Consequences for Caricatures

I stumbled across Shaun Walker’s “No Laughing Matter: Cartoons and the Kremlin” while perusing Kompromat.ru. I only realized after a few minutes that the article was originally published in the Independent and translated for InoPressa.ru (interestingly without the above caricature).

No laughing matter indeed. As noted Russian cartoonist Mikhail Zlatkovsky tells Walker, what was once permitted under Gorbachev and Yeltsin is taboo under Putin. Zlatkovsky’s satires of the vozhd’ abruptly came to an end after Putin’s inauguration in May 2000. It was then that his editor at Literaturnaya gazeta informed him, “Misha, we’re not going to draw Putin any more. The young lad is very sensitive.” Zlatkovsky’s drawings of Putin haven’t appeared in the press since. And soon after that neither did his and many other cartoonists’ satires of ministers, Kremlin aids, Chechnya, and military brass. Even a drawing of Patriarch Alexy II “prompted a phone call from the patriarchate and a strong request never to draw him again.”

Zlatkovsky tells Walker that while there is no official censorship, there is “the censorship of the fire safety inspectorate; or the censorship of the tax police.” Bureaucratic revenge may be softer, but it is just as effective, if not more so, than good old fashion repression. The result, according to Walker is that “Many cartoonists have given up, finding other work, and newspaper editors prefer to err on the side of caution and not publish cartoons at all.” I would guess that this is exactly what those in power hoped.

Therefore it is no surprise that yet again Freedom House has labeled Russia’s press “not free.” There does, however, seem to be a twinkle of light in the darkness. According to Izvestiia, young Robert Shlegel got a finger waging by senior United Russia officials for introducing the media law amendment. One of United Russia’s four factions, 4 November, released a statement saying, “Oversight and law enforcement organs already have sufficient opportunities to put an end to the activities of unscrupulous journalists without jeopardizing the freedom of the mass media.” (Yes, there are four official factions in United Russia. They officially constituted themselves at their party congress two weeks ago. Who knew?) Basically, 4 November thinks that the amendment is redundant. Whether their opposition and Shlegel’s shaming will have any impact on the voting of future readings is uncertain and probably unlikely. Given how widely the amendment hit the international press, I’m sure this is all posturing. After all, the law’s first reading passed unanimously minus one. Boris Reznik of United Russia cast the lone dissenting vote. Um, 4 November members, where were you?

Advertisement

300 comments on Consequences for Caricatures

  1. Conformist says:

    Remember, remember the 4th of November

  2. Candide says:

    As of old, to find the best examples of free Russia thought one must look abroad. Sad, sad, sad…

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  3. Chrisius Maximus says:

    So how come I see caricature of Putin and Medvedev in the press all the time?

  4. IRISHMAN says:

    ”So how come I see caricature of Putin and Medvedev in the press all the time?”

    Cos they are indeed there, and I have seen loads of them too.

  5. Sean says:

    Then perhaps I have been led astray . . .

  6. IRISHMAN says:

    ”Then perhaps I have been led astray . . .”

    You’d see them in newspapers and stuff sometimes, at least the last time I was there, 2 years ago. However the thrust of your article is entirely correct. The ‘censorship of the Fire Inspectorate’. Indeed!:-) And also Kukli was scrapped pretty quickly after it lampooned Putin as being Berezovsky’s Burratino.

  7. Candide says:

    So how come I see caricature of Putin and Medvedev in the press all the time?

    Apparently not Zlatkovsky’s caricatures, as the article makes clear. What you see must be mild & diluted, ‘velvet gloves’ versions.

  8. Kolya says:

    Is there anything in today’ Russian TV equivalent to the Saturday Night Live viciously funny sketches of whoever the current US president happens to be? Or the equivalent of Jon Stewart’s treatment of first Clinton and now Bush? (There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.)

  9. Owen says:

    Some of the sketch comedy shows can be viciously funny in attacking politicians and bureaucrats in general, but not the President in particular.

  10. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “What you see must be mild & diluted”

    Does Putin with blood-dripping fangs wearing a Star of David count as “mild and diluted”?

    I love how you think you know what I’ve seen. Csn you tell me what I had for breakfast too? 🙂

  11. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Then perhaps I have been led astray . . .”

    Honestly, since you are a lefty (like me), I think you are prone to expecting the worst of governments (or anybody in power), and so pick up on stuff like this and magnify it.

  12. ivanov says:

    if that one is Mikhail Zlatkovsky’s caricature – I didn’t get it 🙁

    Also “freedom” of Gorby and Yeltsin was not a freedom at all. These guys just didn’t have means to “control” the process.

  13. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Is there anything in today’ Russian TV equivalent to the Saturday Night Live viciously funny sketches of whoever the current US president happens to be? Or the equivalent of Jon Stewart’s treatment of first Clinton and now Bush? (There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.)”

    Not that I know of. In print you can find, for example, a recent Zavtra article (current issue? it’s on their website) on the opening of the “monument to Yeltsin’s liver.”

    I know I’ve mentioned this before a billion times, but when Western people and Russians catering to them talk about the “opposition media,” what they usually mean is the “pro-Western, liberal opposition media,” not the KPRF or ethnonationalist press, which are the voices of Medvedev/Putin’s actual opposition.

  14. Kolya says:

    Chris, you wrote:

    “Honestly, since you are a lefty (like me), I think you are prone to expecting the worst of governments (or anybody in power), and so pick up on stuff like this and magnify it.”

    Maybe by know you realize how funny this would sound to an anti-left American conservative who believes that Big Government is an evil invention of the Left. They distrust of government is a virtue and accuse the left of both wanting to expand government and trusting government too much.

    By the way, I think that an attitude of healthy skepticism toward government (any government) is a good thing. Of course, skepticism and cynicism are not the same thing.

  15. Kolya says:

    For what is worth, I think there is something wrong if the TV media in a given country is either too shy or simply not allowed to mock its current leader through biting satire (even if done in a tasteless and unfair manner).

  16. Candide says:

    Does Putin with blood-dripping fangs wearing a Star of David count as “mild and diluted”?

    I love how you think you know what I’ve seen.

    Don’t attack me personally, disprove the article. Prove that Zlatkovsky is being published in Russia.

    Incidentally, where did you see Putin with fangs? On the internet or in proper Russian publication? And what were the consequences for those who published this?

  17. Owen says:

    funny this would sound to an anti-left American conservative

    Yeah, that’s pretty much me. Leftists are necessarily Statists. One of my favorite caricatures of the Left is “for every action, there is an equal and opposite government program.” I’m conservative because fundamentally I dislike and mistrust the government. “Government is at best a necessary evil, and at worst an intolerable one.” (Paine) That pretty much sums up American Conservativism. However, so much of our language of political science is region specific . . .

  18. Owen says:

    oy, I always do that, not closing the blockquote properly!!

    I’d complain about not having a preview option, but I haven’t taken the time to put one on my site either, so I shan’t judge.

  19. Candide says:

    Chrisius Maximus,

    Honestly, since you are a lefty (like me), I think you are prone to expecting the worst of governments (or anybody in power)

    LOL!

    That must be the reason why you repudiate free market reforms of the 90-s and approve of Putin imposing controls over all aspects of life in Russia.

    Right?

  20. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Incidentally, where did you see Putin with fangs? On the internet or in proper Russian publication? And what were the consequences for those who published this?”

    I’m going by memory here, but I’m pretty sure it was in Duel (paper). I have no idea if there were any consquences. I doubt it. The Communists print stuff like this all the time.

  21. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Leftists are necessarily Statists.”

    What leftists (generally) believe is that power (public or private) should be made accountable to the population and serve it.

  22. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “They distrust of government is a virtue and accuse the left of both wanting to expand government and trusting government too much.”

    All the US leftists I ever knew thought the government was evil, sometimes absurdly so.

  23. Candide says:

    Seriously CM, if you want to get out of the hole, stop digging.

  24. Candide says:

    All the US leftists I ever knew thought the government was evil, sometimes absurdly so.

    That must be Rev. Wright you were talking to.

  25. There was also this interesting article at Radio Liberty: Russia – Will Political Satire Survive Kremlin Hit List?
    Zlatkovsky’s cartoons are being published in Russia, of course. Here are some pages from a book published in february. No explicit Putin, though. And while I am going on, here is an interesting interview with the other author of the book, Viktor Shenderovich. He seems to confirm Putin’s “sensitivity” thing.

  26. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Seriously CM, if you want to get out of the hole, stop digging.”

    What are you talking about?

    “That must be Rev. Wright you were talking to.”

    As far as I can tell, Wright’s opinions are pretty standard religious radical left.

  27. ivanov says:

    Thanks, Kalle, for the tip

    “Zlatkovsky’s cartoons are being published in Russia, …..with the other author of the book, Viktor Shenderovich.”

    That’s explain everything. I mean now I understand why Zlatkovsky’s cartoons are so boring.
    You see it’s not enough to dislike/hate something/someone. For caricature most essential element is – yes – humor/joke.
    Looks like Zlatkovsky doesn’t know the basic difference between satire and political plakat. Same problem with Shenderovich.

    And another 5 kopeek – I don’t think that same culture of caricature (and political in particular) exists in Russia.
    So what you are trying to find – just a black cat in the dark room. And keep in mind – the cat is not there yet 😉

  28. Ivanov: I don’t think that same culture of caricature (and political in particular) exists in Russia.

    Hm? Same as what?

    I personally find Shenderovich quite the opposite of boring. And Putin agrees with me, I think. Otherwise Shenderovich would still be on NTV with Kukly.

  29. Candide says:

    As far as I can tell, Wright’s opinions are pretty standard religious radical left.

    ‘Radical’ being the key word here.

  30. ivanov says:

    Kalle.

    “Same” – as one can find in any “western” newspaper or magazine. With funny graphics, funny text. Zlatkovsky doesn’t make me even smile.

    Kukly was popular mainly because of their “heroes” – drunk, silly and as such – funny. Listen to Shenderovich now is same as watching Petrosyan’s “Anshlag” (Петросян, “Аншлаг”).

    I think – due to historical “traditions” – anekdotes are playing same role as caricatures in the West. I mean – political ones.

    I understand that this is a matter of taste. But if this is the case – could you explain to me the humor of the head picture?

  31. Kolya says:

    “All the US leftists I ever knew thought the government was evil, sometimes absurdly so.”

    Maybe the US government, Chris. US leftists have a knee jerk reaction against anything the US government does, regardless of whether is a Democrat or Republican sitting in the White House. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of US leftist that were ga-ga over Fidel Castro and kept on excusing the overwhelming expansion of state in all aspects of Cuban society. Maybe because I’m older than you, but I also met a dissapointingly large number of US leftists that were fans of Mao and his government. And nowadays it is not rare to find US leftists who are fans of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez’s main accomplishment was to change the constitution to make an already strong presidency even stronger and to expand the size of an already bloated and inefficient goverment bureaucracy.

    (Many Venezuelans have a nickname for foreign–especially Americans–fans of Chavez that visit Venezuela. They call them PSFs, Pendejos Sin Fronteras, which can be translated as “Dumbasses Without Borders” or something like that.)

    In any event, Chris, if you would have said anarchists instead of leftists I would have agreed with you.

  32. Candide says:

    Chrisius Maximus,

    Since we are on the subject, what is the radical Left anti-thesis of Gov’t? For example, Conservatives extoll the Free Market. Which idea do the Left radicals put forth?

    The best I understand the positive message in the Rev. Wright ramblings, it’s that ultimately blacks need to take enough power so nobody can hurt them, and universal happiness will ensue. Which is not so far from the idea of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ as a pre-requisite for all Governments to disappear.

    So is it still about some form of ‘dictatorship of the aggrieved masses’, or were there any new developments?

  33. Ivanov: Listen to Shenderovich now is same as watching Petrosyan’s “Anshlag” (Петросян, “Аншлаг”).

    I completely disagree. On the other hand, I have never been able to endure more than a couple of minutes of Anshlag, so I really cannot give a qualified opinion on it. But Shederovich’s Plavlenyy syrok is just unbelievably funny.

    could you explain to me the humor of the head picture?

    Not really. I didn’t draw it either.

  34. Kolya says:

    Ivanov, I’m sure you know that it’s very hard to articulate why a person finds a particular cartoon or caricature funny. It’s sort of like telling someone, “I don’t like this song, can you explain it to me why you love it so much?”

    I see a New Yorker cartoon and explode with laughter and can hardly wait to show it to someone else. Sometimes, though, I discover that the cartoon I found so hilarious the person sitting next to me simply doesnt get it. And sometimes it’s the reverse, a cartoon others find funny simply leave me indifferent.

  35. Kolya says:

    Sorry about picking on you, Chris. You wrote:

    “What leftists (generally) believe is that power (public or private) should be made accountable to the population and serve it.”

    Isn’t that something that the conservative right also believes? That is, your words apply to both the right and the left. There is nothing particularly leftist in what you said. In the private realm, the Right would say that the free market, among other things, serves as a accountabiltiy mechanism. If the population is not being served a private enterprise would go under.

  36. ivanov says:

    But Shederovich’s Plavlenyy syrok is just unbelievably funny.

    Might be I’m just getting old…

    “could you explain to me the humor of the head picture?”

    Not really. I didn’t draw it either.

    Kalle, but do you find it funny?

  37. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Isn’t that something that the conservative right also believes? That is, your words apply to both the right and the left. There is nothing particularly leftist in what you said. In the private realm, the Right would say that the free market, among other things, serves as a accountabiltiy mechanism.”

    I will make an attempt at a coherent answer to this good question, despite having woken up three hours before my planned time after havinh slept only three hours (jetlag is a killer).

    First, I think we just for the sake of simplcity limit ourselves here to the use of the terms “left” and “right,” which are fuzzy to begin with, in their more-or-less contemporary uses in the United States and Western Europe and limit them to their usual economic sense. “Right” also includes the “far right,” which is not about accountability to the population at all, except insofar as it overlaps with populism (here’s that fuzziness again), and it also includes Straussianism, which isn’t about accountability at all but is roughly comparable to Leninism in its belief in the necessity of an enlightened vanguard to lead the benighted masses. Also, “right” in the US has an overlap with the Evangelical community, who aren’t about accountability either.

    Leaving this aside, I think you are correct regarding the shared assumptions of both left and right, which I would guess is the result of them both being products of the Enlightenment experience (the rebellion against autocracy and feudalism, roughly) and subsequent history. That is, both leftists and rightists see unaccountable accumulations of power as being undesirable. The primary difference is where they see the main danger — from accumulations of private or public power. A leftist tends to see private power (the wealthy or large businesses, the state being seen as a mechanism for pursuing the interests of private power — “the state is the arm of the ruling class,” to speak in Marxist — and so have a tendency to want to strengthen the state in order to limit private power. Whereas a rightist tends to see the state as being the greatest threat, and so believes that private power should be stengthened in order to limit the state.

    This is just early morning pulling ideas out of my butt of course.

  38. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “So is it still about some form of ‘dictatorship of the aggrieved masses’, or were there any new developments?”

    I don’t think anybody believes this except for a few leftover Leninist sects with no more than 100 members total, if that.

  39. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Maybe the US government, Chris. US leftists have a knee jerk reaction against anything the US government does, regardless of whether is a Democrat or Republican sitting in the White House.”

    True.

    “On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of US leftist that were ga-ga over Fidel Castro and kept on excusing the overwhelming expansion of state in all aspects of Cuban society.”

    Sure, this is because they (usually, not always) see the US has the primary threat, and therefore anything that limits the power of the US is good. As I said above, Castro is seen by (many) leftists as a limiting force on the power of the US government, which they believe is the arm of the US wealthy classes.

    “In any event, Chris, if you would have said anarchists instead of leftists I would have agreed with you.”

    Well anarchists are a particularly purist subset of leftists…

  40. Chrisius Maximus says:

    ““Maybe the US government, Chris.”

    They don’t tend to like Russia very much either…

  41. Sean says:

    The primary difference is where they see the main danger — from accumulations of private or public power. A leftist tends to see private power (the wealthy or large businesses, the state being seen as a mechanism for pursuing the interests of private power — “the state is the arm of the ruling class,” to speak in Marxist — and so have a tendency to want to strengthen the state in order to limit private power. Whereas a rightist tends to see the state as being the greatest threat, and so believes that private power should be stengthened in order to limit the state.

    I think that it is safe to say that while both leftists and righists rhetorically decry the state to garner popular support, to date none has ever dismantled the nation state as a means of political organization and power. In fact, historically both left and right governments have strengthened rather than weakened the state and its pastoral control over its citizens life. This is the hallmark of modernity.

    I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market. They have only limited it in areas that they think need privatizing–ie social welfare, etc–and deregulation, but I don’t think that anyone can argue that governments are not intimately connected to their respected economies whether it is through fiscal economic management, military for the protection of its economic interests, or through laws. Only anarchists and libertarians want to dissolve the state, but they are hopelessly utopian.

    Most of the right actually never criticize the state i.e. it as the monopolization of force. Quite the contrary actually. They target the “government” as the problem. And “government” is merely a euphemism for social welfare and other state mechanisms that strive to redistribute or regulation wealth.

    The difference between right and left when it concerns the state (and I think you essentially mean this) is that they see the function of the state differently and use its mechanisms as such.

  42. Owen says:

    “Well anarchists are a particularly purist subset of leftists…”

    Absolutely not. They’re the true extreme right-wing. They have been allied with Leftists in the past, but ideologically, they’re far right.

    By the way, the kids who throw bricks at Nike stores while wearing Nikes . . . not real anarchists.

  43. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Absolutely not. They’re the true extreme right-wing. They have been allied with Leftists in the past, but ideologically, they’re far right.”

    Flabbergasted.

    “I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market.”

    I’m talking about ideology, not reality. Reagan’s rhetoric for instance was very pre-free market, but his actions well no not really.

    Off to run to work!

  44. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Absolutely not. They’re the true extreme right-wing. They have been allied with Leftists in the past, but ideologically, they’re far right.”

    Flabbergasted.

    “I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market.”

    I’m talking about ideology, not reality. Reagan’s rhetoric for instance was very pre-free market, but his actions well no not really.

    Off to run to work!

  45. Candide says:

    I don’t think anybody believes this except for a few leftover Leninist sects with no more than 100 members total, if that.

    So what do the rest of your radical Left friends propose as an alternative to the gov’t they don’t trust? Obviously they are not free marketeers, and as you say they are not ‘leftover Leninists’, so what do they stand for?

  46. Tim Newman says:

    Only anarchists and libertarians want to dissolve the state

    Libertarians don’t want to dissolve the state, they want to reduce the state to a minimum. They are usually overly utopian at times, but generally I prefer the libertarian stance as a starting point and work my way towards the centre than starting with a gigantic, bloated government and hoping a right-wing party will do anything about it.

  47. Tim Newman says:

    I don’t buy this idea that rightists have decreased the state’s control over the economy or free market.

    For once we agree. I don’t buy this idea either. Even Maggie oversaw the enlargement of state, and she was supposedly the most free-market of the lot. The best an advocate of a small state can hope for is that the growth of the state is limited under such-and-such an administration, but in fairness it is pretty much a lost cause.

  48. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “So what do the rest of your radical Left friends propose as an alternative to the gov’t they don’t trust? Obviously they are not free marketeers, and as you say they are not ‘leftover Leninists’, so what do they stand for?”

    Did I say they were my friends? 🙂

    Why don’t you ask one? He runs this blog.

  49. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Libertarians don’t want to dissolve the state, they want to reduce the state to a minimum”

    Well, there are libertarians and there are Llllllllibertarians (anarcho-capitalists). You know, “the police should be disbanded and replaced by private security firms,” that sort of thing.

  50. Tim Newman says:

    You know, “the police should be disbanded and replaced by private security firms,” that sort of thing.

    True, there are degrees of libertarians. The ones I hang about with online are those who believe the state has a vital role to play, especially in the upholding of property rights, law and order, etc.

    On the same subject, I always found it rather amusing that most of the anarchists I have come across look as though they would starve to death as soon after the state which supplied their dole check collapsed.

  51. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “On the same subject, I always found it rather amusing that most of the anarchists I have come across look as though they would starve to death as soon after the state which supplied their dole check collapsed.”

    True, true…

  52. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Although to be fair pretty much all of us would starve rapidly in the event of a state collapse (except for Mike, who would rule the barren postapocalyptic wastelands a la Mad Max, given that he is such a badass and all).

  53. Candide says:

    Why don’t you ask one? He runs this blog.

    He’s not the one who made the statement that all Lefties are “prone to expecting the worst of governments”. That was quite a revelation to me.

  54. Kolya says:

    An Abraham Lincoln quote:

    ‘The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their individual capacities.’

    This, by the way, was lifted from Norman Geras’s recent profile of Lane Kenworthy who runs a blog called “Consider the Evidence”. Here is the link for one of his post on inequality in the US:

    http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/04/27/the-cost-of-rising-inequality/

  55. Tim Newman says:

    This, by the way, was lifted from Norman Geras’s recent profile of Lane Kenworthy who runs a blog called “Consider the Evidence”.

    I hope you’re gonna be paying attention to next Friday’s Normblog profile. 😉

  56. fh says:

    Tim – I hope you’re gonna be paying attention to next Friday’s Normblog profile.

    Huh? You? Really? Wow! Seriously?

  57. Tim Newman says:

    Huh? You? Really? Wow! Seriously?

    Well, I filled out the questionnaire at the weekend, so if not this coming Friday then shortly afterwards. 🙂

    I consider this as my having truly arrived as a blogger.

  58. fh says:

    I consider this as my having truly arrived as a blogger.

    Absolutely. You’ll be in much revered company. Geras’s Friday profiles are legendary. If of interest to the uninitiated, here’s one he did on himself: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/07/the-normblog–2.html

  59. Kolya says:

    Congrats, Tim! Indeed I’ll be paying attention to Norm’s Friday profile until yours comes up. I visit Normblog about once or twice a month. Plenty of interesting stuff. I have to admit, though, that by neither being a Brit nor a UK resident he also has plenty of stuff that I don’t know anything about.

  60. fh says:

    Tim — Here you are: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/05/the-normblog–1.html

    Perry de Havilland as PM? Gulp. 🙂

  61. Kolya says:

    Congratulations, Tim! I was dumbfounded to discover that I actually disagree with many of your positions. 🙂

  62. fh says:

    I was dumbfounded to discover that I actually disagree with many of your positions.

    Kolya – didn’t you realize you and I are the only center-left guys here? This is where the loony left and the loony right meet to plot the future of the world. 🙂

  63. Kolya says:

    Maybe center-left…. I have a hard time with those labels because I often surprise people who thought they already know what I would think about this or that. I guess I don’t mind being classified as someone from the left as long as it is clear that this has nothing to do with Marxism. In the US I have never voted for a Republican and think most Democrats are too conservative. On the other hand, I think that the Bolshevik take-over was a monumental tragedy that at the cost of millions of lives propelled Russia back instead of forward. Just like I cannot respect anyone who thinks highly of Hitler, I cannot respect anyone who thinks highly of Stalin. But Stalin is too easy of a target. I cannot understand how some folks still think highly of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, and Fidel.

  64. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Trotsky was a really good writer. I’ll give him that. 🙂

    By “Marxism” I think you mean “Marxism-Leninism.” In Marxism you have people as different as Stalin and Erich Fromm and Eduard Bernstein (and apparently the Dalai Lama).

  65. fh says:

    Kolya – Apologies. I was being mildly facetious, not seeking to dole out labels. In all seriousness, I think many of the old labels have decayed into meaninglessness. The fact that Tim, a self-described libertarian, counts Geras and Kamm among bloggers he admires says a lot. Kamm is regarded as a leftist on some issues and a fevered rightist on others. Note my use here of the passive voice, to duck having to specify who calls him what. But the one thing Kamm, Geras, Nick Cohen and others in their tribe are not is libertarian. They are fine writers, fierce rhetoricians and — perhaps of some passing interest to Tim — among the most effective critics around of the other tribes of the left, old and new.

    There’s a particularly apt piece on Kamm’s blog currently: http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/more-on-miliban.html. It’s part of a diatribe against the late Ralph Miliband, father of the UK’s foreign secretary. Even if you’ve never heard of the guy — an enormously influential Marxist theorist who, alas, regarded Pol Pot as a nice fellow — the attack is good fun to read.

    I mention all this because I sense that this is a form of political entertainment somewhat peculiar to the UK. Tim and I follow different teams, but we enjoy the same thrills and spills, and admire particular star players on both sides.

  66. Owen says:

    “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” . . . sure, sounds peaceful and reasonable enough.

  67. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Deep, man,

  68. Misha says:

    “Even if you’ve never heard of the guy — an enormously influential Marxist theorist who, alas, regarded Pol Pot as a nice fellow — the attack is good fun to read.”

    ****

    Awhile back, Pavlovsky made some rather ill informed comments about Miliband and his family:

    http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@389.b5DJbzTTASp@.77480649/8093

    Refer to last point of post 2806.

  69. Kolya says:

    “By “Marxism” I think you mean “Marxism-Leninism.””

    You are mostly correct, Chris. But I also meant to include Karl Marx himself. For example, I’m all for a more egalitarian society, but I’m against the abolition of private property. As many people wrote, Marx probably would have been horrified by what was done in his name. This does not mean, though, that his own writings were correct. His fatal flaw was that he did not really account for human nature. For all this talk of “scientific materialism”, there is nothing scientific about Marxism.

    “In Marxism you have people as different as Stalin and Erich Fromm and Eduard Bernstein (and apparently the Dalai Lama).”

    Maybe the Dalai Lama is a Marxist (never heard of it), but perhaps he simply expressed some sympathy for socialist/egalitarian ideas. Marxism is a subset of socialism. I think Eduard Bernstein was a good guy who was too empirically minded for most hard-core Marxist. They disowned him as a Marxist for showing that Marx was wrong about his predictions of the imminent downfall of capitalism. Too bad it was not Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, but Leninism that became dominant among the Marxist.

    ————–

    FH, thanks for your interesting comment. You wrote:

    “Kolya – Apologies. I was being mildly facetious, not seeking to dole out labels.”

    No problem. I was aware of your lighthearted tone and was going to reply the same way. Then I got busy and by the time I actually replied my mood was a bit different. Sorry about that.

    “I think many of the old labels have decayed into meaninglessness.”

    I agree completely. I’m certainly uncomfortable with those labels, although I still use them because they are still part of our vocabulary and I’m lazy.

    Two or three months ago I read Normblog’s profile of Oliver Kamm and saved the following quote:

    ///Normblog question: Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you’ve ever changed your mind?

    Kamm’s reply: Realising that the crucial distinction in politics is not between Left and Right, as I had once tribally thought, but between the defenders and the enemies of an open society.///

  70. Owen says:

    Slice and dice it as you will, Marxism/Communism is inherently statist, subjugating the individual to the collective. Of course, the interest of the collective is always decided by a small group of people who control everything through the organs of the state, and can make and impose their decisions on individuals through the use of force and violence.

    It’s a great system if you’re one of the elites – controlling, determining, and dictating the needs of the collective. This power invariably corrupts, usually quite quickly. Arguing over which brand, or strain is superior, is simply asking which poison should we take.

  71. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Maybe the Dalai Lama is a Marxist (never heard of it), but perhaps he simply expressed some sympathy for socialist/egalitarian ideas.”

    He called himself one recently, though I think you are probably right that used it simply as a synonym for “socialist” (linky: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/I-am-a-Marxist-monk-Dalai-Lama/263190/)

    I’m not a giant fan of Marx, but as a former professional philosopher it annoys me when people misrepresent his views (which you are not doing).

    “Slice and dice it as you will, Marxism/Communism is inherently statist, subjugating the individual to the collective. ”

    Except for that whole central abolishing the state part. 🙂

  72. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Too bad it was not Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, but Leninism that became dominant among the Marxist.”

    BTW, the reason for Leninism’s dominance was specfically the Russian Revolution. Uo to that point evolutionary Marxism was the primary form (like Kautsky).

  73. Kolya says:

    Interesting Dalai Lama link, Chris. Thanks. I had no idea. Then, if I remember correctly, years ago I read that he met Mao and that for a short while was an admirer. Maybe I’m wrong about that, though.

    You write:

    “I’m not a giant fan of Marx, but as a former professional philosopher it annoys me when people misrepresent his views (which you are not doing).”

    Oh, I don’t know about much about Marx or Marxism, so I could easily misinterpret him and his views. In any event, my problem is not with Marx, but with those individuals and parties who in the 20th Century shed so much blood while invoking his name. There was a quasi-religious or plainly religious quality in the bloody Marxist crusade. And, I have no doubt that (just like during the Crusades and the Jihads) many of those who shed blood on behalf of Marxism and those died fighting on behalf of Marxism were sincere believers.

    I’m writing this with beer in hand during a quick lawn mowing break. My wife laughs saying that I probably never envisioned myself engaged in such a suburban activity. A very ratty lawn, but still a lawn….

  74. fh says:

    Kamm’s reply: Realising that the crucial distinction in politics is not between Left and Right, as I had once tribally thought, but between the defenders and the enemies of an open society.

    He says it’s the crucial distinction, but not of course the only one. And he nonetheless espouses what he calls “militant liberalism,” whatever that is.

    But in general I find myself looking at things much as he does. Except on the subject of interventions abroad. But that’s for some other time.

    Mike – Thanks for pointing out that ridiculous claim about David Milliband. Makes sense that it came from Pavlovsky. What a cynic.

  75. Tim Newman says:

    Kolya and FH,

    Many thanks for your comments, I have to admit I am chuffed as hell to have been on the Normblog Profile. It’s done my visit stats no harm at all, as well as polished my libertarian credentials.

    I like Norm because he is an intelligent man who argues his points well without resorting to insults or malice, and I agree with him on most foreign policy issues if not too many domestic ones.

    I like Kamm for similar reasons, mainy for his foreign policy commentary than his opinions concerning domestic issues, but what I really love about his writing is his encylopaedic knowledge of politics and modern history. He seems to have read, and be able to quote, almost every book written on every event or statesman of the 20th century, which makes him extremely difficult to argue with and allows him to easily deconstruct and argument by highlighting major factual errors. It is the sheer volume of historical and biographical works that he has read which IMO makes him so convincing.

  76. Owen says:

    Except for that whole central abolishing the state part.

    1. We never got there, but we’ve all seen the extraordinary and inhuman damage caused by the intervening “socialist” period.

    2. Even when we get to the “stateless” period, there will have to be someone coordinating and determining “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Call whatever you want, it’s still a state, it’s still in complete control, and it’s still subjugating the individual.

  77. Misha says:

    fh

    You’re quite welcome.

    I loathe when some people do a good deal to lead astray and-or discredit certain views that have validity.

    Regarding Oliver Kamm: John Laughland and Alexander Cockburn are among two of the best of relatively well known British born pundits on foreign policy issues.

  78. Tim Newman says:

    Regarding Oliver Kamm: John Laughland and Alexander Cockburn are among two of the best of relatively well known British born pundits on foreign policy issues.

    Funnily enough, I came across both these people on Oliver’s site. He discusses Laughland’s work here, and Cockburn here when he highlights the latter’s professionalism by referring to his calling Christopher Hitchens “a truly disgusting sack of shit”.

    It appears that Oliver does not agree with your assessment of the two men.

  79. Tim Newman says:

    The second link above should be here.

  80. Misha says:

    Pardon me for disagreeing with Oliver.

    I’m by no means the only one.

    Hitchens has understandably disgusted a number of folks.

  81. Tim Newman says:

    Dammit!! The second link above should be here.

  82. Misha says:

    Unlike Laughland and Cockburn, Kamm seems to propagandize the faulty (put mildly) claims of Bosnian Muslim nationalists and their necon and neolib backers.

    This deceit includes playing down the earlier massacre of Serbs at Srebrenica by Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Perhaps over 3000 Serbs (many woman and children) perished in that instance.

    Wiki’s spin on the more well known massacre is quite revealing. Saying that 7000-8000 Muslim males were slaughtered is vague. It can and as a matter of fact should include those killed as armed combatants and collateral damage.

    In point of fact, Bosnia’s mass graves include many non-Muslims as well as Muslims killed by means other than summary execution.

    Among others, kudos to Julia Gorin, David Petersen and Edward Herman for setting the record straight on all of this.

    Slowly but surely the lies get debunked. Like the earlier bloated claims of 200,000 or more killed during the Bosnian Civil War and mass rapes in the tens of thousands.

  83. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Even when we get to the “stateless” period, there will have to be someone coordinating and determining “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Call whatever you want, it’s still a state, it’s still in complete control, and it’s still subjugating the individual.”

    Uh, the “state” here would be “the population.”

    By the way, all societies strive to subjugate the individual. Those that do not tend to implode rapidly. There are a few models in Central Africa you may want to go experience.

  84. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “There was a quasi-religious or plainly religious quality in the bloody Marxist crusade. And, I have no doubt that (just like during the Crusades and the Jihads) many of those who shed blood on behalf of Marxism and those died fighting on behalf of Marxism were sincere believers.”

    Oh certainly. I am firmly in the “Marxism-Leninism is a secularized form of Christianity” camp.

  85. Tim Newman says:

    Saying that 7000-8000 Muslim males were slaughtered is vague.

    No, it’s not. You have time and again been shown the UN report which details the primary evidence of the massacre excavated from the mass graves. Time and again you choose to ignore this evidence, and time and again you downplay the Serb massacre of Muslim males at Srebrenica.

  86. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Time and again you choose to ignore this evidence, and time and again you downplay the Serb massacre of Muslim males at Srebrenica.”

    I bet Mike would have been really outraged if it had been a massacre of middle-aged men who live with their momz, though.

  87. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Edward Herman”

    Herman has really fallen a long way. I thought he was very good in Maunfacturing Consent. Or maybe that was just Chomsky doing the work.

  88. Owen says:

    Uh, the “state” here would be “the population.”

    So Marx was a democrat? Everyone votes on everything? What a breakthrough, the man has been misread for a century and a half!

  89. Misha says:

    Chris Doss carries on as a troll for the deception of others. Unlike Edward Herman, Chris has never been in a postion to have “fallen a long way.” Where has Herman fallen?

    That “report” doesn’t disprove the fact based points raised by others besides myself.

    The involved mass graves comprise different ethnic groups killed at different times under different conditions (collateral damage, armed combatants and summary execution).

    There’s no significant proof whatsover showing that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed. There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males. Some of the bodies dug up were later identified as Serbs killed during an earlier period. They were initially counted as victims of the more advertised Srebrenica massacre. Some of the Muslims said to have been killed at Srebrenica have been found to be quite alive and well. In sort, much remains unknown on the specfics.

    It has already been established that the earlier accepted (by the not so well informed and-or dishonest) figures of 200,000 or more killed during the Bosnian Civil War and mass rapes in the tens of thousands was a hoax perpetuated by the same folks who carry on about Srebrenica in a misinformative way.

    The lack of attention given to earlier Muslim crimes committed against Serbs in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia is morally and factually flawed.

  90. Tim Newman says:

    That “report” doesn’t disprove the fact based points raised by others besides myself.

    Yes, it does. It shows this to be false:

    There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males.

    And this:

    There’s no significant proof whatsover showing that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed.

    And this:

    There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males.

    And this:

    Some of the bodies dug up were later identified as Serbs killed during an earlier period.

    You clearly haven’t read the report, which can only be deliberate on your part to avoid reaching the conclusion that you have fallen for, and been repeating publicly for years, a complete and utter fabrication of the most odious kind.

  91. Misha says:

    Not at all.

    You clearly haven’t reviewed all of the matter pertaining to this issue.

  92. Tim Newman says:

    You clearly haven’t reviewed all of the matter pertaining to this issue.

    Nor have you, and most obviously, the UN report which I refer to.

  93. Misha says:

    Cite specifics contradicting the obvious:

    The total mass graves comprise different ethnic groups killed at different times under different conditions (collateral damage, armed combatants and summary execution). All of the involved specifics have yet to be firmly established.

    This explains why there’s no significant proof whatsover confirming that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica. There’s plenty of ample reason to believe a much lower figure of summarily executed Muslim males (a crime for sure). Some of the bodies dug up were later identified as Serbs killed during an earlier period. They were initially counted as victims of the more advertised Srebrenica massacre (as opposed to the earlier atrocity of Serbs by Muslims in the same town). Some of the Muslims said to have been killed at Srebrenica have been found to be quite alive and well. Once again, much remains unknown on the specfics.

    It has already been established that the earlier accepted (by the not so well informed and-or dishonest) figures of 200,000 or more killed during the Bosnian Civil War and mass rapes in the tens of thousands was a hoax perpetuated by the same folks who carry on about Srebrenica in a misinformative way.

    The lack of attention given to earlier Muslim crimes committed against Serbs in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia is morally and factually flawed.

    Anyone can write a “report.” You question the UN on other matter.

  94. Tim Newman says:

    Cite specifics contradicting the obvious:

    I have done so already. I previously stated that the report debunks what you said, and all you do have done is tediously repeat the same stuff verbatim.

  95. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “So Marx was a democrat? Everyone votes on everything? What a breakthrough, the man has been misread for a century and a half!”

    Yes he was. Yes they do. And No, because this has been known by everyone who has bothered to study the subject. In fact it was a big problem for Soviet ideology.

    Look, this is my field, what I studied in grad school for years. You are just plain wrong, and I have no further interest in discussing it, any more than I would be interested in talking about geology with someone who believes the Earth rests on elephants. I recommend reading a book. The Critique of the Gotha Programme is short and written for a lay audience.

  96. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Where has Herman fallen?”

    I hear he now lives with his mom.

  97. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “You clearly haven’t read the report, which can only be deliberate on your part to avoid reaching the conclusion that you have fallen for, and been repeating publicly for years, a complete and utter fabrication of the most odious kind.”

    I haven’t read the report either and have no idea as to its accuracy, but the UN is not infallible.

  98. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 11, 2008 10:20 pm Cite specifics contradicting the obvious:

    I have done so already. I previously stated that the report debunks what you said, and all you do have done is tediously repeat the same stuff verbatim.”

    ****

    No you didn’t produce anything to substantively refute what others besdies myself have said on the subject. You’re the one tediously repeating the same faulty claims verbatim.

    ———————————————-

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 11, 2008 10:25 pm ‘Where has Herman fallen?’

    I hear he now lives with his mom.”

    ****

    ?????

    ———————————————-

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 11, 2008 10:26 pm ‘You clearly haven’t read the report, which can only be deliberate on your part to avoid reaching the conclusion that you have fallen for, and been repeating publicly for years, a complete and utter fabrication of the most odious kind.’

    I haven’t read the report either and have no idea as to its accuracy, but the UN is not infallible.”

    ****

    It’s odious to blatantly trump up casualty numbers and lie about the nature of the way many were killed in order to achieve a political aim.

    For years, I’ve been against that and have been proven to be right.

    BTW, on the matter of citing the UN, UNSCR 1244 specifically states that Kosovo is part of Serbia and calls for a limited return of Serb administrative and military personnel to Kosovo.

    That particular UN document is factually indisputable unlike some others that get selectively picked as “proof.”

  99. Tim Newman says:

    I haven’t read the report either and have no idea as to its accuracy, but the UN is not infallible.

    No it isn’t, and I am a strong critic of most of the workings within the UN. But unless somebody is faking the photographs and locations of the excavated mass graves, inventing the contents of victims’ pockets, making up the details of the ropes or wires which bound the victims’ hands and the empty shell casings which were found nearby, and took the list of identified dead from the local record office and included all this in a report, then it makes pretty compelling evidence.

    I also happen to have had a regular communication with a chap called Jurgen Smie, the author of this, sadly long silent blog, who actually worked as one of the people who excavated the mass graves in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. He was an avid critic of the UN, and without a doubt there are many within the UN who are busy feathering their own nest and furthering their own agendas, but from what Jurgen described of his work it is unlikely anyone would take a job excavating graves in order to exaggerate the findings for political reasons.

  100. Tim Newman says:

    No you didn’t produce anything to substantively refute what others besdies myself have said on the subject.

    Other than an official report documenting the primary evidence which refutes what you say, the reading of which you are deliberately avoiding.

  101. Misha says:

    You came up blank AGAIN on the particulars others and myself raised.

  102. Misha says:

    A quick search provides these links that include a different UN report that doesn’t seem to get as much play:

    http://www.antiwar.com/srebrenica.html

    There’s Herman’s and Petersen’s Zmag piece that offers plausible insight of what’s known and not known about Bosnian Civil War related deaths in Srebrenica.

    Elsewhere, claims of atrocities have been politicized (fabricated outright or grossly exaggerated) for quite some time.

    William Walker’s Rajak report has faced credible second guessing.

  103. Tim Newman says:

    You came up blank AGAIN on the particulars others and myself raised.

    Erm, no. You cannot refuse to read the evidence I have proffered and then claim I have come up blank. Doesn’t work like that, matey.

  104. Misha says:

    In point of fact, you provided no “evidence” whatsoever to successfully counter what I’ve said.

    You can post to the contrary as much as you want to. It still won’t make your claims right dude.

    Among others, Savo Heleta (whose book I reviewed) is in agreement with me. His book provides first hand accounts of the Izetbegovic regime’s lying that many Western media and political folks readily accepted as truth.

  105. Sean says:

    Among others, Savo Heleta (whose book I reviewed) is in agreement with me.

    Um, Mike, if Heleta has a book and you don’t, it’s more like “Among others, I agree with Savo Heleta, whose book I reviewed.” I doubt he cites you in the book.

  106. Tim Newman says:

    A quick search provides these links that include a different UN report that doesn’t seem to get as much play:

    But oddly does not include the actual UN summary report of the Srebrenica Investigation which I linked to. I guess the omission is quite deliberate, to spare the blushes of the site owners who – like you – would find reading it revealed either an embarassing gullibility or an extreme disengenuousness on their own part.

  107. Tim Newman says:

    In point of fact, you provided no “evidence” whatsoever to successfully counter what I’ve said.

    You are able to persist in this belief only by refusing to look at the evidence presented.

  108. Misha says:

    Not quite Sean.

    He agrees with my take on Srebrenica.

    I raised it to him in conversation. I reference my views of Srebrenica in the review of his book I wrote.

    In his book, he doesn’t specifically mention Srebrenica.

  109. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 12, 2008 12:25 am A quick search provides these links that include a different UN report that doesn’t seem to get as much play:

    But oddly does not include the actual UN summary report of the Srebrenica Investigation which I linked to. I guess the omission is quite deliberate, to spare the blushes of the site owners who – like you – would find reading it revealed either an embarassing gullibility or an extreme disengenuousness on their own part.

    Tim Newman on May 12, 2008 12:27 am In point of fact, you provided no “evidence” whatsoever to successfully counter what I’ve said.

    You are able to persist in this belief only by refusing to look at the evidence presented.”

    *****

    Keep repeating yourself. You aren’t the one taking a complete overview of the situation.

    To date, there’s no conclusive confirmation of the rounding up and summary execution of 7000-8000 Muslim males at Srebrenica.

    On the other hand, there’re ample reasons to question that claim.

  110. Tim Newman says:

    Herman has really fallen a long way.

    Indeed he has. Writing articles such as “Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat: Yugoslavia and Rwanda in which we learn that:

    To an amazing degree, the Western media and NGOs swallowed the propaganda line and lies on Rwanda that turned things upside down.

    I can only conclude he has hit rock bottom and proceeded to drill.

  111. Tim Newman says:

    To date, there’s no conclusive confirmation of the rounding up and summary execution of 7000-8000 Muslim males at Srebrenica.

    So what number rounded up and murdered do you consider there to be enough conclusive evidence of?

  112. Misha says:

    Regarding your initial point, I’m not here to fend for everything EH has written.

    I see no fault with his Srebrenica commentary.

    Meantime, your preferred source is far from perfect:

    http://www.serbianna.com/columns/averko/007.shtml

    Refer to the second part.

    The actual figures remain unclear. The other estimates ranging from 1000-2000, with others perhaps higher.

    The 7000-8000 figure of rounded up and summarily executed Muslim males lacks clear factual support and is very much open to questioning; given its relatively high number, as per the stated time, frame in conjunctiion with other variables.

    I’ll tell you one thing for sure: after reading and talking to the likes of Heleta, that view appears far more believeable than the stuff cranked out by souces like the Srebrenica Genocide Blog.

  113. Tim Newman says:

    Meantime, your preferred source is far from perfect:

    Readers expecting to find an answer as to why this might be so in the diatribe that is linked to beneath this sentence will be disappointed.

    The actual figures remain unclear. The other estimates ranging from 1000-2000, with others perhaps higher.

    From the UN ICT report:

    The Minimal Number of Individuals located in all exhumed graves for this period was
    1883 individuals. (MNI is calculated on an anthropological examination of specific
    bones and is used in this case, as many of the bodies have been fragmented during
    execution, initial burial and later reburial).
    • A minimum of 479 individuals from 4 exhumed mass gravesites during 1996.
    • A minimum of 895 individuals from 8 exhumed mass gravesites during 1998.
    • A minimum of 546 individuals from 5 exhumed mass gravesites during 1999.
    These MNIs were then combined and the final MNI for all the graves then recalculated at
    1883.
    In addition, a minimum of 2571 individuals are believed to be buried in probed but unexcavated
    graves. (Professor Richard WRIGHT, Chief Archaeologist for the ICTY made
    this estimate of the possible number of bodies in the un-exhumed mass graves known to
    the ICTY). Therefore, the total number of individuals accounted for by ICTY activities to date is approximately 4454.

    So, despite you writing umpteen articles and thousands of blog comments on the subject of Srebrenica, you are still ignorant of the fact that an absolute minimum of 1883 individuals have been identified, with a minimum of an additional 2571 remaining in graves which have not been excavated. These are absolute minimums, not taking into account those which could not be identified or any whose whereabouts may be unknown.

    A minimum of 4454 people confirmed murdered, and you devote a lifetime to complaining that the media made it all up. If David Irving has an heir, you will be a strong contender.

  114. Misha says:

    That’s: time frame

    Once again:

    Other besides myself were proven right on the bloated 200,000 and over Bosnian Civil War casualty claims and mass rape numbers in the tens of thousands.

    About ten years ago, someone working at a leading DC area think tank, privately confided to me that the mentioned Bosnian Civil War numbers were inaccurate.

    Based on what’s known and not known relative to past misinformation: it’s extremely disingenuous to use the term “genocide denier” on folks like myself.

    Trumping up casualty numbers for political reasons is serious since it can lead to a mass misguided perception of a given conflict in a way that promotes questionable policies.

  115. Misha says:

    You prove youself to be one stupid idiot.

    Your last set of comments doesn’t at all disprove what I’ve sauid.

    You more befit Irving, based on what you blatantly ignore and choose to prop as evidence. The type of which that doesn’t successfully refute what I’ve said.

    Once again:

    – ethnic breakdown of those killed

    – how and when

  116. Tim Newman says:

    Other besides myself were proven right on the bloated 200,000 and over Bosnian Civil War casualty claims and mass rape numbers in the tens of thousands.

    I think your exact position was that because there was not much evidence of mass rape, the whole thing was “a hoax”. Proven right you were not, proven a scoundrel you were.

    Based on what’s known and not known relative to past misinformation: it’s extremely disingenuous to use the term “genocide denier” on folks like myself.

    No, it is in fact very apt. You are a genocide denier. When presented with details of the primary evidence of genocide, you obfuscate and downplay it at every opportunity, and state that the real concern is the western media. You are a genocide denier, differing from David Irving only by degree of notoriety.

    Trumping up casualty numbers for political reasons is serious since it can lead to a mass misguided perception of a given conflict in a way that promotes questionable policies.

    Indeed. Dimissing mass-rape reports as “a hoax” and trivialising the execution of over 4454 civilians has a similar effect.

  117. Tim Newman says:

    Once again:

    – ethnic breakdown of those killed

    – how and when

    You really, really, need to read that report. Here’s a hint: Serbs generally do not get found in graves carrying prayer beads and Koranic scripts.

    But this isn’t really about evidence at all, is it? You have been presented with all the evidence required, yet you continue to pervert the process of historical study by refusing to acknowledge its existence. It is this which puts you on the exact same footing ad David Irving.

  118. Misha says:

    If anyone is the “scoundrel” here it’s you with your very unintelligent rambling on matter you seem to know little about.

    Perhaps you’re some kind of spook or spook wannabe.

    The fact of the matter is that I was proven right on those particulars.

    The fact of the matter is that there’s ample reasoning to question whether 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    You’re carrying on like a phoney slimeball of a liar for likening me to Irving.

    If anything, you more fit that category.

  119. Misha says:

    He once again provides no proof whatsoever of 7000-8000 Muslim males being rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    He once again shows himself to be more akin to Irving by not dealing with valid specfics.

  120. Tim Newman says:

    The fact of the matter is that I was proven right on those particulars.

    No, you weren’t. Not at all.

    He once again provides no proof whatsoever of 7000-8000 Muslim males being rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    Maybe, but I have provided ample proof that 4454 Muslims were rounded up and executed at Srebrenica, yet you continue to deny that anything of the kind occurred.

    He once again shows himself to be more akin to Irving by not dealing with valid specfics.

    Irving’s fault is not that he does not deal with valid specifics, but that on presented with primary and secondary evidence of genocide he denies it occurred. As do you, hence I accurately likened you to Irving.

  121. db says:

    MNI is calculated…

    I suspect Misha has no idea what MNI stands for.

  122. IRISHMAN says:

    ”He once again shows himself to be more akin to Irving by not dealing with valid specfics.”

    Averko, you’re the dumbass and the one who is acting like Irving, deny the genocide there:-)

  123. IRISHMAN says:

    By the way Tim congrats on the interview. Ryan Giggs indeed, 10 league titles. I just dunno why you’re wasting your time explaining stuff to that clown in New York. He’s not interested in facts; he cant be when he spends so much time excusing genocide. Facts are his enemy.

  124. Misha says:

    I’ve very much substantiated my points.

    The troll like antics of “db” and the “IRISHMAN” are of no substantive help to TN’s pathetically held views.

    Srebrenica saw much armed combat. Like I said, it was a scene to a Muslim atrocity that might’ve killed over 3,000 Serbs; many of them women and children.

    TN continues to incorrctly suggest all mass garves in that area to comprise summarily executed Muslim males.

    In any even, he has failed to prove his questionable (put mildly) claims.

  125. Tim Newman says:

    TN continues to incorrctly suggest all mass garves in that area to comprise summarily executed Muslim males.

    Not so. The 4454 individuals identified have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be Muslims, and although not exclusively, mostly males.

    In any even, he has failed to prove his questionable (put mildly) claims.

    That 4454 Muslims were executed by Serbs at Srebrenica is not my claim, it is a simple statement of fact. And proof has been provided, in spades. You simply choose, like David Irving, to ignore evidence which does not help your career as a genocide denier.

    Next up on Serbianna: What Six Million Jews?

  126. IRISHMAN says:

    Mike,

    do you have difficulty reading? What part of ‘UN REPORT’ dont you understand? Really, you’ve substantiated nothing, and now go from bad to worse. Little wonder you fail to get published more widely or professionally, when you support butchers with OUTRIGHT LIES.

  127. Misha says:

    The fraud strikes again with more stupidity.

    His latest barb doesn’t prove that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    Note how he never mentions Naser Oric. There’s a not fully substantiated though not completely unbelieveable view that his goons might’ve killed over 3,000 Serbs at Srebrenica.

  128. Misha says:

    No substantive need for me to reply to a troll who gives credence to a person who disregards the clear cut UNSCR 1244, while buying into a very questionable (put mildly) claim about 7000-8000 Muslim males being rounded up and summarily executed.

  129. Misha says:

    The “diffculty” here has been to properly interpret what one is saying.

    I’m clearly not at fault for that flaw.

  130. Tim Newman says:

    His latest barb doesn’t prove that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    No, but it proves that an absolute minimum of 4454 were. You refuse to acknowledge even this, which makes your disbelief of 7000-8000 moot.

  131. IRISHMAN says:

    ”His latest barb doesn’t prove that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.”

    Mike, I dont have to quote cranks on Serbianna as back up for claims. The UN report, and the fact that every news channel on fucking earth bar the Serb news agency, also agrees with me and Tim. You are in the realms of bullshit and nonsense, up there with Jewish banking conspiracies and Roswell. Time to give your cranky behaviour a rest; nobody, not even the Russians, are buying it.

  132. Misha says:

    Serbianna is far more objective than the Srebrenica Genocide blog, Greater Surbiton, the Oliver Kamm admirer at this thread and the troll making idioitc comments.

    It’s nice to know that many Russians and non-Russians appreciate someone who stands up to such deceit.

  133. Misha says:

    Mass graves as in those non-Muslims and Muslims alike that include deaths other than summary execution. The exact specifics haven’t been completely broken down in an authorative manner. Given the disinformation which much of Western mass media had readily accepted as fact, my stated views aren’t incorrect. I’m not alone in stating them.

  134. Tim Newman says:

    Serbianna is far more objective than the Srebrenica Genocide blog, Greater Surbiton, the Oliver Kamm admirer at this thread and the troll making idioitc comments.

    I don’t think so. This claim to objectivity cannnot be made whilst simultaneously avoiding even a cursory review of the primary evidence which is publicly available and has been presented on numerous occasions.

    It’s nice to know that many Russians and non-Russians appreciate someone who stands up to such deceit.

    I have no doubt that many Russians and Serbs are delighted that there are westerners who go to great lengths to deny that 4454 Muslim civilians were executed by Serbs at Srebenica. Whether this is nice to know depends on whether you are one of their number in denying the atrocity, but I will concede that it is useful to know that these people exist, and it is especially useful for your own stance on this issue to have been made so clear in a public place such as this one.

  135. IRISHMAN says:

    ”my stated views aren’t incorrect.”

    Grammar note to MA Averko, No. 57512:
    Mike if someone’s views are to known, then by definition, they must be ‘stated’. Saying ‘stated views’ is like saying ‘wet water’ or ‘dead corpse’*. Its just ridiculous. Knock it off, you’re hurting our eyes.

    * Alright, this example obviously excludes zombies, vampires etc:-)

    ”Serbianna is far more objective than.. etc”

    No, it isnt, its a pro-Serb pile of nonsense.

  136. Tim Newman says:

    Mass graves as in those non-Muslims and Muslims alike that include deaths other than summary execution.

    These graves considered in the UN report do not include deaths other than execution, as evidenced by the number of blindfolds and ligatures found on the bodies.

    The exact specifics haven’t been completely broken down in an authorative manner.

    They have, quite specifically, in the UN report which you are refusing to read.

  137. Chrisius Maximus says:

    First they came for the Muslims, and Mike wasn’t a Muslim, so he was silent.

    Then they came for the court appointed not so Russia friendlies, and Mike wasn’t a court appointed not so Russia friendly, so he was silent.

    Then they came for the middle-aged men who live with their momz, and it was too late.

  138. IRISHMAN says:

    Sorry! Meant ”views are known/to be known” in first sentence above.
    Bloody Sod’s Law!

  139. Tim Newman says:

    Given the disinformation which much of Western mass media had readily accepted as fact, my stated views aren’t incorrect. I’m not alone in stating them.

    That last part is true enough. Just as there are whole countries full of Holocaust deniers, so it is that Srebrenica genocide denial is an industry in itself. It’s not one I’d feel too proud to be a part of though, and its membership numbers do not undepin a quality of any kind.

  140. Misha says:

    Much unlike myself, he “nonsense” comes from a troll who exhibits little knowledge about the subject matter.

    Serbianna posts articles having views different from the slant of its columnists.

    The other sites I mentioned are rigidly one sided and often misinterpret the views that they take pot shots at.

    Unlike others, my critiques don’t blatantly misinterpret what others have said.

    Nothing wrong with having a well founded opinion based on facts, minus gross misrepresentations of other views.

  141. Misha says:

    The fraud industry involves those parroting the Bosnian Muslim nationalist propaganda which suggestively tries to liken the Bosnian Civil War to the WW II era Holocaust.

  142. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “which suggestively tries to liken”

    “Suggestively”? Does it make sexual innuendos?

  143. Tim Newman says:

    Serbianna posts articles having views different from the slant of its columnists.

    Can you point to a single Serbianna column which acknowledges the UN report and the 4454 victims therein?

    The other sites I mentioned are rigidly one sided and often misinterpret the views that they take pot shots at.

    I must confess, they are one-sided in that they do not include the views of genocide deniers and those who refuse to review the primary evidence presented to them.

    Nothing wrong with having a well founded opinion based on facts, minus gross misrepresentations of other views.

    That’s true enough, but unfortunately, as you have demonstrated here, this description doesn’t apply to you. Your opinions are not well founded, as they are not based on facts, as evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge the facts presented.

  144. Tim Newman says:

    The fraud industry involves those parroting the Bosnian Muslim nationalist propaganda which suggestively tries to liken the Bosnian Civil War to the WW II era Holocaust.

    That is no doubt one branch of the fraud industry yes, but the trunk and root system of the Bosnian Civil War fraud industry consists almost in its entirety of Srebrenica deniers and Serb apologists, of which you are one.

  145. Misha says:

    Leave it ot the not so talented Chris Doss to chime in on the side of deceit and trolling.

    The likes of Fikret Addic debunk the suggested WW II era Holocaust to the Bosnian Civil War. There was no prominent Jew supporting the Nazis.

    Abdic was a prominent Bosnian Muslim leader, whose supporters fought the Izetbegovic side. This was done with the support of Serbs and Croats.

    There was no master plan to exterminate Muslims. All sides committed atrocities. those committed by the Izetbegovic side have been hushed up by some.

  146. Misha says:

    TN

    I’m far more knowledgeable and objective than yourself on this topic.

    You know your one sided sources well without being well versed on the views running counter to them.

  147. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 12, 2008 2:42 pm First they came for the Muslims, and Mike wasn’t a Muslim, so he was silent.

    Then they came for the court appointed not so Russia friendlies, and Mike wasn’t a court appointed not so Russia friendly, so he was silent.

    Then they came for the middle-aged men who live with their momz, and it was too late.”

    ****

    Chris, for your own mental health, stop confusing me with someone else. Perhaps yourself.

    Comments like above reveal how warped you are.

  148. Tim Newman says:

    I’m far more knowledgeable and objective than yourself on this topic.

    Yeah, so you say. Are we going to have a repeat of your boasting that you can run faster than me as well?

    You know your one sided sources well without being well versed on the views running counter to them.

    As do you: you are convinced that a massacre of Muslims did not occur in Srebrenica due to you deliberately remaining ignorant of the facts that prove that it did.

  149. Misha says:

    I am and it shows by the kind of idiotic remarks you make.

    Your most recent one being among many.

  150. Tim Newman says:

    <emI am and it shows by the kind of idiotic remarks you make.

    Hmm. I doubt there are going to be any remarks of greater idiocy on this site today than your insistence that Serbianna presents objective coverage and a wide range of views concerning the Srebrenica massacre when you are unable to point to a single article which acknowledges the UN report and the 4454 victims therein.

  151. Tim Newman says:

    I am and it shows by the kind of idiotic remarks you make.

    Hmm. I doubt there are going to be any remarks of greater idiocy on this site today than your insistence that Serbianna presents objective coverage and a wide range of views concerning the Srebrenica massacre when you are unable to point to a single article which acknowledges the UN report and the 4454 victims therein.

  152. Misha says:

    Serbianna posts articles having views different from the slant of its columnists.

    Your preferred sites like Greater Surbiton are rigidly one sided and often misinterpret the views that they take pot shots at.

    Unlike others, my critiques don’t blatantly misinterpret what others have said.

    Nothing wrong with having a well founded opinion based on facts, minus gross misrepresentations of other views.

    You continue to carry on like a petulant jackass.

    Again, you’ve provided nothing to conclusively prove that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

  153. Tim Newman says:

    Serbianna posts articles having views different from the slant of its columnists.

    But none so different that they dare mention the UN report detailing evidence of a massacre at Srebrenica.

    The rest is just you repeating yourself verbatim, my responses are above.

  154. Misha says:

    Offhand, you’re possibly wrong on that.

    Serbianna has had material discussing Srebrenica at length.

    For the previously detailed reasons that are well founded: the report you keep mentioning isn’t clear cut in supporting the notion that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    I read venues like the SGB and GS. On the other hand, you don’t appear well versed on views that don’t agree with your biases.

  155. Tim Newman says:

    Offhand, you’re possibly wrong on that.

    Serbianna has had material discussing Srebrenica at length.

    Care to point to one which acknowledges the UN report and the 4454 figure then?

    For the previously detailed reasons that are well founded: the report you keep mentioning isn’t clear cut in supporting the notion that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    Repeat ad nauseum.

    I read venues like the SGB and GS. On the other hand, you don’t appear well versed on views that don’t agree with your biases.

    And you don’t appear familiar with the evidence which concerns those topics on which you claim to be an authority. This is either because the evidence doesn’t agree with your biases, or for other reasons.

  156. Misha says:

    No need for me to answer your BS question, since that report doesn’t substantiate the claim of 7000-8000 Muslim males being summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    Besides, you’re the one not so well versed on Serbianna material. I’m also not going to vouch for everything there.

    A “credible” “admirable” source critiques MAH in the way I did. Far more scholarly than a number of his stated views. An opinion shared by some non-politicized academics and media folks familiar with the subject matter.

    You’re in no legitimate position to second guess my views.

    Let’s see you try to successfully hustle some of your views at Chronicles.

    Earnest folks seeking dialogue don’t shy away from directly confronting other ideas. This spirit includes an opposition to the kind of trolling that has been exhibited at this and some other threads.

    UNSCR 1244 is far more clear in maintaining that Kosovo is part of Serbia than what you interptret another UN document to mean. Despite this reality, you go along with a hypocritically flawed claim on why Kosovo shouldn’t be a part of Serbia.

    In short, you’ve continuously carried on like a hack and a not so very effectrive one; when put in a more objective and academic like environment.

    Your second guessing my having a greater knowledge than youself on this subject (former Yugoslavia) is one of several tell all signs.

  157. Owen says:

    @chris:

    Shut up, I know more than you.

    There’s the Marxism I know and love!

    Mike has spent a lot of time studying the FSU, I trust you will show him the deference to authority in these matters that you expect to be given you in Marxist apologetics.

    The biggest problem facing those who defend Marx is explaining away why everyone who ever put his ideas into practice was not really Marxist. Of course, this idea wasn’t learned through years of graduate school, so it may not be valid.

  158. Misha says:

    Thanks Owen.

    Part of me refrains from bragging about the number of internationally viewed sites with a great following that have carried my commentary. Afterall, there’re a number of high profile analysts who in my opinion (and that of others) don’t cut the mustard.

    Besides Serbianna, anyone is perfectly free to do a legitimate critique of my analysis elsewhere (Counterpunch, AC, AUR, JRL, EH, TTT, etc.). That takes more smarts than posting troll like comments at blogs. Like it or not, much of my commentary has been very well received. This is in reply to the months of troll like barbs directed at me at SRB threads. A good portion of which happened when I wasn’t clicking into SRB for an extended period.

    At this point, I’m going to view an Iranian Press TV segment with James Jatras on the just completed Serb vote. Along with a number of other folks, JJ appreciates my work.

  159. Owen says:

    Fair warning, you and I might not agree on too much. I’ve stayed out of the Srebrenica thread because:

    1. Haven’t had the time to read what you all posted today Really, a bit over the top if I may. Don’t you people work?!?! 🙂

    2. I haven’t actually read the UN document. Downloaded it, but it’s pretty long, and I had a rough day.

    3. I don’t the baggage that you all do between each other, and don’t care for flame wars.

    Also, I don’t find Counterpunch or Antiwar.com to be reputable sites, mostly rants from rabid leftists. Though they do occasionally have useful information. I don’t know who the other people are that you mentioned.

  160. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Also, I don’t find Counterpunch or Antiwar.com to be reputable sites, mostly rants from rabid leftists.”

    Antiwar.com is libertarian.

  161. Misha says:

    I suspected that given your support (if I’m not mistaken) for McCain.

    Counterpunch has a great international following. I base that on the tremendous feedback I received from my two articles there. Nothing like the feedback received from getting posted at other venues.

    Antiwar.com isn’t leftist. It has a paleoconservative/libertarian makeup to it. At that site, Doug Bandow, Neboysha Malic and Justin Raimondo are among my favorites.

    As for moi, I put myself in an eclectic category, which finds myself not taking either a full tilt left or right line.

    I’ve yet to find a site where I’m in complete agreement.

    That report has nothing debunking what I’ve said. Again, I’m by no means alione on that point.

  162. Misha says:

    Pardon misspell.

    This appears to be a follow-up to one of my email lists:

    http://transdniestria.co.uk/2008/new-low-for-edward-lucas.html

    KP rocks.

  163. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “The biggest problem facing those who defend Marx is explaining away why everyone who ever put his ideas into practice was not really Marxist. Of course, this idea wasn’t learned through years of graduate school, so it may not be valid.”

    Wow.

  164. Owen says:

    From that great arbiter wikipedia, about antiwar.com:

    It also features many leftwing and liberal writers, particularly Israeli ones. … antiwar leftists (including Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon, Noam Chomsky, Joshua Frank, John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Kathy Kelly, Jonathan Cook, Cindy Sheehan, Juan Cole, Tom Engelhardt of The Nation, etc.)

    Nope, no leftists there . . .

  165. Misha says:

    Owen

    Hitchens has been featured at FPM. If I’m not mistaken, Raimondo referred to him as a left wing neocon.

    The NWO seems to have increased the level of periodic alliances between groups on the left and right, who in turn oppose others on the left and right.

    Nevertheless, the core of Antiwar.com is of a libertarian/paleoconservative makeup.

  166. Lyndon says:

    I thought I would help out Owen or anyone else who wants to gain more familiarity with Mike’s oeuvre:

    Besides Serbianna, anyone is perfectly free to do a legitimate critique of my analysis elsewhere (Counterpunch, AC, AUR, JRL, EH, TTT, etc.)

    Tragically, much of Mike’s other wisdom is scattered about the internet in comments on various blogs, like pearls before swine, and is therefore difficult to corral in a single link. No, they are not pearls – the man’s comments are like dazzling diamonds scattered all too sparingly across the mire of the blogosphere. It may seem like there are a lot of Mike’s comments out there, but can there ever really be too much wisdom?

    It is always a privilege, I find, to visit a blog, unexpectedly find Mike’s comments…and be stricken with awe. Such is the generosity of this genius that he shares the shining – sometimes blinding – light of his words with so many people around the world, people who thirst for a gulp of Averkian wisdom, perhaps without even knowing that is what their lives are missing.

    I hope all those people visit this thread, or perhaps some of the other threads at SRB which have had the fortune to be gilded with Mike’s golden keystrokes.

    Someday, God willing, Mike will have a dedicated chronicler who will aggregate all of these forceful phrases (hopefully deleting the repetitive ones, which are a substantial proportion of the total – the repetition is necessary for forcefulness; we understand…) into a single potent package – a book, perhaps, or maybe some sort of free online format will be used. Yes. That would be an appropriate way to pay tribute to the world-changing work of this great yet humble man.

    We cannot know the future, but we can only know that Mike’s name will echo down through the ages as that of a mighty wordsmith, a brilliant battler for misunderstood genocidaires and other internationally wanted criminals – in other words, a heroic and fierce fighter for the oppressed and downtrodden. “Hero” may not even be sufficient to describe him – maybe “superhero”? No, words fail in the impossible task of describing the colossal import of this man.

    And lest his fame seem unfairly faint in the present day, I should point out that Mike has made headliner appearances on other websites than those mentioned above – for example, the humble part of Mike forgot to mention his being featured earlier this year on the “New Makeup Blog.” Kudos!

    BTW Mike, that American Chronicle site looks like it has very exclusive standards for its authors. Congratulations on being accepted into such an august fraternity. It warms my heart more than you can imagine to see that there will be another prestigious online publication’s name to be engraved on the eternal virtual stone tablet of your clips list.

  167. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Nope, no leftists there . . .”

    About Us

    MISSION

    (snip)

    The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of “Left” and “Right.” At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offer an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. We strive to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements that many respected institutions have forgotten.

    Forged in the experience of the first Balkan war, Antiwar.com has become the Internet newspaper of record for a growing international movement, the central locus of opposition to a new imperialism that masks its ambitions in the rhetoric of “human rights,” “humanitarianism,” “freedom from terror,” and “global democracy.” The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite – or perish alone.

    Antiwar.com represents the truly pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the real American patriots. “America first!” regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom – a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.

    http://antiwar.com/who.php

  168. Tim Newman says:

    Antiwar.com isn’t leftist. It has a paleoconservative/libertarian makeup to it. At that site, Doug Bandow, Neboysha Malic and Justin Raimondo are among my favorites.

    For those of you who may be unfamiliar with Justin Raimondo, he is on record concluding an article on the bombing of Hiroshima with:

    I tend to believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.

    With views like these, little wonder that genocide denier Averko is a fan.

  169. Chrisius Maximus says:

    ““Hero” may not even be sufficient to describe him – maybe “superhero”?”

    He won’t tell use what his superpower is though.

  170. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “With views like these, little wonder that genocide denier Averko is a fan.”

    Tim, I’m not a Raimondo fan, but you’re quoting him out of context.

  171. Lyndon says:

    This appears to be a follow-up to one of my email lists:

    http://transdniestria.co.uk/2008/new-low-for-edward-lucas.html

    KP rocks.

    Here is the full email exchange quoted on Pankratov’s blog. It looks like the chain was started by a guy who sends unsolicited emails that are even more brilliant than Mike’s.

    And here are a couple of rather revealing comments on that post. You should have someone translate them for you, Mike. I can’t bear to be the one to do it.

  172. Tim Newman says:

    No need for me to answer your BS question

    That would be a “No” then: Serbianna does not have a single article which mentions the UN report and the 4454 dead therein. So much for it being objective on the subject of Srebrenica.

    since that report doesn’t substantiate the claim of 7000-8000 Muslim males being summarily executed at Srebrenica.

    Repeat ad nauseum.

    Besides, you’re the one not so well versed on Serbianna material.

    Maybe, but I correctly guessed that it did not contain any reference to the UN report and the 4454 figure, thus proving your claim that it is objective to be nonsense.

    A “credible” “admirable” source critiques MAH in the way I did. Far more scholarly than a number of his stated views. An opinion shared by some non-politicized academics and media folks familiar with the subject matter.

    I think you’ve been using my Averkobot again!

    You’re in no legitimate position to second guess my views.

    No, I’m not and if you knew what “to second guess” meant you would probably not need to state this. However, I am in a perfect position to criticise your views as – odious as they are – you see no shame in bellowing them from the rooftops.

    Earnest folks seeking dialogue don’t shy away from directly confronting other ideas.

    Earnest folk seeking the truth about the Srebrenica massacre don’t shy away from directly confronting the UN report into the Srebrenica investigation.

    UNSCR 1244 is far more clear in maintaining that Kosovo is part of Serbia than what you interptret another UN document to mean.

    No. Kosovo being part of Serbia is not as clear cut as 4454 dead at Srebrenica. But good luck building a writing career on that basis.

    Despite this reality, you go along with a hypocritically flawed claim on why Kosovo shouldn’t be a part of Serbia.

    For my claim to be described as hypocritical, I must personally be preventing a region somewhere from seceding. Last time I checked, I was not, therefore I must conclude that for the umpteenth time you are using an adverb whose meaning you do not know.

    In short, you’ve continuously carried on like a hack and a not so very effectrive one; when put in a more objective and academic like environment.

    Here’s a hint to help your writing career: don’t use semi-colons again.

    Your second guessing my having a greater knowledge than youself on this subject (former Yugoslavia) is one of several tell all signs.

    I admit freely that I know little about the former Yugoslavia, but as this thread has proven beyond all reasonable doubt, my opinions on certain aspects – namely Srebrenica – hold far more validity than yours. This is ample reason for me to assume my knowledge on other areas of the former Yugoslavia is greater than yours, even if I know next to nothing.

  173. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “And here are a couple of rather revealing comments on that post. You should have someone translate them for you, Mike. I can’t bear to be the one to do it.”

    Переписку вашу с Аверко читать весьма затруднительно, по прочину ужасно корявого английского, которым пользуется сей персонаж (вообще, по моим наблюдениям, этот Аверко – интернет-тролль и фрик)

    🙂

  174. Tim Newman says:

    Tim, I’m not a Raimondo fan, but you’re quoting him out of context.

    I don’t believe I am. He is comparing modern US society unfavourably against Japanese society and stating that when he does so, he thinks the Japanese should have won. That the modern Japan is utterly different from the Imperial Japan that the US defeated doesn’t seem to occur to him, nor that it was the US which forced the change from an imperial expansionist power to the Japan he praises today. He clearly thinks that things would be better either in the US or Japan or both if Imperial Japan had won the Pacific War.

  175. Tim Newman says:

    Antiwar.com is libertarian.

    This is why the libertarian movement will never get anywhere. It contains too many of the far-right/far-left loons which moderate libertarians could never share a platform with. I certainly wouldn’t want to identify or associate myself with anything on that site.

  176. “I don’t believe I am. He is comparing modern US society unfavourably against Japanese society and stating that when he does so, he thinks the Japanese should have won.”

    The crux of the sentence in question is the “at time likes this…” part. It’s a rhetorical waving up of hands in exasperation. “I have so much work, it’s at times like this that I was unemployed and lived with my momz!”

  177. Tim Newman says:

    The crux of the sentence in question is the “at time likes this…” part.

    I think if he was making a general observation about the two societies – say after visiting Japan for the first time – then you would be correct.

    However, his remark appears in a piece in which he is criticising the Americans for their conduct in the Pacific War, and I take it in that context.

  178. Tim Newman says:

    I think if he was making a general observation about the two societies – say after visiting Japan for the first time – then you would be correct.

    Sorry, the last bit should say:

    – then I would agree with you

  179. Chrisius Maximus says:

    I think you’re misreading the text, but I’m not going to push the issue.

  180. Misha says:

    Leave it to Tim Newman to misrepresent what Justin Raimondo said. Much like how Newman is in error to believe that there’s clear evidence showing that 7000-8000 Muslim males were rounded up and summarily executed at Srebrenica and that UNSCR 1244 isn’t clear about Kosovo’s status. He has some gall to call others “loons.” If anyone is a “loon” it’s Newman with his convoluted use of the term “genocide denier.” BTW, Raimondo took Oliver Kamm to task on the need to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11418

    Like others who I read, I don’t always agree with everything that Raimondo says.

    Leave it to Lyndon Allin to chime in with misrepresentative comments about me. He omits one of my AC articles making the roughly 80,000 a hit day Inosmi.ru. Those and other articles of mine have also been carried by Google News, EIN News, News Now, The Russia Journal and other well known venues (among them being Counterpunch, which is previously mentioned at this thread). I also had an hour guest appearance on the BBC with some rather well known folks. On my part, such future activity will continue whether the likes of Allin like it or not.

    Allin’s specialty is making cheap comments, which often lack a substantive analytical quality. His biases and ignorance are often quite clear. A perfect example of how a purported knowledge of languages doesn’t always relate to a particularly great intellect (a matter clearly relating to Chris Doss, AKA Chrisius Maximus).

    A prime example is Allin’s recent post on the former Georgian SSR. For more see:

    http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@17.GrOBbSmZDEb@.77480649/9769

    I’ve the full unedited text of what Allin is referring to. His interpretation of it is wrong.

  181. Misha says:

    Re: UNSCR 1244

    Kosovo remaining part of Serbia, with a limited return of Serb administrarive and military personnel to that province.

    Chris Doss (Chrisius Maximus):

    Perhaps you were the asshole posting those remarks. It was a shorthand limited email exchange.

    As Wally suggested, your selective grammar barbs are indicative of diverting attention away from what you substantively lack.

    You’re the ultimate internet troll. Show us your formal commentary and where you’ve appeared as a guest.

  182. Misha says:

    Regarding that Live Journal thread:

    http://neznaika-nalune.livejournal.com/383061.html?thread=5965397#t5965397

    The referenced Live Journal discussiion raises some pertinent issues that the likes of Lyndon Allin downplay, if not ignore outright.

    As per my link to a Raimondo reply to Kamm and the matter of “genocide”:

    Bosnian Civil War activity at Srebrenica involved armed fighting and atrocities committed by Muslims against Serbs and vice versa.

    Numerically, how many died as a result of the A bomb droppings over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  183. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Numerically, how many died as a result of the A bomb droppings over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”

    As opposed to the nonnumerical number of people who died?

  184. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Perhaps you were the asshole posting those remarks. It was a shorthand limited email exchange.”

    Behold the mind of the paranoid.

  185. Misha says:

    Touche to CD for making another off topic point.

    Troll like, given his habit of overlooking other such grammar snafus including his own.

    The deaths resulting from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki droppings far exceed the entire Bosnain Civil War casualty tally.

    More Japanese civilians died than Americans during WW II. That didn’t make the Japanese government more right than America’s.

    According to Raimondo and others, the war could’ve ended just as fast without dropping those bombs.

  186. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 8:41 pm ‘Perhaps you were the asshole posting those remarks. It was a shorthand limited email exchange.’

    Behold the mind of the paranoid.”

    ****

    There’re others like you out there. There’s nothing paranoid about making such an observation.

    I should add that among that list, there were some private one to one and two to one exchanges with me. I suspect there could’ve been other such exchanges as well, involving different individuals.

  187. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “There’re others like you out there.”

    Indeed, we’re all around you, watching, waiting, ready to strike. Remain evervigilant Mike, for the Hounds of Maximus are nipping at your heels! Never let your guard down! Run, Russia pundit, run!

  188. Misha says:

    Sinking to his low level so that he can better comprehend: in yo wet panties b****.

    Allin’s hyperlinking efforts regarding myself reveal something.

    I haven’t wasted such time with him.

  189. Tim Newman says:

    According to Raimondo and others, the war could’ve ended just as fast without dropping those bombs.

    This view is not bourne out by the available evidence.

  190. Tim Newman says:

    BTW, Raimondo took Oliver Kamm to task on the need to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

    He did indeed, and he proved his own incompetence when doing so.

  191. Misha says:

    Kamm is clearly incompetent in propping Marko Attila Hoare as if the latter is a credible source.

  192. Misha says:

    Seeing how the word “incompetent” is being used.

  193. Tim Newman says:

    Kamm is clearly incompetent in propping Marko Attila Hoare as if the latter is a credible source.

    Marko Attila Hoare doesn’t need propping.

  194. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Run, Russia Pundit, Run, a tragic tale of modern ennui in the wastelands of bourgeois society, is the story of a small-time Russia pundit who one day just can’t take it any more. It is followed by the classic works of 20th-century American literature Russia-Pundit Returns and Russia-Pundit Redux.

    (Literary reference of course not caught by Mike.)

  195. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 10:22 pm Run, Russia Pundit, Run, a tragic tale of modern ennui in the wastelands of bourgeois society, is the story of a small-time Russia pundit who one day just can’t take it any more. It is followed by the classic works of 20th-century American literature Russia-Pundit Returns and Russia-Pundit Redux.

    (Literary reference of course not caught by Mike.)”

    ****

    Another meaningless contribution from the troll who didn’t know (upon being notified of his name) who Alexander Ovechkin is.

    That’s the Chris Doss level of misfitism. He often brings up other matters unrelated to Russian issues.

  196. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 13, 2008 10:22 pm ‘Kamm is clearly incompetent in propping Marko Attila Hoare as if the latter is a credible source.’

    Marko Attila Hoare doesn’t need propping.”

    ***

    In some truly academic circles, he most surely does.

  197. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Mike, you’ve never been near an academic circle. You have a BA.

  198. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “He often brings up other matters unrelated to Russian issues.”

    Like Hiroshima?

  199. Misha says:

    You don’t need a Phd to be in close contact with academics troll.

    Phds have contacted me on academic matters.

  200. Misha says:

    As a related aside, there’re some not so bright folks out ther trying to coverup their foibles with advanced degrees.

    There’s the flip side to that as well. Individauls making very worthy contributions without having a Phd.

  201. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 10:55 pm “He often brings up other matters unrelated to Russian issues.”

    Like Hiroshima?”

    ****

    It relates to an earlier discussion by others at this thread on the topic.

    This isn’t to be confused with Chris’ trolling.

  202. Tim Newman says:

    In some truly academic circles, he most surely does.

    Marko Attila Hoare was a member of the Faculty of History of the University of Cambridge from 2001-2006, and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at Kingston University, London.

    In academic circles and beyond, he needs no propping. I wonder what esteemed academic establishments his critics are associated with?

  203. Misha says:

    Some pretty good ones who don’t distort like he does.

  204. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Phds have contacted me on academic matters.”

    Oh right, I forgot about Professors Alexandra and Andrew Waller.

    If you were in any way connected to academia, you would have known what RAN is. However, you are not, for you have only a piddly-little-bitty BA, for the same reason that you know no foreign languages, have never been to Russia, have never learned to write, and have no job, i.e., because you are an incredibly lazy dickhead.

  205. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Individauls making very worthy contributions without having a Phd.”

    Such people exist, but you are not one of them.

    The sentence is incomplete, by the way.

  206. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “University of Cambridge”

    Not that institution of frauds!?!?!? Everybody knows that the world’s center of acandemic excellence is Adelphi.

  207. Misha says:

    Using primary and secondary source material, this well researched book soundly debunks what Hoare has written about Draza Mihailovich:

    http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/top3mset/99bd7f542cd73983.html

    This recent article touches on that topic:

    http://antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=12804

    A good number of folks with degrees from top schools who say and write questionable (put mildly) things.

    At one time, I understand that David Irving was considered an up and coming historian.

  208. Tim Newman says:

    Some pretty good ones who don’t distort like he does.

    Care to list them?

  209. Chrisius Maximus says:

    I have a theory. How to explain Mike’s lack of social skills, inability to express himself in any language, and absence of education? How is such an abomination possible? It is puzzling. Shall we cut the Gordion Knot?

    I hereby hypothesize that Mike was not brought up in the company of human beings at all, but was rather raised by wolves, or perhaps feral dogs. This would explain both his pitiful craving to be the alpha-male and habit of pissing all over people’s blogs to mark his territory.

  210. Tim Newman says:

    Not that institution of frauds!?!?!? Everybody knows that the world’s center of acandemic excellence is Adelphi.

    What is quite amazing is that this looks to be the first time Mike is aware that Hoare a Cambridge University historian. He hs devoted dozens of blog comments to discrediting him and written woeful “critiques” of his work, and goes so far as to make the claim that he is out of his depth academically – without even doing the slightest bit of research on the man, whose biography can be read on the main page of his website!

    It reminds me of the months he spent slagging off David Johnson for not including him in his JRL list only to find – whoops! – that he was including him after all.

    It’s no wonder Mike spends to much time writing online, I’d imagine his verbal abilities are non-existent due to the number of feet in his mouth.

  211. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:05 pm ‘Phds have contacted me on academic matters.’

    Oh right, I forgot about Professors Alexandra and Andrew Waller.

    If you were in any way connected to academia, you would have known what RAN is. However, you are not, for you have only a piddly-little-bitty BA, for the same reason that you know no foreign languages, have never been to Russia, have never learned to write, and have no job, i.e., because you are an incredibly lazy dickhead.

    Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:07 pm ‘Individauls making very worthy contributions without having a Phd.’

    Such people exist, but you are not one of them.

    The sentence is incomplete, by the way.

    Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:08 pm ‘University of Cambridge’

    Not that institution of frauds!?!?!? Everybody knows that the world’s center of acandemic excellence is Adelphi.”

    ****

    The above quoted troll keeps proving me right.

    He lies about my never having been to Russia, while ignoring his own faulty English language grammar and not mentioning the number of other folks who aren’t fluent Russian speakers.

    Time and gain, he has proven that the stated knowledge of a language doesn’t always correspond to being well versed on many aspects of the history, foreign policy and culture of the given country.

    If he’s truly so bright, he wouldn’t
    be trolling. We’d see more substantive commentary from him, in the form of high profile articles.

  212. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “He lies about my never having been to Russia”

    But you haven’t, which is why you couldn’t answer Ger’s quiz. Let’s do it again.

    What hotel did you stay in, or, if you stayed somewhere else (e.g., under a bridge, with a friendly pack of feral dogs), where was it? Please describe the region.

  213. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “I’d imagine his verbal abilities are non-existent due to the number of feet in his mouth.”

    He is a veritable centipede.

  214. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 13, 2008 11:12 pm Some pretty good ones who don’t distort like he does.

    Care to list them?”

    ****

    I just provided some specifics.

    ———————————————-

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:16 pm I have a theory. How to explain Mike’s lack of social skills, inability to express himself in any language, and absence of education? How is such an abomination possible? It is puzzling. Shall we cut the Gordion Knot?

    I hereby hypothesize that Mike was not brought up in the company of human beings at all, but was rather raised by wolves, or perhaps feral dogs. This would explain both his pitiful craving to be the alpha-male and habit of pissing all over people’s blogs to mark his territory.”

    ****

    Again, I’m not like Chris Doss, who blatantly engages in trolling, while not showing anything of greater worth in the manner of formally written commentary.

    For his sake, he’ll get the right help.

    ———————————————-

    “Tim Newman on May 13, 2008 11:17 pm Not that institution of frauds!?!?!? Everybody knows that the world’s center of acandemic excellence is Adelphi.

    What is quite amazing is that this looks to be the first time Mike is aware that Hoare a Cambridge University historian. He hs devoted dozens of blog comments to discrediting him and written woeful ‘critiques’ of his work, and goes so far as to make the claim that he is out of his depth academically – without even doing the slightest bit of research on the man, whose biography can be read on the main page of his website!

    It reminds me of the months he spent slagging off David Johnson for not including him in his JRL list only to find – whoops! – that he was including him after all.

    It’s no wonder Mike spends to much time writing online, I’d imagine his verbal abilities are non-existent due to the number of feet in his mouth.”

    ****

    They’re far better than Newman’s very low if non-existent intellect.

    Newman reflects the negative troll aspects found with blogging

    Bogus personal attacks that duck otherwise perinent issues.

    Newman’s displayed manner is shown by how he’s wiloing to let a Cambridge educated person get away with shoddy commentary.

  215. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:21 pm “He lies about my never having been to Russia”

    But you haven’t, which is why you couldn’t answer Ger’s quiz. Let’s do it again.

    What hotel did you stay in, or, if you stayed somewhere else (e.g., under a bridge, with a friendly pack of feral dogs), where was it? Please describe the region.

    Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:23 pm ‘I’d imagine his verbal abilities are non-existent due to the number of feet in his mouth.’

    He is a veritable centipede.”

    ****

    He lies again with a series of rather boring troll like barbs.

    One set of those comments could very well relate to himself.

    I previously noted where I was in the FSU.

    The above quoted freak is truly in need of help.

  216. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Again, I’m not like Chris Doss, who blatantly engages in trolling”

    Ah, the summit of Averkian wit — “I know you are, but what am I.”

    But then Averko does function on the intellectual and emotional level of a twelve-year-old. Raised by wolves, people, I’m telling you — it’s the only explanation!

    (PS, if your pack is ever threatened by a rampaging tiger and they are forced to rely on you for defense, I recommend a two-pronged defensive strategy involving fire and a herd of buffalo. It has a proven track record.)

  217. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “I previously noted where I was in the FSU.”

    Where?

  218. Tim Newman says:

    They’re far better than Newman’s very low if non-existent intellect.

    Your verbal skills are better than my intellect? You can probably run faster than my batting average, too.

    Bogus personal attacks that duck otherwise perinent issues.

    Sorry, I was passing the time whilst waiting for you to list those esteemed academic establisments with which Marko Attila Hoare’s critics are associated.

    Newman’s displayed manner is shown by how he’s wiloing to let a Cambridge educated person get away with shoddy commentary.

    No, you have it wrong. It is your commentary which I am showing to be shoddy; Marko Attila Hoare’s commentary is rather good.

  219. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:31 pm ‘Again, I’m not like Chris Doss, who blatantly engages in trolling’

    Ah, the summit of Averkian wit — ‘I know you are, but what am I.’

    But then Averko does function on the intellectual and emotional level of a twelve-year-old. Raised by wolves, people, I’m telling you — it’s the only explanation!

    (PS, if your pack is ever threatened by a rampaging tiger and they are forced to rely on you for defense, I recommend a two-pronged defensive strategy involving fire and a herd of buffalo. It has a proven track record.)

    Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:32 pm “I previously noted where I was in the FSU.”

    Where?”

    ****

    The above quoted Chris Doss is the one carrying on in an immature way.

    I stay on topic making academic points and his comeback takes the form of the above quoted.

    He carries on like a frustrated jackass whose time in school and professed language proficiency haven’t covered up his glaring foibles.

    Like I said before: when I wasn’t posting at this blog, he still would make negative and false comments about me.

    For sure, there’s something psychotically wromng with him.

  220. Chrisius Maximus says:

    I see no answer to “where?” yet.

  221. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 13, 2008 11:37 pm They’re far better than Newman’s very low if non-existent intellect.

    Your verbal skills are better than my intellect? You can probably run faster than my batting average, too.

    Bogus personal attacks that duck otherwise perinent issues.

    Sorry, I was passing the time whilst waiting for you to list those esteemed academic establisments with which Marko Attila Hoare’s critics are associated.

    Newman’s displayed manner is shown by how he’s wiloing to let a Cambridge educated person get away with shoddy commentary.

    No, you have it wrong. It is your commentary which I am showing to be shoddy; Marko Attila Hoare’s commentary is rather good.”

    ****

    It’s very faulty for reasons that you duck because of very low intellect you display. It has an idiotlogue way about it.

    I posted material and comments debunking some of his views.

    You’re obviously not well versed on the subject matter.

  222. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:40 pm I see no answer to ‘where?’ yet.”

    ****

    Because I’d already stated where and there’s no need for me to repeat it again to such a low life troll like yourself.

  223. Tim Newman says:

    It’s very faulty for reasons that you duck because of very low intellect you display. It has an idiotlogue way about it.

    Well put.

    I posted material and comments debunking some of his views.

    No, you posted material and comments which you thought was debunking some of his views, but in fact was doing nothing of the sort.

    You’re obviously not well versed on the subject matter.

    Nor, obviously, are you. The difference is that I don’t pretend to be, and go around trying to debunk Cambridge historians.

  224. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Bogus personal attacks that duck otherwise perinent issues.”

    Tim’s comment was not a personal attack; he was rather pointing out that your statement made no sense, as verbal skills and intellect are different things.

  225. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Because I’d already stated where”

    Where? I must have missed it. Enlighten me.

  226. Misha says:

    Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:46 pm “Bogus personal attacks that duck otherwise perinent issues.”

    Tim’s comment was not a personal attack; he was rather pointing out that your statement made no sense, as verbal skills and intellect are different things.’

    ****

    Wrong again troll.

    Hoare has written faulty commentary about a particular matter (among others).

    I made mention of it. Newman ducked that point and chose the troll route that you take.

    The academic approach is to have an intelligent discussion on what I addressed.

    Your self touted education hasn’t helped you so much.

  227. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 13, 2008 11:47 pm ‘Because I’d already stated where’

    Where? I must have missed it. Enlighten me.”

    *****

    You’re missing a good deal more.

  228. Chrisius Maximus says:

    It’s settled then. Mike has never been to the former USSR. It must have been outside the territory of his pack.

  229. Tim Newman says:

    Hoare has written faulty commentary about a particular matter (among others).

    I made mention of it. Newman ducked that point and chose the troll route that you take.

    If the above account is accurate, it does not relate to this thread and the Newman that is mentioned is not me. Otherwise, it’s just made up nonsense.

    The academic approach is to have an intelligent discussion on what I addressed.

    To be entitled to the treatment deserved of an academic, you must first behave like one.

  230. Misha says:

    Chris Doss lies again with his warped sense of thinking that I’ve to repeat an answer to him. Given his trolling here, there’s especiaally no need for me to address all of his comments. He has lied and deceitfully trolls on.

    Newman:

    Hoare has written some faulty (put mildly) commentary on Draza Mihailovich. You obviously don’t know much about the subject. Others besides myself do.

  231. Misha says:

    Good point on behavior. It can be applied to the likes of Doss, Newman and Hoare.

  232. Misha says:

    Among a number of others as well.

  233. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Chris Doss lies again with his warped sense of thinking that I’ve to repeat an answer to him.”

    You can only repeat an answer that you have given. However, I am of the opinion that you are making it up in the deluded belief that you can fool us. It’s sockpuppet redux.

  234. Tim Newman says:

    Hoare has written some faulty (put mildly) commentary on Draza Mihailovich. You obviously don’t know much about the subject. Others besides myself do.

    Repeat ad nauseum.

    It can be applied to the likes of Doss, Newman and Hoare.

    Hoare behaves like an academic, and gets treated like one by his peers and others. Doss and Newman, not being academics, don’t behave like academics, but don’t bleat when we don’t get treated like one. Averko doesn’t behave like an academic, and is not an academic, but bizarrely thinks he is entitled to the treatment and respect deserving of one.

  235. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 12:19 am “Chris Doss lies again with his warped sense of thinking that I’ve to repeat an answer to him.”

    You can only repeat an answer that you have given. However, I am of the opinion that you are making it up in the deluded belief that you can fool us. It’s sockpuppet redux.”

    ***

    No yuh dope and I’ve pictures to prove it.

    Someone who used to work with someone you know saw one of them.

    You really are hung up about me.

    An example of intelligent discourse which Doss (at least of late) hasn’t exhibited at this SRB thread.

    http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@210.tzJDb4VSDld@.77480649/8706

    Newman:

    At his blog, Hoare doesn’t often behave in the manner that many academics believe to be academic.

    As for my behavior at this thread, I’m dealing with two individuals currently engaging in troll like manner. Not recognizing this is a further sign of a lack of basic social graces.

    In an academic environment, I correspond in the appropriately accepted manner.

  236. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Stop lying Mike. You’re just making yourself look ever-more ridiculous, a greater buffoon and object of universal ridicule with every repeated lie.

    Then again, no, please don’t stop! 🙂

  237. Misha says:

    As his last post and others show, Chris Doss is a natural when it comes to being an idiot.

  238. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “I’ve pictures to prove it. ”

    Then prove it.

  239. Misha says:

    No need for me to. You’re of no real significance. Your motive for dragging this issue on is ill intended. Much like some other prior instances. You’re a good for nothing troll with some weird obsessions.

    Newman:

    Your exhibited lack of intelligence is shown by how you uncritically laud Hoare without being able to suppport his faulty claims of Mihailovich

    As was earlier presented to you, Hoare made a number of other flawed comments. You were unable to backup any of his claims.

    Not true? Show otherwise.

  240. Tim Newman says:

    At his blog, Hoare doesn’t often behave in the manner that many academics believe to be academic.

    Which academics, and which academic establishments are they associated with?

    In an academic environment, I correspond in the appropriately accepted manner.

    What may appear to you to be an academic environment would in all likelihood appear to everyone else as a website inhabited by cranks.

  241. Misha says:

    The involved academics don’t give him the time of day.

    Like I said:

    Your exhibited lack of intelligence is shown by how you uncritically laud Hoare without being able to suppport his faulty claims of Mihailovich

    As was earlier presented to you, Hoare made a number of other flawed comments. You were unable to backup any of his claims.

    Not true? Show otherwise.

  242. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “No need for me to.”

    In other words, you can’t, yet you keep asserting you can. This is the incapacity for rational thought of the insane or the child.

  243. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “The involved academics”

    do not exist.

  244. Misha says:

    No Doss, the child here is yourself.

    It explains why you haven’t achieved much, with all previously stated bravado.

  245. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:09 am ‘The involved academics’

    do not exist.”

    ****

    Another foolish lie from the loser troll.

  246. Tim Newman says:

    Your exhibited lack of intelligence is shown by how you uncritically laud Hoare without being able to suppport his faulty claims of Mihailovich

    I rather doubt that my lauding Hoare over say, to take a random example – you – is a sign of lack of intelligence on my part. Rather the opposite, in fact.

    As was earlier presented to you, Hoare made a number of other flawed comments. You were unable to backup any of his claims.

    That’s because your first link took me to a title of a book which I didn’t own, so it was a bit difficult to comment on. The second link failed to mention Hoare at all.

  247. Misha says:

    Chris is a prime candidate for a Phd in internet trolling.

    Too bad for him it doesn’t seem to exist (at least not yet).

  248. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Mike, your entire life is a fiction. You are a fictitious pundit, with fictitious friends, fictitious academics, fictitious time in Russia, fictitious respect from your fictitious peers, and fictitious beach dates.

  249. Misha says:

    Newman

    In other words you don’t know a heck lot about the subject matter Hoare comments on.

  250. Tim Newman says:

    The involved academics don’t give him the time of day.

    In which case, how are they involved?

    Like I said:

    Yes, repeat ad nauseum. We know.

  251. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:13 am Mike, your entire life is a fiction. You are a fictitious pundit, with fictitious friends, fictitious academics, fictitious time in Russia, fictitious respect from your fictitious peers, and fictitious beach dates.”

    ***

    To stop to your very low level again so that you can better understand:

    In yo wet panty dreams b****!

    What I’ve said on the matter you dicuss is a matter of record.

    Your little nothing self hasn’t come close to substantively matching it.

    Trolling at blogs is your gig.

  252. Tim Newman says:

    In other words you don’t know a heck lot about the subject matter Hoare comments on.

    No, there are no other words. I meant what I said: your first link showed only a book title and nothing else, and the second link did not mention Hoare at all…yet you complained that I did not recognise either source as debunking Hoare.

    If you want to prove that Hoare is unworthy of the respect deserving of an academic, you’re going to have to come up with some better links than those.

  253. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:16 am The involved academics don’t give him the time of day.

    In which case, how are they involved?

    Like I said:

    Yes, repeat ad nauseum. We know.”

    ****

    The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.

    This is perhaps one reason why you like him.

    You show yourself unable to defend his faulty commentary.

  254. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “In yo wet panty dreams b****!”

    I don’t know what is funnier — the idea that this statement was made by a white, balding middle-aged lunatic, or that it is the white, balding middle-aged lunatic’s idea of what an academic would say.

  255. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.”

    This is the coolest sentence of all time!

  256. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:20 am In other words you don’t know a heck lot about the subject matter Hoare comments on.

    No, there are no other words. I meant what I said: your first link showed only a book title and nothing else, and the second link did not mention Hoare at all…yet you complained that I did not recognise either source as debunking Hoare.

    If you want to prove that Hoare is unworthy of the respect deserving of an academic, you’re going to have to come up with some better links than those.”

    ****

    You’re in no legitimate position to make that assertion, given your extreme ignorance of the subject matter he comments on.

    If you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t have given the answer you did. You were earlier presented with a well founded critique of some of his commentary.

  257. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:21 am “In yo wet panty dreams b****!”

    I don’t know what is funnier — the idea that this statement was made by a white, balding middle-aged lunatic, or that it is the white, balding middle-aged lunatic’s idea of what an academic would say.

    Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:22 am ‘The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.’

    This is the coolest sentence of all time!”

    ****

    The troll strikes again.

    “Balding”. How many others out there fit thatr description?

    I bet this balding middle aged lunatic (as he puts it) can kick his ass with no problem.

    I just stooped down again to his very low level so that he can better understand me.

    His grammar Nazi advocacy is absurd given his own weaknesses. This is the same “editor” who repeatedly insisted that “there’re” isn’t valid English language shorthand for “there are.”

  258. Tim Newman says:

    You’re in no legitimate position to make that assertion, given your extreme ignorance of the subject matter he comments on.

    No, I’m in a very good position to make the assertion that your links to evidence of Hoare’s debunking went nowhere, by the simple virtue that I followed them.

    If you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t have given the answer you did.

    Oh, I would. No matter what I knew or didn’t know, the links would still have lead nowhere. Now, if you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t be leading me on wild goose chases around the internet, would you?

    You were earlier presented with a well founded critique of some of his commentary.

    No, that was an article written by none other than yourself, which was shite.

  259. Misha says:

    Pardon a snafu (thatr)in the prior post.

    Among others, Chris Doss has had his share.

  260. Tim Newman says:

    The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.

    In the absence of you specifying who these academics are, this statement carries no authority whatsoever.

    This is perhaps one reason why you like him.

    No, I like him because his work is sound and well presented.

    You show yourself unable to defend his faulty commentary.

    I have no need to, for you have failed to show that it is faulty.

  261. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:33 am You’re in no legitimate position to make that assertion, given your extreme ignorance of the subject matter he comments on.

    No, I’m in a very good position to make the assertion that your links to evidence of Hoare’s debunking went nowhere, by the simple virtue that I followed them.

    If you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t have given the answer you did.

    Oh, I would. No matter what I knew or didn’t know, the links would still have lead nowhere. Now, if you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t be leading me on wild goose chases around the internet, would you?

    You were earlier presented with a well founded critique of some of his commentary.

    No, that was an article written by none other than yourself, which was shite.”

    ****

    What you confirm is that you aren’t so bright. Intelligent indivduals don’t so willingly support those whose views are faulty.

    That article is far more academic than some of what Hoare has written.

    Much of what you say is “shite” related to your “shite” intellect.

  262. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Mike, there is no valid or invalid shorthand for anything. This is part of the concept of shorthand.

    However, I would point out that shorthand is generally supposed to be, well, short. Here is your “shorthand” wondersentence:

    ‘The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.’

    Now, here is the same sentence as written by somebody who knows how to write:

    ‘These academics are involved with people who will not give him the time of day due to their justified belief that he behaves unacademically.’

    The sentence still sucks, but it’s a 1000% improvement. In took the “for what many” bit out, since it is just additional layering of verbiage that adds no content.

  263. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:37 am The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.

    In the absence of you specifying who these academics are, this statement carries no authority whatsoever.

    This is perhaps one reason why you like him.

    No, I like him because his work is sound and well presented.

    You show yourself unable to defend his faulty commentary.

    I have no need to, for you have failed to show that it is faulty.”

    ****

    “Well presented” with faulty (put mildly) commentary.

    Yes, I did show it to be faulty.

    The linked Martin book and other source material do likewise with some of his comments about Mihailovich.

  264. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Yes, I did show it to be faulty.”

    No you didn’t. You just linked to some books, which I actually doubt you have read.

  265. Misha says:

    Chris:

    I don’t give a flying **** about your explaining away how you repeatedly insisted that “there’re” isn’t valid English language shorthand for “there are.”

    Try writing some formally wriiten commentary that gets a significant following abroad.

    I post here on the fly (hockey terminology). I see the snafus others make (including yourself) and how you’re silent about it.

  266. Tim Newman says:

    What you confirm is that you aren’t so bright.

    And your linking to dead-ends confirms what, exactly?

    Intelligent indivduals don’t so willingly support those whose views are faulty.

    Which is why generally I don’t support any views you hold.

    That article is far more academic than some of what Hoare has written.

    I doubt it. Were that true, you would be recognised by academics as an academic writer, as Hoare is.

    Much of what you say is “shite” related to your “shite” intellect.

    Oh, you’ve learned a new adjective, bringing your total to, what? Ten?

  267. Misha says:

    “Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:46 am ‘Yes, I did show it to be faulty.’

    No you didn’t. You just linked to some books, which I actually doubt you have read.”

    ****

    I most certainly did read that and other books on the subject. A topic you obviously dion’t know much about.

    In addition, I wrote a well founded critique of his commentary that was academically more mature than some of the pieces he has written at his blog.

    Calling someone a “genocide denier” for questioning the claim of 7000-8000 Muslim males summarily executed at Srebrenica isn’t scholarly. Having a Cambridge degree doesn’t cahnge that.

  268. Misha says:

    That’s: change

    This idiot Newman doesn’t give up.

    Pathetic.

  269. Tim Newman says:

    The linked Martin book and other source material do likewise with some of his comments about Mihailovich.

    Judging by your past performances of presenting falsehoods, I am not prepared to believe you when you say that the book achieves this. In fact, now you have endorsed it I am relatively certain that it does not.

    And the second link you sent me to doesn’t mention Mihailovich either. Perhaps you meant Benjamin Franklin?

  270. Misha says:

    Newman:

    I’m not alone in my observation of Hoare’s not so great commentary.

    This includes people more well known than myself.

    If you knew the subject matter, you’d be fully aware of who doesn’t buy into his faulty commentary.

    Using your “logic” your knowledge and “intellect” is “shite” compared to mine.

    In short, you’re wrong on this and a number of other issues.

  271. Misha says:

    “Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:54 am The linked Martin book and other source material do likewise with some of his comments about Mihailovich.

    Judging by your past performances of presenting falsehoods, I am not prepared to believe you when you say that the book achieves this. In fact, now you have endorsed it I am relatively certain that it does not.

    And the second link you sent me to doesn’t mention Mihailovich either. Perhaps you meant Benjamin Franklin?’

    ***

    Unlike yourself, I don’t present falsehoods.

    You again exhibit a lack of knowledge and intellect.

    If you knew the history, you’d recognize the reference to Mihailovich in that link:

    http://antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=12804

  272. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “I post here on the fly (hockey terminology). I see the snafus others make (including yourself) and how you’re silent about it.”

    What you do are not snafus, or typos; they are bad writing. You do not know how words connect to other words, or ideas to other ideas.

    For instance, here is a shit sentence:

    “Your exhibited lack of intelligence is shown by how you uncritically laud Hoare without being able to suppport [sic] his faulty claims of Mihailovich”

    Here is another version of the same sentence, as written by a normal person:

    “Your uncritical praise of Hoare and simultaneous inability to back up his flawed claims show you to be unintelligent.”

    COMPARE LENGTH!!!

  273. Tim Newman says:

    Calling someone a “genocide denier” for questioning the claim of 7000-8000 Muslim males summarily executed at Srebrenica isn’t scholarly.

    Calling somebody a genocide denier for questioning the claim that a minimum of 4,000 Muslims were murdered by the Serbs at Srebrenica isn’t either, but it is an apt description.

    This idiot Newman doesn’t give up.

    No, he doesn’t. And for every comment of yours I reply to, your credibility sinks ever lower – albeit probably higher amongst the cranks, loons, genocide deniers, and Irving wannabes into whose company you have fallen with seeming delight. Consider it a public service.

  274. Tim Newman says:

    Unlike yourself, I don’t present falsehoods.

    Oh, you do. Although mostly they are outright lies.

    You again exhibit a lack of knowledge and intellect.

    Well, it’s hardly my fault that displaying of either is unnecessary in my thrashing of you on this site.

    If you knew the history, you’d recognize the reference to Mihailovich in that link:

    Yes, just like I’d recognise a reference to Czechoslovakia in a passage which doesn’t mention Czechoslovakia once.

  275. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Once again, let us compare and contrast.

    Averko text (note that I am addressing only writing, not content):

    ‘I’m not alone in my observation of Hoare’s not so great commentary.

    This includes people more well known than myself.

    If you knew the subject matter, you’d be fully aware of who doesn’t buy into his faulty commentary.

    Using your “logic” your knowledge and “intellect” is “shite” compared to mine.

    In short, you’re wrong on this and a number of other issues.’

    Now, here is a normal-person version of the same text:

    ‘I’m not alone in my assessment that Hoare’s commentary is flawed. People better-known than I agree. If you knew the subject matter, you would be fully aware of the identities of those who do not accept his commentary as accurate. According to your “logic,” your knowledge and “intellect” are “shite” compared to mine. In short, you are wrong on this and a number of other issues.’

  276. Misha says:

    Your errors are especially BAD WRITING for an “editor.”

    Meantime; in writing, where has your great insight been recognized in erms of an article receiving a realtively high profile viewing?

    Trolling at blogs is your limit.

    ***

    Bodies of clearly identified Muslims clearly showing that they were clearly executed in a firing squad like manner.

    He doesn’t get it. Instead, carrying on like he’s doing some great deed, which he isn’t.

  277. Misha says:

    How much lower can it get by thinking that MAH is usch a grt go to source without even being aware of his faulty (put mildly) commentary?

    I’m sure as “shite” not going to sink with him.

  278. Tim Newman says:

    I’m not alone in my observation of Hoare’s not so great commentary.

    I am sure you are not, given the company you seem to keep. All this proves is that there is more than one genocide denier and crank out there.

    This includes people more well known than myself.

    Would David Irving be one of them?

    If you knew the subject matter, you’d be fully aware of who doesn’t buy into his faulty commentary.

    If you knew the subject matter, you’d have been aware that Hoare does not need propping in academic circles.

    Using your “logic” your knowledge and “intellect” is “shite” compared to mine.

    And you can run faster than my batting average. Yeah, we know.

    In short, you’re wrong on this and a number of other issues.

    If true, you’re having awful trouble demonstrating it on here.

  279. Misha says:

    Chris still seems flustered by the point made about how posting comments at blogs on the fly isn’t the same as writing formal commentary.

    With many examples to show, his grammar points are selectively applied for troll like purposes.

  280. Misha says:

    David Irving isn’t one of them fool.

    If anyone here is carrying on like Irving, it’s you by ignoring fact based realities.

    Along with some others, I got the Bosnian Civil War death tally right. On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me that you accepted the LIES of 200,000 or more killed during that war and rapes in the tens of thousands.

  281. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Mike language:

    “With many examples to show, his grammar points are selectively applied for troll like purposes.”

    Normal-person language:

    “Despite there being many examples to draw from across the board, his grammatical points are selectively applied for purposes of trolling.”

    HOWEVER, the sentence’s meaning is unclear. It could also mean:

    “There are many examples to show how he selectively applies his grammatical points for purposes of trolling.”

    PS. my point is not about grammar, it is about knowing how to write.

  282. Misha says:

    If Newman is sincere, he’d look into the views differing from Hoare’s and directly reply to them.

    Idiotlogues are known for blindly cheering someone or some movement without criticism.

  283. Chrisius Maximus says:

    How can a reality be fact-based?

  284. Misha says:

    Too bad Chris can’t get a job teaching grammar to people who he trolls against.

    They’d have to pay the students a good chunk of change for that.

    I could follow someone elses’s route (initials IS) which proceeded to ignore Chris after he lodged a rather childish barb at him.

  285. Misha says:

    He does it again. Off topic trolling.

    Fact based opinions and raw facts to be precise.

    Matter that I deal with over sensationalistic claims that aren’t so fact based.

  286. Misha says:

    BTW, grammar pertains to writing as well.

  287. Misha says:

    Chris

    You aren’t normal, which makes your “normal language comment” to not be so pertinent.

  288. Misha says:

    Children are known for getting off topic when the discussion is on matter they know little about.

  289. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Well see Mike. your nonshorthand stuff reads exactly like your shorthand stuff.

    For instance, here is a paragraph in Mike language:

    “The G word (genocide) continues to be used against the Serbs. Compiled research data indicates that within the year to year and a half of Kosovo fighting before the NATO bombing, there were about 2,000 fatalities out of the province’s 2 million population. About 500 of the 2,000 casualties were Serbs, who at the time were said to make up 10% of the population. Per capita wise, Serbs suffered considerably more. A good number of the Albanian casualties included those who showed a willingness to work within the existing government framework. I was forwarded statistical data confirming that Washington DC has had greater annual murder rates than what has been referenced to Kosovo. Regarding the stated pre-NATO bombing Kosovo conflict death toll, feel free to forward any well established documentation to the contrary.”

    Here it is in Normal Person. I have included editorial comments:

    “The accusation of ‘genocide’ [“G word” serves no purpose] continues to be used against the Serbs. Data indicate [subject-word agreement — “data” is plural!]that within the year to year-and-a-half of fighting in Kosovo [“Kosovo fighting”? Kosovo is a noun, not an adjective] before the NATO bombing, there were about 2,000 fatalities out of the province’s population of 2 million. About 500 of these [casualties and fatalities are different things — word “casualty” replaced. Also, the 2000 figure has already been given] were Serbs, who at the time made up 10% of the population [why “said to make up”? According to whom?]. Serbs suffered considerably more per capita [“per capita wise”???]. A good number of the Albanian casualties [AGAIN — casualties or fatalities?] included people who had shown a willingness to work within the existing government framework. I was forwarded statistical data [what data? from whom? we need a source] confirming that Washington DC has had greater annual murder rates than what was recorded in Kosovo. Feel free to forward any reliable documentation [what is “well-established documentation”? It has a good pedigree?] that contradicts what I have stated about the stated [stated by whom? by you? I can’t change this until I know the source] pre-NATO bombing Kosovo conflict death toll.”

    The last sentence should really be placed in parentheses or in a footnote, as it does not follow from the flow of the paragraph.

  290. Chrisius Maximus says:

    Mike language:

    “Matter that I deal with over sensationalistic claims that aren’t so fact based.”

    Normal-person language:

    “I deal with issues like these, not poorly backed sensationalist claims.”

  291. Misha says:

    If he wanted to, he can do that to countless others. Note the obsessive/compulsive effort on his part.

    In any event, why believe him when he admitted to lying about a translation? A lie that I didn’t buy into.

    Moreover, try dealing with the content of what’s said.

  292. Misha says:

    BTW Chris, an Ivy League English professor said that you’re off the wall.

    Why doesn’t RTTV hire you for their web editing? There’re frequent snafus there.

    Normal people don’t typically carry on at length with people who carry on like yourself.

    I’ve a charitable side to me.

  293. Misha says:

    Chris Doss: Failed Editor and Troll.

  294. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “BTW Chris, an Ivy League English professor said that you’re off the wall.”

    The Pope told me that you’re a kleptomaniac.

  295. Misha says:

    His idea of a great comeback.

  296. Chrisius Maximus says:

    “Chris Doss: Failed Editor and Troll.”

    Mike, I have a job. As an editor. As a matter of fact, I’m editing “Forming a Priori Neutron Spectra of Nuclear Facilities Using Maxwellian Spectra” right now. Thus, I cannot logically be a failed editor, now can I?

  297. Misha says:

    Prove it! (Dossesque reply, with my not really caring to know)

    You’re a clear failure in other ways Chris.

    It shows by how you’ve carried on here.

  298. Misha says:

    Chris:

    I appeared on an hour long panel with Khrushcheva, Zagorsky and Bukovsky and was paid an hourly fee that you no doubt haven’t come close to earning.

    On a prime time NY talk radio show, I held my own with a leading Muslim cleric and the editor of the largest Albanian language newspaper in the US.

    I got high marks at those gigs, to go along with some of my written material getting picked up at big time venues.

    One upsmanship lacks an appeal to many.

    I could easily ignore you and probably should.

    On the other hand, why let troll like behavior affect my appearing or not appearing here?

  299. Sean says:

    Clearly its time to close this thread down. What am I going to do with you jerk offs?

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top