He ain’t Nooman’s G…

April 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm (blogging, left, voltairespriest)

In another staggering breakthrough for left-wing coalition building, the politburo at the laughably misnamed “Socialist Unity Blog” appear to have issued a one month expulsion to SWP member (and occasional commenter here) John G for calling someone a “political nutter” – possibly on more than one occasion. Apparently this is simply “not acceptable on a socialist blog”, unlike, say, Ian “bites yer legs” Donovan’s civil and courteous vocabulary. The expulsion notice is repeated here for posterity. Hang your head in shame, G. There again, learn to act more like Donovan or “Gentleman” Ger Francis and you’ll soon be rehabilitated.

Given that SWP member John G has continued to use vocabulary related to mental distress as an insult in comments on this blog, and given that we have repeatedly asked him not to, then he is banned from commenting on this blog for a month.

Comments from John will be summarily deleted for a month.

This may seem excessive to some people, but we have a policy on this blog of treating the politics of mental distress seriously, and this is at least the second time, (and I think it is the third time) over the last few months that John G has been asked not to use this vocabulary. Each time he has responded with ill-grace. But this is our blog, and if we ask people not to use derogatory language related to mental distress, then we expect that policy to be respected. In our view these terms are no less offensive or divisive than sexist or racist abuse, even though they are regretably more socially accepted. We know that not everyone agrees, but that is our policy and we ask that it is respected.

This ban has nothing to do with the political content of John’s comments. It is simple bad manners that once John was asked not to use this vocabulary tonight, and after we warned him that he would be banned if he continued using it, then he repeated the use, and directed insults relating to mental distress towards me. That is not the behaviour we expect from someone commenting on a socialist blog.

In the last few weeks this blog has been systematically disrupted by trolling behaviour from many SWP members, regretably including John, but this is not the reason for the ban.

It is a shame because John often does seriously contribute to substantive debate, but that is all the more reason to expect better from him.

Original post here

(Edit: Altered to remove our hero’s surname, given that the original post has been similarly altered.)


  1. voltairespriest said,

    Although it hardly seems necessary to say it, the persona-non-grata notice was originally posted by Andy “Stop the Dalai Lama” Newman. Credit where it’s due, like.

  2. modernity said,

    actually I think it is Andy “pro-slavery “Free Tibet” gang of the dalai lama” Newman, but either way JohnG shouldn’t have constantly used derogatory terms about mental illness. eg. Nutters, Loons, etc

    JohnG should have been more sensitive to the issue

    but you’re right to point out the hypocrisy at SU blog

    the vitriolic bile that spews forth from Ian Donovan has to be seen to be believed, but as he is a key Respect Renewal player then the chances of him getting banned from the SU blog are next to non-existent

    we shouldn’t be surprised should we?

    when you give people the power of moderation and whether or not to silence dissenters or those that they disagree with, you often find that they use those powers capriciously, and so it is with SU blog, a very moody moderation policy at best

    I expect JohnG to be littering the comments boxes here or at HP shortly!

  3. voltairespriest said,

    That having been said, I still await my own “expulsion notice” given that they seem to delete my comments on spec. I presume it’ll be for “bullying” one of their contributors, a feat I achieved by… err… not agreeing with her about something. You know, disagreeing with people. Very offensive and needlessly threatening activity. Not like that nice Donovan feller. He wouldn’t hurt a fly… 😉

  4. modernity said,

    I am sure that Donovan’s position in Respect Renewal has nothing to do with the kid gloves that he’s treated with?

    if you couldn’t trust these people with minor admin powers on a blog, what would they be like in a revolution with a gun in their hand?

  5. Darren said,

    I don’t necessarily agree with the decision but It’s his blog, and he should be allowed to do what he wants. I don’t think it’s on a par with, say, excluding an opponent from a political meeting.

    Anyway, it already looks like it might have backfired on Andy N. because some of the regular commentators on SU blog have already expressed concern at the decision taken.

    I do find it hard to have a lot of sympathy with Mr Game, as he is one of the cheerleaders on Lenny’s blog – who has his own particular and more discrete banning policy – and I never seen him pipe up to defend those posters banned from Lenny’s blog.

  6. modernity said,

    there was a time when the SU blog looked as if it had a lot of potential

    there was at one time (despite the occasional abrasive comments) some very interesting political points and often an intelligent debate, but once the moderation started in earnest it soon went downhill and the diversity of opinions has slumped

    more often than not it sounds like a Respect Renewal club with the odd SWPers thrown to the lions, the quality of discussion has descended to the pits and along with some very dodgy articles on Tibet it wouldn’t surprise me if Newman manages to alienate his few remaining regulars, as he’s a bit politically and socially inept, not seeing the bleeding obvious even when its pointed out to him

    shame tho, I enjoy reading it

  7. Renegade Eye said,

    If it’s their blog, they can do as they please.

  8. voltairespriest said,

    They can indeed – although ’tis is a pleasure to take the piss out of people who take themselves so seriously. The Emperor’s New Clothes was one of my favourite stories when I was a kid, and I guess some of that irreverence has stuck.

    When I see someone like the various SU politburo members peacocking around being all earnest and holier-than-thou (even though there is no real reason or justification at all for such an attitude), I can’t help but mock them mercilessly. It’s like an addiction. I think need help… no wait Nooman that wasn’t me making light of those afflicted by substance misuse, darn too late I guess I’m banned for another 10,000 years! 😉

  9. martin ohr said,

    I was amused to see JohnG’s ban, although it has been coming for some time, 12 months or so ago, John was reliably on Andy Newman’s side on nearly every subject, particularly when it came to arguing with the likes of people who post here.

    Today they disagree on almost everything, and johng’s constant argument regarding Tibet was clearly starting to rattle Newman. Also John had started repeating the argument (which I suggest on Socialist Unity back in October/Novemebr long before I was banned) that the split seemed to be more about Galloway’s side not wanting to stand a candidate against LIvingstone than anything else. Obviously there is no co-incidence in his arguments and his ban.

    The comments policy over at SU is particularly strange, abusive language and responses are the norm- all the more so since Tony Collins got sacked from Lenin’s Tomb and moved in- but pass without comment. It’s completely acceptable over there to descibe an argument as racist, but not as crazy, you can call the Dalai Lama a c.nt but not a nutter…etc

    None of it is language I would particularly use myself on a blog, but surely not a reason to be banned.

    Of course without the debate on SU, it will very quickly lose visitors since the articles are almost without exception complete shite, and their only purpose seems to be so badly written and politically off-beam as to promote comment. Over the last 9 months SU has been the proxy for the respect conferences that never happened and through the comments has charted the demise of the galloway/swp coalition.

  10. John A said,

    “Nutter” in itself is unlikely to cause much angst, I wouldn’t have thought. It’s not a term which specifically fingers a group of people such as “spastic”, “mong” and all the other insults revolving around mental and physical health. Who or what exactly is a “nutter”?

  11. Andrew Coates said,

    I was banned from using the word ‘nutter’ (not banned from the List) from the UKLN, in reference to Larry O’Nutter (O’Hara), of Notes from the Borderland. Personally I consider this a rigorous scientific Marxist description of O’Hara, based on at least ten minutes of trying to read the contorted prose of this vanity publication. Not to mention having been at Warwick with him. But I accepted the party discipline comrades, and merely refer to him now, on the rare occasions that he passes the political radar, as Larry O’Brazil.

  12. modernity said,

    Having read people’s points and slept on the matter, I think I’ll be signing up for the latest campaign:

    “Justice for JohnG”

    Ok, Ok, I know it is an SWP front, and I appreciate that they are not sincere when they moan about other people censoring their comments and that it will all probably end in tears, but (and it is a big but) I think that the remaining parts of the Left should be more tolerant in political debate and aim for the widest possible audience, not just politicos, this is the start of that process (a bit naïve, but…)

    I know that’s unrealistic, but I feel that “Justice for JohnG” is a potential way to revitalise the Left after the Respect split and debacle!

    And I promise not to mention Mark Steel, or the fact that the SWP has been haemorrhaging members left right and centre (mostly right, but that’s to be expected from the communalist politics that they ushered in, ops, better not criticise them too harshly, for the sake of the Popular front of a special kind)

    The “Justice for JohnG” slogans are:

    * Freedom to misread and mistype (which is why JohnG didn’t see the rebukes, he rarely reads other people’s comments)

    * Freedom to dissent (ok, a little contradictory as the SWP doesn’t seem to be tolerant of any dissent)

    * Freedom to waffle (that one got me!)

    * Freedom from the Stalinist-bully boy tactics of SU blog (that’s the clincher)

    * Freedom from demagogic political cranks (Ok, not too genuine but it will get the punters in)

    And finally,

    * Freedom from religious indoctrination (ops, that must be a mistake?)

    So comrades, I urge you to support “Justice for JohnG” in spite of any political reservations that you might have about the SWP.

    PS: a bus (actually a very small van, er, car) is being organised with 100s of students waving placards, ready at a moment’s notice, to picket those running dogs in Respect Renewals (ops, that let the cat out of the bag)

  13. modernity said,

    I have just been informed that an additional slogan is:

    *For workers’ and small business chapies control of the SU blog

  14. KB Player said,

    I didn’t realise “nutter” was a serious term of abuse – I thought it ranked with “daft” or “idiot” which means anyone that you think is being a bit stupid or illogical. You don’t really mean that they have forgotten to take their lithium or that they are in special classes at school.

    In fact I’ve heard “nutter” used in an affectionate way – I remember hearing Scarey Spice describing herself as a “Northern nutter” which means a bit wild, a bit zany, a bit inclined to dance on tables. Same as “crazy”.

    Greetings to you, sane and sober folk.

  15. Waterloo Sunset said,

    Are we still allowed to call Andy a cock?

  16. twp77 said,

    Apparently Liam has now fallen foul of Andy as well for his most recent post taking the piss out of Prescott’s cynical attempt to use a medical condition to sell copies of his biography!!!


  17. Dustin the Turkey said,

    Meanwhile, Renewal Respect are having cosy get-togethers, boasting of how businessmen – willing to spend hundreds of pounds on buying dictator’s cigars – are supporting them:


    You Couldn’t Make It Up(tm). Of course, any criticism of this will no doubt be seen as “ultra-left”.

  18. modernity said,

    on behalf of the “Justice for JohnG” campaign, we would like to repudiate the nasty rumour doing the rounds that John Prescott is Andy Newman’s alto ego

    this canard is without foundation, although we understand that Rowan Williams does a passable impression of Newman, or is it vice versa?

  19. martin ohr said,

    mod, I’m sorry to say that I’m not in complete agreement with all the demands of your campaign Justice for JohnG, the rival campaign thay my comrades and I have founded Hand Off johnG (HOG) makes as it’s number 1 demand
    “freedom to post contradictory opinions on different blogs and the right to get very upset and evasive if anyone notices”,
    anything less than this is frankly pro-imperialist, therefore we have had to make our number 2 demand “smash Justice for JohnG”, I’ll hope you’ll reconsider your position in JoJG and join us in HOG.

  20. modernity said,


    it is not my campaign, but a broad-based multifaceted, none too fussy, numbers are more important than quality, Popular Front of a special kind (c) SWP

    now that you mention contradictions there’s no need to indulge in AndyNewmanphobia

    we shall call a meeting of “Justice for JohnG” to discuss your comradely demands, in the meanwhile “Smash the running dog moderators” is to be the new campaign slogan

  21. voltairespriest said,

    Oh my… read before the politburo delete the comments 😆


  22. modernity said,

    the “Justice for JohnG” compaign is alarmed to see how the SU admins are using the terminology of Rudolph Giuliani’s “zero tolerance” http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2123#comment-63329

    we have been inspired by the wide range of support given to JohnG in this most difficult of times, and particularly by a comment left at Liam’s:

    “Spartacus, on April 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm Said:

    To Big Brother Andy N: You can delete our posts – but you can’t delete our minds!

    You can’t delete the revolution!”

    also see http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2123#comment-63341

  23. voltairespriest said,

    D’ya think we should all buy John G masks and gather in cities worldwide like those Anonymous guys battling the Church of Scientology?

    Maaan, this shit could run and run!

  24. johnnyrook said,

    Wow posts about other blogs, as if the world doesn’t have bigger problems, anyway Andy used the word “nutter” himself on his blog here http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=204, post 15, under the name AN.

  25. voltairespriest said,

    Yeah I know but we can’t be serious all the time can we? And besides your second sentence is a dead give away – you think this shit’s really funny too, right?

    And besides, is it my fault if this post has had easily four times as many hits (and counting) as any other written on this blog in the past 24 hours? Really I’d much rather that Jim’s excellent and scholarly post below on Enoch Powell was riding ahead of this one, but it’s not. Which suggests to that me you fuckers are getting what you want with posts like this one…

    Hands off John G! 😀

  26. modernity said,

    ahh, but you need to remember that some “comrades” are more equal than others!

    and of course, many of those who moderate SU blog are happy to use such terms, when it suits them:

    “…extreme Zionist loons…” Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 19 March, 2008 @ 5:40 pm

    “…but the left had been driven a bit crazy after the defeat in the general strike in 1926.”

    “Even by their crazed standards, crazy Trots (is there any other kind?) do something crazy – though not quite as crazy as admiring the sociopaths and anti-socialist (and wearer of funny hats) Lenin and Trotsky. I don’t get it. What’s the story here?”


    so one rule for the rulers, another for the ruled

  27. modernity said,

    PS: check out the links, before Newman deletes them in a fit of pique

  28. martin ohr said,


    Filed under: blogging — Andy Newman @ 10:34 pm
    Now everything has calmed down, I have consulted with my colleagues, and we have lifted the ban on John G.

    However, if we warn someone not to use certain language, then we expect them to follow that guidance.

    While I am at it, I am also lifting the ban on Voltaires Priest and Martin Ohr.

    The hostility and unhelpful trolling in the comments on the blog have become intolerable in recent weeks.

    From now on we are going to adopt a much more vigorous attitude towards deleting comments or editing out personal abuse.

    This is a political blog, and the slanging matches and insults prevent and deter people from participating in debate. If you want to exchange insults find somewhere else to do it.

  29. voltairespriest said,

    Pause for applause, I think!

  30. Waterloo Sunset said,

    I think Andy may need some help though. Stopping personal abuse is all of our responsibility. So if you see some that Andy’s missed, make sure to bring it to his attention.

  31. modernity said,

    in all seriousness (for once)

    it was a typical ill thought out decision in the first place, now that they see the political ramifications their cackhandedness, the SU blog admins are rethinking things

    the SU admins have done it before another do it again, they have a habit of using their moderation policy capriciously, give it a few months and they’ll start banning people again

    they can’t really deal with the political arguments, so are forced to intimidate people and ban them, when it suits

  32. d.z. bodenberg said,

    Waterloo Sunset:
    I think Andy may need some help though.

    I sincerely hope that this is not an abusive comment designed to belittle those of a less stable psychiatric condition than many of us, merely disguised as a constructive opinion and call to action.

  33. d.z. bodenberg said,

    And Jim D’s still banned for “racism” (Too thick) isn’t he.

  34. Janine said,

    Of course JohnG’s ban is ridiculus, hypocrtical, politically-motivated, etc.

    But I do think it’s time lefties stopped and thought about certain words concerned with mental health. Here’s an example why …

    A boy walked up to my son (who has Asperger syndrome) in the playground, taunted him for being ‘brain-damaged’ and thumped him. When another of my sons intervened to defend his younger brother, the boy thumped him too, giving him a nose bleed.

    Read that again, replacing ‘has Asperger syndrome’ with ‘is black’ and ‘brain-damaged’ with ‘a n***er’.

  35. johng said,

    Yes that is just like racism, Saying that something is a mad argument is not the same though.

  36. johng said,

    I thought I’d just clarify my own position as i was quite upset by the whole business. i just posted this on that blog:

    I’d said i wouldn’t go on about this so i won’t beyond this brief (by Johng standards!) response. i’m pleased that you have conceded that i had not been repeatedly warned about using language that was derogatory towards those in mental distress. i don’t think your correct about me being warned once before about this either, but no doubt some intrepid archivist might be able to settle the matter. I suspect neither you or I are interested enough. I’d just suggest that you crossed a line between your legitimate function as an administrator of a blog and implying fairly damaging things about a poster which were not in fact true. An impression heightened by the fact that when I was accused of being ‘mental’ you apparently just quietly edited the comments rather then subject the individual to a ban, or publicly admonished him as a serial offender against disabled people. I’m willing to accept that this was not intended on your part but it certainly was the effect.

    The actual context of that exchange was that I had been suggesting that a negative approach to the STW movement would not produce constructive debate about the way foward. In other words it was a contestable claim about the nature of the argument about the STW movement on this blog. Almost immediately there came along someone with a deeply silly and unconstructive approach, whose politics on the question I strongly suspect most people here would regard as silly. “Here come the…” in this post was really aimed at people who would agree with this but not my previous point. My argument being that this kind of approach opens the door to this sort of silliness.

    I don’t happen to agree with you that my language was offensive, but you have a perfect right to decide that for yourself on your own blog, and as an administrative matter I have no problem with it. I don’t think though that, whatever the merits of the argument about the use of the particular term, its possible to win such arguments by attributing motives and prejudices to people who do not in fact have such motives and prejudices. In other contexts this is a problem I’m sure you would recognise. In any case, thats it as far as I’m concerned.

  37. modernity said,

    good points, JohnG

    However, they are somewhat contradicted by your preceding remark

    “48. …I think its fine to ban people just for the reason that their comments are unhelpful to the nature of the blog. Its not good to make stuff up about them though.”


    JohnG, is that really what you meant?

    you would ban people if you (subjectively) thought that their comments were “unhelpful” to the nature of a particular blog?

    which is, in fact, worse, because such a judgement is purely one-sided and prone to the individual moods and whims of the moderator, and not based on any objective criteria or impartial set of rules

    That strikes me as a strange sentiment to have, given your recent predicament

  38. johng said,

    In the end I think its acceptable for blogs to define their own purpose and set up their own rules of participation. Its also true that Lenin’s Tomb, an attack dog of the anti-war movement at the sharp end of the polemics with pro-war liberals is pretty open about the kind of regime there (complete with proud rhetorical flourishes). It is what it says on the tin. As I stated I don’t really have a problem with blogs if they’re open about what they do.

  39. modernity said,


    your remarks seem a bit confusing, please could you clarify?

    so if, hypothetically speaking, the SU blog admins had banned you for being “unhelpful” , then presumably you would not have complained?

  40. modernity said,


    your remarks seem a bit confusing, please could you clarify?

    so if, hypothetically speaking, the SU blog admins had banned you for being “unhelpful” , then presumably you would not have complained?

  41. johng said,

    No I’d have gleefully run everywhere going ‘see…this is what your so-called pluralism means..you ban johng etc, etc (an OUTRAGE)’ and this would be fairly predicatable. he might be moderately damaged by that. But it would be his decision. On the other hand if, in front of that audience, he banned David T there would be hearty approval. But he doesn’t. What I objected to was what I said above (I’m not repeating it again). But a kind of democracy operates in the sense that if people disapproved terribly of a moderator they wouldn’t visit the site.

  42. johng said,

    what was that you were asking about arbitrary etc,


  43. modernity said,

    JohnG wrote:

    On the other hand if, in front of that audience, he banned David T there would be hearty approval. But he doesn’t.

    so basically your totalitarian mindset hasn’t changed one bit??

    you are happy to ban people for their views or some nebulous being “unhelpful”, but when it affect you then you take exception?

    anyone else would call that a form of cognitive dissonance, but I appreciate where the sentiment is coming from, one rule for the moderators, another for the posters

    whilst this applies just to the blog’s at the moment, it is an attitude of mind which has much antecedents in the SWP’s poor political heritage and world outlook, packing meetings, stitching up committees, a sharp political manoeuvring, etc

    still, I suppose it shows that no lessons have been learnt either way (it will happen again)

    I think it is part of the reason why parts of the Left in Britain are so small and pitiful, in lieu of winning arguments, or having a detailed debate on a complex political topic, some of them would prefer to ban their interlocutors rather than lose a debate or be shown up for the fools that clearly they are

  44. johng said,

    Modernity, I believe that blogs, like associations, have the right to have their own rules. Thats not totalitarianism. Thats civil society.

  45. modernity said,

    JohnG wrote:

    “I believe that blogs, like associations, have the right to have their own rules. “

    you just expressed a willingness to ban David T for his views, remember you own comment:

    “On the other hand if, in front of that audience, he banned David T there would be hearty approval.

    so you would ban people for their views, if you could, and endeavour to impose your will on them, which is the point I was making

  46. johng said,

    Absolutely. In the same way that political parties have the right to restrict membership so to do blogs. Is there something deeply complicated about this I’m not getting across? Of course, like any association if its too restrictive it won’t be an association anymore. Its not complicated surely?

  47. modernity said,


    there’s a difference between association, and allowing others (who we disagree with) to participate in organisations, etc

    and when you and the SWP have that power, not unsurprisingly you abuse it, as per the StWC, etc

    I am not entirely surprised that Andy Newman is a longstanding ex-member of SWP, he along with you reek of an unhealthy political attitude

    but unintentionally you were right about one thing, when you wrote: “But a kind of democracy operates in the sense that if people disapproved terribly of a moderator they wouldn’t visit the site.”

    that applies to political organisations as well as blogs, and I would argue that the control freakery which is so innate in your and Andy Newman’s approach puts people off of politics

    I think that political control freakery has its origins in a very top-down middle-class view of the world, in some ways replicating elements of capitalism, and it shows itself in the form of a rather stifled “debate” and is very unappealing, which probably helps to explain the inability of part of the Left to connect with the working-class

  48. Darren said,

    “johng said,
    April 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm
    In the end I think its acceptable for blogs to define their own purpose and set up their own rules of participation. Its also true that Lenin’s Tomb, an attack dog of the anti-war movement at the sharp end of the polemics with pro-war liberals is pretty open about the kind of regime there (complete with proud rhetorical flourishes). It is what it says on the tin. As I stated I don’t really have a problem with blogs if they’re open about what they do.”


    any chance of sin-binning JohnG for pomposity? 😉

  49. voltaires_priest said,

    Would I do that to our eponymous hero? I was actually going to nominate him for a “Pride of Britain” award… 😉

  50. Darren said,

    Point taken Volty.

    Does Private Eye still have its Pseuds Corner?

    What with the exchange rate, ten quid over here qualifies as a mini fortune.

  51. voltaires_priest said,

    I believe so. Although surely you could market the great man as “a British Academic” to do parties and stuff in NY?

  52. Darren said,

    I believe Lenny’s got that gig for his forthcoming book tour.

  53. Jim Denham said,

    Oh, please: Do let us know about Lenny’s gigs! I *must* attend!

  54. johng said,

    Discussions with Modernity always remind me of the argument sketch on a certain deeply middle class comedy program. On the other hand I love the leninist style. It always, always ends with a denunciation. Its great. He should have his own blog (ah yes he does…..how big is it?).

  55. Waterloo Sunset said,

    so you would ban people for their views

    I’d ban David T for his view that racism is a character trait of loveable eccentrics. And that touting the Protocols is a bit zany. I don’t feel bad about that. Sorry.

    Still, if you want to put personal loyalty over committment to anti racist principles, that’s your business.

  56. modernity said,

    aye right enough, WS

  57. johng said,


    Your banned.

  58. modernityblog said,


    presumably you mean “you are banned”?

    I’m sure I am, as I had my contributions at Lenin’s Tomb deleted (when discussing anti-Jewish racism) so I am amused by your contradictory nature, although not surprised.

    I think it is a mindset that you and your comrades have (along with Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, etc), it is an inherent weakness in your character and your politics, unable to debate an issue you would resort to deleting, removing (or eradicating) your opposition, if you could

    that’s why NO ONE trusts you lot

  59. johng said,

    Modernity. We’re all like that. Even these people here. Its totalitarianism. There simply is no escape. Its hopeless. People are banning each other all over the world. And it won’t stop. Thats how things are with the left. Its terrible. Thats the main reason people prefer war and famine. And who can blame them? At least it works.

  60. modernityblog said,


    your glib reply underlies that smarmy upper-middle-class manner which you convey in your exchanges

    you’re not terribly interested in other people’s opinions and frankly there not interested in yours, which is a bit of a problem for a political activists, such as yourself, trying to convince people of your views and yet having such an obvious (if subconscious) disdained for the “lower orders”, as a result of your pampered upbringing

    you and the SWP are both a political as well as an intellectual failure, you must find it terribly frustrating?

  61. johng said,

    Your so right Modernity. Not only is the left glib, its also totalitarian (as well as being upper middle class). Sometimes I despair.

  62. modernityblog said,


    you are not THE Left.

    you are merely an upper class pseudo “anti-imperialist” with a gift for sucking up to right wing Islamists, and your organisation is helping to destroy the UCU with its devious tactics

    so not much to be proud of

  63. johng said,

    You know your so right modernity. Its terrible. Sitting here quaffing champagn and gorging myself on truffles with spengler in the one hand and a copy of socialist worker on the other, and occassionally braying with laughter at my butler, I am suddenly struck by how almost EVERYTHING you say is absolutely correct.

  64. modernityblog said,

    we can hear that braying across the web

    btw, what is spengler?

  65. johng said,

    oh he wrote about the inevitable decline of western civilization and their succombing to alien hordes, cultural relativism etc and the fatal weakness of our modernity in dealing with such things. Very widely read amongst people who were later to become members of the Nazi party so I understand.

  66. modernityblog said,

    silly me, I thought it was some upper middle class stuffing for truffles!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: