The Exile

The nice thing about university is that you get to make friends who you can call on years later. This isn't the case for types like Gimlet, of course, but for most normal people it is. It certainly is for Pru1066, as she calls herself, as her light blue background has turned up trumps for all those of us who find Gimlet Kamm an endless source of amusement.

Gimlet's crew have been trying to derail another of Neil Clark's posts over at the Guardian. It's the usual story of a seemingly endless number of screen names, most of which funnel down to just one or two prize members of the mongish crew.

Up pops young Pru to help, only to get her thoughtful contribution deleted, courtesy of a complaint by a mongish crew member.

Alas for poor Gimlet, the delightful Pru had friends to call upon in her hour of need who work at the Guardian. This is part of the reply that she received from one of them:

I will guess and say that the "Iranian silliness" refers to Gimlet's most bovine Guardian posting, when he claimed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately that came on the very day that the Americans decided that they weren't.

The e-mail goes on the state that the writer will try to prevent the deletion of Pru's latest offering, which went up at 3.30pm yesterday. At the time of writing it is still there, so that promise has been kept. It is also nice to see that my 12.30pm comment is also still around, since it gives a link to my Gimlet files here at The Exile. They may both be deleted, but they have certainly been around long enough to serve their purpose.

There is only one thing better than sticking the boot into the representative of a class that I despise - and that is when people of his own sort disown him by joining in the kicking as well.

Gimlet, you short-arsed little fucker, life just doesn't get much sweeter than this.

Here's a rum do: I partially justified my open door comments policy on Friday by saying that it meant that I could look down on the webmongs who don't allow any comments at their gaffs.

Bang on cue up popped the most risible webmong of all, that short-arsed little fucker known as Gimlet Kamm, to announce that he would allow comments at his blog. Amazing coincidence, don't you think?

Will I be taking advantage of this exciting opportunity to spread the word? Probably not, because running two blogs of my own takes up enough time as it is. Entertaining myself at the expense of Gimletish webmongs was something that I used to enjoy doing over at Harry's Place, but I really can't be mithered these days.

Staying on the theme of comments, it will be noticed that Team Gimlet are no longer commenting here. Usually whenever I mentioned the poisonous dwarf at least one of his creatures would arrive, all waggy tailed, to defend the odious cockroach.

Last week we had two or three of them, using different monickers of course, but since I managed to get on Luke's trail there seems to have been a collective clenching of sphincters and they all appear to have wandered off.

It would be nice if Gimlet et al would copy another of my policies which is to only use one monicker. The fact that they don't gives me another reason to laugh at them.

The blog seems to have been receiving quite a few visits from the anonymong fraternity over the past few days. Actually, we have had a stream of comments from just one or two people, but we'll get back to that in a moment. Right now let's consider that this mongish behaviour has led to the following plea from David Lindsay, who at least has the decency to only use one screen name:
David made a fair point, but the answer is no. Partly because I don't like censorship, partly also because it means that I can look down from an even greater height on the webmongs who refuse to allow any comments at all on their wankblogs.

The main reason, though, is so that I can have a look and see who is leaving the old wank. In the case of comment six to this posting, the wank seems to have trickled forth from some two-legged cockroach in fucking Cheltenham. I mean, we are talking real arse-wipe territory when we talk about Cheltenham, aren't we? As for the the other postings, the ones that David Lindsay complained about, most come from one ISP in the City of London. We do have a couple of others who may be involved, from sewers like Chelmsford and the like.

So, we have two creatures, both prime examples of the human filth that socialism exist to destroy, giving it gob. Fine... It's not Luke who also calls himself William McB and who works at Napier "University". Luke enjoys wank like this and that is why he likes to go over to HP and leave comments under my monicker and URL. I don't know exactly who Luke is yet, but I've got mates in Edinburgh and they are sniffing around for me. When I get the information then I will go public with it. The student rag will love it, but I'll bet that Luke won't.

As for City boy... That's Gimlet or one of his fucking creatures.It doesn't matter which because Gimlet's in line for some more grief from me.

This brings me to my final reason for leaving these comments where they are. There is only one thing nicer than a good fuck, and that is fucking with cunts like this.

Insomnia being that terrible thing I decided to kill some time by adding David Lindsay to my link list.

David's politics are one-nationish, which is to say they are far removed from mine. That said his heart is in the right place, and he uses his blog to set out his own ideas. Agree with him or disagree with him, David manages to annoy the same people as Neil Clark and myself, so that puts him on the side of the angels in my book.

(Read the comments if you want to know why this posting is indexed as "Gimlet".)

Insomnia is a terrible thing, but sometimes it has its good points. One of them came up a few moments ago when I read Gimlet's latest wankfest. Basically the short-arsed little fucker has decided to join in the smear campaign against Ron Paul.

No, I can't fucking believe it, either. He only decided to go and link to the most idiotic smear of all - one that even Fox News won't carry! This particular smear merchant has been comprehensively used as an arse wipe by just about every bugger, but most effectively by this bloke. I mean, I gave out that link in my last posting!

Gimlet, I know you read my stuff, so I just want to tell you that this is why we laugh at you. It's not just that you are a short-arsed little fucker. It's not just that you couldn't get shags at Oxford. It's that we genuinely enjoy laughing at pathetic little mongs like you who think that they are clever.

That's what it is Gimlet.

Neil Clark seems to have won a victory in his long running feud with Gimlet Kamm. You had better go and read the whole thing yourself, because it's a long and complicated tale that relates to who deleted or altered whose Wikepedia entry.

My view of all of this is that I am glad that Neil can piss once again all over Gimlet, but I do have my doubts as to the utility of this particular slash. Put bluntly, is it worth it?

Neil runs the risk of giving credibility to Gimlet just at the moment when people have started laughing out loud at the short-arsed little fucker. Don't believe me - take a butcher's at the comments to this load of old wank. Then ask yourself why the sub-editors ever let it through? Could they have been having a laugh as well? The point is not that Neil hasn't marshalled his evidence and made his case - the point is that you don't make a case against middle class cockroaches: you just find their point of weakness and go for them like a terrier does with a rat.

In the case of Gimlet, the simple fact that the short-arsed little fucker takes himself so seriously is evidence enough to me that what we need to do is just take the piss out of the little maggot. Cunt wants to talk about something; we prefer to chat about the fact that during three years at Oxford he didn't get one single recorded shag. Shit, my 14 year old has managed to get his end away, so why couldn't Gimlet?

He couldn't because he was a figure of fun. All the information that I managed to obtain about his time at university points to that conclusion: half remembered anecdotes about a pathetic, poisonous little dwarf that people felt a mixture of contempt and loathing for. This is a creature who wore suits to try and give himself gravitas. Gimlet, it didn't fucking work, did it?

Taking this cockroach seriously enough to point out his errors and scams is a mistake in my opinion. In a strange sort of way, it raises the short-arsed little fucker up to our level, and makes him a worthy enemy. He isn't. Creatures like him are treated with contempt even by their supposed friends - that's why faction after faction at Oxford used him and dumped him. That's why he crawled away to his college, never to be seen again.

Gimlet Kamm: no glittering prize, and not even a shag to make up for it.

Fuck him, just as one day we will fuck his class.

Did The Guardian set Gimlet Kamm up to make him look even more bovine than usual? His piece on just how dangerous Iran is came out on the very same day that the Americans finally admitted that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons.

It could have been an error, but it looks to me as if someone nudged someone else and winks were exchanged. The chance to have another laugh at the expense of this short-arsed little fucker must have been too good to pass up.

For many years now the warmongering fraternity have taken themselves so seriously, and we had to take them seriously too, given that they were cheering on war after war. However, those days are now done and it is time to start laughing at the losers.

Maybe that is why The Guardian's sub-editors let this nonsense through?

He likes name dropping, does young Gimlet Kamm. So would you if you were a short-arsed little fucker that everyone laughed at. The problem is that this time the name that has been dropped just happens to be that of John Sweeney. . . Hmm, it might have been a better idea, Gimlet, if you had picked another name. Still, thanks for the laugh, eh?

And the reason for the name drop? Screamer Sweeney went off to Venezuela and came back with a report that was critical of Hugo Chavez Frias. However, he did admit that the poor are gaining out of the revolution, so who cares about the rest?

Screamer didn't scream once, which is a pity. I wonder if Gimlet screams? I'll bet he does. And throws his Teddie around the room. Poor Teddie.

Has Ollie "Gimlet" Kamm lost the fucking plot? I call him Gimlet, by the way, because a gimlet is a small device used to make holes in wood - a small boring tool in other words. The reason why I ask is that a month ago the readers of this here blog decided that Gimlet was thick as pig shit. Now, evidence is emerging that the short-arsed little fucker is also an insecure social cripple of the first order.

Consider the evidence. This constant harping on about a supposed great victory that Gimlet won against the blogger Neil Clark. The harping was always tedious, has has now become obsessive, even by Gimlet's standards. "Look at me," Gimlet seems to be saying. "Aren't I important?" No, Gimlet, you are not. You are the same now as you were at Oxford: a sad, pathetic little social cripple that nobody wanted anything to do with.

Younger readers will probably have never heard of the Oxford and County Secretarial College, but it was famous as a provider of easy shags to generations of students. The Ox & Cow, to use its colloquial name, ran drinks parties to which just about any male student who wanted to go could get an invitation. Any male student but Gimlet Kamm, that is.

Poor Gimlet just couldn't understand why he didn't get invited. Gimlet, the truth can now be told: it was because you were regarded as a short-arsed little fucker that nobody wanted anywhere near them.

What was true of the Ox & Cow was also true of Apollo, the university's very own Freemasonry lodge, which Gimlet also tried to hack his way into. Gimlet, what can I say? You don't hack Apollo - if they had wanted you then you would have been invited to join. Nobody did, Gimlet, nobody did.

Having failed to make his mark at Oxford, Gimlet then re-emerged a generation later as an advocate of globalist expansionism. Well, that's been a great success, hasn't it?

Then Gimlet started screaming that Britain should accept the two-legged cockroaches that collaborated with imperialism in Iraq. As I write these words those same collaborators are hiding out like so many sewer rats, terrified of the vengeance that they will face when the last Anglo-American occupier finally abandons the country that they betrayed.

Is this why Gimlet feels the need to constantly harp on about Neil Clark? Is it because the whole of his pathetic existence has been one failure after another? No friends and no shags at Oxford for our Gimlet; and every cause that he has ever supported has turned into a disaster for him and a laugh a minute for the rest of us.

What a pathetic little cockroach he is.

The People spoke and they decided by a free and fair vote that Ollie Kamm was not just a short-arsed little fucker, but that he was thick as pig shit to boot.

Right on cue, the SALF popped up and proved the point with an idiotic attack on Neil Clark. You can understand the SALF's desire to recover some face, especially after doing such a precipitate runner from me over at Harry's Place. The problem is that all the SALF has managed to do is to show how correct the people were when they decided that he is as thick as pig shit.

OK, the tale it too tedious to relate in full, but the gist is that Ollie wants us to believe that Neil arranged with a friend of his for the friend to defend him against some criticism or other. Ollie claimed that this Stephen Pollard blog posting had comments by this "accomplice" of Neil Clark in which "Mr Clark's accomplice cheerfully owns up to the imposture".

The problem is that the comments show nothing of the kind - and the only way you could read them in that light is if you were thick as pig shit yourself. There are two of them by a Martin Meenagh, who blogs at this link, and in the second he states quite clearly that he wasn't "urged by Neil to object" to anything. He just thought that what was happening was "unfair," so he gave some support. The SALF then commented that he "naturally" accepted this explanation!

So what we have here is a SALF who is either too stupid to remember what he wrote, or who thinks that we aren't going to read the damned text that he so kindly provided for us.

Ollie Kamm: a short-arsed little fucker who is thick as fucking pig shit and doesn't care who knows it!

A week ago your friendly Exile had his ankle nibbled by a short-arsed little fucker named Ollie Kamm. Following this, the SALF did a runner, and has not been seen since, thus proving the point that I made last Saturday: more gob than a cow's got cunt, but no bottle at all. Like all his class: no balls for a ruck.

Being a charitable soul, I put the matter to the vote. Is Ollie a thick cunt? Was he trying it on? Is he a precious short-arsed little fucker who was just so angry that he wanted to scream and scream again?

Two votes came in for Ollie as pretty boy, and six for Ollie the thick as pig shit, short-arsed little fucker.

So, the people having spoken, it is announced that Ollie Kamm is just fucking thick.

And a short-arsed little fucker. . .

I have a question for you: if a person writes an article how does that make him a pimp? A fellow named Ollie Kamm thinks that it does. If you don't believe me, read his comment here.

OK, so I wrote an article about Mexico City's good-time girls - an article that didn't even have anything to do with prostitution - and Ollie thinks that this makes me a pimp. You can read the piece here or here. Trust me - only Ollie Kamm, a short-arsed fucker if ever there was one, could believe that writing an article makes me into something other than a writer.

So, what might have happened? There are three possible explanations:

1. Ollie the short-arsed fucker has past form when it comes to failing to understand things. There was the time when the SAF actually took a blogger to task, for saying that a comment by Christopher Hitchens about Muslims being deracinated, would have been better "expressed in the original German". The SAF argued that deracinated had French roots, thus completely missing the point of the sarcasm. So aside from being a short-arsed little fucker, he is as thick as pig shit. Could that be the reason?

2. The SAF also has form at trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. Take this posting which argued that the Korean War was a result of Soviet expansionism. The only problem is that the source that the SAF quotes doesn't argue that. The SAF probably thought that we would not check. Big fucking mistake.

3. The third possibility is that Ollie was so very annoyed when he wrote those words that he just wanted to scream and scream - just like the little pretty boy that he is.

So what do we think it is, people? Is he a bit thick? Was he trying it on? Or was he just so mad that he wanted to scream and throw Teddie around the room?

The Exile reports: you decide.

Update, Saturday:

No word from Ollie as yet. Like so many of his class, he comes over as having more gob than a cow's got cunt - until someone comes along who is always up for a ruck. Then he runs like the nesh bugger that he really is.

Neil Clark has had an idea: every time a warmonger accuses the late President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, of being responsible for genocide, Neil drops them a line and asks them to point out where this genocide actually happened. That the Balkan Wars were brutal, and carried plenty of atrocities in their wake is not the matter under discussion. Genocide is a different thing, so when did it occur? So far none of them have had the bottle to answer his simple question.

Why does he bother? Probably because these clowns keep trotting out the same line time and time again. It was the excuse for the war against Yugoslavia in 1999, and it turned out to be just as much of a fantasy as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The people who argue that Milosovic was guilty of genocide tend to be the same types who argued for war against Iraq, and who will probably go on to support whatever aggression the USA decides to mount against Iran. That is, if they are not too busy screaming for war against Sudan.

Young Ollie Kamm has decided to weigh in to this debate, by arguing that Milosovic had legal control over the forces that committed the Srebrenica Massacre. The problem here is that nobody is arguing that massacres did not take place: they did and all sides carried them out. What Neil is saying is that genocide did not take place; that is the matter under debate and evidence of a massacre is not the same as evidence of genocide.

By plowing his lonely furrow, Neil reminds them that not everyone is gullible enough to swallow the warmongers' nonsense.

The Hitchenswatch blog is dedicated to, well, watching C. Hitchens. Young Ollie Kamm is a Hitchens' groupie, so it is natural that he rises to his hero's defence whenever he sees a chance. Unfortunately, he tends to bollocks things up, as this exchange shows. . .

Hitchens had written about "deracinated young Muslim men," which led Sonic, his watcher, to comment that such sentiments are best "expressed in the original German". Along pops Ollie to make the idiotic point that deracinated has French roots!

Do you think that someone should explain sarcasm to this warmonger? It is the same sarcasm that the late Molly Ivin used when she wrote that a Pat Buchanan speech "sounded better in the original German".

Another fine mess, Ollie, another fine mess.

Let's take this nice and slowly. Ollie Kamm argues that the background to the Korean War "was a controversial subject," as many people held the view that South Korea had started it. Well, that may have been the line, but no bugger actually swallowed the hook that was on the end. Other than in the minds of a few old tankies, the fact that North Korea started the Korean Civil War is fairly well established.

However, Ollie has to create, and then demolish, this Aunt Sally, because his main theme is that:

The Soviet Union was a state of repression and penury, but also of expansionist designs against the West and its allies. The Korean War was a case of direct Communist aggression, in which Stalin was deeply implicated. Contrary to the revisionist historians, the fundamental reason for the Cold War was the character and intentions of the Soviet Union.

OK, got that? Especially the "direct communist aggression" bit? Good, because that is not what the source that Ollie links to actually says. The basic run-down here is that:

1. Kim Il-Sung, the North korean leader, met Stalin in April 1950 and suggested that N. Korea could overrun the South in three days. Stalin replied that he would go along with the idea if the Chinese could be brought in: "If you should get kicked in the teeth, I shall not lift a finger. You have to ask Mao for all the help," said the great pipesman
2. Kim then trots along to Peking and leaves the Chinese with the impression that the USSR is rather more in favour of the idea than was actually the case.
3. When the attack does take place, and when the North fails to subjugate the South in three days, the USSR first promises air cover if the Chinese get stuck in, then withdraws the offer when they do, then changes its mind again and provides limited air support.

So, what do we have? Well, we have a quite wonderful fuck-up, in which everyone is dancing to Kim Il-Sung's tune at the start and then trying to figure out what to do next when they realised that he has made monkeys of them.

However, what we do not have is a Moscow organised conspiracy that can be used as a case study to argue that the USSR was an aggressive state that started the Cold war.

Ollie, if you read this - get back with Stan, 'cos you fucking well need his help.

Following on from the last posting - scroll down folks - we see that Neil Clark has posted something on his site which basically argues the same thing as us. Great minds clearly think alike. We also share the same view of Oliver Kamm, and on the subject of which, we note that young Ollie is all in favour of regime change in North Korea.

He starts off by saying that a military attack is out of the question, but rather spoils that point by then claiming that this should be kept a secret from North Korea. As if the North Koreans are so fucking stupid that they can't figure out the difference between sabre rattling and real preparations for war.

His next point is that diplomacy alone is useless because North Korea's leader is not rational. His evidence for this is some bollocks by Christopher Hitchens which argues fairly well that NK is nasty, but says nothing that could lead anyone to conclude that the regime is run by suicidal lunatics.

He then goes on to say that China has to be brought in on the action and made to cut N. Korea's transport links. The idea is obviously to force the population to turn against the rulers, but it is amusing to see that the threat that the USA should use against China is that of a nuclear-armed Japan.

Hmm, what happens if John Chinaman doesn't play ball? Come to think of it, what happens if the Japanese don't? The problem that Ollie has is the problem that the Americans also have: matters are out of the USA's control. They rely on Peking doing this or Tokyio doing that: Washington can cajole, it can threaten, but it can't do shit on its own.

Finally, we are treated to a sidelight on Iraq: what a relief it was for young Ollie that the country was attacked when it was - otherside the Iraqis might have got a nuclear bomb all of their own!

Yeah, right, as if a country that had lived under sanctions for 12 years, a country that had undergone fairly intrusive international inspections and which had got rid of all its limited nuclear research, anyway, could suddenly have reversed course and built a bomb this side of the next millenium.

What can we say? Oliver Kamm works in the City of London and is, therefore, a right banker.

Yesterday I posted some memories of the Oxford Union and a certain Joe Blob that took place in its garden. I have received quite a few e-mails on the topic, several of which count as obscene even by my dubious standards. What can I say? Keep up the good work.

They can be divided into two themes. The writers of the first tranche were determined to demonstrate that the girl on her knees could not have been Sally; rather it was Sarah, or Susan or even Caroline. For the record, all I did was pick a name out of thin air. . . I'm not so sure that I even remember a Sally at Oxford in those days. I do remember a Caroline, though, and agree that "she went like a steam engine," so maybe my correspondent's memory is better than mine. However, she was at the Ox & Cow, and most of them did clatter like Stephenson's Rocket when their fires had been suitably poked.

The second group wanted to prove that I was rehashing a tale from their day - some even provided names, colleges and dates to prove their thesis. Gentlemen, it may very well have happened in Trinity 1970, but that does not prove that it did not also happen in Hilary 1984. Truth be told, I suspect that if all the Oxford Union's hackettes were laid end to end, nobody would be in the least bit surprised.

And now for something completely different. . . Ollie Kamm reports that he was in the audience for the Weinberger show. I don't remember him from those days, and judging from his published photograph the bugger still hasn't reached puberty, so I reckon that it's a safe bet that he has never leaned against an Oxford Union wall. That said, amid all the verbiage, I was reminded that the late E.P. Thompson was one of the speakers.

What I remember most about him was that he wore an ordinary tweed jacket instead of the more usual black tie. He explained, rather movingly I thought, that after returning from the Second World War, he and his surviving friends had vowed never to wear black tie again in memory of all of all the friends that they had lost. I was reminded as he spoke of Harold Macmillan, a man who left Oxford to serve in the Great War, and who could not face returning to the university to finish his degree after it ended. His aching memories of so many who had died simply precluded it.

I think that we should listen to the fading voices of men like these, rather than the strident tones of prepubescent oinks who want to send my sons off to die, while they sit at home, wanking dementedly over the carnage.

This is good sport: Ollie Kamm nibbling at Crooked Timber's ankle like some deranged King Charles Spaniel that has just been kicked.

We have to go back to 2004 for the real laughs. That was when Ollie announced that he was deleting Crooked Timber from his blogroll. Since Crooked Timber had never actually linked to him - they had probably never even heard of him - Ollie felt able to explain that he was "at liberty to explain the excision with no risk of causing the distress that my strictures ought properly to elicit".

Now, let's just pause here for a moment, shall we? If some wazzock with a photo that makes him look like a lobotomised hamster suddenly decided to nibble my ankle in this way, what in the name of God's left testicle makes him think that my reaction would be anything less than sheer indifference?

Blogging is fun, but it's unimportant fun. Most people do not read blogs, as I found out back in January when I returned to the UK. Of all the old friends that I met up with only one actually read weblogs, and about half had never even heard of the damned things. In Britain people meet up in the swill shops and set the world to rights that way - they don't do it via a computer screen.

I blog because I live in what used to be a village on the far outskirts of Mexico City. To get from my house to the city centre is rather like travelling from Manchester to Liverpool. I am bored shitless in other words, so to prove that I still exist, I blog. What is the influence of this blog? About nil I should think, and that is true of all the others.

Ollie, aside from being a humourless git, is clearly one who thinks that his drivel is meaningful. I hate to disabuse him but it is not. My advice to him is to get back with Stan as quickly as possible - the laughs that way would be better.

Neil Clark, who comes over as a decent bloke, has decided to sue Oliver Kamm over some comments that the latter made. You can read Neil's reasons for yourself, and at the bottom of that posting you will see my comment that urges him not to do anything of the sort.

As I said on Neil's blog, the problem with suing a pretty boy like Kamm is that all his little friends will crawl out of the woodwork and start a smear campaign. Sure enough, that is what is already happening, as Wankers for War claim that Neil is doing an "Irving". So even if he wins, the matter will not end with that court victory. He will find himself firefighting all across the web.

The second point really only applies to socialists, but I'll offer it out as a freebie: when the sewer dwellers start giving it gob, you know that you are doing something right. It happened to me with a type accused me of being a jew-baiter. I still get cheap laughs at that bugger's expense even now. I suppose the problem with not having anything approaching a proper job is that I don't have management vermin to kick around: the world o' blogs makes up for a lot.

Neil Clark is not a socialist, but I would hate to see him waste his time on this matter. I hope that it gets dropped.