Jon Ronson and Adam Buxton

[WarriorN]

I'm astounded at this "bonus episode" of "and things fell apart."

Absolutely everything Glinner has said has been proven.

This is a twitter link, I imagine it's on bbc sounds

x.com/glinner/status/1769152705333699000?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

To be fair, I have been doing that since I realised that some posters don't seem to be able to post in good faith without that ever present jeering and a contrariness that never seems to be based in relevant evidence.

I can't remember what I posted; I do try to be careful. I don't recall being rude.

I certainly wasn’t (and I know when I have!). It’s mystifying.

Oh, thanks for the reassurance. I'm prone to be brusque, but have toned it down, after I got a suspension and now try not to use any banned terms / words.

I've been DM'd - I quoted another poster and disagreed with them about another.

I hope no one has had the same

So much for 'hiding the thread now'. Lurk much?

Victoria Smith’s recent article makes me think of Adam and Jon’s behaviour in the podcast:

'In the end, there’s an unbearable smugness about the “hurt people hurt people” line. In a world where victimhood has become a form of currency, those who might otherwise find themselves overly privileged have found a way of excluding the wrong sort of victim…How satisfying to tell them that yes, their situation is bad, but alas, it’s so bad it has made them terrible people, too. All their expressions of anger are hate; all yours are complex expressions of radical empathy. It’s sad they’re too damaged to know the difference, but that’s why you need them to keep their monsters under control.'

https://thecritic.co.uk/do-hurt-people-hurt-people/

Spot on

Eh, sort of but that analysis ignores the VAST reordering of land ownership, wealth and political power which took place during King John's reign and the last two years of Richard II.

Also the vast accumulation of wealth by industralists in the Midlands and North during the industrial revolution and in Liverpool during the American Civil War when they made bank supplying the Confederates. Marx ofc wrote at length about these periods vis a vis his theories of the means of production. Was feaudalim a means of production? Even Marx wasn't sure. But capitalism defo was.

Also I disagree with your dating to 1066 as it was in fact the Angles and the Saxons who much earlier stole the land from us native Celts and pushed us back to the fringes of the islands in the West.

Looks like they’ve been doing it again! There’s loads of newer posts that have been deleted. What’s going on?

I have absolutely no idea what on earth could be going on.

Left this thread a while ago as it felt very dominated.
No one has that much monopoly on the truth.

That land was taken from one earl by later kings and given to another doesn't undermine the reality that all land ownership is, at heart, theft from the commons backed up by force.

Wealth isn't the same as land. Wealth can be earned, land only stolen from the commons.

We may not have feudalism any more, but there's still huge areas of land owned by the Duke of Westminster on which he pays no land tax and uses overseas shells and intergenerational trusts to avoid even inheritance tax.

@PurpleSparkledPixie yes agreed.
I think you probably get my drift.

Leaving now as its a deletion Fest!

Depends who "the commons" are. All human communities migrated from Africa so by your logic I suppose one would have to pinpoint the FIRST migrants to arrive at and hunt/cultivate the land in question to determine ownership.

So in UK it wouldn't be the Anglo-Saxons and it probably wouldn't be the Celts because they migrated across the steppe. Whoever was there before them, we'd need to find them and campaign for them to own the land.

In Scotland it's a little easier, we know that the Scots genocided most of the native Picts, the remnanets of whom are in the west of Scotland, so they get the land I guess.

I have a problem with this as I am not sure humans can rightly be said to own any land. Surely it should be pre-hominids and animals native to that land. I don't think the land should be regarded as 'owned' at all. It all strikes me as a bit Manifest Destiny.

Either way, I respect your viewpoint but I prefer the Marxist way of looking at wealth exchange, production and dialectic materialism as I can understand it better. And to my original point, I don't think Progressivism engages much with socialist politics. I don't hear Progressives talk much about the working classes and the rebuilding and nationalisation of manufacturing heavy industry which would build our GDP. I hear them talk more about matters of hyperindividualism such as identity. I may be listening to the wrong Progressives though.

I do agree that the ground rent industry is a criminal racket, and it's dreadful that the commons were taken to make hunting parks. I am also upset about the Dissolution as the abbeys and land which provided charity to the poor were mostly gifted to Henry VIII cronies. Mind you, before that it all ultimately belonged to Rome so not common ownership.

The commons isn't a who, it's a what: stuff that everyone on earth, by right of birth, should have an equal entitlement to use. Air is the obvious current example of something that's part of the commons.

I don't think the land should be regarded as 'owned' at all

That's the root of it. The problem is that fencing off bits of land and saying "this bit here is for our hospital so you can't build your house on it" and "Susie's growing carrots here so Tom's going to have to keep his sheep out" is a necessary evil if we want to have hospitals and carrots. So a bloke called Henry George thought up an idea of Land Value Tax, where you get to use "your" bit and keep others out but you pay a rent to everyone for the privilege. He envisioned a sales tax on land, which won't work if the land is owned by an intergenerational trust, so my improvement to Land Value Tax is that it's charged annually and the land is confiscated if you don't pay.

Can't stand those two . They both belong in the smug, arrogant ,mediocre men category alongside Stewart Lee and Frankie Boyle. S Ron Jonson that one who did a programme about a young student lassie who had agreed to make a porno and part of the agreement was she slept with number of men but then it turned out she got rail roaded into sleeping with double figures amount of men. I remember the young woman looking absolutely terrified and shocked and I did feel that Jonson and his production team could have did something to have helped her . I had to turn that show off at that point because the abuse of that young woman by the men, the pornographers, Jonson's production team, him ,the whole blood lot of them was palpable and I felt me watching it was contributing to it. If it's the wrong guy ,the apologies all round! It was really horrible.
None of them are a patch on Glinner and he will be remembered for speaking out for women and children. Even in his book, the quality if his writing shines through. I hope Glinner has a lovely happy future ahead.

This may be true . But the Angles and Saxons didn't have that ruthless centralised power and flair for admin that characterised the Normans and later the English.

In The Strange Death of Liberal England by George Dangerfield there is a very revealing passage. Lloyd George is trying to get Death Duties through the House of Lords , in order to fund Old age pensions. But the nobility don't think they should have to pay.

'England is ours by right of conquest!' announced one. Fist fights broke out when some of them caved in.

Is that the academic consensus though? because as far as I am aware and have read, there is long-standing and still robust debate about the issue with some historians arguing the Ango Saxons practiced 'ethnic cleansing' or 'apartheid' on the Celts (not my words). With for example the near eradication of the Celtic languages and replacement of Celtic place names with Anglo-Saxon ones (only about a dozen Celtic words made it into the language and dialects of the Anglo-Saxons).

There are plenty of sources which point to a systemic colonisation of the Celts at least.

IMHO if we compare the A-S kingdoms of the 9th century with Romano-Britain in the 5th century we see that the A-S kingdoms did end up pretty centralised and tightly controlled especially by the time we get to Aethelstan who forced fealty and taxes from the whole mainland. In fact it has been convincingly (to me anyway) argued that one of the motivations for William the Oppressor Conqueror was in fact that he was attracted by the already centralised nature of the A-S crowns' power and wanted to seize it for himself. See also the relatively short time taken to complete Domesday Book, you need to have an already pretty centralised and controlled set of systems to achieve that.

IMHO from what I have read about Romano-Britain, the Romans treated the Celts much better, with intermarriage and an intermingling and flourishing of trade and cultures (see the Celtic ware found in the Med and Asian Minor, they were trading very healthily) than the Anglo-Saxons who pushed them to the edges and destroyed their languages and cultures.

Good grief, I got deleted for questioning another poster's slightly cryptic post who actually replied to say I was correct in my assumptions of their original post?? How the hell did I cross a line with that?