Harry’s Place

It’s not so long ago that the Staggers had Seymour reviewing - wait for it - Chris Harman’s works!

I doubt the NS readership will share your indignation. A basic commitment to quality journalism would mean that the NS would never hire boilerplate merchants like Hatherley or Seymour, but we live in an age whereby the dwindling NS readership basically buy the thing for a weekly dose of pseudo-left polemic and upmarket cultural commentary. Jason Cowley was hired to up the sales but his business sense alone will dictate that he needs to keep the readership happy and a weekly fix of Decent-bashing (gleaned through reading reviews of books rather than having to read the book itself) provides enough material for the next dinner party conversation.

Working title for Harman’s book:

‘How the SWP Invented Fire’

I have to admit that having read Hatherley’s blog for some time I hadn’t picked up his SWP affiliation. But having read his latest entry and the sneering at “autodidact” Terence Davies, I don’t think he’s half the critic he thinks he is.

The key point here is, of course, that the SWP is a “democratic centralist” party and so all party members are expected to agree with the “general line” in public. That means its not just rubbish politics to have SWP reviewers, it is pure idiocy to have they review each others works (assuming you are really trying to promote some form of critical thought).

Personally I like the current version of the New Statesman, it’s a better mag than it has been for some time. But this sort of thing is moronic.

owen hatherley’s other blogs are here:

http://themeasurestaken.blogspot.com/
http://nastybrutalistandshort.blogspot.com/

I assume he’s an ex-architect student or something similar, he goes on about buildings a lot.

I wonder which bit of Oxbridge he went to? I doubt he’d get a job at the NS without being a “decent chappie” and knowing which way to pass the port, donctaknow!

Apart from the obvious problems with the review, young Owen doesn’t seem to have really absorbed the theory stuff that his blog is filled with.

A shiny penny to anyone who can parse this: “the concentration on ideas and thinkers is never empiricist anti-intellectualism”. Why should it be? (Or shouldn’t, as the case may be.)

“Anti-intellectual” appears later on in a confusing passage about the neocons:

“Seymour makes clear that the notion of the neocons as a sinister intellectual cabal is an anti-intellectual overstatement. Rather, they were just the most recent and vociferous of generations of allegedly rationalist enthusiasts for blood and soil, from Heidegger to Leo Strauss.”

I don’t claim to understand this, but it’s clear that “intellectual” is being used in a highly specialized (and approving) way; and I would wager that anyone who dissents will find themselves branded an “anti-” — and therefore unworthy of engagement.

I assume he’s an ex-architect student or something similar, he goes on about buildings a lot.
I wonder which bit of Oxbridge he went to?

Oxford doesn’t have an architecture department.

Although Cambridge does.

Although Cambridge does.

A point so important I had to make it twice.

Rather, they were just the most recent and vociferous of generations of allegedly rationalist enthusiasts for blood and soil, from Heidegger to Leo Strauss.

No, what he’s saying is that they are Nazis. Bet he hasn’t got the guts to stand up in a meeting of Kurds and say that. Little prick.

Pretty sure he isn’t Oxbridge, not that it matters.

But he does have a book coming out: cosmic justice dictates that Harman gets the call from the NS.

Personally I like the current version of the New Statesman, it’s a better mag than it has been for some time. But this sort of thing is moronic.

Yes, I think so so. It is a shame to see the Statesman letting itself down like this.

young Owen was (or still is) a Phd candidate (another one, the SWP has a couple!):

“Researching Everyday Life, Mass Production, Mass Politics and the Avant Garde in Weimar Germany and the USSR, 1917-1934, his PhD at Birkbeck College, London, and writes for Socialist Worker, Historical Materialism, and Archinect

In addition Owen writes two related blogs on Architecture, Cultural Studies and Politics, from which the following articles are kindly reproduced:”

http://www.audacity.org/APO-Sp29a.htm

oh jolly pffiffing, he likes cloth caps too

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1460

“I assume he’s an ex-architect student or something similar, he goes on about buildings a lot.”

Recent history suggests that the SWP needs fewer student architects and more locksmiths.

hahaha.

“include touring the notorious anti-semite Gilad Atzmon around Britain”.. and then not touring Gilad Atzmon anymore.

Leo Strauss a Nazi? Nice to see they’ve fallen for the LaRouche smear hook, line and sinker. Old Trots never die, they just revert to form…

Including calling for the forcible repatriation of all black people… and then not calling for the forcible repatriation of all black people any more.

Oh hang on, that’s the BNP.

In addition Owen writes two related blogs on Architecture, Cultural Studies and Politics, from which the following articles are kindly reproduced:”

http://www.audacity.org/APO-Sp29a.htm

Heh, audacity.org is an rcp thing

Including raping and killing their lodgers… and then not raping and killing their lodgers any more.

Oh hang on, that’s the Fred and Rose West.

Remember that Michael Rosen is not a swuppie. In case his latest and repeated sycophantism has made you forget that fact.

And please, remember that Rosen is an important writer, not a far-left loon who got humilliated by a sect so much that he is kissing their ass repeatedly in the comment section of a blog to make them forgive him.
This is not a re-education camp, Rosen. You can stop doing push ups for the party.

Rosen is not a member of the SWP, quite right

So he is quite free to criticise the SWP.

Go on Michael!

How about this.

“I think it was wrong of the Labour Party to push for 42 days. I’m no fan of ID cards. And I think Stephen Timms shouldn’t have spoken at the Global Peace and Unity Event.”

Now it is your turn, Michael.

How about:

“I think it was wrong for the SWP to form an electoral alliance with Jamaat-e-Islami”

?

Oh, I get it… Michael’s playing faux naive!

Dur me.

and who says Mike Rosen doesn’t have a sense of humour?

I don’t know if Owen Hatherley is going to join this thread, but for the record, here is a comment he wrote at Oliver Kamm’s blog:

Just for the record, I have spoken to Seymour three times in my life. Seems nice enough a chap, but ‘friends’ would be pushing it. I also have friends who signed the Euston Manifesto, yet I would not hesitate to say in print that their ’send in the marines!’ approach to humanitarianism was a tad superficial.

Still, gotta love the idea that the New Statesman, publisher of said Euston Manifesto, is a hotbed of Trotskyite entryism. Still, at least I assume they aren’t responding to Thrasymachus’ pitches.

Examples of reviewers of another book

Christopher Hitchens, Sunday Times
Michael Burleigh, The Evening Standard
Michael Gove, The Spectator
James Delingpole, Mail on Sunday
John Lloyd, Financial Times
David Smith, Observer
Oliver Kamm, Dictatoriya

See a pattern here in this rogues gallery anyone?

The book?

What’s Left?: How Liberals Lost Their Way by Nick Cohen

How does someone as stupid as resistor function in the outside world?

Genuine question.

Gene,

it seems unlikely that an SWPer would willingly join this thread, after all, SWPers are not known for substantiating their views with facts or reason

they’re not used to debating without prompter cards (or a “line”) from their political masters, Baron Callinicos, etc

although in fairness this Owen fella seems a bit brighter than the average SWPer, so I am surprised that he likes taking orders from dim wits like John Rees and Co?

What party do they all belong to resistor?

I don’t claim to understand this, but it’s clear that “intellectual” is being used in a highly specialized (and approving) way

I think you’re over-egging it and over-estimating Hatherley. What he means, but doesn’t feel is intellctual enough to actually write, is “stupid”. As in “stupid overstatement”.

What party do they all belong to resistor? asks Herman

The War Party

Also I think the reviews above constitute a Circle Jerk.

Translation of resistor: “I’m talking shit”.

Resistor is Tony Gosling’s idiot brother.

I probably am, Herman; it’s just that he seems to be saying that because Strauss is a Nazi he can’t be an intellectual, so that people who attack the neocons as an intellectual clique are misguided — but also, somehow, anti-intellectual. I probably shouldn’t give it so much thought, but because he has a dash of style, unlike the man Seymour — and indeed most SWP types — it feels that much more sinister. I can imagine the more supine NS readers nodding along because there are relatively few “this guy is nuts” red flags. As it were. But in fact he’s as evasive as any of them.

“Just for the record, I have spoken to Seymour three times in my life.”

Given the length of Richards sentences,that could cover most of the post 9/11 period.

High five Tim

michael rosen is beginning to remind me of the faux naive commenter with the tag puzzled, who used to pop up every single time the word antisemitism appeared, to drone doggedly that Arabs were also semites. No matter how many times his point was conclusively demolished at length, back he would come with ground hoglike invariance.

Given the length of Richards sentences,that could cover most of the post 9/11 period.

A sentence without reprieve . . .

Hahahaha- just look at the numerous contributors in the papers here and in the US with links to the extreme far right zionist groups

Isn’t there medication that Harry’s Place can take for its Richard Seymour obsession?

“Links to” vs “members of”.

I knew Owen Hatherley was a far left moonbat from the links on his blog to sites that include 9/11 truther material, but I did not know he was a fellow member of the SWP. This is revolting stuff.

I will have to copy and paste this post to MedialensWatch!

I haven’t read the NS for a few years now. I was an avid and rather earnestly spoddy reader from about 12 to about 20, for my sins. I then realised that there were better things to do with one’s life. I remember it had a competition last year where you could win a nice bit of Soviet crockery (beautifully done in bone china, though I don’t think even the most stakhanovite of workers got that…..) in honour of the 90th aniversary of the founding of that wonderful state. Classy, I thought to myself. Nice bit of bone china with some totalitarian art on it, who wouldn’t want a bit of that?

Mind you, that Owen Hatherley’s pretty sassy isn’t he? Might lure me back.

Or, alternatively, he’s a little totalitarian prick working for an irredeemably shit middle-class-kitch-left publication with a great but now shat upon history.

I wonder.

(Mind you, I think fellow Labour members would do themselves a favour in terms of political education by reading a proper newspaper like the FT and a decent periodical like the Economist rather than dross like the Guardian and the NS, so take with a pinch of salt.)

This is the mag that had a Star of David piercing the Union Flag, or something similar, on its cover? Hardly a surprise to see SWP folk sucking each others’ cocks in it then.

Dear me. The Socialist Workers Party? You better complain to Private Eye for ever employing Paul Foot, and now running and investigative journalism competition in his name (with the dreaded Guardian). When will this rot stop? Publishing book reviews by ‘extremists’? Shocking news. Clearly the readership needs to be protected from the likes of Richard Seymour!

What a crew of jumped up McCarthyite psychopaths you are. Just so you know;

1) I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Socialist Workers Party - as Chaplin said when he was asked if he was Jewish, ‘I do not have the honour’. I have written for Socialist Worker, but also as someone notes upthread, for the RCP front Audacity, and for the New Humanist, and that doesn’t mean I support either libertarianism or unfunny jokes about Muslims.

2) I went to Goldsmiths College, not Oxbridge. Goldsmiths has its own stereotypes which you’re welcome to attribute to me. I went to a state school, although the relevance in this instance is utterly beyond me.

3) I disagree with Richard Seymour about various things. His book, however, is very good indeed. Which is why I gave it a good review. I know this is extraordinarily hard a concept to get your minds round.

4) Up Dawson’s: I wasn’t sneering at Terence Davies, I think he’s brilliant. I have nothing against autodidacts, my Dad is one. He doesn’t know anything about architecture, mind you, and nor does Davies.

5) Your Mum: ‘the concentration on ideas and thinkers is never empiricist anti-intellectualism’; my point here (800 words is not a lot) was to make clear that Seymour’s approach wasn’t along the lines of Intellectual Impostures, Wheen’s Mumbo Jumbo book or various others, which talk about ideas and intellectuals a lot in order to point out how silly they all are. I do apologise if this is opaque.

6) What 9/11 ‘truthers’ do I link to? This is news to me.

Right, that’s more than enough. Don’t you lot have some teachers to try and get sacked or something?

http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/ are a ‘building 7′ crowd who also believe 7/7 was an inside job. You link to this blog.

Whether you are an official member of the SWP or you simply write for extremist outfits like the Socialist Worker, it is truly shocking that a mainstream left mag would get a like-minded mate of Seymour’s to review his abhorent book. Did they know your background when they asked you to do it? Who put you up to this?

I disagree with Richard Seymour about various things

But nothing in his book that smears the mainstream left for wanting to stop another genocide like Rwanda, or support the majority of people in countries like Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. You agree with him that this is old style, 19th century, imperialism.

You are a complete disgrace.

Thank you ‘Tomb conscience’; I was not aware of Qlipoth’s curious views. Mind you, I also link to a writer who contributes to Taki Mag, and another who signed the Euston Manifesto, so maybe I can now be smeared by association as a Republican-prowar left-trot as well. I know you like your compounds, given your previous classic, ‘Kissingerite style geopolitical tragedy of opposing the United States’ that you dropped in my comments box.

We know that Seymour believes in supporting the Taliban against the majority of people in Afghanistan. You cannot claim to be an old style anti imperialist - movements that struggled against empire to gain self determination - but then oppose the majority populations in nations like Afghanistan.

Even in Iraq lenin said that if 100% of Iraqis had supported the invasion, he would still have opposed it.

Clearly, he is following the Kissingerite model during the cold war where people in the third world were viewed as unpeople that could be oppressed for wider geopolitical objectives. The New Anti imperialists believe the views of third world peoples no longer matter as long as their nations oppose the west.

You, however, missed all of this and gave the book the thumbs up. At best you are a useful idiot. You should hang your head in shame and resign.

I’m not bothered what political party people belong to, and not bothered if this or that book gets reviewed, by whatever publication. I don’t think its always necessary to declare that one is a member of any political party. I don’t have a puritanical view of the Left, but it’s a certain puritanism that the Decents share with the obsessed over SWP. Each have an idealistic view of what the Left should be, and spend hours denouncing others for not following their line of thinking.

I personally oppose communism as an ideology, but I still see communists as individuals and I don’t view communism, socialism etc in the west as a monolith. I have no objection to communists or socialists having their books reviewed, even by other communists and socialists, or being published in any publication. The content and views expressed should be debated openly. That can happen at the New Statesman or any other publication, if folk can be bothered. There are numerous other folk at the New Statesman with views different from the SWP (the vast majority, indeed), and the New Statesman published the Euston Manifesto (as did the Guardian).

There seems to be a view that Left publications should act a bit like the Labour Party in the 1980s, where it exposed and then isolated various elements for ideological reasons. However, publications are different to political parties, and their owners do not necessarily have the same attitudes or modes of operation. I suppose those upset about a book review (shock, horror) should write to Geoffrey Robinson and Mike Danson (owners of the New Statesman) if they are bothered about keeping to a firmer ideological remit.

As for me, I am wholly unconcerned about such developments. Its very difficult to get particularly excited about the New Statesman; its very middle of the road, especially since its part take over by Danson, who also owns Labourhome.

Too drunk to write much more, but you have been warned.

Did you know that lenin is on record as supporting attacks on British troops - something that is illegal?

Do you support terrorist attacks on British troops, Owen?

“I support attacks on UK & US troops… I am a supporter – nay, glorifier – of terrorism.”

Richard Seymour, July 21st, 2005.

Whats wrong with Michael Rosen? I have always liked the chap. He brightened up my childhood and I loved catching him on the box when I was off work ill in bed. He did a lovely little documentary about Heath Robinson recently. I’ve always liked Michael Rosen. Why have his comments caused such a stir?

PS: I take issue with the simplistic title of “The Pro War Left”

I haven’t read this Seymour fellas book but it seems to be a condemnation of anyone who isn’t anti Western enough and has the audacity to criticise the “revolutionaries” in the Muslim communities.

It seems by tarring everyone who doesn’t go along with the anti-imperialist line as “Pro War” he is seeking to covertly write us off as Neocon cranks in disguise.

I signed the Euston Manifesto but I didn’t support the Iraq war and I get the feeling that many other signatories feel the same as me.

It is possible to oppose Islamists, oppose the far Left, oppose the far Right, condemn the neocons invasion of Iraq and still be on solid Leftist ground.

If anything I’m less “Pro War” than most SWPers because I opposed invading Iraq and I oppose the murderous insurgency. To be on the far Left you support the mass murder of the Iraqi insurgency, support the Hezbollah rockets and the Hamas suicide murderers.

I think it’s the far left who are the real “Pro War Left”

Or, alternatively, he’s a little totalitarian prick working for an irredeemably shit middle-class-kitch-left publication with a great but now shat upon history.

I get the feeling that the author of the above uses “middle class” as a derogatory term when the views expressed by said middle class folk are not agreed with; when they are, class is not an issue!

Benji, you’re not that cunt face who says it’s perfectly okay not to declare whether you are a member of the SWP when doing a book review, but any vague connection to the nation’s leading left centre party during a general election campaign is completely abhorent?

Oh yes, you are that cunt. Sorry for not recognising you.

Now fuck off.

Stupid kid.

Class is not an issue!

But for people like you Benjamin ethnicity is!

How else do you explain your harsh condemnation of Israel, America and Britain but your obvious willingness to understand Jihadi violence if it isn’t that you hold white Westerners to a higher standard of morality than you do our brown brothers and sisters?

Supporting war and being racist is more of an issue for the Pro Islamist Left than it is for us “Islamophobic” “Pro War Lefty” types.

***Clinks beers with anonymoose. Then vows this is his last.***

***Then sees email from Italian friend cunt who is offering him 40% off 46 inch LCD TV***

***Then 16 year old cat collapses over keyboard***

Benjamin
“I’m not bothered what political party people belong to, and not bothered if this or that book gets reviewed, by whatever publication”

Goody gumdrops.

Nice to know someone has the objectivity of an omniscient being.

Mike, learn to spell abhorrent (I say that because you mis-spelled it twice; one chance is enough, especially if you’re swinging such verbose words around). When you have done that, attempt to consider the legitimacy of Owen Hatherley’s position in our current political/cultural scenario. If you’re not interested in what he writes, stop plaguing his blog and this page with dull, misappropriated commentary. I frankly don’t want to hear it. I cannot remain tolerant of your mentalism for much longer. Disappear, promptly.

I think Benjamin makes some valid points in his post above: One would have to be rigidly ideological not to admit this. Wagner was a raving antisemite (culturally, I don’t think he would have suggested murder, although murder was only one step away - so he, as a man is guilty of everything that ensued) - but many Jews today admire his music. In previous posts I have cited several artists who were great in their music, poetry and etc. but in their every day lives they could be dimwits. If someone in the SWP hypothetically writes a brilliant book, he is showing the better side of himelf in it: the other side of him should still be attacked. But Owen was trying to say he was interested in the book: He is not, as far as I know; in sympathy with Islamic fundamentalism.

Investigations into moderate muslims/arabs (continuing)

This one was spontaneous. I had done a lot of shopping, my bags were very heavy, and it’s absolutely forbidden for me to carry weights. I stopped for a rest in a café surmising about asking for help. The only young men in the café were Arabs. Regrettably I was sitting there thinking ‘Arab = Islam.’ I thought I would simply have to drag my weights, but mentioned the problem to Linda at the counter. She asked, “Can anyone help” etc. and one of the Arabs offered immediately. I was still a bit scared, but Linda said he was a good guy. He carried my bags, refused remuneration, and deposited them tactfully at the front door of a my building, obviously to show that he didn’t expect me to take a stranger to my flat. He offered to give me his mobile number so I could ask for help any time I liked. I was still a bit scared and said I would leave it at the café.

This is a moral tale. How do I know what that group of Arabs really think? Are they mainly good guys, but ideologically dimwitted like most people? They did not appear to reject me a a ‘christian infidel,’ but may have been happy to kill me had I been in the Twin Towers. This is a really vexing puzzle for me. Should I go about thinking these things -in my every day life - or should I simply take life as it comes?

P.S. I looked at the post again, and saw that Benjamin apparently harshly codemns Israel, America and Britain. It is not as though these three states have an angelic history. But rather than mud- slinging which will get no one anywhere, because the mud will simply be slung back, I think these common liberal views should be looked into rationally. Why and how did they arise? Is there even the slightest grain of truth in them? - I am right! - No you aren’t, I am right! This gets nowhere. I’m sure Benjamin doesn’t support Jihad. This would be serious, but he is obviously attarcted to HP, reads your mails, provides some opposition.

Gide used to send someone else to represent him at debates as he thought he was liable to be convinced by his opponents. (Obviously this wouldn’t apply in the case of fundamentalism).

I’m doing my homework, going into the subject of knee-jerking Liberalism. I am also studying the history of Israel, starting as a beginner, with Wikipedia. So far the view that Israel is an imperialist conqueror of Palestinian territories doesn’t hold water.. From the beginning it has responded to the attacks of others, and there have been times when it didn’t retaliate against serious, murderous attacks. I will look also for opposing views.

Against the ‘liberals’ I always come back to the basic question: Can you expect a nation not to defend itself, if its opponents want to wipe it off the earth?

Sorry, Benjamin, you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself and don’t need a Samaritan supporter against some nasty attacks.

Is Rosen considering changing his family name to Strachey?

“Isn’t there medication that Harry’s Place can take for its Richard Seymour obsession?”

Obviously not. Toube will soon have to rename this blog to Bitter & Jealous Sad Fucks Of Seymour Site.

Bitter & Jealous Sad Fucks Of Seymour Site.

Seymour has fucked David T? That’s quite an accusation!

I really don’t think you’re getting upset enough about this.

If you made serious efforts to uncover the network of “SWP types” - a type that is evidently broad enough to include many people who have for one reason or another never actually bothered to join the SWP - I am confident that you would discover a cabal of alarming proportions, whose unsuspecting employers must be alerted for the sake of the safety of decent citizens everywhere.

Why, I myself have been entrusted with the root passwords to a number of critical servers in a telecommunications switch in the heart of the City of London - in spite of once having had a Letter of the Week in the Socialist Worker! At a word from my superiors in the Central Committee, these machines might be turned into participants in a giant botnet, carrying out a devastating Denial Of Service attack on the site of the Euston Manifesto itself!

I’d appreciate it if you’d try your best* to get me removed from this responsible position because, frankly, I’m finding the commute a bit of a fag. A bit of free publicity for the book wouldn’t go amiss, either. It discusses the theoretical writings of Ulrike Meinhof, you know. Depraved, dangerous stuff.

* And it will have to be a bit better than this, I’m afraid.

***Then 16 year old cat collapses over keyboard***

Is he ok?

Perhaps Mike would like to remind us of how he was banned by The Guardian’s CIF for making disgusting sexist comments about a woman whose crime in his eyes was to wrote a piece about being the victim of sexual harassment.

Mike is typical of the hypocritical pro-war pondlife who surface on this site.

A bit of free publicity for the book wouldn’t go amiss, either. It discusses the theoretical writings of Ulrike Meinhof, you know. Depraved, dangerous stuff.

No thanks. The stultifyingly dull and tortuous prose of Seymour is more than enough.

Let’s not inflict any more verbiage on the world.

“How does someone as stupid as resistor function in the outside world?

Genuine question.”

He doesn’t, really. He spends most of his time on the comments section of the angry arab (google it) as r.s. He seems even dumber over there.

“Seymour has fucked David T?”

Yes, he does it everytime Toube opens his rancid mouth.

You lot really are pathetic. Trying to get a good review of a book you don’t like removed by lying about the political affiliation of the reviewer and the views of the party he doesn’t belong to. Hahahahaha.

I take it Toube won’t be writing for any mainstream publication again, given that he is a member of the Labour Party, and an apologist for its war crimes. I thought accusing the Lib Dems of being an Islamofascist front and the Greens of being Nazis to a man were the lowest he could go, but I was wrong.

Hahahahahaha.

PS Modernity - your inverted snobbery is the saddest (in both senses of the word) thing about this site. You self-righteous, know nothing, philistine arsehole.

That the basic premise of David’s T’s post was simply false doesn’t seem to have phased either himself or any of the HP crowd. As he made no attempt to check his facts, it is clear that the truth or falsehood of what he was saying was irrelevant to his purpose.

Incredible. A virulent post built almost entirely around the fact that Hatherley is in the SWP, an absolute denial that he is (from the man himself), along with the denial that he went to the posh colleges proposed by posters and no apology, no retraction, no nothing.

Sloppy shoddy and unprofessional.

“Sloppy shoddy and unprofessional.”

Welcome to Harry’s Place.

Hang on, Bob, some of us have something approximating a life and aren’t here *every* moment. That said, you appear to have overlooked Papa Zitzer’s input. This definitely is not David’s finest hour, regardless of the basic crapness of Seymour’s output, and reminds me of the time he called the leader of Christian C.N.D. an antisemite.

Since both Hatherley and Seymour (on his blog) categorically deny that Hatherley is an SWP member, it seems that David T. really does owe the man an apology.

And surely you are aware that publishers and authors do their utmost to ensure that their books receive positive reviews (which I suppose is the point that Resistor was rather clumsily making). It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just good business sense.

Finally, it’s about time those who manage this blog moderated the comments to get rid of obnoxious fools like Mike. They bring down the tone of the place.

+”Owen Hatherley, like Richard Seymour, is an activist in a small, totalitarian and anti-democratic political sect: the Socialist Workers’ Party”+

Owen has stated he has never been a member of SWP, will DavidT now offer a correction to to the above?

+”Owen Hatherley, like Richard Seymour, is an activist in a small, totalitarian and anti-democratic political sect: the Socialist Workers’ Party”+

Owen has stated he has never been a member of SWP, will DavidT now offer a correction to to the above?

“Seymour has fucked David T?”

Often doesn’t even need to, as Toube has a habit of fucking himself.

Half Truth, are you suggesting that it’s defamatory to accuse someone of being a member of the S.W.P?

And while you’re at it, care to tell us your real name? If not, kindly desist in advertizing that of another Internet poster.

Finally, it’s about time those who manage this blog moderated the comments to get rid of obnoxious fools like Mike. They bring down the tone of the place.

—

Rather like a turd in a punch bowl full of urine.

It is a shame to see the Statesman letting itself down like this.

Why is it a shame that a magazine which suggested a “kosher konspiracy” is “letting itself down” by this kind of Leftist backscratching? Do people honestly imagine that a rag like the New Statesman has some kind of good reputation that ought to be maintained?

You have to wonder what the Left has to do before Leftists like Toube abandon it. Apparently there isn’t anything - loyalty to The Cause is automatic and everlasting, whatever the quibbles. Leftism isn’t a socio-political trend. It’s a psychological disorder.

I have corrected the piece above.

There are, however, SWP activists who are not members.

Michael Rosen is a good example of the former but not the latter. Owen Hatherley is also an SWP activist, in precisely the same way.

If he isn’t a member, he is not bound by democratic centralism, and so could - in theory - have disagreed with Seymour’s thesis.

Now, ask yourself this question. If you found that somebody was a regular writer on the British National Party’s newspaper and website, would you argue that they weren’t a fascist if they later stated that they’d not been accepted as a member?

What a weasel. Caught making stuff up and no apology.

Hilarious. Toube knows that Trotskyists and other totalitarians have regularly written for the New Statesman throughout its history, but he still calls it a mainstream Left journal and thinks it has a good reputation to uphold.

“Now ask yourself a question blah blah blah”.

The SWP are not part of the Left - they are just apologists for any and all dictators and repressive movements that happen to be “anti-imperialist” (ie anti US/UK/Israel imperialist).

God knows how we should describe such an ideology in terms of the political spectrum. I prefer to analyse such people as suffering from a psychological condition caused by ingrained anti-Semitism and a bizarre form of self loathing brought on by living in the West and enjoying the benefits while at the same time supposedly hating the political system.

The correction is even funnier than the original post. You wrote “[w]ere Hatherley to have provided a critical assessment of Seymour’s book on the pages of the New Statesman, he would risk discipline and expulsion from the Socialist Workers’ Party.” How on earth is this “techincally [sic] correct” if he is not a member?

Apparently, the Socialist Worker has writers who aren’t party members?

The point about ‘democratic centralism’ doesn’t hold in the case of Hatherley.

It most certainly does in the case of Seymour’s review of Harman’s book in the NS in June, though.

And the point about the porous boundary between the ‘mainstream left’ and the extremists of the SWP also stands. Here’s a regular writer for the Socialist Worker reviewing a book by a SWP activist in the NS. The reviewer isn’t a SWPer, but writes for the Socialist Worker. The Socialist Worker writes for the New Statesman.

Are there any members of the BNP whose books get fluffy softball reviews in The Times by Nazi sympathisers?

It seems to be that the Centre Right has cleaned up its act.

The Centre Left, however, is still playing footsie with crusading anti-democrats.

Incidentally, why does nobody describe this sort of thing as “McCarthyism”.

Why should a teacher, wrongly identified as a member of the BNP, when she had merely provided ‘voice over work’ on one of its videos, be subject to public scrutiny.

Isn’t this the reason.

Any association with an anti-democratic totalitarian party that supports terrorism against minority groups is a hanging offence if you’re on the political far right.

But if you’re on the far Left … well, you’re a good chap, whose heart is in the right place

I’m sure if Hatherley had called up Seymour’s fraudulent garbage for the unreadable trash it is he would have had no problem in continuing to churn out stuff for the “Socialist Worker”.

What do you reckon Owen ?

ahh, David T come on, Owen is clearly much too smart for an SWPer

he writes readable sentences and knows some facts

that largely precludes SWP membership

of course, you are right to point out the collective back-scratching that goes on between them, but I think there was a similar point recently made on main stream book reviewers too

Owen’s young, he’s probably going through that rebel phase and by the age of 40, he’ll end up writing for the Daily Mail, like Christopher Hitchens, one time SWP member, etc

Does Christopher Hitchens write for the Mail?

I don’t think his brother would have him!

What a weasel. Caught making stuff up and no apology.

An apology for calling him a member of the S.W.P. (which David, you did do, not just activist)? Think about that.

This is a blog in which the authors can write about what they choose. David chooses to write that he believes S.W.P. supporters/sympathizers should declare their interests when reviewing books by Swuppies which do not even have an accurate cover photograph.

This is, in my view, becoming obsessive and authoritarian, but it is not McCarthyite as he claimed. That would have involved his being sacked from the New Statesmen, and possibly gaoled. Nor is his suitability in unrelated professional areas being questioned. It is his political writings which are being discussed. The analogy slips further and further away. Yet more, Hatherley used the article as an attack on this blog - pot, kettle, black.

As for psychopathic… is this the new schizophrenia?

ops, I meant Peter

BTW some top stuff re the SWP on SU where Andy has leaked an internal John Rees memo :

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3169#comments

“The SWP is now at a turning point. If the entire leadership group associated with the Stop the War Coalition is removed or silenced it will send the message to SWP members and to the whole left that we are in full scale retreat from united front work. This process is
already underway. While some CC members have been stressing the continued centrality of the Stop the War Coalition, Alex Callinicos told the South London aggregate that ‘Its clear that Stop the War will be less important in the future.’ ”

Translation : STWC is now a no hoper for us as people have seen through our vile nonsensical “pro-resistance” positions.

And without that and Galloway we might as well crawl back into our holes.

HA HA HA

What no apology, just a weasel worded attempt at justification in a hilariously hysterical correction. Keep digging, there’s a long line of people waiting to piss on your grave.

Keep digging, there’s a long line of people waiting to piss on your grave.

Rather as they did over the attempt by Jenna Delich et al. to gag the blog? Dream on! I think you will find something called “principle” amongst even many critics of this blog.

Who cares about the SWP? They are on a spiral downwards and I will wait till they have wrestled around in the gutter for a while longer till I put the boot in.

As for Seymour, who *ever* cared? Apart from his keeper that is.

The left has moved on. One case in point is the new French Parti de Gauche which looks like posing a serious rival platform to the LCR, Olivier Besancenot’s lot, in the forthcoming Euro-Elections.

One point of interest is that they (and many of their allies) are militant secularists. For example, Michel Onfray, France’s philosphical equivalent of Ricard Dawkins, is a backer of their call for a Euro-List.

That they are also hard left is a bit hard for the Swoppies to grasp.

MoreMediaNonsense,

I think the SWP has another problem, the reality of the economic crisis plays more on people’s minds than their vacant “anti-imperialism” and placard waving

add to that how the StWC has been driven into the ground by the SWP, from millions down to 10,000s and that Western cheer leading of suicide bombers, killers, etc is not really a great tool for recruitment.

plus the shift will be to Afghanistan, so the SWP would then have to decide whether or not to fully support the Taliban?

I suspect even thickos in the SWP might not want to get into bed (politically speaking) with the likes of Mullah Omar and the other acid throwing reactionaries over there

still you never know?

I’ll start a new thread for the Rees boohoofest discussion.

Here you go:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/12/14/john-rees-all-my-socialist-worker-friends-now-hate-me-boo-hoo/

Modernity - don’t know about the SWP but GG and Salma defo support the Taliban.

See this illuminating discussion on SU sometime ago with Andy Newman hilariously trying to wriggle out of it by talking about some imaginary “non-Taliban resistance” :

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2990

yeah, MMO, Newman does tend to scrape the barrel for arguments to support his less tenable positions

but don’t forget he was an SWPer for nearly 20 years and that has to do some serious damage to the brain cells

I think with Afghanistan you are seeing a number of ploys, as you say, the “non-Taliban resistance” line and one used by Newman’s fellow author, Tawfiq Chahbourne, his use of “neo-Taliban” a sort of cuddly version, no acid in the face or killing of girls when people can see it, as it is bad for mullah Omar’s new PR offensive

over time I think support for the Taliban will become more open amongst these political nihilists, less guarded as it has been, as the memory of their brutal fades

@Alec Macpherson, Oh yes, thanks for the amusing reminder, I still chuckle at how you sad hypocrites were running around like headless chickens, shrieking about your “freedom of speech” ! !

Maybe Toube’s apology lacking correction will not be enough to deter Owen from following the same course of action as Jenna Delich.

Maybe Toube’s apology lacking correction will not be enough to deter Owen from following the same course of action as Jenna Delich.

Yes, because it is really so damaging to one’s reputation to be accused of being an SWP member!

Oh, hang on, no it isn’t…

Yes it is… No… Yes… Err… Hang on lads, I’ve got a great idea…

Keep digging, there’s a long line of people waiting to piss on your grave.

I am reminded of Ceasescu’s last words. Anyone else know what they were?

That far laft classic: “The only jury I answer to is the working class.” BANG!

David T here is a suggested topical variation of the rosen rejoinder, from today’s Sunday Times:

“Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban press spokesman, has appeared on the World Service’s Have Your Say programme, answering questions from listeners… with the apparent approval of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. So what did we learn about the people who are shooting at our troops in Afghanistan? Mujahid claims they are the victims of western propaganda and insists: “We have even stopped beheading people.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article5337702.ece

will not be enough to deter Owen from following the same course of action as Jenna Delich: Which was what, can you remind us?

It says a lot about Seymour that he has to invent a conspiracy theory and pretend that journalism is like some type of welfare.

If it was true that his book was reviewed by a fellow member of the SWP, does he think this not to be that important? Come on! Of it course would be. The fact that he writes for the Socialist Worker is bad enough, but if he was a member….

This is obvious, isn’t it?

Seymour has a habit of not assessing political argument and defending people on the basis they are being ‘attacked’.

He’s point about Bob Shone on Medialens was not about whether he was right or not, but that Shone must be repelled because he was trying to undermine Medialens. We also remember his famous defence of Galloway, and defending Sheridan against the rest of his party, whether right or wrong. There’s no principles involved or search for truth.

Here he is reduced to pretending it wouldn’t matter if the guy who has done his book review is a member of the same political party.

This ‘livelihood’ angle raises all sorts of questions.

Are we not allowed to highlight journalists political views and associations because it might restrict their future earning potential? Does this extend to politicians? Are we to take it that every time someone attacks the government they want to deprive them and their family of their livelihood?

It’s absurd.

David T: Apparently, the Socialist Worker has writers who aren’t party members?

–

Well, this is a fact. For example, Mike Davis has written for SWP publications as has a number of other leftists. Perhaps David was a bit overeager in misidentifying the author of the NS review. Or, more likely, he was just being a bit of a McCarthyite. In fact, the “decents” seem to be moving more and more in this direction with Democratiya publishing a filthy article by Sidney Hook from the 1950s calling the CP a criminal conspiracy. Maybe that’s the next step for Harry’s Place, ratting people out to the British cops like Orwell did.

I think Seymour is scared of David T - that’s why he doesn’t want friendly relations with him.

What I mean by that is David T is a very rational, logical person who has a great understanding of how the far left tick; that would pose a huge threat to the bubble reality that one requires to be a member of a fringe political group.

It’s much like a cult member who needs to ditch all their old friends in order to maintain their lifestyle. And being in the way SWP is a way of life for Seymour - it’s crucial to his identity, having renounced his nationality and his communty in Northern Ireland. It’s not some intellectual argument that he can argue the toss about over a beer with someone who is outside of his world. That can’t be done.

Whenever Seymour and I correspond, he always hints that we ought to have sex.

I don’t know why he does it, but it is quite sweet.

Going back to this livilihood thing.

Seymour regularly hangs out and approves of Medialens.

Do I need to type anymore?

But the CP was a criminal conspiracy.

Surely you’re not disputing that?

Whenever Seymour and I correspond, he always hints that we ought to have sex. I don’t know why he does it, but it is quite sweet.

Don’t know if you’re joking or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Perhaps I shouldn’t say this but I have it on fairly good info that he is, how shall we say, greedy. If you know what I mean.

Oh, none of us are as thin as we used to be.

But I think I’d have difficulty in having sex with somebody whose politics differed so radically from my own, but whose gender was so similar.

“Yes, because it is really so damaging to one’s reputation to be accused of being an SWP member!

Oh, hang on, no it isn’t…

Yes it is… No… Yes… Err… Hang on lads, I’ve got a great idea…”

Perhaps it might because the post claims that Hatherley alleged links to the SWP result in a categorical inability to do his job properly. Or in explicitly comparing him to an member of Hizb ut-Tarir. Or suggesting he got his NS call through nepotism, or that he is a ‘totalitarian’, or that he’s a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

I kinda hope Hatherley does sue you bunch of miserable nutballs, although I’d be disappointed that the subsequent loss of the page would deprive the reading public of such a concise demonstration of the raging lunacy of the pro-war ‘left’.

using the Courts is so so bourgeois, comrade Clothcap wouldn’t dream of it

anyway, Owen is not so much a SWPer, he’s too smart for that, rather a temporary fellow traveler, not the first nor the last

The fact that this page is full of outrageous and potentially-damaging lies does not depend on Mr. Hatherley’s willingness to seeks the courts’ arbitration on the matter, and it is disgusting and cowardly in the extreme to keep propagating them because one believes that the victim will not make full use of their right of redress.

Oh, and I say ‘potentially-damaging’ only because I credit anyone who isn’t already a screaming nutball with the ability to see through them

Perhaps it might because the post claims that Hatherley alleged links to the SWP result in a categorical inability to do his job properly. Or in explicitly comparing him to an member of Hizb ut-Tarir. Or suggesting he got his NS call through nepotism, or that he is a ‘totalitarian’, or that he’s a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

I’d like to see anyone bring such an action esp someone claiming to be “Left-Wing”. It would be hilarious in the extreme. And a good excuse to have the policies of the vile “Socialist Workers” party dragged through the courts.

Perhaps it might because the post claims that Hatherley alleged links to the SWP result in a categorical inability to do his job properly

What are you on about? In the retraction, it says quite specifically that

if [Hatherley] is really not a member of the Socialist Workers Party, then he is not bound by “democratic centralism”. Therefore, he would not have been obliged to support Seymour’s regurgitation of the Socialist Workers’ Party line, and would be free to provide a critical assessment of the book.

Or in explicitly comparing him to an member of Hizb ut-Tarir

No, the post doesn’t do that, I’m afraid.

Or suggesting he got his NS call through nepotism

Or that.

or that he is a ‘totalitarian’

Well, that kind of goes hand in hand with being a member of the SWP, doesn’t it?

or that he’s a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Well, that was a comment, not the post itself. And (suffice to say) the comment only said he links to sites that subscribe to conspiracy theories.

Which is true.

SO PRETTY POOR STUFF ALL ROUND COLIN. KEEP TRYING THOUGH.

“I’d like to see anyone bring such an action esp someone claiming to be “Left-Wing”. It would be hilarious in the extreme. And a good excuse to have the policies of the vile “Socialist Workers” party dragged through the courts.”

See my point two posts above.

Colin S Ferguson - Comrade Rees in an article just published http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3169#comment-107044 goes on and on about the activities of the SWP including “socialist propaganda”. He also says “We are not moralists but Marxists for whom the advance of the struggle sometimes requires difficult compromises.”

A fine bunch of people to defend against charges of dishonesty and sharp practice dontcha reckon ?

I’m not threatening to sue the New Statesman for the lie that the Euston Manifesto “argues that the “Islamofascist” enemy must be fought by any means necessary.”

In fact, I’m defending the New Statesman, which has been sued.

I think I’d have difficulty in having sex with somebody whose politics differed so radically from my own, but whose gender was so similar.

Unless he was called Morrissey.

That “We are not moralists but Marxists” stuff is beyond the pale. Its really difficult to imagine a more self incriminating phrase to use about your political grouping.

Mark-T

1) It then continues to say, “How many people do you know who would write for the newspaper of a totalitarian and anti-democratic organisation, without being substantially aligned with its politics?
Do you know any people who write for the British National Party’s newspapers who are not fascists?”. Nothing is really withdrawn.
2)Headline: “Owen Hatherley is the New Statesman’s Dilpazier Aslam.” Can’t you fucking read?
3) The nepotism call is in the comments, yes. That doesn’t make it immune from libel action, especially as the administrator of the blog has clearly read it and failed to remove it. See also the 9/11 call, which, incidently, the poster then repeats on his own blog.
4)I wouldn’t say that being a totalitarian follows on from being a member of the SWP, no. But that, of course, is completely irrelevant, since Owen Hatherley isn’t a member of the SWP.

Seriously, what’s wrong with you people?

There is no retraction in the body of Mr T’s article. It still says there..This could therefore not have been an honest review. The New Statesman has deceived its readership by hiding the fact of Mr Hatherley’s membership of the Socialist Workers’ Party from its readers.

Moremedianonsense

Since you don’t appear to be able to read either, I’m not sure I see any point in pointing out that I am not defending the SWP but defending Owen Hatherley who isn’t a member of the SWP.

See also the 9/11 call, which, incidently, the poster then repeats on his own blog.

But it’s true though.

I do find it strange nowadays that some British socialists are recommending the use of the Courts?

20 or 30 years ago such a suggestion would have been laughed at, but now?

how things have changed? how some “socialists” have changed?

He writes for Socialist Worker though so is associated with the SWP which is what David T is now saying :

“However, ask yourself. How many people do you know who would write for the newspaper of a totalitarian and anti-democratic organisation, without being substantially aligned with its politics?”

So any supposed “action” would hinge on his associations with the SWP. Who from their own description “are not moralists” but who produce “socialist propaganda”. Why would anyone want to write for the paper of such an organisation ?

I think you must be having difficulty in comprehension.

As Hatherley is not a member of the SWP, he isn’t bound by democratic centralism, and therefore would not have been prevented from writing an honest review of Seymour’s book

Sigh - ok, if it makes it clearer to you, I’ll put that sentence in, in bold.

Oh, none of us are as thin as we used to be.

I didn’t mean that he is fat. I meant he bats for both teams. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

MoreMediaNonsense

Uh, yeah. That’s kinda my point. So now it’s not just SWP members who are totalitarians, but everyone who tangentially associated with them, including anyone who’s written for their paper (that includes Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone and Mike Davis, as well as Paul Foot, who actually was a member. But then I’d imagine you do think they’re all totalitarians anyway).

modernityblog

“I do find it strange nowadays that some British socialists are recommending the use of the Courts?

20 or 30 years ago such a suggestion would have been laughed at, but now?”

I don’t really give two tosses about what socialists did or didn’t do 30 years ago. Perhaps a blind deference to past modes of operation is why the left is in such a healthy state. The 18th Brumaire… is illuminating.

You seem a lot less mental on Dave Osler’s blog, by the way.

David T

“I’m not threatening to sue the New Statesman for the lie that the Euston Manifesto “argues that the “Islamofascist” enemy must be fought by any means necessary.”

In fact, I’m defending the New Statesman, which has been sued.”

So, not sueing when allegedly libelled gives you some sort of moral right to libel others?

Yes, no shame in that.

I think you’d find a number of people who are bisexual who would object to being described as ‘greedy’!

A number of others take it as a compliment.

David T accused Owen Hatherley of dishonesty in not declaring a conflict of interest to The New Statesman, a conflict of interest which did not exist. That’s what I’d call libel.

ps ‘Mike’ weren’t you the model for Viz’s Sid the Sexist?

David-T

“I think you must be having difficulty in comprehension.

As Hatherley is not a member of the SWP, he isn’t bound by democratic centralism, and therefore would not have been prevented from writing an honest review of Seymour’s book”

Except, until you added the emboldened section a few moments ago, the ‘retraction’ began with if, rather than as. Now lets place it in context:

“If he is really not a member of the Socialist Workers Party, then he is not bound by “democratic centralism”. Therefore, he would not have been obliged to support Seymour’s regurgitation of the Socialist Workers’ Party line, and would be free to provide a critical assessment of the book.

However, ask yourself. How many people do you know who would write for the newspaper of a totalitarian and anti-democratic organisation, without being substantially aligned with its politics?

Do you know any people who write for the British National Party’s newspapers who are not fascists?”"

That doesn’t seem like much of a retraction to me, especially as the original smear still sits above it for all to read. It comes across as a rider stating “n.b. allegations might not actually be true, at least in fact. though they are spirit”. No apology either, I note, though I would hardly have expected one.

Blog says bloke is member of a party.

Turns out bloke writes for party mag (wow what a huge difference).

Original blog entry is corrected.

so..the problem is….

Ive read all the comments by the likes of this Ferguson bloke and dont actually get what they are on about now..

not that i really give a shit

MattG

“Do you know any people who write for the British National Party’s newspapers who are not fascists?””

No, they dont. They wouldnt want to. Thats why 90% of the comments above are a complete load of crap.

MattG

The digested read

An SWP member writes a review of a book written by another SWP for leftwing mag, except the reviewer turns out not to be a member after all. Even so, this proves the SWP are taking over the media and will soon install an Islmofascist state if we don’t stop them now.

The digested read digested

David T is tired and emotional. Again

as Benji might say, storm in a teacup

ps ‘Mike’ weren’t you the model for Viz’s Sid the Sexist?

Are you trying to take away my livelihood?

I don’t understand why people have a problem with T pointing out that Hatherley writes for the Socialist Worker and venting his opinions about its politics.

It’s not a smear unless T didn’t believe what he was saying. What is the issue? You can disagree with T’s views but he has every right to his (correct) opinion.

Matt G

“Ive read all the comments by the likes of this Ferguson bloke and dont actually get what they are on about now..”

It’s really very simple. David T writes an article accusing a young journalist and academic of, amongst other things, being categorically unable to do his job properly because he is a member of the SWP. It transpires that he isn’t a member of the SWP, a fact which David T seems to kinda, grudgingly accept, so then states that if (note: if) he isn’t a member of the SWP, he may have been able to do his job properly, but probably didn’t. When repeatedly prompted, he finally categorically states that the journalist in question isn’t a member of the SWP, whilst still leaving the initial smear in the article before the ‘retraction’, as well as leaving the first ‘retraction’ which continues to suggest that he probably didn’t do his job properly.

Anyway, I’m off to write things for people who aren’t clearly mental.

Alternatively Zin,

said person is a writer for, but not actually a member of, said party.

I guess your views on the gravity and importance of that distinction depend on whether you generally agree with the stance of this blog and whether you like it or not.

Thus this whole comments thread is now a load of bollocks really.

As Modernity said, hate to quote the idiot Benji, but this one really is a ’storm in a teacup’.

For what its worth, it aint hard to say, ’sorry Owen, a mistake in calling you a member of a party if you are not actually a member.’

But then again, when the Owen bloke wrote, in his otherwise reasoned response on this thread;

“Don’t you lot have some teachers to try and get sacked or something?”

He came across as ‘a bit of a member’, so i dont really give a fuck either way.

MattG

A magazine which gives the job of reviewing a book to someone who agrees with the author on almost every particular is not a critical journal worthy of serious engagement, but a trade journal better thrown out with the rest of the junk mail.

You people have been up to your necks in the mire of the political left for so long that you can no longer see the obvious when it is just under your nose.

Do you honestly imagine that being concerned about all this crap makes you a better person with something to contribute to improving the world? The true moral worth of a person is how he conducts himself, not what he thinks about how others behave, whether it’s Trots bemoaning capitalism or “decents” bemoaning Trots. Considering that, there’s really nothing to choose between the likes of Toube and the likes of Seymour — they are both the kind of person that normal people would cross the road to avoid.

I love it how Colin is getting his knickers in an almighty twist over an as/if distinction, while Hatherley’s piece accused Eustonites of being willing to use “any means necessary” to oppose “Islamofascism”.

The cheek!

Mike

“It’s not a smear unless T didn’t believe what he was saying. What is the issue? You can disagree with T’s views but he has every right to his (correct) opinion.”

Or recklessly failed to check his facts, and then only slowly and grudgingly admitting he was wrong, failing to apologise and keeping the false allegations up for all to read long before they get to the ‘retraction’ (which, I maintain, still claims that Mr. Hatherley probably didn’t do his job properly). Of course Mr. Toube has a right to an opinion; he does not, however, have the right to propagate potentially career-damaging falsehoods.

Ferguson

“Anyway, I’m off to write things for people who aren’t clearly mental”

Its 8pm on a Sunday evening. Kindergarden aint open till the morning. Moron.

Ive been out all day and just read the whole thing from scratch about 30 mins ago. The chain of events is quite obvious and the ‘retraction’ is pretty clear to me.

The blog entry by David T was pretty uninteresting (assuming what I see now is how it originally appeared) and pretty lame. When brought up on it the details of the bloke were changed from party member to party mag writer.

And so…

Im off to watch ‘Sports Personality of the Year’.

This really is a load of bollox now.

Oh yes, thanks for the amusing reminder, I still chuckle at how you sad hypocrites

Are “you sad hypocrites” the same as “you people”?

were running around like headless chickens, shrieking about your “freedom of speech” ! !

Ah, right, this is where I haven’t had a word to say against David in this thread. You have read it, I assume? Or where I called for the matter to be dropped after discipline procedures were instigated against Delich?

It’s like this, Half Truth, you’re a Class A hypocrite (note, I am referring to the existential whilst you were referring to the universal) who doesn’t have the balls to use a consistent posting name, and appears on this board only to abuse other posters and then starts whining about what liberty means; except when it’s others telling you what you don’t want to hear.

The idea of, by your own admission, choosing a posting handle simply in order continue a battle against an Internet page which you conduct under successive aliases is too pathetic for words. I have great difficulty seeing how, let alone why, it is possible to conduct a meaningful discussion with someone who keeps changing their posting handle.

Maybe Toube’s apology lacking correction will not be enough to deter Owen from following the same course of action as Jenna Delich.

In your hilariously confused manner, you have just equated stating that someone is a member the the S.W.P. to that they link to David Duke sites. Plus, you are aware that Delich was shot down in flames? You don’t have a scooby, do you?

Hatherley places him in the public eye with his writings, which he then uses to denounce this blog and it’s authors. Quite apart from his erroneous claims about McCarthyism, he ought to be very careful about claiming offence. Which David would not do.

Didn’t Marko Atilla Hoare bite back at Seymour for a wilful misrepresentation of his writings? The equivalent there would have been simply calling him a member of the Republican Party.

Oh yes, thanks for the amusing reminder, I still chuckle at how you sad hypocrites

Are “you sad hypocrites” the same as “you people”?

were running around like headless chickens, shrieking about your “freedom of speech” ! !

Ah, right, this is where I haven’t had a word to say against David in this thread. You have read it, I assume? Or where I called for the matter to be dropped after discipline procedures were instigated against Delich?

It’s like this, Half Truth, you’re a Class A hypocrite (note, I am referring to the existential whilst you were referring to the universal) who doesn’t have the balls to use a consistent posting name, and appears on this board only to abuse other posters and then starts whining about what liberty means; except when it’s others telling you what you don’t want to hear. Then you cheer on the day when their graves are pissed on.

The idea of, by your own admission, choosing a posting handle simply in order continue a battle against an Internet page which you conduct under successive aliases is too pathetic for words. I have great difficulty seeing how, let alone why, it is possible to conduct a meaningful discussion with someone who keeps changing their posting handle.

Maybe Toube’s apology lacking correction will not be enough to deter Owen from following the same course of action as Jenna Delich.

In your hilariously confused manner, you have just equated stating that someone is a member the the S.W.P. to that they link to David Duke sites. Plus, you are aware that Delich was shot down in flames? You don’t have a scooby, do you?

Hatherley places him in the public eye with his writings, which he then uses to denounce this blog and it’s authors. Quite apart from his erroneous claims about McCarthyism, he ought to be very careful about claiming offence. Which David would not do.

Didn’t Marko Atilla Hoare bite back at Seymour for a wilful misrepresentation of his writings? The equivalent there would have been simply calling him a member of the Republican Party.

And the point about the porous boundary between the ‘mainstream left’ and the extremists of the SWP also stands.

No it doesn’t.

At least no more than there’s a porous boundary between the ‘Eustonite Left’ (or whatever you call yourselves these days) and the Islam-bashing wingnut Right. How about some trademark Harry’s Place fury about the generous platform extended to Muslim-baiting madman Andrew Bostom in the current Democratiya? Or about the author of the genocidal Gates of Vienna blog being given uncritical space on Normblog?
Or how about an apology for the age-old anti-Arab tropes which have made it onto the HP front page from time to time?

No?

Oh I see - it’s only the mote in the other guy’s eye that you’re concerned with.

Of course Mr. Toube has a right to an opinion; he does not, however, have the right to propagate potentially career-damaging falsehoods.

But there is no falsehood. As soon as T discovered that, despite writing for the Socialist Worker, he was not a party member, he updated the post with this information. The rest of it is merely about David T’s political opinion.

I don’t think calling everyone mental that disagrees with you is very sensible.

Padre Gumption, HP was way ahead of the curve on the Islamist issue. What the likes of David T was saying years ago is now almost a political consensus in this country.

A footnote to a footnote: David T., I’m not an activist of any kind, let along a SWP one. Do you know what activists do? Yes, you got it. They’re active. I’m not.

Look, I’m going to post one more time and point out that although Toube did, finally, grudgingly, kinda correct his false allegations (without either removing them or apologising), he still propagated potentially damaging falsehoods through recklessly failing to check his facts in the first place, and through not acting nearly quickly or decisely enough to correct and remove them.

I’m not in the habit of calling everyone who disagrees with me mental, only those who clearly are. At any rate, you’re hardly in a position to throw stones here after chucking around “moonbat”, “disgrace”, “idiot”, “cunt face”, “cunt” and “stupid” all over the page.

(I should point out that I didn’t actually mean to imply that MattG was mental. He clearly just a twat).

Padre Gumption, try this. What David did was iljudged and clearly inaccurate, and should have been retracted. Yet, a lot of newspapers and other media outlets would find themselves in difficulties if it were of the same importance as is being claimed.

I doubt the effect the litigants are intending to create is that being accused of being a member of the S.W.P. is defamatory. So, all that remains is David’s discussion of Owen Hatherley’s writing and political points.

Finally, that the muzzled harpies flying at ankle height, notably Half Truth, have always - and I mean always - sought reasons to lambaste the site from behind the protection of posting handles raises doubts both about their motives/honesty and judgement here.

You’re over doing it. It was perfectly logical to conclude Owen Hatherley was an SWP member after he was caught writing for it. He’s still clearly a like minded chum. Nobody likes book reviews by such people.

At any rate, you’re hardly in a position to throw stones here after chucking around “moonbat”, “disgrace”, “idiot”, “cunt face”, “cunt” and “stupid” all over the page.

Well, I was quite tipsy last night. I did some strange OTs as well.

I always presumed Michael Rosen was in the SWP. Why else would he hang around lenin’s tomb?

“It was perfectly logical to conclude Owen Hatherley was an SWP member after he was caught writing for it. ”

For ‘perfectly logical’ read ‘perfectly illogical’. Is everyone who writes for SW (not SWP, Mike, do try and keep up) a member? I think not. Therefore, to ‘conclude’ as you suggest is not wise. But what’s wisdom got to do with it? Not a lot.

Ah we crossed posts. After the ‘concluding’ now we have the ‘presuming’. Perhaps you should try another mental strategy to arrive at the truth.

It’s the same thing. It’s their party propaganda.

It can’t be an incredible smear to claim someone is a member of the SWP if they are willing to write for their paper. You obviously don’t like T’s views on your political views, but that’s a separate issue.

“After he was caught writing for it?”

What the fuck are you on about? Owen clearly states that he writes for it on his own website and in ever CV of his I’ve ever seen. And it’s not reasonable to conclude (and then, without bothering to check, publish it and make sweeping allegations its basis) that he’s a member at all, unless it’s also reasonable to assume that Mike Davis, Tony Benn, and Ken Livingston are also crypto-Swappies, or that Owen’s also a member of the RCP because he allowed Audacity to reproduce articles from his website (in which, if any of you had actually bothered to read them, you would have discovered he was ripping them a new arsehole). It is, at the very least, wreckless and shockingly unprofessional. And your post, as well as several others, show up the precise problem: you’re simultaneously claiming that Toube corrected his allegations, while maintaining that the article is still a good piece of reportage because Hatherley is guilty of, well something, anything, involving the SWP. You can’t have it both ways.

Look Mike, you’re clearly a total fucking nutball and it’s unlikely that there’s anything I can do so say to convince you that there isn’t some massive SWP conspiracy or there, or that it, y’know, just isn’t on to tell damaging untruths about people. So go on, knock your self out. I’m sure you can show yourself up perfectly well without my further help.

How on earth did this sort of thing get corrected pre-Internet? A lot of people have become spoiled by immediate uploads.

I was aware that Michael wasn’t S.W.P., but definitely thought he shared *most* of its positions.

You’ve got T on a technicality, that’s all. Morally T is still right and we all know it.

“the truth” eh Michael - I wonder what that means to someone who is a supporter of a party that is not interested in morals but loves “socialist propaganda”.

What do you as a well known public figure who is widely assumed to both intellectually honest and well read think of the following statement from a leader of the SWP :

“We are not moralists but Marxists for whom the advance of the struggle sometimes requires difficult compromises.”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3169

Mike, you’re getting confused. I didn’t say it was a ’smear’. I’m not sure that anyone else did. Rack back to the McCarthy era and HUAC. Some of the people who were accused of being Communists, weren’t Communists, but also (I think this is the bit you might find tricky to understand) made it quite clear that they weren’t going to say or do anything that would harm people who were being accused of being Communists. This was Arthur Miller’s position. Miller, I think we can say, was a socialist, not a Communist. He didn’t ever say it was a smear to be called a Communist, but he didn’t ever testify against anyone who was being called a Communist.

No one is asking you to sympathise with this position, just to understand it. This way, the untruths that David T., and you post on this matter can be cleared away.

it’s also reasonable to assume that Mike Davis, Tony Benn, and Ken Livingston are also crypto-Swappies..

Now you mention it….

and your post, as well as several others, show up the precise problem: you’re simultaneously claiming that Toube corrected his allegations, while maintaining that the article is still a good piece of reportage because Hatherley is guilty of, well something, anything, involving the SWP. You can’t have it both ways.

Why can I not have it both ways? It’s perfectly logical to correct the mistake that is he not an official party member but also state that it’s just as damning that he writes for this publication.

Now, you would disagree that it’s damning to be a SWP member or write for the SW, but T and I differ.

Owen/Mike Rosen,

just for clarification and I am sure it is a long list, but politically how do you differ from the SWP?

have either of you made strident criticisms of the SWP? and if so, what were they?

as non-members, which particular political positions do you think the SWP has it wrong on?

if either or both of you, candidly disagree with the SWP then why not state what political issues you disagree on?

Sorry Alec, not good enough.

That post itself is fine and dandy. But it adopts a civilised, discursive tone, which is in marked contrast to the hysterical naming-and-shaming that’s at work in this post and in so much of HP’s output.

That post finishes off with David saying:

“Don’t stand by and let hatemongering go by, unopposed. I do not moderate comments, because I trust our side to win all the arguments. But that will only happen if you challenge anti-Muslim bigotry, and do not let it slide by.

Well come on then. How about an HP post lambasting Democratiya with the same vitriol that the Guardian so often gets (or in this case, the New Statesman)?

We all know that While David may yet criticise Alan Johnson’s bizarre and disgraceful editorial decision, it’s certain to be in a constructive and exculpatory fashion. Similarly Melanie Phillips, while she might be subject to a bit of gentle teasing on HP now and again, is unlikely ever to find herself on the end of the same sort of ferocious tirades as Pilger, et al do.

Until we start seeing right-wing hate-mongers being being subject to the same sort of frenzied attacks and demands of zero tolerance that the far left and Islamists get, I’ll stick to my view that HP’s principled anti-bigotry stance is selective, inconsistent, one-eyed, and hypocritical. (And since that would involve the HP pit-bull savaging several of its ideological neighbours, I don’t expect to see it any time soon.)

MMN, you may have spotted that I don’t come here to argue about theory and practice. I tried that on a couple of occasions some time ago, and got called ‘an animal’ and many posters found it impossible to have a discussion without talking about what a crap poet I am, and how interesting it was that my son died.

I still don’t understand what you’re on about. If there was an ultra Zionist doing a book review of another Zionist, you would be quite happy to point this out and highlight what you believe Zionism is about. That’s all that’s been done here.

This whole thing seems to have kicked off simply because Harry’s Place has been linked to support for the woeful invasion of Iraq in 2003. People are pretty prickly about this issue. Those that argued in favour of a war plan put together by George W Bush’s Republicans seem unable to ever admit that they got it wrong. Let’s face it - those that argued for the Iraq war are mindless idiots. Of course they are going to challenge any reasonable book that shows them up for what they are. Here we see it in action.

Well come on then. How about an HP post lambasting Democratiya with the same vitriol that the Guardian so often gets (or in this case, the New Statesman)?

Because they agree with Democratiya and do not agree with the Guardian and the New Statesman. Just like you don’t attack the SW.

This is simple.

Being called names and having ones works insulted is par for the course in this great democratic Internet. All bloggers need (very) thick skins.

I don’t know why you come on here at all TBH if you don’t want to try to engage with arguments. There are plenty of people who contribute to HP who are eager and willing for honest debate - that’s why this blog is so popular and generally well regarded.

MoreMediaNonsense, yes how they react to it is quite telling in my view. It’s interesting.

Just like you don’t attack the SW.

The SW - whom I would fucking hate, if I thought them significant enough to bother about at all.

But yes, Mike you are right, and it is simple. It is about HP getting mud to stick to its political enemies, and giving its friends a free ride. It is not about important points of principle.

MoreMediaNonsense

“Being called names and having ones works insulted”

Do mean being called “the New Statesman’s Dilpazier Aslam” and being told that your work “could therefore not have been an honest review”?

No, I didn’t think so.

indeed, MMN,

if you ever post a few critical comments on Lenin’s Tomb, etc and if they weren’t deleted by the admins (a common tactic) then you could reasonably expect a torrent of abuse from the juveniles there, so it is a bit much for SWP’s fellow travelers to whine about such things.

goose? gander?

HP has a very open comments policy, nearly anyone can post here, thus you need a thick skin.

maybe Marxism 2009 should have a session on “sticks and stones”?

Colin S. PedantLawyerson - I was addressing myself to Michael Rosen.

BTW I reckon he’s associated with the SWP AND I really don’t like his poetry. I don’t know if the two things are connected but maybe they are.

Should he sue me as well ?

It is about HP getting mud to stick to its political enemies, and giving its friends a free ride. It is not about important points of principle.

It can be both. If someone was writing articles for the BNP and did a review of Nick Griffin’s book, I’m sure HP would be glad to highlight this fact and say on principle that extremists should not review other extremists’ books.

Whether you ‘throw mud’ depends on where you stand politically. Obviously.

MMN, I think you miss the point. I’m all for a bit of abuse. My point is that I found it difficult to engage in a discussion as a discussion because anonymous people wanted to engage in a one-sided form of abuse whereby they were at liberty to raise stuff to do with who I am, but they kept their own lives secret. In one discussion, this reached the absurd heights of an anonymous person holding me to account for an action or statement from the past, but it was impossible to put that person under the same moral scrutiny. End of discussion for the very democratic principles that you claim to uphold. In certain circles, the source of a quote, its referencing to a real person, who can be checked is crucial to that particular kind of discourse. Anyone posting anonymously in discussion with someone who isn’t, is not doing that. He or she can claim anything they like about themselves.

So, I come here now, only to point up factual omissions or errors as and when I see it, and then I bugger off.

mod, if I knew who you were, i’d be quite happy to engage in discussion with you. You’ll remember that you started emailing me direct and I furnished you with the documents that you asked for. You seemed to be implying certain things about your mental state. Relevant?

And mod., you seem to be confusing who’s responsible for what. I’m not responsible for what happens at Lenin’s Tomb. In your state of mind, you seem to think that if someone is a SWP fellow-traveller, then they must have some responsibility for the blogging ethics of a SWP member. Really?

MMN, do you paint? sculpt? make music? dance? make pots? sing? Sadly, we don’t know, but what’s it like in your estimation? Will you share any of it with us? Just so that I might make parallel comments about your creative efforts. I only mention it as people seem to be talking about geese and ganders.

Michael,

we’ve been thru this before, but as you are a University graduate I’ll ask you a simple question:

do my POLITICAL arguments about the world somehow become stronger if you knew my name? do they?

or do arguments stand on the merit of their logic, evidence and reason?

which is it, Mike?

I’m just a poor member of the under classes and I can see thru that, can you?

This whole thing seems to have kicked off simply because Harry’s Place has been linked to support for the woeful invasion of Iraq in 2003. People are pretty prickly about this issue.

LEE

No, they’re not, really. The war’s over, and most people have forgotten about it, and even the U.N. now endorses the status quo. In this country, the Government responsible was voted back in and started to take an electoral hammering only when economic woes began to bite, i.e. direct concerns and not those laid out by chattering political monkeys.

Plus, even those “people” who are “prickily”, to the point of obsessing about an Internet page (yes, I get the paradox with the Tomb) tend not to be so concerned about the greater death toll in Darfur. In which case, so what? Why should I indulge this warped morality?

But it adopts a civilised, discursive tone, which is in marked contrast to the hysterical naming-and-shaming that’s at work in this post and in so much of HP’s output.

PADRE GUMPTION

Ha, I love the way you concede that it was exactly what you were looking for [anti-Muslim bigotry], but then change the terms of question! That article discussed the collective condemnation of an entire ethnic/religious group. This current article concerns *one* individual. Surely you can see the difference?

As for my thoughts on this article, I direct you to my previous comments on this thread. If you were being even-handed, as you say, please explain why you have not expressed similar displeasure at Hatherley’s use of his column in print media to express a personal attack on this blog *before* this article.

The only way whatsoever that this can be described as defamatory, and not a standard pissing competition in blogdom, is if you consider it defamatory to call someone a member of the S.W.P. So, you and others object to David’s excoriation of Hatherley’s politics and equating him with Dilpazier Aslam, yet I have not seen you comment on the usual twaddle about “must be fought by any means necessary” or calling the collective-you a bunch of psychopaths (is he a psychiatrist? No he is not).

MMN, do you paint? sculpt? make music? dance? make pots? sing? Sadly, we don’t know, but what’s it like in your estimation? Will you share any of it with us? Just so that I might make parallel comments about your creative efforts. I only mention it as people seem to be talking about geese and ganders.

We’re talking about ideas on this blog Michael not literary criticism. My literary/artistic efforts and yours are of no interest in the debate of a (hopefully) intellectual argument. I have criticised your poetry because its intellectual crassness offends me, you can criticise my HP blog posts all you like in return, they also are in the public domain and a matter of record. What does it matter to you what my real name is - it would mean nothing to you anyway.

You’re being over sensitive IMO - as I said before its very odd if you’re so horrified about what some HP commenters say about you that you keep popping up here with pointless comments.

Each to their own however.

@Alec Macpherson, thank you for all those many words written especially for me; this is the second time I have felt flattered by your attention, as you will recalled, the first time was due to your obsession about finding out my identity, and your other mistaken & obsessive assumption that I have posted here before under a different moniker. I clearly told you that your assumption is as wrong as could possibly be wrong, and that I don’t see why I should reveal my name when all the other posters are also unknown to me.

It seems that it’s you, along with Mark T(wat), who are confused about why Hatherley has grounds to take legal action if he so decided. The whole point of Toube’s poisonous dribble, is the explicit insinuation that Hatherley is unable to do his professional work because he is a “SWP activist”. Toube must be disappointed that his two most active attack poodles seem to have missed the whole point of why he bothered to write in the first place.

Seriously, I expected to come across dumb people here, but this is getting surreal now.

That article discussed the collective condemnation of an entire ethnic/religious group. This current article concerns *one* individual. Surely you can see the difference?

Yes. Some types of unpleasantness among the ranks of the left (as antisemitism, swuppery, sucking up to Islamists, etc.) are dealt with unrestrained ferocious personal attacks on those involved. Others (anti-Muslim bigotry, sucking up to US wingnuts, etc.) are addressed in lofty, non-specific, low-key discussion pieces.

Can we move this discussion to another thread?

Alec Macpherson, thank you for all those many words written especially for me; this is the second time I have felt flattered by your attention,

Did your mother not teach you that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? There were other questions about your argument, which you have studiously ignored in favour of it.

as you will recalled, the first time was due to your obsession about finding out my identity, and your other mistaken & obsessive assumption that I have posted here before under a different moniker.

Lies do not become truth through repetition. This will be the second time I declared that you can be Krusty the Klown for all I care. It’s the matter of gossamer-like changes which matters. When I first commented on it, you said “I thought it apt to adopt a moniker that really reflects what this blog is all about, lies & half-truths”. See why I think you’re not new to this parish?

You have indicated an awareness of discussions dating back longer than your current posting handle has been obvious. Your pointed personal attacks on named posters, and general demeanour, makes it highly unlikely you have previously resisted the urge not to post.

Here’s a bonny good one from you:

You bunch of sad fucks ! So consumed with jealously that you would be eating your hearts out if you lot had any, but I guess a perquisite to being a groupie of anti-Semitic baiting Toube is a lack of heart as well as brains.

What on earth is wrong with seeking out antisemites!!!

David T

Have you read Richard Seymour’s book?

Yes. Some types of unpleasantness among the ranks of the left (as antisemitism, swuppery, sucking up to Islamists, etc.) are dealt with unrestrained ferocious personal attacks on those involved. Others (anti-Muslim bigotry, sucking up to US wingnuts, etc.) are addressed in lofty, non-specific, low-key discussion pieces.

In other words, I was exactly right about the promotion of anti-Muslim bigotry and you were exactly wrong. And that your supposed principle of opposing the use of the media to engage in personal attacks is as one-sided as you say David’s is. (Because, remember, Hatherley’s article came first.)

Benji, we read his site. Does the book turn into Tolstoy?

I found it difficult to engage in a discussion as a discussion because anonymous people wanted to engage in a one-sided form of abuse whereby they were at liberty to raise stuff to do with who I am, but they kept their own lives secret. In one discussion, this reached the absurd heights of an anonymous person holding me to account for an action or statement from the past, but it was impossible to put that person under the same moral scrutiny.

We must thank Michael Rosen for a wonderfully succinct and clear exposition of “whataboutery”. Reading the above, it’s obvious why the likes of the SWP believe that all manner of crimes committed by regimes and movements they support can be excused by the crimes of others. Rosen might write some good books for the edification of children, but any child could teach him that two wrongs don’t make a right, and the moral scrutiny of others is entirely immaterial to the moralness or otherwise of his own actions. But thanks again for the insight into the darkly perverted modes of thought you and other Marxists are entangled within.

Alec, when I raised that comment of his (about baiting anti-Semites) his response was

@Mark T
Your attempt at sarcasm betrays that the T after your name must be for TWAT.

So we are clearly dealing with a 12 year old.

Sorry, Benjamin, you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself and don’t need a Samaritan supporter against some nasty attacks.

Hey, thanks, anyway :-)

Aye, Mark, I’m loving the way that he and others are claiming a commitment to free speech and journalistic integrity by calling for David to be rusticated (and, in his specific case, buried and pissed upon) for falsely stating that Hatherley is a member of a political party which he frequently writes for.

Anyway, David T. Are you going to email Private Eye over their long standing association with Paul Foot, and condemn them for setting up a journalism award in his name?

And never mind Hatherley’s allegation, in the article under discussion, that Harry’s Place argue

that the “Islamofascist” enemy must be fought by any means necessary.

That quote is even worse for the sly implication carried by those inverted commas.

Perhaps HP and Hatherley could engage in a simultaneous libel action? : )

Mark, I watched Fail Safe this afternoon. Could it be like the nuking of Moscow and New York?

Alec Macpherson, Goodness you are one goofy fruitcake; firstly you misunderstand a point about people who are hostile to HP because of Iraq, by generalising about the Public in general, & going off about the Government being re-elected ! Does it still need to be dumbed down further for it to stop going over your head now ?

Then, you cannot understand why an illegal war conducted in our name, by our Country, paid for with our taxes, conducted by our lying politicians, is not a meaningful comparison with Darfur.

It’s very clear now why you worship at this shrine of deluded self-righteousness.

“When I first commented on it, you said “I thought it apt to adopt a moniker that really reflects what this blog is all about, lies & half-truths”. See why I think you’re not new to this parish?”

Hold on there Columbo, because logic is obviously not your strong point.

“You have indicated an awareness of discussions dating back longer than your current posting handle has been obvious. Your pointed personal attacks on named posters, and general demeanour, makes it highly unlikely you have previously resisted the urge not to post.”

Oh dear, has it not occurred to you that I may have read about the goings-on here elsewhere, and that I may have even read through some old pages here ? But thanks anyway for the compliment of my veteran like “general demeanour” !

Alec Macpherson

“Aye, Mark, I’m loving the way that he and others are claiming a commitment to free speech and journalistic integrity by calling for David to be rusticated (and, in his specific case, buried and pissed upon) for falsely stating that Hatherley is a member of a political party which he frequently writes for.”

No, the point, which you’ve missed, yet again, after it having been made at least five times by me and by at least three other posters, is that Toube was claiming Hatherley was incapable of doing his job as a journalist at the New Statesman, accusing the New Statesman of misleading its readership, and claiming he was going to write to the magazine with the aim of having Hatherley sacked, all on a false premise.

The right to free speech does not extend to right the to propagate damaging falsehoods about living people (and no, the Euston Manifeso is not a living person). Unless you’re an actual RCP fellow traveller, that is.

No Alec. But its just odd that the author did not check his facts first. According to the author, being a member of the SWP is a very serious accusation, comparable to being a member of the BNP (and justifies public ‘outing’ and public condemnation). So one would have thought he might have at least sought the reaction of the person he accused first, etc.

In my view being a member of the SWP is not directly comparable to being a member of the BNP anyway. It leads one to view individuals in a rather simplistic way. In fact, I am not supportive of BNP members simply being ‘outed’ either, and attempts made to ruin their careers etc; I would certainly prefer it if ideas and issues were grappled with at root.

This type of hounding or outing of individuals has an unpleasant and rather simplistic feel to it, and such behaviour can be rather antithetical to notions of liberal democracy.

Toube was claiming Hatherley was incapable of doing his job as a journalist at the New Statesman

Incorrect. The claim, specifically, was that he was incapable of reviewing books by SWP members in a fair and reasonable manner.

Hatherley has written many reviews for the New Statesman - I don’t see any criticism of those here.

claiming he was going to write to the magazine with the aim of having Hatherley sacked.

A lie.

No Alec. But its just odd that the author did not check his facts first. According to the author, being a member of the SWP is a very serious accusation, comparable to being a member of the BNP (and justifies public ‘outing’ and public condemnation). So one would have thought he might have at least sought the reaction of the person he accused first, etc.

A valid point by Benji.

Mod - If you are so convinced that political arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, hence anonymity is fine (which I would agree with) why do you persist in asking Michael about his affliations? Why, if its not relevant for us to know your political background to engage in discussion with you, do you continually demand to know that of others?

Mark T:

When part of his job is reviewing books by SWP members, Toube is claiming he’s incapable of doing his job.

As for my other point, you’re right, it’s overegged. Toube actually states:

“I ask the editor of the New Statesman, Jason Cowley, to remedy this failure online as soon as possible, and it its print edition next week”

though I wonder what would have been the end result if Toube’s call was heeded, and indeed, what he was aiming for.

Bearing in mind you did claim the post didn’t “compare Hatherley with a member of Hizb ut-Tarir” when the headline reads “Owen Hatherley is the New Statesman’s Dilpazier Aslam”, I think that makes us even.

Colin, Hatherley referred to individuals associated with the Euston Manifesto and this blog. He mentioned Paul Berman, Michael Ignatieff and Christopher Hitchens by name. Actual S.W.P. members and others have used blog pieces to attack David by name, with precisely the same insinuations about his work as you claim here, and worse has even appeared on the Guardian site.

The right to free speech does not extend to right the to propagate damaging falsehoods about living people

There is it. Forget about the libel laws, and tell me, in all seriousness, that claiming Hatherley is a member of the S.W.P. could damage his professional position. That is what is required to substantiate your case. Known membership hasn’t done Alex Callinicos or China Mieville or Terry Eagleton any harm, to name but three.

Some people need to grow a pair. Had David merely said Hatherley writes for the S.W.P. or if he were a member of a party he frequently endorses, all we’d have is a standard pissing competition which I and 99 % of the Internet users would ignore.

It’s not as if Hatherley were accused of linking to David Duke and neo-Nazi sites.

Oh dear, has it not occurred to you that I may have read about the goings-on here elsewhere, and that I may have even read through some old pages here ?

A HALF TRUTH IS WORSE THAN A LIE

What, now you’re admitting to basing you abusive name-calling and personal quest against David on the basis of hearsay and a handful of old pages? Nutter!

“Neil Musgrove is Wrecclesham F.C.’s Christiano Ronaldo.”

Am I explicitly comparing Musgrove to Ronaldo?

But its just odd that the author did not check his facts first. According to the author, being a member of the SWP is a very serious accusation, comparable to being a member of the BNP (and justifies public ‘outing’ and public condemnation). So one would have thought he might have at least sought the reaction of the person he accused first, etc.

Christ on a bike, Benji, you’re right…

Christ on a bike, Benji, you’re right…

And Flanker made quite a good joke on the other thread.

What is the world coming to?

I think we can all agree it’s pretty low of the New Statesman to get a blogger mate of Seymour’s to review his book. The likes of Medialens, of which Seymour is a fully signed up member, cry foul when this is done with books that they do not like.

No one is saying Hatherley should be sacked, but we can all agree he shouldn’t do book reviews of his mates. That sums it up.

Would you actually read what I wrote, Alex? You’re just refusing to get it. I have went to great lengths to repeatedly explain that Toube claimed that Hatherley’s alleged affiliation prevents him from satisfactorily performing the job is being paid to do, and that that directly resulted in a mass-circulation political magazine misleading its readership. That is was is defamatory, not the suggestion he was an SWP member in and of itself. However, Toube does explicitly associate membership of the SWP with that of the BNP: that could certainly be deemed to be defamatory too, if Owen was a member. Seriously, are you not reading what I’ve written? Or are you just ignoring my point in favour of your own straw-man construction that to the effect that I claimed that calling someone a member of the SWP is defamatory, when I have went to great lengths to explain that that is not my point at all. I’ll say it again: what’s wrong with you people? This is like arguing with the nutters at Spiked Online.

I think you’re always going to get a lot of emotion around these types of issues. A lot people, including me, find a book that argues it’s imperailist to listen to people in the third world, and side with terrorists against them, and never try to stop a genocide, to be quite disgusting. Then you see one of his mates reviewing it, who writes for Socialist Worker, and you want everyone to know where this guy stands politically.

It’s perfectly obvious that it would have been better if the mistake had not been made about him not being an official SWP member, but in the spirit the point still stands.

Mike, you’ve mentioned Medialens five seperate times in a conversation that has ostensibly nothing do with it. Moreover, no one else has mentioned Medialens even once. You run a blog devoted to the subject. Does the term monomania mean anything to you?

As for your point that “it’s pretty low of the New Statesman to get a blogger mate of Seymour’s to review his book”, I believe Hatherley’s already pointed out that his is not a friend of Seymour and has only ever spoken to him three times.

Colin, I realize that’s what David was trying to do, and from the beginning I have said that he was not only factually wrong but also it was not something I approved of. However, are you seriously suggesting that there was a risk of Hatherley’s career being adversely affected? No more than my putting up a tribute site to Natalie Portman would persuade her to ditch Devendra Banhart and make a bee-line for northern Scotland.

(Bloody hell, she’s also been linked to Nathaniel Rothschild. Was she on the yacht?)

I referred to the attempts on David’s reputation to highlight his more rounded attitude to this. A few articles on the Internet - even Bob Pitt’s prolonged campaign, which was every bit a vituperative as you say this is - were tolerated. Plus, Hatherley explicitly accused Paul Berman of supporting the Nicaraguan death squads. This sort of thing happens on the Internet.

I’m retiring to bed now, Colin. Lastly, I was not suggesting you were suggesting it were defamatory to suggest Hatherley was an S.W.P. member.

Of course, if you’re on the other side of the fence, and you support attacks on our troops and think siding with terrorists against the local populations in third world countries is ultimately for their own good, then I can see why you’d be very annoyed indeed to see David T come along and reveal the political associations of Seymour’s book reviewer.

It’s a different point of view.

“but in the spirit the point still stands.”

See, this is precisely the point. Hatherley is not a member of the SWP, therefore (according to Toube’s logic) he was in fact free to write an honest review. Toube’s point was that he wasn’t. The point doesn’t stand, and even Toube now seems to recognise that. Why don’t you just give it up? You can dislike the book, and dislike the review, but the simple fact is that Toube’s point fell when it was established that Owen wasn’t an SWP member.

As it happens, I don’t even like Seymour’s blog, though I do like Hatherley’s very much. I have, however, as a result of all this hoo-ha, ordered a copy of the former’s book from Amazon, just to see what all the fuss is about. I hope you’re very proud of what you’ve acheived.

Colin,

Medialens are very relevant because Seymour spends a lot of time on that site but not once have I seen him condemn other posters for their constant attack on young working journalists, who often say these journalists are not up to the job. Medialens has run far more campaigns against journalists than this site ever has. Nor have I ever seen Seymour complain when Medialens highlight journalist’s political associations. Clearly he is a hypocrite.

I said Hatherley is one of Seymour’s blogging mates, which is true. He clearly reads the site every day, links to it and agrees with most things he says. He is a political friend if not a personal one. We should be allowed to state this, just as Seymour’s friends do all the time on Medialens.

Still here. Colin I don’t agree with David’s premise, and may even think it slightly weird and nasty. Yet, it is neither a tactic which he would oppose when directed at himself nor, to be honest, at all realistic a hope.

As you’re concerned about precedents (and, conducting web-based vilification campaigns can be concerning), try this one for size: on Internet user writes an article about a public figure or newspaper columnist which says he ain’t fit for his job; in turn, the original author is threatened with unspecified censure.

I find that more concerning than one Internet article which sure as hell ain’t going to be repeated.

he was in fact free to write an honest review. Toube’s point was that he wasn’t. The point doesn’t stand, and even Toube now seems to recognise that

You could argue this is a little inconsistency in T’s argument, but it’s not the main point at all. The point is the New Statesman allowed someone to write a review of an SWP member’s book who also writes for the SW himself, thus likely sharing most of the SWP members disgusting views.

As it happens, I don’t even like Seymour’s blog

Oh I doubt that very much. In fact…well, I won’t say.

Alex: fair enough, though that is how it came across. And whether or not it’s likely to damage Hatherley’s career (and, without the resulting debate here, and subsequent, reluctant, kinda-retraction, it may actually have done so), that seemed to be the intention. Just for the record, there exist a number of article by Paul Berman from the mid-1990’s that would, by any reasonable person, be interpreted as supportive of the Contras. Whether this constitutes support for “the Nicaraguan death squads” is a matter of perspective.

Mike: That’s the beauty of conspiracies, isn’t it, that they can simply be expanded to encompass any critic of the theory. For the record (not that any of this ought to matter), I’ve never been a member (or a fellow-traveller) of any political party, left-wing or otherwise, though I am a member of a trade union, as well as having previously worked for one as a full-time official. I’ve also twice voted for the SSP; no doubt that sure marks me out as a Britain-hating, Islamist-loving lunatic, though I’ve also voted for the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party (strictly as a tactical vote against the DUP).

Secondly, Toube revealed nothing: Hatherley isn’t an SWP member, and openly advertises the fact that he writes for their newspaper.

Mike

“In fact…well, I won’t say.”

Go on, you know you want to.

Fair enough, Colin, Mike is sounding increasingly like Walter Matthau’s character in Fail Safe.

Ultimately, though, this is a minor flap in media land. Opposing journalists often do this. Owen Hatherley was not discussed in a private capacity and, as seen in his assertion that Berman supported death squads (much more serious than supporting the Contras), it’s reasonable to assume he approves of similar. Except when it’s directed at him. Unlike David.

I believe Hatherley’s already pointed out that his is not a friend of Seymour and has only ever spoken to him three times.

This is Seymour we’re talking about. Twice would make him a close friend. Three times and he’s practically his lover.

@Alec Macpherson, Rather the “Nutter” here must be the person who on just this page alone, has demonstrated a string of irrational & incorrect assumptions, made several illogical deductions, misunderstood simple statements, expounded several straw-man arguments, and although admitting of not approving of this latest odious, but every so typical drivel from Toube, is bending in all sorts of contortions to excuse Toube because in the “round” Toube is a nice guy; Seems like you must be posting from somewhere with nice cosy padding on the walls.

BTW Toube latest ravings are if anything, even worst than his older rants, you don’t have to be particularly perceptive to realise just from any one of his demented offerings, that he is a psychotic piece of shit.

MMN, mod, et al, how ironic that this thread is all about the links between someone’s name and their affiliations (real or supposed), and yet this is the thread where you’re maintaining the virtues of writing under pseudonyms! Just think, if OH had written under a pseudonym, it wouldn’t have been possible a) for DT to have claimed he was in the SWP, nor b) for it to have been proven that DT had built an argument on unchecked facts.

“yet this is the thread where you’re maintaining the virtues of writing under pseudonyms”

Not everyone has safe positions in the establishment hierarchy, Mr Rosen.

Michael,

It is the prerogative of every blogger and contributor to a blog to comment anonymously. If you choose not to do so and are a public figure to boot, then the odd reference to your work/real-life persona is to be expected, surely?

I agree that calling you a shit poet* in the middle of a geopolitical discussion is a bit rum, but that’s because it is spectacularly off-topic and irrelevant, not because your interlocutor has you at an advantage that you have, by using your real name, volunteered.

*My kids disagree with them.

Michael don’t be stupid - for mod, I and others are names on the web are what we’re known by. So if mod reviewed Seymour’s book in the NS as “the blogger modernityblog” his previous views would be well known and available to all.

Or are you saying you need to know everything about someone before you will debate with them ie career, current job, age, any artistic productions ?

Brownie, I don’t think Mr Rosen’s poetry is spectacularly off-topic and irrelevant in the middle of a geopolitical discussion when some of his poems are models of apologetics for foreign tyranny—as in the one in which he merges the identities of oppressive governments and their victims by presenting an attack on one as an attack on the other.

when some of his poems are models of apologetics for foreign tyranny

Sure, but his poetry subjects include eating chocolate in the middle of the night, chewing with your mouth full and hunting bears. So I guess it depends which reference is being made.

Mike Rosen,

did you miss my questions?

do my POLITICAL arguments about the world somehow become stronger if you knew my name? do they?

or do arguments stand on the merit of their logic, evidence and reason?

which is it, Mike?

Has Benji’s mum given you too much sunny delight, Half Truth?

that he is a psychotic piece of shit.

I think you mean psychopathic.

@Alec Macpherson, You should really give up on second guessing people, as you intuition is totally crap. I mean psychotic, as in mental illness, but yes, psychopathic also works, as it is also very valid & apt.

There you go, providing a living proof that even a faulty clock, tells the correct time twice a day. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Mod - Why can’t you apply that logic to others? Do Owen Hatherley’s political arguments about the world somehow become stronger or weaker if you know his background? Or should they (like yours) be judged on their own merit?

Okay, Halfie, explain why psychotic is more apt than psychopathic is view of everything you have said.

er, TheIrie, on his merits of course

This was fun. Regardless of his membership or otherwise of the SWP, hands up who thinks Hatherley would have been allowed to write for the SW again if he had written a critical review of Seymour’s tedious screed? That’s how the SWP works.

Ok, so why did you write “I assume he’s an ex-architect student or something similar, he goes on about buildings a lot. I wonder which bit of Oxbridge he went to? I doubt he’d get a job at the NS without being a “decent chappie” and knowing which way to pass the port, donctaknow!”

What on earth does that have to do with the merits of his arguments?

TheIrie wrote:

“What on earth does that have to do with the merits of his arguments?”

None, cos that is NOT my point to Mike Rosen

try read Mike’s recent points, MoreMediaNonsense response’s, my question and HOW that relates to Mike’s point (not Owen’s)

please get back to me when you’ve managed to summerize Mike’s issues and how my question connects to them (HINT: it has NOTHING to do with Owen, but more to do with the Internet)

Well, Mike says he doesn’t want to discuss issues with you, since you are anonymous and he is not. I can’t blame him, because most of the time you don’t want to discuss the merits of someone political arguments, but their background (especially whether they went to a posh univeristy) or what they think about the SWP. You can’t say to Mike on the one hand that you demand to remain anonymous whilst on the other hand demanding he explain his political affliations to you.

well, TheIrie, that’s about 1/3 of it

Care to look at MoreMediaNonsense response’s and my question to get a total representation of these arguments?

You can’t say to Mike on the one hand that you demand to remain anonymous whilst on the other hand demanding he explain his political affliations to you.

Nope, that’s not it. It’s that anyone can choose to remain anonymous, but if you don’t and you’re a public figure to boot, you look a bit daft complaining when others reference this.

When David Aaronovitch comments here, or Nick Cohen, are you quite positive that you only respond to the couple of sentences they leave behind? Do you make a conscious effort to exclude everything else you know about DA’s and NC’s political leanings when you submit your considered reply?

FACT: Owen Hatherley does not *work* for the New Statesman.

He is a student who submitted a book review to the magazine and will have got a miserly sum for his efforts.

The idea that pointing out he is a fellow-traveller of the totalitarian SWP threatens his ‘job’ is a joke.

In common with many of the lumpen-bourgouise slobs in the SWP,Owen Hatherley does not have a job.

Modernityblog’s real name is Albert Clagnut. He was brought up in a Hovis-sponsored orphanage immediately after the war, with 27 kids to one room. Often, he’d have to live for a week on a crust of mouldy bread and a slice of lard. He was top of the class at school, despite his rickets, and the fact that the teachers all hated him for being more working class than any of them. Despite working full-time from the age of 12, he was continually passed over for promotion by his snobbish bosses, some of whom had been to grammar schools and looked down on his salt-of-the-earth, prole ways. After gaining 8 different Open University degrees (including a MA in “Will you condemn”) he eventually gave up his office job at the grit factory, as it wasn’t working class enough for him, and became a coal miner instead. He lives in a small caravan outside Huddersfield (he’s too noble to accept a council flat), with his budgie, Churchill.

@Alec Macpherson, Despite your name, nobody can ever mistake you for a Smart Alec. But you’re boring me now, especially as you never respond to the points I put to you, but instead come back with fresh moronic comments/questions. I realise that you want to hear & talk more about the love of your life, but much more interesting is the little discussion about anonymity on the Internet; Although I think Mike Rosen is being extremely naïve in expecting others to reveal their identities, in order to agree to participate on a level playing field, he is definitely right in that knowing more about somebody puts you at an advantage, which is exactly why he should have chosen a moniker, especially on a Site that attracts such desperate low-lifes, who taking their cue from Toube, think nothing of trying to cause problems in a person’s personal private life.

Brownie -You’re right, but on the other hand, comments should at least be relevant to the topic at hand, or responses to what has been said. If everytime Mike tries to contribute we bring up Gilad Atzmon, or his views of the SWP, or something he said three years ago, or whatever, it makes it completely impossible for him or us to have a rational discussion of the matter at hand.

If everytime Mike tries to contribute we bring up Gilad Atzmon, or his views of the SWP..it makes it completely impossible for him or us to have a rational discussion of the matter at hand.

TheIrie: If you pay attention, you will find that the chronology in this post was:
1.David T was giving his views of the SWP, including its touring of the antisemite Gilad Atzmon.
2.Rosen pops up to point out that SWP has stopped touring Atzmon. (As he untiringly does whenever the SWP Atzmon history is mentioned.)

So what was the matter at hand again?

Brownie -You’re right, but on the other hand, comments should at least be relevant to the topic at hand, or responses to what has been said. If everytime Mike tries to contribute we bring up Gilad Atzmon, or his views of the SWP, or something he said three years ago, or whatever, it makes it completely impossible for him or us to have a rational discussion of the matter at hand.

Yep, agreed. My advice is that Michael should just ignore such people and converse with those those who refrain from such a tactic.

You mgiht want to do a search of the comments thread on this post to see which commenter first mentioned ‘GIlad Atzmon’. I’ll give you a clue: his name begins with “M” and ends in “ichael Rosen”.

BTW, I commented at Owen’s blog to point out that, contrary to Owen’s claim in his own post on the subject, DavidT hadn’t called for Owen to be sacked. Owen maintained this was so - contradicting the available facts - and has since started to delete my comments.

who taking their cue from Toube, think nothing of trying to cause problems in a person’s personal private life.

Care to substantiate that? Cause problems in a person’s private, as opposed to his/her professional life? Aslam, Hatherley, Delich…it was all related to what they were doing as professionals that caught DavidT’s eye. You just make up this shit as you go along, don’t you?

@Brownie, Not another HP half-wit trying to argue with me; trying to destroy people’s livelihoods simply because you don’t like something they wrote, is very personal, & a loathsome psychotic act of vindictive malice. Normal civilised behaviour would be to counter with winning arguments, but expecting that from pro-war “lefties” really is expecting shit not to stink

Colin, you need to calm down a bit and stop being so emotional.

Obviously you’re very defensive of your friend Owen here and that’s fine, but you you must recognise that has chosen to enter the big bad world of political journalism, and when you do that somebody somewhere is going to take issue with you. For many of us, the message of Seymour’s book is deeply offencive and politically extreme. Then we find out that the guy who did a puff piece review of it is a fellow writer for the Socialist Worker who links to the same set of 9/11 truther sites as Seymour. You may not like this, but it does merit highlighting in order to aid transparency.

David T is unlikely to be intimidated by claims of McCathyism and the other insults you have directed at him. You can rant and rave all you like and make as many threats as you want, but it will not change anything.

I have to say, if Owen Hatherley is actually many of these similar sounding angry people that have come on here to rant and rave and insult everybody, he deserves everything he gets.

BTW, I commented at Owen’s blog to point out that, contrary to Owen’s claim in his own post on the subject, DavidT hadn’t called for Owen to be sacked. Owen maintained this was so - contradicting the available facts - and has since started to delete my comments.

Brownie, I took issue with Owen’s argument (in response to your post there) that he sees “no evidence whatsoever that Toube ’supports’ Aslam’s claim” against unfair dismissal, by quoting the relevant section of David T’s post here - namely

” I have been told that, although the Comments Editor was unaware of Mr Aslam’s extremist politics, another senior journalist with an interest in Islamism was fully aware - and rather thrilled - about having a real live jihadist on the Guardian staff. If that it true, the Guardian was quite right to compensate Mr Aslam.”

He responded -

That infers nothing more than that Toube thinks that Aslam rightfully won his case against the Guardian

To which I replied -

But if Toube thinks Aslam was right to win his unfair dismissal claim against the Guardian, why did you take issue with Brownie’s suggestion that Toube “supports Aslam’s unfair dismissal claim”?

My comment was quickly deleted, as were several follow-up attempts to make the same point.

It is there now, but only because, in his words

Right, wankers - I’m leaving the computer for the rest of the evening, write whatever shit you like; all will be deleted when I get home at around 12, so enjoy your moment while you can.

TheIrie,

didn’t you have a capacity to render mine or MMN’s arguments or was it too complex?

I would add, in passing, how interesting it is that Hatherley’s response to uncomfortable facts is not to address them, but to delete them without comment.

for uncomfortable facts, read moot points embedded within streams of relentless abuse…

Hatherley claimed that this HP piece “calls for his sacking”.

It does not.

It is not a “moot point” to address the falsity of this claim.

that’s open to debate, yes, but an agreement will never be reached - one side will say “previous form and the context suggests quite clearly that DavidT was trying to silence Mr Hatherley and have him removed from the NS’s list of contributors”. The other side will say “Ah, but DavidT never used those those EXACT WORDS”, and the argument will go on and on, ad nauseam…

What’s clear is the amount of personal abuse that has been dealt out (in both directions, of course, although not equally).

Okay.

But given that I have never been abusive, why should my comment be deleted?

After having a quick look over at Mr Hatherley’s blog, it seems you’ve been posting without a name. Many ‘anonymous’ comments have been very abusive. Now, how was he to know that they weren’t from you (some made similar points to yours, but in a vindictive and aggressive vein)? Posted under a name you probably might still be up.

I’m not sure if you had anything up with a name that got ’snipped’.

Now, how was he to know that they weren’t from you (some made similar points to yours, but in a vindictive and aggressive vein)?

IP address?

And furthermore, that explanation makes no sense whatsoever, because there are, in total, 13 “anonymous” comments on that page.

One of which is abusive, and hasn’t been deleted.

AND Brownie’s comments, posted under his own name, were deleted, despite their non-abusive nature.

No, not buying that I’m afraid.

TheIrie you previously wrote:

“because most of the time you don’t want to discuss the merits of someone political arguments, but their background (especially whether they went to a posh univeristy) or what they think about the SWP.”

And you never wondered why?

Let me explain, I come from a very different background to most people at HP (bar Graham), the only time we’d a run across the middle classes was when we saw a teacher or the occasional doctor. I don’t have a degree or does anyone in my close family, it was more probable that we’d end up in Borstal or prison than ever go to University.

Having said that, I have a great respect for educationists, people who can digest information and ideas and put them across to the young, or not so young, and stimulate their minds.

So I am frequently disappointed when the products of the education system, who’ve managed to go to high-quality Universities, work their way through numerous exams, studied for hours take the piss, when there is a political argument.

By that I mean, they employ decidedly dodgy arguments (knowingly), use fallacies or intellectual sleight of hand to achieve their aims.

It is the disparity between going through an education system and then consciously rejecting what it has taught you, that is so irksome.

The middle classes are very fortunate to have the time, books, information and access to the wealth of ideas that exists across cultures, so when, instead of engaging honestly with the issues, some of the middle-class offspring deliberately engaging underhand arguing or intellectual tomfoolery, then it is a bit annoying.

I saw these less than reputable tactics employed over the years by politicos in trade unions and other organizations, and the net result is that it turns people off political debate, activism and participation in society.

That type of attitude runs across the political spectrum, but I can only comment on what I’ve run across and seen close up, which would tend to be on the Left, the Labour Party, trade unions and new Labour (aside from the working environment). And I think that I’m not alone in disliking those dubious lower-middle-class habits, this is evidenced by the decline in Labour Party membership figures and the predominantly white collar/professional composition of the Labour Party, but they are not alone.

If you were to sample the would-be saviours of the working classes, the SWP and assorted groupings, you would probably see a socio-economic profile (that is the class background and composition of its members) which is resemblant to that of High Court judges, the odd working class member, surrounded by a sea of graduates, a few blue bloods and aristocratic rebels, but not unsurprisingly hardly representative of society’s diversity or composition.

So when you look at these organizations and groupings, they are self-serving, opportunistic and relics of yesteryear, who tried to foist their arguments on the working classes and are surprised when they are rejected.

Then again, I suspect they’re not surprised as they won’t acknowledge it, introspection is not a quality that I found amongst the dimwitted end of the middle classes.

So to answer your point more succinctly, I’ve run across a lot of politicos and suchlike for decades. I’ve watched shifty arguments, spurious premises and conclusions which bear no connection to the evidence, and frankly it annoys me. I expect more from highly educated individuals, who have had the opportunity to go to University.

I like watching fine minds at work, which is why I listen to Mike Rosen’s show when I can (along with Laurie Taylor’s Thinking Allowed), so when I see intellectual shiftiness and political dishonesty I shall remind people that they should do better, given the investment that has been placed in their education.

That’s for him to know, i suppose.

I can’t really answer that, you have a point.

But then, no blogger is under any obligation to keep any comments up, and there are a number of pro-HP comments still up on SDM,YaBT(!), some of them pretty-well informed, such as Alec McPherson discussing early Bolshevik behaviour…

Every popular blog has its share of idiots hanging around (the Tomb definitely not excluded), but I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that HP has some very loyal, and very very strange followers, who seem to enjoy travelling around the internet being at least a nuisance, at most potentially frightening. The site’s commitment to ‘freedom of speech’ means that some people are tolerated (and thus tacitly encouraged) who perhaps ought not to be…

Anyway. I must go, all the best, thanks for not slandering me while I was here(!)

hang on MarkT, missed a few posts - I seem to recall ‘Brownie’ being pretty abusive, but it’s gone now, anyway.

You’ll note that there is a Hatherley post up there, about half way down, that points out that further comments are liable to be deleted, thus the threshold.

Anyway… really must be off.

The site’s commitment to ‘freedom of speech’ means that some people are tolerated (and thus tacitly encouraged) who perhaps ought not to be…

free speech = toleration = encouragement

Nice line in totalitarian logic from the Hatherway fanboy.

no blogger is under any obligation to keep any comments up

Well, of course. But then I wasn’t suggesting he was under any such obligation. I merely remarked on how curious it was that my comment was deleted.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that HP has some very loyal, and very very strange followers, who seem to enjoy travelling around the internet being at least a nuisance, at most potentially frightening

Strange? Frightening!? I suppose it depends on how easily scared you are. Perhaps you could give an example. But I doubt Owen Hatherley frightens that easily - certainly not enough to delete an innocuous comment.

The site’s commitment to ‘freedom of speech’ means that some people are tolerated (and thus tacitly encouraged) who perhaps ought not to be…

Doesn’t follow.

I seem to recall ‘Brownie’ being pretty abusive

He wasn’t.

hang on MarkT, missed a few posts - I seem to recall ‘Brownie’ being pretty abusive, but it’s gone now, anyway.

You don’t “recall” any such thing, I’m afraid; or at least, not until I was deleted.

After having my perfectly civil (but embarrassing for Owen) comment deleted, I left a short comment to the effect that I too would be tempted to remvoe comments if I’d been revealed to be “talking out of my arse” (re the supposed call for Owen’s sacking). If this meets your “abuse” criteria, then you probably should steer clear of online political discussion. And as I say, I was deleted before that comment was left.

Bob, reread the post. DavidT’s main criticism is for the NS publishing a book review by someone whose party membership (since established to be non-membership) precludes an honest appraisal. He doesn’t call on Cowley to sack Owen (who is not on the NS payroll in any case), rather, he calls on Cowley to clarify Owen’s (non)affiliation in a later edition.

I’m afraid this is important, whether you recognise it as such or otherwise.

Here is an excerpt from one of Brownie’s deleted comments -

“Pointing this out has prompted Owen to delete my comments, and has elicited a response from Murphy of “cretin” and from you a suggestion I am a louse.”

Terrifying and abusive stuff by Brownie there!

It is not “technically correct” (as per your weaselly formulation) to refer to Hatherley as “an activist in… the Socialist Workers’ Party” - it is false. If you had any actual decency (as opposed to “decency”) you would admit that your allegations are based on a false premise and print a proper retraction at the head of this post.

Rob, you’re wasting your time, but there are two lies in the statement:
”
In describing Hatherley as an ‘activist”, my post is techincally correct. He clearly is an “activist”, in the same way that Michael Rosen is.”

OH, is no activist in or for the SWP and neither am I. I think you’d be hard pushed to find anyone who would claim that someone sitting on their arse writing the occasional article and/or turning up once or twice a year for an open, come-all-ye event was an ‘activist’. I’ve known activists. They send round-robins, they go leafletting and fly posting, they are shop stewards for their union branches, they organise meetings, they speak at many meetings a year. If David T., doesn’t know all this, then he’s perhaps naive. If he does know all this, then he’s lying.

Mike,

Still couldn’t answer that questions, eh?

do my POLITICAL arguments about the world somehow become stronger if you knew my name? do they?

or do arguments stand on the merit of their logic, evidence and reason?

which is it, Mike?

OH, is no activist in or for the SWP and neither am I.

“Fello traveller” is the accurate and well-established term for what you are, Mr Rosen.

mod, you have a mistaken belief, held on to throughout hundreds of posts that you have the rights of some kind of court to demand that people answer the questions you concoct. Then, as it turns out, you sometimes pursue this further into people’s emails, where you also reveal things about yourself that I, for one, don’t really want to know.

You make the assumption that if a person doesn’t want to answer one of your questions, that they can’t. See, for example the defence of the Hollywood 10.

Yours is not a method of argument or discussion I recognise, or have to recognise. I’ve explained that it’s not just a matter of knowing someone’s name! The whole point about authorship and referencing is that one connects statements to a whole body of actions and a lifetime of statements. This is a corrective which this site uses over and over again, contrasting statements and deeds of politicians or commentators you don’t like, going over a period of time. As a method, it’s faultless. And yet, for some reason, the same code isn’t applied to anonymous posters like you.

For example, I seem to remember that I got into a discussion with someone here about whether I did or didn’t say ‘x’ to someone on a demo. Whereupon the anonymous discussant said that he/she would have said ‘x’ and I was apparently shameful because I hadn’t said ‘x’ sufficienly vociferously, or publicly etc etc. But of course, there was no way that the anonymous poster’s statement could be verified, and no way that someone who knew the anonymous poster could come forward and concur or repudiate what he/she had said. An argument about personal morality, turned out to be utterly one-sided. The person interrogating me (perhaps it was you) could easily have been a hypocrite, liar, self-deceiver and there was no way of checking.

Similarly, I’ve read here various claims made about whether people had or hadn’t opposed the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan right from the start. Again, unlike the public world of newspapers, TV and books, these kinds of statements can be verified. People who know the person in question can (and do) say that what the person is saying now, is/isn’t true and so on. The whole world of politics, law, literary criticism, revolve around the connections between deeds, statements and the people making them. I thought that the principles behind habeas corpus revolve around the notion that making accusations and indeed sentencing people without there being a ‘body’ there, was against the principles of justice. Well, mod, it’s good to see you upholding a principle that separates what you say and what you do from any living person. Yes, it gives you a freedom. When you’re arguing abstract points, it probably doesn’t matter very much. The more theoretical the point, the less it matters. But as you know, a lot of the discussion here isn’t pure theory. It’s about the morality of this or that position related to actual deeds and statements. That’s precisely why the link between the person and the deeds and statements is important. The most notable example of this is the case of Owen Hatherley, where David T has made an allegation about someone’s statements being linked to previous deeds, (ie being an ‘activist’ for the SWP) when it turns out that this connection doesn’t exist. It was only possible to rebut David T’s argument because Owen H. is his real name and this connects with a person whose deeds and statments can be verified. I think this process is valid and worthwhile. I suspect you do too, whilst at the same time wanting to hang on to your anonymity because it gives you a certain freedom, (if not a certain licence!).

People have misunderstood my objections to folks bringing my shit poetry or my dead son into the argument. It’s not that I think they shouldn’t! Doh! It’s that the very people who do that, deny me the same honour of bringing their shit poetry and dead sons into the argument too. That’s what people do face to face in a pub, in their front rooms. There isn’t much time there for the person who dishes it but can’t take it.

You folks here dish the dirt to eg Madeleine Bunting bringing up the fact that she’s a Catholic, as part of your arguments against her. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that process. (please remember that I said that). However, the person saying such things here, rarely lets us into an equivalent view of themselves. And when they do, it’s not verifiable. It could be complete bullshit.

And mod., next time you write to me, keep the details of your personal life to yourself, eh?

Dick R., you’ve addressed that corrective to the wrong person. I think it was David T., who made the original statement (either mistaken or lying) so perhaps you should fire it his way.

Michael,

What are you looking for? A blog environment where every poster and commentator has to make full and frank dsiclosure of who they are and what they do for a living? Does such a blog exist? If it does, is it actually a blog, or something else?

In my experience, anonymity is sought not because it grants an adantage in debate, but because most of us commenting here and at every other blog are doing so in what should be our work time, and/or because we’re nervous about what our bosses and/or clients might think of certain opinions expressed online if we shed our anonymity. Madeleine Bunting is not going to lose her job because some two-bit blogger on HP thinks she’s disappeared up her own arse, whereas Lenin’s motivation in unmaksing DavidT was, transparently, done in the hope that this would cause him problems in his professional life.

To be frank, it’s all very well for a (presumably) self-employed, published and successful writer to post using his real name, but to expect the same from, for example, the guy working in the accounts department of the local builders’ merchants, is taking the piss. Are you going to pay his rent when he gets the bullet because he’s been found to be discussing the machinations of various hard-left groupuscules when he should have been doing double entry?

It’s not that I disagree with your point that the anonymous debating partner has an advantage (for all the reasons you’ve cited previously), it’s just that I think whingeing about it when you are under no obligation to converse with such people is a little desperate.

If your anonymous interlocutors are arguning in bad faith - claiming experiences they’ve never had, statements they’ve never made and positions they’ve never taken - then they’ll trip themselves up eventually and they’ll look like berks. It’s one reason why I’ve never misrepresented myself online; I’m just not smart enough to avoid contradicting my ‘lie’ at some future point.

Oh I don’t think you need to worry about David T. You’ll remember, I’m sure, that David T. was doing the ‘unmasking’, so if he’s ‘unmasked’ himself, it’s…er…well, tough tits.

I take your point re people losing their jobs. But if that’s the case then such anonymice should remember that it’s an unequal game here. I’d love to be able to throw shit poetry and dead sons into every argument with you guys. That’s my whinge. It’s a ‘let me throw shit too.’

But if you think there’s no bad faith hanging about on blogs, puhleeze! The more popular and public the blog, the more bad faith. It’s not so much a matter of making false or contradictory statements over time, (and some anonymice change their handles anyway) as the matter of claiming moral positions for which there is no verifiable check.

No worries, I’ve thought it through now, and can see the limits of my objections. In the meantime, next time someone makes a brilliant link between ‘We’re Going on a Bear Hunt’ and the SWP in connection with something I’ve written, you can chalk that one up for blogical thought.