I agree with your general approach but moderating comments may persuade people not to bother posting. However, if that leads to fewer posts about “dark forces” and troof issues all to the good, but probably you and they would like to see less of me as well! It’s a difficult one to balance, because it’s like being a little bit pregnant, you either have free speech or you don’t. Ultimately you own the site so you can do what you like. The debate on these boards can be lively and I like to think it serves a darwinian purpose – i.e. it keeps our brains working and stops us being eaten by tigers or whatever the message board equivalent is.

Craig, we must accept that there is a great deal more paranoia around nowadays than there used to be. Understandably, I think, because people feel increasingly manipulated by unaccountable forces.

I would suggest allowing comments, however zany, to remain so that people can form their own opinions of their merit. In this instance, I agree with much of the viewpoint that everything isn’t as it seems (unlike eddie) though not with the attribution of every event to a dark global conspiracy of sinister supposedly all-powerful figures. (Reminds me of Harold Wilson’s “tight-knit conspiracy of politically motivated men”.) I think there ARE some conspiracies – including 9/11 -, but their outcome is by no means as controlled as even their perpetrators imagine. They are the blue touch-paper which sparks off a largely unpredictable train of events.

As for personal issues, as I’ve said before it is a matter of tone and of making it clear what isn’t acceptable. You are a very open and candid person – refreshingly so – but if you dish out insults here, as you sometimes do, it’s harder to prevent others from doing the same. On my own blog I make it quite clear that I’m interested in discussing issues and don’t welcome mud-chuckers.

It’s interesting how much the tone of Guido’s blog has improved since the McBride affair brought him a lot of new readers. Previously, it was dominated by puerile name-calling and a lot of very unpleasant homophobia which I periodically protest about. If you want to avoid that sort of thing, you need to exercise some self-restraint yourself, as we all do.

Don’t worry too much about offbeat comments – yours is one of the most interesting and stimulating blogs around just now, and in general I think we’re all quite well behaved and friendly here.

Craig

I agree with Eddie (!) – delete trolls and rambling nutters, but don’t pre-moderate. Leads to better debate and more contributions.

One of the main reasons Guido has such a devoted following is it’s the only site that allows people to say almost ANYTHING.

Anticant,

I really enjoy the lively debate. But the last few days have been over the top on the weirdness side.

I would add that I don’t mind insults, which aren’t racial. I don’t mind Eddie’s robust debate. It’s the dark forces, and what often looks to me like anti-semitic motivation but stopping just short of saying so, I don’t like.

I have to say that I agree with eddie as well!!! and anticant…. it’s difficult one but speech is either free or it isn’t. Perhaps the line should be drawn at racism or excessive personal attack.

Either way, it’s your call.

I accept that I have posted miscontrued comments here but, whilst understanding that you are intending to stand for parliament, the moderation and arbitrary deletion of messages is the bane of the Internet.

My suggestion (time-consuming as it may be) is that if messages are deleted the reason for their deletion be noted. Make a list of ten reasons rather than respond to each deletion if you like.

1. Personal Abuse

2. Off-topic

3. Anti-semitic

4. etc.

There’s nothing wrong with pre-moderating, but either way it would probably be a good idea to have some house rules in a visible, easily clickable place. It’s the absence of clear rules in an online community that does the most damage.

That said, simply given the lay-out of your site, I shouldn’t think you’d want to have too many at the moment anyway. Anything much more than sixty or so would become unreadable. Staines’ gets hundreds and hundreds of comments on his posts, and whatever the culture of his blog, that’s going to attract an awful lot of nutters simply because it’s a completely impractical format for any constructive debate.

Craig, I understand and share your irritation with the Illuminai/Bilderburger/Masonic conspiracy theorists, but they have been around for at least 250 years, and we must just put up with them, I suppose.

My quarrel with them is that while they quite often point to significant discrepancies in the ‘official’ surface version of events, they attribute the underlying skullduggery to the wrong, mythical, source. They are a type of secular fundamentalists, akin to religious zealots.

anticant,

I agree with you…..except that I honestly believe that the only things really worth saying are those that are forbidden. I agree with you that 9/11 was an inside job. Therefore, looking back at media behaviour over the last 8 years, the really important things have definitely not been said in the mainstream public domain.

I agree that Craig is a decent man….but if he gets himself elected he will be an MP along the lines of a more conservative Chris Mullin, who played an important part in freeing the innocent Guildford Four but who went further than Craig would, I believe, by trying to force MP’s to declare their membership of Freemasonry. Mullin failed.

I hope Craig does get elected. Maybe he’s just a realist. He might do great good for needing persons. He has certainly proved his willingness to stand up for what is right….but while he is closed to even discussing the dangerous roots of our problems, he might embarrass power but I do not see how he can possibly do anything that seriously challenges power (although I understand how he has to present himself to the people of Norwich…..so even ‘going there’ would be a no-brainer for a prospective MP at this time).

Big money power needs to be exposed and challenged.

This is not the only thing that matters but it is the only thing that REALLY matters.

However, I’ve enjoyed this site……but as a member, yet again, of the banned I suppose I’d better play elsewhere.

I can imagine that you are uncomfortable with deleting posts – it is proverbially difficult to know yourself, and so you can’t be sure that you’re removing something because it’s offensive – or just because it is offensive to you.

Does your blog technology allow a compromise? Instead of deleting things, have the equivalent of a spam folder. It contains things you have received but in your humble opinion miss the point, are mischievous, or for whatever reason should be removed from the main thread. Let your readers see them, and let them petition to have them restored to the thread if they disagree with you.

That way you don’t censor, you just offer a personal view on relevance and appropriateness, leaving the door open for questioning of your judgement.

@eddie

Really think you can chase away Truth by mispelling her name as Troof? Good luck with that, kid. You obviously don’t know women.

anticant,

as one of the above, let me say I don’t necessarily believe all this stuff…..

……I just think the material should be investigated honestly rather than banned from public discourse.

Even if there is such a conspiracy (I do believe there is one or many more actually, but like the Mafia, with competing parties in the game), these people will inevitably lose. Such megalomaniacs are playing a game that cannot possibly, in the end, be won.

Craig,

Moderating a website can very quickly become a full time job. You have got far more important things to attend to.

My son set up his first website when he was 13 years old. It became very popular and he had over 1 million hits. He moderated it extremely professionally showing a maturity well beyond his tender age. Much of the discussion was about war – and it attracted some incredibly pro war Americans. I was very anti-war – and sometimes I posted stuff that I was very proud to see my son delete when emotions got much too heated.

Eventually he gave up the moderation and let anyone post whatever they wanted, because it was taking up far too much of his time.

Everyone accepts that views posted are not a reflection of the website itself, and that on very busy websites it becomes impossible for all comments to be moderated unless several people are employed full time to do it.

People will post stuff in the heat of the moment, that they later regret – and would like to delete or edit themselves. Such a facility would be useful.

However, the structure of your website is such that only the most recent topics are likely to be seen and anything a few days old effectively becomes buried and invisible to the vast majority of visitors.

So in my view you are wasting your time trying to moderate comments. The comments are no reflection on you – except the ones you make yourself. It’s only those you should be worried about – particularly when you name individuals.

Tony

Dunno. In principle I agree with eddie, anticant and others about keeping things pretty open. Some of the best and liveliest debates end up being off-topic. There again, as one the regular offenders on that score perhaps I would say that.

On the other hand Craig has an election to fight and he doesn’t want his chances scuppered by mad comments. That threat of violence yesterday was insane and he was perfectly right to remove it. Should have done so earlier really.

Craig’s opponents will be scouring this site for ammunition. I wouldn’t put it beyond someone to post scurrilous material purposely in order to reflect badly on Craig. Mud sticks.

I didn’t see the overnight posts but I would be interested to know if they came from regulars or from newcomers.

Possibly you could apply a the rule based on the Radio 4 game show ‘Just A Minute’: no Hesitation, Deviation or Repetition. Taking 1000 words to say something that could be done in 100 would count as Hesitation. Holding forth about the Bilderberg Conspiracy when the topic of discussion is wheel clamping would be Deviation (and also insults or any verbal abuse that would not be acceptable over the phone to a secretary in an organisation); and repeating old posts containing the same nonsense would be Repetition. Any of these, and the post could be deleted without warning or appeal and simply replaced by the character H, D or R.

Another issue is vanity. People like to see their posts up in lights so to speak and they like to see responses to them (I suppose we all have a fear of being ignored!) – if we think that posts may be deleted then it is a deterrent to posting and it would make this site less popular. I know that I have been abusive at times and for this I apologise, but in the heat of the moment etc…the anonymity of the web seems to encourage this and it is a bad thing in my view. In real life I am fairly mild.

This is how it starts.

He’ll be boiling us alive before you know it.

As everyone knows, my tendency is to be open if possible. I don’t mind vulgar abuse or heated discussion. Racist or threatening is out.

Conspiracy theory is the more difficult question. I am much more open-minded than some – I have actually witnesses flase flag terrorism, so I know tha those who claim it does not exist are wrong. But equally I know that those who claim all terrorism is false flag are also wrong, and some of the conspiracy theories sometimes people bang on about in my view cross the boundary into things no reasonable person could believe, and whcih I do not wish to host. If the comments section looks like a meeting place for deranged obsessives, other potential commenters will be scared off.

But the key point is they are nearly always off topic – and as I said, I don’t accept the “Aaaah, but it secretly all stems from this” argument to make it on topic.

So in short, I am going to leave things where they are, but the wilder shores of conspiracy theory will just get straight deleted as soon as I see them.

And if anyone breaks this, I will tip off the Illuminati, and they will come and get you…

…or even the Elders of Zion or Henry Kissinger.

They are the Illuminati you dipstick

Dear Craig

I like the fact you don’t do censorship but you might find that since you declared a candidacy that these clowns causing trouble are political.

If it is racist or even beyond mental then mod it.

I had 4 halfwits turn up on my blog when it was down for redevelopment and leave comments.

One happy camper called George Laird stated;

‘I am a twat’.

Everyone knows I am much worse than that so I took it down. The nerve of some people!

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

spot on eddie…. and as I have said before. I apologise unreservedly for those times I have been less than civil.

Sorry, that might be seen as off topic…

It’s a tough dilemma, but I think you’ve made another good call, for reasons of pragmatism as much as moral principle.

The problem with open blogs is that they are vulnerable to hijack by extremists wanting to propagate discriminative misinformation to someone else’s readership. It is better to nip this in the bud early by deletion than to divert efforts to detailed rebuttals of absurd mistruths. The points you raise are politically important and should not be drowned out by external propaganda.

In the end, these decisions to delete have to be subjective. I strongly concur with the principles you’ve outlined to justify your judgement.

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that free speech is like pregnancy: all pregnancies are independent of each other; all speech is interdependent.

Like any freedom, it is only defensible when it does not violate others’ equal freedom. Threatening or intimidating speech discourages others’ exercise of their freedom of speech and therefore curtails free speech, rather than exemplifying it.

Craig. This blog is your virtual persona and as such you have the right to protect that as much as you would in the real world. Dont navel gaze too much mate, we need your attentive mind in places much more important.

Just cut the crap as you see fit and if we don’t like it then we can go somewhere else. My gut feeling is that most of us share simular values so in general tend to trust your judgement on these things.

Moderate the twats.

JM,

Thanks for the funniest post of the day. In the last 10 years or so, I have posted many thousands of messages on various websites.

Everything I post on websites such as the Daily Mail – never even appears.

However on other websites across the World – I have only been banned 4 times and had considerably less than 0.1% of my posts deleted.

On Craig’s website I think the deletion rate is over 25%.

But it’s his website and he can delete whatever he wants.

If I was responsible for moderating this website and in any way potentially liable to be sued, I would delete a significant number of Craig Murray’s comments.

But that’s why we love him so much – cos he posts honestly – regardless of the consequences.

If you read his book Murder in Samarkand – you will understand why

I have massive Respect for Craig Murray.

Tony

If you really are making a proper run for Norwich North, you don’t have time to moderate all comments, so pre-censor for the next month. That’s the only way you can exercise any moderation at all.

ChrisM,

Considerably less than 1% of the Electorate of Norwich North are likely to read Craig’s website in the run up to the election.

Unless YOU get off your arse on the road – and put in a massive campaign – with a few hundred other people – actually meeting people in Norwich – maybe just handing out flyers – about CRAIG – AND WHAT HE STANDS FOR AND WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR HIM

This website may become important in the overall scheme of things on a National and International level with regards to Truth and Justice and Honesty and Morality

But it is almost completely irrelevant as regards the Election in Norwich – unless a significant proportion of People who feel the same way as Craig Murray – get off their arse – and start Supporting his Election Campaign – by walking the Streets of Norwich and Convincing People Face To Face to Vote For Him

Tony

Incidentally Craig may have met a Former Boss of Mine’s Wife’s Brother

He kept on losing the Elections – and was on the losing side – but was Respected as the Leader of the Opposition.

It was a Country in Africa

This was a few years ago

I think the Country was Ghana – but I can’t remember his name.

We will be at WOMAD as normal

World of Music Arts and Dance Started By Peter Gabriel 27 Years Ago

Tony

If we are not allowed to talk about the “dark forces” that are behind everything does this mean we will never be able to discuss His Holiness and Master of All He Surveys, Lord Mandelson?

I don’t agree with censorship in general, but if we are going to be subject to the views of uncivilised idiots then by all means delete their comments – they can always find a ready made home on the website of The Scotsman.

In the run up to the election I fear anything untoward on this site will be used against you, although I do worry that being a moderator will ultimately take up more time than its worth.

All the best,

Wee Mac

I am almost 100% certain it was Ghana.

His Sister’s Husband used to work for me. He had tremendous social skills and I encouraged him to apply for the job in management – even though it would mean him moving departments – and that he would no longer be working as a part of my team.

He got the job – and eventually became My Leader

And I realised I had done a Brilliant Job

I encouraged him so much that he actually went for it – and got the job – and then became my Leader when I REALLY wanted to Leave

I knew all the Work we had done would be safe in his hands to continue

It was tough for him – but we all loved him. It didn’t matter that his skin was a different colour (in fact we didn’t notice that) – because his work and his sheer loveliness to others shone through

His wife is incredibly beautiful.

I see that Ghana has a New President – but I do not know if she is the President’s Sister – it could have been an Uncle or something – I think she is too young to be his sister.

Or her brother could have been the leader of another party. I haven’t seen either of them for 4 years

Tony

Thanks for the laugh…. very good…. are you starting a new TV show?

Craig:

And if anyone breaks this, I will tip off the Illuminati, and they will come and get you…

Eddie:

…or even the Elders of Zion or Henry Kissinger.

MJ:

They are the Illuminati you dipstick

Ok, so what was so wrong with my comment on this ‘Comments’ thread that you deleted it Craig? I do agree with you about deviating threads, but I was just giving a general view about what could be allowed, in theory, without significant deviation from the topic of future threads. No person had to agree with it and you didn’t have to take it on board. It’s your blog and I have taken on board your comments. However, in the context of this particular thread I think you were wrong to delete it. It was just my tuppence worth and if you think I am ‘anti-semitic’ I couldn’t begin to tell you how insulted I am. Maybe you should instigate a policy where people should try and focus on naming names?

Jaded, no-one is denying that there is such a thing as corruption, or that power is abused by people in organisations for self-interest. That’s what the parliamentary scandal is all about, and discussion on that topic is hardly being curtailed.

But to invoke “dark forces” is to imply a sinister spiritual undercurrent designed to demonise disagreement, even when used as a metaphor. It’s all about creating divisions and directing hatred against an evil.

The posts that were deleted last night (mine included – but it was a refutation!) related to a Grand Illuminati conspiracy theory, citing a busted myth espoused by classic European fascism. I hope you can see the difference. Even the Fortean Times – the cynic’s gazette – distances itself from such malicious paranoia:

“If there has been a single theme running through this column it is that mega- or meta-conspiracy theories ?” of the “it’s all the fault of the Jews-Masons-aliens-lizards” kind ?” are a distraction from real conspiracies. Sometimes, though, these two fields threaten to overlap ?” for example with bankers. Now, this makes many respectable commentators nervous lest it should be thought they are interested in banking conspiracy theories ?” which sound, of course, rather similar to Jewish Banking Conspiracy theories, that deathless staple of the far Right.”

http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/conspiracycorner/1230/us_banking_conspiracies.html

Now that everybody pointing the finger for the economic meltdown, but you have to be careful not to step over the line. Last night’s rant drove a juggernaught through it, quite unnecessarily.

If you want to talk about institutional corruption, go right ahead. There are plenty of threads in which that would be perfectly on topic. You can even analyse how people become corrupted and discuss how to uncorrupt them. But talk of “dark forces” is best left to the witch-doctors.

I recommend you implement a user moderation system much like the techsite slashdot.org uses. Every user has their own login, and when they post comments, other users can mod the comment up or down. Unless a comment has a high enough score it will not be seen (users can alter this threshold for themselves). Also getting high scores for a comment give the poster mod points to use on other peoples comments.

I really like this system. It saves a lot of manual moderation which is a massive time sink. It leads to crap being unseen while insightful comments are displayed to all. It also promotes more of a community feel and encourages thoughtful posting with the mod points reward system.

I realise that this would be a massive upgrade to your current site. However in the long run I think it would be worth the investment of time/resources. Your site is an amazing rescource/community and I think with a system like I describe above it would enable this virtual space to continue to grow and become even more valuable across the globe.

CheebaCow “It leads to crap being unseen” – how do you know if you can’t see it?

There are many negative points about such a system which I havn’t the time to mention right now.

@ all

I think Craig you should just continue to do what you have been doing so far, which seems to have been very successful and efficient. Yellow cards are the best system I’ve seen. And if you[Craig] spot a comment you feel needs deleteion on YOUR blog then nobody can really complain. It’s not like you are a malicious censor. However I appeal to you not to censor honest and factual info even if it does purtain to the elite.

The ‘aaah but that’s cos the elite…’ kind of stuff is pretty rare here and it does carry some context in most cases.

Lets not gove the pigs who have an very unwelcome influence on our lives a free ride, huh?

Most of us here are sensible (but do get hot under the collar on occasions) as we respect you, your yellow card system should continue to prove effective. Idiots can be ignored as can liars e.g. those who know what the Guantanamo torture victims histories were, and ‘know’ they are ‘going back’ to terrorism etc.

“MJ:

They are the Illuminati you dipstick ”

Are they? How would I know when I don’t subscribe to all that stuff? Wikipedia says otherwise, but in line with the new friendly moderating policy I shall ignore the insult. Have a good day.

Simple if the reply is distinctly off topic or too long, it should go. Some of the posters on here should start their own bloggs if what they think is so important. Many are filled with their own self importance and nothing else.

A voting system similar to the Daily Mail could be used if “Wibbler” could do it with this technology.

For goodness sake eddie it was a joke, pure and simple. The use of a was a major clue, not to mention the word choice.

The Guardian comments section is pretty good. I think that’s a good model. Outright abuse, racism, homophobia, support for Nu Lab, they are all pretty easy to delete. In general, though, I hope the writer leaves it as much alone as possible. This would be in the spirit of the over-all blog, I think. This means putting up with a bit of idiocy, but that’s the interweb for you. The anti semitism is a bit annoying, too, but I suspect most people just pity those posters, and hit the scroll button asap.

And it goes without saying: don’t do a Dolly Draper and turn the site into Pravda. It’s beneath you!

lwtc247: “how do you know if you can’t see it?”

You can see it, if you set your threshold low, or follow high moded comments back. Personally I like the system, it retains all the information posted but allows users more freedom to decide how many troll posts they want to see.

@Brendan; no, no, no… the comments policy at “Comment is Free” is atrocious. There is so much censorship of alternative perspectives it is not worthy of its own name. Witness the removal of much of the criticism of Polly Toynbee when Craig blogged about her article on Ghana. Criticism of the Guardian performance in the vein of Media Lens tends to get deleted also.

eddie

MJ’s comment was a joke. Quite a good one too, I thought.

Jaded

Can’t recall deleting anything from you.

Well, rightly or wrongly, I think folk that do have views on banking and power should be allowed to air those views without being branded as racist. It’s pathetic. If I have a problem with Swiss yodellers does that make me an anti-Swissite? Or if I have a problem with French mushroom farmers then i’m a anti-Frenchite am I? Or if I have a problem with Scottish whiskey makers that makes me anti-Scottite? Does anyone here feel that British paedophiles represent them? If the answer to these questions is no, which I think (hope) you all would agree, then why the hell does anyone who has a problem with Jewish bankers get called an anti-Semite? I honestly don’t get it. Now, one can civilly debate that particular point about banking, but why does race come into it? It just makes me more suspicious that there is some conspiracy, ***not a racist one***, and that the race card is used as a shield to prevent discussion of it. There are good and bad guys in every race and i’m sure many Jews would feel completely insulted to discover that members of their race couldn’t be scrutinised without the scrutinisers being called anti-semitic! I’m an anti-badite. Root out the baddies whoever and wherever they are. I don’t give a toss if it’s my cousin down the road. Am I thick or something?

Rant over.

“…the race card is used as a shield to prevent discussion of it”

Before you get deleted again I’d just like to say that I agree with you.

The difference dear Jaded is that the Swiss and the Scots are nationalities, who include Black, Asian and Jewish people. Similarly, every bank will employ a mix of races and nationalities. To talk about Scottish bankers is therefore very different from talking about Jewish bankers. Simple enough for you? Moreover the phrase “Jewish bankers” clearly has overtones that the phrase Scottish bankers does not have.

‘Moreover the phrase “Jewish bankers” clearly has overtones that the phrase Scottish bankers does not have.’

Arggghhhhhh!

What part of that don’t you understand? Do you think it would be acceptable to talk about Black bankers or Muslim bankers or Gay bankers? If not, why is it acceptable to talk about Jewish bankers? The phrase clearly relates to an agenda that is quite clearly anti-semitic.

I think you’ll find eddie that those who are interested in the global banking system just refer to ‘bankers’.

It is only the ADL and others keen to stifle discussion of the system who try to suggest that there are anti-Jewish sentiments implicit in even referring to ‘bankers’, or scrutinising their activities.

Yes, exactly. When I said ‘why the hell does anyone who has a problem with Jewish bankers get called an anti-Semite?’ I probably didn’t make my point very well. I should have said bankers who ‘happen to be’, and are certainly not exclusively, Jewish.

No you didn’t make your point well. In fact the point was made badly, perhaps deliberately so. The race, religion or ethnicity of any banker is irrelevant and I think you will find that legislation exists to keep it that way, as for any profession. What next -Fred Goodwin and Adam Applegarth are Jewish?

‘In fact the point was made badly’

No, it wasn’t made ‘badly’. You are just a plonker.

‘perhaps deliberately so’

You are sick in the head.

‘The race, religion or ethnicity of any banker is irrelevant.’

Exactly. Let’s stick to naming names whatever race they may be. Can’t go far wrong then…

I know you are Jessy, others do too i’m sure, and I know you have an ‘agenda’. You are feeble and have been exposed. They honestly couldn’t find someone with more than 3 brain cells to send forth? It’s like an episode of ‘When Amoebas Attack’ with you on here. Now bog off and stop bothering me.

Your ad hominem abuse is water off a duck’s back I’m afraid. So if I talk about “bankers who happen to be black”, or “bankers who happen to be Gay”, what point am I making exactly? Why the fuck do you think it is acceptable to talk about Jewish bankers? What points are you trying to be make other than ones that are both anti-semitic and of the fruitcake “dark forces” variety that Craig is so keen to expunge from this site?

“Am I thick or something?”

Answer. Yes.

And a racist too, unless you can prove otherwise.

‘”Am I thick or something?”

Answer. Yes.

And a racist too, unless you can prove otherwise.’

LOL. You said it my old mucker Jessy… I couldn’t have summed it up any better myself. Now run off back to ‘Spook School’ and get some more qualifications. Tell them Jaded said to send us someone with more clout we can have fun with. You are way too fragile and ‘thick’. Teehee! :-0

Easy on, Jaded! You’re actually making Eddie seem like a voice of rationality! Don’t stoop.

FWIW, I accept you’re not a racist in the general sense because you’re not attributing negative characteristics to an entire race. But your views on the banking problem are implicitly racist. Why are you singling out Jewish bankers in particular? You haven’t explained. Are you suggesting bankers are only corrupt if they’re Jewish? Or that the Jewish bankers are somehow more likely to be corrupt than the others? Or that they’re generally even more corrupt than the norm? Or that they are somehow inspiring the whole culture of selfish profiteering? Which is it, Jaded??

Maybe you’d prefer to shirk the racism allegation by targeting Zionism instead. Are you then implying that a global banking cartel is steering the world economy to serve a Zionist agenda?? In that case, you could be reading from Ahmadinejad’s catechism. It’s a grand conspiracy theory, with huge logical gaps filled in by mistrust and suspicion.

Maybe your instincts are telling you the Jewish bankers must somehow be to blame, and the only thing you need is supporting facts? If you accept that kind of instinct without self-criticism, you are mirroring the thought processes of the BNP.

I’ll maybe cite you in my talk to a ‘United Against Fascism’ group this evening. I’ll be warning left-wingers to be mindful of conspiracy theorists who are inadvertently greasing the path from anticapitalism to “national socialism” via antisemitism. (The message which sparked this moderation controversy was designed to do exactly that, adducing forged evidence as ‘confirmation’.)

If you have incontrovertible evidence to justify blaming Jewish bankers in particular, people need to know. But if (as I suspect) your language just embodies your own implicit hostility, you can expect to be robustly challenged (or deleted, for reasons of time and relevance). Best wishes.

‘Easy on, Jaded! You’re actually making Eddie seem like a voice of rationality! Don’t stoop.’

I couldn’t resist and, yes, it was stooping. I honestly think he is here with an agenda though. I am going to give as honest a response that I can to the rest of your post and speak my mind.

‘FWIW, I accept you’re not a racist in the general sense because you’re not attributing negative characteristics to an entire race. But your views on the banking problem are implicitly racist. ‘Why are you singling out Jewish bankers in particular? You haven’t explained. Are you suggesting bankers are only corrupt if they’re Jewish? Or that the Jewish bankers are somehow more likely to be corrupt than the others? Or that they’re generally even more corrupt than the norm? Or that they are somehow inspiring the whole culture of selfish profiteering? Which is it, Jaded??’

Are you trying to limit my choice in explanation here? Some of those options you posit are completely and utterly daft. I’m probably the least racist person you will ever meet. I’m the same as the other 6 billion that walk the earth. We are a global community of human beings. I don’t view a Jew, Nigerian, Malaysian or Brazilian as any different to my father, mother or sister. I simply think that the way the world has randomly evolved we have ended up in a situation where Jewish bankers (few hundred people) have, not all, but a lot of financial power. This is especially the case in the U.S.. I do also believe that power corrupts. But it’s not ‘because’ they are Jews. It’s random. It could have been Germans, French, Chinese whatever. Also, this financial power could have emerged out of a religious group or a cultural group. I reiterate, we are talking about a small group of people. You neglected to refer to the fact that earlier in this thread I suggested we all just stick to naming names I see.

‘Maybe you’d prefer to shirk the racism allegation by targeting Zionism instead. Are you then implying that a global banking cartel is steering the world economy to serve a Zionist agenda?? In that case, you could be reading from Ahmadinejad’s catechism. It’s a grand conspiracy theory, with huge logical gaps filled in by mistrust and suspicion.’

I reiterate, I am talking about a small group of people. You again seem to set the parameters of my thoughts. I do indeed think there are moves towards a global bank, global currency and global government by some of these people. I wouldn’t call it a ‘grand conspiracy’, but I would use the word conspiratorial. I actually think we all make it up as we go along. I also think that the vast majority of Jews will be vicitims like the rest of us if this scenario comes to pass. I think it will all be very undemocratic.

‘Maybe your instincts are telling you the Jewish bankers must somehow be to blame, and the only thing you need is supporting facts? If you accept that kind of instinct without self-criticism, you are mirroring the thought processes of the BNP.’

Blame for what exactly? I don’t know what you are talking about. Lumping me in with the BNP? Wow.

‘I’ll maybe cite you in my talk to a ‘United Against Fascism’ group this evening. I’ll be warning left-wingers to be mindful of conspiracy theorists who are inadvertently greasing the path from anticapitalism to “national socialism” via antisemitism. (The message which sparked this moderation controversy was designed to do exactly that, adducing forged evidence as ‘confirmation’.)’

I think you are mentally trapped within all these artificial concepts. That sounds like a right load of nonsense. I’m an individual that sees things individually. From what I know of ‘fascism’ it doesn’t sound good. If you want to quote me, then quote me. Go ahead. However, please don’t misquote me and let folk make their own minds up.

‘If you have incontrovertible evidence to justify blaming Jewish bankers in particular, people need to know. But if (as I suspect) your language just embodies your own implicit hostility, you can expect to be robustly challenged (or deleted, for reasons of time and relevance). Best wishes.’

Again, blaming them for what? My own implicit hostility against what? I’ve got nothing against sensible debate. I think you think in black and white too much on ‘some things’. You sound a little hostile to me to be honest. I don’t think you understand me and try to make out i’m an idiot. I am just trying to see the world as it is ‘now’. I am trying to deconstruct power and figure out where it lies. The only thing I want is peace in the world. Don’t persecute the openminded. Best wishes to you too, and everyone on the planet, and I genuinely mean that!

You still don’t seem to understand the difference between a nation and a race. So, in your words, “Jewish bankers have a lot of power” – then “it could have been Germans, French…whatever”. The confusion is self-evident.

What is your point exactly? Why does the word Jewish have to be attached to the word Banker? If bankers have a lot of power and some of them happen to be Jewish what are you trying to say? Any objective person reading your words would implicitly see them as anti-semitic.

Yes I do have an agenda and it is to challenge fritcakes like you. In a week when a guard at the Holocaust museum has been killed by a white superemacist I think this is needed, particularly as the far left and the far right seem intent on linking up in their use of anti-semitism, racism and Holocaust denial via Hizbollah and Ahmadinejad.

Look, i’m sorry to say this. I know you have an agenda, but maybe you are incredibly stupid to boot. Not that I thought you were the brightest chip of the block. It pains me to know that I am the same as you. Now just bugger off and stop bothering me.

You eddie are confusing the notions of race and religion. Judaism is a religion not a race. There are Jews of all races. Most are of European origin.

I’m not confusing anything and I think you will find that I did not mention Judaism which is not synonymous with being Jewish. I am asking this specimen Jaded why he/she/it feels the need to talk about “Jewish bankers” and reply there is none. So as far as I am concerned he/she/it joins KevinB as another racist on these boards. Jews can be a race, a religion or an ethnic group or all three and have been legally classified as such.

I suppose it may be meaningful on the odd occasion to refer to ‘Jewish’ bankers, if the adherence to their faith has some bearing on their fiscal policy. Just as it may be legitimate to refer to Muslim bankers, if the application of Sharia’h law, as it pertains to fiscal practice, is of significance in the context.

@MJ, well put!

@Jaded, thanks for clarifying your position. It seems obvious that if we’re talking about exploitation in banking, the focus should be on exploitative bankers without implicating their race or religion. But I recognise that the point you’re making is rather more subtle than that.

The question you raise about whether a disproportionate number of powerful bankers are Jewish is interesting, and there are numerous possible answers (many of which imply they are generally highly-principled bankers!).

A separate question is whether the global economic exploitation is somehow related to Jewish culture, race or identity. Sure, it’s a legitimate question, but it needs to be handled very carefully, because the debates are riddled with preconceptions and stereotypes, particularly of the notorious “Jewish banker” variety. (I accept you’ve explicitly dissociated yourself from that stereotype, though.)

So what, if anything, can bridge the gap between the concepts of Jewishness and corruption? National Socialists are offering very clear answers, based on distorted ideologies, and it’s important that we speak out to expose their lies. If I read you right, you’re suggesting an alternative, non-racist, answer: Jews are economically very powerful, and power corrupts. In that case, it’s the corrupting influence of power that is really the problem, and Jewishness can drop out of the equation. It’s true that certain people are susceptible to corruption in power, regardless of creed. But that’s the point everyone is making anyway. So I don’t see that mentioning Jewishness adds anything, unless you’re doing a comparative analysis of religious fiscal policies – which hasn’t happened here.

Thanks for expounding your view so clearly; I’ve found what you said useful. And no, I don’t think you’re an idiot (except when you resort to argument by abuse!)

@MJ, well put!

@Jaded, thanks for clarifying your position. It seems obvious that if we’re talking about exploitation in banking, the focus should be on exploitative bankers without implicating their race or religion. But I recognise that the point you’re making is rather more subtle than that.

The question you raise about whether a disproportionate number of powerful bankers are Jewish is interesting, and there are numerous possible answers (many of which imply they are generally highly-principled bankers!).

A separate question is whether the global economic exploitation is somehow related to Jewish culture, race or identity. Sure, it’s a legitimate question, but it needs to be handled very carefully, because the debates are riddled with preconceptions and stereotypes, particularly of the notorious “Jewish banker” variety. (I accept you’ve explicitly dissociated yourself from that stereotype, though.)

So what, if anything, can bridge the gap between the concepts of Jewishness and corruption? National Socialists are offering very clear answers, based on distorted ideologies, and it’s important that we speak out to expose their lies. If I read you right, you’re suggesting an alternative, non-racist, answer: Jews are economically very powerful, and power corrupts. In that case, it’s the corrupting influence of power that is really the problem, and Jewishness can drop out of the equation. It’s true that certain people are susceptible to corruption in power, regardless of creed. But that’s the point everyone is making anyway. So I don’t see that mentioning Jewishness adds anything, unless you’re doing a comparative analysis of religious fiscal policies – which hasn’t happened here.

Thanks for expounding your view so clearly; I’ve found what you said useful. And no, I don’t think you’re an idiot (unless you resort to argument by abuse!)

I’m going to stick to naming names from name on. I used the term Jewish bankers because many powerful bankers ‘are’ Jewish. I was probably naive to think that all people here could accept that simple term without all the excess baggage. In retrospect, I should have thought about it. One of me heroes is Emmanuel Levinas. Anyone who says i’m anti-semitic is very wrong. And I agree with Levinas, Heidegger was a nasty piece of work, but Nietzsche wasn’t. Im Nietzschean. And Levinas was a buddy of Derrida too, who has inspired me the most, and he was an avid deconstructionist.

‘So as far as I am concerned he/she/it joins KevinB as another racist on these boards.’

Well, that’s that then. Keep us posted if any more show up. Amen.

There are around half a dozen guys on here who seem to have too much spare time on their hands and seem to spend most of it on here.

Maybe they should get other hobbies and perhaps even a life.

I won’t name names but i’m sure most can guess who’s in the frame here..

If a new comments systems is imposed could it be possible to ignore these persistent poster pests and leave the rational debate to everyone else.