So that’s why I was banned by the Guardian thread guardian.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 20 July 2007 00:26.

Not a majoritarian tale this time, but a personal one ...

Back in May I participated on the thread to what very quickly became a famous Guardian article: Margaret Hodge’s A message to my fellow immigrants.

This was the offering in which the erstwhile Labour Industry Minister agreed with the BNP’s long-standing and oft-dismissed plaint about council house allocation:-

We prioritise the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement others feel they have. So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded, privately rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents.

We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants.

It was not a very useful or glorious thread debate from my point of view. But in the course of it the following message greeted my attempt to re-post:-

This account has had its posting rights withdrawn. This may be because of a breach of our talk policy, or because you picked an unsuitable username. If you have any questions please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I was summarily banned.

My really very, very close friend, indeed political soulmate John Standing stood in for me as usual, and sent two e-mails to that address before a third elicited a reply. Well, not much of a reply. Just another e-mail address I could try. A further three mails went unanswered, each requesting “a precise and referenced explanation of your withdrawal of my posting rights to CiF”, and asking “which specific words, phrases or comments precipitated your action, and what principles underlie it.”

I had been wondering whether the cause of my troubles was a remark I had made about the Guardian’s outing of BNP member and prima ballerina Simone Clarke:-

English interests have not been placed before the electorate since the end of WW2, except by minute, very poor but very brave parties who have been hated by the liberal Establishment and subjected to every kind of calumny and repression.

Simone Clarke is a case in point. Ian Cobain and Alan Rusbridger broke the law to out her, and neither has been prosecuted. Her hounding was a disgrace, and you should hang your head in shame that you don’t see that.

... The point being that Cobain - who is, I believe, a white Zimbabwean - had joined the BNP as an apparently willing helper and was given access to a computer holding the party membership list. That list was subject to the Data Protection Act, and leaking data from it was, in my view, clearly a criminal act. As far as I am aware the police have taken no action against the journalist involved, or his editor. And this despite the fact that the Guardian had a second bite of the cherry with a follow-up by black journalist, Hugh Muir.

But this causal theory lost some of its lustre yesterday morning when I clicked on a Joseph Harker article alluringly titled Balancing the blogs. It began:-

White men, are you all stupid? Before you accuse me of racism, or indeed sexism, let me say that I take the question from the book by Michael Moore, who is a white man (though probably not stupid; but is he alone?).

and continued ...

Some time ago I wrote saying that all white people are racist. I didn’t mean in-your-face, BNP-style racism, but the subtle, unthinking, subliminal kind. Now I think I was being too kind. There’s nothing subtle about many of the views expressed on our comment threads.

... if we want to have a sensible discussion about race, or racism, is it possible on a general-access website such as this? Or do we need to find a new corner of cyberspace, and boldly go where no stupid white man has gone before?

Clicking on this character’s name produced this page, with the intriguing information that “Joseph Harker is assistant comment editor of the Guardian.”

In my bones I know Harker - if yesterday’s article is any guide, a racist and hater by any definition - must have pulled my posting rights. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if, beforehand, he also took up anonymity and blogged as one of my non-English interlocutors on the thread.

Now I know I will not be able to post as Guessedworker at the Guardian. Harker will never relent. Even if he wanted to, he is probably incapable of responding to my question about “which specific words, phrases or comments precipitated your action, and what principles underlie it.” In any case, there is plainly no point in continuing the John Standing mails. Nor in appealing to Harker’s boss. She is Georgina Henry, and I don’t have much faith that she has attended enough assertiveness classes yet to handle her dusky assistant.

Cobain ... Muir ... Harker. What an extremely unpleasant organisation Alan Rusbridger runs.

Tags: Media

Comments:

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:27 | #

Some time ago I wrote saying that all black people are racist. I didn’t mean in-your-face, Nation of Islam-style racism, but the subtle, unthinking, subliminal kind. Now I think I was being too kind. There’s nothing subtle about many of the views expressed on our comment threads.

... if we want to have a sensible discussion about race, or racism, is it possible on a general-access website such as this? Or do we need to find a new corner of cyberspace, and boldly go where no stupid black man has gone before?

Why thats unbelieveable, it still works as a passage! But…but..how can that be?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:36 | #

Once again we see on display the other side’s inability to cope with reasoned debate: it can’t respond, so it suppresses. You’d almost think it was modeling itself after its two favorite régimes in the whole world, Zimbabwe and South Africa. I don’t know which is more shocking, this amateurish behavior on the part of what’s supposed to be a major British newspaper, or Georgina Henry’s feminist/lez refusal to wear any make-up whatsoever in that photo ... (see pic at the link at her name, in the log entry ... or better yet, skip it ...).

Posted by Matra on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:50 | #

About five years ago when I came back from Northern Ireland to Canada I went to various British newspaper websites to keep in touch with the auld country. I went to the Guardian forum - the first I’d ever been to - and complained about another poster who said there were too many “fascist” white Africans - ie., Afrikaners and Rhodesians - moving to Australia. I contrasted the poster’s hatred of white Africans with his/her love affair with Arab Muslim immigrants and was subsequently sent a warning about racism not being acceptable at the Grauniad.

I’ve read some of GW’s learned posts at the Grundian “Comment is Free” forum. But I suspect that it’s a waste of time trying to convert die-hard white-haters to the cause. I’ve always thought it was better to go to moderate conservative and libertarian forums and try to convert them. The die-hard leftys may not be open to reason. It may take personal suffering under multiculturalism to lead them to question their worldview.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:36 | #

The Guardian is to true, EGI-preserving Brits as the Jewish Chronicle is to Shia Muslims.

You may as well, GW, ask the New York Times to serialise K-Mac’s complete works as ask the Marxian mattoids of The Guardian to affect concern for White people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:43 | #

For these people, seeing Negroes as they are is “racism.” Declining to make believe Negroes are as they aren’t, as PC demands, is “racism.” Using the word “Negro” to designate that race is “racism.” Harboring concerns about the survival of the white race given present replacement immigration and social policies is “racism.” All that has to do wth why they say all whites are “racist.” What they leave out is that in all those ways except concern about white-race survival and use of the word “Negro” the typical Guardian reader is also “racist” but is too much of a hypocrite to say honestly where he stands so pretends to have another orientation on the matter in order to affect membership in the upper classes whether he belongs to them or not (there being this image of upper-class people that they are insouciant about race).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:54 | #

Paul Fromm struggles for restoration of the right of free speech in Canada. See, toward the end of the video, which group has been fighting to have freedom of speech suppressed there (hint: it won’t exactly come as a huge surprise to anyone with ... well, with a pair of functioning eyes). (Oh, almost forgot: the eyes have to line up with the holes.) Since the world began, freedom of speech — those times and places where it’s existed — has been exclusively a Euro thing. Of course it hasn’t always existed in Europe, far from it, but it’s never existed anywhere outside the Eurosphere. It’s racial: we’re born with it in our brains, others no, forget it, they can’t conceive of it, don’t even try to discuss it with them, they don’t get it. Other races than us don’t have the brain neurons and hard-wired circuits and connections to be able to fathom freedom of speech or to instinctively feel its rightness. They can’t comprehend it. For them it’s some sort of game to be used to your advantage where possible then suppressed as soon as you have the upper hand. That’s why you generally haven’t seen freedom of speech anywhere to the east of Greece: the Asiatic mind doesn’t grasp the principle and Jews, being part Asiatic, are no exception: to the Jewish mind, freedom of speech makes as much sense as two plus two equals five. Trying to convince a Jew to honor the principle of freedom of speech has as much chance of success as trying to convince him to jump off the Empire State Building (or listen to a Garth Brooks or Michael Bolton CD, whichever is more horrifying and senseless).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:35 | #

Riddle: A pundit complains that Harry Potter is “racist.” Quick, what kind of name does that pundit have?

___ Irish
___ Italian
___ Polish
___ English
___ Swedish
___ Mexican
___ Vietnamese
___ Chinese
___ Jap
___ Tibetan
___ Eskimo
___ Ruthenian
___ Wendish
___ Macedonian
___ Bessarabian
___ Lusatian
___ Fijian
___ Gujurati
___ Sardinian
___ Berber
___ Ladino
__________________________________

Oops! Did I leave one out? ... You decide. (Good thing we’re not posting this riddle on a Canadian blog or we’d be in trouble ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:27 | #

This is a test of your knowledge of current events: The organization that got a Clinton-appointed federal judge to nullify Hazelton’s illegal-immigrant ordinance has been charaterized as (pick one):

1) “overwhelmingly Italian in terms of membership and funding”

2) “overwhelmingly Mormon in terms of membership and funding”

3) “overwhelmingly WASP in terms of membership and funding”

4) “overwhelmingly Russian in terms of membership and funding”

5) “overwhelmingly German in terms of membership and funding”

6) “overwhelmingly Lithuanian in terms of membership and funding”

7) “overwhelmingly Estonian in terms of membership and funding”

8) “overwhelmingly Greek in terms of membership and funding”

9) “overwhelmingly Armenian in terms of membership and funding”

10) “overwhelmingly Turkmen in terms of membership and funding”

11) “overwhelmingly Druze in terms of membership and funding”

12) “overwhelmingly Uzbek in terms of membership and funding”

13) “overwhelmingly Tajik in terms of membership and funding”

14) “overwhelmingly Mongol in terms of membership and funding”

15) “overwhelmingly French in terms of membership and funding”

16) “overwhelmingly Romanian in terms of membership and funding”

17) “overwhelmingly Laotian in terms of membership and funding”

18) “overwhelmingly Corsican in terms of membership and funding”

19) “overwhelmingly Basque in terms of membership and funding”

20) “overwhelmingly Zulu in terms of membership and funding”

21) “overwhelmingly Bushman in terms of membership and funding”

22) “overwhelmingly Ainu in terms of membership and funding”

23) “overwhelmingly Sinhalese in terms of membership and funding”

24) “overwhelmingly Ceylonese in terms of membership and funding”

25) “overwhelmingly Burmese in terms of membership and funding”

26) “overwhelmingly Bahai in terms of membership and funding”

27) “overwhelmingly Zoroastrian in terms of membership and funding”

28) “overwhelmingly Santerian in terms of membership and funding”
______

What was that? You ask if I left one out? Well, yeah, of course I did! This blog gets picked up in Canada! I don’t relish spending the rest of my life rotting in jail, ya know ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:28 | #

Brits forced out by wogs the government is shoe-horning in. What was that term again? Oh yeah! Race-replacement. Don’t leave home without it. (Don’t worry, I won’t — without it, there’d be no need! But ... do we get a choice? Doesn’t look as though we’re to be given much of one ... does it ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:37 | #

Sorry, let’s try that last post again, but with the right link this time ...

Brits forced out by wogs the government is shoe-horning in. What was that term again? Oh yeah! Race-replacement. Don’t leave home without it. (Don’t worry, I won’t — without it, there’d be no need! But ... do we get a choice? Doesn’t look as though we’re to be given much of one ... does it ...)

(That Guzzardi article I mistakenly linked is excellent, by the way — I highly recomment it.)