Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
In this Discussion
Top Posters
- Arkady 5356
- miss annie 5139
- andy 4506
- Ali 3397
- krappyrubsnif 3205
- tosscat 2291
- David 2179
- ADGS 1875
- kreuzkav 1732
- Mirandola 1618
Comments
But you're smart and well read enough to know that Soros-blame is a well-trodden anti-Semitic trope, and that if you don't use some heavy caveats when suggesting he's somehow responsible (as you've subsequently done) then people will inevitably raise an eyebrow. I also think that it beggars belief to suggest that people are protesting because of a billionaire's money as opposed to, you know, outrage at the systematic murder of an ethnic group by state employees. If wealthy people are using their funds to draw attention to that sort of thing then fair play to them. Sure beats the typical tactic of funding climate denial.
I've never said protestors are not doing this for just reason and intention (exept for nutters burning stuff etc). This whole thing was related to my view that we should stop categorising and labelling people like it's some kind of 1950s South Africa. I find all the nuances with this or that definition pointless when it defines division.
This is getting silly. So far you suspect I'm an anti Semite and then you think I might be saying the people protesting are not doing it for the cause. The situation is amplified by BLM and others via media. That's a lot of people with a lot of money and a lot of agenda. So without that amplification a lot of kids wouldn't be involved and we wouldn't be subject to stupid US style racial identity politics.
I do think it's a bit odd that you'd watch what's happening in the world in the last few weeks and the contribution you feel like making is to suggest that a kindly old liberal billionaire is the problem here, but each to their own.
My original contribution relating to the title of this thread was that we should stop labelling one another in my view as this helps create division. In my view unnecessarily bringing race and division into things. These mis-labels then being mis-used and diverting away from the real issue.
So I've never said that this old man is a problem, you might think he's a solution, that's up to you. Either way he has influence to some degree. I am not trying to belittle a just cause. I'm simply questioning the logic of the labels and whether these might cause divisions and pointing out some interests benefit from this division, exacerbating it to their advantage. Like with any of the labels.
As for simply not labelling people, that makes it harder to tell who is being disadvantaged, and who is being privileged, and thus harder to fix things. The labels already exist; we haven't just started labeling people when these protests arose. it is only by recognising that labeling has existed for centuries, and the effect that it has had, that we can THEN move to a state where they no longer matter. But one cannot fix what one cannot identify.
Who exactly benefits from these divisions, by the way, and is it really Soros and those like him who are (as I understand it) promoting openness and democracy? You might not have said it but you certainly implied it.
Link to join
https://chat.whatsapp.com/Eh5ljBqAAWEHjwG96jpuWs
Yes I appreciate I am being advised to be careful because a lot of people just jump straight to conclusions. However, a lot of people also use this established method to shut down conversation. It can be limiting of open speech. I might say that people should be careful when throwing out unfounded accusations, it's not related to the issue simply brings up something else uncecessarily. So I cannot worry about these things.
Openness and democracy. I'm not convinced a globlist agenda will lead to greater democracy. He is pro-EU (not very democratic) and was pro second referendum, not in my view a democratic thing to do. (Let's not get into side debate on Brexit, we all got sick of that). He is openly trying to and has managed to influence who is in in power without himself having any democratic mandate. However, I'm not saying he has never done anything good.
What worries me it the extent of influence which some people theorise (I'm still making up my mind to what extent) is aimed at destroying established pillars of the west in order to establish a type of globalism some liken to communism. I would say what he does by inserting political agenda into funded groups is quite radical. Does this inadvertently help to increase populism? Or worse more radical groups? I'm bothered about this because I don't like things going to left and right and being stuck in the middle, will we be forced to pick a side?
People have commented to me that BLM will drive sensible people to the right. I think that's got something to do with radicals tearing down statues which is nothing more than history erasing and cultural Marxism like a cultural revolution. That's not a debate and not democratic. There are people genuninely trying to campaign against racism in all that nonsense and that's good obviously but there are nutters in both sides fighting in London yesterday which really annoys me. I think it could be a different message slant about unity.
You say we have used the same labels for hundreds of years. Maybe for hundreds of years this has been done wrong? I'm not sure I agree on dividing people and dosing out special help to racial or ethnic groups. This should be looked at by income, unemployment, access to education, family related stats etc etc. My point which I keep reiterating is that the labels like in the title of this thread or more specific ones are divisive and perpetuate the issues they have created.
I am curious why you are worrying about the influence that someone like Soros has, who is trying to create open societies and in this case racial equality, as opposed to, say, the Koch brothers, or those on the right who actually have a much more demonstrable interest in both maintaining the status quo and actually increasing division. I also very much doubt that the protests here have anything to do with Soros's Foundation. it seems more likely that they are the natural and understandable reaction to centuries of discrimination.
We clearly differ on whether tearing down statues is erasing history or continuing to write it. Statues of Lenin came down after the fall of communism in the Eastern Bloc; we still recall that it existed. Much of the history around those statues that we know of is one-sided - the efforts around tearing them down, or at the very least contextualising them, is an attempt to address them. Take Churchill - yes, his leadership saved the UK during a very perilous time. But Britain did not stand alone - it was supported by an empire that was the result of appalling injustice, cruelty and exploitation, and Churchill himself was guilty of awful racism too. That isn't discussed much, is it? Or at least wasn't until recently.
"In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of an ongoing academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture and values.[49] According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism and Christianity using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness.[50][51][52]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
Additionally cultural Marxism might be a bit of a buzz word at the moment, but if we're going to be honest, it's also a real thing - any scholar of history will know that Marxism is both practical economics and has a massive cultural element too - it's literally historically inaccurate to say that it's not a thing, just like conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism etc have a large doses of culture attached. So putting two and two together and distilling you get what the right calls 'cultural marxism.' I think it's best for everyone to accept that both the left and the right lead to very very dark places at either extreme and part of the problem right now (and I'm afraid I'm seeing it right here) is that both sides aren't very good at self criticism.
You saw it with Jezza after the election and on the opposite side with Trump (pretty much all through his presidency), you see it with the immigration debate, Brexit blah blah blah - everyone right now needs to be a bit self critical and stop digging useless trenches.
My questioning whether labels and organisations and rich individuals are really causing more division does not seem like a credible idea here although it is in the outside world. Maybe everything should be taken at face value and how it's written on wikipedia.
*Spoiler*, its anti-semitism...
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/conspiracy-theorists-have-a-fundamental-cognitive-problem-say-scientists?utm_source=pocket-newtab
And I just read this - a good piece on rewriting British history:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/18/lying-history-britain-statues-slave-trade
This thread on that topic from yesterday really struck me:
The book is also very interesting, although I wouldn't say it's necessarily fully true - a lot of people I know, work with, and are friends with would label themselves liberal, they may vote labour, but live their lives in quite conservative ways i.e. live in nuclear families, save money and invest in the stock market speculatively, they may talk about raising taxes and then pay in cash to avoid tax and live in the whitest neighbourhoods you can think of in London, but would be horrified if you suggested their children move to Tottenham. I also know religious conservatives like my neighbours who vote labour but wouldn't let their children marry outside the faith for 20 gold bars.
All the same, many conservatives I know, are very open and tolerant, and hold views that would generally class them as Left Wingers, particularly from a social stand point. I can continue to elaborate...
As a result, I simply think the old left right debate is completely broken, especially after the last election - I don't know what should replace it, but at a time when generalisations seem easier to make i.e. based on whether or not you voted for Brexit or what racial group you come from - I'd argue they are increasingly irrelevant at a time where information is so readily available and people are mixing ideas and identities more than ever outside of social media.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/12/make-no-mistake-blm-radical-neo-marxist-political-movement/
Other recent divergent classics have been “man pissing on plaque”, “rescued Millwall supporter”, “Maddie alive”, “Maddie dead”, “man pissing on Churchill memorial” (oh no sorry they didn’t show that one), “man burns flag” and the classic “Trade Unions tell teachers to sit at home”.
I would personally like to see everyone come out of their house at 8pm on a Thursday evening and tell someone they don’t know a fact about themselves, anything they want, and then all have a nice cup of tea, or a beer. And then have a vote to see if we should give Marcus Rashford a knighthood (yes).
I attached it because the article ends claiming the whole thing is causing division which was my point and I said that these types of labels result in people being used and manipulated. A mainstream opinion in the UK was voting for Brexit although a lot of people could not accept it was mainstream or even believe it, particularly around here, maybe too much Guardian reading. I tend to go on what I hear from people I speak to who have said things to me recently like, they can't stand watching the premier league footballers all take the knee (like what Raab says), or they think it's potentially a new terrorist organisation etc etc....this is all whilst pointing out to me that BLM UK fundraising page clearly says it is commited to dismantling capitalism (far left?) and has raised £1M, with nutters trying to deface the cenotaph and beat people up. BLM pages in the US are encouraging people to register to vote. All sorts of potential political involvement. But of course we don't live in a time where it's wise to say what you think and what you hear and read may not be mainstream for one or another. Another person yesterday talked about the silent majority of middle england.
So this is an extreme example of my theory of how labels are making this worse.
Anti racism I fully support.
I am all for peace, love, justice and harmony.
They aren't far right, that's a fact, any more than Corbyn is a Communist nor Soros a Marxist.
I don't find it helpful to label people I don't like extremist labels, because it undermines ones arguments.
People can be equally dangerous and untrustworthy if they're downright incompetent or just looking for money at the expense of others.
If anything you can say the Barclays are free market capitalists who exploit neoliberal free markets, but they aren't fascists. If you keep moving the overton window, there will be no words to describe the real Nazis when they come along.