Harry's Place

The generality of Seymour’s conclusion, the broad sweep of his argument and the passion of his attack are overstated, dissipating their force.

Poor old Dickie has ignored what everyone has been telling him about all his arguments for years (presumably because he thought critics of his literary skills were all neocons.)

Time to wise up and face criticism without unleashing a defensive torrent of knee-jerk comebacks fatboy!

very funny, Marcus, but you’ll need shorter translations for any SWPers reading HP

eg.
SWP version:

argument stupid, generalises too much.

i checked the picture he posted on the tomb. it is true. he has been eaten all the pies

This is a rather nasty post. Does he deserve it?

he is a serial defender of some very nasty people….

Well, time for Mr Seymour to defend [again] his book… Jokes aside, he truly looks like a XIX century mademoiselle trying to defend her virginity…

I just hope he doen’t run out of that Duracell thing…

One thing you can say for Seymour is that he knows his audience.

Preaching to the converted has a long tradition with the more rabid left, who have raised the practise of quoting your mates and mentors opinions as evidence without any real core data, to the level of an art form. The master of this is Chomsky.

Seymour is little more than a conspiracy theorist for Trotskyists, the left’s answer to David Icke.

PS He’s not chubby; he’s just too short for his weight.

Chas, yes.

Seymour responds -

Perhaps… it would have been worth stating a position on international law, however briefly, if only to outline the view that law is an expression of force and will, not morality. Thus, while Sands contends in several lucid and highly readable dispatches that that the problem with the Bush administration is its subversion of international law, I maintain that the rule of law in international affairs is itself barbaric.

Easy!

So disregarding, at the very least, the General Council is recommended? What a confused young man.

I’m more interested in the guy’s weight than his writings.

Does he ‘eat’ his emotions, and are his politics merely an extension of his own personnal quanderies and percieved inadequacies?

Let’s put him on the couch, shall we?

Seymour’s response is very enlightening.

If law is the expression of force of will, what is therefore needed is an unimpeachable source of morality from which law can then be derived.

Suddenly, the attraction of Islamism to the left is understandable.

Floundering in the diametrically opposed forces created by their own logic, a simple solution appears as if by divine intervention.

GMS, while I a disagree with you I somehow wish that you had made the original post here. It certainly would have looked a little less like playground banter, and have been more worthy of being read byt somebody above the age of 10.

I like Philippe Sands, and I like Lenin, and I haven’t read the book. But in Lenin’s reposte, he points out that this paragraph by Sands is pretty indecipherable:

“Over the long term, the real critique of those who supported the latest Iraq war is that they killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place. It is not sufficient to label the US as “the chief inheritor of the legacy of violent white supremacy”. The more obvious conclusion – if such a claim is to be made – is that those who are on the receiving end of what Seymour perceives as US excess have, through the acts of their own governments, or their failure to object, contributed to their own oppression.”

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Oh, and by the way – look at the charge Sands makes against the decents, that they have “killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place”. Funny how Marcus didn’t try to translate that.
Not.

normal people might want to think twice before handing over £16.99 for the result of the poor chap’s efforts

Normal people won’t have heard of Richard Seymour or his book. I’m on the border between normal people and people who’ve heard of Lenin’s Tomb, and one side is all fields and puppies and lambs and the other is five or six ugly blokes arguing.

It is not sufficient to label the US as “the chief inheritor of the legacy of violent white supremacy”

It’s a bit silly basing your book on the thesis that Liberal attempts to intervene abroad are the same as (say) the scramble for Africa.

The more obvious conclusion – if such a claim is to be made – is that those who are on the receiving end of what Seymour perceives as US excess have, through the acts of their own governments, or their failure to object, contributed to their own oppression.”

If you are going to go around saying “it isn’t our business to interfere abroad” then you have to accept that by not overthrowing Saddam by chucking stones at him the Iraqi people kept themselves under oppression.

Simple, clear argument (unlike Lenin’s).

I see Verso has published the book. Does anyone outside academia even read Verso’s output?

Only a pretentious nitwit or masochist would want to read this, for example.

It doesn’t surprise me that Verso would snap up a book by some SWP pseudo-radical. Taking any notice of it seems a waste of time.

Not strictly on topic but for worth it for laughs, here’s an excerpt from a Lenin’s Tomb post (’The just-about-Gramscian theory of successful rioting’) written by one of Seymour’s comrades:

The good news is, given preparation (the opportunity for which, of course, is normally denied), the average citizen can match a police officer blow for blow. A police officer has access to hand arms, in particular clubs, but the ordinary citizen can get and/or easily improvise these. The same is true of body armour and self-defence. The police have roadblocks, the people barricades. The police can use sturdy, powerful vehicles, so can the public. The police can use tools such as water cannons to disperse a crowd but a resourceful crowd can use similar devices to reverse effect. The police can use small firearms. Even in Britain it is not impossible for a member of the public to get hold of some. Any weapons won from the police in battle can immediately be used against them … Current mass movements should be organized, their experience generalized so their achievements are not lost so when the big break happens we are not starting from zero again.

The ‘big break’. Yeah, don’t hold your breath.

Graham – but that makes absolutely no sense, and I don’t think Sands would say something that makes no sense. I mean, if you think that “it isn’t our business to interfere abroad” then you don’t have to accept what you say. There is no rule saying so, and nor is it logical.

So, I still don’t get it.

I mean, if you think that “it isn’t our business to interfere abroad” then you don’t have to accept what you say.

I have no idea what you are trying to say irie – as far as I can see I have given you a clear synopsis of that part of sand’s critique of Lenin’s book. He suggests (after considering Seymour’s arguments) that Lenin would be better off blaming the peoples of the world for not overthrowing their own governments rather than blaming America for “Liberal Imperialism”

Oh, and by the way – look at the charge Sands makes against the decents, that they have “killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place”. Funny how Marcus didn’t try to translate that.

Funny how Lenin didn’t try to argue that – oh but he couldn’t could he – he doesn’t believe force should ever be used by democracies – so the logical conclusion is that people just have to suffer….

I am not sure a prominent review, even a not-too-positive one, in a national newspaper (if you look at the paper copy, you’ll see it even gets a highlight on the cover of the review section) represents a “dream shattered”. I think it shows the book has legs ,so to speak. One of the comments above says “Normal people won’t have heard of Richard Seymour or his book” – well they will now, thanks to its reviews.

One of the comments above says “Normal people won’t have heard of Richard Seymour or his book” – well they will now, thanks to its reviews.

Oh yeah? Name one normal person who’s heard of it.

a “dream shattered” eh ?

Perhaps that’s the dream that the Guardian is a serious paper ?

I mean even reviewing such abject idiotic garbage is a step too far.

Oh, and by the way – look at the charge Sands makes against the decents, that they have “killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place”. Funny how Marcus didn’t try to translate that.

Funny how Sands didn’t attribute this to whatever TheIrie thinks “Decents” are. Or that the latter even knows the difference between a “critique” and copperplated truth.

Oh yeah? Name one normal person who’s heard of it.

I have, unfortunately, but I can guarantee then when I take my in-laws out for lunch next Saturday nobody will other than me will be aware that Richard Seymour exists and has written a terrible book.

‘The more obvious conclusion – if such a claim is to be made – is that those who are on the receiving end of what Seymour perceives as US excess have, through the acts of their own governments, or their failure to object, contributed to their own oppression.’

I think Graham’s right about this. Sands is saying that not all the killing or suffering that results from US military intervention can be blamed on the US, and that the governments or citizens of the states in question may have to share some of the blame or responsibility. Sands is criticising the ‘blame everything on US imperialism’ line that the SWPers and others like them go in for.

PS I don’t think it’s very nice to keep harping on about Seymour being overweight.

This is a rather nasty post. Does he deserve it?

Probably.
At any rate, I haven’t laughed so much for ages. Superb!

The Afghanistanis and the Iraqis are managing to terrorise their own populations quite well without American help. I think they managed to do it beforehand as well, and in fact I think they have quite a track record for it. At the end of the day, the population of those countries have to stand up for themselves, to imagine anything else is utopian. Change can not be successfully imposed from above. Gets me actually, I’m no lover of America, but I’ve noticed that there have recently been a couple of cases where murderers of Western soldiers have tried to argue that they should be kept in British/American gaols rather than handed to the state power of the country ie Iraq, and Afghanistan. If the western forces are so bad, why have human rights lawyers been arguing that it would infringe these murderers rights to be handed over to their fellow-countrymen and their own system of justice? Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Preaching to the converted has a long tradition with the more rabid left, who have raised the practise of quoting your mates and mentors opinions as evidence without any real core data, to the level of an art form. The master of this is Chomsky.

Chomsky also quotes himself as evidence. I mean, it’s there in black and white in a book – bound to be true, innit?

PS He’s not chubby; he’s just too short for his weight.

;-)

Ann: hearing about it is irrelent. Will they go out and fork their hard-earned for it? That’s all that the writer will care about.

considering serymour often takes the liberty to comment on other people’s appearance, i think it’s quite appropriate to call him a fat bastard.
he’s also totally devoid of charisma. did you guys catch that interview he did with galloway on presstv? 2 minutes of that and you understand why he uses such an aggressive tone on his blog.

Gene -”Oh yeah? Name one normal person who’s heard of it.” – well presumably the normal people who read the review in the Guardian – I am working on the assumption that of the few hundred thousand or so people who read the Guardian , many are normal, some will read the reviews , so , as they say in your country “do the math”. I am sure some peoples in-laws may not have read this review, but that hardly seems relevant..

It’s “do the maths” ;-)

Marko’s right,

how many healthy, well adjusted, clean, hygienic SWPers have you ever met?

1, maybe 2 if you are pushing it?

so the default, decrepit, physical state of most SWPers shouldn’t really come into political arguments

One of the comments above says “Normal people won’t have heard of Richard Seymour or his book” – well they will now, thanks to its reviews.

I’m going out tonight and I’ll do a quick survey in the pubs I visit. “Have you heard of Richard Seymour of Lenin’s Tomb?” “Have you heard of a book called ‘The Liberal Defence of Murder’?”

Actually no I won’t as if I did normal people would quite rightly tell me to fuck off and get a life. I don’t even know anyone who actually reads the Guardian, let alone SWP books.

I think in the US it would be “do the math”

Writing a book is a massive undertaking. Getting one published on a serious subject is extremely hard. Having it reviewed, even negatively (and I think Sands’ review was slightly more nuanced than Marcus’s take on it) in a national newspaper is something of a coup.

I don’t suppose I shall ever read Seymour’s book and I doubt I would agree with much of it if I did but, however flawed it is, for addressing the subject and arguing his case at length, he deserves more than the bitterness, spite and envy detectable in much of this thread.

A common complaint #cough# #cough# KB Player #cough# #cough# is that inordinate efforts are devoted to disparaging women’s appearances. So, can we oblige her as say something far, far worse than calling him chubby on one occasion?

“I don’t even know anyone who actually reads the Guardian” (?!) – I think its circulation is around 350,000, and you don’t know anyone who reads it ? I think you might need to widen your circle of friends a little.

Simon, I’ll say similar as I do about Lauren Booth getting attention had she parroted her bro’ in law’s line, namely that if a two-bit blogger wrote a sub Coulter polemic I doubt he would have received this attention.

he deserves more than the bitterness, spite and envy detectable in much of this thread.

He’d better get used to it – we haven’t seen the Times review yet.

“potentially important book” is not all bad.

Graham – I guess the Times reviewer will read the book and address the arguments, rather than calling the author a fat Trot, or whatever….

Sands is saying that not all the killing or suffering that results from US military intervention can be blamed on the US, and that the governments or citizens of the states in question may have to share some of the blame or responsibility.

Yes it follows logically from Sand’s point that some usages of force are right and some wrong and that Lenin’s attempts to sweep all wars under the big hat of “Liberal Imperialism” is a fundamental flaw of the book.

the US has used force for a multitude of different reasons over the past five decades, and that some instances are justifiable whereas others are not. In short, not every use of force justifies a charge of murder. You need some basic criteria to distinguish between what is just and unjust, lawful and unlawful, murderous or not. Seymour doesn’t identify any.

Also, I have to say, I too did not understand this

“The more obvious conclusion – if such a claim is to be made – is that those who are on the receiving end of what Seymour perceives as US excess have, through the acts of their own governments, or their failure to object, contributed to their own oppression.”

Anyone else explain it?

I guess the Times reviewer will read the book and address the arguments, rather than calling the author a fat Trot, or whatever….

Wouldn’t you just love the Times reviewer to call it “Fat Trot-rot”?

It would be almost as good as that three word review of Isherwood’s “I am a camera” : “Me no Leica.”

350,000 out of a population of 62,000,000 is not a lot. Personal experience from years of observing people’s reading material on the train and at work suggests that Guardian readership is very much the exception. More people read Heat and Hello magazines

The curious thing is that Phillipe Sands and Seymour ought to be on the same side – after all, they agree on the ‘evils’ of the Bush administration, they instinctively provide apologias for Islamist supremacism, and both are pompous self-obsessed narcissists.

The killer for Sands is that Seymour’s rant is so anti-intellectual, so unbalanced and unmeasured, that any association with it would undermine his own project (the creation of an international order governed by enlightened human rights lawyers).

This isn’t a ‘potentially important book’; it is the leftist counterpart to Jonah Goldberg’s awful ‘Liberal Fascism’.

however flawed it is, for addressing the subject and arguing his case at length, he deserves more than the bitterness, spite and envy detectable in much of this thread

LOL. Envy? Some of us have done comparable things. What you call ‘envy’ etc is actually amusement at someone wasting good paper on juvenile self-importance.

This isn’t a ‘potentially important book’; it is the leftist counterpart to Jonah Goldberg’s awful ‘Liberal Fascism’.

What is your objection to Liberal Fascism? I’m reading it right now, and must say, after a hundred or so pages, it’s pretty interesting.

NO – if you’d read the book, your opinion might be worth listening to.

Simon, we often read Seymour’s writing. Should we consider this to be any different?

Alec – wait until you’ve read something before you criticise it, is generally a good rule. Because if you haven’t read it, what’s the point?

I read Sands’s review and Lenny’s response. It’s interesting because while Sands has done great work in exposing UK complicity in rendition, he still believes that Western foreign policy can have a positive effect and that the whole post-1945 structure of human rights is worth having. Seymour doesn’t and, although he protests that his style of anti-imperialism is different from pacifism, the only real difference is that Seymour supports genocidal ‘resistance’ movement.

The exchange provides a real contrast between a principled leftwing writer and an SWP spindoctor.

Another good rule is to criticise the work, not the writer. Physically unattractive people sometimes manage to produce good books.

Again, Simon, I can usually predict what the next Terry Pratchett is going to be like. I read Seymour’s writing once or twice a week. Has he turned into Tolstoy here?

Alec – I don’t know. I haven’t read it.

Simon, from what I have read in excerpt, and my general experience of reading one piece of his writing to find it indistinguishable from a previous piece, I’m going to hazard a guess that this is complete and utter kak.

Keith Vaz quite correctly took a pasting when it turned out he hadn’t watched the Geert Wilders film he was slagging off. Saying that ‘everybody knows te sort of thing Wilders says and stands for’ didn’t cut it as a justification. Same applies here.

Girth = intellect

(btw, doesn’t Harry’s Place have its own portly sorts? I seem to recall one Morgoth detailing his weight issues in this very comments section…)

‘considering serymour often takes the liberty to comment on other people’s appearance, i think it’s quite appropriate to call him a fat bastard.’

The danger of sinking to the enemy’s level is that one may end up resembling them. I don’t like Seymour at the personal level either; he’s spiteful and abusive. But abusing even nasty people about their physical appearances creates a bad atmosphere; then it becomes ok to treat even better people that way. And before we know it, we’ve turned into an SWP-style lynch mob.

Simon, Vaz showed himself not to have any acquaintance with Wilders’ opinions (and was rusticated by people who had not love for Wilders), let alone having expended the relatively minor effort (of 15 minutes) compared to the greater time required to read this whole book. Also, Vaz is paid and publicly feted for his opinings: blogging is not.

I am aware of Seymour’s writings, and based on this empirical knowledge, and making an assumption that this is similarly dismal.

Marko, the level of criticism of Seymour’s physical appearance here has been no worse than that meted out to Louis Proyect, which you have described as one of the funniest troll-baiting exercises ever.

The danger of sinking to the enemy’s level is that one may end up resembling them.

The danger of always trying to stay above their level is that everything dissapears beneath a middle-class “oh he’s really tried hard even if he is a loser” comfort blanket.

Alec – I’m not trying to prevent you expressing an opinion on a book you haven’t read; I’m simply pointing out that, set alongside Marko Attila Hoare’s detailed and scholarly refutation of key points of the book, saying “I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s kak” feels a little lightweight. But, you know, the internet’s a democracy and everyone has the right to an opinion….

Marko Attila Hoare’s detailed and scholarly refutation of key points of the book,

Which cements my impression of its being kak.

saying “I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s kak” feels a little lightweight.

Welcome to a world where pointed pejoratives can be used for comedic effect.

‘Marko, the level of criticism of Seymour’s physical appearance here has been no worse than that meted out to Louis Proyect, which you have described as one of the funniest troll-baiting exercises ever.’

As I recall, the worst thing anyone said about Proyect’s physical appearance on that thread was that he had silly facial hair. The funny thing about that thread was the way his unreconstructed Marxist-dinosaur politics and obnoxious personality were dissected and made a laughing stock.

I’m all for subjecting the Seymours of this world to similar treatment, and found Marcus’s original post very funny and not at all nasty or unnecessary.

I’m sorry, Marko, I’m lost. Marcus called Seymour “chubby”, he’s been called a “fat bastard” or “short for his weight”… what’s your complaint?

‘I’m sorry, Marko, I’m lost. Marcus called Seymour “chubby”, he’s been called a “fat bastard” or “short for his weight”… what’s your complaint?’

I just feel the point’s been made once or twice too often.

If Seymour were slim and handsome, it wouldn’t make his politics or his book any less awful.

Who could not love Seymour’s “research”. Like claiming in the book Jospeh McCarthy sat on the House Committee on Un-American Activities(He didn’t) or that Eugene Mccarthy was the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee(which would be big news to George McGovern)

Am I missing something? Someone earlier said this:

“the charge Sands makes against the decents, that they have ‘killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place.’”

Now I am guessing he means that because Iraq was such a debacle, nobody else will do a humanitarian intervention even when massive human rights violations occur. That, of course, is simply a matter of opinion. I dont agree with it. Under the right circumstances, given the right leaders, i don’t see Iraq having any effect one way or another. And has Sands considered that ANY western humanitarian intervention would have the same or similar results as in Iraq? Perhaps it’s inherent in interventions.

Am I missing something?

No. Sands does not make that charge “against the decents” (that is Irie embellishing things as usual). What he says (after spending the entire review pointing out the problems with Seymour’s thesis) is that in his view the best criticism that the author could have made of anyone who supported the war in Iraq is that in the long term it has made such wars more difficult and that Seymour’s rather odd descision to take A scattershot aim at “liberal and progressive intellectuals” doesn’t hit home.

Hang on a minute. “Because Iraq was such a debacle”? Perhaps we’re only a year or two from realising that it might have worked after all, that Saddam would definitely have functional WMD by now if we hadn’t done it, and that the problem was just that a few iraqis preferred killing each other to doing anything constructive, and most of those have done it now, and the rest are getting on with rebuilding? And if it comes to “garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place”, that was never going to be a runner if the UN Security Council had to be involved and so the permission of Putinochet and Hu Hee was required. No, what we’ve learned is that if force needs to be deployed the Anglosphere is going to have to go it alone. And we will, I hope, once this lot is over.

“What is your objection to Liberal Fascism? I’m reading it right now, and must say, after a hundred or so pages, it’s pretty interesting.”

Well I thought it looked interesting too so I read a bit of it (no I haven’t read all of it) but soon realised it is just another example of a modern penchant for arguing that something you don’t like is actually the same as something else – generally thought of as its polar opposite – that is more generally disliked (think “Zionism is Nazism” and you get the idea).

The people that say these things are intellectually dishonest. They do not – can not possibly – really believe what they say but nevertheless do so, cheapening debate for the purpose of effect. Goldberg would be right of course to argue that there is a deeply authoritarian streak on the left. He would also be right to note that some individuals on the left have transfererd over to the far right with little apparent change tp their idiosyncratic views. But that is old hat – all been said before so he goes out on a limb with the “fascist” nonsense.

To smear a whole, dare I say decent, ideology to which many in genuinely authoritarian regimes aspire for what can only be effect, (”yes I know its ironic but follow my [dubious] logic and you’ll see!”) puts Goldberg’s views out of court for me. And by the way, before I wrap up I’ll just ask how much damage is being done today to political discourse by the excessive taste for that kind of “irony”, and are not these the kinds of opposite that Orwell in particular identified with authoritarianism.

My only contribution to this (curiously flattering) thread:

a) The difference between Marcus and myself is that no one cares what Marcus thinks.

b) MAH is lying when he pretends not to like me (finding me ’spiteful’ and so on). His stalking is the product of love – believe it.

c) Few contributors here, including the poor fool who started the thread with this post, appear to have read the book. Anyone who opens his/her mouth to talk about something s/he doesn’t know about invariably looks a fool – as you do now.

Just out of interest, if Richard Seymour is so stupid and retarded why do HP bloggers write about him so much? You guys are obsessed. Oh yeah, and where are your books, most of you don’t even have names. Fucking cowards.

And, with that devastating riposte from someone without a proper name, how can anyone reply?

Logic 101, Richard Seymour has posted on this thread so does care what Marcus thinks. Logic 102, Richard Seymour is no-one.

Logic 201, Richard Seymour calls Marko Atilla Hoare a liar who is secretly in love with him; also announces his intention not to address any responses to his scatter-gun attack on critics in this thread. Logic 202, Richard Seymour is spiteful and abusive.

Logic 301, Richard Seymour has been demonstrated not to have read at least some of the books or articles cited in his book. Logic 302, Richard Seymour is a fool.

I haven’t read the book, nor am likely to in the near future.

But, are liberals more prone to imperialism than socialists, communists, marxists, conservatives, fascists or the like?

Why does Seymour/do you focus on liberals? Because liberals allegedly say or think they are the nice guys and least prone to imperialism (unlike the other guys)? Is the purpose of the book to show liberals, and especially or particularly liberals, just how more hypocritical they are than they other sorts?

Is there evidence that liberals, howsoever one defines them, are more prone to imperialism than any other type.

Or does one define “liberal” as

a) someone who claims to be a nice, anti-imperialist kind of guy, neither left nor right, but

b) has the power to imperialist, or is close to the power to imperialist, and

c) this is a situation that befalls those neither or the left nor the right, but in the middle, or liberal types of politician, more than any other?

Is there something about centrist (lukewarm?), or however one defines “liberal”, politician that is both more prone and more able to imperialize than others?

I appreciate these may be gauche questions, dumb even. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

“Oh yeah, and where are your books, most of you don’t even have names.”

‘cos, like, “Lenin” is a real (as opposed to pretentious and grandiose) name.

The difference between Marcus and myself is that no one cares what Marcus thinks.

Oooh get you Bismark!

‘MAH is lying when he pretends not to like me (finding me ’spiteful’ and so on). His stalking is the product of love – believe it.’

Richard may be too young to remember the Young Ones, but there’s a scene that comes to mind involving the characters Vyvyan and Rick (who’s a bit like Richard) that some of the rest of you might remember:

VYVYAN: Shut up, or I’ll tell everyone in this room that you’ve got an iron-on cartoon worm on the front of your Y-fronts that says “Girl Bait.”

RICK: [uncomfortable] Oh, so you’ve been going through my Y-fronts, have you, Vyvyan?! I suppose you fancy me, is that it?!

VYVYAN: [pause, acting] Yes! As a matter of fact, I do, Rick! I
really really fancy you. And I want to give you a big girlie kiss on the bottom!

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/hawkslane/231/yo26.html

Juswundrin -

what’s with all this “imperialist” stuff anyway? It’s a dead easy way of putting someone in the wrong in the eys of people who don’t or can’t think. If we’re socialists, we’re representing a trend of thought which is only active in one part of the world, and if people call us “imperialist” for promoting it, then they can eff off. Imperialism is better than natrionalism any day of the week.

Call the Police! But they’re fascists! Never mind that now, just call the Police, I’m choking on a bacon sarnie!

Have you seen old Dickie’s photo of his bookmarx launch? He says the place was packed but I have to say I have had more people in my front room after the pub on a Saturday night!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MlQp6PDIUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf3rQY7S9iY

It’s about five minutes and twenty seconds in…

This is the only review in the press of Seymour’s book that is not by someone on the far left, but they’re still an notoriously antiwar lawyer! Jesus. But even this guy, Sands, is able to see the facile nature of Seymour’s case and point out the obvious; that it’s absurd to paint all US actions as murder and unjustified – something that any sane, rational person would know.

One has to wonder what type of review Seymour’s book would get from someone who was at least a little bit more objective on Iraq. Crikey, eh, Richard? Oh dear.

And it’s no good Seymour claiming that Sands is using the different criteria of law, whereas he is judging these things in morality terms. Seymour has explicitly stated on many occasions that morality is something that the dreaded liberals do, not the far left, which is why it is okay for him to oppose operations that stops genocides and wars, and protect women and children. Indeed, he has castigated people who “moralise” about helping people in foreign countries and openly supported the minority terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan that killed countless people and prolonged the war. Seymour even once said that if not one single life had been lost in the liberation of Iraq, and 100% of the population supported it, he would STILL have opposed it. How the hell is that moral?

No, Seymour has always been a straight forward Kissinger of the left who sees the world in purely western, geopolitcal terms. Take away morality and law and that’s all his left with. That is transparent. No point desperately trying to hide behind morality now, old boy – you’ve already made your own bed.

It is interesting that Matt suggests that Harry’s Place has some sort of obession with Seymour YET if you go over to Symour’s website and type in “Harry’s Place” on Lenin’s Google search on the site, there is over 89 seperate mentions of Harry’s Place.

Pot calling the kettle black

Lenin, aka Richard Seymour,

Some of have read your book. I am fascinated by your grasp of US history. Please enlighten me on how Eugene McCarthy was the Demcratic nominee for president in 1972. (Page 151 for those with their copy handy)

We all thought it was George McGovern.

Seymour always has a clever little stock answer for what he would do. His standard response to the Rwanda issue for instance is to say the west already intervened beforehand, neatly avoiding the issue of whether he would have agreed with the world powers not to bolster the peace keeping force to stop the killing.

This is why he is not credible. That kind of crap works on the net and far left message boards, but not with mainstream people like Sands.

I have seen this book available in university bookstores in Princeton and Harvard, so its not as obscure as some of you might think.

“It is interesting that Matt suggests that Harry’s Place has some sort of obession with Seymour YET if you go over to Symour’s website and type in “Harry’s Place” on Lenin’s Google search on the site, there is over 89 seperate mentions of Harry’s Place.”

Not only that, he has a little logo for “HP Sauce”. That’s love, man.

A lot of people have said that paying attention to Seymour only gives publicity to someone who’s obscure and irrelevant, but since the book has been reviewed by the Guardian, Independent and New Statesman, and seeing as the author was advised by some fairly well known people, it can’t really be ignored. Otherwise, it might become ‘established’ among Guardianista and Stopper types that the book is anything other than rubbish.

Guardian readership is very much the exception. More people read Heat and Hello magazines

Their review is out shortly under the headline: Richard Seymour: my struggles with weight and verbosity.

hadn’t seen the Galloway interview until now, what is the deal with swuppies wearing black shirts? Callinicos and Harman seem to do this a lot. Is it supposed to indicate a lack of vanity?

Sales are going well in the US too. Nearly every book shop in New York has it featured. Chew on that.

Sales are going well in the US too. Nearly every book shop in New York has it featured. Chew on that.

The ignorant nonsense called ‘The End of History’ sold very well. Proves nought.

NO – if you’d read the book, your opinion might be worth listening to.

Simon, if you said anything remotely relevant, interesting or useful, yours might be. You are not the arbiter on my opinions. So fuck off.

Keith Vaz quite correctly took a pasting when it turned out he hadn’t watched the Geert Wilders film he was slagging off. Saying that ‘everybody knows te sort of thing Wilders says and stands for’ didn’t cut it as a justification. Same applies here.

Try getting your brain in gear before posting. KV hadn’t seen ANY Wildeers. Some of us have read RS’s ramblings before. Your analogy is nonsense.

Just out of interest, if Richard Seymour is so stupid and retarded why do HP bloggers write about him so much? You guys are obsessed. Oh yeah, and where are your books, most of you don’t even have names. Fucking cowards.

Yeah, right, ‘Matt’ is exactly how your name appears in your passport … idiot.
I do have a name. It appears above or below everything I publish irl. The fact that I have a screen name here, which is what you have also, proves nothing.
Oh, and yes: you are an idiot.

>> Nearly every book shop in New York has it featured.

Yeah, right.

As we know, fat is a feminist issue. It’s therefore germane to this discussion.

Or does Mr Seymour not wish to debate feminism anymore for fear of alienating his clerical chums? (like how he finds atheism “frankly offensive”, Mary Whitehouse-style)

Matt,

We are not suprised that Seymour’s book is selling well in the USA. We here in the States love our fiction.

in all fairness to Richard Seymour, he probably did much of his “research” on wikipedia and gave early drafts to be read by his SWP comrades, who know next to nothing

that’s why his book will be littered with errors, a post modernist headbanger writing for ideologues, proof read by SWP dim wits, where facts and evidence are considered to be incidental to the arguments

Does Wikipedia really say that Eugene McCarthy was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972?

Ah well, it wouldn’t surprise me.

maybe Seymour used the SWP’s own version thickipedia?

I note that BBC3 ’star’ James Corden, no stranger to larger sized attire, is something of a hit with the ladies and therefore dubbed an “unlikely sex symbol”.

Can we perhaps look forward to similar kiss and tell on Lenin’s Tomb some time soon? Your public demand it, Richard.

then again James Corden probably uses deodorant and brushes his teeth with greater frequency?

I quite like Sands’ stuff when I come across it. And him, when he’s in full flow with the right interviewer, but he is a bit obsessed (as expected after a lifetime in the trade) with the legal aspects of IR rather than the real politique and the tragic history of “morally motivated foreign policy”.

I’m not sure if the Guardian should have chosen Sands as the reviewer because he does seem to miss the point – Seymour’s book is about the period after the fall of the USSR and how some lefty “thinkers” (in effect, media pundits) grew increasingly aligned with their old ideological opposites.

It’s that realignment that’s important.

It DOES do a very good expo on the imperialist ambition behind “humanitarian military intervention”. It does explain REALLY WELL how liberal thinkers helped to shape and embroider the arguments for politicians and it’s very good on how/when/where they created a reasoned “moral” and intellectual “justification” in the english speaking west. But only in the west.

I, personally, am a veh veh old person and do recall Hitch going head to head with Reagan’s neocon samurai on a Clive James show sometime in the 1980s… when James tried to do intellectual TV on BBC2 – and they wiped the floor with him. And I recall Nick Cohen getting womped by NewLabour in the mid 1990s (because he dared to crit their betrayal of their class and ideology). And I think it hurt both men. And, more importantly, it left them fearing they may lose their audience. An audience. Any audience. See Francis Fukuyama, Niall Ferguson et al, once the neocon tide went out. Watch our cheer leaders for Banking & the City backtrack or be replaced.

And, in a way, that’s what this book should really have been about – and that is a harsh criticism.

But what do I know, I is just some twat who wastes time writing on a pro-zionismistic bloggy site comment page for a bunch of feral hasbara merchants sooo keeeen to join a lynchmob against perceived enemies they donevenbovver to read the book first.

me here wrote, “how some lefty “thinkers” (in effect, media pundits) grew increasingly aligned with their old ideological opposites.”

That certainly describes Richard Seymour. The Left used to be against religious fundamentalism and for the liberation of women. Seymour et la are now in bed with the far right when it comes to such issues, granted, he probably is soild on such issues when it comes to white, Anglo-Saxons but Arabs on the other hand don’t deserve it.

I couldn’t help thinking of a video of Galloway’s show The Real Deal, in which he interviews Seymour, and highly recommends the book. He referred to it as “erudite,” or something to that effect.

My God, such mediocrity in the world. I guess standards don’t really matter if the writer is on your side. If he echoes your own thoughts eloquently, you’re going to think he’s brilliant

Well, if you define lunatic fantasies as ‘thoughts’, Joanne ;-)

Don’t get me wrong, I mean, Aaronovitch, Hitchens and Cohen aren’t exactly the slimmest around the commentary circle. But they are at least over 40…

(one thing not remarked upon is that while Seymour was prepared to be interviewed by Galloway, did he not celebrate the SWP decoupling from Respect on his own blog with some aplomb, ie. saying thank god he didn’t have to defend him anymore etc. Short memories…)

Perhaps Lenin’s celebrity status could be confirmed in future via the sobriquet ‘hefty lefty’ appended to his name ie. “Hefty lefty Richard Seymour weighs into the debate (geddit?) on …” etc.

I hope no necessary connection is being postulated between corpulence and the tendency to allow left-wing positions to get swamped by sympathy for Islamofascism. I am 5 ft 9, 17 stone and a roaring Islamophobe.

I note that Lenin has just linked to a more favourable review – more a hagiography to be honest – of his book by none other than Louis Proyect

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/lproy52.html

“To get straight to the point, Richard Seymour’s The Liberal Defence of Murder is a masterpiece of intellectual history”

Hmm

‘I hope no necessary connection is being postulated between corpulence and the tendency to allow left-wing positions to get swamped by sympathy for Islamofascism. I am 5 ft 9, 17 stone and a roaring Islamophobe.’

Seymour doesn’t much like Muslims either, when it’s a question of ordinary Bosnian Muslims being slaughtered in Serb concentration-camps; he regrets we didn’t all simply let Karadzic and Mladic get on with it.

He does, on the other hand, like the the sort of Muslims who blow up innocent civilians in Iraq or Israel…

““Over the long term, the real critique of those who supported the latest Iraq war is that they killed off any hope, for now at least, of garnering support to use force where massive violations of fundamental human rights are taking place. It is not sufficient to label the US as “the chief inheritor of the legacy of violent white supremacy”. The more obvious conclusion – if such a claim is to be made – is that those who are on the receiving end of what Seymour perceives as US excess have, through the acts of their own governments, or their failure to object, contributed to their own oppression.””

I’m not sure I can agree with this.