Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[dweenlander]

I’m sorry, and I know this post is off the topic as set, but Alex Woodrow, no. Just, no. I hope it is just your zeal getting the better of sound judgement, but “Obama is as bad as Hitler, Benn is as bad as Thatcher”? Take a breath and get a grip of yourself. There is no meaningful comparison to be made between Obama and Hitler or Benn and Thatcher, and if you believe there is I suggest you start a thread on these topics, cite your evidence and we can debate. We shouldn’t have to, because I always hoped such judgments were the exclusive preserve of SWP undergrads, but we can. 

[Alex Woodrow]

So dweenlander you are a reformist then?

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

having reviewed the thread you've linked to, it looks to me like he was running rings round you

If you think he ran rings about us, I challenge you do to the same test we asked him to do but which he ran away from:

Ed wrote:

`Hi Tom would you be willing to try out this quick game it's designed to help people see the ridiculousness of race.Downloadable version (better)http://www.gamesforchange.org/play/guess-my-race/Online versionhttp://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_01-sort.htm

Let us know how you got on.

The 'game' or 'test' is ridiculous and thoroughly disingenuous.  It does not present racial categories and is deliberately designed to confuse people and, in doing so, undermine any sense of racial identity in the minds of the suggestible.  How did I get on?  The game is as feeble and childish as your 'arguments'.

[dweenlander]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

So dweenlander you are a reformist then?

No, just capable of nuance. And if you are going to make the transition from being a socialist purely by instinct to being one by instinct and intellect, it is something you too will have to embrace.I genuinely admire you zeal, but you need to engage your critical faculties. I would suggest that you think about your post and either accept that your remarks were, at best, ill chosen, or explain how you have come to those determinations. 

[dweenlander]

Still getting to grips with posting on this site. Post is below.

[Hrothgar]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I think you owe this site an explanation as to what is so funny about people of different skin colour choosing to mix it up sexually.

I owe this site nothing.  I owe you nothing.  I have looked at your posts and your specialism is distorting other people's positions and winding people up.  You also like to throw in some foul language now and again.  Presumably you think it makes you look 'edgy'.  

SocialistPunk wrote:

All the genetic science in the world does not support the ideology of racism, I'm sure most genetic scientists would be appalled that their their work is used to justify segregation.

You are absolutely right.  Genetic science does not support racism.  All you need to do now is go back and find somewhere in this thread where I suggested it does.  Can you?  No, you can't, because I've not suggested that, either explicitly or implicitly.  What I have suggested is that genetic science may support the existence of races among human beings.  I think you'll find there is qualified support for that type of assertion among genetic scientists.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As I mentioned on the other thread, my partners best friend married a British guy of Afro-Caribbean descent, and they have a child. Is that funny? Is their wonderful son a biological corruption, to be laughed at?

No, I don't.  Now, I've answered your question, I'd like someone to explain why it is seen as OK for me to be insulted on here, and why it is OK for people on here to joke about disabilities.  Can you?Unlike people such as you, I don't personalise these issues and I don't ridicule and insult others just because I disagree with them.  I'll leave those tactics to you and your friends on here.  There are quite a few of you on here aren't there, by the way?  About eight of you on my case now.  Gosh, does it really take that many?What I do find laughable is the abandonment of a genetic line and a racial identity that, for the most part, has existed for thousands of years, as if it just amounts to nothing.  It isn't just 'nothing'.  But mine is a hollow laugh, because in truth it's deeply disturbing how people devalue indigenous identities.  What I also find disturbing is the idea that we should ignore evidence that suggests that other cultures are civilisationally inferior and begin race-mixing, thus reducing the quality of our gene pool – in short, a programme of dysgenics – in the name of some specious interpretation of 'equality'.  What I further find disturbing is that we should be encouraged to abandon these identities and become a mixed-racial mass of consumers or workers.  That is not a future I want.  I think we should be allowed to live in societies that have real solidarity and in which individuals are entitled to make more informed decisions about who they mix with.  You characterise this as 'racism', using the term as a pejorative.  I characterise this as self-determination.  If people want to move outside the group and mix with other racial groups, that's one thing, but I oppose the idea that mixing should be propagandised and promoted as a good in itself.  I think there are good social reasons why human beings are tribal.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As it stands now Hrothgar, you come across as a racial supremacist. That may not be the actual truth, I'm hopeful you are not, but the above quote of yours is a very crude departure from your use of science to justify segregation and is essentially the heart of the matter with racial supremacists. Socially driven fear and dislike of others who outwardly appear different.

You make use of dysphemisms to characterise my position.  I could just as easily say that I am a 'racial sovereigntist', in that I believe all of humanity's cultural groups should enjoy self-determination.  Is that a nicer word for you?  In any case, I am not, politically-speaking, a supremacist but you're using 'supremacism' as a dirty word when in fact all living creatures are supremacist.  Really, all you're doing is throwing slogans at me.  I could combat it by using 'nicer' words and try to finesse you, but what would be the point?  Your insertion of the word 'supremacist', just like the use of the word 'racist', is designed to distract attention.  Specifically, you don't want people to see that you don't have an argument.  That doesn't mean I am right or correct.  The absence of a coherent and informed argument from your side does not prove I am right.  I could still be wrong and you could still be right.  Or, we could both be wrong.  Or we could both be right in some way.  Or, any combination of these, but the root of the matter is that history shows human beings are tribal and there is scientific support for the existence of racial types among human beings.  You and your friends have done nothing to disprove this.  There is also a political case for racial determination due to the benefits of homogenous cultures.  That is a political position arguable either way.  

SocialistPunk wrote:

As to the idea that Tom Rogers rang rings around us on a previous thread, he failed to answer the invitation to do the test that Ed provided and TWC unraveled his science very effectively, so effectively he failed to reply.

This is not true.  I think you are more occupied with trying to insult and 'shout' at others and declare yourself the 'victor' in online altercations than in actually understanding other people's positions.  If you wish to impoverish yourself that way, that's your choice.  Looking at this from the sidelines, it seems to me that Tom Rogers was perfectly civil and replied to all of the points put to him.  If he departed the discussion, that is not an acknowledgement of the strength of any argument put to him.  He may just have been sick of your hysterical and insultive manner.  I am growing reluctant myself to return to this thread, as it's becoming unpleasant.  I hoped for a grown-up discussion with intelligent people, but instead I have encountered a foul-mouthed rabble of closed-minded people.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I do not have the energy at the moment to get bogged down with a debate that will ultimately just go back and forth, with nothing to be gained by anyone, but I do think we may get somewhere if you could explain your above comment and maybe try the test: let us know your result.

You must realise that's a silly comment.  If you don't want to debate, then why are you posting here?  You're just acting like a five year old.  Wouldn't it be easier on you and everyone else if you just ignore this thread?  And I've already explained why the 'test' is silly.

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Hrothgar wrote:

Notice the quick slippage into ad hominen for want of any meaningful response or rebuttal.Notice also the nasty reference to disabilities and the belief that this is humorous.What are you underneath?

Black! Just like you.It's not a 'skin colour', after all, is it, my confused friend!

We are not 'black' underneath, but I imply from this you think that because, in all probability, modern humans are descendent from humans who were in what is now called 'Africa' that this means we are all 'black' or 'African' in origin.  It doesn't.  It's just that you don't really know what you're talking about. 

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

We are not 'black' underneath, but I imply from this you think that because, in all probability, modern humans are descendent from humans who were in what is now called 'Africa' that this means we are all 'black' or 'African' in origin. It doesn't. It's just that you don't really know what you're talking about.

We are not 'white' underneath, either, by the same logic. We're all the same human species.As for me 'not really knowing what I'm talking about', then we could be twins! Snap, comrade!

[Alex Woodrow]

 

Alex Woodrow wrote:

So dweenlander you are a reformist then?

dweenlander wrote:

No, just capable of nuance. And if you are going to make the transition from being a socialist purely by instinct to being one by instinct and intellect, it is something you too will have to embrace.I genuinely admire you zeal, but you need to engage your critical faculties. I would suggest that you think about your post and either accept that your remarks were, at best, ill chosen, or explain how you have come to those determinations. 

I have come to these determinations because Obama is sending troops in Afghanistan which kills innocent people, Obama keeps Guantanamo Bay open, Hitler says he's a socialist Obama says yes we can to equality. Then what happened? Hitler works with multinational corporations such as the coca cola company and siemens for slave labour and gassing inncoent human beings, while in America poverty and inequality stays really high.When Benn was in government vast amounts of mines shut and vast amounts of people were made redundant in all industries, same as when Thatcher was in power.Churchill sends innocent people out to die in war while Blair sends innocent people out to die in war. Before you ask we didn't need to go to world war two, whoever says we do it is wrong because what the UK should have done is become socialist and said to the ordinary German people, the majority of the population that socialism is the alternative to a great depression and to a nazi state. Then since most German people weren't raving nazis democracy would have triumphed, the aboliton of the wages system would have happened and socialism would have been implemented and there would have been peace.

[dweenlander]

Alex Woodrow,Obama’s abject failure, even within the context of the bourgeois liberalism he embodied as a candidate, has been tragic; but to equate his presidency with Hitler’s dictatorship is either obscene or dumb. As to equating Benn with Thatcher on the basis of his role in the failure of the Wilson/Callaghan governments to defend “King Coal” versus her government’s (and her personal) desire to crush extra-parliamentary working class opposition through the use of paramilitary police operations and the promotion of mass unemployment, I hardly know where to begin, except to say that I do see an entirely consistent pattern to the views you have expressed.The Blair-Churchill one I’ll happily give you, at least from the perspective that neither of them, as human beings or as politicians, appear to have had any interest in the lives of the poor and the working class beyond the abilities of those groups to generate surplus value. I can’t really do much with your comments on Britain and Germany during the ‘30s except to note that your utopian-counterfactualism is a poor substitute for a genuine historical argument. This is a rather sad irony, as your passionate socialism makes you part of a broad movement which has been responsible for the creation of an awesome and powerful historiographical tradition.  You appear to be operating, as I noted above, within an entirely consistent pattern of argument. Essentially, you appear to be an autonomist operating within an entirely black-and-white intellectual and moral framework; your view being that anybody who has ever held an elite position within the capitalist system is the same as any other individual who has ever held a similar position, and that their actions are entirely and perfectly equatable. I take some heart from John Holloway’s remarks that anti-capitalist opposition is “and must be polymorphous, polyvocal, polylogical, necessarily discordant”, but I fear that your current intellectually closed-off arguments are going to make for very sterile debates as you get older.     

[steve colborn]

That Labour shut more pits than Thatchers tories is indisputable. Whether the claim that pits were worked out, or uneconomic, was used by both Labour and Tory. Neither had the interests of workers at the forefront of their minds.To credit either of these anti-working class organisations with putting workers first first, would be infantile, as this is to easy to disprove.That A W's argument may be seen as "simplistic" is irrelevant. His main crux, is that all of the people he cites, do not have the interest of workers at heart. Benn, Churchill, Hitler, Wilson, Obama, Thatcher, Mussolini, Callaghan, all the same anti working class shit.It is of no consequence, or validity, to say that they are not of equal opposition in their actions against workers interests, the "opposition" is the primary importance.The point being made is, that anyone giving their willing support to Capitalism, deserves our unreserved hostility, and opposition.I do not give a shit whether it is, "friend of workers" Benn, Hardy, Ramsey Mcdoughnut, or avowed opponents of our class, Thatcher, Raygun, Bush, Obama. They are all the same, two faced, rip off bastards, we should oppose.I would ask you, Dweenlander, in view of your post, what are your political offiliations? Left wing of the capitalist supporting plethora, or an anti-capitalist Socialist/Communist? Steve Colborn.

[SocialistPunk]

Hrothgar wrote:

I owe this site nothing. I owe you nothing. I have looked at your posts and your specialism is distorting other people's positions and winding people up. You also like to throw in some foul language now and again. Presumably you think it makes you look 'edgy'.

Hi Hrothgar, sorry you feel that way. You are right you owe nothing to anyone on this site and we are free to disagree. I was only trying to understand why you would make an insulting statement about laughing at children and grandchildren, mixing with Africans and Asians, from your words below. You are of course free to try to divert attention from your flaws, by labeling my use of your words as distortion. But you still wrote them, and still fail to explain them.

Hrothgar wrote:

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].

That is all that concerned me. Yet you now claim to be the injured party and seem to have a handle on my character. As you joined just recently, you must have been following this site for some time or perhaps have contributed under a different name. But that is of little importance. I was not that aware of my "edgy" use of colorful language, but you seem to know me better than myself. Perhaps you picture me with a red mohawk, big boots, a crusty jacket adorned with anarchy symbols, snarling at everything? Is that "edgy" enough?I have never ever made any statement supporting any homogenous mixing of humans to satisfy some socialist communal agenda. In all my previous years in the party and watching from without, I have never heard a socialist from the SPGB make any such claims either. That is a view from someone who doesn't really understand our position. As a socialist it is my desire to see humans freed from the constraints of capitalism. If that ever happens then it will be up to the people to decide how they wish to live. In fact I can perceive the flourishing of cultural identities, that are now in danger of disappearing because of the pressures of capitalism. Perhaps then we would discover if people really want to mix only with others of similar skin colour.As for me not wanting to debate, that was not my goal here. We obviously disagree on a number of things and may never reach a common ground. I could dig out counter research and you could do likewise and on and on etc. My goal was to see if you would be willing to explain your insulting statement.But you decline, fair enough.As for the "silly" game, of matching the faces to racial groups. It is simply an exercise to show how outward appearance tells us little of who a person is. To know what "race" a person may belong to before we decide to engage with them would require showing one another a genetic passport, listing all physical characteristics. But some already do base such decisions on outward physical appearance that is so often flawed. The test/game demonstrates this in a simple way. But you seem to have missed the point. Again that is your choice. As for your distortion about Tom Rogers just being shouted at. If you read TWC's last post on that thread, you will see that TWC made quite an effort to methodically unravel Tom's position. TWC did not shout or swear, yet Tom did not reply. Perhaps he did not like having his views scrutinised in such depth.I do not seek "victory" over anyone, in your case I seek an explanation, an understanding if you like.I ask once more, will you explain what is so amusing about people choosing to "mix with Africans and Asians"?

Hrothgar wrote:

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].

    

[dweenlander]

Steve Colborn,The main crux, as you put it, of Alex Woodrow’s argument was that Obama is as bad as Hitler, and that Benn is as bad as Thatcher – they were his exact words. His post made no mention of whether any of them put the interests of the working class first. Had he made that argument he would have been on firm ground and I would have left his comment/argument alone.By the way, my post has been flagged as offensive. You are clearly more experienced on this site than I am, would you happen to know why that might be?Also, in view of my post, as you put it, which merely calls for a little intellectual engagment before sweeping statements are made, what do you think my political affiliations are? As your question rather implies you already have a view. 

[ALB]

dweenlander wrote:

By the way, my post has been flagged as offensive. You are clearly more experienced on this site than I am, would you happen to know why that might be?

I noticed that too and so has one from AlexW. I can't see why in either case but any forum member can flag any post. Whether the moderator takes any notice is another matter. In any event it will be some forum member not the moderator who will have done this.

[steve colborn]

I entirely agree with ALB, I cannot see any reason why your post was flagged as offensive, for anyone to think so, is churlish and not a little infantile.As to my opinion on your political affiliations, I have no pre-concieved preconceptions. I merely ask because of this," As to equating Benn with Thatcher on the basis of his role in the failure of the Wilson/Callaghan governments to defend “King Coal” versus her government’s (and her personal) desire to crush extra-parliamentary working class opposition through the use of paramilitary police operations and the promotion of mass unemployment, I hardly know where to begin, ".That the history of Labour anti working class actions is irrefutable and part of public record is beyond refute. From usung troops to break strikes (firemen), to using legislation to enforce wage restraint, (first time ever), to setting up the police Special Patrol Group to intimidate strikers and use as "snatch squads" to grab "ringleaders" on the picket lines. I could go on but you get the picture. So in my eyes, phoney Benn "is" the equal of Thatcher.From your quote above it would appear this is not a view you share! Personally, I am not interested in your political affiliations but merely asked as a means of clarification. If my question upset or irked you, I unreservedly apologise, as such was not my intent.YFS Steve Colborn.

[Author]

Posts