Everything Has Gone Green: The Consequences of Googling Murray Bookchin
- Thread starter Oppo
- Start date
Part XXII: Witness (1 Hope): The decline of Robert Kilroy Silk and the 2000 election
Witness (1 Hope): The decline of Robert Kilroy Silk and the 2000 election
When Robert Kilroy-Silk went to the Copenhagen Peace Conference in 1998 to ensure the end of the Iran-Afghan War, his government seemed unstoppable. Edwina Currie had to resist an attempt to oust her from the leadership office by Ann Widecombe who would later defect to the DUP that same year, Socialist Labour and Democratic Left seemed to have stayed stagnant for the most part and the remaining parties of the Centre Left were awkwardly supporting Kilroy-Silk’s Government. It seemed nothing would dampen his time as leader.
That was until halfway through the conference, Robert Kilroy-Silk was accidentally recorded angrily shouting how the Western nations ‘owed the Arabs nothing’ and went on to go on a Islamophobic tirade about Iran and Afghanistan which would be broadcast around the globe. Kilroy-Silk claimed it was caused by tiredness and aggravation but it would be found by many reporters that Kilroy-Silk had made similar statements during the Salman Rushdie affair, which was obscured by Labour losing the election and his subsequent election as Labour leader. In many aspects Kilroy-Silk would allow for the conference to reach its aim, as the leaders of Iran and Afghanistan decided to focus their anger towards Kilroy-Silk instead. Around the same time, previous statements about Ireland would also be discovered in which he had stated ‘country peopled by priests, peasants and pixies’, which would lead to both Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and leader of the opposition Brendan Howlin calling Kilroy-Silk out for his statements and a flood of letters claiming to be from the PIRA, RIRA and the INLA threatening to kill Kilroy-Silk.
Kilroy-Silk’s reaction was to take revenge on all he could...mainly his cabinet. Margaret Beckett was one of the few members of the Labour Left allowed in Kilroy-Silk’s cabinet, as Foreign Secretary she was a competent if fairly dull operator. However Kilroy-Silk thought that she had led a conspiracy against him from the Labour Left to embarrass him to the world community. Beckett and other Left Wingers would be shuffled back into the backbenchers and their positions replaced by simpering Silk Yes Men. Whilst Beckett was content to sit out the rest of her time on the sidelines, the former Environment Secretary and ally of her’s by the name of Paddy Tipping decided he wasn’t going to take Silk’s anger lying down and he decided to go against him. Instead of running a probable failure of a leadership election he decided to run for the Deputy Leadership.
Peter Hain had been depressed at being perceived as Kilroy-Silk's lapdog and so when Paddy Tipping announced his run, Hain resigned on the spot. So the 1998 Deputy Leadership contest would begin and it would easily be a Tipping wash as the Kilroy approved candidate of Keith Vaz (said to have been chosen to prove that Kilroy-Silk wasn’t Islamophobic despite Vaz being Catholic) spent more of his time trying to avoid allegations of homosexual affairs and coke dealing, whilst John Spellar was considered incredibly dull and too Right Wing for many.
With a Deputy Leader that disliked him, Kilroy-Silk’s paranoia became worse. Alongside this an air of pessimism came over Britain, as it seemed politics had stalled. Everyday people would appear on the news complaining about the failures of the society they lived in, as councils failed to run, crime wasn’t stopped and bins weren’t collected. Kilroy-Silk managed to avoid much of the blame, having managed to divorce his governance away from the Labour party, often attacking his own party in the media for failing to help the people that needed it. This alongside an appearance from jingoism and increased social conservatism from Kilroy-Silk and his supporters made many people who weren’t white, straight and cis worried.
In this environment, Currie and Temple found themselves excellent voices of opposition and would bizarrely work together on occasion to take down Silk at various levels. They would work together to bring Silk to task over Homosexual Law reform, immigration and generally the social liberal ideals that Silk was seeking to avoid. One of the aspects of this would become the point when Kilroy-Silk lost power. Another vote on easing the opening up British borders to refugees from various war torn countries would be resisted by Kilroy-Silk who tried to get the coalition to vote for him. They didn’t.
The SDP and Liberal Parties voted with Democratic Left, Socialist Labour and a portion of the Currie supporting Conservatives passing the policy through. Kilroy-Silk’s reaction was to call an election feeling his sovereignty had been shaken by the event. The election would see the first use of leadership debates as Currie and Kilroy-Silk faced off, which seemed to be pointless given how both worked incredibly well with the media. The major debates were between the minor parties with the Liberals and SDP ripped to shreds by the forces of Left (with Dem Left and Socialist Labour) and of the Far Right, as Ian Paisley’s new National Unionist party ripped into the two other parties’ support for Kilroy-Silk and the failures it had lead to.
Whilst Silk was still popular, Labour wasn’t. The shine that it had gained in 1993 had left and after 7 years of Silk, people wanted change. The eventual results would showcase this;
Conservative- 295 seats
Labour- 239 seats
SDP-30 seats
Liberal- 24 seats
Dem Left- 14 seats
Socialist Labour- 12 seats
National Unionists- 5 seats
Labour collapsed down to 1989 levels, Currie was able to craft a coalition government with the wounded SDP & Liberals who were just thankful for not being wiped out in the election. Silk would try and cling onto the leadership of the Labour Party, but he would be rapidly ousted by a cabal of Right and Left who were sick of his smug cult of personality. Silk’s reaction would be to declare that the party had betrayed him and that he would end his membership. In the ensuing Leadership election it was obvious who would win. Paddy Tipping offered a Labour that could return to its roots, away from the Silk years. His woolly Soft Left charm easily won over the membership against the challengers of Silkite Trevor Philips and the last remains of Bennism in Jeremy Corbyn. Meanwhile the Deputy leadership would be won by Labour MP Pola Uddin who had led part of the Anti-Kilroy Silk resistance within the Labour Party. Tipping was going to reform and revive Labour for the 21st Century by bringing it partially to the past it seemed.
Meanwhile in Democratic Left and the Socialist Labour parties more peaceful leadership elections would occur. In Democratic Left, Nina Temple would step down after about 11 years as leader, it was decided to make Democratic Left a dual leadership to represent their different strains of leadership. In a rather quiet contest, Lynne Jones & Gary Younge would be elected as dual leaders of the Democratic Left, who recently made MP Adam Curtis called ‘The future of our nascent organization’. Socialist Labour would replace the dynamic duo of Dave Nelliest and Tommy Sheridan with Frances Curran & Liz Davies replacing them (though Dave Nelliest would continue to become General Secretary and shape the party for time to come).
Meanwhile Edwina Currie would be Prime Minister and change Britain in dynamic and new ways that people weren’t expecting. As part of her coalition she decided that after the Euroscepticism of the Kilroy-Silk years, which would affect the Conservative party in the long run for many...
When Robert Kilroy-Silk went to the Copenhagen Peace Conference in 1998 to ensure the end of the Iran-Afghan War, his government seemed unstoppable. Edwina Currie had to resist an attempt to oust her from the leadership office by Ann Widecombe who would later defect to the DUP that same year, Socialist Labour and Democratic Left seemed to have stayed stagnant for the most part and the remaining parties of the Centre Left were awkwardly supporting Kilroy-Silk’s Government. It seemed nothing would dampen his time as leader.
That was until halfway through the conference, Robert Kilroy-Silk was accidentally recorded angrily shouting how the Western nations ‘owed the Arabs nothing’ and went on to go on a Islamophobic tirade about Iran and Afghanistan which would be broadcast around the globe. Kilroy-Silk claimed it was caused by tiredness and aggravation but it would be found by many reporters that Kilroy-Silk had made similar statements during the Salman Rushdie affair, which was obscured by Labour losing the election and his subsequent election as Labour leader. In many aspects Kilroy-Silk would allow for the conference to reach its aim, as the leaders of Iran and Afghanistan decided to focus their anger towards Kilroy-Silk instead. Around the same time, previous statements about Ireland would also be discovered in which he had stated ‘country peopled by priests, peasants and pixies’, which would lead to both Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and leader of the opposition Brendan Howlin calling Kilroy-Silk out for his statements and a flood of letters claiming to be from the PIRA, RIRA and the INLA threatening to kill Kilroy-Silk.
Kilroy-Silk’s reaction was to take revenge on all he could...mainly his cabinet. Margaret Beckett was one of the few members of the Labour Left allowed in Kilroy-Silk’s cabinet, as Foreign Secretary she was a competent if fairly dull operator. However Kilroy-Silk thought that she had led a conspiracy against him from the Labour Left to embarrass him to the world community. Beckett and other Left Wingers would be shuffled back into the backbenchers and their positions replaced by simpering Silk Yes Men. Whilst Beckett was content to sit out the rest of her time on the sidelines, the former Environment Secretary and ally of her’s by the name of Paddy Tipping decided he wasn’t going to take Silk’s anger lying down and he decided to go against him. Instead of running a probable failure of a leadership election he decided to run for the Deputy Leadership.
Peter Hain had been depressed at being perceived as Kilroy-Silk's lapdog and so when Paddy Tipping announced his run, Hain resigned on the spot. So the 1998 Deputy Leadership contest would begin and it would easily be a Tipping wash as the Kilroy approved candidate of Keith Vaz (said to have been chosen to prove that Kilroy-Silk wasn’t Islamophobic despite Vaz being Catholic) spent more of his time trying to avoid allegations of homosexual affairs and coke dealing, whilst John Spellar was considered incredibly dull and too Right Wing for many.
With a Deputy Leader that disliked him, Kilroy-Silk’s paranoia became worse. Alongside this an air of pessimism came over Britain, as it seemed politics had stalled. Everyday people would appear on the news complaining about the failures of the society they lived in, as councils failed to run, crime wasn’t stopped and bins weren’t collected. Kilroy-Silk managed to avoid much of the blame, having managed to divorce his governance away from the Labour party, often attacking his own party in the media for failing to help the people that needed it. This alongside an appearance from jingoism and increased social conservatism from Kilroy-Silk and his supporters made many people who weren’t white, straight and cis worried.
In this environment, Currie and Temple found themselves excellent voices of opposition and would bizarrely work together on occasion to take down Silk at various levels. They would work together to bring Silk to task over Homosexual Law reform, immigration and generally the social liberal ideals that Silk was seeking to avoid. One of the aspects of this would become the point when Kilroy-Silk lost power. Another vote on easing the opening up British borders to refugees from various war torn countries would be resisted by Kilroy-Silk who tried to get the coalition to vote for him. They didn’t.
The SDP and Liberal Parties voted with Democratic Left, Socialist Labour and a portion of the Currie supporting Conservatives passing the policy through. Kilroy-Silk’s reaction was to call an election feeling his sovereignty had been shaken by the event. The election would see the first use of leadership debates as Currie and Kilroy-Silk faced off, which seemed to be pointless given how both worked incredibly well with the media. The major debates were between the minor parties with the Liberals and SDP ripped to shreds by the forces of Left (with Dem Left and Socialist Labour) and of the Far Right, as Ian Paisley’s new National Unionist party ripped into the two other parties’ support for Kilroy-Silk and the failures it had lead to.
Whilst Silk was still popular, Labour wasn’t. The shine that it had gained in 1993 had left and after 7 years of Silk, people wanted change. The eventual results would showcase this;
Conservative- 295 seats
Labour- 239 seats
SDP-30 seats
Liberal- 24 seats
Dem Left- 14 seats
Socialist Labour- 12 seats
National Unionists- 5 seats
Labour collapsed down to 1989 levels, Currie was able to craft a coalition government with the wounded SDP & Liberals who were just thankful for not being wiped out in the election. Silk would try and cling onto the leadership of the Labour Party, but he would be rapidly ousted by a cabal of Right and Left who were sick of his smug cult of personality. Silk’s reaction would be to declare that the party had betrayed him and that he would end his membership. In the ensuing Leadership election it was obvious who would win. Paddy Tipping offered a Labour that could return to its roots, away from the Silk years. His woolly Soft Left charm easily won over the membership against the challengers of Silkite Trevor Philips and the last remains of Bennism in Jeremy Corbyn. Meanwhile the Deputy leadership would be won by Labour MP Pola Uddin who had led part of the Anti-Kilroy Silk resistance within the Labour Party. Tipping was going to reform and revive Labour for the 21st Century by bringing it partially to the past it seemed.
Meanwhile in Democratic Left and the Socialist Labour parties more peaceful leadership elections would occur. In Democratic Left, Nina Temple would step down after about 11 years as leader, it was decided to make Democratic Left a dual leadership to represent their different strains of leadership. In a rather quiet contest, Lynne Jones & Gary Younge would be elected as dual leaders of the Democratic Left, who recently made MP Adam Curtis called ‘The future of our nascent organization’. Socialist Labour would replace the dynamic duo of Dave Nelliest and Tommy Sheridan with Frances Curran & Liz Davies replacing them (though Dave Nelliest would continue to become General Secretary and shape the party for time to come).
Meanwhile Edwina Currie would be Prime Minister and change Britain in dynamic and new ways that people weren’t expecting. As part of her coalition she decided that after the Euroscepticism of the Kilroy-Silk years, which would affect the Conservative party in the long run for many...
Part XXIII: In The Shadow of Irvine - America in 2019
In The Shadow of Irvine - America in 2019
Larry Agran is a name that brings back a certain emotion for most Americans born before 1985. Of course, the details of those feelings depend greatly on your generation. Upon hearing that I was to give a profile on the former president, my mother went into a frenzy. “There wouldn’t have been an America for you to live in without #43! Without the society that man built, you wouldn’t have had a career!”
She requested that I lay off the former president, to which I have to greatly apologize to her for the content of this article. Despite the Democrats being a deeply Agranite institution, that hold seems to be waning in recent years. See, I was in high school in 1999, and the era of the dorky president with glasses is associated with my mutilated senior year.
The world was chaotic, but even the most die-hard partisans admitted that the process was working as it was supposed to. At the beginning of March, the Republicans and their boll weevil coalition partners got the impeachment resolution passed by the House. On April 20th, the news of the Columbine bombings reached my class, with the school lockdown interrupting my history teacher having to again explain the difference between impeachment and conviction.
When returned to school, it just wasn’t the same place. Headphones were banned, us seniors couldn’t leave school for lunch, and our backpacks had to be clear plastic. Heavily armed cops guarded the doors looking like the UN peacekeepers in Iraq. Perhaps my feelings at the moment were pure teenage self-interest; not the panic felt by most adults.
Agran was easily acquitted, and his approval ratings immediately flipped. People either weren’t concerned about HUDgate, or they thought it was a heroic move against the landlords and property developers. There wasn’t much spoken opposition to Agran. It was more of a collective battle about outdoing each other that only stopped when Pat Buchanan’s campaign called for breaking up Disney and abolishing the NEA.
Of course, that wasn’t too unpopular an opinion in some circles. The day before Mickey Leland and Jeb Bush battled, an undercard debate between Buchanan, Donald Trump, and Jello Biafra took place. While the debate has only 30,000 views, it’s an interesting watch not only for its many confrontations but for Biafra’s foretelling comments.
”The only answer that these Republicans have to our society’s problems is with violence, and the only answer that these Democrats have is psychological warfare to keep people from demanding change! There’s a reason that the answers to Columbine are guns in schools from the Republican clowns and student profiling from the Democratic regime.”
With the majority of the Labor Party cross-endorsing Leland, the Greens only got 1.7% in the election, but this set the road for Biafra’s near defeat of Gavin Newsom in the 2003 San Francisco mayoral election. Today, the San Francisco Greens under Dean Preston are being pushed to the left by the arch-socialist Laborites. Tides have shifted dramatically on the presidential level as well.
California has given America four of its presidents. Three of them were Republicans, though Peter Navarro was much more in the mold of Larry Agran than Ronald Reagan. Marianne Williamson wishes to continue in the pattern, though she seeks no inspiration from the White House’s prior occupants.
In the dark days of 1999, as every talk show gave parents and government more reason to control their students, Williamson pleaded on Oprah and Donahue that the Agran administration should “stop teaching children what to think and start teaching them how to think.” This opposition to post-Columbine schooling was unheard of at the time. In her 2000 congressional campaign, she was forced to run as an independent after the local Democratic Party refused to let her on their ballot line. Ultimately, she was successful, spending a career urging Congress to listen to the kids.
Those kids have now rewarded her campaign greatly. Pete Buttigieg is not one of them. The son of an avowed Marxist philosopher and Gramsci scholar, one could argue that Buttigieg fell victim to the cultural hegemony that Gramsci warned about. His campaign, initially polling in single digits, surged when the Agran machine put its forces behind it.
There is very little ideological distinction between the Williamson and Buttigieg campaigns. It’s a battle of cultural aesthetics, but one that has been fervently fought. Neither brand themselves as democratic socialists. Williamson describes herself as an “economic humanist,” while Buttigieg describes himself as a “democratic futurist.” Yet, there’s a great deal of doubt about Buttigieg’s left-wing chops. When asked about his thoughts on the former mayor, Jello Biafra brought up how Pinkerton encouraged children to report on their classmates, stating “if he acted as a Pinkerton in his high school, he’s likely to be a Pinkerton in the White House. Pete always seemed to be the type to call the teacher if someone was listening to Marilyn Manson CDs.”
There’s more reason to question Buttigieg than his aversion to high school goths. At City Hall, Larry Agran usually comments on Irvine municipal issues, but the former president frequently mentioned Buttigieg as “the future of the Democratic Party” and dismisses Williamson as an “orb queen.” The man that once called for solidarity with Nicargua has lost credibility with the left as a greater light shined over the administration’s corruption. Buried by the Columbine bombings, new scandals involving Agran obstructing a sexual harassment investigation into then-attorney general Kweisi Mfume have reemerged, earning the president scrutiny with modern feminists.
That stench of corruption and party machinery has followed Buttigieg. Some allege that he encouraged Governor Artur Davis’ defection to the GOP as an attempt to remove an opponent from the race. Others claim that he declined an endorsement from Senator Jesse Jackson Jr. over concerns that his association would split the Southern vote. The conspiracy alleges that Buttigieg is propping up Walt Maddox’s candidacy to prevent Williamson from earning a majority, allowing for a Buttigieg/Maddox ticket to pass through the convention with Majority Leader Spratt’s support.
Does any of this make sense? Well, Buttigieg’s record as mayor is just as divisive as Agran’s record as president. Little national attention is placed on South Bend, which means that the news about him comes from local partisans. On one hand, Buttigieg’s obsession with public transport has made South Bend a crucial spot on the national rail network. On the other, Buttigieg was responsible for a controversial purging of the city’s police department over an alleged infiltration by the Nation of Islam.
For those not concerned about making a profit, politics isn’t a real question. Few mainstream politicians have the nerve to reverse the Agranite economy. Peter Navarro spent his whole presidency trying to convince people not all Californian mayors were the same, and even he didn’t touch the peace dividend. The working class is empowered, but to the frustrations of radicals, they aren’t demanding much more. Politics seems to have increasingly small stakes, yet the drama has only intensified.
Larry Agran is a name that brings back a certain emotion for most Americans born before 1985. Of course, the details of those feelings depend greatly on your generation. Upon hearing that I was to give a profile on the former president, my mother went into a frenzy. “There wouldn’t have been an America for you to live in without #43! Without the society that man built, you wouldn’t have had a career!”
She requested that I lay off the former president, to which I have to greatly apologize to her for the content of this article. Despite the Democrats being a deeply Agranite institution, that hold seems to be waning in recent years. See, I was in high school in 1999, and the era of the dorky president with glasses is associated with my mutilated senior year.
The world was chaotic, but even the most die-hard partisans admitted that the process was working as it was supposed to. At the beginning of March, the Republicans and their boll weevil coalition partners got the impeachment resolution passed by the House. On April 20th, the news of the Columbine bombings reached my class, with the school lockdown interrupting my history teacher having to again explain the difference between impeachment and conviction.
When returned to school, it just wasn’t the same place. Headphones were banned, us seniors couldn’t leave school for lunch, and our backpacks had to be clear plastic. Heavily armed cops guarded the doors looking like the UN peacekeepers in Iraq. Perhaps my feelings at the moment were pure teenage self-interest; not the panic felt by most adults.
Agran was easily acquitted, and his approval ratings immediately flipped. People either weren’t concerned about HUDgate, or they thought it was a heroic move against the landlords and property developers. There wasn’t much spoken opposition to Agran. It was more of a collective battle about outdoing each other that only stopped when Pat Buchanan’s campaign called for breaking up Disney and abolishing the NEA.
Of course, that wasn’t too unpopular an opinion in some circles. The day before Mickey Leland and Jeb Bush battled, an undercard debate between Buchanan, Donald Trump, and Jello Biafra took place. While the debate has only 30,000 views, it’s an interesting watch not only for its many confrontations but for Biafra’s foretelling comments.
”The only answer that these Republicans have to our society’s problems is with violence, and the only answer that these Democrats have is psychological warfare to keep people from demanding change! There’s a reason that the answers to Columbine are guns in schools from the Republican clowns and student profiling from the Democratic regime.”
With the majority of the Labor Party cross-endorsing Leland, the Greens only got 1.7% in the election, but this set the road for Biafra’s near defeat of Gavin Newsom in the 2003 San Francisco mayoral election. Today, the San Francisco Greens under Dean Preston are being pushed to the left by the arch-socialist Laborites. Tides have shifted dramatically on the presidential level as well.
California has given America four of its presidents. Three of them were Republicans, though Peter Navarro was much more in the mold of Larry Agran than Ronald Reagan. Marianne Williamson wishes to continue in the pattern, though she seeks no inspiration from the White House’s prior occupants.
In the dark days of 1999, as every talk show gave parents and government more reason to control their students, Williamson pleaded on Oprah and Donahue that the Agran administration should “stop teaching children what to think and start teaching them how to think.” This opposition to post-Columbine schooling was unheard of at the time. In her 2000 congressional campaign, she was forced to run as an independent after the local Democratic Party refused to let her on their ballot line. Ultimately, she was successful, spending a career urging Congress to listen to the kids.
Those kids have now rewarded her campaign greatly. Pete Buttigieg is not one of them. The son of an avowed Marxist philosopher and Gramsci scholar, one could argue that Buttigieg fell victim to the cultural hegemony that Gramsci warned about. His campaign, initially polling in single digits, surged when the Agran machine put its forces behind it.
There is very little ideological distinction between the Williamson and Buttigieg campaigns. It’s a battle of cultural aesthetics, but one that has been fervently fought. Neither brand themselves as democratic socialists. Williamson describes herself as an “economic humanist,” while Buttigieg describes himself as a “democratic futurist.” Yet, there’s a great deal of doubt about Buttigieg’s left-wing chops. When asked about his thoughts on the former mayor, Jello Biafra brought up how Pinkerton encouraged children to report on their classmates, stating “if he acted as a Pinkerton in his high school, he’s likely to be a Pinkerton in the White House. Pete always seemed to be the type to call the teacher if someone was listening to Marilyn Manson CDs.”
There’s more reason to question Buttigieg than his aversion to high school goths. At City Hall, Larry Agran usually comments on Irvine municipal issues, but the former president frequently mentioned Buttigieg as “the future of the Democratic Party” and dismisses Williamson as an “orb queen.” The man that once called for solidarity with Nicargua has lost credibility with the left as a greater light shined over the administration’s corruption. Buried by the Columbine bombings, new scandals involving Agran obstructing a sexual harassment investigation into then-attorney general Kweisi Mfume have reemerged, earning the president scrutiny with modern feminists.
That stench of corruption and party machinery has followed Buttigieg. Some allege that he encouraged Governor Artur Davis’ defection to the GOP as an attempt to remove an opponent from the race. Others claim that he declined an endorsement from Senator Jesse Jackson Jr. over concerns that his association would split the Southern vote. The conspiracy alleges that Buttigieg is propping up Walt Maddox’s candidacy to prevent Williamson from earning a majority, allowing for a Buttigieg/Maddox ticket to pass through the convention with Majority Leader Spratt’s support.
Does any of this make sense? Well, Buttigieg’s record as mayor is just as divisive as Agran’s record as president. Little national attention is placed on South Bend, which means that the news about him comes from local partisans. On one hand, Buttigieg’s obsession with public transport has made South Bend a crucial spot on the national rail network. On the other, Buttigieg was responsible for a controversial purging of the city’s police department over an alleged infiltration by the Nation of Islam.
For those not concerned about making a profit, politics isn’t a real question. Few mainstream politicians have the nerve to reverse the Agranite economy. Peter Navarro spent his whole presidency trying to convince people not all Californian mayors were the same, and even he didn’t touch the peace dividend. The working class is empowered, but to the frustrations of radicals, they aren’t demanding much more. Politics seems to have increasingly small stakes, yet the drama has only intensified.