SEANN ORDUGH FEINNEACHAS ALBANNACH NAN RIDIRE'N TEAMPUILL
AN TEAMPULL DUBH
<It is an eternal verity in the history of mankind that when any structure or institution, in its aspect as a repository for the dedication and aspirations of human beings, becomes disestablished by whatever means, then a residual loyalty and affection will endure upon the foundations of all that has been invested in spiritual and intellectual terms, material outlay notwithstanding.
<To Scottish Patriots, whose key focus remains fixed upon a Nation state which has, to all outward appearances, ceased to exist several hundred years ago, such loyalty and affection are patent assumptions of everday life. Ostensibly destroyed by internal and external enemies in 1707, Scotland is lent a continuing and substantive existence by the nourishment of our ongoing patriotic commitment and constant political vigilance. The sovereign state which was Scotland seems to have ceased to exist, and in significant areas of human structuration it largely has. However, as a beautiful, sacred and eternal concept, Scotland has remained very much alive in the hearts and minds of its patriot devotees with the material reflection of all these poignant human desires about to yield the sweetest fruit known to mankind. We believe in Scotland's hidden powers: the present is theirs, but all the past and all the future is ours.
<Nor is this present humiliating settlement the first occasion on which our people have looked upon the outrage to their country. Between the time of Alexander III and the accession of The Liberator, Robert Bruce, there lived a generation who knew only destruction and loss, an era of unmitigated national grief, the time of the incomparable William Wallace, cornerstone and slaughtered hero whose shining example will live forever in the consciousness of our whole people.
<In reflection of the material ruin of The Scottish Nation, the once proud Knights Templar found themselves defenceless in the face of cruel persecution, deprived of substance or estate and denigrated by the pan-European sovereign office which had once extended them recognition. Scotland and The Order of Templar Knights have shared the experience of eclipse in all the palpable areas which had once denoted their singular marks of uniqueness.
<However, the bright burning concept of Templarism and the perfervid and yet fully rational belief that human spirituality can and does rise above the things of this earth, in order to make even simple sense of our condition as a species; this concept then has survived all the damage that ill-disposed Princes and their patronage could inflict. All the damage inflicted by successively and concomitantly the ascendant Bourgeoisie with their prerequisite pallid, trite and tedious respectabilities, the crass pseudo-intellectualism of the Gauchist revolutionary tendencies, the modern epidemic of materialism and the remorseless passing of generations. Et in arcadia ego. Thus with our ancient, sacred and enduring Scottish nation; the means to kill it has yet to be devised.
<The belief that Templarism has survived in tangible form in Scotland alone, remains a potent and vibrant folkic article of faith. The esoteric tradition which has been built upon that survival, realising in Freemasonry its most vernacular and populist vehicle (though there have also been the shady, secretive and elitist cults which have scarcely broken the surface of common awareness) is evident to those with eyes to see.
<Templarism concerns self-sacrifice and a spirituality which transcends materialist priorities and challenges the assumptions upon which these rest. Templarism owes its survival to its Scottish redoubt, and to an extent, the ancient regime of Scotland owed its existence to Templarism. The new Scotland will be our Temple restored upon these earlier solid foundations and crafted from the same durable masonry. The keystone of our patriotic agenda for the new Scotland will concern the fostering of that sense of spirituality and altruism which is the timeless and priceless heritage of the Order of the Temple.
Previous thread: >>2436922
Reminder we already live in a Fascist, Zionist, Imperialist, Capitalist state and it it's your obligation to sabotage it by whatever means you can.
Even if you're a cripple or a shut in with anxiety you can spread resources online, donate, educate, harass your local MP's email address about everything the state is doing, there's plenty you can do that I don't know if I can talk about here from a fucking computer in 2025.
That said you should go out, join a union, join a party if there's one that fits your politics, attend counter protests, leaflet, disrupt, put up posters. Just do fucking something.
There's no excuse when we are in a time of crisis like this. You are obligated to fight back against what is happening or else you are in practical terms just a nihilist just waiting for the void to consume you.
>>2460776why would we need a bolshevik style revolution…
>Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man [marx] whose whole theory is the result of a lifelong study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion,” to this peaceful and legal revolution.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htmwhen we are just so civilised? 😏🇬🇧
>>2460938tobacco companies own all vape products yet you never see this protested about do you? if tobacco gives you cancer over 30 years, these fruity chemicals are bound to give it to you in 20.
>>2461082theyre also massively expensive. theyve been defeated, which is why they invest in new drugs.
>>2461109context:
the only way to reverse immigration would be to cancel foreign work and student visas, since that is where the majority of immigrants have come from in the past 5 years. the ones people mostly complain about are asylum seekers, of whom, only 20% come by boat, and of whom, 50% are immediately denied in their claim. the ones in hotels are asylum seekers who are being processed in their claims which takes a while due to backlogs. around 50% of these will be denied as well. the labour government has revealed potential plans to process asylum seekers in warehouses and other industrial sites as an alternative. reform UK also appear to support this policy. asylum seeking itself cannot be considered illegal immigration, since seeking asylum is legislated by the UN charter and ECHR or human rights act (1998), which is why reform support repealing this, to allow for wholesale denial of claimants.
so the solutions in UK politics offered are:
- the revocation of visas
- the relocation of asylum seekers
- the denial of asylum claims by leaving the ECHR
>>2460985You see someone point out that the emperor has no clothes and you cry "wrecker" instead of going "thank you, we'll have to fire his tailor".
TERFs will wreck any party that is insufficiently TERFy. Trans people will ultimately tolerate a fudged policy so long as you keep your TERFs on a leash (see: the SNP - I don't advocate fudging it, but you can get away with it) but TERFs will wreck your party for having a fudged policy instead of an unambiguous statement that all transhumanists are targets, and the newspapers will amplify their every disagreement, they'll make every grievance they have about this issue, and the press will back them up on it. Didn't promote a useless boomer who doesn't put the work in? It's because you're a TRA nonce, isn't it? Otherwise, you'd recognize their obvious brilliance…
If you want to avoid wrecking, you've got to get rid of these future wreckers early. Even if they're acting in good faith, they're a a hornets nest - even if you don't purposefully kick it, you're still going to be surrounded by the bastards.
Again: I cannot stress the SNP example enough. The SNP were a remarkably unified party until a handful of MPs and MSPs became deranged TERFs and decided they'd rather live in the UK with anti-trans policy than in an independent Scotland with pro-trans policy.
Scottish Nationalist representatives
celebrated as the UK supreme court found that Scotland ceased to exist for all purposes with the treaty of union, that Scotland has no particular rights, and that Westminster can veto Scottish legislation with no justification at all because that's how Britain works, because a recently picked-up brainworm about transhumanists trumped a lifelong career in Scottish nationalism. That's a level of derangement that goes far beyond mere wrecking, and if you don't root it out immediately it will destroy anything it touches.
>>2460546not a britsher but when i was a kid all the most famous Djs were british. what the fug happened to you guys. you used to be kings of rock and electronic music.
now its like what, adele, and ed sherran……british music scene is even more of a nightmare than america
>>2461312>>2461291transphobia is literally more powerful than zionism.
>>2461706as marx writes, capitalism is not just an economic system, but a political system of economic power.
>>2461726a big part of our music scene was both the dole and kids coming up from community centers and stuff like this, all that is gone now.
inb4 even dizzee moves to the US. :(
>>2461706It doesn't really work, all it does is create a fault line to the left's disadvantage. You can't have socially conservative communism because it loses a culture war to socially progressive capitalism. You can't have socially progressive capitalism absent a communist opponent in the long run because the progressives will realize the answer to most of their complaints is unionisation and economic redistribution, prompting the kind of backlash you see today. However you configure the party system on top of that, you'll see this tendency.
Ultimately you're either for the domination of some people by others or you aren't.
>>2461788the issue is that youre not separating between the civic and the political. people are generally conservative in their civic attitude, but can also tolerate liberal politics. the issue is when you "politicise" civic attitudes, which causes a false unity of spheres. thats why if you repealed laws against speech in the UK, you would solve so many issues by simply putting things in their right place.
>Ultimately you're either for the domination of some people by others or you aren't.a false compromise; you can accomodate everybody.
>>2461792speech laws in the UK are mostly an irrelevant distraction pushed by the press to suit an agenda. see, for example, how much attention glinner got for being arrested "for anti-trans tweets" (front page news in most of the papers, heads of police and politicians all going "oh, we need to change our law in a pro-free-speech direction", subsequently turned out that
he was actually arrested for in-person harassment and criminal damage of a woman's phone, not "tweets") compared to how much attention the police raiding asa winstanley with absolutely no lawful ground got (no major newspaper touched the story, just sources like the committee to protect journalists, the NUJ, and jewish voice for labour.)
but more to your point, i think your model works better downstream of mine. whether, for example, civic society should hold socially liberal/conservative attitudes through legal intervention or through social pressure or through some other means, is downstream of your overall trajectory towards socially-liberal communism or socially-conservative capitalism. e.g. the current reactionary push only recently started changing the law (in britain by making it up whole-cloth in court, america style) rather by pushing an agenda than through the media.
>>2461800if there were no hate speech laws then glinner couldnt spin this story in the way he wanted, could he?
>civic society should hold socially liberal/conservative attitudes through legal intervention or through social pressure or through some other meansor maybe we just shouldnt care what people think?
>the current reactionary push only recently started changing the lawthe law should be changed.
>>2461802>if there were no hate speech laws then glinner couldnt spin this story in the way he wanted, could he?But the attempt to spin it failed, because it's not hate speech that we was actually done for.
There's not really a need for videos of some old bastard getting a talking to by the police over comments made on Facebook to create a discussion about whether people saying not very nice things is actually a matter for the court, it's a self-standing point of debate on its own, highlighting the various ways it appears the state has misused and abused the law is to suggest there are valid uses of the law and free-speech "advocates" are some of the most litigious people when it comes to wanting the courts to shut down speech that doesn't work in their favour.
>>2461805the law shouldnt exist in the first place because private speech is by definition non-political in its formal consideration. thats my point. the civil is not the political; we even have this difference in our own law.
>free-speech "advocates" are some of the most litigious people when it comes to wanting the courts to shut down speech that doesn't work in their favour.lets not pretend it doesnt go both ways.
>>2461726-music departments have been cut all around the country
-community centers, squats and other free places for young people to hang out are gone
-no where free to practice
-the average UK house cannot accommodate something loud like a drum kit (boomer neighbors get upsetty)
-no new fun drugs to write about ;(
-lack of venues
Isolated people can't really create music sub cultures, it comes from a collective effort. A good many musicians who do succeed in the UK are generally pretty middle class.
tldr; imagine a giant wasteland, but instead of being filled with zombies or something cool, it's just racist old british people who hate fun or self expression.
>>2461809>lets not pretend it doesnt go both ways.Of course it does, but that's the problem for free-speech advocates, they're mainly fucked off that there are laws protecting people who can't afford the lawyers to file, let alone win, a defamation suit.
It's scarcely a coincidence that a lot of the "well who's business is it if I use the N-word in a JOKE!?" crowd usually identify with libertarianism for other political topics.
>>2461817>they're mainly fucked off that there are laws protecting people who can't afford the lawyers to file, let alone win, a defamation suit.not really - more like the 30+ people arrested per day for tweets while burglaries go uninvestigated.
https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/>"well who's business is it if I use the N-word in a JOKE!?"precisely. who cares what people say? i remember telling my NHS therapist that my stepdad called me a homophobic slur (at christmas dinner, no less) and they asked me if i wanted to report it - i immediately declined. some things are not for others' concern. and i grew up learning that being a snitch is one of the lowest things to be anyway, so its against my instincts.
>>2461814I think maybe another part of it is for a lot of the 21st Century there was the fallacy that anyone working class could attain being middle class if they just got the right education and the right office job, spending your youth being in a band or making music, despite the natural assertion it's a dead end, is much easier when the alternative is trying to get a "good" job in the faltering industries. But when supposedly "anyone" can go to uni to do business studies and get a job in London as a banker wanker, it's a lot harder for people to confidently say "No thanks, I'd rather fuck around with this TB-303 instead".
Middle class kids don't have to make such a choice because their parents can probably swing them a decent job somewhere whenever they decide they're bored of playing a guitar.
>>2461837you clearly lack all honour and loyalty if you think grassing family up to police is a good thing.
>>2461838no we're not, you mong. just say that you support the politicisation of speech and therefore support the 600 arrests made on peaceful protestors campaigning against genocide since thats just "the law".
>>2461809Twitter is public speech, not private speech. Call me when someone is arrested for Discord or WhatsApp messages.
(So far as I know the law doesn't actually make this distinction in legislation, but in practice it's very hard to be arrested for private non-harassing messages - to be reported you obviously have to be public…)
>>2461842>you clearly lack all honour and loyalty if you think grassing family up to police is a good thing.You've been put in therapy presumably because of this stepdad of yours, what honour or loyalty are you being shown?
Honour is not reporting a desperate person stealing bread to feed his family, tolerating wankers making society worse because "grassing" makes you look bad is not honourable, it's frankly as selfish as the one committing the offence. In this case it's my taxes paying for your NHS therapist and if your stepdad is in someway blocking or preventing your treatment on my money, then I want reparations, put a hi-vis on that cunt and send him to pick up rubbish.
>>2461844No, because labelling them as terrorists was stupid on the face of it. It was clearly a bad faith abuse of the law by the government to deal with a group they found annoying.
The question there is not public or private speech at all, it's a question of what constitutes terrorism. "Do terrorists have free speech rights?" immediately concedes the government's position.
>>2461847>what honour or loyalty are you being shown?this is what you misunderstand. honour and loyalty is for its own sake; not for reciprocal rewards. ever hear the saying "be the bigger man"? im the bigger man.
>>2461848>no need to be consistentright, so you freely admit to being a hypocrite. why did it take so long with all this legal discourse; so not just a hypocrite, but also a liar.
>the naked operation of power to crush enemies and let friends off with wrongdoingim not a schmittian nazi like you, so think things can be different.
>>2461858you have no understanding of what constitutes ethos so your opinions are inherently unrespectable.
>>2461859>things can be differentso the schmittian exception does not hold for all cases, but only for authoritarians.
>the real problem here is that we're ruled by wankers.yes, like you, who supports unfair laws, otherwise you wouldnt be justifying inconsistency.
>>2461863if the law shouldnt be changed then you support palestine action being a protracted group and therefore support 600 innocent people being categorised as terrorists on behalf of our zionist government.
>>2461865That simply does not follow. If the law entitled a minister to proscribe a group, and the minister proscribes a group that you think does not need to be proscribed, you can very well say "replace the minister" rather than "replace the law".
You take the position that if one supports a PM taking Britain into WW2, you must, by necessity, support a PM taking Britain into Iraq, given that both made discretionary use of the same legal power (the royal prerogative to declare war).
>>2461884>I remember telling my NHS therapist that my stepdad called me a homophobic slur (at christmas dinner, no less) and they asked me if i wanted to report it - i immediately declined.>I grew up learning that being a snitch is one of the lowest things to be anyway, so its against my instincts.And of course that means entire groups of persecuted minorities should exhibit the same "bravery" and "honour" you're showing in this story and if they don't they're Nazis.
I'm afraid your fear of your own family siding with your bully against you on the grounds that you're a grass, doesn't really extend to people who have as a collective experienced "just words" being a complement to or a catalyst to actual violence.
Rayner resigned
>>2461897That isn't me and says nothing to my quite-specific point, which is that a flawed discretionary decision by a minister can be corrected without changing legislation by replacing the minister with one who makes better decisions.
>>2461921>Rayner resignedLol, lmao even
Odds are that she was told to resign or be pushed out
>>2461884the proscription of palestine action is literally an ammendment made into law within the terrorism act of 2000 (attached PDF). there is no ministerial prejudice, but a formal decree. the only way to reverse this would be in changing the law, thus - which for some undefined reason, you refuse to admit; as if we have perfect laws in place which can never change. 🤨
>>2461897>And of course that means entire groups of persecuted minorities should exhibit the same "bravery" and "honour" you're showingwhats the alternative? putting people in prison cos they hurt your feelings? genuine question. i get my feelings hurt by words often, but just have to deal with it. no one's particular feelings should be legally protected. i shouldnt have to explain this on an 8chan imageboard.
>people who have as a collective experienced "just words" being a complement to or a catalyst to actual violence.so, should words be legislated as a form of violence? or should there be a meaningful legal distinction between verbal attacks and physical attacks?
>>2461966I think the law is effectively fake, not perfect. The decree was introduced by a minister, and by similar fiat it could be revoked.
Make me PM and I will have my home secretary proscribe the Labour party under existing legislation, and it will be good that I have done so, whatever the flaws of the legislation itself. What's good is good, what's bad is bad.
>>2462006>The decree was introduced by a minister, and by similar fiat it could be revoked.yes, so a change in law by the repealment of an ammemdment
>What's good is good, what's bad is bad.is fairness good?
>>2461961Yes. That's how it's always worked.
>>2462005>>2462047Why are you like this? Why can't you just be normal when you see a woman instead of obsessivwly thinking about their potential secual activity?
Imagine being incelpilled in 2025. Left in this country is a joke.>Odds are that she was told to resign or be pushed out
>>2462047Sad times. If they take Nandy from us that's cause for government overthrow.
>>2462053>Why are you like this?It's called a refined taste in women lad
>>2462058Ed Miliband out.
Ian Murray out.
Yvette Cooper as new foreign sec meaning we'll get to see her do the public ritual humiliation of arselicking Trump and Vance.
Starmer could be redeeming himself here.
>>2462060>Imagine having to apologizeIts spelled apologise you burger troglodyte, back to your containment.
>for finding a woman attractive <labelling her a slagHmmmm.
>>2462083as i have written before, the far-right are always plebs aspiring to be patricians. there is no counter-elitism on their side, but only riotous peasantry. the fascist thinker ernst junger praises the lumpenproletariat with special reference to mikhail bakunin here:
>On the same day, I also had the opportunity to observe along several side streets the lumpenproletariat, which in no way is of the world of abstract ideas, as is the case with the masses. Bakunin was right in regarding the lumpenproletariat as a much more effective revolutionary force.<ernst junger, "on pain", 1934, section 10.we see fascists today also rally up the swathes of "white working class patriots" to counter the enemy. a form of bioleninist populism which raises up ogres to the ranks of elves. so those are the dynamics in play.
>>2462202oh so she avoided paying tax by expoilting tax loopholes?
>>2462214ah what a shame. She wouldn't have done much inside the cabinet anyway.
>>2462425Keep in mind this was a 17 year old - a CHILD - that Glinner approached and started talking to about "sissy porn", trying to tell the child they only reason they identified as trans must be because they have an extreme fetish porn addiction.
You won't hear about that from Labour, the Tories, Reform, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, any newspaper while they defend him as an innocent oppressed silenced martyr.
>>2462425One day a crackhead on the street is going to ask you for a pound and tell you he used to be a famous script writer.
You're not going to believe him.
Sad.
>>2462739I mean he simply refused to answer the question lol, but then said how we still need to respect people etc etc.
Which is honestly 1000% better than what Labour or any other established party is doing right now…
>>2462683he came out to support Adnan Hussein so unless he walks it back, he's on the highly-suspect list. not so much for his views as for being the kind of person who fudges the issue (
>>2462739 ) until voting closes, then goes "lol lmao fuck transhumanists" instead of continuing to fudge and letting idiots who can't do the same drown in the sea of their own incompetence.
>>2463009considering it subsequently collapsed due in large part to structural flaws that were established early on, yes.
>b-but that was all that retard revisionist gorbachev's faultyeah and how'd he come to power, huh? was he trotsky's illegitimate son or something?
>>2462683another adnan hussain type. muslim identity politics paired with anti-LGBT exclusion. vidrel:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMvb-tUBDXI/>(1) hothin, do you see trans women as women?<rambling word salad to avoid the question>(2) hothin, does your faith conflict with LGBT rights<rambling word salad to avoid the question>(3) hothin, will you make a pledge for LGBT rights?<rambling word salad, but he says that he wontis anyone surprised?
>>2463096>Adnan is not a radical feminist or any sort of feminist at allNeither are TERF
boom
>>2463101third spaces are a complete joke option, something you suggest completely unseriously to pretend (to the utterly credulous) that you're not trying to force trans people out of public life.
it is stupid on the face of it to imagine that every single business, charitable, and public institution in the country - a country incapable of even basic
for profit investment - is suddenly going to invest in a "separate but equal" transhumanist bathroom, changing room, etc, for a tiny fraction of the population, even before you start asking questions like "is 'separate but equal' really such a good idea? haven't i seen this one before?"
>>2463142some TERFs are weirdly mad that Zack Polanski changed his name because they've been so radically polarized against the concept. actual mental illness.
>>2463123Linehan doesn't seem to have caught up with the fact that names are not biological and unchangeable characteristics, nor that people have changed their names ever since humans gained the capacity for using language
>>246310917 is legally speaking a child whether you like it or not. In American you aren't an adult until 21.
And no, in Britain you can't legally leave school or he thrown out the house at age 15. Total bunk.
>>2463209politically correct company like… the DVLA, the closest thing we have to the issuers of a national ID card, and… a british courtroom, the sort of institution that can read the Equality Act 2010 as legislating to strip people of their rights and make them more unequal. go to bed, graham.
>>2463225https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-schoolthey've changed the rules and now you're only allowed to leave at 16 to go into further education or training.
>>2463225You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and are either lying out your arse or a boomer who has paid no attention to changes in the law and education since you left school yourself.
It's been mandatory to stay in education until 18 for an entire decade now grandpa. Nobody is leaving school at 15 to go down the mines.
>>2463236>they've changed the rules and now you're only allowed to leave at 16 to go into further education or training.fair enough. do people abide by it? when i was in school you were supposed to stay until your gcse's but people still dropped out a lot and got preggers and whatnot usually by y11 or tail end of y10.
It was different in the middle class schools and etc because they had '6th forms' idk if that's still a thing then.
>>2463241excuse me for not being up on what's going on in the lives of children.
Nonce.
>>2463245So first you claim teenagers are adults and should be treated as such which is very suspect itself.
Then when I point out the law states otherwise and that people under 18 are not in fact legally adults you call me a nonce?
I'm a nonce for knowing you have to stay in education until 18 under the law, despite it being the system in place when I left school 10 years ago?
I'm a nonce for simply knowing the age at which I was allowed to leave school by law?
And all of this argument why exactly? Because you're trying to defend Glinner's right to stalk, harass, assault, and talk about porn with literal children?
You are sick in the head. Deranged.
>>2463240
the government actively interferes with freedom of association, property rights*, and the law as written in the interest of pandering to your extremist ideology. the "Equalities and Human Rights Council" (chaired by a deranged TERF), prompted by the mentally ill, will harass a woman's bird watching group for letting transwomen join even though there's literally no legislative basis for it. (you're allowed to discriminate to maintain a single-sex group in a case like that, not required to do so.)
*yeah, yeah, roll your eyes and go "ah but we're leftists, we don't care about those", when a government that would gladly kill you to protect property rights is sacrificing property rights at the altar of bigotry, you know they mean it.
>>2463249>>2463249>So first you claim teenagers are adults and should be treated as such which is very suspect itself.>Then when I point out the law states otherwise and that people under 18 are not in fact legally adults yes they changed the law,
>>2463236 https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school, keep up.
>you call me a nonce?yes.
>>2463260>Also it's odd that the activist is being labelled a child in their defence Because they were literally a child when Glinner started stalking and harassing them, and when Glinner grabbed and smashed their phone?
All your doing in constantly crying about how inconvenient it is for your bigotry that the victim in the case was a child at the time, so you keep trying to redefine what being a child means, like some kind of paedophile would.
>>2463264>an AGPDehumanising children to refer to them as some fictional sex predator monster is crazy. But then you have to be crazy to be so obsessed with a seething hatred for minorities you've likely never interacted with.
>>2463275It's the same one guy who posts the anti-immigration bait. Probably too brown to be welcome on pol and is vying for his honorary status by coming here to epic-ly own us.
We should probably stop taking the bait but it is fun playing on easy mode during the slow news days.
>>2463163so he's not even a principled TERF, but just a sycophantic sell-out? good to know.
>>2463205abraham himself changed his name from abram, the same as israel from jacob and paul from saul. so its in our cultural mythology as a form of being initiated or renewed. there is also an interesting current in arthurian literature where a knight would "discover" their name through certain trials, like trans women "becoming" their acquired gender by discovery. in egyptian legend there is also the "secret name" of Ra like the tetragrammaton of YHWH. so, names matter.
>>2463283*baboon saying anything*
>>2463209>AGPat least you admit to HSTS supremacy
>>2463275lesbianism breeds reactionary politics.
>>2463169a lot of companies in the UK now have gender-neutral toilets - started as a trend around 10 years ago in schools, which is where i first saw it. the gender-critical sexual segregationists are just angry lesbians.
>>2463291actually, im the main anti-immigration guy.
TERFs are typically pro-immigration, as spurdo poster says.
>>2463298a lot of the segregationists will flip out if you suggest making all bathrooms unisex self-contained cubicles (e.g. with inbuilt sink etc, like a disabled loo) because that's "gender-ideology" too. it's one of those things that makes clear it's all about reifying assigned-sex-at-birth rather than "legitimate concerns" of any practical sort. (who the fuck actually likes sharing loos? who likes standing around awkwardly when all the cubicles are occupied, or having some mac user come over to watch you piss?)
iirc the EHRC even suggest that converting all single-sex facilities to unisex would
not be an acceptable way to comply with the supreme court ruling in a trans-inclusive way because the needs of cis bigots come first.
>>2463335because youre ignorant
>>2463339stalin was homophobic and called homosexuality bourgeois decadence. a simple answer that cuts through your floundering.
>>2463344>because youre ignorantthen it's a stalemate
and stalin was a bookwanker
>>2463355was hitler racist?
yes or no?
>>2463360was hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463363was hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463369ws hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463374>pigeonholeswe're talking about adolf hitler.
so, was hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
(just say "no" already, nazi scum, so we can move on).
>>2463375no.
>>2463378he didnt identify as white, but as black.
>>2463380according from the content of hitler's character, was he antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463387ive seen interviews (vidrel):
>"im proud to be black">>2463389was hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463395was hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463400>newsflash, palah, so not just a nazi, but also a yank in the leftybritpol thread causing disorder. but anyway…
was hitler antisemitic?
yes or no?
>>2463404let me just hit ou with a definition from google, unless you want to provide another:
>hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people.and a followup definition for prejudice:
>preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experiencewas he hostile to jewish people? Yes
Was he prejudice? No
>>2463410>hostility to OR prejudice against Jewish people.<was he hostile to jewish people? Yesso hitler was antisemitic then since he fulfilled a criteria of the term in your own words. therefore, according to google, hitler was antisemitic.
so, according to the standard definition of antisemitism, hitler was antisemitic - yes?
>>2463420im sure anne frank and all those other children "deserved it" in your eyes.
but regardless, hitler fulfills the definition of antisemitism provided from your own words, so we can be affirmative. according to you, hitler was antisemitic. thanks for confirming; just wish it didnt take so long.
>>2463429your definition of antisemitism provided:
>>2463410>hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people.does he fulfill this criteria?
<was he hostile to jewish people? Yesyes, according to you. so hitler is antisemitic to you.
>>2463430israelis are nazis
if you have an israeli passport and you live in the West, you need to either burn it or GET THE FUCK OUT
>>2463435your definition of antisemitism provided:
>>2463410>hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people.does he fulfill this criteria?
<was he hostile to jewish people? Yesyes, according to you. so hitler is antisemitic to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDbunTamH0UDeranged transphobe has a meltdown when arrested for directly calling for violence against minorities
Remember Glinner's wife left him over his obsession and he spent Christmas day alone making over 100 posts about transgender people on Xitter
>>2463416the RF in TERF is an artifact title. even the ones who (dubiously) qualify as 'feminists' are rarely 'radical feminists', but TERF flows well, so people said it a lot, and now it's a generic label. Graham Linehan is a mentally ill man upset that people didn't like an episode of his TV show, not a radical feminist, but he's a TERF because instead of admitting this, or instead of admitting he's slightly socially conservative (both of which are low status), he dresses this up as socially progressive. JK Rowling is a ladder-pulling Blairite girlboss of no serious 'feminist' credentials, but that plus hating trans people is enough to make her a TERF.
never underrate the power of something being quick and easy to say. 'transgender' beat 'transsexual' in the linguistic arms race almost entirely because people prefer to avoid 'sexual' if they can avoid it. (how "gender critical" TERFs would brand themselves had this change not occurred is it's own fun alt-history)
>>2463437im only going from the definition you supplied.
from this definition, hitler was antisemitic according to your words, so the case is settled. according to you, hitler was antisemitic. now we can close the case and get on with our day.
>>2463443yawn
yes and it had two parts to it, so I can argue it is just as much false as it is ture.
>>2463441so labels are not good?
I agree, tell this other cunt to pack it in please.
>>2463453read again:
>hostility to OR prejudice against Jewish people.the function of the term here is substitutory not additional. in your misreading it is "hostility + prejudice", when that is not the case. and as you write, hitler fulfills on of the criteria and so becomes identified in the term:
<was he hostile to jewish people? Yes>>2463458good riddance.
>>2463455There would be merit to an explicitly left-wing version of something like
https://www.defundbbc.uk/ It's a good excuse to organize and, unlike immediately implementing FULL COMMUNISM, it's got nice achievable steps and an end-goal: end goal, bye-bye Biased Broadcasting Corporation, mid term goal, save people £170 a year. Maybe even get a few of them to put that money towards a lefty youtube channel that asks the real questions like "Who
was Rosa Luxemburg?"
It'd also be quick and easy to advertise because the BBC constantly makes a target of itself. Literally every interview with Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls ought to be a massive scandal, even before you start nitpicking. there's always a good excuse to jump into the conversation and go "btw, if you're still giving these people money… :)"
>>2463568he's not on trial for joking about violence, he's on trial for harassing a specific individual and for damaging her phone.
(and, inshallah, for breaching his bail conditions - which he did almost immediately)
>>2464309remember that time they wrote an article saying that transwomen were pressuring lesbians into sex and their sources were
(1) a deranged, sexually abusive, MAGA, great replacement theory pornstar who said that trans women should be lynched and that "If you left it up to me, I'd execute every last [trans woman] personally", which it praised as a "gold star lesbian"
(2) a survey from the anti-trans group "get the L out" which had just 80 responses
and then basically refused to back down (just ditching the quote from #1 and putting a cowards "btw this has literally zero statistical validity :)" footnote on the survey)
frankly, independent of my views on the issue, i'd defund them for the sloppiness of the article as a piece of journalism and the culture-war slop nature of its content. as keynes put it:
"The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all." and generating inflammatory lies based on insultingly stupid sources to fuel a stupid culture war is something our private-sector press is doing a perfectly good job of on its own.
>>2464127I look like this.
>>2463291>It's the same one guy who posts the anti-immigration baitI have nothing to do with that guy lmao (if that was me you were talking about).
>>2463300Yep. Also 2 of the 3 the obsessive feminist anti-trans posters on here are brown guys, lol.
So what was everyone doing when the emergency alert went off lmao
>>2464634Kek
>>2464800Because his job is to punch left. Starmer himself has actively tried to boost Reform. For example, Labour pulled all support from their candidate in Clacton in 2024, guaranteeing Farage would win the seat.
If you think he's smart about it, it's because he wants to force everyone opposed to Reform to rally behind Labour, like Macron against Le Pen, or New Labour against the BNP in certain seats. If you think he's an idiot, it's just that the only trick he knows is to move right. After all, every rightwards move in opposition won applause from the press, and he did win the election, surely it'll work again… (hahahaha)
>>2464827I don't get the difference between acting aggressively online compared to doing in person, if someone is walking down the street ranting and raving, swearing at passbyers, using derogatory language, advocating violence, they'd be nicked for disturbing the peace.
Why are people acting like that's supposed to be different online when people are disturbing the peace on a public platform?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_Act_1986 >>2464827Funny how he's silent when Your Party's playing host to a bloke who thinks being a transhumanist is worse than being a zionist, but quick to pop up in the media circlejerk over Glinner being arrested "for hateful things [he] say[s] online" (for harassing an individual woman and damaging her phone)
>>2464833There are differences. If I say I'm going to punch you in person, that's a threat, and there's a possible cost to saying it - you could hit me first, for example.
If I say it on /leftypol/, it's a cheap and impotent statement: I don't know who you are, and I'm almost certainly far far away. (Unless you're that bloke upstairs, in which case, keep at it. Your guitar playing is improving.)
Using the internet has a much lower cost than other forms of threatening or abusive behavior, so people do it much more casually. Someone writing a letter saying they're going to kill you for your opinions about Star Wars is a scary because it takes a lot of effort (and some monetary cost) to send a letter like that - but someone posting it online? It's nothing. For all it matters, the reason they're sending it is that they've not had a snickers, or because they'd like to snicker at your reaction.
And you can keep going with measuring cost - "I'm going to kill you" is meaningless. "I'm going to kill you, I know you work at X, you tend to shop between 6-7, you shop at M&S, you're a vegetarian, and you're particularly vulnerable on your sunday jog at 10pm…" is much more threatening because
finding that info takes effort, even if sending the message itself only involves a few more keystrokes.
But that's all irrelevant because Graham did things in real life. You don't have to weigh tweets, letters, and in-person threats against a feather to figure out that
it's a crime to break people's stuff. >>2464827He wouldn't be saying that if Linehan's violent schizophrenic obsession and incitement to violence were against gays instead of trans people
These morons believe free speech spares them from responsibility and accountability and they should lose their free speech rights until they realise otherwise
>>2464854TERF posting is basically just online bullying - it's very apparent that a lot of the people involved enjoy the moral licensee to be cruel to someone else. "Just log off" would be a valid retort to online abuse from Glinner or those of his ilk if their position wasn't also the one adopted by the state.
>>2464867How you manage group harassment is an interesting question. No individual post is particularly egregious harassment, but even when you get off "easy", say, 10,000 people are
politely rebuking you, the cumulative effect is massive.
But it's probably a platform design and moderation question rather than a legal one.
>>2464907>do communists even have democracy?Depends which Communists and how you define democracy.
Eurocommunists basically fully embrace reformism and bourgeois electoralism, council communists support fully democratic worker's councils.
Various MLs and Trots would say we don't have any democracy as it is, we have a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" where businessmen, billionaires, foreign capital interests, right wing bourgeois media and imperialist powers have overwhelming influence over political opinions and results.
A dictatorship of the proletariat would eradicate this DotB and work in the interests of the working class masses, and would still have internal party democracy and so would be an actual democracy via DotP.
And then you get Bordigists and maybe a few esoteric and almost extinct groups, Hoxhaists and Gonzaloists maybe who are openly and proudly anti-democracy.
>>2464967>which communistsjeremy corbyn
>how you define democracywinning an election with votes
>>2465108they don't endorse radical islam. even if religion is the starting point for their social conservatism, it's co-opted into standard british establishment reaction. thus, you find pro-palestine muslims teaming up with zionists.
these things always operate in a weird hierarchy. for example: in 2014 people who disagreed on every fundamental question except scottish independence would make or break alliances based on 'yes' vs 'no'. in 2023, people who agreed entirely on independence would become mortal enemies over transgender rights, with people gladly allying on that issue without regard for their position on independence. the 'big issue' changed.
>>2465769tbh I don't think the problem is strictly social democracy, it's a more general problem of creating a party top-down from existing MPs: the MPs have the whip hand over the membership. They've got an incentive to keep their jobs and they believe themselves to be the most important people, which in terms of attracting resources (both financial and intangible, like press attention) they are. As a result they tend to be more compromising than the membership (there are a lot of parties that aren't totally dominated by their MPs - but we usually call those parties "irrelevant" because they haven't got any MPs… or other forms of relevance)
as a worked example of the model, i might even go as far as to say that the reason Sultana is siding with the grassroots is more because she's got a weaker position within the MP group (and therefore needs to find countervailing power elsewhere), rather than because she's the 'true' democrat. (Not that I think she's cynical either) That said, the more I hear, there more I hope her 'faction' wins out. The people around Corbyn really do seem to be a gaggle of wets and bastards.
What's "fun" is that this basic dynamic plays out in the Greens too. The Green MPs chose to have the losing co-leader candidate Chowns become their Westminster leader, possibly hinting that she's more popular with the MPs, so it's possible that like 'Your Party' they're going to have constant tension between a basically sound membership and leadership and a basically loser-energy party establishment.
>>2465976Labour already overwhelmingly lost the Green/YP voters in 2024 and they won the election in a landslide. If Labour can't keep their own right-wing coalition together, that's on them.
If Labour are going to win the next election it's because the press will bail them out. If the press won't bail them out, even the left fullheartedly campaigning for Starmer won't save him. There is no scenario in which the left "lets in" Reform - you may as well blame the English left for letting Trump in.
>>2465976farage is a pressure release golem
nothing will change
for once I am onside with you communists, vote corbyn.
>>2466417the "spontaneity" of the masses in the absence of organisation:
>The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htmbehind every orderly movement of matter is a mind.
>>2466400>>2466410>>2466390major socialist figures of high birth:
henri de saint simon - businessman
charles fourier - son of businessman
robert owen - businessman
karl marx - intellectual
friedrich engels - businessman
karl kautsky - journalist
v.i. lenin - intellectual
joseph stalin - intellectual
mao testung - intellectual
>>2466306How one can support a two-state solution in the face of actually-existing Israel is baffling.
I'm not dogmatic about much - Say you want to turn it into NATO's Singapore if you want, but the only acceptable outcome I'll take from anyone is a single, explicitly multi-ethnic state. A delusional end-of-history neoliberal is a better ally than a two-state dreamer pretending Israel hasn't been past its sell by date since 1948.
>>2465976Please consult the polls. Keir Starmer doesn't need Corbyn's or the Greens' help to lose to Reform, he's accomplished it all on his own because he's near universally despised and his government is one that exists exclusively to continue to deliver ceaseless austerity on behalf of the financial markets, so that Reform can go on to do the same.
Who will win the next election has already been decided and makes no difference to the working class. Our only hope is taking the opportunity into building the new party into a proletarian one standing on a platform of class independence and programmatic opposition to the constitutional order and gradually win a majority of the country for a minimum-maximum programme based on such.
>>2466449Ted Kaczynski lived in a shed in the forest for 25 years and had a test I.Q. of 168.
>>2466451This website literally wordfilters the acronym for "intellegence quota" to "autism score", it wasn't that anon trying to shit on you for playing with lego figures in your 40s
>>2466487same anon
I was replying to myself, I keep forgetting the filters here
>>2466528bit racist that
but seriously, do you understand what 'controlled opposition' means?
>>2466528I want to see mass re-education camps for reform voters where they get told to go into the showers when they arrive, they go in and every Reform voter goes into their own shower booth. Then the shower heads shoot down and clamp onto their heads and start despookifying their brains. All the bourgeois consciousness is blown out and proletarian consciousness is pumped in. After that they do Victorian prison punishments for 2 years and then they leave as good standing socialist citizens.
Social Democracy delenda est.
>>2466528>>2466613>getting this mad about controlled oppositionfell for the bait award
(keir starmer is literally more right-wing than farage)
>>2467083They are equally right-wing.
Farage outflanking Starmer to the left on economic issues is the world's biggest "fell for it award" in waiting. You might as well have believed that Starmer was going to follow Miliband's Green investment plan in 2024.
'Farage' outflanking Starmer to the left on social issues is a nonsense caused entirely by Tory defectors not being up to speed on (or feeling themselves above) the latest culture war slop, with Farage himself conspicuously absent.
Farage is in a sense possibly more dangerous because he might bring in people who're capable of restoring state capacity (towards undesirable ends) which Labour has zero chance of doing, but the most likely outcome of a Farage government would be a bunch of grifters appointed to posts they're not qualified for, crashing around incompetently with no idea what's going on and no longer term plan or project of the sort even the lib-dems used to have… so, basically, continuity Starmer, himself continuity Sunak…
>>2467096It's true that it applies to all governments, but since the 1970s at least each successive government has been less competent than the last. (Heath blundered more than Wilson 1, while Wilson 2 / Callaghan had a lot more experienced people…)
The whole way we run ministries is questionable, but at the same time ministers have clearly been getting worse. Fairly junior ministers in 50s-80s government would wipe the floor with the current cabinet. If you like, the system is designed on the idea you can run a department by just appointing a manager without any domain expertise, which is silly - but we used to appoint people who were at least half-decent at being managers. Now we appoint people of no apparent talent whatsoever, losers no more qualified than the average /leftybritpol/ poster.
Even our corruption scandals are derisory: Marples sabotaged the entire national railway network to feed money to a highway construction firm that he and his wife owned, then after retiring fled to France because the taxman was coming. Evil, sure, but it takes much more individual talent to cook up that scheme than it does to bugger up the tax form on your second home.
>>2467113Nah, it's dire. A competent Labour right government would've had an income tax/national insurance reform plan ready to go. It wouldn't be scrambling around to find a billion here or there by cutting pensioner or disability benefits (even if you make "hurt the disabled" a policy goal, any remotely smart person would roll it out as part of a big new "support the disabled [into earning their own income independent of the state]" scheme, while pensioners are handled by the income tax reform), but that's the kind of sleight of hand you've got to prepare for in opposition. You can't dream it up on a whim when there's 2 months to go to the budget and you're short on cash.
The civil service were caught off guard by the fact this government basically just wants to occupy office. It has no long-term plan, vision, or agenda. Contrast Blair, who had an incredibly busy first year in office even if he was also a cunt, and who had at least two half-coherent visions (neoliberal globalization and european-unification pre-9/11, and zomg muslims under the bed we need ID cards now!!! post-9/11) of what the country would be.
If you're going to run a one term government for the bourgeoisie, you could do so much better. It's very hard to draw up a standard so low that Starmer meets, let alone exceeds, expectations.
>>2467113I thought fabians are left wing? Maybe the wolf in sheep's clothing is more about how they appear a certain way, whilst secretly pushing for something different?
I don't know much about left or right politics, or the groups involved behind the scenes, but it seems like which of the 2 parties we get to choose from, are as bad as the last, and potentially slightly better than the next.
>>2467135corbyn is a fabian
starmer is a blairite
is he the biggest villain in british politics?
report shows boris johnson's corruption:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/08/revealed-how-boris-johnson-traded-pm-contacts-for-global-business-deals>A trove of leaked data from Boris Johnson’s private office reveals how the former prime minister has been profiting from contacts and influence he gained in office in a possible breach of ethics and lobbying rules.>The ex-PM received more than £200,000 from a hedge fund after meeting Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro – contrary to statements he was not paid.>While in office, Johnson appears to have held a secret meeting with Peter Thiel, the billionaire who founded the controversial US data firm Palantir, months before it was given a role managing NHS data.<Johnson did not respond to multiple requests for comment.johnson is also responsible for the immigration crisis:
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/09/07/boris-johnson-brexit-opened-door-to-biggest-wave-migrants/>Johnson’s supposedly points-based system has had a stunning effect on legal migration to the UK: it has rocketed.>In each of the past three years for which records are available, more people migrated to Britain than to America – a country that is 40 times larger by area than the UK, and has almost five times the population.<“Net migration has risen very sharply, to levels never seen,” says Prof Alan Manning, of the London School of Economics, a former chairman of the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). “I think you might have to go back 150, 200 years to find population growth quite that fast outside of wartime.”he should be executed for treason.
would i be accurate to see the immigration crisis as a trojan horse?
>immigrants are undocumented<bring in digital IDs>immigrants are on benefits<get rid of benefits>human rights protect immigrants<get rid of human rightsof course, studies show that higher minimum wages would correspond to lower rates of low skilled immigration, as companies even admit here:
>Illegal migrant crackdown risks pushing up takeaway prices, warns Uberhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/09/05/illegal-migrant-crackdown-risks-pushing-up-takeaway-prices/so, cheaper pizza for depressed wages across britain? its not a coincidence that the left and right both avoid this central issue of class war since everything is debased into culture war. who wins? the ruling classes. who can only lose? the poor.
i mean, here's a bloody freemason podcast.
they also have a gift shop:
https://shopatfmh.com/>>2467149I've only just heard of them, and started looking into them, but they have an agenda to push. I'm a pleb when it comes to these systems of control, and I'm trying to find out more about them (the systems), but yes they have a doctrine they are pushing, socialism. I think we should have public owned industries, a more equal share of wealth (not saying give everyone a share, but pump millions into services to help the people, instead of seemingly helping private businesses). There just seems to be so many issues that the country is facing, and current crop of politicians don't seem to be able to do anything.
Plus being quite a conspiritard, I wonder about their society image, which used to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
>>2467154well it makes you wonder why a "fabian" like starmer wouldnt further the cause of socialism, then - thats why i doubt their "control" over politics.
>wolf in sheep's clothingof course it refers to the bible, where false christians are called wolves in sheep's clothing - but i cant find any explanation for the emblem online outside of speculation - when there is this sort of dishonesty then, i cant trust it.
>>2467154>>2467159 (You)
further, here is andrew warrop criticising corbyn as rejecting fabianism and being antisemitic:
>Third, the far-left worldview. The antisemitism of the Corbyn era was an offshoot of an unsavoury left populism that embraced conspiracy theories and personalised the structural failings of Western economics and foreign policy as the work of evil elites. There was never a clear line between valid Corbynite opposition to militarism, imperialism and neoliberalism and a wholesale rejection of the western liberal order, European social democracy and British identity. From the start, people felt that Corbyn’s instincts and worldview were out of step with those of the vast majority in Britain, and this played a big part in Labour’s electoral collapse. Huge numbers who liked Labour’s domestic reform agenda worried that Corbyn’s values were not their own.>The Labour leadership under Corbyn turned its back on the party’s Fabian traditions on several fronts. It deliberately sought to switch the focus from electoral politics to building a movement of grassroots campaigning and social action. But deep change can only be achieved by winning elections and wielding power through parliamentary democracy and municipal leadership.https://labourlist.org/2020/04/how-labour-under-corbyn-rejected-fabianism-and-lost-elections/this "far left view" is clearly disturbing to the fabians whilst starmer's centre-right vision is preferable.
>>2467148>>2467135Fabianism is a left-wing strategy, but the fabian society is overwhelmingly Blairite and has no interest in actually employing a fabian strategy.
Basically, it's a social network of right-wingers that colonized an elitist left-wing institution.
It's sort of like how the Spiked magazine crowd are all ex-Revolutionary Communist Party (1978-1997), but their ideology is clearly right-wing and has nothing to do with communism except the weird historical link that the RCP people realized the most fun part of Trotskyism is serial-contrarianism - why stick with boring stuff like a united ireland when you can rile up other student lefties by saying straight people can't get AIDS, the miners strike was wrong, and that sanctioning apartheid south africa is bad?
>>2468098Ghislaine Maxwell's Father was also a Holocaust survivor, Labour Party MP, major newspaper proprietor and committed agent of Mossad.
Seriously look it up, his wikipedia page alone is one hell of a read. I have been meaning to do an effortpost on him but I don't want to spend the time just for the jannies to delete it…
>>24692991. You're citing a report by Labour propagandists designed to encourage Labour to appeal to social and economic conservatives lmao.
2. Your chart basically proves nothing because "Supports Israel's right to exist" includes Jeremy Corbyn. Meanwhile in the real world, outside charted abstractions from propaganda bodies that want you to hate 'Progressive Activists' (e.g. precisely the people who will defect to Greens/YP), socially conservative landlord MPs pal up with zionists because being 'gender critical' is more important to them than maintaining a cordon sanitaire against génocidaires.
And, as already mentioned (
>>2461291 ), the SNP are the worked example of what happens when you
don't purity test your conservatives. It wasn't the progressive faction who flounced and teamed up with unionists
against the pro-independence bloc! [which is also the more economically left-wing bloc - a Scottish Labour government at Holyrood would scrap free tuition and prescriptions in their first 100 days.] "Don't team up with people who've clearly got a cause more important than your cause, which they'll undermine your cause to promote" is a good rule of thumb whether that's Trots or TERFs!
>>2469314See, this is the problem: You're desperate to talk about gender issues. You really, really, really want me to give you a wall of text that aligns exactly with your preconceived notions of what a "TRA" would write (You've never responded when I've given you novel, original arguments to that end), you keep throwing in hooks to invite people to take the bait and it never works. You pretend you're interested in economic leftism, but you've written substantially more words seething about liberals you don't understand than you have about left wing issues.
But my line holds even if most of your points are conceded: If "gender ideology" is a religion, it is a religion that puts up very few barriers to economically left-wing causes. Empirical evidence shows that its approval is bought fairly cheaply (really, it is, Corbyn and the SNP offer little more than warm words!) and that they do little to purposefully wreck and sabotage you - they can mostly be ignored. Meanwhile, "gender critical" people, reddit-atheists, are
obsessed with attacking said religion. If you tell them that you're going to buy it off, they will attack you and bugger your cause - and if you try to buy them off, they'll up their demands again. (Have the SNP TERFs returned to the fold now that the party has abandoned any pro-trans legal reforms, resolving their 'legitimate concerns'? Ha!) They are not good people to negotiate with: you pay the ransom and all you get is another ransom note.
>Why? Because most people humour trans people, they don't actually believe Trans women are women in reality.Let's say you're right: Fine. My purity test is not that you have to have all the correct beliefs in your head - I don't have a brain scanner - my purity test is precisely that, that you can
humour people, that you can
shut the fuck up and get on with the job. The problem with public gender critical figures is precisely that they have failed to do this. Adnan Hussein can believe whatever the fuck he wants - but when he's publically representing the party, wading into stupid culture war issues that could easily have been avoided by
saying nothing,
then it's clear he's a liability. Why did he open his idiot mouth? Do you think it was a good idea?
Nowhere in the chart specifically identifies 'gender critical leftists'. Your "fact" is a vibe derived from a chart made in bad faith. (Which means it's perhaps the strongest GC argument yet advanced, heyoo!) The median 'gender critical' person is a blairite, so any leftist - even one who themselves hates trans people - should reply that they're unwilling to work with GCs because, as a group, they are a liability. (Meanwhile, 44% of the country voted Tory in 2019. It's fair to say, most of them didn't do so because they're as definitionally-evil as an active Tory party member.)
Finally, let's talk demography: Let's say it is all just nonsense out of Tumblr. Fine, cool - but the 18-30 demographic is the primary target group for any left-wing party and, generally speaking, they love that shit! They like social liberalism and socialism - and if you can't offer the easy social liberal words, you certainly aren't going to deliver the difficult socialist economic policy. Why you'd throw that away to appeal to boomers who'll fold and vote Starmer to keep Reform out (
at best) is a mystery for the ages.
>>2469322The apparent issue is nonsense. The EA2010's "ambiguity" is an obvious legal hack used to effectively repeal the GRA2004 without passing new legislation. It takes some deranged leaps of logic to imagine that, when the GRA2004 changed one's legal sex for all purposes, this apparently wasn't intended to apply to the EA2010 because… uh… it just wasn't, okay?
No practical problems flowed from this until a group that clearly opposed the aims of the GRA2004 brought a case against appointing trans-women to meet quotas for women on Scottish government boards. (These generally being 50/50 representation quotas, nothing specifically contentious or based in biological sex) The practical result was new equalities and human rights council guidance saying nope, if you want a transhumanist on the board she counts as a man. Does this strike you as necessary? Is biological sex really relevant to this (frankly stupid) quota game?
(And more to the point: Do you think it'll even have that big an impact? The "progressive" response is to simply no longer make use of such quotas and shortlists.)
>>2469340See how quickly you hopped up to talk about your pet solution to gender issues. Look, everybody, here's MY comprehensive plan on how to solve the issue!! My number one thing is MATERIAL politics, sure, but here's my preferred legal solution where we invent a new idealised dentity category and slot some people into it so we can preserve the integrity of two other idealised categories, then slot these definitions into law so that all these platonic identity forms can coexist in ideal harmony!! But remember, I'm engaging with material reality as it really exists, it's the other people who're idealists, I'm a logician, i mean, uh, a materialist.
I'm sure you'll have just as much to say on whether Your Party should support a massive reform of our income tax system, possibly incorporating the abolition of national insurance… Or perhaps planning reform? YIMBY, yay or nay? After all, you're a true leftist focused on the real material issues, ain'tcha?
>>2469375
You erase nothing but silence by making claims. words are words.
But my god, do you love words, words about this stupid issue. You've churned out about 700 words about gender issues, pretty much none of them original (what if i was transblack!?!? what about sports!?!? what about the poor FTMs!?!?), and how much do you have to say about planning or national insurance? Charitably, 9. "Yes, because I actually give a shit about policies", and even within that sentence you devote more words to attacking "a witch hunting Tumblr cult who purity test based on the absurd contradictory shit tests" than to setting out your views on these important issues.
You are obsessed. You are a worked example of why I don't, in fact, accept that "vast swaths of marxists… are gender critical", because the moment they openly consider themselves "gender critical" they become at-best homeopathic marxists. Like you, they'll have a lot to say on the reactionary nightmare of gender fluidity, and nothing new to say about Marxism. Who cares about the contradictions of capitalism when you can look at the contradictions of the genderbread man image?
I keep coming back to it, but it's such a simple example I have to repeat myself: This is exactly like the "Scottish Nationalists" who found that they would, in fact, prefer to be in a "gender critical" union with England than be independent under a nominally pro-trans parliament.
If I am wrong, you will write 700 words - your own words, not quotes, detailing what you'd do about planning and NI. After all, you give a shit about policies, don't you? I'm here for novelty, not reheated talking points from The Observer, give me something only a true-and-honest materialist like yourself could come up with. Do some serious class analysis. Don't make me fill up on bread.
>>2469473this winds up being nonsense. if your legal sex is your sex for all legal purposes, what purpose does 'biological sex' serve in law?
(the 'real' answer is to stop getting so worked up about rigid categories in the first place and treat everything as an individual case, which is what people invariably do de-facto.)
>>2469550he is a turbo zionist wanker
i used to watch billy moore but he has also become the same way since interacting with charlie vietch; aggressive with stubborn, obnoxious political illiteracy.
>>2469577He's admitted being a brown guy in an ancient thread. Most likely some kind of subcontinental or mixed race guy given the histrionic wordcelism.
He is probably a homosexual too, given his hardline pro-homosexuality stance despite claiming transsexuals are all insane dangerous paraphiliacs which is funny considering this would apply to gay men much more by any objective metric both on the sexual behavior and the "grooming" of children. The insanity part would quite fit "lesbians" quite well.
That whole LGB against T thing is completely incoherent and untenable long term tbh. Ok with T but no LGB is more lindy if you know a thing or two about history before 1968.
>>2469605im informatively posting about british politics.
you are interrupting the thread with your seething.
duly, stop shitting on the floor. thanks.
>>2469621The EU is an imperialist bloc, they would never let a revolution happen here if we were in it. I think the best way of engaging with right wingers at the moment is making leaving NATO the next thing, basically that Brexit is not finished yet until we leave NATO too. Fuck the EU, fuck the Union, fuck the Imperialists.
>>2469625That's the neoliberals who are doing that, and they'd do it even if we were still helping uphold the French empire.
>>2472413I think it's possible for a public servant to become a millionaire half-legitimately. The most obvious route being to go from being a famous entertainer to a politician, but it's also possible if you're a businessman - obviously there's a lot of opportunity for corruption depending on what their firm does, but you've got to balance that against demonstrated ability to
do something. (Theoretically, starting a successful business suggests you're not a
total incompetent, although in Britain this is a struggle because most British businesses don't really do anything.)
A chunk of the problem with current MPs is that they're talentless office functionaries engaged in
petty corruption, and the only thing they've got to offer the world after leaving parliament is corrupt access to those who're still in it. The last time Peter Mandelson (for example) did anything of arguable value with his life was in 1985 when he was a TV producer, everything since then has been access-based via Labour. Similarly, for Rayner, it was when she was a care worker - as soon as she was into the Unison bureaucracy she an administrative functionary coasting mostly on relations and politicking, following the career track to Labour MP, Cabinet Minister, and disgraced former Cabinet Minister.
Contrast America: Al Gore was a smart individual-investor, Trump is a consummate grifter, and Jimmy Carter knew how to farm peanuts. Their political contacts could forget they exist and they'd still have something to fall back on. I can look at their non-political life and go "yeah, tbf I couldn't do that", something that's very hard to do when looking at UK politicians. ("I wouldn't lower myself to that" doesn't count) Take away their social contacts and they're little more employable than you or I.
>>2473041It's interesting to see which types of parties they're selecting as their international allies, probably the best clue as to wha the new party will be like
>Die LinkeDemocratic Socialists, direct descendant of the former ruling party of East Germany.
>La France InsoumiseDemocratic Socialists, leading power of the Nouveau Front populaire coalition which includes people from MLs through to Greens.
>Workers' Party of BelgiumThe most interest in that they're an explicitly Marxist party, a broad church including Democratic Socialists, Eurocommunists, Trotskyists. Also formerly had ML and Maoist factions, which apparently still exist but not openly. They're also anti-NATO and neutral on Russia-Ukraine.
>>2477566Always has been you fucking spaz. you're 20 years late.
this site i stg.
>>2477634Have I not said Burnham is a potential threat to the growth of a left insurgency?
Another reason. For the growth of Corbyn's new party, it's maybe wise not to support the Greens under their new leader Zack Polanski until there's [if] a political alliance is forged between the Greens and "your" party. Because giving the Greens momentum might hurt the growth potential of "your" party.
I don't trust greens politicians compared to Corbyn. And I don't trust a section of left activists. Certain sections of Corbyn's movement seem to can not stop hurting the political project they are a part of. The calls for a people's vote was one of them [even if these weren't the ones wrecking], the second example was voting Corbyn twice for leader, then voting Starmer for leader.
And the one complaint that has sticked with me from listening Labour insiders from podcasts during the Cobryn years, is that the base aren't politically educated [That's an actual black mark on Corbyn leadership]. And there are recent signs, that many activists will make the same mistakes again.
>>2477883>>2477939I'm not even trying to be contrarian here but they literally just look like normal people…? Do you not go outside or something?
>inbredInbreeding is most prevalent among the upper classes who wouldn't be seen dead at one of these rallies and are overwhelmingly liberal in political outlook.
>>2477869>lest we forgetNothing shows respect for fallen soldiers like appropriating them as fighting and dying for your own personal battles.
Like, I've no doubt the vast majority of tommies in WW1 would side with them wrt immigration and retaining near total whiteness of Britain, but to suggest they died in the trenches to prevent boat crossings over 100 years later after a slew of wars even more pointless than WW1 is a bit of a stretch.
>>2478589Charles Winsor the German / Norman KKKoloniser paedophile is in the UK every day.
What are you going to do about it?
>>2477883they're called the lumpenproletariat, or as marx says, "the social scum". they contribute to most of antisocial behaviour. fascists, maoists and anarchists alike perceive them to be useful idiots for their cause, as i quote here:
>>2462090>"On the same day, I also had the opportunity to observe along several side streets the lumpenproletariat, which in no way is of the world of abstract ideas, as is the case with the masses. Bakunin was right in regarding the lumpenproletariat as a much more effective revolutionary force."<ernst junger, "on pain", section 10, 1934i otherwise refer to them as peasant remnants of the folk.
>>2479447The point remains, you have a younger generation that doesn't find the jokes funny and boomer comedians are saying
>Well of course it's not funny, YOU won't let me do Blackface!Like actually
>Mitchell and Webb have a tv show, that MUST mean they're funny! It's simply illogical to choose not to laugh.isn't even really the point of the "we're not allowed to make jokes anymore" sketch, it's more an open admission that their new show pales in comparison to That Mitchell and Webb Look but they're blaming the audience.
That's not entertainment, that's not "common sense" on display, that's being a self-victimising pansy that they expect people to watch.
>>2477973I'm open, in an academic sort of way, to conceding some of the I.Q. Obsessives points while retaining a general left-wing political outlook. A lot of things are explained by these people simply being stupid. Not just uneducated, but actively stupid. (Fortunately, that doesn't mean the same thing as conceding "they're worthless", "they're entitled to fewer resources", etc. If anything, I apply a great lump of paternalist "therefore it's not their fault and we need a better system…")
Richard Hanania is a right-wing "former" nazi turned neoliberal anti-Trump type, but he makes interesting points about the US which would seem to generalize to the UK. For example: "Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV" (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch ) or "Elite human capital is always liberal" (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/listen-to-the-science-conservatives - specifically, that economic and social conservatism are only loosely correlated worldwide. Smart people tend to be economic and social liberals. ) or, how modern conservatism is a low-status oppositional culture (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/conservatism-as-an-oppositional-culture )
His best part, and perhaps his most generalisable lesson, is what happened at the last election: High I.Q. tech-bro types went over to Trump, and he thought they'd drag Trump in a smarter direction… nope, Trump and his idiot base dragged them down to their level. (
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-only-censor-musk-seeks-to ) This is what happens in the UK: An Oxford educated cunt probably doesn't have a below-average I.Q., but he'll act as though he does because that's the direction his coalition is pulled to pander to. On the flip side, Labour is made up of at-least-midwit academic types. Dressing things up in outdated class-based stereotypes (he went to uni, he must be a lib-dem or Tory!! the real working class can't read!) is just one more right-wing strategy to play on the neuroticism of the left.
You can proxy I.Q. to education for the most part (this is more comfortable for lefties provided they can remind themselves that going to university nowadays just means you're young, not that you're middle class) and another chunk of it goes to age, but as that picture shows, there are a lot of young-ish wankers out there. If you're thinking "how can we win them over" instead of "How can we build a coalition of everyone who thinks they're a gaggle of wanker idiots", you're probably going down a sub-par track. (You can't win them over, you're on an imageboard where we swap walls of text, you're precisely the wrong type to do it.)
tl;dr look at party vote by education level, remember we've massively expanded access to uni for younger people of all incomes, and note how uneducated people vote for bad parties. then remember that since uni access has been expanded, the ratio of "doesn't go to uni because they're too poor" to "doesn't go to uni because they're too thick", which used to be tilted all the way to the former, is now much more to the latter.
>>2479435The 'dogpiling' is what really offends their sensibilities. Don't you know they're a famous British comedian? You should be kissing the ground the walk on, celebrating all those brilliant bits they came up with when they were avant-garde, not reminding them that their best work is older than the average MP and that every day they continue to live tarnishes their legacy further.
>>2479458The media establishment is a challenge any good comedian would set themselves up against. Half the fun of a risque joke is "how did they get away with that?!", being a big crybaby about it is just embarrassing. It would be embarrassing to cry that you couldn't show sweary-shagging on BBC1 in 1982 and it's embarrassing to cry that you can't poke fun at contemporary social norms in 2025. It's your job! Get to it! If you couldn't come up with Sneed's Feed and Seed, you shouldn't be hoovering up license payer money!
>>2479484Just as a glib example: Labour lost very badly in 2019. The entire establishment was set up against them. It's hard to overstate how tipped the scales were - even some predictors like "liberals read more" break down because all the newspapers were printing lies. So, How would the election have gone if we'd only counted the votes of people with degrees?
A Labour landslide with vote shares basically matching what Blair got in 1997: 43% Labour, 17% Lib Dem, 29% Tory.
And if only people with a GCSE or less could vote? 58% Tory, 25% Labour, 8% Lib Dem. The closest analogy would be the National Government of 1931.
Saying that the people who voted for Boris Johnson were just idiots is a very vulgar #FBPE thing to say, but it's true! The counterintuitive thing is that the demographic you'd imagine to be anti-Corbyn #FBPE wankers
overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn, it's true they also voted Lib-Dem disproportionately, but you've got to remember a huge amount of press energy was dedicated to propagandizing these people against Corbyn
and it failed. The main people who fell for the propaganda were
uneducated, and it's not a massive leap - especially cross-referencing with age, which is also a strong predictor of who you'll vote for - to say that this is because they
are stupid.
That's something worth keeping in mind for any political strategy. You're not going to win over smart people with tactics that appeal to idiots and you're not going to win over idiots with tactics that appeal to smart people. Given the general structure of the media environment, it's much easier to win over smart people capable of independent thinking than it is to win over idiots who'll do what BBC News tells them.
>>24795181. There's no such thing as the average person.
2. This is a grotesquely unequal country, whoever you're talking to is subject to massive selection bias (and your impression of their intelligence is obviously influenced by your intelligence. To a moron, the idiot is king. To a genius, the smart guy is a moron.)
3. Idiots are capable of being creative or skillful. Being an idiot doesn't make you worthless, but it is very strongly correlated with having bad politics, particularly socially conservative politics.
Explain why a person would vote for someone like Trump or Farage (both grifters who love to exploit their own bases in a way even Starmer would never dream of - you don't see him flogging gold scams) with more predictive power than "because they're an idiot, attracted to a grifter who is appealing to idiots"
>>2479649This is a convenient and partially true explanation, but it cannot explain why degree holders overwhelmingly voted Labour in 2019. Smarter people read more, so they should have seen
more anti-Labour propaganda than someone who finds reading to be a chore and just watches TV. Yet despite this extra dose of anti-Corbyn propaganda, they overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn.
(The class position of Reform voters is basically incidental in my theory: I have no qualms with the idea that the petit bourgeoisie are idiots.)
>>2479443>entitled to laughsThe argument is whether you're allowed to make the joke in the first place, not that the audience must be compelled to laugh.
You're not entitled to have your gay sense of humour catered to.
>>2480508>not that the audience must be compelled to laugh.You're an idiot if you think it was overnight that comedians started claiming you can't "make jokes anymore". No one is saying you can't make jokes any more because Ricky Gervais got thrown in prison suddenly under new legislation, it was because there were criticisms of jokes that target, for example, trans people and comedians started kicking off that the targets of punching downwards were openly criticising the joke rather than just slinking off to cry in the bathroom like the good old days and that resulted in sympathy rather than laughs.
But tbh the right-wing free-speech advocates brought this on themselves, the thing about that IT Crowd episode with the trans woman for example, that was fine in an atmosphere where no one knew anything about trans people and as far as anyone knew it was as simple as a medical procedure to cut their knackers off and from then on they were as happy as riley and live an otherwise normal job (like being a journalist in that episode), so an episode being like "but they're still a man really, aren't they?" wasn't going to hit a sore spot for most.
But thanks to the right-wing, we know a lot more about trans people now, that actually their situation is not as carefree and immune to humiliation as once thought, there are in fact a significant number of people that do not just claim they're "men really" but "paedophiles really" and "rapists really", so a really over-the-top fight scene is not going to be viewed as "haha she still has her masculine strength" but rather that's being the visual manifestation of what Linehan at the very least wants to see but likely that of his supporters and that's not very funny now, is it?
Basically, if you make this or that person public enemy no. 1, then you forgo the ability to make jokes about them because you've forced the public to pick sides. People who agree trans people are all paedos aren't looking for light hearted jokes, they're looking for messages and rallying cries cruelly expressed. People who disagree are going to see the joke as providing said messages and rallying cries.
Perhaps if the right could wind their necks in once in a while, then there could be the "capacity for jokes" once more.
>>2480540You're right and the other thing is that these people all have their own untouchable subjects. They're really upset that you can't joke about transgender people anymore, but 95% of them would go "what the fuck did you expect?" if you caught flak for joking about October 7th or the recent death of Charlie Kirk or some other subject where, in the inner circle, it's painfully obvious you're violating a social taboo. The problem isn't that you can't do offensive jokes, it's that you can't do jokes that are inoffensive to them but offensive to someone else.
It's telling that Chris Morris is (a) a weirdo recluse (b) actually funny, and (c) never seen bitching about cancel culture. (And he's got a good case for doing it after the newspaper response to Paedogeddon or, to a lesser degree, all those angry yank letters from him taking the piss out of 9/11 in
2002. No, no, no, comedians should only slaughter
your sacred cows. Mine are
sacred!)
>>2480555Absolutely, there's a scene in The Young Ones from around 1981 I think, with a police officer wearing sunglasses (so presumably seeing everything in a darker shade) stops a white person and unleashes a barrage of racism including words we just wouldn't have on the BBC anymore, naturally that scene is cut out of repeats of the show and naturally we're conditioned to think that's solely for the benefit of people who can't tolerate hearing slurs
even as part of a joke at the expense of police officers.
I guarantee though, if they broadcast the episode with the scene intact, the right will be kicking off the loudest about the utter woke nonsense of suggesting the British police are prone to racists joining their ranks, that actually PC has gone so mad you're not even allowed to freely banter with the suspect as the arresting officer anymore! Just because occasionally that has taken a slightly risque turn about their race..
>>2480623reminder that the pensioner subsidy isn't the state pension (which is mediocre by european standards), it's that pension income and income from landlordism aren't subject to national insurance. they're paying too little tax rather than getting too much in handouts.
(this is why so many pensioners are in poverty, yet at the same time so many are raking it in.)
Unique IPs: 146