Identifying yourself as good

One of the things I realised at LSE was how universal the symbolism of the lone parent is. We are an object onto which they project their own dysfunction and lashing out at us makes policy makers who cant see us feel they have addressed something. This is not an unusual thing. We will always seek to do this to explain events we dont like, unless we reflect. What is abundantly clear is the reason austerity did what it did was that the left, the guardian, the Labour Party and our trade unuions had decided this was what would happen. The more we suffered the more their self image would be boosted, the more strenuously they would prevent dis cussion of political consensus, the more we suffer. We are not allowed to challenge them. Our trade union structures form the basis of an aristocracy and they want this power. As they have no connection to us outside taking our money they dont see being accountable t us as part of their role. They had decided who was to be targeted and as they were not aware of the rule of law that has evolved as the baseline of citizenship it was just rolled over. Now we see how successful that has been as crisis force policy makers to address what institutions actually do.


I wanted to talk about the danger of creating an identity for yourself as inherently good and the reason it is so bad. When you do that you place yourself at the centre of the story, and make your identuty the story and the people ‘speak for’ are required to be grateful and not tell you you are being an abusive cunt. We get held down by the left while we are hit, and they expect our gratitude. We cant even discuss the way the left have done this, we cant challeng the way the Guardian decided austerity should removce citizenship because of the way they define themselves. We cant damage their identity by challenging austerity or discussing political consensu they are part of.

The culture who use single parents as on object identify themselves as being nice, with anythin they suggest be imposed on us being inately beneficial. The only conversarion that these people can cope with is one where they are a mediating class and we should be grateful for their intervention. They need this identity and then they gaslight and abuse and as we saw with austerity, and now see with Brexit, they absorb discussion into anything impacting us into a discussion of their own identity. That citizenship changed in 1945 doesnt matter to them because in their class they only ever saw thath as temporary and never addressed that they have no function if that is not the case,. Thuis is why our citizenship was so disposable to them. If we say this is causing us harm as you see with the likes of Owen JOnes and Zoe Williams, they can blank thaht out and say its unreasonably attacking them. Our lack of gratitude is the problem then,.

You can;t ask the likes of Zoe Williams to reflect on the way they are manufacturing this, because they dont know. And because they cant reflect on their own identity they dont realise that we actually dont have a mediationg class, and this is not actually normal or their right. You will be arguing with these people about deaths in the tens of thousands and all they can hear is an insult to their identty. That’s how this works. I dont know what the final death toll will be. I think we will find out but I dont see they have had a problem doing it when its thousands, and I dont see they would have a problem if the numver exceeded that by a long way.

You cant discuss the way the posh left and the Guardian decided we would be abused by the state, because they wont even acknowledge that is what htey do. Asking them to reflect on the seriousness of the situation and the power they exercise  is bullying because they are inherently good therefore acknowledging they just did this is impossible. So they gaslight and abuse and demonstrate power dynamics. They cant reflect on piwer because it might reveal they are illegitimate, and so they wont. You cant point oyt that in a democrcay they work for you and not the other way round because these people from a class who never thoughht citizenship for the people they perceived as ‘the poor’ was real and never once accepted we were who they worked for. You cant point out that the Guardian uses a trsut fund and the LSE is the preserve of rich kids, cos it interrupts their vusion of themselves as improvers of the poor.You cant mention that an improver of the poor reliant on elite social closure in this day and age is unlikely to have a function for long. They experience narcissistic innury when your reality reminds them their identity is false.

Whatever the crisis now, the mediating class that did this are done. Labour cant be elected till they address this and the GUardian and New Statesman wont survive this. The problem is they are holding the country hostage and their epitaph is the way they are holding us hostage now. It turns out Labour, the Guardian and their class never wanted the working class to be enfranchised and were willing to work to undo it \t the first opportunity,. Evolutions in power dynamics cannot be undone.  You can just abuise people to say they dont matter, but you better hope they dont because otherwise that is not sustainable, We are now going to see if the rule of law ever mattered and this country is fucked if it didnt. =

The Labour left have worked to prevent people discussing austerity, showed our trade unions are now the property of posh kids and they are determined that if its not the ‘brutal’ Tories, it has to be the extrtemeisrt of the Labour left. As always the policies are virtually the same.The counmtry are saying fuck off. Twitter messages emotionally blackmailing people with Tory govt are on the rounds. So we have an interesting situation where the only party not looking to address welfare, the party who really need ius to suffer want the suffering to help them. They think this is their moment.

These people are  disappearing into a pit of their own narcissism., I identiify as will end up the death cry of the left. They are slowly finding out you cant just identify as someones repesentation and enforce it and enforce it. The problem is that these cunts are now locking us into a hard brexit and still refusing to let us break the bullshit left and right debate that is about their identity and nothing else. By the time they have stopped holding us hostage the country will be broken. Cunts.


16 thoughts on “Identifying yourself as good

  1. I am really trying to engage with what you write – but it just isn’t written in a way I can process. Can you please give a working definition of ‘political consensus on austerity’? I have read plenty of critiques of austerity in broadly left wing publications – including some from the writers you seem to blame for continued austerity. Can you give precise examples of how the guardian etc. have decided we would be abused by the state? You rush to metaphor but really if the purpose of your writing is to persuade and communicate can you try and frame this in a persuasive way (I.e. by using concrete examples and analysis as I imagine you know how to do from your LSE education?)


    • Did you see them discussing political consensus in the last seven years? No. You saw the tribalism they manufactured and Labour narratives. Social care, benefits, child protection,. these are in fact legal rights that were won by people. An LSE education did not teach me this, these systems have been subject to absolute political consensus for thirty years and you didnt notice a fake anticuts movement through labour and the left that spent 7 years trying to channell it into discussion about the identity of the left? Who are unconnected to anything but labour and elite institutions? You didnt notice the guardian reducaed those things to the poor and run all their copy through labour needs? You have never noticed this and you think an LSE education is what tught you that>


  2. The only thing the LSE taught me was this. The reason that equa;ity legislation, duties to children were never considered with regard to austeriyt or policy before hand was that the institution which forms the intellectual core of the Labour Party, like the Guardian didnt know what these systems did and di not think they were rights. they thiought we were the poor and prevented discussion on that basis. YOu did not see in the Guardian at all for seven years discussion of this system failure while they discussed what should be done with the poor who by the way could audition to them for pity. A fake labour focused move,ment on austerity prevented people discussing this. that was its purpose. And you find it difficult to see why thats a problem because you dont know what the problem is but its not something I got from LSE, its what I got from being a careleaver, hammered by austerity, being abused for discussing the policies that did it by those who thoughht this was an opportunioty for the left.


  3. Ok, so if I try to disentangle your points, you are saying:
    – Rights that have benefited all citizens — e.g benefits, duties to children, social care, health care and so on are enshrined in law, through legislation and policy
    – The political consensus since circa 1983 has led to the overturning of those rights, and that the media have facilitated this by avoiding presenting austerity as an attack on our legal rights
    – Labour pretended to be anti-autsterity but weren’t really because an anti-cuts movement isn’t an anti austerity movement
    – Members of the left have avoided a discussion of rights and their corrosion through policy (including Labour policy) and instead focused on a movement that centres on identity

    If I have interpreted your response correctly, then these are fairly uncontroversial points about which most of those interested in progressive social justice would agree. There has been plenty of discussion from the (academic, if not media inflected) left about the ways that neoliberal policy operates to corrode progressive rights. It is pretty clear that there has been a political consensus for 30 years that has, as you put it, ‘formed a seal around neoliberalism’, but I fail to see how Jeremy Corbyn is anything but a result of the consensus rather than the cause of it. In that, the reason he has been popular to the extent that he has been is because he, like Trump, is visibly not part of the political establishment that has maintained consensus and, therefore, he appeals to those who are affected by the corrosion of their rights (even if falling for his appeal is misguided). There aren’t that many options in the current binary democratic system we operate within to break the consensus — the system maintains itself.

    You seem very angry in all kinds of directions, which is great in that anger is necessary at these times. But I can’t help feel that it is misguided, if not wilfully misreading their work, to suggest that Owen Jones and Zoe Williams (et al.) of all people haven’t actually been drawing attention to the corrosion of rights rather than whitewashing it. There is a whole chapter in ‘Chavs’ for example that looks at how Karen Matthews was a scapegoat for policy that attacked the rights of working class people. All that the stranglehold of neoliberalism demonstrates is that even mainstream attacks on the system can’t break the system. Which isn’t to say Owen Jones isn’t annoying and virtue signalling and a product of a capitalist media that likes to create ‘stars’ and elevate there voice beyond the point at which it usefully adds to the discussion.

    Your argument also presents the rights we have won in terms of equality as ‘enshrined’ in law, as if they absolute and ever were, when the fact is that most, if not all, of these rights down to are fairly recent (Post War if not, in some cases Post-Millenium) acts, amendments and policies that demonstrate the law around equality legislation is a shifting, ever-changing entity which emerges from the discussions and debates that happen in the media and elsewhere, as well as being subject to it. Law is a product of the culture it doesn’t and never has shaped the culture. When laws don’t fit will the political will of the government, they are changed.

    I am starting to get that this is maybe just a forum for you to spew anger about your circumstances under the system rather than an attempt to engage a proper discussion, reflect coherently or shed light on your perspective in a way others can understand. I’ll leave you to it.


    • I did not ask you to ‘untangle’ my posts which are reflections on my perspective after seven years of my daughter being put at risk by the thug left and as for your meandreings on what has been discussed and what hasnt, thats obfuscation on your p[art and an attempt to patroinise AFTER noting that what I said was not controvertsial. You fail to see why Corbyn is a problem for the same reason you went to the trouble of posting, because you cant untangle reality and fiction and thaht is not my problem. Corbynism is a fake movement which encourages people to abuse anyone who threatens a false identity which is done at our expense. It is entirely a movement buiult on and which requires abuse, intimidation to subordinate discussion of system failuyre which is now happening. Your failure to see whay Corbynism is a problem and why it is a problem that Labour have used abuse and intimidation to demonstrate thaht posh kids have our trade unions, is not about me,. Noris it THAT complicated. Its only com,p;licated if you think the institutional mythology of Corbynism is anything but Labour party bullshit they tell themselves to justify what they do. You dont need to threaten welfare claimants for discussing political consensus if your mvement is about addressing welfare reform and no none of the things I said were controversial nor did they require untangling. The problem here is something elkse entirely. Not my problem you need to believe Corbynism is something it isnt. Actually it is my problem, and its a problem gfor all the people this damages, But as we are not allowed to damage your false identity tough., Soi by the end of winbter our welfare blueprint will have changed because of the death toll of people Corbynism stood on while the Labour left try to benefit and we begged all the way along because unlike Blairms or the Tories, Corbynites abuse us personally and iwll put our kids at risk. Its not hard. Corbynism is a fictionb where a neio liberal party encourage people with no knowkledge to identify as good and oppsing something they are not so they will be willing to abuse people. Its not new. Its not even original. Its not complicated. And when a ‘movement’ challenging austerity is unsafe for anyone livi gf with it there is a problem. The inabiity of Corbynites to even recognise when they are abusingand harming people is a problem. A real problem that history tells us can lead to a major body count, Its fascism. Its abusing and intimidating people to protect a fiction. Nothing more. The lies you tell yourself are your business not mine, I just pay for them.


    • Oh and if you are going to patronise you may actually want to develop the ability or the knowledge to do so. That is an awful lt of effrot to pst on a blog which is clearly jsut a wo,an trying to process the hardship and damage she and others face this winter. I think the problem here is you and your identity and you need to get a grip nbefore attempting to patronise.


    • This post might make it clearer. If you are Corbynite you are a cunt or you are stupid. You are probably both. You are just the cunts that Labour used to absorb the impact of austerity and use it. You are down there with people who report on benefit fraud. You can try and dress up what you are but it doesbnt actuallyu change,. If you are a Corbynite you are just the stupid cunts Labour used to hide their position on welfare and local authority changes and you are part of subordinating discussion of that while 10s of thousands of people died. Nothing more. There is no academic justificatio n for it, and the shit you posted here is just about you/. So understand this. If you are a Corbynite you are just the scum Labour used to sell austerity. Nothing more.


    • Oh and you think this is anger? You wait till the death toll is finally in and the picture Corbynites were employed to prevent discussion of is out in the open. YOu dont know what anger is mate. I would be very careful about advertising that you are the scum Labour used to hide this crisis and careful about telling people you sincerely believ this stuff. You think I am angry? You wandered to a blog which allows me to process anger I never thought I would ever have to process and you need to understand that when the death toll is in this is nothing compared to the anger you will face when you declare you were part of that. NOTHING.


  4. ONLY psychopaths think they haev the righht to impose a false identity on people with abuse and intimidation. Noone else. Normal people dont do what Corbynites do,. It is a movement for the stupid who are willing to abuse on behalf of a major political party, nothing more. Its not my fault you want to believe its real and the deranged attempts to paint a personal blog, where someone reflects on that are about yuou and its disturbing. There is a reason noone will vote for Corbynism and you are demonstrating it sweetheart.


    • Aren’t you imposing an identity on me? E.g. presuming I care about Corbyn. I don’t. I am genuinely trying to understand what you are saying. It is not a perspective I have heard or can get my head around. I found this blog after people tweeted about it in a discussion. I assumed you wanted discussion I.e. posting on social media and having comments open on a public blog. I was wrong. I’m sorry. You don’t. I’d rather you deleted my comments and the post referring to them because, to be honest, I have clearly stumbled on a thing I have misunderstood and would rather not have to deal with the fallout of this along with the other things I am dealing with in my life right now. It is quite something to accuse me of indtimidating you and then post my comments in an above the line post, basically inviting your supporters to intimidate me. Tone can be misread and I think you have read my as patronising when I am trying to be clear.


      • Lisa. you identify as part of a movement. A movement which Labour used to subordinate discussion of austerity and which demonstrated our direct trade union representatives would spend seven years preventing discussion of serious system failure killing people. You are telling people you support abuse of women, anti-semitism and you are part of the moeveent who used a fake astroturf mpovement to suppress discssussion of welkfare cuts for seven years. Even AFTER system failure across multiple systems and casualty fiugures in the tens of thousands, Corbynism upheld those welfare changes. You are seeking ou my blog to demand I share your identity and pretend it is valid. I am supposed to process a world where I literally never had citizenship and as a represenmtative of the movement who prevented discussion of these changes you want me to centre YOU in my reflections. YOu identify as my representation and I am required to centre your identity in my reflections on the consequences of your movement. No sweetheart you are fuc king mental Its bollocks. YOu want me to pretend ytou have not been part of the moevement which directly took the ONLY means by which people could address what was happening, you want me to pretend your identity isnt false because it makes you feel bad that I have a personal blog where I reflect on reality and the complexity of the situation this country and the people I know are in because of you. It makes you feel bad that I reflecy on the impact of corbynuism on me and the other people shat on by austerity. You identify as my representation and theredfore you havce the right to seek out my blog to abuse me, demand I dont reflect omn the reality of this, even as it kills people IU can see, and you are gaslighting e about the false identity you fucking well chose. FUck off. Get a fucking grip. Really. And fuck off.


      • Now you people have taken everything. I have no choice but to accept that the L:abour media AND my trade unions will be preventing discussion of system failure because they are about Corbyn. I have to accept the contsant abuse and harrassment done in Corbyns name but how fucking dare you come to my blog, my personal reflections on the world that results and demand I centre you in that fucking reflection. How dare you.


      • This is Universa; Credit. We needed to discuss why it wasnt deliverable seven years ago. Because the labour left would only discuss the mean tories, we didnt. Now its going to play out in millions of real lives because the boundaries of the system will be decided through crisis. THats what it stole from us to take away the ipportunity to discuss that and to use our trade unions. This winter is so cold, I am trying to figure out how many funerals I mayhave atten by end of winter.


      • This is what I had to do in the last seven years. I was interested in discussing the role of the labour left in this in 2010, now its 2017 and the labour left have made clear their role and the fake movement reliant on abuse, they sed to leverage austerity into a spot in government while whitewashing and preventing discussion of this system fauiilure will never be forgotten, It will never be forgiven. This will not be forgotten for generations. And the crisis they prevented us addressing is bnow here and it only ever signifgied we needed to address how the context had changed around some stuff. Equality legislation, duties to children, citizernship. Labour left just actively tried to facilitate the permanent ending of citizenship and if they had listened they would have known seven years ago we woudl reach thos [point. For those of us at this point we have had to live thriough a living nightmare but I have learned. Now take your bullshit false identity elsewhere and understand that the anger you think is shocking frim me is not confined to me and take a look at the static polls cos even after doing this we wont vote for that faction. The faction who gave Thatcher her mandate in 1983 and have just spent seven years telling everyone they remained static and fulfilled the same function throughout the entire neo liberal consensus and just demonstrated it by preventing discussion of system failure bigger than anything we have seen since 1945.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s