« Britblog Roundup #104 | Main | State Funding of Political Parties »

February 11, 2007

That Allegation

Leave aside for a moment the truth or not of the allegation itself and concentrate rather on what is actually being alleged.

There's political party x. They're scum, bigots, economically insane and at least part of their support comes from people who would happily wipe out huge sections of society (quite literally, as in kill in their millions: it did indeed happen in the 20th century) to further their political goals.

There's a member of political party y. The allegation is that to get one over on his own political opponents he is willing to make an alliance with political party x.

That is the allegation, isn't it? (As I say, leave the truth or not of it aside: that is the sin that is alleged, is it not?)

So, how many people are or have been in alliance with The Communist Party? How many are inspired by the ideas and ideals of the mass murder Leon Trotsky? Or have been in alliance with those who are? Praised Stalin and his massacres? Signed up with the remnants of the Baath Party?

My, my, under one or other of those headings we'd have to include the Respect Party, The Labour Party, The Home Secretary, Eric Hobsbawm, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and CND.

You can complete the list as you wish.

Or is alliance with left wing mass murders and their apologists different in some manner?

February 11, 2007 in Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That Allegation:

» Ex-Nazis, Ex-Stalinists from Harry's Place
There's a piece on Pickled Politics about the blogger Guido Fawkes - aka Paul Staines - who has been "outed" as a man who, when... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 11, 2007 4:15:22 PM


Not really the point.

There's blogger G. He devotes his life to going through the bins of people he dislikes, and spreading damaging rumours about them. Whether the crimes he alleges actually constitute major sins or not is irrelevant - the point is they are calculated to cast those involved in a bad light.

So, if[*] it comes to light that he has one or two embarrassing skeletons in his closet himself, then it would be no more than sweet poetic justice if he found his reputation thereby somewhat tarnished.

Or is digging up dirt on right-wing apparatchiks different in some manner?


Tim adds: The digging and the revelations I have no problem with whatsoever. From anyone about anyone. It's that mote and beam thing, that's all.

Posted by: Larry Teabag | Feb 11, 2007 5:30:57 PM

Whose mote and whose beam, Tim? Are you suggesting this was instigated by someone?

Who? If Tim Ireland had come up with such a thesis they'd be calling him obsessed and a conspiracy nut.

Tim adds: No, I'm not suggesting any instigation. I'm just trying to point to the way that certain people are screaming about minor level contact with the BNP while ignoring the beam of those who worked with, supported, held up for our adulation, mass murderers.

BTW, whatever gave you the impression that I was claiming instigation? I've seen that claim elsewhere, to be sure, but pretty certain I've not put anything above that could lead you to thinking that I endorse that view.

Posted by: Justin | Feb 11, 2007 6:06:46 PM

And the BNP isn't left-wing?

From their manifesto...

The BNP stands for a British national economy and is opposed to globalism, international socialism, laissez-faire capitalism and economic liberalism...
The BNP will use all non-destructive means to reduce income inequality...
Axiom #11: Owners should work, and workers should own.

We are pledged to bring the RNLI into public sponsorship. The generous and courageous efforts of those lifeboat volunteers perform a valuable service for marine safety and should not be left to the vagaries of charity giving.

"we recognise that the underlying motives of Labour and Tory moves to privatise every single institution they can lay their destructive hands on, are globalist dogma and corporate greed."

"The British National Party is different, and we will expose and lead the popular fight against such attempts to turn public services into corporate milch-cows whenever we find them."

Posted by: The Englishman | Feb 11, 2007 6:19:12 PM

"...If Tim Ireland had come up with such a thesis they'd be calling him obsessed and a conspiracy nut."

Now, who would ever call Tim Ireland 'obsessed' or 'a nut'...?

Oh, right. Anyone who has ever read his increasingly odd rants about Guido's website.

Posted by: JuliaM | Feb 11, 2007 7:15:57 PM

Tim, the question is not whether Guido's alleged involvement with the BNP is a major sin in the general scheme of things, but whether it's more major a sin than e.g looking like a paedophile.

Unless you think it isn't, I'm going to continue to see the mote/beam stuff operating the other way around.

Tim adds: Point one was the only one I was addressing. I'm not actually aware of anything about looking like a paedophile.

Posted by: Larry Teabag | Feb 11, 2007 8:57:11 PM

i cant click on the links so correct me if they do show this, but who are you levelling the charge of hypocrisy at? Have those repeating this story denied the links you mention? I know about them so they cant be secret.

Posted by: Matthew | Feb 11, 2007 9:15:43 PM

I'm not actually aware of anything about looking like a paedophile.

That was the devastating charge that Britain's premier political blogger levelled at Mark Oaten, I believe.

Posted by: Larry Teabag | Feb 11, 2007 10:51:57 PM

I didn't know Sidney and Beatrice Webb had a blog.

Posted by: dsquared | Feb 12, 2007 7:14:55 AM

thing is, he has taken down content from his blog following legal threats in the past, so no reason he shouldn't do the same.

Secondly, if the story is complete rubbish, why should he tolerate it being spread? I daresay most bloggers would not like false links to the BNP being alleged.

Posted by: mike hunt | Feb 12, 2007 11:24:54 AM


To be absolutely blunt, and I mean cruelly blunt, Staines/Fawkes is a hedonistic, narcissistic '80's fuckwad - as we call them up here, a bawbag's bawbag, a throwback to a golden age which, come 1989, wasn't really so golden.

His blogging displays a psyche which has failed to mature beyond hero-worshipping Gordon Gekko in 'Wall Street' - hence the raves.

That any arsewhole who organised raves, FFS, should be taken seriously by anyone speaks volumes. Fucks' sake, it'll be a miracle if he's had a shower since 1993.

So having 'dished dirt' on others, others 'dish dirt' on him? Really? Who cares?

This is the digital equivalent of watching William Hickey bitch-slap Ephraim Hardcastle.

Is the British blogosphere so lacking in moral seriousness that what a rave organiser might have done 20 years ago matters a rat's fuck to anyone?

God's sake, Tim, post something on immigration and we'll have a good honest to God argument and let these muppets get on with it.

Posted by: Martin | Feb 12, 2007 12:43:56 PM

Thank you, Senator McCarthy, for translating your speech out of the original German.

Posted by: Alex | Feb 12, 2007 1:29:09 PM

O fuck me it's the Yorkshire Ranter crawled out his tripe and onions!

My, what constructive insight you have to share! -

Tell me - are all Yorkshiremen as thoroughly obnoxious bastards as Geoff Boycott, or do you get taught it in schools?

Like a lind of speech therapy?

Posted by: Martin | Feb 12, 2007 1:41:59 PM

There's no (moral or political) equivalence. There's many forms of benign and useful communism and socialism and many wonderful communists and socialists. Nye Bevan, Johns Maclean & Lennon, Ghandi.

There's no benign form of Nazism or Fascism, nor any wonderful Nazis.

Posted by: Gus Abraham | Feb 12, 2007 3:44:05 PM

Gus, it might seem to depend on where you draw the lines. Politicians with fascist beliefs in FDR's government helped to design and pass the National Labor Relations Act, as well as the first decent securities laws.

De Valera was no worse than Nye Bevan. As Orwell pointed out, even before the war "fascist" had become a term without meaning excepting the labelling of enemies, but corporatism and syndicalism, the underlying economic philosophies of nazism and fascism, remained popular.

Of course, the BNP, with a manifesto almost identical to the Green Party's manifesto outside of tax policy and immigration, owes much more to the traditional left than it does to the Fascist "third way".

That's not the reason that Gus is barking up the wrong tree, though. Tim wasn't asking whether it was cool to have contacts with John Lennons of history. He was asking whether it was cool to have contacts with the genocidal actors of history. To say that there were good people who held left leaning views is entirely irrelevent. It's like defending pedophiles on the grounds that there are lots of nice people who like children out there. Heck, Gus doesn't even restrict himself to communism, but to communism and socialism, as if Tim was condemning Labour for contact with Plaid Cymru.

Posted by: James of England | Feb 14, 2007 2:56:10 AM