Letter to an Ultimate Cybernat

Hello. A twitter spat directed me to your blog today, which I’d have posted this on if you hadn’t so cowardly and hypocritically banned me from posting some time ago.
At my age I have an ingrained sense of fair play which let’s me sum up and judge the motivations of an honest Indy supporter – of which there are plenty – and a hate peddling bigot of which you are a prima facie example.
So, I’ll write my piece here instead. It won’t make any difference because virtually nobody reads this blog anyway. Consider yourself lucky.

Old codger picks on the  young because they had the bloody cheek not to be born during Thatcher's political rein. Youngsters nowadays eh?

Old bigoted codger picks on the young because they had the bloody cheek not to be born during Thatcher’s political reign. Youngsters nowadays eh? Don’t know they’re bloody born.

I don’t consider your post to be “Tom-Paine-like eloquence” or “polemic” for that matter. I consider it an archetypally sad example of something we used to call “wee man syndrome” which in your case is also known by the term “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”. For someone so evidently bigoted, the polarisation, aggressive tribalism and nihilistic absence of empathy displayed in your post is far more tragic than it is when those much saner and more comfortable than you recoil in horror from the ideas of dogmatic Nationalistic McCarthyism.

It seems you fancy yourself a spokesperson for Independence, yet you’d rather call people who actually live here “anti-Scots” or “moronic” because they are either sceptical of Independence or reject it outright.

Perhaps your grasp and understanding of that reality is distorted by the fact that your unrestrained ego leaves no room for other opinion other than those emanating from your own febrile imagination.

I’m guessing you’re a 24 hour internet connected middle aged single, never married, mostly unemployed, male with no progeny or siblings and too much time on your hands. As such, despite your claim of having nothing to do with the SNP, you identify with the First Minister so strongly that you sometimes find it hard to separate attacks on him from attacks on your self. Hence your self serving monologue picking on a young woman who disagrees with your political outlook.

Many people would consider it a great source of shamefulness that the modern campaign for Scottish independence has resorted to wholesale substanceless assertion, bluster, bluff and lies to make its case, and has relied on attacks accusing fellow Scots as “treacherous”, “Quisling” or suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome”.

It seems you consider Scottish civic nationalism as a vehicle allowing you carte blanche to hector, bully and attempt to humiliate your perceived opponents/enemies. You also repeatedly attempt to disassociate the campaign from the Braveheart effect, despite the SNP having directly attempted to recruit new members after showings of the movie some time ago.

Crowing in triumph, you suffer from a malady displayed by many advocates of Independence, namely, a denial of reality evidenced by a recent post allegedly rebuffing Barroso and Scotland’s incorrectly alleged automatic entry into the EU. I note that almost everyone other than you knows how damaging that letter was to the SNP’s case for “independence within Europe” which, like you, is fundamentally oxy-moronic.

You also can’t resist regurgitating the turgid mantras of the fundamentalists, namely: “What nation do you consider to represent a military threat to the people of Scotland?”. I would answer “I don’t know”, but when Angus Robertson says that we need to be a part of NATO or risk a radar “black hole” protecting our oil fields, then it’s fair to conclude that Mr Roberston has a potential enemy in mind.

You might retort that we could rely on NATO for defence rather than our “colonising” masters at Westminster, but that opens up the other contradictory dilemma of SNP assertions: namely that we would only be part of NATO on condition that we get rid of Trident. You need only look at Germany or the implications of the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defense Agreement to realise the risibly dangerous and potentially catastrophic game that is.

When I read your blog post, it felt like a patronising rebuttal by an old misogynistic curmudgeon lecturing the young for being too silly and lacking in experience to express a feasible opinion. But as you have expressed some of the most abhorrent morally outrageous opinions on subjects as diverse as chemical fires, 9/11, feminism, Rangers supporters, Hillsborough victims and old soldiers, that feeling is demonstrably false. Your blog site is much more pathologically hateful than that. Scary almost.

If you read these words, I’m sure you’ll call me “mad”, “stupid”, “hate blinded” or a “stalker”. You are nothing if not tediously predictable it has to be said. But to see you attempt to take some sort of high ground as if you had any kind of room for manoeuvre is distasteful at best and totally repugnant at worst.

When faced with a perceived threat which could be so potentially catastrophic and traumatic as independence, normal people – unlike you – are apt to look for certainty and/or reassurance. So far this is so demonstrably lacking from the SNP and Yes campaign that it does indeed grant more than justifiable licence for the opinions expressed by young Kayleigh. More power to her against the likes of you.



Filed under Culture, CyberNats, Opinion, Wangs Watch

7 responses to “Letter to an Ultimate Cybernat

  1. Alan Wallace

    Wish I’d said that ,fantastic letter.

  2. mike

    None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.!

  3. Thankyou Allan

    I can tolerate anything but the intolerant. It needed said.


  4. Funny the way Stu’s post starts by saying that he can’t be bothered with a few mouseclicks to respond on Kayleigh’s site, yet he then manages 1,000 words with umpteen links etc on his own blog. And indeed he’s registered with Blogger anyway, since he’s left a few comments on my own blog in the past under a registration, and ‘Rosettes Are Red’ is a Blogger site.

    And it all goes downhill after that. I mean, ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ FFS.

    But maybe that explains why Stu has been trapped in Bath for a few years and voted LibDem for such a long time, hehe.

    ‘Bath Syndrome’ is perhaps a more apt pyschological condition, but I won’t attempt to define it, hoho.

    • Lochee-ite

      It’s true about the reference to Braveheart though, the SNP’s moved on to Disney’s Brave; trying to catch the 16 year old voters?

    • Stuart
      Indeed. It’s a fundamentally dishonest starting point. Which true to his Modus Operandi is in keeping with his whole debating style.

      Still, by pointing that out, you realise you are merely being a troll who needs to waken up and set yourself free. 🙂

      ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ FFS.

      I suppose living in a cupboard under the stairs in Bath gives you a warped perspective.

      Like the idea of Bath syndrome. By all accounts he’s a bit of a pariah there re:Future Publishing which probably explains moving onto Indy where his polarised myopia finds a ready and willing audience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s