Monday, 19 February 2007

Conspiracy Files: 9-11

Unfortunately, last night's The Conspiracy Files was complusive viewing for socialists. I say unfortunately because too many comrades have become seduced by conspiracy theorising around the events of September 11th. Of late some comrades (who will remain nameless to spare their blushes) have endorsed the conspiratorial point of view on the UKLN, claiming the biggest conspiracy leading us to believe they were the actions of a rag tag group of terrorists controlled by a guy hiding in a hole somewhere in Afghanistan. I know one comrade who's convinced the World Trade Centre buildings were demolished through controlled explosions, and I remember debating with a particularly obnoxious character (again on the UKLN) mere days after the event. He was already claiming the attacks were an inside job.

The BBC2 documentary was useful because it tackled the "inconsistencies" flagged by the consipracy theorists head on. It explains why air defence failed to intercept the jets on their fateful journey, rubbished claims that Jewish workers stayed away from the Twin Towers that morning, explained how the towers were able to collapse without the buildings' steel supports melting, and much else besides.

The three I want to focus on are the crash into the Pentagon, the collapse of WTC Building Seven, and the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

The crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon has attracted much attention as photographs of the hole in the building's exterior wall appears to be large enough just for the fuselage, but not the wings, engines or tail finns. This has lead those of a conspiratorial bent to speculate it was caused by a cruise missile or possibly a remote controlled drone aircraft. The evidence presented by the documentary proves these claims are unfounded. A simulation by a team of structural engineers at Purdue University shows how a commercial airliner can disintegrate when hitting a building composed of steel reinforced concrete pillars, like the Pentagon. There was also the small matter of the site being littered with aircraft debris, the numerous eye witnesses, and the fact that no conspiracy theorist has come up with the location of Flight 77 and its passengers if it was indeed a missile attack.

The collapse of WTC Building Seven is also a favourite among conspiracy theorists. According to The Conspiracy Files it was purposely demolished because the attack on the Twin Towers was coordinated from one of its government offices - the Office for Emergency Management, the CIA, or the Secret Service. The purpose was simply to cover up evidence for the conspiracy. Once again the claims do not stand up. During the attack the building was hit in several places by flaming wreckage that, in turn started a blaze on the 5th and 7th floors of the tower. These in turn were fuelled by the building's diesel tanks. Taken in conjunction with the debris damage the two account for the collapse. There was no controlled demolition.

Finally the crash of Flight 93 was due to it being shot down by the US airforce rather than an outcome of the struggle for control of the craft, or so argue the conspiracy lobby. Here they claim the pattern of debris is scattered over an area more consistent with a missile strike than a plane crash. Unfortunately for them, as the programme illustrated our conspiracy friends inputted the position of the main crater and a nearby debris field into an internet mapping engine and came up with the distance between the two points by road. These seven or eight miles are in fact just a mile as the crow flies. Ooops!

The Conspiracy Files confronted Dylan Thomas, director of the Loose Change "documentary" and one of the main movers behind the 9/11 internet conspiranoia. Faced with detailed rebuttals on building demolition by Popular Mechanics all he could muster in response was that the journal was not noted for its expert knowledge in structural engineering. This is quite ironic considering the howling errors pointed out by critics of his work.

I do not possess expert knowledge on the issues that exercise the conspiracy theorists, but then their explanations seem so wide of the mark. The narrative of four hijacked jets piloted by Islamic fundamentalists is the one that fits the established facts most clearly.

The final points made by the show were very useful. It highlights the real September 11th conspiracy - that the FBI and CIA claimed to know nothing when in fact they were aware something was in the offing. Another (not mentioned in the documentary) concerned the inept attempts to cover up deleterious health impacts on rescue and other workers in the vicinity so the district could be re-opened for business. You've got to ask yourself if government agencies couldn't cover up comparatively minor matters, how could they be expected to plan something as audacious as the September 11th attacks and make sure all evidence of their actions were efficiently suppressed?

Conspiracy theorising does have its uses - it probes official accounts and deeply scrutinises the words and actions of our masters. Sadly this comes hand in hand with a huge pile of stuff and nonsense. Significance is read into the slightest of discrepencies, and fantastical theories spun from the most meagre groundings in fact. More dangerously conspiracy theorising cuts against the materialist interpretation of history. It suggests a few powerful individuals are capable of determining the social course, that the profoundly alienating structures of contemporary human societies are plotted behind the scenes by big business, the illuminati, transdimensional lizards or little grey aliens. If only it were that simple. The truth of capitalist anarchy is no one is in control. Humanity is in thrall to the alien power of capital that stands above and beyond the command of any individual, group, multinational and government, despite being the result of the activity of our species. That we are on a rollercoaster without any brakes is a truth more terrifying than any shadow government.

38 comments:

The Sentinel said...

I would suggest 'political correctness' is a very real and present open conspiracy to subjugate us into accepting an undisputed marxist reality.

It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?”

The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany.-The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” (Which is, literally, just to criticise incessantly- our morals, our laws and our traditions) and “deconstruction.”

These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call ‘Political Correctness.’

The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.

The parallels between cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism areevident. Cultural Marxism, or ‘Political’ Correctness, shares with classical Marxism thevision of a “classless society” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.

Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced.

So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.

It is being imposed, simualauosly all around the western world.

As for 9/11, it could not have been carried out without extensive co-operation with at least oe secret service, US or otherwise.

Pinkie said...

Very Public says:

"Of late some comrades (who will remain nameless to spare their blushes) have endorsed the conspiratorial point of view on the UKLN, claiming the biggest conspiracy ...."

Actually, I think you should name them, preferably with party/group affiliations.

I say this as a means to lay to rest the myth that the left (as per ,say, Cohen's view)significantly holds the views attributed to them by him.

I don't expect to see much in the way of sensible proof / analysis, by the way.

There's afoolish challenge.

Phil said...

the sentinel wrote:

>I would suggest 'political >correctness' is a very real and >present open conspiracy to >subjugate us into accepting an >undisputed marxist reality.

You're mistaken. PC is in fact a polemical device dreamed up by the right (especially the right wing US punditocracy) to attack the gains made by women, blacks, LGBT people etc. since the late 1960s. It has since spread from the context in which it gestated and mutated into a number of forms. Here in Britain it performs the same political functions (when was the last time you heard the left carping on about PC?) but also has (in a very loose sense) become part of the ruling class's ideology. Whereas in the past racism was quite deliberately fostered to divide the working class, so in the 21st century bourgeois anti-racism divides the class by addressing it as so many multi-cultural ethnic groups. How this is a "Marxist reality" (whatever one of those is) is beyond me.

>It goes back at least to the 1920s >and the writings of the Italian >Communist Antonio Gramsci. In >1923, in Germany, a group of >Marxists founded an institute >devoted to making the translation, >the Institute of Social Research >(later known as the Frankfurt >School). One of its founders, >George Lukacs, stated its purpose >as answering the question, “Who >shall save us from Western >Civilization?”

Actually Lukacs had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School, except that the ideas in his work 'History and Class Consciousness' (particularly the essay on reification) did influence many of the Frankfurt figures.

>The Frankfurt School gained >profound influence in American >universities after many of its >leading lights fled to the United >States in the 1930s to escape >National Socialism in Germany.-The >Frankfurt School blended Marx with >Freud, and later influences (some >Fascist as well as Marxist) added >linguistics to create “Critical >Theory” (Which is, literally, just >to criticise incessantly- our >morals, our laws and our >traditions) and “deconstruction.”

What "fascist" influences were blended with the project to fuse Marx and Freud? And you're mistaken about critical theory, it was (and is) a sophisticated but bastardised form of Marxism that aimed to critique the bases of capitalist domination in all spheres of social life. Where it differed from conventional forms of Marxism is its rejection of the ability of working class people to organise themselves to build a new society. This isn't to say critical theory hasn't got anything interesting to say that could be of use in the here and now.

>These in turn greatly influenced >education theory, and through >institutions of higher education >gave birth to what we now call >‘Political Correctness.’

A very tenuous connection my friend, especially when you consider that PC originated as the establishment's reaction to the progressive struggles of the 60s.

>The lineage is clear, and it is >traceable right back to Karl Marx.

No it's not. Accepting your argument for the moment, by your logic Jesus is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, paedophile priests, etc etc

>The parallels between cultural >Marxism and classical, economic >Marxism areevident. Cultural >Marxism, or ‘Political’ >Correctness, shares with classical >Marxism thevision of a “classless >society” i.e., a society not >merely of equal opportunity, but >equal condition.

Class, race and gender are artificial barriers that have been thrown up in the course of historical development. If they're historical they're not permanent and can be removed. The inequalities you see around you today are not part of human nature.

>Since that vision contradicts >human nature – because people are >different, they end up unequal, >regardless of the starting point – >society will not accord with it >unless forced.

Of course people are different. Socialism is about unlocking diversity and difference, of allowing individuals to be who they wish to be. Socialism is also about producing the material abundance that makes this possible. No one is forced to do anything, unlike capitalism where the compulsion to earn a wage or sink into poverty (not mutually exclusive btw) ensures we produce wealth for our masters.

>So, under both variants of >Marxism, it is forced.

>It is being imposed, simualauosly >all around the western world.

I really do not know what you're trying to say here.

>As for 9/11, it could not have >been carried out without extensive >co-operation with at least oe >secret service, US or otherwise.

How was this cooperation done? Where's the evidence?

Phil said...

Pinkie said:

"Actually, I think you should name them, preferably with party/group affiliations".

Very well. V N Gelis, a well known Greek "communist" who lives in London is one culprit. He claimed the planes flying into the twin towers were computer mock ups, and that the buildings were destroyed by demolition charges. He said this mere days after the event.

The other comrades will remain nameless but it's a matter of public record on the UKLN. If you're so keen to know their affiliations they are comrades who are members of the SSP, and are socialists who I otherwise suspect.

I suggest you take a look at 911 Cult Watch for more info about why the left should combat this conspiracy nonsense.

N said...

I think taht these particular conspirisy theories (9/11, oaklohma bombing, illuminarti, Alex Jones etc.)are actually helpful to the left, as what they ultimatley point to is a small group of the ultra rich who are attempting to expropritate the vast majority of the world's wealth for their own exclusive uses. This is a fair description of how the final stages of capitalism may come to pass, and the awareness of this maybe some which will spur someone to consider Marxist analysis as correct and go down this road. This maybe especilly true as the conspirisy theorists offer no solution to the world view they present.

Indeed if the global Illuminarti exist the only solution is socialism as to deny wealth on every level would serve to break their power completeley. However Alex Jones and many other theorists are vehemently anti socialist, obvisously there is only one conclusion to draw from this - ALEX JONES AND HIS ILK ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRICY AND INDEED ARE MERELY ANOTHER LEVEL OF CAPITALIST CONTROL! (and so the circle is complete!)

The Sentinel said...

'Phil':

The history of 'political correctness' as I have laid it out is clear and checkable. Of course it is very easy for some anonymous commentator to simply say 'you are mistaken' it is really a device of the right - or it doesnt really exist at all!

What utter rubbish, uttered by only by a practitioner of this warped 'logic'.


"Whereas in the past racism was quite deliberately fostered to divide the working class, so in the 21st century bourgeois anti-racism divides the class by addressing it as so many multi-cultural ethnic groups"


Really; fostered by whom (and where) and to what possible end to divide the working classes, when the working classes of pre-immigration Europe were of the same race as the aristocracy? This is a statement of profound absurdity- completely devoid of any foundation in logic.


"What "fascist" influences were blended with the project to fuse Marx and Freud?"


The principle of allowing no dissenters and destroying, by any means, all opposition to the ideology and is goal. In the western world that means intense, hysterical character assassination until the target is unemployable, socially isolated and a complete pariah.


"And you're mistaken about critical theory"


Not even slightly.


"A very tenuous connection my friend, especially when you consider that PC originated as the establishment's reaction to the progressive struggles of the 60s"


I have demonstrated where it originated. All checkable facts.


"...Accepting your argument for the moment, by your logic Jesus is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, paedophile priests..."


Its not even remotely the same. It is a very strange baseless logic that you employ.


"...race and gender are artificial barriers that have been thrown up in the course of historical development. If they're historical they're not permanent and can be removed..."


Again, how completely absurd. Race and gender are not historical inventions but physical realties. As permanent as any component of life, especially gender. I cannot foresee a time whereby gender is eliminated by nature as a device of procreativity- maybe your Marxist fantasy has such a vision though.


"The inequalities you see around you today are not part of human nature"


Yes, they are and the sooner people stop making excuse for them, the sooner reality can be faced and everyone will be better off.


"Of course people are different. Socialism is about unlocking diversity and difference, of allowing individuals to be who they wish to be"


I disagree withthat anaylisis, but I was referring to Marxists in any case.


"Sentinel- It is being imposed, simultaneously all around the western world.

'Phil' I really do not know what you're trying to say here."


Pretty obvious really. The whole of the western world is in the grip of this corrosive, warped and perverted alien thought programming and tyranny known as 'political correctness.'


"Sentinel: As for 9/11, it could not have been carried out without extensive co-operation with at least one secret service, US or otherwise.

'Phil': How was this cooperation done? Where's the evidence?"

I have no intetion in wasting my time playing ping-pong with you in that area. If you want to belive a complete fairy story then be my guest.

As for evidence- it is abundent. As well as physical, by whistle blowers too. Each one is ridiculed or ignored though, in time honoured fashion.

Believe what you want, even though at least 9 of the 'hijackers' the FBI said were responsible are still alive and well and were never even in the country at the time- it demonstrates a further lack of common sense on your part.

The Sentinel said...

Phil:

Here is the whole article I recently published on the history of 'political' correctness. I know you will enjoy it:

'Politically Correct'- Says who?


"How did ‘political correctness’ get some deeply embedded into the western word? And where on earth does this alien thought programming originate from?

‘Political Correctness’ is in fact cultural Marxism – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s.

It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?”

The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany.-The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” (Which is, literally, just to criticise incessantly- our morals, our laws and our traditions) and “deconstruction.”

These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call ‘Political Correctness.’

The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.

The parallels between cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism areevident. Cultural Marxism, or ‘Political’ Correctness, shares with classical Marxism thevision of a “classless society” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.

Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced.

So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.

This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies.

The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen in countries and local authorities where 'PC' has taken over: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.

The second major parallel is that both cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism have single-factor explanations of history.

Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.

The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behavior of individuals.

Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Political Correctness defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil. (Political Correctness does not recognize the existence of non-Feminist women and defines blacks who reject Political Correctness as whites).

The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the 'representative' of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own government), lay penalties on white men and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the groups they favor.

Affirmative action is an example.

Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction.


Deconstruction 'proves' that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their actual meaning).

Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit pre-ordained conclusions, but they lend a 'scientific' air to the ideology.

These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact merely a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were'read out' of the movement by classical, economic Marxists.

Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.

Political Correctness now looms over the ‘western world’ like a colossus.

It has taken over mainstream political parties and is enforced by many laws and government regulations. It almost totally controls the most powerful element in our culture: the entertainment industry.

It dominates both public and higher education: many a university is a small, ivy-covered North Korea.

It has even captured the clergy in many Christian churches.

Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.

The most vital question is:

How can the ‘western world’ combat Political Correctness and retake their society from the cultural Marxists?

To that end, it is not sufficient to criticize Political Correctness. It tolerates acertain amount of criticism, even gentle mocking. It does so through no genuine tolerance for other points of view, but in order to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.

Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it.

They must use words it forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender.

They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress- such facts as: violent crime is disproportionately committed by blacks and that most cases of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts.

They must refuse to turn their children over to public schools.

Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down.

Ladies should behave as such, and men should still hold doors open for ladies etc. Children should not be born out of wedlock, or at least stable relationships. Open homosexual acts should be shunned. Jurors should not accept race as an excuse for murder.

Defiance spreads.

When other people see one person defy Political Correctness and survive – and you still can, for now – they are emboldened. They are tempted to defy it, too, and some will.

The ripples from a single act of defiance, of one instance of walking up to the clay idol and breaking off its nose, can range far.

There is nothing the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is their chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism at every turn.

While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few people realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes.

As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multi-culturalism.”

To borrow from the SAS:

'Who dares, wins."

Leftwing Criminologist said...

'It dominates both public and higher education: many a university is a small, ivy-covered North Korea.

It has even captured the clergy in many Christian churches.'

Are you for real?

Do you not think that if whomever these people that you're referring to (becuase they would certainly not be marxists) have such power, wouldn't they have taken over by now?? To me this is just more pro-capitalist BS designed to distract workers away from the real problem of the world - capitalism

oh and if you're wondering how capitalism fosters unneccesary divisions upon people, look at Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka & even more topical Iraq. Perfect ases studies.

Phil said...

the sentinel wrote:

>'Phil':

Why the commas? It's my name. Use it, don't abuse it.

>The history of 'political >correctness' as I have laid it out >is clear and checkable. Of course >it is very easy for some anonymous >commentator to simply say 'you are >mistaken' it is really a device of >the right - or it doesnt really >exist at all!

The irony of being accused of anonymity by someone hiding behind a nom de plume! In fact Mr Sentinel my name is on this blog. I'm not hiding. Will you do us the same courtesy and emerge from behind your mask?

As for your history of political correctness being based on "checkable facts", we'll see in the discussion below.

On racism, the sentinel wrote:

>Really; fostered by whom (and >where) and to what possible end to >divide the working classes, when >the working classes of >pre-immigration Europe were of the >same race as the aristocracy? This >is a statement of profound >absurdity- completely devoid of >any foundation in logic.

Okay, some points to consider.

1) In the past racist attitudes have been actively encouraged by the ruling class, be it the rivers of blood Enoch Powell spoke of, or the discourses to justify British colonialism. I thought this was so obvious that it was beyond dispute.

2) The people of Europe have always been a mish mash of ethnic groups. In Britain the Celts were displaced by the Romans, then the Angles and the Saxons. Then the Norse came and the Normans. Up until the 15th century the aristocracy spoke a different language to the commoners, and was more tied to France than the "English" peoples. England has never been mono-ethnic.
See Henry Mayhew's 'London Labour and the London Poor' (published in 1861) for the life of ethnic minorities in Victorian London (among many other things).

>The principle of allowing no >dissenters and destroying, by any >means, all opposition to the >ideology and is goal. In the >western world that means intense, >hysterical character assassination >until the target is unemployable, >socially isolated and a complete >pariah.

I don't see how you got this from the Franfurt school. I wasn't aware Marcuse, for instance (the one Frankfurt theorist most interested in fusing Marx and Freud) advocated hysterical denunciation in his work. In fact, I know he didn't as I've read most his stuff. But of course you're talking about the hysteria that often greets those outed as racists or BNP supporters. In that case I refer you to my post on Simone Clarke. But again this can easily be explained by the shift in ruling class ideology, where (to reiterate) the effect of bourgeois anti-racism is to divide the working class into different ethnic groups with interests that appear to be at odds with one another when in fact the interests of working class people, regardless of skin colour or religious persuasion, are at base identical.

Got to go.

ejh said...

There's not much point in debating with rightwing lunatics who post entire articles, written by themselves, on a comments box. They're not really looking for a debate, are they?

If you're going to post an article written by yourself, have the courtesy to do it as a link.

The Sentinel said...

leftwing criminologist:

"Are you for real?"


Absolutely.

Aside from the wide range of nonsense topics now attracting a degree as well as the overt politicisation of the education system, the church against its core text, the bible (especially Leviticus 18:22) not only allows homosexual ministers but encourages practices homosexual 'marriages'. Only recently, mind, only during the reign of 'PC.'


"Do you not think that if whomever these people that you're referring to (becuase they would certainly not be marxists) have such power, wouldn't they have taken over by now"


They already have. And they are most certainly Marxist, trying to veil their true intent. Read the history and analysis again.


"oh and if you're wondering how capitalism fosters unneccesary divisions upon people, look at Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka & even more topical Iraq. Perfect ases studies"


These are all religious and racial divides.

With the Irish Republican Army and its offshoots being merely Marxist terrorists.

Nothing to do with 'capitalism' at all.

The Sentinel said...

Phil
------

"...of being accused of anonymity.."

When a blogger posts a comment on his own blog he usually does so with hyperlink rather then just 'other' name to confirm that the comments are really his own, and not made by some third party attempting to discredit or weaken his position. That is why it is in comma's.


"In fact Mr Sentinel my name is on this blog. I'm not hiding. Will you do us the same courtesy and emerge from behind your mask?"


Phil BC is not a conventional name but at best an acronymed suffix, or even a complete pseudonym. Unverifable and irrelevent in any case. Anonymity in blogging generally means accountability for your comments, i.e identifying the origin of the commentator.

Because of my service to this country and the elements now freely residing here (some beyond the law) I do not identify my real identity for my families security. Not mine, because I really couldn't care less. You have not revealed your real identity either, and I understand why. It is unwise at the best of times.


"In the past racist attitudes have been actively encouraged by the ruling class, be it the rivers of blood Enoch Powell spoke of, or the discourses to justify British colonialism. I thought this was so obvious that it was beyond dispute"


None of this really means anything. Enoch Powell was forced to leave Government as a result of his speech and was not a member of the 'ruling class' for long after that.

The other part of your statement is generalised and sourceless. It could well be taken for weasel words.


"The people of Europe have always been a mish mash of ethnic groups"

You confuse regional groups with race. The Angles, the Saxons the Norse and the Norman (Norse-man) were all of the same racial group. They just lived apart for some time and developed separately in cultural terms but were racially homogeneous.

The Celts share huge similarities to the above group and the Romans of the day were very different to the Italians we see now. But, did not significantly impact the demographics of England in any case.


"In fact, I know he didn't as I've read most his stuff"


So have I, quite obviously, and I can tell you that everything I have said is factually correct.

"But of course you're talking about the hysteria that often greets those outed as racists or BNP supporters"


There we go with that 'PC' favourite- 'outed' and 'racists'- the new witch words of horror.

As if 'racists' are the most unfathomable evil entity we have lurking on this planet and all would be well without them. but just like the victims of the Spanish Inquisition, they try to hide and must be discovered and outed, like the demons they are.

Some may even protest their innocence of the charge but that is just the devil talking, burn them anyway: They have been accuses.


"in fact the interests of working class people, regardless of skin colour or religious persuasion, are at base identical"


Not at all.

The hunter gatherers of Papua New Guinea, or the plains of Africa have little in common interest with the cattle ranchers of South America just as the fisherman of Neui share no common interest with the postman of Europe.

ejh,
-----

"There's not much point in debating with rightwing lunatics who post entire articles, written by themselves, on a comments box. They're not really looking for a debate, are they?"


That is just a stock in trade response from types like you that have contributed nothing to the above debate. And it is a debate, with varying points of view being posed; exactly what a debate is meant to be.

What you are using is termed 'argumentum ad hominem'- that is to attack the person rather then the position.

Your comment is the precursor to the call for censorship.


"If you're going to post an article written by yourself, have the courtesy to do it as a link"


It was posted whole for a reason, and I do not answer to you anyway.

Anna said...

Good post, Phil.

But PC - or political correctness - began during the Chinese Cultural revolution and was a method of challenging the bourgeois perspective and making you analyse stuff in our society which was invisible and taken for granted. I know this coz the communist bulletins were full of it and my parents rammed it into me constantly. I even remember applying it to Tom and Jerry cartoons as a kid (don't ask!).

It was indeed useful up to a point - EG at a basic level, in exposing unconscious (and conscious but sneakily concealed) oppressive cultural habits - but was quickly appropriated by the very right wing forces it was supposed to confront. Those forces then proceeded to clobber the leftists with its bloody stump.

Re the WTC towers, I thought this nuttiness had been buried once and for all by an excellent documentary ages ago which used animation to show how the flawed design of the floor bearings contributed to the building collapsing like a pack of cards. Each floor was a solid prefab slab which sort of hooked on to the walls so that when the top ones fell, the lower ones couldn't take the weight and all they could do was pancake in succession.

Sounds to me like this conspiracy theory takes the heat off the crappy design and whatever insurance claims might be pending.

big_d said...

I think that there are some inconsitencies with the official explaination of events but I doubt that we will see the truth until after the revolution.

Even if only 10% of the loose change documentary is right is still poses alot of questions that need answering.

I remain open to the idea that the whole 9/11 thing was planned, as I've yet to see any concusive proof that it wasn't.

Phil said...

More replies to our friend the sentinel:

"And you're mistaken about critical theory"

>Not even slightly.

Yes you are, your musings on the subject and the article you posted show only a cursory knowledge of the body of thought that is critical theory (if you believe Georg Lukacs founded the Frankfurt School, then how are we supposed to take the rest of your argument seriously?). I challenge you to tell us what works of the Frankfurt theorists you've read and what commentaries on critical theory you're familiar with.

"A very tenuous connection my friend, especially when you consider that PC originated as the establishment's reaction to the progressive struggles of the 60s"

>I have demonstrated where it >originated. All checkable facts.

I'd be interested in your sources, please tell us. I ask because your conspiratorial history cuts against the grain of scholarship on the relation between Frankfurt ideas, social movements, and higher education.

"...Accepting your argument for the moment, by your logic Jesus is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, paedophile priests..."

>Its not even remotely the same. It >is a very strange baseless logic >that you employ.

Yes it is. Assuming your thesis is correct for a moment, you argue that PC is a Marxist conspiracy rooted in the thought of the Frankfurt school. The Frankfurt school in their turn were heavily influenced by Marx. Therefore Marx is responsible for PC. Similarly we can argue the same for the Spanish Inquistion. They were a Catholic institution. The Catholic church was set up by the early followers of Christ, who claimed to abide by the teachings of Jesus. Therefore Jesus is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. A convoluted logic it may be but it's the one your argument relies on.

>"Again, how completely absurd. >Race and gender are not historical >inventions but physical realties. >As permanent as any component of >life, especially gender. I cannot >foresee a time whereby gender is >eliminated by nature as a device >of procreativity- maybe your >Marxist fantasy has such a vision >though."

Yes, gender and race are socio-historical constructions used to describe people with different bodies. Traditionally historical and sociological scholarship have made a distinction between sex (the biological characteristics of women and men) and gender (the social roles we are assigned according to these characteristics). Now this may fly in the face of what is immediately apparent, but that's what history is like. As late as the 15th and 16th century, women (and especially peasant women) did not have a gender role as such, rather they were seen as men who were physically weaker but could give birth. Source? Take a look at the well respected scholarship by Judith Butler, for instance.

On race, again you're on a hiding to nothing. There is no scientific basis for race. There is only one race, the human race, albeit a race that is incredibly diverse. Strip away the skin and we're all the same. If you're in need of a blood transfusion, a blood type that matches you taken from a black bloke will save you, whereas a type that doesn't match from a white woman could kill you.

Race as you understand it has its own history as a category of perception. In my own life time these perceptions have changed, from a point where minority communities of blacks and asians were barely tolerated by the authorities to attempts to incorporate and integrate these communities through the official ideology of multiculturalism. The attitude you have of race can be traced back to 19th century eugenicists like Alfred Ploetz. Of course you're entitled to disagree but it would be nice if you can provide some evidence that refutes the weight of scholarship on these questions.

>Yes, they are and the sooner >people stop making excuse for >them, the sooner reality can be >faced and everyone will be better >off.

Once more it is beholden for you to illustrate how inequalities are part of human nature. Indeed, for you what do you mean by human nature? Does it mean we're biologically programmed to act in certain ways? Assertion only proves that you believe it to be the case.

"Of course people are different. Socialism is about unlocking diversity and difference, of allowing individuals to be who they wish to be"

>I disagree withthat anaylisis, but >I was referring to Marxists in any >case.

Not all socialists are Marxists, but all Marxists are socialists. For Marxists socialism is, at base, economic democracy. Marxists contend that the human race has the knowledge and ability to decide how best to meet its needs, and we believe the best way to do this is by democratic planning. From this flows the rest. Now you may disagree with this vision but that is what Marxists are fighting for.

>Pretty obvious really. The whole >of the western world is in the >grip of this corrosive, warped and >perverted alien thought >programming and tyranny known as >'political correctness.'

I assume you're from Britain, so let's look at the evidence. The Sun, The Star, The Sport, The Mail, The Express, Daily Telegraph account for the overwhelming majority of papers sold in Britain. Yet open their pages and they drip with xenophobia, sexism, and all sorts of other prejudices. Their sales seem to refute your idea of PC domination and yet it is these self-same right wing rags that decry PC the most! Compare the power they have to shape popular opinion with a few academics you would define as PC and you have a massive power differential.

>'Phil': How was this cooperation >done? Where's the evidence?"

>I have no intetion in wasting my >time playing ping-pong with you in >that area. If you want to belive a >complete fairy story then be my >guest.

I thought you might be interested considering this is the comment box for a post on 9-11 conspiracies. Silly me. If you like we can take it to your blog.

>As for evidence- it is abundent. >As well as physical, by whistle >blowers too. Each one is ridiculed >or ignored though, in time >honoured fashion.

If it's so abundant could you point it out to me, or at least where it can be found?

>Believe what you want, even though >at least 9 of the 'hijackers' the >FBI said were responsible are >still alive and well and were >never even in the country at the >time- it demonstrates a further >lack of common sense on your part.

Sources please.

And then the sentinel continues in another long-winded and ill-informed article;

>This is the first major parallel >between classical and cultural >Marxism: both are totalitarian >ideologies.

Why is Marxism a totalitarian ideology? It's not enough to assert, you must prove.

>The totalitarian nature of >Political Correctness can be seen >in countries and local authorities >where 'PC' has taken over: freedom >of speech, of the press, and even >of thought are all eliminated.

And these countries are?

>The second major parallel is that >both cultural Marxism and >classical, economic Marxism have >single-factor explanations of >history.

No they don't. All Marx asserts is that social being conditions consciousness. To illustrate Mr Sentinel, your thoughts, beliefs, values and what have you are very much bound up with how you were brought up, the context in which that took place, what you do in your everyday life, and again, the contexts you find yourself in. What Marxism does is apply this on a larger scale. As you can imagine, it's a very complex enterprise and has nothing to do with "single factor" explanations of history. In fact I've come across plenty of academic texts (most of whom you'd no doubt lump in with the PC lobby, ironically) who assert this. But by so doing they show they know little or nothing about Marx and Marxism. It's not surprising to find you echoing their words.

>Classical Marxism argues that all >of history was determined by >ownership of the means of >production.

No, wrong. See above or read some Marx yourself.

>Cultural Marxism says that history >is wholly explained by which >groups – defined by sex, race and >sexual normality or abnormality – >have power over which other >groups.

Even wronger. So-called cultural Marxism developed in reaction to the dry economistic dogma Marxism had become when it was turned into the official ideology of Stalinism. Even then it was interested in forms of domination not immediately reducible to the relationship one has to the means of production. Would be interested in seeing your sources, again.

>The third parallel is that both >varieties of Marxism declare >certain groups virtuous and others >evil a priori, that is, without >regard for the actual behavior of >individuals.

Now I know you have no knowledge of Marx first hand. In Capital he talks about how capitalists are *compelled* to behave like capitalists, otherwise they go under. Good and evil doesn't come into it. Capitalism is an amoral system, all it cares about is the bottom line.

>Classical Marxism defines workers >and peasants as virtuous and the >bourgeoisie (the middle class) and >other owners of capital as evil.

Citations please. (Incidentally, in Marxist terminology the bourgeoisie are the ruling class, but then as you're criticising a phantom conjured from the most superficial of acquaintances, I wouldn't expect you to know something as basic as that).

>Political Correctness defines >blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, >homosexuals and some additional >minority groups as virtuous and >white men as evil. (Political >Correctness does not recognize the >existence of non-Feminist women >and defines blacks who reject >Political Correctness as whites).

Proof please Mr Sentinel. Direct me to a politically correct work that argues these points.

>The fourth parallel is in means: >expropriation. Economic Marxists, >where they obtained power, >expropriated the property of the >bourgeoisie and handed it to the >state, as the 'representative' of >the workers and the peasants. >Cultural Marxists, when they gain >power (including through our own >government), lay penalties on >white men and others who disagree >with them and give privileges to >the groups they favor.

You couldn't make it up. I'm from a white working class family. My dad and brother work in typically masculine occupations (one's a gardener, the other a car worker). Both are married. Both possess the common everyday prejudices members of our class have. So how are they, as white working class men, penalised by "the Marxists" of New Labour? And how are non-white groups more privileged than whites? Why is it in Stoke the local asians, blacks, east europeans, and asylum seekers overwhelmingly live in (often sub-standard) terraced housing, and yet when you nip into (what passses for) surburbia in Stoke it's almost exclusively white? The examples go on and on.

>Finally, both varieties of >Marxists employ a method of >analysis designed to show the >correctness of their ideology in >every situation. For classical >Marxists, the analysis is >economic. For cultural Marxists, >the analysis is linguistic: >deconstruction.

Hilarious! As if liberals, conservatives, buddhists, fascists, conspiracy theorists, 3rd way Blairites, and Mr Sentinel does not!

>Deconstruction 'proves' that any >“text,” past or present, >illustrates the oppression of >blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. >by reading that meaning into words >of the text (regardless of their >actual meaning).

I have no particular brief for deconstruction. Contrary to your claims deconstruction draws on the philosophy of Nietzsche (a favourite among the Nazis btw) and is most associated with Jacques Derrida (never a Marxist) and Paul De Man (a Belgian Nazi Collaborator). What deconstruction aims to do is show that the meaning of any text, be it a novel, a manual on nuclear safety, or a rant by Mr Sentinel, is never fixed and always open to a degree of uncertainty. Some have used deconstruction to highlight uncertainties in scientific works, others to uncover taken for granted value assumptions. Deconstruction in and of itself proves nothing. The polemical uses to which Mr Sentinel puts deconstruction does however show he hasn't got the foggiest of what he's talking about.

>Both methods are, of course, phony >analyses that twist the evidence >to fit pre-ordained conclusions, >but they lend a 'scientific' air >to the ideology.

OMG if you think practitioners of deconstruction think their work is scientific then you've completely lost it. Either that or, as I suspect, you've read nothing on the subject.

>These parallels are neither >remarkable nor coincidental. They >exist because Political >Correctness is directly derived >from classical Marxism, and is in >fact merely a variant of Marxism. >Through most of the history of >Marxism, cultural Marxists >were'read out' of the movement by >classical, economic Marxists.

More assertion based on misunderstandings wrapped in prejudice founded on nothing. See above.

>Today, with economic Marxism dead, >cultural Marxism has filled its >shoes. The medium has changed, but >the message is the same: a society >of radical egalitarianism enforced >by the power of the state.

Enforced by the power of the state my arse. Marxism has always been for the abolition of the state.

>Political Correctness now looms >over the ‘western world’ like a >colossus.

How, where?

>It has taken over mainstream >political parties and is enforced >by many laws and government >regulations. It almost totally >controls the most powerful element >in our culture: the entertainment >industry.

Rubbish. What dominates mainstream political parties is an ideology that posits the fundamental equality of all before capital. Whether you're black, white or indigo you can be chewed up and spat out by business. All capital cares about is its profits.

But your passing comment on the law is revealing. Judging by your general tone I assume what you really object to is the fact that you cannot any longer abuse, discriminate and publicly fan the flames of hatred toward people you think are different. And what is very sad about it is that you (assuming you're not some rich boy or middle class race warrior) have far more in common with working class women, blacks, asians, and LGBT people than white men like Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Tony Blair, Charles Windsor and George W. Bush.

>It dominates both public and >higher education: many a >university is a small, ivy-covered >North Korea.

More assertion, no evidence as per. I put it like this my friend, working at a unversity is tons better than the petty fascist workplace dictatorships of supermarkets, factory shop floors, retail outlets, and offices.

>It has even captured the clergy in >many Christian churches.

Proof please.

>Anyone in the Establishment who >departs from its dictates swiftly >ceases to be a member of the >Establishment.

Well, no. Nick Griffin maybe a bete noire of the establishment, but part of the establishment he remains. He may disagree with bourgeois anti-racism, but his politics remain bourgeois. If he and the BNP get in power they will be quite happy to grind the British white working class under it, just as the Nazis did with the German working class.

>The most vital question is:

>How can the ‘western world’ combat >Political Correctness and retake >their society from the cultural >Marxists?

Hmm yes, bugger the environmental crisis that threatens the survival of the human race. Forget the fact 18,500 kids die of starvation a day. Why bother contemplating the adulteration of our food supplies. The biggest threat are a few laws on the statute books that curb the right to be a racist bigot.

>To that end, it is not sufficient >to criticize Political >Correctness. It tolerates acertain >amount of criticism, even gentle >mocking. It does so through no >genuine tolerance for other points >of view, but in order to disarm >its opponents, to let itself seem >less menacing than it is. The >cultural Marxists do not yet have >total power, and they are too wise >to appear totalitarian until their >victory is assured.

Oooh a conspiracy! How come I, as a Marxist, is not in on it. How come my office mates who, because they're not a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic bigots must by definition be Marxists, aren't in on it. How come the academics who are active on the organised Marxist left aren't in on it. Who in fact is in on it?

>Rather, those who would defeat >cultural Marxism must defy it.

You go girl!

>They must use words it forbids, >and refuse to use the words it >mandates; remember, sex is better >than gender.

That'll bring the system crashing down! I envy your radicalism.

>They must shout from the housetops >the realities it seeks to >suppress- such facts as: violent >crime is disproportionately >committed by blacks and that most >cases of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., >acquired from immoral sexual acts.

Hilarious. Let's have some sources for these truths, or have they been suppressed so we've got to take your say so for granted?

>They must refuse to turn their >children over to public schools.

You're calling on the ruling class not to send their kids to fees-paying schools? What's that got to do with your PC crusade? Duh.

>Above all, those who would defy >Political Correctness must behave >according to the old rules of our >culture, not the new rules the >cultural Marxists lay down.

And what are the "old rules" of British culture? The culture that has traditionally provided sanctuary for political refugees, has helped gestate ideas of liberty, community and solidarity? The land that gave us Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstoncraft, Byron, Darwin. The land of the first organised labour movement in history. The land who gave hundreds of thousands of lives fighting the fascist menace. These are old British beliefs and values worth celebrating. Will you then Mr Sentinel be advocating we should respect our neighbours? That workers should show solidarity to one another and combine and fight for our interests? Will you do your duty as a patriot and campaign against the BNP? Surely failing to do so means you're anti-British.

>Ladies should behave as such, and >men should still hold doors open >for ladies etc. Children should >not be born out of wedlock, or at >least stable relationships. Open >homosexual acts should be shunned. >Jurors should not accept race as >an excuse for murder.

You've been reading too many Jane Austen novels my friend. Fine, if you want to hold doors open for women do so, I don't think anyone would complain. And fine, if you don't want kids outside of wedlock, not engage in sexual acts with members of your own sex or what have you that's upto you. But why should others have to live the way you choose to live? There's a British value called liberty. You would do well to heed it.

>When other people see one person >defy Political Correctness and >survive – and you still can, for >now – they are emboldened. They >are tempted to defy it, too, and >some will.

>The ripples from a single act of >defiance, of one instance of >walking up to the clay idol and >breaking off its nose, can range >far.

I can see it now. A craze of men holding open doors for women brings down New Labour.

>There is nothing the Politically >Correct fear more than open >defiance, and for good reason; it >is their chief vulnerability. That >should lead cultural conservatives >to defy cultural Marxism at every >turn.

Yeah, so fearful is your PC conspiracy of "cultural Marxists" that the likes of the BNP remain free to camapign and even put out their propaganda on election party broadcasts!

>While the hour is late, the battle >is not decided. Very few people >realize that Political Correctness >is in fact Marxism in a different >set of clothes.

There's a resounding slogan if I ever heard one.

>As that realization spreads, >defiance will spread with it. At >present, Political Correctness >prospers by disguising itself.

Hold on, you're saying PC is "cultural Marxism" in disguise. Now you're saying PC disguises itself too? Wow, good job we have guys like you around able to see through the cunning ruses it's able to pull!

>Through defiance, and through >education on our own part (which >should be part of every act of >defiance), we can strip away its >camouflage and reveal the Marxism >beneath the window-dressing of >“sensitivity,” “tolerance” and >“multi-culturalism.”

As you've clearly demonstrated you don't know what Marxism is, you wouldn't be able to identify it even if it came up and hit you in the face with a brick. One last time. Marxism is the theory and practice of revolutionary socialism. Political correctness, or rather multiculturalism, is the official ideology of British capitalism. Marxism opposes racism, sexism and homophobia because it weakens the capacity of the working class to make it's own history. Multiculturalism opposes racism, sexism and homophobia in a way that emphasises the salience of these identities, so the class can remain fragmented and the rule of capital goes unchecked. Your politics is closer to the latter than the former. Your cultural conservatism is a throw back to when racialised discourse had the effect of keeping the class fragmented by blaming the problems around unemployment, poverty, housing, wages etc on powerless minorities. You too stand for the rule of capital. The sooner you realise that, the sooner the boss class will stop laughing at you and your ilk.

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Sentinel said...

Phil,

Effectively, despite the somewhat voluminous waffling and pseudo literary / historical 'dissection' of my article your comment boils down to:

1- Asking me to write a book report for you to prove that I have read the 'works' from which my article is derived

2- Asking me to answer questions I have already answered in this comment box (such as the church and 'PC')

3- Disagreeing with the position I have set out and the reasons I have given, and asking me to give more reasons and name sources that are apparent in the text of the article

4- A few insults

5- Asking me to direct you to a 9-11 conspiracy website, book, or video.

My position is clearly set out with the reasons and sources being clearly laid out too. Of course you do not agree, but I have given my reasons and the lineage of my assertion, and as I have said, it is all checkable. Reiterating my position on 'political correctness' will not change it or add any more dimensions to it, and for that reason I will not spend any more time on that aspect.

Nor am I prepared to write you a book report, just as I do not juggle on command either; and if you really need my help to find 9-11 conspiracy material on the internet you are beyond my help.

I will write an article of some of the aspects of 9-11 shortly, however, and of course you will be more then welcome to attempt to dissect that too.

So I will answer a couple of the questions in which you require evidence, also I will deal with the core tenets of contemporary Marxism- political correctness-and its denials of reality:



"...race are socio-historical constructions used to describe people with different bodies{...}There is no scientific basis for race{...}Strip away the skin and we're all the same..."


You state that race is merely a "socio-historical construction"(!) which is completely at odds with the evidence (and the bleeding obvious).

You even state, quite boldly that race does not even exist. Either you are incredibly naive and / or brainwashed or there is a more sinister motive underlying your denial of the bleeding obvious.

Just a few examples that race is clearly a genetic, not cultural entity include:

1) Sickle Cell Anaemia is almost exclusive a black disease.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/sickle_cell_crisis/article_em.htm

There is no recorded incidence of a north European ever contracting it, because, surprise surprise, they have major differences in genetic structure to blacks. (It is recognised by the Sickle Cell Society as a 'black" condition.

http://www.sicklecellsociety.org/information/resrep/res20.htm


2) Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic disease that almost exclusively effects whites and Ashkenazi Jews, with a few cases of mixed Jewish / Black or European / Black people effected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis

3) "Doctors have long known that blacks are substantially more likely then whites to develop lung cancer and die from it" even when the two racial groups smoke a similar amount per day. Unsurprisingly, doctors have found that the reason behind it is genetic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11024379/

4) A heart drug called BiDil has been approved by the FDA and is now in usage. BiDil is used exclusively by black patients to treat and target genetic heart disease that effects blacks only.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8336206/

5) Eastern Asian and West African men have less facial hair then other racial groups. American Indians cannot grow beards or moustaches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair

Clearly, if disease or a particular characteristic trait is confined to one racial group then race is not cultural but genetic. I could give dozens more examples but these will suffice.

Also, if you were to take an African group, and move them to, say Oslo, and leave them there breeding amongst their own gene pool for ten thousand years, do you seriously assert that they would be become white, or blond or blue-eyed?



" Sentinel: violent crime is disproportionately committed by blacks...

Phil: Hilarious. Let's have some sources for these truths, or have they been suppressed so we've got to take your say so for granted?"


There are five times as many black youngsters in jail then white youngsters. They are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml

When you hear Lee Jasper admitting that blacks have a huge problem with gun and drug crime you know that it is really a massive problem.

By stating that this crime is the "biggest threat to the black community since its arrival here" Jasper is telling us that this crime has come here with the black community, that it did not exist before its arrival here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3035357.stm

It is an irrefutable fact that globally, a concentration of Africans equals a high crime rate; the higher the concentration the higher the crime rate. In the US for instance the city to top the 'least safe city 100' is Markham, Illinois, 78.9 % black. The safest city from the same statistics is Norwood, Pennsylvania, 97% white. The second least safest is East St, Louis, Illinois, 97.7% black. The second city ranked safest is Southport, New York, 89.4% white. The third least safest city is Washington Park, Illinois, and guess what? Its 91.9% black; the third safest Pell City, Alabama is, surprise surprise 82.5% white. Can you see a pattern emerging here?

http://www.city-data.com/top27.html
http://www.city-data.com/top26.html

It is not just the fact that crime is disproportionately high wherever African peoples reside, but the types of crime they commit. Violence is bad enough but rape seems like an African hobby. In South Africa for instance, women are three times more likely to raped then in the US (which is alarming given the size of the US problem and the lack of black respect for woman there with the talk of 'ho's being prevalent) with a woman being raped every 26 seconds (presumably not the same one) and African men calling it 'jackrolling' and considering rape as a recreational activity. The problem is so endemic that even the SA president had to appeal for it to end.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/415436.stm

But it reaches real lows when we find that (south) Africans are gang raping babies. One poor 9 month old baby had six men savagely violate it; there are countless case of this disgusting, inhuman crime. Why? One excuse is that the witch doctors tell men it will cure AIDS to have sex with a baby.

Great, lets bring more of these people into the UK and Europe as fast as we can.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1703595.stm

Must be the environment that they live in? That favourite 'PC' nonsense excuse.

Lets have a quick look at that old chestnut then reason for black and African failings with the image of Africa as one huge desert popularised. Anyone who has been there will know that this is completely erroneous.

Lets have a look at the UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 2006. This annual report independently evaluates criteria such literacy, child welfare, longevity and standards of living and uses a complex mathematical formula to calculate a list, a hierarchy if you will ,of the most/least devolped nations. Guess what, every European country is in the 'High' tier whilst every African country is the 'Low' tier with most of the various Asian and Arab countries sitting in the middle. In fact Norway and Iceland are the two top nations whilst Niger and Sierra Leone are the two bottom nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

So we have two homogenous, north European countries at the top and two homogenous African countries at the bottom. Is it really the environment at root to blame? Of course not; lets compare, for the sake of fairness not the top country with the bottom country but, say, Iceland (2nd from top) with Sierra leone (2nd from last.)

Icelandic's enjoy a life expectancy 82.48 years for females and 78.23 years for men. They suffer only 3.29 deaths over 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 0.2%. Iceland enjoys a literacy rate of 99% has a GDP per capita of US$35,700.

In stark contrast, Sierra Leone's citizens have a disastrous 42.46 years of life to look forward to for the females whilst males have 38.05 years. They suffer a horrific 160.39 deaths per 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 7%. Sierra Leone has a literacy rate 29.6% and has a paltry GDP of US$800 per capita.

According to the old apologists the only difference must be the environmental factors that explain the disparity in development. However when we compare the two again we find that whilst Iceland has only 0.07% arable land, Sierra Leone has 7.95%. Whilst Sierra Leone only has some sandstorms and 'dryness' to contend with Iceland has regular earthquakes and volcanos.

And it is not the natural resources that determine a countries development either; whilst Sierra Leone enjoys an abundance of diamonds, gold, titanium and iron ore Iceland has only fish.

No, Sierra Leone should be riding high with the great natural setup it has and Iceland should have died at its inception, or at least ranked near last in the UN HDI with the environmental hand it has been dealt.

The real problems that Sierra Leone faces in regard to agriculture and sustaining itself in food are all man-made: Slash-and-burn agriculture resulting in deforestation and soil exhaustion (this is true all over Africa and the real reason for land that was once arable being irreparably damaged) along with the gross over-fishing of stocks. Conversely Iceland has mastered and worked with its environment using its natural geothermal activity as a source of power and utilising hydro power in addition; both technologically advanced and environmentally friendly. It fishes to maintain healthy stocks. In the barren interior, the Icelandic's grow tropical fruits and plants for export using that very geothermal energy, whilst Sierra leone cannot even fed itself with the resources it already has.

So if it is not environment that determines both of these racially homogeneous nations in the standard of development what is it?

The same rapid decline, when Africans go it alone can be seen in SA where the exuberant crime rate has rendered it un-investable and in Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of Africa now being unable to feed even its own people.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ic.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sl.html

When refering to crime, of course I am not suggesting that all Africans are criminals and all criminals are Africans. I know from personal experience (and common sense) that this is not the case just as I know that there more then a fair share of whites (and other groups) who now indulge in hedonistic, criminal behaviour (and as a strange racial quirk, almost all serial killers are white men.) This irresponsible criminal behaviour is with us now more then ever since the police imploded after the agenda ridden Macpherson report. But the evidence is overwhelming that African concentrations, more then any other racial grouping are prone to criminal behaviour and will always be noticeable in countries where they reside by being at the top of the crime and prison 'league' and bottom of the education and success 'league'.


And lets quicly take the usual contention is that it was "colonial policy" that excuses Sierra Leone from its failure to take advantage of its environmental benefits in comparison to Iceland by comparing Ethiopia (ranked 170 in the UN HDI, 7th from last) which was never colonised by any European power, to Iceland.

Icelandic's enjoy a life expectancy 82.48 years for females and 78.23 years for men. They suffer only 3.29 deaths over 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 0.2%. Iceland enjoys a literacy rate of 99% has a GDP per capita of US$35,700.

Ethiopian men can expect to live to just 47.86 years and women 50.24 years. They lose 93.62 per 1000 live births and have an AIDS rate of 4.4% (1.5 million people.) They have a literacy rate of 42.7% and a GDP of US$900 per capita.


https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/et.html

Iceland has only 0.07% arable land whilst Ethiopia has 10.01%. Ethiopia problems with feeding itself are all man-made and include: deforestation; overgrazing; soil erosion; desertification; water shortages in some areas from water-intensive farming and poor management. Iceland's problems in feeding itself in such hostile terrain are all man-made and include: utilising the natural geothermal energy to cultivate crop in an otherwise barren country, fishing within sensible stock limits and having productive citizens to generate enough revenue to trade for commodities not in existence in Iceland.

Explain, if you can, how a country that has a better environmental position and was never colonised can fail so miserably, whilst the other country, having a very poor environmental hand, and having been colonised for nearly a thousand years is such a success?



"I assume what you really object to is the fact that you cannot any longer abuse, discriminate and publicly fan the flames of hatred toward people you think are different."


I object to being able to speak the truth without fear of political prosecution: third world immigrants impact crime immensely.

I object to the real figures of the damage being done by immigration being concealed.

This is happening all over the western world right now.

I will just use Scandinavia as an example for now, because the mass immigration from third world countries is relatively recent and I will take one crime- rape (one of the worst in my view) and show how Scandinavian has 'benefited' and been 'enriched' by its new immigrants.

Norway's rape 'rate' suddenly escalated to 6 times higher per capita then New York with the first mass influx of third worlders.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754

Unsurprisingly, two out of three charged with rape in Norway are of third world origin.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

Just as in Denmark we now have the vast majority of rapes being perpetrated by third worlders (68% in 2001- God knows what now the authorities refuse to say.)

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62173.html

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html

Should the Scandinavians just take all of this as part of the 'celebration of racial diversity'?

Needless to say, all Scandinavian authorities refuse to release such statistics now, becasue the problem is even worse.

But, things can only get worse as, for instance as the third world immigrants pour in the Swedish pour out- in an expression of fear and frustration of a policy they did not vote for and they do not want.

"Immigration to Sweden in 2006 reached its highest level since records began. At the same time emigration also soared to a level not seen in over 100 years, according to official figures published by Statistics Sweden."

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=6412

Its called white flight and we can see happening in every white country.

I only wish I knew where they were running too.

Anna said...

<< There are five times as many black youngsters in jail then white youngsters. They are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. >>

So Sentinel is saying that this is genetic rather than due to social conditions? I hereby claim my Bell Curve superiority that says I am smarter than you. And, of course, no white group ever produced a higher than average number of crims.

I think it's interesting what happens when you try to find the edges of these seemingly discrete racial goups. Within Asia, from the aboriginal indo-Chinese to the tall, striaght-nosed Chinese of the north there are huge differences. Within Africa, look at the variation in physical types. Groups that remain cut off end up amplifying certain chatacteristics down the generations.

Phil said...

>Phil,

>Effectively, despite the somewhat >voluminous waffling and pseudo >literary / historical 'dissection' >of my article your comment boils >down to:

>1- Asking me to write a book >report for you to prove that I >>have read the 'works' from which >my article is derived

No, I asked you to provide evidence for your assertions. As a Marxist who's been reading Marxist works for the last 13 years, and spent some time in the company of revolutionary socialists your understanding of what Marxism is is so wide of the mark that your articles are just an exercise in shadow boxing. You have an idea of what Marxism is that is far removed from what it actually is. So if you want to be taken seriously on the issue, it requires first hand knowledge.

>2- Asking me to answer questions I >have already answered in this >comment box (such as the church >and 'PC')

You haven't proven anything. You've merely asserted that PC exists and is evil. Again that may go down well with your readers over at your blog, but when challenging opponents' arguments you need cast iron proofs.

>3- Disagreeing with the position I >have set out and the reasons I >have given, and asking me to give >more reasons and name sources that >are apparent in the text of the >article

There are no sources in your article, merely name dropping of a couple of Marxists. To illustrate you refer to Lukacs and Gramsci in relation to the Frankfurt School. And yet Lukacs played no part in the school, and Gramsci wasn't know to non-Italian speaking audiences until the 1970s. See the scholarship of Douglas Kellner and Martin Jay on the Frankfurt School and Western Marxism.

>4- A few insults

>5- Asking me to direct you to a >9-11 conspiracy website, book, or >video.

As is my right. You come on my blog and again assert 9-11 was a conspiracy, in contradiction to the evidence I discuss in my post. Challenged to back up your assertions all you can do is say "there's plenty of evidence out there". Sorry that's not good enough. You believe it's a conspiracy, you argue it, therefore it's down to you to provide the proof.

>My position is clearly set out >with the reasons and sources being >clearly laid out too. Of course >you do not agree, but I have given >my reasons and the lineage of my >assertion, and as I have said, it >is all checkable. Reiterating my >position on 'political >correctness' will not change it or >add any more dimensions to it, and >for that reason I will not spend >any more time on that aspect.

There is not one checkable source in your article. All there is is rhetoric based on flimsy assertion that does not stand the test of scrutiny. There's no doubt that you sincerely believe what you believe, but the fact you believe it is not good enough to convince others that your views are true.

>Nor am I prepared to write you a >book report, just as I do not >juggle on command either; and if >you really need my help to find >9-11 conspiracy material on the >internet you are beyond my help.

All I ask is you provide your sources. It's a basic skill asked of all students from A-Levels upwards. For instance you made specific claims in this comment box that the FBI know 9 of the 9-11 hijackers weren't on the planes. It is therefore behoven to you to provide the evidence. If you can't come up with it then how is anyone supposed to take your argument seriously?

>I will write an article of some of >the aspects of 9-11 shortly, >however, and of course you will be >more then welcome to attempt to >dissect that too.

I may pass, I do have a life outside the internet.

>So I will answer a couple of the >questions in which you require >evidence, also I will deal with >the core tenets of contemporary >Marxism- political correctness-and >its denials of reality:

As you believe your arguments are so strong I was hoping for a point by point rebuttal.

>You state that race is merely a >"socio-historical construction"(!) >which is completely at odds with >the evidence (and the bleeding >obvious).

Race *is* a socio-historical construction, ascribed to certain groups of human beings with shared biological characteristics. Source? The weight of historical, sociological, and scientific scholarship.

>You even state, quite boldly that >race does not even exist. Either >you are incredibly naive and / or >brainwashed or there is a more >sinister motive underlying your >denial of the bleeding obvious.

Once again I'm astounded at your lack of being able to think. Race does exist ... as a social historical construct, just as gender exists ... as a social historical construct, just as class exists ... as a social historical construct, just as nations exist ... as social historical constructs.

>Just a few examples that race is >clearly a genetic, not cultural >entity include:

So you can be bothered to find proofs when you think your argument is strong! Unfortunately all they prove is humans with certain shared genetic characteristics have predispositions toward certain conditions. Geneticists such as Lieberman and Byrne argue it has no scientific validity as a concept on grounds of definition, evidence and the availability of concepts able to account for the greater genetic diversity within rather than between populations. Loring Brace observed that descriptions of race centering on skin and hair colour are quite arbitrary and overlooked more fundamental similarities, such as blood type (I note with interest your studious avoidance of the point I made regards blood transfusions). If you take genetic variation as a definition of race, then how many different variations constitutes a race? Because of the variation within populations it makes more sense, from this point of view, to argue that each couple and their offsrping constitute a separate race (lieberman and Jackson).

>Clearly, if disease or a >particular characteristic trait is >confined to one racial group then >race is not cultural but genetic. >I could give dozens more examples >but these will suffice.

You've completely misunderstood the argument. I'll repeat it. Genetic variations among human populations exist. Certain characteristics appear common, such as skin and hair colour. They way these differences were interpreted by humans from the 19th to the mid 20th century were according to discourses of race, whereby certain social characteristics were ascribed to different groups of humans. In other words 'Race' has a history because it is a means of classifying human beings that emerged at a particular time and place. This is how race is a social-historical construct.

>Also, if you were to take an >African group, and move them to, >say Oslo, and leave them there >breeding amongst their own gene >pool for ten thousand years, do >you seriously assert that they >would be become white, or blond or >blue-eyed?

It depends on the population. As the genetic diversity in Africans at large is the same (if not larger) as white, north eastern Europeans then according to recent work in genetics this could well be the case. (Long and Kittles). This is because environmental factors select favour particular genetic characteristics, and therefore play a large part in genetic variation between populations. The overwhelming consensus in evolutionary biology is homo sapiens emerged in Africa and from there dispersed itself around the globe. Take skin colour for example. Renatto Biasutti has argued that for peoples between the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn (straddling the equator), skin pigmentation tends toward darker skin. For instance people in northern India are likely to have lighter skin than southern Indians. Yet genetically they are not distinct.

>There are five times as many black >youngsters in jail then white >youngsters. They are either >immigrants or the descendants of >immigrants.
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml

I don't see how this is a refutation of my arguments. All this proves is young black kids are more likely to go to prison than young white kids, which given the oft-noted correlation between poverty on the one hand, and drug abuse, family breakdown and crime, and the fact black kids are more likely to be brought up in poverty than white kids, this isn't earth shattering news. This is the result of social processes, not genetics.

>When you hear Lee Jasper admitting >that blacks have a huge problem >with gun and drug crime you know >that it is really a massive >problem.

Indeed. It is a *cultural* problem.

>By stating that this crime is the >"biggest threat to the black >community since its arrival here" >Jasper is telling us that this >crime has come here with the black >community, that it did not exist >before its arrival here.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3035357.stm

Are you seriously suggesting there were no gun crimes or gang cultures prior to the arrival of black people in sizeable numbers in Britian? Of course Jasper's saying nothing of the sort. All he says is that since black people became an established and visible component of British society, gun crime has grown to become a significant threat to it. Need I remind you the black youth gun culture is a recent phenomenon. Generally 10, 15 and 20 years ago you didn't have inner city black kids coveting guns and taking pot shots at one another.

>It is an irrefutable fact that >globally, a concentration of >Africans equals a high crime rate; >the higher the concentration the >higher the crime rate. Can you >see a pattern emerging here?

>http://www.city-data.com/top27.html

So what? US blacks are disproportionately commit more crime. Also, US blacks are disproportionately more impoverished. People from other groups are also disproportionately more likely to commit crimes if they're from impoverished backgrounds.

Look at the unemployment rates: 13.3% for Markham, 4.3% for Norwood. Median income and household values, $41K and $75K vs $47K and $99K. Interesting they didn't go for averages, medians only point to the middle of income ranges of a given population. In fact, compare household incomes lower down the pages. By far most households earn beneath the 41k median in Markham, whereas the income distribution is more evenly spread either side of the (higher) median in Norwood. It's also worth noting that, in population terms, you're comparing a poor town with a wealthy village.

But best no let the fact get in the way of selective interpretation eh?

>It is not just the fact that crime >is disproportionately high >wherever African peoples reside, >but the types of crime they >commit. Violence is bad enough but >rape seems like an African hobby. >In South Africa for instance, >women are three times more likely >to raped then in the US (which is >alarming given the size of the US >problem and the lack of black >respect for woman there with the >talk of 'ho's being prevalent) >with a woman being raped every 26 >seconds (presumably not the same >one) and African men calling it >'jackrolling' and considering rape >as a recreational activity. The >problem is so endemic that even >the SA president had to appeal for >it to end.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/415436.stm

It is absolutely disgusting. But again where people are brutalised you can expect them to do brutal things. The unemployment rates and levels of poverty in South African townships beggars belief. This is not to excuse rape, but to tackle it you have to understand why it is taking place, as in the same way to effectively prevent and treat cancer you have to understand what can bring it on.

For instance, there is a correlation between war and rape - why is this? Are all soldiers born predisposed to rape? Or is it the case that when war brutalises human beings, they are more likely to commit atrocities?

>But it reaches real lows when we >find that (south) Africans are >gang raping babies. One poor 9 >month old baby had six men >savagely violate it; there are >countless case of this disgusting, >inhuman crime. Why? One excuse is >that the witch doctors tell men it >will cure AIDS to have sex with a >baby.

>Great, lets bring more of these >people into the UK and Europe as >fast as we can.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1703595.stm

What a pathetic attempt at trying to smear an entire group of people. If you read the article in its entirity you'll note that near the bottom a suspected rapist was stoned to death. Hardly indicative of a group of people meekly accepting child rape.

>Must be the environment that they >live in? That favourite 'PC' >nonsense excuse.

I look forward to your proofs with interest.

>Lets have a quick look at that old >chestnut then reason for black and >African failings with the image of >Africa as one huge desert >popularised. Anyone who has been >there will know that this is >completely erroneous.

Profound. Africa is not all desert!

>Lets have a look at the UN HUMAN >DEVELOPMENT INDEX 2006. This >annual report independently >evaluates criteria such literacy, >child welfare, longevity and >standards of living and uses a >complex mathematical formula to >calculate a list, a hierarchy if >you will ,of the most/least >devolped nations. Guess what, >every European country is in the >'High' tier whilst every African >country is the 'Low' tier with >most of the various Asian and Arab >countries sitting in the middle. >In fact Norway and Iceland are the >two top nations whilst Niger and >Sierra Leone are the two bottom >nations.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Shocking news. Sub-Saharan Africa is, in most part, an economic basket case. But how to explain this?

>So we have two homogenous, north >European countries at the top and >two homogenous African countries >at the bottom. Is it really the >environment at root to blame? Of >course not; lets compare, for the >sake of fairness not the top >country with the bottom country >but, say, Iceland (2nd from top) >with Sierra leone (2nd from last.)

Is anyone seriously suggesting the discrepencies in wealth come down to ... whether a country has a warm or cold climate?

>Icelandic's enjoy a life >expectancy 82.48 years for females >and 78.23 years for men. They >suffer only 3.29 deaths over 1000 >live births and have an AIDS rate >of 0.2%. Iceland enjoys a literacy >rate of 99% has a GDP per capita >of US$35,700.

>In stark contrast, Sierra Leone's >citizens have a disastrous 42.46 >years of life to look forward to >for the females whilst males have >38.05 years. They suffer a >horrific 160.39 deaths per 1000 >live births and have an AIDS rate >of 7%. Sierra Leone has a literacy >rate 29.6% and has a paltry GDP of >US$800 per capita.

>According to the old apologists >the only difference must be the >environmental factors that explain >the disparity in development. >However when we compare the two >again we find that whilst Iceland >has only 0.07% arable land, Sierra >Leone has 7.95%. Whilst Sierra >Leone only has some sandstorms and >'dryness' to contend with Iceland >has regular earthquakes and >volcanos.

>And it is not the natural >resources that determine a >countries development either; >whilst Sierra Leone enjoys an >abundance of diamonds, gold, >titanium and iron ore Iceland has >only fish.

>No, Sierra Leone should be riding >high with the great natural setup >it has and Iceland should have >died at its inception, or at least >ranked near last in the UN HDI >with the environmental hand it has >been dealt.

>The real problems that Sierra >Leone faces in regard to >agriculture and sustaining itself >in food are all man-made: >Slash-and-burn agriculture >resulting in deforestation and >soil exhaustion (this is true all >over Africa and the real reason >for land that was once arable >being irreparably damaged) along >with the gross over-fishing of >stocks. Conversely Iceland has >mastered and worked with its >environment using its natural >geothermal activity as a source of >power and utilising hydro power in >addition; both technologically >advanced and environmentally >friendly. It fishes to maintain >healthy stocks. In the barren >interior, the Icelandic's grow >tropical fruits and plants for >export using that very geothermal >energy, whilst Sierra leone cannot >even fed itself with the resources >it already has.

>So if it is not environment that >determines both of these racially >homogeneous nations in the >standard of development what is >it?

Well if you had seriously researched Marxism, you know, that body of ideas you fulminate against, you'd already know the answer. But I'll let you go on for a moment.

>The same rapid decline, when >Africans go it alone can be seen >in SA where the exuberant crime >rate has rendered it un-investable >and in Zimbabwe, once known as the >bread basket of Africa now being >unable to feed even its own >people.
>https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ic.html
>https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sl.html

>When refering to crime, of course >I am not suggesting that all >Africans are criminals and all >criminals are Africans. I know >from personal experience (and >common sense) that this is not the >case just as I know that there >more then a fair share of whites >(and other groups) who now indulge >in hedonistic, criminal behaviour >(and as a strange racial quirk, >almost all serial killers are >white men.) This irresponsible >criminal behaviour is with us now >more then ever since the police >imploded after the agenda ridden >Macpherson report. But the >evidence is overwhelming that >African concentrations, more then >any other racial grouping are >prone to criminal behaviour and >will always be noticeable in >countries where they reside by >being at the top of the crime and >prison 'league' and bottom of the >education and success 'league'.

Yawn, this has already been dealt with. If there are any scientific bases to your insight between race and crime (and ignoring all other factors like poverty, for instance) then where is the research that proves black men are racially predisposed toward certain crimes?

>And lets quicly take the usual >contention is that it was >"colonial policy" that excuses >Sierra Leone from its failure to >take advantage of its >environmental benefits in >comparison to Iceland by comparing >Ethiopia (ranked 170 in the UN >HDI, 7th from last) which was >never colonised by any European >power, to Iceland.

Actually, Ethiopia was. Its forerunner (Abyssinia) was defeated by the Italians in the late 1880s for possession of a stretch of Eritrean coast line and briefly occupied by Italy in 1936-41. But please continue ...

>Icelandic's enjoy a life >expectancy 82.48 years for females >and 78.23 years for men. They >suffer only 3.29 deaths over 1000 >live births and have an AIDS rate >of 0.2%. Iceland enjoys a literacy >rate of 99% has a GDP per capita >of US$35,700.

Was there any need to repeat this?

>Ethiopian men can expect to live >to just 47.86 years and women >50.24 years. They lose 93.62 per >1000 live births and have an AIDS >rate of 4.4% (1.5 million people.) >They have a literacy rate of 42.7% >and a GDP of US$900 per capita.

>https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/et.html

>Iceland has only 0.07% arable land >whilst Ethiopia has 10.01%. >Ethiopia problems with feeding >itself are all man-made and >include: deforestation; >overgrazing; soil erosion; >desertification; water shortages >in some areas from water-intensive >farming and poor management. >Iceland's problems in feeding >itself in such hostile terrain are >all man-made and include: >utilising the natural geothermal >energy to cultivate crop in an >otherwise barren country, fishing >within sensible stock limits and >having productive citizens to >generate enough revenue to trade >for commodities not in existence >in Iceland.

>Explain, if you can, how a country >that has a better environmental >position and was never colonised >can fail so miserably, whilst the >other country, having a very poor >environmental hand, and having >been colonised for nearly a >thousand years is such a success?

Easy. It comes down to the position certain countries occupy in the global economy. Here I refer you to the excellent collection called 'Historical Materialism and Globalization' by Mark Rupert and Hazel SMith. For example, compare the level of sophistication between Abbysinian society and Icelandic society in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, or better still with England at that point in time. Despite obvious climactic differences; in terms of living standards, levels of culture, civil strife the English and Ethiopian societies were a more or less congruent levels of development. What changed? The development of capitalism in England. This period saw the decay of feudalism as a mode of production (see work by Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood) and from within it, commodity production (production in order to turn a profit, not for need or to meet one's obligation to the landlord) emerged and increasingly spread from the English countryside to the rest of the country and beyond. The drive behind English exapansion, the revolutions in agricultural production and later the industrial revolution, the creation of wealth on scales unparallelled in the feudal period, these were the outcome of a set of class relationships that came together in England at a certain period of time. Owing to their proximity and (very broadly) similar sets of circumstances West European economies managed to give way to capitalist development, by accident and by design. Outside of western Europe, paradoxically the early development of capitalism in the west strengthened feudal relations in Eastern Europe and Russia. However in the case of Ethiopia it did not, the same class relationships did not emerge and crucially, during the early phase of capitalism's expansion Ethiopia cut itself off from the rest of the world and the state came to be in thrall to localised warlords. The state itself wasn't centralised until the 1850s, the same period when Japan was emerging from a similar period of isolation. However, crucially though modernisation enabled both countries to hold off the depradations of the colonial powers, Japan was able to become an imperialist power in its own right due to the distance between it and Western Europe, and the fact most of its neighbours were pre-industrial and in many cases, feudal. Ethiopia however quickly became surrounded by colonised territories and subsequently its markets dominated by European capital.

Now if you bother acquainting yourself with Marxist works on international political economy you will be assailed with dozens of examples where colonial forces or western companies backed by armies forcibly introduced capitalist relations of production. In other words their economies were shaped not by the interests of indigenous ruling classes, but the demands of West European, and later, US capital. Even when colonial authorities left their economies were still dominated by foriegn capital. There was some variation within this scenario but this experience was not confined to Africa. Central America, where the countries are nominally independent and free of colonialism since the 1820s have had their economies structured in very similar ways.

It is a very complex topic and all I can provide is a rough outline. But what is clear from the volumes of literature that appear every year, whether Marxist or not, no one seriously believes race has anything to do with underdevelopment.

>I object to being able to speak >the truth without fear of >political prosecution: third world >immigrants impact crime immensely.

Can you illustrate this assertion with some figures please?

>I object to the real figures of >the damage being done by >immigration being concealed.

What's the damage? Where's the figures?

>This is happening all over the >western world right now.

>I will just use Scandinavia as an >example for now, because the mass >immigration from third world >countries is relatively recent and >I will take one crime- rape (one >of the worst in my view) and show >how Scandinavian has 'benefited' >and been 'enriched' by its new >immigrants.

>Norway's rape 'rate' suddenly >escalated to 6 times higher per >capita then New York with the >first mass influx of third >worlders.

>http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754

A rightwing blog linking to another rightwing blog isn't what I would call the use of rigorous sources. But finally I managed to find a short article from 2001 in Aftenposten, a Norweigian newspaper. First the police study was an *initial* study, it did not control for any other factors apart from ethnic origin. Second it does not offer an explanation why there appears to be a correlation. You just assume it's some innate trait non-westerners have. Third these are only reported rapes, only one in ten lead to prosecution. Now we'd probably both agree there are serious deficiencies in how rape is dealt with criminal justice systems, but nevertheless there is criminological work that suggests white people (generally) are more likely to report crimes committed against them were by people of non-white origin, when in fact they were committed by other whites. See Haralambos on crime and deviance.

But supposing the statistics are accurate, then you have to look at why immigrants are more likely to commit such brutalised acts. One suggestion would be that the degrading bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through to land even the shittiest job is not going to hwlp. Faced with a daily diet of discrimination, low pay and substandard accomodation isn't going to give you a sunny disposition. This does not remove individual responsibility, but rather it helps us understand how and why it occurs, and what can be done to prevent its recurrence.

>Should the Scandinavians just take >all of this as part of the >'celebration of racial diversity'?

>Needless to say, all Scandinavian >authorities refuse to release such >statistics now, becasue the >problem is even worse.

>But, things can only get worse as, >for instance as the third world >immigrants pour in the Swedish >pour out- in an expression of fear >and frustration of a policy they >did not vote for and they do not >want.

>"Immigration to Sweden in 2006 >reached its highest level since >records began. At the same time >emigration also soared to a level >not seen in over 100 years, >according to official figures >published by Statistics Sweden."
>http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=6412

>Its called white flight and we can >see happening in every white >country.

And where are the statistics to prove they are, for the most part made up of indigenous Swedes going abroad. Here in Britain, th pattern tends to be migrant workrs come in, work for a bit, and then return home. Some stay but nevertheless a large proportion return home, accounting for emigration figures. Likewise, there are roughly 5-6 million British citizens working abroad (according to the BBC), and they too return home in large numbers once their stint is done, accounting for a large proportion of immigration figures.

>I only wish I knew where they were >running too.

Surely by your logic if you're opposed to immigrants coming to Sweden, then to be consistent you should be opposed to Swedes moving abroad to find work. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as we say in Britain.

halm said...

Hi,

Sorry but I'm one of the crazies. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe holograms hit the twin towers, I couldn't actually endorse any of the conspiracy theories I have read. But something smells bad.

I arrived in conspiracy land a couple of years ago wondering what the loonies were going on about this time. I figured an hour would be enough to put my mind at rest and have a good laugh at the conspiraloons down the pub. Unfortunately it didn't turn out that way.

The more I read, the more the unanswered questions piled up.

- Who was that fat man in the video pretending to be Bin Laden confessing?

- Why was there an unprecendented power down at the twin towers the weekend before 911?

- Why were sniffer dogs removed from the twin towers the week before 911?

- If so many of the alleged hijackers turned up alive, who were the real hijackers? More importantly, why haven't they been identified in what should have been the biggest investigation of all time?

- What of the reports that many of the hijackers were trained at military flight schools?

- Why were at least two regional FBI teams prevented from investigating the hijackers in the weeks before 911?

- What where the apparent bombs being heard by firefighters and rescue workers before the collapse of the twin towers?

- How come molten steel was found in the rubble weeks after 911?

- What's the white hot stuff falling out of the twin towers as they collapsed?

- How come some of the "buckled" steel columns actually appear to have been cut?

You may notice that none of these questions were even put forward by the BBC documentary. Now, I'm quite sure there are reasonable answers to many such questions, and the only reason they have not been answered is due to the obstructionism orchestrated by the White House. But the volume of unanswered questions leaves me to conclude that any intelligent person cannot believe the official line. So what did happen?

Please, before you dismiss us all out hand just have a look to convince yourself that you are correct. I would suggest you googl "911 smoking guns" for the best alternative evidence. But whatever you do, don't just believe what the BBC served up; it was tantamount to a propoganda, an obvious hit-piece to anyone who has read the conspiracy theories.

Yours insanely,
Mike.

The Sentinel said...

Phil,

"You have an idea of what Marxism is that is far removed from what it actually is"

I think not. I suspect it is because I am near to spot on that you do not like it.

One thing all Marxist's love is endless questioning; rather like a small child and their endlessly recurrent 'why' question. It runs along the same lines as the critical theory- keep going until the opponent is confused and exhausted.


"You haven't proven anything..."

You asked me, yet again, to explain questions I have already answered, such the clergy succumbing to PC and I had gave an example to that earlier-"the church against its core text, the bible (especially Leviticus 18:22) not only allows homosexual ministers but encourages practices homosexual 'marriages'. Only recently, mind, only during the reign of 'PC"


"There are no sources in your article, merely name dropping of a couple of Marxists..."

That is how you decided have taken it, as if Marxists are somehow equivalent to Hollywood stars in the name dropping league, but I can assure you that they are actually sources.


"And yet Lukacs played no part in the school..."

I said he was a founder and

"With the hope of bringing different trends of Marxism together, Weil organised a week-long symposium (the Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche) in 1922 attended by Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, Friedrich Pollock and others. The event was so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent institute. Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education that the Director of the Institut would be a full professor from the state system, so that the Institut would have the status of a University"
http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm

confirms this.



"...Gramsci wasn't know to non-Italian speaking audiences until the 1970s..."

Not true at all, and a completely unqualified statement. Your reference to one book that may assert this as fact is superfluous. Equally I can refer you to this:



"The Left-wing political activity was an immediate and practical action arising from the 'new' Marxism evolving from the Frankfurt school and associated political thinkers and activists such as Antonio Gramsci..."

http://www.intellectbooks.com/europa/number5/mccull.htm

as proof of his influence.



"There is not one checkable source in your article. All there is is rhetoric based on flimsy assertion that does not stand the test of scrutiny"

It is all very checkable, with just a few minutes research.



"For instance you made specific claims in this comment box that the FBI know 9 of the 9-11 hijackers weren't on the planes"

Here is just one article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

Here you can see few more 'hijackers' still alive and well, and the FBI director also admitted that there was “legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix_up_of_911_terrorists.htm



"I may pass, I do have a life outside the internet"

And yet you seem to find plenty of time for this.



"Once again I'm astounded at your lack of being able to think. Race does exist ... as a social historical construct..."

Your original statement was: 'Yes, gender and race are socio-historical constructions used to describe people with different bodies' - with clear implication that it is nothing more then mere pigmentation.

Your amended statement now reads: 'Race *is* a socio-historical construction, ascribed to certain groups of human beings with shared biological characteristics' - now that I have provided just a smidgen of evidence that race is genetic, and consequently racial traits are varied by the differing genetics.

You denied race existed by stating: 'There is no scientific basis for race' but then go onto back track with your new statement of 'Race does exist.'

Perhaps, to conform to the new PC / marxist 'witchword' protocol we should call you a 'race denier.'



"So you can be bothered to find proofs when you think your argument is strong!"

I had already proved the history and genesis of the Marxist 'PC' curse.



"Unfortunately all they prove is humans with certain shared genetic characteristics have predispositions toward certain conditions"

No, it proves that as we are all governed by our genes, and each race has its own pre-programmed genetic structure, humans are influenced directly by the race they belong to.

If certain conditions are race specific that means certain traits are race specific.



"I note with interest your studious avoidance of the point I made regards blood transfusions"

Not really, I just found it to be a facile analogy but "There are racial and ethnic differences in Blood type and composition" Says BoodBook.com an authority on every aspect of blood and its study.

But it, goes on to say "Publishing the ethnic differences in Blood type and the racial differences in Blood type is not, in the present-day world, considered to be politically correct"

And also "These racial and ethnic Blood typing and population migration statistics are important in modern medicine for many reasons. The overriding problem in obtaining and publishing this information in the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent in Western Europe, is political correctness. It is not nice to talk about the ways that I may be different from you! "

http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html

This cannot be the same 'political correctness' you deny exists can it?



"If you take genetic variation as a definition of race, then how many different variations constitutes a race? Because of the variation within populations it makes more sense, from this point of view, to argue that each couple and their offsrping constitute a separate race (lieberman and Jackson)"

That is not sceience but more Marxist waffle. It is quite clear: A race is a genetic community of humans who share the same core DNA structure.

That is how that dug called BilDil can target just blacks with heart conditions: just blacks- of all 'cultural strains.' It is race specific.



"...I'll repeat it. Genetic variations among human populations exist. Certain characteristics appear common, such as skin and hair colour..."

And race specific genetic traits. Not just pigmentation.



"In other words 'Race' has a history because it is a means of classifying human beings that emerged at a particular time and place. This is how race is a social-historical construct"

No it does not. Race has a history because it is a physical entity, a genetic bind. As even a recent CRE study proved, people are happier amongst their own races. The genetics that determine who we are, how tall we will be, what our intelligence will be and our disease vulnerabilities ties us all together.

History is one long story of the competition of the races.



Sentinel: "Also, if you were to take an African group, and move them to, say Oslo, and leave them there breeding amongst their own gene pool for ten thousand years, do you seriously assert that they would be become white, or blond or blue-eyed?"

Phil "It depends on the population. As the genetic diversity in Africans at large is the same (if not larger) as white, north eastern Europeans then according to recent work in genetics this could well be the case."

Where on earth do you get this rubbish?! How about the Yupik for instance, why haven't they mutated to reflect the Viking gene pool around them or vice versa? Or the Gypsy, who has come from the depths of India but travelled through Europe since time immemorial, why has not the full blooded Gypsy changed to reflect their new surroundings?

Why? Because race is genetic and can only be changed, or altered with the introduction of different genes, not the introduction of environment or cultural factors. Obviously.



"Renatto Biasutti has argued that for peoples between the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn (straddling the equator), skin pigmentation tends toward darker skin"

Beside the fact that Biasutti suppositions predate DNA advanced knowledge in race genetics, I do not see Australians heading even slightly toward a such trend after well over 200 years; nor South Africams, Nor tropic dwelling Americans. Again, the reason is that it is genetic.



Sentinel: There are five times as many black youngsters in jail then white youngsters

Phil: "I don't see how this is a refutation of my arguments. All this proves is young black kids are more likely to go to prison than young white kids{...}This is the result of social processes, not genetics"

As for poverty excusing black crime, there is absolutely no reason for them to be poor in the UK or the US. They have the same level of access to education, social security and jobs as the rest of us. In fact they have better levels of access because both countries have made it legal to discriminate against whites in order to force black workers into good jobs (Affirmative action or Positive discrimination, depending on the side of the pond.) But discrimination is discrimination in my book.



Sentinel: "When you hear Lee Jasper admitting that blacks have a huge problem with gun and drug crime you know that it is really a massive problem."

Phil: "Indeed. It is a *cultural* problem."

Then why did the black community ask the police to establish the permanent taskforce known as 'Operation Trident 'to investagate specicfally black gun crime?

Not Dominican, Angolan, Somalian, or Rastafarian - but black gun crime. Racially specific.

Why does it have no white specific equivalent?



"Are you seriously suggesting there were no gun crimes or gang cultures prior to the arrival of black people in sizeable numbers in Britian"

Yes I am, to this degree. It is the worst it has ever been. Give me proof to the contrary (I thought I would try it.)

And getting worse each year.



"Jasper's saying nothing of the sort. All he says is that since black people became an established and visible component of British society, gun crime has grown to become a significant threat to it"

No, he is not, he is saying that blacks are involved in it to a degree that it is inextricably linking the whole black community to the problem.



"Need I remind you the black youth gun culture is a recent phenomenon"

In this country; not in the US or South Africa.

We are just catching up.

What a strange point anyway, it is here now and here to stay.



"So what? US blacks are disproportionately commit more crime"

So what??!!

So we do not need to import them wholesale into Europe for them do the same.

Which they are. Clearly. Irrefutably.



"Also, US blacks are disproportionately more impoverished"

As I have already said, as for poverty excusing black crime, there is absolutely no reason for them to be poor in the UK or the US. They have the same level of access to education, social security and jobs as the rest of us. In fact they have better levels of access because both countries have made it legal to discriminate against whites in order to force black workers into good jobs (Affirmative action or Positive discrimination, depending on the side of the pond.) But discrimination is discrimination in my book.



"People from other groups are also disproportionately more likely to commit crimes if they're from impoverished backgrounds"

In the many of the Southern states of the US whites are hit by the same poverty, and yet even there, it is blacks that are hugely and disproportionately responsible for crime.



"Look at the unemployment rates"

Why are they unemployed exactly?



"It's also worth noting that, in population terms, you're comparing a poor town with a wealthy village"

It works on a per captia basis so volume is not a factor.



"The unemployment rates and levels of poverty in South African townships beggars belief. This is not to excuse rape, but to tackle it you have to understand why it is taking place, as in the same way to effectively prevent and treat cancer you have to understand what can bring it on"

Even if, for arguments sake we left aide that fact, poverty might produce theft, and some accompanying violence, since when has rape been associated with not having as much money as you might like?

Since when has raping babies been linked to poverty?

Do you really believe there can be ANY excuse for that type of behaviour?




"What a pathetic attempt at trying to smear an entire group of people"

The article, not me, said

"It is the latest in a series of rapes of baby girls - some of them involving children less than one year-old{...}Every day the newspapers bring awful revelations: a nine-month-old girl gang-raped by six men; an eight-month-old raped and left by the roadside{...}Rape statistics from South Africa are so shocking as to be almost unbelievable {...}"Actually it's not a new phenomenon, it's been something that you hide, you regard it as an embarrassment within the family. But now people have started to talk, they've decided that they've had enough," a woman protester{...}It is also trying to dispel a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids. Traditional healers, or witchdoctors, are blamed for spreading this idea, and encouraging child rape."

It uses the words 'latest in a series' 'Every day'; 'not a new phenomenon'; 'a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids.' So the problem you have is either with the truth, or the BBC for reporting it.



"Profound. Africa is not all desert!"

Not really, just a statement of the obvious. Why do we have this verse in the Band aid song 'Do they know its Christmas':

And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life
(Oooh) Where nothing ever grows
No rain nor rivers flow
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

If not to popularise the myth of Africa as one big barren land, where no one can grow anything?



"Is anyone seriously suggesting the discrepencies in wealth come down to ... whether a country has a warm or cold climate?"

Yes, most Marxists do. Environmental theory is the excuse for the disparity in wealth and development prior to the 'colonisation' and 'capitalisation' excuse.



"Well if you had seriously researched Marxism, you know, that body of ideas you fulminate against, you'd already know the answer"

I know the bullshit that it produces as an answer. But it is nowhere near the truth.



"If there are any scientific bases to your insight between race and crime (and ignoring all other factors like poverty, for instance) then where is the research that proves black men are racially predisposed toward certain crimes?"

There has been many studies. Getting funding in this 'PC' dominated world is immensly difficult.

Would you agree with the findings anyway if they differed to your preconceptions?

Here is one though, with soem quite shocking results:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/9584



"Actually, Ethiopia was. Its forerunner (Abyssinia) was defeated by the Italians in the late 1880s for possession of a stretch of Eritrean coast line and briefly occupied by Italy in 1936-41"

I said colonised. Would you consider the French occupation during the war to constitute colonisation or the maybe brief Argentinean occupation of the Falklands?



"...It comes down to the position certain countries occupy in the global economy..."

The only reason a country is economically better off then others is the result of internal processes of organisation, inventiveness, and ingenuity. These processes are fuelled by its people and its people are made up of genetic material that relate to its race. That is why all north European countries and its offshoots have been global success; it is also why other less fortunate genetic recipients are shambolic.

Colonisation was just the logical extension of these internal manifestations.



"Ethiopia cut itself off from the rest of the world and the state came to be in thrall to localised warlords"

To say that Ethiopia cut itself off from the outside world precludes that at some time Ethiopia was some sort of player on the world stage. It never was. It did not cut itself off, it was cut off already, through its own profound primitiveness.


"Japan was able to become an imperialist power in its own right due to the distance between it and Western Europe"

Japan only entered the modern age with the US (therefore white) enforced Convention of Kanagawa in 1854. It did not invent its weaponry or its newly established industrial complex but bought it from whites- stock, knowledge and management.

The Japaense atatcked the US primarily over an oil embargo because it could not produce its own and fought WW2 with weapons mainly of French design, and later of German.



"But what is clear from the volumes of literature that appear every year, whether Marxist or not, no one seriously believes race has anything to do with underdevelopment"

These are weasel words. Many people believe exactly that.

And for good reason. when we look at the world, we can see that every north European country is as close to a success as humanly possible. Then we look at the other nations with other stock and we can see a rapid decline in success.

Just as a building is only as strong as its foundations, a country is only as strong as it people.



"What's the damage? Where's the figures?"

Just a quick one? A recent LSE report.

The report states that immigrants are costing council tax payers at least £200 million a year.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/997/LSE%20Population%20Mobility%20report%20-%20Feb%202007.pdf



"A rightwing blog linking to another rightwing blog isn't what I would call the use of rigorous sources"

Really, what about all of the links to news agencies contained in it?



"But finally I managed to find a short article from 2001 in Aftenposten, a Norweigian newspaper"

Not very honest. I had already provided that link and it is in the second paragraph of that blog in any case. Not something you would need the effort to 'finally manage.'



"First the police study was an *initial* study"

You mean if the person the police arrested was *initially* non-white, on further investigation he may turn out to be actually white after all?



"...it did not control for any other factors apart from ethnic origin..."

Such as?



"You just assume it's some innate trait non-westerners have"

I am not just assuming it. Look at the links for Denmark I provided and they tell you the same story.

One starts "Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls"

If you can have the technological savvy to have articles translated I can send many more links to this immigrant rape crisis in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish.



"But supposing the statistics are accurate, then you have to look at why immigrants are more likely to commit such brutalised acts. One suggestion would be that the degrading bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through to land even the shittiest job is not going to hwlp. Faced with a daily diet of discrimination, low pay and substandard accomodation isn't going to give you a sunny disposition."

They are begging to get into these countries, not being forced. If that is their gratitude for being given not only entry but food, shelter and clothing then they can rot in their home hell holes. No one but themselves is responsible for them their upkeep or their disgusting crimes.

You seem to have a lot of excuse to hand when it comes to rape. I am sure if it were your daughter, wife or mother raped you might not be quite so tolerant or apologetic.



"And where are the statistics to prove they are, for the most part made up of indigenous Swedes going abroad"

If you read the article it says 'emigration.'

That is the process of obtaining a permanent visa for another country in order to migrate your existence there permanently, or at least semi-permanently.

So you think it is just a coincidence that just as the highest ever recorded numbers of third world immigrants arrive, the highest ever recorded number of Swedes leave?



"Surely by your logic if you're opposed to immigrants coming to Sweden, then to be consistent you should be opposed to Swedes moving abroad to find work. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as we say in Britain"

I would prefer they stayed and reacted rather the let their country be overrun by people who commit two third of their nations rapes and other disproportionate levels of crime whilst taking vastly more out of the economy then putting in. Of course, this will ruin the country completely, very fast.

But wherever they go, they will only have a beneficial impact on the economy and society, not the crime rate and benefits.

V said...

Sentinel: “American Indians cannot grow beards or moustaches.”

My God, the guy’s a fucking genius! He’s right, we on the left have been shown as fakes for decrying all the inequalities of the world to be predicated upon the unequal distribution of resources. That one sentences has become my damascian moment. From now on I shall look upon the world through new eyes, the scales of economic determinism have fallen from eyes. I am now a biological determinist due to those profound words.

Thanks Sentinel. The world has been waiting a long, long time for such a sage to emerge from the confusion and chaos that surrounds us.

I am indebted to you forever.

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Sentinel said...

What a muppet.

You have picked up on just one fact (that you do not dispute) and bizarrely assign it sole status as proof in my comment (despite the voluminous proof given) and then twist and contort to stretch out the heavy sarcasm around it, when it is clear that the even blog administrator has run out of rubuttals anad excuses for my contention.

Very sad.

Muppet

The Sentinel said...

Another glorious week of headlines and publications in this country of wonderful diversity; each link proving the great success of Britain today and the wonderful benefits of immigration in the topsy turvey world of 'politcal correctness' in just a week's news:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2015746,00.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436858&in_page_id=1770

http://www.mcb.org.uk/downloads/Schoolinfoguidance.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=434086&in_page_id=1770

http://www.staffnurse.com/nursing-news-articles/rogue-nurses-use-eu-loopholes-2248.html

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/journallive/thejournal/tm_method=full%26objectid=18603078%26siteid=50081-name_page.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436334&in_page_id=1770

Phil said...

The Sentinel wrote:

"Phil: You have an idea of what Marxism is that is far removed from what it actually is"

"I think not. I suspect it is because I am near to spot on that you do not like it".

Erm, no you haven't. I'd be interested to know what works of Marx and Marxists you've read, because (writing as someone who's read, studied, debated, written and taught Marxism for 13 years) the stuff you've written fails to accord with Marxism as a body of thought in any way.

"One thing all Marxist's love is endless questioning; rather like a small child and their endlessly recurrent 'why' question. It runs along the same lines as the critical theory- keep going until the opponent is confused and exhausted."

More nonsense. Questioning doesn't take place for questioning's sake, it's to reveal the underlying power relations that permeate all class societies.

"You asked me, yet again, to explain questions I have already answered, such the clergy succumbing to PC and I had gave an example to that earlier-"the church against its core text, the bible (especially Leviticus 18:22) not only allows homosexual ministers but encourages practices homosexual 'marriages'. Only recently, mind, only during the reign of 'PC""

The problem here is one of selective interpretation. Why do conservatives and sundry homophobes such as yourself advocate strict biblical teaching on same sex acts (it doesn't proscribe homosexuality, as sexuality as we understand it is a recent socio-historical innovation), and yet liberally ignore other ludicrously violent precepts. For example, justifying slavery and murder (Judges 1:21-35), burning unbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), or rape (Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If you're happy using biblical condemnations of same-sex relations, then for consistency's sake you should be happy with other hateful passages in the bible.

"That is how you decided have taken it, as if Marxists are somehow equivalent to Hollywood stars in the name dropping league, but I can assure you that they are actually sources".

You can "assure me" you have sources. Then what's the problem citing them?

"I said he was a founder and

"With the hope of bringing different trends of Marxism together, Weil organised a week-long symposium (the Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche) in 1922 attended by Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, Friedrich Pollock and others. The event was so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent institute. Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education that the Director of the Institut would be a full professor from the state system, so that the Institut would have the status of a University"
http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm"

A tip on citing sources my friend - you're actually supposed to use stuff that bolsters your argument. All this illustrates is Lukacs attended a week long symposium that led to the setting up of the Frankfurt school. Attending meetings out of which something grew and playing a leading role in building that thing are two very different roles.

"Not true at all, and a completely unqualified statement. Your reference to one book that may assert this as fact is superfluous. Equally I can refer you to this:

"The Left-wing political activity was an immediate and practical action arising from the 'new' Marxism evolving from the Frankfurt school and associated political thinkers and activists such as Antonio Gramsci..."

http://www.intellectbooks.com/europa/number5/mccull.htm"

Given your lack of knowledge about Marxism and its development I'm not surprised you can make such a crass mistake. Gramsci had no contemporaneous influence on the Frankfurt School because:

1) He was an active communist militant and not well known outside Comintern circles prior to and during his 1926-34 imprisonment.

2) The work he is famous for was produced during his time in solitary confinement. Owing to the political situation in Italy his work was not known until the Italian CP published some of his works in the late 40s.

3) Gramsci was relatively unknown in the English-speaking world until the publication of the Selections from the Prison Notebooks in 1971.

4) Any association Gramsci has with the Frankfurt school is retrospective. ie. Later commentators tend to lump him in with Frankfurt, Lukacs, and other "Western Marxists" because of their shared interest in culture.

See the intro to the Selections by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and Quentin Hoare, or the biography by Giuseppe Fiori.

But I suspect you will not as this exchange has only revealed your ignorance and your unwillingness to engage seriously with Marxist ideas.

"It is all very checkable, with just a few minutes research".

Why should I spend time bothering to check your assertions. One rule of argument is you back your opinion with *your* proofs.

"Here is just one article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

Here you can see few more 'hijackers' still alive and well, and the FBI director also admitted that there was “legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.”"

Shocking evidence of the mother of all cover-ups it ain't. Interesting you choose to ignore the rest of the media reportage on the so-called "living hijackers". See http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories and scroll down to 'living hijackers'.

""I may pass, I do have a life outside the internet"

And yet you seem to find plenty of time for this."

Someone's got to answer your nonsense. If you don't like it, then don't bother posting here.

"Your original statement was: 'Yes, gender and race are socio-historical constructions used to describe people with different bodies' - with clear implication that it is nothing more then mere pigmentation."

"Your amended statement now reads: 'Race *is* a socio-historical construction, ascribed to certain groups of human beings with shared biological characteristics' - now that I have provided just a smidgen of evidence that race is genetic, and consequently racial traits are varied by the differing genetics."

"You denied race existed by stating: 'There is no scientific basis for race' but then go onto back track with your new statement of 'Race does exist.'"

"Perhaps, to conform to the new PC / marxist 'witchword' protocol we should call you a 'race denier.'"

Once more you show your inability to think outside the box. There is no scientific basis for race, or, to state even more explicitly, there is no biological evidence for different races. Yet there are historically evolved perceptions of race. So race doesn't exist objectively, but social-historical perceptions of race exist. If you cannot grasp this simple point then that's your problem.

"I had already proved the history and genesis of the Marxist 'PC' curse."

You did nothing of the sort. You proved nothing. You made distinctions between economic and cultural Marxism. You attempt to construct a lineage from Frankfurt to PC. But that's all you do. You don't cite sources to prove your argument, it's pure assertion. So I've done some research for you. It appears your ideas are a plagiarism of William S. Lind and Pat Buchanan, in fact that are exactly the same. So why can you not cite them, why do you have to pretend you thought them up all by yourself?

"No, it proves that as we are all governed by our genes, and each race has its own pre-programmed genetic structure, humans are influenced directly by the race they belong to."

Prove it with sources. I know you can if you can be bothered, afterall you kindly did so with the crime figures.

"If certain conditions are race specific that means certain traits are race specific."

Let's have some scientific proof of racial traits please, preferably from current genetic research.

""I note with interest your studious avoidance of the point I made regards blood transfusions""

"Not really, I just found it to be a facile analogy but "There are racial and ethnic differences in Blood type and composition" Says BoodBook.com an authority on every aspect of blood and its study."

It isn't a facile analogy. Someone from a different "race" with your blood type could save your life. Someone from the same with a different type could kill you. Kind of blurs the boundary of race doesn't it?

"But it, goes on to say "Publishing the ethnic differences in Blood type and the racial differences in Blood type is not, in the present-day world, considered to be politically correct"

Hardly, I recommend you watch the Channel 4 (chief crusader for PC in Britain if you believe the far right) doumentary, 100% English. It uses genetic markers commonly associated with race to analyse the DNA profiles of a group of celebrities. The results are very interesting and conclusively undermine your notions of race.

"And also "These racial and ethnic Blood typing and population migration statistics are important in modern medicine for many reasons. The overriding problem in obtaining and publishing this information in the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent in Western Europe, is political correctness. It is not nice to talk about the ways that I may be different from you! "

http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html"

And yet the Bloodbook manages to publish away without the PC dictatotship clamping down on them. Another point, I don't see how this in anyway refutes the stuff I posted on modern genetics, in fact it confirms it - except they choose to ascribe 'racial' characteristics to the commmon features of populations.

"This cannot be the same 'political correctness' you deny exists can it?"

Hahaha, I refer you back to my comments on multiculturalism. But one contradiction worth noting is that if, for you, PC is a pernicious conspiracy aimed at celebrating and promoting non-white races, then surely it would welcome research that confirms racial difference!

"That is not sceience but more Marxist waffle. It is quite clear: A race is a genetic community of humans who share the same core DNA structure."

Marxist waffle! It's the received wisdom in genetic science you plonker! You know, that discipline where researchers have to study the physical and biological sciences, base their research on scientific investigation, and whose research is peer reviewed by other scientists in the field. But of course, they're all in on the conspiracy too.

"That is how that dug called BilDil can target just blacks with heart conditions: just blacks- of all 'cultural strains.' It is race specific."

Actually, if you bother looking at the case in more depth you'll see this is *market driven*. The science is still very much in question. The december 05/January 06 newsletter of Breast Cancer Action notes that not all black recipients of the drug benefited from receiving it. But surely if your analysis of race was correct, ALL blacks would, because of their "core DNA". (As an aside she repeats my arguments on race, but then what would a professor in physiology know about genetics?).

"And race specific genetic traits. Not just pigmentation".

What are these traits. Proof please.

"No it does not. Race has a history because it is a physical entity, a genetic bind. As even a recent CRE study proved, people are happier amongst their own races. The genetics that determine who we are, how tall we will be, what our intelligence will be and our disease vulnerabilities ties us all together."

Race doesn't have a history, and yet it does? Look, there's the evolutionary history of genetic variation within and between populations, and there is a social history of these populations, which includes how they perceived one another. You can deny reality if you like, but the weight of historical scholarship is against you.

"History is one long story of the competition of the races."

More assertion. Could you tell me then how I, as a white working class man, is in competition with my Egyptian next door neighbour and his son, but not his white English wife? How is it, that when I used to work in a supermarket, I was in competition with cashiers who were from Asian backgrounds but somehow in harmony with the white bosses who were imposing productivity speed ups, skimping on paying wages, and generally squeezing every penny of labour out of us?

"Phil "It depends on the population. As the genetic diversity in Africans at large is the same (if not larger) as white, north eastern Europeans then according to recent work in genetics this could well be the case."

"Where on earth do you get this rubbish?! How about the Yupik for instance, why haven't they mutated to reflect the Viking gene pool around them or vice versa? Or the Gypsy, who has come from the depths of India but travelled through Europe since time immemorial, why has not the full blooded Gypsy changed to reflect their new surroundings?"

You only show your ignorance of genetic science. If you take the population of Africa on the one hand, and Scandinavia on the other, genetics has discovered there are more genetic differences (or variety) within those populations than pertain between them. This points to a fundamental genetic commonality between human beings wherever they are. So yes, if Scandinavians disappeared and African populations moved in, over a very long period of time their "racial" characteristics would change. That's evolutionary biology my friend.

What interests me is you seem to be implying that humans have always been "racially" distinct, a claim rejected in total by genetic science. If the facts don't fit your prejudices then that's your problem.

"Why? Because race is genetic and can only be changed, or altered with the introduction of different genes, not the introduction of environment or cultural factors. Obviously."

Where do genes come from? Do they just spontaneously change because they feel like it? In fact genes do spontaneously change, but those that get to reproduce themselves are those selected by environmental factors. An example. For arguments sake say there's a random mutation in the human genome present in a certain proportion of the population that renders them resistant to radiation. Now, in the event of global thermonuclear war humans possessing such a gene are more likely to survive and will pass the mutation on to their descendents. That's how evolutionary biology works.

"Beside the fact that Biasutti suppositions predate DNA advanced knowledge in race genetics, I do not see Australians heading even slightly toward a such trend after well over 200 years; nor South Africams, Nor tropic dwelling Americans. Again, the reason is that it is genetic."

Do you get off on wearing your ignorance like a badge? You won't see an assertion of lighter skin traits among African populations living in northern climes because it operates over millenial timescales. The human race took a bloody long time to evolve. Our own species of human, homo sapiens, emerged around 200,000 years ago. So the different physical and genetic characteristics of human populations have had all this time to assert themselves. And yet because it hasn't operated to your arbitrary 2 century timescale, it has to be false. Sorry, but as with everything else, the fossil record's against you too.

"Phil: "I don't see how this is a refutation of my arguments. All this proves is young black kids are more likely to go to prison than young white kids{...}This is the result of social processes, not genetics"

"As for poverty excusing black crime, there is absolutely no reason for them to be poor in the UK or the US. They have the same level of access to education, social security and jobs as the rest of us. In fact they have better levels of access because both countries have made it legal to discriminate against whites in order to force black workers into good jobs (Affirmative action or Positive discrimination, depending on the side of the pond.) But discrimination is discrimination in my book."

Actually, I would agree with you on positive discrimination, though I suspect on very different grounds. As for having as much access as everyone else, that maybe the case in theory. In social research, a correlation has long been established between poverty and educational failure among white people. Now is it because poor white people are genetically inferior to white middle and ruling class people? Historically in Britain black people, asians, and east asian have been poorer on the whole than the surrounding white population. Prior to the war it was the same for Jewish and Irish communities. Now among the latter it isn't the case? Why? Because they've become established and integrated into British society - they are no longer in the position of (comparatively) recent arrivals. Likewise with Poles who've just come to work in Britain. Are they poorer than indigenous whites and other communities because of some genetic trait? Or is it because they've come to work low paid jobs?

See, whenever you offer a 'racial' "explanation" for 'race'/wealth differentials, sociological explanantion is more appropriate, accurate and sophisticated than simple 'race'- minded reasoning.

"Phil: "Indeed. It is a *cultural* problem."

"Then why did the black community ask the police to establish the permanent taskforce known as 'Operation Trident 'to investagate specicfally black gun crime?"

Because black gun crime is a cultural problem primarily affecting black kids. Duh!

"Not Dominican, Angolan, Somalian, or Rastafarian - but black gun crime. Racially specific."

Hilarious! If you look at the research more closely you'll find it primarily affects 2nd or 3rd generation kids from Afro-Carribean backgrounds!

"Why does it have no white specific equivalent?"

You'll find plenty of crime that tend to be white specific. Is there a genetic predisposition among middle class white men to commit white collar crime for instance? Of course there isn't. But I'll let you ponder that one.

"Yes I am, to this degree. It is the worst it has ever been. Give me proof to the contrary (I thought I would try it.)"

Well my friend as I pointed out to you, gun culture has only become a very big issue this last five years. Surely if black people were instrinsically more violent than whites, then why has it taken so long to assert itself?

""Jasper's saying nothing of the sort. All he says is that since black people became an established and visible component of British society, gun crime has grown to become a significant threat to it""

"No, he is not, he is saying that blacks are involved in it to a degree that it is inextricably linking the whole black community to the problem."

And your point is?

""Need I remind you the black youth gun culture is a recent phenomenon""

"In this country; not in the US or South Africa."

"We are just catching up."

"What a strange point anyway, it is here now and here to stay."

Well in the US it has a longer pedigree, but then again it's still a recent phenomenon, linked to the proliferation of crack cocaine in the communities if the urban poor (not just blacks). Some say it was a CIA conspiracy to undermine black radicalism ...

""So what? US blacks are disproportionately commit more crime""

"So what??!!"

"So we do not need to import them wholesale into Europe for them do the same."

"Which they are. Clearly. Irrefutably."

I wasn't aware black people from the USA were migrating en masse to Europe.

""Also, US blacks are disproportionately more impoverished""

"As I have already said, as for poverty excusing black crime, there is absolutely no reason for them to be poor in the UK or the US. They have the same level of access to education, social security and jobs as the rest of us. In fact they have better levels of access because both countries have made it legal to discriminate against whites in order to force black workers into good jobs (Affirmative action or Positive discrimination, depending on the side of the pond.) But discrimination is discrimination in my book."

Why do you have to repeat a paragraph word by word? Incidentally I'm not excusing any crime, but to *prevent* crime you have to understand why it is caused. But like so much else, this is lost on you.

""People from other groups are also disproportionately more likely to commit crimes if they're from impoverished backgrounds""

"In the many of the Southern states of the US whites are hit by the same poverty, and yet even there, it is blacks that are hugely and disproportionately responsible for crime."

Again, proof would be nice. Also you might want to reflect on the very real discrimination blacks still face in the US south, lack of opportunities, and so on. Go read some accounts of Hurricane Katrina if you doubt it.

""Look at the unemployment rates""

"Why are they unemployed exactly?"

Because they can't get a job? The reason why most people tend to be unemployed?

""It's also worth noting that, in population terms, you're comparing a poor town with a wealthy village""

"It works on a per captia basis so volume is not a factor."

Eh? Of course it does. There is a very significant differences between the inner city working class area I live in, and the leafy suburbs just outside it. The same applies here, and the stats prove it.


""The unemployment rates and levels of poverty in South African townships beggars belief. This is not to excuse rape, but to tackle it you have to understand why it is taking place, as in the same way to effectively prevent and treat cancer you have to understand what can bring it on""

"Even if, for arguments sake we left aide that fact, poverty might produce theft, and some accompanying violence, since when has rape been associated with not having as much money as you might like?"

Well rape is a violent crime for one, and second as I stated in my previous contribution, poverty brutalises. If you live a rough life, you're hardly going to be a saint.

"Since when has raping babies been linked to poverty?"

Brutalisation. Yawn.

"Do you really believe there can be ANY excuse for that type of behaviour?"

Pathetic. Why have I excused any behaviour? Point it out, go on, I challenge you. Or would you prefer not to try and understand the conditions that give rise to atrocities such as this, so that future crimes can be prevented?

"The article, not me, said

""It is the latest in a series of rapes of baby girls - some of them involving children less than one year-old{...}Every day the newspapers bring awful revelations: a nine-month-old girl gang-raped by six men; an eight-month-old raped and left by the roadside{...}Rape statistics from South Africa are so shocking as to be almost unbelievable {...}"Actually it's not a new phenomenon, it's been something that you hide, you regard it as an embarrassment within the family. But now people have started to talk, they've decided that they've had enough," a woman protester{...}It is also trying to dispel a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids. Traditional healers, or witchdoctors, are blamed for spreading this idea, and encouraging child rape."

It uses the words 'latest in a series' 'Every day'; 'not a new phenomenon'; 'a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids.' So the problem you have is either with the truth, or the BBC for reporting it."

No, I've got no problem at all with the BBC reporting it. In fact this kind of stuff should be out in the open. All it shows is if people are treated like shit (and really, they don't come much worse than SA's townships for grinding poverty), they treat fellow human beings like shit.

""Profound. Africa is not all desert!"

"Not really, just a statement of the obvious. Why do we have this verse in the Band aid song 'Do they know its Christmas':"

I guess you have a hard time recognising sarcasm.

"And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life
(Oooh) Where nothing ever grows
No rain nor rivers flow
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?"

"If not to popularise the myth of Africa as one big barren land, where no one can grow anything?"

Indeed, it popularises the notion that Africa's problems are environmental. In fact they're social, traceable to the position occupied by African states in glocal capitalism.

"Yes, most Marxists do."

Who are these Marxists? Names.

"Environmental theory is the excuse for the disparity in wealth and development prior to the 'colonisation' and 'capitalisation' excuse."

Who argues this 'environmental theory'? Sources please.

""Well if you had seriously researched Marxism, you know, that body of ideas you fulminate against, you'd already know the answer""

"I know the bullshit that it produces as an answer. But it is nowhere near the truth."

Prove that the position a state has in the global organisation of capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with how wealthy it is. Go on.

""If there are any scientific bases to your insight between race and crime (and ignoring all other factors like poverty, for instance) then where is the research that proves black men are racially predisposed toward certain crimes?""

"There has been many studies. Getting funding in this 'PC' dominated world is immensly difficult."

I knew it! However, Marx never had any funding for his studies into the character and nature of capitalism, and yet 'Capital' remains indispensible to any understanding of the global economy. So if this, among other works by Marxists, have been produced without funding, then where's the research to back up your claims? You say there's been "many studies". Let's have them then.

"Would you agree with the findings anyway if they differed to your preconceptions?"

I never accept anything uncritically. The reason I'm a Marxist is because when all is said and done, Marxism's body of work is that which most fully accords with how I've experienced the world.

"Here is one though, with soem quite shocking results:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/9584"

I would be wary of accepting any non-peer reviewed research on race by a far right group such as American Renaissance. Would you, for example, accept Nazi figures on Jews as good coin?

""Actually, Ethiopia was. Its forerunner (Abyssinia) was defeated by the Italians in the late 1880s for possession of a stretch of Eritrean coast line and briefly occupied by Italy in 1936-41"

"I said colonised. Would you consider the French occupation during the war to constitute colonisation or the maybe brief Argentinean occupation of the Falklands?"

You'll be surprised at how much damage can be inflicted during the briefest of occupations. The current violence in Iraq being a case in point.

""...It comes down to the position certain countries occupy in the global economy...""

"The only reason a country is economically better off then others is the result of internal processes of organisation, inventiveness, and ingenuity. These processes are fuelled by its people and its people are made up of genetic material that relate to its race. That is why all north European countries and its offshoots have been global success; it is also why other less fortunate genetic recipients are shambolic."

If this was the case, then how come other parts of the globe have been more advanced than Europe at different points in history? As late as the 16th century China was more technologically sophisticated than Europe. Why is it the ideas that Europe seized upon during the Enlightenment came from Arabic sources, preserved from the Romans and Greeks? Why, until the 19th century, was the Great Pyramid the tallest building in the world? How is it South American civilisations rose and fell while Europeans were scrabbling around in caves? Why is it the Japanese arguably have the most technologically sophisticated society on the Earth at present?

The idea that some races are more inventive than others is ludicrous. There is no scientific basis for your claim and it has not been taken seriously in the social sciences since the late 19th century. Not for the first time, the weight of human knowledge is arrayed against you.

"Colonisation was just the logicalextension of these internal manifestations."

How come not all European nations went in for colonisation? I'm not aware of Sweden's vast colonial empire, for instance.

""Ethiopia cut itself off from the rest of the world and the state came to be in thrall to localised warlords""

"To say that Ethiopia cut itself off from the outside world precludes that at some time Ethiopia was some sort of player on the world stage. It never was. It did not cut itself off, it was cut off already, through its own profound primitiveness."

I can't see the point in debating with someone who lacks the ability to address elemental facts. Ethiopia was not cut off from the world because it was "primitive", it was so because of internal class dynamics. In the same way Japan did - it too wasn't a world player when it withdrew into isolation in the late medieval period, but then it didn't have to be. 'To cut one's self off from the world' is just an expression.

""Japan was able to become an imperialist power in its own right due to the distance between it and Western Europe""

"Japan only entered the modern age with the US (therefore white) enforced Convention of Kanagawa in 1854. It did not invent its weaponry or its newly established industrial complex but bought it from whites- stock, knowledge and management."

Indeed, the Japanese ruling class realised it had to make the most of western technique or end up colonised. In fact, a useful parallel can be made with Germany (Prussia) at this time, where we have a feudal ruling class in both countries attempting to transform themselves into capitalist powers. The fact the impetus came from outside in both cases hardly refutes a Marxist analysis, rather it confirms the all-encompassing power of capital.

"The Japaense atatcked the US primarily over an oil embargo because it could not produce its own and fought WW2 with weapons mainly of French design, and later of German."

So what? Still, those inferior Japanese seem to have done an okay job of making themselves the world's number 2 economic power, without the kinds of natural resources Germany, Britain, and even Sweden have at their disposal.

""But what is clear from the volumes of literature that appear every year, whether Marxist or not, no one seriously believes race has anything to do with underdevelopment""

"These are weasel words. Many people believe exactly that."

Who are these "many people"? You and a smattering of far right bloggers?

"And for good reason. when we look at the world, we can see that every north European country is as close to a success as humanly possible. Then we look at the other nations with other stock and we can see a rapid decline in success."

Well I prefer to go with what informed research on the causes of underdevelopment say rather than an "analysis" that does not go beyond how things immediately appear.

"Just as a building is only as strong as its foundations, a country is only as strong as it people."

So systematic and unequal trade relationships, the effects of colonisation and one-sided economic structuring, Western import tarriffs, etc, and the place a country occupies in these relationships has nothing to do with underdevelopment. No, all that matters is 'race'. Rubbish.

Incidentally I note you couldn't be bothered to discuss my simple skecth of the structure of global capital. Either the cat got yor tongue or you couldn't reply because you know your "theory" cannot answer it/

""What's the damage? Where's the figures?""

"Just a quick one? A recent LSE report."

"The report states that immigrants are costing council tax payers at least £200 million a year."

"http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/997/LSE%20Population%20Mobility%20report%20-%20Feb%202007.pdf"

Actually, the report refers to migration as a whole, not just migrant workers from other countries. The second point you have to ask are why migrant workers are here? They come to work in low paid jobs that are nevertheless, by the standards of their own countries, comparatively well paid. But once you take the cost of living out they're no better off over all, so public services have to be there to pick up the tab. However the wealth realised through their labour is immensely valued by the capitalist class. So instead of moaning about council tax payers picking up the tab, surely you should be demanding the wealth they create is ploughed into public services so that *all* benefit. I've said it before and I'll say it again, assuming youre working class too, you have more in common with black and asian working class people than our white ruling class masters.

""A rightwing blog linking to another rightwing blog isn't what I would call the use of rigorous sources""

""But finally I managed to find a short article from 2001 in Aftenposten, a Norweigian newspaper""

"Not very honest. I had already provided that link and it is in the second paragraph of that blog in any case. Not something you would need the effort to 'finally manage.'"

Forgive me for not initally trusting the commentary of a right wing blog when it refers to race issues. Likewise if I were to blog about something on this citing a particular source of research, I assume you'd check out what they say rather than taking my commentary as good coin.

""First the police study was an *initial* study""

"You mean if the person the police arrested was *initially* non-white, on further investigation he may turn out to be actually white after all?"

Erm, no. When the police say it's an initial study, it implies that more research is to follow that may confirm or refute the initial observations.

""...it did not control for any other factors apart from ethnic origin...""

"Such as?"

Poverty, religious affiliation, political beliefs, education, etc.

""You just assume it's some innate trait non-westerners have""

"I am not just assuming it. Look at the links for Denmark I provided and they tell you the same story."

Given that your theory of race is the province of cranks, fascists, pseduo-scientists, and is refuted by genetic science and historical research on race and race relations, evidence suggests there is no innate propensity to violence on the part of any race. Think about the lesson I assume you've taken from your Sept 11th conspiracy theorising - not everything is as it immediately appears.

"One starts "Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls""

And this disproves criminological research in the area how?

"If you can have the technological savvy to have articles translated I can send many more links to this immigrant rape crisis in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish."

There's no need thanks. No matter how many you send, they do not prove your position one jot.

""But supposing the statistics are accurate, then you have to look at why immigrants are more likely to commit such brutalised acts. One suggestion would be that the degrading bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through to land even the shittiest job is not going to hwlp. Faced with a daily diet of discrimination, low pay and substandard accomodation isn't going to give you a sunny disposition.""

"They are begging to get into these countries, not being forced. If that is their gratitude for being given not only entry but food, shelter and clothing then they can rot in their home hell holes. No one but themselves is responsible for them their upkeep or their disgusting crimes."

As if I ever suggested migrant workers were being forced into the West. Well I suppose they are in a sense, economic compulsion can be a very effective whip-hand.

"You seem to have a lot of excuse to hand when it comes to rape. I am sure if it were your daughter, wife or mother raped you might not be quite so tolerant or apologetic."

Do you actually bother reading what I set out in plain english? Let me turn the question round, if it were one of your relatives unfortunate enough to be on the recieving end of the attack, doesn't society have a responsibility to try and figure out how and why such crimes happen, so that others do not have to suffer in future?

I say yes because as social animals, humans are ultimately creatures of the environments we grew up in. This does not absolve individual responsibility btw, but recognising certain experiences predispose individuals to certain behaviours. For example, is it no accident that so many child abusers were they themselves abused as a child? The question then is how to break the cycle.

""And where are the statistics to prove they are, for the most part made up of indigenous Swedes going abroad""

"If you read the article it says 'emigration.'"

"That is the process of obtaining a permanent visa for another country in order to migrate your existence there permanently, or at least semi-permanently."

"So you think it is just a coincidence that just as the highest ever recorded numbers of third world immigrants arrive, the highest ever recorded number of Swedes leave?"

Well there maybe a correlation, there may not be. With the reemergence of the global economy emigration of white west europeans is at an all time high. They are coincident phenomena, one isn't causing the other - they are syptomatic of the internationalisation of labour markets driven by the blind hand of global capital. Short of systematic research being done in the area, I doubt very few are "fleeing" their home country out of racist reasons.

""Surely by your logic if you're opposed to immigrants coming to Sweden, then to be consistent you should be opposed to Swedes moving abroad to find work. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as we say in Britain""

"I would prefer they stayed and reacted rather the let their country be overrun by people who commit two third of their nations rapes and other disproportionate levels of crime whilst taking vastly more out of the economy then putting in. Of course, this will ruin the country completely, very fast."

"But wherever they go, they will only have a beneficial impact on the economy and society, not the crime rate and benefits."

Well let's use your arguments. A number of Swedes take up jobs in the USA - hold on, aren't they stealing american's jobs? A group of Swededs retire to the Costa Del Sol, one falls ill, oops! Using health services they haven't paid a penny toward. And so on and so on.

The fact is my friend the real enemy, the one screwing up the planet and threatening our species with extinction is captialism, and the ruling class it benefits. There is no conspiracy, only the hidden hand of the market. Everywhere where the system goes, it brutalises, it subjugates, it subordinates all to the cold hard nexus of cash. This is what you should be railing against.

voltaires_priest said...

Isn't this a very serious tone of argument to be having with someone who seems to be lacking a little lead in ze pencil... ?

Phil said...

Well Volty, our friend The Sentinel fancies himself as the hammer of the Marxists. He takes pride in writing lengthy tracts of of gibberish and posting them on socialist blogs. When those he chooses to pick on switch their comments moderation on he assumes it's not because he's being an anti-social pain in the arse, but that somehow his ideas are correct and no one can challenge them. Then he goes off and posts those exchanges on his blog to illustrate how Marxists are just running scared when they're faced with the truth.

So I'm taking a little time out to show the fantasy world our friend lives in. Unsurprisingly this exchange has yet to be posted up on his blog.

The Sentinel said...

voltaires_priest,

As usual with your type you substitute substance for abuse and call for censorship or its effective implementation as a first resort to dissent.

Of course, hypocrisy is your strong hand with your blog profile photo proclaiming 'free online speech' and 'STOP internet censorship' whilst trying to shut debate down.

What you are witnessing is a real debate, the exercise of real freedom of speech. Two varying view points presenting argument and reason for their position without recourse to expletive riddled abuse, personal threats or complete hysteria.

Most of you so-called 'socialists / Marxist / anarchists' anythingwithanistinit could learn from this guy in the proper conduct of free speech and the standards of conduct in debate.

The hysterical fascism most of you display towards anyone disagreeing with you does your position no favours at all.

All you have contributed here is an unfounded reference to my penis, in what is most likely a 'Freudian slip.'

Jim Denham said...

No-one is trying to shut the 9/11 conspiracy-theorists up, "Sentinel": we're just saying that you are all lunatics, most are anti-Marxist reactionaries, and quite a few are anti-semites (not necessarily you).

Still, you do now have your very own candidate for the leadership of the British Labour Party: Mr. Michael Meacher.

The Sentinel said...

Phil,



"our friend The Sentinel fancies himself as the hammer of the Marxists"



That is your view of me, not mine of myself.





"He takes pride in writing lengthy tracts of of gibberish and posting them on socialist blogs"



Not true. I have only done that on one very underhanded blog.



And it is hardly gibberish. I have provided evidence and sources, and even more below.





"When those he chooses to pick on switch their comments moderation on he assumes it's not because he's being an anti-social pain in the arse"



Since when did having an opinion become antisocial?





"but that somehow his ideas are correct and no one can challenge them"



That is exactly why they do it.



Because they have neither foundation nor integrity in their beliefs.



They merely seek 'self-affirmers' to comment and are fearful and outraged by dissent.



Usually they just concentrate on personal insults and using hysterical smear words, whilst deleting the reasoned comment made, and then enable 'comment moderation' (a.k.a censorship) in smug form of self protection from dangerous free speech.





"Then he goes off and posts those exchanges on his blog to illustrate how Marxists are just running scared when they're faced with the truth"



That is how the blog began, in disgust at the tactics employed. It is now a daily(ish) commentary.





"So I'm taking a little time out to show the fantasy world our friend lives in"



You disagree with me. Clearly. And I genuinely respect your openness to debate, it shows integrity in your beliefs and a healthy regard for freedom.



It is only dismaying that has to be done with such venom. I can honesty say that I have never encountered so much fear and hate at people that disagree then with Marxists / Socialists. It is like any dissent needs to be violently stopped, that no one may have an opinion that conflicts.


If they do, either: shut them up quickly; shut down debate; insult them; call them mentally deranged or fantasists or just use violence. After all, they are not people in the conventional sense are they? They are monsters.





"Unsurprisingly this exchange has yet to be posted up on his blog"



Like I said, it is now a daily commentary service; but as I do genuinely respect your openness for debate I will write a brief post to link to this debate at your request.



Onto your comments:

-------------------------------


" I'd be interested to know what works of Marx and Marxists you've read"



Most of the major 'works' including The Communist Manifesto, Capital, parts of The Poverty of Philosophy and parts of Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy and The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.





"the stuff you've written fails to accord with Marxism as a body of thought in any way"



I do not 'accord' to it, and so therefore your likely perception of it. I believe it to be corrosive and dangerous and the cause of naught but suffering wherever it has been imposed, with the world’s most prolific mass murder, Stalin, being an adherent.





"More nonsense. Questioning doesn't take place for questioning's sake..."



Anyone can ask 'why' endlessly in an effort to undermine an opposing view.





"The problem here is one of selective interpretation. Why do conservatives and sundry homophobes such as yourself ..."



You have no idea of my personal opinion of homosexuality, just a presumption. And I am certainly not a conservative.





"advocate strict biblical teaching on same sex acts (it doesn't proscribe homosexuality, as sexuality as we understand it is a recent socio-historical innovation),"



Completely and utterly false. It does proscribe it in unequivocal terms.



Sexuality is a “recent socio-historical innovation"??!! You must be insane!



Leviticus 18:22:



"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22;&version=31;



Leviticus 20:13:



"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:13;&version=31;



I don't think it could be much clear then that: The Christian God hates homosexuality and would have its practitioners put to death.





"and yet liberally ignore other ludicrously violent precepts. For example, justifying slavery and murder (Judges 1:21-35), burning unbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), or rape (Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If you're happy using biblical condemnations of same-sex relations, then for consistency's sake you should be happy with other hateful passages in the bible."



You seem to be making yet another presumption about me, that I am a Christian whereas the reality is that I despise that corrupt, contradictory, superstitious mumbo jumbo and attribute to it more damage and decay then even Marxism has produced for the north Europeans.



I know a lot about their teachings, more then most clergy, having read the bible several times. Something they don't tell their less physically fortunate members of the congregation, for instance, is that their God does not want their worship or presence in his temples, finding it to be a 'desecration.'



Leviticus 21:16-23



"The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy."



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2021:16-23;&version=31;



And of course I know the sheer hypocrisy and bald lies involved in the clergy’s presentation of Jesus as a forgiving, loving peace advocate.



Matthew 10:34-36



"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:34-36;&version=31;



I could go on for days about the varying truths, half truths and outright lies involved in this religion with examples such as the clergies scorn of the Hinduism reincarnation belief whilst keeping quiet about John the Baptist being a reincarnate (according to the bible) but that is not the issue we are debating here.



The point I was making was that the church, in direct contravention of its core text and faith has bowed to 'PC' pressure and allowed homosexual marriages and the ordination of homosexual clergy.





"You can "assure me" you have sources. Then what's the problem citing them?"



They are in the article for crying out loud. However, it is drawn from various sources such as the ones I have provided links for already.





"A tip on citing sources my friend - you're actually supposed to use stuff that bolsters your argument. All this illustrates is Lukacs attended a week long symposium that led to the setting up of the Frankfurt school"



I think you must be being deliberately obtuse here. I said he was a founder, not a participant, and we have it from the horses mouth that he attended a week long symposium 'with the hope of bringing different trends of Marxism together' and that 'the event was so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent institute' from which 'political correctness was born.



I said he was a founder and he was; his influence in that conference was important in the establishment of that school.





"Attending meetings out of which something grew and playing a leading role in building that thing are two very different roles"



The same argument could be applied to some of the American founding fathers, but they are attributed this status nonetheless.





"Given your lack of knowledge about Marxism and its development I'm not surprised you can make such a crass mistake..."



Actually, you are arguing against the author of that article posted on 'intellectbooks.com' here, not me.





"Why should I spend time bothering to check your assertions. One rule of argument is you back your opinion with *your* proofs{...}Shocking evidence of the mother of all cover-ups it ain't. Interesting you choose to ignore the rest of the media reportage on the so-called "living hijackers". See http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories and scroll down to 'living hijackers'."



So you can find articles on this without my help! (Even though you can't see why you should bother.)



As I said I am going to pen an article on his issue before too long and my position will made clear, with the reasons, then.



But really, do you not find it strange that the FBI director, the head of the USA's foremost criminal investigation agency has '"no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers" in relation to the most heinous act of mass murder in its history?



Why not? And if they have no evidence how do they know who actually did it, or why?





"Once more you show your inability to think outside the box. There is no scientific basis for race, or, to state even more explicitly, there is no biological evidence for different races
{...}So race doesn't exist objectively, but social-historical perceptions of race exist. If you cannot grasp this simple point then that's your problem."



Wow, more waffle. I have provided some evidence of the existence of race (objectively) and I will provide the link to more, a bit later.





"So I've done some research for you. It appears your ideas are a plagiarism of William S. Lind and Pat Buchanan, in fact that are exactly the same. So why can you not cite them, why do you have to pretend you thought them up all by yourself?"



How very sad. I have never even heard of the former and I only have a vague recollection of the later.



And how very rich from someone with no original ideas of his own, happy to slavishly follow the scribbles of man who died nearly 125 years ago, regurgitating tracts and concepts that are not his own with "socio-historical constructions" being the regurgitation of favor in response to virtually every aspect of human matters.





"Prove it with sources. I know you can if you can be bothered, afterall you kindly did so with the crime figures{...}Let's have some scientific proof of racial traits please, preferably from current genetic research"



I know I am wasting my time here for you are not interested in objectivity, and will dismiss any study or work that does not conform to your ideology.



But try- "Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits" by RUSHTON J. Philippe ; RUSHTON Elizabeth W:



"A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm[3], European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm[3], and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm[3]. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106. The validity of the race differences in brain size, however, continues to be disputed...



If the races did not differ in brain size, these correlations could not have been found. It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established. As such, brain size-related variables provide the most likely biological mediators of the race differences in intelligence."



http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14522791



Or this book by Professor Michael Levin "Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean" this review provides further sources in the footnote:



"The empirical evidence for racial differences is strong, although seldom discussed in the academic literature, being often dismissed as due to stereotypes. Levin deals with the stereotype issue, asking why over the centuries certain beliefs about race have prevailed. The simplest answer is observation; the traits have been repeatedly observed. A summary of the data on intelligence describes the differences between races...



Taking Gould on again, Levin points out that even Gould3 agreed that tests are not biased against blacks in the statistical sense (as Levin points out, this admission is in effect a retraction of Chapter 5 of his earlier 1981 book), but argued that people are really interested in whether "blacks average 85 and whites 100 because society treat blacks unfairly." This is replacing the usual meaning of bias with a new question. As Levin points out repeatedly, an effect can be real but unjustly caused, and whether or not an effect is real, and whether it is justly caused are logically separate questions...



The racial difference in IQ is well known to specialists (even if not to the media) and well discussed by them. There has been less attention paid to racial differences in personality. Levin describes two of special interest...

The last part of the book deals with questions of why race matters. Here again, Levin's role as philosopher comes in. He argues that whether the causes of black poverty and suffering is genetic is indeed important. If it is due to something that white people did, possibly the blacks have some claim for compensation (although the question would still have to be addressed of whether the whites now living were the ones who owed the compensation). However, Professor Levin argues that the black problems are due to genetic causes. Since no one is responsible for their own genes or for the genes of other people, this absolves the white community (and white individuals) of responsibility for black problems..."

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_wrm.html



"Someone from a different "race" with your blood type could save your life{...}Kind of blurs the boundary of race doesn't it?"

Not at all. A lion can accept a tigers blood because it is a member of the same family; they still remain two distinct species, however, with distinct attributes.



"I recommend you watch the Channel 4 (chief crusader for PC in Britain if you believe the far right) doumentary, 100% English{...}The results are very interesting and conclusively undermine your notions of race"

I think you seriously misunderstood the program.

What it sought to do was destroy the idea of English nationalism as an Anglo-Saxon preserve by demonstrating that some of the selected adherents had other blood flowing through there their veins, i.e. black, asian or middle-eastern.

It used race to attempt undermine the concept of nationalism, in the context of a racial cohesive entity.

It also carefully selected people whose physicality precluded that they were not of completely north European lineage. The 18 year old TA lad had an obvious Mongoloid look, and unsurprisingly had asian blood; the 'English rose' had a distinct gypsy look and nose and Gary Bushell displays some recessive Negroid features etc. etc

It was a typical set up job with the result known before the start.



"Another point, I don't see how this in anyway refutes the stuff I posted on modern genetics, in fact it confirms it - except they choose to ascribe 'racial' characteristics to the common features of populations."

They did not choose to define it that way, it is scientifically necessary to do so in the interests of accuracy.

They are not a political group, nor do they have links to any. It is objective and scientific,

You only seem to see a forest if it suits you; if it does not you merely see a collection of trees.



"Marxist waffle! It's the received wisdom in genetic science you plonker! You know, that discipline where researchers have to study the physical and biological sciences, base their research on scientific investigation, and whose research is peer reviewed by other scientists in the field. But of course, they're all in on the conspiracy too."

I have provided you with links to experts in the field that contend the varying attributes of the races exist and are tangible. They are not well publicised because of the current political climate.



"..But surely if your analysis of race was correct, ALL blacks would, because of their "core DNA".

Absolutely ludicrous.

Just as all humans do not respond to cancer treatments. Some do, some don't. Just as all humans do not respond to HIV treatments. Just as antibiotics have no beneficial effects in some humans.



"As an aside she repeats my arguments on race, but then what would a professor in physiology know about genetics?"

Certainly not more then the experts in the field, to whom I have provided links.



"If this was the case, then how come other parts of the globe have been more advanced than Europe at different points in history? As late as the 16th century China was more technologically sophisticated than Europe. Why is it the ideas that Europe seized upon during the Enlightenment came from Arabic sources, preserved from the Romans and Greeks? Why, until the 19th century, was the Great Pyramid the tallest building in the world? How is it South American civilisations rose and fell while Europeans were scrabbling around in caves? Why is it the Japanese arguably have the most technologically sophisticated society on the Earth at present?"



There is much evidence that whites were around at the formative periods of all the cultures you describe:



China: http://www.white-history.com/hwr6a.htm


Egypt: http://www.white-history.com/hwr8.htm

http://www.white-history.com/hwr8a.htm

http://www.white-history.com/hwr8b.htm

http://www.white-history.com/hwr8c.htm

http://www.white-history.com/hwr8d.htm



South America: http://www.white-history.com/hwr6d.htm



Indeed, all of the Great South American cultures and their legends- Mayan, Aztec and Inca talk of 'Quetzalcoatl' The Great White Father who taught all they knew.



That is how the Conquistadors were able to make such headway, so fast with so few: They initially thought the white God's were returning.



This is an interesting book on the subject:



http://www.amazon.com/Bearded-White-God-Ancient-America/dp/1555177476



As for Japan, it is not an innovator by any means; more of tax magnet for those who are.



In any case, Japan came very close to bankruptcy recently and was only prevented from collapse by the IMF.



http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_38/b3749147.htm





Sentinel: "History is one long story of the competition of the races."
Phil: "More assertion"

Not at all. Have a look at this comprehensive account of history, and the competition of the races throughout it. Have a look at all the evidence contained within it and then tell me that my 'assertion' is baseless.

http://www.white-history.com/index.htm

You will find a definition of race in the first chapter, incidentally, in addition to some very interesting appendices.



"What interests me is you seem to be implying that humans have always been "racially" distinct, a claim rejected in total by genetic science. If the facts don't fit your prejudices then that's your problem"

There is absolutely no evidence for this, but plenty to counter it. It works on the theory that we all originate from 9 (or 13 according to some) humans.

As best as science can determine, the first trace of white existence emanates from the Caucus mountains, hence the term Caucasian for whites.



"Do you get off on wearing your ignorance like a badge?"

The resort to insults is sad, but expected.



"Our own species of human, homo sapiens, emerged around 200,000 years ago. So the different physical and genetic characteristics of human populations have had all this time to assert themselves. And yet because it hasn't operated to your arbitrary 2 century timescale, it has to be false. Sorry, but as with everything else, the fossil record's against you too"

All of this is pure speculation. Scientist have no idea how long we have been here are where we came from. 'Missing link' anyone?

If the human race were to transmutate in reaction to environment at least some sign of it would have occurred in those north Europeans that have moved to climates beyond their usual in the extreme.



" Now is it because poor white people are genetically inferior to white middle and ruling class people?"

If everyone was rich who would work, and if everyone ruled who would follow.



"Likewise with Poles who've just come to work in Britain. Are they poorer than indigenous whites and other communities because of some genetic trait? Or is it because they've come to work low paid jobs?"

They have come here to get access to markets more developed then their own; they have never been able to produce the same level of success as the north Europeans, and as they are a variant of the root branch of the white race in addition to having absorbed large quantities of asian blood from the various invasions and occupations it has suffered (Slav is a derivative of the word slave, reflecting this), so yes, it would seem highly likely. that this is the case.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr31.htm

http://www.white-history.com/avars.htm



"Because black gun crime is a cultural problem primarily affecting black kids. Duh!"

Its racial problem facing blacks wherever they reside. Duh!



"Hilarious! If you look at the research more closely you'll find it primarily affects 2nd or 3rd generation kids from Afro-Carribean backgrounds!"

Exactly the point. That 'discrimination and oppression' you like to cite kept the original immigrants in line, along with the fact that most of the first generation were genuinely grateful to be admitted.

As in Australia with the vast Lebanese problem the, and in Scandinavia with vast rape problem there, and in the US, we can see that it is usually the second / third generation that are the real problem. That is why it is argued against any immigration from third world sources.

"You'll find plenty of crime that tend to be white specific. Is there a genetic predisposition among middle class white men to commit white collar crime for instance? Of course there isn't. But I'll let you ponder that one"."

So where is the race specific police task forces then? Like 'Operation Trident'? Where is the evidence for that assertion?



"Well my friend as I pointed out to you, gun culture has only become a very big issue this last five years. Surely if black people were instrinsically more violent than whites, then why has it taken so long to assert itself?"

Five years? Are you for real?

It has being going on in endemic terms in the part of South London where I was brought up for at a least thirty years.



"And your point is?"

Fairly obvious.



"Well in the US it has a longer pedigree, but then again it's still a recent phenomenon, linked to the proliferation of crack cocaine in the communities if the urban poor (not just blacks). Some say it was a CIA conspiracy to undermine black radicalism ..."

(A CIA conspiracy? Could there be such a thing?)

Again, it is no recent "phenomenon" or even a "phenomenon" at all.

Read this report:

http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

The latest to suffer from black criminality and violence is the Australians.

"AUSTRALIA is set to drastically reduce its Sudanese refugee program this year. With growing community concern about the behavior of the refugees, Federal Cabinet will soon consider a proposal from Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to reduce the intake from Horn of Africa nations.

Australia's humanitarian program has allowed thousands of Sudanese refugees to come to Australia in recent years. But there are growing doubts about the wisdom of the decision, especially with the rise of gangs of Sudanese youths and drunk drivers."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html

"IMMIGRANTS may have to wait a year to get a taxi licence because almost all of the suspects in 24 reported driver sex assaults since June were newcomers to Australia."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21114425-421,00.html

"POLICE in Melbourne fear the emergence of militant street gangs of young African refugees who have served in militia groups in their war-ravaged homelands.

A growing gangster mentality among young African men is worrying community leaders, who blame boredom, unemployment and drugs for turning young immigrants living in Melbourne's inner north towards violence and crime."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20973997-421,00.html



"I wasn't aware black people from the USA were migrating en masse to Europe."

How childish.



"Incidentally I'm not excusing any crime, but to *prevent* crime you have to understand why it is caused. But like so much else, this is lost on you."

You are excusing crime by saying poverty is the root cause, along with the trauma of war.

I was brought up in relative poverty and I have served in many war zones, I have never raped, robbed or murdered anyone, nor have I felt the compulsion to do so.

"Again, proof would be nice. Also you might want to reflect on the very real discrimination blacks still face in the US south, lack of opportunities, and so on. Go read some accounts of Hurricane Katrina if you doubt it."

Go to the US south and have a look for yourself.

As for hurricane ‘Katrina’

"In 2003, New Orleans’s murder rate was nearly eight times the national average—and since then, murder has increased. In 2002 and 2003, New Orleans had the highest per capita city homicide rate in the United States, with 59 people killed per year per 100,000 citizens—compared to New York City’s seven. New Orleans is a New York with nearly 5,000 murders a year—an unlivable place. The city’s economy has sputtered over the past generation partly because local and state officials have failed to do the most elementary job of government: to secure the personal safety of citizens...

Yes, New Orleans has a 28 percent poverty rate, and yes, New Orleans is 67 percent black. But nearly two-thirds of New Orleans’s blacks aren’t poor...

Despite the images of collective helplessness broadcast after Katrina, New Orleans does not have a stratospherically high government-dependency rate. In 2002, it had 6,696 families on cash welfare, or 3.6 percent, compared with New York City’s 98,000 families, or 3.2 percent. In 2000, 7.8 percent of New Orleans households received Supplemental Security Income, compared with 7.5 percent in New York.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_new_orleans.html

It was only 'Katrina' that saved the city from being the worst in the US (again) but wherever the evacuees, virtually all black, went, crime went with them:

"Though Houston's murder rate was already climbing before Katrina, the newcomers have added to it. Of 189 murders in the six months after the hurricane, 33 involved Katrina evacuees as either suspects or victims, according to Police Chief Harold Hurtt. Initially, the killings resulted from clashes among rival New Orleans gangs, says Hurtt. More recently, they've stemmed from robberies or narcotics, he says. Many cops are struck by the brazenness of the evacuees. "It seems like the face of crime has changed in Houston," said Officer Brandon Brown one night last week as he patrolled the sketchy Fondren area of the city, where many of the arrivals have settled. "It's more tense, more violent."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11677333/site/newsweek/page/2/

To use just one example.



"Because they can't get a job? The reason why most people tend to be unemployed?"

Even with 'positive discrimination' and 'race quotas' in play?



"Well rape is a violent crime for one, and second as I stated in my previous contribution, poverty brutalises. If you live a rough life, you're hardly going to be a saint."

Astounding. You believe that living in the wrong street justifies or even explains the crime of rape.



Sentinel: "Since when has raping babies been linked to poverty?"

Phil: " Brutalisation. Yawn."

I am sorry that baby rape bores you. But the reason given for it is not poverty, but a belief in the witch doctors hen they say it will cure AIDS.



"Pathetic. Why have I excused any behaviour? Point it out, go on, I challenge you"

Phil: "But again where people are brutalised you can expect them to do brutal things. The unemployment rates and levels of poverty in South African townships beggars belief{...}For instance, there is a correlation between war and rape - why is this? Are all soldiers born predisposed to rape? Or is it the case that when war brutalises human beings, they are more likely to commit atrocities?{...} then you have to look at why immigrants are more likely to commit such brutalised acts. One suggestion would be that the degrading bureaucratic hoops one has to jump through to land even the shittiest job is not going to hwlp. Faced with a daily diet of discrimination, low pay and substandard accomodation isn't going to give you a sunny disposition."



"Erm, no. When the police say it's an initial study, it implies that more research is to follow that may confirm or refute the initial observations"

When they were *intially* arrested they were non white, no amount investigation is going to change that fact.



"Poverty, religious affiliation, political beliefs, education, etc."

What the hell does this have to do with rape and who is responsible for the vast majority of it in a country?



"Given that your theory of race is the province of cranks, fascists, pseduo-scientists, and is refuted by genetic science and historical research on race and race relations, evidence suggests there is no innate propensity to violence on the part of any race"



"And this disproves criminological research in the area how?{...}There's no need thanks. No matter how many you send, they do not prove your position one jot."

I have already provided links in English that prove that two- thirds of rapists in Norway and Denmark are non-white, primarily Muslim. I could prove the same in Sweden with these links and also that the rape rate has increased between 6 to 15 (depending on country) times the rate recorded prior to mass immigration into Scandinavia.



"As if I ever suggested migrant workers were being forced into the West"

Exactly, they are not; quite the reverse and look how they behave when they get in.

All of your excuse aside, if that is the way they behave, why should any country allow them in, around them and their children?



"Do you actually bother reading what I set out in plain english? Let me turn the question round, if it were one of your relatives unfortunate enough to be on the recieving end of the attack, doesn't society have a responsibility to try and figure out how and why such crimes happen, so that others do not have to suffer in future?"

We know what the cause of a high rape rate is. the facts speak for themselves and we can prevent very easily.



"Well there maybe a correlation, there may not be{...}They are coincident phenomena, one isn't causing the other {...}I doubt very few are "fleeing" their home country out of racist reasons"

Coincidence. Right. Of course.

Have you any idea of the rapid decline in living standards in Sweden, or the rapidly rising crime rate since third world immigration into Sweden?

http://www.folketsnyheter.se/?sida=artikel&aID=408

(Not the best source but you get the flavour.)

With rape being the being the biggest worry. And with Islamic cleric’s attitudes to it in western countries as thus:

"'For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=MVLAPL2I50LTZQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2004/07/11/ncleric11.xml

"An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen has sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape."

http://jimball.com.au/features/Political%20%20uproar%20over%20mufti%27s%20rmearks%20-The%20Copenhagen%20Post.htm

"The interview, in Arabic, was about the furore he created last year with a Ramadan sermon in which he compared scantily clad women with "uncovered meat", suggesting that they were responsible for rape, called women Satan's messengers to deceive men, and said thieves often stole because they were pressured by greedy women{...}

Fellow guest Sheikh Khalid al-Jindi, a regular commentator, interjected: "Is it the flies' fault if the food is on display? If you put petrol and then add a spark, won't the street be on fire?"

Adib: "But where is the responsibility?"

Sheikh Jindi: "The responsibility is first, second and third with the woman — then with the man."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/01/11/1168105116655.html?from=top5

To cite just a few examples.

"Well let's use your arguments. A number of Swedes take up jobs in the USA - hold on, aren't they stealing american's jobs? A group of Swededs retire to the Costa Del Sol, one falls ill, oops! Using health services they haven't paid a penny toward. And so on and so on"

Hardly, for a start it is very difficult for whites to emigrate to another (non-European) 'western' country; many hops have to be jumped through and many points acquired in order to even get residency, let alone citizenship.

One of the first prerequisites is that you are of good character and healthy quickly followed by skills, that you will not take a job that could be down a citizen. As for health care, it is all done by insurance in most countries, and if you do not have adequate insurance you do not get entry. Strict annual quotas apply.

Third world's skip all of these very sensible checks, balances and precautions and just pile on in, with no quotas applied to them, no background checks, no skills matching.

But then, you know all of this already, do you not?

Because it is so difficult to emigrate, only the successful are usually able to do it, and from experience I would estimate around two-thirds run their own businesses, employing citizens in their new country.



Who said "“All is race. There is no other truth”, "

and

"No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves . . . Language and religion do not make a race - there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood"

?

Jim Denham said...

like I said before: no-one's trying to silence you: it's just that sane people realise that you're all lunatics (see above).

The Sentinel said...

Very constructive 'jim denham- a.k.a- 'anonymous'- great job.

Well done! You have managed to debunk all of this in just one line and without even bothering to attempt to debunk any of this.

No need to use facts or arguments.

Just a one liner will do it.

Amazing talent.

Phil BC said...

Our friend writes:

""our friend The Sentinel fancies himself as the hammer of the Marxists""

"That is your view of me, not mine of myself."

Just going by the comments on your blog.

""He takes pride in writing lengthy tracts of of gibberish and posting them on socialist blogs""

"Not true. I have only done that on one very underhanded blog."

You have a short memory my friend. I recall not too long ago having to spend time deleting your attack on Andy Newman from 2 dozen comment boxes on this very blog!

"And it is hardly gibberish. I have provided evidence and sources, and even more below."

If you have a must have missed them, especially with regards to your PC = Marxism thesis. And where you have used sources I have challenged your interpretation, all the while backing up my own positions with relevant research.

""When those he chooses to pick on switch their comments moderation on he assumes it's not because he's being an anti-social pain in the arse""

"Since when did having an opinion become antisocial?"

There's nothing anti-social about having opinions per se. What *is* anti-social is repeatedly posting articles about them in other people's comments boxes.

""but that somehow his ideas are correct and no one can challenge them""

"That is exactly why they do it."

Not so. Judging from your exchanges with Void, he enacted moderation as you were posting statements on topics with no connection to the blog post. The reason why I put moderation on was because you were spamming my boxes with your opinions. Likewise with Jim Jay's blog.

"Because they have neither foundation nor integrity in their beliefs."

See above.

"They merely seek 'self-affirmers' to comment and are fearful and outraged by dissent."

See above.

"Usually they just concentrate on personal insults and using hysterical smear words, whilst deleting the reasoned comment made, and then enable 'comment moderation' (a.k.a censorship) in smug form of self protection from dangerous free speech."

Or have you considered they have better things to do with their time than spend hours answering your right wing rant a thons? Especially when your opinions fly in the face scientific knowledge?

""Then he goes off and posts those exchanges on his blog to illustrate how Marxists are just running scared when they're faced with the truth""

"That is how the blog began, in disgust at the tactics employed. It is now a daily(ish) commentary."

Well if it means you're not spamming then I suppose your blog is a good thing (btw despite your seriously mistaken politics, it is interesting).

""So I'm taking a little time out to show the fantasy world our friend lives in""

"You disagree with me. Clearly. And I genuinely respect your openness to debate, it shows integrity in your beliefs and a healthy regard for freedom."

Thanks for the compliment, the first truth you've uttered! ;)

"It is only dismaying that has to be done with such venom. I can honesty say that I have never encountered so much fear and hate at people that disagree then with Marxists / Socialists. It is like any dissent needs to be violently stopped, that no one may have an opinion that conflicts."

The reason why there is so much venom directed at your ideas is rooted in history - look at how Europe's labour movements were physically crushed by the march of fascism in the 30s and 40s, all in the name of racial superiority and the nation.

"If they do, either: shut them up quickly; shut down debate; insult them; call them mentally deranged or fantasists or just use violence. After all, they are not people in the conventional sense are they? They are monsters."

Stones and glasshouses my friend. Look at the unreasoned hatred and bigotry that pours off the pages of the right wing press, for one.

"Onto your comments:

"" I'd be interested to know what works of Marx and Marxists you've read""

"Most of the major 'works' including The Communist Manifesto, Capital, parts of The Poverty of Philosophy and parts of Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy and The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844."

It's a shame you haven't understood any of them.

""the stuff you've written fails to accord with Marxism as a body of thought in any way""

"I do not 'accord' to it, and so therefore your likely perception of it. I believe it to be corrosive and dangerous and the cause of naught but suffering wherever it has been imposed, with the world’s most prolific mass murder, Stalin, being an adherent."

I used 'accord' in the sense that your comments aren't based on even a basic understanding of Marxism. As for Stalin, well I'm not going to write about Marxist opposition to the USSR and other Stalinist societies, there's a voluminous literature out there if you want to investigate. I will say the relationship of Stalin to Marx is much like the relationship the Spanish Inquisition to the ideas of Jesus.

""More nonsense. Questioning doesn't take place for questioning's sake...""

"Anyone can ask 'why' endlessly in an effort to undermine an opposing view."

Interesting you decided to break the quote. Marxists ask questions to expose power relationships. You ought to try it sometime.

""The problem here is one of selective interpretation. Why do conservatives and sundry homophobes such as yourself ...""

"You have no idea of my personal opinion of homosexuality, just a presumption. And I am certainly not a conservative."

I was going by your earlier comments on sexual "immorality" and gender roles, which suggest that you are both homophobic and conservative.

""advocate strict biblical teaching on same sex acts (it doesn't proscribe homosexuality, as sexuality as we understand it is a recent socio-historical innovation),""

"Completely and utterly false. It does proscribe it in unequivocal terms."

It proscribes same sex acts, which is different to homosexuality. To give an example, a good proportion of straight people have had same sex experiences, and a lot of lesbian and gay people have had straight experiences. Does that mean they're not really straight or gay?

"Sexuality is a “recent socio-historical innovation"??!! You must be insane!"

Yes, the understanding we have of gay people now is very different to a century and two centuries ago. The Catholic church acknowledges this - it's okay for you to be attracted to people of the same sex as long as you don't actually have sex with them. If you want to look at sexuality in historical persepctive, Foucault's 'History of Sexuality' is a good place to start.

"I don't think it could be much clear then that: The Christian God hates homosexuality and would have its practitioners put to death."

So? The fact the bible pours bile on people who engage in same sex relations isn't the point in dispute.

""and yet liberally ignore other ludicrously violent precepts. For example, justifying slavery and murder (Judges 1:21-35), burning unbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), or rape (Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If you're happy using biblical condemnations of same-sex relations, then for consistency's sake you should be happy with other hateful passages in the bible.""

"You seem to be making yet another presumption about me, that I am a Christian whereas the reality is that I despise that corrupt, contradictory, superstitious mumbo jumbo and attribute to it more damage and decay then even Marxism has produced for the north Europeans."

Lol! The argument you evoke here is often used by right wing christians. The point is "fundamentalist" opposition to LGBT people is based on selective reading, interpretation, and implementation of the bible.

"I know a lot about their teachings, more then most clergy, having read the bible several times. Something they don't tell their less physically fortunate members of the congregation, for instance, is that their God does not want their worship or presence in his temples, finding it to be a 'desecration.'"

I've got no problem with that. I suspect our views on organised religion generally aren't too dissimilar.

"The point I was making was that the church, in direct contravention of its core text and faith has bowed to 'PC' pressure and allowed homosexual marriages and the ordination of homosexual clergy."

I know what your point was. Mine, in reply, was that opposition to gay priests and gay unions is based on a very selective interpretation of the bible given the abhorrancies it justifies.

""A tip on citing sources my friend - you're actually supposed to use stuff that bolsters your argument. All this illustrates is Lukacs attended a week long symposium that led to the setting up of the Frankfurt school""

"I think you must be being deliberately obtuse here. I said he was a founder, not a participant, and we have it from the horses mouth that he attended a week long symposium 'with the hope of bringing different trends of Marxism together' and that 'the event was so successful that Weil set about erecting a building and funding salaries for a permanent institute' from which 'political correctness was born."

Still doesn't make him a founder of the Frankfurt school. For instance, I was at the first national conference of the Socialist Alliance in 1997. I listened to arguments and chatted to people, but then subsequently did nothing. Does that make me a founder of the SA? Of course it doesn't.

""Given your lack of knowledge about Marxism and its development I'm not surprised you can make such a crass mistake...""

"Actually, you are arguing against the author of that article posted on 'intellectbooks.com' here, not me."

I am arguing against you because you used this source, or rather interpreted the source, in a way that bolsters your position. This being an interpretation at odds with fact.

""Why should I spend time bothering to check your assertions. One rule of argument is you back your opinion with *your* proofs{...}Shocking evidence of the mother of all cover-ups it ain't. Interesting you choose to ignore the rest of the media reportage on the so-called "living hijackers". See http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories and scroll down to 'living hijackers'.""

"So you can find articles on this without my help! (Even though you can't see why you should bother.)"

"As I said I am going to pen an article on his issue before too long and my position will made clear, with the reasons, then."

Well allow me to offer a word of advice. If you're going to make the case for there being a conspiracy you're going to have to seriously address the mountain of material that rebutts the charges of the conspiracy theorists.

"But really, do you not find it strange that the FBI director, the head of the USA's foremost criminal investigation agency has '"no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers" in relation to the most heinous act of mass murder in its history?"

"Why not? And if they have no evidence how do they know who actually did it, or why?"

Did you read the article?

""Once more you show your inability to think outside the box. There is no scientific basis for race, or, to state even more explicitly, there is no biological evidence for different races
{...}So race doesn't exist objectively, but social-historical perceptions of race exist. If you cannot grasp this simple point then that's your problem.""

"Wow, more waffle. I have provided some evidence of the existence of race (objectively) and I will provide the link to more, a bit later."

You've done nothing of the sort. You've made assertions about "core DNA", made much of a phrase from Blood Book, and waffled a bit about racial traits. In response I post on genetic science, illustrating with sources, but strangely you ignore it or dismiss it as waffle. Sorry friend, these approaches are based on scientific proofs and are now taught in schools as basic biology. It's upto you if you want to dismiss it out of hand, just don't try and pass it off as anything more than your unfounded prejudice.

""So I've done some research for you. It appears your ideas are a plagiarism of William S. Lind and Pat Buchanan, in fact that are exactly the same. So why can you not cite them, why do you have to pretend you thought them up all by yourself?""

"How very sad. I have never even heard of the former and I only have a vague recollection of the later."

Peculiar that your ideas are identical.

"And how very rich from someone with no original ideas of his own, happy to slavishly follow the scribbles of man who died nearly 125 years ago, regurgitating tracts and concepts that are not his own with "socio-historical constructions" being the regurgitation of favor in response to virtually every aspect of human matters."

Yawn. To paraphrase Trotsky, if a theory or a body of thought more adequately describes reality than anything else, that is the most up to date and modern theory there is, regardless of when it was written. Marx provided the basic concepts of historical materialism, which others have built on. In the same way Darwin provided the basic concepts of evolution.

""Prove it with sources. I know you can if you can be bothered, afterall you kindly did so with the crime figures{...}Let's have some scientific proof of racial traits please, preferably from current genetic research""

"I know I am wasting my time here for you are not interested in objectivity, and will dismiss any study or work that does not conform to your ideology."

Hilarious, I could say the same thing about yourself. To repeat I've posted proofs from genetic science. You haven't gone beyond assertion. I have the weight of scientific opinion on 'race' on my side. You don't. If science proved you right and me wrong I would concede, but it doesn't. It refutes your position lock stock and barrel.

Incidentally, I haven't got the time to rubbish the pseudo science of IQ tests and cranial capacity, point by point. Points worth noting are:

1) Middle and upper class people from all groups tend to do better than working class groups on IQ tests. Why?

2) Women generally have smaller skulls, and therefore cranial capacity, than men. Why then is there no differences in IQ?

See http://tinyurl.com/2kua37, http://tinyurl.com/2n489q, and http://www.autcom.org/iq3.html

""Someone from a different "race" with your blood type could save your life{...}Kind of blurs the boundary of race doesn't it?""

"Not at all. A lion can accept a tigers blood because it is a member of the same family; they still remain two distinct species, however, with distinct attributes."

The point is there is only one species of human on the planet at the moment. Whereas lions and tigers are distinct but nontheless related species, you haven't proven anything of the sort in regard to humans.

""I recommend you watch the Channel 4 (chief crusader for PC in Britain if you believe the far right) doumentary, 100% English{...}The results are very interesting and conclusively undermine your notions of race""

"It used race to attempt undermine the concept of nationalism, in the context of a racial cohesive entity."

"It also carefully selected people whose physicality precluded that they were not of completely north European lineage. The 18 year old TA lad had an obvious Mongoloid look, and unsurprisingly had asian blood; the 'English rose' had a distinct gypsy look and nose and Gary Bushell displays some recessive Negroid features etc. etc"

"It was a typical set up job with the result known before the start."

The one thing it does prove is that humans are always a mish-mash of "racial" traits, undermining the very notion of race as a concept with scientific utility.

"They did not choose to define it that way, it is scientifically necessary to do so in the interests of accuracy."

"They are not a political group, nor do they have links to any. It is objective and scientific"

Funny how the majority of geneticists get by without using race as a scientific concept. When they do (as has been the case with the Blood Book) it's because race is a generally understood category of perception. It doesn't alter the fact there's no scientific basis for race.

"You only seem to see a forest if it suits you; if it does not you merely see a collection of trees."

I still await a critique of the genetics of race as outlined a couple of posts ago.

""Marxist waffle! It's the received wisdom in genetic science you plonker! You know, that discipline where researchers have to study the physical and biological sciences, base their research on scientific investigation, and whose research is peer reviewed by other scientists in the field. But of course, they're all in on the conspiracy too.""

"I have provided you with links to experts in the field that contend the varying attributes of the races exist and are tangible. They are not well publicised because of the current political climate."

You haven't. The only links you've provided on this are the ones from your last post on IQ tests and phrenology, and a few comments from the blood book.

""..But surely if your analysis of race was correct, ALL blacks would, because of their "core DNA"".

"Absolutely ludicrous."

"Just as all humans do not respond to cancer treatments. Some do, some don't. Just as all humans do not respond to HIV treatments. Just as antibiotics have no beneficial effects in some humans."

That kind of suggests that racial specificity is biologically meaningless.

""As an aside she repeats my arguments on race, but then what would a professor in physiology know about genetics?""

"Certainly not more then the experts in the field, to whom I have provided links."

They must be invisible links then.

I just had to laugh when you wrote this:

"There is much evidence that whites were around at the formative periods of all the cultures you describe:"

"Indeed, all of the Great South American cultures and their legends- Mayan, Aztec and Inca talk of 'Quetzalcoatl' The Great White Father who taught all they knew."

You are having a laugh aren't you? I've never come across a more absurd clutch of fairy tales in all my life. Trying to explain all civilisation as the work of whites? It's preposterous: photos of a couple of "white" mummies a theory doesn't make. What about the dozens of contemporaneous mummies that do not possess these characteristics? Also granting the truth of this thesis for a moment, if the white's were so superior, how come they all diasppeared without any exceptions outside Europe?

This site is so wrong that books could be written explaining how wrong it is. But no serious scholar would bother because the evidence for non-'race' driven history is so overwhelming.

I've had a cursory glance at the first chapter and, surprise, surprise, there's no references to back up his arguments, merely assertions. There's also a lot of problems with his "scholarship". One anthropologist has taken time out to respond to Arthur Kemp; see http://www.angeltowns.net/membercenter/100/dienekes/

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there Mr Sentinel. I no longer have the time to engage in mammoth rebuttals, and then spending time on stuff I've already rebutted. As far as I'm concerned this has not been a waste of time as I think it does all socialists some good to occasionally debate the basic precepts of our world view with others far removed from our own.

I will say this. I think you are seriously, seriously mistaken about your views. I know because when I was very young my views weren't too dissimilar to yours. I accepted the existence of discrete races with certain attributes. I believed in conspiracies aimed at undermining white supremacy. And I thought mass immigration was responsible for a decline of the West.

I no longer accept any of these views because my experiences and studies as a white working class student have convinced me the world is far more complex than a 'racial' theory can hope to account for. Marxism made more sense to me because it offers a more convincing and emprically verifiable account of social reality than any other approach. And one of the first things I did when I began considering myself a Marxist was to immerse myself in critiques of it, be they from the far right through to conservative, liberal, green, feminist, postmodern, postcolonial and anarchist, and it is something I haven't stopped doing. I have a critical relationship to the ideas I hold and the party I'm a member of because without criticism, without constantly renovating our thought and practice, we will be unable to intervene politically in an effective manner. Without doing this, all we will have is an ossified body of dogma that's neither use nor ornament.

I doubt this exchange has convinced you of my views, and I doubt yours has influenced the other socialists who read and contribute to this blog. As a parting farewell to this polemic then, I ask you to seriously re-examine your beliefs and those of your opponents and then weigh them up against existing scholarship.

Also look at the actions of what our respective camps do - Marxists - that is self-identified Marxists organised in openly revolutionary organisations - can always be found sticking up for working class people across the world, regardless of 'race' or nationality. Others, such as the BNP here, or Vlaams Belang in Belgium, claim to stand up for white working class people but like their forebears, the Nazis, end up in practice enforcing the interest of the ruling capitalist class. They use race to cover up the fact that they stand for class rule. Marxists (genuine Marxists, not Stalinists) are against class rule. For Marxists, the abolition of class rule is not just desirable, it's necessary if the human race is to survive.

Sentinel, the ruling class and the capitalist system that sustains them and shits on us is where you should direct your anger.

The Sentinel said...

Phil,

Just a quick response to you comments:


"You have a short memory my friend. I recall not too long ago having to spend time deleting your attack on Andy Newman from 2 dozen comment boxes on this very blog!"

And you have an even shorter memory, my friend. I did that after having had enough of Newman's underhanded games and his selective deletion of my comments to present me in the worst possible light. You decided to post this:

How apt a dinosaur should show up in this post's comment box!
February 11, 2007 4:39 PM

about me, and as I had no recourse on his blog, and I thought it was very underhanded, I brought it to yours. It was more an analysis then an attack. However, this is the only time I have done it.



"There's nothing anti-social about having opinions per se. What *is* anti-social is repeatedly posting articles about them in other people's comments boxes"

Rubbish. I have not done that: it is a lie, either by your own formulation or passed on as fact by you from someone else's.



"Not so. Judging from your exchanges with Void, he enacted moderation as you were posting statements on topics with no connection to the blog post. The reason why I put moderation on was because you were spamming my boxes with your opinions. Likewise with Jim Jay's blog."

More rubbish. 'void' did it because he was out of his depth, capable only of a sentence or two with half of that being expletives.

He is another practitioner of the selective deletion technique, he asked for evidence of a comment left in a previous post in a new post, when I provided it he deleted his original comments (realising he was way out of his depth) and mine and then complained of spam. It seems to be a popular trick of the 'left.'

I think you will find now 'comment moderation' is off, the comments are back, unanswered.


Similair to 'jim jay' and his underhanded games.

He was quite obviously asked by Newman to end my commenting on the blog, in conjunction with Newman's censorship on his own. 'jim jay' had no problem previous to my problem with Newman, and I know they are connected (as are you) to each other. He reacted to my very next comment, made a false allegation then deleted the original. Then when, surprise, surprise, Newman comments shortly after, I prove that he is lying (about quite a few thing) the comment is deleted, 'comment moderation' is enabled and complete lies are posted about racial hatred being the reason

That is the truth of what happened.



"Well if it means you're not spamming then I suppose your blog is a good thing"

Rubbish. See above.



"(btw despite your seriously mistaken politics, it is interesting)"

Thanks; You will notice that I strive to only use mainstream sources for the articles, so politics aside, everything I story I comment on is verifiable, and as true as any thing is true.



"The reason why there is so much venom directed at your ideas is rooted in history - look at how Europe's labour movements were physically crushed by the march of fascism in the 30s and 40s, all in the name of racial superiority and the nation"

The same venom could be directed toward you and your comrades for participating in the very apparent destruction of this country (and the western world at large)

I find it counter-productive however



"It's a shame you haven't understood any of them."

Only too well.



"As for Stalin, well I'm not going to write about Marxist opposition to the USSR and other Stalinist societies..."

One of Stalins favourite pastimes was dialectics (Below mass murder of course.)



"It proscribes same sex acts, which is different to homosexuality. To give an example, a good proportion of straight people have had same sex experiences, and a lot of lesbian and gay people have had straight experiences. Does that mean they're not really straight or gay?"

My God! (or lack of one) You really would argue that black is white to try and prove a point wouldn't you?

If a man inserts his penis into another man's anus or mouth (or nostrils or any other orifice) it is a homosexual act, that is why it is termed homo (same) sexuality. If a man commits one act of this and then goes onto union with a woman, he is still condemned by the bible, and would popularly described as bisexual.

The only possible reason your remark could be that you believe God would not mind celibate homosexuals, which is an unlikely union and a strange point to make, in any case.

The bible does not mention acts lesbianism.

I would contest the 'a good proportion of straight people have had same sex experiences' I would ilike to know the basis of this comment that goes against my experience in life.



"was that opposition to gay priests and gay unions is based on a very selective interpretation of the bible"

According to Christians, the bible is infallible, and so everything contaiened within it is true and Gods will. There can be no interpretation of what was said in the passages I quoted.



"Still doesn't make him a founder of the Frankfurt school"

My argument is that he is, given the Frankfurt school was formed as a result of a conference in which he was a lead participant.



"Well allow me to offer a word of advice. If you're going to make the case for there being a conspiracy you're going to have to seriously address the mountain of material that rebutts the charges of the conspiracy theorists"

I'll be the judge of that.



"You've done nothing of the sort. You've made assertions about "core DNA", made much of a phrase from Blood Book, and waffled a bit about racial traits. In response I post on genetic science, illustrating with sources, but strangely you ignore it or dismiss it as waffle..."

I provided you with links to experts in the field. Apart from the links you have providedin the pervious comment (I will deal with them in a moment) I can find no others. I may have overlooked them, but I looked again and still could not find them.



"Sorry friend, these approaches are based on scientific proofs and are now taught in schools as basic biology"

The politicisation of school lessons started when i was in shorts, with 'anti-racist maths' and very slanted, and often erroneous history was taught for purely political reasons, and this is being carried even further today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431316&in_page_id=1770

But with around half of school leavers being unable to read or write to any reasonable standard because of the move to politicisation of lessons and away from real education, this political science will be lost on them anyway.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article576838.ece



"Peculiar that your ideas are identical"

Not at all.

It is the history of 'political correctness' I am relating, and if that is the area you are referring to in relation to these two men, then of course the account of that history would be the same, because that is how it happened.


"Yawn. To paraphrase Trotsky..."

Again, regurgitating other peoples ideas and utterances.



"Hilarious, I could say the same thing about yourself. To repeat I've posted proofs from genetic science"



I cannot find them. Repost them and I will have a look.



"You haven't gone beyond assertion. I have the weight of scientific opinion on 'race' on my side. You don't. If science proved you right and me wrong I would concede, but it doesn't. It refutes your position lock stock and barrel"

You have the links.



"Incidentally, I haven't got the time to rubbish the pseudo science of IQ tests and cranial capacity, point by point. Points worth noting are:

1) Middle and upper class people from all groups tend to do better than working class groups on IQ tests. Why?

2) Women generally have smaller skulls, and therefore cranial capacity, than men. Why then is there no differences in IQ?

See http://tinyurl.com/2kua37, http://tinyurl.com/2n489q, and http://www.autcom.org/iq3.html"

One of those links lead nowhere, another one to somewhere irrelevant to the issue and the last one links to an argument about the validity of formulated IQ tests (nothing to do with race or the issues we were debating).



"you haven't proven anything of the sort in regard to humans"

Of course I have. Sickle cell amenia for instance.



"The one thing it does prove is that humans are always a mish-mash of "racial" traits, undermining the very notion of race as a concept with scientific utility"

It proved nothing of the sort.

As I said It was a Marxist / C4 put up job, with the carefull selcetion of people who were obviously of mixed blood, with only one allowed to pass, for authenticity.

I could have told the producers with soem degree of accuracy, before they took the tests which racial heritage they were likely to find in their chosen exhibits.

And you bizarrely assert because 'that humans are always a mish-mash of "racial" traits' that race itself does not exist.



"Funny how the majority of geneticists get by without using race as a scientific concept. When they do (as has been the case with the Blood Book) it's because race is a generally understood category of perception. It doesn't alter the fact there's no scientific basis for race."

Insane.



"That kind of suggests that racial specificity is biologically meaningless."

Hardly, animals suffer from cancer too. Are they all realted to us as well?



"They must be invisible links then"

They may as well be if you don't look at them.



"You are having a laugh aren't you? I've never come across a more absurd clutch of fairy tales in all my life"

Ridicule is the first stage of acceptance.



"Trying to explain all civilisation as the work of whites?"

The ancient worlds cultures abound with tales of 'white gods'

Quetzalcoatl is just one of them.

"The Spanish priests brought with them statues of a white bearded god on a wooden version of the symbol of the four directions. They told the Totonacs that this god had sacrificed himself so that no further human sacrifice would be needed, and that they should accept him as their god, in place of all others. Since Quetzalcoatl, represented as white and bearded, had prophesied his return in the year Cortes landed, my guess is that the Totonacs identified the white, bearded Christ image as Quetzalcoatl..."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme9.shtml



"It's preposterous: photos of a couple of "white" mummies a theory doesn't make. What about the dozens of contemporaneous mummies that do not possess these characteristics?"

The point is these mummies are older then the rest. They were there long before the rest.

I have been to Egypt myself quite a few times, and I have spent a considerable amount of time in the Egypt museum in Cairo and I have seen with my own eyes the countless sculptures, statues, carvings and pots that feature people with blue eyes and / or blond hair.

These artefacts are generally the oldest in the museum and certainly always date before the sixth dynasty, when all images that did not resemble the new Nubian dominated rulers were not commissioned, and the remaining offending artefacts largely destroyed

Chines archaeologists recently found hundreds of tombs containg Caucasian's, thought by some to be 4000 years old in Xiaohe, an arid nort western province. They are totally mystified.


I found this link in raltion to it:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/22/content_597113.htm



"This site is so wrong that books could be written explaining how wrong it is"]

And yet there isn't.



"There's also a lot of problems with his "scholarship£

Of course there is. He goes against the grain. He says thing that the establishment do not wish to hear.



"One anthropologist has taken time out to respond to Arthur Kemp"

Very odd choice fo you to use (probably the only choice I guess)

This guy merely argues against some minorpoints of the account.

Not only does this guy know about the scientific reality of race but he discusses their varying attributes and the dangers of race mixing.

Lie #2: Kemp asserts that I believe that "race-mixing does not destroy races."

My own post, quoted by Kemp clearly establishes what I believe. I believe that when two races blend, then if one is numerically superior to the other, then it absorbs it and what is produced is a slightly altered race, which maintains all the features of the numerically superior race. As an example, Sweden has absorbed Alpine elements through the years, but continues to be primarily a Nordic nation; many Near Eastern and north African countries have absorbed 2-10% of non-Caucasoid elements, but they continue to be primarily Caucasoid.
Of course, if the two elements are numerically comparable, then intermediate types are created, and I cite the example of India, where an intermediate race, the Indic race was created by the blending of Caucasoids with native Indian populations. Simple enough to understand, unless one tends to think like Kemp.

Lie #3: Kemp alleges that I believe that “race-mixing is actually a good thing and has very positive effects”

Again, my post is enough answer to Kemp’s ramblings. (i) Hybrid vigor, through the process of heterosis is a well-understood biological effect. Any student of biology knows this. (ii) When I say that “reduction of both races’ adaptations in the composite population.” I am obviously pointing out a negative aspect of race mixture....

http://www.angeltowns.net/membercenter/100/dienekes/articles/kempsslander/

But anyway, thanks for this, it is very interesting.

"I no longer have the time to engage in mammoth rebuttals..."

Fair enough



"As far as I'm concerned this has not been a waste of time as I think it does all socialists some good to occasionally debate the basic precepts of our world view with others far removed from our own"

Fair enough again.



"I know because when I was very young my views weren't too dissimilar to yours..."

This isn't a 'I was that man' turnaround type talks is it?

"I believed in conspiracies aimed at undermining white supremacy"

I think you will find that almost all nationalists want racial isolation, not 'superiority.'



"And I thought mass immigration was responsible for a decline of the West."

It is strangling all of us, slowly, but surely.


"As a parting farewell to this polemic then, I ask you to seriously re-examine your beliefs and those of your opponents and then weigh them up against existing scholarship."

And I would ask you the same.



"Sentinel, the ruling class and the capitalist system that sustains them and shits on us is where you should direct your anger."

Besides my intellect and education, in fact moreover, my view has been shaped by my exericance in life. What I have seen and know to be true.

This enforced, unwarranted, and unwanted mixing of peoples, culture, religions and ideas will only end in one way: Absolute, unparalleled and unprecedented disaster.

AN said...

Well I hesitate to get involved in this, but as my name has been mentioned a few times I feel I should put the record straight.

From my point of view, the problem between the Socialist Unity blog and Mr Sentinel arose in a two fold way.

Firstly, the SU blog is a shared blog, and there was a difference of opinion among the blog contributors about how to respond to Sentinels postings.
My personal preference was to leave them, but another blog contributor felt that we should delete them, because to respond to them would involve our blog in the sort of long winded debate that Phil is engaged in here, and frankly that is not the role we see our blog playing. And the view was expressed that it would put some of our readership off. This was a straightforward editorial argument about the content that we wished to appear on our own blog

Secondly, once we decided to delete some of Sentinel’s comments there was an editorial difficulty because some other people had already responded to Sentinel (unfortunately some of them in a bad tempered way), but I didn’t want to delete their comments as well, and in some instances this meant that Sentinel’s arguments were refuted without him having a right to reply on our blog. In fact I apologised to Sentinel over this on the SU blog. However, I dispute that we were underhand about this. We never altered Sentinel’s comments for example, in the way that Harry’s Place have done. And Sentinel does have his own blog and other avenues for publishing his views, so we were not “censoring” him.

The dilemma is not based upon an unwillingness to debate, but with editorial direction. For example, in a post about the relationships between anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic prejudice, we did not want to entertain a long winded debate about assertions that we considered pandered to anti-Semitism, when the issue that we wanted to highlight was that there is too much tolerance of anti-Semitism from some on the left.

With regard to the issue on Jim Jays blog, I don’t really understand what the fuss was about. Mr Sentinel posted a remark that most terrorists are Islamic, to which I responded that the last two “terrorist” incidents in Swindon were connected with white supremacists, Mark Bullman and Kevin Tovey. (incidentally my unwillingness to debate is somewhat contradicted by the fact that I have been prepared to speak to Mark Bullman even when he rang me from prison, not that my debates with him have been very fruitful in diverting him from far-right lunacy, as I spoke to him only the day before he fire-bombed the local mosque). I think Mr Sentinel must have either misread or misunderstood my post on Jim’s blog, because he responded to facts about Kevin Tovey as if they referred to Mark Bullman.

Although I have some political connection to Jim Jay our relationship is not close, and we are not confidants, I have no idea why he enabled comment moderation straight after this, and we certainly did not discuss it.

However, after this exchange on Jim’s blog, Mr Sentinel posted a couple of very personal attacks on me, including some very abusive comments about my ex-wife, who has never done Mr Sentinel any harm, which I consider quite un-gentlemanly.

BTW We continue on SU blog to operate without moderation.

On the general issue of blog etiquette, I think that the publishers of blogs should be able to shape the direction of debate if they choose to do so. The falling out between the SU blog and Sentinel was only partly related to content, it was also because he wished to pursue debates about what is preoccupying him in threads relating to other topics, or only obliquely related to the topic.

I am glad that Sentinel has his own blog, which is a much better forum for debates to take place on the subjects that Sentinel wishes to discuss.

The Sentinel said...

hmmm

If you say so.

It is certainly no surprise to see you here.


"Mr Sentinel posted a remark that most terrorists are Islamic"

No, actually what I said was:

"Islam is intolerant of all else; and in particular despises your branch of theory: homosexual rights; feminism; equality ('positive discrimination' style) and pretty much any kind of affiliations or rights other then those laid down by the Qur'an."

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30598467&postID=1427992108896000945&isPopup=true

As you can see from one of the few comments he left in context.


"I think Mr Sentinel must have either misread or misunderstood my post on Jim’s blog, because he responded to facts about Kevin Tovey as if they referred to Mark Bullman."

I got that wrong. I can see that now I have looked at it again.


"Although I have some political connection to Jim Jay our relationship is not close, and we are not confidants, I have no idea why he enabled comment moderation straight after this, and we certainly did not discuss it."

OK, if you say so.


"However, after this exchange on Jim’s blog, Mr Sentinel posted a couple of very personal attacks on me, including some very abusive comments about my ex-wife, who has never done Mr Sentinel any harm, which I consider quite un-gentlemanly."

I considered your behaviour be completely un-gentlemanly, but the problem with the censorship you use is that you can say these things, but not prove them.

Unless you are referring to 'Have you ever seen a good looking Marxist' which I continue to post periodically on you blog?


"I am glad that Sentinel has his own blog, which is a much better forum for debates to take place on the subjects that Sentinel wishes to discuss."

And you will notice there is no censorship- selective, moderated or otherwise- on this blog.

Debate is either open or it is not.

The first course for your blog contributors and most of your readers was unfounded abuse, the invocation of Godwin's Law , and techniques also known as 'argumentum ad hominem'-that is attack the person not the position.

Well, life works on quid pro quo.

It does not say much about the advocates of your line of thinking either.

b.t.w

Given that race was not mentioned, and my comment above was the catalysts for 'jim jay's' censorship enablement, do you in all honesty believe this justification:

"I should feel proud I suppose. I've got my first troll.

I'm not really keen on having my blog used as a vehicle for race hatred..."

http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-pain.html

is an honest or accurate one?

AN said...

Sentinel

You need to take this up with Jim not me. I have no idea why he enabled moderation.