Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Richard Seymour Mocks Burns Victim and War Veteran Simon Weston in latest Attack on Liberal Defence of Murder.

with 35 comments

On 2 September 2015, (Richard) Seymour left a Facebook comment about a Telegraph column detailing Falklands War veteran and serious burns victim Simon Weston’s comments regarding Labour Party Leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn’s plan, Weston believes, to “surrender” the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Seymour stated in his comment: “Seriously. Who gives a shit what Simon Weston thinks about anything? If he knew anything, he’d still have his face.” Seymour was unapologetic on twitter for his comment.



Guardian confirms Richard Seymour does not work for them after hate post

The Guardian newspaper has confirmed that Richard Seymour does not work them after he posted a hate comment on Falkland’s veteran Simon Weston. The Guardian has though confirmed that Seymour was a regular author on its web-site with a profile at: Richard Seymour.

Simon Weston suffered serious injuries whilst on active duty on HMS Sir Galahad when the Argentines attacks it. His injuries included severe burns to his face.

Richard Seymour wrote in a comment:

“If he knew anything he’d still have his face”.

Seymour refused to apologise on his comment which appeared on an article written by Simon Weston in the Daily Telegraph.


Simon Weston.

Criticism of these comments should not the preserve of right-wingers like Guido Fawkes.

This is a matter for the left.

Whether Seymour apologies or not this indicates two possibilities:

  • Seymour is an incontinent troll who sinks as low as the mood takes him to amuse himself by hurting people.
  • Seymour feels he has the moral right to lecture disfigured supporters of the Falklands War by pointing to their injuries.

Either is not a pleasant option.

Most people would crawl and away and die rather than stoop to this kind of language.

Still, here everybody can see the “limitation of humanitarianism in this situation” (Lenin’s Tomb) .

Very clearly.

We should note that regardless of his Guardian status, Seymour is a prominent author at Verso books and helped frame some policies in Left Unity (we hope not those on people with disabilities).

Richard Seymour


Verso adds that  Richard Seymour lives, works and writes in London. He runs the Lenin’s Tomb website, which comments on the War on Terror, Islamophobia and neoliberalism.

His moral status is further undermined when we observe that earlier this year he spoke at this event: What now for Europe? The instrumentalisation of the Paris attacks.

It was organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) which is closely linked the Iranian theocratic dictatorship.

In 2015 IHRC gave the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo their “International Islamophobe of the Year” award less than 2 months after 12 members of staff at the magazine had been murdered by Islamic extremists.

He shared a platform with the “anti-race mixing” group the Indigènes de la République – whose writings he has published on his Blog – who specialise in attacking gay feminist and secularist Caroline Fourest. (see this on the “excellent Houria Bouteldja, a member of Le Parti des indigènes de la République. Lenin’s Tomb) (1).

(more Islamic Human Rights Commission, Charlie Hebdo, Richard Seymour and the Indigènes de la République)

This is a translated French response to this, the militant wing of Post-Colonial Studies: Toward a materialist approach to the question of race: A response to theIndigènes de la République.

Amongst the authors’ criticisms of the “excellent” ideologues, are these, “for Houria Bouteldja, feminism is a luxury which indigène women may not profess to claim.” “Riding the gathering wave of identitarianism, it proposes a systematic cultural, almost ethnocentric, reading of social phenomena. This leads to the adoption of dangerous positions on antisemitism, gender, and homosexuality.”

Seymour’s latest venture is this:

(1) This is what she said about the racist anti-Semite comedian Dieudonné in this post, “I thoroughly disagree with his political choices: the fact that he has been seduced by Soral’s nationalistic views, that he knows nothing about Palestine and Zionism, and his alliance with the far-right. At the same time, I feel ambivalent. I would start by saying that I love Dieudonné; that I love him as the indigènes love him; that I understand why the indigènes love him. I love him because he has done an important action in terms of dignity, of indigène pride, of Black pride: he refused to be a domestic negro. Even if he doesn’t have the right political program in his head, his attitude is one of resistance.” I now add that in the eyes of the indigènes, this is what they see in him first and foremost, rather than seeing the nature of his allies. A man standing upright. Too often were we forced to say “yes bouana, yes bouana.” When Diedonné stands up, he heals an identitarian wound. The wound that racism left, and which harms the indigènes’ personnality. Those who understand “Black is beautiful” cannot miss this dimension, and I emphasize, this particular dimension in Dieudonné.”


I notice another madman, Mike Pearn, who claims to be on the ‘left’, and is known to this Blog, made vile comments as well:


35 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Simon Weston almost died after three Skyhawks bombed the troopship he was on.

    Richard Seymour almost died after choking on a bacon roll he was guzzling, and had to be given first aid by a passing policeman.

    So which one of you’s the moron, Seymour?

    sackcloth and ashes

    September 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm

  2. It’s so simple that even those years of banging the Lambeg shouldn’t have drummed it out of him: you don;t make these kind of personal comments.

    Andrew Coates

    September 5, 2015 at 3:54 pm

  3. The name of the war was the Malvinas War, as any Left know. It’s Her Majesty Loyal Trotskyists and those even more right who call it otherwise.

    Simon Weston was a volunteer to the Royal Navy. All such people (as opposed to conscripts) are lowlives, human debris – signing up for money or action but in a way that includes killing others for their state’s rulers. Their political views are unsurprisingly usually right-wing and any socialist automatically rejects with disdain any credence or awe given to their views because they ‘fought for their country’.

    Seymour’s comment about the face was stupid and maybe reflects the arrogant, anti-social attitude he noticeably has. Otherwise he is correct.

  4. Andrew – “he shared a platform…” Where else do I keep hearing that line?


    September 5, 2015 at 8:29 pm

  5. The thing is that it is always going to be hard for the radical Left to be objective about that war or anyone associated with it because it was so important and central in the loss of what had been a very strong bargaining position, to the point of much of the middle class being genuinely afraid for their future, for the radical Left in the 1970s.

    At the same time, Seymour is still a cynical hack, I’m not sure if I can really trust what PIE apologists have to say about anything, and the Argentinian junta was such a vile regime it can scarcely be described in plain language (there’s a reason why its only apologists in the UK for the previous seven years, more or less, had in fact been the proto-Thatcherites).

    But, as I said, this is too emotional an issue for anyone closely attached to any “side” to be able to take a distance.


    September 5, 2015 at 9:22 pm

  6. It was a bloody stupid war which the Argentinians, if they but knew it, won. Whichever side “lost” militarily also got to lose their government. The Argentinians lost control of a handful of barely inhabitable and rather costly islands, and at the same time lost their foul military junta. The Brits got to retain an expensive imperial liability halfway round the world, and kept Thatcher for another 7 years. But such is the power of damned-fool nationalism that some Argentinians want to avenge their “defeat”, while Brits imagine that we won something.


    September 5, 2015 at 10:30 pm

  7. Quite (on all fronts). (And she stayed on for over eight years.)

    It was a victory for the ruling class over the working class, in the UK context. It was, if anything, revenge for WW2 (and to a much lesser extent WW1) on the part of the former.


    September 5, 2015 at 11:19 pm

  8. (So, yes, the above is another way of saying that I can *understand* why Seymour said what he said. But if you’re a liberal humanist more than a Stalinist, you don’t say things like that even over things as delicate and melancholy as all this.)


    September 5, 2015 at 11:22 pm

  9. Seymour’s own writing does show him to be a fairly horrible human being, not to mention a clunky piece of pretentiousness. But I think losing your job over making an ugly comment in a thread is a bit much. Surely he was hired for his supposed merits as a political analyst, not as a nice person.


    September 6, 2015 at 6:15 am

  10. I feel that we’re perfectly capable of defending our politics without recourse to ad hominem remarks.

    Dr Paul

    September 6, 2015 at 11:32 am

  11. Rosie, I’m not sure that it’s clear that the Guardian decided Seymour would no longer work with them “after hate post” or it was confirming that he just, for the record, didn’t work for them anymore.

    If you look at Seymour’s Guardian profile, the last time he wrote anything was Dec 2014. Since then we’ve had the General Election, the Corbyn campaign and the current, escalating refugee crisis. Nothing written by Seymour about any of these events.

    It might well be the Guardian don’t think his particular political insight is that interesting anymore.

    Who knows, though? We might well still see an article there soon along the lines of “Why Richard Seymour was right to say if Simon Weston knew anything he’d still have his face” penned by one of his chums.

    Stranger things have happened.

    John R

    September 6, 2015 at 12:12 pm

  12. Whatever you think of the Guardian, allowing the pretentious thicko Seymour an occasional column was something of an error of judgement, even for them. I’ve no doubt they’re relieved to have an excuse to get rid of him.

    Btw: Seymour and some of the people who left/were expelled from the SWP with him, must be unique in being politically *worse* than the SWP itself.

    Jim Denham

    September 6, 2015 at 1:00 pm

  13. ‘Simon Weston was a volunteer to the Royal Navy’.

    Actually, he was a soldier in the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards.

    ‘All such people (as opposed to conscripts) are lowlives, human debris – signing up for money or action but in a way that includes killing others for their state’s rulers. Their political views are unsurprisingly usually right-wing and any socialist automatically rejects with disdain any credence or awe given to their views because they ‘fought for their country’’.

    I don’t know where to begin with this spiteful drivel.

    Firstly, the ‘human debris’ you sneer at stopped genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, stopped a horrific civil war in Sierra Leone that killed and maimed thousands, and also put their lives on the line to stop PIRA and the loyalists turning Northern Ireland into a sectarian cesspit. ‘Human debris’ helped protect the Kurdish safe area during the 1990s, and also have done disaster relief world-wide (most notably after the 2004 tsunami) and in the UK. What have you and your fellow stoppers done except march and shout some slogans.

    Secondly, the idea that ‘socialists’ should condemn servicemen would be treated with utter contempt by real leftists like Ernie Bevin and Roy Mason, not to mention generations of Labourites (from Anthony Crossland and Denis Healey to Dan Jarvis) who did their time in uniform,

    Thirdly, as a citizen of this country Simon Weston is entitled to express his views, even if they don’t accord with yours.

    Fourthly, if it had not been for people like Simon Weston, the Falkland Islanders would have experienced the horrors that the Argentinean military dictatorship visited on their own people. Indeed, the Galtieri junta would have stayed in power for longer – and ‘disappeared’ more victims – if it hadn’t been for its defeat in this war. But I suppose pseudo-socialists like yourself would have been happy to see that happen because, hey, Thatcher.

    Finally, it used to be a feature of anti-war activists to separate the servicemen and women for the conflicts they fought. ‘Support the troops by bringing them home’, and all that. If you lack the intellect to appreciate that point then I honestly don’t know what to say.

    It is spiteful, moronic, snide remarks like yours which is killing the British left, and which is preventing it from reaching out to blue-collar voters who do not think it is a crime to love, or indeed, serve this country.

    sackcloth and ashes

    September 6, 2015 at 6:43 pm

  14. If only my supposed ‘spiteful drivel’ was destroying the Left in that it was being argued by more than just a handful of revolutionary socialists.

    Sadly your ahistorical nonsense passes muster for most ‘Lefts’ in Britain. Even your defence of putrid British imperialism in places like Ireland (incl Roy Mason) and your inane comment about people like Dan Jarvis (a para in Iraq!) part of the bloody USA and UK etc. invasion of that country.

    It is almost so stupid and right-wing to make people wonder whether you made the Bevin/Bevan mistake (I’m sure you didn’t) when you mention Ernest Bevin, no less, as any kind of socialist, the UK Foreign Secretary who undertook such actions as the murderous crushing of the Greek revolution after WW2. It is certainly stupid to also ignore the distinction between people like Healey (conscript) and volunteers like Weston.

    This is Labour Party socialism in all its flag-waving, Rule Britannia ludicrous conceit. Those who once had any attachment to revolutionary socialism so beware of the company that they keep.

  15. ‘should beware’ not ‘so beware’

  16. Back in the day, Ernie Bevin was a very successful “stopper”… https://www.tuc.org.uk/about-tuc/union-history/section-impact-russian-revolution


    September 7, 2015 at 10:56 am

  17. “It is certainly stupid to also ignore the distinction between people like Healey (conscript) and volunteers like Weston.”

    It is certainly more stupid to get basic historical facts wrong. Dennis Healey, a Beach Master at Anzio who ended the war as a Major in the Royal Engineers, was, like tens of thousands of others, a volunteer. Presumably all volunteers in the second world war were, as said “All such people (as opposed to conscripts) are lowlives, human debris”

    Ignorant, spiteful drivel sounds appropriate.

    M Berlin

    September 7, 2015 at 11:12 am

  18. It makes you wonder when people like Pawy engage in this spiteful language what kind of treatment they’d inflict on anybody they disagree with given any power whatsoever.

    Andrew Coates

    September 7, 2015 at 12:32 pm

  19. @ Francis I see Healey (according to Wikipedia) joined the army (as an officer) in 1940 so I presume he was a conscript (unless you could somehow ‘volunteer’ before being conscripted?)

    Like the point about Weston being a solider, not in the RN, the matter is irrelevant even if, as looks likely that I happen to be right here about Healey, rather than you. It would have been better to have put such a fact correctly about Weston but whether these people volunteer to machine-gun, torpedo or drop bombs on poor unfortunates who aren’t born British, scum theses volunteers are (who ever they may be and not including conscripts).

    @ Berlin Indeed. But back in the day Bevin is a good example, in near everything he did, of how ‘Old Labour’ was as rancid as its new Labour continuation.

  20. @coates supposed spiteful’ language (actually pointing out whatever choose to ignore) versus lauding acolytes of those who have used weaponry and violence – who would you be more wary of giving such ‘treatment’?

  21. @ Southpawpunch

    I think you need to take your meds. Or get yourself along to your next two minute hate with the SWP.

    sackcloth and ashes

    September 7, 2015 at 4:13 pm

  22. @ M Berlin

    Southpawpunch probably thinks that the soldiers, sailors and airmen of WWII were ‘human debris’. I get the impression he regrets the outcome as well.

    sackcloth and ashes

    September 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm

  23. Poor chap he has little in his life, except his moment of fame on world famous Blogs like Tendance Coatesy…

    Andrew Coates

    September 7, 2015 at 5:12 pm

  24. well, he does have an anus for his ‘avatar’

    redkorat☭ (@red_korat)

    September 8, 2015 at 2:35 am

  25. Poor Simon Weston the self confessed potential petty criminal who joined the army to avoid jail. His own words I note. A man who has benefitted far more than most military victims of Thatchers adventure in the South Atlantic as the figurehead of a since failed charity. The charity failed, failed that is to win grants from the state, but Weston was paid enough to buy a rather large house in North Cardiff.

    Poor Simon Weston the very vocal supporter of the Conservative Party. Poor Simon Weston whose comrades when returning from their murder of young Argentine conscripts on the Islas Malvinas flew a banner demanding that rail workers ‘Call Off the Rail Strike or We’ll Call an Air Strike’ like the scabs they were. Poor Simon Weston the volunteer in a military that at the time was still brutalising civilians in their own homes in the cities and villages of Occupied Ireland.

    Poor Simon Weston who is uglier on the inside. Poor deluded Simon Weston who at least has his thirty pieces of silver for betraying his class. Poor Coatesy who still waits for his.


    September 11, 2015 at 11:34 am

  26. I take it you are no longer concerned about your job Mike.

    Andrew Coates

    September 11, 2015 at 12:12 pm

  27. @neprimerimye. Bless your poor little heart. Such a confused little post. It’s ok mate, we can find you a cause to own and we’ll explain it to you properly this time.


    September 26, 2015 at 10:23 pm

  28. Sign as much as stay informed with the latest weight
    reduction and healthy residing-associated updates on MedicineNet delivered
    to your inbox FREE!

  29. Hi Richard Seymour what you said about Simon Weston was an utter disgrace. Would you have gone to the Falklands and defended the British people there. I don’t think so because you have no balls. You write utter shit and I wish that someone meets you down a dark alley one day! You should make an apology to the media about you disgusting attitude!


    September 7, 2016 at 9:52 pm

  30. […] of stu­pid com­ments made in pri­vate or in pas­sing. Af­ter all, he him­self has been ta­ken to task in re­cent months for mo­cking the fa­cial de­form­ity of a con­ser­vat­ive Brit­ish war […]

  31. The real victim in this of course is Richard Seymour whose Facebook privacy was brutally violated:

    “A few weeks ago, a journalist emailed to inquire about a comment apparently made on Facebook last year, attributed to me. Something about cutting someone’s throat? Did I remember making it? Did I have any comment? I wanted to reply, channelling Lisa Simpson: “do you remember when you lost your passion for this work?” A private Facebook comment, I thought. No, no, this is vitally important for the future of the nation – you must, intrepid reporter, do your duty by Queen and Country. And so they did. Headlines appeared not only in the alt-right silo, but also in The Guardian, The Independent and the Jewish News. Soon, someone from BBC Radio 4’s Today programme was in touch, on the same day that Guardian journalist Nicholas Lezard was being publicly shamed for a Facebook comment calling for the “crowd-funded assassination” of Jeremy Corbyn.

    “Two off-hand, off-colour comments of mine – because yes, in fact I did, casually and unguardedly, bang them out – one a joke about Simon Weston and the other a disgusted and furious expostulation about someone calling – with what struck me as staggering, swaggering colonial chauvinism – for IDF repression of Palestinians in the West Bank, have been weaponised. It turns out that I am more naïve than I would have thought.

    “I made a rookie error. My unconscious assumption, at odds with everything I already knew about the internet, was that I was talking to friends in a private context…”


    January 11, 2017 at 1:52 am

  32. I have no idea of what a ‘rookie’ is, something to do with rockeries?

    But Seymour has been about on the Web even longer than I have, a lot longer than I have.

    Andrew Coates

    January 11, 2017 at 12:57 pm

  33. A rookie is a sports term for a new player, someone with inexperience. So a ‘rookie mistake’ is the mistake of an inexperienced newcomer.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t know of any Facebook user who thinks that comments on posts which are visible to other users are ‘private’.


    January 11, 2017 at 7:22 pm

  34. On the first point, I don’t like cricket, I never watch football, and even, despite growing up in the area where Arsenal and Tottenham rule, have never been to a paying match. Oh and my school didn’t play Rugby.

    About the only sport I’ve every liked is Horse Racing.

    On the second my I suggest that Seymour might, maybe, it is without the bounds of possibility, could, one might conjecture, be lying through his teeth.

    Andrew Coates

    January 12, 2017 at 6:45 pm

  35. FYI, Seymour is now shilling for Madurismo on its English language TV propaganda organ. Clip I saw had ~1000 views :[

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: