Narcissism is not a Third Gender

             by Arthur Brick & friends 

                  

Editorial Note:  We publish the report below after

some consideration.  It raises some serious questions

about the standards of debate on the libertarian left.

We have long been aware of a deficiency among the
British left with regard to addressing truth to power,
but we would have expected the anarchists to hold to
a better quality of journalistic standards.  Yet, our
experience has been that the anarchist media blog put 
out under the title 'Freedom News' has a sadly depressing
tone in the way that it has become a mere megaphone for
a 'trans' tendency, and is too fashionably trendy 
for its own good.  The small 'Solidarity Federation' grouping 
has become yet another addict to this politics of the absurd,
its members Ron Marsden and Phil Dickens are mentioned below 
in dispatches: we know nothing of Mr Dickens but Mr Marsden
was in attendance when 'Arthur Brick' was roughly removed by a gang from a  meeting discussing blacklisting at the Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair on the 7 April, 2018.  

Knowing Ron Marsden we are not surprised to learn that he was cagey and even furtive about supplying help to this victim of discrimination & blacklisting.  

Sitting next to the passive Mr. Marsden someone tried hard to get 
the exclusion of 'Mr Brick' discussed, but to no avail.

This silencing of free debate is becoming a cancer that lies at the
heart of the politics of the far left in the UK.

*****************************

Open letter to Sol Fed’s Keyboard Warrior from 'Arthur Brick'& friends:

Phil Dickens: 'The conflicted tax collector'?

THIS article is in relation to the use of abusive terms adopted by some left wing and anarchist political groups to put down anyone who does not take their opinions on the subject of transgender seriously.  The name calling and abuse of socialists, anarchists, activists etc. living outside their freaky social scenes is a way of them avoiding debate, through fear of their claims being scrutinised.
The article also deals with a pretty insignificant group called ‘Sol Fed’.  We are not sure what they are federated to, as they are almost invisible on a street level, yet they do a great job of discrediting class politics with their absurd adoption of transgender identity politics.  So here we will shed a light on the keyboard warrior.

I was recently asked by a feminist friend of mine if I knew an individual named Phil Dickens. I should point out that Phil Dickens is already a somewhat conflicted individual and I found it amusing to discover that whilst being an
‘anarchist’ he also works at the tax office!   On the one hand ‘smashing the state’ for purely theatrical effect but on the other being a servile state functionary.  I think we can safely call that contradiction and hypocrisy, but it does reveal the level of insincerity regarding the bogus claims of this keyboard warrior.

2. Response to my question.

I was sent a link to his social media outpourings and decided to challenge
him. No sooner had I done so, Phil Dickens blocked me and backed out of answering my question.  After further investigation it would appear that
SolfFed has no platform in which to redress the behaviour of its members.
For example there are no positions in the group such as regional or
national secretary in which you can voice your concerns.

Ron Marsden of Manchester Sol Fed was asked about this when people wanted to address the behaviour of Liverpool SolFed member Pablo who disrupted a blacklisted workers meeting, as it was considered somebody attending did not hold the correct opinions on gender self identification (such was the outrage he saw fit to disrupt the meeting).  This is covered in depth in the booklet 'Shit Wigs and Steroids'.

1. Phil Dickens post and my question.  This makes any external or internal grievance of Sol Fed members go unanswered or conveniently ignored.  Any ‘difficult issue’ is swept under the carpet with the hope it will not raise its ‘ugly head’.  So when we see these ‘members’ (scuse phallic pun!!) advertise ‘women’s meetings’ but are also calling women TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) in public, how are we to take that?

It could be said the SolFed is nothing more than an obscure social group with
a supposed ’workerist’ base. Its older members seem happy with its utter failure to grow into anything meaningful but lets put that comical issue to one side.

However, the issue here is that the term TERF is aimed at women, which is an
affront to working class women who have suffered at the hands of men.  What we are seeing displayed by Liverpool SolFed who perhaps number four people is crude bullying of those not towing a line that is being widely scrutinised elsewhere.  Another example of bullying in full effect is when Liverpool SolFed recently ousted one of their own members who sought discussion on the issue. Members of Sol Fed are clearly cowardly on this issue.

It really does show SolFed’s absurd contradiction on women’s rights. It shows the complete denial of women’s voices over their concerns of men identifying as women and, comically, as lesbians.  The use of TERF as a slur by tax official Dickson shows his contempt for those of us not falling into line with the male
perspective that transgender activists peddle.  It looks like Liverpool
SolFed / Mersey SolFed (all four of them) are sinking in the mire of their own introverted identity politics bullshit. The adoption of a pro trans narrative does not seem to be swelling the ranks of their “disorganisation”.  When we see SolFed publishing articles on class and women, we really are left scratching our heads to the clear contradiction and absurdity of their “politics”.

Will Phil Dickens answer this question:

What names have you got for us Northern Working Class blokes who do not swallow the idea that our fathers, brothers, sons can miraculously be ‘actual women’ through the power of thought, medicine, body modification etc.? What you are holding up as transgender, Phil Dickens, as you insult women (with critical opinions), is transvestism,  Autogynephilia* and a whole set of other
issues.  But you are good at calling people things they are not.  If you had a grasp of radical feminism you would see the people you are abusing are not ‘radical feminists’ merely people with the capacity to consider issues well outside of your narrow field of understanding on issues whilst working for the state in your little tax office.

Ron Marsden:  'Hay que malalingua!'

I see you have had 4 views on your Youtube videos.  I think we can help boost that for you.  Being angry on behalf of others, whilst not looking at the issues, leaves people open to responses like ours.  We politely suggest that the 'toxic tax worker' has a read of this:  https://uncommongroundmedia.com/as-a-transsexual-i-support-dr-eva-poen/ the trans activists.

It is easy to overlook the significance of the arguments adopted by these fringe groups, but tomboys are now pushed into identifying as male, effeminate men are getting swept along with the idea they are female, straight men who identify as women claim to be lesbians.  All kinds of absurd ideas and contradictory thinking are marketed as ‘transgender’.  There is a considerable backlash from
many people in wider society against the absurdity of claims from the trans activists.


There has been a substantial ground shift against the claim of transgender activists because what is actually happening is that many of the young people and significantly young women over the last number of years are detransitioning.  The publicity this is rightly receiving are collapsing the arguments that ‘trans activists’ put forward.  Many young people leaving the ‘trans cult’ are left physically and emotionally scarred by the process of conditioning that led them to consider themselves ‘trapped in the wrong body’.  The physical impact on some has had a catastrophic effect.

When we look at the small groups of individuals who claim to be ‘anarchists/ socialists’ etc. who promote the transgender narrative, what we are seeing is the very clear closing down of actual debate on the subject.  One facet of opinion (they want to personally profit from) is ridiculously over emphasized by them, but any challenging opinion of that one facet is shut out.  How can you claim
to support issues around gender but then do all you can to keep the debate massively reduced.

This is done by abusing people who are a part of that debate, dehumanising intelligent people with insults and shutting down supposedly public events like bookfairs, conferences etc.  What we have seen are people like Phil Dickens, Ian Bone, Freedom Press, Simon Saunders, Alice Flebotte, Dave Downes etc. promoting the idea they are concerned about an issue, ‘gender identity politics’,
but under scrutiny, and without doubt, they are showing no compassion or empathy for those who struggle with gender identity issues.

To use 'TERF' to put critics down is beyond sloppy.  It is weak and derogatory.  You have got to hand it to them that they arrogantly believe they can avoid being pulled up on their contradiction and lack of sincerity.  When people take such an abusive line by calling strangers TERFs or bigots etc. they will be in for a shock when their words are drawn into public debate.  We hope to add to this article and we will by looking at particular individuals who hope to avoid any personal responsibility and publicity for the farcical ideology they push from behind their
keyboards.


* autogynephilia

A sexuality that consists of someone being aroused by the idea of themselves being the opposite sex. Not to be confused with transsexualism, which is a medical condition defined by sex dysphoria.

*************************************************

This was written before Covid 19 happened.  As in all negative situations we are seeing positive initiatives come from the chaos:
LGB Alliance https://lgballiance.org.uk/
LGB activists standing up to the transgender nonsense
Boxer Ceiling https://www.facebook.com/BoxerCeili

Bookfair 2020: Trans Totalitarian Anarchism?

Editorial Note:

IN January 1946, George Orwell wrote an essay entitled 'The Prevention of Literature' in which he addressed the indifference of the public to the promotion of free expression and what Orwell calls 'the right to report contemporary events truthfully, or as truthfully as is consistent with ignorance, bias and self-deception from which every observer necessarily suffers'.

 The reader will observe the humility here in Orwell's tone and will no doubt contrast it with the self confidence and even arrogance of much contemporary  commentary.  

'If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.  In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.'

This lack of guts, this fear to challenge the latest orthodoxy still prevails in the anglo-saxon countries today.  But it's not the general public that are setting the agenda for acceptable opinions, it is a kind of fashionable elite view which bullies and bamboozles dissidents who either refuse, or are slow to swallow the latest flavour of the month.

2020 BOOKFAIR

The charming Tweets below from the proponents of the 2020 BOOKFAIR in London beautifully illustrate a naive mentality which is all too prevalent today.  In a way I feel sorry for the poor souls who churn out such stuff.  Do they really believe that they can silence criticism of Trans mania by such crude bans at Bookfairs?  All they have accomplished so far is to close down successful bookfairs as in London or to be forced to do deals as at the recent Manchester People's History Museum Bookfair.  Their every ban or censorious step tottering with the 'cocks in frocks' creates more opposition.

George Orwell, in the preface intended to accompany his book Animal Farm, which was not published in the first edition and remained undiscovered until 1971, wrote:
If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

The 2020 Bookfair organisers are desperately trying to keep the debate over the business of the Cocks in Frocks off the agenda.   It seems they can't cope with having to defend their curiosities of their position.  

Freedom & Professor Chomsky

When we had to take on Professor Chomsky in 2001, with our publication of the Alternative Raven, entitled 'Language, Mind & Society: Chomsky & His Critics' (2001)*, we were met with a more serious and subtle resistance.  In that case pressure was applied slyly through Milan Rai to get Freedom Press to block publication, after the great man Chomsky became aware that we were going to publish some essays challenging to his linguistic ideas on the universal grammar in what was then The Raven.  Milan Rai had been for a time closely associated with Chomsky and now edits Peace News. 
Milan worked behind the scenes on Professor Chomsky's behalf to get the then editor of Freedom to prevent the agreed publication of The Raven critical of his theory on language.   In the end a group of northern anarchists and academics brought out an Alternative Raven, which included the articles challenging Chomsky's theories.  Later Freedom even refused to review the Alternative Raven. when Donald Rooum over-ruled the then editor Toby Crowe.  Later in a letter to me, Chomsky came to admit that he had throughout been in touch with with Milan Rai over that issue, but in mitigation said he only contacted him as a friend.

None of the people involved in trying to suppress the criticism of Chomsky's linguistics at Freedom covered themselves with glory over this matter, and Freedom lost some of its integrity by first agreeing to publish The Raven on Chomsky's linguistics, and to later when Milan Rai got involved to withdraw its offer.  

Self-censorship & 'uncomfortable truths'

When Orwell writes about the 'discomfort' of intellectual honesty, he meant that even during the Second World War, with the Ministry of Information’s often ham-fisted attempts at press censorship, 'the sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.'   Self-censorship came down to matters of decorum, Orwell argues—or as we would put it today, 'civility.'   Obedience to 'an orthodoxy' meant that while 'it is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other… it is "not done" to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was "not done" to mention trousers in the presence of a lady.  Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness,' not by government agents, but by a critical backlash aimed at preserving a sense of 'normalcy' at all costs.


At stake for Orwell in the 1940s was no less than the fundamental liberal principle of free speech, in defense of which he invokes the famous quote from Voltaire as well as Rosa Luxembourg’s definition of freedom as 'freedom for the other fellow'.  'Liberty of speech and of the press,' Orwell writes, does not demand 'absolute liberty'—though he stops short of defining its limits.  But it does demand the courage to tell uncomfortable truths, even such truths as are, perhaps, politically inexpedient or detrimental to the prospects of a lucrative career.  'If liberty means anything at all,' Orwell concludes, 'it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'

Unlike in the 1940s, when Orwell was around trying to get Animal Farm published, we are not being nudged into a vulgar Marxist or pro-Soviet totalitarianism.  The kind of totalitarianism of the Trans mania we are now expected to civilly swallow is the decorum of the Cocks in Frocks.

*  http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_117.pdf

 

Manchester Anarchist Bookfair Review 2019

 by Christopher Draper

AFTER years of uncomradely bans and exclusions that led to the organisers themselves being banished from this favoured venue it is good to see the Bookfair back at Manchester’s Pumphouse Museum.  Saturday December 7th’s 2019’s fair was efficiently organised with a good range of books, associated literature as well as music, tee-shirts, badges etc on offer.  Admission was free and with a café on site a good time was had by all, or nearly all (more of that later).


Six hour-long talks were advertised:  “Anarchism and Education”; “An Introduction to IWW”;  “What is the Anarchist Party?”; “Marie Louise Berneri’s - Journey Through Utopia”;  “The Government of No One” and “Chav Solidarity” respectively.


Having practiced anarchist education within and without the state system for 50 years I was especially interested in the first talk.  The speaker, Dr. Nick Stevenson, a sociology lecturer at Nottingham University, promised to discuss “more humanistic alternatives” but confined most of his speech to elucidating the ideas of Ivan Illich.  He seemed a nice bloke but this was woefully inadequate as even a basic introduction to “Anarchism and Education”.  Nick seemed blissfully unaware of the numerous practical anarchist educational initiatives that have taken place in Britain since Louis Michel founded her “International School” in London in 1891.  Instead of ivory-towered philosophising about Illich we would have been much better occupied analysing the rise and fall of the dozens of living and breathing free schools that flourished all over Britain in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, never mind the continuing libertarian education on offer at Summerhill.  When I met Nick afterwards he spoke movingly of how his own children had suffered at the hands of the state system and it struck me that this would have provided a better starting point for discussion of real life anarchist alternatives, past, present and future.


My fears of abstract philosophising only increased after attending Dr. Matthew S Adams, Loughborough University lecturer’s talk on Utopias and then Dr. Ruth Kinna’s (another Loughborough lecturer) talk about her book, “The Government of No One”.  I wasn’t reassured when I googled Mr Adams and discovered he’s just published a “Handbook of Anarchism” (Palgrave-MacMillan 2019) that costs £199.99!


Unfortunately the “International Workers of the World” couldn’t even manage to organise themselves so their talk never happened and consequently for the second hour the valuable discussion space remained empty and unused.  I took the opportunity to walk around the hall and chat to stallholders. Despite my lack of affection for Marxism I found the “International Brigade” stallholder most comradely and appreciated our discussion about the decline of politicised working class culture and the collapse of the Clarion movement.   I similarly enjoyed comradely conversations at the Hunt Sabs, PM Press, and West Yorkshire Communist Anarchist stalls and was particularly impressed by the latter’s newsletter that wittily describes Hebden Bridge as, “A nice little drug-town with an unwelcome tourist problem.” 


I’d only half completed my circuit of stallholders by 12.30 so missed “The Anarchist Party’s” talk but as I later learned they advocate voting Labour it’s just as well I didn’t attend.  Unfortunately I had to leave before the last talk to catch a train back to Wales so can’t comment on the “Chavs” although that might well have proved the most useful event of the day (perhaps someone could enlighten us?).

Overall the Bookfair was a great achievement by the organisers. In today’s political climate it’s easier to sit back and do nothing, they dared to bring anarchism back into a venue that is precious but fraught with problems (more of that in a forthcoming article).  They had to steer a difficult course between providing lively debate but avoiding the destructive antagonisms that have so blighted recent anarchist bookfairs.  Unfortunately I learned afterwards that even this event wasn’t free from censorship.  When a group of women from “Make More Noise” attempted to distribute leaflets on gender politics they were asked to leave on the basis that only approved stallholders could distribute literature (there’s more of this on Twitter).  Apparently there was no consequent violence or blacklisting but neither was this an entirely satisfactory conclusion.  Couldn’t the leaflets have been left on a stallholders table or perhaps a table provided for non-stallholders to leave “non-authorised” leaflets?

The organisers must be congratulated but anarchism requires more than sycophancy and the “Freedom” website regrettably treated the “Make More Noise” women and their Twitter supporters with contempt.  My main concern is that the predominance of academic philosophising in the discussion space (3 out of the 5 talks delivered). In the 1960’s Feminism was a revolutionary, libertarian movement (I was there when Germaine Greer spoke at the Warwick University occupation in 1970!) but it spawned “Women’s Studies”, provided safe academic careers, was increasingly commodified and now “Women’s Hour” compiles an annual list “Women’s Powerlist”!  Is anarchism going the same way, with ever more academic chiefs and fewer activist Indians? We mustn’t let professors define our politics or encourage the emergence of an academic “Priest-Class”.  These ivory-towered experts share their musings in the journal “Philosophical Studies” (available at the Bookfair), but how many working class activists are going to read it, let alone write for it, at £14 an issue?   I’m not anti-intellectual but Kropotkin, Russell and Chomsky were also activists and theory must surely be constantly refreshed and informed by struggle to be useful. Anarchist theory and anarchist activism cannot flourish if conducted by separate groups with the former leading the latter – we are not Marxists.


The problem is wider than the Bookfair and I don’t doubt that the academics and the organisers are all nice people but that doesn’t preclude constructive criticism.  I would suggest two modifications for next years Manchester Bookfair.  Firstly no more than one philosophical talk with five more practical workshops led by everyday, down-to-earth anarchists and secondly an open-to-all “Free Speech” stall including material that may well shock and offend, perhaps supported by a “Free Speech” workshop?

For Peace, Love & Anarchy……………………Christopher Draper, Llandudno

*************************

Anarchist Book Fair returns to History Museum

 by Barry Woodling

THE Manchester and Salford  Anarchist Book fair returned to the People's History Museum on Saturday the 7th, Dec.    It passed off without public incident unlike previous Anarchist  Book fairs in London, Liverpool and especially Manchester, which on the last few occasions were marred by serious disturbances.  There was none of this last Saturday, and supporters of the NAN, who were once banned and blacklisted, participated fully in the workshops at this event.

There were the usual wide array of stalls including PM Press, Freedom Press, independent book sellers, as well as Anarchist organisations such as Anarchist Communists, Anarchist Federation and Solidarity Federation.    A number of Campaign groups also had stalls.

The workshops had a distinct Anarchist Studies emphasis.....Matthew Adams presented a paper reviewing a book written by Marie Louise Berneri entitled 'Journey through Utopia'.   The talk contained biographical material and also mentioned the liberal critique of utopianism associated with the works of Berlin, Popper and Arendt.   

The other workshop - I attended was presented by Ruth Kinna of Loughborough University and Anarchist Studies.  Promoting her own recently published book:  'The Government of No One'.

She referred to two key historical moments related to anarchism, namely the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Haymarket trial of anarchists in the following decade.    Her talk encompassed five broad headings:  

1) culture, 2) Education, 3) Activism, 4) Social arrangements  eg utopias and experiments, and 5) Prospects.    She focused on anarchism as a philosophy which opposed all forms of domination including class, power relations, patriarchy and law.

My overall impression was that the book fair was relatively successful in terms of attendance and organisation and this augurs well for the future after a sustained period of conflict which damaged previous book fairs although issues of freedom of speech still have to be resolved.*

Northern Voices has tried hard at the time of publication to contact the organisers of this bookfair for a comment, but we have been unable to get a response or to even find out who were responsible for the event.  However, quite separately someone who knows something about the intricacies of last Saturday's event has defended the organisers challenging the critics by saying:
'You’ve all been involved in organising events before.  And you’re all patently aware of how the organisers ALWAYS get the blame for everything.  The London Bookfair collective got so much abuse after 2017.'

********************* 

*  Barry has here reported honestly on the Bookfair as we all understood and appreciated it last Saturday night.  However, on Sunday Northern Voices became aware of an incident of which neither Barry Woodling nor anyone associated with NV or the Northern Anarchist Network (NAN) knew anything about, and we feel we must in fairness produce the link from 'MAKE MORE NOISE' for readers to consider:

https://twitter.com/MakeMoreNoise2/status/1203319566472040448?s=08

***************************

Democracy & the anarchists

by Brian Bamford

REVIEWING a recent interview involving the academic Ruth Kinna, the critic Les May asks on this blog about the way she tackles the question about the attitudes of English anarchists to democracy. Here Les May suggests that she hesitated and appeared to stumble when the interviewer asked her whether anarchists believed in democracy.   Mr. May puts this down to the abysmal way in which some modern anarchists have handled themselves when confronted with political, moral and intellectual differences.  He probably has in mind people being roughed-up, shoved around and sent packing at anarchist  book fairs and other events.  The list is long but the recent exclusions of Helen Steel has excited interest, and not just on Mums Net.  This raised another issue: the crude hierarchical nature of the anarchist's methodology in so far as some of them seem more than willing to defend minor celebrities like Ms. Steel but hold back from backing 'lesser' figures who fall foul on some political point of order.

At the Liverpool Anarchist Book fair last year, where a blacklist was in operation and tolerated, even by Milan Rai, the editor of Peace News failed to give his full backing to people who were blacklisted there.  Mr. Rai who accepts that the practice of a blacklist was unfair in Liverpool, non-the-less he didn't let it get in the way or prevent him from doing his own book promotion at the same event.  Political expediency seems to be name of the game among the political libertarians of all shapes and sizes.  Moral compass, it seems, takes a back seat.at all levels among the English, particularly when it gets in the way of business.  The New from Nowhere set who were organising the Liverpool Bookfair, were more worried about losing business through the bad publicity that ensued than upholding any moral standards.

Les May writes:  'Democracy isn’t just about voting, it’s also about how we treat people we disagree with.'

What is democracy, we might ask?

The book 'School for Dictators' by the Italian novelist Ignazio Silone, has a character called Thomas: the Cynic who declares:  'Democracy is universal sufferage plus certain conditions.  The Greeks who were the first to experience it, [and] described four of them as follows: isonomia, or equality of rights before the law; liberty (which is a word plain enough in itself); isocratia or political equality; and isegoria, or freedom of speech.'

Mr. May asks:  'Why is it that people who claim to follow a political philosophy which extols personal freedom, trust in the individual, working for the collective good and personal responsibility, so often turn out to be authoritarian when they band together in groups?'

What maybe puzzling Mr. May, who has been around the English anarchists at least since the Freedom Anarchist Ball in the early 1960s, is that some anarchists today are actively repressing others and trying to prevent them presenting alternative viewpoints.  


But it is not only Milan Rai at Peace News who has fallen short and failed to be consistent in his stand against the persistent censorship, bullying and gagging among the adherents of anarchism in this country.  Pensioned-off academics like David Goodway and Peter Marshall who wrote 'Demanding the Impossible:  A History of Anarchism', both sit on a committee 'Friends of Freedom Press' which oversees a blacklist which named several northern anarchists.  This blacklist was compiled by a Freedom incomer from East Anglia Simon Saunders who also works as a hack for the Morning Star.

As Les May writes in his article:   'There’s no shortage of examples of such authoritarian behaviour which have been recorded on the Northern Voices blog, some in recent weeks.   Why do they do it?'

We live in troubling times in which politics on all fronts in this country has now been generally discredited by a degree of intolerance.  It is surprising that in some respects it is at its worst among the anarchists and among the readers at book fairs.  

*******

'BOOKFAIRS & BULLSHIT'

a critical review by Christopher Draper

THIS shocking booklet should be read and acted upon by everyone claiming allegiance to anarchism for there are no innocent bystanders.  I was intimately involved when the author was thrown out of last year’s 'Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair' and I witnessed the appallingly authoritarian behaviour of the organisers.  As he observes this was but a single incident in a growing catalogue of oppressive, exclusionary and often violent acts perpetrated by bigots claiming to be anarchists.  The author fairly concludes that, 'Anarchism has pretty much become a Wendy house for children to play in'.

The central argument is that the key role of class in the everyday oppression of millions of people has been displaced by the adolescent politics of personal identity and doctrinaire opinion is imposed and enforced by censorious authoritarians.  'The massive attention paid to identity politics has utterly distracted from attention to real problems and issues in the world – capitalist greed, poverty, injustice, war etc. In this respect, identity politics is the ultimate counter-revolutionary ideology and has utterly divided the left.  Much worse, people are now afraid to say what they think and are being turned off politics for good by this laughable charade.'

The author accurately identifies the takeover of anarchism by poseurs exploiting gender issues to gain a dominant role that enables them to define the limits of permitted opinion, dictate what’s labelled 'hate speech' and who’s excluded for imperilling their self-declared 'safe spaces'.  A determined, dominating minority has been allowed to take over as pusillanimous comrades refuse to challenge bullying behaviour.  I witnessed this lack of solidarity at Liverpool and previously saw the same cowardice at a 'Manchester Anarchist Bookfair' from which other comrades were unjustly excluded.

At the Liverpool workshop from which the author was expelled, as the 'Inquisition' burst in I requested that they circulate amongst comrades present the leaflet the 'excluders' claimed comprised 'hate speech' so vile that their 'victim' be immediately thrown out.  It seemed to me that those attending the workshop should judge whether he needed to be excluded or not but the 'Witchfinders' insisted that he go and the rest of us passively defer to their authority. I objected that this was hardly, 'anarchism in action' and managed to retrieve a copy of the banned leaflet from our 'blasphemous' author before he was led away.

The author accurately observes, 'Anarchist bookfairs have become social occasions for marginalised reality shy people.  They are not progressive or libertarian and are isolated from the real world by maintaining "door policies".  This keeps them and their delusional self-importance safe from most of us outside their social scene.'

And it’s certainly true that, 'This publication is in sharp contrast to the jokers patting themselves on their back in London, who remain – as ever – isolated from the real world but hope to be seen as a credible mouthpiece for current anarchist thinking.'

But the shocking contents of this pamphlet are not entirely warranted or welcome.  Like the author, I am also a 'northern working class anarchist', and can claim even longer allegiance to the cause (approx 50 years) yet I don’t like his language.  Authoritarian behaviour comes in different guises and labelling people, 'ponces', 'idiots' and 'creepy-looking fucked up men' is intimidatory and undermines the persuasiveness of his argument.  I don’t think people should be excluded for not conforming to middle class modes of expression but I do believe anarchists should empathise with others and not needlessly offend. Instead, this pamphlet rejoices in the use of aggressive, macho language; 'cocks in frocks', 'confused fuckers', 'couldn’t give a shit', 'What a fuckin’ joke'!  I personally challenged Pablo, one of the 'excluders' at the Liverpool Bookfair and found him utterly robotic in his narrow-minded bigotry but I don’t think it’s fair, funny or clever for the pamphlet to depict Pablo with, 'I love Franco' and a swastika added to his photograph.

The author is wrong to insist that, 'When people politicise irrelevant lifestyle choices the bigger picture of dealing with class oppression as an argument is just pushed to one side by them as they politicise their insignificant individual decisions as radical positions – such as veganism…' Unpicking the myriad authoritarian, exploitative threads that bind together our oppressive society is an essential, complex, ongoing task that would need to continue even beyond any successful revolution.  I fully acknowledge the political importance of class but I also believe that 'the personal is political' and it is wrong to dismiss other people’s experience of oppression as trivial, irrelevant or less important than our own perception of class.  After all, Russia destroyed Capitalism but maintained authoritarian control.

Anarchism requires more than turning the other cheek or looking the other way and though hundreds signed a petition supporting Helen Steel many more (including some of the signatories to Helen’s petition) looked the other way when less well-known or popular comrades were victimised. Anarchists must take personal responsibility and I regret that the author (or authors) of this publication choose to remain as anonymous as most of the exclusionary 'Witchfinders' they deplore. There’s much of interest and importance in this pamphlet and I would urge comrades to read it and respond by intervening everywhere and on every occasion that you witness authoritarian, exclusionary behaviour.  As this publication never said, for evil to triumph it only takes good men, women and those of gender-fluid identity to do nothing.

 _________________________________________________________________________

 "Shit Wigs and Steroids: Anarchism's (and the left's) Tolerance of Delusion" 

 'BOOKFAIRS & BULLSHIT'

This booklet is an A5 size 24-page critique of identity politics which challenges what it sees as the dominant politics of a 'wannabe' London based elite who are setting themselves up as a mouthpiece for current anarchist thought in the UK.  It claims to be rooted in a northern working-class perspective based on anti-authoritatianism.  It is a collective project that questions what it sees as the 'bogus claims of the transgender headcases' ; it entitles itself under the e-mail address:  newoffensive01@gmail.com

 Price £2 including postage & packing.

_______________________________________________________________________

************

Review: Transsexuals vs Cocks in Frocks?

 by Les May

 _________________________________________________________________________

 "Shit Wigs and Steroids: Anarchism's (and the left's) Tolerance of Delusion" 

 'BOOKFAIRS & BULLSHIT'

This booklet is an A5 size 24-page critique of identity politics which challenges what it sees as the dominant politics of a 'wannabe' London based elite who are setting themselves up as a mouthpiece for current anarchist thought in the UK.  It claims to be rooted in a northern working-class perspective based on anti-authoritatianism.  It is a collective project that questions what it sees as the 'bogus claims of the transgender headcases' ; it entitles itself under the e-mail address:  newoffensive01@gmail.com

 Price £2 including postage & packing.

_______________________________________________________________________

I WAS asked to review this booklet by someone who had erroneously been identified as the author.  When this came to the attention of the real author he initiated contact with the supposed author, which led to me receiving a review copy.  Any opinions in this review are entirely my own and should not be attributed to anyone else.

Reviewing this booklet is not easy.  It is difficult to discern a linear sequence and it can be read in a number of different ways.  At one level it is one episode of an anarchist soap opera in which the horny handed sons of toil from the gritty north take on the effete, never done a proper day’s work in their lives, London scribblers and their acolytes.  The title says it all ‘Shit Wigs and Steroids. Anarchism’s and the left’s Tolerance of Delusion.  Bookfairs & Bullshit’.

Eager to wash anarchism’s dirty washing in public we get three pages, or should that be six pages, I said it was difficult to discern a linear sequence, of ‘What Happened at the Liverpool ‘Anarchist’ Bookfair 2018’.  Certainly nothing for the bookfair organisers to be proud of.  At this point you realise that the author’s way of expressing things is, shall we say, OTT.  Here’s a sample ‘… his gang of ponces have supported violence against women through attempting to stop free speech in a public environment’.  So far as I am concerned their ‘crime’ is nothing to do with violence against women, it is attempting to stifle debate on transgender issues.  At this point I began to wonder if the author had swallowed the whole of the feminist lexicon.  Here’s another sample which is the title of a booklet the author encourages us to read, ‘Gender is not an Identity, it is a Tool of Patriarchy a Feminist View of Gender Identity Politics’.  Patriarchy, Feminist, Gender all in one sentence, pass me the sick bag please!

Usually when I read this sort of stuff I assume the writer is what I call one of ‘The Leg Over Brigade’, i.e. a man who spouts feminist pleasing language in the hope of being viewed favourably in the amorous stakes.  I don’t think this is the case here, the author seems to genuinely believe what he is writing and I doubt that his overuse of the slang terms for female genetalia as descriptions for people who views he disagrees with, will endear him to many feminists.

Anarchism he says ‘has pretty much become a wendy house for children to play in’.  He means of course the ‘London effete’ version of anarchism and lays at its door ‘authoritarian behaviour, censorship, bullying and (yawn) misogyny’.  These charges are not unique to anarchism, ‘the Left’ is riddled with similar exponents.  ‘The transgender arguments are at best nonsense, at worst (yawn) misogynistic, indulgent and delusional’, he tells us.  Well that’s a point of view, an opinion, an assertion.  This is anger talking.

But if you first strip away the anger, then all of the feminist rhetoric, you realise he has a point, you’ve just got to unearth it.

What this booklet is all about is the proposed changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) which could move away from medical assessment to ‘self certifying’, and about the people who refuse to engage in discussion about the implications of such a change and want to bully the rest of society into accepting it without question.

I’ve written previously about what I see as the absurdity of a man with a full set of wedding tackle being allowed to claim he is a woman and be housed in a women’s prison, the ‘Cocks in Frocks’ syndrome as the author rather nicely puts it.

What I had not considered is how the 5000 transexual women for whom the 2004 GRA was created, might view self certifying.  It’s an interesting perspective.  The rational, understanding, empathetic way the 14 contributors to this piece have structured their argument and their recognition that whilst it is women who will be most affected, changes to the GRA will affect the whole of society, is an example of how this debate should be conducted.

I found this so striking that I was initially tempted to quote it in full.  I won’t; you’ll have to get hold of a copy of the booklet and read it for yourself. Significantly some of the contributors to this are older women who ‘transitioned’ up to 50 years ago.  Almost all the noise comes from those of university age,

Much of the author’s anger is directed at the politicisation of identity, of irrelevant lifestyle choices, of ‘Look at me, me, me I’m non-binary’ or the way that some people portray individual decisions as somehow taking a radical stance, and think we should all take notice. I’m inclined to agree.  My wife, my sister, my sisters-in-law, my daughters, my granddaughters, couldn’t care less. 

*********** 

Peace News, Free Speech & 'Hate Speech'

by Brian Bamford

PEACE NEWS has been continuing its splendid coverage of the controversial transgender issue and its impact on free expression since the beginning of this year; the latest edition carries a thoughtful comment piece from the Manchester peace campaigner Cath Bann and a letter from the biologist Les May.  Northern Voices particularly applauds its editorial stand on free speech.


Both Cath Bann and Les May are responding to a letter in the previous edition of Peace News from Clare Bonetree who claimed that the paper was confusing free speech with 'hate speech'.

Cath Bann writes:  'So few left-wing publications have been courageous enough to print opinions which question the prevailing thought on trans issues, and the fact that you have featured articles from both sides of the divide, as well as offering your own take (as a free speech issue) is commendable.'

Les May in his letter writes:   'Increasingly we have people trying to grab the moral high ground by claiming that something they read or hear, and do not like, is racist, anti-semitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, patriarchal or in the latest catch all phrase, "hate speech", and should not be said.'

Ms. Bann in her comment piece argues:   'While I appreciate that Clare’s motivations likely stem from the desire (which I and presumably all in the peace movement share) to stand up for minority communities, I believe there is a failure to see that there is an overreach in trans rights ideology that is causing genuine concern.  To label this concern, and Peace News’ article, as transphobic is drawing the parameters of what counts as transphobia too widely.'

This topical broad brush approach employed by Ms. Bonetree and much of the anglo-saxon left is both lazy and dangerous.  As Les May is well aware that in Rochdale and elsewhere in the North it has led to a kind of inverted racism in which tend to turn a blind eye to ethnic grooming gangs or more recently cases of multiple voting by people of Asian ethnicity which the authorities seem reluctant to investigate for fear of being accused of 'institutional racism'.

Peace News in their current editorial commenting on the ongoing disputes surrounding both transgender and free speech declare:

'Last issue, we published a letter from Clare Bonetree explaining why she was ending her subscription to PN over our coverage of recent conflicts over trans rights.  The last straw for her was our description of the conflict at the Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair (over an anti-trans leaflet) as a question of free speech. Clare’s letter prompted a response from another reader, Cath Bann, which is published below.  We welcome responses to both Cath’s and Clare’s letters – we want to represent the diversity of views in grassroots movements for change, and be a forum for debate.'

It's refreshing to see a publication like Peace News that is encouraging intelligent debate on these issues.

************

Anarchy in Action?

by Chris Draper

ANARCHIST Bookfairs once demonstrated ‘Anarchy in Action’ – intellectually stimulating, friendly and welcoming to all-comers.  Now “Anarchist Bookfairs” routinely exemplify prejudice, bans, ejections and violence. First the London Bookfair was cancelled now Sheffield’s gone the same way. Manchester lost its prestigious “People’s History Museum” venue because of the blacklisting behaviour of its organisers and the 2018 Liverpool Bookfair first banned one anarchist and then physically ejected another. In an attempt to restore open-minds and open-access I recently emailed one of the ‘Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair’ organisers and I invite YOU dear reader to evaluate the response for yourself...

(a copy of the email sent by me to Maria, one of the Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair organisers)

*******

Dear Maria,

I email you as one of the organisers of the recent Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair.

Whilst I appreciate that organising such an event is a thankless task you would probably agree that several aspects of what transpired were rather negative. As an aged, lifelong anarchist who devoutly believes ‘The Personal is Political’ it is almost anathema to me to ban people from anarchist events. We should practice what we preach and live the society we advocate. Would we ban people from a post-revolution anarchist world?

Three people were to some extent subject to bans; Barry Woodling, Brian Bamford and another unnamed male. Whilst Woodling was almost immediately reinstated, Bamford was left outside in the rain and the third character was ejected late in the day. In none of these three cases was any open, democratic, ‘due-process’ evident. The Woodling example underlines the quixotic nature of such bans as he had previously been refused entry to the Manchester fair and was informed on arriving at Liverpool he was again banned and then for no apparent reason this decision was quashed and he was allowed in to no ill effect. You surely recognise that such conduct betrays an absence of justice and consistency. Anarchism should model improved relationships not exemplify irrational prejudice.

Moving on from the Woodling example, I realise that some comrades disagree with views expressed by the other two individuals, in fact in both cases I expressed my own criticisms to them personally, BUT one of the defining aspects of anarchism is that we relish disagreement and win over critics by exemplary argument and behaviour rather than repression and exclusion. Of course, we have a right to physically defend ourselves but where is the evidence that any of these three individuals had to be excluded to prevent them physically attacking anyone? I can only presume Mr Bamford was banned on the basis of prejudicial testimony as the objective account of a violent attack upon him at a previous book-fair given by respected bookseller, Ross Bradshaw (and available on his own website), makes clear that Bamford was the victim. (Ironically I noted the presence of the perpetrator of that particular violent act inside the Liverpool fair).

I appreciate your efforts in organising the bookfair, of which many aspects were admirable, but I don’t think such injustice should be brushed aside and then repeated next year (you have doubtless seen the negative publicity in Peace News etc). I don’t claim to have all the answers but I would ask you and the other organisers to constructively address this problem and would be happy to correspond about possible solutions.

For Peace, Love & Anarchy

Christopher Draper

********************************************************************************

Dear Christopher,

Thanks for your email, which Maria has forwarded to the rest of us.  We are happy to clarify that there was no ban on Barry Woodling attending.  We are not sure who told him to leave, but one of us

stepped in to say that he did not have to leave.  We did not discuss him or communicate with him prior to the bookfair because there simply was no reason to, and most of us did not even know of him.

We emailed Brian Bamford in advance of our bookfair as follows, after some correspondence with him:

"Dear Brian,

We appreciate that blacklisting is an important issue to you, and we

wish you all the best in your own campaigning efforts against it.

However, unfortunately we have to ask you to not attend the Liverpool

Anarchist Bookfair. It has come to our attention that that there is a

history of disruption and conflict associated with yourself at

bookfairs and other occasions elsewhere, so we have decided that in

the interests of all concerned - including yourself - and the smooth

and peaceful running of our event, it is best that you do not attend.

Thank you in advance for respecting this. Our decision is final."

Therefore when Brian arrived, we peacefully but firmly insisted that

he leave, in accordance with our prior decision. Brian chose to stay

outside the venue to talk to people coming into the building, rather

than to do something else elswhere; there were plenty of places he

could have gone to be much more comfortable and sheltered, such as a

cafe, pub, shop, or the cathedral or a museum for example.

The other person asked to leave during the bookfair was someone who

was distributing a transphobic leaflet, literature that expressed

prejudice against an oppressed group, against our safer spaces policy

https://liverpoolanarchistbookfair.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/safer-spaces/

. We asked him to step out of a workshop to talk with us, but he

refused and escalated the situation. This resulted in him being asked

to leave, and we escorted him out of the building with the support of

the venue staff. On the way out this person kicked someone hard in the

back from behind on a flight of stairs - very fortunately the person

they kicked was not seriously injured.

A one day event like the bookfair is not a situation where you can

hold some kind of in-depth process to resolve a conflict or address

harmful behaviour. As organisers we have a great many practical issues

to manage on the day to keep the event running smoothly. We expect

that the vast majority of people will behave in a reasonable and

respectful way towards others, but we have the right, and

responsibility, to ask anyone to leave if they do not. We took care to

think about and plan for dealing with possible problems and we

publicised the safer spaces policy, in advance online and in the

printed programmes on the day,  to make it clear what was not

acceptable.

Our decision to ask Brian in advance not to attend was not due to

disagreement with his views, and was not at the behest of anyone else,

but was informed by learning of various conflicts and difficulties

involving him, in particular his threats to sue one of the Manchester

bookfair venues, the People's History Museum, and his behaviour at the

Freedom Press Friends meeting in June 2016. Since the bookfair he has

emailed Maria making a threat to block trade union bodies from

supporting any future financial appeals by News From Nowhere bookshop,

where she works but which had absolutely no involvement itself in

organising the bookfair. This only confirms to us that Brian can be a

difficult person who is very focused on pursuing grudges.

It's very understandable why Brian and his friends like yourself feel

that he should be given some sort of hearing for his side of what

seems to be very complicated history of conflicts, but as Liverpool

event organisers we have no obligation or capacity to somehow attempt

to adjudicate on any past events and incidents that took place

elsewhere. We simply were not and are not interested in being drawn

into these conflicts, nor for our event to be used as an occasion to

pursue such conflicts.

best wishes

Liverpool Anarchist Bookfair collective

********