iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

That’s a ludicrous take. Only one side of this debate wants to equate Zionism with Jewish, and it’s not the anti-zionists.

0151

Reposted by Stuart G

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 10h

Yes, my quarrel is with The Zionist government of Israel, and the past Zionist government’s of Israel, and the Zionist supporters of Israel that minimise and justify the racist actions it taken in the name of Zionism. There is no existing Zionism that has not done these things

151

Reposted by Stuart G

Yes, words and things, like Zionism. What aren’t you getting?

011

Reposted by Stuart G

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 7h

Ngl though, I’d rather be talking about something else than a motion about Zionism. I agree the motion was a strategic mistake for those who oppose what Israel is doing. Spending energy on a debate about definitions of Zionism advances precisely nothing for Palestinians imo

001

I’m genuinely curious as to whether, given the volume of replies, you have not seen mine, or whether you dismiss mine as trolling or have some other reason for not responding

000

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 10h

Yes, words and things, like Zionism. What aren’t you getting?

011

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 10h

I didn’t think they would. That’s why I try to enlighten people

100

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 15h

Why? The membership put a motion forward that defined Zionism and said that definition was racist. That’s what happened. How are they being disingenuous if they explain what the motion actually said???

000

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 15h

Who’s being disingenuous thigh? Those that refrain from talking about the intricacies, or those who explain them?

100

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 15h

Things have definitions. It’s how language works & we communicate. Zionism is what Zionism creates. You may disagree, & think Zionism can be whatever it wants to be, fine. The motion defines Zionism & says that is racist. If you have a different definition then noone is saying your version is racist

150

“War on motorists” or simply, “don’t use the bus lanes please”. The Daily Mail can decide

010

I got blocked for asking why this needed to be a Zionist mafia

000

It’s a bit early to have destroyed the competition if it’s not even funded, let alone built, yet

000

“It” was? You mean the plot to blow up Nord Stream? Did the files say who had decided it should happen and was organising it?

100

What is Israel wasn’t behind every bad thing that happens and bad people were capable of doing bad things without Israel and regardless of whether they are a Zionist or not?

300

What they don’t do is state the obvious that the US helped or organised this so that the US could sell gas

000

I mean it’s right here, sorry you were lied to that it said something different. It wasn’t me that lied static1.squarespace.com/static/68aee...

static1.squarespace.com

100

I didn’t write it, or vote for it. I would say yes I am often pedantic but the disingenuous are those who are misrepresenting and causing it to be communicated understood and perceived differently. I’m not the disingenuous one for being accurate

200

You can deny objective truths if you like, but when you do so publicly people can see it. Read the motion, try objectively assess if your take fits with the motion or not static1.squarespace.com/static/68aee...

static1.squarespace.com

1100

That’s a ludicrous take. Only one side of this debate wants to equate Zionism with Jewish, and it’s not the anti-zionists.

0151

I’ve read it all, understood it all. I suspect it is you that lacks understanding of my point

0130

It’s not a ghostly actor. It was defined in the motion, and the motion said “Zionism, as defined above, is Racism”. You might have a different (ghostly) definition of Zionism, which isn’t racist. That’s cool. Your definition has likely never existed in the real world

020

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 19h

151

And this is what the motion called racist

050

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 19h

You may wish for a different Zionism, but this is what the actual Zionism that exists has done

160

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 19h

Yes, the state of Israel is self-described as a Zionist project. It has manifested as the forced eviction of people from a land they have lived on for centuries, and oppression and subjugation of those people in order to maintain a supremacist ethnostate

2110

The best way to be! Go channel your past self and smash it

110

001

Much of the objection to the Greens motion is simply “I can imagine a different kind of Zionism than the one we have and the one the motion defines as racist so don’t say all Zionism must be racist” And most of the response should be “we didn’t”

000

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 21h

Trauma is real and should be treated gently. People object to it being used to justify fundamentally racist policies. If you have a different definition of Zionism than the motion defines then don’t be worried that the motion says the Zionism it defines is racist. I think you agree it is

0240

Those people believe a system is what it does. And your own thread acknowledges that the Zionism we have actually had is indeed racist. That’s all people are saying

040

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 21h

The motion expressly states that Zionism *as defined in the motion* is racist. This fact is inarguable. Could another Zionism exist that isn’t racist? Possibly. The motion wasn’t concerned with such fantasies

1151

Stuart G @avidinquirer.bsky.social · 21h

Nobody has done that George. The motion defines Zionism, based on what Zionism has done, and its proponents have been clear that they are not interested in some theoretical view of what Zionism could ideally be, only it what it actually has manifested, i.e. what it *is*

3250

Phil McDuff @mcduff.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

I would pay good money to sit with Janan Ganesh as he listened to this and was forced to acknowledge how facile his article (and his understanding of the world?) is. Or perhaps any centrist melt, like do they just pretend this kind of critique doesn’t exist or is illegitimate because reasons???

000

Reposted by Stuart G

Yes, this is why it's so important to tax the rich.

12910

Reposted by Stuart G

flyingrodent @flyingrodent.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

I’d say you shouldn’t be RTing internet oddballs calling millions of people “Inhuman fascistoid scum” if you wanted to keep your prestigious media job, but this stuff hasn’t inconvenienced her before.

Melanie Phillips reposted
Jane Gerson
@JaneGerson • 21h
In a world of IRGC headband wearing, coconut waving fools can we have more Melanie Phillips please?
Tanya Narbut= v
@NarbutT...• 1d
G Translated from Russian
Melanie Phillips very clearly explains the astonishing transformation of left-wing liberals into inhuman fascistoid scum.
Everything is extremely simple and logical.

1621135

And blame leftists for not voting for them

030

The right practice politics of envy relentlessly - “look at what that {insert minority they seek to demonise} gets” - and yet somehow have convinced the entire media class that leftism is the politics of envy for noticing that a handful of people having all the wealth is bad for society

000

Everyone is struggling with the cost of living, and still hundreds of centrist melts insist on telling us the economy is doing well, with stronger growth than predicted. If the economy is doing well and everyone is struggling, then maybe it’s not the economy, stupid It’s the distribution

000

Because the media don’t tell you what the motion actually states. And because many who are raging about it seem not to have actually read it. Here it is static1.squarespace.com/static/68aee...

static1.squarespace.com

010

I don’t know tbf? People in the media might at least feign to be? Gullible boomers too perhaps? (I reckon some genuinely think GB news is news, if they were wavering on that then does help shore them up?)

010

But isn’t the point to pretend that somehow they don’t think of GB news as their own channel? To make some space for GB news to feign to have some degree of balance?

100