Ooooh, how lovely, I am being anonymously attacked!

Over here. Highlights include:

Quoting the opening line of a Jeremy Clarkson piece in the Sunday Times proves I’m a racist.

I attack Ritchie because he’s got more Twitter followers than I do.

My references to being the head of the shadowy international scandium oligopoly are taken seriously.

And so on. And this is cute too:

Questions, questions.

He may be just another angry ranter. I really don’t know. But I’d like to know a couple of things.

Question 1: is someone paying him to write his stuff? If so, who?

From an interview with Worstall back in 2006.

Normblog: What would be your ideal choice of alternative profession or job?

Worstall: Over the past couple of years, since I started blogging, I’ve been changing my profession, from vaguely unsuccessful businessman to vaguely unsuccessful writer. I’m still astonished that people wish to pay me to tap on a keyboard and I think I’ve found my ideal alternative.

If he’s changed his whole profession towards being a ‘writer’ then he sure won’t make enough from the likes of Forbes. His 3,500-odd Twitter followers – rather feeble, given the attention-seeking headlines – suggest not much potential for advertising revenues. His book rankings place him currently in 2.7 millionth place on Amazon for his climate change book Chasing Rainbows, and he’s at 1.2 millionth place for his more recent 20 Economic Fallacies.

That ain’t how he keeps himself afloat. If there are people paying him to write his outpourings, who are they, what do they get out of it, and what form does this payment take?

Our anonymong here doesn’t seem to know quite how much Forbes pays. I get paid by editors to write things for them: at Forbes, The Register, the ASI and so on. No grants, no secret payments, no salary, none of that and that freelance income amounts to three times the median UK wage or a bit above that. Yes, sorry about this, but I am successfully earning a good living as a freelance writer.

And, of course, I do also run that shadowy international scandium oligopoly.

Be fascinating to find out who it is that has spent time and effort piecing all of that together really.

55 thoughts on “Ooooh, how lovely, I am being anonymously attacked!”

  1. You haven’t made it till you’ve attracted a crazy stalker or three.

    That was TL;DR stuff but I got the gist: Timmy Bad Man!

  2. Well his (and it’s definitely a he) blog post has been up for over a month without any comments or user contributions, so I suspect the anti worstall isn’t really going to set the world on fire with his ruthless investigation into THE TRUTH.

    Whoever it is, the most noticeable trace from the rant ia a near Toynbee level of ‘No Sense of Humour.’

    “anonymong ”


  3. Roddy Campbell (@Roddy_Campbell)

    what an arse. bizarre obsessive, and yes, far too long to read. Who would bother, why, and why the conspiracy theories – Oh I know, it’s the best part of cognitive dissonance. No-one would possibly write what you do, non-credible right-wing propaganda, unless they were being bribed to.

  4. Also, who IS paying you, and why aren’t we getting some? The comments here are always way better than the posts!

  5. Tim,

    I do wish you would not use swear words in your blog, because it makes it easier for people to denigrate your blog. A shame as it has taught me a lot.

  6. Tim,

    I also wish you wouldn’t use swear words. My work firewall blocks a lot of your posts and I have to wait until I get home to read them. Not fair!

  7. David – different strokes for different folks.

    I think swear words – when used judiciously – can be both fun and useful.

    There is a tendency on the left – and some of what passes for the right as well – to try and talk people into submission, as if the world is the Oxford Union and clever words are sufficient to magic away reality.

    Sometimes there’s no need to get drawn into a tortuous circular argument with people who are most likely arguing in bad faith anyway, when you can simply point out that they’re talking bollocks.

  8. @David

    ‘I do wish you would not use swear words in your blog, because it makes it easier for people to denigrate your blog. A shame as it has taught me a lot.’

    While I respect your POV (and I am a swearer on here but rarely in real life so as to avoid offending people, go figure), if folks start attacking an economics/politics blog because of the bad language that is a big clue as to whether they are winning or losing the argument.

  9. It’s going to be A Bit Of A Disappointment when he finally breaks cover and reveals his name to be . . . Arnald!

  10. No, don’t think so, there’s significant skill gone into constructing that. Reminds me of the way Tim Fenton writes actually. Or of a couple of the worst attack jobs the Mail has done over the years.

  11. Thanks SBML. I’d tried using the “link:” prefix to search, but it turns out that no longer works the way it used to.

  12. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    “for one thing the yapping hyenas who follow him are often far worse”

    It’s not Arnald; too coherent. But definitely someone with a grudge.

  13. Not me. My longer prose is much more entertaining and surprisingly coherent. I couldn’t be bothered to write all that about someone.

    It’s no different to the Murphy stalkers on here.

  14. @Interested
    “While I respect your POV (and I am a swearer on here but rarely in real life so as to avoid offending people, go figure), if folks start attacking an economics/politics blog because of the bad language that is a big clue as to whether they are winning or losing the argument.”
    Probably true but why help people who are losing the argument?
    Don’t get me wrong if X wants to swear he can (although I would rather he didn’t) but if when I agree with X I would say don’t as Y who is an idiot will use X’s swearing to ignore X’s wisdom and so the chances of Y being less of an idiot decrease.

  15. PS I used to be like Y but reality mugged me (the lack of democracy in the EU and the unfair benefits system).

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I like the way the anonymong trails the idea that his secret identity will be revealed at some point, as though anyone reading his diatribe gives a shit of anything other than subatomic proportions.

  17. “Britain’s extreme right wing anti-immigration UK Independence Party (UKIP).”

    Bit of a clue doncha ya fink.

  18. “head of the shadowy international scandium oligopoly”

    Scandium, isn’t that a tasteful furniture shop on the Marylebone High street, opposite Divertimenti?

  19. @Brightside Bob

    Bit of a clue doncha think. The ‘ya’ is superfluous.


    Yes, you’re right, I know. It’s just sometimes very cathartic!

  20. “Not me. My longer prose is much more entertaining and surprisingly coherent. I couldn’t be bothered to write all that about someone.”

    Especially when you’re double shifting at Burger King for a living, eh?

  21. Also, Mr Murphy has 5,000 visitors a day to his site. He said so.

    OK, it’s odd that only 20 or so ever bother to share, forward or like what he writes but I’m sure he’s not the sort of person to exagerate to puff himself up.

  22. Actually, it was quite funny.

    I bet he’d be a real bundle of laughs down the pub on a Friday night…

    I reckon he either has no sense of humour or is assuming his readers are going to be both stupid and gullible.

  23. Actually, I’ve finally thought of a plausible explanation – the genius that is Murphy Richards is expanding is range of sarcastic publications a little.
    It’s either that, or someone a little dim, given the bit about the scandium maffia…

  24. I’ve had another thought.

    This time about the water.

    Avoid any carafes. Insist on bottled. Make sure the cap clicks.

    Oh, wait. About the fags. Tell them you’ve gone through a cleansing operation immediately prior to the meet. If you forget this, The Big Dick will claim he has caught lung cancer via Hodges via the nicotine on your jacket from the fag you had the night before.

  25. For what it is worth Tim and I do not agree with your all of your posts, but hell you are thought provoking, unt das ist wunderbar!

    What’s not to like?

    Carry on Tim – please.

    P.S. have to go, nurse has just arrived with my meds – see yah!

  26. @Stuart Pembery: Not only does he moderate, but the double twatface does not warn that he moderates. Your comment did not get published, nor will mine. And it took me a long time to type out all those bad words.

  27. I’d say more about Ritchie’s moderation policy, but the only thing I’ve firmly established so far is that he either doesn’t read the email addresses, or is actually a Nazi.

    Based on other evidence, I suspect the latter, but as yet it remains unproven. Merely having got him to support the reestablishment of the SS and to endorse strength-through-joy (in the same day) doesn’t prove anything, because as much as he does appear to be a Nazi, he’s possibly just a puppet-moron.

  28. There’s no way it’s Arnald – the coherence of everything from the first sentence on (No references to ‘rent boys’ or ‘Fleshy Rent Heads’)and absence of profanities is proof of that.

    Davis S Lesperance – I wonder if RT paid Murphy for that quote – let’s hope so…..

  29. Wait, you admit you’re part of a shadowy, secret organisation? No doubt with the aim of pushing up scandium prices to make huge stacks of money at the expense of all the righteous poor people, filthy capitalist!

    So, is there like an initiation or a joining fee? Where do i send the application form?

  30. Style analysis, from of the first chunk of the anonymong (I stopped after the third point 9, before ‘Try a few examples’, and removed quotes from Tim):

    weak verbs 45.5%
    filler words 4.7%
    nominalizations 5.4%
    entity substitutions 24.5%
    negations per sentence 0.2
    clustered nouns 9.3%
    passive voice per sentence 0
    modals 1.9%
    rare words 17.5%
    extra long sentences 0%
    extra short sentences 53.4%

    characters 4167
    words 675
    vocabulary size 352
    sentences 73
    words per sentence 9.2 ± 8.9
    syllables per word 1.5
    characters per word 4.9
    readability grade 5.9
    nouns 27.1%
    pronouns 9.9%
    verbs 17.9%
    adjectives 10.2%
    adverbs 7.7%
    other parts of speech 27.1%
    declarative sentences 91.8%
    interrogative sentences 2.7%
    exclamative sentences 4.1%
    stopwords 45%

    Style analysis, from of the Moore quote from

    synonyms hover mouse over words in text to see synonyms
    weak verbs 33.3%
    filler words 2.8%
    nominalizations 4.8%
    entity substitutions 14.3%
    negations per sentence 0.3
    clustered nouns 18.9%
    passive voice per sentence 0.1
    modals 0.9%
    rare words 10.4%
    extra long sentences 10%
    extra short sentences 0%

    characters 1263
    words 212
    vocabulary size 131
    sentences 10
    words per sentence 21.2 ± 12.6
    syllables per word 1.5
    characters per word 4.8
    readability grade 10.1
    nouns 34.9%
    pronouns 5.2%
    verbs 15.6%
    adjectives 7.1%
    adverbs 7.5%
    other parts of speech 29.7%
    declarative sentences 100%
    interrogative sentences 0%
    exclamative sentences 0%
    stopwords 42.9%

    No comment about the numbers, just thought I’d throw it out there…

  31. I think Heidi Moore is a good candidate. The writer doesn’t appear to be British. The writer is dumb enough to fall for the international scandium oligopoly nonsense. The writing style is similar to Moore’s (lots of contractions). The writer is mostly attacking Tim’s views on economics. And the concern about bad language and misogyny is typical of an over-sensitive, female, American writer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *