The ideas meme: Sackcloth and Ashes
A guest post by Sackcloth and Ashes
[Bob: This is taken, with permission, from the comment thread at Sarah's responses to my "influential ideas" meme. I've taken the liberty to add a couple of hyperlinks. Posts on the one state solution, mutualism and some other issues thrown up by this meme to follow. Non-bloggers, feel free to e-mail me your lists and I'll consider publishing them if I have time.]
Bad influences
(1) Kneejerk occidentalism (namely, the automatic assumption that any act of US and British policy is automatically evil, and also the concurrent belief that any opponent of the West – no matter how malevolent or barbaric – should be supported on the grounds that they are ‘anti-imperialism’. This disease could well be described as Pilgeritis.
[Bob: This is taken, with permission, from the comment thread at Sarah's responses to my "influential ideas" meme. I've taken the liberty to add a couple of hyperlinks. Posts on the one state solution, mutualism and some other issues thrown up by this meme to follow. Non-bloggers, feel free to e-mail me your lists and I'll consider publishing them if I have time.]
Bad influences
(1) Kneejerk occidentalism (namely, the automatic assumption that any act of US and British policy is automatically evil, and also the concurrent belief that any opponent of the West – no matter how malevolent or barbaric – should be supported on the grounds that they are ‘anti-imperialism’. This disease could well be described as Pilgeritis.
(2) Anti-Semitism, thinly disguised as ‘anti-Zionism’. Then as now, the socialism of fools.
(3) Moral relativism – namely the idea that gender equality, anti-racism, gay rights, human rights etc cease to matter in non-Western countries, unless their violation can somehow be blamed on those closer to home (see point 1). This sentiment can be called Gopalism, in ‘honour’ of the Cambridge professor of ‘post-colonial’ studies who could condemn ‘Time’ magazine for putting a mutilated Afghan girl on the front cover, while not saying a word against the thugs who maimed her.
(4) Pandering to theocracy – a trend which (in the form of apologias for Iran and for radical Islamist movements) is partly due to (1), but also a reaction by the far left to the failure of Marxism-Leninism since the late 1980s (see Shameless Milne, Maddy of the Sorrows et al). The far-left’s apologias for religious extremism is motivated by a desperate search for any ‘ideology’ – no matter how reactionary and twisted – that can provide an ‘alternative’ to liberal democracy.
(5) Whataboutery – the stock reaction of certain far-leftists when exposed as charlatans, hypocrites, and outright scumbags.
Not influential enough ideas
(1) Internationalism – The idea that you stand behind anyone fighting for the same rights as you in any part of the world. Honourable exceptions include HOPI – which has incurred the wrath of the STWC by being both opposed to any US attack on Iran AND the theocratic regime in Tehran – and also Mick Rix – who broke ranks with the STWC when they excused the murder of Iraqi trade unionists as the killing of ‘quislings’.
(2) Anti-Communism – this should have the same honourable pedigree as anti-Fascism/anti-Nazism, but for some reason the idea that ‘left can speak to left’ exists like some undead ghoul. Repeated examples from the Bolshevik revolution to the Khmer Rouge demonstrate that once in power the far-left have shown the same characteristics associated with the far-right (genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, militaristic aggression), but the myth exists that Marxist-Leninists can be misguided but essentially honourable people (e.g. the deification of Trotsky). Once this notion is abandoned, the real left can break ranks with the totalitarian left, leaving the latter to wither and die away. The continuation of the discredited notion that leftist movements of all stripes are part of the same family also provides ammunition for those on the right who argue that ’socialism’ involves an automatic journey to the gulag and to ‘Year Zero’ (e.g. Jonah Goldberg on ‘liberal fascism’, enemies of Obamacare etc).
Comments
I accept fully that at certain points over the 20th century honourable and idealistic individuals may have been attracted to Communism. This includes intellectuals in the 1930s who were unaware of the enormity of the Stalinist purges (but not those fellow-travellers who saw life in the USSR at first hand, and should have known better), and also selected African Marxist-Leninists (e.g. Agostinho Neto, members of the SACP) who saw Communism as a means of fighting racist white regimes.
But otherwise my comments still stand, particularly with reference to those like Seumas Milne and Bea Campbell who show no regrets over their association with Communism and their apologias for the Soviet system (and indeed - in Milne's case - still seek to make excuses for said ideology).
It does seem that you're using "Communism" to refer specifically to the Bolshevik version of it (and possibly variants on that like Maoism). It wouldn't seem to me to cover the likes of the SPGB, let alone non Marxist communists.
It's also worth noting that some of the first major criticisms of the Bolsheviks came from their left (Luxemburg, Berkman etc.) while the right were largely silent.
I'd also suggest that the same criticism can be made of those who support neoliberalism. Capitalism has killed more people through poverty than Stalin at the height of the purges. Indeed, as that's a matter of public record, those still refusing to call for the abolishment of capitalism are closer to the "fellow travellers" you mention, as opposed to the idealistic but misguided.
-David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/06/iftu-tours-us.html
It just seemed like back and forth banter really and while I obviously disagree with their stance on troops staying in Iraq, I don't think it's automatically okay to murder them. I can understand why the sentiment was popular, but as we can see, the coalition arranged by Al-Saddr didn't work out as many leninist Brits hoped.
"I am sorry. If you think I am going to sit back and agree with beheadings, kidnappings, torture and brutality, and outright terrorization of ordinary
Iraqi and others, then you can forget it. I will not be involved whatsoever, to me it is akin to supporting the same brutality and oppression inflicted on Iraq by Saddam, and the invading and occupying forces of the USA."
Mick Rix, former left-wing leader of the train drivers’ union, ASLEF, writing to Andrew Murray to resign from the Stop the War Coalition.
Worst.Cross-post.Ever. Bob - you should be ashamed of yourself for giving this right-wing nutcase a platform.
Excuse me, skidmark, but you are accusing me of being a genocidaire? You're the one who said that 'only 100,000' Tutsis died in the 1994 genocide, endorsing Irvingesque pseudo-scholarship in the process:
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/nocide-denial-here-we-go-again/
You were also the one claiming that during the Bolshevik era the VChK only executed a few score individuals. Your 'source' was a pamphlet by Tony Cliff, in which he quoted Yakov Peters, one of Dzerzhinsky's lieutenants. Such is your approach to evidence.
You have also - in your comments - distorted the substance of our 'dispute', in which I backed up my stats on military and civilian deaths on the Communist side by pointing out that they came from Hanoi. Only on Planet Swuppie can the Vietnamese government be accused of maximising the former and minimising the latter.
Anyway skidmark, I'm actually grateful to you for popping up on this thread for highlighting the worst that pseudo-leftists like yourself represent, and the baleful effect that it has had on the left-wing cause. Swuppies like yourself are utterly deceitful, devoid of both integrity and intelligence, have a sheep-like devotion to the party line, fascistic and racist tendencies (hence your willingness to pay court to Gilad Atzmon and his ilk), and are also serial disseminators of lies about acts of genocide and mass murder, making you the moral equivalent of the likes of Toben, Duke et al.
I just wish you and your fellow trash were honest enough to admit that you're nothing more than Strasserite scum.
Anti-Communism sounds like some relic of the 1950s, and if we were attuned to politics as a way of explaining things, then anti-Stalinism and ani-Leninism might be more appropriate terms.
I think under not influential enough must come anti-fascism, it has been so neglected for decades that the antics of the EDL seem to come as a surprise to many, when they shouldn't.
Whilst I am at it, anti Toryism is no where near as influential as it should be, the present disputes excepted.
Mod, I notice Carl and Flesh have re-tagged you for this meme.
I’m not sure about anti-Toryism. The Labourite in me wishes we’d had a bit more of it in the run-up to the May elections, but it certainly seems to have bloomed since then. Anti-fascism probably needs to be more influential, but also needs a bit of re-thinking first, in my view.
And your nonsense about the level of Vietnamese casualties sources to one badly designed table. There are still Vietnamese kids being born with horrible deformities from American chemical attacks, and you are a nauseating cheerleader for that.
You're the one who impersonated me to praise Toben, so when you call me deceitful, it just exemplifies the projective lunacy that should embarrass anyone who associates with you.
Bob - I would think that "right-wing" is an insult, but a summary not a substitute for criticism. If you think that s&a is somehow of the left, or the best of the right, and that his post has any meaning when it represents rank hypocrisy (normally I wouldn't think that ad hominem attacks were appropriate, but in this case the divergence between practice and preaching is unavoidably vast.
When you associate with this serial liar, and other wonders of the left like crazed anti-communist hedge fund manager Michael Ezra, I start to wonder.
Tangentially, it is amusing to see how quick Comrade SkidMarx is to criticise you for supposedly being rightwing, yet was incapable of uttering a word of criticism towards Gilad Atzmon and his racism.
It speaks volumes.
Ahh, memes? which one? I haven't seen any email, granted I am still catching up, a book one? I suppose with a struggle I could put one together, didn't read much last year, this year should be better...
Modernity - why when you promote the defence of not mentioning things (like the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails) because as a blogger you shouldn't be obliged to cover everything, should I, who doesn't even have a blog be required to condemn someone I've never met, and wasn't even aware of the existence of until I saw him being used as a stick to beat the SWP with? Here's some rather murderous criticism of my own,Here's the opinion of the SWP's leading blogger, which I'd tend to respect, and here's a good point by Tony Greenstein.
Wow. My ironymeter has just given up the ghost.
'No it is you who is making the accusation, and I see is still making the accusation on yet another HP thread in an exercise in whatabouttery that shows up your hypocrisy in deriding the concept here'.
'Whataboutery' does not involve exposing you as someone who endorses genocide denial.
'Lies and mistakes abound in the rest of you comment: I never said that only 100,000 had died in Rwanda, and never particularly had a strong view on the subject, so your oft-repeated accusation is a seriously libellous one which once again Bob should be ashamed of allowing to appear here'.
Really? Let's see what you actually said here:
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/nocide-denial-here-we-go-again/
'Christian Davenport deosn’t (sic) appear to deny there was a genocide: The genocide caused, by their estimate, 100,000 of a total of 1 million deaths.
But then that wouldn’t fit your agenda of claiming that anti-imperialists are all David Irving clones'.
'[Davenport is] estimating that 10% of the deaths were due to the genocide, not that only 10% of the deaths actually took place'.
So in other words you are endorsing Davenport's pseudo-scholarship, which claims 'only' 100,000 out of a total of up to 1m dead. What happened to the rest skidmark? Bad bout of typhus?
'I used to buy into the RPF view of the events in Rwanda. Even after reading a couple of well-written articles at the Tomb last year I still tended to think that the genocide should give Kagame and co. a lot of leeway. But the weakness of the argument put forward here and its support makes me think that the other view was right all along'.
So, you are saying that there is an 'RPF view' that 800,000 approx were slaughtered by the Hutu Power regime in 1994, and an 'alternative' view which seeks to either minimise the death toll - or deny the genocide altogether - and that you subscribe to the latter.
So much for your claim that you have 'never particularly had a strong view on the subject'. You are a shameless liar, skidmark, and your phraseology here is the exact mirror of that used by Irving et al over the Holocaust.
As if that matters a damn, but at least you admit that you're memory is hazy, and you haven't the faintest idea of its contents.
'enough to suggest to Michael Ezra that he would regard it as a partisan source,'
Which he was correct to do. Tony Cliff is the founder of the SWP, not a qualified scholar on the history of the Soviet Union. The fact that he quoted Peters as a reputable source (by your own hazy recollections) is proof in point. Would you accept Ratko Mladic's account of what happened in Srebrenica in July 1995? Actually, I shouldn't ask that question, because you no doubt would.
'and didn't noticeably engage in any further argument over the question of early Cheka deaths'.
He and I gave you sources on the VChK's record in the early years of the USSR - and its crimes against humanity - which you chose to ignore.
'And your nonsense about the level of Vietnamese casualties sources to one badly designed table'.
I sincerely wish that HP still kept its comments pages. I could expose you as a liar again.
'There are still Vietnamese kids being born with horrible deformities from American chemical attacks,'
And there are those who lost their loved ones in Communist atrocities such as the Hue massacre during the Tet offensives, boat people who lost relatives who drowned or were murdered by Thai pirates when they fled Vietnam after 1975, and those who survived years of hell in 're-education camps'. And that's not counting what happened to the Hmong in Laos, or the horrors of 'Year Zero'. Not that you'd give a fuck about any of them you hypocritical piece of shit.
'and you are a nauseating cheerleader for that'.
Swuppie thinking at its lowest. Apparently correcting skidmark's BS about Vietnam is akin to approving Agent Orange. I won't ask him to back that up by quoting me, because I know he can't.
'And You're the one who impersonated me to praise Toben,'
That's slander. I never did such a thing, and it could have been just about any one who visits HP's open comments page.
'so when you call me deceitful, it just exemplifies the projective lunacy that should embarrass anyone who associates with you'.
Skidmark, if you think that being outside your sick little red-brown clique is a badge of shame, it's one I'm actually proud to wear.
Now run away to Lenin's Tomb with all your fellow swankers. This site is for proper leftists, not hemorrhoid scum like yourself.
As if that matters a damn, but at least you admit that you're memory is hazy, and you haven't the faintest idea of its contents.
'enough to suggest to Michael Ezra that he would regard it as a partisan source,'
Which he was correct to do. Tony Cliff is the founder of the SWP, not a qualified scholar on the history of the Soviet Union. The fact that he quoted Peters as a reputable source (by your own hazy recollections) is proof in point. Would you accept Ratko Mladic's account of what happened in Srebrenica in July 1995? Actually, I shouldn't ask that question, because you no doubt would.
'and didn't noticeably engage in any further argument over the question of early Cheka deaths'.
He and I gave you sources on the VChK's record in the early years of the USSR - and its crimes against humanity - which you chose to ignore.
'And your nonsense about the level of Vietnamese casualties sources to one badly designed table'.
I sincerely wish that HP still kept its comments pages. I could expose you as a liar again.
'There are still Vietnamese kids being born with horrible deformities from American chemical attacks,'
And there are those who lost their loved ones in Communist atrocities such as the Hue massacre during the Tet offensives, boat people who lost relatives who drowned or were murdered by Thai pirates when they fled Vietnam after 1975, and those who survived years of hell in 're-education camps'. And that's not counting what happened to the Hmong in Laos, or the horrors of 'Year Zero'. Not that you'd give a fuck about any of them you hypocritical piece of shit.
'and you are a nauseating cheerleader for that'.
Swuppie thinking at its lowest. Apparently correcting skidmark's BS about Vietnam is akin to approving Agent Orange. I won't ask him to back that up by quoting me, because I know he can't.
'And You're the one who impersonated me to praise Toben,'
That's slander. I never did such a thing, and it could have been just about any one who visits HP's open comments page.
'so when you call me deceitful, it just exemplifies the projective lunacy that should embarrass anyone who associates with you'.
Skidmark, if you think that being outside your sick little red-brown clique is a badge of shame, it's one I'm actually proud to wear.
Now run away to Lenin's Tomb with all your fellow swankers. This site is for proper leftists.
Skidmarx: WTF?
Sackcloth and Ashes: Skidmarx said that someone else said 100,000 Rwandans died as the particular result of the genocide. Look! Here's a comments thread where I proclaim that he's a "cunt" and "little fuck" who should "drown in a vat of shit".
As if that matters a damn, but at least you admit that you're memory is hazy, and you haven't the faintest idea of its contents.
'enough to suggest to Michael Ezra that he would regard it as a partisan source,'
Which he was correct to do. Tony Cliff is the founder of the SWP, not a qualified scholar on the history of the Soviet Union. The fact that he quoted Peters as a reputable source (by your own hazy recollections) is proof in point. Would you accept Ratko Mladic's account of what happened in Srebrenica in July 1995? Actually, I shouldn't ask that question, because you no doubt would.
He and I gave you sources on the VChK's record in the early years of the USSR - and its crimes against humanity - which you chose to ignore.
'And your nonsense about the level of Vietnamese casualties sources to one badly designed table'.
I sincerely wish that HP still kept its comments pages. I could expose you as a liar again.
Do you agree with him that anyone who argues that between 800,000-1m were slaughtered by the Hutu Power regime is pandering to 'the RPF view of events'? Because if so, you should be honest and say so.
And I'm so sorry you're upset about the invective I directed against this piece of filth. I'd do it to his face if I ever met him, because I have a short way with swankers who tell lies about mass murder. I recalled reading Alison des Forges HRW report on the genocide, and in particular the harrowing testimony of those who either survived this carnage, or who saw its after effects. That's why I think that Irvingite trash should stay in the sewer where they belong, rather than pollute the left with their presence. If you've got an issue with that, I've got a tissue for you to dry your eyes out.
'There are still Vietnamese kids being born with horrible deformities from American chemical attacks,'
And there are those who lost their loved ones in Communist atrocities such as the Hue massacre during the Tet offensives, boat people who lost relatives who drowned or were murdered by Thai pirates when they fled Vietnam after 1975, and those who survived years of hell in 're-education camps'. And that's not counting what happened to the Hmong in Laos, or the horrors of 'Year Zero'. Not that you'd give a fuck about any of them you hypocritical piece of shit.
'and you are a nauseating cheerleader for that'.
Swuppie thinking at its lowest. Apparently correcting skidmark's BS about Vietnam is akin to approving Agent Orange. I won't ask him to back that up by quoting me, because I know he can't. If in doubt - smear. That's the default position of the swanker.
That's slander. I never did such a thing, and it could have been just about any one who visits HP's open comments page. I'm not the only person who hates members of the hemorrhoid left like yourself.
'so when you call me deceitful, it just exemplifies the projective lunacy that should embarrass anyone who associates with you'.
Skidmark, if you think that being outside your sick little red-brown clique is a badge of shame, it's one I'm actually proud to wear.
Now run away to Lenin's Tomb with all your fellow swankers. This site is for proper leftists.
As you were.
Modernity - I did reply on Atzmon (with also a brief mention of Pete Seeger in reply to Bob) but the comment appears to have been stuck in moderation.
s&a - If in doubt - smear...
Not that you'd give a fuck about any of them you hypocritical piece of shit...
Would you accept Ratko Mladic's account of what happened in Srebrenica in July 1995? Actually, I shouldn't ask that question, because you no doubt would.
Again, projective lunacy.
at least you admit that you're memory is hazy, and you haven't the faintest idea of its contents.
Well if your ironymeter has given up the ghost when my hurried typing led me to fail to put a space between to words, what will mine do when you mistake "you're" for "your"? And when I checked the Cliff volume in question, my memory of it was accurate.
'The two halves of the last comment may appear out of order'.
You are 'out of order', skidmark.
Let me be clear. You have been given ample opportunities to clarify your remarks on the Shiraz Socialist thread. All you really need to say to clear things up (as BenSix has noted) is to say 'I don't know enough about this subject to comment on it, can anyone recommend me some good books to read before I open my fat, stupid mouth again?' That would work.
As has also been pointed out to you - frequently, and at length - genocide denial does not just mean saying 'this never happened'. It also means making efforts to excuse the perpetrators by minimising the death toll, which is what Davenport does. It is the same sick stunt as performed by those who claim that the victims of Srebrenica were 'executed', and by those who say that 'only a million Jews' died in the Holocaust, and this was as a result of natural causes (e.g. disease) rather than a deliberate policy of extermination.
This is why people like skidmark have no place on the left, and should stick to the far-right where they belong.
If you, skidmark, think that you can step up to the challenge, then email Bob about your views (or rather, those of the party you belong to), and see if he responds. Given the content of his blog, I doubt very much he'll have any sympathy for you or the Strasserite filth you associate with.
"Far-right?" Ho,ho,ho.(Santas gone but not forgotten). It's you and your friends that praise Pinochet in Chile, big up the far-right when they're praising Israel in House of Commons meetings, some go soft on the EDL... all frrm seeing any sort of Communism as part of an evil worldwide conspiracy that only big business and the American empire can resist. That's another track I think the actual left would best avoid.
I have, skidmark. I've also read des Forges, Melvern, Prunier et al. I've also read the accounts of those that witnessed the genocide, and I think that Davenport has written what is at best a shoddily-produced piece of research, and what is at worst an apologia for mass murder.
'You want to impute views to me based on your own twisted assumptions? We'll get nothing but a continuation of your stupid libels'.
Look, skidmark, it's quite simple. You can either admit that you spouted off on a subject you know nothing about, and fell into the trap of inadvertently endorsing genocide denial. Or you subscribe to Davenport's views.
If it's the former, then you need to eat a slice of humble pie. If it's the latter, then it tells anyone reading this thread all they need to know about where you stand politically. And it more or less confirms the fact that SWPers like yourself have no right to claim to be a part of the British left.
Which would be a bit like asking Karen Matthews on advice for parenting.
'you would be a model of all the things to avoid. As I said at the first, your dishonesty and hypocrisy should make it embarrassing for BOb or anyone else to promote your excretions as a foundation for any sort of critical thinking'.
And yet he has. You're more than welcome to drop him a line to see if he'll do the same for you, but given the content of his blog I suspect that he has more in common with my political views than yours.
'"Far-right?" Ho,ho,ho.(Santas gone but not forgotten). It's you and your friends that praise Pinochet in Chile, big up the far-right when they're praising Israel in House of Commons meetings, some go soft on the EDL... all frrm seeing any sort of Communism as part of an evil worldwide conspiracy that only big business and the American empire can resist'.
That passage is just simply demented. Even by your standards it's drivel, and it makes no sense outside a padded cell.
'That's another track I think the actual left would best avoid'.
You, skidmark, and your vile little clique are not part of the 'actual left', and have no right whatsoever to claim to speak for it.
What nonsense. I didn't endorse genocide denial at any point, and you are stupid and libellous to cotinue to claimsuch.
So you're not even sure that he's engaged in genocide denial, when you have been stupidly libelling me for months, simply on the basis that I might support his view?(Emphasis on might, all of course I actually did was point out that he isn't). Your one piece of evidence for these months of stupid libels is an inaccurate piece of guilt by association to something you aren't even certain says what you want to accuse me of ? You may claim to have read much but you understand nothing.
Incidentally there is another major inaccuracy in both your comments, but I think I'll amuse myself by not bothering to point it out.
"Yet he has" - well shame on him for asociating with a shameless fantasist.
The passage you call demented points out the way you and your ilk have far more in common with the far right than I ever will. Hopefully Bob will realise at some point that some of his anti-communist buddies are justr simple rightwingers like you.
Look skidmark, I know you're a swuppie, but even someone like you should understand this. Genocide denial is not just about claiming that a specific act of state-sponsored mass murder did not occur. It can also involve playing around with the figures to disguise the enormity of the crime committed.
I allowed for the fact that Mr Davenport may have written his trash because he is a poor scholar, and not a ghoul. But the end result is just the same. Your refusal to acknowledge this is a testimony to either your preternatural stupidity, or your inherently amoral and hypocritical character.
As for your rants about slander, I have given you the opportunity to set matters straight, and you have consistently refused to take it. So let me make this clear for you. Do you regard Davenport's claims as genuine scholarship, or a travesty of the truth? Do you regard the accounts provided not just by witnesses of the genocide (e.g. Dallaire, Gourevitch etc) but by reputable scholars and human rights effects - to the effect that the Hutu Power regime slaughtered up to 800,000 people between April and June 1994 - as the historical truth, or the 'RPF view of events'?
Stand up and be counted, skidmark. Tell us what you really think happened.
Just be honest and admit that you're a piece of red-brown filth. It's what everyone who isn't a fellow swuppie knows, so there's no point trying to pretend otherwise. In any case, thank you again for proving my point about the incompatibility of the real left with the Gadarene swine who hang out with the SWP.
If you are, then you are aligned with someone who - either through his own shortcomings as a scholar, or through his own malice - is a genocide denier. As I said in one of my earlier comments, genocide deniers either try to claim that a specific act of state-sanctioned mass murder did not take place, or they try and minimise the death toll in order to disguise its enormity.
If you think that Davenport is correct, then you are of his kind. As they say, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you catch fleas. In any case, you have no right to pretend you belong to the real left, as opposed to the hemorrhoid variety.
Again, I've no wish to take sides in this particular argument (in fact, I'm ashamed to say that I have little knowledge of Rwanda beyond watching this) but let's be clearer: there's nothing inherently disreputable about claiming that specific acts of mass murder haven't taken place. For example, I deny U.S. atrocities at Malmedy. They must surely be entirely and provably mistaken (and, if they're to be seen as actively immoral rather than just foolish, through their own malign intent or bigotry, or some gross idleness).
Is there a problem with this thread?
I keep getting emails of posts which haven't appeared....
If I migrate to Wordpress, what happens to all the old comments? There are comment threads I'd want to preserve as much as some of the posts.
You talk bollocks. If you don't have enough from the statements I've made to claim that I'm a genocide denier, then you shouldn't be making such a stupidly libellous accusation at all. And of course as already pointed out, when I did respond to your constant hounding on this issue on HP , you immediately started lying about what I'd said, just as you have lied consistently about what I said in the original Shiraz post.
tell me which of us belongs to a party that pays court to a minor musician who declares that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a reflection of reality.
Not me, you stupid fuckwit.
Is there a problem with this thread?
Where should I start?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will be sufficient.
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/03/28/gilad-atzmons-new-adventures-in-nazism/
As far as WP goes you can do *all* that blogger does and more.
I have stuff going back 4+ years.
There's a migration process, basically you create a WP blog same name etc point it at your blogger one and it takes over ALL of the old stuff for you....automatically, when you are happy you can shutdown the blogger one, so you don't have to do it all at once...
Bob - I find wordpress works very well elsewhere, though I assume there must be some reason why blog owners don't more universally go for it.
Your second comment is based on ignorance.
Do you agree with Davenport, yes or no?
It's a straightfoward question, and the fact you refuse to give a straightforward answer tells us all that you know where you stand on this issue, but are too cowardly to admit it, even online.
There is no point screaming about being misrepresented if you are too cowardly to make your views on this subject clear.
You are a genocide denier, and you are not fit to class yourself as a leftist.
Mind reader are you? Or just an idiot who has ignored it when I've said I don't have particularly strong views on the subject?
You endorse Davenport's attempt to minimise the horrors of the Rwandan genocide,
Lie.Two lies in one in fact.
and describe genuine accounts of this horrific atrocity as RPF propaganda
Lie.
You are a genocide denier
Complewtely unsubstantiated gross libel, you're not fit for..well anything.
Skidmark, these are your own words, are they not?:
'I used to buy into the RPF view of the events in Rwanda. Even after reading a couple of well-written articles at the Tomb last year I still tended to think that the genocide should give Kagame and co. a lot of leeway. But the weakness of the argument put forward here and its support makes me think that the other view was right all along'.
What exactly is the 'other view' that you think was 'right all along'? You've never dared to ellaborate on this, and it is evident why this is the case.
If you refute these words, and admit that you wrote your comments on Rwanda out the kind of crass, arrogant self-confidence which makes swuppies assume they have expertise in every subject they approach, that's one thing.
But what you are saying here - and it is unambiguous - is that you reject the established and verified accounts of the Rwandan genocide in favour of Davenport's pseudo-scholarship.
Unless you refute your comments on the Shiraz Socialist thread, it is clear where you stand politically. And I thank you again for demonstrating why you and your fellow swankers have no right to be classed as belonging to the left.
That's unequivocal, skidmark. So much for your claim that you have 'no strong views on this subject'.
Maybe you made an honest mistake in thinking that when I said "the other view", I meant that the Hutu Power regime was in the right. No, I didn't.
I think it is hard from that quote to think that I have strong views on the subject. I used to lean one way, that thread made me think that perhaps I should lean the other (again, towards a more nuanced view of events, not towards excusing the genocidiares). Not exactly a proclamation of certainty.
That is a complete distortion of the debate. You do not have to be a supporter of the RPF (and - as I keep pointing out - people like Prunier are not) to accept the fact that up to 800,000 people were deliberately slaughtered by the Hutu supremacist regime in the spring of 1994. Your attempt to smear anyone who was written authoritatively on this subject as a Kagame apologist just goes to show how obnoxious and ignorant you are.
'and the other view being that of the blogger Lenin and Davenport and Stam, who suggest that that there was undeniably a genocide, but that there were other deaths in the conflict as well'.
Again, you're lying through your teeth. By claiming (on the basis of shoddy scholarship) that 'only 100,000' people were killed by Hutu Power, Davenport is trying to minimise the enormity of the latter's crime against humanity. And you, Seymour and other scumbags are cheering him on from the sidelines.
Just one other question for you not to answer. If you believe Davenport when he says that only 100,000 out of up to 1m people who died in Rwanda during the spring of 1994 were the victims of the Hutu extremists, then what did the remaining 900,000 or so die of?
I haven't tried to smear anyone.
Again, you're lying through your teeth.
No, I'm giving an honest view of what I think their argument is, thus lacking the intentionality for delibrate misrepresentation even if they are wrong and I'm wrong in my assessment.sti
Lamia - Shaun Wright-Philips is a notorious right winger.
skidmarx - but his dad was a great striker.
sackcloth and ashes - Notice the fact that Lamia’s joke sails right over skidmark’s head (hence my point about the SWP’s ability to recruit morons only).
shows your limited understnading of the English language, I was noting Lamia's use of the double meaning of "right-winger" by the double meaning of "striker". Before you set yourself up as a role model for anything you really ought to learn some English (and perhaps get a sense of humour and some civility, but hey, baby steps).
You also state quite openly that you support Davenport's myth-making, which again shows that when you said you had 'no strong views' on this subject, you were lying.
As for your rant about the HP threat, it just goes to show that the SWP are no good at telling jokes, but they're very good at recruiting them.
Incidentally, I'm waiting for you to tell my why sources like this are a travesty of the historical truth but - hey - baby steps and all that.
http://www.amazon.com/Leave-None-Tell-Story-Genocide/dp/1564321711
http://www.amazon.com/Rwanda-Crisis-G%C3%83%C2%A9rard-Prunier/dp/023110409X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294948738&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_39?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=philip+gourevitch+we+wish+to+inform+you&sprefix=philip+gourevitch+we+wish+to+inform+you
http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Murder-Rwandan-Genocide-Revised/dp/1844675424/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294948829&sr=1-3
No it doesn't. And even if there were such an implication wrongly taken, there is nothing deliberate about the implication, though perhaps something deliberate about your misinterpretation.
You also state quite openly that you support Davenport's myth-making,
No I don't. I state as I have all along that I think the the abuse heaped on him is unwarranted, for the reasons BenSix gave earlier in the thread.Your twisting of my words here shows why I'm disinclined to bother investigating your sources further: if you had said at the beginning that you disagree with what Davenport said and put a coherent case for why he's wrong and why that might show that his thinking and methodology is so skewed as to make his views beyond the pale, I might have given your opinion respect and engaged with it and looked at your sources to see if they put a convincing case. But instead you have tried to lambast me as a genocide denier in a quite outrageous piece of libel, compounded by your use of the libel as a piece of whatabouttery on dozens of unrelated threads. When you are still twisting my words with such claims that I am "stating quite openly" what I am clearly not, it seems far easier to point out your errors than to satisfy your mendacity by providing you with more words to distort.
If I had the time right now I might expand this into a general point about how it is best to behave on blogs, with your penchant for the stupid lie top of the list of things to avoid.
'I used to buy into the RPF view of the events in Rwanda. Even after reading a couple of well-written articles at the Tomb last year I still tended to think that the genocide should give Kagame and co. a lot of leeway. But the weakness of the argument put forward here and its support makes me think that the other view was right all along'.
This is what you are implying.
'RPF view' = Established and verified accounts of the genocide.
'the other view' = Davenport's pseudo-scholarship.
That's the end of that. So stop claiming I misrepresented what you wrote.
Isn't it funny that British neocons try to pretend that "neocon" has no meaning. Why are you so ashamed of being associated with your ideological partners on the other side of the Atlantic? They describe themselves as neoconservatives, what's your problem?
As long as you carry on misrepresenting what I said I'm entitled to point out what a lying piece of trash you are. What's likely to stop me is more boredom than anything else.
"Makes me think" implies an inclination towards an argument that challenges the notion that the genocide was all that's going on, precisely on grounds that the figures don't verify its correctness,nothing more. And what tended me to consider the argument seriously? The screeching on the thread by yourself and others that anyone who might consider the argument that the figures don't stack up is engaging in genocide denial themselves.
That is a really bad cheapening of the serious offence that denial of verifiable mass murder is, placing as it does really genocide deniers as simply part of of a broader mass of people whose crime is to do some thinking of which you disapprove.
Again, in the areas of a left blogosphere where more polite and intelligent conduct occurs, someone questioning a point I made would be far more likely to accept my interpretation of a statement of mine they disagreed with, not twist everything I say with their own interpretation of what it "really" means. You are a chronically dishonest debater, and deserve to have your ignorant and twisting ways exposed, and not considered as a valuable contributor to notions of left behaviour by anyone who can rub two brain cells together.And the parallel with your denial of the extent of the American killings in Vietnam shows(on the basis of some almost non-existent scholarship claimed to be based on Vietnamese figures; I'm sure if I bothered to check the official Vietnamese figures would be nothing like as low as claimed, but you're simply not worth taking the effort over)how hypocritical it is for you to libel someone as a genocide denier for being prepared to consider an analysis which doesn't deny the genocide but says there was more to events in Rwanda, when you are openly denying the extent of the slaughter of the Vietnamese.
Skidmark, you have taken umbrage at the description of Davenport as a genocide denier, even though he is engaged in genocide denial, and even though no scholar or genuine expert on Rwandan history and politics who treats his output as anything other than a distortion of the historical record.
I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to clarify your position on where you stand on this issue, but since your comments on the Shiraz thread last August you have refused to provide any straighforward and honest answer to a simple question - Who do you believe provides the correct version of events in Rwanda from April-June 1994, Davenport or his detractors?
That is a simple and unambiguous question, but your only response is to rant about misrepresentation. It is patently obvious that the only reason you do not want to provide an answer is because it will belie your claims that you are anything other than Strasserite filth. Just like the rest of the SWP.
I do not have 'polite and intelligent' conversations with people I do not respect, and that includes members of the red-brown fraternity like yourself. And as I will never tire of telling you, you are not a part of the left, you belong to its totalitarian, crackpot fringe and have no place to count yourself amongst those committed to genuine progressive politics.
skidmark, the conflict in Vietnam happens to be something called a 'war'. As for 'non-existent scholarship', I could refer you (as I've consistently done) to Rummel, Record, DeGroot, Lewy, Kutler et al. But then just like the sources I highlighted on Rwanda, you obviously won't read them.
As I have also pointed out, Hanoi admitted to 1.1m military casualties for both the North Vietnamese Army and the VC (see press clipping from NYT, dated 22 April 1995).
http://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/232/2322414020.pdf
Hanoi provides the following figures for the bombing campaigns - Rolling Thunder (1965-1968) and Linebacker I and II (1972). 52,000 civilian dead from 'Rolling Thunder', and at least 1,623 from the two Linebacker campaigns. The mayors of Hanoi and Haiphong reported 1,318 and 305 dead respectively (see Clodfelter, 'Limits of Air Power', pp.136-137, p. 195 - yet another 'non-existent' scholar for you to ignore).
All in all, classing what is a major inter-state and intra-state conflict (Vietnam) as akin to a systematic genocide (Rwanda) just goes to show what a stupid, ill-informed and unpleasant little shit you are. Which is why of course you gravitated towards the SWP.
So that you can libel me more? You ascribed to me then views that I haven't formed, and have badgered me ever since to provide grist to your mill so that your lies might have some substance in retrospect. I really haven't considered the question further since then, as it seems easier to point out what an obsessive liar you are, than to bother to engage with the demads of someone seemingly incapable of any honesty.
Of course there was one time I let up and pointed out that I didn't think all the blame for the deaths in Rwanda fell on the RPF, which you then reproduced repeatedly as me saying that the RPF was entirely responsible (or something of that order, with the threads deleted because HP realise that libelling people repeatedly is not a smart thing to leave on the internet indefinitely I can't be sure). If I had firm views on what happened I might defend them even to an arsehole like you. But I'm not going to "clarify" them just to give you sopmething to hang your lies on.
I do not have 'polite and intelligent' conversations
As Sisko said to the Kardassian tailor, "I think that's the first entirely truthful thing I've heard you say."
As Adrian Mitchell would say,or perhaps not, I'm sick of your denial of American atrocities.
'Skid uses the term “right-wing” as an insult, both here and in his other recent comment, just as his ilk at the Hoare/Gibbs thread at Mod’s place use “neocon”. Using these words as substitutes for criticism indicates a refusal to think through the actual content of the ideas.'
Isn't it funny that British neocons try to pretend that "neocon" has no meaning. Why are you so ashamed of being associated with your ideological partners on the other side of the Atlantic? They describe themselves as neoconservatives, what's your problem?
Obviously "neocon" has even less meaning than I thought if I am being accused of being one! What does the term mean? And who is it that disseminated the term in our political discourse?
So that you can libel me more? You ascribed to me then views that I haven't formed, and have badgered me ever since to provide grist to your mill so that your lies might have some substance in retrospect"'.
Skidmark, you have now gone so far you your arse you can scratch your tonsils with your nose.
If you want to stop me (briefly using your own twisted excuse for logic) from 'lying' about your views, it's quite simple. You could say 'I think Davenport is wrong', or 'I have blundered into a subject I know nothing about, and I need to do some remedial reading. Disregard anything I've said up till now as mis-informed'. Either way, you will clarify that you do not endorse genocide denial on Rwanda, and that will be the end of that.
But what your continued ranting shows is that you know that you stand alongside pseudo-scholars and ghouls who have made it their job to spread disinformation and outright lies about one of the worst acts of genocide committed in the latter half of the twentieth century - being up there with 'Year Zero' and 'Al Anfal', both committed by two regimes the SWP has acted as apologists for. All of which demonstrates my essential point, which is that you and your kind pollute the leftist cause in Britain, and that genuine progressives should spurn you as they would members of the far-right. Because essentially you and they are the same breed (or spawn, I should say).
As Sisko said to the Kardassian tailor, "I think that's the first entirely truthful thing I've heard you say."'
What a truly pathetic example of quoting out of context that is. I bet you're preening yourself over your wit.
Now tell me some lies about Rwanda.
And of course the SWP was condemning the attacks on the Kurds at the same time as the Americans you so admire were selling Saddam weapons.
The idea that it, or its forerunner the IS supported Pol Pot is laughable, and shows the extent to which you are just a block to any sort of intelligent discussion, and a simple witch-hunter who only ever makes false accusations.
I recently saw a documentary by those damned Russkies in which a Vietnam veteran explained that he saw how genocidal the war was when he heard that they had reformulated napalm to make it stick to the skins of its victims better. Your appeal to the left to turn into anti-communists isn't a suggestion for anti-Stalinism, but for a return to McCathyism, which your style of smear and false exposure already exemplifies.
Which brings me to Bob's point, yes like most terms of abuse it is liable to overuse, perhaps you should. Here's wikipedia on the subject, most relevant may be Michael Harrington's use of it to describe former leftists, though Joe Klein's comment that "today's neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in cultivating friends" might accurately descibe one of the memes from this post.
Davenport, right or wrong? Answer.
'And of course the SWP was condemning the attacks on the Kurds at the same time as the Americans you so admire were selling Saddam weapons'.
Wow, that's a new one. Now skidmark's telling me that Scuds, MiGs, T-72s, Kalashnikovs etc are made by Uncle Sam. Here's the stats from SIPRI on arms supplies to Iraq between 1973-2002:
USSR - 57.26% of total.
France - 12.74%
China - 11.82%
Czechoslovakia - 6.56% *
Poland - 3.83% *
Brazil - 1.65%
Egypt - 1.29%
Romania - 1.19% *
Denmark - 0.51%
Libya - 0.46%
USA - 0.46%
* All prior to 1989.
(See SIPRI Arms Transfer Database - 'Imported Weapons to Iraq in 1973-2002, 5th March 2003).
'The idea that it, or its forerunner the IS supported Pol Pot is laughable, and shows the extent to which you are just a block to any sort of intelligent discussion, and a simple witch-hunter who only ever makes false accusations'.
Is that a fact? Michael Erza has been through the back issues of that shitty and misnamed rag 'Socialist Worker', and begs to differ.
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/12/14/the-swp-and-the-eichmanns-of-cambodia/
Wars tend to be pretty nasty, skidmark. And I suppose you think that when the other side killed fellow Vietnamese (as they did in their thousands) they did it in a nice, painless and humane way.
'Your appeal to the left to turn into anti-communists isn't a suggestion for anti-Stalinism, but for a return to McCathyism,'
McCarthy's victims were honourable people, not Strasserite scum.
'which your style of smear and false exposure already exemplifies'.
Davenport, right or wrong? Answer please.
'The best response to war would be protests across the globe which make it impossible for Bush and Blair to continue. But while war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces'.
The SWP. Totally not in favour of keeping Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Skidmark must think that everyone is as stupid as he is.
Not a fan of Voltaire then?
Davenport, right or wrong? Answer.
So you can establish a post-hoc justification for your stream of libellous misrepresentations?
Here's the stats from SIPRI on arms supplies to Iraq between 1973-2002:
Funny, I don't see the SWP anywhere in that list.
Michael Erza has been through the back issues of that shitty and misnamed rag 'Socialist Worker', and begs to differ
And I seem to remember that johng in particular (you remember the guy you keep making ad hominem attacks on over his educational achievements, possibly to compensate for your failures in the field) put him straight in the following thread, but then with HP running scared of libel actions because of the sewer that your ilk have made of its comments boxes we may never be able to see.
The SWP. Totally not in favour of keeping Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.
Indeed. Still opposed to imperialist bloodbaths with it. I think I can recall Rob Hoveman pointing out the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja at an SWP meeting at the time the Americans were siding with Iraq in the latter stages of its war with Iran.
''Davenport, right or wrong? Answer'.
So you can establish a post-hoc justification for your stream of libellous misrepresentations?'
No skidmark. The fact is that you still lack the guts to answer a straightforward question.
'Funny, I don't see the SWP anywhere in that list'.
(Facepalm). Got any comment to make on Comrade McGarr's statement?
''Michael Erza has been through the back issues of that shitty and misnamed rag 'Socialist Worker', and begs to differ'
'And I seem to remember that johng in particular (you remember the guy you keep making ad hominem attacks on over his educational achievements, possibly to compensate for your failures in the field)'
Projecting again, skidmark?
'put him straight in the following thread'.
Yet again, I wish HP kept its threads (which it ceased doing after it was subjected to a malicious hacking attack inspired by a BNP loon called Lee John Barnes). The exchange actually went like this.
johng: The SWP condemned the Khmer Rouge once evidence of its crimes against humanity were published.
Ezra: No it didn't. I've been through all the back issues and there isn't a mention of Cambodia after the articles I quoted.
johng: (Silence).
So yet again, skidmark, you are either proving to us that you have the memory of a goldfish. Or you're lying through your teeth.