I intervened, posting as Brooklynowes, in a discussion on WDYWTTA about whether Iran should have nuclear weapons, something backtothepoint appeared to be supporting:
brooklynowes, 5 September 2010 7:28AM
Can I assume that your red five point star is an ideological statement as well as your avatar?
Had you been around at the time of the Cuban Missile confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States you’d remember that the danger of nuclear war was probably at its greatest and where humanity’s end through such a conflict was probably more widely believed than it’s end through global warming is today. I think you’ll find, contrary to your suggestion that the world’s stock of nuclear weapons has been considerably reduced in recent years and particularly since the overthrow of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for your suggestion that we equate the danger of nuclear weapons with that of guns, it is almost as risible as your suggestion that the former are under the control of sociopaths, (formerly known as psychopaths) in the USA and Israel.
Care to name one or two so we can check their mental health records?
If there are any sociopaths around then you need look no further than this:
“Iran has reportedly sentenced Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani – the 43-year-old Iranian woman who faces execution after being convicted of adultery – to 99 lashes in prison for “spreading corruption and indecency” after allowing an unveiled picture of herself to be published in a British newspaper.”
And this is the country whose leaders you want to allow possession of nuclear weapons?
To which backtothepoint responded with the follwoing piece of pro-Soviet propaganda:
backtothepoint 5 Sep 2010, 10:56AM
Yes, the red star reflects the fact that I’m a communist, a member of the French Communist Party.
I was around for the Cuban missile crisis, although I was very young.
That was the crisis where the USA threatened to destroy the world because the USSR planned to install nuclear missiles in Cuba at the same distance from Washington as the US Jupiter missiles already in service in Turkey were from Moscow.
Fortunately, the Soviets were less insanely aggressive than the Americans and agreed to withdraw their missiles in exchange for a guarantee that the USA would no longer mount armed invasions of Cuba.
He continued in similar vein far too long, pointed out that when he called the leaders of the US and Israel “sociopaths”, he meant “metaphorical sociopaths”, and concluded with:
IMO, we really don’t need another Peter Bracken.
By the evening he was convinced he’d discovered Peter Bracken’s doppelgänger, and doubless was relishing being able to expose him to the mods.
Ah, you are Peter Bracken.
You know as little about the PCF, CGT and May 68 as you seem to do about anything else. “Unreconstructed Stalinist” indeed. What a moron!
Earlier I’d called him an “Unreconstructed Stalinist”, given his position on the former Soviet Union and his admiration of the former Stalinist dictatorships of Eastern Europe.
He then returned with what he felt was proof of Brooklynowes being Peter Bracken, quoting from both of our earlier posts:
But poor old comrade BTTP has to see it thorough his opaque red glasses – that Khrushchev saved the world in an act of selfless statesmanship, when in fact the thug had caused the crisis in the first place.
or his clone brooklynowes
And your account of the Cuban Missile Crisis is about as feasible as your lot taking control of anything in France other than a cheap market stall.
Would like to say exactly what is factually unsound in my account, rather than answering it with cheap, unsubstantiated abuse.
But I doubt it.
By the way, re the market stall, the PCF runs many towns and cities in France, including cities with a population of 100,000 or more. You really should try checking the facts before spouting drivel.
He’s quite right of course and the PCF is little more that a social democratic party most of whose members would feel quite at home in Miliband’s or Blair’s Labour Party. Quite why they allow an “armchair suicide bomber” like BTTP within their ranks I don’t know.
So having been challenged on the validity of his detective work he responded:
So Bracken and Brooklynowes have very similar execrable writing styles, shower each other with compliments, use the same technique of claiming that anyone who’s disagreed with them has written things they haven’t, resort to similar abuse when they can’t answer a point and both disappear at the same time.
Draw your own conclusions.
And the following day he returned to the subject with:
Right, on to your “ureconstructed Stalinist” playground jibe.
This, for instance, is a fairly reasonable analysis of the evolution of the party I joined at the start of the 80s, apparently written in 1978 (I haven’t read it all, just this section and slightly before).
There then followed a piece of turgid prose about the “destalinisation” of the French Communist Party in 1956, in which the Stalinist dictatorships of Eastern Europe were referred to as the “Popular Democracies”.
And a few minutes later even more convinved that Peter and I were one and the same, BTTP made an appeal to WDYWTTA’s editor:
Right. Perhaps someone at CiF with a fair knowledge of political symbolism and a sense of humour.
As for your comments on the May 68 student and worker movement in France, which seem to have been parroted from a poorly-written Trotskyist student tract, I’ll be addressing them at length later.
The idea that Peter Bracken is a Trotskyist is really scraping the barrel of political analysis. But BTTP is deadly serious:
Oh dear, I’m really not going to be able to waste too much more time on giving you elementary lessons in political history.
Which of course he did.
I nearly forgot.
Georges Marchais persuaded the comrades to change from uncritical adulation of the Soviet Union to what appears to be something more akin to Tony Blair’s Labour Party.
Priceless! As we say in French, you really have no fear of the ridiculous.
Come on, give us a comparison of the PCF’s positions (especially at the time) and Blair’s programme for New Labour.
Nationalisation of all key industries, for instance? Offhand, I don’t remember Blair suggesting that.
A pity you won’t attempt a comparison. I like a good laugh.
But doubtless after frantic phone calls and emails from the rest of the UT clique, by mid afternoon he’d started to understand what a blunder he’d made, with this glorious retraction:
Yes, I must admit I’m rather confused by the whole brooklynowes thing.
Why on earth would what appears to be a Trotskyist be fawning over a closet-Tory Blairite like you, and vice-versa?
But then why would you invent a second personality to tell yourself how wonderful you are and turn it into a Trotskyist?
All very odd.
Although even then he wasn’t ready to back down:
when you’ve forced yourself through so many contortions and contradictions as you must have done as a member of the PCF
It’d be nice if you addressed points made, rather than immediately resorting to the Bracken strategy of “when lost for arguments, rely on abuse”. So the jury’s still out on whether you’re actually Bracken.
I’d be happy to do something on the PCF when I’ve finished what I’m doing at present.
It might be an idea to ask Jessica if she’s interested, though. She da boss.
At long last and doubtless with his patience tried beyond the acceptable, PeterBracken responded:
What are you on about, turminder? For the past 24 hours BTTP has been suggesting that I am posting as peterbracken and brooklynowes. I let it ride for a while but his persistence requires a denial. He then accepts his error but in terms that peddles the original allegation. And rather upbraiding him for the vacuous smear, you pick me up for describing his flight of fancy ‘stupid’.
Backtothepoint then took two days to come up with this stunning response:
backtothepoint does not reply to peterbracken or his imaginary friend brooklynowes. This is why.
The post he linked to brings up his following statement:
This is something I’ve never done before, but there’s a first time for everything.
It’s absolutely pointless engaging with you because you misquote and misrepresent anyone you don’t agree with and systematically indulge in sometimes homophobic personal abuse, “deluded” being one of the less offensive insults you bandy about. You then declare that you’ve won the argument and say what a splendid fellow you are.
So I won’t be answering any of your posts in future, simply linking back to this post in a message saying:
backtothepoint does not reply to peterbracken. This is why.
So does he still thing Peter and I are the same person? And if he doesn’t is he merely going to dismiss the poverty of his political analysis by blaming Peter, as he did when he accused Xiangchen of being me?