« MMR and the media | Main | Interval »

June 22, 2008



It is always nice to have confirmation that the marxist left is in the vanguard, if not of economic and social relations, then at least of ideas. Thus it is that Rudi Dutschke's strategy of the 1960s (borrowed from Gramsci) -- the Long March Through the Institutions -- is now adopted by the would-be fascist right, with terminology appropriately updated for the Internet age.

Or else, it's a Twilight Zone episode awaiting a greenlight.


I don't know that it would make an episode of the Twilight Zone, but I've often thought that David and his one-man party would make a fine subject for a documentary. And I'm sure he'd agree to participate.

No Good Boyo

I wish to testify before Oliver and all that is good that we in the Cymru Rouge, henceforth to be known as "The Rouge", will put up a Welsh candidate in each and every seat that Lindsay's BPA contests. He may stand, but his slur on the unique Welshness of our former coal will not.

I'r Gad!

David Lindsay

Take it up with Bevan, No Good Boyo. Mind you, as a good New Labour posh Trot (is there another kind?), you have presumably never heard of him.

Anyway, I have posted the following over on Harry's Place in answer to this blogger's whole evening's worth on me, so full and active a life does he lead:

"Oh, for goodness sake, Kamm and all your alter egoes, are you still at it? And no, I do not necessarily spend my evenings on this sort of thing. Get a life!

Let’s go over this again, shall we? You have repeatedly posted these claims (under various names) on the Spectator’s website, where at least one of my offences allegedly took place. They have either been rejected outright, or else rapidly removed at my instigation, followed by thoroughly apologetic emails to me from the moderator. I, by contrast, have never had a comment rejected by that blog, despite the very controversial views that I have frequently expressed there, as I do several times per week, and quite frequently several times per day.

You have doubtless also tried to do this on CiF (another alleged crime scene), but if they have ever even let you up, then I have never seen or been made aware of it. Again, they have no problem putting up even very forthright comments of mine. I suspect that they are simply not interested in the view of someone whose own undoubted lies have led to the murder of one hundred thousand people and the maiming of a further million, and who remains utterly unrepentant. Nor should they be. They do still publish you, but only for the fun of the pillorying that you invariably receive from the readers, who oddly cannot see how the arbiter of left-wingery can be a Tory-voting hedge fund trader and war criminal.

And it should be perfectly clear from the mere existence of the above article that even the editors of Harry’s Place either don’t believe you or don’t care. I strongly suspect the former, since if they did believe you, then they would care.

You really should give it up. Your attempt at a career-ruining campaign against Neil Clark has been spectacularly unsuccessful, and you should learn your lesson. If (which I very much doubt) you believe what you are writing, then you embody the old adage that rich people are called eccentric, whereas poor people are just called mad. However, I do not think that you are mad. You are bad. Very, very, very evil."


Well, this is quite a surprise. I was under the impression that Harry's Place was one of the leading platforms of the neo-conservative junta that runs this country, 'the latest manifestation of the unyieldingly Stalinist, gulag-denying Straight Left faction, which publishes next to nothing except, several times per day, imprisonable incitements to racial hatred'. Now it appears that the editors of Harry's Place have joined the ranks of the BPA's virtual supporters.

One quick question, David: what happened to your pledge that 'I have never posted a comment on Harry's Place, and I never will'?

The comments thread to David's article certainly makes interesting reading, though it doesn't look as though the huddled masses of Harry's Place are rushing in their thousands to join the BPA. Not for the first time I am reminded of the immortal words of Terry Wogan to David Icke: "they're not laughing with you, David, they're laughing at you".


Lindsay has scored a spectacular coup – he has uncovered proof that Boris Johnson is a Nazi, and conspired with the BNP to get elected to roll out a Fascist government in waiting!

David first claimed that Johnson only won on BNP 2nd preference votes. When some pretty simple maths showed that this couldn't be true, a commenter “London ex labour” on David’s blog reveals, “The BNP secretly told its supporters to vote for Johnson as first preference in order to disguise their influence”. David agreed that “it sounds convincing enough to me”.

London ex labour has been tantalisingly slow on details – like how a message was communicated to what must be well over 100,000 people across London without it being leaked out. But David has no such hesitations. The Anti Nazi League and other BNP infiltrators knew about this, of course, but hate Livingstone more than the BNP, so they are involved in the conspiracy too. And the media? Well they all love Johnson as one of them, so they’re all involved in it too. As London ex labour says “He certainly would not have won without that. He knows it. They know it. Everyone who is anyone knows it”

I’m saddened by this state of affairs. Clearly this conspiracy is real, but the political - industrial - media -anti nazi league – ZaNuLab – Straight Left -Trotsykyite - neocon - warmonger complex has stifled it. I turn, in desperation, to the internet, in the hope that someone will bust this conspiracy open. Oliver, in short, I turn to you.

No Good Boyo

I will take it up with Nye, once I get my ouija board back from Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor.

"good New Labour posh Trot" - I'm a High Tory Maoist without a penny to my name, but I appreciate the "good".

And the pledge remains true - where you stand, we stand.

"Ry'n ni'n barod am doriad y wawr"


I am wondering why you are so concerned about a one/two member party that has no serious chance of making any impact electorally.


I am wondering why you are so concerned about a one/two member party that has no serious chance of making any impact electorally.

Because the gap between the size of the BPA's likely impact and the size of its creator's ego makes the Grand Canyon look like a mere crack in the ground. Throw in the total absence of a sense of humour and you have pure comedy gold.

Oliver Kamm

"I am wondering why you are so concerned about a one/two member party that has no serious chance of making any impact electorally."

I don't see how you can say that. It is beyond argument that the Labour Party takes the threat from the British People's Alliance very seriously indeed, judging by the copious abusive (and some supportive) messages that Mr Lindsay receives from Labour MPs. The explanation appears to be apprehension at the prospect of "a mass-membership party enmeshed in civil society". This is surely a development worthy of coverage.

Break Dancing Jesus

David Lindsay - a ridiculous, narcistic man of the highest order.

He fancies himself as the Mussolini of the Provinces. Essentially the man is a cultural fascist who has problems with people who do not speak English and/or are not Christian.

The man is an idiotic, authoritarian, pseudo-intellecutual eccentric posuer. A 40th rate academic who does not seem to do anything remotely useful.


I watch with intrigue and bemusement this ongoing traffic between Oliver Kamm and David Lindsay.

I dip into this site occasionally and manage to keep up only at times, but continue because I regard those few times worth my while. Nicely written by someone who is so obviously a political heavyweight.

I read what David Lindsay has to say, here and over on the Spec' blogs. I catch some of what he says - some of it quite sound and which I appreciate, some of it bordering on heiroglyphic.

What I think needs to be asked though is: why such personal attacks?

What is it about the BPA that OK (and various commenters) finds so threatening? Why, given the hinted-at evil of Mr Lindsay's ideas, doesn't OK get to work on those ideas rather than pecking away at his person, his blogging history etc?

It just seems out of kilter that such a supposed object of ridicule should occupy such a large percentage of the activity here; so much so that I begin to wonder what is going on behind the scenery? Why for instance would the Labour Party, as reported above, sense any danger at all from a party of... well, how many members?

Who knows, I might agree fully with charges laid against this BPA outfit. But until they are laid out, all we have to go on is this - what has become - a very undignified bun-fight.


Must add that whatever his failings, I have to thank David Lindsay for adding the word 'Lusotropicalism' to my lexicon. It's now right up there with 'peristalsis' and 'nebulae'.


What is it about the BPA that OK (and various commenters) finds so threatening?



Commondog,it may have a touch of meanness to it, but i think from my and others perspective the issue is not one of Lindsay's signficance, which is clearly the politcal equivalent of an under ten football team, only with less members. Nay, i fear it is pure mean spirited comedy in the best British tradition of laughing at the self important and deluded. It has no more signficance than a pleasant distraction from the day and for that i am very grateful to the contributors who keep us regaled with Lindsay's latest ramblings. And of course to Lindsay himself for continuing to post here, shovel in hand, digging with al his might the hole of ridicule.


Commondog, you're right to wonder what the Labour Party would have to fear from the BPA - the most obvious answer is "Nothing at all". However, the only evidence we have that the Labour Party does fear, or indeed show any interest at all in, the BPA is the testimony of David Lindsay himself. He claims to receive regular emails from Labour MPs, but he has never named any of them, or published any of them, or produced anything to suggest that this claim is actually true. Since David is, as has been proved at length in this and previous threads on this blog and his own, not a reliable witness, I suggest that it's best not to take his unevidenced claims at face value.

Meanwhile, I have to agree with Michael, dirigible and Stephen about the reason why anyone pays attention to David Lindsay: he's very, very, very funny. That's all.

(Or, to put it another way: someone who claims to be leading a new political party which will rapidly sweep the country is either worthy of comment because his claims are true, or worthy of comment because his claims are ludicrous and hilarious. Either way, he's worthy of comment. Don't assume from the existence of such comment that he's being taken remotely seriously.)


What I think needs to be asked though is: why such personal attacks?

Well, David's antics are irresistibly entertaining. And when he presents his posterior so invitingly, it's hard to resist the temptation to kick it.

But there is a more serious reason. David is an accomplished fantasist, who has made full use of the opportunities offered by the Internet to create a new online personality for himself. It's pure wish-fulfilment, of course, but David would only have needed to entrap a few unwary people (and there are plenty of unwary people out there on the Internet) and the whole thing might have taken on a life of its own. (Look at the way that Neil Clark was nearly hoaxed into signing up for David's new political movement, before realising he'd got his fingers burnt.) It's easy to see through some of his wilder fantasies (the hot line to the Vatican, and so forth) but equally easy to believe that some of it (the supportive e-mails from 'senior Labour figures', for instance) might just be true. Meanwhile, David has used his blog to create an army of imaginary supporters, while censoring anyone who asks awkward questions.

Remember, too, that David was conducting an online campaign against Oliver (accusing him of 'criminal harassment' among other things) long before Oliver deigned to pay any attention to him. That's so David - 'Oliver Kamm is evil, Oliver Kamm should be in prison, everyone hates Oliver Kamm, WHY IS OLIVER KAMM OBSESSED WITH ME?'

Oliver's response has been extremely restrained - no 'personal attacks' that I can see, just sustained irony, and just enough of it to open the door and let the light in on David's fantasy world. Now, thanks to Oliver, anyone Googling for 'David Lindsay' will quickly discover these comment-threads and be able to form their own judgement about the electoral prospects of the British People's Alliance.


On Lusotropicalism: The late Samora Machel, President of Mozambique, once said on a state visit to Zimbabwe that he wished his country had been colonized by the British rather than the Portuguese. Indeed, one of the Machel Government's first decisions was whether or not to keep Portuguese as the official language of the country. So many Portuguese settlers had left, and so few native Mozambicans spoke the language, that the Government seriously considered adopting English as the official national language. They hesitated only for fear of offending Portugal and losing aid. But, in any case they got more, and better, foreign aid from Mrs Thatcher than they did from successive Portuguese Governments. Hence, in time came their successful request to join the Commonwealth.

Based on the evidence just of Mozambique, I can't see Lusotropicalism having much of support in its favour.

sackcloth and ashes

I should say here and now that I would vote for No Good Boyo without any doubts at all, unlike that humourless, pompous twat Lindsay.

Nid yw Cymru ar Werth.


Meanwhile, over at Harry's Place, the comments on David's article continue to provide much entertainment. I'm particularly grateful to one commenter, 'Ignatius', for drawing attention to David's article on Opus Dei, which I had not seen before:

Corporal mortification is an integral part of Catholic spirituality. Catholics need to re-learn moderate self-denial on Fridays, on the Wednesdays in Lent, during Holy Week, on the eves of the Church's greatest Solemnities, and before receiving Communion, as well as the considerable exigencies on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. These are of a piece with the cilice (a spiked chain worn around the upper thigh) and the discipline (a small whip used on the back). Convents manufacturing such items still do a roaring trade ..

I trust Oliver will carry on the Lord's work by providing David with frequent occasions for mortification in the weeks and months to come.


I should say here and now that I would vote for No Good Boyo without any doubts at all, unlike that humourless, pompous twat Lindsay.

Since I live in a rock-solid safe seat with a pretty well impregnable five-figure majority, I'd be only too glad to vote for that humourless, pompous twat Lindsay - if only because it would help fuel his delusions and lead to still greater heights of hilarity.

But this rather depends on whether he gets candidates to stand in every constituency, as I fear mine would be rather a long way away from anyone's target list.

Oliver Kamm

Commondog, thank you for your kind comments. I realise belatedly that this subject is something of an in-joke that will not be clear to anyone coming to it fresh, and I apologise for this.

Break Dancing Jesus

He has made another call for "civil partnerships" for close relatives. I actually think the man wants to "marry" his widowed mother. Weirdo!

He says it is all about inheritance rights. Has he not heard of wills?


An article in this week's Spectator by Rod Liddle includes the following:

"What with the internet, though, you require a different recourse to judge the mental state of a correspondent. A fairly reliable giveaway is the number of people — and indeed the lateral, qualitative spread of people — to whom the email has been cc’d. You notice it’s not just been forwarded to your editor, which is fair enough, but also to the Press Complaints Commission, Scotland Yard, Gordon Brown, the International Court of Human Rights, Margaret Thatcher, Ant and Dec and our Lord Jesus Christ and you know you are, metaphorically, in the land of the green biro."

Readers may wish to consider the truth of this, in the light of posts on David Lindsay's blog here and here.


As the occasional recipient of missives like this at work, I find it's very useful indeed if the sender is too inept to use the BCC field, because a brief glance at the wildly optimistic list of fellow addressees is usually more than enough to trigger the delete key without needing to read much further.

It's interesting that this article should be published in the Spectator, though, because David Lindsay is published by them practically every day.

And what's even more interesting is a nugget that Lindsay inadvertently let slip that he's been corresponding with the Spectator's web editor - the slip being that he broke the habit of a lifetime and actually named him. And by genuine coincidence, he happens to be a friend of mine.

That said, I don't have any particular reason to doubt the veracity of Lindsay's current claim, but do please rest assured that any more eyebrow-raising ones will be investigated behind the scenes.


Thanks to various for responses to my questions. Another I should have asked is: what is it about this site that causes Mr Lindsay to so exercise himself? What are you lot about that he particularly dislikes?


What is it about this site that causes Mr Lindsay to so exercise himself?

Why don't you ask him? However, you may not get an answer, as he has now announced that 'I shan't be discussing this any further'.

Michael, I'd like to know more about David's correspondence with your friend at the Spectator; if you have any more information, do publish it here. By coincidence, I too have a friend who works for a national newspaper. When I mentioned David Lindsay to him, he rolled his eyes, went over to the filing-cabinet and pulled out a thick file labelled 'NUTTERS'. At least this confirms David's claim that he is well-known in the media.


I, too, would be interested to know about David's correspondence with Michael's friend. I'd also be keen to hear more from Simon about his friend - I must say that his story isn't entirely plausible. Why would anyone keep a file of "NUTTERS"? Was your friend at home or at work?

The comments to this entry are closed.