The BNP shop


by Rumbold
27th April, 2010 at 10:40 am    

Further to Jai’s post below, I suggest people go and visit the BNP shop, or rather what Nothing British imagines would happen the BNP were able to institute their protectionist agenda.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Humour,The BNP






108 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: The BNP shop http://bit.ly/99Uj1B


  2. The new and improved BNP shop- not a bargain in site « Spinneyhead

    [...] Pickled Politics April 27th, 2010 | Category: BNP, General Election [...]


  3. petsalerts

    Pickled Politics » The BNP shop: … beef made from farmers who are chopping down the rainforest, sofas from china… http://bit.ly/clDMdL


  4. The Trump Network

    Pickled Politics » The BNP shop http://bit.ly/cAn7BX


  5. Auto Insurance Quotes Online|free online auto insurance quotes|Free Online Auto Insurance Quotes

    [...] Pickled Politics » The BNP shop [...]


  6. Beyond The Comrades (or, Good Blogs I Disagree With)… « Back Towards The Locus

    [...] notes were part-inspired by a comment from my fine comrade Naadir Jeewa… By the time a “consumer” starts getting interested in [...]




  1. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:43 am  

    Lee John Barnes,

    Are you allowed to comment on behalf of the BNP anymore?

    Just asking, because your silence has been golden, and your hearts have had wings.

    Y’know what I am saying?

    It would seem that the BNP would like to deny you. You answered a few of Jai’s questions, in an, err…

    not very BNP way.

    Are you stuffed, or still part of the core idiocy?

    Just asking.

    I’d be grateful for a astrological notion. Am I you friend or am I am I your enemy?

    That would do it.

  2. Kismet Hardy — on 27th April, 2010 at 12:03 pm  

    John Barnes was a black footballer. How times change

  3. Ravi.Nk — on 27th April, 2010 at 12:31 pm  

    I like what I see: attacking the BNP on their economic policies as well as on the track record of its leaders.
    I mean, not many people bankrupt their parents in their old age, but Nick Griffin still feels he is qualified to lead Britain.

    This sort of initiative is far more effective than any “Hope not Hate” campaign.

  4. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 12:32 pm  

    Muppet back.

    You claim to be, correct me if I am wrong, the BNP legal advisor?

    Would that be correct, Mr Lee John Barnes, idiot of this parish?

    It may have not escaped me that you are an an utter idiot.

    A complete utter buffoon. A mentally challenged lunatic?

    Oh, well.

    I am very sorry for you, you mad fucked up wanker.

    I like the folk that write here, I like what they have to say.

    You, however seem to assume that white folk like me, give a fuck for idiots like you.

    Now fuck off and die, you ignorant piece of shit!

  5. sofia — on 27th April, 2010 at 12:56 pm  

    lol @ pp = student wankers…at least we’re educated wankers

  6. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 27th April, 2010 at 1:17 pm  

    I am sure Nothing British love the fact that we get cheap consumer goods in the UK made by children in factories in India, beef made from farmers who are chopping down the rainforest, sofas from china filled with toxic chemicals, pet food and toothpaste from china filled with poisons, products made in Taiwanese sweatshops with bonded labour, goods made in Chinese gulags filled with prisoners convicted of crimes like ‘wanting a democracy’, jewellery products made from resources like blood diamonds and such goods as heroin, cocaine and ‘party drugs’ made in chemical factories in China that kill British kids.

    You forgot ‘shit ridden newspapers printed in Slovakia’ and ‘t-shirts made in Honduras sold out of John Walker’s front room’ honest mistake, I’m sure.

    Incidentally, in the eighties the far right were all for globalisation and actively campaigned against striking workers (who were trying to save British jobs) as they believed industrial action was a Judeo Bolshevik plot to take over the country.

    A mentally challenged lunatic?

    Google for – “Mental health worker – poss help with lee barnes?”

  7. Ravi.Nk — on 27th April, 2010 at 2:01 pm  

    we get cheap consumer goods in the UK made by children in factories in India…ignores the tens of millions of young kids in slave factories in India and Pakistan forced to work for a pittance

    Which companies are exploiting slave factories in India and Pakistan?

    Furthermore, given that the BNP wants to heavily tax *any* foreign product to protect British products, this whole talk about caring about child labour is total bullocks. But we wouldn’t expect anything less from you, Lee Barnes (LLB Hons).

  8. Kismet Hardy — on 27th April, 2010 at 2:02 pm  

    Don’t be so angry Mr Barnes. I drink lucozade because of you

  9. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 27th April, 2010 at 2:11 pm  

    On a connected thought, I see a lot of topics on immigration and race and the BNP both here and at Liberal Conspiracy.

    You could make the argument that as they are hot topics, guaranteed to attract racists and bigots, there is an air of exploitation in their use and as both of the sites in question are left-leaning ones; providing material to attract heat from the more undesirable elements of the Internet.

    Their is also the problem of giving air time and exposure and relevance to ideas and people that are not deserving of it; weakly, some might say, under the banner of alleged humour.

    Perhaps more crucially though, is that these posts, attractive as they are to racists and the small-minded, are always chronically poorly policed and descend into havens for racist bile and while racist smears may get deleted, racist ideas stand for all to see.

    In tandem with this, no real efforts are made to reduce sock-puppeting, identity theft and abuse, so that the victims of these attacks are made to feel as if they are partly responsible for them and have to self-exclude from the debates, while the racist trolls carry on freely.

    It reflects badly on both sites, their moral code, status and effectiveness.

    I look forward to the moment when both sites will be run responsibly, with compassion and a common sense of decency.

  10. Ravi.Nk — on 27th April, 2010 at 2:21 pm  

    a scheme to ensure the most stupid, corrupt and racist pricks in the country get jobs they dont deserve…
    …Britain exploit the pseudo-issue of racism to grow rich off whitey

    That sounds like your master, Nick Griffin. He is the most stupid racist prick I know who has a job he does not deserve (MEP). He exploits latent racism of his base to grow rich of … white people. And as for affirmative action, he is given the chance to lead a national party despite being totally unqualified – but he is allegedly indigenous so I guess that’s all it is required. That, and of course having his old dad and mom to pay off his reckless investments (did I mention he is a stupid prick?) and as a result completely bankrupt his parents.

  11. Kismet Hardy — on 27th April, 2010 at 3:25 pm  

    I like Griffin. He’s a regular Family Guy

  12. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 5:28 pm  

    Obviously I agree with Daniel Hoffman Gill @ 9.

    He and me may have our differences, but on this subject we are completely united, I think. The difference is one of reasonable debate and dealing with utter scum.

    I think DHG and I can see that difference.

    We should not be allowing racists house room and I am delighted that Lee John Barnes comment has been deleted!

  13. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 6:28 pm  

    Hmm…

    I can’t help myself apparently.

    So, sorry about that. These folk try to pretend to speak for me when they just don’t.

    I find the BNP philosophy incredibly unhelpful.

    Perhaps it is because we, North of the Border, appear to have a largely civic idea of national identity, not one about written genes or whatever it is that makes us black or white. It comes down to identity, I think.

    It angers me a lot that racists in England have a completely different idea of what it means to be English, or British or whatever. And that they are given a free reign on that. It is completely untrue and, as far as I am concerned, pollutes discussion.

    If I have offended anyone that is not a white racist that posts here, then I apologise. My target is only white racists, and my language and tone is only directed at them. They should not be given house room, and I am glad to see that, at least on Rumbolds’ threads, they aren’t.
    ;-)

  14. Don — on 27th April, 2010 at 6:40 pm  

    Still, it was nice to see Lee (LLB Hons) back, however briefly. I’ve been a bit worried about him. One sometimes can’t avoid holding one’s nose and glancing at BNP and other far-right web-sites and some of the things they have been saying about him are very harsh. And couched in quite indelicate terms.

    When knuckle-draggers see you as an adjective liability, that must be quite hurtful. Good to see that he’s still the same old Lee (LLB Hons).

    Daniel,

    I don’t agree that these threads are poorly policed. Racist ideas are frequently left up because ideas are ideas and if the commenter manages to avoid outright slurs and abuse then these ideas can be addressed.

    Personally I try to avoid getting sucked into flame wars with the cut-and-paste merchants who descend on these topics, but I seem to remember that Sunny made a broad decision that if a thread was actually about the BNP then they could comment on that thread as long as they remained civil. But not elsewhere. Probably more a guideline than a policy and apparently not requiring regulars to be civil in return.

    Seems fair to me.

  15. questioner — on 27th April, 2010 at 6:46 pm  

    btw how does banning commentators and deleting posts sit with Sunny’s position of being “militantly free speech” particularly when it comes to supporting publishing media that offend religious sensibilities?

    Seems a double standard/ confused position.

  16. Don — on 27th April, 2010 at 6:52 pm  

    Not very confused, surely? I’m sure Sunny supports their right to say what they want to say (short of actual incitement to violence) but doesn’t feel obliged to host their views on this site.

  17. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 7:24 pm  

    Don @ 14,

    Yes, I think he did.

    However you might like this:

    http://tinyurl.com/3ylurxe

    It is a voiced novella, so kick up a chair and relax a bit. A glass of wine would be good.

    It is the reason science fiction matters….

    Which side are we on?

  18. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 7:31 pm  

    @15

    They don’t like it up ‘em, Mr. Mainwaring sir!

  19. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 7:39 pm  

    questioner @ 15,

    Why don’t you set up your own web site and see what sort of traffic it attracts? You have a point of view, and you are hanging around here on the off chance that anyone here will agree with you?

    I think that is unlikely.

    So, go out on your own.

    You may find friends and comrades there. I am nearly positive that, apart from sock puppets, you will not find any allies here.

    Just my opinion, obviously….

  20. Naadir Jeewa — on 27th April, 2010 at 8:29 pm  

    It would be fine to have BNP members making their points here if they were actually interested in sharing opinions with an open mind.

    But they’re not. They know full well that we’re not going to spend any length of time on their sites, but nevertheless they come over to progressive sites and foul up our dialogues. Because domination and subjugation are the only methods of expression that they’re interested in.

    The comments section of a blog is not a legally circumscribed place which needs free speech protection rights. It’s a space for conversation; consensus-forming at best, reasonable disagreement at best.

  21. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 8:41 pm  

    Naadir Jeewa,

    I absolutely agree with you. I think much as you do, that our debates are being completely fouled up by disagreeable idiots.

    I may not agree with you on something, but I respect you as a human being.

    Our new ‘friends’ do not respect either you nor I.

    I think you are a voice worth hearing, and contrarywise, I think you have time for my voice too.

    That is the area of debate.

    They are however totalitarian bastards.

    Least, that’s what I think.

  22. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 8:58 pm  

    @20

    They know full well that we’re not going to spend any length of time on their sites…

    I’ve often wondered why that is the case. The traffic is heavily asymmetrical. ‘BNP types’ seem quite prepared to enter the lion’s den, as it were, and to subject their views to critical scrutiny in places like this, but ‘anti-BNP types’ are curiously reluctant to venture far beyond their comfort zone.

    A dispassionate observer might draw particular conclusions about the relative defensibility of one set of views versus the other from this particular anomaly.

  23. Naadir Jeewa — on 27th April, 2010 at 9:07 pm  

    @20

    We don’t spend much time on neo-nazi or jihadi websites either, so you might want to take your observations to their logical conclusion.

  24. Rumbold — on 27th April, 2010 at 9:21 pm  

    It wasn’t me deleting things, it was Mr. H.

  25. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 9:23 pm  

    Neo-Nazis and jihadis are vanishingly rare and have no political representation so its not surprising progressives would not feel a need to engage them.

    The BNP, and European nationalists generally, are an entirely different kettle of fish and I should have thought that progressives would feel duty bound to be seen to be confronting their platform and arguments, otherwise they run the risk of being considered unable to do so.

    I’m familiar with the ‘no platforming’ and ‘deny them oxygen’ stance but isn’t that just a little passé these days?

  26. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 27th April, 2010 at 9:56 pm  

    The BNP, and European nationalists generally, are an entirely different kettle of fish and I should have thought that progressives would feel duty bound to be seen to be confronting their platform and arguments, otherwise they run the risk of being considered unable to do so.

    If you confront their ‘arguments’ you’re a jackbooted liberal elitist stamping on the face of the silent majority/white working class/insert ingroup du jour here.

    If you don’t, as you say you’re considered unable to do so.

    Best thing to do then is hoist them by their own petard, in this instance by pointing out how much bnp merchandise is made abroad and the number of foreigners directly involved with the running of the bnp, at least one of which is a convicted terrorist.

  27. KB Player — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:01 pm  

    Re Lee John Barnes – I used to enjoy baiting him and seeing other people bait him as he frothed over with his abuse and crazy theories, but after a while it became a disgusting sight. I really do think he is mentally ill, and he should be prevented from being on threads as they get him so worked up. He appears literally deranged.

    I’m not being sarcastic here or using words like crazy or insane like you do when you disagree with people’s ideas. I think there is something wrong with him.

  28. Naadir Jeewa — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:02 pm  

    @25 – Well, the “no platform” thing, in my mind, is to do with debating extreme nationalists in front of a public forum.

    It’s not the same as blogs and the comments boxes, which shouldn’t be confused with those types of political spaces. Readers of blogs are already ideologically sorted. When blog and comment writers do “cross over” to the other side it’s generally to flame, and this tends to push each side to further extremes, i.e. there is absolutely no moderating effect in having such dialogue. That’s the group polarisation thesis of legal scholar Cass Sunstein, and the evidence does play this out, even in the less daunting conflict of Republicans v. Democrats. See this for example.

    We should just accept that blogs are not unlimited facilitators of dialogue, and just maximize what we can get out of them. To that extent, I don’t think it’s worth having our conversations overrun by people who are not going to be convinced by any argument counter to their own, and likewise we’re not going to be convinced by their arguments.

  29. Ravi.Nk — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:14 pm  

    I’ve often wondered why that is the case. The traffic is heavily asymmetrical.

    What is your basis to say it is heavily asymmetrical? My experience is that most racist boards tend to be heavily moderated to avoid any dissenting views.

    but ‘anti-BNP types’ are curiously reluctant to venture far beyond their comfort zone.

    There is actually nothing to be gained by engaging with BNP-types. They are largely ignorant about their own History, basic science and have mediocre reasoning skills. And to be honest, it is very hard to take BNP rhetoric seriously, which is why most OPs here tend to go to the humour section.

    I mean, when they say they want to protect the identity of the indigenous people and Britain as a Christian Nation, one needs to wonder how our school system must have failed so many people.

  30. KJB — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:15 pm  

    It would be fine to have BNP members making their points here if they were actually interested in sharing opinions with an open mind.

    But they’re not. They know full well that we’re not going to spend any length of time on their sites, but nevertheless they come over to progressive sites and foul up our dialogues. Because domination and subjugation are the only methods of expression that they’re interested in.

    The comments section of a blog is not a legally circumscribed place which needs free speech protection rights. It’s a space for conversation; consensus-forming at best, reasonable disagreement at best.

    Hear, bloody hear!

  31. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:19 pm  

    Cpl Jones,

    As an obvious BNP supporter around here:

    A dispassionate observer might draw particular conclusions about the relative defensibility of one set of views versus the other from this particular anomaly.

    A dispassionate observer might wonder other stuff. Like, why a hateful little fascist like you is allowed to hang around here?

    Just asking our good hosts

  32. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:22 pm  

    You don’t feel then that politically-oriented blogs are a part of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ where contesting propositions and ideologies can be presented and tested?

    Of course it’s entirely appropriate that the proprietor of such an organ can choose to limit access to whomever or whatever he chooses, but in so doing the utility of his vehicle becomes artificially constrained, especially when only views which are congruent with his own are permitted an airing. That seems to verge on the narcissistic and even cult-like.

    As for being over-run, my casual observation of traffic here over the past several days would not indicate that there has been much danger of that occuring. The main message that an uncommitted observer would take away is that awkward, dissenting voices have been stifled for reasons that have not been made very clear by the board’s management.

    Even the board’s supporters (with a few vocal ‘no platformer’ exceptions) must have been wondering what has been going on.

  33. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:28 pm  

    What is your basis to say it is heavily asymmetrical? My experience is that most racist boards tend to be heavily moderated to avoid any dissenting views.

    On the contrary, a number of the more prominent have open-posting policies, subject of course to sensible rules on forum etiquette.

    Even Stormfront has an ‘Opposing Views’ forum on which ‘antis’ may post freely.

  34. Ravi.Nk — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:29 pm  

    To that extent, I don’t think it’s worth having our conversations overrun by people who are not going to be convinced by any argument counter to their own, and likewise we’re not going to be convinced by their arguments.

    True. And perhaps there are some arguments that can only be judged by our personal moral values. For instance, many of us were brought with the idea that we should not judge people on the basis of how they are born. Others will share the belief of a pecking order based on race and ethnicity. There is very little that one can say that can change the other person’s mind.

  35. KJB — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:29 pm  

    The main message that an uncomitted observer would take away is that awkward, dissenting voices have been stifled for reasons that have not been officially explained.

    Translation: CENSORSHIP! LIBRUL FASCISTS! I like how ‘Cpl. Jones’ here mentions his ‘casual observation of traffic here over the past several days’ – do you have Google Analytics inside your head, ‘Cpl.’?

    How dull. Whether one likes Richard Dawkins or not, he said ‘Offence is what people take when they can’t take argument,’ and that sums up pretty much all trolls, including ‘Cpl. Jones.’

    It’s not clever and it’s not original – Cristina Odone used EXACTLY the same argument recently, trying to smear the Lib Dems because people took apart her pathetic attempt to (first) smear Dr. Evan Harris.

  36. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:30 pm  

    KJB,

    Naadir Jeewa is a very nice person? I completely agree, and that Sarah AB is OK too. And also Sunny Hundal and Rumbold too.

    There is nothing bad about them, however.

    And you, too, are a very nice person.

    The sort of people you’d like to talk to about stuff?

    It is a disaster that you can’t.

    Because this site has been taken over by idiots.

    Not good people like you, but by idiots.

    Hopefully, someone will tidy it up…

    I live in hope.

  37. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:40 pm  

    Well I don’t KJB, but it’s not like this place is exactly throbbing with traffic is it? So it doesn’t take more than a quick dekko to see what’s going down, especially when many so posts are essentially content-free whingeing about the management needing to ‘do something’ and how nice it would be if those wascally waycists could be made to go away.

    And I don’t know what makes you feel I have taken offence, I’m merely describing the scene as viewed through the other end of the telescope.

  38. Naadir Jeewa — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:45 pm  

    @32 – By the time a “consumer” starts getting interested in blogs, they’re likely to have already sorted themselves into an ideological camp. They’ll then seek blogs that tend to fit round their worldview. And yes, this can lead to “echo chambers” on either side.

    That in itself is indicative of a political “market failure,” which is why I don’t really believe in the “marketplace of ideas” analogy. It’s only led to political fragmentation and disunity.

    Call me old fashioned, but I think the problem can be laid squarely on the mainstream media, which has itself fragmented due to market forces, and the transformation of political parties (particularly of the left) in the post-Cold War period into big-tent parties that chase the median voter whilst ignoring those left out.

  39. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:48 pm  

    Cpl. Jones

    I doubt this place will ever have huge ‘traffic’.

    It will, however, always have people that think a bit conversely to you.

    Goodnight, and good luck…

  40. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

    I agree about the malevolent influence of the MSM not about the political fragmentation. For all the current excitedly breathless brouhaha about the possibility of of a LabLib coalition or a ConLib nobody seems to want to acknowledge the presence of the elephant behind the sofa: the LibLabCon coalition that has been in office since at least the mid-90s.

  41. KJB — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:56 pm  

    And I don’t know what makes you feel I have taken offence, I’m merely describing the scene as viewed through the other end of the telescope.

    Riiight. Gosh, how noble of you then to monitor this site on behalf of ‘uncomitted [sic] observers’ everywhere.

    So it doesn’t take more than a quick dekko to see what’s going down, especially when so posts are essentially content-free whingeing about the management needing to ‘do something’.

    How delightful! Perhaps everyone everywhere should adopt this method of ‘taking a quick dekko,’ and just do away with facts.

    You might’ve tried taking a quick dekko at the site’s description though:

    Our primary focus is always on British politics, current affairs, media and society. We are not a general culture and entertainment blog.

    We have an Asian (meaning South Asia) tinge to our stories as some of us are of that background, but our politics are broad and progressive.

    The blog is largely by, and for, a British Asian perspective. A great deal of traffic to the site is also from India, Chennai in particular… So I’m afraid your opinion on the content is not that important, nor are you representative of the vast majority of ‘uncommitted observers’ who visit, but don’t comment.

    Anti-racism 101: it’s not all about you. You might find Stormfront more to your liking, as you indicated above.

    Douglas – Sunny only deletes the stuff that is verging on full-on hate speech, or vicious personal insults. Many of our recent crop of trolls are just smart enough to fall below that, and so the mods leave their twaddle up for us to laugh at and poke huge holes in.

  42. KJB — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:58 pm  

    Naadir, you totally rock.

  43. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:11 pm  

    KJB,

    Douglas – Sunny only deletes the stuff that is verging on full-on hate speech, or vicious personal insults. Many of our recent crop of trolls are just smart enough to fall below that, and so the mods leave their twaddle up for us to laugh at and poke huge holes in.

    Perhaps from your perspective that is true. From mine, as a white person it is not. I do not see this as a game.

    I like Sunny, I am entitled to like Sunny. I am not entitled to have racist lunatics telling me that I shouldn’t like him.

    I will stand up for Sunny, if that what it takes, because I see him and I in exactly the same mirror.

    He and I are are the same, mainly.

    Is that too hard for you to understand?

  44. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:19 pm  

    By the time a “consumer” starts getting interested in blogs, they’re likely to have already sorted themselves into an ideological camp. They’ll then seek blogs that tend to fit round their worldview.

    Yes I can see that’s likely to be the case. However the default mode in western liberal democracies is for consumers to embrace a progressive ideology (that is what is imparted to them through the educational system, and subsequently reinforced by the MSM). Some people manage somehow to evade or transcend this social conditioning and then become ‘renegades’ (nationalists and the like). These days the internet plays a key role in this ‘awakening’ process, a role which used to be played by samizdat literature in earlier times.

    That this is the case is surely demonstrated by the incessant clamour from progressive elements to shut down ‘hate speech’, especially on the internet.

    Is it not then incumbent upon progressives like yourself to assist in this crusade, and to actively engage with the forces of darkness wherever they appear, and especially when they turn up at your home ground, rather than pretending that they don’t exist. You need to be seen to be doing your bit to return these misguided renegades to the fold.

    I’ll tack on a little p.s. for ‘KJB’:

    I may have have missed the ‘over-running’ you refer to since I only looked at the BNP-oriented threads. Please point it out so we can all see what you’re so worried about. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that we are entitled to assume that you’re imagining it.

  45. KB Player — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:20 pm  

    eo-Nazis and jihadis are vanishingly rare and have no political representation so its not surprising progressives would not feel a need to engage them.

    The BNP, and European nationalists generally, are an entirely different kettle of fish and I should have thought that progressives would feel duty bound to be seen to be confronting their platform and arguments, otherwise they run the risk of being considered unable to do so.

    Can’t say I see much difference between the BNP types that come this way and neo-Nazis. As for debate, how can you debate with people who think that the movements of tribes just after the Ice Age somehow has to be taken into consideration when you’re talking about modern British politics.

    BNP politics boil down to hatred for non-whites and disgust at miscegenation. Anything they say is built on that foundation.

  46. Naadir Jeewa — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:28 pm  

    I’m reminded of something Žižek said last year:

    There are two modes of ideological mystification in today’s society:

    Form 1 – Liberal-democratic false universality, that is the advocacy of explicit freedom and equality, with implicit qualifications (massive substantive inequality).

    Form 2 – The fascist mystification, where class struggle is displaced onto the Other – Jew / Muslim.

    However, there’s an asymmetry.
    In form 1, the explicit content is good (equality for all), whilst the implicit content is bad (unmediated capitalism).
    In form 2, the explicit content is bad (fascism), whilst the implicit content is good (substantive equality).

    Both of these are a fetishism. Liberal-democratic universality leaves traces in material life that explodes the notion of the presumed equality of white males (from which liberalism is derived). Nevertheless, it is quite easy to convince an honest liberal democrat that they are cheating (such as when Bill Clinton admits that food security is perhaps a human right and should be taken off the market), but this only leads to a withdrawal into cynicism.

    The problem with form 2, is that to demystify the fascist’s fetish is much more difficult, both theoretically and practically—which only shows how ingrained the fetishism is functioning.

  47. douglas clark — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:55 pm  

    Naadir Jeewa,

    Just to take exception if I may as an at the very least a Beta male, or summat?

    You say:

    There are two modes of ideological mystification in today’s society

    Where did that come from?

    I don’t happen to think that that is true. I think that that is what folk in well paid jobs think we should think.

    I think there is no ideological mystification going on. I think that that is complete crap.

    I think we think what we think, and sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong.

    There is nothing mystifying about it, not really.

    Obviously you disagree. Well, lets here it from you.

    What is your justification for this idea of ‘ideological mystification’ which, frankly is beyond reasonable thought…..

    Do explain.

  48. Cpl. Jones — on 27th April, 2010 at 11:57 pm  

    An interesting hypothesis, has it been tested?

    But I suggest there is more than a kernel of truth in the proposition that ‘fascistic fetishism’ (which I am taking as a proxy for any belief-system which does fall within the approved template) is harder to undo, or ‘demystify’

    Once a person has been awakened, and I mean properly, ideologically awakened and not simply jolted through being a victim of a recent mugging, they can almost never be put back to sleep.

    So in that sense, the progressive mission is not to convince renegades to be born again, but to prevent new renegades from forming. The only way to do that is to conclusively demonstrate where the renegades are going wrong. Nothing British isn’t fit for purpose.

  49. KJB — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:04 am  

    Is that too hard for you to understand?

    Er – is that addressed to me, Douglas? I’m a bit confused. If you’re saying you object to all the racists, then believe me I do too, but the mods have only so much time available to delete all their comments. I like to bring my own angle to bear on them occasionally, but for the most part, I find them so very repetitive and dull, I’d rather just take an antihistamine if I want to sleep.

    And I know this was directed at Naadir, so pardon me Naadir:

    Is it not then incumbent upon progressives like yourself to assist in this crusade, and to actively engage with the forces of darkness wherever they appear, and especially when they turn up at your home ground, rather than pretending that they don’t exist. You need to be seen to be doing your bit to return these misguided renegades to the fold.

    No. No, we don’t. Anti-racism 101, #2: You do not, as a white male racist, go around telling non-whites and their anti-racist allies what to do. Your language is utterly laughable (and telling, too) – ‘forces of darkness’?! Do you think we find the BNP scary? Oh dear. Furthermore, BNP members and their supporters are not, and never will be, ‘misguided renegades.’ These are a bunch of hate-inciting, quasi-terrorist, extremist loons who want to either kill or deport me and mines.

    I may have have missed the ‘over-running’ you refer to since I only looked at the BNP-oriented threads. Please point it out so we can all see what you’re so worried about. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that we are entitled to assume that you’re imagining it.

    In the words of Gary Coleman: Whatchu talkin’ about, fool? I said nothing about ‘over-running.’ And there’s no ‘we,’ there’s only ‘you,’ racist. We have lovely white regulars (KB Player, above, and Douglas)and one of our best writers is white, but you have 0 right to claim any sort of consensus with them. Unless you were referring to your fellow racist trolls?

    Remember: trolls come and trolls go We see the likes of you constantly here, so we will neither be told what to do with you, nor are we obliged to take you seriously, even though some of our more persistent regulars might give you a go.

  50. Cpl. Jones — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:05 am  

    should be ‘does not fall’ in #48

  51. douglas clark — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:10 am  

    Cpl. Jones @ 48,

    Well, do you actually want to engage in the discussion?

    I suspect you assume that we are discussing an excuse for the kernel of your fascism, which I don’t think we are, but there you go.

    The kernal of fascism is hatred of the other, is it not? Is that not what the kernel has always been about. Be it Jews or Gypsies or whoever you chose to dislike?

    Would that be true?

    Would you supplant everyone on this planet with blue eyed blondes?

    I suspect you would, and I suspect you have no place here, corporal jones…

  52. Naadir Jeewa — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:12 am  

    I was just putting Zizek out there, and he’s pretty out there.
    From Zizek’s perspective, anything other than a class-based subjectivity is going to involve some sort of ideological mystification. More accurately, it’s tied up with his Lacanian-Hegelian-Marxist philosophy. I like him for diagnosing problems though I don’t always buy the explanation (which are generally untestable). To that extent, I think he’s right about an asymmetry problem, and some political scientists are beginning to notice.

    In any case, this just came in my inbox, which I think speaks to my point about the collapse of leftist parties:

    Why is it that some countries have witnessed significant increases in inequality since the 1960s while at the same time experiencing very little change in the way politics is conducted? And why is it that in other countries, where inequality has increased much less, the Left has become substantially more redistributive? The answer, the authors argue, has to do with the interaction between inequality and political mobilization of low-income voters. The
    authors make two points in this article. First, high levels of inequality move Left parties to the left. Second, although increasing inequality pushes the core constituencies of Left parties to the left, it also makes some individuals less likely to be involved in politics. The authors argue that Left parties will respond to an increase in inequality only when low-income voters are politically mobilized.

    …low-income workers seem to be caught in a vicious circle. Increasing inequality makes their preferences for redistribution stronger, but decreasing mobilization makes their demands less relevant to Left parties, which in turn makes these parties less redistributive when they get to power, and so inequality
    grows further.

  53. KJB — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:15 am  

    Actually, I’m going to come right out and say that I think that Rumbold is THE best writer here, not ‘one of the best.’ No offence to Sunny or earwicga – you guys are great too, in your own ways!

  54. douglas clark — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:21 am  

    KJB,

    Err, well maybe. I am very fond of this site and the person that built it. Who would be Sunny Hundal.

    That is nearly all I have to say on the subject. But it is worth remembering that you are here, as am I, on the back, or basis or summat, of Sunny Hundal’s good grace.

    Seems to me.

    ————————-

    It was directed at Naadir Jeewa, see @ 47 for detail, who needs to explain, err, quite a lot really.

  55. Naadir Jeewa — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:25 am  

    Oh yeah, Zizek was directing his attention at the SWP’s alliance with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. His concern was why bother trying to coax fascists when you can bring liberals over to the socialist fold.

    He got blacklisted from the SWP for a while for that, as far as I know.

    I was looking for a more expansive article where he draws out his ideas more fully, but I can’t find it. I’m relying on the notes I made in the lecture. The full video is here, if you’re so inclined.

  56. BenSix — on 28th April, 2010 at 12:51 am  

    By the time a “consumer” starts getting interested in blogs, they’re likely to have already sorted themselves into an ideological camp. They’ll then seek blogs that tend to fit round their worldview. And yes, this can lead to “echo chambers” on either side.

    I can’t imagine, by the way, what these people gain(besides self-affirmation, that is)…(or is that enough?).

  57. Naadir Jeewa — on 28th April, 2010 at 1:18 am  

    @56 -

    In-group deliberation has its benefits. For starters, it’s likely to increase political participation. It also probably makes people have more ideologically coherent views and make them more informed. They’re also likely to consider a wider range of views within the broader ideological camp.

    It can also provide a secure environment within which new ideas may be discussed to be brought into the mainstream later. A formally organised analogue would be the liberation movements for black, women & LGBT students within the NUS, which are deliberately closed to those who don’t identify as a member of one of those groups.

    However, there’s a slight caveat in the empirical evidence:

    In Unequal Democracy, Bartels examines how better informed and worse informed liberals and conservatives respond to a question asking whether economic inequality (as measured by income differences) had increased or decreased over time. The differences (see the graph below) between liberals and conservatives are striking. The better informed that liberals are about politics in general, the more likely they are to answer (correctly) that income inequalities have increased over time. The better informed that conservatives are about politics (in general), the less likely they are to give the correct answer. In other words, greater exposure to political information makes conservatives less likely to be right.

    This is basically something that’s been a long-term interest of mine vis-a-vis climate change. Any answers beyond the obvious (they’re being lied to) would be helpful.

  58. BenSix — on 28th April, 2010 at 1:24 am  

    For starters, it’s likely to increase political participation. It also probably makes people have more ideologically coherent views and make them more informed.

    That makes sense. My reading list is wildly divergent, and my head’s a terrible muddle. Presumably – if the linked post is correct – conservatives are quite scrupulous on other issues; their knowledge had grown around little, ideological grains.

  59. Sarah AB — on 28th April, 2010 at 7:52 am  

    I strongly agree with Ravi @34. What these discussions sometimes mask – because they unite us against people we all dislike – is that PP posters and commenters disagree with each other quite a lot. I tend to agree with Rumbold but often disagree with Sunny. But I’m pretty sure that Sunny – and others I tend to disagree with – have goals and values which aren’t terribly different from mine. That means that discussions are genuinely constructive and can lead to people shifting their position – or at least seeing the other point of view more clearly, or learning something new. But as Ravi said, the BNP types who’ve been commenting here have totally different *values*, and that makes any exchange of ideas impossible, and arguments between us pointless.

  60. Rumbold — on 28th April, 2010 at 8:30 am  

    I started out on this site leaving comments, and disagreeing quite a lot with Sunny and others. I still do, but have never felt as though this site is ideologically constricted. The site naturally attracts a certain type (more so than others), because of the subject material.

  61. Jai — on 28th April, 2010 at 1:24 pm  

    For instance, many of us were brought with the idea that we should not judge people on the basis of how they are born. Others will share the belief of a pecking order based on race and ethnicity. There is very little that one can say that can change the other person’s mind.

    …..But as Ravi said, the BNP types who’ve been commenting here have totally different *values*, and that makes any exchange of ideas impossible, and arguments between us pointless.

    This is exactly what I’ve repeatedly been saying. Given the extent of deep-rooted psychological conditioning involved on the part of core BNP members, it’s a futile exercise to attempt to engage in an “exchange of ideas” with such people. (It reminds me of when various senior Allied officials at the Nuremburg trials commented disparagingly that interacting with the surviving Nazis was like interacting with people from a completely different moral and religious framework). Nobody else is under any obligation whatsoever to “try to change their minds”, particularly if this is clearly an impossible task; like their Islamist counterparts, it would actually require them being subjected to a formal deradicalisation effort by clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and other professionals with the requisite specialist expertise in various fields. And even that would be pointless in some cases. There are some people whose level of cognitive dissonance and psychiatric disfunction renders them beyond hope of rescue.

    In the meantime, for those associated with such cults, the onus is on them to desist from their proselytisation efforts as “online missionaries”, stop interacting with like-minded fanatics (either online or in the real world), and proactively try to objectively & honestly understand where they have gone wrong, rather than expecting various third-parties to spoon-feed them all the answers, especially those who are actually the targets of their ignorance and bigotry. Refraining from relying on viciously racist and antisemitic websites such as ‘Stormfront’ and ‘Majority Rights’ for their understanding of global history and human society would be a particularly good start.

    The people involved have not been “ideologically awakened”; they have slipped into ideological oblivion. In such cases, the same problems apply as to militant Islamists who have fallen prey to (for example) the legacy of the warped views of Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, and fundamentalist Wahhabism, irrespective of how “ideologically awakened” such individuals may feel themselves to be. This includes members of Al-Muhajiroun, the exact counterparts of the BNP.

    Finally, “Cpl.Jones“, aka “Dan Dare” — Although we already know that adhering to the British legal system is not necessarily a priority within the BNP, considering the disproportionate number of members possessing criminal records, you have repeatedly been notified that you have been formally banned by this website’s owner. As a result, you are still in violation of British law by engaging in the ongoing criminal activity of attempting to comment on this blog under aliases. Get out.

  62. js — on 28th April, 2010 at 9:14 pm  

    “considering the disproportionate number of members possessing criminal records”

    Care to prove that piece of slander, Jai? Remember you claim “disproportionate numbers”…

    “As a result, you are still in violation of British law by engaging in the ongoing criminal activity of attempting to comment on this blog under aliases.”

    This is just silly mate. It is not even remotely a crime, not even in this country, not yet.

    Harassment requires legal process not an individuals say so, and pertains to the person, not to a public forum; the electronic communication legislation relates to emails and not to comments posted on an internet site.

    If you really believe this nonsense Jai then why not just walk into a police station and report it? Because you would be rapidly laughed out it would be my guess.

  63. Cpl. Jones — on 28th April, 2010 at 9:41 pm  

    The other thing that Jai will need to convince Plod about in order to initiate a prosecution is that the alleged miscreant is in fact who Jai claims he is, and that he falls within the jurisdiction of British courts.

    Especially since pickledpolitics.com is itself not hosted within England or Wales.

  64. Wibble — on 29th April, 2010 at 9:47 am  

    Griffin was on Radio 4 this morning – I caught the tail end of the interview. Basically, he claims the White Britons will be a minority sometime between the middle and end of this century (this was as a statement, I’m not sure if he gave details earlier). He mentioned Professor Colman the Oxford demographer without details.

    He talked about repatriation and gave a figure of £50K per person, and claimed it could be recouped from money “wasted” on global warming initiatives and from the foreign aid budget. He claimed that 180K people per year could be repatriated under such a scheme. When asked about foreign aid he pointed out that we give aid to India, a nation with its own space program when we don’t have one. He then expressed “sympathy” with Malawi saying we steal the doctors and nurses they paid to train.

  65. Jai — on 29th April, 2010 at 11:12 am  

    The other thing that Jai will need to convince Plod about in order to initiate a prosecution is that the alleged miscreant is in fact who Jai claims he is, and that he falls within the jurisdiction of British courts.

    Especially since pickledpolitics.com is itself not hosted within England or Wales.

    The same online harassment laws apply in the United States — in fact, they’re even stricter about such matters.

    and pertains to the person, not to a public forum; the electronic communication legislation relates to emails and not to comments posted on an internet site.

    Let’s get this clear: This website, whilst indeed in the public domain, is entirely the private property of Sunny Hundal. He has full ownership of absolutely everything that is displayed on it. He has the full legal right to display or delete material on it as he sees fit, both in the main articles and on the subsequent comments threads. He also has the full legal right to ban commenters from participating on the discussions as he sees fit.

    Banned commenters do not have the legal right to continue trying to post comments on this website, especially if it involves using aliases or other methods geared towards circumventing the ban.

    It is the equivalent of going into a restaurant, department store, office, or other privately-owned premises in the public domain, and then either refusing to leave or repeatedly returning under various guises even after the management has thrown you out.

    Now, if it does not suit BNP activists’ purpose to publicly admit that they are such arrogant thugs that they are willing to deliberately ignore the wishes of the owners of private property and persist in repeatedly gatecrashing the premises even when they have been told they are permanently banned from there, then that is your prerogative. But let’s be clear that you are on someone else’s private property and are publicly disregarding the fact that the facility to remain there (or get thrown out) is both legally and morally entirely at the discretion of the owners.

  66. Jai — on 29th April, 2010 at 11:12 am  

    The other thing that Jai will need to convince Plod about in order to initiate a prosecution is that the alleged miscreant is in fact who Jai claims he is, and that he falls within the jurisdiction of British courts.

    Especially since pickledpolitics.com is itself not hosted within England or Wales.

    The same online harassment laws apply in the United States — in fact, they’re even stricter about such matters.

    and pertains to the person, not to a public forum; the electronic communication legislation relates to emails and not to comments posted on an internet site.

    Let’s get this clear: This website, whilst in the public domain, is entirely the private property of Sunny Hundal. He has full ownership of absolutely everything that is displayed on it. He has the full legal right to display or delete material on it as he sees fit, both in the main articles and on the subsequent comments threads. He also has the full legal right to ban commenters from participating on the discussions as he sees fit.

    Banned commenters do not have the legal right to continue trying to post comments on this website, especially if it involves using aliases or other methods geared towards circumventing the ban.

    It’s the equivalent of going into a restaurant, department store, office, or other privately-owned premises in the public domain, and then either refusing to leave or repeatedly returning under various guises even after the management has thrown you out.

    Now, if it does not suit BNP activists’ purpose to publicly admit that they are such arrogant thugs that they are willing to deliberately ignore the wishes of the owners of private property and persist in repeatedly gatecrashing the premises even when they have been told they are permanently banned from there, then that is your prerogative. But let’s be clear that you are on someone else’s private property and are publicly disregarding the fact that the facility to remain there (or get thrown out) is both legally and morally entirely at the discretion of the owners.

  67. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 29th April, 2010 at 12:32 pm  

    My comment at 9 still stands and no on here has offered a reasonable defence of what is a lacklustre and arse end forwards comments, the best we have had is the ‘hoist by own petard crap’ as if we need more racist nonsense on the Internet.

    And no one has engaged with the idea of immigration threads as traffic fodder.

    I see no one taking responsibility.

    I see that the obvious sock puppeting of Douglas Clark’s identity goes unmoderated in this very thread.

    I see the same old racists abusing the forum here using a variety of identities and proxy servers.

    The solution, which is the commentators identity being a log-in to comment here and a registration policy, is simple enough but I get the sense that number of comments in some people’s mind still equals success.

    And until that changes, PP and Lib Con will remain slightly watered down equivalents of the hornet’s nests at HP, Guido and to a lesser extent Iain Dale.

  68. KJB — on 29th April, 2010 at 1:02 pm  

    DHG:

    I can’t speak for LC, but I have a man on the inside here ;-) and there are not enough moderators to keep PP neat.

    I don’t particularly like giving racist ideas space either, but Sunny and Leon tend to be too busy to go through and weed, and Rumbold is a fan of the light touch – he believes in the ‘hoisting them by their own petard’ approach. As do some of the commenters here – a few tend to keep repeatedly engaging with BNP trolls despite the fact that it makes no difference, and other people end up joining in to leave the odd piss-taking comment here and there. I generally think we shouldn’t feed trolls, but I occasionally intervene. I have repeatedly asked people not to do so, and been ignored, so ho hum.

    I have to just say – where has douglas’s identity been stolen on this thread? I’m not seeing it (though I have seen it before, and seen the horrible, obsessive sock-puppeting you endured on LC).

  69. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 29th April, 2010 at 6:03 pm  

    I appreciate your repsonse KJB, I really do.

    I think it is a real problem that you do not have enough hands on deck to moderate debates effectively, esp. as the site engages difficult subject matter but washes its hands of the implication of that engagement and also applies pressure not on the bigots but those that are not.

    I also think that the mantra of hoist them by their own petard is terribly flawed and just gives their views space and equal footing when they are not of equal merit, hence they return time and time again.

    It shouldn’t be up to those of us with courage and a conscience to ignore the racist trolling, it shouldn’t be here in the first place.

    As for the abuses of Douglas’s identity here, I do not believe comment 4 is him or 12 and as for the raft of comment after Douglas signed off at 39, I do not think they are him either.

    You see, it is a rum deal if all the website moderators can offer is either ‘ignore them’ while the racist nonsense stands or, as Sunny has done, asked people to avoid leaving comments at the blog, so as to avoid drawing heat.

    That seems to be giving in, rolling over and playing dead and more importantly, a wilfully poor way of dealing with the problem.

    Thanks again for your reply KGB.

    Peace.

  70. douglas clark — on 29th April, 2010 at 6:37 pm  

    Hmm…

    I am a complete utter tit.

    Just so’s you all know that.

    Just for firsts.

    It appears to me that I may have commented on posts that John Lee Barnes made, or that I just imagined them.

    Whatever, they are no longer there any more.

    It seems to be odd that my posts, that reflect nothing at all, are left up.

    It seems to me a bit like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs

    It is pretty obvious that I detest our Obergruppenführer, John Lee mental Barnes, but that should be obvious.

    But we are being asked to be clever about this?

    Let it be clear, I hate, loath and detest anything our new friend has to say, and I, well you’ve seen it already, have no respect for his sock puppets such as Dan Dare or the rest of them.

    I do, however, quite like Billie Holiday.

  71. douglas clark — on 29th April, 2010 at 6:51 pm  

    Daniel Hoffman Gill @67,

    I would be willing to do that.

    I have a quiet life and a fair amount of time. And, contrary to anyone else around here thinks I know exactly what moderation is and what censorship is.

    I have, after all, learned my trade on US web sites.

    They know their P’s from their Q’s…

  72. Sarah AB — on 29th April, 2010 at 7:13 pm  

    Douglas – LJB did indeed leave a comment – you aren’t imagining things!

  73. douglas clark — on 29th April, 2010 at 7:42 pm  

    Sarah AB,

    Cheers.

    Pass friend ;-)

    But it leaves me looking as if I am fighting ghosts.

    Daniel Hoffman Gill, who I count as an ally, thinks that my post at 4 cannot be me. Yet I think it is actually was me. Because it was a reply to a particularily nasty post by a deleted post by a brain dead BNP fan, perhaps Lee John Barnes.

    It is that sort of fucking with our brains – and let me be completely clear about this, you couldn’t get a cigarette paper between me and Daniel Hoffman Gill, on this subject – it is that doubt, that misunderstanding that tries to bugger up commentary.

    He was not wrong to assume that that was not me, he was, wrong to assume that someone else just blasted off into deep space.

    But that was how it was left to look, and it was never like that.

    So, we were both right.

    I detest that sort of bear trap, and I expect Daniel Hoffman Gill does to.

    _________________________________

    I would suggest, that either whole posts from BNP lunatics are deleted, including responses, or all posts are left up.

    The latter may be impossible, ’cause I and quite a lot of my chums around here might swear a lot.

    Just saying.

  74. js — on 29th April, 2010 at 8:15 pm  

    Wouldn’t it just be just so much easier if the people that own the site put a comments policy and a banner saying something to the effect of:

    “We do not welcome opposing opinions and dissenting voices on this site; We do not welcome debate; Only post here if you are in general agreement with what we say”

    And then everyone would know where they stood and there would be no need for people like Daniel at 9 and 65 who never seems to post here except to demand censorship or regulars like Douglas at various interval, to appear so desperately depressed that not every one agrees with them and they can’t shut that noise out.

    And Douglas, it would seem a sad state of affair when someone you consider an ally finds your posts so strange and abusive that he thinks you are being parodied!

  75. js — on 29th April, 2010 at 9:55 pm  

    The trouble is you see, debating this issue in a forum like this is all but pointless because anyone can be anyone else and thus, people can pretend to be others and others pretend to be them and vica versa.

    Identities and ideas are disposable and worthless, nothing can be attributed to anyone.

    People, if they are weak minded enough to play such games and have the time to do so, could invent all kinds of fictional back and forth.

    Which demeans both the topic and the website itself.

  76. The Real JS — on 29th April, 2010 at 10:18 pm  

    Oh dear.

    We now have one of these fine commenters who were so upset about identity theft, and identity theft on this very thread that hasn’t occurred carrying out actual identity theft themselves!

    The above spoofed comment of mine I would say is the work of Daniel, least ways that is my guess from the semantics employed. And my guess would be as good as his “I see the same old racists abusing the forum here using a variety of identities and proxy servers.”

    A rather odd thing to do for someone claiming to have genuine grievances and describing the practice as “weak minded” but there we go, it rather seems to be yet another case of do as I say not as I do.

    I suppose this spoofing will now continue ad nauseum and that speaks volumes about the spoofer and their legitimacy, especially as he is the only one actually doing so on this thread.

    Well Daniel, like I say in my last unspoofed comment, if the people that pay for this site want to run things your way that is up to them, and they should let everyone know with the caveat above, but for the moment they don’t seem to so perhaps you should put your hands in your own pocket and go out and get your own site where you can apply your own rules and cleanse all opposing opinions and thoughts to your hearts content.

    Maybe that would settle the distress you feel and end the urge to spoof other people.

  77. The Real JS — on 30th April, 2010 at 11:13 am  

    I don’t know who this real js is but I am the real js and that comment is not my last unspoofed comment but my first spoofed comment based on an unspoofed comment.

  78. js 'the authentic' — on 30th April, 2010 at 1:47 pm  

    Well Daniel, I hope you’re having fun spoofing me and I hope you do realise that it does rather undermine your whole position and question your legitimacy to be so outraged at such occurrences, especially when you claim it is happening on this thread to a person who says it isn’t making you the only one to actually be doing the thing you parachuted in to complain about!

    Of course people can judge for themselves just how genuine this makes you and whether or not you are in fact a troll.

    Interestingly, at least one admin here (Jai) considers what you are doing to be a criminal offence so lets see how they react to it.

    Cue the next spoof…

  79. The Real JS — on 30th April, 2010 at 2:18 pm  

    That wasn’t me.

  80. KJB — on 30th April, 2010 at 2:20 pm  

    DHG – that’s KJB, not KGB!

    You see, it is a rum deal if all the website moderators can offer is either ‘ignore them’ while the racist nonsense stands or, as Sunny has done, asked people to avoid leaving comments at the blog, so as to avoid drawing heat.

    Is that what Sunny did in your case? Sheesh. Although I guess I can see how he might have been put in that position, given that your sock-puppet even appears to have followed you here! Good luck.

  81. Naadir Jeewa — on 30th April, 2010 at 5:33 pm  

    I generally think we shouldn’t feed trolls

    Can’t be repeated enough.

  82. js 'the authentic' — on 30th April, 2010 at 5:58 pm  

    Hmmmm. What is that supposed to mean exactly KGB? I am the one being wronged here, and I am the one that Daniel seems to have followed over here to spoof. Have you been the communist camp so long that honesty and integrity are just vague memories for you, old bean?

    Can’t see any logical reason otherwise as to why you are turning reality on its head and blaming me for a spoofing troll who only a few comments back was crying about spoofing trolls and then wish this spoofing troll good luck for good measure?!!

    Its OK for some to do it seems to be the message. Stroll on.

    I suspect Daniel is now spoofing me because he didn’t like me pointing out that he only appears here to call for censorship and demand his rules must be implemented and I said if that’s what site owners want then that is up to them, but they should put up a caveat so everyone knows where they stand to the effect of:

    “We do not welcome opposing opinions and dissenting voices on this site; We do not welcome debate; Only post here if you are in general agreement with what we say”

    And as they don’t seem to want to apply his rules maybe he should pay for his own site where he can rule with an iron fist and smash any dissent. If anyone actually cared to visit.

    I think that seems to have tipped him over the edge into his spoofing troll fest.

    I wonder if this is the very first time he has done it? Doesn’t seem likely to me.

  83. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 30th April, 2010 at 10:55 pm  

    Sincere apologies KJB for getting your name wrong, I was clearly being lazy.

  84. KJB — on 1st May, 2010 at 12:26 am  

    DHG – no worries at all, I figured it was a mistake. People sometimes misspell it because they think it’s funny (see the moronic troll above). I correct people, but tend to avoid explaining what my name actually stands for as it is a bit uncool and takes long to type.

    Just had a thought – don’t suppose you want me to ask my ‘man on the inside’ (gosh, I feel so spy-esque saying it again!) to verify the IP of the above for you? Seeing as how it looks like it might be your sock-puppet and all…

  85. damon — on 1st May, 2010 at 12:31 am  

    ”I generally think we shouldn’t feed trolls”

    I dont’t think the BNP should be fussed over so much.

    Sounds like spiked people though I know.
    I guess it’s just a difference of oppinion.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8701/

  86. js 'the authentic' — on 1st May, 2010 at 5:16 am  

    What a giggle KGB, how about you get your ‘man on the inside’ to verify Daniels IP address against the actual troll on here, him! And his spoofing nonsense.

    Lordy man, you have naught for brains, if it were his sock puppet then it would be him in any case!! What hole do people like you crawl out of?!!

    Get your ‘man on the inside’ of your head to have some serious words with the man who walks around in meatspace and tell him to get a grip online!!

    Stick to worshipping a mass murdering cult and the warped reality that brings. You crack me up man!

  87. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 1st May, 2010 at 9:33 am  

    KJB:

    Pointless to do so KJB but thanks for your kind offer as the stalker uses proxys, which include: hidemyass, freesslproxy, cloaktool and freewebproxy, which are all based in the USA.

  88. js 'the authentic' — on 1st May, 2010 at 3:49 pm  

    Oh you guys crack me up. What ones do you use then when you spoof and stalk people Daniel? What ones have you used in this thread to spoof me? Or have you just used your own IP address?

    No wonder people are abandoning the left in exodus when they see hypocritical insane bare faced liars like you two claiming to be the face of the progressive left.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Daniel of ‘I am being stalked and spoofed’ fame has pulled back the curtain and revealed himself to be, well, a stalker and a spoofer.

    Judge the rest of his claims on this basis.

  89. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 4th May, 2010 at 9:00 am  

    Are you done yet?

  90. js 'the authentic' — on 4th May, 2010 at 5:23 pm  

    Well you are obviously not done stalking me yet and in a rather sinister fashion four days later. Are you done spoofing me I wonder? And what do you say to Jai who thinks what you are doing is a criminal offence.

    And you are a last word Troll too.

  91. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill — on 4th May, 2010 at 10:57 pm  

    I’ll take that as a no then.

  92. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 12:16 am  

    I agree with Daniel Hoffman-Gill.

    Pretendy voices, that fuck up discussion, just because they can pretend to be DHG or me, perhaps for a short period of time or not, are evil wee bastards.

    We need a technical solution to this.

    I have no particular problem with disargeeing with trolls, but identity theft is another matter….

    Just saying.

    This becomes a joke.

    DHG has to defend himself against a troll? A troll that steals his identity, and pretends to be him?

    Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers…

    If you, dear reader, were to have an idiot on your shoulder, an idiot that claims to be you, ’cause they have claimed your ID… How would you feel?

    Well, what is the point of commenting?

    Whatever you say can be captured and inverted. By someone that is either a wain or an idiot. For that is what they do.

    And debate is, well, stuffed. Because you know not whether it was me that said something, or whether it was my evil twin.

    This is frankly the most evil attack on you and me that there ever has been….

    I am me, but how do you know that anymore?

  93. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 12:31 am  

    Evil fuckers. We seem to see a lot of them, still we give them house room. Quite why, I have no idea..

    And there ought to be an easy technical solution, like registration, onto here, and a reasoned exclusion. When needed.

    I’d doubt Sunny is unwilling to think about that.

    I don’y know why he can’t addess the silence.

    Sunny?

  94. js 'the authentic' — on 5th May, 2010 at 12:59 am  

    Wow! Clark we all already knew you were unhinged but Lordy man! You are freaking certfifible! And as thick as a house brick to boot!

    “DHG” has spoofed me here you certin! That has been the only spoofing here you nut job!

    That has been the only idenity theft here you tool! By D H freaking G! The guy claiming this happens to him, well, he does it to other people. Stalking me too. So get that through your demented dome!

    Frek a small freaking duck, man!

    Take another swig Clark and call out some more names in the dark or sober the frek up and absorb whats going on!

    Man.

  95. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 5:54 am  

    js ‘the authentic’,

    Well, we can assume that you are not authentic.

    Can I refer you to your first few sentences?

    Wow! Clark we all already knew you were unhinged but Lordy man! You are freaking certfifible! And as thick as a house brick to boot!

    To what constituency do you you think you are talking to? Most of the commentators here know me, most of them are my friends. Most of the folk that read this blog have never felt it necessary to pretend to be me, either because I am not worth it, or because they agreed with what I had to say. That is not to say they agreed with anything I had to say, it was just respect for another person.

    Me.

    That ideas is completly jiggerred.

    Your call sunbeam.

    Sometimes I get things wrong, and I learn from that. I had no idea that everyone that reads this site thought I was unhinged.

    Nor that they thought I was

    freaking certfifible!

    If my friend, Daniel Hoffman Gill, says that his identity has been stolen, much as mine has, then fuck you sunbeam!

    Frek a small freaking duck, man!

    Take another swig Clark and call out some more names in the dark or sober the frek up and absorb whats going on!

    Man.

    You are an evil little person, thankfully.

    It is up to technology to overtake identity theft.

    I will, obviously, stand up for myself. I will not stand for chip and pin identity thiefs. Such as your chums.

    Which is what we see here. Along with apologists for it, and frankly folk that don’t know how to deal with it.

  96. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 6:09 am  

    I think, yes I do, that no-one should be allowed to hide behind a pseudonym, nor a pretendy identity.

    For they do not reveal the truth about themselves, they do not tell us, honestly, who or what they are.

    I’d like that discussed.

  97. js 'the authentic' — on 5th May, 2010 at 11:18 am  

    Look, I want the right to do as I please, without consequence and without revealing who I am, what’s the problem with that?

  98. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 11:50 am  

    Js ‘the authentic’

    Well, I’d have thought that was obvious. If you pretend to be me, then you are a cheat?

    If you pretend to be anyone else, then you are a cheat.

    The right to do as you please ought to be, perhaps limited to either terms and conditions of the web site you are commenting on, or, more importantly not pretending to be someone else.

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of who I am, or indeed who Daniel Hoffman Gill is, has been overtaken by folk that wish to piss on our parade.

    My friends here can distinguish between me and my evil avatar. But the bastard is getting the voice right.

    He and I are becoming indistinguishable, which is very clever, and very evil.

    It is disgusting.

    That is the problem with that.

    Debate becomes impossible, if brain dead morons like you thinks that hiding behind a number is good enough, or that someone else can pretend to be me. Well. we’re all fucked.

    That is my point, and it needs a technical solution.

  99. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 5:05 pm  

    js ‘the original’ @ 99,

    Prove it.

    I completely doubt you can. However, in fact, as far as I know, this web site could call a halt to this discussion if they just checked their records.

    I would welcome that.

  100. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 5:15 pm  

    As I imagine Daniel Hoffman-Gill might.

    Being spoofed by folk is not ‘nice’.

    Least, having been on the receiving end of it, I can assure you it sucks.

    My chum Daniel Hoffman-Gill has suffered more than me. For he has a reputation to protect, and mine is merely what you see is what you get.

  101. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 5:25 pm  

    js ‘the original’ @ 102,

    No.

    The question is whether you are telling the truth or not. I have suggested a way of falsifying commentators around here @ 100.

    Seriously, I would welcome that.

    I think most of the editorial board around here know who I am and have my e-mail address to hand. I assume that they also have yours and Daniel Hoffman-Gills.

    As far as I am concerned, most of the editorial board are people I would like to consider friends, whether that is mutual is moot. But I trust their honesty, should they wish to interject….

  102. douglas clark — on 5th May, 2010 at 5:56 pm  

    js ‘the original’ @ 104,

    I have no way of verifying who or what you are.

    That has been the problem since this completely insincere method of ‘attack politics’ has appeared on the scene.

    You now doubt me, I now doubt you.

    I try to write here on the basis that ‘douglas clark’ is a real person.

    Well, me.

    I do it on the basis that it prohibits me from straying too far away from what I responsibly think. However, if my name is taken over by a fool that mischaracterizes what I have to say, then what’s the point?

    It seems to me that folk around here that know me can see the difference. But what if newcomers don’t?

    If it is reasonable that someone else pretends to be me and says stuff I would never even think, far less spell out here, then we are in 1984 territory.

    It blows any serious debate out of the water.

    I do not know, I have no way of knowing whether you are a victim of this game or not. I am pretty sure that the Daniel Hoffman-Gill( DHG) that I know and respect wouldn’t do that. I suspect it is just another game that someone is playing.

    But, that is where we are right now.

    You don’t know who I am, you suspect I am a liar, you don’t know which DFG you may or may not be discussing stuff with.

    It is a complete mess. Without any way of tidying it up.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.