I feel obliged to comment on Owen Jones’ statement re: Corbyn

There are two paragraphs here which need comment from me. I am aware Mr.Jones is fairly narcissistic, and at some point this should come to his attention.

The first paragraph is paragraph 6 of his article. When Owen started to use the astroturf of the Labour Party to cultivate an image of himself as a concerned nobody, who just happened to have answers on austerity, he attacked people who knew what was abundantly clear. What he has admitted here. That Mr.Jones is in fact part of an establishment route from Oxford, to politics, to media. He denied this, and abused those who pointed out that it limited his understanding of the very real economic and social policy transformation that austerity required. He denied strongly that this could possibly be the case, and that he could possibly be benefitting from a different platform to the one he shared with social care users, trade union members, benefit claimants without the social network, elite connections, political connections he exploited alongside the austerity that killed people.

”Here is my political background. When I left university in 2005, I worked in the office of the now Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell for two-and-a-half years, and helped to run his (abortive) leadership campaign in 2006–07. My Parliamentary badge sponsor was Katy Clark, then a Labour MP who it turned out knew my uncle as a fellow party activist in the 1980s, and who is now Corbyn’s political secretary. My colleague was Andrew Fisher, now Jeremy Corbyn’s director of policy. Friends who were fellow Parliamentary ‘bag-carriers’ included Cat Smith, Jeremy Corbyn’s researcher and now an MP in the Shadow Cabinet. Other Shadow Cabinet members I’ve known for years include my friend Clive Lewis, who I campaigned for years before the election, and Richard Burgon, whose house I stayed at when I did talks in Leeds. Seumas Milne is my friend and colleague at The Guardian. Team members like ex-New Economics Foundation economist James Meadway I’ve long known through political activism. Much of the leadership team are my personal friends, and some I have known for a decade or more. And as for Corbyn himself — well, I’ve known him for years, and shared a platform with him many a time. During the leadership campaign, I was at the first Corbyn campaign meeting, and the last campaign meeting, too. I not only spoke at Jeremy Corbyn leadership rallies: I introduced him at the final one. I helped choose the name for Momentum. This isn’t a milieu that I know well: it’s a milieu I’m part of.”

I thank Owen for being clear, after several years, and after every chance of opposing austerity was removed because he needed an anticuts movement that did not discuss political consensus on social care, welfare, and childrens services in particular. He will never know the impact of what he did. Many of us are not so lucky.

The second paragraph is this one.

”Labour faces an existential crisis. There will be those who prefer me to just to say: all the problems that exist are the fault of the mainstream media and the Parliamentary Labour Party, and to be whipped up with the passions generated by mass rallies across the country. But these are the facts as I see them, and the questions that have to be answered. There are some who seem to believe seeking power is somehow ‘Blairite’. It is Blairite to seek power to introduce Blairite policies. It is socialist to seek power to introduce socialist policies. As things stand, all the evidence suggests that Labour — and the left as a whole — is on the cusp of a total disaster. Many of you won’t thank me now. But what will you say when you see the exit poll at the next general election and Labour is set to be wiped out as a political force? What will you say when — whenever you mention anything vaguely left-wing, you’re mocked for the rest of your life, a throwback to the discredited Labour era of the 2010s? Will you just comfort yourself by blaming it on the mainstream media and the PLP? Will that get you through a lifetime of Tory rule? My questions may strike you as unhelpful or uncomfortable. I’m beyond caring. Call me a Blairite, Tory, Establishment stooge, careerist, sellout, whatever makes you feel better. The situation is extremely grave and unless satisfactory answers are offered, we are nothing but the accomplices of the very people we oppose.”

The astroturf that Owen was part of developing, from the personality cults around himself and Russell Brand, that relied on abuse of women and the gaslighting of vulnerable people to demand they pretend reality on the consensus on austerity wasnt real,  to Netroots, and Peoples Assembly where trade unions funded the synthetic creation of the appearance of grassroots movements to exploit austerity for Labour, led to what we are now witnessing with Corbyn. Which is a personality cult of people who cannot see reality and will abuse anyone whose existence reminds them of reality.

Austerity was real for kids in care, for the women for whom the means to leave violence was removed, the women who lost their kids, the people who died as a result of our benefits system, the people who cant get those years back or undo those consequences. Those consequences go beyond Corbyn.  At a time when we may see a President Trump, we may now also lose ANY parliamentary opposition and see the political vacuum we have been in for a long time ignite.

The consequences for the UK go way beyond austerity and are entirely the responsibility of Owen’s peers, who learned at elite universities they had the right to speak for a working class they cant see about subjects they dont understand and use the power we pay union dues for. Because a media class emerged that allowed him to decide taht we were his base without any consent from us being required. Not only do we have the inequality crisis that has developed as a result of austerity, not only do we have a benefits system on the verge of collapse, not only do we have a social care crisis, a child protection crisis, but we have a country who just voted to leave the EU. We may face these crises with no parliamentary opposition. THis is entirely down to the vanity of the social network Owen describes and their belief that austerity was about them and their opportunity. The left.

It may be too late to do anything about Corbyn.

Owen probably doesnt remember what it was like to live under Thatcher, he hasnt ever been poor, he has never mixed with the Chavs he fetishises. The left have no future outside apologising for what happened in 1983, and the price we paid for that.

A culture whose raison d’etre is making up versions of the working class to base political ambition on only have one way to survive in a digital landscape where they have to mix with us. And that is the whipping up of abusive personality cults that ensure we are at risk of violence, intimidation and abuse, should our very existence threaten those false narratives.

This country may now pay a terrible terrible price for the vanity of Owen and his friends. I am glad he finally appears to understand this is not a game and has consequiences. But he is 6 years too late. Perhaps he would like to donate the proceeds of Chavs to the people who paid for the false narrative he created  and begin to make amends for making his fortune out of preventing opposition to the austerity that killed people.

Maybe now he can finally understand why the inequality that gives him the right to create false narratives aboiut those people, using us to relive those 1983 battles, is harmful. The mea culpa is too late to allow opposition to the austerity that is at the heart of this, and it may be too late to address the threat Corbyn now poses.

 

 

The Two Minutes Hate: #Wearehismedia

Corbyn

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even — so it was occasionally rumoured — in some hiding-place in Oceania itself.

Winston’s diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard — a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party — an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed — and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life. And all the while, lest one should be in any doubt as to the reality which Goldstein’s specious claptrap covered, behind his head on the telescreen there marched the endless columns of the Eurasian army — row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces, who swam up to the surface of the screen and vanished, to be replaced by others exactly similar. The dull rhythmic tramp of the soldiers” boots formed the background to Goldstein’s bleating voice.

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were — in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State. The Brotherhood, its name was supposed to be. There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies, of which Goldstein was the author and which circulated clandestinely here and there. It was a book without a title. People referred to it, if at all, simply as the book. But one knew of such things only through vague rumours. Neither the Brotherhood nor the book was a subject that any ordinary Party member would mention if there was a way of avoiding it.

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston’s hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization.

It was even possible, at moments, to switch one’s hatred this way or that by a voluntary act. Suddenly, by the sort of violent effort with which one wrenches one’s head away from the pillow in a nightmare, Winston succeeded in transferring his hatred from the face on the screen to the dark-haired girl behind him. Vivid, beautiful hallucinations flashed through his mind. He would flog her to death with a rubber truncheon. He would tie her naked to a stake and shoot her full of arrows like Saint Sebastian. He would ravish her and cut her throat at the moment of climax. Better than before, moreover, he realized why it was that he hated her. He hated her because she was young and pretty and sexless, because he wanted to go to bed with her and would never do so, because round her sweet supple waist, which seemed to ask you to encircle it with your arm, there was only the odious scarlet sash, aggressive symbol of chastity.

The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Goldstein had become an actual sheep’s bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep. Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched backwards in their seats. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Big Brother, black-haired, black-moustachio’d, full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken. Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

But the face of Big Brother seemed to persist for several seconds on the screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone’s eyeballs was too vivid to wear off immediately. The little sandy-haired woman had flung herself forward over the back of the chair in front of her. With a tremulous murmur that sounded like ‘My Saviour!’ she extended her arms towards the screen. Then she buried her face in her hands. It was apparent that she was uttering a prayer.

At this moment the entire group of people broke into a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!… B-B!…’ — over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second-a heavy, murmurous sound, somehow curiously savage, in the background of which one seemed to hear the stamp of naked feet and the throbbing of tom-toms. For perhaps as much as thirty seconds they kept it up. It was a refrain that was often heard in moments of overwhelming emotion. Partly it was a sort of hymn to the wisdom and majesty of Big Brother, but still more it was an act of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise. Winston’s entrails seemed to grow cold. In the Two Minutes Hate he could not help sharing in the general delirium, but this sub-human chanting of ‘B-B!… B-B!’ always filled him with horror. Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise. To dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction. But there was a space of a couple of seconds during which the expression of his eyes might conceivably have betrayed him. And it was exactly at this moment that the significant thing happened — if, indeed, it did happen.

Momentarily he caught O’Brien’s eye. O’Brien had stood up. He had taken off his spectacles and was in the act of resettling them on his nose with his characteristic gesture. But there was a fraction of a second when their eyes met, and for as long as it took to happen Winston knew — yes, he knew! — that O’Brien was thinking the same thing as himself. An unmistakable message had passed. It was as though their two minds had opened and the thoughts were flowing from one into the other through their eyes. ‘I am with you,’ O’Brien seemed to be saying to him. ‘I know precisely what you are feeling. I know all about your contempt, your hatred, your disgust. But don’t worry, I am on your side!’ And then the flash of intelligence was gone, and O’Brien’s face was as inscrutable as everybody else’s.

That was all, and he was already uncertain whether it had happened. Such incidents never had any sequel. All that they did was to keep alive in him the belief, or hope, that others besides himself were the enemies of the Party. Perhaps the rumours of vast underground conspiracies were true after all — perhaps the Brotherhood really existed! It was impossible, in spite of the endless arrests and confessions and executions, to be sure that the Brotherhood was not simply a myth. Some days he believed in it, some days not. There was no evidence, only fleeting glimpses that might mean anything or nothing: snatches of overheard conversation, faint scribbles on lavatory walls — once, even, when two strangers met, a small movement of the hand which had looked as though it might be a signal of recognition. It was all guesswork: very likely he had imagined everything. He had gone back to his cubicle without looking at O’Brien again. The idea of following up their momentary contact hardly crossed his mind. It would have been inconceivably dangerous even if he had known how to set about doing it. For a second, two seconds, they had exchanged an equivocal glance, and that was the end of the story. But even that was memorable event, in the locked loneliness in which one had to live.

A note to Owain Gardener: the behaviour of your political culture to women

Earlier this evening while I was discussing my feelings about the very fragile political situation in the country in which I live, I was discussing Jeremy Corbyn. As so frequently happens when you discuss Mr.Corbyn, one of his supporters decided they had the right to police me and behaved in the disturbing way we have all come to recognise from this cult. You. First, while quoting my tweets to your followers demanded to know if I had intended it as a DM, because how dare I say this publicly, apparently it was beyond you to understand that in a modern democracy people discuss the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and have every right to do so.

You knew what you were doing, and when you continued to do so, I explained to you that this was within the pattern of disturbing behaviour we have all come to expect from his followers. On this occasion you continued to quote my tweets in the hope of soliciting your followerss to assist you in policing mentions of Mr.Corbyn on the internet, and presumably harassing me.

I explained to you your attention was unwanted and unpleasant. Someone else intervened at your behaviour and you continued to pretend you did not know that this was disturbing behaviour, demonstrating you believe your political affliliation gives you the right to solicit harrassment of women online. It doesn’t. You then went onto tell other people, including people I have previously had to block for the same reason, that the problem was I did not like answering question.

Actually the problem was very much your behaviour. The problem is very much a disturbing culture which encourages abuse of women to prevent examination and discussion of a leader of a political party, and it is not acceptable behaviour from you or anyone else. Far from being unwilling to answer questions I was absolutely clear with you that your behaviour was a problem, is a problem and is a problem that is symptomatic of an online culture which relies heavily on such behaviour and which has resulted in threats and intimidation of women including the recent leadership challenger Angela Eagle. So I’m putting this here.

When you take it upon yourself to attempt to solicit pile ons of women, when you believe your political affiliation gives you the right to behave this way it is disturbing you are demonstrating something that is deeply deeply problematic. Something the Labour Party is going to have take action on.. The medium you use does not make this ciltural norm acceptable and if you cannot accept a boundary from women and cannot function on a platform where people may discuss the political party you support, I suggest you deal with it in a better way and learn to moderate your behaviour.

While I appreciate the demonstration of you then trying to obtain validation of the acceptability of this behaviour, as a generous demonstration of my point about this culture, I would like you to moderate your behaviour to other women in future. If you cannot function politically without doing this, I dont really know what you should do. But this woman doesnt tolerate that behaviour and nor does the women who had to intervene on my behalf as you attempted to maintain denial of your own behaviour.

We are all just a bit bored and just a bit tired of the misogyny of you and your culture in attempting to drive women offline and squash discussion which is essentially in a healthy political culture. I am sure you won’t mind me discussing your inability to cope with people discussing Labour on the internet, your inability to accept a boundary from a woman, or your attempto police mentions of Mr.Corbyn using this platform, given you spent so much time trying to prevent me discussing politics in a democracy. I’m going to leave this here as a reminder for you that we live in 2016 and not only are you on a platform which you share with women but they will use that platform to discuss Her Majesty’s Opposition. THose women are voters. Potential Labour voters. Your disturbing behaviour is damaging to the Labour brand and it is about time Labour took action to eal with the culture you exemplify.

3 candidates for Labour leadership

1- A left wing candidate whose window was bricked for challenging the incumbent.

2- Wants to rewrite Clause 4, move last Blairism, opposed welfare reform, and asked that that be Labour’s official position. Wants inequality to be at the core of all Labour policy and wishes to lead a parliamentary party in parliament.

3- Incumbent. Wishes to impose a system where parliamentary democracy is replaced with twitter noise, thinks the best way to lead parliamentary party is to have no parliamentary party to oppose the Tories, wishes to remove the ability of MPs to challenge party leaders as a response to Chilcot, and is funded by trade unions who said some cuts are ok as long as its social care users, social workers, and low paid members of that union who pay.  Speaks well at approved rallies.

Ahem.

 

This blog

The threat posed to political media by the internet was never the noise that could be whipped up, the faux tribalism, or the astroturf, but the power of careful observation and chronology and the revelation of the elite cultures and institutions who manufacture media narratives as they moved into a chatroom.. Watching Labour manufacture an anticuts movement to protect Labour and prevent discussion of austerity, watching them perfect astroturf, occasionally finding myself on the receiving end of it, was never supposed to end with all the named characters observed attempting a takeover of the Labour Party. I for one would like to thank the elite left for giving this blog an end which makes it sellable in future.

The labour left were only ever the protective seal around neo liberalism. I knew from the start their disintegration would be important. I never knew they would try and take the Labour Party with them. That all the main characters from this blog have coalesced around the Corbyn personality cult is a gift. I would like to say thank you. There is a book in there when am ready to collate it. I wonder if they will have taken out the Labour Party when that happens.

The Economic Consequences of the Peace

THE power to become habituated to his surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind. Very few of us realize with conviction the intensely unusual, unstable, complicated, unreliable, temporary nature of the economic organization by which Western Europe has lived for the last half century. We assume some of the most peculiar and temporary of our late advantages as natural, permanent, and to be depended on, and we lay our plans accordingly. On this sandy and false foundation we scheme for social improvement and dress our political platforms, pursue our animosities and particular ambitions, and feel ourselves with enough margin in hand to foster, not assuage, civil conflict in the European family.

The Prime Minister elect

Theresa May has made her first statements. There have been tussles about when Cameron has to leave Downing Street, and she will be Prime Minister on Wednesday. Her cabinet is likely to include Chris Grayling which doesn’t inspire confidence, but she has placed her stake firmly on the centre ground. An inequality platform which bears a striking resemblance to that sold by Ed Miliband, and in doing so she has ended the reign of the Bullingdon boys. Not quite what I expected but where the economic and social policy tides have to be. The most remarkable thing. The Conservatives have removed the sting from the crisis Labour are in, moved politics left, and if Theresa May calls a snap election Labour will lose about 100 seats I think. Am not a psephologist but I think her appeal may be a lot broader than just Tory voters.

Especially as the Leader of the Opposition has declared we need no opposition while his personality cult threatens to tear the party apart. The question is not who will win a snap election. There is no question that Theresa May will increase the Tory majority. The question is what will be left of Labour when it is done and will a new party form to fill the vacuum or can this one be returned to being a functioning political party. It is abundantly clear that this cannot happen unless Labour address the toxicity of their grassroots, the far left, the SWP, Militant and Len McCluskey. There is no guarantee that that can be done.

It turns out this blog was documenting the death of the liberal class after all and it may have been documenting the final years of the Labour Party and how inequality destoyed them. The country is breathing a sigh of relief at Theresa May, and to all intents and  purposes it looks like the Tories have saved us from chaos the Labour left were intent on creating. A poll of union members has shown that the support expressed for Corbyn by leadership is not expressed by members, which anyone with a pair of eyes and ears already knew. And we head to another election where there is no difference between the Tories and Labour on the key issue at stake. This time #brexit. Corbyn is determined that his lexiteers will remove any chance of an opposition to #brexit and this will be remembere. Another Labour leader with a messianic personality cult overriding democracy with huge costs that cannot yet be calculated.

At this point it is hard to care what happens to the Corbyn cult who have taken the Labour Party hostage. Only the cherry on the cake after watching the Labour left prevent discussion of the inequality which led us here. A new age is dawning and it may just be that the Labour Party are not part of that new age as a clique of elite left factionalists try to drag it back to a 1975 that never existed. ‘Respect the mandate’ could have been the cry as democracy dies, but Theresa May can now walk into an election and solidify her position. While Tory firepower is aimed at the far left cult who should have been dealt with years ago. The centre position is ready to redefine and it will be the Tories who do it. Not Labour. Whether Labour survive this is another matter.

Theresa May and a snap election

Theresa May is our new Prime Minister. The Tories have learned from the Labour chaos and Andrea Leadsom has I assume been told to stand down. We have a new PM. Angela Eagle has launched a leadership campaign, and I feel sorry for her. The electorate may be the best people to deal with SWP, Militant and Corbyn right now. It doesn’t make a difference to the country because we are now in Tory hegemony and May will increase the Tory majority and secure her position. If Labour cannot deal with the hard left who have preserved themselves, it really might be best for everyone to let the electorate do it. Maybe Peoples Momentum could do the campaigning the local activists they bully wont do. Future Fair for All sank as a slogan, maybe Vote Labour You Tory Zionist Blairite Scum will win over voters.

I would strongly advise Labour to keep Corbyn on the leadership ballot, and let the elctorate deal with him. This culture should never have been allowed to preserve themselves at such cost, maybe the electorate do need to sort it for them.

 

Covert narcissism and Corbyn

There are different types of narcissism. There is a type called Covert narcissism. It’s very difficult to spot. You can be in a relationship with a covert narcissist for a long time and not know. But the general rules still apply with covert narcissism.

The first thing to understand is that the covert narcissist will NEED to make it appear the war he is waging is being waged on him. So rule 1:

1- All accusations are admissions. Their accusations are the most reliable compass you have. So for instance, screaming coup while attempting to assert sovereignty of party members over democracy, and claiming that any rebellion against a Labour leader is treachery after years of doing just that. That would be an example.Claiming to be bullied while bullying is the defining feature here. Projection of dysfunction onto the object to be abused. Imagine it like arguing with a mirror.

2- Their attacks will be covert. Any defensive response from the victim will be portrayed as aggression. They will use EVERY response to escalate. Every single one. Please see Len McCluskey declaring Tom Watson sabotaged talks in which it was clear that the threat was that Corbyn stays or the Labour Party ends.

3- The covert narcissist will exert as much effort projecting the image that they are the victim, as they will waging the war. Its all about their image, the war is about their self image. Their first priority is to project their identity their second to protect it. To maintain the false reality they have constructed they will go far and wide seeking validation and trying to expand that false reality. In relationships this will include befriending the victims friends and family and ensuring they see the victim as responsible. Please see Corbyn’s approved rallies, and Momentums efforts to swamp PLP meetings, video messages. The victims of abuse from Corbyn’s followers will be further attacked so the abuse can be denied.

4- At the core of what the narcissist cannot accept is that the victim has autonomy. See Corbyn’s statements that MPs can talk to him which ignore a vote of no confidence and the very clear boundaries they have set that they do not wish to serve under Corbyn. The refusal to acknowldege the existence or power of the electorate. This is a trait you see in romantic relationship with narcissists. A complete inability to respect the boundaries of their victim disguising abuse with claims to want to help them and be supportive made to other people.

4-The covert narcissist will distance themselves from their abusive actions and spend a great deal of effort demanding other people adhere to their false reality. This can be seen in the Corbyn supporters who do not necessarily abuse but spend their time denying the existence of that abuse and attacking the victims of it and demanding proof.

5- They will do whatever they can to perpetuate the conflict that provides cover for their abusive behaviour. They will change the goalposts each time, they will use each reaction to escalate, and any reaction and all reactions will escalate the situation. Do not engage a narcissist in the conflict they define for you it is just a cover for abuse.

6- The Covert Narcissist needs to be seen as a saviour, as acting for other people. Please see using austerity and the Iraq war as cover for a new leader, who refused to act when IDS binned our benefit blueprint and Chilcot used to sustain an isolated leader who doesn’t want to consult with MPs or concern himself with democratic mandate. This is why it is so threatening to discuss the role of the Labour left, UNISON, and PCS in whitewashing austerity for Labour.

With a covert narcissist their need is to be seen as the victim and saviour, in Corbyns case the leader of the opposition claiming that any discussion of their office is bullying, and will do whatever they can to maintain the image that they are caring for someone, and will resist any way to act overtly and openly threat. Saying that you will not resign and the Labour Party will be split before you will stand down is aggression dressed as a defence.

The best way to deal with a covert narcissist is this. Let them expose themselves, let them expose who they are and do nothing. Stand back and let them demonstrate. Be what they cannot be and do not engage them in conflict they define.

It would appear that narcissism can shape a culture as well as a person. The personality cult around Corbyn is dangerous and abusive and holding the country hostage. While claiming to want democacy and hiding behind the bodies of war dead and the damage of austerity. It was probably a mistake  to make a leadership bid and it would have beem more sensible to let him demonstrate the problem.

What is really important is to understand that the PLP have all the cards Corbyn wants, all the cards Momentum want, and all the cards the Trade Unions want. Not the other way round. The noisier and more vicious they get the weaker they are, the less cards they hold. The more frantically they rally to create the appearance of a false reality the less grasp they have on reality. It really was best just to let Corbyn expose himself as he has done. His appearance on Marr was disturbing, the behaviour of his personality cult is dangerous, and visibly so, and the toxicity of the hard left he represents can no longer be hidden.

We’ll see how it plays out but quite frankly the Labour civil war now has to happen and Labour need to deal with an archaic and dysnfunctional left wing culture they should have dealt with years ago. THis is just an opportunity to do so and Mr.Corbyn’s escalation of this crisis to the point where it could destroy his party is everything the PLP needed. And more than they ever could have dreamed of.

Narcissism isnt just an insult. Its a set behaviour pattern. The narcissist cannot deviate and when their victim refuses to indulge or be part of it they flap like a goldfish on the pavement. Individual or culture, let them make noise and decide what you want and wait until they have exposed themselves sufficiently that you juts have to take it.

 

 

Jon Lansman

Hi Jon. You don’t know me but I know who you are. You wouldn’t know me, am a mum, I live in the world. I spend an awful lot of time writing about austerity, studying inequality, not because I chose the word left but because inequality chose me. Inequality is complicated. Its multidimensional, it intersects around gender, race, class, and is reproduced through the systems that shape our economy, social policy systems, and politics. That’s why you don’t know. The elite left don’t like people like. We object when our trade unions refuse to represent the jobs we do, the vulnerable service users who need that voice, for Labour. We object when the elite left selling cartoons of a white working class they fantasise about and base their political identities on, sell nonsense on our behalf. We tend to live in a complex society and economy that is beyond the elite left’s comprehension. The elite left get nasty when they meet us and we say the hard left dont represent us. Momentum get nasty. Today you told someone that winning and democracy were different.

I wanted to explain something to you. Democracy is when 64 million people have the opportunity to vote if they want to and they vote for MPs. Those MPS give democcratic mandate to their party leader, and between them they can get policies through parliament that benefit people. In a democracy you are accountable. And if what you are selling meets the needs of those people, they can confer power onto you through free and fair elections. You have to earn that win. You have to earn those votes.

You have perfected astroturf. The synthetic creation of the appearance of a grassroots movement and have waged a ground war in a political party, with your activists bullying labour CLPs and swamping their meetings so you can make sure they vote for your candidate. Your candidate Jeremy Corbyn, only really speaks to a few people. only speaks at approved rallies and through video and says that our votes don;t matter. That the elected representatives we send to Parliament dont matter, because the astroturf you create, the misogynist abuse they unleash, is better than democracy. Becuase you and a handful of others say so.

You won’t read this, you don’t have to. You are not accounatble to me or anyone else. Your organisation is headed by people who went to elite schools, elite universities and the policies that a Labour government can bring in if they win elections make no difference to you. As long as the working class are happily disenfranchiseed and your activists can bully enough CLPs, you get to undermine democracy and presumably gain power you don’t want to be accountable for. You tell people this is people power. It isnt. When your acolytes abuse us on the internet, we cant hold you accountable. We just get swarms of you demanding to know why we havent provided evidence to you of this abuse. When comedians like Pete Sinclair invade our private conversations and invite other people to abuse us there is no accountability. Noone we can turn to. And when someone follows in the footsteps of the man who murdered Jo Cox and kills someone, shouting traitor because you have decided that MPs are either Stars of the Week or Traitors, there is no comeback. No accountability.

Your movement is not a movement. It is not a spontaneous groundwell of public opinion like the Brexit march, or the spontaneous street politics of Occupy. Its astroturf and its bullying and its not democracy it threatens it. Winning an election is how democracy works. Its people power. People deciding if you should have power. When you ape Militant to undermine and destabilise a political party, in the weeks of the most serious national crisis in the UK’s recent history, that is not democracy. THat is a small sect hording power and holding the country hostage and undermining democracy. When your activists and followers intimidate and abuse mainly female MPS and councillors, or women speaking on twitter, that is not democracy., In a democracy women are people too.

What you are selling is powertaken by the self appointed few, taken from people. Its not grassroots vs PLP. Its Momentum versus the electorate. You know this and you know we would never vote for you, which is why you are threatening to destabilise the Labour Party and telling us that democracy is you and your activists intimidating our elected representatives by calling them traitors or star or the week. And you will never read htis because you dont think you need to be accountable to anyone. That’snot really what democracy is and there is a reason you cant ever win an election the way you do things. Because people would never give you power. Which is why you are trying to take it.