“What was Brown thinking? No one who isn’t pro-union should be allowed within 100 miles of a Labour government. Being pro-union is basically the whole of the point after all!”

Did you sleep through the 1990s, Chris?

Son, sidle up to someone in a bus queue and start rattling about Liberal Fascism. Pipe up about the BBC’s Islamic indoctrination program in the canteen at your work and see what you get. You might find that it’s not only the awful liberals on websites that are taken aback by such extended diatribes.

I throw this out there as idle conjecture, but have you considered the possibility that people dismiss your views as lunacy because they are, in fact, lunatic?

Plus, there’s no obligation on anyone to trawl your comments and rebut each individual point. People arse around on websites because it’s interesting and fun, but having to bash out thousand-word rebuttals of someone’s paranoid anti-Jihadist fluff is neither interesting nor fun. I’d say the same if you were explaining how the twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions or how the moon landings were fake.

Your views on any subject, I am totally in the dark about.Which leaves me at a disadvantage.

Well, my name is highlighted because it’s a link to my blog, which contains lots of my opinions. I’ll save you time by reducing my opinions on the issues you’ve raised to a single word, and that word is “Bollocks”.

What was Brown thinking? No one who isn’t pro-union should be allowed within 100 miles of a Labour government. Being pro-union is basically the whole of the point after all!

It might, I suspect, not be their “sanctimonious moral certainty and superiority” that lead them to dismiss you, but the fact that you say things like this…

“One has to wonder why the “western intelligencia” didn,t accomodate Nazism, Stalinism, Mao-ism and other such genocidal regimes with the same reverence—but then again–I tell a lie–they did.”

In the case of Stalin alone – why not, it’s not like you’ve justified your claim – you overlook, well, almost all of the “western intelligencia“: Orwell, Arendt, Russell, Camus, Pivert, Koestler, James etc. etc. It’s ironic – though only tediously so – that you go on to berate “Liberal Fascis[ts]” for their “obsessive compulsive desire to see a…loony Bigot under every bed“. Motes, beams and that…

It’s also hardly surprising that Gates of Vienna is “dismissive[ly] insult[ed]“. The article you refer to does, after all, end with a heartfelt plea for a “day of reckoning“, when the author will, he states, slavering, “gladly watch the bastards swing from the lamp posts“. In addition, he asserts that the BBC wants to “eradicate Christianity“. Running Songs of Praise, Thought for the Day and numerous dramas/documentaries on, er, Christianity is a whacky way of going about it. I’m not fond of the BBC – and that Bitesize thingy is dreadful, I agree – but this argument is just showy hyperbole.

Speaking of showy hyperbole…

“The correct interpretation of the fundamental corner-stone of Islamic ideology i.e the Koran,is not he BBC,s Bitesize religious studies sanitized perversion but, Al-Queda,s.
And all other interpretations are according to the most respected scholars of Islam–heresy.
Ask any scholar at “Apostates of Islam”.”

Again, your sweeping brush-strokes pass over the fact that the “scholars” I assume you’re referring to have repeatedly denounced al-Qaeda. Laws against apostasy are awful, I agree – and frighteningly widespread – but many Islamic figures and intellectuals have publicly rejected their validity.

Its not that I don,t understand why you dismiss “with the usual sanctimonious moral certainty and superiority” that I have been accustomed to here—my example of just one more aspect of B.B.C,s bias,as “random verbiage and wibble”–”make you sound like a nutter”.
The tragedy is I do understand perfectly why you react in that fashion.
Lets be honest,Sunny Hundal and Sunder Katawala,run a tight ship here. Both of them “and with all due respect “, because of their background are perhaps in somewhat of a cutural (double bind—conflict of interest ) and it is to be expected that they will dismiss every word written by Melanie Phillips,Gates of Vienna,Jihad Watch and every other such web-site as .

” sites run by and read by head banging,hooting lunatics of the worst kind”
And your other collegues are no doubt faced with a similar dilemma–being perhaps one more of
ideological alligence if not of any other factor.(no insult intended).

.

The dilemma is understandable,but Í,m not to keen on your “permission slip” system of “I want you to say things in way that I want you to say them”

I,m only suprised you didn,t include sub-humans (such as myself)–Fascists,Nazi,s,and Rascists.

” the overall effect is a bit like this”.
I presume you been somewhat shrill,which even I have to admit I cannot completely deny.
However it has not escaped my attention that both you and your fellow comrades have exhibited an unhealthy obsession with “how loony” some commentator sounds–
regardless of what the he is saying.
Please try to understand that if you start defining parameters of expression and terminology under threat of dismissive insult–thats the slippery slope towards eventually–me being just one more “tribal comfort zone Yes Man”.
And the suttle message is the same as it is the world over on the campus of every poly-tech bastion of Liberal Fascism—the message being ” no-dissent from the orthodox views–conform or get “labelled”.

I prepared for others to dismiss–taking for example–my mention of the Euro-Med integration project with the BBC,s Islamic indoctrination program,as the rantings of a “head banging hooting loony”.
Thats to be expected when those people condemn out -right all sources of information which don,t conform to their views.
I don,t believe you fully realize just exactly how many honourable,noble and scholarly people ,of both the left and the right (admittedly guilty of civilizational patriotism) that you “blanket dismiss”
If you could restrain yourself from L.C.and Left Co.s , obsessive compulsive desire to see a Right-Wing-Sponsored Infiltration loony Bigot under every bed, and go outside the M.S.M.because it is becoming (in my misguided idiotic opinion) the only media remaining,which is willing to report on uncomfortable facts and events which cannot be refuted,and none of these events are contrived or exaggerated or based on the personal views of the author.
We are left with thousands of well documented events which weave a tapestry which can longer be .fobbed of by the wishfull thinking of the “more sophisticated intelligencia”.
If you are totally oblivious too these developments.the mounting concern,and the potential consequences they may bring in the near future,then what more can I possibly say.
I just cannot formulate my views in the style which I percieve is the norm at L.C.–which is somewhat “micro-detailed-focused “on the intricate details of Miliband or some other politician,and neither would I attempt to stick my nose into such an endevour–being out of my depth in the matter.
.
As to “shoe horned into the conversation”
Guilty as charged.
I saw the once in a year opportunity and I took it.
Your views on any subject, I am totally in the dark about.Which leaves me at a disadvantage.

The overall effect is a bit like this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU3WgN–sFs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.org%2Fpage%2F3%2F&feature=player_embedded

*That’s without even looking at the link to Gates of Vienna – a site run by and read by headbanging, hooting lunatics of the worst kind.

Errr, Muslim scholars don’t see Islam as a pacifist religion either… so I guess the BBC think the Muslims and non-Muslims alike have misunderstood what Islam really is ?

Who, largely, are mental misanthropes.

I dunno, in my experience, we libertarians make quite a gregarious crowd. Our biggest drawback is that we are quite likely to get too pissed or stoned to make it up for a protest the next day.

“don,t like people” “call the postman a bastard” “an agent of the state”

Nothing to do with me mate,you,ve got the wrong geezer.
I,m just here to post a comment about “the ever more ideologically inbreed, old cronies,nepotism of the baby-boomer,poly-tech,L:S.E.champagne career socialist, third worldist, avoid mention of the elephant in the room ,B.B.C.(with lashings of P.C.cream)
Noticing that some article had popped up related to the subject and thinking “passing libertarians “comment—who ever he is,was well said….thought I,d stick in my tupence worth.
I must have stumblled into ,for want of a better word “in-crowd—in-talk”..

I imagine it helps you get through life, but that sort of grumpy-old-gittism will never generate a dynamic & successful political movement.

I,m not sure how to interpret your above remark on “passing libertarian,s”comment at (8).
I am but an ordinary mortal , and as is wont to these days,with terms looseing their meaning, cannot decide as to wether you support his view or attack it.

I dare not toss a coin to decide which.
Please elaborate.

Neil, Tim F – can’t you argue the issue a little more and leave out the ad hominen – and the puctuation obsessions.

An underappreciated but notable pillar of internet libertarianism: that people are scum.

B.B.C. GSCE “Bitesize”
Religious Studies
Quote;
” Paul Weston returns to take a look at how the B.B.C helps its young readers get their minds right about prejudice.
Although the BBC has a reputation for bias ,dishonesty and the promotion of cretinous infantile ideologies,designed to destroy civilized society,they appear to have surpassed themselves in their attitude to Christianity and Islam on their GCSE Bitesize revision web-site which is so fantastically biased,so hatefully anti-Christian and so perversely pro-Islamic that when one considers it is aimed at the uninformed minds of young children,it must surely be tantamount to child abuse.
The “test-bite concludes the section.There is nothing suprising in it;just a continuation of the B.B.C,s overt propaganda suggesting Islam is divine,pure,non-racist and non-sexist.
Another section on Christian and Islamic attitudes to fighting and warfare:
The general thrust of the propaganda is that Christians and Jews are warlike and Islam is a religion of peace.
That the BBC should peddle such overt and dishonest propaganda is obscene in itself.But to whitewash Islam with its arranged marriages,honour killings,global violent jihad. ect ect,
while painting Christianity as a religion of rascism,sexism, colonization,enslavement and murder leaves me struggling for a word stronger than “obscene”.
And to peddle it to innocent school children words fail me.
“I suppose there must come a day of reckoning with the genuinely evil apparatchicks of the BBc and when that day comes I will gladly watch the bastards swing from the lamp posts-such is the rage they ignite in the soul of a pacifist man”–end quote.
I am (jouneyman) by the way a rabid atheist.

The idea that Digby (I hate the public sector) Jones is a leftie just shows how ridiculous Montgomeries claims are. Just like Dale he has no credibility.

Is it a bot, perhaps?