London Anarchist bookfair 2020

[Wilf]

In some ways, yeah it'd be fair enough if a few people put a Bookfair on in their town/city. But the London one, especially as you are taking on the decades long history and accumulated hard work put into the other event, is tied to a movement and various groups whether the organisers like it (or them) or not. And it's fucking arrogant, individualist, and bad political form to just decide established anarchist groups aren't welcome (or whatever bollocks term that's been used).

This. Space and Covid restrictions aside I'd have thought you should be accepting all applications for tables or workshops from established groups or campaigns that fit within the broad parameters. Plenty of debatable and marginal cases, but the ACG most definitely isn't one of them. Excluding an established group on an (apparent) allegation of transphobia is a significant departure and absolutely demands the organisers publish their reasons.

The organisers seem stuck with that decision now and completely unwilling to ease their way out or offer any kind of dialogue. It's a pretty weird corner they've backed themselves into.

 

[JimW]

It was barely ever a movement but this takes its even more firmly in the direction of a scene. Cheers, tossers.

 

[Pickman's model]

In all fairness to the organisers, maybe this is my platformist side coming out, but I'm perfectly happy for the bookfair organisers to decide who they want at their bookfair, on whatever grounds they see fit, freedom of association and all that. But this weird silence/denial that any decisions have been made/suddenly claiming that they'd been communicating with people all along and any communication problems must be someone else's fault is not a good or responsible way of doing that.

It's my view that people who identify as anarchists should be allowed a stall. When I was in cw we made the majority of our annual income at the bf, and denying groups a stall even at this year's reduced event is denying them the opportunity to raise funds. We've always been a fractious bunch but our diversity is part of our strength. Homogenising the movement on what the organisers assume are groups' attitudes is really poor

 

[LDC]

It's my view that people who identify as anarchists should be allowed a stall.

Does get tricky though if you follow that line, there's been plenty of dodgy groups over the years profess to being anarchists, some of the 'Alternative Green' lot (Richard Hunt, ex-Green Anarchist person) and the Heretics Bookfair in the late 1990s (?) has been mentioned here already that was a right hodge-podge of weird and dodgy groups not tolerated at the other anarchist bookfairs generally.

 

[Pickman's model]

Does get tricky though if you follow that line, there's been plenty of dodgy groups over the years profess to being anarchists, some of the 'Alternative Green' lot (Richard Hunt, ex-Green Anarchist person) and the Heretics Bookfair in the late 1990s (?) has been mentioned here already that was a right hodge-podge of weird and dodgy groups not tolerated at the other anarchist bookfairs generally.

Yeh well obvs not your national anarchists or anarcho-capitalists

 

[hitmouse]

Does get tricky though if you follow that line, there's been plenty of dodgy groups over the years profess to being anarchists, some of the 'Alternative Green' lot (Richard Hunt, ex-Green Anarchist person) and the Heretics Bookfair in the late 1990s (?) has been mentioned here already that was a right hodge-podge of weird and dodgy groups not tolerated at the other anarchist bookfairs generally.

Yeah, I'm trying to be as fair as possible to the organisers because I recognise it's an important event for all the reasons mentioned, and I think having a flawed bookfair is better than no bookfair at all, and making the new bookfair organisers a movement punching bag isn't really any fairer than doing it to the old organisers. And as I've mentioned above, I think the Antiuniversity lot have gone way too far in the other direction by including a talk by someone from the ITS/Atassa milieu.
Having said all that, if I were a bookfair organiser, and some weirdo misanthropic reactionary who claimed some kind of affinity with anarchism tried to book a stall, I would probably just tell them "no, you're not welcome and here's why", and if some interested punter asked "Why haven't you let the Aum Shinrikyo Charles Manson Kill Everyone Now Club have a stall at your bookfair?" I would probably just explain why. This lot's refusal to do that does not make things any easier for anyone really.

 

[LDC]

Yeh well obvs not your national anarchists or anarcho-capitalists

I mean I think that's where the tension is coming from isn't it? Lots of that scene see anyone they think of as transphobic as akin to fascists.

 

[Pickman's model]

I mean I think that's where the tension is coming from isn't it? Lots of that scene see anyone they think of as transphobic as akin to fascists.

I don't know if that's the case, and I wouldn't in this instance like to speculate. The ACG certainly aren't in any way fascist.

 

[Wilf]

I mean I think that's where the tension is coming from isn't it? Lots of that scene see anyone they think of as transphobic as akin to fascists.

Seems to me that both refusing a stall and refusing to engage is something you'd do to an enemy. I doubt that the collective really think that but they've managed to herd themselves into a ridiculous place. I don't know whether it's political cognitive dissonance or Danny's couplers that's in play here, but the idea you can put the ACG in a box where you literally can't talk to them is ... quite something. I'm trying to avoid saying this is the end point of identity politics. I'm trying.

 

[Wilf]

Seems to me that both refusing a stall and refusing to engage is something you'd do to an enemy. I doubt that the collective really think that but they've managed to herd themselves into a ridiculous place. I don't know whether it's political cognitive dissonance or Danny's couplers that's in play here, but the idea you can put the ACG in a box where you literally can't talk to them is ... quite something. I'm trying to avoid saying this is the end point of identity politics. I'm trying.

... goes back to the idea of a movement. If you are part of one, however loose, there's a place there where you can work through differences, however zero sum they appear (as in 'trans v terf'). This episode says that stances on the difficult idea define who is part of the movement and who isn't.

 

[LDC]

I don't know if that's the case, and I wouldn't in this instance like to speculate. The ACG certainly aren't in any way fascist.

Yeah of course they're not! I wasn't speculating about it in relation to this episode, but it is unfortunately an attitude I've come across among a good number of people elsewhere. "Why would we debate trans stuff, we don't debate with fascists" kinda thing. Sure I've seen it on here as well tbh.

Seems to me that both refusing a stall and refusing to engage is something you'd do to an enemy. I doubt that the collective really think that but they've managed to herd themselves into a ridiculous place. I don't know whether it's political cognitive dissonance or Danny's couplers that's in play here, but the idea you can put the ACG in a box where you literally can't talk to them is ... quite something. I'm trying to avoid saying this is the end point of identity politics. I'm trying.

The other place I've come across this is from the more bonkers end of the insurrectionary and individualist anarchist types; seeing anyone from other parts of the movement as inherently politically flawed, and so beyond redemption or consideration as part of their movement. Which often seems to slip it seeing them as the enemy as well. It's really quite 'Four Lions' sometimes. Very good/bad positions with no much room for nuance and complexity.

Someone clever who knows about psychology etc. would probably have something to say about this and why it seems quite prevalent among the left.

 

[smokedout]

Yeah of course they're not! I wasn't speculating about it in relation to this episode, but it is unfortunately an attitude I've come across among a good number of people elsewhere. "Why would we debate trans stuff, we don't debate with fascists" kinda thing. Sure I've seen it on here as well tbh.

What do trans people have to gain from entering into a debate about whether they should lose legal rights granted over 25 years ago? Should LGB people feel compelled to debate wih those who'd like to see laws prohibiting homosexuality restored? Should women feel compelled to endlessly debate whether they should have the right to reproductive healthcare? What is the intent of those calling for a debate? Is it to further illuminate the subject and bring about mutual empathy and find solutions, or is it the first step in building a campaign to abolish trans rights? What do the far right mean when they say we need to have a debate about immigration, and why is this any different? Why should trans people be expected to walk into such an obvious trap?

I think people not understanding this, or reading it as something censorious, is where some of the tension lies in this matter. It is not in trans people's political interests to take part in a debate about rights granted decades ago. There is nothing to be gained from doing so and everything to lose. And now it has been inflicted on us, largely by the power of the right wing press, things have got really shit for trans people in the UK.

Incidentally how would you feel if your boss announced that they wanted to start a debate about whether you were paid too much or had too many workplace rights? Would you happily trot along to a meeting with an open and curious mind to hear their sincere points of view, or would you tell them, as much as you could get away with, to fuck right off?

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s probably here that I should point out that the ACG do not want to debate away trans people’s rights or anything of the sort. Indeed we have nonbinary/trans members. We support trans rights.

This detour should probably take place on another thread lest people come away with the wrong idea.

 

[Serge Forward]

Aye, and that's the problem, groups ghosted or banned from the bookfair never supported any of those anti-trans positions mentioned by smokedout.

 

[kenny g]

It all started from when the SPGB weren't allowed a stall...

I remember having a discussion with one of the @ stall holders and they suggested David Cameron was more of an @ than half the groups present.

It has always been a broad church and that was the beauty of the event. I feel in a way a bit like how I have never attended Glastonbury since the strong fence was erected back in 2000 ish. The magic has gone and the controllers have the reigns.

I would say good luck to them but I would be lying. They have descended on a weak animal and turned it into a carcass. Each putrid peck in their verbiage takes away from the soul of something that was beautiful.

 

[smokedout]

Aye, and that's the problem, groups ghosted or banned from the bookfair never supported any of those anti-trans positions mentioned by smokedout.

Tbf you said "The particular relationship between trans women and women who are born female and socialised as women has been fraught"

From a trans perspective that's a pretty concerning, and entirely untrue statement. I appreciate you have a more nuanced position now though.

 

[LDC]

What do trans people have to gain from entering into a debate about whether they should lose legal rights granted over 25 years ago? Should LGB people feel compelled to debate wih those who'd like to see laws prohibiting homosexuality restored? Should women feel compelled to endlessly debate whether they should have the right to reproductive healthcare? What is the intent of those calling for a debate? Is it to further illuminate the subject and bring about mutual empathy and find solutions, or is it the first step in building a campaign to abolish trans rights? What do the far right mean when they say we need to have a debate about immigration, and why is this any different? Why should trans people be expected to walk into such an obvious trap?

I have no interest in the wider 'gender critical' or whatever groups, we're talking about anarchist groups and the Anarchist Bookfair here. And likening people 'on our side' as being similar to the far right wanting to debate immigration is pretty low and erroneous and poor politics I think. Nobody I know in the anarchist movement has ever wanted to discuss removal of trans peoples' rights, nor has anyone I know or come across wanted to 'abolish trans rights' or have anything but support for trans people.

But that often isn't enough, people are expected to agree wholeheartedly with positions they are told to have, with no allowance of discussion or questioning, and any discussion on the topic (and surely they are some legitimate good faith areas for discussion?) is often being painted as being akin to fascism and anyone wanting to discuss and work things out is the same as wanting to murder trans people. (How are people supposed to adapt and get better politics if not partly through some discussion btw?) Hence the ACG and others write some pretty good statement and still seem to be not allowed a stall at the Bookfair.

E2A: Anyway, this is a much done to death discussion, not sure I have anything to add, and sure you're much more fed up with it smokedout. I'll try and resist continuing it.

 

[hitmouse]

On the trans/debate thing, I think the problem isn't with connecting transphobia and the far-right - there definitely is an overlap there, it's not an coincidence that the Women Won't Wheesht crowd come out with this Save the Children rhetoric, anyone who thinks there's no connection there needs to read that Radix Journal article (link is to an archived version, I'm not linking directly to Radix!), etc. It's more a problem of people whose politics come more from posturing social media posts about punching nazis than from serious, ambitious antifascist strategy, imo.
Like, however much we might glorify the confrontational side of things at times, I'd guess most people would agree that the vast majority of antifascism has to be about the political work that's needed to separate off the soft support from the hardcore, and to wear down that soft middle ground support, which will involve a lot of discussion, and also clear-eyed analysis that doesn't just lump things together. By way of analogy, I'd think it'd probably be fairly uncontroversial on urban to say that both a) the far-right were heavily involved in and supportive of the Brexit campaign, and b) it'd be daft and counter-productive to refuse to talk to any Brexit supporters on those grounds?
Idk, I appreciate people are sick of this conversation, but given that "are the ACG transphobic?" seems to be a question that's helped drive the issue that the last however many posts of this thread are discussing, I think it might be worth having out here.
Also, I wish it was that easy to separate out the GC lot on one side, and the Anarchist Bookfair on the other, but if Women's Place or whoever had avoided leafleting the previous bookfair, or if all attendees had been unanimous about rejecting them, then... well, this whole mess could have been averted and we'd all be a lot happier.

 

[smokedout]

I have no interest in the wider 'gender critical' or whatever groups, we're talking about anarchist groups and the Anarchist Bookfair here. And likening people 'on our side' as being similar to the far right wanting to debate immigration is pretty low and erroneous and poor politics I think. Nobody I know in the anarchist movement has ever wanted to discuss removal of trans peoples' rights, nor has anyone I know or come across wanted to 'abolish trans rights' or have anything but support for trans people.

But that often isn't enough, people are expected to agree wholeheartedly with positions they are told to have, with no allowance of discussion or questioning, and any discussion on the topic (and surely they are some legitimate good faith areas for discussion?) is often being painted as being akin to fascism and anyone wanting to discuss and work things out is the same as wanting to murder trans people. (How are people supposed to adapt and get better politics if not partly through some discussion btw?) Hence the ACG and others write some pretty good statement and still seem to be not allowed a stall at the Bookfair.

E2A: Anyway, this is a much done to death discussion, not sure I have anything to add, and sure you're much more fed up with it smokedout. I'll try and resist continuing it.

One of the problems, from a trans perspective at least, is that even the most vociferous anti-trans activists claim not to be transphobic or opposed to trans rights. One of the founders of WPUK insisted to me that they didn't want a bathroom bill despite it being right there in their key demands that they want to see businesses fined for not providing cis female only toilets. There are also been claims that trans rights, as trans people understand them and as the courts have confirmed, do not actually exist, and that trans people are suddenly demanding access to toilets and changing rooms inline with their gender in a way they never have before. This is the terrain trans people have to navigate - the gender critical movement has continually been evasive, ambiguous and duplicitous, so it is understandable why claims that of course I support trans rights are often met with suspicion.

So without going over old ground, and back to the ACG, the 2019 statement does nothing to dispel that ambiguity and in fact appears to accept the main ideological plank of gender critical thought which is that the rights of trans women and cis women have always been opposed, or had a fraught relationship. That's why I raised an eyebrow when I first read it and I'm pleased they changed it. However, and regardless of rows about the bookfair, the ACG calls for sensitivity and understanding, which is also appreciated and which should also apply to the ACG. Trans people are being targetted by the right/far right all over the world with ever more vicious slurs and attempted legislation and this is frequently being cheered on by gender critical activists (who despite this claim they are not transphobic or opposed to trans rights). As an ACG member puts it on this thread, there is an anti-trans movement currently in Scotland that transphobic, deranged and completely obsessed, and there's nothing that unusual about the women won't wheesht crowd - mumsnet and their English counterparts are no different and I've seen more than one GC anarchist sharing crap from groups like this.

Given the increasing virulence of the anti-trans movement, the circumstances in which the ACG were formed, and the fact that they felt the need to reissue a statement themselves on their position on trans people - presumably because they thought they had not been clear, or a more nuanced position has emerged - then perhaps sensitivity and understanding includes recognising why trans people might be feeling a bit paranoid, why some trans people may not immediately take everything said at face value, and why it might take a bit of time and comradely negotiation for trust to be built up between some trans anarchists and allies and the ACG. That is not a personal attack on anyone, it's not a comment at all on what's happened regarding the bookfair, and it's not an accusation of transphobia, just a recognition that this is very difficult terrain, and whilst screaming transphobe at the ACG helps no-one neither does ACG members becoming aggresively defensive at even the suggestion they might have got things a bit wrong on this issue in the past.

 

[nastyned]

One of the problems, from a trans perspective at least, is that even the most vociferous anti-trans activists claim not to be transphobic or opposed to trans rights. One of the founders of WPUK insisted to me that they didn't want a bathroom bill despite it being right there in their key demands that they want to see businesses fined for not providing cis female only toilets. There are also been claims that trans rights, as trans people understand them and as the courts have confirmed, do not actually exist, and that trans people are suddenly demanding access to toilets and changing rooms inline with their gender in a way they never have before. This is the terrain trans people have to navigate - the gender critical movement has continually been evasive, ambiguous and duplicitous, so it is understandable why claims that of course I support trans rights are often met with suspicion.

So without going over old ground, and back to the ACG, the 2019 statement does nothing to dispel that ambiguity and in fact appears to accept the main ideological plank of gender critical thought which is that the rights of trans women and cis women have always been opposed, or had a fraught relationship. That's why I raised an eyebrow when I first read it and I'm pleased they changed it. However, and regardless of rows about the bookfair, the ACG calls for sensitivity and understanding, which is also appreciated and which should also apply to the ACG. Trans people are being targetted by the right/far right all over the world with ever more vicious slurs and attempted legislation and this is frequently being cheered on by gender critical activists (who despite this claim they are not transphobic or opposed to trans rights). As an ACG member puts it on this thread, there is an anti-trans movement currently in Scotland that transphobic, deranged and completely obsessed, and there's nothing that unusual about the women won't wheesht crowd - mumsnet and their English counterparts are no different and I've seen more than one GC anarchist sharing crap from groups like this.

Given the increasing virulence of the anti-trans movement, the circumstances in which the ACG were formed, and the fact that they felt the need to reissue a statement themselves on their position on trans people - presumably because they thought they had not been clear, or a more nuanced position has emerged - then perhaps sensitivity and understanding includes recognising why trans people might be feeling a bit paranoid, why some trans people may not immediately take everything said at face value, and why it might take a bit of time and comradely negotiation for trust to be built up between some trans anarchists and allies and the ACG. That is not a personal attack on anyone, it's not a comment at all on what's happened regarding the bookfair, and it's not an accusation of transphobia, just a recognition that this is very difficult terrain, and whilst screaming transphobe at the ACG helps no-one neither does ACG members becoming aggresively defensive at even the suggestion they might have got things a bit wrong on this issue in the past.

I don't have a problem saying the ACG could have written things better at times. And I'd go all the way back to the AF split for those of us involved in it. The 'Helen Steel's a fascist cunt who got what was coming to her' faction were very clued up on trans politics whereas I don't think any of us in the 'We know Helen why didn't you try talking to her you dicks' faction were. I now know a bit more about trans politics and can see that it's possible to say things perfectly innocently that could be taken as coded attacks by those in the know. Which is perhaps why Rhyddical-BinACG has repeatedly accused us of 'dog whistling'. We're not and never were, I don't think we knew enough to dog whistle if we even wanted to. And we didn't anyway as we're not and never have been transphobic.

 

[danny la rouge]

Thanks for that smokedout. I appreciate your perspective. And please be assured that I do understand the attacks that trans people find themselves under. It must be exhausting to say the least.

You mention a phrase from a now superseded ACG statement. I can’t speak to something that was issued before I joined the ACG. I do understand the way you read that phrase; I can can see that it could be interpreted that way. I don’t think it was meant that way but the point is that it is from an old statement. There is a newer one. I say that without any intention to disparage those who wrote the old statement.


Statements are a snapshot in time. And naturally they are updated periodically. Living organisations are an ongoing internal conversation. Organisations that ossify around yesterday’s conversation won’t be healthy. At best they’ll be dusty repositories of past events. The ACG is a living organisation. It doesn’t claim to have the answer for everything. That would lead to stagnation. We are a forward looking organisation.

And nor would I expect the ACG to in some official way go back over what people said or did during a dispute which took place before the organisation existed, and which involved only a small minority of the current membership. (But, by definition, before they were members). We live and learn, of course, but we don’t dwell in the past. That would be unhelpful.

I don’t know which ACG members have appeared “aggressively defensive”. I don’t even know if you refer to this thread or to other encounters. But I can’t say I blame people who get frustrated with a situation where there is no clear communication from another party to a dispute. The Bookfair Collective could have been open and straightforward but chose not to be. There is no disputing that fact.
I don’t know if you are in any way connected to the Bookfair Collective. I hope you are, because you seem capable of sensible communication. I hope it rubs off on them.

 

[Rhyddical]

Which is perhaps why Rhyddical-BinACG has repeatedly accused us of 'dog whistling'.

FFS, come back to check a message, to see yet another ACG member jacketing me with that shit.
It's not me comrades, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Numerous ACG members gleefully and repeatedly jacketing a fellow anarchist... ugh. sort it out.

Regarding the AF split (Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Bookfair collective or it's decisions) The statement that was put forward contained lots of dogwhistling, unconscious as they may be, nobody thought it was written by transphobes, but by people who were repeating the talking points of transphobes in the defence of a transphobe . One which trans members of the Federation had for two years or so been telling others was transphobic.("Helen is a comrade" probably not the best use of words given the situation at the time) It's not like there wasn't discussion long before Bookfair 2017, immediately after (like the next day) and in the following weeks before a dozen members penned that statement, the original version of it which was pretty aweful. I and other members, rightly responded to it with disapproval, maybe even a little shock, I'm not that close to any of you, but it really hurt others who were and the subsequently proclaimation that the "Fed had turned too liberal we have to leave" because people trying like fuck to highlight that it was full of dogwhistles, transphobic talking points etc was just, messed up.

Discussion and consensus reaching dissolved before the defensive postures and hostility taken up when people tried to tell y'all how messed up it was.
Now here we're fucking gassing about it on a public thread, which is only going to inflame the situation instead of talking about it privately and working to repair that damage?

Look, I'm glad it was edited before it was posted, I'm glad the two or three trans solidarity statements since have continued to improve (tho I'm not it's ideal imo) but development needs recognition of past problems, and frankly I think that's what some are struggling to see. It's why you've got angry individualists writing anonymous posts and why other groups have such a sour opinion and make the choice to have no communication or whatever. You've been about for four years and have yet to acknowledge that a good portion of your membership were party to this, hoping that the rest of the Anarchist milleu will just forget and they won't, like it's got nothing to do with the AF or me, is the Anarchist scene mates. I heard more than one random person cussing you out as "Transphobes" at the bookfair, I don't agree with it, but it's there because you won't acknowledge it so for half the movement it just looks like you're trying to cover up, mass deny and move on and it's not going to go away, and I'm talking here about people who have nothing to do with the AF, Bookfair or anything like that.

Right here on this thread, we've had a massive pile on, for what? Coz I'm beholden to others and my manner can be a bit glib or obtuse? Ok, I get it I do. I'd call me a dick too, I've taken the public lashing (deserved or otherwise) and the joke of it is, you are taking out your resentment on the wrong person is, just as Charlie is when he's having a moan about me about town and here when you are attaching some random persons bullshit to me and as Nastned is doing here.

Jacketing people with false accusations is dodge as fuck. Don't do it.

It's not me whose got an issue with you, it's everyone else mate, frankly I don't care, I spend zero of my time thinking about cha other than "now that they are distinctly platformists there is more definition between them and AF which is a good thing" and I look forward to going back to that, at best I think you should write some formal handshaking emails to various groups and start rebuilding the bridges you burnt, even if it was just a small portion of your members, that damage is real and you seem to think it's just those gutter snipes at the AF raining on your parade. I hope now, maybe, you realise that it aint.

Oh and stop jacketing me as your great detractor, I'm a bit precious about people lying about me to be honest and again, you are wrong.

I'm very clearly not talking about certain things and I have my reasons, I've got other shit to attend to rather than spend my mornings writing this stuff so please, comrades, in all good faith here, stop fucking lying about me coz you've got beef and just stop bringing me up in this thread, especially as a scape goat.

 

[Sue]

So were the ACG banned from getting a stall at the bookfair? Yes or no will do. Thanks.

(I genuinely don't understand most of what you write, Rhyddical. I find it very unclear.)

 

[hitmouse]

Discussion and consensus reaching dissolved before the defensive postures and hostility taken up when people tried to tell y'all how messed up it was.
Now here we're fucking gassing about it on a public thread, which is only going to inflame the situation instead of talking about it privately and working to repair that damage?

...I think you should write some formal handshaking emails to various groups and start rebuilding the bridges you burnt

I appreciate that you find it upsetting when people accuse you of doing something that you haven't done, and I hope you can extend similar consideration to others who are getting stressed out because accusations have been made about them that, in their view, are inaccurate.

But regarding talking about it privately, could you clarify what exactly happened when the ACG tried to email the bookfair collective and have a private conversation that way? It seems to me that would have been a good opportunity to have a private conversation and try to repair damage that way, but that does not seem to be what's happened.

 

[kabbes]

He doesn’t like it up ‘im, sir! He doesn’t like it up ‘im!

 

[Rhyddical]

I'm sorry if my writing is unclear, however what should be clear is that I'm not talking about the Bookfair policies on a public thread. I've said this a few times and yes I know I've been obtuse and unhelpful. Again, sorry about that. Those involved know the reasons. ,This isn't the space, again, sorry if the thread feels that that is a cunt move, but frankly it involves discussion that shouldn't be public.

Honestly at this point, think it'd be better if we stopped gassing about it on a Bookfair thread, give breathing space so that those involved can do whatever they need to backstage and hopefully clean up whatever mess there is one way or another.

Better us this space for talking about whether or not having an outside space worked, how were the online sessions? Wasn't it nice to be back in Conway hall etc etc

 

[danny la rouge]

yet another ACG member jacketing me with that shit.
It's not me comrades, you are barking up the wrong tree.

That’s something we can clear up now. As far as I know, nastyned isn’t an ACG member.

The vast majority of people on this thread are not ACG members.

I am. redsquirrel is. Count Cuckula is. charlie mowbray is. Serge Forward is. Another member was involved in the thread earlier on who isn’t active on Urban75 any more. And one other member who hasn’t been on this thread is registered on U75.

 

[planetgeli]

So were the ACG banned from getting a stall at the bookfair? Yes or no will do. Thanks.

(I genuinely don't understand most of what you write, Rhyddical. I find it very unclear.)

Page 97 so far (though yes, not all on this current issue). But I'm referencing it because sure as shit people on here will still be doing magic roundabout circles way past page 100 and you won't get an answer. I really think people need to get out and do other stuff to, y'know, "help the community".

Because this thread is an embarrassing waste of space.

And no, I don't understand most of what Rhyddical writes either.

 

[Pickman's model]

FFS, come back to check a message, to see yet another ACG member jacketing me with that shit.
It's not me comrades, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Numerous ACG members gleefully and repeatedly jacketing a fellow anarchist... ugh. sort it out.

Regarding the AF split (Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Bookfair collective or it's decisions) The statement that was put forward contained lots of dogwhistling, unconscious as they may be, nobody thought it was written by transphobes, but by people who were repeating the talking points of transphobes in the defence of a transphobe . One which trans members of the Federation had for two years or so been telling others was transphobic.("Helen is a comrade" probably not the best use of words given the situation at the time) It's not like there wasn't discussion long before Bookfair 2017, immediately after (like the next day) and in the following weeks before a dozen members penned that statement, the original version of it which was pretty aweful. I and other members, rightly responded to it with disapproval, maybe even a little shock, I'm not that close to any of you, but it really hurt others who were and the subsequently proclaimation that the "Fed had turned too liberal we have to leave" because people trying like fuck to highlight that it was full of dogwhistles, transphobic talking points etc was just, messed up.

Discussion and consensus reaching dissolved before the defensive postures and hostility taken up when people tried to tell y'all how messed up it was.
Now here we're fucking gassing about it on a public thread, which is only going to inflame the situation instead of talking about it privately and working to repair that damage?

Look, I'm glad it was edited before it was posted, I'm glad the two or three trans solidarity statements since have continued to improve (tho I'm not it's ideal imo) but development needs recognition of past problems, and frankly I think that's what some are struggling to see. It's why you've got angry individualists writing anonymous posts and why other groups have such a sour opinion and make the choice to have no communication or whatever. You've been about for four years and have yet to acknowledge that a good portion of your membership were party to this, hoping that the rest of the Anarchist milleu will just forget and they won't, like it's got nothing to do with the AF or me, is the Anarchist scene mates. I heard more than one random person cussing you out as "Transphobes" at the bookfair, I don't agree with it, but it's there because you won't acknowledge it so for half the movement it just looks like you're trying to cover up, mass deny and move on and it's not going to go away, and I'm talking here about people who have nothing to do with the AF, Bookfair or anything like that.

Right here on this thread, we've had a massive pile on, for what? Coz I'm beholden to others and my manner can be a bit glib or obtuse? Ok, I get it I do. I'd call me a dick too, I've taken the public lashing (deserved or otherwise) and the joke of it is, you are taking out your resentment on the wrong person is, just as Charlie is when he's having a moan about me about town and here when you are attaching some random persons bullshit to me and as Nastned is doing here.

Jacketing people with false accusations is dodge as fuck. Don't do it.

It's not me whose got an issue with you, it's everyone else mate, frankly I don't care, I spend zero of my time thinking about cha other than "now that they are distinctly platformists there is more definition between them and AF which is a good thing" and I look forward to going back to that, at best I think you should write some formal handshaking emails to various groups and start rebuilding the bridges you burnt, even if it was just a small portion of your members, that damage is real and you seem to think it's just those gutter snipes at the AF raining on your parade. I hope now, maybe, you realise that it aint.

Oh and stop jacketing me as your great detractor, I'm a bit precious about people lying about me to be honest and again, you are wrong.

I'm very clearly not talking about certain things and I have my reasons, I've got other shit to attend to rather than spend my mornings writing this stuff so please, comrades, in all good faith here, stop fucking lying about me coz you've got beef and just stop bringing me up in this thread, especially as a scape goat.

It's no surprise you've heard other people describing the ACG as transphobic when the bookfair organisers gave people to understand that was their view of the group. Btw I have never been a member of the ACG but in the interests of openness I have been for thirty years a member of the XACF

 

[Rhyddical]

That’s something we can clear up now. As far as I know, nastyned isn’t an ACG member.

The vast majority of people on this thread are not ACG members.

I am. redsquirrel is. Count Cuckula is. charlie mowbray is. Serge Forward is. Another member was involved in the thread earlier on who isn’t active on Urban75 any more. And one other member who hasn’t been on this thread is registered on U75.

Cool, my bad, Guess I assume all of "those of us involved in it" went onto member up in the ACG.
Glad we cleared that up, tho tbh, even more problematic that others have got that nonsense in their head due to it being repeated by Charlie (on thread and elsewhere), see thats how Jacketing works, and Ned here won't be the only one. How many people not privy to my protestations here now have it in their head that Rhyddical (now doxxed, public accounts links, real name findable etc etc) is some snake who set up a anonymous lashing of comrades?

Pickmin, I'm not sure how bookfair organisers have done this thing when I've persistantly said I don't think ACG are transphobic and the collective as so noted, has been silent on the issue. This is the problem with all the shadow boxing that's been going on, It's also why we shouldn't have a public airing of laundry.