Government launches “Immigrants, go home” campaign

[steve colborn]

Oh, by the way, just remembered. What of Tones involvement in the locking up striking dockers post war and the acquisition of Britains independent nuclear deterrent. Strange that a self appointed stalwart of the workers would get involved, in any way, with these two bits of anti working class action. Oh I forgot he's not involved cos he can put it down to others and thereby escape an accusation of complicity. Ain't that a doosy.YFS Steve Colborn.

[steve colborn]

The whole quote is, "That the history of Labour anti working class actions is irrefutable and part of public record is beyond refute. From using 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"Therefore, I was contextually and historically correct to eventually say, Benn is as anti working class as Thatcher. YFS Steve Colborn.

[dweenlander]

Okay, my son is eager to play Minecraft with me, so I will limit this post to its essentials. I have been pretty patient with your ludicrous line of assertion (because it certainly wouldn’t make the grade as argument), but the remark “Benn is as anti-working class as Thatcher” is utterly moronic. This off-shoot of the thread we are in is clearly going nowhere. Your blunt historical and political illiteracy is not something I can argue with. So you win. The world is just as you say it is. You can now back to shouting at the wind. Cheers. 

[alanjjohnstone]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/07/us/north-dakota-white-only-town/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+(RSS%3A+Most+Recent) How glad am i that it isn't the Leith i lived in!

[ALB]

I agree that anyone who takes on responsibility for adminstering capitalism will have to act, and take responsibility for, against the interests of capitalism. So it doesn't matter whether they are saints or psychopaths. Even so, I can't bring myself to say that Benn (or anyone else) was as bad as Thatcher. After all, when she snuffed it, all of us here danced on her grave including Steve even though this was quite illogical.

[steve colborn]

If one was to support using troops against striking firemen, the foundation of the SPG, the starting of Britains independent nuclear deterrent, arresting then imprisoning striking dockers, supporting a world war, by fighting in it, for the Capitalists who rule the land mass one inhabits and doing harm to other workers, what would you be deemed as? oh yeah, a working class supporting doyen and grandee. Bennites might not like it, but there you are.So you reckon my line of assertion is ludicrous, that my remark re Benn is utterly moronic, that I am historically and politically illiterate. That I shout at the wind? Well if you persist in talking out of your arse, I will continue to shout at the resultant effluvia that emanates from your rear end.I will let you, go back to kneeling at the shrine of Saint Benn, as he obviously accrued no blame from the anti working class actions, governments he was intimately involved in carried out.It is myself, who has exhibited patience to your overweening worship of your better, Benn. Hope you are happy m8.Steve Colborn.

[Brian]

dweenlander wrote:

ALB,Yes, it really is. It relates primarily to the work of post-war Marxist theorists and their often dismissive attitudes towards post-war Marxist historiography which challenged their notion of a revolutionary working class. E.P Thompson’s Poverty of Theory was a particularly bad-tempered, although brilliant, jeremiad aimed at theoreticians in this debate. I am eager to move my analysis and understanding in this area forward, and I would be hugely appreciative of future discussions on this and other areas of theory with you and other comrades.  

The ball is in your court in this respect.  Just set up the thread and I for one hope it turns out to be a positive discussion.  With this thread well and truly off topic need I say more?

[PJShannon]

Can all forum users please take note of Rule 7 "You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages."

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

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!

But that's ridiculous.  The lack of logic here is found in your reasoning, which, just to paraphrase you, is as follows:-Because some hominids probably originated in the geographic area now known as Africa that must mean we are all black underneath because, afterall, most people in today's Africa are black.  That's the infantile level on which you conduct this debate.  In fact, to call this 'reasoning' is an insult to the common toad.

[Hrothgar]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Where have I insulted you?  Nowhere.  So when you refer to an "insulting statement", you're attaching an interpretive value to a statement of mine and taking vicarious offence on behalf of others for your own purposes.  I think it's safe to say that is a typical low-brow tactic of anti-racists.  Now, why do they do that I wonder?  You mention nothing about the insults hurled at me by Messrs. Johnstone and Buick or the reference to "special needs" by LBird.  I only reluctantly mention that behaviour, as I recognise its didactic irrelevance.  Insultive or offensive statements do not affect the validity of any arguments made.  My objection in this case is to the obvious inability of my opponents to tolerate different ideas and perspectives and the readiness to resort to insults and distortions in lieu of any reasoned argument.You are also wrong when you suggest I have not explained myself.  I have already explained my comments, in the very post you are quoting from, but I will develop the point further here.  I believe race-mixing is dysgenic due to the mean average differences in fluid intelligence between racial populations, and for a number of other reasons which I won't labour.  It is also socially-harmful and actually makes a socialist society less likely.  If I find all that laughable, then it is a hollow laugh.  In truth, there is nothing funny about it.  What I do find funny is the tendency for certain people to closet themselves from the realities of human nature and preach to others about their behaviour while practising otherwise.  How many non-white members does the SPGB have?  None is my guess.  How many of you have married non-whites?  My guess is: very few of you, if any.  And if you haven't married a non-white person, why?  I am also aware that several of your prominent members live in comfortable, leafy, and very white areas.  I do find hypocrisy very funny, especially when it emanates from the pens and lips of the pious and self-righteous.  However, I am also sufficiently fair-minded to admit that the presence of hypocrisy – and it's certainly present here – does not invalidate your position.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

I am familiar with the SPGB's arguments about socialism and its meaning and the SPGB's critique of capitalism.  You'll have to accept my word that I understand all of it and I agree with almost-all of it.  I have been reading your publications for years and I understand the anti-Leninist socialist current.  I also understand the SPGB's position on race matters and multi-culturalism.  My contention is that the two issues are linked.  You cannot be dismissive of race as a comparator and at the same time critique multi-culturalism as a force for capitalism.  I accept that neither you, nor the SPGB, supports multi-culturalism (mixed-racialism), but in this case the absence of support does not make for opposition.  In reality, you are supportive of these developments, or at least don't mind what is happening, which for all intents and purposes amounts to the same thing.  You believe (I think mistakenly) that a mixed-race society will assist you by evacuating the racial and ethnic basis of nation-states.  I disagree.  I think there is no helpful link between the two developments and I think your soft and passive adherence to anti-racism is little more than left-wing fetishism.  You haven't really thought-through these issues.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

In that case, we are in agreement on a large number of points.  The differences between us are that:-(i). I see racism/tribalism/nationalism [whatever terminology you care for] as a positive good that is worth preserving.  You dismiss these points as an irrelevancy for now, but you think social identities may arise again in some form in the future.  That's a little incoherent on your part.  These identities are either valid or not.  (ii). I believe any attempt to suppress tribal impulses is inherently undemocratic and repressive and cannot work.  I am not clear what you think about this, but my impression is that you think the repression is fine as long as it's European identity that is being suppressed.  If it's some non-white aboriginal identity, then I suspect you'd become quite righteous about the matter, without recognising your own inconsistency (i.e. hypocrisy).  Of course, you won't admit that on here, but we both know this kind of hypocrisy exists in abundance and it's surely not unreasonable for me to ascribe it to you and your colleagues.(iii). I believe that race is more than skin colour.  This is the most important difference between us.  Your (and the SPGB's position) is pseudo-scientific and would be laughed-at by most scientists.  Race is not simply a matter of skin colour.  That is just false.  My position is closer to the scientific mainstream, but not quite the same.  The mainstream position is that evidence for rigid racial types is conflicting, but evidence does exist in the form of racial patterning in the genome, and racial analysis is of some limited value and has practical applications.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

I have now answered that twice, above and in a previous post.Regarding your point on the value of 'debate', the interesting thing is that if we both started a new thread on here and went over to JSTOR and what have you and dug out the research, you'd probably win the debate.  In fact, I'm sure you'd 'win' (if that's the right way to see a 'debate').  That's because the body of research on this subject is directed in a certain way that is socially-informed.  This assumes of course that you have some understanding of the science and that you are willing to make the necessary concession that racial types exist genomically.  However, even as the 'victor', you'd still have to acknowledge that what you're not able to do is contradict my core claims that: (a). race exists as a genomic and social reality; and, (b). despite the best efforts of capitalism, most people still align according to socio-racial categories.  These points are near-irrefutable and their significance defies anything else of substance you might throw at me (though I admit there is substance against aspects of my position).

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Well, first I disagree that outward appearance tells us little of who a person is.  Outward appearance tells those who bother to look a great deal about us.  Of course: (i). it doesn't tell us everything; and (ii). we shouldn't be too hasty in our assumptions; and (iii). our observations may only yield information of a provisional nature.  But to say that outward appearance tells us "little" is as silly as the suggestion it tells us everything.  A moment's thought and a little human observation teaches us the value of outward judgements.  Much of human life is based on it and the world would – and will – be a poorer place if we stop judging each other in this way.  We will lose an important element of human communication and mutual understanding.  This is yet one more reason why race-mixing is a bad thing.  It leads to unpleasant societies in which groups become isolated and individuated and it undermines togetherness and understanding between people.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

I think you are failing to understand a fundamental point.  I am not suggesting that we should all go round checking what race everybody else is just in case they might have a 'black' great-grandfather.  I am not a purist on the point in any case (though I accept some people who are, roughly-speaking, on my side of this are much more purist) .  Frankly, I could not care if you have a distant non-white relative because I accept that, putting aside the scientific debate, as a superstructural category race is a construct.  What I am talking about is the kind of society we want to live in.  I think it is self-evident that most people want to live among their own kind.  Can you refute that assertion?  I doubt it, and I think you'd be a fool to try. And just going back to the 'test – it's flawed and silly because it is structured to reinforce the programmer's own a priori conclusions.  If you want me to explain that in more detail with worked examples, I will, but this is Sixth Form-level stuff.  The point is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the landing page for the test.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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'm not distorting things, but look, it's 10 against 1 here so there's no point in going backwards and forwards.  It's obvious that just because someone switches-off their computer, that doesn't mean they have 'lost' a debate.  TWC's points are incomprehensible and he was asked by Tom Rogers for clarification, which was never produced.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I ask once more, will you explain what is so amusing about people choosing to "mix with Africans and Asians"?

See above and previous post.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

That's the infantile level on which you conduct this debate. In fact, to call this 'reasoning' is an insult to the common toad.

Ah-ha! Not if one is dealing with a racial sub-species of the 'common toad', the 'infantile common toad', Latin name Hrothgar simpletonus all-whytus.A little known fact.

[alanjjohnstone]

Do i hear the squawk of the Nazi parrot again?

[Hrothgar]

LBird wrote:

Ah-ha! Not if one is dealing with a racial sub-species of the 'common toad', the 'infantile common toad', Latin name Hrothgar simpletonus all-whytus.A little known fact.

You think we are all 'black underneath' and related to Africans – that's what you have stated on here, no?  This shows a complete ignorance of, or failure to understand, the basic science, or worse still, it demonstrates a determination to distort, twist and ignore facts to suit your prejudices.  I am very sorry to be the one who corrects you.  You are very welcome to call me a simpleton or whatever else you can throw-up from the gutter.  Like Buick and Johnstone, I hope you fill this thread with your insults and childish inanities.  That level of response is all you have when confronted with facts that are inconvenient.  

[Hrothgar]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do i hear the squawk of the Nazi parrot again?

Please keep these insults coming, so that others can draw their own conclusions.  It's all you have, as you lack arguments or even a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

[Hrothgar]

ALB wrote:

 Sorry you didn't find it useful to identity who your grandchildren should and should not be allowed to play with and later choose as sexual partners. The good news is that they will probably make up their own minds, as they should. The last laugh will be on you.

So the 'test' does carry an inherent biasing?  Thanks for confirming that.But why aren't you insulting me?  I'm disappointed and might ask for my money back if you don't post some childish insult.  I must say that given the lazy and dishonest standard of argument that abounds on here, the standard of trolling isn't what it should be. 

[Author]

Posts