Hrothgar
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Note to Moderators – there may be an issue with formatting of posts into paragraphs. It's evident in my most recent post and also that of another contributor.
alanjjohnstone wrote:“people will organise themselves on both class and racial/cultural lines and that there is an interaction between the two aspects of identity. ” i think if you ask ant real estate agent for the motive the answer will be property investment potential.And on what basis are judgements about ‘property investment potential’ made? What is the root of this?
alanjjohnstone wrote:it was not my intention to misrepresent you. .. you want to have modish views and impress people with your ’empathy’. If you call for integration, then you are calling for the eradication of indigenous cultures, for the genetic displacement of a unique people, and for people to be generally pushed around. ” Of course its not misrepresentation of my views to impose your own interpretation on them!You think people should integrate, don’t you? If not, then deny it. But if that’s what you do think, then what have you to complain about? There is no misrepresentation here.
alanjjohnstone wrote:“but by the end of the nineteenth century they [the Irish]were fully integrated” Not from Scotland , are you? Yes, mostly integrated except in a few towns, but your not aware of the official Church of Scotland propsal to deport the Irish back to Irealnd in the 1930s , are you? http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/06/give-orange-lodge-their-marching-orders.html?q=church+o+scotland+irish+catholicsRight, so you admit that they ARE integrated. So you basically admit that I am right about this point, but you can’t admit it explicitly. You don’t have the honesty to do that, so you try and muddy the waters and keep banging on about fringe Irish issues. Ok, fair enough, but they are largely integrated, so I am correct that the Irish are a bad example for this discussion. The reason you keep mentioning them is because you don’t want to discuss the obvious fact that alien immigrants into Britain in the last sixty years have largely NOT integrated. That’s empiracal evidence of your wrongness, so it’s a no-go area in this discussion.
alanjohnstone wrote:Q: You point out that at one point the Irish were known as “white Negroes” and black people were referred to as “smoked Irish.” What did those terms reflect?A: They reflected the scorn and disdain with which both were regarded by the better situated, by the leading elements of American society. There was speculation that there would be some “amalgamation,” that is, that Irish and black would blend into each other and become one common people. That didn’t happen; in fact, the opposite happened. How the Irish Became White by Noel IgnatievYes, this is what I mean by the interaction between class and identity, and the persistence of tribalism and ‘divisionism’ as a natural impulse. There are examples of this all over the case. Another example would be the reference in the present-day United States to poor English (and other Anglophones) as ‘white Mexicans’. The term is superficially racial in nature, but in reality it refers to socio-economic status.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Black Irish, a term similar to Bog Irish, used in a derogatory and racist manner. There is also leprecoon and shanty Irish. In America’s class system pecking order that saw some Irish labelled as ‘black’. http://www.pitt.edu/~hirtle/uujec/white.html “Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as “Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish.” A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.” Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.”Why do you think it is that, in spite of this, the Irish were, in time, able to integrate into American society while ordinary blacks largely remain segregated to this day? It would be nice to have an explanation from you about this other than just that you think people are racist.
alanjjohnstone wrote:i also refer you to a post on the party blog http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/10/one-world-one-people.html#more A racist white union leaders’ testimony before the Louisiana state legislature following a 1907 strike:‘I guess before long you’ll call us nigger-lovers, too. Maybe you want to know next how I would like it if my sister married a nigger? I wasn’t always a nigger-lover. I fought in every strike to keep black labour off the dock. I fought until in the white-supremacy strike your white-supremacy governor sent his white-supremacy militia and shot us white-supremacy strikers full of holes. You talk about us conspiring with niggers. But let me tell you and your gang, there was a time when I wouldn’t even work beside a nigger. You made me work with niggers, eat with niggers, sleep with niggers, drink out of the same water bucket with niggers, and finally got me to the point where if one of them blubbers something about more pay, I say, ‘Come on, nigger, let’s go after the white bastards.’”It seems that integration didn’t work very well in this case. Do you think it will work better in Britain?
alanjjohnstone wrote:During a 1910 strike by the Brotherhood of Timberworkers (BTW), the lumber operators’ association tried to use blacks as strike breakers and baited the BTW for violating the norms of Southern society with its 50 percent black membership‘The BTW takes the Negro and protects him and his family along with the white wage worker and his family on an industrial basis. As far as we, the workers of the South, are concerned, the only “supremacy” and “equality” they [the employers] have ever granted us is the supremacy of misery and the equality of rags … No longer will we allow the Southern oligarchy to divide and weaken us on lines or race, craft, religion, and nationality.’Moving back to Britain, and the present day, I have a few questions for you that arise from the theme in the above passage. Do you think that ordinary British workers (or workers in Britain, if you prefer) benefit from mass immigration? If so, please explain how. Do you think that mass immigration, and with it the displacement of white people, assists in building class consciousness? If so, please explain how this happens. I’m referring here not to your pet theories, but to what happens in the real world and to real people. The migrants who move here are not class conscious and have no regard for the interests of the working class in the international sense. I accept that what is called ‘racism’ is often really just the expression of alienation among workers as to their plight in being denied jobs in a particularly fluid form of capitalism. That being the case, why does this alienation not lead workers in larger numbers to enlightenment about capitalism and consciousness about their class interests? You think it is because of ‘racism’, and that racial propaganda (and other forms of capitalist propaganda) keeps people from seeing their own interests. It divides the working class into artificial categories, so on. On the face of it, this seems cogent. However, we have just spent a large part of this discussion considering whether race exists at all. It seems to me, whatever the truth of the matter, in the real world you have won that argument resoundingly. I would maintain that people are impulsively tribal, hence the phenomenon of ‘white flight’ and the soft apartheid I refer to whereby large swathes of ethnic minority groups live in their own distinct ghettoes and communities and are not integrated. I raise these points not because I doubt the socialist argument that reactionary racism divides the working class – to the contrary, I accept it and I consider it to be truth – but because I question the wisdom of giving support, as you do, to social forces that divide workers rather than unite them. I also accept people are not race conscious in considerable numbers. There is a propaganda campaign in operation: in the workplace, in public spaces, in schools and so on, which supports mixed-racial integration. That campaign is working. Very few people articulate themselves in racial terms now, even in private conversations, and even in the sanctity of their own homes – even in their own heads. This is what you wanted, isn’t it? Well, you’ve got it – but that leaves us with a puzzle. People still will not integrate fully, despite all your bullying, threats and assaults to make them. Maybe this is because mixed-racialism is a regressive rather than a progressive social phenomenon, its true purpose being to promote the fluidity of capital regardless of human nature, and so (as I explained above) it can only worsen alienation among the working class while leading nowhere in the revolutionary sense. You think it will, but I doubt it. ‘False consciousness’ will not disappear just because human races disappear. The capitalists will just find other ways to divide people, and if anything, it will be easier. Having accepted the repressive measures of mixed-racialism, people will be all the softer and more pliable the next time round. I would argue that a mass of people who have no auchtonomous identity will be much easier to manipulate and control than a coherent , homogenous group. Conversely, it will also be harder to spread socialist consciousness among a group with no sense of identity or strong cultural reference points.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Take a look at the Roma thread i posted, while you are at it , how assumptions were so easily made that were turned out false…and how the real problem is submerged by racial stereotyping. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/romaI haven’t been following the story – I just assumed it was an extension of the Madeleine McCann carnival and ignored it. Having reviewed the news stories (albeit superficially), it seems to me my initial suspicions were correct. What these idiots are looking for is a little blonde girl. It’s an extension of a Zeitgeist story. In the case of the girl in Ireland, as soon as they realised their mistake, she was handed back. In the case of the girl in Greece, there is no explanation at the moment for the fact that the parents have a child with whom they are not biologically-related. Personally, I’m not very interested in any of it as I know it’s all driven by the silly media – but you’re wetting your pants about it all, so here’s a question for you: The idea of swarthy gypsies kidnapping nice white children is age-old folklore. Why do you think that might be?
admin wrote:MODERATION REMINDER: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.Any further posts in breach of this rule will be removed. Posters who repeatedly breach forum rules may have posting rights removed or suspended.If this is directed at me, then I have no problem with the remonstration and I accept the 'telling off'. However I will NOT apologise to the people concerned – they asked for it and they deserve it. I will abide by the Forum rules, but I am also entitled to expect the same from others who ought to know better but who repeatedly show contempt for others of differing views and who seem to think that this Forum is a place where they can abuse and insult unpopular contributors at will.
LBird wrote: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!
Threats of violence now? So you're a lout as well as a bigot?I know your arguments are lousy, but do you really have to stoop that low?Seriously, it's important that we don't make fun of people with 'special needs', so let me offer some solid advice.If you do suffer from 'anger management' issues, Alan will help you. He knows a thing or two about mental disorders and throwing hissy fits.Or you could just go to the annual Summer School – I hear they have punch-ups there. Being a bigoted lout, you should fit in.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Nope, i am not very bright…You're free to hold that view, but when I suggested you are not very bright, I was specific in my evaluation and explained why with reference to a dissection of one of your contributions to this thread. So, I back-up my views – a didactic habit of mine – I don't just go round calling people names like a silly teenage girl.[quote-alanjjohnstone]Narcissist – Reacts to criticism with anger, [/quote]OK, when have I reacted to criticism with anger? I'm also curious to know how you could surmise when I am angry, just from sitting behind a computer screen? Are you telepathic? No, so you must be able to point to specific posts where I have overtly conveyed anger, right? So let's see the evidence, or we might conclude you're just throwing a hissy fit.The only point in this discussion when I have actually become angry is when you referred to Anders Breivik and made a highly-dubious connection between him and anyone who has racial views. I think my anger at that point was quite understandable. You were just being silly.But I have not responded with anger to any criticism on here. I have replied equiniminously to criticism when put.
alanjjohnstone wrote:exaggerates own importance,Tell me where. Cite the relevant posts.
alanjjohnstone wrote:fantasies about intelligence,What I have said about intelligence as a concept is that blacks measure significantly lower IQs than other racial groups. This is a fact, not a fantasy.
alanjjohnstone wrote:lacks empathyThis is a bit vague. We can all say that someone else that we disagree with lacks 'empathy'. I could say that you lack empathy with the genuine concerns of millions of people whom you denounce, variously, as 'stupid' or 'racist' or whatever. When you say I lack empathy, what you really mean is that I have decided not to take your point of view, which is something you find irritating. Hence, in your limited mental world, I lack 'empathy'. The issue here is yours, in that like a child, you can't handle disagreement.
alanjjohstone wrote:But i do know that the existing segration is mostly not by race but by wealth…So there is racial segregation (albeit informal) and there are races? You admit this? If so, at least I've got some honesty out of you. I happen to agree with you that the wealth disparity is the most significant for people in their day-to-day lives and the more the ruling class goes down this road of increasing the wealth gap, the more obvious its contradictions will seem to ordinary people. However, the point I think you miss or choose to overlook is that there is an interaction between racial and class questions.
alanjjohnstone wrote: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.To my mind, these trends suggest that people will organise themselves on both class and racial/cultural lines and that there is an interaction between the two aspects of identity. What's wrong with people understanding their social relationship to the ruling class and being class consciousness while at the same time having an affinity and pride with their racial and cultural group? These are not contradictory positions.
alanjjohnstone wrote: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.That's fine, but it was not my intention to misrepresent you. I was really referring to the more general position you take and I was trying to make the point that integration is not some soft, fluffy word that absolves you of responsibility because you want to have modish views and impress people with your 'empathy'. If you call for integration, then you are calling for the eradication of indigenous cultures, for the genetic displacement of a unique people, and for people to be generally pushed around. How's that for 'empathy'?
alanjjohnstone wrote: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.The Irish are a bad example for your argument. They first started arriving in Great Britain in significant numbers during the Early Victorian era. Initially, they formed a distinct community but by the end of the nineteenth century they were fully integrated. The Irish were of course civically British during the entirety of this period. They were not racially alien and over one or two generations, found it relatively easy to meld into the greater mass of the population. The stock reference to 'Black Irish' had nothing to do with race. It was just a reference to the distinct 'Iberian' look of some Irish people. Do you have any evidence of widespread discrimination of people seen as 'Black Irish'? I am sure there was some, just as there is discrimination against working class people generally, or people from Yorkshire, or women, or whatever…the list is endless. But what we're discussing here is integration. It's apparent that the Irish integrated successfully, while other ethnic and racial groups have not. There are reasons for this, which you are in denial about. The more you keep bringing up these stock examples referenced by your limited, pop understanding of things, the more exposed are the flaws in your viewpoint.But keep going – I'm enjoying myself.
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 wrote:Hrothgar wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote: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.
alanjjohnstone wrote: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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"APARTHEID""We already have this. Have you been outside recently?" I have already made it clear that i couldn't care a toss if there exists a race or not. Hrothgar could for all i care prove that neanderthal genes predominate in some communities (In 52 Clapham High St has raised that possibility !!). What my issue is the political implications of his supposed solutions. Forever claiming his accuracy we have him insisting that we in the UK (and Europe) practice apartheid….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa Yes I have looked outside…I see no white only – black only signs for buses or train carriages. I see no pass laws regulating where someone lives or travel. I do see however government attempts to eliminate discrimination, not formalise it into law. I also see an economic system that is more concerned witht the colour of someone's money than the colour of his skin.You clearly don't know what apartheid is, so allow me to provide some clarification on the subject. First, apartheid is not the same as racial separatism. Apartheid is more about racial subjugation within the same society, and so there is a class element, whereas racial separatism, when considered properly, is the sovereignty of a racial group within its own discrete territory.In South Africa – the genetic origin of the term 'apartheid' – the blacks (in basic terms) were the servants and workers for the whites. This did take place alongside a kind of racial separation proper (i.e. the puppet ethno-enclaves that were established for blacks), but those micro-states were principally retreats for a black workforce that continued to serve mainstream South African society, and so the main feature and principle of apartheid remained.Now, I hope, you can see why I ascribe the term 'apartheid' to British society. I am using the term generically, yes, but also technically to convey the nature of a society that is, in effect, a failed racial experiment along impliedly similar lines to the failed racial experiment of apartheid South Africa. The apartheid regime in South Africa deserved to fall, and so does the 'soft apartheid' regime in Britain and other Western countries.
alanjjohnstone wrote:No, there are no apartheid laws, no Jim Crow laws….this is exactly what Brian accuses you of wishing to create and what I have also accused you of advocating.I wish to create no such thing.
alanjjohnstone wrote:You are on a trajectory of a self-fulfilling prophecy. While socialists recognise and highlight the dangers of racism and bigotry affecting workers solidarity and hindering the struggle for socialism, you wish to inflame racism and turn worker against worker. And then in all your glory point the finger and declare…"see, I told you so… race war not class war…"So workers cannot decide for themselves now? I may or may not be a bigot or prejudiced personally, but actually, it is not my intention to fire up hatred or bigotry in anyone else. My genuine motive is to see a society that people want to live in and in which people have self-direction in their lives. I also think you need to stop to consider what harm the enforcement of a mixed-racial society might do to racial relations. Is 'racism' caused by people who are racist, as you suggest? Or is racism caused by things that happen in society, including (among other things) the way that people are in a society? The first proposition seems a little circular to me. It's the second proposition that makes sense. That being the case, can racial consciousness and reactionary racism just be put down to false consciousness, or are these views – whether or not benefiting capitalism – a reflection of the way people are and the way human societies work?
alanjjohnstone wrote:You continually claim some sort of libertarian credential but to achieve your chosen future means authoritarian and oppressive acts of coercion. You deny any political affiliation with Nazis and Klansmen but these are your bedfellows. To them, you are what is commonly referred to as a useful idiot.Well, I don't claim any "libertarian credential", though to be honest, I am not altogether sure what you mean by that. There is no credential in an intellectual position. You either think it or you don't. We have no choice here but to take each other at face value. For my part, I have no problem with accepting you as a sincere and genuine socialist and a man of good intentions. I don't need to inspect your credentials or prove anything to me.For the record, I am not a libertarian. I regard libertarianism, in both its genuine 'Left' form and its fake 'Right' form, as juvenile, though I do have considerable respect for the liberatarian socialism espoused by Chomsky. However, notwithstanding my regard for Chomsky's political position, I don't consider it possible to have a society without some kind of natural hierarchy, and I think it is both dangerous and inquitous to work to eradicate natural differences among human beings. I think this point is being demonstrated right now, for real, in our society, as I type this. However, I do believe in what might be loosely termed 'social autonomy' and I think a society based on autonomous principles is possible. I realise that's pretty vague and generalised, but it's as far as I am willing to discuss my own distinct ideas for now. What I will say is that any future I can project now is always going to be speculative. I know that a coherent and workable society must have degrees of reasoned authority and coercion, but the existence of those attributes does not and need not imply or necessitate oppression.You say that "Nazis" [sic] and "Klansmen" are my "bedfellows" and that I am a "useful idiot". That may well be the case, but it says nothing as to the validity or accuracy of my own views. In a sense, we are all "bedfellows" and "useful idiots" for somebody somewhere. To point out as much is a little like telling me that the sky is normally a shade of blue, or the point made by your colleague about "divisional politics", somehow something different from other politics. I don't like the association with neo-Nazis and other apologists for German National Socialism. The Hitler regime was brutal and committed atrocities. (So were and did, the Allies, but I realise that's not the point). Nor do I like the association with stato-Nationalists, most of whom have very reactionary views across a range of social issues, views that I do not share, but if I have to wear that stain, then I will.
LBird wrote:Since I've been both, I'd rather share my views about you, something that I've never been: you're a racist.And it's not meant as a compliment, you tool. I'm downright prejudiced about your 'special needs', dimwit.I've had you sussed from the start, when you refused to engage with our reasonable questions and listen to our explanations of why your statements are nonsensical drivel, and why you idiotically hold to them. You've just kept reiterating your unthinking racial bullshit.Why don't you just go and talk to someone who's likely to listen to your fairy stories, uncritically? Someone who has no experience of the world, neither as a soldier nor as a student.I think you need to calm down. You're losing control of yourself, and frankly, you're making yourself look a bigot and a fool.As far as I can tell, I have answered each and every point put to me, as reasonably and as articulately as I can manage. I have also 'listened' to all the replies and I have taken on board certain comments where appropriate. Where I disagree, I have explained why I disagree. You may not like my reasons for disagreeing, but that's no reason to insult me like a spoilt child, is it.So, when you say I have "refused to engage with [your] reasonable questions and listen to [your] explanations", you are not being entirely truthful, are you.If I have missed anyone's questions or points, then you should feel free to highlight this with specificity. I will then go back and deal with the points. However, no-one has informed me of any such omission.
