|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 30 Nov 07:49
Douglas Murray only recently came to my attention, but I find him mighty obnoxious. No matter the topic, he seems to race to the most objectionable position... or perhaps better put, the position that fits most comfortably with the extreme right.
He comes across as an eternally angry and bitter man whose already extreme views are alarming and seem to pose a potential danger. Honestly, I have never heard him say anything nice about anyone. In this respect, he is extraordinary.
I think Murray perhaps sees himself as a modern-day Oswald Mosley. And I would be concerned that he might emerge as a rallying point for the extreme right wing in Britain with the amplification provided by social media.
Certainly, many comments on YouTube suggest he would readily find supporters should he choose to enter politics.
Based on what I have seen and heard from him so far, I sense he should be someone to view with extreme caution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 30 Nov 21:21
He is a bampot……another whacky British Nationalist loony tune…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 1 Dec 13:08
Just another of these people who makes money from being a bam tbh. The media is full of these people who are either far right or far left in their views and the reason is simple - it incites a reaction from readers.
Unfortunately, most people don`t have time to properly read up on things which is why we see all these people at the moment who are 100% Israel or 100% Palestine. War isn`t a game of football. It`s not a case of choose your side and shut up. Same applies with all the other topics of the moment - migration, Scottish independence, COVID enquiries etc. It`s not black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 1 Dec 14:25
Totally agree Jake with one exception, Scottish Independence. It is black or white. You are either in favour of your country being normal and independent. Making all the decision in our own country, by our own people in the best interests of the people who live here. Or…you are not and would rather be dependent on others out with our borders making the vast majority of decisions on our behalf. There is no halfway house…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 1 Dec 15:19
It’s hard to see Douglas Murray as a threat in himself since he falls well short of the appeal of Oswald Mosley. Mosley saw active service in WW1 as a young man and retained a military bearing, whereas Murray comes across as a bit weedy and prefers the safety of denouncing Hamas from behind IDF lines in Israel. Mosley was also a very impressive speaker in Parliament before he re-styled himself as a fascist demagogue, whereas Murray just mumbles to camera.
Since Farage has already cornered the market in UK right wing populism, Murray is more part of the chorus. It’s clear that any of Sunak, Macron and Scholz would lose an election held tomorrow morning- Rutte jumped before he could be pushed- but the prospect of Wildeers and Meloni being joined by Starmer, Le Pen and the AfD is less than attractive. The right wing nationalists and their foot soldiers are more confident than at any time since WW2.
I’ll attach a newsreel link to the days when fascists like Mosley could be driven off the street by the organised working class. Notice how in 1962 the police could keep order of a sort despite not being tooled up with paramilitary equipment.
https://youtu.be/RRS4NR_BZ1w
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 1 Dec 15:39
Desperado, what I meant was that the attention is given to those who are absolutely for it or absolutely against it (or stories very much in favour or very much against). There`s very little consideration given to talking in actual facts. I suppose facts don`t sell newspapers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 1 Dec 19:41
The bravery of being out of range
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 2 Dec 22:00
https://youtu.be/PzzQVJZjHf4
The Fascists used to be chased off the streets in the UK.
Would that happen now?
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 2 Dec 22:06
Sorry, I put up wrong link.
Here is Mosley in 1962 being driven off the streets.
https://youtu.be/PzzQVJZjHf4
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Wed 20 Dec 01:52
How extreme do you have to be to compare Douglas Murray a gay man who speaks up against anti-Semitism to a Nazi like Mosley?
The fact he has "only just come to your attention" is probably indicative of the far-left bubble you have been living in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 20 Dec 03:26
Gay against anti-Semitism just about sums it up. It really means anti-Zionism which is to treat the apartheid state of Israel as a sacred cow. I am in the majority of world opinion as voted at the UN (outside of the political and media elite) as refusing to be cowed by such nonsense. Einstein and Hannah Arendt were well aware of the latent fascism within the Zionist state and spoke against it. I understand fascist sympathisers will be discomfited by that, for which I am very glad. Seeing Mosley battered to the ground in Manchester (1962) is alarming for them, much as they weep over the demise of the Third Reich.
As for Gays, or homosexuals as they were referred to in my youth, they can fight their own fight: it is of no consequence to me either way. How would anyone know who they are, unless they announce themselves? It’s their decision to make their private life public, so they can flourish or fail on that basis. I wish them neither good nor ill.
Their gross over representation in the Holyrood Parliament (I am going by the MSP’s own proud admissions of their sexuality) is counter productive to a balanced society and family life. Quite recently none of the major parties at Holyrood had a leader who was living what could be termed a normal married life with children. This is democracy gone mad. I refer to Salmond, Sturgeon, Davidson, Dugdale and Harvie.
As for Murray, he wants the special protection of being a Gay Zionist, which he probably demands by some law passed since I left the UK. I am not prepared to give him that.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 20 Dec 08:11
How do you imagine gay people would keep their sexuality private, sammer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 20 Dec 11:33
Topic Originator: Bletchley_Par
Date: Wed December 20 01:52
How extreme do you have to be to compare Douglas Murray a gay man who speaks up against anti-Semitism to a Nazi like Mosley?
The fact he has "only just come to your attention" is probably indicative of the far-left bubble you have been living in.
===
I live in Australia, and guys like Douglas Murray are unimportant and insignificant to our culture.
Far-left bubble? In the `90s, I subscribed to that right-wing magazine, The Spectator. If you enjoyed intelligent, quality journalism, it was the first port of call, not just for its political articles but for the insightful weekly observations of guys like Jeffrey Barnard, Taki, AA Gill, and Theodore Dalrymple. It is nothing like that now; it is a looney-tunes comic today, and Douglas Murray is one of its stars.
I look across my sitting room to a bookshelf where I can see three volumes by John Pilger, a couple by Christopher Hitchens, and fat collections of articles by Gore Vidal and Alistair Cooke. These are the calibre of commentators I hold in high regard: honest, intelligent, observant, and critical, from different political wings, but always balanced and fair.
In recent years, we have shifted to a land of extremes, where the other viewpoint is not considered but instead derided in a barrage of hatred and bile. This regrettable change is exemplified by a spiteful, sadistic, misanthropic blowhard like Douglas Murray, as pretentious a bloke as you are ever likely to see.
Murray is attempting to occupy the space once held by the late lamented Christopher Hitchens, but this fraud is not fit to wipe his bum. Had he been spared, Hitchens would have adopted that familiar knowing smile on hearing Murray`s tame arguments full of mistaken generalisations and, like a leopard, prepared to pounce. Alas, Murray avoids direct debate. He does not have Hitch`s creative mind, so instead, he adopts a performative outrage centring on a well-practised argument, but always without someone offering a counterargument.
I have absolutely zero interest in Murray’s sexuality. It has no relevance to this matter. However, when I saw him dressed in a Kevlar vest and helmet, I couldn’t help but picture him onstage with the Village People singing the chorus of “YMCA”. This disgusting cosplay while safely embedding himself with the IDF in Gaza was a humiliating insult to the 91 journalists who have died in Gaza since October 7.
A pox on this pathetic little parasite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Wed 20 Dec 13:43
Quote:
sammer, Wed 20 Dec 03:26
Gay against anti-Semitism just about sums it up. It really means anti-Zionism which is to treat the apartheid state of Israel as a sacred cow. I am in the majority of world opinion as voted at the UN (outside of the political and media elite) as refusing to be cowed by such nonsense. Einstein and Hannah Arendt were well aware of the latent fascism within the Zionist state and spoke against it. I understand fascist sympathisers will be discomfited by that, for which I am very glad. Seeing Mosley battered to the ground in Manchester (1962) is alarming for them, much as they weep over the demise of the Third Reich.
As for Gays, or homosexuals as they were referred to in my youth, they can fight their own fight: it is of no consequence to me either way. How would anyone know who they are, unless they announce themselves? It’s their decision to make their private life public, so they can flourish or fail on that basis. I wish them neither good nor ill.
Their gross over representation in the Holyrood Parliament (I am going by the MSP’s own proud admissions of their sexuality) is counter productive to a balanced society and family life. Quite recently none of the major parties at Holyrood had a leader who was living what could be termed a normal married life with children. This is democracy gone mad. I refer to Salmond, Sturgeon, Davidson, Dugdale and Harvie.
As for Murray, he wants the special protection of being a Gay Zionist, which he probably demands by some law passed since I left the UK. I am not prepared to give him that.
So being gay is ok as long as it’s a secret - and a gay life is not ‘normal’
Okaaayyyyy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 20 Dec 21:59
Being Gay is no more `normal` or `abnormal` than being left handed, which I am myself. Every doorknob and gadget is the `wrong `way round. Most of the time nobody notices which suits me fine. I don`t need to make a show of it or organise a leftie parade.
If a Gay person wants to proclaim their sexuality then so be it: most people prefer to keep that part of their life private. I would rather judge them by their character than by their sexuality. `Fanny Balfour` of the ill fated Israel problem and Ted Heath were presumably Gay but chose not to disclose. They both held high political office as did Driberg, Thorpe and Mandelsonn. I will judge them on their deeds.
The `personal is political` surfaced as an idea on the left wing late 1960s and has been ruinous to the progress of left wing politics. It is also being used to denigrate the Holyrood Parliament. As a distraction from the balance between Labour and Capital it has been a boon to the millionaire class who have enriched themselves in the process. And will continue to so do.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 20 Dec 23:13
You`re not really answering my question, sammer.
I appreciate you`re in Russia where laws exist to prevent expressions of homosexuality in favour of more traditional relationships. This likely limits the chances of a gay person being "outed" and encourages people to conceal their sexuality even though I believe it is legal to be gay in Russia(?). However, in the UK and much of the western world, someone concealing a relationship would be very quickly exposed, even if a person chose to present themselves as straight.
I don`t think anyone should have to conceal their sexuality, but I also think it would be impossible for them to do so. Like I say, I appreciate that in Russia it may be safer to conceal your sexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 22 Dec 23:29
I don’t see either sexuality or religion as having much to do with politics. The attempt to emphasise these personal or cultural choices is in my view to distract from the labour/capital relationship which is the very stuff of politics. Now I don’t remember a peace deal ever being signed regarding the class war. I have no memory of the ruling class emerging from their landed estates and banks waving white flags, so I assume it continues. In fact, the data suggests that the class war has been fought extremely successfully for the last 40 years by a very rich elite without much resistance from the traditional guardians of we serfs who rely on wages or salary to live our lives.
Part of their success has been to bury the class war behind issues guaranteed to divide working people, be they gender, sexuality, race, religion or nationality. The result is food banks, school breakfast clubs and now baby banks I believe. Notice the ominous use of the word ‘bank’ to suggest we are all receivers as well as contributors, rather like a blood blank.
The ‘personal is political’ has been used in the past to expose hypocrisy in politicians; those who were Gay but voted against Gay rights for example. Or ‘Socialist’ MPs who sent their children to private schools, such as Blair. Or also ‘family values’ MPs like Mellor and Major who had a bit on the side. They are fair game on that basis, but the average citizen has the right to a private life and anyone who invades that privacy should face the full force of the law.
The problem with declaring your sexuality- a private matter in my view- is that it cannot be renounced, especially in the age of the internet blog etc. If the tide turns against you legally as is happening in Russia and also some US States, then you are guilty by self-incrimination. It’s not like politics where Starmer and Peter Hitchens can shrug off their Trotskyite backgrounds as a youthful indiscretion. The less any public body- government or corporation- knows about your private life, the freer you are.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 23 Dec 14:37
You have subtly declared your sexuality a number of times already on this public forum Sammer and I, for one, am horrified that you would be so indiscrete in flaunting your heterosexuality* like that, especially considering the context in which you dropped these egregious hints.
*Although in my day you were called Breeders.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 23 Dec 15:32
A bit to digest here. The law isn`t tiring against your sexualty in any U.S state that I know of. The public may take a view of on your sexualty but the government don`t legislate or take action against you for your sexual preferences as long as they are adult and consenual. I have read some stories of it being different in Russia but I`ll leave that up to others to dissect.
Wotsit, in your day they were called breeders? Really? In your day your parents and grandparents were called breeders? My kids come out with all sorts of lingo I have never heard of but I have never heard them refer to heterosexuals as breeders and I don`t think the age gap between either me and them or me and you could be so great that I had missed the memo. However as a middle aged man who identifies as white I`m not necessarily in your spheres so that vernacular could very well have missed me as a common use turn of tongue. If so please accept my apologies.
Your sexual preference shouldn`t be kept private because if it`s private then it`s something that can be used against you. Hence the reason that authoritarian types want it to be stigmatised and made to feel immoral. It`s so they can use it against political opponents.
Now that said your sexuality is something you should take absolutely take no pride in. Why should I take any pride in the fact that I am attracted to people of the opposite sex? It is something I had no control or input towards in any way shape or form. It`s just a trick of genetics in the same way if I, as a male, were sexually attracted to other males. Nothing or be ashamed of as long as all parties are adult and consenual regardless of the sex.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 23 Dec 15:36
I think saying "breeders" is a joke.
The point being that it`s impossible to hide your sexuality, nor should you have to. It`s a complete irrelevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 23 Dec 15:38
Never ever once heard the term breeders used Wotsit
What part of the Country were you living in at that time .. genuine question as it was maybe a local term
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 23 Dec 16:49
Are you familiar with the band The Breeders? Featuring Kim Deal from Pixies? They were named after this slur.From which I`m guessing that it was also used in the US.
It was commonly used to refer pejoratively to straight people throughout the nineties and probably before and after too, although I cannot personally attest to that.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 23 Dec 17:32
For goodness sake wotsit .. I was more a Kenneth Mckellar/Del Shannon guy
Never heard of the breeders .. maybe the pixies
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Sat 23 Dec 19:26
Quote:
Wotsit, Sat 23 Dec 16:49
Are you familiar with the band The Breeders? Featuring Kim Deal from Pixies? They were named after this slur.From which I`m guessing that it was also used in the US.
It was commonly used to refer pejoratively to straight people throughout the nineties and probably before and after too, although I cannot personally attest to that.
Pixies were a decent band. Breeders less so. Why would anyone want to refer to straight people pejoratively? Surely normality is something to be celebrated and aspired to, by people that are sexually abnormal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 23 Dec 20:45
Surely "breeders" simply describes the result of straight sex?
Unless required, I never understand the need for labels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 23 Dec 22:39
red-star-par .. I owe you a wee apology from the Brianna thread .. I get a wee bit too involved sometimes .. hope you will accept
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Sat 23 Dec 23:02
Quote:
Buspasspar, Sat 23 Dec 22:39
red-star-par .. I owe you a wee apology from the Brianna thread .. I get a wee bit too involved sometimes .. hope you will accept
Of course I accept, it`s not an issue at all. I understand the emotion involved
|
|
|
|
|
|
