Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Never let your opponent know what to really expect.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: So on that note let me explain why I'm not bothering to add Jacobin to my list of journalistic sources (I'm sure it doesn't count as a corporate source, but if it does I'll add it there later, once I have evidence that it is a corporate source). Direction of resistance / implied resistance: So Jacobin, whom I appear to recall having found printing rubbish in the past, have written this false statement:

<< Antisemitism is a serious problem and should be rooted out wherever it is found, be that in the GOP, the Tory Party, or Labour. Precisely because it's serious, it shouldn't be wielded fraudulently or as a synonym for whoever criticizes Israel (which also associates Jewish people in general as responsible for the actions of a foreign state). Like the headmaster who recently compared attacks on the elitism of private schools to antisemitism, saying that any criticism of the powerful is an attack on Jews isn't a good look. >>

What's false is only the claim that the headmaster in question said what Jacobin says he said. If YOU, reader, find Anthony Wallersteiner's words you'll see he says that some attacks on elites are crass - he does not say, as Jacobin implies, that attacks on elites are ACTUAL anti-semitism, all such attacks - which is an absurd and infantile error by Jacobin in every way.

In fact he did not even, as the other of Jacobin's contradictory pair of claims falsely (you can check, his words are in the public domain) asserted [and writers less illiterate than Jacobin's, elsewhere, will also have lazily asserted], suggest that attacks on elites were (generically) akin to antisemitism, he just said that there exist many attacks on elites (among all attacks, some of which are very legitimate, eg his own) which are in fact exactly the same as anti-semitism - he mentions some anti-semitic document I know nothing about - these stupid attacks include your illuminati type of weird conspiracy theory - although what Wallersteiner seems to draw attention to is the fact that some people have blanket hatred for all the so-called elites, the entire privately educated class. Which is absolutely different to making valid, even socialist, criticisms about 'elites'.

And intellectual laziness by 'the many' is a serious flaw in any society, and the harm to elites, as I mention further on in this doc, is something Chomsky has warned of and of course with its double-standards Jacobin is unlikely to pretend Chomsky said that scapegoating elites is antisemitism, yet he said EXACTLY what Wallersteiner said which they then ludicrously claimed was what they ludicrously claimed (that Wallersteiner said that people who criticise elites are anti-semitic - demonstration of SERIOUS illiteracy and journalistic failure by Jacobin, I have a duty to emphasize).

Consider this - when I first applied for jobs in software development it was working class white men, churlishly, denying me any job at that company in Wimbledon, where I grew up. I sought to have work in the development side of a travel business website, a fairly big operation. Since then, on my own, sites I have built single-handedly with effectively zero budget and zero support have spanned across most of the world, had 100s of millions of eyeballs seeing pages of mine and other content of mine on other domains, and in my youth when working with 'the affiliate networks' I generated a few 100,000 pounds of profits for the high streets and malls, by means of just one little website I made with no one else's help - earning something like a 10% commission overall. (About 25,000 over several years before I finally quit and agreed to 'get a job' - in the telesales sector).

So I probably would have been quite good at such jobs, you know.

When I found work, I worked as a bottom end telesales operative in many companies after that those in charge of me were often white males with state education. Once it was a privately educated white south african who admitted to still having certain apartheid era values, and who would sit on her computer playing games whilst we, her 25 underlings, slogged away cleaning data. A jewish guy there, a teacher, was the other definitely privately educated person working as a slave. The rest, it's true, had state education or were migrants passing through.

Nonetheless in all my other jobs, I answered to working class white men with far more privilege than I or any non white privately educated member of staff of any company I have seen receives.

So the idea that the employment world is dominated by the privately educated isn't exactly true. Not, at least, from my perspective or that of many of Anthony Wallersteiner's students, certainly almost all of the 'non-white' ones.

A lot of the ideas of much of the 'left' are as simplistic and out of touch with the changing real world as the majority of 'right' wing 'followers' - ie people who decide, unlike anarchists of the Chomsky variety, to pin themselves to one or other parochial short-term system forever and ever amen.

Having been taught by Anthony Wallersteiner when he was a history teacher at another school I know that he is anti-racist, anti-imperialist and does not stand by Israel's racist apartheid. Not sure he'd want me to mention that here in public, eh? But it's for the common good that you face up to that, Jacobin. That's why you are not included in the list of reliables.

To sum up, since this document has become overcrowded with ideas, the attempt to portray the privately-educated as universally dominating our socio-economic life is scapegoating. Chomsky has himself warned against it. People are treating elites as an enemy to scapegoat along with migrants, Chomsky has said that specifically.

Will Jacobin use Chomsky's words in the same weaponised way it has misused Wallersteiner's? No, because they already know that Chomsky thinks what Chomsky thinks. That Wallersteiner teaches exactly what Chomsky teaches is something they don't know about so lazily they just re-purpose what little they have decided to hear in what he said and use it as a weapon. Familiar? Yep. It's EXACTLY what people who misuse the word 'anti-semitic' do!!

Gotcha Jacobin. Now pull up your socks.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Never mind. Try harder - one day you'll be good enough. But readers here should understand that what Anthony Wallersteiner said was correct and in fact his biggest critic was Margaret Hodge, the Israel poodle who has abused Jeremy Corbyn and called him 'antisemitic'. Jacobin is run by dilettantes, I would say, and that is why they make such basic errors, leap to conclusions, don't really help deal with our opponents in a fully forensic manner. Unification: Naturally I agree with much of what they say, and of course with the fact that anti-semitism smears are, these days, usually nothing to do with actual anti-semitism and a word used by racists, often Islamophobes, to defend genocide and defend allegiance to genocidal systems and policies. Nonetheless, between Jacobin and Wallersteiner, one is intelligent and honest, the other is sadly not good enough to make my list.

In actual fact attempts to positively discriminate against private schools in awarding places at Oxford were what Mr Wallersteiner was attacking, not any privilege, but inequality.

What anyone like me who is a non white former student of a private school, who went to Oxford, understands only too well is that this means that Oxford is seeking to give the places earned by non white privately educated children to white state educated children.

That is ultimately the way this discrimination must be going and will continue to go until idiots take Mr Wallersteiner's lament more seriously.

I myself 'walked into' Oxford with a '2E' offer. Once there I found that most students from schools outside London other than from reputable private schools found it very hard to not treat non-white people as implicitly less intelligent than themselves.

People from private schools and/or London schools were the ones who tended to be decent to me and treat me as an equal - whereas people from outside London demonstrated, much of the time, that to them I come from "Londonistan" and furthermore that truth is owned by people with 'white skin'.

When you disregard Mr Wallersteiner's warning, you piss on the people who suffer from that intolerable inequality.

This is why Chomsky chooses a loftier position that that merely of 'socialism' - because these parties, this partisan division, often allows people to make a lot of mistakes they don't realise they're making. Jacobin's error over Wallersteiner is absurd. He is one of their greatest allies and one of the people who taught me to do everything you see me do here on this site. And Margaret Hodge, who hates me, and you (after all, you're READING this) loathes what he said. It really pisses her off that he said that. And it's true. He was, above all, demonstrating what a genuine comparison with anti-semitism is, and no doubt it is muslim students, amongst others, he is thinking of when he worries about which of his boys will lose their deserved places at a good university to someone who has been chosen above them in the name of 'social engineering'.

Playing games with which children get places at university, disregarding the work they do and what they visibly deserve - is a backward approach to life and one which is entirely disconnected with any sort of utopia.

I refer Jeremy Corbyn to this fact: those I met from grammar schools from the north tended towards being very racist and were enablers of Blair and sycophants to the right wing Labour 'elitists' (what Escobar points out are 'fake-elites'). Those who treated me extremely well tended to be people who had been in environments where their teachers, above all, had taught them to have respect for each other and had eliminated racial barriers to whatever extent, socially, teachers can.

Private schools do this well. Grammar schools, evidence I have seen would make anyone suspect, are not so good. Beyond that, in state education - that sort of utopianism is just out of the window.

Thus my experiences often contrast starkly with misconceptions put about by lazy people on the left, just that lazy segment ready to leap to conclusions, not so ready to do adequate appropriate thought and research.

In romance, this difference became particularly pronounced and thus I am able to be so clear on the matter, and on how grim an aspect of Britain's failures as a society it is - a key thing for your social justice department to investigate, no doubt.

I'm not sure if my college and its neighbouring 'northern' colleges like St Hugh's and Lady Margaret Hall have a higher number of state school and grammar school students than the rest of Oxford - but for whatever reason, I was exposed to a fair bit of evidence on that front.

Nonetheless, within privately educated students there was also some racial division, but far less. Most of the best times I had at Oxford were with male or female ex-private school students, and I do remember many good times if I think hard. My other 'friends' - the faux-socialists whom my own college thronged with - I had less good times with. Much of my time was spent facing their crusading, their racism, their drinking and vomiting, their vandalism, their slander. Some people you don't really miss when they're gone!!

Returning to the topic of this grid point, since the previous 11 grid points have all been so clear and this one has become so complex and filled with detail that only the most intelligent readers, those willing to make an effort to understand something important (at least to me, it's important, and maybe others in my shoes) will be able to digest it - I have to wonder if it's a 'bad idea' to post this, if I have muddied clear waters.

The answer is no (I'll later quote Chomsky on whether or not to "learn from the PR industry") - the fact is what I have said is true and must be said for those reasons. Everyone who is upset by anything I say simply 'deserves' to be upset and has to face the truth and make changes - if they want words to not be said, they must make the world so that such words are simply not true. If the words are true, who am I to pretend I should feel bad in any way for saying what I've said, no matter how hard it may, even, be - to even read this document.

Elsewhere some of the key points in this document will be remade poignantly, powerfully, even 'usefully', from the 'mainstream perspective'.

Truth liberates, reader. Nothing else does. Don't believe in anything else. Not love not money. Nothing can save YOU reader, nothing other than truth.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

22 versions:

1. Server time: 18:17:26 on 18/6/2019
2. Server time: 18:18:48 on 18/6/2019
3. Server time: 18:23:15 on 18/6/2019
4. Server time: 18:23:36 on 18/6/2019
5. Server time: 18:24:3 on 18/6/2019
6. Server time: 18:28:33 on 18/6/2019
7. Server time: 18:40:11 on 18/6/2019
8. Server time: 19:15:55 on 18/6/2019
9. Server time: 19:30:24 on 18/6/2019
10. Server time: 19:34:37 on 18/6/2019
11. Server time: 19:37:54 on 18/6/2019
12. Server time: 19:56:13 on 18/6/2019
13. Server time: 19:57:53 on 18/6/2019
14. Server time: 20:6:37 on 18/6/2019
15. Server time: 20:21:59 on 18/6/2019
16. Server time: 20:26:34 on 18/6/2019
17. Server time: 20:43:38 on 18/6/2019
18. Server time: 21:21:31 on 18/6/2019
19. Server time: 21:21:47 on 18/6/2019
20. Server time: 13:7:14 on 20/6/2019
21. Server time: 13:11:52 on 20/6/2019
22. Server time: 13:21:20 on 20/6/2019

Related points:

References:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/trump-jeremy-corbyn-pompeo-coup-labour-antisemitism
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2019/05/11/some-criticisms-of-private-schools-echo-anti-semitism-says-stowe-headteacher/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

Never let your opponent know what to really expect.

So on that note let me explain why I'm not bothering to add Jacobin to my list of journalistic sources (I'm sure it doesn't count as a corporate source, but if it does I'll add it there later, once I have evidence that it is a corporate source).

So Jacobin, whom I appear to recall having found printing rubbish in the past, have written this false statement:

<< Antisemitism is a serious problem and should be rooted out wherever it is found, be that in the GOP, the Tory Party, or Labour. Precisely because it's serious, it shouldn't be wielded fraudulently or as a synonym for whoever criticizes Israel (which also associates Jewish people in general as responsible for the actions of a foreign state). Like the headmaster who recently compared attacks on the elitism of private schools to antisemitism, saying that any criticism of the powerful is an attack on Jews isn't a good look. >>

What's false is only the claim that the headmaster in question said what Jacobin says he said. If YOU, reader, find Anthony Wallersteiner's words you'll see he says that some attacks on elites are crass - he does not say, as Jacobin implies, that attacks on elites are ACTUAL anti-semitism, all such attacks - which is an absurd and infantile error by Jacobin in every way.

In fact he did not even, as the other of Jacobin's contradictory pair of claims falsely (you can check, his words are in the public domain) asserted [and writers less illiterate than Jacobin's, elsewhere, will also have lazily asserted], suggest that attacks on elites were (generically) akin to antisemitism, he just said that there exist many attacks on elites (among all attacks, some of which are very legitimate, eg his own) which are in fact exactly the same as anti-semitism - he mentions some anti-semitic document I know nothing about - these stupid attacks include your illuminati type of weird conspiracy theory - although what Wallersteiner seems to draw attention to is the fact that some people have blanket hatred for all the so-called elites, the entire privately educated class. Which is absolutely different to making valid, even socialist, criticisms about 'elites'.

And intellectual laziness by 'the many' is a serious flaw in any society, and the harm to elites, as I mention further on in this doc, is something Chomsky has warned of and of course with its double-standards Jacobin is unlikely to pretend Chomsky said that scapegoating elites is antisemitism, yet he said EXACTLY what Wallersteiner said which they then ludicrously claimed was what they ludicrously claimed (that Wallersteiner said that people who criticise elites are anti-semitic - demonstration of SERIOUS illiteracy and journalistic failure by Jacobin, I have a duty to emphasize).

Consider this - when I first applied for jobs in software development it was working class white men, churlishly, denying me any job at that company in Wimbledon, where I grew up. I sought to have work in the development side of a travel business website, a fairly big operation. Since then, on my own, sites I have built single-handedly with effectively zero budget and zero support have spanned across most of the world, had 100s of millions of eyeballs seeing pages of mine and other content of mine on other domains, and in my youth when working with 'the affiliate networks' I generated a few 100,000 pounds of profits for the high streets and malls, by means of just one little website I made with no one else's help - earning something like a 10% commission overall. (About 25,000 over several years before I finally quit and agreed to 'get a job' - in the telesales sector).

So I probably would have been quite good at such jobs, you know.

When I found work, I worked as a bottom end telesales operative in many companies after that those in charge of me were often white males with state education. Once it was a privately educated white south african who admitted to still having certain apartheid era values, and who would sit on her computer playing games whilst we, her 25 underlings, slogged away cleaning data. A jewish guy there, a teacher, was the other definitely privately educated person working as a slave. The rest, it's true, had state education or were migrants passing through.

Nonetheless in all my other jobs, I answered to working class white men with far more privilege than I or any non white privately educated member of staff of any company I have seen receives.

So the idea that the employment world is dominated by the privately educated isn't exactly true. Not, at least, from my perspective or that of many of Anthony Wallersteiner's students, certainly almost all of the 'non-white' ones.

A lot of the ideas of much of the 'left' are as simplistic and out of touch with the changing real world as the majority of 'right' wing 'followers' - ie people who decide, unlike anarchists of the Chomsky variety, to pin themselves to one or other parochial short-term system forever and ever amen.

Having been taught by Anthony Wallersteiner when he was a history teacher at another school I know that he is anti-racist, anti-imperialist and does not stand by Israel's racist apartheid. Not sure he'd want me to mention that here in public, eh? But it's for the common good that you face up to that, Jacobin. That's why you are not included in the list of reliables.

To sum up, since this document has become overcrowded with ideas, the attempt to portray the privately-educated as universally dominating our socio-economic life is scapegoating. Chomsky has himself warned against it. People are treating elites as an enemy to scapegoat along with migrants, Chomsky has said that specifically.

Will Jacobin use Chomsky's words in the same weaponised way it has misused Wallersteiner's? No, because they already know that Chomsky thinks what Chomsky thinks. That Wallersteiner teaches exactly what Chomsky teaches is something they don't know about so lazily they just re-purpose what little they have decided to hear in what he said and use it as a weapon. Familiar? Yep. It's EXACTLY what people who misuse the word 'anti-semitic' do!!

Gotcha Jacobin. Now pull up your socks.

Never mind. Try harder - one day you'll be good enough. But readers here should understand that what Anthony Wallersteiner said was correct and in fact his biggest critic was Margaret Hodge, the Israel poodle who has abused Jeremy Corbyn and called him 'antisemitic'. Jacobin is run by dilettantes, I would say, and that is why they make such basic errors, leap to conclusions, don't really help deal with our opponents in a fully forensic manner.

Naturally I agree with much of what they say, and of course with the fact that anti-semitism smears are, these days, usually nothing to do with actual anti-semitism and a word used by racists, often Islamophobes, to defend genocide and defend allegiance to genocidal systems and policies. Nonetheless, between Jacobin and Wallersteiner, one is intelligent and honest, the other is sadly not good enough to make my list.

In actual fact attempts to positively discriminate against private schools in awarding places at Oxford were what Mr Wallersteiner was attacking, not any privilege, but inequality.

What anyone like me who is a non white former student of a private school, who went to Oxford, understands only too well is that this means that Oxford is seeking to give the places earned by non white privately educated children to white state educated children.

That is ultimately the way this discrimination must be going and will continue to go until idiots take Mr Wallersteiner's lament more seriously.

I myself 'walked into' Oxford with a '2E' offer. Once there I found that most students from schools outside London other than from reputable private schools found it very hard to not treat non-white people as implicitly less intelligent than themselves.

People from private schools and/or London schools were the ones who tended to be decent to me and treat me as an equal - whereas people from outside London demonstrated, much of the time, that to them I come from "Londonistan" and furthermore that truth is owned by people with 'white skin'.

When you disregard Mr Wallersteiner's warning, you piss on the people who suffer from that intolerable inequality.

This is why Chomsky chooses a loftier position that that merely of 'socialism' - because these parties, this partisan division, often allows people to make a lot of mistakes they don't realise they're making. Jacobin's error over Wallersteiner is absurd. He is one of their greatest allies and one of the people who taught me to do everything you see me do here on this site. And Margaret Hodge, who hates me, and you (after all, you're READING this) loathes what he said. It really pisses her off that he said that. And it's true. He was, above all, demonstrating what a genuine comparison with anti-semitism is, and no doubt it is muslim students, amongst others, he is thinking of when he worries about which of his boys will lose their deserved places at a good university to someone who has been chosen above them in the name of 'social engineering'.

Playing games with which children get places at university, disregarding the work they do and what they visibly deserve - is a backward approach to life and one which is entirely disconnected with any sort of utopia.

I refer Jeremy Corbyn to this fact: those I met from grammar schools from the north tended towards being very racist and were enablers of Blair and sycophants to the right wing Labour 'elitists' (what Escobar points out are 'fake-elites'). Those who treated me extremely well tended to be people who had been in environments where their teachers, above all, had taught them to have respect for each other and had eliminated racial barriers to whatever extent, socially, teachers can.

Private schools do this well. Grammar schools, evidence I have seen would make anyone suspect, are not so good. Beyond that, in state education - that sort of utopianism is just out of the window.

Thus my experiences often contrast starkly with misconceptions put about by lazy people on the left, just that lazy segment ready to leap to conclusions, not so ready to do adequate appropriate thought and research.

In romance, this difference became particularly pronounced and thus I am able to be so clear on the matter, and on how grim an aspect of Britain's failures as a society it is - a key thing for your social justice department to investigate, no doubt.

I'm not sure if my college and its neighbouring 'northern' colleges like St Hugh's and Lady Margaret Hall have a higher number of state school and grammar school students than the rest of Oxford - but for whatever reason, I was exposed to a fair bit of evidence on that front.

Nonetheless, within privately educated students there was also some racial division, but far less. Most of the best times I had at Oxford were with male or female ex-private school students, and I do remember many good times if I think hard. My other 'friends' - the faux-socialists whom my own college thronged with - I had less good times with. Much of my time was spent facing their crusading, their racism, their drinking and vomiting, their vandalism, their slander. Some people you don't really miss when they're gone!!

Returning to the topic of this grid point, since the previous 11 grid points have all been so clear and this one has become so complex and filled with detail that only the most intelligent readers, those willing to make an effort to understand something important (at least to me, it's important, and maybe others in my shoes) will be able to digest it - I have to wonder if it's a 'bad idea' to post this, if I have muddied clear waters.

The answer is no (I'll later quote Chomsky on whether or not to "learn from the PR industry") - the fact is what I have said is true and must be said for those reasons. Everyone who is upset by anything I say simply 'deserves' to be upset and has to face the truth and make changes - if they want words to not be said, they must make the world so that such words are simply not true. If the words are true, who am I to pretend I should feel bad in any way for saying what I've said, no matter how hard it may, even, be - to even read this document.

Elsewhere some of the key points in this document will be remade poignantly, powerfully, even 'usefully', from the 'mainstream perspective'.

Truth liberates, reader. Nothing else does. Don't believe in anything else. Not love not money. Nothing can save YOU reader, nothing other than truth.



https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/trump-jeremy-corbyn-pompeo-coup-labour-antisemitism
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2019/05/11/some-criticisms-of-private-schools-echo-anti-semitism-says-stowe-headteacher/