Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[Hrothgar]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

Hrothgar I don't know you but, like most of the world's population, you are probably a worker. Don't be brainwashed by the Government, the capitalists want to divide us, the working class, so they can prevent us from a democratic revolution. It is not your fault you think the way you do mate, you are conditioned in capitalism to think nationalist views because, in capitalism, there is this myth known as "greed is natural" so this theory says an individual can try to grab as much as they can for themselves so they don't live in poverty. Hrothgar unfortunately at the moment you have this theory in your head, so you feel insecure economically and therefore will do anything you can to grab material wealth to avoid poverty, and you think that is that means nationalism then so bei it.Though things don't have to be like this, because we, as humans, can create an abundance of resources when working together. All we need to do is identify that we are one big family, because we all share bloodlines.Lastly, you may ask how can we create an abundance of resources when working together. It is simple, ther will be no parasitic bosses so workers can keep what they produce.

I broadly agree with you and your critique of capitalism and I accept that stato-nationalism is a divisive and poisonous creed that still serves the interests of capitalists.  All am I saying is that if people are naturally tribal and wish to divide along racial and cultural lines, then they should be allowed to.  Any solution to the capitalist problem needs to accept human nature, which is that people generally value kinship and wish to live among others like them.Perhaps the words 'nationalism' and 'racism'/'racialism' are unhelpful to a discussion such as this, as they carry a loaded connotation, in much the same way that 'socialism' and 'communism' have been evacuated of meaning and twisted into 'Leninism' or 'Stalinism' or 'Trotskyism'.  However, I prefer not to side-step the issue.  We are talking about Race.  I think the reason this type of discussion attracts so much hate and vitriol is, partly, because anti-Racial and post-Racial arguments are countered by science and observable facts, which is inconvenient and humbling for some people and that's what drives the anger.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

It's true that I am a racialist, and I won't deny it, …to me, a racialist is just someone who holds a rational position regarding inheritable differences among human beings.

But, Hrothgar, ‘inheritable differences’ include all sorts of attributes, including ‘ear size’ and ‘uneven teeth’. Why select ‘skin colour’ for special consideration?No, this issue is nothing to do with ‘genes’ or biological traits of any sort.It’s simply an ideological issue.To be a ‘racialist’ is to be burdened by an outdated ideology, which has no meaning other than as a political aim to separate workers from each other.The origins of this ‘racial ideology’ come from a class that has property and steals from those it employs to do the work, and wishes to ‘divide and rule’ those it exploits, so that they remain separated and thus weak.Are you an owner of a business, Hrothgar?If not, you don’t ‘hold a rational position’. You are an ‘irrational’ proletarian.If you do own a firm, and steal from your employees, then it’s also entirely ‘rational’ to point out to those workers that they have different sized ears, some have crooked teeth, and some are black and others white. Any 'division' will do.'Rationality' is related to class position.

[Alex Woodrow]

What are your views then. You don't support Hitler do you?If you do support Hitler then you are a state capitalist as Hitler had vast amounts more material wealth then the overwhelming majority of the german population.Sorry I hope this is not an intimidating question, just interested in what exactly your views are.

[alanjjohnstone]

My unusual lack of tolerance and expressed ire is that I find it tiresome to argue with a "scientific" racism. As I indicated earlier i have engaged in pointless debates with some who camouflage their bigotry and prejudice under the cloak of libertarianism. Without disparaging my comrades, I no longer have the patience to indulge your charade of objectivity and your ever so reasonableness replies. I see through your act. If people do want to cite genetic differences, they need to explain why genetic differences seem to be larger within races rather than between races.  We are all one species. We are all humans. We have all been evolving for the same length of time. We are all one species, Homo sapiens, with one shared genome. A species can be defined as a group of organisms that are biologically similar enough to breed and generate viable progeny. Humans of every "race", nationality, ethnicity, religion, skin pigmentation, hair style, diet preference, etc., can, and do!, successfully interbreed and generate viable progeny.  Thus, barriers that distinguish human groups—whether we rightly or wrongly refer to such groupings in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, political party, etc.—are unquestionably socially-significant, however they are biologically insignificant "Scientific" racism is anything but scientific. It is bias dressed up. You claim tribalism (read racism) is hardwired into us by genetics. But the tribalism of catholic and protestant in Northern Ireland or parts of Scotland (intermarriage etc) cannot be put down to a religious DNA. Species that are genetically uniform are more likely to be plagued by parasites that need to evolve only a single strategy to capitalize on their host’s genetically-unvarying vulnerabilities. Species with wider variation in their gene pools present multiple challenges to parasites, bacteria and viruses. Indeed, it is possible that it was only due to crucial variations in the human gene pool that Homo sapiens avoided extinction at the hands of the Black Death or other near-extinction crises. You won't be impressed by such arguments, you will side step them, and you will continue to seek justifications for your pre-judged attiitudes when it comes to the colour . pigment, shade of someones skin. For you,  it is Blood and Honour. In the claims,  of any pseudo-scientist, we find correct statements jumbled up with half-truths and total inaccuracies, and we are never able tell which is which; once a pseudo-scientist gets the bit between his teeth everything is interpreted in a single-minded and simple-minded fashion and what doesn't fit gets swept away out of sight.

[Alex Woodrow]

alanjjohnstone I don't like Hrothgar's views but it is freedom of speech and we should try to win over any capitalist to support a world of socialism.

[ALB]

Hrothgar wrote:

I would say that what you refer to here are ethnic differences rather than racial differences.  I have no particular problem with the presence of white Europeans in Britain.

What is the problem you have with the presence of non-white Europeans and/or white non-Europeans in Britain? In fact what are your definitions of "white", "European" and "non-European"?And, while you're at it, what is the difference you make here between a "race" and an "ethnic group"?

[Hrothgar]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

When will workers rise up and realise they have no nationality and they are part of one world.

I agree that we are all part of one world and I agree that workers should realise this, and the world would be a better place if they did.  Where we disagree is that I do not consider it necessary for workers to disregard their indigenous identities in the process.  In fact, to do so could be damaging for humanity.  History suggests that human beings are in any case naturally tribal.

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

ALB – I remembered that the word ‘Sassenach’, normally an abusive Scottish term for the English, is derived from the Gaelic word ‘Sasunnach’ for Saxon, was originally applied by the Highlanders to all non-Gaelic speakers, be they Lowland Scots or English who were, in the eyes of the Highlanders, indistinguishable and both equally foreign.

This would seem to lend support to my view that human beings have tribal impulses.I do understand the point you are trying to make, which is that there is a historical progression towards diminishing diversity and a post-racial society.  Maybe the tribal impulses can be selected-out of the population, so that in time humanity merges into a mixed-racial mass without any indigenous identities.  But I don't want that, and in the end this is about the choices we make.  Just as I accept we can choose socialism provided a sufficient number are class conscious, we can also choose a future of racial and cultural diversity, provided a sufficient number are race-conscious.I don't want to lose the connection to the past, because it is important to who I am now and the future.  I think that racially-homogenous societies that have a strong attachment to culture and kin lines have greater solidarity and are more co-operative and caring, whereas societies that disregard and disparage heritage, family and kinship tend to be highly-competitive, meritocratic, unpleasant and inevitably break-apart.  You hold to an entirely materialistic perspective.  You see racial preservation as idealistic and irrelevant.  So we have different perspectives.  In my eyes, you are overlooking a crucial attribute that makes us human.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

But, Hrothgar, ‘inheritable differences’ include all sorts of attributes, including ‘ear size’ and ‘uneven teeth’. Why select ‘skin colour’ for special consideration?

Race is not merely a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute, so your point here is a non-point.

LBird wrote:

No, this issue is nothing to do with ‘genes’ or biological traits of any sort.It’s simply an ideological issue.

Of course it's ideological.  Socialism is also an ideology.  Science, too, has ideological underpinnings, and to an extent, serves the political and social objects of the time.However, the ideological nature of an idea or perspective is not, in itself, any commentary on its validity.

LBird wrote:

To be a ‘racialist’ is to be burdened by an outdated ideology, which has no meaning other than as a political aim to separate workers from each other.The origins of this ‘racial ideology’ come from a class that has property and steals from those it employs to do the work, and wishes to ‘divide and rule’ those it exploits, so that they remain separated and thus weak.

This is all true.  Racialism has been and is used to divide workers, but again, that is no commentary on its validity.  It is still true that there are races and there are important differences between racial groups.

LBird wrote:

Are you an owner of a business, Hrothgar?If not, you don’t ‘hold a rational position’. You are an ‘irrational’ proletarian.If you do own a firm, and steal from your employees, then it’s also entirely ‘rational’ to point out to those workers that they have different sized ears, some have crooked teeth, and some are black and others white. Any 'division' will do.

I am neither.  I am a self-employed professional.I agree with the classical Marxist critique of capitalism (allowing for some inevitable archaisms in Marx and Engel's analysis given the era in which they wrote), and I also happen to agree with your comments here about how capitalists manipulate workers using 'identity politics' in the workplace: be it sexism or racism or whatever else.  However, if I were an employer, it is unlikely that I would seek to divide and rule in the workplace by subtlely infusing some National Socialist ideology into the induction procedure.  I think discrimination is used to serve the interests of the capitalist class and employers generally.  That has little or nothing to do with my beliefs.  People live in separate racial groups as a matter of course.  It doesn't follow that workers cannot and will not recognise common economic interests across national and cultural lines. I accept that national allegiance can act as an inhibitor, but much depends on the circumstances.  

LBird wrote:

'Rationality' is related to class position.

Only?  I would say that rationality is the state of mind of being open to reasoned argument.  A reasoned argument can be made as follows:-(a). history shows us that regardless of economic modalities, people will still divide along tribal lines in some way; (b). the most natural division among human beings (and many other mammals) is according to genetic closeness and kinship; (c). it follows that racial groupings evolve to reflect geographic proximity and sexual selection;(d). these racial groupings will develop their own 'culture', i.e. distinct laws, customs and traditions of social and political organisation, as a reflection of their shared consciousness;(e). most people will become attached socially, financially and emotionally to their kin groups, of which 'racial groups' are an extension;(f). the existence and preservation of these 'racial groups' (races) is positive and beneficial for humanity in that it promotes diversity;(g). to denounce those who believe in racial preservation as 'racist' or 'stupid', etc., is irrational as it ignores the reasoned basis for the existence and preservation of racial groups and that they exist for a purpose; (h). any attempt to eradicate distinctive racial groups is, by its very nature, oppressive and wrong – even dangerous;(i). but most of all, it is futile because history shows people will always seek to divide and sub-divide socially and distinctive racial groups will evolve again.

[Hrothgar]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

What are your views then. You don't support Hitler do you?If you do support Hitler then you are a state capitalist as Hitler had vast amounts more material wealth then the overwhelming majority of the german population.Sorry I hope this is not an intimidating question, just interested in what exactly your views are.

It's interesting that you raise the topic of 'Hitler'.  It would be like me asking if you 'support Stalin'.  You would, understandably, think me clumsy as support for Stalin has little to do with support for socialism.More importantly, Hitler is dead, and given he is dead, it is rather difficult for me to 'support' him.  I cannot 'support' Hitler anymore than I can support Napoleon or Attila the Hun or Caesar or Alexander The Great.  Thus, and to give your question the fullest consideration, it follows that the cults of 'Hitlerism' and 'neo-Nazism' are ridiculous.You are right that Hitler was – essentially – a capitalist.  I am not sure if 'state capitalist' is an accurate term as he allowed private business and he was well-disposed to capitalism.  He promoted a distinction between what might be called 'Jewish international capitalism' and a more nationalist form of capitalism.  His brand of National Socialism was 'moderate', reformist, conservative and reactionary.  The term 'Socialism' was part-propaganda and also partly a reference to the Romanticist notion of symbiotic relations in society up and down the social order.My own position is syncretic.  There isn't really a proper term for it, but you could say I am a Revolutionary National Socialist.  I do not support the continuation of the existing nation-states in Europe.  I believe that racial communities can exist and prosper on autonomous lines.  I believe in a co-operative form of social and economic organisation.

[jondwhite]

So basically Strasserite?

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

Race is not merely a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute, so your point here is a non-point.

No, you haven’t understood: that’s precisely the point I’m making. ‘Race’ is not ‘a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute’, it’s an entirely ideological and historical social construct.

Hrothgar wrote:

Of course it's ideological. Socialism is also an ideology. Science, too, has ideological underpinnings, and to an extent, serves the political and social objects of the time.

You’re getting with the program, now, mate! It’s ‘ideological’, as you admit.

Hrothgar wrote:

However, the ideological nature of an idea or perspective is not, in itself, any commentary on its validity.

Ahh, you’ve reverted again, Hrothgar! ‘Validity’ is part of ideology, not an ‘objective’ or ahistoric concept. ‘Racial ideology’ determines ‘racial validity’. So, holding this ideology, as you accept that you do, is a ‘commentary on its validity’.

Hrothgar wrote:

This is all true. Racialism has been and is used to divide workers, but again, that is no commentary on its validity.

Now, you can see that only from a racialist perspective can it be seen as ‘no commentary on its validity’. From a Communist ideological perspective, what it’s used for is entirely relevant to deciding upon its ‘validity’. So, for workers, ‘racialism’ is ‘invalid’.

Hrothgar wrote:

I am neither. I am a self-employed professional.

Well, this illuminates your ideological preferences, Hrothgar!Since you’re not a proletarian, you’ll clearly see the world from the viewpoint of an ‘individual’ who can ‘freely choose’ their ideological beliefs. You just happen to choose racialism, don’t you?In fact, you can’t see the social structures, especially those involving exploitation, because the socio-economic position of a ‘self-employed professional’ blinds you to social realities.

Hrothgar wrote:

I think discrimination is used to serve the interests of the capitalist class and employers generally. That has little or nothing to do with my beliefs.

Of course it does, mate! The employers’ act of dividing workers is what maintains the possibility of your individual productive reality: without that, you’d be with us, all working together to achieve common goals. You wouldn’t be ‘self-employed’, you’d be ‘socially active’, like the rest of us.Being thoughtful, you can see the reality of ‘capitalist class discrimination’, but you haven’t linked that into how it affects all of us, including you. The difference to us is that, in some sense, you benefit indirectly from that discrimination which divides workers, so it makes ‘rational sense’ from your socio-economic position to support an ideology that divides workers. If we unite and triumph, your ‘self-employed professional’ role will be obsolete within social production.

Hrothgar wrote:

People live in separate racial groups as a matter of course.

This is obviously untrue, to anyone with eyes, in the modern world. ‘Racial groups’, as you define them, live intertwined everywhere on this planet.You’re allowing your ideological blinkers to ‘blind’ you now, Hrothgar, into making rash statements which can’t be supported!

Hrothgar wrote:

I would say that rationality is the state of mind of being open to reasoned argument.

Well, let’s see if you’re ‘rational’ then. Racialism is irrational, by any reasoned judgement, as we’ve shown on this thread. Do you have an ‘open mind’, or are you a pre-existing ‘racialist’?We’re ‘close minded Communists’, by the way, Hrothgar! We don’t pretend to be ‘free-thinking’ individuals. We situate our ideas in an historical, socio-economic and political context.

Hrothgar wrote:

A reasoned argument can be made as follows:-

I won’t continue with the rest of your quote from (a) to (i), Hrothgar, to spare you your blushes!It’s an entirely ahistorical and apolitical list, which ignores economic production and its material, cultural and ideological attributes.For example, after WW2, the ‘Black Caribbean’ workers who came to Britain shared a common language, religion, history, political tradition and, indeed, Queen! By any ‘cultural’ measure, they were identical to ‘white British’ workers. But ‘racialists’ seems to prefer to welcome ‘white’ eastern Europeans, like Ukrainians, for example, who just happened to be ‘white’, but were from an entirely different culture. Also, the SS membership of some was often overlooked, even though ‘we’ had just fought a war against ‘them’. So much for ‘tribes’, ‘genes’ and ‘kinship’, eh?.No, it’s all about the class ideology of ‘racialism’.We’re workers here, Hrothgar, and we don’t share your ideological beliefs.And as we look around our society, it seems not many others do, either, whether they’re class conscious Communists or common-or-garden ‘British’. In fact, ‘Britishness’ now means a ‘multi-racial’ identity, to all intents and purposes.Are you ‘anti-British’, Hrothgar?Perhaps I should say ‘anti-21st-century-British’, because the ‘racialist’ ideology you espouse belongs in the long dead past.Let’s hope ‘rational arguments’ have some affect on you, now.

[Hrothgar]

jondwhite wrote:

So basically Strasserite?

No.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

No, you haven’t understood: that’s precisely the point I’m making. ‘Race’ is not ‘a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute’, it’s an entirely ideological and historical social construct.

Wait a minute, hold on – you're now jumping from one point to another.  You clearly think that race is just a matter of skin colour and that, in part, is the basis for your dismissal of race as a concept of signficance.  You then use this as a basis for holding that race is entirely a social construct.  That's a view to which you are entitled, but you can't jump from one point to the other without accepting that I will want to examine the basis of your thinking.  Race is not just a matter of skin colour – this is demonstrated scientifically – and that being the case, the notion that it is merely a social construct is not valid.

LBird wrote:

You’re getting with the program, now, mate! It’s ‘ideological’, as you admit.

No, I admit that racism (or racialism) is ideological.  You're just not reading my statement, or to be more precise, you're reading into what I say what you want to read.

LBird wrote:

Ahh, you’ve reverted again, Hrothgar! ‘Validity’ is part of ideology, not an ‘objective’ or ahistoric concept. ‘Racial ideology’ determines ‘racial validity’. So, holding this ideology, as you accept that you do, is a ‘commentary on its validity’.

There is only one truth.  There may be different ways of interpreting or assessing the truth, but the fact remains there is one truth and one truth only.  'Validity' in any perspective depends on its proximity to the truth.  The more objective we approach an incident or problem, the more truthful our analysis or conclusions are likely to be, and thus the more valid.  Objectivity cannot be decoupled from social values, admittedly, but we can achieve a large degree of objectivity using the right methods.  I accept that racism is a biased and ideological position, but whether I favour racial diversity is of no consequence to whether there are races.  The former is an entirely normative position; the latter is a matter for objective inquiry.

LBird wrote:

Now, you can see that only from a racialist perspective can it be seen as ‘no commentary on its validity’. From a Communist ideological perspective, what it’s used for is entirely relevant to deciding upon its ‘validity’. So, for workers, ‘racialism’ is ‘invalid’.

Not really.  See my comments above.

LBird wrote:

Well, this illuminates your ideological preferences, Hrothgar!Since you’re not a proletarian, you’ll clearly see the world from the viewpoint of an ‘individual’ who can ‘freely choose’ their ideological beliefs. You just happen to choose racialism, don’t you?In fact, you can’t see the social structures, especially those involving exploitation, because the socio-economic position of a ‘self-employed professional’ blinds you to social realities.

This is a bit patronising, isn't it?  You are making lots of assumptions about me which you cannot possibly know to be true.  I have been a worker and I am the son of blue collar manual workers.  I have studied the SPGB's version of socialism and I largely agree with it.  I certainly do see the social structures.

LBird wrote:

Of course it does, mate! The employers’ act of dividing workers is what maintains the possibility of your individual productive reality: without that, you’d be with us, all working together to achieve common goals. You wouldn’t be ‘self-employed’, you’d be ‘socially active’, like the rest of us.Being thoughtful, you can see the reality of ‘capitalist class discrimination’, but you haven’t linked that into how it affects all of us, including you. The difference to us is that, in some sense, you benefit indirectly from that discrimination which divides workers, so it makes ‘rational sense’ from your socio-economic position to support an ideology that divides workers. If we unite and triumph, your ‘self-employed professional’ role will be obsolete within social production.

I am not arguing for the continuation of capitalism.  In fact, I am an anti-capitalist.

LBird wrote:

This is obviously untrue, to anyone with eyes, in the modern world. ‘Racial groups’, as you define them, live intertwined everywhere on this planet.You’re allowing your ideological blinkers to ‘blind’ you now, Hrothgar, into making rash statements which can’t be supported!

Again, the observational evidence is clear.  I live in society, just like you do.  I can see the truth about human behaviour with my own eyes.

LBird wrote:

Well, let’s see if you’re ‘rational’ then. Racialism is irrational, by any reasoned judgement, as we’ve shown on this thread. Do you have an ‘open mind’, or are you a pre-existing ‘racialist’?We’re ‘close minded Communists’, by the way, Hrothgar! We don’t pretend to be ‘free-thinking’ individuals. We situate our ideas in an historical, socio-economic and political context.

Nobody's demonstrated anything of the kind in this thread.  These are just empty assertions of yours.

LBird wrote:

I won’t continue with the rest of your quote from (a) to (i), Hrothgar, to spare you your blushes!

Then we can conclude that you don't have a response.  If you did, then I doubt you would 'spare my blushes'.

LBird wrote:

It’s an entirely ahistorical and apolitical list, which ignores economic production and its material, cultural and ideological attributes.

No it isn't.  You're just using the words 'ahistorical' and 'apolitical' because you think it makes you look clever or superior.  You don't actually know what the words mean and you don't realise how silly and inarticulate it makes you look to use such sweeping terms about someone else's arguments.  None of my argument is either 'ahistorical' or 'apolitical'.  It's literal nonsense to say it is, since each point is drawn from historical or political observation.  What you're really trying to say here is that my points don't agree with your analysis.  That's fine, but it's not an argument.  I understand and largely agree with historical materialism, but there is more than one mode of analysis open to us.  It's possible to look at historical events in different and complementary ways.

LBird wrote:

For example, after WW2, the ‘Black Caribbean’ workers who came to Britain shared a common language, religion, history, political tradition and, indeed, Queen! By any ‘cultural’ measure, they were identical to ‘white British’ workers. But ‘racialists’ seems to prefer to welcome ‘white’ eastern Europeans, like Ukrainians, for example, who just happened to be ‘white’, but were from an entirely different culture. Also, the SS membership of some was often overlooked, even though ‘we’ had just fought a war against ‘them’. So much for ‘tribes’, ‘genes’ and ‘kinship’, eh?.

This is entirely a matter of perspective.  Black Caribbeans are of a different racial identity.  The elements of 'culture' that they share with us are superficial and civic in nature and largely imposed on them, just as they were imposed on us.

LBird wrote:

No, it’s all about the class ideology of ‘racialism’.We’re workers here, Hrothgar, and we don’t share your ideological beliefs.And as we look around our society, it seems not many others do, either, whether they’re class conscious Communists or common-or-garden ‘British’. In fact, ‘Britishness’ now means a ‘multi-racial’ identity, to all intents and purposes.Are you ‘anti-British’, Hrothgar?Perhaps I should say ‘anti-21st-century-British’, because the ‘racialist’ ideology you espouse belongs in the long dead past.Let’s hope ‘rational arguments’ have some affect on you, now.

I certainly am anti-British as I do not regard it as a racial identity.  But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians.  Please proceed.  Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].  I do agree with you that my views are an ever-diminishing minority.  That, however, speaks nothing as to the general truth of my views, just as the fact you are a tiny grouplet says nothing about the correctness of your analysis of capitalism.

[Hrothgar]

Some of this is just emotional ranting, but you've gone to the trouble of posting, so I'll give you a response.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My unusual lack of tolerance and expressed ire is that I find it tiresome to argue with a "scientific" racism. As I indicated earlier i have engaged in pointless debates with some who camouflage their bigotry and prejudice under the cloak of libertarianism.

Perhaps I ought to say here that I am not a libertarian.  I also deny that I am trying to camouflage my bigotry and prejudice.  I admit I am a bigot and prejudiced.  I am not trying to hide it.  It needn't follow that I am unintelligent or unenlightened or that my arguments are lacking in validity or potency.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Without disparaging my comrades, I no longer have the patience to indulge your charade of objectivity and your ever so reasonableness replies. I see through your act.

I think you are just making yourself look pompous and rather silly.  First, I am entitled to my views.  If you don't like them, you needn't respond.  It's your choice.  There's no need to turn this into some kind of melodrama.  Second, there is no charade here.  I have opinions on this subject and I do not claim objectivity.  The same applies to you.  My 'reasonableness' is an elementary courtesy I extend to yourself and others, since you have taken the trouble to reply to my comments.  Besides, nothing is to be gained by abuse and 'shouting'.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If people do want to cite genetic differences, they need to explain why genetic differences seem to be larger within races rather than between races.  

I'll be very glad to.  What you are repeating here is true, but the interpretation is fallacious.  It's what genome researchers call 'Lewontin's fallacy'.  The term arises from the flawed pseudo-scientific work of a Harvard biologist, Richard Lewontin, who argued that human racial classification has no genomic or taxonomic significance due to the incidence of percentage-based genetic diversity across different racial populations, as per your comment above.  Part of the fallacy with this has already been explained.  In genomic research, tiny percentage differences have opened the way for unscientific or inexact rhetoric about 'sameness' across different special or sub-special categories, but that is just a social or political position.  In scientific terms, the tiny differences can add up to a great deal.  The reason for this is that comparative commonalities in the base structures of DNA do not necessarily translate into the gene product.  Much depends on how the DNA sequences are distributed into the genome, and this in turn means that huge differentiation is ascribable to tiny percentage differences in sequential comparators.  So the point is that "percentage difference" is not a relevant comparison, in either direction: whether in reference to similarity or dissimilarity, convergence or variation.  As an example, the difference between male and female is, at present, believed to be down to just one gene, yet the percentage differences among females or among males is very signficant, yet no-one argues, in either direction, that the sexes exist as an essential biological reality.  Any argument that uses percentage differences (in either direction) as its crux should be seen as highly-suspect and is a non sequitur. It is, likewise, true that there is significant percentage-based genetic diversity within the white population, but the mistake that Lewontin made was in relying, simplistically, on percentage convergence/divergence without taking into account how genetic diversity is distributed within populations and the patterns that develop, especially the way that genetic information clusters in each population, which creates a firm predictability.  In other words, there is a discernible racial patterning in the genetic information between different racial populations.All of which is quite apart from a central problem with Lewontin's work, which is how he ever managed to perform his analysis without identifying (and thus tacitly acknowledging) the existence of discrete racial groups in the first place.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We are all one species. We are all humans. We have all been evolving for the same length of time. We are all one species, Homo sapiens, with one shared genome. A species can be defined as a group of organisms that are biologically similar enough to breed and generate viable progeny. Humans of every "race", nationality, ethnicity, religion, skin pigmentation, hair style, diet preference, etc., can, and do!, successfully interbreed and generate viable progeny.  Thus, barriers that distinguish human groups—whether we rightly or wrongly refer to such groupings in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, political party, etc.—are unquestionably socially-significant, however they are biologically insignificant

Whether racial differences are "biologically insignificant" is a political decision, but in using this phraseology, you imply that there are biological differences between different human groups.  You just think we should ignore these differences and all live together.  The question is what degree of significance does society attach to group differences.  If group 'A' is significantly less intelligent on average than group 'B', should the members of  'B' breed with members of 'A' in order to integrate so that we can all be "Jock Tamson's children"?   Or should we acknowledge that there are differences and allow each group its separate development, perhaps with some inter-breeding at the margins?  Actually, I am inclined to accept the main thrust of your logic here, but none of it means that we should all be forced to live together or that mixing is a good thing.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"Scientific" racism is anything but scientific. It is bias dressed up.

All science is biased to an extent, especially at its theoretical margins.  The Big Bang theory is really just the Creation Myth tarted-up with scientific jargon.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You claim tribalism (read racism) is hardwired into us by genetics. But the tribalism of catholic and protestant in Northern Ireland or parts of Scotland (intermarriage etc) cannot be put down to a religious DNA.

This is incoherent.  One of my central points is that human beings have tribal impulses.  Almost everything you have said in this thread so far has lent support to that assertion, including the above paragraph.  But I am not saying there is a 'religious DNA'.  It is very possible that religious faith, especially of the fanatical kind, is an evolutionary response, but that point isn't germane to this discussion.  History shows that human beings are tribal.  You've just provided us with another example.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Species that are genetically uniform are more likely to be plagued by parasites that need to evolve only a single strategy to capitalize on their host’s genetically-unvarying vulnerabilities. Species with wider variation in their gene pools present multiple challenges to parasites, bacteria and viruses. Indeed, it is possible that it was only due to crucial variations in the human gene pool that Homo sapiens avoided extinction at the hands of the Black Death or other near-extinction crises.

Now you're clutching at straws.  Is there significant genetic variation within racial groups or not?  Earlier you were reminding us how such variation is greater within than across different racial groups.  I agree this is the case, and the white race in particular has huge genetic variation, which rather defeats your point.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You won't be impressed by such arguments, you will side step them, and you will continue to seek justifications for your pre-judged attiitudes when it comes to the colour . pigment, shade of someones skin. For you,  it is Blood and Honour.

Not at all.  As you can see, I am taking a great deal of trouble here to answer all of your points.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the claims,  of any pseudo-scientist, we find correct statements jumbled up with half-truths and total inaccuracies, and we are never able tell which is which; once a pseudo-scientist gets the bit between his teeth everything is interpreted in a single-minded and simple-minded fashion and what doesn't fit gets swept away out of sight.

This is of course true of any fraudulent and flawed form of scientific inquiry.

[Author]

Posts