I’m still alive (Hello, Nooman)

November 25, 2007 at 8:11 pm (deviants, Galloway, Tory scum, twat, voltairespriest, wankers)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketHello, children.

Just wanted to reassure those kind souls who have expressed concern for my welfare that the only reason for my not having posted for some time is that I have recently moved house, and I have been too much of a lounge lizard to sort out my internet access as yet. Fuck me, I only got around to buying a microwave yesterday. Worry not, my little bunny rabbits.

Now, let me bring something to your close attention that has appeared in the blogosphere recently. It’s a discussion between two socialist feminists, our own TWP and my good friend Stroppybird, and George Galloway’s new-found online butler Andy Nooman. TWP and Stroppy, in a thread on Liam Macuaid’s blog, raised criticisms of George Galloway’s attitudes on issues of great importance on the left, for instance those of gender. The response from the former SWP apparatchik Nooman (a heritage he shares with another of Galloway’s goons, former SWP Birmingham organiser Ger Francis)? Firstly to blither on about what bastards the SWP are (wow, shocker), and then to attempt to invalidate the views which these two women who raised, entirely legitimately, about sexism on the left of not having the right to speak in the debate, on the grounds that they:

“…make a great deall out of a mildly sexist comment from GG, but go out drinking and share a blog with an open racist.”

Now, not withstanding the sickening nature of the idea that “mild” sexism shouldn’t be made a “great deall” (sic) out of, you get three guesses as to which “open racist” this wannabe stand-in for Sideshow Ron is referring to.

If you guessed Jim Denham of this blog, then you get the prize.

This was the point when I finally lost any respect I may once have held for Nooman. I’d always thought that in spite of his perceptible drift to the right, his obvious desperate desire for a job in Galloway’s tin-pot machine, his loss of any sense of political perspective that once defined him as a genuine left-wing independent, that somewhere underneath all of that rot and decay lay the beating heart of a decent socialist, with the same commitments to human liberation that we all share. And yet it seems I was wrong.

Instead of engaging in a discussion about “mildly” sexist comments on the part of his patron, Nooman has instead chosen to libel a life-long socialist and anti-racist whose political principles make him look like a cheap telephone salesman. Furthermore, to reiterate, he has used that lie in order to shut down a debate with two principled left-wing feminists about sexist comments made by the leader of his particular political faction.

They always used to say of ex-Stalinists like John Reid and Peter Mandelson that they retained the method, the will to lie, bully and smear, after they left the CP’s ideology behind. Et tu, Nooman: it seems you can take the boy out of the SWP but (even decades after the event, he’s not a young man), you can’t take the SWP out of the boy.

43 Comments

  1. resistor said,

    I’m afraid Denham has exposed his own racism both here and on the Socialist Unity blog. Isn’t it time to take the racist out of this blog and the AWL?

  2. voltaires_priest said,

    Man frequently accused of being nazi defends liar. Sweet, coming from one of the internet’s most famous weirdos. Talking of which, where’s Ian Donovan? We might as well get the full set.

  3. resistor said,

    Yes I have been frequently accused of being a nazi (and plenty besides)when you know I am not. You have allowed people on this blog to smear me while deleting my replies. How you can accuse anyone of lying is breathtaking considering how Denham tried to deny calling Palestinian refugees ex-pats. When he was exposed as a liar he refused to continue debating with me.

  4. voltaires_priest said,

    I don’t “know” that you’re not a nazi. The reason I don’t ban you from this blog is that I don’t know you are a nazi either, in spite of a disturbingly large number of independent sources claiming that you are.

    Either way, you just carry right on defending Nooman and his libel of Jim. I’m sure he’ll be grateful for your support, and that it will also have the right effect on the reading public. :)

  5. voltairespriest said,

    PS – I’ve never deleted a single thing that you’ve written on this blog, in spite of people admonishing me to do so. As you well know.

  6. resistor said,

    ‘a disturbingly large number of independent sources claiming that you are.’

    What are these sources and what is there evidence? I’d love to know what they could possibly be. At one time I was accused here of being an American white supremacist – wrong on every count, and I haven’t even been to America. What a standard of evidence!

    As for Denham, he has supported everything that Amis said about Arabs and Muslims (not the same thing as Amis is clearly too stupid to know) I don’t know how Denham can support Amis’ racism without being a racist. Perhaps you could explain.

    For me, Denhams refusal to accept basic human rights and equality for Palestinians is proof enough and disqualifies him from claiming to be a socialist or in any way on the left.

  7. modernityblog said,

    Andy Newman has sunk to a new low.

    Newman’s attacks on TWP and Stroppy was tasteless and trying to crucify Jim as a way of winning an argument is beneath contempt.

  8. capacitor said,

    resistor farms chickens also.

    also wears round spectacles.

    chicken farmer with round spectacles. Round spectacles farmer of chickens.

    Think of the poor little chickens without their father.

    Nooman — twerp. Ignore him — the working class do so – might as well take a leaf out of that book.

  9. stroppybird said,

    Volty

    I pretty much thought the same of Andy . Rather than address the issue he firstly went on about it being the SWP who were criticisng, even though he knew it was also me and Tami. He went on to say socialists should not have higher standards than anyone else though I think this applied only in respect of sexism. When that was argued against he dismissed us because we drink with Denham and then proceeded to take the debate onto one of Jim and away from the initial post.

    oh and hat tip me for the comment about the boy out of the SWP :-)

    Like you my opinion has pretty much sunk as regards to Andy. Im sure he doesn’t much care as he is very much in favour with Galloway . Sure he will be on the NC soon and im sure he will convinve himself that we are all wrong. ‘moralistic’. racists , beating GG with a stick etc etc.

    The left never seems to learn does it.

  10. kyliesarse said,

    In celebration of the left really hitting bottom here, I have started the much threatened-to-do-before-now blog – Kylie’s Arse.
    I’m rubbish at all this RSS feed, backtrack, fucking clever technology, so how do I get a link to you to me?

  11. tim said,

    Respect leaflet.

    “He is a defneder of Muslims,is teetotal,a man of religious principles and married to a Palestinia Doctor.
    He bought his woman a range of Kylie underwear.”

  12. resistor said,

    Isn’t iit nteresting how none of you are able to defend Denham. Calling him a ‘a life-long socialist’ leaves out the word ‘until’. As in, Mussolini was a life-long socialist until….

    Come on tell us why you agree with Denham’s support for Martin Amis’ racist rants against Muslims, Arabs, Pakistanis or ‘those of Middle-Eastern appearance’.

    Or would you just lower yourself to yet another smear?

    ps I’m still waiting for evidence of Volty’s independent sources. I suspect I’ll be waiting quite a long time.

  13. thyristor said,

    It would be interesting to find out how it is possible to smear a pseudonymous commenter.

  14. capacitor said,

    Re-sister seems to be under the impression that anyone should actually need to rebutt his masturbatory-dead-meat-muttering-balls. How strange. His comments carry on in a long tradition of self-advertising of his syphilitic mind through acts of altruistic suicide. He/it incorporates disease as a character norm. A fucker of the dead — a necrophiliac with a computer.

    Farmer of chickens. Cheep cheep !

  15. resistor said,

    Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.

  16. miles davis said,

    But you left out the evidence Newman presented for his claim. Just for the sake of fairness, here it is. I don’t think it’s fair to say Jim D is a racist, but I can’t understand why he would continually defend statements by Martin Amis that were obviously racist, even when he was given an opportunity to clarify his remarks. I think Jim should withdraw his support for what Amis said.

    ‘On a previous occassion Jim Denham responded to a critique of Amis by Tawfiq Chahbource, which included the remarks about strio searching and deportations by saying:

    “”Amis is 100% right about Islamism; pity that most of the so-called “left” haven’t got his guts or principles, on that issue: Marx would most certainly have applauded him, but, then most of you haven’t even read Marx, have you?; “”

    I wondered where there was some ambiguity, but in a recent thread he was specificaly challenged on whether this from Amis was racist or not:

    the evidence is there for everyone to read themselves:
    This is comment #16 above on this thread, where Grham Day quotes Martin Amis:

    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1085#comment-19119

    “They’re also gaining on us demographically at a huge rate. A quarter of humanity now and by 2025 they’ll be a third. Italy’s down to 1.1 child per woman. We’re just going to be outnumbered.
    There’s a definite urge – don’t you have it? – to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.’ What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan . . . Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children. They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs – well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people. It’s a huge dereliction on their part. I suppose they justify it on the grounds that they have suffered from state terrorism in the past, but I don’t think that’s wholly irrational. It’s their own past they’re pissed off about; their great decline. It’s also masculinity, isn’t it?”
    Those are Amis’ own words, quoted here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n01/soar01_.html

    Graham day then asked you:

    Yes Jim, look at my quotations in post 17, and looking at it, do you say that Martin Amis’s comments are racist, or not?
    Stop changing the subject, and answer the initial point of the thread.

    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1085#comment-19169

    Followed by, Graham day clarifying :

    OK, the quotation is in post 16.

    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1085#comment-19177

    So there was no ambiguity what he was referring to, you then replied:

    Graham; just so that you’re clear, and for the avoidance of misunderstanding: “No”. OK?

    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1085#comment-19192

    So i am cynical about the motives of people who make a great deall out of a mildly sexist comment from GG, but go out drinking and share a blog with an open racist.

  17. martinohr said,

    Andy now has an open letter calling on the AWL to expel Jim Denham: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1053

    I posted my reply below, because Newman will probably delete it within the next few minutes.

    Andy,

    While Jim needs no help from me in defending himself; there are a couple of points I’d like to make.

    1) Jim doesn’t “endorse a call for people who look like they might come from the middle east or Pakistan to be strip searched and deported.” You have made that bit up, you asked Jim whether he considers the article to be racist and he says no, I don’t think that means he endorses each word or phrase in the article when taken out of context.

    2) Jim states clearly that he thinks Amis is right on Islamism ie political Islam -from this you infer that Jim supports every word of Amis’ article.

    3) As far as I understand it Jim’s argument is that Amis is using hyperbole and extreme language to make a subtle point about Islamism and racism. A point of view which you completely fail to grasp. I happen to disagree with Jim on this whether Amis’ article is any good or not.

    In so far as I understand Amis’ article; I think this is exactly the sort of thing that can feed into and fuel racism if taken out of context. A safer course is to make clear in your writing exactly what your position is so that there can be no misunderstanding or racist misreading. However based on previous history to suggest that Amis is a racist is fantasy.

    Personally I wouldn’t have jumped in to defend Amis, but then if you post your views on a blog and allow comments you should expect people to criticise.

    4) To make an argument in a series of logical leaps that amis=racist and jim defends amis therefore jim=racist is frankly beneath any sort of marxist unless your explicit aim is to start up a witchhunt again Denham and the AWL. Presumably this was your intention. Again whatever jim might write about Amis the facts of jim’s long term politics, activism and total committment to anti-racism might make you pause for thought before writing this sort of shit.

    You accussed Jim of being a racist and he challenged you to a public debate, but you removed the whole section of the comments as though this never happened- why?

    5) You write that there have been accusations that the AWL pander to islamaphobia. Yes there have, and Andy you’ve made them, but they are without base. What is your purpose in even raising this? All these allegations are without foundation.

    Hyped-up by the SWP in the first stages of it’s respect love-in with Galloway, the left found islamophobia everywhere they looked; support two-states in Israel/Palestine: your an Islamophobe; oppose segregated meetings: islamophobic; support lgb rights in Iran:islamophobic; defend secular education: islamophobic; the list goes on.

    In my opinion your purpose in whipping up this kind of anti-awl poison is to silence a section of the left who do not agree with your politics. You would do better to engage with our arguments, if you really do believe in socialist unity then the place to start is by debating rather than name calling.

  18. stroppybird said,

    There is absolutely no point trying to debate on SU blog anymore. Andy will just delete what he doesn’t like. The blog used to be a place where debate could take place, seems no longer.

    I won’t comment there any longer after Andy’s unprincipled dismissal of my right to criticise GG for sexism based on the fact that 1) I have drunk with Jim, 2) the criticisms are also (hypocritically of course) being made by the SWP hence that is the issue, the messenger not the message.And I have never been in the SWP and have been critical all along!3) Its only mild sexism !! And I shouldnt expect better of an experienced politician and socialists in general.

    It seems when all else fails then Andy just tried to derail the debate and go off on one about Jim Denham rather than address the issue.

    So much for a new RR, one that is open and wants debate and to work with others. If Andy’s behaviour is indicative of the new RR then I won’t go anywhere near it.

  19. stroppybird said,

    Just went to read the post (the link to it is still in the comments sidebar) re open letter to awl and its gone.

    Andy has now started deleting himself !!

    Words fail me…

  20. thermistor said,

  21. thermistor said,

  22. Django said,

    resistor: ‘Beam me up Scotty’

    Here’s hoping for a transporter mishap then.

  23. modernityblog said,

    How things have moved on since yesterday, I think that Andy Newman is losing it.

    firstly, he attacks Jim Denham over the Amis article, then misrepresents Jim’s position, conflates the issues and tries to smear Jim with the cheap and nasty accusation of “racism”

    secondly, Newman begins an attack on the AWL via his ludicrous accusations against Jim, a rather transparent political manoeuvre

    thirdly, when Martin Ohr replies, Newman presumably realises that his mindless slander won’t hold any water, so Newman decides to remove the evidence.

    these actions point to extremely erratic behaviour by Newman, poor political judgement and a vendetta against Jim Denham and the AWL, the rule of censorship on the SU blog is just indicative of that, as well as Newman deleting his own posts.

    I think that Newman is using typical SWP techniques against political opponents because he can not answer the political issues, Newman’s attitude appears to be a mixture of pettiness, cheap spite and irrationality.

    PS: I disagree with Jim over Amis, I have never (knowingly) had a drink with Jim and have no connection to the AWL! But from all that I have read, in NO way, no way, would I ever characterised Jim is a racist.

  24. Karl-Marx-Straße said,

    If Newman is Galloway’s new butler, he should watch it, considering what happened to the Queen Mum’s old one. Became an alcoholic, forced to live in Kennington. http://tinyurl.com/2kc2yw (I’m not in the habit of reading ‘Femail’, I followed a link on a blog without quite knowing what was hidden behind it).

    P.S. Karl-Marx-Straße has got the ultimate scientific analysis of the Respect split and can even read the future.

  25. Karl-Marx-Straße said,

    And stroppy, you are right about the direction “SU” is going – so why is Louise posting over there thesedays and not at your place? Without even a link to Stroppyblog….

  26. stroppybird said,

    Jim

    Check your bloody e-mails :-)

  27. Jules said,

    As someone totally independent, both socially and politically, from all concerned parties I fell I can deliver a fair and impartial ruling on the dispute.

    1. George Galloway – His comments on Kyle’s arse were both sexist and smarmy *shudders*, entirely consistent with his history of sexist and patronising language and behaviour however.

    2. Jim Denham – Made an arse of himself by rallying to the defence of the total arsehole Martin Amis and his indefensible racist diatribe.

    3. Andy Newman – His remarks over at Liam’s blog were unacceptable in relation to Stroppy but not in relation to TWP. Attacking Stroppy on the basis of whom she socialises with is apolitical and ad hominem. Certainly beneath Andy. He’s generally reasonable in debate so I’m sure he’ll apologise.

    However his point may be more legitimate with TWP. TWP does share a political blog with Denham so therefore his question to her was a political one – e.g. is she being consistent in criticising Galloway’s sexism whilst tolerating the defence of racism by one of her fellow political allies? I think Andy’s point is both weak and a diversion from what the debate was actually about. However I don’t think it can be construed as a personal remark.

    4. TWP – Wrong to accuse Andy of launching a personal attack on her.

    5. Stroppy – the only truely innocent party. All damages and court fees are awarded to her.

    ENDS.

  28. Jules said,

    As someone totally independent, both socially and politically, from all concerned parties I fell I can deliver a fair and impartial ruling on the dispute.

    1. George Galloway – His comments on Kyle’s arse were both sexist and smarmy *shudders*, entirely consistent with his history of sexist and patronising language and behaviour however.

    2. Jim Denham – Made an arse of himself by rallying to the defence of the total arsehole Martin Amis and his indefensible racist diatribe.

    3. Andy Newman – His remarks over at Liam’s blog were unacceptable in relation to Stroppy but not in relation to TWP. Attacking Stroppy on the basis of whom she socialises with is apolitical and ad hominem. Certainly beneath Andy. He’s generally reasonable in debate so I’m sure he’ll apologise.

    However his point may be more legitimate with TWP. TWP does share a political blog with Denham so therefore his question to her was a political one – e.g. is she being consistent in criticising Galloway’s sexism whilst tolerating the defence of racism by one of her fellow political allies? I think Andy’s point is both weak and a diversion from what the debate was actually about. However I don’t think it can be construed as a personal remark.

    4. TWP – Wrong to accuse Andy of launching a personal attack on her.

    5. Stroppy – the only truely innocent party. All damages and court fees are awarded to her.

    ENDS.

  29. Lobby Ludd said,

    “So much for a new RR, one that is open and wants debate and to work with others. If Andy’s behaviour is indicative of the new RR then I won’t go anywhere near it.”

    That’s a big ‘if’, though, isn’t it? You don’t currently like the politics of one individual. Fine, do you then write of the broad party he is part of?

    “And stroppy, you are right about the direction “SU” is going – so why is Louise posting over there thesedays and not at your place?”

    Perhaps because she thinks that it is possible to do so in a positive way? Who knows – it’s for her to say, if she cares to.

    I am a member of a sect of one. This blog reads to me like a clique of a few. It’s easy to feel superior – I do it all the time

  30. twp77 said,

    So Jules – you think Andy Newman’s attack on me is justified because I post on a blog where Jim Denham also posts – regardless that the reasoning for his attack on me was the same reason he attacked Stroppy – because we both raised the issue of Galloway’s sexist comments which he was unable to answer directly.

    If you agree with Andy’s sentiments Jules then I am surprised you have bothered to post on here at all given that you think this is a blog run by supposed racists and friends of racists.

  31. resistor said,

    martinohr says that Amis’ racist views (supported by Denham) were ‘taken out of context’. In which context is racism acceptable Martin?

    As for Denham, anyone who doubts that Zionism is racism only has to read his views on Palestinian refugees.

  32. twp77 said,

    Resistor – In all seriousness – why do you only ever show up when the topic of discussion has something to do with Jim Denham – do you have some kind of alert that tells you his name has appeared on a debate somewhere in cyberspace?

  33. modernityblog said,

    looking at the current topic on the SU blog it seems that it is descending into a sectarian pit, with the periodic deletion of opponents posts

    it’s all a bit unnecessary and sad, some might say it was predictable given the lower-middle-class sectarian nature of much of the British left, but I was momentarily optimistic that the SU blog could be a useful platform for the exchange of ideas, but no longer

    instead it has gone the way of so much of the British Left, pettiness has crept in, vindictiveness, meaningless personal attacks and the political issues never seem to get addressed

    that sounds like that Respect split all over again?

  34. capacitor said,

    Julesthemoronwhoattemptstoriseaboveallothersbymoralisticpreaching: “As someone totally independent, both socially and politically, from all concerned parties I fell I can deliver a fair and impartial ruling on the dispute.”

    No it doesn’t do that at all. You stupid numbskulled fuckwit. You are as partial as anyone else by dint of your fake impartiality. PS. ‘Feeling’ doesn’t count as a measure of impartiality.

  35. thermistor said,

    why do you only ever show up when the topic of discussion has something to do with Jim Denham

    or Jews.

    resistor has the Gauleiter RSS reader – guaranteed to set your heels a-clickin

  36. capacitor said,

    Farmer of chickens in the countryside — haz internets connection.

    cheep cheep.

  37. resistor said,

    The above posts are evidence of this blog mutating into Harry’s Place 2, a red-brown alliance indeed.

  38. voltaires_priest said,

    No, your comments are evidence that you’re a tosser. Nice company you’re keeping these days, Nooman.

  39. capacitor said,

    Cluck cluck — chicken has escaped from clutches of farmer resistor.

    Run little chicken! Run away little chicken! Resistor is not the father you once thought he was!

  40. capacitor said,

    Newly arrived at the newsdesk…..

    Chickens have accused the farmer known as resistor of committing acts of genocide and installing a regime of despotic terror over them. Laying of eggs is now mandatory for all chickens (including roosters) under the newly installed resistor-terror-fascist system of forced production. Nihilism has been proclaimed the new state religion and all must obey on pain of death.

    Cheep cheep.

  41. resistor said,

    As the great Flanders & Swann wrote

    Ma’s out, Pa’s out, Let’s talk rude!
    Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
    Dance in the garden in the nude,
    Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
    Let’s write rude words all down our street,
    Stick out our tongues at the people we meet,
    Let’s have an intellectual treat
    Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

  42. thermistor said,

    Ah – bourgeois manners. Always a giveaway.

  43. voltaires_priest said,

    Awww! :D

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers

%d bloggers like this: