Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

London Anarchist bookfair 2020

It's not "unevidenced" is it? Soros stages interventions, quite openly, to push society towards what he sees as progressive and liberal values. Conspiraloons might posit that he's the only actor, and generally those on the right do,( because the other billionaire consensus manufacturers tend to reinforce their prejudices) but there's no evidence that HS thinks this.

We can't discern much about her views on the subject without the context; need to see the posts she was replying to.
 
TBH having seen the ways her and some others have been treated I'd get how she and others have ended up being pushed/dragged into the more bonkers end of stuff anyway.

A really good friend of mine started off being pretty sensible (and IMO fair) with some of their criticisms and questions on this issue, but being banned from demos, anarchist spaces, people's houses, all whilst being told they're fascists (sometimes worse than), need killing, getting threatened, etc. by people they thought were friends and comrades is probably enough to make anyone go a bit mental or feel very desperate, and it for sure has pushed them into being angry and upset and taking positions that are more extreme than the ones they started with.
 
TBH having seen the ways her and some others have been treated I'd get how she and others have ended up being pushed/dragged into the more bonkers end of stuff anyway.

A really good friend of mine started off being pretty sensible (and IMO fair) with some of their criticisms and questions on this issue, but being banned from demos, anarchist spaces, people's houses, all whilst being told they're fascists (sometimes worse than), need killing, getting threatened, etc. by people they thought were friends and comrades is probably enough to make anyone go a bit mental or feel very desperate, and it for sure has pushed them into being angry and upset and taking positions that are more extreme than the ones they started with.
It now seems that you are liable to get accused of being anti-Semitic as well.

All this stuff is happening elsewhere. I went to a meeting organised by the Labour Party last night. A gay man was upset at how lesbian friends were being treated by trans extremists. A woman was upset because her trans sibling was getting flack from all over. A lot of people, while completely against discrimination, were not convinced by the arguments for self-Id, and, as they saw it, the infringement on hard-won women’s rights.

This is a complex issue. It’s being treated simplistically. It won’t go away, so people need to talk, nicely, to each other. If they don’t the division will just get worse.
 
TBH having seen the ways her and some others have been treated I'd get how she and others have ended up being pushed/dragged into the more bonkers end of stuff anyway.

A really good friend of mine started off being pretty sensible (and IMO fair) with some of their criticisms and questions on this issue, but being banned from demos, anarchist spaces, people's houses, all whilst being told they're fascists (sometimes worse than), need killing, getting threatened, etc. by people they thought were friends and comrades is probably enough to make anyone go a bit mental or feel very desperate, and it for sure has pushed them into being angry and upset and taking positions that are more extreme than the ones they started with.

yep, it's deffo other ( unnamed / unverifiable ) folk's fault when terfs go hardcore, poor old Glinners himself was just a mild sceptic a couple of years back, before he was hounded to (etc etc )
 
It's not "unevidenced" is it?

Helen said he was "funding the rapid spread of this ideology." When you put up a link to his foundation I specifically went to the trouble of checking through its donations list see if this was true, and there is no evidence of donations having been made by George Soros to any UK trans advocacy organisation. Until you provide some, it is an "unevidenced" accusation.

I don't care if she thinks he's the only one or not (she doesn't, as she writes in the first line), his name is the specific one she mentions. Not Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett or any other liberal rich person, but the world's most famous target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

It now seems that you are liable to get accused of being anti-Semitic as well.

I specifically haven't accused her of being directly anti-semitic, what I've essentially accused her of is glossing over and tacitly backing an unevidenced and blatantly anti-Semitic picking out of George Soros as a particular nemesis in a way that if it was done anywhere else, by anyone else, people would very definitely not be twisting and turning about to try and find a more flattering angle.
 
Theory :

we are just internalizing mainstream politics. Neo-liberalism by design favours LGBT and race issues because they don't really get in the way of business.
Example :
When New Labour came into existence it discarded anti-war and working class values whilst giving the green light to idpol. This enabled them to increase war and deplete support for the working class whilst maintaining credibility.

This vein runs through all institutions including the universities... which is where most of these kids got the idea from.

In effect what we have is little neoliberals tearing up the movement with their unjustified authority and lack of respect.... and of course lust for power and status.
 
Theory :

we are just internalizing mainstream politics. Neo-liberalism by design favours LGBT and race issues because they don't really get in the way of business.

When New Labour came into existence it discarded anti-war and working class values whilst giving the green light to idpol. This enabled them to increase war and deplete support for the working class whilst maintaining credibility.

In effect what we have is little neoliberals tearing up the movement with their unjustified authority and lack of respect.... and of course lust for power and status.
When was Labour opposed to war?
 
Good point. I just assumed it was pre-new labour. If it wasn't then ... I guess it was just the working class New Labour abandoned .

You get my point though?
 
Yes. During the onset of neo-liberalism ..... in the 80`s .

Anyway was just a thought, and i was partly trying to point to the fact that there is probably a far more reasonable explanation than what the alt-right are serving up .
 
Brilliant, here we are with some anarchists in 2020...

"Women being critical or concerned about some aspects of trans theory and attitudes? They're totally fascist and it's their own fault."
"Daesh attacking unarmed civilians in the UK? Well, it is a racist society, they can't be held completely responsible really."
 
Brilliant, here we are with some anarchists in 2020...

"Women being critical or concerned about some aspects of trans theory and attitudes? They're totally fascist and it's their own fault."
"Daesh attacking unarmed civilians in the UK? Well, it is a racist society, they can't be held completely responsible really."
The second bit has been there for a long long time now.
 
Maybe I did not explain myself clearly.

Before Neo-liberalism there was support for the working classes from the left.

Over the past 30ish years neoliberalism has abandoned the working class but remained progressive via support for LGBT and race issues .

Within neo-liberal societies the Universities teach the students Idpol and keep their usual general disdain for working class/anti-war politics thusly producing academics with a filtered view of radical politics .

These people then cause havoc within anarchist stuff due to having unbalanced politics.

It was just a theory .

Why am i bothering with you again?

I was just thinking the same thing about the pair of you TBH.
 
Last edited:
I wish we had this ` now. Sounds great.


Or, the above is just drivel.

Last explanation.

Over the past 30ish years neoliberalism has abandoned the working class but remained progressive via support for LGBT and race issues .

If you read the words with your eyes you should find that I was not talking about a`pro-working class neo-liberalism of before 30 years ago` at all.

What i did say was
Before Neo-liberalism there was support for the working classes from the left.
 
Last explanation.



If you read the words with your eyes you should find that I was not talking about a`pro-working class neo-liberalism of before 30 years ago` pre-80`s ` at all.
This:

Over the past 30ish years neoliberalism has abandoned the working class but remained progressive via support for LGBT and race issues .

is a sentence that says that before 30 years ago, neo-liberalism was progressive - economically, politically, socially and culturally. Now it's only the latter. It has abandoned it's progressive pro-working class economic and political agenda for some reason.

As i said, drivel.
 
:confused:No because it was not implemented until the 80`s . Neo-liberalism that is . I did not say it was either :confused:

The working class were abandoned as it was implemented is what i am saying... in this theory.
 
Look Picky ... the only reason I was drivelling is because Butchers was misunderstanding my.... admittedly crap... theory :rolleyes:
 
The idea that parties nominally in support of the w/c abandoned the economic and political content of their 'pro-w/c' programs whilst retaining a veneer of progressiveness via social liberalism is neither new nor controversial. It's accepted on the sensible left and has been for pretty much your entire 30 years. So it's not your theory nor is it wrong. What odd is the way that you imagine this happened (or rather, the lack of any mechanism or motivation) - a conspiracy theory about students and professors and them both dictating - in step with political parties, rather than our own ongoing experience and reflection on that - what the sheeple think.

Again, why have i wasted the few bits of time i have on here atm to respond to this already banned clown?
 
Helen said he was "funding the rapid spread of this ideology." When you put up a link to his foundation I specifically went to the trouble of checking through its donations list see if this was true, and there is no evidence of donations having been made by George Soros to any UK trans advocacy organisation. Until you provide some, it is an "unevidenced" accusation.

You are aware that other people can also go to that link to check for themselves, right? It literally talks about their grants, the first article about their grant to the Marriage Equality Coalition Taiwan, the second about their grant to a film project in Eastern Kentucky, etc. Bold bluff dude!
 
butchersapron you wasted your own time,and mine, by not reading my post correctly..but

Thank you for your opinion. I would only further comment in saying you seem to have very a high opinion of university education and an ignorance to its filters.

 
Last edited:
Read what I said more carefully Larry, I even put it in bold. I also went into specific details a few posts prior.

That part where you moved the goalposts to a specifically UK trans advocacy organisation? Yes I noticed, could you please show me again where Helen claimed that Soros was funding trans advocacy organizations specifically in the UK?
 
Back
Top Bottom