care so greatly about the situation in Lebanon (as I do too) why is there not one single word of sympathy for the suffering of Israelis. It is a shocking and appalling double standard which you have done nothing to correct. Instead, I have been called a liar, a racist, a paedophile(!). It is quite astonishing. The extremely vitriolic and personal nature of the insults has suurprised me. I have noticed that you are similarly violent towards anyone who deviates in any way from the party line that Israel is an apartheid state, and that sometimes Muslims might do something bad too. There is no real debate here, no discussion, no listening to others' ideas and views, just propoganda and smears. Many of the things you accused Harry's Place of, you are yourself guilty of 10 times over. I thought I could read and comment on both, but the extreme anti-Israeli (note I said anti-Israeli and NOT anto-Semite) nature of this site, and the refusal to even listen to anyone who might not share your hatred is sickening and ultimately extremely depressing. I think I shall have to walk away. You can proceed to paint this as another victory in your campaign against lying liberals etc etc. I frankly couldn't care less. I have no respect anymore for what you people say. I neither need nor want the approval of this deeply unpleasant site. I need to return to the real world, and be among fair-minded, rational people, who will always concede that at the end of the day, what they think is just their opinion, and could well be wrong. You are incapable of this, so goodbye.
You can now proceed ot call me a racist and dance a triumphant jig. Well done. Give yourselves a round of applause. This sort of attitude tells people everything they need to know about you.
...if you people care so greatly about the situation in Lebanon (as I do too) why is there not one single word of sympathy for the suffering of Israelis. It is a shocking and appalling double standard which you have done nothing to correct.
We are already correcting a "double standard": that of the mainstream media. Why should anyone here parrot the BBC?
There is no real debate here, no discussion, no listening to others' ideas and views, just propoganda and smears. Many of the things you accused Harry's Place of, you are yourself guilty of 10 times over.
"...just propaganda and smears..." followed by a propagandistic smear without even the pretence of evidence. Nicely done.
Incidentally, if you are leaving us, I'm half-sorry to see you go: I don't know about Tony et al, but I'd have you down as sincerely misguided and misled, rather than deliberately evasive. (Which is patronising, admittedly, but I think accurate.)
You can now proceed ot call me a racist and dance a triumphant jig. Well done. Give yourselves a round of applause. This sort of attitude tells people everything they need to know about you.
...actually, this is just a little odd: again, you're suggesting we do something we haven't yet done, and then accusing us of all sorts of terrible things on the basis of a suggestion only you have made. Weird.
'I have now stated explicitly that I am not accusing any of the regular commenters of anti Semitism several times.'
Yet every time you have done this you have also implied the opposite in a typically dishonest way.
As I say, oh, for honest opponents...
Meaders: I agree, I just get so pissed off with hand-wringing.
I'm not allowed to say this, cos it too is patronising: Publicansdecoy is probably the sort of person you could have a really good, meaningful discussion with down the pub - but the internet isn't suited to the number of smears and distortions coming from him.
...but the internet isn't suited to the number of smears and distortions coming from him.
Yeah, but I don't think he intends for them to look like that.
Absolutely Meaders - and I think they probably wouldn't seem that way in the pub - it's just a style of argument that doesn't work online, cos it requires people to argue points that they never made, against accusations that have no basis in reality.
At work, if someone said (in 2003) "but that means you support Saddam Hussein!", I never felt like punching them hard in the face - but online, when someone says the same sort of nonsense, it's either not worth bothering with, or it drives me to wanting to commit acts of violence
publicansdecoy wrote:
I don't particularly have the appetite to trawl through the Harry's Place comments boxes or grant further publicity to this Luniversal moron. If you feel like it, look out for comments from people using the names Luniversal, Jack The Bear, Harry's Placeman, Gorblimey!, Heterodox and probably many others too. His email address is usually a string of random numbers and letters at sneakemail.com, although it's not always the case. The man's a cretin. Sometimes he'll write fairly innocuous things, but other times he lets his guard down.
How do you know they're all the same person? Sounds a shade paranoiac.
BTW, sneakemail.com is the biggest free spamcatching service around, so for more than one comment at HP to use it doesn't necessarily mean they're all the same guy, especially if sometime they're/he's/it's saying things you *don't* object to. Pretty thin evidence and weird reasoning going on there, my son.
Nearly every commenter at HP seems to use a pseudonym, as do the mods, and most have obvious fake emails too. Presumably to avoid the torrent of spam which hits anyone with a negligent ISP who uses Haloscan regularly, plus the ID theft danger from handing out your real email address. Is it only the ones you agree with whom we can assume are genuinely different from each other?
besides all 'jack the bear' did is some fairly elementary digging which shows that the same names recur in the various organizations which keep hat-tipping one another. He didn't even say if he disagreed with them or not, just thought the links were worth revealing. How does it prove jtb's an Evil Racist Fascist BNP organizer called Luniversal?
And then to say that Lenin's Tomb of all places is hand in glove with this phantom of the blogosphere! For chrissakes, even a teeny-weeny flame war needs a drop more fuel than that. Take a chill pill, you seem a bit out of your depth. Your own blog I see is full of girly gossip.
BTW, sneakemail.com is the biggest free spamcatching service around, so for more than one comment at HP to use it doesn't necessarily mean they're all the same guy
Fortunately, though, Luni/Jack The Bear/Gorblimey/Heterodox etc. is so distinctive a writer that it's usually pretty obvious when he pops up - he could no more write an unstylish sentence than I could fly to the moon unaided, which certainly isn't true of most HP commentators.
True, you're never 100% certain - which is presumably why he uses multiple pseudonyms in the first place - but it's usually pretty clear. I'm also virtually certain that the same guy is also "W J Phillips" (presumably another pseudonym, given his views), who used to hang around Peter Cuthbertson's blog opining at great length about the intellectual inferiority of people with darker skin.
In other words, Publicansdecoy was indeed doing you lot a favour. I know you love to spot racism around every corner, but this guy is the real deal - he's about as hardcore a racist as anyone you'll find outside a white supremacist rally.
FWIW 'Brownie' of HP Sauce does not think 'Luniversal' is the same as the one who uses sneakmail. And Luniversal has not been sighted for some time anyway.
I reckon Gribble is jack the Bear trying to throw us off the scent. This game could go on for ever;-)
If I was Jack the Bear, I probably wouldn't be posting links to comments threads like this. Or this.
(True, most of the really flagrant racism and anti-semitism gets deleted on sight - though he's helpfully referred to this happening quite a lot here)
There's much, much more of this stuff for those who want to don the necessary sewage-proof waders - but isn't it hilarious that commenters on a site that has elevated crying wolf over racism onto hitherto unexplored new planes should end up bending over backwards to defend and excuse the genuine article?
Commenting by HaloScan
