Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[alanjjohnstone]

“…we are setting out sensible and practical policies, instead of the Tory government approach of resorting to ineffective and offensive ad vans, gimmicks or incorrect text messages. At a time when there is real pressure from a cost-of-living crisis, people are really concerned that low-skilled immigration is being exploited to undercut wages.” – says shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper. I think we can safely say that the capitalist motive for a flexible mobility of labour is to create a larger reserve army of unemployed to reduce or contain wage levels. Our response is that immigration controls are not the way to resist the tactics of the bosses  but by integrating migrant workers in the general class struggle for better conditions. I see a few positive elements within the Labour Party proposals such as the tightening up and extensions of gang-master legislation and ending employers deductions from wages for accommodation. That’s the honey, the bitter poison comes with the curtailments on student visas.  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/20/labour-foreigner-only-immigration

[alanjjohnstone]

A Ukrainian student has pleaded guilty to trying to incite a race war by launching a terrorist campaign in which he stabbed a 82-yr old Muslim grandfather to death and exploded bombs near mosques in an attempt to murder and maim worshippers.Pavlo Lapshyn, admitted to police that he hated anyone who was not white and that he wanted to carry out a series of violent attacks to convulse community relations.Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale said "His motivation was that the white man was better than anyone else."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24614280

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

He does not seem to realise how insulting it is to tell someone they are a member of intellectually inferior "race".  But it's clearly time to stop feeding him.

It may or may not be 'insulting', Mr. Buick, but the relevant question for me is whether it is true.The fact is, Mr. Buick, that you have no arugments whatsoever here and that is why you have had to repeatedly resort to distortion and abuse.  I am sure this is a matter of some embarrassment for you, so I would be very happy if you should follow your own stricture and stop contributing to this thread.  That way, you can stop embarrassing yourself and maintain your thin pretension of having an intellect.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Don't like what you see in the mirror, eh, Hrothy?

I like very much what I see in the mirror, actually.I think I have acquitted myself well here.  I have not had to resort to abuse, nor have I had anyone to assist me and yet I have managed to hold an argument with a dozen of you, and all of you have had to rely on intimidation and insults.

LBird wrote:

That's what we keep pointing out to you – you can't see that you're unreasonable and inarticulate, and you're managing very badly. Why don't you read what we're writing?

Having reviewed my contributions to this thread, I find they are pointed, articulate and relevant, and consist entirely of argument.If you disagree, then please quote the post where I have relied on insulting you in lieu of an argument.  Go on.

LBird wrote:

But if you keep acting like 'a spoilt child', we've got no choice have we? You don't listen, disagree unreasonably, with frankly ludicrous 'explanations' – it's nothing to do with 'not liking', it's to do with careful adult reflection upon child-like claims.

So you admit your behaviour?  How hilarious and how embarassing for you that you lose your rag so easily!  

LBird wrote:

'Truth'? Racists don't know what that is! That's why you can't recognise that you're refusing to engage or listen – you live in a racist dreamworld, son.

More emotional ranting…yawn.

LBird wrote:

Big letters for the 'hard of thinking': GO BACK TO THE START, AND READ WHAT WE'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU.

This is a refusal to answer a reasonable question.  I am asking you to substantite your remarks.  You won't because you know you're in deep water here and no match for me intellectually.  This is embarrassing for you because you have always relied on ths image that so-called 'racists' are ignorant or unintelligent, but now you are faced with an opponent who can actually take you on and you're embarrassed.

LBird wrote:

Right, get back to us when you've rejected your racist ideology, and then we can have a reasonable conversation.

So in other words, you can't handle disagreement.  You demand that others agree with your opinion or they are "stupid", "ignorant" and have "special needs".  How very mature.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In South Africa – the genetic origin of the term 'apartheid' When did words start having genetic origins? 

When people started thinking for themselves instead of relying on others to do the thinking for them.A word can have a genetic origin, and much else besides.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Why did you decline to comment on my subsequent post on South Africans self-descriptions becoming increasingly less racial and tribal?Or is it you who deem  "workers cannot decide for themselves now?" – to throw your statement back at you.

I don't recall that post, but I will look for it.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have made my position quite clear, i do not care if you views are accurate and valid on race. My relationships how i treat another is not based on race.

Then why are you still on this thread?  If you're not interested in the truth, then so far as I am concerned, that voids your arguments and any contribution you have made here.  Not that you've contributed anything other than rhetoric and abuse.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Once again to throw your own words back at you "I think it is both dangerous and inquitous to work to eradicate natural differences among human beings." Therefore i cannot support a policy of selective breeding to seek to eliminate the existing and growing mix of DNA/culture within various human beings that contribute to our individual uniqueness and produces that natural difference.

Nor do I.  You miss the point that if racial differences are natural, then this group you refer to will be slowly bred out of existence anyway.  It's existence in any significant number is due entirely to social engineering and political pressures on the population.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

You won't because you know you're in deep water here and no match for me intellectually.

Well, at least you've got a sense of humour, Hrothy!I actually burst out laughing at reading this!Cheered up my day, no end!

[Hrothgar]

YoungMasterSmeet wrote:

Erm,

It's a pet irritation of mine, and maybe I'm just getting old, but I can't stand it when people use conceited injunctions like: "Erm.." , and similar. Yes, "erm" what?  I think it's nearly always of some significance to what follows because it suggests two things: first, the contributor or speaker views his 'opponent' with contempt and doesn't take his arguments seriously, while at the same time taking himself very seriously; and, that he is absolutely certain of his own brand of perspicaciousness: in this case, rectitude – which is normally a good indication that he might not have thought very deeply about what he is saying, but says it anyway because it is politic or popular or consistent with the Zeitgeist.  "Ermmm"…!  

Quote:

Some have argued that the differences between continentally defined groups are relatively small and that it is difficult to distinguish groups without using large amounts of genetic data or specifically chosen markers. Our results show that continentally defined groups can be easily distinguished using only a small number of randomly selected SNPs. SNPs that are informative about ancestry are common and widely distributed throughout the genome and across SNP types. These findings illustrate the extent of genetic variation between continentally defined groups.

YoungMasterSmeet wrote:

That doesn't refute the Britannica article,

I did not state it refutes the Britannia article.  You need to be a bit more careful with your reading before you start showing your natural, in-born contempt for others.  No scientific study is going to wholly favour one side or the other, not least because political positions or ideologies do not easily correlate to scientific findings.

YoungMasterSmeet wrote:

unless you squint your eyes and tilt your head slightly to the left on second Tuesday of the Fourth month.

What jolly humour!  You show the racist prole what's what.  OK ya! 

YoungMasterSmeet wrote:

No one disputes that contingent geographic/historic genetic differences exist,

Anyway, we're making progress now, which is good.  You acknowledge there are differences.  It makes a change from 'Races are just about skin colour', doesn't it.

YoungMasterSmeet wrote:

but the question is whether they are essential, never mind socially consequential.

I think that's just playing with words, but I understand what you are saying.  To draw an analogy, the difference between 'male' and 'female' is essentialist.  What you are arguing here is that, while there are differences between different regional groups, those differences are not of fundamental importance.  In response, I would suggest that whether or not this is true does not intrude on whether there are races.  It's a separate question, and to an extent, it's a straw man argument.  However, I accept you do have a genuine point – even if blacks are different to whites genetically in some way, we are the same species, so why does it matter?  The answer, I suppose, is bound up in whatever normative position each of us takes.  I think it does matter, you think it doesn't.  I would add that tribal identification is a human impulse and any attempt to integrate different peoples together on a large scale can only be harmful and result in strife.

YoungMasterSmeet wrote:

I also note from the article:

Quote:

It could easily be extended to make predictions about smaller units of geography or individuals with a mixed background. This would require more extensive genotype data and well-characterized information about ancestral geographic origin from such individuals.

That difficulty will increase as previously geographically distinct populations mix.  That suggests to me that such differences are contingent.

That's just a reference to the scaleability of the methodology and doesn't refute the notion there are races (or meta-groupings) among human beings.  The general point that comes out of the study is that tiny genetic differences are not a refutation of racial categorisation (a point you are now honest enough to acknowledge – good) and that regional and continental differences can be patterned into the genome.

[alanjjohnstone]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

You won't because you know you're in deep water here and no match for me intellectually.

Well, at least you've got a sense of humour, Hrothy!I actually burst out laughing at reading this!Cheered up my day, no end!

I'm making a serious point, that relying on insults and abuse in argument – as you do – is not a sign of intelligence.  You just embarrass yourself by saying that your opponents are "stupid" or "ignorant" or have "special needs".  It doesn't particularly bother me, but it should bother you because it shows you in your true colours.  It suggests that you might not actually be as enlightened as you like to pretend.  The same point applies to others here.  It's not just you. To be fair, you have made some points, but I have answered them or given my comments on them.  I don't consider it right for you to reply by putting the blame on me for any areas of disagreement between us or by claiming that "just don't understand", or variations on this theme.  If you feel you're absolutely right about everything, and you're more intelligent than everyone else – and for all I know, you may well have these attributes – then you're bound to become frustrated with other people, but especially with people like me who question things.  Might it be best if you just ignore me in future?  Just a suggestion.Please consult with the Moderators should you need any further guidance from anyone on how to use an internet forum.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

Everyone has narcissistic tendencies, but it's interesting that you should jump to an extreme position and suggest that I have a 'personality disorder'.That, and your other contributions, suggest to me you're not very bright.  That's not meant as an insult, just an honest observation.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

That, and your other contributions, suggest to me you're not very bright.  That's not meant as an insult, just an honest observation.

Yeah, I've noticed this too, aj! You aren't 'very bright', are you? You're just like me, in fact. Thank god for some 'honest observation', at last!Perhaps… just a suggestion… we could elect… no, no, no, not 'elect'.. no, we should declare by popular acclamation (nothing so brutish as democratic methods; mass emotion, irrational outbursts of fervour, are best) that Hrothgar is our new Fuhrer!Hail Hrothgar!Your untermensch await you, Duce! Subject us to your superior honesty, master! [crying tears of joy at the coming of our saviour]

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

That, and your other contributions, suggest to me you're not very bright.  That's not meant as an insult, just an honest observation.

Yeah, I've noticed this too, aj! You aren't 'very bright', are you? You're just like me, in fact. Thank god for some 'honest observation', at last!Perhaps… just a suggestion… we could elect… no, no, no, not 'elect'.. no, we should declare by popular acclamation (nothing so brutish as democratic methods; mass emotion, irrational outbursts of fervour, are best) that Hrothgar is our new Fuhrer!Hail Hrothgar!Your untermensch await you, Duce! Subject us to your superior honesty, master! [crying tears of joy at the coming of our saviour]

It's interesting you associate me with fascism and Nazism [sic].  Is this an obsession of yours?  Maybe you shold speak to Alan Johnstone about it – he knows a lot about mental disorders.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Take a look outside in post apartheid South Africa. "Only 4.1 percent of people describe themselves by their language or tribe, while a mere 8.8 percent use race as a self-descriptor. Contrast this with the 52 percent who identify themselves as South Africans, first, and the 88 percent who are proud to be South African citizens.There is no doubt that, increasingly, South Africans do not see race, language and tribe as an important criterion for self-identity. They are well on their way towards a non-racial society." http://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/let-s-dump-obsession-with-race-1.1588948#.UlS3H9Knokg And of course the next stage is to dump the obsession with nationality, too!!

When I suggest that Alan Johnstone is none too bright – no offence intended, just an honest view based on evidence – I would plead the above in support of my case.The link is to an opinion piece.  It's not real journalism, it's just somebody's views.  The author of the piece is a director of a centre for social cohesion.  He is therefore not necessarily the most objective source of information on these questions.The opinion poll on self-identification, which is cited enthusiastically by Mr. Johnson, was conducted for the United Nations by the South African government or an office that reports to the President of South Africa.  To Mr. Johnson's evident pleasure, a large number of participants identified themselves as 'South African'.  That this would be the result of a survey conducted by the South African state is not really much of a surprise for me.   The survey questions cited above were highly-subjective and based on various non-comparators.  We are to believe that participants had a choice between identifying as, let's say, 'black' or as 'South African'.  How surprising that a large number might say that they identify as 'South African'.  People will tend to do that in any country, but it says nothing about whether they also have racial views or a sense of racial identity.  Now, let's compare this with what is really happening in South Africa – the slums; the violence; the racially-segregated districts; the poverty and futility among blacks; the disenfranchisememt of poor whites.  Look at the news and you'll see that your Rainbow dream isn't quite measuring up to reality.Polls produce the results you want them to produce.  The more objective type of poll – a census, such as the UK census – tends to present a very different picture because it is based on more objective data that is harder to manipulate, such as geographic locations, demographics and so on.  That's why Mr. Johnstone would rather not discuss the UK census, which shows a clear tendency for white flight and an emerging soft apartheid in the UK.  The truth is that we have had alien immigration into the UK now for more than sixty years and these communities are still not integrated.  At least, that's what's happening in the real world outside Mr. Johnstone's fantasy.  Mr. Johnstone says (or at least, implies) that the reason for this is 'racism' among whites.  So he blames white people for not wanting a different group to be imposed on them.  What a nice chap he is.The point has been made repeatedly by perfectly reasonable and respectable people that mixing leads to trouble when it is conducted on any significant scale.  People on the whole don't want it.  Mr. Johnstone and others like him want to scare, bully and intimidate the dissenters into silence.  That's what this thread is really about.  Mr. Johnstone and his ilk are really just overgrown teenagers.  They want to be associated with modish and trendy views and don't want to be seen as 'oppressors' or 'authority figures' – Right On! – yet with the same forked tongue Mr. Johnstone speaks of "integrating migrants", as if the laws of physics have been suspended and this can be anything other the forcible, coercive and repressive process that it really is.The bottom of this, Mr. Johnstone, is that you do not have real views.  It is you who live in a fantasy, wish-thinking that people will behave in the way you want them to do.  When they don't, you resort to ridicule and bullying and labelling people with psychiatric disorders and mental problems – whatever it takes.  The problem for you, and the reason you become angry and hurt at me, is that I am pointing out that people don't and won't act in the way you want them to.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

Maybe you shold speak to Alan Johnstone about it – he knows a lot about mental disorders.

Nah, 'e just sez I'm a fuckin' nutter!'Takes one to know one', I just shout back, when I grab 'im by the froat!

[alanjjohnstone]

Nope, i am not very bright…  Narcissist – Reacts to criticism with anger, exaggerates own importance, fantasies about  intelligence, lacks empathy But i do know that the existing segration is mostly not by race but by wealth…in fact more and more gated communities are being created all over the world to keep out the great unwashed. Class not race or ethnicity. The Arab "ghettoisation " of Mayfair, the Russianfication of Belgravia.  Without looking back to the posts i think i was specifically referring to integrating migrant labour within the labour movement and the class struggle. That was supported by historical/empirical evidence provided by earlier posts.  We have had immigration for a lot more than 60yrs and if we take the example of the Irish it appears to be quite a success. Erm…the Irish used to be called Black Irish, so racism is sometimes that does not actually involve skin colour nor IQs , or genetics – it gets invented. 

[Author]

Posts