UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Salandriagado]

It stops being a coincidence when you give them a job and invite them to cabinet meetings.

not being bothered who does and doesn't support you doesn't automatically lead to that.

I never said it did. I said that Johnson did do that.

[Salandriagado]

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-need-to-talk-about-the-tories-antisemitism-problem/

from your source:

And this is by no means an isolated incident, with Rees-Mogg a few weeks ago describing his Jewish colleague Oliver Letwin of being part of an ‘Illuminati’ for supporting legislation to delay a No Deal Brexit.

...so that was out of context, then.

So repeating antisemitic things makes it not antisemitic any more?

[Vassenor]

So we're getting set up to break the power of the courts (something Brexit was supposed to be about preserving) because they might tell Boris No?

[Phoenicaea]

^hebrews behave same as supposedly catholics, protestants, sunni muslims, shias do in their occasions.

the ‘cultural materialism’ issue*. well not true materialism, a vulgar drift of it, has been carried by these ignorant reactionaries who speech.

for them, people sure that life is measurable nothing more than a familist success based on the heist of bills.

materialist socialist thinkers haven t intended to spur that degradation of nowadays reactionaries, yet they caused it through their simplicity.

*(tv labels it, with much scarse sense, ‘cultural marxism’)

[Greed and Death]

So we're getting set up to break the power of the courts (something Brexit was supposed to be about preserving) because they might tell Boris No?

Boris is now the law of the land.

[Druing]

I never said it did. I said that Johnson did do that.

earlier, you supported the clear implication that because these people with these beliefs support this thing, this thing is then associated with those beliefs:

This is also comes with the fact that Boris Johnson's government has the support of far-right nationalists like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins, along with Britain First who are actual fascists.

the latter of what you said was also put forward, which i didn't challenge.

So repeating antisemitic things makes it not antisemitic any more?

i'm under the impression that the original accusation was not that it was antisemitic, but rather more an accusation of jrm courting a conspiracy theory, in particular, the very fictional illuminati and that he accused his fellows of being members of them, in which i believe we resolved earlier that it was an accusation of conspiracy using the name as part of an expression.

JRM literally called 2 of his fellow Tory MPs members of the Illuminati in a Parliamentary debate. The two just happened to be Jewish.

He's in the Cabinet.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-need-to-talk-about-the-tories-antisemitism-problem/

from your source:

And this is by no means an isolated incident, with Rees-Mogg a few weeks ago describing his Jewish colleague Oliver Letwin of being part of an ‘Illuminati’ for supporting legislation to delay a No Deal Brexit.

...so that was out of context, then.

am i understanding the accusation wrong then, and that instead the case is, jrm is antisemitic for reason being; he opposed people's actions as MPs and the nature of the antisemitism is that the specific people being opposed in this instance practice judaism?

or am i wrong here as well?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So we're getting set up to break the power of the courts (something Brexit was supposed to be about preserving) because they might tell Boris No?

I like sources.

[Chan Island]

So we're getting set up to break the power of the courts (something Brexit was supposed to be about preserving) because they might tell Boris No?

Boris is now the law of the land.

It's actually pretty scandalous how much power we rest into the hands of just one person in our system. A PM with a big majority can do literally anything and it's really scary how little can be done to stop them.

I've been referring people to read the backstory of V for Vendetta a bit more than usual recently....

[Fartsniffage]

So we're getting set up to break the power of the courts (something Brexit was supposed to be about preserving) because they might tell Boris No?

Boris is now the law of the land.

Close but no biscuit.

Dominic Cummings is now the law of the land.

[New Bremerton]

atheist Zionist who stands firmly with the State of Israel... before lumping us with actual fascists and neo-Nazis.

Israel is an ethnic nationalist state which inflicted ethnic cleansing on what it perceives as an inferior race

The only groups that have sought to cleanse or subjugate an ethnic group from the entire Middle East wholesale have been Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. It is they who consider non-Muslim infidels like us to be inferior. Everything Israel has done since then has been in self-defense and rightly so. The Palestinians have had their chances. No more games. But I don't want to derail this thread with yet another long rant about Islam, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

Indeed. I've used the term myself, and I'm a proud, Asian, liberal, centrist, atheist Zionist who stands firmly with the State of Israel. Maybe the leftists and fake news rags like BuzzFeed, HuffPo, The Independent and The Guardian decrying those of us who use the term as "stealth antisemites" should have a good look in the mirror before lumping us with actual fascists and neo-Nazis.

By the way, Tommy Robinson may be an idiot and a buffoon who has done and said stupid things, but he's no racist or fascist. His views on Islam are spot on.

So what does it actually mean then?

Cultural Marxism refers to the woke, identitarian Left, not to be confused with the more traditional, purely class-based Marxist ideology that predates it. At least that's what I mean when I use it.

[Vassenor]

Israel is an ethnic nationalist state which inflicted ethnic cleansing on what it perceives as an inferior race

The only groups that have sought to cleanse or subjugate an ethnic group from the entire Middle East wholesale have been Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. It is they who consider non-Muslim infidels like us to be inferior. Everything Israel has done since then has been in self-defense and rightly so. The Palestinians have had their chances. No more games. But I don't want to derail this thread with yet another long rant about Islam, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

So what does it actually mean then?

Cultural Marxism refers to the woke, identitarian Left, not to be confused with the more traditional, purely class-based Marxist ideology that predates it. At least that's what I mean when I use it.

So your buzzword means buzzwords. OK...

[Dumb Ideologies]

The only groups that have sought to cleanse or subjugate an ethnic group from the entire Middle East wholesale have been Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. It is they who consider non-Muslim infidels like us to be inferior. Everything Israel has done since then has been in self-defense and rightly so. The Palestinians have had their chances. No more games. But I don't want to derail this thread with yet another long rant about Islam, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.



Cultural Marxism refers to the woke, identitarian Left, not to be confused with the more traditional, purely class-based Marxist ideology that predates it. At least that's what I mean when I use it.

So your buzzword means buzzwords. OK...

What is the purpose of this pretence of asking definitions when there is a pattern observable to even occasional visitors that your response will be a lazy "nuh-uh" to avoid the effort of even token engagement?

No one is fooled!

[Chan Island]

2 Labour MPs are quarantining themselves for having attended an event that one of the people confirmed with the disease attended. \

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... -live-news

[The Huskar Social Union]

lol

This just amused me by the way which is why i linked it, i have serious doubts about it being a genuine account.

[Chan Island]

lol

Dear oh dear.

[The Huskar Social Union]

lol

Dear oh dear.

From what i know its business as usual for that airport, so it seems everyone on tweetworld.org are arguing over bollocks, still entertaining tho.

[The New California Republic]

lol

Schiphol Airport has lost my bags twice, so me and them aren't on the best terms.

[The Huskar Social Union]

lol

Schiphol Airport has lost my bags twice, so me and them aren't on the best terms.

Fucking dutch trickery am i right? Stealing our damn bags!

*looks at Blaat*

[Gormwood]

So we're getting set up to break the power of the courts (something Brexit was supposed to be about preserving) because they might tell Boris No?

Boris is now the law of the land.

Please. Judge Dredd is The Law. Boris, is just a posh douchebag who wants to be Trump.

[Ostroeuropa]

So your buzzword means buzzwords. OK...

What is the purpose of this pretence of asking definitions when there is a pattern observable to even occasional visitors that your response will be a lazy "nuh-uh" to avoid the effort of even token engagement?

No one is fooled!

Pretending to be legitimate participants in political discourse rather than bad faith actors is necessary for the idpol left because it allows them to throw tantrums when you decide there is nothing to be discussed and the only method of dealing with them to prevent them enacting their racist and sexist agenda is force, preferably legal force such as having the state physically removing them from institutions and barring them from entry, or physically preventing them from interacting with the people they harass through the use of the state and restraining orders and so on, banning them from participation in sectors of the economy where they have access to their victims, physically closing their meeting areas and so on.

By maintaining the pretense of being participants in a discussion they can appeal to free speech even though they have no intention of good faith participation, and can use those discussions to gaslight their targets, pollute culture, spread lies, and so on, while gatekeeping institutions in the same fashion i'm proposing be done to keep them out, and using them to harm the demographics they hate.

Like if I just up and decide that electrocuting transpeople is a perfectly sensible policy and act too stupid to understand the counterarguments, or do not engage with those counterarguments in any but the most superficial of ways, but also throw a tantrum when you decide to move beyond discussion into physically forcing me into compliance by crying and saying you should resort to free speech and debate, then that derails the attempts to end the bad behavior.

Like, what more needs to be said to feminists to get them to understand their DV policy is state violence against men? What more needs to be explained to the cultural Marxist types about how their ideology is racist and sexist? What part of the evidence for biological equality of the races is eluding the Nazis?
Nothing. They understand it perfectly well and they're pretending not to. That's why their arguments devolve into being superficial after people see the flaws in them and start calling them out. It is merely a means to keep a "Discussion" going instead of giving people the correct understanding that they are never going to be convinced, that they know they are harming people, that their excuses are precisely that, excuses, and they just don't care.

Because once you understand that about them the solution is obvious;
Rally against them and physically force them to comply.

Keeping up even a token refusal to acknowledge the harm being done and acting like it needs to be discussed is necessary for them to convincingly pretend to be victims when you try and organize in that fashion.
It's how bigots always behave these days because it tricks people into thinking "But this is so obvious surely you will be convinced by further evidence and then you will stop behaving this way" rather than realize the person acting too stupid to understand that "But stabbing people kills them!" is acting.

I'm pretty convinced the alt-right learned it from the idpol left and that's where they picked it up from, and why the idpol left immediately recognized and understood the tactic.

By participating in the debate in even the most bad faith, superficial, and lazy way, the idpol left can fall back on demanding to be included as legitimate participants in politics in general rather than an irritant that needs to be removed from society and driven to the outskirts.

Vass has just picked up the meme rather than generated it. It may not even be conscious, but that's the function of this behavior and why it is so widespread on the idpol left. Their arguments were sophisticated enough to overrun institutions, but cannot hold up under sustained scrutiny. Rather than cede the institutions to those who won the argument like those the idpol left took those institutions from, the idpol left understands you cannot *force them to do so merely by arguing* so long as they keep pretending they haven't lost the argument and keep the argument going.

The straight up neo-Nazi types are the same with their dogwhistles and so on. The revel in how seriously you take the discussion because they don't take it seriously at all and can be flippant and act in bad faith. They have a simple set of goals; They want to hurt people because they enjoy it, they enjoy being racist and sexist and want to keep doing it. They know they can't do that if they admit it to society, so they will never admit it. But they also don't care to hide it particularly, they know they can hide in plain sight. Because the function of discussion and debate relies on good faith participants, and you're never going to use mere words to force them to admit they are wrong, are sexists, are racists, and so long as they refuse to do that and keep coming up with assertions that such a thing is impossible, keep participating in superficial ways and so on, the debate continues. So long as they insist everyone else use mere words and try and convince them to stop, all the while they try and use state violence to enact their agenda and censor everyone, they know they can get away with it. They know that so long as they use institutions of power to enact their racism and sexism while denying that's happening and refusing to participate in good faith, the usual mechanisms for getting rid of them breaks down. A supermajority has opposed them for decades now, nothing changes, because they don't leave the institutions or allow others to enter them.

It takes less time for a feminist to lie and make up that domestic violence is caused by patriarchy and then harass people into that being an excuse for state violence against men than it takes to disprove that fact, disprove the face-saving attempt, disprove all the excuses for why its still true despite your evidence, force your way through their gatekeeping and attempts to suppress that information, and so on. We're at 40 years and counting for it. That's 40 years of state violence against men and rising. Because we refuse to accept that they never believed it, not really, and we don't *need* to treat these people as legitimate participants in a discussion.

It'd be like me saying "You stole from me and that's why I'm going to keep punching you.".

You can try and prove your innocence if you like, but that's because you don't get it.

I'm gaslighting you so you don't hit me in the face with a shovel when I try, and instead spend your time trying to convince me you didnt' steal from me. I KNOW you didn't. It's a tactic i'm using against you. that's why I keep acting obstinant, in denial, and too stupid to understand how the camera footage proves you didn't steal from me. It's not that you need more evidence. It's that you don't understand what i'm actually doing and how poisonous my participation in society is.

There is no string of words you can put together that can physically force me to admit you didn't steal from me. There is no string of words or moral argument you can come up with to prevent me punching you. Me pretending there might be is just so you don't punch me back. I'm hurting you because I enjoy it, and don't want you to defend yourself. It's that simple.

"But that could be fake" is all I need to say after you do the work of coming up with evidence because I'm not being serious and even I don't believe it. All that matters to me is that your response to that is to go and try and gather evidence it isn't fake rather than realize what i'm doing, and pick up the shovel.

That's my evaluation of the idpol left behaving that way, anyway. I see it *all the time* from them, and it's something they have in common with the far-right, probably because ultimately their behavior is similar; justifying racism/sexism with superficial rationalizations. The solution to the idpol left isn't to argue with them. It's to take that supermajority opposed to the idpol left, and convince THEM that the only way forward is to use the state monopoly on physical force against the idpol left to physically force them into compliance by removing them from institutions, banning them from them, shutting down their organizations, imprisoning them when they say certain things, and so on.

[LRON]

interesting. can you source that please? i'd like to go over it

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-need ... m-problem/

Ah the amount of stretching in this article is impressive, quite impressive. "Tis not I that is racist, but them" is an old tactic.

[Salandriagado]

I never said it did. I said that Johnson did do that.

earlier, you supported the clear implication that because these people with these beliefs support this thing, this thing is then associated with those beliefs:

This is also comes with the fact that Boris Johnson's government has the support of far-right nationalists like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins, along with Britain First who are actual fascists.

TIL I'm Cerinda.

the latter of what you said was also put forward, which i didn't challenge.

So repeating antisemitic things makes it not antisemitic any more?

i'm under the impression that the original accusation was not that it was antisemitic, but rather more an accusation of jrm courting a conspiracy theory, in particular, the very fictional illuminati and that he accused his fellows of being members of them, in which i believe we resolved earlier that it was an accusation of conspiracy using the name as part of an expression.

An antisemitic conspiracy theory.

JRM literally called 2 of his fellow Tory MPs members of the Illuminati in a Parliamentary debate. The two just happened to be Jewish.

He's in the Cabinet.

from your source:



...so that was out of context, then.

am i understanding the accusation wrong then, and that instead the case is, jrm is antisemitic for reason being; he opposed people's actions as MPs and the nature of the antisemitism is that the specific people being opposed in this instance practice judaism?

or am i wrong here as well?

We're accusing him of being antisemitic because he's propagating an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not rocket science.

[Ostroeuropa]

earlier, you supported the clear implication that because these people with these beliefs support this thing, this thing is then associated with those beliefs:

TIL I'm Cerinda.

the latter of what you said was also put forward, which i didn't challenge.



i'm under the impression that the original accusation was not that it was antisemitic, but rather more an accusation of jrm courting a conspiracy theory, in particular, the very fictional illuminati and that he accused his fellows of being members of them, in which i believe we resolved earlier that it was an accusation of conspiracy using the name as part of an expression.

An antisemitic conspiracy theory.

am i understanding the accusation wrong then, and that instead the case is, jrm is antisemitic for reason being; he opposed people's actions as MPs and the nature of the antisemitism is that the specific people being opposed in this instance practice judaism?

or am i wrong here as well?

We're accusing him of being antisemitic because he's propagating an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not rocket science.

Just because the left asserts it's a neo-Nazi thing to avoid engaging with the idea doesn't mean the right has to treat that assertion as valid.

Cultural Marxism is a shorthand description of intersectional identity politics that doubles up with comparing it to the Marxist class struggle and oppressor-oppressed dynamic, and an implication of this being divisive, negative, and so on. That's how plenty of people use it, and they're not Nazis.

You may as well claim globalism is by definition anti-Semitic as a term because Nazis mean Jews when they say it.

As far as i'm concerned this is a TERF issue. If cultural Marxists don't like the term, they should supply their own one to describe themselves rather than pretending they don't exist as a distinct group separate from others they pretend to be the same as.

[Salandriagado]

TIL I'm Cerinda.



An antisemitic conspiracy theory.



We're accusing him of being antisemitic because he's propagating an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This is not rocket science.

Just because the left asserts it to avoid engaging with the idea doesn't mean the right has to treat that assertion as valid.

Cultural Marxism is a shorthand description of intersectional identity politics and comparing it to the Marxist class struggle and oppressor-oppressed dynamic. That's how moderates use it.

You may as well claim globalism is by definition anti-Semitic as a term because Nazis mean Jews when they say it.

As far as i'm concerned this is a TERF issue. If cultural Marxists don't like the term, they should supply their own one to describe themselves rather than pretending they don't exist as a distinct group separate from others they pretend to be the same as.

Kindly point out where I mentioned "cultural Marxism" in any way, shape, or form.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just because the left asserts it to avoid engaging with the idea doesn't mean the right has to treat that assertion as valid.

Cultural Marxism is a shorthand description of intersectional identity politics and comparing it to the Marxist class struggle and oppressor-oppressed dynamic. That's how moderates use it.

You may as well claim globalism is by definition anti-Semitic as a term because Nazis mean Jews when they say it.

As far as i'm concerned this is a TERF issue. If cultural Marxists don't like the term, they should supply their own one to describe themselves rather than pretending they don't exist as a distinct group separate from others they pretend to be the same as.

Kindly point out where I mentioned "cultural Marxism" in any way, shape, or form.

Sorry, You didn't. I thought this was about the news that some of Johnsons people are now talking about cultural Marxism publicly, which has provoked a meltdown among the usual suspects. I should have read your post better.