A comment from Lisa Johal

Lisa, if that is her name, came to my blog because her identity was injured. Her identity as a Corbynite. Which is basically astroturf for Labour, to suppress discussion of welfare cuts. Please note the passive aggression, gaslighting and the way this hinges on the false identity Corbynism has given her. She thinks it is normal behaviour to do this, she thinks it has academic justification. THis is what welfare claimants faced but Lisa’s peers are also willing to back this up with actual physicaly abuse and intimidation. This is why there was no opposition to austerity. Its astonishing to read and the appointment of herself as arbiter of whether my reflections on a personal blog, as I process this, are amazing,. This is because a woman she doesn’t know, one of the people Corbynism roplled over, has a blog to contain personal reflections. We are not even allowed to process what is happenibng to use.

We can lose our kids, starve, freeze, and Lisa’s only goal will be to stop people even speaking about it and to attack their ability to even use written reflection. She has to tell herself this is debate, she cant acknowlede that she is just looking to abuse people who will not respect a fals identity she formed so she can be part of the astroturf Labour used to whitewash welfare reform,. THey dont udnerstand why we think they are scum and will use a range of responses from teh gaslighting and patronising tone here to putting bricks through windows and sending coffins to people.  We are living in scary times and fascism changes its form each generation. Its not just that they want to roll the Labour machine over any discussion of austerity, its that they seek out the people they do this to try and prevent them even thinking about it or speaking about it publicly. They cant even allow us the ability to reflect on our lives because it injures them to ear our reality and how they impact it. I dont know how it ends. Lisa probably wouldnt hurt someone, her peers woudl and its very likely she would let them.


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

3 thoughts on “A comment from Lisa Johal

  1. I’m sorry you feel that a genuine attempt to engage with your (public) blog is an attempt to shut you down. That’s a shame. If you post things publicly I assume you are engaging in a public discourse rather than a private reflection. It isn’t as if I have combed through and critiqued your diaries. I have literally responded to a comment I left on a public blog that you have answered.

    For what it’s worth I am not a Corbynite and don’t particularly have an affliliation to Labour, though I have voted for them in the past, or not voted at all. What I am trying to do is understand your argument, which I still don’t. Why you think trying to enter into a conversation, trying to understand your points and what you are hoping to achieve is an attempt to shut you down is a mistery to me. Fascism is based on a ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality – it is explotation of righteous anger that makes us hate each other instead of talking and understanding one another’s point of view. As I said in my comment before, I am starting to feel that you don’t want a forum to discuss, you want a forum to reflect. That’s fine. You’re allowed one. If you post it online with comments open I take it as an invitation to discuss.


    • We have just been topld the rule of law over seventy years does not fucking apply to use and we can be abused by the state the rule of law undermined, as a reflex response to crisis, and during this period you will demand that the artifical identity you have constructed for yourself be used to prevent us discussing it. You will go out and pt bricks through MPs windows, you will send coffins to MPS, you will target and abuse welfare claimanst who threaten your false identity., You willd emand they make their personal; reflections wrap around you and not even be remotely aware its a problem,. You will literally TELL people their actual trade unuons should be used to faciloitate their abuse by the state and you have the fucking nerve to lecture me about ‘them’ and ‘us’ while I habve no fucking citzienship and can be abused by the state and you just identify as having the right to prevent opposiution and discussion fo that. After seven years of this you want people to focus their made up identity and never ever be even remotely angry at you for standing on their throats during this? This will be remembered for generations byut the reflex that did this, that already killed many people, is still in plavce and your leader demonstrates it so dont fucking lecture me about fascism tou absolute moron.


  2. Your movement is NOTHING but the movement Labour manifactured to prevent discussion of an attempt to completely remove citizneship and your identity has allowed you to facilitate something terrible and you are offended that people are disgusted with what you demonstrated. THis anger is shocking to you?> Really? Just fucking wait.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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