Chrissie Hynde defends Morrissey in interview

Scans from James.

Mail on Sunday ‘Event’ magazine, 04/08/18.

Excerpt:

She defends her pal Morrissey, who has recently been accused of racism for speaking out in favour of the far-right For Britain party and having described the Chinese as 'a sub-species' in 2010.

'I'm proud to be one of what he calls his seven friends,' smiles Hynde. 'He made a reference to the Chinese and that got him into trouble, but he was talking about the practices of how they treat dogs and put them in cages and bludgeon them to death. He's an animal-rights guy and he gets emotionally upset by the treatment of animals.'

She still sometimes meets Morrissey 'for an impromptu pint' at her local pub in Maida Vale, west London.

43823_hynde_event_20180804_2.jpg


43824_hynde_event_20180804.jpg
 
V

vegan.cro spirit# 749

Guest
The Rothchilds are Zionists and they have bankrolled every major war in the last two centuries. Fact. There's plenty of information about this if you care to look. The Bush family were also in banking and got their funding from the Nazis after the war Well documented also.

LOL:lbf:
Extremely well documented in INSANE LEFT WING POLLO LOON BLOGS.:horny:
 

scatterkeir

Well-Known Member
The Rothchilds are Zionists and they have bankrolled every major war in the last two centuries. Fact. There's plenty of information about this if you care to look. The Bush family were also in banking and got their funding from the Nazis after the war Well documented also.

"The Rothschilds" as a thing is now nothing more than an antisemitic meme. They are not a real entity.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
"The Rothschilds" as a thing is now nothing more than an antisemitic meme. They are not a real entity.

Just because someone is Jewish doesn't make criticizing them "anti-Semitic." You're misusing the word. As someone who is strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, I have a problem with trivializing it.

If I criticize George Soros for funding far-left activist groups, does that make me anti-Semitic? No.

This is why identity politics as a concept is laughably stupid. At the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite, f*** Marx!
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
Thank you for posting this video. Germaine Greer is really a woman with strong, and sometimes controversial opinions but it is very admirable that she thinks for herself and just does not slavishly follow the modern feminists who probably aren't aware of the long history of feminism in the first place. As a woman, I am also not a big fan of Hollywood style feminism and I agree with her here.

I am not offended by her views on Transgenders, she may have a point there. But in my high school there was a guy that I somehow befriended and who really wanted to become a woman, and that was way before the idea became somewhat acceptable, and it all ended very badly for him. I hated the system for not being able to provide better support and guidance to such people and I am rather happy about the greater openness towards the issue these days. I did not get the impression that Germaine Greer was against Transgenders though, her point being that she couldn't see them as identical to real women and I have no opinion on that.

The problem with the way some people characterize these things is, we simply cannot indulge everyone's misguided fantasies. In a society that had been tending to tread dangerously along the path of "anything goes," it's important to draw the line somewhere, particularly when it comes to mental health issues. Why pretend that it is possible to change from a man to a woman or vice versa? It can't happen. That's that. It will only lead to more problems in the vast majority of cases. Most people who have such fantasies are not otherwise well-adjusted, after all.

I get that people want certain things in life, and sometimes those things are unattainable, and then again, sometimes those wants change drastically over time. What I want today might be connected to strong feelings. What I want might be unattainable. Well, maybe I won't want the same thing later, and maybe it's for the best that I can't magically get whatever I want whenever I want.

I just think about Michael Jackson and how the ability to keep striving for some image of himself that he idealized ultimately destroyed him. There was nothing stopping him from doing whatever he wanted and indulging himself toward achieving some twisted fantasy. Having the ability to indulge in such fantasies that are guided by mental illness is not a positive thing.

Thankfully, there are credible feminists and other thinkers around who are helping to turn the tide back on some of the wacky stuff that had been mainstreamed in the past five years or so. We really do need to bring back to the forefront some of the objective facts and realities regarding science and biology. A person's subjective feelings and mental state cannot, in a healthy society, be able to trump objective and empirical reality.
 

scatterkeir

Well-Known Member
Just because someone is Jewish doesn't make criticizing them "anti-Semitic." You're misusing the word. As someone who is strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, I have a problem with trivializing it.

If I criticize George Soros for funding far-left activist groups, does that make me anti-Semitic? No.

This is why identity politics as a concept is laughably stupid. At the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite, f*** Marx!

Criticising them might be anti-Semitic if they're not a real thing. "The Rothschilds" aren't a real thing, they're an anti-semitic bogeyman.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
Criticising them might be anti-Semitic if they're not a real thing. "The Rothschilds" aren't a real thing, they're an anti-semitic bogeyman.

Can you explain how the Rothschilds are not a real family? I have no idea what makes you think that.

It's anti-Semtitic to blame all Jews for the actions of individuals. We should certainly focus on such individuals in order to avoid anti-Semitism. Therefore, I think you have it backward.
 

scatterkeir

Well-Known Member
Can you explain how the Rothschilds are not a real family? I have no idea what makes you think that.

It's anti-Semtitic to blame all Jews for the actions of individuals. We should certainly focus on such individuals in order to avoid anti-Semitism. Therefore, I think you have it backward.

"The Rothschilds" are not a real entity as described.

They ARE a real family in the same way as you and hundreds of distant relatives you don't know and have no financial connection to each other.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"The Rothschilds" as a thing is now nothing more than an antisemitic meme. They are not a real entity.

Zionism and anti semitism don't go together. Many Jews are anti zionist.
Go back to sleep. Big brother will look after you.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
"The Rothschilds" are not a real entity as described.

They ARE a real family in the same way as you and hundreds of distant relatives you don't know and have no financial connection to each other.

Many Rothschilds are rich and powerful. Not all of them need to be for them to be a "thing." Even if only two of them were highly influential, I still don't see the anti-Semitism in calling them out.

The Soroses (George and his son, let's say) do bad things, in my opinion. Is saying that anti-Semitic?

What if I say "the Trumps are a bunch of con-artists." Is saying that indicative of some phobia too, or can we state opinions about people without identity politics always being an irrelevant factor?
 

Tom Tom Club

Tom Tom Club
The problem with the way some people characterize these things is, we simply cannot indulge everyone's misguided fantasies. In a society that had been tending to tread dangerously along the path of "anything goes," it's important to draw the line somewhere, particularly when it comes to mental health issues. Why pretend that it is possible to change from a man to a woman or vice versa? It can't happen. That's that. It will only lead to more problems in the vast majority of cases. Most people who have such fantasies are not otherwise well-adjusted, after all.

I get that people want certain things in life, and sometimes those things are unattainable, and then again, sometimes those wants change drastically over time. What I want today might be connected to strong feelings. What I want might be unattainable. Well, maybe I won't want the same thing later, and maybe it's for the best that I can't magically get whatever I want whenever I want.

I just think about Michael Jackson and how the ability to keep striving for some image of himself that he idealized ultimately destroyed him. There was nothing stopping him from doing whatever he wanted and indulging himself toward achieving some twisted fantasy. Having the ability to indulge in such fantasies that are guided by mental illness is not a positive thing.

Thankfully, there are credible feminists and other thinkers around who are helping to turn the tide back on some of the wacky stuff that had been mainstreamed in the past five years or so. We really do need to bring back to the forefront some of the objective facts and realities regarding science and biology. A person's subjective feelings and mental state cannot, in a healthy society, be able to trump objective and empirical reality.
You make some great points here. I agree with a lot of what you say.

I find it interesting that Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder is no longer listed as a mental illness/disorder see link: https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/20/gender-dysphoria-no-longer-listed-mental-disorder-7645770/

I think that it was really sad what happened to Michael Jackson. I personally think that Michael Jackson was really good-looking in his natural state and he didn't need any plastic surgery at all. I'm guessing that MJ had some sort of body dysmorphia disorder and was maybe addicted to cosmetic procedures and plastic surgery. Michael Jackson seemed too thin to me as well I wondered if he might of had an eating disorder. Michael Jackson was only 50 years old when he died in 2009 it is really sad.

I felt sorry for Pete Burns (from the band 'Dead or Alive') as well. Pete Burns was also a naturally good-looking guy who didn't need any plastic surgery. Pete Burns said that he was a big Michael Jackson fan. I don't think that he ever met Michael Jackson though. Pete Burns was also a fan of Morrissey and he was even friends with Morrissey at one point. I find it interesting that Michael Jackson was born in August in 1958 and Pete Burns was born in August in 1959. They were born just a year apart! Michael Jackson was just one year older than Pete Burns. Morrissey was born in May 1959. Pete Burns sadly died at the age of 57 in 2016.

I found this YouTube video where Pete Burns talks about Morrissey it is a compilation of different interviews throughout the years. Some of what Pete Burns says is nice about Morrissey but some other things he says aren't nice. Pete can change from being nice to nasty in an instant. I find it confusing. Pete could be quite cutting at times. I think that Pete had respect for Morrissey as an artist. Pete Burns was obviously not interested in animal rights and vegetarianism at all though. Anyway this is the video:

 
Last edited:

Mayfly

Well-Known Member
The problem with the way some people characterize these things is, we simply cannot indulge everyone's misguided fantasies. In a society that had been tending to tread dangerously along the path of "anything goes," it's important to draw the line somewhere, particularly when it comes to mental health issues. Why pretend that it is possible to change from a man to a woman or vice versa? It can't happen. That's that. It will only lead to more problems in the vast majority of cases. Most people who have such fantasies are not otherwise well-adjusted, after all.

I get that people want certain things in life, and sometimes those things are unattainable, and then again, sometimes those wants change drastically over time. What I want today might be connected to strong feelings. What I want might be unattainable. Well, maybe I won't want the same thing later, and maybe it's for the best that I can't magically get whatever I want whenever I want.

I just think about Michael Jackson and how the ability to keep striving for some image of himself that he idealized ultimately destroyed him. There was nothing stopping him from doing whatever he wanted and indulging himself toward achieving some twisted fantasy. Having the ability to indulge in such fantasies that are guided by mental illness is not a positive thing.

Thankfully, there are credible feminists and other thinkers around who are helping to turn the tide back on some of the wacky stuff that had been mainstreamed in the past five years or so. We really do need to bring back to the forefront some of the objective facts and realities regarding science and biology. A person's subjective feelings and mental state cannot, in a healthy society, be able to trump objective and empirical reality.

This is a good point. Surely, in our contemporary society, everything is done to make you feel that almost anything is attainable. Science and technology are doing their bits to push the boundaries (of our human bodies) imposed by nature. Definitely in times like these, critical voices are not just welcome, they are essential. Somebody needs to reflect on where all the progress is leading us, on its achievements and its shortcomings.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
This is a good point. Surely, in our contemporary society, everything is done to make you feel that almost anything is attainable. Science and technology are doing their bits to push the boundaries (of our human bodies) imposed by nature. Definitely in times like these, critical voices are not just welcome, they are essential. Somebody needs to reflect on where all the progress is leading us, on its achievements and its shortcomings.

So you're making the case for the importance of racists?
 

Mayfly

Well-Known Member
So you're making the case for the importance of racists?

Do you equate critical voices to racist voices then? Mot of the racist talk isn't very critical in any intelligent way, or is it?
I don't mind some critical reflection on our multi-cultural societies as long as it does not stigmatize entire groups of people on the basis of race, color, religion or culture.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
Do you equate critical voices to racist voices then? Mot of the racist talk isn't very critical in any intelligent way, or is it?
I don't mind some critical reflection on our multi-cultural societies as long as it does not stigmatize entire groups of people on the basis of race, color, religion or culture.
Fair enough. Some supporters of the people Moz now calls friends would cry free speech, if their brand of free-speech - the freedom to belittle and denigrate someone for something they cannot change about themselves - was denied them. When in reality they are just being racist arseholes.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit# 321

Guest
Fair enough. Some supporters of the people Moz now calls friends would cry free speech, if their brand of free-speech - the freedom to belittle and denigrate someone for something they cannot change about themselves - was denied them. When in reality they are just being racist arseholes.

"their BRAND of free speech":crazy:

"someone for something they cannot change about themselves":lbf: You can give up the dodgy Islam in about a minute.:crazy:
Unless you mean that everybody wants to be white:crazy: thats pretty racist and insane.:lbf:
 

scatterkeir

Well-Known Member
Many Rothschilds are rich and powerful. Not all of them need to be for them to be a "thing." Even if only two of them were highly influential, I still don't see the anti-Semitism in calling them out.

The Soroses (George and his son, let's say) do bad things, in my opinion. Is saying that anti-Semitic?

What if I say "the Trumps are a bunch of con-artists." Is saying that indicative of some phobia too, or can we state opinions about people without identity politics always being an irrelevant factor?

Many Rothschilds are rich and powerful? How many? Off the top of my head I can name one, and he's 82.

The implication of the memes is clearly that there is continuity of The Rothschilds as an entity in a similar way to the power they once had. Those days are long gone.

Saying that about The Soroses is less anti-semitic because that's related to what the individuals are doing in recent times, not a centuries old anti-semitic meme.

The same goes for The Trumps.

The Rothschilds thing is more like someone who's going on about how The Kennedys have been running the world for centuries and drinking the blood of protestants.
 

scatterkeir

Well-Known Member
Also there are loads and loads of people richer than Jacob Rothschild. Yet he is the one who has memes of him made for the attention of lazy idiots who can't be bothered to do the little bit of fact-checking required to realise that what those memes claim is his personal wealth is a lot more than the total amount of money in the world. I wonder why this rich guy has been singled out for this attention...
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
The bottom line is, criticizing someone is not anti-Semitic unless you are acting with prejudice against their Judaism or Jewishness. So you're just in the wrong here.

If I am not allowed to criticize Shady Sadie Khan-man without being called an Islamophobe, what kind of society do we live in? Certainly not one that believes in freedom and equality.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you believe the media, there are columns of violent jackbooted sieg-heiling skinheads about to materialise from thin air and parade down your street right now if you dare to sway from rigid left-liberalism.

It says everything about their mentality. Sometimes I think they actually believe it.

I've noticed a few times that you seem to say that "freedom" is a good thing and then complain a lot about liberalism. It's almost as though you haven't got a clue what the f*** you're on about.
 

Amy

from the Ice Age to the dole age
I found this YouTube video where Pete Burns talks about Morrissey it is a compilation of different interviews throughout the years. Some of what Pete Burns says is nice about Morrissey but some other things he says aren't nice. Pete can change from being nice to nasty in an instant. I find it confusing. Pete could be quite cutting at times. I think that Pete had respect for Morrissey as an artist. Pete Burns was obviously not interested in animal rights and vegetarianism at all though. Anyway this is the video:


Interesting snippets. Pete Burns was a confusing, almost tragic personality in some ways. At times he sounds like he completely lacks awareness of depression or introversion ("He is afraid of being happy / he lives an enforced life of misery") - but you sense that he "gets it" at the same time, especially when he's talking about the humour in the lyrics. Pete obviously had his own unhappiness which drove him to alter his appearance... I get a strong sense that he felt kinship with Morrissey. Can't imagine Moz being serious about the fishnets though!
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom