Comments Policy 66


I am in a quandary what to do about comments policy. This blog has become quite a popular internet forum. It has a very liberal attitude to free speech. But yesterday we had a car crash. It started with someone making some highly personal comments about me, to which I replied but which I was content to leave. It then got much worse as somebody started posting foolish threats of violence, allegedly in my support. I know the thtreats were not meant literally, but that was extremely stupid and hardly contributed to debate.. We then had a racist epithet thrown.

I know because I am standing for election there are bound to be efforts to insult me or discredit me through posting or quoting other people’s comments on my blog. But I can live with that.

I closed comments, appealed for calm, and deleted the worst. But then overnight somebody has started to propound complete nonsense about zionist and illuminati plans, drawing on a long tradition of Eastern European hate forgery.

No comments on this blog represent my own views except my original articles and comments over my own name.

But from now on, comments off topic from the original link will be deleted. And off topic includes “ah, but this is all caused by such and such a dark force which is behind every development in the economy/foreign affairs/religion.”


66 thoughts on “Comments Policy

1 2 3
  • eddie

    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.

  • MJ

    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.

  • nextus

    @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!) 🙂

  • nextus

    @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!) 🙂

  • Jaded

    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.

  • Somebody

    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.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.