'lenin' informs us that he's going to be presenting his thoughts at the Marxism 2007 conference, which starts tomorrow. Title of his paper: "'What's Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?"
What's wrong with 'lenin' is that he is still cheerfully deploying this thoughtstopper, without once stopping to ask himself who gave him it, or what it's actually for, and who else uses it, and why. No doubt 'lenin' has his reasons; it's just a little strange that he never explains them. Perhaps his next paper will be entitled "What's wrong with Islamofascism?", or "What's Wrong With Political Correctness?" No need to distance himself with quotemarks or anything. Words are innocent, after all. You can just pick them up and use them as you find them. Right, 'lenin'?
Francis Boyle would most certainly disagree. As would Jamey Hecht:
What's wrong with 'lenin' is that he is still cheerfully deploying this thoughtstopper, without once stopping to ask himself who gave him it, or what it's actually for, and who else uses it, and why. No doubt 'lenin' has his reasons; it's just a little strange that he never explains them. Perhaps his next paper will be entitled "What's wrong with Islamofascism?", or "What's Wrong With Political Correctness?" No need to distance himself with quotemarks or anything. Words are innocent, after all. You can just pick them up and use them as you find them. Right, 'lenin'?
Francis Boyle would most certainly disagree. As would Jamey Hecht:
So why is 'lenin' still riding that allegedly tireless workhorse? Everyone else can see that it's ripe for the knacker's yard.
************************************************************************************
UPDATE THURSDAY: BREAKING NEWS -
Australia admits oil motive in Iraq
AlJazeera, THURSDAY, JULY 05, 2007
Australia has admitted for the first time that securing the supply of oil is a key motive for its involvement in the US-led war in Iraq.
Brendan Nelson, the defence minister, said "energy security" was one of the main priorities behind his country's support for the war, which is unpopular among Australians.HISTORICAL NOTE:
Blair: Iraq oil claim is 'conspiracy theory'
Guardian, Wednesday January 15, 2003
Tony Blair today derided as "conspiracy theories" accusations that a war on Iraq would be in pursuit of oil, as he faced down growing discontent in parliament at a meeting of Labour backbenchers and at PMQs.
"Derided"? Aha. And note that Blair achieved that derision without using a single adjective. If he'd said (for example) "a ridiculous conspiracy theory", then it would have been a tautology. The compound noun itself is already a term of derision; a loaded term, not quite as innocent as 'lenin' pretends it is. Now, it's not surprising that the Vicar of Downing Street would reach for that trusty loaded weapon when under fire himself. But why is 'lenin' waving it around, like a three-year-old with a hand-grenade? Maybe he can tell us. He doesn't have to explain whose interests he serves in deploying it.
(Of course, it's always possible that Britain and Australia are in Iraq for different reasons: the Aussies for the oil, the Brits as humanitarians or archaeologists or sun-worshippers or something. Just as it's always possible, though sadly unlikely, that the left will finally, belatedly, grow up.)
At last the truth can be told! The sinister conspiracy conspiracy will be revealed as the terrifying threat it really is, and what is to be done!!
ReplyDeleteI'm very confident this paper will come to be seen as a significant milestone in whatever the SWP finally achieve.
I hear he's presenting a paper at the next SWP conference, entitled: "Rank Stupidity: A Strategy For The Future".
ReplyDeletelenin: "In this paper, I shall attempt to rehabilitate the hitherto neglected strategy of rank stupidity, and to show how rank stupidity can strengthen the SWP's analyses of contemporary government press releases."
Heckler from the floor: "Hasn't the SWP been deploying that strategy for years?"
can you take the conspiraloon challenge?
ReplyDeleteIts liberating and embarrassing at the same time! the squares hate it if nothing else
I guess I'm missing something here but is there any reason to think that what 'lenin' is saying is somehow significant?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that a lot of people appear to comment on his blog but it keeps them off the streets and out of harm's way
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs good natured conspiraloons, we reach out with open,scaly tentacles to those we think share similar sentiments.
ReplyDeleteShame they tell us to fuck off
Forgive my light hearted manner
If he is going to address the matter I think he should do it properly. I do not think he has.
I'm quite happy to stand by what I say
You're the one flinging unsubstantiated allegations at me, lowering the level of debate, logical incompetence and, worst of all, obstructing the revolution.
Its this kind of hysterical reaction that has got the swp as far as it has.
paul | 10 Jul, 08:53 | #
Oh just fuck off. What is it with you people and these accusations of "hysteria"?
You just make yourself look like an idiot.
I've called you to account for something you said. You believe that's "hysteric". And you're talking about "lowering the level of debate"?
Pathetic, Paul. And beneath you.
tony | 10 Jul, 09:06 | #
Why o why can't we get along???!!!
Why o why can't we get along???!!!
ReplyDeleteIt would be too easy then
And where would the fun be in that?
Just thought you may want to know that in the comments thread for lenin's post "one's Divine Incipience" there's an interesting debate going on between lenin and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed i.e. the writer he wasn't very nice about in that post.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably know, lenin won't go near 9/11 but Nafeez will. Hence the argument. Check it out.
Nafeez Ahmed puts 'lenin' very quickly in his place. And 'lenin's' squirming responses (to both Ahmed and paul) really speak for themselves. It's an appalling performance from 'lenin'- lazy, nasty and deeply dishonest:
ReplyDeletehttp://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/ones-divine-incipience.html