I don’t think you need to apologize. Controversy is good, especially if it can start a conversation. It’s sad that people you respect are willing to cancel you for wanting to have a good discussion on a difficult subject. It’s on them, not you, to come to terms with their inability to critically think on this topic. NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR WHO YOU ARE.
They are demonstrating a high level of critical thinking, which you can see if you read the essays Crow links. Take a look! It's also on each one of us to cope with criticism like an adult and not cry cancellation when someone disagrees with us. To be fair, Crow isn't doing this, so I'm not sure why you need to do it for him. He's also acknowledged on Rusere's essays that he has a lot of good points. Take a look!
Thank you. I'm feeling pretty bad about all of this. I wound up adding to truth movement in-fighting, which means I'm doing the opposite of what I want to be doing. To me the point of this truth movement is to build a basis of unity towards an IRL political movement.
You don't need to wring your hands about this. No-one should be afraid of robust discussion and if criticised then just come back with your own arguments why you think you are right to be doing what you are doing. If you can't, then learn from the discussion and move on. That's all that's needed here. It's not about infighting, it's about having an adult discussion. If you can't do that, why did you bring this subject up in the first place?
That is the way it's going to be when ideology gets in the way of individuals who read the facts and see the evidence but have their own personal biases. They cannot be permitted to interfere with you adding to the truth movement and the in-fighting is by their decision, not by yours - even peripherally. Saying sorry for identifying a serious problem is counterproductive. Keep doing what you are doing please - there are enough limp handshakes out there already. :)
No-one is interfering with Crow. They are responding to what he's posted because they have spotted weaknesses in his position that they believe need highlighting. He's not a victim and no-one has asked him to say sorry. If he can't defend his position, whatever it is, then he can admit that. If he just wanted to open up a discussion then it's on him to deal with the discussion he's opened up. He's an adult.
OMG, here we go again, with this political correctness by affiliation BS. I read Jordan's article, know nothing about the Stirrer, and don't even care to get into the weeds of immigration policy per se. But every time this business of canceling allies on some issues because they express some opinion one doesn't agree with on another issue is just wrong--or at least, counterproductive. Another recent example was a post by Charles Eisenstein on free energy, where a commenter bashed him for quoting Elizabeth Nickson, because she supposedly endorsed clearcutting--a totally different issue. I'm touchy because I lost a good former "friendship" (sic) because I retweeted somebody who was associated with somebody else I never heard of.... you get the gist. Get over it, people! Or rather, keep playing in the sandbox of ideological castles, and joust all you like, because it's fun, I guess. ;)
But this is how the dilution of solidarity works: tribal affiliations are proposed as THE only way and this means an 'all or nothing' approach. It's how we got into this mess in the first place and it's especially inflammatory to add evidence-based facts into your position on a touchy issue.
My preamble to Jordan's piece talks about the numbers in Canada... Which have caused housing to become unaffordable for many people... hence the massive increase in homelessness.
I think the attitude towards homeless people in Canada is pretty heartless. I think a lot of people think "Well, they didn't end up there for no reason. It takes a lot of fucking up to wind up on the street in a country like Canada." But with every year that passes, that becomes less and less true.
And being homeless in Canada isn't like being homeless in California. You can die from the cold, and every year people do. Alcohol and drugs make the cold easier to deal with. So it's not just that drugs and alcohol make you more likely to end up on the street. It's also that being on the street makes it more likely you'll turn to drugs and alcohol to escape the misery of your life.
The issue here isn't the numbers, it's the going along with treating the people you are counting as a faceless mass rather than as individual human beings just like you. This is what TPTB want you to be doing. It's classic divide and rule.
I'm sorry to see that your comrade in the UK reacted in the way he did. I am based in Ireland, where immigration is also a 'contentious issue' (understatement) - and your nuanced perspective resonates with me. (I had read some of Elmer's articles previously also.)
Whether or not we view recent immigration policies in terms of a 'replacement' or not, I think it's reasonable to say that they have nothing to do with traditional anarchist or libertarian views on natural immigration or the 'permeability of boundaries'.
Censorship wasn’t a thing until pandemic, was the world worse before or after?? The divides are constructed and perpetuated then when we speak against them WE suffer consequences! How about a ban on governments causing the chaos
I know what you mean... and the answer to your question is obvious... But I was highly involved in the radical left, so there were a lot of things that you couldn't say before COVID too... There were always sensitivities around race and gender... but it really got stupid after Occupy. I've concluded there was a counter-insurgency campaign that really focused using identity politics to divide people... because for about 5 minutes, it looks like Occupy could become a global revolution. It's now remembered as somewhat of a joke, but it seems to have alarmed the Powers That Shouldn't Be enough to merit a massive response.
I absolutely agree with you. People’s genuine concerns are witnessed and instead of helping and supporting, they find out how to monopolise and use it to divide! While we all blame each other and remain ignorant to the fact that it’s all by design!
I don’t hate anyone with opposing views to mine, I welcome it, it’s how we learn and grow. I DESPISE the establishment using it as an opportunity to keep us from seeing the humanity we all share.
I’m not left or right, I’m equally criticised by both, that’s ok, I realise that establishment manipulation has played on their emotions and that the psychological warfare is real and clearly effective.
My hopes are that one day we all realise this and we direct the “critique” towards the real perpetrators! 🤝
I wonder how many of the people commenting have read the articles you are ridiculing? It is clear to me that the author of those articles is promoting a unitary position, which is the only way we can win this.
You are engaging in identity politics (which you claim to despise), rather than recognising you are doing exactly what the oligarchy, who are trying to destroy ALL of us, want. Wittingly or not.
Identity politics is as destructive no matter what side of the duopoly is engaging in it.
I recommend you read the final installment at least, if you read any of them, that is the really important part.
You mean Rusere's articles? I agree there's value to his critique. I've read the first three, I think the third was the strongest so far. I'm about to read the final instalment.
I think the fourth was the best. I also read the Offguardian piece you linked, and agree with them that:
"Such narratives are often intentionally created or at least encouraged, and tend to be tuned to specific fault lines and prejudices already present in society. They will often be built on and feed off very real or at least understandable fears and concerns."
They are advised by psychologists, and use every trick they devise to keep dividing us, playing usually on very primal fears. The same as advertisers do really.
United we can end the evil schemes of the odious oligarchy. United, we can cause all sorts of legal obstruction to make their lives expensive and difficult.
Just a note to credit Leunig, the greatest Australian cartoonist ever, the creator of the cartoon you used, who during covid got sacked from his job, cancelled by his friends, isolated, and slandered by everyone for his cartoon picturing a helpless man standing alone in front of a tank carrying a syringe (alluding to the famous Tiananmen protest photo).
He died last year in bitterness and deep depression, with hypocritical eulogies on his greatness by the very same people who cancelled him
Most articles are mainstream. I thought I had posted the offensive Covid cartoon before, what happened to it? 🤷🏻♀️ I don't seem to be able to share it here
I don’t think you need to apologize. Controversy is good, especially if it can start a conversation. It’s sad that people you respect are willing to cancel you for wanting to have a good discussion on a difficult subject. It’s on them, not you, to come to terms with their inability to critically think on this topic. NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR WHO YOU ARE.
They are demonstrating a high level of critical thinking, which you can see if you read the essays Crow links. Take a look! It's also on each one of us to cope with criticism like an adult and not cry cancellation when someone disagrees with us. To be fair, Crow isn't doing this, so I'm not sure why you need to do it for him. He's also acknowledged on Rusere's essays that he has a lot of good points. Take a look!
Thank you. I'm feeling pretty bad about all of this. I wound up adding to truth movement in-fighting, which means I'm doing the opposite of what I want to be doing. To me the point of this truth movement is to build a basis of unity towards an IRL political movement.
You don't need to wring your hands about this. No-one should be afraid of robust discussion and if criticised then just come back with your own arguments why you think you are right to be doing what you are doing. If you can't, then learn from the discussion and move on. That's all that's needed here. It's not about infighting, it's about having an adult discussion. If you can't do that, why did you bring this subject up in the first place?
That is the way it's going to be when ideology gets in the way of individuals who read the facts and see the evidence but have their own personal biases. They cannot be permitted to interfere with you adding to the truth movement and the in-fighting is by their decision, not by yours - even peripherally. Saying sorry for identifying a serious problem is counterproductive. Keep doing what you are doing please - there are enough limp handshakes out there already. :)
No-one is interfering with Crow. They are responding to what he's posted because they have spotted weaknesses in his position that they believe need highlighting. He's not a victim and no-one has asked him to say sorry. If he can't defend his position, whatever it is, then he can admit that. If he just wanted to open up a discussion then it's on him to deal with the discussion he's opened up. He's an adult.
OMG, here we go again, with this political correctness by affiliation BS. I read Jordan's article, know nothing about the Stirrer, and don't even care to get into the weeds of immigration policy per se. But every time this business of canceling allies on some issues because they express some opinion one doesn't agree with on another issue is just wrong--or at least, counterproductive. Another recent example was a post by Charles Eisenstein on free energy, where a commenter bashed him for quoting Elizabeth Nickson, because she supposedly endorsed clearcutting--a totally different issue. I'm touchy because I lost a good former "friendship" (sic) because I retweeted somebody who was associated with somebody else I never heard of.... you get the gist. Get over it, people! Or rather, keep playing in the sandbox of ideological castles, and joust all you like, because it's fun, I guess. ;)
But this is how the dilution of solidarity works: tribal affiliations are proposed as THE only way and this means an 'all or nothing' approach. It's how we got into this mess in the first place and it's especially inflammatory to add evidence-based facts into your position on a touchy issue.
A lot of different articles to read!
Do any of them talk about the numbers?
eg 3/4 million legal immigrants per year in UK, without ANY corresponding infrastructure investment...
My preamble to Jordan's piece talks about the numbers in Canada... Which have caused housing to become unaffordable for many people... hence the massive increase in homelessness.
I think the attitude towards homeless people in Canada is pretty heartless. I think a lot of people think "Well, they didn't end up there for no reason. It takes a lot of fucking up to wind up on the street in a country like Canada." But with every year that passes, that becomes less and less true.
And being homeless in Canada isn't like being homeless in California. You can die from the cold, and every year people do. Alcohol and drugs make the cold easier to deal with. So it's not just that drugs and alcohol make you more likely to end up on the street. It's also that being on the street makes it more likely you'll turn to drugs and alcohol to escape the misery of your life.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12254561/The-truth-immigration-simply-dont-room-inn-writes-LIONEL-SHRIVER.html
The issue here isn't the numbers, it's the going along with treating the people you are counting as a faceless mass rather than as individual human beings just like you. This is what TPTB want you to be doing. It's classic divide and rule.
Im happy to meet the word temerity in the wild.
I'm sorry to see that your comrade in the UK reacted in the way he did. I am based in Ireland, where immigration is also a 'contentious issue' (understatement) - and your nuanced perspective resonates with me. (I had read some of Elmer's articles previously also.)
Whether or not we view recent immigration policies in terms of a 'replacement' or not, I think it's reasonable to say that they have nothing to do with traditional anarchist or libertarian views on natural immigration or the 'permeability of boundaries'.
Censorship wasn’t a thing until pandemic, was the world worse before or after?? The divides are constructed and perpetuated then when we speak against them WE suffer consequences! How about a ban on governments causing the chaos
I know what you mean... and the answer to your question is obvious... But I was highly involved in the radical left, so there were a lot of things that you couldn't say before COVID too... There were always sensitivities around race and gender... but it really got stupid after Occupy. I've concluded there was a counter-insurgency campaign that really focused using identity politics to divide people... because for about 5 minutes, it looks like Occupy could become a global revolution. It's now remembered as somewhat of a joke, but it seems to have alarmed the Powers That Shouldn't Be enough to merit a massive response.
I absolutely agree with you. People’s genuine concerns are witnessed and instead of helping and supporting, they find out how to monopolise and use it to divide! While we all blame each other and remain ignorant to the fact that it’s all by design!
I don’t hate anyone with opposing views to mine, I welcome it, it’s how we learn and grow. I DESPISE the establishment using it as an opportunity to keep us from seeing the humanity we all share.
I’m not left or right, I’m equally criticised by both, that’s ok, I realise that establishment manipulation has played on their emotions and that the psychological warfare is real and clearly effective.
My hopes are that one day we all realise this and we direct the “critique” towards the real perpetrators! 🤝
Hi Nevermore
I wonder how many of the people commenting have read the articles you are ridiculing? It is clear to me that the author of those articles is promoting a unitary position, which is the only way we can win this.
You are engaging in identity politics (which you claim to despise), rather than recognising you are doing exactly what the oligarchy, who are trying to destroy ALL of us, want. Wittingly or not.
Identity politics is as destructive no matter what side of the duopoly is engaging in it.
I recommend you read the final installment at least, if you read any of them, that is the really important part.
Blessings,
Janey
You mean Rusere's articles? I agree there's value to his critique. I've read the first three, I think the third was the strongest so far. I'm about to read the final instalment.
I think the fourth was the best. I also read the Offguardian piece you linked, and agree with them that:
"Such narratives are often intentionally created or at least encouraged, and tend to be tuned to specific fault lines and prejudices already present in society. They will often be built on and feed off very real or at least understandable fears and concerns."
They are advised by psychologists, and use every trick they devise to keep dividing us, playing usually on very primal fears. The same as advertisers do really.
United we can end the evil schemes of the odious oligarchy. United, we can cause all sorts of legal obstruction to make their lives expensive and difficult.
Blessings,
Janey
Just a note to credit Leunig, the greatest Australian cartoonist ever, the creator of the cartoon you used, who during covid got sacked from his job, cancelled by his friends, isolated, and slandered by everyone for his cartoon picturing a helpless man standing alone in front of a tank carrying a syringe (alluding to the famous Tiananmen protest photo).
He died last year in bitterness and deep depression, with hypocritical eulogies on his greatness by the very same people who cancelled him
I'm really sorry to hear that. Can you send a link? Maybe we could publish a tribute to him... if we could find someone to write it...
Here's his own instagram page talking about it often
https://www.instagram.com/leunigstudio?igsh=MTY2ajE3Nml2cDB3cA==
Most articles are mainstream. I thought I had posted the offensive Covid cartoon before, what happened to it? 🤷🏻♀️ I don't seem to be able to share it here
https://theconversation.com/the-closest-thing-australian-cartooning-had-to-a-prophet-the-sometimes-celebrated-sometimes-controversial-michael-leunig-246409
This is all so silly. Crow - I think you’re terrific but you made a mistake here. You had nothing to apologize for.
How can you 'go too far' when exposing facts that are supported by evidence, and why apologise for it?
Want to be really controversial. Criticize Dog Supremacy and Canine Privilege. Cancelling is childish.