Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Extinction Rebellion


I looked up the reparations group who took part in XR rally. Bit concerned about this page on their website. Very long winded. But whilst saying not totally against Vaccine they criticise Kehinde for encouraging Black people to have Vaccine.



From what I can make of their statement they are in effect anti Vaccine at this time.

If anyone else can read it to see if I'm wrong.
 
None of this is relevant nor disputed.

All of the claims in that article can be true and it can also be true that Labour would still be better for the working class than this Tory government. If you genuinely believe that, had Corbyn's Labour won in 2019, things would be at best as they are now then I don't know how to continue this conversation. I think there's a fundamental lack of nuance present. My only concern is how things are for the working class. We can vote for labour as a tool in the overall aresenal of class war while we move to better conditions. It doesn't mean we love them or even support them. Your position seems to be incredibly reductionist and impractical. We aren't in a position to get an ideal society at this time, anarchism is viewed with even more misunderstanding and derision than communism. I mentioned the 2011 riots for a reason earlier. People didn't think it was a revolutionary step, they thought it was chaos and destruction...anarchy (in their minds). Why else did the cops in Bristol accuse protesters of breaking bones? We shouldn't sacrifice the possibility of some modest gains on the altar of ideological purity.
From the article I posted :

Corbyn spent the first two weeks of his leadership backing down and capitulating on precisely the things his supporters wanted from him. He was forced to make the vote over scrapping Trident and opposing the current austerity measures a free vote, meaning MPs were able to ignore him. He also stated that his opposition to the benefits cap was purely personal and worst of all, he stated that Labour, if elected, would work within the same budget laid out by the Tories. We should not be surprised by his well-intentioned lies. Corbyn is just one in a long line of ‘new hopes’ of the Left, designed to fail before they have even started. PASOK and SYRIZA in Greece betrayed their supporters. The Irish and German Green Parties sold out to get a chair at the table. Podemos in Spain u-turned on their radical rhetoric.


An opponent of immigration controls, at the last election Corbyn promised the most right-wing Labour policy on immigration in over 30 years. An opponent of NATO, he regarded it as a “danger to world peace” and socialists had to campaign against it. He now embraced NATO, saying that “I want to work within NATO to achieve stability”. A life-long opponent of the monarchy, Corbyn now stated that the abolition of the monarchy “is not on my agenda.” A critic of the police and its shoot-to-kill policy he once laid a wreath to victims of police violence at the Cenotaph. He now said that the police should use: “whatever force is necessary to protect and save life.” Labour pledged to increase the number of police by 10,000 and the number of prison warders by 3,000 and border guards by 500.


How much more would Corbyn have turned to the right if he were Prime Minister?
 
And btw, Martin isn't anti-XR. He may have reservations or criticisms regarding them, but he can't be described as anti-XR.

He's just been giving his viewpoint on what he's seen on the day.

And he knows how important climate change is. He just doesn't want XR to squander their opportunities and he knows they are not beyond criticism.

And I'm sure, like me and others, Martin hopes that this coming week is better for XR.
 
Last edited:

I looked up the reparations group who took part in XR rally. Bit concerned about this page on their website. Very long winded. But whilst saying not totally against Vaccine they criticise Kehinde for encouraging Black people to have Vaccine.



From what I can make of their statement they are in effect anti Vaccine at this time.

If anyone else can read it to see if I'm wrong.

I don't think you're wrong, it's very clearly anti vaccine.
The idea that certain groups are being used as 'guinea pigs' doesn't make much sense to me, seeing as the vaccine is being offered to absolutely everyone.
All the anti vaccination arguments on that page boil down to variations on the standard ones as far as I can see.
 
From the article I posted :

Corbyn spent the first two weeks of his leadership backing down and capitulating on precisely the things his supporters wanted from him. He was forced to make the vote over scrapping Trident and opposing the current austerity measures a free vote, meaning MPs were able to ignore him. He also stated that his opposition to the benefits cap was purely personal and worst of all, he stated that Labour, if elected, would work within the same budget laid out by the Tories. We should not be surprised by his well-intentioned lies. Corbyn is just one in a long line of ‘new hopes’ of the Left, designed to fail before they have even started. PASOK and SYRIZA in Greece betrayed their supporters. The Irish and German Green Parties sold out to get a chair at the table. Podemos in Spain u-turned on their radical rhetoric.


An opponent of immigration controls, at the last election Corbyn promised the most right-wing Labour policy on immigration in over 30 years. An opponent of NATO, he regarded it as a “danger to world peace” and socialists had to campaign against it. He now embraced NATO, saying that “I want to work within NATO to achieve stability”. A life-long opponent of the monarchy, Corbyn now stated that the abolition of the monarchy “is not on my agenda.” A critic of the police and its shoot-to-kill policy he once laid a wreath to victims of police violence at the Cenotaph. He now said that the police should use: “whatever force is necessary to protect and save life.” Labour pledged to increase the number of police by 10,000 and the number of prison warders by 3,000 and border guards by 500.


How much more would Corbyn have turned to the right if he were Prime Minister?
You keep arguing a straw man based on some notion I don't hold that labour are perfect and the tories aren't. I don't think that. I simply think that a Labour government wouldn't be as bad as the Tories. That's the best we can hope from this system, and said system ain't going anywhere anytime soon. I wish that were different, but until then it is a tool we can use. As such, as part of the struggle, we should use it to our advantage. Why? Because if we don't the Tories will.

This pablum about Corbyn is just irrelevant mate. No one is saying that, had he won, he'd have turned into Trotsky. The point is that he wouldn't have turned into Boris Johnson.

It's a shit situation we are in. Capitalism is dominant, faltering, and the far right are popular. Critical thinking has taken a back seat to rhetoric and fear. But to argue only for idealistic outcomes over small modest changes - even possibilities - makes absolutely no sense.

Arguing about what a monster Jeremy might have been, as PM, is utterly irrelevant. It's also just ill intentioned speculation. Yes I grant he might have conceded on a number of issues. But where is the evidence he would have been as bad as the fucking Tories right now? Currently Johnson is happy for a thousand covid deaths a week. Has lied at the despath box every fucking time he's spoken, and his ruinous duplicitous brexit has made things worse than they needed to be. Of course that's just a small spoonful of the shit the Tories have created. Do you really think he'd have created the kind of spiteful policies Priti Patel has allowed, for example? On what evidence?

Don't forget that Corbyn, while I grant he may have watered down his positions, was under repeated and very public fire from his own parliamentary party since day 1. While many Tories do think Johnson is a clown, they don't show it in the same way. They stick together, like shitbirds of a feather, like thieves. Labour had the scum like Ian Austin publicly call for people to vote for the Tories! For all his faults, Corbyn has remained pretty consistent on his principles throughout his career. Boris on the other hand has been a grasping mendacious opportunist. There is no comparison and it is fucking obvious who would have been the better choice.

There's a huge difference between watering down policies, and I'm not naive to the fact that happens, and turning to the right and it's intellectually dishonest of you to elide the two.
 
Ciao can mean hello or goodbye


Yep you are correct. Which one it means depends on context. Here’s another European language nugget’ L'esprit de l'escalie‘ don’t mean you have a day to develop your zinging retorts; retorts what that there Pickman's model got in with first BTW ( as he often does, I suspect he has some kind of algorithm running) .

Let’s see how ciao as translated to ‘hello’ works out;

He's got nothing against young people. That's complete bollocks. He actually said in a previous vid that people should support the kids on these demos - but he was hoping it wouldn't be the pile of wank that it's turned out to be.

Hello for now.

Anyway, much like this XR fortnite of protest has proved to be so far - this thread has proved to be a complete waste of time.

Hello

Oh yeah, works perfectly. It’s obvious now. I’ll certainly review your arguments with greater vigour.

Covfefe.
 
Last edited:
You keep arguing a straw man based on some notion I don't hold that labour are perfect and the tories aren't. I don't think that. I simply think that a Labour government wouldn't be as bad as the Tories. That's the best we can hope from this system, and said system ain't going anywhere anytime soon. I wish that were different, but until then it is a tool we can use. As such, as part of the struggle, we should use it to our advantage. Why? Because if we don't the Tories will.

This pablum about Corbyn is just irrelevant mate. No one is saying that, had he won, he'd have turned into Trotsky. The point is that he wouldn't have turned into Boris Johnson.

It's a shit situation we are in. Capitalism is dominant, faltering, and the far right are popular. Critical thinking has taken a back seat to rhetoric and fear. But to argue only for idealistic outcomes over small modest changes - even possibilities - makes absolutely no sense.

Arguing about what a monster Jeremy might have been, as PM, is utterly irrelevant. It's also just ill intentioned speculation. Yes I grant he might have conceded on a number of issues. But where is the evidence he would have been as bad as the fucking Tories right now? Currently Johnson is happy for a thousand covid deaths a week. Has lied at the despath box every fucking time he's spoken, and his ruinous duplicitous brexit has made things worse than they needed to be. Of course that's just a small spoonful of the shit the Tories have created. Do you really think he'd have created the kind of spiteful policies Priti Patel has allowed, for example? On what evidence?

Don't forget that Corbyn, while I grant he may have watered down his positions, was under repeated and very public fire from his own parliamentary party since day 1. While many Tories do think Johnson is a clown, they don't show it in the same way. They stick together, like shitbirds of a feather, like thieves. Labour had the scum like Ian Austin publicly call for people to vote for the Tories! For all his faults, Corbyn has remained pretty consistent on his principles throughout his career. Boris on the other hand has been a grasping mendacious opportunist. There is no comparison and it is fucking obvious who would have been the better choice.

There's a huge difference between watering down policies, and I'm not naive to the fact that happens, and turning to the right and it's intellectually dishonest of you to elide the two.
There is no comparison he says in a post comparing Johnson and Corbyn :facepalm:
 
Can Awesome Wells and Martin/Count Cuckula just shut the fuck up. There's a whole politics forum for that discussion. This a thread about Extinction Rebellion.
 
Can Awesome Wells and Martin/Count Cuckula just shut the fuck up. There's a whole politics forum for that discussion. This a thread about Extinction Rebellion.
But, but, he’s got a hat and everything…

Ciao
 
Any Questions on Radio 4 had the question “are Extinction Rebellion extremists?” which is a talking point pushed by Policy Exchange who are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Just caught a bit of it and most answered that they were.

Really lazy of the BBC especially as these protests seem to have had very few arrests. Shouldn’t be surprised I guess as it’s an awful program.

 
Any Questions on Radio 4 had the question “are Extinction Rebellion extremists?” which is a talking point pushed by Policy Exchange who are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Just caught a bit of it and most answered that they were.

Really lazy of the BBC especially as these protests seem to have had very few arrests. Shouldn’t be surprised I guess as it’s an awful program.


200 arrests very few? What was that you were saying about lazy?
 
Over a thousand on previous occasions so yes.
You're being really lazy and frankly stupid here in that there is no link between number of arrests at a protest and the 'extremism' of participants. Not to mention that you're not giving the actual context - was 1000 before a bigger or smaller proportion of those present than the 200 or so this time? In addition it's been a stated aim of xr in the past to clog the courts. What's to say the police have decided not to play along?
 
You're being really lazy and frankly stupid here in that there is no link between number of arrests at a protest and the 'extremism' of participants. Not to mention that you're not giving the actual context - was 1000 before a bigger or smaller proportion of those present than the 200 or so this time? In addition it's been a stated aim of xr in the past to clog the courts. What's to say the police have decided not to play along?
You’re (deliberately?) missing the point - why is the BBC discussing whether they’re extremists or not? It’s a stupid question. It’s just along the same line as discussing whether climate change is happening or not and playing into the status quo & those interested in keeping it.
 
You’re (deliberately?) missing the point - why is the BBC discussing whether they’re extremists or not? It’s a stupid question. It’s just along the same line as discussing whether climate change is happening or not and playing into the status quo & those interested in keeping it.
Perhaps you should reread your post 4182 where you suggest arrests can be a metric of a protest's extremism. I am in no way surprised by the BBC being shit, and it's very surprising you seem so exercised about it given the lamentable way the BBC has portrayed protest for decades.
 
Perhaps you should reread your post 4182 where you suggest arrests can be a metric of a protest's extremism. I am in no way surprised by the BBC being shit, and it's very surprising you seem so exercised about it given the way the BBC has portrayed protest for decades.
Ok - no idea what point you’re trying to make if any 🤷‍♂️
 
Yes O wise, enlightened, superior ones. I should not question or criticise anyone, especially not Extinction Rebellion or the great Holy Jezziah.

Me and Martin are just lowly, thicko anarchists who don't know anyfink.
 
Last edited:
It’s a stupid & pointless question. That’s the point. Discussing it is just a way of diverting from the actual issue - it’s a deliberate ploy of the oil & gas industry.
Right. So your claim now is there is a conspiracy between the BBC and the oil and gas industry.
 
Back
Top Bottom