He's establishment compared to Robinson, and certainly not the working class hero.
He's establishment compared to Robinson, and certainly not the working class hero.
Yes, and she's doing that by downplaying this as nothing worse than what happens here.Originally Posted by Toby
Well, she's talking about it in the same tone as Jess Phillips. They will never just come out and tell it as it is - it's always 'this is bad but'. I read the first paragraph and the tone was clear. I don't tend to read what proven frauds and liars have to say.Remember back a few pages when we started talking about this that it was because you claimed feminists weren't talking about what happened in Cologne? The entire point of posting it was that, yes, a high-profile feminist author had written about it and had decried it as terrible. She wasn't equating it to any other rape, but you wouldn't know that, because you didn't read it.
So you don't care about integrity? You seem to care quite a lot about what I have previously written. Of courser as the grown up here I won't resort to calling you names like we were in a playground.I couldn't give a fuck what else she has written. Take your ad-hominem shite and cake the walls with it you stupid bastard.
She isn't.
She isn't.Well, she's talking about it in the same tone as Jess Phillips.
On this issue I couldn't give even the slightest shit. I care about what you've said previously if it highlights you being inconsistent or hypocritical, which doesn't apply here.So you don't care about integrity? You seem to care quite a lot about what I have previously written.
Then everybody you like other than Tommy Robinson is part of the Establishment.
Yes, she is. By taking this clearly verifiable incident and making it about the 'racists' who point out legitimately, why this mass rapong is happening. It's making excuses. Remember this is the same woman who got emotional about a nerdy scientist wearing a shirt with scantily clad women on it. Priorities.
She certainly is. It's all about deflection. 'It's bad but'. No, there's no 'but'.She isn't.
I think the background and history of someone is important if you want to make a solid argument. Like I said, no matter how good a case Nick Griffin makes you would never use an article he posted, or take it seriously if I did. Well, that's how I feel about proven liar and fraud, Laurie Penny.On this issue I couldn't give even the slightest shit. I care about what you've said previously if it highlights you being inconsistent or hypocritical, which doesn't apply here.
'Some people are using the stories of abused children in Rotherham to condemn individuals they dislike on the left. To me that is abhorrent.'
Deflect! Deflect! Another gem from the persistent victim.
A quite excellent investigation into feminists and Islamic reape:
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/01...inist-edition/
Not everybody. Most people I like are not members of parliament.
There's no "this is bad but", but I suppose it could probably be called 'deflection' from talk of immigration to talk of women's rights.
If he made a coherent argument on a relevant topic I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I've never seen him do that though, because he's not all that bright.I think the background and history of someone is important if you want to make a solid argument. Like I said, no matter how good a case Nick Griffin makes you would never use an article he posted, or take it seriously if I did. Well, that's how I feel about proven liar and fraud, Laurie Penny.
Well they're a bit bound up now, don't you think?
Like fuck you wouldn't. You big liar.If he made a coherent argument on a relevant topic I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I've never seen him do that though, because he's not all that bright.
No.
I wouldn't go out of my way to read it, no. But if somebody else said, "Nick Griffin has actually done a good piece on this" I'd at least read it. Although maybe not if it was you sharing, since that wouldn't really suggest any change from his usual.Like fuck you wouldn't. You big liar.
His usual? Does he a churn out 1,000 word polemics for the Independent on Sunday that I've missed?
Well, there we see what a silly hypothetical it is.
Being a Member of Parliament (or of the European Parliament) has nothing to do with it. Somebody like Douglas Murray (say), with all his political and media connections, is more a part of the current Establishment than Powell ever was.
Here's another good piece, based on an interview with feminists who are not Laurie Penny: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1072806.html
Orly? So if I posted a Nick Griffin article here about immigration you wouldn't throw a '' and you would simply read it without taking your views on his past into account? Non. Sense.
So you se no conflict between those coming from war-tiorn societies with appalling women's rights and appalling views of women in general, and the possible repurcussions for women here? If you're that blinded by political correctness then what's there to say?
Like I said, if it was you (and if the topic was immigration), it probably would be different, yes.Orly? So if I posted a Nick Griffin article here about immigration you wouldn't throw a '
It has everything to do with it. Murray hasn't been voted in to an upper class boys club. His political and media connections, such as they are, have been earned.
I think it's something that has to be taken into account in helping them settle once they're here, but I don't think you can stand at the border turning away anybody you think could maybe possibly one day be a sex pest.
Therefore I think discussions about sexual violence are more important than those about immigration.
Yet again focusing their 'outrage' everywhere but where it belongs.
Taken into account. Oh, that's nice. How shall we do that? So you admit 'no' was the wrong answer now? Let's face it, the chance of these people being sex pests seems to be considerably higher than the natives. The blood will be on your hands. The borders should be closed to anyone who isn't a legitimate refugee or has no skills to bring here. Simple as that.
Eton College educated Douglas Murray's connections have been earned.
I'll take that as a tacit admission.
Just acceptance that we've reached a topic on which there is no point in further discussion. Your mind is made up and your points have been made many times over, so making them again with added hysteria isn't really worth anybody's time.
Explain where this 'hysteria' took place? you're the one who keeps having to change your mind because I point out your inconsistency.
Rapefugee. Thanks. Now The Fugee's 'Ready or Not' has been ruined for me.
"The blood will be on your hands" is about as hysterical as it gets.
That's perfectly fair. It will be the attitude and avoidance of the subject from people like you that will lead to more of the same.
I'm not avoiding the subject, I'm avoiding you.
You're not very good at it.
It tends to be understood as Henry Fairlie defined it, which is the 'whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised'. Murray is in with well-known politicians through the Henry Jackson Society, and he is the go-to person when the BBC and other Establishment media organs need a particular point of view (which is often rather pro-Establishment). It's not about whether your status has been 'earned' (read a bit about Powell before making that contrast seriously). It's about how you use it.
Most politicians are absolutely against The Henry Jackson Society. Murray is seen as an extreme right wing, neo con. Hardly establishment. Of course the BBC and others roll him out whenever there's some Muslim atrocity, because they have to pretend to be balanced.
Notice how loving and tolerant the feminists are from 3:30 on in this vid. Just the usual shrieking and non-listening (and threats of violence/criminal damage). Almost the perfect Question Time audience members.
Yes, the 'protesters' there are idiots.
lol at the 18 year old whinging about not having a nice and simple 'box' to fit into any more though.
Is he disqualified because he's 18? What he says is largely correct. I agree that anyone that young involved in political issues tend to be a bit weird.
No, that was just the best descriptor because I didn't catch his name. It would have been funny had anybody said it.
Its Statement of Principles is a perfect conception of Establishment thinking on foreign policy (Powell would have lolled them out the door), and between its initial signatories and its current advisory councils (not to mention well-known sympathisers like George Osborne) it has links to half of the current political and policy-making elite. It was founded as an Establishment think tank, and it survives as one.
What's an 'establishment think tank'? They have no political affiliation.
That would be bad enough were it remotely relevant.
It was too good to miss the oportunity.
The state of that image.
One that derives its financial and political backing from Establishment figures and reflects their policy preferences. Policy Exchange, Demos, Progress, Reform...
Top thread posters:
QE Harold Flair Posts 129
Toby Posts 35
Lewis Posts 29
GS Posts 14
I think you're wasted on us, Haz Baz.
Stop derailing the thread.
Whoch establishment figures? Here are their patrons - http://henryjacksonsociety.org/about...nal-patrons-2/
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/about...of-principles/
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/people/council-members/
Those Establishment figures. It's like a who's who of Blairite/Cameroon greasers.
You barely recognise a name on there.
Where would Powell have differed on foreign policy Lewis? Non-rhetorical question as I know very little about him. Was he just for letting other countries get on with it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
