Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics

Did you see the Novara debate with Rory Stewart BigMoaner? He says he's very much from that tradition and comes across well, tbh I think I like him (yes, yes, I'll shoot myself come the revolution).

I listened to it the other day and I'd agree. I disagree with him on most stuff but I think he is honest about where he's coming from and is open to debate.

One thing is he's quite clear about is seeing other political viewpoints as being valid even when he disagrees with them. He's obviously not someone who has similar politics to Jeremy Corbyn but he sees Corbyn as having valid points in a way most of the Labour party refused to. That's quite rare these days isn't it (and arguably most so on the left).
 
Yes. I've warballed on about this enough on here so won't again.

Also, what's the future of the boring but at least somewhat "thinking" and open to debate tories. I am sure I will get flack for this. I know you think they should all be first up against the wall etc, and you're probably right. But you know, the John Major's, the hesseltines, the ken clarks, the portillos. People who had that sort of old fashioned, protect the countryside, the church, the family unit, kind of outlook, but who were also deeply well read, deeply cultured. Ya know, your average old fashioned tory intellectual, who loves his Plato and his garden and his church. Read teh spectator, church fairs, and knew their poetry and philosophy and politics. When I was growing up they seemed the heart and soul of the party, for better or worse. I don't think there is much of a place for them them in teh post-truth future. Too measured, too boring. Not enough endless digs at wokism and the like. Can you imagine John Major sitting across from Andrew Tate or Trump and agreeing with them or relating to them? I can't. There's breaks like that going on across democracy all over the place.
I agree with this, and I suspect the sort of character you describe was the sort of European conservative who had no truck with Fascism, probably someone like Charles De Gualle.

The emergence of this new type of post-modern populism is very different to traditional bourgeoise conservatism, even if it is a product of the social effects of neoliberal ideology espoused by the former. I think some on the left being kind of sympathetic to Trump is explained by their antipathy to the establishment liberal conservative, but the fact is that what Trump et al represent is far worse than what they do, just as Hitler and Mussolini were worse than Churchill and De Gualle.

I think there is an opportunity open to the left here to put forward arguments on how neoliberalism has given rise to these characters and how we can put an end to it through democratic and social reforms. Think someone like Keynes who made possible social-democracy in order to save liberalism from itself. There is an opening here I think.
 
Maybe talk of solutions comes from a view of politics as a sort of game of tactics and I don't think it works like that. It is technically possible that a vaguely left wing party might achieve some kind of breakthrough but to have any real prospects it would need to be accompanied by much deeper shifts in the balance of social forces than the superficial level of parliamentary politics.

You're right about revivalist aspects of radical movements, but what would a democratic renaissance really mean, particularly in the absence of social democracy, and who would actually be invested in it? Without mass political parties and mass labour organisations what can it amount to except a limp defence of a status quo that drives the undermining of democracy such as it is and the rise of radical reactionaries. I think the demobilising experience of both post war capitalism followed by neoliberalism has dispelled much of its progressive aura, I can't see it being an effective banner to rally round.
I think a democratic renaissance could be based around using digital technology / social media to create a more direct and engaged form of democracy as a corrective to declining engagement and social atomisation. That could in itself revive the necessary conditions for a labour movement and mass political movement.

What I have in mind is basically tricking elements of the elite concerned about democratic backsliding into supporting an upheavel of institutions and public political life, which would then in turn create the social conditions for a new modernised labour movement.
 
I've just realised what thread this is, is there a more suitable one already or is it worth starting a new one on whatever this topic is (sort of neoliberal crisis, ideological confusion, institutional decay, political impasse I don't know)?
 
I've just realised what thread this is, is there a more suitable one already or is it worth starting a new one on whatever this topic is (sort of neoliberal crisis, ideological confusion, institutional decay, political impasse I don't know)?
Might be worth a new thread but not sure how to summarise it exactly.
 
I listened to it the other day and I'd agree. I disagree with him on most stuff but I think he is honest about where he's coming from and is open to debate.

One thing is he's quite clear about is seeing other political viewpoints as being valid even when he disagrees with them. He's obviously not someone who has similar politics to Jeremy Corbyn but he sees Corbyn as having valid points in a way most of the Labour party refused to. That's quite rare these days isn't it (and arguably most so on the left).
Yeah, watching it now. He's your classic old fashioned Etonian-Oxford tory. Listenining? I'm hanging on every word. Yes I probably oppose nearly all his views, but he leads with the human. It's hard to explain. I am honestly scared sometimes on the way the world is heading.
 
Sorry but it is simply a fact that Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election result and is a threat to democracy.

That's not a fact at all. In fact there's a better case against the Democrats trying to overturn the result of the 2016 election. They never accepted Trump's victory. They immediately set about trying to overturn it with their false Russiagate allegations.
 
That's not a fact at all. In fact there's a better case against the Democrats trying to overturn the result of the 2016 election. They never accepted Trump's victory. They immediately set about trying to overturn it with their false Russiagate allegations.


There's pretty clear evidence....

You can read the indictment here.


It is pretty indisputable. If you are disputing it then I think you are choosing to disbelieve it and not worth discussing it with.
 


There's pretty clear evidence....

You can read the indictment here.


It is pretty indisputable. If you are disputing it then I think you are choosing to disbelieve it and not worth discussing it with.


My point is that the Democrats engaged in a far more extensive effort to overthrow the result of the 2016 election. They never accepted Trump's legitimacy for a second.
 
My point is that the Democrats engaged in a far more extensive effort to overthrow the result of the 2016 election. They never accepted Trump's legitimacy for a second.
perhaps you enlarge on this point, countering the claims made in this article which suggest you're talking bollocks. again.
 
perhaps you enlarge on this point, countering the claims made in this article which suggest you're talking bollocks. again.

I'm referring to Russiagate.
 
is your objection that there was no russian interference in the 2016 election, or that russian interference in the 2016 election didn't undermine trump's legitimacy?
The latter. And this in spite of a three-year campaign of disinformation waged with the full resources of the mainstream media and the security state.
 
The latter. And this in spite of a three-year campaign of disinformation waged with the full resources of the mainstream media and the security state.
An investigation into ties between Trump and Russia which did not find sufficient evidence to suggest a criminal conspiracy is not the same as trying to overturn an election result by a mixture of deceit and violence.
 
An investigation into ties between Trump and Russia which did not find sufficient evidence to suggest a criminal conspiracy is not the same as trying to overturn an election result by a mixture of deceit and violence.

I think it's worse. They treated the voters with utter contempt, had no respect for their opinion, just immediately set about looking for ways to overturn the election. They were even saying it wasn't fair because he lost the popular vote. They were trying to find ways to keep him out of power before he was elected, getting the security forces (I don't think we're allowed to say "d...p st....e") to spy on his campaign. Trump's acting foolishly in anger; the Dems pulled all the levers of state to get him out of office. Both bad, but there's a difference of scale here.
 
Yes. I've warballed on about this enough on here so won't again.

Also, what's the future of the boring but at least somewhat "thinking" and open to debate tories. I am sure I will get flack for this. I know you think they should all be first up against the wall etc, and you're probably right. But you know, the John Major's, the hesseltines, the ken clarks, the portillos. People who had that sort of old fashioned, protect the countryside, the church, the family unit, kind of outlook, but who were also deeply well read, deeply cultured. Ya know, your average old fashioned tory intellectual, who loves his Plato and his garden and his church. Read teh spectator, church fairs, and knew their poetry and philosophy and politics. When I was growing up they seemed the heart and soul of the party, for better or worse. I don't think there is much of a place for them them in teh post-truth future. Too measured, too boring. Not enough endless digs at wokism and the like. Can you imagine John Major sitting across from Andrew Tate or Trump and agreeing with them or relating to them? I can't. There's breaks like that going on across democracy all over the place.
You mention Portillo there, and in his post-politician career he comes across as an amiable chap with his passion for trains and red trousers. I don't doubt those passions are genuine. But when he was a politician, he came out with exactly the same kind of crap as that which you rail against above. Remember him tub-thumping as Defence Secretary? John Major, meanwhile, will sit there with a totally straight face and blame the 1980s Thatcher recession on 'the socialists'. And when in power, they weren't averse to plain, outright lying - the Miners' Strike as exhibit A.

Part of the problem here is that strategically minded politicians, like Portillo back in the day, will say any old crap if they think it serves their purposes, even if they know it's codswallop. I'm not sure that's changed all that much. Some politicians are less strategic and build from a base of principles - Corbyn, for example. But Starmer is another example of a strategically minded politician. He doesn't care that he's made up a lot of the crap he's flung at Corbyn, for instance. He surely knows it is crap, but he doesn't care. It serves his strategic purposes.
 
Last edited:
I think it's worse. They treated the voters with utter contempt, had no respect for their opinion, just immediately set about looking for ways to overturn the election. They were even saying it wasn't fair because he lost the popular vote. They were trying to find ways to keep him out of power before he was elected, getting the security forces (I don't think we're allowed to say "d...p st....e") to spy on his campaign. Trump's acting foolishly in anger; the Dems pulled all the levers of state to get him out of office. Both bad, but there's a difference of scale here.

They did an investigation into Russian interference which did exist but they didn't find enough evidence to implicate Trump personally. Do you think it shouldn't have been investigated? Why?

And merely some people saying that it isn't fair that the US electoral system lets the person with fewer votes win without doing anything about it is hardly a conspiracy.

And he didn't act in anger, it was a coordinated plan.

 
They did an investigation into Russian interference which did exist but they didn't find enough evidence to implicate Trump personally. Do you think it shouldn't have been investigated? Why?

Because it wasn't done in good faith, it was simply an attempt to unseat an elected President by any means necessary. The US establishment could not (and cannot) live with a President Trump. They'll do absolutely anything to keep him out of power. The interesting question is why he's so completely unacceptable to them.
 
And he didn't act in anger, it was a coordinated plan.
We'll see. In any case, the prosecution is insanely counter-productive. The Democrats can win the '24 election, but only if (a) Biden is not their candidate and (b) Trump is not in prison.
 
Because it wasn't done in good faith, it was simply an attempt to unseat an elected President by any means necessary. The US establishment could not (and cannot) live with a President Trump. They'll do absolutely anything to keep him out of power. The interesting question is why he's so completely unacceptable to them.
That's ridiculous.

Any investigation of a politician will be partly politically motivated but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence based or factual.

What you are saying means that no politician should be investigated or scrutinised as it would be "bad faith".
 
You mention Portillo there, and in his post-politician career he comes across as an amiable chap with his passion for trains and red trousers. I don't doubt those passions are genuine. But when he was a politician, he came out with exactly the same kind of crap as that which you rail against above. Remember him tub-thumping as Defence Secretary? John Major, meanwhile, will sit there with a totally straight face and blame the 1980s Thatcher recession on 'the socialists'.

Part of the problem here is that strategically minded politicians, like Portillo back in the day, will say any old crap if they think it serves their purposes, even if they know it's codswallop. I'm not sure that's changed all that much. Some politicians are less strategic and build from a base of principles - Corbyn, for example. But Starmer is another example of a strategically minded politician. He doesn't care that he's made up a lot of the crap he's flung at Corbyn, for instance. He surely knows it is crap, but he doesn't care. It serves his strategic purposes.
Oh all of those tories I mentioned are I am sure guilty of horrendous policies. I think the point I was trying to make is there’s a certain type of democratic interaction or dialectic that is being lost in the world that is being beamed back to us (I’m sure these kind of civil discussions happen in parliament (for now))- and for all their evilness, there WERE some tories that you can at least imagine talking something through with, who were broad thinking and explorative. The Rory bloke above another example. Probably he has a hideous world view but at least there’s a sense that he has somewhat of an open mind and is following his own principles somewhat.
My point is that kind of democratic dialectics in the mediated world feels to me is getting lost in the noise. The mediums now seemingly more important than the messages. The camps have never felt more entrenched on one level, and who the fuck knows what is going on on the ground level, amongst real flesh and bone folk - hopefully an actual better interaction. But are problems addressed in the “real world” anymore? It seems the media, all of it not just traditional media, is where minds are made up.
 
Back
Top Bottom