Monthly Archives: April 2014

Mary Queen of Salmond’s speech in Bruges: “Help! Help! We’re being oppressed!”

THEY SAY history repeats. And no one knows that better than Scotland’s very ain history graduate Firstminster, Mary Queen of Salmond. AhDinnaeKen poses the question, are we witnessing a post-modern Scottish reformation in reverse? Or is Salmond just a suck up tart, willing to go to bed with anyone with power who isn’t English?

"A man with Nationalism is always in the majority." - John Knox

“A man with Nationalism is always in the majority.” – John Knox.   Mary Queen of Salmond yesterday.

By Buchérs Appron-Burnérre

MARY QUEEN of Salmond issued his strongest appeal to the forces of European Union unity and reformation yesterday.

“Help us”, he cried. “The big bad English are oppressing us with their terrible parliament and archaic imperialism and we need your protection – they are too many for us.

“What’s more”, he wailed, “They’re calling you guys bad names and are kidding themselves on they don’t want to be part of your gang any more.

“We jist want sum o’ that sovereignty the basturt English ur denying us the noo, so that we can gie it to you, so that we don’t huv it in the future either.

“We want reassurance that we’ll still be able to blame ithers when things don’t go oor way. It’s the Nationalist culture y’ken – a tartan weave fabric of grievance, blame and chip on shooder.

“The case for independence rests on a simple but overwhelming truth – we hate the basturt English. And so should you guys.

“If you don’t hate them as much as we dae, then ye’ll no be gettin’ nae fish fae oor waters.

“Think aboot that. Nae mare smokies, fish and chips or cocktail de langoustines in white vino sauce.

“Ya bass!

“But above all things, we will be yer pal. We think youse ur great. We think yer the greatest thing since the Treaty of Edinburgh was signed by the European Union, Queen Elizabeth I and the Lords of the Congregation – or deep fried Mars bars. Whitever floats yer boat.

“We see a Yes vote as a chance to reverse that treacherous document and bring us back into the fold of European Unification.

“Let me assure you. We urnae Margaret Thatcher. She wis an awfy bad wummin. No that ah’ve got anything against women (wish I could say that wiz reciprocated).

“Thatcher didnae like youse. We dae.

“So gies oor ffrreeddoomm™! Go on. Gie’s it.

“Ye know ye want to. Jist think o’ the fish, the oil and the hot air energy.

“Ah’m yer pal. And if ye’ll no be oor pal, then there’s always Vladimir Putin.

“He wid soon sort ye’s oot if ah gave him the nod.

“So let us in – assuming we achieve oor ffrreeddoomm™ – or yer no gettin’ the fish.

“How civic’s that? Eh?”


Filed under Opinion, Referendum

Bella Caledonia: Self determination and Noam Chomsky’s “intuition”

WRITTEN WITH absolutely no apology in mind, this piece is dedicated to the pretentious culture luvvies, parochial chip on shooder Alan Bissett apologists, and amnesiac butchers apron burners  of AhDinnaeKen’s second favourite indy website, Bella Caledonia. They’re currently ‘all of a lather’ that ‘anarcho-syndicalist (aka pinko-commie) Professor Noam Chomsky has appeared to favour Scottish self-determination. AhDinnaeKen procrastinates:

Picture of Chomsky in a Glasgow pub ordering a pint. "When gods descend from Mount OIympus."

Picture of Chomsky in a Glasgow pub ordering a pint. “When gods descend from Mount OIympus ‘n’ at.” – 1990,  DilettanteYaBass Publications

By Scunner Thow

NOAM CHOMSKY, ‘yer actual Chomsky’ has come out of the closet for Yes. So the line ‘Neurolinguistic Philosophical Genocide Deniers for Yes’ may not trip off the tongue nicely, but at least it’s an eye opener to virtually no one.

Chomsky is allegedly the most cited living political philosopher in the history of the world. He’s rapidly catching up on Cicero – who’s deid, incidentally.

So it’s quite a coup for the Yessers for Chomsky to have said, “My intuition favours independence”.

It’s the sort of thing to induce hypothetical sub-cranial ‘imagineering’ hematomas in the “transformational and regenerative power of independence…..deep structure politics.” as one Bella commenter didnae quite put it.

But is it a game changer in the proto-philosophical unity of political consciousness?

Naw! It isnae. No really.

As Francis Wheen, ‘deputy editor’ of Private Eye, pointed out in his seminal book, ‘How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions’, Chomsky is basically a bandwagonner.

If it’s likely to compromise or embarrass U.S. foreign policy makers, then Chomsky is more than likely to support that bandwagon. The dilemma faced by the potential embarrassment of US allies, the UK, on where to place Trident post-independence is likely to have loomed large in Chomsky’s failure of reason.

And thus we have his “intuition” favouring independence.

Given that Chomsky has made his living, and fortune, from empirical reasoning on topics as diverse as ‘Logical structures of linguistic theory’ to ‘transformational grammar’, his reliance on intuition seems like a bit of atavistic bawbaggage from the National Collective wish tree.

Here’s Mr Wheen’s take on Professor Chomsky’s outlook on Pol Pot:

It's been around for ten years now, but Francis Wheen's book is still worth a read. Funy, thought provoking, iconoclastic and hunners o' ither dilettante phrases could not do it justice.

It’s been around for ten years now, but Francis Wheen’s book is still worth a read. Funy, thought provoking, iconoclastic and hunners o’ ither dilettante phrases, could not do the book justice.

Given that Chomsky has only uttered the one sentence on independence and that the structure and meaning of that sentence is so open to interpretation – there are plenty of get out caveats – it can only be concluded that Mr Chomsky is indulging in an intellectual, neuro-linguistic programming joke beyond the understanding of mere mortals.

Still, no matter the result post Sep 18, Mr Chomsky will be able to say, ‘I told you so, ya dobbers’.

1 Comment

Filed under Newspeak, Opinion

Moan McVulpine: Word of McAlpine is gospel according to the Nationalists

MOAN MCVULPINE discusses the mystery behind the barefaced front of Nationalist mouthpieces, and says they do not represent politics but the comedy wing of Nationalism:

Moan McVulpine Banner
By Moan McVulpinegiving it to them baby

THE NATIONALISTS like to present themselves as the voice of Scotland. But is that true in the real Scotland?

Take their recent attempted demolition of the CBI’s reputation. Everyone and his dog knows that the CBI is mostly Tory. They represent big business and, almost naturally, their values correspond with Tory values. So far, so what.

Furthermore, the CBI have recently shot themselves in the foot – public relations wise – over their recent Declaration of No. They’ve started hemorrhaging Scotland based members due to the ‘partisan’ nature of their stance.

It makes them fair game for the Nationalists.

But, and this is a big but, are certain big ‘N’ Nationalists going over the score in their condemnation of the “bosses union” in order to fulfil a Nationalist mantra – ie ‘we hate the Tories’ and so does Scotland.

Advocates of Scottish history are familiar with our forefathers highly successful use of ‘scorched earth’ tactics to deny tactical advantage to their (mostly English) enemies.

And the recent PR gaffe by the CBI, gives the Nationalists another opportunity to demonstrate their ‘scorched earth’ mindset to achieve a Yes vote.

Post referendum, the CBI are still going to exist – like it or not. Despite the loss of some high profile Scottish members, they’re still going to have a great deal of influence on Scottish business.

Does publicly trashing, not only their High Heid Yin in Scotland, but their integrity and raison d’être, bode well for post-referendum relations with a potential Nationalist government?

Is scorched earth smearing and denigration really the kind of signal a serious political organisation should indulge in?

Particularly when the Big Boss, Sun King Salmond, is such a suck up to corporate moguls like Murdoch, Trump, Amazon et al.

What the attack/smear by Salmond’s ‘special’ aide Ms McAlpine demonstrates is the selective memory of Nationalists:

“The head of CBI Scotland, Iain McMillan, has always been vocal in his opposition, not just to independence but to devolution.” she points out in her weekly comedy relief column in the Daily Ranger.

Have these people ever heard of irony? Or does Ms McAlpine think that a sizeable portion of Scots forget that the Scottish Nationalist Party originally opposed devolution as well.

It’s called ‘selective memory’ and it’s a prominent trait of Nationalists throughout the world, not just the wee jobby Scottish ‘civic’ variety.

Labour ‘couldn’t deliver a pizza, let alone a Parliament‘ sneered Salmond in 1997 before his Damascene conversion to Home Rule.

Of course, McAlpine’s attack makes great copy for the converted to the cause and adds to the feel good ‘momentum’ currently occupying their heids at present.

So much so, that McAlpine takes off on a flight of fancy and compares the Business for Scotland wing of National Collective to the CBI.

It took me a couple of rolls of lavy paper to soak up the tears of laughter.

As pointed out by ‘evil unionist’ anti-independence Tweeter @brigadoongent, Business for Scotland is only marginally more/less credible than Labour for Indy and its ‘swelling’ ranks.

Both organisations fulfil a key element of the recently formed Nationalist shibboleth that the Yes campaign is more than the Nationalist party.

Aye, right!

But, since when has reality stopped Nationalists from making laughable assertions?

Answers in green crayon to evil Tory mouthpiece, the CBI.



Filed under Moan McVulpine, Opinion

Moan McVulpine: My cut and keep guide to pensions duplicity if Scotland votes Yes

MOAN says the Skintish Parliament have done well to give the impression they care about pensioners. Which is why you can never trust anything a Nationalist has to say.
Moan McVulpine Banner
By Moan McVulpineprepared to do and say what it takes

I WAS pretty chuffed to hear that some readers keep clippings articles from An Independent Parliamentary Aide.

Metric tonnes of Daily Mails’ are no longer languishing in blue bins throughout Skintland.

I understand why people want reassurance.

The Parliamentary code and the Ministerial code will always let Nationalist parliamentarians off the hook whenever they’re in a tight spot.

So reach for the scissors and read on.

Will I get my reputation back?

Yer havin a laff. Hardly anyone in Scotland even knows who or what I am. So no reputation to lose means no loss of reputation. Sorted!

Will I be more careful with which photographers I give taxpayer money to?

F**kin’ too right! I have promised myself to ‘triple lock’ my vanity, my needs and my sentimental urges. A Yes vote will mean that I can then open that triple lock and act with impunity. So, more of the same really.

What about the new single tier immunity from repercussions being offered by the Firstminster?

Yes. The Skintish civil service have already gone native. Effectively, we will be able to do the same, act the same and get away with the same kind of crass behaviour as MPs currently demonstrate at the hated Westminster.

But I am disgusted by the actions of Westminster MPs, will we stil get that?

As touched on above. We’re currently second rate when it comes to acting like our Westminster brethern. With independence we will soon catch up within a year or two.

But can an independent Skintland afford such goings on?

Who cares. We’ll be in power. We’ll have a compliant civil service, a centralised police force and a grass roots agentura willing to photograph and report back to centralised locations anyone considered “anti-Scottish”. Sorted!

The Nationalists have done well in pretending that some of the best parts of Skintish legislation are ours – free bus passes and personal care for example – when they were introduced by the Labouring party.

That’s why you should have nothing to fear from Nationalist led independence. It means nothing matters other than power in Nationalist hands. And who but the “anti-Scots” could possibly fear that?



Filed under Moan McVulpine

Moan McVulpine: Margo MacDonald was one of a kind…but not one of us.

MOAN reckons Scots taking Margo’s advice would recognise the Scottish Nationalist Party for what they are: “snakes and assassins”.
Moan McVulpine Banner

By Moan McVulpineputting the ‘selective’ into selective memory

MARGO MACDONALD never grumbled about pain.

She did grumble about the SNP though.

She phoned just three weeks ago, offering advice when an imperialist anti-Scots newspaper exposed me for the snake and character assassin I truly am.

“Remember, the Scottish civil service has gone native,” she laughed.

“Along with your ‘patronage’ from Salmond, I reckon you could dance naked on the grave of Winston Churchill complete with a Nationalist Front symbol and still be exonerated by the Big Parish Cooncil at Holyrood.”

I asked her about wives with a grievance.

“Never mind the wee people whose lives get destroyed!”, she commanded, “You’re a seasoned Nationalist now and it’s time you found out that it doesn’t matter whose life you f**k up or whose character gets assassinated when Scotland’s destiny is at stake.”

I was very much in awe of her. Margo was someone who commanded respect and love in equal measure from friends and foes alike – apart maybe from Alex Salmond, Stewart Hosie, John Swinney et al.

Whereas, unlike me, I just have to open my gaffe prone mouth and people begin to wonder just how ‘civic’ and ‘progressive’ the Scots brand of Nationalism really is.

She talked like my gallus auntie Christine: “It’s well seen you’re mah sister’s wean” she used to say. “If you wur mine ah’d huv ye slapped purple ya nasty wee piece of work.”

In those days, people used to care about things like honour and duty and inappropriate use of public funds.”

But not me. Or the Scottish parliament. Or Sun King Salmond. Obviously!

Working-class people from Scotland’s industrialised heartlands were stereotyped as inarticulate drunks.

Now they’re more likely to stereotype absentee parliamentarians – when they don’t turn up to ask questions they’ve tabled – as whining drunks.

Mind ye. At least Pinot Grigio is a more upmarket bottle of hooch to get ‘oot yer heid’ on these days.

Forward! As I believe our Thatcher inspired conference motto has become.


[Apologies for the lateness, shortness and inappropriate hour of this belated Moan whine. It wiz the Daily Ranger’s fault – honest son/hen – nuthin tae dae wi me. Ah’ve reported mahsel tae the appropriate authorities and will be exonerated by next week. ]

1 Comment

Filed under Moan McVulpine

Unionists accused of being “anti-Scots” by SNP endorsed website

NOT CONTENT with ‘othering’ Scotsman journalists as rats, the quasi-political, Nazi inspired website, Wings Over Scotland, uses Panelbase poll figures to ‘prove’ that Unionist No voters are actively working against their fellow countrymen. Or so the diminutive demagogue would have you believe. AhDinnaeKen exposes the alleged ‘facts’:

The poster they tried to ban - because it was inaccurate and shite. Funny that!

The poster they tried to ban – because it was inaccurate and shite and looked like the Nationalist Front had arrived in town. Funny that!

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

TWENTY PER cent of Unionists are “anti-Scots” according to a Nationalist supported website.

SNP endorsed, Wings Over Scotland, claimed yesterday that “almost a fifth” of Unionists were actively working against the interests of their own countrymen.

And the website reinforced the claim by referring to recent Panelbase poll data and a ‘cited’ and ‘sourced’ link to another Wings story.

In an analytical polemic entitled, ‘Looking forward with trepidation’, editor of Wings Over Scotland, Stuart Campbell, concluded:

“Advocates of independence are sometimes accused of regarding the No camp as “anti-Scottish”.

“But with nearly 20% of them apparently intending to knowingly and consciously vote for worse treatment for Scotland, it seems to be a charge of which a significant proportion of Unionists are – by their own admission – clearly guilty.”

The phrase “by their own admission” links to another Wings story (Surprise! – Ed) where the use of “their” to imply the plural is soon exposed to be bogus – it refers to the words of one man; ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow, Michael Kelly.

Interestingly, Kelly, holds no position of power in the Labour party and now conducts his business as a “writer and PR consultant”.

Further scrutiny of the Wings link further exposes the tenuous sham of its guilt by association claim.

Following a question from BBC Newsnight’s Gary Robertson on the impact of the chancellor’s ‘No currency union’ speech and Ed Balls support of it, Michael Kelly said: “I believe that Labour in Scotland would be fully behind Balls’s decision today if he was the chancellor.”

The use of the phrase “I believe” by Kelly can hardly be construed as a “significant proportion of Unionists” as asserted by Campbell. Or, for that matter, a concrete reading of the Unionist’s stance in Scotland.

The ‘cited and sourced’ fact of the matter is that Wingsy’s fallacious accusation relies, yet again, on the type of traits and behaviours engaged in by most extremists – all neatly documented by the Laird Wilcox Extremist Traits list.

Paragraph 3, IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS of the Laird Wilcox list states:

“Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgements on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.”

The treacherous logic of Wingsy’s sweeping statement – based on the underpinning belief that to be against the currency union is to be anti-Scottish – runs as follows: Michael Kelly is a Labour supporter; he says that Scottish Labour MPs will support Balls; therefore all Scottish Labour MPs will suport Balls because a Labour supporter said they will; Scottish Labour MPs are a ‘signnificant proportion’ of Unionists, therefore the use of the plural “their” means a significant proportion of Unionists are – by their own admission – clearly guilty of being anti-Scottish.

No one but Michael Kelly said what he said. Using extremist based fallacious logic, Wingsy conflates that Kelly’s belief is analagous to a “significant proportion” of Unionists?!

Any lawyer worth his salt would have realised the truth behind the alleged SPT ban was in fact entrenched in the 1986 Local Government Act. But hey ho, why let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory.

Any lawyer worth his salt would have realised the truth behind the alleged SPT ban was in fact entrenched in the 1986 Local Government Act. But hey ho, why let the ‘facts’ get in the way of a conspiracy theory.

Wings endorsers, acolytes, donators readers and supporters, often claim on social media that opponents frequently attack the man but cannot touch his ‘cited’ and ‘sourced’ facts.

It’s this type of risible claim which ensures that no one with half a sceptical brain can actually stop laughing long enough to realise the potential threat posed by Wings and his legions of fervered agentura.

The flip side of such sweeping generalisations is the real and present danger lurking underneath the surface of virtually every Wings post.

For Nationalism to work, it needs a common, readily identifiable enemy to vilify, castigate and ‘other’. In Wings case it is the ‘cornered rats’ of the media and the contemptible “anti-Scots” Unionists.

Both are readily identified and ‘othered’ as “enemies” of Wingsy’s Nationalist cause and are therefore easily demonised and dehumanised. It’s an example of the site’s “merciless contempt” for its perceived enemies.

Of course, within reason, Wingsy can say what he wants. His brand of low-level, distasteful and repugnant hate speech has been droning on for some time now and has been gaining ever more support amongst the desperate and the Nationalist minded.

Some of his infantile rages may even have a spark of truth in them. Much more important for supporters, neutrals and opponents alike is to understand the fundamental philosophy driving the agenda of the man behind it.

Campbell wants opponents to hate him. He’s openly stated as such. He zealously reciprocates the hate. The success of his website owes a great deal to that basic truism. It’s why much of the ‘robust polemic’ of the site can be considered hate speech.

Here’s a reminder of a bona fide Campbell quote:

“It’s not enough just not to care what idiots think. I actively want idiots to hate me. I want the battle lines clearly drawn, and I don’t want fuckwits on my side.”

There’s no link to this quote, Campbell closed down the discussion Forum from where it orginates. But the action proves, if nothing else, that he’s fully aware of the potential damage the Forum could cause him – some of his statments on rape victims, for example, were deleted way before AhDinnaeKen got the chance to look at them.

Once you understand Wingsy’s basic philosophical hate based agenda, it becomes easier to see the subtext behind the motivation of the site.

As AhDinnaeKen outlined in our* last post, Wingsy’s trying his damnedest to incite some kind of low level street violence within the indy debate.

He recently posted yet another blog, complete with video, of an alleged SDL member haranguing Yes campaigners in an aggressive, deeply unpleasant and disturbing manner.

Such footage is mana from heaven for a hate-preacher like Cambpell. The SNP along with high-profile hangers on like Aamer Anwar – to be safe from some of the less savoury accusations raised against Nationalism – need to distance themselves from this site.

Otherwise they will be tainted by association with the repugnant and distasteful beliefs of diminutive demagogue, Stuart Campbell.

And that would be unfortunate – for everyone involved.

The belief was already there. The Panelbase poll merely provided the figures to hang the shameful accusation on the Unionists.

As the above demonstrates, the ‘anti-Scots’ belief was already there with Wingsy. The Panelbase poll merely provided the figures to reinforce the incitefully shameful accusation. Lies, damned lies and statistics etc. Weel din Wingsy sark! Yer a hate-preacher right enough.


Filed under Media, Newspeak, Wangs Watch

Nazi inspired Wings Over Scotland compares journalists to rats

WINGS OVER Scotland is flush with other people’s money. It’s proven that the front page of the Sunday Times can be purchased for circa £5000, and its editor is on an adrenalised ego fuelled high. Take note, Murdoch haters, the Thunderer’s headlines are up for grabs to extremists with a grievance. AhDinnaeKen decided to embark on a little sojourn into the post Panelbase rantings of diminutive demagogue, Stuart Campbell:

The danger of the extremist is that they deal in semi-plausible generalisms which can easily trap and seduce the unwary.

The danger of the extremist is that they deal in semi-plausible generalisms which can easily trap and seduce the unwary. Wings’ recent post, “Playing with fire” is a case in point.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

AHDINNAEKEN HAS long maintained that Wings Over Scotland is the mouth piece of a hate driven extremist/narcissist. The site’s rantings, frothings and polemics, invariably fit the cliched and archetypal behaviours of extremists as outlined in the handily compact Laird Wilcox list of ‘Extremist Traits’ .

Wilcox concocted the list over a period of several years having studied numerous high profile extremist groups operating on the fringes of American society: groups like the Ku Klux Klan, anti-abortionists, homophobic religious groups and Nazis, pseudo-Nazis etc.

As with any disseminators of extreme views, the modus operandi of Wings is uncannily similar to the disparate groups studied by Wilcox.

With its grievance based rhetoric, dedicated coterie of followers and well established hate figures to blame, the site displays all the stereotypical hallmarks associated with extremism.

The preface quote of the Wilcox list states, “The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”

If you stripped all of the posts in the Wings site, which are almost exclusively dedicated to attacking Campbell’s perceived opponents, you’d be left, anecdotally speaking of course, with about twenty posts or fewer.

Despite all of its author’s sanctimoniously self righteous doom sayering, Wings is positivity-lite and overly reliant on negative ‘othering’ – the extremist’s precedent.

The definition of the logical fallacy of ‘damning the alternatives’ states that, so long as you’re blaming others and putting them on the back foot, you don’t have to pay too much attention to the holes in your own arguments. It’s the classic fall back of the partisan extremist.

The Wings site’s main philosophy takes this fallacy literally. It runs along the lines of: if Scotland doesn’t vote to break away from the subjugating chains of Westminster imposed serfdom, then we’re all doomed forever and a day to suffer at the hands of our Tory imperialist masters. Anything or anyone standing in the way of the chance to break away from such a doom laden scenario is to be treated with “merciless contempt”.

Such “contempt” invariably relies on a variety of colourful epithets and abusive analogies using colourful word such as: ‘c**ts’, retards, thickos, scum, cowards, spineless, illiterate, liars, dicks etc etc etc. Reading Wings has been compared to trying to swim in an effluent encrusted sewer after you’ve been punched in the solar plexus with a jack hammer and had your head thrust underneath the surface.

AhDinnaeKen has read Wings and we* reckon it’s much less pleasant than that.

Which brings us* to one of Wings latest posts on a subject matter the hate-preacher is increasingly desperate to see break out soon in the debate – street violence. Entitled ‘Playing with fire’, the piece is a powerplay of logical fallacy, irresponsible sweeping generalisations and outright repugnant nastiness – it relies on eleven links (count ’em) and a video of an unhinged individual committing a breach of the peace against some perfectly civilised Yes campaigners going about their campaigning business, to make its awful point.
Facebook Wings
The Wings Facebook page (see above), in an ironically hilarious paradox, heralds the post thus: “Terrified of the polls, the No camp tries to start a war:

Oh dear! Oh dear! More realistically, if the words ‘the’ and ‘No’ were replaced in that sentence by the words ‘Wings Over Scotland’, it would make much more sense. Otherwise it’s merely abusive analogy.

After reading the post, it’s plain for all to see that Campbell’s champing at the bit for something decidedly unpleasant to happen during the debate. It will give him the chance to ramp up the rhetoric, point the fevered righteous finger of blame at his perceived enemies and deliver some rousing ‘man the barricades’ styled polemic to whip up his “creepy as f**k” cabal of shadowy agentura and profligate donators.

In the shouty rant, he ignites several Nationalist grievances with a single incendiary flame: he compares the Scotsman to rats for changing their headline on a story reporting the latest indy Panelbase poll; stomps all over a foolish Lanarkshire Labour councillor; links an unhinged individual to the Better Together campaign; reminds his readers that the first casualty of violence in the indy debate was a pro-Yes campaigner; unbeknowingly highlights that Wings polemical style isn’t too far removed from that of George Galloway’s; evokes the spectre of sectarianism; claims that Yes campaigners have already been subjected to coordinated intimidation; and likens the Better Together camp to petrol bomb wielding Loyalist extremists.

It’s a post which encapsulates, to varying stereotypical degrees, almost every listed trait and cliche in the Laird Wilcox list.

Campbell likes to trumpet that his alleged ‘facts’ are sourced and cited as if that somehow gives them an unimpeachable credibility and integrity. It doesn’t. It just adds to the hilarity/shock value when you check the alleged cited sources. Invariably and inevitably the sources are Wingsy himself.

Of the eleven links provided in the story, eight of them source straight back to previous Wings posts. All things taken into consideration, it’s the professional equivalent of onanistic navel gazing or vanity led pseudo-journalistic narcissism, or both. Take your pick.

In effect Campbell is saying, “of course this piece is cited, sourced and factually correct, I wrote it myself”. Ye couldnae make it up.

AhDinnaeKen decided to delve a bit further for research purposes and checked all of the links.

We*’d like to say we were surprised by what we* discovered. But we* weren’t. Campbell’s linked sources are a mostly necrotic parasitic treatise of newspaper/media based voyeurism, ghoulishly raking over the bones of desperation and grievance which are fatally underpinned by some deeply unpleasant Nazi inspired propaganda. Or something like that.

AhDinnaeKen is fairly sure that any decent Nationalist or Yes campaigner is bound to be repelled by the hate-speech delivered within Campbell’s piece ‘Playing with fire’.

For example, the first link in the hatemongering polemic relies on some infamously notorious Nazi inspired imagery.

A frame from the 'Eternal Jew'. A film which used the same kind of language against the Jews as Campbell used against Scotsman journalists.

A frame from the ‘Eternal Jew’. A Nazi inspired propaganda film which used the same kind of dehumanising language against the Jews as Campbell used against Scotsman journalists. Coincidence or magic? You decide!

Castigating the Scotsman for its unexplained ‘jigging’ of a web based headline on the most recent referendum poll, the linked to piece entitled ‘Cornered rats’ unsurprisingly compares the Scotsman to ‘cornered rats’.

In the ‘Eternal Jew’, a pre-war Nazi propaganda film aimed at whipping up anti-semitic hatred, pictures of rats running through a sewer were likened to Jews corrupting the ‘purity’ of the German volk. It’s the epitome of hate induced incitement and its something which every right thinking individual should guard against and protest at in the strongest possible terms.

And while the Scots brand of Nationalism cannot and should not be associated with such repulsive imagery, the same cannot be said of Campbell himself. Why else would he make such a comparison to Scotsman journalists, complete with a picture of said rats? It’s anathema to, and has no place in, the independence debate.

Such imagery, analogy and comparison would normally be condemned out of hand by any pluralistic democrat. But not by Campbell’s acolytes. One even commented: “…treat them with the desdain (sic) they deserve, as they are not worthy of anything but contempt.”?!

Another self-referential link in Campbell’s hate piece refers to the physical assault of Yes supporting octogenarian, James McMillan, who was attacked in the street some time ago by a middle aged women suffering from an apparent rush of blood to the head.

There’s no excuse for such attacks on anyone, never mind a fragile old man. What Campbell likes to ignore in the original story printed in the Edinburgh Evening News however, is that the attacker is reported to have stood looking shocked at the consequence of what she had done – instantly remorseful.

Instead, Campbell chose to refer to the incident as a ‘brutal attack‘ rather than provide a balanced sense of perspective. It wouldn’t suit his purposes to refer to it any other way.

Balanced reporting would inevitably impede Campbell’s intention to ‘incite through moral outrage’ – a classic extremist trick – a variation of the Hun pitchforking babies no less.

One of the few non-Wings cited links concerns Campbell’s attack on everyone’s love to hate figure, George Galloway. Campbell implies that Galloway and his idiosycnratic brand of sectarian scaremongering is part of the Better Together campaign.

Here’s a quote from the Spectator regarding their view on Galloway: “It is a reminder that for all nationalists complain about Unionist ‘scaremongering’, the official campaign is a pussy-cat when compared to Gorgeous George’s approach.

Contrast and compare the above quote with Campbell’s froth. He raged: “But as an increasingly-desperate No campaign issues ever more shrill and incendiary allegations – the former Labour MP George Galloway is currently touring Scotland…”

The guilt by association – which doesn’t exist – is so transparent and easily debunked it’s embarrassing. It does expose, however, the mind set, pathology and driving philosophy behind Campbell’s site; othering, demonisation, obfuscation, guilt by tenuous association, polarisation and hatred.

Above all things though, Campbell wants his ‘side’ to be hated by the other side. He bluntly stated as such in a discussion forum he used to run, pre Wings, when he was still writing deeply meaningful treatises on the merits of the  Metal Slug 7 videogame over Metal Slug 3 and whether owning a Metal Slug port ROM on CD is as good as possessing the original cart.

Exciting and crucial stuff for a man in his 40s, we* know!

This is what Campbell said: “It’s not enough just not to care what idiots think. I actively want idiots to hate me. I want the battle lines clearly drawn, and I don’t want fuckwits on my side.”

AhDinnaeKen would have linked to this insightful and fundamental philosophy but, following our* exposure of the ‘courageous’ Campbell as an alleged rape apologist, access to the forum has been strictly denied to everyone and anyone.

"The WoS forums are now closed. Thanks to everyone who visited over the years." Wings acolytes could maybe ask Campbell why they* chose to close the forum. Scared of what else would be exposed?

“The WoS forums are now closed. Thanks to everyone who visited over the years.” Wings acolytes could maybe ask Campbell why they* chose to close the forum. Scared of what else would be exposed? Some of it was pretty damn embarrassing.

We* could go on, but this piece is way too long already.

The main thrust of Campbell’s diatribe centres around what is fairly disturbing footage of an alleged SDL member haranguing and harrassing peacable Yes campaigners going about their business.

The links peppered throughout the running narrative attempts to build an idea of a sense of desperation from the ‘other side’ which will result in some kind of violence which is neatly encapsulated by the disturbing video posted to accompany the piece.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that the individual involved in the video should have received a warning from the police and been moved on or have been arrested. It makes unpleasant watching/listening, but it’s no more than the tribal idiocy of the football terraces invading the streets.

It’s this type of thing that Campbell wants to see more of. He’ll revel in it it if it happens. It fuels his brand of polarising hate-preaching extremism.

The real irony of the whole hateful piece is that Campbell’s the same type as the alleged SDL chap, only Campbell chooses to remain indoors with his keyboard and his horde of rat friends.

The really sinister message of Campbell’s hate polemic resides in its last two lines:

“With no small measure of grim, dark irony, we call on all independence campaigners to turn the other cheek, to keep calm and to carry on.”

It’s so heavily laden with the fallacy of ‘accent’ as to be meaningless and completely open to the interpretation of the reader.

As Ian Smart so sagely said to Nationalist Twitter personality, Natalie McGarry the other day: “If the Nats don’t break with Wings then the only conclusion is that he is your agent. Hope the papers do you proper for it.”

Campbell’s shameful piece is a textbook example of why some of the more touchy feely Wings supporting Nationalists such as Junior Minister Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Angus MacNeil MP, Stewart Hosie MP and Joan McAlpine MSP, need to reappraise their support/endorsement of Wings Over Scotland.

If they don’t reappraise and distance themselves publicly, sooner rather than later, you can guarantee that the Nationalists will get a doing. Not a physical doing, which would only serve their cause, but a political and populist doing. In general, the Scots, like all Brits, don’t like extremists much and rail against their toxic brew.

The Nationalists, via the guiding hand of Alex Salmond, have done well to exploit devolution to the degree that they’ve managed to weasel a referendum out of it – despite having no real ‘people’s mandate’ so to speak.

But if they let a pathological loose cannon like Campbell seduce them into thinking that he’s anything other than a one man band, hate preaching, narcissistic polemicist with a grudge against the world for not having made him taller, then they’re in for a big surprise.

Ian Smart


Filed under CyberNats, Wangs Watch