The Exile

Neil Clark is a journalist and blogger who tends to get the little things wrong, but the big things very, very right. He reminds me a bit of Andrew Gilligan, the former BBC reporter, who reported back in 2003 that the Blairite regime had "sexed up" a dossier full of allegations about Iraq, in the run up to the aggression against that country. Gilligan got some of his small details wrong, but the big one, the one that stated that this dossier was seriously dodgy, he got bang to rights.

So it is with Neil Clark. He commented that Bernard Kouchner, the new French Foreign Minister, had supported the war against Iraq. This is not the case, but it is also not the main point that Neil was making. What he was arguing was that Kouchner's appointment reflects a new "alliance of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists that is already entrenched in both the US and Britain".

That Kouchner falls into the latter category is not in question. Indeed, Neil has a rather nice photograph of him shaking hands with various Kosovo Liberation Army types, and he did support the war against Yugoslavia in 1999. So Neil's argument seems to stand: the alliance between liberal- interventionists and neo-cons is up and running.

As with Gilligan, the warwankers are not seeking to deny this fact. Rather they are seeking to discredit Neil's argument by pointing out his minor errors.

Boys, Andrew Gilligan was right about Iraq, just as Neil Clark is right about you.

As the British prepare to evacuate their consulate in Basra in the face of Iraqi attacks, and as even the Tories threaten to vote against the Blairite regime over its handling of the war against Iraq, what is the attitude of the wankblogs? Why, to ignore it all, of course, and misrepresent the non-interventionist position - and then call for a war against Sudan to distract attention from the disaster at hand!

That is what the Wankmaster-General does. First he starts off by claiming that we who opposed the war against Iraq now claim that the Iraq disaster tells against an "intervention" in Sudan. Actually, we don't talk about interventions: we talk about aggressions against sovereign states that have never threatened the UK.

He then goes on to argue that the war against Iraq was a humanitarian intervention, when it was manifestly sold to the British punters as a war to remove weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair even said that if the Iraqi regime would disarm, then the war would not happen. The regime could not divest itself of weapons that it did not have so the aggression went ahead. However, at no point in the run-up to the aggression, did the Blairites actually say that Britain was going to war to change a government that it did not like. Or rather a government that its American overlords did not like...

He then concludes by saying that people cannot argue that post-Iraq there should be no more "humanitarian interventions". That is blatent misrepresentation: no bugger ever believed that Iraq fell into that category and if war against the Sudan ever came about, no bugger would believe for a moment that humanitarianism was even on the agenda.

Over at the main, British, warwank site, the warmongers are already chewing over the recent Lancet report, which argues that over 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. The 'mongers are dissembling, arguing that surely the figures cannot be so high, can they? They scream that the report is biased, with research badly carried out.

They remind the Exile of those Turks who deny the Armenian Massacres, or the ultra-rightists who try to play down the holocaust. Whatever the true figure is, Iraq suffered a war of aggression: all casualties, from whatever source can be traced to that aggression. The blame for those deaths lies at the feet of the aggressors, and those who supported that aggression.

Update: The Exile has just found out that the methodology used in this report was also used to collate deaths in Sudan's Darfur region. None of the warmongers, from the Chimp on down, questioned the results then, so why are they doing it now?

Staying on the theme of Sudan, and following on from the last posting - scroll down, folks, you can do it - Jonathan Steele has an article in The Guardian which takes the wankers for war to task with the argument that:

The so-called janjaweed militias that Khartoum organised and armed did not distinguish between civilians and guerrilla fighters. They burned huts, raped women and put tens of thousands of civilians to flight, forcing them across the border into Chad or into camps inside Darfur. But the rebels also committed atrocities, a fact that was rarely reported since it upset the black-and-white moral image that many editors preferred.

OK, so what we have here is a nasty tribal conflict where nobody much cares about the rules of warfare. On the specific charge of genocide, something which the wankblogs are always, well, wanking about, Steele has this to say:

In spite of efforts to describe the killing in Darfur as genocide, neither the UN nor the EU went along with this description. It was not because of moral myopia, but because they understood the difference between a brutal civil war and a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. Darfur is not Rwanda. Only the US accepted the genocide description, though this seemed a concession to domestic lobbies rather than a matter of conviction. Washington never followed through with the forcible intervention in Darfur that international law requires once a finding of genocide is made.

Now, one can accept or reject Steele's argument, but what one cannot do is claim that it is not a coherent case. The same cannot be said of the wankblogs - their arguments are little more than dodgy rhetoric and personal abuse.

The dodgiest case is made by the old Wankmaster-General himself, Norman Geras. He starts off with these words:

It wasn't rape, it was a domestic conflict.

Then he proceeds to demolish that argument. The problem is that it wasn't Steele's argument and those are not Steele's words. It is the oldest trick in the book: set up an Aunt Sally and then attack that, rather than what the writer actually wrote.

Following on from that the old Wankmaster quotes from the relevant genocide convention, and challenges Steele to show why this doesn't "now apply in Darfur".

Er, can someone please tell the Wankmaster that you can't prove a negative? Besides, it is not our job to demonstrate that genocide didn't happen: it is the wankers' task to show that it did.

As for the personal abuse, well, who better to turn to than our old friends at the Hand Shandy For War blog? Click over there and have a laugh. Yes, we know, that is all anyone does with this site, but go and have an extra deep belly laugh.

All in all, if this is the best that the wankblogs can do, then they have an uphill task in persuading us that a third war against a Moslem country is necessary.

Following on from the last post, just before he trecked off to his pit the Exile saved the hilarious comments that Gene's load of old wank had elicited. Sure enough they have all been deleted now, but can be read, and savoured, here:


Comments: The Nazi-Mufti connection

Another little known historical fact that may shock hp readers is that some of the nazis were not actually Muslims..

Hard to believe I know.
Posted by sonic at August 21, 2006 03:44 AM

Yawn. Do you have anything important to say here, Sonic?
Posted by Patricia at August 21, 2006 03:51 AM

You mean something as witty and cutting as "yawn"?
Posted by sonic at August 21, 2006 03:54 AM

Do you reckon that the Grand Mufti was as big a help to the German war effort as the Irgun? I know that Germany turned down their offer of a formal alliance, but by starting their terrorist campaign against the British in 1944, I am sure that you will agree that they became de facto, if not de jure, members of the Axis.

I seem to remember reading that the British had to have 8 battalions in Palestine at the end of 1944. No doubt they would have come in useful against Germany...
Posted by Exile at August 21, 2006 03:56 AM

Okay, let me address the substance of your remarks, such as they are. Gene was not trying to say something idiotic, like "all Muslims are Nazis." He was explaining the historical point that one of the channels of transmission of European anti-semitism to the Arab/Muslim world was through the Mufti. Do you deny the existence of European-style antisemitism in the Arab/Muslim world, as evidenced by recent statements by M. Ahmedinejad or as present in the Hamas charter? If you don't, then why is it irrelevant to point out those channels?
Posted by Patricia at August 21, 2006 03:59 AM

My uncle once knew a man who claims that he knows a man who once a saw a muslim not signal properly before making a turn at a redlight.

Spooky, isn't it?
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 04:10 AM

Was he a nazi muslim BBB?
Posted by sonic at August 21, 2006 04:13 AM

Hard to say, my uncle's friend's friend promptly soiled himself while running in the opposite direction, screaming "Argh! The Green Menace!"

But he probably was a nazi muslim.
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 04:22 AM

The Stern gang focused solely on the British as they saw them as enemies of the Jews. They were prepared to play ball with the Nazis, and proposed to assist them in removing Jews from Europe. They wanted to enter the war on Germany's side. A quite extraordinary bunch of characters.
Posted by Benjamin at August 21, 2006 04:44 AM

Oh shit, you mentioned the holocaust AND Muslim anti-Semitism... Here comes Harry's Place cockroach infestation of anti-Semites, historical revisionists and apologists. Just shoot me now.

And Benji's out of the closet. No surprise at all.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 04:52 AM

He was explaining the historical point that one of the channels of transmission of European anti-semitism to the Arab/Muslim world was through the Mufti.

Actually there's a claim that perhaps the critical transfer went the other direction - that the Final Solution was originally the Mufti's idea.

To draw a parallel, the Germans felt a need to publically deny that the holocaust was taking place, while in the Middle east, Arab newpapers had no shame and openly called for the genocide of Jews in the middle east. So perhaps the holocaust , ie. genocide against the Jews, is an idea that fits significantly more comfortably into Arab/Middle Eastern society than it did even into Nazi Germany.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 05:00 AM

"cockroach infestation"

I would learn German if I was you Josh, sentiments like that sound so much better in the original language!
Posted by sonic at August 21, 2006 05:19 AM

What language does "suck my dick, you Nazi" sound best in Sonic?
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 05:36 AM
Josh

Eh? Have I said anything anti-semitic? I have not denied anything regarding the Mufti.
Posted by Benjamin at August 21, 2006 05:36 AM

I think it is just fine in the original idiot.

BTW love the blog especially the "No muslims = Peace" video.

Your own little Enloesung?
Posted by sonic at August 21, 2006 05:39 AM

Benji, the "Zionists were in bed with the Nazis" crap is a favorite with all anti-Semites. No doubt the truth is that the Zionists wanted to make a deal with the Nazis to save European Jews from the Holocaust.

Of course you would pick the harshest slander you could think of to distract attention from the Mufti's own genocidal ferver.

My only question is, did you think that no one would call you on your obvious sentiments, or were you counting on it?
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 05:43 AM

Sonic, now you're lying in order to make points. Asshole.

I suppose I should have extracted the audio portion of that radio show from the UTube video, but then I would have had to figure out how to stream the audio myself.

As it has said on that post (and in the comments) for 3 months:

Update: I just noticed the symbol at the beginning of the video (an Islamic crescent with a circle and a line through it, an equals sign and a peace sign, in other words “no Muslims equals peace”). Keep in mind that whoever made the video montage had nothing to do with the radio program that the audio was recorded from. The video montage mostly follows the audio and helps make it’s point, but also has provocative signs that detract from the argument such as the one it starts with - there’s such a thing as going too far.

Anyway I had listened to the audio without really watching the video when I posted this.

I tried to resize the window to hide the video, but that doesn’t work. Listen to the radio program - ignore the video if it bothers you.

Did you get that? The radio show is not affiliated with the video, and the You-Tube player isn't fully resizable. When you make the player smaller, the controls get smaller - ie unusable.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 05:48 AM

Oh right so you posted it, but didn't notice it and then when did notice it did you put up this disclaimer

"ignore the video if it bothers you"

So calling for the deaths of a billion people may bother some people?

No sh*t.
Posted by sonic at August 21, 2006 05:51 AM

I recommend that people listen to the radio clip and make up their own minds. It's satire broadcast on the eve of the 7/7 massacre.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 05:53 AM

So calling for the deaths of a billion people may bother some people?

While I would never defend the "No Muslims=Peace" signs, but I also interpret it as an anti-immigration slogan, not a pro-genocide slogan. I think your interpretation is completely spurious, Sonic.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:00 AM

In any case the radio satire Sonic refered to about Guardian style appeasment reactions to the 7/7 bombing is posted on my blog here.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:06 AM

It starts pretty slowly but it gets better, by the way.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:09 AM

It's very funny by the end.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:23 AM

Can we imagine the reaction of hp's regulars if someone had a video on their blog that began with "no jews = peace" symbols? As pointed out by other in the past, there is a definite double standard regarding the labeling anti-semitism and islamophobia.

"I find Israel's action to be ineffective and self-defeating" results in shouts of "Ah, out the closet now you vicious anti-semite!" As regards islamophobia, it seems that anything short of actually calling for the death of 1 billion muslims is accepted as something that reasonable people can debate.

Just how it looks from here folks...
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 06:29 AM

As I pointed out, BBBIII, it's the radio satire that I'm posting not the video montage that some random person saddled his You-Tube recording with.

It's so damn convinient of you to try to burn the book without reading it. Content is nothing but an inconvenience to censors like you.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:32 AM

Or maybe you did listen to the content, and THAT's why you want that program censored. Perhaps it has truths you want buried.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:37 AM

Josh Scholar: "Yes, the intro calls for genocide, but that cannot possibly be a reflection of the content or indeed the mindset of people who believe these things."

Anyhow, it's just "going too far" anyways.

And the union jack being enveloped by the ominous green? Am I to assume it has nothing to do with an irrational fear of muslims and is just a comment on the need for more greens in the common diet?
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 06:39 AM

Josh Scholar: "Yes, the intro calls for genocide, but that cannot possibly be a reflection of the content or indeed the mindset of people who believe these things."

That's not what I wrote, you lying piece of shit!!!!

I demand that your lie be deleted from this comment section!
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:41 AM

I demand that your slander be deleted.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:42 AM

Paranoid, isn't he?

If by truths you mean "Argh! The Green Menace!", I believe that many of the folks here at hp are already familiar with that one.
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 06:42 AM

I've contacted Gene.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:45 AM

I believe it was more in the spirit of parady than slander.

Anyways, your mom is here to pick you up Josh, later.
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 06:46 AM

I wrote quite the opposite. What you wrote then and now is obviously deliberate misrepresentation.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:47 AM

Can we imagine the reaction of hp's regulars if someone had a video on their blog that began with "no jews = peace" symbols? As pointed out by other in the past, there is a definite double standard regarding the labeling anti-semitism and islamophobia.

Of course there is, just as there is a double-standard about anti-black or anti-white racism. One is quite rightly considered worse than the other as there has been a long history of whites oppressing blacks and very few cases where it has been the other way round. When the chief rabbi calls for the extermination of muslims and allows himself to be the guest of a dictator whose avowed aim is to "cleanse" the world of anyone who was muslim to the extent even that their grandfather practised the religion then we will be able to make a comparison but at present those who decry "double standards" sound just like those who mutter under their breaths about how "the blacks get favourable treatment."
Posted by The appliance of simple left-wing logic. at August 21, 2006 06:48 AM

Benji, the "Zionists were in bed with the Nazis" crap is a favorite with all anti-Semites.

I never said the Zionists in general were in bed with the Nazis. The evidence is that a small group (the Stern gang) were prepared to co-operate with them to facilitate the creation of a Jewish state, and defeat the British.

Or at least feelers were put out, and no response came. However, that is a far cry from saying that Zionists in general co-operated with the Nazis, which is ridiculous.
Posted by Benjamin at August 21, 2006 06:49 AM

The appliance of simple left-wing logic,

So, it's ok to hate muslims because jews were oppressed?
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 06:53 AM

It's a regular occurance here that people like me who may critcise Jews (in this case the Stern gang) are then accused of anti-semitism. But in reality criticism of Jews, the Israeli govt etc, does not make one an anti-semite, and nor does saying that the Mufti was a twat make one an Islamophobe.

Get a bloody grip, Josh.
Posted by Benjamin at August 21, 2006 06:57 AM

I think BBBIII is deliberately trolling - deliberately pretending to misunderstand the comments, hoping to start arguements that will hide the actual content of the article.

Ignore the troll.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 06:58 AM

Benji, bringing it up, off topic, in order to distract attention from real anti-Semitism is a bit of a give-away though.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:00 AM

It's called balance, Josh. I like to remind people here that Jews are not just victims, constantly persecuted. Fundamentally, they are just like everybody else - you got the good, the bad and the ugly. It should not be a controversial thing to say.
Posted by Benjamin at August 21, 2006 07:04 AM

Ah, your hatred is called "balance." This must be an obscure meaning of the word that I wasn't previously aware of.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:07 AM

Question is Josh, if you now know that the video on your blog implies genocide, why is it still up?

Also, yes, I am part of massive propaganda blitz by the forces of The Green Menace ("Argh, oh no!"). They have promised me that when they conquer our lands I will recieve a more tax incentives than the other dhimmis. This is absolutely true.
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 07:17 AM

Notice how the anti-Semites, historical revisionists and apologists are desperately trying to distract attention from the original topic of the post? They'll pick fights, do ANYTHING to try to change the subject.

I have to say, I've never seen desperate trolling before!
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:21 AM

And more slanderous trolling... BBBIII knows that I've already denied exactly what he's claiming I said.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:23 AM

Sonic, what are you doing around here? Good to see the gang's back - although in my case only for a mo'.

And Josh, my little ray of sunshine, the Stern Gang didn't want to make any such deal: they wanted to fight alongside Germany 'cos they wanted to establish a similar state in Palestine.

That said, Josh, thanks for the big girl's blousish tantrum. Does mummie know you're not in bed?
Posted by Exile at August 21, 2006 07:23 AM

Notice how the anti-Semites, historical revisionists and apologists are desperately trying to distract attention from the original topic of the post? They'll pick fights, do ANYTHING to try to change the subject.

I have to say, I've never seen desperate trolling before!
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:23 AM

Exile "blah blah blah"

And we hear from the fascist who loved Milosovitch! Please crawl back under a rock.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:25 AM

Er, no, Josh, it's not trolling, its taking the piss. We regard Gene as one of the great figures of early 21C fun, and when he starts on one of his Grand Mufti = Arab nationalism = wicked Nazis, we just have to join in and have a laugh.
Posted by Exile at August 21, 2006 07:26 AM

Josh - "anti-Semites, historical revisionists and apologists"

This really is prime example of just throwing shit at a wall hoping something sticks. You should throw in "counter-revolutionaries" just for the heck of it.

Oh, and bang your shoe on your podium.
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 07:28 AM

Nope, never loved the man, but did respect his stand against globalised capitalism.

Ever heard of the ad-homin fallacy? Attack the writer 'cos you can't say shit against his words? Well, you are a good example of the trend.
Posted by Exile at August 21, 2006 07:29 AM

Yes of course, there is no topic you find funnier than the Holocaust, Exile. That's no surprise from the blogger who loved a more recent genocide.

Fucking fascist! What are you going to do when you don't have any pictures of Milosovitch that aren't stuck together?
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:29 AM

Counter-revolutionary! [Bangs shoe on podium!]
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:32 AM

Good boy, Josh Scholar, good boy.

Next, get some sense into your thick head and take down that disgusting video on your blog.
Posted by BigBadBob III at August 21, 2006 07:35 AM

F-off
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:36 AM

Er, no, Josh, there is nothing I find funnier than Gene at the moment - unless its you and your tantrums.
Posted by Exile at August 21, 2006 07:37 AM

Prediction: this shameful thread will be deleted.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:40 AM

There are too many anti-Semites on Harry's Place for it to be possible to make a post on the Holocaust without this deeply shameful crap filling up the comment section.
Posted by Josh Scholar at August 21, 2006 07:41 AM

Before it is I hope you take note that slander is spoken and cannot be deleted. Libel is the word you wanted.

Goodnight to you and don't forget to give Teddie a kiss before you go off to the land of nod.
Posted by Exile at August 21, 2006 07:43 AM

It's hard to believe, but the Exile stands in complete agreement with a recent posting at Harry's Place. Even more amazing is that the poster is from their wanker in residence: step forward Dave T.

Basically, Dave argues that a telephone company named Orange was out of order to suspend a bloke for writing something nasty about Arabs in his free time. OK, so it's a freedom of speech case and we are all with Inigo Wilson, even though he is a Tory cunt as well.

So far so good, but Dave has to balls his own case up in a way that only he can. He does call himself a socialist, but always fucks up the first principles. I know, what can you expect, but at least he should try harder. His first fuck up comes when he argues that the bosses may have grounds for giving grief to people if "they betray corporate secrets or defame their employers.".

Someone might like to tell this clown that to betray something means that you must first have had a loyalty to it. What working man has ever had anything other than atavistic loathing for his employer? Leading on from that, how can we defame our employers? To defame means to harm the reputation of someone; and since the employer does not have a reputation in the minds of working people, how can it be damaged?

The second point that needs taking issue with is the idea that "Orange is a private company, which is entitled to take any decision it wants to, consistent with employment law, in relation to its employees.".

My arse it fucking well is! Orange may have the power to do what it likes, but it has no right to do anything, and we as socialists must never conceed to management filth any such power. If the filth want us to obey their edicts then they must coerce us - only then will we obey and only so long as the coercion lasts. Otherwise it's two fingers to the boss and who has the playing cards?

All of this is a sort of Socialism 101. The employer has no rights that we respect, only coercive powers that we kick up against. He is scum and knows that he is scum because we tell him at every opportunity.

That said, let's support this bugger Inigo Wilson, because a victory for him is a victory against employers everywhere.

Can someone please tell Dave T. that this is what it is all about?

Our press and the anti-American left both in this country and outside of it has been reporting "Hadithas" over and over again over the last three years.

The signatories of the document are liberals and progressives. They make clear their commitment to domestic and economic policies with which we at The Weekly Standard heartily disagree. But in the fight against tyranny and terror, against secular dictatorships and Islamic jihadism, is it too much to hope that decent liberals and conservatives could make common cause? We think not, and we hope that this clarion call from overseas might contribute to a rebirth of political courage and moral clarity on the American left as well.

Good stuff. There are items in this document that I don’t agree with, but it’s great to see such a brave statement of decent principles and an open denunciation of the left for being on the wrong side of history. Such a challenge from within its own ranks is essential if the left is ever to stop causing so much lethal damage to the west. Let’s see what kind of reaction the Eustonians now get from the comrades.

Now, I would say that both these statements amount to an endorsement of the Euston Manifesto. So should the Hand Shandyists For War who actually went to the trouble of posting a dictionary definition of the word endorsement in a risible attempt to prove that Kristol and Phillips did not endorse the bloody thing. Someone should point out definition number four: "To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement. . ." I think that covers what Kristol and Phillips did: they endorsed the Manifesto by giving a statement of approval to it. You don't have to sign something to say that you support it, or think that it's a good thing.

The shandyists accuse Ostler of either "lying, trying to be funny or just displaying a shaky grasp of the English language".

I don't have to ask them the same question - I know what they are, but I just can't think of a word that properly describes them. I am tempted to call them a bunch of cunts, but a cunt is useful and I can't think of any use for a shandyist.

Let's keep laughing at them.

Update, 4-May-2006: The shandyist responsible for this tosh has decided not to continue being chuckled at here. Instead he has entered his own comment box and repeated the same old drivel: namely that it was all just a joke. The Exile is not impressed but will not overide the ban on his posting at Hand Shandyists For War. That shall wait for a more important matter. . .

Following on from yesterday's posting about the Euston Manifesto, I see that this is not the first time that this collection of chancers has tried to start a front organisation. However, as Crooked Timber pointed out, all previous goes have, well, gone:

The “decent left” who brought us Unite Against Terror, Labour Friends of Iraq, Democratiya, Engage and any number of other internet fronts, have now launched their Euston Manifesto . Together with lots of general commitments to motherhood and apple pie, there are the usual obsessions: Iraq, Israel, the alleged anti-Americanism and anti-semitism of those who disagree with them.

A new front organisation appears to have been set up, probably as a way to keep Blairism alive after the deluge to come. It is called The Euston Manifesto, and aims to unite the "socialist left" with "egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment".

This was the aim of Blair when he was leader of the opposition, and talks took place between him and Paddy Ashdown, the then Liberal-Democratic Party leader, towards that end. It all got put on the back burner when the Tories self-destructed in 1997, but as support for NuLab sags the idea seems to have been dusted off again.

I doubt if it is a properly organised front - the old Communist Party would be needed for that - rather it looks like a marker for the future that has been put down by some Blairites. It can be expected to swing into action when Blairism is finally repudiated by the Labour Party. Then it will act as a forum for those who wish to unite Blairism with the Lib-Dems and the Tory left.

At the moment the Euston Manifesto is linked to Bloggers for Labour, a stooge organisation of true believers that acts as an electronic cheerleader for Blairite scabbery.

That said, its roots do seem to be American. Reading the actual manifesto, the American habit of switching an "S" for a "Z" seems to be the norm, thus we are treated to such delights as organizations, globalization and democratization. We are also given to believe that the plural of forum is forums. Sometimes the standard English is idiotically mixed with the American variant, and this is why we get to read of the International Labour Organization. It looks to this cynical eye as if some semi-literate was given the job of proof-reading an American original and ballsed the job up.

Reading through this rubbish as a whole three paragraphs jump out and hit the British reader in the eye. The first is this one:

We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures - freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.

What are we to make of this load of old wank that appeared in my comment box? Normally I would not comment directly on the deluded ravings of some hysterical warmonger. Still less do I make it a habit of legitimising the rantings of the entryists who have temporarily taken over the Labour Party by quoting their inane ramblings. That said. . . This is my toy. . . And I make the bloody rules. Here is what little Dave T. from Harry's Place had to say:

Exile, have you spoken to any british servicemen serving in iraq, or who have served there? What would you consider to be the general mood in the british army right now? Please reply. If not, then shut the fuck up supporting islamofascism, 9/11, 7/7 London blasts etc and start supporting Greatest forward march of freedom in the greater middle east, since the fall of the berlin wall.

Now, is this what the 'monging fraternity are reduced to in their increasingly desperate attempts to defend a lost war that has disgraced Britain's name? Since when has any war ever been justified by reference to the opinions of the soldiery? The armed forces are servants of the Crown which acts through Parliament. To argue otherwise, which this fool seems to be doing, is to argue against the constitution.

I suspect that this was not the 'monger's intention. To be charitable - and I am a generous and charitable man - it looks to me as if the 'monger came home from his first night out at the pub and the beer made him feel clever. The Exile smiles at the follies of the prepubescent and remembers his own foolishness when he first sneaked into a swill shop in about 1970.

On the other hand, it could be that this 'monger is trying with all his might to salvage something from the wreckage of a policy that has only brought discredit upon the country. Every 'monger thesis has been greeted with mocking laughter and we await the results of next month's local elections to see if Blair and his collection of cockroaches will survive into the summer.

If this is the case then our little 'monger has failed. President Charles de Gaulle once said that to be defeated is not to be disgraced, but that does not apply to the people who led Britain into this disasterous adventure. Their fate is to be vilified and mocked until the day that they die.

It is amusing the watch the warmongers abandon the lost cause. Francis Fukuyama did it the other day, and the latest to join the exodus is Andrew Sullivan. Funnily enough, Sullivan makes the point that William F. Buckley had also recanted, which was something I didn't know.

Who is left, I wonder? I am not talking about the people that we laugh at, I mean who is left with any degree of gravitas amongst the 'mongers?

Niall Ferguson doesn't count. He was never signed up to the notion that within the chest of every Iraqi there pounded the heart of a true, North-London New Labourite. His view was that Iraq had to be occupied indirectly, with the white men keeping real control.

No, I'm talking about the true believers. The ones who believed that Iraq would emerge as an ally of the USA, with an economy open to western control and an Iraqi ambassador in Tel Aviv.

Are there any of them still around, or are we just left with the knobs?

It's nice to see Little Green Soccer Balls revert to type - I knew that yesterday's bout of sanity was too good to last. They are now urging people not to sign this petition, that was created to oppose the next bout of American aggression, the one involving Iran.

The excuse given is that the document carries the names of Howard Zinn, George Galloway, Tony Benn and Harold Pinter. Let's pause for a moment and consider each of these in turn:

Howard Zinn, historian. Probably the greatest living American historian. In A People's History of the USA he did for his country what E.P. Thompson did for mine with The Making of the English Working Class. He made ordinary people come alive again, so that their struggles are not forgotten.

George Galloway MP. What can I say? Thrown out of the Labour Party because he stood shoulder to shoulder with Iraq in her hour of need. He stood for the newly founded Respect Party and took the London seat of Tower Hamlets from the paws of a NewLab bimbo. He went to Washington and made a Senate committee look very foolish indeed. What can I say? The man's a gem.

Tony Benn, constitutionalist, author and former MP. The voice of the socialist left within the Labour Party for many years. His body is frail, but his mind is as sharp as ever.

Harold Pinter, playwright and Nobel Laureate. He helped transform the English stage from its hidebound past, and helped usher in its modern age. He will be remembered long after we are all dead.

Very good... Galloway is not as left-wing as people think, but what we have here is the voice of socialism, as it speaks through history, the stage, the printed page and the Commons. What these men have in common is consistency: socialists oppose intervention because they know that such interventions help prop up the odious system that all socialists seek to destroy. It is one thing to criticise George Galloway for his Popery, but not for his opposition to imperialism's aggressions.

These men have not changed. Their ideology is the ideology of socialism. The people who criticise them have no right to even call themselves socialists. They no longer stand inside the laager - if they ever did.

I see that the lad, Eric, over at Hand-Shandyists for War has quoted this update to a posting I made last night. I argued that the "enemy, as always, is at home". The lad, Eric, believes that this is "the hard-left case for the Iraqi insurgency. . ." Actually it is neither a hard, nor a soft, case. It is a simple socialist case and nothing more.

Socialism is nothing more than a belief that the economy would be run better if it were run collectively. The people who reach that conclusion are the people who live collectivised lives already, and who are aware that they do. That sense comes about through the normal process of day to day living, but it is also something that is helped out by the way others see us. In other words self-identification is bolstered by the way people of other classes treat us.

Now, when I say that the economy will be run better if run collectively, I mean that it will be better for us. Nothing in the above should be read as meaning that it will be just a good for the people who either owned the economy prior to socialism, or who were given benefits by it.

A lot of things can flow from these basic premises. In Latin-America, socialism comes draped in the national flag of the country that is trying to collectivise. The Cuban example is the one that is obviously being copied, but Venezuela and Bolivia both seem to be doing a fine job of not only the basic collectivisation, but also of ensuring that the classes that fomerly ruled and had privileges are throughly demonised now. These creatures are presented not as anti-socialist elements, but as anti-national. Thus socialism and nationalism are becoming one, at least in this part of the world.

This coming together of nationalism and socialism may be something that British socialists might find a useful tactic. However, it is a tactic, it is not an end. The end is what it always has been: the collectivisation of the economy and the destruction of all those who benefited from the old order. I favour punitive taxation and high inflation, but I am willing to accept that there is a socialist argument for a bullet in the back of the neck.

Now, there is a world of politics beyond these economically based views. The problem is that none of those positions are socialist ones. They may be radical or liberal, but they are not socialist. Socialism is the belief that the economy should be ordered along collectivist lines by people who are used to leading collectivist lives. How many times does this have to be repeated?

Now, Eric, here's the thing. When you've got some years under your belt - after puberty in other words - get back to me and tell me about your years on the dole, or the collection of shit jobs for shit wages with shit gaffers, that you have done. Or you can tell me about how you wanted to put your fist into the face of some snot-gobbling git in a cheap suit who told you that he was there to manage and you were there to work. If you cannot do that, Eric, then I will just assume that you are either middle class filth or an arse-licking scab. Either way your opinions will not count for shit to any socialist. The aim is not to convert people like that: it is to bury them.

Update, 8.30am:

'Morning all - I see that Eric the lad has changed the text of his posting. First I was giving the "hard-left" case, and now it is the "National Bolshevik" one. I suspect that someone has had a quiet word in his little ear and told him that some other knob in the comments here had described me as a "fascist." Anyway, it's nice to see the lad running to catch up.

Once again middle class types are trying to sow discord. The latest is my old mate Norman Geras, who had these amusing things to say about me some time ago. I must be honest and say that I take it as a tribute when middle class filth attack me - it shows that I am doing something right with my life. There is a saying on the left that you can tell when you are doing the right thing because the bosses' newspapers start screaming abuse at you. The blogworld is clearly the same, so getting my leg nibbled by one of these creatures is something that I take pride in. I would be very fucking worried if any two-legged cockroach ever praised me, that's for sure.

Norm's trick is to look for anti-semitism everywhere - if you have read the link above, you can see that he did it with me. Now he's doing it to the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez Frias. Clearly some bloke living on his uppers in Mexico is not in the same category as one of the men who is currently overseeing the destruction of capitalism in a whole country, but that's not the point. I consider myself honoured that I have received the same smear tactic as Chaves Frias

This is what the Venezuelan President said, first in Spanish and then my translation:

El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero resulta que unas minorias, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolivar de aqui y tambien lo crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, alla en Colombia. Una minoria se adeuño de la riquezas del mundo. . .

The world has enough for everyone, but it turns out that some minorities, the descendents of those who crucified Christ, the descendents of those who turfed Bolivar out of here and who then crucified him, in a way, up in Santa Marta, over in Colombia. A minority that are the owners of all the riches in the world. . .

Now, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete cunt that the Jews did not kill Simon Bolivar. Chavez Frias was talking about two revolutionaries who were killed by the ruling classes of their respective societies. Earlier in his speech, on page 16 to be exact, he had spoken of the "true Christ" who was the "first socialist of our era . . . and that is why he was crucified."

So why is Norm playing this trick? My feeling is that the middle class filth are scared. They can sense that defeat for the odious system that has given them so many baubles is coming. From Iraq to Venezuala, via France, the peoples of the world are slowly but surely giving globalised capitalism a serious shagging, and types like Norm will do anything to hold onto the pathetic little scraps that their bosses have tossed them. Thus the whinge that Chavez Frias is anti-semitic is just a ploy. Chavez Frias is taxing the middle class vermin into the ground: that is what these creatures are afraid of - that we might get the same idea.

What that world will look like when this is all over I have no idea. I will just be so pleased to see the denizens of Hale Barnes, Bramhall and Withington - all scumbag zones in Manchester - reduced to the level where they have to send their daughters out to suck dick on the streets. What we build after that is up to us. Again, using Manchester as an example, the future belongs to Ancoats, Miles Platting and Moss Side. At least we shall have the chance to get our factories open again, and we can ensure that our children do not have to suffer the insolence that we had to endure as the scum of England pissed on us.

Update: It will be noted that Geras has backtracked on his posting and is now trying to wriggle his way out of the charge of anti-Semitism. He hasn't linked to this posting, which must mean that he hasn't read it. If he had read it and had declined to link that would make him an ignorant cunt, wouldn't it?

This is good sport, especially since it involves the great Sonic using some some fool as electronic toilet paper.

Basically, an American Wingnut site reproduced an essay which it said was by Christopher Hitchens. The problem is that Sonic, who seems to have read everything that Hitchens has ever written, pointed out to the site's wazzock-in-chief that the piece was actually by one Leo McKinstrey. If someone did that to me I would feel embarrassed that I had made the up fuck, but grateful that some bugger had come along and corrected it for me.

This basic courtesy does not apply as far as wingnuts are concerned, as you can see from this exchange in the comments box, over at Sonic's Hitchens Watch site.

In the meantime, our little wingnut may like to know that Mexicans do not claim that they are hijos de la chingada, and chingada does not mean rape, it means fuck. Yes, I know, some dictionaries claim it means the former, but I suspect that they are being pedantic, because in the old days both rape and sex out of wedlock were seen as synonymous. Both were an insult to the girl's family, and insults like that called for a vendetta. In Mexican culture, if you are a son of la chingada it means that you are a bastard and your mother is a whore.

It is the great insult that gets hurled at someone, just as the tables are kicked away, the bar-girls start running for cover and the pistols come out of the pockets. If any Mexican ever used it about himself he would be doing it in a self-mocking way and only within his circle of very close friends.

Staying on the theme of wingnut stupidity, quoting one of the Chimp's pretty boys as evidence that Hugo Chavez Frias has "little claim to legitimate rule" is very silly indeed. Especially when the pretty boy in question got turfed out by the Spanish electorate, and the new government has just signed a massive arms deal with Venezuela. I know that opinions are like arseholes and we all have them, but an opinion is not a fact. Likewise, saying that Chavez Frias is "wearing a little thin" in the rest of Latin-America and then quoting as evidence a Bolivian regime that is on its way out is hand-shandery of the highest order.

Wingnuts, please don't take my criticisms to much to heart. Please keep pulling your plonkers, always remembering not to spurt all over the monitor when you get to the fast wrist movements.

This is a gem: the most risible of all the hand shandyists for war has posted an article attacking Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, the former dictator of Chile and good friend to the USA. I suppose he wants to try and prove to gullible readers that he really is a socialist.

Well, my lads if any of you are reading this, once the USA has been left battered, broken and bankrupted by the Iraqis, then a full and final reckoning might come about in places like Chile. It is a fairly unique country for Latin-America in that it has a large, parasitic middle class who supported the coup from the beginning. The Americans may have cheered them on, but it was a local event. I am sure that there are quite few Chileans who feel that it's never too late to pay off an old debt.

Do you see how it works, lads? Defeat for imperialism in Iraq could mean a great wailing and smashing of teeth in Chile, and the removal of that country from capitalism's orbit. As I said, it may not happen, but that is not the point. We will never know unless the Americans are forced back in isolationism, will we?

This message has been brought to you by the Exile, a tolerant soul who seeks to remind mongs all over the globe what socialism is all about.

Dear Lads,

I was just thinking about you British based hand shandyists for war. You are a diminishing number and it seems as if every day your numbers decline still further. The sites that I have linked to above are about all that is left in the British world 0' blogs. Like six little lambs, that's all you are reduced to.

It was much better three years ago, I know. Then you could strut around like a dog with two dicks, just panting at the thought of the cakewalk to come. Take Johann Hari as a case in point. Up until about a year ago he was a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders over at Harry's Place. Then he sort of vanished and now he is posting articles about The use of chemical weapons in Fallujah. That's when he's not posting things like, We must ask Iraqis whether they want the troops out - and now they probably do.

Young Johann is clearly a clever bloke: he can recognise sad-arsed losers when he sees them and he decided to get as far away from you lot as he possibly could. There are no flies on him and he will probably emerge from this disaster with his reputation intact.

What about the rest of you? You have followed every twist and turn of American policy. You started out with the WMD nonsense. Then, when that was shown to be utter bollocks you shifted to the idea of bringing democracy to the benighted heathen. By your support for the aggression you implicity supported all the atrocities that this aggression brought in its wake. Probably that's why only one of you has even addressed the issue of chemical weapons in Fallujah. Having at least had the balls to do that, what did he say? It was sort of: "Ooer, they are not chemical weapons, guv: they're thermic." Yes, I can see how the wretched inhabitants of this city will be very comforted by that news.

The simple truth is that torture, the subjugation of a people and the destruction of their territory are what imperialism is all about. You cannot split them apart and only choose the bits you want. If you want to support imperialism, and you do, then you have to take the whole package.

However, that is not the main issue. The main issue is that imperialism is going to lose, and by staying with the (virtual) colours so long, you are going to lose as well. People laugh at you already - think how much worse it will be when the army is withdrawn and defeat can no longer be spun as victory.

What will you do when the guerrilla commanders are handing out medals to their men in city-centre Baghdad, while the corpses of the collaborators dangle from lamp posts? When Blair has been forced to resign in disgrace am