Ukraine

[elbows]

I'm not a CR-ista "anti-imperialist" or whatever ideological battle you are engaged in here, I think it's clear both sides are now dominated by nasty nationalist ideology and are being stoked by rival imperial blocs, Nato and Russia. But there's been a huge bias on this thread imo, in favour of the Kiev regime. Don't know why, is it because anarchists have to celebrate all overthrow of a govt as a victory? And get trapped into supporting whatever comes afterwards?

I don't think this thread actually evolved in that manner.

To run the risk of oversimplifying, there was actually a huge focus on the fascist elements of the Maiden protests, and boatloads of cynicism about the EU and the USA meddling. And there were not vivid displays of triumph when the previous regime was forced out, rather there was extensive unease about the new regime and specific elements within it. And when government troops went to a couple of locations early on and did very heavy shit, there was plenty of attention paid to it.

The problems that allow the thread to be characterised in the way you just did really started when Russia took Crimea. That didn't make people suddenly blind to the dodgyness of the new regime, but it did create new areas of emphasis, and an overshadowing of other stuff that still matters. But it is utterly unfair to simply blame this on the traditional western propaganda and phobias regarding Russia, or to suggest that all those condemning Russias actions had simply joined the government/pro-eu/fascist side. In fact a large proportion of posts and posters that some people now attempt to construe in that manner were actually responding to the incredible display of cheer-leading from a few who were heavily in favour of the Russian side. This was further compounded by the fact that in addition to the usual couple of suspects on that front, we've had some people pop up out of the blue and quack like paid Kremlin propagandists, although they usually don't stick around for long.

Bottom line for me is that those ruining this thread can be on either of those sides, their main fault being the ridiculous attempt to distill this mess down into a simple 2-sided affair. And trying to engage with any of those goofs may be seen as taking the opposing side and further compounding this problem. Well bollocks, there have been people searching for detail and for signs of other groups taking other positions in Ukraine that are opposed to the dominant forces of either side. Increasingly few as time goes on, granted, both because of a lack of communiques and visibility from such groups, and because those obsessed with the big players and the big games are going to be the only ones left in this thread at this rate. Mostly because its easy to play that game and mostly just involves rehashing their well-worn positions, their dubious ideas of either anti-imperialism or responding to a 'Russian threat'.

 

[DotCommunist]

at the very beginning of this thread there was widespread inceredulity and head shakin 'what' reactions to the beeb openly ignoring wolf hooks and white power/celt crosses as well, so CR's attempts to cast everyone as auntie belivers and putin haters is gross revisionism.

 

[co-op]

I don't think this thread actually evolved in that manner.

To run the risk of oversimplifying, there was actually a huge focus on the fascist elements of the Maiden protests, and boatloads of cynicism about the EU and the USA meddling. .

Yes there was a lot about the fascist/ultranationalist types that seem to take over the Maidan and it's the kind of thing I'm grateful to have U75 for since there was nothing about this elsewhere. But I got a pretty strong impression that the main anarchist line on here was to defend the Kiev regime despite this, or at any rate the Kiev-oriented pov. You don't have to be an anti-US, anti-imperialist Russiaphile to find that a bit weird.

Anyway I've just been called out on liking a CR post which makes the point that there are a lot of people in the east of Ukraine who are genuinely framing this war as an anti-fascist war and that's at least partly because the Kiev regime looks a lot like it's invoking a Ukrainian fascist history to mobilise its population.

 

[DairyQueen]

It's not his theory, seen as you're referring to Dugin's borrowing of original Eurasianists Peter Savitsky and Nikolai Trubetskoy's positive re-evaluations of Russian-Mongol-Turkic interaction (an inversion of the period characterised negatively as the 'Mongol yoke'). Lev Gumilev (who knew Savitsky in the Soviet Union) shared in that positive view of the influence steppe nomads had on Russian development and he is partially popular among Central Asians (particularly Kazakhs) for that reason.

Dugin's not original in this, and he's similarly borrowed both Savitsky and Trubetskoy's understandings of Halford Mackinder's Heartland theory (obviously differently to his view of the threat posed by a Eurasian power to western imperialism).

But like you, I have not read them in the original in the English language, unless you can point to where I might find them? I admit that my own understanding is very patchy and inadequate. It relies on what others have written about them. Then there is knowledge of the currents of thought they drew their ideas from and whether you can be equipped to actually understand what they were writing about. You simply can't blag this stuff.

Which brings me to a definition of Eurasianism itself. In my own inadequacy it's impossible to give it a standard or typical set of characteristics, except in two things that all currents after the original Eurasianists of the White interwar diaspora share:

1. The belief that there is a uniqueness to Russians through a synthesis of European and Asian attributes.

2. They in some way can be linked legitimately to classical Eurasianism.

But it gets trickier when you look at the different currents. I agree with you that it's a misused or abused term particularly when it comes to Russia's national reassertion under Putin (and Russophobia is still very much around), however you're way off with regard to Dugin and fascism/the new right.

Lastly, your claim that he in some way represents a Russian version of Tony Blair (again, via the Giddens 'third way') demonstrates to me that by way of misunderstanding terminology you've conflated very different things and made yourself to look silly. I'm sorry, but that deserves ridicule, and especially when through a mixture of ignorance and arrogance you've readily dismissed things you haven't read, but are willing to offer an opinion on them all the same.

If you want to go further into that, I'm game.

Yes, I'm quite happy for you to go further. That is why I am posting in the forum.

I suppose it is difficult if we have two definitions of Eurasianism (and fascism). However, in understanding Russian politics today I find it useful to classify 'Eurasianism' as distinct from Russian nationalism. For example, I would have said that this uniqueness of Russian culture (however that uniqueness is defined) is central to Russian nationalism. A huge number of Russian 'nationalists', including people like Solzhenitsyn, for example talk about the Russian diaspora.

Russia has truly fallen into a torn state: 24 million have found themselves “abroad” without moving anywhere, by staying on the lands of their fathers and grandfathers. Twenty-five million – the largest diaspora in the world by far; how dare we turn our back to it?? – especially since local nationalisms (which we have grown accustomed to view as quite understandable, forgivable, and “progressive”) are everywhere suppressing and maltreating our severed compatriots.

For me Dugin is not an out and out fascist (but it depends on definition, I gave mine in the Blair post). The whole narrative is about finding some view that transcends old ideologies (a la Blair). Dugin concluded (unlike Blair) that its time for a new middle age (condensed version here). And this allows (at least me) to characterise my distinction between Russian nationalism and Eurasianism in a neat example, one might argue for the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the other the primacy of the church (or in Dugin's case 'clergy/philosophers'). In this sense, I have always associated Eurasianism with Russian-Turkic relations, and, more broadly, an attempt to find some theoretical basis to unite muslim and christian Russians. Do you fundamentally disagree with that?

How would you draw a distinction between Russian nationalism and Eurasianism? It just seems that your attributes could be attached to Russian nationalism as much as it can be attached to Eurasianism.

 

[elbows]

But I got a pretty strong impression that the main anarchist line on here was to defend the Kiev regime despite this, or at any rate the Kiev-oriented pov. You don't have to be an anti-US, anti-imperialist Russiaphile to find that a bit weird.

Maybe I missed something, but I really haven't seen hardly any defending of the Kiev regime here at any point. I've seen plenty of criticism of Russia, but to suggest that one of these things equals the other traps us in the stuff I was just moaning about in my prior post. Like I said maybe I missed something, in which case I need specific posts to be pointed out to me to buy into that impression of the thread.

Anyway I've just been called out on liking a CR post which makes the point that there are a lot of people in the east of regime who are genuinely framing this war as an anti-fascist war and that's at least partly because the Kiev regime looks a lot like it's invoking a Ukrainian fascist history to mobilise its population.

I suspect that a strong additional factor on the Kiev side is that this conflict has been a convenient way to channel the energy and attention of the fascist elements who were involved with the protests that brought the current regime to power, towards fighting (and dying) in the east rather than causing trouble for the new regime. I don't mean to suggest its that simple, since such elements under some scenarios will be bolstered rather than exhausted. But I view the Kiev regime as a mix of natural bedfellows and uneasy bedfellows, and the last decade of Ukrainian political history has been as much about paralysing infighting on the 'not utterly aligned with Russia' side as much as a struggle between eastern and western influence.

 

[likesfish]

CR the nazis didnt set foot on the uk mainland because of the royal navy and the RAF and the channel.
Russia was busy shaking hands with the SS and murdering poles at the time.
America like russia didnt get involved until 1941.

Putain could have been the voice of reason when this mess first kicked off

 

[elbows]

Putain could have been the voice of reason when this mess first kicked off

For all we know Putin might have been a voice of reason at the earlier stages, but those backing the Maiden movement were not interested in any compromise at that point, even when deals were done for a more orderly transition of power. They chased a winner takes all prize at any cost, despite the fact they should have known the Russian response would not be muted, and it wouldn't really be winner takes all.

I also believe that the heavy-handed western propaganda response to events in the east are, in part, a mask for the fact that little meaningful action could or will be taken about Crimea.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Essential reading, this: I don't know what you lot think of Jacobin magazine (a little bit too commentariat?) but this is an excellent smackdown of Timothy Snyder, one of the western intelligentsia beating the drum for war with Russia:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/timothy-snyders-lies/

Partisans, your deed is not forgotten.

I recall a few less-than-flattering references to Snyder's (to put it charitably) partiality up-thread, including my own opinion of his work.

 

[elbows]

And although the last thing this thread needs are any further demonstrations of how the Russia vs the West, Eastern Ukraine vs fascists, etc narratives have eroded the value of this thread, there are plenty of other examples of stuff being overshadowed.

The one that springs to mind right now is that it was scarcely possible to talk about power and politics in Ukraine in the past without bumping into oligarchs and other powerful business fuckers. I mean Poroshenko is the 'Chocolate King' for a start, yet there appears to be little room for dwelling on this when we have juicer labels like fascist to throw around, and personalities like Putin to focus on.

 

[pocketscience]

The one that springs to mind right now is that it was scarcely possible to talk about power and politics in Ukraine in the past without bumping into oligarchs and other powerful business fuckers. I mean Poroshenko is the 'Chocolate King' for a start, yet there appears to be little room for dwelling on this when we have juicer labels like fascist to throw around, and personalities like Putin to focus on.

It's certainly not a thread for shrinking violets but then again you don't seem to be one so what's stopping you. Crack on fella.
I was really enjoying Eastern Oddyssey's input until he was unceremoniously hounded out of here for sarcastically using the word chav.

 

[pocketscience]

And your point is?

I know how much CR winds you up but this thread hasn't seen you at your finest. There's been some amazing posts on here that happily argued for a Ukrainian "govt of national unity" (that should include, in fact be dominated by, obvious fascists and far-right nationalists) go completely unchallenged by the dominant posters here. I might have missed a couple of pages but I've at least read most of it, maybe all, and I've seen very little mention of the obviously extremely nasty assault on the eastern "terrorists" that the Kiev regime immediately got under way with (to me) very little attempt to find less violent solutions. An obvious war on civilians.

One low point had to be the appeal for sympathy for the helicopter gunship pilots that got shot down by the rebels because they're "working class".
Didn't see them calling for the same kind of understanding for the IDF Apache pilots in the Gaza thread though.

 

[elbows]

It's certainly not a thread for shrinking violets but then again you don't seem to be one so what's stopping you. Crack on fella.

I'm not talking about what topics I feel I can mention here, but where attention both in general on this thread and in the media tends to go.

I was really enjoying Eastern Oddyssey's input until he was unceremoniously hounded out of here for sarcastically using the word chav.

That link does not go to Eastern Odyssey's original post that mentions Chav, but rather a followup. The original was this: #7319

Aside from the fact I wouldn't exactly characterise that post as simple sarcasm, bollocks to the idea the poster was hounded out. If someone says something that causes a bunch of people to quickly respond with sentiments such as fuck off, they have in no way be hounded out in my book. There may be examples of people never being allowed to forget something ill-advised that they said in the past, and beefs being carried across multiple threads or many dozens of pages, with the eventual cumulative effect being disproportionate to the original 'crime'. This isn't one of them, not by a long shot.

 

[elbows]

And I'll never understand why, if a subject is important enough to someone to post about at length and with passion over a sustained period, they would leave pronto just because a few people told them to piss off. Especially when such negative responses are all lumped together in quick succession rather than being any sort of sustained abuse.

 

[CNT36]

I recall a few less-than-flattering references to Snyder's (to put it charitably) partiality up-thread, including my own opinion of his work.

I read his Bloodlands book last year and thought it was interesting. Everything I've read by him since has been shite.

 

[pocketscience]

I'm not talking about what topics I feel I can mention here, but where attention both in general on this thread and in the media tends to go.

Still nothing stopping you.

That link does not go to Eastern Odyssey's original post that mentions Chav, but rather a followup. The original was this: #7319

Aside from the fact I wouldn't exactly characterise that post as simple sarcasm, bollocks to the idea the poster was hounded out. If someone says something that causes a bunch of people to quickly respond with sentiments such as fuck off, they have in no way be hounded out in my book.

And I'll never understand why, if a subject is important enough to someone to post about at length and with passion over a sustained period, they would leave pronto just because a few people told them to piss off. Especially when such negative responses are all lumped together in quick succession rather than being any sort of sustained abuse.

There was a pattern. After BA did his stasi intorogation and EO admitted to being Chinese-Russian, 2 pages later the chav joke came (and yes, it was sarcastic). I bet if s/he'd said to BA she was a working class anarchist from Kiev (or any other city outside Russia), s/he'd have been politely told that the term chav "is ill advised as it could be classed as derogatory" or something along that tone. But no s/he was pounced on by the same posters that have been harping on since about fascist Russians with "Fuck off you prick", "Seriously, fuck off", "leprous classist twat" etc ...and alas, s/he bailed and never returned.
It wasn't the best example of great british tolerance or diplomacy towards a foreigner and quite characteristic of some of the posters views on here towards Russians.

There may be examples of people never being allowed to forget something ill-advised that they said in the past, and beefs being carried across multiple threads or many dozens of pages, with the eventual cumulative effect being disproportionate to the original 'crime'. This isn't one of them, not by a long shot.

Ahh, like this you mean.

 

[pocketscience]

Looks like Co-Op may have raised his head a bit too far over the parapit now, by simply liking a post.
pathetic school playground mobbing...
that's what's killing this thread!

 

[gimesumtruf]

Would any of you people like to hazard a guess at what American foreign policy is on Ukraine because I really don't have a clue?

 

[coley]

Looks like Co-Op may have raised his head a bit too far over the parapit now, by simply liking a post.
pathetic school playground mobbing...
that's what's killing this thread!

Aye, point scoring, never used to be an urbanite thing Dodgy world scenario,resurgent Russia flexing its might against a weakened west, Russian leader wanting to see his country as a major player and announcing he intends to develop a new range of nuclear weapons!
Somebody inappropriately mentions 'chavs' stop the world!

WTF is urbans definition of a 'chav' anyway? Around here, it's defined as a bit of a dodgy Wheeling dealing southerner, Arfur Daley type.

 

[sunnysidedown]

WTF is urbans definition of a 'chav' anyway? Around here, it's defined as a bit of a dodgy Wheeling dealing southerner, Arfur Daley type.

I was under the impression it was a Burberry capped young man from Scotswood sporting a dubious tash.

 

[sunnysidedown]

One low point had to be the appeal for sympathy for the helicopter gunship pilots that got shot down by the rebels because they're "working class".

I have never (until now) put a certain three letters together to sum up a post, but that was a total WTF? moment.

 

[seventh bullet]

I was really enjoying Eastern Oddyssey's input until he was unceremoniously hounded out of here for sarcastically using the word chav.

That's a disingenuous way of looking at it. It wasn't sarcasm.

That kind of crap shouldn't be tolerated, and it wasn't. I was heartened by the robust response he got and if he couldn't either explain or defend it then I'm glad he fucked off. The quality of his previous content does not outweigh bigotry which has no place in progressive (pro-working class) politics. It's counter-productive and reveals the uphill struggle people have in making the 'left' once again relevant to working class people's lives. It isn't relevant to mine right now. It's not mine, it doesn't belong to me or anyone I know. It's theirs, and people like him want it to be that way.

Joining in the divide and rule games of our supposed betters by using such an offensive caricature (and for the middle classes the net is cast very wide) leads nowhere but alienation. Do you not wonder why he got such a response other than this nonsense about the local gang bullying him?

 

[co-op]

One low point had to be the appeal for sympathy for the helicopter gunship pilots that got shot down by the rebels because they're "working class".
Didn't see them calling for the same kind of understanding for the IDF Apache pilots in the Gaza thread though.

TBF mad posts (like the one you refer to here ^ which I missed) are not really the point because you are bound to get a few of them on any decent thread. I'm more interested in who posted it and what the response was, that would say more.

 

[co-op]

That's a disingenuous way of looking at it. It wasn't sarcasm.

That kind of crap shouldn't be tolerated, and it wasn't. I was heartened by the robust response he got and if he couldn't either explain or defend it then I'm glad he fucked off. The quality of his previous content does not outweigh bigotry which has no place in progressive (pro-working class) politics. It's counter-productive and reveals the uphill struggle people have in making the 'left' once again relevant to working class people's lives. It isn't relevant to mine right now. It's not mine, it doesn't belong to me or anyone I know. It's theirs, and people like him want it to be that way.

Joining in the divide and rule games of our supposed betters by using such an offensive caricature (and for the middle classes the net is cast very wide) leads nowhere but alienation. Do you not wonder why he got such a response other than this nonsense about the local gang bullying him?

I think it's pretty well understood on the wider left in the UK that the use of terms of social contempt based on people's social status is now a right wing attitude - "Chavs" was written by Owen Jones who's in the Labour Party so it's hardly an ultra-left insight. I'm old enough that I've seen this whole thing appear and mutate - ime 30 or 40 years ago snobbery about the 'bottom' end of the working class was quite normal on the Old Left in the UK, that they were people who 'let the w/c down' by not being respectable, not being politically involved, or at least concerned about the wider community etc. And that attitude persisted for quite a long time after neo-liberal individualist society destroyed the political point of the orderly, imitation-bourgeois, w/c culture of the first half of the 20th C. It took a while for quite a few left people to catch up and see what was happening, that's normal, a bit like the way new attitudes to race, sexuality, gender etc took a while to be processed, even on the left.

But if EO is (English? Young?) Chinese-Russian (which I didn't know, so relying on other peoples' posts here), these kinds of subtleties are quite likely to have passed them by? The point isn't that they used an un-PC term, the point is how were they responded to when they did. Jumping on the use of a 'wrong' word to hound someone you've identified as a political opponent/enemy is certainly a well-known and very effective tactic but it's not that clever.

 

[seventh bullet]

Yes, I'm quite happy for you to go further. That is why I am posting in the forum.

I suppose it is difficult if we have two definitions of Eurasianism (and fascism). However, in understanding Russian politics today I find it useful to classify 'Eurasianism' as distinct from Russian nationalism. For example, I would have said that this uniqueness of Russian culture (however that uniqueness is defined) is central to Russian nationalism. A huge number of Russian 'nationalists', including people like Solzhenitsyn, for example talk about the Russian diaspora.



For me Dugin is not an out and out fascist (but it depends on definition, I gave mine in the Blair post). The whole narrative is about finding some view that transcends old ideologies (a la Blair). Dugin concluded (unlike Blair) that its time for a new middle age (condensed version here). And this allows (at least me) to characterise my distinction between Russian nationalism and Eurasianism in a neat example, one might argue for the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the other the primacy of the church (or in Dugin's case 'clergy/philosophers'). In this sense, I have always associated Eurasianism with Russian-Turkic relations, and, more broadly, an attempt to find some theoretical basis to unite muslim and christian Russians. Do you fundamentally disagree with that?

How would you draw a distinction between Russian nationalism and Eurasianism? It just seems that your attributes could be attached to Russian nationalism as much as it can be attached to Eurasianism.

The idea of uniqueness, specialness, and the tautological descriptions of a chosen people with an important mission, destiny or messianic role to play in the world is not something that is confined to the Russians. It's a feature of nationalisms elsewhere.

Eurasianism can be distinct from nationalism but does draw from intellectual currents (anti-western, or in response to western Europe but like the classical Eurasianists doing so by borrowing from western thought/intellectual heritage) that have fed into previous manifestations of Russian nationalism, not always seen as useful to the Russian state. I don't think Putin is a Eurasianist. It's that abuse or misunderstanding of the term again. Nationalists with reassertion on their minds and in their policies while being aware of Russia's geographical reality is not the same thing. The nationalists are wanting to deal with the reality of US-led containment/encirclement, and imperialist competition for control of the former Soviet Union's periphery.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Dugin's vision of the world does not involve nationalism or even nation-states. It's more radical than that. The world would be divided and ordered into civilisational zones or areas containing a mosaic of ethnically different peoples who nevertheless share historical and cultural bonds, all living within a strict hierarchy but supposedly harmonious because of those spacial/cultural links. The Russians and their superior culture, however, would (to paraphrase Laruelle earlier) be the cement in one particular area that holds everything together and the rest of the peoples within it merely the bricks of Russian dominance. It's still an imperialistic ideology. The Russians are destined to rule one area. An undemocratic, caste-like (but technologically advanced) conglomeration of peoples. A mixing or miscegenation of peoples (except for the elites) from other civilisational areas jeopardises the order. He has drawn from European 'new right' thinking and Traditionalism in this vision.

How would I draw a distinction between nationalism and Eurasinism? We'd need to look at a particular Eurasianist current, although I've crudely outlined Dugin's world.

 

[seventh bullet]

I think it's pretty well understood on the wider left in the UK that the use of terms of social contempt based on people's social status is now a right wing attitude - "Chavs" was written by Owen Jones who's in the Labour Party so it's hardly an ultra-left insight. I'm old enough that I've seen this whole thing appear and mutate - ime 30 or 40 years ago snobbery about the 'bottom' end of the working class was quite normal on the Old Left in the UK, that they were people who 'let the w/c down' by not being respectable, not being politically involved, or at least concerned about the wider community etc. And that attitude persisted for quite a long time after neo-liberal individualist society destroyed the political point of the orderly, imitation-bourgeois, w/c culture of the first half of the 20th C. It took a while for quite a few left people to catch up and see what was happening, that's normal, a bit like the way new attitudes to race, sexuality, gender etc took a while to be processed, even on the left.

But if EO is (English? Young?) Chinese-Russian (which I didn't know, so relying on other peoples' posts here), these kinds of subtleties are quite likely to have passed them by? The point isn't that they used an un-PC term, the point is how were they responded to when they did. Jumping on the use of a 'wrong' word to hound someone you've identified as a political opponent/enemy is certainly a well-known and very effective tactic but it's not that clever.

Of course it isn't new and I agree with the historical context you've given. But nevertheless it's depressingly persistent and needs to be challenged. EO wasn't hounded, that's an inaccurate description of what happened.

 

[co-op]

Of course it isn't new and I agree with the historical context you've given. But nevertheless it's depressingly persistent and needs to be challenged. EO wasn't hounded, that's an inaccurate description of what happened.

Whether he was hounded or not's going to be a matter of opinion, but your first response to that allegation was just to re-state the original crime and why it's a crime. I don't think many people are going to dispute that on here, it's become axiomatic.

ETA Just for clarity: I wasn't saying that 'chav' style snobbery is 'not new', it's that in an old-left, old Labour perspective it 'made sense' - i.e. wasn't reactionary or right wing. It was theoretically based on a slightly lite reading of Marx and stuff about the lumpenproletariat but also a very practical thing about a class publically proving itself to have the right to take over the bourgeois state by proving itself to possess the necessary values to do that, respectability, hard work, 'decency', all that stuff - often values portrayed as (and widely accepted as) national values, archetypically British. I used to canvass with a (w/c) guy in the 70s who would try not to let Labour Party posters go up in the windows of houses which had untidy front gardens because he thought it associated Labour with the wrong sort of people and he was pretty typical of Ealing North Labour Party in those days. A lot of anti-immigrant stuff in those days in working class suburbia - where I was brought up - was about unkempt front gardens (this maybe sounds ridiculous now but it was something I heard a lot).

 

[newbie]

I missed all of this, but for information,

EO admitted to being Chinese-Russian,

what s/he actually said was (my emphasis)

Well if you say so, I could always understand questions related to the thread, or topic such as - what languages do you speak? what's your academic background? what's your political affiliation? or what are my areas of interest? etc, but my location doesn't really have any relevance to the subject apart from proving I'm not a Russian nationalist, or somehow linked to the Kremlin propaganda machine. Anyway the answer to above for future reference is a little Chinese and Russian, international relations, left-wing and normally East Asian/Southeast Asian geopolitics and history.

 

[butchersapron]

It's the hypocrisy that gets me - not a word said about CRs relentless abuse of all who don't take the exact same position as him as fascists, not a peep about his jew-baiting of frogwoman - it's like they can't see that stuff. But the second what he's doing is pointed out they magically manage to find something to say.

And then there's the pocket science and dishonesty. He says "After BA did his stasi interrogation" - such interrogation consisted of me asking:

"Where are you from Eastern-Odyssey? Where are you based?"

He then goes on to suggest that i then attacked the same poster for using the word chav and lists a series of abuse that was directed at the poster. Well none of the abuse was mine - in actual fact i didn't comment on him using the word chav at at all. I took no part in that part of the thread at all. Nonetheless the impression is given that i did and that i had hounded a poster off with abuse. Precisely as was intended knowing full well as pocket science did that no one is going to go back and check. That sort of casual targeted dishonesty is stock in trade for both him and CR. But because it's covert and takes some effort to be made visible it also makes defences against it look like nit-picking or time wasting to those only dipping in or who missed the earlier parts of the thread. Thus the smearers halo remains untarnished and the smeared get well...smeared.

 

[elbows]

Looks like Co-Op may have raised his head a bit too far over the parapit now, by simply liking a post.
pathetic school playground mobbing...
that's what's killing this thread!

Now you think Co-Op is being mobbed? Utter bollocks, we are having a discussion, one where various people including Co-Op and those that disagree are making points in a manner that does not resemble the school playground. If there is the occasional post that does not live up to this standard then thats sadly normal, but certainly not indicative of a mob.

So unless something changes and things actually end up going in the direction you are prematurely whining about, I'll have to file this in the same category as all those times someone whose opinion is not widely shared here decides that the reason is some mono thought clique here, as opposed to a load of disparate people happening to agree that someone said something shitty.

 

[elbows]

The point isn't that they used an un-PC term, the point is how were they responded to when they did. Jumping on the use of a 'wrong' word to hound someone you've identified as a political opponent/enemy is certainly a well-known and very effective tactic but it's not that clever.

But at the same time we shouldn't assume that every instance of someone being called out for the use of a wrong word is in any way based on a prior judgement that the person is a political opponent/enemy.

In this case it is much easier for me to believe that the reason multiple people had a go at them was that they used the term chav in precisely the manner u75 is most vigilant against, not just a 'wrong word' but the most despised context. So many of the numerous threads over the years about how to deal with the likes of the BNP feature people wading in and trying to write off the BNP, EDL etc fans as chavs, or imagining that they can isolate them politically by criticising their spelling, their pronunciation, their blood alcohol levels or their clothes. So people are used to countering that without hesitation, and long may it continue.