Thursday, January 05, 2006

Neo-Conservative Bully-Boys

What do you do if a reviewer criticises your book in a review?
Well, if you are Oliver Kamm, the answer is easy. You use your webblog to falsely accuse him on not reading it. It seems that neo-conservatives are not content with their disproportionate media influence in Britain and the US- they really want to silence all those who take an alternative view.
We saw the lies the neo-conservatives were prepared to tell to propagandise for an illegal war against Iraq. And we now see the lies they use to libel those of us who dare to stand up to their bully-boy tactics.

21 comments:

Raoul Djukanovic said...

For whom do you propagandise, Neil?

There's a wealth of material refuting your "alternative view" on the Srebrenica death toll here, if you scroll down a bit.

Since you clearly made that up, why should anyone believe anything else you say?

Neil Clark said...

To be accused of making things up by a neo-conservative really amuses me-
your side after all told us (a) that genocide was being committed in Kosovo by Yugoslav forces (b)Iraq possessed WMDs. Both claims were false. Why should any believe anything you, Kamm, Pollard, Perle, Aaronovitch and other neo-conservatives say?

Raoul Djukanovic said...

Neo-conservative?

Is that your favourite cuss or what?

Now where's your evidence for what happened to these people if they were not killed in July 1995?

The document lists 8,106 names. You wrote in The Guardian that less than half this number were killed.

Where are the rest?

Charlie said...

"It seems that neo-conservatives are not content with their disproportionate media influence in Britain and the US- they really want to silence all those who take an alternative view."

?????!!!! WtF????

You are one paranoid puppy.

What with the Guardian, the 'Independent', the Mirror and the daddy of them all the BBC, it seems to me you old palaeo-cons who don't want anybody to change anything are fine and dandy on the old representation front. Though apparently you talk to robots, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

Neil Clark said...

Neo-conservatives aren't over-represented?
Do you live in a wardrobe Charlie?
These people have a voice in the media in both Britain and the US which is out of all proportion to the percentage of the population who share their views. Melanie Phillips, one of the barmiest of their number has a regular column in The Daily Mail; Pollard, despite his extremism is a regular in The Mail and The Times; Aaronovitch and Baker also have a columns in The Times; Mark Steyn is in The Telegraph, Nick Cohen in the New Statesman and Observer, Bruce Anderson in the Independent. Is that enough for starters?

Raoul Djukanovic said...

Cat got your keyboard, Neil?

Charlie said...

What kind of sweeping vapid generalisation is that? Taking a bunch of names of people you disagree with and pretending they amount to an organised movement to silence anyone who disagrees with them is mentally ill.
Furthermore, apart from Anderson - who anyway is only the Independent's token rightist - you failed to mention anyone writing for the organs I actually mentioned - Mirror, Guardian, and, as I said the daddy of them all, the BBC. If you're going to try and tell me the BBC is a nest of neo-cons I'm going to have to suggest you lie down in a darkened room and breath deeply till the crisis passes.
As for your claim to know that the aforementioned bunch of people hold in common opinions rejected by the vast majority of the British people, I think you should be more specific about your evidence.
And as for calling Nick Cohen a neo-con, that's simply thick. He didn't have the stomach to demand that we leave a brutal dictator in power just because that would have got up George Bush's nose, that was all. Nothing pro-American about it, just a simple case of knowing right from wrong and taking a stand, as opposed to defending any old enemy of Washington on principle, irrespective of their record and in contempt of their victims. I really would have to live in a wardrobe before you caught me doing that.

Anonymous said...

Number of 2006 posts by Oliver Kamm about Neil Clark: one (this)

Number of 2006 posts by Neil Clark about Oliver Kamm: four (this, this, this, and this)

Number of posts by Oliver Kamm that discuss in detail (with quoted examples) the actual content of Neil Clark's writing: one (100%)

Number of posts by Neil Clark that discuss in detail (with quoted examples) the actual content of Oliver Kamm's writing: zero (0%)

Word of advice, Neil - when dealing with people like Kamm who demonstrably aren't afraid of substantive arguments (however much you fantasise to the contrary), the only rational courses of action are to engage with them directly or else ignore them. Peevish and petulant insults inevitably end up revealing far more about you than they do about him.

Especially when it's so transparently clear that you have no answer to the points Kamm was making regarding your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his book, since you've now fudged four opportunities to set the record straight.

Bob T said...

The comments by rd, charlie and anonymous, make Neil's point perfectly and at the same time underline the fact that neo-cons' react to criticism (no matter how constructive) by showing what unreasonable zealots they are.

Anonymous said...

And Neil's reaction to criticism is to whine about it repeatedly or resort to childish distraction tactics while conspicuously failing to respond to specifics. Notice how frequently he goes, to use his own terminology, "strangely silent" every time the discussion threatens to stray into the domain of checkable facts?

Talking of which, I note that Neil has supplied just one link in a week's worth of posts - and that's to a piece of his own which he goes on to reproduce anyway! Whatever you think of Kamm, he does at least do his opponents the courtesy of linking to what they say, thus allowing his readers to check both their words in full and the original context for themselves - and most of his pieces offer several such links.

If he wants to be taken seriously as a scourge of the neo-cons, Neil needs to start doing the same as a matter of course. Of course, this will involve actually engaging with what they write in depth instead of resorting to superficial caricature, but some might think this a welcome bonus.

Raoul Djukanovic said...

The comments by rd, charlie and anonymous, make Neil's point perfectly and at the same time underline the fact that neo-cons' react to criticism (no matter how constructive) by showing what unreasonable zealots they are.

Try clicking the links before digging yourself a big hole to be pushed into... :)

Anonymous said...

Neil, you've got a case to make on the neocons but you're doing yourself nothing but damage this way. You're obviously avoiding Kamm's points by not answering them, not linking to them and not even saying what they are, while at the same time you can't stop writing about him. That's a suicidal way to deal with criticism. The Telegraph must have noticed this, so in less than a week you've gone from being a Telegraph reviewer to being dead meat. Cut your losses now and move onto another subject.

Anonymous said...

For the record, there are at least two people posting anonymously in this thread - I was behind the first two posts, but not the third.

Also for the record, I'm doing so deliberately because I've noticed Neil much prefers to attack the messenger rather than the message.

There are times when I wish more media outlets would take a leaf out of The Economist's book and eliminate bylines altogether, as they've had a regrettable tendency not so much to stifle debate as make it personal rather than substantive.

Neil Clark said...

Neil Clark doesn't go 'strangely silent' because he wants to avoid answering questions- but because believe it or not- he does have to do other things to do as well as run this blog- like earn a living, spend time with his wife and family, watch horse-racing, read books, cook dinner and go shopping. It's called living in the normal world- a place clearly unknown to inhabitants of Planet Neo-Con....

Anonymous said...

But I notice that despite this packed schedule you somehow find plenty of time to write four posts about Oliver Kamm. Funny, that.

Equally funny is the fact that you've responded to an accusation that your blog prefers cheap sneers and generalisations to substantive discussion with... yet another cheap sneer and generalisation. Thus beautifully proving the point of almost everyone contributing to this thread.

Raoul Djukanovic said...

You could always redeem yourself by admitting you were wrong about Srebenica, Neil...

Neil Clark said...

Hi Raoul,
In what way am I wrong about Srebenica? Have I ever written a word defending the atrocity- or denying that it ever took place?
We do disagree over the death toll-but not on the nature of the crime. Unlike some others I could mention, I condemn all acts of violence against innocent civilians in the former Yugoslavia-and that includes violence committed by NATO.

Charlie said...

Bob T says:

"The comments by rd, charlie and anonymous, make Neil's point perfectly and at the same time underline the fact that neo-cons' react to criticism (no matter how constructive) by showing what unreasonable zealots they are."

Get some therapy, mate. We point out that all Neil ever does is vapid generalisation and insults - no specifics and no answers to any questions - and you think it proves that he's right about everything. You should write for the Independent, if you can just convince yourself it's not part of the 'neo-con' conspiracy that Neil seems to imagine has taken over our press.
And for the record, not supporting Bush but not supporting Zarqawi either doesn't make you a neo-con. But if you can't handle people not agreeing with your every opinion without needing to reach for some ill-defined over-used epithet that you feel conclusively proves your moral superiority (as opposed to making actual arguments) then you won't be able to grasp that.

Anonymous said...

And for the record, not supporting Bush but not supporting Zarqawi either doesn't make you a neo-con.

As Neil himself acknowledged in his post on George Galloway, it's quite possible to be on the same side and still be thoroughly embarrassed by your supposed comrade's antics.

The other anonymous commenter (the one that begins "Neil, you've got a case to make on the neocons") implicitly suggests that Gorgeous George isn't the only person letting his team down.

Raoul Djukanovic said...

In what way am I wrong about Srebenica?

In a big way, by the looks of it.

We do disagree over the death toll

So where's your evidence for what happened to the people on the list who you claim weren't killed? Who are they? Where are they?

Whoshaq said...

Neil, you are correct about the neocons and their deceptive lies about WMD's and other issues, duping congress into approving force in the Iraq war.The neocons are mostly made up of members of the Israel Lobby who are also derived from the one time PNAC.The neocons also orchestrated 9/11.
One day, they will be tried - along with Bush,& Cheney,Rice,& the others - for war crimes.
BUY Vincent Bugliosi's new book,
THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER.