Is Enoch’s Eyebrow a Shill?

The other day in Bodrum, I heard for the first time about “shills.” These are people whose profession is to disrupt blogs and Internet discussions in general. One of their techniques is to keep expressing unfashionable opinions on race, to the point where an entire blog becomes tainted, and its writers begin to drop away.

I wonder if “Enoch’s Eyebrow” is one of these? Until I threatened to reveal his IP address, he posted under at least three names. He may still be posting under more than one. He has also taken to Judaising the least relevant topics. See, for example, his comments on my piece about spitting in the street. What this has to do with free speech and the Jews is quite beyond my imagination.

It could be that I’m paranoid – or it could be that our patience is being abused. I don’t know, and I look forward to any comment our regulars may care to make.

Of course, if Mr Eyebrow is honest but overly enthusiastic in his opinions, his best response to my wondering will be to confine himself to discussions where his comments may have some relevance.

41 responses to “Is Enoch’s Eyebrow a Shill?

  1. What’s the difference between a shill and a troll? I think the latter is the usual term for what you’re thinking of.

  2. Mr Eyebrow seems normal compared to the people I encounter everyday on the net. But I’ve probably been desensitised due to all the flack I’m accustomed to.

    ‘Race baiting’ is however a common tactic of those wishing to reframe, derail and muddy every discussion.

    Leftists often impersonate racists and vice versa.

    Professional trolls just get a kick out of any attention they receive and often play dumb.

  3. I have my own blog site and kept getting trolls posting comments that purported to correct me on whatever I wrote about or would engage me in lengthy conversations, which I was not interested in doing. After getting angry with one particular troll — yes, they love attention — I learned the best way to deal with them was to ignore them. My trolls haven’t posted comments in six months, and good riddance.

    • “kept getting trolls posting comments that purported to correct me on whatever I wrote about”

      I had what I thought were five trolls doing that to me on a local newspaper website and I got angry with them. Turns out they are not trolls and are just really thick (all went university too).

      • It does depend to some extent where they went to “uni”. If it was a “uni” , such as “UCLAN” (you can look it up), then they might just be thick.

        If it was a “university”, then they might be a bit dangerous, as there might be a few brain cells there, otherwise they wouldn’t have got in in the first place. These would have to be of course shot since they have become “intellectuals”.

  4. marklibertarian

    After years of regular blogging on the Daily Telegraph site, I became convinced that there are professional propagandists employed by the EU, NGOs, fake charities, and the rest. Their style is usually easy to spot.

    • “I became convinced that there are professional propagandists employed by the EU, NGOs, fake charities, and the rest”

      It is certainly tempting to think that way, but the numerous ideologues and vested interests willing to fanatically defend a position, renders ‘professional propagandists’ an expensive luxury (though I wouldn’t put it past these organisations)…

      • marklibertarian

        ‘Professional propagandists’ was not the best phrase; I suspect many of them are graduates being paid an hourly minimum wage to make postings for the “online campaigns” or “rebuttal” departments of these organisations.

  5. “he posted under at least three names.”

    I find this common with collectivists and other insecure people. Often they feel the need to praise or rate-up their own comments, or use multiple accounts to sabotage someone else’s.

    In this age of sociopathy, narcissism and various moral crusaders – you just don’t know who is at the other end of the keyboard. Most communication is nonverbal (body language, posture, facial expression etc.) – so there are limitations in what you can learn about a person from their text alone….

  6. Sean (and anybody esle who is our friend) this is important. I don’t know how to “find anybody’s IP address, or what this is. Does it matter? As blogmaster, ought I to know how to do this?

    Please say. I don’t want us to get caught out looking like Twatterwimps, or whatever the left say the right are.

    You see, I don’t really know…I just write.

    • David – I can’t remember how to do it. But, if you dig about in the settings of your account, you can ask to be sent e-mail notification of all comments. These give e-mail addresses and IP addresses.

  7. A troll is someone who just goes and looks for arguments. Like a man from Lancashire who goes into a pub in Yorkshire and says “all Yorkshiremen are …….” I actually know a man who did that.

    A “shill” is a person who is employed to taint something with racism (or some other nasty thing) in order to discredit.

    Sean Gabb is not being paranoid (about the general thing – I do not know about a particular case) – such people are employed by both the American and the British security services, as well as by some private associations.

  8. A shill is an advocate for a company, political position or group etc etc.. who posts whilst posing as an unconnected member of the public.

    A Troll is someone who post comments specifically to engender arguments

  9. I just delete nutty comments

  10. I don’t think he’s a “shill”. So far as I can tell, shills are far less common than some people seem to think; they tend to believe that anyone posting disagreeing comments is working for the enemy, kind of thing.

    I think I’ve seent them occasionally in action; heaps of supportive smoking ban comments at that time, at places like the Telegraph, but they tended to be distinctive by their boiler plate, notably “artificial” style of delivery.

    Eyebrow looks from his comments to be somebody very very concerned about organised Jewish influence, which when you look at the USA in particular is not entirely unreasonable. The Frankfurt School were a Jewish cult, for instance. It’s all a matter then of how significant you consider that influence to be.

    People who are unhealthily obsessed with one pet theory tend to twist every comment section into a discussion of it. Like me and my Puritans, that’s a good example. Or Cato and his delenda est carthago, he’s probably the first example in recorded history.

  11. Enoch's Eyebrow

    No, I am not a shill. As I said, I am trying to wake you from your dogmatic slumber. You claim to believe in “liberty”. The most important aspect of liberty is free will. There is abundant evidence that the greatest enemies of free speech are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is also abundant evidence that you are frightened of the J.W.’s and doing your best to demonstrate to them that you are a good boy. I do not blame you. They have the power to destroy your career and you have your family to think of. But the situation isn’t going to improve: “liberty” is disappearing and you are supposed to be a libertarian.

    Ian B: People who are unhealthily obsessed with one pet theory tend to twist every comment section into a discussion of it.

    Yes, I’m “unhealthily obsessed” with something I’d prefer never to think of again. But free speech is an important topic and if I’m “unhealthily obsessed”, what is Paul Gottfried?

    This brings me to the heart of my Politically Incorrect argument. Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

    Or Ezra Levant?

    They despise our freedom of speech. They demand censorship of their political opponents. They disparage any jurist who disagrees with them. And they do all this in the name of “the Jews”.

    Controlling. Bullying. Censoring. Refusing to submit to the rule of law. Demanding Canada import foreign ideas of censorship. Excusing — or even celebrating — the corruption and abuses in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If I weren’t a Jew, I’m afraid Burny would turn me into an anti-Semite. Nobody likes a bully telling you he wants to take away your freedom. And that bully says he speaks for all Jews. If Burny didn’t exist, Stormfront would have to make him up.

    There is abundant evidence that the greatest enemies of free speech are the people named by Gottfried and Levant. There is also abundant evidence that libertarians do not understand where liberty comes from or how to defend it.

    I will try to reply to other comments as time permits.

  12. Jehovah’s Witnesses? I can think of a lot of powerful enemies of liberty, but they’ve never got on my top ten list, I must admit.

  13. If the JWs were as sinister as that, then they woudn’t meekly go away from my front door when I say to them “Oh thank you, how kind of you, but I’m afraid we’re all Palmarian Catholics here…”

    • Very well. Mr Eyebrow isn’t a shill. This being said, he is required to stop posting comments that have no likely relevance to the subject under discussion. There is also our standing rule against posting any comment that may get us into trouble. We may not choose to punish someone who violates these rules. But they are our rules, and it is a matter of politeness to respect them.

  14. Actually, Enoch, I can’t remember any occasion when we – at leats on this bolg – have ever referred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses – let alone said how frightened we are of them.

    could you possibly put up the link-refs to where we might have done this thing?

    I would be most grateful, thank you, if you could be so kind and do so.

    Er, I have had a thought. Are you quite sure that you are typing on the right bolg?

    • I must admit, I’ve heard a lot of theories of who is at the heart of the destruction of liberty, and Jehovah’s Witnesses really is a new one on me. I now feel quite sad to think of you and Sean living in terror of the knock on the door, and thus feverishly censoring this blog to prevent yet another instance of, “hello, do you have a few minutes to talk about God?” and so on and so forth.

      • My tactic with door-knocking evangelists is to tell them that I’m Greek Orthodox – they have leaflets for all the usual denominations, but nothing contra-Orthodoxy – and then go on the attack with accusations that they are schismatic deniers of Church tradition. Continual repetition of the argument over many years is inclining me to think that it’s true.

  15. The Frankfurt School may have started out as Jewish dominated (although by atheist “Jews”), but after the first generation that stopped being true.

    The average “Critical Theory” (i.e. Frankfurt School) Marxist in the United States most likely has a Palestinian flag on the wall of his university office, and thinks the Rothschilds rule the world.

    Jews (those who lose faith in Judaism) are very good at founding movements that (not so long afterwards) turn round and bite Jews.

    With Karl Marx it was not so long after – he wrote “On the Jewish Question” (businessmen are inwardly circumcised Jews – and on and on with insane hate)., and various rivals were “that Jew” or even “that Jewish Nig…..” the lack of self awareness (of his own ethnic origins) is astonishing.

  16. Enoch's Eyebrow

    Mr Gabb, you can settle this thread by answering a simple question. Your very good friend Paul Gottfried says that, on balance, Jews are very bad for free speech. Are you frightened of the consequences of agreeing with him or of allowing this view to be associated with the Libertarian Alliance? Yes or no? Please don’t be slippery and legalistic like Blair: simply answer the question and explain why so or why not.

    Though he is a very good friend of mine, I have to ask what relevance one of Paul Gottfried’s essays on free speech has to do with spitting in the street.

    I thought you had not seen my reply on an earlier thread. I also thought the Gottfried quote was worth repeating. And I did post something about spitting too.

    If he’s a very good friend of yours, can you ask him what he thinks of your line that “There are Jews on both sides, so they cancel each other out”? And whether he thinks you’re frightened of the topic? You are, of course, and understandably so: the greatest enemies of free speech punish anyone who points out what they are. Mr Gottfried’s book on the Straussians has been ignored. That was his punishment:

    I shall lay my cards on the table. I am outraged at how the usual suspects kept my book from being discussed. Despite my well-known views on certain delicate subjects, I tried to produce a fair study of a difficult topic and bent backward in showing sympathy for the movement’s founder and at least some of his disciples. The successful attempt to white out my work has annoyed me no end.

    Note this too — mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur:

    Ryn is quite good on these points. But (alas) he falls down on the job when it comes to naming the most obvious recruits to the Straussian persuasion. He hints at identifying them, but may have recoiled from the implications of being extremely candid. As a Jew, I shall do it for him.

    Straussianism is unthinkable without the rise of American Jewry to journalistic and academic importance. The “alienation” from the gentile historic and cultural heritage that Ryn is analyzing applies with particular relevance to Jews; and the construction of a Straussian ideology, like Cultural Marxism, may be unthinkable without the critical Jewish contribution. Moreover, the puff pieces about the Straussians’ deep intellectuality that have periodically appeared in the NYT, Washington Post, National Review, Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard fully reflect the rise to prominence achieved by the group that typically produce the panegyrics to Straussian wisdom as well as Straussian doctrines.

    David Davis:

    Actually, Enoch, I can’t remember any occasion when we – at least on this blog – have ever referred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses – let alone said how frightened we are of them.

    Mr David, when you stood for leadership of the Traitor Party, why did you have to answer questions from Conservative Friends of Israel? The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a tiny minority in this country — far smaller than the Anglicans or Muslims, yet it wasn’t necessary for you to grovel before the Anglicans or Muslims. Though in fact — and it is to your credit — you didn’t grovel. When CFI issued this threat:

    Conservative Friends of Israel is one of the biggest affiliated groups to the Conservative Party with over 80% of MPs as members and over 2,000 registered supporters (most of whom are Party members). How do you see CFI’s role in promoting Conservatism and helping the Conservative Party to win the next election?

    Your answer was this:

    There is a significant Jewish population in the UK which makes a substantial contribution to the country and the Conservative Party.

    David “Blair Mk. 2” Cameron’s answer was this:

    I am a strong admirer of what Israelis have achieved in the fields of science, the arts, business and philanthropy, and of the immeasurable contribution of Jewish culture to our own society.

    I think we can see there part of why Cameron is presently leader of the Traitor Party. “Immeasurable contribution”, forsooth. Yes, including the destruction of free speech and the flooding of the UK with vibrant Third Worlders from such strongholds of liberty as Pakistan, Jamaica and Somalia.

    • a) The Libertarian Alliance’s David Davis is not the Tory MP David Davis.

      b) I am struggling to grasp the connection between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Conservative Friends Of Israel,

  17. Enoch's Eyebrow

    Nick di Perna wrote:

    I find this [use of multiple names] common with collectivists and other insecure people.

    A good way of summing up the greatest enemies of free speech. Their collectivism has worked v. well in an atomized, individualistic West. So has Muslim, black, feminist and gay collectivism. Here is an infamous anti-Semite explaining who he thinks is responsible for this:

    Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, “The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society,” he said the movement had run its course.

    “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

    “Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.”

    Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

    The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”

    “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said.

    Often they feel the need to praise or rate-up their own comments, or use multiple accounts to sabotage someone else’s.

    I don’t use multiple id’s simultaneously and I’ve explained why I use them. It stops me being tracked at different sites, for example.

    In this age of sociopathy, narcissism and various moral crusaders – you just don’t know who is at the other end of the keyboard. Most communication is nonverbal (body language, posture, facial expression etc.) – so there are limitations in what you can learn about a person from their text alone….

    “Most communication is nonverbal” isn’t a sensible idea. Can you discuss libertarianism or the best way of pruning roses face-to-face with a monoglot Tibetan-speaker, for example? The more complex or intellectually demanding the subject, the less non-verbal communication matters.

    • Yup that’s right. I’m David Davis. I’m the Director of Northern Affairs, of the LA.
      The Tory MP is the other David Davis.

      Funnily, about, oh I don’t know, 15-20 years ago? I got rung up at my work by some American very very very senior “conservatives” – I can’t remember their names – and was asked if I would “host a dinner in London for some very very very senior American Conservatives who would like to come over, to dine with me and talk about the conservative party” …

      Yeh, er when I said that I’m David Davis of Battersea and I run a picture-framing firm with two shops … the phone went dead.

      It really was quite funny. I didn’t tell my staff of framers and shop people – who, all being socialists, would not have seen the funny side at all.

  18. Enoch's Eyebrow

    Ian B:

    I am struggling to grasp the connection between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Conservative Friends Of Israel,

    That doesn’t surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that Mr Gabb has not answered the simple question.

    Nick diPerna:

    You may like this:

    Spiked are crypto-Leninists who believe in freedom about as much as Tony Blair believed in being a pretty straight guy. They support not merely mass immigration but unlimited immigration. They are psychologically interesting, to put it mildly.

  19. Julie near Chicago

    Actually, the Jehovah’s here at least are quite hard to get rid of, perseverance and dedication being well-known as great virtues, although they are otherwise quite pleasant proselytizers (or door-to-door salesmen, if you prefer), well-dressed, well-groomed, well-spoken, and interesting if you have a whole afternoon for abstract discussion of a POV you will never adopt.

    Finally, upon seeing them walking up the driveway yet again, I quickly put up a sign saying that uninvited persons were trespassers, which is “illegal, immoral, and lousy public relations.” Never had them try again.

    But I agree with–was it David or Ian above?–they are not on my top 10 list of things to lie awake worrying about. I mean, I worry more about a shortage of dust bunnies–then what would I use the vacuum for?

  20. Julie near Chicago

    Shills. The shill is one who ropes the sucker in, or hawks a product–“Suggest to your patients that they try King Cole’s Soles, a treat for the feet!” at a podiatrists’ conference. Or, especially, a girl (usually) who keeps him happily losing money at the gambling tables. In American parlance, anyway.

    Here’s the online OED:

    Pronunciation: /ʃɪl/
    North American informal

    … accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others: I used to be a shill in a Reno gambling club

    …..figurative: the agency is a shill for the nuclear power industry

    a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest: a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball

    [Also used as an intransitive verb: “I’d never shill for Obama!”]

  21. Quite so Julie – but the word “shill” has evolved a bit since its once almost exclusively commercial use.

    For example, someone paid (or even just doing it for free) to discredit the anti big government position (by, say, blaming everything on “the Jews”) is indeed a “shill” in the modern meaning of the term.

    The method is simple – make libertarians (or other big government people) appear horrible (anti-Semitic and so on), so that people run back to Mother Government.

    Cass “Nudge” Sustein (the husband of Samantha “Responsibility to Protect” Powers) actually discuses the method – in his article on “anti government conspiracy theories”.

    One of the ways he suggests to discredit anti big government people is to push absurd conspiracy theories (for example that the Rothschilds are behind ……) in order to discredit everything anti big government people say.

    It is an effective method.

    Although old fashioned people (such as me) would still call it a “false flag operation”.

    Of course if there are enough complete and total idiots (for example people who believe “the Jews” are behind everything bad) then “shills” are not required.

  22. Julie near Chicago

    No disagreement, Paul. Sunstein et al. are shilling for the Total State, whether they admit it or not. And those who pretend to believe theories about how “the Jews control world finance” (or even just U.S. policy, and by the way did you realize that George W. Bush’s policies were 100% determined by AIPAC?) are shilling for the anti-Semites–although demonizing “the Jews” may or may not be their primary objective.

    Then there are those who shill for the AGW nitwits, by asserting the lie that, say, Richard Lindzen is a shill for Big Oil, especially the evil Exxon. And the Health Nazis shill for their project of forcing everyone to follow their edicts to the last iota, by asserting that that same Dr. Lindzen shilled for the Tobacco Lobby. (Naturally the AGW crowd are delighted to spread this around too.)

  23. There days the only Jews with the “ear of power” are the Hampstead crowd in Britain and the “J Street” (and other far left) crowd in the United States – and they hate and despise any Jew that actually believes in Judaism (or even atheist Jews – if they are pro Israeli). It is easy to have the ear of power – if you say what power wants to hear.

    It is easy for a Jew to get on in the world – just cultivate a sincere (and hard working – really put the effort in, whilst the gentile anti-Semites go slack or take time off) hatred of other Jews.

    Such tactics worked very well for George Soros. Right from his time with the Nazis (“the happiest year of my life” – till the Nazis found out who he this hard working anti-Semitic looter really was) to the present day.

    And no one seems to hold a grudge against the darling boy……

    “Just married again I hear, lucky man – he must be given another award for all his charitable work……”.

  24. Julie near Chicago

    You touched a nerve here, Paul: You’re quite right, of course. I am heartily SICK of hearing the hoity-toity (not all lefties, either) proclaiming Glenn Beck is anti-Semitical because he went after Georgie. How tiresome! I suppose it’s also anti-Semitical to speak disrespectfully of Mr. M. Lansky or Mr. B. Siegel. *grump*

  25. Yes Julie – in proclaiming Glenn Beck (of all people) an anti-Semite, the left went beyond even their normal level of absurdity.

  26. Julie near Chicago

    Would that it were ONLY the left! The non-left has its share of anti-commoner fools/bigots too, I’m sorry to say.

  27. We are all human – and that means flawed.

    That is an important reason we should not have unlimited power.

    As you know people are not angels, angels might be trusted with such power – but not us.